Developing Oil Palm Plantation from Degraded Land on Mineral Soil
Developing oil palm plantation from degraded land on mineral soil
Follow up of environmental parameters: 2009 - 2011
Output30/BACP
By Denis Ruysschaert, Ian Singleton, Serge Wich, Gunung Gea, Mistar, Nuzuar, Riswan Zen, Bas van Balen, Adji Darsoyo.
September 2011
1 Introduction – development of oil palm plantations on degraded land
The Pilot Study (PS) on Sustainable Palm Oil is located in the village of Lamie, Nagan Raya District, Aceh Province, Indonesia.
The Pilot Study aims to showcase that it is possible to develop RSPO standard oil palm plantations with smallholders, on mineral soils with degraded vegetation, instead of continuing the destruction of forests to establish oil palm plantations at the large scale.
The project also seeks to operate in the least environmentally damaging and biodiversity friendly manner possible, to limit the impact of oil palm plantation on these degraded areas, and on surrounding areas, which includes the precious peatswamp forests of Tripa, an integral part of the biodiversity rich Leuser Ecosystem. As such, all operations of the pilot study have been carried out following the procedures and methods of organic farming. Chemical fertilizers and chemical pesticides are forbidden and the farmers use only bio-pesticides and organic fertilizers. These pesticides and organic fertilizers are developed and applied by the farmers themselves. The farmers have been trained and supported to do so. It must be noted, however, that PT Socfindo, who supplied the original seedlings for the project, developed the seedlings in the conventional “non-organic” manner.
The decision to develop the Pilot Study on areas with degraded vegetation first of all aims at providing an example to palm oil companies that it is technically possible to develop degraded land for palm oil production, instead of clearing huge areas of forested land. It is especially aimed at providing an alternative for oil-palm development on peatlands, which is currently a common practice for the development of new oil palm concessions in the adjacent Tripa peatswamp forest, and elsewhere in Indonesia and South-East Asia. Indeed, peatlands are among the last lowland forest ecosystems that have not yet been converted. They are therefore highly attractive for the implementation of large-scale industrial operations (i.e. those over 1,000 ha) for oil palm and for pulp & paper production. CIFOR (IRIN, 2011), noted that lowland peatswamps are disappearing at a rate of around 100,000 ha per year. Lowland peatswamp rainforests in Sumatra alone were reduced by more than 60% between 1985 and 2007 (WWF, 2010), and it is very well known that the major oil palm companies within Indonesia still have large tracts of as yet undeveloped concessions on peatswamp forest in their reserve banks (Greenpeace, 2008).
It is in this wider context that the RSPO endorsed PanEco‟s Pilot Study, at its General Assembly in 2006. Indeed, the alternative development of oil palm plantations outside forested land, especially outside peatswamp forests, is a currently the focus of much discussion within the palm oil industry. Degraded land therefore seems an important option to consider. There are about 7,4 million ha of degraded land in Indonesia and 200,000 ha in Aceh province alone. The potential to use degraded land for future oil palm plantations does certainly exist.
2 With regard to the decision to adopt organic production methods and procedures, it is consistent with the RSPO Principles and Criteria (P&C) for sustainable palm oil production. In fact, it goes beyond the existing RSPO P&C, as the use of chemicals, such as Paraquat is permitted on plantations seeking RSPO certification. Interestingly, as far as we know there are no other existing oil palm plantations that apply organic methods from the initial plantation stage, in all of South-East Asia. All other organic oil palm plantations that we know of developed from plantations that were first established in the conventional manner, and which were subsequently converted into organic oil palm plantations at a later stage, when the palms were already productive.
Seeking to use the most biodiversity friendly method from the onset of the plantation is therefore of considerable interest, especially to assess the long term changes in biodiversity at the pilot study site when the least environmentally damaging conditions are applied. From a low-income smallholder perspective, it may also make good economic sense, as reducing the amount of chemicals used reduces the monetary cost of the initial investment. Instead, the farmers assume some additional labour costs to produce organic alternatives that they can effectively provide for free.
The success and the lessons learned from the Pilot Study are expected to encourage all stakeholders (especially those within the palm oil industry, Government, and local and international organisations) to develop the oil palm sector more responsibly. The Pilot Study provides a showcase for the development of degraded land, taking into account the local social priorities of the smallholders/farmers, and the imperative of environmental protection
Objectives of the monitoring of environmental parameters To achieve the goal of finding a green solution to developing oil palm on degraded land, it is crucial to monitor from the outset the environmental changes that take place at the pilot study site, from the initial stage of the degraded land, to the establishment of a mature, productive oil palm plantation. These changes are determined by the choices made by the smallholders, which have direct on the ground implications for the environment and biodiversity. In this report we use three land cover categories for the degraded area that the work is occurring in. 1) secondary forest, which refers to logged over areas that are being covered by trees again, but in the succession phase called secondary forest. The conservation area consist of this land cover; 2) planted land, which refers to all the degraded areas Figure 1. Old tree in the conservation that have been cleared and then planted with oil area palm; 3) degraded land that has not yet been cleared and planted. We refer to that as unconverted degraded land in the remainder of the report.
3 For this reason, there are two main perspectives that can be taken when considering and evaluating the different environmental changes that take place during the development of the oil palm plantation.
On the one hand, one needs to consider the impact of developing the oil palm plantation at the plot, or plantation level itself. From this perspective, what is important is the zoning of the site, and the allocation of areas to different uses, such as conservation areas and oil palm areas. More precisely, the design, development and effective implementation of the land use strategy. At this level, most important from a biodiversity conservation perspective is to try to allocate the largest, contiguous, area possible for conservation. As the size of any set aside conservation area ultimately depends on those that actually own the land, the smallholders in this case, the main question is then how large an area can they be persuaded to set aside, and which conditions must prevail to effectively conserve that area?
On the other hand, one needs to look at the issue from a more micro-level perspective, at the level of the land itself, within the zones established on the site. In this case, what is important is to effectively monitor and evaluate changes that occur within areas under different land uses. In the case of the pilot study these include the conservation area that has been set aside, the degraded land already cleared and planted (i.e. the planted land), and remaining degraded land not Figure 2. Land use map for the yet cleared or planted with oil palms. RSPO_Lamie plot
Of course each approach is highly complementary, to establish the true impact of environmental changes when considering the existing local social situation. The data obtained also help to identify the “lessons learned” from the development of the biodiversity friendly plantation, and hence to improve the procedures and practical activities by which plantations are implemented, to minimize their impact on biodiversity.
4 1. Plantation level approach: Follow up of the extension of the conservation area and other land uses
Introduction
The conservation area set aside within the oil palm pilot study with smallholders is an important element when considering biodiversity within a larger oil palm landscape. For RSPO P&C, the identification and mitigation of damage to High Conservation Value Forests Figure 3: Initial condition of the Pilot Study site (before land clearing) (HCVF) is a key requirement. The question is, how to respect a set aside conservation area, or HCVF, when implementing a plantation according to RSPO P&C? Indeed, how is it possible to avoid developing environmentally important biodiversity areas when rational smallholders tend to make decisions that maximise oil palm production on their individual plots, in order to maximize possible production and revenue. The sum of each individual‟s behaviour would naturally lead to the total transformation of all the degraded land into oil palm plantation and the destruction of any HCVF or conservation area would be the most likely outcome. Under this kind of scenario, how can the locally dire, profit seeking reality, meet RSPO P&C regarding HCVF?
Initially, the conservation area was defined from a normative perspective, checking against the criteria used for HCVF designation, under the principles and criteria of the RSPO. The following report explains how this conservation area within the pilot study has subsequently evolved, taking into account the social realities of the location.
1.1.Initial delineation of the conservation area according to RSPO P&C
Two technical experts from YEL/PanEco defined the conservation area during a field visit on the 23rd and 24th of February, 2010. It was found that the secondary forest area of the site contained notable biodiversity species that need to be conserved under both existing Indonesian law and according to RSPO criteria 7.3, regarding the conservation of HCVF for biological importance. The field assessment found several mammal species using the secondary forest that are listed in the IUCN Red List of Threatened
5 Species (IUCN 2011). These included White-handed gibbons (Hylobates lar; IUCN Vulnerable), Thomas‟ langurs (Presbytis thomasi; IUCN Vulnerable), Sun bears (Ursus malayanus; IUCN Vulnerable). 13 bird species were also listed in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, including the Large green pigeon, Treron capellei; listed by the IUCN as Vulnerable) and 12 near-threatened species (see table 4).
Three species of Pitcher plants (Nepenthaceae) were also found; Nepenthes albomarginata, Nepenthes ampullaria, and Nepenthes gracilis, all of which are notable carnivorous plants protected by Indonesian law since 1999.
Figure 4. Option 1: Keeping the single Figure 5. Option 2: Clearing the ‘hourglass’ area contiguous forest block and clearing outlying of the largest block and outlying fragments, and fragments, whilst restoring unconverted restoring the unconverted degraded land patch degraded land patches (dark green) within the within the remaining block (shown as dark remaining block. green)
Given the above, the secondary forest area of the site was earmarked to be set-aside as a conservation area within the pilot study. It covered a total of 4.3 ha, most of it being comprised of a single contiguous forested block, with a few outlying fragments, a relatively small area overall when considering the space needed by most bird and mammal species for their long-term survival.
