BASELINE BIODIVERSITY AND APE POPULATION ASSESSMENT AND PRELIMINARY MONITORING PROTOCOL IN THE KATINGAN PEAT SWAMP, CENTRAL KALIMANTAN, INDONESIA

Baseline Biodiversity and Ape Population Assessment and Preliminary Monitoring Protocol in the Katingan Peat Swamp, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia

Report on research commissioned by:

PT. Rimba Makmur Utama / PT. Starling Asia

And performed by:

The Orangutan Tropical Peatland Project (OuTrop)

Field Research Coordinators: Hendri Marc L. Dragiewicz Krisno

Report Compiled by: Mark E. Harrison

Scientific Advisors: Simon J. Husson Susan M. Cheyne

Palangka Raya, May 2010

Citation: Harrison M. E., Hendri, Dragiewicz M. L., Krisno, Cheyne S. M. and Husson S. J. (2010). Baseline Biodiversity and Ape Population Assessment and Preliminary Monitoring Protocol in the Katingan Peat Swamp, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Report produced by the Orangutan Tropical Peatland Project for PT. Rimba Makmur Utama / PT. Starling Asia, Palangka Raya, Indonesia.

Contact: Simon J. Husson, OuTrop Biodiversity and Conservation Director, Jl. Semeru 91, Palangka Raya 73112, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Email: [email protected]

Cover images (clockwise from top): orang-utan (Pongo pygmaeus wurmbii) in Perigi, grey-tailed racer (Gonyosoma oxycephalum) and Storm’s stork (Ciconia stormi) on the River Katingan.

CONTENTS

CONTENTS i

PREAMBLE v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viii

1. SUMMARY RESPONSES TO CCB CHECKPOINTS 1

G1. Original Conditions in the Project Area 1 G1.7. Current biodiversity and threats to this biodiversity 1 G1.8. Evaluation of presence of High Conservation Values 1 G1.8.1.a. Protected areas 1 G1.8.1.b. Threatened species 1 G1.8.1.c. Endemic species 2 G1.8.1.d. Areas supporting significant biodiversity concentrations 2 G.1.8.2. Areas with viable populations of species in natural patterns of 2 distribution and abundance G.1.8.3. Threatened or rare ecosystems 2

G2. Baseline Projections 2 G.2.1. Most likely land-use scenario in absence of project 2 G2.2. Documentation that project benefits would not occur in the absence of 3 the project G2.5. Description of how the ‘without project’ scenario would affect 3 biodiversity in the region G2.5.1 Habitat availability 3 G2.5.2 Landscape connectivity 4 G2.5.3 Threatened species 4

G3. Project Design and Goals 5 G3.1. Biodiversity objectives 5 G3.2. Description of the impacts of each project activity on biodiversity 5 G3.6. Measure to ensure the maintenance or enhancement of high 6 conservation values

G4. Management Capacity and Best Practice 6 G4.2. Key technical skills: biodiversity 6

G5. Legal Status and Property Rights 6 G5.5. Illegal activities that could affect biodiversity impacts 6

CM1. Net Positive Community Impacts 6 CM1.2. Demonstration that no HCV will be negatively affected by the 6 project

B1. Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts 6 B1.1. Demonstrating net positive biodiversity impacts 6

i B1.2. Demonstration that no HCVs will be negatively affected by the project 9 B1.3. Identification of species to be used in project activities and 9 confirmation of invasive status B1.4. Identification of species to be used in project activities and 9 confirmation of native status B1. 5. Guarantee that no genetically modified organisms will be used 9

B2. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts 10 B2.1. Identification of potential negative off-site biodiversity impacts 10 B2.2. Mitigation strategies for negative off-site biodiversity impacts 10 B2.3. Unmitigated negative off-site biodiversity impacts 10

B3. Biodiversity Impact Modelling 10 B3.1. Selecting biodiversity variables to be monitored and frequency of 10 monitoring, and ensuring variables are directly linked to biodiversity objectives and anticipated impacts B3.2. Assessing the effectiveness of measures to maintain/enhance high 11 conservation values B3.3. Commitment to producing a full monitoring plan 12

GL1. Climate Change Adaptation Benefits 12 GL1.2. Risks to anticipated biodiversity benefits from climate change 12 GL1.3. Demonstration that climate change is likely to have an impact on 12 biodiversity in the project zone and surrounding areas GL1.4. Demonstration that project activities will assist biodiversity in 13 adapting to climate change

GL3. Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits 13 GL3.1. Vulnerability 13 GL3.2. Irreplaceability 13

2. BIODIVERSITY PRESENT, IDENTIFICATION OF HCVS AND 15 THREATS

2.1 Section Summary 15

2.2 Background Information 16

2.2.1 Biodiversity in Borneo 16 2.2.2 Biodiversity in Peat-Swamp Forests 16 2.2.3 Threats to Biodiversity in Borneo 17 2.2.4 Forest-Carbon Projects and Biodiversity Conservation 18

2.3 Methods 19

2.3.1 Study Site 19 2.3.2 Timeframe 23 2.3.3 Methods: Fauna 23 2.3.3.1 Biodiversity Surveys 23 2.3.3.2 Orang-utans 25 2.3.3.3 Gibbons 27

ii 2.3.3.4 Proboscis monkeys 27 2.3.4 Community Interviews 28 2.3.5 Floral Biodiversity Surveys 29 2.3.6 Comparisons with Neighbouring Sites 29 2.3.7 Identifying and Describing Threats 29

2.4 Results 29 2.4.1 Forest Condition 29 2.4.1.1 Terantang 29 2.4.1.2 Perigi 31 2.4.2 Faunal Biodiversity Present in the Project Area 35 2.4.2.1 Mammals 35 2.4.2.2 Birds 35 2.4.2.3 Herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians) and fish 35 2.4.3 Fauna Species Lists 37 2.4.3.1 Mammals 37 2.4.3.2 Birds 41 2.4.3.3 Herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians) 51 2.4.3.4 Fish (preliminary) 54 2.4.4 Confirmed and Potential High Conservation Value Species (HCVs) 60 Present 2.4.4.1 Orang-utans 60 2.4.4.2 Gibbons 62 2.4.4.3 Proboscis monkeys 64 2.4.4.4 Primates (excluding orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys) 66 2.4.4.5 Cats 67 2.4.4.6 Sun bears 67 2.4.4.7 Pangolins 68 2.4.4.8 Otters 68 2.4.4.9 Storks 68 2.4.4.10 White-shouldered ibis 69 2.4.4.11 Birds of prey 69 2.4.4.12 Hornbills 69 2.4.4.13 Crocodiles and gharials 69 2.4.4.14 Turtles 70 2.4.5 Floral Biodiversity 70 2.4.6 Threats to Biodiversity in the Region 71 2.4.6.1 Illegal logging 71 2.4.6.2 Forest Conversion 76 2.4.6.3 Charcoal production 77 2.4.6.4 Peat drainage and fire 77 2.4.6.5 Hunting 79 2.4.6.6 Fishing 81 2.4.6.7 Harvesting of non-timber forest products 82 2.4.6.8 Climate change 83

2.5 Importance of Katingan Peat Swamp for Biodiversity Conservation 83

3. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATING NEGATIVE IMPACTS 85

3.1 Section Summary 85

iii

3.2 Drivers of Biodiversity Loss 86 3.2.1 Conversion for crops 87 3.2.2 Conversion for non-crop plantations 88 3.2.3 Conversion for settlements 88 3.2.4 Illegal logging for local needs 88 3.2.5 Illegal logging for commercial sale 88 3.2.6 Use of fire to clear land 89 3.2.7 Use of fire in local disputes 89 3.2.8 Accidental fires 89 3.2.9 Peat drainage 90 3.2.10 Gold mining 90 3.2.11 Harvesting non-timber forest products 90 3.2.12 Clearance for transport infrastructure 90 3.2.13 Hunting 91 3.2.14 Charcoal production 91

3.3 Impact of Project Activities on Biodiversity and HCVs 92

3.4 Recommended Biodiversity Objectives 96 3.4.1 Immediate research objectives 96 3.4.2 Measures to mitigate threats to HCVs 96 3.4.3 Measures to maintain/enhance biodiversity and HCVs beyond the 97 project timeframe 3.4.4 Biodiversity monitoring and HCV-specific objectives 97

3.5 Analysis of Species Used in Project Activities 97

3.6 Potential Risk to Biodiversity Benefits from Climate Change 98

4. MONITORING PROTOCOL 100

4.1 Section Summary 100

4.2 Background: Ecological Monitoring and Biodiversity Conservation 100

4.3 Indicators for Monitoring 102

4.4 Monitoring Methods and Frequency 103 4.4.1 Methods 103 4.4.2 Monitoring frequency 104

5. REFERENCES 105

6. APPENDICES – COMMUNITY QUESTIONNAIRE 116

iv PREAMBLE

The Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) Standards are intended to “foster the development and marketing of projects that deliver credible and significant climate, community and biodiversity benefits in an integrated, sustainable manner. Projects that meet the Standards adopt best practices to deliver robust and credible greenhouse gas reductions while also delivering net positive benefits to local communities and biodiversity”. Validation of a project against these Standards is achieved through a 17-point checklist, comprised of 14 checkpoints compulsory for gaining “Approved” status and an additional 3 optional checkpoints (listed in Appendix 1). Satisfaction of at least one of these optional checkpoints is required to achieve “Gold” status. Many of the checkpoints are either focussed on, or include, aspects of biodiversity.

The Orangutan Tropical Peatland Project (OuTrop) was contracted by PT. Rimba Makmur Utama/Starling Resources to help satisfy the checkpoints related to biodiversity and facilitate the acquisition of Approved/Gold Standard status for the proposed Forest Carbon Project in Katingan Regency. Established in 1999, OuTrop is a UK-based group of scientists who carry out research, ecosystem monitoring and conservation management in the peat-swamp forests of the River Sabangau catchment and surrounding areas. Our long-term research focuses are: floral and faunal biodiversity; ecological monitoring; forest ecology, dynamics, phenology and restoration; the distribution, population status, behaviour and ecology of the forest's flagship ape species – the orangutan and agile gibbon – and provide scientific feedback to conservation managers and work with our local partners to implement successful conservation programmes.

In this report, we provide the necessary information to satisfy the biodiversity sections of PT. Rimba Makmur Utama/Starling Resources CCBA application. We (i) describe the baseline ecology and biodiversity of the area, identify any High Conservation Values (HCV), and threats to these; (ii) assess the project’s impacts on biodiversity and recommend biodiversity objectives for the project; and (iii) propose a preliminary monitoring proposal for assessing the long-term impacts of the project’s activities on the area’s biodiversity and HCVs.

v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Borneo is one of the world’s most biodiverse regions, and peat-swamp forests harbour a significant proportion of this biodiversity. Due to their very high carbon content, great potential exists for REDD projects in peat-swamp forests, which can potentially provide much-needed revenue for conserving these forest’s unique biodiversity.

PT. Rimba Makmur Utama / Starling Resources’ proposed REDD concession area covers 227,260 ha of mostly forested peat-swamp forest in the Katingan and Kotawaringan Timur Districts, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. During February-April 2010, we assessed the biodiversity present in the forest, abundance of three endangered and high-profile primate species – orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys – and threats facing this biodiversity in the proposed concession area. This revealed that Katingan is home to 68 mammal (6 Endangered/EN, 14 Vulnerable/VU and 21 protected under Indonesian law), 159 bird (1 Critically Endangered, 1 EN, 5 VU and 36 protected), 44 reptile (3 EN, 3 VU, 4 protected), 7 amphibian and 110 fish species (note that these latter three lists will be incomplete). Preliminary estimates indicate a total of 3,619 orang-utans, 9,786 gibbons and at least 540 proboscis monkeys. These populations all represent over 5% of the remaining global population of these species, classifying them as High Conservation Value (HCV) species in the area and classifying this forest as a Key Biodiversity Area (KBA). In line with the precautionary principle and considering the large size of the proposed concession area, the remaining Critically Endangered and Endangered species found in the area, in particular the white-shouldered ibis and Storm’s stork, should also be considered potential HCV species.

This biodiversity in Katingan is currently facing a variety of threats, however, which need to be countered if the conservation of biodiversity and HCVs in the area is to be successful. The most important threats to the area’s biodiversity and HCVs are peat drainage and subsequent fire, illegal logging, gold mining, potential conversion to oil palm plantations and coal concessions, and hunting. In relation to this, we identify 14 active drivers of biodiversity loss in Katingan and six agents of biodiversity loss.

Without the project, the most likely land-use scenario is that illegal logging, hunting, peat degradation and other harmful activities will continue, and that risk of fire and encroachment from gold mines and oil palm will increase. This will lead to severe negative impacts on the area’s biodiversity and declines in the population size of orang-utans, gibbons, proboscis monkeys, and other HCVs. The majority of the project’s activities will be directly beneficial to biodiversity and HCVs in the area; the remainder will be neutral or have indirect positive impacts.

We recommend thirteen biodiversity objectives be adopted by the project proponents. Further, we propose a preliminary monitoring programme to demonstrate whether the Project has achieved the stated biodiversity objectives and has had net positive biodiversity benefits. A full monitoring programme will be submitted within a year of acceptance to CCBA standards. This monitoring programme will focus on the area’s HCV primates – orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys – in addition to other potential HCV species, flora and habitat condition, and other indicators of ecosystem health that are currently under consideration.

vi Based on these results, it is clear that Katingan is a crucial area for biodiversity conservation, particularly for orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys. It is also clear that this biodiversity faces a number of threats, that the project activities will benefit biodiversity conservation and that these activities are very unlikely to occur in the absence of the project. Thus, we conclude that the implementation of this project is important for biodiversity conservation, both in Borneo and globally.

vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

• Starling Resources and PT. Rimba Makmur Utama for research permissions, funding and contracting us to perform this research. • Rezal Kusumaatmadja and Kirk Lang for facilitating the research and providing background literature and maps of the area. • Taryono Darussman, Saiful and Asep for facilitating field research and advice. • Denny Kurniawan for advice and information on River Katingan villages. • Helen Morrogh-Bernard for advice and information on previous orang-utan surveys in Katingan. • Nono, Ubie, Maryanto, Fedyano, Upy, Nany, Agus, Udin, Desmon, Suriadi, Rudy, Rudi and Eko for assistance with data collection, and klotok travel to and from the research camps. • Laura J. D’Arcy for assistance updating species’ IUCN and CITES listings. • The residents of the villages along the Rivers Mentaya and Katingan, for their kind cooperation, willingness to facilitate our research and answer questionnaires, and allowing us to conduct this research in their forest.

viii 1. SUMMARY RESPONSES TO CCB CHECKPOINTS

In this section, we present the key information resulting from our work in relation to the checkpoints listed in the CCB Standards (2008). Reference to further/supporting information on particular topics in the remainder of the report is provided.

G1. Original Conditions in the Project Area

G1.7. Current biodiversity and threats to this biodiversity In total, 68 mammal, 159 bird, 44 reptile, 7 amphibian and 110 fish species were documented in the project area. This biodiversity is currently facing a variety of threats, which will need to be countered if biodiversity conservation in the area is to be successful. The most important of these threats are peat drainage and subsequent fire, illegal logging, gold mining in the north, potential conversion to oil palm plantations and coal concessions, and hunting of some species. Other threats include forest conversion for local agriculture, charcoal production in at least one village and use of environmentally harmful methods for extraction of non-timber forest products. This is described in detail in Section 2.4.

G1.8. Evaluation of presence of High Conservation Values A detailed description of the importance of the area for biodiversity is provided in Sections 2.4-5.

G1.8.1.a. Protected areas – Due to the presence of numerous threatened species in the area (see below), Katingan can be classified as a biological HCV area or Key Biodiversity Area (KBA).

G1.8.1.b. Threatened species – Of the total number of species documented in Katingan, one species is listed by the IUCN as Critically Endangered (the white- shouldered ibis), ten as Endangered and 22 as Vulnerable. Sixty two species are protected under Indonesian law. Globally significant populations of orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys exist in the area. Although the majority of proboscis monkey groups sighted were outside the project area in the riverine habitats, many monkeys will enter the project area to feed during the day and the project activities will have a large impact on their population (see G3.6). Based on current best estimates of forest area and our field surveys, we provide preliminary population estimates of 3,619 Bornean orang-utans, 9,786 Bornean southern gibbons, and at least 540 proboscis monkeys surrounding/inside the proposed concession area. These figures will likely all be revised and their accuracy improved in future, as more sites are surveyed over a longer time period, and a deeper understanding of short- and long-term changes in population distribution is developed. All of these species are listed as Endangered by the IUCN, on Appendix I of CITES, legally protected in Indonesia and endemic to Borneo. These populations all represent over 5% of the remaining global population of these species, classifying them as High Conservation Value (HCV) species in the area. Furthermore, although population size could not be quantified, there are potentially globally significant populations of the Critically Endangered white-shouldered ibis, in addition to the Endangered Storm’s stork, Sunda pangolin, hairy-nosed otter, flat-headed cat, Borneo river turtle, spiny-hill turtle and false gharial. In line with the precautionary principle and in the absence of detailed population data, these species should also be considered HCVs in the area.

1 G1.8.1.c. Endemic species – Of the total species documented in Katingan, seven mammal, three bird, three reptile and one amphibian species are endemic to Borneo. Note that, due to the fact that Borneo is an island comprising three countries, and Indonesia is a nation comprising 17,000 islands, figures for endemism to Borneo are much more useful than figures for endemism to Indonesia.

G1.8.1.d. Areas supporting significant biodiversity concentrations – Most habitat sub- types in Katingan will be suitable areas for the majority of the biodiversity documented in the area, provided the forest has not been too disturbed by human activities. The presence of tall forest, low-canopy forest and savannah-like areas – all threatened habitat sub-types – in Katingan also increases the biodiversity potential of the area, by providing habitat types suited to species with varying specialisms. High concentrations of biodiversity and confirmed and potential HCVs were even found in areas of active illegal logging disturbance. Thus, the entire forested area in Katingan can be considered to support significant concentrations of biodiversity.

G.1.8.2. Areas with viable populations of species in natural patterns of distribution and abundance – Katingan is home to globally significant populations of three primate HCV species: Bornean orang-utans, Bornean southern gibbons and proboscis monkeys. Although population sizes have not been determined for any other species, it is clear that, due to its large size (2,273 km2 of forest; representing 7.6% of the remaining peatland in Central Kalimantan), Katingan will contain viable populations of the majority of species documented as inhabiting the area (or help support these populations, for migratory or mobile species). As the entire forested area consists of one block of habitat, with a variety of different habitat sub-types, viable populations of species in natural patterns of distribution and abundance can be considered to exist throughout the forested area of the proposed concession. This includes the more stunted areas of low-pole (canopy) forest and savannah-like areas, which are likely home to specialised species that thrive in more open/stunted habitats.

G.1.8.3. Threatened or rare ecosystems – Indonesian peat-swamp forests are being lost at an alarming rate: it has been estimated that from 1985-2005 over 30% of Indonesia’s peat-swamp forest became degraded and degradation rates continue at a rate of 1.7% a year. Given this rate of degradation, it is clear that peat-swamp forest is a threatened ecosystem.

G2. Baseline Projections

G.2.1. Most likely land-use scenario in absence of project In the absence of the project, the most likely land-use scenario is that illegal logging, hunting, peat degradation and other harmful activities will continue, and risk of fire, encroachment from gold mines and oil palm will increase. Information from community interviews, the experiences of the field survey team, previous Starling reports and relevant literature indicates fourteen active drivers of biodiversity loss in Katingan and six agents of biodiversity loss, as illustrated overleaf.

2

Agents of biodiversity loss

olice Active drivers of biodiversity loss Private companies Local communities Hunters Soldiers / p Government 1. Conversion for crops ● ● 2. Conversion for non-crop plantations ● ● 3. Conversion for settlements ● ● 4. Illegal logging for local needs ● ● 5. Illegal logging for commercial sale ● ● 6. Use of fire to clear land ● ● 7. Use of fire in local disputes ● 8. Accidental fires ● ● ● 9. Peat drainage ● ● ● ● 10. Gold mining ● 11. Harvesting NTFPs ● 12. Clearance for transport infrastructure ● ● 13. Hunting ● 14. Charcoal production ● ●

Ultimately, the need for food and money to supply local peoples’ needs, and the quest for profit among large and small companies, and individuals, are the main factors behind all of these drivers and motivating the agents. Detailed biodiversity projections and analysis of drivers of biodiversity loss are provided in Section 3.

G2.2. Documentation that project benefits would not occur in the absence of the project Without the project, the project activities would not occur, due to lack of financial capacity, expertise, technological capacity, relevant institutions willing to undertake the work and high levels of motivation to implement and persevere with the activities. Furthermore, these impacts should continue for the 30-year lifespan of the project and the remaining 30 post-project years of the 60-year concession. There are no laws in Indonesia that require the project area to be protected or the activities to be implemented. Thus, the project activities can be considered as truly additional.

G2.5. Description of how the ‘without project’ scenario would affect biodiversity in the region

G2.5.1. Habitat availability – In the absence of the project, it is likely that the forest area will be reduced by at least 20% during the lifetime of the project (30 years) and that forest condition will be become severely degraded throughout, due to continued fire, illegal logging and forest conversion for agriculture and mining. Currently, fishing, agriculture, rattan harvesting, sap collecting (jelutong and rubber) and illegal logging are the main options for income for people in villages surrounding the Katingan forest and local people are generally poor. Consequently, local people are likely to consider any potential income-generating opportunities available, which can put great pressure on their only abundant natural resource: the forest. As a result, community efforts to regulate activities detrimental to faunal biodiversity and HCVs are essentially non-existent and ineffective, especially on the eastern side of the project area (this forest is under potentially higher pressure, owing to prohibited

3 access to the forest to the east of the Katingan River, which is protected as the Sebangau National Park). Continued declines in habitat availability are therefore expected in the absence of the project, which will lead to negative impacts on faunal biodiversity, especially in terms of the population sizes of individual species.

The forest closest to the forest edge (tall mixed-swamp forest) is more productive than that in the forest interior, owing to shallower peat depth and flooding with nutrient- rich river waters in areas closest to the major rivers. Consequently, faunal diversity and abundance is higher in these areas of mixed-swamp forest close to rivers than in the forest interior (Morrogh-Bernard et al., 2003; Cheyne et al., 2008; OuTrop, unpublished data). As a result, biodiversity impacts will not be equal throughout the entire forest area; indeed, negative biodiversity impacts will be highest in those areas of habitat most at risk.

Although the primary concern is reductions in overall habitat availability, reductions in the availability of certain habitat sub-types could also have potentially serious negative impacts on biodiversity. This is particularly true if certain species of fauna are restricted either largely or entirely in their distribution to this habitat sub-type. At present, we are unable to predict the potential impact of this, owing to incomplete information on the distribution of different habitat sub-types in the area and the associations of faunal species with these. Nevertheless, we believe it prudent to recognise this as a potential threat to faunal diversity in the area.

G2.5.2. Landscape connectivity – The threats described above will act to reduce landscape and habitat connectivity in the area, although these losses in connectivity will have less serious impacts on faunal diversity than losses in overall habitat availability. The large majority of disturbances to the habitat – fire, timber extraction, forest conversion, mining – occur around the forest edge, with the forest interior currently experiencing little in the way of direct human disturbance, owing to the difficulty in accessing these areas and their generally lower productivity (and, hence, less diverse and abundant fauna). Fire, logging and forest conversion in the few kilometres closest to the forest edge could lead to some reduction in landscape connectivity, which would have a negative impact on faunal diversity, but the major impact of this on fauna is anticipated to be the resultant overall loss of habitat area as the forest is ‘eaten away from the edges’.

A potentially serious threat to the forest interior on the highest part of the dome and, thus, to habitat connectivity, is peat collapse, as a result of peat drainage influencing water levels across the entire peat dome, particularly if fire were to take hold in the interior and burn peat below the surface.

G2.5.3. Threatened Species – In the absence of the project, the continued presence of the threats described in the two sub-sections above, plus continued harvesting of many species for food or the pet trade, will lead to severe negative impacts on biodiversity. In particular, this would lead to declines in the population size of the area’s three primate HCVs – orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys – in addition to other potential faunal HCVs in the area, such as Storm’s stork and lesser adjutant stork.

4 Orang-utans in particular would suffer severe negative effects without the presence of the project. This species is dependent on forest fruit and, hence, areas of relatively intact forest; has a very slow natural breeding rate and, hence, small increases in the natural mortality rate can have severe effects on population size; and occurs at naturally low densities. Reductions in habitat quality/food availability and hunting would therefore be anticipated to lead to severe negative impacts on the area’s orang- utan population, as would reductions in overall habitat area. Gibbons have similar habitat requirements and so would be similarly affected by reductions in habitat availability, quality and hunting. As mentioned in Section G2.5.1 above, the forest sub-type most at risk from human disturbances is the mixed-swamp forest closest to the rivers. This forest sub-type is known to support higher populations of orang-utans (Morrogh-Bernard et al., 2003) and gibbons (Cheyne et al., 2008) than the forest interior and, hence, loss of mixed-swamp forest habitat will have particularly profound negative impacts on the populations of these species in Katingan. Any impacts of reductions in landscape connectivity would likely be greater for gibbons than orang-utans, owing to orang-utan’s greater ability to cross deforested areas on the ground. Proboscis monkey populations will also suffer from continued hunting and declines in forest condition.

G3. Project Design and Goals

G3.1. Biodiversity objectives The project will contribute to biodiversity and HCV conservation in the region in a number of ways. Restoration of natural hydrology through damming canals, fire prevention and control will reduce fire damage in the region. Protection of intact areas of forest, enrichment planting in degraded areas and replanting in deforested areas will reduce forest loss and degradation. Managing core areas of habitat and animal habitat development will maintain and improve animal habitat, and enhancing the use of sustainable non-timber forest products will help build a more sustainable local economy. These activities will all be beneficial to biodiversity and HCVs in the area.

Specifically, we anticipate that these activities will lead to (i) a reduction and eventual reversal of losses in forest cover and condition; (ii) the stabalising of, and eventual increase in, confirmed (orang-utan, gibbon and proboscis monkey) and potential (e.g., white-shouldered ibis, Storm’s stork) HCV species’ habitat and population size within the 30-year project period; and (iii) maintenance of the overall floral and faunal biodiversity present in the area. A full set of thirteen biodiversity objectives is provided in Section 3.4.

G3.2. Description of the impacts of each project activity on biodiversity Of the ten proposed project activities, six will be of benefit to overall biodiversity in the area and four will be neutral. None will have a negative impact. Damming canals, and preventing and controlling fire will reduce the frequency and intensity of fire in the area. Combined with protection of intact forest areas, this will maintain forest area and quality. Enrichment planting in degraded areas and replanting in deforested areas will improve forest condition in non-pristine areas, which, given time, will help return the forest to prime condition. Managing core areas of habitat and animal habitat development for target conservation species will maintain and improve overall habitat quality, which will also have positive impacts on non-target biodiversity. The benefits of each project activity for biodiversity are indicated in the table overleaf.

5

G3.6. Measure to ensure the maintenance or enhancement of high conservation values As illustrated in the table overleaf, the project activities will be beneficial to the three HCV primate species in the area. Seven of the project activities will have a direct positive impact on forest cover and condition, overall biodiversity, orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys; three will be neutral for forest cover and condition, and overall biodiversity, and two for orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys and gibbons; and one will have a neutral or positive impact for the primate HCVs, depending on the details of the activity; and none will have a negative impact on any aspect of biodiversity. The overall impacts of the project activities on forest cover and condition, overall biodiversity and the area’s HCV primate species are therefore overwhelmingly positive and, based on the precautionary principal, there is no reason to delay the onset of any of these activities.

G4. Management Capacity and Best Practice

G4.2. Key technical skills: biodiversity The Orang-utan Tropical Peatland Project (OuTrop) has eleven years’ experience of carring out research, ecosystem monitoring and conservation management in the peat- swamp forests of the River Sabangau catchment and surrounding areas. Our skills and expertise lie in floral and faunal biodiversity; ecological monitoring; forest ecology, dynamics, phenology and restoration; the distribution, population status, behaviour and ecology of the forest's flagship ape species – the orangutan and gibbon – and providing scientific feedback to conservation managers and working with our local partners to implement successful conservation programmes.

G5. Legal Status and Property Rights

G5.5. Illegal activities that could affect biodiversity impacts The main illegal activities that could affect the anticipated positive biodiversity impacts are illegal logging, gold mining, use of fire for land clearing and in conflict resolution, and hunting of legally protected species (such as the three primate HCVs). As discussed above, the project will conduct activities aimed at reducing, and ultimately eliminating these threats, but they nevertheless remain as the main illegal activities that may compromise achieving the project’s projected positive biodiversity impacts. These activities are discussed in detail in Section 2.4.6.

B1. Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts

B1.1. Demonstrating net positive biodiversity impacts A full biodiversity monitoring programme will be developed and implemented for the proposed concession area. This programme will focus on the area’s HCVs (orang- utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys), but will also include monitoring of other indicators of environmental health, including flora and habitat condition, other suitable species of fauna, and community interviews. This is discussed in detail in G3 and Section 4. Once complete, this monitoring programme will allow demonstration of whether the project has achieved the stated biodiversity objectives and has achieved net positive biodiversity benefits. The preliminary monitoring programme is discussed in detail in B3 and Section 4.

6 Impact on… Forest cover and Overall Orang- Proboscis Project activity biomass biodiversity utans Gibbons monkeys Comments Hydrological stabalisation through dam ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Crucial for maintaining forest integrity and, hence, for the construction conservation of all biodiversity and HCVs.

Enrichment planting in disturbed areas ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Species to be used (Alseodaphne cariacea, Shorea sp., Gonystylus bancanus and Calamus/Daemonorops spp.) are not important primate foods, though the fruit of the latter have been observed to be eaten by Sabangau orang-utans. More importantly, recovery of disturbed areas will attract primates and other seed dispersers into the area and, given time, seed dispersal by these species in degraded areas will result in increased floral species diversity, which will benefit fauna.

Replanting in non-forest areas ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Some species to be used (Dyera sp., Alstonia sp., Gluta renghas and Campnosperma auriculata) are known to be orang-utan foods; D. lowii/polyphylla and C. coriaceum are important orang-utan and gibbon food species in Sabangau. Most non-forest areas are close to the rivers and so replanting in these areas will increase proboscis monkey habitat. As above, this will also lead to increased seed dispersal and floral biodiversity, which will benefit fauna.

Forest protection – illegal logging and ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Particular focus in north around gold mining areas. This is encroachment prevention important for allowing HCV populations to recover in this and other parts of the proposed concession area.

Monitoring of permanent sample plots for ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ No direct impact on biodiversity or HCVs, but important in flora, fauna, water level, peat depth, etc. determining the impact of other project activities on these, and will have indirect positive impacts through enabling efficient targeting of resources and rapid responses.

7 Impact on… Forest cover and Overall Orang- Proboscis Project activity biomass biodiversity utans Gibbons monkeys Comments Enhance the role of sustainable non- ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Positive impacts on forest flora and fauna, as sustainable timber forest resources in the local harvesting replaces unsustainable illegal logging, hunting and economy other activites that have a negative impact on biodiversity. Positive impact on orang-utans and gibbons if increasing Dyera abundance in the area, as both species are known to feed from this tree in peat-swamp forest.

Develop a comprehensive management plan for selected animal species, including: Habitat surveys to identify which ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ No direct impact, but important for identifying and managing areas are used by selected core areas of habitat, and for computing accurate HCV species population estimates. Will therefore have indirect positive impact.

Managing core areas of habitat ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Orang-utan and gibbon core habitat areas almost certain to overlap; proboscis monkey core habitat areas almost certain to overlap with those of many riverine species. Thus, non-target biodiversity will also benefit from such management.

