Translator

Showing posts with label haze. Show all posts
Showing posts with label haze. Show all posts

Tuesday, 16 April 2019

Haze issue in Thailand


Haze: What to do about corn without killing the golden goose?

opinion April 15, 2019 19:44
By Michael Shafer

We have a big, known problem: Corn is a major source of Thailand’s chronic haze crisis. We also have a big, unknown problem: Corn is a link in a multibillion-dollar supply chain that is vital to Thailand and also many of its poorest people.  The really big problem, therefore, is not what to do about corn and corn’s contribution to the haze crisis.

The really big problem is how to fix corn without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Warm Heart Foundation believes it has a low-cost and immediately replicable solution. First, though, it would be useful to review the agricultural origins of the haze crisis.
Corn is nasty stuff. The way we cultivate it in Thailand is inexcusable, no question. Corn burning accounts for much of the Northern haze crisis. Just three Northern provinces, Chiang Rai, Nan and Tak, grow 1.67 million rai of corn – 24 per cent of the national total.) The haze kills and sickens tens of thousands; we all pay for their care.
What’s the corn problem?
Scale. Corn has gone from a regular part of the Thai diet to our biggest and fastest growing crop – that we cannot eat. It’s hog corn, 95 per cent of it unfit for human consumption. How did we get here? Demand for meat, milk and ice cream from a fast growing global and Thai middle class. Chickens, pigs and cows transform corn-based feed into drumsticks, steaks and Magnum bars very inefficiently.
 The cheapest places to grow – and the farmers most desperate to do it – are in the rural North where steep slopes and bad soil are good for nothing else. Laws protect such lands, but the officials charged with enforcement ignore burning forest for new fields because more is better. (In 2017-18, 3.67 million rai of corn – 52 per cent of Thailand’s total – grew in protected forest.) The government itself, with the Thai Animal Feed Association, encouraged rice farmers to plant corn as a second crop in their paddies, to “conserve water”.
What, then, is the problem?
The overwhelming expansion of corn on fragile soils in protected forests that are among the few remaining areas of biodiversity in Thailand. Monocropped corn generates huge pest pressure and demand for pesticides with lethal consequences. Corn itself is a particularly wasteful crop; only 22.2 per cent is kernel, while 78.2 per cent remains in the field to be cleared somehow before the next planting. (Burning is easiest, but since more than half of fields lie within forests, the forests burn, too.)
How do you “fix” this sick goose?
A recent article in The Nation highlights the work of leading Thai organisations that understand the problem and have wise solutions (“Thai govt urged to help farmers shift practices”, April 8). As BioThai director Withoon Lienchamroon observes, because just a few large companies, encouraged by government policies, are responsible, it ought to be possible to force a sustainable public-private solution to support integrated farming, not monocropping. Researcher Olarn Ongla adds that policy must also address farmers’ poverty, which prevents them from shifting to more sustainable techniques.
Sounds great – but despite the social costs of haze, neither government nor companies have incentives to play. Today, government and companies confront minimum costs and risks. Government has limited forest monitoring and use-enforcement costs or agricultural extension costs at the rural fringe. Elected with a popular majority, it can ignore protests in an opposition area. Doing nothing also avoids the risk of failure, dangerous when legitimacy depends on the ability to deliver quick, tangible successes. Meanwhile the companies face no risk of more costly corn, the largest cost component in animal production, and can use CSR programmes to placate opposition as they transition to foreign production
Killing the goose that lays the gold
What happens if such a scheme is imposed? The companies exit, with terrible consequences for Thailand. Companies produce corn in the Thai North because land and labour are cheap. If remaining in Thailand becomes too costly, they move to Myanmar. The growing conditions are similar, the labour is cheaper and there is no regulation. With the Asean Free Trade Agreement, the cost of importing corn to Thailand is minimal, although transportation is inconvenient. How best to solve that? Move the chickens, hogs and cattle to Myanmar along with the slaughterhouses, etc. The cost is soon paid back by the lower cost of doing business.
As a result, burning in Thailand, forest encroachment and the amount of corn raised decrease. We outsource the problem, but ineffectively. The haze continues from Myanmar, where tens of thousands more people are exposed. Closer to home, tens of thousands of Thais employed in the shipping, care, slaughter and processing of meats and dairy lose their jobs, a fate shared by large numbers of landless farmers. There are no ready replacement crops, sources of demand or funds. Rural communities collapse faster, more uneducated and untrained farmers pour into the cities. Thai imports of chicken, pork and beef spike. The goose is dead without an alternative source of gold ready at hand.
Does the goose have to die?
Warm Heart thinks not. We are small Thai Foundation (CM273) without the international and national funding of big NGOs. We do not make plans for government or for major corporations. We believe that corn is here to stay, essential to the lives of Thailand’s poorest farmers who are forgotten in public discussion. We see a way to resolve the haze crisis through the market and poor farmers’ hunger for better lives: give them incentives and means to profit from not burning their corn waste. Right now.
Warm Heart believes that we, the citizens of the North, can choose between two futures. The next decade can be clouded with haze or small farmers can learn to convert crop waste to biochar and sell it as briquettes or fertiliser.
There is nothing high-tech, high cost, imported or impressive about Warm Heart’s solution. We teach poor farmers to teach other poor farmers to make their own equipment and biochar. An old Thai farmer teaching another farmer to make biochar from crop waste in a small, unkempt field using equipment designed in Thailand and built by the farmer himself is not something that goes on nice websites or merits a write-up in academic journals. But it works. This is not a vague promise. This is not a theoretical possibility. This does not require years of testing. This is known and tested. If tens of thousands of small farmers learned to do this right now, there would be far less haze in the air next year.
Michael Shafer is director of the Warm Heart Foundation in Phrao, Chiang Mai.

