This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Biodiversity Conservation in the REDD
Gary D Paoli1*, Philip L Wells1, Erik Meijaard2,3, Matthew J Struebig4,5, Andrew J Marshall6, Krystof Obidzinski7, Aseng Tan8, Andjar Rafiastanto8, Betsy Yaap1, JW Ferry Slik9, Alexandra Morel10, Balu Perumal11, Niels Wielaard12, Simon Husson13, Laura D’Arcy13
Abstract Deforestation and forest degradation in the tropics is a major source of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The tropics also harbour more than half the world’s threatened species, raising the possibility that reducing GHG emissions by curtailing tropical deforestation could provide substantial co-benefits for biodiversity conservation. Here we explore the potential for such co-benefits in Indonesia, a leading source of GHG emissions from land cover and land use change, and among the most species-rich countries in the world. We show that focal ecosystems for interventions to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in Indonesia do not coincide with areas supporting the most species-rich communities or highest concentration of threatened species. We argue that inherent trade-offs among ecosystems in emission reduction potential, opportunity cost of foregone development and biodiversity values will require a regulatory framework to balance emission reduction interventions with biodiversity co-benefit targets. We discuss how such a regulatory framework might function, and caution that pursuing emission reduction strategies without such a framework may undermine, not enhance, long-term prospects for biodiversity conservation in the tropics. Introduction Carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation contribute 12-20% of anthropogenic global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions annually [1,2], primarily from the tropics . Tropical countries also harbour over half (51.1%) of the world’s 48,170 threatened species , raising the possibility that reducing GHG emissions by curtailing tropical deforestation might also provide valuable co-benefits for biodiversity conservation . Here we explore potential biodiversity impacts of anticipated emission reduction strategies in Indonesia, the world’s third largest source of GHG emissions  and among the most species-rich countries in the world. We address calls in this journal [7,8] and elsewhere [9-11] for a stronger regulatory framework governing emission reduction strategies in forests to ensure that biodiversity co-benefits are achieved. We caution that in Indonesia and other tropical countries, pursuing emission reduction strategies in forests without such a framework may worsen, not enhance, long-term biodiversity conservation.
The Reducing Emissions from forest Degradation and Deforestation (REDD) scheme of the post-Kyoto UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) treaty seeks to involve developing countries in global GHG reduction efforts by creating financial incentives to improve forest management and protection . Under REDD, and its derivative REDD+, which recognizes forest carbon stock enhancements (sequestration) from improved conservation and sustainable management of forests, developing countries that reduce forest based emissions below an established ‘business as usual’ projection will be rewarded through payments from donor funds or market sale of emission reduction credits. REDD clearly provides an opportunity for biodiverse, carbon-rich tropical countries to protect threatened biodiversity as a co-benefit of maintaining forests and the carbon they store [11,13]. However, it remains unclear how biodiversity provisions will be included within REDD, raising questions about the extent to which it will improve biodiversity conservation over the long-term [5,14,15]. Estimated terrestrial carbon and biodiversity are positively correlated globally , but this pattern does not necessarily hold at sub-national scales where REDD will typically be implemented. This raises concern
* Correspondence: email@example.com 1 Daemeter Consulting, Bogor, Indonesia Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© 2010 Paoli et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
deforestation rates on peat were much lower than on mineral soils.cbmjournal. Similarly. 23 million ha in critical condition were mapped across Indonesia in 2006 .Paoli et al. with 11 of 17 site-based carbon projects in Sumatra and Kalimantan on peat. respectively. or up to 41% if financial support is forthcoming from the international community . data from ). including a recent offer from Norway of US$1 billion to Indonesia for assistance with implementing REDD . these industries will require an estimated 19 million ha of land for new plantations over the next 10 years. Such commitments have drawn significant attention. 128.01 Gt CO2 annual emissions in 2005 originated from deforestation and degradation . relative losses of lowland forest on mineral soils in Sumatra and Kalimantan were nearly three times higher than forests on the coastal alluvial plains dominated by peat (61% vs 24% in Sumatra. The main sources of these emissions are lowland dipterocarp forests on welldrained mineral soils and peat swamp forest on waterlogged peatlands. Table 1. 5:7 http://www. however. illustrates the need for explicit biodiversity provisions to ensure that biodiversity co-benefits are achieved. However. From 1985-1997. Increased use of technology. Total carbon stocks are thus. fiber plantations and pulp. eight times higher in lowland forests One option to expand plantations and meet emission reduction targets in Indonesia would be to concentrate new plantations on degraded. made peat the source of nearly half (45%. and unanticipated negative outcomes are avoided. reflecting higher costs. deforested land. have drawn the majority of REDD project investments. and peatlands. Norway has made it a pre-condition of its $US1 billion offer . . Reconciling plantation expansion with emissions reduction Approximately 85% of Indonesia’s estimated 3.xls for original data). respectively (Table 1). mean ± SD. The Ministry of Forestry recently announced a 10-year plan to develop nine million ha of fiber plantations to supply a two-fold expansion of pulp and paper capacity .06 million ha of REDD projects across Indonesia (see Additional File 2: Datafile_2. Given the much higher total carbon storage (emission reduction potential) of forests on peat (Table 1).pdf). destructive synergies with extreme drought linked to El Nino Southern Oscillation increase risk of catastrophic fires. such as excavators. 20. with corresponding higher total estimated GHG emissions arising from their conversion (Table 1). despite their lesser extent than mineral areas (Table 1). and 3% of global emissions.3% annually over the past three years  due in part to expanding natural resource industries such as oil palm. Table 1). where REDD will be pursued as a set of subnational programs. equal to 1. Indonesia has also made voluntary commitments to reduce emissions by 26% by 2020. Discussion REDD in Indonesia Indonesia.67]). Together. the Indonesian government recently expressed this view . [6.5-6. Indeed.61]. in 2005 (Table 1.35 Gt CO2 yr-1) of Indonesia’s annual emissions.1 million ha and c. see Additional File 1: Datafile_1. combined with annual fires [60. Sources of forest based emissions in Indonesia on peat than on mineral soils. and lower opportunity cost of foregoing peatland development.69 million (56%) of the estimated 3. lower yield and technological challenges of developing peatlands . Drainage and resulting oxidation of carbon-dense peat. Historically. due to the scarcity of land meeting an ecologically and socially sound definition of degraded.25]. Carbon Balance and Management 2010. Planting such ‘degraded lands’ has proven to be a challenge. Further. with economic growth of 4. Plantation expansion notwithstanding. belowground carbon stocks differ markedly. with estimated original extent of c. Estimated aboveground carbon is similar in forests on mineral soils and peat (211 ± 55 vs. with up to c.com/content/5/1/7 Page 2 of 9 that preferential targeting of carbon-rich ecosystems may intensify pressures on relatively carbon-poor ecosystems that nevertheless support equal or greater levels of biodiversity [15-17]. 20 times more carbon in the un-decomposed organic matter of peat compared to mineral soils (137 ± 26 vs 2425 ± 726 t C ha-1. on average. 58% vs 23% in Kalimantan. of which c. and up to 45 REDD projects under development as of early 2010 [24. coupled with expanding trade and rising demand for land have stimulated large-scale drainage of forested peatlands for transmigration projects and agricultural development [64-66]. Continued growth of these sectors is central to government plans to expand exports and create jobs. up to 10 million ha of new oil palm plantations are projected for development by 2020 to meet growing demand for palm oil derived products [20. Indonesia is a rapidly growing developing country.1 million ha. such as the 1997-98 peat land fires in Kalimantan that caused emissions estimated to represent 13-40% of global emissions originating from fossil fuels during that period .21]. 1. however. limiting further conversion of peat would seem a preferred means to reconcile economic growth and emissions reduction. and the fact that much deforested land is in fact under some form of management by local communities. 230 ± 66 t C ha -1 .
