Summary Report Submitted for HCS Approach Peer Review Process

HCS Study Project Title: Calaro Extension HCS Assessment

Company/Organisation: PZ Wilmar (Company) / TFT (HCS Assessment coordination) Contact person: Ir. Asen Ako Date: 18 July 2016

High Carbon Stock Approach

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Project description……………………………………………………………………………………4 1.1 Location and size of study area ...... 4 1.2 Overview of proposed plantation development ...... 4 1.3 Description of surrounding landscape ...... 4 1.4 Map of the site within the region ...... 6 1.5 Relevant data sets available ...... 8 1.6 List of any reports/assessments used in the HCS assessment ...... 8 2. HCS assessment team and timeline ...... 8 2.1 Names and qualifications ...... 8 2.2 Time period for major steps in the study ...... 8 3. Community engagement/ FPIC ...... 9 3.1 Summary of community engagement, FPIC, participatory mapping ...... 9 3.2 Summary of Social Impact Assessment (if any) ...... 9 4. High Conservation Value assessment ...... 16 4.1 Summary and link to public summary report ...... 16 5. Environmental Impact Assessment ...... 16 5.1 Summary ...... 16 6. Land cover image analysis ...... 20 6.1 Area of Interest and how it was defined...... 20 6.2 Description of images used for classification ...... 20 6.3 Sample image ...... 21 6.4 Method of stratification and software used ...... 21 6.5 Map of initial vegetation classes, with legend ...... 21 6.6 Table of total hectares per vegetation class ...... 22 6.7 Summary of which areas are potential HCS forest, subject to further analysis ...... 23 7. Forest inventory results ...... 23 7.1 Inventory sample design and plot rational ...... 23 7.2 Map indicating plots ...... 24 7.3 Forest inventory team members and roles ...... 24 7.4 Methodology used for forest sampling...... 24 7.5 Methodology used for carbon calculations ...... 24 7.6 Indicative photos of each vegetation class ...... 25 7.7 Statistical analysis (allometric used, confidence tests, justification) ...... 25 7.8 Summary of statistical analysis of carbon stock results per vegetation class ...... 27

2 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

7.9 Forest inventory results ...... 27 8. Land Cover Classification ...... 28 8.1 Refined land cover map with title, date, legend and any HCS forest patches identified .. 28 9. Patch Analysis Result ...... 30 9.1 Results of Decision Tree...... 30 9.2 Comments on Decision Tree outcome ...... 31 10. Indicative Land Use Plan ...... 31 10.1 Summary of results of final ground verification (if any) ...... 31 10.2 Final HCS map ...... 31 10.3 Overview of forest conservation management and monitoring activities to be included in the Conservation and Development (land use) Plan ...... 31 10.4 List of activities still to be carried out before Conservation and Development Plan can be finalised ...... 32

3 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

1. Project description

1.1 Location and size of study area

PZ Wilmar engaged TFT to conduct a High Carbon Stock (HCS) assessment of a 2,367.45 ha area that will be an extension of Calaro Estate, in the . Total area acquired by Plantation Limited (BPL) according to the MoU between the government of Cross River State of and Uwet & Atan Odot Communities / Ikot Eyidok dated on 10 January 2013 and MoU between the landlord communities and Biase Plantation Ltd dated on 10 December 2015 is 3,066.214ha (shown on survey plan no. RIU/CR/191/12). This included potential overlaps with the Uwet-Odot Forest Reserve and the Oban Forest Reserve. Subsequent re-demarcation has excluded the areas of overlap and reduced the total concession area to 2,368.94 Ha (Deed of grant between the government of Cross River State of Nigeria and Biase Plantations Ltd). However, maps generated by the HCV/HCS team based on shapefiles available, generated a total area of 2,367.45 representing a 1.49ha difference (due to planimetric errors). All the HCV, Carbon Assessment and EIA reports and maps have been done using the area of 2,367.45. This difference attributed to planimetric error will not impede the final management plan put in place by the company. By the time of conducting the audit, all areas are still not planted by the company. The total area of 2,368.94ha will be managed by BPL. In all, HCV area covers 260ha; secondary forests with higher carbon stocks covers 377ha; buffer along the Uwet-Odot Forest Reserve covers 19ha; other riparian buffers cover 90ha; community set-aside land at the Akpa Uwet enclave covers 95ha; community set-aside land at Okopedi-Uwet and Effeffiom-Uwet covers 17ha; and the maximum area that can be developed for oil palm, including roads and other infrastructures will cover 1509.45 ± 1.49ha. The proposed project area of 2,368.94ha is located at Atan Odot village (433.354 ha), Ikot Eyidot (211.774 ha) and Uwet village (1,723.812 ha), in Local Government Area and Local Government Area of Cross River State, Nigeria (see Figure 1).

