summary report submitted for hcs approach peer review...

Summary Report Submitted for HCS Approach Peer Review Process

HCS Study Project Title:

High Carbon Stock Assessment of PT Agrajaya Baktitama, PT Batu Mas Sejahtera

and PT Sawit Makmur Sejahtera, West Kalimantan, Indonesia

Company/Organisation:

Goodhope Asia Holdings

Contact person:

Edi Suhardi

Date:

July 2018

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Project description ............................................................................................ 1

1.1 Location and size of study area .............................................................................................. 1

1.2 Overview of proposed plantation development ..................................................................... 6

1.3 Description of surrounding landscape .................................................................................... 7

1.3.1 Demographics in the AJB, BMS and SMS License Areas .......................................................... 7

1.3.2 Description of the Landscape Surrounding AJB, BMS and SMS .............................................10

1.4 Maps of the site within the region ....................................................................................... 11

1.5 Relevant data sets available ................................................................................................ 15

1.6 List of any reports/assessments used in the HCS assessment ................................................ 15

2. HCS assessment team and timeline ................................................................. 16

2.1 Names and qualifications .................................................................................................... 16

2.2 Time period for major steps in the study .............................................................................. 16

3. Community Engagement and FPIC ................................................................... 17

3.1 Summary of community engagement, FPIC, participatory mapping ...................................... 17

3.1.1 Objectives and Approach .......................................................................................................17

3.1.2 Request for engagement with community ............................................................................17

3.1.3 Initial Consultation and FGD at Village Level .........................................................................18

3.1.4 Participatory Mapping ...........................................................................................................19

3.1.4 Participatory Review of Draft ICLUP ......................................................................................20

3.2 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................... 21

3.2.1 Land Tenure ...........................................................................................................................21

3.2.2 Food Security and Cash Producing Agriculture Crops ............................................................24

3.2.3 Settlements and Settlement Expansion Areas .......................................................................25

3.2.4 Protecting HCV/HCS and Ecosystem Services ........................................................................25

3.2.5 Land Acquisition .....................................................................................................................26

3.2.6 Grievance and Redress Procedures .......................................................................................26

3.2.7 Community Opinion Regarding Impacts from Company Development ................................26

3.2.8 Recommendations .................................................................................................................27

3.A Supplemental information provided to peer reviewers ................................. 27

3.3 Full Social Impact Assessment (if any) .................................................................................. 27

3.4 Details of meetings held and findings ................................................................................... 27

3.5 Shape files of community land use maps .............................................................................. 27

ii

4. High Conservation Value Assessment .............................................................. 28

4.1 Summary and link to public summary report ........................................................................ 28


4.2 Full HCV report .................................................................................................................... 30

5. Environmental Impact Assessment ................................................................. 31

5.1 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 31


5.2 Full Environmental Impact Assessment (if any) .................................................................... 31

6. Land cover image analysis ............................................................................... 32

6.1 Area of Interest and how it was defined............................................................................... 32

6.2 Description of images used for classification ........................................................................ 32

6.3 Sample image ..................................................................................................................... 32

6.4 Method of stratification and software used ......................................................................... 33

6.5 Map of Vegetation Classes ................................................................................................... 36

6.6 Table of total hectares per vegetation class ......................................................................... 39

6.7 Summary of which areas are potential HCS forest, subject to further analysis ....................... 41


6.8 Images, with sufficient resolution to re-do analysis .............................................................. 43

7. Forest inventory results .................................................................................. 43

7.1 Inventory sample design and plot rational ........................................................................... 43

7.2 Map indicating plots ............................................................................................................ 43

7.3 Forest inventory team members and roles ........................................................................... 48

7.4 Methodology used for forest sampling................................................................................. 49

7.5 Methodology used for carbon calculations ........................................................................... 50

7.5.1. Approach ................................................................................................................................50

7.5.2. Stems per hectare ..................................................................................................................50

7.5.3. Tree Biomass ..........................................................................................................................50

7.5.4. Palm Biomass .........................................................................................................................51

7.5.5. Tree and Palm Carbon Content ..............................................................................................51

7.5.6. Carbon Mass per Hectare ......................................................................................................51

7.5.7. Analysis of Carbon Estimate Precision and Significant Difference between Strata ...............51

iii

7.6 Indicative photos of each vegetation class ........................................................................... 52

7.6.1. Photos of Forest Stratum .......................................................................................................52

7.6.2. Photos of Young Regenerating Forest (YRF) Stratum ............................................................54

7.6.3. Photos of Scrub Stratum ........................................................................................................57

7.6.4. Photos of Open Land Stratum ................................................................................................59

7.6.5 Photos of Mixed Agriculture and Forest High Stratum ..........................................................62

7.7 Statistical analysis ............................................................................................................... 64

7.8 Summary of statistical analysis of carbon stock results per vegetation class .......................... 79

7.9 Forest inventory results ....................................................................................................... 79

7.A Supplemental information provided to Peer Reviewers ................................ 80

7.10 Complete forest plot data .................................................................................................... 80

8. Land Cover Classification ................................................................................. 80

8.1 Refined land cover map with title, date, legend and any HCS forest patches identified .......... 80

8.A Supplemental information provided to Peer Reviewers ................................ 83

8.2 Shape files of land cover map and forest patches ................................................................. 83

9. Patch Analysis Methodology and Result .......................................................... 84

9.1 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 84

9.2 Patch Analysis Results ......................................................................................................... 86

10. Indicative Land Use Plan ............................................................................... 90

10.1 Summary of results of final ground verification (if any) ........................................................ 90

10.1.1 Approach ................................................................................................................................90

10.1.2 Food Security and Cash Producing Agriculture Crops ............................................................90

10.1.3 Settlements and Settlement Expansion Areas .......................................................................90

10.1.4 Community Clean Water Sources ..........................................................................................90

10.1.5 Plasma Land Development Commitments .............................................................................91

10.2 Indicative Conservation and Land Use Plan and Map ............................................................ 91

10.3 Overview of forest conservation management and monitoring activities to be included in the

Conservation and Development (land use) Plan .............................................................................. 97

10.4 List of activities still to be carried out before Conservation and Development Plan can be

finalised ......................................................................................................................................... 98

1

1. Project description 1.1 Location and size of study area

Goodhope Asia Holdings Ltd (Goodhope) business group has its headquarters in Sri Lanka and is listed on

the Colombo Stock Exchange. Goodhope operates in a range of business sectors, including the palm oil

sector. Its palm oil operations in Indonesia are located throughout Kalimantan, plus two companies in

Papua Province.

In May 2017, Goodhope released its NDPE Policy (see Goodhope Sustainability Policy-5-5-17). The policy

encompasses commitments in the following fields:

▪ Environmental Sustainability

▪ Social Responsibility

▪ Work environment

▪ Policy implementation

Goodhope is now looking to implement the commitments. In March 2017 Goodhope engaged PT Ata Marie

(Ata Marie) to conduct an HCS Assessment on PT Agrajaya Baktitama (AJB), PT Batu Mas Sejatera (BMS), PT

Sawit Makmur Sejahtera (SMS) located in Kab Ketapang, West Kalimantan Province.

In 2016 Goodhope temporarily stopped expansion operations due to external stakeholder pressure

regarding environmental and social practises. Goodhope has been requested by stakeholders to redo its

High Carbon Stock (HCS) and High Conservation Value (HCV) assessments for the areas concerned.

PT Ata Marie (Ata Marie) has been appointed by Goodhope to implement an HCS assessment covering the

AJB, BMS and SMS license areas. In addition, Ata Marie has been contracted to carry out a GHG Assessment.

Ata Marie is a provider of professional services to the forestry, agri-business and natural resource

management sectors in the ASEAN region.

The key objectives for Ata Marie are as follows:

1. To identify areas considered to qualify as High Carbon Stock (HCS) forest under the 2017 HCS

Toolkit - the so-called “no go” areas which should be conserved under HCS guidelines.

2. To assist AJB, BMS and SMS to ensure principles of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) are

respected in negotiations with communities regarding any land-use planning and

conservation priority setting that affects their lands.

3. Preparation of an Integrated Conservation and Land-use Plan (ICLP), integrating the findings

of HCS, HCV and inputs from community consultation.

4. Provide recommendations for effective integrated monitoring and reporting of ICLP plans and

other conservation commitments.

5. Assist AJB, BMS and SMS to communicate results of the HCS project to external stakeholders

as required, including the HCS Steering Committee.

http://www.goodhopeholdings.com/images/policies/GOODHOPE-SustainabilityPolicy-5-5-17.pdf

2

Table 1 describes the AJB, BMS and SMS license areas. At time of commissioning the HCS Assessment, Ata

Marie were instructed to assess a total area of 34,644 ha, being the existing Cadastral Boundary. All field

work and community consultation was undertaken covering this area. After the field work was completed,

Goodhope informed Ata Marie that a revision of the Cadastral boundaries was underway and that parts of

the original area were to be relinquished. The proposed revision leaves a total license area of 24,830 ha.

This report addresses the revised cadastral area.

Table 1 Summary of plan License Areas based on Latest Cadastral Data

Company

Initial Assessment

Area (ha)

Final Cadastral Area (ha)

AJB 10,903 9,323

BMS 12,096 4,069

SMS 11,665 11,438

Total 34,664 24,830

Source: Kadastral Map

Figure 1 shows the location of AJB, BMS and SMS on a map of West Kalimantan Province. Access to the

AJB, BMS and SMS area is via a public road from Pontianak in the north to Ketapang in the south. The public

road runs through the middle of the AJB, BMS and SMS concessions. The AJB, BMS and SMS site is about 5

hours drive from Ketapang township and 6 hours drive from Pontianak. Sandai, the largest township in the

area, is located close to the south portions of PT SMS land.

Figure 2 shows the Initial Assessment Area and the final Cadastral Boundaries for the three license areas.

Figure 3 shows Kecamatan boundaries in the surrounding area.

License area boundaries can be described as follows:

Eastern boundary: PT Karunia Hutan Lestari (Logging concession), Forest Protection (HL).

Western boundary: PT Kurnia Agro Industri ind, PT Surya Multi Perkasa, PT Perkasa Tani Sejati, PT

Hamparan Sawit Katulistiwa (Palm Oil) and Gunung Palung National Park.

Northern boundary: PT Karunia Hutan Lestari (Logging concessions).

Southern boundary: PT Sepanjang Inti Surya Utama and PT Sawit Sehat (Palm Oil).

3

Figure 1. Situation Map AJB, BMS and SMS

4

Figure 2. Old and New License Boundaries AJB, BMS and SMS

5

Figure 3. Kecamatan Boundaries in AJB, BMS AND SMS Area

6

1.2 Overview of proposed plantation development

All land within the AJB, BMS and SMS license areas was released to the Company in 2009-2011. Table 2,

Table 3 and Table 4 show the list of key legal documents and regulatory permits obtained by AJB, BMS and

SMS relating to the license areas. No HGU permits have been processed.

Table 1. List of legal documents and regulatory permits obtained by AJB

No Type of License Issued by Number and Date

1 Act of Establishment (Akte Pendirian Perusahaan) Oerip Mochlasin Soemarto, S.H

No.56, 17 November 1994

2 Izin Kelayakan Lingkungan kegiatan perkebunan dan pabrik pengolahan kelapa sawit (AMDAL)

Gubernur Kalimantan Barat

No. 560, 24 July 2008

3 Izin Lokasi Perkebunan Kelapa Sawit covering 11,700 ha.

Bupati Ketapang No. 367, 29 September 2009

4 Izin Usaha Perkebunan (IUP) dan Izin Usaha Pengolahan Hasil Perkebunan covering 11,065 ha

Bupati Ketapang No.149, 18 May 2011

5 Kadastral Boundary Covering 9,331 ha BPN No. 015-14.07-2015, 13 March 2015

Table 2. List of legal documents and regulatory permits obtained by BMS


1 Act of Establishment (Akte Pendirian Perusahaan) Notary Suwanto, SH No. 44, 15 December 2006



No. 285, 20 May 2009


Bupati Ketapang No. 78, 21 March 2011


Bupati Ketapang No.266, 26 June 2009

5 Kadastral Covering 4,073 ha BPN No. 013-14.07-2015, 13 March 2015

Table 3. List of legal documents and regulatory permits obtained by SMS


1 Act of Establishment (Akte Pendirian Perusahaan) Suwanto, S.H. No. 30, 14 April 2008



No. 262/BLHD/2010, 24 May 2010


Bupati Ketapang No. 381/PEM/2012, 4 September 2012


Bupati Ketapang No.331, 11 June 2010

5 Kadastral Covering 11,449 ha BPN No. 20/2017, 6 Juni 2017

7

1.3 Description of surrounding landscape

1.3.1 Demographics in the AJB, BMS and SMS License Areas

Sixteen Desa control land inside the AJB, BMS and SMS license areas. The table below shows an estimate

the population by Desa. Data indicates a population of 26,172. All settlements are located outside the

kadastral boundary, and planned settlement expansion areas are also outside the kadastral boundary.

Villages are located along provincial roads and rivers i.e. Pawan River, Laur River, Jekak River, Semapau

River, Biak River and Krio river. See the Community Engagement Report on sharepoint for a more complete

description of demographics.

Table 5 Estimated Population by Desa and Dusun in AJB, BMS and SMS Area

Desa Settlement Location

Inside/Outside License Area Households Population Planned Settlement Expansion is Predominantly

Merimbang Jaya Outside 301 1,202 Outside

Randau Outside 274 1,097 Outside

Alam Pakuan Outside 123 492 Outside

Pendamar Indah Outside 219 877 Outside

Randau Jungkal Outside 440 1,761 Outside

Demit Outside 300 1,201 Outside

Petai Patah Outside 735 2,939 Outside

Penjawaan Outside 526 2,103 Outside

Sandai Outside 1,793 7,171 Outside

Lanjut Mekar Sari Outside 109 436 Outside

Sungai Daka Outside 423 1,691 Outside

Bengaras Outside 238 950 Outside

Bayun Sari Outside 193 770 Outside

Cinta Manis Outside 227 906 Outside

Benua Krio Outside 382 1,529 Outside

Pangkalan Suka Outside 262 1,047 Outside

Total 6,545 26,172 Source: Kecamatan Sandai, Kecamatan Sungai Laur, Kecamatan Hulu Sungai dan Kecamatan Nanga Tayap Dalam Angka 2016,

plus interviews at individual Desa.

The dominant ethnic groups in the project area are Dayak Sub-tribes; Dayak Jokak, Dayak Pawan, Dayak

lawing, Dayak Biak, and Dayak Krio. These are predominantly Catholic communities. Sandai, Petai Patah,

and Bayun Sari are predominantly Melayu ethnicity and therefore Muslim. There are also small groups of

Javanese and Batak settlers in the area. Adat (customary) legal structures remain in place.

Land tenure in the area is for the most part on an individual or family group basis. There are some limited

areas of communal land but these are small in size and most are hilly areas as well as reserves of water

sources. The land cover in this area is a mix of forest with tembawang.

Most community members are farmers who plant dry land rice under a shifting cultivation system, as well

as managing small plots of rubber and/or oil palm. Villagers informed that dry land rice production is still

important source of food. Therefore, food security is an important issue to be considered in planning of

AJB, BMS, SMS expansion. There are also some limited areas of rice paddy (sawah) located in the lowlands

(swamps and near rivers) in the village of Merimbang Jaya, Pendamar Indah, Penjawaan and Bayun Sari.

8

For household food, small gardens are managed for crops such as vegetables and spices. However, villagers

who live close to Kecamatan towns are more likely to buy food requirements in markets.

In general, in these villages most people have income between IDR 1,000,000, - IDR 2.000.000, - / month.

Cash incomes are generally derived from the sale of oil palm fruit, rubber and wages from working on oil

palm plantations, especially for those who participate in plasma programs. Only a small number of people

working as a government employee. Based on the indicators of the level of community welfare issued by

National Family Planning Coordinating Board (BKKBN), there is a significant minority of families in this

Kabupaten that still cannot meet their basic needs (Keluarga Pra Sejahtera).

In general, the education level of the local population is low due to limited educational facilities,

considerable distance to schools, limited transportation, lack of funds to pay education fees and low

education awareness. This is refected in the low availability of local educated workers. Educational facilities

in most villages are limited to primary schools. Likewise, health facilities are mostly only Posyandu with

limited health personnel. More complete public facilities are found only in Sandai which is also the

Kecamatan Sandai administration base.

More detailed demographic information can be found in the Community Engagement Report and the Social

Impact Assessment Report. Figure 4 shows the distribution of Desa in the AJB, BMS and SMS Area. Village

boundaries are based on informal information from villages – they are not definitive.

9

Figure 4. Map of Desa in AJB, BMS and SMS Area

10

1.3.2 Description of the Landscape Surrounding AJB, BMS and SMS

Figure 5 shows the land use zoning in the area surrounding AJB, AJB and SMS. The AJB, AJB and SMS Kadastral areas are on APL land. Land to the east is HL, HPT and Palm Oil (PT Sepanjang Inti surya Utama). Land to the west of AJB, AJB and SMS is Palm Oil (PT Karya Sentosa, PT Cipta Usaha Sejati, PT Hamparan Katulistiwa) and National Park Gunung Palung. To the immediate south there is Logging Concession (PT Karunia Hutan Lestari) and HPT (Limited Production Forest). Land to the south is Palm Oil (Sepanjang Inti Surya Utama).

Figure 6 shows the conservation status in the area surrounding AJB, AJB and SMS. The Gunug Palung

National Park is located approximately 10 km to the west of the license areas. Land to the north and east

is a predominantly HPT (Limited Production Forest) and protection forest (HL). Clearance of natural forest

is not permitted in either of these categories, so this area represents a significant extent of land allocated

for permanent forest. The nearest Intact Forest Landscape1 patches are located approximately 37 km from

the license area boundary to the north east. There are no important bird areas (IBA2), Endemic bird areas

(EBA3), Ramsar4 sites or Heart of Borneo5 areas within 200 km of the license areas.

Figure 7 shows the catchment areas in the area surrounding AJB, AJB and SMS. The AJB, BMS and SMS

license are in S. Pawan catchment (includes S. Laur, S. Pawan, S. Bia and S. Jekak). Rivers in the catchment

generally flow in a south south-west direction before reaching the sea at Ketapang.

