Peatland Definition: From Uncertainty to Certainty

POLICY MEMO:

PEATLAND DEFINITIONFROM UNCERTAINTY TO CERTAINTY

Peatland Definition: From Uncertainty to Certainty iii

ContentsExecutive Summary 1

Foreword 4

Lead Author 5

Contributor 5

Reviewer 5

Acknowledgement 5

PEATLAND IN INDONESIA: CONTEXT AND ISSUES 7

AUTHORITATIVE DEFINITION OF PEAT 8

Authoritative Definition by the Ministry of Environment 8

Authoritative Definition by the Ministry of Agriculture 9

Authoritative Definition by the Ministry of Forestry 9

Summary of Authoritative Definitions 9

SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION OF PEAT 11

Various Scientific Definitions of Peat 11

Summary of Scientific Definitions 13

GAP ANALYSIS BETWEEN AUTHORITATIVE AND SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION OF PEAT 13

PROPOSED PEATLAND DEFINITION FOR INDONESIA 14

AFTERWORD: Moving Forward, Responding to Challenges 17

Supporting the ‘One Map Initiative’ 17

Broadening Peatland Assessment to Capture Existing Institutional Dynamics 18

Conducting Research and Development 19

Developing Capacity Building 19

Building the Research Network on Peatland and Peatland Mapping 21

Bringing forward Peatland Issues to International Communities 23

References 25

Peatland Definition: From Uncertainty to Certaintyiv

Peatland Definition: From Uncertainty to Certainty 1

Executive SummaryImplication for Indonesia’s Commitment to Reduce GHGs

At the G-20 Leaders Summit in Pittsburgh, on 25 September 2009, Indonesia committed to cut its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 26% by 2020, from the projected Business As Usual (BAU) scenario. Reductions will be achieved largely by devising policies targeting the Land-Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) sector. Peat and LULUCF related emissions are by far the largest contributors to Indonesia’s current and expected future emissions, and represent the largest opportunities to abate emissions (DNPI, 2011).

Based on conservative estimates for the two categories of peat-related emissions (drainage and fires), about 2,052 MtCO2e are emitted annually (2005). LULUCF and peat contributed 760 MtCO2e and 850 MtCO2e respectively. Under BAU scenario, LULUCF and peat would remain the largest emission sources, contributing more than 50% in 2020 and approximately 50% in 2030, which means that 2.5 % of the world’s GHG emissions could be emitted from LULUCF and peat areas in Indonesia (DNPI, 2011). In fact, most analyses of Indonesia’s emissions related to peat drainage and fires fall within the range of 0.75 to 1.5 GtCO2e, and vary considerably from year to year, depending on interactions among climate, fire, and peatland conversion.

Several challenges persist in interpreting the emission reduction policy due to the varying estimates of GHG emissions from peat drainage and fires. While a great deal of research on peat emissions and measurement is ongoing in Indonesia, the scientific understanding of peat-related emissions is still developing, especially for those in tropical regions. Therefore, it is imperative that a comprehensive and robust framework is devised to resolve critical issues pertaining to peatland management and associated greenhouse gas emissions. A precise definition of ‘peatland’ then becomes fundamental to serve as a reference for developing a more precise peatland assessment in order to develop sound management practices.

Key Implications of Authoritative and Scientific Peatland Definitions

Based on available references, there are two broad peatland definitions: Authoritative and Scientific. In Indonesia, currently there are three Ministries operate under their own authoritative designations of peatland. The Ministry of Environment of Indonesia defines ‘peat’ as a plant residue formed naturally through long-term decomposition processes, accumulating in swamp areas or static reservoirs. The Ministry of Agriculture defines ‘peat’ as soil formed as a result of organic matter accumulation with a naturally occurring composition of greater than 65% from the decaying vegetation growing on it, whose decomposition is slowed down by anaerobic and wet conditions. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Forestry defines ‘peat’ as organic matter residue accumulating over a long period of time.

Several scientific definitions have been introduced and acknowledged by scientific communities, including those developed by Wüst et al. (2003), Moris (1989), Andrejko et al. (1983), Landva et al. (1983), Jarrett (1983), Mankinen and Gelfer (1982), Kearns et al. (1982), Kivinen and Heikurainen (1979), Davis (1946), and Arman (1923). These definitions are based on field observations and analyses of peat soil properties. Key elements include physical peat properties, such as degree of decomposition (humification), bulk density, water content, porosity and others, and chemical properties, such as carbon content, ash content, pH, and C/N ratio.

Peatland Definition: From Uncertainty to Certainty2

Proposed Peatland Definition

Particular attention needs to be paid to define ‘peatland’ for the purpose of estimating GHG emissions. The existing authoritative definitions may need to be further developed and integrated into one comprehensive definition to capture the notions of GHGs, such as carbon stocks and flows. Meanwhile, scientific definitions should also be developed or refined to reflect the characteristics of Indonesian peat as it is mostly very fibric and hemic with very high organic and carbon content, derived mostly from woody biomass. The prevailing scientific peat definition for boreal and temperate regions may not be suitable to fully capture the characteristics and classifications of tropical peat. For that reason, a clear and operable definition of ‘peat’ in Indonesia needs to be formulated in order to improve peat management across multiple ministries and agencies.

Having organized a series of technical meetings and consultations with eminent scientists, key stakeholders and government representatives from national and international organizations, the following has been recommended for defining peatland and proposed follow up activities:

1. Key Elements to be considered for defining peatland.

A comprehensive peatland definition has to cover the key elements of carbon content or mineral content and minimum depth.

2. Recommended peatland definition.

Peatland is an area with 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%.

3. Peatland Delineation Methodology

Four categories for peatland delineation are recommended based on the following classification: 1) Peat depth, 2) Peat layer, 3) Hydrological area in peatland, and 4) Land-use in peatland. To formulate the appropriate and precise methodology for peatland delineation for better peatland management in line with GHG emission reduction, other variables pertaining to peatland boundary and classification are also important to consider.

The following activities have been proposed to systematically consolidate all related activities in a comprehensive manner.

1) In supporting the ‘One Map’ initiative, ICCC will facilitate scientific discussions and international research on peatland and peatland mapping, in coordination with Geospatial Information Agency (BIG), to support peatland map revision process.

2) Broaden peatland assessment to capture the prevailing institutional dynamics. Peatland is a valuable natural resource, and its assessment and inclusion into the National Action Plan for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (RAN-GRK), Spatial Planning, and Master Plan of Acceleration of Indonesian Economic Development (MP3I) is critical.

3) Collaborative, comprehensive and long term research and development should be continued to understand complex peatland systems involving scientists with support from local stakeholder.

4) In terms of capacity building, training and education should be geared toward academics and technicians. This includes Institutional Capacity Building (ICB), Social Capacity Building (SCB), and Research Capacity Building (RCB).


5) Build research network on peatland and peatland mapping. Networking and cooperation between parties (countries, scientists/academics, community stakeholders, etc), such as Asia Flux, Asian Forum on Carbon Update (AFCU), and The Heart of Borneo (HOB), is key to effectively tackle climate change issues rather than singular efforts operating independently.

