landscape baseline analysis plan...burlington, vt 05402 tetra tech contacts: reed merrill, chief of...

LANDSCAPE BASELINE ANALYSIS PLAN

SEPTEMBER 2015

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Tetra Tech ARD.

This publication was prepared for review by the United States Agency for International Development under Contract # AID-497-TO-15-00005. The period of this contract is from July 2015 to July 2020. Implemented by:

Tetra Tech P.O. Box 1397 Burlington, VT 05402

Tetra Tech Contacts:

Reed Merrill, Chief of Party [email protected]

Matthew Edwardsen, Project Manager [email protected]

Cover Photograph: Clockwise from left: Map of Katingan – Kahayan Landscape in Central Kalimantan and map of Leuser Landscape in Aceh.

mailto:[email protected]

USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Assessment Plan. September, 2015 P a g e | 1

LANDSCAPE BASELINE ANALYSIS PLAN

SEPTEMBER 2015

DISCLAIMER

This publication is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Tetra Tech ARD and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.


TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ 2

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3

Pendahuluan ....................................................................................................................... 6

1. Delineation of LESTARI Landscapes ............................................................................. 9 1.1 Definition of Landscape Terms ................................................................................ 9 1.2 Delineation of Value Landscapes ........................................................................... 10 1.3 Delineation of Operational Landscapes ................................................................. 10 1.4 Aligning LESTARI Project Targets With GoI Commitments ................................. 11

2. Landscape Descriptions ............................................................................................... 14 2.1 Leuser Landscape – Aceh....................................................................................... 14 2.2 Katingan – Kahayan Landscape ............................................................................. 18 2.3 Lorentz Lowlands (Mimika and Asmat) Landscape .............................................. 22 2.4 Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape ........................................................................ 25 2.5 Sarmi Landscape ..................................................................................................... 28 2.6 Cyclops Landscape ................................................................................................. 31

3. Baseline Deforestation and GHG Emissions .............................................................. 34 3.1 Baseline Methodology ............................................................................................. 34 3.2 Projected Baseline Scenario ................................................................................... 37

4. Landscape Approach and Priorities for Action........................................................... 40 4.1 The Landscape Approach ....................................................................................... 40 4.2 Key Activities based on landscape themes and landscape baseline analysis ... 42

5. Future LBA Improvements And LBA Utility ................................................................ 56 5.1 Future Work to Refine Baseline .............................................................................. 56 5.2 LBA Utility beyond project planning ...................................................................... 58

APPENDIX 1 – Major Private Sector Stakeholders within Operational Landscapes .... 60

APPENDIX 2 . Example of Historical Land Transitions (2006 – 2013) and Annual Emissions for Katingan – Kahayan Landscape .............................................................. 66

APPENDIX 3. Projected Baseline Land Transitions (2014 – 2020) and Annual Emissions for Katingan – Kahayan Landscape .............................................................. 76


INTRODUCTION USAID LESTARI supports the Government of Indonesia to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and conserve biodiversity in carbon rich and biologically significant forest and mangrove ecosystems. Built on the strong foundation of USAID’s IFACS project, LESTARI applies a landscape approach to reduce GHG emissions, integrating forest and peatland conservation with low emissions development (LEDS) on other, already degraded land. This is achieved through improved land use governance, enhanced protected areas management and protection of key species, sustainable private sector and industry practices, and expanded constituencies for conservation among various stakeholders. LESTARI is implemented under the leadership of Tetra Tech and a consortium of partners including WWF-Indonesia, Winrock International, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Blue Forests, Yayasan Sahabat Cipta, PT Hydro South Pole Carbon, Sustainable Travel International (STI), Michigan State University, and the FIELD Foundation. LESTARI runs from August 2015 through July 2020.

LESTARI activities are targeted in six strategic landscapes on three of Indonesia’s largest islands, where primary forest cover remains most intact and carbon stocks are greatest. In northern Sumatra, the Leuser Landscape comprises significant portions of Aceh Selatan, Gayo Lues, Aceh Tenggara, and Aceh Barat Daya districts, and includes the Aceh portion of Leuser National Park and Singkil Wildlife Sanctuary. In Central Kalimantan, LESTARI works in the Katingan-Kahayan Landscape, comprising Pulang Pisau, Katingan, and Gunung Mas districts; Palangkaraya municipality; and Sebangau and Bukit Baka Bukit Raya National Parks. LESTARI also works in four landscapes in Papua. Sarmi and Cyclops Landscapes are located along the northern coast and comprise Sarmi district as well as Jayapura district and municipality. The Lorentz Lowlands Landscape, comprising Mimika and Asmat districts plus a large portion of Lorentz National Park, and the Mappi-Bouven Digoel Landscape are located along Papua’s southern coast. LESTARI is managed from its headquarters in Jakarta, with offices in each landscape as well as the provincial capitals of Aceh, Central Kalimantan, and Papua.

Overall Results of LESTARI are:

1. At least 41% of total CO2-equivalent emissions reduced from land use, land use change and deforestation averaged across all landscapes within the project scope;

2. At least 8.42 Million hectares of primary or secondary forest, including orangutan habitat, under improved management;

3. Management of at least six conservation areas improved, resulting in the conservation of valuable orangutan and other key species habitat, and the reduction in poaching of threatened and endemic species;

4. At least ten public-private partnerships (PPPs) promoting low-emissions conservation oriented development established;

5. Funding leveraged from public and private sources, representing co-investment in project outcomes;

6. Increased commitment of key private sector, government, and community stakeholders regarding the positive benefits of conservation and sustainable use of forests and the species they encompass;


7. Policies, laws, regulations, and procedures in support of low emission development and forest conservation and management increased, promulgated, and enforced at all levels; and

8. Models for successful integration of district, provincial, and national low emissions development and forest conservation strategies developed and shared at all levels of government and with other key stakeholders.

At least 41% of total CO2-equivalent emissions will be reduced from land use, land use change and deforestation averaged across all landscapes within the project scope, based on the use of the IPCC Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, and taking into consideration appropriate relevant national or subnational methods. Actual methods used for the calculation of emissions reductions including baselines and reference levels will be agreed upon in the development of the performance monitoring plan.

Given LESTARI’s ambitious targets, it is important that the project understand the nature of the landscapes and clearly identify areas where each of the priority targets can be achieved. The Landscape Baseline Analysis (LBA) Plan serves to clearly describe where opportunities and challenges lie in the landscape and how tasks under each of the components are integrated and work together to achieve landscape-wide conservation of wide ranging species and ecosystems to ultimately reduce emissions. More importantly, the LBA serves as a foundational document to engage stakeholders and gain their inputs and ownership of LESTARI landscapes, the areas that are being targeted for improved management and the targets for GHG emissions reductions in the forestry and land use sector. A summary of the target landscape outcomes is below:

Key LESTARI Landscape Outcomes

LESTARI Landscape Areas Under Improved

Management (ha) Reduced Emissions

(Mio t.CO2-eq)

Leuser Landscape 1,257,650 7,980,758

Katingan – Kahayan Landscape 2,938,786 55,644,567

Lorentz Lowlands Landscape 4,533,299 16,716,299

Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape 2,240,882 13,847,379

Sarmi Landscape 986,328 1,368,478

Cyclops Landscape 36,056 111,367

Totals 11,993,001 96,461,704

The LBA is a foundational document for setting ambitious targets for the LESTARI project, and contributes substantially to the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for annualized and LOP targets, as well as Work Plans. Specifically, the LBA defines:

The LESTARI landscapes and terminology that will be used throughout the project of where we work and how we measure GHG emission reductions (impacts)

Historical deforestation and degradation rates

Landscape Conservation Areas and their legal status

Land use status of other high conservation value areas


Historical baseline emissions from land use change, and land use on peat lands

Projected emissions into the future under a “business as usual” (BAU) scenario (Reference Emission Level – REL)

Potential priority areas and management that targets reduced emissions in the landscape

This LBA document is divided into six key sections. The first addresses LESTARI’s delineation of value and operational landscapes, as well as the project’s overall targets. This is followed by biogeographic descriptions of the 6 LESTARI landscapes. The third section details the methodology for calculating baseline deforestation and GHG emissions in target landscapes and illustrates emissions reductions under LESTARI. The fourth section uses this information to guide priority activities in each LESTARI landscape. The document concludes with limitations to baseline data and methodology, and the utility of this LBA as a foundational document that builds enthusiasm and buy-in from stakeholders.


PENDAHULUAN Proyek USAID LESTARI adalah proyek yang mendukung Pemerintah Indonesia (GOI) dalam upaya menurunkan emisi gas rumah kaca (GHG) dan melestarikan keanekaragaman hayati yang kaya karbon dan melestarikan ekosistem hutan dan hutan bakau yang bermakna secara biologis. Dibangun di atas fondasi proyek sebelumnya yang sudah kuat, yakni USAID IFACS, maka proyek LESTARI menerapkan pendekatan lanskap untuk menurunkan emisi GHG, mengintegrasikan konservasi hutan dan lahan gambut dengan pembangunan emisi rendah (LEDS) pada lahan lain yang sudah mengalami kerusakan. Upaya ini bisa dicapai melalui perbaikan tata kelola pemanfaatan lahan, perbaikan pengelolaan hutan lindung dan perlindungan spesies hewan utama, praktik sektor swasta dan industri yang berkelanjutan, dan perluasan dukungan bagi kegiatan konservasi di antara berbagai pemangku kepentingan. LESTARI dilaksanakan dengan dipimpin oleh Tetra Tech dan suatu konsorsium kerjasama kemitraan WWF-Indonesia, Winrock International, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Blue Forests, Yayasan Sahabat Cipta, PT Hydro South Pole Carbon, Sustainable Travel International (STI), Michigan State University, dan FIELD Foundation. LESTARI bekerja dari Agustus 2015 hingga Juli 2020.

Kegiatan LESTARI dilaksanakan di enam lanskap strategis di tiga pulau terbesar Indonesia, yang memiliki sebagian tutupan hutan primer yang masih utuh dan memiliki simpanan karbon terbesar. Di Sumatra bagian utara, Lanskap Leuser mencakup Kabupaten Aceh Selatan, Gayo Lues, Aceh Tenggara dan Aceh Barat Daya, termasuk Taman Nasional Leuser dan Suaka Margasatwa Rawa Singkil. Di Kalimantan Tengah, LESTARI bekerja di Lanskap Katingan-Kahayan, yang mencakup Kabupaten Pulang Pisau, Katingan dan Gunung Mas, Kotamadya Palangkaraya, dan Taman Nasional Sebangau dan Taman Nasional Bukit Baka Bukit Raya. LESTARI juga bekerja di empat lanskap di Papua. Lanskap Sarmi dan Cyclops terletak sepanjang pesisir utara. Lanskap Lorentz Lowlands, mencakup Kabupaten Mimika dan Asmat ditambah sebagian dari Taman Nasional Lorentz, dan Lanskap Mappi-Bouven Digoel yang terletak di pesisir selatan Papua. LESTARI memiliki kantor pusat di Jakarta, dengan kantor cabang di setiap lansekap dan di ibukota provinsi Aceh, Kalimantan Tengah dan Papua.

Hasil Umum dari LESTARI adalah:

1. Paling sedikit menurunkan 41% dari total emisi ekivalen CO2- dari kegiatan pemanfaatan lahan dan menurunkan rata-rata laju deforestasi lintas lanskap yang tercakup dalam ruang lingkup proyek;

2. Setidak-tidaknya terdapat 8,42 juta hektar hutan primer atau sekunder, termasuk habitat orangutan, yang dikelola lebih baik;

3. Perbaikan manajemen paling tidak, di enam wilayah konservasi, yang menghasilkan penyelamatan dan pelestarian orangutan yang berharga dan habitat spesies, dan mengurangi perburuan liar terhadap hewan spesies endemik;

4. Paling tidak terdapat sepuluh kemitraan antara swasta-pemerintah (PPP) yang mendorong pembangunan yang berorientasi pada konservasi beremisi rendah;

5. Penggalangan dana dari sumber pemerintah dan swasta, mencerminkan investasi bersama dalam menentukan keberhasilan proyek;

6. Meningkatnya komitmen dari para pemangku kepentingan dari sektor swasta, pemerintah dan masyarakat untuk mendukung konservasi yang menghasilkan manfaat positif dan pemanfaatan hutan yang berkelanjutan berikut spesies yang hidup di hutan;


7. Kebijakan, undang-undang, peraturan, dan prosedur -yang mendukung pembangunan emisi rendah dan mendukung perbaikan konservasi dan pengelolaan hutan- disahkan dan dijalankan di semua jenjang; dan

8. Model yang berhasil untuk mengintegrasikan pembangunan di tingkat kabupaten, provinsi dan di tingkat nasional dan menyusun strategi konservasi yang dibagi pada semua jenjang tingkat pemerintah dan pemangku kepentingan kunci lainnya.

Paling sedikit akan menurunkan sebesar 41 % dari total emisi ekivalen CO2- yang terkait kegiatan pemanfaatan lahan dan menurunkan rata-rata laju deforestasi lintas lanskap yang tercakup dalam ruang lingkup proyek, dengan mengacu pada ketentuan IPCC Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, dan dengan mempertimbangkan metode yang cocok pada tingkat nasional dan daerah. Metode yang sesungguhnya digunakan dalam menghitung pengurangan emisi mencakup data dasar dengan menggunakan tingkat referensi yang disepakati pada saat menyusun rencana monitoring kinerja.

Mengingat target LESTARI yang ambisius, maka penting diingat bahwa proyek ini perlu memahami sifat alamiah lanskap di daerah target dan secara jelas mengidentifikasi di daerah mana tiap target dapat dicapai. Rencana Analisis Data Dasar Lanskap atau Landscape Baseline Analysis (LBA) digunakan untuk menentukan di mana terdapat peluang dan tantangan di daerah target lanskap dan bagaimana tugas-tugas yang berada di bawah tiap komponen dapat diintegrasikan dan dapat bekerja sama untuk mencapai konservasi beragam spesies yang luas di eksositem pada seluruh lanskap yang pada akhirnya akan menurunkan emisi. Yang lebih penting lagi adalah LBA digunakan sebagai dokumen dasar untuk melibatkan para pemangku kepentingan dan menggali masukan dari mereka serta memperkuat rasa kepemilikan terhadap lanskap LESTARI, di wilayah yang menjadi target untuk perbaikan manajemen dan di wilayah yang menjadi sasaran untuk pengurangan emisi gas rumah kaca pada setor kehutanan dan sektor pemanfataan lahan. Berikut adalah rangkuman target hasil dari Lanskap LESTARI:

Hasil Utama Lanskap LESTARI

Lanskap LESTARI Wilayah yang diperbaiki

manajemennya (ha) Emisi yang dikurangi

(Mio t.CO2-eq)

Lanskap Leuser 1,257,650 7,980,758

Lanskap Katingan – Kahayan 2,938,786 55,644,567

Lanskap Lorentz Lowlands 4,533,299 16,716,299

Lanskap Mappi – Bouven Digoel 2,240,882 13,847,379

Lanskap Sarmi 986,328 1,368,478

Lanskap Cyclops 36,056 111,367

Total 11,993,001 96,461,704

Dokumen LBA merupakan dokumen dasar untuk menentukan target yang ambisius bagi proyek LESTARI dan menjadi bahan masukan yang cukup siginifikan untuk Rencana Monitoring dan Evaluasi dalam menentukan target tahunan dan target LOP dan rencana kerja


Secara khusus, dokumen LBA menentukan:

Wilayah Lanskap LESTARI dan terminologi apa saja yang digunakan dalam proyek ini, mencakup wilayah kerja kami dan bagaimana kami mengukutu emisi gas rumah kaca (dampaknya)

Riwayat Laju kerusakan hutan (deforestasi) dan degradasi hutan

Wilayah Konservasi Lanskap dan status hukumnya

Status pemanfaatan lahan pada lahan yang masuk dalam wilayah yang bernilai konservasi tinggi

Riwayat data dasar emisi akibat dari perubahan pemanfaatan lahan, dan pemnfaatan lahan dari lahan gambut.

