HCV Assessment Peer Review Summary HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE FOREST ASSESSMENT PT. DWIMAJAYA UTAMA(PT.DU) byTNC and TFT Reviewed by EKOLOGIKA CONSULTANTS Reviewer: Neville Kemp MSc Date Submitted :13JUNE 2011 Introduction The Peer review of the HCV Assessment report compiled by TNC for PT. DwimajayaUtama is the second peer review carried out by PT. Ekologika for TNC. The HCV assessment report follows the same format as the SARPATIM HCV assessment report and many of the issues that are raised during that prior peer review are also applicable to the current peer review. The HCV assessment is based on thorough field assessments by experienced professionals but again fails to deliver clear and concise information on the high conservation values / attributes discovered, often mixing up values between biological diversity, landscape, ecosystems, and environmental services. The location of the HCV identified is not well presented (either in maps or described). Concise and effective management and monitoring is inadequately described for a certification body to be assured of appropriateness for the maintenance and enhancement of values. There are deviations from the toolkits that are available. Where deviations from toolkits are evident, there lacks explanations about that approach used. The HCV assessment team has included maps about the concession’s physical and socioeconomic conditions. However, some fundamental maps such as forest status and Landcover / vegetation types within the landscape are still needed. The almost total absence of HCV maps (with the exception of HCV 4.1, 4.2, 5 and 6) significantly tarnishes the report and makes understanding to external reader impossible. Those maps that are available are difficult to read due to scale and resolution, unclear, confusing and incomplete legends. TNC has identified threats with stakeholder and PT. DJU input (final section) to HCVs and developed management and monitoring recommendations. However, specific input and comments or other information received from stakeholders and how the HCV team responded to these comments and input is lacking. This is an important part of the HCV identification process and should be amended before submission. Some (not all) management and monitoring recommendations are included in the “identification” section potentially leading to confusion. Neither of the places that lists recommendations (i.e. those in the identification section, nor those in the Management and Monitoring Recommendations section) are “all-inclusive”, and they need to be synchronized before submission of the report. However, many of the management and monitoring recommendations identified are thought to be in-line with best management practices for the maintenance and enhancement of HCVs.
RIL has been cross-referenced, by most other management recommendations (even though thought to be in-line with best practices by the reviewer) are without much detail or citations/documented stakeholder input. Monitoring mechanisms are described but not in enough detail and often missing needed monitoring of the effectiveness of every management recommendations suggested (for maintaining and enhancing HCVs). The report needs to include citations or stakeholder input for suitable management recommendations that will maintain and enhance HCVs. The bibliography is largely redundant, as many of the cited works searched for by the reviewer do not appear in the main text of the report. Also, the report should be accompanied by supporting documents (with clear cross-references in the text), such as biodiversity and socioeconomic field reports by the consultants/staff involved. This would give the reader and certification body a much clearer idea of the substantial field work that has been carried out by TNC and TFT, but that is not evident from the report as it stands at present.
Checklist C: HCV identification, management and monitoring Project name: HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE FOREST ASSESSMENT
Reviewer: Neville Kemp,
Date of review: 15 6 2011
EKOLOGIKA CONSULTANTS
PT. DwimajayaUtama Timberby The Nature Conservancy / The Forest Trust Description of document content:
Issues identified
C1. Executive summary of the document Overall – Executive summary
None
Minor
Major
a) Are the key findings clearly presented and summarised? b) Does the summary accurately reflect the findings and recommendations of the main document? c) If no summary exists, is it still possible to use the document easily? C1. Reviewer comments:MINOR issues - easily corrected. a)The executive summary does present finding of identified HCVs clearly. The executive summary does not include management and monitoring recommendations, but there is a separate section for this. Recommended Steps:
A SUMMARY of management strategies and monitoring could be described in the executive summary but this is not mandatory. If it is decided not to include general a general summary about management strategies and monitoring, the location for sourcing this information should be stated in the summary with a description of the report structure (and preferably, these sections synchronized as stated in c) below).
b) YES c)The report is not very easy to use as it lists management and monitoring recommendations in two places – neither of which is inclusive and further confusing the reader. Recommended Steps:
As for a) provide a brief summary of report structure and synchronize the management and monitoring recommendations.
