The Tropical Peatlands in Indonesia and Global Environmental Change: A Multi-Dimensional System-Based Analysis and Policy Implications

Abstract

Tropical peatlands store approximately 105 gigatons of carbon (GtC), serving as vital long-term carbon sinks, yet remain critically underrepresented in climate policy. Indonesia peatlands contain 57GtC—the largest tropical peatland carbon stock in the Asia–Pacific. However, decades of drainage, fires, and lax enforcement practices have degraded vast peatland areas, turning them from carbon sinks into emission sources—as evidenced by the 1997 and 2015 peatland fires which emitted 2.57 Gt CO₂eq and 1.75 Gt CO₂eq, respectively. Using system theory validated against historical data (1997–2023), we develop a causal loop model revealing three interconnected feedback loops driving irreversible collapse: (1) drainage–desiccation–oxidation, where water table below −40 cm triggers peat oxidation (2–5 cm subsistence) and fires; (2) fire–climate–permafrost, wherein emissions intensify radiative forcing, destabilizing monsoons and accelerating Arctic permafrost thaw (+15% since 2000); and (2) economy–governance failure, perpetuated by palm oil’s economic dominance and slack regulatory oversight. To break these vicious cycles, we propose a precautionary framework featuring IoT-enforced water table (≤40 cm), reducing emissions by 34%, legally protected “Global Climate Stabilization Zones” for peat domes (>3 m depth), safeguarding 57 GtC, and ASEAN transboundary enforcement funded by a 1–3% palm oil levy. Without intervention, annual emissions may reach 2.869 GtCO₂e by 2030 (Nationally Determined Contribution’s business-as-usual scenario). Conversely, rewetting 590 km²/year aligns with Indonesia’s FOLU Net Sink 2030 target (−140 Mt CO₂e) and mitigates 1.4–1.6 MtCO₂ annually. We conclude that integrating peatlands as irreplaceable climate infrastructure into global policy is essential for achieving Paris Agreement goals and SDGs 13–15.

1. Introduction

Tropical peatlands are among the most carbon-dense ecosystems on Earth, storing approximately 105 gigatons of carbon (GtC) [1,2,3]. These ecosystems play a critical role in the global carbon cycle, sequestering carbon over millennia—far exceeding the decadal cycles of forests [4]. Their capacity to act as long-term carbon sinks makes them indispensable for achieving the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to below 2 °C and advancing Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13 (climate action) [5]. However, human-driven degradation—through agricultural expansion, logging, and drainage—is rapidly converting these vital carbon reservoirs into significant emission sources [6].

Indonesia, hosting the Asia–Pacific’s largest tropical peatlands, epitomizes the global peatland crisis. Over 50% of its 15 million hectares of peat has been degraded, emitting an average of 0.90 gigatonnes of CO₂ annually (GtCO₂/yr) between 2000 and 2006. Under business-as-usual trajectories, annual emissions are projected to surge to 1.4 GtCO₂ by 2025 [7]. Indonesia’s National Determined Contribution (NDC) estimated that emissions may reach 2.869 GtCO₂e by 2030 without intervention [8]. These emissions culminate in catastrophic nonlinear events, exemplified by the 2015 peat fires—the most severe since 1997—which released 1.75 GtCO₂ through combustion [9] and contributed 71% of Indonesia’s total PM_2.5 emissions during September–October 2015 [10]. This pollution exacerbates regional haze crises, biodiversity collapse, and Arctic permafrost destabilization [11,12].

Critically, peatland fires inflict irreversible biodiversity collapse at scales unmatched by illegal logging. Where selective logging gradually fragments habitats (typically disturbing <10% of canopy cover annually), fires trigger near-instantaneous ecosystem obliteration [9]. During the 2002 Mega Rice Project in Central Kalimantan, drainage-enabled fires consumed 27–33 cm of peat [13,14]—erasing over 500 years of carbon accumulation. This instantaneous loss had the following effects:

• It decimated keystone species: Bornean orangutan populations plummeted >50% in fire zones due to habitat incineration, including vital seed banks necessary for forest regeneration.
• It induced permanent hydrological collapse: it altered watershed hydrology across 2.7 million hectares, converting peat domes into fire-prone wastelands.
• It amplified carbon feedback: burned peatlands emit >3× more CO₂e/ha/year than degraded forests [15] creating self-reinforcing emission cycles.

The resulting landscape-scale disruption triggers transboundary haze events (affecting 75 million people) [16] and economic losses exceeding USD 16.1 billion [17]—directly contravening SDG 15 (terrestrial ecosystems), SDG 3 (health), and SDG 13 (climate action). This represents an irreversible tipping point: once ignited, peatland fires convert millennia-old carbon sinks into permanent emission sources, accelerating global biogeochemical feedback loops.

Current Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs) such as the Lund–Potsdam–Jena General Ecosystem Simulator (LPJ-GUESS) and the Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (TEM) inadequately capture nonlinear peatland-climate feedback due to oversimplified hydrological dynamics [18,19]. For instance, these models fail to represent critical thresholds such as irreversible peat drying below 40 cm water tables, which trigger subsidence (about 5 cm/year) and oxidative carbon loss [20]. Field studies in Indonesia demonstrate that restoring water tables to ≤40 cm reduces CO₂ emissions by 20–34% per 10 cm rise [21], highlighting gaps in model parameterization. Perturbed peatlands exhibit nonlinear transitions, (for example, drainage → fire → haze → Arctic feedback loops), creating cascading impacts that destabilize regional hydrology (e.g., 15–20% rainfall decline in Jambi Province) and accelerate global permafrost thaw [15,22].

To address these limitations, this study employs systems theory to evaluate the reciprocal relationships between peatland degradation and global environmental change. Systems theory provides the foundational lens to conceptualize peatlands as complex adaptive systems where ecological, hydrological, and socio-economic components interact through feedback loops across scales (Section 6). This framework recognizes the following [23,24]:

• Nonlinear Dynamics: Nonlinear dynamics occur when small perturbations trigger disproportionately large impacts due to thresholds, for example, irreversible peat drying at <100% moisture.
• Feedback Loops: Describe circular cause–effect relationships where outputs of a system reinforce (positive feedback) or counteract (negative feedback) initial changes. For example, drainage lowers peatland water tables, increasing flammability and CO₂ emissions, which further desiccate peat soils—a self-reinforcing cycle (see, Section 6).
• Emergence: System-wide behaviors such as peat collapse arise from close interactions of system components.
• Multi-scale Coupling: Local actions cascade through subsystems via teleconnections.

In this study, systems theory is employed to analyze how interactions between ecological, socio-economic, and institutional elements drive system behavior, enabling holistic insights into challenges like peatland degradation. This approach captures interdependencies often overlooked in siloed analyses.

The primary objectives of this study are twofold:

• To develop a systems causality model capturing multi-scale feedback loops between local peatland degradation, such as drainage and fires, and global environmental change, integrating ecological, hydrological, and socio-economic drivers through the lens of thresholds and emergent properties.
• To propose actionable governance strategies prioritizing proactive protection over reactive mitigation, aligned with the SDGs and Paris Agreement.

While our model does not employ quantitative equations, its design and validation align with best practices for qualitative systems analysis in environmental policy research. As mentioned above, this study employs a qualitative systems causality model designed to map relationships between peatland degradation drivers and global change impacts such as CO₂ emissions and biodiversity loss. The model prioritizes conceptual clarity over quantitative simulations, as its goal is to identify feedback loops and policy leverage points rather than generate numerical predictions.

1.1. Indonesia as a Critical Case Study

Indonesia hosts 23–24 million hectares (36%) of the world’s tropical peatlands [25,26]. By analyzing its peatland dynamics, this research offers a blueprint for peat-rich regions like the Amazon and Congo Basin to enhance sustainable peat resource use and management.

1.2. Study Proposals

(i)

Precautionary Governance:

• Preemptive governance of peatland thresholds through IoT enforcement, (water tables ≤ 40 cm) and corporate liability for violations.
• Adaptive 50-year protection transitioning to permanent safeguards.

(ii)

Global Climate Stabilization Zones:

• Legally designate deep peat domes (>3 m) as non-negotiable reserves.

(iii)

Precision Monitoring:

• IoT/LIDAR networks for real-time fire and subsidence detection.
• Blockchain-tracked deforestation ban.

(iv)

ASEAN Transboundary Enforcement:

• Regional firefighting protocols and palm oil levy (1–3%) funding rewetting, community programs, and technology upgrades.

These strategies align with SDGs 13–15 and the Paris Agreement, prioritizing peatlands as irreplaceable climate infrastructure.

This paper is structured as follows:

• Section 2: Literature review on peatland–climate dynamics and policy gaps.
• Section 3: Methodology integrating systems theory and causal loop modeling.
• Section 4: Results on emissions, biodiversity loss, and hydrological impacts.
• Section 5: Discussion of Indonesia’s peatland degradation drivers.
• Section 6: Systems theory framework for multi-scale feedback analysis.
• Section 7: Discussion.
• Section 8: Policy implications for proactive governance and transboundary enforcement.
• Section 9: Conclusions advocating peatlands as global climate infrastructure.

2. Literature Review

Tropical peatlands have emerged as critical ecosystems in global climate and biodiversity debates. Recent research has explored their degradation drivers, restoration strategies, and socio-ecological impacts through diverse disciplinary lenses. Mishra et al. (2021) [27], for instance, synthesize the biophysical dynamics of peatland degradation in Southeast Asia, emphasizing drainage, agricultural expansion, and fires as primary drivers of ecosystem collapse. Grounded in ecosystem management theory, their work advocates for restoration strategies like rewetting and revegetation but narrowly focuses on ecological recovery, sidelining socio-political complexities such as land tenure conflicts. Similarly, Sasmito et al. (2025) [28] employ quantitative modeling to estimate the carbon mitigation potential of peatland conservation, highlighting the role of policy interventions. While their land-use science approach underscores the urgency of reducing emissions, it neglects the institutional fragmentation that often undermines policy implementation in regions like Kalimantan.

Climate-centric studies further illustrate the limitations of siloed frameworks. Hapsari et al. (2022) [23] drawing on paleoecology and climate science, trace the long-term impacts of sea-level rise on Indonesian peatlands and propose adaptive measures like fire management. However, their analysis lacks actionable pathways for integrating these measures into national climate policies. Harenda et al. (2018) [24], rooted in carbon cycle theory, position peatlands as vital carbon sinks but adopt a linear cause–effect model, for example, drainage → emissions → climate impacts, overlooking feedback loops such as climate-induced droughts exacerbating degradation. This linearity persists even in socio-ecological studies: Budiningsih et al. (2024) [29], for example, stress multi-stakeholder collaboration in restoration efforts but treat ecological recovery and community livelihoods as parallel processes rather than interconnected systems.

A notable exception is Osaki et al. (2024) [30], whose transdisciplinary "Peatlogy" framework bridges natural sciences, social sciences, and policy-making. By analyzing circular interactions between peatland hydrology, land-use decisions, and governance, they challenge reductionist paradigms. Yet, their work stops short of developing a causality model to quantify these relationships, leaving a critical gap in tools for systemic analysis.

Collectively, these studies reveal three unresolved challenges. First, reductionist approaches dominate, with most works isolating ecological, carbon, or socio-economic dimensions rather than addressing their interdependencies. Second, linear frameworks—such as “drainage → emissions → climate change”—ignore feedback loops like climate feedback intensifying degradation. Third, scale disconnects persist: local impacts such as biodiversity loss in Sumatra are rarely linked to regional ones such as transboundary haze or global consequences, for example, methane emissions under warming scenarios.

Similarly, in Indonesia, current policies such as Indonesia’s PP 57/2016 focus on reactive mitigation, for example, post-fire restoration, but fail to address nonlinear degradation thresholds such as irreversible peat drying or transboundary feedback loops, for instance, haze-driven permafrost thaw. This study fills this gap by advocating for precautionary governance that prioritizes indefinite protection over costly post hoc fixes.

