Summary Report submitted for the HCS Approach Peer Review Process

Transcription

1 Summary Report submitted for the HCS Approach Peer Review Process HCS Study Project Title: High Carbon Stock Assessment of PT. Nabire Baru and PT Sariwana Adi Perkasa, Papua, Indonesia Company/Organisation: Goodhope Asia Holdings Contact person: Bpk Edi Suhardi Date: April

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project description Location and size of study area Overview of proposed plantation development Description of surrounding landscape Demographics in the NB/SAP License Area Biodiversity Features and Values Description of the Landscape Surrounding NB and SAP Peat Land Identification Map of the site within the region Relevant data sets available List of any reports/assessments used in the HCS assessment HCS assessment team and timeline Names and qualifications Time period for major steps in the study Community Engagement and FPIC Summary of community engagement, FPIC, participatory mapping Summary of Community Engagement Prior to HCV and HCS Assessments Objectives and Approach of HCS Related Community Engagement Community Engagement Activities Findings Summary of Social Impact Assessment (if any) High Conservation Value Assessment Summary and link to public summary report Environmental Impact Assessment Summary Land cover image analysis Area of Interest and how it was defined Description of images used for classification Sample image Method of stratification and software used Map of initial vegetation classes, with legend

3 6.6 Table of total hectares per vegetation class Summary of which areas are potential HCS forest, subject to further analysis Forest inventory results Inventory sample design and plot rational Map indicating plots Forest inventory team members and roles Methodology used for forest sampling Methodology used for carbon calculations Approach Stems per hectare Tree Biomass Palm Biomass Tree and Palm Carbon Content Carbon Mass per Hectare Analysis of Carbon Estimate Precision and Significant Difference between Strata Indicative photos of each vegetation class Photos of Forest Stratum Photos of Young Regenerating Forest (YRF) Stratum Photos of Scrub Stratum Statistical analysis Summary of statistical analysis of carbon stock results per vegetation class Forest inventory results Land Cover Classification Refined land cover map with title, date, legend and any HCS forest patches identified Patch Analysis Result Results of Decision Tree Comments on Decision Tree outcome Indicative Land Use Plan Summary of results of final ground verification (if any) Approach Food Security and Cash Producing Agriculture Crops Settlements and Settlement Expansion Areas

4 Community Water sources Other Land Uses Plasma Land Development Commitments Indicative Land Use Plan and Map Overview of forest conservation management and monitoring activities to be included in the Conservation and Development (land use) Plan List of activities still to be carried out before Conservation and Development Plan can be finalised

5 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 ). 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 Nabire Baru (NB) and PT Sariwana Adi Perkasa (SAP), subsidiary plantation companies located in Kab Nabire, Papua Province. The combined NB/SAP site covers 21,056 ha (HGU area). 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 NB and SAP license areas. In addition, collaboration with PT Ekologika, Ata Marie has been contracted to carry out the following studies: 1. HCV Assessment 2. Peat Land Assessment 3. Grievance Mapping. 4. Historical Land Clearing Review (LUCA) 5. 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 2015 HCS Toolkit - the so-called no go areas which should be conserved under HCS guidelines. 2. To assist NP and SAP 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. 5

6 4. Seek alternative practical solutions for the NB/Plasma issue taking into account HCS and HCV procedures and results. 5. Provide recommendations for effective integrated monitoring and reporting of ICLP plans and other conservation commitments. 6. Assist NB and SAP to communicate results of the HCS project to external stakeholders as required, including the HCS Steering Committee. Figure 1 shows the location of NB and SAP on a map of Papua Province. Access to the NB and SAP area is via a public road from Nabire in the east. The public road runs through the middle of the NB/SAP concessions. The NB/SAP site is about 1 hours drive from Nabire township. Figure 1. Situation Map NB and SAP 6

7 Table 1 describes the NB and SAP license areas. The HGU documents state a total license area of 21,243 ha. Recalculation using GIS data (shp file) produces an area figure of 21,046 ha. The GIS based figures are used in this report. Figure 2 shows the District boundaries in the NB/SAP Area. Table 1. Summary of License Areas Company GIS Based Calculation (ha) Area Stated in HGU Inti Plasma Buffer Zone HL Enclave Grand Total Document (ha) NB 11,598 2, ,609 14,806 SAP 4,615 1, ,437 6,437 Grand Total 16,213 4, ,046 21,243 Figure 2. District Boundaries in NB/SAP Area 7

8 License area boundaries can be described as follows: Eastern boundary: Desa Jayamukti and DesaYaromakmur, and S. Wanggar. Western boundary: Forest Protection Area (HL) Northern boundary: 1 km buffer strip along the Teluk Cendrawasih coast. Southern boundary: Desa Wami, production forest zone (PT Jati Dharma Indah logging concession) and small unallocated patches of APL (other land use) and HPK (conversion forest land). Steep mountains rise on average from 5km south of the southern boundary. 1.2 Overview of proposed plantation development Both NB and SAP were formally established in July All land within the NB/SAP license area was released to the Company in 2011 via four co-operatives representing the various sub suku in Wanggar and Sima villages. Four separate HGU licenses for Plasma plantations have been established in the name of new co-operatives set up as legal bodies under which the plasma areas are owned (note the plasma holding Co-operatives are different from the Co-operatives that released the land in 2011). This is further discussed in Annex 4 of the HCV report (Laporan Penilaian Sosial). Table 2 and Table 3 show the list of key legal documents and regulatory permits obtained by NB and SAP relating to the license areas. Table 2. List of legal documents and regulatory permits obtained by NB No. License / Recommendation Issued by Number Area (ha) Date 1. Deed of Establishment Notary Agustina, SH Act No rd July Location Permit Bupati Kab Nabire No. 74/ ,000 4 th June, Extension of Location Permit Bupati Kab Nabire No. 71/ , th July Izin Kelayakan Lingkungan kegiatan perkebunan dan pabrik pengolahan kelapa sawit Governor of Papua No. 292/ th December Plantation Business Permit (IUP) Governor of Papua No. 02/SK.IUP/KS/ , th April Environmental Permit Governor of Papua No. 503/ 315/ th Aug Land Use Title (HGU Inti) National Land Authority No. 159/HGU/BPN RI/ , th Oct

9 Table 3. List of legal documents and regulatory permits obtained by SAP No License / Recommendation Issued by Number Area (ha) Date 1 Deed of Establishment Notary Agustina, SH Act No th Sept Location Permit (Izin Lokasi) Bupati Nabire No.219/2008 8, th Dec Extension of Location Permit Bupati Nabire No.27/2011 8,950 9 th Mar ANDAL - Social & Environmental Impact Assessment. Bupati Nabire No. 159/ th Dec Izin Lingkungan Kegiatan Perkebunan dan Pabrik Pengolahan Kelapa Sawit. Dinas Lingkungan Hidup Nabire No.160/ th Dec Plantation Business Permit (IUP) Gubernur Papua No.06/SK.IUP/KS/2014 8, nd Dec Land Use Title (HGU) National Land Authority No 164/HGU/ BPNRI/2014 6, th Oct Description of surrounding landscape Demographics in the NB/SAP License Area Two indigenous community Desa (Wanggar and Sima) hold customary land rights over land inside the NB/SAP area. Three other ex-transmigration project villages are located on the license area boundary but do not hold any rights to land inside NB/SAP. Settlement areas for all five Desa are located outside the HGU boundaries. Figure 3 shows the distribution of the Desa in the NB/SAP Area. 9

10 Figure 3. Map of Desa in NB and SAP Area Table 4 shows an estimate the population by Desa. Data was collected during interviews at individual Desa. Table 4 Estimated Population by Desa and Dusun in NB and SAP Area Desa Location Inside / Outside HGU Total KK Population Planned Settlement Expansion is Predominantly Sima outside 120 1,006 outside Wanggar Pantai outside outside Jayamukti outside 306 1,189 outside Yaromakmur outside 289 1,109 outside Wami outside outside Total 943 4,188 Source: Data Desa Data indicates a population of 4,188 people living close to, but outside the NB/SAP license area. Sima and Wanggar Pantai are located on the coast, while the three ex transmigration villages are located further inland. Wanggar people are from the Wate Asiania ethnic group (Suku Besar) and Sima people are from the Yerisiam Gua ethnic group. Adat (customary) legal structures remain in place. 10

11 Community members in Sima and Wanggar manage and harvest sago as their main source of carbohydrates. Small gardens are managed for other food crops such as cassava and vegetables. Fishing (in both fresh water systems as well as in the sea) is an important protein source. Hunting in forest areas is also still common. Therefore, food security is an important issue to be considered in planning of NB and SAP expansion. Cash income is sourced from working in NB/SAP plantations, fishing, from sale of standing trees to small scale loggers, wages for timber production work, and from sale of vegetables and other forest products in local markets. Apart from NB/SAP oil palm operations, employment opportunities are limited for community members. There are no large industries or mining operations in the vicinity. A small proportion of villagers are civil servants. Participatory wealth ranking carried out during social survey indicated that the majority of villages in the two land owner villages (Wanggar and Sima) are either ranked as poor or very poor. Land tenure is for the most part on a communal or family group basis Biodiversity Features and Values HCV Reports for PT NB and PT SAP are available under Section 4.2 in SharePoint: NB: Laporan Penilaian NKT Goodhope PT Nabire Baru.pdf SAP: v5 ALS Laporan Penilaian NKT PT SAP.pdf Along with above reports are public summary reports (English and Bahasa), and 9 annex reports Description of the Landscape Surrounding NB and SAP Figure 4 shows the land use zoning in the area surrounding NB/SAP. The NB/SAP HGU areas are on APL land. Land to the east (from Nabire to S. Wanggar) is also APL and there are numerous villages in this area (ex. transmigration project villages). Land to the west of NB/SAP is zoned for forest protection (HL). To the immediate south there is narrow strip of production forest and small patches of unallocated APL (other land use) and HPK (conversion forest) land. The PT Jati Dharma Indah logging concession area (IUPHHK license) extends into these production forest areas. Steep mountains rise on average from 5km south of the southern boundary of NB/SAP. These areas are zoned for protection (HL). 11

12 Figure 4. Land Use Zoning in Area Surrounding NB/SAP NB/SAP is considered to be in a high forest landscape. There are two main catchment areas in the NB/SAP area - the DAS Hamuku (S. Wami, S. Waomi and Kali Bambu) and the DAS Kubai (S. Sima). FA small part of the concession in the very east drains into S. Wanggar. All these rivers flow from the mountains in the south into Teluk Cendrawasih. Table 5 and Figure 5 show the forest cover in the major DAS. Table 5 Forest Cover in the Major DAS (Catchment Areas) Catchment Name Total Area (ha) Area Inside Landscape (ha) Forest Area ha % Hamuku 79,370 19,814 70,804 89% Kubai 31,396 9,743 29,026 92% Total 110,766 29,557 99,830 90% Figure 6 shows a Landsat 8 satellite image of NB/SAP and the surrounding area captured in March The landscape surrounding the NB/SAP area is dominated by forest. Figure 7 shows land cover in the concessions and surrounding landscape. 12

13 Figure 5. Map of Catchment Areas and Forest Cover Peat Land Identification KLHK s National Peat Ecosystem Function Map shows the presence of a Peat Hydrological Unit with around 1235 ha overlapping on PT Nabire concession (KHG in the north east corner near Wanggar). A brief peat survey was carried out as part of the HCV Assessment - see HCV Report Annex 9. The findings of the study are not completely in line with the KLHK maps, but the estimate of peat land area is similar. The report identifies 7 separate patches of peat land (indicative) covering 1183 ha in total, of which 871 ha (74%) has been developed for oil palm and 312ha remains undeveloped. Peat areas found are scattered. peat depth along transects in areas identified as peat varied between cm, with most being < 1m. The lowland areas in the north and central areas of NB and SAP areas can broadly be described as a lowland seasonal swamp ecosystem with scattered patches of mostly shallow peat in areas with poor drainage. The report concludes that the survey results are indicative, and that the sporadic nature of the peat areas means accurate delineation will need more detailed survey. 13

14 1.4 Map of the site within the region Figure 6. Satellite Image of NB/SAP and Surrounding Landscape

15 Figure 7. Land Cover in Surrounding Area

16 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 6) covering the NB and SAP license area was acquired by Ata Marie. Data was captured in April 2016 and February Landsat 8 imagery P104/R62. Data was captured April List of any reports/assessments used in the HCS assessment The following Social and Environmental Impact Assessments have been carried out by NB and SAP: 1. Social and Environmental Impact Assessments (AMDAL) of the planned plantation development have been finalised as follows: i. AMDAL of NB was finalized on 18 th December 2013 ii. AMDAL of SAP was finalized on 15 th December Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Reports of both NB and SAP were prepared by Fakultas Kehutanan Institut Pertanian Bogor (IPB) in FPIC Gap Analysis carried out by Lingkar Komunitas Sawit (LINKS) in 2016: Laporan Gap Analisis Pemenuhan FPIC Pada Pembangunan Perkebunan Kelapa Sawit Goodhope Group Di Kabupaten Nabire Provinsi Papua. (See discussion in Section and report uploaded onto sharepoint) 16

