Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 683–701 | Cite as

Towards sustainable management of Indonesian tropical peatlands

Open Access
Original Paper


Large areas of Indonesian peatlands have been converted for agricultural and plantation forest purposes. This requires draining with associated CO2 emissions and fire risks. In order to identify alternative management regimes for peatlands, it is important to understand the sustainability of different peatland uses as well as the economic benefits peatlands supply under different land uses. This study explores the key sustainability issues in Indonesian peatlands, the ecosystem services supplied by peatlands, and potential responses to promote more sustainable peatland use. A literature review and spatial analysis were conducted. Based on predominantly government data, we estimate the amount of Indonesian peatlands that has been converted between 2000 and 2014. We quantify increases in oil palm and plantation forest crop production in this period, and we analyse key sustainability issues, i.e. peat fires and smoke-haze, soil subsidence and flood risk, CO2 emissions, loss of habitat (in protected areas), and social conflicts that influence sustainability of Indonesian peatlands management. Among others we show that CO2 emissions from peatlands in Indonesia can be estimated at between 350 and 400 million ton CO2 per year, and that encroachment of oil palm and plantation forestry (acacia, rubber) has taken place on 28% of protected areas. However, as we examine, the uncertainties involved are substantial. Based on our findings, we distil several implications for the management of the peatlands.


Indonesia Peatlands Ecosystem services Sustainability 


In the last twenty years, large areas of Indonesian peatland have been converted, mainly into agricultural lands for estate crop production, and plantation forest areas for pulp production (Rehman et al. 2014; Gunarso et al. 2013; Miettinen et al. 2011; Koh et al. 2011; Murdiyarso et al. 2010). This conversion brought short-term economic gains, but poses major environmental and economic risks, resulting from health and economic damages due to peat fires, soil subsidence potentially leading to flooding of millions of hectares of coastal peat lands in the course of the next decades, the very large CO2 emissions from burning and oxidising peat, and from the loss of globally significant biodiversity contained in natural peat swamp forests (Wösten et al. 2008; Page et al. 2011; Joosten et al. 2009; Turetsky et al. 2015; Hooijer et al. 2012). For instance, drained peatland in Indonesia contributes 58% of global peatland CO2 emissions, with marked spike during El Nino years when emissions from fire are particularly high (Hooijer et al. 2006). In addition, a range of social issues have been related to peat conversion such as the loss of access to land of traditional forest users (Thorburn and Kull 2013; Sumarga et al. 2016).

A number of Indonesian national policies aim to enhance peatland management, for instance the Ministry of Agriculture Decree No. 14 year 2009 which prohibits oil palm establishment in peatlands with more than 3 m depth. The Indonesian government has also established a strict moratorium on peat conversion since 2011. Yet, this decree is often not effective because of a lack of enforcement at the level where many of the land-use decisions are taken i.e. at village, district and provincial level (Boer et al. 2012). The national policy on peatland management has not yet been widely translated into sub-national regulation, in part due to the lack of knowledge of local policy makers on short and long-term economic, social, and environmental consequences of different land use types. Nevertheless, in recent years, the emerging insights in the consequences of peat degradation including burning (e.g. World Bank. 2016; Turetsky et al. 2015), a better understanding of the various benefits provided by peatland ecosystems and their links to the stakeholders (e.g. Suwarno et al. 2016; Sumarga and Hein 2015) as well as new payment mechanisms (e.g. REDD+) have influenced the Indonesian playing field for peatland management. This may increase the chance for a transition to sustainability.

Although the potential effects of changes in Indonesian peatlands are now increasingly well understood, there is still no consensus on the economic benefits provided by peatlands under different uses at the scale of the country. This is important also in view of the major differences in peat development between the three major islands of the country that contain peat i.e. Sumatra, Kalimantan and Papua. In order to establish the effectiveness of proposed new policies on peatlands, based upon presidential guidance (PP 71 year 2014) and more recently articulated policy instructions (the direction of the President Republic Indonesia, on forest and peatland fires in a coordination meeting on 18 January 2016) a baseline assessment is needed of the current status of peatlands and the trends in their use.

The objective of this study is to analyse peatland uses and the ecosystem services supplied, the key sustainability issues, and the potential response options to move towards sustainability. We conduct a literature review and conduct spatial analysis to analyse peatland use in the period 2000–2014 in the three main islands (Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Papua). We specifically discuss the uncertainties in the current datasets on peat, which is one of the main barriers for effective policy implementation. The novelty in our paper is in bringing out economic benefits and sustainability issues in Indonesian peatlands in one paper, and in the review we conduct of the often contradicting datasets on this issue. We also propose a basic framework for identifying peatland management options.

Materials and methods

Study area

We specifically focused on peatland areas covering Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Papua covering 16 provinces of in total 33 provinces in Indonesia. This includes 10 provinces in Sumatra (Aceh, North-Sumatra, West-Sumatra, South-Sumatra, Riau, Kepulauan Riau, Jambi, Kepulauan Bangka Belitung, Bengkulu, and Lampung), 4 provinces in Kalimantan (West-Kalimantan, Central-Kalimantan, South-Kalimantan, and East-Kalimantan), and 2 provinces in Papua (Papua, and West-Papua). These three main islands together comprise the large majority of Indonesian peatlands. We show that these islands experience entirely different trends in the conversion of peatlands.

Trends in peatland use and ecosystem services

We first analysed peatland cover and subsequently we link these changes in peatland use to changes in ecosystem services provided by peatlands. We overlaid the Indonesia Land Cover Map for year 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2014 produced by the Ministry of Forestry Republic Indonesia (MoFRI 2014) with the 2011 Indonesia Peatland Map Scale 1:250,000 produced by Balai Besar Sumber Daya Lahan Pertanian (BBSDLP) the Ministry of Agriculture Republic Indonesia (Ritung et al. 2011). The land cover map contains 23 land-cover classes; and for the purpose of this study the classes were reclassified into 10 land cover classes, namely undisturbed natural forest, disturbed natural forest, plantation forest, estate crop, degraded land, paddy field, dryland agriculture, urban, open water, and other uses. We considered all primary forest as ‘undisturbed natural forest’ class and all secondary forest as ‘disturbed natural forest’ class. In addition, dry shrub, wet shrub, savanna, grasses, and open swamps areas are presented as ‘degraded land’ class (based on Law et al. 2015). Agriculture areas for food crops are classified into ‘dryland agriculture’ class and ‘paddy field’ class, in which dryland agriculture class consist of pure and mixed dryland agriculture areas. The ‘other uses’ class is classified by aggregating fish pond/aquaculture areas, mining areas, port & harbour areas, and also cloud & no-data. In particular for analysing biodiversity habitat (protected areas), we overlaid this output with maps of protected areas produced by the Ministry of Forestry Republic of Indonesia. To analyse the trends in Indonesian peatland-use, we only considered peatland with the peat depth of at least 50 cm (Krisnawati et al. 2015) with an estimation of the total area around 14.9 million hectares (Ritung et al. 2011), although there is still uncertainty on the exact peat area and boundaries. We discussed uncertainty of the peatland data in the “Discussion” section of our paper. All spatial analyses were done with help of ArcGIS 10.2.

