New Planting Procedure - Summary of Assessments

NPP Reference Number:

CU-890216-NPP

Country of the NPP submission:

Papua New Guinea

RSPO Membership Number:

1-0008-04-000-00
Section 1: General Information

Guidance Note: In this section, the growers need to provide all the necessary information in relation to the newdevelopment projects. This includes the type of assessment conducted, location of the project, the type of permit
currently obtained, the rights to use the land information, and all relevant information. The land clearing plans
will be included in this section as well.
The purpose of this NPP is to enable NBPOL to comply with RSPO NPP requirements, which necessitates all new
oil palm developments to undertake a suite of assessments prior to development. These assessments are done
to ensure that:•••

Development is done in harmony with the environment and in harmony with the communities that live
within and around the assessment area.
Any HCV area or HCS forest in the assessment area are identified and mapped prior to development, andmanagement and monitoring recommendations are provided to ensure the HCV/HCS present are maintainedor enhanced if the project proceeds.
Development is planned to minimise carbon emissions and maximise carbon sequestration.

The assessment areas are located in West New Britain, PNG. Each of the assessment areas are spread out acrossthe landscape. The name and coordinates of each assessment area are provided in Table 1, the assessment areas
can be seen in Map 1 and Map 2. The total area is 2,395.1 Ha.
Table 1. Study areas that are relevant to this assessment.

Site nameLand tenure

Area (ha)Coordinates of the centreof the site (decimaldegrees)

Tapakasi North

Customary

19.8

150.7714, -5.505925

Tapakasi South

Customary

54.90

150.7854, -5.564489

Lingalinga

Freehold

957.96149.7302, -5.552698

Kintakiu

Customary

211.55150.128, -5.103213

Balave North

Customary

363.28149.8677, -5.529088

Balave South

Customary

176.02149.8725, -5.549349

Kandoka

Customary

618.49149.8339, -5.508725

Richard’s Block

State Lease (Land Settle Scheme Block)12.89

150.3599, -5.494289

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments1

Otto’s Block

Customary (socialised through a CLUA)

15.32

150.3418, -5.53337

NB: These will all be scheme smallholders if the development goes ahead.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments2

Map 1. Spatial location of study areas (blue) in the east of the AOI.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments

3

Map 2. Spatial location of study areas (blue) in the west of the AOITable 2. Permits by which use of the land will be allowed.

Site name

Type of Permit

Tapakasi North

Sub- leased through an ILG ( Incorporated Land Group)

Tapakasi SouthSub- leased through an ILG ( Incorporated Land Group)

Lingalinga

Private lease with an owner with a Freehold title

Kintakiu

Sub- leased through an ILG ( Incorporated Land Group)

Balave North

Sub- leased through an ILG ( Incorporated Land Group)

Balave SouthSub- leased through an ILG ( Incorporated Land Group)

Kandoka

Sub- leased through an ILG ( Incorporated Land Group)

Richard’s Block

State Lease (Land Settlement Scheme Block)Otto’s BlockLeased through a CLUA

The assessments conducted over these areas were:- HCV / HCS assessment- SEIA- GHG- LUCA- Soil and Topography

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments

4Landforms
A landform refers to a ‘recurring pattern of topography within the landscape’ (Bryan and Shearman, 2008), withspecific landforms often associated with specific vegetation associations and/or communities.
As New Britain Island is geologically young and tectonically active, the landforms reflect this fact, particularly the
alluvial or volcano-alluvial plains across the AOI. Landform extent across the AOI can be seen in Map 3 and Map
4, and the descriptions have been taken from the PNGRIS handbook (Bryan and Shearman, 2008).
Table 3. Landforms present in the assessment AOI, as per PNGRIS (2008).
Landform
NumberLandform
group

Landform name

Description

6

Relict littoral
landforms

Raised coral reefs
andassociatedback plains

Uplifted reef surface continuing inland as a marine depositional plain formed on
soft calcareous sediments, such as the western part of New Britain Island

13

Depositional
landforms(recent plains)

Composite alluvial
plainsComplex alluvial plains or basins consisting of a central flat to gently undulating
meander floodplain with meandering channels, low discontinuous levees,
meander scrolls and oxbows, which merge into poorly drained flanking backplains an back swamps and/or higher well drained terraces.

18

Depositional
landforms(Fluvial
recent plains)

Composite
plainsStable depositional alluvial floodplains of very low relief consisting of a better
drained central levee plain, flanked by more extensive and typically very poorly
drained back plains. The central levee plain consists of a channel with low
sinuosity, bounded by continuous levee banks.

