1

CMP Audit of Nanga Lauk Village, Kapuas Hulu, West

Kalimantan, Indonesia

Sandy Nurvianto – 22 Nov 2017

a. Overview of the conservation area

- Is there an Executive Summary providing a concise description of the area and its

conservation plan?

Answer: Yes, the Executive Summary provided a concise description of the area in the first, second

and third paragraph, while the conservation plans are well described in the fourth, fifth and sixth

paragraph.

- Is there a map of the area and is its location identified?

Answer: Yes, there are totally four maps presented in the CMP, including

1. Location of Nanga Lauk Village Forest (Hutan Desa Nanga Lauk) within North Kalimantan

Province (Figure 1, page 8).

2. Location of the Nanga Lauk Village Forest (NLVF) and Limited Production Forest (NLHPT)

within Nanga Lauk Village land and location of logging concessions (IUPHHK-HA) and Oil Palm

licenses (Figure 2, page 9).

3. Land cover in Nanga Lauk Village, 2016 (Figure 3, page 11)

4. Participatory land use map produced by members of Nanga Lauk Community (Figure 5, page 20).

- Is the area’s size in hectares stated and its ecoregion specified?

Answer: Yes, the area’s size in hectares is clearly stated in several part of the CMP document, including

the second paragraph of Executive Summary (page 4), in Section A.1. Problem the project will address

(page 6), and in Section B.1. Description of the project area (page 8-10) which stated that the project

will be conducted in two project areas namely Nanga Lauk Village Forest (NLVF) and Nanga Lauk

Production Forest (NLHPT) which each covers 1,430 ha and 8,618 ha, respectively. The area is located

in the wetland ecoregion around Danau Sentarum National Park (see Section B.1.2 Geophysical

Description and G.1.3. Opportunities, page 10-11 and 42, respectively).

- Are the names and contact details of the management authority provided?

Answer: Yes, the information on the management authorities is presented in the Section D.1. Project

organizational structure (page 30-31).

- Is there supporting evidence of the manager’s right to manage area?

Answer: Yes. There is supporting evidence of the manager’s right to manage area. It is reported in

CMP document that the Minister of Environment and Forestry has issued a decree No. SK

685/MNLHK-PSKL/PKPS/PSL.0/2/2017) concerning Nanga Lauk Management Rights. The

Nanga Lauk Community also would like to obtain legal permit to manage NLHPT (see Section B.1.1.

Location and legal status, especially page 10, in the second paragraph) to prevent the forest from use

by logging concessionaries that will have negative impacts on ecosystem services and community

livelihoods. The effort to obtain legal permit is part of the activities in the coming year (see Section

C.2 Project activities page 22-27).

2

b. Biodiversity baseline conditions - Is there evidence of a science-based assessment of the area’s biodiversity baseline condition?

Answer: Yes. The effort to gather the evidence of a science-based assessment of the area’s biodiversity

baseline condition has been conducted in October 2017 to establish the presence and abundance of

species of mammals, birds, reptiles and fish. At least, 169 species have been identified and are listed

in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Section B.2.1. Endangered species and habitats, page

12-13).

- As appropriate, does it include assessment of habitats, legally protected areas, invasive alien

species, ecosystem services, and the production of living natural resource?

Answer: Yes. The information on habitat of both flora and fauna which were encountered in the

managed area was described in the biodiversity survey report (as separated document, see CMP

references). Legally protected area (see Section B.1.1. Location and legal status (page 8-10) and Section

B.4.1. Baseline land use (page 19-20)), invasive alien species (page 14), ecosystem services (see Section

B.2.2. Ecosystem services, page 14) and the production of living natural resources (see Section B.3.3.

Livelihood activities and income, page 16) are briefly described in the CMP.

- Are any significant recent changes to the biodiversity status of the area documented?

Answer: Yes. The significant recent changes to the biodiversity status of the area are described in

Section B.4. Baseline land use and its consequences for biodiversity (page 19-21) and Section B.5.

