LANDSCAPE BASELINE ANALYSIS PLAN
3rd Edition, October 2018
This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Tetra Tech for the LESTARI Task Order.
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 document are the sole responsibility of Tetra Tech and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
Tetra Tech 159 Bank Street, Suite 300 Burlington, VT 05401 Tel: (802) 658-3890
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | ii LANDSCAPE BASELINE ANALYSIS
3rd Edition, October 2018
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.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ...... 4
INTRODUCTION ...... 6
1. DELINEATION OF LESTARI LANDSCAPES ...... 10 1.1 Definition of Landscape Terms ...... 10 1.2 Delineation of Value Landscapes ...... 11 1.3 Delineation of Operational Landscapes ...... 12 1.4 Aligning LESTARI Project Targets With GoI Commitments ...... 13
2. LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTIONS ...... 15 2.1 Leuser Landscape – Aceh ...... 15 2.2 Katingan – Kahayan Landscape ...... 19 2.3 Lorentz Lowlands (Mimika and Asmat) Landscape ...... 23 2.4 Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape ...... 27 2.5 Sarmi Landscape ...... 30 2.6 Cyclops Landscape ...... 33
3. BASELINE DEFORESTATION AND GHG EMISSIONS ...... 36 3.1 Revision of the Baseline Methodology ...... 36 3.2 Source for activity data and emission factors ...... 43 3.3 Calculation of Above Ground and Peat decomposition GHG emissions ...... 44 3.4 Results of Forest Reference Emission Level (FREL) for LESTARI landscapes ... 45
4. INDIVIDUAL LANDSCAPE BASELINE ANALYSIS AND KEY MITIGATION ACTIVITIES ...... 55 4.1 Leuser Landscape ...... 55 4.1.1 Leuser Landscape Baseline Analysis ...... 55 4.1.2 Leuser Landscape Key Activities ...... 59 4.2 Katingan - Kahayan Landscape ...... 60 4.2.1 Katingan – Kahayan Baseline Anaylsis ...... 60 4.2.2 Katingan – Kahayan Landscape Key Activities ...... 65 4.3 Lorentz Lowlands Landscape ...... 66 4.3.1 Lorentz lowlands Baseline Analysis ...... 66 4.3.2 Lorentz Lowlands Landscape Key Activities ...... 71 4.4 Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape ...... 72 4.4.1 Mappi – Bouven Digoel Baseline Analysis ...... 72 4.4.2 Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape Key Activities ...... 77 4.5 Sarmi Landscape ...... 78 4.5.1 Sarmi Baseline Analysis ...... 78
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 2 4.5.2 Sarmi Landscape Key Activities ...... 82 4.6 Cyclops Landscape ...... 83 4.6.1 Cyclops Baseline Analysis ...... 83 5.6.2 Cyclops Key Activities ...... 86
5. PLAN FOR IMPRPOVEMENT ...... 87 5.1 Acknowledgement of the LBA by the GoI ...... 87 5.2 Opportunities for FREL improvement ...... 87
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 90
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 3 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1. LESTARI Leuser Landscapes, Aceh Province Operational Landscape ...... 17 Figure 2. LESTARI Leuser Landscapes, Aceh Province Value Landscape ...... 18 Figure 3. Katingan – Kahayan Operational Landscape ...... 21 Figure 4. Katingan – Kahayan Value Landscape ...... 22 Figure 5. Lorentz Lowlands Operational Landscape ...... 25 Figure 6. Lorentz Value Landscape ...... 26 Figure 7. Mappi-Bouven Digoel Operational landscape ...... 28 Figure 8. Mappi-Bouven Digoel Value Landscape ...... 29 Figure 9. Sarmi Operational Landscape ...... 31 Figure 10. Sarmi Value Landscape ...... 32 Figure 11. Cyclops Operational Landscape ...... 34 Figure 12. Cyclops Value Landscape ...... 35 Figure 13. Government of Indonesia climate change mitigation documents and leading agencies ...... 36 Figure 14. FREL vs LUWES/LUMEN ...... 42 Figure 15. Annual deforestation rates in LESTARI landscapes in the period 1990 to 2012 in hectares...... 46 Figure 16. Proportion of annual deforestation (in %) for 6 LESTARI landscapes...... 47 Figure 17. Annual Degradation Rated in the period 1990 to 2012 in Hectares yr-1 ...... 47 Figure 18. Proportion of Annual Degradation (in%) for LESTARI Landscapes ...... 48 Figure 19. Average annual historical emissions from deforestation and forest degradation expressed in t.CO2e yr-1...... 49 Figure 20. Annual Peat Decomposition Emissions from Deforestation, Forest Degradation and Secondary Forest in the Period 1990 to 2012 in t.CO2e ...... 50 Figure 21. Model and Linear Regression ...... 51 Figure 22. Emission Baseline for All LESTARI landscape ...... 53 Figure 23. A spatial illustration of deforestation and degradation in the Leuser Landscape between 1990 and 2012, juxtaposed with the current forestry spatial plan of Aceh Province (SK.103/MenLHK-III/2015)...... 58 Figure 24. A spatial illustration of deforestation and degradation in the Katingan Kahayan Landscape between 1990 and 2012, juxtaposed with the current forestry spatial plan of Central Kalimantan (SK.529/Menhut-II/2012) ...... 64 Figure 25. A spatial illustration of deforestation and degradation in the Lorentz Lowlands Landscape between 1990 and 2012, juxtaposed with the current forestry spatial plan of Papua (SK.782/Menhut-III/2012) ...... 69 Figure 26. A spatial illustration of deforestation and degradation in the Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape between 1990 and 2012, juxtaposed with the current forestry spatial plan of Papua (SK.782/Menhut-III/2012) ...... 75 Figure 27. A spatial illustration of deforestation and degradation in the Sarmi Landscape between 1990 and 2012, juxtaposed with the current forestry spatial plan of Papua (SK.782/Menhut-III/2012) ...... 81 Figure 28. A spatial illustration of deforestation and degradation in the Sarmi Landscape between 1990 and 2012, juxtaposed with the current forestry spatial plan of Papua (SK.782/Menhut-III/2012) ...... 85
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 4
Table 1. Summary of relevant documents on climate change mitigation in Indonesia ...... 38 Table 2. Strengths and weaknesses of each relevant baseline ...... 40 Table 3. Emissions Factor and Activity Data implemented in Each Documents ...... 43 Table 4. Carbon Stock ...... 45 Table 5. Annual deforestation and degradation rates in LESTARI landscapes and associated average Annual GHG emission ...... 49 Table 6. All LESTARI Landscapes Annual Peat Decomposition Emissions from Deforestation, Forest Degradation and Secondary Forest in the period 1990 to 2012 in t.CO2e ...... 50
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 5 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 July 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 the focal districts of Aceh Selatan, Gayo Lues and Aceh Tenggara, and includes the Aceh portion of Leuser National Park and Singkil Wildlife Sanctuary. In Central Kalimantan, LESTARI works in the Katingan-Kahayan Landscape, comprising Katingan and Pulang Pisau 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. 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;
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 6 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.
Within the Scope of Work, the highest level target for LESTARI is, “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. It is clear that the LESTARI results for reducing emissions are orientated towards contributing to Indonesia’s own commitments. The target of 41% is clearly defined as the target for reduced emissions in both Peraturan Presiden (Perpres-Presidential Decree) 61/2011 on National Action Plan to Reduce GHG Emissions (Rencana Aksi Nasional Penurunan Gas Rumah Kaca -RAN GRK) under a scenario when international support is available—such as a USAID funded project like LESTARI. The Counter Measure 2 Scenario (CM2) or conditional scenario under the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) submitted to UNFCCC reduces this to 38%.
The Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (LBA) is a foundational document that defines and presents the geographic landscapes that LESTARI works in. The document assesses the challenges and opportunities for achieving results and sets the project’s targets, and therefore contributes to the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for annualized and LOP targets, and guides yearly Work Plans.
Specifically, the LBA presents: ● Baseline forest cover and methodology used to define historical deforestation and degradation rates in the landscapes. ● Historical baseline emissions from land use change, and land use on peat lands in the landscapes, and projected emissions into the future under a “business as usual” (BAU) scenario ● Emissions reduction targets for each landscape ● Priority areas to reduce emissions, related priority interventions needed and identification of key partners (such as conservation area managers, Forest Management Units and the private sector) for collaboration to improve management reduce deforestation and thus emissions. This third edition of the LBA is divided into five sections. The first chapter defines terminology used by the project and the approach applied to delineate LESTARI landscapes. The second chapter described the geographic boundaries of LESTARI landscapes and presents a description of bio-physical attributes such as the forest cover, as well as Conservation Areas and other management types covering areas of high conservation value or high biodiversity. In short, this section defines where we work and what kind of management structure we can collaborate with. The third section details the methodology
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 7 for calculating baseline deforestation and GHG emissions in across all landscapes under the business as usual scenario, and details emissions reductions targets that must be achieved within the life of project. The forth section described individual landscape baselines and examines the history of deforestation, degradation, and peat decomposition, defines landscape emission reduction targets and identifies priority activities that are needed to accomplish these targets. The document concludes with limitations to the baseline data and methodology, and an action plan to improve the utility of the LBA.
Principle Amendments in the Third Edition The first edition of the Landscape Baseline Analysis (LBA) Plan (submitted to USAID in September 2015 and approved in November 2015) set out to understand the nature of the LESTARI landscapes and clearly identify opportunities and challenges to achieve primary the project target – reduced Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. The baseline tool that was used for the first version of the LBA was the LUMES methodology described in “Technical Guidelines for calculating GHG emissions and sequestration from the land use sector1 produced by BAPPENAS in collaboration with ICRAF). The LBA was originally developed by the project in a short time-frame, and input from stakeholders was limited. It was noted that methodology was one of the areas requiring improvement in future editions of the LBA.
The project reviewed different national baselines, key institutions and experts, relevant data and strategies to identify the most suitable approaches for improving the LBA in the second year of the project. Prior to the start of LESTARI, and during the course of the first 18 months of the project, the Government of Indonesia has developed and published several new approaches for measurement of GHG emissions and definition of national baselines used in target setting for reducing emissions from avoided deforestation, forest degradation and peat decomposition. There are currently six documents containing national baselines: Second National Communication (SNC), Biennial Update Report (BUR), Forest Reference Emissions Level (FREL), Peraturan Presiden (Perpres-Presidential Decree) 61/2011 on National Action Plan to Reduce GHG Emissions (Rencana Aksi Nasional Penurunan Gas Rumah Kaca -RAN GRK), Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC). From these documents, five are still in effect and continue to be updated.
In the second revision of the LBA the LESTARI project chose to use a different methodology based on the National Forest Reference Emissions Level (FREL)2 based on an evaluation of current methodologies and approaches used in Indonesia. The FREL methodology was chosen as it is the most acknowledged and recognized by international, national and local institutions in the forestry sector; and because FREL has been showing steady progress on proportioning targets to the provincial level (although this is still not finalized). Additionally, the methodology used in FREL is consistent with its associated development of Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) System developed by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF).
