Your need in using the Electronic Data Rooms

On a day-to-day basis, the hotel business, legal studies, and financial sector online data room have a deal with more and more documents. It is clear that it is intricate to work with it all and to look for the needed records. Everybody has heard that presently, you are at liberty to utilize the Electronic Repositories but not all the organizations are brave enough to start having a deal with the Virtual Data Rooms. Why do not they work with the Digital Data Rooms? It is a question to think about. But we decided to particularize the motivation for dealing with the Due Diligence rooms and what pros you get working with them.

  • The most substantial reason for using the Alternative Data Rooms is the endless space for your materials. From this point on, you will find the materials as quickly as possible. For what reason is it so? It is so insomuch as you will utilize the Virtual Platforms which suggest you the unbeatable searching systems.
  • Aside from your missions, which may be the Mergers& Acquisitions, due diligence or IPO, the Virtual Rooms with their broad-ranging tools will stand in good stead for you.
  • Are you tired of utilizing the phones when have to have a deal with your depositors? From that point forward, you are at liberty to use the Questions& Answers function given to you by the Online Storage Areas. It will be not difficult for you to contact your investors from the far off commonwealths.
  • Do you understand that the Alternative Data-warehousing Systems are geared not only to keeping the records, but they also suggest you broad-ranging other tools? On the whole, the Up-to-date Deal Rooms become full-packed and can be convenient for large numbers of fields. For example, the Electronic Repositories deal with the restaurants, the financial sector, the energetics etceteras.
  • You are at liberty to decide on Virtual Rooms due to your financial muscle taking into consideration the fact that all the providers suggest you different pricing policy. We know for sure that there are very overpriced Alternative Data-warehousing Systems and there are the not expensive ones. In addition, there are even Virtual Data Rooms which give prices for people using them.
  • Do you have a deal with the customers Asia or Europe? Do all your clients speak your mother tongue? May be, you should better think about it. But it is hands-down with the Online Deal Rooms which have multiple languages recognition and have the translation services. On the whole, on the assumption that you need these features, set eyes on it choosing the Virtual Rooms.
  • It is an open secret that you worry about the safety of your materials without reference to your business dimensions. When you Online Storage Areas you can be sure that your materials will be completely protected. The services take all sorts of pain to use the actual security operations to protect your archival depositories. For this reason, give preference only to the certified Secure Online Data Rooms.

To draw the conclusion, we are to admit that no matter what you deal with, upon condition that you have a deal with varied docs, you have no other choice but try the Online Storage Areas and enjoy all their pros.

Deforestation of Primate Habitat on Sumatra and Adjacent Islands, Indonesia

Jatna Supriatna1,2, Asri A. Dwiyahreni2, Nurul Winarni2, Sri Mariati3,4 and Chris Margules2,5

1Department of Biology, FMIPA Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
2Research Center for Climate Change, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
3‘Postgraduate Program, Trisakti Institute for Tourism, Pesanggrahan, Jakarta, Indonesia
4Conservation International, Indonesia

5Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science, College of Marine and Environmental Sciences, James Cook

University, Cairns, Australia

Abstract: The severe declines in forest cover on Sumatra and adjacent islands have been well-documented but that has not slowed the rate of forest loss. Here we present recent data on deforestation rates and primate distribution patterns to argue, yet again, for action to avert potential extinctions of Sumatran primates in the near future. Maps of forest loss were constructed using GIS and satellite imagery. Maps of primate distributions were estimated from published studies, museum records and expert opinion, and the two were overlaid on one another. The extent of deforestation in the provinces of Sumatra between 2000 and 2012 varied from 3.74% (11,599.9 ha in Lampung) to 49.85% (1,844,804.3 ha in Riau), with the highest rates occurring in the provinces of Riau, Jambi, Bangka Belitung and South Sumatra. During that time six species lost 50% or more of their forest habitat: the Banded langur Presbytis femoralis lost 82%, the Black-and-white langur Presbytis bicolor lost 78%, the Black-crested Sumatran langur Presbytis melalophos and the Bangka slow loris Nycticebus bancanus both lost 62%, the Lar gibbon Hylobates lar lost 54%, and the Pale-thighed langur Presbytis siamensis lost 50%. Two species, the Pagai langur Presbytis potenziani and the Pagai macaque Macaca pagensis, both from the southern part of the Mentawai islands, are not represented in national parks or protected areas at all, and a further five species are found in only one protected area. The causes of deforestation are many and varied, but by far the leading causes are logging, followed by fire and/or conversion to plantations. Enforcement of existing regulations protecting primates, disentanglement of land claims and overlapping boundaries, a halt to logging in existing forests, a halt to road building through forests, clarification of how traditional adat law relates to protected areas, and the creation of new, enforceable laws pro­tecting species from trade and exploitation will all be needed if Indonesia is to uphold the commitments to primate conservation that it has already made.