The black box shown on Figure 7 shows the landscape area selected for the forest cover assessment. The

landscape boundary was developed using a minimum 5 km distance from the license areas but was also

extended to the east to include connection to the larger forest areas found in the conservation areas there.

AJB, BMS and SMS is in a low forest landscape (24% forested). The table below shows the forest cover in

the selected landscape area.

Table 6 Forest Cover in the Landscape Area

Area Within Landscape Forest inside License area

Forest (ha) Non-Forest (ha) Total (ha) % Forested Area (ha) As % of Forest in Landscape

64,643 196,048 260,691 24.8% 2,555 4%

Figure 8 shows a Landsat 8 satellite image of AJB, BMS and SMS and the surrounding landscape captured

in March 2017. The landscape surrounding the AJB, BMS and SMS area is dominated by Mixed Agriculture

and forest.

1 http://www.intactforests.org/ 2IBA: Bird Areas factsheet: Kalimantan, http://www.birdlife.org 3 EBA: Bird Areas factsheet: Kalimantan, http://www.birdlife.org 4 http://www.ramsar.org/news/seventh-ramsar-site-in-indonesia 5 http://www.heartofborneo.org; http://wwf.panda.org/borneo_forests

http://www.intactforests.org/

http://www.birdlife.org/

http://www.birdlife.org/

http://www.ramsar.org/news/seventh-ramsar-site-in-indonesia

http://www.heartofborneo.org/

http://wwf.panda.org/borneo_forests

11

1.4 Maps of the site within the region

Figure 5 Land Use Zoning in Area Surrounding AJB, BMS and SMS

12

Figure 6 Protected Areas and other Important Conservation Locations in Surrounding Area

13

Figure 7 Map of Catchment Areas

14

Figure 8. Satellite Image of AJB, BMS and SMS Landscape Area

15

1.5 Relevant data sets available

The following third-party data was used in analysis and in the preparation of the report:

1. High resolution satellite imagery data (Spot 7) covering the AJB, BMS and SMS license area

was acquired by Ata Marie. Data was captured in March 2017.

2. Landsat 8 imagery P117/R62 and P117/R63. Data was captured October 2017.

1.6 List of any reports/assessments used in the HCS assessment

The following Social and Environmental Impact Assessments have been carried out by AJB, BMS

and SMS:

1. Social and Environmental Impact Assessments (AMDAL) of the planned plantation

development have been finalised as follows:

i. AMDAL of AJB was finalized on 24 July 2008 ii. AMDAL of BMS was finalized on 20 May 2009 iii. AMDAL of SMS was finalized on 24 May 2010

2. Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Reports for AJB, BMS and SMS were prepared by Aksenta in

2012.

3. An updated combined HCV Report covering AJB, BMS and SMS has been prepared by Remark

Asia and is currently (June 2018) undergoing peer review by HCVRN.

16

2. HCS assessment team and timeline 2.1 Names and qualifications

Ata Marie mobilised the following team for AJB, BMS and SMS HCS assessment.

Table 7. Ata Marie HCS Team

Name Qualification Position Experience

Alex Thorp B. For. Sc. Project Manager Professional forester specialising in sustainability services, remote sensing, forest inventory, due diligence and forest valuation. Alex has over 30 years of experience in South East Asia and Africa working in the natural forest, plantation forests and oil palm sectors. He is fluent in Bahasa Indonesia, has a strong understanding of the resource base and regulatory environments in Indonesia.

George Kuru M. For. Sc. Inventory Data processing

Professional forester and biometrician specializing in forest inventory, yield and growth modelling, information technology and supply chain management for the forestry and agricultural sectors.

Dadan Setiawan

S. Hut Senior GIS Engineer Dadan has experience in implementing numerous large-scale remote sensing projects, predominantly in the forestry and agriculture sectors, but also including water resources, demographic and population, humanitarian and post-disaster recovery.

Dadi Ardiansyah

S. Hut GIS Engineer & Field forester responsible for carbon inventory

Professional forest surveyor with over 15 years experience in forest inventory in Indonesia. Specific expertise focuses on GIS, forest inventory planning and implementation, assessment of HCV and HCS, and participatory land use mapping.

Ambriansyah Botanist Botanist with over 20 years experience in Forest survey in Indonesia.

Sofyan Iskandar

S. Hut Community Engagement Team Leader

Sofyan is a professional forester and forest surveyor. He has over 10 years experience in forest inventory, and now specialises in community engagement and environmental assessment.

Asep Wahyu Suherman

S. Hut Participatory Land Use Mapping specialist.

With degree in forestry from IPB, Asep has joined many research and assessment project as consultant since 2000 throughout Indonesia. He became Ata Marie regular consultant since 2014. His specialization is EIA development, ground check, participatory mapping, HCV and HCS area identification, forest inventory.

2.2 Time period for major steps in the study

The table below describes the major activities and time line. The major survey work was carried out

throughout September - October 2017, with some continuation of the social survey into July. Final village

consultations and the second public consultation were carried out in November-December2017.

Table 8. Field Activities

Visit Activities Timeline

Initial Site Visit

Opening Meeting with company site management team and preparation 19 - 20 September 2017

Carbon Stock Inventory (HCS) September 22 – October 8

Initial consultation and participatory mapping September 22 – October 10

Closing Meeting with Site Management 11 October 2017

Follow up site visit

Pre RBA November 26 - December 2

Final consultation meetings (FGD ICLUP) November 26 - December 11

Closing Meeting with Site Management December 13 2017

17

3. Community Engagement and FPIC 3.1 Summary of community engagement, FPIC, participatory mapping 3.1.1 Objectives and Approach

The key objectives of the community engagement activities were as follows:

1. To share information about Goodhope’s environmental and social commitments.

2. To share information about the HCS concept and assessment processes with communities.

3. To seek community informed consent and participation for planned HCS assessment related activities.

4. Together with communities, gather information and knowledge on current and future land use and land tenure and at community level.

5. Together with communities, prepare a draft Integrated Conservation and Land-use Plan (ICLUP).

6. To seek community informed consent in principle to the final draft ICLUP.

Community engagement at each Desa involved the following four steps:

1. Request for engagement with community

2. Initial Consultation and Focus Group Discussion (FGD).

3. Participatory Mapping - GPS surveys in the field to identify and ground truth land cover and land use, and integration of results into the first draft ICLUP

4. ICLUP Consultation (FGD-2)

During all stages of consultation, it was made known to local communities that they reserve the right to

withhold consent for HCS assessment implementation and are free to engage external parties to act as

community representatives at any stage of the assessment process.

The following sections describe each of the steps and the major outcomes. See the Community Engagement

Report on sharepoint for detailed demographic information and a more complete description of community

engagement activities carried out, meeting attendance lists, notulensi, berita acara and detailed findings.

3.1.2 Request for engagement with community

Prior to commencement of the engagement, company staff and Ata Marie field staff met with village

authorities to explain the proposed programme and discuss scheduling and logistics for meetings. The table

below sets out the activities and expected outputs.

Table 9. Request for Engagement with Community - Description of Activities and Outputs.

Activity Output

Initial discussion with Kepala Desa or representative:

1. Explain the HCS assessment concept and planned activities.

2. Request a schedule to carry out initial consultation and FGD with a broad group of community members.

3. Set out the target groups requested to attend:

Desa leaders - formal (Kepala Desa/Ketua BPD)

Cultural leaders – non-formal

Community Representatives (youth, women, farmer, etc.)

Any others willing to attend

Agreement to co-operate to organize initial consultation.

Schedule and location for initial consultation agreed.

Target groups identified and invited.

18

3.1.3 Initial Consultation and FGD at Village Level

Initial Consultation and FGD generally took place over one day at each village. The table below sets out the

activities and expected outputs.

Table 10. Initial Consultation and FGD - Description of Activities and Outputs.

Activity Output

Initial Presentation:

1. Introduction

2. Meeting agenda & objectives

3. Brief explanation of:

Goodhope’s environmental and social commitments.

HCS and HCV concepts and integrated conservation planning.

HCS Assessment objectives and role of Ata Marie.

Explanation of planned HCS activities.

Role of communities in conservation planning.

Rights of community to give or withhold consent and seek external representation.

The communities are made aware of the company development plan and their environmental and social commitments.

The communities are made aware of the HCS concept, the proposed HCS assessment activities, and their role in conservation planning.

The communities are informed of their right to give or withhold consent to HCS assessment and seek external representation.

Open Discussion:

1. Question and answer session

2. Seek consent from Attendees to continue with meeting, FGD and subsequent field activities.

3. Discussion regarding community involvement in HCS activities and of support needed from community leaders and local community.

Obtain consent for implementation of the HCS assessment activity plan.

Community representatives who will participate in assessment activities are selected and briefed.

Schedules and logistical aspects are agreed.

Focus Group Discussion on the following:

1. Village history.

2. Community land use and land cover (using pre-printed maps of land cover and indicative HCV/HCS).

3. Community land tenure and land management (owners, managers, users).

4. Food and water security and related land requirements.

5. Settlement expansion.

6. Sacred site identification (confirmation of HCV 6).

7. Existing or upcoming land or agriculture development programs (primarily government programs).

8. Initial identification of potential conservation areas.

9. Identify priority survey targets for participatory mapping activities.

10. land owner identification (focusing on potential HCS areas).

Information gathered on:

Community land ownership and utilisation systems

Food and water sources and dependence on land for food security

Plans and programs related to future land use

Any existing conservation areas

Potential HCS areas and other potential conservation areas identified by communities, including indicative information on their ownership status.

Target locations for participatory mapping identified.

Berita acara and daftar hadir.

Data collection Demographic dataset updated and cross checked.

Population.

Education and health facilities.

Socio economic data

Table 11 shows the schedule of initial consultation and FGD activities carried out at each village.

All communities gave consent to Ata Marie to carry out the planned HCS related activities. Berita acara and

daftar hadir for each meeting are attached to the Community Engagement Report on sharepoint.

19

Table 11. Schedule of Initial Consultation and FGD.

No. Date Village No of Attendees

1 20-09-2017 Merimbang Jaya, Pendamar Indah, Randau 24

2 22-09-2017 Alam Pakuan 12

3 26-09-2017 Lanjut Mekar Sari 10

4 27-09-2017 Penjawaan 10

5 28-09-2017 Sungai Daka 8

6 28-09-2017 Bengaras 8

7 29-09-2017 Bayun Sari 8

8 30-09-2017 Pangkalan Suka 9

9 30-09-2017 Sandai 9

10 02-10-2017 Petai Patah 10

11 02-10-2017 Randau Jungkal 9

12 03-10-2017 Demit 9

13 04-10-2017 Benua Krio 11

14 05-10-2017 Cinta Manis 12

3.1.4 Participatory Mapping

Participatory mapping surveys were carried out at Desa level by teams consisting of community members,

Ata Marie surveyors and AJB, MNS, SMS field staff.

Schedules, priority targets and team members were agreed in advance during the initial consultation

activity. Generally participatory mapping was initiated within a few days of the consultation. The table

below describes the activities and expected outputs.

Table 12. Participatory Mapping – Description of Activities and Outputs.

Activity Output

Participatory mapping surveys:

1. Ground truthing of draft land cover and land use maps.

2. Ground truthing of boundaries of potential HCS conservation areas and identification of affected land owners.

3. Identification of land areas important for community food security, i.e. land currently used or planned for use for long term agriculture. In particular, padi fields (sawah) and other food production areas.

4. Improved mapping of rivers, streams and springs requiring buffering, with particular focus on clean water supply sources.

5. Identification of additional no-go or sensitive land uses requiring additional joint discussion with communities:

Productive rubber plantation land

Tembawang areas.

Adat or other communally owned land areas

Land used for collection of forest products (timber and non-timber).

6. Identification of settlement area boundaries and land for planned expansion of settlements.

7. Sacred site identification (confirmation of HCV 6).

Land cover and land use dataset ground checked.

Hydrology and water source data ground checked.

Boundaries of potential HCS areas ground checked.

Land owners of potential HCS areas identified and initial consultation held.

Additional no-go areas and sites important to communities identified in the field.

Settlement expansion areas identified in the field.

Berita acara.

Integration of results into the First Draft ICLUP:

1. Finalisation of Editing of land cover and land use datasets - GIS activity after the first field visit.

Improved Land cover, landuse land ownership and hydrology maps.

First draft land use plan produced.

20

The table below shows the schedule of participatory mapping field survey carried out.

Table 13. Schedule of Participatory Mapping Field Survey

Date Village No of Field Crews

22 September 2017 Randau 3

23 September 2017 Merimbang Jaya 2

25 September 2017 Merimbang Jaya 2

26 September 2017 Lanjut Mekar Sari 2

28 September 2017 Pendamar Indah 2

Alam Pakuan 2

29 September 2017 Bengaras 4

02 October 2017 Penjawaan 4

03 October 2017 Bayun Sari 3

05 October 2017 Cinta Manis 4

06 October 2017 Petai Patah 4

Demit 3

07 October 2017 Randau Jungkal 3

08 October 2017 Benua Krio 4

09 October 2017

Pangkalan Suka 4

Sandai 4

Sungai Daka 3

3.1.4 Participatory Review of Draft ICLUP

Participatory Review of draft ICLUP was carried out in a second site visit once HCS results were developed.

1:5000 scale maps were printed and presented for discussion during meetings held in each Desa.

Landowners of any proposed HCS areas were strongly encouraged to be present, and most attended.

The participatory process also led to improved community awareness of AJB, BMS, SMS conservation plans

and the need for joint management of conservation areas.

Table 14. Participatory Review of Draft ICLUP – Description of Activities and Outputs.

Activity Output

Final Consultation Meeting on Draft ICLUP Map at village level:

1. Participatory review and consultation of Draft ICLUP Map.

2. Seek community informed consent to the final draft boundaries of conservation areas

Final input from communities regarding what areas communities wish to be included and excluded from the proposed conservation area.

Confirmation of landowners and ownership status of all proposed HCS areas.

Input from communities regarding conservation area management.

Berita acara and daftar hadir.

Berita acara and daftar hadir for each meeting are attached to the Community Engagement Report on

sharepoint.

The table below shows the schedule for final consultation of the draft conservation plan.

21

Table 15. Schedule of Final Consultation of the Draft ICLUP.

No. Date Village No. of Attendees

1 28-11-2017 Merimbang Jaya 11

2 28-11-2017 Randau 9

3 29-11-2017 Alam Pakuan 9

4 29-11-2017 Pendamar Indah 9

5 30-11-2017 Pangkalan Suka 10

6 02-12-2017 Lanjut Mekar Sari 10

7 04-12-2017 Randau Jungkal 10

8 05-12-2017 Sungai Daka 8

9 05-12-2017 Bengaras 8

10 06-12-2017 Petai Patah 12

11 06-12-2017 Demit 9

12 07-12-2017 Penjawaan 12

13 08-12-2017 Cinta Manis 10

14 09-12-2017 Benua Krio 10

15 11-12-2017 Bayun Sari 13

16 12-12-2017 Sandai 12

Although considerable effort was put into the participatory mapping process, it is not perfect and AJB, BMS,

SMS needs to develop procedures for updating and improvement of the dataset. This should be carried out

in conjunction with land surveying during the GRTT process. For instance, although the river and stream

alignment has been much improved, it is likely smaller streams have not all been identified correctly, so

buffers will have to be measured and marked by AJB, BMS, SMS surveyors.

3.2 Summary of Findings

3.2.1 Land Tenure

Land tenure data was collected throughout the community engagement process, but particularly during

participatory mapping and the follow up ICLP consultation meetings. Most of the land in AJB, BMS, SMS is

controlled by individuals and family groups. Land cleared for shifting agriculture (much of the land area -

see Table 19) is in this category.

In general, villagers have inherited land or acquired following customary processes. More recently there

are also those who have purchased land.

1,982 ha of communally controlled land has been identified (Table 16). For the most part these are steep

hill areas which communities are conserving to maintain fresh water supply. Land cover is a mixture of

forest and non-forest, but in general new land clearing is no longer permitted. The management of these

areas is based on informal agreements within communities - there are no formal village or adat regulations

in place that delineate conservation areas.

Table 16. Communally Managed Land

Index Location Desa Area (ha)

1 Bukit Kanau Lanjut Mekar Sari 18

2 Bukit Urak Pendamar Indah 234

3 Bukit Toning Lanjut Mekar Sari 31

4 Bukit Batu Randau 43

5 Bukit Gegara Pangkalan Suka 110

6 Bukit Dapuk Sandai dan Pangkalan Suka 599

7 Bukit Nyutung Tanah Dusun (Tumbang Pauh 239

8 Bukit Tudung Demit 47

22

Index Location Desa Area (ha)

9 Bukit Menjuang Demit 56

10 Bukit Senanggui Benua Krio 29

11 Bukit Insuna Benua Krio dan Cinta Manis 304

12 Bukit Sekolang Randau Jungkal 190

13 Bukit Aik Beguruh Penjawaan 83

Total 1,982

Land tenure in proposed HCS areas is a mixture of communal and privately held land. Land owners have

been identified and information passed to Goodhope.

Figure 9 shows the distribution of communally controlled land in AJB, BMS and SMS. More detailed maps

and information can be found in the Community Engagement Report.

23

Figure 9. Communally Controlled Land in AJB, BMS, SMS Area

24

3.2.2 Food Security and Cash Producing Agriculture Crops

There are 16 villages overlapping with the license area. Community members are predominantly farmers

whose main commodities are rice (for own consumption) and rubber and oil palm fruit (for cash

generation). The food security situation varies between villages. Food consumed by community members

is a mixture of purchased and grown produce, with purchasing of food more common in larger townships

such as Sandai.

The traditional dry land rice shifting cultivation system is still practised and dry land rice is still an important

food source, but the prevalence of this system is slowly diminishing in recent years due to the increasing

area under palm oil cultivation (both company and small holders) and due to government programmes

stopping the use of fire as a land clearing practise.

375 ha of rice paddy (sawah) has been identified. These are located in lowland areas (swampy land near

streams and rivers). there is only very limited scope for rice paddy expansion due to a lack of additional

suitable swamp area. These areas are recommended to be maintained in their current land use. Goodhope

has agreed to not acquire sawah areas.