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. 2 MoEF, 2016, National Forest Reference Emission Level for Deforestation and Forest Degradation: In the Context of Decision 1/CP.16 para 70 UNFCCC (Encourages developing country Parties to contribute to mitigation actions in the forest sector), Directorate General of Climate Change. The Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Indonesia
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 8 The LUWES/LUMENS methodology used in the first iteration of the LBA and used to update the Perpres 61/2011 by reviewing RAD GRK (Rencana Aksi Daerah Penurunan Gas Rumah Kaca-Local Action Plan to Reduce GHG Emissions) is acknowledged because it is recognized and used by Bappenas—LESTARI’s Implementing Agency Counterpart and congruent with a landscape approach. A fundamental deviation of LUWES/LUMENS methodology from LESTARI’s approach is the inclusion of sequestered carbon that could potentially prioritize mitigation actions such as agricultural crops and agroforestry or a focus on forest restoration which is not supported by the LESTARI project or its situation model. In contrast, the FREL methodology used in this iteration calculates gross emissions from deforestation and degradation and therefore highlights priority mitigation activities under each of the LESTARI components and their integration to achieve landscape-wide conservation that can lead to emission reductions.
The utilization of FREL as the nationally accepted approach in the land use sector provides the opportunity for LESTARI to contribute to national objectives of emission reductions by 2020. Also, through the application of FREL at the LESTARI landscape level, the project is providing a space for stakeholder engagement to develop sub-national level emissions reduction targets and help support interventions target vulnerable areas for improved management in the forestry and land use sector.
The third revision maintains the FREL approach but recalculates emissions from peat based on national peat distribution data. Errors in peat distribution data were discovered during calculation of emissions form 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 during annual reporting of the project’s third year. This was due to areas of non-forested peat as of 1990 that were not masked out of the analysis and inflated emissions in the second version3. Only sections on peat emissions and the constructed baselines for landscapes are affected.
3 The FREL explains that “peat decomposition on peat land covered with degraded forest was calculated not only for areas which degraded after 1990 but also on areas where degraded forests already existed in 1990”. Therefore, all non-forested areas on peat in 1990 are masked out of the peat land decomposition calculations (GoI, 2016).
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 9 1. DELINEATION OF LESTARI LANDSCAPES
LESTARI proposes to work in 6 landscapes in Aceh, Kalimantan, and Papua that builds off 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”. The definition of the VL is particular has changed slightly to bring it into line with the methodology used for the calculation of GHG emission from deforestation and degradation as per the FREL. ● Value Landscapes (VL) lie entirely within the larger LESTARI Operational Landscapes and are primarily defined as the existing forest where LESTARI seeks to reduce deforestation and forest degradation. VLs are therefore delineated by the extent of primary forest and secondary forest in 2013 (our latest base year for which data was available at the time of writing). In addition, all peatlands (that were forested in 1990) are included in the VL as emissions from decomposing peat are a significant contribution to overall emissions from the landscape. All reductions in emission achieved by the project will be calculated from within this Value Landscape by measuring changes to land cover – deforestation, degradation, and management 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, infrastructure and the private sector. LESTARI will work with these stakeholders in degraded portions of OLs as they can have a direct impact on adjacent VLs.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 10 Schematic of generic LESTARI landscape
Operational Landscape
Conservation Areas Value 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 is funded in part through Biodiversity Funding that seeks to improve conservation area (CA) management, the nuclei of most landscapes are the major conservation and other protected areas that are located in 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, protected mangroves in southern Papua and the Cyclops Nature Reserve in the north are the primary conservation targets.
Areas surrounding these CAs, where improved management is needed are also included in the VL. These areas have been defined as primary forest, secondary forest, and the once forested peatlands that are contiguous and adjoining CAs and that are assumed to provide an important support function for biodiversity (i.e. an extension of the home range for key species found in the CAs) and essential ecosystem services. The delineation of the final VL entailed a biophysical analysis and subsumed forested watersheds in upland areas adjacent to CAs and extended to include forest and peatlands contiguous to these buffer areas. 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, major rivers formed the boundary of value landscapes. Areas outside the CAs falls under the management of Forest Management Units, the Private Sector or (as in Papua) traditionally managed land.
The ability to engagement the private sector with landscapes to improve industry practices— a major contributor to deforestation and degradation—was also an important consideration in defining the VLs. Where there were high emissions or the potential for high emissions from natural resource based businesses, these areas were included within the targeted landscapes so that options for private sector engagement and adoption of a low emission
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 11 and high conservation value (HCV) forest conservation trajectory could be followed. 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, Mappi—Bouven Digoel, Lorentz Lowlands and Sarmi Landscapes).
A summary of the priority factors used to delineate the biophysical Value Landscapes are as follows: 1. Primary and secondary forest, and peat lands once forested in 1990 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 therefore 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. Management units (such as Forest Management Units / KPH) are also considered here and initiatives implemented within the LESTARI landscapes may also impact areas outside of it. In these instances, LESTARI will source evidence for areas under improved management outside of landscapes but not measure the impact on reduced emissions.
Key factors that are used to delineate the OL include provincial and district boundaries, and village distribution. However, there are some exceptions, such as in Bouven Digoel that lies along the border between Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. In the landscape the area that is potentially politically sensitive has been excluded from the OL. has been included in the OL as these are part of a peat dome that is a priority area for conservation under an ecosystem restoration concession, and where communities can potentially have an impact on forest within the VL.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 12 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. Forest Management Units and Private Sector concessions 3. Village distribution and communities that are likely to have an impact of the value landscape 4. Provincial boundaries 5. 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:
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 13 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 a 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. Sustainable landscape visions developed through Multi- Stakeholder Forums and other local partners (such as the FMUs and conservation Area managers and the privates sector) 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 and the BKSDA, FMUs, local communities and the private sector through direct technical assistance and project implementation, or through grants and subcontracts.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 14 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 deviation 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 Subulussalam 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.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 15 Leuser Landscape in Figures (condition in 2012)
Operational Landscape Value Landscape Components (ha) Area (Ha) Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Secondary Non- Total Value Dryland Dryland Swamp Swamp Mangrove Forested Landscape Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Peatland 1,593,429 691,632 434,157 8,543 77,717 791 3,603 1,216,443
Value Landscape by Legal Status of Conservation Area Management Units (ha) 705,683 ha within value landscape. Leuser was set up in 1980 with an area of Leuser National 792,675 ha. Later extended to 1,094,692 ha in 1997 (SK No. 276/kpts-VI/1997). 579,792 Park However the original boundaries are those use in the landscape as the extended boundaries have never been finalized at the local level. 100% of areas within the LESTARI Leuser landscape. Set up in 1998 to protect Singkil Wildlife 76,796 wildlife, especially high densities of orangutan (SK No. 166/Kpts-II/1998). Total Reserve current area of 81,000 hectares FMU III 108,277 FMU V 177,260 FMU VI 246,925 Oil Palm 8,766 Plantations Other Use Zones 38,060
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 16 Figure 1. LESTARI Leuser Landscapes, Aceh Province Operational Landscape
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 17 Figure 2. LESTARI Leuser Landscapes, Aceh Province Value Landscape
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 18 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.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 19 Katingan – Kahayan Landscape Figures (situation in 2012)
Operational Landscape Value Landscape Components (ha) Area (Ha) Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Secondary Non- Total Value Dryland Dryland Swamp Swamp Mangrove Forested Landscape Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Peatland 4,526,288 285,461 992,033 7,131 1,073,361 11,772 432,007 2,801,765
Value Landscape by Major Legal Status of Conservation Area Management Units (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 Sebangau although the total area of the park is actually 596,000. There have been 511,197 National Park several minor changes to the park boundaries that require clarification. The area was previously production forest and suffered high levels of illegal logging. The park was set up in 1992 covering 181,090 hectares (SK NO. 281/Kpts- Bukit Baka II/1992. ha lies in Katingan District (within the LESTARI operation and Bukit Raya 125,487 value landscape) and the reminder in Melawi and Sintang Districts in West National Park Kalimantan province (outside of the landscape) FMU III 50,253 FMU XIII 116,330 FMU XV 140,060 FMU XVI 233,014 FMU XVII 548,234 FMU XVIII 90,607 FMU XXIX 117,081 FMU XXX 132,141 FMU XXXI 275,747 Oil Palm 245,581 Plantations Other Use 103,100 Zones (APL)
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 20 Figure 3. Katingan – Kahayan Operational Landscape
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 21 Figure 4. Katingan – Kahayan Value Landscape
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 22 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 2012) Operational Landscape Value Landscape Components (ha) Area (Ha) Primary Second Primary Secondar Primary Secondary Non- Total Dryland ary Swamp y Swamp Mangrove Mangrove Forested Value Forest Dryland Forest Forest Peatland Landscap Forest e 4,792,545 1,400,304 276,591 2,000,521 299,000 359,750 31,033 42,441 4,409,640
Value Landscape by Legal Status of Conservation Area Management Units (ha) The national park was gazetted in 1997 (SK No. 154/Kpts-II/1997) with an area covering Lorentz 986,271 2,450,000 hectare. Lorentz is Indonesia’s and Southeast Asia’s largest National Park. National Park 1,019,682 ha of the lowland forest ecosystems lie within the LESTARI landscape. This area covering 122,738 hectare has been nominated as a new protected area of Rawa Baki – cultural significance to be managed locally through strengthen traditional management. 122,738 Vriendschap 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).
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 23 Value Landscape by Legal Status of Conservation Area Management Units (ha) An area covering approximately 250,000 hectares of mangroves currently under Mimika – protection forest and in the national park. An additional 140,000 hectares of mangroves is Asmat 140,060 not under any management. These are the focus of improved management through Mangroves FMU, Co-management and potentially Local Mangrove Working groups (KKMD) in Mimika. FMU V 239,453 FMU VI 175,182 FMU XLIV 771,494 FMU XLV 449,802 FMU XLVI 331,889 Rawa Baki Vriendschap is located in this FMU Oil Palm 37,059 Plantations Other Use 61,632 Zones (APL) Areas outside of These areas have not been included in FMUs as there was a significant reduction in area 1,980,370 FMU and of designated conversion forest in the latest Forestry spatial plan (SK No. 782/ 2012) concessions
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 24 Figure 5. Lorentz Lowlands Operational Landscape
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 25 Figure 6. Lorentz Value Landscape
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 26 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. At present 236,570 hectares has been licensed for oil palm in this landscape.
Only one of these companies have started operation in the landscape to date (with little regard to conservation of riparian belts important areas of forest) and the USAID LESTARI project has an opportunity to provide local stakeholders and plantation developers information to mitigate further impact from future plantation development.
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 2012)
Operational Landscape Value Landscape Components (ha) Area (Ha) Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Non- Total Value Dryland Dryland Swamp Swamp Mangrove Mangrove Forested Landscape Forest Forest Forest Forest Peatland 1,039,59 3,303,923 561,893 395,464 183,512 49,552 4,128 231,768 2,465,916 9
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 27 Figure 7. Mappi-Bouven Digoel Operational landscape
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 28 Figure 8. Mappi-Bouven Digoel Value Landscape
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 29 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 2012)
Operational Landscape Value Landscape Components (ha) Area (Ha) Primary Secondar Primary Secondary Primary Secondar Non- Total Value Dryland y Dryland Swamp Swamp Mangrove y Forested Landscape Forest Forest Forest Forest Mangrove Peatland 1,017,078 690,527 219,056 60,603 11,339 1,676 1,514 1,233 985,948
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 30 Figure 9. Sarmi Operational Landscape
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 31 Figure 10. Sarmi Value Landscape
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 32 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 2012)
Operational Landscape Value Landscape Components (ha) Area (Ha) Primary Dryland Forest Secondary Dryland Total Value Landscape Forest 46,675 29,892 6,857 36,750
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.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 33 Figure 11. Cyclops Operational Landscape
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 34 Figure 12. Cyclops Value Landscape
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 35 3. BASELINE DEFORESTATION AND GHG EMISSIONS 3.1 Revision of the Baseline Methodology The first edition of the Landscape Baseline Analysis (LBA) Plan (submitted to USAID in September 2015 and approved in November 2015) set out to understand the nature of the LESTARI landscapes and clearly identify opportunities and challenges to achieve the project target of reduced Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. The baseline tool that was used for the first version of the LBA was the LUMES methodology described in “Technical Guidelines for calculating GHG emissions and sequestration from the land use sector4 produced by BAPPENAS in collaboration with The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). The LBA was originally developed by the project in a short time-frame, and input from stakeholders was limited. It was noted that methodology was one of the areas requiring improvement in future editions of the LBA.
