STAKEHOLDERS PERCEPTIONS of COMMUNITY FIRE BRIGADES (Mpas): an ASSESSMENT USING SWOT – AHP in INDONESIAN PEATLAND FRONTIER

STAKEHOLDERS PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY FIRE BRIGADES (MPAs): AN ASSESSMENT USING SWOT – AHP IN INDONESIAN PEATLAND FRONTIER

METIA FEBRITA PUTRI LEMBASI

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2018

To my parents and family, for their unconditional and never ending support

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

With tremendous gratitude, I wish to highlight the crucial role of my advisor, Dr.

Karen A. Kainer, in this research, for her tremendous support throughout the research process. Karen has generously supplied a constant source of guidance, encouragement and positive morale that has enriched this research throughout all of its stages.

Similarly, my thesis committee members, Dr. Amy Duchelle, Dr. Rachel Carmenta, and

Dr. Robert Buschbacher, greatly supported this work with their profound knowledge, experience and perspective in their respective fields. I thank my committee for their endless patience and direction throughout this process. Additionally, I would like to thank both CIFOR and USAID for their contribution of financial, logistic, and human resources.

I am also incredibly grateful for the hospitality and warmth from people who participated in my interviews and who I met during my field visit to the sites study. I have been surrounded by an inspiring community of colleagues at the University of Florida, especially within the School of Forest Resources and Conservation, the Department of

Latin American Studies and members of the Tropical Conservation and Development program. Many individuals have volunteered diverse forms of assistance to this research, and this community has fueled my graduate school experience with unmatched intellectual energy, emotional support and fun.

Finally, I am eternally indebted to my wonderful family, Suhairul, Zubaidah, Nana, and Dwi Septi, for always encouraging me, trusting me, and never stopped caring even though we live far away from each other. I have learned the meaning of hard work and determination, humor, compassion, and joy. With love, I thank them for their constant and unconditional love and support.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 4

LIST OF TABLES ...... 7

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 8

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... 9

ABSTRACT ...... 10

CHAPTER

1 PEATLANDS AND FIRE OCCURENCES IN INDONESIA ...... 12

Importance of Indonesian Forests and their Uniqueness Worldwide ...... 12 Land Use Change on Peatlands: Rapid Transformation ...... 14 Causes of Fires ...... 16 Impacts of Indonesian Peat Fires ...... 17 Socioeconomics ...... 18 Human Health ...... 19 Biodiversity Losses ...... 19 Contribution to Climate Change ...... 20 Efforts to Control Fires ...... 21 International Cooperation ...... 21 National Level ...... 22 Local Enforcement and Empowerment ...... 23

2 STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY FIRE BRIGADES / MASYARAKAT PEDULI API (MPA), A GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION TO ADDRESS FIRES IN PEATLAND, USING THE SWOT-AHP METHOD ...... 25

Introduction ...... 25 Community Fire Brigades – Masyarakat Peduli Api (MPAs): A Local Intervention to Mitigate Mega Fires ...... 25 SWOT – AHP Framework ...... 28 Study Sites ...... 31 Methods ...... 33 Preliminary Interviews and Identification of Critical SWOT Factors ...... 33 Meetings with Stakeholder Group Representatives and Pair-Wise Comparisons ...... 35 Follow-up Meetings and Second Round of Pair-Wise Comparisons ...... 38 Results and Discussion...... 40 Stakeholders Perceptions of MPAs ...... 43 MPA Group Perceptions ...... 43

Government Group Perception ...... 46 NGO Group Perceptions ...... 49 Industry Group Perceptions ...... 50 Stakeholder Consensus: Increased partnerships would strengthen MPAs ...... 54 Implications for Future MPA Effectiveness ...... 55

3 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVE ...... 58

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 59

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 70

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

2-1 Riau and West Kalimantan Provinces by key land-use and fire features ...... 32

2-2 Pairwise comparison scale for AHP preferences ...... 38

2-3 Priority of MPA SWOT factors and overall priority scores. The scores marked in italics describe the highest factor scores. The strengths and opportunities scores are considered as positive values of MPA, and the weaknesses and threats are considered negative values...... 41

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1 Study area map of Riau province (in red) and West Kalimantan (in green) ...... 33

2-2 SWOT factors relating to Masyarakat Peduli Api (MPA)...... 35

2-3 Interview with MPA to implement SWOT – AHP analysis ...... 37

2-4 Example of a pairwise comparison between two strength factors...... 38

2-5 Perception maps of four stakeholder groups asked to prioritize the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of Masyarakat Peduli Api (MPA)...... 42

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BRG Peatland Restoration Agency (Badan Restorasi Gambut)

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

MPA Community Fire Brigade (Masyarakat Peduli Api)

MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forestry

NGO Non-governmental Organization

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

STAKEHOLDERS PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY FIRE BRIGADES (MPAs): AN ASSESSMENT USING SWOT – AHP IN INDONESIAN PEATLAND FRONTIER

Metia Febrita Putri Lembasi

August 2018

Chair: Karen A Kainer Major: Forest Resources and Conservation

Fire events on peatland in Indonesia occur almost every year and have become more extensive in recent decades. These uncontrolled peat fires have an alarming impact on ecosystems, human health, and the economy. Various efforts have been made by the Indonesian government to address the issue, including regulations on the establishment of community fire brigades (Masyarakat Peduli Api – MPA). Although

MPAs are required through government regulations, villagers’ membership is voluntary, mobilized through concern about fires. MPA members aim to control fires, patrol their designated areas, and raise awareness about the negative impacts of fires within their communities. Previous studies have shown that MPAs might play an important role in implementing local land and forest fire prevention, but they have not been able to carry out their duties properly. Challenges facing MPAs include: inadequate facilities and infrastructure; lack of guidance/aegis from government and influential actors; a lack of financial resources; and strong demand for oil palm and land, which leads to peat fires in the first place.

To understand better the challenges facing MPAs from their own perspective, we studied perceptions about MPAs of four stakeholder groups involved in their implementation: MPA community members; local governments (Desa level); non- governmental organizations; and industries (oil palm and pulpwood). We also assessed how these groups perceive the opportunities faced by MPAs in addressing the peat fire challenge in Indonesia. This research aimed to understand which efforts can be targeted to support the work of MPAs and develop strategies to empower the MPA members in their efforts to prevent fire incidence. A strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis in combination with an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was employed to accomplish this task. The results show that MPAs, local governments, and NGOs have similar perceptions about MPAs, while industries have a distinct point of view. MPAs, local governments, and NGOs conveyed that the highest priority and the central importance of MPAs is their strength in securing various lines of support from diverse actors. The industry group perceived the negative factors were more important than the positive factors of MPAs. As for opportunities, all stakeholder groups prioritized the same opportunity: strengthening MPAs by increasing their partnership networks. The threats to MPAs were prioritized quite differently among the four stakeholder groups, ranging from Communities lack understanding of and ignore fire issues and policies (MPA) to Inadequate and sometimes unfair regulations and inadequate enforcement (industry).

CHAPTER 1 PEATLANDS AND FIRE OCCURENCES IN INDONESIA

Importance of Indonesian Forests and their Uniqueness Worldwide

Indonesia has the third largest area of tropical forests in the world, after Brazil and the Republic of Congo, amounting to about 2.3% of global forest cover (FAO,

2015). Using a 1950 baseline, Indonesia still retains approximately 56% of its forests

(Tacconi et al. 2007). These forests harbor rich biodiversity, including 11% of the world’s plant species, 10% of its mammal species, 16% of reptiles-amphibians and 17% of bird species (FWI/GFW, 2002; Margono et al. 2014). Indonesia’s tropical forests play a significant role in climate change mitigation at the national and global level, and

Indonesia has been at the forefront of the global effort to promote REDD+ (Reduced

Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) (Margono et al. 2014). The

REDD+ mechanism recognizes and rewards reductions in emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and thereby supports the key roles of conservation and sustainable forest management in storing and sequestering forest carbon stocks

(Parker et al. 2009). Importantly, approximately 65 million (27%) of Indonesia’s population depend directly on these forests for their livelihoods (FWI/GFW, 2002).

Indonesia stands out among tropical forest countries in its carbon relevance, because it holds the largest share of tropical peatlands globally (Page et al. 2011).

Peatlands are particularly vulnerable to land use change (Turetsky et al. 2015) and the absolute amount of tropical peatlands in Indonesia, is diminishing. While an estimate calculated by Page et al. (2011) reported that approximately 47% of the globe’s tropical peatlands were located in Indonesia (or 20.7 million ha), more recent analyses suggest

this to be an overestimate. Using diverse data sources, Wahyunto et al. (2014) estimates that the amount of tropical peatland in Indonesia in 2011 was 14.9 million ha.

An estimated 88.6 billion tons of carbon are stored in tropical peatland worldwide

(Goodman, 2014). Peat soils can attain great depths; a 10 m deep peat-swamp can store 12–19 times as much carbon as other tropical forest types (FRIM-UNDP/GEF,

2006) and a 1 m deep peat-swamp can store 300-700 ton carbon (Ratnaningsih and

Prasytaningsih, 2017). In addition to carbon storage, tropical peatlands can sequester up to 10 times more carbon than other kinds of peatland (Paris et al. 2008). Indonesia’s tropical peatlands are important at multiple scales, from the global to the local level. In

Indonesia, 80% of peatlands are < 3 m thick, and these shallow peatlands store an estimated 10.6 Gt carbon, equal to about 42% of Indonesia’s total peat carbon (Warren et al. 2017). And in their pristine state, Indonesian peat swamp forests can also store enormous amounts of water (Yule, 2010; Page and Hooijer, 2016), making their role in water regulation critical. Peatlands serve as reservoirs of fresh water, moderate water levels, reduce storm-flow, maintain river flows, buffer against saltwater intrusion, and provide fish to local people (Woosten et al. 2008).

Peatlands in Indonesia also serve as unique habitat for endangered and threatened native fauna and flora (Miettinen and Liew, 2010), such as orangutans

(Pongo pygmaeus), Sumatran tigers (Panthera tigris sumatrae), Bornean banded langur

(Presbytis chrysomelas), Sunda clouded leopard (Neofelis diardi) (Posa et al. 2011),

Asian elephants (Elephas maximus), and various hornbill species (Bucerotidae) (Yong and Peh, 2016). Some rare fish species are found in peatland i.e Asian arowana

(Scleropages formosus), including the world’s smallest known fish (Paedocypris

progenetica) (Yule, 2010). The endemic Dipterocarpaceae family of trees grow in

Indonesian peatlands, such as Shorea albida, S. balangeran, S. venulosa, S. coriacea,

S. platycarpa, and S. materialis, (Posa et al. 2011; (Budiharta and Meijaard, 2017).

While highly significant ecologically, these Shorea spp. also are critically important due to their high economic value as the most widely harvested timber species extracted from Indonesian peatlands (Budiharta and Meijaard, 2017).

Land Use Change on Peatlands: Rapid Transformation

In Indonesia, peatlands were considered marginal lands in the past. They were considered infertile and unproductive for crop cultivation. They presented labour demanding land management practices to bring them in to cultivation (e.g. use of heavy machinery for digging drainage canals) and were particularly unattractive when mineral soils were still quite available (Miettinen et al. 2016). Nowadays, however, peatlands are highly targeted for agricultural expansion, particularly for cash crops including oil palm and pulpwood plantations (Rieley, 2007; Dohong et al. 2017).

The conversion of peat swamp forest for cash crop production began on a large scale during the Suharto regime in the 1980s when Indonesia began a period of rapid development and extensive expansion of plantations for palm oil and timber to promote economic growth (Gellert, 1998; Quah and Varkkley, 2013; Achyar et al. 2015). That situation prompted the inception of the transmigration program that was intended to support the government’s development efforts (Rieley, 2007; Gato et al. 2015). This program sought to relocate poor families from the crowded central islands (e.g. Java) to the less populated outer islands (e.g. Sumatra), supplying a labor force for forest and agricultural crop production (Tsujino et al. 2016). As per 1994, a total of almost six million migrants were relocated to Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Irian Jaya (Papua)

(Fearnside, 1997). The pressure to use peatland for crop production continues today, exemplified by Indonesia’s target to increase their palm oil production to 43.3 million tonnes by 2020 (Basiron, 2005) to supply to the demand of global and regional markets.

The agriculture techniques implemented on peatland to grow palm oil and pulpwood usually begin with peat drainage, valuable timber extraction and forest clearance, the use of fire to clear the land, planting in monoculture, and the addition of fertilizer– all methods which worsen the state of peatlands significantly (Beukering et al.

2008; Wijedasa et al. 2017). Peat drainage occurs to enable the production of oil palm and acacia: species that cannot tolerate the water-logged condition of intact peatlands.

Drainage leads to peat shrinkage and oxidation, ultimately resulting in irreversible subsidence (ref). Drainage of shallow peatlands followed by fire to clear the land was the principal means to convert peatlands to commercial plantations (timber, rubber, pulp and paper plantation, and oil palm) (Tacconi et al. 2007; Achyar et al. 2015; Cattau et al. 2016; Chisholm et al. 2016).