17 2. HCS assessment team and timeline 2.1 Names and qualifications The HCS assessment was carried out in conjunction with the HCV assessment. Ata Marie mobilised the following team for NB/ SAP HCS assessment. Table 6. Ata Marie HCS Team Name Qualification Position Alex Thorp B. For. Sc. Project Manager George Kuru M. For. Sc. Inventory Data processing Dadan Setiawan S. Hut Senior GIS Engineer Dadi Ardiansyah S. Hut GIS Engineer and Field forester responsible for carbon inventory Asep Wahyu Suherman S. Hut Participatory Land Use Mapping. Dyah Ayu Putri Pertiwi S. Hut GIS Engineer Krisma Lekitoi S. Hut Botanist 2.2 Time period for major steps in the study Table 7 describes the major activities and time line. A pre-assessment visit was carried out in April The major survey work was carried out throughout June 2017, with some continuation of the social survey into July. Final village consultations and the second public consultation were carried out in August Table 7. Field Activities Activities Timeline Pre-assessment: Orientation survey of license area. Initial meetings with communities to seek consent for subsequent survey. First stakeholder consultation meeting (pre-assessment) in Nabire. Carbon Stock Inventory (HCS) Biodiversity and ecosystem survey April th June 6-22 June 6-22 June Social survey May 30 - June 17 HCV ground check and HCV management area (participatory mapping) May 30 - June 22 Continuation of social survey in Sima FPIC meeting (FGD final village consultation) Post assessment stakeholder consultation meeting in Nabire July August August 17

18 3. Community Engagement and FPIC 3.1 Summary of community engagement, FPIC, participatory mapping Summary of Community Engagement Prior to HCV and HCS Assessments All land within the NB/SAP license area was released to the Company in 2011 via four co-operatives representing the various sub suku in Wanggar and Sima villages. Four separate HGU licenses for Plasma plantations have been established in the name of new co-operatives set up as legal bodies under which the plasma areas are owned. This is further discussed in Annex 4 of the HCV report (Laporan Penilaian Sosial). Prior to release of land, a process of consultation and consent seeking took place. Company documentation indicates the following broad steps in the consultation and land negotiation process: 1. Site visits to PT Agro Indomas (Goodhope Group mature plantation in Central Kalimantan) in 2009 and Team included DPRD members and Customary Land Owner Representatives. 2. Socialization of the proposed development was done formally in village level, and informally with each of sub tribes, and to other selected target groups. Discussion included opportunities and risk associated with plantation development and the proposed plasma partnership scheme. 3. Participatory mapping/land inventory was carried out with all sub-tribes 4. Land ownership transfer was carried out through a process of land compensation and compensation for any planted crops 5. Consent to land release is documented and signed by heads of sub tribes and individual land owners. 6. Price agreement is documented in written agreements. 7. A list of planned compensation payments was placed on announcement boards for the whole community to see and check who was entitled for land compensation and how much. 8. Entitled parties then came to claim the land compensation as per agreed and announced. On 19th of April 2016, Roberthino Hanebora, on behalf of Yerisiam Gua wider Ethnic Group, raised a complaint to RSPO via Yayasan Pusaka. The content of the complaint is summarised as follows: 1. PT Nabire Baru has taken land belonging to the community, without a collective decision-making process or the agreement of the wider Yerisiam community in their capacity as land rights holders; 2. The Yerisiam indigenous community have repeatedly complained and raised the above issue, their suffering and losses, and the violent practices used by the Police Mobile Brigade in their response to the problem, but the government and company have ignored and failed to respect the community's voice and complaints about the problems they face; 3. The company has destroyed ecologically important forest, resulting in the loss of the community's sources of income. Most recently severe flooding has inundated Sima village, which is inhabited by Yerisiam people; 4. The company has destroyed sacred forest and the Jarae and Manawari sago groves which represent the Yerisiam people's source of food. The RSPO Conflict Resolution Unit (CRU) is in process of negotiating an agreement to the conflict. 18

19 In response to this complaint, Goodhope appointed Lingkar Komunitas Sawit (LINKS) to carry out an independent FPIC gap analysis. The assessment was carried out from August to October Key findings were as follows: Key Findings and Recommendations of LINKS FPIC Gap Analysis RSPO FPIC principles and criteria (RSPO 2008) relating to stakeholder engagement and participatory mapping processes have been implemented at a satisfactory level. However, implementation was not accompanied by complete documentation. 2. Pre-operational consultation was implemented at a satisfactory level but the process was not ideal. Consultation was not accompanied by giving hardcopy documentation material to participants. Subsequent consultation should be accompanied by giving of material in written form to community members so that they have adequate information about the planned development in their area. 3. Communities feel that the companies have yet to fulfil promises made during consultation associated with fishermen (kelompok nelayan), education/scholarship, and house construction. 4. Socialization related to plasma development has not been adequate. Plasma Cooperative Executives admitted that until now they do not understand the size of future deductions in the plasma scheme. 5. the company carried out consultation prior to implementation of SIA, AMDAL, and HCVA involving community members who are affected directly or indirectly. However, there was no documentation of feedback and responses from community members. The company must implement the recommendations of the SIA and AMDAL to ensure its activities have a positive impact on local people. 6. The process of negotiation and land acquisition meets standards. However, it should be noted that according to residents of Sima and Wanggar, they were not involved in surveying prior to land clearing. They were only involved during participative mapping. 7. Monitoring and conflict resolution has not been handled well. Although the company has complaints mechanism SOP, it has not been implemented properly. MoU documents for plasma partnerships had still not been distributed at the time of this assessment, which demonstrates the slowness of the response of management to existing complaints from community members. 8. A note regarding availability of SOPs; all SOPs are in English, while those implementing the SOPs do not have a good grasp of the English language. So implementation in the field is not maximal. Regarding suggestions of intimidation, the LINKS Report mentions the following: 1. There is no evidence of the use of force or intimidation on citizens to hand over land. Villagers reported the negotiations between communities and the Company were smooth. Communities felt they could not continue to rely on the proceeds of hunting or timber. Therefore, they choose to release their land for palm oil plantation development with the expectation of improved livelihoods. 2. The previous existence of a Brimob unit at NB/SAP was not in order to influence or intimidate people to feel afraid to protest against the company, but rather to safeguard the development from unknown armed groups who were often seen in and around the plantations and in the surrounding villages. 19

20 LINKS Recommendations for improvements to improve the fulfilment of FPIC: 1. Re-socialization. The objective of the re-socialization is to provide adequate information in a form that is easily understood by the communities. Re-socialization activities should be accompanied by supporting documents in accordance with the RSPO FPIC principles and criteria. 2. Carry out monitoring and evaluation of the fulfilment of FPIC at regular intervals. 3. Ensure availability of SOP in Indonesian Language 4. Implement document control for all processes related to FPIC. RSPO Stop Work Order On 28 April 2017, in response to complaints from a range of stakeholders, RSPO Complaints Panel issued a stop work order on Goodhope operations, until such time as HCV and LUCA assessments related to Goodhope s NPP applications are redone Objectives and Approach of HCS Related Community Engagement Community engagement was carried out in collaboration with the HCV team. The key objectives of the community engagement activities were as follows: 1. To share information about the HCS and HCV assessment processes with communities. 2. To seek community consent for and participation in HCS/HCV assessment related activities. 3. To seek information and knowledge on current and future land tenure and land use at community level as input into preparation of the HCV, HCS and Integrated Conservation and Land-use Plan (ICLP). (note no stand-alone land tenure study has been prepared). Participatory Mapping was carried out to meet the objectives of both HCV and HCS Assessments (partticularly HCV 5 and 6). 4. To seek community informed consent to the final draft boundaries of conservation areas. Community engagement activities at each Desa can be broadly described as follows: Table 8: Description of Community Engagement Activities 1 st Activities Meeting with (1) Desa leader - formal (Kepala Desa/Kampung), (2) cultural leader nonformal (Kepala Suku, Ondoafi, etc.) Material / Data Introduction and explanation on team scope of work. Description on survey's activities (HCS and HCV) Consent on survey activities from Desa leader/adat leader and/or community; in the name of community. Information on technical support needed from community leaders and local community. Confirmation of village history. 2 nd FGD-1 Sketch of Desa and community land use system. Community land tenure system identification, land management and land owner identification (owners, managers, users). 3 rd Ground check-1: Participatory Mapping GPS survey capture of area (polygon/point) taking and land use types and variation. Community representative acknowledged the interest area's border. 20

21 Community Land Use System 4 th FGD-2 Confirmation of results of Participatory Mapping (tentative map). Stakeholder analysis and social mapping (wealth ranking) including confirmation of sub suku and clan boundaries. Identification of resources/objects/sites is important for community basic needs (livelihood) and culture HCV 5 dan HCV 6. ecology history - recording (1) on sudden or gradual major changes to livelihood due to company operational activities, and other economy entity; (2) access, control, and availability status of HCV 5 and 6 (picture on existence/availability and tendency). 5 th FGD-3 (FGD FPIC) Delineation of KBKT HCV 5 and 6, HCV threats identification Community Engagement Activities Table 9 sets out the Community Engagement Activities carried out by the joint HCV/HCS team. All meetings were planned well in advance and invitations sent to all potential stakeholders. On several occasions meetings in Sima were postponed due to key stakeholders not being available. Meetings were well attended. Yayasan Pusaka, who has been assisting the Sima community with their complaint to RSPO, were invited to all meetings and their representatives attended most of the meetings. Figure 8 shows the locations of participatory mapping field work. 21

22 Table 9: Community Engagement Activity Schedule Tahapan Kegiatan Tim Keterangan Waktu Survei Pelingkupan Survei pelingkupan bidang keanekaragaman hayati dan sosial; persetujuan masyarakat lokal Tim survei SKT (Ata-Marie) Kampung Sima, Kampung Wanggar Pantai, Kantor NB-SAP 3-7 April 2017 Lokakarya Konsultasi Penyampaian kepada pemganku kepentingan ttg Pemangku Kepentingan Pra Survei hasil survei pelingkungan, Gap informasi, Potensial NKT, dan Metodologi Penilaian NKT Seluruh tim Penilai Nabire, Papua 8 Juni 2017 Pertemuan dengan kepala Kampung Sima Tim sosial kampung lama Ijin kegiatan survei di Kampung Sima 1 Juni 2017 Pertemuan dengan kepala Kampung Sima Tim sosial kampung lama Koordinasi FGD 1 8 Juni 2017 FGD 1 Kampung Sima Tim sosial kampung lama Community land use dan tenurial study 9 Juni 2017 Ground check 1 Kampung Sima Tim sosial kampung lama Rujahi, Ruija, Kolam Ubamamoi, Goa Nenggomana dan Goa Nenggoina 10 Juni 2017 Survei sosial dan Pemetaan Partisipatif Kampung Sima Survei Sosial dan Pemetaan Partisipatif Kampung Wanggar Pantai Wawancara Kampung Sima Tim sosial kampung lama Warga (nelayan) 11 Juni 2017 Wawancara Kampung Sima Tim sosial kampung lama Warga (ibu-ibu) 12 Juni 2017 Wawancara Kampung Sima Tim sosial kampung lama Tokoh masyarakat Kampung Sima 13 Juni 2017 Wawancara UM Tim sosial kampung lama Manajer CSR dan Manajer Humas 13 Juni 2017 Wawancara Kampung Sima Tim sosial kampung lama Warga dan Sekretaris Kepala Suku 14 Juni 2017 Wawancara Kampung Sima Tim sosial kampung lama Warga 15 Juni 2017 FGD etnografis Tim sosial kampung lama Kepala Sub Suku Yerisiam dan Perwakilan Suku Wate 16 Juni 2017 FGD 2 Kampung Sima Tim sosial kampung lama Identifikasi NKT 5, 6 serta perencanaan Ground check 19 Juli 2017 Ground check 2 Kampung Sima Tim sosial kampung lama Dusun sagu dan lokasi tangkap ikan 23 Juli 2017 FGD 3 Kampung Sima Tim sosial kampung lama Presentasi hasil ground check dusun sagu dan lokasi lokasi tangkap ikan, dan grievance mapping 25 Juli 2017 Ground check Dusun Sagu untuk melengkapi NKT 5 didaerah pesisir Kampung Sima Melengkapi NKT 5 didaerah pesisir Kampung Sima 26 Juli 2017 Pertemuan dengan kepala Kampung Wanggar Pantai Tim sosial kampung lama Ijin kegiatan survei di Kampung Wanggar Pantai 1 Juni 2017 FGD 1 Kampung Wanggar Pantai Tim sosial kampung lama Community land use dan tenurial study 2 Juni 2017 Ground check 1 Kampung Wanggar Pantai Tim sosial kampung lama Dusun sagu, sungai dan rawa dan tataguna lahan di Kampung Wanggar Pantai 3 Juni 2017 FGD 2 Kampung Wanggar Pantai Tim sosial kampung lama Pemetaan sosial/analisis para pihak dan Konfirmasi Hasil Ground check I Kampung Wanggar Pantai 4 Juni 2017 FGD 3 Kampung Wanggar Pantai Tim sosial kampung lama Pemetaan partisipatif, Sejarah ekologi, Peta mobilitas desa, Identifikasi NKT 5 dan 6 di Kampung Wanggar Pantai 5 Juni 2017 Ground check 2 Kampung Wanggar Pantai Tim sosial kampung lama Identifikasi lokasi potensi NKT 5 dan 6 Kampung Wanggar Pantai 6 Juni