Activities related to climate change, especially mitigation activities, have been conducted by different ministries under different mandates over the past years as shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13. Government of Indonesia climate change mitigation documents and leading agencies
Beginning in 2015, climate change in Indonesia became the responsibility of the Directorate General of Climate Change within the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF), upon liquidation of former climate change institutions and reformation of MoEF and Bappenas5.
4 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. 5 Formerly, climate change was under responsibilities of different ad-hoc institutions namely Indonesian National Council on Climate Change (DNPI-Dewan Nasional Perubahan Iklim), Presidential Working Unit for Supervision and Management of Development (Unit Kerja Presiden Bidang Pengawasan dan Pengendalian Pembangunan-UKP4), and Indonesian Agency for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (Badan REDD+). These institutions were later liquidated and the mandate was merged into MoEF under Presidential Decree number 16/2015 on the establishment of MoEF.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 36 As the Indonesian focal point for the UNFCCC, MoEF published the National Communication (NC) to provide regular information on the progress of implementation to reduce the impact of climate change. The NC contains national level information related to climate change adaptation and mitigation, including emission baselines and mitigation and adaptation activities. Indonesia published the Second National Communication (SNC) in 2006. The SNC served as the baseline for the President’s commitment, during the G20 summit in 2009, to reduce emissions by 26% with Indonesia’s own resources and up to 41% with international support. This commitment was later published as Presidential Decree 61/2011 (Perpres 61) on RAN GRK.
To update the SNC and before the submission of the Third NC (TNC), the Government of Indonesia submitted a Biennial Update Report (BUR) in 2016 in which the Forest Reference Emission Level6 (FREL, an updated version that was also submitted in the same year), was acknowledged as the country’s official report to UNFCCC establishing a baseline for deforestation and forest degradation rates and emissions for REDD+.
Supporting the MRV system and as part of NC, the Government of Indonesia has also developed a National GHG Inventory System under Presidential Decree 71/2011, as the basic law on developing SIGN SMART, an online reporting system to inventory GHG emissions.
In 2015, Indonesia submitted its INDC as part of global actions to address climate change in the period after 2020. With the decision of the UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP) 21, Indonesia submitted its NDC in 2016 which was intended as the continuation of INDC. However, INDC was formerly under Bappenas, while NDC was developed by MoEF; both documents were not developed using the same methodology. However, the NDC is what was ratified under the Paris Agreement, and therefore it is the most updated and current methodology. A summary of relevant documents of climate change mitigation in Indonesia is presented in Table 1.
Compared to other baselines, the INDC and NDC were developed using complex modelling with support from academic institutions and will not be relevant for LESTARI as the model will still be updated following external inputs such as updated GDP figures and expected national policy development in different sectors. These two baselines are highly political and currently still in ongoing discussion with sectorial ministries to divide responsibilities of government institutions to achieve its targets beyond 2020.
BUR is the latest document submitted by Government of Indonesia to UNFCCC as country’s report on implementing means to mitigation, and as an update report before the commencing of the next NC. The first BUR that was submitted in 2015 was not defining a new baseline on forestry and acknowledged FREL as the baseline for deforestation.
6 MoEF 2016, National Forest Reference Emission Level for Deforestation and Forest Degradation: In the Context of Decision 1/CP.16 para 70 UNFCCC (Encourages developing country Parties to contribute to mitigation actions in the forest sector), Directorate General of Climate Change. The Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Indonesia
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 37 Table 1. Summary of relevant documents on climate change mitigation in Indonesia
Base Approach/ Activities Document Input year(s) Methodology covered
SNC (as the Deforestation, Land Use and Land Use Change national peat (LULUC) map, research on GHG 2000-2004 Historical projection communication decomposition, emissions from peat decomposition to UNFCCC) peat fire and peat fire
BUR (as an update report to UNFCCC before Baseline of deforestation in BUR is referring to FREL as the formal baseline for forestry sector submission of TNC)
LULUC matrix from the Directorate Forest Resources Inventory and Monitoring (Direktorat Inventarisasi dan Pemantauan Sumber Daya Land use change, Hutan/IPSDH) with adjustment from INDC 2010 Dynamic modelling peat Statistic of Indonesia on logging and decomposition land uses, with other external factors such as demand of land, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), demand of food, etc.
Deforestation, LULUC matrix developed from DDPP modelling by wood harvesting IPSDH’s LULUC maps, GDP, Bogor Agricultural (logging), peat logging rate, demands of land and NDC 2010 University (Institut decomposition, products (for agriculture and other Pertanian reforestation, and uses) Bogor/IPB) peat fire
LULUC matrix developed from IPSDH’s LULUC maps, emission Deforestation, Gross factor (EF) mineral soils from forest FREL 1990-2012 deforestation, IPSDH, EF peatland from degradation, peat historical projection Intergovernmental Panel on Climate decomposition Change (IPCC) 2013 Wetland Supplements
Implementation formerly Formerly historical Formerly referred to SNC, with future review will be of Indonesia’s 2005; (as in SNC), in the based on INDC commitment in currently future will be 2010 26-41%: 2010 implementing Presidential Dynamic Modelling Decree 61/2011 (INDC) with 7 synchronization of cumulative Provincial Baselines (RAD GRK) which is currently updated with LUWES/LUMENS Source: (GoI, 2010), (GoI, 2014), (GoI, 2015), (GoI, 2015) (GoI, 2016)
7 Perpres 61/2011 is currently on revision. Additionally, as part of implementation of this Decree, Bappenas developed Local Action Plan (Rencana Aksi Daerah Penurunan Emisi Gas Rumah Kaca/ RAD GRK) that will be part of RAN GRK
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 38 Indonesia has developed GHG inventory system which is currently available online (SIGN SMART) and was submitted as part of National Communications (SNC, BUR, and will also be in the TNC). The GHG inventory activities have been working actively on supporting related technical ministries to develop and update basic inputs of activity data and emission factors to calculate or estimate GHG emissions. Annual GHG emissions generated from SIGN SMART are the main source of data that will be updating national baselines on the upcoming national communications.
The Second National Communication (SNC) was previously the document that contained the baseline information of Perpres 61/2011. However, currently, Bappenas as the responsible ministry for implementation of this decree is proposing a review of the decree and is in the process of developing a bottom-up baseline, starting at the provincial level by developing local action plans to reduce GHG emissions; namely Rencana Aksi Daerah Gas Rumah Kaca (RAD GRK). To develop RAD GRK, Bappenas involved the World Agroforestry Centre (also known as the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry/ICRAF) and implemented LUWES8, which was developed further and is currently called Land Use Planning for Development with Multiple Environmental Services (LUMENS). The
LUMENS/LUWES methodology was developed with the basic principle of sustainable land use planning. This principle is in-line with Bappenas’ objectives on sustainable development planning such as with the Spatial Land Use Planning (Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah/RTRW), District Spatial Plan Details (Rencana Detail Tata Ruang/RDTR), and integrating other environmental services. According to Bappenas, RAD GRK data from each province will later be compiled to create a national baseline. Nonetheless, this statement has not yet been supported by any official document, law or policy and currently there is no clear information on how this nesting process will be conducted with different base years and projections from each province.
In the forestry sector, the most widely acknowledged national baseline is FREL, the first version of which was submitted in 2015. The methodology of this baseline was clearly explained in the submitted document and therefore, has passed the UNFCCC’s technical assessment. FREL was developed by a formal government process with official activity data and published emissions factors. The FREL uses historical emissions from planned and unplanned deforestation and degradation between 1990-2012 to project future emissions under a business as usual scenario.
From the six documents on climate change mitigation in Indonesia, only four documents have independent methodologies, as SNC has been updated by BUR (using FREL as the formal baseline). Hence, table 2 is summary on strength and weakness of four documents that is currently the most relevant documents in national climate change policy, which are INDC, NDC, FREL, and Perpres 61/2011, as follow:
8 https://www.worldagroforestry.org/output/land-use-planning-low-emission-development-strategy-luwes
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 39 Table 2. Strengths and weaknesses of each relevant baseline
Document Strengths Weaknesses
● Formal document submitted to ● Target of 2020-2030 (beyond 2020), which UNFCCC is after LESTARI will be completed, ● Forward looking considering the ● No implementation policy has been put in National Long Term Development Plan place INDC (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka ● Not too relevant after commencement of Menengah Nasional/ RPJMN) NDC Methodology
● The assumptions are unknown and cannot be acquired, with inputs from informal data (not formal data from related ministries)
● Formal document submitted to ● Only for beyond 2020 UNFCCC ● DDPP methodology is heavily implementing ● Forward looking considering demand subjective assumptions by few individuals and supply of land and forest products ● Not integrated with other baselines (for NDC ● As part of Paris Agreement, NDC will example FREL) have to acknowledge activities by non- ● Is currently under discussion at high level parties (including the private sector), on what activities are needed to achieve ● Will be national baseline in the Third targets for each sector, not yet discussing National Communication to UNFCC specific contributions of various actors or projects
● Formal document submitted to ● Achievement will be measured at the UNFCCC national level ● Methodology and inputs are available ● It is unclear whether this baseline is only for ● Currently in progress to distribute activities under REDD+ schemes or for all proportions of form the national level to activities in Forestry sector each province ● Not yet any information on how to measure ● Will be part of the Minister of contributions of specific actors at the project level or influenced by development policy FREL Environment and Forestry Regulation on REDD+ ● Will be consistent with IPSDH’s National Forest Inventory as tool to measure achievement of Emission Reduction in 2020 ● Monitoring of achievement will be conducted with formal LULUC annual map by IPSDH
● Using LUMENS/LUWES as powerful ● Not a formal document tool for integrating Low Emission ● Currently being used to revise RAD GRK, Development (LEDs) to spatial planning but no clear steps are being taken to in sub-district, district and province aggregate the results in to a national ● Forward Looking with additional value baseline Perpres on Adaptation and Biodiversity 61/2011 ● Monitoring system is prepared by ● Relatively simple by using tools in Bappenas, as monitoring, evaluation, and LUWES/LUMENS reporting (Pemantauan Evaluasi dan Pelaporan/PEP) of RAD/RAN GRK, but will only use the project baseline (per activity) and not spatial approach
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 40 In summary, both INDC and NDC have strong positions as the current formal submission to UNFCCC, but neither are finalized and are still embroiled in ongoing political and technical discussions with line ministries. Moreover, after the commencement of NDC, INDC is no longer discussed in technical ministries. Most importantly, they are intended for post-2020, and activities and monitoring systems are yet to be defined.
FREL and Perpres 61/2011, are both currently and actively discussed at the local level as baseline methodologies. FREL is discussed in terms of how to define a proportion of the national level baseline at the subnational level, while Perpres 61/2011 is currently in the process of reviewing the baseline of each province.