6) Bring peatland issues to international attention. There has been little effort thus far to bring peatland issues to global attention. Lack of information, unreliable data, and other uncertainties discourage state parties from discussing and negotiating peatland issues at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) forum.


ForewordIndonesia contains the largest tropical peatland in the world, mostly spread throughout Sumatera, Kalimantan and Papua. Historically, all peatland in Indonesia were forested and has sequestered and stored atmospheric carbon for thousands of years.

More recently, peatland areas have been converted and used for economic purposes, such as agricultural land, timber and pulp plantations, land settlement, and oil palm plantations. Other areas have been opened and abandoned, leading to degraded peatland areas.

A nationally accepted definition of ‘peat’ is necessary for Indonesia, so that the country can move forward to determine appropriate peatland management practices to support the reduction of green house gas emissions.

Currently, there are large discrepancies on peatland understanding, especially related to area and depth. These differences partly arise from different definitions of ‘peat’ both in theories and in practices. Inaccuracy and discordant peatland maps have hampered the development of robust policy for peatland management.

It is my delight that the Indonesia Climate Change Center (ICCC), as a science to policy forum on climate change, has developed a ‘peatland definition’ to be applied to Indonesia peatland mapping and management. As a consensus that involved experts from several universities in Indonesia, several relevant ministries, NGOs, and scientists from the US, Japan, and Netherlands, the ICCC definition of ‘peatland’ has been made in accordance to peat conditions in Indonesia.

Furthermore, the ICCC definition of ‘peatland’ is purposed to support government efforts for a revised and standardized mapping (especially peatland mapping). It also aims at supporting the development of robust policy for peatland management and the carbon emission reduction. As peatland has significant peat forest carbon stocks, better management of peatland forest can make a substantial contribution in reducing atmospheric GHG concentrations in all countries.

It is important for Indonesia to have uniformity in the comprehension and understanding of peat and I hope this consensus definition of peat can contribute to standardize peatland delineation and mapping to serve better management of peatland on a national scale. It is expected that this peat definition can be utilized by all stakeholders, including policy makers, experts and representatives of institutions to which it is required. I also believe this definition can support the government program including ‘One Map Initiative’ program, especially to revise peat mapping in Indonesia.

I thank all partners who have contributed to this effort and join us in finding solution for climate change issues.

Rachmat Witoelar

Executive Chair ofNational Council on Climate Change(DNPI)


Lead AuthorAgus Purnomo, Doddy Surachman Sukadri, Farhan Helmy, National Council on Climate Change (DNPI), Indonesia; Mitsuru Osaki, Research Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan; Kazuyo Hirose, Earth Remote Sensing Division, Department of Data Application and Development, Japan Space Systems; Cynthia Mackie, US Forest Service.

ContributorAmanda Katili Niode, Murni Titi Resdiana, National Council on Climate Change (DNPI), Indonesia; Eli Nur Nirmala Sari, Indonesia Climate Change Center (ICCC), Indonesia; Hendrik Segah, Center for Sustainability Science (CENSUS), Hokkaido University, Japan; Bill Rush, US Forest Service; Micah Fisher, East West Center, Honolulu USA.

ReviewerKusumo Nugroho, Ministry of Agriculture of Indonesia; S. M. Tobing, Ministry of Energy and Mineral of Indonesia; Nyoman Suryadiputra, Wetlands International; Sawahiko Shimada, Tokyo University of Agriculture; Supiandi Sabiham, Bogor Agriculture Institute, Indonesia; Gusti Zakaria Anshari, Center for Wetlands People and Biodiversity (PPKMLB); Gary N. Geller, NASA, USA; Sandra G. Neuzil, Eastern Energy Resources Science Center; Dough Muchoney, USGS; Fred Stole, World Resource Institute (WRI); Earl Saxon, AED; Matthew Hanson, South Dakota University; Matthew W. Warren, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

AcknowledgementWe thank the following resource persons for the valuable and insightful inputs for this report: Sulistyowati, Hermono Sigit, Dida Mighfar, Muslihuddin, Prasetyohadi, Agus Gunawan, Muslihudin, Ministry of Environment, Indonesia; Yuyu Rahayu, Ruandha Agung Sugardiman, Hans S. Sinaga, Nurhayati, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia; Muhrizal Sarwani, Kusumo Nugroho, Wahyunto, Rizatus Shofiati, Center for Agricultural Land Resources Research Development (BBSDLP), Ministry of Agriculture; Orbita Roswintiarti, Kustiyo, National Institute of Aeronautics and Space (LAPAN); Adi Rusnanto, Head of Natural Resources Inventory Department; Muhammad Evry, Meuthia Djoharin, Assessment and Application of Technology Agency (BPPT); Truman, Ali, Untung Triono, Centre for Geological Resources (PMG), Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources; Sukarman, Research and Development, Ministry of Agriculture; Adi Eusmanto, Mulyanto Darmawan, Jaka Suryanto, Nurwajedi, Geospatial Information Agency (BIG); Nirarta Samadhi, Arief Darmawan, President’s Unit for Development Control and Monitoring (UKP4); Y. Kristanto W., Dewi Komalasari, National Standardization Body (BSN); Muhammad Farid, Agus Supangat, Dicky Edwin Hindarto, Suzanty Sitorus, Widiatmini, Eggy Janata Giwangkara, National Council on Climate Change (DNPI); Yani Saloh, Eka Melisa, Special Assistants to the President of the Republic of Indonesia for Climate Change; Muhammad Urip, Arwin Lubis, 100 Villages Mapping Initiative; Bima Priadi, Ali Suwanto, ESRI Indonesia; Sonya Dewi, International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF); Rogier Klavier, Laskmi Banowati, UN-REDD Indonesia; Boone Kaufman, Rini Sulaiman, USFS; Takahara Shigeru, Oktovina Tirsa, JICA-FFORTRA; Masato Kawanishi, Matsuura Kazuki, Mari Miura, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA); Eriko Momota, Center for Sustainability Science (CENSUS) Hokkaido


University; Sri Widiyantoro, Satria Bijaksana, Andri Dian Nugraha, Faculty of Mining and Petroleum Engineering, Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB); Jatna Supriatna, Bambang Marhendra, Mochamad Solichin, Mohammad Hasroel Thayib, Research Center for Climate Change (RCCC), Indonesia University (UI); Joenil Kahar, Indonesia Geomatic Council (DGI); Duddung Muhally Hakim, Akhmad Riqqi, Ketut Wikantika, Study Program of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB); Rizaldi Boer, M. Ardiansyah, Center for Climate Risk and Opportunity Management (CCROM), Bogor Agricultural Institute (IPB); Supriadi S., (CCROM-SEAP) Institut Pertanian Bogor; Dudung Muhally Hakim, Faculty of Earth Sciences and Technology, Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB); Dewi Kania Sari, Sumarno, National Institute of Technology (ITENAS); Agus Suratno, Conservation International (CI); Deddy Hadriyanto, Mulawarman University (UNMUL); Aswin Usup, Palangka Raya University (UNPAR); Mira Lee, Korean Embassy; Bonie Dewantara, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS); Daniel Mudiyarso, Joko Purbopuspito, Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR); Arif Budiman, World Wild Fund (WWF); S.M. Tobing, ESDM; Budi Mulyanti, BPN; Aljosja Hooijer, Deltares; Aulia Arum, Dian Novarina, Riau Andalan Pulp and Paper; Lim Harjanto, Solid Sphere; Dadang Hilman, Farrah Mardiati, Harityas Wiyoga, Eryka Purnama, Indonesia Climate Change Center (ICCC).