The process of peat oxidation causes tremendous changes in peatland functionality (Cattau et al. 2016; Miettinen et al. 2016). It changes peat from a carbon sink to a carbon source through the release of CO2 and a very strong greenhouse gas

N2O (Bland 2013; Gaveau et al. 2014), which continues to be emitted as long as the peatland remains drained (Joosten, 2015). Drained peatlands also are highly flammable due to the decline of water content in the peat soil and the carbon-dense nature of peat, which makes it extremely fire prone and a fuel for fires (Osaki et al. 2016; Evers et al.

2017). Once ignited, fires in peatland are hard to extinguish (e.g. fire breaks are not possible) because of the high carbon content and the depth of the peat (Bland, 2013).

Fire enters the soil and extends beneath the ground. It can smolder for months until conditions are favorable for it to resurface (Chisholm et al. 2016). Often extensive peat fires continue even with high investments (e.g. cloud seeding, water dumping) to abate them, only the oncoming of the rains extinguishes mega-fires on peatlands (see Efforts to control peat fires).

Causes of Fires

Fires have long been used intentionally by humans as a means of land clearing and nutrient inputs for agricultural purposes (Gellert, 1998; World Bank, 2016; Tata et al. 2018). These anthropogenic land preparation fires were for many years the only means of land preparation, and today remain an affordable and fast tool to clear land, and the resultant ash improves soil pH and increases nutrient availability before crop planting (Quah and Varkkley, 2013; Chisholm et al. 2016; Purnomo et al. 2017; Tata et al. 2018). For these reasons, smallholders in Southeast Asia, as elsewhere, have used fire on mineral soils for hundreds of years (Tan, 1999). Although not without complications, traditional fire use on small plots on mineral soils is not nearly as problematic as the relatively new practice of using fire as a tool to clear peatland soils on large parcels of land (Tacconi et al. (2007). Peat land preparation fires are often on larger extents of land, on a carbon (i.e. fuel) substrate and applied by a larger number of diverse stakeholders (Jelsma paper, Gaveau paper) ranging from small independent oil palm farmers to absentee owners, small medium enterprises and companies (Gaveau ref).

Individual small-scale farmers, and small- and large-scale oil palm and forest plantation companies, are implicated in draining peatlands and using fire as a land management tool (Rieley 2007; Quah and Varkkley, 2013; Tacconi et al. 2016;

Wijedasa et al. 2017). Some peatland fires also have been attributed to land conflict disputes that arose between industry and smallholders (Tomich et al. 1998; Dennis et al. 2005), resource extraction activities, illegal logging, escaped fires from land clearing, discarded cigarette butts, and from cooking and camping activities (Dennis et al. 2005).

In Indonesia, fires occur almost every dry season (April to September), but fires are particularly pernicious when the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) creates anomalous weather patterns (Quah and Varkkley, 2013; Gaveau et al. 2014). El Niño events cause increased temperatures that lead to prolonged drought during dry seasons, making land and forest more susceptible to fire – most seriously as experienced in peat forest ecosystems (Langner and Seigert, 2009; Gaveau et al.

2014). While intense and localized peat fires can occur during brief normal drought periods (~2 months) (Gaveau et al. 2014), Indonesia’s most severe forest fire events happened during extreme El Niño events in 1997-1998 and 2015, especially on

Sumatra and Kalimantan islands (Gellert, 1998; Koplitz et al. 2016).

Impacts of Indonesian Peat Fires

Peatland fires cause significant local and global climate impacts with direct on- site (e,g. soil and vegetation degradation; and loss of biodiversity, property, and lives) and indirect off-site effects (e.g. toxic haze and carbon emissions) (Herawati and

Santoso, 2011; Marlier et al. 2012; Huijnen et al. 2016; Yong and Peh, 2016). The first large-scale peatland fires occurred in 1997-1998 with a total area burned of 9.7 million hectares, of which 4.8 million hectares were forest, including 1.45 million hectares of peat swamp forest (World Bank, 2011). The World Bank (2015) estimated that 2.6 million hectares of land in Indonesia were destroyed during the massive 2015 fire events. Of that, approximately 0.9 million ha of peatlands were burnt, mostly in the

southeastern provinces of Sumatra, the south of Kalimantan and Papua (Hergoualc’h et al. 2017). The burdens of peatfires are extensive and are perceived differently by different stakeholder groups, however a concern uniting stakeholders with little else in common was the concern of the toxic haze from peat fires and the damages to human health (Carmenta et al. 2017).

Socioeconomics

The World Bank (2016) reported that the 2015 conflagration caused by more than 100,000 man-made fires cost Indonesia an estimated USD 16.1 billion. The uncontrolled fires created a massive toxic haze across Indonesia, which also spread to neighboring countries (Chisholm 2016; Cattau et al. 2016). The fires in peatlands in particular were considered the main contributor of smoke haze pollution (Tacconi et al.

2007), resulting in immeasurable impacts to socioeconomic and human health.

Fire and haze inflicted havoc on Indonesian economic productivity. Businesses suffered forgone profits, because of degraded visibility and the danger of smoke pollution. Workdays were lost due to temporary shut-downs of operations and disrupted transportation, including flight disruptions – a significant mode of transportation in a country of more than 17,000 islands. Business moved slower with delays in product deliveries and flights, and slower traveling times (Tacconi, 2007; Kusumaningtyas and

Aldrian, 2016). School activities were halted to avoid exposure to smoke and haze pollution, and the tourism sector suffered in multiple South East Asian countries due to decreased numbers of tourists (Tacconi, 2007; Chisholm et al. 2016; Yong and Peh,

2016). Timber and non-timber products were destroyed, harming the forest products industry specifically, and the regional economy as a whole (Tacconi, 2003). Plantations, smallholders, and small/medium enterprises lost significant assets (e.g. oil palm and

acacia trees) when the fires burned their concessions (Gaveau et al. 2016).

Communities living adjacent to peatlands lost subsistence resources (e.g., rattan, medicinal plants, honey, berries, fishes) (Evers et al. 2017).

Human Health

Peatland fires emitted toxic haze (Page et al. 2002; Tacconi et al. 2007). Impacts to human health were also tremendous though the long-term impacts of smoke on health are still not yet understood (Chilsom et al. 2016). Hazardous levels of smoke increased respiratory and eye problems. Immediately after the 2015 fires, reputable newspapers reported more than 500,000 cases of acute respiratory infections and 19 deaths: 10 were killed during efforts to extinguish fires and 9 other deaths were attributed to pollution (The Guardian, 2015). However, this is likely to be an underestimate. Koplitz et al. (2016) estimates that premature deaths caused by the toxic haze exposure exceeded 100,000 across Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore.

Moreover, Ramakreshnan et al. (2018) warn that administrative health records often are inadequate, and do not truly take into account the multiple adverse impacts of haze to human health.

Biodiversity Losses

Locally ecosystem functions and habitats are highly impacted by peatland fires.

During the 1997-98 fires, bee populations were reduced significantly, because they were unable to navigate through the haze, having further consequence on plants that rely on insects for pollination (Russel, 2015; Cochrane, 2015). Some mammals listed on the IUCN red list, for example orangutans, Sumatran tigers, and Bornean banded langur

(critically endangered) and Asian elephants (endangered), have been severely affected by the fires and choking haze, with their feeding and behavior impaired and their

habitats lost (Posa et al. 2011; Yong and Peh, 2016; IUCN, 2018). Fires fragment and damage forest patches, hampering the efforts of wildlife to escape (Yong and Peh,

2016). Animals that fled fires and moved toward areas settled by humans caused post- fire conflicts, especially with tigers and elephants (Cochrane, 2015). Critically endangered fishes such as Betta persephone, B. miniopinna, and B. spilotogena (Posa et al. 2011) also are under threat when peatlands are drained and burned. Birds and other animal species that feed on fruit trees also are affected. Nasi et al. (2002) reported that hornbill populations declined dramatically after the 1982-1983 fires, while a 2001 Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) report explained that species declines also occurred for primates, squirrels, Sun Bear (Ursus Malayanus), mouse deer (Tragulus sp.) and muntjac (Muntiacus spp.) after the 1997-98 forest fires. Dipterocarpaceae trees were impacted severely by fire due to thin bark, high content of flammable resin, and inability to re-sprout (CBD, 2001).

Contribution to Climate Change

A major concern of peat fires is the emission of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere (Marlier et al. 2015). The 1997-98 fires released approximately 2.97 - 9.42

Gt CO2, contributing up to 13% to 40% of global mean annual emissions from fossil fuels; this was reported as the highest emission levels on record, doubling the growth rate of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere (Page et al. 2002). For the 2015 fires, Van Der Werf (2015) estimated that 1.75 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent were emitted to the atmosphere. This translated to average daily carbon emissions that surpassed the daily average emissions of the entire US economy, making Indonesia the fourth largest emitter in the world (Harris et al. 2015). Furthermore, even after fires are extinguished, emissions continue through peat oxidation (Hooijer et al. 2012).

Efforts to Control Fires

The extreme fires of 1997-1998 and 2015 alarmed scientists and officials to not only investigate the causes and drivers of these massive fires, but also to take action through policy creation (Dewi et al. 2015; Yong and Peh, 2016; Carmenta et al. 2017).

However, the various regulations and policies related to fires have been deemed inconsistent and unevenly enforced (Achyar et al. 2015).

International Cooperation

At the international level, Indonesia has sought cooperation through both bilateral collaborations and with international agencies. Although Indonesia was the last member country to do so, it ratified the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP) in 2014, the year before the

2015 blazes (Chisholm et al. 2016; Yong and Peh, 2016; Cattau et al. 2016). Alam and

Nurhidayah (2017) argue that the agreement fell short because provisions lacked effective sanctions and enforceability to address non‐compliance as well as the underlying causes of land and forest fires, such as poverty, corruption, and conflicts over land rights. Another international approach has been to implement incentives for ecosystem services, for example through Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and

Forest Degradation (REDD+) within the context of the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change. REDD+ could potentially provide incentives for peat swamp forest conservation, even though this scheme has proven contrary with agriculture values in some areas (Abood et al. 2015; Chisholm et al. 2016), often does not include fire management in project and program strategies (Barlow et al., 2012), and faces data deficiencies for establishing baselines and subsequent carbon accounting

(Warren et al. 2012).

National Level

At a national level, Indonesia implemented a national law (Act No 41/1999) to reduce the occurrence of fire, but it had limited success (Cattau et al. 2016). Tacconi

(2016) noted that the Indonesian government had not shown full commitment to solving the fire problem, and laws and regulations often were not fully implemented. Other major obstacles to effectively mitigating fires through sanctions and other disincentives are undermined by Indonesia’s weak judicial system and lack of clear and transparent data and maps (Bland, 2013). However, Indonesia’s current president has committed to reducing fire during his presidency (Chisholm et al., 2016; Tacconi, 2016).

In 2011, the national government announced a moratorium on granting new concession licenses in primary forests and peatlands, restricting company operations to existing concessions only. Austin et al. (2014) found that the moratorium was not implemented sufficiently and that success was hampered by a lack of moratorium understanding on the part of local officials, limited technical guidance from the national government to local agencies, and the overall fact that governance reforms progress slowly. By November 2016, the forest moratorium covered an area of more than 66 million hectares, and in 2017 received an extension, meaning that no new licenses to use primary forest and peatland could be issued in the next two years (Reuters, 2017).

The Indonesian military and National Agency for Disaster Management teams used helicopter and aeroplanes to water bomb fires and seed clouds to render rain; however, these actions only fight current fires and are not preventative (Bland, 2013). Finally, the

Indonesian government established the Peat Restoration Agency (Badan Restorasi

Gambut - BRG) in January 2016 (based on Presidential Regulation No. 1) to coordinate and facilitate restoration of approximately two million hectares of degraded peatland by

2021. However, BRG policies are very controversial (Carmenta et al. 2017) and therefore likely present real challenges for implementation and enforcement

Local Enforcement and Empowerment

Various local-level stakeholders also take part in efforts to prevent and to fight fires, especially on peatland areas. Some pulpwood and oil palm companies have been implementing programs in cooperation with local communities and government agencies (e.g. Fire Free Village Program and Prosperous and Fire Free Village/Desa

Makmur Peduli Api). These programs aim not only to fight and prevent fire, but also to enhance economic and community welfare. NGOs have been engaged with communities, governments, and industries, providing various trainings (fire-fighting, mapping fire spots, integrated farming practices). They also provide assistance to local governments in developing village regulations (peraturan Desa) and standard operational procedures to monitor hotspots and analyze data. Those NGOs may also act as a bridge of communication between communities and decision-makers (Achyar et al. 2015). One local-level fire management intervention initiated by the federal government is the establishment of Community Fire Brigades/Masyarakat Peduli Api

(MPAs). Government units involved in the MPA initiative include the Ministry of Forestry

(Regulation No. P.12/Menhut-II/2009), the General Director of Forest Protection and

Natural Conservation (Regulation No. P.2/IV-SET/2014), and the Ministry of

Environment and Forestry (MoEF) (MoEF, 2016).