General company location information is: Description Information Government : Akamkpa Local Government Area and Odukpani Local Administration Government Area, Cross River State, Nigeria Boundaries: North : Okopedi-Uwet & Effeffiom-Uwet communities South : Ikot Eyidok Family Community East : River and Forest Reserve West : Forest Reserve

1.2 Overview of proposed plantation development

Biase Plantation Ltd (Calaro extension) has obtained some document related to legality such as: 1. The right to use: Memorandum of Understanding between The Government of Cross River State of Nigeria and Uwet & Atan Odot Communities/Ikot Eyidok Family in Akamkpa & Odukpani LGA respectively dated on 10 January 2013 (as shown on survey plan No. RIU/CR/191/12 dated on 3 March 2012 with total areas are 3,066.214 ha) whereas the one of considerations is the compensation to be paid by Biase Plantations Limited for unexhausted

4 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

improvements on the parcels of land surrendered by the host community at the approved and contemporary government rate and particularly as specified in the schedule hereto, the host community holds itself bound to this MOU for a term of 99 years from the date hereof. 2. The right to use: MoU between the landlord communities and Biase Plantation Ltd dated on 10 December 2015 stating a total area of 3,066.214ha. 3. The right to use: Deed of grant between the government of Cross River State of Nigeria and Biase Plantation Ltd with total areas are 2,368.94ha where the one of considerations is 1). The investor paying through the government to the host community the monetary compensation for all unexhausted improvement on the land and observing; 2). During the subsistence of this grant, the investor shall pay host community an annual ground rent/royalty as contained in the schedule thereto, such rents to be subject to an upward review at the rate of 10% every 10 years. 4. Certificate of incorporation on behalf Biase Plantation Ltd No.405067 dated on 11 February 2011. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report for Calaro Oil Palm Plantation Extension Project at Akamkpa - Odukpani LGA, Cross River State has been given an Approval Letter by the Federal Ministry of Environment in Abuja. Current condition to get approval is submitting report to Department of Environmental Compliance Monitoring, Field Office Calabar - Cross River State (evidence of letter No. FMENV/CF/AD/102/VOL1/6 dated on 8 March 2016). For further action, the Department of Environmental Compliance Monitoring will submit same to head office of the Federal Ministry of Environment, Abuja. Evidence of EIA Approval is supported by letter No. FMEnv/EA/EIA/123:2887/VOL.1/187 of 12tJuly 2016. However, land clearing will only commence after the NPP Public Consultation period has elapsed. The company made the following efforts to get EIA approval, i.e.: 1. Letter on 2 Feb 2014 from company to Department of environmental assessment, brown house, independence way – Federal Ministry of Environment regarding application for the registration of the EIA. 2. Letter on 8 Oct 2014 from company regarding application for interim EIA approval. 3. Site verification on 15 April 2015 by Federal Ministry of Environment (head office and field office Calabar). 4. Letter No. FMENV/EA/EIA/2887/39 dated on 21 April 2015 regarding follow up from application of EIA i.e. 1). It was required panel review process (based on site verification exercise is category 1), 2). Field data gathering shall be complete, 3). The participation of ministry officials and ensure full quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) measures for laboratory analyses in line with standard practices, 4). Submit 10 hard copies and 2 soft copies of the draft EIA report. 5. Letter dated on 6 July 2015 from company regarding the submission of draft EIA report. 6. Letter No. FMEnv/EA/EIA/2887/Vol.1/47 dated on 22 July 2015 regarding public display exercise on newspaper and radio. Whereas, the date, venue and your company’s responsibilities for the panel review exercise will be communicated to company later. Evidence of public display on newspaper was available and redaction of radio announcement was available too. 7. Letter from Field office Calabar, Department of environmental compliance monitoring – Federal Ministry of Environment no. FMENV/CF/AD/102/Vol1/6 dated on 8 March 2016 regarding submission of final EIA report to field office Calabar and they shall further submit same to head office in Abuja for to get approval by a technical committee. 8. The company has obtained Approval for its EIA for the Calaro Extension project as evidence in Letter from the Federal Ministry of Environment No. FMEnv/EA/EIA/123:2887/VOL.1/187 of 12 July 2016. A comprehensive and participatory independent Social and Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA) and High Conservation Value (HCV) assessment were conducted by national licensed from Andelsta

5 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

Limited and RSPO licensed assessor from Proforest, which involved internal and external stakeholders. Additional to these assessments, BPL also conducted Land Use Change Analyses and High Carbon Stock assessment. Scope of these assessments is in accordance with the current condition with total areas are 2,368.94 Ha. The results are incorporated into the operational management planning to develop the area. Location maps were prepared and presented in the SEIA and HCV assessment reports, including all findings and management recommendation from the assessors. The project location is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below. The SEIA and HCV Summary reports include additional maps showing the topography, soil, landscape, land cover, satellite image and HCV areas. (Land acquisition or tenure permits of the project are attached).