Tuesday, 28 August 2018

SEA Haze issue: article Part 2 of 5

Here is part 2 of Michael Shafer's 5-part series. Part 1 can be found by scrolling down...


Cool the Climate, Clean the Environment, Improve Public Health, Reduce Rural Poverty with Small-Scale Biochar - Part 2


President, Board of Directors at Warm Heart Worldwide, Inc. 12 articles

Thursday, 23 August 2018

Crop residue burning in Thailand - WarmHeart (part 1of 5)

Dr Michael Shafer's work with biochar from his 'WarmHeart' base in northern Thailand is well reported here (see WarmHeart tag). Michael is kicking off a 5-part report focused on crop residue burning. Below is his announcement on this to the yahoo international biochar discussion group. It is a highly relevant read for those of us interested in solving regional haze issues.
d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
Aug 21 3:04 AM
"I live in North Thailand where smoke from burning  corn and rice fields blocks the sun a couple of months a year. Burning wheat straw smoke closes Delhi every year, too.

Because most of the farmers who burn are poor and small, collecting their crop waste for central processing is uneconomical and their fields are too small, too steep, too rocky to plow, even if they could afford a tractor.

They are so poor, however, that converting their crop waste to biochar makes lots of sense. Establishing village-scale social enterprises to process local biochar into value added products is also not only appealing to farmers but a replicable way to solve the crop waste burning problem where it starts - in small farmers' fields.

This is the first of a five part series in which I make the case for a small-scale biochar social enterprise business model for addressing the problem. The remaining four will appear over the next few weeks.


I would welcome any comments, suggestions, corrections or criticisms."


photo
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart
61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

Monday, 17 April 2017

Fire Free Alliance and biochar?

There are some interesting carbon threads between the current ideas at FFA and my previous post on Michael Shafer article. Check out the video linked below...

http://www.firefreealliance.org/blog/w27tS5T6Z9PHAtyfv

Climate change, developed world v. developing world and biochar

Michael Shafer's article (abstract below) is provocative and worthy contribution the climate change debate. It is being discussed within the biochar community. If you want to join this discussion, ahead of the formal publication of his article, then please get in touch.