MPAs are voluntary organizations whose members consist of villagers who are concerned about fires. Their objective is to be ‘agents of change’ through controlling planned fires, patrolling their designated areas, informing government authorities and local companies when fires occur, and raising fire awareness of the negative impacts of

fires within their communities (Ministry of Forestry, 2014; Ministry of Environment and

Forestry, 2016). Regulation No. P.32 (MoEF, 2016) mentions that every village (Desa) shall have at least one MPA that consists of 15 village members. Furthermore, concessionaires, licensed in both protected and production forests, are required to support the MPA and provide facilities and infrastructure, including efforts to improve community empowerment in forest and land management. The Regulation also expects community and indigenous forest managers, and even farmer groups around forests, to also support their local MPA. According to regulation No. P.2/IV-SET/2014, before becoming a full-fledged MPA member, MPA candidates (those who have volunteered, but have not yet been fully trained) must participate in capacity building activities that include theory and practice (e.g. fire prevention techniques, firefighting techniques/simulation on extinguishing fires, how to clear the land without burning).

Regulations also state that MPAs should be provided with operational supplies and equipment, such as stationary, Global Positioning Systems (GPS) units, maps, communication tools, and hand tools and mechanical equipment to suppress fire.

CHAPTER 2 STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY FIRE BRIGADES / MASYARAKAT PEDULI API (MPA), A GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION TO ADDRESS FIRES IN PEATLAND, USING THE SWOT-AHP METHOD

Introduction

Community Fire Brigades – Masyarakat Peduli Api (MPAs): A Local Intervention to Mitigate Mega Fires

Indonesia stands out among tropical forest countries because of its carbon relevance. It holds the largest share (47%) of tropical peatlands globally (Page et al.

2011). Peatlands are particularly vulnerable to land use change (Turetsky et al. 2015) and the absolute amount of tropical peatlands in Indonesia, is diminishing. In the past three decades, Indonesian peat forests have been heavily converted for agricultural use, subjected to draining and the utilization of fires to prepare land before planting

(Miettinen et al. 2012; Turetsky et al. 2015). Once ignited, fires in peatland are hard to extinguish (e.g. fire breaks are not possible), because of the high carbon content and the depth of the peat (Bland, 2013). In Indonesia, fires occur almost every dry season

(April to September), but fires are particularly pernicious when the El Niño Southern

Oscillation (ENSO) creates increased temperatures that lead to prolonged drought during dry seasons (Quah and Varkkley, 2013; Gaveau et al. 2014). The first large- scale peatland fires occurred in 1997-1998 with a total area burned of 9.7 million hectares, of which 4.8 million hectares were forest, including 1.45 million hectares of peat swamp forest (World Bank, 2011). In 2015, massive fires occurred in two of

Indonesia’s largest islands (Sumatra and Kalimantan), destroying an estimated 2.6 million ha of land in Indonesia, and costing an estimated USD 16.1 billion (World Bank

2016). These fires created a massive toxic haze across Indonesia, which also spread to neighboring countries (Chisholm et al. 2016; Cattau et al. 2016). The fires in peatlands

in particular were considered the main contributor of smoke haze pollution (Tacconi et al. 2007), resulting in immeasurable impacts to socioeconomic and human health. .

Every year, forest and land fires in Indonesia recur (Arifudin et al. 2013), with increasingly serious threats to human health, peatland ecosystem integrity, and socioeconomic stability (Herawari and Santoso, 2011; Huijnen et al. 2016; Yong and

Peh, 2016; Marlier et al., 2015; Koplitz et al. 2016). Indonesian forest and peat fires also significantly elevated carbon release into atmosphere. Carbon emission from

Indonesian 2015 fires surpassed the average daily emissions from the entire USA, putting Indonesia as one of countries with the highest carbon emissions (WRI, 2016;

Van Der Welf, 2015).The frequent peat fires in Indonesia, with their negative impacts both to the environment and human wellbeing, have precipitated a need to define the drivers of these fires (Karyanto et al., 2016) and to find solutions that involve all stakeholders such as government, industry, NGOs and communities (Miettinen and

Liew 2010). Pressure to address the issue also comes from the international community, impacted by severe haze, air pollution and carbon release. The 2015 mega fire event caused diplomatic tensions with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations

(ASEAN) community and protests from both national and international environmental groups who have pressed for action. Central and local governments have been challenged to respond (Shah, 2016), and while countrywide efforts to prevent and fight fires are not new, the 2015 burns catalyzed new action.

In response, the Indonesian government has initiated fire mitigation and firefighting policies to be implemented at a local level, one of which is Community Fire

Brigades (Masyarakat Peduli Api - MPA). Although government instigated, MPAs are

stated to be voluntary organizations whose members consist of villagers who are concerned about fires. Their objective is to be ‘agents of change’ through controlling planned fires, patrolling their designated areas, informing government authorities and local companies when fires occur, and raising fire awareness of the negative impacts of fires within their communities (Ministry of Forestry, 2014; Ministry of Environment and

Forestry, 2016). MPAs are based on regulations from the Ministry of Forestry (No.

P.12/Menhut-II/2009), the General Director of Forest Protection and Natural

Conservation (No. P. 2/IV-SET/2014), and Ministry of Environment and Forestry (No.

P.32/MenLHK/Setjen/Kum.1/3/2016). These national regulations may be complemented by province-level regulations, such as that of the Forest and Land Fire Control Center

(Governor Regulation No. 11/2014) of Riau province.

The implementation of MPAs in Indonesia began in 2009 when these relevant regulations were issued. However, several studies have shown that MPAs (and the multiple additional actions for fire mitigation) are not yet working effectively (Savendri,

2016; Fadillah et al. 2017). Specific examinations of MPAs in diverse locations have highlighted budget limitations and inadequate facilities for MPAs to do their job well

(Evayanti and Zulkarnaini, 2014; Sayendri, 2016; Fadillah et al. 2017). Evayanti and

Zulkarnaini (2014) state that there was even a lack of awareness by some MPA members that direct payment would not be forthcoming for their efforts. Furthermore, while other groups are expected to work in coordination with MPAs (i.e., local governments, forest plantation and palm oil companies), Suhendri and Purnomo (2017) report that while fire coordination meetings with these stakeholders and others have taken place, forest and land fires still occur every year in Jambi and other provinces. ,.

For instance, Sayendri (2016) reported that a MPA in Bunut District, Pelalawan regency,

Riau province could not do their job well, because they lacked facilities (such as fire extinguisher equipment). Fadillah et al. (2017) reported that the poor MPA training and facilities caused by budget declines from 2013 to 2015 and the persistence of fire affected MPA performance which further contributed to the fluctuation of fires events in

Mount Ciremai National Park, West Java.

There is an urgent need to reduce fire incidence in Indonesian peatlands. Key to this reduction is understanding how the various government interventions, including

MPAs, are functioning on the ground. MPAs are merely one stakeholder group mobilized to address the tremendous fire challenge in Indonesia. Yet, understanding how they perceive their work along with other stakeholder groups who are actively engaged in coordinated efforts with these village-level volunteer MPAs, could provide more comprehensive information to improve MPA implementation and effectiveness, and could inform future efforts and potentially scale-up best practices from lessons learned. Yong and Peh (2016) state that grassroots involvement needs to be promoted to propagate sustainable development practices at village and district levels. Studying

MPAs, whose volunteers are local community members, could provide specific insights into local fire awareness, ignition, and control. Furthermore, findings may have greater legitimacy and be taken more seriously when multiple perceptions of the diverse stakeholders involved in MPA functioning are considered.

SWOT – AHP Framework

Every organization faces dynamic internal and external forces, which can either support or threaten it. To reach its maximum potential, an organization can identify and evaluate strategic factors that either help or hamper it from reaching its goals (Houben

et al. 1999). The defined strategic factors can be used by decision-makers to explore different options for management and provide insight regarding the importance of each organizational component. Such an understanding can help to target and initiate appropriate actions to improve performance. Strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities (SWOT) analysis is a well-known strategic management instrument that is used in analyzing the internal and external factors that will be used to develop strategies and support for decision-making that could impact an organization, project, or individual

(Houben et al. 1999; Kurtilla et al. 2000; Birendra et al. 2014). Failure to consider a key strength, weakness, threat or opportunity could lead to poor decisions that reduce performance. Strengths and weaknesses are related to internal organizational factors, while opportunities and threats cover the broader context or environment in which the entity operates. The strengths and weaknesses are likely to be under control of the organization, but the latter likely not, yet they need to be considered because they can have a significant impact on the organization.

However, SWOT analysis is not able to quantify the relative weight of each of these factors, making it difficult to assess the magnitude of importance of each factor

(Okello et al. 2014). To overcome this disadvantage, Kurttila et al. (2000) suggested combining SWOT with an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to quantitatively determine the importance of the factors in SWOT groups. Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is used to rank multiple alternatives by taking into account the importance of different criteria. Developed by Saaty in 1977, AHP enables structuring the factors and comparing them in pairs in the hierarchy, including weighting the factors using a mathematical model to define the priority of factors. When combined with SWOT

analysis, the results of the hybrid method reveal quantitative information that enable us to identify the priority factors to address in making planning and management decisions

(Kurtilla et al. 2000; Santopuoli et al. 2016). Moreover, the employment of AHP in

SWOT analysis yields analytical priorities for the factors included in SWOT analysis and makes them commensurable. The SWOT - AHP method is now one of the most popular and commonly used methods for the multi-criteria decision-making process in the forestry sector (Okello et al. 2014). Moreover, the SWOT-AHP approach has been employed in a diverse set of natural resources studies, such as in the agriculture sector

(Shrestha et al. 2004), environmental and forest management (Kurtilla et al. 2000;

Santopuoli et al. 2016; Szuleckha et al. 2017), water management (Yavuz and Baycan,

2013) and even photovoltaic technology (Reinsberger et al. 2015).

The objective of this research is to apply SWOT-AHP to compare perceptions of representatives from four stakeholder groups – MPAs, government, industry

(pulpwood and palm oil plantations), and NGOs – to understand the challenges and opportunities faced by MPAs in addressing fire problems in Indonesia. This research aims to provide insights into the workings of MPAs and potentially identify ways to strengthen MPA members in their efforts to prevent fire incidence. The research also provides a systematic approach and analytical means using the hybrid SWOT – AHP method that can enrich stakeholders’ understanding of MPAs, including the potentials and constraints in its implementation. The following specific questions will be addressed:

1. What do the four stakeholder groups perceive as the strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and threats of MPAs to address peatland fires?

2. Which SWOT factors are perceived as the most important for MPAs?

Study Sites

Riau and West Kalimantan provinces are at the heart of Indonesian peat fires (Figure 2-

2; Table 2-1). Both provinces were heavily impacted by the 2015 peatland fires as indicated by total hotspots, fire alerts, hectares burned, and crop losses. Located on

Sumatra and the Kalimantan Islands respectively, each province has extensive forests, together encompassing over 10% of the total forest area in Indonesia. Of all Indonesian provinces, Riau has the largest area of peatlands and West Kalimantan has the fourth largest, that together make up 5.55 million ha of peatlands of the total 14.9 million ha of peatlands in Indonesia (Ministry of Agriculture, 2011; Wahyunto et al. 2014). Both provinces are vital to the Indonesian economy, with their agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors providing a substantial contribution of over 20% to the 2016 Gross

Regional Domestic Product (GRDP) of each province (BPS, 2017a; BPS, 2017b).

Additionally, Indonesia is the largest producer and exporter of palm oil worldwide

(Indonesia Investments, 2017), and these two provinces play critical roles in that strategic national effort.

Riau Province is considered more advanced in terms of economic development compared to West Kalimantan, with a corresponding greater loss of peatlands and forest cover (Table 2-1). Miettinen et al. (2016) reported that in Riau, industrial plantations (palm oil and pulp and paper) experienced rapid growth beginning in 1990, such that by 2015, only 24% of its peatland remained intact. In contrast, industrial plantation development in West Kalimantan only began in 2000, thus retaining almost half of its peatlands in 2015. That Kalimantan was the main region of palm oil expansion in 2005 – 2013 (Li, 2015) illustrates the delayed frontier nature of West Kalimantan.

Further, the Indonesian government plans to expand palm oil production to 13.7 million ha by 2020 (Shahputra and Zen, 2018), and the West Kalimantan provincial government intends to be a big part of that, with plans to expand its plantation area to

4.5 million ha by 2025 (Myers et al. 2016).

Villages within each of these two provinces are mandated by government regulation No. P.32/MenLHK/Setjen/Kum.1/3/2016 to form voluntary MPAs (Table 2-1).

