 Y cwysel yma yn cael y cyfnodio am gyda'r ysbun yn ei hunain, ac mae'r ymddun i'n gwneud yn y cyfrif precendol, mae gynnylch i'r ddweud, mae'r defnyddio allwch chi'n gofio at ybydd f치as ac mae'n cael ei fod yn cael eu cyfrif iawn. Mae'n gwybod eich gofio yma, ac mae'n arddangos gweithio'r economiynau. Y Model Fyrma'n Gweithedwyr yma eich gofio'r economiynau iawn sydd yn ymgyrch am Yn Llyfrgell, ac yn ymgyrch ar Yndyn ni, ac mae'r ffordd yn ymgyrch am ddeudiwyr ymgyrch, i gyfnodol, i gyrfaenol, ac ymgyrch ar ymgyrch, mae'n gwybod i'r brifysgol yn ymgyrch i'r cyfrifesol ymgyrch uchymu. Dyma'r concept rhaid o'r ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymddiolol i ddodol. Ymgyrch am ymgyrch ar ymgyrch ar ymgyrch yn ymgyrch ar ymgyrch, has resulted in the loss of biodiversity. Ecosystem provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting systems services have been a way of trying to actually start looking at what ecosystems can provide and how we can start attributing a cost to it.� Though this leads into the natural capital WHERE you are attribiting a value to ecosystem services and it's the whole mentality that if you add a value to something and you have to pay for something you then have buy-in and ownership so this then tries and sets up the chain WHERE you can sync economic development human well-being and a maintenance of economic services that can then lead to a benefit bdiodiversity conservation So, great apes in Asia. As you can see, there's not a wide distribution. It doesn't cover the Asian continent. It is specifically located in two islands, so Malaysia and Indonesia, of which, I mean not Malaysia, Borneo and Sumatra and which it's split in between Malaysia and Indonesia and in Malaysia and Borneo specifically in Sabah. We have two species of great apes. We have Sumatran orangatang and we have the Borneo orangatang, which is split into three subspecies. The Sumatran orangatang is critically endangered and as you can see is only focused in northern Sumatra and the Borneo orangatang has a much larger population and obviously a much larger island to cover. So, I've specifically looked at Indonesia, obviously because the amount of orangatangs that we have in this area and how we can relate that. And Indonesia is quite far ahead in its progress towards readiness for a red framework and how, I've kind of tried to put it in the context of how Indonesia is actually one of the countries that's quite suitable for the adoption of red. So 100 million hectares of the forest in Indonesia actually belongs to the Indonesian people and is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forestry. So the legal framework already exists in Indonesia to protect forests and to protect endangered species such as orangatangs. 85% of the CO2 emissions in 2005, which totals over three gigatons of carbon dioxide, was attributed to deforestation and degradation. So any actions that were put in place which would reduce that could clearly be attributed to the reduction of deforestation and degradation. The government committed last year to the CO2 emission reduction pledge of 26% by 2020. Now this was President Cecilia put forward that if Indonesia received international funding that number could actually be pushed to a reduction of 41%. In March 2010, $5.6 million was released by the UN Red Task Force for the Red Implementation Phase in Indonesia. So the threats that forests face in Indonesia and also in turn Great Apes, economic growth in Indonesia has been measured by IMF at 4.6 to 6.3 per year in the last 10 years. The target that's been set by the government for by 2020 is an increase in economic growth by 7%. By 2020 to achieve this, land use cover changes planned include 10 million hectares to be dedicated for pulp and paper and 9 million hectares for palm oil plantations. The problem is that we have with protected areas that we have ineffective forest management units. A lot of the protected areas within Indonesia are very underfunded. There's quite a lot of conflicting legal framework. We and ZSL have been working quite a lot. ZSL Indonesia have been working with the round table for sustainable palm oil. We've been looking at how to maintain and monitor HCV areas. HCV areas within palm oil plantations are not considered forests. The only forest in the interpretation of the Indonesian legal framework is that if it's forest it has to belong to the forest estate. So that means that it belongs to the government. Once it's declassified and taken and removed from the forest state then it starts becoming forest that can be utilised and it gets declassified further and further until it gets to a point where it can be land which can be used for any other purposes which is when it becomes suitable for palm oil. In that sense then the forest that's within the palm oil is no longer considered forest. So although the figure I gave you of 100 million for forests within Indonesia that's what's been classified as forest by the Ministry of Forestry and that might not necessarily actually be pristine or forest that can be suitable for great apes. So there is conflicting legal framework so what's considered HCV is not protected and must be paid taxes etc must be paid as if it's a production landscape. There's a lack of law enforcement due to the legal framework confusion. Funding for work to determine what is forest is slow in coming and as a result the same issues I think were faced globally with apes poaching, encroachment, human wildlife conflict. What was production forest is converted to agriculture and other land uses it means that the orangutans, in particular the great apes are pushed to them or marginalised and then we get more and more human