In the local Dayak custom, there is a requirement for community members to have rice fields for food

security. The community also has an understanding that they will not give all their land to the company

retain some cultivated land for their family's food security. Especially productive lands such as rubber

plantation which are a source of income for future generations.

Based on land cover analysis carried out by Ata Marie, 62% of the license area consists of non-forest land

under the control of communities (scrub, Mixed Agriculture and Forest, Agriculture, Open Land and sawah).

Actual land requirement will depend on a range of factors including crops grown, yield per ha, and

dependency on own crops for food security. The HCS toolkit identifies a figure of 0.5 ha per person as

guidance on land requirement for food security. The table below shows the calculation of land requirement

based on the guidance figure and compares it with land availability.

Table 17. Population, Land Requirement for Food Security and Land Availability

Desa

Population (BPS, 2016)

Total Desa Land Area (BPS data)

Land for Food Production AJB, BMS, SMS Area

Area Required @ 0.5 ha per

person

Area as % of total

Desa Land

License Area Within Desa

Boundary

License Area as % of Desa

Area

Inside Outside Total ha ha % ha %

Merimbang Jaya 0 1,202 1,202 no data 601 - 1,417 no data

Randau 0 1,097 1,097 no data 549 - 2,219 no data

Alam Pakuan 0 492 492 no data 246 - 986 no data

Pendamar Indah 0 877 877 no data 439 - 3,479 no data

Pangkalan Suka 0 1,047 1,047 34,900 524 2% 1,073 3%

Lanjut Mekar Sari 0 436 436 12,030 218 2% 3,477 29%

Randau Jungkal 0 1,761 1,761 31,725 881 3% 1,978 6%

Sungai Daka 0 1,691 1,691 5,700 846 15% 337 6%

Bengaras 0 950 950 6,700 475 7% 729 11%

Demit 0 1,201 1,201 no data 601 - 2,177 no data

Petai Patah 0 2,939 2,939 25,275 1,470 6% 343 1%

Penjawaan 0 2,103 2,103 18,746 1,052 6% 460 2%

Cinta Manis 0 906 906 69,200 453 1% 740 1%

Benua Krio 0 1,529 1,529 no data 765 - 1,388 no data

Bayun Sari 0 770 770 15,620 385 2% 51 0%

Sandai 0 7,171 7,171 29,606 3,586 12% 4,000 14%

Total 26,172 26,172 13,086 24,854

25

Using the 0.5ha per head guidance area, land requirement for food security is 13,086 ha. Village boundary

data is not available for all villages, so analysis is not complete. However, for those villages where data is

complete, data indicates that the license area covers 5% of the total village land, and therefore it can be

broadly concluded that land availability outside the license boundary is sufficient for village food security.

The real situation will vary between Desa. Some Desa land has been released to other oil palm companies,

so the actual available area may be less. The accuracy of this assessment would also be improved by

including analysis of the suitability of the residual land, but this is outside the scope of this assessment.

Spatial data available is insufficient to make detailed analysis of this.

Land utilised for other non – agriculture activities such as NTFP collection has been identified during the HCV Assessment. These generally overlap with forest areas recommended for conservation under HCS. See HCV Report for further discussion.

With the development of the oil palm industry and the drop of rubber prices, community members started

developing small oil palm plots. However, community indicated that the emergence of oil palm plantations

has attracted other investors, resulting in increasing land prices and a corresponding difficulty in expanding

their plantation area.

3.2.3 Settlements and Settlement Expansion Areas

Plans for the development of residential areas are along sides of the roads and rivers close to the existing

settlement areas. These areas have been removed from the company's area in the final cadastral

boundaries developed, so no further land allocation within the Company is required for settlement

expansion.

3.2.4 Protecting HCV/HCS and Ecosystem Services

Although the High Carbon Stock concept is new to communities, the concept and importance of

conservation is well understood. Communities have informally protected numerous sites – predominantly

steep land areas which serve as water supply sources and mixed fruit plantations (tembawang) as well as

sources of timber.

Communites are well aware of locations identified as HCS. Land owners of HCS areas have been identified.

Most land owners attended consultation meetings. All land owners consulted indicated a willingness to co-

operate with the Company to protect HCV/HCS areas, but most requested compensation for the impacted

land concerned.

During meetings held, community members indicated that the existence of company operations has

impacted river and stream water quality. The main impact was sedimentation, but communities also feel

that increased use of chemical fertilizers is also having an impact. Small streams which previously were

utilised as clean water sources are no longer suitable. Community members also indicated a reduction in

the fish population in rivers, as well as areas for hunting.

Important water sources located inside the HGU boundary are now mostly hill areas which are included in

the HCV and/or HCS areas. Community water sources have been identified during the participatory mapping

and FGD activities. There were no requests from communities for further land set asides within the

concession area, however there were requests for development and or maintenance of water supply

infrastructure, as piping water from hill areas requires investment.

Communites that do not have water sources from hill springs and creeks depend on well water or river

water for their daily needs. Construction of wells is mostly carried out via government or Company CSR

programs.

26

3.2.5 Land Acquisition

Goodhope acquired the three companies in 2010. After several years, the company restarted GRTT and

development of plasma for several communities.

Communites indicated that land acquisition was carried out following a set procedure. In general

community members were satisfied with the procedure and felt land acquisition was carried out in a

participative and transparent manner. The procedure included representatives from Kecamatan and Desa

level government, land owners and neighbouring land owners. The Company formed an implementation

team in each village consisting of community members to assist in land measurement and settling any

disagreements regarding land ownership and boundaries.

Complaints that arose during land acquisition were usually related to overlapping or mutual ownership

claims among the people. So far, the company has managed to settle most of these disagreements.

Boundaries between villages are not yet definitive – this has also been a cause of disputes in the process of

land acquisition.

Land acquired by the company is all privately owned land. No communally owned land has been acquired.

3.2.6 Grievance and Redress Procedures

No specific complaints mechanism has been agreed to between communities and company. Nevertheless,

communities informed that lines of communication to AJB, BMS, SMS are open and relations good.

Communities generally deliver their complaint directly to company management or through village leaders,

and the company will usually discuss any issues via village leaders.

3.2.7 Community Opinion Regarding Impacts from Company Development

The existence of Goodhope Ketapang is a source of hope for some communities around the concession

areas, because most people place big hope for future income from plasma plantations. These communities

are pushing for completion of plasma plantation establishment and construction of the planned CPO mill

so that the fruit from their plasma areas and smallholder plantations will have a guaranteed market.

The second major impact from the existence of Goodhope is employment. Many community members

work for the company either as employees or as casual labour. Employees of oil palm plantations reported

positive livelihood changes mainly because of salaried income and other job-related benefits. The general

impression from communities is that employment commitments have only been partially fulfilled, mostly

in the form of jobs for unskilled daily laborers - not many villagers have succeeded as long term permanent

employees. Nevertheless, there has been a positive impact for the community. The number of female local

workers who work in the company is quite a lot, from the level of daily laborers to administrative staff.

Communities across the board requested for recruitment of local manpower to be enhanced and prioritized

according to their ability and competence.

Improvement of road infrastructure has enabled smallholder oil palm growers to improve their livelihoods.

However, not all households are able to raise the capital to develop smallholder oil palm, so these economic

livelihood gains are not equitably distributed.

Most communities gave a positive response to the potential restart of land acquisition in the near future.

The only village where there was a negative response to further expansion was Penjawaan, due to the long

period of vacuum in land acquisition and land development activities.

The local government (Desa) asked Goodhope to develop Tanah Kas Desa (TKD) land areas. TKD in many

villages is located inside concession and allocated for community agriculture and or oil palm plantation. The

total area of TKD is 6 hectares per village.

27

3.2.8 Recommendations

There are several important things to consider in the roll out of the Integrated Conservation Landuse Plan

(HCS-HCV) in the Ketapang Project area:

1. Finalisation and marking of conservation area boundaries should be carried out using participatory

methods, and be supported by regular consultation with the stakeholders.

2. Monitoring of conservation areas should also involve communities and desa/dusun level adat bodies

3. Land acquisition (GRTT) in the conservation area (HCS, HCV) is recommended to reduce the risk of

future deforestation in the remaining forest area.

3.A Supplemental information provided to peer reviewers

3.3 Full Social Impact Assessment (if any)

SIA Reports for PT AJB BMS and SMS are available under Section 3.3 in SharePoint:

AJB: Social Impact Assessment of PT. Agrajaya Baktitama

BMS: Social Impact Assessment of PT. Batu Mas Sejahtera

SMS: Social Impact Assessment of PT. Sawit Makmur Sejahtera

3.4 Details of meetings held and findings

For detailed findings see the Community Engagement Report.

3.5 Shape files of community land use maps

File Name: LC_Goodhope_KalBar_v10_050518.rar

28

4. High Conservation Value Assessment 4.1 Summary and link to public summary report

A combined HCV Assessment of AJB, BMS and SMS has been carried out by Remark Asia covering a

combined area of 30,070 ha. The initial report was submitted to ALS for review in November 2017. This

was returned for further revision. On the 5th of May 2018 the revised report was submitted. The report

identifies a net HCV area of 3,014 ha, and a HCVMA area of 3,413 ha. After recalculation using the new

boundaries, the HCV area is reduced to 2889 ha, and the HCVMA area to 3,268 ha. The revised HCV area

synthesis is summarized below:

Table 12 Summary of HCV Areas Identified AJB Area (ha) SMS Area (ha)

Location Type HCV HCVA HCVMA Location Type HCV HCVA HCVMA

Semapau River HCV 4,5 13.0 13.0 Mariangin River HCV 5,6 1.1 2.0

Embawang River HCV 4,5 42.3 43.0 Sendumang River HCV 4 2.8 2.8

Kanau Hill HCV 1,4,5 18.3 18.4 Aik Berguruh Hill HCV 1,4 454.7 454.7

Spring and Water Catchment Hill HCV 4,5 1.3 1.3 Kinun River HCV 4 4.6 4.6

Toning River HCV 1,4 79.4 83.2 Pauh River HCV 1,4 5.7 5.7

Kelempeng Hill HCV 1,4 28.6 28.8 Karim River HCV 1,4 123.9 127.4

Jokak River HCV 1,4 36.1 36.1 Pendamar River HCV 4 3.1 3.1

Urak Hill HCV 4,5 221.2 233.4 Ntutung Hill HCV 1,4 238.9 238.9

Kangking River HCV 4 2.8 3.9 Dapuk Hill HCV 1,4 434.8 598.2

Kindawari River HCV 4 9.2 9.3 Demit River HCV 4 5.4 15.2

Jokak Kocil River HCV 4 29.2 31.5 Gegara Hill HCV 1,4 76.4 110.3

Pemuar River HCV 4 6.9 6.9 Siberuk Hill HCV 1,4 34.1 41.3

Kuriai Kumbiar and Kurai River HCV 4 9.7 9.9 Nango River HCV 1,4 142.0 143.9

Putih River HCV 4 5.0 5.4 Tudung Hill HCV 1,4 45.2 47.0

Sentawak River HCV 4 4.0 4.2 Kampung Raya River HCV 1,4,5 55.1 62.7

Kahayun River HCV 4 5.9 5.9 Menjuang Hiil HCV 1,4 13.5 55.5

Tapang Longge Lalung HCV 6 22.7 22.7 Sengkolang Hill HCV 5,6 117.1 194.1

Tapang Tebuli HCV 6 21.1 21.1 Luhur River HCV 4 1.3 1.3

Cina Mariangin and Teburi River HCV 4,5 15.2 15.2 Spiri River HCV 4 12.5 12.9

Sekolang Hill HCV 1.4 34.3 34.3 Dokan River HCV 4 18.2 18.7

Total AJB 606.0 627.6 Senanggui Hill HCV 1,4 28.1 28.5

Siku River HCV 4 16.5 16.5

BMS Area (ha) Pugas River HCV 4 6.5 6.5

Location Type HCV HCVA HCVMA Cina Rawa River HCV 1,4,5 23.1 23.1

Tembawang B1 HCV 5,6 0.1 0.1 Insuna Hill HCV 1,4 303.1 303.1

Tembawang B5 HCV 5,6 1.7 1.7 Hara River HCV 4 0.3 0.3

Ensinau Lake HCV 4,5 8.3 8.3 Total SMS 2,168.0 2,518.1

Bekayak River HCV 4 25.1 25.8 Ensinau River HCV 4 6.1 6.6 Total AJB BMS & SMS 2,889.0 3,267.9

Merabu Hill HCV 1,4 31.7 32.4 Tembawang B6 HCV 4,5,6 8.5 8.5 Tembawang B7 HCV 5,6 1.6 1.6 Jihing River HCV 4 11.1 11.4 Bluluk River HCV 4 3.2 3.2 Jeronih River hcv 4 1.1 4.2 Tembawang B8 HCV 5,6 2.0 2.0 Rantik River HCV 4 5.7 6.2 Petobang River HCV 4 0.9 1.0 Selalang River HCV 4 6.4 7.9 Engkaku River HCV 4 1.5 1.5 Total BMS 114.9 122.3

29

Figure 10 shows the distribution of the HCV areas identified.

Figure 10. HCV Area in AJB, BMS and SMS

30

The table below summaries the threats to HCVs identified and the management and monitoring

recommendations as set out in the English Language HCV Summary report. The report has been uploaded

to sharepoint (HCV Summary Report FINAL_Goodhope Ketapang_160318.pdf).

Table 18. HCV Threats, and Management and Monitoring Recommendations AJB, BMS, SMS

HCV Threats Management Recommendations Monitoring Recommendation

1

▪ Decline in RTE species diversity due to poaching

▪ Ensure that all staff, workers and surrounding communities, including migrant community do not poach RTE species.

▪ Raise community awareness on RTE species. ▪ Collaborate with communities to provide

alternative protein sources to reduce poaching.

▪ Monitor poaching of RTE species.

▪ Carry out routine monitoring over the presence of RTE species.

▪ Reduced forest area or forest degradation in hilly areas

▪ Protect HCVAs, especially forested hilly areas, in collaboration with local communities

▪ Carry out replanting and rehabilitation in HCVAs.

▪ Monitor HCVA size and quality.

4

▪ Declining river water quality

▪ Construct silt pit (2 x 1 x 1 m) in areas with rolling hill topography, in planting areas or roadsides, to increase retention and infiltration and protect against erosion

▪ Construct gully plugs or sediment traps for tributaries (width <4 m).

▪ Rehabilitate degraded riverbanks. ▪ Practice manual weeding and limit fertiliser and

pesticide application (at least 10 m from riverbank, depending on the buffer zone width).

▪ Monitor water quality (every 6 months) in inlets and outlets of rivers that flow through the Reassessment Area, especially Jokak Koci Kahayau and Cina Mariangin Rivers in PT AJB; Rantik River in PT BMS; and Nango, Kampung Raya and Karim Rivers in PT SMS

▪ Declining forest area size and/or quality in catchment areas

▪ Potential land conversion

▪ Monitor land clearing, especially those taking place close to HCVAs.

▪ Enrich degraded parts of catchment areas. ▪ Collaborate with local communities, government

and neighbouring companies to protect rivers, riverbanks and catchment areas.

▪ Monitor size and quality of vegetation cover in catchment areas.

▪ Supervise land clearing contractors.

▪ Record and document land clearing.

5 & 6

▪ Degradation or land clearing of HCVA 5 and HCVA 6.

▪ Monitor land clearing, especially those taking place close to HCVAs; activities should be participatory with stakeholder engagement.

▪ Assist in developing agreement between company and local communities or stakeholders in HCVA management and protection, especially regarding policies in HCV 5 and HCV 6 management (including prohibitions).

▪ Provide access for communities to carry out their activities in HCVA 5 and HCVA 6.

▪ Collaborate with local communities, government and surrounding companies to protect rivers, riverbanks and catchment areas

▪ Monitor size and quality of catchment areas.

▪ Supervise land clearing contractors.

▪ Record and document land clearing

4.A Supplemental information provided to peer reviewers 4.2 Full HCV report

HCV Reports for AJB, BMS and SMS are available under Section 4.2 in SharePoint:

HCV Summary Report: HCV Summary Report FINAL_Goodhope Ketapang_160318

Full HCV Report: (Under review)

31

5. Environmental Impact Assessment 5.1 Summary

Social and Environmental Impact Assessments (AMDAL) of the planned plantation development have been finalised as follows:

i. AMDAL of AJB was finalized on 24 July 2008 ii. AMDAL of BMS was finalized on 20 May 2009 iii. AMDAL of SMS was finalized on 24 May 2010

5.A Supplemental information provided to peer reviewers 5.2 Full Environmental Impact Assessment (if any)

AMDAL Reports for AJB, BMS and SMS are available under Section 5.2 in SharePoint:

Filename: AMDAL_Exsum_AJB.rar

Filename: AMDAL_Exsum_BMS.rar

Filename: AMDAL_Exsum_SMS.rar

32

6. Land cover image analysis 6.1 Area of Interest and how it was defined

The AJB, BMS and SMS total Kadastral area covers 24,853 ha.

6.2 Description of images used for classification

The following data was used for stratification of land cover:

1. High resolution satellite imagery data (Spot 7) covering the AJB, BMS and SMS license area was acquired by Ata Marie. Data was captured 27 March 2017.

2. Landsat 8 imagery P117/R60 and P117/R61. Data was captured 28 September 2017.

6.3 Sample image

Figure 11 Sample of SPOT 7 Imagery over AJB, BMS and SMS Area

33

Figure 12 Sample of Landsat 8 Satellite Image over AJB, BMS and SMS Area

6.4 Method of stratification and software used

The Spot 6/7 satellite imagery is high resolution enabling accurate stratification using predominantly heads up (manual) stratification approach. Analysis of Landsat 8 data used a combination of supervised and unsupervised techniques carried out using ARCGIS. The Landsat imagery was also used to update the results of the analysis of the Spot 7 by identifying and quantifying recent changes in land use.

