Digital Appendix 3 - HCV 2_1 Case Study

8/8/2019 Digital Appendix 3 - HCV 2_1 Case Study

1/33

Digital Appendix 3

CASE STUDY

Identification and Mapping of HCV 2.1 areas Landscapes wi t h Capaci t y t o Maintain Nat uralEcological Processes

with focus on Berau & East Kutai Districts, Indonesia1

1. Introduction

This case study is an excerpt from a larger report describing results of a landscape High

Conservation Value (HCV) mapping project in East Kalimantan, performed by DaemeterConsulting and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). The full scope of HCV mapping covered inthe project includes HCV 2.1 & 2.2 (Large landscapes with capacity to maintain naturalecological processes) and HCV3 (Rare or endangered ecosystems).

The case study is intended primarily to provide the reader with a basic understanding ofmethods for identifying HCV 2.1, but also draw attention to large natural ecosystem blocksidentified in East Kalimantan as a result of this study. A fuller report of landscape HCV 2 &3 findings, associated maps and management recommendations is being preparedseparately. This full report will become public domain, for which further information canbe obtained directly from TNC ([email protected]) or Daemeter ([email protected]).

This case study has five sections: Background, Methods, Findings, Maps and StatisticalTables.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/33

In the revised HCV Toolkit for Indonesia, three sub-value of HCV 2 are distinguished:

HCV 2.1 Large Natural Landscapes with Capacity to Maintain NaturalEcological Processes and Dynamics

HCV 2.2 Areas that Contain Two or More Contiguous Ecosystems

HCV 2.3 Areas that Contain Representative Populations of MostNaturally Occurring Species

This case study focuses on HCV 2.1.

The original HCV Toolkit for Indonesia (2003) recommended 50,000 ha as a minimum sizecriterion for identifying a large landscape level forest under HCV 2. This threshold did notconsider ecological type, shape of the area, or the potential importance of landscape sub-elements to overall landscape function. In the revised Toolkit, the 50,000 ha criterion is

no longer used. Instead, HCV 2.1 areas are defined as natural landscapes that (i) possess acore area far from the landscape edge wherein natural processes appear likely to besustained and (ii) retain a diversity of interconnected natural ecosystem types acrosswhich the flow of materials, energy and organisms can take place.

The empirical criterion for such a landscape is a forest block (or other natural landscapemosaic) with an internal core >20,000 ha in size surrounded by a natural, reasonably intactvegetation buffer of at least 3 km from the forest (or other landscape) edge. The

management goal of HCV 2.1 is to guarantee that the core area and associated buffer zoneare maintained as forest or other natural vegetation.

3. Methods

3.1 Forest Cover

Area of Interest and Mapping area

The area of interest (AOI) for the project covers the full extent of Berau District (c. 2.2million ha) and East Kutai District (c. 3.2 million ha) plus a small buffer around the outeredge of these districts, making a total area of the AOI of c. 6 million ha. These two


3/33

endangered status, and then compares the extent of current and predicted future loss tothresholds defined in the Toolkit (see Digital Appendix 4 for a full explanation and Case

Study). Because the AOI of Berau and East Kutai Districts partially covered four differentphysiographic regions mentioned above, a much larger area was mapped, referred to asthe Mapping Area. This area covers c. 18 million ha, or 33% of the land surface ofKalimantan (91% of East Kalimantan province) and is depicted in Figure 1.

Below, results for HCV 2.1 are presented for the area encompassing the AOI only and asmall surrounding buffer. Results for the larger mapping area will be presented in the fullreport.

Natural Ecosystems and Water Bodies

HCV 2 and 3 not only considers forests but also other non-forest natural ecosystems. Thenatural state of most of western Indonesia (Sundaland) is forest, but natural grasslands,open swamps, and lakes and rivers also occur, and merit consideration. (The termnatural requires further discussion). For the determination of rare and endangered status

under HCV3, it is not required to consider condition of the ecosystem being considered(e.g. intact versus degraded by logging), just whether or not it is of natural versusanthropogenic origins. If the latter, then it is excluded; if natural but degraded, then thisfact gets further consideration at the management stage of the assessment.