However, from the perspective of the local smallholders, it is important to note that this area still represented 5.1% of the total initial smallholder area for the pilot study, 82 ha1. It therefore represented a substantial percentage of the total area that would not be used for development, and would be effectively „lost‟ to them for economic development. It should also be realised, however, that this viewpoint does not take into consideration
1 The total are is now 74Ha as 8Ha was removed because some smallholder left the group.
6 the fact that set-aside conservation areas can actually provide economic benefits to an oil palm plantation, for example by hosting predators and other important animals and plants, that might play a role in regulating pests and diseases that could potentially be detrimental to the oil palms and their productivity.
1.2. Identifying the options for the conservation area, with smallholder consultation
After mapping the prescribed 4.3 ha conservation area, the smallholders discussed how to conserve this area in practice, or a part of it, taking into account the environmental realities (i.e. connectivity of the secondary forest fragments) and their own social realities (i.e. smallholder plot ownership). Two main options were discussed; Option 1, seeking to preserve most of the secondary forest area (the best conservation option) and Option 2, seeking to preserve only those areas that were most in tune with their own social realities.
Option 1: Set aside and conserve the main contiguous forested block, restore degraded patches within it, and clear the few outlying patches of trees (see figure 2). In this scenario the more isolated smaller forest plots would be cleared and developed as part of the oil palm plantation and an overall area of 3.7 ha (85% of the initial 4.3 ha proposal) would be conserved. An existing narrow dirt track crosses the conservation area that would be set-aside but the canopy closes over above this sufficiently enough to allow white- handed gibbons and many other species to cross.
Option 2: The second option (figure 3), involved more secondary forest clearance than option one and a total area conserved of 2.8 ha (65% of the original proposal). Under this scenario, the remaining contiguous forested block would be partially cleared (the southern end of the „hourglass‟), and the remainder would be situated in just two of the smallholder‟s plots. The other forest patches would all be cleared and developed as part of the oil palm plantation. With this option, one of the two smallholders would have to give up most of his plot for conservation and another would have to give up just over a quarter of his plot, requiring the negotiation of some form of compensation agreement.
After discussing the two options at length, the smallholder group eventually decided to opt for the option 2, for the following reasons:-
a. From a purely biodiversity perspective, whilst resulting in a smaller conservation area than option 1, this option remains attractive:
- It hosts the HCV species identified in the first survey and subsequent field observations. Each of these species is listed on the IUCN red list of threatened species and is protected by Indonesian law. These include the white-handed gibbon (Hylobates lar), the sun bear (Ursus malayanus), the flask-shaped pitcher-plant (Nepenthes ampullaria) and one species endemic
7 to the region (Aceh and parts of North Sumatra), the Thomas‟ leaf monkey (Presbytis thomasi). - The conservation area would still hold food trees and plants for some of the above species, i.e., the primates, such as figs (Ficus racemosa), Cempedak (Artocarpus integer) and a related species (A. gomeziana), all found within the area that would be set aside. It would also continue to provide a refuge and various resources for the other species - The conservation area would still contain a small but important wetland area located on the site, whilst most peat swamps in surrounding areas are now converted to palm oil plantations, paddy fields or other uses. By maintaining the wetland area this conservation forest would continue to function as an important local water regulation and absorption area. b. From a socio-economic perspective, the climbing rattan palms (e.g. Daemonorops spp), used extensively in the region as rope and for local handicrafts, especially for furniture making, can also still be found within the forested block that would be set-aside. A population of the Chinese evergreen (Rotundum sp.) also exists. This has economic potential as an ornamental plant, and can be cultivated. c. From the perspective of the smallholder group it was also considered likely to be much easier to handle the management of option 2, as the resulting conservation area would only involve two of the smallholder‟s plots. They consider that this would make land rights clarification more straightforward, and that the proposed area could be more easily and clearly defined and delineated. Moreover, this option was naturally more appealing to the smallholders as it maximised the total area available for oil palm planting, and hence higher potential revenues.
The smallholders as a group agreed to compensate the two smallholders that could not develop their land, or at least a significant part of it. It was agreed to buy the land based on the average market price per hectare of farming land in the local District (Nagan Raya) and amounts to IDR 10 million per hectare (around US$ 1,100).
1.3. The Conservation Area actually implemented in reality
Unfortunately, whilst the whole group of smallholders initially agreed on option 2, in the end it was not realised. The farmer that should have put aside the majority of his land parcel for conservation purposes and agreed to the compensation terms outlined above subsequently refused to comply with the collective decision. He decided instead that he would leave the group and develop his land independently for oil palm. Even after intensive discussions, he refused to remain involved unless the other members agreed to double the value of the compensation they would pay for his land. All of the other Pilot Study members rejected this request.
8 This plot was then removed from the original Pilot Study area, thereby removing most of the agreed conservation area too. By way of a compromise, however, the other smallholder, that had only a fraction of his land within the proposed conservation area (just over a quarter) offered to conserve most of his land instead. This land is located adjacent to the land belonging to the other smallholder, who had refused to rent his land for conservation. As the characteristics of its vegetation are similar (secondary forest) to the initially earmarked conservation area, this seemed a practical solution, and the owner is now being compensated by the other Pilot Study members under the same conditions as outlined above.
1.4. Conclusions regarding conservation area establishment and the way forward.
Normative application of the RSPO P&C concerning HCVF, as a means to identify and define conservation areas within plantations, was considered a good way to start, to determine which areas should be protected from an ecosystem perspective. However, in a case like the pilot study, the smallholders are ultimately the ones who decide since are the actual owners of the land. The process outlined above shows that despite early good will and a lengthy, collective decision making process, individual stakeholders and the decisions they make can still have an enormous bearing on what actually results from practical implementation on the ground. This therefore often demands additional compromises to achieve a particular goal, in this case establishing a set-aside conservation area within the pilot study.
Figure 6: Conservation area in early 2011
9
Figure 7. Pilot study with the effective conservation area in green as at 30 April 2011
10 During the negotiation process and its implementation, the size of the area to be conserved shrank markedly, as the smallholder‟s keen interest to develop the land tended to override biodiversity considerations. The initially defined conservation area totalled 4.3 ha. Option 1 would have resulted in 3.7 ha being conserved and Option 2, 2.8 ha. The smallholder group chose this second option, but when actually trying to implement the conservation area, only one smallholder agreed to conserve most of his land and only 2.32 ha (54% of the original) was in the end set aside as the Pilot Study conservation area.
Figure 8. showing the evolution of the different conservation areas along the years
When establishing a conservation area on a site of nature the process must account for social realities, especially land ownership and the goals and desires of individuals, and attempt to come up with very practical solutions. The definition and goals of the conservation area, and its implications, must be well understood from the onset by both the group as a whole and by its individual members. An acceptable compensation mechanism also needs to be developed and implemented fairly, ideally with an
11 enforcement mechanism in place to ensure continued compliance. It is especially important to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all of the stakeholders, at all times.
Finally, it was helpful throughout the negotiations with the smallholders to develop the conservation not to refer to it as an area that must be left untouched and played no further role in the palm oil plantation, but instead to ensure that they fully understood such areas play an important role for them too, and can actually enhance their livelihoods by providing direct benefits such as natural resources, water regulation, and pest control, etc.).
2. Environmental perspective: the follow up of biodiversity parameters
Introduction-Methodology
The programme continues to monitor various indicators of environmental impact in the three defined areas within the pilot study; the secondary forest (conservation area), degraded land not yet cleared and planted, and the planted land (the oil palm plantation area itself). In each, regular surveys of birds, reptiles and amphibians, small mammals, insects, vegetation, plankton and benthic fauna are being carried out.
For each of the biodiversity parameters identified for study, three main indicators are regularly surveyed and monitored:
1. Number of individuals (where applicable). 2. Number of species or orders (where applicable). 3. Number of threatened species recorded in the IUCN red list of threatened species, CITES appendix I and II listings, and the Government of Indonesia‟s own protected species lists.
The programme also monitors soil and water quality.
To date three comprehensive biodiversity and environmental surveys have been completed. In addition to these, monitoring has also been possible in between surveys via observations in the field as PanEco and YEL have field staff based permanently in the area.
There are three surveys, corresponding to period of time. The first „baseline‟ survey describes the period November 2008-May 2009 (survey 2009), the second May 2009- December 2010 (Survey 2010), and the third, January 2011 to April 2011 (survey 2011). Each time there were collection of on-the-ground datas, and then extensive analysis and reporting in Laboratory, that sometimes took three or four months (in the case of insects or water). The three main different land-use categories were surveyed namely the area of secondary forest developed as the conservation area, the area subsequently cleared and planted with oil palms, and an area that to date has not yet been cleared for planting. Each set of surveys has been conducted by national and international experts, using whenever possible, the same experts to ensure consistency of methodology and
12 results. This has allowed us to establish a baseline of the biodiversity present at the onset of the pilot study and to identify changes and trends as the project progresses.