044 3. Only 21 (15%) of Indonesia’s 140 Critically Endangered lowland plant species have been recorded in peat.0) 12. First. Carbon Balance and Management 2010. and risk undermining efforts to conserve biodiversity in the long-term.s. c Data from . nutrient poor sandy soils on which kerangas (heath) forest develops.7-87. the forest area for Kalimantan was further subdivided according to land use status as defined by the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry (Tata Guna Hutan Kesepakatan. as well as forest on limestone.xls for original data). [30-49]. 107 of 128 million ha.382. (b) carbon stocks and (c) emission levels from both Kalimantan and Sumatra. compared to 104 (74%) found in lowland forest on mineral soils. see Additional File 3: Datafile_3. Unexpected outcomes for biodiversity Tropical lowland forests on peat or mineral soils are priority areas for biodiversity conservation.) on peat and mineral substrates in Indonesia Lowland forest on contrasting substrates Attribute (a) Estimated original extent in Indonesia (1000 ha) (b) Carbon Stocks (mean ± sd. REDD could effectively increase pressure to convert lowland mineral forest areas.s. oil palm or rubber).3) 917.730 (38.l.Forest allocated for Production .cbmjournal. data from [59-61]. degradation. including three as specialists. nutrient-poor status and lower productivity of peat forests [84-86].663. overlaid with SRTM to define areas <500 m a. yet are typically underrepresented in protected area networks relative to upland habitats . 5:7 http://www.l.7 ± 5. and Indonesia pursues goals for 19 million ha of new plantations over the next 10 years.8) 5. reflecting the water-logged.949 230 ± 66 (148-3510) 2425 ± 726 (600-3131) 2680 (748-3496) 58.890 (57. and provides wilderness habitat for some of Indonesia’s most endangered large vertebrates. d Data from [13.508.1-25.2 (43.2) 4.313 195.xls for original data).3) 16. 84% of the total]. orangutan and false gharial [77-80]. but also help conserve a unique ecosystem that supports specialized aquatic and plant biodiversity [73-76]. including Sumatran tigers.g.2) 1. mangroves and freshwater swamps.l. then the potential for REDD to promote conservation for the majority of Indonesia’s threatened species will not have been realized.309 21. see Additional File 1: Datafile_1. Peat forest plant diversity is less than half that of forest on mineral soils (Table 2. a Estimated extent of 2008 forest cover derived from SPOT Veg imagery (1 km2 resolution) by SarVision.4 2121-4611 d Estimated total annual CO2 emissions from deforestation and degradation across Indonesia (range) g (d) Estimated original extent of lowland forest in Kalimantan and occurrence of remaining forest as of 2008 in different land use classes according to national spatial plans (percentage of total remaining area in parentheses) h Estimated original extent (ha) Estimated remaining extent as of 2008 (ha) .178 2.606 (8. Production Forest areas may be logged and/or converted to industrial wood fiber plantations but not agriculture. Greater protection of Indonesian peatlands under REDD therefore would not only achieve emission reductions.783 (17.xls.977 (53.51-53]. Nevertheless. Total extent of lowland forest on mineral soils was estimated as all other forest <500 m a. for three reasons. and (d) estimated original and remaining 2008 lowland forest cover in Kalimantan on peat and mineral soil.0) 48. This will severely limit biodiversity co-benefits of REDD in Indonesia.6 538-1596 c Peat 20. f Data from . range) Estimated net annual CO2 emissions from fiber plantations f e -1 -1 -1 -1 b a Mineral soils 128. ultrabasic rock. h Using data for lowland forest on mineral soils described under note (a). peat land decomposition from drainage and fires. separated by national land use classification. range) Aboveground stocks (t C ha-1) Belowground stocks (t C ha ) Total (t C ha ) (c) CO2 emissions (t CO2 ha yr ) Estimated net annual CO2 emissions from oil palm plantations (mean ± sd. [54-58].6 (8. e See Additional File 1: Datafile_1. Protection Forest areas are allocated for conservation purposes and may not be exploited. not on peat.com/content/5/1/7 Page 3 of 9 Table 1 Physical attributes and emission estimates for lowland tropical forest (<500 m a. overall biodiversity levels in peat forest are substantially lower than in lowland forest on mineral soils [81-83].268.371 (25.xls.  and Wetlands International map of peat lands to define areas with surface peat >50 cm depth [27-29]. b See Additional File 1: Datafile_1.Forest allocated for Conversion 39.Forest allocated for Protection . TGHK). Peat forests also harbour significantly . 84 as specialists (Table 2.s.6 ± 18.Paoli et al. Worse yet.414.921. g Includes emissions originating from deforestation. if REDD is implemented with a disproportionate focus on peat. Asian elephants.429.100 211 ± 55 (100-370) 137 ± 26 (98-168) 353 (214-539) 13.5) Comparisons are made between (a) estimated original extent of forest on peat and mineral substrates across Indonesia. and includes lowland rain forest on well drained mineral soils (c.321. Conversion Forest areas are allocated for planned conversion to non-forest agricultural crops (including e.