22

Depositional
landforms(Fluvial
recent plains)

levee

Back swamps

Extensive marshy semi-permanently to permanently inundated depressed areasof floodplains with drainage impounded or impeded by a central levee ormeander plain. These freshwater swamps are maintained wherever land
gradients and drainage outlets are inadequate to disperse the rain and run-on
water. The depth of standing water and duration and depth of flooding is highlyvariable throughout PNG and depends entirely on local conditions.

24

Depositional
landforms(Fluvial
recent plains)

UndifferentiatedswampsAll seasonal or permanent swamps that cannot be classified as either backswamps or blocked valley swamps. Many of these swamps occur in karst areas
where they occupy basins without drainage or with poor internal drainage, andwhere the water table is either seasonally or permanently at or above theground surface level.

32

Volcanic
landforms(Fansandfootslopes)

Littledissected
volcanic
footslopes
andvolcano-alluvial
fans

A variety of undissected to little dissected landforms generally surrounding
young or recently active volcanoes and including partially dissected extensive
coalescing volcano-alluvial fans of slightly concave profile. Fans are dissected byshallow, frequently steep sided radiating valleys separated by either long low
ridges with accordant crests or by undulation plains at lower altitudes andslopes.

33

Volcanic
landforms(Fansandfootslopes)

Dissected volcanic
footslopes
andvolcano-alluvial
fans

Dissected volcanic footslopes and former volcano-alluvial fans of slightly
concave profile, formed of intercalated fluvial, lahric (mudflow) and nuee
(avalanche) deposits with superficial ash. On the flanks of major volcanoes, they
are dissected by numerous radiating streams to form a pattern of long,radianting or sub-parallel ridges and narrow, steep sided valleys.

34

Volcanic
landforms(Fansandfootslopes)

Deeply dissectedolder
volcanic
footslopes
and
fans

Broadly dissected lower flanks of deeply dissected older, extinct volcanic centresconsisting of long radial raidges with accordant crests separated by deep radialgorges. On the lower slopes valleys are U shaped and separated by triangularshaped footslope remnants, and along the coast they frequently form drowned
valleys or fjord-like inlets.

35

Volcanic
landforms(Fansandfootslopes)

Volcano-alluvial
plainsActively forming very low angle volcanic plains which may take various forms.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments

550

Erosional
landforms(mountains
and hills)

Hilly terrain with
weak
or
no
structural control

Dissected hills of low relief (less than 100m) with weak or no structural control
and with steep slopes, and sharp crests separated by narrow incised V-shaped
valleys. Broadly, mountains and hills or hilly terrain on igneous rocks are of
massive appearance, with a coarse dissection pattern and steep rather straightslopes. On metamorphic rocks slopes are more irregular, but ridges are still
massive and straight in the overall slope profile. On sedimentary rocks theselandforms have great variability due to differences in composition, degree of
induration, bedding, homogeneity within the layers, and degree of tectonic
deformation.
Mountains and hills of high to very high relief (greater than 100m) with weak or
no structural control, steep escarpments and narrow sharp crested ridges
separated by V-shaped valleys with steep river gradients.

51

Erosional
landforms(mountains
and hills)

Mountains or hills
with weak or no
structural control

56

Volcanic
landforms(mountains
and hills)

Volcanic
cones
and domes

Volcanic cones and domes encompass a wide variety of volcanic landforms
which form high to very high mountains and include strato-volcanoes, lava
shields, ash cones, scoria cones and caldera.

60

Water bodies

Lake

Open water bodies

Mountains and hills with weak or no structural control on soft fine -grained
sedimentary rocks such as marl, mudstone and siltstone. They are characterized
by a very dense dissection pattern and highly irregular slopes with great
variability in slope steepness because of frequent slumping and intense gullying.
Slopes can vary from 50º at slump headwalls to a few degrees at slump toes.
Weathering is mostly shallow and immature.

Map 3. Landforms in the western AOI, derived from PNGRIS (2008).

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments

6

Map 4. Landforms in the eastern AOI, derived from PNGRIS (2008).

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments7

Elevations and Slopes
All the blocks are of low elevations (<300 m) and flat (except for Kandoka which is rolling).

Map 5. Elevations across the assessment landscape. Higher elevations are volcanic cones or domes.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments

8Map 6. Slope modelling, derived from ALOS PALSAR, relevant to the western study area landscape.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments

9Map 7. Slope modelling, derived from ALOS PALSAR, relevant to the eastern study area landscape.