C2. Scope of the assessment Overall – Scope
None
Minor
Major
a) Is the assessment area and surrounding landscape clearly defined? b) Is there a basic summary of the company and its operations in the area? c) Are the impact and scale of proposed operations adequately described? d) Did exploitation of any kind (especially clearance) take place prior to the assessment, and if so, how are such areas treated? e) Is the purpose of the HCV assessment clear? C2. Reviewer comments:MAJOR ISSUES as some fundamental sections are missing. a) Recommended format of HCV reports should have (at minimum) the following components Name and Contact Information √ History of the Management Unit √ Land Use Classification X Biophysical Environment– components missing Administration and Transportation √ Land System and Soils √ Geology and Topography √ Rainfall √ Hydrology √ Land Cover X Physiographical Context √ Biogeographical Context √ Social and Cultural Context √
The Land Use Classification system is not described. Map of Elevation within the concession is not accuratedisplaying 0-254m but it is known that the concession has hills up to 400+m (EU SCKPFP information). There is no verification of secondary GIS data used. Biophysical section does not have a description on the forest ecosystems and vegetation types in the area or fauna. Secondary data can be used froim EU SCKPFP or even better, primary data collected during the assessment. There is no map of proxy ecosystems used for stratifying biodiversity samples. Apparently, sampling was based on Landcover, soils and altitude but the locations of samples are not available. Hydrology section is very brief, but more information is already in the report in other sections – consider revising
Recommended Steps: Recommended to insert the administration and accessibility under socio-economic Section. Information relevant to location of concession which also include political boundaries as well as geographic information can be put in a Location of HCV assessment heading.
Direkomendasikan untuk memasukkan administrasi dan aksesibilitas dalam Bagian sosioekonomi. Informasi yang relevan dengan lokasi konsesi yang juga mencakup batas-batas politik (administrasi) pemerintahan serta informasi geografis dapat diletakkan di lokasi penilaian HCV pada bagian depan. Insert section on “Land Use Classification System” for forestry in Indonesia. And produce map of forest status within the concession and surrounding landscape. Masukkan bagian "Penggunaan Sistem Klasifikasi Tanah" untuk kehutanan di Indonesia. Dan menghasilkan peta status hutan dalam konsesi dan lanskap sekitarnya. Correct Elevation Map Benar Elevation Peta Verify secondary GIS data through comparing with primary data (DEM elevation data accuracy and RePPProT – soils and geology – can use AMDAL to verify this or information from held by company) - can be put as appendix Pastikan data GIS sekunder melalui atau dengan membandingkan dengan data primer (DEM akurasi elevasi data dan RePPProT - tanah dan geologi - dapat menggunakan AMDAL untuk memverifikasi hal ini atau informasi dari yang dimiliki /dipegang oleh perusahaan) - dapat dimasukkan sebagai lampiran Describe and map Landcover / vegetation types in the concession and surrounding landscape Menjelaskan dan memetakan tutupan lahan / vegetasi jenis dalam konsesi dan lanskap sekitarnya Describe and map stratified proxy ecosystems that use Landcover, soil types and elevation as the basis of biodiversity points. Map sample locations for biodiversity throughout the concession. This is needed to find out whether adequate sampling was done and if some parts / ecosystems were not sampled could require use of precautionary principle in identifying HCVs. Jelaskan dan petakan ekosistem bertingkat proxy yang berdasarkan tutupan lahan, jenis tanah dan elevasi sebagai dasar penentuan keanekaragaman hayati. Peta lokasi sampel untuk keanekaragaman hayati di seluruh konsesi. Hal ini diperlukan untuk mengetahui apakah sampel yang diambil sudah memadai /cukup dan jika beberapa bagian / ekosistem tidak diambil swebagai contoh bisa dilakukan dengan menggunakan prinsip kehati-hatian dalam mengidentifikasi NKT. Describe structure and composition of main ecosystems and their extent. Verify with use of inventory data held by the company, if though appropriate. Menjelaskan struktur dan komposisi ekosistem utama dan luasnya. Lakukan Verifikasi dengan penggunaan data yang tersedia yang dimiliki oleh perusahaan, jika sesuai. Complete the hydrology section with information already recorded and marked by reviwer in comment boxes Lengkapi bagian hidrologi dengan informasi yang telah dicatat dan ditandai oleh reviwer ( di kotak komentar)
b)Scope of operations and of the company is adequately described. But see c) below. c) Impact and scale not described. There is no information in the introduction sections about scale of operations per year and amount of wood extracted, nor the system used by the company. Recommended Steps:
Describe TPTI and TPTII / SILIN and include the extent of the yearly annual cut (Volume and area – planned and achieved) Jelaskan tentang sistem TPTI dan TPTII / SILIN dan termasuk didalamnya jatah tebangan tahunan (Volume dan luas areal - rencana dan dicapai) (perbaikan di letakkan
di halaman 22) d) History of exploitation and past disturbances in the landscape unknown and assumed to be covered under the history of concession section. Recommended Steps: Include a brief statement about past disturbances before the company started operation in “History of Concession” section.