11 ± 0.2 ± 5.09 ± 1.06 ± 0. 5:7 http://www.29 0.62 ± 0.41 0.58 0.21 * 2.29 0. minus those taxa .30 2.17 ± 0.11 0.00 0.65 ± 0.22 ± 0.17 ± 0.15 ± 0.03 ± 0.29 0.13 0.00 0.16 0.19 0.40 * 1.6 ± 0.59 ± 0.65 0.41 *** 0.1 ± 4.l.25 0.7 *** 114 recorded/84 specialists 16. ultrabasic rock and coarse textured sandy soil types on which kerangas vegetation develops. • P < 0.20 35.00 ± 0.16 0.17 ± 0.47 ± 0. Data compiled from n = 22 for peat and n = 24 for mineral areas.16 0. Species shown as present in peat swamp forest are defined as all taxa with at least one record in forest reported as peat swamp forest.61 ± 0.s.17 ± 0.) on peat and mineral soil substrates in Sumatra and Kalimantan.00 0.32 ± 0. The index ‘Species per 100 stems’ was computed as species per stem (total species number divided by total stem number) scaled to 100 stems.06 1.20 ± 0. respectively. *** P < 0.49 0. c Based on compilation of data on geographic range and habitat distributions from published and unpublished records for all IUCN-listed Critically Endangered (CR) plant species in Indonesia.03 ± 0.s.54 *** 0. ** P < 0.6 *** 80. Richness and Fisher’s alpha compared using two-tailed t-test adjusted for unequal variance.06 0.06 ± 0.03 ± 0.11 ± 0.05. Indonesia Lowland forest on contrasting substrates Taxon and Attribute (a) Woody plants Species richness (number species per 100 stems) Fisher’s alpha Critically Endangered species recorded present in forest on each substrate (b) Bats Species richness (rarefied number species at standard sample) Bat density (total abundance per trap night) (c) Densities of vertebrate species e d c b Mineral soils a Peat 15.13 3. b Compilation of published and unpublished records of ‘local scale’ (defined as <3 ha total sample plot area) woody plant surveys for stems ≥10 cm diameter at breast height (see Additional File 1: Datafile_1.0 ± 0.16 ± 0.01.87 ± 0.00 ± 0.68 ± 0.07 0.7 * 0. Carbon Balance and Management 2010.51 0.l.17 ± 0.00 ± 0.34 0.cbmjournal.62 ± 0. All data are mean ± 95% CI.00 0.5 0. Plant data compiled from published and unpublished literature.00 3.5 ± 2.001 a Forest on lowland mineral (non-swamp) soils excluding forest on limestone.11 ± 0.98 ± 0.08 0.00 ± 0.00 0.85 5.17 ± 0. (b) bats.16 2.06 ± 0.16 0.06 0. Bornean white bearded gibbon Hylobates albibarbis Pale giant squirrel Ratufa affinis Oriental pied hornbill Anthracoceros albirostris Bornean bearded pig Sus barbatus Bornean orangutan Pongo pygmaeus Mouse deer Tragulus spp. references [87-101]).07 ± 0.2 21 recorded/3 specialists 11. Total stem number per sample was similar between peat and mineral soils samples.8 2.15 * 0.24 1.28 ± 0.19 0.39 ± 0. and (c & d) large vertebrates.20 ± 1.77 0.87 0.9 ± 10.00 ± 0.39 ± 0.com/content/5/1/7 Page 4 of 9 Table 2 Biodiversity attributes of lowland tropical forest (<500 m a. Species listed as present in forest on lowland mineral soils (non-swamp) are defined as all other CR species with records < 500 m a. and mammal data are derived from field surveys.40 2. 430 ± 328 vs 505 ± 265.65 ± 0.11 ± 0.17 0.45 ± 0.47 0.00 0.11 3.19 0. Pig tail macaque Macaca nemestrina Prevost squirrel Callosciurus prevostii Binturong Arctictis binturong Wreathed hornbill Aceros undulatus (d) Densities of large vertebrate Orders Artiodactyla (deer and pigs) Primata (primates) Bucerotidae (hornbills) Carnivora (carnivores) Comparisons are made between (a) woody plants.00 ± 0.71 8.78 1.Paoli et al.17 0.xls for original data.15 ± 0.11 ± 0.3 * 5.00 ± 0.56 ± 0.03 ± 0.11 ± 0.27 ± 0.0 18.6 ± 1.26 * 0.68 ± 0.2 ± 6.32 ± 0.14 Water monitor Varanus salvator Sun Bear Helarctos malayanus Slow loris Nycticebus coucang Helmeted hornbill Rhinoplax vigil Small toothed palm civet Arctogalidia trivirgata Pangolin Viverra tangalunga Long tail macaque Macaca fascicularis Barking deer Muntiacus muntjak Bushy crested hornbill Anorrhinus galeritus Red leaf monkey Presbytis rubicunda Rhinoceros hornbill Buceros rhinoceros Tufted ground squirrel Rheithrosciurus macrotis Monitor lizard Varanus sp.01 ± 0.06 0.
113]. c.for example. In the short-term. Second. Carbon Balance and Management 2010. and many existing protected areas remain threatened by illegal logging.4 million ha of remaining lowland mineral forest in Kalimantan (25% of the total) is zoned for conversion to non-forest agricultural uses. and forests on mineral soils in Kalimantan (Barito Ulu. We make three recommendations for regulation to be effective: Recommendation 1 Countries must prepare their own explicit national targets for ecosystem and species protection across the full range of native ecosystem types and biogeographic sub-regions (where applicable). however. though not all (e. or kerangas forest types that form on podzolized soils on coarse textured sedimentary rocks. including limestone. specific values as well as presence/absence may vary substantially across sites. and logged forests throughout the tropics. biogeographically distinct sub-types of lowland forest on mineral soils are under-represented in Indonesia’s protected area network [108. preferably in accordance with methods approved by the UNFCCC (e. West Kalimantan.109]. (ii) restricting silvicultural practices in specific production forest areas to reduce impacts and maintain high biodiversity value. conversion to agriculture and fires [110. Where such plans already exist . we believe that a regulatory approach will be required to ensure REDD delivers substantial long-term biodiversity co-benefits in tropical countries. Table shows total number of independent observations (Mean no. ). Instead. Examples might include: (i) re-classifying land use status of forested areas slated for conversion to non-conversion forest uses. Sungai Putri. ultrabasic rock.Paoli et al. e Vertebrate densities were measured along permanent census routes in lowland forest on peat and mineral soil substrates at Gunung Palung National Park. Combined.xls. updated and revised in a transparent manner. Safeguarding biodiversity co-benefits of REDD the CCBA carbon standard. If such a national planning process were made a prerequisite for multi-lateral and bi-lateral REDD funding. 