Animal habitat development ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Benfits through improving the size of core habitat areas. As (striving to develop core habitat this will improve overall forest condition, this will also have areas) positive impacts on other non-target biodiversity.

Animal population development ↔ ↔ ↔ / ↑ ↔ / ↑ ↔ / ↑ Of use in understanding population dynamics of HCV species. through assessing age-sex ratios Recolonisation/reintroduction activities not suitable for and possible recolonisation in primate HCVs, due to the already large populations in the core habitat areas area, but may be suitable for some other HCV species (e.g., white-shouldered ibis).

8 B1.2. Demonstration that no HCVs will be negatively affected by the project As detailed in Section G3.6 above and Section 3.3, none of these species will be negatively impacted by any of the project activities. Of the ten project activities, six will be beneficial to orang-utans, and five to gibbons and proboscis monkeys. The remaining project activities will either have a neutral or positive impact (depending on the details of the activity) or a neutral impact. In line with the precautionary principle, implementation of these activities is therefore recommended. No project activity will have a negative impact. Furthermore, as identified in G2.2 and Section 3.3, the positive benefits of the project on these HCV species will not occur in the absence of the project. These projections will be verified during the course of the project via monitoring of the selected HCV species’ populations (see G3 and Section 4).

B1.3. Identification of species to be used in project activities and confirmation of invasive status The species of flora to be used in the project’s activities, and notes on whether these are invasive species are given in the table below. Full descriptions are given in Section 3.6. All of these species are non-invasive, although care must be taken over the use of Melaleuca sp. Some species in this genus are native to Indonesia and are non-invasive; e.g., M. cajuputi, but some species are non-native and potentially invasive. For example, M. quinquenervia, which is native to Papua New Guinea and Australia and has become one of the most problematic invasive species in the Florida Everglades, USA. The project should therefore take great care to select species of this genus native to the area and non-invasive. No species from any other taxa will be used during project activities.

Species Invasive? Native to Comments Borneo? Alseodaphne coriacea N Y Alstonia sp. N Y Calumus spp. N Y Campnosperma auriculata N Y Daemonorops spp. N Y Dyera lowii / polyphylla N Y Dyera costulata N Y Gonystylus bancanus N Y Gluta renghas N Y Lophopetalum multinervium N Y Melaleuca sp. ? ? Depends on species –some species non-native and invasive (see text) Shorea sp., including S. balangeran N Y

B1.4. Identification of species to be used in project activities and confirmation of native status See Sections B1.4 and 3.6. All floral species used in the course of the project’s activities are native to the area. Care will be taken to avoid the use of non-native Melaleuca sp., which has been shown to be invasive in some foreign environments.

B1. 5. Guarantee that no genetically modified organisms will be used The project proponents guarantee that no genetically-modified organisms will be used during project activities. Alhough the project will not use any genetically-modified organisms, due to the widespread and increasing use of genetically-modified

9 organisms globally, it is impossible to regulate the flow of community resources such as feedstock, and foods such as rice or other grain, used inside and outside of the project area.

B2. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts

B2.1. Identification of potential negative off-site biodiversity impacts Since the project activities will result in a reduction of illegal logging, gold mining, fire and hunting in the proposed concession area, the project may displace some of these pressures to the leakage belts. Although the forest to the east of the proposed concession area is now officially protected as the Sebangau National Park, this is the area must likely to suffer from this leakage, as on-the-ground protection in this area is still relatively poor and the area to the west of the proposed concession has been largely cleared for oil palm. However, concomitant with the overwhelmingly positive on-site biodiversity impacts of the project, the net biodiversity impact of the project will certainly be positive.

B2.2. Mitigation strategies for negative off-site biodiversity impacts Strategies will be developed with project communities to compensate for any loss in income or harvested forest products due to project-related restrictions. The project will facilitate developments in the use of sustainable harvesting methods for non- timber forest products as part of a capacity building and livelihood program, with a view to developing environmentally-sound local economies. The main non-timber forest products that will feature in this programme are jelutong (Dyera lowii / polyphylla) and rattan (Calamus and Daemonorops spp.). Harvesting of native medicinal plants within sustainable limits will be encouraged.

B2.3. Unmitigated negative off-site biodiversity impacts Unmitigated off-site impacts on biodiversity will be relatively low, due to the project’s emphasis on community-based habitat protection and restoration, and the support programme for biodiversity conservation. Assuming continued high demand and price for timber, it is possible that some illegal logging may be displaced to other areas. One such area is likely to be the Sebangau National Park (the western border of which receives relatively poor on-the-ground protection), although other areas may also suffer from this leakage. This is unavoidable. The positive effects of the project on migratory species, such as birds, bats and fish, will create positive off-site biodiversity impacts in other areas. For example, birds or bats may spend part of their time inside the project area and part of their time inside, which will enhance gene flow and seed dispersal between areas. The net off-site biodiversity impacts will therefore be positive.

B3. Biodiversity Impact Modelling

B3.1. Selecting biodiversity variables to be monitored and frequency of monitoring, and ensuring variables are directly linked to biodiversity objectives and anticipated impacts A full biodiversity monitoring programme will be developed and implemented for the proposed concession area. Monitoring biodiversity is best achieved by selecting a range of ‘indicators’ that can be used to assess the condition of the environment or to monitor trends in condition over time. Careful consideration must be given to the

10 indicators chosen for monitoring the success of biodiversity conservation initiatives. Suitable indicators include keystone species (those that have strong interactions with other species), umbrella species (those that require large areas of habitat and a wide range of ecological conditions that encompass other species), flagship species (those that can easily attract public support for conservation and are often the focus of conservation projects) and resource-limited species (those that require specific resources that may be in critically short-supply).

Bearing in mind these considerations, the indicators to be monitored will include the area’s three primate HCVs (orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys), floral species composition, habitat condition (i.e., tree size, tree health, forest structure, presence of signs of human disturbance), and other species of fauna that satisfy selection criteria for inclusion as indicator species (these species will be determined through collection and assessment of field data and information from the literature, during the year period between acceptance to the CCB Standards and submitting a full monitoring programme). Community interviews and focus groups will be used to provide further evidence of trends in species abundance and threats, and to increase socialisation activities with, and involvement of, local communities.

Standard methods will be used for all monitoring activities, with potential modifications for use in peat-swamp forest and/or to achieve the specific objectives of this project. Monitoring will provisionally be conducted annually for the first five years and each two years thereafter, for the duration of the project timeframe.

As outlined in G3.1 (see Section 3.4 for the full set of biodiversity objectives), we anticipate that the project’s activities will maintain the overall biodiversity present in the area and prevent the loss of any species, in particular those threatened with extinction, legally protected and/or endemic to Borneo. Once complete, this monitoring programme will allow demonstration of whether the project has achieved the stated biodiversity objectives and has achieved net positive biodiversity benefits.

B3.2. Assessing the effectiveness of measures to maintain/enhance high conservation values As outlined in G3.1, we anticipate that the project’s activities will lead to the stabalising of, and eventual increase in, confirmed (orang-utan, gibbon and proboscis monkey) and potential (e.g., white-shouldered ibis, Storm’s stork) HCV species’ habitat and population size within the 30-year project period (more detailed objectives for these species are given in Section 3.4). Monitoring of the three confirmed primate HCVs will provisionally be conducted annually for the first five years and each two years thereafter, for the duration of the project timeframe. The field survey methods to be used are standard, have been trialled previously by the project proponents in peat- swamp forest and were used to obtain the population estimates provided in G1.8.1.b (see also Section 2.4.4). Orang-utans will be surveyed through line transects of nests, gibbons through triangulation of calls and proboscis monkeys through line transect counts along rivers at dawn/dusk (detailed methods descriptions are provided in Section 2.3.3). Community interviews and focus groups will also be conducted, to obtain further information on population trends and threats facing these HCVs (see B3.1 and Sections 2.3.4 and 4). Surveys will also be conducted to firstly confirm the status, distribution, threats and habitat preferences of the other potential HCV species and, secondly, to monitor changes in these over time and in response to the project’s

11 activities. Once complete, this HCV monitoring programme will allow demonstration of whether the project has achieved the stated HCV objectives for maintaining and enhancing these HCV species’ populations.

B3.3. Commitment to producing a full monitoring plan The monitoring plan presented herein is preliminary and will be built upon over the coming year to ensure maximum scientific rigour. A full monitoring programme for biodiversity and HCVs will be submitted within one year of acceptance to CCB standards. This full monitoring plan, and the results of the monitoring work, will be disseminated widely. In addition to presentation in the form of reports to CCBA and other relevant project stakeholders, this information will be made publicly available on the internet and communicated to local communities. We also anticipate publication of results in the scientific literature, at scientific conferences and symposia, and in local, national and international media.

GL1. Climate Change Adaptation Benefits

GL1.2. Risks to anticipated biodiversity benefits from climate change If it leads to changes in rainfall regimes, in particular increased frequency and/or intensity of drought, climate change could potentially reduce the impacts of the project’s hydrological restoration and fire prevention and control activities. This would have a knock-on effect on biodiversity, which could potentially reduce the project’s ability to meet its biodiversity and HCV benefits. This risk would be mitigated by stepping up these project activities. While this threat should not be ignored, it is however of a relatively low-risk threat, and is of much lower immediate concern than the threats posed by peat drainage, fire, illegal logging and hunting.

A potentially much greater risk of climate change is salt-water intrusion into the area, as a result of lower water levels in the area, due to potential changes in rainfall regimes and lowering of the water table in the area. Salt-water intrusion could be devastating to the area, as it would likely lead to wide-scale tree die off, which would have very severe negative effects on biodiversity. This could lead to local extinctions of some species in areas severely affected and is a greater risk in the south of the area. Although potentially very serious, this is a relatively low risk unless water levels in the area drop extremely low.

GL1.3. Demonstration that climate change is likely to have an impact on biodiversity in the project zone and surrounding areas As discussed in GL1.2, climate change may lead to changes in rainfall regimes, which could reduce the impacts of the project’s hydrological restoration and fire prevention and control activities. As peat drainage and consequent fire is one of the most important threats to biodiversity in the region (see G1.7, G2.5 and Section 2.4.6), this would have negative impacts on biodiversity. Furthermore, the frequency of El Niño events is thought to have increased since the mid-1970’s. El Niño events are typically associated with drought and, hence, fires in peat swamps. As discussed in GL1.2, salt- water intrusion may also have an impact on biodiversity inside and outside thr project area. Consequently, climate change could have a negative impact on biodiversity and HCVs in the project zone and surrounding areas through this mechanism.

12 GL1.4. Demonstration that project activities will assist biodiversity in adapting to climate change By restoring the area’s natural hydrology, preventing and controlling fire, preventing illegal logging and forest conversion, enrichment planting in degraded areas and reforestation in deforested areas, the project will maintain and enhance forest condition in the area. This is important, because (a) waterlogged forest is not susceptible to fire, whereas drained forest is highly susceptible; (b) forest in good condition is much less susceptible to fire than disturbed and degraded forest; and (c) maintaining a high water level in the project area will eliminate the risk of salt-water intrusion. Once fire has burnt through an area, the canopy is opened up and large numbers of trees dry. This leads to drier conditions in the forest and an increase in the amount of available fuel for fires, which means that fire is more likely to take hold and burn intensively in future. Thus, by preventing fire from occurring in an area in the first place, the project will reduce the potential risk of future fires in the area, thereby allowing biodiversity to adapt to potentially more frequent episodes of El Niño-induced droughts as a result of climate change.

GL3. Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits

GL3.1. Vulnerability The Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) vulnerability criterion specifies that an area must have at least one individual of a Critically Endangered or Endangered species, or a population of 30 individuals or 10 pairs of a Vulnerable species. Katingan is home to the Critically Endangered white-shouldered ibis; to globally significant populations of the Endangered Bornean orang-utan, Bornean southern gibbon and proboscis monkey (though the latter is not entirely dependent on forest inside the proposed concession area); and is also home to the Endangered Sunda pangolin, flat-headed cat, Storm’s stork, Bornean river turtle, spiny turtle and false gharial. Populations of most of the Vulnerable species present in the area will also exceed 30 individuals or 10 pairs. In line with the precautionary principle, these species should all be considered potential HCVs in the area. Thus, the proposed concession area clearly satisfies this criterion on a number of counts.

GL3.2. Irreplaceability The irreplaceability criterion is comprised of a number of sub-criteria, as follows: a. Restricted range (global range < 50,000 km2 or 5% of global population at the site); b. Species with large but clumped distributions (5% of global population at the site); c. Globally significant congregations (1% of population seasonally at the site); d. Globally significant source populations (site is responsible for maintaining 1% of global population); e. Bio-regionally restricted assemblages.

The total Bornean orang-utan population has recently been estimated at 54,000 animals. Based on surveys conducted in 2002-2003 and 2010 in Katingan and 1996- present in Sabangau, and estimates of forest cover provided by Starling, we provide a preliminary estimate of 3,619 orang-utans in the proposed concession area, and possibly up to 5,883 (though we recommend citation of the lower estimate here). This figure represents 6.7-11% of the global population of this species (recently estimated at 54,000 individuals by a collection of the world’s leading orang-utan experts).

13

Although the sample size was limited and more detailed information on the total area of the proposed concession covered by the different habitat sub-types is required for accurate estimation of gibbon density, our analysis indicates a total gibbon population size in the project area of 9,786 individuals. Based on current knowledge, this represents at least 5%, and possibly up to 8-12%, of the total global population of this endangered species.

Considering their ubiquitous distribution throughout the area and its large size, it is also very likely that the total proboscis monkey population inside and immediately surrounding the proposed concession area exceeds 5% of the global population of this species. The same is likely to apply to the other Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable species found in the area, in particular the white-shouldered ibis and Storm’s stork, for which the total global population is estimated at 50-249 mature individuals and 250-500 individuals, respectively. Using the lower-bound estimate, the presence of even one individual white-shouldered ibis in the area would satifsy this criterion. Four different individual Storm’s storks were sighted within just two weeks of surveys and local communities from villages surrounding the entire project area confirmed the presence of this species in the area. It is extremely unlikely that these four sightings represent the entire population in the region and, hence, the population of this species in Katingan must surely exceed 5% of the global population.

Thus, based on this analysis, it is clear that the proposed concession area qualifies as a Key Biodiversity Area (Langhammer et al., 2007) on the basis of its orang-utan, gibbon, proboscis monkey and probably numerous other species’ populations.

14 2. BIODIVERSITY PRESENT, IDENTIFICATION OF HCVS AND THREATS

2.1 Section Summary

Borneo is one of the most biodiverse regions on earth, yet unfortunately also has one of the world’s highest rates of tropical deforestation. Peat-swamp forests comprise a large proportion of the remaining lowland forest in Borneo and are an important reservoir of biodiversity. This includes many species endemic to Borneo, many endangered species, and the world’s largest Bornean orang-utan and southern gibbon populations. Due to their very high carbon content, great potential exists for REDD forest-carbon projects in peat swamps, which can potentially provide much-needed revenue for conserving these forest’s unique biodiversity.

PT. Rimba Makmur Utama / PT. Starling Asia’s proposed REDD concession area covers 227,260 ha of mostly forested peat-swamp forest in the Katingan and Kotawaringan Timur Districts, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. During February-April 2010, we assessed the biodiversity present in this forest and the abundance of three endangered and high-profile primate species – orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys – in the proposed concession area. This was achieved using standardised methods at two sites within the proposed concession: Terantang and Perigi. Methods included line transects of orang-utan nests; gibbon call triangulation, proboscis monkey surveys along rivers, point and line surveys in both the forest and along rivers to identify birds and other diurnal fauna, nocturnal line transects and interviews with local fishermen. Community interviews were also conducted in seven villages – Terantang, Lemiring, Hanaut, Hantipan, Perigi, Galinggang and Telaga – surrounding the proposed concession area, to provide further information on species present and threats faced.

This research revealed that, despite intensive and unevenly-distributed current and past human disturbance, the Katingan forest supports a high number of vertebrate fauna species. In total, we documented 68 mammal (6 Endangered/EN, 14 Vulnerable/VU and 21 protected under Indonesian law), 159 bird (1 Critically Endangered, 1 EN, 5 VU and 36 protected), 44 reptile (3 EN, 3 VU and 4 protected), 7 amphibian and 110 fish species (note that these latter three lists will be incomplete). This wealth of biodiversity includes globally significant populations of orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys, and potentially globally significant populations of a number of other endangered species, such as white-shouldered ibis, Storm’s stork and false gharial.

Based on current best estimates of forest area and our field surveys, we provide preliminary population estimates for the proposed concession area of 3,619 orang- utans, 9,786 gibbons and at least 540 proboscis monkeys (the latter population is mostly outside, but closely surrounding the project area). These populations all represent over 5% of the remaining global population of these species, classifying them as High Conservation Value (HCV) species in the area and the forest as a Key Biodiversity Area (KBA). Due to the large size of the concession area (227,260 ha), it is likely that globally significant populations of many of the endangered species exist in the area. In particular, the populations of the Critically Endangered white- shouldered ibis and Endagered Storm’s stork in Katingan are highly likely to exceed

15 5% of the total global populations of these species. Thus, in line with the precautionary principle, these and the other Endangered and Vulnerable species found in the area should all be considered potential HCVs.

This biodiversity in Katingan is currently facing a variety of threats, which will need to be countered if the conservation of biodiversity and HCV species in Katingan is to be successful. The most important of these threats are peat drainage and subsequent fire, illegal logging, gold mining in the north, potential conversion to oil palm plantations and coal concessions, and hunting of some species. Other threats include forest conversion for local agriculture, charcoal production in at least one village and use of environmentally harmful methods for extraction of non-timber forest products.

2.2 Background Information

2.2.1 Biodiversity in Borneo

Sundaland contains one of the richest concentrations of biodiversity on earth and preserving this biodiversity is critical for global biodiversity conservation (Myers et al., 2000). The island of Borneo covers less than 0.2% of the earth’s land surface (743,330 km2), yet houses a wealth of biodiversity, including up to 15,000 species of flowering plants (as many as the whole African continent), 3,000 species of tree, 222 species of mammal and 420 species of resident birds (MacKinnon et al., 1996). This represents 4% of the world’s plant species, and 5% of birds and mammals (MacKinnon et al., 1996). Borneo is also home to 13 non-human primate species, eight of which are endemic (i.e., are found nowhere else on earth, Groves, 1993, 2001).

This wealth of biodiversity includes the large majority (54,000; 89%) of the world’s remaining orang-utans (Pongo spp., Wich et al., 2008); the Bornean species P. pygmaeus is endemic to the island), the endemic Bornean southern gibbon (Hylobates albibarbis) and the endemic proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus). These three primate species are all listed as “Endangered” by the IUCN (meaning that they face a serious risk of extinction), are on Appendix I of CITES (which prohibits all international trade) and are legally protected in Indonesia.

2.2.2 Biodiversity in Peat-Swamp Forests

The peat swamps of Central Kalimantan cover a vast area (ca. 3 Mha, Page et al., 1999) and were traditionally viewed as supporting little in the way of faunal diversity (Merton, 1962; Janzen, 1974). This view led to the Indonesian government allocating all its PSF to logging concessions in the 1960s. More recent work has revealed that this view of PSF as having little value is far from true: although peat-swamp forest supports a lower diversity and density of flora and fauna than dryland rain forests, it contains a large number of endemic species and is recognised as an important reservoir of biodiversity (Whitmore, 1984; Prentice and Parish, 1992; Page et al., 1997; Shepherd et al., 1997; Struebig et al., 2006; Yule, 2010; OuTrop, unpublished data). Across South-east Asia, elephants, tapirs, leopards, rhinoceros, orang-utans, proboscis monkeys, gibbons and tigers all live in peat-swamp forests.

16 The peat-swamp forest of Peninsular Malaysia has been reported as containing a total of 200-300 fish species, with 80 of these being new to science (Dennis and Aldhous, 2004). This includes the world’s smallest fish, Paedocypris progenetica, which measures less than 8 mm long (Kottelat et al., 2006) and the genus Encheloclarias, which, until its recent discovery by Ng et al. (1994), had not been encountered for over 50 years. A total 57 mammal species and 237 bird species were recorded from a Malaysian PSF (excluding Chiroptera and Muridae, Sebastian, 2002). Of these, 51% of the mammals and 27% of the birds were listed by the IUCN as globally threatened species, and the bird fauna included 38% of the overall Malaysian avifauna, excluding seabirds. The herpeto-fauna (reptiles and amphibians) in South-east Asian peat- swamp forest is poorly known. Norhayati et al. (2005) recorded 19 species at Pekan Forest Reserve (< 30% of the species known from Malaysia. Further studies at Pekan recorded 22 species of reptile, including four species of freshwater turtles (Sharma et al., 2005). It is likely, however, that many species of amphibians and reptiles were unrecorded during these limited surveys, and that the true number of species present is much higher.

Peat-swamp forest is particular important for Indonesia’s flagship primate species. It provides a home for five out of eight of the world’s largest remaining orang-utan populations, comprising possibly a third or more of the total Bornean population (Meijarrd, 1997; Singleton et al., 2004). The world’s largest remaining orang-utan population (6,900 individuals) is found in the Sabangau peat-swamp forest (Wich et al., 2008), which neighbours the Katingan swamps. These forests, once considered to be of negligible value for biodiversity conservation, are therefore the most important habitat type to protect to ensure a future for one of our most endangered and charismatic primate species.

Peat-swamp forest is also an important habitat for other endangered primate species. Recently, the Sabangau peat swamp has also been documented as home to the world’s largest population of the Endangered Bornean agile gibbon, with the total population size numbering over 25,000 individuals (Cheyne et al., 2008). The endangered and Bornean endemic proboscis monkey has also been recorded in the Sabangau forest (Page et al., 1997) and other peatland areas (Meijaard and Nijman, 2000b). Although the total population size in peat-swamp forest is unknown, the large area covered by peat swamps in Kalimantan mean that they are likely to harbour globally significant proboscis monkey populations.

2.2.3 Threats to Biodiversity in Borneo

This biodiversity is facing severe threats, however, and biodiversity loss in Borneo is consequently among the highest in the world. Much of this biodiversity loss is due to loss in forest cover: Borneo is currently losing more than 500,000 ha of forest each year; one of the highest rates of forest loss in the world (FAO, 2010). The habitats most threatened by forest loss are those in the more accessible lowlands, where species richness is greatest (MacKinnon et al., 1996). This threatens even the most well-known of Borneo’s wildlife. For example, it has been estimated that, of the Bornean orang-utan population at the beginning of the twentieth century, no more than 7% survive today (Rijksen and Meijaard, 1999). The continuing rapid loss of forest to the expanding oil-palm industry is a particularly severe threat to Borneo’s

17 biodiversity, and especially to orang-utans (Fitzherbert et al., 2008; Wich et al., 2008; Venter et al., 2009b).

Further threats include habitat degradation and fragmentation, and hunting for some species in some areas (MacKinnon et al., 1996; Rijksen and Meijaard, 1999; Wich et al., 2008). The spectacular, slow-moving and easy-to-locate orang-utan and proboscis monkey have long been the target of hunters. Before the arrival of modern humans in the region, orang-utans inhabited the forests spanning the breadth of mainland South- east Asia and up into China, and the global population may have numbered two million or more (Rijksen and Meijaard, 1999). These populations were rendered extinct by the sophisticated and highly-effective hunting techniques of modern humans, leaving only remnant populations in the inaccessible jungles of Sumatra and Borneo (Rijksen and Meijaard, 1999). Orang-utans are particularly vulnerable to population declines and extinction because of their slow rate of reproduction (female orang-utans don’t breed until they around 15 years old and only give birth to a single infant once every 6-9 years, Wich et al., 2009). This means that even very low increases in the natural mortality rate due to hunting or other disturbances can have catastrophic effects on populations (Marshall et al., 2006, 2009). Gibbons and proboscis monkeys are also at risk throughout their range in Borneo, as a result of habitat loss and degradation, and hunting for the pet trade (Meijaard and Nijman, 2000a, b; Campbell et al., 2008; Cheyne et al., 2008).

In addition to these threats, Bornean peat-swamp forest also faces additional threats, as a result of its unique ecology. Foremost among these is peatland drainage, and consequent peat degradation and fire. These threaten the integrity of the peat itself, with catastrophic consequences on the forest and its wildlife (Wösten et al., 2008; Harrison et al., 2009; Page et al., 2009b). Undisturbed peat-swamp forest is poorly drained and, hence, is water logged and flooded for much of the year. As a result, it is naturally fire resistant. Illegal loggers, unable to build roads on the soft peat, dig canals in which to float logs to the nearest river, where they are processed and transported to points of sale. These canals rapidly drain the peat. Oil-palm and pulp- wood plantations on tropical peatland are also drained, but their water table must be maintained at a fairly constant low level in order for the tree crops to grow. Once dry, the carbon-rich peat – which formed over thousands of years in wet, anoxic conditions – burns. While peat-swamp forest can gradually recover following infrequent, low- intensity fires, repeated and high-intensity fires lead to retrogressive succession towards non-forest environments, after which forest recovery is incredibly difficult (Page et al., 2009a).

As a result of these threats, much of Borneo’s unique biodiversity is now at risk of extinction, including flagship species such as the orang-utan, gibbon and proboscis monkey.

2.2.4 Forest-Carbon Projects and Biodiversity Conservation

With the recent rise of global carbon markets, interest in peat-swamp forest has mushroomed. Because of their huge carbon content and the large potential revenues that can be obtained through preserving peat-swamp forest to reduce carbon emissions, Borneo’s peat-swamp forests have been at the forefront of this surge in interest and a number of REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest

18 Degradation) pilot projects have now begun demonstration work in Central Kalimantan’s peatlands. Considering that tropical deforestation is one of the greatest threats to global biodiversity (Whitmore and Sayer, 1992; Turner, 1996), there is clear potential for biodiversity co-benefits here: protect the forest to preserve the carbon, and protection of the forest’s biodiversity should be expected to follow (Laurance, 2007; Ebeling and Yasue, 2008; Venter et al., 2009a; Harvey et al., 2010). Particularly appealing from a biodiversity conservation point of view is the large amounts of sustainable funding for conservation work that such projects could potentially generate; until now insufficient funds have existed to protect Indonesia’s forests from conversion to production landscapes (Curran et al., 2004; Koh and Wilcove, 2008).

Studies have confirmed that REDD does have the potential to generate a level of income greater than that potentially obtainable from oil-palm plantations, at realistic carbon prices on voluntary markets of USD 1.63 to 4.66 / tonne CO2 (Venter et al., 2009b). Importantly, areas planned for oil-palm plantations in Indonesia that harboured orang-utans also store more carbon than do forests without these species (Venter et al., 2009b), indicating that REDD projects on peat-swamp forest are likely to be particularly beneficial for orang-utans. It is therefore also likely that such projects will also be of great benefit for the conservation of other threatened species, including gibbons and proboscis monkeys.

2.3 Methods

2.3.1 Study Site

The total area of the proposed project concession is 227,260 ha, which falls between the Rivers Mentaya and Katingan, in the Kotawaringan Timur and Katingan Districts, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia (Figure 2.1; this area is referred to as the “Katingan” forest hereafter). This area is part of the extensive belt of peatland that stretches across the lowlands of southern Kalimantan and peat-swamp forest is the dominant habitat in the area. As in other areas of peat swamp, including the neighbouring Sabangau (Anderson, 1983; Page et al., 1999), the peat in this forest forms a gently sloping dome, which increases in height with increasing distance from the two rivers, up to a depth of 12.5 m (Darusman et al., 2008). This change in peat depth results in a catena of forest sub-types, replacing each other from the edge to the centre of the dome (Anderson, 1983; Brady, 1997; Stoneman, 1997; Page et al., 1999; Darusman, 2008). Closest to the river would have been riverine forest, but, as in Sabangau (Page et al., 1999), this habitat sub-type is practically extinct in Katingan. Large belts of “mixed-swamp forest”, which is characterised by a relatively tall canopy height (closed canopy 15-25 m) and a mixed tree species composition, then occurs on the relatively shallow peat from beyond the level of wet-season flooding until about 8 km from the river (Page et al., 1999; Darusman, 2008). As the peat thickens, the forest enters a transition phase, which terminates in low-pole forest, characterised by permanently high water table, uneven ground, a dense undergrowth of Pandanus and a low closed canopy of 12-15 m (Page et al., 1999; Darusman, 2008). On the deepest peat, the forest in Katingan becomes very open, with no closed canopy and very few full-size trees (Darusman, 2008); this is similar to the “very low canopy forest” described by Page et al. (1999). This pattern matches that described for other peat- swamp forests in the region (Anderson, 1983; Brady, 1997; Stoneman, 1997). It

19

Figure 2.1. Map showing the location of the Terantang and Perigi survey sites (boxes), proboscis monkey survey routes (yellow lines) and community survey villages (black triangles). Baseline map provided courtesy of Starling Resources.

20 differs from Sabangau, however, in which the middle of the peat dome is dominated by “tall-pole forest”, characterised by relatively tall trees, low water table and relatively open forest floor (Page et al., 1999).

The mean peat thickness across the dome is over three metres, classifying Katingan as a “deep” peat-swamp forest. The flood plains of the two major rivers bordering the forest extend only a short distance from the river banks and, thus, the entire project area receives no nutrient influx from these river floods and can therefore be classified as an “ombrogenous” peat swamp. In ombrogenous peat swamps, the only source of nutrient influx is from aerial precipitation (rain and dust), with small amounts of nutrient influx through microbial nitrogen fixation and faunal migration/animal faeces (Sturges et al., 1974; Jordan, 1985; Page et al., 1999; Sulistiyanto, 2004; Sulistiyanto et al., 2004).

Due to the large size of the proposed concession, it was necessary to select a small sub-sample of the area in which to perform field surveys of biodiversity and ape density. As initial descriptions of vegetation (Darusman, 2008) and orang-utan density (Singleton et al., 2004) in the area indicate potentially more productive forest on the River Katingan side of the project area, we selected one survey location on each of the Mentaya and Katingan sides of the proposed concession. After consultation with Starling field staff and review of previous information collected in Katingan by the OuTrop team, it was decided to make one research camp along the River Terantang tributary on the Mentaya side, and one along the River Perigi tributary on the Katingan side. The location of these survey sites is shown in Figure 2.1, and GPS coordinates of all locations referred to in the text for which fixes could be obtained are given in Table 2.1.

In addition to being on different sides of the concession and relatively easy to access, these two sites were also surveyed previously for orang-utans in 2002-2003 (Husson et al., 2009), and discussions with Starling personnel and others working in the area indicated that proboscis monkeys were also likely to be found in these locations. Furthermore, access to the forest interior would have been incredibly difficult at the time the surveys were conducted (February-March 2010, at the height of the wet season), due to high water levels in the forest. Budgetary restrictions also made expeditions to the very interior of the forest unfeasible for the current research. Temporary pondoks were erected at each survey site. Both sites were in areas of peat- swamp forest, although these areas differed somewhat in terms of forest condition and current disturbance (see Section 2.4.1). Proboscis monkeys were surveyed in the stretches of the tributaries and main rivers accessible from the research camps and nearest village, and during all river travel to and from research camps (Figure 2.1).

Community interviews were conducted in seven villages (Figure 2.1), of which four are on the Mentaya side (Terantang, Lemiring, Hanaut and Hantipan) and three on the Katingan side (Perigi, Galinggang and Telaga). These locations were chosen because (i) they provided an even spread between the two sides of the concession area; (ii) they are roughly equidistant from each other on the two rivers; (iii) they cover the two villages closest to the locations of the field surveys, Terantang and Perigi; (iv) previous information on village activities was available from Starling and/or other colleagues; and (iv) these villages were generally fairly close to the border of the proposed concession area (especially Lemiring and Hantipan).

21 Table 2.1. GPS coordinates of locations referred to in the text. Due to difficulties in acquiring GPS fixes in closed peat-swamp forest, it was not possible to obtain GPS coordinates from all locations referred to. Coordinates are in the WGS 84 datum, in the format dddommsss.