Sertakan pernyataan singkat tentang gangguan masa lalu sebelum perusahaan mulai beroperasi di bagian "Sejarah Konsesi". e) Purpose statements are clear. C3. Wider landscape context and significance of the assessed area Overall – Landscape context
None
Minor
Major
a) Is the wider landscape convincingly and adequately described? b) Are the key social and biological features of the wider landscape clearly described? C3. Reviewer comments: a) As with other TNC HCV assessment reports the HCV assessment landscape (i.e. the context in which the assessment is carried out)is described through a biogeographical and physiographical description, but boundaries not defined. This gives the impression that the assessment has not been carried out within a landscape context. Finite boundaries of the landscape are important for the evaluation of viable population of target species (HCV 1.3) and landscape scale HCVs (HCV 2). The use of the Schwaner range, Muller Range and Interior hills and plains as a potential landscape boundary is thought to be too coarse and at an inappropriate scale for this HCV assessment. Recommended Steps: Define a finite area as the assessment landscape within which HCVs can be assessed. The toolkit provides methods of defining assessment landscapes, and additional methods (such as hydrological processes) could also be used. Tentukan sebuah area terbatas sebagai lanskap penilaian di mana NKT dapat dinilai. Toolkit menyediakan metode mendefinisikan lanskap penilaian, dan metode tambahan (seperti proses hidrologis) juga bisa digunakan. b) Yes. The social context explains well the history of communities and information on how they view their landscape from survival and development point of view. Recommended Steps: The report goes into detail about landscape HCVs in the landscape context section. This is misplaced and should go in the main HCV assessment section. Laporan ini masuk ke detail tentang NKT lansekap di bagian konteks lanskap. Hal ini salah dan harus kembali ke bagian penilaian utama HCV. C4. HCV assessment process including consultation process Overall –HCV assessment process
None
Minor
Major
For each of the sub-topics, was the process or effort proportionate and adequate relative to the likely impact and scale of operations? 4.1.Composition and qualifications of the assessment team
None
Minor
Major
b) Did the team include or have adequate access to relevant expertise to assess biological and social values? 4.1. Reviewer comments: a) A well qualified team could evaluate the biological and social values. It is likely that goodquality reports were produced by assessment teams. These reports should accompany the HCV assessment report. 4.2. Data sources and data collection methodologies
None
Minor
Major
a) Are data sources and data collection methodologies clearly described or referenced and
summarised (and presented in annexes if appropriate), and are they adequate to identify HCVs? b) Were reasonable efforts made to fill gaps in the data, proportionate to the impact and scale of the operations? 4.2. Reviewer comments: a) Secondary data sources for biodiversity (and gaps in this data) are not described, but this report relies solely (semata-mata) on primary data.Much information already exists as DJU has been the focus of forest improvement programs since the early 2000’s. Biodiversity for several taxa exist, yet this information was not used in the assessment directly or to determine gaps I information that exists which is a shame. Sampling methodologies are briefly described but maps are needed to document strata sampled Supporting documentation probably goes into detail about methodologies used to identify HCVs but not provided for the review. The information presented is sufficient to identify HCVs Sumber data sekunder untuk keanekaragaman hayati (dan kesenjangan dalam data ini) tidak dijelaskan, namun laporan ini hanya mengandalkan) informasi data primer. Banyak informasi yang tersedia di DJU yng telah menjadi fokus dari program peningkatan hutan sejak tahun 2000-an. Keanekaragaman Hayati untuk beberapa taksa ada, namun informasi ini tidak digunakan dalam penilaian langsung atau untuk menentukan kesenjangan informasi yang ada. Metodologi pengambilan contoh secara singkat dijelaskan tetapi peta yang diperlukan untuk strata dokumen pengambilan contoh Mendukung dokumentasi mungkin lebih detail tentang metodologi yang digunakan untuk mengidentifikasi NKT tapi tidak disediakan untuk review. Informasi yang disajikan cukup untuk mengidentifikasi NKT. Recommended Steps:
Produce map of proxy ecosystems and sample points (biodiversity and socio-economic) Buat peta perwakilan ekosistem yang ada dan titik sampel (keanekaragaman hayati dan sosial ekonomi). (Peta ekosistem berdasarkan ketinggian) Provide supporting documentation about biodiversity and socio-economic surveys and cross-reference within the report. Sediakan dokumen pendukung tentang keanekaragaman hayati dan survei sosial ekonomi dan lakukan pengecekan dengan datareferensi (biodiversity, sosial ekonomi yang ada di dalam laporan). Long section on biodiversity could be put into an appendix as an annotated list of species found in the concession Bagian tentang keanekaragaman hayati dapat dimasukkan ke dalam lampiran sebagai daftar beranotasi spesies yang ditemukan di konsesi sehingga tidak terlalu panjang.
