Transcript Tropical Peatlands and Global Carbon Budget Daniel Murdiyarso Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) I Nyoman Suryadiputra Wetland International – Indonesia Program (WI-IP) Regional Carbon Budgets Workshop: From.

Tropical Peatlands
and Global Carbon Budget
Daniel Murdiyarso
Center for International Forestry Research
(CIFOR)
I Nyoman Suryadiputra
Wetland International – Indonesia Program
(WI-IP)
Regional Carbon Budgets Workshop: From Methodologies to Quantification
Beijing, 15-18 November 2004
Outline
 Basic terminology and approaches
 Global significance of petlands
 Degrading peatlands
 Role of fires
 Methodologies and quantification
 Static vs dynamic
 Towards modeling/predictive capabilities
 Identified gaps
 Trends
 Conclusions
2
Basic terminology
Carbon stock (mass/area)
Carbon pool (mass)
Carbon flux
Carbon emissions
(mass/area/time)
C-budget: distribution of C in the compartments and flux rate
between them (units??)
Residual: how large?
3
Tropical peatlands





Globally the area of tropical peat is ca. 40 Mha
50% in Indonesia
Formed over a period of 10,000 years
Depth ranges 1-12 m
Store 5,800 t C/ha (> 10 x tropical forests)
4
Decreasing area (Mha)
1990
2002
35-40
25-30
Sumatra
7.2
6.5
Kalimantan
8.4
?
Indonesia
20
17
Southeast Asia
5
Peatlands and C-budgets
 Annual GHGs released due to peatland
drainage or degradation 2-20 tC/ha
(Maltby and Immirzy, 1993)
 Carbon stored in tropical peatlands
1700-2880 t C/ha (GACGC, 2000)
 Forest fires in Indonesia during 1997
and 1998 involved 2.12 Mha of
peatlands (Tacconi, 2002)
 The estimated C-loss from peatland
fires in 1997 ranged 0.81-2.57 Gt (Page
et al., 2002).
6
Disturbance regimes and terrestrial C-budget
CO2
Plant
respiration
GPP
Soil and litter
respiration
Shortterm
carbon
uptake
NPP
60 Gt/yr
Mediumterm
carbon
storage
NEP
10 Gt/yr
Disturbance
Long-term
carbon
storage
NBP
1-2 Gt/yr
7
Source: IGBP Terrestrial Carbon Working Group (1998)
Fire & Haze from Sumatra and Kalimantan
Sep 11, 1997
8
Can hotspots tell anything?
Source: Murdiyarso et al. (2002)
9
Estimated C-loss
7 Mt
10
But fire scars may not tell everything
1989
1997
11
Mega rice project – Central Kalimantan
12
LUC is both affecting and affected by climate change
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988

1990
1992
1994
1996

1998
2000
2002


El-Nino events
Fire event
1982
1987
1991
1997
Area burnt (Mha)
C-loss (Gt)
3.6
0.1
0.5
11.6 (2.1)
Note: Global CO2 growth = 1.5 ppmv/yr (IPCC, 1995)
0.45
0.01
0.06
1.45 (0.47)
13
From methodologies to quantification?
 C- loss from peatland degradation (field data)