290.8 million ha) is eligible for conversion. Third. Species are sorted by increasing relative density on peat versus mineral soils. Tanjung Puting). km-2) of large bodied vertebrates between August 2000-2002 in lowland mineral areas (N = 170 surveys. Similar unintended consequences from REDD could intensify pressure on relatively low-carbon. to meet commitments under the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) . which store less carbon. This problem is not unique to Indonesia . There is a risk that preferential targeting of carbondense peatland under REDD will worsen long-term prospects for biodiversity conservation in Indonesia by intensifying pressures to establish plantations in forested mineral soil areas that offer lower emission reduction potential (Table 1) but support richer biodiversity and higher concentrations of threatened species (Table 2). it remains unclear whether and how biodiversity will be treated within REDD. Capture rate . but not necessarily less biodiversity than their unlogged counterparts [112. such as oil palm (Table 1). gap analyses should be conducted to identify ecosystem types currently under-represented in the protected area network (or within degraded protected areas that have lost their conservation value) and new areas required for priority species that have insufficient habitat to maintain large viable populations. and such markets are currently too limited to have global impact . according to 2008 data.g. Table 2). A properly structured market mechanism could. the orangutan. Individual captures at each site were rarefied 1000 times in EstimateS to compare species richness at a standard number of individuals (n = 128. bats and several keystone terrestrial and arboreal vertebrates. Recommendation 2 Using these targets. or (iii) re-assigning forested areas of exceptional importance for strict protection as parks or nature reserves. Gold Standard emission credits of With co-financing from REDD to offset opportunity costs of foregone (or restricted) development.111].cbmjournal.is a surrogate estimate of density. 5:7 http://www. A target-based approach also respects the . Species treated as specialists on peat or mineral soils are defined as taxa with records from only one ecosystem type.4 million ha (58%) is zoned as production forest. and the negative potential impacts we describe would be reduced. then net positive impacts on biodiversity would be ensured. more than 80% of remaining species-rich lowland forest on mineral soils in Kalimantan (c. results from the above can be used to redefine acceptable landuse practices within priority areas needed to fill biodiversity conservation gaps. following ).. floristically-rich cerrado ecosystems suitable for soy expansion in Brazil. 591. which can be legally converted to fiber plantations.g.they must be re-evaluated. in theory.com/content/5/1/7 Page 5 of 9 that are considered specialists on azonal extreme geological features. Sungai Lesan) and Sabah (Danum Valley).g. Recent work by  for Sumatra provides a useful model to evaluate ecosystem representation. as this is a sample from a single site. 5.6 km). 17. promote more equal balance of REDD interventions across ecosystems with different biodiversity attributes and threat levels (see example of an auction based system in 8). such an approach would likely gain traction only in voluntary carbon markets (e. d Based on harp-trap inventories of insectivorous bats captured at three locations each in forests on peat in Kalimantan (Danau Sentarum. A further c. Recommendation 3 Despite meaningful progress made at COP 15 toward developing a REDD framework. and REDD payments linked not only to verified emission reductions but also to biodiversity co-benefits. Note that. fewer bat species (Table 2) and support lower densities of birds . 12. the capture number in the smallest inventory at Danau Sentarum).7 km) and peat forest (N = 87 surveys.total bat abundance per trapping effort at a site . A full accounting of CR species recorded as present in peat is provided in Additional File 2: Datafile_2. Indonesia.
Louis Leakey Foundation. Further study is required to understand cost impacts at sub-national scales where REDD will be implemented. PLW and BY thank Aisyah Sileuw and staff at Daemeter Consulting for support of activities leading to the manuscript. 22:510-513. Bottcher H. 1-90 [http://siteresources. Kindermann G. Raymond L: Targeting deforestation rates in climate change policy: a “Preservation Pathway” approach. Dorothea Pio and Tigga Kingston for sharing their bat data for biodiversity analyses. UK. Boucher DH. 11Global Environment Centre. Selangor. Antonia Gorog and Lex Hovani for useful discussions on this subject and three anonymous reviewers for constructive feedback. citizens and government must work closely to determine where REDD funds should be spent to achieve an acceptable balance between emission reductions from forest and enhanced long-term biodiversity conservation. MJS was supported by a Leverhulme Trust Early Career Fellowship and wishes to thank Sephy Noerfahmy. Turner RK. 3:98-105. China. AT. emissions and/or land cover. supporting institution(s). 9. the Directorate General for Nature Conservation and the Gunung Palung National Park Bureau for research permission. effective and efficient REDD mechanism design. University of California at Davis. 3:2. RS DeFries. Protecting tropical forests is a good idea for mitigating global climate change and conserving globally threatened biodiversity. Wilson KA. Authors’ contributions GDP. Venter O.worldbank. 39:20-24. van der Werf GR. 10Environmental Change Institute. Bosch P. programs and policy initiatives in Kalimantan and Sumatra. University of Kent. 2People and Nature Consulting International. 2:737-738. Bogor. NW. (eds): Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. 4Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology. Laurance WF. 9Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden. Version 20102. both for recipient (tropical) countries and donor (developed) nations who are signatories to the convention. 13The Orangutan Tropical Peatland Project. Canberra. Conservation Letters 2010. Nature Geoscience 2009. IUCN: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Indonesia. . Olivier JGJ. Department of International Development (DFID] and PT Pelangi Energi Abadi Citra Enviro (PEACE).org]. Jakarta. Dave R. EM. UK. Havlik P. 2007. Current Biology 2009. AJM thanks Universitas Tanjungpura. Indoensia. Indonesia. 5:7 http://www. Department of Anthropology at Harvard University.Paoli et al. Sarawak and Sabah. McCallum I. plant species. UK. conservation status under ICUN and some additional notes are provided for each species. Indonesia. Australia. Additional file 2: Summary of REDD projects.cbmjournal. Susan Page is acknowledged for sharing records on tree species in peat swamp. 6. PEACE: Indonesia and Climate Change: Current Status and Policies. Palangkaraya. Center for International Cooperation in Tropical Peatlands. 