Defining ecological restoration of peatlands in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia

Abstract

Indonesia declared an ambitious plan to restore its degraded and fire‐prone peatlands, which have been a source of significant greenhouse gas and haze. However, the progress has been slow and the plan cannot succeed without sustained social supports and political will. Although many previous studies argued for the need to see ecological restoration in socio‐economic contexts, empirical assessments have been lacking for how restoration is operationalized on the ground. We interviewed 47 key informants involved in four different projects in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, and assessed their definitions, goals, and practices of peatland restoration. Most of the actors we interviewed defined peatland restoration primarily in an ecological context following the global concept of ecological restoration. However, all four restoration projects were designed without determining reference and trajectory conditions. Their intermediate goals and practices were more focused on engaging local communities and developing sustainable livelihood options than improving the ecological conditions of peatlands. To be internally consistent, peatland restoration needs to recognize a social dimension in its process, as well as in its goal. Setting clear trajectory conditions is also important to clarify achievable goals and measurable intermediate outcomes. We propose the following definition of peatland restoration: a process of assisting the recovery of degraded peatland ecosystems to achieve the appropriate trajectories defined through multi‐stakeholder collaboration within social‐ecological contexts. We hope to generate healthy debates to further refine the definition that encompasses both social and ecological dimensions to generate broader support for sustaining and expanding peatland restoration projects in Indonesia.

Degradation of Southeast Asian tropical peatlands and integrated strategies for their better management and restoration

“…They may also involve revitalization activities to promote suitable alternative livelihood options for local communities (Harrison et al, 2020). However, peatland restoration initiatives are challenging (Harrison et al, 2020;Zeng et al, 2020), and face a high risk of failure when their outcomes are poorly defined (Puspitaloka et al, 2020), socio-economic factors are not adequately considered (Zeng et al, 2020), and efforts to rewet and revegetate peatlands are uncoordinated (Giesen & Sari, 2018). Here, we discuss current solutions and the issues involved in implementing them, and propose an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to the restoration of these unique environments which focuses on combining ecological knowledge of the above-ground and below-ground peatland ecosystem, with consideration of the socio-economics of land use and management (Figure 4).…”

“…This occurred, for example, in Central Kalimantan, where dams constructed for peatland restoration obstructed transport in canals by resident communities (Dohong, 2016;Page et al, 2009). It is therefore crucial to consider the lived experience of local communities and their interactions with peatlands, as well as the cultural and socio-economic factors that predispose local communities to aspire to restoring degraded peatlands (Puspitaloka et al, 2020;Uda et al, 2020).…”

“…Similar initiatives are being implemented at a range of scales by the private sector (e.g. under Ecosystem Restoration licences) and by a number of conservation and restoration projects (Puspitaloka et al, 2020). However, understanding of the effectiveness of rewetting in reducing peatland subsidence and GHG emissions remains limited (Dohong et al, 2018;Jauhiainen et al, 2008;Wilson et al, 2016).…”

Wading through the swamp: what does tropical peatland restoration mean to national‐level stakeholders in Indonesia?

“…As restoration stems from ecology, the majority of research (including peatland restoration) has been based on quantitative data collection, although this is now changing with important recent research findings published utilizing a qualitative approach (e.g. Carmenta et al ; Uda et al ; Harrison et al ; Langston et al ; Puspitaloka et al ). Qualitative approaches enable exploration of in‐depth issues, and can better represent diversity of study groups or populations (Drury et al ; Newing et al ).…”

Social Vulnerability of Land Fires in Banjarbaru

“…Peatland restoration needs to recognize the social dimension in the restoration process [17]. Mitigation efforts for future fires are more focused on identifying areas using environmental data on rainfall, slope, peatlands, and peatlands that were previously burned.…”