Hydrology
As the Walter-type climate diagrams indicate in figure 2, New Britain Island has very wet tropical climate, with
the Rabaul station receiving a mean annual average rainfall of 2281 mm.
All rivers within the assessment AOI are generally northern flowing, with their headwaters outside the AOI in the
Whiteman Ranges, and their terminus on the north coast of the Island into the Bismarck Sea. Many of the larger
rivers within the AOI form estuarine environments along the coast, allowing extensive mangrove communities
to form in more sheltered situations.
Such communities are common in the west of the AOI, where the study areas extend to the coast; Linga Linga,
Kandoka and Balave North, with the Kapaluk and Balave Rivers (see Map 8) both being good examples of large,
permanent rivers with mountainous headwater that terminate in estuarine situations and mangrovecommunities.
The Linga Linga and Balave North study areas are the only two with large, major rivers as boundaries, although
the western boundary of the Tapakasi South study area is within 150m of the Gavuvu River. All other study areas
possess a range of permanent, small creeks or ephemeral drainage lines.
Most rivers generally have relatively short courses, with the top of the Whiteman Ranges being approximately
30km from the northern coast, with most larger rivers possessing courses considerable shorter than this distance.
The management actions associated with the protection of water courses and their riparian zones are detailed
in section 10 and the major water courses are for the west and east of the AOI are supplied on Maps 10 and 11
respectively.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 10

Map 8. Major northern draining rivers in the west of the AOIRSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 11

Map 9. Major northern draining rivers in the east of the AOI.

Formally protected and informal conservation areas
There are relatively few areas formally set-aside for biodiversity conservation in WNB, or across PNG as a whole.
As of 2009, 57 protected areas (PA) existed across the PNG mainland and satellite islands, covering 1.7 million
ha (Leverington et al., 2017). The appropriate management of formal PA’s has proven problematic, with several
being cleared or degraded since 2006. Many of the formally gazetted PA’s are essentially reserves on paper only,
i.e. very few possess management plans that have been implemented (Leverington et al., 2017).
The HCV PNG National Interpretation guide is the authority on PAs in PNG, however does not contain spatial
data to enable accurate location of PAs. As such, within the current assessment, three major sources wereinterrogated and cross-referenced against the PNG National Interpretation to determine the location of PAs
adjacent to study areas and across NIP as a whole:
1. The HCVF National Interpretation Toolkit for PNG (PNG FSC, 2005)
2. The ‘Protected Planet’ database (https://www.protectedplanet.net)
3. Any areas that are considered to be ‘intact forest landscapes’ (IFL) or ‘degraded intact forest landscapes’(Brown et al., 2013)
The only formally protected areas in WNB are Garu, Pokili1 and Tavalo WMA and the Loroko National Park (Map10). These are a significant distance from all the study areas.

1 Pokili and Garu WMA are important areas of lowland forest with two major Megapodius eremita nesting grounds as well

as virtually all the island’s lowland and foothill species (Keast, 2000).

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 12

Intact Forest Landscapes
There are Intact Forest Landscapes to the south of the study areas (6 km from Balave South – which is the closest
area to an IFL). These areas can be seen below on Map 10.
Endemic Bird Areas (EBA) and Important Bird Areas (IBA)
The are no IBAs on WNB. However, the whole of WNB island is classified as an EBA. This is based on the factthat it supports 14 endemic bird species and together with New Ireland, forms an Endemic Bird Area that
supports 38 restricted range species (Davis, Dutson and Szabo, 2018). All these birds are moderately to highly
dependent on forest (Buchanan and Pilgrim, 2008).
Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA)
There are four KBAs in this landscape. Sites qualify as global KBAs if they meet one or more of 11 criteria,
clustered into five categories: threatened biodiversity; geographically restricted biodiversity; ecological integrity;
biological processes; and, irreplaceability (World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas, no date).

Map 10. Shows the formally Protected Areas (red hatching), KBAs (grey hatching) and IFLs in the AOI. The closest IFL is 3.2 km fromBalave South. Endemic Bird Areas are mapped over the whole of WNBSocial, cultural and economic characteristics
Ownership
Customary Land
Customary land within PNG is owned by Clans, not individuals. In general the clans live in a village. Although
there may be several clans in a village. The “Study Areas” are an arbitrary boundary drawn up between NBPOL
and the clan which describes the area the clan(s) wants to be considered for oil palm development.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 13

Freehold Land
This is something of an anomaly in PNG. Lingalinga has a freehold title, and is owned by an individual, which isvery uncommon.
State Lease
This is land owned by the state and leased to individuals or groups. The term is generally a 99 year lease. Mostof NBPOL’s existing blocks are state lease land. However, as part of a transmigration scheme the PNG
government created Land Settlement Scheme (LSS) blocks. Each of these 6-6.5 ha. The LSS blocks are state lease
land.