To address these gaps, this study introduces a systems causality model that integrates ecological, socio-economic, and political dimensions into a unified framework. Unlike prior studies, the model captures circular causality—for instance, drainage-driven peat drying increases fire risk, which accelerates carbon emissions and climate feedback loops, further destabilizing peatlands. It also bridges scale disconnects by linking local drivers, for example, oil palm expansion in Riau, to regional impacts such as hydrological disruption across Southeast Asia and global outcomes, for example, carbon emission contributions to atmospheric CO₂ levels. By synthesizing transdisciplinary insights, the model advances beyond siloed approaches, offering a holistic tool to analyze degradation and design policies that balance ecological resilience with human needs.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area

This study focused on Indonesia’s tropical peatlands, with primary emphasis on Kalimantan (Section 5), home to one of the country’s largest peatland areas and the region most severely affected by recurrent fires and with the highest rates of burning [31].

3.2. Data Collection

This study synthesized remote sensing data including Landsat-derived peat-fire carbon emissions data spanning major fire events (1997–2023) from two key sources:

(i)

The peer-reviewed literature, focused on drivers of peatland degradation such as drainage and fires and associated impacts including CO₂ emissions, biodiversity loss.

(ii)

Policy documents from Indonesian governmental agencies, including but not limited to the following:

• Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK/MoEF):

  »

  Rencana Strategis Tahun 2020–2024 (Revisi 2021) [Strategic Plan 2020–2024 (2021 Revision)] (KLHK, 2021) [32].

  »

  FOLU NET SINK: Indonesia’s Climate Actions Towards 2030 [33].

  »

  The State of Indonesia’s Forests 2024: Towards Sustainability of Forest Ecosystems in Indonesia (MoEF, 2024) [34].

• Legal enactments, such as

  »

  Government Regulation 71/2014 and Government Regulation No. 57/2016 and on Peat Protection;

  »

  Presidential Instruction No. 1/2016 on the Establishment of the Peatland Restoration Agency (BRG).

• IUCN biodiversity data.

3.3. Systems Causality Modeling Approach

Figure 1 and

Table 1. Model component definitions.

Term	Category	Description
Oil palm expansion	Core driver	Conversion of peat forests to plantations
Peat drainage	Problem source	Artificial water removal for agriculture
Water < 4 cm	Critical threshold	Water depth triggering flammable conditions
Peat drying	Degradation process	Moisture loss from drained peat
Fires	Amplifying risk	Peatland wildfires
CO2 emission	Climate driver	GHG from decomposition/fire (4.3 Gt/year projected)
Global radiative forcing	Climate impact	Enhanced atmospheric heat trapping
Climate extremes	Systemic consequence	Intensified droughts/heatwaves/storms
Drought	Climate feedback	Prolonged dry periods (prolonged drought dries peatland ponds/streams, destroying aquatic habitats for fish, amphibians, and water-dependent insects)
Subsidence	Physical impact	Ground sinking (>2 cm/year)
Coastal flooding	Secondary impact	Seawater inundation of subsided land
Local biodiversity loss	Ecological cost	Species extinction from habitat destruction
Rewetting policies	Solution mechanism	Water restoration in peatlands

Notes: Table 1 defines key components of tropical peatland degradation systems. It categorizes drivers such as oil palm expansion, processes such as peat drying, impacts such as coastal flooding, and solutions such as rewetting policies based on their functional roles in causal relationships.

are foundational to our causal modeling approach, providing the visual and operational framework for analyzing peatland degradation dynamics. We define a “system” as a set of interconnected components such as peat hydrology, land-use decisions, and climate feedback loops that collectively produce emergent behaviors not evident from individual parts alone. Following this, peatland systems are conceptualized as complex socio-ecological systems interacting with five Earth subsystems (Section 7):

• Biosphere (biodiversity loss);
• Atmosphere (CO₂ emissions);
• Hydrosphere (water table collapse);
• Lithosphere (subsidence);
• Cryosphere (ice melt acceleration).

3.4. Variable Selection and Operationalization Followed a Two-Tier Framework

• Table 1 defines all model components (drivers, thresholds, solutions) with descriptive categories. Components were defined using peer-reviewed Indonesian case studies. For example, a water table depth <40 cm defined irreversible drying [19].
• Table 2. Core validation thresholds.

  Key Variable	Operational Definition	Threshold Source
  Water table depth	Critical flammability trigger	<40 cm (Irreversible drying)
  Rewetting policies	Solution mechanism for hydrologic restoration	34% emission reduction
  Subsidence	Physical collapse indicator	>2 cm/year (Drained peat)

  Notes: Table 2 specifies operational thresholds and mitigation metrics for critical degradation variables. It quantifies tipping points, for example, a <40 cm water table depth, solution efficacy (34% emission reduction from rewetting), and collapse indicators (>2 cm/year subsidence), with sources aligned with established biophysical mechanisms.

  isolates empirically validated thresholds from Table 1 used for

  »

  Historical validation, for example, a water table < 40 cm predicting fires;

  »

  Scenario projections, for example, a 34% emission reduction from rewetting.

Demonstrably, rewetting policies (Table 1) were quantified using Table 2’s 34% emission reduction threshold to model restoration impacts.

As shown in Figure 1, feedback loops were constructed using Table 1’s relationships. It shows the causal structure of feedback mechanisms (R1/R2) and visually maps feedback loops (R1/R2) and cross-system interactions validated against Indonesian case studies.

»

Reinforcing loop (+) (R1):

Drainage (+) → peat drying (+) → fires (+) → emissions (+) → climate extremes (+) drought (+) → drying (+)

»

Validated by 2015 fires where drainage-triggered drought amplified emissions. Balancing loop (−) (R2)

Rewetting (+) → water > 4 cm (+) → fire reduction (−) → emissions (−) → climate stabilization (−)

was supported by a 34% emission reduction in rewetted areas.

4. Results

4.1. Multi-Dimensional Impacts of Peatland Degradation

Our analysis revealed three interconnected scenarios of peatland degradation impact (Section 7).

• Local:

  »

  Loss of biodiversity, for example, a 15% decline in peat swamp forest species in Sumatra.

  »

  Increased peat subsidence (2–5 cm/year in drained areas).

• Regional:

  »

  Transboundary haze from fires, affecting air quality in Southeast Asia.

  »

  Hydrological disruption, reducing water availability for 2 million people in Kalimantan.

• Global:

  »

  Annual CO₂ emissions of 0.8–1.2 Gt from Indonesian peatlands (5–10% of global peatland emissions).

  »

  Feedback loops accelerating climate change, for instance, methane release from rewetting attempts.

4.2. Systems Causality Model Outcomes

The model identified three critical leverage points for conservation:

»

Strict hydrological thresholds legally enforce water table depths ≤ 40 cm (PP 57/2016) to prevent oxidation and subsidence (2–5 cm/year).

»

Rewetting imperative: hydrological restoration of 590 km²/year contribute to mitigates 1.4–1.6 Mt CO₂ annually.

»

Legally enshrine core peat domes (>3 m depth) as non-negotiable “Global Climate Stabilization Zones.”

»

Policy integration: aligning peatland conservation with SDGs 13, 14, and 15 enhances funding and enforcement.

Policy-ready framework: a precautionary governance framework designed to address irreversible peatland degradation.

4.3. Key Findings

Our system analysis revealed how localized drainage (a <40 cm water table) triggered planetary scale feedback through three empirical advances. Our study establishes three critical advances in understanding peatland dynamics.

We identified critical biophysical thresholds (a <40 cm water table depth, <4 mm/day rainfall) that serve as primary activation points for irreversible degradation. Historical events demonstrate that when these thresholds are breached, they consistently enable catastrophic outcomes through validated mechanisms:

Hydrological collapse: water tables below −40 cm trigger peat oxidation (2–5 cm/year subsidence) and create permanently flammable conditions.

Validation by major events:

• The 1997 fires, where water tables dropped to −120 cm in Central Kalimantan’s Mega Rice Project.
• The 2015 catastrophe, where rainfall fell to 1.0 mm/day during peak burning.
• The 2023 escalation, where extreme drought (attributed to threshold conditions) enabled 1.16 Mha to be burned.

Despite robust regulatory frameworks like Indonesia’s PP 57/2016 mandating critical hydrological safeguards (≤40 cm water tables), persistent implementation barriers undermine peatland protection. Institutional fragmentation across ministries, for example, between the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK), Peatland Restoration Agency (BRG), and local governance, dilutes enforcement accountability, while economic pressures from palm oil—representing 4.5% of national GDP—create financial incentives that outweigh existing penalties. Our proposed “Global Climate Stabilization Zones” directly counter these structural gaps through IoT-driven accountability systems automating real-time violation fines and ASEAN transboundary governance integrating regional fire-suppression protocols with blockchain-tracked deforestation bans funded by a 1–3% palm oil levy.

5. Peatlands: An Overview

Peatlands are wetland ecosystems defined by a surface layer of partially decomposed organic material (peat) at least 30 cm thick, with organic content exceeding 30% [35,36,37]. These landscapes form under waterlogged, anaerobic conditions, accumulating organic matter at an exceptionally slow rate of 0.5–1 mm annually—a process requiring millennia to develop significant depth. Globally distributed across 175 countries, peatlands cover approximately 4 million hectares (3% of Earth’s land area) and serve as critical long-term carbon sinks [38]. Unlike forests, which cycle carbon through seasonal growth and decomposition, intact peatlands sequester carbon almost permanently, storing it in waterlogged peat layers. However, they also emit methane (CH₄), a potent greenhouse gas with a global warming potential 28–84 times greater than CO₂ over 100- and 20-year timescales, respectively [37,39].

Tropical peatlands, distinct from their moss-dominated boreal counterparts, are characterized by dense peat swamps or mangrove forests where organic matter accumulates under waterlogged conditions [40]. When disturbed by drainage or fire—common in land conversion practices—these ecosystems shift from carbon sinks to catastrophic emitters, releasing more than 2 Gt CO₂eq annually (5% of global anthropogenic emissions) [37,39].

Peat fires pose unique risks: they smolder underground, resist suppression, and emit mercury at rates 15 times higher than forest fires, exacerbating air pollution and climate feedback loops [41]. Beyond their climatic role, tropical peatlands support unparalleled biodiversity and provide vital ecosystem services, including flood mitigation and freshwater regulation, making their preservation a global priority.

5.1. Peatlands in Indonesia

Peatlands are critical global carbon reservoirs, storing over 550 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon—equivalent to 42% of all soil carbon and surpassing the carbon stored in all the world’s forests combined [37,38,42]. Tropical peatlands alone account for 152–288 Gt, with Southeast Asia holding 68.5 Gt, of which 57.4 Gt (84%) is concentrated in Indonesia’s peatlands—the world’s second-largest tropical peatland area, spanning 22.5 million hectares across Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Papua [43,44].

Indonesia’s peat soils store 20 times more carbon per hectare than its above-ground vegetation, representing 74% of the nation’s soil carbon pool [43,44]. When undisturbed, these ancient ecosystems (formed over 15,000 years) act as fire-resistant carbon sinks, underscoring their pivotal role in mitigating global warming and advancing climate resilience. Indonesia’s peatlands are concentrated in Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Papua (Figure 2).

5.2. Socio-Ecological Importance

• Social Importance

Indonesian peatlands are deeply intertwined with regional livelihoods, biodiversity, and cultural heritage. Economically, they sustain approximately 40 million rural and Indigenous people through commercial agriculture such as oil palm and rubber, subsistence farming, and resource extraction (timber, coal [46]. These activities underpin national economic growth while supporting local communities. Beyond their economic value, peatlands provide irreplaceable ecological and cultural benefits. Their regulating services—such as erosion control, water purification, and carbon sequestration—mitigate floods and droughts, while cultural practices tied to these ecosystems sustain Indigenous identities.