PEATLAND IN INDONESIA: CONTEXT AND ISSUESAt the G-20 Leaders Summit in Pittsburgh, on 25 September 2009, Indonesia became the first developing country to pledge voluntary reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 26% by 2020 from the projected Business As Usual (BAU) scenario. Emission reductions will largely be achieved by devising policies that mostly target the LULUCF sector. Peat and LULUCF related emissions are by far the largest contributors to Indonesia’s current and expected future emissions. Hence, they also represent the largest opportunities to abate emissions (DNPI, 2011).

Page et al. (2004) estimated the carbon sequestration rates from natural peatlands in Indonesia at up to 0.8 t C ha-1yr-1. Based on conservative estimates on the two categories of peat-related emissions (drainage and fires), LULUCF and peat contributed 760 MtCO2e and 850 MtCO2e of the total 2,052 MtCO2e global emissions (2005) respectively (DNPI, 2011). Under BAU scenarios, LULUCF and peat would still be the largest national emission source and would still contribute more than 50% to Indonesia’s emission profile through 2030, indicating that 2.5% of the world’s GHG emissions could be emitted from LULUCF and peat areas in Indonesia (DNPI, 2011). In fact, numbers from most analyses of Indonesia’s emissions related to peat drainage and fires fall within the range of 0.75 to 1.5 GtCO2e, and show a wide variation from year to year depending on climate conditions. Emission reduction from LULUCF activities is also featured in the National Action Plan for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (RAN-GRK), regulated by Presidential Decree No. 61/2001, to be later adopted in the Regional Action Plan for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (RAD-GRK). The RAN-GRK calls for a reduction of GHG emissions from LULUCF by around 80% from the total emission reduction, or about 23% of Indonesia’s total emissions in 2020.

Peatland stores more carbon than other forest types and its degradation causes larger sustained emissions than those resulting from any other ecosystem. Dry peatland will release carbon, and emissions will continue until the carbon store is depleted or rehabilitation takes place. In order to manage peatland for climate mitigation it is necessary to have accurate national peatland maps in order to support the Presidential Decree regarding GHG emission reduction in Indonesia. A standardized technical definition of ‘peatland’ is, therefore, critical for delineating peatland. Precise peatland delineation through geomorphology, topography, and soil properties considerations needs to be integrated into peatland mapping efforts to determine which areas need to be targeted for GHG emission reduction or mitigation. This delineation of peat will enable policymakers to establish proper policies for effective


peatland management to support GHG emission reduction.

Several challenges persist in interpreting the emission reduction policy due to the varying estimates of GHG emissions from peat oxidation and fires. While a great deal of research into peat emissions and measurement is ongoing in Indonesia, the scientific understanding of peat-related emissions is still developing, especially of those in tropical regions. Therefore, a comprehensive and robust framework to resolve these issues is crucial. A precise define of ‘peatland’ then becomes fundamental to serve as a reference for developing a more precise peatland assessment.

AUTHORITATIVE DEFINITION OF PEAT Authoritative definitions are official definitions established by government institutions. In Indonesia three Ministries operate on their respective designations of peatland.

Authoritative Definition by the Ministry of Environment

The Ministry of Environment defines ‘peat soil’ as soil developed from the accumulation of decomposing organic matter from tropical forests biomass production (Ministry of Environment No. 7/2006). This regulation specifies procedures for assessing soil degradation and sets standard criteria for potential biomass production. In this regulation the explanation about peat mostly elaborates indicators of degraded peat. The regulation also specifies that opening freshwater wetlands is generally done by creating drainage channels to lower the water surface and improve soil aeration. When the drained areas are peatland peat subsidence would occur which will eventually lead to surface levels falling below the critical drainage elevation. Such conditions can result in loss of gravitational drainage and permanent inundation. This Ministerial Regulation defines the ‘peat subsidence’ as the rate of peat surface subsiding due to the drainage on the land surface, calculated by the unit thickness (cm) per unit time (years). Opening peatland results in the cessation of peat accumulation, and peatland is defined to be ‘degraded’ if the cumulative subsidence of the peat surface is more than 35cm/5 years.

The definifion of ‘peat’ by the Ministry of Environment is a qualitative definition as it specifies, for instance, organic matter as peat-forming material. However, quantitative measures for delineating peatland are not specified. As it does not specify the organic content or depth, this definition could not fully describe peat, which is known for its characteristically high content of organic matter. Thus, this definition is too general to describe the characteristics of peat in Indonesia, and is not suitable to be adopted for other purposes.


Authoritative Definition by the Ministry of Agriculture

The Ministry of Agriculture defines ‘peat’ as soil resulting from the accumulation of organic matter with a naturally occurring composition of greater than 65% from the decaying vegetation growing on it whose decomposition is slowed down by anaerobic and wet conditions. (Ministry of Agriculture Regulation No. 14/Permentan/PL.110/2/2009).

Meanwhile, ‘peatland’ is peat area that can be used for oil palm cultivation. This regulation was prepared to serve as a guideline for utilizing peatland for oil palm plantations. The ‘peat’ definition in this regulation cannot be adopted for other purposes, such as for peatland conservation or land-use conversion. It is therefore not surprising that this regulation defines ‘peatland’ as a land that can be utilized for oil palm plantation.

The Ministry of Agriculture’s definition of ‘peat’ is quite clear as it defines ‘peat’ qualitatively (by mentioning organic material as peat forming material), and quantitatively (by specifying the percentage of organic matter of peat to be more than 65%). However, this definition does not specify the peat depth. As such, it needs to be further developed.

Authoritative Definition by the Ministry of Forestry

The Ministry of Forestry defines ‘peat forest’ as formation of trees growing on land mostly formed from organic matter residue accumulated over a long period of time. Hence, ‘peat’ is defined as organic matter residue accumulating over time (Ministry of Forestry Regulation No. P.69/Menhut-II/2011). This regulation was created as a technical guideline for special allocation fund (DAK) used in the forestry sector for fiscal year 2012. This special allocation fund aims to rehabilitate degraded lands and forests, including rehabilitation of degraded peatland.

The Ministry of Forestry’s definition of ‘peat’ is a qualitative, specifying the material content of ‘peat’. It does not, however, include quantitative measures such as depth or percentage of organic content. By referring to this definition, a broader peat area can be covered because all lands that mostly contains organic material accumulated over a long period of time will be categorized as peat. However, this definition remains uncertain as it does not specify the exact amount of ‘mostly organic matter’ in peat.