FREL has been selected as the most suitable baseline methodology for updating the LESTARI baseline for the following reasons. ● FREL is the national baseline for forestry sector within the reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation plus conservation framework and is currently in the process of proportioning emission levels from country level to province level ● FREL is established as a formal document that has been submitted by the MoEF and has been recognized by UNFCCC ● FREL is developed by MoEF as the current institution responsible for climate change in Indonesia and as the international representative on climate change negotiations ● FREL methodology and inputs are available to the public and are relatively simple to understand ● MoEF is in progress of setting instruments for implementation of a REDD+ framework, with the future development including an MRV system that will be in-line with the FREL methodology and National Registry System (Sistem Registri Nasional/SRN) ● According to current discussions, achievements of all REDD+ activities will be accounted at the National level. Regarding this decision, it is important to see the proportion of LESTARI’s baseline emissions toward national FREL. Despite the advantages of adapting FREL into the LBA, LUWES/LUMENS methodology also has benefits and will be accommodated in the future as an appendix for discussion when the update of RAD GRK has been accomplished at the provincial level. Benefits of the LUWES / LUMEN methodology are: ● LUWES/LUMEN is implemented to develop RAD GRK at the provincial level, that is expected to be accumulated as national baseline (bottom-up approach) ● LUWES/LUMEN is implementing a landscape approach which is also the main strategy of LESTARI ● LUWES/LUMEN can be a powerful tool to develop strategic plans on addressing the main drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in each type of land cover The accommodation of LUWES/LUMEN is made easy by having the same definition of deforestation and forest degradation as FREL and using the same set of data inputs as shown in Figure 14.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 41 Figure 14. FREL vs LUWES/LUMEN
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 42 3.2 Source for activity data and emission factors Activity data refers to the Land Use Change data, which is expressed in hectares per year. It shows trends for deforestation, degradation, and forestation and used to generate inventories of GHG emissions when multiplied by the emission factors of land use changes and historic emissions baselines. All Indonesian national baselines use the same set of data and the same sources, but varying methods, adjustments and assumptions. For the calculation of GHG emissions from Above Ground Biomass (AGB) carbon pools the National Forest Inventory Database developed by IPSDH is used (with or without additional adjustment).
Table 3. Emissions Factor and Activity Data implemented in Each Documents
Document 1 2 3 4 5 Comments Methodology
FREL √ √ √ X √ - Historical, gross deforestation
INDC ± ± √ - - LULUC with additional Forward looking, dynamic adjustment from tabular data modelling
NDC ± ± √ X √ LULUC with additional Forward looking, DDPP adjustment from tabular data
Perpres √ √ √ √ X LULUC with some Historical and forward looking, 61/2011 adjustments are possible LUWES/LUMENS from Provinces
Documents 1. LULUC from IPSDH 2. Peat land map of BBSDLP (BBSDLP, 2011) 3. EF AGB on mineral soils from IPSDH (IPSDH, 2015), (GoI, 2015) 4. EF Mean of Annual Increment (MAI) for mineral soils from IPSDH, released by Bappenas (Bappenas, 2014) 5. EF peat decomposition from IPCC Wetland Supplement Consistency √ = Consistent; ± = Consistent with adjustments; X = No consistent; - = Unknown
LESTARI has used land cover data obtained from the public website of the Directorate for Forest Resource Inventory and Monitoring (Dit. Inventarisasi dan Pemantauan Sumber Daya Hutan - IPSDA) as the basic input for developing land cover transitions (activity data) within LESTARI landscapes to calculate Above Ground Biomass (AGB) and emission from decomposition from degraded peat land as per FREL9. Baseline emissions for AGB can be
9 Scope of calculation in FREL (GoI, 2015): - The initial area for calculating FREL (and LESTARI’s baseline) is the land that was covered by natural forest in year 1990, including primary and secondary forests, regardless forest status under national forestland use defined by Ministry of Forestry. - Natural forests are only six of the seven forest types in IPSDH data - plantation forests are excluded. - Forest degradation is defined as a change of primary forest classes, which include primary dryland, primary mangrove and primary peat swamp forests, to secondary forest classes
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 43 calculated by simply developing the land cover transition matrix for each landscape between the base years.
Box 1: The definition of Deforestation and Degradation applied in the LBA Deforestation The definition of deforestation used in the FREL is the one-time conversion of natural forest cover into another land cover category. This was selected for the sake of practicality, simplicity and clarity on the land cover class identification and classification processes. The term was first introduced in 2008 by Indonesia Forest and Climate Alliance documents, and the common sense definition can be termed “gross deforestation”. “Gross deforestation” counts only what has been lost (natural forest cleared) and does not consider forest regrowth (both natural and by human intervention), nor the carbon sequestration that has been taken up by regrowth. This definition is different from “Net deforestation” that considers the presence of re-growing secondary forests and plantations. Degradation The definition of forest degradation used in the FREL is where natural forest has been fragmented or subjected to forest utilization, resulting in the deterioration of forest cover quantity and carbon stock during a certain period of time, as a result of human activities including wood and/or non-wood forest product harvesting. Degraded forests have a noticeably different canopy cover and overall forest structure when classifying land cover types through satellite imagery.
3.3 Calculation of Above Ground and Peat decomposition GHG emissions A detailed methodology for the developing of the baseline can be found in the FREL document (MoEF 2016). Only a summary is provided here. For above ground GHG emissions on mineral soils, LESTARI baseline applied a simple ‘carbon stock’ difference approach for gross deforestation and degradation.
As per the FREL methodology, land cover data used by the published by the IPSDH were stratified into 23 standard land cover types. Using the land cover data from the base years 1990 – 1996 – 2000 – 2003 – 2006 – 2009 – 2011 – 2012 the area of gross deforestation from six natural forest types, and degradation from primary to secondary forest types was calculated. Using the below carbon stock level for respective islands in Indonesia, the areas of deforestation or degradation was converted to losses in carbon and subsequently to CO2 equivalents10. Carbon stocks for each of these land cover types is derived from national and sub-national surveys to produce island averages. The carbon stocks assigned to each land type are presented below.
- Deforestation is defined as a conversion of natural forest cover into other land cover categories that has only occurred one time in a particular area. 10 The conversion factor 0.47 is applied for tons biomass (t.AGB) to tons carbon (t.C). Conversion to t.CO2e applies a factor of 44/12.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 44 Table 4. Carbon Stock Standard Indonesia Land Cover Classification Mean Above Ground Biomass (t ha-1)
1 Primary Forest on Mineral Soils (PF) Sumatra 268.6
Kalimantan 269.4 Papua 239.1 2 Secondary Forest on Mineral Soils (SF) Sumatra 182.2 Kalimantan 203.3 Papua 180.4 3 Primary Swamp Forest (PSF)
Sumatra 220.8 Kalimantan 275.5 Papua 178.8 4 Secondary Swamp Forest (SSF)
Sumatra 151.4 Kalimantan 170.5
Papua 145.7 5 Primary Mangrove Forest (PMF)
All islands 263.9 6 Secondary Mangrove Forest (SMF)
All islands 201.7
Emissions from peat land apply proxy calculations and assume that degraded forest types include drainage of the peat soil. To calculate GHG emissions from peat decomposition similar LULUC maps from IPSDH (IPSDH, 2015) and National Peat Land Map from BBSDLP (BBSDLP, 2011). Peat decomposition is counted from all land cover types from the peat land area that was forested (primary or secondary) in 1990. Non-natural forests and non-forests on peat land in 1990 (as well as non-peat land) are masked out when defining transition matrices for peat decomposition emissions calculations.
Emission Factors (EF) for decomposing peat follows the Wetland Supplement 2013 (IPCC, 2013). It should be noted that this is significantly lower than the first LBA that referred to LUMES/LUWES figures. Annual Emissions from peat decomposition are calculated annually from areas that experiences deforestation and from all degraded land use types. For areas that have experiences deforestation, emissions from peat land continue to accrue, and will do so until the peat has completely decomposed.
3.4 Results of Forest Reference Emission Level (FREL) for LESTARI landscapes Deforestation The average annual rate of deforestation in the LESTARI landscapes in the period of 1990 to 2012 was 74,509 ha yr-1 (see Figure 15 for the dynamic rate of deforestation within all LESTARI landscapes). Of this deforestation, 68 % of (50,549 ha yr-1) occurred on mineral soil and 32% (23,960 ha yr-1) by deforestation on peat (organic) soil. The highest rate of
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 45 deforestation occurred during the period 1996 – 2000 accounting for more than 616,770 ha of forest loss (154,192 ha yr-1). This has drastically reduced to the lowest rate in 2011-2012 period where 28,745 ha were lost annually. This is also reflected in the National baseline (See Figure 4 and Annex 5 within the FREL document for more details).
Figure 15. Annual deforestation rates in LESTARI landscapes in the period 1990 to 2012 in hectares.
Annual deforestation rates in LESTARI landscapes in the period 1990 to 2012 in hectares. The bars indicate the dynamic rates of deforestation per associated interval period, and the green line depicts the average annual deforestation from 1990 – 2012.
Considering the national FREL, the high rate of deforestation in the period 1996 -2000 was likely caused by large fire events due to a prolonged El Nino in 1997/1998, coupled with illegal logging, expansion of industrial timber plantations and the emergence of rapid expansion of palm oil. Deforestation prior to the period was most likely due to poor forestry practices in production forests. Expansion of industrial timber plantations and rapid expansion of palm oil have also the cause of high rate of deforestation during 2006-2009. The national level FREL attributes the lower deforestation rate during 2000-2003 to the implementation of the National Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Forestry, renowned as the soft landing policy that aimed to reduce the Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) for timber extraction of more than about 200M m3 yr-1 to 70M m3 yr-1 (MoFor, 2002). Throughout the reference period, approximately 59% of deforestation occurred in Katingan- Kahayan landscape, 24% from Mappi-Bouven Digoel, 9% from Lorentz, 7% from Leuser, while Sarmi and Cyclops contributed 1.1% combined.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 46 Figure 16. Proportion of annual deforestation (in %) for 6 LESTARI landscapes.
Degradation The average annual rate of forest degradation in LESTARI landscapes from 1990 to 2012 was 47,466 hectares. Of this degradation 42,563 ha (89.7%) was on mineral soil, and 4,903 ha (10.3%) of forest degradation was on peat soil. It is important to note that degradation on peat soils in LESTARI landscapes is 25% of that experienced nationally (a total of 17,157 ha annually). As with forest deforestation, the forest degradation rate was highly variable with highest rates in 2006-2009 with 121,660 ha yr-1 being degraded in LESTARI landscapes and less than 1,500 ha yr-1 degraded between 2011-2012.
Figure 17. Annual Degradation Rated in the period 1990 to 2012 in Hectares yr-1
As with the national FREL trends in forest degradations are very dynamic between landscapes (Figure 18).
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 47 Figure 18. Proportion of Annual Degradation (in%) for LESTARI Landscapes
Drivers of deforestation across the landscapes during the baseline period are complex and will be discussed in more detail in the landscape sections below.
The deforestation and degradation was also mapped spatially to show which geographic regions have experienced deforestation and degradation most significantly. This spatial image when overlaid with protected areas and the spatial plan can be used to define key activities within the value landscapes (explained in detail in the landscape sections below).
Emissions from Deforestation, Forest Degradation, and Peat Decomposition Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation The average annual historical emission from Above Ground Biomass (AGB) due to deforestation in the period 1990 – 2012 is approximately 25 Mt.CO2e yr-1 (see Figure 19). -1 Deforestation contributes 81% (20.36 MtCO2e yr ) of emissions.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 48 Figure 19. Average annual historical emissions from deforestation and forest degradation -1 expressed in t.CO2e yr .
Table 5 presents a summary of annual deforestation and degradation rates and GHG emissions from deforestation and degradation for all LESTARI landscapes.
