Palm Oil Threats: Deforestation and Peat Land Degradation in Central Kalimantan

For the last two decades palm oil has been one of the fastest growing commodities in Indonesia. According to the Director General of Plantations, palm oil plantation area has increased from 1.1 million ha in 1990 to 6.1 million ha in 2006. The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) states that up to 2007 palm oil plantation area has now reached 6.3 million ha. On average there are 260 thousand ha of new palm oil plantation every year. Plantation area is defined as area that has been planted for plantation commodities, productive and non-productive. The land bank is area allocated for plantation concessions (a license has officially been issued). In 2005, the land bank for palm oil plantation reached 8.5 million hectares in Indonesia. Concerning plantation land policy, this terrible/rapid development is thought to be the result of inconsistent implementation by government authorities. Nineteen groups of large palm oil companies have plantations of over 100 thousand ha; this despite the 1998 Department of Forestry and Plantations decree stating maximum area for one company or group to be 20,000 ha in one province, 100,000 ha for all of Indonesia. Currently, the government is discussing palm oil plantation for group companies, even though there are rumors that many parties are opposed to it.

Palm Oil Plantation Development in Central Kalimantan

Central Kalimantan is currently the province with the fastest growth and expansion of palm oil in Indonesia. In 17 years, palm oil plantation area has increased nearly 400 fold. Up to the end of 2006, there were approximately 816,000 ha of forest area in Central Kalimantan released for palm oil development. Nevertheless, 60% of the area has been carried out with a HGU. The Ministry of Forestry (MoF) decree No.146/Kpts-II/2003, the circumstance under which a HGU is legal is within one year of the Area Release Decree issue. This means there are 326,000 ha that should be returned to the state.

Deforestation and Uncertain Land Use Policies

To mitigate rapid deforestation, the federal government issued the Ministry of Forestry and Plantation Revolved Letter No.603/Menhutbun-VIII/2000 joint MoF Letter No. 1712/Menhut-VII/2001 ordering all provincial and district authorities to halt natural forest conversions for the time being. Regional authorities decided not to endorse the forest area release for plantation development. This policy was then changed after the MoF Regulation No.P.31/Menhut-II/2005 stating that forest area releases would only be issued for an applicant who passed the proposal agreement and complied with evaluation conditions. This was confirmed by the MoF and provincial governors of Kalimantan in March 2007 so that the Department of Forestry issued a new policy to stop issuing plantation conversion licenses for production forests all across Indonesia, with the exception of Papua province. Meanwhile, up to now, forest and sea area assignment in Central Kalimantan has not been completed. Based on combined central (TGHK) and provincial (RTRWP) land cover data for Central Kalimantan province, forest area was approximately 10.7 million ha, excluding production forest area that would be legal for conversion if no longer classified as forest area due to degradation. If forest management policy in Central Kalimantan is based on this combined central and provincial data it would appear there are no remaining forests to be allocated for conversion. In reality there are many plantation development practices which result in land clearance. After a straightforward process of acquiring the conversion license, the investor first benefits financially from sale of land-clearing timber. This is described as an additional profit, one that comes before future palm oil plantation revenues. However, concession holders, wise to timber prices, now see the initial timber harvest as the main motive behind plantation applications. This has proven a serious problem. Another problem comes from government forest allocation policies; forest licenses issued by the central government are partly directed to be non-forest cultivation by the local government. One example from Central Kalimantan involves palm oil concession area overlapping with adjacent Tanjung Putting National Park. The companies involved are PT. Kharisma Unggul Centratama Cemerlang/KUCC, PT. Borneo Eka Sawit Tangguh/BEST, PT. Graha Indosawit Andal Tunggal/GIAT, and PT. Wana Sawit Subur Lestari/WSSL (Table 4). The conflict between forest use and legality on the same area is an indication of the competition between central and local governments to control land use. Recent evidence of this trend was shown in a report that local officials, intent on promoting palm oil development in their districts, produce false reports of forest conditions to secure concession licenses from the Department of Forestry. (Table 2 displays the overlap and conflict between forest licensing authorities.)

Palm Oil and Forest Conditions

Besides forest allocation conflicts, and indeed more significant, is how palm oil plantations affect Indonesian forest cover area. Approximately 70% of plantations in Central Kalimantan are palm oil and more than one third of those are still covered by forests. All forested land in plantation areas will be converted at some point, which means that about 763,000 ha of forest in Central Kalimantan is directly threatened by deforestation.