1.3 Description of surrounding landscape

The Calaro Extension concession is an add-on to the historical Calaro concession (palm oil plantation since the early 1900s). They are geographically linked; therefore, a large part of the surrounding landscape is already palm oil plantations. There is also Forest reserves surrounding the concession, 100m buffers have been set up between the concession and the forest reserves. It is however useful to note that these forest reserves have suffered heavy agriculture encroachment and there is the presence of industrial mining activity with heavy machinery some areas of the forest reserves. Therefore, they present very little forest cover. A number of villages also surround the concession. The satellite imagery of the concession used for the assessment was of high quality and very precise, however no quality satellite imagery for the areas surrounding the concession was available. Considering the presence of other agricultural activities, concessions and villages surrounding the concession, the Low Forested Landscape (<30% forest cover) track of the DT was applied.

1.4 Map of the site within the region

6 | P a g e

Figure 1: Location of the Calaro Extension Area oil palm plantation in Akamkpa LGA and Odukpani LGA, Cross River State, Nigeria

1.5 Relevant data sets available

No relevant forest inventory datasets were found for the region. TFT completed a visual stratification using high resolution WorldView-2 satellite image data (0.46m resolution) supplied by Wilmar. The image capture date was 14 January 2013. The visual stratification was conducted by Dominique Herman from TFT. The visual stratification was done using Geographical Information System software (ArcGIS). Based on the combined results of the visual and unsupervised analysis the following 4 land cover classes (or strata) and their corresponding area in hectares was identified.

1.6 List of any reports/assessments used in the HCS assessment

HCV and ESIA studies done by Proforest were used for the HCS Assessment. They will be provided separately.

2. HCS assessment team and timeline

2.1 Names and qualifications

1. Dominique Herman: TFT Lead Assessor, Forester and GIS Analyst, Conducted HCS Assessments, stratification and training in Liberia over 100 000 ha and in Nigeria over 3000 ha. Trained local Wilmar teams to HCS methodology and forestry inventory. 2. No foresters or botanists were available in the Cross River State region to participate in this HCS assessment, we therefore conducted the assessment with local Wilmar teams. The team consisted of the following: Mr. Darumaya – GIS Team Leader for Calaro Estate and Ir. Asen Ako, Sustainability Manager, Biase Plantation Ltd.

High Carbon Stock Approach

2.2 Time period for major steps in the study

HCV: September 2014 (Proforest) ESIA: September 2014 (Proforest) HCS: 1. Preliminary scoping visit March 2014 2. HCS Training and first sampling start June 2014 3. First groundtruthing and map revision visit December 2014 4. Issue picked up with the Swamp area within the concession (Ababua) 5. Wilmar teams conducted measurements of swamp boundaries during following wet season and dry season (January to July 2015).

3. Community engagement/ FPIC

3.1 Summary of community engagement, FPIC, participatory mapping

According to the Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) requirements, land acquisition process should involve communities from the earlier stage, in order to make sure they understand it, before given their consent. It means that all the assessments carried out during the process should involve communities’ implication: environment impact assessment (EIA), social impact assessment (SIA), high conservation value (HCV) assessment, etc. SIA and HCV assessments conducted during the land acquisition process in Calaro extension brought out some requests and recommendations from the communities as presented below: 1. Water resources and fisheries: Ababua As observed under HCV 4.1, the networks of water bodies in the area play a crucial role in the livelihoods of a number of communities. The Calabar River in particular, together with its tributaries is an important fishing ground. The villages of Uwet and Atan Odot both have an important fisheries resource at a place called Ababua towards the east of the concession. This forms a critical part of the livelihood of many villagers and serves as an important and affordable protein source for the villages. This area (Ababua), the river and all its tributaries have hence been identified as HCV 5. In addition, the two villages consulted during the assessment process do not have access to potable water and continue to depend directly of streams and creeks that flow through or close by villages. It is hence essential to protect all water-bodies in the concession to ensure that the villages and other downstream communities are able to access continuous good quality water for household use. 2. Akpa Uwet village Additionally, during the assessment process, the communities mentioned that there is a small settlement within the concession called Akpa Uwet that needs to be set aside from conversion. This settlement is an extension of their villages, and the community would want them to maintain their current settlement in the concession, even with the establishment of the plantation. The location of Akpa Uwet is duly mapped below, and it is expected that the company would continue to engage with the communities to clearly map out the boundaries of the areas that should be set aside from conversion. The communities have indicated the need to set aside the enclave of the Akpa Uwet settlement for protection. This area has been duly mapped and should be delineated on the ground. It is essential for Wilmar to engage directly with the settlement to clearly define areas required for their livelihood activities with due considerations for the future expansion of the company’s operations as well as possible expansion of the community. This process should be well documented and clear plans should be put in place to address the potential adverse impacts of the operations on this enclave.