For instance, the Dayak Ngaju communities of Kalimantan rely on peatlands for spiritual rituals and utilize the forest for timber, non-timber products such as rattan and bamboo, medicinal plants, and food. Hunting, fishing, and gathering are integral traditions of the Ngaju people in peat swamp forests. Key resources include unidentified local species from peatland waterways and various medical plants such as (a) Bajakah (Spatholobus littoralis), a woody vine traditionally used for medicinal purposes; Asam Limpasu (Baccaurea lanceolata), a fruit-bearing tree used for food and traditional remedies; (c) Akar Kuning (Arcangelisia flava), a medicinal root known for its anti-inflammatory properties; and (d) Sungkai (Peronema canescens), whose leaves are used to treat fevers and malaria [47].

• Ecological Significance

Indonesian peatlands are biodiversity hotspots, hosting 927 plant species (300 endemic) and critical habitat for endangered fauna like orangutans, Sumatran tigers, and Sunda clouded leopards. Ecologically, Indonesian peatlands are biodiversity hotspots, hosting 927 plant species with more than 300 endemic species and providing critical habitat for endangered fauna such as Bornean orangutans, Sunda clouded leopards, and Bornean elephants [47,48]. Kalimantan, in particular, is renowned for its rich biodiversity, as illustrated in

Table 3. Biodiversity in Kalimantan. Sources: [48,49,50].

Common Name	Scientific Name	IUCN Status
Fauna
Bornean orangutan	Pongo pygmaeus	Critically endangered
Helmeted hornbill	Rhinoplax vigil	Critically Endangered
White-winged duck	Cairina scutulata	Critically endangered
Painted terrapin	Batagur borneoensis	Critically endangered
Bornean terrapin	Orlitia borneensis	Critically endangered
Straw-headed Bulbuls	Pycnonotus zeylanicus	Critically endangered
Hairy-nosed otter	Lutra sumatrana	Endangered
Proboscis monkeys	Nasalis larvatus	Endangered
Wrinkled hornbill	Rhabdotorrhinus corrugatus	Endangered
Asian arowana	Scleropages formosus	Endangered
False gharial	Tomistoma schlegelii	Endangered
Malayan sun bear	Helarctos malayanus	Vulnerable
Chinese egret	Egretta eulophotes	Vulnerable
Sunda clouded leopards	Neofelis diardi	Vulnerable
Tomistoma	Tomistoma schlegelii	Endangered
Bornean white-bearded Gibbon	Hylobates albibarbis	Endangered
Müller’s gibbon	Hylobates muelleri	Endangered
Flora
Clipeate pitcher plant	Nepenthes clipeata	Critically endangered
Tualang tree	Koompassia excelsa	Threatened
Borneo kauri	Agathis borneensis	Endangered
Johore shorea	Shorea johorensis	Vulnerable
Red balau or balangeran	Shorea balangeran	Vulnerable
Light red meranti	Shorea smithiana	Vulnerable
Bornean ironwood	Eusideroxylon zwageri	Vulnerable

.

Coastal peatlands sustain unique blackwater habitats, supporting endemic fish species such as Channa sp., Wallago leeri, Anabas testudineus, Trichogaster pectoralis, Trichogaster trochopterus, and the endangered Scleropagus Formosus [51]. Undisturbed peatlands also act as reservoirs of germ plasm, offering genetic resources to enhance disease resistance and agricultural productivity [52]. Undisturbed peatlands are vital for sustaining biodiversity, as their ecological integrity supports specialized species through unique hydrological and vegetative conditions. Intact peatlands, characterized by their water-saturated soils, slow organic decomposition processes, and specialized vegetation adapted to acidic, nutrient-poor conditions, are indispensable for sustaining the critical ecosystem services shown in

Table 4. Functions of the peatland ecosystem.

Function Category	Description
Regulating functions	Climate regulation: Carbon sequestration and storage at local and global scales.
	Erosion control: Vegetation stabilizes shorelines, reduces storm impacts (wind speed, waves, runoff), and traps sediments.
	Water Purification: Vegetation breaks down contaminants (bacteria, pesticides, nutrients) and improves water quality.
Hydrological functions	Groundwater replenishment and water cycling (hydrology): Part of the water filters into the ground and recharges underground aquifers (groundwater reservoirs).
	Flood mitigation: Acts as a sponge, absorbing excess water during wet seasons and releasing it gradually during dry seasons.
Provisioning functions	Resource Supply: Provides timber, non-timber products (fuelwood, medicinal plants), and supports fish populations for local consumption
Supporting functions	Biodiversity Conservation: Coastal peatlands serve as transitional zones between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, hosting rare and endemic species
	Unique Habitats: Acidic blackwater rivers in peat swamp forests support endemic fish species (e.g., Channa sp., Wallago leeri)
Cultural functions	Genetic Reservoir: Preserves germ plasm for agricultural and medicinal research

.

Indonesia’s Peatlands: A Linchpin for Climate Resilience and Biodiversity Conservation

Peatlands possess unique physical characteristics, including irreversible drying upon drainage, high porosity, and low vertical hydraulic conductivity. When dried, peat becomes highly erodible, flammable, and water-repellent, complicating rehydration and restoration efforts. Drainage disrupts their hydrological functions, accelerating degradation. Anthropogenic activities, particularly drainage for agriculture or plantations, trigger peat oxidation and subsidence (2–5 cm annually), while fire-prone conditions release stored carbon as CO₂ and toxic haze. For instance, burning just one centimeter of peat emits ~5 Mg of carbon per hectare (18 Mg CO₂-equivalent), intensifying global warming [53]. Regions such as Papua, Central Kalimantan, and Riau—home to 50% of Indonesia’s peatlands—are disproportionately affected. Papua alone accounts for 6.3 million hectares (28% of the national total) [45].

Degradation of these ecosystems accelerates global warming and disrupts regional hydrology, jeopardizing water access for millions. Indonesia’s peatlands thus epitomize the urgent need for conservation strategies that prioritize avoiding degradation over costly post hoc restoration. Protecting Indonesia’s peatlands is not only vital for safeguarding biodiversity, such as orangutans, clouded leopards, and endemic fish, and ecological integrity but also for fostering sustainable development and meeting global climate goals. Their conservation represents a critical nexus between environmental stewardship and climate action.

5.3. Conservation and Policy Integration

Indonesia offers a pivotal opportunity to combat climate change through natural climate solutions (NCSs), including peatland protection, improved management, and restoration to enhance carbon sequestration. The country has prioritized peatland conservation in its climate agenda, such as the following:

• FOLU Net Sink 2030, targeting emissions of −140 Mt CO₂e by 2030 and −304 Mt CO₂e by 2050 [34].

Enhanced NDC, aiming for a 31.89% emissions reduction through national efforts, rising to 43.20% with international support by 2030 [54].

Indonesian Peatland Conservation: Policy and Regulatory Framework

The conservation of Indonesia’s peatlands is anchored in a robust legal and policy framework that integrates constitutional mandates, national legislation, and targeted presidential directives. While the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia does not explicitly mention peatlands, its Article 28H(1) guarantees the right to a healthy environment—a provision interpreted to encompass peatland protection as part of sustainable development. This constitutional foundation has informed a multi-layered governance structure, including flagship policies such as the National Action Plan on Climate Change (2007), which aims to rehabilitate 53.9 million hectares of degraded peatlands and forests by 2050, prioritizing fire prevention, carbon sink enhancement, and biodiversity conservation. Subsequent laws and regulations balance ecological preservation with socio-economic needs, ranging from Government Regulation No. 57/2016 (enforcing ≤40 cm water tables) to Presidential Instruction No. 1/2016, which established the Peatland Restoration Agency (BRG) to coordinate large-scale rewetting and fire suppression. These efforts align with international commitments like the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), underscoring peatlands’ role in climate resilience and biodiversity protection.

Table 5. Indonesian peatland governance: legal and policy framework for conservation, climate action, and biodiversity protection.

Document Type	Number/Year	Key Objectives	Focus Area
Forestry Law	No. 41/1999	» Prohibits land clearing in protected peat areas.	Establishes state control over forests and peatlands to maximize public welfare. Focuses on biodiversity protection and ecosystem integrity.
		» Mandates restoration of degraded peatlands.
		» Requires permit revisions if peatland functions change.
Environmental Protection Law	No. 32/2009	» Authorizes regional governments to implement environmental plans to prevent peat degradation.	Ensures sustainable development through fire control, pollution prevention, and peatland restoration.
		» Mandates restoration to protect carbon storage and biodiversity.
National Policy	National Action Plan on Climate Change (2007)	» Aims to rehabilitate 53.9 million hectares of degraded peatlands and forests by 2050. » Prioritizes fire prevention, carbon sink enhancement, and biodiversity conservation.	Climate resilience, emission reduction, and large-scale ecosystem restoration.
Presidential Decree	No. 62/2013	Establishes the REDD+ Managing Agency to coordinate emission reduction efforts, including peatland conservation.	Climate governance and REDD+ project implementation.
Presidential Instruction	No. 2/2007	Accelerates rehabilitation of 1.45 million hectares of degraded peatlands in Central Kalimantan through rewetting and revegetation.	Peatland revitalization and regional ecological recovery.
Presidential Instruction	No. 10/2011 (extended 2013, 2015, 2017)	Imposes a moratorium on new licenses in primary forests/peatlands to align with REDD+ goals.	Deforestation control and compliance with international climate commitments.
Presidential Instruction	No. 1/2016	Establishes the Peatland Restoration Agency (BRG) to coordinate restoration, fire prevention, and biodiversity protection in 7 provinces.	Peatland restoration, fire suppression, and habitat conservation.
		» Rewetted 3.6 Mha by 2023.
Presidential Instruction	No. 5/2019	Extends the 2011 moratorium, halting new permits in primary forests/peatlands to reduce emissions.	Sustainable land-use practices and emissions reduction.
Government Regulation	No. 71/1990	Promotes sustainable practices, including water table management and restrictions on monoculture plantations in sensitive peat zones.	Sustainable peatland management and zoning.
Government Regulation	No. 68/1998 (amended 2011, 2015)	Protects ecological integrity of conservation areas (KSA/KPA) and Essential Ecosystem Areas (KEE), including peatlands. Requires local-central collaboration for management.	Conservation zoning and ecosystem protection.
Government Regulation	No. 4/2001	Holds landholders accountable for fire prevention and environmental damage. Imposes fines for negligence.	Forest and land fire control, environmental accountability.
Government Regulation	No. 71/2014 (amended by No. 57/2016)	Protects peatlands through zoning (≥30% as protected area), bans harmful activities (drainage, burning), and mandates environmental permits.	Legal enforcement, hydrological safeguards, and ecosystem protection.
		» Enforces ≤ 40 cm water tables.
Government Regulation	No. 16/2017	Provides technical guidelines for peatland restoration (rewetting, revegetation) to restore hydrological and ecological functions.	Ecosystem restoration protocols and stakeholder roles.
Ministry Regulation	No. 10/2019	Manages peat domes (hydrological units) to maintain water regulation and carbon storage.	Hydrological conservation and peat dome protection.
		» Mandates IoT-based water table monitoring.
Ministry Regulation	No. 7/2021	Operationalizes Indonesia’s FOLU Net Sink 2030 targets, aiming for −140 Mt CO2e by 2030 through peatland protection and restoration.	Climate action alignment, carbon sequestration, and emission reduction.
Ministry Regulation	No. 13/2024	Implements Enhanced Nationally Determined Contribution (ENDC) targets (31.89–43.20% emissions reduction by 2030) through peatland conservation.	International climate commitments and SDG alignment.

summarizes this comprehensive governance framework, detailing key legislative instruments, their objectives, and alignment with national and global sustainability targets.

