Content uploaded by Wim Giesen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wim Giesen on Oct 31, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of
degraded peat swamp forests in Central
Kalimantan
Master Plan for the Conservation and Development of
the Ex-Mega Rice Project Area in Central Kalimantan
Government of Indonesia
Royal Netherlands Embassy, Jakarta
Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
Deltares | Delft Hydraulics
in association with
DHV, NL
Alterra / WUR, NL
Witteveen+Bos, NL
PT MLD, Indonesia
PT INDEC, Indonesia
3
r
d
DRAFT -
31 March 2009
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
i
Table of contents
List of abbreviations.................................................................................................................................. iv
Foreword ..................................................................................................................................................... v
1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
2
Summary of degradation types & natural regeneration studies ...................................................... 3
2.1
Development of peat swamp forest in Southeast Asia.............................................................. 3
2.2
Degradation seres & regeneration in the region ....................................................................... 3
2.2.1
Malaysia ................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.2
Brunei Darussalam ................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.3
Thailand.................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2.4
Papua New Guinea................................................................................................................... 6
2.3
Degradation seres and regeneration in Indonesia.................................................................... 7
2.3.1
Indonesia in general .................................................................................................................7
2.3.2
Sumatra .................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3.3
South Kalimantan .....................................................................................................................7
2.3.4
Central Kalimantan ................................................................................................................... 8
3
Summary of restoration/rehabilitation attempts ............................................................................. 10
3.1
Regional ................................................................................................................................. 10
3.1.1
Peat swamp forest restoration & rehabilitation in Thailand ..................................................... 10
3.1.2
Peat swamp forest restoration & rehabilitation in Malaysia..................................................... 12
3.1.3
Peat swamp forest restoration and rehabilitation in Vietnam .................................................. 13
3.1.4
PSF restoration & rehabilitation in other Indonesian provinces .............................................. 13
3.2
Central Kalimantan ................................................................................................................. 16
3.2.1
LIPI-JSPS (2000-2001)......................................................................................................... 16
3.2.2
CIMTROP ............................................................................................................................... 16
3.2.3
CKPP – Wetlands International .............................................................................................. 18
3.2.4
CKPP – WWF......................................................................................................................... 19
3.2.5
CKPP – BOS Mawas.............................................................................................................. 19
3.2.6
Forest Research Institute of Banjarbaru (BPK).......................................................................20
3.2.7
Other Government departments............................................................................................. 22
4
Guiding principles for restoration & rehabilitation......................................................................... 24
5
Technical guidelines for PSF restoration & rehabilitation.............................................................. 27
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
ii
5.1
Planning stage........................................................................................................................ 27
5.1.1
Identification of state of degradation & type of intervention required ...................................... 27
5.1.2
Mapping degradation.............................................................................................................. 29
5.1.3
Rapid survey of site conditions............................................................................................... 31
5.1.4
Identification of suitable species............................................................................................. 32
5.1.5
Planning for succession.......................................................................................................... 40
5.2
Preparation stage ...................................................................................................................41
5.2.1
Introduction............................................................................................................................. 41
5.2.2
Planning for seed and seedling supply................................................................................... 41
5.2.3
Setting up of nurseries............................................................................................................ 42
5.2.4
Growing the seedlings ............................................................................................................ 42
5.2.5
Site preparation ...................................................................................................................... 43
5.2.6
Preparation for planting ..........................................................................................................44
5.3
Implementation stage .............................................................................................................45
5.3.1
Seedling selection for planting................................................................................................ 45
5.3.2
Seedling transport...................................................................................................................45
5.3.3
Planting................................................................................................................................... 46
5.4
Follow-up stage ...................................................................................................................... 47
5.4.1
Replacement or replenishment plantings................................................................................47
5.4.2
Weeding ................................................................................................................................. 47
5.4.3
Monitoring growth (including pests & diseases)......................................................................48
5.4.4
Prevention of wildfires.............................................................................................................48
5.4.5
Enrichment plantings .............................................................................................................. 48
References................................................................................................................................................. 47
List of annexes
Annex 1
Participants of the PSF Rehabilitation workshop............................................................... 54
Annex 2
Programme of the PSF Rehabilitation workshop................................................................ 55
Annex 3
PSF Rehabilitation Research needs assessment ............................................................... 56
Annex 4
LULC map of EMRP 2007 ...................................................................................................... 61
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
iii
List of tables
Table 1 Results of CIMTROP restoration trials........................................................................................ 17
Table 2 Tree species used in reforestation trials by CIMTROP ............................................................... 17
Table 3 Results of BPK Banjarbaru rehabilitation trials............................................................................ 21
Table 4 Differences between 3 major categories of degraded & secondary forests ................................ 28
Table 5 LULC classes & cover, including forests..................................................................................... 30
Table 6 Main tree species & peat depth...................................................................................................32
Table 7 Pioneer/secondary PSF species in Sumatra & Kalimantan......................................................... 33
Table 8 Species used in restoration trials in Southeast Asia ...................................................................34
Table 9 Pioneer species & flooding tolerance in Berbak NP, Jambi ........................................................ 36
Table 10 PSF species suitable for rehabilitation programmes under various flooding regimes ............... 37
Table 11 PSF species for timber & NTFPs .............................................................................................. 39
Table 12 Parameters & species choice....................................................................................................46
List of figures
Figure 1 Rehabilitation sites of WIIP-CKPP in Block A North .................................................................. 18
Figure 2 Seedling survival trials Wetlands International........................................................................... 19
Figure 3 Dyera polyphylla mixed with maize (left), and rambutan (right) ................................................. 22
Figure 4 Recognising the state of degradation: indictors species in Berbak NP ...................................... 29
Figure 5 Mapping degradation and site conditions................................................................................... 31
Figure 6 Canal rehabilitation/infilling using PSF species.......................................................................... 38
List of Boxes
Box 1. Status of forests in the EMRP area..................................................................................................18
Box 2. Clarification of terminology...............................................................................................................19
Box 3. Illipe nut (tengkawang) establishment on peat................................................................................. 22
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
iv
List of abbreviations
AusAID
Australian Agency for International Development
BKSDA
Balai Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam
BP-DAS
Balai Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai
BPK
Balai Penelitian Kehutanan Banjarbaru (Forest Research Institute – Banjarbaru)
BPP
Balai Penyuluhan Pertanian
CA
Cagar Alam (Strict Nature Reserve)
CDM
Clean Development Mechanism
CIMTROP
Centre for International Co-operation in Management of Tropical Peatland;
associated with the University of Palangka Raya
CKPP
Central Kalimantan Peatlands Project
DGIS
Directoraat Generaal Internationale Samenwerking (Netherlands Government
Overseas Aid Programme)
dbh
diameter at breast height
EMRP
Ex Mega Rice Project
FMU
Forest Management Unit
HL
Hutan Lindung (Protection Forest)
KfW
Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (The German Government’s Overseas Aid
Programme)
KHDTK
Kawasan Hutan Dengan Tujuan Khusus
KPH
Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan (Indonesian for Forest Management Unit - FMU)
LULC
Land Use Land Cover
MRP
Mega Rice Project
NLPSF
Natural Laboratory of Peat Swamp Forest
Norad
The Norwegian Government’s Overseas Aid Programme
NP
National Park
PA
Protected Area
PLG
Proyek Lahan Gambut (Indonesian acronym for MRP)
PPT
Potential Plus Trees
SM
Suaka Margasatwa (Wildlife Reserve)
TN
Taman Nasional (National Park)
REDD Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
RESTORPEAT
Restoration of tropical peatland to promote sustainable use of renewable
natural resources
STRAPEAT
Strategies for implementing sustainable management of peatlands in Borneo
UGM
Universitas Gajah Mada (Yogyakarta)
UNPAR
University of Palangka Raya
WIIP Wetlands International – Indonesia Programme
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
v
Foreword
These draft Guidelines for Peat Swamp Forest Rehabilitation were drawn up following on from –
and where possible drawing upon – the workshop on “Rehabilitation of Peat Swamp Forest: A
Study and the most Suitable Practice” held at Tangkiling, near Palangkaraya, from 11-13
December 2008. About 25 participants attended this technical workshop – almost all of them
practitioners in the field of peat swamp forest (PSF) restoration, rehabilitation and regeneration
in Indonesia
1
. The aim of the workshop was to bring together existing information and practical
experience on the restoration and rehabilitation of PSF in Indonesia, and provide a basis for a
first set of guidelines for rehabilitation.
The workshop and this document focuses on technical aspects of peat swamp forest
restoration/rehabilitation related to forestry and ecology only. It does not focus on the socio-
economic aspects or institutional aspects (who is to carry out reforestation), which are, however,
key to the success of any PSF rehabilitation programme. These are outside the scope of the
current guidelines, which had to be modest in its approach. The current guidelines also do not
focus on the hydrological aspects of PSF restoration and rehabilitation, which are a prerequisite
for reforestation efforts. A separate set of guidelines focussing on hydrological restoration will
be produced by the EMRP project.
It was acknowledged at this workshop that we are still a long way from producing a
comprehensive document that provides most of the answers to the when, how and why of PSF
restoration and rehabilitation. Activities in this field have only just begun after 2000 and most
were initiated over the past four years. In Central Kalimantan this has particularly been under
the Central Kalimantan Peat Project (CKPP), the sister project of the Master Plan - Ex Mega
Rice Project (EMRP), but also by the Centre for International Co-operation in Management of
Tropical Peatland (CIMTROP) of the University of Palangkaraya (UNPAR), and as part of the
Government of Indonesia (GOI) reforestation programmes such as Gerhan and as carried out
by the watershed protection agency (BP-DAS), and the Forestry Research Institute –
Banjarbaru, both of the Forestry Department. Because of the recent nature of these activities,
information and experience is just emerging and much of this still awaits documentation. Hence
the initiative of the Master Plan EMRP project to hold the PSF Rehabilitation workshop, as this
would provide an opportunity to share information and experiences.
It is the intention that over the coming few years the current document evolves into a more final
and useful set of guidelines as additional experience emerges and lessons learned are
incorporated. Practitioners in PSF rehabilitation and restoration, scientists and PSF managers
are encouraged to respond and provide feedback to the authors.
1
A list of participants in included in Annex 1, and a programme in Annex 2.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
vi
The authors would especially like to thank Bismart Ferry Ibie (UNPAR), Baba Saiful Barkah
(BOS Foundation), Laura Graham (University of Leicester/CIMTROP), Grahame Applegate
(AusAID), Marinus K.Harun (Balai Penelitian Kehutanan Banjarbaru), I.T.C. (Yoyok) Wibosono
(Wetlands International – Indonesia Programme) and Oka Karyanto (and his colleagues, Dr.Eny
Farida and Prof.Sumardi at UGM, Yogyakarta) for their written comments and additions
provided for the first draft.
Wim Giesen (Euroconsult Mott MacDonald) – email: wim.giesen@mottmac.nl
&
Peter van der Meer (WUR – Alterra) – email: Peter.vandermeer@wur.nl
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
1
1 Introduction
Many of the current initiatives on Peat Swamp Forest (PSF) restoration and rehabilitation focus
on the Ex-Mega Rice Project (EMRP) area in Central Kalimantan, which was the focus of a
massive (and ultimately highly unsuccessful) drive in the mid-1990s towards converting a million
hectares of PSF to rice fields (see Box 1). The area is now highly degraded, and relatively
unmanaged, it is a major source of carbon emissions (due to oxidation and fires) and poses a
health hazard to communities over a wide area. The areas includes 400,000 ha of peat >1m
deep that is now without forest cover; much of this will need to be reforested.
In addition to being the focus of the Master Plan – EMRP and Central Kalimantan Peatland
Project (CKPP), the EMRP area is the main focus of the National Forest Rehabilitation (Gerhan)
and Balai Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai (BPDAS) programmes, and Centre for
International Co-operation in Management of Tropical Peatland (CIMTROP) peat swamp forest
(PSF) restoration and rehabilitation activities.
In addition to Government of Indonesia (GOI) funds, significant funds have been pledged by
various donors towards PSF restoration and rehabilitation in the EMRP area, including DGIS
(the Netherlands), AusAID (Australia; for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and
Degradation/REDD), KfW (Germany), Norad (Norway) and the World Bank, and there is
significant pressure from all parties to rapidly commence with replanting programmes.
Box 1. Status of forests in the EMRP area
The area is a river delta of 1.4 million hectares dominated by more than 900,000 ha of peat
with roughly 450,000 ha being more than 3m deep. Hydrological assessments indicate that
the hydrological function of the peatland has been permanently changed and flooding is a
serious problem, especially in the eastern part of the area along the Barito River. Current land
cover is estimated to consist of a mix of healthy and degraded forest (37%), severely
degraded forest and woodland (14%), shrubland (22%), grassland, ferns and recently burnt
land (15%) and agricultural land (12%). Peat swamp forest with high biodiversity value is
found in the more remote areas, especially in the north, and healthy stands of mangrove exist
in part of the coastal zone. Deep peat (>3m) is protected under Presidential Decree 32/1990
and more than 400,000ha of the peat area >1m deep is now degraded and without forest
cover. This area remains a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.
However, information emerging from ongoing and recent restoration and rehabilitation
programmes in the EMRP demonstrates that there is still a lot to learn. Many rehabilitation
efforts were not successful, as sites with failed replanting have demonstrated. Some of the
main preconditions for successful restoration and rehabilitation are beyond the scope of these
guidelines; these are i) community involvement; ii) hydrological restoration and rehabilitation;
and iii) fire prevention. The current guidelines focus on the technical (forestry and biological)
aspects of restoration and rehabilitation, and not on communities, hydrology and fires. Other
outputs of the Master Plan – EMRP include technical annex reports on Hydrology of the EMRP
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
2
area, and water management implications for peatlands, Assessment of dam construction &
green engineering, Fire management in the EMRP area, and Community Engagement on the
EMRP, along with guidelines on fire management and hydrological restoration.
There is some confusion about the various terminology in use in PSF restoration and
rehabilitation, and the various terms are clarified/summarised below in Box 2. These draft
guidelines provide:
• Summary of degradation types & natural regeneration studies in Indonesia (chapter 2),
• Summary of restoration/rehabilitation attempts in the region (chapter 3.1) and Central
Kalimantan (3.2),
• Guiding principles for restoration and rehabilitation (chapter 4), and
• Technical guidelines for PSF restoration and rehabilitation (chapter 5).
Key areas for future research based on a needs assessment carried out during the workshop
are included in Annex 3.
Box 2. Clarification of terminology
The figure below illustrates the “degradation staircase” that shows mechanisms by which
ecosystems could be returned to (something like) their original state following various levels of
degradation. Areas that are only slightly degraded can recover on their own by means of natural
regeneration, while heavily degraded areas can rarely fully recover and will require rehabilitation to
restore basic functions. The terminology used in these guidelines is described below.
After: Chazdon (2008)
Terms:
• Reforestation (reboisasi): (re-)planting of trees in an area without trees.
• Regreening (penghijauan): often used as a synonym of reforestation.
• PSF Regeneration: (natural) recovery of PSF vegetation; assisted regeneration is when
some inputs are provided, such as hydrological restoration or fire prevention, so that
natural regeneration can take hold.
• PSF Restoration: to return peat swamp forests (modified by human use) to their natural
state
• PSF Rehabilitation: to revive important ecological services of degraded peat swamp forest
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
3
2 Summary of degradation types &
natural regeneration studies
2.1 Development of peat swamp forest in Southeast Asia
Palynological studies carried out in peat swamp forests of Southeast Asia indicate at least two
possible routes for their development: an origin in freshwater swamps, or one whereby peat
formation begins in mangrove areas.
As described by Morley (1981) based on peat core samples taken in the Sebangau peat dome
in Central Kalimantan, peat formation in this area began abruptly over a topogenous eutrophic
or mesotrophic swamp in which grasses (Poaceae) and Lycopodium cernuum were
conspicuous elements. Other species at this early stage include aquatic species such as
Nymphoides indica and bladderwort Utricularia flexuosa. Most peat swamp trees were probably
recruited from local plant communities, since pollen of many of the taxa found in the peat
swamp was already present during the grass-dominated phase. Peat swamps in Kutai, East
Kalimantan also have a freshwater origin, but rather than being dominated by grasses during
the preceding stage, these swamps were dominated by Pandanus, which grades upwards to
peat swamp dominated by dipterocarps (Hope et al., 2005). This is similar to the situation found
in Riau, where Brady (1997) also recorded an initial pandan-dominated stage in peat swamps of
Pulau Padang. These peatlands are of recent origin, all being formed during the last glacial
period of 6000-10000 years BP. Inland peat swamp forests found in the Danau Sentarum NP in
West Kalimantan have a different origin yet again, having formed over inland freshwater
swamps, and are much older: 30000-40000 years BP (Anshari et al., 2001; 2004).
Studies by Anderson and Muller (cited by Morley, 1981) indicate that the Marudi peat swamp in
Sarawak originated in a mangrove area, having developed over marine clays in the Baram
Delta. The Marudi palynological profile shows a gradual change from a mixed mangrove with
Nypa fruticans, Oncosperma tigillaria and Rhizophoraceae, through a transitional community
with Cyrtostachys lakka, Campnosperma and Eleiodoxa, to a true peat swamp association. A
similar history was recorded by Yulianto et al. (2005) at Batulicin in South Kalimantan, where
sea level rise about 6000-6400 years BP lead to a transition from Rhizophora-dominated
mangrove to peat swamp forest.
2.2 Degradation seres & regeneration in the region
According to Van Steenis (1957), nothing was known at the time about (fire) seres in peat
swamp forests, although Kostermans (1958) tried to rectify this by providing some initial notes.
The occurrence of fire seres in humid Southeast Asian peat swamp forests is an anomaly. As
Rieley and Ahmad-Shah (1996) point out, most pristine tropical peat swamps are permanently
wet, with the water table close to, or above, the surface throughout the year. Fluctuation of the
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
4
water table in an ombrogenous peat swamp in Sarawak, for example, was 19 centimetres in the
centre and 10 centimetres near the edge, throughout the year. Also, relative humidity is high: in
wet season this is 90-96% both in forested and gap areas, and in the dry season this is 80-84%.
However, it is obvious that fire (and other degradation) seres have emerged, and have been
subjected to various studies/targeted by various management regimes during the past decades.
2.2.1 Malaysia
According to Wyatt-Smith (1959) there is a comparative wealth of natural regeneration of all
sizes of economic species in the peat swamp forests of Malaysia. He notes, however, that even
a slight drop in the mean water table may result in changes to the species composition of the
forest, with plants that are more suited to the drier soils succeeding those of the original wetter
conditions. Thus Tetramerista glabra and Gonystylus bancanus often do not regenerate
following logging. However, Koompassia malaccensis, Calophyllum retusum and Shorea spp.
do well – so good timber crop can be expected in regenerated forest.
Natural regeneration and reforestation studies in the peat swamp forests of Sarawak by Lee
(1979) found that in the Alan Batu forest, the amount of Shorea albida dropped from 28% to 2%
over a period of 17 years, as S. albida seedlings are quickly out competed after logging. Fast-
growing species such as Xylopia coriifolia, Litsea spp. and Cratoxylum spp. increase
significantly after logging, while those with medium rates of growth such as Dactylocladus
stenostachys, Ganua spp. and Shorea inaequilateralis showed about 20% increase in
distribution. Slower growing species such as Combretocarpus rotundatus, Melanorrhoea spp.
