benefits, burdens and solutions to indonesian peatland fires

Benefits, burdens and solutions to Indonesian Peatland Fires

Rachel Carmenta, Willy Daeli, David Gaveau, Jacob Phelps, Agus Salim, Aiora Zabala

Globally fires are increasingAnnual events

Fire weather seasons are extending“If these fire weather changes are coupled with ignition sources and available fuel, they could markedly impact global ecosystems, societies, economies and climate” Jolly et al (2015) Science

Annual peatland fires in Indonesia

Since 1990sAggravated by El Nino events

Potential burdens from peatland fires:the Costs

Experienced at multiple scales

Different categories of burdens, e.g. ConflictDiplomaticEconomicEnvironmentalFood securityHealthInjusticeRiskQuality of life

Potential burdens from peatland fires

Experienced at multiple scales, from local to global, e.g.

Different categories of burdens are

But fire also has potential benefits:the Drivers

Regional

Also in different categories and accruing at different scales, e.g.

Local Global

e.g. commodity supply

Multiple benefitsMultiple burdensMultiple scales

In such a complex resource management arena, it follows there are multiple stakeholders to consider when seeking solutions.

Who are the relevant stakeholders in peatland management?

Agroindustry

Singaporean decision-makers

Small farmers

Hired labourers

Local & national decision-makers

External Investors

multiple stakeholders,also at different scales

A classic “wicked problem”Major governance challenge

How to define a solution to such a complex problem?

Diversity of benefits, burdens and stakeholdersEcological and climatic determinantsPolitical and sensitive issueDiverse landscape mosaics of different actors and land usesNo single solution is likely to be effective Broad consensus on solution pathways will be required

Can understanding stakeholders perspectives contribute?

Why do stakeholder perceptions matter?

Defining a common solution space requires identifying stakeholder concerns and aspirations

Identify points of consensus, contention and coalition

Positive synergies identified, inevitable tradeoffs accounted for

To avoid the policy-practice gap, generate legitimacy and buy in

Stakeholder perspectives of Indonesian peatland fires

Research method Sample Policy relevanceQ methodSemi-quantitative social scienceConstructing the “concourse” Ranking of statements on a scaleInclusive Two aspects of peatland governance

1) Benefits and burdens scale of importance30 statements

2) Solutionsscale of effectiveness40 statements

Factor analysisIdentifies similar groups of perspectives on aspects of an issue


Research method Sample Policy relevance

• Stakeholders: involved infire management, advocacy and policy across four scales:i) Internationalii) Nationaliii) Localiv) Farm• Purposive sampling• 12 stakeholder groups• 221 respondents

Singapore Singapore policy community (8)

Jakarta Jakarta policy community (9)

Riau Riau policy community (11)

Local public figures (15)

Large Mid-level absentee investors (15)

Industrial agriculture (32)

Large land holders (15)

Small Medium Land Holders (34)

Small Land Holders (42)

Landless Labourers/Share Croppers (15)

Disempowered Landless (15)

NGO Non-governmental organization (7)

CIFOR study on Stakeholder perspectives of Indonesian peatland fires


Local sites selected to capture full diversity of landscape mosaics (e.g. tenure, fire, land cover, actors)

All within the larger study area affected by 2013-214 fires

Map showing three study sites for Q participants in Riau field sites, Bukit Kirikil (1), Petani Kecil (2) and Teluk Makmur (3). Inset shows the Indonesian island of Sumatra, Singapore and Malaysia.



Clarify positions / coalitions

Identify contentious issues

Identify agreement areas

Target and identify what engagement and outreach communications are needed

Contributes to an understanding of governance success and failure

Serve as a “boundary object” for negotiations

Identifying discourses (“factors”)

Factor analysis identifies idealized q-sorts - discoursesIdentify the distinguishing statements of each factorInterpret the factors and their stakeholder membership

