Colonial land grabs and industrial agriculture drove 20th-century peatland wildfires, study finds

Indigenous peatland management in Southeast Asia and the Amazon relied on controlled burns and agroforestry to prevent wildfires, but colonial and post-colonial land policies criminalized these practices. The study’s charcoal records cannot distinguish between natural fires and those caused by industrial drainage or arson for land conversion. Restoring Indigenous land tenure and fire governance could reduce future wildfires, as seen in community-led peatland restoration projects in Central Kalimantan. However, these solutions are systematically excluded from global climate policy frameworks.

The 20th-century wildfire surge follows a pattern of colonial-era peatland drainage in Indonesia (e.g., Dutch East Indies' *swampland reclamation* projects) and later state-led transmigration programs that resettled Javanese farmers into peatland areas. The 1960s–80s Green Revolution expanded monoculture agriculture in peat-rich regions, while the 1997–98 El Niño fires—linked to plantation expansion—burned 2.5 million hectares of Indonesian peatlands. These historical precedents reveal how state-backed agribusiness and climate variability interact to create 'unprecedented' disasters.

In West Africa, Fulani herders use controlled burns to manage savanna-peatland mosaics, a practice that reduces wildfire risk but clashes with state fire suppression policies. Amazonian Indigenous groups like the Munduruku employ fire in agroforestry systems that maintain peatland hydrology, yet are targeted by 'green economy' projects that prioritize carbon credits over land rights. Southeast Asian peatland fires are often framed as a 'natural disaster,' while African and Amazonian cases highlight how colonial land tenure systems disrupted Indigenous fire regimes. These cross-cultural comparisons reveal a common thread: industrial land use, not fire itself, is the root cause.

The study’s charcoal records provide robust evidence of increased burning in the 20th century but cannot attribute causation to specific drivers (e.g., drainage, arson, climate change). Paleoecological methods overlook the role of land tenure changes, which are better captured by historical archives and satellite data. Future research should integrate Indigenous knowledge with Western science to develop more accurate fire risk models. The focus on 'unprecedented' burning distracts from the need for interdisciplinary approaches that link ecological data with socio-political analysis.

In Dayak cosmology, peatlands are sacred *tanah beti* (ancestral lands), and fire is a sacred tool for renewal, not destruction. The burning of peatlands is seen as a violation of spiritual laws, with consequences for the land’s *semangat* (spirit). Artistic traditions like *songket* weaving and *gasing* (top-spinning) ceremonies often incorporate peatland imagery, reflecting a deep cultural connection to these ecosystems. However, industrialization has severed these spiritual ties, reducing peatlands to 'resources' to be exploited.

Business-as-usual scenarios project peatland wildfires will increase by 30–50% by 2050 due to climate change and continued agribusiness expansion, particularly in Indonesia and the Congo Basin. Scenario modeling suggests that restoring Indigenous land rights and enforcing moratoriums on peatland drainage could reduce fire risk by 40–60%. However, current climate models underestimate the role of land tenure insecurity and corporate impunity in driving deforestation. Integrating Indigenous fire governance into REDD+ programs could provide more effective mitigation strategies.

Indigenous and local communities in peatland regions are disproportionately affected by wildfires, suffering respiratory illnesses, displacement, and loss of livelihoods, yet their knowledge is excluded from policy discussions. Women, who often manage small-scale agriculture in peatland areas, face heightened risks during fire season but are rarely consulted in fire management plans. Land defenders opposing plantation expansion are criminalized or killed, as seen in the murders of Indonesian activists like Golfrid Siregar. The study’s framing silences these voices, positioning them as 'victims' rather than agents of change.