Climate change, developed world v. developing world and biochar

Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Director, Warm Heart Foundation, A.Phrao, Chiang Mai

Abstract

Because we are among the world’s 1.2 billion rich people and not its 5.4 billion poor, it is easy to think about the climate crisis, solutions to the climate crisis and sustainability in terms of developed world actions and initiatives. Given the focus of diplomatic, media, policy, and scientific attention, this is entirely understandable. It is also entirely wrongheaded. If you ask, Where can we most easily improve environmental outcomes? Achieve sustainability? Reverse climate change? To say nothing of, where can we alleviate the most suffering and promote the greatest good? The answers are all found in the developing world. Environmental action in the developing world by and for the world’s poorest 2.54 billion people, very small farmers, can do more right now and at less cost to advance our shared interest in global sustainability than anything else imaginable.

What is to be done? Convince billions of small farmers in the developing world to turn their crop wastes into biochar instead of burning it. How? By providing small farmers a profitable business proposition to take up biochar production through imitation, not outside intervention, and by developing markets for any biochar they produce in excess of what they can use on their farms.

On the face of it, this easily stated proposal seems ridiculous. Building businesses, profit incentives, and making markets in the wilderness to say nothing of convincing billions of illiterate farmers to do anything pose an immense challenge. What is biochar? What does burning crop wastes have to do with the crisis of our times? Why should we even consider handing over such a complex problem to the low-tech that mere peasants can manage when this is obviously a problem for the world’s best and brightest working in its top research labs?

Because engaging billions of illiterate farmers in local markets for biochar is easier, cheaper and faster than any other option. Because biochar is solid CO2 removed from the atmosphere, smoke removed from the air, smog kept from happening and food security for billions. Because burning crop wastes contribute as much to climate change as India. Because stopping the burning by converting to biochar production would remove hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere annually and save millions of lives. Because the best and the brightest have no high-tech solutions at hand in their labs. Because the poor are ready, willing and able to save us right now. Because we are out of time.


Purpose
The purpose of this entirely non-traditional paper is not to challenge an existing theory, provide a new one or even offer new data. Its purpose is not to specify or clarify distinctions in data. Rather, its aim is to connect and integrate, to create a single narrative that binds large, complex and normally separate realms for the purpose of permitting action. This paper builds on well-established science, but into order to forge a compelling tale that “fits together” otherwise disparate pieces. It is not science, but scientifically informed story telling. Why? Not to denigrate science, but because policy-makers, politicians and the public are moved by stories, not science.

I start by reconceiving climate change as a poor man’s problem, now and in the future, as climate interacts with population growth to further imperil food security for the world’s poorest. Second, I suggest how the immediacy of the climate crisis in the developing world gives the poor a fundamentally different perspective than the rich. The rich feel that they can continue the effort to slow the rate at which we add carbon to the atmosphere; the poor must pursue efforts to remove carbon and reverse climate change. I then present crop waste burning in the developing world and its consequences for climate change and public health. Fourth, I connect crop waste burning to poor farmers who contribute much to climate change, and are the first to suffer its consequences. With the pieces assembled, I next introduce biochar which if made by these small farmers provides them a powerful soil amendment to improve soil quality, plant health and crop yields, and in the making sequesters CO2 and averts the emission of smog precursors and particulates. Finally, I take up implementation, or, rather, “how to avoid the question: who pays?”