(now Gluta), Palaquium spp. and Gonystylus bancanus decreased in distribution by about 30%.
Silvicultural treatment aimed at eliminating vegetation competing with a potential tree crop,
appear to have a stimulating effect (as measured after 10 years) on growth of fast growing
species such as Cratoxylum spp., Dryobalanops rappa, Shorea spp. and Dactylocladus
bancanus.
Whitmore (1984) describes secondary vegetation types in peat swamp areas. Melaleuca
cajuputi is an under storey tree that become gregarious after repeated burning, owing to thick,
loose, corky bark, and the production of root suckers and coppice shoots. In Malaysia, species
commonly associated with Melaleuca cajuputi are Alstonia spathulata, Cratoxylum
cochinchinense, Excoecaria agallocha, Fagraea fragrans, Ilex cymosa, Macaranga pruinosa,
Ploiarium alternifolium, Randia dasycarpa, Scleria species and Stenochlaena palustris.
Whitmore (1984) found that following logging of Shorea albida-Gonystylus-Stemonurus forest in
Sarawak, Shore albida presence dropped from 28% to 2% as seedlings were killed by
competition. In contrast, fast growers such as Cratoxylum, Litsea species and Xylopia coriifolia
had greatly increased; medium growers such as Dactylocladus stenostachys, Ganua species
and Shorea inequilateralis increased by 20%, and slow growers such as Combretocarpus
rotundatus, Gluta species, Palaquium species and Gonystylus bancanus decreased by about
30%. In the Shorea albida-Litsea-Parastemon forest type, natural regeneration of Shorea
albida, and other large trees such as Litsea crassifolia and Combretocarpus rotundatus is
mainly vegetative, by suckers or coppice shoots. This forest then has no value for timber, but
low extraction costs and high volume makes it valuable for chips or pulp. Extensive pure stands
of Macaranga pruinosa and Campnosperma coriacea in Malaysia of same-sized trees with an
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
5
even canopy are believed to represent stages in a secondary succession back to mixed swamp
forest after clearing (Whitmore, 1984).
Appanah et al. (1989) note that in peat swamp forests of Peninsular Malaysia there is an
increase in the regeneration of Shorea species, Koompassia malaccensis and Calophyllum
retusum after final felling or when the surrounding forest is converted to agriculture. This
increase has been attributed to the desiccation of the forest, favouring these species at the
expense of species such as Gonystylus
According to Bruenig (1990), commercial tree felling results in a drastic shift in species
composition in favour of species which are tolerant to sudden change, such as Cratoxylum
arborescens, but not species such as ramin Gonystylus bancanus. The latter is a naturally slow
starting species, and in silvicultural trials, reacted poorly to felling and release operations. In
regenerating areas with even canopies there is a risk of a dense, slender pole vegetation
resulting which is susceptible to wind damage. Another hazard of commercially felled areas is
that of nutrient loss by interrupting the nutrient cycle. Growth can be almost static in secondary
growth areas in Borneo (e.g. dominated by Ploiarium), where monitored secondary forest
showed almost zero growth even after 30 years.
Under post-logging conditions in peat swamp forests in Malaysia, Ibrahim (1996) reports that
cleaning operations are required to reduce competition for sunlight and nutrients. Where this
does not occur, disturbed peat swamp forests are rapidly dominated by fast growing species
such as Macaranga. In Sarawak, defective and weakened trees are removed by means of
girdling and liberation in the first year after logging, and again after 10 years. Some enrichment
planting has been carried out, especially of Gonystylus bancanus in Sarawak, but no routine
silvicultural treatments are performed in logged-over peat swamp forest in Peninsular Malaysia.
Seedlings and small trees of commercial trees tend to cluster around the mother tree, and
removal of the latter in uncontrolled logging operations results in serious damage <to progeny>,
and reduced opportunities for natural regeneration. Enrichment planting is probably the most
logical solution if natural regeneration fails to restock degraded peat swamp forest. The main
problems associated with enrichment planting of peat swamp forests is obtaining an adequate
seed supply of selected species, the remoteness of planting areas, and a lack of process
planting techniques in areas which contain much undecomposed organic matter.
2.2.2 Brunei Darussalam
In his study on secondary succession in logged over peat swamp forest dominated by Shorea
albida, at Sungei Damit, Belait, Kobayashi (2000) found that natural regeneration of Shorea
albida forests following logging operations is poor. After a four year recovery period he found
that less than 10% of the former Shorea albida forests were likely to recover as S. albida forest,
while more than 80% was found to be heavily colonised by Pandanus andersonii and
Nephrolepis biserrata and developing into a shrub-fern vegetation.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
6
2.2.3 Thailand
Only a relatively small area (64,000 ha) of peat swamp forest remains in Thailand (Hankaew,
2003). Whereas a total of 437 angiosperms were recorded in primary peat swamp forest, only
82 species are found in secondary, degraded peat swamp forests. The latter are dominated by
Melaleuca cajuputi and are characterised by the presence of many Cyperaceae. Peat swamp
forest disturbed by repeated fires loses all or most of its peat layer, and underlying clay soils are
invariably potential acid sulphate soils. Upon exposure to the air these become strongly acidic,
and this favours Melaleuca, which is generally tolerant of such conditions. If fires are not only
incidental, Melaleuca–dominated communities may be replaced by a further degraded
Cyperaceae ‘grassland’.
Mixed peat swamp forests are generally of two types, one dominated by Eugenia kunstleri, the
second dominated by Ganua motleyana. Upon opening of the canopy, for example, by felling of
trees, the vegetation becomes dominated by Macaranga pruinosa. Further disturbance and
especially fires then leads to the fourth community type already described, dominated by
Melaleuca cajuputi. Herbaceous species commonly associated with the latter secondary
vegetation are Cyperus spp., Lepironia articulata, Lygodium microphyllum, Medinilla crassifolia,
Melastoma decemfidum, Nepenthes gracilis, Stenochlaena palustris and various grasses.
According to Hankaew (2003), recovery of disturbed peat swamp forests via natural succession
occurs via the following stages:
Melaleuca cajuputi community type
Macaranga pruinosa community type
Eugenia kunstleri – Goniothalamus giganteus – Macaranga pruinosa community sub-type
Eugenia kunstleri – Ganua motleyana community sub-type
Ganua motleyana – Xylopia fusca community type.
For natural regeneration to occur, it is most important that fires are prevented, and other factors
appear to be secondary to this.
Tomita et al. (2000) studied in detail the natural regeneration process of Melaleuca–dominated
peat swamp forest in southern Thailand following a severe fire. The area studied had been
drained, cleared, abandoned and burnt, after which the area was rapidly colonised by
Melaleuca cajuputi, along with Melastoma malabathricum, a host of ferns including Blechnum
indicum, Stenochlaena palustris and Lygodium microphyllum, and the sedges Lepironia
articulata and Scleria sumatrana. According to Tomita et al. (2000), who studied dispersal and
recovery in great detail, these species either arrived as wind-borne seeds (Melaleuca) or from
surviving subterranean clones (Lepironia, Blechnum). In the three year study, Melaleuca was
observed to grow very rapidly, increasing to a height of 2-3 metres, covering much of the
quadrats analysed, and out-competing other species after only 1.5 years.
2.2.4 Papua New Guinea
According to Eden (1973), the current distribution of savannah and grassland in southern Papua
is not wholly consistent with environmental conditions, and he concludes that these habitats
have been formed as a result of clearing and burning of peat swamps, perhaps influenced by
recent climatic fluctuations.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
7
2.3 Degradation seres and regeneration in Indonesia
2.3.1 Indonesia in general
In their assessment of the TPTI selective logging system in Indonesia, Dwiyono and Rachman
(1996) conclude that this system does not always allow regeneration, due to:
poor felling techniques which severely damage young/valuable trees;
use of young trees (20-30cm dbh class) to construct logging tracks, ramps, etc…;
some tree species produce seed only once a decade or so;
suppression of preferred species by other (less valuable) species;
luxuriant growth of climbers, creepers or rattans; and
appropriateness of enrichment planting not examined and suitable species unknown.
As a result of felling, there is a decrease in old and large trees, with higher densities of younger
and smaller ones as a result. In peripheral peat swamps, Shorea species tend to dominate
regrowth, while in most open places (e.g. along extraction routes) Cratoxylum arborescens, C.
glaucum and Dactylocladus stenostachys are pioneer species colonizing newly available space.
On the whole, such fast growing trees become dominant in the regenerating peat swamp forest.
Regeneration is also often quite patchy, and forest stands are often replaced by low growing
species such as ferns and shrubs. Other changes noted by Dwiyono and Rachman are
structural changes, a reduced structural diversity, and changes in micro-climate.
2.3.2 Sumatra
Kostermans (1958) regarded the lakes at Kayu Agung in South Sumatra as being the result of
peat disappearance due to extensive burning. Giesen and van Balen (1991b) describe the lakes
along the Siak Kecil River in Riau, which forms part of a large peat dome where the deepest
peat in Indonesia has been recorded – 24 metres. The string of lakes along the Siak-Kecil – like
pearls on a string – and the ongoing peat degradation and burning strongly suggest that the
lakes are in the process of being formed due to peat degradation.
2.3.3 South Kalimantan
Giesen (1990) considers that virtually all vegetation types in the Sungai Negara wetlands of
South Kalimantan are of a secondary nature, derived from primary types by tree felling and
burning. Mixed freshwater swamp forests were found to have all been converted to Melaleuca
cajuputi (gelam)
2
dominated swamp forest, sedge and grass swamp or rice paddies, a process
that was already observed and noted early in the 20
th
century. Elsewhere (West Kalimantan,
East Kalimantan) freshwater swamp forest is observed to be converted to a vegetation
dominated by Shorea balangeran. This also appear to have been the case in South Kalimantan,
and historic accounts record gelam and S. balangeran fire seres being replaced by sedge, fern
and grass swamps. Giesen (1990) notes that the herb layer of degraded wetlands often
dominated by Stenochlaena palustris and Blechnum indicum.
Giesen (1990) further describes five types of secondary peat swamp forests (fire seres) derived
from mixed peat swamp forest that formerly included Gonystylus bancanus, dipterocarps and
wild mangoes. These five types are:
2
Melaleuca cajuputi is an understorey tree in the primary swampforest (Whitmore, 1984).
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
8
Eugenia – dominated fire/logging sere.
Shorea balangeran – dominated fire/logging sere.
Combretocarpus rotundatus – pure stands; also a fire sere, possibly intermediate
between the former two.
Melaleuca cajuputi swamp forest – possibly a next degradation stage, following a long
history of fires in peat swamp forests on acid sulphate soils.
Sedge and grass swamp – final stage of degradation. Many species of sedge (Cyperus,
Scleria, Eleocharis, Fimbristylis, Fuirena, Scirpus, Rhynchospora) and grass
(Ischaemum, Echinochloa, Phragmites, Rottboellia), and invasive Mimosa pigra shrubs.
2.3.4 Central Kalimantan
Kostermans (1958) reports that species such as Alstonia, Campnosperma and Ctenolophon
lophopetalum only develop alongside Combretocarpus rotundatus if burning is not too frequent.
Both Shorea balangeran and Combretocarpus rotundatus appear to be stimulated by fire, and
show a marked tendency towards gregariousness, each forming nearly pure stands.
According to Rieley and Ahmad-Shah (1996), Bornean dipterocarps are not only tolerant of
shade in early stages of growth, but develop faster under these conditions. Opening up of the
canopy during logging operations may therefore have adverse effects on these species.
Regeneration of burnt areas may be hampered by falling timber, and Rieley and Ahmad-Shah
(1996) found that “since the <Kalimantan> fires ended there has been a constant collapse of
burned trees to the forest floor causing damage to new growth.”
In their assessment of the effects of the 1997/98 forest fires and deforestation in Central
Kalimantan, D’Arcy and Page (2002) found that mixed peat swamp forest lost about 75% of tree
density in burnt areas, compared to a maximum loss of 40% in selectively logged areas.
Primary forest had the highest mean number of saplings per plot, while burnt areas had the
highest mean dbh. Interestingly, they found that Combretocarpus rotundatus is one of the main
species able to survive fires. Forest fires can greatly restrict the regeneration of an area through
the deterioration of seed banks, the reduction in plants that normally resprout post disturbance,
and a decline of soil fertility due to the loss of organic material.
An IPB study of the recovery of a large area of former peat swamp forest at Kelampangan,
Central Kalimantan, has produced some interesting results. A 1 ha plot of 100 by 100 metres
was studied over the course of several years after the 1997 fires. Immediately after the fires it
was concluded that all species had died, apart from two specimens of jelutung Dyera polyphylla
(lowii) that had miraculously escaped. In the first four months after the fire, very little
regeneration occurred except for resprouting of Combretocarpus rotundatus, and it was
therefore concluded that the seed bank in the peat soil had also been killed. By May 2003, i.e.
6 years after the fires, Simbolon et al. (2003) found that there were 1158 individual trees (with a
dbh of 15 cm or more) growing in the plot. 103 tree species were identified, dominated by
Combretocarpus rotundatus, Cratoxylum arborescens, Palaquium gutta, Shorea teysmanniana
and Syzygium ochneocarpa. Common species (in terms of number) were: C. arborescens (256
indiv.), S. teysmanniana (104), S. ochneocarpa (50), Horsfieldia crassifolia (47) and
Campnosperma squamatum (46). On the whole, the investigators were surprised by the
vigorous regrowth. According to Simbolon (pers. comm., 2003), the seeds did not arrive by
wind, as most are too heavy, and they were probably brought by birds and mammals, or by
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
9
floodwaters. However, the latter happened only once since the IPB team began monitoring the
area. One must note, however, that the plot is located only 300 metres from a patch of good
peat swamp forest, and the hydrology was reasonably intact (i.e. with limited drainage impact).
Simbolon expected dbh to have recovered by 30-40 years, but full floristic recovery would take
more than 100 years, and perhaps even several hundred years. In any case, this will depend on
the proximity of good forest as a source of propagules.
A WWF-Indonesia team conducted an initial fire impact study in the peat swamp forests of
Tanjung Puting National Park, Central Kalimantan in December 1997
3
. They found that the
average number of tree species declined from 60 per hectare in unburned areas to fewer than
15 after burning, that the total number of trees that survived the burn is highly correlated with
the degree of prior disturbance, and that areas that had burned twice or more generally were
devoid of trees. Peat swamps differ from other forests in that fires can travel below the ground
surface killing trees by destroying their root systems.
Graham and D’Arcy (2006) found at Sebangau that after the 1997 fires, the dominant tree
genera were Santiria and Sterculia, while Shorea, Dyera and Eugenia also emerged. Following
the second major fires in 2002 diversity dropped, and emerging tree species were low in
number, with genera such as Elaeocarpus, Syzygium and Ilex becoming more dominant. Adult
trees of Combretocarpus rotundatus (tumih) survived both fires, but saplings were low in
number.
D’Arcy and Graham (2007) found in the Sebangau NP area that primary seed dispersers are
important for dispersal and maintenance of tree species diversity in these peat swamp forests.
However, their population densities are in decline, and especially in burnt areas are likely to
play a limiting role in seed dispersal from adjacent intact areas. The implications are that if this
decline continues, peat swamp forest may struggle to regenerate naturally in disturbed areas.
Ongoing studies on seed dispersal by frugivorous birds at Sebangau NP indicate that, unlike in
the Neotropics, seed dispersal by birds plays a less important role (pers. comm. L. Graham,
2008). However, it must be acknowledged that the forests under study (Sebangau NP) have
been subjected to disturbance, and numbers of large frugivorous birds such as hornbills are
low. Another factor that limits natural regeneration is the virtual absence of s viable seed stock
in peat, especially after a fire has swept through an area. In parts of Sebangau NP, lowered
water tables (e.g. due to channels constructed for illegal logging) may further exacerbate the
problem, as desiccation may further affect propagule viability.
3
http://www.iffm.or.id/How_are_forests.html
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
10
3 Summary of restoration/rehabilitation
attempts
3.1 Regional
3.1.1 Peat swamp forest restoration & rehabilitation in Thailand
Although Thailand has little peat swamp forest (<65,000ha) compared to Malaysia and
Indonesia, it has the most experience and longest history of peat swamp forest restoration and
rehabilitation in the region. Some of these efforts date back to more than 40 years (see below),
while those of the Royal Forest Department (RFD) date back more than a decade. In all, about
640 ha had been restored by 1999 (Nuyim, 2000).
Village-based efforts at reforestation have been undertaken in Thailand, for example, at Phru
Kantulee
4
. Phru Kantulee was heavily degraded and largely drained for rice paddies, when 40
years ago efforts began to convince local villagers of the importance of restoring this area. Each
village household was asked to manage 30-40 ‘rai’ (1 rai measures about 40 by 40 metres),
improve by means of planting and prevent outsiders from cutting trees. Almost 400 rai has been
revised and reforestation efforts have turned rice paddies and fruit orchards into one of South
Thailand’s most pristine peat swamp forests. The area is important for supplying water to
adjacent orchards, and has become an important area for both fish and wildlife. Reportedly, the
project has been so successful that the swamp is now being considered for listing as a wetland
of national and international importance.
According to Urapeepatanapong and Pitayakajornwute (1996), programmes initiated by the
RFD in the 1990s that are relevant to PSF restoration and rehabilitation include:
• Silvicultural traits of peat swamp forest trees project; this was initiated to identify which
species have the greatest potential for regeneration and plantations.
• Species selection experimental project; focused on 15 tree species (Acacia mangium,
Baccaurea bracteata, Dialium patens, Eugenia kunstleri, Eugenia oblata, Fagraea
fragrans, Ganua motleyana, Litsea johorensis, Melaleuca spp., Polyalthia glauca,
Stemonurus secundiflora), to determine appropriate methods for reforestation.
• Soils improvement for tree planting, examining fertility constraints for five species
(Baccaurea bracteata, Eugenia kunstleri, Eugenia oblata, Macaranga spp., Polyalthia
glauca) under different fertiliser conditions.
• Growth rate studies under different plant spacings (1x1, 2x2, 3x3, 4x4 metres) for five
species (Baccaurea bracteata, Blumeodendron kurzii, Eugenia kunstleri, Syzygium
oblatum (Eugenia oblata), Macaranga sp.).
• Nursery techniques study, for raising seedlings on forest floor, tested on 4 palm species:
Areca triandra, Cyrtostachys lakka, Eleiodoxa (Salacca) conferta & Licuala spinosa.
• Relationship between weeds and growth rates study, to study effects of different weeding
regimes (every 1,2,4 or 6 months) on growth of Macaranga sp. planted in 20x20 m plots.
4
www.BangkokPost.com, 5 February 2003
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
11
In order to develop reforestation techniques for degraded peat swamp and sand dunes in
Narathiwat, Southeast Thailand, physiological characteristics of Melaleuca cajuputi Powell were
studied (Satohoko et al., undated). Melaleuca cajuputi is a main pioneer species in peat swamp
and sand dune habitats in the Narathiwat region. M. cajuputi germinated, survived and grew
well under flooding conditions, and its seeds did not lose their germination capacity even after
heating to 100
o
C for one hour. These characteristics are advantageous for M. Cajuputi to grow
and develop in peat swamps.
