Tropical Lowland Peats: To Conserve or Develop Them?

S. Paramananthan
Managing Director
Param Agricultural Soil Surveys (M) Sdn. Bhd.
A4-3 Jalan 17/13, 46400 Petaling Jaya, Selangor
Malaysia
e-mail: passparam@yahoo.com

Key Words: Peats, Tropical Lowland, conservation, oil palm

INTRODUCTION
Peats are formed by the accumulation of organic soil materials. These
materials consist of undecomposed, partially decomposed and highly
decomposed plant remains. Tropical lowland peats, in addition, often have
undecomposed or partly decomposed branches logs or twigs. Peats have been
mapped worldwide under many climatic zones from the arctic to the tropics.
They are found both in the northern and southern hemispheres wherever
suitable climatic and environmental conditions occur. One of the main
conditions necessary for the formation of peats are conditions that limit the
decomposition and hence the accumulation of organic soil materials.

Tropical lowland peats form a fragile ecosystem because it is domed

shaped and is almost 100 percent organic. Its characteristics are highly
influenced by the hydrological conditions i.e. pedohydrology. They store large
quantities of water and thereby help minimize flooding in the rainy seasons. In
the short term they assist in retaining environmental contaminants such as
heavy metals. These swamps are able to support some uniquely adapted flora
and fauna species. However while peat swamps form an important function as
a water catchment, they can be a tinderbox during prolonged droughts and are
prone to fires which result in haze and air pollution. Due to their waterlogged
and acidic conditions these peatlands only support small native communities
who collect wood and fish for their subsistence living.

Due to population pressure, the need to produce more food and to

eradicate rural poverty, the Governments of Indonesia and Malaysia have both
with varying success, drained and developed these peatlands for agriculture.
Many of these failures were partly due to the lack of understanding of the
structure and hydrology of these peatlands. These peatlands were treated as
any other waterlogged mineral swamp and large drains were dug to remove
excess water. This has resulted in the subsidence and sometimes
decomposition of the organic materials.

In the early 1960‟s plantation crops such as rubber and subsequently oil
palm have been planted on these problem soils. Again success was limited due
to the use of large drains to remove excess water. In 1986, the pioneering work
of United Plantations (Gurmit et al., 1986) introduced water control and
nutritional management, significantly increasing the successful cultivation of oil

1
palms on peat. This resulted in a rush to clear and plant large areas of
peatlands to oil palms in the last 15 years particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia.

The lowering of watertable for agricultural development results in

consolidation, subsidence and some decomposition of the surface layers of the
peat. Some environmental groups claim that this results in increased
decomposition and mineralization of the peat resulting in the release of carbon
dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) which contribute to global warming.

On the other hand, countries where large areas of tropical lowland peats
occur claim that due to pressure of increased population and the need to
eradicate rural poverty requires that peatlands be cleared and planted. This is
further aggravated by the need to produce more biofuels to replace fossil fuels
(petroleum and coal), the largest single producer of GHG emissions. Thus the
Governments of Indonesia and Malaysia face a dilemma – to conserve or to
develop tropical lowland peatlands.

Objectives of the Paper

The objectives of this paper is to:

• Review the current knowledge of the characteristics, structure and ecology

of tropical lowland peats.

• Review some of the various issues on the conservation or development of

tropical lowland peats.

• To recommend land assessment guidelines to assist in the decision making

for the conservation or development of tropical lowland peatlands

• To recommend immediate actions that need to be taken.

EXTENT OF LOWLAND PEATS IN INDONESIA AND MALAYSIA

The estimates of the extent of peatlands in Southeast Asia varies with the
source. Rieley et al. (1995) give the minimum and maximum extent of
undisturbed peatlands in Southeast Asia (Table 1). For comparison values for
the same countries quoted by Tie (1990) are also given. It is clear that some
very large differences exist. This points to a range of values depending on the
source used. For Malaysia, these differences are difficult to explain as there is
only one soil map each for Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak. Even
within the data from Rieley et al. (1995) their minimum and maximum values
vary considerably. However it is clear that within Southeast Asia, Indonesia has
by far the largest extent of organic soils. The extent of organic soils in
Indonesia and Malaysia is given below. The distribution of lowland peats in
Indonesia and Malaysia is given in Figure 1.

2
Table 1. Comparison of estimates of undisturbed peatlands (in million ha) (Rieley et al., 1995
and Tie, 1990).
Rieley et al. 1995 (x 1,000 ha) Tie, 1990
Country
Minimum (Ha) Maximum (Ha) Per cent (x 1,000 ha)

Brunei 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01

Indonesia 17.00 27.00 82.00 26.20
Malaysia 2.25 2.73 8.28 2.56
Papua New Guinea 0.50 2.89 8.76 0.5
Philippines 0.10 0.24 0.72 na
Thailand 0.07 0.07 0.21 0.8
Total 19.93 32.94 100.00 30.07

Figure 1. Distribution of lowland peats in Malaysia and Indonesia.

Extent of Lowland Peats in Indonesia

The lowland peatlands of Indonesia are found mainly in Sumatra,
Kalimantan and Papua (formerly Irian Jaya). A large proportion of these
peatlands consist of ombrogenous and topogenous peats close to the coasts of
Sumatra, Kalimantan and Papua. Soekardi and Hidayat (1988) estimate that
the total extent of peat in Indonesia to be 18.480 million hectares. Their
distribution by Provinces is given in Table 2. According to their estimates
50.4% of Indonesia‟s peatlands occur in Kalimantan, 24.9% in Papua and
24.3% in Sumatra. Based on a survey of the tidal swamplands in parts of the
Sumatra and Kalimantan it was found that 36.2% of the Sumatra and
Kalimantan peatlands were shallow (<100 cm deep), 14.0% were of medium
depth (100-200 cm) and 49.8% were deep (>200 cm) (Table 3) (Radjagukguk,
1991).

Extent of Lowland Peats in Malaysia

The extent of lowland peats in Malaysia is summarized in Table 4, while the
land use on these peat areas in Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak are
summarized in Tables 5 and 6. It must be pointed out that some of these data
are old and new data needs to be compiled urgently.

3
Table 2. Extent of peatlands in some provinces in Indonesia (after Soekardi and Hidayat, 1988).
Province x 1,000 ha %
West Java 25 <0.1
Acheh 270 1.5
North Sumatra 335 1.8
West Sumatra 31 <0.1
Riau 1,704 9.2
Jambi 900 4.9
South Sumatra 990 5.4
Bengkulu 22 <0.1
Lampung 24 <0.1
West Kalimantan 4,610 24.9
Central Kalimantan 2,162 11.7
South Kalimantan 1,484 8.0
East Kalimantan 1,053 5.7
Central Sulawesi 15 <0.1
South Sulawesi 1 <0.1
Southeast Sulawesi 18 <0.1
Moluccas and others 20 <0.1
Irian Jaya 4,600 24.9
Total 18,480 100.0

Table 3. Distribution of areas of Histosols and peaty soils according to peat thickness in several
provinces of Indonesia (Radjagukguk, 1991).
Distribution (%) according to peat thickness (cm) Total area of
Province Shallow Medium Deep Histosol and peaty
(0-100 cm) (100-200 cm) (>200 cm) soils (ha)
Riau 8.6 10.7 80.7 486,339
Jambi 33.4 9.3 57.3 168,163
South Sumatra 63.0 11.5 25.5 317,784
West Kalimantan 39.5 34.6 25.9 100,754
Central & South Kalimantan 62.6 19.6 17.8 190,145
Total
36.2 14.0 49.8 1,263,185
Sumatra & Kalimantan

Table 4. Extent of organic soils in Malaysia.