b) Not attempt to fill gaps in secondary data is needed as report uses primary data for most HCVs. 4.3. Consultation processes
None
Minor
Major
a) Was there an appropriate consultation process for
Identification of HCVs
Management of HCVs
Monitoring of HCVs
b) Were appropriate existing initiatives engaged wherever possible (including existing local or international social, ecological or biological conservation initiatives)? 4.3. Reviewer comments:MAJOR ISSUE but easily corrected
a) The HCV report states clearly that the assessment team consulted with local communities for the identification of HCV 5 and 6, conducted pre-assessment and post-assessment consultation (for Management and Monitoring of HCVs)and incorporated the results into the report. However, a concise table about which stakeholders were consulted, what information or comments they gave and how the HCV assessment acted upon this information is missing. This is a very important table that CBs look for when reading the HCV assessment report and a main component of principle 9. TNC already possess a table format that is more acceptable to CBs. Recommended Steps:
Update the table in section 2 concerning stakeholder input and comments, in the format that has been provided to TNC by Ekologika Update tabel pada bagian 2 tentang masukan dari stakeholder dan komentar, dalam format yang telah diberikan kepada TNC oleh Ekologika
b) No known initiatives in the region. C5. Identification, location and status of each HCV Overall – HCV identification
None
Minor
Major
For all HCVs, are the following points addressed, and was the process or effort proportionate and adequate relative to the likely impact and scale of operations? 5.1. Addressing all six HCVs
None
Minor
Major
a) Are all six HCVs addressed in the report? b) If one or more HCVs are not addressed, is there adequate justification for not doing so (e.g. the HCV is absent beyond reasonable doubt)? 5.1. Reviewer comments: All HCV addressed 5.2. Data quality
None
Minor
Major
c) Are data detailed, recent and complete enough to make informed decisions on presence/status/location of the HCV? d) Is the precautionary principle appropriately invoked in the use of data? e) Were maps, reports and other previously existing data up to date and adequate? f)
Is there an understanding of the spatial accuracy of the data used?
g) Should further data be collected before decisions are made? 5.2. Reviewer comments: c) Primary data is complete and quite adequate to make decisions for the HCV identification with possible exception for HCV 1.4 where no reference has been made to caves / saltlicks in the concession (secondary data about their likely presence / absence is available); and HCV 3 which has taken the toolkit approach to defining rare ecosystems (the EU SCKPFP has a different approach based on transects through the concession and identification of certain tree indicator species. However, data available from SCKPFP is insufficient to delineate rare and vulnerable ecosystem. d) An introductory paragraph explaining the precautionary principle is missing and this principle invoked for 1.3 (placed under HCV 1.2 in report) and HCV 3. When reading the report, it is clear that other assumptions and generalization will be made when mapping HCVs and these need to be documented. e) Not much secondary data used except soil data, RePPProT, and DEM – potentially issues
with RePPProT and no verification of soil data and DEM was noted. Lack of spatial accuracy for HCV due to the lack of maps (except HCV 2.1, 2.2, 3 and 5 and 6) g) With the exception of HCV 3, is it thought that no further data for the identification of HCV is needed in future, but SOPs for their future identification and demarcation on a block by block basis are needed by survey / ITSP teams. f)
Recommended Steps:
Use secondary data available to describe potential presence / absence of saltlicks and other habitats used temporarily by species or groups of species that justifies the focus on migratory birds for HCV 1.4. If not yet surveyed include management recommendations for their identification before logging commences. Gunakan data sekunder yang tersedia untuk menggambarkan potensi ada / tidaknya saltlicks(tanah yang mengandung garam) dan habitat lain yang digunakan sementara oleh spesies atau kelompok spesies yang membenarkan fokus pada burung migran untuk NKT 1.4. Jika belum disurvei rekomendasikan agar manajemen untuk mengidentifikasi keberadaan burung migran sebelum penebangan dimulai. Include a paragraph in the introduction (HCV assessment process) about the precautionary principle and describe if / where it was used in the identification of HCVs (especially for biological HCVs where many assumptions about distribution of species, ecosystems and landscapes have to be made. Buat paragraf pengantar sebagai prakata awal (proses penilaian HCV) tentang prinsip kehati-hatian dan menjelaskan jika / di mana ia digunakan dalam identifikasi NKT (terutama untuk NKT biologi di mana banyak asumsi tentang distribusi spesies, ekosistem dan lansekap yang harus dibuat. Where possible, verify secondary data (DEM, RePPProT, Landcover, ecosystem data with primary data held by the company of through data collected in the field). Bila memungkinkan, verifikasi data sekunder (DEM, RePPProT, tutupan lahan, data ekosistem dengan data primer yang dimiliki oleh perusahaan melalui data yang dikumpulkan di lapangan). Describe where delineation invokes the precautionary principle and data collected during the assessment needs to be verified with stakeholders (primarily the community) and where they need to be demarcated in the forest before logging commences (e.g. HCV 6 and HCV 4.1) Jelaskan mana delineasi yang menggunakan prinsip kehati-hatian dan data yang dikumpulkan selama pengkajian perlu diverifikasi dengan para pemangku kepentingan (terutama masyarakat) dan di mana mereka harus melakukan pembatasan terhadap sebuah areal hutan sebelum penebangan dimulai (misalnya HCV dan HCV 6 4.1) Revise HCV 3 using all quantitative data sources and take into account work done through previous programs, which may potentially need further information collection or GIS analysis (or describe SOPs for future its HCV identification and delineation). Merevisi NKT 3 dengan menggunakan semua sumber data kuantitatif dan memperhitungkan pekerjaan akun dilakukan melalui program-program sebelumnya, yang berpotensi membutuhkan informasi lebih lanjut atau koleksi analisis GIS (atau menggambarkan SOP untuk identifikasi HCV masa depannya dan deliniasi) (Melengkapi dengan bukti hasil PSP PT DU atau penelitian mahasiswa terkini sebagai bukti keberadaan hutan Dipterocarpacea) Where HCV cannot be mapped due to scale (such as Riparian forests and salt-lick / hollow roosting trees etc.) describe SOPs needed for their identification on a block by block basis potentially using ITSP as the most appropriate vehicle Dimana HCV tidak dapat dipetakan karena skala (seperti hutan DAS dan garammenjilat / pohon lubang sebagai tempat bersarangdll) jelaskan di di dalam SOP yang diperlukan untuk identifikasi di setiap blok bersamaan pada saat kegiatan ITSP meruapakan cara paling cepat dan tepat.
