Padang Tikar PDD VCS CCB

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
PADANG TIKAR LANDSCAPE
Document Prepared By South Pole
Contact Information +62 (021) 9971877, info@southpole.com
Project Title Padang Tikar Landacpe
Version 1.0
Date of Issue 20-June-2022
Project Location Indonesia, West Kalimantan
Ambarawa village
Batu Ampar village
Medan Mas village
Nipah Panjang village
Padang Tikar I village
Project Proponent(s)
Sungai Besar village
Sungai Jawi village
Tanjung Harapan village
Tasik Malaya village
Teluk Nibung village
South Pole
Contact Name: Shintia Arwida

Prepared By
Email: s.arwida@southpole.com; info@southpole.com
Phone: +62 (021) 9971877
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3 1

Earthood Service Private Limited

Validation Body Contact Name: Archit Srivastava
Email: archit.srivastava@earthood.in
Project Lifetime 30 August 2017 29 August 2047; 30-year lifetime
GHG Accounting Period 30 August 2017 29 August 2047; 30-year total period
History of CCB Status Not applicable, applying for a joined VCS CCB validation and verification
Gold Level Criteria Not applicable, the project does not aim to qualify for Gold Level criteria
Expected Verification
August 2017 December 2021
Schedule

Table of Contents
1 Summary of Project Benefits .............................................................................................. 4

1.1 Unique Project Benefits ................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Standardized Benefit Metrics .......................................................................................... 5
2 GeneraL.............................................................................................................................. 8
2.1 Project Goals, Design and Long-Term Viability ................................................................. 8
2.2 Without-project Land Use Scenario and Additionality .................................................................... 45
2.3 Stakeholder Engagement ............................................................................................................... 46
2.4 Management Capacity .................................................................................................................... 55
2.5 Legal Status and Property Rights ................................................................................................... 61
3 Climate ............................................................................................................................. 71
3.1 Application of Methodology ............................................................................................................. 71
3.2 Quantification of GHG Emission Reductions and Removals ......................................................... 98
3.3 Monitoring .....................................................................................................................................123
3.4 Optional Criterion: Climate Change Adaptation Benefits ............................................................. 130
4 Community .................................................................................................................... 130
4.1 Without-Project Community Scenario ...........................................................................................130
4.2 Net Positive Community Impacts ..................................................................................................135
4.3 Other Stakeholder Impacts ...........................................................................................................141
4.4 Community Impact Monitoring ...................................................................................................... 143
4.5 Optional Criterion: Exceptional Community Benefits ....................................................................146
5 Biodiversity.................................................................................................................... 147
5.1 Without-Project Biodiversity Scenario ..........................................................................................147
5.2 Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts..................................................................................................168
5.3 Offsite Biodiversity Impacts ..........................................................................................................174
5.4 Biodiversity Impact Monitoring ...................................................................................................... 175
5.5 Optional Criterion: Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits ...................................................................180
Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 182
Appendix 1: References.........................................................................................................................182
Appendix 2: List of invasive species reported for Indonesia .................................................................189

1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS
1.1 Unique Project Benefits
Reference
Section
Outcome or Impact Estimated by the End of Project Lifetime
1) Enhancement of the carrying capacity of critical peat hydrological units in Village Forests 2.1.11
2) Protection of rare, endemic, and endangered wild plants and animals in Village Forests 2.1.11
3) Increased welfare of the community by encouraging alternative sustainable income with

2.1.11
leadership of the LPHD

1.2 Standardized Benefit Metrics
Reference
Estimated by the
Section
Category Metric End of Project
Lifetime
Net estimated emission removals in the project area, Not applicable -
or removals
reductions
emission
measured against the without-project scenario

GHG
Net estimated emission reductions in the project 3,510,923 tCO2e (first 2.1.17
area, measured against the without-project scenario 10 years of the project)
For REDD2 projects: Estimated number of hectares 58,677.6 ha (first 10 3.2.1.1
of reduced forest loss in the project area measured years of the project)
Forest cover
against the without-project scenario

1
For ARR 3 projects: Estimated number of hectares of Not applicable -

forest cover increased in the project area measured
Number of hectares of existing production forest land Not applicable -
in which IFM4 practices are expected to occurred as
Improved land
a result of project activities, measured against the

management
without-project scenario
Number of hectares of non-forest land in which 17,692.6 ha 3.1.5
improved land management practices are expected
to occurred as a result of project activities, measured
10 villages 2.1.5
Total number of community members who are
expected to have improved skills and/or knowledge
resulting from training provided as part of project
Training
activities
Number of female community members who are Data not available -

expected to have improved skills and/or knowledge
resulting from training as part of project activities
1 Land with woody vegetation that meets an internationally accepted definition (e.g., UNFCCC, FAO or IPCC) of what
constitutes a forest, which includes threshold parameters, such as minimum forest area, tree height and level of
crown cover, and may include mature, secondary, degraded and wetland forests (VCS Program Definitions)
2 Reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) - Activities that reduce GHG emissions by
slowing or stopping conversion of forests to non-forest land and/or reduce the degradation of forest land where forest
biomass is lost (VCS Program Definitions)
3
Afforestation, reforestation and revegetation (ARR) - Activities that increase carbon stocks in woody biomass (and
in some cases soils) by establishing, increasing and/or restoring vegetative cover through the planting, sowing and/or
human-assisted natural regeneration of woody vegetation (VCS Program Definitions)
4 Improved forest management (IFM) - Activities that change forest management practices and increase carbon stock
on forest lands managed for wood products such as saw timber, pulpwood and fuelwood (VCS Program Definitions)

Reference
Estimated by the
Section
Lifetime
Total number of people expected to be employed in Data not available -
project activities, 5 expressed as number of full-time
Employment
employees6
Number of women expected to be employed as a Data not available -
result of project activities, expressed as number of
full-time employees
Total number of people expected to have improved Data not available -
livelihoods7 or income generated as a result of
Livelihoods
project activities
Number of women expected to have improved Data not available -
livelihoods or income generated as a result of project
activities
Total number of people for whom health services are Data not available -
expected to improve as a result of project activities,
Health
Number of women for whom health services are Data not available -
expected to improve as a result of project activities,
Total number of people for whom access to, or Data not available -
quality of, education is expected to improve as result
of project activities, measured against the without-
Education
project scenario
Number of women and girls for whom access to, or Data not available -
quality of, education is expected to improve as result
of project activities, measured against the without-
project scenario
Total number of people who are expected to Data not available -
experience increased water quality and/or improved
Water
access to drinking water as a result of project

activities, measured against the without-project
scenario
5 Employed in project activities means people directly working on project activities in return for compensation
(financial or otherwise), including employees, contracted workers, sub-contracted workers and community members
that are paid to carry out project-related work.
6 Full time equivalency is calculated as the total number of hours worked (by full-time, part-time, temporary and/or
seasonal staff) divided by the average number of hours worked in full-time jobs within the country, region or economic
territory (adapted from the UN System of National Accounts (1993) paragraphs 17.14[15.102];[17.28])
7 Livelihoods are the capabilities, assets (including material and social resources) and activities required for a means
of living (Krantz, Lasse, 2001. The Sustainable Livelihood Approach to Poverty Reduction. SIDA). Livelihood benefits
may include benefits reported in the Employment metrics of this table.

Reference
Estimated by the
Section
Lifetime
Number of women who are expected to experience Data not available -
increased water quality and/or improved access to
drinking water as a result of project activities,
Total number of community members whose well- Data not available -
being8 is expected to improve as a result of project
Well-being
activities
Number of women whose well-being is expected to Data not available -
improve as a result of project activities
Expected change in the number of hectares 376,828.2 ha (RRD 3.1.3
managed significantly better by the project for and RRL areas)
biodiversity conservation,9 measured against the
Biodiversity conservation
without-project scenario
Expected number of globally Critically Endangered Flora - 8 Critical 5.1.1
or Endangered species 10 benefiting from reduced Endangered species and
threats as a result of project activities, 11 measured and 10 Endangered 5.1.2
against the without-project scenario species
Fauna 1 Critical
Endangered species
and 4 Endangered
species
8 Well- -being benefits may include benefits reported in

other metrics of this table (e.g. Training, Employment, Livelihoods, Health, Education and Water), and may also
include other benefits such as strengthened legal rights to resources, increased food security, conservation of access
to areas of cultural significance, etc.
9 Managed for biodiversity conservation in this context means areas where specific management measures are being
implemented as a part of project activities with an objective of enhancing biodiversity conservation, e.g. enhancing
the status of endangered species
10
11In the absence of direct population or occupancy measures, measurement of reduced threats may be used as
evidence of benefit

2 GENERAL
2.1 Project Goals, Design and Long-Term Viability
2.1.1 Summary Description of the Project (G1.2)
The Padang Tikar Landscape project is located in the Padang Tikar Landscape of the Batu
Ampar subdistrict, Kubu Raya district, West Kalimantan province, Indonesia. The project consists
of 10 'Village Forests', covering 76,370 hectares (ha), 58,677.6 ha of which is eligible for the
reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) project. The Village Forest
of Padang Tikar is the largest 'Village Forest' permit in Indonesia and is divided into three types of
forest: protected forest (69,299 ha), limited production forest (1,985 ha), and convertible
production forest (5,086 ha). The Padang Tikar Landscape project is a microcosm of the country
as it has comprehensive forest ecosystems, ranging from inland forests to swamp forests
(including mangrove forests and peatlands).
Before the project began, illegal logging in mangroves and agricultural areas was the most
widespread land use in the project area (PA), causing average annual forest losses of around
529 ha per year. This activity contributed not only to growing insecurity in the region, but also to
a lack of education and employment opportunities. These conditions created a reinforcing loop,
where locals felt that exploiting surrounding ecosystems through logging and unsustainable
agriculture was the only way to advance economically.
The overall objective of this project is to secure and protect the Village Forest of Padang Tikar
and restore and improve ecosystem services and habitat through conservation activities. The
project will also bring opportunities for community development and improve the lives and
livelihoods of locals. Community members have been consulted extensively through a
participatory approach and have identified several activities that can contribute to this outcome.
Indonesia's Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) granted a 'Village Forest' license to
Padang Tikar on 14 February 2017. The Village Forest of Padang Tikar falls within the Padang
Tikar Landscape, which contains 10 villages: Tanjung Harapan, Ambarawa, Sungai Besar,
Sungai Jawi, Tasik Malaya, Padang Tikar I, Medan Mas, Nipah Panjang, Teluk Nibung, and Batu
Ampar. The primary objective is the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through
increasing forest sustainability, enhancing community welfare, reducing pressure on land
availability by focusing on creating a fair and sustainable system in managing coastal areas, and
conducting community engagement and training to enhance the capacity of villages in the Village
Forest of Padang Tikar.
In addition, it is expected that this project will provide community benefits by strengthening local
governance, enhancing sustainable community management practices around Village Forests,
and increasing the perception of the value of forest resources. This project will also lead to the
economic empowerment of community groups and an increase in employment opportunities by:
8
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
1) increasing the ability of the forest patrol to protect and safeguard forests and
biodiversity;
2) restoring critical mangrove and peat ecosystems;
3)
4) increasing community capacity through training, comparative studies, and

internships.
Following implementation of the project activities, the project is expected to generate estimated
average annual GHG emission reductions of 351,092 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(tCO2e) and total reductions of 3,510,923 tCO2e for the initial ten-year baseline period.
2.1.2 Project Scale
Project Scale
Project
Large project X
2.1.3 Project Proponent (G1.1)
Organization name Ambarawa village
Contact person M Bakri

M. Dona
Darwis
Title Head of village

Head of LPHD
Head of BPD
Address Jl. Raya Ambarawa, Kecamatan Batu Ampar, Kabupaten Kubu Raya
Provinsi Kalimantan Barat, Indonesia, 78385
Telephone +62 816-4968-6237
Email -
Organization name Batu Ampar village
Contact person Herry Prawiranto

Akhmad. S
Syarif Rusli
Head of LPHD
Head of BPD
9
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Address Jl. Bujang Atim, RT 004/RW 001, Kecamatan Batu Ampar, Kabupaten
Kubu Raya, Provinsi Kalimantan Barat, Indonesia, 78385
Telephone +62 821-5385-3882

Email -
Organization name Medan Mas village
Contact person Dharma Wira

Rusdi
Eka Rahadi
Head of LPHD
Head of BPD
Address Jl. Arahman, Dusun Medan Deli, RT 002/RW 001, Kecamatan Batu
Ampar, Kabupaten Kubu Raya, Provinsi Kalimantan Barat, Indonesia,
78385
Telephone -
Email -
Organization name Nipah Panjang village
Contact person Mochtar D

Toni
Shalihin
Head of LPHD
Head of BPD
Address Jl. Raya Nipah Panjang RT 003/ RW 001, Kecamatan Batu Ampar,
Kabupaten Kubu Raya Provinsi Kalimantan Barat, Indonesia, 78385
Telephone -
Email -
Organization name Padang Tikar Satu village
Contact person Mujahidin

Iwan Kurniawan
M. Syahid
Head of LPHD
Head of BPD
Address JL. Raya Patimura RT 001/ RW 002, Kecamatan Batu Ampar,
Kabupaten Kubu Raya, Provinsi Kalimantan Barat, Indonesia, 78385
10
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Telephone -
Email -
Organization name Sungai Besar village
Contact person Sumar

Mulyadi
M. Arif
Head of LPHD
Head of BPD
Address Jl. Raya Sungai Besar RT 002/RW 001, Kecamatan Batu Ampar
Telephone -
Email -
Organization name Sungai Jawi village
Contact person Effendi

Abu Bakar
Sapei
Head of LPHD
Head of BPD
Address Jl. Raya Sungai Jawi RT 003/RW 001, Kecamatan Batu Ampar,
Telephone -
Email -
Organization name Tanjung Harapan village
Contact person Sahron

Joni
Sahda
Head of LPHD
Head of BPD
Address Jl. Raya Tanjung Harapan, RT 003/ RW 001, Kecamatan Batu Ampar,
Telephone -
Email -
11
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Organization name Tasik Malaya village
Contact person Hendratullah

Yakub
Uni Harnipul
Head of LPHD
Head of BPD
Address Jl. Raya Tasik Malaya, RT 002/ RW 001, Kecamatan Batu Ampar,
Kabupaten Kubu Raya, Provinsi Kalimantan Barat, 78385
Telephone -
Email -
Organization name Teluk Nibung village
Contact person Gunawan

Mahyudin
Bohari
Head of LPHD
Head of BPD
Address Desa Teluk Nibung RT 005/RW 004, Kecamatan Batu Ampar,
Telephone -
Email -
2.1.4 Other Entities Involved in the Project

Organization name Bentang Kalimantan
Contact person Anton P. Widjaya
Title Director
Address JI. Parit Haji Husein II, Komp. Mutiara Gading No. C3, Kel. Bangka
Belitung Darat, Kec. Pontianak Tenggara, Kota Pontianak, West
Kalimantan, Indonesia
Telephone +62 811 5660 915
Email APW@bentangkalimantan.org
12
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Organization name South Pole
Contact person Shintia Arwida
Title Head of Nature-Based Solutions Asia & Pacific
Address Graha Iskandarsyah, 9th Floor, Jl. Iskandarsyah Raya No. 66C · South
Jakarta 12160 · Indonesia
Telephone +62 (021) 9971877
Email s.arwida@southpole.com
2.1.5 Physical Parameters (G1.3)
The Padang Tikar PA is located on the western side of the island of Kalimantan. Figure 1 shows
the location of the PA alongside the location of the villages surrounding the PA. The Padang Tikar
Landscape consists of 11 villages, although only 10 villages, namely Batu Ampar, Teluk Nibung,
Nipha Panjang, Medan Mas, Padang Tikar 1, Tasik Malaya, Sungai Besar, Sungai Jawi,
Ambarawa, and Tanjung Harapan, are involved in the project as they have been granted the
Village Forest permit from the MoEF. The expansion landscape of the project is at coordinates
covers about 58,677.6 ha, of which 1,210.3 ha, 32,337.4 ha, and 25,125.1 ha corresponded to
secondary dryland forest, secondary mangrove forests, and secondary swamp forests
respectively in 2017 (i.e., the project start date).
Table 1: Village Forest coordinate points
Village East longitude South latitude

Ambarawa
Batu Ampar
Medan Mas
Nipah Panjang
Padang Tikar I
Sungai Besar
Sungai Jawi
Tanjung Harapan
Tasik Malaya
Teluk Nibung
13
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Figure 1: Padang Tikar Landscape location and boundary
The main physical and biotic parameters that characterized the Padang Tikar Landscape and the
surrounding of the project area (PA) are described below.
Topography
The Padang Tikar Landscape PA has, historically, been densely forested, consisting of various
types of forest ecosystem, including swamp forests (e.g., coastal mangrove forests and
peatlands) and inland forests (e.g., inland peatland and dryland forests). Its inland forests are
composed of mineral soil. Well-drained lowland dipterocarp forests are intermixed with swamp
while its forests in the lowlands and wetlands, including agroforestry plantations, scrublands, and
croplands, are fragmented forests.
Hydrology
The mangrove biosphere in the archipelago lies across three subdistricts within the Kubu Raya
district, these being Batu Ampar, Kubu, and Teluk Pakedai.12 Batu Ampar sits north of the
Padang Tikar area, with 21 true mangrove species and 17 associate mangrove species found in
12
14
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
this region.13 These include endemic species such as Kandelia candel, Rhizophora spp.,
Bruguiera spp., and Nypa fruiticans.14 Within the Padang Tikar area, there has at times been
rapid growth in the Rhizophora macronata and R. apiculata mangrove species. 15 Some parts of
the coast are covered by mangrove swamps, while the rest is covered by nipah (Nypa
fruticans).16
17
due to the large number
of small but accessible rivers that flow through the region. In 1977, a hydrographic survey
conducted in the area discovered that the tides around Padang Tikar are diurnal, with a range of
up to 2 meters (m) or more in a West/Northwest direction. 18 Padang Tikar itself sits on an estuary
whereby ocean embayments are diluted by runoff from the land. 19 Within these river systems,
aquatic fauna, such as fish, crustaceans, gastropods, bivalves, polychaetes, phytoplankton, and
zooplankton, are the dominant organisms. 20
According to the World Bank (1992), the tidal swamps within the Padang Tikar area are of the
'Kajapah' type.21 Kajapah systems are characterized by low and vast coastal plains with a slope
under 2% and a relief difference below 2 m. 22 They are found under halophytic vegetation with
sedimentary soil,23 and contain rock and mineral systems dominated by alluvium with a mix of
young/recent estuary and marine materials.24
Table 2, taken from the International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing's
(ISPRS) International Journal of Geo-Information25 elaborates on the typical characteristics of
Kajapah land types:
13
Mustikasari, R., Prasetiamartati,
14 Ibid.
15 t Integrated Swamps Development Project
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/pt/516591468772494515/pdf/multi-page.pdf.
16
Research in Indonesia, 20, p. 142.

17
Jurnal TIN Universitas Tanjungpura, 1(1).

18
Research in Indonesia, 20, p. 143.

19
Ibid.
20
21
a: Integrated Swamps Development Project, World Bank, p.28,

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/pt/516591468772494515/pdf/multi-page.pdf.
22 Diana, R., Seftianingrum, R., Suhardiman, A., Sulistioadi, Y. B., & Suwasono, R. A. (2020). Floral Composition of
the Kayan-Sembakung Delta in North Kalimantan (Indonesia) in Different Disturbance Regimes. Journal of Coastal
Research, 36(4), 742. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26928927.
23 Darmawan, M., Hashim, M., Helmi, M., Qin, R., Rahadiati, A., Shih, P.T.Y., Sutrisno, D., Yusmur, A., & Zhang, L..
(2021). Spatial-Planning-Based Ecosystem Adaptation (SPBEA): A Concept and Modeling of Prone Shoreline
Retreat Areas. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(3), p.3.
24
Ibid.
25 Darmawan, M., Hashim, M., Helmi, M., Qin, R., Rahadiati, A., Shih, P.T.Y., Sutrisno, D., Yusmur, A., & Zhang, L..
(2021). Spatial-Planning-Based Ecosystem Adaptation (SPBEA): A Concept and Modeling of Prone Shoreline
Retreat Areas. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(3), p.10.
15
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Table 2: Characteristic of Kajapah
Parameters Kajapah characteristic

Slope (m) <2
Physiographic
Elevation (%) <2
Morphology Flat
Landform Swamp
Genesis Marine
Land use Aquaculture, mangroves
Sedimentary
Lithology
Geology Alluvium
Rock type
Recent estuarine marine
Rainfall (mm) 400 3100
Climate Wet months 2 10
Dry months 0 7
Solum (cm) >150
Soil Texture Sandy loam to clay loam
pH 7
Drainage Poor drainage
Groundwater depth (cm) 0 45
Moderately saline
Salinity
Brackish fisheries
Ponds
Suitability
Mangroves
Soils
The project site lies within the West Kalimantan region, an area rich in peatland landscapes
essential for water regulation, carbon storage, and biodiversity. 26 Human activities in the West
Kalimantan region have threatened peat swamp forest, largely due to growth in agricultural land
use and forest production. 27 Peat in Kalimantan is thinner and contains a carbon average of about
2000 megagrams (Mg)/ha. Additionally, the carbon content of mineral soil in the area is
concentrated in the few centimeters (cm) closest to the surface layer, and rarely exceeds 250
Mg/ha.28
26 Agus, Fahmuddin, et al. (2010). "Carbon budget and management strategies for conserving carbon in peatland:
case study in Kubu Raya and Pontianak districts, West Kalimantan, Indonesia." Proceeding of International
Workshop on Evaluation and Sustainable Management of Soil Carbon Sequestration in Asian Countries. Bogor,
Indonesia: Indonesian Soil Research Institute. p.217.
27 Aspirin, A., & Nusantara, R.W. (2017). "Differentiation of soil organisms at different types of peatland in West
Kalimantan, Indonesia." International Journal of Bonorowo Wetlands, 7(1), p.26.

https://www.smujo.id/bw/article/view/1774/1695.
28
Agus, Fahmuddin, et al. (2010). "Carbon budget and management strategies for conserving carbon in peatland:
case study in Kubu Raya and Pontianak districts, West Kalimantan, Indonesia." Proceeding of International
Workshop on Evaluation and Sustainable Management of Soil Carbon Sequestration in Asian Countries. Bogor,
Indonesia: Indonesian Soil Research Institute. p.218.
16
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
The soils identified by geographic information system (GIS) analysis were Haplic Sulfaquents,
Sulfic Fluvaquents, Typic Haplohemists, Typic Kandiudults, Typic Quartzipsamments, and Typic
Sulfaquents. They fall into the categories of entisols, inceptisols, histosols, and ultisols (see
Figure 2).
Entisols are commonly found in areas of high erosion, quartz sand, and wetland. They can also
be created by disturbing the land, as occurs with extraction, the moving of earth materials, or the
disposal of waste products. They differ from inceptisols by a lesser subsurface accumulation of
transported clay. 29 Inceptisols are commonly found with underlying weathering-resistant parent
materials (e.g., quartzite or siliceous sandstone) or in topographic settings conducive to erosion
or waterlogging.30 Histosols are typically formed under waterlogged conditions and contain a high
organic content. After drainage for agricultural use, the organic material is prone to oxidation,
leading to fire hazards and subsidence. 31 Ultisols are characterized by a humus-rich surface
horizon,32 a layer of clay below, and a nutrient content low in available calcium, magnesium,
potassium, and sodium.33
Information on the specific soils identified is as follows:
1) Haplic Sulfaquents have, in one or more horizons at a depth 20 50 cm below the mineral
soil surface, either or both less than eight percent clay in the fine-earth fraction or an n
value34 of 0.7 or less;35
2) Sulfic Fluvaquents have sulfidic materials at a depth 50 100 cm below the mineral soil
surface;36
3) Typic Haplohemists do not have a lithic contact and do not have a layer of water within
the control section below the surface tier. They are used mainly as woodland, cropland,
or wildlife habitat;37
4) Typic Kandiudults are freely drained soils that do not have a sombric horizon and are
very deep. They possess a sandy clay loam texture. These soils have less than five
percent plinthite and a low cation-exchange capacity. They do not have a surface mantle
29 Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Entisol". Encyclopedia Britannica, December 16, 2011,
https://www.britannica.com/science/Entisol
30 Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Inceptisol." Encyclopedia Britannica, March 2, 2012.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Inceptisol
31
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Histosol." Encyclopedia Britannica, June 29, 2011.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Histosol-soil
32 Approximately 60 percent carbon, 6 percent nitrogen, and smaller amounts of phosphorus and sulfur
33 Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Ultisol." Encyclopedia Britannica, September 27, 2012.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Ultisol
34 The n value characterizes the relation between the percentage of water in a soil under field conditions and its
percentages of inorganic clay and humus. The n value is helpful in predicting whether a soil can be grazed by
livestock, whether it can support other loads, and what degree of subsidence would occur after drainage.
35
Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., p.403.

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051232.pdf
36 Ibid, p.400.
37 Ibid, p.482.
17
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
or layer in the upper 75 cm that has both a low bulk density and a high content of weakly
crystalline minerals;38
5) Typic Quartzipsamments are soils that have a udic or perudic moisture regime, have
deep ground water in all seasons, do not have distinct color horizons, and have at least
moderately active clays or very little clay. Most are used as forest, but some are used as
cropland or pasture; 39 and
6) Typic Sulfaquents are soils that have, in all horizons at a depth 20 50 cm below the
mineral soil surface, both an n value of more than 0.7 and eight percent or more clay in
the fine-earth fraction. They are nearly level and support mostly grassy and forb
vegetation. Most of the soils are used as wildlife habitats. 40
In addition, a study by Grealish and Fitzpatrick (2013) found high organic carbon concentrations
in Haplic Sulfaquents in the surface layers and in deeper subsoil layers in Sulfic Fluvaquents.41
38
Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., p.756.

39
Ibid, p.435.
40
Ibid, p.403.
41 Fitzpatrick, .R.W., & Grealish, G.J. (2013). Acid sulphate soil characterization in Negara Brunei Darussalam: a case
study to inform management decisions. p.435.

https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/sum.12051?saml_referrer
18
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Figure 2: Soil types in the Padang Tikar Landscape
Climate
The island of Kalimantan, where the Padang Tikar Landscape is located, has a tropical climate,
meaning that temperatures average roughly 28ºC (although this can be as low as 15ºC in the
inland highlands), with high humidity for most of the year. Like other countries in the region,
the rainy season, often between October and May. 42 In the rainy season, there can be heavy
rainfall (i.e., monsoons) and, on occasion, typhoons, although the latter is rarer in Kalimantan.
Kalimantan, and especially its northwestern regions, experiences relatively high rainfall compared
to other parts of the archipelago and the rest of the world, with the interior of Kalimantan
estimated to have more than 2,000 millimeters (mm) of rainfall per year. 43 Climate change has
played a significant role in its forest conditions, such as causing a prolonged dry season and
heavy rain during the rainy season. Extended dry periods pose the risk of forest fires, which have
seen notable occurrences in 1997, 2006, and 2015. The 1997 forest fires, in particular, occurred
42 Available at: https://factsanddetails.com/indonesia/Nature_Science_Animals/sub6_8a/entry-4079.html.

43 Available at: https://factsanddetails.com/indonesia/Nature_Science_Animals/sub6_8a/entry-4079.html.
19
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
and were exacerbated as a result of the El Ni o-Southern Oscillation. It is anticipated that the
effects of El Ni o will become more extreme as a result of climate change.
Vegetation
Crops cultivated by settlements in the Padang Tikar Landscape suggest that the land is arable.
Most agricultural land-use in the Padang Tikar Landscape is for growing rice, with almost 88% of
agricultural land in West Kalimantan (e.g., peatlands and wetlands, though this has also extended
to include cleared forested land) being used for rice. Other crops that are cultivated include
coconut, copra, rubber, bananas, and rambutan. There is also a history of growing cassava, corn,
and coffee in West Kalimantan, so it is possible that these are also grown within the Padang Tikar
Landscape. Oil palm also grows well in Kalimantan, as forested areas have also been cleared for
oil palm plantations.
The Padang Tikar Landscape consists of three types of forests, including secondary dryland
forest, secondary swamp forest, and secondary mangrove forest, as shown in Table 3 and
Figure 3.
Table 3: Forest types and areas in project area
Forest type Area (ha) Coverage (%)

Secondary dryland forest 1,214.9 2.1
Secondary swamp forest 32,337.3 55.1
Secondary mangrove forest 25,125.5 42.8
Total 58,677.6 100.0
20
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Figure 3: Forest types in the Padang Tikar Landscape
The project has a very rich and complete diversity of mangrove ecosystems. The mangrove
formation in this project consists of Avicennia, Ceriops, Sonneratia, Rhizophora, Bruguiera,
Xylocarpus, and Nypa. According to the study by SAMPAN Kalimantan in 2016, Padang Tikar
Landscape contains 33 mangrove species, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Dominant mangrove species in Padang Tikar Landscape
The IUCN Red List of

Scientific name 44 Global status
Threatened Species
Acanthus ebracteatus LC Decreasing
Acanthus ilicifolius LC N/A
Acrostichum aureum LC Stable
Acrostichum speciosum LC Stable
Aegiceras corniculatum LC Decreasing
Amyema anisomeres N/A N/A
Avicennia alba LC Decreasing
44
The supporting documents are available in the folder Section 1/Forest Tree Type/Sustainable Mangrove
Management for Community.
21
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
The IUCN Red List of

Scientific name 44 Global status
Threatened Species
Avicennia marina LC Decreasing
Avicennia officinalis LC Decreasing
Bruguiera cylindrica LC Decreasing
Bruguiera gymnorhiza LC Decreasing
Bruguiera sexangular LC Decreasing
Bruguiera parviflora LC Decreasing
Ceriops decandra NT Decreasing
Ceriops tagal LC Decreasing
Excoecaria agallocha LC Decreasing
Heritiera globosa EN Decreasing
Heritiera littoralis LC Decreasing
Kandelia candel LC Decreasing
Lumnitzera littorea LC Decreasing
Lumnitzera racemosa LC Decreasing
Nypa fruticans LC N/A
Rhizophora apiculata LC Decreasing
Rhizophora mucronata LC Decreasing
Rhizophora stylosa LC Decreasing
Sonneratia alba LC Decreasing
Sonneratia caseolaris LC Decreasing
Sonneratia ovata NT Decreasing
Sarcolobus glubosa N/A N/A
Xylocarpus granatum LC Decreasing
Xylocarpus moluccensis LC Decreasing
Bruguiera hainesii CR Decreasing
Note: CR: Critically Endangered, EN: Endangered, LC: Least Concern, NT: Near Threatened, N/A: no data
Biodiversity
Kalimantan has, in general, the highest deforestation rate in the world. In the 17-year period
between 2000 2017, there was 6.04 million ha of deforestation, mostly as a result of land
expansion driven by the needs of land-based industries. Forests on the west coast of Kalimantan,
where the project site is located, and natural forest cover are particularly vulnerable to species
extinction. Forested land cover in 2019 saw a significant reduction compared to 2016, decreasing
from 57,728 ha to 54,754 ha respectively. These changes occur due to forest and land fires and
destructive activities for building needs.
22
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
The Padang Tikar Landscape project aims to reverse this trend by protecting sites of
internationally recognized importance and species of high conservation value (HCV) in areas of
significant peatland, mangrove, and mineral forest ecosystems. This project aims to increase the
diversity, integrity, and extent of peat swamp forest, mangrove, and mineral forest ecosystems to
increase the abundance, diversity, and critical habitat characteristics of endangered and endemic
wildlife.
Table 5: High conservation values identified in the project area
IUCN Red List

Group Common name Species of Threatened
Species
Straw-headed bulbul Pycnonotus zeylanicus CR
Christmas frigatebird Fregata andrewsi CR
Helmeted hornbill Rhinoplax vigil CR
Largetooth sawfish Pristis pristis CR
Javan pangolin Manis javanica CR
Fauna
Bornean orangutan Pongo pygmaeus CR
Siamese crocodile Crocodylus siamensis CR
Proboscis monkey Nasalis larvatus EN
Irrawaddy dolphin Orcaella brevirostris EN
Mangrove horseshoe crab Carcinoscornius rotundicauda DD
Berus Mata Buaya Bruguiera hainesii CR
Flora Gedabu Sonneratia ovata NT
Terumtum Aegiceras floridum NT
Note: CR: Critically Endangered, EN: Endangered, DD: Data Deficient, NT: Near Threatened
2.1.6 Social Parameters (G1.3)
According to Statistics Indonesia, the total population in the PA is 36,844 people (18,768 male
and 18,076 female), with an annual population growth rate of 1.03%. Populations are divided into
four different age groupings, these being children, teenagers, adults, and elderly, based on data
from Statistics Indonesia (see Table 6). The population is dominated by Bugis and Melayu
ethnicities, along with migrants from Java Island. 45
Table 6: Classification of population in Padang Tikar Landscape
Class Age Percentage (%)

Children 0 14 30.13
Teenagers 15 24 16.31
Adults 25 64 49.21
Elders >65 4.34
45 Batu Ampar District in Statistics 2019.
23
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
The education level of the population in the Padang Tikar Landscape is as follows: 35.30% are
elementary school graduates; 15.34% are secondary school graduates; 0.9% are higher
education graduates; 31.72% have not attended formal education institutions; and 16.74% are
unable to read. Due to the limited availability of educational facilities in the area, people who are
eager to continue to higher education (e.g., vocational schools, colleges, or universities) are
required to migrate to Pontianak or other cities. Regarding healthcare coverage, 61% of the
population in the Landscape are already covered by National Health Care Coverage, while 14%
are covered by private health care coverage and 25% are not covered by any health care
coverage.
The Padang Tikar Landscape's coastal area is surrounded by an estuary ecosystem, most of
which is only accessible via water transportation. Therefore, communities have a high
dependency on livelihood activities that are related to natural resource utilization, such as
agriculture, plantation, fisheries, and forestry. These sorts of livelihood activities have been
implemented among communities for years. The majority of the population's livelihoods are highly
related to natural resource utilization, such as the fisheries sector (i.e., fishermen), the agricultural
sector (i.e., coconut farmers), the forestry sector (i.e., timber loggers for construction) or
woodchar production. According to the results of socio-economic mapping carried out by the
SAMPAN Kalimantan, the majority of villages within the Padang Tikar Landscape depend on the
agricultural sector of 40%, fishery of 38% and others of 32%.
The activities carried out by the community have a correlation to the increase in the deforestation
rate. In the Padang Tikar Landscape, factors that cause deforestation include the tendency to
change forest cover into another land use, such as for agriculture, commercial plantation, or
infrastructure development. Each village has a different main threat towards deforestation. For
example, in Batu Ampar, the main threat to forest areas is illegal timber harvesting for wood char
production, while the main threat to these areas in Teluk Nibung are forest fires as a function of
land clearing for agriculture purposes. The agricultural livelihoods mainly adopted by the
community are largely related to the establishment of paddy fields. Paddy fields are initially
created to fulfill daily needs, with the community only beginning to trade the produce of these
fields at the local market once the production rate exceeds these needs. The cultivation system
used, traditional cultivation, is highly dependent on rainfall, although irrigation systems have
already been implemented in some villages in limited areas.
Another agricultural activity that serves as a significant source of community livelihood is coconut
plantation. On average, a single household owns an average of 2 ha of coconut plantation area.
Commonly, the coconut is then processed into copra (fruit flesh) or coconut char (fruit shell), with
trading prices fluctuating from IDR 7,000 12,000/kilogram (kg) for copra and IDR 2,000 4,000/kg
for coconut char. In the fishery sector, people commonly work as traditional fishermen, with 235
effective sailing days annually. The fishing area extends from the surrounding coastal area up to
the Karimata strait, with an approximate distance of 125 kilometers (km). Besides work as
fishermen, some of the community also implement silvofishery, with the main commodities
sourced from this being shrimp and crab. 46
46 Management Strategy of Village Forest to Reduce Deforestation Rate in Batu Ampar District 2019.
24
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
2.1.7 Project Zone Map (G1.4-7, G1.13, CM1.2, B1.2)

As mentioned above, the Padang Tikar Landscape project is located in the coastal area of West
Kalimantan. The project will include 10 villages, which granted the Village Forest permit, with
dryland forest, swamp forest, and mangrove forest. The expansion landscape of the project is at
longitude. The coordinates of each village are presented in Table A. The project area covered
58,677.6 ha of stable forests by 2016. In accordance with the regulation No.49/Menhut-II/2008
Lembaga Pengelolaa Hutan Desa (the Village Forest Management Institution; LPHD), the LPDH
was established to implement the General Plan for Village Forest in the Padang Tikar Landscape.
Figure A shows the map of the project area location. Considering the VCS guidelines for the
presentation of the map of the project area was included:
Location and boundary of 10 villages (Table 1 and Figure 1)
Any area of high conservation value (HCV) (Figure 4)
Figure 4: High Conservation Values (HCV) identified in Padang Tikar Landscape
2.1.8 Stakeholder Identification (G1.5)
This project has been started as a follow-up to a previous round of stakeholder engagement
held in the Landscape. The previous engagement was focused on supporting the villagers with
acquiring the 'Village Forest' permit through the MoEF's social forestry scheme. The permit is
seen as an opportunity for developing the community by improving livelihoods with a
25
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
sustainable approach while also achieving the protection of the forest, as mandated by the
Indonesian government in the terms of the permit.
The mandate of the Village Forest permit is in line with the project's objective. The village
community, as the owners of the Village Forest rights, have remained engaged via the
livelihood approach throughout the project lifetime, participating as part of a strategy to slow
down the deforestation rate and maintain the ecosystem function of the area.
The stakeholder analysis was started by mapping and defining the PA and project zone within
the Padang Tikar Landscape. The 'PA' is defined as an area inside the Village Forest eligible
for emission reduction calculations, while the 'project zone' is defined as an adjunct region to
the PA where the community live and have been engaged for project activities that focus on
livelihood and community development. Once the area had been clearly defined, the analysis
was continued to identify which individuals, groups, or other stakeholders would be directly or
indirectly affected by the project. This analysis also focused on identifying which stakeholders
would have an impact, whether positive or negative, on the project objectives.
From the analysis, stakeholders in the Landscape were divided into two main groups, i.e.,
communities and other stakeholders. 'Communities' represent individual and/or community
groups that are directly and indirectly affected by the project, while 'other stakeholders'
represent the groups that are indirectly involved in supporting the project objective.
2.1.9 Stakeholder Descriptions (G1.6, G1.13)
Listed below are all the communities, community groups, and other stakeholders in the project,
alongside a brief description of their rights, interests, and relevance to the project activities (see
Table 7) Each of these stakeholders were invited to participate in the LSC sessions.
Table 7: Stakeholder identification and description
Group Stakeholder Rights Interests Relevance