Each village is required to form at least two teams, with each team composed of at least

15 voluntary members from the local community.

Table 2-1. Riau and West Kalimantan Provinces by key land-use and fire features Feature Riau West Kalimantan Source Size (million ha) 8.92 14.68 BPS 2017c National forest estate (million ha) 5.50 8.39 BPS 2017a, BPS, 2017b, BPS 2017c Cultivated/Production forest 4.63 4.46 BPS 2017a, BPS, 2017b Protected forest & 0.87 3.93 BPS 2017a, BPS, conservation area 2017b Peatland (million ha) 3.87 1.68 Wahyunto et al. 2014, Ministry of Agriculture, 2011; Ministry of Agriculture, 2016 Industrial Plantation on peatland in Miettinen et al. 2015 (in 1000 ha) 2016 Oil palm 591.22 309.32 Pulpwood 602.95 41.38 Palm oil concessions (million ha) 2.43 1.46 BPS 2017a, BPS, 2017b Forest loss from 2001 – 2015 (% of 36.4 16.7 Alisjahbana and 2015 provincial area) Busch, 2017 Fire measures for 2015 Total hotspots 7,155 7,977 Endrawati and Yusnita 2015 Total fire alerts 10,363 13,787 Global Forest Watch 2018 Hectares burned (ha) 139,000 178,000 The World Bank 2016

Table 2-1. Continued Feature Riau West Kalimantan Source Estimated tree crop-related losses The World Bank from June-October 2015 fire events 2016 (USD millions) Estate crops (e.g., palm oil, 134 238 The World Bank rubber, and coconut) 2016 Timber (includes the cost of 304 168 The World Bank reforestation) 2016 Number of MPA members (as per 240 760 Ministry of December 2016) Environment and Forestry, 2017

Figure 2-1. Study area map of Riau province (in red) and West Kalimantan (in green), adapted from a Peatland map of Indonesia (Wahyunto et al. 2014)

Methods

Preliminary Interviews and Identification of Critical SWOT Factors

For the pairwise comparisons and data analysis, we followed the Kurttila et al.

(2000) and Masozera (2006) SWOT–AHP approach. The SWOT analysis represents the first of three steps, followed by pairwise comparisons (second step) and a subsequent second-round of comparisons that result in a synthesis of priorities (third step). Between May and September 2017, semi-structured preliminary interviews were conducted with key informants, people who have knowledge of and direct experience

with MPAs, in the cities of Jakarta and Bogor, and in Riau Province. These key informants were professionals whose work directly relates to forest fires in Indonesia, and included NGOs, government officials, and researchers. Interviews were conducted through direct and indirect communication (face-to face meetings and using other means of communication such as email, text messages, and phone calls). These interviews, along with information gathered from the literature and field visits to

Bengkalis regency in Riau province, were used to generate an exhaustive list of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of MPAs in tackling fires.

Subsequently, this list was further reviewed to narrow it down to avoid redundancy and to include only those factors considered most critical. Also, since the number of pairwise comparisons in AHP grows exponentially as the factors increase, Masozera (2006) suggests selecting less than 10 factors within a SWOT group so that the number of pairwise comparisons is manageable. In this case, preliminary internal factors such as lack of financial resources for daily operation and no economic benefit from participation to MPA were grouped into Lack of financial resources and members receive no economic benefit, and considered a weakness factor (Fig. 2-2). I also considered whether factors could be compared across stakeholder groups – a key study objective.

As a result, 4 key factors were identified in the strengths group, 4 in the weaknesses group, 3 in the opportunities group, and 5 key factors in the threats group (Fig. 2-2).

These activities are collectively considered the first step in implementing the SWOT –

AHP method.

STRENGTHS S1. MPA enthusiasm in carrying out its OPPORTUNITIES functions O1. Increased partnership, networking and S2. Receives support from diverse actors MPA strengthening S3. Development of community capacity O2. Peatlands conservation and restoration and skills O3. Reduction of illegal activities S4. Provides operational structure for fire awareness and prevention

THREATS WEAKNESSES T1. Communities have limited money and time W1. Lack of financial resources and to participate actively members receive no economic benefit T2. Insecure land tenure results in conflicts W2. Inadequate facilities and infrastructure T3. Communities lack understanding of and W3. Ill-informed regarding sanctioned ignore fire issues and policies MPA structure and function T4. Escaped fires from other regions/locations W4. Lack of guidance/aegis by T5. Inadequate and sometimes unfair government and/or influential figures regulations and inadequate enforcement

Figure 2-2. SWOT factors relating to Masyarakat Peduli Api (MPAs). Critical strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of MPAs to be used for pairwise comparisons.

Meetings with Stakeholder Group Representatives and Pair-Wise Comparisons

As a second step, I developed a questionnaire based on the narrowed list of

SWOT factors to guide interviews and perform initial pairwise factor comparisons with representatives of each of the four stakeholder groups: (1) Local governments; (2)

NGOs; (3) Industries (Palm oil and pulp and paper); and (4) Community Fire Brigades

(MPAs). We sought the perspectives of these four groups because of their experience and involvement with MPAs, along with their roles in the implementation of MPAs and in the policy realm regarding fires and peatlands. The role of local governments regarding

MPAs is primarily to provide support and guidance to MPA members and to get involved in various steps along the way from inception to enforcement of MPA policies and regulations. The role of NGOs related to MPAs is to facilitate communication between stakeholders, set a critical eye over fire related issues and policies, and monitor and

support the implementation of MPA policies. Industries located adjacent to or at the same location as MPAs provide support in various ways as dictated by government regulations, such as financial support, training, and equipment, as well as through jointly monitoring targeted local areas.

Three organizations from each of the four stakeholder groups were included in the analysis, such that a total of 12 organizations were represented. The particular organizations chosen work closely with MPAs in high fire impact areas in the two selected provinces. Local governments, meaning governments at the village (desa) level, consisted of two local government agencies located in Bukit Batu district, Riau province and the other located in Ketapang regency, West Kalimantan province. All

NGOs were environmentally-focused; two were local (both in Pekanbaru) and one was an international NGO based in Jakarta. Industry comprised one palm oil company and two pulp and paper companies; two operated in Riau and one in West Kalimantan. Two of the MPAs interviewed were located in Bukit Batu district, and the third in Ketapang.

Within each organization under the four stakeholder group categories, individual respondents were then selected to conduct the pairwise comparisons, thus representing that organization’s perspective on MPAs. The respondents from local governments,

NGOs, and industries were key individuals whose work was related to, or were in charge of, MPA interactions at their respective organizations.

Face-to-face meetings with these individuals were conducted from October to

December 2017 in respondents’ work locations in Jakarta, Riau and West Kalimantan.

The selected respondents were interviewed individually in the first round of pairwise comparisons, except in the case of MPA representatives. Because MPAs are composed

of multiple members, pairwise comparisons with this group were conducted collectively, whereby the 2-3 members present discussed the factors together and reached consensus. During the interview process, I first encouraged more open dialogue and then guided the flow of the discussion to ensure that no single individual dominated the group decision or consensus process. These discussions within MPA groups went smoothly, and they reached consensus without having heated disagreements.

Figure 2-3. Interview with MPA to implement SWOT – AHP analysis

In each interview, the factors from each SWOT group were read and explained.

To help the respondents remember all the factors and ease the pairwise comparison process, a set of cards that contained factors from each SWOT category was provided

(Fig. 2-3). Beginning with one category (i.e., strengths), respondents were first asked to put each factor in rank order of importance (Fig. 2-4). Subsequently, they were shown a weighted scale and explained its meaning (Fig. 2-4), being asked to compare the importance of the highest ranking factor to the next highest. For example, a value of ‘1’ means that each of the two top factors was equally important. A value of ‘2’ meant that one factor was only slightly more important than the other, and so on (Table 2-2), such that as the number rises, the difference in importance between the two factors

increases. When instructing respondents, we consistently raised the following issues when they were making comparisons: 1) Which of the two factors compared is of greater importance? and 2) How much greater? (Kurtilla et al., 2000). The relative local priorities of each SWOT factors and the comparison results were computed using an eigenvalue method. This step produced “winners” of each group - factors that received the highest priority value from each SWOT group to be used for further comparisons.

Compare STRENGTH A to STRENGTH B and circle the appropriate number:

Figure 2-4. Example of a pairwise comparison between two strength factors. Each factor (in this case, each strength) was also discussed verbally to clarify any doubt as to its meaning. Similarly, the significance of the weighted numbers was explained as many times as needed.

Table 2-2. Pairwise comparison scale for AHP preferences Numerical rating Verbal judgements of preferences/importance 1 Equally important 2 Equally to moderately important 3 Moderately important 4 Moderately to strongly important 5 Strongly important 6 Strongly to very strongly important 7 Very strongly important 8 Very strongly important to extremely important 9 Extremely important

Follow-up Meetings and Second Round of Pair-Wise Comparisons

After the first round of analysis, factors that received the highest priority value from each SWOT group were used in a second round of pairwise comparisons with each stakeholder group. These meetings were conducted in December 2017. The four factors identified as the most important factors from each SWOT category were then

compared and their relative priorities calculated in the previous pairwise comparison step. These were then the scaling factors of the four SWOT categories, and they were used to calculate the priority values of the independent factors within them. Scaling factors and priority values were then used to calculate the overall priority of each factor as described below:

Overall priority of factorij

= (priority value of ij) (scaling factor of group j)

where: j = 4 (strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat).

The global priorities of all the factors summed to one.

The data obtained from the four stakeholder groups during both pairwise comparisons were analyzed separately using SWOT- AHP technique in Microsoft Excel to derive the factor priority and overall priority scores (Table 2-3). Consistency Ratios

(CR) in both pairwise comparison steps were ≤ 0.10, meaning that they were relatively consistent and acceptable, and can be legitimately used to perform AHP analysis. If CR

> 0.10, a corrective action is needed to resolve the inconsistencies in the subjective judgment (Kurtilla et al. 2000), the source of the inconsistency would have to be identified and analyzed, and the analysis with the inconsistent stakeholder groups would need to be conducted anew. In essence, the Consistency Ratio tells the decision maker how consistent he/she is when executing the pairwise comparison.

During these semi-structured interviews to conduct pairwise comparisons, qualitative information also was gathered to help interpret the results of the SWOT-AHP analysis. A semi-structured interview method was adopted because it is considered flexible and adaptable when compared to structured interviews (Mason, 2004), allowing

the interviewer to improvise follow-up questions based on participant responses. Each interview took approximately 2-4 hours. Almost all interviews were recorded and listened to repeatedly to check if there was information missed in written notes and to ensure that the information written down on the questionnaires was as expressed by the informants. This was particularly important because all interviews were conducted alone by the lead author.

Results and Discussion

Summary factors and their overall priority scores (Table 2-3), coupled with perception maps to provide visual presentation of the overall scores (Figure 2-5), broadly suggest that three of the four stakeholder groups have fairly similar points of view regarding MPAs. Except for industry, all other stakeholder groups conveyed that the highest priority factor was the strength of these voluntary groups in securing Support from diverse actors, which constituted 38% of the total score for the local governments,

50% for the NGOs, and 53% for the MPAs (Table 2-3 column 6, 7, and 9 respectively).

In contrast, industry representatives perceived the highest priority factor to be a weakness of MPAs - Lack of financial resources and that members received no economic benefits - representing 31% of this group’s total score (Table 2-3 column 8).

Furthermore, when assessing which of the opportunity factors were considered most important, all four stakeholder groups prioritized the same opportunity: that MPAs could

Increase partnership networks to strengthen MPAs (Table 2-3). While there was considerable consensus on prioritized strengths and weaknesses, threats were prioritized quite differently among the four stakeholder groups (Table 2-3). Finally, the fact that the scored global priorities summed to one validates that each priority score carried the weight of each factor.