5.3. Reference to HCV toolkits
None
Minor
Major
a) Has a National Interpretation of HCVs been used, or (in the absence of a National Interpretation), have the generic HCVF Toolkit guidelines been appropriately interpreted? b) Are decisions to apply National Interpretation definitions/thresholds, or to deviate from its recommendations, adequately explained and justified? 5.3. Reviewer comments: Minor Issues – deviations and non-inclusion of some part of the toolkits need to be explained and justified. HCV1:
National. More clarification about the HCV 1.1 is needed. Environmental services on a landscape scale are referred to confusing the reader with HCV 4 and 2. Conservation areas (set-asides) are mentioned and mapped There is a deviation from the national and ProForesttoolkits for HCV 1.2. The national toolkit clearly emphasizes critically endangered (CR) species and the Global toolkit uses vulnerability (IUCN vulnerable, threatened and critical endangered categories) as its metric. The report has confused these concepts by including all threatened, endemic and protected species (including CITES) under HCV 1.2. The National toolkits emphasizes areas that support viable populations of threatened, Restricted range and protected species for HCV 1.3. There is no estimation of viable population for any species. HCV 1.4 has not considered or not reported all key habitats that may be used temporarily by species or groups of species (such as caves and salt-licks) and focused on migratory birds – for which the forest areas within the concession cannot be considered a key habitats as many alternative exist. All deviations from the toolkits are not described.
HCV2:
National. HCV 2.1 uses the approach suggested but undefined landscape boundaries makes it difficult to see the scale and appropriateness / accuracy of the delineation. Nasional. NKT 2.1 menggunakan pendekatan yang disarankan tetapi batas lanskap terdefinisi membuat sulit untuk melihat skala dan ketepatan / akurasi delineasi. HCV 2.2 lacks clarity of ecosystem mapping and confuses ecotones and ecocline (the former between two distinct ecosystems – the latter ranging over a gradation such as that seen between lowland and mountain ecosystems. Ecoclines are not likely to be present in the concession as it ranges from 50- 440m a.s.l. NKT 2.2 tidak memiliki kejelasan pemetaan ekosistem dan membingungkan ecotones dan ecocline (mantan antara dua ekosistem yang berbeda -. Yang terakhir mulai atas gradasi seperti yang terlihat antara dataran rendah dan ekosistem gunung Ecoclines tidak mungkin untuk hadir dalam konsesi seperti itu berkisar dari 50 - 440 m dpl HCV 2.3 uses suitable top predator indicators that can define healthy landscapes. Wide ranging, low density species and thought to be incomplete with only orangutan considered – there are potentially many other species that could be used as a hornbills and larger eagles. The novel concept of top herbivores is not referenced and possibly inappropriate. NKT 2.3 menggunakan indikator predator puncak yang cocok yang dapat menentukan lanskap sehat. Luas, spesies kerapatan rendah yang luas dan dianggap lengkap dengan hanya orangutan dianggap - ada potensi banyak spesies lain yang dapat digunakan seperti burung enggang dan elang besar. Konsep baru herbivora atas tidak dirujuk dan mungkin tidak sesuai. HCV3:Follows National toolkit (judged absent) but RePPProT Land systems used as basis of decision are listed as endangered in the toolkit. SARPATIM used a quantitative analysis where as none exists in the Dwima report NKT 3. Mengikuti toolkit Nasional (dinilai absen) tapi sistem Lahan RePPProT digunakan sebagai dasar pengambilan terdaftar sebagai terancam punah di