According to Nuyim (2003), dominant tree species in primary peat swamp forest are Syzygium
pyrifolium, Ganua motleyana, Campnosperma coriaceum, Macaranga pruinosa, Calophyllum
teysmannii, Neesia malayana, Endiandra macrophylla, Syzygium obatum, Sterculia bicolor,
Stemonurus secundiflorus, Syzygium muelleri and Baccaurea bracteata. Dominant tree
species in secondary peat swamp forest are Melaleuca cajuputi and Macaranga pruinosa.
Peat swamp forest degradation has mainly occurred due to drainage, followed by subsequent
fires. Following fires, three scenarios may follow: i) Melaleuca cajuputi regrowth area; ii)
Macaranga spp. regrowth area, and iii). no tree regrowth. Fruits of Melaleuca are opened by the
high temperatures that occur during fires, and the seeds are dispersed to the ground, so it is not
surprising that this species is a dominant pioneer following fires. The areas dominated by
Macaranga are a bit puzzling, as Macaranga species are rarely found in these areas before fire
damage, and Nuyim recommends that Macaranga’s seed dispersal system needs to be studied.
Nuyim (2003) found that native palm species (esp. sago, Metroxylon sagu) have very strong
tolerance to fire and easily recover their growth; he considers that they may be useful as a
barrier for fire protection. Areas that a repeatedly burnt, however, are soon dominated by
Melaleuca cajuputi. Because of this, natural regeneration of deforested (mainly fire damaged)
peat swamp areas therefore seems to lead to Melaleuca forests, and therefore assisted
reforestation is required for recovery of original peat swamp forest.
Reforestation techniques have been developed for peat swamp areas by the Royal Forest
Department during the past 10 years, which has replanted a total area of 640 hectares.
Experience during these ten years of reforestation has shown that the following species are
most suited: Ganua motleyana, Melaleuca cajuputi, Syzygium oblatum, Syzygium pyrifolium,
Sterculia bicolor, Sandoricum beccarianum, Alstonia spathulata, Calophyllum teysmannii, Ixora
grandifolia and Alstonia spathulata.
Nuyim (2000) reports that under natural conditions, peat swamp forest trees appear to grow
best on naturally occurring mounds. In restoration programmes, the effect of artificial mound
construction was tested on five species, and it was found that trees grew better on mounds than
the same species planted in untreated areas. Tree height of Syzygium species, for example,
was found to be almost double on mounds compared to unmounded areas (Nuyim, 2000;
2003). However, as mound construction is expensive, Nuyim recommends further studies
before recommending this for larger areas. Application of organic or chemical fertiliser and
liming did not have any significant effects on growth. Regular (monthly) weeding, however,
significantly improved stem diameter, stem biomass and branch biomass (at rates of 2-6x), but
survival percentage, tree height, and width of crown were not affected.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
12
3.1.2 Peat swamp forest restoration & rehabilitation in Malaysia
PSF restoration activities in Malaysia are still at an early stage, and to date are limited to trials
and small-scale activities undertaken by the Forestry Department and FRIM (pers. comm.,
Ismail Parlan, FRIM, 2003
5
). The project on Sustainable Management of Peat Swamp Forest in
Peninsular Malaysia (SMPSF) was initiated in September 1996 and had a duration of 3 years.
6
This was a bilateral project between the governments of Malaysia and Denmark, and was
implemented by the Forestry Department of Peninsular Malaysia and DANCED (Danish
Cooperation for Environment and Development). The project’s main objective was to ensure
that sustained social, economic and environmental benefits are derived from the management
of the peat swamp forests. Baseline studies were carried out in and around the heavily logged
over peat swamp forest areas in North Selangor (70,000 ha) and still untouched peat swamp
forests in Pahang (80,000ha). The studies have focused on silviculture and forest management,
growth and yield, ecology, hydrology and socio-economics. Field activities have included
establishment and monitoring of peat swamp plots, conducting of reduced impact logging trials
(RIL), rehabilitation trials in disturbed areas, thinning intensity trials, flora and fauna inventories
and collection and monitoring of hydrology data, socio-economic survey and GIS - mapping
including forest zoning and infrastructure. Guidelines for integrated, sustainable management of
peat swamp forests have been produced, to form the basis for the production of 10 years
management plans for the two different peat swamp forests areas.
As part of the SMPSF project, the Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) has been involved
in the production of PSF planting materials, and the rehabilitation of degraded PSF. Planting
trials were carried out in previously burnt grassland areas, secondary forests, logging trails, and
fern vegetation, in order to provide guidelines to forest managers on PSF restoration. FRIM also
has plans for larger scale trials in secondary Macaranga forest.
The trials on replanting of Imperata cylindrica (alang-alang) grassland areas were carried out on
an area of 1.55 ha in the Raja Musa Forest Reserve in Kuala Selangor, Peninsular Malaysia
(Ismail et al., 2001). Six indigenous PSF species were used: Anisoptera marginata (Mersawa
paya), Calophyllum ferrugenium (Bintangor gambut), Durio carinatus (Durian paya), Ganua
(Madhuca) motleyana (Nyatoh ketiau), Gonystylus bancanus (Ramin melawis) and Shorea
platycarpa (Meranti paya). Four planting techniques were tried: open planting, open planting
with mulching, open planting with topsoil and open planting with nursery trees. These
techniques were tried for all six species under three different relative light intensities (RLI):
100%, 70% and 30%. Results show that the most cost effective approach is open planting,
using A. marginata, M. motleyana, G. bancanus and S. platycarpa, which have survival rates of
73-92% under these conditions. Other planting techniques do not result in significantly higher
survival rates; also, C. ferrugineum and D. carinatus have a low survival rate and require low to
moderate RLIs.
5
FRIM, Malaysia.
6
http://www.usm.my/bio/peat swamp/abstracts/Palle_Havmoller.html
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
13
3.1.3 Peat swamp forest restoration and rehabilitation in Vietnam
Melaleuca-dominated peat swamp forests in the Mekong Delta were largely destroyed during
the Vietnam-American war by chemical defoliants, napalm and bombing, and more recently by
clearing for agriculture, and draining by canals and for road construction (Maltby et al., 1996). In
1991, the IUCN Wetlands Programme was asked by the Vietnamese authorities to provide
technical assistance to rehabilitate Melaleuca dominated swamps in An Giang province. Since
1975, considerable efforts were made in re-establishing 50,000ha of Melaleuca, but by the mid-
1990s only 3,000ha remained, due to a combination of:
• poor management (broadcast seeding; no thinning; build-up of litter leading to fire hazard;
canals used as fire breaks provide unwanted access; poor seed stock used),
• social problems (few economic alternatives to exploiting newly established Melaleuca
stands; intentional fires; preference for agriculture to Melaleuca),
• land use conflicts (short-term benefits from even poor rice harvests appear better than
long-term benefits from Melaleuca; central government support for agriculture and
irrigation/drainage; little coordination between government departments), and
• lack of financial resources (insufficient funds for successful rehabilitation and
management of Melaleuca stands).
The IUCN programme aimed at tackling these issues, for example, by better land use planning,
improving inter-agency coordination, improved seed selection, thinning regimes, reduction of
fire hazard, improvement of water management, and provision of financial assistance.
U Minh Thuong NP
Building upon efforts initiated by IUCN and the Royal Holloway College, Melaleuca peat swamp
restoration activities at U Minh Thuong National Park have been carried out with assistance
from BirdLife International since 1997 (BirdLife International, 2002). The main problem has been
devastation by fires, which was the focus of a workshop held in Ho Chi Minh City in June 2002.
Key conclusions reached at this workshop were that:
• no new canals should be constructed in the area, and a new hydrological management
regime is needed, in order to keep the peat wet all year round;
• Melaleuca forest should be allowed to regenerate by itself. Re-seeding is not necessary,
as Melaleuca cajuputi is a robust species, tolerant of fire, drought and poor soils. It rapidly
re-grows and colonises areas after fire.
• Fire is part of Melaleuca ecology. Hydrological restoration is essential for the proper
control, management and use of fire.
3.1.4 PSF restoration & rehabilitation in other Indonesian provinces
Riau, Sumatra
Bogor Agricultural University (Institut Pertanian Bogor/IPB) carried out a restoration programme
(Implementation of Native Forest Restoration pilot project) for PT Caltex Pacific Indonesia in
2002, in the Duri and Minas Oil Field Operation areas in Riau province. The programme has five
objectives, namely to:
• ensure that the nursery is developed correctly in terms of lay-out, capacity, supporting
facilities and equipment; and supporting seedling growth;
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
14
• provide technology transfer to CPI’s re-vegetation field personnel re-vegetation including
native species selection and their planting stock propagation techniques;
• develop a re-vegetation plan and strategy that considers the varied conditions of
proposed restoration areas (including degraded peat areas, heavily disturbed secondary
forest, moderately disturbed secondary forest);
• provide technical assistance for implementation of the re-vegetation activities for
restoration program.
• develop Standard Operating Procedures for key nursery operation, re-vegetation activities
and monitoring.
Activities involved a preliminary study on selecting native pioneer species as catalytic species to
speed up recolonization of heavily degraded and moderately degraded land (including peat
swamp) after oil extraction operations (pers. comm., Yadi Setiadi, 2003
7
). Among the species
tested, Macaranga hypoleuca (potted seedling) and Hibiscus sp. (stem cuttings) seem to be
best adapted to poor, degraded peat sites. IPB are still monitoring their survival, growth
performance, root development, recolonization of native species, crown recovery and litter
production. In addition to this, IPB are also evaluating the mycorrhizal status of pioneer species
grown in peat swamps, as this may help early seedling establishment in peatlands. They are
also expanding their programme by selecting native pioneer species and developed
propagation techniques, as this seems very important in support of the peat rehabilitation
programme.
Prior to the activities with IPB (2001-2003), PT Caltex Pacific Indonesia developed activities in
the same locations with the private firm PT. Hatfindo Prima. These aimed at establishing and
operating the nursery, and developing a plan and strategy for forest restoration by considering
variations in local conditions in the degraded areas.
Jambi, Sumatra
PT. Dyera Hutan Lestari (PT. DHL) has a concession area of 8,000 hectares near Sungai Aur,
of which 7,200 hectares can effectively be used. The aim of the company is to establish a viable
jelutung Dyera polyphylla (D. lowii) plantation in a secondary, degraded peat swamp. In the first
year of operation, 1991-1992, 60 hectares were planted, followed by 260 hectares in 1992-
1993, and 593 hectares in 1993-1994. By 2004, 2121 ha had been planted (Wibisono, 2008).
Initially, enrichment line planting in secondary scrub was carried out using Dyera polyphylla,
Gonystylus bancanus and Endospermum diadenum (Muub, 1996), but although relatively
successful this was soon switched to clearing followed by line planting. Survival rates have
been high – on the whole more than 90%, and growth has been rapid: an average girth
increment of more than 2 centimetres per year has been recorded. By 2004, PT DHL had also
begun tapping latex, and trials tappings under different regimes have been carried out.
In spite of this apparent success, there have been many pitfalls. Firstly, investments in
infrastructure have been high because of the difficulty of access in the peat swamp forest.
Secondly, obtaining a sufficient supply of jelutung seeds has proven to be difficult, as Dyera
polyphylla flowers and sets seed only every 4-5 years (i.e. in Jambi; in Central Kalimantan this
appears to occur annually, pers. comm.. L. Graham), and during operations seed has been set
7
Head of Forest Biotechnology Laboratory and Environment, Biotechnology Research Center. Bogor Agriculture
University, Campus IPB, PO Box 01. Darmaga Bogor.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
15
only in 1993 and 1997. (In 2004, PT. DHL had a large and professional, 2-hectare nursery at its
main field station along the Batanghari River.) Thirdly, security is a problem, and company staff
have been threatened and attacked on various occasions, for example, by local illegal loggers
caught felling ‘mother trees’ in the PT DHL concession area. Lastly, there is the issue of
wildfires. In 1997, 7000 hectares burnt including 1769 hectares of jelutung plantation, due to a
fire that began in the adjacent HPH PT. Kamiaka Surya. In June 2003 a second fire raged
through PT DHL’s concession, burning 5,000 hectares including 1775 hectares of jelutung and
pulai plantation; this fire began at an illegal sawmill located along the Batanghari 1 kilometre
upstream of the concession area. Interestingly, not all jelutung trees were killed by the 1997 fire,
and it was observed that >10% survived. By 2008, the plantation had closed down and PT
Dyera had stopped all operations following the halt of assistance from GOI’s reforestation fund
(Dana Reboisasi; W ibisono, 2008). Interestingly, local communities in nearby transmigration
sites Rawa Sari and Simpang Lama were found to be planting Dyera polyphylla, following the
PT DHL example
8
, supporting the premise that local ownership is important if replanted areas
are to have value and be protected.
The logging company PT. Putra Duta Indah Wood has its concession east of Berbak NP in
Jambi. Efforts at reforestation since 2001 (Lubis, 2002) have focused on planting meranti rawa
Shorea pauciflora, durian burung Durio carinatus, ramin and jelutung. The company has two
nurseries where a wide range of indigenous peat swamp forest species are being tended, such
as ramin Gonystylus bancanus, rengas Gluta (formerly Melanorrhoea) wallichii, jelutung Dyera
polyphylla, meranti rawa Shorea pauciflora, nyatoh Palaquium sp., durian Durio carinatus,
tanah-tanah Combreocarpus rotundatus and punak Tetramerista glabra. Most of these
seedlings were wildlings gathered as seedlings in the forest. However, the company has put a
major emphasis on planting exotic Acacia crassicarpa rather than replanting PSF species.
Berbak NP staff replanted small trial plots (plot percobaan) of 1 ha along the Air Hitam Laut
River in 2001-2002 (Giesen, 2004). Trees were planted on the burnt peat, and not on mounds.
Two species were planted: jelutung Dyera polyphylla and pulai Alstonia pneumatophora.
Seedlings were obtained locally, and from Pemerinta Daerah (Local Government), while locals
assisted with the planting. In addition, trial planting (1 ha & 5 ha) was carried out in 2002 by the
Forestry Department at the burnt area along the Simpang Melaka river in Berbak NP. At both
sites a combination of pulai, jelutung and medang were planted at a density of one seedling per
10 m². Seedlings were planted directly in the soil, straight into the soil
9
, without mound
construction. Seedlings were small (in the case of jelutung and medang), and about 1m tall in
the case of pulai. Seedlings were not of a high quality as most were from cuttings rather than
seeds. The seedlings were taken from the polybag before planting, which occurred in August (1
ha site) and December (5 ha site) 2002. A quick survey of both areas (Giesen 2004) revealed
that seedling mortality is close to or at 100%, probably due to long, deep flooding (about 1.2-1.3
m, as observed on marks left on trees).
Under the Climate Change and Fire Prevention in Indonesia project, burnt areas along the Air
Hitam Laut River in the central part of Berbak NP were prepared for replanting in August-
November 2003. About 20,000 artificial mounds were constructed, each about 0.3-0.5m tall,
and extending over 20 ha in all. Mounds were planted in November-December 2003 with
8
This supports the premise that local ownership is important if replanted areas are to have value and be protected.
9
Largely mineral, with patches of shallow peat, at the 5 ha site; shallow peat at the first 1 ha site.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
16
14,000+ seedlings of indigenous species of local provenance: Gonystylus bancanus (39.5%),
Shorea pauciflora (10.9%), Tetramerista glabra (0.5%), Gluta (Melanorrhoea) wallichii (20.3%),
Palaquium sp. (23.5%), Combretocarpus rotundatus (3.2%), Eugenia sp. (0.2%), Dyera
polyphylla (1.6%) and Alstonia pneumatophora (0.3%). By February 2004, there was a 65-85%
survival rate at all sites and for most species, in spite of 50 cm flooding. In March 2004,
however, unusually high (1 in 40-year) floods hit the area and all sites were flooded with 100-
150 cm. A subsequent assessment in April 2004 showed <5% survival for the seedlings; best
survivors were Eugenia (27%) and Shorea pauciflora (13%).
3.2 Central Kalimantan
3.2.1 LIPI-JSPS (2000-2001)
The project on Rehabilitation of peatlands and establishment of sustainable agro-system in
Central Kalimantan, carried out under the LIPI – JSPS Core University Program on
“Environmental Conservation and Land Use Management of Wetland Ecosystems in Southeast
Asia”, focused on the rehabilitation of intensively disturbed peat swamp forest areas in Central
Kalimantan (Takahashi et al., 2001). Activities include trial planting of 0.75ha of disturbed PSF
under different regimes (with and without clearing, fertilizer application, and mounds) and with
different species (Shorea balangeran, S. pinanga, S. seminis, Peronema canescens, Palaquium
sp.), and observations on natural regeneration in a fixed sample plot of 50m² affected by
wildfire, compared with a non-affected reference plot of 100m². Trials indicate that Shorea
balangeran and Palaquium are best suited for replanting, as they have considerably higher
survival rates (65-100%) compared to the other species (6-65%), and this seems irrespective of
preparation techniques. Also, both species appear to be suited to heavily disturbed areas
affected by repeated fires, and do not require innoculation by mycorrhizal fungi.
3.2.2 CIMTROP
At the CIMTROP study area in the northern part of Block C, regreening trials have been carried
out with belangiran (Shorea balangeran) and jelutung (Dyera polyphylla) in degraded swamp,
along with several other species (including gaharu, Aquilaria sp. and cashew) on the higher
dikes along the excavated canals. Local communities have in addition been provided with jarak
(Jatropha) and rubber (Hevea). Belangiran trial plantings carried out in 2006 had a 80-90%
survival rate, while those with jelutung had a 40-50% survival rate. Species tried and monitored
by CIMTROP in 2006 are summarised below in Table 1, while Table 2 gives a full list of species
tried in the CIMTROP area. In addition to these, gemor Alseodaphne coriacea, pulai
10
Alstonia
spathulata, bintangur Calophyllum sp., kapur naga Dryobalanops sp., manggis hutan Garcinia
sp., Melaleuca cajuputi and Syzygium were also tried by CIMTROP under the RESTORPEAT
programme (Limin, 2007), but monitoring results are not available yet. Natural regeneration in
the fern-dominated heavily degraded parts of the CIMTROP study area consisted mainly of
tumih (Combretocarpus rotundatus) and gerongang (Cratoxylum glaucum), with some asam-
asam (Ploiarium alternifolium).
10
There is some confusion regarding local names and Indonesia names of Alstonia pneumatophora and Dyera
polyphylla. The Indonesian name for Alstonia pneumatophora is pulai, while that for Dyera polyphylla is jelutung. In
Central Kalimantan, the local name for Alstonia pneumatophora is jelutung, while that for Dyera polyphylla is pantung.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
17
Table 1 Results of CIMTROP restoration trials
No Species Family Local name Number
planted
Survival
rate (%)
1 Dyera polyphylla Apocynaceae Jelutung,
Pantung
100 21
2 Diospyros evena Ebenaceae Uring pahe 100 92
3 Gonystylus bancanus Thymelidaceae Ramin 100 78
4 Palaquium sp. Sapotaceae Hangkang 100 56
5 Shorea balangeran Dipterocarpaceae Kahui 1073 89
6 Shorea sp. Dipterocarpaceae Meranti 1290 37
Adapted from Limin (2007)
Table 2 Tree species used in reforestation trials by CIMTROP
No.
Family Species
Canal
Banks
Peatland
Local name & uses
Apocynaceae Alstonia pneumatophora + Pulai; light construction
?