Keywords: deforestation, Indonesia, primates, primate habitat, Sumatra


There are 22 primate species that occur on Sumatra and its neighboring islands. Three are ranked as Critically Endan­gered on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Pagai macaque Macaca pagensis, Pig-tailed langur Simias concolor, and Sumatran orangutan Pongo abelii) (Roos et al. 2014; Supriatna and Ramadhan 2016), and a further ten are listed as endangered (Siberut macaque Macaca siberu, Black Suma­tran langur Presbytis sumatrana, Mitred langur P. mitrata, Black-and-white langur P. bicolor, Black-crested Suma­tran langur P melalophos, Siberut langur P siberu, Kloss’s gibbon Hylobates klossii, Lar gibbon H. lar, Agile gibbon H.

agilis, and Siamang Symphalangus syndactylus). Nine of the 22 species are endemic (MacKinnon and MacKinnon 1980; Brandon-Jones et al. 2004; Roos et al. 2014).

Sumatra was still densely forested as recently as 1950, but then clearing began in the lowland areas where topography and soil fertility were most favorable to human settlement and agriculture. Clearing for plantations and clearing for crops and settlements associated with transmigration programs in the 1970s and 1980s occurred largely in the lowlands or on gently sloping foothills (Whitten et al. 1987). Estimates vary, but recent sources suggest that Sumatra has lost 5 million ha of forest between 1990 and 2000 (Gaveau et al. 2012) and a further 3 million ha between 2000 and 2012 (Margono et al. 2014) for a total of 8 million ha due to legal and illegal logging, conversion of natural forests to industrial planta­tions, and forest encroachment by communities. The analysis reported here estimates that 3.5 million ha were lost between 2000 and 2012. The difference of 500,000 ha is likely due to our use of the Ministry of Forestry classification of forest and non-forest.

Sumatran forests are suffering one of the highest rates of destruction in the world (Collins et al. 1990; Margono et al. 2014). There are now only small scattered remnants of undisturbed lowland forest outside of protected areas. This lowland forest is the home of most Sumatran primates. Many (for example, orangutans, gibbons, some restricted range and endemic langurs, and some macaques) are sensitive to distur­bance caused by logging, hunting and other human activities (Yanuar and Chivers 2010). Consequently, these species have little chance of surviving in highly fragmented or disturbed forests. For example, tree availability, as a source of food and nesting sites, is one of the most influential factors affecting the density of orangutans (van Schaik et al. 2001; Ancrenaz et al. 2005).

The many documented declines in forest cover and there­fore primate habitat (for example, Supriatna et al. 2001, 2002; Mittermeier et al. 2007; Mariati et al. 2014; Supriatna and Mariati 2014), have largely been ignored by government and the private sector. Forest loss has continued to proceed at a high rate. Here we present recent data on the extent of defor­estation and primate distributions and propose actions that will be necessary if extinctions in the near future are to be averted.


Mapping forest loss

Forest loss, or deforestation, is defined as the change from forest cover in 2000 to non-forest cover in 2012. We used the deforestation data from the Ministry of Forestry. Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM) satellite images from 2000 and 2012 were used to calculate changes in the forest cover that coincided with the distribution of each primate spe­cies. Images of Sumatra were selected from 2000 and 2012, with cloud cover less than 50%, and all forested areas such as parks, protected forest, company concessions and other for­ested lands were included. This covered primary and second­ary forest but did not include tree crops or production forest. Forest cover results were then validated using Google Earth ( and ESRI online base map (www. from the same time period. The rate of defores­tation was also calculated using the formula described by Puyravaud (2003). The formula is based on Compound Inter­est Law and is considered more intuitive than the one pro­posed by FAO (see Puyravaud 2003). It is as follows: r = 1/(t2 -11) x Ln (a2/a1)

where r is the rate of change, and a1 and a2 are the forest cover estimates at time t1 and t2 respectively.