For forests in this analysis, all closed canopy forest or logged over forest were included asforest. Highly degraded forests were also included if they appeared to have potential forrecovery, following the principle that the more highly degraded, homogeneous, and

further away from other natural forests a given forest area might be, then the less likely itcould recover and thus more likely it should be excluded. Forests that had beencompletely destroyed by fire were excluded. Areas of mature swidden fallow agriculturewith long rotation times and at low density embedded in a matrix of forest were likely tobe included as part of a natural landscape, as they are too difficult to delineateaccurately with Landsat, and recovery of such areas can be rapid, increasing theirconservation value.

Non-forest natural ecosystems can be detected in areas that are non-forest, where thereare no signs of anthropogenic activity and no change occurring over time. In EastKalimantan, large areas would appear at first glance to meet these criteria, but it is onlyby looking at the 1970s imagery that it becomes evident such areas were, in fact, onceforested. The 1982/83 fires destroyed an estimated 2.7 million ha of forest acrossIndonesia (Schindele et al. 1989). Since that time, other fires have occurred, the mostrecent major episode being in 1997/98, affecting 5.2 million ha across Indonesia


4/33

For water bodies, the SRTM Water Body Data set (SWBDv2.0) published by NASA2 was used,after editing and augmenting using the decadal Landsat orthorectified sets to ensure all

the major rivers were included. The modified SWBD was used additionally as the base mapfor Kalimantan, referred to below as the Daemeter base map. It is assumed that the waterbodies and coastline are constant over time, an assumption that is not true in a strictsense but allows direct comparability between the 1970s and the present.


5/33


6/33

Past Forest Cover c. 1975

Identification of HCV3 requires mapping of past, present and future expected forest cover.It is not required for mapping HCV 2.1 (the subject of this case study), but can be veryuseful for interpreting current patterns of vegetation cover. Because past forest cover wasmapped for HCV 3 as part of the larger project, methods are included here. Results,however, are not discussed further, except as required for discussion of HCV 2.1.

Past forest cover was mapped using onscreen manual interpretation of 44 Landsat MSS 1,2, & 3 images from between 1972 and 1982 (Table 1 and Figure 2). The large number ofimages over a ten year period was required to achieve a cloud free view of this part ofKalimantan. Where possible the earliest image was used, such that where an earlier imageshowed a location to be forested and a later image non-forest, the location was classifiedas forest. The nominal date of the forest cover is given as c.1975, reflecting thepredominant reliance on images from this year or earlier to map past forest cover. Allscenes were rectified using the Landsat orthorectified TM and ETM imagery3. Due to the

poor resolution and the limited spectral range provided by Landsat MSS, the Landsatorthorectified images and other recent images were used to assist in their interpretation,

(see Table 2 for the list of reference scenes used). It should be noted that even with thequantity of images, cloud cover in some parts made interpretation very difficult. None ofthe scenes was sufficiently cloud free or of a quality that would enable more sophisticatedand systematic approaches to be used, such as a supervised classification.

Current Forest Cover

Current (2009) forest cover was mapped using onscreen digitization of 44 Landsat 7 scenes

from between 2006 and August 2009, Table 2, andFigure 3. The number of scenes was required to obtain a relatively cloud free image ofthis part of Kalimantan. Were possible the most recent scene was used. Typically Landsatbands 5, 4, and 2 were used during the classification. In areas that were highly degradedor had previously been affected by fire, it was often difficult to delineate a boundarybetween natural and non-natural, and we acknowledge that different operators may reach

different conclusions. In these areas, the Landsat reference scenes were useful to providethe operator with a richer historical background. It should be noted that even with thequantity of images used, the cloud cover in some parts made interpretation very difficult.As in the case of past forest cover mapping, none of the scenes was sufficiently cloud freeor of a quality that would enable more sophisticated and systematic approaches to beused, such as a supervised classification.


7/33

Table 1 The 44 Landsat MSS 1, 2, &3 scenes used to classify historical forest cover. See FigureFigure 2.1

Path Row

123 60 1972

124 59 1972 1973 1979 1982

124 60 1973

124 61 1978

125 57 1972 1982

125 58 1975 1979 1981 1982

125 59 1972 1973 1975 1979 1981 1982

125 60 1973 1979

125 61 1973 1979 1980

126 57 1972 1973 1979

126 58 1973 1979

126 59 1973 1979

126 60 1972 1973 1979 1980

126 61 1973 1980

127 57 1972

127 58 1972127 59 1972 1973

127 60 1972 1979 1980

Year


8/33

Figure 2. The approximate location coverage of Landsat 1, 2, &3 MSS images used in the study.Numbering follows World Reference System 1 (WRS1)


9/33

Table 2. The Landsat 7 scenes used to classify current forest cover. For some years more than onedate was used. The reference scenes were used to enable better interpretation of difficult areasfor past and present forest cover.