Dyera polyphylla + + Jelutung (rawa); latex
Chrysobalanaceae Parastemon spicatum + + Bintangur; timber
Clusiaceae Garcinia sp. + + Manggis hutan
Dipterocarpaceae Dryobalanops spp. + + Kapur naga; timber
Shorea belangeran + + Kahui; timber
Shorea spp. + - Meranti; timber
Ebenaceae Diospyros evena + + Uring pahe; timber
Euphorbiaceae Hevea brasiliensis + - Rubber unggul; latex,
timber
Lauraceae Alseodaphne coriacea ? + Gemor
Myrtaceae Melaleuca cajuputi
note: does not do well on
peat
+ - Galam
Syzygium sp. + + Jambu-jambuan
Sapotaceae Palaquium sp.
many species
+ + Hangkang (nyatoh ?);
timber
Tetrameristaceae Tetramerista glabra - + Punak; beams & light
construction
Thymelaeaceae Aquilaria malaccensis (?) + - Gaharu; resin
Gonystylus bancanus - + Ramin; timber
+ = suited for planting / - = not suited for planting
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
18
3.2.3 CKPP – Wetlands International
Under CKPP, Wetlands International-Indonesia Programme (WIIP) have planted 250 ha with
100,000 seedlings of belangiran (Shorea balangeran), jelutung (Dyera polyphylla), kepot bajuku
(syn. pasir-pasir; Stemonurus secundiflora), and pulai Alstonia pneumatophora. It was
conducted in three phases; 50 ha in the first phase, 150 ha in the second phase and 50 ha in
the third phase – location of the three sites in northern Block A is indicated in Figure 1 . In this
rehabilitation program, WIIP involved groups each consisting of 20 villagers. Training was
conducted by WIIP prior to field implementation in order to improve local capacity. Planting was
carried out as strip planting with a line spacing of 5 m x 5 m.
The first planting occurred from 13-26 June 2007 in the peat dome area in Block E North where
20,000 seedlings were planted on 50 ha. The site consisted of heavily degraded peat swamp,
dominated by a host of ferns: Blechnum indicum, Gleichenia linearis, Lygodium and
Stenochlaena palustris. A broad swathe about 2 metres wide was cleared and the 40-50 cm tall
seedlings planted. There was no further tending of the plants. A monitoring survey carried out
early in October 2007 showed an average survival rate of 62%. The report does not indicate
how many of each species was planted, nor what the survival rate was per species. The second
phase of planting was conducted in January 2008, whereby 60,000 seedlings were planted on
150 ha, while the third planting phase was conducted from 7-10 June 2008, with 20,000
seedlings planted on 50 ha.
Figure 1 Rehabilitation sites of WIIP-CKPP in Block A North
A second study of the same three species (belangiran, jelutung & kepot bajuku/pasir-pasir) –
whereby 350 seedlings of each species were planted in five plots each in the same area in May
2007 – was monitored on a monthly basis Wibisono & Gandrung, 2008). The results – depicted
in Figure 2 – shows that belangiran has the best survival rate, with almost 84% surviving after 8
months, while for jelutung this is considerably less favourable (55%). Pasir-pasir did not perform
well at all, with less than 1% surviving after 8 months.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
19
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007
% survival
belangiran
jelutung
pasir-pasir
Figure 2 Seedling survival trials Wetlands International
• Belangiran = Shorea balangeran; jelutung = Dyera polyphylla; pasir-pasir = Stemonurus
secundiflorus (Data adapted from Wibisono & Gandrung, 2008)
3.2.4 CKPP – WWF
As part of CKPP, WWF Central Kalimantan – which began its programme in the province in
2001 – has established a nursery with a capacity of 100,000 seedlings. This will be expanded to
160,000 this year, and species raised are mainly jelutung Dyera polyphylla, belangiran Shorea
balangeran, hangkang Diospyros siamang, tutup kabali Diospyros pseudomalabarica and pasir-
pasir Stemonurus secundiflorus. This year (2008) 20-25,000 were planted along the degraded
areas near the SS-1 canal, in the eastern part of the Sebangau dome. The seedlings of most
species are doing well, except those of Stemonurus, which is susceptible to insect predation.
3.2.5 CKPP – BOS Mawas
The BOS-Mawas project area covers roughly 240,000 ha in Block E. In 12 villages reforestation
groups have been formed which are active in setting up nurseries and planting of trees. In total
34 units of village nurseries have been set up, with a total seedling production of around
500,000.
BOS have planted 1900 ha to date, in eastern Block E and Block A. In areas near villages this
has been with species that are useful for locals, such as belangiran (Shorea balangeran) and
pantung (Dyera polyphylla), while further into the PSF they have planted species used by
orangutan such as tutup kebali (Diospyros), pakan (?), rambutan hutan (Nephelium sp.) and
manggis hutan (Garcinia sp.). Species were all locally sourced, and preparation consisted of
clearing along a line, no other tending occurred. Planting was carried out by village groups
(kelompok masyarakat). They have monitored these every 3 months, and after 6-12 months
these species all reportedly have a 70-90% survival rate.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
20
Some of the planted trees are doing well, with reported growth rates (jelutung) of up 2.5-3.0
(even > 4m) tall after 2 years. In other places however growth rates are lower (< 2 m after 2
years) with heavy competition from ferns (both belangiran and jelutung). The different growth
rates may be caused by variation in drainage levels (e.g. by nearby canals), and lack of
weeding (Giesen 2008).
3.2.6 Forest Research Institute of Banjarbaru (BPK)
The Forest Research Institute (Balai Penelitian Kehutanan Banjarbaru) has carried out several
rehabilitation studies on peat swamp forest since 1993. Before 1999, the study area was part of
a logging concession (HPH), then after 1999, BPK Banjarbaru established a Peat Swamp
Research Forest (Hutan Penelitian Rawa Gambut) at Tumbang Nusa, Central Kalimantan, and
began implementing a research programme at this site. In 2005, this area was legally
established as a Special Purpose Forest Unit (Kawasan Hutan Dengan Tujuan Khusus,
KHDTK), by a decree from the Minister of Forestry
11
. Studies at the site have focused on
biophysical conditions of peat swamp forest, silvicultural studies, exploratory and applied
studies on mycorrhizae, and agroforestry studies. Some of the results of these studies are
summarised below.
Studies of biophysical conditions in peat swamp forest
Soils in the PSF of the Tumbang Nusa study site indicate a very low bulk density in the range of
0.05-0.14, and a low pH in the range of 3-4, a low ash content of 0.8-3.5% and a low fibre
content. These physical conditions pose a significant challenge when planting in such areas.
Studies of the PSF vegetation at Tumbang Nusa indicate that this consists of secondary forest.
Surveys of the vegetation were conducted on secondary PSF and the important value index
(IVI) and diversity value (DV) of each plant species determined. In all, 66 species were
recorded. Species with the highest density and evenly spread for all stages of growth are:
jambu-jambu (Syzygium sp.), malam-malam (Diospyros malam), nangka-nangka
(Neoscortechinia kingii), perupuk (Melicope sp.), and meranti (Shorea teysmanniana).
Commercial species such as ramin (Gonystylus bancanus), kapur naga (Callophyllum
macrocarpum), geronggang (Cratoxylum arborescens) and punak (Tetramerista glabra) had a
low importance value index. The total basal area per hectare for tree with a dbh >10 cm was
15,03 m
2
, considerably lower than the average basal area for tropical lowland rainforest in
Indonesia (36 m
2
/ha) (Rachmanadi et.al., 2008).
Studies of individual species, silviculture & application of mycorrhizae
Result of species elimination trials show that belangeran (Shorea balangeran) is one of
promising tree species for rehabilitation of degraded PSF.. A full list of species tried in the BPK
Banjarbaru area are presented in Table 3. However, the survival rate of the species still shows
a great variation among replication plots. Micro-environment heterogenity created by fire, is
hypothesized to have an important role on the survival within the Shorea balangeran plantation.
The depth to groundwater tables, degree of anaerobic rooting-zone and low raw fibre content
(fibric) in the rooting zone showed a high negative correlation with the survival and growth of
Shorea balangeran, and at certain levels these had a detrimental effect. Endomycorrhizal
spores were found to be in all soil samples examined, and all were found to belong to the genus
11
Surat Keputusan Menteri Kehutanan No. 76/Menhut-II/2005 tanggal 31 Maret 2005.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
21
Glomus. There were two types of ectomycorrhizal infection: a) well developed ectomycorrhizae
with thick mantle and b) non developed ectomycorrhizae that showed thin and sparse hyphae.
Due to lack of fruiting bodies in the study area, the identification of ectomycorrhizae has not
been conducted yet. Mycorrhizae utilization as biofertilizer is needed for seedlings planted in an
over burnt peat swamp forest (Lazuardi et.al., 2003).
Table 3 Results of BPK Banjarbaru rehabilitation trials
# Species Family Local
name
Number
planted
Survival
rate (%)
Remarks
1 Shorea balangeran(7 yr old) Dipterocarpaceae Belangiran 120 80 Planting
technique
2 Shorea balangeran(4 yr old) Dipterocarpaceae Belangiran 190 80 Species
trial
3 Shorea balangeran Dipterocarpaceae Belangiran 256 90 Planting
time trial
4 Tetramerista glabra Theaceae Punak 240 85
5 Gonystylus bancanus Thymelidaceae Ramin 240 60
6 Shorea spp. Dipterocarpaceae Meranti 240 35
7 Dyera polyphylla* Apocynaceae Jelutung,
Pantung
50 90
8 Litsea spp Lauraceae Medang
telur
50 76
9 Palaquium sp. Sapotaceae Nyatu 50 24
10 Calophyllum pulcherimum Guttiferae Bintangur 90 70
11 Dacrydium beccarii Podocarpaceae Alau 90 84
12 Cotylelobium spp. Dipterocarpaceae Rasak 90 59
13 Calophyllum spp. Guttiferae Kapur naga 90 70
Adapted from Rachmanadi (2008)
* Jelutung are often used for agroforestry studies
Agroforestry research
BPK Banjarbaru has established agroforestry plots at 5 locations: Kalampangan (Palangkaraya
District), Tumbang Nusa, Purwodadi, Jabiren (all 3 Pulang Pisau District) and Batunindan
(Kuala Kapuas District). Mixed cropping has been trialed using jelutung (Dyera polyphylla),
other tree species such as rambutan (Nephelium lappaceum) and several agricultural crop such
as maize, rice, peatnut and chinese cabbage (see Figure 3).
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
22
Figure 3 Dyera polyphylla mixed with maize (left), and rambutan (right)
Kalampangan and Tumbang Nusa, respectively.
3.2.7 Other Government departments
Forestry & Agriculture departments
The Forestry and Agriculture departments are also carrying out replanting programmes that
target degraded peat swamp forest areas; this is linked with the Gerhan (Land Rehabilitation
Movement) programme. The focus is mainly on commercial species such as Jatropha, rubber
and Jelutung, which are planted under supervision of Agricultural Extension workers (Balai
Penyuluhan Pertanian/BPP) together with local farmers. Little or no follow-up in the form of
monitoring is occurring, and seedling survival rates are often low.
BP-DAS Kahayan
The Forestry and Plantation Departments have also implemented rehabilitation programmes for
degraded peat swamp forest areas. The Gerhan (Land Rehabilitation Movement) programme
focuses on planting, maintenance, protection, and harvesting. Rehabilitation activities funded
through DAK-DR and GN-RHL/Gerhan in Indonesia are divided into several stages including
site selection and consolidation, technical design, spatial layout, seedling production, design of
infrastructure, selection of tools and methodologies, planting design, plant maintenance during
establishment and in years 1 & 2 after planting.
However, Wana Khatulistiwa Jaya and BP-DAS Kahayan (2007) report that the impact and
benefits of GN-RHL/Gerhan have been limited so far. From the technical aspect the
implementation in last three years of the GN-RHL/Gerhan has improved capacity building of
involved stakeholders and shareholders, mainly for planning and organization. However,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation have not yet benefitted from the Gerhan program.
From the economic aspect the impact of Gerhan has been low: the average household income
has hardly increased, and also the diversification and improvement on economic infestation to
support GN-RHL/Gerhan has remained low. The environmental impact of Gerhan has also been
limited so far, partly because the planted trees are still young, but also because many have
died. Finally, from the social aspect that GN-RHL/Gerhan gave benefit of community
participations, such as the selection of locations and species, setting up nurseries, and training
especially at community forest.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
23
In 2007 the Gerhan program in Central Kalimantan covered 78,000 ha with funding of Rp 188
billion (about USD 20 million). However also in Central Kalimantan the impact of the Gerhan
rehabilitation program has been limited so far is. Field observations in the EMRP area show that
implementation and success rate of Gerhan activities can be locally problematic (e.g. Giesen
2008). During early 2008 several Gerhan sites were visited (e.g. Haparing Hurung, Henda)
which had been planted in 2006 and 2007 with Jatropha (250 ha), rubber (125 ha) and jelutung
(125 ha). Also, in block E Pulang Pisau District, Kapuas District and Barito Selatan District sites
were inspected. It was observed that seedlings were absent for much of the area were they had
been planted and it is concluded that survival rates are generally very low in these programs.
Lack of weeding was generally thought to be the main cause of the low survival rates. Also
observed growth of the surviving jelutung seedlings was minimal.
The Forestry Department’s BP-DAS Kahayan is currently formulating a five-year plan for the
rehabilitation of forest and land in the EMRP area (2008-2012). Out of a total of 1,454,541 ha in
the EMRP area the Forestry Department recommends that 874,453 ha (60%) will be designated
as conservation area, while the balance (40%) will be utilised for both forestry and non-forestry
purposes (Dep. Kehutanan, 2007). One of the new possibilities for reforestation is HTHR (Hutan
Tanaman Hasil Rehabilitasi) - RLPS is now completing the guideline for its implementation.
Three different priority classes for restoration are identified on the basis of land cover,
management regime, erosion class, slope class, peat thickness, depth of pyrite layers, flooding
and productivity (priority class 1: 588 ha, class 2: 61,939 ha and class 3: 119,607 ha). BP-DAS
have identified 39 species to include in this program, but quite a number of these are
considered by Giesen (2008) to be inappropriate.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
24
4 Guiding principles for restoration &
rehabilitation
From discussions during the workshop it became apparent that along with technical guidelines,
a series of Guiding Principles were required that would facilitate the making of choices. Seven
main guiding principles were recognised, and these are provided below. Note that the terms
used below relate to those developed under the Master Plan EMRP:
• Protection Zone – Kawasan Lindung
• Limited Development Zone – Kawasan Budidaya Terbatas
• Development Zone – Kawasan Budidaya
1. Socio-economics
Local communities will be the key stakeholder involved in replanting, restoration and
rehabilitation programmes. Where possible, useful species are to be incorporated in the
programmes. These useful species are to be:
• those producing Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) in Kawasan Lindung areas
where conservation is the main option and where this does not affect biodiversity, and
• species producing timber, species producing NTFPs, and multi-purpose trees (timber
plus NTFPs) in limited development and development areas (Kawasan Budidaya
Terbatas and Kawasan Budidaya).
Local communities should be given legal access and user rights to the NTFPs (e.g. between
BKSDA or Taman Nasional/National Park and local communities), and there should be a
binding benefit sharing agreement (e.g. between Forestry Department and local communities)
for harvesting of timber species. Local communities and other stakeholders are to be involved in
the planning and decision making stages if restoration or rehabilitation is to be successful.
2. Beneficial species
Much of the EMRP area that is proposed to be rehabilitated or restored will be in Kawasan
Lindung conservation or deep peat protection areas where logging will not be allowed (or in
case of deep peat may be very limited). This means that the focus of replanting should be on
species that:
• provide NTFPs (such as jelutung, gemor and tengkawang) rather than timber species
12
(such as belangiran, ramin and geronggang) which is now the case; this should closely
involve local communities who will be the main beneficiaries; or
• are important as food species for key wildlife such as orangutan, gibbon and hornbills.
12
This is not a view shared by all stakeholders, although consistent with law protecting deep peat, which in most cases
will be affected by logging operations, even if carried out without canal construction (for log extraction).
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
25
3. Drainage
There should not be any artificial drainage in the Kawasan Lindung (conservation and peat
protection) areas as this will ultimately lead to loss of peat. In Kawasan Budidaya Terbatas
areas on the edges of peat domes, drainage should be very strictly limited because the effects
of drainage will spread to the dome. Therefore, only species that do not require any drainage
should be used in rehabilitation programmes, and the emphasis should be on hydrological
rehabilitation/restoration prior or at least parallel to replanting programmes. Hydrological
rehabilitation may consist of dam construction or canal infilling to raise water levels (to near
previous levels) in peat land. Reforestation will serve to raise soil humidities and reduce fire
risks in desiccated peat land.
4. Biodiversity
Increase diversity in number of species used in PSF rehabilitation and restoration programmes
as much as possible, as this will:
• Enhance overall biodiversity and increase/restore the biodiversity function of the PSF
system.
• Reduce the pest threat, as pests are more inclined to attack monocultures.
Note: this means that smallholders are more likely to be involved in the programmes, as
commercial plantations prefer large scale approaches that require monocultures. A higher
diversity of species utilised will spread livelihood risks, as pests and diseases are less likely to
take hold, and sources of income are spread more throughout the year.
5. Exotic tree species
In Protection Zones (Kawasan Lindung) only native species should be used in restoration and
rehabilitation programmes in biodiversity conservation areas, and the use of exotics should be
curbed; in deep peat protection areas the use of exotics should be limited as much as possible.
In Limited Development Zones (Kawasan Budidaya Terbatas/KBT) the use of non-native
species may be an option, provided that these do not require alteration of the hydrology as in
most KBT areas it is desirable to reduce the impacts on hydrology to a minimum.
6. Costs
The overall budget required for restoration and rehabilitation of the EMRP area is likely to be
enormous and run in the many billions of US dollars. Although available and promised financial
resources appear large, they pale in significance compared to overall costs. Therefore,
restoration and rehabilitation programmes must opt for the most cost-effective solutions – the
end result must of course be successful restoration and/or rehabilitation, as this should not be
compromised. REDD and carbon credits can play a role here by providing necessary funding;
the cost of rehabilitation is low when compared with the GHG reductions
13
. even at 5$/tonne/ha
CO2 saved
13
This is even the case then carbon trading levels are low, such as the current
5$/tonne/ha CO
2
.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
26
7. Measuring success
Many past programmes have measured their impacts and rate of success on the number of
planted seedlings or the hectares of degraded land that has been replanted. However, these
are only input related criteria, and it is much more important to assess success on the real
impact (medium- to long-term) of restoration and rehabilitation. Agencies should therefore not
only be held accountable for use of funds for planting trees and working over xxx hectares, but
be responsible for survival of tracts of replanted or rehabilitated PSF. <Except perhaps in case
of fires or long-term drought> This means that monitoring and maintenance of replanted areas
should be part and parcel of every restoration/rehabilitation programme and form the basis of
measuring the rate of success.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
27
5 Technical guidelines for PSF
restoration & rehabilitation
Four stages can be recognised in restoration and rehabilitation programmes, namely:
1. Planning stage
2. Preparing stage
3. Implementation stage
4. Follow-up stage
These are described below in parts 5.1 – 5.4.
