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

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

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

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.

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

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

6 watersheds We delineated 69 subwatersheds

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

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

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

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?

Landscape-wide change in services and habitat under alternative scenarios 50 0-50 -100-150 % change from 2008 to Vision % change from 2008 to plan -200

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

AND High habitat quality increase 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

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

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.

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

Sub-watersheds with high service gains in the Vision relative to the plan: What are the potential gains in habitat? 80 High total carbon gain High biomass carbon gain High gains in at least one service 70 60 50 % of total area 40 30 20 % of total habitat quality gain 10 0

100 90 80 Indragiri Hilir district cumulative % difference in service supply between Vision and plan 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Habitat quality Total carbon Biomass carbon Nitrogen retention Phosphorus retention Sediment retention 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 District rank in order of opportunity cost (1 = lowest, 18 = highest) 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

100 90 80 Indragiri Hilir district cumulative % difference in stock between Vision and plan 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Habitat quality Total carbon Biomass carbon Nitrogen retention Phosphorus retention Sediment retention 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 District rank in order of opportunity cost (1 = lowest, 18 = highest)

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) Why is Indragiri Hilir a potentially cost-effective district for investing in conservation? Percent marginal service gain supplied by Indragiri Hilir How many of the cheapest districts would cumulatively supply up to this much service? Net present ag. value of remaining forest in these cheaper districs (billions of Rp over 50 y) Habitat quality Total carbon Biomass carbon Nitrogen retention Phosphorus retention 20 52 23 22 21 4 11 5 6 6 42,300 147,700 63,190 81,730 81,730 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

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

Limitations / further work needed Ground truthing Uncertainty analysis Socioeconomic aspects Analyses at project scale

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

Next steps in Sumatra Building local capacity Ground truthing Socioeconomic aspects Analyses at project scale

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

Questions?

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

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

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.

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)

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.