9 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

Monitoring HCV Objective Action required Timeline measures/expected ref results Identify appropriate management Social HCV areas Implementing areas for the Akpa Uwet enclave and Before included in GIS data FPIC the Ababuo fishing grounds and conversion base and mapped delineate those areas on the ground

Chief Olbort Uwet Village Apart from the fish stock in the Ababua ponds, bush meat Asufa Head and NTFPs are found everywhere in the community forests so this cannot prevent Wilmar from development. ii. There is a village, Akpa Uwet, close to Uwet and within the concession which should not be evicted. In response, Isaac Abban Mensah of Proforest stated that the village would be mapped out as part of the HCV assessment. Victor Effiong Atan Youth He notified participants of a group of ponds called Ababua Bassey Odot Secretary within Wilmar’s concession from which the communities fish; flood waters from the surrounding rivers and streams carry fish into these ponds. This was confirm by other members of the host communities. A request was made that Wilmar protects these ponds and grants communities access to fish from them. Isaac Abban-Mensah responded that the ponds would be mapped out as part of the HCV assessment. Source: SIA and HCV reports, (Proforest, 2014)

3. Implementation Following the HCV and SIA assessments recommendations to complete the mapping process initiated earlier, the participatory mapping process was implemented in order to identify the exact location and extend of Ababua and Akpa Uwet village. In doing that, series of meetings were held between the company (environment, social and survey/GIS teams) and the communities’ members, to better sensitize and agree on the steps of the process, with the support of The Forest Trust. The base/ground map: on the floor, the community have represented various areas they are using for their livelihood: (housing, farming, water needs, etc.), the map was reproduced in a sheet of paper;

10 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

Photo 1&2: Base/ground map exercise between Wilmar team and Akpa Uwet community and base map produced • field tracking: once the base map was finalized, together with Wilmar team, some selected community members moved on the field and tracked different areas that was captured in the base/ground map. • GIS map: data collected from field tracking were then used to produce the GIS map showing the exact extend of the area used by the community for they livelihood. • The initial area identified (68.52 Ha) was upgraded to (94,31 Ha) for community future expansion and activities.

Map 7: Ababua river map

11 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

Map 8: Akpa Uwet initial map (68.52 Ha)

Akpa Uwet final map (94,31 Ha)

12 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

Additional mapping exercises and surveys were done in Okopedi and Efi-efeum to make sure they have enough land reserve for their future farming.

Okopedi & Efi-Efeum potential future farming land At the end of each step, the maps were shared with the communities and endorsed by them. A final land use map integrating all the findings were also shared with those communities.

Final land use map presented to the community

13 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

3.2 Summary of Social Impact Assessment (if any)

Assessor and their credentials The social impact assessment (SIA) of Calaro oil palm plantation extension project in Akamkpa- Odukpani LGA, Cross River State, Nigeria on September 2014 was carried out by an independent consultant i.e. Proforest. The firm has established expertise in the RSPO process to undertake SIA. Proforest, address: PMB L76, Legon, Accra - Ghana, Telp: +233 (0) 302 542975, website: www.proforest.com and email: [email protected]. SIA was carried out by a team of specialist from Proforest and African Research Association Managing Development in Nigeria (ARADIN). The expert combined have several years of experience in carrying out SIA for forestry and agricultural projects in several countries in Africa including Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon and Gabon. The team are: • Isaac Abban-Mensah as agricultural and socio-cultural expert included as team leader • Elikplim Agbitor as social and best practise • James Odey as sociologist • Mary Undebe as social researcher • Mercy Rabi as social researcher • Emmanuel Owan as social and environmental expert • SIA methods The overall methodology for the SIA was based on the requirement of the Calabar State laws and best international practice. The chronology of activities carried out during the impact assessment included: 1. Review of concession maps and definition of impact area 2. Reconnaissance survey/scoping exercise 3. Review of data, laws and publications to gather baseline data 4. State level stakeholder consultations (the first was prior to field survey and second round of state level consultations after completion of the field data collection and drafting of proposed recommendations) 5. Field survey and host communities’ consultations. The field survey in Atan Odot was conducted from 05-07 March 2014, in Ikot Eyidok family unit (of Etak Inoi community) from 10-12 March 2014, in Uwet from December 2011 to February 2012 & 18 March 2014 and finally on 22 July 2014 for all host communities & state-level stakeholders on 23 July 2014. For the Uwet community, a detailed field survey was undertaken between December 2011 and February 2012 prior to the development of the Calaro concession. For the purpose of the SIA for the Calaro Extension, therefore, no detailed field survey was carried out. Rather, a one-day revalidation exercise was undertaken on the 18ts March 2014 during which the SIA report for Calaro concession was reviewed with community representatives, and review of the community’s needs and the community map developed between December 2011 and February 2012. The following survey tools were used during the field survey are: • Semi-structured interviews • Household questionnaire surveys • Participatory mapping • Focus group discussions In carrying out the FGDs, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques such as brainstorming and preference voting matrix were used.