Communities Local Owner of the Utilize the Village Very high on
communities village forest Forest area as a climate,
(villagers) livelihood,
management rights business area and
Receive training Participate in the biodiversity
objectives
and assistance development of
with economic strategies for the
development. management of
Responsible for the Village Forest
managing the
forest responsibly
and sustainably
under the mandate
26
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

of the Village
Forest permit
Community Provide direction Participate in the Low on

leaders and guidance to development of livelihood
the community strategies for aspects
Receive assistance Village Forest

with supporting the management
development of Help oversee
Village Forest implementation of
programs the Village Forest
program
Fire starters Participate in the Participate in the Very high on
development of development of climate,
strategies for strategies for livelihood,
and
Village Forest Village Forest biodiversity
management management objectives
Obtain proper fire Participate in the
prevention and development of a
mitigation training program for land
clearing without
burning
Illegal loggers Participate in the Participate in the Very high on
development of development of climate,
livelihood,
strategies for strategies for
and
Village Forest Village Forest biodiversity
management management objectives
Obtain proper Participate in
training in economic
mitigating illegal developments in
logging the Village Forest
Participate in which prevent
economic activities illegal logging
which mitigate
illegal logging
Palm oil Participate in the Utilize the Village Very high on
smallholders development of Forest area as a climate and
strategies for business area biodiversity
objectives
Village Forest Participate in the
management development of
Receive training strategies for
and assistance
27
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

with economic Village Forest
activities that are management
more sustainable
than palm oil
production
Fishermen Utilize the Village Participate in the Very high on
Forest area development of climate,
(mangrove forest) strategies for livelihood,
and
as a fishing ground Village Forest biodiversity
for crabs, shrimp, management objectives
etc. Participate in
Participate in the sustainable
development of business/econom
strategies for ic development
Village Forest for the mangrove
management forest and fishery
Receive training sectors
and assistance
with the
development of
fishery products
Farmers Participate in the Utilize the Village Very high on
development of Forest area as a livelihood
aspects
strategies for business area
and assistance Village Forest
with economic management
development in the
agricultural sector
Middlemen Generate Participate in Low on
sustainable business livelihood
development in the aspects
revenue from new
Village Forest
business activities
developed in the
villages
Obtain assistance
with the
development of fair
fishery products
28
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

Community Village Owner of Village Coordinate Medium on
groups government Forest between the livelihood
management rights community and aspects
Exercise Village the LPHD

Forest surveillance Community
rights, including economic
changing the development in
LPHD structure the village,
and ensuring including in the
Village Forest Village Forest
management is Prevent
functioning as deforestation and
planned wildfires from
Take the lead in occurring in the
defining the Village Forest
direction of the
Village Forest and
in planning and
developing
strategies for its
management
Obtain training and
assistance with
Village Forest
development
LPHD Hold a mandate Coordination Very high on
with the MoEF to between the climate,
livelihood,
manage and lead village
and
Village Forest government and biodiversity
management community objectives
Take the lead in Community
defining the economic
direction of the development in
Village Forest and the village and
in planning and Village Forest
developing Prevent
strategies for its deforestation and
management wildfires from
Implement all occurring in the
existing programs Village Forest
in village forests Implement the
(e.g., ecosystem Village Forest
29
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

services, timber program outlined
products, and non- in the annual
timber forest work plan (RKT)
products) and village forest
Utilize the Village management
Forest area as a plan (RPHD)
business area
Obtain training and
assistance with
Village Forest
management
KUPS Develop existing Utilize the Village Very high on
businesses and Forest area as a climate,
potential business area livelihood,
and
commodities in Participate in the biodiversity
Village Forest development of objectives
areas strategies for
Utilize the Village Village Forest
Forest area as a management
business area
Participate in the
development of
strategies for
Village Forest
management
Obtain training and
assistance with
economic
development
Fishermen Utilize the Village Participate in the Very high on
groups Forest area development of climate,
(mangrove forest) strategies for livelihood,
and
as a fishing ground Village Forest biodiversity
for crabs, shrimp, management objectives
etc. Participate in
Participate in the sustainable
development of business/econom
strategies for ic development in
Village Forest the mangrove
management forest and fishery
sectors
30
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

Receive training
and assistance
with the
development of
fishery products
Forest farmer Participate in the Utilize the Village Very high on
groups development of Forest area as a livelihood
aspects
strategies for business area
and assistance Village Forest
with economic management
development in the
non-timber forest
product sector
Community Conduct forest Participate in the Very high on
fire care security and development of climate and
groups/Masyar biodiversity
protection strategies for
akat Peduli Api objectives
Obtain training in Village Forest
and assistance management
with the prevention Participate in the
and control of prevention and
forest and land control of forest
fires and land fires
Other Private sector Support the program Ensure that Medium on
stakeholders by providing Illegal logging climate,
business and wildfires are biodiversity,
development capital and
and/or participating not occurring in livelihood
in the marketing and the concession objectives
development of area
products
Participate in the
economic
development of
the Village Forest
LPHD Monitor the Develop all Very high on
implementation of programs climate,
the Village Forest (protection and livelihood,
and
permit economy) in the biodiversity
Empower Village Forest objectives
communities
31
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

surrounding the Ensure that there
Village Forest is no illegal
Coordinate with logging or forest
village fire in the area
governments and Ensure that the
the LPHD for LPHD institution
Village Forest is able to sustain
management 35 years of
Run the program in management
the Village Forest
Other Provide suggestions Obtain project Medium to
government and input to ensure activity reports for high on
institutions the program is in integration, climate,
accordance with the learning, and input biodiversity,
targets of the West from government and
Kalimantan provincial planning livelihood
government objectives
Other non- Provide suggestions Obtain project Medium on
governmental and input (if needed) progress climate,
organizations for project information to use livelihood,
(NGOs) development and as a model for the and
participate in relevant replication and biodiversity
aspects of the project evaluation of other objectives
(if needed) programs
Village Provide training, Run the program Low on
facilitators knowledge, and planned by the livelihood
community guidance Ministry of aspects
at the village level
Villages
Assist the village
government in
carrying out the
program
Collaborate on
economic
development in
the village
2.1.10 Sectoral Scope and Project Type
This project falls under scope 14 of the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) 'Agriculture, Forestry
and Other Land Use' (AFOLU) guidelines. The project type is mixed, including both a REDD
component, in the category of Avoided Unplanned Deforestation and Degradation (AUDD), and
a Wetland Restoration and Conservation (WRC) component. It is a non-grouped project that
32
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
seeks to reduce deforestation, protect dryland, swamp and mangrove areas in the Padang
Tikar Landscape, and conserve organic carbon stocks in peatlands.
2.1.11 Project Activities and Theory of Change (G1.8)

The Padang Tikar Landscape project is not located within a jurisdiction covered by a jurisdictional
REDD+ program. The project aims to reduce GHG emissions from deforestation by balancing
protection, production, and inclusion in Village Forests. This project has the following three
outcomes:
1) the enhancement of the carrying capacity of critical peat hydrological units in Village
Forests;
2) the protection of rare, endemic, and endangered wild plants and animals in Village
Forests; and
3) an increase in community welfare through the LPHD-led development of alternative

sustainable income opportunities.
To achieve these outcomes in the Landscape, short-term funding has been secured to support
the implementation of activities. The Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH) was the main donor
supporting major activities on the ground in the Landscape. The project activities have been
designed to reduce the threat of wildfires, illegal logging, and agricultural expansion in Village
Forests by implementing a community livelihood approach. Figure 5 below describes
theory of change. It develops a long-term vision for the Padang Tikar Landscape and aims to
address underlying causes and direct drivers of deforestation in the Landscape.
33
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Figure 5: Theory of change in the Padang Tikar Landscape project
The project activities implement four strategies, as described in the following section:
Increasing the Intensity of Forest Patrols to Protect and Safeguard the Forest and its Biodiversity
This strategy covers the project activities that aim to secure the protected areas in the Padang
Tikar Village Forest by reducing the risks of land and forest fires, illegal logging, and forest
conversion due to small-scale agricultural expansion.
This strategy includes the following activities:
1) developing the Forest Guard and the Fire Prevention Unit system and its standard
operating procedure to safeguard the protected forest area and other protected areas;
2) forest protection training for the Forest Guard and the Fire Prevention Unit; and
3) community patrols to protect forests and other areas within the Village Forest.
over a period of 16 years (i.e., 2000 2016) has been conducted at a scale of 1:50.000 to provide
34
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
baseline information for the PA. Furthermore, a WebGIS system

(http://www.pantauhutandesa.com/) has been developed to support the implementation of
monitoring activities for the year 2019-2020 (Figure 6).
WebGIS is a web-based smart patrol system developed to analyze land-use change. It includes
an alert system designed to measure the potential impact of an activity on land-use change within
the Landscape. If there are potential impacts on land-use change or deforestation, ground-
checking will be conducted using GPS and unmanned aerial vehicles or drones to collect
evidence. The results of this activity will then be used as the basis for further action. This system
ensures that each activity contributing to deforestation and degradation can be detected quickly
and periodically monitored.
By involving stakeholders and communities within the Landscape, the WebGIS system can
provide accountability and transparency regarding deforestation activities. Moreover, this system
is accessible to everyone, including stakeholders outside of the Landscape. To facilitate greater
community involvement, a series of training sessions for communities and stakeholders will need
to be conducted to build capacity on forest monitoring tools. This training will help build
stakeholder inclusiveness in the system.
This strategy contributes to the outcomes of this project by reducing the quantity of GHG
emissions released from peat fire activities, illegal logging, and land clearing for small-scale
agriculture.
Figure 6: The WebGIS system (was active on the year 2019-2020)
35
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Restoration of Critical Mangrove and Peat Ecosystems
This strategy covers the project activities that aim to restore the ecological function of critical
mangrove and peat ecosystems in the Padang Tikar Village Forest. This strategy contributes to
the project objective of recovering the hydrological function of peat and mangrove ecological
systems, increasing biodiversity in the area in the long term.
Several activities in this strategy include:
1) rewetting 150 ha of degraded peat ecosystem using a peat hydrological system

approach;
2) rehabilitating 500 ha of degraded peat and mangrove areas using a natural succession
approach; and
3) installing devices to monitor peat water levels. Four villages (Ambarawa, Sungai Besar,
Tasik Malaya, and Padang Tikar 1) have already installed devices monitoring peat water
levels.
This strategy began with a mapping activity to develop restoration targets and plans for the 10
Village Forests, spanning 2018 2028. Several actions should now be taken, including reaching
the necessary agreements with local communities around these targets and plans, installing
signposts and peat water monitoring devices in the restoration areas, preparing nursery facilities
for agroforestry, and conducting pruning activities in the natural succession area under the
rehabilitation program.
The agroforestry activity in the peatland area will be conducted with an emphasis on commodities
valuable to each local community, such as Porang, Kaliadra, coffee, Moringa, and others. This
try system.
The mangrove restoration activities will also be carried out in seven villages in the landscape:
Padang Tikar 1, Sungai Besar, Tanjung Harapan, Nipah Panjang, Sungai Jawi, Medan Mas, and
Batu Ampar. The planting will be conducted on degraded land that has been previously
mapped.47 This activity involves the communities as primary stakeholders and not only seeks
their involvement, but also aims to increase awareness of the importance of improving the
ecological function of mangroves in the area.
The threats of deforestation and degradation in the mangrove and peatland ecosystems occur
due to limited livelihood options for people in the communities surrounding the Landscape. A
reduction in sea-based products due to overfishing has led to many fishermen turning to land-
based livelihoods, such as coconut and palm oil production, both of which cause land clearing
and contribute to an increase in peat fires. High demand for charcoal from the domestic market
and international buyers has caused illegal logging in the protection area and has led
47 The supporting documents are available in the folder Section 1/Project Activity
36
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
s to livelihood opportunities beyond

these extractive activities has increased deforestation in the Landscape. To address this
deforestation, reduce degradation, and increase community welfare, the sustainable livelihood
business model has been introduced in the Landscape.
Four main business models have been introduced in the Landscape:
1) sustainable crab production;
2) sustainable honey production;
3) sustainable coconut production; and
4) sustainable wood and coconut charcoal production.
Business models for sustainable crab and honey production
These business models assume that the greater income generated through sustainable crab and
honey production will attract those currently working in mangrove charcoal production. The initial
investment needed for these models has currently been secured through a partnership with the
Forest Development Financing Center Public Service Agency and the MoEF (BLU-P3H MoEF)
and is strengthened through collaboration with PT KNJ and Credit Union KNB.
The BLU-P3H MoEF is a government body that provides loans to local communities that can be
used to strengthen commodity business models in the production stage at village level.
Collaboration with companies like PT KNJ and Credit Union KNB will strengthen commodity
business models at the marketing stage, including those related to adding value to products,
distribution, and markets, and expanding the number of financial institutions that the community
can access.
1) increasing co-investment/loan deals for community development (business model);
2) escorting the business unit in developing production infrastructure based on a co-

investment agreement and increasing production targets for honey and crab; and
3) improving market assurances to maintain commodity production based on co-investment.
Business model for sustainable wood and coconut charcoal production
This business model assumes that fully transitioning local communities away from livelihoods
based on the extraction of mangrove charcoal will take time. Sustainable wood charcoal
production is an alternative that can be implemented to reduce the negative effects of charcoal
communities since the 1920s, is one of the primary drivers of deforestation in the Village Forest.
Approximately 400 units of traditional burning houses have been identified, alongside roughly 500
37
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
ha of cutting area inside the protected forest area, part of the Village Forest boundary. Therefore,
two strategies need to be achieved: 1) encouraging the legal recognition of mangrove cutting
areas under the social forestry program; and 2) improving charcoal production and distribution
chains. However, there is currently no support from the MoEF for either strategy.
1) engaging with other stakeholders to identify solutions related to sustainable wood

charcoal production in mangroves; and
2) developing a cooperative/business unit for other potential commodities, such as coconut

copra and coconut charcoal, within the Village Forest area. Currently, two cooperatives
for honey and coconut have been developed, in addition to 20 social forestry business
units/Kelompok Usaha Perhutanan Sosial (KUPS) for honey, crab, and coconut
production.
Increase Community Capacity Through Training, Comparative Studies, and Internships
knowledge of the importance of forests, biodiversity, and sustainable livelihoods. Such activities
will contribute to maintaining the ecological function of peat and mangrove ecosystems, while
ensuring that locals are still able to derive value from the forests.
1) developing community-based mangrove learning and a monitoring center at Mangrove

Mega Biodiversity;
2) training instructors in commodity production for honey and crab;
3) training business units in managerial and financial skills to manage the co-investment
deal with BLU-P3H MoEF for honey and crab production; and
4) training on effective and efficient business management and development.
of the importance of forests, biodiversity, and sustainable livelihood increases, the threat of future
deforestation and degradation will be reduced, and local livelihoods will become more
sustainable.
2.1.12 Sustainable Development
According to data and statistics provided in the 'Sustainable Development Report 2022',
Indonesia ranks 82nd out of 163 countries in the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Index
rankings, with an overall score of 69.2
toward achieving all 17 SDGs. Previously, Indonesia has been awarded scores of 68.12, 68.42,
68.48, and 68.90 in the 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 'Sustainable Development Reports'
respectively.
38
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Currently, Indonesia has achieved zero SDGs, with nine of the remaining SDGs in particular
presenting major challenges to improvement. The trends show that progress towards achieving
three major SDGs (i.e., sustainable cities and communities, life below water, and life on land) has
either stagnated or is occurring at less than 50% of the required rate (see Figure 7).
Figure 7: Current assessment and trends on SDGs achievement in Indonesia 48
As the above data shows, Indonesia faces major challenges in achieving its SDGs. This project
intends to contribute to at least six SDGs (see Table 8).
Table 8: Project SDGs Contributions
SDG Contribution description Monitoring description

SDG 1: No Poverty Padang Tikar Landscape aims to Number of people
employ local people employed
Percentage of employees
earning a salary above the
poverty headcount ratio at
IDR 2,467,630 per month49
48 Available at: https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/static/profiles/pdfs/SDR-2022-indonesia.pdf

49 Governor of West Kalimantan Decree No.1468/DISNAKERTRANS/2021.
39
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
SDG Contribution description Monitoring description

SDG 4: Quality Padang Tikar Landscape provides Number of training
Education training and workshops related to sessions and workshops
alternative livelihood activities, Numbers of female/male
climate mitigation activities, and participants in training
biodiversity conservation and sessions and workshops
enhancement
SDG 8: Decent Padang Tikar Landscape creates Number of people working

Work and various alternative livelihood related to alternative
Economic Growth activities, such as crab livelihood activities
production, honey production, and Generated or monthly
coconut charcoal production incomes related to
alternative livelihood
activities
SDG 13: Climate Integrate climate change Net estimated GHG

Action measures into strategies and emission reductions in the
planning PA, measured against the
baseline scenario
SDG 14: Life Below Padang Tikar Landscape aims to Number of fauna species
Water increase the abundance, diversity, below water found in the
and critical habitat characteristics PA in each verification
of endangered and endemic period
wildlife
SDG 15: Life on Padang Tikar Landscape aims to The area of protected
Land increase the abundance, diversity, forests in the Padang Tikar
and critical habitat characteristics Landscape (ha)
of endangered and endemic Number of fauna and flora
wildlife species found on land in
the PA in each verification
period
40
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
2.1.13 Implementation Schedule (G1.9)

Table 9 presents key dates and milestones in project development and implementation, such as
introductory meeting dates, start and end dates of each project activity, start and end dates of the
GHG accounting period, monitoring schedule, and verification schedule.
Table 9: Key dates and milestones in project development and implementation
Date
October 2016 Establishment of the Village Forest policy in the Padang Tikar
December 2016 Landscape, meeting with policy maker for detemination of work area
and Village Forest management right,
February 2017 Ministry of Environmental and Forestry (MoEF) granted the Village
Forest Permit for 10 villages in the Padang Tikar Landscape, including
Ambarawa, Batu Ampar, Medan Mas, Nipah Panjang, Padang Tikar I,
Sungai Besar, Sungai Jawi, Tanjung Harapan, Tasik Malaya, and
Teluk Nibung.
February 2017 Improving sustainable coastal forest governance through Village Forest
December 2017 Business and strengthening community participation by optimized
results non-timber forests and environmental services in Village Forest
for restoration and preservation of landscape peat ecosystem
August 2017 Start date for the first GHG accounting period. The Kubu Raya district
government has opened a new mangrove tourism in Padang Tikar
Landscape.
February 2017 Events and workshops with non-governance organization and other
June 2018 leaders such as IDH, SAMPAN Kalimantan, and Bentang Kalimantan
on the national REDD+ strategy, strengthening of Village Forest
Management Institution (LPHD), sustainable forest management,
national legislation and international agreements related to climate
change, tools for project monitoring and reporting
February 2017 end Generation of technical capacities and team building for the theoretical-
of crediting period practical workshops, implementation of alternative livelihood,
enhancement of awareness campaigns on the maintenance and
management of forests
April 2018 Peatlands and mangroves rehabilitation including nursery, planting,
November 2018 nurturing, and monitoring
February 2020 The stakeholder consultation introduction to carbon project
development and project activities implementation to the communities
and Bentang Kalimantan
March 2020 The communities a mandate to Bentang
Kalimantan as the assistance institution to manage carbon project
development, including feasibility study and certification of carbon
credits
October 2021 The stakeholder consultation introduction and designing benefits
sharing mechanism with communities and Bentang Kalimantan
41
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Date
December 2021 The stakeholder consultation introduction and discussion on roles
and responsibilities of stakeholders, project activities, carbon project
development, project benefits, and grievance mechanism
March 2022 The stakeholder consultation Designing and planning for the project
activities for the carbon project development with the community
leaders and Bentang kalimantan
June 2022 Introduction of field facilitators to communities, training of field
facilitators in general project information, project activities and
monitoring plans related to climate, community and biodiversity, and
grievance mechanism and procedure
August 2022 Field audit visit for VCS and CCB validation
December 2022 Final validation report
January 2023 Field audit visit for VCS and CCB first verification period (2017 2021)
Every six years after Baseline reassessment

the project start date
At least five years Verifications
from 2017 onwards 50
2.1.14 Project Start Date
In accordance with the VCS definition, which states that the start date of an AFOLU project is the
date on which activities that led to the generation of GHG emission reductions and removals are
implemented, the project start date was August 30, 2017.
Ten villages in the Padang Tikar Landscape proposed a social forestry/Village Forest scheme
to the MoEF in 2016. The proposals were then approved by the MoEF, with the Village Forest
permits for the 10 villages being issued on February 14, 2017. The issuance of permits makes
it possible for local communities to develop sustainable forest management in forest areas
around the village. A key component of the sustainable forest management activities developed
by local communities will be the utilization of environmental services, including the
development of carbon management programs. In other words, the issuance of permits is the
first milestone for communities working toward reducing emissions from activities that threaten
forests, such as illegal logging, wildfires, and the draining of peatlands. The first implemented
activity in the Padang Tikar Landscape after receipt of the Village Forest permits was mangrove
revegetation activities in Nipah Panjang village. The start date of the project activity was August
50 Project verifications are subject to the availability o monitoring information. As an initial approximation a verification
is estimated at least every five years considering the requirements of the VCS standard.
42
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
30, 2017, 51 or the day that the district government of Kubu Raya officially opened a new
mangrove tourism destination in the Padang Tikar Landscape. 52
2.1.15 Benefits Assessment and Crediting Period (G1.9)

The duration of the VCS project crediting period is 30 years, with the project beginning on 30-
August-2017 and ending on 29-August-2047.
2.1.16 Differences in Assessment/Project Crediting Periods (G1.9)

There are no different between the GHG emission accounting, climate adaptive capacity and
resilience, community, and biodiversity benefits assessment periods.
2.1.17 Estimated GHG Emission Reductions or Removals
Estimated GHG emission

Year reductions or removals
(tCO2e)
2017 154,285
2018 252,086
2019 273,904
2020 293,435
2021 321,018
2022 342,788
2023 354,947
2024 379,536
2025 402,914
2026 433,270
2027 302,740
Total estimated ERs 3,510,923
Total number of crediting years 30
Average annual ERs 351,092
2.1.18 Risks to the Project (G1.10)

The project risk analysis was carried out using the guidelines of the Non-Permanence Risk Tool,
version 4.0. The risk rating was based on an assessment of the risk factors that are added
together to determine the total risk rating. The result of the non-permanence risk was 27%.
51 The supporting documents are available in the folder Section 1/Project Start Date.
52 Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8Q-W9Lyi8Q.
43
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
The risk factors were classified into three categories, including internal risk, external risk and
natural risk. The project was evaluated considering each of the risk factors suggested by the tool.
A description was made of the applicability of the risk factor and a score was assigned to each
factor by category and sub-category.
2.1.19 Benefit Permanence (G1.11)
contribute to maintain and enhance the climate, community, and biodiversity benefits beyond the
project lifetime.
deforestation in the Landscape. To address this conflict and increase community welfare, the
sustainable livelihood business models (crab, honey, coconut, sustainable wood and coconut
charcoal production) have been introduced in the Landscape. The initial investment needed for
these models has currently been secured through a partnership with the Forest Development
Financing Center Public Service Agency and the MoEF (BLU-P3H MoEF) and is strengthened
through collaboration with PT KNJ and Credit Union KNB. Collaboration with companies like PT
KNJ and Credit Union KNB will strengthen commodity business models at the marketing stage,
including those related to adding value to products, distribution, and markets, and expanding the
number of financial institutions that the community can access.
On the other hand, increasing the capacities of villagers, including community-based monitoring
systems for mangroves, commodities production and business management and developemt aim
and sustai
knowledge and awareness of the importance of forests, biodiversity, and sustainable livelihood
increases, the threat of future deforestation and degradation will be reduced, and local livelihoods
will become more sustainable.
2.1.20 Financial Sustainability (G1.12)
As identified in the non-permanence risk tool, From the beginning of the activities to the
breakeven point, 63% of the required investment and operating costs of the project are insured by
the strategic allies (See project indicators - with carbon credits 2017 - 2047).53 However, the
villages in partnership and collaboration with several institutions has demosntrated capacity to
apply for financial resources at least 50% of total cash out before project reaches breakeven.
2.1.21 Grouped Projects

The project includes a single location only. Therefore, this is not applicable as the project is a
non-grouped project.
53 See the support in the next route: NRPT/1_Internal_risks/Cash_Flow_Padang
44
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
2.2 Without-project Land Use Scenario and Additionality
2.2.1 Land Use Scenarios without the Project (G2.1)
The forests in the project area are classified as protected forest, production forest, conversion
production forest, and limited production forest. The most important characteristics of vegetation
are described in Section 2.1.5.
See sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5, which contain the description of the baseline scenario as well as the
potential land use scenario and associated driers of land use changes most likely to occur within
the project zone in the absence of the project.
The section lists alternative land use scenarios to the project activity resulting from the
additionality analysis. The scenarios are:
Illegal mangrove logging for charcoal production
Agriculture or farming expansion by small-scale farmers (i.e. palm oil plantations, rice
paddy fields, coconut plantations, and mixed crops)
2.2.2 Most-Likely Scenario Justification (G2.1)

The most likely land use scenario in the absence of the project is the expansion of agriculture or
farming by the small-scale famers without a proper management and analysis of the land
considering its limitations and the impact on the biodiversity as well as another activity performed
in the region like unstainable logging. For more details see Section 3.1.4 and 3.1.5.
2.2.3 Community and Biodiversity Additionality (G2.2)
According to the baseline and additionality assessment, in absence of the project, the possible
scenarios are agriculture/farmland expansion by small-scale farmers, e.g., for small-scale palm oil
plantations, rice paddy fields, coconut plantations, and mixed crops. These activities lead to
illegal logging in mangroves and it is linked to insecurity in the region, lack of education and
employment opportunities.
Continuation of above practices in the project area is going to bring harm to the mangrove and
peatland ecosystem, which lead by land clearing with forest fire potential or coastal erosion or
scarcity of natural resources or extinction of protected species.
2.2.4 Benefits to be used as Offsets (G2.2)

There are not any distinct community and biodiversity benefits intended to be used as an offset.
45
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
2.3 Stakeholder Engagement
2.3.1 Stakeholder Access to Project Documents (G3.1)

Project documentation including the project description and monitoring reports, will be continuing
to be made accessible to these local communities and other stakeholders as they become
available through the project lifetime.
Documentation and infographics are translated to Bahasa and distributed amongst local
communities and local government structure. Printed copies of documents, infographics,
monitoring reports, or other relevant will be available at the head of village, LPHD, BPD, and field
facilitators.
Once the project is validated and the monitoring reports are verified, meeting will be held with
head of village, LPHD, BPD, communities and other stakeholders to share the final project
description and monitoring reports.
Different audiences of interest will be able to access the complete documents and monitoring
reports of the project. These alleged documents will be consolidated into a digital format and hard
copy to be distributed among the stakeholders. In addition, interested parties will make
suggestions and contributions to the material through channels provided for this purpose.
For groups of stakeholders with limited or no access to the internet, the hard copy of the
documents will be distributed through the Forest Village Management Unit, Local Government
and through the supporting institutions. Communication channels will be implemented for
submitting petitions, grievances and suggestions through the communication mechanism that
have been established.
Access to information before, during and after each activity carried out in the different areas of the
project will not depend on the willingness of the entities or institutions in charge of its execution to
make them available to the public. However, it will be necessary for the people in charge of these
activities to generate reports immediately (e.g., for attendance report, photographic record or
worked material) or within a reasonable timescale (for more elaborated documents). These
documents will cover each step in the construction and implementation of the project.
When necessary, meetings (workshops, conversations, informative talks) will be arranged with
the different audiences, with the purpose of informing them about the management of the project
and the difficulties in its implementation. These spaces will also serve to provide information on
the steps to be followed and the programmed activities, as well as a reminder of the functions,
duties, and rights of each of the parties involved.
Finally, all documents related to the process of certification with the VCS standard will be
available in the official project database of the program from the moment the validation process
begins. This database is the central repository of information on all projects and programs
validated according to the VCS criteria and contains information on each Verified Carbon Unit
(VCU) issued under the VCS Program, as well as complete project documentation, including the
PD and monitoring reports. All interested parties will be informed of the respective links for
consultation in the project profile.
2.3.2 Dissemination of Summary Project Documents (G3.1)
Summary of PDD and Monitoring Reports from throughout the project will also be available in
Bahasa Indonesia and will be disseminated to the local stakeholders for their comments. The
46
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
for the public comments period to allow a wide range of stakeholders to comment if they wish to
do so.
2.3.3 Informational Meetings with Stakeholders (G3.1)
Due to social conditions and dynamics, the promotion of meetings, workshops, meetings with the
community and local actors, in addition to the dissemination of relevant information regarding the
project, was done through traditional communication channels. Physical letters were sent to the
leaders of certain organizations located in municipalities where it is certain that the letter will
reach its final addressee. Other times, it was necessary for a person to move from one place to
another, giving notice door-to-door to the audiences of interest.
Similarly, telephone communication was established with people, especially with social or
community leaders, so that they can serve as a voice and carry out the necessary convocation
and promotion for attendance at meetings, workshops, socializations, or meetings for planning
the implementation of activities. Recently, information has been sent via e-mail or WhatsApp, but
always accompanied by a prior telephone call, to contextualize and encourage the review of the
communication sent, in addition to ensuring attendance and participation in the meeting.
The subject of these meetings has ranged from a very general issue, such as project activities
and work plan, publication of
to very specific issues, such as individual village participatory plans, fire management,
agroforestry development. In addition to informational meetings at the community level, the
project has conducted and participated in many stakeholder meetings at the national, provincial
and district levels, providing information on the ongoing operation and future plans of the project
and disseminating information on the carbon project concept.
2.3.4 Community Costs, Risks, and Benefits (G3.2)
Since the project started in 2017, project partners have established possible conservation
efforts within the Padang Tikar Landscape related to both consultation and socialization. This
socialization resulted in the identification of activities that will be beneficial to conservation
efforts, such as fire and logging patrols, canal blocking and peat depth measurements as
rewetting efforts, and alternative livelihoods that will reduce the tendency of forest
encroachment.
As time has passed in the PA, project partners have further developed consultation and
socialization specifically to discuss the potential risk and benefits of carbon asset development
within the PA. Several risks identified included the ability of community groups to implement the
required activities, which then led to the necessity of assistance from project partners in the
field, limited data collection related to the baselining of biodiversity potential, and the possible
adjustment of conservation efforts in Batu Ampar to facilitate local stakeholder well-being.
The identified risks are already being appropriately discussed with local stakeholders in the
Padang Tikar Landscape, encouraging community participation with the project design and its
47
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
related activities. After following discussions related to the potential risks and costs of the
project, the community has gained enough knowledge to make a sound and consensual
decision regarding a project design and activities that will contribute to emission reductions
while fulfilling the needs of the community.
The project will maintain active communication channels with all stakeholders throughout the
crediting period. This will allow the community to voice all concerns, comments, questions,
requests, and complaints related to the project.
Regarding the expected benefits, the project identified following:
Carbon sequestration in forests
Conservation of forests
Reforestation and rehabilitation
Promotion and strengthening of alternative livelihood
Generation of alternative sources of employment and economic alternatives
Enhancing and conserving the habitat of flora and fauna
Figure 8: Benefits of the project
48
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Figure 9
2.3.5 Information to Stakeholders on Validation and Verification Process (G3.3)
Information regarding project development, including validation and verification processes, has
been communicated to all stakeholders across both the engagement meeting and the Local
Stakeholder Consultation (LSC) meeting. All stakeholders were well informed about the
validation and verification process, in terms of the period, method, and manner in which
validation and verification will be carried out.
During the socialization and consultation process, key project information was disseminated in
a short summary, designed to ease understanding of the project for the stakeholders. Short
infographics related to project development, key information, and the project summary were
distributed to local stakeholders, especially to those who reside close to the PA. As the aim of
these infographics was to aid stakeholders with understanding the project, they have been
provided in Indonesian.
In addition to both the consultation and the infographics, notification of the validation and
verification process, including details on how to comment on the project, will also be issued to
all stakeholders.
49
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
2.3.6 Site Visit Information and Opportunities to Communicate with Auditor (G3.3)
The communities will be informed in advance of the visit from the auditor through an
appropriate means of communication. The project will arrange all measures necessary for
conducting site visits in an orderly manner as part of the validation and verification process,
including meetings with all relevant stakeholders.
2.3.7 Stakeholder Consultations (G3.4)
Consultation has been essential in accommodating and securing the involvement of all
stakeholders in the process of developing emission reduction projects in the Padang Tikar
Landscape. Prior to holding consultations in each stakeholder group, the project owner carried
out a series of field visits and initial outreach to community groups. The field visits and outreach
were very helpful in the process of identifying stakeholders who wished to be involved in
discussions and provide inputs related to carbon development projects.
Meetings (e.g., workshops, conversations, and informative talks) have been arranged with the
different audiences with the purpose of informing them about the management of the project
and the difficulties of its implementation. These spaces will also serve to provide information on
the steps to be followed, the programed activities, and the functions, duties, and rights of each
of the parties involved.
The subject of these meetings has ranged from general issues, such as project activities and
legal basis, to very specific issues, such as individual village participatory plans, fire
management, and agroforestry development. In addition to informational meetings at the
community level, the project has conducted and participated in many stakeholder meetings at
the national, provincial, and district levels, providing information on both the ongoing operation
of the project and future plans for the project while disseminating information on the carbon
project concept.
Listed below are selected insights from the community included in the project design:
1) Participatory and collaboration plans
To ensure collaborative cooperation within village community groups, the community

suggested actively involving all layers of village government, including the village
council (BPD), besides the LPHD and the head of the village. The involvement of the
BPD is crucial for ensuring that the benefits generated from carbon asset development
projects are able to be distributed evenly for the activities that prevent deforestation
and forest degradation.
2) PA and activities
During the consultation stages, communities were involved in participatory mapping for
the PA, providing information related to the project boundaries and relevant information
on activities that are suitable for implementation at village level.
50
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Figure 10 below includes photographs documenting a consultation meeting held in Padang

Tikar Landscape.
Figure 10: Photographs of local stakeholders consultation
2.3.8 Continued Consultation and Adaptive Management (G3.4)
The project has developed a simple manual for any consultation or meeting process taking place
throughout the project lifetime, specifying process and information which should be met for CCB
standard. The manual was also used for conducting stakeholder engagement during the
preparation for listing, with several updates related to project implementation with the project
partner and communities.
A list of relevant stakeholders is identified prior to any engagement or consultation event to

ensure that relevant parties are involved in the process and provide input/feedback. Meeting
notes and list of participants will be recorded accordingly. Issues and recommendations raised in
the meeting will be taken into consideration for improvement either in the implementation
methods and/or ways to achieve the targets. The project has also considered having a dedicated
website or other channel to reach wider audiences/stakeholders, in addition to the communication
made with the communities, village authorities and other stakeholders in the project area.
51
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
2.3.9 Stakeholder Consultation Channels (G3.5)
A series of local stakeholder consultations (LSCs) took place in 2021-2022, in addition to many
meetings or discussions made between the project owner, local authorities and communities.
Meeting invitation and agenda was distributed to the targeted participants prior to the event,
supported by information related to the meeting agenda. The project owner carried out
consultations independently in each village and also collectively involving the ten villages,
depending on the agenda and situation. All meeting materials (e.g. invitation, presentation,
meeting notes, list of attendance) have been properly recorded, and any information made
available to the public has received consent from the participants.
Presentation materials, booklet and flyers have been made to be disseminated and socialized
during the consultation meetings. Printed materials have also been kept in each village for
documentation and further dissemination, whereas the electronic version is kept in a shared
drive. Contents include among others, project description and objectives, project area,
understanding of carbon project and benefit for community, project timeline and implementation
plan, stakeholders involved, grievance redress mechanism, communication channels.
2.3.10 Stakeholder Participation in Decision-Making and Implementation (G3.6)
A procedure or manual to guide stakeholder participation has been developed and implemented
in the past consultation process, and will continue to be used. Engagement of village facilitators in
the project area is taken to measure effective participation of all communities and groups, and
quality of social inclusion. Regular monitoring will be conducted to capture any issues which may
arise relevant to culture- and gender-sensitivity. Training and supervision to village facilitators will
also be provided to ensure effective participation and social inclusion in various project activities.
Feedback and improvement will be made accordingly for adaptation.
2.3.11 Anti-Discrimination Assurance (G3.7)
The project commits to anti-discrimination practice. Awareness training or socialization and

communication channels will be established to accommodate if any of these issues are found or
reported. Necessary actions will be taken in correspondence with the case.
2.3.12 Feedback and Grievance Redress Procedure (G3.8)
Processes for ensuring ongoing communication and consultation with local stakeholders,
including the establishment of a grievance redress procedure to receive and resolve any
complaints and conflicts which may arise between the project proponent and local
stakeholders, has been designed during the second phase of the LSC, as shown in Figure 11.
52
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Figure 11: Grievance redress procedure in Padang Tikar Landscape
2.3.13 Accessibility of the Feedback and Grievance Redress Procedure (G3.8)
Describe how the feedback and grievance redress procedure is publicized and accessible, and
how grievances and project responses are documented and made publicly available.
The feedback and grievance redress procedure has been decided and published and made
accessible to communities and other stakeholders. The grievance mechanism has also been
explained to local communities orally through the workshop and engagement sessions. Local
communities are aware that if they have any complaints, they are able to raise concerns and/or
complaints with the field collaborator or field facilitators via phone call or email. All grievances that
are raised during the project lifetime will be recorded and made publicly available. Communities
will also be updated on the outcomes of grievances, in person, through community meetings.
To ensure accessibility to grievance mechanism, the project has established the following:
Telephone access
Email
Suggestion boxes
2.3.14 Worker Training (G3.9)
The project design includes collection of baseline information on the conditions of the
communities and community groups in the project area, in terms of capacity and needs. The
project will also provide a variety of training activities to each group, such as community patrol,
53
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
alternative livelihood options, community participation, and capacity strengthening of local

authorities involved (LPHD, village government, BPD, primarily). An effort will be made to ensure
inclusion of women, vulnerable and/or marginalised groups as workers in village forest
management, community patrol, alternative livelihoods, among others.
Training materials will be made available to be accessed by the communities and community
groups. Training of trainers has also been planned to be conducted, including refresher training.
All of these are to ensure that knowledge and skills could be maintained anticipating turn over
and new workers.
2.3.15 Community Employment Opportunities (G3.10)
Procedure for selection of workers, employment types and industrial relations will be made and
socialized to the village authorities and business entities participating in the project. However,
given the assumption that most of the business and jobs are small-scale and informal in nature,
the procedure will be adjusted accordingly. It is expected to ensure equal opportunity will be given
universally in accordance with the job qualification. However, technical and skill training will also
be given to fill the capacity or qualification gaps. Same with the above, this matter will be included
in the monitoring template.
2.3.16 (G3.11)
The project in the Padang Tikar Landscape complies with national and provincial laws and
, such as:
1) Law No. 13/2003, ensuring worker safety and the management of manpower. Law No.
13/2003 also stipulated the safety regulations that workers in conservation projects
should be provided with;
2) The Manpower and Transmigration Regulation No. 233/2003, explaining the types of
work that can be carried out continuously. This regulation also explains the exemption
of working hours for certain sectors, including conservation; and
3) The Manpower and Transmigration Regulation Decree No. 100/MEN/IV/2014, which

explains the implementation of definite terms of employment.
2.3.17 Occupational Safety Assessment (G3.12)
The project is committed to ensuring occupational safety for all project staff and following all
relevant legislation on the rights of Indonesian workers, especially those related to occupational
health and safety. All permanent staff who are involved in the project receive occupational health
and safety guarantees through the following government programs: the Badan Penyelenggara
Jaminan Sosial Tenaga Kerja and the Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Health Kesehatan (BPJS-
K), which specifically applies to contract workers. Equipment and tools are available to support
worker safety in a range of conditions, including exposure to rain, heat, fire, disease, and wildlife.
Safety also extends to potential interaction with forest workers and considers the possibility of
both land and sea accidents. Health and safety training is also carried out to address risks that
54
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
may occur while working. In addition, the project proponent provides voluntary insurance in the
event of a major accident.
2.4 Management Capacity
2.4.1 Project Governance Structures (G4.1)