The first survey occurred before any activities on the ground, i.e. before the establishment of the oil palm plantation, and survey sites were located randomly over the whole the pilot study area. During this period the whole area was covered with unconverted degraded land except for the part that was secondary forest. Because during the first survey it was not yet known exactly where development for oil palm and conservation would occur it was decided to maintain several of the original survey locations, but also remove and add a few for the second and third survey sets. The second and third surveys were conducted at the same locations and for those surveys four plots were made in each of the three land uses: oil palm plantation, degraded land (not planted) and conservation area. Except for water, soil and benthos and plankton all surveys occurred in those four plots to maintain a systematic approach.
As explained in the previous chapter dealing with establishment of the conservation area, the smallholder holding the larger part of the conservation area refused to conserve it and has instead developed his land exclusively for oil palms. It is his neighbour that now holds the conservation area. For this reason, the vegetation plot that had previously been located in the originally proposed conservation area, on the land that was excised from the pilot study, had to be abandoned and a new plot established a few meters away, in similar vegetation considered still representative of the original.
The results presented here provide a good indication of the ecological differences between the three main land use types present. It is important to remember too, however, that the conservation area is not a natural, „pristine‟ primary forest, but a secondary forest that has regenerated after the original forests here were cleared in the 1990‟s. As such, the species present in the conservation area, their numbers and densities, should not be directly compared to nearby primary forests in the region.
13
Figure 9. Sampling site locations in relation to the three land cover types: shrub area = unconverted degraded land; conservation area = secondary forest; oil palm area = planted area.
14 2.1.Vegetation
As would be expected, there were major differences in vegetation between the grassland area (pre clearance in 2009 and planting in 2010) and the conservation area. On the coarse grassland the Diversity Index of the vegetation community was 1.32, which is classified as „low‟, while the Diversity Index of the vegetation community in the old secondary forests and younger secondary forests within the conservation area was between 2.37 and 2.93, or „medium‟. This indicates that the tree community of the old secondary forest is evolving toward a stable, rich vegetation community, while the grassland area remained poor.
Species number and abundance:
The number of vegetation species recorded during the surveys remained rather stable over the survey years in the conservation area, which contains both old and young secondary forest.
Secondary Secondary Secondary Planted Unconverted forest forest forest area degraded land Trees Shrubs Ground Shrubs Ground Species 18/ 24 25/ 23 10/ 13 23/ 21 20/ 15 Family 12/ 13 17/ 12 8/ 12 16/ 13 11/ 13 Individuals/ Ha 456/ 675 4846/ 8163 51,250/ 5765/ 6020 910,000/ 81,250 795,000
Table 1: Number of species found in each vegetation zone according to plant layer, number of families, with total numbers of individual plants/ha also shown for each plant layer. The first number in each cell refers to surveys in November 2010 and the second (bold) to the surveys in April 2011. Because during the first survey in 2009 slightly different locations were surveyed and the area did not yet consist of three land-cover types at that time, we present data from only the 2010 and 2011 surveys here. It should also be noted that the conservation area plot shifted slightly between the 2010 and 2011 surveys because part of the conservation area plot was affected by logging. The results therefore are not completely comparable.
Table 1 presents data from the vegetation surveys conducted in 2010 and 2011. The results clearly indicate that the only area containing trees is the conservation area that consists of secondary forest. This has obvious repercussions for biodiversity conservation and indicates that conservation areas in an oil palm landscape can maintain at least some tree diversity. It is also important to note that the ground layer in the planted and unconverted degraded areas contains more ground species than the conservation area indicating that these land cover types will probably be able to contain a variety of small animal species that depend on the ground layer and potentially even more species than in the conservation area. It is likely that this is further facilitated by the organic procedures applied in the planted areas. The vegetation within the RSPO Pilot Study area is indeed of critical importance for all of the other biodiversity parameters surveyed as it largely determines what is likely to be found and to survive. Hence this is the first parameter described in this report.
15 Density and domination
Because of its relationship with basal area (which on its turn is related to leaf, flower and fruit production) relative dominance is an interesting parameter to examine for vegetation plots since it gives some indication of food supply for folivorous and frugivorous animal species. For trees in the secondary forest in 2010 the three species with a relative dominance percentage above 10 were Semecarpus heterophyllus, Eugenia sp, and Palaquium obovatum. As a result of the slight shift in plot location the species with a relative dominance percentage above 10 in 2011 were Palaquium obovatum and Artocarpus integer. These latter two species are especially important for frugivorous arboreal mammals such as primates.
The shrub layer in the secondary forest in 2010 was dominated by Macaranga gigantea, M. hypoleuca, Eugenia cumini, and P. obovatum. In 2011 this was only a single species, A. integer. The shrub layer in the planted area was dominated by M. hypoleuca and Baccaurea racemosa in 2010 and by M. gigantea and Vitex pinnata in 2011. Thus species of the genus Macaranga, a typical pioneer species, were common in this layer as expected.
The most notable species in terms of its importance index (an index composed of a species‟ density and frequency in this case) in the ground layer of the secondary forest was Nepenthes ampullaria. The same layer in the unconverted degraded areas has as most important species Imperata cylindrica. The observed importance of Imperata cylindrica is typical of major ecosystem degradation. This is a pioneering species that can grow very fast in disturbed ecosystems and on open fields. Preparation of the ground for oil palm plantation can therefore lead to fast colonization by this species. An established population of Imperata cylindrica prevents other species from invading and growing because of its toxic metabolism and dense network of roots. This is a problem, as the dense root system also makes it extremely labor intensive to eradicate manually. It also prevents other, important plants from growing, such as the Land Cover Crop (LCC), used to prepare the ground by fixing nitrogen in the soil before planting of the oil palms themselves. In order to minimize this problem, after the preparation of the land for oil palm plantation, the Land Cover Crops and oil palms have to be established as quickly as possible.
Threatened species: Three species of pitcher plants (Nepenthaceae) were found in the conservation area during each survey. These were Nepenthes albomarginata, Nepenthes ampullaria and Nepenthes gracilis. All three are protected in Indonesia according to Governmental Regulation No.7/1999.
16 2.2.Reptiles and amphibians
Studies of reptiles, and especially amphibians, are of considerable interest when following environmental changes as they are highly sensitive to change, particularly in hygrometry and levels of contamination, two parameters that may well change during the establishment of a palm plantation. It is therefore highly appropriate to follow this parameter. Also, studying reptiles and amphibians in December and then April is useful to include both wet (December 2010) and dry (April 2011) seasons.
Class Family Species 2009 2010 2011 Unconverted Unconverted Secondary degraded Planted Secondary degraded Planted Total Total forest land land Random Total forest land land Random Amphibian Bufonidae Bufo asper 1 1 Bufo Amphibia Bufonidae melanostictus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Bufo Amphibia Bufonidae quadriporcatus 1 1 1 1 1 Fejervarya Amphibia Disroglossidae cancrivora 1 Fejervarya Amphibia Disroglossidae limnocharis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Limnonectes Amphibia Disroglossidae paramacrodon 1 1 1 1 1 Occidozyga Amphibia Disroglossidae laevis 1 1 1 Microhyla Amphibia Microhylidae heymonsi 1 1 1 1 1 Rana Amphibia Ranidae chalconota 1 1 Rana Amphibia Ranidae glandusola 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rana Amphibia Ranidae nicobariensis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Polypedates Amphibia Rhacophoridae leucomystax 1 1 1 1 1 Rhacophorus Amphibia Rhacophoridae pardalis 1 Rhacophorus Amphibia Rhacophoridae appendiculatus 1 1
17 Bonchocela Amphibia Agamidae cristatella 1 1 1 1 1 Cyrtodactylus Lacertilia Gekkonidae sp 1 1 1 1 1 Mabuya cf Lacertilia Scincidae rudis 1 1 1 1 Mabuya Lacertilia Scincidae multifasciata 1 1 1 1 1 Varanus Lacertilia Varanidae salvator 1 1 1 1 Ahaetulla Reptilia Colubridae prasina 1 1 Dendrelaphis Reptilia Colubridae caudolineatus 1 1 1 Dendrelaphis Reptilia Colubridae pictus 1 1 1 1 Reptilia Colubridae Lycodon sp 1 1 Enhyrdys Reptilia Colubridae albomaculata 1 Rhabodophis Reptilia Colubridae conspicillatus 1 Total 17 16 5 7 7 8 16 3 5 7 11 Table 2: Numbers of species of reptiles and amphibians recorded during the first, second and third surveys, also according to land use category for the latter two.
Number of species on the Pilot Study and adjacent area
After three surveys, a total of 25 species belonging to 9 families have been found within the Pilot Study. The total number of species found in each survey was 17, 16 and 16, a remarkably stable number (Table 2).
Initially at the first survey (2009), prior to land clearance and the establishment of the oil palm plantation and conservation area, the first assessment was carried out on the site itself, and in adjacent areas of the same habitat type. A total of 27 species of reptiles and amphibians have been found overall since the first survey (2009), comprising of 14 reptile species and 13 amphibians. 17 species were found inside the pilot study site itself whilst a total of 19 species were found in adjacent, outside areas. 10 of these have to date not yet been observed within the pilot study boundary.