7. A report prepared by the World Bank. SH and LD contributed data on biomass. London. 6Department of Anthropology. Menglun. and University of California at Davis for financial support. increases estimated cost only slightly . Malaysia. Bekessy SA. is in the details: scientists. Author details 1 Daemeter Consulting. Wintle BA: Using carbon investment to grow the biodiversity bank. including name. USA. University of Wageningen. 3School of Archaeology and Anthropology. Gusti M. [http://www. Fritz S. We acknowledge Cam Webb. rather than maximize avoided emissions. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 12SarVision. Brunei and Malaysia. This file provides a summary of REDD activities in Sumatra and Kalimantan. Queen Mary University of London. Iwamura T. Huettner MM. Rametsteiner E. Niekisch M. Obersteiner M. 10. Gibbs HK. William Fulbright Foundation. Conservation Biology 2008. Venter O. 3. Acknowledgements GDP. Morton DC. Carbon Balance and Management 2009. approximate size (ha) of areas covered by the activities and substrate (peat or mineral soils). Miles L. Reyers B: On fair. Rodrigues ASL: Global congruence of carbon storage and biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems. the State Ministry of Research and Technology. AR. biomass and emission parameters for lowland forest on peat and mineral soils in Indonesia. Laurance W: A new initiative to use carbon trading for tropical forest conservation. Sodhi NS. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. and fulfils objectives of the CBD. MJS and AJM contributed and analyzed data. 4. 5School of Biological & Chemical Sciences. Davies RG. Additional material Additional file 1: Species richness. At a global scale. Laurance WF. 19:R974-R976. Indonesia. Indonesia. Kelly A. 7Center for International Forestry and Agricultural Research. AM. biomass and emission characteristics of lowland forest on peat and mineral soil substrates. Grainger A. Chinese Academy of Sciences. 8Fauna and Flora International Indonesia Program. KO and BY participated in writing and the development of ideas. Possingham HP: Harnessing carbon payments to protect biodiversity. Carbon Balance and Management 2010. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Aoki K. The devil. This file provides a tabular summary of published and unpublished records for dipterocarp species recorded in at least one peat swamp forest site. 326:1368. Gurney KR. Australian National University. 8. Downloaded on 15 August 2010. Individual citations. Additional file 3: Summary of dipterocarp tree species recorded in lowland forest on peat soils in Sumatra. Strassburg BBN. location. Science 2009. 4:11. however. Jakarta. Carbon Balance and Management 2008. Kasibhatla PS. 11. Metz B. and wrote the manuscript. FS contributed biomass data and the computation of Fisher’s alpha for plants. Collatz GJ.. Biotropica 2007. Balmford A. Kalimantan. Pimm SL: Biodiversity and REDD at Copenhagen. iucnredlist. McNeely J. This file provides raw data and citations for information presented in tables and text of the manuscript comparing biodiversity. and their conservation status on the IUCN Red List. Lovejoy T. Spatially explicit methods are being developed to make systematic comparison among alternative land use scenarios for meeting biodiversity targets  and can be readily adapted to incorporate emission reduction potentials or other socio-political targets . the Indonesian Institute of Sciences. Raven P.pdf]. Price J. Fuller RA. Meyer L. Kraxner F. Randerson JT: CO2 emissions from forest loss. 2007.com/content/5/1/7 Page 6 of 9 sovereignty of countries to prepare their own targets. 5. Jackson RB. 2. Conclusion Implementing REDD to optimize biodiversity co-benefits involves trade-offs with emissions reduction and cost. The Netherlands. Orme CDL. and J. Lovett A.org/INTINDONESIA/Resources/ Environment/ClimateChange_Full_EN. Bogor. Canterbury. BP. Davis. Frumhoff PC. Received: 10 September 2010 Accepted: 23 November 2010 Published: 23 November 2010 References 1. planning REDD interventions to meet biodiversity targets. University of Oxford. PLW. Davidson O.
Vegetatio 1986. Chaudhury M: Transition to timber plantation based forestry in Indonesia: towards a feasible new policy. Wich S. International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). Cardigan. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 37. Kanninen M. Sills E. Sitmopul M. Hagihara A. . 2005:21-34. Forest Environment. Asdak C. Rahayu S. Yogyakarta 2007. Science in China (Series C) 2002. Mirmanto E.uncertainties and knowledge gaps. UNFCCC: Copenhagen accord. Rieley JO. Bogor. 354:1825-1829.forestsclimatechange. 45:55-64. Proctor J. 2005. World Agroforestry Center. 30. 20. Lasco RD: Forest carbon budgets in Southeast Asia following harvesting and land cover change. World Resources Institute: Washington.org]. Curran LM. 2002:16-22. 2008 [http://srtm. Palangka Jaya H: Biomass and carbon content in tropical forest of Central Kalimantan. DC. ATBC and STE: Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation and the Society for Tropical Ecology: The Marburg Declaration. Gardingen PV: Modelling rainfall interception in unlogged and logged forest areas of Central Kalimantan. mitigation. van Noordwick. Indonesia. Nepstad D. effects of forest conversion and options for ‘clean development’ activities. Hovani L. 18. 50.aspx]. Obidzinski K. 48. Malaysia. 2009. Southeast Asia. Indonesia. Waldes N. Rodrigues HO. CIFOR. Edited by: Lusiana B. Forest Ecology and Management 2010. Ritung . 24. 21. RFF Discussion Paper 09-49. DC. 43. Prasad A. Paoli GD. Massijaya MY: Biomass content and biodiversity of peat swamp forest under various land cover conditions. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 1996. 2010 [http://www. Sunderlin WD. 34. Becker P: Floristic composition and stand structure of mixed dipterocarp and heath forests in Brunei Darussalam. 1997:363-368. 2009 [http://www. Science 2008. Bogor. 122:193-220. Kapos V: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation: global land-use implications. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Tropical Peatland: Peatlands for People . Alternatives to Slash and Burn (ASB) Lecture Note 4a. Sheil D. Reproduced within Interactive Atlas of Indonesia’s Forests (CDROM). 31. Subagjo H: Maps of Area of Peatland Distribution and Carbon Content in Sumatera. Proceedings of the International Symposium and Workshop on Tropical Peatland: carbon-climatehuman interactions on tropical peatland: carbon pools. Press Release. 