Table 2-3. Priority of MPA SWOT factors and overall priority scores. The strengths and opportunities scores are considered as positive values of MPA, and the weaknesses and threats are considered negative values. SWOT categories Factors priority scores Overall priority scores Govt NGO Industry MPA Govt NGO Industry MPA Strengths 0.375 0.499 0.211 0.534 S1 MPA enthusiasm in carrying 0.178 0.287 0.138 0.148 0.067 0.143 0.029 0.079 out its functions S2 Receives support from 0.592 0.382 0.260 0.509 0.222 0.190 0.055 0.272 diverse actors S3 Development of MPA 0.110 0.204 0.197 0.170 0.041 0.102 0.041 0.091 member and community capacity and skills S4 Provides operational 0.120 0.126 0.406 0.172 0.045 0.063 0.085 0.092 structure for fire awareness and prevention

Weaknesses 0.219 0.143 0.314 0.164 W1 Lack of financial resources 0.473 0.427 0.329 0.229 0.104 0.061 0.103 0.038 and members receive no economic benefit W2 Inadequate facilities and 0.156 0.147 0.195 0.297 0.034 0.021 0.061 0.049 infrastructure W3 Ill-informed regarding 0.084 0.093 0.159 0.092 0.018 0.013 0.050 0.015 sanctioned MPA structure and function W4 Lack of guidance/aegis by 0.286 0.333 0.317 0.382 0.063 0.048 0.099 0.063 government and/or influential figures

Opportunities 0.142 0.148 0.208 0.155 O1 Increase partnership 0.608 0.469 0.487 0.619 0.086 0.069 0.101 0.096 networks to strengthen MPAs O2 Peatland conservation and 0.129 0.180 0.126 0.170 0.018 0.027 0.026 0.026 restoration O3 Reduction of illegal 0.263 0.351 0.387 0.211 0.037 0.052 0.080 0.033 activities

Threats 0.264 0.211 0.268 0.147 T1 Communities have limited 0.064 0.074 0.132 0.161 0.017 0.016 0.035 0.024 money and time to participate actively T2 Insecure land tenure 0.118 0.452 0.218 0.165 0.031 0.095 0.058 0.024 results in conflicts T3 Communities lack 0.432 0.122 0.191 0.387 0.114 0.026 0.051 0.057 understanding of and ignore fire issues and policies T4 Escaped fires from other 0.117 0.068 0.177 0.117 0.031 0.014 0.047 0.017 regions/locations T5 Inadequate and sometimes 0.269 0.284 0.282 0.169 0.071 0.060 0.076 0.025 unfair regulations and inadequate enforcement

MPAs 0.6 S2 0.5

0.4 S4 0.3 OPPORTUNITIES S3 0.2 O1 STRENGTHS S1 0.1 O3 0 O2 0 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 W30 T4T1 0.1 0.2 W1-0.1 T2 W2 T5 T3 W4 -0.2 WEAKNESSES THREATS -0.3

-0.4

NGOs 0.6 S2 0.5

0.4 S1 0.3 OPPORTUNITIES S3 STRENGTHS 0.2 O1 S4 O3 0.1 O2 0 0 0 W3 T1 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 W2 0 T4 0.1 0.2 0.3 -0.1 T3 W4 T5 W1 -0.2 WEAKNESSES THREATS T2 -0.3

-0.4

Figure 2-5. Perception maps of four stakeholder groups asked to prioritize the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of MPAs. The factors are arranged such that the highest global priority factor is at the outermost point of each quadrant. The lines on the top two quadrants denote the weights of positive factors (strengths and opportunities), while the ones in the bottom two quadrants indicate the weights of negative factors(weaknesses and threats). Each line reflects the total weights of factors in SWOT group and the points show the weights of each factor within the group.

Governments 0.5 S2 0.4

0.3 STRENGTHS OPPORTUNITIES S1 0.2 O1 S4 S30.1 O3 0O2 0 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 W30 T1 0.1 0.2 0.3 W2 T4 -0.1 T2 W4 -0.2 T5 W… WEAKNESSES -0.3 THREATS T3

-0.4

Industries 0.3 S4 O1 0.2 S2 O3 S3 STRENGTHS 0.1 S1 O2 0 OPPORTUNITIES 0 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 W3 T1 -0.1 T4 W2 T3 -0.2 T2 W4 -0.3 T5 W1 WEAKNESSES THREATS -0.4

Figure 2-5. Continued

Stakeholders Perceptions of MPAs

MPA Group Perceptions

The overall scores for the MPA group were dominated by positive factors (69%), with strengths the foremost factors (53%).These scores suggest that the MPA group recognized concerning issues within MPAs and possible issues that might occur in the

future (total negative scores = 31%), but remained confident that the positive aspects would overshadow the negative ones that could hinder the success and development of

MPAs.

Receives support from diverse actors (S2) received the highest score within the strength category (51%). Diverse institutions/actors have provided MPAs with training related to fire control, such as how to use equipment to extinguish fires, how to communicate with cooperative parties whenever a fire event occurs, and how to conduct awareness campaigns within their communities. Furthermore, some MPAs also received NGO and/or company training on how to clear land for farming without using fire and how to conduct ecologically-friendly farming as an alternative income source.

Additionally, some MPA representatives participated in diverse fora to elevate their voices and to exchange knowledge and experiences with other MPAs, especially regarding success stories that may be duplicated by other MPAs. Moreover, at the village level, some NGOs and industries also provided general fire prevention and water control support in the form of infrastructure. They built canal blocking structures to manage canal water flow, water ponds to store water for the dry season, and village artesian wells, especially in locations with water scarcity. These diverse kinds of indirect support to MPA members may be considered partial compensation for their volunteer work. Although the support described above was essential to their development thus far, MPAs still felt that more was needed. In terms of opportunities, Increase partnership networks to strengthen MPAs (O1) was the reported factor that was most needed by

MPAs to support their work and develop their organizations. It was the opportunity factor with the highest priority (62%).

MPA groups considered their greatest weakness to be The lack of guidance/support by government and influential figures (W4; 38%). This factor was chosen because MPAs do not have legal recognition, which undermines and mutes their voices within the communities in which they reside. MPA members are put in a difficult situation when they try to forbid their neighbors to use fire to clear their lands.

Informants reported that MPAs receive a modest allowance for these operational expenses with variation in who provides it. Some received an allowance from local government agencies, while others received an allowance from a private company, because the local government had no MPA funds in their budget. For this reason, MPAs prioritized Receives support from diverse actors (S2) and Increase partnership networks to strengthen MPAs (O1) as the most important strength and opportunity for MPAs.

They consistently noted that the support they received from various parties greatly helped them to run their operational activities and improve their fire management skills.

However, for them, their biggest weakness was not their poor financial situation, but their concern that Communities lack understanding of and ignore fire issues and policies

(T3), considered the biggest threat to their work (39%). One of the MPA representatives stated:

“It is such a challenge for us when communities do not listen to our voice and warnings to not use fire when managing their land, because we do not have legal status as an organization. Also, we do not have the power to stop people from using fire, not to go to the forest for fishing since we are not the owner of the lands or forest. This is frustrating somehow.”

A similar notion was expressed by all of MPA representatives. MPAs’ efforts to stop people from using fires were even more challenging when the lands were owned by more powerful entities, such as small- to medium-scale companies. Lack of legal authority, however, might be at least partially overcome through strategic alliances.

Sawerah et al. (2016) who studied community participation in peatland fire prevention in

Kalimantan argued that support of government and influential figures promoted active participation of communities in fire prevention activities, because the communities need these voices and see these actors as legitimate role models. One positive example executed by an MPA to engage the community was revealed in our interviews with one

MPA representative. The community informed the MPA about their plan to use fire for land clearing; thus, the land owners and MPA worked together to control the fire, preventing yet one more escaped fire. Furthermore, government policies related to forest management have not been designed sufficiently to integrate community perspectives and capabilities, resulting in a continuation of community practices to use fire to manage their lands without concerns about fire consequences (Herawati and

Santoso, 2011).

Government Group Perception

The overall perspective of local government representatives interviewed showed that positive factors (strengths plus opportunities) associated with MPAs slightly outweighed negative factors (weaknesses plus threats) at 52% and 48%, respectively.

Like the MPA representatives interviewed, this group gave the highest priority under the strength category to Receives support from diverse actors (S2) (59%). Also mirroring the MPA perspective, the government group converged on Increase partnerships networks to strengthen MPAs (O1) as the most important opportunity for MPAs.

Government’s role is to supervise and support MPA management, and government representatives interviewed acknowledged that they were challenged to provide funds because of the limited and sometimes inexistent budget dedicated to MPAs. Yong and

Peh (2016) point out that the Indonesian government still struggles to implement a decentralized political system generally, which leads to the inability of local governments (provincial level) to provide adequate resources for fire management efforts. This same situation was reported by Suhendri and Purnomo (2017) in Jambi province, stating that MPA inactivity related to fire prevention was due to the lack of funds specifically assigned to forest and land fire prevention. Yet levels of government institutions and administrative units within provinces (i.e., district, village) differ in their abilities to provide adequate resources, causing an uneven MPA capacity to perform fire prevention and management activities (Herawati and Santoso, 2011). In addition to budget constraints, in reflecting on his role in supervising and supporting the local MPA, one government representative interviewed highlighted another challenge:

“I just started to occupy the position as head of village in the last few months.

Hence, I am still in the adaptation and adjustment process. It is not easy since I am not provided with sufficient information about the MPA, neither policies and regulations nor the procedure to support its implementation”.

Correspondingly, the greatest MPA weakness identified by the government group was the MPAs Lack of financial resources and no economic benefit (W1) (47%). This weakness, according to them, reflects the nature of MPAs as voluntary organizations.

They rely on support from other parties for their operation, such as government agencies, NGOs, and industries, and MPA members are not offered any direct

economic benefit (i.e., salary). MPA members are almost always male villagers whose daily occupation is that of farmers, construction workers, or rubber tappers. The lack of direct monetary support could potentially be a stumbling block wherein they somehow have to choose between contributing to the MPA or engaging in the livelihood activities that are essential to meeting the needs of their families. In the face of economic pressures, providing financial incentives to rural fire service volunteers could be a feasible solution (McLennan and Birch, 2005). To address this issue, Ettinger (2009) recommends that in addition to direct and indirect monetary incentives for MPA member retention, diverse incentives that appeal to volunteers are needed, including various types of recognition and expressions of appreciation. People tend to participate when they can gain something, such us prestige/recognition, pay, logistical assistance, or goods (Fadillah et al. 2017).

Local governments viewed Communities lack of understanding of fire issues and policies (T3) as the highest priority among threats factors. The government representatives stated that fires often occurred because land owners burned their land as part of land preparation for cropping, and MPAs do not possess the authority to stop them. MPAs also do not have control of community members who enter forests or peatland areas to fish, hunt, and harvest non-timber forest products, among other reasons. Tacconi et al. (2007) notes that livelihood-induced fires, which are lit deliberately, also contribute to peatland fires. Smallholders are rarely aware of and can ill afford alternative forms of land clearing (Tacooni, 2016; Carmenta et al. 2017).

Carmenta et al. (2017) revealed that there is a consensus among stakeholders on the role of government to support small-scale farmers in undertaking fire free agriculture. To

date, however, preventive measures that target communities, such as positive incentives to clear land without burning, programs to raise awareness, and fines and other disincentives have been implemented with limited effectiveness (Yong and Peh,

2016). Thus, a continued search for creative solutions to support sustainable land use practices among local land owners (Yong and Peh, 2016) is needed, seeking interventions that are feasible for local communities to adopt and implement (Cattau et al. 2016).

NGO Group Perceptions

The overall NGO priority scores signaled that this group also perceived that current MPA strengths and future opportunities, summed to 65%, were most important.

Like MPA and government groups interviewed, the NGO group chose Receives support from diverse actors (S2) as the greatest strength (38%) and Partnership networks to strengthen MPAs (O1) as the most valuable opportunity (44%). And also like the MPA and government representatives interviewed, the NGO group honed in on the Lack of financial resources and members receive no economic benefit (W1) as the biggest weakness of MPAs (43%). The consistency with which each of these three stakeholder groups prioritized the same strength, opportunity and weakness suggests the importance of partner support. MPAs face difficulty in generating funds for their operational activities, however, informants suggested that this weakness can be surmounted by partnerships. All NGO representatives stated that their organization had established cooperation with MPAs in their respective locations. Nonetheless, like the government support, NGO cooperation with MPAs varied in terms of means of support and MPA conditions. Finally, the NGO group pointed to a particular prioritization of fire mitigation in Indonesia that may undermine MPAs, whose main objective is fire

prevention. The NGO informants argued that funds allocated for fire issues in Indonesia are still focused on firefighting efforts instead of prevention activities. Fadillah et al.

(2017) fortifies this notion, stating that MPA participation in firefighting activities were higher than in prevention activities, because the former were still the main focus of forest and land fire control activities.

NGOs uniquely identified Insecure land tenure that results in conflicts (T2) as their main concern when it came to MPA threats. Their reasoning was that this threat not only hindered the function of MPAs themselves, but also the incidence of peatland fires in general. Based on their experiences, when conflict occurs between two parties seeking tenure rights, they often used fire to settle the dispute. Previous studies have also highlighted the use of fires as weapons in land conflicts between local communities and companies in Indonesia (Tomich et al., 1998). Suyanto (2006) concurred that fire is used to settle land tenure disputes between local communities and large plantation owners, adding that it is one of the main causes for ignition. The underlying reason behind this prioritized NGO threat may be strongly related to another threat, considered a secondary priority by the NGO, MPA and government groups and a primary priority by the industry group: Inadequate and sometimes unfair regulations and inadequate enforcement (T5) (Table 1). Indeed, one NGO representative interviewed highlighted that even though an MPA may have performed their awareness function as intended, punishments for burning were rarely executed.