Path Row

115 59 2009 2008 2000

116 58

Year Reference Scenes

2008 2007 2005 2001 1991

118 59 2009 2008 2000 1991 1990

116 59 2009 2008 2007 2006 2001 1993 1991

116 60 2009 2008 2001 1991

116 61 2009 2007 2005 2001 1992

117 57 2009 2008 2001 1989

117 58 2009 2008 2007 2001 1991

117 59 2009 2008 2007 2004 2002 2000 1991 1989

117 60 2009 2008 2006 2000 1991 1990

117 61 2009 2007 2005 2003 2000 1992

118 57 2009 2007 2001 1991

118 58 2009 2007 2001 1991

118 60 2008 2004 2000 1991 1990

119 59 2008 1992 1990


10/33

Future Forest Cover

Identification of HCV3 requires mapping of past, present and future expected forest cover.is not required for mapping HCV 2.1 (the subject of this case study), but can be very

under a full conversion scenario. See Table 3 below fornd use planning types used in East Kalimantan and how these types were classified in

Ituseful for interpreting future patterns of vegetation cover when considering managementoptions. Because future forest cover was mapped for HCV 3 as part of the larger project,methods are described here. Results, however, are discussed only in relation to threats ofHCV 2.1 areas identified.

Future expected forest cover was mapped using a simplified but realistic approach

recommended in the revised HCV Toolkit for Indonesia whereby: (i) the most recent legalprovincial land use plan (RTRWP) is used to delineate areas that are legally permitted forconversion from forest to non-forest; (ii) areas permitted for conversion are assumed to beconverted at some point in the future; and (iii) any currently forested areas permissiblefor conversion are subtracted from the current forest cover map to produce a hypothesis

of future expected forest coverlathis study in terms of maintaining natural forest or permitting conversion.

The mapping area falls within East Kalimantan, whose most recent RTRWP is 1999. This isin the process of revision. In order to better understand what that revision might mean, a2008 version of the revised RTRWP was also used. Further to this, a comparison with theMinistry of Forestry forest lands map (TGHK) was compared to the 1999 RTRWP. It wasfound that the TGHK and 1999 RTRWP depict near identical areas as forest land, so TGHKwas not used in subsequent analyses. It is important to note that the East KalimantanRTRWP does not provide information on where if any legally designated forest lands will

be allocated to industrial wood fiber plantations such as acacia for the pulp and paperindustry, so there is no guarantee that natural forest within forest lands will bemaintained as natural forest, as is currently happening in the Northern Lowlands.

Table 3. The land use planning types used in provincial spatial planning (RTRWP) for EastKalimantan. The National Strategic Area along the border with Sarawak and Sabah is only includedin the proposed new spatial plan. Whether this will maintain forest or not is uncertain, therefore toe precautionary it is considered in this study as a landb use that will not maintain forest.

Land Use Planning TypesConsidered to

SymbolMaintain Forest

Strict nature reserve CA

National park TN

Botanical and zoological garden THR


11/33

3.2 Ecosystem Mapping

RePPProT land systems as ecosystem proxy

Ecosystem mapping is a fundamental part of assessing most HCVs 5. In the case of HCV2.1, ecosystem mapping may or may not be important for identification purposes,depending on the occurrence and spatial complexity of natural non-forest ecosystems. It isalways important, however, for developing management recommendations.

An ecosystem can be defined as the community of all plants and animals, and their

physical environment, which together function as an interdependent, and to varyingdegrees inseparable unit. The ecosystem concept is fundamentally scale invariant,encompassing ecosystems ranging in size from a drop of water to the entire planet Earth.In general the occurrence of a particular terrestrial ecosystem will depend on a number ofabiotic factors, including climate, soil, hydrology and landform, as well as biotic factorsthat interact in complex ways.