Proyeksi tingkat emisi di masa depan, jika dengan kondisi yang tidak dilakukan tindakan apapun atau skenario “business as usual” (BAU) (Reference Emission Level – REL tingkat emisi yang menjadi acuan)

Wilayah dan bidang manajemen yang kemungkinan akan menjadi prioritas target untuk mengurangi tingkat emisi pada lanskap target.

Dokumen LBA ini dibagi dalam enam bagian pokok. Bagian pertama membahas definisi dari nilai lanskap dan operasional lanskap LESTARI selain target dari keseluruhan proyek. Kemudian bagian selanjutnya disajikan deskripsi secara biogeografis dari enam lanskap LESTARI. Bagian ke tiga memerinci metodologi untuk menghitung data dasar laju deforestasi dan emisi gas rumah kaca pada lanskap target dan bagaimana menggambarkan pengurangan emisi dalam proyek LESTARI. Bagian ke empat yang menggunakan informasi dari bagian tiga, akan memberi arah pada kegiatan prioritas di tiap lanskap LESTARI. Pada bagian akhir dokumen LBA memaparkan keterbatasan yang terdapat dalam menggunakan data dasar dan metodologi, pemanfaatan LBA sebagai dokumen fondasi yang membangun rasa antusiusme dan dukungan dari para pemangku kepentingan.


1. DELINEATION OF LESTARI LANDSCAPES LESTARI proposes to work in 6 landscapes in Aceh, Kalimantan, and Papua that build off of the areas where IFACS implemented its activities—the IFACS landscapes. LESTARI is charged with attaining ambitious results in sustainable landscapes measured in terms of improved management of high conservation value forest, and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A definition of landscapes—where the LESTARI project will work, and where it will measure impact is the first important step in developing the landscape baseline analysis plan.

1.1 Definition of Landscape Terms

The delineation of landscapes is a critical process that affects where and how LESTARI activities will be implemented on the ground, and where the impact of these activities is measured. LESTARI proposes the application of the terms “value landscapes” and “operational landscapes”.

Value Landscapes (VL) lie entirely within the larger LESTARI Operational Landscapes and are defined as the areas where LESTARI seeks to reduce deforestation and forest degradation. VLs are delineated by the current extent of primary forest, secondary forest, and peatlands (whether forested or not). All reductions in deforestation and reduced emission levels resulting from LESTARI activities will be calculated by measuring changes to VL’s extent, composition, and land use on peat soils.

Operational Landscapes (OL) are larger regions that encompass VLs. OLs include the forests and peatlands of VLs, and the surrounding deforested and degraded areas occupied by communities. Reference Emission Levels are calculated in OLs to capture land use change through deforestation and degradation – the growth or reduction in size of VLs within OLs. LESTARI will work with communities in the degraded portions of OLs because these populations have a direct impact on adjacent VLs. In the LESTARI landscapes, degraded areas within the operational landscapes have sequestered GHG gases but the climate change mitigation contribution when compared to emissions from deforestation is insignificant and LESTARI will not prioritize reforestation for GHG sequestration to meet its targets..

Schematic of generic LESTARI landscape


1.2 Delineation of Value Landscapes

The value and operational landscapes were adapted from those delineated for the USAID IFACS project. Value landscapes were delineated through a step-wise approach that considered conservation management and biophysical approaches. As LESTARI includes an improved conservation area (CA) management component, the nuclei of most landscapes are the major conservation and other protected areas within the USAID IFACS landscapes. In Aceh, the Leuser National Park is the focal point of the landscape. In Central Kalimantan, Sebangau and Bukit Baka Bukit Raya National Parks are the focus of the Katingan-Kahayan Landscape. In Papua, the Lorentz National Park and protected mangroves in southern Papua and Cyclops Nature Reserve in the north are the primary conservation targets.

Areas surrounding these CAs, where improved management will also need to be implemented, are included in the VL. These areas have been defined as primary forest, secondary forest, and peatlands contiguous and adjoining CAs that are thought to provide an important support function for biodiversity (i.e. an extension of the home range for key species found in the CAs). Essentially, this entailed a biophysical approach that included adjoining forest covered watersheds in upland areas and constituted conservation area buffer zones where activities would focus on reducing pressure on these CAs. Further, the value landscape has been extended to include forest and peatlands contiguous to these buffer zones. Where CAs existed in the tidal lowlands such as Singkil wildlife sanctuary and Lorentz National Park, the forest buffer zones took on less importance as consideration of hydrological units in these peatland areas is of greater importance. In these instances, the river formed the boundary of the value landscape.

Technical Component 3 involves working to improve private sector and industry practices and was also an important consideration in defining the VLs. This component aims to modify business practices and natural resource based businesses within the targeted landscapes so that they evolve a low emissions and high conservation value (HCV) forest conservation trajectory. Forest concessions are becoming increasingly important for biodiversity conservation as forest loss is often less in these areas compared to “open access” forested lands without formal management. The application of best management practices (BMPs) and management and conserve of HCV areas within concessionaires can reduce impact on wildlife and its habitat and reduce emissions. Private sector and industrial practices that are most prevalent in the selected areas include oil palm development and the timber industry (Katingan – Kahayan Landscape and Leuser Landscape).

A summary of the priority factors used to delineated value landscapes are as follows:

1. Primary and secondary forest, and land cover type on peat lands

2. National Parks and other conservation areas (CAs)

3. Contiguous forests and peatlands adjacent to CAs bounded by watersheds (uplands) and hydrological unit boundaries (tidal lowlands)

4. Forested areas within and adjacent to private sector concessions

1.3 Delineation of Operational Landscapes

The operational landscape takes into consideration other components of the LESTARI project. Given that Technical Component 1, Improved Land Use Governance, needs to address land use decision-making that results in forest loss, and that local governments must contribute to the GoI emissions reduction targets and implement low-emission


development strategies including climate smart spatial planning, LESTARI OLs are inclusive of priority jurisdictions (district and municipal) and largely follow these boundaries. Technical Component 4 attempts to build constituencies for conservation and address the threat of encroachment and unsustainable natural resources management by communities and disenfranchised groups. Building constituencies underlines all other technical components to ensure good environmental governance, improved management of conservation areas, as well as improved private sector practices. This can only be done through the development of common concern entry points—a sustainable landscape vision that resonates with all local stakeholders in the ‘landscape’ (see section on landscape approach below). The operational landscape therefore takes into account landscapes that resonate with constituents and are drawn along the lines of cultural and ethnic identity. Again, key factors that are used include the provincial and district boundaries and village distribution. In the Lorentz Landscape we have delineated the operational landscape along the “lowlands” defined by an arbitrary 200m above sea level to differentiate the landscape from traditional groups that inhabit the highlands.

Where the value landscape includes small portions of a district and that the district as a whole does not have a major impact on the VL (such as in the Katingan – Kahayan landscape that includes part of a peat dome that is a priority are for conservation under a ecosystem restoration concession), the OL has followed and includes the lower-level administration units, i.e. villages. Villages that can have an impact on forest within the VL are included in the OL.

Where the VL could potentially be extended into neighboring provinces, such as from Acehnese Leuser into North Sumatra, the western part of Mimika / Lorentz Landscape that is connected to forest in West Papua and the northern boundary of the Katingan – Kahayan Landscape), the provincial boundary acts as the LESTARI operational boundary. In the case of Kalimantan and Aceh Landscapes, the provincial boundaries also approximate the watershed and are therefore consistent with factors defining the value landscape.

A summary of priority factors used to delineate operational landscapes is as follows:

1. District and municipality boundaries

2. Village distribution and communities that are likely to have an impact of the value landscape

3. Provincial boundaries

4. Ethnic and community traditional areas

1.4 Aligning LESTARI Project Targets With GoI Commitments

The Government of Indonesia has committed to reducing GHG emissions by 26% below the business as usual condition (baseline) by 2020 unilaterally, and up to 41% below the baseline with bi-lateral or international assistance.


National Appropriate Mitigation Actions for \ Meeting National Emission Reduction Targets (from

Guideline for Implementing Green House Gas Emission Reduction Action Plan (Translated English Version), Ministry of National Development Planning/ National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS), 2011)

The GHG emission reductions that must be reported up from the focal districts to the province and national levels will be measured across all sectors and land types by local governments. The 3 main strategies for the government to achieve its emission reduction targets by 2020 in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Sector (AFOLU) is through:

1. Sustainable peatland management

2. Reduction of deforestation and land degradation levels

3. Carbon sequestration development

LESTARI will work within the same time frame as the GoI commitments and has adopted the same targets of working towards 41% reduction of Baseline emissions by 2020. As such the project can effectively harmonize efforts with the GoI within the LESTARI landscapes. A thorough understanding of where LESTARI will contribute to the GoI targets and how this relates to the proposed landscapes is key.

Governance and constituency building components of LESTARI (1 & 4) may not directly impact land use or management, but promote the three main themes above. These components deliver assistance in the wider operational landscape (including the value landscape) where GHG emission reductions as a whole are to be measured, contributing to the 26% GHG emission reduction commitment. Reducing emissions by 26% below the baseline is an enormous task. The sustainable landscape vision developed through Multi-stakeholder Forums and other local partners will be key in encouraging the government to achieve this commitment within LESTARI OLs. Grants and subcontracts working on community livelihoods that indirectly impact reduced emissions will also be measured within this commitment bracket.

Areas that are directly impacted by the project by improving the capacity and management of stakeholders charged with land management will be monitored for reduction in GHG


emissions that contribute to the 41% commitment bracket. This will predominantly be where component 2 and 3 of LESTARI interface with National Park authorities, BKSDA, local communities and the private sector through direct technical assistance and project implementation, or through grants and subcontracts. As land managers are only indicative at present (i.e. national park authorities and certain private sector entities), reduced emissions through LESTARI direct interventions with these actors will be measured as and when partnerships are developed and thus attributed to the project.


2. LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTIONS This chapter describes the value landscapes where LESTARI aims to reduce deforestation and GHG emissions, and the operational landscapes in which the majority of activities will take place.

2.1 Leuser Landscape – Aceh

The LESTARI landscape in Aceh has combined the IFACS Aceh Tenggara and Aceh Selatan landscapes into one. As well as being at the request of local stakeholders to improve social and political cohesion, there is only one focal national park shared between these IFACS landscapes. Management from one area can affect other areas, and so it is strategic to treat the Leuser National Park and surrounding areas as a single landscape. Other areas where there is diviation from the IFACS landscape are described below.

The LESTARI Leuser value landscape is largely defined by the Leuser National Park and contains large tracts of lowland and montane forests supporting Sumatran mega diversity and key species (tiger, elephant, rhino, and orangutans). The landscape includes at least 375,000 ha of orangutan habitat. Forested buffer zones surrounding the national park are delineated by watersheds and are currently gazetted as protection and production forests.

While the national park is located in two provinces, the 627,000 ha of park located in Aceh province is included within the value landscape and areas within North Sumatra are excluded. The Singkil Wildlife Reserve in its entirety is included in the VL as well as forested areas connecting the reserve to the national park (that also encompasses the Trumon corridor). Gayo Lues has significant areas of pine forests that are to be managed commercially in the near future. These pine forests and forested uplands in northern Gayo Lues are also included in the VL.

The operational landscape is largely defined by the district boundary of Gayo Lues, Aceh Tenggara, and Aceh Selatan. A significant proportion of Aceh Barat Daya and the adjacent villages that have an impact on forest conservation within the VL are also included in the OL and will be targeted for activities to reduce pressure on the national park and surrounding forested watersheds. A small fraction of Singkil and Subussalam districts are included in the operational landscape to allow activities in villages and communities that may impact the Singkil Wildlife Reserve and are located along the Singkil River.


Leuser Landscape in Figures (condition in 2013)

Operational Landscape Area (Ha)

Value Landscape Components (ha)

Primary Dryland Forest

Secondary Dryland Forest

Primary Swamp Forest

Secondary Swamp Forest

Non-Forested Peatland

Total Peatland

Total Value Landscape

1,593,657 691,520 433,066 8,541 76,506 48,017 125,783 1,257,650

Conservation Areas

Leuser National Park

705,683 ha within value landscape. Leuser was set up in 1980 with an area of 792,675 ha. Later extended to 1,094,692 ha in 1997 (SK No. 276/kpts-VI/1997). However the original boundaries are those use in the landscape as the extended boundaries have never been finalized at the local level.

Singkil Wildlife Reserve

102,500 ha 100% of areas within the LESTARI Leuser landscape. Set up in 1998 to protect wildlife, especially high densities of orang utan (SK No. 166/Kpts-II/1998)


Figure 1. LESTARI Leuser Landscapes, Aceh Province Operational Landscape


Figure 2. LESTARI Leuser Landscapes, Aceh Province Value Landscape


2.2 Katingan – Kahayan Landscape

The Katingan – Kahayan Landscape is largely based on the IFACS Katingan landscape but has incorporated several key differences. First the landscape has been designed on sound hydrological and forest connectivity approaches. Listening to local stakeholders that wanted to have more inclusivity, the landscape has been extended. Factors important in maintaining sustainable landscapes such as local stakeholder and community distribution patterns have also been included. In total, the landscape in Central Kalimantan is very different from the IFACS landscape and also from that discussed in the Tetra Tech proposal.

The value landscape in Central Kalimantan is dominated by the Sebangau National Park that is included in its entirety, and surrounding peatlands adjoining it. Because of local stakeholder requests, the Katingan – Kahayan Landscape has been extended to include the Central Kalimantan portion of the Bukit Baka Bukit Raya National Park (BBBR). USAID IFACS has worked with three concessions surrounding this CA and the VL has been expanded to include the cluster of private sector timber concessions that will be managed as a ‘nested sub-landscape’ within the broader Katingan – Kahayan Landscape.

Other dominant features of the Central Kalimantan landscape are the Katingan and Kahayan Rivers that give the landscape its name. The value landscape therefore includes important forest and peat lands within river catchments that provide connectivity between the Sebangau and BBBR National Parks sub-landscapes. This means that a large part of Gunung Mas District is included in the VL.

