28
Video: Dyah Puspitaloka
This study is funded by USAID (United States Agency for International Development) & CIFOR (Center For International Forestry Research) through Master Degree Fellowship Program and the School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University.
THE ECONOMICS OF PEATLANDS RESTORATION
IN CENTRAL KALIMANTAN, INDONESIA
Dyah Puspitaloka and Yeon-Su Kim
SAF National Convention, Albuquerque, NM November 18, 2017
Photo: Dyah Puspitaloka
• Introduction • Methods • Preliminary result and
discussion • Recommendation
Outline
What is peat? Why is it important?
Photo: Dyah Puspitaloka
Introduction
Photo: NASA image Jeff Schmaltz (LANCE MODIS Rapid Response) and Adam Voiland (NASA Earth Observatory). Caption by Adam Voiland.
• Indonesia pledged to reduce GHG emission by 26% and up to 41% with international support against BAU by 2020
• Forest and peat fires in Indonesia emitted 1.5 billion metric tons CO2 (Field et al. 2016)
• President Joko Widodo formed Peat Restoration Agency. Peatland restoration projects were initiated in several locations at Indonesia.
2009
2015
2016
“Ecological restoration is a process of assisting the degraded, damaged, or destroyed ecosystem”
—Society for Ecological Restoration (2004)
Source: Higgs (1997)
Expanded Conception of Ecological Restoration
Knowledge Gap
Peatland restoration projects are being carried out with:
• No clearly defined shared goals; • Limited consideration of various costs, both direct and indirect; • No clear consideration of social distribution of costs and benefits; • No clear plan to sustain the restoration efforts beyond the project
duration.
*Indirect costs may include opportunity costs and costs in addressing socio-economic challenges.
Questions
1. What are the stated goals of different restoration project?
2. What are the planned activities and their durations (planned vs. necessary)?
3. What are the direct and indirect costs of peatland restoration?
4. How are these costs distributed temporally and socially?
MethodsStudy area:
Actors Project Location
1. Government & partners Pulang Pisau District
2. Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Sebangau National Park (Pulang Pisau, Katingan and Palangkaraya District)
3. Private sector & university East and South Barito District
4. Private sector & NGO Katingan and East Kotawaringin District
LegendsPeatlands1
Crowdsource fires and burn scars2
Study visit and interview
Source: 1Indonesia Ministry of Agriculture. 2012. Indonesia peat lands. Accessed through Global Forest Watch on Nov 13,2017. www.globalforestwatch.org 2Tomnod, Digital Globe and GFW Fires Crowdsourced active fires and burn scars. Accessed through Global Forest Watch Fires on Nov 13, 2017. www.globalforestwatch.org 3Global administrative area. No date. Indonesia administrative area. Accessed through Global administrative area on Nov 13, 2017. www.gadm.org
Data Collection: • June-August 2017 • Site visit to 4 restoration projects • Interview with 47 key-informants from
governments, NGOs, communities, private sectors, and a local university.
• Compiled 18 published and unpublished plans and reports.
Plan: January 2018 - On-line survey for estimating project costs.
Analysis: • Qualitative analysis and content analysis using
NVivo software. • Analysis of costs, their components and temporal
and social distribution.
Photo: Yeon-Su Kim
Photo: Yeon-Su Kim
Preliminary results & discussionDrivers and impacts of degradation
Timber concession era • Built manmade ditch
to transport the log Forest conversion to other land use • Plantation • Residential areas for
trans-migrants
1970 & 1980 1996 2000
1997/1998 2002 20151982/1983 1987 1991 1994 2006Forest and peat fires
Source: Cahyono et al. (2015) and data from interview
Mega Rice Project • Attempt to convert 1
million ha of peatland to rice field by draining
• Failed and then abandoned
Open access • Timber concession era ends • Dried and degraded peatland
become prone to fires • Communities continue to use
and/or build the manmade ditch
Preliminary results & discussion
Restoration Proponents and Their Stated Goals
NGO GOVERNMENT + PARTNERS
PRIVATE SECTOR A +
NGO
PRIVATE SECTOR B + UNIVERSITY
Land Class Forest estate. Forest estate and non-forest estate.
Forest estate. Forest estate.
Length of Restoration (Planned)
11 years (to be continued).
5 years. 60 years. 25 years.
Funding source
• NGO. • Grants.
• Central government budget.
• Grants.
• Investors. • Carbon
trading.
• Investors. • Carbon trading. • Grants
(indirect).