Recent initiatives, such as the Peatland Restoration Agency (BRG), established in 2016, have improved coordination. The BRG has rewetted 3.6 million hectares of peatlands as of 2023, reducing CO₂ emissions by 7.8 million tonnes annually. However, conflicting economic priorities—such as palm oil production (59% of global output in 2023)—often overshadow conservation goals. Indonesia’s peatland policies also align with international commitments, including UNEP and the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).

5.4. Indonesia’s Peatland Dynamics: A Comprehensive Analysis

Indonesia’s peatlands, spanning over 15 million hectares, represent one of the world’s most vital carbon sinks, yet decades of mismanagement and exploitation have transformed these ecosystems into significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions. The degradation stems from a complex interplay of weak policy enforcement, agricultural expansion, and recurrent fires, with profound implications for global climate stability and regional health.

5.4.1. Regulatory Efforts and Shortcomings

Despite the inclusion of environmental protection in Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution (Article 28H) and the establishment of a robust legal framework, peatland degradation has persisted, driven primarily by agricultural expansion, commercial development, and weak enforcement. This degradation accelerated in the 1970s with state-led large-scale conversions of peatlands for rice cultivation, culminating in the 1995 Mega Rice Project—a disastrous initiative that drained approximately one million hectares of Central Kalimantan’s peat swamp forests [55]. The project’s extensive drainage infrastructure destabilized peat hydrology, triggering subsidence (3–5 cm/year) and oxidation, which released millennia-old carbon stores and increased fire vulnerability [56,57].

Peat degradation or subsidence is driven by (i) compaction, the compression of aerated peat layers, (ii) consolidation, the loss of buoyancy in drained peat, and (iii) oxidation, the aerobic decomposition of organic matter to CO₂ [56,57]. Human activities exacerbate these processes through (i) drainage for agriculture (oil palm, rice), which lowers water tables, drying peat; (ii) land conversion which destroys peat-forming vegetation; and (iii) fires, used for land clearance, which ignite underground peat layers.

5.4.2. Historical Fire Episodes and Impact: Key Events

The 1982–1983 El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event caused severe drought conditions in Indonesia, which intensified wildfires. Approximately 5 million hectares of land burned during that period, including 3.5 million hectares in East Kalimantan alone [58,59]. While limited monitoring technology at the time obscured precise quantification of emissions, the fires released substantial amounts of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases, contributing to regional air pollution and global carbon feedback loops.

The 1994 “Great Fire of Borneo,” centered in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, burned 5.11 million hectares of forests, brush, and grasslands, driven by widespread land-clearing practices and exacerbated by drought conditions [58]. The fires produced a dense, transboundary haze that blanketed Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore from August to October 1994, severely degrading air quality. Elevated levels of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), and particulate matter (PM₁₀/PM_2.5) triggered a surge in respiratory emergencies, particularly among children, with asthma cases rising sharply across the region [60]. In Indonesia’s extensive peat swamp forests, falling water tables dried out organic peat, enabling deep smoldering combustion that destroyed standing biomass and ignited subsurface layers. These underground fires persisted for weeks, releasing toxic compounds and contributing to a tropospheric ozone spike recorded at Watukosek, Indonesia—a phenomenon linked to large-scale biomass burning [61]. Tropospheric ozone is an important air pollutant and greenhouse gas, which plays a key role in atmospheric chemistry. The haze’s bioclimatic impacts disrupted ecosystems, reduced visibility, and strained public health systems, underscoring the vulnerability of peatlands to human-induced degradation and climate variability.

The 1997–1998 peatland fires, intensified by severe El Niño drought conditions, devastated 3.4 million hectares of land in Indonesia, including 750,000 hectares of peatlands in Kalimantan, and 300,000 and 400,000 ha in Sumatra and West Papua, respectively [62,63]. These fires released 0.81–2.57 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon—equivalent to 13–40% of global fossil fuel emissions at the time—primarily from the combustion of ancient peat deposits [63]. This catastrophic event temporarily elevated Indonesia to the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter in 1997, surpassing industrialized nations like Japan and Germany [64]. Tropospheric ozone (O₃), was significantly elevated during the 1997 Indonesian peatland fires due to photochemical reactions between nitrogen oxides (NO_x) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by burning vegetation and peat. This ozone spike underscored the complex atmospheric consequences of large-scale biomass burning [61]. Approximately 20 million people in Indonesia suffered from respiratory diseases such as bronchial asthma and acute respiratory infections [65].

The economic losses from the 1997/98 peatland fires—encompassing damage to agriculture, forestry, CO₂ emissions, ecosystem services (flood protection, erosion control, and carbon sink loss), and health impacts from toxic haze—were estimated at USD 8.5 to USD 9.4 billion. The breakdown by sector is detailed in

Table 6. The economic losses from the 1997/98 peatland fire. Source: [66].

Sector	Minimum Loss (USD Millions)	Maximum Loss (USD Millions)	Estimation Method
Agriculture	2750	2750	Crop value loss: Market price valuation of destroyed crops (oil palm, rubber, rice) included opportunity costs of lost production cycles during drought
Forestry	1761	2583	Timber stock valuation (timber stock depletion): replacement cost of commercial species
NTFPs	606	606	Market price method (non-timber forest products): income loss included subsistence gathering losses for rural communities
Flood protection	397	397	Replacement cost approach (infrastructure repair costs): damaged drainage systems
Erosion and siltation	1300	1300	Productivity loss approach: sediment removal/water treatment facility costs
Carbon sink	1446	1446	Carbon pricing based on IPCC carbon accounting methods
Other costs including health, transportation and firefighting	290	320	Hospitalizations and productivity loss from respiratory diseases and airline disruption costs
Total	8550	9402

.

In 2006, Indonesia experienced its most severe forest fires since 1998, concentrated in Kalimantan (Borneo) and Sumatra. Driven largely by land-clearing practices, these fires produced a hazardous haze that blanketed Southeast Asia, severely degrading air quality and causing widespread health crises. During the 2006 El Niño event, emissions from a 2.79 Mha study area in Central Kalimantan alone released an estimated 49.15 ± 26.81 million tonnes (Mt) of carbon—equivalent to 10–33% of the European Union’s total transport sector emissions that year [67].

The 2015 Indonesian fire crisis marked one of the most catastrophic environmental disasters in the nation’s history, surpassing the intensity of previous major episodes like 2006 and 1997. Driven by a potent combination of El Niño-induced drought and widespread land-clearing practices on degraded peatlands, the fires released an estimated 884 million tonnes of CO₂—97% originating from Indonesian peatlands—equivalent to Germany’s annual fossil fuel emissions [68].

Satellite data revealed unprecedented smoke pollution, with PM_2.5 concentrations exceeding WHO hazard thresholds by 10–20 times, blanketing Southeast Asia in toxic haze. This pollution caused over 100,000 premature deaths (91,600 in Indonesia, 6500 in Malaysia, and 2200 in Singapore) and 500,000+ severe respiratory cases, disproportionately affecting children, the elderly, and low-income communities [69]. Economically, the fires inflicted USD 16 billion in losses—double the value of Indonesia’s 2014 palm oil exports (USD 8 billion) and exceeding the entire palm oil industry’s annual economic contribution (USD 12 billion). The crisis overwhelmed healthcare systems, paralyzed transportation networks, and decimated agriculture and tourism, compounding long-term socio-economic vulnerabilities [17]. Peat-swamp forest (PSF) fires cause extreme tree mortality and significantly reduce tree species richness and non-tree flora abundance. Although few fauna species are exclusively restricted to PSFs, the unprecedented scale of 2015 peatland and lowland forest burning implied catastrophic habitat loss. This event likely inflicted the following:

• Widespread negative impacts on most PSF-dependent species;
• Severe population declines for many taxa;
• Local extinctions of vulnerable species in heavily affected areas.

Mechanistically, decades of peatland drainage for palm oil and pulpwood plantations amplified flammability, while weak governance allowed slash-and-burn practices to persist. An analysis of rainfall patterns shows degraded peatlands in Kalimantan now exhibit heightened sensitivity to drought (<4 mm/day rainfall), with fire risk escalating even under historically wetter conditions [9].

The 2015 crisis underscored the dire consequences of prioritizing short-term economic gains over ecological resilience. Emissions from peat fires accelerated global warming, destabilized regional climate systems, and locked Indonesia into a vicious cycle where environmental degradation perpetuates human suffering. To avert future disasters, experts have urged systemic reforms: banning peatland drainage, enforcing fire-free land management, and scaling restoration efforts like rewetting and paludiculture. Without such measures, Indonesia risks entrenching a feedback loop that jeopardizes local livelihoods, regional stability, and global climate targets.

Following the catastrophic 2015 fires, Indonesia implemented moratoriums on peatland conversion and strengthened the enforcement of environmental laws like No. 32/2009 (environmental protection) and No. 41/1999 (forestry). These measures initially reduced burned areas by 60% between 2016 and 2017, with only 38,363 ha and 165,528 ha burned in those years, respectively, emitting 96.7 million tonnes and 12.5 million tonnes of CO₂ [70,71]. Despite strengthened peatland protections, enforcement gaps and corporate noncompliance persist. Dozens of companies have violated peatland regulations—exploiting weak monitoring systems and negligible penalties—undermining conservation progress. By 2018, burned areas surged to 529,267 ha—a threefold increase from 2017—as drainage and illegal burning resumed [72].

The 2019 fires marked a devastating resurgence, burning 1.64 million hectares (including 494,000 hectares of peatlands) and releasing 624–708 million tonnes of CO₂eq, depending on measurement methodologies These fires damaged critical biodiversity hotspots like Berbak-Sembilang National Park and cost USD 5.2 billion in economic losses, including healthcare burdens, agricultural disruption, and tourism declines [73]. Independent studies highlighted discrepancies in emissions’ estimates, underscoring the difficulty of quantifying underground peat fires—a persistent challenge in Indonesian fire management.

In 2023, Indonesia faced a severe escalation in wildfires, with 1.16 million hectares burned—a fivefold increase from 2022. This spike was driven by extreme drought conditions linked to El Niño, which prolonged dry spells and intensified fire susceptibility. Kalimantan, a peatland-rich region, bore the brunt of the crisis, recording the highest fire frequency and most recurrent incidents, as degraded peat soils and land-use practices amplified flammability [74]. Overall, recurrent fires between 1997 and 2023 burned 1.16–2.6 million ha annually, reflecting systemic vulnerabilities in land-use governance and peatland conservation [75].

Indonesia’s peatland degradation persists despite comprehensive policies, rooted in a critical gap in recognizing peatlands’ role in stabilizing the Earth system and the cascading consequences of their destabilization across interconnected planetary spheres—biosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, lithosphere, and cryosphere. This systemic blind spot erodes political will, perpetuates fragmented enforcement, and prioritizes short-term economic gains such as oil palm plantation expansion over long-term resilience. Without a holistic understanding of feedback loops—such as drainage-induced emissions amplifying climate change, which in turn intensifies fire risks—policies remain siloed, enforcement lax, and profit-driven exploitation dominant.

A system dynamics approach, which maps these interdependencies and quantifies trade-offs between conservation and degradation, can reframe peatlands from crisis zones to planetary stabilizers. By illuminating how peatland health underpins global climate stability, biodiversity, and human well-being, this approach can foster the political and societal urgency needed for genuine conservation. The following discussion introduces systems theory as a tool to conceptualize Earth system interconnectedness, equipping policymakers, industries, and the public to advance systems-literate governance—where ecological resilience and sustainable development are mutually reinforcing priorities.

