1. Applying InVEST to Decisions III: Sumatra Nirmal Bhagabati and Emily McKenzie

2. Why Sumatra? Rich biodiversity Vast carbon stocks in forests and peat soils Locally important services (hydrological, NTFPs etc) High deforestation rates threaten all of the above

3. Window of opportunity:National context • President’s commitment to reduce Indonesia’s carbon emissions 26-41% relative to 2005 levels • 10 Sumatra governors’ commitment to protecting Sumatra’s remaining forests. • Norway’s commitment of $1bn for REDD in Indonesia.

4. Sub-national context • Land use planning at province and district levels • Priority conservation area (RIMBA) delineated in Central Sumatra • Ecosystem services (InVEST) modeling undertaken to guide pilot investments in five priority programs • forest carbon projects, • watershed services schemes (incl payments) • best mgmt practices for plantations and forestry, • forest restoration

5. Study area West: Bukit Barisan mountains East: carbon-rich peatlands

6. We delineated 69 sub-watersheds 6 watersheds

7. 19 districts over 3 provinces (Riau, West Sumatra and Jambi) - We have data for 18 districts

8. Deforestation and returns from forest conversion Av. expected agricultural returns to forest conversion over 50 years (million Rp / ha) Percent forested in 2008 Av. annual deforestation rate (2000-2008)

9. Current land cover and scenarios Sumatra Ecosystem Vision (60% more forest than 2008) Government spatial plan Same natural forest as 2008 (but likely worse) Central Sumatra in 2008

10. Analyses • Distribution in 2008, and changes under scenarios, of: • Habitat quality for tigers • Services • Carbon storage and sequestration • Water yield • Sediment retention • Nutrient retention (N and P) • Where are cost-effective investments in ecosystem services possible?

11. Landscape-wide change in services and habitat under alternative scenarios

12. Sub-watersheds showing high* gains in both habitat and ecosystem services under Vision relative to plan *High= top 25th percentile of all sub-watersheds, based on the difference between Vision and plan for a given service or habitat quality score.

13. High habitat quality increase AND High total carbon stock increase (Green Vision – Govt plan) Mostly peat; Hence peat C emission reduction and tiger habitat conservation align well here But there’s a lot of tiger habitat that’s not on peatland…

14. What about biomass carbon? High habitat quality increase AND High biomass carbon stock increase (Green Vision – Govt plan) Forest carbon projects that target high biomass C stock can get us some coverage of conservation priority areas… but likely will leave some significant high-priority areas uncovered

15. High habitat quality increase AND High biomass carbon stock increase AND Large reduction in nutrient export (N or P) (Green Vision – Govt plan) Implementing the Vision here would enhance wildlife habitat and sequester carbon… And benefit downstream communities through improved water quality.

16. High habitat quality increase AND Large reduction in sediment export (Green Vision – Govt plan) Programs to reduce erosion (including payments for watershed services) could also enhance and restore tiger habitat here

17. Sub-watersheds with high service gains in the Vision relative to the plan: What are the potential gains in habitat? High total carbon gain High biomass carbon gain High gains in at least one service

18. Indragiri Hilir district Large gains in sediment reduction possible relatively low ag-value hilly areas But to get large gains in carbon stock, nutrient reduction and habitat quality, investment needed in high ag-value districts

20. Indragiri Hilir district

21. Why is Indragiri Hilir a potentially cost-effective district for investing in conservation? Net present agricultural value (over 50y) of remaining forest land in Indragiri Hilir: 53,800 billion Rupiah. Thus, even though Indragiri Hilir is not by itself the cheapest district for conservation… Multiple districts with comparable or higher total cost would be needed to realize the same level of habitat and ecosystem service gains (plus higher transaction costs)

22. Conclusions • Opportunities exist to align ES with conservation • Need to focus on multiple / different sets of ES in different regions • A focus on total carbon is not enough • Cost effective investments possible

23. Limitations / further work needed • Ground truthing • Uncertainty analysis • Socioeconomic aspects • Analyses at project scale…

24. Application of results Recommendations for more sustainable provincial and district spatial plans Identifying locations for financing conservation

25. Next steps in Sumatra • Building local capacity • Ground truthing • Socioeconomic aspects • Analyses at project scale…

26. Next steps • Report to be translated into Bahasa • Manuscript(s) in prep • Work with field partners – disseminate results, interpret, get local expert review • Training of local university partners • Future research: • Scoping out collaborations • follow-up ground level studies? • Socioeconomic analyses. • Impacts of forest fires on health? etc

27. Questions?

29. Slide Option #1 • Pick one of these slide options, and try to stick with it throughout the presentation.

30. Slide Option #2 • Pick one of these slide options, and try to stick with it throughout the presentation.

31. Slide Option #3 • If you need to delete the logo or the banner to have more space on a slide, feel free to do so. • I would prefer you not use this slide option for your entire presentation, but you can if you feel strongly about it.

32. Report structure • Five chapter report for WWF Indonesia: • Ch 1: Intro / overview • Ch 2: Carbon • Ch 3: Hydrological Services • Ch 4: Tiger habitat • Ch 5: Tradeoffs and synergies (today’s presentation)

33. Impacts so far • Driving discussion of ecosystem services among govt stakeholders • WWF Indonesia staff now using InVEST • International recognition (TEEB, CBD, next Living Planet report? etc) • Several white papers, reports, chapters • Helped accelerate and improve Heart of Borneo InVEST application.