Experience in areas with a lot of mixed rubber agroforestry areas is that in practise it is very difficult to separate mixed rubber areas (MAFH stratum) from forest using GIS based techniques alone, and therefore stratification using object based classification was heavily supported by a heads up (manual) stratification approach carried out by experienced operators familiar with conditions in West Kalimantan.

MAFH is variable in terms of species mix and canopy density, and in addition rubber has leaf-fall periods so it also varies over the seasons. Separation of MAFH from natural forest is carried out through a combination of remote sensing, participatory mapping work on the ground and input from carbon inventory teams. It takes a combination of all data sources plus experienced operators and field surveyors to separate these areas out. Old MAFH areas in particular can have uninterrupted canopies.

Land cover has been stratified into the standard HCS land cover classes as set out in the HCS-A toolkit v2.

Figure 13 shows the initial land cover stratification prepared prior to the field assessment, and the control points used to assess accuracy. Table 19 shows the area by land cover class in the initial land cover stratification.

34

Figure 13. Initial Land Cover Stratification Map

35

Table 19. Land Cover Initial Land Cover Stratification Prior to Field Assessment

Land Cover Strata ha %

Developed Area

Company Development

Area

Oil Palm 5,965 24%

Land Clearing in Progress 437 2%

Roads 58 0%

Infrastructure and Amenities 8 0%

Sub Total 6,468 26%

Other Development

Oil Palm Other Company 62 0%

Settlements 27 0%

Sub Total 89 0%

Sub Total Developed Area 6,556 26%

Undeveloped Area

Potential HCS Strata:

Forest 2,109 8%

YRF 2,855 11%

Sub Total 4,964 20%

Non HCS Strata:

Scrub 9,415 38%

Mixed Agriculture and Forest (High) 268 1%

Oil Palm Smallholder 430 2%

Smallholder Agriculture (current/recent) 289 1%

Open Land 2,796 11%

Rice Paddy (sawah) 107 0%

Water Body 6 0%

Sub Total 13,310 54%

Sub Total Undeveloped Area 18,274 74%

Total Combined 24,830 100%

Accuracy of the initial land cover assessment has been estimated following procedure set out in “Assessing the Accuracy of Remotely Sensed Data: Principles and Practices” by Congalton & Green (2009). The procedure involves inspection of ground control points to confirm accuracy of mapped land cover.

Table 20 shows the results of the accuracy analysis using a total of 53 ground control points inspected during the participatory mapping exercise. Results indicate 81% land cover accuracy, with the most common error being mis-interpretation of the forest strata – in particular old mixed rubber areas being mis-interpreted as natural forest.

Table 20.

The maps in Section 6.5 show the land cover assessment post field assessment.

FOR YRF MAFH SCR/MAFL AGRI AGRI3 LCIP OL RD Grand Total

FOR 11 3 4 - - - - - - 18

YRF - 5 - 1 - - - - - 6

MAFH - 1 10 - - - - - - 11

SCR/MAFL - - - 5 - - - - - 5

AGRI - - - - 4 - - - - 4

AGRI3 - - - - - 1 - - - 1

LCIP - - - - - - 1 - - 1

OL - - - 1 - - - 4 - 5

RD - - - - - - - - 2 2

Grand Total 11 9 14 7 4 1 1 4 2 53

43

Tingkat Akurasi 81%

36

6.5 Map of Vegetation Classes

Figure 14. Land Cover Map AJB

37

Figure 15. Land Cover Map BMS

38

Figure 16. Land Cover Map SMS

39

6.6 Table of total hectares per vegetation class

Table 21. Results of Land Cover Stratification in Study Area

Land Cover Strata

Before Pre-RBA (final draft)

After Pre-RBA (final)

ha % ha %

AJB

Developed Area

Company Development

Area

Oil Palm 3,294 35% 3,294 35%

Land Clearing in Progress 331 4% 331 4%

Roads 24 0% 24 0%

Infrastructure and Amenities 5 0% 5 0%

Sub Total 3,654 39% 3,654 39%

Other Development

Oil Palm Other Company 2 0% 2 0%

Settlements 4 0% 4 0%

Sub Total 5 0% 5 0%

Sub Total Developed Area 3,660 39% 3,660 39%

Undeveloped Area


Forest 839 9% 839 9%

YRF 404 4% 402 4%

Sub Total 1,243 13% 1,241 13%

Non HCS Strata:

Scrub 1,404 15% 1,404 15%

Mixed Agriculture and Forest (High) 1,860 20% 1,862 20%

Oil Palm Smallholder 20 0% 20 0%

Smallholder Agriculture (current/recent) 286 3% 286 3%

Open Land 819 9% 819 9%

Rice Paddy (sawah) 31 0% 31 0%

Water Body 0 0% 0 0%

Sub Total 4,420 47% 4,422 47%

Sub Total Undeveloped Area 5,663 61% 5,663 61%

Total AJB 9,323 100% 9,323 100%

BMS

Developed Area

Company Development

Area

Oil Palm 1,284 32% 1,284 32%


Roads 8 0% 8 0%


Sub Total 1,387 34% 1,387 34%

Other Development



Sub Total 33 1% 33 1%


Undeveloped Area


Forest 0 0% 0 0%

YRF 12 0% 12 0%

Sub Total 12 0% 12 0%

Non HCS Strata:

Scrub 595 15% 595 15%




Open Land 452 11% 452 11%



Sub Total 2,636 65% 2,636 65%


Total BMS 4,069 100% 4,069 100%

40

Land Cover Strata

Before Pre-RBA (final draft)

After Pre-RBA (final)

ha % ha %

SMS

Developed Area

Company Development

Area

Oil Palm 1,387 12% 1,387 12%


Roads 18 0% 18 0%


Sub Total 1,470 13% 1,470 13%

Other Development

Area



Sub Total 45 0% 45 0%


Undeveloped Area


Forest 570 5% 570 5%

YRF 732 6% 732 6%

Sub Total 1,302 11% 1,302 11%

Non HCS Strata:

Scrub 3,338 29% 3,338 29%




Open Land 1,270 11% 1,270 11%


Water Body 0% 0 0%

Sub Total 8,621 75% 8,621 75%


Total SMS 11,438 100% 11,438 100%

AJB BMS and SMS Combined

Developed Area

Company Development

Area

Oil Palm 5,965 24% 5,965 24%


Roads 49 0% 49 0%


Sub Total 6,512 26% 6,512 26%

Other Development



Sub Total 84 0% 84 0%


Undeveloped Area


Forest 1,408 6% 1,408 6%

YRF 1,149 5% 1,147 5%

Sub Total 2,557 10% 2,555 10%

Non HCS Strata:

Scrub 5,337 21% 5,337 21%




Open Land 2,541 10% 2,541 10%



Sub Total 15,678 63% 15,680 63%


Total Combined 24,830 100% 24,830 100%

41

6.7 Summary of which areas are potential HCS forest, subject to further analysis

Key points:

▪ The largest land cover class is mixed agriculture and forest (High) which covers 6,498 ha (26% of the

license area). This is mainly smallholder rubber.

▪ Scrub covers 5,342 ha (21% of the license area) and open land 2,543 ha (10%).

▪ 2,557 ha of forest (10% of the license area) is considered as potential HCS land for further analysis in

the HCS patch analysis process.

▪ 5,970 ha (24% of the license area) has been developed for plantations by AJB, BMS and SMS. This

includes both inti and plasma plantations, and related infrastructure (plantation roads, camps etc).

▪ 490 ha (2% of the license area) has already been cleared but not planted by AJB, BMS and SMS. This

land is available for development.

Description of each land cover stratum can be found in Table 29.

The map below shows the distribution of forest inside the three concessions and connectivity to forest areas in the surrounding landscape.

42

Figure 17. Forest – Non-Forest and External Connectivity

43

6.A Supplemental information provided to peer reviewers 6.8 Images, with sufficient resolution to re-do analysis

List of all imagery files uploaded:

SPOT.rar

Landsat.rar

SRTM.rar

7. Forest inventory results 7.1 Inventory sample design and plot rational

The inventory was designed to sample five land cover strata; forest, YRF, MAFH, Scrub and Open Land.

Sampling points were planned prior to going to the field using the preliminary Land Cover stratification. In general, a transect system was employed. Plots were located every 75m along transects cut on predetermined compass bearings from a pre-determined starting point. In cases where strata polygons are small and scattered, transects were shortened in some cases plot locations were generated one by one.

Planning of plot locations (i.e. transect starting points and bearings) considered:

▪ Targeting the main concentrations of the four strata.

▪ Sampling intensity required to meet statistical targets (confidence limits and significant difference

between strata).

▪ Time limitations. Transect starting points were for the most part located at accessible points (along

roads, rivers and/ or canals) to minimize mobilisation time.

7.2 Map indicating plots

A total of 197 plots were measured in the AJB, BMS and SMS area. The table below summarises the number of plots measured per land cover strata.

Table 22. No of Plots Measured per Land Cover Strata

Land Cover Strata Plots Measured

Forest 32

Young Regeneration Forest 75

Mixed agriculture and Forest (High) 39

Scrub 46

Open Land 5

Total 197

Figure 18 shows the plot locations. Table 22 lists the plots measured and the carbon stock by plot.

44

Figure 18. Map of Carbon Inventory Plot Locations AJB, BMS and SMS

45

Table 23. List of plots measured and the carbon stock by plot

Record No

Line/ Cluster Plot

Waypoint Code

Land Cover Code

Biomass (kg/ha)

Plot Carbon (t/ha)

Carbon Class

1 1 1 L1P1 MAFH 29,830 14.02 0-15

2 1 2 L1P2 MAFH 59,616 28.02 15-35

3 1 3 L1P3 MAFH 6,376 3 0-15

4 1 4 L1P4 MAFH 133,264 62.63 55-75

5 1 5 L1P5 MAFH 25,995 12.22 0-15

6 1 6 L1P6 MAFH 67,572 31.76 15-35

7 1 7 L1P7 MAFH 33,168 15.59 15-35

8 1 8 L1P8 MAFH 56,538 26.57 15-35

9 1 9 L1P9 MAFH 26,264 12.34 0-15

10 1 10 L1P10 MAFH 51,021 23.98 15-35

11 1 11 L1P11 MAFH 82,761 38.9 35-55

12 1 12 L1P12 MAFH 38,806 18.24 15-35

13 1 13 L1P13 MAFH 112,042 52.66 35-55

14 1 14 L1P14 MAFH 113,048 53.13 35-55

15 1 15 L1P15 MAFH 48,682 22.88 15-35

16 1 16 L1P16 MAFH 48,087 22.6 15-35

17 2 1 L2P1 MAFH 205,360 96.52 75+

18 2 2 L2P2 MAFH 266,769 125.38 75+

19 2 3 L2P3 MAFH 76,577 35.99 35-55

20 2 4 L2P4 MAFH 34,535 16.23 15-35

21 2 5 L2P5 MAFH 42,265 19.86 15-35

22 2 6 L2P6 MAFH 160,691 75.52 75+

23 2 7 L2P7 MAFH 118,399 55.65 55-75

24 2 8 L2P8 MAFH 44,249 20.8 15-35

25 2 9 L2P9 MAFH 134,398 63.17 55-75

26 2 10 L2P10 MAFH 208,304 97.9 75+

27 2 11 L2P11 MAFH 171,576 80.64 75+

28 2 12 L2P12 MAFH 235,596 110.73 75+

29 2 13 L2P13 MAFH 64,068 30.11 15-35

30 2 14 L2P14 MAFH 85,456 40.16 35-55

31 3 1 L3P1 SCR 71,365 33.54 15-35

32 3 2 L3P2 SCR 32,122 15.1 15-35

33 3 3 L3P3 SCR 16,266 7.65 0-15

34 3 4 L3P4 SCR 21,396 10.06 0-15

35 3 5 L3P5 SCR 38,494 18.09 15-35

36 3 6 L3P6 SCR 14,776 6.94 0-15

37 3 7 L3P7 SCR 17,980 8.45 0-15

38 3 8 L3P8 SCR 8,612 4.05 0-15

39 3 9 L3P9 SCR 22,289 10.48 0-15

40 3 10 L3P10 SCR 31,351 14.73 0-15

41 3 11 L3P11 MAFH 51,835 24.36 15-35

42 3 12 L3P12 SCR 1,823 0.86 0-15

43 3 13 L3P13 MAFH 95,517 44.89 35-55

44 3 14 L3P14 MAFH 14,963 7.03 0-15

45 3 15 L3P15 MAFH 126,879 59.63 55-75

46 3 16 L3P16 SCR 15,104 7.1 0-15

47 4 1 L4P1 YRF 62,043 29.16 15-35

48 4 2 L4P2 YRF 63,394 29.8 15-35

49 4 3 L4P3 YRF 103,106 48.46 35-55

50 4 4 L4P4 YRF 74,027 34.79 15-35

51 4 5 L4P5 YRF 15,454 7.26 0-15

52 4 6 L4P6 YRF 90,840 42.69 35-55

53 4 7 L4P7 YRF 1,004 0.47 0-15

54 4 8 L4P8 YRF 2,902 1.36 0-15

55 4 9 L4P9 YRF 51,257 24.09 15-35

56 4 10 L4P10 YRF 90,147 42.37 35-55

57 4 11 L4P11 YRF 18,375 8.64 0-15

46

Record No

Line/ Cluster Plot

Waypoint Code

Land Cover Code

Biomass (kg/ha)

Plot Carbon (t/ha)

Carbon Class

58 4 12 L4P12 YRF 118,257 55.58 55-75

59 4 13 L4P13 YRF 50,705 23.83 15-35

60 4 14 L4P14 YRF 57,251 26.91 15-35

61 4 15 L4P15 YRF 62,905 29.57 15-35

62 4 16 L4P16 YRF 125,566 59.02 55-75

63 5 1 L5P1 YRF 110,991 52.17 35-55

64 5 2 L5P2 YRF 90,676 42.62 35-55

65 5 3 L5P3 YRF 63,195 29.7 15-35

66 5 4 L5P4 YRF 130,078 61.14 55-75

67 5 5 L5P5 YRF 73,247 34.43 15-35

68 5 6 L5P6 YRF 80,756 37.96 35-55

69 5 7 L5P7 YRF 107,177 50.37 35-55

70 5 8 L5P8 YRF 54,501 25.62 15-35

71 5 9 L5P9 YRF 57,138 26.85 15-35

72 5 10 L5P10 YRF 31,811 14.95 0-15

73 5 11 L5P11 YRF 27,537 12.94 0-15

74 5 12 L5P12 YRF 71,358 33.54 15-35

75 5 13 L5P13 YRF 153,846 72.31 55-75

76 5 14 L5P14 YRF 114,898 54 35-55

77 5 15 L5P15 YRF 56,651 26.63 15-35

78 5 16 L5P16 MAFH 39,581 18.6 15-35

79 6 1 L6P1 SCR 14,395 6.77 0-15

80 6 2 L6P2 OL 680 0.32 0-15

81 6 3 L6P3 SCR 33,135 15.57 15-35

82 6 4 L6P4 SCR 30,552 14.36 0-15

83 6 5 L6P5 YRF 61,482 28.9 15-35

84 6 6 L6P6 YRF 60,798 28.57 15-35

85 6 7 L6P7 SCR 17,757 8.35 0-15

86 6 8 L6P8 OL 0 0 0-15

87 6 9 L6P9 SCR 33,765 15.87 15-35

88 6 10 L6P10 SCR 44,365 20.85 15-35

89 6 11 L6P11 SCR 15,348 7.21 0-15

90 6 12 L6P12 MAFH 156,544 73.58 55-75

91 6 13 L6P13 MAFH 112,705 52.97 35-55

92 6 14 L6P14 SCR 13,430 6.31 0-15

93 6 15 L6P15 SCR 3,891 1.83 0-15

94 6 16 L6P16 SCR 10,478 4.92 0-15

95 7 1 L7P1 YRF 93,233 43.82 35-55

96 7 2 L7P2 YRF 43,725 20.55 15-35

97 7 3 L7P3 YRF 189,845 89.23 75+

98 7 4 L7P4 YRF 121,316 57.02 55-75

99 7 5 L7P5 YRF 491,596 231.05 75+

100 7 6 L7P6 YRF 227,230 106.8 75+

101 7 7 L7P7 SCR 136,177 64 55-75

102 7 8 L7P8 SCR 39,636 18.63 15-35

103 7 9 L7P9 YRF 77,449 36.4 35-55

104 7 10 L7P10 YRF 80,485 37.83 35-55

105 7 11 L7P11 YRF 42,414 19.93 15-35

106 7 12 L7P12 YRF 40,412 18.99 15-35

107 7 13 L7P13 YRF 152,892 71.86 55-75

108 7 14 L7P14 YRF 155,593 73.13 55-75

109 7 15 L7P15 YRF 39,662 18.64 15-35

110 7 16 L7P16 YRF 112,572 52.91 35-55

111 8 1 L8P1 SCR 9,112 4.28 0-15

112 8 2 L8P2 SCR 26,203 12.32 0-15

113 8 3 L8P3 OL 0 0 0-15

114 8 4 L8P4 SCR 2,120 1 0-15

115 8 5 L8P5 SCR 6,676 3.14 0-15

47

Record No

Line/ Cluster Plot

Waypoint Code

Land Cover Code

Biomass (kg/ha)

Plot Carbon (t/ha)