toolkit. Sarpatim menggunakan analisis kuantitatif dimana tidak ada dalam laporan Dwima HCV4:Follows National toolkit but does not consider important watersheds for providing environmental services for communities Mengikuti National toolkit, namun tidak mempertimbangkan DAS penting untuk menyediakan jasa lingkungan bagi masyarakat HCV5:Follows National toolkit Mengikuti National toolkit HCV6:Follows National toolkit (no maps) Mengikuti Nasional toolkit (tanpa peta)
Recommended Steps:
Define HCV strictly according the Toolkits (National or Global), addressing points raised above, and state which is followed OR justify why a different approach was taken. Tentukan HCV konsisten sesuai dengan toolkit (nasional atau global), Segala sesuatu dengan ketentuan HVCyang digunakan di atas, dan negara yang diikuti ATAU alasan mengapa pendekatan yang berbeda diambil. Eliminate confusion in each HCV section. i.e. Focus on values of solely biodiversity under HCV 1, Environmental services under HCV 4 etc. Hilangkan sesuatu yang membingunkan di dalam setiap bagian HCV. yaitu Fokus pada nilai-nilai keanekaragaman hayati hanya dalam NKT 1, jasa lingkungan NKT 4 dll
C5.4. Decision on HCV status
None
Minor
Major
a) Is the HCV present, potentially present or absent in the assessed area? b) Has the presence of the HCV in the wider landscape and nationally, regionally or globally been addressed? c) Is the HCV (and its components) clearly defined and described? d) Is the description sufficient for responsible parties reliably to identify the HCV? e) Was the precautionary principle appropriately invoked in making the decision on HCV status? 5.4. Reviewer comments: MAJOR ISSUES – DESCRIPTION OF MAJORITY OF HCVs INADEQUATE
a) Presence, Potentially present or absent has been assessed for all HCVs. Kehadiran/keberadaan, berpotensi ada atau tidak ada telah dinilai untuk semua NKT. c) Presence in the wider landscape has been addressed for some HCV. Kehadiran dalam lanskap yang lebih luas telah ditangani untuk beberapa HCV. d) See section C5.3 – there is often confusion between individual HCVs (where the HCV should focus on biodiversity, landscape and environmental functions are discussed (often at length). The decision for HCV 5 is unclear although all data available. Need a summary table clear showing whether basic needs for communities met HCV criteria to avoid confusion about management. Lihat bagian C5.3 - sering ada membingungan antara NKT individu (dimana HCV harus fokus pada keanekaragaman hayati, fungsi lanskap dan lingkungan dibahas (sering panjang lebar) Keputusan untuk NKT 5 tidak jelas meskipun semua data yang tersedia Need a.. Ringkasan tabel jelas menunjukkan apakah kebutuhan dasar bagi masyarakat memenuhi kriteria HCV untuk menghindari
kebingungan tentang pengelolaan. e) The descriptions are not adequate for most HCVs due to deviations from toolkits, absence of maps (HCV 1.2, HCV 1.3, HCV 1.4, HCV 2.3, HCV 4.1, HCV 4.3,), and referral to ecosystems or land-cover and other supporting data (such as accurate fire hot-spots that could be used to delineate in which the HCV’s are found Deskripsi yang tidak memadai bagi sebagian besar HCV akibat penyimpangan dari toolkit, tidak adanya peta (NKT 1.2, NKT 1.3, NKT 1.4, NKT 2.3, NKT 4.1, 4.3 HCV,), dan rujukan ke ekosistem atau tutupan lahan dan lainnya data pendukung (seperti kebakaran hot-spot yang akurat yang dapat digunakan untuk menggambarkan di mana HCV ditemukan g)
Precautionary Principle occasionally invoked for 1.3 (considered 1.2 in report) and HCV3. Prinsip Kehati-hatian sesekali digunakan untuk 1,3 (mempertimbangkan 1.2 dalam laporan) dan NKT 3.