5.1 Planning stage
5.1.1 Identification of state of degradation & type of intervention required
Stages of degradation are to be identified for the EMRP area, as this will allow for a better
assessment of the situation in the field, better matching of species selected for replanting and a
selection of more appropriate interventions in general. What is available at present in terms of
recognition of stages of degradation are only general descriptions or based on a few
observations only (e.g. Biodiversity & the EMRP report). More and systematic fieldwork will be
required to develop a degradation typology for the area. Fieldwork should involve recording
species composition, vegetation structure (including seedlings, saplings, trees) and densities,
but also other parameters such as peat depth and maturity, light intensity, nutrient availability,
site hydrology and fire history. Seedling plots recorded for 2-3 years would provide information
about natural regeneration in these areas
The characteristics of various stages of degradation types are listed in Table 4, which has been
adapted from ITTO (2002), who define three broad classes of degraded forests:
1. Degraded primary forests, which retain many of the physical (soil, humidity) and
structural characteristics of the former primary forest, as well as a generally heterogeneous
species composition. Without silvicultural interventions, natural succession in degraded primary
forests will eventually restore most of the characteristics of primary forests;
2. Secondary forests that comprise various stages in the process of succession. The
dominant trees of the initial colonizing phase are short-lived, fast-growing pioneers; structure
and species composition are changing in the course of one to two centuries. Depending on site
quality restoration of the full range of species may require several centuries.
3. Degraded forest lands that are characterized by eroded or nutrient-deficient soils,
hydrologic instability, reduced productivity and low biological diversity. Persistent physical,
chemical and biological barriers prevents natural succession. Many factors like low propagule
availability, seed & seedling predation, lack of suitable microhabitats for plant establishment,
low soil nutrient availability, and fire prevent natural forest regeneration.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
28
These three categories usually exist in complex mosaics that are constantly changing, which
makes it sometimes difficult to distinguish between them. There are generally clear differences
between the three different categories, relating for instance to the intensity and cause of the
disturbance, and the vegetation development process. Most forests in the EMRP area would
classify as degraded forest lands and secondary forest, with some degraded primary forest.
Table 4 Differences between 3 major categories of degraded & secondary forests
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
29
Based on the aforementioned characterisation of degraded PSF in the EMRP area, a more
simple typology could be developed, for example analogous to that developed for degraded
PSF in Berbak NP by van Eijk and Leenman (2004; see Figure 4).
Recognising state of degradation: (example
from Berbak NP)
Type 1:Pandanus and Thoracostachyum dominated lake-
type
Type 2:Hymenachne dominated seasonal lake-type
Type 3a:Sedge dominated early regeneration- type
(flooded)
Type 3b:Fern dominated early regeneration- type(less
flooded)
Type 4:Nephrolepis dominated tree establishment- type
Type 5:Macaranga dominated early forest- type
Type 6:Macaranga dominated well developed forest- type
Most
disturbed
Least
disturbed
Figure 4 Recognising the state of degradation: indictors species in Berbak NP
From the typology follows a recognition of the
intervention type
required (see Box 2), which in
the EMRP area can range from a) none required, for example in areas already regenerating
naturally or in areas that are a lost case (e.g. former peat areas that have become deep lakes),
to b) assisted natural regeneration (e.g. hydrological rehab, prevention fires), c) restoration or d)
rehabilitation.
5.1.2 Mapping degradation
Mapping of the EMRP area needs to be at the level of detail (and recent enough) to allow
recognition and delineation of the various stages of degradation at a landscape level. The
mapping should recognise units that require rehabilitation, restoration, assisted regeneration,
natural regeneration and those that do not require any intervention. The Land Use / Land Cover
(LULC) mapping carried out by SarVision for CKPP and the Master Plan – EMRP recognised 22
LULC classes (see Annex 4), and provides an approximation of what is required. Sixteen of
these classes refer to vegetation types that are either (degraded) forest, or are vegetation types
which are the result of severe forest disturbance or forest clearance. These 16 vegetation
classes can be grouped into the following 4 categories:
•
Forest (including logged-over forest) with tree cover > 10%;
•
Severely degraded forest with a tree cover <10%;
•
Shrubland with vegetation cover > 10%;
•
Open shrub with vegetation cover < 10%, including grasslands and land covered with
ferns.
The remaining 5 classes have been grouped under the category “other“ (e.g. non-forest)
classes, including agriculture, tree crops, and settlements. Table 5 summarises the data in the
LULC map. From this we can conclude that if the entire EMRP is to be reforested, about
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
30
540,000 ha is likely to require assisted natural regeneration (i.e. the forest classes), 270,000 ha
will require restoration interventions (i.e. the severely degraded forest classes), and about
470,000 ha will require rehabilitation interventions (i.e. the classes shrubland and
sedge/fern/scattered shrubs). However, this overlooks the fact that about 295,000 of the EMRP
area is Development Zone and 353,000 ha is Limited Development Zone (LDZ); some of these
areas may be reforested (e.g. plantations in the LDZ), but others may not. This level of detail
approaches what is required, but is not quite accurate enough, as tree and shrub cover classes
are still quite broad, and mapping not always 100% accurate due to limited ground truthing.
Table 5 LULC classes & cover, including forests
#
LULC legend class (2008)
Ha
%
<11
11-50
>50
Forest classes (including degraded)
1 Riverine-Riparian forest (cover >11%) 72,235 4.94 4.94
2 Peat swamp forest (cover >11%) 226,626 15.50 15.50
12 Low pole forest (cover >11%) 208,130 14.23 14.23
20 Swamp forest (cover >11%) 28,004 1.92 1.92
15 Mangrove (cover >10%) 6,482 0.44
subtotals
541,476
37.03
Severely degraded forest classes
3 Woodland-degraded vegetation (cover 1-10%) 173,385 11.86 11.86
11 Burnt forest and bare 59,830 4.09 4.09
13 Low pole forest (cover 1-10%) 22,894 1.57 1.57
14 Mangrove (cover 1-10%) 13,564 0.93
subtotals
269,672
18.44
Shrubland
4 Shrubland (cover>50%) non flooded 136,629 9.34 9.34
5 Shrubland (cover >50%) flooded 38,374 2.62 2.62
6 Shrubland (cover 11-50%) flooded and non flooded 77,603 5.31 5.31
subtotals
252,605
17.27
Sedges, ferns, scattered shrubs
7 Shrubland (cover 1-10%) 63,094 4.31 4.31
8 Grassland and ferns 49,354 3.38 3.38
10 Burnt shrubs and bare 107,026 7.32 7.32
16 Sedges temporarily flooded 2,412 0.16 0.16
subtotals
221,885
15.17
Other classes
9 Water (excluding the area of large rivers) 6,883 0.47
18 Sawah 69,833 4.78
19 Dryland agriculture 82,363 5.63
21 Tree crops 15,520 1.06
22 Settlement 2,058 0.14
subtotals
176,657
12.08
TOTAL
1,462,296
100.00
32.69 41.90 11.96
Note: the fish ponds (class 17) are still merged with the Water Class
Tree cover classes (%)
Source: SarVision (2008) for Master Plan – EMRP
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
31
5.1.3 Rapid survey of site conditions
Rapid surveys will be required in addition to mapping, to assessment the site conditions, and
the possible causes of degradation. This will result in a further refining of information available
about a site, so that the intervention can target what is required.
Site physico-chemical conditions & interventions
Physico-chemical conditions need to be rapidly surveyed in each mapped intervention unit (see
5.1.2), and this may result in a further refinement of the map, or at least a better understanding
of the conditions at a given site. Parameters that need to be assessed include:
•
water depth/availability, flooding depth/duration, distance from river bank,
•
micro-topography (hillocks and depressions: what is the range, height and elevation),
•
exposure (to sunlight; depends on existing tree/shrub cover, height and density),
•
peat depth and maturity,
•
occurrence, depth and pyrite concentration of Potential Acid Sulphate (PAS) soils,
•
nutrient availability, and pH of each of the mapped units.
Cause(s) of degradation
Rarely will there be only one cause of degradation and in most cases, the cause of degradation will be
drainage and felling of trees, in combination with one or more fires. The history of each site will determine
what is required as (a) precondition(s) prior to rehabilitation or restoration of the PSF. This will in almost all
cases include restoration or rehabilitation of the hydrology and prevention of fires. Following or parallel to
this, the replanting programme may begin.
The assessment of site conditions and cause(s) of degradation will lead to an identification of
interventions required to address the conditions and cause of degradation (e.g. channel
blocking, fire breaks, provision of nutrients, etc…). This should then be mapped out at a
manageable scale (see example in Figure 5).
Figure 5 Mapping degradation and site conditions
A = deeply (1.5 m) flooded peat (2x burnt, 1.5 m peat disappeared); B = moderately deep flooding (1m), 1x
burnt, 1m peat disappeared; C = shallowly flooded (0.5 m), 1x burnt, 0.5 m peat disappeared; D = as C,
but with riverine influence (nutrients, current, some erosion).
A
B
C
D
Mapping of
degradation
Assessment
of
conditions
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
32
5.1.4 Identification of suitable species
The selection of (woody) species for PSF restoration and rehabilitation should in the first place
be guided by the suitability of the species for the conditions of the site that is to be restored or
rehabilitated. Certain PSF tree species appear to be more characteristic of deep peat while
others occur on peat of shallower depth, while other species again seem to occur along the
range of peat depths (Page and Waldes, 2005; Table 6).
Table 6 Main tree species & peat depth
Principal tree species occurring in three peat swamp forest communities on peat of increasing depth across a peatland
dome in the Sebangau catchment, Central Kalimantan (adapted from Page & Waldes 2005).
Principal tree species Mixed swamp forest
at the edge of the
peat dome
Low pole forest
nearer to the centre
of the peat
dome
Tall interior forest
on the central
peatland dome
Palaquium ridleyi x
Calophyllum hosei x
Mesua sp. x
Mezzettia parviflora x
Combretocarpus rotundatus x x
Syzygium x
Tristaniopsis obovata x
Shorea teysmanniana x x
Palaquium leiocarpum x
Stemonurus secundiflorus x
Mezzettia parviflora x
Neoscortechinia kingii x x
Palaquium cochlearifolium x x
Depending on the degree of degradation, conditions may differ considerably from the original
PSF conditions, and this should be given due consideration. Former PSF areas that have been
drained will be a lot drier than in the original state, while areas that have been subjected to
(repeated) burning may also be subject to prolonged and/or deep flooding. Also, most degraded
sites are also (much) less shaded than in the original PSF state. On the whole, species used for
reforestation of degraded areas will usually have to be able to cope with: i) more exposure to
direct sunlight, ii) desiccation in the dry months, and iii) some degree of flooding in the wet
season. Many species of mature PSF will therefore not be suitable for replanting of degraded
peatland, and the choice of species should during initial planting focus largely on those with a
broad ecological tolerance, such as pioneer species (see Table 7) – or as described by van der
Laan (1925) ‘the weed species of wet areas’.
Many of the trials and PSF reforestation attempts to date have failed because the species used
were unsuitable for the conditions at the specific location. Table 8 gives an overview of the
species tried to date in Southeast Asia, and the degree of success. As the degree of dryness
and flooding can vary considerably (e.g. at various distances from a canal or burn scar), local
conditions must be accurately mapped beforehand to guide species selection (see 5.1.3).
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
33
Table 7 Pioneer/secondary PSF species in Sumatra & Kalimantan
#
Family Species Local name References **
1 Anacardiaceae Campnosperma coriacea terentang 7
2 Anacardiaceae Campnosperma macrophylla terentang 1, 2
3 Anacardiaceae Gluta renghas rengas 4
4 Anacardiaceae Gluta wallichii rengas manuk 4
5 Anisophylleaceae Combretocarpus rotundatus tumih, prapat,
tanah tanah
1, 2, 5, 6, 7
6 Apocynaceae Alstonia penumatophora pulai 5, 6
7 Apocynaceae Dyera polyphylla pantong, jelutung 2, 5
8 Arecaceae Licuala paludosa ? 5, 6
9 Arecaceae Nenga pumila ? 6
10 Arecaceae Pholidocarpus sumatranus ? 5, 6
11 Caesalpiniaceae Koompassia malaccensis kempas merah 4
12 Dipterocarpaceae Shorea balangeran belangiran 1, 2
13 Ebenaceae Diospyros siamang eang 6
14 Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus petiolatus ? 5, 6
15 Euphorbiaceae Austrobuxus nitidus ? 4
16 Euphorbiaceae Glochidion rubrum ? 6
17 Euphorbiaceae Macaranga amissa ? 6
18 Euphorbiaceae Macaranga pruinosa mahang 5, 6
19 Euphorbiaceae Mallotus muticus perupuk 5, 6
20 Euphorbiaceae Mallotus sumatranus ? 7
21 Euphorbiaceae Pimelodendron griffithianum ? 3
22 Hypericaceae Cratoxylum arborescens geronggang 4
23 Hypericaceae Cratoxylum formosum ?popakan 4
24 Hypericaceae Cratoxylum glaucum ?bentaleng 4
25 Icacinaceae Stemonurus scorpioides pasir pasir 4
26 Lauraceae Actinodaphne macrophylla ? 6
27 Lecythidaceae Barringtonia macrostachya ? 6
28 Lecythidaceae Barringtonia racemosa ? 6
29 Leeaceae Elaeocarpus petiolatus ? 1, 5
30 Melastomaceae Melastoma malabathricum senduduk 6, 7
31 Melastomaceae Pternandra galeata ? 6
32 Mimosaceae Archidendron clypearia ? 4, 6
33 Moraceae Artocarpus gomeziana ? 6
34 Moraceae Ficus deltoidea ara 7
35 Moraceae Ficus virens ? 6
36 Myristiaceae Knema laytericia pirawas 2
37 Myrtaceae Eugenia spicata ubah, kayu lalas 5, 6, 7
38 Myrtaceae Melaleuca cajuputi gelam 1
39 Myrtaceae Syzygium cerina ? 5
40 Myrtaceae Syzygium zippeliana ? 6
41 Pandanaceae Pandanus helicopus rasau 2, 5, 6
42 Rubiaceae Neolamarckia cadamba bengkal 5
43 Rubiaceae Timonius salicifolius ? 7
44 Rutaceae Melicope accedens ? 4
45 Theaceae Ploiarium alternifolium asam-asam 7
46 Ulmaceae Trema cannabina ? 7
47 Ulmaceae Trema orientalis lenduhung 1
** References are as follows: 1 = van der Laan (1925), 2 = Giesen (1990), 3 = Bodegom at al. (1999), 4 =
Kessler (2000), 5 = Giesen (2004), 6 = van Eijk & Leenman (2004), 7 = Giesen (2008)
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
34
Table 8 Species used in restoration trials in Southeast Asia
Adapted from Giesen (2008)
No Species Family Locations/
countries
Occurs
at EMRP
Perform
-ance
Refer-
ence
1 Alstonia spathulata Apocynaceae Jambi ?+ ■ 5
2 Anisoptera marginata Dipterocarpaceae Malaysia ■ 2
3 Baccaurea bracteata Euphorbiaceae Thailand + ■ 1
4 Calophyllum ferrugineum Guttiferae Malaysia o 2
5 Combretocarpus rotundatus Rhizophoraceae Jambi + ■ 5
6 Dialium patens Leguminosae Thailand + o 1
7 Diospyros evena Ebenaceae Kalimantan + ■ 6
8 Durio carinatus Bombaceae Jambi, Malaysia + o, o 2, 5
9 Dyera (lowii) polyphylla Apocynaceae Jambi
Kalimantan
+ ■, o, ■ 5, 6, 7
10 Eugenia kunsterli Myrtaceae Thailand ■ 1
11 Ganua motleyana
(syn. Madhuca motleyana)
Sapotaceae Thailand,
Malaysia
+ ■, ■ 1,2
12 Gluta wallichii Anacardiaceae Jambi ■ 5
13 Gonystylus bancanus Thymelidaceae Jambi, Malaysia
Kalimantan
+ ■, ■, ■ 2, 5, 6
14 Hibiscus sp. Malvaceae Riau ■ 5
15 Litsea johorensis Lauraceae Thailand o 1
16 Macaranga hypoleuca Euphorbiaceae Riau ■ 5
17 Macaranga sp. Euphorbiaceae Thailand ■ 1
18 Melaleuca cajuputi Myrtaceae Thailand,
Vietnam
+ ■, ■ 2,3
19 Palaquium sp. Sapotaceae Jambi,
Kalimantan
+ ■, ■ 5, 6
20 Peronema canescens Verbenaceae Kalimantan + o 4
21 Polyalthia glauca Annonaceae Thailand ■ 1
22 Shorea balangeran Dipterocarpaceae Kalimantan + ■, ■, ■ 4, 6, 7
23 Shorea pauciflora Dipterocarpaceae Jambi ■ 5
24 Shorea pinanga Dipterocarpaceae Kalimantan + o 4
25 Shorea platycarpa Dipterocarpaceae Malaysia ■ 2
26 Shorea seminis Dipterocarpaceae Kalimantan o 4
27 Shorea sp. Dipterocarpaceae Kalimantan + o 6
28 Stemonurus secundiflorus Icacinaceae Thailand,
Kalimantan
+ o, o 1, 7
29 Syzygium oblatum
(syn. Eugenia oblata)
Myrtaceae Thailand ■ 1
30 Tetramerista glabra Theaceae Jambi + o 5
■ = good to very good (or >50% survival) o = poor to fair (or <50% survival)
1 = Urapeepatanapong & Pitayakajornwute (1996) 2 = Ismail et al. (2001)
3 = Maltby et al. (1996) 4 = Takahashi et al. (2001)
5 = Giesen (2004) 6 = Limin (2007)
7 = Wibisono & Gandrung (2008)
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
35
In Central Kalimantan, BP-DAS Kahayan have identified 39 tree species for their replanting
programme in the EMRP area, including for mangroves (e.g. Avicennia, Rhizophora, Bruguiera,
Excoecaria, Xylocarpus and Sonneratia) and mineral soil areas (e.g. Melaleuca cajuputi). In
addition to the mangrove species and Melaleuca, species listed by BP-DAS that are unsuitable
for PSF areas are:
•
Dacrydium species require shading.
•
Lagerstroemia speciosa is a riparian species, and does not grow in swamp forest or
peat swamp forest areas.
•
Dyera costulata is a dryland species; the jelutung that occurs in peat swamp areas is
Dyera polyphylla (formerly known as D. lowii).
•
Macaranga maingayi probably does not occur in the area.
•
Diospyros malam does not occur in the area, and this should probably be Diospyros
siamang, Diospyros pseudomalabarica or Diospyros evena.
•
Alstonia scholaris is a dryland species, should be A. spathulata.
•
Metroxylon sagu is a notoriously difficult species to cultivate, and has resisted attempts
in spite of extensive trials in Sarawak.
•
Fragraea crenulata is a (near) coastal swamp species, occurring on mineral soils, and
may be suitable for such specific areas only.
Replanting trials in the EMRP area have used only a limited number of species, often planted in
single-species groups rather than in mixed assemblages. This makes replanted areas more
vulnerable, for example to insect predation, and virtual monocultures appear artificial for longer
periods. Insect predation has already proven to be an issue with Stemonurus secundiflorus in
reforestation attempts by CKPP.