Industry Group Perceptions

In comparison to the other three stakeholder groups, perception maps (Fig. 2-7) most easily illuminated that the industry group had different perceptions of MPA SWOT factors and their importance. Results suggest that the industry group perceived that

negative factors associated with MPAs might outweigh their positive factors. The overall priority score of negative factors (weaknesses plus threats) explained 58% of industry group perceptions. In other words, considering all SWOT categories, the industry group chose Lack of financial resources and no economic benefit (W1) (33%) and Inadequate and sometimes unfair regulations and inadequate enforcement (T5) (28%) as the most important weakness and threat, respectively. While this priority weakness jibes with prioritized weakness perceptions of NGO and government groups, industry informants tended to relate this MPA weakness with their own MPA cooperation to their experience. Some industry informants reported their company’s support for MPAs patrolling activities. They highlighted that some companies implement programs that benefit not only MPA members, but also the larger community in recognition of addressing the root causes of fire, which lie in the need for food security, earn an income, and improve the welfare of the community (e.g. Prosperous and Fire Free

Village/Desa Makmur Peduli Api and Fire Free Village Program). These two company- led programs aimed to change the community behavior of using fire to clear the land and provide alternatives for them. Indonesian laws and regulations related to setting fires at both national and local levels, however, are sometimes contradictory, and in many cases, are not fully implemented, decreasing their effectiveness in preventing fires (Tacconi, 2016, Herawati and Santoso, 2011). Thus, programs initiated by companies are expected to significantly contribute to diminishing fire use by the adjacent local community, and to providing the community with alternatives for better land management and more options of crops suitable for cultivation on peatland.

While the other stakeholder groups clearly recognized the threat of Inadequate and sometimes unfair regulations and inadequate enforcement (T5), the industry group prioritized it. In their Indonesian fire policy and institutional analysis, Herawati and

Santoso (2011) reported that investigation and prosecution for environmental wrongdoings in Indonesia, particularly at the local level, is still weak. Specifically in

Riau, Yuliani (2014) noted that laws to control community and company use of fire to clear land has not been implemented properly, that the emphasis was on persuasive action, rather than enforcing criminal or civil law. Fadlillah et al. (2017) also highlighted that successful creation of a regulation does not guarantee its performance if the regulation is not well implemented in the field. This condition illustrates that despite policy creation and ongoing efforts to contain fires, without overarching regulations and enforced laws, fires will continue to smolder.

The industry group uniquely identified Provide operational structure for fire awareness and prevention (S4) (41%) as MPAs most important strength. Industry informants reasoned that local and well organized MPAs enable a quick response when fire occurs, especially when the fire occurs in their respective area. Specifically, they cited that patrol and monitoring activities resulted in greater community awareness and vigilance about fire hazards, as well as actual reduction of hot spots and deliberate fires.

While hardly of the same magnitude as peat draining and fire ignition for land clearing, industry group informants attributed ignition of some fires to negligence by those who carelessly throw out cigarette butts or forget to stub out the mosquito coils, an opinion also expressed by some MPA, government, and NGO informants and reported by

Dennis et al. (2005). By patrolling regularly, MPAs can both discover these accidental

fires and raise awareness in the community about the danger of fires and the cause of fires. In addition to fire prevention, MPAs are charged with informing the Forest

Management Unit, Ministry of Forestry fire fighting brigade (Manggala Agni), the military and local police about fire incidents. Unlike MPAs, these latter groups have the responsibility, proper equipment, and skilled firefighting teams to fight big fires. This division of labor also considers the safety of MPA members because not all MPAs are equipped with appropriate personal protective equipment and do not have insurance or institutional support in case of injury. Finally, like all other stakeholder groups, the industry group prioritized the opportunity to Increase the partnership networking and

MPA strengthening (O1) (49%).

Palm oil and pulpwood industries are often blamed as the culprits of fires in

Indonesia (Jerger, 2014), which puts pressure on industry actors to manage and protect their concessions from fire. A recent study by Cattau et al. (2016) showed that most fires occurred in non-forest or degraded areas (including palm oil concessions). They reported that only 17-19% of fires were ignited by the palm oil companies and that 90% of the burn was restricted to the concession, with only 2% escaping outside concession borders. Gaveau et al. (2016) suggested that independent farmers also are responsible for burning land to plant their crops (palm oil) inside and outside of palm oil concessions. Nonetheless, the companies are responsible for controlling burn activities within their concession boundaries, especially given their comparatively larger financial resources that allow them to do so. Furthermore, according to the Decision of the

General Forestry No. 243/Kpts/DJVI/1994 concerning fire protection and control, private plantation concessions are required to maintain a team of 15 firefighters for every

20,000 hectares of plantation concession area. In addition to having their own firefighter team and fire equipment, industry is mandated to support MPAs by government regulation (MoEF, 2016). These regulations and the desire to protect their own resources explains perhaps why industry appreciates and engages with MPAs in fire prevention efforts.

Stakeholder Consensus: Increased partnerships would strengthen MPAs

All stakeholders unanimously expressed that Increase partnerships networks to strengthen MPAs (O1) was the most important opportunity to be realized. All stakeholders mentioned that they witnessed positive MPA developments when they cooperated with NGOs, companies, influential actors, researchers and government.

These developments included enhanced MPA skills in quenching fires, use of equipment, and even managing their own personal lands. However, these developments were distinct to each MPA, such that it depended on who the MPAs had their partnership with and what kind of support was given to them. One example initiated by industry that could be duplicated is to implement alternative solutions to burning through use of integrated farming techniques without fire, the use of eco-friendly fertilizers, and improved water governance systems (Hafiz, 2018).

An identified weakness also was clearly related to this consensus opportunity result. Not only did the MPA group chose The lack of guidance/support by government and influential figures (W4) as the greatest weakness, the other three stakeholders chose that factor as the second highest priority. The government, NGO, and industry groups perhaps also realized that MPAs still lack clear direction and organizational support from those considered to be powerful actors.

Increased partnerships could address MPA organizational shortcomings. MPA members often lack experience in running an organization since most of its member are farmers and laborers with limited exposure or experience in professional organizations.

In his study regarding MPAs, Sayendri (2016) found that because there are no specific rules that govern the institutionalization and operationalization of MPAs, inadequate execution of tasks and institutional functions become a basic problem in running the organization. To tackle such issues, McLennan and Birch (2005) suggested offering trainings for management, supervision, and leadership.

Another important benefit with enhanced partnerships is to provide MPA with the opportunity to meet with other stakeholders involved in fire-related issues. Coordination and collaboration among stakeholders foments a holistic approach to fire management that is vital to achieve fire prevention and suppression targets (Achyar et al. 2015).

Enhanced cooperation becomes a great opportunity to bolster and improve the function and role of MPAs as part of the needed solutions to fire and haze issues.

Implications for Future MPA Effectiveness

The factor priority scores and overall priority scores and perception maps suggest both similarities and some divergent perspectives by each stakeholder group.

The relative importance of each factor within SWOT groups can be utilized by stakeholders as constructive input during the decision making process. Our results suggest that government, NGO and MPA group representatives expressed confidence that MPAs have been contributing appreciably to address fire and haze solutions (e.g. to the reduction of fire risks through patrol activities, coordination and cooperation with other stakeholders and local communities, and awareness campaign conducted by

MPA). As for the industry group, they put more emphasis on MPA circumstances and

obstacles. This contrast may be caused, in part, by the experienced practical differences of each stakeholder group in fighting fires and working with MPAs. Industry is highly invested in day-to-day fire suppression, and perhaps is better positioned to understand the depth to which current funding and support levels allocated to MPAs are insufficient.

Most stakeholders chose Receives support from diverse actors (S2) as the greatest strength as the MPAs. However, the other side of this coin reveals the dependency of MPAs on other institutions/organizations. The concept of mutual dependency and mutual support may apply here, whereby these diverse stakeholder groups must work together to make fire control in Indonesia a reality.

That budgets focus more on fire extinction activities than fire prevention was also emphasized in stakeholder interviews. All stakeholder groups also narrated that government should put more focus and allocate more funds to fire prevention activities, rationalizing that it is better to prevent a fire before it starts. The awareness campaigns spearheaded by MPAs through day-to-day activities and customary village events raises community awareness and can also shift the paradigm on how to use fire as part of land management. Yet, this needs to be followed through by providing fire-free alternatives to land clearing. To meet this demand, cooperation with other organizations and/or companies with knowledge, resources, and necessary equipment is needed.

Some companies have been initiating programs to address that issue, and some NGOs have been monitoring the implementation of policies and regulations while at the same time working closely with other stakeholders. Still, the government is expected to take

the lead to make improvements in current fire management, as well as enforce the laws and regulations related to fires.

Peatland fires in Indonesia that recur almost every year are threats to the environment, economy, and society (Gaveau et al. 2014; World Bank, 2016; Huijnen et al. 2016; Shannon et al. 2016; Tacconi, 2016). The success of peatland fire interventions, in this case the implementation of MPAs, requires the willingness and engagement of multiple stakeholders. This is because the task at hand involves multiscale governance, multi-party cooperation and community livelihoods that are susceptible to fires (Achyar et al. 2015). Identifying internal and external factors that influence the success of an organization and better understanding stakeholder perceptions could help inform and shape organization agendas to meet its objective to contribute the fires issue, as well as to overcome policy –practice gaps.

The results of this study could differ across villages, as other villages have different socioeconomic conditions and governance paradigms. Furthermore, how

MPAs are established varies and likely affects their strengths and weaknesses.

Establishment could be by a local government or national park, private company, or most often, a combination of local government and private companies through joint cooperation. These arrangements affect MPAs in term of resources and facilities.

Therefore, there is a need to expand the scope of this study to other villages to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the dynamic of MPA implementation in Indonesia.

We hope that this study will provide adequate information about MPAs and diminish the gap that exists in our understanding of stakeholder group perceptions about MPAs and guide the future fire related policies in general, and MPAs in particular.

CHAPTER 3 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVE

The results of this study showed that three stakeholder groups had similar perceptions about the implementation of MPA as part of government interventions in addressing fire and haze issues (government, NGO, and MPA), with the Industry group often diverting from the pattern. Overall government, NGO and MPA group representatives expressed confidence that MPAs have been contributing appreciably to fire and haze solutions, despite their voluntary nature. As for Industry, they perceive that

MPA is not yet effectively functioning due to MPA circumstances and obstacles. This contrast is probably caused by the practical differences of each stakeholder group in fighting fires and working with MPA.

In recent years, MPAs claim that they have been effective in preventing fires and contributing to hotspot reduction by patrolling their areas. However, because 2016 and

2017 were not El Niño years, meaning extreme dry conditions that exacerbated the fires like in 2015 did not exist, these claims have not been validated. We will only know once we go through another dry year what progress has been made. Additionally, any progress observed may not only result from MPA contributions, but could also be attributed to other existing interventions. It will be the ultimate test of whether the intervention efforts and MPA implementation since 2016 have made a difference.

Furthermore, there is variation in MPA across the landscape, which could be studied to examine which factors contribute to greater or lesser effectiveness, providing more specific and accurate information that speaks to the state of MPAs.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Achyar, E., Schmidt-Vogt, D., Shivakoti, G.P., 2015. Dynamics of the multi-stakeholder forum and its effectiveness in promoting sustainable forest fire management practices in South Sumatra, Indonesia. Environmental Development, 13, pp.4-17.

Agus, F., Runtunuwu, E., June, T., Susanti, E., Komara, H., Syahbuddin, H., Las, I., van Noordwijk, M., 2009. Carbon dioxide emission in land use transitions to plantation. Jurnal Litbang Pertanian, 28(4), pp.119-126.

Alam, S., Nurhidayah, L., 2017. The international law on transboundary haze pollution: What can we learn from the Southeast Asia region?. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 26(3), pp.243-254.

Alisjahbana, A.S., Busch, J.M., 2017. Forestry, forest fires, and climate change in Indonesia. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 53(2), pp.111-136.

Anshari, G.Z., Afifudin, M., Nuriman, M., Gusmayanti, E., Arianie, L., Susana, R., Nusantara, R.W., Sugardjito, J, Rafiastanto, A., 2010. Drainage and land use impacts on changes in selected peat properties and peat degradation in West Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. Biogeosciences, 7(11), p.3403

Arifudin, Nasrul, B. and Maswadi. 2013. Program of Community Empowerment Prevents Forest Fires in Indonesian Peat Land. Procedia Environmental Sciences, ISSN: 1878-0296, Vol: 17, Page: 129-134.

Austin, K., Alisjahbana, A., Darusman, T., Boediono, R., Budianto, B.E., Purba, C., Indrarto, G.B., Pohnan, E., Putraditama, A, Stolle, F., 2014. Indonesia’s forest moratorium: Impacts and next steps. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

Beukering, P.V., Schaafsma, M., Davies, O, Oskolokaite, I. 2008. The Economic Value of Peatland Resources within the Central Kalimantan Peatland Project in Indonesia: Perceptions of Local Communities. Institute for Environmental Studies. The Netherlands.