Extent of Organic Soils

Region State/Division Total Land Area (Ha)
Ha % of State/Division
Johore 1,909,886 205,856 10.8
Kedah 937,712 - -
Kelantan 1,497,351 7,880 0.5
Malacca 164,307 - -
Peninsular Negeri Sembilan 663,730 8,188 1.2
Malaysia Pahang 3,584,758 228,644 6.4
(Law and Penang/Province Wellesley 103,929 - -
Selvadurai, Perak 2,090,827 74,075 3.5
1968) Perlis 80,974 - -
Selangor 840,315 186,602 22.2
Terengganu 1,289,944 85,537 6.6
Sub-Total
13,163,733 796,782 6.1
(Peninsular Malaysia):
Sabah
(Acres et al., Sub-Total (Sabah): 7,563,600 200,600 2.6
1975)
Kuching 455,955 26,827 0.2
Samarahan 496,745 205,479 1.7
Sri Aman 964,699 340,374 2.7
Sarawak Sarikei 433,235 172,353 1.4
(Melling, 1999) Sibu 1,527,590 502,466 4.0
Bintulu 1,216,621 168,733 1.4
Miri 2,677,707 314,585 2.5
Limbang 779,001 34,730 0.3
Sub-Total (Sarawak): 12,445,000 1,765,547 14.2
MALAYSIA TOTAL: 25,616,296 2,762,929 10.8

4
 Table 5. Extent of peatland developed for agriculture in Malaysia.
Area Developed for Agriculture
Region State/Division Total Area of Peat
Ha %
Johor 205,856 145,900 70.9
Kelantan 7,880 2,100 26.6
Peninsular Negeri Sembilan 8,188 5,000 61.1
Malaysia Pahang 228,644 17,100 7.5
(1984) Perak 74,075 69,700 94.1
(after Abdul Jamil et Selangor 186,602 59,900 32.1
al., 1989) Terengganu 85,537 13,900 16.2
Sub-Total (P.M.) 796,782 313,600 39.4
Sabah Sub-Total (Sabah) 200,600 na na
Kuching 26,827 na na
Samarahan 205,479 50,836 24.7
Sri Aman 340,374 50,836 14.9
Sarawak Sarikei 172,353 61,112 35.4
(after Melling et al., Sibu 502,466 269,571 53.6
1999) Bintulu 168,733 47,591 28.2
Miri 314,585 66,114 21.0
Limbang 34,730 8,715 25.1
Sub-Total (Part): 1,765,547 554,775 30.8
MALAYSIA TOTAL (Part): 2,762,929 868,375 31.4

Table 6. The utilization of peatland for agriculture in Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak.

Type of crops Peninsular Malaysia1 Ha) Sarawak2 (Ha) Total Area (Ha)
Oil palm 146,730 330,669 477,399
Sago - 64,229 64,229
Rubber 98,143 23,000 121,143
Coconut 29,701 - 29,701
Padi 15,013 2,000 17,013
Pineapples 14,690 1,895 16,585
Mixed horticulture 5,810 908 6,718
Miscellaneous 7,425 369 7,794
Total: 317,512 423,070 740,582
1
Source: Abdul Jamil et al. (1989)
2
Melling et al. (1999)

CHARACTERISTICS OF TROPICAL LOWLAND PEATS

Tropical peats like mineral soils of the tropics are quite different from
temperate peats. Tropical peats are formed under quite different climatic and
edaphic conditions compared to temperate peats. Temperate peats are mainly
derived from the remains of low growing plants (Sphagnum spp. Gramineae
and Cyperaceae). Tropical lowland peats, on the other hand, are formed from
forest species and hence tend to have large amounts of undecomposed and
partially decomposed logs, branches and other plant remains. It can attain an
elevation of over 20.7 m found in Loagan Bunut National Park (Melling et al.I,
2006) and consist mainly of organic substances with a high acidity (pH 3-4) and
ash contents of less than 5%.

Walking in these tropical lowland peat forests can be extremely hazardous

as one‟s feet hardly touch the ground. One has to carefully step on the aerial
roots and buttress roots of the current vegetation which tend to form a dense
interlocking root mat. Due to this difficulty of walking in these forests most

5
people‟s experiences of the tropical lowland peats are derived or based on what
they observe at the edges of the swamp. Thus most people consider the
tropical lowland peats to have a thick luxuriant forest with a high biomass and to
be continually waterlogged. Contrary to common beliefs tropical lowland peats
are not uniform and are not always under water. These peat forests consist of a
lateral variation of vegetation types resulting in a horizontal zonation of forest
species and hence above ground biomass as one walks from the edge of the
swamp to the centre. These forests are dome-shaped – a fact that is not readily
discernible in the field. When one examines a vertical profile morphology of the
plant debris making up the forest base, a vertical layering of material with
different stages of decomposition and amount of wood or even layers of water
can be seen. Thus tropical lowland peats exhibit both a horizontal zonation and
vertical layering. Understanding of this zonation and vertical profile layering is
critical for the conservation or utilization of these forests. Failure to recognize
the structure and zonality of these forests can lead to wrong estimates of the
biomass, biodiversity and the role of these forests as a sink or source of
greenhouse gas emissions.

Horizontal Zonality of Tropical Lowland Peats

Buwalda (1940), working in Sumatra was probably the first to report that
different plant communities exist in the peat swamp forest depending on the
thickness of the peat and the distance from the river. Where the peat was more
than three metres thick, he reported that the vegetation was poorer than that at
the shallow depths. On very thick peat deposits, Myrtaceae and Calophyllum
species with tall slender trunks growing close to one another dominate. In the
central or inner parts of the forest, the thickest layers showed a more open
vegetation with poorly developed, twisted and stunted trees and scattered pools
containing deep brown water with a pH of 3.0 to 3.5. This Myrtaceae-
Calophyllum forest is rich in Nepenthaceae whilst mosses, ferns and
Cyperaceae cover the soils. On peat deposits shallower than three metres
deep, the undergrowth consists of Araceae, Commelinaceae, Palmae (Zalacca
conferata, Licula) and ferns. The soils had a pH of 3.5 to 4.5. Based on these
studies in the Indragiri Area, Buwalda reports six different vegetation types with
the dominance of one or more species. Similarly Anderson (1961, 1963, 1964)
working on Borneo Island (Sarawak and Brunei) described a similar situation.

Ecology of the Tropical Lowland Peat Swamp Forests

In spite of the work of Buwalda (1940) little was known about the ecology of
the Peat Swamp Forests in Southeast Asia. Perhaps the most comprehensive
and best known study of the ecology of the Tropical Lowland Peat Swamp
Forest was carried out by Anderson over a period of ten years in the 1950s
(Anderson, 1961, 1963, 1983). Anderson recorded 253 tree species (including
40 small trees which rarely exceed 5-10 m in height in the Tropical Lowland
Peat Swamp Forest. Many of these species recorded by Anderson are also
found in other forest types outside peat swamp forest. It is also significant to
point out that many of the species which are largely confined to the periphery of
the Tropical Lowland Peat Swamp Forest also occur in the Lowland Dipterocarp
Forest. On the other hand, the species that are present in the forests located in

6
the centre of the swamps are mainly those that are found on the poorer soils,
frequently podzols of the heath forest (Anderson, 1963).