Kintakiu

Table 4. Study areas covered by this integrated HCV-HCSA assessment
Affected
Land Tenure
Development Plan2 Area (ha)Communities(Village)
CustomaryME
211.55
Kintakiu

BalaveCustomary

ME

505.3

Kandoka

Kandoka

Customary

CP

618.1

Kandoka

Lingalinga

FreeholdME

957.96

Richard’s Block

State Lease

SH

12.1

Otto’s Block

Customary

SH

15.32

Tapakasi North

Customary

CP

19.8

Tapakasi South

Customary

CP

55.1

Study area name

Total

Freehold(No
affectedcommunities)
Richard and theneighbours
Otto
and
the
neighbours
Tarobi
Sisimi
Kae

ClanLobe and Poligokoru
LokoKandoka3 (Usufruct rights)
Loko (ownership rights)
N/A
N/A
Hie
Kambulbulu
IlalauBaumumu

528.76Note that Richard’s and Otto’s Blocks were added during the full assessment. This was due to a lack of clarity
about how to treat smallholders’ blocks and get these small areas added to the supply chain in an economic way.
Demographic and socio-economic context
The assessment area lies within the Kove / Kaliai Rural, Talasea Rural and Mosa Rural LLGs
LLG Name
Kove / Kaliai

Table 5. Populations and growth rates in the wider landscape based on previous censuses.
Population 2000
Population 2011
Growthrate Area (km2)(%/year)14,791
18,912
2.26%
3,599

Talasea

20,522

29,610

3.39%

2,184

Mosa

24,837

33,101

2.65%

1,748

(Papua New Guinea National Statistical Office, 2011)
Annual population growth reaching 3% is considered high by world standards. The population of Kimbe Bay
could double by 2035. This would put huge strains on both the environment and government services.
With the development of the oil palm industry in the area it is seen as an area of economic opportunity. Manyof the people that were interviewed had come from Morobe or the Highlands seeking employment. The highpopulation increase is due to both in-migration and a high rate of natural increase. At the 2000 census, 31% of
the WNB population were migrants. (Koczberski et al., 2006)
Migrants
Economic opportunity has brought a constant stream of migrants to the area. Typically, they take up residence
on the fringes of urban centres, on plantation compounds, in rural ‘squatter’ camps, or on the land settlement
RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 14

schemes. Talasea District Census, which covers Kimbe Bay, has a migrant population of 38% of the total
population. The growing numbers of migrants located around Kimbe and Bialla have created a feeling amongsome customary landowners that they are being “swamped” by “outsiders”. They blame the deteriorating law
and order situation on the settlers and the transient youth population attracted by work opportunities.
Intolerance of migrants is occasionally expressed as disputes over land and marine resources, as well as more
violent conflicts (Koczberski et al., 2006)
Education
The education levels in PNG make somewhat depressing reading. Ryan et al (2017) makes the following finding
based on data sourced in the Kimbe area:“The current state of education in PNG is characterised by low levels of educational attainment and literacy, poor
school attendance and retention rates, and high levels of gender inequality. The average years of schoolingreceived by people aged 25 years and older is just 3.9 years…..PNG also has national literacy rates that are far
below the regional averages with just 62.4% of adults being literate compared with 94.4% for the region, and70.8% of youths compared with the regional average of 98.8%.”
A study undertaken on Land Settlement Scheme (LSS) blocks in Kimbe area found that “adult education levels on
the LSS blocks are higher than the national average but still low considering that most smallholders do not finish
primary school and the retention rate from primary to secondary school is low.” These LSS where people arecomparatively wealthier in PNG. However, this doesn’t appear to have flowed through into an investment ineducation.
Food and Land Tenure
Land in the area is owned by clans not individuals. Typically, boundaries are based on physical features such arivers or ridges, in other places marked out by particular species of plants (a variety of cordyline is a common
marker).
The dominant tenure system governing both terrestrial and marine resources is matrilineal, with men inheritingrights from their maternal uncles. Land tenure is more spatially differentiated than marine tenure, partly because
the planting of economic crops gives tenure rights to the cultivator. Marine tenure rights are also overlapping,so that people from major clans residing outside the village sometimes have access to the village’s marine
resources.
Efforts to translate this traditional understanding of land tenure in a western style titling system, with surveyedboundaries, has resulted in many disputes. Resolution of these disputes is required before the land can be leased
to a third party (e.g. NBPOL). These disputes typically take years to resolve.
Within PNG 83% of the population lives in rural areas and their main economic and social activity is subsistence
agriculture. 83% of food energy and 76% of protein consumed in PNG continues to come from locally grown
foods, derived largely from village gardens. This description, although based on PNG-wide data, probably reflectsthat of the assessment landscape.
Many people have moved from areas within PNG from areas of disadvantage to places like the WNB with
employment and better services. In the process of moving they lose their customary rights to land for food