Description South East coordinate Coordinate Terantang Terantang village 002o26232 113o03142 Camp Terantang 002o25197 113o07407 Start orang-utan transect 1 and gibbon post 1 002o25182 113o07414 Start orang-utan transect 2 002o24060 113o07447 Start orang-utan transect 3 002o24415 113o07399 Start orang-utan transect 4 002o26176 113o07295 Start orang-utan transect 5 002o25513 113o07320 End orang-utan transect 1 002o25274 113o08128 End orang-utan transect 2 002o24074 113o08178 End orang-utan transect 3 002o24488 113o08114 End orang-utan transect 4 002o26295 113o07595 End orang-utan transect 5 002o26198 113o07486 Gibbon post 2 002o25101 113o07464 Gibbon post 3 002o25213 113o07508

Perigi Perigi village 002o50281 113o16230 Camp Perigi 002o52534 113o11118 Start orang-utan transect 1 and gibbon post 1 002o52506 113o11123 Start orang-utan transect 2 002o52555 113o11116 Start orang-utan transect 3 002o52533 113o11104 Start orang-utan transect 4 002o53100 113o11545 Start orang-utan transect 5 002o53112 113o11549 Start orang-utan transect 6 002o52531 113o12142 End orang-utan transect 1 002o52184 113o11123 End orang-utan transect 3 002o52597 113o10381 End orang-utan transect 4 002o52361 113o11544 End orang-utan transect 5 002o53441 113o11528 Gibbon post 2 002o52476 113o11028 Gibbon post 3 002o52408 113o11136 Start proboscis survey Katingan day 1 002o49508 113o16305 End proboscis survey Katingan day 1 002o47310 113o16349 End proboscis survey Katingan day 2 002o45165 113o16284

22 2.3.2 Timeframe

Biodiversity and ape density field surveys were conducted between 19th February and 6th March 2010, with the field time spent approximately equally between the two sites (Table 2.2). Proboscis monkey surveys were conducted surrounding periods of river travel to and from research camps. Community interviews were conducted from 26th March-8th April 2010, with generally two days spent in each village.

2.3.3 Methods: Fauna

2.3.3.1 Biodiversity Surveys These surveys involved a combination of different methods and did not follow a set pattern each day, as the objective of these surveys was to maximise the number of species sighted by (a) sampling all habitat types; (b) focussing surveys in those habitat types with higher faunal diversity; (c) using a variety of survey methods, as different methods are more effective for detecting different taxa. Surveys were conducted for about 12 h each day and were focussed on avian and mammalian fauna, with additional surveys of fish, reptiles and amphibians.

The avian fauna of peat-swamp forests is particularly rich, can be surveyed relatively easily, due to diurnal habits and high detectability of many species, and include a number of “Vulnerable”, “Endangered” and “Critically Endangered” species. Particular focus was therefore given to this group. Bird species were identified by sight and call by an ornithologist experienced with Bornean avi-fauna (MLD). The ability to identify bird species by call is particularly important in tropical forests, due to the thick vegetation and low visibility in this habitat (Dragiewicz, 2005). Avian diversity was assessed through a combination of methods, including line-transect methods and point surveys (Barlow et al., 2007; Husson et al., 2007; Gardner et al., 2008). Birds were also observed and recorded while performing the proboscis monkey river surveys described below, which enhanced detection of riverine species, such as kingfishers.

Diurnal mammalian and other fauna were surveyed visually during the course of bird line-transects, point counts and river surveys, and records were taken of any new species encountered during orang-utan nest surveys, gibbon triangulation surveys, proboscis monkey surveys, other fieldwork and time spent camping in the forest. Identifications were checked against appropriate field guides, with photographs taken wherever possible (Inger and Stuebing, 1997; Payne and Francais, 1998; Stuebing and Inger, 1999; Das, 2004; Davison and Fook, 2007; Myers, 2009). Nocturnal fauna were assessed at night by torchlight, using standard line-transect methods and opportunistic sampling. These methods are particularly appropriate for assessment of nocturnal primates (Nekaris et al., 2008) and amphibians (Pearman et al., 1995).

During all fieldwork, we remained alert to the presence of faunal species and all species and identifiable signs (e.g., sun bear, Helarctos malayanus, claw marks on trees). Photographs were taken of all new species encountered, where possible. Note that intensive and prolonged survey effort is required to estimate species density and, thus, with the exception of the focus species described below, it was not be possible to provide density estimates.

23 Table 2.2. Field survey fieldwork schedule. Days on which gibbon triangulation surveys were planned, but unable to be completed due to heavy rain, are indicated by a lower case “x”.

February 2010 March 2010 Field Activity 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 Logistics meeting and organisation X Moving in, establishing camp X Orang-utan surveys Sg. Terontang X X X X X Orang-utan surveys Sg. Perigi X X X X X Gibbon surveys Sg. Terontang X X X X Gibbon surveys Sg. Perigi X x X x Proboscis monkey surveys Sg. Terontang/Mentaya X X Proboscis surveys Sg. Katingan/Perigi X X X Biodiversity surveys Sg. Terontang X X X X X X Biodiversity surveys site Sg. Mentaya X X Biodiversity surveys site Sg. Perigi X X X X X X X Biodiversity surveys site Sg. Katingan X X X X Travel to/from sites, setting/packing up camp X X X X

24 2.3.3.2 Orang-utans Due to their elusive nature and typically low population densities, obtaining orang- utan population density estimates from sightings of actual animals is very difficult: vast distances would have to be walked in order to obtain a sufficient sample size of sightings for accurate density estimates. Thus, orang-utan density is estimated by counting nests along straight-line transects (van Schaik et al., 1995), which is a quick, cost-effective method that uses indicators of presence, as opposed to actual counts of animals. Orang-utans make a new nest each night for sleeping and sometimes another nest during the day for feeding or resting (Figure 2.2). The perpendicular distance from the transect to the nest was measured and orang-utan nest density estimated using the computer programme DISTANCE. Nest density was then converted to animal density using nest-building parameters from the nearby Sabangau forest (Morrogh-Bernard et al., 2003). Thus, orang-utan nest density is a suitable indicator of abundance that can be compared between sites and to monitor trends over time (Husson et al., 2007, 2009). Orang-utan nests were surveyed along 5 km of transects in Terantang and 6 km of transects in Perigi (Figure 2.3). Villagers were also asked to rank the abundance of orang-utans (“never had”, “not seen in last five years”, “rare”, “seen occasionally” and “numerous”) and the trend in their population (“stable”, “increasing”, “decreasing” and “never seen”) during community interviews (Section 2.3.4).

Figure 2.2. An orang-utan nest. Due to their low density and consequently low encounter rates, population estimates based on sightings of actual animals are impractical for orangutans and counts of orangutan nests are therefore conducted.

25

a.

b.

Figure 2.3. Location maps for Terantang (a) and Perigi (b) sites. Symbols show research camps (yellow triangles), orang-utan survey transects (black lines) and gibbon triangulation listening posts (red circles).

26 2.3.3.3 Gibbons As for orang-utans, obtaining gibbon population estimates from actual sighting of live animals is generally impractical. Gibbon density was therefore estimated using fixed- point counts based on auditory sampling of morning singing bouts (Brockelman and Ali, 1987), at three distinct survey sites within the research area. This method has been recommended for gibbon surveys for the following reasons: (i) gibbon’s inconspicuous behaviour and preference for high canopy makes the use of line transects for surveying unsuccessful (Brockelman and Ali, 1987; Brockelman and Srikosamatara, 1993; O'Brien et al., 2004; Nijman and Menken, 2005; Cheyne et al., 2008); (ii) the territorial behaviour of gibbons allows efficient mapping of triangulated points (Sutherland, 2000); (iii) the animals’ loud calls, audible from a considerable distance, allow their detection from greater distances than by using sightings (Davies, 2002); and (iv) fixed-point counts allow quick, time-efficient surveys, with more reliable results than a line transect survey conducted within the same time frame (Nijman and Menken, 2005).

The density estimates were obtained with the following formula, developed by Brockelman and Ali (1987):

D = n / [p(m) x E]

where n is the number of groups heard in an area, as determined by mapping of group positions; p(m) is the estimated proportion of groups expected to sing during a sample period of m days; and E is the effective listening area. The correction factor p(m) was determined using the formula p(m) = 1 – [1- p(1)]m, with p(1) being the singing probability for any given day, and m being the number of survey days. The effective listening area was calculated using a fixed radius of 1 km around each listening post, and was defined by the area in which at least two of the listening posts could hear gibbons singing. The minimum recommended sample size of four days to hear all groups in the area (Hamard et al., in press). Gibbon surveys were performed on four days in Terantang, but only two days in Perigi, due to heavy rain during most mornings of the research camp duration and a consequent lack of singing on most days. Villagers were also asked to rank the abundance of gibbons and the trend in their population during community interviews, on the same scales as for orang-utans (Sections 2.3.3.3 and 2.3.4).

2.3.3.4 Proboscis monkeys Previous proboscis monkey surveys have touched upon the upper reaches of the River Mentaya past Sampit and confirmed their presence in this area (Meijaard and Nijman, 2000b). The stretch of the River Mentaya south of Sampit and the River Katingan have not been surveyed previously. However, considering the above, reports from Starling personnel and other colleagues, plus previous observations by members of the OuTrop team in 2002-2003, there was good reason to suspect pre-survey that this species would be found on these stretches of river and particularly in the areas close to the two field research camps.

Proboscis monkeys were surveyed using standard census techniques along river banks, as these monkeys typically rest in trees along river banks for the night (cover image; Salter and MacKenzie, 1985; Salter et al., 1985; Bennet, 1986; Yeager, 1989; Boonratana, 1993; Boonratana, 2000; Meijaard and Nijman, 2000b; Sha et al., 2008).

27 Where possible, surveys were conducted between sunrise and 0830, and 1630 to sunset. Monkeys come together by river banks to socialise, play and sleep during these times, and so sightings are more likely (Salter et al., 1985; Sha et al., 2008). Surveys from the research camps were conducted at the optimum times of day, but, while we did attempt to survey proboscis monkeys during all river travel, these latter surveys were often not conducted at the optimal times of day. Consequently, it is less likely that proboscis monkeys would be seen during general river travel than during targeted surveys close to the research camps.

Each stretch of river was surveyed only once, in order to maximise the length of river covered and gain a fuller picture of distribution in the area (Sha et al., 2008). Rivers close by one another and tributaries of larger rivers were surveyed on the same day where possible, and on the next day where not, in order to reduce the possibility of repeat counts of the same group (Sha et al., 2008). Travel speed was kept relatively constant at around 5-25 km/h (Salter and MacKenzie, 1985; Salter et al., 1985). Following previous researchers, a group was defined as: being in close proximity to one another, showing coordinated movements, having a dominant male present, and with a distance of at least 50-100 m between groups (Salter and MacKenzie, 1985; Salter et al., 1985, 2008). When groups were spotted, the boat engine was turned off and the boat stopped, and GPS coordinates and data were recorded.

In addition to river surveys, local community residents were asked about proboscis monkey presence in the area in the community questionnaires (see Section 2.3.4) and were asked to rank the abundance of this species on the same scale as for orang-utans and gibbons. We only considered proboscis monkeys to live near to a village when at least two independent sources (i.e., respondents) indicated that the animal was present in the area (Salter and MacKenzie, 1985; Meijaard and Nijman, 2000b), and when that persons’ questionnaire answers were not suspect.

2.3.4 Community Interviews

In each village, interviews were conducted with local forest workers and the village community. These enabled identification of any target or other potential high conservation value (HCV) species present in the area that may not be detected through our surveys and that are relatively easy to identify accurately, and potential threats that these species may face (e.g., hunting). Surveys of this nature are recognised as providing an important back-up check of census data (van der Hoevena et al., 2004; Meijaard and Marshall, 2008). Respondents were asked to confirm whether species shown in unlabelled (but pre-identified) photographs were present in the forest arounf that village. Photographs of selected species that are not found in Borneo, but which have some resemblance to species that are very likely/certain to be found in Katingan (serval cat, Leptailurus serval, which resembles the leopard cat; nine-baned armadillo, Dasypus novemcinctus, which resembles a pangolin; and great hornbill, Buceros bicornis, which resembles the other hornbill species), and some species that are virtually certain to be in the study area (brahminy kite, Haliastur Indus; and long-tailed macaque, Macaca fascicularis), were also included, in order to check the reliability of responses. The questionnaire used is reproduced in Section 6.

In addition, we also conducted an informal discussion with a group of fishermen in Perigi village, in which we enquired about the species of fish in the area and asked the

28 fishermen to point out these species from the photographs in Kottelat et al. (1993). This provided a very important addition to our records from actual sightings, as these fishermen had been fishing in the area for long periods of time and have caught fish in all seasons, whereas our fish surveys were largely opportunistic and of limited duration.

2.3.5 Floral Biodiversity Surveys

Preliminary floral biodiversity surveys in the proposed concession area have already been performed by Darusman (2008) and are beyond our original Scope of Work. Thus, we performed no fieldwork in this areas, though we do compare the results of these Katingan studies with those performed in the neighbouring Sabangau peat- swamp forest (Shepherd et al., 1997; Morrogh-Bernard, 2009).

2.3.6 Comparisons with Neighbouring Sites

It is possible that, even with intensive sample effort, certain species of flora and fauna will not be detected via the surveys described above. This is particularly likely for migratory and, importantly, rare species. Thus, in line with the precautionary principle towards the maintenance/enhancement of HCVs (the importance of which is highlighted in the Standards), we also draw comparisons between the project area and the peat-swamp forest of the neighbouring Sabangau catchment, for which we have already compiled detailed faunal species lists and which is very similar to Katingan in terms of peat depth and habitat characteristics. Unless there was good reason to believe otherwise, we assumed that species known to exist in Sabangau are also present within the project area.

2.3.7 Identifying and Describing Threats

Anthropogenic threats to biodiversity, and particularly HCVs, in the project area were identified and described. Interviews and discussions with local communities and field assistants, observations during river travel, inspection of maps, discussions with Starling personnel and other colleagues working in the area, in addition to reviewing literature previously prepared by Starling provided a picture of the location, type and intensity of disturbances present in the area. Based on this information, we then determine the HCV species likely to be at risk from these threats and the relative impacts of these threats on these species.

2.4 Results

2.4.1 Forest Condition

Terantang Overall, forest condition along the River Terantang (Figure 2.4) is very similar to that documented previously for mixed-swamp forest in Sabangau (Page et al., 1999), but, as the name suggests, the most common tree species encountered was terontang (Campnosperma coriaceum). The River Terantang joins the River Katingan just south of the Terantang village. Here the water was light brown (the colour of creamy coffee), but at the mouth of the River Terantang this changed to the dark red tea colour typical of peat-swamp forests (Figure 2.5). The first 2-3 km of the river were

29

Figure 2.4. Peat-swamp forest in Terantang.

Figure 2.5. Convergence of the Rivers Mentaya and Terantang. Note the light brown colour of the Mentaya water (a result of pollution and silt), compared to the dark colour of the unpolluted Terantang water, which is typical of rivers arising in peat swamps.

30 lined by mangroves. Further up there was a lot of Pandanus, which was followed by a large open area where the forest has been burnt (Figure 2.6). In the dry season, the river channel is burnt to clear the Pandanus; sometimes the fires get out of control and go beyond the river banks. A band of 500 m or more of clear land exists before the start of any kind of forest on either side of the river. In the open area there were some rice fields and a few camps that appeared not to be used constantly. After a couple of kilometers of clearing, the open area narrowed and the forest eventually bordered the river edge (Figure 2.7). The forest inside the proposed concession area and around the research camp was highly disturbed as a result of past and present logging activity (see Section 2.4.6).

Perigi The forest is Perigi (Figure 2.8) is also very similar to that documented previously for mixed-swamp forest in Sabangau (Page et al., 1999), but, as a consequence of illegal logging five or ten years ago, there are also lots of open areas in the forest here and there are few remaining large trees (canopy ca. 10 m, with only a few trees taller). The River Perigi joins the Katingan just south of the village. The forest was rather open along the river edges, with only a few larger trees (Figure 2.9). Less than 1 km from the village, the forest along the river banks has suffered severe fire damage on both sides and there is a wide open area for several kilometers before a canopy closed over the river again. During World War II, a canal was dug by the Dutch to cut through to the Mentaya, which crossed one of our orang-utan survey transects.

The most common tree species in our survey area in Perigi is Elaeaocarpus mastersii (mangkinang), which is possibly the main food of orang-utans here (this food is favoured by orang-utans in Sabangau, Harrison, 2009). There is also a lot of rattan (Calamus spp.) and lianas in the area. The forest floor is remarkably open, allowing visibility up to about 50 m. The camp was not far from the centre of the dome and the ground was fairly dry near the camp and orang-utan transects, despite these surveys being conducted in the middle of the wet season. Trees still grew on hummocks, however, as in Sabangau (Shepherd et al., 1997). There were few large trees alongside the river on the journey up, but the forest was highest near the river by the research camp. From 100-300 m into the forest, the canopy was lower (ca. 7-12 m). Beyond this, there were many areas void of trees (Figure 2.10), with more forest cover returning around 700 m from camp, where there was a 100-m long patch of tall forest with many big trees that appeared to have escaped logging (Figure 2.11).

Community members interviewed indicated that the forest type in other parts of the two major rivers is largely similar to that in the two field survey locations. The forest was described as “tall peat-swamp forest” in Telaga and Lemiring, and “low peat- swamp forest” in Galinggang, Hanaut and Hantipan (for reference, the forest in both Terantang and Perigi was described as “tall peat-swamp forest” by the local communities). The forest in Galinggang, Perigi, Hanaut and Hantipan was described by villagers as “disturbed, but not burnt”, in Telaga as “very disturbed, but not burnt”, and in Lemiring and Terantang as “patchy – disturbed/burnt”.

31

Figure 2.6. Open burnt area of forest bordering the River Terantang bank just outside the project area.

Figure 2.7. Forest closing over the River Terantang. Some logs are visible on the right-hand bank.

32

Figure 2.8. Peat-swamp forest in Perigi.

Figure 2.9. Forest along the banks of the River Perigi. Note the relatively open nature of the forest and large amounts of ferns.

33

Figure 2.10. Open area of forest in Perigi dominated by ferns.

Figure 2.11. Area of tall forest in Perigi that appears to have escaped logging.

34 2.4.2 Faunal Biodiversity Present in the Project Area

In documenting the number of species present in the Katingan peat swamps, we combine the results of our sightings in Katingan during the survey period with the much larger survey effort (1996-present) documenting peat-swamp forest biodiversity in the neighbouring Sabangau peat swamp. Such an approach is justifiable, considering the very close similarity and geographical proximity of the two habitats, and presents a much more realistic picture of the true biodiversity found in the proposed concession area than would the results of our surveys in Katingan alone.

2.4.2.1 Mammals Combining data collected during our field surveys with those collected previously by the OuTrop team in Sabangau reveals a total of 68 species of mammal present in Katingan (see species list in Section 2.4.3.1). Of these species, 6 are listed by the IUCN as “Endangered” and 14 as “Vulnerable”. Twenty one are legally protected in Indonesia. Note that some species groups are likely under represented in this list. These species will be predominantly nocturnal and include bats, squirrels and rats (of which there are many similar-looking species) and mustelids, especially civets, many of which are nocturnal and secretive.

The abundance of many mammal species was high. In addition to the area’s apes and proboscis monkeys (Section 2.4.4), red langurs and macaques were seen, in addition to the elusive and nocturnal black flying squirrel. This squirrel was seen gliding to a Palaquium sp. tree, which it was using as a roost. This tree was partially cut by loggers but abandoned when found to be hollow. Potential HCV mammal species present in the area of high conservation value are discussed in Section 2.4.4.

2.4.2.2 Birds Combining data collected in Katingan with that in Sabangau reveals a total of 159 bird species confirmed as present in Katingan (see species list in Section 2.4.3.2). Of these, one species is listed by the IUCN as “Critically Endangered”, one as “Endangered” and five as “Vulnerable”; 36 are protected in Indonesia. Although the full range of birds observed in Sabangau were not seen during the survey period, bird abundance was high and we believe that the full complement of birds present in Sabangau will also occur in Katingan. One possible exception is that the short-tailed babbler may not be present in Katingan, which is surprising, considering this is one of the most common birds seen and heard in the Sabangau research site (Dragiewicz, unpublished data). In Terantang, birds associated with forest edges were particularly abundant, including all those shown to be indicators of disturbance in Sabangau (i.e., tailorbirds, banded-bay cuckoo, fluffy-back tit-babbler, striped tit-babbler, and Raffles malkoha, Dragiewicz, 2005). A full discussion of the importance of the area and threats to particularly threatened bird species in the region is given in Section 2.4.4.10-12.

2.4.2.3 Herpeto-fauna (reptiles and amphibians) and fish Creating species lists for herpeto-fauna is very difficult, due to the abundance of species; their frequently similar appearance; their often secretive, aquatic or nocturnal habits; and the relative paucity of adequate literature available on these groups in Borneo. This is particularly true for amphibians, for which even the list from Sabangau is far from complete. A total of 44 reptile, 7 amphibian and 110 fish species

35 were recorded from Katingan/Sabangau (Section 2.4.3.3-4), but these lists are very incomplete and the true number of species will be much higher, especially for amphibians. Of the reptile species, three were listed as “Endangered” by the IUCN and three as “Vulnerable”; four are protected in Indonesia. No amphibian or fish species documented are listed by the IUCN, though one fish species is protected in Indonesia. Many of the fish species are captured locally and/or have been seen for sale by members of the OuTrop team in Palangka Raya markets.

Notable sightings include a king cobra, which crossed the River Terantang in front of the research team as they headed towards the village. A large python was also seen in Terantang potentially stalking two quarreling squirrels (Figure 2.12). This species has only been sighted a few times over the last ten years by members of the OuTrop research team in Sabangau, and so this sighting in a relatively short space of time in Katingan is encouraging, particularly as this species is a top predator and, as such, is dependent on healthy prey populations for its survival.

Figure 2.12. Large python in Terantang.

36 2.4.3 Fauna Species Lists

2.4.3.1 Mammals

IUCN CITES Prot. Borneo Order / Family Latin Name English name listing listing Indo? Trend Endemic? Comments INSECTIVORA Soricudae Crocidura fuliginosa South-east Asian white-toothed shrew LC Stable Soricudae Tupaia glis Common treeshrew LC II Stable Soricudae Tupaia gracilis Slender treeshrew LC II Decline Soricudae Tupaia minor Lesser treeshrew / Pygmy tree shrew LC II Decline Soricudae Tupaia picta Painted treeshrew LC II Decline Soricudae Tupaia splendidula Ruddy treeshrew LC II Decline

DERMOPTERA Cynocephalidae Galeopterus variegatus Colugo / Sunda flying lemur LC Protected Decline Synonym Cynocephalus variegates

CHIROPTERA Pteropidae Megaerops ecaudatus Tailless fruit bat LC Unknown Pteropidae Pteropus vampyrus natunae Large flying fox NT II Decline Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus trifoliatus Trefoil horseshoe bat LC Unknown Vespertilionidae Kerivoula hardwickii Hardwicke’s / Common woolly bat LC Stable Vespertilionidae Kerivoula intermedia Small woolly bat NT Decline Vespertilionidae Kerivoula minuta Least woolly bat NT Decline Vespertilionidae Kerivoula pellucida Clear-winged woolly bat NT Decline Vespertilionidae Kerivoula whiteheadi Whitehead’s woolly bat LC Unknown Vespertilionidae Murina suilla Lesser / Brown tube-nosed bat LC Unknown Vespertilionidae Myotis muricola Nepalese whiskered myotis bat LC Stable

37 IUCN CITES Prot. Borneo Order / Family Latin Name English name listing listing Indo? Trend Endemic? Comments PRIMATA Lorisidae Nycticebus menagensis Bornean Slow loris VU I Protected Decline Tarsiidae Tarsius bancanus borneanus Western/Horsfield’s tarsier VU II Protected Decline Cercopithecidae Macaca fascicularis Long-tailed/crab eating macaque LC II Decline Cercopithecidae Macaca nemestrina Southern pig-tailed macaque VU II Decline Cercopithecidae Nasalis larvatus Proboscis monkey EN I Protected Decline Endemic Cercopithecidae Presbytis rubicunda Red langur LC II Protected Decline Endemic Cercopithecidae Trachypithecus cristatus Silver langur/Silvery Luntung NT II Decline Hylobatidae Hylobates albibarbis Bornean southern gibbon EN I Protected Decline Endemic Hominidae Pongo pygmaeus Bornean orangutan EN I Protected Decline Endemic

PHOLIDOTA Manidae Manis javanica Sunda Pangolin EN II Protected Decline

RODENTIA Sciuridae Aeromys tephromelas Black flying squirrel DD Unknown Sciuridae Callosciurus notatus Plantain squirrel LC Increase Sciuridae Callosciurus prevostii Prevost's squirrel LC II Decline Needs confirmation Sciuridae Exilisciurus exilis Plain/least pygmy squirrel DD Unknown Endemic Sciuridae Nannosciurus melanotis Black-eared pygmy squirrel LC Decline Sciuridae Petinomys genibarbis Whiskered flying squirrel VU Decline Sciuridae Ratufa affinis Pale Giant squirrel NT II Decline Sciuridae Rhinosciurus laticaudatus Shrew-faced ground squirrel NT Decline Presence in PSF is large range extension Sciuridae Sundasciurus hippurus Horse-tailed squirrel NT Decline Sciuridae Sundasciurus lowii Low's squirrel LC Decline Erinaceidae Echinosorex gymnura Moonrat LC Unknown Muridae Lenothrix canus Grey tailed tree rat LC Unknown Muridae Maxomys rajah Red spiny rat VU Decline Muridae Maxomys whiteheadi Whiteheads rat VU Decline

38 IUCN CITES Prot. Borneo Order / Family Latin Name English name listing listing Indo? Trend Endemic? Comments Muridae Niviventer cremoriventer Dark tailed tree rat VU Decline Muridae Rattus exulans Polynesian rat LC Stable Muridae Sundamys muelleri Mulle'rs Giant Sunda rat LC Decline Hystricidae Hystrix brachyura Common/Malayan porcupine LC Protected Decline Hystricidae Hystrix crassispinis Thick-spined porcupine LC Stable Endemic

CARNIVORA Ursidae Helarctos malayanus Malayan Sun-bear VU I Protected Decline Mustelidae Lutra sumatrana Hairy-nosed otter EN II Protected Decline Locally reported in Sabangau, not confirmed Mustelidae Martes flavigula Yellow-throated marten LC III Stable Mustelidae Mustela nudipes Malay weasel LC Decline Mustelidae Aonyx cinerea Oriental/Asian small-clawed otter VU II Decline Viverridae Arctictis binturong Binturong VU III Protected Decline Viverridae Arctogalidia trivirgata Small-toothed palm civet LC Decline Viverridae Herpestes brachyurus Short-tailed mongoose LC Protected Unknown Viverridae Herpestes semitorquatus Collared mongoose DD Unknown Viverridae Paradoxurus hermaphroditus Common palm civet LC III Stable Viverridae Prionodon linsang Banded Linsang LC Protected Decline Viverridae Viverra tangalunga Malay civet LC Stable Felidae Neofelis nebulosa Clouded leopard VU I Protected Decline Felidae Pardofelis marmorata Marbled cat VU I Protected Decline Felidae Prionailurus bengalensis Leopard cat LC I Protected Stable Felidae Prionailurus planiceps Flat-headed cat EN I Protected Decline

ARTIODACTYLA Suidae Sus barbatus Bearded pig VU Decline Tragulidae Tragulus kanchil Lesser mouse-deer/Chevrotain LC Protected Unknown Tragulidae Tragulus napu Greater mouse-deer LC Protected Decline

39 IUCN CITES Prot. Borneo Order / Family Latin Name English name listing listing Indo? Trend Endemic? Comments Cervidae Cervus unicolor Sambar deer VU Protected Decline Cervidae Muntiacus atherodes Bornean yellow muntjac LC Decline Endemic IUCN categories: CR = Critically endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened; LC= Least Concern DD = Data Deficient, NE= Not Evaluated. CITES categories: I = international trade prohibited, except in exceptional non-commercial cases; II = international trade may be permitted, but requires export permit; III = limited trade. Species protected in Indonesia (Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 7, Tahun 1999); Y = protected, blank = not protected. Population trends are global, as listed by IUCN.