Summary of Authoritative Definitions

Each of the above ministries defines ‘peat’ differently, based on their respective management objectives. The Ministry of Environment defines ‘peat’ for the purpose of setting the standard criteria for procedures of measuring land degradation


Table 1: Authoritative Definition of ‘Peat’

Category

Authoritative Definition

Ministry of Environment Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Forestry

Type of peat material Organic matter Organic matter Organic matter

Percentage of organic content

- > 65% -

Depth - - -

Purpose of DefinitionSet standard criteria of

land degradation for biomass production

Peatland use for oil palm plantations

Technical instruction for special allocation fund

use in forestry sector in the fiscal year 2012

LULUCF on peatland (point of view and considered

aspects)

Environmental sustainability

Productivity

Sustainable Forest Management (by

considering productivity, biodiversity and social

sustainability)

for biomass production. These procedures are structured to achieve an understanding of methodology and suitability aspects that should be reviewed in determining the condition and status of land degradation for biomass production for the purposes of land degradation control. The Ministry of Agriculture defines ‘peat’ to create guidelines for using peatland for oil palm plantation development. The Ministry of Forestry defines ‘peat’ to develop technical guidelines for the special allocation fund (Dana Alokasi Khusus = DAK) used in forestry, and considers ‘rehabilitation’ and ‘land’ (including degraded peat) as a national policy priority.

The three ministries define ‘peat’ qualitatively by specifying organic content as peat material. The Ministry of Agriculture defines ‘peat’ semi-quantitatively, by specifying that the percentage of organic matter for peat to be more than 65%. The three definitions provided are still too general to describe ‘peat’ in Indonesia.

It is, therefore, important that the definition of ‘peat’ is developed in accordance with the conditions and characteristics of peat in Indonesia. This standardized definition of ‘peat’ shall be used as the guideline for all ministries, organizations and institutions concerned with peatland, in spite of their potentially contrasting interests and objectives. Of the three authoritative definitions, the Ministry of Agriculture’s offers the most complete version, specifying both qualitative and quantitave aspects, The Ministry of Agriculture’s definition still needs to be developed in order to accommodate the requirements of peatland definition which can be adopted for all purposes.


SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION OF PEATVarious Scientific Definitions of Peat

Temperate and boreal peats tend to be dominated by bryophytes and shrubs. Root penetration is thus shallow and decomposition rates are low. In contrast, tropical peatland has a higher variety of tree species (Polak, 1975; Anderson, 1983), with roots penetrating the organic deposits as deep as several meters. Rates of biomass production and primary decomposition are high. Subsurface input of organic matter from decaying roots and root exudates is, therefore, much greater in tropical than in temperate peat deposits. Hence, the rubbing test and liquid extract test from tropical peat lead to incorrect characterization of texture, that are often fibric due to high content of woody components (Wüst, et al., 2003).

Several scientific or taxonomic definitions have been introduced and acknowledged by scientific communities, including those developed by Wüst et al. (2003), Moris (1989), Andrejko et al. (1983), Landva et al. (1983), Jarrett (1983), Mankinen and Gelfer (1982), Kearns et al. (1982), Kivinen and Heikurainen (1979), Davis (1946), and Arman (1923) (Table 2). Most scientific definitions are based on field observations and analyses of peat soil properties. The key elements for those definitions include physical properties, such as decomposition (humification) degree, bulk density, water content, porosity and others, as well as chemical properties, such as carbon content, ash content, pH, and C/N ratio.

Most schemes commonly used for field and laboratory classification of peats were developed for boreal and humid temperate regions, and do not recognize the distinctive features and specific uses of tropical peats. Wüst et al. (2003) suggested that these schemes failed to fully characterize and classify the tropical organic deposits of Tasek Bera (Malaysia) peatland (which was chosen as an example of tropical peat deposit to evaluate different classification systems, and ideal for testing the applicability of peat classification systems for lowland tropical peats).

The following is a description of the deficiencies in common classification schemes: 1) Temperate and boreal peats are often dominated by bryophytes/moss and shrubs; 2) Existing classification schemes for temperate and boreal peats are based on selected characteristics for specific uses in the fields of agriculture, engineering, energy, etc. rather than having a generic approach; and 3) Classifications of organic soil for agricultural purposes (e.g., CSSC, 1987; Soil Survey Staff, 1990; Paramananthan, 1998) are based on a control section.

Therefore, the important aspects of peat texture (morphology of constituents and their arrangement) and laboratory ash content (residue after ignition) need modification in order


to be usable for classifying tropical peat deposits. Wüst et al. (2003) proposed three-group (fibric, hemic, sapric) field texture classification applicable to tropical organic deposits, that is based on classification by Esterle (1990), and modified from the US Soil Taxonomy for tropical low-ash, ombrotrophic peat deposits and soils. This field texture classification was made based on: 1) Visual examination of the morphology of the peat constituents (texture); and 2) Estimates of fiber content and matrix.

Wüst et al. (2003) defined ‘peat’ as having an ash content of 0-55%, and the peat class is further subdivided into subclasses: 1) Very low ash (0-5%); 2) Low ash (5-15%); 3) Medium ash (15-25%); 4) High ash (25-40%9; and 5) Very high ash (40-55%).

Table 2: Various classification systems of peat and organic soil (Wüst et al., 2003)

Classification byAsh Content

(wt-%)Category

Organic Content (wt-%)

Wüst et al. (2003) 0-5 Peat (very low ash) 95-100

15-5 Peat (low ash) 85-95

15-25 Peat (medium ash) 75-85

25-40 Peat (high ash) 60-75

40-55 Peat (very high ash) 45-60

55-65 Muck 35-45

65-80 Organic-rich soil/sediment 20-35

80-100 Mineral soil/sediment with organic material 0-20

Moris (1989) 0-35 Peat 65-100

35-65 Muck 35-65

65-100 Organic clay 0-35

Andrejko et al. (1983) 0-5 Peat (low ash) 95-100

15-5 Peat (medium ash) 85-95

15-25 Peat (high ash) 75-85

25-50 Carbonaceous sediment (low ash) 50-75

50-75 Carbonaceous sediment (high ash) 25-50

75-100 Mineral sediment 0-25

Landva et al. (1983) 0-20 Peat (Pt) 80-100

20-40 Peaty organic soil (PtO) 60-80

40-95 Organic soil (O) 40-95

95-100 Soil with organic content 0-5

Jarret (1983) 0-25 Peat 75-100

25-55 Peaty muck 45-75

55-80 Silty/clayey muck 20-45

80-100 Organic silt/clay 0-20

Mankinen and Gelfer (1982) 0-50 Peat 50-100

50-100 Non-peat 0-50

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM, 1982)

0-25 Peat 75-100

25-100 Muck and other organic rich sediments 0-75


Kearns et al. (1982) 0-25 Peat 75-100

25-45 Peaty muck 55-75

45-65 Muck 35-55

65-85 Clayey muck 15-35

85-95 Clay (mucky) 15-5

95-100 Clay (organic) 0-5

Kivinen and Heikurainen (1979)

0-50 Peat 50-100

50-80 Muck 20-50

80-100 Mineral soil 0-20

Canadian System of Soil Classification (CSSC, 1987)

0-70 Organic soil 30-100


Davis (1946) 0-35 Peat 65-100

35-75 Muck 25-65


Arman (1923) 0-80 Organic soils 20-100

80-100 Soils with organic content 0-20

Summary of Scientific Definitions

Most scientific peat definitions have been developed for boreal and humid temperate regions which failed to recognize the distinctive features and uses of tropical peats. The characteristics of peat in boreal and humid temperate regions are different from those of tropical peat that can be very fibric and having very high organic content. Temperate and boreal peats are often dominated by bryophytes and shrubs while tropical peats are often dominated by woody materials. Therefore, those definitions need modification in order to accommodate the peatland condition and characteristics in Indonesia.