Another important private sector partner for USAID IFACS in the Katingan watershed was PT Rimba Makmur Utama (RMU). This company has been granted a 103,000-hectare ecosystem restoration (ER) license on the eastern half of peat dome that lies between the Katingan and Seruyun Rivers. The Katingan – Kahayan VL includes the western half of this peat dome as an important target for conservation until an ER license can be granted for this area.

Important areas of forest contiguous with the BBBR National Park, and that connect with the Sebangau National Park in the south, are included in the VL. A large portion of these forests is located in Gunung Mas District. This is a departure from the Tetra Tech proposal and USAID IFACS landscape. It is designed to provide sustainable impacts to the interconnected value landscape.

The operational landscape is defined by Katingan and Pulang Pisau districts as well as Palangkaraya municipality. Gunung Mas district is also included within the operational landscape, for the reasons above. Similar to the Leuser Landscape, villages surrounding important conservation targets in adjacent neighboring districts are included in the operational landscape. Villages located along the Seruyun River and that impact the proposed extension of the ER site west of RMU are included in the Katingan – Kahayan operational landscape.


Katingan – Kahayan Landscape Figures (situation in 2013)








Total Peat Total Value Landscape

4,517,549 277,532 962,882 7,131 1,069,047 610,226 1,400,385 2,938,786

Protected Areas

Sebangau National Park

540,820 ha (100% of national park within the landscape. The park was gazetted in 2004 (SK.423/Menhut-II/2004) covering a total area of 568,700 hectares. There have been several minor changes to the park boundaries that require clarification. The area was previously production forest and suffered high levels of illegal logging. An extension to the parks boundaries has been proposed by central government (57,771ha).

Bukit Baka Bukit Raya National Park

The park was set up in 1992 covering 181,090 hectares (SK NO. 281/Kpts-II/1992. 128,858 ha lies in Katingan District (within the LESTARI operation and value landscape) and the reminder in Melawi and Sintang Districts in West Kalimantan province (outside of the landscape)


Figure 3. Katingan – Kahayan Operational Landscape


Figure 4. Katingan – Kahayan Value Landscape


2.3 Lorentz Lowlands (Mimika and Asmat) Landscape

The IFACS Asmat and Mimika landscapes have been combined into a single Lorentz Lowlands Landscape. The areas included in these two districts are superficially similar to the IFACS landscape. Previously, Tetra Tech proposed to extend the Asmat landscape east into Mappi and Bouven Digoel. However Asmat and Mimika share many common characteristics such as ecosystems and similar cultures that are not found in Mappi and Bouven Digoel. Alos, the Lorentz national park provides a shared centerpiece in the landscape. The proposal to treat Mimika- Asmat and Mappi-Bouven Digoel as separate landscapes was made.

Defining landscapes in Papua has been simpler than in Aceh and Kalimantan. USAID IFACS followed a simple district approach, with one focal district in each landscape. The LESTARI value landscapes in southern Papua are a significant revision of IFACS Mimika and Asmat landscapes. As there is a focus on and contiguity with mangroves and Lorentz National Park CAs between Mimika and Asmat districts, the “Lorentz” Lowlands (defined by an arbitrary upper elevation of 200m above sea level) combines the forest within the two districts into a single value landscape. The Lorentz Lowlands therefore consist of largely intact upland (free draining, mineral soil) forests in the northern parts of the landscape, extensive lowland swamp forests, and mangrove ecosystems.

A unique aspect of this landscape is the Mimika and Asmat Mangroves that stretch along 500km of coastline and cover over 400,000 ha of mangroves. The bordering freshwater swamp forest covers an additional approximately 1M ha. These mangrove and backwater swamps are a world-class asset and harbor some of the highest carbon stock per hectare of any forest on the planet. They need to be managed sustainably to mitigate vast GHG emissions and conserve important biodiversity and environmental services that local communities enjoy.

The operational landscape is defined by the Mimika and Asmat districts.

Lorentz Lowlands Landscape Figures (situation in 2013)







Primary Mangrove

Secondary Mangrove



4,795,848 1,419,904 262,785 2,000,617 299,908 360,675 31,105 158,305 4,533,299

Protected Areas

Lorentz National Park

The national park was gazetted in 1997 (SK No. 154/Kpts-II/1997) with a area covering 2,450,000 hectare. Lorentz is Indonesia’s and Southeast Asia’s largest National Park. 1,019,682 ha of the lowland forest ecosystems lie within the LESTARI landscape.

Rawa Baki – Vriendschap

This area covering 122,738 hectare has been nomiated as a new protected area of cultural significance to be managed locally through strengthen traditional management. The area has not been granted formal status but has a recommendation from the Bupati that allows changes to future spatial plans (SK No. 522.13/129/BUP/VIII/2014).

Mimika –Asmat Mangroves

An area covering approximately 400,000 haectras of mangroves cuurently under protection forest as the focus of conservation efforts and potentially seting up as a conservation areas.The mangroves will be jointly managed by Local Mangrove Working groups (KKMD) in Mimika and Asmat.


Figure 5. Lorentz Lowlands Operational Landscape


Figure 6. Lorentz Value Landscape


2.4 Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape

The Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape is a new area for USAID projects. It covers a large undeveloped expanse of lowland forest on a lowland mineral terrace, and extensive peat lands, swamps and some mangrove in the lower reaches towards the coast. The landscape is characterized by Papua’s largest river, the Digul, which forms the eastern boundary of the landscape.

Southeast Papua has long been the focus of large development plans for the expansion in agricultural and land-based energy estates. The MIFEE (Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate) project that was initiated under the SBY government has been revisited and supported by the Jokowi administration. The actual impact of MIFEE spreads beyond the Merauke district, as large parcels of land have long been designated for conversion to oil palm and pulp plantations in Bouven Digoel and Mappi districts. Tetra Tech propose an extension to the Lorentz value landscape to encapsulate the forested areas slated for conversion within the ‘location license’ of these oil palm and industrial timber plantation companies.

These companies are not operating in the landscape to date and LESTARI has the opportunity to provide local stakeholders and plantation developers information to mitigate impact from the plantations.

The operational landscape is defined by Mappi district and a significant portion of Bouven Digoel district bounded by the Digul River.

Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape Figures (situation in 2013)




Secondary

Dryland Forest


Secondary

Swamp Forest

Primary Mangro

ve

Secondary

Mangrove

Non-Foreste

d Peatlan

d

Total Value

Landscape

3,303,933 1,042,631 564,331 390,872 174,974 49,553 4,127 299,394 2,525,882


Figure 7. Mappi-Bouven Digoel Operational landscape


Figure 8. Mappi-Bouven Digoel Value Landscape


2.5 Sarmi Landscape

The LESTARI Sarmi Landscape in northern Papua is similar to that of USAID IFACS. It covers a large proportion of the district bounded by the watershed dividing rivers that flow south the Mamberamo River from those flowing north to the coast. The Sarmi Landscape consists mostly of intact and logged over upland (free draining, mineral soil) forests but with extensive lowland peat swamp forests and pockets of mangrove ecosystems along the 200km long coast. A portion of neighboring Jayapura district has been included in the value landscape as it lies within the timber concession of PT. WMT – a previous IFACS partner.

As 96% of the Sarmi Landscape is forest-covered, the operational landscape is almost identical to the VL.

Sarmi Landscape Figures (situation in 2013)









1,017,078 690,540 219,056 60,602 11,339 1,602 986,328

Protected Areas

Mamberamo Foja Wildlife Reserve

The Mamberamo Foja Wildlife reserve was gazetted in 1982 but the total area has not been totally defined through boundary demarkation. The area of the reserve under the provincial spatial plan in 1,018,000 with an additional 300,000 extention. The areas that falls within the Sarmi landscape is 56,064 hectares. Due to the lack of emissions (see below) the Mamberamo Foja Wildlife Reserve will not be a focus for improve management under Component 2 of LESTARI.


Figure 9. Sarmi Operational Landscape


Figure 10. Sarmi Value Landscape


2.6 Cyclops Landscape

Another small but valuable landscape in northern Papua is the Cyclops Landscape. USAID has been providing assistance to local stakeholders for the conservation of this unique natural reserve for 15 years. The proximity of the mountain range to the provincial capital provides a focal point for conservation of environmental services. Due to the proximity of Papua’s largest population center, the mountain range is under threat from illegal logging, charcoal making, wildlife poaching, and encroachment for agricultural land by mountain communities migrating to the capital. The value landscape is defined by the remaining forest within and surrounding the nature reserve.

The operational landscape contains the bordering buffer zone to the reserve.

Cyclops Landscape Figures (situation in 2013)



Primary Dryland Forest Secondary Dryland Forest Total Value Landscape

46,683 29,429 6,627 36,056

Protected Areas

Cyclops Nature Reserve

The Cyclops nature reserve was gazetted in 1979 (SK No. 56/Kpts/Um/4/1979) and reaffirmed in 1987 (through SK No: 365/Kpts-II/87) to cover an area of 22,500 ha. This was increased to 31,479.89 ha in 2012 through SK No 782/Menhut-II/2012.


Figure 11. Cyclops Operational Landscape


Figure 12. Cyclops Value Landscape


3. BASELINE DEFORESTATION AND GHG EMISSIONS LESTARI has adopted the same targets and time-scale for reduced emissions as the GoI—26/41% GHG emission below the 2020 business as usual baseline (under the National Action Plan for GHG reduction – RAN/D-GRK). This has created the opportunity to work in-step with government efforts within the landscapes and reach beyond direct project intervention at the site level. However, for ownership of the project by local level stakeholders—most notably the district and provincial governments—the approaches to reduce GHG emissions and methods to measure impacts must also be harmonized.

3.1 Baseline Methodology

Indonesia is fortunate in that a methodology used to define the GoI targets for land-based emissions has been developed and applied at the national and provincial level in each province where LESTARI works. Therefore, LESTARI has adopted the exact same methodology in an attempt to gain the maximum level of buy-in from the local stakeholders, especially the government.

Detailed methodology can be found in the BAPPENAS Technical Guide for Land-Based GHG Emission and Sequestration Baseline Calculations1 that is followed by the RAN/D-GRK. The methodology applied to LESTARI that works in the forestry and land-use sector is based on:

1. Living biomass (above ground) GHG emissions

2. Below ground GHG emissions from the decomposition of organic soils (peat)

3. GHG emissions from organic soils through land fires

The REDD Abacus SP program was used to calculate land cover changes and related emissions. This includes below ground emission estimates on peat due to land use. A simple Microsoft Excel spreadsheet was used to calculate the emission from fire as described in the guide.

The GOI baseline assessment methodology is used by LESTARI both to ensure government buy-in and consistency of reporting by LESTARI relative to other GHG reduction activities that will contribute to GOI defined targets elsewhere in Indonesia. However, the GOI methodology – like all carbon assessment methodologies – has flaws that should be addressed going forward. These deficiencies include land cover that have been inaccurately

1 F. Agus, I. Santosa, S. Dewi, P. Setyanto, S. Thamrin, Y. C. Wulan, F. Suryaningrum (eds.). 2013. Pedoman

Teknis Penghitungan Baseline Emisi dan Serapan Gas Rumah Kaca Sektor Berbasis Lahan: Buku I Landasan Ilmiah. Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional, Republik Indonesia, Jakarta.


classified, which subsequently can create errors in calculation of RELs and projections of future emissions. LESTARI will make every effort to appropriately classify land use within its Operational Landscapes to reduce the impact of this inaccurate classification. Additionally, the emission factors from peat forest may be significantly erroneous in the GOI methodology as emissions are averaged across land use type whereas emissions would be expected to tail off as forest regenerated. Another part of the methodology that must be tackled is below ground biomass carbon released through the burning of peatlands. These issues are and how the project will tackle them is discussed in detail in Section 5.

3.1.1 Above ground and peat decomposition GHG emissions

For above ground GHG emissions on mineral soils, REDD Abacus SP software program developed by World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) applies a simple carbon stock difference approach. Land cover data from 2 base years is used to establish trends and associated carbon losses and gains using national average carbon stocks assigned to land cover types. Land cover data used by the GoI is from the MoEF and stratifies Indonesia into 22 standard land cover types. Carbon stocks for each of these land cover types is derived from national and sub-national surveys and averaged for the entire country. The carbon stocks assigned to each land type are presented below.

Standard Indonesia Land Cover Classification

Code (used in Land Cover Transition Matrices)

National Average Carbon Stock (t.C)

1 Primary Forest on Mineral Soils Hp 195

2 Secondary Forest on mineral soils Hs 169

3 Primary Mangrove Forest Hmp 170

4 Primary Swamp Forest Hrp 196

5 Forest Plantations Ht 64

6 Brush B 30

7 Plantations (oil palm, rubber, coconut etc.)

Pk 63

8 Settlements Pm 4

9 Open Land T 2.5

10 Savana / Grasslands S 4

11 Secondary Mangrove Forest Hms 120

12 Secondary Swamp Forest Hrs 155

13 Swamp Brush Br 30

14 Agricultural land Pt 10

15 Mixed Agriculture / Agroforestry Pc 30

16 Rice Fields Sw 2

17 Fish / Shrimp Ponds Tm 0

18 Airports / Ports Bdr 0

19 Transmigration Sites Tr 10

20 Mining Tb 0

21 Swamps Rw 0

22 Water Bodies / Rivers A 0


For GHG emissions from peat lands, REDD Abacus SP applies similar carbon stock changes as in mineral soils but also incorporates emissions from the degradation of peat. Annual emissions are a combination of above ground land cover changes as well as below ground peat decomposition due to these changes in land use. National level (tier 1) emissions per hectare are entered into the program based on the land use that is recorded (land cover types) on the peat land areas. Thus the same data used for mineral soils can be used for peatland. There is significant debate about the emissions from peat land. Even though it is known that the management applied can significantly affect GHG emissions, the factors applied here represent conservative estimates based on published literature, and the national average currently accepted by BAPPENAS.

Land transitions between the two base years were used to estimate deforestation and degradation rates. Deforestation was classified as where primary or secondary forest (on mineral soils, peat or mangroves) has been converted to agriculture, agroforestry, plantations (agricultural and forest plantations), or other non-forest land cover types. Degradation was classified as a transition from primary to secondary forest types.

LESTARI applied the base years of 2006 – 2013. The table below presents a summary of annual deforestation and degradation rates and land-based GHG emissions (total, mineral soils and peat land) as per the described methodology, per landscape.

Landscape Annual

Deforestation (Ha/yr)*

Annual Degradation

(Ha/yr)*

Net Annual GHG emissions / REL (t.CO2-eq)

Mineral Soils Peat Soils Total

1 Leuser Landscape 8,039 0 3,764,741 2,766,574 6,531,315

2 Katingan – Kahayan Landscape

34,136 5,236 12,948,783 29,681,780 42,630,563

3 Lorentz Lowlands Landscape

2,551 15,513 1,688,631 9,718,747 11,407,378

4 Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape

1,118 29,275 2,985,183 6,930,182 9,915,365

5 Sarmi Landscape 353 4,560 592,717 403,506 996,222

6 Cyclops Landscape 144 11 83,249 N/A 83,249

The deforestation and degradation rates have been calculated on mineral and peatland soils per forestry spatial planning zones (within conservation forest (HSAW), protected forest (HL), limited production (HPT), production forest (HP), Other Use Zones (APL)) and were used to define key activities within the value and operational landscapes (see below).