In order to assess the rarity and endangered status of an ecosystem, a suitable spatial

scale must be chosen that reflects our understanding of factors determining ecosystemdistribution and ability to map them. For HCV purposes in Indonesia, it must also beapplicable across the archipelago. In the 1980s, Indonesia embarked on an ambitiousproject called the Regional Physical Planning Programme for Transmigration (RePPProT) toevaluate the development potential of each province. The corner stone of the project wasthe mapping of land systems, a concept based on ecological principles that presumesclosely interdependent links between rock types, hydro-climatology, landforms, soils andorganisms4. A total of 414 land systems were described in Indonesia by RePPProT 49 of

which can be found in Kalimantan. The land systems were evaluated for land suitabilityfor agricultural crops, but by extension can also be used for ecosystem mapping, as thefactors used to determine a land system are the same factors that determine theoccurrence of ecosystems. For this reason, the revised HCV Toolkit for Indonesiarecommends that RePPProT land systems can be used as a proxy for ecosystem mappingacross the country. It is used here. A colour-coded representation of land systems presentin the mapping area is shown in Figure 4.. A brief description of the land systems presentin the mapping area can be found in Appendix 2.

Improvements to RePPProT

Since the original RePPProT maps were produced in the 1980s, there have been greatimprovements in technology and availability of data that enable substantial improvementsto the original product. Numerous improvements were made to the original RePPProT

f K li t t d t d ib d i th S l t


12/33


13/33

3.3

The lanRegions according to their general similarity andgeographic position. The Physiographic Region is an intuitive concept that resembles howa geog descriptive purposes, with differentregionsonly uToolkitunit (e tan) throughout which ecosystems distributions should be

ssessed formally to determine rare or endangered status. This natural sub-island scale for

ther HCVs.

3. Gives special consideration to ecosystem types that may be locally rare or unusual,with special ecological significance, such as a hilly area in what is otherwiselowland swamps.

As noted above, this area of this study encompasses four Physiographic Regions. Thesefollow those originally described by RePPProT, with slight modification where required toagree with boundaries of the land systems or watersheds they delimit. Generally the landsystems fell naturally within one region or another according to their physiographic type(e.g. mountains, hills, plains, and swamps), but occasionally in border areas where alowland type protruded far into a mountainous or hilly area, or vice versa, judgement wasrequired to assign individual land systems to one or the other region. Although bisecting ofindividual land systems was avoided, where one included a long narrow salient such as aland systems following a long narrow valley stretching many kilometres sided by mountain

or hill Physiographic types that formed part of another region it was bisected at whatwould be in this case the mouth of the valley. Brief descriptions of the PhysiographicRegions are provided (see also Figure 5).

(i) Mahakam Lowlands

Physiographic Regions

d system concept is hierarchical and at its broadest scale defines Physiographic, consisting of land systems grouped

rapher may subdivide a country for narrativecontaining repeated motifs of land systems different from one another. RePPProT

sed these Physiographic Regions for descriptive purposes, however the revisedrecommends their use for a more specific purpose, namely to delineate island sub-.g. parts of Kaliman

acontextualizing ecosystem rarity or threat status has the following advantages:

1. Transcends administrative borders, which bear limited relationship to ecologicalpatterns.

2. Promotes the maintenance of multiple replicates of ecosystem types ingeographically distinct locations, which reduces the overall risk of extinction, and

increases the likelihood of maintaining local genetic adaptations or unique speciesassemblages that might not otherwise be achieved through an island-wide approachor the management of o

The region is approximately 5.2 million ha and is drained almost entirely by the


14/33

the headwaters of East Kalimantans major rivers, the most notable of which is theupper reaches of the Mahakam River, which forms an extensive lowland area within

this Region. The region geologically is formed from mainly turbiditic deposits andmelange with some volcanic intrusions.

(iv) Nyapa Mangkalihat Mountains and PlainsThis region of approximately 2.4 million ha, is a geanticlinal zone between theTarakan and Kutai Mahakam Basins. The lithology of the area is sandstones,conglomerates and shales but with notable deposits of limestone that form karsticoutcrops and plains.

The revised Toolkit recommends further sub-division of Physiographic Regions bybiogeographic sub-regions where justifiable (e.g., with reference to MacKinnon 1997).Three biogeographic sub-regions described by MacKinnon (1997) are found within themapping area. One closely follows the border between the Northern Mountain ranges andthe other three regions; the other two bisect the Mahakam and Northern Lowlands regionsalong the Mahakam and Kayan rivers respectively. It was determined that at this time itwas difficult to justify splitting of the Mahakam and Northern Lowlands into four bio-

Physiographic sub-regions as the biogeographic split appears weak for mammals and hasnot been reported for plants.


15/33


16/33

3.4 HCV 2.1 Identification

As noted above, HCV 2.1 delineation was carried out within a smaller area of interest(AOI) defined as Berau and Kutai Timur Districts, plus a 10 km buffer surrounding thedistricts.