6. Systems Theory: A Framework for Unlocking Complexity

Indonesia’s peatland conservation impasse epitomizes the Anthropocene dilemma: peatland ecosystems critical to climate resilience and global environmental stability are being sacrificed for short-term growth. Yet, this crisis also presents an opportunity—to pioneer systems-literate governance that reconciles economic growth with ecological resilience and human well-being. To achieve this, drawing on systems theory, we develop a causal loop analysis to unlock peatlands’ complex dynamics from the local and global context. Systems theory provides a holistic lens to analyze peatlands as interconnected socio-ecological systems.

Systems theory is an interdisciplinary framework that provides a set of principles for analyzing the relationships, interactions, and interdependencies among components within complex systems. It views systems—such as peatland ecosystems, biological systems, or climate systems—as irreducibly integrated wholes. This perspective emphasizes the importance of understanding the system as a whole, rather than focusing solely on its individual parts [76]. Systems theory is particularly valuable for analyzing complex systems that cannot be fully understood, rationalized, or predicted using traditional linear approaches. By focusing on the interactions between components, systems theory reveals emergent properties of system interactions.

6.1. Core Concepts of Systems Theory and Dynamics [76,77,78]

• System: A network of interconnected and interdependent components (e.g., peat soil, water, vegetation, wildlife) that function collectively to achieve a unified purpose. The integrity of a system depends on these relationships; isolated components cannot sustain functionality.
• Systems Thinking: A holistic approach that examines interactions between components rather than isolating individual elements. It identifies emergent patterns, such as feedback loops, to predict system behavior over time.
• System Behavior: The dynamic and often nonlinear interactions among components in response to external stimuli. For example, reduced rainfall in peatlands lowers water tables, increasing flammability and biodiversity loss.
• Thresholds: Tipping points. A threshold is not a maximum limit but rather a critical point at which a significant change or new action is initiated. A well-known example of a threshold is the 1.5 °C global temperature increase target established by the Paris Agreement in 2015, which signifies a critical tipping point for climate systems or peat moisture <100%, which triggers irreversible drying.
• Emergent Properties: Emergent properties are properties that arise only when components interact as a whole. Emergent properties are collective properties of the overall system. The resultant emergent behaviors bring together a new combination of capabilities, which can be either beneficially stabilizing or potentially harmful. For example, the resilience of an ecosystem is an emergent property that results from the interactions between species, nutrient cycles, and environmental conditions (for example, outcomes like transboundary haze or biodiversity loss arising from component interactions).

6.2. System Dynamics

System dynamics, grounded in systems thinking and systems theory, is a methodology for modeling and analyzing the time-varying behavior of interconnected system components. It provides tools for understanding how systems evolve over time and how their components interact to produce dynamic outcomes. System dynamics is particularly useful for capturing the complexity and emergent properties of systems.

As shown in Figure 3 below, the primary elements of system dynamics include the following:

• Stocks: accumulations of units within a system such as accumulation of water or carbon in a peatland.
• Flows: the movement of units across system boundaries over time (e.g., inflow and outflow of water in a peatland, carbon emissions).
• System signals: Systems process input signals denoted as x(t) and produce output signals denoted as y(t). These signals are typically represented by stocks and flows (Figure 3). Signals, which convey information within a system, are often analog in nature, meaning they vary or fluctuate as a function of time, t. That is, they are dynamic and convey information to stimulate system responses (Figure 3). For example, in an ecological system, the water level (a stock) in a peatland system changes in response to rainfall (an inflow) and evaporation (an outflow). These dynamics are critical for understanding how systems respond to external stimuli and maintain their functionality.
• In system dynamics, an excitatory input x(t) acts as a positively weighted signal that perturbs the system. This input becomes active only when its magnitude exceeds a predefined threshold, triggering a response that drives the system away from equilibrium, for example, initiating cascading effects like peat drainage or fire cycles. Conversely, an inhibitory input y(t) counterbalances the excitatory signal by applying negative feedback. This input suppresses the system’s deviation from equilibrium, restoring stability and mitigating runaway dynamics such as policy interventions to block drainage or restore hydrology.

6.3. Feedback Loops and Stability

Feedback loops are central to system dynamics, regulating stability or driving collapse.

There are two main types of feedback mechanisms:

• Positive feedback loops: These loops amplify changes in the system, driving it away from equilibrium. They are often associated with positive feedback mechanisms, where the output reinforces the input, leading to exponential growth or decline. For example, in a peatland ecosystem, drying conditions can create a positive feedback loop, where reduced water levels lead to further drying and increased flammability. For example, peatland drainage lowers water tables, drying peat and increasing fire risk, which releases more CO₂, accelerating climate change and further drying peatlands (Figure 3).
• Negative feedback loops (balancing feedback loops): These loops counteract changes, promoting stability and equilibrium. They are associated with negative feedback mechanisms, where the output dampens the input, restoring the system to its resting state. For instance, water recharge in a peatland can create a negative feedback loop, counteracting drying conditions and restoring hydrological balance (Figure 3) For example, peatland drainage lowers water tables, drying peat and increasing fire risk, which releases more CO₂, accelerating climate change and further drying peatlands.

It may be noted that the terms positive and negative do not refer to a value-based assessment of “good” or “bad,” but rather to the type of change that takes place in the system. As indicated above, positive feedback loops happen when a stimulus causes an amplification effect that reinforces change in the system after being fed back to its source (Figure 3). Positive feedback amplifies system output, resulting in growth or decline. It is often associated with system destabilization, although there are exceptions. Negative feedback dampens outputs, stabilizing the system around an equilibrium point, bringing the system back to homeostasis. A property of a homeostatic system is resilience defined as the ability of the system to return to stability in the face of perturbations. Furthermore, feedback loops are closely associated with vicious cycles and virtuous cycles:

• Vicious cycles: A vicious cycle is a self-reinforcing chain of events driven by a positive feedback loop. In such cycles, each iteration amplifies the effects of the previous one, leading to destabilization and adverse outcomes. Vicious cycles often lack a tendency toward equilibrium or homeostasis, at least in the short term. An example of a vicious cycle/self-reinforcing loop driven by positive feedback is deforestation → soil erosion → biodiversity loss→ reduced carbon storage → increased emissions.
• Virtuous cycles: A self-balancing loop where each event enhances the beneficial effects of the next. These cycles are often driven by negative feedback loops, which counteract destabilizing influences and promote stability. An example of a stabilizing loop driven by negative feedback is peatland conservation/rewetting → hydrological recovery→ biodiversity rebound → enhanced carbon storage → climate mitigation.

As shown in Figure 3, feedback loops control systems (causal circularity) are fundamental to system dynamics, enabling systems to maintain homeostasis, and resist external perturbations. Feedback loop may be defined as a cyclical chain of cause-and-effect relations that forms a loop, starting from the input signal which is applied at the system input to produce an output response signal. The response signal provides the stimuli to trigger the generation of an input that is returned to the system to control its behaviors.

Unlike external inputs, which originate from outside the system, feedback loops are intrinsic mechanisms that arise from within the system itself. This internal origin allows feedback loops to play a self-regulatory role, enabling the system to adapt dynamically to changing conditions. As noted by Courtney Brown (2008) [79], feedback loops are a fundamental feature of complex systems, providing a mechanism for self-correction and stability.

7. Discussion

Using causal loop diagrams (Figure 3 and Figure 4), we analyzed how Indonesia’s peatland degradation interacted with Earth’s subsystems, exposing local-to-global feedback dynamics.

Indonesia’s recurring peatland fires epitomize a socio-ecological crisis, driven by short-term economic gains conflicting with long-term sustainability. As interconnected socio-ecological systems, peatlands are embedded within Earth’s biosphere, interacting dynamically with its subsystems (Figure 3 and Figure 4), storing 57 GtC, equivalent to 6–8 years of global fossil fuel emissions.

In their intact state, peatlands sustain self-regulating cycles through negative feedback loops (Figure 3), maintaining equilibrium across Earth’s subsystems [80]. These mechanisms ensure resilience and stability through the following processes:

• Ecological interaction
  • Flora and fauna synergy (Table 3)

    »

    Plants such as Nepenthes pitcher plants provide habitat and food for the fauna, while animals including orangutans and pollinators enable seed dispersal, nutrient cycling, and pest control.

    »

    Example: Orangutans disperse seeds across peat swamp forests, fostering vegetation regrowth and carbon sequestration.

• Hydrological regulation
  • Water recharge

    »

    Peat soils act as sponges, absorbing rainfall and stabilizing groundwater levels. This buffers against droughts and floods while maintaining moisture levels critical for peat integrity.

    »

    Carbon sequestration: Waterlogged conditions inhibit decomposition, preserving 57 GtC stored in Indonesian peatlands and preventing CO₂ release.

• Biocapacity and ecosystem services
  • Clean water filtration: Peatlands filter pollutants, providing clean water for surrounding ecosystems and human communities.
  • Microclimate stabilization: Evapotranspiration cools local climates, mitigating heat extremes.
  • Biodiversity sanctuaries host endangered species (e.g., Sumatran tiger, false gharial) and unique flora, sustaining ecological networks.
• Peatland ecosystem functions (Table 4):
  • Climate regulation: As Earth’s largest terrestrial carbon sink, peatlands capture and store carbon, offsetting ~6–8 years of global fossil fuel emissions.
  • Climate adaptation regulates water flow during extreme weather, reducing flood risks and recharging aquifers.

Intact peatlands exemplify nature’s balancing act, where negative feedback loops sustain carbon storage, hydrological stability, and biodiversity. Their degradation disrupts these cycles, underscoring the urgency of conservation to preserve their irreplaceable role in global climate and ecological resilience (Figure 4).

• Legend
  • Red arrows: Red arrows: Positive feedback (reinforcing) loops (vicious cycle) Positive feedback (reinforcing) loops → Vicious cycles, for example, “Drainage → Peat drying → More drainage.
  • Green arrows: Negative feedback (balancing) loops → Virtuous cycles/solutions, for example, “Rewetting → Fire suppression → Less degradation.”
  • (+) = Amplifying effect, for example, drainage → (amplifying) peat drying
  • (−) = Inhibiting effect, for example, rewetting→ (inhibiting) fire risk
  • ↑ Increases/enhances:
  • » Degradation context: “Peat drying ↑ Fire risk” (Red +, ↑).
  • » Solution context: “Rewetting ↑ Water tables” (Green −, ↑).
  • ↓ Decreases/suppresses:
  • » Degradation context: “Biodiversity loss ↓ Ecosystem functions” (Red +, ↓).
  • » Solution context: “Rewetting ↓ Biodiversity loss” (Green −, ↓).
  • → Neutral directional link, for example, “Agricultural expansion → Drainage”
• Key loop identification:
  • R (reinforcing): Drainage → (+) peat drying → (+) fires → (+) emissions
  • B (balancing): Rewetting →(−) fire Risk → (−) emissions → (+) climate stability
  • pIOD used in the diagram refers to Positive Indian Ocean Dipole events
• Narration: This diagram illustrates cascading impacts from Indonesian peatland degradation. The interpretation of the linkages is as follows:
  Starting at local scale (left), human drivers (agricultural expansion, weak enforcement) initiate degradation, emitting GHGs that intensify local impacts (biodiversity loss, haze) and amplify regional climate extremes (heatwaves, abnormal rainfall).
  Regional consequences (center): Atmospheric pollution crosses borders, for example, producing haze in Malaysia and Singapore. Climate disruptions fuel socioeconomic/health crises.
  Global cascades (right): GHG accumulation → cryosphere collapse (glacier retreat, albedo loss). Ocean warming and sea-level rise create transboundary risks.

For example:

• El Niño/pIOD amplification is located below “Weak enforcement” and parallel to “Human-induced degradation” and positioned as drought intensifiers:

  »

  Local warming impact: Heat intensifications and lowering water tables, for example, 2015 fires at 1.0 mm/day rainfall.