Next, we quantified seven ecosystem services i.e. timber production, oil palm production, biomass production for pulp, paddy production, carbon sequestration, biodiversity habitat, and ecotourism. These selected services are the most relevant ecosystem services in Indonesian peatland (Law et al. 2015; Sumarga and Hein 2014). The performance indicators, sources of data, and assessment methods for quantifying the flow of the six selected ecosystem services (excluding carbon sequestration) are described in Table 1. Note that for oil palm plantation and plantation forest areas in Indonesian peatlands, we used data for the three islands recorded by various sources (see Appendices 3 and 4 Tables 8, 9). Note also that we only considered forested areas inside protected areas in analysing biodiversity habitat given the difficulties and the high potential uncertainty in identifying habitat outside protected areas. This latter restriction is also based on the assumption that most of the forest outside (and to some extend also inside, in particular in Sumatra and Kalimantan) the national parks have been moderately to severely degraded due to in particular timber harvesting and slash and burn cultivation (Biancalani and Avagyan 2014; Posa et al. 2011). We acknowledge that there are many more ecosystem services provided by Indonesian peatlands (see e.g. Suwarno et al. 2015) but due to a lack of data we focus on the aforementioned services. We discuss the implications of our limited selection of services in the “Discussion” section.
Table 1

The physical units of selected ecosystem services

Type of ES

Ecosystem service


Sources data


Provisioning services

Timber production


Statistics Indonesia (BPS 2000–2014)

Sumarga and Hein (2014)

Timber produced (m3/year) = area of natural forest in peatland * average timber harvesting since 2000 (excluding timber in protected area)

Oil palm production


Statistics Indonesia (BPS 2000–2014)

Gunarso et al. (2013)

Sumarga and Hein (2014)

Oil palm produced (ton/year) = area of oil palm plantation in peatland * average oil palm yields in peat since 2000

Biomass production for pulp


Statistics Indonesia (BPS 2000–2014)

Krisnawati et al. (2011)

Biomass produced for pulp (ton/year) = area of plantation forest in peatland * average biomass production since 2000

Paddy production


Statistics Indonesia (BPS 2000–2014)

Paddy produced (ton/year) = area of paddy field in peatland * average paddy production since 2000

Regulating Services and Disservices

Carbon sequestration and emissions

ton CO2/year

Several sources, see text

Emission and sequestration factors were considered for different land uses, see text below

Cultural Services

Ecotourism (Nature watching)

Number visitors/year

Statistics Indonesia (BPS 2000–2014)

Forestry Statistics (MoFRI 2000–2014)

Nature watching = number of visitor to conservation areas in peatlands since 2000


Biodiversity conservation (protected habitat)


Conservation area map

Protected forest map

Biodiversity habitat = area of peat swamp forests inside protected areasa that are not converted to other land uses since 2000b

aIndonesian protected areas consist of two main categories: conservation areas (including national park, recreation park, nature reserve and wildlife sanctuary) and protected forest

bThe degraded peat swamp forests, for example due to fires, which are not converted to other land uses are included in the calculation of biodiversity habitat

The quantification method for carbon sequestration requires further explanation. We quantified carbon sequestration (a service) and carbon emissions (a disservice) based on the net carbon (CO2) flux of different types of peatland use, derived from several previous studies as listed in Appendix 1 (Table 6). The net carbon flux may be positive (sequestration higher than emissions) or negative (emissions higher than sequestration). We quantified the net carbon flux of eight peatland uses: undisturbed natural forest, disturbed natural forest, plantation forest (referred to acacia plantation), oil palm plantation, agricultural crops, shrubs (degraded lands), water, and other land uses (referred to degraded lands), with values ranging from −85 ton CO2/ha/year (in oil palm plantation, assuming a drainage depth of 90 cm) (Hooijer et al. 2010) to 19 ton CO2/ha/year (in undisturbed natural forest) (Suzuki et al. 1999). Except for undisturbed natural forest and water, we assumed that the areas are drained. As shown in Appendix 1 (Table 6), the net carbon fluxes are negative in most types of peatland use in Indonesia, indicating that what ecosystem provides in those land uses is a disservice. We multiplied the area of each peatland use with its net carbon flux data, and finally aggregated them all to derive the estimate of carbon sequestration at national level from 2000 to 2014.

Analysis of sustainability issues in peatland

Based on a literature review and supported by our spatial analysis, we analyse the key sustainability issues related to the current use of Indonesian peatlands. In particular, we include the following issues in our study: fires and smoke, peat soil subsidence and flood risks, CO2 emissions (based on our analysis described above), loss of habitat, and social conflicts. We propose a general framework to order these sustainability issues. In this framework, we distinguish between four types of peatland condition: (1) forest use, drained; (2) forest use, no drainage; (3) agricultural use, drained; and (4) agricultural use, no drainage. With forest use is meant that the peatlands are not used for cropping systems including plantation crops or agroforestry and that they may be productive as forest systems with logging or supplying other ecosystem services (e.g. non-timber forest products, water regulation, carbon storage and sequestration), or that they may be degraded with little vegetation left. In the latter case the potential for rehabilitation to peat swamp forest exists, but rehabilitation may be hampered by recurrent fires that burn tree seedlings. The sustainability issues differ markedly for these categories as we will explore in our study. This has also repercussions for policy making, for example if peatlands are brought from the condition of productive use with drainage to non-productive use with drainage, for example because oil palm plantations are retired without subsequent peat rehabilitation including reducing drainage levels, this will not necessarily lead to sustainable peatland use. We also explore how these sustainability issues differ for the three islands that we consider.