Main threats to biodiversity (page 21).

c. Conservation impact assessment

- Have key stakeholders been identified and consulted?

Answer: Yes, In the CMP, it is reported that during the two-year development process supported by

Sustainable Forest and Biodiversity Management in Borneo (SFBMB) project, there has been regular

contact between the project coordinator, the technical partners and the Nanga Lauk community to do

scoping, developing project design and capacity building (see Section E. Stakeholder consultation page

34-37). Consultations have also been conducted with regional and district level organizations (see

Section E.2. Other stakeholder, page 36-37).

- Have the area’s internal ‘inside-the-fence’ Strengths and Weaknesses with respect to

maintaining or improving its biodiversity status been assessed?

Answer: Yes, the area’s internal ‘inside-the-fence’ Strengths and Weaknesses with respect to

maintaining or improving its biodiversity status have been assessed and reported in Section G. SWOT

Analysis (Page 42-44), particularly Section G.1.1 Strengths (page 42) and G.1.2. Weakness (page 43).

- Have the ‘outside-the-fence’ broader landscape Opportunities and Threats to conserving

biodiversity been assessed?

Answer: Yes, the ‘outside-the-fence’ broader landscape Opportunities and Threats to conserving

biodiversity have been assessed and reported. At least, there are 2 opportunities and 1 threats have

been identified (page 43).

d. Conservation actions and monitoring

3

- As appropriate, does the plan include a set of conservation actions that aim to minimize

negative impacts, weaknesses and threats, and enhance positive impacts, strengths, and

opportunities?

Answer: Yes, The plan include a set of conservation actions that aim to minimize negative impacts

(Section F. Project impacts, page 38-41), weaknesses (page 43) and threats (page 21 and 43), and

enhance positive impacts (page 38-40), strengths (page 42), and opportunities (Page 43).

Are these actions consistent with the IFC biodiversity mitigation strategy and the IUCN

definition of conservation?

Answer: Yes, all of the actions consistent with the IFC biodiversity mitigation strategy and the IUCN

definition of conservation.

- Do these actions address conservation priorities within the area?

Answer: Yes, the actions address conservation priorities within the area including to prevent

deforestation, forest degradation and biodiversity degradation in the both project areas NVFL and

NLHPT (see Section C. Project Interventions and Activities, page 22-29).

- As appropriate, do these actions also address conservation priorities within the broader

landscape?

Answer: Yes, the actions also address conservation priorities within the broader landscape, because

the efforts to protect and prevent deforestation and forest degradation would maintain the biodiversity

and ecosystem services which give significant benefit at both local and global scale.

- Are robust procedures in place to monitoring implementation of the actions?

Answer: Yes. The CMP document has mentioned project activities, key tasks of each project activity

and the target group of the activity (see Section C. Project Interventions and Activities). The CMP has

also clearly described robust procedures to monitor the implementation of the actions including

indicators, threshold, assessment method and means of verification, and corrective actions (see

Section H. Monitoring, page 45-50).

e. Overall audit assessment - Was the area visited, if so, when?

Answer: NLVF has been visited in October 13-15, 2017. During that time, Nanga Lauk Village can

only be accessed by using water transportation approximately two hours from Putusibau District.

Nanga Lauk community live on the stilt houses which were built in the tidal zone of the river bank.

All building in the village were mostly made of wood. The people use the front of their home as boat

port (Figure 1).

4

Figure 1. All people in Nanga Lauk Village live on the stilt houses and use the front of their home as

boat port.

During the visit, NLVF was being flooded by the water from the river (Figure 2). The water level was

raising because of the rain. During the flooding period, the people can access the NLVF by using a

boat or canoe. However, not all parts of the forest can be accessed due to the vegetation density and

low water level. Accessibility to the managed area is one factor that must be considered in defining

activities in the management plan (e.g. forest patrol and biodiversity monitoring).