14 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

Summary of social impact The following are some of the potential positive socio-economic benefits of the proposed development of the agro-industrial oil palm plantation are: 1. Employment creation. 2. Commercial opportunities for small and medium scale businesses 3. Improve income and standards of living 4. Introduction of high yielding varieties of oil palm and sustainable management of palm plantations. 5. Training and capacity building for employees and smallholders. 6. Revenue to local communities through royalties’ payment to landlord communities. 7. Tax revenue for the state government. 8. Contribution to meeting the country’s palm oil demand. 9. Contribution to rural development (support to the development of rural electrification, potable water, etc.). 10. Potential for smallholder schemes. 11. Commercial opportunities for small and medium scale enterprises including petty trading. Whereas, the potential negative impacts include: 1. Loss of farmlands, biodiversity, community conservation and NTFP collection areas. 2. Influx of plantation workers with potential of antisocial behaviour and impact on family structures, social networks and indigenous cultural values. 3. Water pollution due to agro-chemicals, sewage from worker’s camps and POME. 4. Air and noise pollution. 5. Impact of movement of vehicles and machinery on public safety. 6. Impacts on food security and prices of food products. 7. Occupational health and safety. 8. Pressure on public infrastructure/facilities/amenities. The results of evaluation of relative importance and nature of impact are: Evaluation of importance of impact Impact Location Reversibility Duration Significance Positive impact Employment creation and Local/regional Irreversible Long term High business opportunities Increased revenue Local/regional/ Irreversible Long term High national Contribution to education and Local Irreversible Long term High healthcare Contribution to rural poverty Local Irreversible Long term High reduction Training and capacity building for Local/regional Irreversible Long term High sustainable oil palm production Contribution to rural Local Irreversible Long term High infrastructural development (water, sanitation, communication) Negative impact

15 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

Evaluation of importance of impact Impact Location Reversibility Duration Significance Presence of migrant workers and Local Irreversible Long term High potential impacts on local social and cultural structures Potential risk of anti-social Local Irreversible Long term High behaviour due to influx of migrant workers Loss of farmlands Local Reversible Long term Medium Loss of NTFP collection areas Local Reversible Long term Medium Loss of biodiversity Regional Irreversible Long term High Water and air pollution Local Irreversible Long term High Soil erosion, siltation of rivers and Local Reversible Long term Medium potential flooding Exposure of communities to Local Irreversible Long term High health and safety risks Pressure on, and damage to local Local Reversible Short term Low infrastructure (e.g. roads) Occupational health and safety Precise Irreversible Long term High risks at the work place

4. High Conservation Value assessment

4.1 Summary and link to public summary report: http://www.rspo.org/certification/new-planting-procedures/public-consultations/wilmar- international-limited-biase-plantation-limited-calaro-extension

5. Environmental Impact Assessment

5.1 Summary Summary of assessment findings of EIA Assessor and their credentials The environmental impact assessment (EIA) of Calaro oil palm plantation extension project in Akamkpa-Odukpani LGA, Cross River State, Nigeria on March 2016 was carried out by an independent consultant i.e. Andelsta Limited. The firm has established expertise in the country and is accredited by the Nigeria government to undertake EIA at the national level. Andelsta Limited, address: 7A Vaal street, Off Rhine Street, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida Boulevard, Maitama, Abuja, Nigeria, Tel: 08022790020, 08096174011, 08037206011, website: www.andelsta.com and email: [email protected]. EIA study was prepared by a multidisciplinary team of consultants and technicians are: • Dr Godwin O. Igile as Chief consultant/EIA expert • Dr U.A Offor as Microbiology/hydrobiology • Oden U. Oden as Hydrogeology/geology/sediments • Engr. Finntan Ibeshi as soils, agriculture and land use • Dr U.I Uquetan as socio-economics & geography