Climate change in context: The poor man’s problem
The climate change consequences of crop waste burning
The health consequences of crop waste burning
Poverty and crop burning
How can we deliver a better life to billions of small, poor farmers?
Where is the problem?
Is there a way out?
Making a market for biochar
Putting biochar back into a bigger picture
Conclusion
 

 

Saturday, 1 April 2017

Climate change, developed world v. developing world and biochar

Climate change, developed world v. developing world and biochar [link to article]

Dr. D. Michael Shafer

Director, Warm Heart Foundation, A.Phrao, Chiang Mai

"Because we are among the world’s 1.2 billion rich people and not its 5.4 billion poor, it is easy to think about the climate crisis, solutions to the climate crisis and sustainability in terms of developed world actions and initiatives. Given the focus of diplomatic, media, policy, and scientific attention, this is entirely understandable. It is also entirely wrongheaded. If you ask, Where can we most easily improve environmental outcomes? Achieve sustainability? Reverse climate change? To say nothing of where can we alleviate the most suffering and promote the greatest good? The answers are all found in the developing world. Environmental action in the developing world by and for the 2.54 billion of the world’s poorest people, very small farmers, can do more right now and at less cost to advance our shared interest in global sustainability than anything else imaginable.

What is to be done? Train billions of small farmers in the developing world to turn their crop wastes into biochar instead of burning it. ..."

Conclusion

"The conclusions that follow from this extended argument should be encouraging for the developed world reader not attempting to commercialize biochar. Stated a boldly as possible: (1) Because the climate change calamity falls largely on the developing world, it must mobilize to solve the problem, not merely postpone it. (2) Unlike the developed world, where much depends on intergovernmental and even inter-nongovernmental organization coordination – a huge task – the remedy required in the developing world requires no coordination and little government action. (3) Developed world efforts to reverse climate change are nascent and decades from ramp up, the technology and project required to remove billions of tons of CO 2 from the atmosphere is ready and waiting in developing world. (4) The developed world winces at the cost of development assistance, but two critical details recommend the proposed program: it clearly serves the interest of the developed world and it will reduce future spending on such financial black hole programs as health and food aid. (5) Finally, because the proposed program works by creating incentives for the world’s poorest to help themselves, it is an investment in reducing climate change’s most salient political challenge: how to manage the hordes of hunger refugees who will storm the borders of the developed world?"

Sunday, 26 February 2017

Michael waves the black flag via Eco-business.com


Can biochar make climate change a profitable business opportunity?

In a world frozen in a futile debate on climate change, can we break the ice with win-win, sustainable solutions like biochar? Michael Shafer from NGO Warm Heart Worldwide thinks we can.



http://www.eco-business.com/opinion/can-biochar-make-climate-change-a-profitable-business-opportunity/



Wednesday, 2 November 2016

Biochar action at Masarang foundation, Indonesia

The following link leads to a summary on biochar activities at Masarang. I'm a little late finding this but the action is ongoing...
http://masarang.nl/en/?s=biochar&ixsl=1
There are some strong links here to long term haze solutions.

“Nature conservation through collaboration with and development of the local population”

That is the mission of Masarang, our foundation in Indonesia, founded in 2001 by Dr. Eng. Willie Smits.
Masarang finds solutions for the most urgent global problems of our time: deforestation, biodiversity loss, climate change, poverty and underdevelopment.
More information about Masarang and Willie Smits
or see the film about
The solution of palmsugar and the village hub
Photo above: The Masarang mountain after a successful reforestation project of the Masarang Foundation, began in 2000.

Friday, 29 April 2016

Thinking big about haze in Thailand

Michael Shafer, director of the Warm Heart Foundation offers some thoughtful comments on Thailand's version of the regional haze issue. I cut the following comments related to biochar from the article published by 'The Nation' newspaper. The full article is available here.

CP are The Charoen Pokphand Group


"...What might such a solution look like?

The problem is hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste corn stalk that farmers have no option but to burn in order to clear their fields for the next crop. CP can teach farmers how to turn their corn stalk into a valuable product: biochar. Biochar, a pure form of charcoal, is made using a process called "pyrolysis" that produces no smoke, no black carbon, and virtually no greenhouse gases. The production of biochar is also carbon-negative, meaning that it removes CO2 from the atmosphere, reversing global warming.