49. thejakartapost. Davies SJ. Rahayu S. Saridan A: The diversity of 15 ha of lowland mixed dipterocarp forest. Sukardjo S.com/content/5/1/7 Page 7 of 9 12. 47.pdf].imf. Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options. Bogor. 1973. Reuter HI. [http://unfccc. 9. 1990-2002. Nabuurs GJ. Liu D: Geographical distributions of carbon in biomass and soils of tropical Asian forests. Nagy L. East Kalimantan. Bekti Hasyim. Iverson LR. fire. International Monetary Fund: World Economic Outlook Database. Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation 2007. Germany. Banks CJ. Carbon Balance and Management 2010. 2000-2002. Brockhaus M. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 1998. Indonesia. extent and carbon storage . Jaya A. 28. Coe MT. Diemont WH. Marburg. Vallack HW: Ecological Studies in Four Contrasting Lowland Rain Forests in Gunung Mulu National Park. Oxford Forestry Memoirs 25. Kuching. Yasué M: Generating carbon finance through avoided deforestation and its potential to create climatic. Sills E. Proctor J. 41. 2:79-87. Wahyunto S. 26. Proceedings of International Workshop on Post Tsunami Soil Management: 1-2 July 2008. Ogawa H: Aboveground biomass of tropical rain forest stands in Indonesian Borneo. Post Jakarta: 18 million hectares of land for palm oil. Sabah. Possingham H. World Resources Institute: Washington. 19-24. 13. Structure and Floristics. 155:287-299. 2:211-220. Guevara E: Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4. 33. Southeast Asian Regional Research Programme. Sabah Forest Department. 1:237-260. Brown S. Indonesia. Reproduced within Interactive Atlas of Indonesia’s Forests (CD-ROM). 44. Anderson JM. 4:45-59.Natural Resource Functions and Sustainable Management. 363:1917-1924. Dartmouth College. Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup: Delegasi RI: menuju industri kelapa sawit yang berkelanjutan. 250:505-513. Suriantata : Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization in a lowland evergreen rainforest. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC]. Wetlands InternationalIndonesia Programme & Wildlife Habitat Canada (WHC). Biodiversity and Sustainability of Tropical Peatlands. Newbery DM. Ebeling J. 32. Edited by: Rieley JO. 2000-2001 Wetlands International-Indonesia Programme & Wildlife Habitat Canada (WHC). Lawrence D: Erosion of tree diversity during 200 years of shifting cultivation in Bornean rain forest. Palm C: Carbon stocks of tropical land use systems as part of the global C balance. Venter O. New Hampshire. 36. Reproduced within Interactive Atlas of Indonesia’s Forests (CD-ROM). Munandar AW: Landscape-scale variation in the structure and biomass of the hill dipterocarp forest of Sumatra: Implications for carbon stock assessments. Carbon Stock Monitoring in Nunukan. Resources for the Future. Nelson A. Sarawak: I. Bogor 2009. 23.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07. Indonesia 2008. Samara Publishing. FCCC/CP/2009/L. Bogor. Proctor J. Page SE. DC. Series B 2008. LOI: Letter of Intent between the Government of the Kingdom of Norway and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia on “Cooperation on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation”. Rijksen HD: Climate change and management of tropical peatlands as a carbon reservoir. Jatzo F: Indonesia cutting emissions by up to 41 per cent: How? East Asia Forum 2009. 13:695-708. 16. 2009. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Tropical Peatland Management: Wise Use of Tropical Peatland: 14-15 July 2009. 45. 1964. Sunderlin WD. 39. DC. Miles L. van Noordwick M. 27. Bonn. Yamakura T.org/ fileadmin/photos/Norway-Indonesia-LoI. U. Page SE. 68:71-82. Madeira EM. BBPT and Indonesian Peat Association. Soares-Filho BS. Hanover.cbmjournal. Journal of Ecology 1983. McGrath DG. Biodiversity and Conservation 2004. Borneo Literature Bureau. 22. Lusiana B. Conservation Letters 2009. Fox JED: A Handbook to Kabili-Sepilok Forest Reserve.Edited by: Rieley JO. restoration and wise use: 27-29 August 2007. World Resources Institute: Washington. Area and Carbon Content in Papua. 320:1454-1455. Webb CO: Seedling ecology and tree diversity in a Bornean rain forest. 19.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/weodata/index. Ecological Applications 2004. Washington.Edited by: Angelsen A. Chai P. Germany. Stickler CM. 15:2803-2824. 38. International Forestry Review 2009. Wahyunto .7. Wetlands InternationalIndonesia Programme & Wildlife Habitat Canada (WHC). Vegetatio 1996. Dennis R. Sabah Forest Record No. USA. 51. International Center for Research in Agroforestry. Wilson K: Carbon payments as a safeguard for threatened tropical mammals. Wahyunto S. conservation and human development benefits. Page SE: Forest structure and tree diversity of a peat swamp forest in Central Kalimantan. van Noordwick M: Above ground carbon stock assessment for various land use systems in Nunukan. Global change Biology 2009. 2:123-129.Paoli et al. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Campbell EJF.cgiar. 5:7 http://www. 8:542-569. Agus F: Environmental risks of farming on peat land. Page SE. Wertz-Kanounnikoff S. Central Kalimantan. Ritung . Indonesia. 65-74. 2003. Green J. Meijaard E. Geocarta International 1993. 17. Rieley JO: Tropical peatlands: distribution. csi. 25. Jarvis PG. Davidson EA: The potential ecological costs and cobenefits of REDD: a critical review and case study from the Amazon region. Laumonier Y. 29. Ludang Y. 52. Jarvis A. 2:7-12. Hairiah KSM. Ashton PS: Ecological studies in the mixed dipterocarp forests of Brunei State.com/news/2009/12/02/indonesia-allocates-18-millionhectares-land-palm-oil. 2009:265-280.pdf]. 46.K. Wertz-Kanounnikoff S: The evolving landscape of REDD+ projects. 2009. Walker WS. Wilkie P. Subagjo H: Map of Peatland Distribution Area and Carbon Content in Kalimantan. 42. East Kalimantan: A spatial and modelling approach. Heryanto Bambang. Species composition and patterns in the understorey. Argent G. 14:1855-1869. 35. Siregar UJ. Kanninen M. PhD Thesis. 14. 40. Edin A. Madeira EM: REDD in Design: Assessment of Planned First Generation Activities in Indonesia to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD). Slik JWF: Soil nutrients affect spatial patterns of aboveground biomass and emergent tree density in southwestern Borneo. Series B 1999. Oecologia 2008. 2006. 2010 [http://www. Cambell E. Widiastuti Fitri: Maps of Peatland Distribution. Still MJ: Primary lowland dipterocarp forest at Danum Valley.html]. 15.