Palm Oil and Peat Land

More than 3 million ha of Central Kalimantan is peat land and nearly 14% of it has already become palm oil plantation area. The largest expanses of peat land are located in Katingan, Kahayan Hilir, Kapuas, Kotawaringin Timur and Seruyan districts. According to the Central Kalimantan Plantation Office, up to 2007 there were 20 large plantations which obtained licenses to operate on 304,000 ha of Peat Land Development Area (PLG) and 17 of these, 292,000 ha, were palm oil plantation companies. According to the Presidential Instruction No.2/2007 on the Acceleration of Rehabilitation and Revitalization of Peat Land Development in Central Kalimantan, approximately 1.1 million ha of peat land development area was to be returned or converted to it’s natural state. The remaining 300,000 ha will be used for agricultural development, mainly paddy fields. This decree also states that land allocation for palm oil plantation development and extension is limited to 10,000 ha. This Presidential Instruction triggered reaction from some Level 2 Region Chiefs in Central Kalimantan because it would cause certain plantation licenses to be withdrawn, which, in turn, would cause local government to repay the affected companies. Up to now, many companies have not yet withdrawn their license and continue to operate.

Palm Oil Plantations and Fire

According to 2006 NOAA satellite observation a number of focus ‘hotspots’ (areas with extensive or prolonged fires) were identified in Central Kalimantan. Table 5 displays these focus hotspots locations, within forest and palm oil plantation areas. These results strongly indicate that land clearing is done by burning because more than 45% of focus areas occurred on palm oil plantations. Fire, inexpensive and fast, is one the most common methods of plantation land preparation. In forest areas, over 22% of focus hotspots were located on peat land. Carbon emissions produced from peat land fires contributes to climate change. Fires burned out of control over 3 million ha of Central Kalimantan peat land and released 6.4 million tons of carbon dioxide. Many described these fires as a global disaster.

Recommendations

To save remaining natural forests in Central Kalimantan from the threats posed by palm oil development, the Indonesian government should immediately: -Evaluate all plantation licenses where concessions fall on natural forests and use previously cleared land instead. -Create new regulation which strictly forbids the conversion of peat land into large scale palm oil plantations. -Punish severely those palm oil holding companies which, intentionally or unintentionally, cause forest or peat land fires; using fines and/or criminal punishments in order to set a precedence.

Source : http://fwi.or.id

Plantations are not Forests | Greenpeace demands immediate end to forest destruction first

Indonesia — Greenpeace activists scaled the Ministry of Forestry building in South Jakarta today and unfurled a giant banner reading “Plantations are not forests”. Greenpeace, along with a number of environmental and civil society organisations, have condemned the Indonesian governments attempts to classify ‘plantations’ as forests while allowing continued destruction of critical habitats like peatland forests and the last remaining biodiversity hotspots.

Jakarta Indonesia

Greenpeace fears that the inclusion of ‘plantations’ in the definition of forests, would lead to massive concealment of the ongoing emissions from peatland and forest destruction that has made Indonesia the world’s third largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Further, the rising demand of crude palm oil (CPO) for biofuels in the international market has triggered the expansion of the palm oil concessions. The move by the Ministry may well augur further destruciton of forests to allow more plantations camouflaged as forests.

“Minister Zulkifli Hasan must immediately withdraw all plans to to categorise plantations as forests and shift his focus towards protection of Indonesia’s forests , its biodiversity and the millions of forest dependent communities who rely on them for their livelihood and for future generations. If this plan is approved, massive forest destruction will follow and Minister Zulkifli will be responsible for Indonesia failing to meet President Yudhoyono’s emission reductions commitment,” said Joko Arif, Greenpeace Southeast Asia Forest Campaigner.

Currently Indonesia has one of the fastest rates of forest destruction in the world and is the third largest contributor to climate change globally. President Yudhoyono made his commitment to cut Indonesia’s emissions by 26% in 2020 and by 41% with international support in September last year. But so far no real action has been taken to fulfill this commitment. The government stands by as palm oil and paper giants like Sinar Mas and APRIL continue with their destructive business as usual.

“The international will and funding to protect Indonesia’s forests is there. It is therefore contradictory for Indonesia to promote further plantations at the expense of forests. This funding should not be used for the conversion of forests into plantations, or the promotion of palm oil based biofuels. If the government is serious about cutting emissions and about taking action to avert the catastrophic impacts of climate change, the most effective step they need to take is to declare a moratorium on forests destruction, and full peatland protection” Joko concluded.

Indonesian NGOs, including Greenpeace, Walhi, Forest Watch and Sawit Watch have also written to the Forestry Minister and the EU Ambassador to Indonesia to warn them of the consequences of their misguided policies.

Source : http://www.greenpeace.org/

Greenpeace Demands full commitment from Nestlé to stop Sinar mas from destroying Indonesia’s forests

Jakarta, Indonesia — Greenpeace activists dressed in orangutans costumes held a protest at Nestlé’s Jakarta headquarters to demand that the manufacturer of Kitkat, cut all ties with forest destroyer Sinar Mas group, including through third party suppliers like Cargill and IOI (Loders Croklaan).