To encourage farmers to make biochar, CP can include the purchase of the biochar made from contract corn stalks in the same contracts as for the purchase of corn kernel.

CP also owns large pig farms where it has manure management problems. Biochar is an excellent absorbent, capable of absorbing huge quantities of pig urine. It also dramatically reduces smells by adsorbing the ammonia and other noxious gases produced by pig urine and manure that make it smell so foul. Conveniently, mixing biochar with pig urine and manure creates a very effective organic fertiliser.

At the start of a growing season CP can distribute the biochar fertiliser to farmers in lieu of distributing synthetic fertiliser as they often do now. The reduction in synthetic fertiliser costs will fund biochar purchases, while the biochar fertiliser will improve farmers' soils and yields because it provides many more benefits than synthetics, including the capacity to retain water. Biochar fertilisers have the added benefit that biochar "locks up" pesticides in the soil. This reduces the risk of toxins entering the food chain and reduces the amount of toxic run-off from fields.

Taking such a "life-cycle" approach - from field waste and manure to fertiliser and feed - CP joins the ranks of a corporate elite, companies that make environmental sustainability part of the way they do business, and distinguishes itself from the majority of companies that talk about the environment without making it part of business operations. Such public relations is literally priceless, because it cannot be bought, but will serve CP well as it deals with consumer pressure groups in Europe.

If CP offers such a solution to the "corn crisis", it secures all five of the values we seek to protect. Farmers continue to get corn contracts and now get contracts for biochar made from their corn waste. Public health improves because every tonne of corn waste that is "pyrolysed" keeps six kilograms of smoke from being released into the air. The economy of the North gets a boost because the poor have more money in their pockets which, being poor, they spend immediately. The Thai economy can continue to grow as consumers do not face higher meat prices, chicken exports do not fall, and thousands of jobs and billions of baht of economic activity do not move to Myanmar. Thailand sharply reduces its national carbon footprint as the reduction in field burning cuts black carbon releases and the rise in biochar production cuts GHG emissions and sequesters three tonnes of CO2 for every tonne of biochar produced.

..."
Michael Shafer is director of the Warm Heart Foundation based in A Phrao, Chiang Mai.


There is a overlapping story here for the annual haze issues emanating from forestry and plantation activity in Indonesia (some of it controlled by Malaysian & Singaporean interests). Check out 13 previous posts on the haze issue and its solutions here.

Saturday, 12 March 2016

More media coverage on WarmHeart Haze solution

Biochar: a profitable solution to Thailand’s haze problem

... "Why not develop a solution to the haze problem that turns waste corn stalks into a valuable product?

This is what Theerasak Charassrivisist, director of the Chiang Mai Provincial Energy Office, is doing. Theerasak is teaching farmers how to turn their corn stalk and corncob into "biochar" - a pure form of charcoal - using do-it-yourself technology. "Pyrolysed" corn waste produces no smoke, no particulates, almost no greenhouse gases and actually removes CO2 from the atmosphere." ...

Sunday, 28 February 2016

Warm Heart shows a new way forward on haze issues

Could this be a pointer to wider solutions for haze in Indonesia? When plantations and commercial agriculture recognize the value the carbon in waste biomass then we may have found an economic, social and environmentally acceptable solution.



Some earlier posts on this...
http://sea-biochar.blogspot.my/search/label/haze

Tuesday, 16 February 2016

Palm oil sustainability prioritisation survey (ARPOS)

I'm engaged with ARPOS on getting biochar into their, and the palm oil industry sustainability agenda. The email text below from Dr Rory Padfield is self-explanatory. Biochar and biochar related issues are included in the survey...

"Dear ARPOS members,

As some of you will be aware a project was launched last year to identify priority research questions for the study of palm oil sustainability. Following an initial workshop to establish the broad research themes (13 in total) held at the Corus Hotel in March 2015, a series of stakeholder engagement activities and an on-line survey resulted in 185 individual research questions submitted by stakeholders. Many of you kindly submitted your questions and also forwarded the survey to your palm oil networks.