The Tropical Lowland Peat Swamp Forests show conspicuous changes in

vegetation types from its periphery to the centre of each domed-shaped peat
swamp (Buwalda, 1940; Anderson 1961). Anderson who studied these
swamps in Sarawak, Malaysia and adjacent Brunei on the island of Borneo had
used the term “Phasic Community” (PC) to designate a dominant vegetation
zone. Anderson recognized six distinct Phasic Communities or zones on the
basis of their floristic composition and structure of the vegetation in each zone
(see Table 7 and Fig. 2). They were numbered PC1at the periphery to PC6 in
the centre of the Peat Swamp. The main changes that characterize these
concentric zonations which are fairly easily seen on aerial photographs have
been summarized by Tie (1990) as follows:-

Figure 2. Lateral zonation vegetation in the six phasic communities (after

Anderson, 1961).

7
 Table 7. Characteristics of the six phasic communities (after Anderson, 1961, 1963, 1983).
Main Tree Species
PC Name
Upper Storey Middle-Understorey
Gonystylus bacanus (Ramin)
Gonystylus-Dactylocladus-Neoscortechinia Association Neoscortechinia kingii
1 Dactylocladus stenostachys (Jongkong), Shorea spp.,
(Mixed Swamp Forest) Alangium havilandii
Copaifera palutris
Shorea albida-Gonystylus-Stemonurus Association Shorea albida,
2 Stemonurus umbellatus
(Alan Forest) Gonystylus bacanus
Shorea albida Association Tetractomia holttumii,
3 (Alan Bunga Forest) Shorea albida Cephalomappa paludicola
Ganua curtisii
Shorea albida-Litsea-Parastemon Association Shorea albida,
4 Parastemon spicatum
(Padang Alan Forest) Litsea crassifolia
Tristania obovata,
5 Tristania-Parastemon-Palaquium Association Parastemon spicatum, Saplings of bigger trees
Palaquium cochleariflolium
D. stenostachys
Combretocarpus-Dactylocladus Association
6 Combretocarpus rotundatus Litsea crassifolia,
(Padang Paya Forest)
Garcinia cuneifolia

Emergent Stems* Species+

PC Girth Canopy Other features of trees and ground flora Occurrence
height (m) per ha per 0.2 ha
Structure and physiognomy similar to MDF on mineral soils; many
Uneven; Periphery zone of swamps, especially
1 40-50 n.a.# 600-700 30-55 species with pneumatophores, stilt roots and buttresses; Zalacca
multi-storeyed Rajang Delta and near the coast.
conferta may form dense thickets especially on shallow peats.
2-4 m, Similar to PC 1 but with scattered very large S. albida trees; large
Uneven;
2 up to 60 few up to n.a. 40-45 trees usually hollow and with stag-headed crowns; Nepenthes Common; extensive in Rajang Delta.
multi-storeyed
7m bicalcarata and Pandanus andersonii frequent.
10-20, Middle storey sparse; lower storey moderately dense; cauliflower- Extensive in Lupar-Saribas and
3 45-60 1-3 m 350-600 usually Even like crowns of S. albida distinctive on air-photo; large trees heavily Baram swamps, largely absent in
<15 buttressed; P. andersonii frequent. Rajang Delta.
Common in central areas of swamps
Mainly even; Very slender stems giving pole-like aspect; dense understorey 3-6
4 30-40 60-120 cm 650-850 10-25 in Rajang Delta and as transition
dense m high; Nepenthes spp. quite frequent.
zones in Baram.
mostly 1,200- Even; Understorey sparse; herbaceous plants largely absent; some At transition zones in Baram and
5 15-20 11-18
<60 cm 1,350 dense pitcher plants. Brunei swamps.
45 cm, Stunted, xeromorphic, with pneumatophores; Myrmecophytes and
Open; Only in central areas of swamps
6 Few >12 few 75-90 Few <5 Nepenthes spp. numerous; sedge, Thorachostachyum bancanum
shrub-like along middle reaches of Baram River.
cm and P. ridleyi abundant; sphagnum moss also occurs.
+
* Stems with 30 cm girth or larger; Tree species with 30 cm girth or larger; # (information) not available.

8
a) An almost complete change in the floristic composition from one zone to
another. Dactylocladus stenostachys is the only tree species found in all six
zones. Amongst the ground flora, only the sedge Thorachostachyum
bancanum has a similar distribution.

b) A reduction in the number of tree species per unit area and total number of
species recorded from the edge to the centre. In sample plots of 0.2 ha,
PC1 and 2 had 30-35 tree species (>30 cm girth), PC3 and 4 have about
12-25 species and finally in PC6 less than 5 species occur.

c) A general increase in the number of stems (> 30 cm girth) per unit area. In
PC1, it varies between 600-700 per ha, whereas in PC4, 650-850 stems
usually occur and in the low dense forest of PC5, the number increased to
1,200-1,350. PC3 is the exception with only 350-600 stems per ha. In the
open, stunted forest of PC6 very few stems of more than 30 cm girth are
found.

d) A decrease in the average size of a species from the periphery to the centre.
D. stenostachys, for example, may attain a girth of up to 6 m and a height of
30 m in PC1 but in PC6 it occurs no more than a small tree, usually less
than 4 m in height. Shorea albida also decreases in size from a girth of up
to 8 m and a height of 60 m in PC2 to pole-like in PC4 where they are
usually 60-120 cm in girth.

Structure and Development of the Tropical Lowland Peat Swamps

Anderson (1961) also studied the structure of the peat swamps in Sarawak
by means of level surveys and borings to the substratum. There is a general
rise in elevation in a convex form from the river or coast to the centre of peat
swamp. The absolute rise and the convexity at the periphery become more
pronounced with distance from the sea. The maximum elevation of 20.7 m
above mean sea level was recorded at Loagan Bunut National Park, Sarawak
(Melling, 2006) while the most pronounced convexity of the swamp surface was
observed at Tanjung Pasir swamp near Marudi. The central raised part of the
peat swamp is almost flat with a rise of less than half a metre per kilometer.
With the rise in surface elevation, there is sometimes a corresponding fall in the
level of the basal mineral materials, usually clays or silty clays, from the river-
bank or coast into the swamp centre. This often gives the peat deposit a
lenticular cross-section.

Groundwater flow in the peat swamp is apparently confined to the top 1-2 m.
The presence of well preserved woody material in the peat deposit below the
surface indicates cessation of decomposition and suggests complete stagnation
of sub-surface water. Layers of water sometimes as thick as 30 cm can
sometimes occur within the peats.

Hydrology of Tropical Lowland Peat Swamps

The author hypothesizes that the peat basin is actually a hydrologically
speaking a „confined basin‟ with higher land consisting of levees on two edges,
coastal ridges or coastal plain on the seaward site and hills on the landward

9
side. Thus all the water which is already inside the swamp and that which is
added on by rains cannot get out until it overflows the levees in periods of very
heavy rainfall. In normal rainfall situations the rainwater that is still confined
inside the swamp will exert an upward pressure causing the dome to form (see
Fig. 3). The heavier the rainfall, and addition of water from the hills, the greater
the pressure build-up causing the dome to become more convex inland
compared to domes nearer the coast.

Figure 3. Hydrology of peat swamps.