2 CP – Community Planting, where NBPOL agrees to buy the FFB off the community. The price is based on an agreed formula.

ME – Mini Estate,where NBPOL pays a lease and a royalty on the FFB. The management of the estate is NBPOL’s
responsibility. SH - Smallholders where NBPOL agrees to buy the FFB off the community. The price is based on an agreed
formula.
3 The intention is that Kandoka land would be developed by the Kandoka clan, even though Loka have ownership rights overthis area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 15

gardening and who therefore depend on purchased food. Many people were involved in land settlement
schemes where they have been given 6 ha blocks. Surveys have showed that between 1975 – 2010 the :- Average number of people being supported by these blocks had doubled.
- Area of oil palm per block had increased from 3.24 ha to 6.00 ha.
These statistics mean there is an increased reliance on both bought food and to downturns in the oil palm price.
This has flowed through to an increased overall pressure on land in the area, with areas such as buffer zones
always at risk of encroachment and unsuitable areas likely to be cleared for gardening. Similarly, “informal” salesof customary land, which leaves the land at risk of being reclaimed by the customary owners. (Koczberski, Curryand Bue, 2012)
Economic
The financial situation in most rural PNG communities is mainly the result of poor financial literacy andmanagement where development (eg OP) is concerned. Those communities that were visited have money andcould be able to generate an income. Due to poor provision of services there is an unwillingness to save and as
a result generate an income and better their standard of living.
Life is very egalitarian in PNG villages. There is a huge importance placed on the concept of “sharing”, which acts
as a financial “leveller.” Meaning that there is not a large variation in wealth. Furthermore, the concept ofwealth in rural communities is not valued only on monetary value but is also determined based on cultural andcustomary beliefs and values. Eg- A man who owns more land is considered wealthy. Or in some areas if a man
has many wives he is seen as being wealthy.
The main avenues for generating cash income in coastal villages in Kimbe Bay include:• Cultivation of oil palm, coconuts and cocoa on smallholdings.
• Local marketing of garden, tree and marine produce (mostly by women).
• Small business enterprises (e.g., village trade stores and poultry projects).
• Fishing and the sale of marine products.
• Wage employment.
Most villagers cultivate a range of cash crops and each individual have two or more. The concept that people
were solely farmers or fishermen is not correct, everyone embarks in a range of activities, both men and women.
For example, men would tend to go fishing outside the reefs, whilst women collected shellfish. The same people
would have gardens to tend. Food is sold in markets in town or in oil palm workers camps. It appeared that thepeople that caught the fish or tended the crops also sold it. There didn’t appear to be middlemen that cameround the villages and collected the food for sale and then passed it on to shops in town to sell to consumers.
Communities in the area rely on both land and marine resources to feed themselves and provide an income. It
is the balance of terrestrial and marine-based livelihood strategies that varies between villages. It has been notedin the area that, while land-based subsistence activities do not vary greatly amongst villages. It is rather theutilisation of marine resources and the types of cash income activities pursued reflect, to an extent, the degreeof accessibility of each village as well as the particular assemblage of marine resources available to each village.
Villages that are relatively remote from towns and markets tend to be more dependent on marine resources forfood and cash than those that are easily able to reach the markets. Fish can be smoked and kept and thentransported to markets.
A significant socio-economic trend, is the growing reliance on the cash economy to meet customary obligations,
everyday household needs, school fees and growing consumer aspirations. Young people in particular aspire toa better life materially than their parents, and there is a desire for more consumer goods and modern lifestyles.
Access to cash is now essential for fulfilling customary obligations such as brideprices, mortuary payments andother community obligations.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 16