We are now in the final stage of the research project where these 185 questions will be prioritized by palm oil stakeholders. This final stage is important since it will help us understand where we should be focusing our research efforts (activities, funding, academic debate, etc) to achieve palm oil sustainability. Furthermore, the result of this survey will help set the basis for ARPOS' 1st Research Strategy document. This will be presented at the ARPOS AGM in April 2016.

Thus, I wish to request your kind assistance to help with the following:

1) Please spend a few minutes to fill out the on-line survey yourself. The link is below.

2) Please circulate the survey (or this email) to your respective networks and/or individual contacts who may be interested to participate in the survey. Please note that this survey presents an opportunity for palm oil stakeholders to influence the direction of future research into palm oil sustainability.

On-line survey link:

Many thanks for your cooperation.

Best wishes,
Rory"

Monday, 2 November 2015

Tuesday, 7 July 2015

Biochar, Top Lit Open Burn Brush Pile Style

Steve has done a great job describing his experience with a top-lit pile burn.
If biochar and carbon has a value to plantations in the future, then this simple method may be the starting point for a biochar production revolution.

Sunday, 13 July 2014

Not-to-be-missed new video on simple biochar production

Kon-Tiki - open burn deep cone kiln for biochar




There's a bit of a buzz in the biochar community over these type of cone kilns (TFOD) and 'Moxham' kilns. Backyard biochar has led the way on this... http://backyardbiochar.net/

Although not stated, I think this video has been put together by Hans-Peter Schmidt at the Ithaka Institute in Switzerland during a recent visit by Paul Taylor.

This type of simple, low cost, versatile and relatively clean biochar production may be the way forward for many home biochar production scenarios. It looks particularly suitable for unprocessed woody biomass. It may even offer a better solution than 200L TLUD's for my suggested haze reduction project.

I will be visiting the Ithaka Institute later this month and hope to progress biochar plantation trials later in the year. The plantation companies will want to see some economic validation for biochar before there is any investment in biochar production or large scale support for developing plantation biomass to biochar projects.

Thursday, 28 November 2013

Biochar burn school results - another haze reduction strategy?

Where open burning is legal and unavoidable, the technique demonstrated here offers benefits for pollution / haze reduction and biochar production.
"A quick summary of results of experiments in open burn techniques to minimize smoke and maximize charcoal production. Experiments were conducted by volunteers over a 3 day period, November 15-17, 2013, outside of Grants Pass, Oregon."


http://www.slideshare.net/kelpiew/biochar-burn-school-results

Saturday, 10 August 2013

Dr Paul Olivier visits Malaysia - regional TLUD development

The following comments are Co/ Dr Paul Olivier, cut from a recent post to the "Improved Biomass Cooking Stoves" discussion list (you may need to sign up to access original post... and its not archived at the time of posting).

..."I just returned last week from Malaysia in order to look into the gasification of palm kernal shells. This looks quite feasible, even without forming these shells into pellets. But bottled gas in relatively rich Malaysia is very cheap compared to relatively poor Vietnam, because the Malaysian government subsidizes bottled gas. At the same time, Singapore and large parts of Malaysia were recently subjected to dangerous levels of smoke from the large-scale burning of biomass in Sumatra over a period of several weeks. The entire city of Singapore was virtually shut down for a few weeks. Once again, why bother with biomass stoves as long as governments are willing to subsidize the price of bottled gas? After all, no biomass stove can match the safety (low CO and low PM), convenience (the simple twist of a knob) and turn-down ratio (1 to 99) of bottled gas.