There have been few studies on flood tolerance of PSF species or freshwater swamp forest
species in Indonesia. It is known that prolonged flooding due to changes in physical conditions
(e.g. canal construction or discharge of water) will eventually kill flood tolerant PSF and swamp
forest species such as pulai Alstonia pneumatophora (NWC et al., 1994). In their studies on
regeneration of PSF degraded by fires in Berbak NP, Van Eijk and Leenman (2004) noted
flooding depth and estimated flood duration from a series of remote sensing images.
Subsequently, they were able to correlate the presence of pioneer species under various flood
conditions and identify their tolerance of flooding (Table 9). Many of these species also occur in
the EMRP area or can be expected in the area.
Based on field experience and several surveys in the EMRP area, Giesen (2008) provides a
preliminary list of species that have potential for peat swamp restoration attempts, allocating
these into four different flooding regimes:
1. Deepwater areas (deeply flooded for long periods),
2. Deeply flooded areas (frequently deeply flooded areas),
3. Moderately flooded areas (regularly, shallowly flooded areas), and
4. Rarely flooded areas.
For each of these flooding types, a suite of potentially suitable species is listed (Table 10). The
same suite can also be used for channel blocking programmes, with type 1 being equivalent to
deep-sided channels, type 2 partially infilled channels, type 3 largely infilled channels, and type
4 completely infilled channels. Figure 6 illustrates how these canal green-engineering types
appear. Over time, these types will naturally evolve from one into another. Studies in peat
swamp forests elsewhere (see 2.1) show that deeper peat layers largely consist of Pandanus
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
36
roots and stems, indicating that infilling of deeper waters may be an initial stage in natural peat
formation in at least some areas. In deeply flooded former peat swamp forest areas in the
EMRP area, a similar succession may be attempted. In type 4, once pioneer species have
established a canopy, shade tolerant or requiring species can be planted as well, hastening the
succession towards mixed peat swamp.
Table 9 Pioneer species & flooding tolerance in Berbak NP, Jambi
Family
Species
Shallow &
brief
flooding
Moderately
deep &
long
flooding
Deep/
prolonged
flooding
Very deep
&
prolonged
flooding
Anisophyllaceae Combretocarpus rotundatus +
Apocynaceae Alstonia pneumatophora ++ ++ r
Arecaceae Licuala paludosa + +
Arecaceae Nenga pumila + +
Arecaceae Pholidocarpus sumatranus + + +
Ebenaceae Diospyros siamang +
Elaeocarpaceae Eleaocarpus petiolatus +
Euphorbiaceae Glochidion rubrum +
Euphorbiaceae Macaranga amissa ++ +
Euphorbiaceae Macaranga pruinosa ++ ++ r
Euphorbiaceae Mallotus muticus ++ ++ r
Fabaceae Archidendron clypearia +
Lauraceae Actinodaphne macrophylla +
Lecythidaceae Barringtonia macrostachya + ++
Lecythidaceae Barringtonia racemosa + ++ r
Melastomaceae Melastoma malabanthricum + + +
Melastomaceae Pternandra galeata + ++
Moraceae Artocarpus gomeziana ++
Moraceae Ficus sp.1 +
Moraceae Ficus sp.2 ++
Moraceae Ficus virens + +
Myrtaceae Eugenia spicata +
Myrtaceae Syzygium zippeliana ++ ++ ++
Pandanaceae Pandanus helicopus r ++
Adaped from Van Eijk & Leenman (2004)
r = rare; + = present; ++ = common
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
2
nd
Draft 31 January 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
37
Table 10 PSF species suitable for rehabilitation programmes under various flooding regimes
No Green canal blocking PSF restoration Engineering species Species local name
1 Steep sided canals PSF areas deeply flooded for long
periods
Group-1: deep water
• Hanguana malayana
• Pandanus helicopus
• Hanguana malayana
• Hypolytrum nemorum
• Pandanus helicopus
• bakung
• ?
• rasau
2 Sloping sides of (eroded
or backfilled) canals
Frequently deeply flooded PSF
areas
Group-2: deeply flooded
• Combretocarpus rotundatus
• Lepironia articulata
• Combretocarpus rotundatus
• Lepironia articulata
• Mallotus sumatranus
• Morinda philippensis
• Psychotria montensis
• Stenochaena palustris
• tumih
• purun
• perupuk
• ?
• ?
• Kiapak
3 Largely infilled canals,
with shallow pools
Regularly (shallowly) flooded PSF
areas
Group-3: moderately flooded
• Cratoxylum glaucescens
• Ploiarium alternifolium
• Shorea balangeran
• Blechnum indicum
• Cratoxylum glaucescens
• Ploiarium alternifolium
• Shorea balangeran
• Stenochlaena palustris
• ?
• gerongang
• asam-asam
• belangiran/kahui
• Kiapak
4 Infilled canals Flooding rare or absent in these
PSF areas
Group-4: rarely flooded
• Alstonia spathulata
• Dyera polyphylla
• Alstonia spathulata
• Blechnum indicum
• Dyera polyphylla
• Macaranga sp.
• Stenochlaena palustris
• pulai
• ?
• jelutung/ patung
• mahang
• Kiapak
as above, with shade
trees
as above, with shade trees
Group-4b: rarely flooded,
shade requiring
• Alseodaphne coriacea*
• Baccaurea bracteata
• Dialium patens *
• Diospyros evena
• Durio carinatus *
• Ganua motleyana
•
Gonystylus bancanus
•
Peronema canescens *
• Shorea pinanga *
• Syzygium spp.
•
Tetramerista glabra *
• gemor
• rambai
• ?
• uring pahe
• durian hutan
• ?
• ramin
• ?
• ?
• ?
• punak
* Note: these species require testing, as they have not performed well in earlier tests, but this may be because of lack of shading.. Adapted from Giesen (2008)
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
38
Figure 6 Canal rehabilitation/infilling using PSF species
12
3
4
Adapted from Giesen (2008)
Once a suite of suitable species (i.e. species suited to the conditions of a site) have been
selected, species selection can further be guided by guiding principles 2 Selection of beneficial
species and 5 Avoiding use of exotic species (see Chapter 4). Beneficial species should be
utilised where possible when the degraded areas that are being rehabilitated are located near
villages, or belong to traditional land of a particular community. The focus should not only be on
timber species, as has often been the case to date, but on species that provide Non-Timber
Forest Products (NTFPs). This should especially be the case in protected areas (Kawasan
Lindung), where widespread logging would be undesirable. A preliminary list of potentially
beneficial species – both for timber and NTFPs – is included in Table 11.
Exotic species
should only be utilised under plantation-type situations and avoided near conservation
areas as these could compete with local species and impinge on the biodiversity value of
the site
. UGM has experience with oil producing illipe nuts (tengkawang) in peat in West
Kalimantan (Box 3), which may be considered in Central Kalimantan as well, at least on a trial
basis.
It should be remembered that restoration of peatland hydrology is one of the key guiding
principles (#3; see chapter 4), and that exotic species that require drainage are incompatible
with this principle in Kawasan Lindung areas and on margins of peat domes. Exotics used to
date in peatland cultivation and plantations such as oil palm, Acacia, Aloe vera, Hevea rubber
and pineapple generally require some degree of drainage (leading to fires and increased GHG
emissions) and are therefore unsuitable for non-drained peatland.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
39
Table 11 PSF species for timber & NTFPs
# Family Species Local name Timber*
NTFP
Anacardiaceae Mangifera havilandii rasak rawa +
Anisophyllaceae Combetocarpus rotundatus tumih + fuelwood
Apocynaceae Alstonia spathulata jelutung** +
Apocynaceae Dyera polyphylla pantong** + latex
Araucariacea Agathis borneensis pilau ++
Bombaceae Durio carinatus durian huten + edible fruit
Dipterocarpaceae Dipterocarpus verrucosus karuing +
Dipterocarpaceae Dryobalanops sp. kapurnaga +
Dipterocarpaceae Hopea sp. lentang bangkirai +
Dipterocarpaceae Shorea balangeran belangiran ++
Dipterocarpaceae Shorea leprosula lentang +
Dipterocarpaceae Shorea pallidifolia meranti batu +
Dipterocarpaceae Shorea rubra meranti bahandang +
Dipterocarpaceae Shorea smithiana lentang mahambung +
Dipterocarpaceae Shorea uliginosa lentang bajai +
Dipterocarpaceae various species*** tengkawang ++ ilipe nuts
Euphorbiaceae Baccaurea bracteata rambai edible fruit
Guttiferaceae Callophyllum grandiflorum bintangur +
Guttiferaceae Garcinia spp. manggis hutan + edible fruits?
Hypericaceae Cratoxylum sp. gerunggang +
Lauraceae Alseodaphne coriacea gemor bark for mosquito
coils
Myrtaceae Melaleuca cajuputi # gelam + fuelwood, oil, honey
Myrtaceae Tristaniopsis maingayi palawan/balawan +
Podocarpaceae Dacrydium pectinatum alau ++
Sapotaceae Ganua motleyana # katiau +
Sapotaceae Palaquium rostratum nyatu/nyatuh latex
Sapotaceae Palaquium leiocarpum hangkang latex
Theaceae Ploiarium alternifolium asam-asam edible young leaves
Thymelaeaceae Gonystylus bancanus ramin ++ -
* good timber species = + excellent/valuable timber = ++
** Pantong is the local name for the Indonesian ‘jelutung’ (Dyera); confusingly, locals use the name
jelutung for the Indonesian pulai (Alstonia).
*** Needs to be surveyed; tengkawang is produced and marketed in West Kalimantan, and UGM
specialists consider that PSF dipterocarp species probably also include a number of species
producing ilipe nuts.
# Melaleuca cajuputi is often incorrectly recorded as Melaleuca leucadendron or M. leucadendra
Ganua motleyana is often incorrectly recorded as Madhuca motleyana
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
40
Box 3. Illipe nut (tengkawang) establishment on peat
Based on experiences from development of tengkawang on peatland at a forest management
unit in West Kalimantan (Faculty of Forestry UGM and PT Inhutani 1) 2003-2008, it was
concluded that it is possible to develop tengkawang on peatland.
Development of tengkawang in peatland is possible due to existing supports/techniques :
(i) seed sources,
(ii) nursery techniques (except cutting still achieve 35% success),
(iii) tolerance to high water table/flooding
Some lessons-learned could be considered :
a. tolerance to flood esp. with running water
b. tolerance to shading is low, esp. one year post-planting
c. late-sapling (min 75 cm high) guarantees higher survival
d. tolerant to variable peat depth (from shallow-peat with quartz underlying soil to deep
peat down to 3 m)
5.1.5 Planning for succession
Restoration and rehabilitation planting programmes should take a succession-based approach,
first utilising pioneer species with a broad ecological tolerance, later adding climax species/
species of mature/mixed PSF if this is appropriate. The latter would be appropriate if, for
example, the aim is to increase the density of certain beneficial species characteristic of mature
PSF, or if the aim is to increase biodiversity value if the area is adjacent, near or forms part of a
conservation area.
Palynological studies of succession in peat usually show a historic transition from either a
freshwater swamp (with Pandanus) or mangrove to a mixed PSF (see 2.1). In terms of coping
with increased flooding in degraded peat (e.g. after subsidence or loss of peat after fires), the
approach would be to mimic the historic succession and start once again with very flood tolerant
species such as Pandanus helicopus. Once a location becomes shallower or partially infilled,
species that have some flood tolerance such as Combretocarpus rotundatus can be added.
Possible suites of species with differing flood tolerance are listed in Table 10/illustrated in Fig. 6.
As peat accumulates over time, a particular site may develop a mixed PSF. Although less
biodiverse than lowland dipterocarp forests, mixed PSF can attain a canopy height of 35-40
metres and include anywhere from 30-130 tree species at a given location (Giesen, 2004). Up
to 80 tree species have been recorded in 1-ha plots of LIPI/Bogor Herbarium near
Kelampangan (northern Block C, EMRP area; pers. comm. Edi Mirwanto). In large domes that
have developed over a long period, a species-poor pole forest with an open canopy may
develop in the central part of the dome due to the extremely nutrient deficient conditions that
prevail. Pole forests (sometimes called ‘padang’ forest) have a lower canopy (usually max. of
15-25 metres) and the trees have considerably smaller boles (max. 35-40 cm). In Sumatra, pole
forests on deep peat are dominated by Calophyllum and Syzygium species and may have only
about 12-17 tree species (Giesen & van Balen, 1991a), while in Central Kalimantan these are
dominated by Combretocarpus rotundatus, Syzygium, Tristaniopsis obovata and Shorea
teysmanniana (Page & Waldes, 2005; see Table 6).
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
41
Light conditions in peatland vegetation also vary over time. In degraded conditions, light
conditions will be harsh and shade requiring species more common in mature PSF will not
flourish. In pole forest, light penetration is greater than in mixed/mature PSF, and once again
light conditions may be more harsh and contribute to unfavourable conditions for certain
species. Little is known about light requirements of PSF tree species, but one may assume that
pioneer species have a high tolerance, while species that occur only in the lower canopy of
mature-mixed and relatively undisturbed PSF are likely to be less tolerant.
5.2 Preparation stage
5.2.1 Introduction
Seedling choice is an important factor which determines the success of reforestation activities.
Vigorous, robust seedlings of the proper size and the right species are crucial in getting good
growth and survival rates of seedlings planted in rehabilitation areas. Using the right materials
and techniques (nursery, potting materials, etc...) is important in creating good planting material
for reforestation activities. Also, timing of planting is important, both in relation to getting
enough seedlings as well as in terms of growing conditions for the freshly planted seedlings.
Below we provide an overview of the various aspects that need to be addressed when
preparing for reforestation activities in the EMRP area.
5.2.2 Planning for seed and seedling supply
General information on the reforestation plan in terms of location, area, status of existing
vegetation, and anticipated timing of activities will determine the various requirements related to
seedlings supply, i.e.:
•
Required number of seedlings
•
Preferred size and height of seedlings
•
Preferred planting time
•
Planting patterns / conditions
•
Species choice
•
Location of seed sources and collection season.
Seeds can be harvested by local people, or seed collection missions can be organised when
seed supply is very concentrated and abundant. Felling of trees for seed collection is to be
actively discouraged. Information on the flowering and fruiting seasons of preferred tree species
is needed to determine the right season for collecting. This data needs to be collected locally as
phenology of species may vary within their natural distribution, depending for instance on the
timing and length of the rainy season
14
. If possible, local provenances need to be used as these
are best adapted to local circumstances. However, if these local sources have been depleted
provenances, may be used from other locations in Kalimantan, or from outside Kalimantan (if
this does not counter legal restrictions).
14
In Jambi, for example, Dyera polyphylla flowers and fruits only every 3-4 years (Giesen, 2004), while in Central
Kalimantan this occurs annually, and because of variation throughout the province, fruits can be obtained virtually all
year round (Graham, pers. comm. 2009).
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
42
Seeds should be collected as much as possible from “Potential Plus Trees” (PPT). Local
protocols have to be developed for the selection of these PPTs (height, crown form,
straightness of crown, etc...). For long term supply of seeds the establishment of seed orchards
(e.g. progeny and off spring trials and experiments) could be further explored in order to
maximise out-breeding and use progenies originating from potential plus trees.
Vegetative propagation and selection of trees can help if seed supply is scarce. Genetic
improvement can be used to multiply superior trees (PPTs). To maintain genetic diversity a
mixture of clones may be used; however, cloning technology is probably too advanced for
current conditions in Central Kalimantan. Techniques need to be developed further locally.
Use of wildlings can be an option as well, but this may be difficult because it requires areas with
non-logged forest, which are rare in the EMRP area. It also requires knowledge and monitoring
on timing and location of regeneration of the required species. Finally, using wildlings is labour
intensive and depends on season and seedlings can only be harvested when relatively small.
Seeds and wildlings may also be sourced in adjacent areas with good to reasonable forest, and
Sebangau NP management has suggested that, under controlled conditions, some may be
sourced within the park (pers. comm., TN staff, PSF Rehab workshop).
5.2.3 Setting up of nurseries
The nursery should be located on non-peat soils outside the peat areas, or at an area which is
not water-logged. It must have year round easy access to water. Also, the nursery should be
accessible to cars (and preferably boats) year round, and should have electricity. Adequate
shading should be provided for the seedlings, and nursery beds should preferably be at least 40
cm above the ground. Setting up of nurseries can possibly be outsourced to local communities
(e.g. village nurseries) or outsourced to commercial companies.
Alternatively, if transportation of seedlings is more difficult than taking seeds to a nursery on site
or close to it, a (temproary) nursery may be established on-site. The requirements under such
conditions would of course be different, and not necessarily include road access and electricity.
5.2.4 Growing the seedlings
As many seeds of PSF species are quite large, seeds should first be sown in prepared seed
pans with a mixture of sand/peat. Humidity is a key factor, along with the need to control
temperatures. Certain tropical rainforest species need different temperatures at different times,
but this is not fully known for PSF species
15
. After the seeds germinate seedlings should be
transplanted into polythene bags. Size of the bags should be 5’’x 8‘’ (12.7 x 20.3 cm) as
seedlings should be relatively large
16
when they are planted to reach above highest water level
(e.g. Nuyim 2005). Trials at Sebangau suggest that small seedlings can survive a full wet
season with little damage (even below the water level), provided that they are the right species
and well looked after (Graham, unpublished data). Holes should be made in bags for proper
15
Some of the information regarding rainforest species on this topic may be relevant to PSF species. .
16
Not always true and not everyone agrees as this depends on site conditions; a fast growing small plant is better than
one that is large and grown under stress (pers. comm. G. Applegate, 2009).
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
43
drainage. Use of root trainer tubes should however be investigated need to have raised beds
and pots that enable root/air pruning and straight and vertical (downward) growth (Bathgate
2008).
The medium used can be local peat soil although a mixture of mineral soil and peat can give
better growth for certain species. This needs to be tested locally. Fertilisation with either ash or
charcoal can be used to stimulate initial growth although results are not consistent yet (e.g. de
Wilde 2008). Slow release fertiliser granules (e.g. 15 g Osmocot
+
) could possibly increase
growth rates, but this needs to further tested before general guidelines can be given for the use
of fertilisers. However, a balanced mix of NPK and trace minerals is most likely suitable for now;
many rainforest species benefit from trace minerals and specific micronutrients.
Seedlings should be regularly watered (morning & afternoon), but only when rain is insufficient.
Work at Sebangau indicates that watering is usually not necessary during the wet season (pers.
comm, L. Graham, 2009). Weeding should be done once a month. The bags should be moved
once every three months to avoid roots penetrating the ground. Height grading should be done
to avoid suppression of smaller seedlings. Seedlings need to be checked for pests and
diseases regularly.
Depending on species and desired planting height seedlings will be grown in the nursery for
around 3-6 months. One month before planting the shade panels should be gradually removed
so that seedlings have full exposure to sunlight (Nuyim 2005). Also, watering frequency should
be gradually reduced to once a day during this period to further harden-off the seedlings.
The number of seedlings is being determined by the planting area and planting density (see
below). On top of that, extra seedlings need be raised for replacement plantings; a replacement
rate of about 10-30% of the number of plants needed for the original planting is probably a more
usual figure (depends on species and experience).
5.2.5 Site preparation
Once the site for replanting has been selected a preliminarily survey should be made, collecting
base-line information on access and ownership, exact location, boundary, site history,
abundance of vegetation, signs of wild-fires and domestic animals (Nuyim 2005). Planning
should be made for a temporary walkway, firebreaks, and other necessary preparations. The
planting location should be plotted on a map (1:10,000), which should also include information
on infrastructure and vegetation cover types. Wells should be dug or installed every 100 meters
(i.e. 4 per ha) to provide water both for watering and in case of fires (pers. comm. Marinus
Harun, LITBANGHUT Banjarbaru, PSF Rehab workshop).