40 2.4.3.2 Birds

IUCN CITES Prot. Borneo Order / Family Latin Name English name Ter. Per. listing listing Indo? Trend Endemic? Comments GALLIFORMES Phasianidae Argusianus argus Great argus NT II Protected Decline Confirmed in Sabangau from mid 1990s; no records in 10 years, probably locally extinct Phasianidae Lophura Crestless fireback VU Decline erythrophthalma Phasianidae Melanoperdix nigra Black partridge VU Decline

CICONIIFORMES Ardeidae Ardea purpurea Purple heron LC Unknown Ardeidae Ardea sumatrana Great billed heron LC Unknown Ardeidae Ardeola speciosa Javan pond-heron LC Unknown Ardeidae Butorides striatus Striated heron X LC Unknown Ardeidae Egretta garzetta Little egret LC Protected Unknown Ardeidae Ixobrychus Cinnamon bittern LC Unknown cinnamomeus Ciconiidae Ciconia stormi Storms stork X X EN Decline Ciconiidae Leptoptilos Lesser adjutant stork VU Protected Decline javanicus Threskiorbithidae Pseudibis davisoni White-shouldered ibis CR Protected Decline

ANSERIFORMES Anatidae Dendrocygna Lesser whistling duck LC Unknown javanica

PELICANIFORMES Anhingidae Anhinga Oriental Darter NT Protected Decline melanogaster

41 IUCN CITES Prot. Borneo Order / Family Latin Name English name Ter. Per. listing listing Indo? Trend Endemic? Comments FALCONIFORMES Accipitridae Accipiter trivirgatus Crested goshawk LC II Protected Unknown Accipitridae Aviceda jerdoni Jerdon's baza LC II Protected Unknown Accipitridae Haliaeetus White-bellied fish LC II Protected Unknown leucogaster eagle Accipitridae Haliastur indus Brahminy kite LC II Protected Unknown Accipitridae Spilornis cheela Crested serpent-eagle X X LC II Protected Unknown Accipitridae Spizaetus cirrhatus Changeable hawk LC Protected Unknown eagle Falconidae Microhierax Black-thighed X LC II Protected Unknown fringillarius falconet

GRUIFORMES Rallidae Amaurornis White breasted X LC Unknown phoenicurus waterhen

CHARADIFORMES Laridae Sterna nilotica Gull-billed tern LC Protected Unknown Scolopacidae Actitis hypoleucos Common sandpiper LC Unknown

COLUMBIFORMES Columbidae Chalcophaps indica Emerald dove LC Unknown Columbidae Ducula aenea Green imperial LC Unknown pigeon Columbidae Ducula badia Mountain imperial X X LC Unknown pigeon Columbidae Ducula bicolor Pied imperial pigeon LC Unknown Columbidae Streptopelia Spotted dove X X LC Unknown chinensis Columbidae Treron curvirostra Thick-billed green X LC Unknown pigeon

42 IUCN CITES Prot. Borneo Order / Family Latin Name English name Ter. Per. listing listing Indo? Trend Endemic? Comments Columbidae Treron fulvicollis Cinnamon headed NT Decline green pigeon Columbidae Treron vernans Pink-necked green LC Unknown pigeon

PSITTIFORMES Psittacidae Loriculus galgulus Blue-crowned X X LC Unknown hanging parrot Psittacidae Psittacula Long-tailed parakeet X X NT Decline longicauda

CUCULIFORMES Cuculidae Cacomantis Plaintive cuckoo LC Unknown merulinus Cuculidae Cacomantis Banded bay cuckoo X X LC Unknown sonneratii Cuculidae Carpococcyx Bornean ground- NT Decline Endemic radiatus cuckoo Cuculidae Centropus Lesser coucal X LC Unknown bengalensis Cuculidae Centropus sinensis Greater coucal X X LC Unknown Cuculidae Chrysococcyx Violet cuckoo LC Unknown xanthorhynchus Cuculidae Phaenicophaeus Raffles malkoha X X LC Unknown chlorophaeus Cuculidae Phaenicophaeus Chestnut breasted X X LC Unknown curvirostris malkoha Cuculidae Phaenicophaeus Chestnut bellied NT Decline sumatranus malkoha Cuculidae Surniculus lugubris Drongo cuckoo LC Unknown

43 IUCN CITES Prot. Borneo Order / Family Latin Name English name Ter. Per. listing listing Indo? Trend Endemic? Comments STRIGIFORMES Tytonidae Phodilus badius Oriental bay owl X LC Unknown Strigidae Ketupa ketupu Buffy fish-owl LC II Unknown Strigidae Ninox scutulata Brown hawk-owl LC II Unknown Strigidae Strix leptogrammica Brown wood owl X LC II Unknown

CAPRIMULGIFORMES Caprimulgidae Caprimulgus affinis Savanna nightjar LC Unknown Caprimulgidae Caprimulgus Bonaparte's/Sunda VU Decline concretus nightjar Caprimulgidae Eurostopodus Malaysian Eared LC Unknown temminckii nightjar Podargidae Batrachostomus Gould's frogmouth NT Decline stellatus

APODIFORMES Apodidae Apus affinis Little swift LC Unknown Apodidae Caprimulgus Bonaparte's nightjar X VU Decline concretus Apodidae Collocalia esculenta Glossy swiftlet X LC Unknown Apodidae Collocalia fuciphaga Edible-nest Swiftlet LC Unknown Apodidae Hemiprocne Grey rumped tree X X LC Unknown longipennis swift Apodidae Rhaphidura Silver rumped X X LC Unknown leucopygialis spinetail

TROGONIFORMES Alcedinidae Alcedo coerulescens Small Blue kingfisher X X LC Protected Unknown Alcedinidae Ceyx erithacus Black backed LC Protected Unknown kingfisher

44 IUCN CITES Prot. Borneo Order / Family Latin Name English name Ter. Per. listing listing Indo? Trend Endemic? Comments Alcedinidae Ceyx rufidorsa Rufous backed X X LC Protected Unknown kingfisher Alcedinidae Pelargopsis capensis Stork-billed X X LC Protected Unknown kingfisher Alcedinidae Todirhamphus Collared kingfisher LC Protected chloris Bucerotidae Aceros corrugatus Wrinkled hornbill X NT II Protected Decline Bucerotidae Anorrhinus galeritus Bushy-crested X X LC II Protected Unknown hornbill Bucerotidae Anthracoceros Oriental Pied Hornbill X LC II Protected Unknown albirostris Bucerotidae Anthracoceros Asian black hornbill NT II Protected Decline malayanus Bucerotidae Buceros rhinoceros Rhinoceros hornbill X NT II Protected Decline Bucerotidae Buceros vigil Helmeted hornbill NT I Protected Decline Confirmed in Sabangau, but not seen in over 10 years, possibly locally extinct; called Rhinoplax vigil by CITES Coraciidae Eurystomus Asian Dollarbird X LC Unknown orientalis

CORACIIFORMES Meropidae Merops philippinus Blue-tailed bee-eater X LC Unknown Meropidae Merops viridis Blue-throated bee- X X LC Unknown eater Trogonidae Harpactes diardii Diard's trogon NT Protected Decline Trogonidae Harpactes Scarlet rumped trogon X NT Protected Decline duvaucelii Trogonidae Harpactes kasumba Red-naped trogon NT Protected Decline

45 IUCN CITES Prot. Borneo Order / Family Latin Name English name Ter. Per. listing listing Indo? Trend Endemic? Comments PICIFORMES Picidae Blythipicus Maroon woodpecker LC Unknown rubiginosus Picidae Dendrocopos Sunda woodpecker X LC Unknown moluccensis Picidae Dendrocopus Grey capped X LC Unknown canicapillus woodpecker Picidae Dinopium rafflesii Olive-backed NT Decline woodpecker Picidae Dryocopus javensis White-bellied LC I Unknown woodpecker Picidae Hemicircus Grey and buff LC Unknown concretus woodpecker Picidae Meiglyptes tristis Buff-rumped LC Unknown woodpecker Picidae Meiglyptes tukki Buff-necked X NT Decline woodpecker Picidae Mulleripicus Great slaty LC Unknown pulverulentus woodpecker Picidae Picus puniceus Crimson-winged LC Unknown woodpecker Picidae Reinwardtipicus Orange-backed X LC Unknown validus woodpecker Picidae Sasia abnormis Rufous piculet X X LC Unknown Ramphastidae Calorhamphus Brown barbet X LC Unknown fuliginosus Ramphastidae Megalaima australis Blue-eared barbet X X LC Unknown Ramphastidae Megalaima rafflesii Red-crowned barbet X X NT Decline

PASSERIFORMES Aegithinidae Aegithina tiphia Common iora LC Unknown

46 IUCN CITES Prot. Borneo Order / Family Latin Name English name Ter. Per. listing listing Indo? Trend Endemic? Comments Aegithinidae Aegithina Green iora X X NT Decline viridissima Artamidae Artamus White breasted LC Unknown leucorynchus woodswallow Campephagidae Coracina fimbriata Lesser cuckooshrike LC Unknown Campephagidae Coracina striata Bar-bellied LC Unknown cuckooshrike Campephagidae Pericrocotus Scarlet minivet X X LC Unknown flammeus Campephagidae Pericrocotus igneus Fiery minivet NT Decline Chloropseidae Chloropsis Lesser green leafbird NT Decline cyanopogon Chloropseidae Chloropsis sonnerati Greater green leafbird X X LC Unknown Cisticolidae Orthotomus ruficeps Ashy tailorbird X X LC Unknown Cisticolidae Orthotomus sericeus Rufous-tailed X X LC Unknown tailorbird Cisticolidae Prinia flaviventris Yellow-bellied prinia X X LC Unknown Corvidae Corvus enca Slender-billed crow X LC Unknown Corvidae Platysmurus Black Magpie NT Decline leucopterus Dicaeidae Dicaeum cruentatum Scarlet-backed LC Unknown flowerpecker Dicaeidae Dicaeum Orange-bellied X X LC Unknown trigonostigma flowerpecker Dicaeidae Prionchilus Crimson breasted X LC Unknown percussus flowerpecker Dicaeidae Prionochilus Yellow-breasted X X LC Unknown maculatus flowerpecker Dicaeidae Prionochilus Scarlet-breasted X NT Decline thoracicus flowerpecker

47 IUCN CITES Prot. Borneo Order / Family Latin Name English name Ter. Per. listing listing Indo? Trend Endemic? Comments Dicruridae Dicrurus paradiseus Greater racket-tailed X LC Unknown drongo Estrildidae Lonchura fuscans Dusky munia X X LC Unknown Endemic Eurylaimidae Calyptomena viridis Asian Green broadbill X X NT Decline Eurylaimidae Cymbirhynchus Black and red X X LC Unknown macrorhynchos broadbill Eurylaimidae Eurylaimus Banded broadbill X LC Unknown javanicus Eurylaimidae Eurylaimus Black and yellow X X NT Decline ochromalus broadbill Hirundinidae Hirundo rustica Barn swallow X X LC Unknown Hirundinidae Hirundo tahitica Pacific swallow X X LC Unknown Incertae Hemipus Black-winged X LC Unknown hirundinaceus flycatcher shrike Incertae Philentoma Rufous-winged X LC Unknown pyrhopterum philentoma Irenidae Irena puella Asian fairy-bluebird X X LC Unknown Laniidae Lanius schach Long-tailed shrike X LC Unknown Monarchidae Hypothymis azurea Black naped monarch X X LC Unknown Monarchidae Terpsiphone Asian paradise X X LC Unknown paradisi flycatcher Muscicapidae Copcychus White-rumped shama X X LC Unknown malabaricus Muscicapidae Copcychus saularis Magpie robin X X LC Unknown Muscicapidae Muscucapadauurica Asian brown X flycatcher Muscicapidae Pycnonotus goiavier Yellow vented bulbul LC Unknown Muscicapidae Rhinomyias Grey-chested jungle- X X NT Decline umbratilis flycatcher Muscicapidae Trichixos Rufous tailed shama X X NT Decline pyrrhopygus

48 IUCN CITES Prot. Borneo Order / Family Latin Name English name Ter. Per. listing listing Indo? Trend Endemic? Comments Nectarinidae Aethopyga siparaja Crimson sunbird X Protected Nectarinidae Anthreptes Plain throated sunbird X LC Protected Unknown malacensis Nectarinidae Anthreptes Red-throated sunbird X NT Protected Decline rhodolaema Nectarinidae Anthreptes Ruby cheeked sunbird X X LC Protected Unknown singalensis Nectarinidae Arachnothera Little spiderhunter X X LC Protected Unknown longirostra Nectarinidae Arachnothera sp. Spiderhunter sp. Protected A. flavigaster difficult to distinguish from A. crassirostris in the field Nectarinidae Hypogramma Purple-naped sunbird LC Protected Unknown hypogrammicum Nectarinidae Nectarinia jugularis Olive-backed sunbird LC Protected Unknown Nectarinidae Nectarinia sperata Purple throated X X LC Protected Unknown sunbird Oriolodae Oriolus xanthonotus Dark-throated oriole NT Decline Pachycephalidae Pachycephala Mangrove whistler X X LC Unknown grisola Passeridae Passer montanus Eurasian tree sparrow LC Unknown Pittidae Pitta granatina Garnet pitta NT Protected Decline Pityriaseidae Pityriasis Bornean bristlehead NT Decline Endemic gymnocephala Pycnonotidae Pycnonotus atriceps Black headed bulbul X LC Unknown Pycnonotidae Pycnonotus simplex Cream vented bulbul X X LC Unknown Pycnonotidae Setornis criniger Hook-billed bulbul X VU Decline Rhipiduridae Rhipidura javanica Pied fantail X LC Protected Unknown Sittidae Sitta frontalis Velvet-fronted LC Unknown nuthatch Sturnidae Gracula religiosa Hill mynah X X LC II Unknown

49 IUCN CITES Prot. Borneo Order / Family Latin Name English name Ter. Per. listing listing Indo? Trend Endemic? Comments Timaliidae Macronous gularis Pin striped tit babbler X X LC Unknown Timaliidae Macronous ptilosus Fluffy-backed tit X X NT Decline babbler Timaliidae Malacocincla Short-tailed babbler NT Decline malaccensis Timaliidae Malacopteron affine Sooty capped babbler X NT Decline Timaliidae Malacopteron Scaly crowned X X LC Unknown cinereum babbler Timaliidae Malacopteron Rufous crowned X X NT Decline magnum babbler Timaliidae Pellorneum Black-capped babbler X X LC Unknown capistratum Timaliidae Stachyris Chestnut winged X X LC Unknown erythroptera babbler Timaliidae Stachyris maculata Chestnut rumped X X NT Decline babbler Timaliidae Stachyris nigricollis Black throated X X NT Decline babbler Timaliidae Trichastoma White-chested X X NT Decline rostratum babbler Ter. = sighted at Terantang site; Per. = sighted at Perigi sight. All other species have been recorded from the nearby Sabangau and, hence, are near certain to occur in Katingan. IUCN categories: CR = Critically endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened; LC= Least Concern DD = Data Deficient, NE= Not Evaluated. CITES categories: I = international trade prohibited, except in exceptional non-commercial cases; II = international trade may be permitted, but requires export permit; III = limited trade. Species protected in Indonesia (Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 7, Tahun 1999); Y = protected, blank = not protected. Population trends are global, as listed by IUCN.

50 2.4.3.3 Herpeto-fauna (reptiles and amphibians)

IUCN CITES Prot. Borneo Family Latin Name English name listing listing Indo? Trend Endemic? Comments REPTILIA SQUAMATA Agamidae Bronchocela cristatella Green-crested lizard Agamidae Draco quinquefasciatus Flying lizard Colubridae Ahaetulla fasciolata Banded vine snake Colubridae Ahaetulla prasina Green vine snake Colubridae Boiga jaspidea Jasper cat snake Colubridae Chrysopelea paradisi Paradise tree snake Colubridae Dendrelaphis caudolineatus Striped bronze-back Colubridae Dendrelaphis formosus Elegant bronze-back Colubridae Dendrelaphis pictus Painted bronze-back Colubridae Homalopsis buccata Puff-faced water snake Colubridae Oligodon octolineatus Striped kukri snake Colubridae Psammodynastes pictus Painted mock viper Colubridae Rhabdophis chrysargos Speckle-bellied Keelback Colubridae Stegonotus borneensis Bornean black snake Endemic Colubridae Xenelaphis hexagonotus Malayan brown snake Crotalinae Trimeresurus sumatranus Sumatran pit viper Crotalinae Tropidolaemus wagleri Waglers pit viper Cylindrophiidae Cylindrophis ruffus Red tailed pipe snake Elapidae Bungarus flaviceps Yellow-headed Krait Elapidae Maticora bivirgata / Calliophi Blue Malaysian coral snake bivirgatus Elapidae Naja sumatrana Sumatran cobra Elapidae Ophiophagus hannah King Cobra Gekkonidae Cyrtodactylus pubisulcus Inger's bow-fingered gecko Endemic Gekkonidae Gekko smithii Forest gecko

51 IUCN CITES Prot. Borneo Family Latin Name English name listing listing Indo? Trend Endemic? Comments Gekkonidae Hemidactylus frenatus House gecko Pythonidae Python reticulatus Reticulated python II Scincidae Dasia vittatum Banded tree skink Scincidae Dasia/Lamprolepis group Skink sp. Scincidae Lygosoma sp. (sens. lat.) Skink sp. Scincidae Mabuya multifasciata / Rubis Skink sp. complex Scincidae Sphenomorphus sp. Skink sp. Varanidae Varanus salvator Monitor lizard Protected Xenopeltidae Xenopeltis unicolor Iridescent earth snake

CROCODILIA Crocodylidae Crocodylus porosus / raninus Estuarine / Bornean Protected Both estuarine and riverine species crocodile (C. could be here, though these is porosus) some doubt over the classification of C. raninis as a distinct species and most taxonomists do not to recognise it (it is not listed on IUCN). Crocodylidae Tomistoma schlegelii Malayan/False Gharial EN I/w Protected Decline Some debate over phylogeny and whether to include in Crocodylidae or Galvialidae. Current opinion leaning towards the former, including by IUCN.

TESTUDINES Bataguridae Orlitia borneensis Bornean river turtle EN II Protected Decline Endemic Geoemydidae Cuora amboinensis South Asian box turtle VU II Decline Geoemydidae Cyclemys dentata Asian Leaf Turtle NT Decline Also known as the brown river terrapin

52 IUCN CITES Prot. Borneo Family Latin Name English name listing listing Indo? Trend Endemic? Comments Geoemydidae Heosemys spinosa Spiny/sunburst turtle EN II Decline Trionychidae Amyda cartilaginea South Asian softshell turtle VU II Decline Trionychidae Pelochelys bibroni Asian Giant Softshell Turtle VU II Decline

AMPHIBIA ANURA Bufonidae Pseudobufo subasper Aquatic swamp toad Ranidae Meristogenys phaeomerus Brown torrent frog Endemic Ranidae Paramacrodon / Malesianus Unknown Genus uncertain; former more sp. likely Rhacophoridae Polypedates colletti Collett's Tree Frog LC Decline Rhacophoridae Polypedates leucomystax Four-lined Tree Frog LC Decline Rhacophoridae Polypedates macrotis Darl-eared Tree Frog LC Decline Rhacophoridae Racophorus spp. Tree frog spp. IUCN categories: CR = Critically endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened; LC= Least Concern DD = Data Deficient, NE= Not Evaluated. CITES categories: I = international trade prohibited, except in exceptional non-commercial cases; II = international trade may be permitted, but requires export permit; III = limited trade. Species protected in Indonesia (Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 7, Tahun 1999); Y = protected, blank = not protected. Population trends are global, as listed by IUCN.

53 2.4.3.4 Fish (preliminary)

Order / Family Latin name Local name Record Prot. Indo? Comments RAJIFORMES Dasyatidae Himantura signifer x

OSTEOGLOSSIFORMES Osteoglossidae Scleropages formosus x Protected Notopteridae Noptopterus borneensis Pipih x In Palangka Raya fish market

CYPRINIFORMES Cyprinidae Barbodes gonionotus x Cyprinidae Barbodes schwanenfeldii x Cyprinidae Cyclocheilichthys apogon x Cyprinidae Cyclocheilichthys armatus x Cyprinidae Cyclocheilichthys enoplos x Cyprinidae Cyclocheilichthys janthochir Saluang X Cyprinidae Cyclocheilichthys repasson x Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio Ikan mas X In Palangka Raya fish market Cyprinidae Epalzeorhynchos kalopterus x Cyprinidae Hampala bimaculata x Cyprinidae H. macrolepidota x Cyprinidae Labiobarbus festivus x Cyprinidae Labiobarbus ocellatus x Cyprinidae Lobocheilos falcifer Ikan mas X Cyprinidae Luciosoma trinema x Cyprinidae Osteochilus melanoptera x Cyprinidae Osteochilus triporos

54 Order / Family Latin name Local name Record Prot. Indo? Comments Cyprinidae Osteochilus sclegelii x Cyprinidae Pectenocypris balaena x Cyprinidae Pectenocypris balaena x Cyprinidae Puntioplites waandersi x Cyprinidae Rasbora borneensis Cyprinidae Rasbora caudimaculata x Cyprinidae Rasbora cephalotaenia cf. saluang X Cyprinidae Tor tambra x Cyprinidae Rasbora kalochroma Balitoridae Homaloptera ocellata x Balitoridae Nemacheilus sp. x Balitoridae Neohomalopter johorensis Tjajiu

SILURIFORMES Bagridae Botia hymenophysa x Bagridae Botia macrocanthus x Bagridae Bagrichthys macracanthus Bagridae Bagroides melapterus Kasak pisang In Palangka Raya fish market Bagridae Leiocassis myersi Bagridae Leiocassis stenomus x Bagridae Mystus gulio x Bagridae Mystus micracanthus Bagridae Mystus nemurus X Bagridae Mystus olyroides Bagridae Mystus nigriceps X Bagridae Mystus wyckii Bagridae Mystus olyroides Darap x

55 Order / Family Latin name Local name Record Prot. Indo? Comments Bagridae Mystus wyckii Baung In Palangka Raya fish market Siluridea Belodontichthys dinema Bamban x In Palangka Raya fish market Siluridea Hemisilurus heterorhynchus Lais x In Palangka Raya fish market Siluridea Kryptopterus apogon Lais In Palangka Raya fish market Siluridea Kryptopterus limpok Sirang bulu X Siluridea Kryptopterus macrocephalus Sirang bulu X Siluridea Kryptopterus parvanalis Siluridea Ompok eueneiatus x Siluridea Silurichthys hasseltii X Siluridea Wallago leeri Tampatnas X Pangasiidae Heliocophagus waandersii x Pangasiidae Laides hexanema x Pangasiidae Pangasius lithostoma Patin x In Palangka Raya fish market Pangasiidae Pangasius nasutus Rariu Clariidae Clarias meladerma Pentet pendeck x Clariidae Clarias nieuhofii Pentet panjang x Clariidae Clarias teijsmanni x Clariidae Encheloclarias tapeinopterus Pentet panjang Ariidae Hemiarius stormii x

CYPINODONTIFORMES HEMIRAMPHIDAE Hemiramphidae Dermogenys weberi x Hemiramphidae Hemirhamphodon chrysopunctatus Jenjulung X

56 Order / Family Latin name Local name Record Prot. Indo? Comments ANTHERINIFORMES Telmatherinidae Telmatherina ladigesi x

SYNGNATHIFORMES Syngnathidae Doryichthys sp. x

SYNBRANCHIFORMES Synbranchidae Monopterus albus x

PERCIFORMES Centropomidae Lates calcarifer In Palangka Raya fish market Chandidae Ambassis nalua Lutjanidae Coius microlepis x Lutjanidae Coius quadrifasciatu x Toxotidae Toxotes jaculatrix x Toxotidae Toxotes microlepis x Nandidae Nandus nebulosus Tatawun Pristolepididae Pristolepis grootii Pantung X Pomacentridae Pomacentrus taeniometopon x Mugiloidae Liza macrolepis x Mugiloidae Liza parmata x Polynemidae Polynemus borneensis x Eleotrididae Ophieleotris aporos x Eleotrididae Oxyeleotris marmorata

57 Order / Family Latin name Local name Record Prot. Indo? Comments Eleotrididae Oxyeleotris urophthalmoides Gobiidae Periophalmodon septemradiatus X Luciocephalidae Luciocephalus pulcher Lanjulung X Helostomatidae Helostoma temminickii Tabakan X In Palangka Raya fish market Anabantidae Anabas testudineus Bapuyu X Belontidae Belontia hasselti Kakapar X Belontidae Betta akarensis Tempala Belontidae Betta anabatoides Tempala X Belontidae Betta edithae Tempala Belontidae Betta foerschi Tempala Belontidae Sphaerichthys vaillanti Sapat layang Belontidae Sphaerichthys selatanensis Sapat Belontidae Trichogaster leerii Sapat x Belontidae Trichogaster pectoralis Sesapat x In Palangka Raya fish market Belontidae Trichogaster trichopterus Sapat x Channidae Channa bankanensis Miyau x Channidae Channa cyanospilos Channidae Channa gachua x Channidae Channa lucius Kihung In Palangka Raya fish market Channidae Channa maruliodes Channidae Channa melasoma Peyang In Palangka Raya fish market Channidae Channa micropeltes Tahuman X In Palangka Raya fish market Channidae Channa pleurophthalmus Karandang X In Palangka Raya fish market

58 Order / Family Latin name Local name Record Prot. Indo? Comments Channidae Channa striata Behau x Mastacembelidae Macrognathus maculates Telan Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus unicolor Jajili

TETRAODONTIFORMES Tetraodontidae Chonerhinos modestrus x Tetraodontidae Tetraodon biocellatus x None of the above species are currently listed by either the IUCN or CITES, or are protected in Indonesia. Species protected in Indonesia (Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 7, Tahun 1999); Y = protected, blank = not protected.

59 2.4.4 Confirmed and Potential High Conservation Value Species (HCVs) Present

2.4.4.1 Orang-utans Line transects were surveyed for orang-utan nests, and resulting nest densities were converted to orang-utan densities using standardised variables. Five km of transect were surveyed in Terantang and 6 km in Perigi, which yielded 73 and 144 nests, or 14.6 and 24.0 nests/km, respectively. Four orang-utans were physically sighted by the research team, including both flanged males (cover image) and a mother/infant. Furthermore, orang-utans were confirmed as present near all seven villages surveyed via community questionnaires, and were considered “abundant” or “occasionally seen” by all respondents in these locations. The 2004 Orang-utan Population and Habitat Viability Analysis (PHVA, (Singleton et al., 2004; Wich et al., 2008) identified Katingan as the fifth largest remaining contiguous population of orang- utans, making this forest of huge conservation importance for this species. The Katingan orang-utan surveys that contributed to this PHVA population estimate were performed by members of the OuTrop team in 2002-2003. The results of these surveys, plus those conducted in 2010, are given in Table 2.7.

Table 2.7. Orang-utan density estimates at sites in Katingan

Nests / km Nest density (no. / km2) Orang-utan density (ind. / km2) Site 2002-03 2010 2002-03 2010 2002-03 2010 Terantang 15.8 14.6 502 625 1.66 2.45 Klaru 10.2 - 279 - 0.93 - Kajang Pamali 20.8 - 579 - 1.92 - Perigi 28.8 24.0 873 1,026 2.89 4.02 Total transect length exceeded 4 km in all sites.

Orang-utan density in peat-swamp forest varies between habitat-sub-types and disturbance levels (Morrogh-Bernard et al., 2003) and accurate information on the extent of each, and an associated orang-utan density, are needed to accurately estimate the total orang-utan population in the proposed concession area. This information is not available at this time, and its collection should be prioritised in future research. Moreover, the degree of illegal logging witnessed during this survey was high (Section 2.4.6.1). This further reduces our ability to extrapolate densities over a wider area because logging is well known to cause displacement of orang-utans and localised overcrowding in neighbouring regions – thus recorded densities may not be stable over the long term. We suspect this is the situation in Perigi, thus giving rise to the exceptionally high densities recorded here. Repeated surveys over longer time- scales are recommended to determine this.

Notwithstanding the issues raised above, we attempt here to estimate an approximate orang-utan density based on our survey results and known orang-utan habitat preferences and population dynamics. In the first instance, we can state with confidence that, due to (i) the large size of the proposed concession area (2,270 km2); and (ii) that it is almost completely forested with peat-swamp forest, the orang-utan’s preferred habitat-type, the population will number in the thousands and, hence, of global significance.

60 Secondly, we make a rough estimate of the total population size by extrapolating our survey results over the whole area. The mean density estimate of the four sites surveyed in 2002-03 surveys was 1.91 individuals per square kilometre; the mean density estimate from the same four sites in 2010 (substituting the updated estimates from the two re-surveyed sites) is 3.19 individuals/km2. These can be considered raw upper and lower estimates. The four survey sites are all in high quality mixed-swamp peat-swamp forest. Starling has estimated the coverage of this habitat sub-type within the proposed concession area to be 1,769 km2. The low-pole forest habitat sub-type occurs on the deepest, most poorly-drained, regions of the Katingan forest, and covers an estimated 214 km2. Owing to a lack of data from this sub-type in Katingan, orang- utan density in low-pole forest in the neighbouring Sabangau Forest is substituted for this habitat sub-type. This estimate, from long-term studies, is 1.12 individuals/km2 (Husson et al., 2009). Applying these density estimates to the habitat coverage yields a preliminary estimated total population of 3,618 to 5,883 individuals. We recommend the lower estimate be cited until more detailed studies are made over a wider spatial and temporal range.

This population estimate corresponds to 6.7 – 11 % of the reported 54,000 remaining Bornean orang-utans estimated by Wich et al. (2008) although, in accordance with Husson et al. (2009), we acknowledge that updated methodology for deriving orang- utan densities from nest-counts has led to an increase in reported densities, and hence that figure of 54,000 is likely to be an underestimate. Regardless, this population represents a substantial proportion of the remaining orang-utan population in Borneo and its conservation is of clear importance for the protection of this endangered ape, its genetic diversity and behavioural, ecological and cultural repertoire.

This population is itself a subset of a larger, distinct population within the entire Katingan-Mendawai catchment, which was estimated at 3,340 orang-utans in 2,800 km2 in the 2004 PHVA (Singleton et al., 2004), using a much larger value for the area of interior low-pole forest than calculated by Starling.

Regarding the site estimates of orang-utan density, both Perigi and Terantang have estimates consistent with densities from elsewhere in the orang-utan’s range for habitats with seasonally-inundated peat-swamp forest. The Perigi value is at the top- end, but comparable with values from Mawas-Tuanan and Gunung Palung (Husson et al., 2009). Both 2010 estimates are increases on the 2002-03 estimates for the same area. We would caution against reading too much into this change – it is highly unlikely this represents a real increase and this is a further reason why the upper- bound population estimate should be treated with caution. It could just be movement within the margin of error, or could be a result of logging-induced crowding (a compression effect) as mentioned earlier. Displacement of orang-utans from actively- disturbed areas into undisturbed or previously-disturbed areas is well reported (Davies, 1986; Russon et al., 2001; Morrogh-Bernard et al. 2003), and localised changes in orang-utan distribution were observed following the onset of illegal logging activities in the Sabangau peat-swamp forest (Husson et al., 2009). Orang- utans crowded into the unlogged (and less-productive) low-pole forest, which resulted in the localised starvation of many orang-utans, corresponding to a sudden and large decline in total orang-utan numbers of 30% within the course of a single year, four years after logging activities started. Densities have since stabilised and are increasing gradually (OuTrop, unpublished data) and in Sumatra, orang-utan densities have been

61 shown to recover to pre-logging densities twenty years after the cessation of logging (Knop et al., 2004).

Thus, it is clear that short-term population shifts in response to changes in the intensity and distribution of human disturbance will cloud any estimate of overall population size or changes in population size in the region. As a result, sampling of a larger number of areas and a longer period of time are needed to provide truly accurate population estimates and indications of overall population trends in the area.

Intriguingly, the majority of interview respondents in villages along the River Mentaya considered populations to be either stable or decreasing, with roughly equal numbers of respondents selecting each option. Along the Katingan River, villagers in Galinggang and Perigi considered the population to be stable, whereas those in Telaga considered the population to be decreasing. If this is true, this is likely due to the absence of intensive logging in the first two villages, and also in other Katingan villages in the southern half of the concession area, as opposed to the presence of gold mining operations in Klaru, near Telaga village. Interview respondents are likely to indicate perceived trends in populations in the immediate proximity of the village, suggesting that densities may have decreased in the immediate vicinity of the villages – i.e. the riverine and most accessible regions of the forest.

In summary, this is a major population of orang-utans and most certainly amongst the ten largest extant populations of orang-utans in the world. The forest is reducing in area and complexity because of illegal logging, fire and encroachment, and hunting of orang-utans is a likely secondary impact of these pressures. The orang-utan population of the Katingan forest is most likely decreasing in size as a result. We recommend regular monitoring to commence as soon as possible to ascertain trends in population size in different regions of the forest.

2.4.4.2 Gibbons Two gibbons were sighted during the course of the field work, and analysis of the call triangulation data revealed a high density of gibbons in Katingan (Tables 2.8-11). Gibbons were confirmed as present in all villages surveyed through the community questionnaires. Respondents considered that gibbons were “abundant” and populations stable.

Table 2.8. Basic data on surveys in Terantang (4 singing days).

Days of Width of Calling Effective Total Individuals in ELA survey buffer probability Listening study based on groups (km) (p(m)) Area (ELA) groups heard (assume 4 (km2) in gibbons/group) ELA 4 1 0.88 3.16 3 12

62 Table 2.9. Basic data on surveys in Perigi (2 singing days).

Days of Width of Calling Effective Total Individuals in ELA survey buffer probability Listening study based on groups (km) (p(m)) Area (ELA) groups heard (assume 4 (km2) in gibbons/group) ELA 2 1 0.78 3.16 4 16

Table 2.10. Results of density and population size – Terantang.

Groups/km2 Group Lone gibbons/km2 Total (D = n / [p(m) individuals/ gibbons/ x E]) km2 km2 1.08 4.32 0.22 4.53 Total estimated paired population: 4,276 Total estimated lone population (5.5% paired population): 214 Total estimated population 99,162 ha (primary high-pole forest): 4,490

Table 2.11. Results of density and population – Perigi.

Groups/km2 Group Lone gibbons/km2 Total (D = n / [p(m) individuals/ gibbons/ x E]) km2 km2 1.62 6.49 0.32 6.82 Total estimated paired population: 5,044 Total estimated lone population (5.5% paired population): 252 Total estimated population 77,752 ha (primary high-pole forest): 5,269

Total estimated population both areas combined: 9,786 gibbons

It is interesting that the density at Terantang (currently logged) is lower than Perigi (recent, but no current, logging). This density difference could be due to either a logging effect or natural phenomena; i.e., more productive forest on the Katingan side. However, given that only two days of data were collected at Perigi, drawing conclusions based on biological and/or disturbance factors is probably inappropriate. The calling probability for both sites is lower than ideal, meaning that, given the small number of sample days, it is unlikely that all gibbons in either area were heard. This then affects the calculations of density and population numbers. Thus, it is currently unclear whether logging and/or habitat quality are affecting gibbon density in the area. Gibbons are hypothesised to survive reasonably well following limited and selective logging (Johns, 1985a, b; Johns, 1986), though there must be a threshold of logging intensity which will be detrimental to their survival. The effects of logging on gibbons are unclear, but disruption of the family unit following disturbance has been shown to result in the breakdown of the group, which probably affects gibbon density. The situation requires more research.