Recommended Steps:
As per 5.3, Eliminate confusion in each HCV section. Focus on values of solely biodiversity under HCV 1, Environmental services under HCV 4 etc. Sesuai 5.3, Hilangkan sesuatu yang membingungkan dalam setiap bagian HCV. Fokus pada nilai-nilai keanekaragaman hayati hanya dalam NKT 1, jasa lingkungan NKT 4 dll Describe each HCV forest / Area / Management area and map it. Jelaskan masing-masing hutan / Area / Manajemen daerah HCV dan petakan (buat petanya). Include evaluation of HCV within the landscape (after defining the landscape) particularly for community basic needs (i.e are there alternatives to basic need natural resources in the landscape?) and for biodiversity where populations can be evaluated and thus dependency on the concession areas illustrated. Cakuapan evaluasi HCV adalah termasuk lanskap (setelah mendefinisikan lanskap) terutama kebutuhan dasar bagi masyarakat (yaitu apakah ada alternatif untuk kebutuhan dasar sumber daya alam berada di dalam lanskap?) Dan keanekaragaman hayati di mana populasi dapat dievaluasi sehingga ketergantungan pada areal konsesi dapat digambarkan. Construct a summary table for HCV5 community basic needs and summarize each natural resource category, where it is used more than 50%, whether there are alternatives, used sustainably or impact on other HCVs and conclude whether it is considered a HCV or not. Buatlah sebuah tabel ringkasan untuk HCV5 kebutuhan dasar masyarakat dan ringkas setiap kategori sumber daya alam, di mana ia digunakan lebih dari 50%, apakah ada alternatif, digunakan secara berkelanjutan atau dampak pada NKT lain dan menyimpulkan apakah itu dianggap sebagai HCV atau tidak. Once all HCVs have been mapped and the areas described, include a description of where the precautionary principle was used. Setelah semua NKT telah dipetakan dan daerah dijelaskan, termasuk deskripsi mana prinsip kehati-hatian digunakan
C5.5. Mapping decisions
None
Minor
Major
a) Are maps of HCV occurrence clear, accurate and useful? b) Are maps of HCV occurrence presented at an adequate level of resolution and sufficient completeness for management decisions? 5.5. Reviewer comments: MAJOR ISSUES with maps in the report. Need significant reworking. a) and b) No. Major revisions of all maps and maps describing the region are needed. Maps are not present for HCV 1.2, HCV 1.3, HCV 1.4, HCV 2.2, HCV 2.3, HCV 4.1, HCV
4.3,.Maps that are present are of inferior quality, difficult to identify the HCVFand use data of questionable quality – e.g. the maps describing HCV 2.2 displays lowland and mountainous areas based on RePPProT land systems whereas DEM should have been used to define ecoclines.The best map in the report is the HCV 4.2 which is clear. Maps in the introduction sections are incomplete and often lacking legends. Recommended Steps: Complete maps for all HCVs. The HCVF area should be clearly displayed Lengkapi untuk semua NKT. Daerah HCVF harus ditampilkan dengan jelas All maps to include a clear and simple legend with relevant information, reference map of Kalimantan, scale bar and title. Maps should be at full-page resolution of print quality. If file size is an issue, they can be supplied in a separate folder and low resolution maps presented in the report. Semua peta udiberi legenda yang jelas dan sederhana dengan informasi yang relevan, peta referensi Kalimantan, skala bar dan judul. Peta harus pada resolusi penuh-halaman kualitas cetak. Jika ukuran file menjadi masalah, Petapeta dapat dibuat dalam folder terpisah dan peta yang disajikan dalam laporan bisa beresolusi rendah. C6. Management of HCVs Overall – HCV management
None
Minor
Major
For each HCV, either individually or collectively, were the following points addressed appropriately, relative to the likely impact and scale of operations? 6.1. Assessment of threats or risks to each HCV within the
None
Minor
Major
landscape context a) Are threats or risks from current or planned management activities to each HCV within the assessment area identified? b) Have HCV management areas and management prescriptions been defined for each HCV, wherever those HCVs occur? c) Are threats from external factors to each HCV within the assessment area identified? d) Are aspects which might help to preserve the HCVs outside the assessment area identified (e.g. protected areas, inaccessible areas, favourable land use, active conservation programmes etc)? e) Are aspects which would tend to threaten the HCVs outside the assessment area identified (e.g. unfavourable land use, hunting pressures etc.) 6.1. Reviewer comments: a) Risks and threats to the HCV have been reviewed for all HCVs. b) Management areas for HCV have not been defined for most HCVs as maps are often absent. c) External threats and internal threats from the logging company have been assessed. d)yes e) Yes Recommended Steps:
Mapping of the all HCV management areas (HCVFs). Pemetaan dari semua bidang manajemen NKT (HCVF).
None
6.2. Are HCV management plans adequate?
Minor
Major
c) Are management objectives clearly described and appropriate? d) Are management prescriptions clearly described and appropriate to meet stated objectives? 6.2. Reviewer comments: c)
Management objectives are not stated. Tujuan pengelolaan tidak dinyatakan.
d)
All management strategies described are thought appropriate. However, management and monitoring recommendations and put forward in two places within the report – neither of which is all-inclusive. The management and monitoring recommendation generally lack detail and cross-references to best management practices (with the exception of RIL). Semua penjelasan strategi pengelolaan dianggap tepat. Namun, rekomendasi pengelolaan dan pemantauan dan diajukan di dua tempat di dalam laporan yang keduanya tidak semua-inklusif. Rekomendasi pengelolaan dan pemantauan umumnya kurang detail dan referensi silang untuk praktek pengelolaan terbaik (dengan pengecualian RIL).