Weeding
17
of the area should be done to kill the competition shortly before planting (end of dry
season). In Kawasan Lindung weeding should be carried out as strip line weeding, but in
Kawasan Budidaya / Kawasan Budidaya Terbatas the approach to weeding would depend on
the purpose (for timber production or not). However, even in the latter, strip line weeding may
be better than total weeding as the costs are lower. Weeding should be done manually or
17
Clearing by just cutting the vegetation is next to useless and one needs to kills the competition – this is not well
understood by many researchers in Indonesia (pers. comm. G. Applegate, 2009).
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
44
chemically without using fires. Care should be taken to leave tree seedlings. Climber cutting on
existing trees should be considered as essential in young plantings.
5.2.6 Preparation for planting
Putting planting stakes (ajir / poles) at the planting locations makes it easier for workers to find
the planting pits. They also serve to re-locate the seedlings during weeding, and make it easier
to monitor growth and survival and give the location for replacement planting when needed.
Poles
18
can be made of Melaleuca cajuputi (gelam) and should be about 1.5 m in length.
Clearing of weeds in a radius of 50-75 cm around the planting stake will decrease competition
and increase growth and survival rate of the planted seedlings. For areas with high densities of
ferns or shrubs, strip planting can be chosen as an option for planting.
Few studies have been carried out to determine the appropriate planting spacing in PSF
reforestation activities (Nuyim 2005). Optimal spacing is dictated by both economic and
ecological factors. For instance 1x1m spacing may give a dense stand of trees blocking most
weeds in a short period of time, but this requires 10,000 seedlings per hectare. A more open
spacing of for instance 3x3m requires only 1,111 seedlings per hectare
19
. For most PSF species
a planting space of 1250 plants/ha is recommended (2 x 4 m or 3 x 3 m; Nuyim 2005). APRIL
uses 3 x 2.5 m (1333 plants/ha) for pulp-wood plantation with fast-growing Acacia mangium.
They recommend higher stockings for slower growing species and/or poorer sites, for instance
to avoid extra weeding (Bathgate 2008). However, spacing should be determined by
management objectives, and APRIL are growing a short rotation species that slows down after
age 4 years.
Good planting pits are essential for good seedling growth and possibly for increasing survival
rates
20
. Certain PSF (but not all) species benefit from the construction of small soil mounds
(Nuyim 2005). However, mound construction is laborious and expensive, and further research
is needed to give general guidelines. In addition local micro-topography could be used to plant
seedlings there of the relevant species (Eugenia kunstleri, E. oblate, Baccaurea bracteata,
Decaspermum fruitcosum; Nuyim 2005).
18
It was suggested at the workshop that using poles contributed to deforestation, and that this should be kept to a
minimum, for example, by not using poles at the location of each individual seedling or by using tape to mark a transect.
The use of stakes may not be necessary, as pits are easy to see as they are or should be 2-3 m apart and if dug
correctly to the specifications are readily seen
19
It s always a compromise between cost of seedlings and cost of mantenance until canopy closure. Better to have
close between trees and wider spacing between rows for cost effective weed control (pers. comm. G. Applegate, 2009).
20
Not yet well understood on peat; this holds for mineral soils.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
45
5.3 Implementation stage
5.3.1 Seedling selection for planting
Species choice
Depending on existing vegetation cover, local hydrology, and peat depth, the species groups
listed in Table 12 (below) should be used for planting.
Seedling form and size
To have the best chance for establishing and maturing into healthy trees seedlings have to
meet following criteria (after Upton & de Groot, 2008):
•
Undamaged, disease and pest free specimens
•
Single, vigorous main stem
•
Symmetrical growing branches
•
Undamaged root systems
Generally seedlings should be around 30-50 cm in height when planted out, although the
preferred size may differ locally depending on species and site conditions. Generally smaller
seedlings establish faster, have higher survival rates, and are easier and cheaper to transport
than larger seedlings. However, in water-logged conditions planting small seedlings will be sub-
merged for a long period which may cause increased mortality rates. Seedlings should not been
too small, however, and they certainly need to be “hardened off” before they are transported
and/or transplanted, as survival rates will be considerably lower with unhardened specimens.
Hardening off is required so that the seedling adapts from the nursery conditions to the real
conditions in the planting area and is strongly recommended to be carried out 1-2 months prior
to planting. It can be simply conducted by reducing watering and shading gradually until the
seedlings are able to stand independently without watering and shading. Without this,
seedlings will get stressed after being planted in field and mortality levels may be high. In many
cases, this activity is unfortunately forgotten by field implementer.
5.3.2 Seedling transport
Seedlings transport from the nursery to the planting site should be as fast and secure as
possible to avoid damage and stress. They must also be sufficiently moist, to limit possible
desiccation. A logistic plan can help to reduce handling and transport time. After arrival at the
planting site seedlings should be kept cool (i.e. shaded) and moist till they are planted out. Here
too plants should be planted out as soon as possible.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
46
Table 12 Parameters & species choice
Vegetation
cover
Water
logged
Peat
depth
Species
>50 % > 3 mo > 3 m PSF climax species
•
Alseodaphne coriacea
•
Baccaurea bracteata
•
Dialium patens
•
Diospyros evena
•
Durio carinatus
•
Ganua motleyana
•
Gonystylus bancanus
•
Peronema canescens*
•
Shorea pinanga
•
Tetramerista glabra
10-50 % > 3 mo > 3 m Late successional PSF species
•
Alstonia spathulata
•
Campnosperma coriacea
•
Dacrydium pectinatum
•
Diospyros siamang
•
Dyera polyphylla
•
Stemonurus scorpioides
< 10% > 3 mo > 3 m PSF Pioneers
•
Combretocarpus rotundatus
•
Cratoxylum glaucescens
•
Eugenia spicata
•
Glochidion rubrum
•
Mallotus sumatranus
•
Ploiarium alternifolium
•
Shorea balangeran
•
Syzygium spp.
>50 % < 3 mo < 3 m Climax species (non PSF)
•
Wide range of dipterocarps
10-50 % < 3 mo < 3 m Late successional species (non PSF)
•
Dacrydium pectinatum
< 10% < 3 mo < 3 m Pioneers (non PSF)
•
Fragraea crenulata
•
Macaranga spp.
•
Melaleuca cajuputi
•
Shorea balangeran
•
Trema cannabina
•
Trema orientalis
5.3.3 Planting
The best time for planting in the EMRP area is the start of the wet season (Oct-Dec) when water
and temperature are causing least stress. Given the lower temperatures and higher humidity,
late afternoon and (early) mornings are the best time to plant.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
47
At each planting location (indicated by the pole) an appropriate hole is made in the soil with a
knife. The seedling is taken out of its bag and placed in the hole and covered with soil. Weeds
around the planting hole are removed, and the seedling is tied to the pole (at 70% of its height;
Nuyim, 2005). The base of the newly planted seedling should be wetted with water from around
the planting hole. The application of organic or chemical fertiliser and/or liming could possibly
stimulate growth. The APRIL plantation at Sumatra uses Potassium fertiliser to stimulate root
growth, and recommends Phosphate, Cu, Zn, and Boron to stimulate growth (Bathgate, 2008).
However local soil conditions need to be analysed before definite recommendations for the use
of fertilisers can be given. Planting trials at Sebangau have done well using slow-release
nutrient tablets (Graham, unpublished data).
Tawaraya et al, (2003) found that inoculation of some tree species grown in peat swamp forests
with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi could possibly improve the early growth of PSF species.
However it needs to be tested in the field to assess if this is essential for increasing growth and
mortality of seedlings in the EMRP area, as these trials were carried out under controlled
nursery conditions. Early results of trials at Sebangau, however, indicate that they are important
under field conditions as well (unpublished data, Tawaraya & Graham). Studies by BPK –
Banjarbaru show that endomycorrhizae in PSF at Tumbang Nusa (near Kalampangan, Central
Kalimantan) are all of the genus Glomus (Lazuardi et al., 2003).
5.4 Follow-up stage
5.4.1 Replacement or replenishment plantings
Nuyim (2005) indicates that when PSF seedlings survive for one months under normal
circumstance (e.g. no pests and diseases, no major droughts or flooding) they have a high
chance to develop into mature trees. Seedling survival should be undertaken at 1-2 months
after planting, using a representative sample. Survival depends on the time of the year,
however, as weather conditions can exert a significant influence. At Sebangau, Shorea
balangeran seedlings planted at the start of the wet season had a 95% survival rate during the
first six months, but then experienced 20% mortality during the dry season (Graham,
unpublished data). As weeding is proposed for the first two years, monitoring of
mortality/survival rates could be combined with weeding activities.
When mortality is < 10 % no replacement planting is needed. If the mortality in the sample >
10% a replacement planting needs to be done, replacing all dead seedlings in the whole
planting area. If possible, seedlings used for the replacement planting should be from the same
lot as used in the original planting.
5.4.2 Weeding
Weeds are one of the major problems in PSF rehabilitation. Therefore frequent weeding is
needed around all seedlings at regular intervals during the first 2 years after planting. W eeding
will depend on local competition and on how the around aprund each seedling has bene
pretreated (manually, chemically). Often, weeding may be required after 3, 6, 12, and 24
months, but the frequency should be adapted to local conditions. In areas with large densities of
ferns, competition and regrowth may be high, and more frequent weeding may initially be
required until the seedling is about 1 metre tall. When trees have reached a height of 2 metres
weeding is not needed anymore.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
48
5.4.3 Monitoring growth (including pests & diseases)
Growth and health of planted seedlings should be monitored on permanent sample plots. Plots
should be at least 40x40 m (e.g. Nuyim, 2005). Monitoring plots need to be established at
different locations per plantation; the number of plots will depend on the size of the planted
area, and on the species planted. Plots should be monitored every year, either by a forestry
institute or skilled forester. Measurements include growth and survival of planted seedlings, but
should also look at phenology and health characteristics of the seedlings.
5.4.4 Prevention of wildfires
Prevention of wildfires is essential for the maintenance of replanted PSF. Fire-breaks of 5-10 m
wide should be established around each planted area. Nuyim (2005) recommends such fire
breaks around each planted block of 500 x 500 m. These fire-breaks can be used for patrolling
and monitoring as well, and should be cleared once a year at the beginning of the dry season.
Some agencies (e.g. Balai Penelitian Kehutanan Banjarbaru) recommend the construction of
wells at strategic points, which can be used in early fire fighting.
5.4.5 Enrichment plantings
When the original planted seedlings have formed a closed canopy, enrichment plantings with
more shade tolerant PSF species could be considered. Depending on local circumstances and
species availability. enrichment planting can be done either systematically (e.g. in lines every
30-50 meters) or in more random patterns.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
49
References
Anshari, G., A.P. Kershaw and S. van der Kaars (2001) – A Late Pleistocene and Holocene pollen and
charcoal record from peat swamp forest, Lake Sentarum Wildlife Reserve, West Kalimantan, Indonesia.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 171:213-228.
Anshari, G., A.P. Kershaw, S. van der Kaars and G. Jacobsen (2004) – Environmental change and
peatland forest dynamics in the Lake Sentarum area, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. J. of Quarternary
Science, 19:637-655.
Appanah, S., H.T. Chan & K.A. Hamzah (1989) – Peat swamp forests of Peninsular Malaysia: current
status, ecology, management and conservation. Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Report #51, August
1989, p:1-9.
Bathgate, J. (2008) – Plantation Technology for Peatland Rehabilitation. Peat Restoration Workshop
Palangkaraya, 12-13 Dec 2008.
BirdLife International (2002) – Workshop on the rehabilitation of U Minh Thuong National Park following
devastating forest fires. The Babbler – BirdLife International in Indochina, Vol. 1(2):3-4.
Bodegom S., P.B. Pelser and P.J.A. Kessler (1999) – Seedlings of Secondary Forest Tree Species of
East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Semai-Semai Pohon Hutan Sekundair di Kalimantan Timur, Indonesia.
Tropenbos-Kalimantan Series 1. MOFEC-Tropenbos-Kalimantan Project, Wanariset, Samboja, 371 pp.
Brady, M.A. (1997) – Effects of vegetation changes on organic matter dynamics in three coastal peat
deposits in Sumatra, Indonesia. In: Biodiversity and Sustainability of Tropical Peatlands [Rieley, J.O. and
S.E. Page (eds.)]. Samara Publishing, Cardigan, Wales, United Kingdom, pp. 113-134.
Bruenig, E.F. (1990) – Oligotrophic forested wetlands in Borneo. In: A.E.Luga, M.Brinson & S.Brown
(editors), Forested Wetlands – Ecosystems of the World No. 15. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Oxford, New York,
Tokyo, p: 299-334.
Chazdon, R.L. (2008) – Beyond deforestation: Restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded
lands. Science, 320: 1458-1460.
D’Arcy, L.J. and Page, S.E. (2002) Assessment of the effects of the 1997/98 forest fires and
anthropogenic deforestation on the peat swamp forest habitat of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Tropical Peatland: Peatlands for People- Natural
Resource Functions and Sustainable Management, (eds. Rieley, J.O. & Page, S.E.), Jakarta, Indonesia
22-24 August 2001. pp. 179-185. ISBN 979-95183-3-4.
D’Arcy, L.J. & L. L. B. Graham (2007) - The Potential Effects Of Naturally Low Rates Of Secondary Seed
Dispersal, Coupled With A Reduction In Densities Of Primary Seed Dispersers On Forest Tree Species
Diversity In Regenerating Peat Swamp Forest. In: Rieley, J.O., Limin, S.H. and Jaya, A., - Restoration and
Wise Use of Tropical Peatland: Problems of Biodiversity, Fire, Poverty and Water Management.
Proceedings of The International Symposium and Workshop on Tropical Peatland, Palangka Raya, 20-24
September 2005, EU RESTORPEAT Partnership, University of Palangka Raya, Indonesia and
Wageningen University and Research Institute, The Netherlands. 287 pp.
Dwiyono, A. & S. Rachman (1996) – Management and conservation of the tropical peat forest of
Indonesia. In: E.Maltby, C.P.Immirzi & R.J.Safford (editors), Tropical Lowland Peatlands of Southeast
Asia. Proceedings of a Workshop on Integrated Planning and Management of Tropical Lowland Peatlands.
IUCN Wetlands Programme/IUCN The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland, p:103-117.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
50
Eden, M.J. (1973) – The origin and status of savanna and grassland in southern Papua. Institute of British
Geograph. Trans., 63:97-110.
Giesen, W. (1990) - Vegetation of the Negara River Basin. Proceedings of the workshop on “Integrating
Wetland Conservation with Land-use Development, Sungai Negara, Barito Basin, Indonesia”.
Banjarbaru, South Kalimantan, 6-8 March 1989, p: 1-51.
Giesen, W. & B.van Balen (1991a) – Padang Island and Lake Tanjung Padang, Riau. Final Draft Survey
Report. PHPA/AWB Sumatra Wetland Project Report No. 12, Bogor.
Giesen, W. & B.van Balen (1991b) – The Wetlands of Giam-Siak Kecil Wildlife Reserve, Riau, Sumatra.
Final Draft Survey Report. PHPA/AWB Sumatra Wetland Project Report No. 22, Bogor.
Giesen, W. (2004) – Causes of peatswamp forest degradation in Berbak National Park and
recommendations for restoration. Water for Food and Ecosystems Programme Project on: “Promoting the
river basin and ecosystem approach for sustainable management of SE Asian lowland peat swamp
forests”. ARCADIS Euroconsult, Arnhem, the Netherlands, 125 pp.
Giesen, W. (2008) – Biodiversity and the EMRP. Master Plan for the Conservation and Development of
the Ex-Mega Rice Project Area in Central Kalimantan. Euroconsult Mott MacDonald, Delft Hydraulics and
associates, for Government of Indonesia & Royal Netherlands Embassy, Jakarta. Final draft, 77 pp.
Graham, L.B.L & L. D’Arcy (2006) Degradation and Restoration in Tropical Peat-Swamp Forests, Central
Kalimantan, Indonesia. RESTORPEAT workshop. RESTORPEAT partners meeting from 27-30 March
2006 at Can Tho University in Vietnam.
Hankaew, C. (2003) – Approaches for integrated and wise use of peatlands in Thailand. Paper presented
at the workshop on peatland management, Thailand, May 2003, 9 pp.
Hope, G., U. Chokkalingam and S. Anwar (2005) – The stratigraphy and fire history of the Kutai
Peatlands, Kalimantan, Indonesia. Quarternary Research, 64:407-417.
Ibrahim, S. (1996) – Forest management systems in peat swamp forest: a Malaysian perspectve. In:
E.Maltgy, C.P.Immirzi & R.J.Safford (editors), Tropical Lowland Peatlands of Southeast Asia. Proceedings
of a Workshop on Integrated Planning and Management of Tropical Lowland Peatlands. IUCN Wetlands
Programme/IUCN The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland, p:175-180.
Ismail, P., Shamsudin, I., Nik Muhamad, N. M. & Faridah Hanum, I. (2001) – Rehabilitation of grassland
areas in peat swamp forests in Peninsular Malaysia. In: Ahyaudin, A. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the
Asian Wetland Symposium 2001 “Bringing Partnerships into Good Wetland Practices”, 27-30 August 2001,
Penang, Malaysia. Pp. 42-49.
ITTO (2002) – ITTO guidelines for the restoration, management and rehabilitation of degraded and
secondary tropical forests. ITTO Policy Development Series No 13. International Tropical Timber
Organization in collaboration with the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and the World
Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) International.
Kessler, P.J.A. (2000) (editor) – Secondary forest trees of Kalimantan, Indonesia. A Manual to 300
selected species. Tropenbos-Kalimantan Series 3. MOFEC-Tropenbos-Kalimantan Project, Wanariset,
Samboja, 404 pp.
Kobayashi, S. (2000) – Initial phase of secondary succession in the exploited peat swamp forest (Shorea
albida) at Sungei Damit, Belait in Brunei Darussalam. In: T. Iwakuma et al. (editors), Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Tropical Peatlands, Bogor, Indonesia, 22-23 November 1999. Hokkaido
University and Indonesian Institute of Science, Bogor, p:205-214.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
51
Kostermans, A.J.G.H. (1958) – Secondary growth on areas of former peat swampforest. In: Proceedings
of a Symposium on humid tropics vegetation, Tjiawi (Indonesia), December 1958. Council for Sciences of
Indonesia and UNESCO, p:155-163.
Lazuardi, D., T. Yuwati. and D. Rachmanadi (2003) – Study on relationship of site characteristics and
growth of Shorea balangeran in over burnt peat swamp forest. Proceedings of BIOREFOR workshop
Yogjakarta.
Lee H.S. (1979) – Natural regeneration and reforestation in the peat swamp forests of Sarawak. Trop.
Agric. Res. Center., 12:51-60.
Limin, S.H. (2007) – RESTORPEAT Project, CIMTROP UNPAR Tasks. Centre for International Co-
operation in Management of Tropical Peatland (CIMTROP), University of Palangka Raya. Internal Report,
25 pp.