23 Tahapan Kegiatan Tim Keterangan Waktu FGD 4 Kampung Wanggar Pantai Tim sosial kampung lama Pemeringkatan Kesejahteraan masyarakat dan konfirmasi ground check II, Kampung Wanggar Pantai 7 Juni 2017 Wawancara Kampung Wanggar Pantai Tim sosial kampung lama Wawancara livelihood, NKT 5, grievance mapping 20 Juli 2017 Ground check 3 Kampung Wanggar Pantai Tim sosial kampung lama 23 Juli i 2017 Pertemuan dengan kepala Kampung Wami Tim sosial kampung baru Ijin kegiatan survei di Kampung Wami 1 Juni 2017 Pemetaan sejarah kampung, Sketsa kampung/desa dan Survei Sosial Wami FGD 1 Kampung Wami Tim sosial kampung baru Sistem Tata guna lahan masyarakat, Analisis Pemangku 3 Juni 17 Kepentingan, Peta sosial (wealth ranking) FGD 2 Kampung Wami Tim sosial kampung baru Identifikasi NKT 5 dan NKT 6 10 Juni 2017 Ground check Kampung Wami Tim sosial kampung baru 14 Juni 2017 Pertemuan dengan kepala Kampung Jaya Mukti Tim sosial kampung baru Ijin kegiatan survei di Kampung Jaya Mukti 1 Juni 2017 FGD 1 Kampung Jaya Mukti Tim sosial kampung baru Pemetaan sejarah kampung, Sketsa kampung/desa dan Sistem Tata guna lahan masyarakat, Analisis Pemangku 7 Juni 2017 Survei Sosial Jaya Mukti Kepentingan, Peta sosial (wealth ranking) FGD 2 Kampung Jaya Mukti Tim sosial kampung baru Identifikasi NKT 5 dan NKT 6 12 Juni 2017 Ground check Kampung Jaya Mukti Tim sosial kampung baru 13 Juni 2017 Ground check Kampung Jaya Mukti Tim sosial kampung baru 15 Juni 2017 Pertemuan dengan kepala Kampung Yaro Makmur Tim sosial kampung baru Ijin kegiatan survei di Kampung Yaro Makmur 1 Juni 2017 Survei Sosial Yaro FGD 1 Kampung Yaro Makmur Tim sosial kampung baru Pemetaan sejarah kampung, Sketsa kampung/desa dan Sistem Tata guna lahan masyarakat, Analisis Pemangku 3 Juni 2017 Makmur Kepentingan, Peta sosial (wealth ranking) FGD 2 Kampung Yaro Makmur Tim sosial kampung baru Identifikasi NKT 5 dan NKT 6 6 Juni 2017 Ground check Kampung Yaro Makmur Tim sosial kampung baru 12 Juni 17 Konsultasi Desa Konsultasi dengan UM NB dan SAP Lokakarya Konsultasi Pemangku Kepentingan Pasca Survei (Hasil Penilaian NKT) Penetapan Identifikasi NKT 5 dan NKT 6, Penyampaian Identifikasi NKT 1-4, ancaman NKT, dan rekomendasi pengelolaan NKT 1-6 FPIC pengelolaan NKT Penyampaian Identifikasi NKT 1-6, ancaman NKT, dan rekomendasi pengelolaan NKT Penyampaian Identifikasi NKT 1-6, ancaman NKT, dan rekomendasi pengelolaan NKT (Pleno dan Diskusi Kelompok) Tim-1 Kampung Sima 22 Juni 2017 Tim-2 Kampung Wami 22 Aug 2017 Tim-2 Kampung Yaro Makmur 23 Aug 2017 Tim-1 Kampung Wanggar Pantai 23 Aug 2017 Tim-2 Kampung Jaya Mukti 24 Aug 2017 Seluruh tim Penilai Kantor NB SAP, Wamgar Pantai 28 Aug 2017 Seluruh tim Penilai Nabire Aug

24 Figure 8. Map of Participatory Mapping Field Activities 24

25 3.1.4 Findings Participatory Mapping Land use and land tenure systems were analysed during participatory mapping as well as FGDs to meet the objectives of both HCV and HCS Assessments. Objectives include description of land ownership structure, and identification and mapping of community land use and cultural sites (HCV 5 and 6). Mapping was primarily carried out with Wanggar and Sima communitities as these are the two land owner villages. A large part of the participatory mapping effort was in identification of sago areas. This included remapping of the Dusun Sago area near Sima that is described in the Pusaka complaint (see Section 10.1). Summary of Community Engagement Findings Regarding Land Use The land tenure system at Sima and Wanggar is communal. Land tenure maps developed from participatory surveys during land release negotiations by the Company are available and were vetted by the LINKS team (see the LINKS FPIC Gap Analysis Study in Sharepoint). We did not attempt to re-map the land tenure. The major types of land use identified are sago collection, timber cutting, fishing, hunting and gathering of various other non-timber forest products. Smallholder agriculture acitivity is very small scale and located outside concession boundaries. (see Section 10.1 for further discussion). The final FGD FPIC were held at each village between August between the HCV/HCS teams and Communities. The objective was to present and discuss the findings of the HCV, HCS, and participatory mapping surveys carried out during the initial site visit. Large scale maps of the draft land use plan were displayed, and Community members invited to check and add comments as desired during the discussions. Addition input was also received during the two-day final stakeholder consultation meeting held on August in Nabire. There is a clear need to find a solution to the as yet unresolved issue of community requests for continued development of plasma areas. Key points from the FGD FPIC at Village Level Sima: Community accepted the HCV 1-6 and HCS areas identified during participatory mapping although some small changes were made to HCV 5 (some additional sago patches were identified during the meeting). Key points coming from the meeting: 1. It was agreed that all sago areas will be included in HCV 5 and conserved. 2. Apart from sago areas, communities requested that all plasma areas be developed including forested areas (Note this request does not align with results of HCV 1-4 or HCS assessments). Wanggar: Community accepted the HCV 1-6 and HCS areas identified during participatory mapping. Key points coming from the meeting: 1. Communities requested that all plasma areas be developed including forested areas (Note again as at Sima, this request does not align with results of HCV 1-4 or HCS assessments). 25

26 2. Communities requested any plasma land that needs to be conserved (due to HCV/HCS/peat) should be replaced elsewhere. Key Points from the Final Stakeholder Consultation Meeting Many community members raised concerns about uncontrolled logging and gold mining impacting on their environment. Although community members admitted they were often employed in these activities, they were not the drivers. Community members frequently mentioned a lack of effective planning, control and monitoring from relevant government agencies, and co-operation between local businessmen and individuals in the agencies. The importance of implementing a participatory approach to environmental management and monitoring was mentioned. Some attendees said many community members do not understand the requirement for environmental management, and also were not aware of the exact location of boundaries (Concession boundaries, plasma area boundaries, conservation area boundaries etc). Participatory management will both educate as well as enable better implementation of management plans. Interaction Between Communities and NB/SAP The existence of NB and SAP is a source of hope for some communities around the concession areas, because most people place large hope for future income from plasma plantations. These communities are demanding completion of plasma plantation establishment and also completion of the planned CPO processing factory so that the fruit from their plasma areas will be have a guaranteed market. In addition, community members work for the company either as employees or as casual labour. However, the relationship between some parts of the Sima community and NB/SAP has been fractious at times. As metioned above, allegations of environmental damage, human rights violations, as well land tenure disagreements have been forthcoming since 2013, and on 28 April 2017, Goodhope was issued with a temporary stop work order by the RSPO complaints panel, with instructions to address these complaints. It is undeniable that there are still some community members that remain sceptical of the benefit of the continued operation of NB/SAP. However, since the issuance of the Stop Work Order, there has been renewed attention paid to repairing relations and improving the level of mutual understanding by all sides. This process continues. 3.2 Summary of Social Impact Assessment (if any) The SIA reports are rather dated (2011) but many of the findings remain relevant. The following points summarise the findings and recommendations from the two SIA Reports prepared by Fakultas Kehutanan IPB. Summary of Findings PT Nabire Baru 1. There are lack of educational facilities, low education and community skills, poor access roads, public health facilities, infrastructure, electricity supply facilities in the villages around the PT. Nabire Baru. Most of local community are Moslem, Protestant and Catholic. Population of Wami 26

27 Village are mostly Javanese, while in Sima Village, the population are mostly the members of Tribe Yerisiam. In Wanggar Pantai Village, the population are mostly the members of Wate Tribe. And the workforce is dominated by informal sectors (farmers, laborers and others). 2. CLI value in the village of Wami, Sima and Wanggar Pantai are 86, 129 and 141 points respectively. These indicate the village regions with a high level of living costs. CLI value of Wanggar Pantai Village is higher than Wami and Sima Villages which indicate the average expenditure of the villagers is much higher than the national living cost. prices of the community s basic need such as food, clothes and houses are very high in these villages, particularly in Wanggar Pantai Village and Papua in general. These high CLI values in the villages of Sima, Wami and Wanggar Pantai, doesn t represent their actual local community s welfare. Most of the village community just have the ability to fulfill their basic needs while their secondary needs are not adequately fulfilled yet. 3. Up to the 2011, the social aids provided by the company of PT Nabire Baru are 1) scholarships, teacher assistance and repair of school buildings, 2) Contribution of national and religious holidays, 3) Support medical personnel and drugs, 4) Counseling and training on health and cooperatives and 5) Improvement of land roads. Currently, the company of PT Nabire Baru is in the initial production step which is indicated by the company management that focuses on legal aspects, socialization of the company's existence, and land acquisition. 4. Main issues associated with the community around PT. Nabire Baru are : 1) low education and lack of educational facilities, 2) poor mastery of agricultural cultivation techniques, 3) land tenure, 4) environmental issues, 5) lack of business opportunities, 6). lack of venture capital, 7) lack of water supply facilities, 8) poor environmental sanitation, 9). lack of employment opportunities, 10) lack of transportation facilities, village infrastructure and adequate electricity supply facilities and, 11). inadequate public health facilities and personnel. 5. The positive impact that will be generated are in the forms of better employment and business opportunities, better accessibility, regional development, social assistance. and others. While the negative impacts that will be generated are in the form of river water pollution due to the land clearing and various other socio-economic impacts. Recommendations 1. Increasing community participation in the plantation management of PT. Nabire Baru in promoting the achievement of sustainable plantation management and increase the sense of belonging of the community around. 2. Narrowing the socioeconomic gap between the indigenous people with the migrants, indigenous peoples are expecting technical assistance and counseling in order to improve their knowledge and skills in agriculture, plantation, fishery and livestock. 3. PT. Nabire Baru should provide assistance to communities that empowering them in the long term or in a partnership scheme. The preparation of the CSR program must involve community and village officials to increase the community s sense of ownership for plantation of PT. Nabire Baru. 4. The companies should start running the community strategy as a plantation fence / "pagar kebun", to increase the community responsibility in securing the PT. Nabire Baru investment. 27