Last week Nestle cancelled a direct palm oil contract with Indonesia's biggest peatland forest destroyer Sinar Mas following the release of the Greenpeace report ‘Caught Red-Handed'. (1) The report reveals how Nestle is sourcing palm oil from suppliers like Sinar Mas, which continue to expand into carbon rich peatlands and rainforest that is critical orang-utan habitat.

"Nestle's cancellation of the direct contract with Sinar Mas is not enough.It must stop buying Sinar Mas palm oil and pulp products from third-party suppliers like Cargill and IOI as well. Nestle has the influence and responsibility to clean up the entire palm oil supply system, saving the last remaining home of the orang-utan and helping to stop the acceleration of climate change through Indonesian deforestation." said Bustar Maitar, Greenpeace Southeast Asia forest team leader.

Indonesia currently has the fastest deforestation rate of any major forested country in the world. The destruction of its tropical forests for palm oil and pulp and paper industries is an ecological disaster and a leading contributor to Indonesia's greenhouse gas emissions, making the country the third largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world after China and the USA. Over the last half century, over 74 million hectares of Indonesia's forests -an area more than twice the size of Germany - have been logged, burned or otherwise degraded.

"Greenpeace is not against the palm oil industry, our campaign is to stop companies like Sinar Mas from destroying the last remaining rainforests of Indonesia. Greenpeace supports President Yudhoyono's commitment to reduce Indonesia's greenhouse gas emissions by 41% with international help. Halting forest and peatland clearance and stopping companies like Sinar Mas is the only way to achieve this," Maitar said.

Greenpeace is calling on Indonesia's President Yudhoyono to declare an immediate moratorium on deforestation as it would provide the space for the implementation of longer term measures for forest protection supported by international donors. Such a moratorium would also drive investment and other related policies into both yield improvements on existing plantation areas, especially those owned by smallholders, as well as the development of plantations on non-forest areas.

Source : http://www.greenpeace.org

Rapid Increases in Tree Growth Found in US

ScienceDaily — Researchers from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and Earthwatch met in Panama from Mar. 1-5 to present mid-term research results from the HSBC Climate Partnership, a five-year initiative to identify and respond to the impacts of climate change. The program is supported financially by HSBC and involves a global team of bank employees -- 'climate champions' -- in vital forest research.

The first-ever research program of its kind has so far:

• Found rapid increases in tree growth in the forest around the Smithsonian's Environmental Research Center (SERC) in Maryland, USA, a finding attributed to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and longer growing seasons, published in PNAS.
• Proposed a novel biodiversity theory relating stress and seed-size published in PNAS.
• Examined the effects a changing climate in forests is having on white-tailed deer, mice and even mosquitoes.
• Addressed the lack of a reliable method for estimating the carbon storage capability of secondary forests on a landscape scale by assessing how measurements from airborne LiDAR and other remote sensing technologies relate to ground-based measurements.
• Reviewed how human disturbance changes the way forests take up carbon in diverse environments.

Researchers working in broadleaf forest plots near Oxford, England, Atlantic rainforests in Southern Brazil and subtropical forests near Gutianshan Nature Reserve in China, as well as the SERC site in Maryland, have been putting HSBC employees to work. At Oxford, for example, data collected indicates that changes in forest structure have impacted moth populations.

Stuart Davies, director of the Smithsonian's Center for Tropical Forest Science, says, "We know that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has shot up from 280 to 385 parts per million since the 1850's as a result of human activities like the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. The degree to which atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to increase depends, in part, on how trees respond to climate and atmospheric change -- whether forests end up storing more or less carbon. This is what the HSBC Climate Partnership research is trying to establish."

Dan Bebber, head of climate change research at Earthwatch, says, "Human activities are undeniably changing the world's climate, but the effects of that change on forest ecosystems and the role that forests play in providing ecosystem services such as carbon storage are poorly understood. The research being supported by funding and climate champions from HSBC will help to increase our knowledge of forests, and how they can be wisely managed for the future. This unique NGO-corporate partnership is an exemplary model of how individuals and businesses can make a difference."

STRI staff scientist Helene Muller-Landau said: "The HSBC Climate Champions working with us to measure trees understand how to take stock of carbon balances. Trees take up carbon as they grow. As trees die and decompose, they release carbon. The balance of carbon flows in and out of the forest determines whether the total forest carbon stock increases or decreases over time."

"Dangerous and irreversible changes that threaten life-support systems are likely when atmospheric carbon levels reach 550 ppm, if not sooner," stressed Yavinder Malhi, research scientist from Oxford University. "It's our job to engage people in science in a way that balances keeping things simple while showing that forests, as living systems, may be really complicated, taking up carbon under some conditions and giving off carbon under other conditions."

Research in Peru reveals how forest carbon budgets change with temperature from cooler mountainous sites to warmer lowland sites. Muller-Landau and Malhi agree that because different tree species respond differently to changing temperatures and rainfall regimes, some species will thrive while others will decline, resulting in changes in forest tree species composition and probably in carbon stocks.