3.1.2. GHG emissions from organic soils through land fires

Forest and land fire is a significant issue in Central Kalimantan and LESTARI has applied methodology adopted by the Central Kalimantan Province2. The methodology for estimating

2 Perhitungan Emisi berbasis Lahan, Provinsi Kalimantan Tengah Period 2009-2011.


emissions from fire is not universally accepted due to the reliability of data used in calculating emissions. The intensity and duration of fires, depth of peat, water table depth, drought conditions and vegetation cover all affect the potential emissions from peat. With all of these variables, it is unlikely that a single method for calculating emissions from fire will ever be available. Compromises must be made and average emissions from areas using available monitoring data have been applied to develop the LESTARI baseline. This is in line with provincial government approaches. Monitoring data is publicly available in the MODIS Hotspot data. Hotspots with a confidence limit of >80% with 1 km grids were used and a fixed factor of 0.769 applied to estimate the area of peatland burned in any one year. An emission factor of 57.7 tCO2-eq / hectare was applied to the estimated area burnt during an el-niño year, and 13.9 tCO2-eq / hectare was applied to the estimated area burnt during a non el-niño year. This emission factor differs significantly between provinces and should be the subject of further investigation when stakeholders have been engaged.

After compiling available MODIS fire hotspots with a lower CL of 80%, emissions were calculated for peat lands in the Katingan OL. On inspection, the emissions rate was very low. Even for long and extreme el-niño years such as 2014, the methodology is perceived to underestimate the area burned.

Comparisons with emissions from land use and land use change and emissions from fire under this methodology are treated with care. Annual averaged emissions are only 1,466,595 tCO2-eq (3.5% of the land based emissions for land use and peat decomposition – assuming that the land-use change figures are accurate). This estimate does not fit well with national figures or published articles. These annual estimates will not be used to substantiate the level of effort required by LESTARI to prevent and fight fires with multiple stakeholders in the landscape. Alternative methodologies that are acceptable with local stakeholders will be sought and applied in the first six months of the LESTARI project.

Table 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Annual Emissions

5,266,873 34,205 7,482 3,638,447 0 300,364 479,941 117,580 3,354,470

Fire is a high priority issue in the Katingan – Kahayan Landscape. It directly impacts the respiratory health and wellbeing of not just local communities, but also regional communities within and outside Indonesia. The presence of fire and haze also devastates local economic activity and causes destruction to biodiversity resources. The calculation of the actual emissions caused by fire can be superfluous and more emphasis should be placed on obtaining accurate and up-to–date data from fire detection platforms, and targets sets to reduce the average number of hotspots by 41% by 2020.

3.2 Projected Baseline Scenario

Using the REDD Abacus SP, a straight-line projection over a single iteration was applied. As the based years were 7 years apart, application of a single iteration using the software produces land transitions matrices through 2020 – the end of the LESTARI project and reporting period for the GoI commitments to reduce GHG emissions.

LESTARI will focus on the above ground emissions caused from deforestation and degradation as well as the below ground emissions from peat decomposition within the Value Landscape. Emissions from non-forest land types and any and sequestration resulting from degraded land cover regeneration into young forest will not be the focus of LESTARI’s work and not included in the baseline (projected emissions under the BAU usually scenario within the Value and Operational landscape are presented for comparison).


Landscape

Projected Annual

Deforestation (Ha/yr)*

Projected Annual

Degradation (Ha/yr)*

Net Projected Annual GHG emissions (t.CO2-eq)

Mineral Soils Peat Soils Total from OL Total from VL

1 Leuser Landscape

6,546 0 2,989,608 2,670,504 5,660,112 5,693,105

2 Katingan – Kahayan Landscape

27,977 2,951 10,074,020 29,390,212 39,464,232 39,922,562

3 Lorentz Lowlands Landscape

2,497 12,657 1,506,751 10,348,780 11,855,531 11,889,475

4 Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape

1,207 22,815 2,453,018 7,367,817 9,820,836 9,856,867

5 Sarmi Landscape 363 4,170 561,028 409,524 970,552 971,885

6 Cyclops Landscape

136 10 78,984 N/A 78,984 78,662

The target set for LESTARI averaged across the landscapes is a 41% reduction from the baseline emissions by 2020. LESTARI proposes a progressive approach—increasing the reductions of to reach this target by 2020. Annual emissions will be reduced progressively by 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 41% each year of the project. The table below presents yearly net annual emissions based on historical data, the cumulative emissions (BAU) over time and proposed LESTARI emission reductions from 2015 through 2020 across all landscapes.

Year Net Annual Emissions (t.CO2-eq)

Cumulative Emissions–

BAU

(t.CO2-eq)

LESTARI Emission Reduction Target

(t.CO2-eq)

LESTARI Proposed emission

reductions

(t.CO2-eq)

2006-2007 71,564,092 71,564,092 71,564,092 N/A

2007-2008 71,564,092 143,128,184 143,128,184 N/A

2008-2009 71,564,092 214,692,276 214,692,276 N/A

2009-2010 71,564,092 286,256,368 286,256,368 N/A

2010-2011 71,564,092 357,820,460 357,820,460 N/A

2011-2012 71,564,092 429,384,552 429,384,552 N/A

2012-2013 71,564,092 500,948,644 500,948,644 N/A

2013-2014 68,412,556 569,361,200 569,361,200 N/A

2014-2015 68,412,556 637,773,756 637,773,756 N/A

2015-2016 68,412,556 706,186,312 699,345,056 6,841,256*

2016-2017 68,412,556 774,598,868 754,075,101 20,523,767*

2017-2018 68,412,556 843,011,424 801,963,890 41,047,534

2018-2019 68,412,556 911,423,980 843,011,424 68,412,556

2019-2020 68,412,556 979,836,536 883,374,832 96,461,704

*Emissions reductions will only start to be reported in the third year of the project. These figures are presented to give an understanding of the increasing impact of the project.


Figure 13. Graphic representation of LESTARI emission reduction targets across all landscapes.

0

200.000.000

400.000.000

600.000.000

800.000.000

1.000.000.000

1.200.000.000

t.CO2-eq

Year

REL

EmissionReductionTarget


4. LANDSCAPE APPROACH AND PRIORITIES FOR ACTION This chapter presents learning from IFACS on landscape approaches and essential elements of this approach that will be implemented under LESTARI. The following section describes key activities that need to be implemented to reduce GHG emissions and deforestation based on the baseline analysis and important themes in the landscape.

4.1 The Landscape Approach

LESTARI applies a landscape approach – an integrated land use management framework that seeks to integrate policies and actions across sectors in order to harmonize development and conservation objectives. In other words, the landscape approach aims to ensure that all the uses of land and all the users of that land are being addressed in an integrated way.

Reflecting on the USAID IFACS project, LESTARI can develop a clearer and more effective landscape approach. IFACS was working in regions (termed IFACS landscapes) and had activities that attempted to accumulate results into landscape-scale actions on climate change. GHG emission reductions were measured in carbon benefits applied to the specific areas where activities were implemented. Although this approach was effective, it was difficult to impact the landscape as a whole and ensure that all the uses of land and all the users of that land were being addressed in an integrated way. Where initiatives that did take a large geographic scale (a proxy of the geographic ‘landscape’), such as the SEA-LEDS that were designed to impact policies, plans, and programs that affect land use, these were confined to a specific jurisdiction (district or municipality) and not necessary effective in impacting a contiguous landscape where social, biological and physical factors interact.

LESTARI is tasked with reducing GHG emissions by 41% within the landscapes. This will contribute to the GoI GHG emissions reduction commitment of 26% unilaterally and 41% with international assistance by 2020 (plus aiming for 7% growth). This provides the pressure and motivation for implementing the landscape approach. In order to achieve these ambitious targets (that cover the entire landscape for the 26% contribution of GHG emissions reduction, as well as sites within these landscapes where additional GHG emissions reduction up to 41 % should be achieved), the project must embed landscape approach principles.

Elements of a landscape approach needed for success have been synthesized by Sayer et al3. The authors state that “landscape approaches” seek to provide tools and concepts for allocating and managing land to achieve social, economic, and environmental objectives in areas where agriculture, mining, and other productive land uses compete with environmental

3 Jeffrey Sayer, Terry Sunderland, Jaboury Ghazoul, Jean-Laurent Pfund, Douglas Sheil Erik Meijaard, Michelle Venter, Agni Klintuni Boedhihartono, Michael Day, Claude Garcia, Cora van Oosten, and Louise E. Buck. 2013. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Available at www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210595110 PNAS


and biodiversity goals. They have synthesized a consensus on landscape approaches based on published literature and a consensus-building process to define good practices validated through surveys with practitioners. The authors found that the landscape approach has been refined in response to increasing societal concerns about environment and development tradeoffs. They provide 10 principles to support implementation of a landscape approach as currently interpreted by practitioners. Although the principles do not provide a panacea, they can provide a starting point for an improved landscape approach to challenges such as those faced by the LESTARI project.

Elements of a landscape approach needed for success include:

1. Adaptive Management / Continual Learning

2. Common Concern Entry Point

3. Multiple Scales

4. Multi-Functionality

5. Multi-Stakeholder

6. Negotiated and Transparent Change Logic

7. Clarification of Rights and Responsibilities

8. Participatory and User-friendly Monitoring

9. Resilience

10. Strengthened Stakeholder Capacity

Below are some of the essential landscape approach elements explained and placed into the context of LESTARI:

Adaptive Management Landscape processes are dynamic, and changes in landscapes must inform decision-making, which can improve management. The landscape is often exposed to shocks and unintended impacts which can expose previously unknown or ignored interactions that provide an opportunity for learning, leading to the development of new understandings that serve as the basis for revised landscape strategies. Also learning from multiple sources and revision of strategies requires continual adjustment that leads to adaptive management. A principle aspect of governance, collaborative management in national parks, and building constituencies components will benefit from the application of adaptive management. Tools developed under USAID IFACS such as KLHS, and Collaborative Management Frameworks for Mangroves and National Parks all apply these principles.

Common Concern Entry Point Solutions to landscape scale problems need to be based on shared objectives and values. However, stakeholders always have different values, beliefs, and objectives so that aligning these from the start is unlikely. Therefore, LESTARI needs to identify ‘entry points’ that bring landscape stakeholders together and upon which short-term progress can be built. IFACS tried to build common entry points for the landscapes – low emission development visions – with the MSF charters. These need to be revisited and consolidated to define common entry points where multiple stakeholders can work together to achieve a landscape approach to conservation and development. Mimika – Asmat mangrove conservation is one example of a common entry point that stakeholders have identified as a priority. The issue of fire and its


management is another example of a common entry point for multiple stakeholders in the Katingan – Kahayan Landscape.

Clarification of Roles and Responsibilities Rules on natural resource access and land use have a large impact on the social and conservation outcomes in the landscape in Indonesia. These need to be clear and understood to be the basis for good landscape management. This is often not the case in most landscapes, and issues such as unfamiliarity of the boundaries of conservation areas and ignorance of the land use zonation under the spatial plan are common. An important aspect of the landscape approach will involve the communication of these plans and regulations associated with them. However, this also needs to be coupled with a fair and accessible process for managing conflict where it arises. Very often, spatial plans in Indonesia do not take into account the traditional land use and rights to resources held by local communities. A balancing mechanism through tools such as the Community Conservation Agreements (termed CCLA under USAID IFACS) and participative mapping is important to resolve conflicts and strengthen spatial plans that are supported by multiple stakeholders in the landscape.

Multiple Scales and Multi-stakeholders Outcomes in the landscape are shaped by many processes operating at various scales. An awareness of these higher and lower level processes can improve local interventions and inform higher-level policy and governance that affects the landscape. Failure to engage the many different actors in decision-making processes will lead to suboptimal, and sometimes unethical outcomes. All stakeholders should be recognized, even though the pursuit of negotiated solutions may involve only a subset of these stakeholders. District awareness of local interventions through MSF / cross-sectoral working groups has shown promise in change policy. The impact of large-scale developments or higher level policies on the local landscape is where provincial governance and communication efforts have an important part to play in LESTARI.

Multiple Functionality and Resilience Landscapes have multiple uses, each of which is valued in different ways by different stakeholders. Tradeoffs among differing land uses need to be first recognized and quantified before they can be reconciled. Resilience is an important underlying factor for sustainable landscapes. Resilience can be expressed in terms of ecological, social, and economic stability to external pressures, such as those caused by climate change. The SEA-LEDS developed under IFACS attempted to reconcile different land uses and proposed scenarios that were more acceptable to multiple stakeholders, reduced GHG emissions and promoted low emission development. LESTARI is synchronized with GoI’s emissions targets and also seeks to promote economic, ecological, and social resilience as a climate change mitigation and adaptation strategy.

4.2 Key Activities based on landscape themes and landscape baseline analysis

The baseline analysis provides valuable information on pressures that the landscapes have experienced in terms of land use change and management on peat lands, and an estimate of resulting GHG emissions. The projected analysis provides information on likely land use change and emissions under the business as usual scenario. This has been disaggregated by the forestry spatial plan to analyze where change has occurred and predict where it is likely to occur in future. This information is crucial for the project to design initial priorities for action to start to mitigate pressure and threats, and thus reduce GHG emissions.


4.2.1 Leuser Landscape Key Activities

Emissions from the Leuser Landscape between 2006 and 2013 came from the following land use classes:

Land Use Class Deforestation Degradation

HSAW 2,587 0

HL 1,538 0

HPT 654 0

HP 127 0

HPK 0 0

APL 3,127 0

Projected land transitions (future deforestation based on historical deforestation experienced between 2006 and 2013) in the Leuser Landscape are dominated by the following:

Secondary and primary dryland forest converted for agriculture, brush (abandoned agriculture / fallow), agroforestry, mixed agriculture, and some transmigration projects (~5,230 hectares per annum). The majority of these conversions occur in the National Park and wildlife reserve, Protected Forest (~3,460 hectares per annum), and in Other use zones (APL; ~2,250 hectares per annum)

The next most prevalent land transition is from secondary swamp forest to brush (~545 hectares per annum) occurring in the Wildlife Reserve of Singkil and APL zones.

No degradation was recorded owing to no commercial forestry companies currently operating in the landscape

Projected emissions within the Leuser Landscape are enlightening. 94% of emissions under this methodology come from loss of primary and secondary forest to agricultural land and brush, and 64% of these emissions are projected to occur in conservation forest and protected forest.