Project implementation structure for Padang Tikar Landscape comprises three elements of village
component, including Village Government, Village Forest Management Unit (LPHD), and Village
Representative Body (BPD). Local stakeholder consultation and socialization has specified roles
and responsibilities of each entity as follow:
Entity Role and responsibility in the project

Village Government responsible for managing overall village
affairs and appoint the selected Head of
LPHD
supervise/monitor sustainability of village
forest activities along with the LPHD, in
accordance with the Village Forest
Management Plan
coordinate with various community groups in
relevant to village forest management
LPHD hold the Village Forest Management Right
supervise/monitor management of the
village forest
ensure implementation of the Village
Forest Management Plan along with the
village government
facilitate planning and decision making on
the best strategy to manage village forest
entitled to receive training on village forest
development, and conduct training or
capacity building to other members
coordinate with various community groups in
relevant to village forest management
BPD provide rooms for communities and/or
community groups to convey their aspirations
and opinions for development of village forest
Technical advisor (Bentang Kalimantan) coordinate, implement and monitor project
activities
collect relevant data and information for
project implementation and monitoring
facilitate communities and community groups
in the project implementation
55
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
2.4.2 Required Technical Skills (G4.2)

The project requires a wide range of technical and managerial skills to carry out project activities.
Table 10 describes the skills required per project activity.
Table 10: Key skills required to implement the project activities.
Project activity Sub-project activity Key skills required
Carbon stock Aboveground and belowground Peatland science, forestry, GIS/

measurements biomass measurement remote sensing, forest and
peatland inventories, statistics,
and carbon monitoring,
reporting, and verification (MRV)
Free, Prior and Informed Stakeholder consultation, Community organizing, conflict

Consent (FPIC) and livelihood development, and resolution, business
community engagement educational programs management, adult education,
and development and livelihoods
Biodiversity assessment Habitat conservation and High Conservation Value (HCV)

and monitoring management and biodiversity mapping, forest conservation,
monitoring conservation biology, and
biodiversity monitoring
Forest protection and Enforcement and patrolling and Forestry, peatland forest fire
enforcement forest fire prevention and control management, and community
engagement
Forest and peatland Hydrological management, Hydrology, peatland science,

conservation and reforestation, enrichment silviculture, forestry, biodiversity
restoration planting, and habitat conservation, and engineering
conservation
Project management Logistics, finance and Finance and accounting, HR,

and administration accounting, human resources business management, legal
(HR), administration, and compliance, and administration
government reporting
2.4.3 Management Team Experience (G4.2)
Bentang Kalimantan is a non-profit organization and was founded in September 2017. Bentang is
currently domiciled in Pontianak City, the Capital of West Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. The
focus of Bentang Kalimantan work is currently still in the tropical forests of Kalimantan. The
activities carried out include encouraging regulations to improve forest governance, providing
assistance to communities living in and around forests, monitoring forest conditions, preventing
56
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
plantation and agricultural expansion from entering the forest, planting trees, and developing
socio-entrepreneurship at the local level.
So far, BK has received funding from various donors, both at national and international levels. In
carrying out its activities, BK has received funding from various donors both at the national and
international levels. The activities carried out include Landscape Planning and Management,
Research and Technology Development, Regulation & Advocacy, Business Development, and
Conservation. covering 3 districts, 18 villages, 312,000 hectares of forest and 50,000 households.
Table 11, below, is a description of the experience and qualifications of the key members of the
management team.
Table 11: Project management team experience
Team member Position and Experience and qualification

organization
Denni Nurdwiansyah Director, Bentang Denni is experienced in managing
Kalimantan projects with both national and
international support. Denni has extensive
experience in advocacy, campaigning,
research, organizing community groups,
and stakeholder engagement work, with
particular skills in project design,
implementation, and monitoring and
evaluation. He is currently part of the
provincial and district teams in designing
jurisdictional strategies and policy
frameworks such as the Strategy and
Action Plan for Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Degradation Plus
(SRAP REDD+), the Emission Reduction
Intervention Strategy), and the Kubu
Green Growth Strategy and Action Plan.
Raya (SRAK PPH)
Pilatus Nuchi Junior Manager, Pilatus is the Conservation Community
Bentang Kalimantan Engagement manager in Bentang
Kalimantan, overseeing all field
operations in the Padang Tikar project
area. His involvement in a project to
develop an action plan for forest
management in West Kalimantan
Province has enhanced his ability to plan,
implement, and monitor projects. His
experience in the field of conservation
division is supported by an educational
background in forestry management.
Silvia Filki (Position tbc), Bentang Silvia has been working in the NGO
Kalimantan finance space for more than four years.
Through working with various donors
collaborating with the organization, he has
gained significant experience in financial
systems and mechanisms. He can
57
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

organization
manage and report on multi-donor
projects that have different standards. In
terms of financial reports, Silvia can
develop NGO reports in accordance with
PSAK 45. Highlighting his commitment to
transparency and accountability, Silvia
leads a team that conducts an annual
audit of his organization's finances.
Joko Waluyo (Position tbc) Joko is an environmental and social
movement activist who has been working
on environmental advocacy and
community empowerment for more than
25 years. After receiving his education at
the Faculty of Agriculture, Bogor
Agricultural University, Joko immediately
went into action research to advocate for
forests and large plantations in several
places such as in Java, Sumatra,
Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and Papua. He
was a campaigner for forests and large
plantations at the National Executive of
the Indonesian Forum for the Environment
(WALHI), led national organizations such
as Sawit Watch and the Consortium for
Supporting People's Forest Systems, and
was the initiator of the Village
Development Movement. Joko is
experienced in multi-stakeholder
collaborations, having worked alongside
the MoEF, the Ministry of Villages,
Development of Disadvantaged Regions
and Transmigration, regional
governments and the private sector, and
as a consultant at the Partnership for
Governance Reform in Indonesia. Over
the past three years, Joko has been a
Central Kalimantan dynamist for the Peat
Care Village Project developed by the
Indonesian Peat Restoration Agency.
Joko is currently an active member of the
Indonesian Forum for the Environment,
Forest Watch Indonesia, Sawit Watch,
and the Participatory Mapping Network.
Dede Purwansyah (Position tbc), Bentang Dede has been energetically advocating
Kalimantang for community empowerment since 2005.
Dede served as director of SAMPAN
Kalimantan in 2018-2020, with a focus on
advocacy, especially in the social forestry
project campaign. He is currently the CEO
and Founder of Nusantara Socio-
Entrepreneurship Development.
58
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

organization
Oscarius Rio Pratama (Position tbc), Bentang Oscarius works in conservation
Kalimantan community engagement at Bentang
Kalimantan, focusing on protecting and
safeguarding forests. Prior to becoming
involved in preparing forest management
plans in West Kalimantan Province,
construction project in the West

Kalimantan region for two years as the
team field coordinator and as a surveyor
for land acquisition for the SUTT tower.
He earned a bachelor's degree in Forestry
Management at Tanjung Pura University,
Pontianak.
Sudarso (Position tbc), Bentang Sudarso is a young Conservation
Kalimantan Facilitator in Bentang Kalimantan focused
on improving LPHD's institutional human
resources. Previously, Sudarso had
participated in various conservation
activities, from conducting research
across a range of fields to working as a
surveyor for Protected Forest
Rehabilitation (RHL) BPDAS-HL West
Kalimantan in 2017-2021. He carried out
a number of key activities as chairman of
the biodiversity data collection expedition
team in Betung Kerihun National Park and
Danau Sentarum 2019 and Bukit Baka
Bukit Raya National Park 2020. Field
activities included biodiversity surveys to
collect data on a range of fauna. He was
also a survey coordinator for Illegal
Wildlife Trade (PISL) at a bird shop in
extensive experience is supported by his

educational background in forestry.
Arit Nggadas (Position tbc), Bentang Arit Nggadas is a conservation community
Kalimantan engagement field officer for Bentang
Kalimantan focused on developing and
improving community businesses. Before
being involved in the project of preparing
forest management plans in West
Kalimantan Province, Arit was active in
various micro and medium enterprises. In
this project, Arit focuses on improving
community business units, especially in
the utilization of NTFPs. He holds a
bachelor's degree in forestry from Tanjung
Pura University, Pontianak.
59
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
2.4.4 Project Management Partnerships/Team Development (G4.2)

South Pole is a global sustainability service provider dedicated to working with public and private
clients to deliver solutions that contribute to a more sustainable society and economy. South
South Pole team of over 500 experts located across 20 offices focuses on key sustainability
issues such as climate change, renewable energy, forestry and land use, water, and sustainable
cities and buildings.
For more than 15 years, South Pole has achieved, together with its clients, the following results:
the avoidance of emissions of more than 170 million tons of CO2;
the development of more than 1,000 projects in renewable energy, forestry, and
agriculture in the industrial, household, and public sectors;
the protection or restoration of more than 2,000,000 ha of land; and
the creation of approximately 100,000 jobs in developing countries.
South Pole has a team of blue carbon experts that combines a vast knowledge in GHG emission
reduction certification for forestry projects and land use, MRV systems, and coastal-marine
ecosystems. This enables them to comprehensively address all aspects of the current project.
The South Pole team has supported different initiatives and feasibility studies for blue carbon
projects in countries such as Myanmar, Honduras, and Colombia. Its areas of expertise include
carbon methodologies for wetland conservation and restoration, carbon inventories in mangrove
ecosystems, the ecology and dynamics of coastal ecosystems, and landscape analysis using GIS
tools. More information on South Pole can be found at https://www.southpole.com.
2.4.5 Financial Health of Implementing Organization(s) (G4.3)

The project proponent, Bentang Kalimantan, is a non-government organization that is financially
stable, capable of implementing and maintaining landscape scale projects. Early stages of
implementation, the project was funded by IDH until December 2020. In addition, initial project
activities were fully supported by South Pole's investment partners until December 2022. One of
strategies to ensure adequate financial support over the project lifetime (2017-2047 period) is the
signing of emission reduction purchase agreement (ERPA) with buyers willing to obtain carbon
credits from the project as the carbon credits would provide significant resources to continue the
development of the project activities.
2.4.6 Avoidance of Corruption and Other Unethical Behavior (G4.3)
Through a collaborative effort, the Padang Tikar Landscape project team is committed to
upholding integrity and professionalism in all aspects of project design and implementation. We
do not tolerate corruption and unethical behavior and do not engage in any form of corruption
such as bribery, embezzlement, fraud, extortion, and collusion. Bentang Kalimantan has an
internal policy to avoid corruption and nepotism. It ensures that all criminal and civil-related
actions that are not in accordance with applicable Indonesian regulations will be strictly
sanctioned.
2.4.7 Commercially Sensitive Information (Rules 3.5.13 3.5.14)
Examples of commercially sensitive information not made publicly available include:
60
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
1) financial plans, budgets, and projection, including details of the organization's project
implementation, work plans, and initial and long-term project budgets over the course
of the project (i.e., 30 years' worth of projections);
2) original data, electronic form files, computer model codes, and confidential satellite
imagery, including GIS project boundaries, land use, and remote sensing data, biomass
inventories, hydrological assessment models, carbon accounting, and social
assessments in the Padang Tikar Landscape PA; and
3) agreements and contracts between project proponents, other project entities, and
stakeholder groups, particularly regarding the implementation of project activities.
Specific information is personally available to project validators upon request.
However, information related to the determination of the baseline scenario, the demonstration
of additionality, and the estimation and monitoring of GHG emission reductions and removals,
including operational and capital expenditures, is not considered to be commercially sensitive
and must be provided in public versions of the project documents.
2.5 Legal Status and Property Rights
2.5.1 Statutory and Customary Property Rights (G5.1)
The Padang Tikar Landscape consists of some areas that need to be protected for its ecosystem
function but also at the same time the areas are important for the community's livelihood.
Government of Indonesia has launched a Social Forestry programme that aims to alleviate
poverty of forest dependent people and halt deforestation by giving the community opportunity to
manage forests themself by having safeguards and applying sustainability principles. In
accordance with those objectives, in February 2017, the Indonesian Ministry of Environment and
Forestry issued 10 village forest management permits to 10 villages in the Padang Tikar Coastal
Landscape through a social forestry program. The mandate given in the permit is for each village
to carry out forest conservation, sustainable non-timber forest product utilization, management of
forest resources, environmental services utilization and forest protection. The Village Forest
permits required an entity called LPHD (Lembaga Pengelolaan Hutan Desa/Village Forest
Management Unit) as representative of the village to manage the Village Forest. In the
implementation of village forest management, particularly carbon asset management activities,
the LPHD for each village of 10 villages gave mandates to Bentang Kalimantan. Furthermore,
Bentang Kalimantan will act as a project proponent, while the LPHD for each 10 villages who
received village forest permits will act as project owners.
The project area of Padang Tikar Landscape consists of different types of land-use either based
on forest function or land cover. Protection forest is a forest area that has been designated by the
government or certain community groups to be protected, in terms of its ecological functions
especially water management and soil fertility. Production Forest is a forest area reserve for the
production of forest products such as timber, to meet the needs of the community in general or
companies, the party allowed to do such activities need to propose permits to the authorities.
Convertible production forest is a forest area which is spatially reserved for development outside
61
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
of the forestry sector. Limited production forest is a forest area with factors of slope class, soil
type and rain intensity, which are located outside protected areas and not classified as nature
reserve forests, nature conservation forests and hunting parks.
In this landscape, there are 69,299 ha of protection forest; 1,985 ha of limited production forest
and 5,086 ha of convertible production forest.
2.5.2 Recognition of Property Rights (G5.1)

The land in the Padang Tikar Landscape is owned by the national government; however, the right
to manage the lands is given to the local community based on Ministry of Forestry Decree
number P.83/Menlhk/Setjen/Kum.1/10/2016 regarding social forestry. In accordance with the
Decree for Social Forestry, the Forest Village Management Unit was given exclusive rights to
implement the Forest Village scheme in the Padang Tikar Landscape by the MoEF through a
Village Forest permit. This permit grants a range of rights and responsibilities, including the right
to sell carbon credits generated through the protection and restoration of forests and mangroves.
It also prevents any other entities from applying for concessions in the project area. Table 12
provides a list of relevant legal approvals in relation to the project. Copies of the licenses and
supplementary approvals are available on request.
Table 12: Decree and permit related to the development of Village Forest in the Padang
Tikar Landscape
Decree no. Description Approval from Date of

issuance
P.83/Menlhk/Setjen/Kum.1/ Rules and regulations MoEF 25/10/2016
10/2016 related to the
development of social
forestry including all the
possible schemes (i.e.,
Village Forest)
SK.519/MENLHK- Village Forest Permit MoEF Directorate 14/02/2017
PSKL/PKPS/PSL.0/2/2017 Ambarawa General of Social
Forestry and
Environmental
Partnership
PSKL/PKPS/PSL.0/2/2017 Batu Ampar General of Social
Forestry and
Environmental
Partnership
PSKL/PKPS/PSL.0/2/2017 Medan Mas General of Social
Forestry and
Environmental
Partnership
PSKL/PKPS/PSL.0/2/2017 Nipah Panjang General of Social
Forestry and
Environmental
Partnership
62
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Decree no. Description Approval from Date of

issuance
PSKL/PKPS/PSL.0/2/2017 Padang Tikar 1 General of Social
Forestry and
Environmental
Partnership
PSKL/PKPS/PSL.0/2/2017 Sungai Besar General of Social
Forestry and
Environmental
Partnership
PSKL/PKPS/PSL.0/2/2017 Sungai Jawi General of Social
Forestry and
Environmental
Partnership
PSKL/PKPS/PSL.0/2/2017 Tanjung Harapan General of Social
Forestry and
Environmental
Partnership
PSKL/PKPS/PSL.0/2/2017 Tasik Malaya General of Social
Forestry and
Environmental
Partnership
PSKL/PKPS/PSL.0/2/2017 Teluk Nibung General of Social
Forestry and
Environmental
Partnership
781/BAPPEDA/2019 Appointment of a specific Kubu Raya Regent 20/11/2019
environmental carrying
capacity zone (KDDLH)
Nipah Panjang and
Teluk Nibung village
2.5.3 Free, Prior and Informed Consent (G5.2)
The Padang Tikar Landscape project adopts free, prior, and informed consent principles
throughout the community consultation process. As the mangrove area is important to
community livelihoods, an agreement between the project proponent and the community
representative for the Village Forest (i.e., the LPHD) in 10 villages, mandated by the MoEF, has
been obtained to ensure the development of the project within the Village Forest area. The
mandates stated in the Village Forest permit letter include: the responsibility of the LPHD for
protecting their area from environmental destruction and pollution; maintaining the forest
function; implementing forest protection; and carrying out forest planting and maintenance.
Those responsibilities are in line with the aim of this project. In order to comply with these
responsibilities, the local community and the LPHD require support and assistance from other
63
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
parties with expertise in sustainable forest management. Along with the issuance of the Village
Forest permit, the LPHD requested that the MoEF recommend a local NGO to fill the role of
supporting institution. Therefore, project proponents aim to build the LPHD's capacity for
achieving their responsibilities as outlined in the Village Forest permit letter.
Community engagement has become an important aspect of this project for the project
proponent and will be continued throughout the project lifetime.
2.5.4 Property Rights Protection (G5.3)
Activities being implemented under the Padang Tikar Landscape project do not include any that
will lead to the involuntary removal or relocation of property rights holders from their territories. All
the activities are designed together with the Village Forest to agree on the best locations and
according to the land uses designated in the forest permits.
2.5.5 Illegal Activity Identification (G5.4)
Illegal activities, including logging of mangrove timber within protected forests to be used as the
main material for wood-char production, overfishing, or making use of fire for land clearing have
been historically practiced in parts of the project zone. Padang Tikar Landscape Project aims to
reduce and put an end to these practices by the implementation of the project activities (See
Summary Description of the Project (G1.2)) and a combination of protection, production and
inclusion which bring outcomes such as improvement in peat hydrology, protection of endemic
biodiversity and increased welfare of the community.
2.5.6 Ongoing Disputes (G5.5)

No ongoing disputes occurred during the implementation of the Padang Tikar Landscape project,
either within or between communities or between communities and the concession holders
around the project area.
2.5.7 National and Local Laws (G5.6)
Relevant laws and regulations on land use, forestry, REDD+, and climate include:
Law No. 6/1994, Ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
The Indonesian government has ratified the Climate Change Convention through Law No. 6 of
1994, concerning the Ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), and is included in Non-Annex I countries. In addition, Indonesia also ratified
the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC through Law No. 17 of 2004. Thus, Indonesia is legally bound
by obligations and has the right to take advantage of the various opportunities for support offered
by the UNFCCC or the UN Framework to achieve the objectives of the Convention. In line with
this policy, the Padang Tikar Landscape project is expected to provide support to Indonesia in its
efforts to combat climate change.
Regulation No. P.89/Menhut-II/2014 on Village Forests
64
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
The MoEF Regulation No. P. 49/2008, which has now been replaced by No. P. 89/2014 on
rial boundaries and the
authority to regulate and manage the interests of local communities based on origins and
customs. These local customs are recognized and respected by the government of Indonesia.
The legal terms of reference for a 'Village Forest' are defined by Government Regulation No.
6/2007, with the procedures and requirements for obtaining a Village Forest license as stipulated
in Ministerial Regulation Number. P. 49/2008. Through the Village Forest program, village
institutions are responsible for protecting forests (Ministerial Regulation No. P. 49/2008, article
34) and reducing the rate of deforestation and degradation. At the same time, Village Forests are
expected to be able to guarantee the livelihoods of nearby communities.
Regulation of MoEF No.30 of 2009, Emission Reduction Procedure from Deforestation and
Forest Degradation (REDD)
The MoEF Regulation No. P.30/2009, concerning the Mechanisms for Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Degradation, Chapter III, Article 3, mentions that REDD can be implemented in
Village Forests (point i). In addition, Article 4, paragraph 2 also designates the Village Forest
holder (manager) as one of the REDD actors at the national level.
Government Regulation No. 71 of 2014, Concerning Protection and Management of Ecosystem

of Peat Lands
The protection and management of the peat ecosystem includes planning, utilization, control,
maintenance, supervision, and administrative sanctions. The peat ecosystem serves two
purposes in protecting the peat environment and cultivating the peat ecosystem. The Indonesian
Minister is required to determine the peat ecosystem's protection function for at least 30% of the
entire area of the Peat Hydrological Unit, which is located on top of the peat dome and its
environs. The plan for protecting and managing the peat ecosystem includes peat ecosystem
utilization and/or preservation, alongside function, control, monitoring, maintenance, and
protection of the quality of the peat ecosystem, and its adaptation to and mitigation of climate
change.
Regulation of the MoEF No. P.83/MENLHK/SETJEN/KUM.1/10/2016, Concerning Social Forestry
This regulation intended to provide guidelines for granting management rights, permits,
partnerships, and customary forests in the field of social forestry. Furthermore, the regulation
seeks to resolve tenure and justice issues for local people and customary law groups living near
forest regions in the interests of community welfare and forest function preservation. Social
forestry management uses the principles of justice, sustainability, legal certainty, participation,
and accountability. In this project, it is carried out in Village Forests where Village Forest
management rights (HPHD) are granted by the Minister to production forests or protected forests
that have not been granted a permit, protected forests managed by Perum Perhutani, and certain
areas within the forest management unit/kesatuan pengelolaan hutan (KPH).
Perdirjen PSKL No. P.11/PSKL/SET/PSL.0/11/2016, Concerning the Application of HPHD

Verification Guidelines
65
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
This regulation covers the scope of HPHDs, including the procedure for submitting a HPHD
application, along with administrative and technical verification procedures. The request for
HPHD applications can be implemented in the Indicative Map of Social Forestry Areas (PIAPS),
both within the village administration area and Landscape and outside the PIAPS. Technical
verification of HPHD applicants, as referred to in Article 12, is carried out through discussions and
interviews with the Chair and members of the LPHD, village heads, community leaders, traditional
leaders, and/or the local Camat. These discussions are conducted to discover and share
application documents, the applicant's institution, the level of dependence of community
livelihoods on the forest, the commodities or types of utilization that the applicant has worked on,
and the potential of the area requested.
Perdirjen PSKL No. P.16/PSKL/SET/PSL.0/12/2016, Concerning 'Guidelines for the Preparation

of Village Forest Management Plans, Business Work Plans, Community Forest Utilization
Business Permits and Business Work Plans for Plantation Forest Timber Products Utilization
People'
This regulation aims to include procedures for preparing, evaluating, and ratifying the Village
Forest management plan. Planned activities that can be implemented as part the business permit
work plan and in line with the Padang Tikar Landscape forest community include: 1) forest
conservation, protection, and monitoring that specify the conservation of flora and fauna, the
prevention of illegal logging, and the prevention of forest fires; 2) utilization of the forestry area,
including the utilization of timber forest products, agroforestry, silvopasture, and silvofishery; and
3) the utilization of environmental services, both through carbon storage and sequestration and
institutional development.
MoEF Regulation No. P.70/MENLHK/SETJEN/KUM.1/12/2017 on Procedures for the

Implementation of REDD, the Role of Conservation, Sustainable Management of Forests, and
Enhancement of Forest Carbon Stocks
This regulation functions as a guideline that aims to achieve the implementation of REDD+,
following the requirements of the Conference of the Parties (COP) UNFCCC on REDD+ and
remaining consistent with national policies, along with encouraging REDD+ actors to move
towards the full implementation of REDD+ (e.g., results-based payments) to support the
achievement of targets for implementing nationally determined contributions (NDCs) in the
forestry sector. The implementation of REDD+ represents part of the effort to reduce emissions
resulting from deforestation and forest degradation, to conserve and enhance of forest carbon
stocks, and to implement sustainable forest management. REDD is conducted gradually, with the
goal of completing it through provision of results-based payments.
Decree of the Governor of West Kalimantan No. 770/DPRKPLH/2017 on the Establishment of

REDD Groups (Pokja).
The principal responsibility of the Pokja group is to measure and report GHG emissions.
Furthermore, the West Kalimantan REDD+ Pokja group is responsible for establishing alliances
and institutions and undertaking verifications to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate
66
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
change. In the end, its most important duty is to build a database, along with its resulting
publication.
Regional Regulation of West Kalimantan Province No. 6 of 2018 on Sustainable Land-Based

Business Management
With an area of 14 million ha, the province of West Kalimantan acts as the primary basis for those
sectors of the community's economy which rely on forestry, agriculture, plantation, and mining. To
reduce the rate of deforestation and forest degradation in West Kalimantan, policies on
sustainable land-based business management are needed. Land conservation in West
Kalimantan currently has two legal umbrellas, namely Regional Regulation No. 6 of 2018 and
Governor Regulation No. 60 of 2019. The main purpose of the issuance of the regional regulation
is to initiate the conservation of land, reserving around seven percent of the region's total area for
land-based businesses and activities, such as plantations, agriculture, mining, and forestry. The
conservation area is expected to provide economic benefits for the community, balanced with the
need for conservation and sustainable production. In addition, the company must also ensure that
the areas that have been identified as being of HCV and HCS are managed according to the
principles of conservation and sustainable production, and that this involves local communities
from across the concession.
Regional Action Plan for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions (RAD-GRK) in West Kalimantan
Province No. 125 of 2020.
The scope of the action plan includes three sectors, such as land (e.g., forestry, peatland,
agriculture, plantation, and farm), energy (e.g., transportation, energy supply, and use), and
waste management. For the AFOLU sectors, mitigation action plans covering forestry and
peatland in main activities include: the prevention of deforestation, degradation, and conversion
of swamp forest areas/secondary dryland forest in non-forest estate/area penggunaan lain (APL)
lands; the prevention of deforestation, degradation, and conversion of swamp forest/secondary
dryland forest in peatland APL; the prevention of deforestation, degradation, and conversion of
swamp forest/secondary dryland forest in a protected forest; the prevention of deforestation,
degradation, and conversion of secondary swamp forest in peat protected forest; the
development of community gardens in less productive areas; and the planting of critical lands in
APL. Cumulative emissions in 2011 2030 under a business-as-usual scenario are predicted to
reach 73,614,729.48 tCO2e, while cumulative emission projections in 2011 2030 after
implementation of the mitigation actions reach 679,355,670.80 tCO 2e.
MoEF Regulation No. P.30 of 2009 Concerning the Implementation of REDD Procedures
In order to improve forest management, REDD activities aim to prevent and reduce emissions
from deforestation and forest degradation. The goal of a REDD project is to prevent deforestation
and forest degradation so as to promote sustainable forest management and improve people's
well-being. Forest management operations within the scope of REDD implementation include
determining the reference emission level before REDD implementation, monitoring in accordance
with the plan, and submitting the monitoring report to the Minister, all of which are responsibilities
of the REDD proponent.
67
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Presidential Regulation No. 98 of 2021 on the Implementation of Carbon Economic Value for the
Achievement of NDC Target and GHG Emission Control in National Development
Indonesia has committed to achieving an unconditional GHG emission reduction of 29% (i.e.,
resulting from its own effort) and a conditional reduction of 41% (i.e., with international support) by
2030. In the Presidential Regulation on the carbon economic value (CEV), there are several carbon
trading mechanisms that are regulated, namely trade between two business actors through a cap-
and-trade scheme, offsetting emissions through a carbon offset scheme, result-based payments,
and levies on the carbon tax, along with a combination of existing schema. This carbon pricing
regulation is able to support those mitigation and adaptation efforts that have been implemented in
alignment with the purpose of the Padang Tikar project, such as controlling forest fires and
preventing deforestation and degradation. Article 77 states that for international carbon trading, the
ministry manages the cooperation of mutual recognition. This will be done by having mutual
information disclosure of MRV standard used, carrying out conformity assessment against
international and/or national standards including statement of its result, conducting the mutual
recognition cooperation, and registering certifications that are recognized by both parties at SRN.
This platform is an important tool based on this regulation, which any emission reduction project
must register under SRN in order to get approval on its emission reduction certificate which allows
it to be used for trading. The purpose of the SRN, as mentioned in Article 69, paragraph 3, includes:
acting as a basis for the government's recognition of the contributions made to achieving NDC
targets through the application of CEV; compiling data and information on mitigation actions and
CEV resource application; efforts to avoid double counting climate change mitigation actions; and
overseeing transitional materials.
The list below shows the Village Forest permit for each village in the Padang Tikar Landscape:
SK.515/Menlhk-PSKL/PKPS/PSL.0/2/2017 Tentang Pemberian HPHD kepada LPHD

Batu Ampar

Teluk Nibung

Tanjung Harapan

Ambarawa

Sungai Besar

Tasik Malaya

Medan Mas
68
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

Padang Tikar 1

Nipah Panjang

Sungai Jawi
Both the compliance and voluntary carbon markets will follow Presidential Regulation No. 98 of
2021, while derivative regulations are still being developed by the Indonesian government. This
project will follow current and future regulations that apply in the PA.
2.5.8 Approvals (G5.7)
The project has all of the necessary approvals from the local community and appropriate
authorities to establish cooperation with other institutions experienced on developing carbon
projects or other topics aiming the achievement of forest conservation . Upon the issuance of
Village Forest Permit, Village Forest Management Unit(s) signed a mandate letter to Sampan
Kalimantan as the institution experienced in developing protection and sustainable production
activities in mangrove and peatland forest. The activities implemented among the villages comply
with the goals explained in the Village Forest Permit documents. In 2021, Sampan transferred the
mandates to support local communities on carbon project development to Bentang Kalimantan as
Sampan chose to focus on other types of forest protection activities, also considering Bentang
has been supporting local communities on carbon project development since 2020.54
Table 13: Mandate letter from Village Management Unit to Bentang Kalimantan
Decree Description Approval from Date of

issuance
Mandate Letter LPHD Village Forest Management Village Forest 3 March 2017
Ambarawa to Bentang Unit grants mandate to Management Unit
Kalimantan Sampan as a companion Ambarawa
institution.
Mandate Letter LPHD Village Forest Management Village 13 March 2017
Batu Ampar to Unit grants mandate to Forest Management
Bentang Kalimantan Sampan as a companion Unit Batu Ampar
institution.
Medan Mas to Unit grants mandate to Management Unit
Bentang Kalimantan Sampan as a companion Medan Mas
institution.
Nipah Panjang to Unit grants mandate to Management Unit
Bentang Kalimantan Nipah Panjang
54See support document the Statement Letter of Authority Transferred from SAMPAN Kalimantan to Bentang
Kalimantan
69
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Decree Description Approval from Date of

issuance
Sampan as a companion
institution.
Padang Tikar 1 to Unit grants mandate to Management Unit
Bentang Kalimantan Sampan as a companion Padang Tikar 1
institution.
Sungai Besar to Unit grants mandate to Management Unit
Bentang Kalimantan Sampan as a companion Sungai Besar
institution.
Mandate Letter LPHD Village Forest Management Forest Village 3 March 2017
Sungai Jawi to Unit grants mandate to Management Unit
Bentang Kalimantan Sampan as a companion Sungai Jawi
institution.
Mandate Letter LPHD Forest Village Management Forest Village 20 March 2017
Tanjung Harapan to Unit grants mandate to Management Unit
Bentang Kalimantan Sampan as a companion Tanjung Harapan
institution.
Tasik Malaya to Unit grants mandate to Management Unit
Bentang Kalimantan Sampan as a companion Tasik Malaya
institution.
Teluk Nibung to Unit grants mandate to Management Unit
Bentang Kalimantan Sampan as a companion Teluk Nibung
institution.
2.5.9 Project Ownership (G5.8)
In February 2017, the MoEF issued 'Village Forest' management permits to 10 Village Forest
management units/lembaga pengelolaan Hutan Desa (LPHDs) in 10 villages in the Padang
Tikar Landscape through a social forestry program. The mandate given in the permit is for each
LPHD to carry out forest conservation, protection, and management and the utilization of
ecosystem services and sustainable non-timber forest products. The Village Forest permits
require LPHDs to act as a representative of the village and manage the Village Forest. In the
implementation of Village Forest management and, in particular, carbon asset management
activities, the 10 LPHDs, along with the village government(s), will be a project proponent and
project owner of this project. Bentang Kalimantan will continue to support the implementation of
activities in the village. 55
2.5.10 Management of Double Counting Risk (G5.9)
The Padang Tikar Landscape project has not received any environmental or social credits,
including any tradable climate, community, or biodiversity units. The Padang Tikar Landscape
project does not participate in any other program to create environmental or social credits.
55 The supporting documents are available in the folder Section 1/Ownership.
70
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
2.5.11 Emissions Trading Programs and Other Binding Limits
The project neither has, nor intends to generate, any other form of GHG-related environmental
credit for GHG emission reductions or removals claimed under the VCS Program. The VCS
Program has a central project database, which lists each approved project. The VCS Project
Database is the central storehouse of information on all projects validated according to VCS
criteria and all Verified Carbon Units (VCUs) issued under the program. Every VCU can be
tracked from issuance to retirement in the database, allowing buyers to ensure every credit is
real, additional, permanent, independently verified, uniquely numbered, and fully traceable
online. This project has not been registered under any other credited activity, and no VCUs
have been assigned to the PA thus far. Therefore, any possibility of double counting credits has
been eliminated. As mentioned in section 1.14, Presidential Regulation No. 98 is currently in
effect to ensure that no double counting can take place and that the project will be registered
with the SRN.
2.5.12 Other Forms of Environmental Credit
The project has not sought or receive another form of GHG-related environmental credit,
including renewable energy certificates.
2.5.13 Participation under Other GHG Programs
The project does not participate under other GHG programs.
2.5.14 Projects Rejected by Other GHG Programs
The project has not been submitted to or rejected by any other GHG programs.
2.5.15 Double Counting (G5.9)

Any credit issued by VERRA will have a unique identifier to avoid double counting.
3 CLIMATE
3.1 Application of Methodology
3.1.1 Title and Reference of Methodology
The list below references the methodology, modules, and tools used in the project scope:
1) VM0007 REDD+ Methodology Framework (REDD+MF), Version 1.6
2) VMD0001 Estimation of carbon stocks in the above- and below-ground biomass in live tree and
non-tree pools (CP-AB), Version 1.1
3) VMD0004 Estimation of carbon stocks in the soil organic carbon pool (CP-S), Version 1.0
71
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
4) VMD0007 Estimation of baseline carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas emissions from
unplanned deforestation and unplanned wetland degradation (BL-UP), Version 3.3
5) VMD0010 Estimation of emissions from activity shifting for avoiding unplanned deforestation and
avoiding unplanned wetland degradation (LK-ASU), Version 1.2
6) VMD0013 Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from biomass and peat burning (E-BPB),
Version 1.2
7) VMD0044 Estimation of emissions from ecological leakage (LK-ECO), Version 1.1
8) VMD0052 Tool for the Demonstration of additionality of tidal wetland restoration and conservation
project activities (ADD-AM), Version 1.0
9) VT0001 Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality in VCS Agriculture, Forest and
Other Land Use (AFOLU) Project Activities, Version 3.0
10) AFOLU Non-permanence Risk Tool, Version 4.0
3.1.2 Applicability of Methodology
This methodology provides a set of methodological modules for REDD and Wetland Rewetting
and Conservation (WRC). The modules, when used together, quantify reductions and removals
due to avoided deforestation. This methodology is applicable to forests, forested wetlands, and
forested peatlands susceptible to deforestation or degradation in the absence of project activities.
Considering that the general scope of the methodology is tailored to the conditions and
characteristics of the project, the applicability conditions are then evaluated to determine their
potential use in certifying associated mitigation results and emission reductions expected
following the implementation of project activities.
Considering the sectoral scope and project type of the Blue Carbon Project, the applicability of
the methodology will be evaluated by:
1) reduction of emissions from AUDD; and
2) unplanned deforestation of intact or partially drained wetlands (AUWD).
Table 14: Analysis of applicability conditions for the VM0007 REDD+ Methodology
Framework
Type of activity Application Justification