5

Figure 2. The condition in NLVF when the water level was raising and flooding the forest floor.

- Were staff and stakeholders interviewed and, if so, whom?

Answer: Yes. I have interviewed staff and stakeholder including:

1. Mr. Imanul Huda as the project coordinator (PCRF) representative,

2. Mr. Hamdi as the head of LPHD,

3. Mr. Mus Mulyadi as the secretary of LPHD,

4. Mr. Rusman as the head of the Nanga Lauk village,

5. Mr. Aladin as the head of development affair,

6. Mr. Asih Zainul as the chief of customary village,

7. Mr. Dahlan as the member of BPD and patrol team,

8. Mr. Syahbidin as the member of BPD and patrol team,

9. Mr. Zulkifli as the member of patrol team,

10. Mr. Husani as the member of patrol team,

11. The men and women who have joined the interview and discussion during the visit.

The interview and discussion have been conducted in the Mr. Hamdi house at the night in October

13-14, 2017. The first night interview was conducted with the LPHD members, while the second night

interview was conducted with village government officer including Mr. Rusman, Mr. Aladin, Mr. Asih

Zainul, Mr. Dahlan, and Mr. Syahbidin. All of Nanga Lauk villager who joined the meeting, discussion

and interview were recognizing all of the programs mentioned in the CMP. However, when I tried to

interview the other villagers who did not join the meeting, mostly of them were not familiar with the

programs mentioned in the CMP. During my visit, I also found that some of the villager were still

actively doing hunting and poaching the wildlife in NLVF and NLHPT for commercial purpose

(Figure 3, 4 and 5). The extension of information concerning the programs mentioned CMP is

necessary to be conducted to ensure that all of Nanga Lauk villager know and understand about the

programs.

6

Figure 3. One of the elders of Nanga Lauk community showed the trap made of rattan to capture

sambar (Cervus unicolor) and muntjak (Muntiacus muntjak). During the dry season, he can set 30-40 traps

in the forest.

7

Figure 4. The females Greater Green Leafbird (Chloropsis sonnerati) which were captured by a villager

and will be sold for 50,000 Indonesian rupiahs per individual.

Figure 5. One of box traps which was purposively used to capture Oriental Magpie Robin (Copsychus

saularis) by a Nanga Lauk villager. One individual of this species can be sold for 250,000 Indonesia

rupiahs.

8

- Are the assessment of baseline conditions and potential impacts sufficient to establish an

effective set of conservation actions?

Answer: Yes. The CMP has clearly described the baseline conditions of NLVF in Section B. Overview

of the Conservation Area (page 8-21) including description of the project area, description of

biodiversity baseline conditions, description of the Nanga Lauk community, and baseline land use and

its consequences for biodiversity. The potential impact of the projects have also been identified in the

CMP (see Section F. Project impacts, page 38-41). The scientific based information concerning the

ecology targeted species is absolutely needed if the goal of the management of conservation area is to

protect biodiversity (Sutherland et al., 2004; Apollonio et al., 2017). By using the information on base

line conditions and potential impacts information, the manager of the area can use those information

to establish an effective set of conservation actions (see Section C. Project Interventions and Activities

(page 22-29) and Section H. Monitoring (page 45-50).

- Are the planned actions coherent, strategic and realistic?

Answer: Yes. The planned actions are coherent, strategic and realistic. The actions are focused on

three main activities:

1. Securing rights and strengthening the village forest management institution (LPHD),

2. Forest protection and monitoring,

3. Development of income sources from sustainable forest management.

All of the activities are still in line with the main goal of the management; to prevent deforestation,

forest degradation and biodiversity degradation NLVF and NLHPT. Securing management right will

focus to obtain management rights for NLHPT (9,169 ha) and the effort will be started in early 2018,

while strengthening the LPHD including elaborate management plans, equip LPHD office and

learning center and train LPHD members on business management have been conducted in October

2017. Monitoring and evaluation of LPHD functioning will be conducted every month internally, and

every three months by involving the external evaluator.