  »

  Regional extremes: Deadly heatwaves and drought and transboundary pollution/prolonged haze.

• Zoonotic-pandemic pathways are positioned almost parallel to “Atmospheric GHG concentrations”:

  »

  Habitat fragmentation from peatland degradation displaced fruit bats, which led to the outbreak of Nipah virus through the following:

  .

  Spillover forces human-wildlife contact → local Nipah virus outbreak from displaced fruits bats in Central and East Kalimantan → spreads to Malaysia and Singapore across the South China Sea (regional impact).

  .

  Global health impacts: Ancient pathogen release via global warming-induced permafrost thaw risks global pandemic potential.

• The rewetting-stabilization/policy intervention loop is a balancing loop where rewetting enforces water table ≥−40 cm, restores hydrology and reduces fire risk, leading to lower emissions and the stabilization of the climate system.

Rewetting policies water table ≥−40 cm (IoT-enforced water tables/threshold restoration) → hydrological recovery → fire reduction → lower CO₂ emissions → climate stabilization.

Scientific linkages from peatland emissions to global feedback loops (shown in thick red arrows).

Core emission pathway:

• Human-induced peatland degradation → atmospheric GHG concentrations

  »

  Albedo feedback loop: Atmospheric CO₂ emissions/concentrations → global warming → glacier retreat → exposed dark surface → reduced albedo → increased heat absorption → (leads to further) global warming.

  »

  Glacier/permafrost thaw → exposed darker surfaces (land/water) → reduced solar reflectivity → increased heat absorption → amplified warming.

• Acidification pathway: Atmospheric CO₂ emissions/concentrations → CO₂ dissolution in oceans → lowered pH→ carbonate dissolution → marine ecosystem collapse.

These pathways demonstrate how Indonesia’s peat degradation initiates planetary-scale crises through well-established geochemical cascades.

• Visual guide to diagram connections:
  • Start: Human-induced degradation (top left).
  • Critical junction: Atmospheric CO₂ concentrations (center top):
    • Albedo branch:

      »

      Atmospheric CO₂ emissions/concentrations → glacier retreat → albedo effect → ⇧ self-reinforcing warming (⇧ = reinforcing).

      »

      Glacier/permafrost thaw → exposed darker surfaces (land/water) → reduced solar reflectivity → increased heat absorption → amplified warming.

    • Acidification branch

      »

      Atmospheric CO₂ emissions/concentrations → ocean acidification → global/social health impacts.

    • Policy implications: Breaking the emission pathway via rewetting and peat protection simultaneously mitigates both feedback loops, conserving Arctic ice and marine ecosystems.

These interdependencies reveal planetary-scale risks: peatland degradation can initiate self-reinforcing cycles, such as carbon emissions intensifying global warming, which accelerates polar ice melt and sea-level rise. Local land-use practices thus carry global consequences, demanding urgent, coordinated governance to prevent irreversible ecological tipping points and meet climate goals. A systems-level analysis—integrating feedback loops, critical thresholds, and subsystem linkages—is essential for designing strategies that harmonize ecological resilience, climate mitigation, and human livelihoods. The following sections dissect these dynamics to advance actionable pathways for conservation and sustainable development.

7.1. Interconnected Feedback Loops and Degradation Mechanisms

Before dissecting the feedback dynamics driving peatland collapse, it is essential to define threshold levels—critical tipping points beyond which degradation becomes irreversible and triggers emergent planetary risks. In complex systems like peatlands, thresholds demarcate domains of systemic stability from cascading failure. For Indonesia’s peat ecosystems, three non-negotiable thresholds govern resilience:

• A hydrological threshold (<−40 cm water table depth) triggers irreversible peat oxidation and subsidence (2–5 cm/year).
• A climatic threshold (<4 mm/day rainfall) locks in permanent fire vulnerability independent of historical baselines.
• A carbon sink threshold (<3 m peat depth) converts millennial carbon reservoirs into permanent emission sources.

Breaching these boundaries initiates self-reinforcing feedback loops that propagate degradation across scales. For instance, transgressing the hydrological threshold (<−40 cm) activates the drainage–desiccation–oxidation loop: drainage → peat drying → fire risk → CO₂ emissions → radiative forcing. This cascade transforms local threshold breaches into planetary risks, such as Arctic permafrost thaw via climate teleconnections. The following analysis reveals how anthropogenic actions cross these thresholds, triggering irreversible Earth subsystem destabilization.

7.2. Thresholds and Emergent Properties: The Tipping Points of Planetary Destabilization

Peatland ecosystems function as complex adaptive systems where breaching critical thresholds triggers nonlinear, irreversible shifts with cascading planetary consequences. Our analysis identified three cardinal tipping points governing their stability:

• Hydrological collapse (<−40 cm water table):

  »

  Induces irreversible peat oxidation, subsidence (2–5 cm/year), and permanent loss of land utility.

• Combustion threshold (<4 mm/day rainfall):

  »

  Locks in year-round fire vulnerability independent of historical baselines, elevating fire probability by 85% in degraded peatlands.

• Carbon sink collapse (<3 m peat depth):

  »

  Converts millennial carbon reservoirs (>500 tons C/ha) into permanent emission sources.

When surpassed, these thresholds generate emergent properties—unpredictable system-level outcomes propagating across the Earth’s subsystems. The interaction of these thresholds across planetary subsystems (Figure 4) is epitomized in Indonesia’s peatland feedback model (Figure 5): breaching the lithospheric hydrological threshold (<−40 cm water tables) initiates cascades where drainage emissions force atmospheric–cryospheric teleconnections, accelerating Arctic thaw at more than 2–4 times global rates, while fire-induced iron-ash runoff triggers hydrospheric collapse via algal blooms. Simultaneously, biospheric fragmentation elevates zoonotic risks, completing a vicious cycle of planetary destabilization that scales from local degradation to global sea-level rise.

For instance, breaching the lithospheric hydrological threshold (<−40 cm water tables) triggers marine ecosystem collapse through iron-ash runoff, inducing algal blooms that cause 100% coral mortality in the Mentawai Islands—a cascading failure collapsing fisheries (40–60% stock decline). Simultaneously, drainage-driven peat emissions (0.8–1.5 GtC/year) generate climate teleconnections, accelerating Arctic permafrost thaw at 2–4× the global rate and destabilizing ancient carbon stocks [81]. Critically, breached climatic thresholds—exemplified by rainfall reduction to 1.0–1.5 mm/day during Kalimantan’s 2015 fires [82]—lock in permanent fire vulnerability, disrupting local hydrology and triggering agricultural losses exceeding USD 4.8 billion [17].

7.3. Local Level (The Cause of Peatland Fires and Carbon Emissions)

Having established these thresholds, we now quantify their propagated impacts across Earth’s subsystems. At the local level, human-induced peatland degradation initiates self-reinforcing positive feedback loops that drive ecological collapse (Figure 5).

• Agricultural expansion and drainage
  • Drainage–desiccation cycle:

    »

    Drainage lowers water tables by 1–3 m, drying peat soils and increasing flammability.

    »

    Example: The 2015 peat fires emitted 1.75 Gt CO₂eq, worsening El Niño-driven droughts and prolonging fire seasons [68].

  • Subterranean fires:

    »

    Smoldering peat fires in Indonesia burn at an average depth of 0.51 ± 0.05 m [63], often evading detection by satellites. Current remote sensing technologies, including Landsat, lack reliable methods to identify these subsurface fires, as smoldering emits minimal thermal signals detectable by orbiting sensors [83].

  • Weak governance:

    »

    Only around 10% compliance with restoration laws, such as Law No. 32/200, sustains illegal land conversion and peat collapse (2–5 cm/year subsidence) [84]. Here, economic incentives such as palm oil production and weak policy enforcement such as lax sanctions under Law No. 41/1999, drive peatland degradation. For instance, the 2023 fires burned 1.16 million ha due to El Niño and agricultural expansion. In addition, the removal of the 3 m peat exploitation limit in 2021 prioritized short-term economic gain. This effectively endangered 70% of non-dome peatlands, exposing them to further exploitation. Meanwhile, communities lacking alternatives resort to slash-and-burn farming, signifying how socio-economic inequalities gaps compound natural hazards and amplify environmental degradation.

    »

    Threshold Effects: Peatlands within the Mega Rice Project in Central Kalimantan have lost their capacity to absorb and retain rainwater, maintaining drier-than-natural conditions year-round. This irreversible hydrological dysfunction heightens fire vulnerability, as seen in recurrent severe peat fires [85].

• Ecological and socio-economic impacts
  • Local scale

    »

    Hydrological disruption:

    .

    Peat fires and prolonged drought destabilize agriculture.

    .

    Toxic haze and environmental health:

    »

    Toxic haze: Peat fires emit dense smoke laden with PM_2.5, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and mercury, blanketing Indonesia and causing respiratory illnesses as reflected by more than 900,000 cases in 2019. Another case in point is in Palangka Raya City (Central Kalimantan), where PM₁₀ concentrations during the 2015 fires exceeded 2500 μg/m³—over 12 times the WHO’s 24 h guideline (200 μg/m³)—compared to <2000 μg/m³ in 2002 and 2006. This extreme pollution directly correlated with peat loss from fires in the Kalampangan area, exacerbating public health crises [13].

    »

    Marine collapse:

    • Polluted runoff containing oxides of carbon and nitrogen, ammonia, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons elevates coral bleaching risks by increasing zooxanthellae density in coral tissue. These pollutants, combined with stressors like ocean acidification, raise mortality rates for marine organisms and devastate fisheries [86].

    »

    Economic losses:

    .

    The 2015 peatland fires in Indonesia caused USD 16 billion in economic losses [17] surpassing the USD 8 billion value of the country’s palm oil exports in 2014 [31]. This loss dwarfed the USD 4.5 billion cost of the 1997 fires, with both crises driven by severe disruptions to agriculture, transportation, and healthcare systems [17].

    »

    Environmental and health impacts:

    • Severe droughts lower the water table, exposing more peat and increasing susceptibility to burning.

    .

    The 2015 fires destroyed 2.6 million hectares of peatlands and forests in Sumatra and Kalimantan, leading to habitat destruction and biodiversity loss, including 346,039 hectares of agricultural land [17].

    .

    The resulting toxic haze triggered public health emergencies and long-term environmental degradation, disproportionately affecting rural communities. For example, villages like Tumbang Nusa and Tanjung Taruna in Central Kalimantan endured annual smog exposure for up to three months during fire seasons from 1997 to 2015, crippling livelihoods tied to fishing and non-timber forest product harvesting [87].

    .

    Cultural erosion:

    • Indigenous communities, such as the Dayak and Banjar tribes in Kalimantan, faced cultural erosion as fires destroyed sacred forests and displaced ancestral lands. Traditional practices—including ritual ceremonies, subsistence farming, and medicinal plant harvesting—were disrupted, severing ties to cultural heritage [88].

    .

    Systemic poverty:

    • The destruction of agricultural land and health crises from haze pollution reduced productivity and deepened poverty. Smallholder farmers, already vulnerable, lost crops and income, while healthcare costs strained household budgets. The World Bank [17] emphasized that these compounding effects entrenched systemic poverty in fire-affected regions.

7.4. Global Level: Cascading Effects of Peatland Disintegrations

While the above impacts originate locally, they amplify into planetary crises through the Earth’s interconnected systems. To contextualize the global cascading effects of Indonesia’s peatland degradation, we first established local feedback loops as catalysts for planetary risks. Systems thinking revealed how seemingly localized disruptions—like drainage-induced fires or governance failures—propagated through the Earth’s subsystems (atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, cryosphere), driving global warming, biodiversity loss, and socio-economic inequities. This foundation ensures solutions target root causes, not symptoms.

