Peatland fires have burned annually in Indonesia since the 1990s, and they come with significant costs between multiple stakeholders. There perceptions might help build a bridge to a solution.

1. Benefits, burdens and solutions
to Indonesian Peatland Fires
Rachel Carmenta, Willy Daeli, David Gaveau, Jacob Phelps,
Agus Salim, Aiora Zabala

2. Globally fires are increasing
Annual events
Fire weather seasons are extending
“If these fire weather changes are coupled with ignition sources
and available fuel, they could markedly impact global
ecosystems, societies, economies and climate”
Jolly et al (2015) Science

3. Annual peatland fires in Indonesia
Since 1990s
Aggravated by El Nino events

4. Potential burdens from peatland fires:
the Costs
Experienced at multiple scales
Different categories of burdens, e.g. Conflict
Diplomatic
Economic
Environmental
Food security
Health
Injustice
Risk
Quality of life

5. Potential burdens from
peatland fires
Experienced at multiple scales,
from local to global, e.g.
Different categories of burdens are

6. But fire also has potential benefits:
the Drivers
Regional
Also in different categories and
accruing at different scales, e.g.
Local Global
e.g.
commodity
supply

7. Multiple benefits
Multiple burdens
Multiple scales
In such a complex resource management arena, it follows there are
multiple stakeholders to consider when seeking solutions.
Who are the relevant stakeholders in peatland management?

8. Agroindustry
Singaporean
decision-makers
Small farmers
Hired
labourers
Local & national
decision-makers
External
Investors
multiple stakeholders,also at different scales

9. A classic “wicked problem”
Major governance challenge
How to define a solution to such a complex problem?
Diversity of benefits, burdens and stakeholders
Ecological and climatic determinants
Political and sensitive issue
Diverse landscape mosaics of different actors and land uses
No single solution is likely to be effective
Broad consensus on solution pathways will be required
Can understanding stakeholders perspectives contribute?

10. Why do stakeholder perceptions matter?
Defining a common solution space requires identifying stakeholder
concerns and aspirations
Identify points of consensus, contention and coalition
Positive synergies identified, inevitable tradeoffs accounted for
To avoid the policy-practice gap, generate legitimacy and buy in

11. Stakeholder perspectives of Indonesian
peatland fires
Research method Sample Policy relevance
Q method
Semi-quantitative social science
Constructing the “concourse”
Ranking of statements on a scale
Inclusive
Two aspects of peatland governance
1) Benefits and burdens
scale of importance
30 statements
2) Solutions
scale of effectiveness
40 statements
Factor analysis
Identifies similar groups of perspectives on aspects of an issue

12. Stakeholder perspectives of Indonesian
peatland fires
Research method Sample Policy relevance
• Stakeholders:
involved in
fire management,
advocacy and
policy across
four scales:
i) International
ii) National
iii) Local
iv) Farm
• Purposive sampling
• 12 stakeholder groups
• 221 respondents
Singapore Singapore policy community (8)
Jakarta Jakarta policy community (9)
Riau Riau policy community (11)
Local public figures (15)
Large Mid-level absentee investors (15)
Industrial agriculture (32)
Large land holders (15)
Small Medium Land Holders (34)
Small Land Holders (42)
Landless Labourers/Share Croppers (15)
Disempowered Landless (15)
NGO Non-governmental organization (7)

13. CIFOR study on Stakeholder perspectives
of Indonesian peatland fires
Research method Sample Policy relevance
 Local sites selected to
capture full diversity of
landscape mosaics (e.g.
tenure, fire, land cover,
actors)
 All within the larger
study area affected by
2013-214 fires
Map showing three study sites for Q participants in Riau field sites, Bukit Kirikil (1), Petani Kecil (2) and
Teluk Makmur (3). Inset shows the Indonesian island of Sumatra, Singapore and Malaysia.

14. Stakeholder perspectives of Indonesian
peatland fires
Research method Sample Policy relevance
Clarify positions / coalitions
Identify contentious issues
Identify agreement areas
Target and identify what engagement and
outreach communications are needed
Contributes to an understanding of governance
success and failure
Serve as a “boundary object” for negotiations

15. Identifying discourses (“factors”)
Factor analysis identifies idealized q-sorts - discourses
Identify the distinguishing statements of each factor
Interpret the factors and their stakeholder membership
Analysis shows you how respondents
share similar opinions on statement
ranking
Marked in bold