Forest protection and monitoring activities are important to secure the managed area (NLVF and

NLHPT) from all kind threats. The Nanga Lauk community want to do forest patrol together with

forest monitoring. To ensure the affectivity and efficiency of the operational, it is suggested to divide

the managed into small systematic block by size 2.5 x 2.5 km (625 ha). Every single block must be

named with number or alphabetical codes or the combination of alphabetical and number code (for

example A1, A2, A3, B1, B2 etc.). Every forest patrol team has responsibility to observe and monitor

some blocks which have been determined before by the leader of the forest patrol. The data types

which can be collected by the team are count data or presence absence data. Count data can be used

to estimate the density of an object (animal, event, or phenomenon), while presence absence data can

be used to estimate the relative abundance of a species using species occupancy modelling with the

aid of PRESENCE software (MacKenzie et al., 2006). To estimate the relative abundance of a species,

the size of each block must be bigger than the home range of the targeted species. The size 625 ha

per block is chosen because it is bigger than the home range of orangutan (423 ± 139 ha for males

and 131 ± 46 ha for females, (Campbell-Smith et al., 2011)) as the largest animal in the managed area.

This method can also be conducted in combination with SMART Patrol.

Development of income sources from sustainable forest management is necessary to ensure the

sustainability of the conservation program in Nanga Lauk. The main income of Nanga Lauk

community come from fishing, rubber gardening and honey farming. To improve the management

quality of the non-timber forest product, several trainings have been planned in CMP and most of

them have been conducted in October 2017 including processing and marketing of rattan, bamboo,

9

honey and rubber, development of tree nursery and planting, and exchange visit to facilitate

ecotourism business development. General business skill training will be conducted in 2018.

- Is the management plan likely to have a positive impact on biodiversity?

Answer: Yes. The management plan is purposively to have a positive impact on biodiversity by

preventing deforestation, forest degradation and biodiversity degradation.

- Is the management plan compliant with the VCA Standard?

Answer: Yes. The management plan is compliant with the VCA Standard.

- Should the area be registered as a VCA?

Answer: Yes. The area should be registered as a VCA.

References

Apollonio, M., Belkin, V.V., Borkowski, J., Borodin, O.I., Borowik, T., Cagnacci, F., Danilkin, A.A., Danilov, P.I., Faybich, A., Ferretti, F., Gaillard, J.M., Hayward, M., Heshtaut, P., Heurich, M., Hurynovich, A., Kashtalyan, A., Kerley, G.I.H., Kjellander, P., Kowalczyk, R., Kozorez, A., Matveytchuk, S., Milner, J.M., Mysterud, A., Ozoliņš, J., Panchenko, D.V., Peters, W., Podgórski, T., Pokorny, B., Rolandsen, C.M., Ruusila, V., Schmidt, K., Sipko, T.P., Veeroja, R., Velihurau, P. & Yanuta, G. (2017) Challenges and science-based implications for modern management and conservation of European ungulate populations. Mammal Research, 62, 209-217.

Campbell-Smith, G., Campbell-Smith, M., Singleton, I. & Linkie, M. (2011) Apes in space: saving an imperilled orangutan population in Sumatra. PLoS ONE, 6, e17210.

MacKenzie, D.I., Nichols, J.D., Royle, J.D., Pollocl, K.H., Bailey, L.L. & Hines, J.E. (2006) Occupancy Estimation and Modeling. Inferring Patterns and Dynamics of Species Occurrence, Elsevier, London, UK.

Margoluis, R. & Salafsky, N. (1998) Measures of Success: Designing, Managing, and Monitoring Conservation and Development Projects, Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Sutherland, W.J., Pullin, A.S., Dolman, P.M. & Knight, T.M. (2004) The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19, 305-308.