West Kalimnatan. Edited by: Wich SA. Elsevier. Bogor. 2008. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 13:22-27. Jakarta. East Asia and Pacific Region Discussion Paper. Miettinen J. Washington. Page SE. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Tropical Peat Lands Hokkaido University & Indonesian Institute of Sciences. Report for Orangutan Foundation International and Infinite Earth Rimba Raya Project. Mott C. Delft Hydraulics report Q3943 (2006). Polosokan R: Preliminary study on growth. Samara Publishing Limited. 4:e8273. Indonesia. Ekadinata A. Heda P: Terrestrial Ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific. Indonesia. 21:285-296. Indonesia: Its tree species diversity and secondary succession. Rieley JO. ferns and fern allies. Leighton M: Tree species distributions across five habitats in a Bornean rain forest. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Tropical Peat Lands. Obidzinski K. World Agroforestry Centre . Amsterdam.thejakartapost. Whitmore TC: Tropical rain forests of the Far East. Hatano R. 2009. Malaysia. mortality and recruitment of tree species in peat swamp forest at Tanjung Puting National Park. 15:257-266. England. Biogeosciences 2010. 15:329-336. Indonesia. Hooijer A. Washington. DC. Silvius M. Edinburgh. 21-22 June 1997. Yuliani EL. Biotropica 1974. and mechanisms for reducing carbon emissions from deforestation. Jakarta. Bogor. Land Degradation and Development 2010. 59. 93. 193:301-313. . 5:7 http://www. Japan . Ministry of Forestry (MoF): Forestry statistics of Indonesia. Destruction or Development? European Union and Ministry of Forestry. Indonesia. 61. Rome. Wich SA. Samedi : Peat swamp forest and the false gharial Tomistoma schlegelii (Crocodilia. Wikramanayake E. Fairhurst TH. 65. Purwaningsih . Meijaard E: The importance of swamp forest for the conservation of orang utans (Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus) in Kalimantan. Hartoyo P. Morrison J. Indonesia. Banks CJ. 2002. 63. Riswan SS: Peat swamp forest in Nyaru Menteng Arboretum. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 69. animals.com/news/2010/01/ 18/stop-converting-peatlands-govt-study-recommends. 1983. Ragjagukguk B. Reptilia) in the Merang River. 2008. IUCN: The conservation atlas of tropical forests: Asia and the Pacific London: Macmillan. Rieley . Jaenicke J. Central Kalimantan. Mires: Swamp. Dinerstein E.Original state. 6:69-103. 1999. 75. degradation. Page SEF. Kartono AP. Oryx 2001. Page S. Siegert F: Determination of the amount of carbon stored in Indonesian peatlands. 1997:231-242. Herzog T: World Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005.id/report/ DNPI-Media-Kit/reports/indonesia-ghg_abatement_cost_curve/ Indonesia_ghg_cost_curve_english. Sambas EN: Composition of Peat Swamp Forest in MensematSambas. biodiversity loss and CO2 emission in Riau. Fen and Moot: Ecosystems of the World 4B. 84. Susanti E. 147:151-158. 153-164. Janzen DH: Tropical blackwater rivers. Tsuyuzaki S: Mortality and growth of trees in peat-swamp and heath forests in Central Kalimantan after severe drought. World Resources Institute. 76. WRI Working Paper. Indonesia. Rieley JO. 2009:4:11. Indonesia. World Bank Technical Paper No 343 World Bank. 181-199. 2010. 1996. 2001. Otway S. The Gardens Bulletin. In Tropical peatlands. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Biodiversity. Mirmanto E. Saribi AH. Simamora AP: Stop converting peatlands. Singapore 1963. Agus F. 2006. Washington DC. Husson S. 94. Suzuki E. 62. Cannon C.cbmjournal. Lim KKP: Diversity and conservation of blackwater fishes in Peninsular Malaysia. Lamoreux J. Indonesia. 64.go. Rieley JO. Indonesia. Jakarta. 2 edition. Gumal M. Epting J. WWF Technical Report. Canadell JG. Palangkaraya. Sumatra. 86. Jurnal Litbang Pertanian 2009. 1999. Biodiversity and Conservation 2009. Melling L. 71. 74. including a catalogue of all recorded species of flowering plants. Geoderma 2009. Verchot LV. Holmes D: Indonesia: Where Have All the Forests Gone? Environment and Social Development. 66. Nishimua TB. PLoS ONE 2009. 85. Anderson JAR: The ecology and forest types of the peat swamp forests of Sarawak and Brunei in relation to their silviculture. Siegert JO. Whitten T: Freshwater biodiversity in Asia: with special reference to fish. Rahayu S. Tellus 2005. Bog. Tropics 2006. 275-282. Las I. 57. 81. Dennis RD. 1991. 88. Page SE. Liew SC: Degradation and development of peatlands in Peninsular Malaysia and in the islands of Sumatra and Borneo since 1990.Paoli et al. Marshall AJ. 2009. Wosten H. SEA Regional Office. Utami S. 72. Boehm HDV. DNPI: Dewan Nasional Perubahan Iklim Indonesia: Indonesia Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve. Bezuijen M. 420:61-65. 54. Juhn D. Runtunuwu E. density. Better Crops International 1999. Tay JB. Ashton PS: Conservation of Borneo biodiversity: do small lowland parks have a role. Muin A: Pendugaan potensi dan studi keanekaragaman jenis vegetasi di calon lokasi pelepas-liaran orang utan di Kabupaten Seruyan. Hokkaido University 1999:165-172. 28:119-126. 1997:243-254.ICRAF. Jakarta. Page S: PEAT-CO2. Cardigan: Samara Publishing Limited. 57B:1-11. 2009. Hodgson S. abundance and impacts of disturbance. Ministry of Forestry. Edited by: Rieley JO. McKnight M. 68. Doody K. A Conservation Assessment USA: Island Press. Nature 2002. 95. Joppa LN. 20:131-228. 55. Husson SJ. Indonesia Oil Palm Agriculture in the Wetlands of Sumatra. 1961. 56. Jenkins P. Singleton I: Orangutan distribution. Paper presented at the Seminar on Tropical Ecology held by Japanese Society of Tropical Ecology. et al: Deforestation. 1988. 70. 1-5. In Orangutans: Geographic variation in behavioral ecology and conservation. Petkova E. Olson MD. Hydrobiologia 1994. Ancrenaz M. Kanninen M. Plant Ecology 2006. particularly in the North Selangor peat swamp forest. Brinkmann : Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Palm Oil Production: Literature review and proposals from the RSPO Working Group on Greenhouse Gases Final report. 78. Gaveau DLA. Webb GJW. Edited by: Rieley JO. The Jakarta Post. DC. 35:301-307. 90. Uryu Y.dnpi. Hearn AJ. 73. Kohyama T. Mitra Setia T. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Tropical Peat Lands Hokkaido University & Indonesian Institute of Sciences. Shiga. van Schaik CP. Jakarta. Andriesse JP: Nature and Management of Tropical Peat Soils. 2010 [http://www. development and disasters during the past 50 years with a proposal for future eco-resource management. Edited by: Page SE. 2010 [http://www. 80. Environmental Importance and Sustainability of Tropical Peat and Peatlands. Jaya A. Hooijer A.html]. Wilshaw S: Biodiversity of tropical peat swamp forest: A case study of animal diversity in the Sungai Sebangau catchment of Central Kalimantan. 58. Propinsi Kalimantan Tengah. Bogor. road construction. Wich S. Limin S: The amount of carbon released from peat and forest fires in Indonesia during 1997. Murdiyarso D. 79. Anderson JAR: The flora of the peat swamps of Sarawak and Brunei. 18 January 2010.com/content/5/1/7 Page 8 of 9 53. 19:343-356. 1984. Bogor. FAO Soils Bulletin. World Bank. Pfaff A: High and far: biases in the location of protected areas. 77.pdf]. Wösten H. eastern Sumatra. Sargeant HJ: Vegetation Fires in Sumatra. 7:1505-1514. Environmental Research Letters. 82. Meijaard E. 67. 83. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Mutert E. 1-52. Department of Forestry. Loucks JC. van Noordwijk M: Carbon Footprint of Indonesian Palm Oil Production: a Pilot Study. Goh KJ: Soil CO2 flux from three ecosystems in tropical peatland of Sarawak. Indonesia. Brassey R. Dewi S. Simorangkir T. 89. 87. govt study recommends. Kimman P. Silvius M. Syahbuddin H. Komara H. 59. 1-41. Atmadja S. 285:203-218. 2002. Dermawan A. van Noordwijk M: Carbon dioxide emission in land use transitions to plantation. Anderson JAR: The tropical peat swamps of western Malaysia. von Uexkull HR: Agronomic management of oil palms on deep peat. Khasanah N. Ng PKL. Leader-Williams N: The future of forests and orangutans (Pongo abelii) in Sumatra: predicting impacts of oil palm plantations. Kottelat M. Gunung Leuser National Park-South Aceh. Carbon Balance and Management 2010. Indonesia. 9 October 2009. Yusuf R: Vegetation Analysis of Suaq Belimbing peat swamp Forest. or are big inland sanctuaries sufficient? Brunei as an example. and mast fruiting by the Dipterocarpaceae. Kwadijk J. June T. Assessment of CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in SE Asia. Santosa Y. Siregar M. Jauhiainen J: Current and future CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia. Amira S: Reducing forestry emissions in Indonesia. 60. 91. Yamada I: Peat swamp forests in Borneo and Sumatra . Central Kalimantan. Journal of Vegetation Science 2004. 92. 2009:77-96. MorroghBernard H. PhD Dissertation.