Primate distributions

Primate surveys in different parts of Sumatra have been carried out by many researchers, including Crockett and Wilson (1980), Kawamura and Megantara (1986), Supriatna et al. (1996), Supriatna and Hendras (2000), Supriatna et al. (2001), Whittaker (2005, 2006), Geissmann et al. (2006), Supriatna and Gursky-Doyen (2010), and Supriatna and Mar­iati (2014). Additional data on taxonomic status and distribu­tions were gathered from Groves (2001), Brandon-Jones et al. (2004), Mittermeier et al. (2013), and Roos et al. (2014). We examined all records of primates on Sumatra in the Bogor Museum, and updated the distribution data of Groves (2001). These were published in Supriatna and Ramadhan (2016). Ground-truthing of these geo-referenced distribution maps was conducted throughout Sumatra between 2012 and 2014, except for the southern islands (Pagai and Sipora) of the Mentawai archipelago. Survey locations were chosen using the following criteria: areas likely to have species that had not been studied intensively, for example, species recently described; areas with species whose systematics had recently been revised; areas that had been recently logged and/or con­verted to plantations; and areas that had been recently burnt by forest fires. Further aspects of primate ecology and conserva­tion status were gathered from primatologists who have stud­ied these issues in the field (Indra Yustian, Sunarto, Tatang Mitrasetia, pers. comm.) and the considerable experience of most of the present authors, especially the senior author.

Based on primate distribution data from these sources, we plotted the current known distributions of each primate species. We then overlaid these geo-referenced distribution maps onto current forest cover maps and maps of forest lost between 2000 and 2012. In this way, we mapped changes in available habitat for all primate species and calculated current available habitat, defined as forest cover.


Extent of forest loss

Deforestation in the provinces of Sumatra between 2000 and 2012 ranged from 3.74% to 49.85%, with a total of 3,547,740.60 ha (22.08 %) lost (Table 1). The highest rate was found in the provinces of Riau, Jambi, Bangka Belitung, and South Sumatra (Fig. 1). Most clearing took place in al­ready degraded production forests and not in primary con­servation forests, except in Tesso Nilo National Park in Riau Province, where the highest rate of forest loss was found (9.28% per year, Mariati et al. 2014). In the rest of Riau province, deforestation occurred mainly in production forests, which were converted to acacia and oil palm plantations. Il­legal logging was widespread in the Giam Siak and Rimbang Baling protected areas and in Tesso Nilo National Park (Su­priatna and Mariati 2014). Similar trends have occurred in Jambi Province in the mid-western part of the island, close to Bukit Tigapuluh National Park, where many companies have converted their forest concessions into plantations of acacia and oil palm.

In North Sumatra, most forest was lost in the region of the Rawa Singkil Game Reserve, on the southern border of Gunung Leuser National Park. It is located between Gunung Leuser National Park and Batang Gadis National Park (Fig.1). Several companies converted their forest concessions into oil palm plantations. Illegal logging has also affected many areas in the Gunung Leuser National Park itself. All of those affected areas are the habitat of the Critically Endangered Sumatran orangutan Pongo abelii, as well as other primates, such as Thomas’s langur Presbytis thomasi, the Lar gibbon Hylobates lar, and the Siamang Symphalangus syndactylus.

Figure 2 shows the trend in the rate of forest loss between 2000 and 2012. All provinces show rates of forest loss trend­ing downward. Even provinces with relatively low total forest loss, such as Aceh and Lampung (Table 1) are showing the same downward trend. In Lampung, where there is little forest cover left, this suggests the possibility that none will remain in the near future. Way Kambas National Park may even be at risk. In Aceh, where there is still substantial forest cover remaining, it shows how the opportunity that exists now to arrest decline is disappearing.

Table 2 shows the percentage of forest lost across the range of each Sumatran primate species. The greatest impact was on the Banded langur Presbytis femoralis, in Tesso Nilo Forest and on Kampar Peninsula, both in Riau. This species

Insight: Coastal blue carbon: Why should we care?

Daniel Murdiyarso,
Bogor, West Java | Mon, November 7 2016

Delegates are gathering for the 22nd session of a climate conference in Marrakech, Morocco, from Nov. 7 to 18. It is interesting to note that after so many years, oceans will be part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP) agenda. Why oceans? Why now?