This section presents the results of our spatial analysis on peatland use and ecosystem services as well as our literature review on sustainability issues related to Indonesian peatlands. These sustainability issues are a consequence of the land use conversion to which the peatlands have been subject.

Indonesian peatland use

The distribution of the land cover in Sumatra, Kalimantan and Papua since 2000 reveals major changes in the use of Indonesian peatlands (see Table 2). Our study shows an ongoing, rapid conversion of natural forests to other land use in particular plantation crops (in particular but not only oil palm) and plantation forestry (in particular Acacia crassicarpa for pulp production). Indonesian tropical peatland occupied by disturbed and undisturbed natural forests decreased from about 9 million hectares in 2000 to about 6.4 million hectares in 2014. However, there is virtually no undisturbed peat swamp forest remaining in Sumatra and Kalimantan, i.e. all remaining undisturbed peat swamp forest is in Papua (where deforestation has been rapidly increasing in the last years). The fastest increase in land cover was related to expansion of oil palm plantations in Indonesian peatlands, which increased from about 700 thousands hectares in 2000 to almost 2 million hectares in 2014. Note that our figures are based on government data supplemented with data from industry for oil palm plantations. The figures are uncertain (see Appendices 2 and 3 Tables 7, 8 for more detailed assessment of uncertainties) and are likely to be conservative because new plantations are not immediately reflected in government statistics.
Table 2

Peatland-use area (in thousands of hectares) based on land cover type in Indonesia since 2000 according to government data and various sources

Land cover type








Undisturbed natural forest







Disturbed natural forest







Plantation forest (acacia)







Oil palmb







Dryland agriculture







Paddy field














Open water







Other uses







Degraded land







aIndustry data (see Appendix 4 Table 9)

bGunarso et al. (2013) with regression (see Appendix 3 Table 8). Note that Gunarso et al. (2013) analysed oil palm on peat based on the Wetlands International map (Wahyunto and Suryadiputra 2008) which assumes a peatland area of 20.8 million ha. We renormalize to the 14.9 million ha of the BBSDLP MoARI map (Ritung et al. 2011) by adjusting the category disturbed forest based on the assumption that oil palm is in the large majority of cases developed in disturbed natural forest (Gunarso et al. 2013)

Our analysis also shows major differences in land conversion between the three islands. The highest conversion of natural peat swamp forest took place in Sumatra (Fig. 1). Natural peat swamp forest has decreased from 51% (of which only 6% is undisturbed forests) of Sumatran peatlands in 2000 to only 17% in 2014 (of which 4% undisturbed forests, all located in protected areas). Recent years also show conversion of protected areas to plantation crops including in for example substantial encroachment in Berbak National Park in Jambi, Sumatra. Kalimantan takes an intermediate position with conversion of peatland to plantations still ongoing. In Kalimantan there are also large areas of degraded peatland, drained but not covered by plantations. These areas increased from 28% in 2000 to 35% of peatlands in 2014. As discussed in the next section, this has major repercussions for sustainability issues including peat fires. Most of the remaining peat swamp forests are in Papua. An issues is that data is particularly scarce and uncertain in Papua, for instance there are very few remote sensing based studies that we found with which we can compare government data. We compare our findings with other studies in the “Discussion” section, as well as in Appendices 2 and 3 (Tables 7, 8).
Fig. 1

Trends of peatland use in Indonesia since 2000 (based on government data and various sources)

Ecosystem services provided by Indonesian peatland

Table 3 shows estimates of the dynamics of ecosystem services provided by Indonesian peatland since 2000. The details of the ecosystem services data used for this analysis are presented in Appendix 1 (Table 6). The conversion of natural peat swamp forests to oil palm and plantation forest led to an estimated almost 50% decrease of timber production within 14 years (2000–2014), and a significant increase of CPO production (almost threefold) and biomass production for pulp (more than 20-fold), followed by a 3% decrease of paddy production during that period. Carbon emissions from peat nearly doubled in the period 2000–2014, to 105 million ton C per year or 385 million ton CO2 per year. This compares to emissions from other sources (e.g. households, industry) of around 595 million ton CO2 per year for Indonesia (DNPI 2010). Peatland deforestation also leads to loss of protected habitat with an average annual loss of about 8.6 thousands hectares. This reflects illegal encroachment in the protected forest areas. In 2014, around 28% of the total protected areas in peatlands in Indonesia were converted already. This protected peat swamp forest areas cover 17% of total peatland areas in Indonesia. For ecotourism, we calculated the number of visitors who visit national parks and recreation parks in peat. Our analysis shows a 21% increase of total number visitors from 97 thousands people in 2000 (of which 1% foreigners); to approximately 117 thousands people in 2014 (of which 33% foreigners). This reflects only 3% of total number visitors to all conservation parks in Indonesia during this period—given the specific biodiversity of peatlands this is relatively low but it may be relate to a lack of tourism infrastructure in peat areas where such infrastructure (e.g. boardwalks) is expensive to construct and maintain.
Table 3

Ecosystem services provided by Indonesian peatland since 2000

Ecosystem services and disservices








Timber production (1000 m3/year)







Oil palm production (1000 ton CPO/year)







Biomass production for pulp (1000 ton/year)







Paddy production (1000 ton/year)







Nature watching (number of visitors in thousands/year)







Biodiversity habitat (1000 ha)







CO2 emissions (million ton CO2/year)







Sustainability issues in Indonesian tropical peatland management

Table 4 summarizes the sustainability issues in Indonesian peatlands. Note that degradation may occur in under non-productive uses. Peatland areas with draining lead to abandoned areas, while peatland areas without draining remain as forest use areas. Shrubs, herbs, ferns or grasses are typically vegetation in abandoned areas which also categorized as degraded lands (Law et al. 2015) and having none of services and absent of Non Timber Forest Products (NTFPs). Peat swamp forest areas provide services like timber production and NTFPs, carbon stocks, biodiversity habitat, ecotourism, cultural services, etc. (Biancalani and Avagyan 2014).
Table 4

Sustainability issues in Indonesian peatlands


Agricultural use

Non-productive or Forest use





Land cover

Plantation crops such as oil palm, rubber, acacia for pulp and paper, etc. and also food crops such as paddy and horticultural plants

Paludiculture crops such as jelutung, sago palm, illipe nut, etc.