Leuser contains significant areas of peat. Emissions from peat using the RAN/D-GRK methodology account for 47% (2.67 Mio t.CO2-eq) of all land based emissions, of which an estimated 2.2 Mio t.CO2-eq come from degraded peat even when there is no land cover transition. Only a small proportion of emissions come from changes in vegetation on peat land (deforestation of secondary swamp forest to swamp brush and transmigration sites (0.4 Mio t.CO2-eq).

From the above analysis of annual deforestation and emissions, it is clear that key activities to be implemented under LESTARI in the Leuser Landscape should focus on improved collaborative management of the national park and wildlife reserve with LESTARI partner WCS, and co-management of forest surrounding CAs through a continuation, improvement, and implementation of community conservation agreements. This will be done through Component 2 and grants under contract. Important LESTARI activities will also focus on alternative funding for forest conservation or payment for environmental services. LESTARI will focus on the adoption of best management practices by the emerging and established private sector (forestry and oil palm, respectively) that operate in the landscape and whose impacts have not yet shown up in the baseline analysis. There is a need to develop forward-looking baseline REL for these specific operations when data is available.

Key themes for activities within the operational landscape will focus on improving spatial planning implementation, as it is clear that deforestation is occurring outside of the protected


areas and the forest estate. There is a need for strengthening local partners commitment for low emission development through sustainable visions that conserve water resources (such as the Gayo Lues Green District initiative).

LEUSER LANDSCAPE

LESTARI TECHNICAL THEMES

Leuser Landscape Areas under

improved Management

(ha)

Reduced Emissions

(Mio t.CO2-eq)

Notes

Technical Theme 1 : Forest & Land Use Governance and Advocacy

449,467

5,090,469 *

Includes 4,325 ha that were impacted by IFACS through working with the MSF where work will be further enhanced.

Improved management of 118,568 ha was achieved under IFACS through Community Conservation Agreements and improved agricultural practices. LESTARI will continue to work in these areas and enhance the effectiveness of the agreements for conservation and reducing deforestation.

2,936,809 ** Technical Theme 2 : Conservation Co-management

808,183

40,340 hectares of the National Park was impacted through improved management. LESTARI will continue to work in these areas to reduce ever-present pressure on the park.

Technical Theme 3 : Private Sector Engagement

No target set at present

Potential hectares under improved management and emissions reductions from private sector engagement and a call to action (component 3) will contribute to the “41%” portion of emissions reductions in the landscape.

Total 1,257,650 8,027,278

*GoI reduced emissions targets – LESTARI will work with local government and stakeholders (Technical Theme 1) to make sure this target is met across the Leuser Landscape

**Reduced emission through LESTARI direct assistance (originating from reducing forest encroachment and improving peat land management with protected area authorities, and communities conservation agreements)


4.2.2 Katingan - Kahayan Landscape

Emissions from the Katingan-Kahayan Landscape between 2006 and 2013 came from the following land use classes:


HSAW 2,861 0

HL 1,154 76

HPT 716 2,705

HP 15,164 2,014

HPK 10,343 424

APL 3,899 17

Projected land transitions (future deforestation based on historical deforestation experienced between 2006 and 2013) are dominated by the following:

Secondary swamp forest to brush and open land (often caused from fire) on peat lands (~6,900 hectares per annum) – most likely to occur within conservation areas (HSAW), production forest (HP), and production conversion forest (HPK).

An equal amount of secondary swamp forest (on mineral soils) is lost to brush and open land, farming land, and plantations (~6,870 hectare per annum) – most likely to occur within production forests (HP) and to a lesser extent limited production forests (HPT), conversion production forest (HPK), and other use areas (APL).

Secondary dryland forest lost to brush, open land, and agricultural land is predicted at 10,450 hectares per year – most likely to occur within production forests (HP) and to a lesser extent limited production forests (HPT), conversion production forest (HPK), and other use areas (APL)).

Secondary forest to plantations are predicted at a low rate of ~400 hectares per year.

Degradation of primary forest to secondary forest at a rate of ~3,000 hectares per annum mostly likely to occur where it is planned – in forest concessions with production forest types.

Projected emissions within the landscape for Katingan – Kahayan constitute 58% of all baseline emissions over LESTARI landscapes. As the landscape contains significant amounts of peat (31% of the landscape) all of which is modified to some extent, emissions from peat when using the RAN/D-GRK methodology account for 62% (24.5 Mio t.CO2-eq) of all land based emissions, even when there is no land cover transition. As expected from the analysis of land cover transitions detailed above, significant additional emissions (11.3% of projected annual emissions) come from deforestation of secondary swamp forest on peat lands (4.4 Mio t.CO2-eq). Loss of secondary dryland forest contributes 6.5 Mio t.CO2-eq to the project baseline (16.5%).

The emissions baseline analysis has significant consequence for the design of LESTARI in the Katingan – Kahayan Landscape. Maximum effort should be placed where expected emissions are greatest. Therefore, management of peat land is key and should encompass all aspects of work within the peat land areas of the landscape. Re-wetting peatland and preventing further loss of secondary swamp forest to brush and open land (primarily through fire) is the primary theme for this landscape. Additional emphasis will be to mitigate the loss of secondary forests on mineral soils caused largely by encroachment.


Key activities that will be implemented directly in the value landscapes (Components 2 and 3) will include improved collaborative management of the national park with LESTARI partner WWF, assisting natural resources concessions in preventing encroachment, and co-management of forest surrounding CAs through a continuation, improvement and implementation of community conservation agreements and forest education initiatives.

Similar to all LESTARI landscapes, the key themes for activities within the wider operational landscape will focus on strengthening local partners’ landscape vision and commitment for low emissions development; improving spatial planning implementation for better peatland management; developing improved livelihoods for communities surrounding CAs; and improving sustainable financing for conservation.

KATINGAN - KAHAYAN LANDSCAPE


Areas under improved

Management (ha)

Reduced Emissions

(Mio t.CO2-eq)

Notes


1,415,068

35,696,613 *

No areas were reported under improved management through MSF and local government approaches under IFACS

Improved management of 118,568 ha was achieved under IFACS through Community Conservation Agreements and improved agricultural practices. LESTARI will continue to work in these areas and enhance the effectiveness of the agreements for conservation and reducing deforestation.

20,594,200 **

Technical Theme 2 : Conservation Co-management

669,678

115,000 hectares of the Sebangau National Park was reported as under improved management under IFACS based on CCLAs. LESTARI will continue to work in these areas to increase effectiveness.


854,040

IFACS worked with 4 private sector partners in the Katingan landscape and reported 454,040 hectares under improved management due to development and monitoring of the conservation management and monitoring plans and RIL training. LESTARI willl work with these, and additional companies to improve operational compliance.

Total 2,938,786 56,290,812

*GoI “26%” reduced emissions targets – LESTARI will work with local government and stakeholders (Technical Theme 1) to make sure this target is met across the Katingan - Kahayan Landscape

**Reduced emission through LESTARI direct assistance (originating from reducing forest encroachment and improving peat land management with communities and protected area authorities, developing effective communities conservation agreements and better agricultural practices, and engaging the private sector to implement best management practices in their concessions)


4.2.3 Lorentz Lowlands Landscape

The patterns of degradation of deforestation that have occurred in the Lorentz Landscape between the base years of 2006 and 2013 are not clearly correlated to forest planning zones. Below is a summary of the land transitions and land use zones.


HSAW 410 11

HL 41 2,582

HPT 528 5,730

HP - 1,936

HPK 527 5,195

APL 1,044 59

The following has been observed:

Deforestation from primary and secondary forest on mineral soils occurring in production conservation forest (HPK, 1,100 hectares per annum)

Approximately 6,000 hectare of degradation occurring each year in peat lands with protected forests (HL) and limited production forests (HPT)

More than 6,250 hectares of degradation per year occurring on mineral soils in all types of production forest (HP, HPT, and HPK)

180 hectares per year of deforestation on peatland in CAs

Insignificant deforestation in peat land conversion forest but 32% of peat land deforestation in Other Use Zones (APL)

Significant deforestation (1,100 hectares per year) in HPK on mineral soils

Projected emissions within the landscape for Lorentz are high due to the amount of peat that covers the landscape (over 54% excluding mangroves). Emissions under the RAN/D-GRK methodology account for 87% of all predicted emissions (10.3 Mio t.CO2-eq), and a large portion of these peat based emissions will continue to occur even if there is no land cover transition. Land cover transitions detailed above do add some additional emissions distributed equally between degradation on peat and mineral soils. (1.5 Mio t.CO2-eq). The loss of primary and secondary dryland forest (~1,100 hectares per year) only contributes 0.6 Mio t.CO2-eq of the project baseline (2.7%).

With the deforestation, degradation, and emissions analysis described above, it is hard to define specific activities to reduce deforestation and emissions in the Lorentz Landscape. As the spatial plan and deforestation figures do not correlate well (except for the National park where deforestation and degradation is low, as designed), a key theme for activities within the wider operational landscape should focus on strengthening and improving spatial planning implementation. As deforestation takes part in the areas where communities are living, improving livelihoods for communities will be important but not necessarily focused on the CAs (Lorentz NP). Peat land management will be key to reducing emissions. As extensive areas of this landscape have been designated for future timber extraction, conversion to pulp and paper plantations, and oil palm development in peat land areas, the operationalizing of the SEA-LEDS to mitigate the impacts of these extractive industries in the lowlands will be a key direction of the LESTARI project. These SEAs defined strategies to mitigate impacts of developments in the district. The application of these recommendations will also be important to minimize impacts of developments proposed or already under way such as oil palm plantations and the proposed copper smelter project.


Key activities implemented directly in the value landscapes (Components 2 and 3) should take into account forward-looking pressures and potential emissions that can impact the park. Emissions from inside the national park account for only 4.7% of total landscape emissions. Improved collaboration will be an important aspect of the project but targeted to forward-looking pressures that will impact the park. An important part of the program will be more intensive focus on small-scale extractive industries and their adoption of BMPs, as forested areas around the economic centers of Mimika and Agats are increasingly being exploited for timber. Improved community based management is also key for these large ‘wilderness’ areas in order to enhance community aspirations for the sustainable management of these forest resources and the environmental resources that they provide.

While only 171 hectares of mangrove is degraded each year, a unique work aspect of LESTARI in this landscape will be the establishment of an internationally recognized South Papua Mangrove Conservation Corridor with implementation partners Blue Forests. This will cover 500,000 ha of mangroves and approximately 1M ha of bordering freshwater swamp forest and be managed through a regional mangrove management coordination body currently being set up under the IFACS project.

LORENTZ LANDSCAPE



Management (ha)

Reduced Emissions

(Mio t.CO2-eq)

Notes


3,513,617

10,630,931 *

292,000 ha has been reported under IFACS as under improved management through the development of the KKMD and integrated management plan for Mimika mangroves. While this area is certainly under the spot-light in relation to development, LESTARI will help partners implement the plan.

Land reported to be under improved management under IFACS (including 54,000 hectares of the Lorentz National Park), is based on the work that WWF implemented to map important traditional management areas (akin to CCLAs). LESTARI will continue to work in these areas to increase effectiveness and implement conservation activities.

6,133,229 **


1,019,682


0

IFACS has worked with mining company PTFI to improve their conservation management and monitoring. This has not been included here for improved manangement pending a needs assessment. There are other companies opertating within the landscape and the # hectrares under improved management will increase as additional companies are engaged and improve their operations.


Total 4,533,299 16,764,160

*GoI “26%” reduced emissions targets – LESTARI will work with local government and stakeholders (Technical Theme 1) to make sure this target is met across the Lorentz Landscape

**Reduced emission through LESTARI direct assistance (originating from reducing forest encroachment and distructive small-scale logging, improving peat land management with protected area authorities, developing effective communities conservation agreements, and engaging more private sector to implement best management practices in their concessions)


4.2.4 Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape

Emissions from the Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape between 2006 and 2013 came from the following land use classes:


HSAW - -

HL 4 543

HPT 168 5,127

HP 157 20,377

HPK 24 2,440

APL 765 779

Projected land transitions based on MOEF data (future deforestation based on historical deforestation experienced between 2006 and 2013) are dominated by the following:

Degradation from primary forest to secondary forest – this is this single largest land transition based on MOEF data (equivalent to 29,275 hectares per year). 90% of this degradation is happening in production forests (HP), limited producution forests (HPT), and production conversion forest (HPK)

Degradation from primary swamp forest to secondary swamp forest (2,079 hectares per year) in production forests

Deforestation from primary and secondary forest types is present but low compared to the large landscape size (~1,000 hectares deforestation per year within a 3.3 Mio hectare landscape)

Projected emissions per hectare within the landscape for Mappi – Bouven Digoel are relatively low compared to Kalimantan and Aceh landscapes. Just over 26% of the landscape consists of peatland, but the predicted emission projections through 2020 from peat land are 75% of the total. Emissions from peat using the RAN/D-GRK methodology account for 69% (6.77 Mio t.CO2-eq) of all land based emissions, even when there is no land cover transition. Forest degradation from primary dryland forest to secondary contributes the third largest source of emissions (18.7% - 1.84 Mio t.CO2-eq).

Looking purely at the baseline and emissions analysis, this illustrates that reducing degradation and peat land management are the most important aspects for activities in LESTARI, and where the greatest efforts should be placed. However, on spatial inspection of the forest degradation land transition that occurred between 2006 and 2013, the area concerned is outside of active logging concessions. This is potentially due to mis-interpretation of satellite imagery and requires further investigation. The analysis also fails to pick up changes that are expected to occur in the near future through plantation development as there have been few areas developed thus far.

Whilst embracing peatland management and efforts to reduce deforestation, the key focus of work in Mappi-Bouven Digoel will be on private sector engagement, including investment screening for companies that have yet to start operation in the landscape. LESTARI has the opportunity to provide local stakeholders and plantation developers information to mitigate impacts from plantations development. Information that can be developed through LESTARI includes land use and tenure patterns, community and biodiversity values within the license areas, and the proposal development scenarios to aim to mitigate GHG emissions and the loss of biodiversity and direct development towards areas where socio-economic and cultural impact is minimized. Communicating initiatives to encourage multi-functional


landscapes that have had little development to date will be key to applying a successful landscape approach strategy.

When developing a strategy to mitigate impacts of oil palm and industrial pulp plantations, communications and advocacy will be key activities to build constituencies for conservation and a low emissions development approach. As these are new areas for USAID project implementation, establishing MSFs, creating a sustainable landscape vision, and improving spatial planning through a foundational SEA-LEDS will be potential key activities throughout the districts.

MAPPI – BOUVEN DIGOEL LANDSCAPE



Management (ha)

Reduced Emissions

(Mio t.CO2-eq)

Notes


2,653,786

8,813,482 *

This is a new landscape proposed by Tetra Tech for LESTARI. No areas have been reported as under improved management.

This is a new landscape proposed by Tetra Tech for LESTARI. No areas have been reported as under improved management. There are no protected areas in this landscape.

5,084,701 **


0


285,000

This figure is based on the large area of forest that will be affected by oil palm development in the landscape. Engagement of pulp and paper companies yet to operate may increase this figure through out the LOP.