Peat Types and Profile Morphology

Peat characteristics within a peat swamp vary according to its position.
Generally most chemical properties such as exchangeable cations, pH
decrease from the edge of the swamp to the centre of the dome. Similarly
when one examines the vertical profile morphology of the peat dome a distinct
peat profile structure can be seen (see Fig. 4). The organic soil materials
making up the profile often change from highly decomposed sapric material in
the surface through a partly decomposed hemic material to an undecomposed
fibric material at depth. This change corresponds to a decrease of bulk density
with depth. Water-filled pores often also thus increase with depth. Logs twigs
and branches can occur at any depth within the profile. Hydric (water layers)
also can occur within the profile. Thus the types of profile morphology not only
varies from one peat swamp to another but also between different locations
within an individual peat swamp.

CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ON PEAT DEVELOPMENT

Due to its very fragile nature any development or disturbance of the
peatlands is expected to change the natural ecological balance. Thus many
environmental issues ranging from the loss of biodiversity and habitats to loss of
above ground biomass can be expected. Loss of carbon in the subsurface by
decomposition can also take place. These it is claimed will contribute to
greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. How much of these statements
are facts and how much of these are overestimates? In this section of the
paper these issues will be discussed.

Definition and Extent of Tropical Lowland Peats

A quick review of the extent of tropical lowland peats (Table 1) in the
literature shows considerable variation in their extent in different countries. How
these values were compiled and the definitions used in the different publications

10
is not fully known. Thus any potential loss of carbon in each country will vary
according to the source of information used. The main reasons for this is the
lack of proper definition of what is tropical lowland peat. It is recommended that
the first thing that needs to be done is to define the terms used so that all future
publications should follow these standards. We propose that these definitions
be based on the soil temperature regimes and other criteria proposed in Soil
Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 1975, 1999) and as modified by Paramananthan
(1998 and 2008). These are briefly defined below:

Tropical. These areas occur close to the Equator and hence are not expected
to experience seasonal variations in temperature. We propose the use of iso-
temperatures as defined in Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) to define
this (see Table 8).

Figure 4. Vertical profile morphology of a peat swamp.

11
 Lowland. The definition of lowlands is related to elevation above mean
sea-level. The cut-off elevation will change as one moves away from the
Equator. The hyperthermic soil temperature regime can be used to define this
(see Table 8). Thus tropical lowlands should have isohyperthermic soil
temperature.

Organic Soils (Peat). Before one can define what is an organic soil or peat, a
definition of the organic soil materials and a minimum thickness to qualify for an
organic soil needs to be made. The definition of organic soil material as
proposed by Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 1975, 1999) and
Paramananthan (1998, 2008) is proposed for adoption to define Tropical
Lowland Peats (see Fig. 5 and Table 9). Thus to qualify as an tropical lowland
organic soil, a soil should have an isohyperthermic soil temperature regime and
have organic soil materials in more than half of the upper 100 cm or more than
half of the total thickness of the solum if it is less than 100 cm.
Table 8. Soil temperature regimes.

MSST – MWST MAST °C

(°C)
<0 0-8 8-15 15-22 22+
>5 Pergelic Cryic Frigid Mesic Thermic Hyperthermic
<5 - Isofrigid Isomesic Isothermic Isohyperthermic

Notes: 1. Soil temperature measured at 50 cm below soil surface or at a lithic/paralithic contact, whichever is
shallower.
2. MAST = Mean annual soil temperature
MSST = Mean summer soil temperature
MWST = Mean winter soil temperature
3. Frigid regime has a mean summer temperature > 8°C

Figure 5. Definition of organic soil materials.

Table 9. Definition of an organic soil.

1. Organic soil layers make-up more than half the total cumulative thickness of the upper 100 cm.
The depth to bedrock is between 50 to 100 cm and the total thickness of the organic soil layers taken
2.
cumulatively is equal to or more than half the depth to bedrock.
The depth to bedrock is less than 50 cm and the total thickness of the organic soil layers taken
3.
cumulatively is more than half the depth to bedrock.

12
Loss of Biodiversity and Habitat
Some environmental groups claim that the clearing of peatlands result in a
loss of biodiversity and a loss of habitat for some indigenous flora and fauna
(Parish and Looi, 1999). These Groups‟ claim that these peatlands have a
large variety of fauna and flora endemic to these areas. However a review of
the literature suggests that the most diverse part of the peat swamp is the
mixed peat swamp forest (PC1) and this is similar if not less diverse that the
Lowland Dipterocarp Forest on the lowland mineral soils (Anderson, 1963).
Buwalda (1940) and Anderson (1961, 1963 and 1983) confirm that both the
biodiversity and biomass significantly decreases from the edge of the peat
swamp (PC1) to the centre of the dome (PC6) (see Fig. 2). Some publications
use the number of species in the mixed peat swamp forest (PC1) to claim high
loss of biodiversity in these peat swamps on land clearing.

Peat swamps are also supposed to be a habitat of endangered fauna and

flora. Often mentioned fauna are the Orang Hutan (Pongo pygmaeus) and the
Sumatran Tiger (Panthera tigris Sumatranus) and even elephants (Elephas
maximus Sumatrensis) (Parish and Looi, 1999). It must be remembered that
the peat swamps are not the original habitats of these animals – the Lowland
Dipterocarp forests are. A tiger or orang utan or an elephant, would not want to
live in these unsuitable and unfriendly environments if it has a choice. Even the
local native population that live in these swamps only manage to eke out a living
collecting wood and catching fish. Good drinking water is difficult to find.
Should not these native people be lifted out of this life and out of the poverty
zone if they so desire? Are the claims of loss of biodiversity and habitats over-
exaggerated? Both Indonesia and Malaysia have designated large areas of
forests as wildlife sanctuaries and have set-up sanctuaries for orang hutans,
tigers and elephants. Are these areas adequate?

Estimates of Above Ground Biomass and Potential Loss of Carbon

Most calculations of the potential loss of above ground biomass and hence
the potential loss of carbon sink of peat swamps are based on one value of
carbon based on the mixed peat swamp forests. Silvius and Diemont (2007)
estimate that the tropical peat swamps in SE Asia store at least 150,000 Million
tonnes (MT equivalent in soil carbon). The amount of carbon stored in tropical
peatlands has been estimated by Page and Banks (2007) (see Table 10).
Hooijer et al. (2006) estimate that the SE Asia peatlands (Indonesia, Malaysia,
Brunei and Papua New Guinea) store at least 42,000 Mt (assuming carbon
content of 60 kg/m3). Firstly these estimates do not take into consideration the
six phasic communities and the reduction in biomass from the edge to the
centre. It is apparent that there is a big difference not only in the above ground
biomass but also in the tree species from the edge of the peat swamps to the
centre (see Fig. 2). Thus there will also be a reduction in the potential above
ground carbon storage. The estimates of above ground biomass and potential
loss of carbon are over estimates that do not relate to field conditions. One
must also remember that an area is only developed to agriculture after logging
has taken place and the above ground biomass reduced drastically. Further it
must be remembered that any development be it urban, soyabean, rape seed or
oil palm from forest significantly reduces the above ground biomass. The

13
planting of oil palm replaces some of this biomass much more than soyabean or
rape seed. It is also important to remember that logging does not mean a
complete loss of carbon as these logs which are removed are converted to
furniture, houses etc. and remain as carbon – not a complete loss. Both
Indonesia and Malaysia have designated large areas of forest reserves
including peat swamps. Some environmental groups also propose that areas of
peatlands already planted with oil palm to be replanted with forest. Is this
practical or useful? The rate of regeneration of degraded peatlands is
extremely slow while oil palm can increase the biomass much more quickly and
hence improve the carbon sink while at the same time help supply vegetable
oils and biofuels. During the slow regeneration period to forest, the peat
surface will be exposed to decomposition and CO2 emissions.