Abandoned and degraded lands covered by herbs, ferns, or grasses

Ranging from degraded forest to peat swamp forest

Sustainability issues

(i) High fire risk, in particular in not well-managed plantations

(ii) CO2 emissions depending upon drainage depth

(iii) Soil subsidence leading to flood risks affecting production of crops during wet season

(iv) Habitat loss

(v) Social issues, in particular loss of access of local people to forest and land

(i) Habitat loss

(ii) Social issues may occur depending upon business models (large-scale vs small-scale, inclusive versus exclusive development model)

(i) Very high fire risk, often annual burning

(ii) CO2 emissions depending upon drainage depth

(iii) Soil subsidence leading to flood risk depending upon drainage depth

(iv) No income for local people

Ecosystems may be well preserved or degraded (but recovery through regeneration possible in many cases), ecosystems provide different ecosystem services (e.g. various non-timber forest products, water regulation)

Peatland areas under productive uses, with or without draining conditions, provide crop production services, including oil palm plantations, paddy fields, other horticultural lands (in drained areas); and paludiculture crops plantations (in non-drained areas) such as jelutung (Dyera spp.), sago palm (Metroxylon sagu), illipe nut (Shorea spp.), melaleuca, rattan, etc. Paludiculture is biomass cultivation in wet and or rewetted conditions (Biancalani and Avagyan 2014; Giesen 2013). Acacia plantations in peatlands are included as productive use with draining that provided biomass production for pulp service (Joosten et al. 2012).

Fires and smoke

Fire and smoke occur through the burning of drained peat. Fire may involve burning of both above ground biomass and below ground peat. Often, Indonesian peat fires are the result of deliberate or accidental human interventions (Glover and Jessup 2006; Harrison et al. 2009). Plantation companies as well as smallholder farmers may deliberately use fire to clear land with the associated benefit that the ashes increases the pH of the otherwise acidic peat soils (Islam et al. 2016). In some cases, fire may be started accidentally or spread beyond the areas in which it was ignited (Harrison et al. 2009). Once started, fires in drained peat can spread easily (Miettinen et al. 2012; Turetsky et al. 2015). Peat swamp forests and other lands with wet conditions seldomly burn (Turetsky et al. 2015). Peat fires have been reported on drained unused land, on drained peat used for wood pulp and paper (in particular in Sumatra) and on drained land used for oil palm plantations (Marlier et al. 2015b). Peat fires contribute strongly to CO2 emissions and also cause smoke and haze (Marlier et al. 2015a; Heil et al. 2007). Because of often incomplete burning, the smoke contains a mixture of various gases including carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, formaldehydes, nitrous oxide, mono-nitrogen oxides, ethane, propone, butane, acrolein, acid gases, and particulate matter (PM or soot) (Stockwell et al. 2016; Gaveau et al. 2014; Heil et al. 2007). In the dry season, in particular during EL Nino years, smoke can cover major parts of Indonesia and even neighboring countries (Islam et al. 2016), with associated effects on human health. Reported impacts include negative health effects (acute and chronic), disruption on tourism, transport, and business, reduced enjoyment of life, contribution to the production of ozone, acid rain, and greenhouse gases, and reduced photosynthesis in plants by blocking some solar radiation (World Bank 2016). The cumulative impacts of (sequential) peatland fires, in combination with other disturbance factors such as forest conversion and peat subsidence, lead to the extinction and irreversible changes in forest species composition and vegetation structure and the disappearance of peat (Glover and Jessup 2006). Indonesia government data stated in World Bank (2016) indicated that during the fires from June to October 2015 about 2.6 million ha of land burned in Indonesia, of which 33% was peatlands. The total costs of the fires were estimated at IDR 221 trillion (USD 16.1 billion) (World Bank 2016). About 500 thousand people were hospitalized and other thousands people suffered including people in neighborhood countries Malaysia and Singapore.

Soil subsidence and flood risks

Soil subsidence occurs when peatlands are drained. Soil subsidence rates can be as high as 1.5 m in the first five years after the drainage and 3-5 cm in subsequent years as observed in drained peatland for acacia and oil palm plantation in Sumatera with a typical water table depth of about 70–90 cm (Hooijer et al. 2012). Subsidence is a consequence of both the physical drainage of the water (in particular in the first 5 years) as well as the chemical oxidation of dry peat. We assess (see Table 2) that there is about 4 million ha of drained peatland in Indonesia (in 2014), within the land cover types plantation forest, estate crops, dryland agriculture, paddy fields, and other uses. Other sources mention that about 7–12 million ha of peat is drained (Hooijer et al. 2010; Joosten et al. 2012; Miettinen et al. 2016). Consequently, soil subsidence leads to flood risks because many Indonesian peatlands are situated in coastal lowlands which will also be affected by sea-level rise because of climate change (Dommain et al. 2011; Hooijer and Vernimmen 2013). Soil subsidence progressively affects the possibility to use peat for crop production (Sumarga et al. 2016). Although water management involving 40–60 cm drainage levels has been promoted as best practice (Lim et al. 2012), this still involves considerable and irreversible peat subsidence (Sumarga et al. 2016). Peatland uses that do not require drainage (e.g. paludiculture crops) substantially lower the risk of subsidence (Joosten et al. 2012). Note that our assessment indicates that drainage of peatlands is still ongoing on all three islands, since new crop (including oil palm and Hevea rubber) and forestry (including Acacia) plantations require drainage.

CO2 emission

Carbon emission results from peat fires and peat oxidation (Hirano et al. 2007). Drained peat swamp forests for other peatland uses contribute to peat fires events and increasing peat oxidation that related to increase of CO2 emission (Hooijer et al. 2010), while the increased frequency and duration of flooding will slow down the processes of oxidation and subsidence (Biancalani and Avagyan 2014). Our calculation for CO2 sequestration in Table 3 shows that the historical emission from Indonesian peatland uses i.e. disturbed forests, plantation forests, oil palm plantations, agriculture crops (paddy fields and dryland agriculture areas), degraded lands, urban and other uses areas increased over time to almost 400 million ton CO2 per year in 2014. Sumatra is still the biggest emitter, contributing around 70% of the total carbon emission from Indonesian peat.