Oil palm is by far the most important cash crop in the area with 8300 smallholders with a total of 27,000 planted
ha of oil palm (data supplied by NBPOL).
There is an increased change in attitudes towards natural resources insofar as they are now more seen as things
that can be exchanged for cash income e.g. timber royalties and customary land sold to migrants.
Koczberski et al. (2012) has noted an inverse relationship between dependence on export cash crops and the
exploitation of marine resources. There is also evidence that when cash crop prices fall below a certain level,such as in 2000 when oil palm prices dropped to K50/tonne, fishing assumes more importance in income
strategies than when prices are higher. This is an important point as it reinforces the importance of external
income streams as a means of preserving the marine environment.
Social environment impact assessment
Loxley & Puzyreva, 2014 have undertaken a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) on a number of the estates in thearea. Although none of the estates in the SIA are included in the scope of this study there are many universal
themes and recommendations that are relevant to this study, which have been taken into account. Particularly
recommendations surrounding improving the well-being and stability of the communities.
An important part of this is the NBPOL Social Management Plan and Social Impacts Register. These documents
rely on interviews to identify particular projects to improve the well-being of the workers. From there, projects
are implemented. Another valuable source of economic data are Bilum Index surveys, which use interviews to
ask the field workers about the cost of living and what they spend their money on. In this respect NBPOL is able
to ensure workers are paid a sufficient amount to cover the cost of living.
Associated with this study, a SEIA was undertaken. A major part of this is establishing a “baseline” just prior todevelopment.
Free Prior and Informed Consent.
Most of the FPIC procedures are contained in an NBPOL document, “MG 21 Land Acquisition Practices.” This
describes the process that NBPOL goes through to develop mini-estates. These mini-estates rely on “leasing”
land not actually acquiring it. Primarily it involves assisting clans to form an ILG ( Incorporated Land Group),
which gives the clan a legal entity to be able to lease land to NBPOL. The process of formation of an ILG mirrors
the FPIC process, ensuring that all the members of the ILG ( Incorporated Land Group) are informed and agree
to the scheme. An ILG ( Incorporated Land Group) can only lease land, it cannot sell the land. Therefore, thecommunity maintains their land rights and cannot result in landlessness.

Land use and development trends
Land use planningPNG does not have a formal land use planning system which gazettes particular areas for example, for forestry,urban development or agriculture. Any applications for land use change are handled through CEPA (Conservationand Environment Protection Authority).(Pers Comm staff of WNBPA Division of Lands). As such there are no
future land use plans for the area.
Land use history
Agricultural Land
Bourke, R.L. et al, 2002 has identified 12 land use intensity classes in the study area and divided them into sevencultivated and five uncultivated land categories. Mapping undertaken at the time showed 27% of WNB wascultivated and 30% was used4. Although this research is very dated now, the classification system is still relevant
4 Used = Cultivated + uncultivated

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 17

and describes land use in the area very well. There are several current observations that come out of thisclassification system:
1. With existing population pressure and the arrival of the oil palm industry clearly there has been a shift
towards intensification of agriculture (oil palm would be LU1 – the most intensive category).
2. In 1993 the “used” land was 30% of WNB. Of the other 70% most of it is far too steep or too isolated forany development.
3. More intensive land use becomes dominant closer to Kimbe.
4. In the area surrounding the project areas, which are reasonably remote areas, land uses with long fallow
periods are dominant.
Background to the Land Settlement Scheme
An important part of the land use history of the area is the Land Settlement Scheme. In the 1960s PNG adopted
land settlement programmes to promote agricultural and economic development. The administration envisaged
that by taking people out of the context of village life and settling them on individualised land holdings on various
settlement schemes, the perceived problems of traditional communal land tenure in constraining agriculturaldevelopment would be overcome. It was thought that Papua New Guineans would quickly recognise the benefitsof an individualised land tenure system, a recognition that would hasten the replacement of customary land
tenure based on group ownership with individual land titles. Furthermore, it was envisaged that as settlers
became increasingly integrated into cash crop production, they would gradually reduce their dependence on
subsistence production to become more market-oriented and market-driven producers and consumers.
However, after forty years this sort of progress has not eventuated. Many people spend more time in foodproduction than tending their oil palm. (Koczberski, Curry and Bue, 2012)
Forestry
Buchanan and Pilgrim, (2008) state that the forests of New Britain are under serious threat from deforestation,with its lowland forest most susceptible to clearance for timber and conversion to small-scale agriculture andlarger-scale commercial coconut and oil palm plantations. Government forest allocation plans and logging
concession boundaries show that all lowland forest in West New Britain, is allocated to industrial logging. West
New Britain province alone continues to account for at least 50% of Papua New Guinea’s timber exports. As agraphic example of this the reader should refer to map 55 where vast areas of former IFL have been cleared
south of Balave in recent years.
Section 2: Maps
Guidance Note: Please include the following maps here with minimum 300 dpi resolution- Boundary Maps owned by the company- Proposed NPP area Maps
- Proposed NPP area Maps overlay with HCV and HCS areas
Boundary Maps owned by the company and Proposed NPP area Maps
The NPP consists of 9 blocks located in West New Britain. NBPOL has a significant business in the region, butthese are 9 separate blocks not connected with NBPOL’s current estates. The boundaries of the blocks aremarked on Map 11 - Map 19 (blue boundary lines). These constitute the:••••Customary land blocks – the complete extent of the Incorporated Land Group ( ILG) (note this is notnecessarily the complete extent of the landowners’ land).
Lingalinga (the complete extent of the freehold title).
Otto's Block (the complete extent of the CLUA).
Richard’s Block (the complete extent of the state lease).