Estimates of Below Surface Carbon Storage and Carbon Cycle

Most estimates of the organic carbon content in peat swamps e.g. Hooijer
et al. (2006), only consider the extent of the peat swamp, its depth, bulk density
and carbon content 60 kg C/m3 to estimate the total carbon stored in the peat
swamps. They use only one value for the bulk density and carbon content and
assume that it does not change with depth. They do not take into consideration
the actual vertical layering present in these tropical lowland peat swamps. The
changes from sapric to hemic to fibric content with depth, the presence of logs
and water layers in these swamps are not considered. In fact in these peat
swamps both in their natural state and when they are cleared for agriculture a
carbon cycle operates. Carbon is lost both laterally as organic sediment and
organic acids and some through decomposition from the surface. The
translocation and deposition of the fine organic soil materials at depth is also
common (see Fig. 6).
2
Table 10. Maximum and minimum areas of tropical peatland (km ) from selected sources. In
order to illustrate how differences in area and peat thickness influence calculations of the
amount of carbon stored in tropical peatlands two estimates are provided based on: (i) The
minimum area value and a peat thickness of 1 m and (ii) the maximum area value and a
3
thickness of 2 m (In each case 60 kg/m is used for the volume density of carbon) (After Page
and Banks, 2007).
Area (km2) Mass C (Gtonnes)
Min. Max. Min. Max.
Africa 26,607 88,657 1.596 10.639
Asia (Mainland) 622 6,245 0.037 0.749
Central America 14,465 25,935 0.868 3.112
Pacific 190 21,240 0.011 2.549
South America 37,136 96,380 2.228 11.566
Brunei 100 1,000 0.006 0.12
Indonesia 168,250 270,000 10.095 32.4
Malaysia 22,500 27,300 1.35 3.276
Papua New Guinea 5,000 28,942 0.3 3.473
Philippines 60 2,400 0.004 0.288
Thailand 394 680 0.024 0.082
Vietnam 100 1,830 0.006 0.22
Asia (Southeast) Total: 196,404 332,152 11.784 39.858

14
 Figure 6. Carbon cycle in peat swamps under natural conditions and with oil palm.

It is our opinion that most estimates of the below ground carbon stored in
the peat swamps has been overestimated for the following reasons:

• layering of the material – sapric/hemic/fibric.

• presence of different types and size of wood materials with their different
decomposition rates.
• bulk density changes with depth and difficulties of measuring it.
• presence of water layers in these swamp with no carbon.
• lateral movement of carbon-rich peat waters laterally out of the system.
• lateral and downward movement of fine sapric material within the swamp
into waterways/canals and to the underlying mineral substratum.

Hydrology and Peat Subsidence

It has been shown earlier (Fig. 3) that the peat domes have a closed
hydrological regime most times of the year except in the rainy seasons when
overflow from the rivers and excess rain can cause flooding to the surrounding
areas. Some environmental groups contend that drainage of these peat
swamps upsets this closed system resulting in decomposition, consolidation
and subsidence of the peats. This is true as any drainage will upset this closed
system. However it must be remembered that this system of drainage with no
controls was practiced in the early 1960s till around 1990s. For example
Salmah (1992) states the following:

“…………… drains in the West Johore Integrated Agricultural

Development Project were designed using criteria heavily influenced
by the requirement for a flood free environment.”

15
 Such practices obviously result in excessive shrinkage of the peat as the
closed system was no longer maintained. Today however when peat swamps
are drained for agriculture proper water management is practiced. Water is
controlled using control structures to maintain water levels at 40-60 cm below
the surface thereby retaining the closed system and hence minimizing the
subsidence.

Some of the literature (e.g. Wosten et al. (1997); Worsten and Ritzema,
2007) report peat subsidence rates of 100 cm in the first two years and a further
2-5 cm per year subsequently. The data obtained and frequently quoted by
Worsten comes from the same West Johor Project quoted above by Salmah.
No water control was practiced in this area for almost twenty years resulting in
excessive shrinkage and subsidence due to overdrainage. No data are given to
show that this has also resulted in decomposition. Most environmental groups
also assume that this subsidence means that carbon has been lost.
Subsidence does not mean and is never equal to decomposition. Kool et al.
(2006) working in Central Kalimantan have shown that during logging practices
a 2.2 to 4.0 m subsidence in the peats only results in 2.3-46.9 cm of
decomposition. Even this does not take into consideration that some of the fine
initial breakdown products are moved laterally into the drainage channels or
settle at the base of the organic layer as shown earlier as part of the carbon
cycle in peat swamps. Kool et al. (2006) conclude that compaction appeared to
be more important factor compared to decomposition in the loss of the dome
structure. Subsidence is actually due more to consolidation and compaction.

It is clear therefore that most estimates of subsidence and assumed loss of

carbon as carbon dioxide are overestimates. There is therefore an urgent need
collect more data on these matters under current water management systems.

Worsten et al. (1997) claim that with a subsidence rate of 2 cm per year it
will take 75 years for the shallow peat soils (<150 cm depth) to disappear. If
their claims are true then many of the early plantings of oil palm and other crops
on peat in the 1960s e.g. United Plantations in Perak are no longer on organic
soils. This is not the case. Even if as they claim such subsidence and
decomposition exposes the underlying acid sulfate soils – these are not a
problem as in Malaysia with water management and control these „problem
soils‟ actually produce high yields of oil palms today. Most peat areas except
for those near the coast do not necessarily have acid-sulfate clays as their
substratum. Such soils are very localized. When many peat swamps begin to
be formed over marine or brackish water deposits (sulfidic material) these
quickly change to riverine or non sulfidic material as the depth of peat increases
(Andriesse, 1961; Tie, 1990).

From the above discussion it is clear that some environmental groups are
using outdated and incomplete data in their estimates of subsidence and
decomposition. They refer to data obtained from outdated practices used in the
past when drainage without water control has been practiced. Further they
equate subsidence to decomposition and hence GHG emissions. There is a
need for them to reassess the data in line with current water management
practices and recent findings on subsidence and decomposition and GHG
emissions.

16
Green House Gas Emissions
Development of tropical lowland peat swamps, some environmental groups
claim, result in subsidence, decomposition and emissions of greenhouse gases
which contribute to global warming and climate change. These environmental
groups claim that 50-100 tonnes of CO2 are emitted annually from oil palm
planted on peatlands (Silvius, 2007). However Melling et al. (2005a, b) have
compared the GHG Fluxes (CO2 and CH4) in natural peat swamps, sago and oil
palm cultivated on peats. The results of Melling et al. (2005a, b) seems to
contradict what the environmental groups have been claiming. As discussed
earlier some of the data used by the environmental groups are outdated or
overestimates. Melling et al. (2005a, b) however also fail to fully explain why
their results may be correct although it upsets current thinking on GHG
emissions on peatlands.

In a natural peat swamp most workers assume that these areas are
continuously under water. Thus in their natural state they give out mostly CH4
and little CO2. It is clear that the new data on peat swamps indicates that
watertables in the dry season can be below one-metre and thus decomposition
of this exposed layer can take place possibly releasing a lot of CO2. In an oil
palm estate on peat which controls watertables at 40-60 cm throughout the year
the peat remains moist up to the surface minimizing the production of CO 2.
This probably explains why more GHG are released from a natural peat swamp
compared to oil palms planted under water-control regimes. It must however be
remembered that in prolonged drought periods even the oil palm estates may
not be able to maintain the watertable at 60 cm and hence large amounts of
CO2 maybe emitted but in such situations one can also expect to have higher
emissions of CO2 even from the natural peatlands.