Table 5. Annual deforestation and degradation rates in LESTARI landscapes and associated average Annual GHG emission Average Annual GHG emissions Average Annual Average Annual (t.CO2-eq) Deforestation Degradation from Landscape from Degradation between 1990- between 1990- Deforestation between 1990- 2012 (Ha yr-1) 2012 (Ha yr-1) between 1990- 2012 2012 1 Leuser Landscape 3,763 1,192 1,169,024 177,420 Katingan – Kahayan 2 45,506 3,176 14,506,350 395,614 Landscape 3 Lorentz Lowlands Landscape 6,107 16,752 1,939,791 1,426,554 Mappi – Bouven Digoel 4 18,433 16,668 6,282,558 1,603,108 Landscape 5 Sarmi Landscape 636 9,640 209,122 972,026
6 Cyclops Landscape 64 18 20,020 1,837
ALL LANDSCAPES 73,949 47,466 24,126,865 4,576,560
Emissions from peat decomposition Emissions from peat decomposition were calculated based on the cumulative process of decomposition due to conversions of peatland forest and land utilizations from 1990 to 2012.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 49 A detailed explanation of the method to estimate emissions from peat decomposition is explained in the FREL document. The emission factor used for the calculation of peat decomposition from the IPCC is a general Emission Factor. This emission factor may vary depending on the water management and better water management will result in a change in emissions. Although computing peat decomposition seems to be less favorable with respect to mitigation actions to reduce the emissions (as it is dependent on land cover and land use to affect a change in emissions), the FREL with the associated peat decomposition can still be used as benchmark against the actual emissions starting from 2013 up to 2020.
The results show that emissions from peat decomposition increase over time from about
7.27 Mt.CO2e yr-1 in the initial period (1990) to about 8.29 Mt.CO2e yr-1 at the end of base year period (2012) (see Figure 20). The increase of annual emissions is partly due to the expansion of drained peatland which progressively emits CO2 within the time frame of the LBA, and because of increasing inherited emissions.
Figure 20. Annual Peat Decomposition Emissions from Deforestation, Forest Degradation and Secondary Forest in the Period 1990 to 2012 in t.CO2e
Table 6. shows annual emissions for the interval period for each all LESTARI landscapes that contain peat land.
Table 6. All LESTARI Landscapes Annual Peat Decomposition Emissions from Deforestation, Forest Degradation and Secondary Forest in the period 1990 to 2012 in t.CO2e Annual Peat Decomposition Annual Peat Decomposition Total Annual Peat Emissions from Emissions from Secondary forest Year Decomposition Emissions Deforestation during other land use during Interval during interval period (t.CO2e) Interval Period Period (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) 1990-1996 917,811 6,357,302 7,275,112 1996-2000 905,112 6,587,607 7,492,719
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 50 Annual Peat Decomposition Annual Peat Decomposition Total Annual Peat Emissions from Emissions from Secondary forest Year Decomposition Emissions Deforestation during other land use during Interval during interval period (t.CO2e) Interval Period Period (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) 2000-2003 438,642 7,450,644 7,889,287 2003-2006 210,639 7,839,842 8,050,481 2006-2009 312,938 7,833,960 8,146,898 2009-2011 42,579 8,245,609 8,288,188 2011-2012 13,370 8,281,315 8,294,685
To predict emissions into the future beyond the reference period (2012) a linear regression from past emissions has been applied. The model and linear regression used can be seen in the graph below (Figure 21)
Figure 21. Model and Linear Regression
GHG emissions from organic soils through land fires Forest and land fire is a significant issue in Indonesia, and of the landscape where LESTARI operates, Central Kalimantan is of most importance. LESTARI has investigated methodology adopted by the Central Kalimantan Province11 but the methodology for estimating emissions from land fires is not universally accepted due to the unreliability 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 fires on organics (peat) soils. With all of these variables, it is unlikely that a single method for calculating emissions from fire will ever be available. Compromises and assumptions must invariably be made and average emissions from areas using available monitoring data were applied
11 Perhitungan Emisi berbasis Lahan, Provinsi Kalimantan Tengah Period 2009-2011.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 51 during the investigation of fires in LESTARI landscapes. 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 low. Even for long el-niño years such as 2006, 2009 and 2014, the methodology is perceived to underestimate the emissions.
Comparisons with emissions from land use and land use change and emissions from fire under this methodology need to be treated with care. Annual averaged emissions are only
1,466,595 tCO2-eq (comparatively low when compared to landscape deforestation, degradation and peat decomposition). 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 5,266,873 34,205 7,482 3,638,447 0 300,364 479,941 117,580 3,354,470 Emissions
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.
Constructed National Forest Reference Emissions Level Whereas the LUWES/LUMENS methodology used in the previous iteration of the LBA projected emissions under the baseline scenario based on modeling, the FREL approach defines a static baseline for deforestation and forest de gradation averaged over the base- year or reference period within LESTARI landscapes, and their resulting GHG emissions; and a straight-line regression equation for future emissions resulting from peat decomposition. Performance of interventions to reduce deforestation, degradation and the emissions resulting from peat land are thus measured against the combined baseline.
The annual historical emissions from deforestation, forest degradation and the associated peat decomposition (in t.CO2e) from 1990 to 2012 are depicted in Figure 22. The forest -1 reference emission level from deforestation and degradation was set at 24.13 MtCO2e yr -1 (AGB) and 4.58 MtCO2e yr (AGB) for the reference period 1990-2012. Emissions from peat decomposition increase from 7.27 Mt.CO2e yr-1 in 1990 to 8.29 Mt.CO2e yr-1 with an annual
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 52 linear increment of 59 Kt.CO2e yr-1 due to increased degradation and deforestation on peat as well as inherited emissions.
Figure 22. Emission Baseline for All LESTARI landscape
The constructed FREL is projected for the period up to 2020. During this projection period (2013-2020) it is assumed that the utilized peatland areas are kept drained and continue to release emissions, i.e. emissions during the projection period include the inherited emissions since 1990. We realize that the emissions from peat decomposition are not indefinite, but due to a lack of accurate information on peat thickness the assumption remains that all utilized peatlands will continue to emit and not reach the end stage of peat decomposition emissions. The projected emissions from peat decompositions include inherited emissions and additional expected emissions due to degradation in intact peat land areas due to degradation or deforestation after 2012. Based on the historical emissions from 1990-2012, the emission from deforestation, forest degradation and the associated emission from peat decomposition for 2013 is projected to be 37.14 Mt.CO2e. In 2020, this will increase to 37.57
Mt.CO2e.
Table 8 presents yearly net annual emissions based on historical data, the cumulative predicted emissions over the life of the LESTARI project through 2020 across all landscapes. The Table below will be used as a benchmark for evaluating emission reduction activities during the implementation period for LESTARI (up to 2020). The target set for LESTARI averaged across the landscapes is a 41% reduction from the baseline emissions for all years of project implementation.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 53 Table 8. Historical (1990-2012) and projected (2013-2020) annual REL from deforestation, forest degradation and the associated peat decomposition (in t.CO2e), calculated using linear projection (R2=0.95) based on conservative historical data of 1990-2012. Annual AGB Annual AGB Annual Emissions Baseline annual Emissions from Emissions from from Peat emission beyond Year Deforestation during Degradation during Decomposition 2012 (t.CO2e) Interval Period Interval Period (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) 1990-1991 26,956,373 900,035 7,275,112 1991-1992 26,956,373 900,035 7,275,112 1992-1993 26,956,373 900,035 7,275,112 1993-1994 26,956,373 900,035 7,275,112 1994-1995 26,956,373 900,035 7,275,112 1995-1996 26,956,373 900,035 7,275,112 1996-1997 50,115,998 7,218,034 7,492,719 1997-1998 50,115,998 7,218,034 7,492,719 1998-1999 50,115,998 7,218,034 7,492,719 1999-2000 50,115,998 7,218,034 7,492,719 2000-2001 9,415,894 2,769,202 7,889,287 2001-2002 9,415,894 2,769,202 7,889,287 2002-2003 9,415,894 2,769,202 7,889,287 2003-2004 14,866,241 6,884,248 8,050,481 2004-2005 14,866,241 6,884,248 8,050,481 2005-2006 14,866,241 6,884,248 8,050,481 2006-2007 18,501,809 11,964,179 8,146,898 2007-2008 18,501,809 11,964,179 8,146,898 2008-2009 18,501,809 11,964,179 8,146,898 2009-2010 15,325,943 737,270 8,288,188 2010-2011 15,325,943 737,270 8,288,188 2011-2012 9,585,082 84,550 8,294,685 2012-2013 24,126,865 4,576,560 8,439,530 37,142,955 2013-2014 24,126,865 4,576,560 8,498,576 37,202,001 2014-2015 24,126,865 4,576,560 8,557,622 37,261,047 2015-2016 24,126,865 4,576,560 8,616,668 37,320,093 2016-2017 24,126,865 4,576,560 8,675,714 37,379,139 2017-2018 24,126,865 4,576,560 8,734,761 37,438,186 2018-2019 24,126,865 4,576,560 8,793,807 37,497,232 2019-2020 24,126,865 4,576,560 8,852,853 37,556,278
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 54 4. INDIVIDUAL LANDSCAPE BASELINE ANALYSIS AND KEY MITIGATION ACTIVITIES
The baseline analysis disaggregated by landscape 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. This information is used to inform key activities that should be designed to reduce emissions in the forestry sector. An overall analysis of where historical deforestation, degradation and peat decomposition have been occurring informs the geographic area that should be focus on and the partners with which LESTARI must engage to reduce emissions.
4.1 Leuser Landscape 4.1.1 Leuser Landscape Baseline Analysis Historical deforestation, degradation, their related emissions in Leuser Landscape, and emissions from peat decompositions for the base years are illustrated in the charts below.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 55
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 56
Deforestation and degradation rates between 1990 and 2012 and related emissions, peat decomposition emissions as of 2012 and averaged annual increments in emissions for the Leuser Landscape are summarized as follows.
Average Average Predicted Predicted Annual GHG Annual GHG Annual annual Average Average emissions emissions Emission emission from Deforestation Degradation from from Increment Peat decomp Rate (ha yr-1) Rate (ha yr-1) Deforestation Degradation from peat @ 2012 (t.CO2- between 1990- between 1990- decomp e) 2012 (t.CO2-e) 2012 (t.CO2-e) (t.CO2-e)
3,763 1,192 1,169,024 177,420 459,461 +1,768
Referring to the below spatial illustrations of deforestation and degradation (Figure 24.), as well as the initial LBA that analyzes historical deforestation experienced between 2006 and 2013 in the Leuser Landscape, land transitions are dominated by the following: ● Secondary and primary dryland forest converted for agriculture, brush (abandoned agriculture / fallow), agroforestry, mixed agriculture, and some transmigration projects. The majority of these conversions occur in the National Park and wildlife reserve, Protected Forest, and in Other use zones ● The next most prevalent land transition is from secondary swamp forest to brush and oil palm occurring in the Wildlife Reserve of Singkil and APL zones. ● The small amount of forest degradation is due to few commercial forestry operations in the area between the base years.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 57 Figure 23. A spatial illustration of deforestation and degradation in the Leuser Landscape between 1990 and 2012, juxtaposed with the current forestry spatial plan of Aceh Province (SK.103/MenLHK-III/2015).
