The Rimba Raya Biodiversity Reserve REDD Project

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Indonesia currently has an estimated 5.5 million hectaresof palm oil plantations, and the area under cultivationthrough the development of an additional 6.1 millionhectares in Kalimantan, Papua, and other provinces(Guerin 2007).While about three quarters of Indonesia’s productioncomes from Sumatra, the provinces with the greatestpotential for continued growth are Kalimantan and IrianJaya, due to the relative availability of land for conversionto plantations. According to the Indonesian Chamber ofCommerce, in 2006 East and Central Kalimantan togetheraccounted for over 30 percent of the remaining land areain Indonesia suitable for conversion to oil palmplantations. This has resulted in an increasing area withinCentral Kalimantan that supports industrial oil palm, goingfrom no formal plantations in 1967 to 200-‐300,000 ha ofplanted area in 2002. The Indonesian Chamber ofCommerce reports that palm oil area in CentralKalimantan grew from 240,000 hectares in 2003 to nearly270,000 hectares in 2005 (ICCI 2006).In July 2008, the Central Kalimantan government reported2,847,720 ha of proposed oil palm plantations in theregion, by 186 companies, with investments on the orderof US$25M planned (GCK 2008).Barriers to Alternative Scenario #2 (continuation of pre-projectland use as production forest with continued illegallogging).Institutional barriers: Though the project land was zonedas production forest in the past, in 2006 individualpermits were issued by the district governments todevelop at least four palm oil concessions in the ProjectArea. One concession is already active. CentralKalimantan’s 2006 Spatial Plan (RTRWP), currentlyundergoing approval by the Indonesian government,shows the entire carbon accounting boundary area zonedfor agricultural development, thereby supporting thenotion that the project region was re-‐designated fromproduction forest to development land, likely becausemuch of the valuable timber in the region has alreadybeen extracted. Therefore, continued classification asproduction forest faces institutional barriers because thecurrent designation by the government is another landuse.Barriers to Alternative Scenario #3 (conversion to agriculturethat is not palm oil):Barriers due to local ecological conditions: The projectarea is not suitable for agricultural development due to itspresence on peat. The failed Mega Rice Project washalted in the late 1990s in Central Kalimantan after it was95
drained due to the realization that areas of deep peatwere unsuitable for agriculture.Barriers due to prevailing practice: growing crops otherthan palm oil is not a common land use within the projectregion.Barriers to Alternative Scenario #4 (conservation in theabsence of carbon financing):especially when the land use is not profitable ascompared with the planned land use.Barriers due to prevailing practice: No project activity ofthis type is currently operational in the region.Technological barriers: there is little equipment availablefor enforcing forest protection, i.e., for hiring forestguards, monitoring illegal logging, extinguishing forestfires, etc.Institutional barriers: the conservation forest scenariofaces institutional barriers because governmentalplanning prevents alternative land uses from occurring,especially when a proposed land use like conservation isnot profitable as compared with the planned land use.Technological barriers: there is little equipment availablefor enforcing forest protection, i.e., additional funding isnot likely to become available to hire forest guards,monitor illegal logging, prevent forest fires, etc.Barriers to Alternative Scenario #5 (proposed projectactivity): Investment barriers: There is currently no formal nationalor international capital market for this type of activity. Akey intent of the project is to demonstrate the viability ofharnessing carbon finance for the purpose ofstrengthening the case for conservation. Institutional barriers: The project activity facesinstitutional barriers because centralized governmentalplanning provides disincentive for alternative land uses,Sub-‐step 2b. Elimination of land use scenarios that areprevented by the identified barriersThe land use scenarios identified in Sub-‐step 1a that areprevented by at least one of the barriers listed in Sub-‐step 2ainclude:Scenario #2: Continuation of pre-‐project land use(production forest)Scenario #3: Conversion to agricultureScenario #4: Conservation in the absence of carbonfinancingScenario #5: Conservation with carbon financing(proposed project activity)Thus the remaining plausible land use scenario is:Scenario #1: Conversion to oil palm plantations afterillegal logging activities extract valuable timberSub-‐step 2c. Determination of baseline scenario (if allowed bythe barrier analysis)96
Page 1 and 2:
The Rimba Raya Biodiversity Reserve
Page 3 and 4:
AcknowledgementsWith Special Recogn
Page 5 and 6:
ContentsContents ..................
Page 7 and 8:
BIODIVERSITY SECTION ..............