GAP ANALYSIS BETWEEN AUTHORITATIVE AND SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION OF PEATThe main difference between authoritative and scientific definitions is that the authoritative definition is qualitative, while the scientific definition is quantitative.

These differences and uncertainties between the definitions may stem from: 1) Different assumptions; 2) Different methods; and 3) Different technology. Different organizations may use different methodologies and sources which contribute to peat estimations, and carbon emission estimates. The differences between Authoritative and Scientific Peatland Definitions are mainly found in: 1) Peat characteristics; 2) Peat depth; and 3) Material contents of peat.

The definitions of ‘peatland’ by three ministries (Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment, and Ministry of Forestry) are too general and qualitative for delineating and mapping peatland in Indonesia. Those definitions describe ‘peat’ as


deposits of organic matter, and fail to specify minimum organic content, C content, ash content, or depth, leaving much room for interpretation. The Ministry of Agriculture peat definition is more specific by providing a minimum value for % organic matter. However, minimum depth of accumulated organic matter is unspecified, subjecting the peat designation to interpretation.

Most peat scientists and soil taxonomists define ‘peat’ based on its material content (mineral content or organic content/ash content) and depth. The definition of peat that describes the percentage of organic content/ash content and the depth is a more quantitative definition that can be suitable for application in Indonesia, as peatland in Indonesia is mostly very high in organic content with highly variable depth.

Particular attention has to be paid to define ‘peatland’ for the purposes of estimating GHG emissions. The existing authoritative definitions may need to be further developed and integrated into one comprehensive definition to capture the notions of GHGs, such as carbon stocks and flows. Meanwhile, scientific definitions should also be developed or refined to reflect the characteristics of Indonesian peat as it is mostly very fibric and hemic with very high organic and carbon content, derived mostly from woody biomass. The prevailing scientific peat definition for boreal and temperate regions may not be able to fully capture the characteristics and classifications of tropical peat. For that reason, a clear and operable definition of ‘peat’ in Indonesia needs to be formulated in order to improve peat management across multiple ministries and agencies.

PROPOSED PEATLAND DEFINITION FOR INDONESIAHaving organized a series of technical meetings and consultations with eminent scientists, and key stakeholders and governmental representatives from national and international organizations, the following has been recommended for defining peatland and proposed follow up actions:

1. Key Elements to be considered for defining ‘peatland’.

Peatland definition has to include the key elements of carbon content or mineral content and minimum thickness. After defining ‘peatland’, carbon stock and flux estimations are necessary to assess the magnitude of GHG emission reductions for policy or management interventions.

2. The proposed ‘peatland definition’.

Peatland is an area with 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%.

Ash content is expressed as a percentage of ignition residues after the organic elements (carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen) have been burned off. As ash content reflects original plant type, mineral composition is useful to apply to a peat definition. Ash content of peat depends on vegetation type, bedrock composition and hydrology. The lower the ash content, the higher the organic content (Figure 1). According to the system developed by Moris (1989), most of the organics in the Tasek Bera Basin (tropical peatland) are classified as peat, with ash content ranging from 0 to 35%. Many peat scientists have described organic soils as ‘peat’ although they had ash contents much greater than 25%. Wüst et al. (2003) defined peat as organic soils with ash content values ranging 0 to 55%. Referring to this definition, organic soils with less than 55% ash content have greater than 18% Carbon. However, to be adopted in Indonesia, an ash content of 55% indicates organic content of only approximately 45%. Therefore, it is proposed that ‘peat’ is an organic soil with organic content values equal to or greater than 65% (Rieley and Page, 2005; Sorensen, 1993; Andriesse, 1974), or ash content values equal to or less than 35%. Based on the research of Wüst et al. (2003), the ash content of 35% in tropical organic soil consists of 28% - 32 % Carbon (Figure 2).

As mentioned above, ‘peat depth’ should be included in the definition of ‘peat’. There are different depth categories employed by many peat scientists when describing ‘peat’. Andriesse (1988) defines ‘peat’ as organic soil with depth of more than 80 cm, and Jansen et al. (1985) and Soil Survey Staff (1996) defines it as more than 40 cm, Joosten and Clarke (2002) defines it as more than 30 cm, and Sorensen (1993) describes that at least 17% of peatland forest in Indonesia has peat thickness from 50 cm to 20 m. The agricultural system of Malaysia (Paramananthan, 1998) requires a minimum thickness of organic material of 40 cm – 120 cm for a soil to qualify as organic. The Second International Congress of Soil Science in 1930 (Tie, 1982) and Rieley and Page (2005) defined peat as an organic soil with a thickness of more than 50 cm. Hardjowigeno and Abdullah (1987) define peat as partly decomposed organic deposit with a depth equal to or more than 50 cm. As there are many scientific literature descriptions of ‘tropical peat’ with minimum 50 cm thickness, it is proposed that the thickness for tropical peat to be equal to or more than 50 cm for ‘peat’ definition.


The US Soil Taxonomy classifies organic soils as having more than 12% to 18% organic C. In tropical peat deposits, C contents are often between 40% and 60% (Andriesse, 1988; Moris, 1989; Phillips, 1995; Neuzil, 1997). Tie (1990) reported that in Malaysian tropical peat deposits, C content varies between 35% and 44%. Meanwhile, Wüst et al. (2003) reported that the peat C content of the Tasek Bera Basin (Malaysia), ranges from 20% to 54%. Therefore, ICCC proposes classification of organic carbon content, based on the definition of organic soils of the US Soil Taxonomy, i.e., of at least 12% organic C.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 10 20 30 40

Peat

Ash content (%)

Org

anic

con

tent

(%)

Fig. 1: Organic content versus ash content in peat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40

Carb

on c

onte

nt (w

t-%

)

Ash content (wt-%)

Peat

Linear (Peat)

Fig. 2: Carbon content versus ash content in peat (Wust et al., 2003)

3. Peatland delineation methodology

To support the ‘One Map Initiative’ Program, a methodology of Peatland Delineation based on the Peat Definition needs to be formulated. The peatland delineation is developed with the purpose to classify peatland in the field to support development of sound peatland management.


Four categories of peatland delineation are recommended with the following classifications: 1) Peat depth; 2) Peat layer; 3) Hydrological area of peatland; and 4) Land-use in peatland. To formulate the appropriate and precise methodology of peatland delineation for better peatland management in line with GHG emission reduction, other variables related to peatland boundary and peatland classification may also be important to consider.