18 Distribution of species between the different land uses
In the oil palm plantation area and on the degraded land not yet planted, there are between five and seven species recorded. Most of these species are the same. In 2011, all five of the species recorded on the degraded land were also recorded on the oil palm plantation. These were Bufo melanostictus, Fejervarya limnocharis, Microhyla heymonsi, Rana glandulosa, Polypedates leucomystax and Rhacophorus leucomystax. In 2010, two additional species, Rana nicobariensis and Mabuya multifasciata, were found both on the unconverted degraded land area and on the planted land area. At first glance, the early stage of oil palm development using organic methods seems to have little impact on the reptile and amphibian species present.
However, more careful examination of the data could reveal a different picture. The development of the oil palm plantation may have slightly negatively impacted the number of species on the pilot study. In particular, the loss of temporary inundated areas that where drained and planted may have removed three species: the Tree frog (Rhacophorus pardalis), the water snake (Enhydris maculata) and Rhabophis conspicillatus. On the other hand, the Ulcer toad (Bufo melanostictus) is now widespread in the pilot study, quite possibly having invaded the area following the tracks created by off-road vehicles when developing the site. The disappearance of the water snake could be directly related to the decline of cat-fish (Clarias sp), a staple diet of the species, from the wetland area.
Also of much interest is the evolution of the conservation area in terms of reptiles and amphibians. There are only between 3 (2011) and 5 (2010) species recorded here during the surveys, and all of them are relatively common species. Apart from Rana gladulosa and Mabuya multifasciata, two species found in reasonable numbers throughout the pilot study site, the other species found in 2010 or 2011 in the conservation area were not found in either the oil palm plantation or the degraded land. This shows that most of the species in the conservation area are limited to this wet secondary forest ecosystem, and that the different species found in the different land use areas have very different ecological needs. This also means that many reptile and amphibian species existing in one land use type problem would not survive in another land use, or at least many of those found in grasslands and plantations may not survive in forests, and vice versa.
Threatened species
No reptile or amphibian species listed in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species were found within the boundaries of the pilot study during any of the 3 surveys. However, 3 species listed in Appendix II of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild Flora and Fauna), were found during surveys of adjacent, similar habitats, outside of the pilot study. CITES Appendix II species are not necessarily at present threatened with extinction, but they are considered at risk of soon becoming so due to over exploitation for trade. The species found were the Blood Python (Python curtus), the Reticulated python (Python reticulatus) and the black
19 spitting cobra (Naja sumatrana). Despite the fact that they were not observed there, it is likely that all three of these can be found using parts of the pilot study on occasions, especially in the secondary forest conservation area. These findings indicate that the conservation area and the degraded land and oil palm plantation areas within the pilot study do not constitute particularly important ecological habitats for seriously threatened or endangered reptiles and amphibians, which are more often associated with primary rainforests, wetlands and riverine ecosystems.
20 2.3.Insects
Initially, a total of 199 species of insects were recorded at the first survey (2009) (figure 7). That may represent 76.5% of the total number of insect species in the area according to the insect species accumulation curve of new species found at each new survey. A first estimate is therefore that the total number of species on the pilot study is somewhere in the region of 262 species. During the three years of surveys, all of the species recorded were from 13 insect orders.
Number of species per order:
Figure 10: Number of species per order found in the secondary forest
21
Figure 11: Number of species per order found in the unconverted degraded land.
22
Figure 12: Number of species per order found in the planted area.
23
Figure 13: Number of species for each of the three land uses and the various surveys.
Figure 14: The Diversity index for each of the three land uses and the various surveys.
24 Potential pest species
Of particular concern for the palm oil plantation among the survey results for insects is the presence of the rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros), of the order Coleoptera. This species has been recorded several times within the pilot study and attacks the heart of oil palms. The rhinoceros beetle can be controlled biologically by birds, and Etarhizium anisopliae, a fungus that grows naturally in soils throughout the world and causes disease in various insects by acting as a parasite. It is currently being used as a biological insecticide to control a number of pests worldwide.
Another cause for concern is the presence of the nettle caterpillar (Parasa lepida) from the Limacodidae, a moth caterpillar that eats oil palm leaves and provokes production loss.
Both the above species are widespread in Indonesia and play an important role of the ecology of the region. Realistically, there is little or no chance that oil palms here can be completely protected from them but measures that might help to keep numbers under control or reduce damage might be required.
Threatened species
From the results so far available we are not aware of any threatened or protected invertebrate species being sampled in any of the surveys and consider it unlikely that there would be any in these very common habitat types.
2.4.Birds
Census Land use method 2009 2010 2011 Unconverted Degraded Land Plots 37 17 Planted Land Plots 26 20 Secondary Forest Plots 45 35 Total number of different bird species Transects/Plots found combining the transects 66 71 50 Total number of individual birds found Road count by road count. 92 56 57 Total number of all individual birds Road count / counted by road count or transect Transect/Plots 104 97 73
Table 3: Number of bird species recorded by transect and road count methods. See text for description of the different census methods.
25 In the first survey (2009), a one km transect was laid out through the study area to cover all major habitat types. Along this transect, at six stations spaced 200m apart, birds were counted during 20 minute periods in the morning and afternoon.
In the second and third survey (2010 and 2011), the overall landscape of the site had changed dramatically, and it was decided to carry out an inventory at three major plots, one in each of the three main different habitat types. Each plot was laid out along 200m stretches of the original transect. Each plot was visited three times in the morning, and afternoon, in which the timing of the visit was changed each time so that in the course of the survey each plot was visited during three different times in the morning, and 3 different times in the afternoon.
In addition to the transect/plot surveys, different individual birds were counted along paths and roads (tracks) running through the area. Samples consisted of the tallies of the first 50 individual birds seen within about 50 m of either side of the road, and this was repeated each time a sample was complete. Counting took place throughout the day, with a pause between 11.00 and 15.00 hrs.
Numbers of species
After three surveys, a total of 124 bird species have been found in the Pilot Study plot: 104 on the first survey, an additional 15 species on the second survey and 5 more species on the third survey. This levelling off seems to indicate that we will soon have recorded most, if not all of the bird species in the area.
The first survey, prior to any clearance and planting of oil palms, an additional 18 bird species were also found in the adjacent area, ourside of the pilot study itself.
Of special interest in the first survey, pilot study site was the secondary forest area, where despite its small size, forest birds were still present in good numbers, accounting for 28% of the species and 31% of the individuals. Of the 21 most common birds found in the pilot study, six were typical forest birds. Nevertheless, the bird community was found to be depauperate, missing many frugivore species (e.g. hornbills, barbets), and birds of prey, known from the region.
The number of species recorded and their abundance in the first survey appears rather high for a disturbed and degraded area. A partial explanation could be the remaining tracts of maturing secondary forest and wetland areas, offering resources of water, food and shelter in the form of three different habitat types, which may be especially attractive to the migratory species, of which a total of 15 species were found in the first survey.
Despite some forest clearance in 2010 by the landowner that left the group, the total number of species over all transects remained reasonably high, and even increased from 66 in the first survey to 71 in 2010. The fact that more birds were found in 2010 than in 2009 (first survey) may be due to the loss of forest habitat in the adjacent area,
26 outside the pilot study, and the oversight (i.e. missed by the surveyor) of some nocturnal species or fairly mobile species during the first surveys. The number of migratory bird species present in the pilot study in November 2010 was also similar to the first survey (2009). Finally, the overall species numbers in 2010, as indicated by the total number of species counted by transect or road counts, stayed more or less the same as the first survey (2009) (97 species versus 104).
In summary, it appears that the loss of some nearby forest, and the wetlands in 2010, has had some effect on the number of bird species in and around the pilot study. The loss of some species, however, appears to have been partly compensated in 2011 by 15 not previously recorded species.
However, it is important to stress that amongst the 23 species lost between the first survey (2009) and 2010, two were swamp specialist species and 14 were forest dependent birds, among them 1 species listed as vulnerable and 3 as near threatened by the IUCN. This indicates that even if the overall picture looked good, the pilot study oil palm plantation had already had a negative effect by 2010, causing the (apparent) disappearance of some birds dependent on specific ecosystems (swamps and forest) destroyed when the oil palm plantations were established.
Bird species at each survey 2009 2010 2011 Large Green Pigeon Treron capellei Vu 2 - - Blue-rumped Parrot Psittinus cyanurus NT 2 8 2 Black-bellied Malkoha Phaenicophaeus diardi NT 1 2 3 Rhinoceros Hornbill Buceros rhinoceros NT 1 - - Wrinkled Hornbill Aceros corrugatus NT 1 [2] - Puff-backed Bulbul Pycnonotus eutilotus NT 4 - 1 Buff-vented Bulbul Iole olivacea NT 1 1 - Green Iora Aegithina viridissima NT 4 9 9 Lesser Green Leafbird Chloropsis cyanopogon NT 4 2 - Sumatran Babbler Trichostoma buettikoferi NT 7 7 6 Black-throated Babbler Stachyris nigricollis NT 3 2 - Red-throated Sunbird Anthreptes rhodolaemus NT 6 1 Black Magpie Platysmurus leucopterus NT 2 - - Total species 13 8 5
Table 4. Threatened and near-threatened species found in the Lamie general area.