Lubis, I.R. (2002) – Management of the fire-damaged peat swamp forest area of Berbak-Sembilang,
Sumatra. Wetlands International Indonesia Programme, October 2002, 22 pp. & appendices.
Maltby, E., P.Burbridge & A.Fraser (1996) – Peat and acid sulphate soils: a case study from Vietnam. In:
E.Maltby, C.P.Immirzi & R.J.Safford (editors), Tropical Lowland Peatlands of Southeast Asia. Proceedings
of a Workshop on Integrated Planning and Management of Tropical Lowland Peatlands. IUCN Wetlands
Programme/IUCN The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland, p:187-197.
Morley, R.J. (1981) – Development and vegetation dynamics of a lowland ombrogenous peat swamp in
Kalimantan Tengah, Indonesia. J. of Biogeography, 8:383-404.
Muub, U. (1996) – Anreicherungspflanzungen im tropischen Feuchtwald Sumatras – eine waldbauliche
Herausforderung. FORSTARCHIV, 67:65-70. (Enrichment planting in tropical rain forest of Sumatra – a
challenge in forest structure. In German, with English summary.)
NHC et al. (1994) – Preliminary hydro-ecological investigation of Duri Canal and swamp forest near
Rantaubais. Prepared for Duri Steamflood Project PT Caltex Pacific Indonesia. Northwest Hydraulic
Consultants Canada in association with EVS Environmental Consultants, Canada and Asian Wetland
Bureau, Indonesia.
Nuyim, T. (2000) – Whole aspects of nature and management of peat swamp forest in Thailand. In: T.
Iwakuma et al. (editors), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Tropical Peatlands, Bogor,
Indonesia, 22-23 November 1999. Hokkaido University and Indonesian Institute of Science, Bogor, p:109-
117.
Nuyim, T. (2003) – Experience in Research and Management of Peat Swamp Forest in Thailand. Paper
presented at the workshop on “Workshop on wise use and sustainable peatlands management practices”,
held in Bogor, Indonesia, on 13-14 October 2003, 25 pp.
Nuyim, T. (2005) – Manual on Peat Swamp Forest Rehabilitation and Planting in Thailand. GEC/WI
Thailand Office. 95 pp.
Page, S.E., and Waldes, N. (2005) – Unlocking the Natural Resource Functions of Tropical Peatlands:
Understanding the Nature and Diversity of Peat Swamp Forest Vegetation as a Fondation for Vegetation
Restoration Studies. In Proceedings of the International Symposium and Workshop on Tropical Peatland,
Held in Palangka Raya, 20-24 September 2005. “Restoration and Wise Use of Tropical Peatland:
Problems of Biodiversity, Fire, Poverty and Water Management”. Editors: J.O. Rieley, S.H. Limin, and A
Jaya. CIMTROP and the EU INCO RESTORPEAT Partnership. Prima Karya, Bogor-Indonesia. P.33-40.
Rachmanadi, D & T. Yuwati (2008) – A preliminary study on natural regeneration at degraded peat
swamps forest, Central Kalimantan. Silviculture Status Proceeding of Yogjakarta.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
52
Rieley, J.O. & A.A. Ahmad-Shah (1996) – The vegetation of tropical peat swamp forests. In: E.Maltgy,
C.P.Immirzi & R.J.Safford (editors), Tropical Lowland Peatlands of Southeast Asia. Proceedings of a
Workshop on Integrated Planning and Management of Tropical Lowland Peatlands. IUCN Wetlands
Programme/IUCN The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland, p:55-73.
Satohoko, S., Y.Hisayoshi, Y.Takashi, M.Masaya, K.Katsumi, T.Takeshi, T.Nuyim, & C.Niyomdham
(undated) – Reforestation Trial of Degraded Peat Swamp Forests and Sand Dune in Narathiwat, Thailand.
http://www.start.or.th/GCRC/abstract/GCTE2/226.htm
Simbolon, H., S. Kahono, T. Artiningsih, D. Girmansyah & A. Sadeli (2003) – Hutan Gambut
Kelampangan, Kalimantan Tengah Pasca Kebakaran: Monitoring keadaan hutan, jamur dan seranga
perombak dan penyerbuk. Laporan Perjalanan Lapangan, 27 mei-8 juni 2003, Bogor 14 pp.
Takahashi, K., M.Shybuya, Y.Tamai, H.Saito, Istomo, S.H.Limin, H.Segah & P.Erosa (2001) –
Rehabilitation of intensively disturbed sites in peat swamp forest area in Central Kalimantan. In: M.Osaki,
H.Wijaya & S.H.Limin (project leaders), Rehabilitation of peatlands and establishment of sustainable agro-
system in Central Kalimantan. LIPI – JSPS Core University Program, Environmental Conservation and
Land Use Management of Wetland Ecosystems in Southeast Asia.
wwwgeo.ees.hokudai.ac.jp/memberhome/~JspsLipi/core-univ/agric/page3.htm
Tawaraya, K., Takaya, Y., Turjaman, M., Tuah, S.J., Limin, S.H., Tamai, Y., Cha, J.Y., Wagatsuma, T. and
Osaki, M., (2003) – Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization of tree species grown in peat swamp forests of
Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Forest Ecology and Management, 182: 381-386.
Tomita, M., Y.Hirabuki, K.Suzuki, K.Hara, N.Kaita & U.Araki (2000) – Drastic recovery of Melaleuca-
dominant scrub after a severe wild fire: a three-year period study in a degraded peat swamp, Thailand.
ECO-HABITAT: JISE Research vol.7, p:81-87.
Upton, D. and P. de Groot (2008) – Planting and establishment of tropical trees. Commonwealth Science
Council, London, 142 pp.
Urapeepatanapong, C. & P. Pitayakajornwute (1996) – The peat swamp forests of Thailand. In: E.Maltby,
C.P.Immirzi & R.J.Safford (editors), Tropical Lowland Peatlands of Southeast Asia. Proceedings of a
Workshop on Integrated Planning and Management of Tropical Lowland Peatlands. IUCN Wetlands
Programme/IUCN The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland, p:119-136.
Van der Laan, E. (1925) – De bosschen van de Zuider en Oosterafdeeling van Borneo. Tectona, 18:925-
952. (The Forests of the Southern and Eastern regions of Borneo. In Dutch.)
Van Eijk, P. & P. Leenman (2004) – Regeneration of fire degraded peatswamp forest in Berbak National
Park and implementation in replanting programmes. Water for Food & Ecosystems Programme project on:
“Promoting the river basin and ecosystem approach for sustainable management of SE Asian lowland
peatswamp forest” Case study Air Hitam Laut river basin, Jambi Province, Indonesia. Alterra Green World
Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Van Steenis, C.G.G.J. (1957) – Outline of some vegetation types in Indonesia and some adjacent regions.
Proc. Eight Pacific Science Congress, Vol. IV, p:61-97. Publ. National Research Council of the Philippines,
Univ. of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.
Whitmore, T.C. (1984) –Tropical Rainforests of the Far East. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Wibisono, I.T.C. (2008) – Experience and lessons learned from Jelutung Plantation in Jambi. PSF
Rehabilitation workshop, Palangkaraya, 12-13 December 2008.
Wibisono, I.T.C., L. Siboro and I.N.N. Suryadiputra (2005) – Panduan Rehabilitasi dan Teknik Silvikultur
di Lahan Gambut. Wetlands International Indonesia Programme, Bogor, for CIDA, 174 pp.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
53
Wibisono, I.T.C. & Wardoyo (2008) – Final Report: Reforestation of Barren Areas in Block A-B of the Ex-
MRP (Buffer Zone of MAWAS). Result Area: Regreening. Field Acticvty Report Activity 4C. Central
Kalimantan Peatlands Project. Wetlands International – Indonesia Programme, Central Kalimantan Office,
Palangkaraya. Draft, Jan. 2008, v + 15 pp + tables.
Wibisono, I.T.C. & A.Y. Gandrung (2008) – Ujicoba Penanaman Beberapa Jenis Tanaman Asli Hutan
Rawa Gambut Pada Beberapa Lokasi Di Lahan Gambut Terdegradasi. Laporan Penelitian. Central
Kalimantan Peatlands Project. Result-3 Poverty Reduction~Intensifikasi dan Penelitian Hutan non Kayu
(3f2). Wetlands International-Indonesia Programme, Central Kalimantan Office – Palangka Raya. Draft,
Jan. 2008, 215 pp.
Wyatt-Smith, J. (1959) – Peat Swamp Forest in Malaya. Malayan Forester, 22:5-32.
Yulianto, E., A.T. Rahardjo, D. Noeradi, D.A. Siregar and K. Hitakawa (2005) – A Holocene pollen record
of vegetation and coastal environmental changes in the coastal swamp forest at Batulicin, South
Kalimantan, Indonesia. J. of Asian Earth Sciences, 25:1-8.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
54
Annex 1 Participants of the PSF
Rehabilitation workshop
Participant Agency Tel. Email
1. Ir. Muswir Ayub BP DAS Kahayan 081589417970 Muswir.ayub@yahoo.co.id
2. Kamis Tang BP DAS Kahayan 08164504622 kamisthang_0gy@yahoo.co.id
3. Herman Daryono Balitbang Kehutanan,
Bogor
08129192587 hermandaryono@yahoo.com
4. Donny
Rachmanadi
Balai Penelitian
Kehutanan Banjarbaru
081348749887 donnierahman@yahoo.co.id
5. Marinus K.Harun Balai Penelitian
Kehutanan Banjarbaru
08164565497 marinuskh@yahoo.co.id
6. Mursyid Marsono Dinas Kehutanan
Palangkaraya
0816280989 -
7. Drasospolino Balai Taman Nasional
Sebangau
0811522071 -
8. Aminulah Taman Nasional
Sebangau
081346200333 amin0206@yahoo.com
9. Edi .S Taman Nasional
Sebangau
081328296308 tlogorejo@yahoo.co.id
10. Kitso Kusin CIMTROP-UNPAR 081349008773 kitsoksn@yahoo.com
11. Agung S CIMTROP UNPAR 085828426918 agungrestususanto@yahoo.com
12. Bismart Ferry
Ibie
UNPAR, Palangkaraya 08115291074 bismartferryibie@yahoo.com
13. Baba Saiful
Barkah
Bos Mawas 08125143534 baba@orangutan.or.id
14. Yohanes
Pangemanan
WWF Sebangau 08115204994 b.pangemanan@yahoo.com
15. Prof.Sumardi Fakultas Kehutanan
UGM, Yogyakarta
08164223695 sumardibdh@ugm.ac.id
16. Dr.Eny Farida Fakultas Kehutanan
UGM, Yogyakarta
081328205145 enyfaridah@yahoo.com
enyfaridah@ugm.ac.id
17. Oka Karyanto Fakultas Kehutanan
UGM, Yogyakarta
081578620673 okka@ugm.ac.id
okkaryanto@lycos.com
18. Edi Mirwanto Bogor Herbarium 08128206611 emirwanto@yahoo.com
19. Wim Giesen Euroconsult Mott
MacDonald
081316598515 wim.giesen@mottmac.nl
20. Graham
Applegate
AusAID 08121101393 grahamappleagate@ausaid.gov.au
21. Laura Graham University of Leicester /
CIMTROP
08192800204 Llb91@le.ac.uk
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
55
Annex 2 Programme of the PSF
Rehabilitation workshop
December 11th 2008
09.30 - 10.00 Arrival in Palangkaraya (Garuda GA550, Jakarta-Palangka Raya)
10.00 - 10.30 Convene at EMRP project office at Bappeda
10.30 - 17.00 Field Trip
18.00 Move to Hotel KMC
19.00 Dinner
December 12th 2008
08.00 Opening
Session 1: Brief individual presentations of agency experience (10-20 minutes) regarding
to research and study of each of the institute
Session 2: Knowledge and Study of Peat Swamp’s Rehabilitation. What have we learned
to date? what works & what doesn’t? (groups & plenary)
December 13th 2008
Session 3: The Most Suitable Practice and Research Needs. est practice guidelines for
PSF rehab based on current knowledge (presentation & discussions)
Session 4: Research Priority and Conclusion of the best Practice. Gaps in our
understanding & identification of research needs
Wrap-up
December 14th 2008
08.00 Checking out from KMC and leaving to Tjilik Riwut airport
10.00 Leaving to Jakarta (Garuda GA 551)
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
56
Annex 3 PSF Rehabilitation Research
needs assessment
On the last afternoon of the workshop a research needs assessment was conducted among the
participants. Participants were invited to note research topics – one per sheet – and group these
under the headings ‘biological’, ‘physico-chemical’ and ‘people-oriented’. Each person was
given three sheets for each heading; most filled out three topics per heading, some only 1-2,
others as many as four. These sheets were subsequently entered into a spreadsheet (one for
each heading), and during the second half of the session a priority ranking was established per
topic. Participants were asked per topic if this was considered ‘very important’, ‘important’,
‘moderately important’ or ‘unimportant’, and the topics were given a score ranging from 1
(unimportant) to 4 (very important). The list and ranking provided in the tables on the next page
is the result of this research needs assessment. Some items listed were judged not to be
appropriate research topics; this is indicated as such in the tables. This was more the case
under the people-oriented heading, as many were related to assisting local communities or
managing their impacts.
Phyisco-chemical topics
The top 9 physico-chemical topics recorded all score quite closely, ranging from only 50-55
points, while the remaining 10 topics range from 30 points upwards. The topics identified as
being most important topics are: i) Dams - where to put them and when; ii) Species that can
tolerate flooding/drought - especially root structure; iii) Loss of peat: rates and problems; iv) Site
characteristics for peat; v) Monitoring of hydrology - for at least a yearl vi) Species in relation to
peat depth and maturity; vii) Data needed for carbon crediting; viii) Light: species that can
tolerate higher levels; and ix) Criteria for land use and level of degradation.
Biological topics
The top 9 biological topics recorded all score quite closely, ranging from only 49-54 points, while
the remaining 14 topics range from 36 points upwards. The topics identified as being most
important topics are: i) Plant species in relation to with peat characteristics; ii) Identifying
species that can tolerate flooding; iii) Creating permenant plots to learn about biodiversity; iv)
Identifying which local species are appropriate for each (type of) site; v) Learning about the
phenology of tree species and thus seed distribution; vi) Gemur and other potential NTFP
species – finding the skills to mass-produce; vii) Identifying plant species that can cope with
high light levels; viii) Learning more about the symbiotic species with trees (mycorrhizae, N-
fixing etc…); and ix) Improving and learning about present silviculture techniques.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
57
People-oriented topics
The top 9 people-oriented topics recorded score from 45-52 points, while the remaining 6 topics
either scored very little or were deemed inappropriate. The topics identified as being most
important topics are: i) Valuation study of NTFPs; ii) Local perceptions regarding restoration; iii)
Integration agro-fisheries and forestry; iv) Providing incentive models, improving livelihood, and
finances; v) How to manage NTFPs, including after harvesting (collection, storage, process,
selling); vi) Gain understanding of the dependence of local people on NTFPs/ Ethnobotany and
ethnoecology study; which NTFP species are best for local people (finance, yields etc) ?; vii)
Learning and incorporating local knowledge; viii) Developing methods and documenting
community participation; and ix) Developing agroforestry systems.
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
58
Physico-chemical
Score
18
Water
Dams - where to put them and when
1
55
19
Water
Species that can tolerate flooding/drought - especially root structure (3)
3
55
12
Loss of peat
rates and problems
1
54
2
Peat
Site characteristics for peat (6)
6
53
16
Water
Monitoring hydrology - for year (3)
2
53
1
Peat
Species that relate to peat depth and maturity (4)
4
51
10
Carbon
more data needed fo carbon crediting
1
51
13
Light
species that can tolerate it (2)
2
51
7
Criteria for land use and level of degradation
1
50
3
Peat
Do we need fertiliser? Is the organic nutrients in peat enough? (6)
6
44
17
Water
Effectiveness of dams
1
44
5
Peat
Toxicity of peat, from PAS (2)
2
43
6
Natural indicators (floral spp) for peat types
1
39
15
Water
effect of chemicals on water ecosystem, including species
2
36
4
Peat
Chemical composition of peat
1
35
11
Limnology
lack of research
1
34
9
Alleliopathy
1
30
14
Water
Water management (general) (2)
2
too broad
8 Map of land use and level of degradation (peat age), (make plot every 250Ha?) (2) 2
Research
practice
Times
repeated
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
59
Biological
Repeated
on board Scores
3
In the field
Plant species fit with peat characteristics (3)
3
54
11
Natural ecosystem
Find species that can tolerate flooding
1
53
12
Natural ecosystem
Create permenant plots to learn biodiversity
1
53
9
Natural ecosystem
Identifying which
local
species are appropriate for each site
1
51
10
Natural ecosystem
Learn the phenology of tree species and thus seed distribution (4)
4
51
25
Specific
Gemur, and others - skills to mass-produce
1
50
7
In the field
Plant species that cope with light
1
49
13
Natural ecosystem
Learn more about the symbiotic species with trees (mycorrhizae, N-fixing etc)
2
49
22
Nursery
Improve and learn on present silviculture techniques
2
49
17
Natural ecosystem
Taxonomic study of TPSF plant spp
1
47
6
In the field
Which seasons work for which species (planting calender)
1
46
2
Human element
How do we collect enough good quality seeds? Management.
1
44
8
Natural ecosystem
Increase knowledge of flora and vegetation, especially on tranplant candidate species (2)
2
44
20
Nursery
Uniform and appropriate (light and compact) nursery media (3)
3
43
16
Natural ecosystem
Increase knowledge regarding root systems (2)
2
41
1
Human element
Identification of medicinal plants
1
40
4
In the field
Plant species that cope with fire
1
40
18
Natural ecosystem
Increase knowledge of relationship trees species to key/umbrella species e.g. orangutan.
1
39
19
Nursery
How to protect the seedlings from pests and disease
1
39
5
In the field
Figuring out which species to mix
1
38
23
Nursery
Improve knowledge on parent trees
1
37
24
Nursery
When do we plant the seedlings? How long before hardening? Is this needed for all spp.? (3)
3
37
15
Natural ecosystem
Increase knowledge of competition between species (3)
3
36
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
60
Community
Repeated
on board Score
3 Valuation study of NTFP 1 52
12 Surveying local community Their perseptions of restoration (2) 2 52
7 Involving the community Integration agro-fisheries and forestry 1 49
4 Involving the community Providing incentive models, improving livelihood, and finances (5) 5 48
9 Involving the community How to manage the NTFP after harvesting (storage, process, selling) 1 48
13 Surveying local community
Better understand interdependancy of local people and NTFP, Ethnobotany and ethnoecolo
3 48
15 Local knowledge Learn and encorporate local knowledge (6) 6 48
5 Involving the community Developing methods and documenting community participation (5) 5 46
2 Develop agroforestry system 1 45
6 Involving the community Dealing with issues of ownership and land rights, and land use planning (2) 2 34
8 Involving the community Eco-tourism? 1 27
1 Training for local foresters and facilitators (2) 2 Study not research
10 Involving the community Arranging farmer groups for restoration (2) 2 Study not research
11 Involving the community
Establishing permanant positions of work for local people; fisheries, farming (crops and livestock)
1 Study not research
16
Local knowledge
Establish education for local community (2)
2
Study not research
Guidelines for PSF Rehabilitation
3
rd
Draft 31 March 2009 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
61
Annex 4 LULC map of EMRP 2007