Loss of forest in protected areas

Forests are recognized as habitats with high biodiversity. Conversion of peat swamp forests to other land uses is associated with habitat loss and fragmentation affecting a range of endemic animal and plants species (Miettinen et al. 2012; Posa et al. 2011; Yule 2010). Given that many lowland forests on mineral soils have been converted to other land uses, in particular to oil palm plantations (e.g. Sumarga and Hein 2015; Sumarga et al. 2016), peat swamp forests are the last remaining refugium for a range of species including the Sumatran tigers and rhino, and including species that occur in peat but prefer forests on mineral land such as the orangutan. Logging and fire are additional pressures on biodiversity. In our study area, there are about 2.6 million hectare of protected peat swamp forests (equal to 17% of total Indonesian peatland areas). Based on our analysis, plantation forests and crop areas are also found inside these protected areas covering about 28% of land designated as protected area in 2014 (Fig. 2), which we interpret to be the result of illegal forest encroachment. This occurs in particular in Sumatra and Kalimantan, such as in Sembilang and Danau Sentarum National Parks.
Fig. 2

Map of habitat inside protected areas in Indonesian peatlands in 2014 (insert area: Danau Sentarum National Park, West Kalimantan)

Social conflicts

In Indonesia, social conflicts related to land use are often triggered by overlapping land ownership or land use rights. This is the result of a lack of consistent national base map integrating cadaster information, land use, concessions applied for or granted, etc., in combination with sometimes opaque procedures involving a range of government agencies (Goldstein 2015; Galudra et al. 2011, 2014; Marlier et al. 2015b). Indonesia has about 8 sectoral maps of government agencies that have the authority to make their own sectoral maps for their own purposes (e.g. Ministry of Forestry with forestry maps for determining forestry areas, Ministry of Agriculture with maps of standard competence of agriculture human resources in order to support allocating land for agriculture purposes, etc.). We analysed maps from several government agencies and noted that they were indeed different, even though they covered the same subject matter such as forestry, conservation, mining areas, etc. The different outputs of these maps lead to conflicts between different companies but more often between companies and local residents whose traditional land use rights are often set aside by new permits and concessions. However, there are differences between the islands. For instance in Sumatra, there is increasing competition between companies (acacia and oil palm plantation) and local people (both transmigrants and indigenous) who also want to start or expand oil palm plantations (including on peat). This is related to the increasing scarcity of mineral land available for new plantations. On a specific occasion, local people protested outside the Regency Forest Agency until they were granted a concession to plant oil palm inside a protected area (Galudra et al. 2014). In Kalimantan, for instance, there are reports on conflicts between local communities who started to reclaim peatlands based on customary/tribal right, whereas the central and local governments used a different interpretation of the legality of different management regimes (Galudra et al. 2011; Suwarno et al. 2015). In Papua, conflicts on forestland utilization and concessions occurred due to overlapping regulations issued at the national level, provincial level, and district level leading to protests and human right violations against the local indigenous people (Hidayat et al. 2014). Hence, the pressure of land and the culture differ between the islands, but the lack of transparency in allocating land is a common factor.


Uncertainties in baseline data

There is much uncertainty related to the occurrence of Indonesian peatland. The absence of common definitions, measurement techniques and other peatland-related information (forest status or intensive converted peatlands) leads to major differences in the various estimates of the area covered by Indonesian peatland. In this study, we considered peatland with at least 50 cm peat depth, however the lack of data on peat depth in many parts of the country means that this boundary is often highly uncertain. Studies reporting on the area covered by Indonesian peatlands, provide a considerable range from 12 to 26.4 million ha (see Appendix 2 Table 7). There are also substantial differences in the maps of peatland distribution in Indonesia, including the maps published by BBSDLP Ministry of Agriculture (Ritung et al. 2011), Wetlands International (Wahyunto and Suryadiputra 2008), and the Ministry of Environment (MoEFRI 2015). These different maps reflect the potential uncertainty related to estimation of both Indonesian peatland area and its spatial distribution (see Appendices 2–4 Tables 7, 8, 9), and the uncertainty propagates when it is combined with other sources of data, for example to estimate ecosystem services provided by multiple uses of peatland as analysed in this study.

We estimate ecosystem services supply based on data on land use in peatlands from a range of sources but in particular from Indonesian government data. Estimates of visitors to national parks, forest production, paddy production, acacia production are from the Indonesian government, and are generally based on survey and census data. The area covered by oil palm was analysed using remote sensing (Gunarso et al. 2013) in a study for the RSPO and we believed this to be more up-to-date than Indonesian government data. We were not able to map the spatial diversity of the supply of these services, for example forest timber production will not be equally spread over the different peat swamp forests but depend upon forest quality and species composition. Given the status of Sumatran and Kalimantan lowland forests (MoFRI 2014) it is likely that currently the majority of timber production takes places in Papua. We may also underreport the supply of specific services. For instance, oil palm productivity in Indonesia ranges from 4 to 8.6 ton Crude Palm Oil (CPO)/ha/year according to World Growth (2011) whereas census data from BPS (2000–2014) indicates an average yield of between 3 and 4 ton CPO/ha/year (depending upon the year).

The uncertainty in peat cover, and in particular in peat depth and the current land use on peat makes the implementation of policies at the local level very difficult. The various government agencies involved in evaluating applications for concessions sometimes lack accurate and up-to-date information on peat location, peat depth, existing concessions and pending concessions applications. By preparing an updated national peat map, the current One-Map policy by Indonesia government may improve the basic data as a basis for decision making (Wibowo and Giessen 2015).