All types of activity All land areas registered under the There are no other GHG
Clean Development Mechanism or programs registered for the PA.
any other GHG program, whether
voluntary or compliance-oriented,
must be transparently reported and
excluded from the PA. The exclusion
of land in the PA from any other GHG
72
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

program must be monitored over
time and detailed in the monitoring
reports.
Land in the PA must qualify as a The definition of 'forest' for
'forest' for at least 10 years prior to Indonesia is land spanning for
the project start date, as per the more than 0.25 ha, dominated
definition used by the VCS. by trees higher than five m at
Mangrove forests are excluded from maturity, and with canopy cover
any tree height requirement in this of more than 30%. Based on this
definition as they consist of close to definition, and as a result of the
100% mangrove species, which often eligibility analysis,56 it was found
do not reach the same height as that 58,765 ha has been forest
other tree species and occupy for at least 10 years (i.e., the
contiguous areas. Likewise, their period 2006 2016) prior to the
functioning as a forest is independent project start date. Mangroves
of tree height. were excluded from any height
requirement established in
Indonesia's forest definition.
If land within the PA is peatland or As the project is developed in
tidal wetland and emissions from the coastal wetlands, the relevant
soil carbon pool are deemed WRC modules were applied
significant, the relevant WRC (VMD0052), according to the
modules must be applied alongside methodology, for the estimation
other relevant modules. of emission reductions.
Baseline deforestation and forest The processes found in the area
degradation in the PA fall within one correspond to AUDD.
or more of the following categories:
unplanned deforestation
(VCS category AUDD);
planned
deforestation/degradation
(VCS category 'avoiding
planned deforestation'); and
degradation through
extraction of wood for fuel
(e.g., fuelwood and charcoal
production) (VCS category
AUDD).
Leakage avoidance activities must These options were not included
not include: as leakage management
agricultural lands that are activities.
flooded to increase
production (e.g., paddy rice);
or
intensifying livestock
production through the use of
56
The supporting documents are available in the folder Section 3/Eligibility Analysis.
73
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

feedouts and/or manure
lagoons.
AUDD Baseline agents of deforestation The agents of deforestation in
must: 1) clear the land for the forest areas are residents of
settlements, crop production the RRD and are led by small-
(agriculturalist), or ranching, where scale crop production and
such clearing for crop production or charcoal production.
ranching does not amount to large-
scale industrial agriculture activities;
2) have no documented and
uncontested legal right to deforest
the land for these purposes; and 3)
be either residents in the Reference
Region for Deforestation (RRD) or
immigrants. This methodology must
not be used under any other
condition.
If, in the baseline scenario of The post-deforestation activities,
avoiding unplanned deforestation under the baseline scenario, do
project activities, post- deforestation not include reforestation.
land use constitutes reforestation,
this methodology may not be used.
All WRC activity WRC activities are not eligible under Activities related to wetland
the following conditions: conservation in the PA:
project activities lower the do not lower the water
water table, unless the level;
project converts open water do not change in
to tidal wetlands, or improves hydrological
the hydrological connection connectivity;
to impounded waters; do not generate an
changes in hydrology do not increase in GHG
result in the accumulation or emissions outside the
maintenance of soil carbon PA;
stock; do not include organic
hydrological connectivity of soil burning activities;
the PA with adjacent areas and
leads to a significant do not consider the
increase in GHG emissions application of nitrogen
outside the PA; or fertilizers.
project activities include the
burning of organic soil.
Nitrogen fertilizer(s), such as
chemical fertilizer or manure, are
applied in the PA during the project
crediting period.
CIW This methodology is applicable to The PA meets the definition of
conservation of undrained and peatland proposed by the VCS
partially drained tidal wetland in methodology VM0007, as
activities in PAs that meet the VCS forests correspond to mangrove
definition for peatland. and peatland forests.
74
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

The specific project activity
focuses on the conservation of
wetlands at risk from unplanned
deforestation, an activity eligible
under the methodology.
AUWD Baseline agents of wetland Wetland degradation agents in
degradation: 1) cause an alteration in the baseline scenario cause the
the hydrology of the PA, either loss of soil organic carbon due
involving drainage, interrupted to unplanned deforestation. The
sediment supply, or both, and/or a scenario has no documented
loss of soil organic carbon; 2) have and uncontested legal right to
no documented and uncontested degrade wetlands.
legal right to degrade the wetland;
and 3) are either residents in the
reference region for wetland
degradation or immigrants. This
methodology must not be used under
any other condition.
3.1.3 Project Boundary
Spatial Boundaries
Below is a description of the spatial boundaries of the project, considering three types of area
used in the methodology. As the project is in the AUDD category, the PA, the reference region for
projecting rate of deforestation, the reference region for projecting location of deforestation, and
the leakage belt (LK) area are therefore considered. Figure 12 presents a map with applicable
boundaries.
75
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Figure 12: Spatial boundaries
Project Area
According to VMD0007 (BL-UP module), the PA is the discrete parcels of land, under threat of
deforestation, on which the project proponents will undertake activities to reduce unplanned
deforestation. The project must be 100% forested at the project start date (e.g., 2017).
In this case, the PA corresponds to secondary dryland forest, secondary swamp forest, and
secondary mangrove forest within the Padang Tikar Landscape that have remained as forests
throughout the period 2006 2016. The PA covers 58,677.6
include forests in which REDD project activities will not be carried out or which have not been
included in the baseline assessment.
For the PA, the only areas considered were those where the project developers will promote
activities and where the forest criteria are met for the end of the historical series analyzed, i.e.,
with stable forests in year zero, or project start date.
76
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Figure 13: The boundaries of the project area and forest type
Reference Region for Projecting Rate of Deforestation
The reference region for projecting the rate of deforestation (RRD), according to VMD0007 (BL-
UP module), does not need to be contiguous with and must not encompass the PA and the LK.
The RRD can be composed of several parcels that do not have to be contiguous. Furthermore,
the RRD areas must be forested at the start of the historical reference period (e.g., 2006).
The minimum size of the RRD must be calculated as follows:
MREF = RAF*PA
RAF = 7500*PA-0.7
If the RAF, as calculated using the equation above, is less than 1, the RAF must be made equal
to 1.
Where:
MREF The minimum size of the reference region for projecting rate of deforestation (ha)
PA Unplanned deforestation PA (ha). In this case, the PA is equal to 58,677.6 ha
77
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
RAF Reference Area Factor, or the factor to multiply with the PA to get the minimum reference
area; dimensionless
According to the equation above, the minimum size of the RRD is 202,112.0 ha. Following the
results of GIS analysis, the RRD covers 203,573.3 ha, which is higher than the MREF area. The
selected RRD corresponds to all the criteria of deforestation drivers, landscape factors, social
factors and exclusion of planned deforestation which are similar to Padang Tikar Landscape (the
project area).
Figure 14: The map of Reference Region for Projecting rate of Deforestation (RRD)
Reference Region for Projecting Location of Deforestation
The reference region for projecting location of deforestation (RRL) must be a single parcel,
contiguous with and including the PA and the LK. The RRL must consist of a minimum of 5%
non-forest and a minimum 50% forest at the start of the historical reference period (e.g., 2006).
The area of forest in the RRL must be equal to the PA of the RRD (±25%). The RRL is only
required where location analysis is required or elected.
78
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
In this case, according to the BL-UP module57, the RRL is required, as the initial configuration of
173,254.9 ha and it has 135,877.3 ha which equal to 78.4% of RRL.
Figure 14: The map of reference region for projecting location of deforestation
Leakage Belt
The LK area must be the forest area closet to the PA meeting the minimum area requirement. All
parts of LK must, at a minimum, be accessible and reachable by the project baseline
deforestation agents, with considerations to agent mobility. The minimum LK area must be equal
to at least 90% of the PA. The LK area is 51,469.6 ha.
Temporal Boundaries
1) Start and end dates of the historical reference period
In the projection of deforestation under the historic approach, the 'reference period'
corresponds to the years that have passed between eight spatial data points.
Considering the availability of satellite images for the classification and delimitation of
forest areas, the selected historical reference period in this instance was 2006 2009
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016, or the 10 years prior to the project start date.
57
See more details in STEP 3.0: Determination of whether location analysis is required, VMD0007 (BL-
UP Module), Version 3.3.
79
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
2) Start and end dates of the project crediting period
From 30-August-2017 to 29-August-2047. The length of the crediting period is 30 years.
3) Duration of the monitoring periods
I. Baseline reassessment: as per the VCS requirements, 58 it is mandatory to

reassess the baseline every six years for the duration of the project.
II. First anticipated monitoring period: the first anticipated monitoring period will be
from 30-August-2017 to 31-December-2021.
III. Anticipated subsequent monitoring periods: the subsequent monitoring periods

are anticipated to occur in three-year intervals. 59
The GHG emission sources included or excluded from the REDD project limits are shown in
Table 15, while the sources associated with the WRC activity are shown in Table 16.
Table 15: GHG sources from REDD
Source Gas Included? Justification/explanation

Baseline Burning of CO2 Included The project does not consider biomass
woody burning under the baseline scenario.
biomass However, if emissions existed, decreases
in carbon stocks due to burning would be
counted as a change in carbon stocks due
to unplanned deforestation.
CH4 Excluded Omitted to be conservative
N2O Excluded Omitted to be conservative
Other Excluded No other GHG gases are considered in
this project activity
Combustion CO2 Excluded Omitted to be conservative
CH4 Excluded Potential emissions are negligible
N2O Excluded Potential emissions are negligible
Use of CO2 Excluded Potential emissions are negligible
fertilizer CH4 Excluded Potential emissions are negligible
58
Refer to paragraph 3.2.7 under the VCS Standard, v4.2, dated January 20, 2022. For all AUDD, APDD (where the
agent is unknown), AUC, and AUWD project types, the project proponent shall, for the duration of the project,
reassess the baseline every six years and have this validated at the same time as the subsequent verification.
59 Potential periods subject to change.
80
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

Project Burning of CO2 Excluded Avoided biomass burning is conservatively
woody excluded. However, carbon stock
biomass decreased due to burning is accounted as
a change in carbon stock if a fire occurs.
CH4 Included It is conservative to exclude non-CO2
gases emitted from woody biomass
burning in the baseline, but these must be
included if a fire occurs in the PA.
N2O Included It is conservative to exclude non-CO2
gases emitted from woody biomass
burning in the baseline, but these must be
included if a fire occurs in the PA.
Combustion CO2 Excluded The project did not consider the burning of
fossil fuels under the baseline scenario
CH4 Excluded Potential emissions are negligible
N2O Excluded Potential emissions are negligible
Use of CO2 Excluded Potential emissions are negligible
fertilizer CH4 Excluded Potential emissions are negligible
N2O Excluded The project did not consider the use of
fertilizer under the baseline scenario or as
a mechanism for preventing leakage.
Thus, it was not considered under the
project scenario.
Table 16: GHG sources from WRC

Baseline Oxidation of CO2 Included Considered under carbon pools
drained peat CH4 Included Required unless de minimis or
conservatively omitted
N2O Excluded Excluded, as per the applicability condition
in module BL-PEAT
CO2 Excluded The project does not consider burning soil
or biomass under the baseline scenario.
According to the E-BPB module, the
81
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

Burning of inclusion of the fire component is always
peat or optional in the baseline.
biomass CH4 Excluded The project does not consider burning soil
inclusion of the fire component is always
optional in the baseline.
N2O Excluded The project does not consider burning soil
inclusion of the fire component is always
optional in the baseline.
Burning of CO2 Excluded Omitted to be conservative
fossil fuels CH4 Excluded Omitted to be conservative
Project Oxidation of CO2 Included Considered under carbon pools
drained peat CH4 Included Required unless de minimis or
conservatively omitted
N2O Excluded Excluded, as per the applicability condition
in module BL-PEAT
Burning of CO2 Excluded The project did not consider the burning of
peat or soil or biomass under the baseline
biomass scenario. Thus, it was not considered
under the project scenario.
CH4 Excluded The project did not consider the burning of
soil or biomass under the baseline
scenario. Thus, it was not considered
N2O Excluded The project did not consider the burning of
soil or biomass under the baseline
scenario. Thus, it was not considered
Burning of CO2 Excluded According to the methodology, potential
fossil fuels emissions are negligible in Conservation
of Intact Wetland (CIW) activities.
CH4 Excluded According to the methodology, potential
emissions are negligible in CIW activities.
82
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

N2O Excluded According to the methodology, potential
emissions are negligible in CIW activities.
3.1.4 Baseline Scenario
The most plausible baseline scenario was determined using the VT0001 Tool for the
Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality in VCS Agriculture, Forest and Other Land Use
(AFOLU) Project Activities, Version 3.0. This tool is applicable to this project as the selection of
the baseline scenario can be made from a stepwise approach consistent with determining the
additionality of project activities. The tool was designed for AFOLU project activities and can be
used under methodology VM0007.
The methodological development for the selection of the project baseline was addressed as
follows:
1) Identification of alternative land use scenarios to the Project AFOLU activity: Alternative
land use scenarios were identified with respect to the proposed project activities, and
which could be defined as a baseline scenario. The rationale for the most likely land-
use scenarios in the project area is presented below.
2) identification of the barriers that impede the implementation of the proposed project
activity which, in general terms, included financial barriers, institutional barriers, and
technical barriers.
3) show that the identified barriers do not prevent the implementation of at least one of the
alternative land-use scenarios (except for the proposed project activity): within the
alternative land-use scenarios, illegal mangrove logging for charcoal production and
agriculture/farmland expansion by small-scale farmers are the most common land uses
in the area and are found in most rural areas. However, agriculture/farmland expansion
by small-scale farmers does not face significant barriers (see Table 18)
Barrier analysis is summarized in Table 18. According to the information presented in the table,
the possible baseline scenarios are illegal mangrove logging for household charcoal production
and agriculture or farmland by small-scale farmers. However, only agriculture/farmland activity
will be used to quantify emission reductions, as this scenario is associated with higher carbon
content in the aboveground biomass and belowground biomass than illegal mangrove logging.
Thus, it is ensured that ex-ante estimation is conservative according to the guideline of BL-UP
module that potential baseline scenarios are avoided agriculture/farmland activity in forest
areas.
83
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
3.1.5 Additionality
assessed using VERRA additionality

tools, namely VT0001 (AFOLU projects), v3.0, and VMD0052 (ADD-AM; tidal wetland
conservation and restoration), v1.0. The VT0001 and VMD0052 have the following procedures
for demonstrating additionality:
VT0001
Step 1: identification of land-use scenarios alternative to those proposed by the AFOLU

project activity;
Step 2: investment analysis to determine that the proposed project activity is not the
most economically or financially attractive of the identified land-use scenarios;
Step 3: barriers analysis; and
Step 4: common practice analysis.
Step 1: Identification of Alternative Land-Use Scenarios to the Proposed VCS AFOLU Project
Activity
With this step, alternative land-use scenarios were identified for the proposed project. The
baseline scenario was identified through the following sub-steps:
Sub-step 1a: Identify Credible Alternative Land-Use Scenarios to the Proposed VCS AFOLU
Project Activity
Up to 50% of deforestation in Indonesia since 1980 has taken place in Kalimantan. 60 The main
causes of deforestation in Kalimantan have, historically, been due to previously legal logging
operations, land clearing by logging and fires for agriculture (both for small-scale farming and
plantations), and uncontrolled forest fires, as in 1982 83, 1987, 1994, and 1997. 61 During the
1980s, when high incomes could be gained from timber trading, the Padang Tikar Landscape
was renowned as an area where timber harvesting was carried out. Industrial-scale extraction in
Kalimantan began in the early 1970s, which resulted in the loss of over 30% of the original forest,
a rate of disappearance higher than most in the tropics. The total wood harvested from the region
in the period 1980 2000 was greater than that harvested from both Africa and the Amazon
combined.62 The post-harvesting area was then left abandoned as a deforested area. 40 years
on, the ecosystems have still yet to fully recover from the massive harvesting era, with the forest
quality currently only 30% of its initial condition.
60
Refer to Thompson, 1999.
61
Refer to Boehm and Siegert, 2001.
62
Refer to Ferraz et al., 2018.
84
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
forests, found mainly at higher elevations out of reach of the logging companies, and fragmented
forests in the lowlands and wetlands, including agroforestry plantations, scrublands, and
croplands).63 Thus, the Padang Tikar Landscape consists of various types of forest ecosystem,
including swamp forests (e.g., coastal mangrove forests and peatlands) and inland forests (e.g.,
inland peatland and dryland forests), the latter of which are composed of mineral soils.
The forest condition has since been exacerbated by climate change, experiencing a prolonged
dry season and heavier rain during the rainy season. The fishing area for traditional fishermen is
now decreasing and becoming more limited as a result of both climate change and the
destruction of mangrove habitats. This has had the effect of decreasing the income of and
increasing operational costs for traditional fishermen, despite 38% of local communities depend
on fishery sectors for their livelihoods. In addition to anthropogenic factors such as the Mega Rice
Project (MRP), which saw fires being used to clear forested land for agriculture (later detailed
below), forest fires also occurred in 1997, being aggravated as a result of the El Ni o-Southern
Oscillation.64
The first step for proposing this VCS AFOLU project activity is to identify realistic and credible
land-use scenarios which would have occurred in the PA in the absence of the proposed project
activity, i.e., conservation land use with carbon credits. Alternative land-use scenarios for
mangrove forests in the Padang Tikar Landscape village of Kubu Raya, in the West Kalimantan
region of Indonesia, are identified as follows, according to Bentang Kalimantan: 65
1) Scenario 1: illegal mangrove logging for charcoal production;
2) Scenario 2: agriculture or farmland expansion (e.g., small-scale palm oil plantations, rice
paddy fields, coconut plantations, and mixed crops), divided by two main actors:
I. agriculture or farmland expansion by private actors; and
II. agriculture or farmland expansion by small-scale farmers; and
3) Scenario 3: project activity without being registered under the VCS (i.e., conversion
without credit financing).
Land use in Indonesia is divided into forest estates/kawasan hutan and APL.66 Forest estates in
Indonesia is designated with three functions: 1) conservation forest/hutan konservasi; 2)
protection forest/hutan lindung (HL); and 3) production forest/hutan produksi (HP), limited
production forest (HPT), and convertible production forest (HPK]. The HL classification entails the
protection of ecosystem services (e.g., maintaining soil fertility and erosion control) in that forest
area, while HP designates an area reserved for generating forest products. In most cases, HL
and HP are managed by companies and communities. However, under the Village Forest
63
Refer to Ferraz et al., 2018.
64
Refer to Boehm and Siegert, 2001.
65 It should be noted that, while mining operations have been present in West Kalimantan since the 20th century
(Myers et al., 2016), there are no mining operations currently underway in the Padang Tikar Landscape.
66 Refer to Santika et al., 2017.
85
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
scheme, management rights belong solely to communities/villages, although certain rules must
still be followed as the government retains ownership rights.67
In 2017, the MoEF granted a Village Forest license to the Padang Tikar Landscape's LPHD. The
perhutanan sosial
program, as established in MoEF Regulation No. P. 83 of 2016. The overarching goal of the
social forestry program, in addition to the goals of Presidential Regulation No. 2 of 2015 on
Agrarian Reform, is to redistribute land and management rights to local communities, protect the
environment, and improve rural livelihoods by increasing community-managed forest estates from
1.4 million ha to 12.7 million ha by 2019.68 Hutan Desa has been defined as a
69
village- To
elaborate, Regulation No. P. 49 (2008) outlines that village institutions are responsible for
reducing deforestation and forest degradation while safeguarding community livelihoods.
Regulation P. 89, which later replaces Regulation No. P.49, echoes the same sentiment: that
villages as a legal entity have the authority to regulate and manage community interest. The
Village Forest scheme provides the community with a relatively long-term and extendable lease
of 35 years, set to be reviewed every five years (Regulation No. P. 37 of 2007), wherein village
cooperatives and village-owned enterprises have access to certain permitted areas of the forest,
as detailed below: 70
1) HP with no licenses;
2) HL with no licenses;
3) HL managed by state-owned enterprises; and
4) certain designated areas within the KPH.
Permitted activities within the Village Forest area include:
1) utilization of the area, ecosystem services, and harvest of non-timber forest products
(applies to HL area); and
2) utilization of the area, ecosystem services, timber products, non-timber forest products
(excluding palm oil), harvest of non-timber forest products, and cultivation of timber crops
(applies only to HP area).
Figure 15 shows that the majority of the Padang Tikar Landscape is HL (69,299 ha). However,
the second clause of the permitted activities also applies to the Landscape, as a proportion of it is
67
Refer to Rakatama and Pandit, 2020.
68 Refer to BAPPENAS, 2014; Indonesia MoEF, 2015; Indonesia MoEF, 2016 in Putraditama, 2018.
69 Refer to MoEF, n.d.; Rakatama and Pandit, 2020.
70 Refer to Indonesia MoEF 2016a in Putraditama, 2018.
86
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
HL (1,985 ha of HPT and 5,086 ha of HPK). 71 Table 17 shows details of each Village Forest in the
Padang Tikar Landscape.
Table 17: Details of the Village Forest in the Padang Tikar Landscape
Forest function and status (ha)

No. Village
Protected Convertible
Limited forest Total area (ha)
forest forest
1 Ambarawa 2,935 1,840 4,775
2 Batu Ampar 31,550 1,590 33,140
3 Medan Mas 1,845 1,845
4 Nipah Panjang 6,830 110 6,940
5 Padang Tikar I 190 190
6 Sungai Besar 2,900 2,900
7 Sungai Jawi 3,290 95 3,385
Tangjung
8 14,315 395 2,735 17,445
Harapan
9 Tasik Malaya 2,850 2,850
10 Teluk Nibung 2,595 305 2,900
Total 69,300 1,985 5,085 76,370
HP are the only state forests where timber harvesting is permitted. However, within a Village
Forest, there are annual limits to the amount of timber and non-timber products allowed to be
collected per area. The utilization of this timber is governed under Law No. 41 of 1999, along with
several other MoEF regulations, such as Minister Regulations on logging procedures and work
plans (e.g., No. 62 of 2008, No. 65 of 2009, and No.60 of 2011) and the administration of
harvested timber from natural (e.g., No. 41 of 2014) and planted forests (e.g., No. 42 of 2014),
and legal certification procedures, such as the Sustainable Forest Management
Certificate/Sertifikat Pengelolaan Hutan Produksi Lestari or Timber Legal Certificate. The
utilization of timber products and the cultivation of timber crops in this sense may also refer to
fibers such as pulp, paper, and/or chipwood and wood scrap.
71
87
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Figure 15: Village Forest of Padang Tikar Landscape
In Indonesia, the main causes of deforestation have been identified as commercial logging, land
clearing for cultivation/settlement, fuelwood collection, coal mining, plantations, and fires. 72 While
each of the 10 villages in the proposed Padang Tikar PA have various factors contributing to
deforestation associated with them, the following section provides a brief description of each of
the identified alternate land-use scenarios pertinent to the villages as a whole. This is done with
consideration of the relevant national or sectoral policies and circumstances, the historical uses of
the land, and the practices and economic trends of the communities settled in the Padang Tikar
Landscape. The following aspects may be considered: the time period; the geographical
scope/boundaries; the species impacted (i.e., by type of flora and fauna); and the main products
resulting from those land uses (e.g., numbers of producers and quantity of yield).
Scenario 1: Illegal Mangrove Logging for Charcoal Production
Mangroves, found predominantly in the coastal areas of the Padang Tikar Landscape, have been
logged for charcoal production as, according to the local community, mangrove wood produces
high-quality charcoal able to yield a high price comparative to other types of charcoal. Due to the
high incomes that could previously be gained from timber trading, there was a trend of many
72 Refer to Thompson, 1999.
88
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
members of the community going on to become loggers instead of progressing into education.
Limited employability skills among loggers and limited access to sustainable livelihood options
prevents them from diversifying to other occupational activities. Due to the extent of commercial
logging in the lowlands, it is predicted that remaining forested areas will continue to be logged
unless conservation plans are put in place to preserve this area. 73
Scenario 2: Agriculture or Farmland Expansion (e.g., Small-Scale Palm Oil Plantations, Rice
Paddy Fields, Coconut Plantations, and Mixed Crops,)
Inland forests in the Padang Tikar Landscape have been cleared, either through logging or the
use of fires, to make space for agriculture. As seen in Figure 16, a large portion of the cleared
land is used for settlement and cultivation. While most of the agricultural land use in the Padang
Tikar Landscape is for growing rice (e.g., rice paddy fields), with almost 88% of agricultural land
in West Kalimantan being used for rice growing,74 other crops grown include coconut, copra,
rubber, bananas, and rambutan. 75 There is also a history of growing cassava, corn, and coffee in
West Kalimantan, so it is possible that these are also grown in the Padang Tikar Landscape. 76
Moreover, forested areas have also been cleared for oil palm plantations. In Bawal, West
Kalimantan, mangroves have been cleared for oil palm plantations and other land uses. 77 There
are a total of roughly 50 oil palm companies (i.e., private actors) present in West Kalimantan, and
a total of 4,681,432 ha of land controlled by oil palm concessions. 78 The provincial government of
West Kalimantan has an aim to reach a total palm oil plantation area of 4.5 million ha by 2025.
Despite regulations and efforts to encourage certain areas to deviate from palm oil plantations, oil
palm still plays a significant role in Indonesia's economic growth.
However, in PAs which hold Village Forest permits, it is very difficult for oil palm companies to get
the license to cultivate palm oil. Changing the current land use status of either HL or HP to APL,
thereby allowing these areas to be used for agricultural purposes such as palm oil, would require
a protracted process at the bureaucracy level. Meanwhile, small-scale farmers have no barriers to
changing land use to, for instance, palm oil or other agricultural commodities, due to their lack of
awareness and pressure for economic gain. Small-scale farmers played a big role in the land-use
change within the Padang Tikar Landscape. The shift from water- and sea-based economies to a
land-based economy creates pressure on a Landscape that contains high biodiversity value.
Moreover, with the high demand for palm oil and the existence of palm oil mills in the area, it is
not unprecedented for communities to cultivate palm oil informally.
73 Refer to Ferraz et al., 2018.

74
Refer to Myers et al., 2016.
75
Refer to Samdhana Annual Report, 2015.
76 Refer to Embassy of Indonesia, 1982.
77 Refer to Quevedo et al., 2020.
78 Refer to IDH, n.d.
89
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Figure 16: Land use types in Padang Tikar Landscape 79
Scenario 3: Project Activity Without Being Registered Under the VCS (i.e., Conversion Without
Credit Financing)
The last alternative land-use scenario is the conservation of both inland and mangrove forests
without the involvement of carbon credits, e.g., via carbon credit project development and
financing. However, conservation measures have historically been met with noncompliance, as
attempts to enforce it have proven ineffective. For instance, the authorization of local district
governments to grant community forestry licenses so as to increase uptake of the scheme
(Decree No. 31/Kpts-II in 2001) was met with the MoEF requesting re-evaluation of issued
community forestry licenses (Regulation No. 722/Menhut-V) the following year, due to misuse of
forestry program has also been contested. Despite the social forestry program, deforestation has
continued, as alternative, non-timber harvesting activities seem insufficient in fulfilling the daily
needs of local communities.80 Previous studies in Indonesia have demonstrated high community
awareness and understanding of protecting ecosystem services, along with awareness that
renewal of a Village Forest license is contingent on community performance in conserving the
forest area.81 Despite this, there is limited interest in conservation due to the lack of direct
economic incentives, especially if exploiting forest products is more profitable or able to satisfy an
urgent need for income.82 From 2014 data, around 7.14% of people in the Padang Tikar
79
Available at: IDH Landscape program, Sustainable Mangrove Business Model in West Kalimantan, 2022
80 Available at: Proposal for Social Forestry Permit, 2014
81 Refer to Quevedo et al., 2022; Ribot, 2004 in Putraditama, 2018.
82 Refer to Quevedo et al., 2022; Ribot, 2004 in Putraditama, 2018.
90
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Landscape were living at or below the poverty line. 83 Considering this, conservation without
economic incentives is unlikely to happen.
With these alternative land-use scenarios in mind, the generation and selling of carbon credits
from forest and mangrove protection and restoration through leveraging ecosystem services, as
allowed by the Village Forest permit, can be one way of meeting the goals of the Village Forest
permit and avoiding deforestation.
Outcome of Sub-step 1a:
Thus, the following scenarios are credible alternative land-use scenarios that may have occurred
on the land within the AFOLU project activity boundary:
1) illegal mangrove logging for charcoal production;
2) agriculture/farmland expansion by private actors and/or small-scale farmers; and
3) conservation without carbon credit financing.
Sub-step 1b: Consistency of Credible Alternative Land-Use Scenarios with Enforced Mandatory
Applicable Laws and Regulations
As mentioned above, there are three possible alternative land-use scenarios in the Padang Tikar
PA. Scenario 3, or conservation without carbon credit financing, is the only land-use scenario that
would actively comply with the national mandatory legislation and regulations for the Padang
Tikar Landscape.
This leaves two remaining scenarios: scenario 1, or illegal mangrove logging for charcoal
production, and scenario 2, which is divided into scenario 2.1 (agriculture/farmland expansion by
private actors) and scenario 2.2 (agriculture/farmland expansion by small-scale farmers). As
explained in sub-step 1a of this section, scenario 2.1 is unlikely to happen due to political barriers.
This leaves us with scenarios 1 and 2.2 as non-compliant with legislation and regulations, both of
which are widespread as a result of the systematic lack of enforcement of applicable laws and
regulations (see scenario 3 in sub-step 1a of this section). One such rule or provision of forest
management rights specified by the Padang Tikar Village Forest permit prohibits the Village
Forest from being used for purposes other than those mentioned in the RPHD (i.e., conservation),
along with the collection and utilization of timber forest resources and environmental services
(Regulation No. P. 83 of 2016 and Regulation No. P. 37 of 2007). As agriculture would require
forests to be cleared, agriculture would be non-compliant with the rules of the permit. Specifically,
the permit also prohibits revegetating the Village Forest area with palm oil species. Under this
rule, the use of the Padang Tikar Landscape for palm oil plantations would also have been illegal
from the date the permit was issued in 2017. However, as the rules against agricultural expansion
and palm oil plantations are not enforced, evident from how these activities continue to be carried
83
Available at: Proposal for Social Forestry Permit, 2014.
91
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
out in the Padang Tikar Landscape, these land uses can remain on the list of possible land uses,
despite their non-compliance with current laws and regulations.84
Outcome of Sub-step 1b:
All three scenarios above (except for scenario 2.1) are plausible alternative land-use scenarios to
the VCS AFOLU project activity, either being compliant with mandatory legislation and regulations
or resulting from a systemic lack of enforcement of applicable laws and regulations.
Sub-step 1c: Selection of the Baseline Scenario
The baseline scenario will be chosen based on the scenarios presented.
Step 2: Investment Analysis
Not applicable for this project.
Step 3: Barrier Analysis
Sub-step 3a: Identify Barriers That Would Prevent the Implementation of the Type of Proposed
Project Activity
Financial barriers
While LPHDs have a mandate to manage the Village Forest, there is no financial support for
LPHDs in implementing activities necessary for maintaining the Village Forest permit. Knowing
this, the government requires the presence of an accompanying facilitator to support the
implementation of any established Village Forest permit on the ground. This role is often filled by
a local NGO. In this project, Bentang Kalimantan is the local NGO that will support the LPHD with
both the implementation of the Village Forest permit mandate and the proposed carbon asset
development activity as a responsible entity. The LPHD is required to develop a management
plan for the implementation of the permit, however, without support from local NGOs which also
depend on the support from donor agencies the implementation of the management plan would
be difficult.
The conservation activity in the Padang Tikar Landscape is highly dependent on donor support.
Previous conservation efforts have been supported by the IDH and other donor agencies, such as
the United Nations Development Programme, the Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund, and
Yayasan Belantara. Considering the fact that forest conservation at scale did not occur in the
Padang Tikar Landscape prior to the involvement of donors and local NGOs, it is unlikely that
villagers would continue to preserve the forests without financial support to provide income
security for their conservation efforts. 85 Contributing to this is that conservation in the area is
seldom sufficiently carried out without carbon credit financing (see step 4: common practice
analysis). In being highly dependent on donor support, the current financial model is limiting the
84 Refer to Mongabay, 2020.

85 Refer to Samdhana, 2015.
92
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
long-term sustainability of project activities. As such, carbon credits could be the bridge to
allowing Village Forests to strengthen their capacity for implementing project activities in the long
run.
Institutional barriers
The bureaucracies and complexities surrounding the social forestry program also prevent the
community from fully understanding the nature and merits of such forest conservation programs.
While Padang Tikar already has a Village Forest permit, the process of obtaining this is fairly
lengthy and can take time to complete. When pursuing a permit, communities have to decide
whether to complete an application to manage the forest as a single landscape overseen by one
village, or to split the application up by each village. The application would also have to include a
Village Forest proposal in the social forestry scheme and revisit the regulations to become one. 86
As an indicator, only around one
have received a permit to manage its forests under the social forestry program 87. Similarly, the
complex regulations surrounding social forestry programs can be a cause of confusion, as studies
have indicated that those signing up for social forestry schemes often do so with limited
understanding of what the schemes entail. 88
Moreover, village communities are often unaware of the rights and responsibilities they have
under the Village Forest permit.89 The role of local NGOs in assisting LPHDs has become crucial
to the implementation of Village Forest permits. In the 'Theory of Change' for this project, Bentang
Kalimantan aims to increase the leadership of LPHDs in implementing, monitoring, and
evaluating the proposed project activities, as current baselines indicate that the LPHD has little
experience in and capacity for implementing the Village Forest mandate. Without assistance, the
Village Forest permit they receive, evaluated every five years, may be revoked by the
government if the results show that the LPHD failed to implement their responsibility under the
permit.
Technological barriers
As the proposed project activities also require proposing alternative livelihoods to the community,
their capacity prior to the project was only focused on the producers' side, often lacking a pasca-
producing stage to add value to their production. Not only that, but the community also has a lack
of knowledge on how to manage the land, with their prior experience focused more so on
managing water- and sea-based product. Without assistance from a local NGO, the community
may not be aware of the potential of their land, or how to improve the water and sea products still
allowed by current laws and regulation. Technological barriers are also very closely linked to
financial barriers. If there is no financing to overcome the technological barriers, the
implementation of proposed project activities would not be possible. For example, the community
needs support with pasca-producing activities, such as on the packaging and marketing side, to
86
Refer to Samdhana, 2015.
87 Refer to Mongabay, 2018.
88 Refer to Rakatama and Pandit, 2020.
89 Refer to Rakatama and Pandit, 2020.
93
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
add to the value of the products. It would otherwise be very difficult for the community to
overcome these barriers without this additional support.
Outcome of Sub-step 3a:
In conclusion, there are three main barriers that prevent the implementation of project activities:
1) financial barriers, specifically for the implementation of project activities related to climate
and biodiversity;
2) institutional barriers, especially regarding the capacity of the LPHD, affecting the
enforcement of laws in the permit area; and
3) technological barriers, specifically in terms of introducing alternative livelihoods for the

community.
Sub-step 3b: Show That the Identified Barriers Would Not Prevent the Implementation of at Least
one of the Alternative Land-use Scenarios (Excluding the Proposed Project Activity)
Based on Table 18 below, the identified barriers would not prevent the implementation of
scenario 2.2, or agriculture/farmland expansion by small-scale farmers, e.g., for small-scale palm
oil plantations, rice paddy fields, coconut plantations, and mixed crops.
Table 18: Alternative land-use scenarios and identified barriers
Alternative land-use scenarios Description of barriers
Scenario 1: Illegal mangrove The most obvious barriers to illegal logging are the
logging for charcoal production ecological and technological barriers, as logging can only
be carried out in accessible areas. The topographic
variation of well-drained lowland dipterocarp forest
intermixed with swamp forest in West Kalimantan served as
a barrier to illegal logging, as heavy machinery is unable to
pass through these areas. This restricts logging to small-
scale activities.
Prevailing practices may also contribute to illegal logging,

as it has been found that, despite social forestry
designations, locals often continue to practice activities that
were previously practiced in the area. Additionally, it is
assumed that the same subset of people that engage in
illegal logging would be involved in other livelihood
opportunities related to agricultural/farmland expansion
(i.e., scenario 2.2), which also involve the unsustainable
use of the forested land. If so, these other livelihood
94
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

opportunities would act as a barrier to illegal logging
activity, as they would compete with scenario 1. It is noted
that this is a barrier resulting from prevailing practices and
would also be applicable to scenario 2.2.
Finally, enforced land tenure agreements within the

community may restrict the areas in which the individual
logger may be able log. While the land ownership
agreements and rights may be informal, the barrier of land
tenure rights would nevertheless be applicable in this
scenario. Moreover, the land function change from HL to
HP required to allow timber harvesting would also be
difficult to implement, as the Padang Tikar area is
recognized as an important landscape for mangroves.
Scenario 2.2: agriculture/farmland There are insignificant barriers to this land-use scenario. In
expansion by small-scale farmers, fact, there is some government support for this activity.
e.g., for small-scale palm oil
plantations, rice paddy fields, The Padang Tikar community grows rice as
coconut plantations, and mixed subsistence farming, as rice is a staple food for
crops Indonesia. In 1995, under Presidential Decree No.
82: Development of One Million Hectares of
Peatland for Food Crop Production in the Province
of Central Kalimantan, Peat Reclamation (also
known as the Peat Area Project/Proyek Lahan
Gambut), the government initiated the MRP, a
large-scale peatland conversion program which
saw large-scale land clearing by fire and the
creation of more than 4,000 km of
drainage/irrigation channels within MRP-designated
areas between 1996 1998, the latter of which
(drainage) also contributed to fires. 90 The MRP
identified some districts in Kalimantan as suitable
for rice cultivation. While local communities in
Central Kalimantan traditionally cultivated rice, this
was done at a small-scale and on shallow peatland,
boasting limited environmental impact. 91 However,
for the MRP, 165,000 ha of wetlands in Central
were identified as suitable for rice cultivation, while

in Rimba Raya in Central Kalimantan, forested land
has been cleared for industrial-scale rice
90 Refer to Boehm and Siegert, 2001.