Birendra K.C, Stainback G.A, Chhetri B.B.K. 2014. Community users’ and experts’ perspective on community forestry in Nepal: a SWOT–AHP analysis. For Trees Livelihoods 23:217–231.

Bland, B. 2013. Indonesian Fires Highlight Weak Governance and Corruption. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/a6d8c050-dbf5-11e2-a861-00144feab7de (accessed 25 June 2018)

BPS – Statistics of Riau Province. 2017a. Riau Province in Figures 2017. BPS-Statistics of Riau. Indonesia.

BPS – Statistics of Kalimantan Barat Province. 2017b. Kalimantan Barat Province in Figures. BPS-Statistics of Kalimantan Barat. Indonesia.

BPS. 2017c. Extent of Land and Water Conservation Forests Area on Indonesia by Province According to Decree of Minister of Forestry. https://www.bps.go.id/statictable/2013/12/31%2000:00:00/1716/luas-kawasan- hutan-dan-kawasan-konservasi-perairan-indonesia-menurut-provinsi- berdasarkan-sk-menteri-kehutanan.html (accessed: 16 July 2018) Bretz, K.J., 2017. Indonesia’s One Map Policy: A Critical Look at the Social Implication of A ‘Mess’.

Brun, C., Cook, A.R., Lee, J.S.H., Wich, S.A., Koh, L.P., Carrasco, L.R., 2015. Analysis of deforestation and protected area effectiveness in Indonesia: A comparison of Bayesian spatial models. Global environmental change, 31, pp.285-295.

Budiharta, S., Meijaard, E., 2017. State of Kalimantan’s biodiversity. Development, Environment and the People of Kalimantan, pp.1-22.

CBD. 2001. Impacts of Human-Caused Fires on Biodiversity and ecosystem Functioning, and Their Causes in Tropical, Temperate and Boreal Forest Biomes. Secretariat of CBD. Montreal, Canada.

Cochrane, J., 2015. Indonesia’s Forest Fires Take Toll on Wildlife, Big and Small. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/world/asia/indonesia- forest-fires-wildlife.html (accessed: 22 July 2018)

Cattau, M., Harrison, M., Shinyo, I., Tungau, S., Uriarte, M., DeFries, R 2016, 'Sources of anthropogenic fire ignitions on the peat-swamp landscape in Kalimantan, Indonesia', Global Environmental Change, 39, pp. 205-219, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, viewed 13 May 2018.

Dewi, S., van Noordwijk, M., Dwiputra, A., Tata, H.L., Ekadinata, A., Galudra, G., Sakuntaladewi, N., Widayati, A., 2015. Peat and land clearing fires in Indonesia in 2015: Lessons for polycentric governance. Policy Brief, 51.

Dwivedi, P., Alavalapati, J.R.R., 2009. Stakeholders’ perceptions on forest biomass based bioenergy development in the southern US. Energy Policy 37, 1999–2007.

Endrawati, S.H., and Yusnita, R. 2015. Analisis Data Titik Panas (Hotspot) dan Areal Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan Tahun 2016. Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Jakarta Ettinger, K., 2009. NVFC works to help volunteer fire departments meet retention and recruitment challenges. Firehouse, pp. 68-69.

Evayanti, T.2014. Partisipasi Organisasi Masyarakat Peduli Api (MPA) Terhadap Pencegahan Dan Pengendalian Kebakaran Hutan Dan Lahan Di Kabupaten Pelalawan. Jurnal Ilmu lingkungan (1): 8 2014.

Evers, S., Yule, C.M., Padfield, R., O'reilly, P., Varkkey, H., 2017. Keep wetlands wet: the myth of sustainable development of tropical peatlands–implications for policies and management. Global change biology, 23(2), pp.534-549.

Fadillah, N., Basuni, S., Sunarminto, T. 2017. Pengendalian Kebakaran Hutan Oleh Masyarakat Peduli Api (MPA) di Taman Nasional Gunung Ciremai. Media Konservasi, 21(3), pp.216-224.

FAO. 2015. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: Country Report Indonesia. FAO, Rome

FAO. 2015. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Desk reference. UNFAO.

FRIM-UNDP/GEF, 2006. Malaysia’s Peat Swamp Forests Conservation and Sustainable Use. United Nations Development Programme, Malaysia

FWI, GFW. 2002. The State of the Forest Indonesia. World Resources Indonesia, Indonesia.

Gaveau, D.L.A., Salim, M.A., Hergoualc’h, K., Locatelli, B., Sloan, S., Wooster, M., Marlier, M.E., Molidena, E., Yaen, H., DeFries, R., Verchot, L., Murdiyarso, D., Nasi, R., Holmgren, P., Sheil, D., 2014. Major atmospheric emissions from peat fires in Southeast Asia during non-drought years: evidence from the 2013 Sumatran fires. Sci. Rep. 4, 6112

Gaveau, D.L.A., Pirard, R., Salim, M.A., Tonoto, P., Husnayaen Parks, S.A., Carmenta R. 2016. Overlapping land claims limit the use of satellites to monitor no- deforestation commitments and no-burning compliance. Conserv. Lett. pp. 1-15

Gellert, P. (1998). A Brief History and Analysis of Indonesia's Forest Fire Crisis. Indonesia, (65), 63-85. doi:10.2307/3351404

Global Forest Watch. 2018. Fire Report for Indonesia. http://fires.globalforestwatch.org/report/index.html#aoitype=PROVINCE&dates=f Year-2015!fMonth-7!fDay-1!tYear-2015!tMonth-10!tDay-31&aois=Kalimantan Barat&dataSource=gfw&reporttype=indonesiaspecialtyreport (accessed 21 February 2018).

Goodman, L., 2014. Peat Soils vs. the Forests Above: Which Holds More Carbon?. Union of Concerned Scientists. https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/peat-soils- vs-the-forests-above-which-holds-more-carbon-528 (accessed: 3 July 2018)

Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A.A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S.V., Goetz, S.J., Loveland, T.R., Kommareddy, A., 2013. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science, 342(6160), pp.850-853.

Harris, N., Minnemeyer, S., Sizer, N., Mann, S.A., Payne, O.A., 2015. With latest fires crisis, Indonesia surpasses Russia as fourth largest emitter. World Resources Institute. www.wri.org (accessed: 16June 2018)

Herawati, H., Santoso, H., 2011. Tropical forest susceptibility to and risk of fire under changing climate: A review of fire nature, policy and institutions in Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(4), pp.227-233.

Hergoualc’h, K., Atmadja, S., Carmenta, R., Martius, C., Murdiyarso, D., and Purnomo, H. 2017. Managing Peatlands in Indonesia: Challenges and Opportunities for Local and Global Communities. Bogor, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

Hooijer, A. Page, S., Canadell, J. G., Silvius, M., Kwadijk, J., Wosten, H., Jauhiainen J. 2010. Current and future CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia. Biogeosciences, 7, 1505–1514, 2010

Hooijer, A., Page, S., Jauhiainen, J., Lee, W.A., Lu, X.X., Idris, A., Anshari, G. 2012. Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences, 9(3), p.1053.

Houben, G., Lenie, K., Vanhoof, K. 1999. A knowledge based SWOT-analysis system as an instrument for strategic planning in small and medium sized enterprises, Decision Support Systems 26: 125–135.

Huijnen, V., Wooster, M.J., Kaiser, J.W., Gaveau, D.L.A., Flemming, J., Parrington, M., Inness, A., Murdiyarso, D., Main, B., Weele, M.V. 2016. Fire Carbon Emission Over Maritime Southeast Asia in 2015 Largest Since 1997. Scientific Report.

Indonesia Investments. 2018. Palm Oil. https://www.indonesia- investments.com/business/commodities/palm-oil/item166? (accessed: 18 July 2018).

IPCC. 2013. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPS (International Peat Society). 2010. Strategy for Responsible Peatland Management. Finland: International Peat Society (IPS).

IUCN. 2018. The IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM. http://www.iucnredlist.org/ (accessed 23 July 2018)

Jerger Jr., DD 2014, Indonesia’s Role in Realizing the Goals of ASEAN's Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution. Sustainable Development Law & Policy, 14, 1, pp. 35-75.

Jikalahari.or.id. 2015. Rilis GNPSDA: Menuntaskan Asap Riau Melalui GNPSDA KPK. http://jikalahari.or.id/kabar/rilis/rilis-gnpsda-menuntaskan-asap-riau-melalui- gnosda-kpk/. [accessed 24 March 2017].

Joosten, H., 2015. Peatlands, climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation: An issue brief on the importance of peatlands for carbon and biodiversity conservation and the role of drained peatlands as greenhouse gas emission hotspots (Vol. 2015727). Nordic Council of Ministers.

Karyanto, O., Rohman, Riyanto, S., Widayanti, W.T., Susanti, A., Pudyatmoko, S. 2016a. Farming on Undrained Peatland in Riau, Indonesia: Implication for Sustainability. 15th International Peat Symposium. Malaysia.

Karyanto, O., Susanti, A., Pudyatmoko, S., Adytia, T. 2016b. Drivers for Recurrent Peatfire in Riau & South Sumatera. 15th International Peat Symposium. Malaysia.

Carlson, K.M., Curran, L.M., Ratnasari, D., Pittman, A.M., Soares-Filho, B.S., Asner, G.P., Trigg, S.N., Gaveau, D.A., Lawrence, D., Rodrigues, H.O., 2012. Committed carbon emissions, deforestation, and community land conversion from oil palm plantation expansion in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(19), pp.7559-7564.

Konecny, K., Ballhorn, U., Navratil, P., Jubanski, J., Page, S.E., Tansey, K., Hooijer, A., Vernimmen, R. and Siegert, F., 2016. Variable carbon losses from recurrent fires in drained tropical peatlands. Global change biology, 22(4), pp.1469-1480.

Kurniawan, N.I. 2016. Getting the One Map Policy Right. The University of Melbourne. http://indonesiaatmelbourne.unimelb.edu.au/getting-one-map-policy-right/ (accessed: 25, June 2018)

Kurtilla, M., Pesonen, M., Kangas, J., Kajanus. M. 2000. Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis – a hybrid method and its application to a forest certification case. Forest Policy and Economic 1 (2000), 41-52.

Kusumaningtyas, S. D. A., Aldrian, E. 2016. Impact of the June 2013 Riau province Sumatera smoke haze event on regional air pollution. Environmental Research Letters, 11(7), 075007.

Langner, A., Siegert, F., 2009. Spatiotemporal fire occurrence in Borneo over a period of 10 years. Global Change Biology, 15(1), pp.48-62.

Li, T.M., 2015. Social impacts of oil palm in Indonesia: A gendered perspective from West Kalimantan (Vol. 124). CIFOR. Lohman, D.J., Bickford, D. and Sodhi, N.S., 2007. The burning issue. Science (Washington), 316(5823), p.376.

Margono, B.A., Potapov, P.V., Turubanova, S., Stolle, F., Hansen, M.C., 2014. Primary forest cover loss in Indonesia over 2000–2012. Nature Climate Change, 4(8), p.730.

Marlier, M.E., DeFries, R.S., Kim, P.S., Koplitz, S.N., Jacob, D.J., Mickley, L.J., Myers, S.S., 2015. Fire emissions and regional air quality impacts from fires in oil palm, timber, and logging concessions in Indonesia. Environmental Research Letters, 10(8), p.085005.

Mason J., 2004. Semi-structured interview. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods (Lewis-Beck M.S., Bryman A. & Futin Liao E., eds), SAGE, Thousand Oaks, London, pp. 1021–1022.

Masozera, M.K., Alavalapati, J.R.R., Jacobson, S.K., Shrestha, R.K., 2006. Assessing the suitability of community-based management for the Nyungwe forest reserve Rwanda. Forest Policy and Economics 8, 206–216.

McLennan, J., Birch, A. 2005. A potential crisis in wildfire emergency response capability? Australia's volunteer firefighters. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 6(2), pp.101-107.

Medrilzam, M., Dargusch, P., Herbohn, J., Smith, C., 2014. The socio-ecological drivers of forest degradation in part of the tropical peatlands of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Forestry, 87(2), 335-345.

Meijaard, E., 2018. Indonesia’s Fires in the 21st Century: Causes, Culprits, Impacts, Perceptions, and Solutions. Pollution Across Borders: Transboundary Fire, Smoke and Haze in Southeast Asia, p.103.

Miettinen, J., Liew, S.C., 2010. Status of Peatland Degradation and Development in Sumatra and Kalimantan. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2010. AMBIO 39, pp. 394-401.

Miettinen, J., Shi, C. Liew, S.C., 2012. Two decades of destruction in Southeast Asia's peat swamp forests. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(3), pp.124- 128.

Miettinen, J., Shi, C., and Liew, S.C. 2016. Land cover distribution in the peatlands of Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra and Borneo in 2015 with changes since 1990. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 6, 67–78.