28 Summary of Findings PT Sariwana Adi Perkasa 1. Sima village is located around the area of PT. Sariwana Adi Perkasa, with limited education facilities, low education levels and skills, limited accessibility (sea transport), health facilities there is only one sub health units with relatively high infant mortality rate, the majority Protestant population and only one person who is religious Catholic Christians, the people in the village of Sima is the tribe Yeresiam with a sub-tribe of Sarakwari, Akaba, Koroba and Waoha. The majority community's main livelihood is hunting, looking for sago, farming and fishing. 2. CLI values in Sima Village is the high category. Most of the village community are only able to meet their basic needs such as food and a small portion of support needs such as electronic goods, home furnishings and entertainment services. Only a few people can adequately meet their secondary needs. 3. Problems that may occur are: (1) Conflict between tribes, because of sub tribes of Waoha, Sarakwari and Koroba agreed the development initiative of oil palm plantations and other (sub tribe of Akaba) reject the oil palm plantation development plan; (2) Socio-economic: the smaller the village land ownership, low education, the low mastery of agricultural cultivation techniques, reduced hunted animals, lack of business opportunity, restlessness of local community; (3) With palm plantation development plan, there will be acculturation among the indigenous (Tribe Yeresiam), with immigrant communities who work on the plantation. 4. Stakeholders are closely associated with PT. Sariwana Adi Perkasa divided into stakeholder-related problems of tenure, community development, environment and health, NGOs and mass media. Meanwhile, based on their interests, they are classified into 3 groups, namely: primary indirect stakeholders who receive indirect benefits from PT. Sariwana Adi Perkasa, secondary stakeholders that are not included in groups 1 and 2, but have an interest in PT. Sariwana Adi Perkasa. 5. Positive impacts or benefits on the surrounding community are associated with job opportunities, business opportunity, the village became crowded, better accessibility and the construction of village infrastructure. While negative impacts generated include increased pollution as a result of the use of chemicals, fertilizer and surface soil erosion, increased dust, social conflict and so on. Recommendations 1. To accelerate change in perception among citizens Sima village, the PT. Sariwana Adi Perkasa need immediate communication about development plans of Plasma (location identification, development plans, the rights and obligations of the plasma and the company, calculation of profit sharing and management). 2. Need to build an intensive communication with the Village Institution (Village Head and BPD) in developing CSR programs, including the implementation. 3. Health service activities and the quality of education need to be improved by PT. Sariwana Adi Perkasa. 28

29 4. High Conservation Value Assessment 4.1 Summary and link to public summary report HCV Assessment was carried out by PT Ekologika covering an area of 21,046 ha (NB and SAP). Both reports have been through the first round of peer review and have recently been resubmitted to HCVRN after revision (SAP report was resubmitted in March 2018, NB report in April 2018). The reports identify a net HCV area of 9,382 ha after allowing for overlaps between individual HCVs. This figure includes 306 ha of land developed within the revised HCV boundaries (predominantly river buffers). The HCV report suggests that these areas can be maintained as productive plantation areas under certain management restrictions. HCV areas identified are described in Table 10. Figure 9 and Table 11 describe the synthesis of HCVs. Almost all remaining forested areas are categorised as HCV. Also, significant areas of sago plantations are recommended for conservation (HCV 5) in the Dusun Sagu area near Sima. In addition to the main HCV Report which has been produced for each company, the following supporting annexes have also been prepared to support the HCV report findings. Annex 1: Annex 2: Annex 3: Annex 4: Annex 5: Annex 6: Annex 7: Annex 8: Annex 9: Map Album Pre-assessment stakeholder consultation meeting report Post assessment stakeholder consultation meeting report Social assessment Report Avifauna Assessment Report Mammalia Assessment Report Ecosystem Assessment Report Participatory Mapping report Laporan Penilaian Gambut The social report (Annex 4) details the activities and findings of Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) held at individual villages, including the final FGD FPIC seeking community input and consent on the planned HCV and HCS areas. The Participative Mapping Report (Annex 8) details the identification and mapping of HCV 5 and 6 areas. 29

30 Table 10. Area and Justification of HCV HCV Definition HCV 1 Species Diversity Concentrations of biological diversity including endemic species, and rare, threatened or endangered (RTE) species that are significant at global, regional or national levels. HCV 2 landscape-level ecosystems and ecosystem mosaics, Undisturbed Forest Landscape. Large landscape-level ecosystems and ecosystem mosaics, that are significant at global, regional or national levels, and that contain viable populations of the great majority of the naturally occurring species in natural patterns of distribution and abundance. HCV 3 Ecosystem and Habitat Rare, threatened, or endangered ecosystems, habitats or refugia. HCV 4 Ecosystem Services Basic ecosystem services in critical situations including protection of water catchments and control of erosion of vulnerable soils and slopes. HCV Subcategory HCV Sub-category Description HCV Identification Result NB (ha) SAP (ha) Total (ha) 1.1 Areas that Contain or Provide Potentially Present Biodiversity Support Function to Indicative Wanggar River Bumi River Peat Hydrological Protected or Conservation Areas Area (KHS, Kawasan Hidologi Gambut), protection function 68 2,694 2,763 Present Western area of PT SAP which is directly adjacent to Sima protected forest, a pristine area capable to support biodiversity in the area. 1.2 Critically Endangered Species Potentially Present Black Spotted Cuscus (Spilocuscus rufoniger). 1,460 1,309 2, Viable Populations of Present 6 Vegetation species, 4 Mammals and 30 Bird Endangered, Restricted Range or species. 4,301 4,389 8,690 Protected Species 1.4 Habitat of Temporary Use by Species or Congregations of Species 2.1 Large Natural Landscapes with Capacity to Maintain Natural Ecological Processes and Dynamics 2.2 Areas that Contain Two or More Contiguous Ecosystems 2.3 Areas that Contain Representative Populations of Most Naturally Occurring Species Not Present Species or species groups that need temporary habitat are not found Not Present No core areas with more than 20,000 ha within assessment area. Present Ecotone between lowland swamp forest and lowland forest Present Representation of natural species is shown from the presence of cassowary, species of Accipitridae family, species of Ducula genus, lories and cockatoo, Kangaroo, hornbill and bird-of-paradise 3 Present Mountainous Lowland Forest, Mangroves and Estuarine, Lowland Grassland on Plains and Water bodies/lakes (lowland) 4.1 Areas or Ecosystems Important for the Provision of Water and Prevention of Floods for Downstream Communities 4.2 Areas Important for the Prevention of Erosion and Sedimentation Present All water bodies and water banks, mangrove and estuarine ecosystem, swamp forest ecosystem ,301 4,388 8,689 1, , , , ,186 2,183 Present Hilly area with Erosion Hazard Level value > 180 ton/ha/year 3,813 3,783 7,597 30

31 HCV Definition HCV 5 Community Needs Sites and resources fundamental for satisfying the basic necessities of local communities or indigenous peoples (for example for livelihoods, health, nutrition, water), identified through engagement with these communities or indigenous peoples. HCV 6 Cultural Values Sites, resources, habitats and landscapes of global or national cultural, archaeological or historical significance, and/or of critical cultural, ecological, economic or religious/sacred importance for the traditional cultures of local communities or indigenous peoples, identified through engagement with these local communities or indigenous peoples. HCV Subcategory HCV Sub-category Description HCV Identification Result NB (ha) SAP (ha) Total (ha) 4.3 Areas that Function as Natural Present Barriers to the Spread of Forest or Lowland forest, swamp forest, Wami River, Wanggar River, Ground Fire Yaro River, Sima River and their riverbanks. (Sima River is >30 m in width) 68 2,694 2,763 5 Present Included are: Sources of carbohydrate, protein, vitamin, direct income, potable water for drinking and cooking, clean water for sanitation, craft materials, susbsistent land, fuel, traditional medicine, building 1,460 1,309 2,768 materials (timber and non-timber), fodder. 6 Present - Sacred sites: Goa Nenggoina, Goa Nenggomana, Ruija, Rujahi, Parigi Hamuku, old Village Hamuku, Sungai Busuk (Rarantiruma), Air Mabuk, Anapireoonggre (in Yaur language)/ Babrauguapi (in Yerisiam language), Bahoom Wau, Hamatre (Aha Juha), Ubaina, Makam Tanung, Goa Wamora Important sites for local culture: Dusun Sagu Bokai, Dusun Sagu Kampung Sima, Dusun Sagu Manarueja, Dusun Sagu Nahina Mahire, Dusun Sagu Yarawobi 4,301 4,389 8,690 Species with cultural importance: Bird-of-paradise, Sago (Metroxylon sagu) 31

32 Figure 9. Map of HCV Synthesis 32

33 Table 11. HCV Area Synthesis No Area (ha) HCV Type Enclave Plasma Inti Total ,230 1, ,110 1, Total 82 1,613 7,687 9,382 33

34 5. Environmental Impact Assessment 5.1 Summary Social and Environmental Impact Assessments (AMDAL) of the planned plantation development have been finalised as follows: 34

35 Licensing Process and Field Survey ngan Activity Socialization Land Procurement Labour acceptance and mobilization Mobilisation of Equipment and construction material transport Land clearing and preparation Establishment of infrastructure of plantation Palm oil planting Maintenance of immature plantation Land and Foundation compaction Crude Palm oil mill establishment Labour acceptance and mobilization Transportation of FFB a n d CPO) Maintenance of mature plantation Harvesting Palm oil and kernel processing Boiler operation Waste management Termination of employment Returning of infrastructure Table 12. Justification of HCV AMDAL of NB was finalized on 18 th December 2013 Stage and Activities Pre-Construction construction operational Pasca plantation Mill plantation mill Operasional Environment s component impacted and Potential Impact I. PHYSICAL -CHEMICAL 1. Micro climate (Local temperature increment) DPH 2. Decline of air quality DPH TPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH 3. Noise increment DPH TPH DPH DPH DPH DPH 4. Hydrology a. Change of run off water DPH DPH DPH b. Quality decline in runoff water DPH DPH c. Increase in erosion rate DPH DPH 5. D e c r e a s e i n s u r f a c e w a t e r q u a l i t y DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH TPH 6. D e c r e a s e i n g r o u n d w a t e r q u a l i t y DPH DPH DPH 7. Decrease in surface water quantity 8. C h a n g e i n s p a t i a l c h a n g e, Land and Multiplier TPH DPH TPH Effect II. TRANSPORTATION 9. Traffic jam TPH TPH 10. Increment of damage road DPH DPH III. BIOLOGY 11. D e c l i n i n g o f l a n d c o v e r v e g e t a t i o n DPH TPH 12. L a n d f a u n a e x i s t e n c e d i s t u r b a n c e DPH TPH 13. W a t e r b i o t a e x i s t e n c e d i s t u r b a n c e DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH TPH IV. SOCIAOECONOMY CULTURE 14. Population increment DPH DPH TPH 15. Income Generation a. Employment/business opportunities TPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH b. L o s t o f i n c o m e g e n e r a t i o n DPH DPH 16. C o m m u n i t y c u s t o m a r y c h a n g e DPH DPH 17. Community positive/negative perception would emerge TPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH TPH TPH 18. Security and order disturbance TPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH DPH 19. Social facility service and Public facility change DPH TPH DPH TPH V. Public Health 20. Decline on sanitation of environment DPH DPH DPH TPH DPH DPH DPH DPH *DPH = Dampak Penting Hipotetik = Hypotetic important impact; TDH = Dampak Tidak Penting Hipotetik = Hypotetic unimportant impact 35

36 Licensing Process and Field Survey Activity Socialization Land Procurement Labour acceptance and mobilization Mobilisation of Equipment and construction material transport Land clearing and preparation Establishment of infrastructure of plantation Palm oil planting Maintenance of immature plantation Land and Foundation compaction Crude Palm oil mill establishment Labour acceptance and mobilization Maintenance of mature plant Harvesting and Crops estimation Transportation of FFB a n d CPO) Palm Oil processing Boiler Operating Liquid Waste Management Employment termination Returning of utilities and infrastructure Table 13. Justification of HCV AMDAL of SAP was finalized on 15 th December 2014 Stage and Activities Construction Operational Preconstruction Pre-Construction Plantation Mill Plantation Mill Environment s component impacted and Potential Impact I. PHYSYCAL-CHEMICAL 1. Micro climate (Local temperature increment) -P +P 2. Decline of air quality -P -P -P -P -P -P 3. Noise increment -P -P -P -P -P 4. Hydrology a. Change of runoff water -P -P -P b. Quality decline in runoff water -TP -TP c. Increase in erosion rate -P -P 5. D e c r e a s e i n s u r f a c e w a t e r q u a l i t y -P -P -P -P -P -P -P -P -TP -TP -TP 6. D e c r e a s e i n g r o u n d w a t e r q u a l i t y -P -P -P 7. C h a n g e i n s p a t i a l c h a n g e, Land and Multiplier +P Effect 8. D e c l i n e o n s o i l f e r t i l i t y II. TRANSPORTATION 9. Traffic jam 10. Increment of damage road -P -P III. BIOLOGY 11. D e c l i n i n g o f l a n d c o v e r v e g e t a t i o n -P 12. L a n d f a u n a e x i s t e n c e d i s t u r b a n c e -P 13. W a t e r b i o t a e x i s t e n c e d i s t u r b a n c e -P -P -P -P -P -P -P -P -TP -TP -TP IV. SOCIOECONOMY CULTURE 14. Population increment +P +P 15. Income Generation a. Employment/business opportunities +P +P +P +P b. L o s t o f i n c o m e g e n e r a t i o n -P -P 16. C o m m u n i t y c u s t o m a r y c h a n g e -P -TP 17. Community positive/negative perception would emerge +P -P +P -P -P -P -P -P -P +P -P -P -P 18. Security and order disturbance -P -P -P -P -P -P -P -P -P -P -P 19. Social facility service and Public facility change -P +TP V. Public Health 20. Decline on sanitation of environment -P -P -P -P -P -P 21. Morbidity rate increment -P -P -P Description: -P = Dampak Negatif Penting= Important Negative Impact; -TP= Dampak Negatif Tidak Penting= Unimportant Negative Impact; +P = Dampak Positif Penting= Important Positive Impact; +TP = Dampak Positif Tidak Penting= Unimportant Positive Impact 36