63 H. albibarbis is listed as Endangered on the IUCN Red List, based on an estimated population reduction of over 50%, when considering the past 30 years and projected future habitat loss and degradation over the next 15 years (i.e., totalling 45 years, which is approximately three generations). Where the species persists there is hunting and collection for the wildlife trade. A large part of the species’ range is in peat- swamp forest – an extremely threatened ecosystem. This species may qualify for Critically Endangered status in the future if rates of habitat change increase, and thus should be carefully monitored as availability of suitable habitat and populations decline.

There is a severe lack of data on non-protected areas in Borneo that may contain viable gibbon populations. In the absence of a full Population and Habitat Viability Analysis (PHVA) all survey data are important to obtain accurate population estimates of this species. Based on these results the density of gibbons is less than that in the neighbouring Sabangau peat swamp (2.6 groups/km2), as is the number of gibbons/km2 (4.8-7.2, compared to 10.7 for Sabangau, (Cheyne et al., 2008). Nevertheless, this estimate of gibbon density and the total estimated population size for the proposed concession area of 9,786 individuals indicates that Katingan supports a viable population of gibbons. Based on these data, the Katingan forest is area is home to 8-12% of the global population of this endangered species, making this population of global importance.

2.4.4.3 Proboscis monkeys The locations of proboscis monkey sightings and records of presence from community interviews are shown in Figure 2.12, and GPS coordinates are given in Table 2.12 for sightings by the field team where we were able to obtain a GPS fix. The proboscis monkey groups sighted by the field team were all seen in areas of forest along river banks, and were observed sleeping, playing and jumping into the river. They were also observed apparently eating rangas and sumpung (which can burn human skin).

Figure 2.12 shows that proboscis monkeys were confirmed as present at 27 locations inside and surrounding the project area (i.e., in between the Rivers Mentaya and Katingan), and are widely distributed on both the eastern and western sides. Concentrations of proboscis monkeys were found around both our primary field survey locations and, surprisingly, animals were even observed within sight of Sampit. The presence of proboscis monkeys was confirmed near all the villages in which community surveys were undertaken, and the animal was considered “abundant” in all these locations. Populations were considered to be stable in all villages surveyed, with the exception of Perigi and Telaga, where they were considered to be increasing. Although we do not have records from other areas on the two major rivers, we believe it likely that proboscis monkeys are patchily distributed along practically the entire length of the Rivers Mentaya and Katingan that border the proposed project area, and in most of the tributaries of these major rivers. Similarly, although no proboscis monkeys were sighted on the single day’s survey south of Perigi, this should not be interpreted as proof that they do not occur in this area.

Due to the difficulty in observing the number of proboscis monkeys in groups along the river edge and the relatively short survey period, we were unable to obtain accurate estimates of the size of these groups, but each group that we saw probably

64

Figure 2.12. Confirmed locations of proboscis monkey groups around the project area. Solid red circles represent groups observed and for which GPS coordinates were obtained; open circles with light red inner represent groups observed and for which no GPS coordinates were obtained, so positions are only approximate; open white circles represent locations where villages indicated presence in community surveys (100% confirmed presence in all locations). Sightings include those by our field team, previous OuTrop field teams working on Katingan and reports from Starling personnel. The yellow lines represent field survey routes.

65 Table 2.12. GPS coordinates of proboscis monkey groups sighted by the field team. Coordinates were not obtained for all groups sighted. All coordinates are in the WGS 84 datum, in the format dddommsss.

Description South coordinate East Coordinate River Katingan Group 1 002o47427 113o16358 Group 2 002o48440 113o17194 Group 3 002o48537 113o17192 Group 4 002o46345 113o16047 Group 5 002o46393 113o17172

River Mentaya Group 1 002o43295 113o05449 Group 2 002o49075 113o00563 Group 3 002o49407 112o99771 Group 4 002o49894 112o99459 Proboscis group 5 002o87163 113o27836

contained at least 20 animals (this is a cautious estimate; 84% of groups observed in Sabah consist of group sizes of 20 or more and one group of 50 individuals was observed, Salter et al., 1985). Thus, given that the rivers bordering the project area contain at least 27 proboscis monkey groups, this gives a very approximate estimated minimum population size in the area of at least 540 animals. The total remaining number of individuals of this species in Borneo is not known with precision, but, considering the apparent distribution of this species throughout the large concession area, we expect Katingan to be a globally significant population of immense conservation importance.

2.4.4.4 Primates (excluding orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys) In total, nine species of primate occur in Katingan, all of which are suffering population declines and seven of which are judged by the IUCN to be facing an imminent threat of extinction. With the exception of the nocturnal species, which are certain to be present in the concession area, all of these primates were sighted by the research team at least once. Asides from orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys (see above), the southern pig-tailed macaque, Bornean slow loris and Western tarsier are listed as “Vulnerable” by the IUCN, the silver langur as “Near Threatened”, and the red langur is a protected species in Indonesia. All species are in decline throughout their range, primarily due to habitat loss, with hunting and capture for the medical and pet trades being additional threats (Corlett, 2007). Although not listed as Endangered or protected in Indonesia, the red langur is restricted to the island of Borneo and, considering the rapid rate of habitat loss on Borneo and its sympatry with endangered primate species (Meijaard and Nijman, 2003; FAO, 2010), such as orang- utans and gibbons, this species is likely to also be equally, if not more, at risk of extinction than the silver langur or pig-tailed macaque.

66 Excluding the macaque species, few areas in Borneo currently support four or more sympatric diurnal primate species (Smith, 2008), and so the forest in Katingan is of clear importance for primate conservation in Borneo. All the primate species were confirmed as being present near to all the villages surveyed through the community questionnaires. The majority of respondents considered red langurs to be abundant with stable populations, silver langurs to be only occasionally seen (or rare in Telaga), long-tailed and pig-tailed macaques to be abundant, and lorises and tarsiers to be seen occasionally (tarsiers were considered rare in Katingan), indicating healthy primate populations in the area. Due to its large size and apparently high densities of these species (a group of red langurs was even observed roosting near the Perigi camp), the Katingan swamps are likely to support substantial and globally significant populations of these species.

2.4.4.5 Cats Four species of protected cat inhabit this forest: flat-headed cat (Endangered), clouded leopard and marbled cat (Vulnerable), and leopard cat (Least Concern). As a result of habitat conversion and degradation, and hunting for skin and body parts in some areas, the distribution of cats in Borneo is very patchy, with vast swathes of the island unsuitable for them (Sunquist et al., 1994; Corlett, 2007; Wilting et al., 2010).

The majority of cat species were indicated as present in most locations surveyed through community questionnaires, but potential inability of respondents to accurately distinguish between species complicates the analysis. The only exception to this is probably the clouded leopard, which is easily distinguishable from the other cat species and which has a much more prominent place in local culture and story telling. Clouded leopards were confirmed as present in all villages surveyed, and were considered to be occasionally seen, or rare in Telaga. Populations were considered to be either stable or decreasing, with only Telaga villagers indicating a clear trend (decreasing). The remaining cat species were also considered to be occasionally seen (though it is uncertain whether the marbled cat exists in the area), and populations were described as either stable (Mentaya) or stable/decreasing (Katingan). As top predators, cats naturally occur at low density in peat-swamp forest (Cheyne and MacDonald, in press), and so the low population densities indicated through the community surveys should not be considered surprising. However, due to the high abundance of potential prey animals, relative lack of hunting and large size of the concession area, we believe that the Katingan forest supports healthy populations of these threatened cats.

2.4.4.6 Sun bears Although widespread, the sun bear is also restricted to relatively low-altitude forest and, as such, is also threatened by habitat conversion and degradation, in addition to exploitation for body parts for traditional medicines (Meijaard, 1999; Fredriksson et al., 2006; Fredriksson et al., 2008). This has led to its Vulnerable listing by the IUCN and protected status in Indonesia. Sun bears occur at low densities and are therefore very difficult to see, but one sun bear was seen in Terantang and the large number of characteristic sun bear spoor (i.e., claw marks on trees) seen indicates that this forest supports a substantial population of this vulnerable species. This is supported by the community surveys, which confirmed the presence of sun bears near all villages, where they were generally considered to be abundant (with the exception of Lemiri and Terantang, where they are sighted only occasionally).

67 2.4.4.7 Pangolins Threatened by intensive hunting, primarily for medicinal purposes (Corlett, 2007; Duckworth et al., 2008), the Sunda pangolin is now classified as Endangered and protected by Indonesian law. This species is notoriously difficult to detect and virtually no information is available on pangolin populations in any part of Asia. Community interviews indicate that pangolins can be seen occasionally near all the villages surveyed. Considering the large size of the proposed concession and relative inaccessibility of large areas of the Katingan swamp, we suspect that this forest is an important pangolin habitat.

2.4.4.8 Otters Both the Asian small-clawed otter (Vulnerable; presence in Sabangau peat swamp confirmed) and hairy-nosed otter (Endangered and protected in Indonesia; presence likely but yet to be confirmed) are threatened with extinction and, hence, the presence of even one of these species in the area is of great conservation importance. These species are difficult to tell apart in the field, but community interviews indicate that otters are abundant near all the villages surveyed. Both species are threatened by the loss of suitable habitat, pollution and subsequent reductions in fish prey populations, and by hunting (Hussain and de Silva, 2008; Hussain et al., 2008). However, the high fish populations and large variety of species, pristine waterways in the tributary rivers inside the proposed concession area and large number of these tributaries should make Katingan an ideal habitat for otters.

2.4.4.9 Storks Two species of threatened stork are present in Katingan: Storm’s stork (Endangered, see cover image) and the lesser adjutant stork (Vulnerable, protected in Indonesia). These species are both dependent on large, intact areas of lowland swamp and forest and, hence, are becoming increasingly rare (Danielsen et al., 1998; Collar et al., 2001). Katingan represents 7.6% of the remaining peatland in Central Kalimantan, which has a higher area of peatland than any other province in Indonesia, the country with the highest area of peatland in the world (Page et al., 2002; Page et al., 2008). It should therefore be an important area for these species. Both these storks have only previously been confirmed from three sites in Central Kalimantan (Collar et al., 2001), so their presence here is of clear importance.

Both were confirmed as present near to all the villages surveyed via community interview and are seen occasionally be villagers (the majority of villagers considered the lesser adjutant stork to be abundant in Katingan, though the Storm’s stork is considered rare in Telaga). Populations are considered stable, with the exception of Telaga, where populations are decreasing. These data are supported by observations made by the field survey team: impressively, the incredibly rare Storm’s stork was sighted on three occasions (four individuals) during the short survey period, indicating that Katingan is a vital habitat for this species, which is estimated to number only 250-500 remaining wild individuals (IUCN, 2008). This is particularly impressive considering that local villagers report both stork species to be more common in the dry season (our surveys were conducted at the height of the wet season). It is extremely unlikely that the four individual Storm’s storks seen during the survey period represents the entire population of this species in Katingan and, thus, the area clearly supports fully or partially a high percentage of the total global population of this species.

68 2.4.4.10 White-shouldered ibis As a result of deforestation, drainage of wetlands, hunting, disturbance, forest fires and other factors, the population of this species is declining and severely fragmented population (Sözer and Nijman, 2005; IUCN, 2009), leading to its classification as Critically Endangered by the IUCN and legal protection within Indonesia. Thus, the probable presence of this species in the area (confirmed sightings in Sabangau in 2010, and indicated as present in the area by a third of interview respondents; especially likely to be present near Perigi) is of huge significance. Protection of this forest could be vital for the future of this severely threatened species.

2.4.4.11 Birds of prey All eagle and falcon species are protected under Indonesian law. These species are all threatened by habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation, with hunting being an addition threat in some locations. As top avian predators, their presence in Katingan indicates healthy populations of prey animals, which in turn indicates a healthy forest.

2.4.4.12 Hornbills All hornbills are protected in Indonesia and four of the six species of hornbill found in Katingan are listed as Near Threatened by the IUCN (wrinkled, Asian black, helmeted and rhinoceros hornbill, Figure 2.13). Rhinoceros hornbills in particular were sighted regularly by the survey team (seen on three occasions, heard on one extra). Due to the difficulty in distinguishing hornbill species in the field, it is not possible to relate community survey responses directly to particular hornbill species, but, in general, hornbills are occasionally seen by villagers in all the villages surveyed. Due to their large size, frugivorous habits and need for large tree cavities for breeding, hornbills are essentially reliant on large trees in old-growth forest and, hence, are an indicator of forest health (Myers, 2009). The high abundance and diversity of hornbills therefore indicates that this forest is of high quality. This is particularly remarkable considering that the rhinoceros hornbill has not been seen in OuTrop’s research area in the north-west of the neighbouring, protected Sabangau forest for over ten years.

2.4.4.13 Crocodiles and gharials Although it is certain that crocodiles inhabit this forest, it is not currently possible to confirm the exact species present, as crocodile species taxonomy is notoriously difficult (Brochu, 2003). The majority (34/57) of interview respondents indicated that the Critically Endangered and protected Siamese crocodile is present, though rare, in the area. Although this requires confirmation, this species has been reported in both East (Kurniati et al., 2005) and Central Kalimantan (Cox et al., 1993). It has not been recorded by the OuTrop team in Sabangau. Nevertheless, if true, its presence in Katingan would be of great significance, as this species is severely threatened by habitat destruction, illegal hunting and persecution (Cox et al., 1993; Ross, 1998). Although listed by some authorities (Cox et al., 1993; Martin, 2008), the Borneo crocodile (Crocodylus raninus) is not recognised as a distinct species by others (Ross, 1998; Brochu, 2000), including the IUCN. Thus, although this species may be present in the area, it is more likely that it is the estuarine crocodile (C. porosus, protected in Indonesia) that inhabits the waterways in this forest. Of greater conservation significance is the confirmed presence of the Endangered false gharial in the area, which is protected in Indonesia. These latter two species were reported as being occasionally seen in all villages surveyed via community interviews, with the false gharial considered numerous in Perigi and Galinggang.

69

Figure 2.13. Rhinoceros hornbill in Katingan.

2.4.4.14 Turtles The Endangered spiny hill turtle (Figure 2.14), was confirmed as present in the area, as were the Vulnerable South Asian box, Asian leaf, South Asian softshell and Asian giant softshell turtles. Local villagers indicate that both soft-shell turtles and box turtles are abundant in the area. Due to its large size and abundance of suitable waterways, the Katingan forest certainly harbours significant turtle populations. This is important, because all of these species are threatened by hunting for the food trade, in addition to habitat loss (Iskandar and Erdelen, 2006; Shepherd and Nijman, 2007; Schoppe, 2009).

2.4.5 Floral Biodiversity

Comparison of the list of tree species documented over many years detailed research in Sabangau (Morrogh-Bernard, 2009) with the preliminary surveys conducted by Darusman (2008) indicate that the Katingan list is likely incomplete and that some species may have been mis-identified. Darusman lists a total 48 tree species, compared to 226 documented in Sabangau. Of these 48 species listed for Katingan, 25 are also listed in Sabangau, 20 are not listed (yet may be present, if discrepancies in identification exist between the two sites) and three are queries. One of the most common tree species encountered by our team in Perigi (Elaeaocarpus mastersii) is also not included on the Katingan list and there are some other surprising absences in this list, based on expectations from Sabangau. Thus, we recommend more thorough surveys of the flora in Katingan.

70

Figure 2.14. Spiny hill turtle in Katingan.

2.4.6 Threats to Biodiversity in the Region

This wealth of identified biodiversity and HCVs does not face a completely secure future, despite the large size of the Katingan forest and the relative inaccessibility of large parts of it. A number of threats are currently impacting the biodiversity and HCVs of the proposed concession area, and these are discussed in detail below. Nationwide, peat-swamp forests are being lost at an alarming rate: from 1985-2005 it is estimated that over 30% of Indonesia’s peat-swamp forest became degraded and degradation rates continue at a rate of 1.7% a year (Hooijer et al., 2006). The peat- swamp forest of Katingan is no exception. As a result of their slow breeding rate (Wich et al., 2009), frugivorous diet (Morrogh-Bernard et al., 2009) and naturally low population densities (Husson et al., 2009), orang-utans are particularly at risk from many of these threats.

2.4.6.1 Illegal logging Illegal logging occurs across much of the proposed concession area, particularly on the Mentaya side, and this poses a severe threat to the area’s biodiversity and HCVs. At the time of the surveys, much illegal logging was still occurring along the Terantang tributary and most of the larger trees have already been felled. During the surveys, there are four young men illegally logging along the River Terantang and, during the course of our surveys, there were approximately 175 rafts on the river, with each raft comprising four large (ca. 20 cm DBH) to six smaller logs (Figure 2.15). Four 8 m logs are needed to make 1 m2 of wood, which is purchased for ca. IDR 150,000. One group of four loggers can produce 15-40 logs per a day, yielding a total

71 IDR 75-250,000 / day. Considering all the work it takes to process the trees into logs (such as building pondoks to sleep in, building skids, cutting, and moving the trees), for which payment is not received, this is a lot of work for very little money and the financial gain is minimal considering the destruction wreaked upon the forest. This destruction also includes smaller trees being broken by felling the large ones, the many trees it takes to build a skid, and the trees that are cut then abandoned for whatever reason. Illegal logging is tolerated because it is being done by individuals from the village; loggers are unlikely to come from elsewhere to log out of fear of being reported. The clearing of the river channels to move logs minimizes fish habitat, especially nurseries for young fish, which impacts negatively on the village’s fishing. We have received similar reports from Starling personnel, confirming that this was not just a one off.

Figure 2.15. Raft of illegally-felled logs being floated down a canal in Terantang. See text for discussion.

In addition to actual sightings of loggers by the research team and similar reports from Terantang by Starling personnel, indirect evidence of very recent logging activity was abound in this area. Loggers use skids (jalan kuda-kuda) of small saplings to drag logs to canals, in order to extract them from the forest (Figure 2.16; (Page et al., 2002; Harrison et al., 2009). Although in some places there are 100 m plus blocks of forest without recent logging, most of the forest is riddled with skids, with adjacent skids often occurring within 15 to 30 m of each other. These skids are lubricated with soap, which washes off after about a month, especially in the wet season (at the time of these surveys). All the skids in this area still had soap on them, so were clearly used

72 recently. We were informed that illegal loggers make ‘diversionary’ pondoks on the side of the river that they don’t actually use, and then build another pondok further into the forest. This then fools the police into thinking that nobody is working in that part of the forest, thereby reducing the risk of capture. These ‘abandoned’ pondoks can be seen every 200-400 m along the tributary at the mouths of logging canals.

It appears that logging has persisted in Terantang for a number of years. Judging by the size of the few tall trees remaining, the forest in this area would previously have been quite tall, but as a result of logging disturbance the forest condition is now sub- optimal and there is almost no pristine forest remaining. All that remains in Terantang is a short forest with a canopy at ca. 10 m tall and only a few taller trees, and there are numerous open areas throughout. As a result of the high levels of illegal logging, it is very difficult to encounter animals here, though the target mega-fauna were surprisingly abundant (Section 2.4.4).

Figure 2.16. Recently used illegal logging skid in Terantang.

Based on data collected in the community interviews, reports forwarded from Starling personnel and observations by our team, a similar intensity of logging also occurs in other places along the River Mentaya. Areas close to Sampit and the Mentaya- Katingan canal are worst affected, and analysis by the Starling team indicates that forest cover in the area around the Mentaya-Katingan canal decreased following its construction in 2000. Recently, about 150 terontang (Campnosperma coriaceum) logs of ca. 30 cm were seen near River Hanaut. Small sawmills (possibly 50 cm diameter) can be found on many tributaries of the Mentaya, indicating that logging is

73 widespread. Such sawmills are not on Lantabu (just south of Sampit) or Babira (near Sg. Hantipan), however, where reports indicate that only hand saws and chain saws are used. Community members interviewed indicated that there is a sawmill in Terantang village, and that sawmills used to exist in Hanaut, Hantipan and Lemiring, though these are now inactive.

The threat from illegal logging currently appears less severe on the Katingan side of the proposed concession. Analysis by the Starling team indicates that illegal logging is prevalent along this river in the north of the concession area (presumably related to gold mining activities, see below) and around the Mentaya-Katingan canal, with some clearance around the Galinggang and Muara Bulan villages. At the time of the field surveys, there was no logging activity around Perigi village, only fishing and jelutong (Dyera spp.) collection, and the occasional gemur (Alseodaphne coriacea) collector still entering the forest. Lots of fallen trees were encounted on the River Perigi, suggesting that there is no current logging, because the river would be kept clear if used by loggers.

Although there were no signs of logging when the field survey team were in the area, the area had obviously been logged heavily in the past, and a logging ship was seen near to Perigi during the course of the community interviews. It is unknown where these logs originated from, but it is likely that they came from inside the concession area. Chainsaws were heard to the west of the Perigi campsite, supporting this assertion. A bandsaw/ logging mill also still exists in Perigi, which operates rarely and is apparently only for legal logs with certificates. However, considering that there are no legal logging concessions operating in the area, any logs that pass through this mill must be illegal. This mill was inactive when both the survey and community interview team were in the area. Community interviewees reported that sawmills used to operate in both Telaga and Galinggang, but these are now inactive.

Small-scale illegal logging is also common throughout the proposed concession area, with local communities taking small trees for local housing needs. This includes harvesting of sengon (Paraserianthes falcataria) wood for light construction purposes. While this level of extraction does pose a potential threat to biodiversity in the area, this threat is much less than that posed by large-scale illegal logging, of the type currently seen in Terantang, for example.

Illegal logging poses a threat to faunal biodiversity for any one or more of the following reasons: 1. Logging results in reduced food availability, if food trees are targeted and/or destroyed as collateral damage during logging operations (Rao and van Schaik, 1997; Wich et al., 2004a). Similarly, reduced abundance of feeding trees also results in increased energy expended on travel as animals travel further to obtain food. Both of these effects result in increased energy stress, which can lead to increased mortality. 2. Animals may be scared by the disturbance and move away from areas with active logging, leading to an influx of animals into areas without disturbance. This can lead to overcrowding and animal populations exceeding carrying capacity in these areas, resulting in mortality through either fights or starvation. This effect is often amplified by the ‘refuge’ area being relatively poor in quality compared to the area being logged (hence why the refuge area is not also suffering from logging

74 disturbance). Such an effect is believed to occur in Bornean orang-utans when their habitat is disturbed by illegal logging (Rijksen and Meijaard, 1999) and compression of animals seeking refuge from logging disturbance into sub-optimal areas of forest in the neighbouring Sabangau is believed to have caused a decline in orang-utan density of one-sixth, compared to the density pre-logging (Husson et al., 2009, unpublished data). 3. By opening up areas through constructing canals throughout the forest, species are left at greater risk of hunting (see below). This may be further amplified if there is an influx of people into the area in order to carry out this logging. 4. By removing tall canopy and emergent trees, logging can reduce nesting sites for some species (e.g., hornbills, Myers, 2009), leading to potentially severe population declines if the species is unable to nest elsewhere. It can also alter the canopy structure, resulting in more energy expensive travel, as animals are forced to move around or climb down and then back up in order to navigate around canopy gaps (Rao and van Schaik, 1997). 5. Occasionally, animals may be directly injured or killed during logging operations. Although a relatively low-level threat compared to the above, we witnessed one example of this during our community interviews. A juvenile black hornbill was found kept captive in Hanaut village, which had apparently been rescued by loggers after they cut down a nesting tree (Figure 2.17). The mother was eaten.

Figure 2.17. Juvenile black hornbill kept captive in Hanaut after nesting tree was cut down by loggers.

75 As a result of these threats, orang-utan densities have been reported to decrease by 21- 60% in response to heavy logging disturbance (van Schaik et al., 1995; Rao and van Schaik, 1997; Felton et al., 2003; Morrogh-Bernard et al., 2003; Husson et al., 2009). Similar declines following logging have also been reported for other species found in the concession area (see review in Meijaard et al., 2005). The effects of logging vary between species, with some species more severely affected than others (e.g., Johns, 1992; Lambert, 1992; Johns, 1996; Datta, 1998). Those species most at risk include those with more specialised dietary requirements, such as highly specialised frugivores (Meijaard et al., 2005), those dependent on tall trees in old-growth forest for nesting (e.g., hornbills, Datta, 1998) and those with slow breeding rates.

2.4.6.2 Forest Conversion Areas of forest are being cleared all around the concession area to create space for housing and plantations, in particular rice, rubber, coconut, banana and sago. Rotating rice farming appears to be particularly problematic. This threat was reported by community members in almost all villages surveyed by questionnaire (Hanaut, Hantipan, Lemiring, Terantang and Perigi). This is especially severe along the river banks – large open burnt areas were present along much of the River Terantang just outside of the proposed concession area, for example. The western and southern portions of the concession area are most severely affected, due to their relatively easy access along the River Mentaya and higher human population density.

Gold mining is a very severe threat in the north-west of the proposed concession area, around Telaga and the River/Lake Klaru. Mining in the area is probably carried out illegally, is described as “medium/high intensity” in this area and 8/10 respondents to the community questionnaire in Telaga had participated in mining (7/10 still took part occasionally). Villagers from this area consistently reported mining as being the main reason behind the declines of animal populations around Telaga. Interview respondents consistently indicated lower abundance of key animal species in this area, compared to the other six villages surveyed (silver langurs, colugo, clouded leopard and other cats, sambar deer, Storm’s stork and false gharial were all indicated as being less abundant in this area than the other two Katingan villages surveyed, and no key species was indicated as being more abundant in this area than in the other areas surveyed). Furthermore, gold mining seriously compromises water quality, making the water unusable for cooking and drinking, and threatening the health of local villagers and the future of river fish stocks. In addition to silt pollution of waterways, the gold extraction process also uses a lot of mercury, which causes severe pollution, threatening the health of villagers and the area’s wildlife, especially piscivorous birds (UNEP, 2002; Evers et al., 2005).

Encroaching oil palm is another very severe threat. Reports from Starling personnel indicate that a competing concession application has been submitted for parts of the northern portion of the project area along areas. Community members in both Lemiring and Hantipan also describe oil palm interest in the area, though these communities appeared very ill-informed of the details of these concessions. An oil- palm project was described as wanting to enter the area about 5 km from Lemiring, which can be accessed via the river of this name (one respondent was paid Rp20,000/day to help build the path to this plantation). Considering the dramatic negative effects of oil palm plantations on biodiversity in the region (Fitzherbert et

76 al., 2008; Danielsen et al., 2009) and the abundance of such plantations in the Sampit area, this should also be considered a severe threat to biodiversity in Katingan.

Reports have also been received that coal can be found beneath at least some parts of the River Katingan (D. Kurniawan, pers. comm.). Apparently, a prospector from Jakarta arrived in Galinggang earlier this year and approached the Galinggang Village Head, with a meeting held in Kasongan Hotel. We do not know the results of this meeting, but coal mining should nevertheless be considered a potentially serious threat in the area. The presence of outside interest in both gold and coal in the region makes the project’s socialisation activities particularly important; villagers receiving incomplete information may assume that a large concession in the area is after coal or gold (this appears to be a misconception in Galinggang and some other Katingan villages).

The loss of forest resulting from such forest conversion has led to a reduction in the available habitat area, in addition to opening up the area to hunting and increasing the risk of fire in adjacent areas (see below). All of these repercussions will have negative effects on the area’s biodiversity and HCVs, and these negative effects will be particularly severe around the gold mining activities in the north-east of the area.

2.4.6.3 Charcoal production Interview respondents from Lemiring indicated that charcoal production is a major economic activity in the village. Charcoal is produced locally from kalaban wood and is sold for IDR 2-8,000 / sack to a local buyer, who then sells in Sampit for IDR 15,000 / sack. This middle man reports that he takes about 150 sacks of charcoal to Sampit twice a month, yielding a profit of IDR 1,200,000 / month. Further details on where and how the wood is obtained and processed are not currently available, so it is impossible to assess the impact of this activity on biodiversity in the area. No interview respondents from any other village surveyed through community interviews indicated the presence of a charcoal industry, and we have witnessed no other evidence of this industry around the proposed concession area, so it is likely that this is specific to Lemiring. Further investigations are needed to confirm this suspicion.

2.4.6.4 Peat drainage and fire Due to the soft, wet nature of the peat substrate, road construction to extract timber is impractical in peat-swamp forests. Consequently, illegal loggers resort to taking advantage of the flooded conditions by digging canals into the peat to extract timber to the nearest river, where it can be processed and transported to the point of sale (Page et al., 2002; Harrison et al., 2009). Illegal logging in peat-swamp forest is therefore primarily a wet-season activity, as the canals become too dry to float out wood during the dry season. A huge number of these illegal logging canals join up to the various tributary rivers in Katingan, creating a web of canals throughout the forest.

These canals are a severe threat to the entire forest, as they drain the peat. When dry, the peat is susceptible to degradation and becomes highly vulnerable to fire (Figure 2.18), threatening the integrity of the entire ecosystem (Page et al., 2002; Wösten et al., 2008; Harrison et al., 2009; Page et al., 2009b). Unlike many other fire-prone areas (e.g., Australia), fire is not a natural event in Indonesian PSF. Consequently, the forest flora and fauna are not adapted to cope with fire and, hence, are at great risk

77 when fire does occur. Forest regeneration is next to impossible without intervention in areas suffering from either frequent or intense fire (Page et al., 2009a). The biological effects of fires in complex, highly diverse PSF are many, of which the following are examples: • Peat burning and consequent subsidence – Dry peat smoulders for long periods and burns down to the water table. When this happens, tree roots are exposed and both the peat and forest vegetation become unstable, resulting in peat subsidence, massive tree falls and the consequent loss of large areas of forest (Page et al., 2002). • Effects on flora – PSF trees are not adapted to fire (most have very thin bark), so tree mortality post-fire is high. Although fires are generally low intensity, their slow spread rate means fire is in contact with trees for long periods, heating up the bark. Fire can kill 23-44% of trees > 10 cm DBH (diameter at breast height) and 95% of stems > 1 cm DBH, and alter species composition, with little regeneration even 15 years after burning (Cochrane et al., 1999; Cochrane, 2003). Tree mortality in severely burnt areas is virtually 100%, as most trees fall once the supporting peat is burnt away. • Effects on fauna – Animals dependent on intact PSF will clearly be impacted directly by fire, but other effects are also likely; for example, gibbons (Hylobates albibarbis) sing less frequently in smoky conditions, which could interfere with territorial spacing and, ultimately, reproduction (Cheyne, 2007).

Figure 2.18. Smouldering peat following a fire in the neighbouring Sabangau peat-swamp forest.

One example in Katingan is in the large Galinggang village, where fire has had major impact on the local environment and people (D. Kurniawan, pers. comm.). Peat burning around the village caused the formation of 48 small lakes, and subsequent burning caused some of these to combine, created 23 larger lakes. This apparently creates good fishing grounds, but also high fire and flood risk, leading to mixed feelings in the local community. Long-term fish productivity in these lakes remains to be determined.

78 Consequently, peatland drainage via illegal logging canals is recognised as the number one threat to the survival of both orang-utans (Morrogh-Bernard et al., 2003) and gibbons (Cheyne et al., 2008) in peat-swamp forest. Because peat drainage threatens the entire stability of the forest, this is a severe threat for all the biodiversity and HCVs found in the area. The ubiquitous and serious nature of this threat is is supported by recent analysis of fire prevalence throughout the study area by the Starling team: fire was reported as occurring in 2006 in the north-east of the area, with the threat potentially worsening as a result of the mining in this area; fire occurs frequently in the western portion of the concession area along the River Mentaya, due to high human population densities and the opening up of new areas of agricultural land; and fire has also occurred along the Mentaya-Katingan canal in the south-east, though it is rare in other parts of this area.