AFTERWORD: Moving Forward, Responding to ChallengesThe following activities are proposed to systematically consolidate all related peatland mapping efforts in a comprehensive manner:

Supporting the ‘One Map Initiative’

ICCC will facilitate international scientific/research discussions on Peatland and Peatland Mapping through BIG coordination in supporting the Peatland Map revision process. The ICCC Peatland and Peatland Mapping Cluster will cooperatively help formulate a plan to support the initial ICCC/One Map focus area of peatland mapping guided by GoI identified and prioritized needs.

The primary focus for immediate support is to assist the GoI in the development of a repeatable map revision process, and the actual revision/new development of the Peatland Map for all of Indonesia, coordinated through BIG and supported by the ICCC. The development plan will be guided by the following prevailing situation:

• The current moratorium map (based on 2009 LANDSAT imagery), which is an integral and instrumental part of the Presidential Instruction (INPRES) No. 10/2011 for the License Issuance Moratorium on Primary Forest and Peatland, will be updated at least every six months. This moratorium map and its regular updating scheme has been deemed by the President of Indonesia as the vehicle toward achieving a ONE MAP. Initial US assistance will focus on assessing the methodologies used and accuracy of the revised Peatland Map.

• The regular map updating will have a methodology/strategy (devised by BIG, LAPAN, and Ministry of Forestry) including the incorporation of more recent satellite imagery (2010/2011 Landsat). Systematic updating requires a constant supply of new satellite spectral and/or radar imagery. The USG will assist Indonesia in new imagery acquisition.

• In defining ‘peatland’ for the moratorium map, the first thing that needs to be done in support of its next revision is to


update the ‘peatland delineation’. The current moratorium map uses Wetland International peatland map as its source for the peatland area delineation. All stakeholders have agreed that this map needs to be revised using the regular map-updating scheme as described in the Presidential Instruction.

• There has been a formal and agreed upon definition of primary forest for the moratorium map, which is based on the SNI on Land Cover. However, this SNI-based definition needs to be tested on the ground through a series of pilot projects, which will eventually provide feedback for the next moratorium map updating process. BIG and the Ministry of Agriculture will devise a peatland area delineation procedure using satellite and radar imagery, to be then supported by ground verification missions.

• The newly delineated peatland on the revised moratorium map shall be used as the basis of several initiatives: a) Scientific research to back up the peatland definition as used in the moratorium map (to be done by the ICCC). This initiative can also lead to the formulation of a SNI on peatland; b) Pilot of peatland mapping procedure; c) Peatland mapping of Kalimantan, Sumatera and Papua.

• Another related initiative is the development of a national database of satellite and radar image metadata (carried out by LAPAN under the coordination of BIG) as the basis for a SINGLE LICENSE, SINGLE BUYER approach on satellite/radar image provision for ONE MAP.

Broadening Peatland Assessment to Capture Existing Institutional Dynamics

Integrating peatlands into existing development plans is critical due to the significant CO2 emissions contributed by peatland conversion to national and sub-national emission profiles. This intervention will require substantial changes to economic structure, land-use planning, and government policies. It will also require a new mindset focused on long-term, environmentally-sustainable development taking hold within the government, the business community, and the non-profit sector. Therefore, broadening peatland assessment in the context of low emission development strategies (LEDS) serves as a strategic entry point.

The following existing institutional dynamics need to be captured and taken into account to make sure peatland assessment is incorporated: 1) National Action Plan on Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (RAN-GRK) and Provincial Action Plan on Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (RAD-GRK); 2) Spatial Planning at national, islands as well as provinces and districts; 3) REDD+ institutional development under national REDD+ Task Force; and 4) Master Plan of Acceleration of Indonesian Economic Development (MP3I).


Conducting Research and Development

Peatlands are ecologically unique and are well known for their ecosystem benefits. Peatland functions and benefits are vulnerable to LULUCF, as well as the predicted consequences of climate change. Therefore, comprehensive and long term research and development should be continued to understand peatland systems by scientific experts and communities in cooperation with local stakeholders.

Peatland areas in Indonesia contain globally significant carbon stocks and their management and development for climate mitigation programs (including REDD+ and voluntary markets) is part of a national response to climate change issues. Peatland issues cover a very broad array of scientific disciplines. Research and development are needed for forest carbon management, including 1) Peatland and forest carbon accounting; 2) Ecosystem carbon measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV); 3) Carbon management technology; 4) Socioeconomic issues; 5) Decision-support systems; 6) Funding mechanisms and benefit distribution; 7) Biodiversity and its conservation and valuation; and (8) Environment services.

Several other issues also affect peatland carbon stock and LULUCF research. Issues pertaining to land tenure and entitlement need to be resolved. Existing laws against illegal peatland deforestation shall be implemented and enforced. Good governance is necessary at all levels, policies need to be better coordinated, and many laws need to be revised. Improvements to these aspects of public policy could help mitigate the large carbon emissions from peatland forests. The issues of mainstreaming carbon payments under REDD+ type projects, food security and education are also important aspects of avoided deforestation programs.

Developing Capacity Building

Capacity building is a planned development of (or increase in) knowledge, output rate, management, skills, and other capabilities of an organization through acquisition, incentives, technology, and/or training. The context of capacity building here is geared toward institutional development, academic and technical support for peatland areas. Training and education shall be aimed at universities and improving technical capacity of government, NGOs and community stakeholders. Only a small number of technical experts have recognized the importance of peatland related climate change issues. For example, peatland and REDD-plus programs are recognized in the global effort to reduce deforestation and degradation including credit for effort a giving incentives to developing countries to preserve and conserve their forest carbon resources with financial incentives from developed countries, although the arrangement of incentives are not


yet clear. Some stakeholders are already familiar with the development of REDD-plus issues and incentive arrangements, and therefore there is a need for education and training.

Capacity building is a multidimensional process that improves the in-house understanding & face challenges successfully (effectively and efficiently) including the human resources, other resources, institutions and structures, policies, procedures, etc. Based on their objectives and programs, there are three categories of capacity building: 1) Institutional Capacity Building (ICB); 2) Social Capacity Building (SCB); and 3) Research Capacity Building (RCB).

Institutional capacity building is the process of creating more effective institutions through the increase of shared knowledge resources, relational resources and the capacity for mobilization. It is usually related to the capacity to facilitate open policy- and decision-making processes (at national and local levels) that provide access to relevant stakeholders and room for various types of knowledge resources. Social capacity building is the process of helping people to help themselves in achieving self-sufficiency. Research capacity building is the acquisition of skills and capacities of educational researchers and the policy makers (and indeed other user groups), not only about the supply side, but is also about the capacity of users of research to understand and draw on existing research.

One of capacity building programs related to research and development in peatland is the establishment of ‘Kalimantan University Consortium’ based in Palangka Raya University (Central Kalimantan). The details about the ‘Kalimantan University Consortium’ is presented in the text box on the next page.

