CARBON BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR PEATLAND: CASE STUDY … · 2011-02-03 · CARBON...
Transcript of CARBON BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR PEATLAND: CASE STUDY … · 2011-02-03 · CARBON...
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.