 Asia's forest comprises 17.8% of the land area in Asia, and the natural forest consists of tropical rainforest, moist forest, peat forest, temperate or boreal forest. And besides the natural forest, there are some areas also planted. But this is under debate whether the planted one can be categorized as forest or not. And it's home for 500 to 600 million of people living in or near the forest reserves in Asia, home to high biodiversity, including the charismatic mega-volna. And now, but the human wildlife conflict in Asia, there has been increasing conflict. It involves protected and non-protected species, and also happened in protected and non-protected areas and in various ecosystems. Because of the limited time, I'm going only to give three examples, tigers, elephants and orangutans. Tigers, the map shows the previous area occupied by tigers now has been declining 41% between mid-90s to mid-2000s. And there's also increasing effects. In West Bengal, India, 30% increase over the past decade. And in Sumatra, Indonesia, Sumatra Island, this is Sumatra Island, 57 people were reported killed between 98 to 2011. Besides the report of attack, the tiger population is also declining. In India, a century ago, it was 40,000, declined to around 3,600 in 2002 and 1,411 in 2008. And Sumatran tiger, in the early 90s, it was reported approximately 400 and between 98 to 2007, 250. And at least 41 tigers were reported killed per year, between 98 to 2002. And there were also reported about 76% for trade, because of the trade and 15% of the human tiger conflict as the cause of the killing of 51 tigers per year. Bali and German tigers have become extinct in the past 50 years. This is news in leading Indonesian media about two years ago where tiger in zoo in Jambiprofins was killed and the body part was stolen and traded for trading. And about the Asian elephants, this is the map of elephant distribution. Human-elephant conflict in Northeast India have exceeded 1,150 humans and 370 elephants have died between 1980 and 2003. Reports of people injured and killed caused by elephant attacks in Sumatra. And the elephant population is also declining. In Asia, at least 50% of the last three generations, one generation is between 20 to 25 years. And in Sumatra, it's even at least 80%. Entire 11 population in Riau and Lampung provinces have disappeared and nine populations in Lampung have lost since mid-1980s. Now, orangutans. Out of the populations extended in 1900, 7% of the Borneo orangutan and 14% of the Sumatran orangutan, only those kind of percentage survived the 20th century population. And according to the most recent estimates, which many of you are also involved in the report, Sumatran orangutan in the wild is only 6,624. And Borneo orangutan which consists of three subspecies, Punga pygmies pygmies 3,000, a bit between 3,000 and 4,500, Wormby subspecies at least 34,975 and Morio around 15,800, which spread in the Indonesian and Malaysian Borneo. Different from elephants and tigers, a technical human by orangutan is much less. Two local people were reported injured in Sabulu, but it happened in around 1997 and one in Central Kalimantan in January 2010. And some local tour guides were attacked after being too close with them and several probably unreported cases. And the most recent report by Eric Mayard and his co-authors, between 7,790 orangutans were killed in 2010 and between 1,970 and 3,100 in 2004. And high rate of conflict and killings are found in the area with high deforestation rates and rapid plantage in development and especially in the part once an area of very high orangutan densities but very little natural forest habitat remains. And reported reasons for orangutan killings were food, 54%, self-defense, 14%, don't know the reasons of why they killed orangutans, 11%, past of crops, 10%, other reasons combined become 11%. And the compilation of reports of the interconnected driving factors of human wildlife conflict. I marked the blue ones which are directly related to orangutans while the black ones are not directly related. First, competition over space and resources interconnected with the increasing human population growth plus land use conversion and has led to habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation. Dark-scale development projects inside and around protected areas, for example, monoculture plantations and the most famous is oil palm plantations, road mining settlements and the market opportunity and demand has led to illegal trade, stochastic events, for example, fire and the wildlife is considered past. One of previous reports says that one power oil company paying $150,000 or around $17 for every orangutan past killed and the human wildlife conflict also often involves human-human conflict driven by human-human conflict. Another reason is abundance and distribution of wild prey for carnivores and dietary plants for the herbivores and omnivores, increasing livestock populations which then trigger the wildlife to chase the livestock rather than the wild prey although they prefer wildlife as prey. And there have been increasing wildlife populations not in the case of orangutans but in other cases like tigers and Asian lions. The increasing wildlife population as a result of conservation program has led to competition among themselves for prey and the last reason is climate change. There have been a lot of programs to create and prevent human wildlife conflict, for example, national policies, national strategy and action plans, natural and artificial barriers, guarding, patrolling, compensation or incentives or economic activities and wildlife translocation. But then human wildlife conflict keeps increasing, protected species population and their habitat keep declining and all the good things stop when project ended. So the question is why? What are the gaps? First, business as usual. Business as usual processes, business as usual research, assuming that doing research, producing recommendation will lead to better world. It's business as usual solutions. It's not working. It's also related with repeating the same mistakes. For example, social science methods and approaches have not been sufficiently understood and involved in community development and social related studies. This is one of reasons why all the good things stop when the project ended. High dependency to the project. There has been also imbalanced views and reports of local people's roles, perceptions, values, culture and tradition. Are we looking at the local people as threat or supporter of the conservation? Because of the imbalanced views and reports, it has led to misleading solutions. Compensation or incentive schemes, employment schemes and other economic motivation leading to inequity, jealousy and human-human conflict and attempt to link global local initiatives assuming that one size fits all. Failure to involve key actors beyond conservation. We often not involve the National Strategic Planning Agency. Mining sectors, companies, other sectors beyond conservation area and learning processes rarely apply learning theories and tools. More guys. Decision maker's priority is short-term economic return, not conservation. Protected species outside protected areas. Government conservation agency do not have authority over the land use policies, so there are a lot of habitat for the protected species are converted for economic development because they are under the authority of district government and the national government, not the conservation agency. Local stakeholders lack of capacity to deal with conflict or to prevent conflict. Training for forest rangers and government conservation staff mostly command control leading to more conflict rather than building collaboration and communication. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Please feel free to correct me. But there has been a recent example where pro-conservation local people has turned into opposition because of this misleading training concept. Now, the questions of orangutan conservation. High rate of conflict, killings and trade found in the forestry area and plantations. Is poverty the key driver? And when we are trying to understand the characteristics and the key drivers of human orangutan conflict, what's next? Actually this is related to the point raised by Tatiana. Don't think about conflict if there is no conflict because our question can shape the people's thinking. When there are no conflict and we come to ask them about conflict, they will be thinking about conflict. But if we come and ask them about the potentials they have, the values they have, then they will think about the potentials rather than the negative sides. Now, the recommendations. Prioritized conservation goals, revival of traditional norms, build pride of natural heritage, education and awareness-raising programs. Conservation activities should not be driven by economic motivation. Economic benefits will follow as part of the ecosystem functions delivered from conservation. And the last recommendation, business as usual, in terms of learning processes, in terms of research. Come on guys. Go out from your comfort zone. Be creative, be innovative. Thank you.