Hydrological and economic effects of oil palm cultivation in Indonesian peatlands

Oil palm has increasingly been established on peatlands throughout Indonesia. One of the concerns is that the drainage required for cultivating oil palm in peatlands leads to soil subsidence, potentially increasing future flood risks. This study analyzes the hydrological and economic effects of oil palm production in a peat landscape in Central Kalimantan. We examine two land use scenarios, one involving conversion of the complete landscape including a large peat area to oil palm plantations, and another involving mixed land use including oil palm plantations, jelutung (jungle rubber; (Dyera spp.) plantations, and natural forest. The hydrological effect was analyzed through flood risk modeling using a high-resolution digital elevation model. For the economic analysis, we analyzed four ecosystem services: oil palm production, jelutung production, carbon sequestration, and orangutan habitat. This study shows that after 100 years, in the oil palm scenario, about 67% of peat in the study area will be subject to regular flooding. The flood-prone area will be unsuitable for oil palm and other crops requiring drained soils. The oil palm scenario is the most profitable only in the short term and when the externalities of oil palm production, i.e., the costs of CO2 emissions, are not considered. In the examined scenarios, the social costs of carbon emissions exceed the private benefits from oil palm plantations in peat. Depending upon the local hydrology, income from jelutung, which can sustainably be grown in undrained conditions and does not lead to soil subsidence, outweighs that from oil palm after several decades. These findings illustrate the trade-offs faced at present in Indonesian peatland management and point to economic advantages of an approach that involves expansion of oil palm on mineral lands while conserving natural peat forests and using degraded peat for crops that do not require drainage.

Jatropha cultivation in Malawi and Mozambique: impact on ecosystem services, local human well-being, and poverty alleviation

Jatropha-based biofuels have undergone a rapid boom-and-bust cycle in southern Africa. Despite strong initial support by governments, donors, and the private sector, there is a lack of empirical studies that compare the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of Jatropha’s two dominant modes of production: large plantations and smallholder-based projects. We apply a rapid ecosystem services assessment approach to understand the impact of two Jatropha projects that are still operational despite widespread project collapse across southern Africa: a smallholder-based project (BERL, Malawi) and a large plantation (Niqel, Mozambique). Our study focuses on changes in provisioning ecosystem services such as biofuel feedstock, food, and woodland products that can have important effects on human well-being locally. Qualitative information is provided for other regulating and cultural ecosystem services. Although at this stage no impact is tremendously positive or negative, both projects show some signs of viability and local poverty alleviation potential. However, their long-term sustainability is not guaranteed given low yields, uncertain markets, and some prevailing management practices.

The governance of adaptation: choices, reasons, and effects. Introduction to the Special Feature

The governance of climate adaptation involves the collective efforts of multiple societal actors to address problems, or to reap the benefits, associated with impacts of climate change. Governing involves the creation of institutions, rules and organizations, and the selection of normative principles to guide problem solution and institution building. We argue that actors involved in governing climate change adaptation, as climate change governance regimes evolve, inevitably must engage in making choices, for instance on problem definitions, jurisdictional levels, on modes of governance and policy instruments, and on the timing of interventions. Yet little is known about how and why these choices are made in practice, and how such choices affect the outcomes of our efforts to govern adaptation. In this introduction we review the current state of evidence and the specific contribution of the articles published in this Special Feature, which are aimed at bringing greater clarity in these matters, and thereby informing both governance theory and practice. Collectively, the contributing papers suggest that the way issues are defined has important consequences for the support for governance interventions, and their effectiveness. The articles suggest that currently the emphasis in adaptation governance is on the local and regional levels, while underscoring the benefits of interventions and governance at higher jurisdictional levels in terms of visioning and scaling-up effective approaches. The articles suggest that there is a central role of government agencies in leading governance interventions to address spillover effects, to provide public goods, and to promote the long-term perspectives for planning. They highlight the issue of justice in the governance of adaptation showing how governance measures have wide distributional consequences, including the potential to amplify existing inequalities, access to resources, or generating new injustices through distribution of risks. For several of these findings, future research directions are suggested.