Carbon Class

116 8 6 L8P6 SCR 8,457 3.97 0-15

117 8 7 L8P7 SCR 32,019 15.05 15-35

118 8 8 L8P8 SCR 731 0.34 0-15

119 8 9 L8P9 SCR 2,116 0.99 0-15

120 8 10 L8P10 SCR 1,746 0.82 0-15

121 8 11 L8P11 OL 0 0 0-15

122 8 12 L8P12 SCR 8,999 4.23 0-15

123 8 13 L8P13 SCR 1,140 0.54 0-15

124 8 14 L8P14 SCR 20,349 9.56 0-15

125 8 15 L8P15 MAFH 91,187 42.86 35-55

126 9 1 L9P1 FOR 93,574 43.98 35-55

127 9 2 L9P2 FOR 210,837 99.09 75+

128 9 3 L9P3 FOR 152,436 71.64 55-75

129 9 4 L9P4 FOR 453,160 212.99 75+

130 9 5 L9P5 FOR 231,314 108.72 75+

131 9 6 L9P6 FOR 88,395 41.55 35-55

132 9 7 L9P7 FOR 51,709 24.3 15-35

133 9 8 L9P8 FOR 256,440 120.53 75+

134 9 9 L9P9 FOR 60,370 28.37 15-35

135 9 10 L9P10 FOR 305,169 143.43 75+

136 9 11 L9P11 FOR 536,219 252.02 75+

137 9 12 L9P12 FOR 89,281 41.96 35-55

138 9 13 L9P13 FOR 315,017 148.06 75+

139 9 14 L9P14 FOR 197,969 93.05 75+

140 9 15 L9P15 FOR 207,392 97.47 75+

141 9 16 L9P16 FOR 227,214 106.79 75+

142 10 1 L10P1 SCR 13,143 6.18 0-15

143 10 2 L10P2 OL 407 0.19 0-15

144 10 3 L10P3 SCR 25,260 11.87 0-15

145 10 4 L10P4 SCR 26,401 12.41 0-15

146 10 5 L10P5 SCR 8,100 3.81 0-15

147 10 6 L10P6 SCR 6,024 2.83 0-15

148 10 7 L10P7 SCR 9,069 4.26 0-15

149 10 8 L10P8 SCR 26,415 12.41 0-15

150 10 9 L10P9 SCR 15,013 7.06 0-15

151 10 10 L10P10 SCR 15,133 7.11 0-15

152 10 11 L10P11 SCR 12,946 6.08 0-15

153 10 12 L10P12 MAFH 81,443 38.28 35-55

154 11 1 L11P1 FOR 201,628 94.77 75+

155 11 2 L11P2 FOR 245,023 115.16 75+

156 11 3 L11P3 FOR 13,233 6.22 0-15

157 11 4 L11P4 FOR 62,765 29.5 15-35

158 11 5 L11P5 FOR 30,064 14.13 0-15

159 11 6 L11P6 FOR 171,273 80.5 75+

160 11 7 L11P7 FOR 104,658 49.19 35-55

161 11 8 L11P8 FOR 69,611 32.72 15-35

162 11 9 L11P9 FOR 43,392 20.39 15-35

163 11 10 L11P10 FOR 36,124 16.98 15-35

164 11 11 L11P11 FOR 82,328 38.69 35-55

165 11 12 L11P12 FOR 128,533 60.41 55-75

166 11 13 L11P13 FOR 211,081 99.21 75+

167 11 14 L11P14 FOR 23,840 11.2 0-15

168 11 15 L11P15 FOR 273,749 128.66 75+

169 11 16 L11P16 FOR 191,780 90.14 75+

170 12 1 L12P1 YRF 131,898 61.99 55-75

171 12 2 L12P2 YRF 115,455 54.26 35-55

172 12 3 L12P3 YRF 78,738 37.01 35-55

173 12 4 L12P4 YRF 103,202 48.51 35-55

48

Record No

Line/ Cluster Plot

Waypoint Code

Land Cover Code

Biomass (kg/ha)

Plot Carbon (t/ha)

Carbon Class

174 12 5 L12P5 YRF 96,195 45.21 35-55

175 12 6 L12P6 YRF 110,168 51.78 35-55

176 12 7 L12P7 YRF 106,054 49.85 35-55

177 12 8 L12P8 YRF 36,520 17.16 15-35

178 12 9 L12P9 YRF 300,101 141.05 75+

179 12 10 L12P10 YRF 166,762 78.38 75+

180 12 11 L12P11 YRF 317,324 149.14 75+

181 12 12 L12P12 YRF 91,551 43.03 35-55

182 13 1 L13P1 YRF 61,358 28.84 15-35

183 13 2 L13P2 YRF 93,144 43.78 35-55

184 13 3 L13P3 YRF 90,515 42.54 35-55

185 13 4 L13P4 YRF 120,742 56.75 55-75

186 13 5 L13P5 YRF 57,339 26.95 15-35

187 13 6 L13P6 YRF 52,888 24.86 15-35

188 13 7 L13P7 YRF 128,198 60.25 55-75

189 13 8 L13P8 YRF 58,962 27.71 15-35

190 13 9 L13P9 YRF 82,776 38.9 35-55

191 13 10 L13P10 YRF 128,386 60.34 55-75

192 13 11 L13P11 YRF 108,296 50.9 35-55

193 13 12 L13P12 YRF 180,367 84.77 75+

194 13 13 L13P13 YRF 185,550 87.21 75+

195 13 14 L13P14 YRF 122,736 57.69 55-75

196 13 15 L13P15 YRF 89,440 42.04 35-55

197 13 16 L13P16 YRF 138,358 65.03 55-75

7.3 Forest inventory team members and roles

The Table below shows the inventory team make up. Ata Marie supplied the two key team members – the team leader and the botanist. Other team members consisted of a mixture of Goodhope planning staff and local villagers.

Table 24. Inventory Team Members and Roles

Team Member Position No of Persons Description and role

Dadi Ardiansyah Carbon inventory team leader

1 Responsible for team organisation and performance, in particular the following:

• Navigating to transect starting point

• Keeping field book

• Operating GPS

• Tree height measurement

• Capturing plot photos

• Data management and handover

Ambriansyah Botanist 1 Species identification

Staff AJB, BMS and SMS

Measuring Assistant

1 Measure tree diameter

Labourer from Community

Plot cleaner 1 Cleaning vines and climbers off trees to be measured to enable easier measurement

Staff AJB, BMS and SMS

Compass man 1 Ensuring transect lines are cut on the correct pre-determined compass bearing


Hip chain operator

1 Measuring transect length and location of plot center points along the transect


Line cutter 1 Clearing the transect line to enable rapid mobilisation to plot points

49

7.4 Methodology used for forest sampling

Each plot consists of two concentric circular plots with areas of 0.05 and 0.01 hectares respectively. Figure

19 shows the layout of a single HCS plot. Small diameter trees (<15cm DBH) are measured only in the sub

plot. Trees with DBH >=15cm are measured throughout the whole plot.

Figure 19. HCS Inventory Plot Layout

For each inventory plot measured, the following information is collected:

▪ GPS waypoint

▪ Plot photographs (set of 5)

▪ Land cover strata (as assessed by team leader)

▪ Canopy cover code

▪ Description of plot site and general surroundings

▪ Description of topography, soil and underfoot conditions

▪ Description of any evidence of human activity

50

For each tree measured, the following data is collected:

▪ Species

▪ Diameter

▪ Total tree height

7.5 Methodology used for carbon calculations

7.5.1. Approach

Inventory data collected in inventory plots was entered and checked in an excel spreadsheet, and then imported into an Access database for analysis. Biomass and carbon content is initially calculated by tree using the Allometric Equations method. This data is then used to calculate the following:

▪ Total biomass and carbon mass per plot

▪ Strata averages of total biomass and carbon mass per ha, as well as strata averages distributed by

diameter class

▪ 90% confidence intervals

▪ Statistical difference (or not) between strata using the Scheffé's test.

Biomass is reported in bone dry tonnes per ha. The Carbon (C) fraction of biomass is reported in tonnes of C/ha (Mg C/ha).

7.5.2. Stems per hectare

Stems per hectare is calculated from the plot size. The equation used is:

Stems per hectare = (Count of trees in the plot) / (Plot size in hectares)

7.5.3. Tree Biomass

Tree biomass was estimated for the living trees with DBH larger or equal to 5 cm using the Allometric Equations method. The following equation for wet tropical forests (Chave, et. al. 2005) was applied. This widely used equation relates DBH, total tree height and species-specific wood density (ρ) to estimate Above Ground Live Biomass (AGLB) per tree measured in the forest plots. The resulting AGLB is the total biomass of the stem, crown, and leaves for trees in kilograms.

AGLBi = 0.0776[ρi D2iHi]0.940

Where: AGLB = Above ground live biomass in kilograms

D = Diameter at breast height (1.3m above ground) in centimetres

H = Total tree height in metres

ρ = Specific gravity in grams per cubic centimetre

Chave et al. (2005) found that locally, the error on the estimation of a tree’s biomass was of ± 5%. Genus

and/or species-specific gravity values were determined for the species observed in the inventory from the

following sources in order of priority:

1. Global Wood Density Database. Chave J, Coomes DA, Jansen S, Lewis SL, Swenson NG, Zanne AE

(2009), Towards a worldwide wood economics spectrum. Ecology Letters 12(4): 351-366.

Preference is given to wood density estimates from Indonesia and South-East Asia, in order of

priority.

2. IPCC (2006): 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 4. Table 4.13

– Basic Wood Density of Tropical Tree Species.

51

3. Where no wood density was available for the species, there were assigned a wood density value of

0.585 g/cm3. This figure was derived from the weighted average wood density of tree species in the

forest inventory with identified wood density estimates.

7.5.4. Palm Biomass

The equation used for estimating palm biomass was:

Palm Biomass6 (tonne) = [Specific gravity] * D2/40000*(palm height)

For palms, specific gravity is assumed to be 0.247 tonne per green m3.

7.5.5. Tree and Palm Carbon Content

The C fraction of biomass is calculated in tonnes of C (Mg C). The equation used for estimating Tree and Palm Carbon Content was:

Carbon Mass (tonne) = Biomass * (Carbon conversion factor)

The carbon conversion factor estimates the carbon component of the vegetation biomass. This can be derived for specific forest types or the IPCC standard value of 0.47 can be used. In this case the IPCC standard value has been used.

7.5.6. Carbon Mass per Hectare

The equation for estimating tree carbon mass per hectare in each plot is:

Total Carbon (tonne/ha) = Σ ([Tree Carbon]) / [Plot size in hectares]

Separate calculations of volume are made for estimating tree volume in sub-plots because the plot size differs between the main and subplot.

7.5.7. Analysis of Carbon Estimate Precision and Significant Difference between Strata

Carbon Estimate Precision

The target precision level for carbon stock estimates is 90% confidence intervals within 10% of the average total carbon stock per ha in each strata for the designated above ground carbon pools. 90% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each land cover strata from the calculated carbon per ha in each plot using the following standard formula:

CI = tα/2 ∙ s/√n

Where: t is the Student’s t value,

α determines the level of confidence

s is the standard deviation of the sample and n is the sample size.

Significant Difference between Strata

Following completion of processing of raw data and estimation of average carbon stocks per stratum, two tests are performed to assess significant difference between strata:

1. The ANOVA test is applied to determine whether there are significant differences between the

strata carbon estimates.

2. A Scheffé's pairwise multiple comparisons test is conducted to determine which groups are

significantly different. The Scheffé's test is a method for statistical comparison of multiple strata.

6 The palm equation uses the geometric equation for a cylinder multiplied by the specific gravity. No specific equations are available in the scientific literature and so this simple equation has been used.

52

7.6 Indicative photos of each vegetation class

7.6.1. Photos of Forest Stratum

Photo 1: Forest Class (North_ P9291629)

Photo 2: Forest Class (East_ P9291230)

53

Photo 3: Forest Class (South_ P9291631)

Photo 4: Forest Class (West_ P9291632)

54

Photo 5: Forest Class (Canopy View_ P9291633)

7.6.2. Photos of Young Regenerating Forest (YRF) Stratum

Photo 1: Young Regeneration Forest Class (North_ P9281534)

55

Photo 2: Young Regeneration Forest Class (East_ P9281535)

Photo 3: Young Regeneration Forest Class (South_ P9281536)

56

Photo 4: Young Regeneration Forest Class (West_ P9281537)

Photo 5: Young Regeneration Forest Class (Canopy View_ P9281538)

57

7.6.3. Photos of Scrub Stratum

Photo 1: Scrub Class (North_ PA021765)

Photo 2: Scrub Class (East_ PA021766)

58

Photo 3: Scrub Class (South_ PA021767)

Photo 4 : Scrub Class (West_ PA021768)

59

Photo 5 : Scrub Class (Canopy View_ PA021769)

7.6.4. Photos of Open Land Stratum

Photo 1: Open Land Class (North_ PA021776)

60

Photo 2: Open Land Class (East_ PA021777)

Photo 3: Open Land Class (South_ PA021778)

61

Photo 4 : Open Land Class (West_ PA021779)

Photo 5 : Open Land Class (Canopy View_ PA021780)

62

7.6.5 Photos of Mixed Agriculture and Forest High Stratum

Photo 1: Mixed Agriculture and Forest High Class (North_ P9231311)

Photo 2: Mixed Agriculture and Forest High Class (East_ P9231312)

63

Photo 3: Mixed Agriculture and Forest High Class Class (South_ P9231313)

Photo 4 : Mixed Agriculture and Forest High Class (West_ P9231314)

64

Photo 5 : Mixed Agriculture and Forest High Class (Canopy View_ P9231315)

7.7 Statistical analysis

Table 25 and Table 26 show the results of the forest inventory carried out in the study area. Sample size is

158 inventory plots. The Forest strata has an average carbon stock of 78.8 tonnes per ha, YRF strata has an

average carbon stock of 47.3 tonnes per ha, while the scrub stratum has an average carbon stock of 9.8

tonnes per ha. All inventory data is also provided in excel format.

Table 25. Stand and Stock Table

Land Cover Stratum

Stems per hectare by DBH class Carbon Stock per ha by DBH class

Total 5.0-14.9 15.0-29.9 30.0-49.9 50.0+ Total 5.0-14.9 15.0-29.9 30.0-49.9 50.0+

stems/ha tonnes/ha

FOR 559 446 45 46 21 78.8 6.8 6.8 21.9 43.3

YRF 561 451 59 38 13 47.3 7.6 7.3 16.1 16.3

MAFH 436 322 64 37 14 42.8 5.5 7.4 12.3 17.7

SCR 576 544 27 4 1 9.8 5.6 2.5 1.0 0.9

OL 60 60 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

65

Table 26. Summary of statistical analysis of carbon stock results per vegetation class

Land Cover

Stratum

Number of Plots

Measured Stems per ha

Basal Area

(m2/ha)

Carbon Stock

(tonne/ha) t stat Stdev E (+/-10%)

Precision (+/-90%

CL)

Plots Required

to Estimate

+/-10%

90% confidence limits

Lower Upper

tonnes/ha

FOR 32 559 21 78.8 1.65 57.96 7.88 22% 148 61.4 96.2

YRF 75 561 15 47.3 1.65 34.29 4.73 14% 143 40.7 53.9

MAFH 39 436 15 42.8 1.65 29.88 4.28 19% 133 34.7 50.9

SCR 46 576 6 9.8 1.65 10.46 0.98 26% 310 7.2 12.4

OL 5 60 0 0.1 1.65 0.15 0.01 137% 566 0.0 0.2

Figure 20 and Figure 21 show carbon stock and stems per ha by strata and diameter class.

66

Figure 20. Graphs of Carbon Stock per ha by Strata and Diameter Class

67

Figure 21. Graph of Carbon Stock per ha by Strata and Diameter Class

The ANOVA in the table below shows that there are significance differences between the three strata. Table 27. Analysis of Variance

Source SS df MS F F_90% CL Signif Diff

Model 138,447 4 34,612 29 1.97 Yes

Error 230,006 192 1,198

Total 368,454 196

To determine which groups are significantly different, a Scheffé's pairwise multiple comparisons test has

been conducted. Table 28 shows the differences between strata average carbon values, the Scheffé

comparison values, and the determination of significant differences between strata. This analysis confirms

that there is a significant difference between forest, YRF and scrub average carbon estimates.

68

Table 28. Scheffé's Test Results Pair Wise Differences Between Sample Means

Type FOR YRF MAFH SCR OL

FOR 31.5 36.0 69.0 78.7

YRF 4.5 37.5 47.2

MAFH 33.0 42.7

SCR 9.7

OL

Scheffe Comparison Values


FOR 20.5 15.6 22.4 46.8

YRF 15.6 18.2 44.9

MAFH 21.2 46.2

SCR 45.8

OL Significant Differences


FOR Yes Yes Yes Yes

YRF No Yes Yes

MAFH Yes No

SCR No

OL

Table 29 shows the complete species list.