Area of change – remote sensing
Bulk density – lab analysis
C-content – lab analysis
Depth of peat layer – auger bor
 Emissions from volatile biomass burning
 Future development
 Leaching of dissolved elements (organic carbon)
 Towards modeling exercises
14
Estimating C-loss from peatlands
n
C-loss =  (A x B x C x D)
i=1
Bulk density (gcm-3)
Decomposition
level
i
C - organic (%)
Range
Mean
Range
Mean
Fibric
0.10 – 0.12
0.10
-
53
Hemic
0.13 – 0.29
0.17
39 – 52
48
Sapric
0.25 – 0.37
0.28
29 – 54
45
Peaty soils*
0.22 – 0.69
0.34
29 – 40
35
*) Occupy relatively thin layer of less than 50 cm
15
0o
Estimated C-loss
3.5 Gt
0o
16
Change of stocks
Land-use trajectory and fallow periods
High
secondary
forests
Low
secondary
forests
Primary
forests
Shrubs
Bare
Imperata
Crop-based
systems
|
|
5
10
Medium cycle
Tree-based
systems
|
20 Long cycle 30
|
Logged-over
forests
|
40
Years
(Protected areas)
Short cycle
17
C-stocks in changing land-use
250
3
200
150
2
100
50
1
0
18
CENTURY: Forest - Cassava - Imperata
C Stock
60
SOMT
NPP
400
40
200
20
0
410
SOMT (Mg C ha-1)
NPP (Mg C ha-1 y -1)
Carbon stock (Mg C ha-1)
600
0
420
430
Years
440
450
19
CENTURY: Forest - Rice/Bush fallow
Carbon Stock (Mg C/ha)
600
60
400
40
200
20
0
410
SOMT (Mg C/ha)
NPP (Mg C/ha/y)
C Stock
SOMT
NPP
0
420
430
Years
440
450
20
Emissions from biomass burning - 1997
Emission
(Mt)
CO2
85-316
CO
7-52
NOx
0.2-1.5
Particulate matter
Source: Levine (1998)
4-16
21
Burning and nutrient losses
 Nutrient losses due to volatilisation during the burning
of residual biomass are generally higher than the
losses by leaching (Bruijnzeel, 1998)
 This is not only for N, which comprise of more than 90
percent of the biomass but often also for mineral
nutrients
 Reduction of burning in land clearing practices will
reduce atmospheric losses
 Burning also increases leaching losses compared to
non-burning practices (Malmer et al., 1994)
22
Trends – peatland development




Needs of agricultural land expansions
Growing oil-palm and pulpwood industries
People in-migration into the area
Unclear tenure systems (conflicts remain)
23
Trends – fire will be used
 Fire is the cheapest method for land clearing
 Fire can add ash that temporarily improve soil
conditions
 Pests and weeds control
 The economic value of the biomass ‘waste’ is so low
 Smallholders’ wood pricing discourages producers
24
Economic values of peatlands goods*
No
Product
Annual Quantity
1
Construction
timber
2,850 m3
100,000
0.10
2
Fuel woods
4,400 m3
119,000
0.12
3
Mixed timber
375 m3
67
4
Wooden roofing
52,000 bundles
46,000
5
Bamboo
15,000 pieces
517
6
Rattan
164,273 pieces
7,300
7
Resin
223 kg
17
0
8
Medicinal plant
10,345 items
1,750
0
9
Deer
9,700
0.01
10
Pig
11
Singing birds
12
Fish
Economic value
($) **
168
Relative
contribution
0
0.05
0
0.01
71
625
0
345
137
0
2,850,000 kg
Total
*) Based on survey conducted in East Kalimantan from 100 respondents.
**) Converted using an exchange rate of US$ 1 = Rp 8,500
Source: Wetlands International, 2004
671,260
0.70
956,373
25
Fresh impetus ……
 23 Jul 2004 – Indonesian Parliament approved the
Law on the Kyoto Protocol ratification
 23 Sep 2004 – Germany geared towards the inclusion
of avoiding deforestation (in addition to A/R) in the
CDM in the 2nd commitment period
 23 Oct 2004 – Duma voted in favor of Russia’s
accession to the Kyoto Protocol
 ASEAN Agreement on Fires and Haze Transboundary Pollution
 ASEAN Peatlands Management Initiative (APMI)
26
Future research questions
 What are our fundamental understanding of peatland
ecosystems vulnerability to climate change?
 How can the understandings be disseminated to
influence public policy-making?
 Are there scientifically sound adaptive management
options for the ecosystems to mitigate climate change?
 How accessible the markets are?
 Multilateral: e.g GEF/GCF to pay extra for carbon removed in
biodiversity/watershed conservation projects
 Bilateral: ODA, DNS
 Unilateral: national and local markets
27
Conclusions
 Peatland is an important terrestrial C-stocks under
increasing human pressure
 Peat forest clearing followed by drainage makes the
landscape more susceptible to fires
 Decreasing peatlands area is associated with decreasing
depth and carbon content
 C and nutrients are mainly released into the atmosphere
during fire in addition to DOC and nutrient leaching and
drainage
 Modeling C-budgets on tropical peatlands requires the
incorporation of human dimensions
28
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the support of the
Canadian International Development Agency
(CIDA)
29