16 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

• Dr A.I Isika as health impact studies • Alfred Obeten as Chemistry/environmental quality • Daniel O. Igile as water chemistry • Dr O. Ofem as Data/statistical analysis • Chistiana Okon as Manuscripts preparation/secretariat

EIA methods The environmental impact assessment (EIA) methods are: 1. Desktop studies/literature review, Desktop studies were undertaken to acquire an environmental database required for the EIA studies. The literature search included information from previous studies. 2. Consultation, Consultations with project stakeholders was carried out using questionnaires and by verbal interviews. Youth and Women groups, farmers and community leaders were consulted in both Odukpani and Akamkpa LGAs. Consultation were conducted in February, June and September 2014. Wilmar International Limited in collaboration with Biase Plantations Limited had consultation with relevant stakeholders. Stakeholder’s views and opinions concerning the proposed project and its associated/potential impacts have been integrated into the EIA process. However, consultations will continue throughout the project lifestyle and issues raised by concerned and affected parties will be considered. The results of all concluded consultations are included as bases for potential impact assessment and as such have been clearly documented in this EIA report. The stakeholders consulted included the federal ministry of environmental (FMEnv), cross river state ministry of environmental, cross river state ministry of agriculture and natural resources, Cross River State geographic information agency, cross river state investment and promotion bureau and host communities and relevant non-governmental organizations. 3. Field research Field-Research was undertaken as to complement/verify or otherwise information gathered from desktop studies. Specific information on the ecological and socioeconomic conditions of the project environment was gathered during fieldwork execution. In particular, the survey covered the following environmental components: • The physical environment - water and sediment characteristics, soil characteristic, air quality, noise and potential natural hazards; • The biological environment - water, sediment, and soil microbiology, benthos, plankton, flora and fauna (particularly rare and endangered species); • The socio-economic and cultural environment – population, land use and patterns of land ownership and tenure, community structure, employment, distribution, public health, cultural heritage, customs, aspirations and attitudes, etc.

4. Federal Ministry of Environment conducted verification of exercise at the project location. Summary of environmental impact The significant environmental and social issues which could arise from each phase activities are: Evaluation of preparatory phase impacts: • Nursery development: employment opportunities is a moderate positive impact • Plantation development: land acquisition and compensation issues is major • Bridge construction over the Calabar river: public/traffic safety issues is moderate Evaluation of constructional phase impacts: • Nursery development: ecological impacts are minor, biomass generation is minor, water security is minor, influx of immigrants is minor, air quality deterioration and noise nuisance is minor.

17 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

• Plantation development : employment opportunities is major positive impact, improved local/national economy is major positive impact, improved institutional/national revenue is moderate positive impact, improved roads and communications infrastructure is major positive impact, land acquisition/ownership issues is major, livelihood issues is minor, community structure and security issues is moderate, receiving water quality deterioration and change in local hydrology is moderate, air quality deterioration is minor, noise nuisance is moderate, solid waste management issues is moderate, loss of biodiversity is major, threats to resident crops is moderate, soil stability and erosion is moderate, impact on soil fertility and acidification is moderate, sanitation problems is moderate, aesthetics and visual intrusion is major, removal of cultural sites is minor, wind shelter/breaks is moderate, biomass generation and CO2 balance is moderate, Bridge construction is moderate. Summary of evaluation of impacts during the construction phase are given below: Impact Component Associated impact Potential impact categorization Ambient air Dust emissions from site Minor/negative Minor negative impact quality preparation, excavation, impact inside plant premises. material handling another Short term construction activities, cough & catarrh Noise Noise generation from Minor/negative Minor negative impact near construction activities, impact noise generation sources construction equipment and inside premises. No vehicular movement significant impact on ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors. Short term Water quality Increased TSS, TDS, BOD, COD Major/negative No significant negative and Turbidity of surface water. impact. However, Alteration of pH hazardous chemicals should be handled properly. Short term Land use and Land development, loss of Minor/positive Positive impact. aesthetics farmlands, deforestation impact Development of integrated plant will increase the aesthetics of the area. Soils Construction and excavation Minor/project No impact activity leading to topsoil procedure removal and erosion. Ecology flora and Habitat disturbance during Minor/negative No impact as the area is fauna excavation and Construction. devoid of any vegetation Loss of natural vegetation due to felling Socio-economics Increased job opportunity for Major/positive Overall positive impact locals impact Traffic pattern Increased Air Particulate Minor/negative Minor negative impact emissions. impact