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 18

As such, the blue boundary constitutes the boundary that NBPOL will lease as well as the legal extent of the land.
This blue boundary is also the proposed NPP area.
Proposed NPP area Maps overlay with HCV and HCS areas
Map 11 - Map 19 show the extent of the HCS areas and Map 20 - Map 28 are the HCV areas.

Map 11. Patch analysis decision tree results for the Balave North study area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 19

Map 12. Patch analysis decision tree results for the Balave South study area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 20

Map 13. Patch analysis decision tree results for the Kandoka study area. NOTE THAT THE PATCH 14 (IN THE EAST OF THE
CONCESSION) IS ONE CONTIGUOUS PATCH.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 21

Map 14. Patch analysis decision tree results for the Kintakiu study area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 22

Map 15. Patch analysis decision tree results for the Linga Linga study area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 23

Map 16. Patch analysis decision tree results for the Otto’s Block study area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 24

Map 17. Patch analysis decision tree results for the Ritchie’s Block study area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 25

Map 18. Patch analysis decision tree results for the Tapakasi North study area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 26

Map 19. Patch analysis decision tree results for the Tapakasi South study area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 27

Map 20. Balave North, which shows only a small developable area (56.18 ha). This area is swamp forest, with the areas east of theriver being in good condition. The areas mapped as developable are areas that are in poor condition following the 2015 fires.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 28

Map 21. Balave South, which shows only a small developable area (88.69 ha). This area is swamp forest. The areas mapped as
developable are areas that are in poor condition following the 2015 fires.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 29

Map 22. Kandoka. There is a substantial area for development in this area (350.53 ha). This is primarily a community garden areawith areas of semi-abandoned coconut plantations. There are areas of better quality forest, mangroves and sago swamps in thenorth west.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 30

Map 23. Kintakiu - the area available for development is 120 ha. This consists of ex-garden areas and forest areas that have been
burnt in the 2015 fires. The forest gets progressively better further east.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 31

Map 24. Lingalinga – there are 324.25ha available for development. These are ex-coconut plantations. The area in the south is asacred mountain as well as intact forest.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 32

Map 25. Otto’s Block. The full area is available for development (15.32 ha). It is a mix of gardens and coconut plantation.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 33

Map 26. Richie’s Block. The full area is available for development (12.89 ha). It is primarily a garden site.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 34

Map 27. Tapakasi North. The developable area (2.0 ha) is an ex-garden site. The rest is forest in good condition.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 35

Map 28. Tapakasi South. The developable area (14.67 ha) is a garden site.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 36

Map 29. Development potential for Balave NorthRSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 37

Map 30. Development potential for Balave SouthRSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 38

Map 31. Development potential for Kandoka

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 39

Map 32. Development potential for Kintakiu

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 40

Map 33. Development potential for Linga Linga

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 41

Map 34. Development potential for Otto’s BlockRSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 42

Map 35. Development potential for Ritchie’s BlockRSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 43

Map 36. Development potential for Tapakasi NorthRSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 44

Map 37. Development potential for Tapakasi South
Table 6. Development Programme

Proposed Time Plan for Development
Location

Approx. size of clearing
Month

Year

Tapakasi North

Jan

2024

2.03

Tapakasi South

Jan

2024

14.67

Lingalinga

Jan

2024

324.25

Kintakiu

Jan

2024

120

Balave North

Jan

2024

56.18

Balave South

Jan

2024

88.69

KandokaJan

2024

350.53

Richard’s Block

Jan

2024

15.32

Otto’s Block

Jan

2024

12.89

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 45

Tapaksi North and Tapaksi South is included in this report only as transparency initiative. These two locations are
not required to undergo the NPP process as it is within a certified area. The proposed development area is964.86Ha which will undergo the NPP process.
Section 3: SEIA
Guidance Note: This section is where the summary findings of SEIA is captured. References and pictorial evidence
are recommended. What are the methodology(ies), people involved in the process, date of assessment andfindings? Note: Should an assessment carried out by internal staff, just fill the name of the staff and his/her
designation.
Date of assessment:
Activity
Scoping
Full Assessment field work

Timing16 – 20th October 2017.
30th April – 19th May 2018

Name of Assessor: Jules Crawshaw (Consultant)
Assessor Designation and Company: PT Hijau Daun
Table 7. Assessment team