Do oceans and seas have anything to do with the global climate? As a maritime continent with more than 90,000 kilometers of coastline, Indonesia has a lot of reasons to be concerned with the ocean agenda.

Coastal blue carbon is known as the carbon stored in tidal wetland ecosystems, which includes tidally influenced forests, mangroves, tidal marshes and seagrass meadows. It is kept within soil, living biomass and non-living biomass carbon pools.

Coastal blue carbon is a subset of blue carbon that also includes ocean blue carbon, which represents carbon stored in open ocean carbon pools.

Coastal wetland ecosystems are the most effective carbon storehouse on earth. They are capable of capturing and storing excessive atmospheric carbon with burial rates 20 times larger than any terrestrial ecosystems, including boreal and tropical forests. However, coastal wetlands are among the most threatened natural ecosystems.

Greenhouse gas emissions due to unsustainable coastal development are up to 1 billion tons per annum, 20 percent of the emissions from global deforestation. Indonesia, where almost a quarter of the world’s mangroves reside, contributes one-fifth (200 million tons CO2-eq) of its national emissions — an amount equal to 40 million fewer cars on the roads.

The sediment-trapping capacity of coastal blue carbon when restored and protected properly would facilitate these ecosystems to play an important role as “land builders”, a kind of ecosystem service that has never been monetized, in the face of a 1-meter sea level rise by the end of this century.

Oceans, along with marine and coastal resources, play an essential role in the well-being of people who live in coastal zones. In Indonesia, 60 percent of the population lives in coastal zones and globally it is around 37 percent. Coastal and marine resources contribute an estimated $28 trillion to the global economy each year through ecosystem services.

According to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Report, however, those resources are extremely vulnerable to environmental degradation, overfishing, climate change and pollution. Its 14th goal, SDG 14 “Life below water”, is to conserve and use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.

One of the targets of SDG 14 is that by 2020 marine and coastal ecosystems should be sustainably managed, protected and restored to achieve healthy and productive oceans. We are nowhere near close enough to this target. In contrast, these ecosystems are disappearing very rapidly.

A new global climate treaty, the Paris Agreement, was adopted in December 2015. Its central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping the global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees C.

The agreement requires all parties to put forward their best efforts through nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and to report regularly on their emissions and implementation efforts. Considering the potential of blue carbon to mitigate climate change, it is timely that blue carbon should be part of the national climate strategy.

In response to the new climate treaty, the International Partnership for Blue Carbon (IPBC) was established and participated in by a large number of countries, including Indonesia and various organizations. The momentum to work together to use the opportunities is ripe.

Blue carbon has huge potential for climate change mitigation and adaption. Mechanisms such as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA) and Joint Mitigation and Adaptation (JMA) should be utilized to enhance the resilience of coastal ecosystems and communities to cope with the changing climate and rising sea levels.

As far as the agreement is concerned, the financial arrangements may be consulted with the Green Climate Fund (GCF) through the Nationally Designated Authority (NDA). A number of accredited entities have been approved by the GCF’s board to implement the programs and projects at various levels.

There are also a range of initiatives and like-minded groups, such as the Blue Carbon Initiative from Conservational International (CI), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), as well as the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Blue Carbon Initiative, which are ready to lend their hands for capacity development purposes. They may be engaged in joint restoration and protection efforts.

Further steps need to be taken to improve the accountability of measurement, reporting and verification efforts in national communication and project development.

Blue carbon science is advancing to support policymakers with credible scientific information to make sound decisions relating to the sustainable use of coastal and marine resources. Scientists from research organizations and universities are continuously improving their understanding, hence reducing uncertainties around the fate of blue carbon.

At the Marrakech COP 22, where oceans will for the first time be part of the agenda, Indonesian delegates should strive to pave the way to meet common goals for humanity.

The suffering planet earth and vulnerable coastal communities cannot wait any longer for strong and ambitious decisions related to climate change mitigation and adaptation, of which blue carbon is an important component.
The writer is a professor at the Department of Geophysics and Meteorology at the Bogor Agriculture University (IPB), principal scientist at the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), member of the Indonesian Academy of Sciences (AIPI) and former national focal point to the UNFCCC.