Delimiting forest blocks & mapping forest buffers (HCV 2.1)

The Toolkit describes HCV 2.1 as a large natural landscape with capacity to maintain

natural ecological function and dynamics. It is defined using more objective criteria as amosaic of natural ecosystem types comprising (i) a core area of 20,000 hectares, whereinternal fragmentation is absent or relatively limited, and (ii) a vegetation buffer zone of3 kilometres from the forest border surrounding the core area.

The core areas and their buffers within the AOI were delineated in a four step process.Firstly the forested area within Berau and Kutai Timur was extracted from the 2009 forestmap. An additional 10 km zone beyond district this was also included to control for

possible edge effects during the analysis within the area of interest. Three km of this 10km buffer area was later removed (the extent of possible edge effects extending into theAOI) leaving 7km along District borders to allow for some context and any uncertainty inDistrict birders. Secondly, the forest cover map was edited to fill in small breaks in theforest cover map from rivers and logging roads. Typically breaks less than 200m wide(although sometimes wider) were filled in, except where there was a concentration ofsuch breaks, where it was felt the internal natural conditions within the forest would havebeen altered. The resulting coverage is termed the effective forest area. Step 3 was

delineating the forest core of the effective forest area, defined as forest greater than 3kmfrom the nearest edge.

Larger water bodies present a problem when they are contiguous with a forested area.Clearly the edge of the forest is a natural one and it would be expected that naturalecological processes continue. To be consistent with the intention of HCV 2.1, a rule wasapplied that counted water bodies as part of the vegetative cover for the purposes ofdefining a core area, but not as part of the vegetative buffer. This allows a small, forested

offshore island to be retained within a core, or a series of islands in a delta region to formpart of a core, but not the water bodies in calculating the extent of the core. This is asmall variation from the Toolkit definition, and better models the concept of a largenatural landscape maintaining normal ecological function and dynamics. The core areasidentified were then tested against the HCV 2.1 criterion, which requires sizes of greaterthan 20,000 ha.


17/33


18/33

Terrestrial ecosystem variation in the Mapping Area was (and remains) extremely high,

including nearly all of the major ecosystem types known for Borneo (Whitmore 1984).Coastal regions are dominated by mangrove, estuarine and mixed freshwater and peatamp ecosystems. Inland to these swamps are extensive areas of lowland mixed

n permanentlyundated sandy terraces formed in inland basins. Finally, the largest expanse of

classes, a total of 40 RePPProT land systems

xcluding rivers and lakes) are present in the Mapping Area (Figure 4). This is more than

of all classes is 2.5%). The three most common classes are Pendreh(PDH, 22% of total land area), Teweh (TWH, 18%), and Maput (MPT, 12%). Pendreh

swdipterocarp (MDF) or hill dipterocarp (HDF) forest, in which localized areas of highlyproductive (and ecologically important) alluvial bench forest on raised riverine sedimentsare found. Also present in this broad inland band of non-swamp lowlands are diverse formsof kerangas or heath forest, with its distinctive physiognomic structure and (in somecases) superficial peat layers (up to 1 m in extreme cases). At higher elevations (>c. 500 ma.s.l.) lowland dipterocarp and kerangas forest are replaced by sub-montane forest, whichon taller mountains (>1000m) gives way to montane forest and/or cloud forest towardmountain peaks. Large lakes are found close to the Mahakam River with the substantialareas of surrounding peat swamps and what was once heath forest formed oinlimestone outcrops in Kalimantan is found on the Mangkalihat Peninsula of EastKalimantan.

Reflecting this variation in broader ecosystem

(e80% of the 49 land systems occurring throughout Kalimantan. Eighteen of the 40 present inthe mapping area are relatively limited in extent, representing less than 1% each of thetotal land area (mean

comprises non-orientated sedimentary mountains, covers much of the Northern MountainRanges, and in the Toolkit is described as an area predominated by Montane (Mon) andSub-montane (Sub) ecosystems. Teweh comprises hillocky sedimentary plains, and covers

much of the dry lowland areas, but can also be found in more gently sloping upland areas,where Sub-montane or even Montane ecosystems may be present. Maput comprises non-orientated sedimentary hills, and is common throughout the mapping area in hilly terrainis hilly, and may also support areas of Sub-montane ecosystems. These dominant landsystems, underlain by rock of sedimentary origin, reflect the geological history of much ofBorneo, which is predominated by uplifted sedimentary seabeds from shallow seas.