69

Table 29. Species List

No. Species Code Family Genus Species Species Group

Wood Density Wood Density Reference Wood Density Region

1 ACC Fabaceae Archidendron clypearia Low Density 0.32 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

2 ACD Fabaceae Archidendron

Low Density 0.35 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

3 ACJ Fabaceae Archidendron jiringa Low Density 0.32 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

4 ACP Rutaceae Acronychia pedunculata Medium Density 0.52 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

5 ADC Pentaphylacaeae Adinandra collina Low Density 0.47 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

6 ADD Pentaphylacaeae Adinandra dumosa Medium Density 0.54 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

7 AEB Fabaceae Adenanthera borneensis Medium Density 0.72 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

8 AGL Meliaceae Aglaia

Medium Density 0.67 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

9 AGS Meliaceae Aglaia simplicifolia Medium Density 0.77 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

10 AGT Meliaceae Aglaia tomentosa Medium Density 0.68 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

11 AHE Lauraceae Actinodaphne


12 AHG Lauraceae Actinodaphne glabra Medium Density 0.52 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

13 AIE Lauraceae Alseodaphne elmeri Medium Density 0.56 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

14 AIN Lauraceae Alseodaphne


15 ALP Apocynaceae Alstonia pneumatophora Low Density 0.30 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

16 ALS Apocynaceae Alstonia scholaris Low Density 0.39 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

17 ANE Cornaceae Alangium ebenaceum Medium Density 0.65 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

18 ANR Cornaceae Alangium ridleyi Medium Density 0.78 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

19 AOH Fabaceae heptaphylla Medium Density 0.62 Family Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

20 APD Phyllanthaceae Aporusa dioca Medium Density 0.62 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

21 APF Phyllanthaceae Aporusa frutescens Medium Density 0.62 Genus Level - SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

22 ARD Myrsinaceae Ardisia


23 ASD Dipterocarpaceae Anisoptera marginata Medium Density 0.53 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

24 ASG Phyllanthaceae Aporusa grandistipula Medium Density 0.62 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

25 ASM Thymelaeaceae Aquilaria malaccensis Low Density 0.32 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

26 ASN Phyllanthaceae Antidesma neurocarpum Medium Density 0.63 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

27 ATA Moraceae Artocarpus anisophyllus Medium Density 0.61 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

28 ATC Moraceae Artocarpus


29 ATD Moraceae Artocarpus dadah Medium Density 0.59 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

30 ATE Moraceae Artocarpus elasticus Low Density 0.36 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

31 ATI Moraceae Artocarpus integer Medium Density 0.55 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

32 ATL Moraceae Artocarpus lanceaefolia Medium Density 0.57 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

33 ATN Moraceae Artocarpus nitidus Low Density 0.48 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

34 ATO Moraceae Artocarpus odoratissimus Medium Density 0.55 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

35 ATT Moraceae Artocarpus tamaran Low Density 0.37 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

70



36 AUC Sapindaceae Allophylus cobbe Low Density 0.39 Species Level - South America (tropical) South America (tropical)

37 AUR Chrysobalanaceae Atuna racemosa Medium Density 0.67 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

38 AXJ Annonaceae Anaxagorea javanica Medium Density 0.58 Genus Level - South America (tropical) South America (tropical)

39 BCA Phyllanthaceae Baccaurea


40 BCB Phyllanthaceae Baccaurea bracteata Medium Density 0.64 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

41 BCL Phyllanthaceae Baccaurea


42 BCM Phyllanthaceae Baccaurea macrocarpa Medium Density 0.54 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

43 BCT Phyllanthaceae Baccaurea tetrandra Medium Density 0.62 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

44 BDG Phyllanthaceae Bridelia glauca Low Density 0.44 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

45 BDL Phyllanthaceae Bridelia


46 BHP Celastraceae Bhesa paniculata Medium Density 0.66 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

47 BHR Celastraceae Bhesa robusta Medium Density 0.66 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

48 BHT Melastomataceae Bellucia pentamera Low Density 0.43 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

49 BIS Lauraceae Beilschmiedia


50 BLC Euphorbiaceae Blumeodendron calophyllum Medium Density 0.58 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

51 BLT Euphorbiaceae Blumeodendron tokbrai Medium Density 0.56 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

52 BOM Anacardiaceae Bouea macrophylla Medium Density 0.68 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

53 BOP Anacardiaceae Bouea oppositifolia Medium Density 0.75 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

54 BRM Lecythidaceae Barringtonia macrostachya Medium Density 0.60 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

55 BUS Anacardiaceae Buchanania sessilifolia Low Density 0.43 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

56 CAI Clusiaceae Calophyllum inophyllum Medium Density 0.60 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

57 CAL Clusiaceae Calophyllum


58 CAN Clusiaceae Calophyllum parvifolium Medium Density 0.54 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

59 CBB Rhizophoraceae Carallia brachiata Medium Density 0.66 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

60 CDA Fabaceae Crudia


61 CEC Euphorbiaceae Chaetocarpus castanocarpus Medium Density 0.75 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

62 CGO Annonaceae Cananga odorata Low Density 0.29 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

63 CHN Oleaceae Chionanthus


64 CIC Lauraceae Cinnamomum cuspidatum Low Density 0.47 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

65 CLM Lamiaceae Clerodendrum


66 CMP Anacardiaceae Campnosperma auriculata Low Density 0.33 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

67 CNL Burseraceae Canarium littorale Low Density 0.50 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

68 COM Palmae Caryota mitis Medium Density 0.59 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

69 COX Annonaceae Cyathocalyx


70 CRC Crypteroniaceae Crypteronia cumingii Low Density 0.41 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

71 CRI Crypteroniaceae Crypteronia


72 CSF Fagaceae Castanopsis fulva Medium Density 0.59 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

73 CSM Fagaceae Castanopsis megacarpa Medium Density 0.63 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

71



74 CTM Phyllanthaceae Cleistanthus myrianthus Medium Density 0.54 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

75 CTS Phyllanthaceae Cleistanthus


76 CUS Rubiaceae Canthium


77 CXF Clusiaceae Cratoxylum formosum Medium Density 0.72 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

78 CXS Clusiaceae Cratoxylum sumatranum Medium Density 0.59 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

79 CYS Euphorbiaceae Croton argyratus Medium Density 0.66 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

80 DCG Dipterocarpaceae Dipterocarpus globosus Medium Density 0.70 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

81 DCH Dipterocarpaceae Dipterocarpus humeratus Medium Density 0.63 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

82 DCR Dipterocarpaceae Dipterocarpus


83 DCV Dipterocarpaceae Dipterocarpus validus Medium Density 0.54 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

84 DEC Apocynaceae Dyera costulata Low Density 0.34 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

85 DHS Lauraceae Dehaasia


86 DLD Anacardiaceae Dracontomelon dao Low Density 0.40 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

87 DLE Dilleniaceae Dillenia excelsa Medium Density 0.68 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

88 DLN Dilleniaceae Dillenia


89 DLR Dilleniaceae Dillenia reticulata Medium Density 0.61 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

90 DLS Dilleniaceae Dillenia suffruticosa Low Density 0.45 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

91 DML Sapindaceae Dimocarpus longan Medium Density 0.70 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

92 DNE Urticaceae Dendrocnide elliptica Low Density 0.21 Genus Level - AUS/PNG (tropical AUS/PNG (tropical)

93 DOA Malvaceae Durio acutifolius Medium Density 0.55 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

94 DOD Malvaceae Durio dulcis Medium Density 0.51 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

95 DOK Malvaceae Durio kutejensis Medium Density 0.52 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

96 DOO Malvaceae Durio oxleyanus Medium Density 0.53 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

97 DOZ Malvaceae Durio zibethinus Medium Density 0.52 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

98 DPK Putranjavaceae Drypetes kikir Medium Density 0.72 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

99 DPL Putranjavaceae Drypetes longifolia Medium Density 0.62 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

100 DPO Putranjavaceae Drypetes ochrothrix Medium Density 0.68 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

101 DPP Putranjavaceae Drypetes polyneura Medium Density 0.67 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

102 DRC Burseraceae Dacryodes costata Medium Density 0.70 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

103 DRL Anacardiaceae Drimycarpus luridus High Density 0.84 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

104 DRR Burseraceae Dacryodes rugosa Medium Density 0.74 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

105 DRT Burseraceae Dacryodes rostrata Medium Density 0.55 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

106 DSB Ebenaceae Diospyros borneensis Medium Density 0.55 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

107 DSC Ebenaceae Diospyros confertiflora Medium Density 0.66 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

108 DSS Ebenaceae Diospyros


109 DUI Fabaceae Dialium indum High Density 0.82 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

110 DUM Lythraceae Duabanga moluccana Low Density 0.34 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

111 DUP Fabaceae Dialium platysepalum Medium Density 0.77 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

72



112 DXY Meliaceae Dysoxylum


113 DYA Dipterocarpaceae Dryobalanops aromatica Medium Density 0.68 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

114 DYB Dipterocarpaceae Dryobalanops beccarii Medium Density 0.50 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

115 DYL Dipterocarpaceae Dryobalanops lanceolata Medium Density 0.62 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

116 EAT Euphorbiaceae Elateriospermum tapos Medium Density 0.79 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

117 EDD Euphorbiaceae Endospermum diadenum Low Density 0.37 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

118 EDP Annonaceae Enicosanthum paradoxum Low Density 0.49 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

119 ELG Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus glaber Low Density 0.45 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

120 ELM Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus mastersii Medium Density 0.55 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

121 ELO Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus


122 ELS Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus stipularis Low Density 0.45 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

123 EMT Magnoliaceae Elmerrillia tsiampacca Low Density 0.43 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

124 ENK Lauraceae Endiandra kingiana Medium Density 0.70 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

125 EOD Myristicaceae macrocoma Low Density 0.49 Family Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

126 ESJ Celastraceae Euonymus javanicus Medium Density 0.53 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

127 EUE Myrtaceae Eugenia creaghii Medium Density 0.69 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

128 EUH Myrtaceae Eugenia heteroclada Medium Density 0.69 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

129 EXZ Lauraceae Eusideroxylon zwageri Medium Density 0.79 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

130 EYL Simaroubaceae Eurycoma longifolia Medium Density 0.51 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

131 FCA Moraceae Ficus auriculata Low Density 0.47 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

132 FCG Moraceae Ficus grossularioides Low Density 0.42 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

133 FCO Moraceae Ficus obscura Low Density 0.40 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

134 FCR Moraceae Ficus racemosa Low Density 0.35 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

135 FCS Moraceae Ficus


136 FGR Gentianaceae Fagraea racemosa Medium Density 0.64 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

137 FLR Salicaceae Flacourtia rukam Medium Density 0.75 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

138 FOS Fabaceae Fordia splendidissima Medium Density 0.64 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

139 FRB Fabaceae Fordia brachybotrys Medium Density 0.64 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

140 GAF Pandaceae Galearia fulva Medium Density 0.64 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

141 GCI Clusiaceae Garcinia nitida Medium Density 0.72 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

142 GCN Clusiaceae Garcinia


143 GDN Theaceae Gordonia


144 GIP Sapindaceae Guioa diplopetala Medium Density 0.59 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

145 GLM Anacardiaceae Gluta macrocarpa Medium Density 0.57 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

146 GLR Anacardiaceae Gluta renghas Medium Density 0.55 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

147 GLW Anacardiaceae Gluta wallichii Medium Density 0.53 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

148 GNY Thymelaeaceae Gonystylus


149 GOA Phyllanthaceae Glochidion arborescens Medium Density 0.56 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

73



150 GON Phyllanthaceae Glochidion


151 GOR Phyllanthaceae Glochidion rubrum Medium Density 0.64 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

152 GOS Phyllanthaceae Glochidion sericeum Medium Density 0.53 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

153 GRN Cannabaceae Gironniera nervosa Low Density 0.45 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

154 GRS Cannabaceae Gironniera subaequalis Low Density 0.47 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

155 GTL Annonaceae Goniothalamus malayanus Medium Density 0.50 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

156 GTM Annonaceae Goniothalamus macrophyllus Low Density 0.44 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

157 GUP Lamiaceae Callicarpa pentandra Low Density 0.34 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

158 GYB Myristicaceae Gymnacranthera forbesii Medium Density 0.54 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

159 GYF Myristicaceae Gymnacranthera farquhariana Medium Density 0.58 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

160 HEL Proteaceae Helicia


161 HFD Myristicaceae Horsfieldia


162 HLS Malvaceae Heritiera littoralis High Density 0.87 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

163 HOC Dipterocarpaceae Hopea cernua Medium Density 0.59 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

164 HOD Dipterocarpaceae Hopea dryobalanoides Medium Density 0.61 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

165 HOK Dipterocarpaceae Hopea kerangasensis Medium Density 0.69 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

166 HOM Dipterocarpaceae Hopea mengarawan Medium Density 0.56 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

167 HON Dipterocarpaceae Hopea nervosa Medium Density 0.61 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

168 HOP Dipterocarpaceae Hopea


169 HVB Euphorbiaceae Hevea brasiliensis Low Density 0.49 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

170 HYM Rubiaceae Hypobathrum


171 HYP Achariaceae Hydnocarpus polypetalus Medium Density 0.55 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

172 ILC Aquifoliaceae Ilex cymosa Low Density 0.49 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

173 ILX Aquifoliaceae Ilex


174 IVM Irvingiaceae Irvingia malayana High Density 0.88 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

175 JCO Rubiaceae Jackiopsis ornata Medium Density 0.76 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

176 KAB Clusiaceae Kayea borneensis Medium Density 0.69 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

177 KAR Celastraceae Kokoona reflexa Medium Density 0.79 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

178 KDS Euphorbiaceae

Low Density 0.47 Family Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

179 KNC Myristicaceae Knema glauca Low Density 0.44 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

180 KNF Myristicaceae Knema furfuracea Medium Density 0.55 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

181 KNG Myristicaceae Knema galeata Medium Density 0.53 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

182 KNL Myristicaceae Knema latericia Medium Density 0.53 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

183 KNM Myristicaceae Knema


184 KNP Myristicaceae Knema pallens Medium Density 0.53 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

185 KOM Fabaceae Koompassia malaccensis Medium Density 0.76 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

186 LAD Meliaceae Lansium domesticum Medium Density 0.71 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

187 LCC Fagaceae Lithocarpus conocarpa Medium Density 0.75 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

74



188 LCO Fagaceae Lithocarpus cooperta Medium Density 0.70 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

189 LIA Lauraceae Litsea angulata Low Density 0.36 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

190 LIC Lauraceae Litsea elliptibacca Low Density 0.41 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

191 LIE Lauraceae Litsea elliptica Low Density 0.45 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

192 LIF Lauraceae Litsea firma Low Density 0.41 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

193 LIO Lauraceae Litsea oppositifolia Medium Density 0.51 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

194 LIT Lauraceae Litsea


195 LOM Celastraceae Lophopetalum multinervium Medium Density 0.53 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

196 LTP Fagaceae Lithocarpus


197 MCB Euphorbiaceae Macaranga bancana Low Density 0.37 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

198 MCC Euphorbiaceae Macaranga conifera Low Density 0.33 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

199 MCD Euphorbiaceae Macaranga repandodentata Low Density 0.37 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

200 MCG Euphorbiaceae Macaranga gigantea Low Density 0.30 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

201 MCH Euphorbiaceae Macaranga hypoleuca Low Density 0.26 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

202 MCL Euphorbiaceae Macaranga lowii Medium Density 0.68 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

203 MCP Euphorbiaceae Macaranga pearsonii Low Density 0.37 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

204 MDC Sapotaceae Madhuca


205 MDK Sapotaceae Madhuca kingiana Medium Density 0.60 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

206 MFF Anacardiaceae Mangifera foetida Medium Density 0.53 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

207 MFM Anacardiaceae Mangifera macrocarpa Medium Density 0.50 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

208 MIG Rutaceae Melicope glabra Low Density 0.33 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

209 MIL Euphorbiaceae Moultonianthus leembruggianus Medium Density 0.68 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

210 MIP Rutaceae Melicope


211 MLN Euphorbiaceae Mallotus paniculatus Low Density 0.35 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

212 MLP Euphorbiaceae Mallotus penangensis Medium Density 0.59 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

213 MLS Euphorbiaceae Mallotus sumatranus Low Density 0.37 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

214 MLT Euphorbiaceae Mallotus


215 MLY Euphorbiaceae Mallotus lackeyi Low Density 0.47 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

216 MNV Annonaceae virgata Medium Density 0.56 Family Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

217 MOC Magnoliaceae Magnolia candollei Medium Density 0.51 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

218 MOL Magnoliaceae Magnolia lasia Medium Density 0.51 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

219 MRC Chrysobalanaceae Maranthes corymbosa Medium Density 0.74 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

220 MSC Malvaceae Microcos cinnamomifolia Low Density 0.49 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

221 MSS Malvaceae Microcos


222 MST Malvaceae Microcos tomentosa Medium Density 0.64 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

223 MXI Cornaceae Mastixia


224 MYI Myristicaceae Myristica iners Low Density 0.47 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

225 MYM Myristicaceae Myristica maxima Low Density 0.41 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

75



226 MYR Myristicaceae Myristica


227 MYV Myristicaceae Myristica villosa Medium Density 0.59 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

228 MZP Annonaceae Mezzettia parviflora Medium Density 0.52 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

229 NCS Rubiaceae Nauclea subdita Low Density 0.44 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

230 NPC Sapindaceae Nephelium cuspidatum Medium Density 0.76 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

231 NPE Sapindaceae Nephelium


232 NPL Sapindaceae Nephelium lappaceum Medium Density 0.79 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

233 NPT Sapindaceae Nephelium mutabile High Density 0.88 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

234 NPU Sapindaceae Nephelium uncinatum Medium Density 0.63 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

235 NSS Malvaceae Neesia synandra Low Density 0.43 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

236 NUA Annonaceae acuminatissima Medium Density 0.56 Family Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

237 OCA Olacaceae Ochanostachys amentacea Medium Density 0.77 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

238 ORI Bignoniaceae Oroxylum indicum Low Density 0.38 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

239 ORS Fabaceae Ormosia


240 OTH Arecaceae Oncosperma horidum Medium Density 0.59 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

241 OTS Datiscaceae Octomeles sumatrana Low Density 0.30 Genus Level -AUS/PNG (tropical AUS/PNG (tropical)

242 PAL Malvaceae Pentace laxiflora Medium Density 0.59 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

243 PAP Euphorbiaceae pendulus Low Density 0.47 Family Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

244 PAU Sapotaceae Payena lucida Medium Density 0.63 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

245 PCA Malvaceae Pentace adenophora Medium Density 0.59 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

246 PDC Arecaceae Polydocarpus

247 PEA Melastomataceae Pternandra azurea Medium Density 0.59 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

248 PEC Melastomataceae Pternandra coerulescens Medium Density 0.53 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

249 PEL Moraceae Prainea limpato Medium Density 0.68 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

250 PGS Euphorbiaceae Ptychopyxis


251 PHA Dipterocarpaceae Parashorea


252 PKS Fabaceae Parkia speciosa Low Density 0.40 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

253 PLL Sapotaceae Payena leerii Medium Density 0.70 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

254 PLT Icacinaceae Platea


255 PMG Euphorbiaceae Pimelodendron griffithianum Low Density 0.46 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

256 PMI Escalloniaceae Polyosma integrifolia Medium Density 0.53 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

257 PMP Sapindaceae Pometia pinnata Medium Density 0.65 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

258 POS Anacardiaceae Parishia insignis Medium Density 0.56 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

259 PQB Sapotaceae Palaquium beccarianum Low Density 0.49 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

260 PQM Sapotaceae Palaquium


261 PQP Sapotaceae Palaquium pseudocuneatum Low Density 0.43 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

262 PQQ Sapotaceae Palaquium quercifolium Low Density 0.43 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

263 PQR Sapotaceae Palaquium rostratum Medium Density 0.52 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

76



264 PQS Sapotaceae Palaquium dasyphyllum Medium Density 0.51 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

265 PRA Rubiaceae Porterandia anisophylla Medium Density 0.55 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

266 PRX Sapindaceae Paranephelium xestophyllum High Density 0.81 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

267 PSM Anacardiaceae Pentaspadon motleyi Medium Density 0.50 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

268 PTB Moraceae Parartocarpus bracteata Low Density 0.34 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

269 PVD Malvaceae Pterospermum diversifolium Medium Density 0.57 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

270 PVJ Malvaceae Pterospermum javanicum Low Density 0.40 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

271 PWS Rubiaceae

Medium Density 0.60 Family Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

272 PXA Rhizophoraceae Pellacalyx axillaris Low Density 0.38 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

273 PYG Annonaceae Polyalthia glauca Low Density 0.45 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

274 PYL Annonaceae Polyalthia lateriflora Medium Density 0.50 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

275 PYM Annonaceae Polyalthia microtus Medium Density 0.54 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

276 PYR Annonaceae Polyalthia rumphii Medium Density 0.58 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

277 PYS Annonaceae Polyalthia sumatrana Medium Density 0.52 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

278 QUA Fagaceae Quercus argentata Medium Density 0.74 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

279 RHC Myrtaceae Rhodamnia cinerea High Density 0.87 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

280 RIN Violaceae Rinorea

Medium Density 0.68 Genus Level - South America (tropical) South America (tropical)