Kalimantan University Consortium onPeatland Research and Development Network

The global environment issue of climate change has put the tropical regions in a pivotal strategic position to mitigate impacts from deforestation and forest degradation. In Indonesia, the Kalimantan Region will undoubtedly play a very important role in reducing peatland carbon emissions while sustaining ecosystem functions and supporting the needs for local and regional livelihoods. The local Universities play a very important role to: 1) Supervise and execute research; 2) Coordinate research and collaboration; 3) Socialize climate mitigation efforts; 4) Provide science-based advice; and 5) Engage in various CC related Working Groups. Related to the preservation of tropical rainforest ecosystems, especially forested peatland, universities need to increase their role by enhancing their coordination, communication, and cooperation in executing research, education and community service.


The presence of these five core universities in Kalimantan (Palangka Raya University, Central Kalimantan; Mulawarman University, East Kalimantan; Tanjungpura University, West Kalimantan; Lambung Mangkurat University, South Kalimantan; University of Borneo, East Kalimantan) to meet these expectations is important, and therefore, capacity building is very critical. In connection with all of the above, ‘Kalimantan University Consortium’ (a consortium within five core universities in Kalimantan and other National Universities and Local Private Universities) is expected to improve the university’s role in addressing Capacity Building of research/education for peatland and mitigation of climate change.

The aims of ‘Kalimantan University Consortium’ are:

1. Facilitating communication and collaboration: among core universities and research institutes related to climate change;

2. Coordination of internal, external and international research cooperation and collaboration;

3. Exchanging of research outputs, including broader dissemination of information;

4. Facilitating necessary training to improve research workers capacity, uptake and application of research outputs;

5. Establishing new ideas, opportunities and inputs;

6. Facilitating policy makers for scientifically based decision.

Sharing of research activities and information may also be established with other National Universities and Local Private Universities having climate change related activities.

Building the Research Network on Peatland and Peatland Mapping

The current climate change and global environment issue has put the tropical peatland of Indonesia in general as a strategic position for climate mitigation studies. Networking and cooperation among parties (countries, scientists/academicians, community stakeholders, etc.) is key to tackle the climate change issues. The following are partnership networks that could potentially be used to exchange interests in promoting in-depth peatland research and related activities:

• AsiaFlux is a regional research network bringing together scientists from universities and institutions in Asia to study the exchanges of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere across daily to inter-annual time scales (http://www.asiaflux.net/index.html).

• The Sentinel Asia (SA) Project Initiative is collaboration between space agencies and disaster management agencies applying remote sensing and Web-GIS technologies to


support disaster management in the Asia-Pacific region. Objectives of the Sentinel Asia Project are to: 1) improve safety in society by Information and Communication; 2) Technology (ICT) and space technologies; 3) improve the speed and accuracy of disaster preparedness and early warning; and 4) minimize the number of victims and social/economic losses.

• The IndonesiaHigherEducationNetwork (INHERENT) is an inter-university educational network in Indonesia under the Ministry of Education and Culture. For the first phase of its development, the network consists of 32 universities. The main ring of this network is located on the island of Java; five universities (UI, ITB, ITS, UGM and UNDIP) as the backbone network connected via an STM1 line with a total 155 Mbit/s of bandwidth capacity.

• TheHeartofBorneo (HoB) program is a trans-boundary cooperation between three countries (Indonesia, Brunei Darussalam and Malaysia) consisting of 220,000 km2 (22 million ha) of inter-connected rainforests, consisting of a network of protected and well-managed productive areas, to ensure the preservation of biodiversity and water resources for the benefits of local, national and international stakeholders.

• KalimantanUniversityConsortium will become a strong link between research, education and expansion of science and technology in Kalimantan related to climate change issues. The output from this consortium could translate into policies together with decision makers at the local, regional as well as national levels with a close involvement of five core members of state universities (UNPAR, UNMUL, UNTAN, UNLAM and UB) and 120 private universities in Kalimantan.

• Indonesia Carbon Update (ICU) is an annual initiative facilitated by National Council on Climate Change (DNPI) and strategic interested partners whose aim is to: 1) Update the Government of Indonesia (GoI) stand on global negotiations on climate change, particularly mitigation issues; 2) Update the ongoing initiatives and advances on Indonesia’s mitigation actions to reduce GHG emissions; 3) Sharing knowledge, experiences as well as ideas for mitigation actions investment; and 4) Meeting investors and project developers who are willing to implement low-carbon initiatives on the ground.

• AsiaForumonCarbonUpdate(AFCU) is an annual forum of key stakeholders in Asian region with the following objectives: 1) to share ideas and experiences on the implementation of low-carbon economy by elaborating various technical/practical issues; 2) to update ongoing initiatives and advances on Asia’s mitigation actions to reduce GHG emission, particularly the most recent issues


such as REDD+, MRV, climate financing and capacity building; and 3) to develop any potential collaborative efforts among Asian countries to seek viable mechanisms in tackling climate change issues.

Bringing forward Peatland Issues to International Communities

Globally, peat occupies only 2.7% of the world’s land-mass, but it stores approximately 30% of terrestrial peatland carbon stocks. This figure represents huge amounts of carbon, by far greater than any other types of forests in the world.

Indonesia has the largest peatland area in Southeast Asia, and is one of the five major tropical peatland countries in the world. The other four are Brazil, Democratic Republic of Congo, Papua New Guinea, and Malaysia. According to Joosten and Clarke (2002) in Wetland International (2011), around thirty countries are responsible for the largest greenhouse gas emissions from peatland, including many from non-Annex I countries. The majority of the 130 million hectares of peatland in non-Annex I countries are naturally forested, containing about 100 billion tonnes of carbon - most of which is in their soils.

The degradation of peatland in developing countries through drainage and peat fires causes annual emissions of an estimated 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. In Southeast Asia the loss of peatland has been dramatic. In the last 20 years, more than 12 million hectares have been drained; and more than 3 million hecatres have been burnt. The recent decline of peatland forests is twice the rate of decline of other forests.

There needs to be urgent action to halt this. In the context of global emission, however, peatland has not been discussed specifically and intensively. At the UNFCCC, peatland is included in the wetlands category, and it has been discussed by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex 1 Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), specifically under Land Use, Land Use and Forestry (LULUCF) section. There has been little attention to bring peatland to global attention. Lack of information, unreliable data, and other uncertainties discourage state parties to discuss and negotiate peatland at the UNFCCC forum. However, a new accounting activity is proposed for the second commitment period to provide incentives to reduce emissions from drained peatland in Annex-I countries. The UNFCCC definition of forest covers all peat forests, including all peat forests temporarily destocked (deforested) as these will naturally revert to forest at some point in time. In the future, peatlands not naturally reforested could possibly also be addressed under this or other similar mechanism.

The REDD mechanism offers tremendous opportunities for protecting and restoring peat forests. Under REDD+ negotiations, however, peatland has not yet been specifically


treated as an important component. None of the state parties have brought sufficient attention to this matter. Political and technical constraints are the main barriers for not bringing peatlands to national or global attention. Yet, inclusion of incentives to support the reduction of emissions from degradation of peatland and other forest types with high carbon stocks is crucial in any future REDD mechanism.