37 6. Land cover image analysis 6.1 Area of Interest and how it was defined The NB/SAP total HGU area covers 21,046 ha. The HCS study area covers 12,908 ha and consists of all undeveloped land as at April Description of images used for classification The following data was used for stratification of land cover: Acquisition Date Type Resolution 15 April 2016 SPOT6/7 2.5m 16 February 2017 SPOT6/7 2.5m 31 March 2017 Landsat 8 OLI TIRS, Path/Row 104/62 30 m 23 September 2017 Landsat 8 OLI TIRS, Path/Row 104/62 30 m The Spot 7 satellite imagery is high resolution enabling accurate stratification using predominantly heads up (manual) stratification approach. The Landsat imagery was used to update the results of the analysis of the Spot 7 by identifying and quantifying recent changes in land use, again using predominantly heads up (manual) stratification approach. 37

38 6.3 Sample image Figure 10. Sample of SPOT 6 Imagery over NB and SAP Area 38

39 Figure 11. Sample of Landsat 8 Satellite Image over NB and SAP Area 6.4 Method of stratification and software used The SPOT 6 satellite imagery is high resolution enabling accurate stratification using heads up (manual) methods. Landsat data was used to update the results of the analysis of the SPOT images. Analysis of Landsat 8 data used a combination of supervised and unsupervised techniques carried out using ARCGIS. Land cover has been stratified into the standard HCS land cover classes as set out in the HCS-A toolkit v1. 39

40 6.5 Map of initial vegetation classes, with legend Figure 12. Land Cover Map 40

41 6.6 Table of total hectares per vegetation class Table 14. Results of Land Cover Stratification in Study Area (Post Pre - RBA) Developed Area Undeveloped Area (HCS Study Area) Land Cover Strata NB SAP TOTAL ha % ha % ha % Oil Palm and Plantation Road 7,421 51% 569 9% 7,990 38% Settlements 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Roads 22 0% 19 0% 42 0% Infrastructure and Amenities 74 1% 33 1% 107 1% Sub Total Developed Area 7,518 51% % 8,138 39% Potential HCS Strata: Non HCS Strata: Forest 2,043 14% 1,558 24% 3,600 17% YRF 2,282 16% 2,837 44% 5,119 24% Sub Total 4,325 30% 4,394 68% 8,719 41% Scrub 208 1% 255 4% 463 2% Scrub Reverting LC 2,451 17% 1,047 16% 3,497 17% Agriculture 9 0% 1 0% 10 0% Water Body 5 0% 4 0% 9 0% Open Land 94 1% 116 2% 209 1% Sub Total 2,766 19% 1,422 22% 4,189 20% Sub Total Undeveloped Area 7,091 49% 5,817 90% 12,908 61% Total 14, % 6, % 21, % 6.7 Summary of which areas are potential HCS forest, subject to further analysis Key points: 7,990 ha of land (38% of the license area) has been developed for oil palm plantations by NB/SAP. This includes both inti and plasma plantations, and related infrastructure (plantation roads and drains). The NB/SAP area holds 8,719 ha of forest (41% of the license area) which is considered as potential HCS land for further analysis in the HCS patch analysis process. The potential HCS forest area is predominantly in the YRF strata. 3,497 ha (17% of the license area) has already been cleared but not planted by NB/SAP. This land is available for development. Community agriculture areas are generally small in size and are mostly located outside the HGU boundary. There is only 10 ha of community agriculture land inside the boundary. Description of each land cover stratum can be found in Table

42 7. Forest inventory results 7.1 Inventory sample design and plot rational The inventory was designed to sample three land cover strata; forest, YRF and Scrub. 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 187 plots were measured in the NB and SAP area. Table 15 summarises the number of plots measured per land cover strata. Table 15. No of Plots Measured per Land Cover Strata Land Cover Strata Plots Measured Forest 20 YRF 127 Scrub 40 Total 187 Figure 13 shows the plot locations. 42

43 Figure 13. Map of Carbon Inventory Plot Locations NB/SAP 43

44 7.3 Forest inventory team members and roles Table 16 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 NB and SAP planning staff and local villagers. Table 16. Inventory Team Members and Roles Team Member Position No of Persons Dadi Ardiansyah Carbon inventory team leader Krisma Lekitoi Botanist 1 Species identification Planning Staff NB and SAP Labourer from Community Planning Staff NB and SAP Labourer from Community Labourer from Community Description and role 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 Measuring Assistant 1 Measure tree diameter Plot cleaner 1 Cleaning vines and climbers off trees to be measured to enable easier measurement 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 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 14 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. 44

45 Figure 14. 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 For each tree measured, the following data is collected: Species Diameter Total tree height 45

46 7.5 Methodology used for carbon calculations 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) 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) 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. AGLB i = [ρ i D 2 ih i] 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): Preference is given to wood density estimates from Indonesia and, 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. 46

47 3. Where no wood density was available for the species, there were assigned a wood density value of g/cm 3. This figure was derived from the weighted average wood density of tree species in the forest inventory with identified wood density estimates Palm Biomass The equation used for estimating palm biomass was: Palm Biomass 1 (tonne) = [Specific gravity] * D2/40000*(palm height) For palms, specific gravity is assumed to be tonne per green m 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 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 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 1 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. 47

48 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. 48

49 7.6 Indicative photos of each vegetation class Photos of Forest Stratum Photo 1: Forest Class (North_P ) Photo 2: Forest Class (East_ P ) 49

50 Photo 3: Forest Class (South_ P ) Photo 4: Forest Class (West_ P ) 50

51 Photo 5: Forest Class (Canopy View_ P ) Photos of Young Regenerating Forest (YRF) Stratum Photo 1: Young Regeneration Forest Class (North_ P ) 51

52 Photo 2: Young Regeneration Forest Class (East_ P ) Photo 3: Young Regeneration Forest Class (South_ P ) 52

53 Photo 4: Young Regeneration Forest Class (West_ P ) Photo 5: Young Regeneration Forest Class (Canopy View_ P ) 53

54 Photos of Scrub Stratum Photo 1: Scrub Class (North_ P ) Photo 2: Scrub Class (East_ P ) 54

55 Photo 3: Scrub Class (South_ P ) Photo 4 : Scrub Class (West_ P ) 55

56 Photo 5 : Scrub Class (Canopy View_ P ) 7.7 Statistical analysis Table 17 and Table 18 show the results of the forest inventory carried out in the study area. Sample size is 187 inventory plots. The Forest strata has an average carbon stock of 77.6 tonnes per ha, YRF strata has an average carbon stock of 44.2 tonnes per ha, while the scrub stratum (includes the Scrub - reverting LC area) has an average carbon stock of 8 tonnes per ha. All inventory data is also provided in excel format. Table 17. Stand and Stock Table Carbon Stock per ha by DBH class 90% confidence limits Land Cover Number of Plots Stems per Biomass per ha Total Lower Upper Stratum Measured ha (kg/ha) tonnes/ha tonnes/ha FOR 20 1, , YRF , SCR , Table 18. Summary of statistical analysis of carbon stock results per vegetation class Carbon Stock (tonnes per ha) Number of Plots Measured Precision (+/-90% CL) Number Required to Estimate +/-10% Land Cover Stratum t stat Standard Deviation E (+/-10%) Forest % 69 YRF % 92 Scrub %

57 Figure 15 shows carbon stock and stems per ha by strata and diameter class. Figure 15. Graph of Carbon Stock per ha by Strata and Diameter Class 57

58 The ANOVA in Table 19 shows that there are significance differences between the three strata. Table 19. Analysis of Variance Source SS df MS F F_90% CL Signif Diff Model 71, , Yes Error 114, Total 185, To determine which groups are significantly different, a Scheffé's pairwise multiple comparisons test has been conducted. Table 20 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 and MAF average carbon estimates. Table 20. Scheffé's Test Results Pair Wise Differences Between Sample Means: Type FOR YRF SCR FOR YRF 36.2 Scheffe Comparison Values: Type FOR YRF SCR FOR YRF 9.7 Significant Differences: Type FOR YRF SCR FOR Yes Yes YRF Yes Table 21 shows carbon stock per ha by plot. Table 22 shows the complete species list. Table 21. Carbon stock by plot Record No Line/ Cluster Plot Waypoint Code Land Cover Code Biomass (kg/ha) Plot Carbon (t/ha) Carbon Class L1P1 SCR 20, L1P2 SCR 26, L1P3 SCR 34, L1P4 SCR 10, L1P5 SCR 3, L1P6 SCR 45, L1P7 SCR 29, L1P8 SCR 13, L2P1 FOR 103, L2P2 FOR 33, L2P3 FOR 277, L2P4 FOR 265, L2P5 FOR 170, L2P6 FOR 230, L2P7 FOR 206, L2P8 FOR 55, L3P1 FOR 153, L3P2 FOR 241,

59 Record No Line/ Cluster Plot Waypoint Code Land Cover Code Biomass (kg/ha) Plot Carbon (t/ha) Carbon Class L3P3 FOR 252, L3P4 FOR 10, L3P5 FOR 169, L4P1 YRF 82, L4P2 YRF 217, L4P3 YRF 97, L4P4 YRF 34, L4P5 YRF 67, L4P6 YRF L4P7 YRF 151, L4P8 YRF 75, L4P9 YRF 28, L4P10 YRF 104, L4P11 YRF 35, L4P12 YRF 79, L4P13 YRF 60, L4P14 YRF 78, L4P15 FOR 247, L4P16 FOR 74, L5P1 YRF 93, L5P2 YRF 79, L5P3 YRF 10, L5P4 YRF 219, L5P5 YRF 144, L5P6 YRF 94, L5P7 YRF 243, L5P8 YRF 46, L5P9 YRF 29, L5P10 YRF 53, L5P11 YRF 40, L5P12 YRF 133, L5P13 YRF 143, L5P14 YRF 64, L6P1 YRF 144, L6P2 YRF 58, L6P3 YRF 119, L6P4 YRF 113, L6P5 YRF 7, L6P6 YRF 86, L6P7 YRF 13, L7P1 YRF 99, L7P2 YRF 123, L7P3 YRF 52, L7P4 YRF 177, L7P5 YRF 62, L7P6 YRF 191, L7P7 YRF 15, L7P8 YRF 125, L7P9 YRF 98, L7P10 YRF 56, L7P11 YRF 59, L7P12 YRF

60 Record No Line/ Cluster Plot Waypoint Code Land Cover Code Biomass (kg/ha) Plot Carbon (t/ha) Carbon Class L7P13 YRF 11, L7P14 YRF 124, L7P15 YRF 194, L7P16 YRF 17, L8P1 FOR 159, L8P2 FOR 110, L8P3 FOR 238, L8P4 FOR 90, L8P5 FOR 212, L8P6 YRF 44, L8P7 YRF 28, L8P8 YRF 47, L8P9 YRF 116, L8P10 YRF 179, L8P11 YRF 52, L8P12 YRF 69, L8P13 YRF 115, L8P14 YRF 91, L8P15 YRF 75, L8P16 YRF 66, L9P1 SCR 22, L9P2 SCR 43, L9P3 SCR 21, L9P4 SCR 14, L9P5 SCR 10, L9P6 SCR 16, L9P7 SCR 32, L9P8 SCR 2, L9P9 SCR 50, L9P10 SCR 7, L9P11 SCR 58, L9P12 SCR 17, L10P1 YRF 48, L10P2 YRF 58, L10P3 YRF 96, L10P4 YRF 182, L10P5 YRF 52, L10P6 YRF 112, L10P7 YRF 53, L10P8 YRF 143, L10P9 YRF 72, L10P10 YRF 134, L10P11 YRF 106, L10P12 YRF 84, L11P1 YRF 159, L11P2 YRF 170, L11P3 YRF 87, L11P4 YRF 299, L11P5 YRF 100, L11P6 SCR 6, L11P7 SCR 8, L11P8 SCR 12,