2.4.6.5 Hunting Wildlife hunting is a traditional activity in Dayak communities and occurs throughout the concession area, although the intensity is not consistent throughout. Many local people still hunt in the forest using snare traps and occasionally with dogs. Deer, and to a lesser extent pigs, are frequent hunting targets for Dayaks throughout Kalimantan and are hunted occasionally throughout most of the proposed concession area. On average, a hunter can expect to catch about two deer a month and to obtain about IDR 40,000/kg or Rp250,000/animal when sold locally for consumption or the pet trade. Some smaller individuals are also kept as pets in local villages, which will likely be eaten when they reach full size (Figure 2.19). Pig and deer hunting was described as “medium intensity” in the all the villages surveyed via questionnaire, with the exception of Terantang. Here hunting intensity was low, presumably because of low animal densities, due to animals moving away from the high levels of logging disturbance. Pig hunting was frequently described as being conducted by outsiders, as the majority of people in these communities are Muslim, although in Hanaut and Lemiring at least this view was not justified, as some interview respondents indicated that they occasionally hunt pigs (with the exception of one, these respondents were all Muslim).

Figure 2.19. Juvenile samber deer in Perigi village. This deer was not tethered and was free to roam around the village. It will likely be eaten when it reaches full size.

79 Orang-utans and other primates are not hunted in most areas. Some hunters also come in from other areas (Banjarmasin or people coming in from big ships from Java), however, and, unlike local hunters, these hunters will target proboscis monkeys and orang-utan. We were informed that, in Petak Bahandang (near Galinggang), people like to hunt and eat all species, including orang-utan, sun bear, snakes and proboscis monkeys. Although hunting of thes species does not appear to be prevalent throughout the concession area, it’s presence in one area can still be highly damaging. Due to their slow breeding rates, sharp declines in orang-utan populations can result from even low-intensity hunting (Marshall et al., 2006, 2009) and so this could be a serious threat to the area’s orang-utan population. We heard of one report that, about ten years ago, an orang-utan that had come into the village/farmland by Pipisan near Sampit was killed by the villagers, who were scared it would threaten them or destroy their crops. Whether such incidents occur commonly or only very rarely is unknown, but increasing human pressure on the forest as human populations and agriculture expands, and the area of orang-utan habitat declines, will lead to increased likelihood of such events occurring.

As in other areas of Kalimantan (Meijaard and Nijman, 2000b), proboscis monkeys in Katingan are also threatened by hunting. Proboscis monkeys are shot with guns at the side of the river and are now scared of people, with the result that we could not get close to the groups to count the number of individuals present. The intensity, frequency and distribution of this hunting throughout the concession area are not currently known.

Other animals are also targeted and are likely to suffer as a result of hunting. For example, in Perigi, we were shown a captive baby sambar deer, blue-crowned hanging parrots, reticulated pythons and even a lesser adjutant stork (Figure 2.20) by the local villagers, indicating that a very wide range of species are potentially at risk. Sun bears may also be taken for food, but not for the Chinese medicinal trade. Throughout the concession area, some bird species are hunted for pets (particularly shamas and leaf birds). Five years or more ago there was some collection of snake and lizard skins, as well as turtle shells. The collectors of these products no longer come around. One species of fish (probably Oxyeleotris marmorata) is kept when encountered, as it is worth IDR 70,000/kg (live) in the Chinese medicine trade.

Pteropus fruit bats have been reported to be heavily hunted in the neighbouring Sabangau forest (Struebig et al., 2007) and are also known to be hunted in a number of other areas in Kalimantan (Harrison et al., unpublished data). This does not appear to be a threat in Katingan, however: no community member questioned indicated hunting of this species and no evidence of the distinctive hunting clearings of the type used by hunters in Sabangau was seen by the survey team. As in Sabangau (Harrison et al., unpublished data), turtles are hunted opportunistically when captured as by- catch while fishing. This appears to reach its highest intensity in Galinggang and Telaga.

In Sabangau, members of the OuTrop research team have received reports of apparent hunting of Storm’s storks for their eggs (Cheyne, unpublished data), which, if present in Katingan, could be a severe threat to what is likely to be a globally significant population of this endangered species. One villager in Perigi has established a swiftlet ‘house’, from which the highly-valued nests are harvested. These nests can apparently

80 fetch IDR 13,000,000 / kg, and nests can be harvested once every couple of weeks. This activity does not pose a threat to the area’s biodiversity and HCVs and, in fact, can even be considered a biodiversity benefit.

Figure 2.20. Lesser adjutant stork kept captive in Telaga. A second individual was also seen in another house in this village.

2.4.6.6 Fishing Fishing forms a major economic activity in most villages surrounding the project area and is particularly important on the River Katingan, presumably because alternative livelihood options based on harvesting of forest resources were diminished with the proclamation of the Sebangau National Park (75-90% of villagers in the Katingan villages surveyed were reported to be fishermen in our interviews). Any disturbance that disrupts fishing activities will therefore have a large impact on these communities. Fishing takes place mostly in the dry season, when fish are more concentrated in the lower water, but people still fish during the wet season for food. The market in Sampit contains mostly marine fish and many fish caught in villages are consumed locally. During the dry season when captures are higher, more fish from Katingan are transported to Sampit for sale in markets. People come from elsewhere during the dry season and occasionally fish with electricity, taking huge numbers of fish. This method is incredibly damaging to fish populations, as it kills all fish in an area indiscriminately, including non-target fish and juveniles. Villagers generally fish traditionally with nets, traps, and hook and line, and these methods have less impact on fish populations.

81 2.4.6.7 Harvesting of non-timber forest products Collection of jelutong (Dyera spp.) sap from forest trees is common in communities bordering the Katingan forest. This activity does not harm the trees or wildlife and can potentially form part of an economy based on sustainable forest use, provided that canals are not built and/or dams destroyed to extract the product from the forest. The sap is used to make gum and the wood is good for use in construction. Demand for these products is currently high, leading to continued exploitation of these products by local communities.

Rubber (Hevea braziliensis) plantations also exist in some places, particularly along both the River Mentaya (including Hanaut, Lemiring and Terantang), though some of these are not yet old enough to have yielded results. This rubber can also fetch high prices. Assuming that these plantations do not encroach further upon the forest and that appropriate care is taken to prevent fire in these plantations, they do not pose any immediate threat to the forest’s biodiversity and HCVs. Unfortunately, based on our interview results, it appears that forest is currently being cleared for plantations in these areas.

Rattan (primarily Calamus and Daemonorops spp.) harvesting occurs in many areas of Katingan and, again, this does not pose a direct threat to biodiversity in the region, provided that the above conditions are met. All seven villages surveyed through community interviews harvest rattan, where it is side work for fishermen, who use it to make fishing traps. It is collected in the wild and grown in gardens along the Mentaya. Projects are also underway to promote the local rattan industry as a sustainable and environmentally-friendly local economy in Galinggang, Muara Bulan and Baun Bango villages along the River Katingan, with the aim of producing high- quality product suitable for export (D. Kurniawan, pers. comm.). Such plantations now exist along 90 km on the banks of the Rivers Katingan and Musang. In some villages, e.g., Terentang Hilir, rattan harvesting has now become one of the primary income sources. Harvesting cannot take place in flooded conditions. Rattan is planted by digging up a small plant with the roots and transplanting it. After that the plant will send up new shoots continuously. It is harvested once it is 5-7 m long, which takes about a year of growth. Rattan is grown along side fruit trees, forest, or in monoculture and sold in 100-kg blocks (kuintal) worth ca. IDR 500,000 dry or IDR 220,000 wet. To process, a day to clean is needed, followed by 4 to 5 days without rain to dry. It is sold to collectors in Sampit or south Borneo, from where it is it exported to China, Korea, Vietnam or elsewhere to be manufactured into furniture or other products. The price is less on Katingan than Mentaya, probably because the buyers come from Sampit and must pay higher transport costs to get to Katingan.

Fruit is rarely collected, as there is little quality fruit native to the forest. There is little or no orchid collection. Medicinal plants are collected for local use only and are not sold. The bark of gemur (Alseodahpne coriacea), which is used in the production of mosquito coils or cosmetics, is collected and sold in many areas along both the Mentaya and Katingan rivers. Although previously common, this activity is now becoming rare, as the species approaches local extinction due to over harvesting. This tree species has not been recorded as food for either orang-utans or gibbons – presumably the insecticidal properties of the tree discourage herbivory – but the knock-on effects of removal of this tree from the ecosystem are unknown.

82 According to reports from the Starling team, the resin of certain dipterocarp trees is collected in at least one village bordering the proposed concession area (Mentaya Seberang, just across the River Mentaya from Sampit). As for jelutong collection, this is unlikely to be a detrimental activity for the area’s biodiversity, provided the trees are not harmed and no other potentially harmful activities accompany the resin collection. Harvesting of Apis dorsata bee honey is also reported as an alternative income source for some villagers, especially in Terantang and Telaga. This should not have any negative impact on biodiversity in the area, providing all the honey is not taken from wide areas of forest.

2.4.6.8 Climate change If it leads to changes in rainfall regimes, in particular increased frequency and/or intensity of drought, climate change could potentially threaten the Katingan peat swamp and its associated biodiversity and HCVs. In particular, the frequency of El Niño events is thought to have increased since the mid-1970’s, due to global warming (Trenberth and Hoar, 1997). El Niño events are typically associated with drought conditions in Indonesia and, consequently, fire in peat swamps (Page et al., 2002; Wosten et al., 2008; Harrison et al., 2009) Thus, potential increased incidence of El Niño events due to climate change could impact the frequency and severity of fire, which would have negative impacts on biodiversity and HCVs in the region. While this threat should not be ignored, it is however largely beyond the project’s control and is of lower immediate concern than the threats posed by peat drainage, fire, illegal logging and hunting.

2.5 Importance of Katingan Peat Swamp for Biodiversity Conservation

Our surveys reveal that a wealth of biodiversity inhabits the Katingan peat swamps. A total of 387 species of vertebrate inhabit the region and, due to the large size of the proposed concession area (227,260 ha), it will be a critical stronghold for many of the species found here. In addition, upwards of 250 species of flora also inhabit these swamps. In addition to being home to a wide number of species, it is also clear that the Katingan swamps are home to important populations of globally threatened species, including one species classified by the IUCN as Critically Endangered (the white-shouldered ibis), ten species classified as Endangered, 22 classified as Vulnerable and 62 species legally protected in Indonesia.

The Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) criteria consider both an area’s vulnerability and its irreplaceability (Langhammer et al., 2007). The vulnerability criterion specifies that an area must have at least one individual of a Critically Endangered or Endangered species, or a population of 30 individuals or 10 pairs of a Vulnerable species. Katingan is home to the Critically Endangered white-shouldered ibis; to globally significant populations of the Endangered Bornean orang-utan, Bornean southern gibbon and proboscis monkey; and is also home to the Endangered Sunda pangolin, flat-headed cat, Storm’s stork, Bornean river turtle, spiny turtle and false gharial. Populations of most of the Vulnerable species present in the area will also exceed 30 individuals or 10 pairs. Thus, the proposed concession area clearly satisfies this criterion on a number of counts. In particular, our surveys demonstrate that the area is home to viable populations of the Bornean orang-utan, southern gibbon and proboscis monkey.

83 The irreplaceability criterion is comprised of a number of sub-criteria, as follows: f. Restricted range (global range < 50,000 km2 or 5% of global population at the site); g. Species with large but clumped distributions (5% of global population at the site); h. Globally significant congregations (1% of population seasonally at the site); i. Globally significant source populations (site is responsible for maintaining 1% of global population); j. Bio-regionally restricted assemblages.

The total Bornean orang-utan population has recently been estimated at 54,000 animals (Wich et al., 2008). Estimating total population size in the proposed concession area is difficult, as survey evidence indicates potentially very large short- term shifts in population distribution in response to logging disturbance, which is unevenly distributed throughout the area and varies in intensity. The preliminary nature of estimates of habitat sub-type coverage (low pole – poor orang-utan habitat – vs. non-low pole) further complicates such estimates. Nevertheless, based on the currently available data, our preliminary estimate of 3,619 individuals should roughly approximate the true population size. Using this preliminary figure as a basis, the orang-utan population in Katingan represents 6.7% of the remaining population of the Bornean orang-utan, indicating that Katingan is of major importance for the conservation of this species. If the upper-bound estimate of 5,883 orang-utans is found to be true (we do not recommend use of this figure at present), this would represent 11% of the estimated 54,000 orang-utans in Borneo.

Although the sample size was limited and more detailed information on the total area of the proposed concession covered by the different habitat sub-types is required for accurate estimation of gibbon density, our analysis indicates a total gibbon population size in the project area of 9,786 individuals. Based on current knowledge, this represents over 5% of the total global population of this endangered species.

Considering their ubiquitous distribution throughout the area and its large size, it is also very likely that the total proboscis monkey population in the proposed concession area exceeds 5% of the global populations of this species. The same is likely to apply to the other endangered species found in the area, such as white-shouldered ibis, Storm’s stork and lesser adjutant stork. Thus, based on this analysis, it is clear that the proposed concession area qualifies as a Key Biodiversity Area (Langhammer et al., 2007) on the basis of its orang-utan, gibbon, proboscis monkey and probably numerous other species’ populations, and satisfies the conditions laid out in the CCB standards for Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits.

84 3. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATING NEGATIVE IMPACTS

3.1 Section Summary

In order to halt and reverse biodiversity and HCV loss in the region, it is necessary to identify the drivers and agents behind the threats faced in an area (SCBD, 2010). Currently, fishing, agriculture, rattan harvesting, sap collecting (jelutong and rubber) and illegal logging are the main options for income for people in villages surrounding the Katingan forest, and local people are generally poor. Consequently, local people are likely to consider any potential income-generating opportunities available, which can put great pressure on their only abundant natural resource: the forest.

Information from community interviews, the experiences of the field survey team, previous Starling reports and relevant literature indicates fourteen active drivers of biodiversity loss in Katingan and six agents of biodiversity loss. These drivers are: conversion for crops, conversion for non-crop plantations, conversion for settlements, illegal logging for local needs, illegal logging for commercial sale, use of fire to clear land, use of fire in local disputes, accidental fires, peat drainage, gold mining, harvesting non-timber forest products, clearance for transport infrastructure, hunting and charcoal production. The agents behind these drivers are private companies, local communities, hunters, soldiers/the police and government. Ultimately, the need for food and money to supply local peoples’ needs, and the quest for profit among large and small companies, and individuals, are the main factors behind all of these drivers and motivating the agents.

In the absence of the project, the most likely land-use scenario is that illegal logging, hunting, peat degradation and other harmful activities will continue, and risk of fire, encroachment from gold mines and oil palm will increase. This will lead to severe negative impacts on the area’s biodiversity and declines in the population size of the area’s three primate HCVs – orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys – in addition to other threatened species, such as Storm’s stork and lesser adjutant stork. Of the ten proposed project activities, six will be of benefit to overall biodiversity in the area and orang-utans, and five will be of benefit to gibbons and proboscis monkeys; three will be neutral for overall biodiversity and orang-utans, and four for proboscis monkeys and gibbons; one will have a neutral or positive impact, depending on the details of the activity and the HCV species in question; and none will have a negative impact on overall biodiversity or the primate HCVs. Without the project, these activities would not occur and, thus, we offer our full recommendation towards the proposed project activities.

None of the biodiversity HCVs identified are of direct importance to local communities’ wellbeing, though they do provide indirect benefits, due to their role in maintaining overall good forest condition, from which local communities benefit. Examples of this are dispersal of forest seeds by orang-utans and gibbons, and potential eco-tourism, particularly of proboscis monkeys. No species planned for use in project activities are invasive and all are native, though care must be taken over the selection of Melaleuca sp., as some introduced species have become invasive in some parts of the world. None of the identified biodiversity benefits are at immediate potential risk from climate change.

85 In response to our findings on the biodiversity and HCVs in the area, and the threats they face, we recommend fourteen biodiversity objectives be adopted by the project proponents. These include immediate research objectives to gain additional necessary information on threats in the area, habitat types, HCV populations and forest flora; measures to mitigate threats to HCVs; measures to maintain/enhance biodiversity and HCVs beyond the project timeframe; and biodiversity monitoring and HCV-specific objectives (including achieving specified increases in orang-utan, gibbon and proboscis monkey populations within certain time periods). A budget necessary to achieve these objectives is provided.

3.2 Drivers of Biodiversity Loss

In order to halt and reverse biodiversity and HCV loss in the region, it is necessary to identify the drivers and agents behind the threats identified in Section 2.4.6; threat abatement is impossible without addressing the reasons behind their occurrence. Currently, fishing, agriculture, rattan harvesting, sap collecting (jelutong and rubber) and illegal logging are the main options for income for people in villages surrounding the Katingan forest and local people are generally poor. Consequently, local people are likely to consider any potential income-generating opportunities available, which can put great pressure on their only abundant natural resource: the forest.

Although illegal logging is still important in some areas, this represents a shift from a previous regional economy based on timber from logging concessions and illegal logging. This shift started to occur in 2001, with the issuance of a moratorium on logging in Indonesia, which was further strengthened by the Presidential Instruction (no. 4, 2005) “Concerning the Eradication of Illegal Logging within Forest Areas and its Distribution throughout Indonesia”. This resulted in decreased timber prices and a consequent change from a timber-driven regional economy to one driven by farming (particularly of rice), fishing and exploitation of non-timber forest products. Declining economic opportunities also led to an emmigration of people from the proposed concession area to search for employment in oil-palm plantations, gold-mining concessions and other industries.

Information from community interviews, the experiences of the field survey team, previous Starling reports and relevant literature indicates fourteen active drivers of biodiversity loss in Katingan and six agents of biodiversity loss (Table 3.1). Note that this is not an exhaustive list of the drivers of biodiversity loss in Kalimantan, or indeed in the proposed concession area. The identified drivers are, however, the most important, currently-active drivers in the proposed concession area. Previous drivers of biodiversity loss in the area, such as concession logging, are excluded from the current analysis. These drivers can be re-included in the list if they re-emerge and, similarly, new drivers can also be added upon emergence to update this list. Coal mining has not been included as a potential driver, as it is uncertain whether or not this is a potential threat, and we are not aware of any operations currently in place or planned for the near future. This analysis will likely mirror closely that for forest and carbon loss, as these are closely inter-related.

86 Table 3.1. Drivers and agents of biodiversity loss in Katingan.

Agent of deforestation

Active drivers of biodiversity loss Private companies Local communities Hunters Soldiers / police Government 1. Conversion for crops ● ● 2. Conversion for non-crop plantations ● ● 3. Conversion for settlements ● ● 4. Illegal logging for local needs ● ● 5. Illegal logging for commercial sale ● ● 6. Use of fire to clear land ● ● 7. Use of fire in local disputes ● 8. Accidental fires ● ● ● 9. Peat drainage ● ● ● ● 10. Gold mining ● 11. Harvesting NTFPs ● 12. Clearance for transport infrastructure ● ● 13. Hunting ● 14. Charcoal production ● ● NTFP = non-timber forest product.

3.2.1 Conversion for crops Following the cessation in logging concessions and reduction in illegal logging in the project area in the early half of this decade, and the subsequent shift away from a timber-based local economy, the potential of local communities to earn large amounts of money from exploiting the forest reduced. This would have resulted in local community members having less disposable income with which to buy imported food. As a result, and due to the lack of other potential options for generating income quickly, local residents began to grow more of their own food – most of the rice and other crops produced in the area are for local consumption. In addition to rice and vegetables, coconuts, bananas and sago are also grown in villages surrounding the concession area, some of which is for commercial sale. This has resulted in increased conversion of forest into agricultural land.

Most of these current/planned crop conversions are outside of the proposed concession area and in areas of forest that are already highly disturbed, due to their close proximity to villages. Despite this, it is still necessary to consider these driver of biodiversity loss when devising management strategies for the area, as the success/failure of such activities in communities outside the project area may impact the activities of local communities inside the project area, which will have an impact on biodiversity. Furthermore, such activities outside the concession area may impact on the probability and potential severity of fire inside the proposed concession area.

The major threat to biodiversity from this driver is conversion into commercial oil- palm plantations. This is a potentially serious threat, especially on the Mentaya side of the concession area, which is driven by big national/international industry. Globally, oil palm production is increasing by 9% each year and 43% of the global oil-palm crop is produced in Indonesia (FAO, 2007; Fitzherbert et al., 2008). This industry is

87 therefore driven by strong international forces and, while the current high levels of international demand for the product persist, remaining forested areas will continue to come under threat from development into oil-palm concessions. Reports from the Starling team indicate a competing concession application for parts of the northern portion of the project area, and villagers in both Hantipan and Lemiring indicate active interest of oil-palm companies nearby. This is potentially therefore a very potent driver of biodiversity loss in Katingan.

3.2.2 Conversion for non-food crop plantations Reductions in the area’s timber industry also created increased incentive for local communities to establish plantations yielding non-food crops of commercial value. The two main non-crop agricultural industries around the proposed concession area are rubber and rattan. The current high prices of these commodities (particularly if export-quality products can be produced) and lack of alternative sources of higher income in the area means that there is currently high interest in rattan in local communities. Rattan is typically harvested from the forest as side work for fishermen to build fishing traps, but plantations are currently being developed (and old, over- grown plantations re-erected) in Galinggang, Muara Bulan and Baun Bango along the River Katingan, and developments are planned for further villages along both this river and the Mentaya. Rubber plantations appear to exist only along the River Mentaya, and were indicated as present in each of the four villages surveyed through community interviews along this river. As above, most of these activities occur outside the proposed concession area, but they are likely to have indirect impact on biodiversity inside the concession area.

3.2.3 Conversion for settlements Based on the information presently available, it would appear that the human population of many villages around the concession area has fallen (or at least not increased) in recent years. This is due mainly to emigration, resulting from the reduction in employment opportunities through the timber sector. Thus, there is unlikely to be high pressure on forest for settlement conversion in most villages in the area.

3.2.4 Illegal logging for local needs Regardless of the presence of commercial illegal logging in an area, local people still require wood for housing and other local construction needs (e.g., walkways, other builidings, etc.). Brick housing is prohibitively expensive and impractical in areas that experience frequent flooding and where houses need to be built on stilts. Thus, almost all houses and other basic infrastructure in villages surrounding the concession area are built of wood. As the forest has been largely cleared and is heavily degraded in between most villages and the proposed concession area, much of the wood taken for housing and local infrastructure will be sourced from inside the project area. Consequently, illegal logging for housing needs is a driver of biodiversity loss in the region.

3.2.5 Illegal logging for commercial sale This is still one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss in Katingan, although it is less ubiquitous and possibly occurs at a lower intensity than in previous years. Commercial illegal logging appears much more prevalent along the River Mentaya. This is likely due to a combination of factors: (a) the continued persistence of at least

88 some trees of commercial value in the area; (b) proximity and ease of access to markets in Sampit from the River Mentaya; and (c) lower levels of law enforcement compared to the River Katingan. The River Katingan also borders the Sebangau National Park and is therefore subject to tighter policing against illegal logging. Combined, these factors lead to lower levels of illegal logging in Katingan.

Commercial illegal logging is obviously driven by profit and, consequently, there must still be money to be made by both the logging companies and local people through illegal logging in the project area. It is typical of illegal logging operations that the large majority of the profits gained go into the hands of a few very wealthy outsiders, and that very little money filters through into the local communities. It is also likely that the police and/or army are involved in these activities. Illegal loggers are also likely to benefit from the often confusing information and lack of transparency regarding land titles and tenure rights in the region. Although much land ownership is decreed through land ownership letters (SKT) or certificates from the Village Head, land ownership in Kalimantan villages is often determined through verbal acknowledgement and mutual agreement, with no traditional institutions having regulations governing the use of mutually-held land. This enables illegal loggers to take advantage of unclear land ownership and use status.

3.2.6 Use of fire to clear land Fire is frequently used in both commercial plantations and by local communities to clear areas of land for agriculture and other purposes (e.g., (Harrison et al., 2009). Clearing of land by fire is illegal in Indonesia, but insufficient resources, lack of motivation and corruption within law-enforcement agencies result in hardly any successful prosecutions. Fire is also the cheapest, easiest and fastest method for clearing land and there is no monetary incentive to use alternative methods, ensuring continued desire to flout laws. Use of fire for land clearance is clearly most likely to pose a threat for biodiversity in those areas where forest conversion also poses a threat. In addition, because fire can spread and become uncontrollable, biodiversity in areas close by, but not adjactent to, areas being cleared may also be threatened by the use of fire to clear land.

3.2.7 Use of fire in local disputes Uncertain land tenure and access rights and consequent conflicts can contribute to increased fire prevalence, as smallholders become frustrated at being unable to have their claims heard in a fair and transparent judicial system and resort to the use of fire as a weapon to reclaim land for agriculture (Harrison et al., 2009). Local people have no incentive to fight fires on land for which they are not directly responsible and, as a result, small fires spread, becoming uncontrollable and highly damaging. Although we have not observed or received reports of fire being used as a weapon in conflicts around the proposed concession area, we would urge use of the precautionary principal here. Thus, we consider the use of fire in local disputes to be a potential driver of biodiversity loss in Katingan.

3.2.8 Accidental fires These are often started by discarded cigarettes or unprotected cooking fires following increased human access into peatland areas along newly constructed logging tracks and canals. A stark example of this is the loss due to fire of 137 km2 of prime orang- utan habitat from the middle of the Sabangau peat dome in 2007 (Husson et al.,

89 unpublished data). This fire was presumably started accidentally by illegal loggers. Despite this, relatively few fires are started accidentally and this is therefore considered to be a less important driver of biodiversity loss than forest loss through the use of fire in land clearance and disputes.

3.2.9 Peat drainage The peat throughout the proposed concession area is threatened with drainage. Illegal logging canals (either operational or discarded) criss-cross large areas of the proposed concession (over 49,000 ha, according to Starling’s analysis). Many canals may be too small to be visible from satellite images, however, and the peat in those areas without canals is still likely to be suffering from drainage, as a result of a lowering of the overall water level in the catchment during periods of drought. Peat drainage drives biodiversity loss both directly (through effects on aquatic and semi-aquatic animals, and the animals that feed on these; increased rate of tree falls; potential peat collapse; potential effects on peat micro-organisms, which have an important and poorly-known role in maintaining the forest ecosystem; and potential influences on forest flora, which will have knock-on effects on fauna) and indirectly (through increased fire susceptibility and peat oxidation). Peat drainage is a negative side-effect of other activities, such as illegal logging, extraction of other forest resources and improving transport infrastructure (see above and below). As such, mitigation of the effects of peat drainage depends, in part, on reducing the level of these other drivers of biodiversity loss.

3.2.10 Gold mining Gold mining is an important driver behind biodiversity loss in the north of the project area, around Telaga and Klaru. This is evidently one of the major economic activities in this area: 7/10 community interview respondents said that they mined occasionally and one that he had done previously; only two said they had never worked in mining. Although the work is very hot and physically demanding and the pay for manual workers poor considering the amount of work involved, gold mining nevertheless offers villagers the opportunity of obtaining money quickly and with relatively low risk/prior investment.

3.2.11 Harvesting non-timber forest products The only potential cause of biodiversity loss resulting from this driver is collection of gemur bark, which is used in the production of mosquito coils and cosmetics. This practice has also been reported from both the Sabangau and Tuanan peat-swamp forests in Central Kalimantan (Harrison et al., 2010). As in these other sites, this has led to the near local extinction of this species in Katingan. The widespread and continued nature of this activity, despite the difficulty in acquiring the resource, indicates that there are potentially large economic benefits to gemur exploitation. Unless a change in the market occurs, these benefits are likely to persist as the species becomes rarer and collectors can therefore command higher prices for the product.

3.2.12 Clearance for transport infrastructure As villages surrounding the proposed concession area develop, the need for improvements in transport infrastructure will increase. This is beneficial for local communities, but is an important driver of biodiversity loss. Firstly, the majority of fires in peat-swamp forest occur near human settlements and roads/rivers (Stolle et al., 2003; Stolle and Lambin, 2003). Development of new transport infrastructure is

90 therefore likely to result in increased fire incidence. This is evidenced in Katingan: fire frequency and severity in the southern portion of the propose concession area increased after the creation of the Mentaya-Katingan canal in 2000. Secondly, improved transport infrastructure reduces the difficulty and cost of access to the forest for hunters, etc. We are not aware of any current plans to build an access road to River Katingan villages, but it is likely that any such development would become a major driver of biodiversity loss (or at least facilitator for other drivers).

3.2.13 Hunting Most of the hunting in the proposed concession area is for local food consumption, either by the hunter and family or, more commonly, through onwards sale to other villagers. Much hunting is blamed on outsiders, but it is clear that local residents also hunt extensively for subsistence and occasionally commercial purposes. Deer and pigs are the main targets, though many other species are also eaten. Hunting for subsistence purposes is a traditional activity for Dayaks and many other ethnic groups in Indonesia, and is likely to continue as long as animal prey remains abundant, or hunting regulations are put in place and enforced. Hunting of certain wildlife species may not necessarily be incompatible with biodiversity conservation, however, provided catches are within sustainable levels and critical life stages are not harvested (e.g., pregnant females). In Petak Bahandang (near Galinggang), reports indicate that people like to hunt and eat all species, including orang-utan, sun bear, snakes and proboscis monkeys. This consumption of endangered primates appears not to be widespread throughout the villages surrounding the concession area, but will be a major driver of biodiversity and HCV loss in this area. Large-scale commercial hunting of animals for food does not appear prevalent around the concession area, presumably because of relatively difficult market access from most villages. Animals (particularly pigs) may also be killed occasionally if threatening crops.

Hunting for trade is also a significant driver of biodiversity loss. Asides from food trade, this comes under two categories – pet/ornamental and medicinal – both of which are driven in turn by financial gain. Fortunately, sun bears in the area appear not to be hunted for the Chinese medical trade, though one species of fish (probably Oxyeleotris marmorata) is traded on this market and can be sold for IDR 70,000/kg (live). Hunting for the pet/ornamental trade appears widespread throughout the concession area. Some birds (particularly shamas, leaf birds and parrots) are hunted for pets and snakes, lizards and turtles have been targeted previously, and may be targeted again in future if markets re-emerge. Hunters from outside the area are reported to target both proboscis monkeys and orang-utan, which would be a major driver behind declines in these HCV species. Hunting of Storm’s stork eggs has also been reported in Sabangau and, if present in Katingan, would be a major driver behind declines in this HCV species. As above, both of these categories of hunting are likely to continue as long as animal prey remains abundant, or hunting regulations are put in place and enforced.

3.2.14 Charcoal production The charcoal industry in Lemiring (and possibly other areas) is likely to be a driver of biodiversity loss, if wood is felled and taken from the forest. Production is for sale in nearby Sampit and the industry appears to be an important part of the Lemiring economy. Current information is insufficient to assess the influence of this driver on biodiversity, but charcoal production appears to be limited to a small area. It is likely

91 that this will be a low-level driver of biodiversity loss across the entire proposed concession area, but a potentially high-level driver in those areas where it occurs.

3.3 Impact of Project Activities on Biodiversity and HCVs

In the absence of the project, the most likely land-use scenario is that current levels of unsustainable forest-resource exploitation will continue. Illegal logging, hunting, peat degradation and other harmful activities will continue, risk of fire in the area will increase, and the area will face increased risk from encroachment of gold mines and oil-palm plantations. This will lead to severe negative impacts on forest cover and condition, the area’s biodiversity and threaten the survival of HCV species in the area. Specifically, this will lead to declines in the population size of the three primate HCVs – orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys – in addition to other potential HCV species in the area, such as the white-shouldered ibis and Storm’s stork.