Total 2,240,882 13,847,379

*GoI “26%” reduced emissions targets – LESTARI will work with local government and stakeholders (Technical Theme 1) to make sure this target is met across the Mappi-Bouven Digoel Landscape through implementing LEDS visions

**Reduced emission through LESTARI direct assistance (originating from improving peat land management, developing effective communities conservation agreements and engaging the private sector to implement best management practices in their concessions)


4.2.5 Sarmi Landscape

Land transitions between 2006 and 2013 within the Sarmi Landscape show a very low level of deforestation and degradation (0.03% per year), with all of this occurring in production conversion forest (HPK) and Other Use Zones (APL). Degradation occurs largely where it has been planned – in production forests. There has been no noticeable forest degradation or deforestation in the Conservation Areas (Mamberamo Foja Wildlife Reserve) or in protected forest within the landscape.


HSAW - -

HL - -

HPT 35 917

HP - 2,980

HPK 172 322

APL 147 341

Projected emissions from land use change and land use on peat under the RAN/D GRK methodology are also very low compared to other LESTARI landscapes. These are estimated to originate from management of degraded land use types on peat land (37% - 0.36 Mio t.CO2-eq), with the remainder from small scale deforestation and degradation. In general, the deforestation rate and emissions are in line with those expected from a well- implemented spatial plan.

70% of the Sarmi Landscape consists of timber concessions. These are important managers of the northern Papua lowland forests. Key activities that need to be implemented in the value landscape will include improved adoption of BMPs in timber concessions. Illegal small-scale extractive industries are increasingly threatening the area, and regulation of these activities through improved community based forest management is needed. There is potential for working with PHKA to conduct a status assessment of the Mamberamo-Foja Wildlife Reserve and follow up on local stakeholders’ initiative to change the areas into a National Park, but this is a very low priority considering the deforestation and related emissions from conservation areas and protected forest.

As with the Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape, the current baseline analysis masks potential deforestation and emissions during the life of the project. Extensive areas of this landscape have been designated for oil palm development. Therefore, LESTARI activities within the operational landscape will focus on engaging these companies to embrace low-emissions plantation development and incorporate Community Conservation Agreements developed under USAID IFACS. LESTARI will also support the monitoring and enforcement of land use decisions through operationalizing SEA-LEDS and LCPs (Component 1) and strengthening the MSF and other local partners’ landscape vision and commitment for low emissions development (Component 1 & 4).


SARMI LANDSCAPE



Management (ha)

Reduced Emissions

(Mio t.CO2-eq)

Notes


490,718

867,816*

No areas were reported under improved management under IFACS through Governance component. This improved management figure will be met by assisting them to achieve their LEDS vision through effective spatial plans and mitigating conversion of forest by expanding investments.

88,061 hectare of land was reported to be under improved management under IFACS based on CCLAs that were developed. LESTARI will continue to work in these areas to increase effectiveness and incorporate into private sector plans for development. LESTARI will not work in the Mamberamo-Foja Wildlife reserve.

500,663**


(56,064)


495,610

IFACS worked with two timber plantations in the landscape covering 495,610 hectares. The implementation of RIL and CMMP was partial and can be improved further throughout the LOP.

Total 986,328 1,368,478

*GoI “26%” reduced emissions targets – LESTARI will work with local government and stakeholders (Technical Theme 1) to make sure this target is met across the Sarmi Landscape

**Reduced emission through LESTARI direct assistance (engaging the private sector to further implement best management practices in their concessions).


4.2.6 Cyclops Landscape

Land transitions between 2006 and 2013 within the Cyclops Landscape are surprisingly low. The deforestation rate within the nature reserve between these years is 0.3% - well below the national average of approximately 1%. However, 68% of the deforestation occurring in the landscape is happening inside the reserve that is meant for strict conservation and should have no human activities inside the boundaries. Degradation is insignificant as most land use change is forest clearance by local communities for agricultural land.


HSAW 98 3

HL 3 4

HPT - -

HP - -

HPK 23 2

APL 20 1

There is no peat in the Cyclops Landscape. Emissions are derived from land use change and are expectedly low compared to other LESTARI landscapes.

The data used in the baseline cannot identify emerging and increasing threats to the nature reserve. The mountain range is important for biodiversity (containing several endemic species restricted to this mountain range) and forests provide important environmental services. The actual rate of degradation is likely to be higher than that reported here. There is provincial awareness of the pressures on the reserve from communities living around it such as unsustainable charcoal making from Sowang (Xanthosthemon novaguineense). Since this is a strict nature reserve where activities are not allowed inside the CA, key activities will be focused on co-management within the buffer zone to reduce encroachment pressure and gain broader support for conservation from local communities and municipal, district, and provincial governments.

CYCLOPS LANDSCAPE



Management (ha)

Reduced Emissions

(Mio t.CO2-eq)

Notes


4,576 70,335 *

Emissions reductions and improved management will come from shared responsibility to reduce conversion of forest in the Cyclops Nature Reserve and buffer zones.


31,480

40,578 ** Technical Theme 3 : Private Sector Engagement

0


Total 36,056 There will be private sector engagement in Cyclops

110,913

*GoI “26%” reduced emissions targets – LESTARI will work with local government and stakeholders (Component 1 & 4) to make sure this target is met across the Cyclops Landscape

**Reduced emission through LESTARI direct assistance (engaging the commmunities to implement best agricultural practices in the buffer zones of the nature reserve).


5. FUTURE LBA IMPROVEMENTS AND LBA UTILITY This landscape baseline analysis plan is a living document providing information on landscapes and methods for defining deforestation, degradation, and emissions that are suitable during the initial stages of the LESTARI project. The document is not designed to present definitive landscapes and deforestation figures, but provides a starting point from which stakeholders can be engaged to provide their input and support.

5.1 Future Work to Refine Baseline

5.1.1 Land Use and peatland distribution data

The baseline data used in the analysis of deforestation and degradation and associated GHG emissions uses Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MOEF) wall-to-wall land cover (penutupan lahan) data that has questionable accuracy in some parts of LESTARI landscapes – especially Papua. GIS operators have frequently misclassified land use types and this is the most problematic. “Degradation” –primary dryland and swamp forest becoming secondary forest types where no logging companies operate and communities are few and far between needs to be verified with stakeholders (especially established Spatial Data Infrastructure groups and networks that have been established through USAID IFACS).

Another issue that needs some effort in rectifying and aligning when stakeholders have been engaged is the difference between peatland data (sourced from Soil Research Centre, Ministry of Agriculture) and land cover (MOEF). For instance, the incidence of dry land forest types occuring on peat in questionable. Before stakeholders and project partners have been engaged on this issue, it is hard to state which data set is more accurate. Where unlikely combinations of land cover types and soils do not align, estimation of emissions should be initially treated with caution. At the scale of LESTARI landscapes, this is not a major issue for the project, but administrations wishing to report on their site level emissions reductions should seek accurate data. LESTARI will improve on data quality (engaging with the Spatial Data Infrastructure groups set up by USAID IFACS) to address this in Year 1.

5.1.2 Baseline methodology

The methodology used to calculate the baseline for LESTARI is based on a nationally approved approach. It is acknowledged that more rigorous methodology to measure land use change and related emissions is available and can use more refined data (such as using tier 2 and 3 level data). However, the aim of this deforestation and GHG emission baseline calculation is to present initial targets based on the nationally accepted approach thus allowing the project to contribute to national GHG emission reduction targets.

It is expected that this national level methodology will be improved in the future, but for the LESTARI project, the methodology must evolve - the simple reason of delivering its achievement at the end of the project. The data used for this methodology (land cover based on Landsat Imagery and developed by the MoEF) is normally available to the public at least 2 years after it was captured. Therefore, a methodology that can utilize up-to-date data


taken within the last year of the project must be sought. However, as mentioned above, the current methodology was chosen because of the stakeholder engagement potential. When stakeholders are firmly behind the LESTARI approach, a revised methodology that can report on GHG emissions and deforestation can be introduced.

Potential candidate methodologies for large-scale landscape have already produced under the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) such as VM0009, "Methodology for Avoided Mosaic Deforestation of Tropical Forests, v2.1 which was developed in response to other methodologies requiring the use of cloud-free, flawless, and wall-to-wall historical imagery.

At present, national default carbon stocks have been applied to the GHG emissions calculations. Provincial or site-specific carbon stocks (Tier 2 and 3) could be applied in the future. This would give a much more accurate estimate of baseline emissions and projected “without-project” emissions scenarios. This may be important for specific regions that will report their GHG emissions reduction up to provincial and national levels.

Emission estimates from peatlands are based on literature and takes a conservative nationally average emission reference level for land use types. This could significantly over- or underestimate emissions. For instance, secondary forest that has not suffered recent degradation or impacts from drainage (such as those in the center of Sebangau National Park), maybe have overestimated emissions. Areas of primary forest but close to peat land drainage will estimate emissions using the methodology. When Provincial stakeholders have been engaged and are supportive of the project reporting on GHG emission targets for the landscape, LESTARI will seek to improve data needed for peat land emissions and refine methodologies.

It should be noted that the 2006-2013 period used to calculate the baseline emissions rate does not currently include the final two years of the IFACS project, which ran from 2010-2015. This is due to the two-year lag in the availability of land use data. However, the emissions reductions achieved from 2013-2015 under IFACS will not count towards reductions achieved by LESTARI. To ensure this, we will update the baseline period when data become available through 2015 to include the emissions reductions achieved from the IFACS project. It is important to engage stakeholders and take through this process. LESTARI’s 41% emissions reduction will be calculated in reference to this baseline period in order to ensure that its emissions reductions are additional to those achieved by the previous project.

5.1.3 Forward-looking scenario setting

The most important work to be completed with local stakeholders - when they have been engaged in the Landscape Baseline Analysis process - is to develop forward-looking GHG scenarios under BAU. During this initial and draft LBA plan we have used a “straight-line” projection to predict land transitions and related emissions. This will be refined in the near future together to predict land transitions and emissions from unplanned deforestation and planned development deforestation through the issuance of plantation and mining permits in forested lands, or planned deforestation caused through infrastructure development.

This is particularly important in areas such as Papua, where the historical baseline deforestation and emission rates are low due to a low human population pressure on resources and the limited number of developments occurring between the base years used. However, large areas of these landscapes have been set aside for development, with some licenses covering hundreds of thousands of hectares of forested lands that will cause GHG emission to spike. It is likely that oil palm, mining, and forestry plantation developments will start operations within the life of the LESTARI project.


The development plan for each private sector entity is required to develop a forward-looking baseline. The development plan needs to be analyzed to identify land that is currently forested but planned for development, as well as the planned development start and end dates of that development. In addition, many companies have started to enter into Voluntary Sustainability Initiatives (VSIs) that will affect development implementation, such as the conservation of High Carbon Stock (HCS) and High Conservation Value (HCV) forests or implementation of best management practices in peatland.

Another aspect that will be incorporated into forward-looking emissions under the BAU is a socio-economic assessment that defines future agents and drivers of deforestations. The impact on deforestation from land use policies that have recently been put into place or are in the planning stage, will not have been captured in historical baselines and the straight-line projection REL. An analysis of policies and development plans and their impact on driving deforestation (or conservation) needs to be implemented with stakeholders in the landscape.

The agents of deforestations will also need to be assessed to ascertain if social, economic and other factors are likely to remain constant into the future. Changes in policies or development may cause shifts in pressure and patterns of deforestation. Important questions that need answering before a forward-looking scenario can be developed include; Will agents of deforestation may be granted easier access to the forest through road development? Does an improved household economy increase ability of communities to deforest? What is the motivation to deforest and will this increase in the future? Stakeholder assessments carried out in the early part of LESTARI will incorporate these questions so a forward-looking scenario of emissions under a BAU can be developed in the first year of LESTARI.

The process of defining an accurate and forward-looking baseline scenario must be carried out with local stakeholders to convey greater understanding of the implications of current development strategies on GHG emissions. When this is achieved, results can be used to develop landscape wide mitigation scenarios to achieve low emission development pathways for future development. This priority setting will be an important component of building constituents for conservation and GHG emissions reduction, as well as developing landscape wide visions for LEDS.

5.2 LBA Utility beyond project planning

Tetra Tech has cultivated strong partnerships with the GoI at all levels, as well as with other stakeholders in the LESTARI landscapes and at the provincial and national levels. These partnerships are based on trust and respect that have taken many years to develop during USAID IFACS implementation and are vital to the successful implementation of LESTARI. Every effort will be made to ensure that responsible local agencies have a resilient sense of ownership in LESTARI through aligning LESTARI and their goals. The LBA presented here is a draft document that Tetra Tech and its partners will present to our landscape partners to develop buy-in and enthusiasm for the LESTARI landscape and its potential contribution to regional and national GHG emissions reduction targets as well as gaining input for work planning in the early stages of the project.

Pending USAID approval, the landscapes described in this document will be presented to local stakeholders through a series of workshops at the provincial and district / municipality level in October 2015. Operational and value landscape boundaries will potentially be amended to accommodate input gained from the local stakeholders at these workshops.

During these provincial and district / municipality workshops, awareness and support of gender issues will be built. Gender assessments will be conducted and built into this draft Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan that will inform the constituency building strategy and


annual work plans. Gender assessments will define obstacles, opportunities, and decision-making dynamics related to the access, use, and management of natural resources. They will include recommendations on how to best mainstream gender into LESTARI activities to maximize impacts of reduced emissions within operational and value landscapes.


APPENDIX 1 – MAJOR PRIVATE SECTOR STAKEHOLDERS WITHIN OPERATIONAL LANDSCAPES The tables below present information on major private sector stakeholders currently holding licenses within LESTARI proposed operational landscapes. Inclusion in the tables below does not indicate operations that are currently in an active or non-active state. Information about the status of each of these major companies that have the potential of becoming a LESTARI stakeholder and partner will be carried out by the private sector advisor during the first 6 months of the project.