It is clear that more studies such as those carried out by Melling et al.
(2005a, b) need to be carried out to fully quantify the GHG emissions on natural
peatlands and other crops grown on peat. Such studies however should
include emissions from the whole ecosystem.

Peat Fires
When prolonged droughts occur peatlands become dry and can become a
tinderbox resulting in fires. This then results in haze which cause
inconvenience not only to the surrounding areas but also to the neighbouring
countries. Haze results loss of visibility, lung infections etc. Peat fires can
destroy completely the peat forest and result in large emissions of GHG. The
environmental groups claim that the clearing of peatlands for oil palm cultivation
has increased the incidences of peat fires in these areas.

The oil palm industry has for the last five to ten years practiced a „no burn‟
policy in all their plantations be it on peatlands or uplands. Most plantations
today stack their trash in the interrows and do not burn. Of course a lack of
enforcement may result in some areas being burnt. Today no estate manager
in his right mind would burn his trash as with satellite imagery he is soon caught
and dealt with by the law. Why then do peat fires persist, especially in
Indonesia?

17
 In Indonesia most plantations are close to, if not adjacent to subsistence
smallholders who practice shifting cultivation. They clear and burn their land
annually for the planting of food crops. If they do not do this, they do not have
food for their family. So for these farmers – slash and burn or no food. In peat
areas where slash and burn are also practiced, the fires inevitably spread to
neighbourng oil palm estates. These estates are often then wrongly blamed for
starting the fires. The fires in the Estate can be easily picked-up on the satellite
imagery.

NEED FOR NATIONAL PEATLAND POLICY

Currently both Malaysia and Indonesia do not have a National Peatland
Policy. Consequently decisions to develop these lowland peats have been
made without proper assessment of this important sensitive resource. For
example, the State Government of Sarawak, Malaysia decided that out of the
total of 2.7 million hectares of lowland peatland in the State, 1.0 million hectares
will be developed to agriculture; mainly oil palm (DID, 2001). Such a
development, it is hoped, will help uplift the State‟s economy and eradicate rural
poverty by generating income through better employment in the proposed
agricultural enterprises. How these 1.0 million hectares are to be selected and
alienated is not fully clear. The current alienation appears to be haphazard.
This same situation probably applies to Indonesia. In Indonesia, a Presidential
Decree (No. 32/25) July 1990 has restricted the development of peatlands to
areas with a peat depth of less than three metres. The scientific or
environmental basis for this restriction is not clear. In spite of these problems
large areas of lowland peats in Malaysia and Indonesia have been logged and
subsequently planted to oil palm over the last 15 years.

Based on the current situation, it is clear that there is an urgent need to

reevaluate the basis for development of tropical lowland peats. There is
therefore an urgent need to carry out a peatland resource inventory and
evaluation of all tropical lowland peatlands – particularly in Indonesia and
Malaysia. Such an inventory is required to help formulate a National Peatland
Policy. This will also assist Governments to make decisions on whether a
particular peat swamp is to be conserved or developed. Such a decision will
require data on the current status of the land, its current land use, hydrology,
wildlife etc.

The countries with large areas of tropical lowland peat swamps are faced
with a dilemma – to conserve or to develop these peatlands. On the one hand,
it is claimed that development of these peatlands upsets the hydrological
balance and results in shrinkage and decomposition of the organic matter
releasing carbon and contributing to global warming. These environmentalists
also claim that the clearing of these peatlands results in a loss of biomass and
biodiversity and often a loss of habitats of endangered species such as the
orang hutan and the Sumatran tiger. On the other hand the Governments claim
that increasing population and pressure for land development and the need to
eradicate rural poverty requires that more land be cultivated to agriculture to
produce food and oils for the ever increasing population. The need to replace
the use of fossil fuels by the more environmentally friendly biofuels is also often

18
another important consideration. It therefore appears that there needs to be a
balance or compromise between these two extreme views.

Uniqueness of Individual Peat Swamps

When considering whether a particular peat swamp should be conserved or
developed, it is firstly important to recognize that the whole of the individual
swamp should be studied as a single contiguous unit. This is because each
peat swamp basin has it own hydrological characteristics which are unique to it.
Thus the zonality of vegetation, the hydrology and other related properties for
one particular swamp basin is unique and may be completely different from
another swamp. Some of the failures in past developments are partly due to
attempts to develop part of the peat basin and trying to conserve the rest. For
example to develop say, 10,000 ha of a peat basin totalling 100,000 ha. The
development of this small part of a peat basin can and will have an effect on
the remaining part of the peat swamp. It may be difficult if not impossible for the
developer of the 10,000 ha to control the watertable without due consideration
of the whole 100,000 ha. It is for this reason that the development in the West
Johor Agricultural Project and the Hutan Melintang Smallholder Development
Projects were more successful. Thus any decision to conserve or develop any
particular peat swamp must only be made after an integrated study of the whole
of that individual swamp has been completed and the results assessed.

Assessment of Individual Peat Swamp Areas

As mentioned earlier each individual peat swamp has its own environmental
and hydrological integrity which differentiates it from the next. Therefore the
assessment of each swamp should be treated separately. The criteria and
characteristics that need to be studied for each peat swamp area (PSA) can be
divided into the following broad groups (see Table 11).

• Definition and Extent of Peat Swamp Area

• Current Status and Existing Land Use in Peat Swamp Area
• Socio-economic Status in Peat Swamp Area
• Wildlife within the Peat Swamp Area
• Vegetation within the Peat Swamp Area
• Hydrology of the Peat Swamps area and surrounding areas
• Topography
• Soils of the Peat Swamp Area and the surrounding areas
• Potential GHG gas emissions of individual Peat Swamp Area

The evaluation of the land resource characteristics for the conservation or

development of an individual peat swamp unit is given in Table 12. This
evaluation uses the Framework for Land Evaluation (FAO, 1976). Once the
data has been collected the decision making process is given in Figure 7. If oil
palm is to be planted then the criteria to be used for evaluation for cultivation of
oil palm is given in Table 13. The Guidelines to be followed if oil palm is to be
cultivated is given in Table 14.

19
 Table 11. Recommended studies for assessment of individual peat swamp areas.
No. Activity Description Final Product
1 Definition of PSA Demarcate boundary of PSA (Name and • Map showing defined PSA.
Hectarage)
2 Current Status and Status: • Map showing land status of PSA
Land Use • Determine land status e.g. Forest • Map showing current land use in PSA
Reserve (logged/unlogged)
• Alienated land
• Native title land
Land Use:
• Delineation of land use categories
• Identify areas destroyed by fire
• Planted areas
3 Socio-Economic • Population, income levels • Population density
Survey • Dependence on PSA for livelihood • Income levels
• Desire for change • People‟s aspirations
4 Wildlife Survey Wildlife population: • Wildlife population statistics
• Mammals, birds, fishes etc. • List of endangered species
• Presence of endangered species
5 Vegetation Survey • Vegetation survey phaesic • Presence of endangered flora
communities (PC) • Biodiversity
• Medicinal plants • PCs present in PSA
• Endangered plants • Existing biomass
• Estimate of above ground biomass
6 Hydrology • Hydrological surveys • Depth and fluctuation of watertable
• Watertable monitoring over 1-2 years over time
• Drainability of PSA
7 Topography and • Surface and subsurface topography • Soil map of PSA
Soils • Characterization of soils • Estimate carbon in subsurface
• Depth of peat • Physical and chemical characteristics
• Soil chemical and physical
characterization
• Bulk density
8 Green House Gas • Monitoring of GHG emissions over • GHG emission for PSA
Emissions different PCs