61 Record No Line/ Cluster Plot Waypoint Code Land Cover Code Biomass (kg/ha) Plot Carbon (t/ha) Carbon Class L12P1 YRF 22, L12P2 YRF 157, L12P3 YRF 165, L12P4 YRF 50, L12P5 YRF 178, L12P6 YRF 125, L12P7 YRF 89, L12P8 YRF 108, L12P9 YRF 42, L12P10 YRF 52, L12P11 YRF 195, L12P12 YRF 67, L13P1 YRF 115, L13P2 YRF 98, L13P3 YRF 71, L13P4 YRF 77, L13P5 YRF 115, L13P6 YRF 101, L13P7 YRF 41, L13P8 YRF 118, L13P9 YRF 28, L13P10 YRF 141, L13P11 YRF 178, L13P12 YRF 99, L14P1 YRF 79, L14P2 YRF 80, L14P3 YRF 21, L14P4 YRF 51, L14P5 YRF 49, L14P6 YRF 50, L15P1 YRF 105, L15P2 YRF 85, L15P3 YRF 167, L15P4 YRF 50, L15P5 YRF 59, L15P6 YRF 85, L15P7 YRF 77, L15P8 YRF 150, L15P9 YRF 102, L15P10 YRF 106, L15P11 YRF 95, L15P12 YRF 85, L16P1 YRF 154, L16P2 YRF 141, L16P3 YRF 101, L16P4 YRF 171, L16P5 YRF 48, L16P6 YRF 67, L17P1 SCR 7, L17P2 SCR 1, L17P3 SCR 2, L17P4 SCR

62 Record No Line/ Cluster Plot Waypoint Code Land Cover Code Biomass (kg/ha) Plot Carbon (t/ha) Carbon Class L17P5 SCR 6, L17P6 SCR 16, L17P7 SCR 39, L17P8 SCR 5, L17P9 SCR 17, L17P10 SCR 1, L17P11 SCR L17P13 SCR L17P14 SCR L17P15 SCR 1, L17P16 SCR 43, L17P17 SCR 14, L17P12 SCR 11,

63 Table 22. Species List No Species Code Local Name Family Family Family Species Group Wood Density Wood Density Reference 1 AAT Moraceae Antiaris toxicaria Low Density 0.33 Species 2 ACC AJEJE Fabaceae Archidendron clypearia Low Density 0.32 Species 3 ACD AJEJE Fabaceae Archidendron Medium Density 0.50 Genus 4 ACO Elaeocarpaceae Aceratium oppositifolium Medium Density 0.57 Genus 5 ADM Elaeocarpaceae Aceratium multifolia Medium Density 0.57 Genus 6 AGO Meliaceae Aglaia odorata Medium Density 0.62 Genus 7 AGS Meliaceae Aglaia spectabilis Medium Density 0.58 Species 8 AHC HAUGRE Rubiaceae Anthocephalus chinensis Low Density 0.38 Species 9 AHS HAUGRE Rubiaceae Anthocephalus Low Density 0.38 Genus 10 ALC Apocynaceae Alstonia spectabilis Medium Density 0.63 Species 11 ALM Euphorbiaceae Aleurites moluccana Low Density 0.38 Species 12 ALP KAYU SUSU Apocynaceae Alstonia Medium Density 0.55 Genus 13 ALS Apocynaceae Alstonia scholaris Low Density 0.34 Species 14 ANT Dipterocarpaceae Anisoptera thurifera Medium Density 0.59 Species 15 APA Phyllanthaceae Aporusa Medium Density 0.63 Genus 16 APM Rhamnaceae Alphitonia macrocarpa Low Density 0.45 Species Wood Density Region 63

64 No Species Code Local Name Family Family Family Species Group Wood Density Wood Density Reference 17 AQC Thymelaeaceae Aquilaria filaria Low Density 0.32 Genus 18 ATO INAPIRE Moraceae Artocarpus odoratissimus Medium Density 0.55 Species 19 ATT UBAWORE/OREKIA/SUKU Moraceae Artocarpus altilis Low Density 0.32 Species N 20 CAI Clusiaceae Calophyllum inophyllum Medium Density 0.56 Species 21 CAL MOPRE/BINTANGUR Clusiaceae Calophyllum Medium Density 0.59 Genus 22 CAP Clusiaceae Calophyllum postanum Medium Density 0.59 Genus 23 CEI Cannabaceae Celtis latifolia Low Density 0.42 Species 24 CEP Cannabaceae Celtis philippensis Medium Density 0.72 Species 25 CES Cannabaceae Celtus Medium Density 0.58 Genus 26 CGO Annonaceae Cananga odorata Low Density 0.38 Species 27 CHC Meliaceae Chisocheton ceramicus Low Density 0.45 Species 28 CIM Lauraceae Cinnamomum Low Density 0.44 Genus 29 CIN IHOJE/KAYU LAWANG Lauraceae Cinnamomum culilaban Low Density 0.44 Genus 30 CLP Phyllanthaceae Cleistanthus papuana Medium Density 0.58 Genus 31 CND Burseraceae Canarium decumanum Low Density 0.32 Species 32 CNH Burseraceae Canarium hirsutum Low Density 0.49 Species 33 CNI Burseraceae Canarium indicum Medium Density 0.56 Species Wood Density Region 64

65 No Species Code Local Name Family Family Family Species Group Wood Density Wood Density Reference 34 COB Malvaceae Commersonia bartramia Low Density 0.43 Species 35 CPB Anacardiaceae Campnosperma brevipetiolata Low Density 0.35 Species 36 CPP Lauraceae Cryptocarya palmarensis Medium Density 0.58 Genus 37 CPS IRE Anacardiaceae Campnosperma Low Density 0.35 Genus 38 DAO DAU Anacardiaceae Dracontomelon dao Low Density 0.40 Species 39 DEP Myrtaceae Decaspermum parviflorum Medium Density 0.70 Genus 40 DRG Putranjavaceae Drypetes glabosa Medium Density 0.77 Genus 41 DRL Putranjavaceae Drypetes longifolia Medium Density 0.62 Species 42 DXM Meliaceae Dysoxylum cf. alliaceum Medium Density 0.63 Genus 43 DYH Ebenaceae Diospyros hebecarpa High Density 0.84 Genus 44 EDM Euphorbiaceae Endospermum moluccanum Low Density 0.28 Species 45 ELA Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus angustifolius Low Density 0.41 Species 46 ELN Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus angustifolia Low Density 0.49 Genus 47 ELS Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus grandiflora Low Density 0.49 Genus 48 EMT Magnoliaceae Elmerrillia tsiampaca Low Density 0.41 Genus 49 ENR Lauraceae Endiandra rubescens Medium Density 0.60 Species 50 EUB Rutaceae Euodia bonvickii Medium Density 0.67 Genus Wood Density Region 65

66 No Species Code Local Name Family Family Family Species Group Wood Density Wood Density Reference 51 EUR Rutaceae Euodia elleryana Low Density 0.33 Species 52 FCB GUIJE/BERINGIN Moraceae Ficus benjamina Low Density 0.46 Species 53 FCC Moraceae Ficus chrysolepis Low Density 0.34 Species 54 FCG Moraceae Ficus glabosa Low Density 0.41 Genus 55 FCS ENREGRE Moraceae Ficus Low Density 0.41 Genus 56 FCT Moraceae Ficus tinctoria Low Density 0.41 Genus 57 FGL Moraceae Ficus glomerata Low Density 0.34 Species 58 FGR Gentianaceae Fagraea racemosa Medium Density 0.64 Species 59 FLA Rutaceae Flindersia amboinensis Medium Density 0.66 Species 60 FLP Rutaceae Flindersia pimentelliana Medium Density 0.61 Genus 61 GCL GOREOPURE/Ariwah Clusiaceae Garcinia latissima Medium Density 0.77 Species 62 GCN Clusiaceae Garcinia High Density 0.83 Genus 63 GCP GOREOPURE/Ariwah Clusiaceae Garcinia picrorhiza High Density 0.82 Species 64 GLT ADRE Anacardiaceae Gluta Low Density 0.39 Genus 65 GNG Gnetaceae Gnetum gnemon Medium Density 0.61 Species 66 GNT DIHUDUJE Gnetaceae Gnetum Medium Density 0.61 Genus 67 GOG Icacinaceae Gomphandra glabosa Low Density 0.46 Genus Wood Density Region 66

67 No Species Code Local Name Family Family Family Species Group Wood Density Wood Density Reference 68 GPF Sapindaceae Ganophyllum falcatum Medium Density 0.71 Species 69 GRL GOREOPURE/Ariwah Cardiopteridacea Gonocaryum littorale Medium Density 0.66 Genus e 70 GRN Cannabaceae Gironniera nervosa Low Density 0.45 Species 71 GWA Malvaceae Grewia antidesmaefoli Medium Density 0.51 Genus a 72 GYF Myristicaceae Gymnacranthera farquhariana Medium Density 0.58 Species 73 HDO Hernandiaceae Hernandia ovigera Low Density 0.25 Species 74 HEO Proteaceae Helicia odorata Medium Density 0.61 Genus 75 HFI Myristicaceae Horsfieldia irya Low Density 0.39 Species 76 HFL Myristicaceae Horsfieldia laevigata Low Density 0.39 Genus 77 HFS Myristicaceae Horsfieldia sylvestris Low Density 0.31 Species 78 HIB Waru Malvaceae Hibiscus Low Density 0.39 Genus 79 HLC Burseraceae Haplolobus celebica Medium Density 0.50 Genus 80 HLL Burseraceae Haplolobus lanceolatus Medium Density 0.50 Genus 81 HLS Burseraceae Haplolobus celebicus Medium Density 0.50 Genus 82 HMF Salicaceae Homalium foetidum Medium Density 0.73 Species 83 HOI Dipterocarpaceae Hopea iriana High Density 0.85 Species 84 HOP Dipterocarpaceae Hopea papuana Medium Density 0.60 Species Wood Density Region 67

68 No Species Code Local Name Family Family Family Species Group Wood Density Wood Density Reference 85 HTS Malvaceae Heritiera sylvatica Medium Density 0.70 Species 86 HUA Sapindaceae Harpullia arborea Medium Density 0.54 Species 87 INB MERBAU Fabaceae Intsia bijuga Medium Density 0.72 Species 88 KNT Myristicaceae Knema tomentella Medium Density 0.53 Genus 89 LAN WEGRE Meliaceae Lansium Medium Density 0.75 Genus 90 LET Apocynaceae Lepiniopsis ternatensis Low Density 0.42 Species 91 LIB Lauraceae Litsea tuberculata Low Density 0.43 Genus 92 LIL Lauraceae Litsea ladermanii Low Density 0.43 Genus 93 LIM Lauraceae Litsea timoriana Low Density 0.43 Genus 94 LIT Lauraceae Litsea Low Density 0.43 Genus 95 MCA AJANDOHARE Euphorbiaceae Macaranga aleuritoides Low Density 0.33 Species 96 MCG AJANDOHARE Euphorbiaceae Macaranga Low Density 0.43 Genus 97 MCT AJANDOHARE Euphorbiaceae Macaranga tanarius Low Density 0.48 Species 98 MDL Stemonuraceae Medusanthera laxiflora Low Density 0.39 Genus 99 MLP Euphorbiaceae Mallotus philippensis Medium Density 0.61 Species 10 MMO Clusiaceae Mammea odorata High Density 0.83 Genus 0 10 MNP Fabaceae Maniltoa plurijuga Medium Density 0.65 Species 1 Wood Density Region 68

69 No Species Code Local Name Family Family Family Species Group Wood Density Wood Density Reference 10 2 MOR NANGARE Rubiaceae Morinda Morinda sp Medium Density 0.53 Genus 10 MTS Palmae Metroxylon sagu Medium Density 0.59 Genus 3 10 MUC Muntingiaceae Muntingia calabura Low Density 0.30 Species 4 10 MYF Myristicaceae Myristica fatua Low Density 0.46 Genus 5 10 MYG Myristicaceae Myristica subargentea Low Density 0.46 Genus 6 10 MYH Myristicaceae Myristica hollrungii Low Density 0.46 Genus 7 10 MYR AGER POJE/PALA HUTAN Myristicaceae Myristica Low Density 0.46 Genus 8 10 MYS Myristicaceae Myristica subalulata Low Density 0.29 Species 9 11 NEC Loganiaceae Neuburgia celebica Low Density 0.34 Species 0 11 OMN Euphorbiaceae Homalanthus novoguineensis Low Density 0.28 Genus 1 11 ONC MOJIGRE/Nibung Arecaceae Oncosperma Medium Density 0.59 Genus 2 11 OOR Urticaceae Oreocnide rubescens Low Density 0.21 Family 3 11 ORS Arecaceae Orania subumbrans Medium Density 0.59 Palm 4 11 OTHER - High Density 0.85 Inventory 5 HI Weighted 11 6 OTHER - LO Low Density 0.41 Inventory Weighted Wood Density Region South America Worldwide All regions All regions 69

