 and grass was created to minimize and fight the great threats great apes are facing and in most in most countries habitat loss and fragmentation is the biggest threat there are many others including poaching and bushmeat diseases such as Ebola conflict and instability and a few more at the request of the Indonesian government and that issue was also discussed at the board meeting in grass two years ago we decided to provide some kind of practical advice to the government once it comes to land use planning and I'm going to present the findings of a study we did last year and we did in collaboration with eCraft, Pan-Eco, Yale, Grid-Arendal and Ian was involved at some stages in that study just as a side product of this eCraft also published a small policy note co-existence of people at Orang Utan is so much more and use some of the data we provided I have a few copies of the study with me and we'll put them on the on the desk later but also you can visit the web page indicated below where you can download the report you will find ebooks, maps, videos post us so it will give you much better idea of what we have been doing last year okay the key topic for us was how can we provide economic incentives to conserve Orang Utan habitat and what we did first is we looked at an overlay of great habitat and carbon and I think it was it came up in one of the previous discussions this morning that we have a high conversion of areas of high biodiversity and of high carbon potential so that was the first step looking to where's the best overlay where's the potential to include high biodiversity areas is there potential for other payment for ecosystem services schemes and finally what are the benefits for communities so we decided to compare two pilot sites the swamp forest on peat in Tripa and the mountain forest in Batang Turun both areas are in Sumatra and we calculate potential income from red plus and other forms of payment for ecosystem services and compared those figures with income from current land use forms including oil palm reduced the major deforestation drivers include and quoted by migrants in ecological plantation expansion and potential development and opportunities include carbon water to save the forest management tourism and on to our forest program and here the major deforestation by by soil mine to the first bar for Batang Turun you see that most of the land has been converted to this dirt forest while we look at the second bar for Tripa almost 50% of land is now in place in converted oil plantations and let's start with the carbon and then we go to the left on there and look at the above ground carbon stocks first on the highest carbon stocks are also areas which are inhabited by the pictures a little bit different when you look at the low carbon stocks because the carbon stocks are very high to the other one comes as a very high on the land as everybody knows and that's where Tripa landscape is but it's a little on mineral soils in the Batang Turun mountain forest and let me now look at the land whose values and again I present the figures from Batang Turun the top bottom you see all times the number of mine comes right in both in both sides however the figures are quite different but I think you also have almost the factor but you still generate more income from an oil plantation on mineral soils you have to be a bit careful with the scale because I had to fix it in mine I wanted to fix it in mine tonight and the scale is different on the top it only goes from 0 to 12 and it's a bottom from 0 to 24 and goes to $1000 but the key message here is on how much carbon money do we need and how much carbon money can we generate to compete with this form of agricultural activity and I had to add a few lines on this because we had to make a few assumptions and we simply decided we are only looking into voluntary carbon markets because we don't know whether and when would be including here whether at all there would be a follow up to the protocol so we only look into the voluntary carbon markets and then we use two scenarios one is a blue one at the bottom where we use a fixed carbon price and then we have a green one where prices for carbon are appreciating over time when you then compare the two graphs you see that in case of a tree plant you can really easily compete with the potential income from oil market development and of course a major reason because there is so much carbon stored below the ground that's different about them too you just come up with all, when you look at the range of potential carbon income it always equals potential income I think our one issue which kept on going through this presentation was what is the cost for a ton of carbon you would need to basically outcomplete oil plant development and again this scenario is quite different from what we thought first oil plant in Europe generates more income and second we have less carbon stored on the other side so I see my figures a bit lower than mine for example you are presented to be calculated 10.8 here is a different ton of carbon what we needed I see before we saw something like 17 you would need to look into the intent of how we calculate it but the key message is the same in TPA it's much easier there's a lot of carbon stored and it's a very important one then I just want to mention this country also has a lot of carbon in Malaysia and the issue whether carbon could help to conserve and maintain little corridors of small scale of forest pockets inside oil plantations all around and I think it would indeed work if the government goes for it to see some forest patches I think in this way going on Malaysia is quite different from the law in Indonesia from a carbon point of view I think it's a very little option to use carbon finances to include some forest intake although it does small numbers so now I want to see how far other because the services can help to generate additional income and he took these figures from the working report from 2009 and when we add all of these environmental services together it could potentially generate something like 3,500 USD per hectare so another key question was where would all that money go to and who would benefit from additional income from a conservation scenario and me again compare a deep forestation of business in areas of conservation scenario and the biggest difference actually is the level of the local community while the local government and the national government would benefit from both scenarios because they would be in the form of taxes and the local community would benefit disproportionately from conservation scenario while in the industry we would benefit less from conservation scenario let me just try to conclude the recommendations the current rate of force on people has made that 3,700 to 11,000 USD per hectare for 25 years period this is higher than that except for all of the environmental impacts except for all of that so coming back to the three-part scenario on people that the situation is different you could potentially generate income in the range of 3,422,000 USD per hectare over 25 years period and this is sufficient to offset the opportunity for the conversion of private forest to environmental impact and other the value of other ecosystem services around 3,700 USD per hectare and this would make the conservation scenario really competitive in comparison towards other alternative land response so now we have to discuss even though on the current level conservation scenario reminded people economically viable the country still wants to develop and increases oil pipeline production and that's one of the key recommendations of the report is that the government should focus further on resource development including the planning expansion of oil pipeline on our current risk-raising land and of course one should take into account all of the social environmental implications and when you take a look at the FCMED and the red areas all of these are areas which are potentially suitable for agricultural activities but they are all sides so they have to run on time so they are very competitive so there is still potential for further development and to reconcile conservation development and I think that's quite important and I just wanted to give you some comparable figures on what you can expect as potential and when we look at the oil pipeline first there is a big difference whether we plant oil pipeline on degraded land or on primary forest land if we compare the figures for oil pipeline with undisturbed forest we basically have a different effect on fire but if we plant oil pipeline on cleared land and degraded land oil pipeline actually can improve the potential for farming stocks and just to leave to the dog the picture FCMED there are no cuts but it's simply 2-4 years up with 8 species many of them live in the areas of high carbon content and presentation with a photo at the top I didn't see much but as you can see it's a long jump and just hope that the oil pipeline can make a long jump and can survive on the next 25 or 30 years I have additional slides on the video currently I didn't put it into this presentation but if the discussion goes more to this I'm more than happy to provide additional information and to leave the figures in how far can use to restart a national transformation process and I think I just thought here's a little bit of time for questions