Forest cover has changed dramatically over the Mapping Area in the last 30 years (Figure

6). Current forest cover has declined by more than 5.2 million ha, or 30% of the originalextent in c. 1975 (see Appendix 1). Spatial patterns of forest loss across the Mapping Areaare not uniform, but have been spatially aggregated in regions of especially highdeforestation (Figure 6).

The majority of deforestation has occurred in the Mahakam Lowlands physiographic


19/33

very large, and reported to affect 5.2 million ha (Hoffmann et al., 1999; see also Figure7), eliminating many of the remaining tracts of degraded or secondary forest recovering

from the 1982/83 conflagration, as well as destroying almost all of the remaining peatswamp forest.

The southern areas of the Nyapa-Mangkalihat Mountains and Plains (SangkulirangPenninsula) appear to have followed a similar fate as the Mahakam Lowlands, withrepeated burning in the 1980s and late 1990s (Figure 6 and Figure 7). Some of thehardest hit localities appear to be some of the mountainous karst outcrops immediatelyadjacent to the lowland areas. They became completely denuded of vegetation in partsafter the 1997 fires. As one moves northward to the more inaccessible hilly andmountainous areas, the forest appears to have been relatively unaffected by fire,presumably due to the reduced amount of logging. Overall, forest loss in thisphysiographic region has been 37%, with much of this apparently from fire.

In the Northern Lowlands, deforestation appears to be driven primarily by developmentfor agriculture, fiber plantations, and fisheries along the coast. By inspection of Landsatimagery, the rate of deforestation appears to be accelerating, though at present is only25% of forest cover since c. 1975 (Figure 6).

The Northern Mountains by contrast has been relatively unaffected with only a 2% losssince c. 1975, reflecting its generally steep terrain unsuitable agriculture and inaccessiblefor logging (Figure 6).


20/33


21/33

The future expected loss of forest predicted from the current East Kalimantandevelopment plans (RTRWP 1999) are depicted in Figure 8 and Figure 9. This shows (i) anexpected further 5% loss in the much denuded Mahakam Lowlands (6% in proposed revisedRTRWP), (ii) a very large additional 24% in the Northern lowlands (33% in proposedRTRWP), (iii) 11% additional loss in the Nyapa Mangkalihat Mountains and Plains (11% inproposed RTRWP), and (iv) a 4% loss in the Northern Mountain Ranges (10% in proposedRTRWP; see Appendix 1). Proposed conversion will also further fragment existing forestedareas, most notably in the Nyapa Mangkalihat Mountains and Plains, where the currentlycontiguous forests running along the centre of the Mangkalihat peninsula will be split fromthe large central forests of Borneo (Figure 8 and Figure 9).


22/33


23/33


24/33

4.2 Large Intact Landscapes HCV 2

HCV 2.1 - Landscapes with capacity to maintain natural ecological processes

A total of 62 forest blocks with core areas of some extent (i.e., areas >3 km fromndscape edge) were mapped in the AOI (Berau and East Kutai Districts). Of these, threeere found to qualify as large intact landscapes (HCV 2.1), with core areas >20000 ha in

extent.

Together, these three blocks total ,000 ha (Table re 10). A brief descriptionof each is provide

Core area 1 st intact landscape (c. 1,346,000 ha) is contiguous with amuch large orest area occupying the centre o and of Borneo.

Core area This landscap k is intermediat n size (c. 400 0 ha) and runseast-west ng the centre of the Mangkalihat (Sangkulirang) ninsula. It is

separated ock containing Core area 1 by an agricultural area runningalong the Kelai River, and is threatened under current and proposed land use plansto become further fragmented (Figures 8 and 9).

Core area 3. This landscape block occurs on the Tanjung Batu Peninsula to thenorth of the Berau delta. It is much smaller (c. 40,000 ha) but contains an unusualmix of mixed dipterocarp forest, wetland and heath forest ecosystems. The currentland use plans leave this core area relatively intact (Figure 8), but the current

and use plans will significantly reduce its size (Figure 9),as an HCV2.1 area, due to conversion of the majority of

tane toontane ecosystems (Figure 11). Such transition zones are extremely important for

of ecosystem properties, and as such meritspecial management attention under HCV 2.2 (discussed in the full report from which thiscase study is excerpted).