com/content/5/1/7 Page 9 of 9 96. white and yellow meranti) United Kingdom: The Charlesworth Group. Koh LP: REDD: a reckoning of environment and development implications. MacKinnon J: Protected areas systems review of the Indo-Malayan Realm. Iskandar D. Humphries CJ.biomedcentral. 14:51-62. 1997. 2010. 108. forest structure and floristics. Whitmore TC: Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. Pressey RL. Proctor J: Altitudinal zonation of rain forest on Bukit Belalang. 1997. Gaither JC: Understorey avifauna of a Bornean peat swamp forest: Is it depauperate? Wilson Bulletin 1994. Possingham H. Newman MF. Rosenbaum B. Wilson K. Linkie M. CCBA: Climate. Carbon Balance and Management 2010 5:7. 303:1000-1003. No 11. 22-23 November 1999. 117. Community & Biodiversity Project Design Standards. 99. Gaveau DLA. 106:381-390. Potentials for Sustainable Use. Ecological Applications 2010. Indonesia. Sheil D. 102:149-171. 20:1721-1732. Series 1. Parashorea. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1993. Butler RA.org]. Setyawati T. 97. Trigg SN. 19:1153-1174. Shorea (red.com/submit . Biodiversity and Conservation 2010. WCS and UNESCO. 1997. Journal of Biogeography 2009. 105. Caniago I. Siregar P. 113. 18:15-35. The Netherlands. Occasional Papers 1988. Rondinini C. 5:7 http://www. 1-50 [http://www. Falcucci A. Watts M: Conserving biodiversity in production landscapes. Upuna United Kingdom: The Charlesworth Group. Cambridge: Call Printers Limited. Pendry CA. Hadian O: Ecofloristic sectors and deforestation threats in Sumatra: identifying new conservation area network priorities for ecosystem-based land use planning. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2010. East Kalimantan. 13:221-241. Karousakis K: Promoting biodiversity co-benefits in REDD. Budiman A. 2005. Science 2004. Wong A. Boitani L. Indonesia. Kitayama K: An altitudinal transect study of the vegetation on Mount Kinabalu. Margules CR: Beyond opportunism-key principles for systematic reserve selection. Brunei: soils. Mirmanto E: Checklist of plant species in the peat swamp forests of Central Kalimantan. 8:124-128. Kanninen M. 112. Soehartono T. Grantham H. Journal of Tropical Ecology 1997. Ashton PS: Dipterocarpaceae. Biodiversitas 2004. Science 1998. 1998. 109. Rachmatika I. Burgess PF.climatestandards. Stüwe M. McDonald AK. O’Brien T: Life after logging: reconciling wildlife conservation and production forestry in Indonesian Borneo CIFOR. Memorial Kagoshima University Research Center. Second Edition CCBA. Wageningen. Bogor University of Hokkaido & Indonesian Institute of Sciences. Flora Malesiana. Meijaard E. doi:10. LeaderWilliams N: Evaluating whether protected areas reduce tropical deforestation in Sumatra. 110. Mateo-Vega J. Indonesia: Phytogeographical status and local variation. Newman MF. Indonesia. Bogor.1186/1750-0680-5-7 Cite this article as: Paoli et al. Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central and take full advantage of: • Convenient online submission • Thorough peer review • No space constraints or color ﬁgure charges • Immediate publication on acceptance • Inclusion in PubMed. Uryu Y. 98. 111. CAS. Borneo Island Medium and Heavy Hardwoods: Dipterocarpus. 1-26. Simbolon H. 1998. Drummond S. 116. 281:1366-1368. Peart DR. Turner W. Hopea. 102. Wirawan N. Venter O. 179-190. Leighton M: Tree species diversity in commercially logged Bornean rainforest. 19829. 5:89-95. 101. 115. 2000. Christie L. 100. Drybalanops. 103. Laumonier Y. Arlington. Tropenbos Series 16. 104.Paoli et al. The Tropenbos Foundation. The Asian Bureau for Conservation and World Conservation Monitoring Center. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Tropical peatlands. Kasischke E: Lowland forest loss in protected areas of Indonesian Borneo. Burgess PF. 25:396-402. Maiorano L.: Biodiversity Conservation in the REDD. Miyagi Y. Carbon Balance and Management 2010. Whitmore TC: Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. Nasi R. Shorea (balau/selangan batu). OECD Publishing. Meijaard E. The vegetation and physiography of Sumatra Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Eichhorn KAO. Hardiono YM. van Valkenburg JLCH: Non-Timber Forest Products of East Kalimantan. VA. 118. OECD Environment Working Papers. Augeri D. Curran LM. 114. Ghazoul J.cbmjournal. Borneo Island Light Hardwoods: Anisoptera. Astiani D. Borneo. Lammertink MJ. Suzuki E. Oka NP: Phytosociological study on the vegetation of Kutai National Park. Catullo G. Kumara I. Setiabudi B. East Kalimantan. Purwaningsih : Sebaran ekologi jenis-jenis Dipterocarpaceae di Indonesia. 11:2165-2175. Laumonier Y: Geobotany 22. Tagawa H. Vegetatio 1992. Scopus and Google Scholar • Research which is freely available for redistribution Submit your manuscript at www. Stanley S. Blumea Supplement 2006. 106. Lyne O. Slik JWF: The plant community of Sungai Wain. Cannon CH. Dutton I. Epting J. 107. 2008. Dennis R.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?