Page 9 and 10:
GLOSSARY OF PROJECT SPECIFIC TERMSC
Page 11 and 12:
REDD, which is necessarily conserva
Page 13 and 14:
Rehabilitation Center (OFI), home t
Page 15 and 16:
estricted-‐range, or otherwise
Page 17 and 18:
HydrologyWatersheds in the Project
Page 19 and 20:
SoilA soil map for the Project Zone
Page 21 and 22:
ClimateRainfall in the Project Zone
Page 23 and 24:
Compositionally, freshwater swamps
Page 25 and 26:
selective logging, intensive loggin
Page 27 and 28:
G1.3. Boundaries of the Project Are
Page 29 and 30:
Communities in the Project ZoneThe
Page 31 and 32:
Delineation of the Project Zone. To
Page 33 and 34:
the project and recommending that t
Page 35 and 36:
During the ground surveys, aerial s
Page 37 and 38:
Stratification by Peat Distribution
Page 39 and 40:
G1.5. Description of Project Zone C
Page 41 and 42:
Only a few of the communities have
Page 43 and 44:
livelihoods, providing protection f
Page 45 and 46:
Similar to the other villages along
Page 47 and 48:
company. On average, farmers and fi
Page 49 and 50:
categories: housing, office, agricu
Page 51 and 52:
Table 6. Current Community Conflict
Page 53 and 54: and six are Vulnerable (VU). CR spe
Page 55 and 56: eight are listed as Vulnerable. Eig
Page 57 and 58: 2004). These losses highlight the i
Page 59 and 60: small mammal species richness decli
Page 61 and 62: even fewer forest species than plan
Page 63 and 64: Other threats to biodiversityAdditi
Page 65 and 66: HCV1.1Table 8. Preliminary evaluati
Page 67 and 68: of water supplies and prevention of
Page 69 and 70: ladang agriculture, scrub, short se
Page 71 and 72: Table 11. Critically Endangered Hig
Page 73 and 74: d. areas that support significant c
Page 75 and 76: G1.8.2. Significant Large Landscape
Page 77 and 78: It is possible that a degree of per
Page 79 and 80: The revised Toolkit for Indonesia i
Page 81 and 82: the assessment area; and second, an
Page 83 and 84: HCV 4.3HCV 4.3 aims to identify and
Page 85 and 86: Within the Project Area and neighbo
Page 87 and 88: G1.8.6. Areas Critical for Traditio
Page 89 and 90: In 2004, five oil palm estates were
Page 91 and 92: Figure 23. Comparison of the new dr
Page 93 and 94: Table 15. Extent of Overlap w/ Oil
Page 95 and 96: Baseline analysis: LandcoverIn orde
Page 97 and 98: All survey data has been entered in
Page 99 and 100: For a complete report on the Carbon
Page 101 and 102: Identification of Baseline Scenario
Page 103: Under Indonesian legislation, Law (
Page 107 and 108: conversion for urban, rural, and in
Page 109 and 110: to 2002. Furthermore, deforestation
Page 111 and 112: Local Perspective. Tanjung Puting N
Page 113 and 114: Table 17. 2000-‐2008 Palm Oil E
Page 115 and 116: Provincial Government Targets Rimba
Page 117 and 118: to recovery from past disturbance,
Page 119 and 120: StratumTable 20. Calculations of CO
Page 121 and 122: Year ofProjectArea loggedyr-‐1T
Page 123 and 124: GHG removals from oil palm sequestr
Page 125 and 126: Year ofProjectArea burnedyr-‐1T
Page 127 and 128: Year ofProjectArea burnedyr-‐1T
Page 129 and 130: Yr ofProjectTable 26. Net baseline
Page 131 and 132: environmental impacts and the need
Page 133 and 134: triggered by palm-‐oil companie
Page 135 and 136: G3. Project Design and GoalsG3.1. S
Page 137 and 138: elements and an assessment of the P
Page 139 and 140: habitat in terms of canopy and food
Page 141 and 142: Funding of OFI activitiesTanjung Pu
Page 143 and 144: interventions can improve the poor
Page 145 and 146: Community Agro-‐Forestry. In ke
Page 147 and 148: The only requirement is to pump the
Page 149 and 150: The Rimba Raya project proponents i
Page 151 and 152: www.kiva.org as highly reputable fi
Page 153 and 154: purchases more than $24 million dol
Page 155 and 156:
The comparative analysis will be us
Page 157 and 158:
G3.4. Project Lifetime, Accounting
Page 159 and 160:
Table 28. Rimba Raya Implementation
Page 161 and 162:
2-‐Establishment ofRimba RayaRe
Page 163 and 164:
6-‐Development ofSocial Buffer2
Page 165 and 166:
7-‐Outreach andEducation3-‐
Page 167 and 168:
Pembuang Hulu and Tanjung Hanau reg
Page 169 and 170:
.7. Determination of the need for s
Page 171 and 172:
elationship with oil palm companies
Page 173 and 174:
capital.” In order to ensure that
Page 175 and 176:
G3.8. Stakeholder Identification an
Page 177 and 178:
2. Improve multi-‐stakeholder p
Page 179 and 180:
Community Involvement during Projec
Page 181 and 182:
31 26/12/08 Burhanudin Merchant Des
Page 183 and 184:
Table 31. Rimba Raya Project Proces
Page 185 and 186:
G3.9. CCBA Public Comment PeriodDes
Page 187 and 188:
In some contexts, for example where
Page 189 and 190:
Table 32. Required Skill Sets , Key
Page 191 and 192:
Develop areforestationprogramaround
Page 193 and 194:
Figure 38 PT Rimba Raya Conservatio
Page 195 and 196:
Figure 40. Project Organizational C
Page 197 and 198:
manipulated to serve someone’s pe
Page 199 and 200:
13). One area of special considerat
Page 201 and 202:
also provide training in the skills
Page 203 and 204:
Communitycenters &librariesWater fi
Page 205 and 206:
C102 - Social Security (Minimum Sta
Page 207 and 208:
G5.2. Documentation of Project Appr
Page 209 and 210:
Figure 42. Official Land Area Verif
Page 211 and 212:
Figure 44. Original Letter from Gov
Page 213 and 214:
Figure 45. Original Minister’s De
Page 215 and 216:
Encroachment by Palm Oil Plantation
Page 217 and 218:
CLIMATE SECTIONCL1. Net Positive Cl
Page 219 and 220:
CL1.5. Double Counting of Emissions
Page 221 and 222:
Negative leakage is the unanticipat
Page 223 and 224:
undervalued. Moreover, the argument
Page 225 and 226:
et. al., 2005). However the long te
Page 227 and 228:
edistributed such that the most eff
Page 229 and 230:
The intersection of the hypothetica
Page 231 and 232:
dedicated to bio-‐fuel producti
Page 233 and 234:
Without project activities are disp
Page 235 and 236:
Table 36. Assessment of risk factor
Page 237 and 238:
Table 36. ...continuedRiskFactorLik
Page 239 and 240:
Table 37. ...continuedRisk Factor %
Page 241 and 242:
degraded portions of the Project Ar
Page 243 and 244:
CL2.4. Leakage and non-CO2 GasesNon
Page 245 and 246:
Monitoring of the boundary of the p
Page 247 and 248:
Monitoring will be conducted by a p
Page 249 and 250:
Table 38. InfiniteSUSTAINABILITY Ma
Page 251 and 252:
Phinisi FloatingClinicMicro-Finance
Page 253 and 254:
Table 39. Threats and management re
Page 255 and 256:
Hunting - Communities in the Projec
Page 257 and 258:
All five of these capital assets ar
Page 259 and 260:
Hygiene improvesProportion of house
Page 261 and 262:
LARASITAProject proponents will wor
Page 263 and 264:
B1.2. Impact of Project Activities
Page 265 and 266:
HCV 1.1 Support Function to Protect
Page 267 and 268:
further losses. Protection of non-
Page 269 and 270:
five are listed as Endangered by IU
Page 271 and 272:
HCV 2.3 Areas that Contain Populati
Page 273 and 274:
Table 42. Species to be used for Ri
Page 275 and 276:
negative. In this scenario, net bio
Page 277 and 278:
permanent 10-‐20 km transects s
Page 279 and 280:
high resolution imagery) and field
Page 281 and 282:
e present in the Seruyan River insi
Page 283 and 284:
The Rimba Raya Project is located i
Page 285 and 286:
intentionally or unintentionally, f
Page 287 and 288:
GL3. Exceptional Biodiversity Benef
Page 289 and 290:
Table 44. Endangered & Critically E
Page 291 and 292:
GL3.2.2. Species with Large but Clu
Page 293 and 294:
BIBLIOGRAPHYAnderson, J.A.R. (1972)
Page 295 and 296:
Gibbs, H., (2008) Carbon payback ti
Page 297 and 298:
Nicolas, Marc V.J. and Grant S. Bee
Page 299 and 300:
Islands]. In Press.Susilo, H.D. (19
show all

The Rimba Raya Biodiversity Reserve REDD Project

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?