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 58 The target for the LESTARI project is to reduce emissions by 41% below the baseline which is calculated below:
Baseline Reduced Baseline Reduced Reduced Baseline AGB Deforestation AGB Degradation Peat Emissions Emissions AGB Emissions AGB Decomp. Year from Peat from Emissions from Emissions Emissions Decomposition Deforestation Target (-41%) Degradation Target (-41%) Target (-41%) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) 2015-2016 1,169,023.66 479,300 177,419.79 72,742 459,461.02 188,379 2016-2017 1,169,023.66 479,300 177,419.79 72,742 461,228.94 189,104 2017-2018 1,169,023.66 479,300 177,419.79 72,742 462,996.86 189,829 2018-2019 1,169,023.66 479,300 177,419.79 72,742 464,764.79 190,554 2019-2020 1,169,023.66 479,300 177,419.79 72,742 466,532.71 191,278 Total reduced Emission 2,396,499 363,711 949,144 Target over life of Project
Grand Total Reduced Emissions from Landscape 3,709,353
4.1.2 Leuser Landscape Key Activities Projected emissions within the Leuser Landscape are enlightening. 67% of emissions under this FREL methodology come from loss of primary and secondary forest (to agricultural land and brush and other non-forest land use types). Most of these emissions are projected to occur in conservation forest and protected forest, as per the initial LBA.
Leuser contains significant areas of peat in Rawa Singkil Wildlife Reserve and Leuser National Park. Emissions from peat using the FREL methodology account for 26.8% of all targets emissions. Even under secondary forest these areas will continue to emit GHG.
From the above analysis of annual land use change and related emissions, the greatest gains in reduced emissions within the Leuser Landscape can be made by focusing on reducing deforestation initiatives such as improved collaborative management in the national park and wildlife reserve, and improving the management of the FMU to protect the forests surrounding CAs. This can be achieved through improving capacity at the FMU level and promoting co-management of forests through a continuation of community conservation agreements.
An important aspect of the work will also be improvement of peat forest management within Rawa Singkil Wildlife Reserve, potentially through peat re-wetting if needed, or monitoring emissions. These actions will be achieved through strengthening local partner’s commitment for low emission development through sustainable visions that conserve water resources (such as the Gayo Lues Green District initiative).
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 59 PRIORTY INTERVENTIONS IN LEUSER LANDSCAPE
Initial Management Units Hectares of LESTARI Technical targeted for improved Forest and Notes Themes management peat land Technical Theme 1 : LESTARI will focus on the Forest & Land Use Improved management and improved forest management 532,462 Governance and governance in FMU III, V and VI within KPHs through improving Advocacy forest governance 40,340 hectares of the National Park was impacted through Improvement of the METT in improved management. LESTARI Leuser National Park and Rawa 656,588 will continue to work in these areas Singkil Wildlife Reserve to reduce ever-present pressure on the park and increase the METT Technical Theme 2 : score for LNP and RSWR Conservation Co- Improved management of 118,568 management ha was achieved under IFACS through Community Conservation Social-forestry initiatives with Included in Agreements and improved FMU (outside of the priority KPH FMU figure agricultural practices. LESTARI will above) continue to work in these areas through enhancing the capacity of the FMUs.
4.2 Katingan - Kahayan Landscape 4.2.1 Katingan – Kahayan Baseline Analysis Historical deforestation, degradation, their related emissions in Katingan - Kahayan Landscape, and emissions from peat decompositions for the base years are illustrated in the charts below.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 60
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 61
Deforestation and degradation rates between 1990 and 2012 and related emissions, peat decomposition emissions as of 2012 and averaged annual increments in emissions for the Katingan-Kahayan Landscape are summarized as follows.
Average Average Predicted Annual GHG Annual GHG Annual Annual Average Average emissions emissions emission from Emission Deforestation Degradation from from Peat decomp Increment Rate (ha yr-1) Rate (ha yr-1) Deforestation Degradation @2012 from peat between 1990- between 1990- (t.CO2-e) decomp 2012 (t.CO2-e) 2012 (t.CO2-e) (t.CO2-e)
45,506 3,176 14,506,350 395,614 6,445,123 +10,642
Based on the historical land transitions experienced between 1990 and 2012 (see Figure 25.) and the initial LBA, future emissions will be caused by the following : ● Secondary swamp forest to brush and open land (often caused from fire) on peat lands – most likely to occur within conservation areas (HSAW), production forest (HP), and production conversion forest (HPK). ● Secondary swamp forest (on mineral soils) lost to brush and open land, farming land, and plantations – 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 – 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). ● Degradation of primary forest to secondary forest will occur where it is planned – in forest concessions with production forest types.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 62 The target for the LESTARI project is to reduce emissions by 41% below the baseline which is calculated below:
Reduced Reduced Reduced Baseline Baseline Deforestatio Degradation Baseline Peat AGB AGB n AGB AGB Emissions Decomp Emissions Emissions Year Emissions Emissions from Peat Emissions from from Target (- Target (- Decompositio Target Deforestatio Degradation 41%) 41%) n (t.CO2e) (-41%) n (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e)
2015-2016 14,506,349 5,947,603 395,614.19 162,202 6,478,785.48 2,656,302 14,506,349.7 2016-2017 5 5,947,603 395,614.19 162,202 6,489,427.62 2,660,665 14,506,349.7 2017-2018 5 5,947,603 395,614.19 162,202 6,500,069.76 2,665,029 14,506,349.7 2018-2019 5 5,947,603 395,614.19 162,202 6,510,711.90 2,669,392 14,506,349.7 2019-2020 5 5,947,603 395,614.19 162,202 6,521,354.04 2,673,755
Total reduced Emission Target over life of Project 29,738,017 811,009 13,325,143
Grand Total Reduced Emissions from Landscape 43,874,169
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 63 Figure 24. A spatial illustration of deforestation and degradation in the Katingan Kahayan Landscape between 1990 and 2012, juxtaposed with the current forestry spatial plan of Central Kalimantan (SK.529/Menhut-II/2012)
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 64 4.2.2 Katingan – Kahayan Landscape Key Activities Significant historical emissions have originated from the Katingan – Kahayan landscape which constitutes 75% of all AGB 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 -1 account for 62.37% (6.88 Mio t.CO2-e yr ) of all peat land emissions, even when there is no land cover transition. However, the percentage increment of inherited peat emissions in only 9% of the total accruals with south Papuan LESTARI landscape increasing at a much faster pace, due to the fact that most of the land use on peat has been altered disturbed (whereas much of that in Papua remains intact and in a primary state).
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 a priority 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 priority initiative in this landscape and centers around improving land management of FMU XXXI (or otherwise known as Block C). Additional emphasis will be to mitigate the loss of secondary forests on mineral soils caused largely by encroachment in other FMUs.
Other 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 the continuation, improvement and implementation of community conservation agreements and other social forest 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.
PRIORTY INTERVENTIONS IN KATINGAN - KAHAYAN LANDSCAPE
Initial Management Hectares of LESTARI Technical Units targeted for Forest and Notes Themes improved management Peat land Improved FMU LESTARI will focus on the improved forest Technical Theme 1 : management XXXI / management within KPHs through improving Forest & Land Use KHG XIV (Block C) forest governance 688,761 Governance and Improved FMU XVI No areas were reported under improved Advocacy management Gunung management through MSF and local Mas government approaches under IFACS 115,000 hectares of the Sebangau National Improvement of the Park was reported as under improved Technical Theme 2 : METT in Sebangau management under IFACS based on CCLAs. Conservation Co- National Park and Bukit 697,558 LESTARI will continue to work in these areas management Baka Bukit Raya but with the park managers to increase park National Park management effectiveness.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 65 PRIORTY INTERVENTIONS IN KATINGAN - KAHAYAN LANDSCAPE
Initial Management Hectares of LESTARI Technical Units targeted for Forest and Notes Themes improved management Peat land Improved management of 118,568 ha was achieved under IFACS through Community Social-forestry initiatives Conservation Agreements and improved with FMU (outside of the 82,016 agricultural practices. LESTARI will continue priority KPH above) to work in some of these areas and enhance the effectiveness of the agreements for conservation and reducing deforestation IFACS worked with 4 private sector partners in the Katingan landscape and reported 454,040 hectares under improved RIL-C and improved management due to development and Technical Theme 3 : Conservation monitoring of the conservation management Private Sector 237,850 management with timber and monitoring plans and RIL training. Engagement concessions LESTARI will work expand to several companies not reached by IFACS and enhance operates beyond results already achieved
4.3 Lorentz Lowlands Landscape 4.3.1 Lorentz lowlands Baseline Analysis Historical deforestation, degradation, their related emissions in Lorentz Lowlands Landscape, and emissions from peat decompositions for the base years are illustrated in the charts below.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 66
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 67
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 68 Figure 25. A spatial illustration of deforestation and degradation in the Lorentz Lowlands Landscape between 1990 and 2012, juxtaposed with the current forestry spatial plan of Papua (SK.782/Menhut-III/2012)
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 69 Deforestation and degradation rates between 1990 and 2012 and related emissions, peat decomposition emissions as of 2012 and averaged annual increments in emissions for the Lorentz Lowlands Landscape are summarized as follows.
Average Average Predicted Annual Annual GHG Annual GHG Annual Average Average emission from emissions from emissions from Emission Deforestation Degradation Peat decomp Deforestation Degradation Increment from Rate (ha yr-1) Rate (ha yr-1) @2012 between 1990- between 1990- peat decomp (t.CO2-e) 2012 (t.CO2-e) 2012 (t.CO2-e) (t.CO2-e)
6,107 16,752 1,939,791 1,426,554 473,106 +17,548
Emissions originate from ● Deforestation from primary and secondary forest on mineral soils occurring in production conservation forest ● Degradation occurring on peat lands within protected forests and limited production forests ● Degradation occurring on mineral soils in all types of production forest (HP, HPT, and HPK) ● Small amounts of deforestation on peatland in Conservation areas ● Significant deforestation on peat land deforestation in Other Use Zones (APL), but little in conversion forest (HPK) ● Significant deforestation in HPK on mineral soils.
Emissions within the Lorentz Lowlands landscape are the highest in Papua as the amount of land on peat in the landscape is significant (58% of all peat land in LESTARI landscape is in the Lorentz landscape). Emissions from peat account for 41% of all landscape emission -1 (2.27 Mio t.CO2-eq yr ), and a large portion of these peat based emissions will continue to occur even if there is no land cover transition due to degraded peat with secondary forest. -1 AGB emissions from peat and mineral soils total 3.19 Mio t.CO2-eq yr ). The loss of primary and secondary forest and forest degradation contribute 26% and 32% of total annual emissions respectively.
The target for the LESTARI project is to reduce emissions by 41% below the baseline which is calculated below:
Reduced Baseline Reduced Baseline Baseline Degradation Reduced Peat AGB Deforestation AGB Emissions AGB Decomp Emissions AGB Emissions from Peat Year Emissions Emissions from Emissions from Decompos Target (- Target (-41%) Deforestatio Target (-41%) Degradation ition 41%) (t.CO2e) n (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) 2015- 1,939,791 795,314 1,426,554 584,887 570,171 233,770 2016 2016- 1,939,791 795,314 1,426,554 584,887 587,718 240,965 2017
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 70 Reduced Baseline Reduced Baseline Baseline Degradation Reduced Peat AGB Deforestation AGB Emissions AGB Decomp Emissions AGB Emissions from Peat Year Emissions Emissions from Emissions from Decompos Target (- Target (-41%) Deforestatio Target (-41%) Degradation ition 41%) (t.CO2e) n (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) 2017- 1,939,791 795,314 1,426,554 584,887 605,266 248,159 2018 2018- 1,939,791 795,314 1,426,554 584,887 622,814 255,354 2019 2019- 1,939,791 795,314 1,426,554 584,887 640,361 262,548 2020 Total reduced Emission 3,976,572 2,924,436 1,240,795 Target over life of Project
Grand Total Reduced Emissions from Landscape 8,141,803
4.3.2 Lorentz Lowlands Landscape Key Activities LESTARI should focus on reducing forest loss, degradation as well as initiatives on the peat land to reduce emissions. Deforestation takes part in the areas where communities are living, and therefore improving livelihoods for communities could be of importance but not focused on within Lorentz NP as emissions here are small. 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. 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.