wildlife conflict as well. So challenges to implementation of REDD within Indonesia. We have land tenure issues on a global scale in the recent report by forest, the globally on land exclusively communal customary use and ownership rights so those where you can actually show direct linkage to the indigenous or local people only 17% of the REDD projects put forward for not for profit projects showed direct indigenous ownership rights, 2% of those for profit only projects. So there's a lot of disenfranchisement for local and indigenous people when it comes to looking at how REDD projects are starting to be issued and implemented. In Indonesia there's indigenous adat law and decentralisation also adds to the mix of land tenure issues. Spatial planning, the government renster which is with a review of the spatial planning within Indonesia has to be reviewed with the target of this 7% of development with 19 million hectares to be given over for both pulp and paper and palm oil. Spatial planning in Indonesia due to decentralisation actually makes, you have the overview that's issued by the central government and then it's the provincial government and then the district that are responsible for actually deciding how to set aside land. So again that adds to it more layers of complexity. Time scales, VCS methodologies, I don't know if anyone here has a REDD project I'm sure we're going to find out but for someone who's been part of a REDD project one of the things is that VCS methodologies are taking up to 12 to 24 months before they're approved. For example we're working in a peatland and for the peatland rewetting it took 14 months before it could be approved and when you have a project that needs to be funded for those 14 months and you've got a grant for three years that's quite a long time. Verified carbon standards, sorry. So this is the voluntary carbon standards, one of the voluntary carbon standards and is the one that's adopted by most projects at the moment who are aiming for voluntary carbon. So REDD frameworks, the REDD framework the 2010 to 2012 deadlines that were set by the UN and also by the Indonesian government, it looks like that might take longer. Market confidence because the frameworks are taking so long buyers are starting to lose confidence so the market has actually become depressed particularly in regards to the compliant market. So challenges to additionality, so safeguards not providing threatened species such as apes and safeguarding community interests. Most voluntary projects now try and ensure that they have CCBA which is a standard that's focused on communities and biodiversity. This standard though is not a trading standard, it's a stacked standard which means that it's an additional to once you have received approval from one of the voluntary standards. So for example if VCS approve your project, if you have CCBA gold standard on top of that it doesn't mean that you get any extra money but it does mean that you are showing that you are paying attention to safeguarding communities and safeguarding biodiversity. Now this can be, there's a CCBA standard and there's a CCBA gold standard. Now as I said this doesn't actually add value to your project but it will add salability to your project and you can show that the safeguards are being followed. This is for only projects on a sort of more coarser scale, you have a national safeguarding standard that's being proposed which is the social and environmental standard. Implementation strategies, obviously on a project level ameliorations such as alternative livelihoods are much more likely adoption for the implementation of red. If you start looking at national scales then enforcement, so the physical removal of people who are in areas which have been set aside for red is potentially something which could happen and again then you have people who have become disenfranchised, civil societies, safeguards are not met. The paradigm shift of why you're giving me money to leave this forest alone is quite a huge mindset to change and I think it's going to be one of the things that's going to be the most difficult which leads into the expectations not met. Social and environmental expectations both by all the stakeholders that are consulted during a project. For social you have to have your community on board with your F pic and once you have your red project approved one of the things that people are seeing which is where Terry started showing us how civil societies are starting to move against red is that the activities, the red activities that are being taken up by projects are actually more of the easier, simpler environmental aspects such as the reduction in forest fire risks. The social activities are becoming more complex as expectations are higher and that leads to whether people are actually being compensated for the loss of earnings or alternative livelihoods are met. If it's just compensation which is quite often what projects do originally work their budgets on that means that again people still don't have a livelihood they've been provided with a compensation mechanism to give them an income but then there's nothing stopping them from earning more again and that's going into the forest and trying to harvest and use the resources within the forest so it's a double bonus for them. The easiest option that quite often projects have been doing so far is that they are more anti-poor, anti-community options. I'm not going to go on to displacement of activities or leakages because I think we covered that quite well in Terry's project. The opportunities in Indonesia are quite large for red as I mentioned and quite high so we had the letter of intent from Norway which pledged US$1 