Policy recommendations

The Indonesian government has voluntary pledged in 2009 to reduce GHG emissions nationally 26% by its own efforts, and up to 41% with international assistance in 2020. A more ambitious target was unveiled in 2015, specifically GHG emissions reduction up to 29% by 2030 (INDC 2015). To support these targets, the Indonesian government published government regulation PP number 71 year 2014 on the protection and management of peat ecosystems. This regulation mandated a maximum water drainage in peat of 0.4 m where appropriate. This has the potential to reduce emissions by around 60 tonnes of CO2/ha/year if applied, however the challenge is that in practice it is extremely difficult to maintain the water level in large areas, year round, at this level. The level is also very close to when crops will start experiencing flood damages, and hence it may be very difficult for plantations in peat to implement this water level. In addition, even a drainage of 0.4 m still leads to soil subsidence. Hence, we believe that whereas this is a welcome initiative, it will not be sufficient to safeguard peat from fires and soil subsidence. Our analysis of Indonesian peatland conditions points to four main potential approaches for Indonesian peatland use depending upon their condition (Table 5).
Table 5

Policy priorities for sustainable peatland uses in Indonesia


Agricultural use

Non-productive and Forest use


Productive uses with paludiculture crops, phase out oil palm and plantation crops that require drainage over time

Withdraw strategically located areas where drainage has major effects on surrounding, non-drained areas

Fire control

Protect remaining forests

Rehabilitate and rewet peatlands by blocking drainage canals

Fire control


Stop new drainage

Promote productive uses with paludiculture crops

Fire control

Protect remaining forests

In degraded forests: reforestation

Fire control

All areas and uses

Improve monitoring of the condition of peat areas, including land cover, land use and drainage

Improve monitoring of the local implementation of peat related policies

Improve enforcement of peat related policies

Paludiculture crops (e.g. jelutung, sago palm, etc.) are crops that do not require drainage and therefore pose much lower fire risks, CO2 emissions and enable cropping over the long-term given that there is no soil subsidence. However, currently they are less financially attractive compared to oil palm and rubber productions (Giesen 2013; Joosten et al. 2012; Sumarga et al. 2016) and therefore their cropping will depend upon policies and regulations that limit growing the crops that require drainage in peat. We also note that the ‘traditional’ crops such as oil palm have benefitted from a long period of breeding and value chain development, which is still in its infancy for the paludiculture crops. From an economic perspective, i.e. when the costs of externalities such as CO2 emissions, health effects, soil subsidence and loss of productive land in the longer term are considered (e.g. World Bank 2016), paludiculture crops such as jelutung already are more profitable than oil palm and Hevea rubber on peat (Sumarga et al. 2016).


Indonesian peatlands have increasingly been converted for agricultural and plantation forest purposes in particular for oil palm, acacia and rubber. In the process, ecosystem services provided by peat swamp forest (e.g. carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation) have been replaced by the production of agricultural commodities. The highest conversion of natural peat swamp forest took place in Sumatra. In Kalimantan conversion started later, and some peat swamp forest is still remaining—but the island is undergoing rapid land use change at the moment. Most of the remaining peat swamp forests are in Papua, where unfortunately there is also the largest lack of reliable information on forests and peatlands. On the positive side, this has led to major increases in palm oil production (nearly a factor 3 increase in production on peatlands between 2000 and 2014) and biomass production for pulp (a factor 20 increase in the same period). On the negative side, these production levels are not sustainable since progressive soil subsidence will lead to seasonal flooding of the drained plantations in the coming decades ensuring that they will need to be taken out of production (e.g. Sumarga et al. 2016). In addition there are significant externalities related to peat fires and health problems, CO2 emissions and loss of habitat. To move towards sustainability, alternative peat development scenarios should be developed, which should involve a gradual phasing out of oil palm and other drained crops on peat and replacing them by crops that do not require drainage in combination with forestry including timber and non-timber forest production.



First author gratefully acknowledge the Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan/LPDP (Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education) for providing scholarship and financial support of this study. The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments.