Emissions from inside the national park account for only a small portion of the total landscape emissions but improved management is an important aspect of the project to reduce potential future emissions. While only 171 hectares of mangrove is degraded each year (2006-2013 data), a unique work aspect of LESTARI in this landscape will be the establishment of an internationally recognized South Papua Mangrove Conservation Corridor covering 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.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 71 PRIORTY INTERVENTIONS IN LORENTZ LOWLANDS LANDSCAPE
Initial Management Hectares of LESTARI Technical Units targeted for Forest and Notes Themes improved management Peat land 292,000 ha has been reported under IFACS Improved FMU VI as under improved management through the Technical Theme 1 : management and development of the KKMD and integrated Forest & Land Use advocacy to incorporate management plan for Mimika mangroves. 1,980,370 Governance and un-managed areas of LESTARI will help partners implement the Advocacy forest and mangroves plan through the KPH after advocating for an into KPH VI expansion in the area in line with the Forestry Spatial plan (Kawasan Hutan dan Perairan). Land reported to be under improved management under IFACS (including 54,000 hectares of the Lorentz National Park), is Improved management based on the work that WWF implemented to 981,094 of Lorentz national Park map important traditional management areas (akin to CCLAs). LESTARI will continue to Technical Theme 2 : work in these areas to increase overall Conservation Co- effectiveness of conservation in the park. management Improved management of 118,568 ha was achieved under IFACS through Community Conservation Agreements and improved Rawa Baki and Co- 123,000 agricultural practices. LESTARI will continue management initiative to work in some of these areas and enhance the effectiveness of the agreements for conservation and reducing deforestation
4.4 Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape 4.4.1 Mappi – Bouven Digoel Baseline Analysis Historical deforestation, degradation, their related emissions in Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape, and emissions from peat decompositions for the base years are illustrated in the charts below.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 72
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 73
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 74 Figure 26. A spatial illustration of deforestation and degradation in the Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape between 1990 and 2012, juxtaposed with the current forestry spatial plan of Papua (SK.782/Menhut-III/2012)
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 75 Deforestation and degradation rates between 1990 and 2012 and related emissions, peat decomposition emissions as of 2012 and averaged annual increments in emissions for the Mappi-Bouven Digoel Landscape are summarized as follows.
Average Average Annual Annual GHG Annual GHG Predicted Annual emission Average Average emissions emissions Emission from Peat Deforestation Degradation from from Increment from Decomposi Rate (ha yr-1) Rate (ha yr-1) Deforestation Degradation peat decomp tion @2012 between 1990- between 1990- (t.CO2-e) (t.CO2-e) 2012 (t.CO2-e) 2012 (t.CO2-e)
18,433 16,688 6,282,558 1,603,108 807,128 +23,332
Land transitions that produce GHG emissions based on MOEF data 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 17,026 hectares per year) which occurs in production forests (HP), limited production forests (HPT), and production conversion forest (HPK) ● 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)
AGB baseline emissions from the Mappi – Bouven Digoel landscape using the 1990 to 2012 data from MOEF are high contributing 27% of AGB emissions. Just over 26% of the landscape consists of peatland, but emissions are 11% of the total LESTARI landscapes and 15% of the emission from the Mappi-Bouven Digoel landscape demonstrating the relative low level of disturbance on peat.
Looking purely at the baseline and emissions analysis, this illustrates that reducing degradation and is the most important potential for reducing emissions for the LESTARI project. However, on spatial inspection of the forest degradation land transition that occurred between 1990 and 2012, large areas of degradation have been recorded outside of active logging concessions and in areas where there is little or no access. This is potentially due to mis-interpretation of satellite imagery and requires further investigation and should not guide LESTARI interventions. The analysis also fails to pick up changes that are expected to occur in the future through plantation development as there have been few areas developed with the landscape thus far, but very large areas are planned for development in the future (1 of these concessions has already started to clear forest to oil palm).
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 76 The target for the LESTARI project is to reduce emissions by 41% below the baseline which is calculated below:
Reduced Baseline Reduced Baseline Baseline AGB Reduced Peat Deforestation AGB Degradation Emissions Emissions Decomp AGB Emissions AGB from Peat Year from Emissions Emissions from Emissions Decomposi Deforestation Target (-41%) Target (-41%) Degradation Target (-41%) tion (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t..CO2e) (t.CO2e)
2015-2016 6,282,558 2,575,849 1,603,108 657,274 965,517 395,862 2016-2017 6,282,558 2,575,849 1,603,108 657,274 988,849 405,428 2017-2018 6,282,558 2,575,849 1,603,108 657,274 1,012,181 414,994 2018-2019 6,282,558 2,575,849 1,603,108 657,274 1,035,514 424,561 2019-2020 6,282,558 2,575,849 1,603,108 657,274 1,058,846 434,127 Total reduced Emission 12,879,243 3,286,372 2,074,972 Target over life of Project
Grand Total Reduced Emissions from Landscape 18,240,587
4.4.2 Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape Key Activities Whilst embracing peatland management and efforts to reduce degradation, the key focus of work in Mappi-Bouven Digoel should be on reducing deforestation on mineral soils 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 and achieve land use rationalization. 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.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 77 PRIORTY INTERVENTIONS IN MAPPI – BOUVEN DIGOEL LANDSCAPE
Initial Management Units Hectares of LESTARI Technical targeted for improved Forest and Notes Themes management Peat land Technical Theme 1 : Improved Spatial planning Forest & Land Use to include areas of HCV 993,904 Governance and under protection areas This is a new landscape proposed by Tetra Advocacy (kawasan lindung) Tech for LESTARI. No areas have been Technical Theme 3 : Land use rationalization reported as under improved management. Private Sector within the private sector 232,159* Engagement (planned Oil palm and HTI) * this figure is speculative a based on successful private sector engagement for land use rationalization 4.5 Sarmi Landscape 4.5.1 Sarmi Baseline Analysis Historical deforestation, degradation, their related emissions in Sarmi Landscape, and emissions from peat decompositions for the base years are illustrated in the charts below.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 78
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 79
Deforestation and degradation rates between 1990 and 2012 and related emissions, peat decomposition emissions as of 2012 and averaged annual increments in emissions for the Sarmi Landscape are summarized as follows.
Predicted Average Annual Average Annual Annual GHG emissions GHG emissions Annual emission Average Average Emission from from from peat Deforestation Degradation Increment Deforestation Degradation decomposition Rate (ha yr-1) Rate (ha yr-1) from peat between 1990- between 1990- @2012 (t.CO2-e) decomp 2012 (t.CO2-e) 2012 (t.CO2-e) (t.CO2-e)
636 9,640 209,122 972,026 116,746,264 +5,792
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 80 Figure 27. A spatial illustration of deforestation and degradation in the Sarmi Landscape between 1990 and 2012, juxtaposed with the current forestry spatial plan of Papua (SK.782/Menhut-III/2012)
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 81 Baseline emissions from land use change and land use on peat are low compared to other LESTARI landscapes. 74% of emissions originate from degradation in production forests -1 (0.89 Mio t.CO2-eq yr ), with the remainder from small scale deforestation and degradation of peat land. In general, the deforestation rate and emissions are in line with those expected from the spatial plan where 70% of the Sarmi Landscape consists of timber concessions. Timber concessionaires 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.
The target for the LESTARI project is to reduce emissions by 41% below the baseline which is calculated below:
Reduced Baseline Reduced Baseline Reduced Baseline Peat AGB Deforestation AGB Degradation Emissions Decomposi Emissions AGB Emissions AGB from Peat tion Year from Emissions from Emissions Decomposi Emissions Deforestation Target (-41%) Degradation Target (-41%) tion Target (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (-41%) (t.CO2e) 2015-2016 209,122 85,740 972,027 398,531 142,734 58,521 2016-2017 209,122 85,740 972,027 398,531 148,490 60,881 2017-2018 209,122 85,740 972,027 398,531 154,247 63,241 2018-2019 209,122 85,740 972,027 398,531 160,003 65,601 2019-2020 209,122 85,740 972,027 398,531 165,759 67,961 Total reduced Emission 428,701 1,992,654 316,206 Target over life of Project
Grand Total Reduced Emissions from Landscape 2,737,561
4.5.2 Sarmi Landscape Key Activities As with the Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape, the current baseline analysis potentially masks future deforestation and emissions that may occur over the life of the project.
As mentioned in the landscape description section above, 70% of the Sarmi landscape is covered by timber licenses. Activities will be restricted to working with the timber companies to improve production management and the conservation of high value biodiversity within their areas.
There are quite extensive areas that have been designated for oil palm development and LESTARI needs to maintain observance and be prepared to introduce lands rationalization if and when companies start to scale up development. The rationalization approach that LESTARI is taking in Mappi-Bouven Digul landscape can be applied here along incorporating Community Conservation Agreements developed under USAID IFACS could play a potentially useful role in land use rationalization.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 82 PRIORTY INTERVENTIONS IN SARMI LANDSCAPE
Initial Management Hectares of LESTARI Technical Units targeted for Forest and Notes Themes improved management Peat land Improving production IFACS worked with two timber plantations in Technical Theme 3 : management and the landscape covering 495,610 hectares. Private Sector conservation of HCV 603,944 The implementation of RIL and CMMP was Engagement within Timber partial and can be improved further concessions throughout the LOP.
4.6 Cyclops Landscape 4.6.1 Cyclops Baseline Analysis Historical deforestation, degradation, their related emissions in Mappi – Bouven Digoel Landscape, and emissions from peat decompositions for the base years are illustrated in the charts below.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 83
Deforestation and degradation rates between 1990 and 2012 and related emissions for the Cyclops Landscape are summarized as follows. There is no peat in the Cyclops landscape and thus no emission calculations.
Predicted Average Annual Average Annual Annual Annual GHG emissions GHG emissions emissions from Average Average emissions from from peat Deforestation Degradation Increment from Deforestation Degradation decomposition Rate (ha yr-1) Rate (ha yr-1) peat between 1990- between 1990- @2012 decomposition 2012 (t.CO2-e) 2012 (t.CO2-e) (t.CO2-e) (t.CO2-e) 64 18 20,020 1,837 N/A N/A
Deforestation is almost solely caused from encroachment by in-migrant settlers to the capital regions (both from Papua and other islands). Areas have also been lost from severe landslides caused by the extensive degradation of the forest and exploitation of locally valued wood species (utilized for charcoal and timber) experienced in the Cyclops.
The target for the LESTARI project is to reduce emissions by 41% below the baseline which is calculated below:
Baseline Reduced Baseline Reduced Baseline Reduced Peat AGB Deforestation AGB Degradation Emissions Decompositio Emissions AGB Emissions AGB Year from Peat n Emissions from Emissions from Emissions Decomposition Target (-41%) Deforestation Target (-41%) Degradatio Target (-41%) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) n (t.CO2e) (t.CO2e) 2015-2016 20,020 8,208 1,837 753 - - 2016-2017 20,020 8,208 1,837 753 - - 2017-2018 20,020 8,208 1,837 753 - - 2018-2019 20,020 8,208 1,837 753 - - 2019-2020 20,020 8,208 1,837 753 - - Total reduced Emission 41,042 3,766 - Target over life of Project Grand Total Reduced Emissions from Landscape 44,808
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 84 Figure 28. A spatial illustration of deforestation and degradation in the Sarmi Landscape between 1990 and 2012, juxtaposed with the current forestry spatial plan of Papua (SK.782/Menhut-III/2012)
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 85 5.6.2 Cyclops Key Activities Cyclops Landscape emissions comprise only 0.1% of all LESTARI landscape emissions. However, this landscape is highly valued as a learning, and pilot site for Papua due to its proximity with the provincial capital and provision of critical environmental services such as water and disaster mitigation. The mountain range also is home to important biodiversity (containing several endemic species restricted to this mountain range). 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, LESTARI will focus on improving management of site and develop co-management within the buffer zone to reduce encroachment pressure and gain broader support for conservation from local communities, municipal, district, and provincial governments.