70 No 11 7 Species Code OTHER - ME Local Name Family Family Family Species Group Wood Density Wood Density Reference Medium Density 0.61 Inventory Weighted 11 8 OTM BENUANG Datiscaceae Octomeles Low Density 0.30 Genus 11 OTS Datiscaceae Octomeles sumatrana Low Density 0.30 Genus 9 12 PAP BUAH NONA Moraceae Parartocarpus Medium Density 0.53 Genus 0 12 PAV Moraceae Parartocarpus venenosus Medium Density 0.53 Genus 1 12 PCH Fabaceae Pterocarpus indicus Medium Density 0.53 Species 2 12 PIA Euphorbiaceae Pimelodendron amboinicum Medium Density 0.53 Species 3 12 PLG Annonaceae Polyalthia glauca Low Density 0.45 Species 4 12 PLS Annonaceae Polyalthia sumatrana Medium Density 0.52 Species 5 12 PMA Sapindaceae Pometia acuminata Medium Density 0.59 Species 6 12 PMC Lamiaceae Premna corymbosa Medium Density 0.71 Genus 7 12 PMP MATOA Sapindaceae Pometia pinnata Medium Density 0.59 Species 8 12 PMT Sapindaceae Pometia Medium Density 0.59 Genus 9 13 POU Nyctaginaceae Pisonia umbellifera Low Density 0.30 Species 0 13 PQL Sapotaceae Palaquium lobbianum Low Density 0.38 Species 1 13 PRL Moraceae Prainea limpato Medium Density 0.68 Species 2 Wood Density Region All regions 70

71 No Species Code Local Name Family Family Family Species Group Wood Density Wood Density Reference 13 3 PTO Sapotaceae Pouteria obovata Medium Density 0.62 Species 13 PUA Rosaceae Prunus arborea Low Density 0.46 Species 4 13 PYH Malvaceae Pterygota horsfieldii Medium Density 0.66 Species 5 13 RHC Myrtaceae Rhodamnia cinerea High Density 0.87 Species 6 13 RHY Icacinaceae Rhyticarium Low Density 0.48 Family 7 13 SEP Anacardiaceae Semecarpus papuana Low Density 0.40 Genus 8 13 SLI Elaeocarpaceae Sloanea pullei Low Density 0.37 Species 9 14 SLP Elaeocarpaceae Sloanea pulchra Low Density 0.48 Species 0 14 SMJ Stemonuraceae Stemonurus javanicum Medium Density 0.52 Genus 1 14 SPC Anacardiaceae Spondias cytherea Low Density 0.26 Species 2 14 SPS Anacardiaceae Spondias Low Density 0.37 Genus 3 14 STC SEMAN Malvaceae Sterculia Low Density 0.32 Genus 4 14 STH Malvaceae Sterculia shillinglawii Low Density 0.31 Species 5 14 STM Malvaceae Sterculia macrophylla Low Density 0.28 Species 6 14 STR Malvaceae Sterculia Low Density 0.32 Genus 7 14 SYS INDAIRE/AWURARE Rhamnaceae Ziziphus angustifolius Medium Density 0.58 Genus 8 14 SZA Myrtaceae Syzygium anomala Medium Density 0.64 Genus 9 Wood Density Region 71

72 No Species Code Local Name Family Family Family Species Group Wood Density Wood Density Reference 15 0 SZG Myrtaceae Syzygium Medium Density 0.64 Genus 15 TAS AURARE Myrtaceae Tristaniopsis High Density 0.86 Genus 1 15 TIR Rubiaceae Timonius rubescens Medium Density 0.55 Genus 2 15 TJB Lamiaceae Teijsmanniodendro bogoriense Low Density 0.43 Species 3 n 15 TNA Myrtaceae Tristania obovata Medium Density 0.72 Genus 4 15 TOS Meliaceae Toona sureni Low Density 0.33 Species 5 15 TRC AJATRE Combretaceae Terminalia complanata Low Density 0.41 Species 6 15 TRM AJATRE Combretaceae Terminalia Low Density 0.47 Genus 7 15 TSM Pentaphylacaeae Ternstroemia Medium Density 0.58 Genus 8 15 VAR EHIBRE Dipterocarpaceae Vatica rassak Medium Density 0.55 Species 9 16 VTP IHUTRE Lamiaceae Vitex pinnata Medium Density 0.57 Genus 0 16 VTX IHUTRE Lamiaceae Vitex Medium Density 0.57 Genus 1 Wood Density Region 72

73 7.8 Summary of statistical analysis of carbon stock results per vegetation class Table 23: Summary of statistical analysis of carbon stock results per vegetation class Land cover class Number of Plots Stems per hectare Basal Area Carbon Stocks Standard error of the mean Confidence limits (90%) Lower Upper Open Land Scrub Young Regenerating Forest Low Density Forest Medium Density Forest High Density Forest 7.9 Forest inventory results Table 24: Forest inventory class Land cover class Forest Young Regenerating Forest (YRF) carbon value 77.6 t/ha Ecology: 44.2 t/ha Ecology Physical Description All forest areas in NB/SAP have been subject to logging to some degree, both by logging concession operations in the past, and more recently (and ongoing) by small scale illegal logging operations. The Forest stratum consists of forest areas with low to medium levels of logging disturbance. Vegetation is dominated by Myristicaceae family, Myrtaceae family and some residual Dipterocarpaceae such as Vatica spp. This indicates that the existing forest type is lowland forest. Canopy height m with canopy trees mostly in the diameter cm diameter range. Illegal logging activities continue to exacerbate damage to forest structure this is the main risk for this stratum. Frequent gaps are found throughout the forest due to felling and extraction. The forest stratum covers 3,600 ha at March 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 to illegal loggers. Underfoot Conditions Dry underfoot conditions. Mineral soils. All forest areas in NB/SAP have been subject to logging to some degree, both by logging concession operations in the past, and more recently (and ongoing) by small scale illegal logging operations. The YRF stratum consists of forest areas with high levels of logging disturbance. 73

74 Land cover class carbon value Physical Description Vegetation is dominated by Myristicaceae family, Myrtaceae family and a range of pioneer species. Canopy height averages m, with canopy trees mostly in the cm range. Illegal logging activities continue to exacerbate damage to forest structure this is the main risk for this stratum. Frequent gaps are found throughout the forest due to felling and extraction. The YRF stratum covers 5,119 ha at March Geographic Distribution: Predominantly in the south and west of the license areas. Underfoot Conditions: Dry and wet underfoot conditions. Mineral soils. Scrub 8.0 t/ha Ecology Open Land Assumed at 0 t/ha The Scrub stratum consists of the very early stages of vegetation regeneration after clearing of land more than 1-2 years previously either for small scale agriculture (by villagers) or for oil palm development (by NB/SAP). Tree cover consists mainly of low diameter pioneer species of the Euphorbiaceae family such as Macaranga spp. Height ± 8 m with a diameter of 5-10 cm. Open canopy condition. The land cover strata analysis in this report differentiates between reverting NB/SAP land clearing areas (Scrub reverting LC) and other scrub areas. For the purposes of the carbon stock inventory, all scrub areas are combined. The Scrub (Reverting LC) stratum is by far the bigger of the two, covering 3497 ha at March The scrub stratum covers 463 ha at March 2017, giving a combined area of 3960 ha. Geographic Distribution: Scattered throughout the license area. Underfoot Conditions: Dry and wet underfoot conditions. Mineral soils. 209 ha of land, predominantly ex land clearing, scattered in small patches throughout the license area. Not sampled for carbon stock assumed to be zero. Agriculture (shifting cultivation) Assumed at 0 t/ha 10 ha located near Sima along the main road. Not sampled for carbon stock assumed to be zero. 74

75 8. Land Cover Classification 8.1 Refined land cover map with title, date, legend and any HCS forest patches identified Figure 16. Refined Land Cover Classification Map 75

76 9. Patch Analysis Result 9.1 Results of Decision Tree Patch analysis followed the process described in the 2017 toolkit. Based on the landscape analysis carried out by Ata Marie, the NB and SAP area sits in a high forest cover landscape. Table 25 describes the results of the final patch analysis on the potential HCS forest area of 8,719 ha. Patch analysis resulted in all of the remaining forest area being recommended for conservation. Almost all the forest area is in the high priority patch category. Table 25. Patch Analysis Results Area by Patch Class Category Patch Class and Description NB SAP Total Recommended for Conservation Recommended for Development Area (ha) % of Area Area (ha) % of Area Area (ha) % of Area 1 High Priority Patch 3,891 90% 4,022 92% 7,913 91% 2 3 Patch provides connectivity (within 200 m) between High Priority Patch Patch is connected (within 200 m) to high priority patches or to conservation area (HCV 1-4 and other conservation areas). 1 0% 9 0% 10 0% % 364 8% 796 9% 4 Medium Priority Patches with Low Risk 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 5 6 Medium Priority Patches with High Risk and >10 ha of Patch is Forest Residual medium priority patches (High Risk Patch with HK <10ha) and Low priority patches in low forest cover landscape (based on Pre-RBA & RBA result) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 7 Conserve based on RBA (significant for biodiversity). 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8 9 Sub Total 4, % 4, % 8, % Low priority patches in medium or high forest cover landscapes. Residual medium and low priority patches based on RBA result 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Sub Total 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Total 4, % 4, % 8, % Table 26 shows the results of analysis of each individual patch of potential HCS forest. 76

77 Table 26. Results of Decision Tree ID Patch Luas (ha) Core (ha) Patch Priority Recommendation Patch Class Description Patch Class High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch 4 1, High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch 8 1, ,566.6 High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area 12 1, High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area 77

78 ID Patch Luas (ha) Core (ha) Patch Priority Recommendation Patch Class Description Patch Class Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Medium priority patch Medium priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area 78

79 ID Patch Luas (ha) Core (ha) Patch Priority Recommendation Patch Class Description Patch Class Medium priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 2 Patch Provides connectivity between high priority (200m) Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area 79

80 ID Patch Luas (ha) Core (ha) Patch Priority Recommendation Patch Class Description Patch Class Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Medium priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area High priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 1 High priority patch Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 2 Patch Provides connectivity between high priority (200m) Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 2 Patch Provides connectivity between high priority (200m) Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Medium priority patch Medium priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area 80

81 ID Patch Luas (ha) Core (ha) Patch Priority Recommendation Patch Class Description Patch Class Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Low priority patch Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area Medium priority patch Total 8,719.2 Recommended for Conservation Patch Class 3 Patch is connected [within 200m] to high priority patches or conservation area 81

82 9.2 Comments on Decision Tree outcome Patch analysis resulted in all of the remaining forest area being recommended for conservation. Almost all the forest area is in the high priority patch category. This is because most of the forest patches are relatively large and / or connected to other patches or conservation areas. 82

83 10. Indicative Land Use Plan 10.1 Summary of results of final ground verification (if any) Approach A draft Integrated Conservation and Land Use Plan (ICLP) has been developed for the NB/SAP area. The ICLP 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 ICLP includes: 1. Results of HCV and HCS Assessment as described in the Patch Analysis results. 2. Results of consultation of with communities including participatory mapping, discussions regarding food and water security, and consultation of the draft land use plan Food Security and Cash Producing Agriculture Crops Given the dependency of communities around the NB and SAP concession on sago and other forest products, long term food security needs to be considered when planning land conversion. Both of the Desa holding customary land rights over the NB/SAP license area are located outside the HGU boundary. Sago collection areas and vegetable gardens are for the most part located outside the HGU boundaries. However, some sago and garden areas are located inside, particularly the Dusun Sagu area south east of Sima. These areas have been surveyed on the ground and subsequently mapped as HCV 5 and recommended for conservation. Goodhope has agreed to conserve Sago areas. Figure 17 shows the results of the sago survey carried out at Sima (red dots indicate plots with sago clusters, green dots without). 83

84 Figure 17. Results of Sago Area Survey at Sima Dusun Sagu 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. Table 27 shows the calculation of land requirement based on the guidance figure and compares it with land availability. Table 27. Population, Land Requirement for Food Security and Land Availability Desa Population Land 0.5 ha per person Total Land Area inside Desa boundary (BPS data) Land Area Overlapping on NB and SAP (Estimate) Land Requirement as % of total Desa Land Requirement as % of Desa Land Area Overlapping on NB and SAP Inside Outside Total ha ha ha % % Sima , ,222 12,312 1% 4% Wanggar Pantai ,838 8,734 1% 3% The data indicates land availability outside the NB and SAP boundary is sufficient for village food security. Using the 0.5ha per head guidance area, land requirement for food security is 757 ha which is less than 4% of the total Desa land area. 84