NGO GOVERNMENT + PARTNERS
PRIVATE SECTOR A + NGO
PRIVATE SECTOR B + UNIVERSITY
Restoration Goal
• Reduce peat drainage and raise the groundwater level
• Restore the peatland ecosystem
• Reduce poverty of several thousand families
• Enhance livelihoods with income generating measures.
• Peatland ecosystem that support sustainable development of Indonesia that sovereign, independent and mutual cooperation.
• Restore ecological functions of tropical peatlands
• Increase carbon sequestration and storage; and sustainable forest products
• Restoration and sustainable natural resource management.
• Restore forest condition, ecosystem and function.
• Sustainable and professional forest management.
• Carbon trading • Community
welfare.
Planned Activity
• Rewetting • Revegetation/ replanting • Revitalization of livelihood
Photo: Yeon-Su Kim
Conduct study and mapping
Free, Prior & Informed Consent (FPIC)
Construction or other programs
Monitoring & patrol
Overview of restoration activity process
“… it [the community participation] is important to maintain [restoration] facilities that we have built.”
— Respondent from a government agency July 6 2017.
Preliminary results & discussion
Challenges and Opportunities of Restoration
“…[the illegal logging] still occur… not only taking ramin (Gonystylus bancanus — valuable hardwood species), but [they also] taking invaluable tree. … last April we found a thousand timber transported outside the company area illegally and we reported to the law enforcement of Ministry of Environmental and Forestry. …”
—A respondent from a local university partner with a private sector, July 26, 2017
Social Challenges
“… three, three days later [after built the facility], their (restoration) facility broke, it’s not because the canal blocking construction was not strong enough. It’s because the community did not understand [about restoration]… because it’s inhibit their livelihood…”
—A respondent from an NGO, June 19, 2017
Social Challenges
NGO GOVERNMENT + PARTNERS
PRIVATE SECTOR A + NGO
PRIVATE SECTOR B + UNIVERSITY
Challenges • Active settlement area.
• Community acceptance.
• Regional government spatial planning.
• Maintenance of restoration facility.
• Institutional complexity
• Asymmetric information
• Reformation in institution
• Community acceptance.
• Maintenance of restoration facility.
• Illegal logging
• Community acceptance
• Unclear revenue
• Illegal logging
• Community acceptance
• Unclear revenue
• Community livestock management.
NGO GOVERNMENT + PARTNERS
PRIVATE SECTOR A + NGO
PRIVATE SECTOR B + UNIVERSITY
Opportunities • Ecotourism
• Approach to bureaucracy and religion leader
• Trees adoption
• Trust fund
• Other parties involved in planting program (different project, same place)
• Support from government.
• Mainstreaming restoration in regional and local level.
• Free, prior, informed, consent.
• Clear boundaries.
• Well-developed management.
• Inventory and report.
• Community + community business development.
• Collaboration with local university.
• New silvicultural methods.
• Technology in forest patrol.
Preliminary results & discussion
Components of Direct and Indirect Costs of Restoration
Direct & Indirect Costs of RestorationDirect costs:
• Usually easily to be traced. • Accommodate within projects’ plan. • Mostly consists of operational and construction costs.
Indirect costs: • Usually left out from calculation. • May include opportunity costs and costs in addressing socio-
economic challenges.
Preliminary result: general identification of direct and indirect costs. Plan: on-line survey for costs on January 2018.
Fixed Costs Variable CostsBusiness license fee -Baseline inventory costs -Operational costs Transportation costsPre-construction study costs -Community outreach (for agreement of restoration construction) costs
-
Construction costs of restoration facility -Community outreach program costs -Revegetation costs -Other program costs -Post-construction study costs/ monitoring
-
Forest patrol -
Direct Costs
Fixed Costs Variable Costs- Additional community outreach- Maintenance of restoration facility and
or rebuild - Additional revegetation- Law enforcement
Indirect Costs
Photo: Dyah Puspitaloka
RecommendationsCommunity engagement: • Mainstream peatland restoration in community level; • Special consideration for communities in buffer areas and their
needs
Institutional alignments: • Align planning efforts across governments to accommodate and
prioritize restoration (e.g. regional planning). • Use existing national mapping tools and data sharing portal to
monitor the progress (e.g. one map policy).
Economic considerations: • Develop mechanisms to increase participation of donors and
private investments; • Use carbon trading as a stimulus for sustaining peatland
restoration.
THANK YOU
Photo: Dyah Puspitaloka