91 Refer to Boehm and Siegert, 2001.
95
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

production. 92 Against this background and the
prevailing practice in the region, it is likely Padang
Tikar was affected by the same or similar initiatives
as its neighbors in expanding its farmlands.
Moreover, the Indonesian government has
launched a new food estate program which will
target peatland areas to be managed for rice fields
and other food crops, although the current focus is
still on Central Kalimantan.
In terms of coconut production, coconut has been

grown and consumed in Indonesia for centuries.
There is also increased global demand for coconut
products, which will increase the opportunity for
farmers to produce this commodity. 93
Small-scale farmers have little to no awareness of

the regulation barriers. Furthermore, enforcement
of the law is weak, and no sanctions from the
government are in place to overcome this issue.
There was a request from the community during the

LSC to support agricultural commodities from
project activities in the Landscape to improve their
economy. This is a sign that the local community is
aware of the potential agriculture may pose for their
livelihoods.
Step 4: Common Practice Analysis
In Indonesia, only several conservation areas have been designated as either HL or HP or issued
with Village Forest permits since the start of the social forestry program. Village Forest areas are
not a common practice. Few efforts have been made to develop ecologically sustainable
livelihood alternatives, and no other forest conservation activities of a similar scale to those
proposed by the Padang Tikar Landscape project have been developed, implemented, or are
currently underway in the West Kalimantan region. The project seems to be one of the few
regional conservation activities that combines multiple ecosystems, including dryland forest,
mangrove forest, and swamp forest, under its protection, with most conservation activities found
focusing on just one type of ecosystem. From this, it seems that activities that encompass a
variety of wetland ecosystems are not a common practice in the region. Additionally, the Padang
92 Refer to Mongabay, 2020a.

93 Refer to Mongabay, 2020b.
96
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Tikar Landscape Village Forest license also covers the greatest area in Indonesia, encompassing
around 75,000 ha of mangrove and peat forest. 94
In conclusion, the proposed project activity is not a common practice in the West Kalimantan
region and the country, and, therefore, the proposed VCS AFOLU project activity is additional.
VMD0052
Step 1: regulatory surplus
Step 2: positive list
Step 1: Regulatory Surplus
The proposed project activities sit within the legal and regulatory frameworks for HL and HP (Law
No. 41 in 1999), social forestry (Regulation No. P.83 of 2016), and Agrarian Reform Presidential
ough redistributing land and
management rights to local communities, protecting the environment, and improving rural
livelihoods. The generation and selling of carbon credits from forest and mangrove protection and
restoration is a form of utilizing the ar
Law No. 41 in 1999). Crab and honey production activities also serve to improve rural livelihoods
without exploiting timber products and deforestation (Agrarian Reform Presidential Regulation No.
2 of 2015).
The proposed VCS AFOLU project activity is not bound by current legal and regulatory
requirements, nor is the PA involved in any mandatory carbon market-related schemes. While the
social forestry program provides a framework for conservation, there is no clear guidance or
finance scheme to support villages with achieving the aims of the Village Forest permit. With this,
the proposed project activities would be additional to and supporting Regulations No. P. 49 and
No. P. 89, which outline the responsibility of village institutions and their relevant authorities to
manage the forests in line with conservation regulations (i.e., social forestry) and through
providing training in sustainable livelihood options. Additionally, it has been found that, while
Village Forests are useful for avoiding deforestation overall, Village Forests that fall under the
categories of Watershed Protection Forests or HPT, or those areas of the proposed project
activity where most Village Forest permits have been granted, have less avoided deforestation. 95
Supporting this is evidence that local forest people are more likely to engage in conservation and
participate in accordance with social forestry schemes if they see a value in doing so. Thus, the
proposed project activities suggest livelihood activities and financing conservation through carbon
credits as forest conservation efforts, seeking to fill the gap between incentivizing and facilitating
conservation. However, previously, the authorization of local district governments to grant
community forest licenses (Decree No. 31/Kpts-II in 2001) led to the MoEF requesting the re-
evaluation of issued community forest licenses in 2002 due to misuse of the concession for
logging (Regulation No. 722/Menhut-V). Furthermore, alternative, non-timber harvesting activities
94 Available at: https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/news/indonesia-landscape-alternative-livelihoods/.

95 Refer to Santika et al., 2017.
97
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
without economic incentives are not an attractive enough option for local communities in lieu of
needing income to fulfil daily needs.
Step 2: Positive List
In reference to Table 14, the proposed project activity fulfils the applicability conditions of the
VM0007 tool and is subsequently in compliance with the positive list.
3.1.6 Methodology Deviations
This project activity does not apply any methodology deviation.
3.2 Quantification of GHG Emission Reductions and Removals
3.2.1 Baseline Emissions
Baseline emissions associated with above- and below-ground biomass were estimated using
the 'VMD0007 Estimating of baseline carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas emissions
from unplanned deforestation and unplanned wetland degradation (BL-UP)', Version 3.3
methodology, dated September 8, 2020. A simple historic approach was used delimit the RRD
and estimate the unplanned annual deforestation areas in the PA.
The methodology used for the quantification of the baseline emissions was divided into four parts:
1) Definition of boundaries
2) Estimation of annual areas of unplanned deforestation
3) Location and quantification of the threat of unplanned deforestation
4) Estimation of carbon stock changes and GHG emissions
3.2.1.1 Definition of boundaries
Considering that the areas from which information on the historical deforestation rate is extracted
and projected into the future must be delimited by spatial and temporary limits, the delimitation of
the RRD and the PA was carried out with consideration of the requirements of the VM0007
methodology, as described in section 3.3. The summary of the spatial boundaries and temporal
boundaries are shown in Table 19 and Table 20 below.
98
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Table 19: Area of spatial boundary
Spatial boundary Area (ha)
PA 58,677.6
RRD 203,573.3
RRL 173,254.9
LK 51,469.6
Table 20: Temporary boundary
Temporary boundary Details
Start and end dates of the historical reference From 2006 2016
period
Start and end dates of the REDD project From August 30, 2017 to August 29, 2047
crediting period
Date at which the project baseline will be Every six years
revisited
3.2.1.2 Estimation of annual areas of unplanned deforestation
The simple historic approach is used to estimate the annual area of unplanned deforestation.
The following steps are applied to project the rate of deforestation:
Step 1: Analysis of Historical Deforestation
This step is to quantify the historical deforestation rate during the historical reference period
(2006 2016) within the selected RRD. Historical deforestation establishes the dynamic of the
regions and the tendency of the deforestation before the implementation of the project. For this
process is necessary layers of forest cover for at least 3 years of historical period to be able to
see the changes and calculate de deforestation areas. They quality of the layers need to be
fulfill a minimum quality of accuracy evaluated for the year of start of the project. Each of the
sub step is explain next (Figure 17).
99
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Figure 17: Flow chart of the historical deforestation analysis
1) Collection of appropriate data source
The data that was used to analyze deforestation during the historical reference period (2006
2016) within the RRD was the landcover maps from MoEF. Following the minimum
requirements of the BL-UP module, the collected spatial data must account for at least three
points in time, no less than three years apart and covering no more than 12 years, with the first
point in time being no more than two years from the project start date. However, additional
points within the 12-year period may be added to enhance the deforestation trend analysis.
According to the minimum requirements, the spatial data for this project covers 10 years with
eight points in time, spanning 2006 2009, 2009 2011, 2011 2012, 2012 2013, 2013 2014,
2014 2015, and 2015 2016. The resolution of this spatial data is 30 m2.
2) Mapping of historical deforestation
Deforestation was mapped by detecting changes from forest to non-forest for the periods 2006
2009, 2009 2011, 2011 2012, 2012 2013, 2013 2014, 2014 2015, and 2015 2016.
Table 21: Result of the classification of image for the identification of forest area in the PA
and the RRD
Forest area (ha)

Year
2006 2009 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
PA 64,022.0 63,778.5 62,723.4 62,664.4 61,594.2 61,045.3 60,788.9 58,677.6
RRD 203,573.3 201,173.0 198,014.0 191,787.1 179,996.0 155,330.6 154,635.7 145,588.4
100
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Table 22: Result of the classification of images for the identification of forest area in the
PA
Forest area (ha)

Land
cover 2006 2009 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Peatland
SDF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SMF 403.3 382.8 382.8 382.8 382.8 382.8 381.0 381.0
SSF 24,384.8 24,384.8 23,813.4 23,789.2 23,663.6 23,606.1 23,517.0 21,978.0
Non-peatland
SDF 1,221.4 1,210.7 1,210.7 1,210.7 1,210.7 1,210.7 1,210.3 1,210.5
SMF 33,058.8 32,960.0 32,928.7 32,928.7 32,545.3 32,066.8 32,028.7 31,958.9
SSF 4,953.8 4,840.3 4,387.9 4,353.1 3,791.9 3,779.0 3,652.0 3,149.2
Total 64,022.1 63,778.5 62,723.4 62,664.4 61,594.2 61,045.3 60,788.9 58,677.6

Note: SDF = secondary dryland forest, SMF = secondary mangrove forest, SSF = secondary swamp forest
Table 23: Result of the classification of images for identification of the deforestation area
in the PA
Land Forest area (ha)

cover 2006-2009 2009-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Peatland
SDF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SMF 20.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.00
SSF 0.04 571.31 24.25 125.64 57.45 89.14 1,538.93
Non-peatland
SDF 10.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.25
SMF 98.81 31.32 0.00 383.33 478.58 38.07 69.77
SSF 113.47 452.45 34.80 561.18 12.95 126.97 502.80
Total 243.59 1,055.08 59.05 1,070.14 548.98 256.37 2,111.25

Note: SDF = secondary dryland forest, SMF = secondary mangrove forest, SSF = secondary swamp forest
101
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Figure 18: Land cover classification results for the expansion region, 2006
102
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
103
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
104
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
105
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
106
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
107
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
108
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
3) Calculation of historical deforestation
The result of the historical deforestation analysis of forest and non-forest areas at the beginning
and end of the historical period from 2006 2016. From these values, the area of deforestation
in ha in each historical reference interval was calculated, i.e., 2006 2009, 2009 2011, 2011
2012, 2012 2013, 2013 2014, 2014 2015, and 2015 2016. The results are presented in Table
26.
4) Map accuracy assessment
The accuracy assessment of the layers used was carried out according to the module BP -UP.
The evaluation was done for the layer of the year the project started (2016) was carried out, an
recent image to achieve the 90% minimum accuracy level of the map product is applicable to
the past images and will achieve the same accurac
As we are using the data from the Forest Ministry of Indonesia, we evaluate the layer of 2016
created by them and we compare it with a supervised classification of Landsat images of 2016
(September) performed by the GIS team of South pole. The supervised classification has 5
classes: Forest, Non-Forest, Water, clouds and shadows, in the Table 24 are shown the
109
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
separability among the classes, the maximum value is 2.0, values greater than 1.8 represents a
good separability.
Table 24: Separability values from the classes classified
Classes Separability
Forest and No forest 1.91986523
Clouds and No forest 1.98204409
Water and shadows 1.98976024
Clouds and shadows 1.99183256
Clouds and Forest 1.99681057
Water and clouds 1.99729464
Shadows and No forest 1.99900007
Water and No forest 1.99975772
Shadows and Forest 1.99998776
Water and Forest 2.00000000
To access the accuracy 300 points were created randomly using a GIS tool of the software
ArcGis, each point has the value of forest no forest from the layer of the ministry and the values of
the classification, and these values were compared in a confusion matrix. The final points
evaluated were 289 due some points were on clouds of shadows areas. The accuracy
assessment of the layer of 2016 used on the project presented an overall value of 96% greater
than the minimum required of 90% (Table 25).
Table 25: Confusion matrix
Ministry layer/
Year Forest Non-forest Total U accuracy
Classification
Forest 165 1 116 99%
Non-Forest 10 113 123 92%

2016
Total 175 114 28 -
P accuracy 94% 99% - 96%
Step 2: Estimation of the Annual Areas of Unplanned Baseline Deforestation in the RRD
The estimation of the annual area of deforestation in the RRD (ABSL,RRD,unplanned,t) was made using
the historical average annual deforestation during the historical reference period and equation
three of the BL-UP module.
ABSL,RRD,unplanned,t = ARRD,unplanned,hrp / Thrp
110
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Where:
ABSL,RRD,unplanned,t Projected area of unplanned baseline deforestation in the RRD in year t (ha)
ARRD,unplanned,hrp Total area deforested during the historical reference period in the RRD (ha)
Thrp Duration of the historical reference period in years (yr)
t 1, 2, 3, ... t* years elapsed since the projected start of the project activity
Thus, the annual area of unplanned deforestation in the RRD under the baseline scenario
(ABSL,RRD,unplanned,t) and according to historical deforestation analysis is 5,798.5 ha per year.
Table 26: Unplanned deforested area in the RRD under the baseline scenario (2006-2016)
Accumulated unplanned
Year Forest area (ha)
deforested area (ha)
2006 203,573.3 -
2009 201,173.0 2,400.3
2011 198,014.0 5,559.3
2012 191,787.1 11,786.2
2013 179,996.0 23,577.3
2014 155,330.6 48,242.7
2015 154,635.7 48,937.6
2016 145,588.4 57,984.9
Total area of unplanned deforested in the historical
5,798.5
reference period 2006-2016 (ha/year)
Step 3: Estimation of the Annual Areas of Unplanned Baseline Deforestation in the Project Area
The project uses applied spatial modeling. Therefore, equation four of the BL-UP module was
used to calculate the annual area of deforestation.
ABSL,RR,unplanned,t = ABSL,RRD,unplanned,t *PRRL
Where:
ABSL,RR,unplanned,t Projected area of unplanned baseline deforestation in the RRL in year t

(ha)
ABSL,RRD,unplanned,t Projected area of unplanned baseline deforestation in the RRD in year t

(ha)
111
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
PRRL Ratio of forest area in the RRL at the start of the baseline period to the
total area of the RRD; dimensionless
t 1, 2, 3, ... t* years elapsed since the projected start of the project activity
Table YY shows the unplanned annual projected deforestation and the accumulated deforestation
for the PA during the certification period of the project.
Table 27: Project annual unplanned deforestation and cumulative deforestation during
the first 10 years of project crediting period and under baseline scenario
Reference region Reference

Calendar Project area (PA)
(RRD) region (RRL)
year
ABSL,RRD,unplanned,t ABSL,RR,unplanned,t ABSL,PA,unplanned,t ABSL,PA,unplanned,cummulative
2017 5,798.5 3,289.94 1,114 1,114
2018 5,798.5 4,934.91 1,671 2,786
2019 5,798.5 4,934.91 1,671 4,457
2020 5,798.5 4,934.91 1,671 6,128
2021 5,798.5 4,934.91 1,671 7,800
2022 5,798.5 4,934.91 1,671 9,471
2023 5,798.5 4,934.91 1,671 11,142
2024 5,798.5 4,934.91 1,671 12,814
2025 5,798.5 4,934.91 1,671 14,485
2026 5,798.5 4,934.91 1,671 16,156
2027 5,798.5 1,644.97 557 16,713
Source: Prepared by South Pole, 2022.
3.2.1.3 Location and quantification of the threat of unplanned deforestation
All the location analysis and quantification of the unplanned deforestation threat in this part of the
module is performed using the reference region for the deforestation location (RRL) previously
defined. The basic steps needed to perform the analysis described above are as follows:
STEP 1. Determination of whether location analysis is required
Considering that the historical deforestation in the reference region and PA have a frontier
configuration, therefore the location analysis is required.
STEP 2. Define the location of deforestation by stratum
The modeling was carried out with the Dynamic EGO V5 program that allows modeling of
environmental dynamics from the generation of future scenarios to understand their evolution
over time. The simulation sought to determine changes in forest coverage based on geographic
information (raster files) from the years 2006 and 2016, identifying variables associated and
factors related to changing forest to non-forest.
112
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
The Details of the future deforestation analysis can be found in the support document of
20210915_Future_deforestation_Model_Padang_Tikar.
113
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
3.2.1.4 Estimation of carbon stock changes and GHG emissions
The estimation of the changes in the carbon stocks and GHG emissions was developed based on
the five following sub-steps:
STEP 1. Stratification of the total area subject to deforestation
In case of REDD, the stratification is done considering the carbon content in the above-ground
biomass of the forest prior to the deforestation event. The strata are the same in the baseline and
in the project scenario; land uses after deforestation (post-deforestation scenario) are not
stratified.
The stratification was performed following one of the approaches explained in module 'VMD0016-
X-STR v1.2', corresponding to the stratification of aerial biomass using remote sensing (RS).
Based on the information, the forests present in the PA were selected, corresponding to:
1) secondary dryland forest without peatland

2) secondary dryland forest with peat
3) secondary mangrove forest without peatland
4) secondary mangrove forest with peat
5) secondary swamp forest without peatland
6) secondary swamp forest with peat
STEP 2. Estimation of carbon stocks and carbon stock changes per stratum
Forest carbon stock
The values of aboveground biomass (AGB) and soil carbon stock in the secondary forest were
used the National FREL for deforestation and forest degradation in Indonesia (2015). The values
used for the calculation can be seen in the Table 29.
Table 29: Values of carbon stock used
Stratum AGB (tCO2e/ha) SOC (tCO2e/ha)

SDF no peat 350.35 -
SDF peat 350.35 No peat in SDF
SMF no peat 333.54 -
SMF peat 333.54 -
SSF no peat 293.83 -
SSF peat 293.83 19.00
Source: National FREL for deforestation and forest degradation in Indonesia, 2015
115
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Post-deforestation carbon stocks
The post-deforestation scenario was analyzed in section 3.1.5 and the scenario considered as a
mixed agricultural activity by smallholders. The AGB value of carbon stock in the post-
deforestation scenario is 83.3 tCO2e/ha.96
STEP 3. Estimation of the total GHGs under the baseline scenario in the project area
Estimation of carbon stock changes per stratum in aboveground biomass
For terrestrial carbon pools, stock changes in each pool are calculated by subtracting post-
deforestation carbon stocks from forest carbon stocks.
CAB,tree,i = CAB,tree,bsl,i C AB,tree,post,i
Where:
CAB,tree,i Baseline carbon stock change in aboveground tree biomass in stratum i;

t CO2e ha-1
CAB,tree,bsl,i Forest carbon stock in aboveground tree biomass in stratum i; t CO2e ha-1
CAB,tree,post,i Post-deforestation carbon stock in aboveground tree biomass in stratum i;
t CO2e ha-1
Table 30: Estimation of carbon stock changes per stratum in the AGB pool (SDF No peat)
Calendar year CAB,tree,bsl,I (tCO2e) CAB,tree,post,I (tCO2e) CAB,tree,I (tCO 2e)

2017 0 0 0
2018 0 0 0
2019 0 0 0
2020 17,290 4,111 13,179
2021 0 0 0
2022 138,317 32,886 105,431
2023 0 0 0
2024 0 0 0
2025 0 0 0
2026 0 0 0
2027 0 0 0
96H.L. Tata, 2019, Mixed farming system on peatland in Jambi and Cetral Kalimantan provinces, Indonesia: should
they be described as paludiculture?, Mires and Peat, volume 25 (1-17).
116
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Table 31: Estimation of carbon stock changes per stratum in the AGB pool (SDF peat)

2017 0 0 0
2018 0 0 0
2019 0 0 0
2020 0 0 0
2021 0 0 0
2022 0 0 0
2023 0 0 0
2024 0 0 0
2025 0 0 0
2026 0 0 0
2027 0 0 0
Table 32: Estimation of carbon stock changes per stratum in the AGB pool (SMF No
peat)

2017 0 0 0
2018 0 0 0
2019 0 0 0
2020 0 0 0
2021 0 0 0
2022 526,724 131,545 395,179
2023 49,380 12,332 37,048
2024 345,663 86,326 259,336
2025 0 0 0
2026 0 0 0
2027 21,947 5,481 16,466
Table 33: Estimation of carbon stock changes per stratum in the AGB pool (SMF peat)

2017 0 0 0
2018 0 0 0
2019 0 0 0
2020 0 0 0
2021 0 0 0
2022 0 0 0
2023 0 0 0
2024 0 0 0
2025 0 0 0
2026 0 0 0
2027 0 0 0
117
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Table 34: Estimation of carbon stock changes per stratum in the AGB pool (SSF No peat)

2017 251,336 71,254 180,083
2018 145,002 41,108 103,894
2019 449,505 127,434 322,071
2020 565,507 160,321 405,186
2021 159,502 45,219 114,283
2022 652,508 184,985 467,523
2023 232,003 65,773 166,230
2024 246,503 69,883 176,620
2025 0 0 0
2026 58,001 16,443 41,558
2027 77,334 21,924 55,410
Table 35: Estimation of carbon stock changes per stratum in the AGB pool (SSF peat)

2017 715,342 202,799 512,543
2018 1,305,016 369,971 935,045
2019 1,000,512 283,644 716,868
2020 870,011 246,647 623,364
2021 1,290,516 365,860 924,656
2022 217,503 61,662 155,841
2023 1,189,014 337,084 851,930
2024 899,011 254,869 644,142
2025 1,450,018 411,078 1,038,939
2026 1,392,017 394,635 997,382
2027 381,838 108,251 273,587
Table 36: The sum of GHG in AGB pool
Calendar SDF SDF SMF SMF SSF SSF Sum

year No peat peat No peat peat No peat peat (tCO2e/year)
2017 0 0 0 0 180,083 512,543 692,626
2018 0 0 0 0 103,894 935,045 1,038,939
2019 0 0 0 0 322,071 716,868 1,038,939
2020 13,179 0 0 0 405,186 623,364 1,041,729
2021 0 0 0 0 114,283 924,656 1,038,939
2022 105,431 0 395,179 0 467,523 155,841 1,123,974
2023 0 0 37,048 0 166,230 851,930 1,055,209
2024 0 0 259,336 0 176,620 644,142 1,080,098
2025 0 0 0 0 0 1,038,939 1,038,939
2026 0 0 0 0 41,558 997,382 1,038,939
2027 0 0 16,466 0 55,410 273,587 345,463
118
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Estimation of carbon stock changes per stratum in soil
Soil emissions were calculated according to the guideline of modules VMD0007 (BL-UP) and
VMD0050 (BL-TW). Since there is no peatland in secondary dryland forest and secondary
mangrove forest, hence the SOC calculation is for secondary swamp forest only.
Total GHG emissions from land were calculated as follows:
,, ,, )
Where:
GHGBSL-TW Net GHG emissions in the WRC baseline scenario on tidal wetland up to year t*;
t CO2e
GHGBSL-TW,i,t GHG emissions in the WRC baseline scenario on tidal wetland in stratum i in
year t; t CO2e ha-1 yr-1
ABSL,i,t Area of stratum i in year t in the baseline scenario; ha
i 1, 2, 3 ...MBSL strata in the baseline scenario
t 1, 2, 3, ... t* years elapsed since the project start date
Table 37: Estimation of soil carbon stock per stratum
Calendar SDF SDF SMF SMF SSF SSF Sum

year No peat peat No peat peat No peat peat (tCO2e/year)
2017 0 0 0 0 0 77,906 77,906
2018 0 0 0 0 0 220,031 220,031
2019 0 0 0 0 0 328,994 328,994
2020 0 0 0 0 0 423,745 423,745
2021 0 0 0 0 0 564,291 564,291
2022 0 0 0 0 0 587,979 587,979
2023 0 0 0 0 0 717,471 717,471
2024 0 0 0 0 0 815,379 815,379
2025 0 0 0 0 0 973,297 973,297
2026 0 0 0 0 0 1,124,897 1,124,897
2027 0 0 0 0 0 1,166,482 1,166,482
STEP 4. Calculation of net CO2 equivalent emissions
As the project does not consider GHG emission from the CO2 emitted by fossil fuel burning, GHG
emissions other than CO22 from biomass burning as part of deforestation activities, or direct N2O
emissions from nitrogen application in alternative land-use scenarios within the project
boundaries, the net CO2 emissions from the PA under baseline scenario were calculated as:
119
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
, , ,
Where:
, , total change in the C sinks of all reservoirs in stratum i (tCO2e); and
, total change in the C sinks of all PA pools at time t* (tCO 2e)
Table 38: Net GHG emissions due to unplanned deforestation in the baseline
Calendar year Sum AGB (tCO2e) Sum SOC (tCO2e)

(tCO2e)
2017 692,626 77,906 770,532
2018 1,038,939 220,031 1,258,970
2019 1,038,939 328,994 1,367,933
2020 1,041,729 423,745 1,465,473
2021 1,038,939 564,291 1,603,230
2022 1,123,974 587,979 1,711,952
2023 1,055,209 717,471 1,772,679
2024 1,080,098 815,379 1,895,477
2025 1,038,939 973,297 2,012,235
2026 1,038,939 1,124,897 2,163,836
2027 345,463 1,166,482 1,511,945
3.2.2 Project Emissions
For the project scenario, a deforestation reduction efficiency index of 52% was considered and
applied to the unplanned deforestation of the baseline scenario. This efficiency index was
calculated as the ratio between the historical annual deforestation of the RR and the annual
deforestation of the PA for the period 2017 2020.
, , , = , , ,
Where:
, , , projected area of unplanned deforestation in the PA under the project

scenario in year t (ha)
, , , projected area of unplanned deforestation in the PA under the baseline

scenario in year t (ha)
EI efficiency index of REDD project activities (dimensionless); and

t 1, 2, 3, ... t * years elapsed since the start date of the REDD project
activity
120
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Table 39: Project emissions
Calendar year 2e)

2017 369,791
2018 604,200
2019 656,493
2020 703,304
2021 769,416
2022 821,593
2023 850,737
2024 909,670
2025 965,704
2026 1,038,459
2027 725,607
3.2.3 Leakage
For ex-ante estimates, the project will use a 15 percent deduction to gross GHG emission
reductions and/or removals to account for activity displacement leakage, in accordance with the
guidelines in section 3.14.13 of the VCS Standard v.4.2. Total deforestation displacement
leakage is presented in Table 40.
Table 40: Deforestation in leakage beat
Calendar year LK_REDD (tCO2e)

2017 60,112
2018 98,216
2019 106,716
2020 114,326
2021 125,073
2022 133,554
2023 138,292
2024 147,872
2025 156,980
2026 168,807
2027 117,951
3.2.4 Net GHG Emission Reductions and Removals
Total net GHG emission reductions from the REDD project activity were calculated as follows:
+ , , ,
, , ,
121
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Where:
+ net reduction of GHG emissions in year t* (tCO2e);
, net GHG emissions in year t* under the baseline scenario (tCO2)
, net GHG emissions in year t* under the project scenario (tCO2)
, net GHG emissions from GHG leakage in year t* (tCO2)
, net GHG emissions due to unplanned deforestation under the baseline scenario
(tCO2e)
, net GHG emissions due to unplanned deforestation under the project scenario
(tCO2e)
, net GHG leakage emissions due to unplanned deforestation (tCO2e)
Year Estimated Estimated project Estimated Estimated net

baseline emissions or leakage GHG emission
emissions or removals (tCO2e) emissions reductions or
removals (tCO2e) (tCO2e) removals (tCO2e)
Year 2017 770,532 369,791 60,112 340,629
Year 2018 1,258,970 604,200 98,216 556,554
Year 2019 1,367,933 656,493 106,716 604,724
Year 2020 1,465,473 703,304 114,326 647,843
Year 2021 1,603,230 769,416 125,073 708,741
Year 2022 1,711,952 821,593 133,554 756,805
Year 2023 1,772,679 850,737 138,292 783,650
Year 2024 1,895,477 909,670 147,872 837,935
Year 2025 2,012,235 965,704 156,980 889,551
Year 2026 2,163,836 1,038,459 168,807 956,570
Year 2027 1,511,945 725,607 117,951 668,387
Total 17,534,262 8,414,974 1,367,899 7,751,389
122
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
3.3 Monitoring
3.3.1 Data and Parameters Available at Validation
Data / Parameter PA
Data unit ha
Description Project area
Source of data See section 3.2.1.1
Value applied 58,677.6 ha
Justification of choice The description of the methods and procedures is presented in

of data or description of section 3.2.1.1
measurement methods
and procedures applied
Purpose of data Determination of baseline scenario
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter LK
Data unit ha
Description Leakage bet area

measurement methods
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter RRL
Data unit ha
123
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Description Reference Region for Projecting Location of Deforestation

measurement methods
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter RRD
Data unit ha
Description Reference Region for Projecting rate of Deforestation

measurement methods
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter Thrp
Data unit years
Description Duration of the historical reference period
Value applied 10 years
124
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Justification of choice
of data or description of
measurement methods
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter ABSL,RRD,unplanned,t

Data unit Ha/year
Description Estimated annual deforestation in the RR for the historical

reference period

measurement methods
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter PRRL
Data unit Dimensionless
Description Ratio of forest area in the RRL at the start of the baseline period to
the total area of theRRD
Value applied 0.85

measurement methods
125
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter ABSL,PA,unplanned,t
Data unit ha/year
Description Projected area of unplanned deforestation in the PA in year t
Value applied
measurement methods
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter ABSL,LK,unplanned,t
Data unit ha/year
Description Projected area of unplanned deforestation in the LK in year t
Value applied
measurement methods
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter ABSL,I,t

Data unit ha
Description Area of stratum i in year t under the baseline scenario
Source of data X-STR module
Value applied See Table 29 for the carbon contents in AGB and SOC
126
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Justification of choice of
data or description of
measurement methods
Purpose of data Calculation of baseline emissions
Calculation of project emissions
Calculation of leakage
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter CAB,tree,bsl,i
Data unit tCO2e/ha
Description Forest carbon stock in aboveground tree biomass in stratum i
Source of data See section 3.2.1.4 (National FREL for deforestation and forest
degradation in Indonesia, 2015)
Value applied See Table 30,
Table 31, Table 32, Table 33,
Table 34 and Table 35

measurement methods
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter CAB,tree,post,i
Data unit tCO2e/ha
Description Post-deforestation carbon stock in aboveground tree biomass in

stratum i
Value applied See Table 30,
127
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Table 31, Table 32, Table 33,
Table 34 and Table 35

measurement methods
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter CSOC,bsl,i
Data unit tCO2e/ha
Description Forest carbon stock in soil organic carbon in stratum i
Source of data See section 3.2.1.4 (National FREL for deforestation and forest
degradation in Indonesia, 2015)
Value applied See Table 37
measurement methods
Comments N/A
3.3.2 Data and Parameters Monitored
Data / Parameter
Data unit Indicate the unit of measure
128
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Description Provide a brief description of the data/parameter
Source of data Indicate the source(s) of data
Description of Specify the measurement methods and procedures, any

measurement methods standards or protocols to be followed, and the person/entity
and procedures to be responsible for the measurement. Include any relevant information
regarding the accuracy of the measurements (e.g., accuracy
applied
associated with meter equipment or laboratory tests).
Frequency of Specify measurement and recording frequency

monitoring/recording
Value applied Provide an estimated value for the data/parameter
Monitoring equipment Identify equipment used to monitor the data/parameter including

type, accuracy class, and serial number of equipment, as
appropriate.
QA/QC procedures to Describe the quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC)
be applied procedures to be applied, including the calibration procedures
where applicable.
Purpose of data Indicate one of the following:

Calculation of baseline emissions
Calculation method Where relevant, provide the calculation method, including any
equations, used to establish the data/parameter.
Comments Provide any additional comments
3.3.3 Monitoring Plan
Table 41: Monitoring plan
Activity Frequency Method

Use of RS and spatial
Estimated area of At each monitoring period analysis, following the
deforestation in the PA (i.e., at least every five requirements of
and LB, converted to years, according to the 'M- methodology 'VM0007' and
others land use at time t MON' module) module 'VMD007 (BL-UP)
v3.3'
Estimation of the accuracy At each monitoring period Use of RS and spatial
of land cover maps (i.e., at least every five analysis, following the
129
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
years, according to the 'M- requirements of

MON' module) methodology 'VM0007' and
module 'VMD007 (BL-UP)
v3.3'
Identification of significant At each monitoring period Use of RS and spatial
disturbances in the forest (i.e., at least every five analysis, following the
strata years, according to the 'M- requirements of
MON' module) methodology 'VM0007' and
Using high spatial module 'VMD007 (BL-UP)
resolution imagery, v3.3'
supported by information Periodic inspection with
collected in the field satellite information and
field work by the project
promoters
3.3.4 Dissemination of Monitoring Plan and Results (CL4.2)

Describe how the monitoring plan, and any results of monitoring undertaken in accordance with
the monitoring plan, will be disseminated and made publicly available on the internet. Describe
the means by which summaries (at minimum) of the monitoring plan and results will be
communicated to the communities and other stakeholders.
3.4 Optional Criterion: Climate Change Adaptation Benefits

The project does not seek to validate Gold Level for climate change adaptation benefits.
4 COMMUNITY
4.1 Without-Project Community Scenario
4.1.1 Descriptions of Communities at Project Start (CM1.1)

Padang Tikar Landscape Project is located in Kubu Raya District and Batu Ampar sub-district in
West Kalimantan. It has 15 villages under its territory, of which ten villages have obtained Village
Forest Management Right. These ten villages have received Village Forest Permits from the
Ministry of Environment and Forestry in 2017, which provides the communities to manage village
forests. Total area of Village Forests is 76,370 Ha, or 47% of total land size in ten villages which
include settlement areas and other non-forest land use (160,560 Ha)97. Batu Ampar sub-district
comprises 15 islands 98, and only 5 islands are inhabited for human settlement 99.
Population
In 2020, total population in 10 villages within the project area was 26,693 people, comprising 51%
of male and 49% of female 100. Negative population growth of about -1% was found during the period
97
BPS Kubu Raya, Batu Ampar District in Figure 2021
98
Village Forests Management Plan of Padang Tikar Landscape 2018-2028
99 BPS Kubu Raya, Kubu Raya District in Figure 2022
100 BPS Kubu Raya, Batu Ampar District in Figure 2021 (no detail information on the number of households (HHs),
but presumably around 7,000 HHs according to data in 2019
130
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
of 2017-2020, whereas population growth in the Batu Ampar district is between 0-0.7%. Based on
data from Statistics Indonesia, 49.21% of the population are adults of productive age, followed by
children at 30.13%, teenagers at 16.31%, and the elderly at 4.34%. The education level of the
population in Padang Tikar is as follows: 35.30% are elementary school graduates, 15.34% are
secondary school graduates, 0.9% are higher education graduates, 31.72% never attended formal
education institutions, and 16.74% are unable to read. Due to the limited availability of educational
facilities in the area, people who are eager to continue on to higher education (vocational schools,
colleges, or universities) must migrate to Pontianak or other nearby cities. Regarding health care
coverage, 61% of the population in the landscape is covered by the national system, 14% by private
health care coverage, and 25% lacks any coverage 101.
Table 42: Population in Padang Tikar Landscape in 2020
Village Total Population Male Female

(people)
Padang Tikar Satu 4183 2077 2106
Medan Mas 966 480 486
Tasik Malaya 1273 636 637
Sungai Besar 1052 542 510
Sungai Jawi 923 475 448
Ambarawa 1045 529 516
Nipah Panjang 2752 1383 1369
Teluk Nibung 3793 1955 1838
Tanjung Harapan 1380 739 641
Batu Ampar 9326 4904 4422
Total 26693 13720 12973