April 2011 shows a fairly sharp decline in the total number of bird species over all transects when compared to the first and third survey data. Only 50 species were recorded in 2011, a reduction of 21 species (30%) from 2010. This dramatic loss is attributable to the fact that a total of 44 bird species recorded in the first survey and/or 2010 were not found again in 2011. Of particular interest is the loss of 21 forest dependent species recorded in the first survey (2009) and 2010, including the vulnerable large green pigeon and seven of the near-threatened species (See Table 4).
Despite losing some species, five new, previously unrecorded species where found in the Pilot Study Plot during the 2011 survey. These comprised four disturbed habitat
27 species and one rainforest bird (the Maroon Woodpecker, Blythipicus rubiginosus). These are species of no particular conservation value that were quite possibly missed and overlooked on earlier surveys.
Comparing the secondary forest, the unconverted degraded land and the planted land, it is clear that the forest conservation area is very distinct from the other two in terms of bird species. The two non-forested habitats host similar bird species. In 2010, the number of bird species on the unconverted degraded land was noticeably higher (37) than in the planted land (26). But, in April 2011, the number of species on unconverted degraded land (16) and planted land (19) had reached similar levels. This is most likely because food (e.g. seeds and fruits from recolonizing vegetation, insects) were by then present once again in the young oil palm plantation, at levels not too dissimilar to those in the unconverted degraded land.
Another interesting observation regarding the different land use types is that for all three the number of bird species declined markedly between 2010 and 2011. In the conservation area the decline is mainly due to the loss of forest dependent birds, and on the unconverted degraded land and planted land, it is mainly due to the absence of migratory species, as the survey was done in April 2011 when most migratory birds have already returned to their breeding regions.
Threatened species
Threatened species listed by the IUCN and found at the site include the Large Green Pigeon (Treron capelli), listed as „vulnerable‟ and seen in the first survey (2009) but not since, and 12 „near-threatened‟ species recorded in the first survey (2009) (Table 4). The latter were all forest dependent species. Five of them had already disappeared by 2010 and a further three between 2010 and 2011, with the reduction of the secondary forest and the removal of the remaining trees in the planted land.
Predicting that the establishment of an oil palm plantation would probably result in such losses, the report of the first bird survey in the first survey (2009) recommended to keep all of the existing trees within the pilot study landscape, and to maximize tree planting in and around the pilot study. Despite this early recommendation, and PanEco‟s initial agreement to implement it, the smallholders did not carry it out, as they could not see any direct benefits from doing so. Instead they preferred to clear their areas entirely and maximize the number of oil palms they could plant.
The forest conservation area seems to maintain some importance for the local (and regional) forest bird population as it still hosts many forest specialists, despite its small size (2.3 Ha). It seems that the conservation area does not play any major role for threatened species conservation, however, as it does not appear to attract any of the species listed in the threatened or endangered categories on the IUCN‟s red list, suggesting it is of little significance in terms of global bird conservation.
28 However, it may still be too early to jump to such a conclusion. Indeed, even this small conservation area can be considered as part of a much larger forest area at the landscape level, as a refuge, or alternative source of food for many species. To examine this, a bird survey was also carried out in the nearby Tripa peat swamp forest, between 17th and 21st April, 2011, immediately following the pilot study bird survey, and by the same expert, using the same methods. Two IUCN vulnerable species; the Lesser Adjutant Stork (Leptoptilos javanicus), and the Large Green Pigeon (recorded in the pilot study in the first survey (2009), and 25 near-threatened species were found. More threatened species and many other forest birds are also expected to occur in the area, including some endangered species; such as the White-winged wood Duck, (Cairina scutulata) reported by local people to still be present in the area, the masked finfoot (Heliopais personata) and Storm‟s stork (Ciconia stormi). All three of these have been recorded in the nearby Kluet swamp forests further down the coast, and are considered likely to still persist in Tripa as well. A total of 155 species were recorded directly during this five day survey in Tripa, three times more than were found in the pilot study.
The role of birds in the pilot study
Conservation Planted Land Unconverted forest Degraded land Carnivores 0 % 2 % 1 % Frugivores 9 % 6 % 1 % Insectivores 64 % 42 % 29 % Granivores - 26 % 49 % Nectarivores 3 % 0 % 0 % Omnivores 25 % 31 % 34 % Total
Table 5. Percentage of bird species according to their different foraging strategies, found in each of the 3 land use types, in 2011.
From table 5, it clear that the forested conservation area sustains mostly insectivores and some frugivores, which are largely specialist species, such as flycatchers, barbets and green pigeons. On the other hand, the two other land uses (unplanted degraded land and oil palm plantation), host many granivores (seed-eaters), species that feed on the abundant grasses and sedges that are typical of pioneer vegetation. Of particular interest, however, is that just under half (42%) of all the bird species in the oil palm plantation are insectivores, suggesting that the birds here are already playing an active role in controlling potential insect pests.
The conservation area may also still be important to the oil palm plantation itself too, for similar reasons. The existence of variety (diverse habitats) within an area tends to support higher species diversity and the presence of the forest almost certainly attracts some insect predator species that probably would not visit the site if the forest was not there. The bee-eaters (Meropidae), for example, are significant predators of flying insects in open areas and almost invariably hunt from a high perch, either in forest, or at the forest edge.
29 Oil palms suffer from a number of pest species. Amongst them are bagworms, nettle caterpillars and grasshoppers, which damage their leaves. Caterpillars also eat the flowers, snails and rats consume the fruits and beetles bore into the palm‟s woody parts (Kalshoven 1981). Rats are preyed on by birds of prey, in particular the Black- shouldered Kite (Elanus caruleus), a pair of which were observed in the pilot study area, and Barn Owls (Tyto alba), which may soon colonise the area, or will be encouraged to do so by erecting some suitable nest boxes. Only cuckoos (Cuculidae), of which a few species were found, especially in the forest surveys, consume nettle caterpillars (Parasa lepida). In fact a myriad of insectivorous bird species keep leaf-attacking caterpillars and bugs under control.
Predators in general require more complex habitats (Ricklefs, 1973), which implies that simplified habitats (such as oil palm monocultures) are less attractive, and hence more vulnerable to pest attack. From the data obtained at the Lamie pilot study, it is clear that the diversified forest plots sustain significantly more predators (i.e., insectivores) than the non-forested areas.
Diversification of the habitat, as can be achieved by the preservation of forest patches, forest strips along river banks and ravines, planted hedgerows and vegetation along roads, would provide good nest and roost sites for all those beneficial birds that may assist to keep pests under control (van Balen, 1989).
2.5.Small mammals
Nov- Nov- Apr Family Species English name 08 10 -11
1 Muridae Maxomys hylomyoides Sumatran spiny rat 3
2 Muridae Maxomys whiteheadi (*) Whitehead's spiny rat 1 2
3 Muridae Mus caroli Ryuku mouse 1
4 Muridae Rattus rattus Black rat ++ 3 3
Müller's giant Sunda 5 Muridae Sundamys muelleri rat 6 3
6 Sciuridae Callosciurus notatus Plantain squirrel +++ 2 Three-striped ground 7 Sciuridae Lariscus insignis squirrel ++ 3
8 Tupaiidae Tupaia tana Large treeshrew 1
9 Erinaceidae Hylomis sp. Gymnure ++ ++ ++
10 Hystricidae Hystrix brachyura Malayan porcupine ++ ++ ++
30 11 Viverridae Paradoxurus hermaphroditus Asian palm civet ++ ++ ++
Key : + Species reported as rare and in small numbers ++ Species reported in multiple locations in small numbers +++ Species reported in every location and in large numbers Numbers Numbers of individuals trapped or seen
(*) Vulnerable species in the IUCN red list of threatened species
Table 6: Number of small mammal species recorded during the surveys by trapping and field observations, presented with local information.
Number of species and their abundance:
The numbers of small mammals trapped and observed during surveys is presented in Table 6, along with information obtained from local people during discussions and interviews. The species found and reported are all associated with either rainforest or agriculture areas. All except the Asian palm civet are from a single order, the rodents (Rodentia).
One of the main characteristics of rodents is their large incisors, which grow constantly throughout life. Most of the rodents are omnivorous but Figure 15: Attacked by porcupine (Hystrix sumatrae) fruits make up the major part of the diet, and rodents play an important role in seed dispersal. For humans, many of the rodents are considered harmful, since they become crop pests and can act as vectors and reservoirs of disease.
The rats and mice (Muridae) were over represented in the pilot study surveys constituting 5 of the 11 species recorded. Their overall populations too outnumber other species‟ populations at the site. This was expected though as there are many rat and mouse species in the region and many of them are very common. On Sumatra as a whole there are 36 Muridae species divided over 10 genus. The second most obvious family from the surveys is the Sciuridae (squirrels), two families of which were found.