Ministry of Agriculture, Republic of Indonesia. 2016. Lahan Gambut Indonesia. IAARD Press. Jakarta. pp. 33-60 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sukarman_Kartawisastra2/publication/3234 76309_Kesesuaian_Lahan_Gambut_untuk_Pertanian/links/5a97cec245851535b cdf4807/Kesesuaian-Lahan-Gambut-untuk-Pertanian.pdf. (accessed: 20 July 2018).

Ministry of Agriculture, Republic of Indonesia. 2011. Peta lahan gambut skala 1:250.000 Edisi Desember tahun 2011. Bogor, Ministry of Agriculture. https://www.scribd.com/document/110320116/Naskah-Peta-Gambut-Indonesia- 2011. (accessed: 12 May 2018).

Ministry of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia. 2016. Forest and Land Fire Control: Regulation No. P.32/MenLHK/Setjen/Kum.1/3/2016. Indonesia http://ditjenppi.menlhk.go.id/reddplus/images/resources/permen/permenLHKno32 karhutla.pdf ).

Ministry of Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia. 2014. Regulation No. P. 2/IV- SET/2014 on the Establishment and Development of the Masyarakat Peduli Api. Indonesia

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2018. What are El Niño and La Niña? https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ninonina.html (accessed: 16 June 2018)

Nasi, R., Dennis, R., Meijaard, E., Applegate, G., Moore, P., 2002. Forest fire and biological diversity. UNASYLVA-FAO-, pp.36-40.

Okello, C., Pindozzi, S., Faugno, S., Boccia, L., 2014. Appraising Bioenergy Alternatives in Uganda Using Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) – Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and a Desirability Functions Approach. Energies (1996-1073) 7, No. 3:1171.

Osaki, M., Hirose, K., Segah, H., Helmy, F., 2016. Tropical Peat and Peatland Definition in Indonesia. Tropical Peatland Ecosystems. Springer Japan. pp. 137-147.

Page, S.E., Siegert, F., Rieley, J.O., Boehm, H.D.V., Jaya, A. and Limin, S., 2002. The amount of carbon released from peat and forest fires in Indonesia during 1997. Nature, 420 (6911), pp.61.

Page, S.E., Rieley, J.O., Banks, C.J., 2011. Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon pool. Global Change Biology, 17(2), pp.798-818.

Paris F., Sirin A., JoostenH.,Hinayava T., Silvius M., Stringer L., (Eds). 2008. Assessment on Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change: Main Report. Global Environment Centre, Kuala Lumpur and Wetlands International, Wagennigen.

Parker, C., Mitchell, A., Trivedi, M., Mardas, N., Sosis, K. 2009. The Little REDD+ Book. Global Canopy Programme, Oxford

Paul K.G., 1998. Brief History and Analysis of Indonesia's Forest Fire Crisis. Indonesia, 65, pp.63.

Pausas, J.G., Keeley, J.E., 2009. A burning story: the role of fire in the history of life. BioScience, 59(7), pp.593-601.

Posa, M.R.C., Wijedasa, L.S., Corlett, R.T., 2011. Biodiversity and conservation of tropical peat swamp forests. Bioscience 61, 49–57.

Purnomo, H., Shantiko, B., Sitorus, S., Gunawan, H., Achdiawan, R., Kartodiharjo, H., Dewayani, A.A., 2016. Fire Economy and Actor Network of Forest and Land Fires in Indonesia. 2017. Forest Policy and Economics 78 pp. 21-31.

Quah, E., Varkkey, H., 2013. The political economy of transboundary pollution: mitigation of forest fires and haze in Southeast Asia. The Asian Community: Its Concepts and Prospects, pp.323-358. (https://umexpert.um.edu.my/file/publication/00009140_102526.pdf)

Ramakreshnan, L., Aghamohammadi, N., Fong, C.S., Bulgiba, A., Zaki, R.A., Wong, L.P., Sulaiman, N.M., 2017. Haze and health impacts in ASEAN countries: a systematic review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, pp.1-16.

Reinsberger, K., Brudermann, T., Posch, A., 2015. The role of photovoltaics in energy transition - Assessing the prospects for a regime shift. Gaia.

Reuters. 2017. Indonesia President Approves Two-year Extension of Forest Moratorium. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-environment- forests/indonesia-president-approves-two-year-extension-of-forest-moratorium- idUSKBN18K0CV (accessed: 25 June 2018)

Rieley, J. O. 2007. Tropical Peatland —The Amazing Dual Ecosystem: Coexistence and Mutual Benefit. Proceeding of the International Symposium and Workshop on Tropical Peatland, pp. 1-14. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239924789_Tropical_peatland_- _The_amazing_dual_ecosystem_coexistence_and_mutual_benefit

Russel, R. 2015. Indonesia’s Forest Fires: An Environmental Disaster of Global Proportions. https://www.dw.com/en/indonesias-forest-fires-an-environmental- disaster-of-global-proportions/a-18828623 (accessed: 22 July 2018)

Saaty, T.L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of mathematical psychology, 15(3), pp.234-281.

Saharjo, B.H., 2007. Preventing Peat Loosing by Fires through Community Participatory. http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/sevilla- 2007/contributions/doc/REGIONALES/E_ASIA_SUR_SURESTE/Saharjo- Bambang_INDONESIA.pdf

Santopuoli, G., Marchetti, M. and Giongo, M., 2016. Supporting policy decision makers in the establishment of forest plantations, using SWOT analysis and AHPs analysis. A case study in Tocantins (Brazil). Land Use Policy, 54, pp.549-558.

Sawerah, S., Muljono, P., Tjitropranoto, P., 2016. Partisipasi Masyarakat dalam Pencegahan Kebakaran Lahan Gambut di Kabupaten Mempawah, Provinsi Kalimantan Barat. Jurnal Penyuluhan, 12(1).

Sayendri, D., 2016. Partisipasi Masyarakat Peduli Api Dalam Penanggulangan Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan (Studi Kasus di Kecamatan Bunut Kabupaten Pelalawan Tahun 2010 – 2013). Jom FISIP Vol.3 No.3 February 2016

Shah, V., 2016. Healthy Forests, Zero Burning, Prosperous Economy: Can Indonesia Have It All?. Eco-Business Special Report. Indonesia.

Shahab, N., 2016. Indonesia: one map policy. Case Study. Open Government Partnership.

Shahputra, M.A, Zen, Z., 2018, February. Positive and Negative Impacts of Oil Palm Expansion in Indonesia and the Prospect to Achieve Sustainable Palm Oil. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 122, No. 1, p. 012008). IOP Publishing.

Shrestha, R.K., Alavalapati, J.R., Kalmbacher, R.S., 2004. Exploring the potential for silvopasture adoption in south-central Florida: an application of SWOT–AHP method. Agricultural Systems, 81(3), pp.185-199.

Sizer, N., Leach, A., Minnemeyer, S., Higgins, M., Stolle, F., Anderson, J., & Lawalata, J. 201). Preventing forest fires in Indonesia: Focus on Riau Province, peatland, and illegal burning. http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/04/preventing-forest-fires- indonesia-focus-riau-provincepeatland-and-illegal-burning. (accessed: 8 June 2018)

Someshwar, S., Boer, R., Conrad, E., 2013. Managing Peatland Fire Risk in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. World Resources Report Case Study. Washington DC: World Resources Institute.

Someshwar, S., Melloy B., and Patriana, R. 2017. Provincial Forest Fire Management, West Kalimantan. CU Report for UNOPS Gambut Project. (Unpublished).

Suhendri, S., Purnomo, E.P., 2017. Penguatan Kelembagaan Dalam Pencegahan dan Pengendalian Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan di Kabupaten Muaro Jambi Provinsi Jambi. Journal of Governance and Public Policy, 4(1), pp.174-204.

Suyanto, S., 2006. Underlying cause of fire: different form of land tenure conflicts in Sumatra. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 12, pp. 67–74.

Szulecka, J., Zalazar, E.M., 2017. Forest plantations in Paraguay: Historical developments and a critical diagnosis in a SWOT-AHP framework. Land Use Policy, 60, pp.384-394.

Tacconi, L., 2003. Fires in Indonesia: causes, cost, and policy Implications. Occasional Paper No. 38. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia

Tacconi, L., 2016. Preventing fires and haze in Southeast Asia. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6: 640–643.

Tacconi, L., Moore, P.F., Kaimowitz, D., 2007. Fires in Tropical Forest – What is Really the Problem? Lesson from Indonesia. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 12(1), pp.55-66

Tan, A.K.J., 1999. Forest fires of Indonesia: State responsibility and international liability. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 48(4), pp.826-855.

Tata, H. L., Narendra, B. H., Mawazin, M., 2018. Forest and land fires in Pelalawan District, Riau, Indonesia: Drivers, pressures, impacts and responses. Biodiversitas. Journal of Biological Diversity, 19(2), 494-501.

The World Bank, 2001. Indonesia: environment and natural resource management in a time of transition. The World Bank. Washington D.C.

The World Bank. 2015. Indonesia Economic Quarterly: Reforming Amin Uncertainty. Jakarta: The World Bank.

The World Bank, 2016. The cost of fire: an economic analysis of Indonesia’s 2015 fire crisis. Indonesia Sustainable Landscapes Knowledge Note. World Bank, Jakarta, Indonesia

The guardian 2015. Indonesia Forest Fires: Widodo to Visit Stricken Regions as Death Toll Mounts. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/28/indonesia-forest- fires-widodo-visit-stricken-regions-death-toll-mounts. [accessed 24 March 2017].

Tomich, T.P., Van Noordwijk, M., Gillison, A., Kusumanto, T., Murdiyarso, D., Stolle, F., Fagi, A.M., 1998. Alternatives to slash-and-burn in Indonesia: Summary report and synthesis of Phase II.

Tsujino, R., Yumoto, T., Kitamura, S., Djamaluddin, I., Darnaedi, D., 2016. History of forest loss and degradation in Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 57, pp.335-347.

Turetsky, M.R., Benscoter, B., Page, S., Rein, G., Van Der Werf, G.R., Watts, A., 2015. Global vulnerability of peatlands to fire and carbon loss. Nat. Geosci. 8, 11–14.

Van Der Werf, G., 2015. Indonesian fire season progression. Global Fire Data Updates http://www.globalfiredata.org/updates.html [accessed June 24 2018].

Wahyunto, K.N., Ritung, S., Sulaiman, Y., 2014. Indonesian peatland map: method, certainty, and uses. In Wihardjaka et al.(Eds.). Prosiding Seminar Nasional: Pengelolaan Berkelanjutan Lahan Gambut Terdegradasi untuk Mitigasi GRK dan Peningkatan Nilai Ekonomi. Balitbangtan, Kemtan. Jakarta (pp. 18-19).

Warren M.W., Kauffman J.B., Murdiyarso D., Anshari G., Hergoualc’h K., Kurnianto S., Purbopuspito J., Gusmayanti E., Afifudin M., Rahajoe J., Alhamd L., Limin S., Iswandi A. 2012. A cost efficient method to assess carbon stocks in tropical peat soil. Biogeosciences Discussions 9:7049–7071

Warren, M., Hergoualc’h, K., Kauffman, J.B., Murdiyarso, D., Kolka, R., 2017. An appraisal of Indonesia’s immense peat carbon stock using national peatland maps: uncertainties and potential losses from conversion. Carbon balance and management, 12(1), p.12.

World Resources Institute Indonesia (WRI Indonesia). 2018. Support to Peat Restoration Agency. https://wri-indonesia.org/en/our-work/project/support-peat- restoration-agency-badan-restorasi-gambutbrg (accessed: 18 May 2018).

Wösten, J.H.M., Clymans, E., Page, S.E., Rieley, J.O., S.H., Limin, J.H.M., 2008. Peat- water Interrelationship in a Tropical Peatland Ecosystem in Southeast Asia. Science Direct: Catena 73, pp. 212-224.

Yavuz, F., Baycan, T., 2013. Use of swot and analytic hierarchy process integration as a participatory decision making tool in watershed management. Procedia technology, 8, pp.134-143.

Yong, D. L., Peh, K. S., 2016. South-east Asia's forest fires: Blazing the policy trail. Oryx, 50(2), 207-212. doi: http://dx.doi.org.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/10.1017/S003060531400088X

Yuliani F. 2014. Partisipasi Masyarakat dalam Implementasi Kebijakan Pengendalian Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan di Kabupaten Rokan Hilir. University of Riau. Repository. Http://repository.unsri.ac.id/

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Metia Lembasi is a native to Lampung province, Indonesia, where she grew and lived until adulthood. After completing high school she moved to Jogjakarta province to continue her study for a bachelor degree in Forestry majoring Forest Product

Technology at Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia. During her undergraduate study,

Metia found herself volunteering for a student organization called International Forestry

Students’ Association (IFSA; www.ifsa.net). She began her Master of Science degree at the School of Forest Resources and Conservation in Fall 2016. She will graduate with a concentration in Tropical Conservation and Development and a certificate in Latin

American Studies. Upon graduating, she will return to Indonesia to continue pursuing her dream to work closely with the community and contribute her work various conservation projects.