Wading through the swamp: what does tropical peatland restoration mean to national‐level stakeholders in Indonesia?

Abstract

Ecological restoration is considered to play an important role in mitigating climate change, protecting biodiversity, and preventing environmental degradation. Yet, there are often multiple perspectives on what outcomes restoration should be aiming to achieve, and how we should get to that point. In this study we interview a range of policymakers, academics, and non‐governmental organization (NGO) representatives to explore the range of perspectives on the restoration of Indonesia's tropical peatlands—key global ecosystems that have undergone large‐scale degradation. Thematic analysis suggests that participants agreed about the importance of restoration, but had differing opinions on how effective restoration activities to date have been and what a restored peatland landscape should look like. These results exemplify how ecological restoration can mean different things to different people, but also highlight important areas of consensus for moving forward with peatland restoration strategies.

Degradation of Southeast Asian tropical peatlands and integrated strategies for their better management and restoration

“…Despite a growing body of work on identifying best practices for peatland hydrology and revegetation, there has been a lack of attention on the social dimensions for peatland restoration (Puspitaloka et al, 2020). However, these social dimensions encompass the definition of what peatland restoration means for different actors involved in the process of managing restoration projects, and how restoration activities are defined, executed and sustained for the long term (Uda et al, 2020;Ward et al, 2020). Adopting a biocultural approach (Figure 4) that can assist with integrating these social dimensions by placing emphasis on local values and traditions (Thornton et al, 2020).…”

Smallholder perceptions of land restoration activities: rewetting tropical peatland oil palm areas in Sumatra, Indonesia

“…Moreover, decisions about which sites to restore need to be compatible with systems of local governance, property rights and devolved administrations . This suggests local stakeholder involvement in restoration decisions is necessary and is supported by findings from a recent study that found researchers, government officials and NGOs all considered local involvement to be crucial to peatland restoration success in Indonesia (Ward et al 2020).…”

“…Research, NGO and government publications on the process of restoration outline that different aspects, such as rewetting, revegetation and revitalisation of livelihoods should be implemented simultaneously (e.g. Dohong 2017;Graham et al 2017;Dohong et al 2018), although experts also emphasise that rewetting needs to take place before revegetation in order for the plants to grow successfully (Ward et al 2020). In our research site, we found that only canal blocks were being implemented widely, with a few trial plots for livelihood projects and revegetation.…”

“…By the end of 2019, it was reported that BRG had restored less than 780,000 ha, although there is little information available on overall progress towards the target, and criticisms have been raised over the maintenance of restoration infrastructure, particularly canal blocks and wells (Jong 2020a;Ward et al 2020). Peatland fires decreased from 2015 to 2018, but increased again in 2019 (Haniy et al 2019;Reuters 2019), and there are concerns that a focus on COVID-19 in 2020 may impact funds and resources, leading to increased fires again (Jong 2020b).…”

“…Several different canal block designs and construction materials have been trialled depending on whether the peatland is currently under human use, the available materials and the size of drainage canals (Dohong 2017). We focus on canal blocking as it has been identified as the most important intervention for successful restoration and has had the greatest focus in terms of actions taken, and it is likely to have an impact relatively quickly (compared to revegetation; Dohong 2017; Graham et al 2017;Ward et al 2020). For production areas (i.e.…”