LAND SUITABILITY EVALUATION

Once a decision has been made that a particular peat swamp area should
not be conserved but that it should be developed, an evaluation of the different
crops that can be planted has to be made. Currently the three most common
plantation crops that have been planted on lowland peats in the tropics are oil
palm, acasia and sago. Thus there is a need to evaluate the suitability of the
crop proposed to be cultivated in the area. The common practice is to plant the
whole of the PSA with a single crop if it is found suitable. Alternatively crop
zones within the peat swamp area can also be considered if the watertable
levels to be used for the different crops are compatible. It is best that any crop
to be planted should be on an estate basis as peats are considered to be
problem soils. Smallholders do not have the financial and technical capacity to
manage crops on peats. Small areas of vegetables are alright but large areas
are beyond their capacity and more damage may be caused.

20
Table 12. Evaluation of land resources characteristics for the conservation of a peat swamp
area.
Highly Moderately Marginal Currently Permanently
Land Resource
Suitable Suitable Suitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Remarks
Characteristic
(S1) (S2) (S3) (N1) (N2)
Current Land Status
Forest Reserve Extent of FR
>80 60-80 40-60 20-40 <20
(%) within PSA
Alienated Land Extent of alienated
<20 20-40 40-60 60-80 >80
(%) land in PSA
Current Land Use
Permanent Crops Existing Plantation
<20 20-40 40-60 60-80 >80
(%) Crops
Extent of
Cash Crops (%) <40 40-60 60-80 >80
smallholders
Assessed over
Fire Damage (%) <20 20-40 40-60 60-80 >80
whole PSA
Wildlife
Presence of
>80 60-80 40-60 20-40 <20 % of PSA
Endangered (%)
Wildlife
>80 60-80 40-60 20-40 <20 % of PSA
Population
Vegetation
Area occupied by PC5+6 have low
<20 20-40 40-60 60-80 >80
PC (5+6) biomass
Presence of % of PSA having
Endangered Plant >80 60-80 40-60 20-40 <20 endangered
Species (%) species
Hydrology
Length of Dry No dry Susceptibility for
3 2-3 1-2 -
Season (months) months fires
Overall
Worst rating over
Suitability for <20 20-40 40-60 60-80 >80
whole of PSA
Conservation
Decision Conserve Rehabilitate Develop

21
 Define Peat Management No Logging
Areas Proposed for Unit (PMU)
Conservation • State Government to • Controlled selective
(>60% of peatland still gazette area logging
intact) • No further development • Develop logging
• Create buffer zone guidelines for peat
• Monitoring

Land Resource
Assessment Studies • Develop action plans for
• Land status rehabilitation
Identify Peat • Current land use Areas Proposed for • Redefine peat
Swamp Area • Wildlife Rehabilitation management unit (PMU) Implement Action Plans
(PSA) • Vegetation (40-60% of Peatland Intact) • Reforestation
• Hydrology • State Government to
• Topography gazette area
• Soils

• Plants to develop PSA

Use Best Management
Areas Recommended for • Logging
Practices
Development • Design and construct
(<40% of peatland intact) drainage canals/control
(Degraded) structures Monitoring
• Crop selection/zoning

Figure 7. Flow chart showing decision making and action plans for the conservation/development of Tropical Lowland Peats.

22
Table 13. Evaluation of peatland characteristics for oil palm cultivation (Estate-level
management).
Highly Moderately Marginal Currently Permanently
Peatland
Suitable Suitable Suitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Remarks
Characteristic
(S1) (S2) (S3) (N1) (N2)
Climate
Too high
2,000-2,500 2,500-3,000 3,000-3,500 3,500-4,000 >4,000 flooding/hampers
Total Annual field operations
Rainfall (mm) Low rainfall
1,500-2000 1,300-1,500 1,000-1,300 <1,000 susceptibility to fire
hazard
Dry season Long dry period –
(months) <1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4 fires
Mean Annual
Temperature (°C) +25 22-25 20-22 18-20 <18

Topography
Slope (%) <0.1 0.1-0.3 0.3-0.5 - -
Phasic PC2 PC5 and Very low BD in PCs 5
Community PC1 PC4 - and 6
PC3 PC6
Wetness
Moderately
Drainability Already Easily Difficult to Very difficult
difficult to
drained drained drain to drain
drain
Occasional Short term Short term Long term Hamper field
Flooding Not flooded
flooding shallow deep deep operations
Physical Soil Conditions
Surface % of surface with
Woodiness (%) <10 10-30 30-40 40-50 >50 wood stumps (PC3-4)
Surface Wood % of surface with
Litter (%) <25 25-50 >50 wood litter (PC2-4)
t = terric, s = sapric,
Organic Soil s/f, h, h/f, f,
s/t, s, s/h s/w, h/w, f/w, w - h = hemic, f = fibric,
Material Class t/w w = woody
Soil Fertility Conditions
Soil Fertility
Moderate Low Surface 50 cm
Characteristics
Salinity (dS/m) 50
cm 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 >4

Table 14. Guidelines for the development of Tropical Lowland Peats (oil palm).

1. Construct main canals with control structures (Government)

2. Log area (by contract) (Monitoring)
3. Construct secondary drains with controls (wait at least one year)
4. Land alienation, land clearing and stacking (no burning)
5. Compaction of planting lines and planting
6. Construction of tertiary drains and roads/rails
Monitoring
• Ensure water-level maintained at 40-60 cm below surface
7.
• Regular desilting of drains
• Fire hazards in dry season

23
 It is recommended that the FAO‟s Framework for Land Evaluation (FAO,
1976) be used to evaluate the suitability or otherwise of a crop to be planted on
lowland peats. The key to the use of this Framework is to develop a table which
evaluates the land characteristics which influence the performance of the crop
considered when planted on tropical lowland under different levels of
management. An attempt has been made here to do this for oil palm cultivation
under estate level management (see Table 13). In the case of peatlands, strict
additional guidelines for the development of these areas for agricultural
development must be prepared and enforced. This is to ensure that any
subsidence and decomposition is minimized. Tentative Guidelines for the
sustainable planting of oil palm on peats is given in Table 14. Once these
Guidelines are enforced strictly the decomposition and subsidence of the peat
can be minimized. It is our opinion that with such Guidelines and their
enforcement, areas already cultivated with oil palm can be replanted. A similar
set of Guidelines can be developed for the different crops such as sago and
acasia.

IMMEDIATE ACTIONS REQUIRED

It is clear that tropical lowland peats are a fragile ecosystems. In spite of
this the need to eradicate rural poverty has resulted in large areas of peatlands
being developed. The lack of understanding of this problem soil has resulted in
many dismal failures. Today however with our better understanding of these
soils, some success has been achieved. However as some environmental
groups claim, the drainage of these swamps results in subsidence and
decomposition of the peatlands with the resultant release of CO 2. Unfortunately
some environmental groups have used incomplete or outdated data in their
claims. There is a great dearth of reliable data particularly for tropical lowland
peats. The correct approach therefore is to quickly improve the data base we
have on these soils so that a more reliable picture can be obtained. Thus some
immediate actions need to be taken to solve this problem. Among the action
that needs to be taken are:

• Immediate moratorium on alienating new peat areas for development.