Indonesia’s peatlands, vital carbon sinks and biodiversity hubs, face severe degradation from drainage, fires, and weak governance. This disintegration, as discussed below, triggers cascading impacts across the Earth’s subsystems—atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, and cryosphere—threatening global climate stability and sustainable development.

7.5. Global Level: Tropical Peatland Disintegrations and Threats to Global Sustainability

Peatland degradation undermines the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Paris Agreement via tropical peatland disintegration and global environmental change:

»

SDG 1 (no poverty): Livelihood losses in agriculture and fisheries exacerbate rural poverty.

»

SDG 13 (climate action): Peat fires emit 884 Mt CO₂/year, rivaling Germany’s fossil fuel emissions.

»

SDG 14–15 (life below water/on land): Coastal flooding and habitat loss threaten more than 300 species including those shown in Table 3.

7.6. Tropical Peatland Disintegration and Environmental Change

Having established the drainage–subsidence–governance (DSG) nexus as the core degradation engine, we now analyze its cascading impacts across the Earth’s subsystems—beginning with local manifestations before scaling to global consequences. First, we quantify immediate biophysical and social disruptions across Indonesian peat landscapes; subsequently, we trace their propagation through atmospheric, hydrospheric, and cryospheric systems.

Peatlands function as critical climate regulators, storing immense carbon stocks over millennia yet capable of rapid carbon release when disturbed. This section examines the self-amplifying feedback loops that transform localized peatland degradation into global biogeochemical crises. At the core lies a hydrological pivot: drainage triggers peat drying, enabling fires that liberate lithospheric carbon as atmospheric CO₂. These emissions induce radiative forcing, accelerating climate extremes that further desiccate peatlands—establishing a planetary-scale feedback circuit connecting land-use decisions to the Earth system destabilization. We dissect these cascading interactions across subsystems, quantifying how peatland drainage ignites a chain reaction with disproportionate climate consequences.

With reference to Figure 5, drainage-driven desiccation and weak governance enforcement synergistically ignite peatland degradation cycles—triggering cross-subsystem feedback loops that originate locally before triggering global consequences. We first isolate these local mechanisms, examining how

»

Drainage collapses water tables (<40 cm) to destabilize peat hydrology;

»

Governance voids enable illegal conversion, accelerating fire risk and biodiversity loss;

»

Community health and livelihoods bear immediate costs.

This local lens establishes the foundation for the subsequent Earth-subsystem analysis

■

Local drivers → global consequences

Drainage → fires → CO₂ emissions:

Draining peatlands lowers water tables, igniting fires that release 1.75 Gt CO₂eq (2015), equivalent to Germany’s annual emissions [68].

• Weak governance → peat collapse:
  Illegal land conversion causes subsidence (2–5 cm/year), releasing ancient carbon stocks (57 GtC) and accelerating sea-level rise [63].

■

Earth’s subsystem impacts

◆

Atmosphere

• PM_2.5 pollution:

  »

  Mechanism: 2015 fires emitted 7.33 Tg PM_2.5 (more than 3.5 times higher than non-peat estimates) [10].

  »

  Impact: More than 100,000 premature deaths in Southeast Asia; USD 9B/year regional economic losses [89].

• Methane emissions:

  »

  Mechanism: Peat decomposition released 226.2 Mt CO₂e/year by 2012 [90].

  »

  Impact: Methane, which has a global warming potential 28 times greater than that of carbon dioxide over a 100-year timescale accelerates global warming [91].

◆

Hydrosphere—disrupted hydrology:

»

Mechanism:

»

In Jambi Province, peat fires and prolonged drought during the 2019 fires reduced rainfall from 40 mm to nearly 0 mm in fire hotspots, severely disrupting local water cycles [92].

»

During the 2015 peat fires, daily rainfall plummeted to 1.0 mm (compared to the normal average of 3.9 mm), with the dry season extending to 150 days (May–October). This extreme aridity intensified fire persistence and peatland degradation [93].

■

Hydrological impacts on the hydrosphere

The drastic rainfall reduction caused the following:

»

Soil moisture depletion: Drying of peat soils, reducing groundwater recharge and lowering water tables.

»

Peatland degradation: Loss of water retention capacity in peat ecosystems, accelerating irreversible drainage.

»

Surface water scarcity: Rivers and reservoirs dried up, disrupting freshwater availability for agriculture and communities.

»

Increased drought feedback: Drier conditions amplified fire risk, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of aridity.

◆

Lithosphere—peat subsidence:

»

Mechanism:

Peat subsidence occurs when drained peatlands lose water, causing the organic-rich soil to compact and oxidize. This process

»

Reduces peat volume as peat soils shrink by 2–5 cm/year due to water loss and microbial decomposition;

»

Alters soil structure as oxidation breaks down organic matter, collapsing pore spaces and permanently lowering land elevation.

■

Lithospheric impacts

• Permanent land loss:

  »

  Subsidence causes the irreversible lowering of the land surface, reducing the lithosphere’s capacity to support ecosystems or infrastructure.

  »

  Example: In Indonesia, subsidence has rendered 1.2 million hectares of peatland unusable for agriculture or habitation [94].

  »

  Salination: Sinking land allows saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers, contaminating groundwater (a critical lithosphere–reservoir interaction).

• Carbon loss

  »

  When drained, peat soils undergo oxidation, emitting 1.9 ± 0.3 Gt CO₂/year [64]—comparable to 2–3% of global fossil fuel emissions. This shifts peatlands from long-term carbon sinks to net emission sources, degrading their climate mitigation capacity [95].

Subsidence exacerbates drainage issues, accelerating further peat degradation and land collapse—a self-reinforcing cycle.

■

Permafrost thaw in situations where there is no direct physical interaction

It is noteworthy that despite lacking direct physical interaction, tropical/boreal peatlands and Arctic permafrost systems are critically interconnected through global radiative forcing. Peatland degradation releases contemporary carbon stocks as CO₂/CH₄, amplifying atmospheric warming. This warming disproportionately accelerates in polar regions (Arctic amplification), triggering permafrost thaw that liberates ancient cryospheric carbon reserves, and thawed organic matter undergoes microbial decomposition, emitting additional CO₂ and CH₄, thereby establishing a self-reinforcing feedback loop: peat emissions → warming → thaw → permafrost emissions → enhanced warming. This cross-system coupling transforms locally contained carbon pools into global climate liabilities, demonstrating how geographically disjointed ecosystems interact via atmospheric teleconnections.

Permafrost thaw initiates a self-reinforcing vicious cycle driven by three interconnected mechanisms: (a) albedo reduction, (b) thermokarst formation, and (c) microbial activation.

◆

Biosphere

Coral mortality mechanism:

»

Wildfire ash (iron-rich) washes into coastal waters, triggering harmful algal blooms (red tides). These blooms block sunlight and deplete oxygen, causing 100% mortality in coral reefs, for example, in Mentawai Islands, Indonesia [96].

■

Biospheric impacts

• Collapse of marine ecosystems:

  »

  Loss of coral reefs disrupts habitat for 76% of Coral Triangle species, including fish, crustaceans, and symbiotic organisms [97].

  »

  Example: Declines in reef fish populations destabilize food webs, affecting predators like sharks and rays [95].

  »

  Fisheries Collapse: Coastal communities lose livelihoods as fish stocks decline by 40–60% in fire-affected regions [95].

• Biodiversity loss:

  »

  Mechanism: Peat fires and deforestation fragment habitats, isolating populations of endangered species like orangutans and disrupting ecological corridors for over 300 species including Sumatran tigers and clouded leopards. Accelerating biodiversity loss disproportionately threatens keystone species—organisms with outsized ecological roles [98]. Their decline triggers cascading ecosystem dysfunction: for instance, vanishing orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) disrupt seed dispersal for >60% of dipterocarp trees (Dipterocarpaceae), critically impairing forest regeneration in degraded peatlands.

• Zoonotic disease risks:

  »

  Habitat loss forces wildlife into human settlements, increasing contact rates. This elevates risks of disease spillover, for example, the Nipah virus [99,100]. Critically, permafrost thaw may resurrect ancient viruses; viable Salmonella DNA and functional viral genes have been recovered from 8-million-year-old glacial ice [101,102], suggesting climate change could unlock prehistoric pandemics alongside contemporary spillover events.

◆

Cryosphere

Mechanism:

Peat-driven warming:

»

Tropical peat fires (e.g., Indonesia, 2015) emit 0.8–1.5 GtC/year of CO₂, amplifying global warming. Arctic regions warm 2–4 times faster than the global average due to polar amplification, accelerating permafrost thaw [98].

»

Peatland emissions and permafrost thaw: Indirect link via global warming peatland emissions (primarily CO₂ and methane from tropical and boreal peat fires/degradation) contribute to global greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. This global warming indirectly accelerates Arctic permafrost thaw through Arctic amplification (the Arctic warms 2–4 times faster than the global average).

Evidently, peatlands function as planetary tipping elements—where localized drainage triggers self-amplifying feedback loops (drainage → drying → fire → CO₂ → climate extremes) that cascade across the Earth’s subsystems. The data demonstrate that these degraded landscapes shift from carbon sinks to cascading emission sources. This disrupts the Earth’s interconnected systems through multiple feedback loops. In summary, peat fires and drainage release vast CO₂ emissions, amplifying global warming and accelerating Arctic permafrost thaw, which further destabilizes the climate. Hydrological collapse from dried peatlands reduces rainfall, exacerbates droughts, and acidifies oceans, driving coral bleaching and fisheries collapse.

Peatland degradation drives coastal subsidence, biodiversity collapse, and toxic haze—direct consequences of weak governance and unsustainable land use. Without intervention, Indonesia’s GHG emissions are projected to reach 2.869 GtCO₂e by 2030 (NDC’s business-as-usual scenario). However, targeted action could reduce emissions by 0.834 GtCO₂e (29%) through domestic efforts or 1.081 GtCO₂e (41%) with international support, offering a critical pathway to avert climate and ecological crises. Peatland-specific projections estimate 2030 emissions at 0.569 GtCO₂e (0.510 GtCO₂e without El Niño; 0.588 GtCO₂e with El Niño), comprising land-cover change (0.025 GtCO₂e), decomposition (0.228–0.278 GtCO₂e), canals (0.021–0.024 GtCO₂e), and fires (0.110 GtCO₂e), with an additional 0.0108 GtCO₂e annually from degradation [8].

8. Policy Implications

Given the irreversible planetary costs of disrupted peatland feedback loops—where local drainage cascades into global radiative forcing—the evidence compels urgent policy intervention. The cascading impacts of peatland degradation as elucidated above imperatively demand a paradigm shift from reactive mitigation to precautionary governance prioritizing indefinite peatland protection. This framework, anchored in strict drainage bans (<40 cm water table depth, per Indonesian PP 57/2016) and advanced fire-suppression technologies, is structured as detailed in the following.