Source: Batu Ampar District in Figure 2021
Ethnicity and local culture
Communities in Padang Tikar landscape consist of Melayu, Bugis and Chinese ethnicities as native
inhabitants, followed by groups of immigrants from several Java regions who end up living
permanently in the landscape. Most of the population are Muslim, therefore the culture and way of
living is greatly influenced by Muslim culture. For example, expressing gratitude for mother nature
has become an inseparable part of the community. In order to show gratitude towards the
abundance of natural resources, communities held Robo-robo rituals every Syawal month (based
on Islamic calendar). Syawal month is believed to be the month of prosperity, so it is considered
101 Main Project Assessment (MPA) of Padang Tikar Landscape Project dated 6 August 2021
131
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
as the time to express gratitude to Allah and also express the hope to be kept away from harm.
Robo-robo is celebrated by having lunch gathering by the river as the river is considered as the
source of life which provides daily needs for the community.
Livelihoods
93% of the population in ten villages are economically active, as stated in the statistical data of
Kubu Raya District in 2021. Padang Tikar coastal area is surrounded by estuary ecosystems and
most of them are only accessible by water transportation. Therefore, its communities have a high
dependency toward livelihood activities that are related to natural resource utilization, such as
agriculture, plantation, fisheries and forestry. These types of activities have been important to the
local communities for years. Among the activities are coconut cultivation, crab production from the
mangrove forests, timber logging for construction or woodchar production. Local communities also
cultivate paddy for self-consumption. Specifically in Batu Ampar Village, about 25% of the local
population involved in the charcoal production 102.
Threats to deforestation
In the landscape, factors that cause deforestation are the tendency to change forest cover into
another land use such as for agriculture, commercial plantation and infrastructure development.
Each village has a different main threat towards deforestation, for example in Batu Ampar main
threat to forest area is illegal timber harvesting for wood char production, while in Teluk Nibung
main threat is forest fire as a practice to land clearing for agriculture purposes. Agricultural
livelihoods mainly carried out by the community are establishment of paddy fields. Paddy fields are
initially being established to fulfill daily needs, afterwards when the production rate is exceeding,
the community starts to trade it at the local market. The cultivation system being implemented is
traditional cultivation which really depends on rainfall, although in some villages irrigation systems
have already been implemented in limited areas.
Meanwhile in the forestry sector, the project area was famous for its timber products, especially
dipterocarpaceae species in th
unsustainable practice carried out during the period brings more than ecological impact to the area.
Beside the skyrocketing deforestation rate in that period, it also brought severe sociological impact
such as low education level on the recent generation that impeded their ability to gain decent job
opportunity. During the New Order era, income from timber trading was so high that the second
generation in the family line chose to leave school and start working as loggers. The decision made
many years ago brings impact to the recent generation, when the amount of timber to be harvested
was plummeting, now there are limited options of job available for them. Most of them end up
sticking to logging practice for a smaller market scale with low income. This type of small scale
timber harvesting is one of the main causes of forest degradation in the project area.
102 Village Forests Management Plan in Padang Tikar Landscape 2018-2028
132
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
4.1.2 Interactions between Communities and Community Groups (CM1.1)
LPHD has an agreement with Sampan and Bentang Kalimantan as the supporting institution to
manage Village Forest specifically for carbon asset development projects.
Village Forest Management Unit was established to manage the implementation of Village Forest
in 10 villages along Padang Tikar Landscape area. As the leading group at the community level,
LPHD manages to build cooperation with community working groups such as farmers group,
fishermen group and other businesses groups. However, the village itself has local governmental
institutions which are chaired by the Head of the Village. During the development of several
conservation initiatives, integration and cooperation among the established community groups
have not been directed in the right manner. As most of the external stakeholders which approach
the villages were not specifically encouraging implementation of good governance. Most of the
time, the conservation initiatives were directed specifically to the Village Forest Management Unit,
this create some information gap with the rest of organizations or groups that existed in the villages
and usually leads to tended.
4.1.3 High Conservation Values (CM1.2)
ecosystem service must be in critical condition to qualify as HCV. Based on the HCV Category,
the HCV 5 Basic Needs for Community is relevant for Padang Tikar Landscape, particularly
mangrove forest and peat forest as the HCV areas. No HCV area critical for traditional cultural
identity of communities is found in the project area.
High Conservation Value Mangrove forest
Qualifying Attribute Mangrove forests provide income sources for the local
communities, such as from harvesting/production of crab,
shrimp and other fish products, timber and non-timber forest
products (NTFPs), beekeeping and honey production. Mangrove
forest protection blocks within the Village Forest Management
Rights cover the area of 34,820 Ha, of which 20,622 Ha is
included in the utilization blocks. Within the areas assigned,
local communities may utilize timber and NTFPs production,
silvofishery practices, ecosystem services, as well as protection,
restoration, and conservation activities, while ensuring
sustainability of mangrove forest resources.
Mangrove forests provide ecosystem services to the local
communities, in terms of flood and fire prevention and
protection, land and fisheries protection, wind protection and
microclimate regulation, pollination service, found mangrove
bees, as well as prevention of coastal erosion and protection of
mangrove ecosystem.
133
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Focal Area Primarily in Batu Ampar Village and Tanjung Harapan, and in
smaller size in Ambarawa, Nipah Panjang and Teluk Nibung.
Mangrove forests in other villages are not located within the
boundary of village forest permits, but still under an integral part
of the same mangrove ecosystem in Padang Tikar Landscape.
Silvofishery practices and beekeeping are located in all ten
villages.
High Conservation Value Peat forest
Qualifying Attribute Peat forests included within the Village Forest Management
Rights covers the area of 26,706 Ha, of which 10,533 Ha are
included in the utilization plots. Peat forests have provided
income for the local communities through coconut cultivation
and from other forest products, About 10,290 Ha is able to be
cultivated for agroforestry activities, and beekeeping for honey
production. Local communities also cultivate a range of NTFPs
such as (Oncosperma tigillarium) as building material for their
houses, fruit trees. Peatland is also suitable for nurturing a
variety of freshwater fishes and shrimps, and also become clean
water source for the local communities.
Ecosystem services:
- Provide holistic watershed management, including as
clean water source
- Protection for endangered species
Focal Area In all villages within the Project Area
4.1.4 Without-Project Scenario: Community (CM1.3)
Before the project started, illegal logging in mangroves and agriculture had been the most
widespread uses in the project area, causing an annual forest loss of 500 ha/year on average
These include insecurity in the region, lack of education and employment opportunities. These
factors had an impact on the biodiversity of the region as well, where practices like unsustainable
logging and an economy of illegal mangroves logging trade and unsustainable agricultural activities
were performed in the project area.
The unsustainable practice carried out during the past period brings more than ecological impact
to the area. Beside the skyrocketing deforestation rate in that period, it also brought severe
sociological impact such as low education level on the recent generation that impeded their ability
to gain decent job opportunity. During the New Order era, income from timber trading was so high
that the second generation in the family line chose to leave school and start working as loggers.
The decision made many years ago brings impact to the recent generation, when the amount of
134
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
timber to be harvested was plummeting, now there are limited options of job available for them.
Most of them end up sticking to logging practice for a smaller market scale with low income. This
type of small-scale timber harvesting is one of the main causes of forest degradation in the project
area.
Continuation of above practices in the project area is going to bring harm to the mangrove and
peatland ecosystem, which lead by land clearing with forest fire potential or coastal erosion or
scarcity of natural resources or extinction of protected species.
4.2 Net Positive Community Impacts
4.2.1 Expected Community Impacts (CM2.1)
Since the commencement of the project in 2017, Village Forest permits have been obtained in ten
villages, to support the community-based forest management covering 76,370 hectares of
mangrove forests, peatlands and dry forests. The project is expected to directly benefit
approximately 13,000 villagers with alternative livelihood opportunities and better forest
management to ensure sustainable production and forest protection (Padang Tikar Landscape
MPA, 2021). Broadly, the project could also benefit the population in ten villages for over 26,000
people.
Based on the Theory of Change developed, the project will improve livelihoods of the local
communities, and strengthen the village institutions, including LPHD, village governments and
other community groups exist in the project areas (e.g. micro-small scale business owned by
ToC will be directly and indirectly related to the communities, as several outputs and activities will
be implemented by various community groups described as follow:
1. Enhancement of the carrying capacity of critical peat hydrological units in Village Forests
will require (i) strengthened community capacity in fire prevention in the Village Forests,
and (ii) monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of the village forest areas
implemented. At the activity level, this outcome will involve local communities, LPHD,
village governments.
2. Protection of rare, endemic and endangered wild plants and animals in Village Forests
will require development of forest, biodiversity, social and economic impacts in the Village
Forests. Activities to achieve this outcome and output will require strong involvement of
the LPHD, village governments and village facilitators. Local communities will also be
highly expected to be involved in the protection of biodiversity.
Increased welfare of the community by encouraging alternative sustainable income with
leadership of the LPHD. It requires development and continuous improvement of village forest
enterprises as alternative livelihood options for local communities, and strong institutional
capacity of the LPHDs to plan, implement, monitor and evaluate Village Forest Management
Plans. At the level of activity, the aforementioned outcome and outputs require participation of the
LPHDs, village governments, local communities, village facilitators, and perhaps to some extent
the business communities both within and outside the project areas.
135
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Community Group Local communities in the project area, including villagers,

community leaders, fire starters, illegal loggers, fishermen,
farmers, middlemen, palm oil smallholders, women, vulnerable
groups, people with disability, and other marginalized groups if
any
Impact(s) Promotion of alternative livelihood options generated by the
project activities
Opportunities to work or do business from activities
generated by the project
Increased household income
Improved capacity in managing village forest responsibly
and sustainably under the mandate of the Village Forest
permit
Improved active and meaningful participation during project
lifetime
restored critical mangrove and peat ecosystem to ensure
sustainable livelihood and better living condition
Type of Benefit/Cost/Risk Direct benefit:
improved capacities in forest management and business
development
better livelihood options and income generation
improved quality of life in environmental, social and
economic aspects
Indirect benefit: reducing emissions from deforestation and
forest degradation in project area
Risk/cost:
potential conflict among different community groups and/or
with village institutions (e.g. LPHD, village government,
KUPS, etc)
diversity of skills, interests and willingness to participate in
and to gain benefits from the project
maintaining or keeping old habits which may continue
deforestation and degradation
Change in Well-being Direct positive impact in form of:
strengthened capacity in Village Forest management,
including reduction of deforestation and degradation, and
protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services
strengthened leadership capacity in business development
to provide alternative livelihood options for local
communities
permanence of activities for the conservation of biodiversity
136
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Community Group Village Forest Management Unit (LPHD)
Impact(s) Increased capacities of the LPHD staff in each village, in terms

of planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating Village
Forest Management Plans.
Type of Benefit/Cost/Risk Direct benefit: improved capacities in forest management and
business development
Possible risk: replacement of the LPHD staff might need
restarting of capacity building efforts and hold back
implementation of the work plan.
communities
Community Group Village Government and Village Representative Body (Badan

Permusyawaratan Desa/BPD)
Impact(s) Increased capacities of village government and/or BPD
staff in forest management
Strengthened village governance
improved capacities in forest management and village
affairs
improved capacity in providing villagers with alternative
livelihood options and better environmental protection
better understanding of the forest management and
business
Possible risk:
replacement of the village government and/or BPD staff
might need restarting of capacity building efforts and hold
back implementation of the work plan.
village politics may affect the project implementation and
relationship with the local communities and other entities
137
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

strengthened leadership capacity in implementing good
village governance
Community Group Social Forestry Business Group (KUPS)
Impact(s) Increased capacities of the KUPS in developing business of

potential communities in Village Forest areas responsibly
and sustainably
Improved participation in the development and
implementation of Village Forest Management Plan
business development
Possible risk: diversity in skills and interests towards social
forestry business and responsible management
communities
Community Group Fire Care Community Group (Masyarakat Peduli Api)
Impact(s) Increased capacities in forest fire prevention

Improved participation in the development and
implementation of Village Forest Management Plan
fire prevention
Risk/cost: ad-hoc and seasonal
138
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

particularly in forest fire prevention
Community Group Forest Management Unit (KPH)
Impact(s) Manage the state-owned forest area in regional level Kubu

Raya, West Kalimantan
Type of Benefit/Cost/Risk Indirect positive impact on reducing emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation in project area
Change in Well-being N/A
4.2.2 Negative Community Impact Mitigation (CM2.2)
Based on consultation with the community during LSC, several possible negative impacts were
identified. For each of the possible identified impacts, the project has a mitigation strategy
associated with the nature of the project.
Negative impacts Mitigation strategy
Disparity among benefit recipients within Benefit sharing mechanism; to avoid possible
community groups conflicts over the misallocation of resource,
project will have a specific benefit sharing
mechanism that specifies type of benefits
generated by the project which in-line with the
outcome (protection, production, inclusion)
including the rules and mechanisms to
distribute the benefits fairly in accordance to
root of problems faced by specific village or
community groups.
Planning activities that not in line with outcome The project will develop a detailed work plan
to be achieved which includes a strategic plan and timeline of
implemented activities based on the important
issues concerning each village. Each village
will have a different work plan to address the
issues in their area.
Less effective socialization process and The project has had and will continue to
communication channels conduct a series of meetings, training and
discussions to guarantee that each
information. The project has developed a

specific channel of communication for each
village which adapted to the dynamics of the
needs and communities.
Institutional problems and conflicts between The project will have a different approach to
139
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
communities group or local institutions address different stakeholders which have

different agendas toward the project
development without eliminating the key
information and the initial goals to be achieved
by the project.
4.2.3 Net Positive Community Well-Being (CM2.3, GL1.4)
Padang Tikar Landscape has enormous potential in terms of its natural resources: these include
plantations, fisheries, agriculture and its forestry sector. As the project activities started to take
place, the implementation of protection, production and inclusion schemes were applied in the
village.
Sungai Jawi village has a large coconut plantation, which is also in Teluk Nibung and Nipah
Panjang. Project activities in Sungai Jawi focus on improving the quality of coconut derivative
products such as coconut char. Coconut farmers used to sell their commodities at a lower price
due to the lower quality of the derivative coconut products. The project activities include capacity
building for farmers to broaden their knowledge of markets so they can scale up their business,
enhance their understanding of sustainable coconut plantation management and how to maintain
a commodity supply chain. In sustainable production, the plan is to develop a production facility for
coconut char in an integrated factory which is also able to utilize the smoke from incinerators as a
liquid pesticide.
Batu Ampar village depends directly and indirectly on mangrove ecosystem resources. The majority
of actors in Batu Ampar are fishermen and charcoal producers. Project owners mentioned that
fuelwood extraction has occurred since 1902. The mangrove forest was illegally logged by local
people using selective logging techniques. This deforestation/degradation of mangrove forests has
occurred in a mosaic pattern. The local community in Batu Ampar village produced charcoal from
charcoal kilns for domestic use, while also marketing the charcoal to Pontianak and Japan. The
increase in the price and demand for charcoal resulted in an increase in the number of charcoal
kilns in the village. In 2020, 400 charcoal kilns were constructed in Batu Ampar village. Aside from
illegal logging, the local community's second most common occupation is fishing, with about 38%
of local communities depending for their livelihood on the fishery sectors. That said, communities
do still comply with traditional fishing practices. Project activities that are being introduced in Batu
Ampar include developing crab farming with financial support from soft loans. Crab farming is
proposed because the mangrove ecosystems are a good habitat for crabs and their seedlings to
breed in, but crab farming also acts as an alternative occupation for local people who used to work
as illegal loggers. Crab production business units have been in operation since 2018, but today
there are 95 pond units that also provide supporting infrastructure, such as connecting bridges and
patrol houses. Among the 95 pond units, as many as ±9,000 crab seedlings, amounting to 1.5 tons,
have been released into the pond; local communities also observe an increasing amount of natural
crab seedlings outside the ponds since the release.
Teluk Nibung Village is prone to forest fires because of its ecological condition but also because
of social pressure. The village is located in peat areas, which are susceptible to forest fires during
140
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
the long dry season, with high El-Nino. Land opening using fires is a common practice for
beginning agriculture. Project activities proposed in this village are fire mitigation and control
equipment. Besides the effort to mitigate fires, project activities also provide an alternative source
of income, in the form of the honey farming of stingless bees in the back/front yard. Project
owners support the supply of equipment, and also provide a network in the honey market. The
stingless bee honey has a distinct flavor: it has a darker color, a slightly sour taste, and it contains
propolis, which means that the price for it is higher than for other types of honey. The honey
production business unit is also able to access soft loans to upscale their business through the
4.2.4 High Conservation Values Protected (CM2.4)

None of the HCV related areas will be adversely affected by the project activities. Moreover, the
project activities are designed to support the conservation efforts in the landscape.
4.3 Other Stakeholder Impacts
4.3.1 Impacts on Other Stakeholders (CM3.1)
As described in Section 2.1.9, several other stakeholders reside or operate outside the project
area and indirectly affected by the project have been identified. Since the project is expected to
have long term impacts.
Community Group Concession companies nearby project area
Impact(s) Holistic efforts for forest protection and addressing main threats
in the landscape which are forest and land fires. Project
activities also provide alternative livelihoods for communities
that will lead to less potential conflicts among the community
groups and companies.
Type of Benefit/Cost/Risk Indirect benefit as the result of implementation of project
activities. Companies around the project area have their own
initiative to conduct forest protection toward fires, a defined
boundaries clarifies responsibility among communities and
companies, however in line strategy will result in a broader area
to be protected from forest and land fires.
Change in Well-being Positive impact in form of:
coordinate activities to reduce deforestation and fires
occurrences
reduce institutional barriers related to the installed capacity
of the corporations
Community Group Village population outside the project area and in the adjacent
villages
141
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Impact(s) Opportunities to work or do business from activities

generated by the project
Improved capacity in managing village forest responsibly
and sustainably under the mandate of the Village Forest
permit
Restored critical mangrove and peat ecosystem to ensure
sustainable livelihood and better living condition
improved quality of life in environmental, social and
economic aspects
Risk/cost:
maintaining or keeping old habits which may continue
deforestation and degradation
communities
Community Group Non-Government Organization (NGO)
Impact(s) The existence of several NGOs in the project area and adjacent
areas has been identified. They mainly work in community
empowerment, promoting sustainable business for local
communities, and environmental protection.
The project may give positive impacts to the NGOs as aligned
with their goals, including community empowerment, business
management and environmental protection.
Type of Benefit/Cost/Risk Benefit: NGOs may obtain information on the project and use it
as a model for replication and evaluation of other programs, as
well as to help monitor the implementation of the Village Forest
Management Plans. They may also be involved in the business
development generated by the project through the supply chain.
Risk: conflict of interests with stakeholders in the project area
Change in Well-being Sharing of information on forest management and business
development
142
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Community Group Central Government
Impact(s) Central government may give positive and negative impacts to

the project and local communities through issuance of policy,
regulation or decision making applied nationally and/or locally.
Type of Benefit/Cost/Risk Benefit: achievement of the NDC target.
Risk: political dynamic and issuance of policy which may affect
project implementation
Change in Well-being N/A
4.3.2 Mitigation of Negative Impacts on Other Stakeholders (CM3.2)

Negative impacts to other stakeholders identified above may include conflict of interests among
different groups or institutions. The project will establish a solid stakeholder engagement plan,
communication strategy and grievance redress mechanism to wider stakeholders. The project will
also maintain active communication channels with stakeholders throughout the crediting period,
which will allow stakeholders to voice their concerns, comments, suggestions, questions,
requests, and complaints related to the project. A monitoring plan will also be developed and
executed throughout the crediting period to ensure that negative impacts will be avoided or
minimised.
4.3.3 Net Impacts on Other Stakeholders (CM3.3)
The project is expected to have positive long-term impacts on well-being of all stakeholders
associated with the project, especially for private sector groups. In comparison with the conditions
foreseen in the scenario without project activities, for the same reasons as for the community
groups. Without project scenario all stakeholders have a financial barriers and lack of capabilities
related to:
1. manage a holistic approach to support the effort to reduce forest degradation and
deforestation activities in the project area due to unsustainable practices of natural
resources utilization
2. overcome the diversity of entities with different functions and/or competencies that
potentially bring conflict within the management
The project activities and work plan are designed to break-down those barriers mentioned above
and contribute to the achievement of projected benefit for all stakeholders associated.
4.4 Community Impact Monitoring
4.4.1 Community Monitoring Plan (CM4.1, CM4.2, GL1.4, GL2.2, GL2.3, GL2.5)
A monitoring plan is proposed and designed to identify the communities, community groups and
other actors that need to be monitored, parameters need to be monitored, mechanisms to be
monitored and the frequency of monitoring and reporting. It refers to the Theory of Change, which
143
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
shows a route of changes based on the analysis of the situation modified with the implementation
of project activities. The plan is to design the monitoring for a five-year period, with the possibility
of modifying or including or eliminating indicators according to the dynamics of the project and the
fulfillment of the objectives.
Preparation and implementation of the monitoring plan will involve local communities in the
project area and community groups such as LPHD, village government, BPD. In accordance with
the Theory of Change, the Project will monitor outcomes, outputs and direct threats. As for impact
indicators, several SDGs indicators have been selected in Section 2.1.12.
described in Section 2.1.11. Indicators selected for community monitoring plan will include those
directly related to the community activities and/or results.
Elements from Variables Proposed Proposed Proposed

Theory of Indicator Method Monitoring
Change Frequency
Direct threat Land and forest Number of fire GIS analysis Monthly
fire incident and ground
recorded which checking
caused by
community
and/or company
activities
Illegal logging Number of Ground checking Monthly

people
harvesting wood
illegally (by
village forest)
Agricultural land Number of GIS analysis Annually

expansion people utilizing Ground checking
land for Document
agriculture review (if any
activities (by official permit for
village forest) land expansion
is issued)
Output Strengthened Number of Training By event

community trained forest attendance list
capacity in fire patrol members
prevention in (by gender)
Village Forests Forest patrol Monthly
Recorded forest work plan and
patrolling implementation
activities
Social and Number of Field survey to Baseline

economic alternative local Every 2 years
144
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

Change Frequency
database livelihood communities throughout

businesses project lifetime
generated
Number of
people involved
in the alternative
business as
owner and/or
workers (by
gender, age,
occupation)
Number of
community
members
participate in
project activities
(by gender and
vulnerable
group)
Village Forest Number of Establish Village Biannually

enterprises Village Forest Forest enterprise
developed and enterprises database with
improved as established detail information
alternative on alternative
livelihood Number of livelihood
options for local Village Forest options and
communities Enterprises able enterprise
to generate activities
alternative
livelihood
options
LPHD able to Number of LPHD training Incidental

plan, implement, trained LPHD database
monitor and staff (by village
evaluate Village forest, gender,
Forest and other
Management attributes)
Plans (VFMPs)
Number of LPHD Updated Quarterly
staffs actively attendance of
involved in participation list
planning, in each activity
implementation,
monitoring and
evaluation of the
145
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

Change Frequency
VFMPs
Outcome Increased Number of Baseline and Project starting

welfare of the households updated (baseline) and
community by adopting database of updated annually
encouraging alternative livelihood activity
alternative livelihood
sustainable activities
income with (disaggregated
leadership of by gender and
LPHD community Annually
groups) Community self-
evaluation
Community
perception on
positive and
negative impacts
of the project to
household End of project
income Household
sampling survey
Percentage or (compared to
absolute baseline)
increase of
income from
alternative
livelihood
activities
4.4.2 Monitoring Plan Dissemination (CM4.3)

Monitoring plan will be disseminated to the relevant stakeholders identified in the previous
sections. Preparation of the monitoring plan will involve representatives of local community and
community groups involved in the project. Venues used for dissemination of monitoring plan
include face-to-face meetings and distribution of monitoring plan document and templates. In
addition, a series of socialization and training activities will also take place to familiarize the
indicators and templates, including to discuss strategies to achieve the target.
4.5 Optional Criterion: Exceptional Community Benefits

The project does not seek to validate Gold Level for exceptional community benefits.
146
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
5 BIODIVERSITY
5.1 Without-Project Biodiversity Scenario
This section presents the biodiversity scenario prior to project development. A description of the
ecosystems, fauna, flora, and the main threats impacting the biodiversity in the project zone is
included below.
5.1.1 Existing Conditions (B1.1)
The project is located in the Padang Tikar Landscape, located in Kubu Raya District, West
Kalimantan. The project zone located in West Kalimantan province intersect with the island of
Borneo, a hotspot for biodiversity in the world since it is home to numerous rare species and has
lost almost 30% of its forest cover since 1973. Up to 2,920,000 ha of the Heart of Borneo lies in
West Kalimantan (Budiharta and Meijaard, 2016).
The Padang Tikar Landscape consists of three types of forests: secondary dryland forest,
secondary swamp forest, and secondary mangrove forest.
Secondary dryland forest located in the lowland forest, hills and mountains that have shown signs
of logging, streams, and cutting marks (Ministry of Forest and Environment, 1999). Meanwhile,
secondary swamp forest is the water container that are continuously or seasonally inundated,
formed naturally in relatively flat with mineral deposits or peat and overgrown with vegetation that
was previously logged (Ministry of Public Works and Housing, 2015).
Secondary mangroves forest are a distinctive tropical coastal vegetation community, growing and
developing in tidal areas, especially in lagoons, river mouths, and sheltered beaches with a silt or
sandy silt substrate that was previously logged (Ministry of Forest and Environment, 2012). The
ecosystem services such as water provision and regulation, carbon capture and storage, food
provision, and protection for local communities against tropical storms (Setapak, 2022).
A literature review was done in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF, 2022) for the
Kubu Raya Disctric where the project is located, to provide family and species records from data-
holding institutions around the world with common standards, best practices and open-source
tools enabling them to share information about where and when species have been recorded.
The main groups included in this section are: flora (vascular plants), birds, mammals, reptiles,
amphibians, and fish. The lists included describe the fauna and flora potentially present in the
area of influence of the project.
Flora
The island of Borneo is among the richest biodiversity regions in the world. Roos et al. (2004),
estimated around 14,000 plant species for Borneo. Based on a global comparative analysis, Kier
et al. (2005) concluded that Borneo ranked first in term of plant species richness among terrestrial
ecoregions, outperforming the well-known Amazonian plant hotspot of South America
147
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
of biodiversity on all scales, including site (alpha) diversity, habitat (beta) diversity and landscape
(gamma) diversity (Budiharta and Meijaard, 2016).
Borneo is also recognised for its high level of endemism, among 3,000 tree species on the island
Borneo is also a centre for orchid richness and endemism with an estimated 1,500 3,000
species, of which more than half are endemic (Budiharta and Meijaard, 2016). The
Dipterocarpaceae is the most prominent family, not just because of its economic importance as
the most widely harvested timber species, but also due to its ecological dominance. Of the 386
described dipterocarp species in the world, 291 (75%) are recorded from Borneo, with 156 being
endemic (Soepadmo and Wong, 1995).
Based on the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), it was compiled the flora reported in
Kubu Raya District with the total of 107 familia and 436 species (Table 43).
Table 43: Flora species reported in Kubu Raya District
Family Number Family Number Family Number

of of of
species species species
Acanthaceae 5 Asteraceae 5 Dichapetalaceae 2
Actinidiaceae 1 Balsaminaceae 1 Dilleniaceae 3
Adoxaceae 1 Begoniaceae 1 Dioscoreaceae 2
Alismataceae 2 Burseraceae 1 Dipterocarpaceae 26
Anacardiaceae 7 Calophyllaceae 4 Ebenaceae 2
Anisophylleaceae 3 Cannabaceae 2 Elaeocarpaceae 6
Annonaceae 9 Casuarinaceae 1 Ericaceae 4
Apiaceae 1 Celastraceae 5 Escalloniaceae 1
Apocynaceae 9 Centroplacaceae 1 Euphorbiaceae 16
Aquifoliaceae 2 Chrysobalanaceae 1 Fabaceae 19
Araceae 7 Combretaceae 2 Fagaceae 3
Araliaceae 2 Commelinaceae 1 Gentianaceae 2
Araucariaceae 1 Connaraceae 1 Gesneriaceae 3
Arecaceae 1 Convolvulaceae 2 Gnetaceae 1
Aristolochiaceae 2 Crypteroniaceae 1 Hanguanaceae 1
Asparagaceae 1 Ctenolophonaceae 1 Hydrangeaceae 1
Asphodelaceae 1 Cucurbitaceae 2 Hypericaceae 3
Aspleniaceae 1 Cyperaceae 5 Hypoxidaceae 1
Icacinaceae 1 Ochnaceae 1 Rhamnaceae 1
Lamiaceae 9 Oleaceae 2 Rhizophoraceae 4
Lauraceae 11 Oleandraceae 1 Rubiaceae 40
Lentibulariaceae 1 Orchidaceae 13 Sabiaceae 2
148
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

of of of
Linaceae 1 Oxalidaceae 2 Salicaceae 2
Loganiaceae 3 Pandaceae 1 Sapindaceae 2
Loranthaceae 5 Passifloraceae 1 Sapotaceae 3
Lythraceae 3 Pentaphylacaceae 2 Smilacaceae 2
Malvaceae 9 Peraceae 1 Solanaceae 2
Marantaceae 1 Phyllanthaceae 12 Staphyleaceae 1
Melastomataceae 20 Piperaceae 2 Stemonuraceae 2
Meliaceae 9 Poaceae 4 Symplocaceae 3
Menispermaceae 1 Podocarpaceae 3 Tetrameristaceae 1
Moraceae 23 Polygalaceae 4 Thymelaeaceae 3
Myristicaceae 5 Polygonaceae 1 Urticaceae 2
Myrtaceae 6 Polypodiaceae 1 Vitaceae 5
Nepenthaceae 3 Primulaceae 5 Zingiberaceae 3
Nephrolepidaceae 1 Pteridaceae 1
Source: Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), 2022
149
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
According to Annual Report between Sampan Kalimantan (2021), the mangrove forests in the
landscape of Padang Tikar have rich and complex biodiversity compared to other regions in
Indonesia. Based on the results of SAMPAN research so far, 67 species have been identified in
the Padang Tikar Coastal Landscape, namely 33 true mangroves species and 34 associated
mangroves species (Table 44).
Table 44: Mangrove species in Padang Tikar Landscape
Associated mangrove species

True mangrove species
Allophylus cobbe
Acanthus ebracteatus
Ardisia elliptica
Acanthus ilicifolius
Barringtonia asiatica
Acrostichum aureum
Barringtonia racemosa
Acrostichum speciosum
Brownlowia tersa
Aegiceras corniculatum
Calophyllum inophyllum
Amyema anisomeres
Cerbera manghas
Avicennia alba
Clerodendrum inerme
Avicennia marina
Cryptocoryne ciliate
Avicennia officinalis
Dalbergia candenatensis
Bruguiera cylindrica
Derris trifoliate
Bruguiera gymnorizha
Dolichandrone spathacea
Bruguiera sexangula
Finlaysonia maritime
Bruguiera parviflora
Hibiscus tiliaceus
Ceriops decandra
Ipomea pescaprae
Ceriops tagal
Melastoma candidum
Excoecaria agallocha
Merope angulate
Heritiera globosa
Morinda citrifolia
Heritiera littoralis
Pandanus odoratissima
Kandelia candel
Pandanus tectorius
Lumnitzera littorea
Passiflora foetida
Lumnitzera racemosa
Pluchea indica
Nypa fruticans
Pongamia pinnata
Rhizophora apiculata
Pouteria obovata
Rhizophora mucronata
150
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Associated mangrove species

True mangrove species
Rapanea porteriana
Rhizophora stylosa
Scaevola taccada
Sonneratia alba
Sesuvium portulacastrum
Sonneratia caseolaris
Stachytarpheta jamaicensis
Sonneratia ovata
Terminalia catappa
Sarcolobus glubosa
Calotropis gigantea
Xylocarpus granatum
Phragmites karka
Xylocarpus moluccensis
Ficus Microcarpa
Bruguiera hainesii
Gluta velutina
In Padang Tikar landscape, mangrove species identified are endangered presented in Table 45
(Sampan, 2021).
Table 45: Endangered mangrove species in Padang Tikar Landscape
Scientific Common IUCN*

Family name name
Bruguiera Eye of the CR
Rhizophoraceae hainesii crocodile
Shorea Yellow CR
Dipterocarpaceae peltata meranti
Dryobalanops CR
Dipterocarpaceae Kapur
fusca
Gonystylus CR
Thymelaeaceae Ramin
bancanus
Hopea Damar CR
Dipterocarpaceae coriacea Melapi
Shorea CR
Dipterocarpaceae Red Balau
kunstleri
Shorea Yakal CR
Dipterocarpaceae falciferoides yamban
Shorea CR
Dipterocarpaceae Meranti Paya
platycarpa
Heritieria EN
Malvaceae Dungun
globosa
Shorea Yellow EN
Dipterocarpaceae longisperma meranti
Agathis Malayan EN
Araucariaceae borneensis Kauri
151
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

Family name name
Shorea EN
Dipterocarpaceae Tengkawang
splendida
Shorea EN
Dipterocarpaceae Red Balau
maxwelliana
Hopea EN
Dipterocarpaceae Pagoda
dasyrhachis
Heritiera EN
Malvaceae Dungun
globosa
Madhuca Indian Butter EN
Sapotaceae sessilis Tree
Dipterocarpus Keruing EN
Dipterocarpaceae grandiflorus Pekat
Cotylelobium Resak EN
Dipterocarpaceae burckii Tembaga
Dyera Jelutung VU
Apocynaceae polyphylla Jawa
Hopea sangal Cengal Pasir VU
Dipterocarpaceae
Gonystylus VU
Thymelaeaceae Dara Elok
affinis
Lophopetalum VU
Celastraceae Perupuk
sessilifolium
Shorea light red VU
Dipterocarpaceae quadrinervis meranti
Tetramerista VU
Tetrameristaceae Entuyut
glabra
Cantleya VU
Stemonuraceae Bedaru
corniculata
Ctenolophon Kayu VU
Ctenolophonaceae parvifolius bawang
Anisophyllea VU
Anisophylleaceae Sumiang
disticha
Dark red VU
Dipterocarpaceae Shorea albida
meranti
Hopea Merawan VU
Dipterocarpaceae beccariana Batu
Hopea VU
Dipterocarpaceae Bayan
pachycarpa
Shorea VU
Dipterocarpaceae resak bunga
atrinervosa
Elaeocarpus VU
Elaeocarpaceae Kappun
beccarii
152
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

Family name name
Nepenthes tropical VU
Nepenthaceae bicalcarata pitcher plant
Eusideroxylon VU
Lauraceae Ulin
zwageri
Alseodaphne VU
Lauraceae Medang
obovata
Endocomia Pianggu VU
Myristicaceae macrocoma Talang
Artocarpus VU
Moraceae Entawak
anisophyllus
Etlingera VU
Zingiberaceae Kundupi
aurantia
Anisophyllea VU
Anisophylleaceae Sumiang
ferruginea
Source: Sampan, 2021 & IUCN, 2022
Fauna
Borneo is the most species-rich island in western Indonesia in terms of its absolute vertebrate
diversity (Budiharta and Meijaard, 2016). For vertebrate groups, Borneo has 222 mammals species
and it has more endemic land mammal species than Sumatra (44 versus 23, MacKinnon et al.
1986). Furthermore, Borneo has 13 species of primates and 10 species of tree shrews, which is
more than any other Asian mainland or island of similar area. Charismatic mammals in Kalimantan
include the Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus), Banteng (Bos javanicus), Orangutan (Pongo
pygmaeus), Proboscis Monkey (Nasalis larvatus), Bornean Gibbon (Hylobates muellerii), Flat-
headed Cat (Prionaluris planiceps), Clouded Leopard (Neofelis nebulosa) and the Sun Bear
(Helarctos melayanus) (Rhee et al. 2004). Table X shows the endemic species identified for West
Kalimantan (PT.CUS, 2015), as well as their category of threat following the IUCN Red List.
Table 46: Endemic fauna identified in West Kalimantan
Group Family Scientific name Common Name IUCN
Birds Cuculidae Carpococcyx radiceus Bornean ground cuckoo NT
Estrildidae Lonchura fuscans Dusky munia LC
Pellorneidae Malacocincla perspicillata Black-browed babbler DD
153
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Group Family Scientific name Common Name IUCN
Falconidae Microhierax fringillarius Black-thighed falconet LC
Mammals Suidae Sus barbatus Bornean bearded pig VU
Cercopithecidae Nasalis larvatus Proboscis monkey EN
Hylobatidae Hylobates muelleri EN
Hylobatidae Hylobates albibarbis Bornean white-bearded EN

gibbon
Lorisidae Nycticebus menagensis Philippine slow loris VU
Hominidae Pongo pygmaeus Borneon orangutan CR
Cercopithecidae Presbytis rubicunda Maroon leaf monkey VU
Delphinidae Orcaella brevirostris Irrawaddy Dolphin EN
Amphi- Dicroglossidae Limnonectes leporinus Giant river frog LC

bians
Megophryidae Leptolalax dringi LC
Microhylidae Gastrophrynoides Narrowmouth toad LC

borneensis
Agamidae Gonocephalus borneensis Borneo anglehead LC

Reptiles lizard
Gekkonidae Cyrtodactylus malayanus Borneo bow-fingered LC

gecko
Colubridae Opisthotropis typica Corrugated Water LC

Snake
Scincidae Dasia vittata Borneo skink LC
Scincidae Tropidophorus beccarii Beccari's keeled skink LC
Varanidae Varanus salvator Asian water monitor LC
Source: PT.CUS, 2015 & IUCN, 2022
154
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Birds
To date, 51 families and 165 bird species have been identified in Kubu Raya District. Critical
Endangered (CR) species located in the Padang Tikar landscape include Straw-headed bulbul
(Pycnonotus zeylanicus), Christmas frigatebird (Fregata andrewsi), Helmeted hornbill (Rhinoplax
vigil). Meanwhile, endangered species (EN) are Storm's stork (Ciconia stormi), Wrinkled hornbill
(Rhabdotorrhinus corrugatus), White-crowned hornbill (Berenicornis comatus), Great knot
(Calidris tenuirostris), Greater green leafbird (Chloropsis sonnerati), and Javan white-eye
(Zosterops flavus). Moreover, Vulnerable species (VU) include Black partridge (Melanoperdix
niger), Great slaty woodpecker (Mulleripicus pulverulentus), Short-toed coucal (Centropus
rectunguis), Large green pigeon (Treron capellei), Sunda blue flycatcher (Cyornis caerulatus),
Hook-billed bulbul (Setornis criniger), Bornean wren-babbler (Ptilocichla leucogrammica),
Crestless fireback (Lophura pyronota), Wallace's hawk-eagle (Nisaetus nanus), Bonaparte's
nightjar (Caprimulgus concretus), Blue-headed pitta (Hydrornis baudii), Lesser adjutant
(Leptoptilos javanicus), Long-tailed parakeet (Psittacula longicauda), Black hornbill
(Anthracoceros malayanus), Rhinoceros hornbill (Buceros rhinoceros), and Wreathed Hornbill
(Rhyticeros undulatu
Table 47: List of bird families reported in Kubu raya District

of of of
Acanthizidae 1 Corvidae 1 Passeridae 1
Accipitridae 6 Cuculidae 10 Pellorneidae 3
Acrocephalidae 1 Dicruridae 1 Phasianidae 4
Aegithinidae 1 Estrildidae 3 Phylloscopidae 1
Alcedinidae 6 Eurylaimidae 3 Picidae 13
Anatidae 2 Falconidae 1 Podargidae 2
Apodidae 4 Glareolidae 1 Psittacidae 2
Ardeidae 9 Hemiprocnidae 1 Pycnonotidae 4
Artamidae 1 Hirundinidae 2 Rallidae 5
Bucerotidae 3 Laridae 8 Rhipiduridae 1
Campephagidae 3 Megalaimidae 2 Scolopacidae 15
Caprimulgidae 1 Meropidae 4 Sittidae 1
Charadriidae 5 Monarchidae 2 Strigidae 3
Ciconiidae 1 Motacillidae 2 Sturnidae 1
Cisticolidae 4 Muscicapidae 2 Tephrodornithidae 1
Columbidae 7 Nectariniidae 5 Timaliidae 1
Coraciidae 1 Pachycephalidae 1 Trogonidae 2
155
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Mammals
To date, 10 families and 18 mammal species have been identified in Kubu Raya District. Near
threatened (NT) species located in the West Kalimantan include cream-coloured giant squirrel
(Ratufa affinis), marbled cat (Pardofelis marmorata), large flying fox (Pteropus vampyrus).
Moreover, Vulnerable (VU) species located in West Kalimantan are bearded pig (Sus barbatus),
fishing cat (Prionailurus viverrinus), american horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus), sambar
deer (Cervus unicolor), southern pig-tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis), maroon leaf monkey
(Presbytis rubicunda), silvery lutung (Trachypithecus cristatus Tarsius
bancanus), Philippine slow loris (Nycticebus menagensis), rajah spiny rat (Maxomys rajah),
Whitehead's spiny rat (Maxomys whiteheadi), sun bear (Helarctos malayanus), binturong
(Arctictis binturong), irrawaddy dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris), and hairy-nosed otter (Lutra
sumatrana). Meanwhile, Endangered (EN) species spotted in West Kalimantan are proboscis
monkey (Nasalis larvatus), flat-headed cat (Prionailurus planiceps), bornean gibbon (Hylobates
muelleri), bornean white-bearded gibbon (Hylobates albibarbis), greater slow loris (Nycticebus
coucang), and Irrawaddy Dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris). Last, the critically endangered (CR)
species founded in West Kalimantan are pangolin (Manis javanica) and bornean orangutan
(Pongo pygmaeus).
Table 48: List of mammal families reported in Kubu Raya District
Family Number of species