Another important topic of discussion at the conference was the HSBC-sponsored Panama Canal Watershed Experiment, nicknamed the Agua Salud Project. This huge experiment aims to establish how different land uses -- pasture, grass, native tree plantations, teak or mature forest -- affect carbon storage, water flow throughout both wet and dry periods during the year and biodiversity on the narrow Isthmus of Panama, where two great biodiversity hotspots meet. STRI Director Eldredge Bermingham noted "that locating this experiment on the banks of the Panama Canal aims to focus global attention on the ecosystem services that forests provide this critical commercial waterway."

Source : http://www.sciencedaily.com

Prescribed Burns May Help Reduce US Carbon Footprint

ScienceDaily — The use of prescribed burns to manage Western forests may help the United States reduce its carbon footprint. A new study finds that such burns, often used by forest managers to reduce underbrush and protect bigger trees, release substantially less carbon dioxide emissions than wildfires of the same size.

"It appears that prescribed burns can be an important piece of a climate change strategy," says Christine Wiedinmyer, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and lead author of the new study. "If we reintroduce fires into our ecosystems, we may be able to protect larger trees and significantly reduce the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere by major wildfires."

Drawing on satellite observations and computer models of emissions, the researchers concluded that widespread prescribed burns can reduce fire emissions of carbon dioxide in the West by an average of 18 to 25 percent, and by as much as 60 percent in certain forest systems.

Wildfires often destroy large trees that store significant amounts of carbon. Prescribed fires are designed to burn underbrush and small trees, which store less carbon. By clearing out the underbrush, these controlled burns reduce the chances of subsequent high-severity wildfires, thereby protecting large trees and keeping more carbon locked up in the forest.

"When fire comes more frequently, it's less severe and causes lower tree mortality," says Matthew Hurteau of Northern Arizona University, the study's co-author. "Fire protects trees by clearing out the fuel that builds up in the forest."

The importance of trees

Forests have emerged as important factors in climate change. Trees store, or sequester, significant amounts of carbon, thereby helping offset the large amounts of carbon dioxide emitted by factories, motor vehicles, and other sources. When trees burn down or die, much of that carbon is returned to the atmosphere. It can take decades for forest regrowth to sequester the amount of carbon emitted in a single fire.

In the western United States, land managers for more than a century have focused on suppressing fires, which has led to comparatively dense forests that store large amounts of carbon. But these forests have become overgrown and vulnerable to large fires. Changes in climate, including hotter and drier weather in summer, are expected to spur increasingly large fires in the future.

This could complicate U.S. efforts to comply with agreements on reducing carbon emissions. Such agreements rely, in part, on forest carbon accounting methodologies that call for trees to store carbon for long periods of time. Large carbon releases from wildland fires over the next several decades could influence global climate as well as agreements to reduce emissions.

To determine whether prescribed burns would likely affect the carbon balance, the scientists first estimated actual carbon emissions from fires for 11 Western states from 2001 to 2008. They used satellite observations of fires and a sophisticated computer model, developed by Wiedinmyer, that estimates carbon dioxide emissions based on the mass of vegetation burned.

Their next step was to estimate the extent of carbon emissions if Western forests, during the same time period, had been subjected to a comprehensive program of prescribed burns. The scientists used maps of vegetation types, focusing on the forest types that are subject to frequent natural fires and, therefore, would be top candidates for prescribed burns. Emissions in the model were based on observations of emissions from prescribed burns of specific types of forests.

The results showed that carbon emissions were reduced by anywhere from 37 to 63 percent for the forests that had been subject to prescribed burns, depending on the vegetation mix and location of the forests. Overall, carbon emissions for the 11 Western states were reduced by an annual average of 14 million metric tons. That is the equivalent of about 0.25 percent of annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, or slightly more than the annual carbon dioxide emissions from all fossil fuel sources in some less-populated states, such as Rhode Island or South Dakota.

The authors cautioned, however, that the actual impacts in the Western states would likely be lower. Their study assumed that prescribed burns could be set in all suitable forests, whereas forest managers in reality would be hard-pressed to set so many fires, especially in remote regions or near developments.

New Mexico had the highest average annual reduction (35 percent) because of its forest types, followed by Montana, Arizona, California, and Colorado.

The study notes that prescribed burns could lead to additional air quality benefits. Previous research has indicated that such burns could reduce emissions of pollutants such as fine particulate matter and carbon monoxide.

"While it can be costly to set controlled fires, there is also a cost in leaving forests vulnerable to larger fires," Wiedinmyer says. "More research can help forest managers make better decisions about our forests and climate change."

The study is being published this week in Environmental Science and Technology. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor.

Source : http://www.sciencedaily.com