Can REDD+ achieve poverty alleviation and deliver conservation benefits for Great Apes? Laura D'Arcy from ZSL explores this question in a presentation she gave at the ‘Linking Great Ape Conservation with Poverty Alleviation’ workshop hosted by CIFOR in January 2012.

1. REDD in Asia - Challenges and
Opportunities
Can REDD+ achieve poverty alleviation and deliver
conservation benefits for Great Apes?
laura.darcy@zsl.org
©Susan Cheyne

2. The need for a green economy
• Ecosystem services – ‘ the free’ economic system
• Unsustainable use of the world’s ecosystems – loss of
biodiversity, ecosystem provisioning, regulating, cultural
and supporting services.
• Climate change –C02 levels 35% higher pre-industrial
revolution, warming rate of 0.29°F/decade.
• Natural capital –attributes a value to ecosystem services,
incentivising conservation and highlighting the relationship
between economic development, human wellbeing and
maintenance of these services which directly benefit
biodiversity conservation.

3. Great Apes in Asia
©Kirsty Manduell
©Andrea Gibson
Sumatran Orangutan (Pongo Bornean Orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) –
abelii) – critically endangered – endangered PHVA 45,000 – 69,000 (Singleton et
7300 (Singleton et al 2007) al 2004), 3 sub spp. (wurmi, morio, pygmaeus)

4. Indonesia – REDD Potential
• Forested areas: 100 million ha belong to the Indonesian
Government, under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of
Forestry. More forest under various management levels.
• Legal framework: exists to protect forests and endangered
species such as orangutans
• C02 emissions: 85% in 2005 (3.01 Gt CO2 ) results from
deforestation/ degradation (Peace 2007)
• Government commitment: C02 emissions reduction pledge
26% by 2020 or 41% with international funding
• Readiness: March 2010 U$5.6 million released by UN-
REDD for REDD implementation phase
• Deforestation rates 2000-2008: Kalimantan 2.3 million ha
over 8 years, 3.1 million ha over 8 years (Brioch 2011)

5. Threats
• Economic growth 4.5-6.3% / year (IMF 2010).
Set for 7% by 2020
• Land use cover changes planned by 2020
include: 10 million ha (pulp and paper),
9 million ha (palm oil plantations).
©Laura D’Arcy
• Ineffective forest management units
• Conflicting legal framework
• Lack of law enforcement
• Funding sources and duration
• Apes: poaching, encroachment,
human - wildlife conflict, disease ©Laura D’Arcy

6. Challenges to implementation
• Land tenure issues
 globally on land exclusively with communal or customary
use or ownership rights, only 17% of not-for-profit projects,
2% for profit-only projects (Diaz et al 2011)
 Indonesia indigenous Adat law, decentralisation and conflict
• Spatial planning review (RENSTRA)
 Review process to link to goal of 7%
development target
• Long timescales i.e. Verified Carbon
Standards (VCS) methodology approval
• REDD framework yet to be established
• Gaining market confidence
Source : Global forest watch 1999

7. Challenges to additionality
• Safeguards: not providing for threatened species such as apes
and safe guarding communities’ interests
 Project level CCBA Gold standard
 National social and environmental standards (SES)
• Implementation strategy
 Enforcement (removal of people) v amelioration
 Paradigm shift (payment leaving forests alone)
• Expectations not met – social and environmental
 Consultation / Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC)
 Compensation only or livelihoods (why not have both?)
• Leakage: Displacement of degradation/deforestation activities

8. Opportunities for REDD in Indonesia
• Letter of Intent from Norway –pledged USD 1 billion over
7 years. Moratorium (Presidential Instruction No.
10/2011), a two-year suspension on all new concessions
for conversion of peat and natural forest, allowing for
‘REDD-iness’ preparations and planning review
• 23 million ha –of degraded forest mapped in 2006 (PHKA
2009), ready for development
• Political support – role of forests in economics, climate
change, food and energy security acknowledged by
President Yudhoyono
• Measuring, reporting and verification – orangutan
population method is clear, tangible, easy to demonstrate
and measure success of enhancing HCV, to achieve and
maintain CCBA Gold standard

9. REDD Framework so far
• Pilot phase or REDDiness – a nested approach of small
pilot/demonstration projects which will feed into national
reduction targets:
 UPK4 Presidential REDD Taskforce established in 2010
to establish legal and economic framework for REDD
 Pilot projects identified to demonstrate addressing the
fundamental drivers of deforestation at a local level
 44 REDD projects registered with the Ministry of Forestry
• Durban COP 16 – Agreement to
establish global Green Climate Fund
but no money. Fungibility (mixed) credits
still unclear.
Source: state of forest carbon market 2011 Diaz et al 2011
Source : Diaz et al 2011

10. Costs: Peat compared to Mineral Forest
• 11 out of 17 active REDD projects are on peat swamp forests
(Paoli et al 2010)
 A ‘win-win’ situation for apes - lower costs to offset
conversion to palm oil peat swamp forest have low yield
production of palm oil, reducing the cost of carbon emission
required in areas with high OU density (Vetner et al
2009).Bad news for more high yield, mineral soils which are
more bio-diverse than Peat forests (Paoli et al 2010)
Forest type Mineral (353 tC02/ha)1 Peat (2680 tC02/ha) 1
Palm Oil 1030/ton2 U$ 6180/ha (6 ton/ha) U$ 3090/ha (3 ton/ha)
REDD US/tC02 U$ 17.5/tC02 U$ 1.15/tC02
VCS/Compliance price 63 /10.244 U$
OU density/ 0.98 ± 41 1.32 ± 65
1. From Paoli et al (2010) mean value used, 2. Rotterdam CPO price Jan 2012 ,3. CTX mean 2011, 4. UNEP Report 2011

11. Wildlife premium
• Wildlife premium – proposed by World Bank/WWF in 2011
 Premium to be paid additional to the standard carbon
market for conservation activities
• CCBA – Gold Standard
 Must work in a Key Biodiversity Area
(KBA) framework, vulnerable and/or
irreplaceable species
• Market access – buyers have increased
Confidence if charismatic/flag ship species involved.
Increase ‘saleability’ of credits as CSR value as well.

12. Is REDD the only way?
• Clean development mechanism (CDM)– allows emission-
reduction projects in developing countries to earn certified
emission reduction (CER) credits, equivalent to one tonne of
CO2. CERs can be traded and used by industrialised countries
to meet part of their emission reduction targets under the Kyoto
Protocol. Main source of income for UN-REDD adaptation fund
• Afforestation/Reforestation (AR)– a falling market, problems
financing and commercialising the oldest strategy of enhancing
and restoring forest health: planting trees.
• Improved Forest Management (IFM) projects– mostly US-based
projects and market but on the increase internationally
applicable IFM-specific methodologies by a third-party standard
in 2010 and 2011 under the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS).
(Source: Diaz et al 2011 – Forest Trends Report)

13. adoptionnegotiator.org

14. With thanks to
Dolly Priatna, Murray Collins, The
Orangutan Tropical Peatland Project,
Susan Cheyne, Mark Harrison, Kirsty
Manduell