Recommended Steps:
State management objectives (these can be cut and pasted from existing HCV reports) As mentioned above synchronized management recommendations in one place and provide a summary of management and monitoring with time lines in the final section to accomplish principle 9.3 ad 9.4. Management recommendations should be only those relevant to maintaining and enhancing the HCV in the specific management objective. Describe management recommendations in greater detail and cross-reference with inputs from stakeholders or publications that show management recommendation as suitable to achieve said objective.
6.3. Protection of HCVs from land use
N/A
None
Minor
Major
conversion. This section always applies if some areas are zoned for conversion from natural or traditionally managed ecosystems. If not, tick the Not Applicable (N/A) box. a) Has each HCV been appropriately identified and mapped, within the wider context, prior to any land use conversion activity? b) Have appropriately scaled maps of HCV management areas been presented, prior to any land use conversion activity? c) For each HCV management area, are appropriate management prescriptions clearly described? d) Will HCV management areas adequately maintain or enhance HCVs at the site and landscape level, given known plans for surrounding areas? 6.3. Reviewer comments: N/A C7. Monitoring of HCVs Overall – HCV monitoring
None
Minor
Major
For each HCV, either individually or collectively, were the following points addressed appropriately, relative to the likely impact and scale of operations? None
7.1 Are monitoring plans clearly described?
Minor
Major
a) Are monitoring objectives clearly described and appropriate? b) Are methodologies clearly described and appropriate to meet stated objectives? 7.1 Reviewer comments: Monitoring regimes are reasonably clearly defined and appropriate with monitoring objectives described. However, monitoring is needed to evaluate the future presence of the High Conservation Value itself AND the effectiveness of management recommendations proposed so that the company can adapt its SOPs and operations if the recommendations proposed are ineffective. Each of the management recommendations should have an individual monitoring regime with clear objectives. Methodologies for monitoring are not adequately described in detail. Recommended Steps:
Include a monitoring recommendation for every management recommendation to measure effectiveness of the management prescribed. In addition monitoring is needed to measure the continued presence of each HCV. Describe in greater detail about the monitoring methodology
None
7.2 Are monitoring plans adequate?
Minor
Major
a) Does the monitoring plan adequately deal with significant changes arising from proposed management operations, or known or likely external threats to HCVs? 7.2 Reviewer comments: Changes and threats are not thought to be relevant in this case. None
7.3 Are plans for a regular review of data built in to the
Minor
Major
management and monitoring plan? b) Is there a clear line of responsibility? c) Is the monitoring system review process adequate for capturing effects of likely threats/risks to HCVs? 7.3 Reviewer comments: b) Lines of responsibility indicated c) Not detailedand more detail about how the monitoring system review process is needed. Recommended Steps:
It would be high advisable to describe how the results of monitoring of management and HCVs will be reviewed by the company and acted upon, especially if management is shown ineffective and / or HCVs are shown to be deteriorating. A timeline should be produced for this review process.
C8. Responsible management of other conservation values Overall: Responsible management
N/A
None
Minor
Major
8.1. Conversion of non-HCV ecosystems
N/A
None
Minor
Major
Section 8.1 always applies if some areas are zoned for conversion from natural or traditionally managed ecosystems. If not, tick the Not Applicable (N/A) box. a) Are non-HCV natural or traditionally managed ecosystems identified? b) Have appropriate stakeholders been identified, who are potentially interested or affected by proposed conversion activities in these areas? c) Has an appropriate multi-stakeholder dialogue taken place on plans for conversion, with a balanced and fair representation of stakeholders? d) Do conversion decisions fairly reflect the concerns of stakeholders? 8.1. Reviewer comments: 8.2. Responsible management of other
N/A
None
Minor
Major
conservation values Section 8.2 always applies if the HCV assessment is not done in the context of a credible natural resource certification scheme. If it is, tick the Not Applicable (N/A) box. a) Have other environmental and biodiversity values been identified and mapped? b) Is there a process for sound management of other environmental and biodiversity values? c) Are there adequate plans for monitoring other environmental and biodiversity values and periodically reviewing their management? 8.2. Reviewer comments:
Disclaimer: This review was conducted by PT. EKOLOGIKA CONSULTANTS, according to the guidelines set out and approved by the HCV Resource Network, in line with the Network Charter, and is conducted in good faith on the basis of information provided by The Nature Conservancy. PT. EKOLOGIKA can take no responsibility for the accuracy of information provided by The Nature Conservancyand cannot be held liable in any way for any damage or loss resulting from the use or interpretation of this review by The Nature Conservancyor any third party. The opinions expressed in this review are solely those of the PT. EKOLOGIKA CONSULTANTS and do not necessarily represent the views of the other parties involved in HCV assessments of HCV Peer Reviews in Indonesia or elsewhere.