18 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

Evaluation of operational phase impacts: • Nursery operation: chemicals management is moderate, water quality deterioration is minor, solid waste management is moderate. • Plantation operation : pest infestation, solid waste management issues, soil degradation and food security is minor, Wind shelter/breaks is moderate, Biomass generation and CO2 balance is moderate, Bridge construction is moderate, Impact on soil fertility and acidification is moderate, Sanitation problems is moderate, Aesthetics and visual intrusion not significant, Occupational health and safety issues is major, Biodiversity management issues is moderate, Occupational/public health and safety issues is moderate. • Bridge construction: employment opportunities is major positive impact, improved local/national economy is major positive impact, improved institutional/national revenue is moderate positive impact, improved roads and communications infrastructure is major positive impact, community structure and security issues is moderate. • Water security is moderate • Water pollution and effluent management issues is major • Impact on downstream water users is moderate • Noise nuisance is moderate • Aesthetic and visual intrusion is minor • Public health and safety issues is moderate • Occupational health and safety issues is major • Chemical management is moderate • Emergency situations is major Summary of evaluation of operational phase impact below: Impact Component Associated impact Potential impact categorization Ambient air quality Particulate emissions. Minor/negative Minor negative impact impact Noise Noise operational activities Minor/negative Minor negative impact including vehicular impact movement Water quality Increased TSS, TDS, BOD, Major/negative No significant adverse COD and Turbidity of impact and wastewater surface water. Alteration of generated from sites pH. Trace pesticide residues. will be treated and then Oil/fuel and waste spills and disposed wastewater from processing Land use Loss of some community Major/negative farmlands impact Water usage Ground & water surface Minor/negative No negative impact as water will be used for ground water is readily nursery growing and available at the site at operational 7-15 m of depth Soils Alteration of top soil quality Minor/negative No negative impact due to use of agro- impact chemicals, storage of solid wastes, fuel and material spills Solid waste Generation of solid waste, Minor/negative management increase BOD, COD, CH4

19 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

Impact Component Associated impact Potential impact categorization Erosion issues Increased erosion due to Major/negative open land and topography Ecology (flora and Loss of natural vegetation Major/negative No negative impact fauna) and wild animals due to impact felling. Land use change Socio-economics Increase family income, Major/positive employment impact Traffic pattern Slight increase in traffic No negative impact due to proposed plant as increase in traffic is insignificant

6. Land cover image analysis

6.1 Area of Interest and how it was defined

The area of analysis was defined as the whole Calaro Extension concession:

6.2 Description of images used for classification Images used: TFT completed a visual stratification using high resolution WorldView-2 satellite image data (0.46m resolution) supplied by Wilmar. The image capture date was 14 January 2013. The visual stratification was conducted by Dominique Herman from TFT. The visual stratification was done using Geographical Information System software (ArcGIS).

20 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

Based on the combined results of the visual and unsupervised analysis the following 4 land cover classes (or strata) and their corresponding area in hectares was identified.

6.3 Sample image

Example image of land cover (300 dpi) sent separately:

6.4 Method of stratification and software used

Visual classification conducted, because the mosaic of VHR images was not suited for unsupervised classification.

21 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

6.5 Map of initial vegetation classes, with legend

6.6 Table of total hectares per vegetation class

Land cover class Number of Hectares % of total concession Potential HCS classes: High Density Forest Medium Density Forest Low Density Forest 74.7 3.3 Young Regenerating Forest 771.3 33.6 Sub-total 846.0 36.9 Non-HCS classes, e.g.: Scrub 1146.4 50.0 Open Land 299.7 13.1 Mines, smallholder agriculture, plantation, etc. Sub-total 1446.1 63.1 TOTAL 2292.1 100.0

22 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

6.7 Summary of which areas are potential HCS forest, subject to further analysis

Strata Code Area (ha) No. Sample plots defined Low Density Forest LDF 74.7 13 Young Regenerating Forest YRF 771.3 53 Young Shrub YS 1146.4 42 Open Land OL 299.7 20 Totals 2292.1 127

7. Forest inventory results

7.1 Inventory sample design and plot rational

Plot rationale: Focussing majority of plots on the potential HCS areas and near HCS areas (LDF, YRF and YS). Plots selected using a random selection in a 200mx200m grid. Plot design:

23 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

7.2 Map indicating plots

7.3 Forest inventory team members and roles

3 Local Wilmar teams composed of: • One team leader • Two measurement specialists trained by TFT • One person noting the measurements

7.4 Methodology used for forest sampling

Classic HCS methodology based on the Toolkit: 500m2 plot with 100m2 subplot. Trees above 20cm in diameter measured in the plot, and all trees above 5cm diameter measured in the sub-plot. Trees measured at 1.30m height (DBH).