Core Precautionary Governance Framework

• Indefinite peatland protection
  • Non-negotiable safeguards: Prioritize perpetual protection over reactive mitigation, recognizing peatlands’ millennial-scale carbon accumulation and irreversibility of degradation.
  • Strict hydrological thresholds: Legally enforce water table depths ≤40 cm (PP 57/2016) to prevent oxidation and subsidence (2–5 cm/year). IoT sensors and automated fines ensure compliance.
• Minimum 50-year protection baseline
  • Stabilization phase: A 50-year protection period is critical to stabilize emissions by securing Indonesia’s immense carbon stock (54.6 Gt C), equivalent to 6 years of global fossil fuel emissions. This stock remains stable only under hydrated conditions.
  • Rewetting imperative: Restoring the peatland hydrology is the only way to prevent peat oxidation and mitigate CO2 emissions. Peatland rewetting could deliver up to 13% of Indonesia’s emissions reductions from natural climate solutions (NCS) by suppressing CO₂ from peat oxidation [99]. At the project scale, rewetting 590 km² of drained peat swamp forest mitigates 1.2–1.5 Mt CO₂-eq annually—consistent with empirical measurements of 17–39% emission reductions across land uses [100].
• Adaptive milestones for long-term resilience
  • Short-term (10–20 years): Immediate drainage cessation, IoT-driven enforcement of water tables, and fire-suppression tech deployment such as LIDAR for early detection.
  • Mid-term (30–50 years): Biodiversity recovery (e.g., orangutan habitat restoration, endemic fish species like Scleropagus formosus).
  • After 50 years: Transition to permanent protection contingent on ecological thresholds (e.g., sustained water tables ≤40 cm, peat depth stability).
• Global Climate Stabilization Zones (preemptive threshold defense)
  • Governance must preempt thresholds (e.g., enforcing ≤40 cm water tables via IoT sensors) to avoid emergent risks like Arctic methane releases. Our proposed Global Climate Stabilization Zones (>3 m peat domes) directly safeguard these tipping points, while ASEAN transboundary enforcement disrupts cross-haze feedback loops. Government must legally enshrine core peat domes (>3 m depth) as non-negotiable “Global Climate Stabilization Zones”, prohibiting commercial activity to safeguard their carbon stocks (57 GtC nationally). This entails the following:

    »

    Recognizing peatlands as critical planetary infrastructure under national and international law.

    »

    Binding hydrological safeguards: Enforce water table depth limits (≤40 cm) and subsidence thresholds (≤1 cm/year) via IoT sensors (piezometers, soil moisture detectors) that trigger automated fines for violations.

    »

    Total protection for deep peat: Designate peat domes deeper than 3 m as permanent “No-Go Zones,” prohibiting commercial activity.

    »

    Corporate criminal liability: Legally require “Peatland-System Due Diligence,” holding corporate boards liable for repeated violations. Executives face jail time, while concession holders post “peat bonds” such as USD 10,000/ha forfeited for breaches.

This Core Precautionary Governance Framework is an integrated system designed to address the irreversible risks of peatland degradation through proactive, science-driven safeguards. Its components are interlinked to balance immediate action with long-term ecological stability, ensuring peatlands function as permanent climate infrastructure. Below is how its elements connect and reinforce one another.

Supporting strategies:

• Precision monitoring and enforcement
  • IoT networks: Real-time monitoring of water tables, methane/CO₂ emissions, and subsidence via piezometers and soil moisture sensors.
  • Fire-suppression technologies: Deploy drones and Sentinel-1 radar to detect subsurface fires, closing the 60% “emission gap” in current detection systems.
• Equity-centered livelihood transitions
  • Paludiculture: Replace drainage-dependent crops with wetland-compatible alternatives (sago, jelutong) to align livelihoods with peat hydrology.
  • Indigenous stewardship: Formalize Dayak and Kubu land rights, integrating traditional fire management, for example, tembawang agroforestry, into national strategies.

Remarks: Equity-centered restoration bridges ecological and human well-being, ensuring advanced technologies like IoT and drones complement—not replace—Indigenous stewardship.

Regional accountability mechanisms:

Local actions must align with regional and international frameworks to address the transboundary nature of peatland degradation:

• ASEAN Haze Agreements institutionalizing transboundary enforcement

  »

  Joint firefighting protocols: Mandate shared firefighting resources, for example, aerial water bombers, regional response teams, across ASEAN member states during haze crises.

  »

  IoT-driven peat health monitoring: Establish a unified regional platform for real-time data sharing on water tables, subsidence, and fire risks, leveraging IoT sensors and Sentinel-1 radar.

  »

  Standardized penalties: Harmonize fines for cross-border violations, for example, Malaysian/Singaporean firms draining Indonesian peatlands).

• ASEAN Haze Mitigation Fund:

  »

  Palm oil levy: Impose a 1–3% levy on regional palm oil exports to generate USD 200–500 million annually, funding the following:

  »

  Peatland rewetting and canal blocking.

  »

  Community-based fire prevention programs.

  »

  Technology upgrades (drones, LIDAR) for early fire detection.

  »

  Transparency mechanisms to publicly audit fund allocation.

This regional approach can transform Indonesia’s peatland governance into a local and regional preventive mechanism, directly advancing

• SDG 13 (climate action) by cutting transboundary haze emissions (1.75 Gt CO₂eq in 2015) and stabilizing regional climate patterns;
• SDG 15 (life on land) by protecting biodiversity hotspots, for example, orangutans and Scleropagus Formosus in Borneo peatlands.

Indonesia’s peatlands are not merely ecosystems—they are planetary life-support systems, safeguarding humanity from climate chaos. The choice is binary:

• Embrace precaution: Legally enshrine peatlands as Global Climate Stabilization Zones, enforcing indefinite protection through IoT-driven accountability, ASEAN transboundary governance, and adaptive milestones (50-year stabilization → perpetual stewardship). This secures the irreplaceable 57 GtC stockpile, stabilizes regional hydrology, and upholds SDGs 13–15.
• Risk collapse: Prioritize short-term profit, triggering cascading feedback loops—2.5 Gt CO₂eq/year emissions, Arctic permafrost thaw, biodiversity extinction, and haze-induced health crises—that no mitigation can undo.

Indonesia’s FOLU Net Sink 2030 targets hinge on protecting its tropical peatlands across Kalimantan, Sumatra, and Papua—regions that collectively store over 50% of the nation’s peat carbon [34,35,101]. While Kalimantan alone accounts for 30% of Indonesia’s peatland areas, Sumatra and Papua face parallel threats from drainage and fires, necessitating integrated conservation efforts. Achieving the sectoral goal of −140 Mt CO₂e by 2030 requires strict adherence to Ministerial Decree SK.129/2017, which mandates IoT-enforced water tables (≤40 cm) and fire bans to mitigate emissions [20]. Without these measures, recurrent fires—such as the 1.16 million ha burned in 2023—will derail progress toward −304 Mt CO₂e by 2050, jeopardizing national and global climate commitments [34].

Indonesia must lead by example, demonstrating that peatland stewardship is both ecologically vital and economically viable. By anchoring governance in indefinite safeguards such as PP 57/2016 and regional collaboration, for example, ASEAN haze agreements, Indonesia can inspire global efforts to protect tropical peatlands—from the Amazon to the Congo Basin. The science is unequivocal; the tools exist. What remains is the political will to act.

9. Conclusions

Indonesia’s tropical peatlands, which store some 57 GtC globally, are indispensable yet undervalued climate infrastructure. This study confirms that their degradation—driven by drainage, fires, and governance failures—has transitioned these millennia-old carbon sinks into catastrophic emission sources, with cascading consequences for the Earth’s systems. Three interconnected feedback loops, identified through a systems-based analysis, underpin this crisis:

• Drainage–desiccation–oxidation: Lowering water tables beyond the −40 cm threshold triggers irreversible peat oxidation (2–5 cm/year subsidence) and fires, risking 4.3 GtCO₂eq/year emissions by 2050—a return to the 1997-level catastrophe.
• Fire–climate–permafrost: Emissions from peat combustion (18 Mg CO₂eq/ha/cm burned) intensify radiative forcing, accelerating Arctic permafrost thaw (+15% since 2000) and disrupting monsoons.
• Economic–governance failure: Palm oil’s economic dominance (4.5% of Indonesia’s GDP) perpetuates drainage, while weak enforcement (30+ annual violators) locks in degradation.

The proposed precautionary governance framework addresses these feedback loops:

• IoT-enforced water tables (≤40 cm depth) reduce emissions by 34%, aligning with Indonesia’s FOLU Net Sink 2030 target (−140 Mt CO₂e).
• Global Climate Stabilization Zones protect peat domes (>3 m depth, storing 57 GtC) as non-negotiable reserves.
• ASEAN transboundary enforcement, funded by a 1–3% palm oil levy, integrates blockchain-tracked deforestation bans and fire suppression.

This research achieved its dual aims by

• Pioneering a systems-based causality model that quantifies feedback loops such as drainage–desiccation–oxidation, validated against historical thresholds:
  • Irreversible peat drying below −40 cm water tables;
  • Fire vulnerability at <4 mm/day rainfall;
  • Carbon source conversion across a <3 m peat depth.
• Exposing planetary cascades where local degradation triggers
  • Atmospheric crises (1.75 Gt CO₂eq emissions rivaling Germany’s fossil output);
  • Cryospheric destabilization (Arctic thaw +15% since 2000);
  • Biosphere collapse (50% Bornean orangutan decline).
• Bridging policy–science gaps via SDG-aligned strategies that address enforcement failures (<10% compliance) through IoT monitoring and paludiculture transitions.

  ◆

  Policy Imperative:

  To avert irreversible Earth system destabilization, these findings demand preemptive governance of critical thresholds—enforcing ≤−40 cm water tables via IoT sensors and legally safeguarding >3 m peat domes as Global Climate Stabilization Zones. This must be scaled through ASEAN transboundary enforcement, funded by a 1–3% palm oil levy, to disrupt cross-haze feedback loops and position peatlands as non-negotiable planetary stabilizers for the Paris Agreement and SDGs.

  ◆

  Theoretical recommendations:

  • Political ecology and institutional theory

    »

    Conceptualize how transboundary institutions, for example, ASEAN’s haze agreements, overcome scalar mismatches in environmental governance.

  • Earth system science

    »

    Define “Anthropogenic Tipping Cascades”:

    Theorize peatlands as initiators in global tipping point sequences (e.g., Indonesian drainage → permafrost thaw → AMOC collapse).

    »

    Integrate peatlands into planetary boundary metrics:

    Propose a revised “Interference with Biogeochemical Cycles” boundary incorporating peat carbon vulnerability.

  ◆

  Challenges and forward pathways:

While regional case studies such as those in Kalimantan validate the model, scalability across Indonesia’s diverse peat landscapes and other tropical regions (Amazon, Congo) requires high-resolution monitoring (e.g., LIDAR, IoT) to address subsurface fire detection gaps. Equitable implementation must also prioritize Indigenous stewardship and paludiculture transitions to reconcile ecological and human needs.

Without systemic action, annual emissions will surpass 2.5 GtCO₂/year (40% above Indonesia’s Paris budget), exacerbating transboundary haze (100,000+ deaths/year) and biodiversity collapse. By enshrining peatlands as Global Climate Stabilization Zones—enforcing IoT safeguards, corporate liability (USD 10,000/ha bonds), and ASEAN collaboration—Indonesia can avert the irreversible destabilization of the Earth system. This framework, rooted in science and policy innovation, positions peatlands as linchpins of global climate resilience, demanding immediate integration into SDG and Paris Agreement agendas.

Limitations and future directions:

• The causal loop model, while holistic, relies on regional case studies (Kalimantan), necessitating expanded validation across Indonesia’s diverse peat landscapes.
• Subsurface fire detection gaps and equity blind spots such as Indigenous land tenure require IoT networks and participatory research.
• The current causal loop model prioritizes conceptual clarity over numerical prediction in association with complex socio-ecological and Earth’s system interactions. Future work will implement quantitative system dynamics simulations using Vensim to
  • Calibrate stock-flow equations, for example carbon stocks and water table depth against historical data;
  • Conduct sensitivity analyses on policy levers, for example, IoT compliance rates;
  • Project long-term scenarios (2050) under business-as-usual vs. governance intervention.

Indonesia’s peatlands are planetary stabilizers, not expendable resources. By enshrining them as Global Climate Stabilization Zones and through Indigenous stewardship, the nation can align its FOLU Net Sink 2030 (−140 Mt CO₂e) with global climate targets. Failure risks locking in 1997-level emissions, biodiversity collapse, and the irreversible destabilization of the Earth system.