Overall, the total number of species seems to remain stable in the pilot Study over the 3 survey periods. With the very low number of small mammals trapped it is virtually impossible to identify any trends in species recorded over the surveys and there is so far no indication from the data of any obvious changes or fluctuations. However, there
31 do appear to be some differences in the presence or absence of the rodent species found between the 3 different land use categories.
Conservation area Oil palm Degraded land Species 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 Maxomys hylomyoides X Maxomys whiteheadi X Mus caroli x Rattus rattus X x Sundamys muelleri X X x Callosciurus notatus X x Lariscus insignis X Tupaia tana X Total 3 4 0 1 1 3
Table 7: Species trapped according to the three land use categories, in 2010 and 2011.
The main difference observed is between the conservation area and the two other land use types, especially when considering only the higher number of species that where effectively trapped in the 2010 and 2011 surveys. The conservation area seems richer than both the unplanted degraded land and oil palm plantation area, with six species recorded in 2010 or 2011, compared to only four that were found in the oil palm plantation and/or the degraded land combined. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the conservation area and the degraded land have only two species in common, Müller's giant Sunda rat (Sundamys muelleri) and the Plantain squirrel (Collosciurus notatus). These findings reflect well the fact that the forest conservation area mainly supports forest adapted „rainforest‟ species, whilst the degraded land hosts only species adapted to more open „field‟ type habitats.
Also of particular interest regarding the oil palm planted area is the recolonisation of the area after clearance and planting. As the young oil palm plantation still offers a similar ecosystem to that of the degraded land, one could expect that plus or minus the same species would be found in both habitats. However, heavy disturbance of the ground during land clearance to prepare the land in the early stages of the plantation may well have all but wiped out the small mammal population, as not a single animal was recorded in 2010. Nevertheless, in 2011, the black rat (Rattus rattus), appears to have lived up to its reputation as an opportunist par excellence and rapidly began recolonizing the area.
Potential pests
32
The observed radiation of the black rat within the newly established oil palm plantation is of significant concern. The black rat was already recorded in the pilot study prior to its implementation, in relatively high numbers, most likely due to the proximity of nearby settlements and other human activities. It is well known as a predator of oil palm fruits, climbing to considerable heights to feed on the fruit bunches of even mature oil palms, let alone much smaller, young ones. The fact that the population of the black rat is now recolonising the oil palm plantation on its own, without any competitors, could become a significant problem for the development of the oil palm plantation, especially in these few first years.
Also of concern the presence of a reasonably high number of Malayan porcupines (Hystrix brachyura) reported in and around the pilot study. These porcupines are a significant threat to young oil palms, as they eat the heart and kill the palm outright in doing so. The porcupine is a nocturnal species and forages at night, resting during the day. They feed on roots, tubers, bark and fallen fruits. They also eat carrion and insects. Trapping of porcupines in the area has not been very successful.
Threatened species
Whitehead‟s spiny rat (Maxomys whiteheadi) was found on the conservation area and has been listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red list since 2008, as it is believed to have undergone a sharp decline in numbers, a result of the rapid loss of lowland rainforests on Sumatra and Borneo.
2.6. Larger mammals
Whilst no specific field surveys have looked at the larger mammals, some species have been observed since the start of the project by farmers, staff, and some of the experts surveying the other animal taxa. It is therefore possible to summarise this information here.
The wild pig (Sus scrofa) has been frequently seen in and around pilot study ever since the start of the programme. However, it seems that the population may at present be declining slightly as some of the local people (generally non-indigenous immigrants, since Aceh is a predominantly a staunchly muslim area) are hunting them for food and sale. Pigs were an especially serious problem during the nursery stage of the plantation‟s development as they ate the leaves and hearts of the young oil palm seedlings.
The pilot study also seems to constitute part of the home range of at least one Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae) too, a species listed as critically endangered in the IUCN red list. Tiger pug marks have been found each year, photographs of which were obtained in February 2011, during a PanEco field visit. Tigers can feed on wild pigs, and often prey on deer species, both large and small, as well.
33 Other larger mammals that have been recorded in the pilot study are the white-handed gibbon (Hylobates lar), the sun bear (Ursus malayanus), and one species endemic to norther Sumatra, Thomas‟ leaf monkey (Presbytis thomasi), all of which are listed as vulnerable by the IUCN.
2.7. Plankton and benthos
Plankton and benthos samples were collected in the areas indicated in figure 6. This was done primarily to assess whether there was any indication of pollution in these waters prior to the onset of the pilot study and to enable us to monitor any changes in water quality that might occur, especially those that might result directly from the implementation of the pilot study plantation. To facilitate this, samples were collected from the nearby Tripa river, both upstream and downstream of the pilot study site, and from smaller drainage streams and canals etc in and around the pilot study itself.
The plankton and benthos data indicate that the number of plankton species in both the river and the pilot study appears to have declined between 2009 and 2011 (see Figure 11). For benthos species there seems to be some fluctuation in the river that could be the result of differences in rainfall (and hence flooding and dilution) between surveys. As for the pilot study site itself, no benthos species at all appear to have been found since 2009 (Figure 12). This was hypothesised to be the result of low oxygen levels in drainage canals on the site, which do not offer adequate conditions for benthos species. Although dissolved oxygen levels seem to go up in the pilot study area, the biological and chemical oxygen demands are increasing as well, which poses a bit of a conundrum. As a result we are not yet sure which factors of water quality explain the absence of benthos after 2009 and are examining this issue in more detail.
Figure 16: Number of plankton species
34
Figure 17: Number of benthos species
2.8. Water quality
As with benthos and plankton, the primary aim of water quality sampling was to identify existing pollution and establish the baseline data prior to the establishment of the pilot study and to allow us to monitor any changes that might occur as a result of the implementation of the project. To do this, samples were taken at the locations indicated on the map (Figure 6). Three main aspects of water quality were examined; physical, chemical and microbiological (Table 8). The first two water surveys were conducted by a team from the local university in Banda Aceh (UNSYIAH). This partner institution is particular importance for the pilot project as it is the principle recognized scientific institution in Aceh Province. Their participation in the pilot study means that the results are all backed up at the local level. It also means that the research work with the pilot study will be known in Banda Aceh, the provincial capital, triggering the interest of other partners and stakeholders.
Overall results for the first two surveys, however, showed that water quality assessment is not that easy to assess, as some results looked questionable. The results that are questionable were the various oxygen measurements, the nitrate, E. Coli and the dissolved metals.
In view of ensuring the credibility of the work done, and as water quality is such a highly sensitive matter, as it relates to public health, in 2011 PanEco decided to undertake a „double survey‟ at the same time; one with Unsyiah and a second with INTERTEK, an internationally accredited private laboratory in Jakarta.
35 The water quality survey indicates that the water quality, both within, and in the vicinity of the Pilot Study, is generally relatively good when compared to the National water quality standard (Government Regulation No. 82, 2001, and Health Ministerial Decree No. 907/MENKES/SK/VII/2002). However, after the first surveys in 2009, the water quality in the pilot study itself no longer appears good enough to support any benthos species. At present, it is not clear whether changes in water quality per se are responsible for this disappearance of the benthic fauna in the study area or if other factors might be involved. Interestingly, dissolved oxygen levels seem to increase in the planted area from 2009 to 2011, but the biological and chemical oxygen demand levels also increased, indicating more biologically available and inert organic material in the planted area plots. This is indicative of greater surface water runoff into the water system in the planted area. The 2011 survey result from INTERTEK (Table 8) indicate that the chemical oxygen demand (COD) is higher in the sites in the planted area than in the river sites, reinforcing the assumption that considerable runoff is going into the water system in the planted areas. It is not clear whether this comes from the activities in the pilot study‟s planted area itself or from activities in the areas where these streams and canals emanate from and run through, such as other oil palm plantations.
Another interesting finding is that several of the micronutrients that are part of the organic fertilizer (Manganese, Iron and Zinc) used in the planted area, also show elevated levels in the planted area when compared to the river. The E. Coli data indicate higher levels of E. Coli in the river than in the water system in the planted area, but that considerable E. Coli levels occur in the planted area as well. Since E. coli must originate from mammals or other homiotherms it could also be that these levels originate partly from areas outside of the planted area. More research on this is needed such as sampling of the streams/canals before they enter the planted area and at locations after the planted area so that the planted area‟s true contribution can be determined. The water quality in the river does not seem to be influenced by the water flowing into the river from the planted area since there is no increase in parameter levels from site IV (downstream) to V (upstream). In conclusion, it seems that considerable changes are occurring in the water system in the planted area, but that more research needs to be conducted to determine exactly what the causal factors of these changes are. It also seems that activities on the pilot study are so far having little effect on the water quality of the nearby Tripa river, and hence on communities downstream.