Analysis shows you how respondents share similar opinions on statement ranking

Marked in bold

Stakeholder perspectives: importance of costs and benefits

Factors. Remember solutions are not tested

1. Costs to companies prioritized• Concern for company damages both

economic and reputational• Fire not important for large or small actors

for land clearing • Difficulties of defining responsibility and

conflicts from erroneous allegations of fire responsibility not important

• Concern for negative local impacts on health, economy and transport

• Associated with large scale actors

2. Costs to smallholders prioritized• Concerned with negative impacts on

smallholders including lost income and unfair allegations

• Concerned with the risk of fire disincentivizing agriculture

• Doesn’t value the utility of fire for smallholders or traditional practices

• Most associated with Riau policy community

3. Smallholder costs and benefits• Values the utility of fire for smallholder

practices and agriculture• Concerned with negative impacts of fire for

smallholders including through lost income and unfair allegations

• Least concern for negative impacts abroad and to agribusiness

• Associated with smallholders

4. Local conflict & Impacts abroad• Concerned with negative impacts of fire

abroad and globally• Unconcerned with the negative impacts of

fire for local and diverse landholders• Concerned with the utility of fire for land

clearing by diverse actors and the role of fire in conflicts

• Associated with Singapore, Jakarta and Riau policy communities

Stakeholder perspectives: importance of costs and benefits


Stakeholder perspectives: effective solutions

1. Focus on fire fighting Landless, small/medium landholders

2. Hard measures against large actors Indonesian policy communities

at national, provincial and local levels

3. Awareness raising Singapore and Jakarta policy communities –

most weakly represented by this factor.

4. Hard measures against all actors shared membership

5. Soft measures for improved smallholder agriculture shared

membership

Five distinct discourses

Remember these are perceptions of effectiveness, not measured effectiveness!

Stakeholder perspectives: effectiveness of solutions


We can use information on consensus of burdens to inform powerful language in

communication tools for behavioral change

Economic losses HealthEnvironment

Different stakeholders benefit and lose from fire in different ways

Shared concerns: Improve knowledge on content of the toxic smoke

2015 peat fires produced high concentrations of carbon monoxide. Normal concentrations are 100 parts per billion (ppbv), MOPPIT satellite measured in October 2015 they were >1,300 ppbv

Improved knowledge on health impacts

The 2015 peat fires produced unprecedented concentrations ofParticulate Matter (soot) in the air. Normal concentrations are 30µgm-3. BMKG measured concentrations >500µg m-3 for two months,and peaks >2000µg m-3 for several weeks

Health effects –poorly understood but likely include:- lung cancer- cardiovascular disease- asthma- birth defects.

Perceived as most effective are most controversial, These include - canal use

- revoking rouge company licenses

Key messages: effective solutions

No clear way forward that is agreed by all

No agreement on which stakeholders to target with enforcement (e.g. investors, agro-industry, smallholders)

No agreement on where responsibility for improving fire management should lie

Facilitation and dialogue between stakeholders for integrated landscape management is needed

Research on effectiveness of solution options sorely needed

But how about actual effectiveness of solutions?

e.g. what role can remote sensing technology play?

(84% on peat)

Gaveau et al. in press. Conservation letters

Forest Cemetery in Riau: shrubs and wood debris: forest was cleared a few years priorby massive illegal logging

Fire for land clearing to expand oil palm agriculture in unproductive areas

Identify what burned: fires target idle drained peatlands

Fires also burn standing plantations

(84% on peat)

Gaveau et al. in reviewOil-palm plantation destroyed by fire in Riau

~25%

Fire expands beyond targeted area for land clearing because- peat fires cannot be

controlled- grievances over land rights- motivations and incentives

Unsustainable expansion;Loss of assets and productionSmall and large plantation affected.

Fire spread (accidental) beyond intended area of land clearing and multiple motivations (intended) can exist

But defining attribution is problematic

Mismatch between policy and practice of landuse

Companies operate out concessions>25% of industrial OP plantations

Indep. farmers operate in concessionsOccupy 98% of concessions (n=163)

• Attribution of fire in and out concessions is problematic• Limits monitoring of “no burning policies” with satellites alone

To apply these results to serve as a boundary object in stakeholder dialogue for integrated management

Next steps…

Actual Effectiveness of fire management initiatives to provide evidence based recommendations for future initiatives

Q data to facilitate stakeholder dialogue

Actual effectiveness of solutions

Determinants of firewise behavior

What are the motivations of fire wise behavior at the local level?

Thankyou

Rachel [email protected]