PRIORTY INTERVENTIONS IN CYCLOPS LANDSCAPE
Initial Management Units LESTARI Technical Hectares of Forest targeted for improved Notes Themes and Peat land management
Improving management Emissions reductions and effectiveness in the 28,645 improved management will come Technical Theme 2 : Cyclops Nature Reserve from shared responsibility to Conservation Co- reduce conversion of forest in the management Develop Co-management Cyclops Nature Reserve and buffer in the buffer zones of the 8,104 zones. reserve
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 86 5. PLAN FOR IMPRPOVEMENT
This landscape baseline analysis ‘plan’ is a living document providing information on landscapes and methods for defining deforestation, degradation, and emissions that are suitable for the LESTARI project. As the document has been produced by a donor funded project, it is not designed to dictate to local stakeholders the deforestation levels and related emissions for specific landscape identified. Instead the LBA can provide a solid starting point for discussion and engagement to work towards a common goal of reducing emissions from the forest and land sector. Below LESTARI presents an action plan that should be implemented to a) achieve acknowledgement for the MoEF and local stakeholders (specifically Provincial Forestry Authorities and District planning agencies) and, b) create potential opportunities for further USAID – MoEF collaboration for FREL improvement.
5.1 Acknowledgement of the LBA by the GoI The FREL methodology was consistently followed during the development of the LESTARI LBA. As such, the LBA should be reviewed and commented on by the authors of the FREL methodology (the MoEF) to ensure accurate application and highlight any areas of concern. ● LESTARI proposed that USAID convene a high-level meeting where the LBA can be presented to the MoEF for review and acknowledgement. On achieving acknowledgement of the approach that LESTARI has followed (or after incorporating MoEF review findings, if any) LESTARI in collaboration with the MoEF can further engage at a sub-national level. To date, emission targets for Provincial and Districts that contribute to national targets defined in the FREL, have not been defined. Indonesia does define targets through the RAN/RAD GRK (in accordance to the Presidential Decree No.71/2011) but this has not achieved significant traction in the forestry sector nor effectively disaggregated responsibility for emission reductions at the District level. ● LESTARI proposes negotiations with Provincial and District Forestry (Dinas Kehutanan) and Planning authorities (BAPPEDA) in the areas in which it works (with USAID and MoEF support) to establish official reduced deforestation and degradation targets for the period 2015-2020 that will further be applied to spatial and development planning (RTRW and RPJM) documents.
5.2 Opportunities for FREL improvement The methodology used to calculate the baseline for LESTARI is based on a nationally developed approach – the FREL that was “based on current available data and knowledge under national circumstances, capacities and capabilities”. It is acknowledged in this document that are areas where improvements can be made including more detailed measurement of deforestation and degradation, and the inclusion of REDD+ activities such as conservation of carbon stocks trough forest and land management and sustainable forest management (such as the RIL-C initiative implemented by LESTARI and other stakeholders in Indonesia). This is dependent on when more and better data and methodologies become available.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 87
One aspect where improvement needs to be made is in the time delay between satellite image capture and land cover data publishing by the MoEF that can typically be up to 2 years. This will be challenging for LESTARI when reporting in the final year of the project for the simple reason that in 2020 (end of project), only 2018 data will likely be available. The FREL document describes initiatives by LAPAN, and the GIZ FORCLIME and ICRAF ALLREDDI Projects to overcome these issues and LESTARI has initiated discussions with REDD+ developers in similar situations where methodologies for large-scale landscape have already been implemented under the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS)12.
LESTARI landscapes cover significant areas of peat land and the project has started interventions with local stakeholders to improve management to reduce emissions through peat re-wetting. Using the current FREL methodology, only land cover in use to estimate emission from peat decomposition. For future emission calculations from peat land, emission factors can be updates with research findings and adapted to specific situations (type of peat and land cover) in LESTARI landscapes. The FREL uses the 2013 Supplementary IPCC guideline emission factor for land cover types on peat. This may 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. In addition, EF are expected to be lower under improved water management, and could be back to zero with successful rewetting implemented through LESTARI and its partners. ● LESTARI proposes a USAID led engagement with Directorate of Climate Change (Dit. PPI) and other relevant stakeholders to discuss areas of potential collaboration in improving the FREL, especially in the areas of data acquisition and management to improve data publishing times, and work on emission factors for peat land and the acceptance of successful water management in peat to reduce emissions. LESTARI works in landscape that are very different from one another – from high modified mosaic landscapes in Kalimantan, to frontier deforested landscapes in Leuser and Cyclops, and largely unmodified landscapes in Mappi - Bouven Digul, Sarmi and Lorentz Lowlands. The development policy and its future impact on Indonesia’s emissions has not been accommodated in the FREL. The methodology does not differentiate between planned and unplanned deforestation. To do so would require data on the specific planning purpose and timing of such development (such as that contained New Plantation planting Plan (or RKT). In addition, many companies have entered 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. This data and the consequences on planned deforestation may be available from local stakeholders (especially the private sector and investment authorities) in the landscape. If so, a baseline modification that accommodates emissions for planned deforestation from conversion forest and land licensed for oil palm and industrial timber plantations and infrastructure may be possible.
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
12 For instance, VM0009, "Methodology for Avoided Mosaic Deforestation of Tropical Forests, v2.1 developed in response to REDD+ project requiring large scale, timely, data for reporting project performance.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 88 resources and the limited number of developments occurring between the base years used. Large areas of these landscapes have been set aside for development, with some licenses covering hundreds of thousands of hectares of forested lands 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.
Another aspect that will be incorporated into baselines that accommodate planned deforestation is development policy that change agents and drivers of deforestations. The impact on deforestation from development and land use policies that have recently been put into place or are in the planning stage, will not have been captured in historical baselines. An example of this is the rapid road development in Papua that is opening-up remote forested areas to potential unplanned deforestation. ● LESTARI proposes detailed discussions with Dit PPI to define to types of data that are required to produce a FREL that accommodate planned deforestation, and then explore whether the level of accuracy and scale is available in the Papuan landscapes that are significantly affected. If data is available, LESTARI will work with MoEF and local stakeholders to amend the baseline to include planned deforestation. ● An analysis of policies and development plans and their impact on driving deforestation (or conservation) needs to be implemented with stakeholders in the landscape. If data and assumptions about deforestation can be developed, the baseline for the project should be amended. The process of refining baseline that accommodate planned deforestation and regional development plans (such as road development and regional agricultural intensification programs) must be carried out with local stakeholders to convey a greater understanding of their implications on GHG emissions and provincial and regional targets (that LESTARI hopes to facilitate). Sub-national baseline and political commitment to achieve targets can guide low emission development pathways for future development. The LBA therefore has an important role to play in building constituents for conservation and GHG emissions reduction, as well as developing landscape wide visions for LEDS.
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 89 BIBLIOGRAPHY
GoI. (2010). Indonesia Second National Communication. Ministry of Environment. Jakarta: Ministry of Environment. GoI. (2014). Pedoman Teknis Penghitungan Baseline Emisi dan Serapan Gas Rumah Kaca Sektor Berbasis Lahan. Government of Indonesia, Bappenas. Jakarta: Bappenas. GoI. (2016). UNFCCC. Retrieved from http://www4.unfccc.int/ndcregistry/PublishedDocuments/Indonesia%20First/First%20 NDC%20Indonesia_submitted%20to%20UNFCCC%20Set_November%20%202016. pdf Boer, R. (2017, January 18). Tagging Procedure, Mainstreaming Climate Change Mitigation, and Developing Sustainable Development Plan. (F. Suryaningrum, Interviewer) Bogor, Jawa Barat, Indonesia. GoI. (2015, November). UNFCCC. (G. o. Indonesia, Ed.) Retrieved from http://wwhttp://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Indone sia/1/INDC_REPUBLIC%20OF%20INDONESIA.pdf GoI. (2015, September 18). National Forest Reference Emission Level for Deforestation and Forest Degradation. Retrieved from http://redd.unfccc.int/files/national_frel_for_redd__in_indonesia_2015.pdf Bappenas. (2014). Sekretariat RAN GRK. Retrieved Dec 2016, from http://www.sekretariat- rangrk.org/images/documnets/Petunjuk_teknis_PEP_bahasa.pdf BBSDLP. (2011, Dec). (Haryono, Ed.) Retrieved 01 31, 2017, from http://bbsdlp.litbang.pertanian.go.id/phocadownload/gambut_indonesia_250000/Nas kah%20Peta%20Gambut%20Indonesia%202011.pdf IPCC. (2013). (T. Hiraishi, T. Krug, K. Tanabe, N. Srivasta, B. Jamsranjav, M. Fukuda, & T. Troxler, Eds.) Retrieved 2016, from http://www.ipcc- nggip.iges.or.jp/public/wetlands/pdf/Wetlands_Supplement_Entire_Report.pdf IPSDH. (2015). WebGIS MenLHK. Retrieved from http://webgis.menlhk.go.id:8080/pl/pl.htm IPSDH. (2015). (R. A. Sugardiman, & R. Rovani, Eds.) Retrieved 01 25, 2017, from http://appgis.dephut.go.id/appgis/download.aspx?status=view&filename=Buku%20P emantauan%20Emisi%20dan%20Serapan%20Karbon_2015_Tosiani.pdf&fileFullNa me=E:%5Cwebgisapp%5CDownload%5CPemantauan%20Hutan%20Nasional%5CB uku%20Pemantauan%20Emisi%20dan%20Serapan%20Karbon_2015_Tosiani.pdf IPSDH. (2014). (P. S. Nasional, Ed.) Retrieved from https://www.google.co.id/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ua ct=8&ved=0ahUKEwjSg- 6H5bLSAhXLkZQKHcXuDOAQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fappgis.dephut.go.id %2Fappgis%2Fdownload.aspx%3Fstatus%3Dview%26filename%3DBuku%2520Pot ensi%2520Sumber%2520Daya%2520Hutan%2520Tahun%25202014.pdf%26fileFull Name%3DE%3A%255Cwebgisapp%255CDownload%255C3.%2520Buku%2520PO TENSI%2520SUMBER%2520DAYA%2520HUTAN%255CBuku%2520Potensi%252 0Sumber%2520Daya%2520Hutan%2520Tahun%25202014.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHURI vrIqNyqGs1hOlCW4d63H9ZuA&sig2=C5pZzDpGoNmZBwLJGs5WIA
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 90 MoFor (2002). Kebijakan rehabilitasi dan konservasi sumber daya hutan. Ministry of Forestry. Jakarta MoFor. (2014). SIGN SMART. Retrieved from http://signsmart.menlhk.go.id/home/ MoFor. (2013). Peraturan Menteri Lingkungan Hidup Republik Indonesia nomor 15 tahun 2013 tentang Pengukuran, Pelaporan dan Verifikasi Aksi Mitigasi Perubahan Iklim. Retrieved from http://jdih.menlh.go.id/pdf/ind/IND-PUU-7-2013- Permen%20LH%2015%20th%202013%20MRV.pdf
USAID LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (Third Edition). October 2018 Page | 91
USAID 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] Website: www.Lestari-Indonesia.org