According to the Technical Proposal provided by Starling, the project activities listed in Table 3.2 will be undertaken in the proposed concession area. In Table 3.2 we also provide a summary of the impacts of these activities on biodiversity and the area’s HCVs. Of the ten proposed activities, seven have a direct positive impact on forest cover and condition, overall biodiversity, orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys; three will be neutral for forest cover and condition, and overall biodiversity, and two for orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys and gibbons; one will have a neutral or positive impact for the primate HCVs, depending on the details of the activity; and none will have a negative impact on any aspect of biodiversity. Those project activities identified as having a neutral direct impact generally have an indirect positive impact (e.g., ecological monitoring, which has no direct impact, but will enable more efficient targeting of resources and rapid responses). The overall impacts of the project activities on forest cover and condition, overall biodiversity and the area’s HCV primate species are therefore overwhelmingly positive and, based on the precautionary principal, there is no reason to delay the onset of any of these activities.

Without the project, these activities would not occur, due to lack of financial capacity, expertise, technological capacity, relevant institutions willing to undertake the work and high levels of motivation to implement and persevere with the activities. Furthermore, these impacts should continue for the 30-year lifespan of the project and the remaining 30 post-project years of the 60-year concession. Thus, we offer our full recommendation towards the proposed project activities.

Although the majority of proboscis monkeys occur in the Katingan and Mentaya rivers outside of the project area, the project will have a positive impact on this species, as (i) some animals are found within the project area, and (ii) the project’s socialisation, development, fire prevention, illegal logging prevention and forest encroachment protection activities in the villages surrounding the project area will impact local livelihood choices, economic activities and perception of wildlife in the area. This will lead to positive impacts on those groups both inside and outside of the proposed concession area.

92 Table 3.2. Impact of project activities on biodiversity and HCVs. Arrows indicate whether the proposed project activity will hav a positive, negative or neutral impact on overall biodiversity and the primate HCVs.

Impact on… Forest cover and Overall Orang- Proboscis Project activity biomass biodiversity utans Gibbons monkeys Comments Hydrological stabalisation through dam ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Crucial for maintaining forest integrity and, hence, for the construction conservation of all biodiversity and HCVs.

Enrichment planting in disturbed areas ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Species to be used (Alseodaphne cariacea, Shorea sp., Gonystylus bancanus and Calamus/Daemonorops spp.) are not important primate foods, though the fruit of the latter have been observed to be eaten by Sabangau orang-utans. More importantly, recovery of disturbed areas will attract primates and other seed dispersers into the area and, given time, seed dispersal by these species in degraded areas will result in increased floral species diversity, which will benefit fauna.

Replanting in non-forest areas ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Some species to be used (Dyera sp., Alstonia sp., Gluta renghas and Campnosperma auriculata) are known to be orang-utan foods; D. lowii/polyphylla and C. coriaceum are important orang-utan and gibbon food species in Sabangau. Most non-forest areas are close to the rivers and so replanting in these areas will increase proboscis monkey habitat. As above, this will also lead to increased seed dispersal and floral biodiversity, which will benefit fauna.

Forest protection – illegal logging and ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Particular focus in north around gold mining areas. This is encroachment prevention important for allowing HCV populations to recover in this and other parts of the proposed concession area.

93 Impact on… Forest cover and Overall Orang- Proboscis Project activity biomass biodiversity utans Gibbons monkeys Comments Monitoring of permanent sample plots for ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ No direct impact on biodiversity or HCVs, but important in flora, fauna, water level, peat depth, etc. determining the impact of other project activities on these, and will have indirect positive impacts through enabling efficient targeting of resources and rapid responses. Enhance the role of sustainable non- ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Positive impacts on forest flora and fauna, as sustainable timber forest resources in the local harvesting replaces unsustainable illegal logging, hunting and economy other activites that have a negative impact on biodiversity. Positive impact on orang-utans and gibbons if increasing Dyera abundance in the area, as both species are known to feed from this tree in peat-swamp forest.

Develop a comprehensive management plan for selected animal species, including: Habitat surveys to identify which ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ No direct impact, but important for identifying and managing areas are used by selected core areas of habitat, and for computing accurate HCV species population estimates. Will therefore have indirect positive impact.

Managing core areas of habitat ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Orang-utan and gibbon core habitat areas almost certain to overlap; proboscis monkey core habitat areas almost certain to overlap with those of many riverine species. Thus, non-target biodiversity will also benefit from such management.

Animal habitat development ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Benfits through improving the size of core habitat areas. As (striving to develop core habitat this will improve overall forest condition, this will also have areas) positive impacts on other non-target biodiversity.

94 Impact on… Forest cover and Overall Orang- Proboscis Project activity biomass biodiversity utans Gibbons monkeys Comments Animal population development ↔ ↔ ↔ / ↑ ↔ / ↑ ↔ / ↑ Of use in understanding population dynamics of HCV species. through assessing age-sex ratios Recolonisation/reintroduction activities not suitable for and possible recolonisation in primate HCVs, due to the already large populations in the core habitat areas area, but may be suitable for some other HCV species (e.g., white-shouldered ibis).

95 3.4 Recommended Biodiversity Objectives

Ultimately, of course, it is desirable to increase the populations of all the species of flora and fauna in the area. This is neither possible nor practically measurable, however – some species will be more abundant in disturbed/non-forest areas, and it is practically impossible to assess changes in population size for all species found in the area. Thus, a more realistic and achievable set of biodiversity objectives is required. In developing these objectives, we focus on the HCV species identified above (in particular orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys), but note that achieving these objectives for HCVs will result in positive impacts on most of the other species of fauna and flora found in the area.

3.4.1 Immediate Research Objectives

1. Obtain more complete information on the geographic extent and geographical variations in intensity of the various threats identified in Section 2.4.6. 2. Obtain more accurate spatial data on the distribution of habitat sub-types in the area and the total area covered by these habitat types. From a biodiversity perspective, we question the utility of the primary/disturbed/non-forest distinction used to date, based on our observations in Terantang (classified as primary, but in fact suffering from intensive current illegal logging, and with lower densities of both orang-utans and gibbons) and Perigi (classified as disturbed/logged over, but with no current illegal logging, and higher orang-utan and gibbon density). We therefore recommend use of the habitat sub-type categories distinguished by Page et al. (1999) in Sabangau, with potential modification for used in Katingan, based on local area characteristics (e.g., floral composition, forest structure, dome shape, water-logging, etc.). 3. Conduct surveys of HCVs in all major habitat sub-types in the area, and in a greater number of locations. In particular, more detailed surveys of proboscis monkeys are required, including estimates of group size and composition, are required. This is largely dependent on the successful completion of Objective 4. 4. Conduct detailed floral surveys of the area to assess the species present, their abundance and forest structure (tree height/size, canopy layers, tree health, etc).

3.4.2 Measures to Mitigate Threats to HCVs

5. Implement the suggested activities described in the Technical Proposal to protect the forest, which have been identified above as being beneficial for both the conservation of overall biodiversity and HCVs in the region. 6. Give equal priority to protection of areas still relatively intact, as to those areas in need of active regeneration. In the Technical proposal for the proposed project, it states that “Typology 3 areas (productive [i.e., undisturbed areas with no evidence of canals or logging tracks visible from satellite images]) shall become a secondary priority where activities shall focus on forest protection to preserve biodiversity and productivity” (pp63-64). While we welcome forest protection in these areas, it should be noted that, due to their relatively undisturbed nature, the Typology 3 areas will represent the optimal habitats for many species, including orang-utans and gibbons. Thus, we recommend that these areas be given equal priority as Typology 1 and 2 areas.

3.4.3 Measures to Maintain/Enhance Biodiversity and HCVs Beyond the Project Timeframe

7. To slow and, ultimately, stop and reverse the loss of forest cover and condition in the proposed concession area. This will involve reducing the threats faced from illegal logging, fire and forest conversion. 8. To achieve by the end of the project timeframe an economy in villages surrounding the project area that is dependent on environmentally sustainable activities with positive or neutral biodiversity impacts, and does not depend on timber, forest conversion, wildlife hunting or other unsustainable practices with negative biodiversity impact. This will then allow local communities to satisfy their economic needs without having detrimental impacts on biodiversity. 9. To have successfully restored the area’s natural hydrology well in advance of the end of the project time frame. Without this, the integrity of the forest is likely to be either completely destroyed or severely and irreversibly damaged throughout the concession area by the end of the project timeframe. This is critical for maintaining the area’s biodiversity beyond the project timeframe.

3.4.4 Biodiversity Monitoring and HCV-Specific Objectives

10. To achieve increases in forest cover, above-ground biomass/unit area and condition, and maintain or increase floral species diversity. 11. For each identified and potential HCV species, to: a. Obtain an accurate picture of distribution, habitat preferences, status, threats faced and impacts of project activities on populations within the proposed concession area. b. Slow the rate of species’ populations and habitat decline (estimated through reductions in the rate of forest loss, as actual rates of population decline are not available prior to the onset of the project) and stabilise these within 5-10 years. Ideally, an increase in these species’ populations and/or habitats will also be achieved by the end of the project period (30 years for the REDD project; though note that the concession applied for is 60 years). c. Specifically, for the three primate HCV and other potential HCV species that can be feasibly monitored, to achieve population stability and an increase in estimated population size of at least 5% by the end of the project period. 12. To maintain the overall biodiversity present in the area and prevent the loss of any species. 13. Identify further HCV and/or biological indicator species for monitoring the biodiversity impacts of project activities, and implement a monitoring programme for these (see Section 3 for more details).

3.5 Analysis of Species Used in Project Activities

The species of flora to be used in the project’s activities, and notes on whether these are non-native and/or invasive species are given in Table 3.3. All of these species are non-invasive and are native to Borneo, although care must be taken over the use of Melaleuca sp. Some species in this genus are native and non-invasive; e.g., M. cajuputi (Applegate et al., 2001), but some species are non-native and potentially

97 invasive. For example, M. quinquenervia, which is native to Papua New Guinea and Australia and has become one of the most problematic invasive species in the Florida Everglades, USA (Laroche and Ferriter, 1992). We therefore recommend great care be taken to select species of this genus native to the area and non-invasive (it is unlikely that any invasive, non-native species will be easily obtainable locally). No species from any other taxa or genetically-modified organisms will be used during project activities. Alhough the project will not use any genetically-modified organisms, due to the widespread and increasing use of genetically-modified organisms globally, it is impossible to regulate the flow of community resources such as feedstock, and foods such as rice or other grain, used inside and outside of the project area.

Table 3.3. Species of flora to be used in project activities, and confirmation of native and non-invasive status.

Species Invasive? Native to Comments Borneo? Alseodaphne coriacea N Y Alstonia sp. N Y Calumus spp. N Y Campnosperma auriculata N Y Daemonorops spp. N Y Dyera lowii / polyphylla N Y Dyera costulata N Y Gonystylus bancanus N Y Gluta renghas N Y Lophopetalum multinervium N Y Melaleuca sp. ? ? Depends on species –some species non-native and invasive (see text) Shorea sp., including S. balangeran N Y

3.6 Potential Risk to Biodiversity Benefits from Climate Change

As discussed in Section 2.4.6.8 climate change may lead to changes in rainfall regimes, which could reduce the impacts of the project’s hydrological restoration and fire prevention and control activities. As peat drainage and consequent fire is one of the most important threats to biodiversity in the region (see G1.7, G2.5 and Section 2.4.6), this would have negative impacts on biodiversity. Furthermore, the frequency of El Niño events is thought to have increased since the mid-1970’s (Trenberth and Hoar, 1997). El Niño events are typically associated with drought and, hence, fires in peat swamps (Page et al., 2002; Wösten et al., 2008; Harrison et al., 2009). Consequently, climate change could have a negative impact on biodiversity and HCVs in the project zone and surrounding areas through this mechanism. While this risk should not be ignored, it is less serious and of lower immediate concern than the remaining threats described in Section 2.4.6.

A potentially much greater risk of climate change is salt-water intrusion into the area, as a result of lower water levels in the area, caused by potential changes in rainfall regimes and lowering of the water table in the area, and increasing sea levels due to global warming. Such an event could occur due to the low altitude and flat topography of the area. Salt-water intrusion could be devastating to the area, as it would likely lead to wide-scale die off of trees and aquatic/semi-aquatic organisms,

98 which would have very severe negative effects on both floral and faunal biodiversity. Observations in areas of peat-swamp forest in Sumatra confirm that this is a potential threat to peat swamps (Ruysschaert et al., 2009). This could lead to local extinctions of some species in areas severely affected; the area most at risk is in the south of the proposed concession. Although potentially very serious, this is a relatively low risk unless water levels in the area drop extremely low and sea levels rise quite substantially.

99 4. MONITORING PROTOCOL

4.1 Section Summary

The primary goal of biodiversity conservation in Katingan is to maintain or improve the structure and integrity of the habitat, its plant and animal populations, and the ecological processes and functions contained within. The effectiveness of conservation management actions – and the long-term success or failure of these – must be evaluated against these objectives, which necessitates regular and rigorous scientific monitoring. Monitoring biodiversity is best achieved by selecting a range of ‘indicators’ that can be used to assess the condition of the environment or to monitor trends in condition over time. Careful consideration must be given to the indicators chosen for monitoring the success of biodiversity conservation initiatives. Suitable indicators include keystone, umbrella, flagship and resource-limited species.

Monitoring of the three HCV primate species in the area – orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys – is essential, because of the fact these are HCV species, globally endangered, target conservation/flagship conservation species, umbrella species and resource-limited species. In addition, we propose the monitoring of flora and habitat condition, other species of fauna that satisfy selection criteria for inclusion as indicator species, and focus group discussions in local communities. These other taxa are currently being identified.

A preliminary protocol for monitoring methods and frequency is presented below; a full monitoring programme will be submitted within one year of acceptance to CCB standards. Standard methods will be used for all monitoring activities, with potential modifications for use in peat-swamp forest and/or to achieve the specific objectives of this project. Monitoring of the three HCV primate species, flora and forest condition will provisionally be conducted annually for the first five years and each two years thereafter, for the duration of the project timeframe. Monitoring frequency for other potential indicators yet to be confirmed may vary, depending on the indicator in question and the practicalities of its monitoring.

Once complete, this monitoring programme will allow demonstration of whether the project has achieved the stated biodiversity objectives and has had net positive biodiversity benefits.

4.2 Background: Ecological Monitoring and Biodiversity Conservation

The primary goal of biodiversity conservation in a particular habitat is to maintain or improve the structure and integrity of that habitat, its plant and animal populations, and the ecological processes and functions contained within. This goal is shared in this project in Katingan. The effectiveness of conservation management actions – and the long-term success or failure of these – must be evaluated against these objectives, which necessitates regular and rigorous scientific monitoring (Danielsen et al., 2000; Parrish et al., 2003).

Monitoring programmes that include measurements of biodiversity and threat status are globally recognised as crucial elements of any protected area management program. An analysis of the effectiveness of 200 protected areas in 34 countries

100 world-wide showed that a good monitoring and evaluation system was closely correlated to those protected areas where biodiversity was best being conserved (indeed, this had the best correlation of all variables investigated, Dudley et al., 2004). Without objective measurement, conservationists cannot claim success, learn from failures, or work effectively and efficiently toward the conservation of biological diversity (Parrish et al., 2003).

Many conservation programmes fail to incorporate a rigorous monitoring and evaluation component, often owing to lack of funding or inadequate expertise (e.g., Hockings et al., 2000). In order to identify problems properly, target resources and achieve sustainable conservation outcomes, a well-structured, thorough and science- based monitoring and feedback system is essential, particularly for long-term projects. The benefits of such a system come in many forms, including:

• Monitoring the effectiveness of management actions so that managers and government departments can identify problems, and focus resources and efforts on addressing those problems. • Identifying and understanding the threats facing the area (without effective monitoring only the most visible threats are apparent), the impact of those threats, and the effectiveness of management strategies in preventing and mitigating the threats. • Enabling the targeting of resources to conservation priority areas and/or problem regions. • The ability to assess the effectiveness of conservation management programs and trial projects against a long-term dataset. • Ensuring management plans are designed in accordance with all relevant scientific knowledge, and allowing them to be continuously assessed and altered as necessary. • Justifying the success of specific conservation projects to grant-giving bodies and in requests for further funding. • Obtaining essential information for inclusion in education and awareness programs. • Judging the overall success of conservation actions in achieving its key objectives, which has implications for conservation projects elsewhere.

Monitoring biodiversity is best achieved by selecting a range of elements, processes and properties of the ecosystem, or ‘indicators’, that can be used to assess the condition of the environment or to monitor trends in condition over time (Dale and Beyeler, 2001). They can provide an early-warning system of changes in the environment, and can be used to diagnose the cause of an environmental problem or changes that cannot be measured in a more direct way (often for logistical, financial or technological reasons.) It is important to choose a representative sample of indicators and measures that characterise the ecosystem, yet are simple enough to be effectively and efficiently monitored and modelled (Dale and Beyeler, 2001). Suitable indicators include keystone species (those that have strong interactions with other species), umbrella species (those that require large areas of habitat and a wide range of ecological conditions that encompass other species), flagship species (those that can easily attract public support for conservation and are often the focus of conservation projects) and resource-limited species (those that require specific resources that may be in critically short-supply) (Carignan and Villard, 2001).

101 4.3 Indicators for Monitoring

Careful consideration must be given to the indicators chosen for monitoring the success of biodiversity conservation initiatives. Detailed in situ studies of particular candidates for selection as indicators may therefore be required before making final decisions as to which species to use. Studies of this nature have been initiated by OuTrop in Sabangau, but collection, analysis and interpretation of the data are incomplete. Studies have yet to be conducted in Katingan. Thus, the indicators and protocol laid out herein are preliminary. A full monitoring plan will be completed within twelve months of acceptance to the CCB standards.

The following indicators will be monitored, all of which relate directly to the biodiversity objectives identified in Section 2: 1. Orang-utans – this species is confirmed herein as a HCV in Katingan due to the large proportion of the total world population inhabiting the forest, is classified as Endangered by the IUCN, is an umbrella species dependent on relatively intact forest for survival, is a flagship species across its range and is the focus of numerous conservation initiatives. Orang-utans are therefore considered essential for inclusion in monitoring programmes in peat-swamp forest (Harrison et al., 2007) and will be a key focus for monitoring in Katingan. 2. Gibbons – for the same reasons as orang-utans, gibbons will also be an important focus of the monitoring programme. Gibbons have much smaller and more static home ranges than orang-utans (Mitani, 1990), which may make them more vulnerable to disturbance in a specific area, and a faster life history (Harcourt and Schwartz, 2001; Wich et al., 2004b), enabling faster increases in population size than in orang-utans. Consequently, gibbons should show faster positive or negative responses to changes in habitat condition, hunting pressure etc., than do orang-utans. Furthermore, orang-utans and gibbons share virtually identical habitat requirements. Thus, in addition to being important species to monitor in their own right, gibbons may also provide an early warning about potential trends in the area’s orang-utan population. 3. Proboscis monkeys – as another HCV species with a population in Katingan of likely global significance, which is classified as Endangered by the IUCN and is an enigmatic flagship species, proboscis monkeys will also form an important part of the biodiversity monitoring programme. The apparently widespread nature of proboscis monkeys throughout the proposed concession area, and fact that these endemic primates can be counted relatively easily and cheaply from boats, also make proboscis monkeys a good candidate for a biological indicator species. 4. Flora and habitat condition – this includes both assessment of flora and habitat condition through field plots (species present, tree size and health), in addition to higher-level spatial analysis of forest cover (both overall and by different habitat sub-types and disturbance level). Assessment of forest productivity via litter-fall traps may also be included, with data collected in all major habitat sub-types. This is important for interpreting trends in the three HCV species listed above, in addition to assessing the overall condition of the forest and consequent quality for other species of fauna. 5. Other – other species of fauna to be included in the monitoring programme are currently under consideration. Acceptance of rejection of certain taxa as indicators may be contingent upon further fieldwork.

102 6. Local community focus groups and surveys – Community work of this nature is recognised as providing an important back-up check of field survey data on species abundance, trends and threats, and of involving local communities in, and obtaining their support for, protected area management (Danielsen et al., 2000; van der Hoevena et al., 2004; Meijaard and Marshall, 2008).

4.4 Monitoring Methods and Frequency

The exact methods and frequency of monitoring will depend on the indicator in question. As selection of potential indicators is still ongoing, the methods and frequency of monitoring is therefore likely to undergo some modification before the submission of a final monitoring protocol, within a year of acceptance to the CCB standards. The following methods and schedule should therefore be regarded as preliminary.

4.4.1 Methods

Methods for orang-utans, gibbons and proboscis monkeys will follow those described in Section 1, with some minor modifications to increase the precision of our estimates. These modifications are likely to include: • Increasing sample size for all three HCV primate species, by increasing the number of survey sites. • Increasing the sample effort at each site for gibbons. • Increasing sample effort for proboscis monkeys, including spending longer in one location to establish group size and surveying all of the major waterways throughout the proposed concession area.

Methods for establishing, measuring and identifying tree species in floral plots will follow those used previously in peat-swamp forest (Morrogh-Bernard, 2009). Plots will be established in each major habitat sub-type in the proposed concession area, with potentially more than one plot in habitat sub-types covering particularly large areas and/or that are particularly important for the identified HCV species. Plots will be delineated and all tree species within the plots will be enumerated and identified (to Latin species where possible), diameter at breast height (1.3 m) and basal diameter recorded, and tree health classified according to methods used previously for peat- swamp forest trees (D’Arcy, unpublished data).

Methods for other species selected as indicator taxa will follow standard methods, which will be tested in peat-swamp forest and modified if necessary (for various reasons, standard methods established in other habitat types may not work well in peat-swamp forest).

Methods for community focus groups will follow those outlined in Danielsen et al. (2000) and implemented previously in Katingan by colleagues (D. Kurniawan, pers. comm.). In order to ensure consistency with the baseline biodiversity data collected for this report and presented herein, community questionnaires will also be used, following the methods outlined in Sections 2.3.4 and 6.

103 4.4.2 Monitoring frequency

Monitoring of the three HCV primate species, flora and forest condition will be conducted annually for the first five years and each two years thereafter, for the duration of the project timeframe. Monitoring frequency for other potential indicators yet to be confirmed may vary, depending on the indicator in question and the practicalities of its monitoring.

Once complete, this monitoring programme will allow demonstration of whether the project has achieved the stated biodiversity objectives and has had net positive biodiversity benefits.

104 5. REFERENCES

Anderson, D. R. (1983). The tropical peat swamps of Western Malesia. In: A. J. P. Gore (Ed). Ecosystems of the world, Vol. 4B: Mires: Swamp, Bog, Fen and Moor. Elsevier, Amsterdam. pp. 181-199. Applegate, G., U. Chokkalingam and Suyanto (2001). The Underlying Causes and Impacts of Fires in South-east Asia: Final Report. Center for International Forestry Research, Jakarta. Barlow, J., T. A. Gardner, I. S. Araujo, T. C. Ávila-Pires, A. B. Bonaldo, J. E. Costa, M. C. Esposito, L. V. Ferreira, J. Hawes, M. I. M. Hernandez, M. S. Hoogmoed, R. N. Leite, N. F. Lo-Man-Hung, J. R. Malcolm, M. B. Martins, L. A. M. Mestre, R. Miranda-Santos, A. L. Nunes-Gutjahr, W. L. Overal, L. Parry, S. L. Peters, M. A. Ribeiro-Junior, M. N. F. da Silva, C. da Silva Motta and C. A. Peres (2007). Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 18555-18560. doi:10.1073/pnas.0703333104. Bennet, E. L. (1986). Proboscis monkeys in Sarawak: Their ecology, status, conservation and management. WWF Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur and New York Zoological Society, New York. Boonratana, R. (1993). The ecology and behavior of the proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus) in the Lower Kinabatangan, Sabah. PhD thesis, Mahidol University, Bangkok. Boonratana, R. (2000). Ranging behavior of proboscis monkeys (Nasalis larvatus) in the Lower Kinabatangan, Northern Borneo. International Journal of Primatology 21: 497-518. Brady, M. A. (1997). Effects of vegetation changes on organic matter dynamics in three coastal peat deposits in Sumatra, Indonesia. In: J. O. Rieley and S. E. Page (Eds). Biodiversity and Sustainability of Tropical Peatlands. Samara Publishing Limitted, Cardigan, UK. pp. 113-34. Brochu, C. A. (2000). Phylogenetic relationships and divergence timing of Crocodylus based on morphology and the fossil record. Copeia 3: 657-673. Brochu, C. A. (2003). Phylogenetic approaches toward crocodylian history. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science 31: 357-397. doi: 10.1146/annurev.earth.31.100901.141308. Brockelman, W. Y. and R. Ali (1987). Methods of surveying and sampling forest primate populations. In: R. A. Mittermeier and R. W. Marsh (Eds). Primate Conservation in the tropical rainforest. Alan Liss, New York. pp. 23-62. Brockelman, W. Y. and S. Srikosamatara (1993). Estimation of density of gibbon groups by use of loud songs. American Journal of Primatology 29: 93-108. Campbell, C., N. Andayani, S. Cheyne, J. Pamungkas, B. Manullang, F. Usman, M. Wedana and K. Traylor-Holzer (2008). Indonesian Gibbon Conservation and Management Workshop Final Report. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN. Carignan, V. and M.-C. Villard (2001). Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological integrity: a review. Environmental Management and Assessment 78: 45-61. Cheyne, S. M. (2007). Effects of meteorology, astronomical variables, location and human disturbance on the singing apes: Hylobates albibarbis. American Journal of Primatology 70: 386-392. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.20502.

105 Cheyne, S. M., C. J. H. Thompson, A. C. Phillips, R. M. C. Hill and S. H. Limin (2008). Density and population estimate of gibbons (Hylobates albibarbis) in the Sabangau catchment, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Primates 49: 50-56. DOI: 10.1007/s10329-007-0063-0. Cheyne, S. M. and D. W. MacDonald (in press). Wild felid diversity and activity patterns in Sabangau peat-swamp forest, Indonesian Borneo. Oryx. Collar, N. J., A. V. Andreev, S. Chan, M. J. Crosby, S. Subramanya and J. A. Tobias (2001). Threatened Birds of Asia: The Birdlife International Red Data Book. Birdlife International. Corlett, R., T. (2007). The impact of hunting on the mammalian fauna of tropical Asian forests. Biotropica 39: 292-303. Cox, J. H., R. S. Frazier and R. A. Maturbongs (1993). Freshwater crocodiles of Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo). Copeia 1993: 564-566. Curran, L. M., A. K. McDonald, D. Astlani, Y. M. Hardiono, P. Siregar, I. Canlago and E. Kaslschke (2004). Lowland forest loss in protected areas of lowland Borneo. Science 303: 1000-3. Dale, V. H. and S. C. Beyeler (2001). Challanges in the development and use of ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators 1: 3-10. Danielsen, F., R. Kadarisman, H. Skov, U. Suwarman and W. J. M. Verheugt (1998). The Storm’s Stork Ciconia stormi in Indonesia: breeding biology, population and conservation. Ibis 139: 67-75. Danielsen, F., D. S. Balete, M. K. Poulsen, M. Enghoff, C. M. Nozawa and A. E. Jensen (2000). A simple system for monitoring biodiversity in protected areas of a developing country. Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 1671-1705. Danielsen, F., H. Beukema, N. D. Burgess, F. Parish, C. A. Brühl, P. F. Donald, D. Murdiyarso, B. Phalan, L. Reijnders, M. Struebig and E. B. Fitzherbert (2009). Biofuel plantations on forested lands: Double jeopardy for biodiversity and climate. Conservation Biology 23: 348-358. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523- 1739.2008.01096.x. Darusman, T. (2008). Penelitian Pendahuluan Kondisi Vegetasi Hutan Gambut di Wilayah Kota Waringin Timur (DAS Mentaya) dan Katingan (DAS Katingan) Paska Tebang Pilih pada tahun 2002. Report for PT. Rimba Makmur Utama- Starling Resources, Bali, Indonesia. Darusman, T., A. Mulyana and R. Budiono (2008). Pengukuran Biomassa Permukaan dan Ketebalan Gambut di Hutan Gambut DAS Mentaya dan DAS Katingan. Report for PT. Rimba Makmur Utama-Starling Resources Bali, Indonesia. Das, I. (2004). Lizards of Borneo: A Pocket Guide. Natural History Publications (Borneo) Sdn. Bhd. Datta, A. (1998). Hornbill abundance in unlogged forest, selectively logged forest and a forest plantation in Arunachal Pradesh, India. Oryx 32: 285-94. Davies, G. (1986). The orangutan in Sabah. Oryx 20: 40-45. Davies, G. (2002). Primates. In: G. Davies (Ed). African Forest Biodiversity. Earthwatch Press. pp. 99-116. Davison, G. W. H. and C. Y. Fook (2007). Birds of Borneo: Sabah, Sarawak, Brunei and Kalimantan. New Holland Publishers Ltd. Dennis, C. and P. Aldhous (2004). A tragedy with many players. Nature 430: 396– 398. doi: 10.1038/430396a. Dragiewicz, M. (2005). Avian Indicators of Forest Disturbance and Recovery in the Sebangau National Park, Indonesian Borneo. Orang-utan Tropical Peatland Project (OuTrop) Report, Palangka Raya, Indonesia.

106 Duckworth, J. W., A. Pattanavibool, P. Newton and N. Van Nhuan (2008). Manis javanica. In: (Eds). IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1. . www.iucnredlist.org. Dudley, N., A. Belokurov, O. Borodin, L. Higgins-Zogib, M. Hockings, L. Lacerda and S. Stolton (2004). How Effective are Protected Areas? WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. Ebeling, J. and M. Yasue (2008). Generating carbon finance through avoided deforestation and its potential to create climatic, conservation and human development benefits. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 363. Evers, D. C., N. M. Burgess, L. Campoux, B. Hoskins, A. Major, W. M. Goodale, R. J. Taylor, R. Poppenga and T. Daigle (2005). Patterns and interpretation of mercury exposure in freshwater avian communities in northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology 14: 193-221. FAO (2007). FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. Available from http://faostat.fao.org/. FAO (2010). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010: Key Findings. Food and Agriculture Organization. Felton, A. M., L. M. Engstrom, A. Felton and C. D. Knott (2003). Orangutan population density, forest structure and fruit availability in hand-logged and unlogged peat swamp forests in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biological Conservation 114: 91-101. Fitzherbert, E. B., M. J. Struebig, A. Morel, F. Danielsen, C. A. Brühl, P. F. Donald and B. Phalan (2008). How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23: 538-545. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.012. Fredriksson, G., S. A. Wich and Trisno (2006). Frugivory in sun bears (Helarctos malayanus) is linked to El Niño-related fluctuations in fruiting phenology, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 89: 489-508. Fredriksson, G., R. Steinmetz, S. Wong and D. L. Garshelis (2008). Helarctos malayanus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1. www.iucnredlist.org. Gardner, T. A., J. Barlow, I. S. Araujo, T. C. Ávila-Pires, A. B. Bonaldo, J. E. Costa, M. C. Esposito, L. V. Ferreira, J. Hawes, M. I. M. Hernandez, M. S. Hoogmoed, R. N. Leite, N. F. Lo-Man-Hung, J. R. Malcolm, M. B. Martins, L. A. M. Mestre, R. Miranda-Santos, W. L. Overal, L. Parry, S. L. Peters, M. A. Ribeiro-Junior, M. N. F. da Silva, C. da Silva Motta and C. A. Peres (2008). The cost-effectiveness of biodiversity surveys in tropical forests. Ecology Letters 11: 139-150. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01133.x. Groves, C. P. (1993). Order Primates. In: D. E. Wilson and D. M. Reeder (Eds). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 243-278. Groves, C. P. (2001). Primate Taxonomy. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington DC. Hamard, M., S. M. Cheyne and V. Nijman (in press). Vegetation correlates of gibbon density in the peat-swamp forest of Sabangau National Park, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. American Journal of Primatology.