Cercopithecidae 3
Hominidae 1
Hylobatidae 1
Muridae 1
Mustelidae 1
Rhinolophidae 1
Sciuridae 5
Tragulidae 1
Tupaiidae 2
Vespertilionidae 2
Amphibians
To date, 4 families and 5 amphibians species have been identified in Kubu Raya District. In West
Kalimantan Province, multiple amphibians species have founded such as Asian caecilians
(Ichthyophis sp.) classified as Data Deficient (DD). Moreover amphibians species classified as
Least Concernt (LC) are Spiny Slender Toad (ansonia spinulifer), Long-nosed Horned Toad
(Megophrys nasuta), Java Toad (Bufo asper), and File-eared Tree Frog (Polypedates otilophus).
Meanwhile, near threatened amphibian species is the Cinnamon Frog (Nyctixalus pictus) (NT)
(Susandari et al., 2012).
156
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Table 49: List of amphibian families reported in Kubu Raya District

Bufonidae 1
Dicroglossidae 1
Ranidae 2
Rhacophoridae 1
Reptiles
To date, 11 families and 22 reptile species have been identified in Kubu Raya District. Vulnerable
(VU) species located in the West Kalimantan include Malayan flat-shelled turtle (Notochelys
platynota), False gharial (Tomistoma schlegelii), Asiatic softshell turtle (Amyda cartilaginea).
Moreover, endangered (EN) species founded in West Kalimantan are Spiny turtle (Heosemys
spinosa) and Amboina box turtle (Cuora amboinensis).
Table 50: List of reptile families reported in Kubu Raya District

Agamidae 3
Cheloniidae 1
Colubridae 5
Elapidae 2
Fish
To date, 8 families and 19 fish species from the Actiniopterygii and Elasmobranchii groups have
been identified in Kubu Raya District. Based on Asan et al. (2019), multiple fish species founded
in Kakap River, Kubu Raya District as follow green spotted puffer (Tetraodon nigroviridis), sagor
catfish (Hexanematichthys sagor); scalloped glassfish (Ambassis nalua), spotted scat
(Scatophagus argus), and yellow-tail rasbora (Rasbora tornieri) are classified as Least Concern
(LC).
Table 51: List of fish families (Actiniopterygii and Elasmobranchii groups) reported in
Kubu Raya District

Belonidae 1
Carcharhinidae 1
Cyprinidae 3
Dasyatidae 4
Gobiidae 3
Osphronemidae 4
Tetraodontidae 1
Zenarchopteridae 2
157
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Biodiversity threats
In West Kalimantan, vast areas of lowland dipterocarp, heath and peat forest have been
converted to oil palm plantations, settlements, local mining, or lost to forest fire. Some of the
remaining forest blocks are protected, typically within nature reserves or by village organisations
awarded formal management rights under the Indonesian
programme. However, even where forest habitat is protected, high-value timber species such as
Meranti (Shorea spp.) and Ramin (Gonystylus sp.) are selectively logged, further exacerbating
population decline to critical levels. The loss of mature fruiting trees means that many species are
unable to reproduce adequately to recover without assistance, especially where forest has been
degraded by fire or replaced by grasses (Global Trees Campaign, 2020)
Land and forest fires
Kubu Raya Regency is one of the regencies in Kalimantan West Province which often
experiences land fires (Nurdiansyah, 2021). Forest and land burning are one of the methods to
weed out the land before engraining new plants. This approach is preferred because it is more
practical, quicker, less expensive, and simpler (Cleary, 2008). The number of hotspots for land
and forest fires is at least 53,715 hotspots in the province between 2006 and 2015. However,
because there was little prudence used when burning the soil, the fires spread and even caused a
tragedy in the West Kalimantan region. Fire can have severe consequences on forest vertebrates
and invertebrates, killing them directly as well as causing longer-term undesired effects such
strangulation and loss of habitat, territories, shelter, and food, in forests where fire is not a natural
disturbance. Key forest ecosystem creatures, such as invertebrates, pollinators, and
decomposers, might become extinct, which can greatly prevent the rate at which the forest
recovers (Nasi et al., 2002).
Severe fires most likely cause a change in biodiversity, which simultaneously destroys vegetation
and eats soil organic matter (Clearly, 2008). The majority of small mammal species, including
tarsiers, bats, and lemurs, as well as cavity-nesting birds, are negatively impacted by the removal
of standing cavity trees and dead logs from the ground. Territorial birds and mammals may be
uprooted by fires, upsetting the ecosystem's delicate balance and ultimately leading to the
extinction of species since the uprooted animals have nowhere to go (Nasi et al., 2002).
Moreover, it is also impact the loss of fruit-trees results in overall decline in bird and animal
species that rely on fruits for food. On the other hands, burned forests become impoverished of
small mammals, birds and reptiles, and carnivores tend to avoid burned over areas. Fires also
destroy leaf litter and its associated arthropod community, further reducing food availability for
omnivores and carnivores (Nasi et al., 2002). There is no doubt that severe disturbances in
Kalimantan have resulted in disastrous ecological consequences. Enhanced management and
protection of surviving unaltered and disturbed forests may provide an essential matrix required
for conserving biodiversity inside well-managed logging concessions and nearby pristine
reserves.
158
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Illegal logging
Indonesia has a forest rich in the diversity of population types within it, but over time Indonesia
becomes the most threatened forest in the world. The erosion of forests due to illegal logging
makes the predominant factor 70-75 percent of the harvested timber harvested illegally. In the
economic sector, illegal logging has caused the state to lose an estimated $30 trillion annually in
revenues and profits. Unfortunately, illegal logging may cause the lack of water absorption which
results in floods and landslides. In West Kalimantan, the deforestation caused by illegal logging
between 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 was 292 ha (Nurdiansyah, 2021). Illegal logging is caused by
many factors such as a) illegal logging activity is an effective job to get higher income in short
times; b) high market demand for the wood products including charcoal mangroves from
mangrove forests as well as sawn timber from peat swamp forests; c) development of non-timber
forest and ecosystem services as economic alternatives are not yet well facilitated, whether by
institutions or government, and it has not reached all communities that rely on timber economic
value; d) settlement expansion that is directly adjacent to the peatland forest; e) lack of law
enforcement on illegal loggers (Nurdiansyah, 2021).
Significant logging investments have been made in Borneo over the past 40 years, which has
contributed to deforestation and forest degradation. One of the biggest problems faced by
deforestation is the loss of biodiversity. Structural changes of logged forests alter wildlife habitat
as well. As a result, there will be an adaptation of species due to habitat changes where some
species can tolerate various conditions while others are highly dependent on specific conditions.
Moreover, logging may also affect animal assemblages based on provided food. However, the
logging activities may increase the forest accessibility to humans, and may increase hunting
pressure. It is shown that the abundance of species decreased with the closer distance to the
countryside (Jati et al., 2018).
Agricultural land expansion
As of 2016, about one-third of total industrial oil palm plantations (IOPP) land is located in West
Kalimantan with approximately 5.06 Mha. Between 2000 and 2016, the area of IOPPs rose
significantly from 0.4 to 1.57 Mha that growing by roughly 73,282 ha each year and making up
about 11% of the provincial territory. Compared to other past land uses, oil palm plantations have
a considerable impact on the loss of ecosystem services in the environment. Moreover, compared
to rubber plantations, oil palm plantations are more significantly destroy the biodiversity (Sharma
et al. 2019). Conversion of forest to oil palm clearly represents a major threat to biodiversity.
Almost all creatures examined thus far, including wood-inhabiting fungi, plants, litter invertebrates,
dung beetles, ants, amphibians, lizards, birds, and mammals, show lower species richness in oil
palm plantations than in forests (Dislich et al., 2017). Averaging across all taxa, Fitzherbert et al.
(2008) showed that just 15% of primary forest species also present in oil palm plantations, and
that only 23% of vertebrates and 31% of invertebrates shared habitat between forests and oil
palm plantations. The loss of biodiversity in oil palm plantations is due to loss of habitat, altered
habitat characteristics, increased access to species of food or commercial interest, and direct
removal of species considered to be pests, including orangutans, elephants, and tigers.
159
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
5.1.2 High Conservation Values (B1.2)
High
Conservation Endangered bird species
Value
Qualifying The assembly of endangered birds (Table X) has been selected as a HCV
Attribute considering the overriding threats over them due to habitat loss, degradation
and fragmentation as a result of large-scale clearance for plantations (e.g
of oil-palm and to a lesser extent rubber and timber). The conversion of
habitat is typically preceded by commercial logging, which targets all
remaining stands of valuable timber, even within protected areas.
Furthermore, drought fires appear to be increasing in frequency and severity
on Borneo and a more general drying of lowland forest may have further
negative impacts on the species, and hunting for food may pose an
additional, more localised, threat. The consequence of these threats result
in the estructure and function of the ecosystems affected, the project will
aim to reverse these threats by restoring degraded land and protecting
remaining forest, key for these species under a threat category.
Table X. Endangered bird species reported in Padang Tikar
Scientific name Common name IUCN*

Pycnonotus zeylanicus Straw-headed bulbul CR
Fregata andrewsi Christmas frigatebird CR
Rhinoplax vigil Helmeted hornbill CR
Ciconia stormi Storm's stork EN
Rhabdotorrhinus corrugatus Wrinkled hornbill EN
Berenicornis comatus White-crowned hornbill EN
Calidris tenuirostris Great knot EN
Chloropsis sonnerati Greater green leafbird EN
Zosterops flavus Javan white-eye EN
Melanoperdix niger Black partridge VU
Mulleripicus pulverulentus Great slaty woodpecker VU
Centropus rectunguis Short-toed coucal VU
Treron capellei Large green pigeon VU
Cyornis caerulatus Sunda blue flycatcher VU
Setornis criniger Hook-billed bulbul VU
Ptilocichla leucogrammica Bornean wren-babbler VU
Lophura pyronota Crestless fireback VU
Nisaetus nanus Wallace's hawk-eagle VU
160
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Caprimulgus concretus Bonaparte's nightjar VU

Hydrornis baudii Blue-headed pitta VU
Leptoptilos javanicus Lesser adjutant VU
Psittacula longicauda Long-tailed parakeet VU
Anthracoceros malayanus Black hornbill VU
Buceros rhinoceros Rhinoceros hornbill VU
Rhyticeros undulatus Wreathed Hornbill VU
Source: Bentang Kalimantan, 2022
According to BirdLife International, 2022 the main threats identified for the
endangered bird species listed are presented below:
The wreathed hornbill (Rhyticeros undulatus) is considered intolerant of
habitat loss, requiring large areas of undisturbed forest, in a region which is
experiencing high rates of deforestation. High hunting pressure is likely
exacerbating the population decline caused by habitat loss. The species is
suspected to undergo a large population reduction over the next three
generations.
The rhinoceros hornbill (Buceros rhinoceros), Storm's stork (Ciconia
stormi), and black hornbill (Anthracoceros malayanus) has largely
dependant on lowland forest, within a region experiencing high rates of
deforestation. High hunting pressure is exacerbating the population decline
caused by habitat loss.
Long-tailed parakeet (Psittacula longicauda) occurs in coastal and lowland
areas to at least 300 m, preferring peatswamp forest in the Thai-Malay
Peninsula, although it avoids primary forest in Borneo (D. L. Yong in litt.
2016). Throughout its range, the species is found between agricultural land
and remaining swamp and lowland forests. This makes it an easy target for
local people who may hunt the species either for trade or as a pest species
(M. Iqbal in litt, 2016).
The lesser adjutant (Leptoptilos javanicus), Wallace's hawk-eagle (Nisaetus
nanus), and long-tailed parakeet (Psittacula longicauda) has suspected to
be rapidly declining as a result of a variety of threats including hunting
pressure, loss of nesting habitat, conversion and degradation of wetlands
and agricultural changes and intensification.
The Blue-headed pitta (Hydrornis baudii) has suffered extremely rapid

destruction of this habitat as a result of conversion to agriculture following
commercial logging and uncontrolled fire, this species is suspected to have
undergone rapid population declines that are likely to continue.
The Bonaparte's nightjar (Caprimulgus concretus) has restricted to low-lying

forest in a region where this habitat-type is being cleared and degraded at
such a catastrophic rate that rapid and continuing population declines are
161
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
suspected.
The continuing rapid reduction in extent and quality of the lowland peat
swamp forest habitat, across most of its known range, implies a rapid
population reduction of the species Crestless fireback (Lophura pyronota),
Bornean wren-babbler (Ptilocichla leucogrammica), Hook-billed bulbul
(Setornis criniger), Sunda blue flycatcher (Cyornis caerulatus), Large green
pigeon (Treron capellei), Short-toed coucal (Centropus rectunguis), the
Black partridge (Melanoperdix niger), and the Great slaty woodpecker
(Mulleripicus pulverulentus).
The Javan white-eye (Zosterops flavus) has rapidly declined or disappeared

from multiple areas across its highly restricted and fragmented range within
the past 15 years, due to trapping for the cage-bird trade and the destruction
of coastal forest habitat.
The Straw-headed bulbul (Pycnonotus zeylanicus) and the Greater green

leafbird (Chloropsis sonnerati) have declined extremely rapidly across its
range as a result of trapping of wild birds for the cage-bird trade,
compounded by habitat loss within its rather specific habitat type.
The Great knot (Calidris tenuirostris) has showing a very rapid population
decline caused by reclamation of non-breeding stopover grounds, and
under the assumption that further proposed reclamation projects will cause
additional declines in the future. Therefore, it is listed Endangered BirdLife
International (2022).
The Wrinkled hornbill (Rhabdotorrhinus corrugatus) has restricted to

primary forests within a region experiencing high rates of deforestation. The
area of forest within its range has undergone a rapid rate of decline over
recent years, which is thought to be continuing. The species is also
threatened by hunting.
The Helmeted hornbill (Rhinoplax vigil), and the white-crowned hornbil

(Berenicornis comatus) have experienced severe hunting pressure and
habitat loss. The level of hunting is expected to increase and spread across
the range.
Extreme weather, habitat shifts and ecosystem degradation associated

with climate change poses an ongoing and future threat to Christmas
frigatebird (Fregata andrewsi). The low number, limited extent and
reduced size of breeding areas render the species highly susceptible to
stochastic events and vulnerable to further habitat loss, either through
resumed mining operations, other sources of pollution or climate change
(IUCN, 2022).
Focal Area Important Bird Area (IBA) Rawa di Pesisir Kapuas
According to BirdLife International (2022) this site qualifies as an Important
Biodiversity Area (KBA) of international significance because it meets the

-restricted spe
and thresholds for identifying sites of biodiversity importance (including
162
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas, Alliance for Zero Extinction sites, and
Key Biodiversity Areas).
if it is
known, estimated or thought to hold a population of a species categorized
by the IUCN Red List as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable.
Specific thresholds are set for species within each of the threat categories
that need to be exceeded at a particular IBA. Furthermore, the site qualifies
-
a significant component of the group of species whose distributions are
largely or wholly confined to one biome-realm. Bioregion-restricted
assemblages are groups of species with largely shared distributions which
occur (breed) mostly or entirely within all or part of a particular bioregion.
Bioregions are defined by the WWF classification of biome-realms (BirdLife
International, 2022). Wetland International (1997) describes this area as
globally important wetland, with a very good condition of mangrove forest in
West Kalimantan and this area also has a good peat swamp. This area is
proposed as Ramsar site under the name of Southern Kapuas
Swampsland.
163
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
High
Conservation Endangered mammal species
Value
Qualifying The assembly of endangered mammals (Table X) has been selected as a
Attribute HCV considering the major cause for their recent decline is habitat loss and
fragmentation, what the project will aim to reverse by restoring degraded
land and protecting remaining forest, key for these species under a threat
category. The main human activities impacting their populations are
logging, cultivation and forest fires (the 1997-1998 Bornean forest fires were
thought to have destroyed the greatest proportion of remaining habitat of
any primate in Kalimantan) (IUCN, 2022).
Table X. Endangered mammal species reported in Padang Tikar
landscape
Scientific name Common name IUCN*

Manis javanica Sunda pangolin CR
Pongo pygmaeus Bornean orangutan CR
Lutra sumatrana Hairy-nosed otter EN
Cynogale bennettii Otter civet EN
Nasalis larvatus Proboscis monkey EN
Hylobates albibarbis Bornean white-bearded gibbon EN
Macaca nemestrina Southern pig-tailed macaque VU
Tarsius bancanus Horsfield's tarsier VU
Nycticebus menagensis Philippine slow loris VU
Aonyx cinereus Asian small-clawed otter VU
Rheithrosciurus macrotis Tufted ground squirrel VU
Maxomys whiteheadi Whitehead's spiny rat VU
Maxomys rajah Rajah spiny rat VU
Arctictis binturong Binturong VU
Rusa unicolor Sambar VU
Sus barbatus Bornean bearded pig VU
Helarctos malayanus Sun bear VU
Indonesia has been illegally exporting large numbers of live pangolins

(Manis javanica) as well as meat, especially since 2000, some of which
comes from east Kalimantan (Sopyan 2009). Targeted hunting and
poaching is the biggest threat in Indonesia, especially on Sumatra,
Kalimantan and Java, as evidenced by seizures involving several
164
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
High
Value
thousands pangolins over the last two decades (Pantel and Chin 2009,
Sopyan 2009).
Bornean orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) is found in various habitat from
mangrove forest to limestone mountain karst forest, but the most important
habitat is swamp forest and dry dipterocarp forest (BOS foundation, 2022).
Illegal hunting, deforestration, fires, land use changes, lack of awareness,
and climate change are the major threat to orangutan populations (IUCN,
2022).
The Hairy-nosed otter (Lutra sumatrana) and Otter civet (Cynogale
bennettii) is found in peat swamp forest, secondary forest (Kanchanasaka
et al., 1998; Baker, 2013; Heng et al. 2016). However, these habitats have
been under severe threat by anthropogenic activities such as clearing of
forests to grow plantations of oil palm and food crops such as rice, corn and
soya bean.
The Proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus), the southern pig-tailed macaque
(Macaca nemestrina) and the Bornean white-bearded gibbon (Hylobates
albibarbis) are found in riparian-riverine forests, coastal lowland forest,
including mangroves, peat swamp, and freshwater swamp forest
(Boonratana 2000). Because of this species' association with riverine and
coastal habitat, the major cause for its recent decline is thought to be habitat
destruction.
The Horsfield's tarsier (Tarsius bancanus) is found in both primary and
secondary forest, as well as along the coasts or on the edge of plantations
(Niemitz 1979). Apart from its habitat loss, it is collected for the illegal pet
trade, particularly, it is thought, in the vicinity of Lampung and Way Kambas
National Park. It is wrongly considered a pest to agricultural crops, and can
suffer, directly and indirectly, from contamination from agricultural
pesticides (IUCN, 2022).
The Philippine slow loris (Nycticebus menagensis) is found in rimary and
secondary lowland forest, gardens, and plantations (Payne et al. 1985,
Timm and Birney 1992). Burning of habitat and conversion, especially to
palm oil plantations, almost certainly represents a threat to this species. The
species is collected locally for use as pets; subsequent uncontrolled release
of pets in some areas is also a threat. Captured wild animals are also used
as tourist attraction in some hotels or tourist camps in Borneo (Miard
unpublished). Forest fires of 2015 on Borneo have been the worst since
2004, and acres of forest has been burned, leading to a significant decrease
in the habitat of this species. Lack of law enforcement further threatens slow
loris species across their range (Starr et al. 2010, Nijman et al., 2014).
165
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
High
Value
The Asian small-clawed otter (Aonyx cinereus) is found in freshwater
swamps, meandering rivers, mangroves and tidal pools (Perinchery et al.
2011). The potential threat to its continued survival of Aonyx cinereus is
destruction of its habitats due to changing land use pattern in the form of
developmental activities (IUCN, 2022). In many parts of Asia, the habitats
have been reduced due to reclamation of peat swamp forests and
mangroves, aquaculture activities along the intertidal wetlands and loss of
hill streams (Prakash et al. 2012). Another important threat to Asian Small-
clawed Otter is reduction in prey biomass due to over-exploitation, which
have rendered its remaining natural habitats unsustainable. Pollution is
probably the single most important factor causing decline in the population
of many fish species (Dehadrai and Ponniah 1997).
The Tufted ground squirrel (Rheithrosciurus macrotis) is found in primary

and selectively logged forest in hilly areas at elevations lower than 1,100 m,
and forested coastal flats (Marshall and Meijaard in IUCN, 2022). The
biggest threat to this species is the conversion of forest to monoculture
plantations and unsustainable logging practices (Mathai pers. comm.). In
addition, although this species is not targeted by hunters, it is threatened by
hunting, due to spending a lot of time on the ground where it is susceptible
to snares and traps (Thorington et al. 2012).
The Whitehead's spiny rat (Maxomys whiteheadi) is found in lowland,

forest, rice paddies surrounded by forest, mangrove swamp, secondary
forest, but also found in palm oil habitat (Payne et al. 1985; Chuluun et al.
2005). The major threat to this species is widespread habitat loss in the
lowlands of Sumatra and Borneo due to land use changes, expansion of
agriculture, logging and wood harvesting (IUCN, 2022).
The Rajah spiny rat (Maxomys rajah) is found in primary and disturbed
lowland evergreen tropical forest (IUCN, 2022). The Maxomys rajah
threatened by habitat loss, largely through commercial logging and the
conversion of land to agricultural use.
The Binturong (Arctictis binturong) is found in primarily arboreal, primary

and secondary lowland forest (Grassman et al. 2005; Rabor 1986;
Esselstyn et al. 2004). Habitat loss and degradation are major threats to the
Binturong (Schreiber et al. 1989) as is fragmentation, particularly in those
parts of the range where hunting is heavy. Throughout this species's range,
there has been loss and degradation of forests through logging and
166
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
High
Value
conversion of forests to non-forest land-uses (Sodhi et al. 2010; WWF
2013). In Kalimantan specifically, 56% of protected lowland forests were
cleared from 1985 to 2001 (Curran et al. 2004).
The Sambar (Rusa unicolor) is found in tropical dry forest, tropical moist
lowland, tropical moist montana, savanna, and tropical heavily degraded
former forest (IUCN, 2022). Habitat encroachment and hunting are the
major threat of the sambar populations. On Borneo, Sambar is also widely
and heavily hunted, largely for meat consumed in-country (Bennett et al.
2000). Over many centuries, the loss of wilderness to human settlement,
cultivation and industry has resulted in massive loss of potential Sambar
range.
The Bornean bearded pig (Sus barbatus) ound in all habitat types within
their range (all elevations of forest, as well as peat swamp and mangrove
forests) (Caldecott et al. 1993). The three primary threats facing Bearded
Pigs is the conversion of forests for agriculture, particularly oil palm and
rubber, fragmentation of remaining habitat, and unsustainable logging
primarily for dipterocarps. As Bearded Pig populations decline, hunting for
meat, once sustainable in many areas, is probably now a serious threat in
many places (IUCN, 2022).
On Borneo, periods of prolonged drought have disrupted fruiting patterns

(e.g., Harrison 2000), which in combination with reduced habitat availability
due to clearing for agriculture, logging and fires, resulted in starvation
among sun bears (Helarctos malayanus), even in protected primary forest
areas (Wong et al. 2005, Fredriksson et al. 2007).
Focal Area Mangrove forest, swamp and dryland forest ecosystems within the project
area
5.1.3 Without-project Scenario: Biodiversity (B1.3)
As previously stated, the project area consists of high biodiversity in flora and fauna. However,
palm oil cultivation, logging, and forest fires activities are the main threats to Padang Tikar
and permits for mining (5 million ha), logging (2.2 million ha) and palm oil plantation (4.7 million
ha). Numerous of these activities violate protected forest, which threatens biodiversity and
increases land erosion. Only 1.2 percent of West Kalimantan is still covered in peatlands, and the
majority of the remaining carbon stock is found in productive forests. Without the project, it is highly
likely that these activities would continue, which would have a negative impact on the biodiversity
167
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
of the project area. An estimated two-thirds of logging in West Kalimantan is illegal, with local illegal
miners clearing 10,000 ha of forest annually (Setapak, 2022).
The possibility of biodiversity loss will escalate due to food shortages and poaching rising in the
project area. Illegal logging also causes the changes in forest structure that affect wildlife (Jati et
al., 2018). On the other hand, palm oil plantations from 1990 to 2010 increased by 600% in
Indonesia, while a large portion of this activity occurred in West Kalimantan. If the projects are
absent, the oil palm plantations will directly affect biodiversity because of increased access to
species for food or commercial interest, habitat loss, altered habitat characteristics, and deliberate
eradication of species deemed pests, such as orangutans, elephants, and tigers (Fitzherbert et al.
2008).
5.2 Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts
5.2.1 Expected Biodiversity Changes (B2.1)
Biodiversity Element Richness and diversity of birds
Estimated Change The richness of birds in the project area remains stable or
increases during the life of the project.
Justification of Change Project activities will support the restoration of degraded land and
protect the remaining ecosystems (mangrove, swamp and
dryland forest). This will allow birds to biodiversity to move
thorough the connected forest and to maintain and recover their
populations in areas that have been affected by anthropogenic
activities.
It is expected that the implementation of project activities will
contribute reducing the pressures and threats that currently exist
on biodiversity in the project area.
Biodiversity Element Richness and diversity of terrestrial mammals
Estimated Change The richness of terrestrial mammals in the project area remains
stable or increases during the life of the project.
Justification of Change Project activities will support the restoration of degraded land and
protect the remaining ecosystems (mangrove, swamp and
dryland forest). This will allow the transit of mammals, and food
chains to not be disrupted in comparison with the without project
scenario.
It is expected that the implementation of project activities will
contribute reducing the pressures and threats that currently exist
on biodiversity in the project area.
Biodiversity Element Ecological connectivity
168
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Estimated Change It is estimated that ecological connectivity will be maintained or

improved during the project execution, increasing the land
covered of the ecosystems: mangroves, peatland and dryland
forest.
Justification of Change The project main activity is the conservation of forest, allowing the
transit of wildlife species and the genetic flow of plant species. In
addition, the restoration activity of degraded land will allow for
better connectivity within mangrove, swamp and dry land forest
ecosystems.
5.2.2 Mitigation Measures (B2.3)
It is expected that the project activities will not generate negative impacts on biodiversity, as the
actions are aimed at strengthening community governance schemes, as well as promoting
sustainable business models, restoration of degraded land, and the reduction of GHG emissions
from deforestation and forest degradation, through conserving the forest.
In order to establish possible negative effects on biodiversity caused by the implementation of

project activities, a WebGIS smart patrol system was developed to analyze land-use change. It
includes an alert system designed to measure the potential impact of an activity on land-use
change within the Landscape. If there are potential impacts on land-use change or deforestation,
ground-checking will be conducted using GPS and unmanned aerial vehicles or drones to collect
evidence. The results of this activity will then be used as the basis for further action. This system
ensures that each activity contributing to deforestation and degradation can be detected quickly
and periodically monitored.
5.2.3 Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts (B2.2, GL1.4)
One of the key strategic lines of the project is the conservation and restoration (of degraded land)
of mangrove, swamp and dryland ecosystems, which will have a net positive impact on
biodiversity through the exchange networks of matter and energy, reversing habitat loss,
increasing ecological connectivity within the framework of the Padang Tikar Landscape socio-
ecological systems, and in turn, ecosystem services are maintained and improved. The positive
impacts will not happen in the same magnitud and instead, the identified threats to biodiversity
most probably will increase if the scenario without project takes place.
The net positive biodiversity impacts will be achieved through:
Implementing actions that positively transform socio-environmental conflicts in the territory,

specifically the project will support the conservation, restoration and rehabilitation of natural
ecosystems. This is linked to the strengthening of the Landscape governance, which will
allow for a stronger community organization that will contribute to improved decision
making, territorial planning and management, as well as biodiversity protection.
169
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Maintaining and/or increasing the richness of terrestrial fauna species in the project area.
Increasing awareness of the importance of biodiversity, especially for the well-being of local
communities, and on the other hand, strengthen knowledge and capacity for biodiversity
monitoring in the territory.
Identifying the impacts on biodiversity through the monitoring plan proposed.
Promoting sustainable business models in the Villages, including agroforestry systems, to

reduce the overexploitation of natural resources, the erosion and salt intrusion in lands with
agricultural potential - lowlands - due to rising sea levels.
Reducing the threats causing deforestation and forest degradation, mainly the ilegal
logging, agricultural land expansion and land and forest fires. This is linked to the strategy
of increasing the intensity of forest patrols to protect and safeguard the biodiversity.
5.2.4 High Conservation Values Protected (B2.4)

The project strategic lines aim to promote the conservation and restoration of key ecosystems and
the endangered and endemic species identified, as well as to strengthen or promote sustainable
productive activities that improve the quality of life of local communities. Therefore, no negative
effects are expected on the High Conservation Values and the biodiversity associated. In this
sense, the activities, outputs and outcomes framed in the Theory of Change are oriented towards
the protection of the High Conservation Values.
5.2.5 Species Used (B2.5)
The available seedlings for the activity: Restoration of Peat and Mangrove Ecosystems in Kubu-
Padang Tikar Landscape, amounted to 119,450 seedlings with a total of 20 species, consisting of
46,700 fruiting plants (11 species) and 72,750 woody plants (9 species).
Table 52: Species used in Restoration of Peat and Mangrove Ecosystems in Kubu-Padang
Tikar Landscape
Scientific name Common name Fruit / wood Native or non-

plant native species?
Coffea liberica Liberica Coffee Fruit Non-native
Coffea robusta Robusta Coffee Fruit Non-native
Parkia speciosa Bitter bean Fruit Native
Archidendron pauciflorum Djenkol bean Fruit Native
Nephelium lappaceum Rambutan Fruit Native
Lansium domesticum Langsat Fruit Native
170
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Scientific name Common name Fruit / wood Native or non-

plant native species?
Reutealis trisperma Kemiri Sunan Fruit Non-native
Durio zibethinus Durian Fruit Native
Mangifera indica Mango Fruit Non-native
Dimocarpus malesianus Longan/Lengkeng Fruit Native
Cocos nucifera L Coconut Fruit Non-native
Aquilaria malaccensis Gaharu Wood Native
Albizia chinensis Sengon Wood Native
Pometia pinnata Matoa Wood Native
Neolamarckia cadamba Burflower- Wood Native

tree/Jabon
Areca catechu Areca palm/Pinang Wood Native
Swietenia macrophylla Mahoni Wood Non-native
Rhizophora mucronata Red mangrove Wood Non-native
Polyalthia longifolia Monoon Wood Non-native

longifolium/Glodoka
n
Source: Katkar, 2010; Craig, 2006; GRIN, 2012; USDA, 2022
5.2.6 Invasive Species (B2.5)
Based on The Global Register of Invasive Species (GRIS), no known invasive species will be
introduced into any area affected by the project.
The GRIIS has been developed with co-funding from the European Union through the Secretariat
of the Convention on Biological Diversity within the framework of the Global Invasive Alien
Species Information Partnership (GIASIPartnership). The GIASIPartnership has come together in
order to assist Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, and others, implement Article
8(h) and Target 9 of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets
171
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
pathways are identified and prioritized, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and
.
5.2.7 Impacts of Non-native Species (B2.6)
Species Liberica Coffee (Coffea liberica) & Robusta Coffee (Coffea

robusta)
Justification of Use Can be cultivated on peatland locations (WRI, 2018); high
and Robusta Coffee have a high life span of 70-100% by

intercropping under Gerunggang and Belangeran plants.
Potential Adverse Effect Coffee plants have almost the same conservation function as
forest plants. A multi-layered canopy (with single stem pruning)
can protect the soil from direct raindrops, thereby preventing
splash erosion. Coffee has a strong taproot to a depth of 3
meters and lateral roots up to 2 meters, with a thickness of
about 0.5 meters from the soil surface and forming weaves in all
directions. This property can protect and hold the soil from the
erosion of rainwater (Ministry of Environment and Forestry,
2021). Coffee production, on the other hand, may have a
negative impact on plant and animal species living within if
monocrop is planted on a larger scale because it can lead to
deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution (Varcho, 2022).
As a result, intercropping coffee plantations with other plants is
critical to maintaining ecosystem balance.
Species Kemiri Sunan (Reutealis trisperma)
Justification of Use The Kemiri Sunan plant has many advantages, including as a
conservation plant; high adaptability to the environment; able to
grow on dry land in wet climates; have strong and deep roots;
able to survive on sloping land so that they can resist erosion;
wide canopy can absorb CO2 and produce enough O2; leaves
fall in the dry season and can form thick humus as a soil fertilizer
(Sasmita & Haryanto, 2015). The kemiri sunan also known as
the roducer of vegetable oil for biodiesel, raw material for varnish
and wood preservative (Pranowo et al. 2015).
Potential Adverse Effect There is still few research related to the impact of kemiri sunan
on the environment. However, Kemiri Sunan has the
characteristic of aborting leaves so it add organic matter in the
soil (Bandono, 2020). Moreover, based on research by Muliani
et al. (2019), kemiri sunan have a positive impact on pest which
can prolong larval development time, inhibit feeding activity
(antifeedant), and reduce dry weight of larvae. Kemiri Sunan has
172
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
the potential to be an environmentally friendly alternative to pest

control and to act as a natural pesticide.
Species Mango (Mangifera indica)
Justification of Use Essential food ingredients (food producer), high economic value,
low maintenance.
Potential Adverse Effect Mango production is relatively sustainable since there is no
known significant damage to air, water, land, soil, forests. Mango
trees on croplands were widely perceived as having a positive
effect on soil fertility and soil moisture (Musvoto and campbell,
1995).
Species Coconut (Cocos nucifera L)
Justification of Use Can be cultivated on peatland locations (WRI, 2018); annual

plant; can be harvested throughout the year; stable market price,
or even increase every year; easy cultivation; low maintenance
Potential Adverse Effect Per volume of oil produced, coconut production affects more
species than any other oil crop, including oil palm. According to
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN),
coconut threatens some 22 species per million metric tonnes of
oil produced. In fact, coconut cultivation has directly contributed
to the extinction of some species (Meijaard, 2020).
Species Mahoni (Swietenia macrophylla)
Justification of Use High economic value, easy to cultivate, have many benefit
(pharmacy, furniture, frames, doors and windows, flooring,
veneers and handicrafts) (Center of Environment and Forestry,
2017).
Potential Adverse Effect Mahagoni have a positive impact to the environment, through a
process known as interception, mahogany trees have an impact
on the quantity and quality of water that passes through the tree
canopy. The ability of this tree to intercept is fairly great due to
its wide, dense canopy and rough trunk. Additionally, when it
rains, the chemical reactions that take place in the leaves and
stems cause the rainwater to pass through mahogany to have
more chemical components (Fadhilah et al. 2021)
Species Red mangrove (Rhizophora mucronata)
Justification of Use High ecosystem services value (coastal protection, fishery,

aquaculture, absorb high carbon) and high economic value (dye,
firewood) (Kauffman & Donato, 2015).
173
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Potential Adverse Effect Red mangroves have a positive impact on the environment,
which provides rich organic material to the environment. As a
supporting ecosystem service, red mangroves provide a
spawning ground, nursery ground, and feeding ground
(Kauffman & Donato, 2015). However, it is highly concerning to
avoid homogenous planting because it will have a negative
impact on the environment (Asaeda et al. 2016). By planting a
diversity of mangrove species, it will have a positive impact on
the environment.
Species Monoon longifolium/Glodokan (Polyalthia longifolia)
Justification of Use Easy to cultivate, require larger area, evergreen tree, can absorb
pollution, and can be utilize as a herbal medicine (Environmental
agency, 2022)..
Potential Adverse Effect Glodokan has a positive impact on the environment because it is
one type of plant that is useful as a shade plant. Glodokan is
often used as a neutralizer of polluted air in big cities and also
acts as a sound pollution absorber (Environmental agency,
2022).
5.2.8 GMO Exclusion (B2.7)
GMOs will not be used in project activities.
5.2.9 Inputs Justification (B2.8)
The project is not planning to use and have not used products such as fertilizers, chemical
pesticides or biological control agents.
5.2.10 Waste Products (B2.9)

