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 sub-watersheds

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

Central Sumatra in 2008

Sumatra Ecosystem

Vision

Government spatial plan

(60% more forest than

2008)

Same natural forest as 2008

(but likely worse)

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

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

% change from 2008 to Vision

% change from 2008 to plan

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.

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…

High habitat quality increase

AND

High total 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

(Green Vision – Govt plan)

What about biomass carbon?

Implementing the Vision here would enhance wildlife habitat and sequester carbon…

And benefit downstream communities through improved water quality.

High habitat quality increase

AND

High biomass carbon stock increase

AND

Large reduction in nutrient export (N or P)

(Green Vision – Govt plan)

Programs to reduce erosion (including payments for watershed services) could also enhance and restore tiger habitat here

High habitat quality increase

AND

Large reduction in sediment export

(Green Vision – Govt plan)

High total carbon gain (N = 17) High biomass carbon gain (N = 17) High gain in at least one service (N=55)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% of total area

% of total habitat quality gain

High total carbon gain

High gains in at least one service

Sub-watersheds with high service gains in the Vision relative to the plan:What are the potential gains in habitat?

High biomass carbon gain

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

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 180

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Habitat quality

Total carbon

Biomass carbon

Nitrogen retention

Phosphorus retention

Sediment retention

District rank in order of opportunity cost (1 = lowest, 18 = highest)

cumulative % difference in service supply be-tween Vi-sion and plan

Indragiri Hilir district

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 180

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Habitat quality

Total carbon

Biomass carbon

Nitrogen retention

Phosphorus retention

Sediment retention

District rank in order of opportunity cost (1 = lowest, 18 = highest)

cumulative % difference in stock be-tween Vi-sion and plan

Indragiri Hilir district

Habitat quality Total carbonBiomass carbon Nitrogen retention

Phosphorus retention

Percent marginal service gain supplied by

Indragiri Hilir

20 52 23 22 21

How many of the cheapest districts

would cumulatively

supply up to this much service?

4 11 5 6 6

Net present ag. value of remaining

forest in these cheaper districs (billions of Rp

over 50 y)

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…

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?

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…

Recommendations for more sustainable

provincial and district spatial plans

Identifying locations for financing conservation

Application of results

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.