Leuser Landscape

Name Type Area (ha)

PT ALUE SULOH MINERAL Mining 10,076

PT DISTA PERKASA ALAM SEMESTA Mining 10,057

PT KRUENG BAJIKAN MINERAL Mining 9,875

PT RIMBIKA CAHAYA Mining 1,905

PT SEULAWAH ALAM PERSADA Mining 4,839

PTP I SUBULUSSALAM Oil Palm 5,355

PT. ASDAL Oil Palm 5,603

PT BINTANG AGUNG MINING Mining 1893

PT JUYA ACEH MINING Mining 4333

PT KUALA PASE Mining 10,035

PT LEMBAH BEUTONG Mining 9,211

PT MULTI MINERAL UTAMA Mining 1495

PT MULYA KENCANA MAKMUR Mining 4,874

PT RIMBIKA CAHAYA Mining 4,051

PT SUMBER SEMPURNA Mining 7,720


Katingan – Kahayan Landscape

Name Type Area (ha)

KOP. DANAU MAREI Oil Palm 1,555

KOP. KARYA ABADI Oil Palm 481

KOP. PENYANG BELUM Oil Palm 2,516

PT. ADHAKSA DARMASATYA Oil Palm 880

PT. AGRO BUANA INTI LESTARI Oil Palm 2,835

PT. AGRO LESTARI SENTOSA Oil Palm 19,898

PT. AGUNG PESONA KAHURIPAN Oil Palm 10,730

PT. ARCHIPELAGO TIMUR ABADI Oil Palm 14,988

PT. ARJUNA UTAMA SAWIT Oil Palm 14,347

PT. ASTANA KARYA Oil Palm 4,959

PT. BAHAUR ERA SAWIT TAMA Oil Palm 19,842

PT. BANGKIT GIAT USAHA MANDIRI Oil Palm 2,392

PT. BERKAH ALAM FAJAR MAS Oil Palm 20,093

PT. BINA SAWIT ABADI PRATAMA Oil Palm 9,953

PT. BISMA DHARMA KENCANA Oil Palm 14,690

PT. BUMI HUTANI LESTARI Oil Palm 13,574

PT. DANA PRIMA MILTON Oil Palm 19,194

PT. FLORA NUSA PERDANA Oil Palm 9,099

PT. GIRI REJEKI KAHURIPAN Oil Palm 15,665

PT. GRAHA INTI JAYA Oil Palm 378

PT. HAMANESIA Oil Palm 14,297

PT. HAMPALIT JAYA Oil Palm 4,970

PT. HASFARM UTAMA ESTATE Oil Palm 8,854

PT. JAYA CITRA Oil Palm 5,866

PT. JAYA CITRA Oil Palm 1,156

PT. KALIMANTAN HAMPARAN SAWIT Oil Palm 12,110

PT. KALIMANTAN HIJAU SENTOSA Oil Palm 8,637

PT. KALIMANTAN RIA SEJAHTERA Oil Palm 491

PT. KARYA DEWI PUTRA Oil Palm 11,353

PT. KARYA LUHUR SEJATI Oil Palm 13,874

PT. KATINGAN HIJAU LESTARI Oil Palm 9,535

PT. KERENG PANGI PEDANA Oil Palm 6,809

PT. KOMASHUT BANGKIANG MAKMUR Oil Palm 5,554

PT. KOMASHUT PANDUHUP Oil Palm 2,935

PT. KRIDA DARMA KAHURIPAN Oil Palm 13,543

PT. KURNIA KUALA KURUN Oil Palm 17,156


Name Type Area (ha)

PT. LUBUK MANGGURUH Oil Palm 1,535

PT. MENTENG KENCANA MAS Oil Palm 16,205

PT. MINNA PADI PLANTATIONS Oil Palm 16,751

PT. MULYA SAWIT AGRO LESTARI Oil Palm 12,644

PT. NABATINDO KARYA UTAMA Oil Palm 236

PT. P4S GRAHA INTI JAYA Oil Palm 824

PT. P4S GRAHA INTI JAYA Oil Palm 403

PT. PAHANG MITRA SELARAS Oil Palm 19,523

PT. PULANG PISAU PERDANA Oil Palm 32,900

PT. PUTRA MENTAYA Oil Palm 7,121

PT. RUTA JONA LESTARI Oil Palm 20,756

PT. SAMBA SAKTI PERKASA Oil Palm 4,982

PT. SANGKOWONG SINTA Oil Palm 32,570

PT. SARI RAMIN SUNJAYA Oil Palm 14,304

PT. SAWIT PRIMA SUBUR Oil Palm 3,102

PT. SURYA MAS CITRA PERKASA Oil Palm 23,217

PT. TANTAHAN PANDUHUP ASI Oil Palm 14,480

PT. TIGER MANDAU TELAWANG Oil Palm 4,917

PT. TISMA PERDANA MANDIRI Oil Palm 5,054

PT. TUNAS AGRO SUBUR KENCANA Oil Palm 674

PT. WANAKASTA NUSANTARA Oil Palm 13,423

PT. WINDU NABATINDO ABADI EX SURYA BAROKAH Oil Palm 10,554

PT. WINDU NABATINDO LESTARI Oil Palm 15,695

PT. BUMIMAS PERMATA ABADI Timber 24,540

PT.FITAMAYA ASMAPARA Timber 43,608

PT.KAYU WAJA Timber 39,350

PT.BERKAT CAHAYA TIMBER Timber 16,329

PT.SARANA PIRANTI UTAMA Timber 52,273

PT.GAUNG SATYA GRAHA AGRINDO Timber 49,709

PT.SARI BUMI KUSUMA (UNIT I DAN II) Timber 103,635

PT.SIKATAN WANA RAYA Timber 48,690

PT.GRAHA SENTOSA PERMAI Timber 45,262

PT.DWIMA JAYA UTAMA Timber 72,980

PT.ERNA JULIAWATI Timber 887

PT.MERANTI MUSTIKA Timber 51,469

PT.HUTAN DOMAS RAYA Timber 109,278

PT.CARUS INDONESIA Timber 72,122


Name Type Area (ha)

KOP.MANDAU TALAWANG Timber 5,371

PT.DWIMA JAYA UTAMA Timber 57,104

PT.HASIL KALIMANTAN JAYA Timber 51,519

PT.YAKIN TIMBER JAYA Timber 28,967

PT.RINANDA INTI LESTARI Timber 41,506

PT.HUTAN MULYA Timber 51,708

PT.SARMIENTO PARAKANCA Tbr Timber 22,857

PT.KAYU TRIBUANA RAMA Timber 5,720

PT.ANUGRAH ALAM BARITO Timber 5,738

PT.KAHAYAN TERANG ABADI Timber 9,931

PT.RATU MIRI Timber 8,954

PT. RIMBA DWIPANTARA HTI 1,416

PT. PUNDIWANA SEMESTA HTI 9,873

PT. PUSPAWARNA CEMERLANG HTI 4,663

PT. CERIA KARYA PRANAWA HTI 64,389

PT. TAIYOUNG ENGREEN HTI 59,947

PT. WANA DAMAI HTI 8,857

PT RIMBA MAKMUR UTAMA ER 106,812

PT. JUWANA AGUNG, Mining (Gold) 9,979

TAMBANG TEWAH PERKASA Mining (Gold) 725

WILAYAH PERTAMBANGAN RAKYAT Mining (Gold) 1,355

PT. INTAN HIJAU, Mining (Gold) 102

KANWIL DPE KALTENG Mining (Gold) 29,520

PT MAMBULU Mining (Gold) 443

PT.YULIANA GUNALARAS MINING, PT Mining (Gold) 1,996

PT.PENUGASAN SDM DH BARRICK GOLD, CAN - ANEKA TAMBANG

Mining (Gold) 129,331

PT. PALMA SUBUR LESTARI MAKMUR Mining (Coal) 25,042

PT. SINAR AGROTANI KALIMANTAN Mining (Coal) 25,034

PT. KALIMANTAN INTI PERSADA Mining (Coal) 25,033

PT GUNUNG MAS MEKAR P. Mining (Coal) 9,207

GUNGUNG TIMANG ABADI,PT Mining (Coal) 895

PT. DAYAK MEMBANGUN PRATAM Mining (Coal) 12,737

PT. HASNUR JAYA UTAMA Mining (Coal) 9,948

Lorentz Lowlands Landscape

Name Type Area (ha)


Name Type Area (ha)

PT.ALAS TIRTA KENCANA Timber 92,239

PT.DAMAI SETIATAMA TBR Timber 3,529

PT.DIADYANI TIMBER Timber 208,618

PT.GLOBAL PARTNERS INDONESIA Timber 39,185

PT.KAYU PUSAKA BUMI MAKMUR Timber 140,708

PT.RIMBA MEGAH LESTARI Timber 159,633

PT. AOI UNIT II//IV (NOT ACTIVE) Timber 180,149

PT. PUSAKA AGRO LESTARI Oil Palm 38,329

PT. FREEPORT INDONESIA Mining (Gold) 258,712

PT. WANAKERTA EKA LESTARI HTI 151,369

Mappi-Bouven Digoel Landscape

NAME Type Area (ha)

PT. DONGIN PRABHAWA Oil Palm 390

PT. MONTELO Oil Palm 4,308

PT. TUNAS SAWA ERMA Oil Palm 20,220

PT. ENERGI SAMUDRA Oil Palm 37,782

PT. GRAHA KENCANA Oil Palm 38,785

PT. KARTIKA CIPTA PRATAMA Oil Palm 39,048

PT. MANUNGGAL SUKSES MANDIRI Oil Palm 38,596

PT. MEGAKARYA JAYA RAYA Oil Palm 39,009

PT. TRIMEGAH KARYA UTAMA Oil Palm 39,689

PT. USAHA NABATI TERPADU Oil Palm 37,323

PT MEGA SURYA AGUNG II Oil Palm 8,638

PT MEGA SURYA AGUNG UNIT I Oil Palm 9,338

PT.BADE MAKMUR ORISSA Timber 4,063

PT.DAMAI SETIATAMA TBR Timber 299,889

PT.DARMALI MAHKOTA TBR Timber 458

PT.DIGUL DAYA SAKTI II Timber 106,114

PT.MUKTI ARTHA YOGA Timber 169,577

PT.CITRA LEMBAH KENCANA ( TUNGGAL YUDI UNIT IV) Timber 399

PT.DIGUL DAYASAKTI UNIT I Timber 245,555

IA PT. WANAMULYA SUKSES SEJAT13 HTI 27,374

IAPT. MERAUKE RAYON JAYA HTI 3,530

I PT. PERMATA WANA TIMUR LESTARI HTI 171,747

I PT. WANAKERTA EKA LESTARI HTI 162,171


Sarmi Landscape

Name Type Area (ha)

PT. WAPOGA MUTIARA TIMBER UNIT I Timber 201,388

PT.BINA BALANTAK RAYA UTAMA Timber 337,215

PT.MONDIALINDO SETYA PRATAMA Timber 95,272

PT.SALAKI MANDIRI SEJAHTERA Timber 83,159

PT LEMBAH GRIME PLANTATIONS Oil Palm 1,238

PT. GAHARU PRIMA LESTARI Oil Palm 29,509

PT.RIMBA MATOA LESTARI Oil Palm 14,356


APPENDIX 2 . EXAMPLE OF HISTORICAL LAND TRANSITIONS (2006 – 2013) AND ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR KATINGAN – KAHAYAN LANDSCAPE Table 1. Katingan – Kahayan Landscape Historical Land Transitions Matrix 2006 – 2013 (hectares)

Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs Hmp Hrp Ht B Pk Pm T S Hms Hrs Br Pt Pc Sw Tm Bdr

Tr Tb Rw A Grand Total

Hp 256,326 20,656 0 0 0 550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 277,532

Hs 0 874,435 0 0 0 42,709 14,469 0 22,785 0 0 0 0 0 7,776 0 0 0 186 522 0 0 962,882

Hmp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hrp 0 0 0 6,662 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 469 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,131

Ht 0 0 0 0 9,357 0 0 0 298 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,655

B 0 480 0 0 0 769,341 2,562 0 0 0 0 0 885 0 4,541 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 777,809

Pk 0 0 0 0 0 0 62,983 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62,983

Pm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,081 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,081

T 0 121 0 0 0 4,899 0 0 73,692 0 0 0 8,007 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,732 0 0 89,451


Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs Hmp Hrp Ht B Pk Pm T S Hms Hrs Br Pt Pc Sw Tm Bdr


S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Hms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,511 0 2,457 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,968

Hrs 0 266 0 0 0 1,591 5,301 0 16,253 0 247 964,616 76,316 4 48 0 0 0 0 1,110 3,296 0 1,069,047

Br 0 59 0 0 0 960 6,443 0 8,428 0 404 4,723 824,956 0 2,628 1,022 0 0 0 0 0 0 849,623

Pt 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,939 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,960

Pc 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55,957 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56,127

Sw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 101,244 0 0 0 0 0 0 101,274

Tm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 929 0 0 0 0 0 929

Bdr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,696 0 0 0 3,696

Tb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,816 0 0 29,816

Rw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,529 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115,925 0 120,454

A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42,128 42,128

Grand Total

256,326 896,016 0 6,662 9,357 820,220 91,760 29,081 121,455 2 10,163 969,339 917,620 15,943 71,000 102,266 929 0 3,882 34,180 119,221 42,128 4,517,549

Table 2. Katingan – Kahayan Landscape Historical Land Transitions Matrix 2006 – 2013 (hectares) for MINERAL SOILS

Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs Hmp

Hrp Ht B Pk Pm T S Hms Hrs Br Pt Pc Sw Tm Bdr



Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs Hmp



Hp 256,326 20,656 0 0 0 550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 277,532

Hs 0 874,115 0 0 0 42,686 14,469 0 22,752 0 0 0 0 0 7,776 0 0 0 186 522 0 0 962,507

Hmp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hrp 0 0 0 2,192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,237

Ht 0 0 0 0 9,357 0 0 0 298 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,655

B 0 480 0 0 0 746,400 2,562 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 4,541 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 754,016

Pk 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,869 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,869

Pm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,806 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,806

T 0 121 0 0 0 4,899 0 0 55,320 0 0 0 3,216 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,732 0 0 66,288

S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,511 0 2,457 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,968

Hrs 0 266 0 0 0 1,591 2,513 0 6,247 0 247 231,078 37,763 0 48 0 0 0 0 1,110 3,296 0 284,157

Br 0 59 0 0 0 960 2,089 0 1,213 0 374 3,469 381,034 0 18 1,022 0 0 0 0 0 0 390,240

Pt 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,998 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,019

Pc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55,736 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55,736

Sw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 65,798 0 0 0 0 0 0 65,828

Tm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 929 0 0 0 0 0 929

Bdr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,696 0 0 0 3,696

Tb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,816 0 0 29,816


Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs Hmp



Rw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 728 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81,009 0 81,737

A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42,128 42,128

Grand Total

256,326 895,696 0 2,192 9,357 797,086 72,504 13,806 85,831 0 10,133 234,547 425,275 13,998 68,170 66,820 929 0 3,882 34,180 84,305 42,128 3,117,164

Table 3. Katingan – Kahayan Landscape Historical Land Transitions Matrix 2006 – 2013 (hectares) for PEAT / ORGANIC SOILS

Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs Hmp Hrp Ht B Pk Pm T S Hms Hrs Br Pt Pc Sw Tm Bdr Tr Tb Rw A Grand Total

Hp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hs 0 320 0 0 0 22 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 375

Hmp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hrp 0 0 0 4,470 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 424 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,894

Ht 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B 0 0 0 0 0 22,941 0 0 0 0 0 0 853 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23,794

Pk 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,114

Pm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,275 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,275

T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,371 0 0 0 4,792 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23,163

S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Hms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hrs 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,788 0 10,006 0 0 733,538 38,554 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 784,890


Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs Hmp Hrp Ht B Pk Pm T S Hms Hrs Br Pt Pc Sw Tm Bdr Tr Tb Rw A Grand Total

Br 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,354 0 7,214 0 30 1,254 443,922 0 2,609 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 459,383

Pt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,941 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,941

Pc 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 221 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 391

Sw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,446 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,446

Tm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bdr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,801 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,916 0 38,716

