Economic incentives to conserve orangutan habitat

1,054 views

Published on

Johannes Refisch, of the United Nations Environment Programme’s Great Apes Survival Partnership, asks how we can provide economic incentives to conserve orangutan habitat - and reaches some interesting conclusions. The carbon value, plus the value of other ecosystem services, can make forest conservation more competitive than all alternative land uses. He gave this presentation at the ‘Linking Great Ape Conservation with Poverty Alleviation’ workshop hosted by CIFOR in January 2012.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,054
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
29
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Forest patches as step stones and corridors Carbon prices range from USD 9.43 / t CO2 to 17 USD / tCO2 More CO2 stored in Tripa per ha than in Batang Toru
  • Hope that our work can help to reconcile development and conservation, development is necessary and can be done in a smart way
  • Economic incentives to conserve orangutan habitat

    1. 1. Economic incentives to conserve orangutan habitat Dr. Johannes Refisch, UNEP GRASP January 2012 Great ape conservation and poverty alleviation
    2. 2. GRASP: a UN-led partnership Registered as WSSD Type II Partnership Photo from old albums <ul><li>UNEP and UNESCO </li></ul><ul><li>Convention secretariats: CBD , CITES, CMS, WHC, Ramsar </li></ul><ul><li>23 great ape range states </li></ul><ul><li>Over 40 NGOs, four private businesses </li></ul><ul><li>Donor governments and foundations </li></ul>
    3. 3. Threats <ul><li>Habitat loss and fragmentation (logging, agriculture, mining…) </li></ul><ul><li>Poaching and Bushmeat </li></ul><ul><li>Diseases such as Ebola </li></ul><ul><li>Conflict and instability </li></ul>Photo from threats album Photo from threats album Species Chimpanzee Bonobo Gorilla Orangutan
    4. 4. Report, eBook, maps, video, posters are available under http://www.orangutanreport.un-grasp.org/
    5. 5. How can we provide economic incentives to conserve orangutan habitat? <ul><li>We compared two pilot sites, the swamp forest in Tripa and mountain forest in Batang Toru, both Sumatra </li></ul><ul><li>We calculated potential income from REDD+ and other forms of payment for ecosystem services and compared these figures with income from current land-use forms </li></ul>Photo from threats album
    6. 6. Batang Toru, non-peatland, mountain forest Deforestation driver: Encroachment by migrants, illegal logging, plantation expansion, potential road development Opportunities: Carbon, Water, SFM, Tourism, NTFP
    7. 7. Tripa, peatland, swamp forest <ul><li>Deforestation driver: Conversion of forest into oil palm plantations </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunities: </li></ul><ul><li>Carbon, Water, SFM, Tourism, NTFP </li></ul>
    8. 8. 2001-2009
    9. 9.    
    10. 10. Net present values for different land uses are from Tata and van Noordwijk (2010), carbon prices from Butler et al. (2009)
    11. 11. In Tripa, if forest patches are conserved inside oil palm plantations, a minimum price of 5.2 USD/tCO2 would be needed to offset profit made from business as usual scenario where forest patches are converted.
    12. 12. Figures are from Beukering et al. (2009)
    13. 13. Figures are from Beukering et al. (2009)
    14. 14. Conclusions and recommendations <ul><li>The carbon value of forests on non-peatlands is estimated at USD 3,711 – 11,185 per ha for a 25-year period. This value is higher than that of all other land uses assessed (agroforestry, sustainable logging and coffee, etc.) EXCEPT for oil palm, which has a value in the range of carbon’s (Net Present Value of USD 7,832 per ha). </li></ul><ul><li>For forests on peatlands the range of net present values for carbon credits from avoided deforestation (USD 7,420 – 22,090 per ha for a 25-year period) are sufficient to offset the opportunity costs for the conversion of primary forest to oil palm plantation. </li></ul><ul><li>Including the value of other ecosystem services (USD 3,735 per ha for a 30-year period) in the comparison could make forest conservation even more competitive than all alternative land uses. </li></ul>Photo from threats album Photo from threats album
    15. 15. Conclusions and recommendations Focus further resource development including planned expansion of oil palm plantations on low current use value lands taking into account all social and environmental implications
    16. 16.   
    17. 17. Carbon and conservation Bernardo et al. 2010

    ×