I design biomass stoves the way I do primarily because I believe something should be done about global warming and ocean acidification. Here in Vietnam huge quantities of rice hulls, rice straw, coffee husks, pine forest debris and many other types of biomass are uselessly burned, while many people, especially in urban areas, burn coal and bottled gas to cook their food. So ridiculous. At the same time large portions of the Mekong (the center of food production in Vietnam) will soon be under water as sea levels continue to rise at their current rate.

But replacing bottled gas is not my only goal. Burying biochar is also critical in combating global warming and ocean acidification. Here CO2 is pulled from the air and locked in the soil for hundreds of years. At the same time, there are the many benefits of biochar that I have read about from scientists such as Ogawa (AM fungi), Lehmann and Joseph (a member of this stove list). Also in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, we have done more than 22 biochar studies with biochar from my gasifiers. These studies show remarkable numbers with regard to plant and animal growth. Then finally, in the city where I live, rice hull biochar is a hot commodity when incorporated into potting soils in greenhouses. Why burn biochar when it sells at such a good price, especially when it is worth far more than the biomass from which it was derived? So I cannot help but conclude that stoves that do not burn biochar, but make it, are incredibly important. Also, if I were to burn biochar within the reactor of my TLUD, this would be such an inefficient exercise, since the distance between the pot and the burning biochar would be so great.

No, it makes so much sense to keep the biochar. We can feed biochar to pigs, cows and chickens. We then take the solid waste from these animals and feed it to BSF larvae. We then take the residue of the larvae and feed it to red worms, and finally we take the vermi-compost loaded with biochar back to the soil. The biochar passes through the gut of three creatures before it gets incorporated into the soil. When we put biochar in a dry bedding for pigs and cows, listen carefully, there is no urine or ammonia smell. We have virtually odorless pig pens. The pigs play in the bedding and even eat it. More than 60 farmers in the area have now adopted this way of raising pigs. All of these farmer use biochar. Also there are no flies around these pig pens. Antibiotics are no longer used. Not a single piglet gets diarrhea.

The pig farmers make rice wine, and the mash gets fed to the pigs. I will start supplying gasifiers to these pig farmers for the distillation of their rice wine. The burning of low-grade biomass for rice wine distillation will stop. The farmers will then be able to make their own biochar to incorporate into pig bedding...
"

Sunday, 28 July 2013

Haze, Slash&burn and palm oil plantations in Indonesia

I have posted a number of times on the haze issue that afflicts Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore on an annual basis (search on "haze" for 3 previous posts).  I recently discussed this subject with a senior executive from a major plantation company (lets call him Mazlan). This is how he described the situation in Sumatra to me (please excuse any over-simplification - I'm sure there may be many variations to the theme):

Major international palm oil plantation companies negotiate access to land (in Sumatra) with both state and federal authorities in Indonesia. They are granted initial 3-year concessions (I am not sure what criteria must be met in this period - but I assume it would relate to negotiating final agreements with all affected parties) prior to the major financial commitment involved in establishing the plantation and its required infrastructure.

A large plantation company will invariably be looking for large contiguous blocks of land under a concession but maybe only 50% of this land will be suitable for plantation conversion. The balance may be protected or physically unsuitable or under the control of existing small holders or villagers.  I have heard that land tenure and ownership is at the heart of the many problems associated with the rural poor in Indonesia. This issue was reinforced to me by Mazlan, who also claimed that many of these rural landless poor will seek to advantage themselves when major land deals are in progress by moving into the land concession blocks.

Mazlan points out that his company's practices strictly adhere to RSPO rules... there is no open burning on the land under their direct control. The burning is carried out by the existing land-holders, villagers or migrant poor. The plantation company has no powers or rights to enforce the 'no open burning' laws or rules. The people living within their concession areas can not be forcibly removed or controlled by the plantation company. This is the responsibility of the Indonesian government (be it local, regional or federal). I can not verify any of this but it does seem plausible.