A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grand Total

0 320 0 4,470 0 23,133 19,256 15,275 35,625 2 30 734,792 492,345 1,945 2,830 35,446 0 0 0 0 34,916 0 1,400,385

Table 4. Katingan – Kahayan Landscape Historical Annual Emissions based on Land Transitions 2006 – 2013 (t.CO2-eq)

Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs Hmp Hrp Ht B Pk Pm T S Hms Hrs Br Pt Pc Sw Tm B

dr

Tr Tb Rw A Grand

Total

Hp 0 499,193 0 0 0 127,914 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 627,107

Hs 0 7,125 0 0 0 3,638,4

54 1,012,58

8 0

2,431,423

0 0 0 0 0 644,510 0 0 0 27,484 54,088 0 0 7,815,672


Row 2006

Col 2013


dr

Tr Tb Rw A Grand

Total

Hmp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hrp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48,850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48,850

Ht 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,237 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,237

B 0 -31,308 0 0 0 445,056 -42,938 0 0 0 0 0 31,407 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402,217

Pk 0 0 0 0 0 0 349,828 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 349,828

Pm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 685,7

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 685,710

T 0 -10,117 0 0 0 -33,678 0 0 105,545 0 0 0 -9,944 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,223 0 0 53,028

S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12

Hms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 238,496 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 238,496

Hrs 0 -2,354 0 0 0 128,268 390,742 0 1,747,5

98 0 5,482

14,846,665

6,902,777 475 4,125 0 0 0 0 112,774 337,996 65 24,474,483

Br 0 -3,495 0 0 0 0 11,566 0 239,670 0 -18,288 -

279,003

7,670,205 0 60,665 14,432 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,695,752

Pt 0 0 0 0 0 0 -28 0 0 0 0 0 0 36,670 -210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36,433

Pc 0 0 0 0 0 7,675 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,512 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,187

Sw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -440 212,08

8 0 0 0 0 0 0 211,648

Tm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bdr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Row 2006

Col 2013


dr

Tr Tb Rw A Grand

Total

Rw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -51,951 -44,097 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -51,951 -44,097

A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grand Total

0 459,044 0 0 0 4,313,6

89 1,721,75

8 685,7

10 4,539,4

74 12 -12,806

14,515,711

14,837,693

37,145 721,162 226,52

0 0 0 27,484 168,085 337,996 -51,886 42,630,563

Table 5. Katingan – Kahayan Landscape Historical Annual Emissions based on Land Transitions 2006 – 2013 (t.CO2-eq) for MINERAL SOILS

Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs H

mp Hrp

Ht

B Pk Pm

T S Hms Hrs Br Pt Pc Sw Tm Bdr


Hp 0 499,193 0 0 0 127,914 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 627,107

Hs 0 0 0 0 0 3,634,506 1,012,588 0 2,424,732 0 0 0 0 0 644,510 0 0 0 27,484 54,088 0 0 7,797,907

Hmp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hrp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,000

Ht 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,237 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,237

B 0 -31,308 0 0 0 0 -42,938 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -74,246

Pk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T 0 -10,117 0 0 0 -33,678 0 0 0 0 0 0 -14,765 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,223 0 0 -57,337

S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs H

mp Hrp

Ht

B Pk Pm

T S Hms Hrs Br Pt Pc Sw Tm Bdr


Hms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 238,496 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 238,496

Hrs 0 -2,354 0 0 0 128,268 163,125 0 679,387 0 5,482 65 3,230,006 0 4,125 0 0 0 0 112,774 337,996 65 4,658,808

Br 0 -3,495 0 0 0 0 -35,332 0 17,228 0 -17,584 -

223,929 0 0 0 14,432 0 0 0 0 0 0 -248,680

Pt 0 0 0 0 0 0 -28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -237

Pc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -440

Tm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bdr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -51,951 -11,833 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -51,951 -11,833

A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grand Total

0 451,919 0 0 0 3,857,010 1,097,415 0 3,136,585 0 -12,103 -

275,815 3,445,904 0 647,985 14,432 0 0 27,484 168,085 337,996 -51,886

12,948,783

Table 6. Katingan – Kahayan Landscape Historical Annual Emissions based on Land Transitions 2006 – 2013 (t.CO2-eq) for PEAT / ORGANIC SOILS

Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs Hmp




Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs Hmp



Hp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hs 0 7,125 0 0 0 3,948 0 0 6,691 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,764

Hmp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hrp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44,850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44,850

Ht 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B 0 0 0 0 0 445,056 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,407 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 476,463

Pk 0 0 0 0 0 0 349,828 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 349,828

Pm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 685,710 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 685,710

T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105,545 0 0 0 4,820 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110,365

S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12

Hms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hrs 0 0 0 0 0 0 227,617 0 1,068,211 0 0 14,846,600

3,672,771 475 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19,815,674

Br 0 0 0 0 0 0 46,898 0 222,442 0 -704 -55,074 7,670,205 0 60,665 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,944,432

Pt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36,670

Pc 0 0 0 0 0 7,675 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,512 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,187

Sw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 212,088 0 0 0 0 0 0 212,088

Tm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bdr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs Hmp



Tb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -32,265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -32,265

A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grand Total 0 7,125 0 0 0 456,679 624,343 685,710 1,402,890 12 -704

14,791,526

11,391,790 37,145 73,176 212,088 0 0 0 0 0 0

29,681,780


APPENDIX 3. PROJECTED BASELINE LAND TRANSITIONS (2014 – 2020) AND ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR KATINGAN – KAHAYAN LANDSCAPE Table 7. Katingan – Kahayan Landscape Projected Baseline Land Transitions 2014 – 2020 (hectares)

Row 2014

Col2020

Hp Hs Hmp



Hp 256,326 20,656 0 0 0 550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 277,532

Hs 0 874,435 0 0 0 42,709 14,469 0 22,785 0 0 0 0 0 7,776 0 0 0 186 522 0 0 962,882

Hmp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hrp 0 0 0 6,662 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 469 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,131

Ht 0 0 0 0 9,357 0 0 0 298 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,655

B 0 480 0 0 0 769,341 2,562 0 0 0 0 0 885 0 4,541 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 777,809

Pk 0 0 0 0 0 0 62,983 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62,983

Pm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,081 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,081

T 0 121 0 0 0 4,899 0 0 73,692 0 0 0 8,007 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,732 0 0 89,451

S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2


Row 2014

Col2020

Hp Hs Hmp



Hms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,511 0 2,457 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,968

Hrs 0 266 0 0 0 1,591 5,301 0 16,253 0 247 964,616 76,316 4 48 0 0 0 0 1,110 3,296 0 1,069,047

Br 0 59 0 0 0 960 6,443 0 8,428 0 404 4,723 824,956 0 2,628 1,022 0 0 0 0 0 0 849,623

Pt 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,939 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,960

Pc 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55,95

7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56,127

Sw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 101,244 0 0 0 0 0 0 101,274

Tm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 929 0 0 0 0 0 929

Bdr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,696 0 0 0 3,696

Tb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,816 0 0 29,816

Rw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,529 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115,925 0 120,454

A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42,128 42,128

Grand Total

256,326 896,016 0 6,662 9,357 820,220 91,760 29,081 121,455 2 10,16

3 969,339 917,620 15,943

71,000

102,266 929 0 3,882 34,180 119,221 42,128 4,517,549

Table 8. Katingan – Kahayan Landscape Projected Baseline Land Transitions 2014 – 2020 (hectares) for MINERAL SOILS

Row 2014

Col2020

Hp Hs Hmp



Hp 256,326 20,656 0 0 0 550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 277,532

Hs 0 874,115 0 0 0 42,686 14,469 0 22,752 0 0 0 0 0 7,776 0 0 0 186 522 0 0 962,507


Row 2014

Col2020

Hp Hs Hmp



Hmp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hrp 0 0 0 2,192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,237

Ht 0 0 0 0 9,357 0 0 0 298 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,655

B 0 480 0 0 0 746,400 2,562 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 4,541 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 754,016

Pk 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,869 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,869

Pm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,806 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,806

T 0 121 0 0 0 4,899 0 0 55,320 0 0 0 3,216 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,732 0 0 66,288

S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,511 0 2,457 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,968

Hrs 0 266 0 0 0 1,591 2,513 0 6,247 0 247 231,078 37,763 0 48 0 0 0 0 1,110 3,296 0 284,157

Br 0 59 0 0 0 960 2,089 0 1,213 0 374 3,469 381,034 0 18 1,022 0 0 0 0 0 0 390,240

Pt 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,998 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,019

Pc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55,73

6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55,736

Sw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 65,798 0 0 0 0 0 0 65,828

Tm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 929 0 0 0 0 0 929

Bdr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,696 0 0 0 3,696

Tb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,816 0 0 29,816

Rw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 728 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81,009 0 81,737

A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42,128 42,128

Grand 256,326 895,696 0 2,192 9,357 797,086 72,504 13,806 85,831 0 10,13

3 234,547 425,275 13,998

68,170

66,820 929 0 3,882 34,180 84,305 42,128 3,117,164


Row 2014

Col2020

Hp Hs Hmp



Total


Table 9. Katingan – Kahayan Landscape Projected Baseline Land Transitions 2014 – 2020 (hectares) for PEAT / ORGANIC SOILS

Row 2014

Col2020

Hp Hs Hmp



Hp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hs 0 320 0 0 0 22 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 375

Hmp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hrp 0 0 0 4,470 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 424 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,894

Ht 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B 0 0 0 0 0 22,941 0 0 0 0 0 0 853 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23,794

Pk 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,114

Pm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,275 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,275

T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,371 0 0 0 4,792 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23,163

S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Hms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hrs 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,788 0 10,006 0 0 733,538 38,554 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 784,890

Br 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,354 0 7,214 0 30 1,254 443,922 0 2,609 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 459,383

Pt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,941 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,941

Pc 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 221 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 391

Sw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,446 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,446

Tm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bdr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Row 2014

Col2020

Hp Hs Hmp



Rw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,801 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,916 0 38,716

A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grand Total

0 320 0 4,470 0 23,133 19,256 15,275 35,625 2 30 734,792 492,345 1,945 2,830 35,446 0 0 0 0 34,916 0 1,400,385

Table 10. Katingan – Kahayan Landscape Projected Annual Emissions based on projected Land Transitions 2014 – 2020 (t.CO2-eq)

Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs Hmp



Hp 0 281,311 0 0 0 47,537 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 328,848

Hs 0 6,071 0 0 0 3,110,0

34 803,377 0

1,987,803

0 0 0 0 0 566,168 0 0 0 15,493 46,227 0 0 6,535,174

Hmp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hrp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44,813 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44,813

Ht 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,609 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,609

B 0 -34,943 0 0 0 435,878 -44,286 0 0 0 0 0 16,204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 372,853

Pk 0 0 0 0 0 0 460,343 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 460,343

Pm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 687,3

92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 687,392

T 0 -10,549 0 0 0 -70,575 0 0 349,052 0 0 0 -24,301 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,577 0 0 247,205

S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12

Hms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115,829 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115,829


Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs Hmp



Hrs 0 -1,947 0 0 0 104,147 334,929 0 1,488,40

4 0 4,535

13,937,230

5,729,424 365 3,123 0 0 0 0 90,102 267,608 0 21,957,91

9

Br 0 -4,277 0 0 0 0 12,707 0 258,471 0

-18,48

8 -285,432 8,434,511 0 66,537 14,984 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,479,013

Pt 0 0 0 0 0 0 -27 0 0 0 0 0 0 36,876 -207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36,642

Pc 0 0 0 0 0 4,337 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,407

Sw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -443 212,677 0 0 0 0 0 0 212,234

Tm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bdr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -35,059 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -35,059

A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grand Total

0 235,666 0 0 0 3,631,3

58 1,567,04

3 687,3

92 4,093,34

0 12

-13,95

4

13,651,798

14,281,421

37,241 642,247 227,660 0 0 15,493 139,907 267,608 0 39,464,23

2

Table 11. Katingan – Kahayan Landscape Projected Annual Emissions based on projected Land Transitions 2014 – 2020 (t.CO2-eq) for MINERAL SOILS

Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs Hmp




Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs Hmp



Hp 0 281,311 0 0 0 47,537 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 328,848

Hs 0 0 0 0 0 3,107,9

71 803,377 0

1,984,294

0 0 0 0 0 566,168 0 0 0 15,493 46,227 0 0 6,523,531

Hmp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hrp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,914 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,914

Ht 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,609 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,609

B 0 -34,943 0 0 0 0 -44,286 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -79,229

Pk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T 0 -10,549 0 0 0 -70,575 0 0 0 0 0 0 -46,319 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,577 0 0 -123,865

S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115,829 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115,829

Hrs 0 -1,947 0 0 0 104,147 121,105 0 498,992 0 4,535 0 2,472,563 0 3,123 0 0 0 0 90,102 267,608 0 3,560,228

Br 0 -4,277 0 0 0 0 -36,118 0 17,476 0

-17,64

0 -227,152 0 0 0 14,984 0 0 0 0 0 0 -252,727

Pt 0 0 0 0 0 0 -27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -234

Pc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -443 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -443

Tm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bdr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs Hmp



Rw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -11,440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -11,440

A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grand Total

0 229,595 0 0 0 3,189,0

81 844,051 0

2,510,371

0 -

13,106

-227,152 2,534,548 0 568,641 14,984 0 0 15,493 139,907 267,608 0 10,074,02

0

Table 12. Katingan – Kahayan Landscape Projected Annual Emissions based on projected Land Transitions 2014 – 2020 (t.CO2-eq) for PEAT / ORGANIC SOILS

Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs Hmp



Hp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hs 0 6,071 0 0 0 2,062 0 0 3,509 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,642

Hmp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hrp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40,899 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40,899

Ht 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B 0 0 0 0 0 435,878 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 452,082

Pk 0 0 0 0 0 0 460,343 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 460,343

Pm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 687,3

92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 687,392

T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 349,052 0 0 0 22,018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 371,071

S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12

Hms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Row 2006

Col 2013

Hp Hs Hmp



Hrs 0 0 0 0 0 0 213,824 0 989,412 0 0 13,937,23

0 3,256,860 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,397,691

Br 0 0 0 0 0 0 48,825 0 240,995 0 -848 -58,280 8,434,511 0 66,537 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,731,740

Pt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36,876 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36,876

Pc 0 0 0 0 0 4,337 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,407

Sw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 212,677 0 0 0 0 0 0 212,677

Tm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bdr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -23,620 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -23,620

A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grand Total

0 6,071 0 0 0 442,277 722,992 687,3

92 1,582,96

8 12 -848

13,878,950

11,746,873

37,241 73,606 212,677 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,390,212

LESTARI

Wisma GKBI, 12th Floor, #1210 Jl. Jend. Sudirman No. 28, Jakarta 10210, Indonesia.

Phone: +62-21 574 0565 Fax: +62-21 574 0566 Email: [email protected]

landscape baseline analysis plan...burlington, vt 05402 tetra tech contacts: reed merrill, chief of...

Documents