Reducing emissions from peatland in REDD could involve five areas, such as: a) Protection of remaining intact peat forests; b) Restoration of degraded and drained peatland; c) Prevention of peat forest fires; d) Restriction the development of new plantation concessions on peat; and e) Reduction of emissions from existing plantations. If all five areas are implemented well, one can be sure that the peatland sector can contribute in the efforts to reduce GHG emissions by 26% by 2020.


References

Anderson, J.A.R., 1983. The Tropical Peat Swamps of Western Malaysia. In: Gore, A.J.P. (ed), Mires: Swamp, Bog, Fen and Moor, Regional Studies. Ecosystems of the World. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 181-199.

Andrejko, M.J., Fiene, F. and Cohen, A.D., 1983. Comparison of ashing techniques for determination of the inorganic content of peats. In: Jarrett, P.M. (Ed.), Testing of Peats and Organic Soils. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 5– 20

Andriesse, J.P., 1974. Tropical Lowland Peats of Southeast Asia. Communication, vol. 63. Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen, Amsterdam.

Andriesse, J.P., 1988. Nature and Management of Tropical Peat Soils. FAO Bulletin, vol. 59. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Arman, A., 1923. A Definition of Organic Soils - An Engineering Definition. Engineering Research Bulletin 101. Division of Engineering Research, Louisiana State University. Baton Rouge. University of Toronto Press. 1969. pp. 78-126.

CSSC, 1987. The Canadian System of Soil Classification. Agriculture Canada Expert Committee on Soil Survey, Ottawa, Canada.

Davis, J.H., 1946. The peat deposits of Florida: their occurrence, development and uses. Florida Geological Survey Bulletin 30. Tallahassee, FL.

DNPI, 2011. DNPI Green Review on REDD+. Jakarta, Indonesia.

Esterle, J.S., 1990. Trends in petrographic and chemical characteristics of tropical domed peats in Indonesia and Malaysia as analogues for coal formation. PhD thesis, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.

Hardjowigeno, S. and Abdullah, 1987. Suitability of peat soils of Sumatra for agricultural development. International Peat Society. Symposium on Tropical Peat and Peatland for Development. Yogyakarta, 9-14 February 1987.

Jansen, J.C., W.H. Diemont and N. Koenders, 1985. Peat development for power generation in West Kalimantan – An ecological appraisal. The Netherlands Economic Institute 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Jarrett, P.M., 1983. Summary of testing of peats and organic soils. In: Jarrett, P.M. (Ed.), Testing of Peats and Organic Soils. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 233– 237.

Joosten, H. and D. Clarke, 2002. Wise use of mires and peatland: A framework for decision-making, International Mire Conservation Group/International Peat Society.

Kearns, F.L., Autin, W.J. and Gerdes, R.G., 1982. Occurrence and stratigraphy of organic deposits, St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. GSA Abstracts With Programs, N.E. and S.E. Sections. Louisiana Geological Survey (LGS), GSA annual meeting, Washington, DC, USA. 30.

Kivinen, E. and Heikurainen, L., 1979. Classification of peat and peatland. Proceedings of International Peat Society.


Landva, A.O., Korpijaakko, E.O. and Pheeney, P.E., 1983. Geotechnical classification of peats and organic soils. In: Jarrett, P.M. (Ed.), Testing of Peats and Organic Soils. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 37– 51.

Mankinen, G.W. and Gelfer, B., 1982. Comprehensive use of peat in the U.S.S.R. DOE Fifth Technical Conference on Peat. U.S. Department of Energy, Bethesda, MD, pp. 44– 54.

Ministry of Agriculture, 2009. Guidelines for Peat Land-Use for Oil Palm Plantation. Ministry of Agriculture Rules and Regulation No. 14/Permentan/PL.110/2/2009.

Ministry of Environment, 2006. The Procedure for Standard Criteria Measurement of Land Degradation for Biomass Production. Regulation of the Ministry of Environment No. 7/2006.

Ministry of Forestry, 2011. Technical Instruction for Special Allocation Fund Use (=Dana Alokasi Khusus, DAK) of Forestry Sector in Fiscal Year 2012. Regulation of the Ministry of Forestry No. P.69/Menhut-II/2011.

Moris, N., 1989. Composition of organic materials of peat soils in Peninsular Malaysia. In: Zauyah, S., Wong,C.B., Paramanathan, S. (Eds.), Recent Developments in Soil Genesis and Classification, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Malaysian Society of Soil Science, Kuala Lumpur, MY, pp. 81– 87.

Neuzil, S.G., 1997. Onset and rate of peat and carbon accumulation in four domed ombrogenous peat deposits, Indonesia. In: Rieley, J.O., Page, S.E. (Eds), Tropical Peatland. Samara Publishing Limited, Cardigan, pp. 55-72.

Page, S.E., Wüst, R.A.J., Weiss, D., Rieley, J.O., Shotyk, W. and Limin, S.H., 2004. A record of Late Pleistocene and Holocene carbon accumulation and climate change from an equatorial peat bog (Kalimantan, Indonesia): Implications for past, present and future carbon dynamics. Journal of Quaternary Science, 19, 625-635.

Paramananthan, S., 1998. Malaysian Soit Taxonomy (Second Approximation): A Proposal for the Classification of Malaysian Soils. Malaysian Society of Soil Science, Param Agricultural and Soil Surveys (M) Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Phillips, S., 1995. Holocene evolution of the Changuinola peat deposit, Panama: sedimentology of a marine influenced tropical peat deposit on a tectonically active coast. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

Polak, B., 1975. Character and Occurrence of Peat Deposits in the Malaysian Tropics. Modern Quaternary Research Southeast Asia 2, 71-81

Rieley, J.O. and S.E. Page., 2005. Wise Use of Tropical Peatland: Focus on Southeast Asia, ALTERRA. Wageningen University and Research Centre and the EU INCO-STRAPEAT and RESTOPEAT Partnerships, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Soil Survey Staff, 1990. US Soil Taxonomy. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. Soil Management Support Services Technical Monograph No. 19. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.


Soil Survey Staff, 1996. Key to Soil Taxonomy. United State Department of Agriculture (USDA), Washington DC.

Soil Survey Staff, 2010. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Eleventh Edition, 2010.

Sorensen, K.W., 1993. Indonesian peat swamp forest and their role as a carbon sink. Chemosphere 27, no. 6: 1065-1082.

Tie, Y.L., 1982. Soil Classification in Sarawak. Technical Paper No. 6, Soils Division Research Branch, Department of Agriculture, Sarawak, Malaysia.

Tie, Y.L., 1990. Studies of peat swamps in Sarawak with particular references to soil – forest relationships and development of dome-shaped stuctures. PhD thesis, Polytechnic of North London, London, UK.

Wüst, R.A.J, Bustin, R.M. and Lavkulich, L.M., 2003, New classification systems for tropical organic-rich deposits based on studies of the Tasek Bera Basin, Malaysia, Catena, pp.133-163.

Peatland Definition: From Uncertainty to Certainty

Documents

Transcript of Peatland Definition: From Uncertainty to Certainty