Peatland ecosystem as a natural capital plays a significant part not only for biodiversity conservation, but also in the regulation of high carbon and water reservoirs. It
is also very vulnerable to climate change. During El Niño, for example, the peatland
in Indonesia dried up, resulting in an increase in the CO 2 emissions from peat fire
and microorganism-oxidizing degradation under low groundwater level (GWL). The
increased CO 2 emissions should be fed back to climate change; thus, the peatland
ecosystem development and climate change create a positive feedback loop.
Accordingly, the natural capital of peatland ecosystem is extremely high and
seriously fragile (very high vulnerability) from peatland development (Radjagukguk
2001). When the Mega Rice Project in Central Kalimantan during the 1990s ended
in a failure, the developed land where the transmigrants cultivated agricultural crops
has suffered from severe peat swamp forest deforestation (Muhammad and Rieley
2001; Tampubolon 2007). Among 14.91 million hectares (ha) of Indonesian tropical
peatlands in the large islands of Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Papua, forest degradation
and conversion into other uses have been as much as 3.91 million ha (26.2%) and
4.58 million ha (30.7%), respectively (Ritung et al. 2012). In brief, natural capital
conservation and peatland development show a trade-off relationship.
When the conservation-development of tropical peatland is generally a trade-off
relationship, the sustainable development of peatland will be an inconsistent concept. The peatland development follows normal water drainage (reducing GWL),
which degrades peatland, accelerates CO 2 emissions, causes haze which harms
public health (Jauhiainen et al. 2008; Ekaputri 2016), and reduces peatland quality
(Anwar 2000; Wibisono et al. 2005). Thus, the development degrades the natural
capital of peatland. The natural capital of tropical peatland is only conserved by the
high GWL management. As sago palm (Metroxylon sagu Rottb.) is adapted to high
GWL condition, or called as paludiculture, it has high potential both to strengthen
food security (development) and protect the natural capital (conservation).
12.2 Vulnerability and Resilience in Tropical Peatland
12.2.1 Balance of Vulnerability and Resilience in Tropical
Peatland
In Fig. 12.1, peatlands are classified as a balance between vulnerability and
resilience.
1. Native Peatland [medium vulnerability and medium resilience] [Carbon Neutral]
with Natural Capital Unit ¼ 1.0 and Food Production Unit ¼ 0.5:
In the native peatland, the natural capital is very high because of high carbon
and water reservoirs, high biodiversity, and high biomass production.
2. Developed Peatland [high vulnerability and low resilience] [Carbon Positive]
with Natural Capital Unit ¼ 0.5 and Food Production Unit ¼ 1.0:
364
A. P. Tampubolon et al.
is also very vulnerable to climate change. During El Niño, for example, the peatland
in Indonesia dried up, resulting in an increase in the CO 2 emissions from peat fire
and microorganism-oxidizing degradation under low groundwater level (GWL). The
increased CO 2 emissions should be fed back to climate change; thus, the peatland
ecosystem development and climate change create a positive feedback loop.
Accordingly, the natural capital of peatland ecosystem is extremely high and
seriously fragile (very high vulnerability) from peatland development (Radjagukguk
2001). When the Mega Rice Project in Central Kalimantan during the 1990s ended
in a failure, the developed land where the transmigrants cultivated agricultural crops
has suffered from severe peat swamp forest deforestation (Muhammad and Rieley
2001; Tampubolon 2007). Among 14.91 million hectares (ha) of Indonesian tropical
peatlands in the large islands of Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Papua, forest degradation
and conversion into other uses have been as much as 3.91 million ha (26.2%) and
4.58 million ha (30.7%), respectively (Ritung et al. 2012). In brief, natural capital
conservation and peatland development show a trade-off relationship.
When the conservation-development of tropical peatland is generally a trade-off
relationship, the sustainable development of peatland will be an inconsistent concept. The peatland development follows normal water drainage (reducing GWL),
which degrades peatland, accelerates CO 2 emissions, causes haze which harms
public health (Jauhiainen et al. 2008; Ekaputri 2016), and reduces peatland quality
(Anwar 2000; Wibisono et al. 2005). Thus, the development degrades the natural
capital of peatland. The natural capital of tropical peatland is only conserved by the
high GWL management. As sago palm (Metroxylon sagu Rottb.) is adapted to high
GWL condition, or called as paludiculture, it has high potential both to strengthen
food security (development) and protect the natural capital (conservation).
12.2 Vulnerability and Resilience in Tropical Peatland
12.2.1 Balance of Vulnerability and Resilience in Tropical
Peatland
In Fig. 12.1, peatlands are classified as a balance between vulnerability and
resilience.
1. Native Peatland [medium vulnerability and medium resilience] [Carbon Neutral]
with Natural Capital Unit ¼ 1.0 and Food Production Unit ¼ 0.5:
In the native peatland, the natural capital is very high because of high carbon
and water reservoirs, high biodiversity, and high biomass production.
2. Developed Peatland [high vulnerability and low resilience] [Carbon Positive]
with Natural Capital Unit ¼ 0.5 and Food Production Unit ¼ 1.0:
364
A. P. Tampubolon et al.