• Areas already alienated but not yet developed be „put on hold‟ until the area
is evaluated or a new land be offered as an alternative.
• Quickly initiate a programme to collect data on the peat resources of the
country and to formulate a National Peatland Policy.
• Perhaps, in this context the most important step is to identify the individual
peat swamp areas and to characterize them and their current land use and
land status.
• More data on GHG emissions from natural peat areas and areas with
different crops be collected using the whole canopy method.

Without such data all the detrimental effects of developing peatlands and its
effects on global warming will continue to be highlighted.

24
REFERENCES
Abdul Jamil, M.A., Chow, W.T., Chan, Y.K. and Siew, K.Y., 1989. Land use of peat in
Peninsula Malaysia. Bengkel Kebangsaan Penyelidikan dan Pembangunan
Tanah Gambut, 21-22, 1989. MARDI Selangor.
Acres, B.D., Bower, R.P., Burroughs, P.A., Folland, C.J., Kalsi, M.S., Thomas, P. and
Wright, P.S., 1975. The Soils of Sabah. Vol. 1-5. Land Resources Study 20.
Land Resources Division, Min. Overseas Development, England.
Anderson, J.A.R., 1961. The ecology and forest types of the peat swamps forests of
Sarawak and Brunei in relation to their siviculture. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of
Edinburgh, U.K.
Anderson, J.A.R., 1963. The flora of the peat swamp forests of Sarawak and Brunei,
including a catalogue of all recorded species of flowering plants, ferns and fern
allies. Gardens’ Bulletin, Vol. XX, Part II, 131-228.
Anderson, J.A.R., 1964. The structure and development of the peat swamps of
Sarawak and Brunei. J. Trop. Geography, 18, 7-16.
Anderson, J.A.R., 1983. The tropical peat swamps of Western Malesia. In: A.J.P.
Gore (Ed.), Ecosystems of the World, Vol. 4B, Mires: Swamp, Bog, Fen and Moor.
Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co. Amsterdam 6, 181-199.
Buwalda, P., 1940. Bosverkenning in de Indragirische Bovenlanden. Rep. For. Res.
Sta, Bogor, Indonesia (unpub.) (Quoted by Polak, 1975).
Drainage and Irrigation Department (DID), 2001. Water Management Guidelines for
Agricultural Development in Lowland Peat Swamps in Sarawak. Drainage and
Irrigation Department, Sarawak, Min. Rural and land Development, Kuching,
Sarawak, Malaysia.
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 1976. A Framework for Land Evaluation.
Soil Bulletin 32, FAO, Rome.
Gurmit, S., Tan, Y.P., Padman, C.V. Rajah and Lee, L.W., 1986. Experiences on the
cultivation and management of oil palms on deep peat in United Plantations
Berhad. In: Proc. 2nd. Int. Soil Management Workshop. Thailand/Malaysia, 7-8
April, 1986.
Hooijer, A., Silvius, M., Wosten, H. and Page, S., 2006. PEAT-CO2 Assessment of
CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in SE Asia. Delft Hydraulics report Q3943
(2006).
Kool, D.M., Buurman, P. and Hoekman, D.H., 2006. Oxidation and compaction of a
collapsed peat dome in Central Kalimantan. Geoderma, 137, 217-225.
Law, W.M. and Selvadurai, K., 1968. The 1968 Reconnaissance Soil Map of
Peninsular Malaysia. Proc. 3rd Malaysian Soils Conference, Kuching, Sarawak.
Dept. of Agriculture, Sarawak.
Melling, L., 1999. Sustainable Agriculture Development on Peatland. Paper presented
at the Workshop on „Working Towards Integratged Peatland Management for
Sustainable Development‟, 17-18 August 1999, Kuching, Malaysia.
Melling, L., Hartono, R. and Goh, K.J., 2005a. Soil CO2 flux from three ecosystems in
tropical peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia. Tellus 57B, I-II.
Melling, L., Hartono, R. and Goh, K.J., 2005b. Methane fluxes from three ecosystems
in tropical peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 37(2005),
1445-1453.
Melling, L., Lau, J.U., Goh, K.J., Hartano, R. and Osaki, M., 2006. Soils of Loagan
Bunut National Park, Sarawak, Malaysia. Final Report, Peat Swamp Forests
Project MAL/99/G31, UNDP, GEF, Jabatan Pertanian, Malaysia.
Page, S. and Banks, C.J., 2007. Tropical Peatlands: Distribution, Extent and Carbon
Storage – Uncertainties and Knowledge Gaps. In: Tropical Peatlands,
PEATLANDS International 2/2007.

25
Paramananthan, S., 1998. Malaysian Soil Taxonomy – Second Approximation. Mal.
Soc. of Soil Science and Param Agric. Soil Surveys. October 1998, Serdang
Malaysia.
Paramananthan, S., 2008. Malaysian Soil Taxonomy – Second Edition (In press).
Parish, F. and Looi, C.C., 1999. Southeast Asia Peatland Action Plan and
Management Initiative. Proc. Int. Conf. and Workshop on Tropical peat Swamps
“Safe-Guarding a Global Natural Resources”, 27-29 July, Univ. Science Malaysia,
Penang, Malaysia.
Radjagukguk, B., 1991. Utilisation and management of peatlands in Indonesia for
agriculture and forestry. In: Aminuddin, B.Y. et al. (Eds.), Proc. International
Symposium on Tropical Peatland, Kuching, Sarawak. MARDI, Serdang, Malaysia,
21-27.
Rieley, J.O., Page, S. and Sieffermann, G., 1995. Tropical Peat Swamp Forests of
Southeast Asia: Ecology and Environmental Importance. Malaysian J. Trop.
Geography, 26(2), 131-141.
Salmah, 1992. Water Management in Deep Peat Soils in Malaysia. Ph.D. Thesis
submitted to Cranfield Institute of Technology-Silsoe College, U.K., March 1992.
Sewandono, M., 1938. Het. veengebied. van Bengkalis. Tectona, 31.
Silvius, M. and Diemont, H., 2007. Climate Change, Poverty, Biofuels and Pulp
Deforestation and Degradation of Peatlands. In: Tropical Peatlands,
PEATLANDS International 2/2007, 32-24.
Silvius, M., 2007. No Palm Oil from Plantations on Peat. In: Tropical Peatlands,
PEATLANDS International 2/2007, 35.
Soekardi, M. and Hidayat, A., 1988. Extent and distribution of peat soils of Indonesia.
Third Meeting Cooperative Research on Problem Soils, CRIFC, Bogor.
Soil Survey Staff, 1975. Soil Taxonomy. A Basic System of Soil Classification for
Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. U.S. Dept. of Agric. Soil Conserv. Ser. Agric.
Handbook No. 436. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washing D.C.
Soil Survey Staff, 1999. Soil Taxonomy. A Basic System of Soil Classification for
Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys – Second Edition. Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Tie, Y.L., 1990. Studies of peat swamps in Sarawak with particular reference to soil-
forest relationships and development of domed shaped structures. Ph.D thesis,
Univ. of Reading, England.
Wosten, H. and Ritzema, H., 2007. Subsidence and Water Management of Tropical
Peatlands. In: Tropical Peatlands, PEATLANDS International 2/2007.
Wosten, J.H.M., Ismail, A.B. and van Wijk, A.L.M., 1997. Peat subsidence and its
practical implications: a case study in Malaysia. Geoderma, 78, 25-36.

26