  1. Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS). (2000–2014) Statistical year book of Indonesia 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2014. BPS Statistics Indonesia. JakartaGoogle Scholar
  2. Biancalani R, Avagyan A (2014) Towards climate-responsible peatlands management. FAO. (http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4029e.pdf). Accessed 26 June 2015
  3. Boer R, Nurrochmat DR, Purwawangsa H, Ginting G (2012) Reducing agricultural expansion into forests in Central Kalimantan Indonesia: analysis of implementation and financing gaps. Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor. http://pcfisu.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/FINAL-REPORT-CCROM-Reducing_agricultural_expansion_into_forests_23_May_2012-2.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2014
  4. DNPI (Dewan Nasional Perubahan Iklim, Indonesia) (2010) Indonesia’s Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve. http://www.mmechanisms.org/document/country/IDN/Indonesia_ghg_cost_curve_english.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2016
  5. Dommain R, Couwenberg J, Joosten H (2011) Development and carbon sequestration of tropical peat domes in south-east Asia: links to post-glacial sea-level changes and Holocene climate variability. Quat Sci Rev 30(7):999–1010. doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.01.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Galudra G, Van Noordwijk M, Suyanto S, Sardi I, Pradhan U, Catacutan D (2011) Hot spots of confusion: contested policies and competing carbon claims in the peatlands of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Int For Rev 13(4):431–441. doi: 10.1505/146554811798811380 Google Scholar
  7. Galudra G, van Noordwijk M, Agung P, Suyanto S, Pradhan U (2014) Migrants, land markets and carbon emissions in Jambi, Indonesia: land tenure change and the prospect of emission reduction. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 19(6):715–731. doi: 10.1007/s11027-013-9512-9 Google Scholar
  8. Gaveau DL, Salim MA, Hergoualc’h K, Locatelli B, Sloan S, Wooster M, Marlier ME, Molidena E, Yaen H, DeFries R, Verchot L (2014) Major atmospheric emissions from peat fires in Southeast Asia during non-drought years: evidence from the 2013 Sumatran fires. Sci Rep 4:6112. doi: 10.1038/srep06112 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Giesen W (2013) Paludiculture: sustainable alternatives on degraded peat land in Indonesia. Report on activity 3.3 of project, in: Quick assessment and nationwide screening (QANS) of peat and lowland resources and action planning for the implementation of a National Lowland Strategy. For Partners for Water, the Netherlands (PVW3A10002). Indonesian Ministry of Public Works & Bappenas. p. 71Google Scholar
  10. Glover D, Jessup T (2006).Indonesia’s Fires and Haze: The Cost of Catastrophe. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS). ISBN 0-88936-901-1. Markono Print Media Pte Ltd. Pasir Panjang, Singapore. http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/22892/21/IDL-22892.pdf. Accessed 07 June 2015
  11. Goldstein JE.(2015) Knowing the subterranean: Land grabbing, oil palm, and divergent expertise in Indonesia’s peat soil. Environ PlanA, 0308518X15599787. doi:  10.1177/0308518X15599787
  12. Gunarso P, Hartoyo ME, Agus F, Killeen TJ (2013) Oil palm and land use change in Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea. Reports from the Technical Panels of the 2nd greenhouse gas working Group of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), 29-64. http://www.rspo.org/resources/supplementary-materials. Accessed 24 April 2015
  13. Harrison ME, Page SE, Limin S (2009) The global impact of Indonesian forest fires. Biologist 56(3): 156–163. http://www.outrop.com/uploads/7/2/4/9/7249041/harrison_09_global_impact_indone-sian_forest_fires.pdf. Accessed 24 April 2015
  14. Heil A, Langmann B, Aldrian E (2007) Indonesian peat and vegetation fire emissions: study on factors influencing large-scale smoke haze pollution using a regional atmospheric chemistry model. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 12(1):113–133. doi: 10.1007/s11027-006-9045-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hirano T, Segah H, Harada T, Limin S, June T, Hirata R, Osaki M (2007) Carbon dioxide balance of a tropical peat swamp forest in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Global Change Biol 13(2):412–425. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01301.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hooijer A, Vernimmen R (2013) Peatland maps for Indonesia. Including accuracy assessment and recommendations for improvement, elevation mapping and evaluation of future flood risk. Quick Assessment and Nationwide Screening (QANS) of Peat and Lowland Resources and Action Planning for the Implementation of a National Lowland Strategy-PVW3A10002. Agentschap NL 6201068 QANS Lowland Development, for Government of Indonesia and Partners for Water (Netherlands)Google Scholar
  17. Hooijer A, Page S, Canadell JG, Silvius M, Kwadijk J, Wösten H, Jauhiainen J (2010) Current and future CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia. doi:  10.5194/bg-7-1505-2010
  18. Hooijer A, Page S, Jauhiainen J, Lee WA, Lu XX, Idris A, Anshari G (2012) Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences. doi: 10.5194/bg-9-1053-2012 Google Scholar
  19. INDC (2015) Indonesia’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution. http://wwwunfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Indonesia/1/INDC_REPUBLIC%20OF%20INDONESIA.pdf. Accessed 07 Jan 2016
  20. Indonesian Government Regulation No. 71 (2014) Protection and Management of Peatland Ecosystems. http://peraturan.go.id/pp/nomor-71-tahun-2014-11e4a07c7288d63ab190313531353038.html. Accessed 07 April 2014
  21. Islam MS, Hui Pei Y, Mangharam S (2016) Trans-boundary haze pollution in southeast asia: sustainability through plural environmental governance. Sustainability 8(5):499. doi: 10.3390/su8050499 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jauhiainen J, Hooijer A, Page S (2012) Carbon dioxide emissions from an Acacia plantation on peatland in Sumatra, Indonesia. Biogeosciences. doi: 10.5194/bg-9-617-2012 Google Scholar
  23. Joosten H (2009) The global peatland CO2 picture. Wetlands International, Ede, 33, 431. https://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/draftpeatlandco2report.pdf. Accessed 30 March 2015
  24. Joosten H, Tapio-Biström ML, Tol S (2012) Peatlands: guidance for climate change mitigation through conservation, rehabilitation and sustainable use. FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-an762e.pdf. Accessed 30 March 2015
  25. Koh LP, Miettinen J, Liew SC, Ghazoul J (2011) Remotely sensed evidence of tropical peatland conversion to oil palm. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(12):5127–5132. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1018776108 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Krisnawati H, Kallio M, Kanninen M (2011) Acacia mangium Willd.: ekologi, silvikultur dan produktivitas. CIFOR. doi: 10.17528/cifor/003479 Google Scholar
  27. Krisnawati H, Imanuddin R, Adinugroho WC, Hutabarat S (2015) National Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals on Indonesia’s Forests and Peatlands. Research, Development and Innovation Agency of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Bogor, Indonesia. http://www.incas-indonesia.org/publication/national-inventory-greenhouse-gas-emissions-removals-indonesias-forests-peatlands/. Accessed 07 April 2015
  28. Law EA, Bryan BA, Meijaard E, Mallawaarachchi T, Struebig M, Wilson KA (2015) Ecosystem services from a degraded peatland of Central Kalimantan: implications for policy, planning, and management. Ecol Appl 25(1):70–87. doi: 10.1890/13-2014.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lim KH, Lim SS, Parish F, Suharto R (2012) RSPO manual on best management practices (BMPs) for existing oil palm cultivation on peat. RSPO, Kuala LumpurGoogle Scholar