billion over seven years which resulted in the forest moratorium which was a two year suspension on all new concessions for conversion of peat and natural forest for palm oil and also for forestry. This was allowing for readiness preparations and a planning review which was the renster I referred to before. The WRI and the PHK have identified 23 million hectares of degraded forest. Now if we look at the fact that we needed to get 19 million hectares converted to pulp and paper and palm oil the degraded forest is there but there is the issue of what is degraded forest which is still quite contentious. Red has quite high level political support. The role of the forest was acknowledged by the president providing roles in both food and energy security, economic and climate change which was during the C4 forest day last year. MRV orangatangs, the way that orangatang populations are surveyed, the methodology and the base reference level to orangatang populations which was the PHBA in 2004-2005 provide clear tangible and easily demonstrated ways of monitoring orangatang populations. Great apes do lend themselves to the CCBA gold standard and orangatangs in this way whereas for example tigers which are much harder to monitor provide much more of a difficult concept for the CCBA gold standard. The red framework so far, Indonesia is in its pilot phase or the readiness phase and at this point it's a nested approach. So there are 44 red projects that have been submitted to the Ministry of Forestry and within those 44 projects they are mainly spread between Papua Sumatra and Indonesia. The key focus for the pilot projects is to identify and demonstrate how to address the fundamental drivers of deforestation at a local level. Now I've just put up which we talked about earlier which was the voluntary carbon standard at the moment because there's not a compliant market framework available in Indonesia. Most projects are moving towards the voluntary carbon market which is this VCF and CCB. One of the results of Durban was the agreement to establish a global green climate fund where these funds come from is unclear and the fungibility of credits is still unclear. So pilot red projects that want to continue, one of the possibilities is that they start selling percentages of their credits now on the voluntary market and they keep the rest back until they can start selling on the compliant market. However we've not been told whether or not that is possible and the way that the market forces work it seems that that might not be an approach. Ok, very quickly because I'm running out of time. This is something that was mentioned yesterday and I just put an example up which is the cost of peat versus mineral forests. Not that I'm putting one against the other but in reality one of the key market forces that we're facing in Indonesia is palm oil. So the revenue that you can get, and this was the figure from yesterday, you can get $1,300 per tonne from palm oil at the moment on the market. Now mineral soils can produce around 4 tonnes per hectare, 6 tonnes per hectare which gives you over $6,000 per hectare. In peat it's much more lower production, about 50% less so it's 3 tonnes per hectare. So after planting your palm oil you will start getting a revenue within 5 years and you're looking at a revenue of those figures. So quite a vast amount. So for red to be able to talk to people and try and put red forward as an alternative income to palm oil. For mineral soils we have to have a guaranteed red carbon credit price of $17.5 US dollars per carbon tonne. For peat because it's got such high levels of above and below ground biomass that number is a lot less. So peatlands much more afford themselves to voluntary carbon standards because the price can be quite low. As you can see there it's $6 at the moment but the compliant market is $10.24 at the moment. So again at that price at the moment it is we wouldn't be able to try and convince someone who is going to be planting palm oil that red is a better solution because already they have lost $7 per hectare. So just to show the orangutan densities the way that for mineral soils are much more biodiverse than peatlands however for great apes peatlands have proven to support much higher densities of orangutans. So if you look at it in a context of great apes that's quite a good story. If you look at it in a context of biodiversity it's not such a good story. And just going to put something else in here which is beyond red and this is the wildlife premium. Now this was a premium that was put forward by John Sidensteker in the World Bank of WWF last year and this is something that it was an ideal which is a premium to be paid additional to the carbon market which the additional premium would be focused purely on conservation activities and that would be the conservation activities of a charismatic species such as an orangutan, a tiger. However talking to people in the field sort of who are interested in potentially buying carbon credits they think that this is something that's a conservationist dream and is not going to be actualised. They believe that if a red project has CCBA gold standards then they should be looking at key biodiversity areas and they should be protecting species that are vulnerable or irreplaceable and therefore it's implicit so it's very unlikely that the wildlife premium will actually be realised. But the one thing that they did say was that if projects, red projects did have a charismatic species such as great apes then they would have a lot more confidence in buying because even if the project itself wasn't showing much additionality they would improve their CSR and the salability of the credits in the future.