Site Site Test Site I Site II Site V Techniq III IV No. Descripti Unit ue Resu Resu Resu Resu on Results lts lts lts lts Physical
Tests Odorl Odorl Odorl Odorl 1 Odor - Normal Odorless ess ess ess ess
36 pH ( in 2 - Probe 5.72 6.04 5.67 7.08 7.10 lab) Salinome 3 Salinity g/l < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.1 0.1 ter Total Dissolved Gravimet 4 mg/L 10 8 18 99 96 Solids, ric TDS Total Suspende Gravimet 5 mg/L 5 24 4 28 31 d Solids, ric TSS Turbidity Turbidim 6 NTU 22.9 40.1 17.1 13.1 12.3 (in lab) etric
Nutrients Ion Ammonia 1 mg/L Selective 0.18 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 , NH -N 3 Electrode Nitrate, Colorimet < 2 mg/L 0.015 0.420 0.051 0.048 NO3-N ric 0.005 Nitrite , Colorimet < < < 3 mg/L < 0.001 0.002 NO2-N ric 0.001 0.001 0.001
Dissolve
d Metals < < < < Cadmium, 1 mg/L GFAAS < 0.0001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cd 1 1 1 1 Chromium < < < < 2 mg/L GFAAS < 0.001 , Cr 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Copper, < < < < 3 mg/L FAAS < 0.01 Cu 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 < < 4 Iron, Fe mg/L FAAS 0.27 0.15 0.35 0.05 0.05 < < < < 5 Lead, Pb mg/L GFAAS < 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Mangane < < 6 mg/L FAAS 0.04 0.03 0.03 se, Mn 0.01 0.01 < 7 Zinc, Zn mg/L FAAS 0.057 0.024 0.034 0.008 0.005
Microbiol
ogy 1 E. Coli MPN/1 Incubatio 172 192 167 248 387
37 00ml n Total MPN/1 Incubatio > > > > 2 > 2420 Coliform 00ml n 2420 2420 2420 2420
Miscellan
eous Biochemic al Oxygen Incubatio 1 mg/L < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 Demand, n - Probe BOD Chemical Oxygen Titrimetri 2 mg/L 26 22 37 7 7 Demand, c COD Oil & Gravimet 3 mg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 Grease ric
Table 8. INTERTEK water quality results of the 2011 survey. Sites I-III (planted area), sites IV and V (Tripa River).
38 2.9. Soil surveys
The primary purpose of soil surveys was to determine the conditions of the land prior to establishing the pilot study. This is important as different soil types of course have different levels and compositions of nutrients, and hence have obvious long-term implications for fertilizer requirements, palm growth rates and productivity.
As would be expected, subsequent soil surveys indicate that although there have been some slight changes in several of the parameters measured between the first survey (2009) and 2011, none of these have been significant. Also the soil parameter differences between the three land uses examined are small. It therefore seems that the overall soil conditions remain stable in the area (Table 9).
39 Table 9. Soil characteristics at Lamie plot in 2009 (before land clearing) compared to 2011 (after conversion to oil palm plantation)
Results of soil analysis in the first survey (2009) Results of soil analysis in third survey (2011) No. Soil characteristics K1T K2T K3T K1T K2T K3T I. Soil physical characteristic 1. Soil drainage Slow Slow Slow slow Good good 2. Consistency rather sticky rather sticky rather sticky rather sticky rather sticky rather sticky 3. Type of weight (g/cm3) 1.38 1.35 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 4. Soil porosity (%) 45.00 47.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 5. Aggregated Stability Index 68.00 (stable) 72.00 (stable) 79.00 (stable) 69.00 (stable) 71.00 (stable) 76.00 (stable) 6. Soil permeability (cm/hour) 5.20 (slow) 11.89(rather fast) 5.40 (slow) 5.30 11.92(rather fast) 5.50 (slow)
II. Soil chemical characteristic
1. pH H2O 1 : 1.50 4.87 (M) 4.71 (M) 4.79 (M) 5.87 (N) 5.01 (M) 5.88 (N) 2. pH KCl 1 : 1.50 3.60 (SM) 3.62 (SM) 3.76 (SM) 4.66 (M) 4.55 (M) 4.00 (M) 3. C-organic (%) 2.30 (S) 1.11 (R) 0.92 (SR) 1.98 (R) 1.88 (R) 1.30 (R) 4. N-total (%) 0,25 (S) 0.13 (R) 0.10 (R) 0.18 (R) 0,17 (R) 0.11 (R) 5. P-available (ppm) 0.93 (SR) 1.06 (SR) 1.76 (SR) 3.22 (SR) 6.22 (SR) 2.11 (SR) 6. K-available (me/100 g soil) 0.41 (S) 0.27 (R) 0.26 (R) 0.24 (R) 0.32 (R) 0.41 (R) 7. Ca-dd (me/100 g soil) 2.92 (R) 2.64 (R) 2.96 (R) 3.88 (R) 6.33 (R) 3.66 (R) 8. Mg-dd (me/100 g soil) 0.72 (R) 1.52 (R) 0.20 (R) 0.56 (R) 0.60 (R) 0.68 (R) 9. Na-dd (me/100 g soil) 0.53 (S) 0.63 (S) 0.45 (S) 0.44 (S) 0.77 (S) 0.22 (S) 10. Al-dd (me/100 g soil) 5.08 (T) 5.84 (T) 6.56 (T) 1.22 (R) tu (SR) 0.56 (SR) 11. H-dd (me.100 g soil) 2.20 1.76 1.44 1.88 0.08 1.22 12. KTK (me/100 g soil) 19.60 (S) 12.80 (R) 12.40 (R) 16.44 (S) 12.80 (R) 19.60 (S) 13. Alkali saturation (%) 23.00 (R) 40.00 (S) 31 (R) 33.60 (R) 60.95 (T) 26.90 (R) 14. DHL (mmhos/cm) .25 (SR) 0.23 (SR) 0.26 (SR) 0.72 (S) 0.76 (S) 0.44 (SR) Sources : First survey (2009) and third survey (2011) Notes : K1T = Topsoil plot 1 (Conservation area), K2T = Topsoil plot 2 (Shrub area, now cleared), and K3T = Topsoil plot 3 (Oil palm plot). SM = Very acid; M = Acid; N = neutral; SR = very low, R = low, S = medium, T = high.
40
3. Conclusion and way forward
Initially, the number of species and overall populations of plant and animals in the Pilot Study are considered reasonably healthy for such a small plot (74 ha) of so-called “degraded land” from which the original forest cover was cleared quite some years ago. More than 100 bird species, 25 reptiles & amphibians, close to 300 different species of insects, more than 10 small mammals, 2 threatened primate species, and even bears and the critically endangered Sumatran tiger were still found to frequent the site. This diversity is almost certainly partially a result of remaining diversity of the habitat itself, both on the site itself and in the surrounding area.
Overall, these studies of the pilot study since 2009, from the initially degraded land to an established (albeit young) oil palm plantation, with associated small conservation area and some remaining degraded land, recorded mostly the same species as present from year to year. The numbers of species and total population sizes appear to decline only slightly, if at all for some taxa. This may well be directly linked to the use of biodiversity sensitive methods, i.e. organic, from the outset in developing the plantation. It has almost certainly contributed to some degree in maintaining the species populations and facilitating recolonisation of the area, especially by plants and insects, and ultimately other fauna too. The plants and insects are the two basic categories at the base of the food chain, and hence largely determine what other species can survive in a given area.
However, this general observation does not adequately reflect some of the more specific realities of the situation at the pilot study. More detailed examination of the results, looking in more detail at which species are present in each of the different land use categories and what is happening to them allows some important conclusions to be drawn.
Comparing the forest conservation area and the other land uses (oil palm plantation and degraded land), all of the biodiversity indicators (number of species, numbers of individuals, number of threatened species), for each of the main taxa studied, with the exception of the reptiles and amphibians, tend to be roughly similar or distinctly higher in the forested conservation than in the other land use types. At the same time, in terms of overall species present there is relatively little overlap in the species that use the secondary forest and those that use the non-forest areas. Roughly only around a third of the species are the same for each habitat, within each of the biodiversity parameters. In the conservation area, all of the biodiversity indicators appeared relatively stable over the 3 surveys, with the exception of the bird community, which seems to have lost between 20% and 30% of its original species.
In addition, the conservation area is the only area where threatened or protected species were found in pilot study. Initially in the first survey (2009), eight species were found: the white-handed gibbon (Hylobates lar, vulnerable), Thomas‟ leaf monkey (Presbytis thomasi, vulnerable), Malayan sun bear
41 Ursus malayanus, vulnerable), the Large Green Pigeon (Treron capellei vulnerable), and Whitehead‟s spiny rat (Maxomys whiteheadi, vulnerable), and three species of protected pitcher plants (Nepenthes albomarginata, Nepenthes ampullaria and Nepenthes gracilis). A total of 12 near threatened forest dependent bird species were also recorded in the area, as well as three species of threatened reptile and amphibians. Although these were all outside of the pilot study boundary itself when seen, they are highly likely to frequent it as well.
Despite considerable disturbance due to land clearance in areas adjacent to the forested conservation area (when establishing the planted area), the protected vegetation species and all of the mammals remained. The only threatened bird species recorded from the site has since not been seen, however, and the same is true for 8 of the 12 near-threatened birds. These bird species appear to have disappeared, even though they can still be found in the nearby Tripa peat swamp forests, from which they could theoretically recolonize the pilot study. As with these and many other species not recorded on subsequent surveys, it is also possible that they have simply been missed (overlooked) by the surveyors, and have not really disappeared at all. For this reason it is extremely important to continue monitoring over the long term before such conclusions can really be confirmed.