281 RTS Rubiaceae Rothmannia schoemanii Medium Density 0.64 Genus Level - Africa (extratropical) Africa (extratropical)

282 RYS Achariaceae Ryparosa


283 SAU Actinidiaceae Saurauia


284 SCC Annonaceae Stelechocarpus cauliflorus Medium Density 0.55 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

285 SCR Oxalidaceae Sarcotheca rubrinervis Medium Density 0.61 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

286 SDW Fabaceae Sindora wallichii Medium Density 0.54 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

287 SEM Anacardiaceae Semecarpus


288 SHM Malvaceae Scaphium macropodum Medium Density 0.53 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

289 SIC Olacaceae Strombosia ceylanica Medium Density 0.73 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

290 SLJ Elaeocarpaceae Sloanea javanica Medium Density 0.55 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

291 SNK Meliaceae Sandoricum koetjape Low Density 0.43 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

292 SOA Dipterocarpaceae Shorea angustifolia Medium Density 0.57 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

293 SOB Dipterocarpaceae Shorea macrobalanos Medium Density 0.57 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

294 SOD Dipterocarpaceae Shorea faguetiana Low Density 0.48 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

295 SOE Dipterocarpaceae Shorea mujongensis Medium Density 0.57 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

296 SOF Dipterocarpaceae Shorea parvifolia Low Density 0.41 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

297 SOG Dipterocarpaceae Shorea pinanga Low Density 0.36 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

298 SOI Dipterocarpaceae Shorea parvistipulata Low Density 0.40 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

299 SOJ Dipterocarpaceae Shorea johorensis Low Density 0.39 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

300 SOL Dipterocarpaceae Shorea pauciflora Medium Density 0.53 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

301 SOM Dipterocarpaceae Shorea seminis Medium Density 0.72 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

77



302 SON Dipterocarpaceae Shorea stenoptera Low Density 0.33 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

303 SOO Dipterocarpaceae Shorea ovalis Low Density 0.43 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

304 SOP Dipterocarpaceae Shorea leprosula Low Density 0.44 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

305 SOQ Dipterocarpaceae Shorea agami Medium Density 0.53 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

306 SOR Dipterocarpaceae Shorea


307 SOS Dipterocarpaceae Shorea smithiana Low Density 0.36 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

308 SOT Dipterocarpaceae Shorea retusa Medium Density 0.57 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

309 SOV Dipterocarpaceae Shorea laevis Medium Density 0.69 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

310 SOW Dipterocarpaceae Shorea micans Medium Density 0.57 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

311 SQL Annonaceae Sageraea lanceolata Medium Density 0.63 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

312 STA Burseraceae Santiria


313 STG Burseraceae Santiria griffithii Medium Density 0.68 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

314 STP Burseraceae Santiria apiculata Medium Density 0.58 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

315 STS Malvaceae Sterculia stipulata Low Density 0.36 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

316 STT Burseraceae Santiria tomentosa Medium Density 0.58 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

317 SUC Malvaceae Sterculia


318 SUR Malvaceae Sterculia rubiginosa Low Density 0.36 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

319 SVS Fabaceae Saraca declinata Low Density 0.44 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

320 SYF Symplocaceae Symplocos fasciculata Low Density 0.30 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

321 SZF Myrtaceae Syzygium polyanthum Medium Density 0.56 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

322 SZG Myrtaceae Syzygium


323 SZL Myrtaceae Syzygium lineatum Medium Density 0.61 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

324 SZN Myrtaceae Syzygium nigricans Medium Density 0.61 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

325 SZT Myrtaceae Syzygium tawahense Medium Density 0.69 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

326 TAM Burseraceae Triomma malaccensis Medium Density 0.58 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

327 TEM Cannabaceae Trema tomentosa Low Density 0.33 Species Level- AUS/PNG (tropical AUS/PNG (tropical)

328 THK Malvaceae Trichospermum kjellbergii Low Density 0.33 Genus Level - Oceania Oceania

329 TJO Lamiaceae Teijsmanniodendron


330 TMN Rubiaceae Timonius


331 TNL Trigoniaceae Trigoniastrum hypoleucum Medium Density 0.70 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

332 TOM Euphorbiaceae laevigatus Low Density 0.47 Family Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

333 TRF Combretaceae Terminalia foetidissima Medium Density 0.60 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

334 URV Rubiaceae Urophyllum


335 VIP Lamiaceae Vitex pubescens Low Density 0.46 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

336 VIT Lamiaceae Vitex trifolia Low Density 0.46 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

337 VRA Asteraceae Vernonia arborea Low Density 0.33 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

338 VTD Dipterocarpaceae Vatica odorata Medium Density 0.79 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

339 VTP Dipterocarpaceae Vatica pauciflora Medium Density 0.71 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

78



340 VTR Dipterocarpaceae Vatica rassak Medium Density 0.55 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

341 VTS Dipterocarpaceae Vatica sarawakensis Medium Density 0.71 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

342 VTU Dipterocarpaceae Vatica umbonata Medium Density 0.79 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

343 XEL Sapindaceae Xerospermum laevigatum Medium Density 0.77 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

344 XTG Polygalaceae Xanthophyllum griffithii Medium Density 0.71 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

345 XTL Polygalaceae Xanthophyllum


346 XTO Polygalaceae Xanthophyllum obscurum High Density 0.80 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

347 XTR Polygalaceae Xanthophyllum rufum Medium Density 0.74 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

348 XTS Polygalaceae Xanthophyllum stipitatum High Density 0.81 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

349 XYF Annonaceae Xylopia ferruginea Low Density 0.35 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

350 XYM Annonaceae Xylopia malayana Medium Density 0.59 Species Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

351 XYS Annonaceae Xylopia stenopetala Medium Density 0.54 Genus Level -SEA (Tropical) SEA (tropical)

352 ZZA Rhamnaceae Ziziphus angustifolius Medium Density 0.58 Genus Level - AUS/PNG (tropical AUS/PNG (tropical)

79

7.8 Summary of statistical analysis of carbon stock results per vegetation class

Table 30: Summary of statistical analysis of carbon stock results per vegetation class

Land cover class Number of Plots

Stems per

hectare

Basal Area

(m2/ha)

Average Carbon Stocks

Standard error of the

mean

Confidence limits (90%)

Lower Upper

High Density Forest

Medium Density Forest

Low Density Forest 32 559 21 78.8 10.25 61.44 96.18

Young Regenerating Forest 75 561 15 47.3 3.96 40.75 53.94

Mixed Agriculture and Forest (High)

39 436 15 42.8 4.78 34.7 50.9

Scrub 46 576 6 9.8 1.54 7.24 12.42

Open Land 5 60 0 0.1 0.07 -0.04 0.24

7.9 Forest inventory results

Table 31: Forest inventory class

Land cover class

Average carbon value Physical Description

Forest 78.8 t/ha Ecology:

The forest stratum consists of logged over lowland mixed dipterocarp forest. Inventory results show

the strata has 559 stems per ha including 188 stems per ha with diameter > 30cm, which indicates

the strata condition is relatively intact. Canopy tree height ranges 25-35 m.

Forests in the AJB, BMS and SMS area are prone to disturbance from illegal logging and clearance

for agriculture. Forests are highly fragmented.

Geographic Distribution

The forest stratum is mostly located in hilly and less accessible parts of the license area which so far have been less attractive for clearance for agriculture.

Underfoot Conditions

Dry underfoot conditions. Mineral soils.

Young

Regenerating

Forest (YRF)

47.3 t/ha Ecology

The YRF stratum consists of logged over forest that has been heavily degraded by repeated illegal

logging. Inventory results show the strata has 561 stems per ha. Canopy height averages 20-25 m,

with canopy trees mostly in the 20-40 cm range. The species mix includes remnant climax species

trees mixed with with pioneer vegetation and shrubs.

YRF in the AJB, BMS and SMS area are prone to disturbance from illegal logging and clearance for

agriculture. YRF are highly fragmented.

Geographic Distribution:

The YRF stratum is mostly located in hilly and less accessible parts of the license area which so far have been less attractive for clearance for agriculture.

Underfoot Conditions:


80

Land cover class

Average carbon value Physical Description

Scrub 9.8 t/ha Ecology

The scrub stratum consists of the early stages of natural regeneration in areas recently cleared for shifting agriculture. Dominant species are pioneer vegetation, particularly from the Euphorbiaceae family such as Macaranga spp.

Average Height ± 8 m with a diameter of 5-10 cm. The canopy is generally open.


Scattered throughout the license area.



Open Land 0.1 t/ha Ecology

Recent land clearing, predominantly for agriculture, including for rubber, dry land rice, pepper, cassava and other short-term crops.



Underfoot Conditions: Dry underfoot conditions. Mineral soils.

Mixed

Agriculture

and Forest

(High)/(MAFH)

42.8 t/ha The MAFH stratum is a non-natural forest class consisting of rubber plantations and a range of other agriculture activities. Rubber areas are often mixed with fruit trees, pioneer species and also scattered remnant natural forest trees retained by land owners for future timber requirements.

In terms of carbon stock MAFH is comparable to YRF. However, they are not natural forest and are therefore not considered as potential HCS area. What separates this stratum apart from YRF is:

1. these areas are under active management by communities for economic benefits (predominantly rubber production).

2. MAFH areas have generally been cleared in the past





7.A Supplemental information provided to Peer Reviewers 7.10 Complete forest plot data

Point Plot shp file: Point_Plot_inventory_v7_plus_carbon_class.rar

Inventory Results: Goodhope HCS Inventory Results v4a for upload HCSA.xlsx

8. Land Cover Classification 8.1 Refined land cover map with title, date, legend and any HCS forest patches identified

The initial land cover stratification was revised based on the findings of the forest inventory and

participatory mapping exercises. Adjustments to boundaries between natural forest (Forest and YRF)

and mixed agro-forestry areas (MAFH) was carried out manually based on the findings of ground

checks not on carbon stock (as YRF and MAFH commonly have a similar carbon stock).

Adjustments to polygon boundaries between forest classes and between YRF and scrub are made

based on a combination of inventory results and ground checks. Adjustments to land cover polygons

based on inventory results are made where multiple plots indicate a stratification error (i.e. as

opposed to natural variation), and where re-assessment of satellite imagery enables errors to be

confidently addressed.

81

The following maps show the final land cover stratification.

Figure 22. Refined Land Cover Classification Map PT AJB

82

Figure 23. Refined Land Cover Classification Map PT BMS

83

Figure 24. Refined Land Cover Classification Map PT SMS

8.A Supplemental information provided to Peer Reviewers 8.2 Shape files of land cover map and forest patches

The following shape files are provided:

Initial Land cover stratification: LC_Goodhope_Kalbar_v1_Initial.rar

Final Land cover stratification: LC_Goodhope_KalBar_v10_050518.rar

Patch analysis: AJB_BMS_SMS_Patch_and_Core_area_v5_140718

84

9. Patch Analysis Methodology and Result 9.1 Methodology

Patch analysis followed the process described in the 2017 toolkit. Figure 25 shown a diagram of the patch analysis procedure employed. The patch analysis is carried out in two parts. The first part (steps 1-8) is purely GIS based, while the second part consists of further ground checks and consultation.

Based on the landscape analysis carried out by Ata Marie, the license areas are in a low forest cover landscape. As such, following the procedure, all low priority patches were subject to Pre-RBA Assessment, and subsequent RBA if required.

85

Figure 25. Patch Analysis Procedure

Part 1. GIS Based Analysis

Part 2. RBA, Ground Check & Consultation.

2. Merge physically connected Potential HCS Polygons into HCS patches

Patch Class 1. HPP

Patch Core Area < 100 Ha ( Medium & Low Priority Patch )

4. Patch Provides connectivity between High Priority patches

5. Patch is connected (within 200m) to HPP or HCV 1 - 4

6. Patch Core Area <=100 ha and >= 10 ha

Patch Class 4. Low Risk MPP

High Risk

8. Patch Contains > 10 ha of Forest (LDF, MDF, HDF)

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

7. Risk Assessment

Yes

No 3. Patch Core Area >= 100 ha Yes

Patch Class 2. Provides Connectivity

between HPP

Patch Class 3. Connected to HPP

Medium Priority Patch (MPP)

Patch Class 5. High Risk MPP with HK >10ha

1. Overlay HCS Classes with background data - including participatory mapping, HCV, peat, riparian

Low Priority Patch (LPP)

Landscape has >30 Forest Cover

No

Yes

No

8 STEP

7 STEP

6 STEP

5 STEP

4 STEP

3 STEP

2 STEP

1 STEP

Low Forest Cover Landscape

(<30%)

Patch Class 9. LPP in Medium / High Forest

Cover Landscape (>30%)

No

13. Adjust conservation area design to simplify and smooth boundaries [‘fingers’ and ‘pockets’] and exchange LPP and MPP for infill and restoration based on ‘ give and take’ , where areas in - filled and restored for conservation

[give] exceeds the LPP and MPP and ‘fingers’ that are moved to development [take]

9. Pre RBA Check

Indicative Develop

10. RBA

Patch Class 8. Develop based on RBA (not significant for biodiversity).

Patch Class 7. Conserve based on RBA (significant for biodiversity).

12. MPP or LPP that provide a landscape linkage. coridor, or stepping stone between the proposed conservation areas and adjecent HPP (min 5 km considered)

Proposed conservation areas

10 STEP

11 STEP

9 STEP Patch Class 6. Conserve

Based On Pre RBA

Indicative "GIVE AND TAKE DEVELOP"

11. Integrate & merge indicative proposed conserve patches with peatland, riparian zones and other protected categories

12 STEP

Community land use areas Proposed development areas

14. Ground check to confirm proposed integrated conservation and land use plan

Final proposed integrated conservation and Land Use Plan for further FPIC, and implementing conservation or development, management and monitoring.

13 STEP

14 STEP

No

Yes

86

9.2 Patch Analysis Results

Table 32 shows the results of the pre pre-RBA initial patch analysis. Land within the Forest and YRF land cover strata (2,559 ha pre pre-RBA) was merged into polygons of potential HCS forest for patch analysis. The largest patch class is Patch Class 3 - patches connected to high priority patches or to other conservation area (HCV 1-4). 63 ha was identified as requiring Pre-RBA assessment.

A Pre-RBA check was carried out by Ata Marie surveyors on 63 ha of land requiring assessment based on the initial Patch Analysis process. Pre-RBA findings are as follows:

1. 61 ha of the area where Pre-RBA assessment was carried out is recommended for conservation

due to mainly to the patches being adjacent to rivers and streams.

2. 2 ha were removed from the potential HCS forest area because the areas were found to be

rubber and mixed fruit trees rather than natural forest. This causes reduction in the final area

undergoing patch analysis to 2557 ha.

Table 33 describes the results of the final patch analysis after completion of the Pre-RBA check. 2,557 ha (all patches assessed) are recommended for conservation. The largest patch class is Patch Class 3 - patches connected to high priority patches or to other conservation area (HCV 1-4), followed by High Priority Patches.

Table 34 lists the individual patches analysed in the patch analysis process. It can be seen that that the residual forest patches are generally small. Of the 71 patches analysed, there are only 13 patches with an area more than 50 ha, and 7 patches with an area more than 100 ha, with the largest patch being 463 ha.

87

Table 32. Patch Analysis Results Prior to Pre - RBA – Area by Patch Class

Category Patch Class and Description Area (ha) % of Area

AJB

Recommended for Conservation

1 High Priority Patch 464 37%

2 Patch provides connectivity (within 200 m) between High Priority Patch 0 0%

3 Patch is connected to high priority patches or to other conservation area. 713 57%

4 Medium Priority Patches with Low Risk 15 1%

5 Medium Priority Patches with High Risk and >10 ha of Patch is Forest 0 0%

Sub Total 1,192

Pre-RBA and RBA Check Required

Residual medium priority patches (High Risk Patch with HK <10ha).

51 4% Low priority patches in low forest cover landscape.

Sub Total 51

Recommended for Development

9 Low priority patches in medium or high forest cover landscapes. 0 0%

Sub Total 0

Total AJB 1,243 100%

BMS







Sub Total 0




Sub Total 12



Sub Total 0

Total BMS 12 100%

SMS




3 Patch is connected to high priority patches or to other conservation area. 1,053 81%



Sub Total 1,302




Sub Total 0



Sub Total 0

Total SMS 1,302 100%








Sub Total 2,493




Sub Total 63



Sub Total 0

Total AJB BMS and SMS 2,557 100%

88

Table 33. Final Patch Analysis Results – Area by Patch Class

Category Patch Class and Description Area (ha)

% of Area

AJB







6 Residual MPP (High Risk with HK<10ha) & LPP in low forest cover landscape (based on Pre-RBA) 49 4%

7 Residual MPP (High Risk with HK<10ha) & LPP in low forest cover landscape (based on RBA) 0 0%

Sub Total 1,241


8 Residual medium and low priority patches based on RBA result 0 0%


Sub Total 0

Total AJB 1,241 100%

BMS









Sub Total 12




Sub Total 0

Total BMS 12 100%

SMS









Sub Total 1,302




Sub Total 0

Total SMS 1,302 100%










Sub Total 2,555




Sub Total 0

Total AJB BMS and SMS 2,555 100%

89

Table 34. Patch Analysis Results Area by Patch Class

Patch ID

Patch Area (ha)

Patch Core Area (ha)

Patch Core Area Range

(ha) Patch Priority Connectivity

Risk Assessment

HCS Patch Class Land Use Recommendation

1 1.8 0.0 <10 ha Low Connected 3 Recommended for Conservation


3 9.0 0.0 <10 ha Low 6 Recommended for Conservation


5 102.3 38.0 10-99 ha Med Connected 3 Recommended for Conservation




9 463.8 316.4 >100 ha High 1 Recommended for Conservation












21 15.2 38.9 10-99 ha Med Low Risk 4 Recommended for Conservation




































90

Patch ID

Patch Area (ha)

Patch Core Area (ha)

Patch Core Area Range

(ha) Patch Priority Connectivity

Risk Assessment

HCS Patch Class Land Use Recommendation

59 249.0 144.1 >100 ha High 1 Recommended for Conservation













Total 2,554.9

10. Indicative Land Use Plan 10.1 Summary of results of final ground verification (if any)

10.1.1 Approach

A draft Integrated Conservation and Land Use Plan (ICLUP) has been developed for the AJB, BMS and SMS area. The ICLUP consists of a map indicating areas for Conservation (no-go) Areas, Development (go) Areas, plus additional areas recommended to be used for non-plantation purposes.