107 Harcourt, A. H. and M. W. Schwartz (2001). Primate evolution: A biology of Holocene extinction and survival on the Southeast Asian Sunda Shelf islands. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 114: 4-17. Harrison, M. E., S. M. Cheyne, H. Morrogh-Bernard and S. J. Husson (2007). What can apes tell us about the health of their environment? A review of the use of orang-utans and gibbons as indicators of changes in habitat quality in tropical peat swamp forests. In: J. O. Rieley, S. H. Limin and A. Jaya (Eds). Restoration and Wise Use of Tropical Peatland: Problems of Biodiversity, Fire, Poverty and Water Management. Proceedings of the International Symposium and Workshop on Tropical Peatland, Palangka Raya, 20-24 September 2005. EU RESTORPEAT Partnership, University of Palangka Raya, Indonesia and Wageningen University and Research Institute, The Netherlands. pp. 104-109. www.altera.restorpeat.wur.nl. Harrison, M. E. (2009). Orang-utan Feeding Behaviour in Sabangau, Central Kalimantan. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge. Harrison, M. E., S. E. Page and S. H. Limin (2009). The global impact of Indonesian forest fires. Biologist 56: 156-163. Harrison, M. E., S. J. Husson, N. Zweifel, L. J. D’Arcy, H. C. Morrogh-Bernard, M. A. van Noordwijk and C. P. van Schaik (2010). Trends in Fruiting and Flowering Phenology with Relation to Abiotic Variables in Bornean Peat- Swamp Forest Tree Species Suitable for Restoration Activities. Report for the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership, Palangka Raya, Indonesia. Harvey, C. A., B. Dickson and C. Kormos (2010). Opportunities for achieving biodiversity conservation through REDD. Conservation Letters 3: 53-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00086.x. Hockings, M., S. Stolton and N. Dudley (2000). Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing the Management of Protected Areas. IUCN, Cambridge, UK. Hooijer, A., M. Silvius, H. Wösten and S. Page (2006). PEAT-CO2: Assessment of CO2 Emissions from Drained Peatlands in SE Asia. Delft Hydraulics report Q3943. Hussain, S. A. and P. K. de Silva (2008). Aonyx cinerea. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1. www.iucnredlist.org. Hussain, S. A., B. Kanchanasakha, P. K. de Silva and A. Olson (2008). Lutra sumatrana. In: (Eds). IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1. www.iucnredlist.org. Husson, S., H. Morrogh-Bernard, L. D'Arcy, S. M. Cheyne, M. E. Harrison and M. Dragiewicz (2007). The importance of ecological monitoring for habitat management - A case study in the Sabangau forest, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. In: J. O. Rieley, C. J. Banks and B. Radjagukguk (Eds). Carbon- Climate-Human Interaction on Tropical Peatland. Proceedings of The International Symposium and Workshop on Tropical Peatland, Yogyakarta, 27-29 August 2007, EU CARBOPEAT and RESTORPEAT Partnership, Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia and University of Leicester, United Kingdom. www.geog.le.ac.uk/carbopeat/yogyaproc.html. Husson, S. J., S. A. Wich, A. J. Marshall, R. D. Dennis, M. Ancrenaz, R. Brassey, M. Gumal, A. J. Hearn, E. Meijaard, T. Simorangkir and I. Singleton (2009). Orangutan distribution, density, abundance and impacts of disturbance. In: S. A. Wich, S. S. Utami Atmoko, T. Mitra Setia and C. P. van Schaik (Eds).

108 Orangutans: Geographic Variation in Behavioral Ecology and Conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp. 77-96. Inger, R. F. and R. B. Stuebing (1997). A Field Guide to the Frogs of Borneo. Natural History Publications (Borneo) Sdn. Bhd. Iskandar, D. T. and W. R. Erdelen (2006). Conservation of amphibians and reptiles in Indonesia: issues and problems. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation 4: 60- 87. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016. IUCN (2008). Ciconia stormi. In: (Eds). IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1. www.iucnredlist.org. IUCN (2009). Pseudibis davisoni. In: (Eds). IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1. www.iucnredlist.org. Janzen, D. H. (1974). Tropical blackwater rivers, animals, and mast fruiting by the Dipterocarpaceae. Biotropica 6: 69-103. Johns, A. D. (1985a). Differential detectability of primates between primary and selectively logged habitats and implications for population surveys. American Journal of Primatology 8: 31-36. Johns, A. D. (1985b). Selective logging and wildlife conservation in tropical rainforest: problems and recommendations. Biological Conservation 31: 355- 375. Johns, A. D. (1986). Effects of selective logging on the behavioral ecology of West Malaysian primates. Ecology 67: 684-94. Johns, A. D. (1992). Vertebrate responses to selective logging: Implications for the design of logging systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 335: 437-442. Johns, A. G. (1996). Bird population persistence in Sabahan logging concessions. Biological Conservation 75: 3-10. Jordan, C. F. (1985). Nutrient cycling in tropical forest ecosystems. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Knop, E., P. I. Ward and S. A. Wich (2004). A comparison of orangutan density in a logged and unlogged forest on Sumatra. Biological Conservation 120: 187- 192. Koh, L. P. and D. S. Wilcove (2008). Is oil palm agriculture really destroying tropical biodiversity? Conservation Letters 1: 60-64. Kottelat, M., A. J. Whitten, S. W. Kartikasari and S. Wirjoatmodjo (1993). Freshwater Fishes of Western Indonesia and Sulawesi. Periplus Editions (HK) Ltd., Republic of Indonesia. Kottelat, M., R. Britz, H. H. Tan and K.-E. Witte (2006). Paedocypris, a new genus of southeast Asian cyprinid fish with a remarkable sexual dimorphism, comprises the world’s smallest vertebrate. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 273: 895-899. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3419. Kurniati, H., T. Widodo and C. Manolis (2005). Surveys of Siamese Crocodile (Crocodylus siamensis) Habitat in the Mahakam River, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) Reaearch Center for Biology, Cibinong, Indonesia. Lambert, F. R. (1992). The consequences of selective logging for Bornean lowland forest birds. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 355: 443-57. Langhammer, P. F., M. I. Bakarr, L. A. Bennun, T. M. Brooks, R. P. Clay, W. Darwall, N. De Silva, G. J. Edgar, G. Eken, L. D. C. Fishpool, G. A. B. d. Fonseca, M. N. Foster, D. H. Knox, P. Matiku, E. A. Radford, A. S. L.

109 Rodrigues, P. Salaman, W. Sechrest and A. W. Tordoff (2007). Identification and Gap Analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas: Targets for Comprehensive Protected Area Systems. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Laroche, F. B. and A. P. Ferriter (1992). The rate of expansion of Melaleuca in South Florida. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 30: 62-65. Laurance, W. F. (2007). A new initiative to use carbon trading for tropical forest conservation. Biotropica 39: 20-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2006.00229.x. MacKinnon, K., G. Hatta, H. Halim and A. Mangalik (1996). The Ecology of Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo. Periplus Editions (HK) Ltd. Marshall, A. J., Nardiyono, L. M. Engström, B. Pamungkas, J. Palapa, E. Meijaard and S. A. Stanley (2006). The blowgun is mightier than the chainsaw in determining population density of Bornean orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus morio) in the forests of East Kalimantan. Biological Conservation 129: 566- 78. Marshall, A. J., R. Lacy, M. Ancrenaz, O. Byers, S. J. Husson, M. Leighton, E. Meijaard, N. Rosen, I. Singleton, S. Stephens, K. Traylor-Holzer, S. S. Utami Atmoko, C. P. van Schaik and S. A. Wich (2009). Orangutan population biology, life history, and conservation: Perspectives from population viability analysis models. In: S. A. Wich, S. S. Utami Atmoko, T. Mitra Setia and C. P. van Schaik (Eds). Orangutans: Geographic Variation in Behavioral Ecology and Conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp. 311-326. Martin, S. (2008). Global diversity of crocodiles (Crocodilia, Reptilia) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595: 587-591. DOI: 10.1007/s10750-007-9030-4. Meijaard, E. (1999). Human imposed threats to sun bears in Borneo. Ursus 11: 185- 192. Meijaard, E. and V. Nijman (2000a). The local extinction of the proboscis monkey Nasalis larvatus in Pulau Kaget Nature Reserve, Indonesia. Oryx 34: 66-70. Meijaard, E. and V. Nijman (2000b). Distribution and conservation of the proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus) in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biological Conservation 92: 15-24. Meijaard, E. and V. Nijman (2003). Primate hotspots on Borneo: Predictive value for general biodiversity and the effects of taxonomy. Conservation Biology 17: 725-732. Meijaard, E., D. Sheil, R. Nasi, D. Augeri, B. Rosenbaum, D. Iskandar, T. Setyawati, M. Lammertink, I. Rachmatika, A. Wong, T. Soehartono, S. Stanley and T. O’Brien (2005). Life after logging: Reconciling wildlife conservation and production forestry in Indonesian Borneo. Center for International Forestry Research, Jakarta. Meijaard, E. and A. J. Marshall (2008). Why didn’t we just ask? Forest Science News 3: 4. Meijarrd, E. (1997). The importance of swamp forest for the conservation of the orang-utan (Pongo pygmaeus) in Kalimantan, Indonesia. In: J. O. Rieley and S. E. Page (Eds). Biodiversity and Sustainability of Tropical Peatlands. Samara Publishing Limited, Cardigan, UK. pp. 243-54. Merton, F. (1962). A visit to the Tasek Bera. Malayan Nature Journal 16: 103-110. Mitani, J. C. (1990). Experimental field studies of Asian ape social systems. International Journal of Primatology 11: 103-26. Morrogh-Bernard, H., S. Husson, S. E. Page and J. O. Rieley (2003). Population status of the Bornean orang-utan (Pongo pygmaeus) in the Sebangau peat

110 swamp forest, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biological Conservation 110: 141-52. Morrogh-Bernard, H. (2009). Orang-utan Behavioural Ecology in the Sabangau Peat- Swamp Forest, Borneo. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge. Morrogh-Bernard, H. C., S. J. Husson, C. D. Knott, S. A. Wich, C. P. van Schaik, M. A. van Noordwijk, I. Lackman-Ancrenaz, A. J. Marshall, T. Kanamori, N. Kuze and R. b. Sakong (2009). Orangutan activity budgets and diet: A comparison between species, populations and habitats. In: S. A. Wich, S. S. Utami Atmoko, T. Mitra Setia and C. P. van Schaik (Eds). Orangutans: Geographic Variation in Behavioral Ecology and Conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp. 119-133. Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca and J. Kent (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853-858. Myers, S. (2009). Birds of Borneo: Brunei, Sabah, Sarawak, and Kalimantan. Princeton University Press. Nekaris, K. A. I., G. Blackham and V. Nijman (2008). Conservation implications of low encounter rates of five nocturnal primate species (Nycticebus spp.) in Asia. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 733-747. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-007- 9308-x. Ng, P. K. L., J. B. Tay and K. K. P. Lim (1994). Diversity and conservation of blackwater fishes in Peninsular Malaysia, particularly in the North Selangor peat swamp forest. Hydrobiologia 285: 203-218. Nijman, V. and S. B. J. Menken (2005). Assessment of census techniques for estimating density and biomass of gibbons (Primates: Hylobatidae). Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 53: 169-179. Norhayati, A., S. Juliana, D. S. K. Sharma and A. W. Ahmad Zafir (2005). A survey of amphibians at Sungai Bebar, Pekan Forest Reserve. In: A. Latiff, K. A. Hamzah, N. Ahmad, M. N. M. Said, A. N. Toh and S. K. Gill (Eds). Biodiversity Expedition Sungai Bebar, Pekan, Pahang, Summary Findings. Peat swamp forest project, UNDP/GEF funded, in collaboration with the Pahang Forestry Department and University Kebangsaan Malaysia. pp. 149- 152. O'Brien, T. G., M. F. Kinnaird, A. Nurcahyo, M. Iqbal and M. Rusmanto (2004). Abundance and distribution of sympatric gibbons in a threatened Sumateran rainforest. International Journal of Primatology 25: 267-284. Page, S., A. Hosciło, H. Wösten, J. Jauhiainen, M. Silvius, J. Rieley, H. Ritzema, K. Tansey, L. Graham, H. Vasander and S. Limin (2009a). Restoration ecology of lowland tropical peatlands in Southeast Asia: current knowledge and future research directions. Ecosystems 12: 888-985. DOI: 10.1007/s10021-008-9216- 2. Page, S. E., J. O. Rieley, K. Doody, S. Hodgson, S. Husson, P. Jenkins, H. Morrogh- Bernard, S. Otway and S. Wilshaw (1997). Biodiversity of tropical peat swamp forest: A case study of animal diversity in the Sungai Sebangau Catchment of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. In: J. O. Rieley and S. E. Page (Eds). Biodiversity and Sustainability of Tropical Peatlands. Samara Publishing Limited, Cardigan. pp. 231-42. Page, S. E., J. O. Rieley, Ø. W. Shotyk and D. Weiss (1999). Interdependence of peat and vegetation in a tropical peat swamp forest. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 354: 1885-1807.

111 Page, S. E., F. Siegert, H. D. V. Boehm, A. Jaya and S. Limin (2002). The amount of carbon released from peat and forest fires in Indonesia during 1997. Nature 420: 61-5. Page, S. E., C. J. Banks, J. O. Rieley and R. Wuest (2008). Extent, significance and vulnerability of the tropical peatland carbon pool: past, present and future prospects. In: (Eds). Proceedings of the 13th International Peat Congress, 9-13 June 2008, Tullamore, Ireland. International Peat Society, Jyvaskyla, Finland. pp. Page, S. E., A. Hoscilo, A. Langner, K. J. Tansey, F. Siegert, S. H. Limin and J. O. Rieley (2009b). Tropical peatland fires in Southeast Asia. In: M. A. Cochrane (Eds). Tropical Fire Ecology: Climate Change, Land Use and Ecosystem Dynamics. Springer-Praxis, Heidelberg, Germany. pp. 263-287. Parrish, J. D., D. P. Braun and R. S. Unnasch (2003). Are we conserving what we say we are? Measuring ecological integrity within protected areas. Bioscience 53: 851-860. Payne, J. and C. M. Francais (1998). A Field Guide to the Mammals of Borneo. Sabah Society, Malaysia. Pearman, P. B., A. M. Velasco and A. López (1995). Tropical amphibian monitoring: A comparison of methods for detecting inter-site variation in species' composition. Herpetologica 51: 325-337. Prentice, C. and D. Parish (1992). Conservation of peat swamp forest: A forgotten ecosystem. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Tropical Biodiversity. Malaysian Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1990. pp. 128-44. Rao, M. and C. P. van Schaik (1997). The behavioural ecology of Sumateran orangutans in logged and unlogged forest. Tropical Biodiversity 4: 173-85. Rijksen, H. D. and E. Meijaard (1999). Our Vanishing Relative: The Status of Wild Orang-utans at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London. Ross, J. P. (1998). Crocodiles. Status survey and conservation Action Plan. 2nd Edition. IUCN/SSC Crocodile Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Russon, A. E., A. Erman and R. Dennis (2001). The population and distribution of orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus) in and around the Danau Sentarum Wildlife Reserve, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biological Conservation 97: 21-8. Ruysschaert, D., I. Singleton and S. Sudarman (2009). Inappropriate land use in the coastal Tripa peat swamps on the West coast of Aceh. Aceh Eye. http://www.aceh-eye.org/data_files/english_format/environment/env_palm/ env_palm_analysis/env_palm_analysis_2009_00_00.pdf. Salter, R. E. and N. A. MacKenzie (1985). Conservation status of the proboscis monkey in Sarawak. Biological Conservation 33: 119-132. Salter, R. E., N. A. MacKenzie, N. Nightingale, K. M. Aken and P. P. K. Chai (1985). Habitat use, ranging behaviour and food habits of the proboscis monkey N. larvatus (van Wurmb) in Sarawak. Primates 26: 436-451. SCBD (2010). Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montréal, Canada. Schoppe, S. (2009). Status, trade, dynamics and management of the Southeast Asian box turtle Cuora amboinensis in Indonesia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.

112 Sebastian, A. (2002). Globally threatened mammal and bird species in Malaysian peat swamp forests. In: J. O. Rieley and S. E. Page (Eds). Peatlands for People: Natural Resources Function and Sustainable Management. Proceedings of the international symposium on tropical peatland. BPPT and Indonesian Peat Association, Jakarta. pp. 23–28. Sha, J. C. M., H. Bernard and S. Nathan (2008). Status and conservation of proboscis monkeys (Nasalis larvatus) in Sabah, East Malaysia. Primate Conservation 23: 107-120. Sharma, D. S. K., A. W. Ahmad Zafir, A. Norhayati and S. Juliana (2005). A note on the reptiles at Sungai Bebar, Pekan Forest Reserve, Pahang. In: A. Latiff, K. A. Hamzah, N. Ahmad, M. N. M. Said, A. N. Toh and S. K. Gill (Eds). Biodiversity Expedition Sungai Bebar, Pekan, Pahang, Summary Findings. Peat swamp forest project, UNDP/GEF funded, in collaboration with the Pahang Forestry Department and University Kebangsaan, Malaysia. pp. 153- 155. Shepherd, C. R. and V. Nijman (2007). An Overview of the Regulation of the Freshwater Turtle and Tortoise Pet Trade in Jakarta, Indonesia. TRAFFIC Southeast, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Shepherd, P. A., J. O. Rieley and S. E. Page (1997). The relationship between forest structure and peat characteristics in the upper catchment of the Sungai Sebangau, Central Kalimantan. In: J. O. Rieley and S. E. Page (Eds). Biodiversity and Sustainability of Tropical Peatlands. Samara Publishing, Cardigan, UK. pp. 191-210. Singleton, I., S. A. Wich, S. Husson, S. Stephens, S. Utami Atmoko, M. Leighton, N. Rosen, K. Traylor-Holzer, R. Lacy and O. Byers (2004). Orang-utan Population and Habitat Viability Analysis. Orangutan Foundation, Jakarta. Smith, D. A. (2008). The Distribution and Conservation Status of the Primates (Colobinae, Hylobatidae and Pongidae) of Borneo. MSc thesis, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford. Sözer, R. and V. Nijman (2005). Effects of ENSO-induced forest fires and habitat disturbance on the abundance and spatial distribution of an endangered riverine bird in Borneo. Animal Conservation 8: 27-31. DOI: 10.1017/S1367943004001787. Stolle, F., K. M. Chomitz, E. F. Lambin and T. P. Tomich (2003). Land use and vegetation fires in Jambi Province, Sumatra, Indonesia. Forest Ecology and Management 179: 277-92. Stolle, F. and E. F. Lambin (2003). Interprovincial and interannual differences in the causes of land-use fires in Sumatra, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation 30: 375-87. Stoneman, R. (1997). Ecological studies in the Badas peat swamps, Brunei Darussalam. In: J. O. Rieley and S. E. Page (Eds). Biodiversity and Sustainability of Tropical Peatlands. Samara Publishing Limited, Cardigan, UK. pp. 221-30. Struebig, M. J., B. M. F. Galdikas and Suatma (2006). Bat diversity in oligotrophic forests of southern Borneo. Oryx 40: 447-455. Stuebing, R. B. and R. F. Inger (1999). A Field Guide to the Snakes of Borneo. Natural History Publications (Borneo) Sdn. Bhd. Sturges, F. W., R. T. Holmes and G. E. Likens (1974). The role of birds in nutrient cycling in a northern hardwoods ecosystem. Ecology 1: 149-55.

113 Sulistiyanto, Y. (2004). Nutrient Dynamics in Different Sub-types of Peat Swamp Forest in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham. Sulistiyanto, Y., J. O. Rieley and S. Limin (2004). Nutrient dynamics in different sub- types of ombrotrophic peat swamp forest in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. In: J. Päivänen (Eds). Wise Use of Peatlands (Vol I). Proceedings of the 12th International Peat Congress, Tampere, Finland, 6-11 June 2004. Saarijärven Offset Oy, Saarijärvi, Finland. pp. 752-759. Sunquist, M., C. Leh, F. Sunquist, D. M. Hills and R. Rajaratnam (1994). Rediscovery of the Bornean bay cat. Oryx 28: 67-70. Sutherland, W. J. (2000). Monitoring mammals. In: W. J. Sutherland (Ed). The Conservation Handbook: Research, Management and Policy. Blackwell Science, Oxford. pp. 57-59. Trenberth, K. E. and T. J. Hoar (1997). El Niño and climate change. Geophysical Research Letters 24: 3057-3060. Turner, I. M. (1996). Species loss in fragments of tropical rain forests: a review of the evidence. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 200-209. doi: 10.2307/2404743. UNEP (2002). Global Mercury Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme: Chemicals, Geneva, Switzerland. van der Hoevena, C. A., W. F. de Boerb and H. H. T. Prinsb (2004). Pooling local expert opinions for estimating mammal densities in tropical rainforests. Journal for Nature Conservation 12: 193-204. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2004.06.003. van Schaik, C., P. Azwar and D. Priatna (1995). Population estimates and habitat preferences of orangutans based on line transects of nests. In: R. D. Nadler, B. M. F. Galdikas, L. K. Sheeran and N. Rosen (Eds). The Neglected Ape. Plenum Press, New York. pp. 129-47. Venter, O., W. F. Laurance, T. Iwamura, K. A. Wilson, R. A. Fuller and H. P. Possingham (2009a). Harnessing carbon payments to protect biodiversity. Science 326: 1368. doi: 10.1126/science.1180289. Venter, O., E. Meijaard, H. Possingham, R. Dennis, D. Sheil, S. Wich, L. Hovani and K. Wilson (2009b). Carbon payments as a safeguard for threatened tropical mammals. Conservation Letters 2: 123-129. doi: 10.1111/j.1755- 263X.2009.00059.x. Whitmore, T. C. (1984). Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East. Second Edition. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Whitmore, T. C. and J. A. Sayer (1992). Tropical deforestation and species extinctions. Chapman and Hall, London. Wich, S. A., R. Buij and C. P. van Schaik (2004a). Determinants of orangutan density in the dryland forests of the Leuser Ecosystem. Primates 45: 177-82. Wich, S. A., S. S. Utami-Atmoko, T. Mitra Setia, H. D. Rijksen, C. L. Schürmann, J. A. R. A. M. van Hooff and C. P. van Schaik (2004b). Life history of wild Sumatran orangutans (Pongo abelii). Journal of Human Evolution 47: 385-98. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.08.006. Wich, S. A., E. Meijaard, A. J. Marshall, S. Husson, M. Ancrenaz, R. C. Lacy, C. P. van Schaik, J. Sugardjito, T. Simorangkir, K. Traylor-Holzer, M. Doughty, J. Supriatna, R. Dennis, M. Gumal, C. D. Knott and I. Singleton (2008). Distribution and conservation status of the orangutan (Pongo spp.) on Borneo and Sumatra: how many remain? Oryx 42: 329-339. doi: 10.1017/S003060530800197X.

114 Wich, S. A., H. de Vries, M. Ancrenaz, L. Perkins, R. W. Shumaker, A. Suzuki and C. P. van Schaik (2009). Orangutan life history variation. In: S. A. Wich, S. S. Utami Atmoko, T. Mitra Setia and C. P. van Schaik (Eds). Orangutans: Geographic Variation in Behavioral Ecology and Conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp. 65-75. Wilting, A., A. Cord, A. J. Hearn, D. Hesse, A. Mohamed, C. Traeholdt, S. M. Cheyne, S. Sunarto, M.-A. Jayasilan, J. Ross, A. C. Shapiro, A. Sebastian, S. Dech, C. Breitenmoser, J. Sanderson, J. W. Duckworth and H. Hofer (2010). Modelling the species distribution of flat-headed cats (Prionailurus planiceps), an endangered South-east Asian small felid. PLoS One 5: e9612. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009612. Wösten, J. H. M., E. Clymans, S. E. Page, J. O. Rieley and S. H. Limin (2008). Peat– water interrelationships in a tropical peatland ecosystem in Southeast Asia. Catena 73: 212-224. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2007.07.010. Yeager, C. P. (1989). Feeding ecology of the proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus). International Journal of Primatology 10: 497-530. Yule, C. M. (2010). Loss of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in Indo-Malayan peat swamp forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 393-409. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-008-9510-5.

115 6. APPENDICES – COMMUNITY QUESTIONNAIRE

Aims of Questionnaire

1. Identify rare (and easily distinguishable) species that are present in the study area and that may not be detected through field surveys. 2. Identify any threats that these or other species detected in field surveys may face.

Methods

The questionnaire is designed so that innocuous questions (personal details, length of time in the area etc.) are asked first, so that the interviewee feels comfortable with the interview before the more important questions (e.g. hunting in the area, etc.) are asked. Interviews will be conducted with at least ten people experienced in the area’s forest (i.e., ex/current hunters, loggers, collectors of forest products, etc.) where possible. Attempt to spread out questionnaires between people with different experiences (e.g., avoid situations such as two brothers who have both collected bark/sap together for the last ten years). Interviewers will work in a team of two and all interviews will be carried out in local dialects where possible. The village location, date and interviewer names should be recorded at the top of the first page of each completed questionnaire. Do not leave any question blank: if the interviewee does not know the answer or refuses to answer, note accordingly.

It is vital that the pictures of the different fauna enquired about in this questionnaire are taken along on each interview. With all interviews, it is vital to stress that data is being collected for research purposes only, that their identity has not been recorded and that their anonymity will be maintained at all times.

Questionnaire

Before Starting

The following introduction should be given to each person interviewed:

INTERVIEWER: “Excuse me sir, I am a member of Yayasan Puter doing community research in the region, and I was hoping that you might let me ask you some questions regarding biodiversity in this area. This should only take a short amount of your time. Please understand that these questions are being asked purely for research purposes, and that your identity will not be recorded or revealed at any time to anyone for any reason. You may terminate the interview at any point should you not wish to proceed. Do I have your permission to ask these questions?”

INTERVIEWEE: “Yes”

INTERVIEWER: “Thank you. Please answer the following questions as honestly as possible.”

START QUESTIONNAIRE. Note that, unless indicated, all the options do not need to be read out to the interviewee; just tick the relevant box.

116 Profile

1. DON’T ASK THIS QUESTION!! Record whether the hunter is: a. Male b. Female 2. How old are you? a. ≤20 b. 21-30 c. 31-40 d. 41-50 e. ≥51 3. Are you married? a. Yes b. No 4. How many children do you have? a. None b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. 5 g. 6 h. ≥7 5. What is your ethnic origin? a. Dayak from KALTENG b. Dayak from KALTIM c. Dayak from KALBAR d. Dayak from KALSEL e. Javanese (resettled during transmigration) f. Javanese (moved to Palangka Raya post-transmigration) g. Sumatran h. Other (please state) 6. What is your religion? a. Christian b. Muslim c. Kaharingan d. Other (please state) 7. How long have you been hunting at your present site? a. First season (≤1 year) b. 1-2 years c. 2-5 years d. 6-10 years e. 11-15 years f. 16-20 years g. ≥21 years h. Don’t know/can’t remember

117 Village and Work Site Questions

8. How long does it take to get from your village to the nearest large town/market (name the town/market)?

9. Which mode of transport is used to get from your village to the nearest large town/market? a. Speed boat b. Klotok c. Canoe d. Car/bus/motorbike (note if asphalt or dirt road) e. Bicycle f. Walk g. Other (state)

Biodiversity Present in the Area

10. Are the following species of fauna found in the area? (rate on a scale of 0-4; 0 = never; 1 = in past, over 5 years ago, but not recently; 2 = present, but rare; 3 = present and occasionally seen; 4 = abundant; show pictures as read out species names to confirm identities, ask for description of any unknown primate species). a. Orang-utan b. Gibbon c. Red leaf monkey d. Silver leaf monkey e. Proboscis monkey f. Long-tailed macaque g. Pig-tailed macaque h. Slow loris i. Tarsier j. Other primate species (name) k. Colugo l. Sun bear m. Oriental small-clawed otter n. Hairy-nosed otter o. Clouded leopard p. Serval q. Leopard cat r. Marbled cat s. Flat-headed cat t. Bay cat u. Sambar deer v. Pangolin w. Armadillo x. Storms stork y. Lesser adjunct stork z. White-shouldered ibis aa. Argus pheasant bb. Brahminy kite cc. Wallace hawk eagle

118 dd. Black hornbill ee. Great hornbill ff. Bushy-crested hornbill gg. Rhinoceros hornbill hh. Helmeted hornbill ii. Oriental pied hornbill jj. White-crowned hornbill kk. Wreathed hornbill ll. Wrinkled hornbill mm. False gharial nn. Estuarine crocodile oo. Siamese crocodile pp. Asian giant soft-shelled turtle qq. South Asian box turtle

Threats to Biodiversity in the Area

11. Where is the area of local forest (i.e., between Sg. Mentaya and Katingan/within the Starling project area) with which you have most experience?

12. What is the forest type in this area? a. Tall canopy (≥ 20 m) peat-swamp forest b. Low canopy (< 20 m) peat-swamp forest c. Very low (< 15 m) peat-swamp forets d. Mangrove forest e. Other forest (note forest type)

13. How disturbed is this forest as a result of present/past logging and other activities? a. Pristine (no logging, no fire) b. Disturbed, but not burnt c. Highly disturbed, but not burnt d. Highly disturbed and burnt

14. Are there any active sawmills in the area? a. No, never b. No, but there were active sawmills in the area previously c. Yes, in the village d. Yes, nearby (within 30 minutes klotok travel) e. Yes, further away (state travel time and distance)

15. Which forest activities are currently present in the area? (rate on a scale of 0-3; 0 = not present; 1 = very low intensity, very few people; 2 = medium intensity, small number of people; 3 = high intensity, major village activity). a. Logging for forest conversion (state reason) b. Illegal logging for forest conversion (state reason) c. Illegal logging for wood d. Fishing e. Jelutong (or other – name) sap collection f. Gemur (or other – name) bark collection g. Rattan collection

119 h. Pig hunting i. Deer hunting j. Bird hunting k. Fruit-bat hunting l. Turtle hunting m. Other species hunting (name all species) n. Mining (state of gold, coal, etc.) o. Other forest activities (name/describe all activities)

16. Which forest activities are you/have you been engaged in (rate on a scale of 0-4; 0 = never; 1 = in past, rarely; 2 = in past, intensive; 3 = currently, occasionally; 4 = currently, major activity/essential for livelihood). a. Logging for forest conversion (state reason) b. Illegal logging for forest conversion (state reason) c. Illegal logging for wood d. Fishing e. Jelutong (or other – name) sap collection f. Gemur (or other – name) bark collection g. Rattan collection h. Pig hunting i. Deer hunting j. Bird hunting k. Fruit-bat hunting (if “yes”, please complete additional questionnaire) l. Turtle hunting m. Other species hunting (name all species) n. Mining (state of gold, coal, etc.) o. Other forest activities (name/describe all activities)

17. Have the populations of the following species remained stable (= 1), increased (= 2) or decreased (= 3) over the time you have lived in the area? a. Orang-utans b. Gibbons c. Red leaf monkeys d. Proboscis monkeys e. Clouded leopard f. Leopard cat g. Marbled cat h. Flat-headed cat i. Bay cat j. Storms stalk k. Lesser adjunct stalk l. White-shouldered ibis m. Argus pheasant

18. Why has this change occurred? (ring all that apply) a. Hunting b. Concession logging c. Illegal logging d. Fire e. Other (please state)

120 f. Don’t know

Other Information

Do you have any other information that we may find useful? (continue on a separate sheet if necessary):

Closing the Interview

Thank the person for his time and cooperation, and reassure him that his answers will be dealt with anonymously and his identity will never be revealed.

121