7.5 Methodology used for carbon calculations

The lack of botanists available in the area led us to use the Brown et al. (1997) allometric equation.

24 | P a g e

7.6 Indicative photos of each vegetation class

Open Land:

Young Scrub:

High Carbon Stock Approach

Young regenerating forest – YRF

Low Density Forest

No Medium or High density forest present.

7.7 Statistical analysis (allometric used, confidence tests, justification)

Using Brown et al. 1997 equation. Very little number of plots in Low and Medium density forest (only 22.6 ha of LDF and 8 ha of MDF), this explains the higher SE and confidence interval.

26 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

7.8 Summary of statistical analysis of carbon stock results per vegetation class

Table: Summary of statistical analysis of carbon stock results per vegetation class Stems Average Standard Number Basal Confidence Land cover class per Carbon error of of Plots Area limits (90%) hectare Stocks the mean Lower Upper

Open Land 29 294,4 2,21 4,10 0,00 12,19 Scrub 42 1375 28,50 14,86 0,92 64,28 Young Regenerating Forest 48 573,5 66,46 24,46 28,35 129,06 Low Density Forest 6 22,6 119,61 14,79 104,65 143,03 Medium Density Forest 2 8 445,23 15,58 434,22 456,25 High Density Forest 127 2273,5 7.9 Forest inventory results

Table: Forest inventory class Physical description of the land cover, e.g. species mix, Average forest type (pioneer, regenerating, primary etc.), Land cover class carbon diameter distribution, structural indices, maturity value indices, etc. Open Land 2,21 Mainly agricultural land or grassland Scrub 28,50 Low regrowth after slash and burn agriculture Young Regenerating Forest 66,46 Mix of regrowth agriculture and swampy wooded areas Low Density Forest 119,61 Mix of regrowth agriculture and swampy wooded areas Medium Density Forest 445,23 Hardly present, some very small patches of dense forest High Density Forest

27 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

8. Land Cover Classification

8.1 Refined land cover map with title, date, legend and any HCS forest patches identified

FINAL VEGETATION STRATIFICATION MAP OF CALARO EXTENSION Date: June 2015

28 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

HCS AND NON HCS PATCHES WITH CORE AREAS

29 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

9. Patch Analysis Result

9.1 Results of Decision Tree

Patch Total Of Priority (Low-LP, Medium- Description of Decision Tree number area (ha) which MP, High-HP) results core (ha) 1 144,2 26,6 YRF+MDF+LDF Indicative conserve 2 78,9 19,2 YRF+LDF Indicative conserve 3 78,5 11,4 Young Regenerating Forest RBA 4 29,3 4,8 Young Regenerating Forest RBA 5 22,7 2,7 Young Regenerating Forest RBA 6 40,9 4 Young Regenerating Forest RBA 7 21,2 5,7 Young Regenerating Forest Indicative conserve 8 14,1 Ha 1,8 Young Regenerating Forest RBA 9 56,6 6,4 Young Regenerating Forest RBA

MAP 5: PRELIMINARY HCS RESULT

30 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

9.2 Comments on Decision Tree outcome

RBA were not done but Wilmar decided to compensate the RBA areas by increasing the size of the corridor.

10. Indicative Land Use Plan

10.1 Summary of results of final ground verification (if any)

The ground verification showed discrepancies between the existing swamp maps and the swamps present in the concession. Swamp mapping was conducted during the wet season and during the dry season. The final Land use plan was designed to integrate the conservation of these swamps and maximize the conservation of important HCS areas. The whole approach therefore created a solid connection between Forest reserves and cohesion of humid ecosystems (rivers and swamps).

10.2 Final HCS map

Through Step 11 of the Decision Tree

10.3 Overview of forest conservation management and monitoring activities to be included in the Conservation and Development (land use) Plan

In consideration to the importance of conservation of the remaining gallery forest, the land use plan of the company has set aside a minimum of 746 ha (31.5%) as HCV/Carbon stocks areas. Additionally, two enclaves have been set aside for the settlements at Akpa-Uwet (95 ha) and Okobodi-Uwet (17 ha). Based on this land use plan, the company is left with a maximum area of 1509.45 ha (63.7% of the total area) that may be established as an oil palm plantation.

31 | P a g e

High Carbon Stock Approach

10.4 List of activities still to be carried out before Conservation and Development Plan can be finalised

Validation of the Land use map by other stakeholders (NGOs, administration, etc.) Communities have already validated the map.

32 | P a g e