In addition to HCS results, data used to generate the ICLUP includes:

1. Results of HCS Assessment as described in the Patch Analysis results.

2. Results of HCV Assessment

3. Results of Participatory Mapping and follow up consultation with communities, particularly

relating to:

▪ Food security and cash producing agriculture crops

▪ Settlement and Settlement Expansion Areas

▪ Community water sources

▪ Other sensitive land uses that may require special attention

10.1.2 Food Security and Cash Producing Agriculture Crops

Food security is discussed in Section 3.2.2. Goodhope has agreed to not acquire sawah areas. Apart from this, no specific land set – asides are planned for food security.

10.1.3 Settlements and Settlement Expansion Areas

Land requirement for settlement expansion was discussed during FGD. Villagers indicated that expansion would take place along buffers 100m left and right of selected roads. These areas are outside the license area boundaries, so no allocation is required for settlement expansion.

10.1.4 Community Clean Water Sources

Community water sources have been identified during the participatory mapping exercise. Clean Water supply is discussed in Section 3.2.4. There were no requests from communities for further land set asides within the concession area.

91

10.1.5 Plasma Land Development Commitments

Goodhope has developed an indicative plasma development plan for each company aimd at fulfilling its residual commitments for plasma, but locations are not fixed. Given the limited residual forest area, requirements for plasma are not expected to conflict with Goodhope’s conservation commitments.

10.2 Indicative Conservation and Land Use Plan and Map

Table 35 shows Development Status and Land Cover vs Final HCV and HCS Status for the combined

license areas. Table 36 shows the ICLUP land use recommendation. Tables per company are attached

at the back of this report.

Main points are as follows:

1. The area recommended for conservation is 4,004.7 ha.

2. 6511.6 ha has been partially or fully developed by the company, including planted areas, land

clearing in progress and related infrastructure. In addition, there is 55.6 ha of plantations

established by other companies.

3. 13,844.7 ha of land is potentially available for additional plantation development based on

negotiation with individual land owners. This includes MAF (mixed agriculture and forest),

smallholder palm oil, scrub and open land. Some of these areas are small patches in isolated

locations, so the realisable area is likely to be slightly lower.

4. 43.1 ha of existing plantations fall inside the HCV area, and 352.8 ha of existing plantations falls

inside the HCVMA area. This is predominantly located on steep land and river buffer areas. HCV

management recommendations indicate that these areas can be maintained as production area

under certain management stipulations.

5. 375.2 ha of sawah is recommended to be maintained in the current land use.

6. 10.1 ha of smallholder oil palm that overlaps with HCV and HCVMA is recommended to be

maintained in the current land use.

Figures 26 – 28 show the ICLUP Map including the areas recommended for conservation. More

detailed maps can be found in the Community Engagement Report.

92

Table 35 Area Statement: Land Cover vs Final HCV and HCS Status

Development Status and Land Cover

HCV and HCS Overlap (ha)

Non HCS/HCV

HCV Incl Overlap

HCS

Residual HCS (incl overlap

HCVMA) HCVMA

only Total

Developed Area

Company Development

Area

Oil Palm 5,613.5 18.2 0.0 333.3 5,964.9

Land Clearing in Progress 452.4 18.1 0.0 19.0 489.6

Roads 42.0 6.8 0.0 0.5 49.3

Infrastructure and Amenities 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8

Sub Total 6,115.7 43.1 0.0 352.8 6,511.6

Other Development

Oil Palm Other Company 53.6 0.6 0.0 1.5 55.6

Settlements 24.7 3.4 0.0 0.0 28.1

Sub Total 78.3 3.9 0.0 1.5 83.7

Sub Total Developed Area 6,194.0 47.0 0.0 354.3 6,595.3

Undeveloped Area


Forest 0.0 806.6 597.6 3.8 1,408.0

YRF 0.0 575.6 565.3 6.0 1,146.9

Sub Total 0.0 1,382.2 1,162.9 9.8 2,554.9

Non HCS Strata:

Scrub 4,805.6 520.4 1.6 9.6 5,337.2

Mixed Agriculture and Forest (High) 5,780.8 709.0 0.0 2.3 6,492.1

Oil Palm Smallholder 360.0 9.7 0.0 0.4 370.1

Smallholder Agriculture (current/recent) 504.6 53.5 0.0 0.0 558.2

Open Land 2,393.6 145.6 0.0 1.5 2,540.7

Rice Paddy (sawah) 354.0 21.2 0.0 0.0 375.2

Water Body 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 6.3

Sub Total 14,198.7 1,465.7 1.6 13.8 15,679.8

Sub Total Undeveloped Area 14,198.7 2,847.9 1,164.5 23.7 18,234.7

Total AJB + BMS + SMS 20,392.7 2,894.9 1,164.5 377.9 24,830.0

93

Table 36 ICLUP Land Use Recommendation

Land Use Recommendation

Non HCS/HCV

HCV Incl Overlap HCS


HCVMA) HCVMA

only Total

ha

Development Area

Company Existing Palm Oil Plantation & Related Development 6,115.7 43.1 0.0 352.8 6,511.6

Existing Other Company Palm Oil Plantation and Related Development 53.6 0.6 0.0 1.5 55.6

Land potentially available for new development based on negotiation with land owners 13,844.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 13,844.7

Sub-Total 20,014.0 43.6 0.0 354.3 20,411.9

Settlement and settlement expansion

Existing Settlement Areas 24.7 3.4 0.0 0.0 28.1

Settlement Expansion 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sub-Total 24.7 3.4 0.0 0.0 28.1

Recommended to Maintain

Current Landuse

Sawah 354.0 21.2 0.0 0.0 375.2

Other 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.4 10.1

Sub-Total 354.0 30.9 0.0 0.4 385.3

Forest Land Reserved for Future Community Use 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recommended for

Conservation:

HCS 0.0 1,389.5 1,162.9 9.8 2,562.3

Other Undeveloped HCV (non HCS) 0.0 1,427.5 1.6 13.4 1,442.5

Sub-Total 0.0 2,817.0 1,164.5 23.2 4,004.7

Total 20,392.7 2,894.9 1,164.5 377.9 24,830.0

94

Figure 26. Integrated Land Use Plan based on Patch Analysis Results PT AJB

95

Figure 27. Integrated Land Use Plan based on Patch Analysis Results PT BMS

96

Figure 28. Integrated Land Use Plan based on Patch Analysis Results PT SMS

97

10.3 Overview of forest conservation management and monitoring activities to be included in

the Conservation and Development (land use) Plan

Once HCS areas are identified, good management practice requires safeguards or protective measures to ensure their long-term maintenance, particularly if there is a risk of disturbance.

Table 37 sets out the major threats to the HCS areas identified. It is recommended that AJB, BMS and SMS develop a participatory management and monitoring approach in conjunction with adat bodies in the respective Desa and Dusun to ensure the agreed conservation HCS areas are protected.

Table 37 Threats to HCS Forest Areas

Current Processes

Rating of Potential Impact

Source of Potential Impact Description

Reduction in HCS forest area.

High Clearing of land for smallholder agriculture development.

Given the large and growing population in the area, the need for agricultural land is constant and likely to increase in the future. This includes land for shifting cultivation of dryland rice, and also land for smallholder palm oil plantation development.

Pressure on remaining HCS forest land will potentially be exacerbated by oil palm development if insufficient land is set aside for community use.

Reduction in tree stocking in HCS forest.

Low / Medium

Felling of trees for timber production.

Felling of trees for timber production, is mostly small scale, and is carried out for personal use or sale into the local market.

Given the small size of the forest areas and the large and growing population, timber demand is greater than potential supply.

Although the scale is small, residual forest areas are already degraded and as forest areas are not under adat regulation, there is no control on the level of cutting.

The overall aim of conservation management is to maintain and, where possible, enhance the environmental and social values identified through designing and implementing appropriate management activities, and through monitoring those measures for their effectiveness.

Management and monitoring of HCS areas is logically carried out in combination with HCV management. This is particularly so in AJB, BMS and SMS as most of the HCS area is overlapping with HCV. Both HCV and HCS assessments provide management recommendations. These recommendations need to be transformed into specific operational management objectives and targets in the Organisation’s management plan.

AJB, BMS and SMS are recommended to develop a participatory management and monitoring approach in conjunction with land owners and adat bodies in the respective Desa and Dusun controlling the forest land. One of the key decisions to be made is regarding whether to stop completely or allow limited controlled timber production. This decision will need to be made taking both HCV and HCS considerations into account, as well as existing adat rules.

Table 38 shows the recommended management and monitoring activities.

98

Table 38 Recommended Management and Monitoring

Threat

Recommendation

Management Monitoring

Clearing of land for smallholder agriculture development.

Participative development of a Forest Area Management and Monitoring Plan together with impacted communities.

Permanent marking of boundaries.

No clearing of HCS forest areas.

Regular patrols as described above.

Documentation of monitoring activities.

Uncontrolled felling of trees for timber.

Development of Management Plan and regular socialisation as described above.

Regular socialisation of the management plan to wider community.

Either none or very limited felling under strict control of joint management team, following the management plan.

Regular patrols of forest area in joint teams including community representatives (in combination with patrols related to HCV monitoring).

Forest inventory to monitor carbon stocks.

Documentation of monitoring activities.

The table below shows the important elements of a Conservation Management Plan.

Table 39 Important elements of the Management Plan (adapted from HCVRN)

A. Description and location of HCV and HCS Areas present

B. Establishment of baseline data

C. HCS management objectives and targets

D. Assessment of threats to HCV and HCS Areas

E. Consultation with stakeholders and experts

F. Development and implementation of effective management strategies

G. Development and implementation of a monitoring plan

H. Adaptive management strategies based on monitoring results

10.4 List of activities still to be carried out before Conservation and Development Plan can be

finalised

Goodhope now has a detailed HCV/HCS spatial dataset to work from. Spatial planning and monitoring skills needs to be stepped up. Ata Marie suggest that Goodhope implement an integrated land management and monitoring concept wherein planning teams (GIS and survey) do not just focus on searching for plantable land, but also take responsibility for conservation area management and monitoring. This team will need strong survey, GIS and community engagement skills, and sufficient understanding of the conservation areas present (both HCV and HCS), including interaction of communities with the forest areas.

Management and monitoring of HCS areas should focus on the following criteria:

▪ Ensuring no further deforestation.

▪ Maintaining and enhancing carbon stocks per ha

Before land negotiations are re-started, a review of GRTT procedures needs to be carried out to ensure FPIC principles are recognised. Staff should be trained in their implementation. The new GRTT procedures are likely to be more time consuming than the previous procedure. Staffing may need to be increased during land negotiation process. Tasks related to GRTT will include:

99

▪ Identification, re-socialisation, and marking of land for conservation and other uses during

detailed participatory surveys - not just focus on searching for plantable land.

▪ Fine tuning of spatial plan should it be required (e.g. conservation boundary rationalisation,

buffering of streams not yet identified)

▪ Develop participatory conservation management and monitoring procedures.

Ata Marie plans to assist Goodhope to develop practical management and monitoring procedures. Subsequently, these need to be transformed into specific management objectives and targets in the Organisation’s management plan.

100

Attachment 1: ICLUP Area Statements by Company

PT AJB Area Statement: Land Cover vs Final HCV and HCS Status


HCV and HCS Overlap

Non HCS/HCV

HCV Incl Overlap

HCS


HCVMA) HCVMA

only Total

Developed Area

Company Development

Area

Oil Palm 3,287.3 1.7 0.0 4.6 3,293.7


Roads 19.7 4.2 0.0 0.3 24.3


Sub Total 3,627.6 6.4 0.0 20.3 3,654.3

Other Development


Settlements 3.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.6

Sub Total 4.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 5.3


Undeveloped Area


Forest 0.0 291.9 546.7 0.0 838.5

YRF 0.0 61.8 340.2 0.0 402.0

Sub Total 0.0 353.7 886.9 0.0 1,240.6

Non HCS Strata:

Scrub 1,310.2 94.0 0.0 0.2 1,404.3




Open Land 790.6 28.1 0.0 0.0 818.7

Rice Paddy (sawah) 30.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 31.3

Water Body 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sub Total 4,176.7 245.5 0.0 0.2 4,422.4

Sub Total Undeveloped Area 4,176.7 599.2 886.9 0.2 5,662.9

Total AJB 7,809.1 606.0 886.9 20.5 9,322.5

101

PT AJB ICLUP Land Use Recommendation


Non HCS/HCV



HCVMA) HCVMA

only Total

ha

Development Area




Sub-Total 7,775.8 6.4 0.0 20.3 7,802.5




Sub-Total 3.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.6


Current Landuse

Sawah 30.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 31.3

Other 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2

Sub-Total 30.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 31.5


Recommended for

Conservation:

HCS 0.0 353.7 886.9 0.0 1,240.6

Other Undeveloped HCV (non HCS) 0.0 244.1 0.0 0.2 244.4

Sub-Total 0.0 597.8 886.9 0.2 1,484.9

Total 7,809.1 606.0 886.9 20.5 9,322.5

102

PT BMS Area Statement: Land Cover vs Final HCV and HCS Status


HCV and HCS Overlap

Non HCS/HCV

HCV Incl Overlap

HCS


HCVMA) HCVMA

only Total

Developed Area

Company Development

Area

Oil Palm 1,276.9 0.5 0.0 6.4 1,283.8


Roads 7.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 7.5


Sub Total 1,379.6 0.7 0.0 7.1 1,387.4

Other Development


Settlements 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1

Sub Total 33.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.4


Undeveloped Area


Forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

YRF 0.0 0.4 12.0 0.0 12.4

Sub Total 0.0 0.4 12.0 0.0 12.4

Non HCS Strata:

Scrub 587.7 7.3 0.0 0.0 595.0




Open Land 445.4 6.3 0.0 0.0 451.7

Rice Paddy (sawah) 115.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 115.3

Water Body 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 6.3

Sub Total 2,522.1 113.8 0.0 0.3 2,636.3

Sub Total Undeveloped Area 2,522.1 114.2 12.0 0.3 2,648.6

Total BMS 3,935.2 114.9 12.0 7.4 4,069.4

103

PT BMS ICLUP Land Use Recommendation


Non HCS/HCV



HCVMA) HCVMA

only Total

ha

Development Area




Sub-Total 3,817.9 0.7 0.0 7.1 3,825.7




Sub-Total 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1


Current Landuse

Sawah 115.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 115.3

Other 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.7

Sub-Total 115.2 1.9 0.0 0.0 117.1


Recommended for

Conservation:

HCS 0.0 7.7 12.0 0.0 19.7

Other Undeveloped HCV (non HCS) 0.0 104.6 0.0 0.3 104.9

Sub-Total 0.0 112.3 12.0 0.3 124.6

Total 3,935.2 114.9 12.0 7.4 4,069.4

104

PT SMS Area Statement: Land Cover vs Final HCV and HCS Status


HCV and HCS Overlap

Non HCS/HCV

HCV Incl Overlap

HCS


HCVMA) HCVMA

only Total

Developed Area

Company Development

Area

Oil Palm 1,049.3 15.9 0.0 322.2 1,387.4


Roads 14.9 2.4 0.0 0.2 17.5


Sub Total 1,108.4 36.0 0.0 325.4 1,469.9

Other Development


Settlements 19.5 2.9 0.0 0.0 22.4

Sub Total 40.1 3.5 0.0 1.5 45.0


Undeveloped Area


Forest 0.0 514.8 50.9 3.8 569.5

YRF 0.0 513.3 213.1 6.0 732.5

Sub Total 0.0 1,028.1 264.0 9.8 1,302.0

Non HCS Strata:

Scrub 2,907.7 419.1 1.6 9.4 3,337.8




Open Land 1,157.6 111.3 0.0 1.4 1,270.3

Rice Paddy (sawah) 208.7 19.8 0.0 0.0 228.5

Water Body 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sub Total 7,499.9 1,106.4 1.6 13.3 8,621.2

Sub Total Undeveloped Area 7,499.9 2,134.5 265.6 23.1 9,923.2

Total SMS 8,648.4 2,174.0 265.6 350.0 11,438.1

105

PT SMS ICLUP Land Use Recommendation


Non HCS/HCV



HCVMA) HCVMA

only Total

ha

Development Area




Sub-Total 8,420.2 36.6 0.0 326.9 8,783.7




Sub-Total 19.5 2.9 0.0 0.0 22.4


Current Landuse

Sawah 208.7 19.8 0.0 0.0 228.5

Other 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.4 8.2

Sub-Total 208.7 27.7 0.0 0.4 236.8


Recommended for

Conservation:

HCS 0.0 1,028.1 264.0 9.8 1,302.0

Other Undeveloped HCV (non HCS) 0.0 1,078.7 1.6 12.8 1,093.2

Sub-Total 0.0 2,106.8 265.6 22.7 2,395.2

Total 8,648.4 2,174.0 265.6 350.0 11,438.1

summary report submitted for hcs approach peer review...

Documents