The numerous smaller blocks with core areas too small to qualify as HCV 2.1 (e.g.,numbers 4 through 7 in Figure 10) are not without ecological significance. This is mostclearly apparent when these blocks are considered in conjunction with HCV 2 2 areas and

law

c. 1,786 5, Figud.

. The larger f f the isl

2. e bloc e i ,00alo

from the bl

Pe

proposed change in leliminating its statusforest in its core area.

These forest blocks also contain a variety of different forest types, with intact transitions(ecotones) among different ecosystem types, such as kerangas to non-kerangas, wetlando non-wetland, peat to non-peat and elevational clines from lowland to sub-mont

mconservation of biodivestiy and maintenance


25/33

Table 4. Size of the top seven forest blocks with largest core areas in the AOI, and associated 3-km buffers for those blocks classified as HCV 2.2. A total of 62 forest blocks containing core areaswere found in the AOI. Note: *indicates that the area described within the AOI is a portion of amuch larger forest block extending far beyond the border of the AOI into the interior of Borneo.

NumberAssociated Buffer

Core Area (ha) HCV2.1HCV2.1 areas (ha)

1 *1,346,049 340,486

2 399,891 262,221

3 39,885 49,196

4 8,879 -

5 6,357 -

6 4,500 -

7 3,427 -

Management Implications

Management implications of these findings are discussed in the full report of which thiscase study is an excerpt. Issues related to connectivity, threats posed by deforestationpermitted under current and future land use planning, the importance of maintainingecotones and ecoclines within large forest blocks, are topics of special emphasis.


26/33


27/33


28/33


29/33


30/33

Select ed References

Dennis R. (1999) A Review of Fire Projects in Indonesia (1982-1998). Center for International

orestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.

Hoffmann, A.A., Hinrichs, A. & Siegert, F. (1999). Fire damage in East Kalimantan in 1997/98related to land use and vegetation classes: Satellite radar inventory results and proposal forfurther actions. IFFM-SFMP Report No.1a. MOFEC, GTZ and KfW, Samarinda, East Kalimantan.

MacKinnon, J. (1997). Protected areas systems review of the Indo-Malayan realm. Canterbury, UK:The Asian Bureau for Conservation (ABC) and The World Conservation Monitoring Center (WCMC)/World Bank Publication.

Schindele, W., Thoma, W. and Panzer, K. (1989) Investigation of the steps needed to rehabilitatethe areas of East Kalimantan seriously affected by fire. The forest fire 1982-83 in East Kalimantan.Part I: The fire, the effects, the damage, and the technical solutions. GTZ-PN: 38.3021.3-11.000,ITTO: PD 17/87 (F). GTZ and ITTO, Jakarta, Indonesia. Typescript

F


31/33

5. Appendices


32/33

Appendix 1. Summary Data for Forest Cover

Physiographic Region Area of Region

(ha)

Extent of Natural

Ecosystems 1975

(ha)

Extent of Natural

Ecosystems* 2009

(ha)

%

Loss

Future Expected

Extent of Natural

Ecosystems* per

RTRWP 1999

%

Loss

Future Expected

Extent of Natural

Ecosystems* per

Proposed RTRWP

v.2008

%

Loss

Extent of

Endangered

Ecosystems* still

extant 2009 due to

habitat loss (ha)

Extent of

Endangered

Ecosystems* still

extant 2009

habitat loss and

planning (ha)

Extent of Rare

Ecosystems* still

extant 2009 5%

criteria (ha)

Extent of Rare

Ecosystems* still

extant 2009 1%

criteria (ha)

Mahakam Lowlands 5,159,314 4,558,305 1,113,945 76 887,128 81 836,325 82 996,667 996,667 199,768 199,768

Northern Lowlands 3,136,770 3,009,872 2,254,245 25 1,518,506 50 1,266,547 58 22,293 385,870 522,153 119,360

Northern Mountain Ranges 7,328,301 7,285,488 7,136,785 2 6,817,045 6 6,398,731 12 0 905 409,757 197,837

Nyapa Mangkalihat Mountains and Plains 2,381,995 2,328,480 1,476,791 37 1,231,466 47 1,218,685 48 92,869 92,948 89,698 46,455

18,006,380 17,182,145 11,981,766 30 10,454,144 39 9,720,288 43 1,111,829 1,476,390 1,221,376 563,420

32


33/33

Documents

Digital Appendix 3 - HCV 2_1 Case Study