16. Stakeholder perspectives:
importance of costs and benefits
1. Costs to companies prioritized
• Concern for company damages both
economic and reputational
• Fire not important for large or small actors
for land clearing
• Difficulties of defining responsibility and
conflicts from erroneous allegations of fire
responsibility not important
• Concern for negative local impacts on health,
economy and transport
• Associated with large scale actors
2. Costs to smallholders prioritized
• Concerned with negative impacts on
smallholders including lost income and
unfair allegations
• Concerned with the risk of fire
disincentivizing agriculture
• Doesn’t value the utility of fire for
smallholders or traditional practices
• Most associated with Riau policy
community
3. Smallholder costs and benefits
• Values the utility of fire for smallholder
practices and agriculture
• Concerned with negative impacts of fire for
smallholders including through lost income
and unfair allegations
• Least concern for negative impacts abroad
and to agribusiness
• Associated with smallholders
4. Local conflict & Impacts abroad
• Concerned with negative impacts of fire
abroad and globally
• Unconcerned with the negative impacts of
fire for local and diverse landholders
• Concerned with the utility of fire for land
clearing by diverse actors and the role of
fire in conflicts
• Associated with Singapore, Jakarta and
Riau policy communities

17. Stakeholder perspectives:
importance of costs and benefits

19. Stakeholder perspectives:
effective solutions
1. Focus on fire fighting Landless, small/medium landholders
2. Hard measures against large actors Indonesian policy communities
at national, provincial and local levels
3. Awareness raising Singapore and Jakarta policy communities –
most weakly represented by this factor.
4. Hard measures against all actors shared membership
5. Soft measures for improved smallholder agriculture shared
membership
Five distinct discourses
Remember these are perceptions of effectiveness, not measured effectiveness!

20. Stakeholder perspectives:
effectiveness of solutions

22. We can use information on consensus of
burdens to inform powerful language in
communication tools for behavioral
change
Economic losses HealthEnvironment
Different stakeholders benefit and lose from fire in different ways

23. Shared concerns: Improve knowledge on
content of the toxic smoke
2015 peat fires produced high concentrations of carbon monoxide.
Normal concentrations are 100 parts per billion (ppbv),
MOPPIT satellite measured in October 2015 they were >1,300 ppbv

24. Improved knowledge on health impacts
The 2015 peat fires produced unprecedented concentrations of
Particulate Matter (soot) in the air. Normal concentrations are 30µg
m-3. BMKG measured concentrations >500µg m-3 for two months,
and peaks >2000µg m-3 for several weeks
Health effects –
poorly understood
but likely include:
- lung cancer
- cardiovascular disease
- asthma
- birth defects.

25. Perceived as most effective are most controversial,
These include - canal use
- revoking rouge company licenses
Key messages: effective solutions
No clear way forward that is agreed by all
No agreement on which stakeholders to target with
enforcement (e.g. investors, agro-industry, smallholders)
No agreement on where responsibility for improving fire
management should lie
Facilitation and dialogue between stakeholders for
integrated landscape management is needed
Research on effectiveness of solution options sorely
needed

26. But how about actual effectiveness of
solutions?
e.g. what role can remote sensing technology play?

27. (84% on peat)
Gaveau et al. in press. Conservation letters
Forest Cemetery in Riau: shrubs
and wood debris: forest was
cleared a few years prior
by massive illegal logging
Fire for land clearing to expand oil
palm agriculture in unproductive
areas
Identify what burned: fires target
idle drained peatlands

28. Fires also burn standing plantations
(84% on peat)
Gaveau et al. in reviewOil-palm plantation destroyed by fire in Riau
~25%
Fire expands beyond
targeted area for land clearing
because
- peat fires cannot be
controlled
- grievances over land rights
- motivations and incentives
Unsustainable expansion;
Loss of assets and
production
Small and large plantation
affected.

29. Fire spread (accidental) beyond intended area of land clearing and
multiple motivations (intended) can exist
But defining attribution is problematic

30. Mismatch between
policy and practice of landuse
Companies operate out concessions
>25% of industrial OP plantations
Indep. farmers operate in concessions
Occupy 98% of concessions (n=163)
• Attribution of fire in and out concessions is problematic
• Limits monitoring of “no burning policies” with satellites alone

31. To apply these results to serve as a boundary object in
stakeholder dialogue for integrated management
Next steps…
Actual Effectiveness of fire management initiatives to
provide evidence based recommendations for future
initiatives
Q data to facilitate stakeholder dialogue
Actual effectiveness of solutions
Determinants of firewise behavior
What are the motivations of fire wise behavior at the
local level?

32. Thankyou
Rachel Carmenta
r.carmenta@cgiar.org