85 This is in line with comments received during village FGD sessions. Villagers informed that apart from sago areas which need to be conserved for both food security as well as cultural reasons, they have sufficient land for farming outside the NB/SAP boundaries 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 NB/SAP HGU boundaries, so no allocation is required for settlement expansion Community Water sources Community water sources have been identified during the participatory mapping exercise. All are located outside the HGU boundary, but have been included in the proposed HCV area which includes external HCV areas. See HCV Report for further discussion Other Land Uses Land utilised for other non agriculture activities such as fishing, hunting and timber production has also been identified during the participatory mapping exercise. These generally overlap with forest areas recommended for conservation under HCS and also under HCV 1-4. See HCV Report for further discussion Plasma Land Development Commitments NB/SAP have existing commitments to Desa Wanggar and Desa Sima communities for plasma plantation development. There are four Plasma co-operatives each with a stand-alone HGU license. In total the plasma HGU areas cover 4207 ha, of which 1314 ha (31%) has been developed for plantations and related infrastructure, which means a remaining requirement for plasma area of 2893ha. There is 1339 ha of scrub land available for development within the existing plasma boundaries, leaving a net land deficit of 1553 ha. In September 2017 (after completion of the field work), Ata Marie received letters from each of the four Plasma Plantation Co-operatives requesting continued development of plasma areas. This puts Goodhope in a difficult situation in that development of the plasma land does not align with Goodhope s NDPE policies, but FPIC processes put the land use decision in the hands of the communities. The NB/SAP situation has been presented to the HCSA High Forest Landscape working group, with the aim of getting NB/SAP being used as a test case for finding solutions for so called legacy areas. HCS procedures allow for some give and take in the development of the final land use plan. However, addressing development in high forest landscapes remains an unresolved, for example the criteria to be applied for allowing clearance (if any), and any limits on the scale of any additional clearance remain unresolved. 85

86 A compromise solution needs to be found to enable plasma plantation areas to be expanded. A case study describing a potential solution is described on pages This study should be viewed as a starting point for discussion with stakeholders Indicative Land Use Plan and Map The land use plan described in Section 10.2 is based on the patch analysis results. Table 28 shows ICLUP Area Statement - land cover and conservation recommendation based on the results of the patch analysis. Table 29 shows the land use recommendation and development status by HGU license. Main points are as follows: 1. The area recommended for conservation is 9,082 ha. This is referred to as the No Go area (red colour in the table). 2. 3,826 ha of scrub and open land is potentially available for additional development. Some of these areas are small patches in isolated locations, so the realisable area is likely to be slightly lower. 3. The Go Area totalling 11,658 ha (green colour in table) refers to the already developed (non- HCV) area of 7832 ha plus the 3,826 ha of additional undeveloped scrub and open land ha of land developed by NB/SAP (including 284 ha of existing plantations) falls inside the HCV area. This is predominantly river buffer areas. HCV management recommendations indicate that these areas can be maintained as production area under certain management stipulations. These are referred to as Conditional Go area (orange colour in the table). 5. Cells coloured grey in Table 28 are where the area figure should logically be zero. 6. Developed areas in Table 29 refer to Oil Palm and plantation road, roads and Infrastructure and Amenities. Figure 18 shows the ICLUP Map including the areas recommended for conservation. 86

87 Table 28. ICLUP Area Statement and Land Use Recommendation Non-HCV /HCS HCV Only NB SAP Combined Overlap HCS Non-HCV HCV Overlap HCS Non-HCV HCV Overlap HCV/HCS Only Total /HCS Only HCV/HCS Only Total /HCS Only HCV/HCS Land Cover ha Forest 0 0 2, , , , , ,600 Young Regenerating Forest 0 0 2, , , , , ,119 Agriculture Open Land Scrub Scrub (Reverting LC) 2, , ,047 3, ,497 Water body Settlements Oil Palm and plantation road 7, , , ,990 Roads Infrastructure and Amenities Total 9, , ,609 1, , ,437 11, , ,046 HCS Only Total 87

88 Table 29. Proposed Land Use by HGU and Development Status NB SAP Total HGU & Proposed Land Use Developed Un- Developed Total Developed Un- Developed Total Developed Un- Developed Total % of HGU Inti 6,602 5,096 11, ,919 5,141 6,824 10,015 16, % Go Area: 6,363 1,476 7, ,011 1,231 6,583 2,487 9,070 54% Conditional Go Area: % No Go Area: 0 3,620 3, ,908 3, ,528 7,528 45% Plasma Suku Akaba % Go Area: % Conditional Go Area: % No Go Area: % Plasma Suku Sarakwari & Koroba % Go Area: % Conditional Go Area: % No Go Area: % Plasma Suku Waoha 491 1,055 1, ,055 1, % Go Area: , ,264 82% Conditional Go Area: % No Go Area: % Plasma Suku Wate Asiaina % Go Area: % Conditional Go Area: % No Go Area: % TOTAL 7,518 7,091 14, ,817 6,437 8,138 12,908 21, % Go Area: 7,247 2,570 9, ,256 1,841 7,832 3,826 11,658 55% Conditional Go Area: % No Go Area: 0 4,521 4, ,561 4, ,082 9,082 43% Plasma Combined 916 1,995 2, ,296 1,314 2,893 4, % Go Area: 884 1,094 1, ,249 1,339 2,588 62% Conditional Go Area: % No Go Area: ,553 1,553 37% Note: Developed areas refer to the following land cover classes: Oil Palm and plantation road, Roads and Infrastructure and Amenities. 88

89 Figure 18. Integrated Land Use Plan based on Patch Analysis Results 89

90 Case Study: Alternative Solution for Plasma Land Development Commitments Case Study: Alternative Solution for Plasma Land Development Commitments Background NB/SAP have existing commitments to Desa Wanggar and Desa Sima communities for plasma plantation development. There are four Plasma co-operatives each with a stand-alone HGU license. In total the plasma HGU areas cover 4207 ha, of which 1314 ha (31%) has been developed for plantations and related infrastructure, which means a remaining requirement for plasma area of 2893ha. There is 1339 ha of scrub land available for development within the existing plasma boundaries, leaving a net land deficit of 1553 ha. Figure 19 shows the land cover condition in land controlled by each of the four Co-operatives. There is a big difference in the level of development between the co-operatives. The Akaba and the Sarakwari & Koroba co-operatives are the least developed. Figure 19. Land Cover Condition (ha) in Each of the Four Plasma Co-operative Areas In September 2017 (after completion of the field work), Ata Marie received letters from each of the four Plasma Plantation Co-operatives requesting continued development of plasma areas. This puts Goodhope in a difficult situation in that development of the plasma land does not align with Goodhope s NDPE policies, but FPIC processes put the land use decision in the hands of the communities. A compromise solution needs to be found to enable plasma plantation areas to be expanded. Figure 20 shows the location of the four Co-operative areas and the land cover condition (yellow is planted area and light blue is scrub). 90

91 Case Study: Alternative Solution for Plasma Land Development Commitments The NB/SAP situation has been presented to the HCSA High Forest Landscape working group, with the aim of getting NB/SAP being used as a test case for finding solutions for so called legacy areas. HCS procedures allow for some give and take in the development of the final land use plan. However, the issue of allowing additional clearance remains unresolved. The alternative plans described below are a starting point for discussion with stakeholders. As an initial step, Ata Marie has developed Draft for Discussion alternative development plans for the co-operatives focussing on finding a compromise solution for increasing the planted area to a level nearing the commitments made. These drafts are presented in the following sub sections. Additional land for development has been identified using the follow steps: 1. YRF within the plasma HGU boundary and also within a high-risk zone following HCS risk criteria (1 km buffer along the main highway) has been identified. These areas are under threat from on-going deforestation/degradation, currently primarily from illegal loggers. 2. YRF within the inti zone that falls inside the high-risk buffer zone has been identified. 3. Additional Forest/YRF in the inti zone outside the high-risk buffer zone has been identified (sufficient to approach the plasma area commitment). 4. The following areas are excluded: peat, sago, swamp areas, river buffers, steep land. 5. Minimised net reduction in the plantable inti area. Figure 20. Plasma Area Map 91

92 Case Study: Alternative Solution for Plasma Land Development Commitments Suku Akaba Plasma Co-operative Draft Alternative Plan The Suku Akaba Plasma Co-operative Area covers 839 ha (see Figure 19). This is the most dilemmatic of the four Co-operatives as they don t have any plantations established. It is the only co-operative which includes land allocated from both companies (NB 493 ha in the north east and SAP 346 ha in the south west). Land is almost 100% YRF. The north-eastern portion of the Akaba plasma area includes the Sima Dusun Sagu and also holds peat land. All parties agree that this area should be conserved. However, Forest/YRF along the main highway between Kali Bambu and the Sima turnoff continues to be targeted by illegal loggers due to easy access. Ata Marie suggests these areas could be considered for conversion. There is a deficit in plasma area of 835ha. There is 13 ha of scrub land available for development, leaving a net deficit of 822 ha. Ata Marie has identified the following areas along the main road close to Sima which could be considered to top up plasma development: ha of high risk YRF land inside the plasma zone ha of high risk YRF inside the inti zone ha of additional YRF area outside the high-risk buffer. Including these areas would bring the plantable area up to 814 ha or 97% of the original gross plasma area of 839 ha. Land bordering the dusun sagu area will require more detailed field measurement to ensure sagu areas are not included in any development plan. Table 30 shows the existing land use plan based on the patch analysis, and the alternative plan. Figure 21 shows the Draft Alternative Development Plan for the Akaba Plasma area. Table 30. Akaba Plasma Co-operative Area Existing and Alternative Development Plan Step 1: Revised Land Use Plan inside Plasma Boundary Land Use Plan from Patch Analysis Revised Land Use Plan Un- % of HGU & Proposed Land Use Developed Developed Total HGU Total % of HGU Total % % Go Area: % % Conditional Go Area: % 2 0% No Go Area: % % Step 2: Neighbouring High Risk YRF/For in Inti Zone Additional Development from Inti (High Risk) 385 ha Total Plasma Go and Conditional Go, plus High-Risk Inti Areas 630 ha Percent of Gross Committed Plasma Area 75% Remaining Land Deficit vs Gross Committed Plasma Area 208 ha Step 3: Additional Area in Inti YRF/For Additional Development from Inti (Second Priority) 184 ha Total All Areas 814 ha Percent of Gross Committed Plasma Area 97% 92

93 Case Study: Alternative Solution for Plasma Land Development Commitments Figure 21. Akaba Plasma Co-operative Area - Alternative Development Plan 93

94 Case Study: Alternative Solution for Plasma Land Development Commitments Suku Sarakwari and Koroba Plasma Co-operative The Suku Sarakwari Koroba Plasma Co-operative Area covers 951 ha and includes land allocated from NB (see Figure 19). The area is partially developed: 395 ha of existing plantation and related infrastructure (41% of plasma area). 265 ha of scrub land and reverting LC is available for further development (28%). 290 ha of residual forest (31%), which is listed as both HCV and HCS. The existing land deficit for plasma is The main highway passes through the middle of the plasma area so there is significant risk of continued forest degradation and deforestation. The YRF in the thin strip of plasma land north of the main highway is particularly high risk. Forest is already modified by previous land clearing activity, and these areas continue to be targeted by illegal loggers due to its easy access. A high-risk zone is shown on Figure 22 following HCS risk criteria (1 km from main roads). Portions of the Residual YRF in the south-east of the plasma area are also modified by previous land clearing activity and ongoing illegal logging. There is a deficit in plasma area of 556ha. There is 235 ha of scrub land available for development, leaving a net deficit of 321 ha. Ata Marie has identified the following areas along the main road close to Sima which could be considered to top up plasma development: ha of high risk YRF land inside the plasma zone ha of high risk YRF and forest land inside the inti zone Including these areas would bring the plantable area up to 941 ha or 99% of the original gross plasma area of 839 ha. Table 31 shows the existing land use plan based on the patch analysis, and the alternative plan. Figure 22 shows the Draft Alternative Development Plan for the Sarakwari and Koroba Plasma area. 94

95 Case Study: Alternative Solution for Plasma Land Development Commitments Table 31. Sarakwari & Koroba Plasma Co-operative Area Existing and Alternative Development Plan Step 1: Revised Land Use Plan inside Plasma Boundary Land Use Plan from Patch Analysis Revised Land Use Plan Un- % of HGU & Proposed Land Use Developed Developed Total HGU Total % of HGU Total % % Go Area: % % Conditional Go Area: % 32 3% No Go Area: % % Step 2: Neighbouring High Risk YRF/For in Inti Zone Additional Development from Inti (High Risk) 149 ha Total Plasma Go and Conditional Go, plus High-Risk Inti Areas 941 ha Percent of Gross Commited Plasma Area 99% 95

96 Case Study: Alternative Solution for Plasma Land Development Commitments Figure 22. Sarakwari and Koroba Plasma Co-operative Area - Alternative Development Plan 96