A simple conclusion to draw from the perspective of the conservation of threatened species is that the decision to set aside a 2.7 ha conservation area within the pilot study may have little or no really tangible long-term impact on currently seriously threatened or endangered birds species. This is consistent with recent findings on bird populations in forest fragments in oil palm landscapes elsewhere (e.g. Edwards, et. al., 2010), who suggests that any investment in the retention of fragments would be better directed towards the protection of contiguous forest.
However, this conclusion is still under review, as small conservation areas may still be important as occasional food sources and refugia for birds in nearby, or even far away areas, including some threatened species. Interconnectivity often does matter, and any attempt to evaluate the importance of a conservation area, however small, must be viewed from a landscape perspective, especially when considering animal species with large potential ranges, such as elephants and tigers, and especially birds. It also seems clear that even small forested conservation areas retain a high number of species and individuals, even if they are not necessarily globally threatened species, showing that they are still important for regional and local biodiversity conservation. This is supported by the conclusions of several studies that have followed the trajectory of species populations in fragmented forests (e.g. Benedick, et al 2006, Struebig. et al, 2008, Struebig, et al 2011).
Furthermore, conservation of even small patches of forest may be important for species that are still fairly well distributed, but are rapidly loosing their lowland rainforest habitats. What is common today may well be threatened in the future. This is precisely the case with Whitehead‟s spiny rat (Maxomys
42 whiteheadi) for which small forest patches may eventually be its only prospect for long-term survival.
When comparing plantation area to the remaining unplanted, degraded land, it is clear that the establishment of the oil palm plantation initially impacted heavily on biodiversity. Indeed, most of the vegetation cover was quite literally cleared and removed, along with everything directly dependent on it. After these initial losses, however, the vegetation was quick to recover, and by the 2010 and 2011 surveys the species lists were once again roughly similar in both land use categories. The insect population was a bit slower to recover, only reaching about 80% of that in the degraded area, but the birds appeared to do better, with the number of species in the newly established oil palm plantation even slightly out numbering that for the degraded land. This shows that recolonisation of the oil palm plantation area by vegetation and insects is rapid after such disturbance. Interestingly, the number of species of reptiles and amphibians remained relatively stable throughout these changes, but the small mammal population appears to have been almost entirely wiped out from the oil palm concession area during the transition. In the most recent survey, only a single species, the Black rat is expanding in the area, a pest that hopefully can be controlled by some of the birds of prey and snakes recorded in the pilot study site.
Analysis of the different land use types, shows that the use of the most biodiversity friendly methods available, i.e., organic methods, offers some potential to control pests and diseases, as the local biodiversity richness helps maintain a balanced ecosystem, by maximising the likelihood that natural predator-prey relationships can continue to function. However, maintaining high levels of biodiversity, both in terms of numbers of species and of individuals, can have both positive and negative effects. Some species can develop into pests, attacking the oil palms, whilst some other species are their natural predators, and help to control these pests. It is therefore essential to try as hard as possible to maintain an ecological balance, and if necessary, to complement this with targeted actions against specific pests, if absolutely necessary.
The most notable potential pests found in the early stages of the plantation‟s development are: the black rat, that attacks the young plants according to the farmers, and later the fruits, the rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros) attacking the palm hearts, the nettle caterpillar (Parasa lepida), that eats the palm leaves and causes significant reductions in palm productivity, and also the extremely invasive grassland species Imperata cylindrica, that must be kept under control.
Rats are predated by birds of prey, in particular the Black-shouldered Kite, a pair of which has already been observed in the area, and Barn Owls Tyto alba, which may soon colonise the area naturally, or will be assisted to do so either by encouraging them with special nest boxes. Rats are of course also preyed on by snakes, the conservation status of many of which remains poorly known in the region, due to a paucity of targeted fieldwork. Continuing production
43 using organic methods is therefore considered important in promoting the natural regulation of pests by their natural predators, thereby encouraging and facilitating the long-term survival of these species in the area.
Most insect predators are birds. Cuckoos, of which a few species can be found in forest areas adjacent to the site, are the main consumers of the nettle caterpillar. A myriad of other insectivores keep leaf-eating caterpillars and bugs under control. Insects are also controlled by other insects, such as predatory species of the Mantidea, and Dermoptera, and many Coleoptera species, and parasitic species, such as the majority of the Hymenoptera and some of the Diptera. Of interest is that many species of these orders were found in the pilot study‟s conservation area. The pilot study may therefore also consider planting additional beneficial plant species that encourage and host predators of oil palm pests along the boundaries of the site. Potential plant species to consider would include Tunera subulata, Cassia cobanensis, and Antiginon leptopus.
Imperata cylindrical, a domineering grass that established itself as a dense cover on the degraded land prior to the pilot study, remains a problem. It spreads both through small seeds, which are easily carried by the wind, and via rhizomes. Manual control of Imperata cylindrica is necessary, but it is also difficult, as the dense rhizome system impedes establishment and development of other beneficial crops, especially the Land Cover Crop species planted prior to the oil palms themselves. Herbicides would normally be used to address this aggressively invasive grass species, but the project is reluctant to use them, since to date it has adopted only organic methods of pest control. This situation needs to be carefully addressed and a decision made on how best to deal with it, bearing in mind that organic certification of the palm oil produced can still be achieved at a later stage of production, even if some chemicals are used in the early stages of plantation development.
In addition to its role in the control of pests and diseases, it will also be important to discuss the exact role of the conservation area in the coming years, both from the perspective of the smallholders, as it could be enriched for economic value, e.g., by adding timber tree species, other economically valuable trees or plants, and from a biodiversity conservation perspective, to enhance its biodiversity conservation potential, e.g., by adding plants that might specifically attract threatened species.
For the next surveys, we plan to continue with the same survey design, and the same surveyors, as before and all but one of the paramaters will continue to be assessed. It is unlikely however, that any further soil surveys will be carried out as the results would be of little additional interest to the data already obtained. Continuity and comparability are both extremely important to further investigate these interim conclusions regarding biodiversity, to facilitate well-informed decisions and strategies regarding pest control and disease management, and on enhancing the potential of the area for biodiversity as a whole, in particular within the forested conservation area.
44 More research will also be done looking into the effects of forest fragmentation in the area and the degree of interconnectivity of the pilot study with other key locations, such as the nearby Tripa peat swamp forests and the hill forests of the Gunung Leuser National Park and Leuser Ecosystem further inland.
45
References
Benedick, S., Hill J.K., Mustaffa N., Chey V.K., Maryati M., Searle J.B. Schilthuizen M. and K. C. Hamer K.C., 2006. Impacts of rain forest fragmentation on butterflies in northern Borneo: species richness, turnover and the value of small fragments Journal of Applied Ecology 2006 43, 967– 977
Carsten A. Bruhl and Thomas Eltz, 2009. Fuelling the biodiversity crisis: species loss of ground-dwelling forest ants in oil palm plantations in Sabah, Malaysia (Borneo) Biodiversity Conservation DOI 10.1007/s10531-009-9596- 4.
David P. Edwards, Jenny A. Hodgson, Keith C. Hamer, Simon L. Mitchell, Abdul H. Ahmad, Stephen J. Cornell, & David S. Wilcove, 2010 Wildlife- friendly oil palm plantations fail to protect biodiversity effectively. Conservation Letters xx (2010) 1–7
Greenpeace, 2008. How Unilever Palm Oil Suppliers Are Burning Up Borneo. Greenpeace. http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/burning-up-borneo. 15 September 2011
IRIN, 2011. INDONESIA: Mixed response to forest moratorium. 30 May 2011 http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportID=92841
IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1.
Kalshoven, L.G.E. (ed. P.A. van der Laan) 1981. The Pests of Crops in Indonesia. Ichtiar Baru/van Hoeve, Jakarta.
Ricklefs, R.E. 1973. Ecology. Nelson, Sunbury-on-Thames.
Struebig M, Kingston T., Jean Petit E., Le Comber S., Zubaid A., Mohd-Adnan A.and Rossiter S., 2011. Parallel declines in species and genetic diversity in tropical forest fragments. Ecology Letters (2011).
Struebig, M. J., Kingston T., Zubaidc A., Mohd-Adnanc A., Rossitera S.J., 2008. Conservation value of forest fragments to Palaeotropical bats. Biological Conservation141 (2008) 2112–2126. van Balen, S. 1989. The role of birds in the biological control of insect pests in Java. Biotrop Special Publication 36: 217-225.
WWF-Indonesia. 2010. Sumatra's Forests, their Wildlife and the Climate. Windows in time: 1985, 1990, 2000 and 2009. http://assets.wwfid.panda.org/downloads/wwf_indonesia__2010__sumatran_f orests_wildlife_climate_report_for_dkn___bappenas.pdf Accessed 15 September 2011.
46