  30. Marlier ME, DeFries RS, Kim PS, Gaveau DL, Koplitz SN, Jacob DJ, Myers SS (2015a) Regional air quality impacts of future fire emissions in Sumatra and Kalimantan. Environ Res Lett 10(5):054010. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marlier ME, DeFries RS, Kim PS, Koplitz SN, Jacob DJ, Mickley LJ, Myers SS (2015b) Fire emissions and regional air quality impacts from fires in oil palm, timber, and logging concessions in Indonesia. Environ Res Lett 10(8):085005. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/085005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miettinen J, Shi C, Liew SC (2011) Two decades of destruction in Southeast Asia’s peat swamp forests. Front Ecol Environ 10(3):124–128. doi: 10.1890/100236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miettinen J, Hooijer A, Shi C, Tollenaar D, Vernimmen R, Liew SC, Page SE (2012) Extent of industrial plantations on Southeast Asian peatlands in 2010 with analysis of historical expansion and future projections. GCB Bioenergy 4(6):908–918. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01172.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miettinen J, Shi C, Liew SC (2016) Land cover distribution in the peatlands of Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra and Borneo in 2015 with changes since 1990. Global Ecol Conserv 6:67–78. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2016.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MoEFRI (Ministry of Environment and Forestry Republic of Indonesia) (2015) Peta Kesatuan Hidrologi Gambut. Ministry of Environment and Forestry Republic of Indonesia. Jakarta, Indonesia. http://webgis.dephut.go.id:8080/kemenhut/index.php/id/peta/peta-cetak/59-peta-cetak/314-peta-kesatuan-hidrologi-gambut. Accessed 07 Jan 2016
  36. MoFRI (Ministry of Forestry Republic of Indonesia) (2000–2014) Forestry Statistics of Indonesia 2000, 2002, 2007, 2009, 2012, 2013. Ministry of Forestry Republic of Indonesia. Jakarta, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  37. MoFRI (Ministry of Forestry Republic of Indonesia) (2014) Land cover maps. Ministry of Forestry Republic of Indonesia. Jakarta. http://nfms.dephut.go.id/. Accessed 27 Feb 2015
  38. Murdiyarso D, Hergoualc’h K, Verchot LV (2010) Opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in tropical peatlands. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(46):19655–19660. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0911966107 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Page SE, Rieley JO, Banks CJ (2011) Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon pool. Glob Change Biol 17(2):798–818. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02279.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. PM.Haze (2015) Tour of APRIL’s Pulp and Paper Plantation Report. http://pmhaze.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2014-PM.Haze-APRIL_Tour_Report.pdf. Accessed 27 Sept 2015
  41. Posa MRC, Wijedasa LS, Corlett RT (2011) Biodiversity and conservation of tropical peat swamp forests. Bioscience 61(1):49–57. doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.1.10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rehman SAU, Ullah W, Khurshid M (2014) Carbon dioxide emissions from tropical peat swamp forests: a review of processes and controls with special emphasis to Indonesia. Scientia 2(3):146–150. doi: 10.15192/PSCP.SA.2014.2.3.146150 Google Scholar
  43. Hooijer A, Silvius M, Wösten H, Page S, Hooijer A, Silvius, M, Page S (2006) PEAT-CO2. Assessment of CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in SE Asia, Delft Hydraulics report Q, 3943. RN: 42022627Google Scholar
  44. Stockwell CE, Jayarathne T, Cochrane MA, Ryan KC, Putra EI, Saharjo BH, Nurhayati AD, Albar I, Blake DR, Simpson IJ, Stone EA, Yokelson RJ (2016) Field measurements of trace gases and aerosols emitted by peat fires in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, during the 2015 El Niño. Atmos Chem Phys 16(18):11711–11732. doi: 10.5194/acp-16-11711-2016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sumarga E, Hein L (2014) Mapping ecosystem services for land use planning, the case of Central Kalimantan. Environ Manage 54(1):84–97. doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0282-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Sumarga E, Hein L (2015) Benefits and costs of oil palm expansion in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, under different policy scenarios. Reg Environ Change 16(4):1011–1021. doi: 10.1007/s10113-015-0815-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Sumarga E, Hein L, Hooijer A, Vernimmen R (2016) Hydrological and economic effects of oil palm cultivation in Indonesian peatlands. Ecol Soc. doi: 10.5751/ES-08490-210252 Google Scholar
  48. Suwarno A, Hein L, Sumarga E (2015) Governance, decentralisation and deforestation: the case of Central Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. Quart J Int Agric 54(1):77–100Google Scholar
  49. Suwarno A, Hein L, Sumarga E (2016) Who benefits from ecosystem services? A case study for Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Environ Manag 57(2):331–344. doi: 10.1007/s00267-015-0623-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Suzuki S, Ishida T, Nagano T, Waijaroen S (1999) Influences of deforestation on carbon balance in a natural tropical peat swampforest in Thailand. Environ Control Biol 37:115–128. doi: 10.2525/ecb1963.37.115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thorburn CC, Kull CA (2015) Peatlands and plantations in Sumatra, Indonesia: complex realities for resource governance, rural development and climate change mitigation. Asia Pacific Viewp 56(1):153–168. doi: 10.1111/apv.12045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Turetsky MR, Benscoter B, Page S, Rein G, van der Werf GR, Watts A (2015) Global vulnerability of peatlands to fire and carbon loss. Nat Geosci 8(1):11–14. doi: 10.1038/ngeo2325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ritung S, Wahyunto, KN, Sukarman H, Suparto CT (2011) Peta lahan gambut Indonesia. Skala 1:250.000 (Maps of Peatland Distribution in Indonesia). Balai Besar Sumber Daya Lahan Pertanian (BBSDLP) Ministry of Agriculture, Republic of IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  54. Wahyunto, Suryadiputra INN (2008) Peatland Distribution in Sumatra and Kalimantan-explanation of its data sets including source of information, accuracy, data constraints and gaps. Wetlands International-Indonesia Programme. Bogor. http://www.wetlands.or.id/PDF/Atlas%20Review.pdf. Accessed 11 Aug 2014
  55. Wibowo A, Giessen L (2015) Absolute and relative power gains among state agencies in forest-related land use politics: the Ministry of Forestry and its competitors in the REDD + Programme and the One Map Policy in Indonesia. Land Use Policy 49(131–141):2016. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.018 Google Scholar
  56. World Bank (2016) The cost of fire: an economic analysis of Indonesia’s 2015 fire crisis. Indonesia sustainable landscapes knowledge. Note no. 1. Washington, D.C. World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2016/03/26010885/cost-fire-economic-analysis-indonesia’s-2015-fire-crisis. Accessed 23 March 2016
  57. World Growth (2011) The economic benefit of palm oil to Indonesia. World Growth, Arlington. http://worldgrowth.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/WG_Indonesian_Palm_Oil_Benefits_Report-2_11.pdf). Accessed 07 Jan 2016
  58. Wösten JHM, Clymans E, Page SE, Rieley JO, Limin SH (2008) Peat–water interrelationships in a tropical peatland ecosystem in Southeast Asia. Catena 73(2):212–224. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2007.07.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hidayat H, Yamamoto S (2014) Papua‘s threatened forests: conflict of interest government versus local indigenous people. South Pacific Study 34(2): 71–98. http://hdl.handle.net/10232/20838
  60. Yule CM (2010) Loss of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in Indo-Malayan peat swamp forests. Biodivers Conserv 19(2):393–409. doi: 10.1007/s10531-008-9510-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saritha Kittie Uda
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lars Hein
    • 1
  • Elham Sumarga
    • 3
  1. 1.Environmental Systems Analysis GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Biology Study ProgramUniversity of Palangka RayaPalangka RayaIndonesia
  3. 3.School of Life Science and TechnologyInstitut Teknologi Bandung (ITB)BandungIndonesia

Personalised recommendations