I can easily imagine the difficulties faced by government authorities in trying to enforce any burning ban. I can also understand the position of the rural poor in trying to clear land quickly for planting, enhance their poor soil fertility with ash, retain claim over land by clearing or even to just high-lighting their remote, marginal existence by sending smoke signals to the urban wealthy.
I would like to offer up a long term solution (and no surprise, it has biochar at it heart)...

Nutrient management is one of the major cost components for a palm oil plantation. This is due to the inherently poor fertility of most tropical soils and the intensive extractive nature of plantation agriculture. Biochar offers the possibility for a revolution in nutrient use efficiency in tropical agriculture along with many other proven soil and water holding benefits. Some plantation companies are starting to take notice and have begun some small scale research trials (much more could and should be done).

Lets take a small leap of faith here and assume biochar can replace some of the mineral fertilizers that are regularly applied to the plantation palms. This gives biochar an economic value, creating the potential for local biochar production and its associated supply chain developing within and around the plantation. Biomass will be too valuable to just burn - it will become the feedstock for the plantation-driven local biochar production industry. Training and equipping local people to produce biochar is relatively simple but the incentive to work must be based on a real economic value of the product. Lets assume a biochar value similar to urea... say $US300/T.  One man with a simple 200L drum TLUD could earn $30/day? My list of the benefits...
  • Local communities
  1. Work, income and all of the poverty reduction, social cohesion and local development that comes with economic stability.
  2. Improved health - they are on the haze front line.
  3. Sustainable agricultural practices that come with biochar.
  • Plantation companies
  1. All the potential benefits that can come with biochar in the soil (economic and environmental)... reduced fertilizer requirements, improved crop productivity, improved water holding capacity, improved plant & soil health, reduced carbon footprint (from fertilizer transport, carbon sequestration, GHG emissions reductions), reduced nutrient & sediment erosion leading to better water quality. 
  2. A local biochar industry will help meet CSR and TBL (economic, social, environmental reporting) goals including carbon sequestration.
  3. Plantation biomass can be directed toward biochar at a later stage, after the costs, benefits & risks have been assessed. When large scale pyrolysis systems are integrated (CHP) into palm oil mills, many other benefits will flow to the plantation companies.
  • Regional governments (and us!)
  1. Haze reduction...
  2. economic growth
  3. carbon sequestration
Dr Christoph Steiner proposed a Slash&char alternative to the Slash&burn activities he studied in Brazil as part of his PhD thesis. His book may also offer some insights on biochar based solutions.

Tuesday, 9 July 2013

NZ project funding for Eastern Indonesia (biochar project opportunity?)

The following announcement is currently on the NZ Government Electronic Tender System GETS. This looks like a great opportunity for a biochar related project... maybe based around TLUD stoves or community scale equipment such as Adam Retort. Please get in touch if your organization is interested or you know of a groups with the credentials and possible interest. I hope to be able to assist with finding local or NZ collaboration partners.

Design and implementation of an agriculture activity in Eastern Indonesia

"The New Zealand Aid Programme, acting through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) is seeking registrations of interest (ROI) from suitably qualified and experienced organisations to partner with MFAT on the design and implementation of an agriculture activity that:
• improves economic opportunities for marginalised communities; and
• increases economic returns through improved agricultural productivity and/or agribusiness development
in one or more provinces in eastern Indonesia (Papua, West Papua, Maluku, North Maluku, Nusa Tenggara Timur, Nusa Tengara Barat).
MFAT’s indicative budget for this Activity is NZD4.5m over 3 years. Interested organisations will need to demonstrate experience of managing projects of this scale and MFAT will carry out due diligence during its procurement process to ensure that applicants have the capacity and capability to manage New Zealand government funding.
Further details on the work required and background on this Activity are contained in the attached ROI document.
Questions relating to this ROI must be received in writing to the official contact person by 12:00pm (NZ time) on Friday 12 July 2013."
Response date is 16 July - please let me know if you want a copy of the ROI document from the GETS site.
http://www.aid.govt.nz/where-we-work/asia/indonesia