The project does not develop products from the waste disposal of organic and inorganic waste.
5.3 Offsite Biodiversity Impacts
5.3.1 Negative Offsite Biodiversity Impacts (B3.1) and Mitigation Measures (B3.2)
At the project development stage, no negative impacts on biodiversity are expected outside the
project site. If project activities move deforestation or forest degradation to areas outside the project
area, this could have a negative impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services in the area.
However, the project will undertake corrective actions with the community, as well as the project
design. This project will continue to provide sustainable funding in paying attention to activities that
occur at the project site including regulating forest workers who use wood as building material. The
project will address potential threats to biodiversity through adaptive management systems to
prevent negative impacts.
174
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
5.3.2 Net Offsite Biodiversity Benefits (B3.3)
The conservation of the forests is expected to contribute to the maintenance of ecological

connectivity with other areas outside the project, especially the IBA identified which overlaps with
the project area. As a result, it is expected to generate a positive impact on the flow of matter and
energy between the Kubu Raya District and West Kalimantan region's natural systems. It is also
expected that the project scenario will improve the protection and conservation of biodiversity and
regional habitats, thus restoring ecological functions that will protect ecosystems from the impacts
of climate change.
The West Kalimantan region has seen an increase in pressure on ecosystems and therefore
biodiversity in recent years, mainly due to habitat loss, fires, and illegal logging. Thus, the presence
of the REDD+ project will help significantly reduce deforestation and promote the establishment of
good land use and production practices, which will reduce the pressures to which ecosystems and
biodiversity have been subjected.
5.4 Biodiversity Impact Monitoring
5.4.1 Biodiversity Monitoring Plan (B4.1, B4.2, GL1.4, GL3.4)
The proposed biodiversity monitoring strategy will allow to evaluate the conservation status of the
project area based on the analysis of the collected data. The biodiversity monitoring plan is aligned
with the Theory of Change built for the Padang Tikar REDD project, this allows to consider the
socioecological complexity of the landscape, the main agents and drivers of deforestation and
degradation, the prioritized activities, outputs and outcomes the project will deliver, focusing on the
selected HCV.
To ensure that the project has a significant impact on the ecosystem, monitoring activity is essential
to evaluate conservation efforts. Monitoring helps to establish the conservation status of species
and improve the management decisions based on ecological approaches. The following aspects
were considered to define the methods and indicators:
- Community knowledge of the ecosystems and their biodiversity
- Travel distances to carry out monitoring
- The potential complexities that would be generated in the territory, regarding the logistics
for monitoring
- Sighting of the species under the category of HCV
- The representativeness of the ecosystems within the project area
- Drivers and agents of deforestation and forest degradation
175
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
In order to assesses the effectiveness of measures taken to protect the identified HCVs, a set of
indicators are proposed, aligned with the elements of the project ToC (Figure 5).
Table 53: Proposed indicators for the biodiversity monitoring plan
Element from the Variable Proposed indicator Proposed method

Theory of Change
Land and forest fires Number of significant WebGIS and

fires recorded community patrol
Direct threats
Illegal logging Number of wood- WebGIS and
harvesting / logging community patrol
incidents
Agricultural land Area (ha) of Geospatial analysis

expansion crops/plantation based on satellite
imagery
Area (ha) rehabilitated Geospatial analysis

Restored critical based on satellite
mangrove and peat imagery
ecosystems
Outputs Area (ha) under Geospatial analysis
agroforestry systems based on satellite
imagery
Area (ha) restored Geospatial analysis

based on satellite
imagery
Preserved habitat Area (ha) under Geospatial analysis

(Ecological conservation activity based on satellite
connectivity) imagery
Fragmentation index of GIS processing

the largest general software and Fragstat
ecosystem type
(ha/km) Satellite imagery
Developed Number of databases Based on field data

biodiversity developed
databases
Bird species Number of species Line transect and

Variable Circular Plot
Outcome (VCP)
Mammal species Number of species Phototramps, transect
176
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Element from the Variable Proposed indicator Proposed method

Theory of Change
Endemic species Number of species Phototramps, transect,

Variable Circular Plot
(VCP)
Areas to be monitored
Padang Tikar Landscape Project is located in Kubu Raya District and Batu Ampar sub-district in
West Kalimantan. It has 15 villages under its territory, of which ten villages have obtained Village
Forest Management Rights from MoeF, namely Batu Ampar, Teluk Nibung, Nipha Panjang, Medan
Mas, Padang Tikar 1, Tasik Malaya, Sungai Besar, Sungai Jawi, Ambarawa, and Tanjung Harapan.
East longitude. Considering the 10 villages location, 10 plots

for monitoring are distributed accordingly, covering the three main ecosystems: mangrove, swamp
and dryland forest (Figure 26).
Figure 26: Sampling plots in 10 villages
Sampling methods
177
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Birds
The monitoring for birds is proposed to be conducted by using a combination of line transect and
Variable Circular Plot (VCP). The distance between the center points of each plot is 100 m, while
the length of each transect is 500 m (5 plots). Observations of bird species were implemented at
intervals of time between 05:30 09:00 for the morning period and 15:00 18:00 for the afternoon
period. Data collection is done by observing birds in the entire circle area of observations, which
are recorded at intervals of five to 15 minutes for each observation point (The Forest Trust, 2014).
The data collection can also be assisted by using binocular or tele cameras. The data collected in
bird watching includes species, number of individuals of each species, location when observed (soil
surface, forest floor, lower canopy, middle or upper canopy), as well as the distance between the
observer and the object/animal(The Forest Trust, 2014). The form of the sample unit for bird
watching is presented in Figure 27:
Figure 27: Bird watching sample unit (The Forest Trust, 2014)
Mammals
To monitor mammals, it is important to categorized based on their size includes small, medium,
and large mammals. Small mammals (e.g., rodentia) are often quite abundant and rarely observed,
so they can be easily sampled with sufficient numbers of traps or pitfalls using capture-mark-
recapture protocols (Hoffman, 2010). Meanwhile for medium mammals, it is often used the
phototraps, trapping, or line transect method. Last, for larger mammals usually used the line
transect and phototraps method. However, for the otters animals, the usual method to be used are
direct observation method by placing observers at 500 meter intervals along a river (Chanin, 2003).
Furthermore, remote phototraps and searching for tracks and spraints are also important to monitor
the population of otters (Chanin, 2003). The following tools can also be used to monitor the
mammals in the project area:
Traps and bait: for most terrestrial small mammals, the live trap has become the standard
foldable, portable, and efficient trap of choice. It is also need consider the size of small
mammals and bait for the convenience of keeping animals. Last, after the monitoring
sessions ended, the small mammals must be release with the good animal release
etiquette (Hoffman, 2010).
178
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
Phototraps: used to produce data to evaluate populations of medium and large vertebrates.
Camera trapping has gained popularity among wildlife researchers as a method for
studying rare and elusive species and is growing in popularity among primatologists as a
way of surveying populations and even studying behavior (Spehar and Rayadin, 2017).
Line transect: Line transect method consisted of a 500 meter line transect while the
observations were made three times a day; morning (05:30 09:00 AM), evening (02:30
18:00 PM), and evening (19:00 23:00 PM). The data collected includes the type and
number of individuals of each species found, the distance between wildlife and the position
of the observer, the contact angle between the position of the detected animal and the
position of the observer, the line of the track observation, the time the animal species was
found (hours and minutes), and the type of encounters (nesting/sleeping places or
sound/sound signs) (The Forest Trust, 2014).
Counting tracks and sightings on trails: an adaptation of the linear transect methodology
can be used to search for direct or indirect records of species such as footprints, feces,
shelters, and carcasses.
Figure 28: Line transect design for large mammals (The Forest Trust, 2014)
From the photos obtained, a database of the species recorded in the study area will be elaborated.
To construct the database, consecutive photos that show different species or different individuals
of the same species will be considered independent events. The species should be identified based
on specialized literature for classification and updated nomenclature, according to known
systematics and taxonomy. Relative Abundance Indexes (RAI), which take into account the
sampling effort and allow for the comparison of studies from different sites, are recommended for
the data analysis (Tobler et al. 2008).
5.4.2 Biodiversity Monitoring Plan Dissemination (B4.3)

Describe how the monitoring plan, and any results of monitoring undertaken in accordance with
the monitoring plan, will be disseminated and made publicly available on the internet. Describe
the means by which summaries (at least) of the monitoring plan and results will be communicated
to the communities and other stakeholders.
179
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
5.5 Optional Criterion: Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits

The project does not seek to validate Gold Level for exceptional biodiversity benefits.
180
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
181
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3
CCB + VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: References
Asan, S.A., M.S. Anwari, S. Rifanjani, H. Darwati. Keanekaragaman jenis ikan di kawasan mangrove
sungai kakap Kabupaten Kubu Raya Provinsi Kalimantan Barat. Jurnal Hutan Lestari, 7(1):279-
286. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26418/jhl.v7i1.31723
Azhar, B., Lindenmayer, D., Wood, J., Fischer, J., Manning, A., McElhinny, C. and Zakaria, M. 2013.
Contribution of illegal hunting, culling of pest species, road accidents and feral dogs to biodiversity
loss in established oil-palm landscapes. Wildlife Research 40: 1-9.
Baker, N. 2013. New records of hairy-nosed otter (Lutra sumatrana) in Peninsular Malaysia. IUCN Otter
Spec. Group Bull, 30(2): 112-118.
Bandono, S. 2020. Kemiri sunan potensial sebagai tanaman reklamasi. Accessed 1 Juli 2022.
http://technology-indonesia.com/pertanian-dan-pangan/inovasi-pertanian/kemiri-sunan-
potensial-sebagai-tanaman-reklamasi/
Bennett, E. L. and Dahaban, Z. 1995. Wildlife response to disturbances in Sarawak and their implications
for forest management. In: R. B. Primack and T. E. Lovejoy (eds), Ecology, conservation and
management of South-East Asian rainforests, pp. 66-86. Yale University Press, New Haven, USA,
and London, UK.
BirdLife International.(2022).Important Bird Areas factsheet: Rawa di Pesisir Kapuas. Downloaded from
http://www.birdlife.org on 30/06/2022.
BirdLife International. 2001. Threatened birds of Asia: the BirdLife International Red Data Book. BirdLife
International, Cambridge, U.K.
Boonratana, R. 1993. The ecology and behaviour of the proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus) in the lower
Kinabatangan, Sabah. Asian Primates 4(1): 13-14.
BOS, 2022. Tentang habitat Orangutan, https://www.orangutan.or.id/id/about-orangutan-habitat.
Caldecott, J.O., Blouch, R.A. and MacDonald, A.A. 1993. The Bearded pig (Sus barbatus). In: W.L.R.
Oliver (ed.), Pigs, Peccaries, and Hippos: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan, pp. 136-
145. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Chanin P (2003). Monitoring the Otter Lutra lutra. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Monitoring Series No.
10, English Nature, Peterborough.
Cheyne, S.M. 2010. Behavioural ecology of gibbons (Hylobates albibarbis) in a degraded peat-swamp
forest. Indonesian primates, pp. 121-156. Springer New York.
Cheyne, S.M., Gilhooly, L.J., Hamard, M.C., Hoing, A., Houlihan, P.R., Kursani, Lokan, B., Phillips, A.,
Rhiyidan, Y., Capilla, B.R., Rowland, D., Sastramidjaja, W.J., Spehar, S., Thompson, C.J.H. and
Zrust, M. 2016. Population mapping of gibbons in Kalimantan, Indonesia: correlates of gibbon
density and vegetation across the species' range. Endangered Species Research 130: 133-143.
Chong, J.L., Panjang, E., Willcox, D., Nash, H.C., Semiadi, G., Sodsai, W., Lim, N., Fletcher, L.,
Kurnaiwan, A. and Cheema, S. 2019. Sunda pangolin Manis javanica (Desmarest, 1822). In:
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3 182

Challender, D.W.S., Nash, H.C., Waterman, C. (ed.), Pangolins: Science, Society and
Conservation, Academic Press.
Chuluun, B., Mariana, A., T. Ho and Mohd Kulaimi, B. 2005. A preliminary survey of ectoparasites of small
mammals in Kuala Selangor Nature Park. Tropical Biomedicine 22(2): 243-24.
Craig R. Elevitch (2006). Traditional Trees of Pacific Islands: Their Culture, Environment, and Use. PAR.
pp. 662 664. ISBN 9780970254450.
Clearly, D. F. R. 2008. Biodiversity conservation in Borneo and the threat of large scale distubance events.
Indonesia: Troponbos International. 29-47 p. ISSN 1383-6811
Curran, L.M., Trigg, S.N., McDonald, A.K., Astiani, D., Hardiono, Y.M., Siregar, P., Caniago, I. and
Kasischke, E. 2004. Lowland Forest Loss in Protected Areas of Indonesian Borneo. Science
303(5660): 1000 - 1003.
ct
that motivates killing of orangutans. PLoS One 8: e75373.
Dehadrai, P.V. and Ponniah, A.G. 1997. Conserving India's fish Biodiversity. International Journal of
Ecology and Environmental Sciences 23: 315-326.
del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J. 1997. Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol. 4: Sandgrouse to
Cuckoos. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain.
Dharmawan, A. H., Mardiyaningsih, D.I., Komarudin, H., Ghazoul, J., Pacheco, P., Rahmadian, F. 2020.
Dynamics of rural economy: a socio-economic understanding of oil palm expansion and
landscape changes in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Land, 9, 213. doi:10.3390/land9070213
Dislich, C., Keyel, A.C., Salecker, J., Kisel, Y., Meyer, K.M., et al. 2016. A review of the ecosystem
functions in oil palm plantations, using forests as a reference system. Biological Review. doi:
10.1111/brv.12295
Duckworth, J.W., Batters, G., Belant, J.L., Bennett, E.L., Brunner, J., Burton, J., Challender, D.W.S.,
Cowling, V., Duplaix, N., Harris, J. D., Hedges, S., Long, B., Mahood, S.P., McGowan, P.J.K.,
McShea, W.J., Oliver, W.L.R., Perkin, S., Rawson, B.M., Shepherd, C.R., Stuart, S.N., Talukdar,
B.K., van Dijk, P.P., Vié, J-C., Walston, J.L., Whitten, T. and Wirth, R. 2012. Why South-East Asia
ing imminent species extinctions, and a call to join a
developing cross-institutional programme to tackle this urgent issue. Sapiens 5(2).
Environmental Agency. 2022. Glodokan Tiang. Accessed 1 July 2022.

https://dlh.probolinggokab.go.id/glodokan-tiang-
2/#:~:text=Pohon%20glodokan%20tiang%20merupakan%20salah,dapat%20berperan%20seba
gai%20peredam%20suara
Elyta, E., Rahman, I. 2019. Overcoming the forest fire in West Kalimantan: a political ecology approach,
EAI. DOI 10.4108/eai.1-4-2019.2287273.
Esselstyn, J.A., Widmann, P. and Heaney, L.R. 2004. The mammals of Palawan Island, Philippines.
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(3): 271-302.
Fadhila, M.F., Y. Hidayat, A. Hadiyane. 2021. The role of the mahogany tree (Swietenia macrophylla King)
on quantity and quality of water that fall below the canopy. IOP Publishing, 918, 021036.
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/918/1/012036
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3 183

Fitzher, E.B., Struebig, M.J., Morel, A., Danielsen F., et al. 2008. How will oil palm expansion affect
biodiversity?. Elsevier Ltd, 23, 10, 538-545. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.012
Fredriksson, G.M., Danielsen, L.S. and Swenson, J.E. 2007. Impacts of El Niño related drought and forest
fires on sun bear fruit resources in lowland dipterocarp forest of East Borneo. Biodiversity and
Conservation 16: 1823-1838.
Gomez, L., Shepherd, C. R., & Morgan, J. 2019. Improved Legislation and Stronger Enforcement Actions
needed as the Online Otter Trade in Indonesia continues. IUCN Otter Spec. Group Bull 36(2): 64-
70.
Grassman, L.I., Jr., Tewes, M.E. and Silvy, N.J. 2005. Ranging, habitat use and activity patterns of
binturong Arctictis binturong and yellow-throated marten Martes flavigula in north-central
Thailand. Wildlife Biology 11: 49-57.
Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Agricultural Research Service (ARS), United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA). "Rhizophora mucronata". Retrieved 2012-10-07.
Hansen, M.C, Stehman, S.V., Potapov, P.V., Arunarwati, B., Stolle, F. and Pittman, K. 2009. Quantifying
changes in the rates of forest clearing in Indonesia from 1990 to 2005 using remotely sensed data
sets. Environmental Research Letters 4(3).
Harrison, M., Hendri, Dragiewicz, M., Krisno, J., Cheyne, S. M. and Husson, S. J. 2010. Biodiversity of
the mungku Bsaru Ulin Forest, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Orangutan Tropical Peatland
Project for International Animal Rescue, Palangka Raya, Indonesia.
Harrison, R.D. 2000. Repercussions of El Nino: drought causes extinction and the breakdown of
mutualism in Borneo. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences 267:
911-915.
Heng, S., Dong, T., Hon, N., & Olsson, A. 2016. The hairy-nosed otter Lutra sumatrana in Cambodia:
distribution and notes. Cambodian Journal of Natural History. 2016: 102-110.
Hoffman, A., J. Decher. F. Rovero, J. Schaer, C. Voigt, G. Wibbelt. 2010. Field Methods and Techniques
for Monitoring Mammals. 486-488 p.
https://globaltrees.org/projects/protecting-threatened-trees-across-west-kalimantan-indonesia/
Iqbal, M. 2015. Looking at online bird trading in Indonesia; a case study from South Sumatra. BirdingASIA
24: 132-135.
IUCN. 2018. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2018-2. Available at:
www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 15 November 2018).
Jati, A.S., Samejima, H., Fujiki, S., Kurniawan, Y., Aoyagi, R. 2018. Effects of logging on wildlife
communities in certified tropical rainforests in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Forest Ecology and
Management, 427, 124-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.05.054
Kanchanasakha, B., Simcharoen, S. and Tin Than, U. 1998. Carnivores of Mainland South-East Asia.
Endangered Species Unit, WWF-Thailand Project Office, Thailand.
List of invasive species: (source) Global Registered Introduced and Invasive Species
Margono, B.A., Potapov, P.V., Turubanova, S.A., Stolle, F., Hansen, M.C. and Stole, F. 2014. Primary
forest cover loss in Indonesia over 2000 2012. Nature Climate Change 4: 730 735.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3 184

Marshall, A.J. 2004. The population ecology of gibbons and leaf monkeys across a gradient of Bornean
forest types. PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Marshall, A.J. 2009. Are montane forests demographic sinks for Bornean white-bearded gibbons?
Biotropica 41: 257-267.
Marshall, A.J., Lacy, R., Ancrenaz, M., Byers, O., Husson S.J., Leighton, M., Meijaard, E., Rosen, N.,
Singleton, I., Stephens, S., Traylor-Holzer, K., Utami Atmoko, S.S., van Schaik, C.P. and Wich,
S.A. 2009. Orangutan population biology, life history, and conservation. Perspectives from
population viability analysis models. In: S.A. Wich, S.S. Utami Atmoko, T. Mitra Setia and C.P.
van Schaik (eds), Orangutans: Geographic Variation in Behavioral Ecology and Conservation, pp.
311 326. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Meijaard, E. and Nijman, V. 2000. Distribution and conservation of the proboscis monkey (Nasalis
larvatus) in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biological Conservation 92: 15-24.
Meijaard, E., Buchori, D., Hadiprakarsa, Y., Ancrenaz, M. et al. 2011. Quantifying killing of orangutans
and human-orangutan conflict in Kalimantan, Indonesia. PLoS One 6(11): e27491.
Meijaard, E.M., Dennis, R.A., and Meijaard, E. 2014. Tall tales of a tropical squirrel. TAPROBANICA: The
Journal of Asian Biodiversity 6: 27-31.
Meijaard, E. 2020. Why coconut oil may be worse than palm oil for the environment. Accessed 1 July
2022.https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/coconut-oil-worse-palm-oil-deforestation-environment-
ecology-a9605761.html
Ministry of Forest and Environment. 1999. Regulation of Ministry of Forest and Environment No 41of 1999
about forest.
Ministry of Forest and Environment. 2012. Regulation of Ministry of Forest and Environment No 73 of
2012 about the national strategy of mangrove ecosystem management.
Ministry of Forest and Environment. 2018. Tanaman kopi untuk konservasi. Accessed on 1 July 2022.
http://p3ejawa.menlhk.go.id/article35-tanaman-kopi-untuk-konservasi.html
Ministry of Public Works and Housing, 2015, Regulation of Ministry of Public Works and Housing of
Republic Indonesia No 29/PRT/M/2015.
Muliani, Y., Mustariani E., R.W. Ramdyan. 2019. Pengaruh konsentrasi minyak kemiri sunan (Reutealis
trisperma (Blanco) Airy Shaw) terhadap larva Crocidolomia binotalis Zell. (Lepidoptera; Pyralidae)
hama tanaman sawi (Brassica juncea L.). Agroscropt, 1(2):78-88.
Mustovo, C, & B.M.Campbell. Mango trees as components of agroforestry sytsems in Mangwende,

Zimbabwe. Agroforestry Systems, 32:247-260.
Nash, H.C., Lee, P.B., Lim, N.T.L., Luz, S., Li, C., Chung, Y.F., Olsson, A., Boopal, A., Strange, B.C.N.
and Rao, M. 2019. The Sunda pangolin in Singapore: a multi-stakeholder approach to research
and conservation. In: Challender, D.W.S., Nash, H.C., Waterman, C. (ed.), Pangolins: Science,
Society and Conservation, Academic Press.
Nasi, R., Dennis, R., Meijaard., E., Applegate, G. 2002. Forest fire and biological diversity. Unasylva, 53,
209. ISSN 0041-6436.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3 185

Nazeri, M., L. Kumar, K. Jusoff, and A.R. Bahaman. 2014. Modeling the potential distribution of sun bear
in Krau wildlife reserve, Malaysia. Ecological Informatics 20: 27 32.
Niemitz, C. 1979. Results of a field study on the western tarsier (Tarsius bancanus borneanus Horsfield,
1821) in Sarawak. Sarawak Museum Journal 27: 171 228.
Nijman, V., Shepherd, C.R., and Nekaris, K.A.I. 2014. Trade in Bengal Slow Lorises in Mong La, Myanmar,
on the China Border. Primate Conservation 28(139-142).
Nowak, R.M. (ed.) 1999. Walkers Mammals of the World. Sixth edition. The Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore and London.
Nurdwiansyah, D., Hardiansyah G., Roslinda E, Moore, P. 2021. Analisis kinerja penurunan deforestrasi
di 10 izin hutan desa kecamatan Batu Ampar. Jurnal Tengkawang, 2, 1, 59-70. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.26418/jt.v11i1.45251
Oka, T., Iskander, E, and Ghozali, D. 2000. Effects of forest fragmentation on the behaviour of Bornean
gibbons. In: E. Guhardia, M. Fatawi, M. Stisna, T. Mori and S. Ohta (eds), Ecological Studies:
Rainforest Ecosystems of East Kalimantan: El Nino, Drought, Fire and Human Impacts, pp. 229-
241. Springer, London, UK.
Payne, J., Francis, C.M. and Phillipps, K. 1985. A field guide to the mammals of Borneo. The Sabah
Society and WWF Malaysia, Kota Kinabalu and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Payne, J., Francis, C.M. and Phillipps, K. 1985. A field guide to the mammals of Borneo. The Sabah
Society and WWF Malaysia, Kota Kinabalu and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Perinchery, A., Jathanna, D. and Kumar, A. 2011. Factors determining occupancy and habitat use by
Asian small-clawed otters in the Western Ghats, India. Journal of Mammalogy 92(4): 796-802.
Prakash, N., Mudappa, D., Raman, T.R.S. and Kumar, A. 2012. Conservation of the Asian small-clawed
otter (Aonyx cinereus) in human-modified landscapes, Western Ghats, India. Tropical
Conservation Science 5: 67-78.
[PT.CUS] Cipta Usaha Sejati . 2015. List of flora and fauna.
Rabor, D.S. 1986. Guide to the Philippine flora and fauna. Natural Resources Management Centre.
Ministry of Natural Resources and University of the Philippines.
Rhee, S., D. Kitchener, T. Brown, R. Merril, R. Dilts, S. Tighe. 2004. Report on biodiversity and tropical
forest in Indonesia. Indonesia: USAID.
Sasmita, E.R, & D. Haryanto. 2015. Respon pertumbuhan bibit kemiri sunan terhadap dosis pipik NPK
pada berbagai komposisi media tanam. Yogyakarta: UPN.
Schreiber, A., Wirth, R., Riffel, M. and Van Rompaey, H. 1989. Weasels, Civets, Mongooses and their
Relatives. An Action Plan for the Conservation of Mustelids and Viverrids. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland.
Sebastian, A. C. 2005. Sighting of a Sunda Otter Civet Cynogale bennettii in Sarawak. Small Carnivore
Conservation 33: 24-25.
Setapak, 2022. West Kalimantan, Setapak accessed 23 June 2022,

https://old.programsetapak.org/where-we-work/west-kalimantan/
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3 186

Sharma, S.K., Baral, H., Laumonier Y., Okarda, B., Komarudin H., et al. 2019. Ecosystem services under
future oil palm expansion scenarios in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Ecosystem service, 39,
100978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100978
Sodhi, N.S., Posa, M.R.C., Lee, T.M., Bickford, D., Koh, L.P. and Brook, B.W. 2010. The state and
conservation of Southeast Asian biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 317-328.
Soepadmo, E., Wong, K.M. (1995) Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak: Volume One. Forest Research
Institute (FRIM), Sabah Forestry Department and Sarawak Forestry Department, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
Soepadmo, E., Wong, K.M. (1995) Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak: Volume One. Forest Research
Institute (FRIM), Sabah Forestry Department and Sarawak Forestry Department, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
Sopyan, E. 2008. Malayan Pangolin Manis javanica Trade in Sumatra, Indonesia. In: Pantel, S. and Yun,
C.S. (eds), Proceedings of the Workshop on Trade and Conservation of Pangolins native to South
and Southeast Asia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. Singapore
Zoo.
Spehar and Rayadin. (2017). Habitat use of Bornean Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) in an industrial
forestry plantation in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. International Journal of Primatology, 38(2), 358-
384. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10764-017-9959-8
Starr, C., Nekaris, K.A.I., Streicher, U., and Leung, L. 2010. Traditional use of slow lorises Nycticebus
bengalensis and N. pygmaeus in Cambodia: an impediment to their conservation. Endangered
Species Research 12(1): 17-23.
Stibig, H.-
Southeast Asia from 1990 to 2010. Biogeosciences 11: 247 258.
Susandari, R., Purnomo, R.P. Sancayaningsih, I.P. Astuti, R. Sari, Irawati, et al. 2012. Flora dan Fauna
Kalimantan: Dokumentasi Hasil Tim Peneliti Ekspedisi Khatulistiwa. Yogyakarta: Fakultas Biologi,
Universitas Gadjah Mada. ISBN 9789798969089.
The Forest Trust. 2018. Draft Metode Monitoring NKT 1-4. Semarang, Indonesia: TFT. 14-16 p.
Thorington Jr., R.W, Koprowski, J.L., Steele, M.A. and Whatton, J.F. 2012. Squirrels of the World. The
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Timm, R.M. and Birney, E.C. 1992. Systematic notes on the Philippine slow loris, Nycticebus coucang
menagensis (Lydekker, 1893) (primates, Lorisidae). International Journal of Primatology 13(6):
679 686.
Tobler, M. W., Carrillo Percastegui, S. E., Leite Pitman, R., Mares, R., & Powell, G. 2008. Further notes
on the analysis of mammal inventory data collected with camera traps. Animal Conservation,
11(3), 187-189
Tracewski, L., Butchart, S.H.M., Di Marco, M., Ficetola, G.F., Rondinini, C., Symes, A., Wheatley, H.,
Beresford, A.E. and Buchanan, G.M. 2016. Toward quantification of the impact of 21st-century
deforestation on the extinction risk of terrestrial vertebrates. Conservation Biology.
Varcho, A.L. 2022. A bitter brew-coffee production, deforestation, soil erosion, and water contamination.
Accessed 1 July 2022. https://ohiostate.pressbooks.pub/sciencebites/chapter/a-bitter-brew-
coffee-production-deforestation-soil-erosion-and-water-
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3 187

contamination/#:~:text=Coffee%20production%20is%20altering%20rainforest,soil%20erosion%
2C%20and%20water%20pollution
Veron, G., Gaubert, P., Franklin, N., Jennings, A. P. and Grassman Jr., L. I. 2006. A reassessment of the
distribution and taxonomy of the Endangered Otter Civet Cynogale bennettii (Carnivora:
Viverridae) of South-east Asia. Oryx 40: 42-49.
Wetlands International. 1997. The Environmental Profile of the Coastal Wetlands of West Kalimantan.
Draft Report. Wetlands International-Indonesia Programme and P.T. Lestari Bina Desa Sejahtera.
Integrated Swamp Development Project in West Kalimantan (IBRD Loan 3755 IND).
[WRI] World Research Institute. 2018. Dryland Species That Can Be Cultivated in Peatland, But Are Not
Paludiculture Practices. Accessed 30 June 2022. https://wri-indonesia.org/en/resources/data-
visualizations/dryland-species-can-be-cultivated-peatland-are-not-paludiculture
Wong, S.T., Servheen, C., Ambu, L. and Norhayati, A. 2005. Impacts of fruit production cycles on Malayan
sun bears and bearded pigs in lowland tropical forest of Sabah, Malaysian Borneo. Journal of
Tropical Ecology 21: 627-639.
BirdLife International. 2001. Threatened birds of Asia: the BirdLife International Red Data Book.
BirdLife International, Cambridge, U.K. del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J. 1997. Handbook of the Birds
of the World, vol. 4: Sandgrouse to Cuckoos. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain.
Iqbal, M. 2015. Looking at online bird trading in Indonesia; a case study from South Sumatra. BirdingASIA
24: 132-135.
IUCN. 2018. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2018-2. Available at:
www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 15 November 2018).
Tracewski, L., Butchart, S.H.M., Di Marco, M., Ficetola, G.F., Rondinini, C., Symes, A., Wheatley, H.,
Beresford, A.E. and Buchanan, G.M. 2016. Toward quantification of the impact of 21st-century
deforestation on the extinction risk of terrestrial vertebrates. Conservation Biology.
https://globaltrees.org/projects/protecting-threatened-trees-across-west-kalimantan-indonesia/
BirdLife International (2022) Important Bird Areas factsheet: Rawa di Pesisir Kapuas. Downloaded from
http://www.birdlife.org on 30/06/2022.
Wetlands International. 1997. The Environmental Profile of the Coastal Wetlands of West Kalimantan.
Draft Report. Wetlands International-Indonesia Programme and P.T. Lestari Bina Desa Sejahtera.
Integrated Swamp Development Project in West Kalimantan (IBRD Loan 3755 IND).
List of invasive species: (source) Global Registered Introduced and Invasive Species
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3 188

Appendix 2: List of invasive species reported for Indonesia
Scientific name
Acacia confusa Eleutheranthera ruderalis Pennisetum polystachyum
Acacia decurrens Erechtites hieraciifolius Pennisetum purpureum
Acacia farnesiana Erigeron sumatrensis Phragmites karka
Acacia mangium Eugenia uniflora Physalis pruinosa
Acacia mearnsii Eupatorium sordidum Phytolacca icosandra
Adenanthera pavonina Euphorbia heterophylla Pinus merkusii
Aeschynomene americana Euphorbia hirta Piper aduncum
Aeschynomene indica Fimbristylis dura Pistia stratiotes
Ageratina riparia Foeniculum vulgare Plantago major
Ageratum conyzoides Fuchsia magellanica Podachaenium eminens
Arenga obtusifolia Hedyotis corymbosa Polygala paniculata
Artemisia vulgaris Herissantia crispa Polygonum barbatum
Arundo donax Hiptage benghalensis Prosopis spp.
Asystasia gangetica Hydrilla verticillata Psidium guajava
Austroeupatorium inulifolium Hyptis capitata Pueraria montana
Axonopus compressus Hyptis suaveolens Rhodomyrtus tomentosa
Ayapana triplinervis Imperata cylindrica Rhynchospora colorata
Azolla pinnata Ipomoea cairica Ricinus communis
Bartlettina sordida Ipomoea carnea Rivina humilis
Bauhinia purpurea Ipomoea triloba Rottboellia cochinchinensis
Belucia acinanthera Jatropha curcas Rubus ellipticus
Bidens pilosa Jatropha gossypiifolia Ruellia tuberosa
Blyxa aubertii Kappaphycus alvarezii Salvinia cucullata
Borreria alata Lantana camara Salvinia molesta
Borreria laevis Leucaena leucocephala Salvinia natans
Borreria latifolia Ligustrum robustum Senna obtusifolia
Breynia stipitata Limnocharis flava Senna pendula
Bridelia insulana Ludwigia peruviana Senna tora
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3 189

Brugmansia Macaranga triloba Sida acuta
Brugmansia suaveolens Maesopsis eminii Sida rhombifolia
Calliandra houstoniana Maranta lietzei Sigesbeckia orientalis
Calopogonium mucunoides Marsilea crenata Solanum americanum
Carex lyngbyei Melastoma affin Solanum giganteum
Cassia bicapsularis Melastoma malabathricum Solanum torvum
Cassia siamea Merremia peltata Sonchus asper
Caulerpa taxifolia Miconia calvescens Sorghum halepense
Cecropia peltata Mikania micrantha Spermacoce alata
Cenchrus polystachios Millingtonia hortensis Spermacoce laevis
Centotheca lappacea Mimosa diplotricha Sphagneticola trilobata
Centrosema pubescens Mimosa pigra Sphenoclea zeylanica
Cerastium glomeratum Mimosa pudica Spigelia anthelmia
Cerastium holosteoides Momordica charantia Stachytarpheta indica
Cestrum aurantiacum Monochoria hastata Stachytarpheta jamaicensis
Chenopodium ambrosioides Monochoria vaginalis Stachytarpheta urticaefolia
Chimonobambusa quadrangularis Montanoa grandiflora Striga asiatica
Chromolaena odorata Montanoa hibiscifolia Swietenia mahagoni
Cinchona pubescens Morella faya Synedrella nodiflora
Cissus quadrangulus Muntingia calabura Syzygium cumini
Cissus sicyoides Mussaenda frondosa Tectona grandis
Cleome aculeata Myriophyllum brasiliense Themeda arguens
Cleome rutidosperma Nelumbo nucifera Thespesia lampas
Clibadium surinamense Nymphoides indica Thespesia populnea
Clidemia hirta Ocimum americanum Thunbergia grandiflora
Crassocephalum crepidioides Oplismenus compositus Tithonia diversifolia
Croton hirtus Opuntia stricta Tithonia rotundifolia
Cryptostegia grandiflora Ottochloa nodosa Tribulus terrestris
Cuphea balsamona Oxalis barrelieri Tridax procumbens
Cuphea ignea Oxalis debilis Turnera ulmifolia
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3 190

Cuscuta campestris Panicum maximum Typha latifolia
Cyperus difformis Panicum repens Ulex europaeus
Cyrtococcum accrescens Paraserianthes falcataria Urena lobata
Cyrtococcum patens Parkinsonia aculeata Urochloa maxima
Cyrtococcum trigonum Paspalum conjugatum Utricularia aurea
Dianella ensifolia Paspalum dilatatum Vachellia nilotica
Dicranopteris linearis Passiflora edulis Verbena brasiliensis
Eichhornia crassipes Passiflora foetida Waltheria americana
Elephantopus mollis Passiflora ligularis Zapoteca portoricensis
Elephantopus scaber Pennisetum clandestinum
Source: Global Registered Introduced and Invasive Species, 2022
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3 191

Padang Tikar PDD VCS CCB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Padang Tikar PDD VCS CCB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

PADANG TIKAR LANDSCAPE

Document Prepared By South Pole

Contact Information +62 (021) 9971877, info@southpole.com

Project Title Padang Tikar Landacpe

Date of Issue 20-June-2022

Project Location Indonesia, West Kalimantan

Contact Name: Shintia Arwida

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3 1

Earthood Service Private Limited

Project Lifetime 30 August 2017 29 August 2047; 30-year lifetime

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3 2

1 Summary of Project Benefits .............................................................................................. 4

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3 3

1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS

1.1 Unique Project Benefits

3) Increased welfare of the community by encouraging alternative sustainable income with

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3 4

1.2 Standardized Benefit Metrics

measured against the without-project scenario

against the without-project scenario

For ARR 3 projects: Estimated number of hectares of Not applicable -

a result of project activities, measured against the

Number of female community members who are Data not available -

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3 5

access to drinking water as a result of project

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3 6

8 Well- -being benefits may include benefits reported in

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3 7

2.1 Project Goals, Design and Long-Term Viability

2.1.1 Summary Description of the Project (G1.2)

2) restoring critical mangrove and peat ecosystems;

4) increasing community capacity through training, comparative studies, and

2.1.2 Project Scale

2.1.3 Project Proponent (G1.1)

Organization name Ambarawa village

Contact person M Bakri

Title Head of village

Telephone +62 816-4968-6237

Organization name Batu Ampar village

Contact person Herry Prawiranto

Telephone +62 821-5385-3882

Organization name Medan Mas village

Contact person Dharma Wira

Organization name Nipah Panjang village

Contact person Mochtar D

Organization name Padang Tikar Satu village

Contact person Mujahidin

Organization name Sungai Besar village

Contact person Sumar

Organization name Sungai Jawi village

Contact person Effendi

Organization name Tanjung Harapan village

Contact person Sahron

Organization name Tasik Malaya village

Contact person Hendratullah

Organization name Teluk Nibung village

Contact person Gunawan

2.1.4 Other Entities Involved in the Project

Contact person Anton P. Widjaya

Telephone +62 811 5660 915

Organization name South Pole

Contact person Shintia Arwida