Name
Jules
Crawshaw
MichaelHansbyJeffery
Lawrence

Clement
BaileyMellieMusonera
Narua Lovai

Juliana Mohe

Assessment role

Qualifications• B.For.Sc., M.Bus.Sys
Lead Assessor and Social• ALS Fully Licensed Assessor (ALS14006JC)
Team Leader• HCS Register Practitioner.
• BSc (Forest Science)
Biodiversity Team Leader• Grad Dip (Bushfire management)• HCS Registered Practitioner.
• ALS Provisionally Licensed Assessor• BSc Degree in Forestry
Vegetation Expert• Expert in tree identification• FSC experience• HCV and HCS experience• BSc (Hons) Forestry
Vegetation Expert• Expert in tree identification• FSC experience• HCV and HCS experience• Masters in Conservation Biology.
Birds and Mammals Expert• 4 HCV assessments• Biodiversity Assessments in PNG• Bachelor of Science in Applied Chemistry, 1984, PNG University ofSocial Expert
Technology• Master of Engineering Science in Hydrology and Water Resources
Management (Hydro-chemistry), 1999, University of Adelaide,• Diploma of Professional Writing and Editing (2012), AustralianCollege QED, Sydney, Australia• BSc Degree in Geography and Environmental Science
Social Expert• Experience with social research and social surveys

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 46

Methods
The methodology has been prepared to meet the requirements of the Principles and Criteria for the Productionof Sustainable Palm Oil. The methodology has also been informed by best practice principles articulated by theInternational Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA).5
Scoping Study
The objectives of the scoping study were to identify the project’s area of influence, available information andinitial stakeholder concerns; enabling the assessor to identify information gaps, high priority issues and to informthe methodology for the field assessment and the team required.
The scoping study took place between 16 – 20th October 2017. This was done by Jules Crawshaw. This involved
the following activities:--

Travelling around the assessment area and visiting each of the proposed areas and looking at issues foreach element of the New Planting Procedure (NPP).
Review of the extensive secondary data that NBPOL had available. This included:o Species listso Landcover and land use mappingo GIS files
A number of reports (including past SEIA, HCV reports) that had been written over the years field visit toeach assessment area to determine which experts will be required to undertake the full assessment.

Secondary Data
Environmental Data
Secondary Environmental data was developed using the following methods.
--

For vegetation this involved making up a species list of threatened species based on the IUCN redlist. An
additional species search was made for species that were listed as present and were threatened basedon cross referenced against the digital herbarium records at the Forest Research Institute at Lae.
For birds this involved compiling a species list from lists of endemic birds and field guides ((Coates &Peckover, 2001) and (Beehler, Pratt, & Zimmerman, 1986)). Similar approaches were used for mammals,
amphibians and reptiles.

The following NBPOL Standard Procedures were also examined:-

MG 01A New Developments (dated May2016)
MG 03 - Pesticide Practices (dated April2017)

These SOPs deal with how to develop and maintain the plantation in a way that minimises the environmental
impacts.
Social Data
The following documents provided important sources of secondary data:- The 2011 nation-wide Census;- Social research undertaken by Curtin University- Social and economic statistics prepared by the World Bank.
- In-house data sets (e.g. Social Impacts Register)- In-house reports
o Social Impact assessment (Loxley & Puzyreva, 2007)
o Billum Index Reports - is conducted annually by the Sustainability Department in order toprovide information to the Management of NBPOL regarding the different levels of income and

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 47

--expenditures necessary for its lowest paid staff living in our compounds to achieve fair anddecent living conditions.
o Habitat Management Plans
o Social Management Plan
Standard Procedureso Land Acquisitiono Smallholders
Employment, health, production and other statistics;
Land use assessments for each site;

Primary Data

Environmental Data
Environmental data was collected using the technique of in-field surveys. This was divided into separate surveys
for vegetation, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles.
---

For vegetation this involved measuring 201 HCS field plots6. From this data a species list was derived
which was cross-checked against IUCN and CITES threatened species lists7.
For birds, a line transect sampling method was employed, where the observer walks along a designatedpath (in this case it was mostly existing tracks or roads through the study areas) and pauses for five toten minutes at regular intervals. At each interval, bird species are either recognised by their calls or ifthey are sighted. Bird species identified by either vocalization or sightings are recorded as well as a tallydrawn for the number of individuals of each unique species seen or heard (Bibby, Jones, & Marsden,
1998)(Imanuddin, S. Percy, D. Priatna, L. D’Arcy, L. Sadikin, 2013).
Presence of Mammals was mainly determined by speaking with the NBPOL employees and the local
villagers. Both groups were invaluable in providing information of extant mammals in the areas ofinterest; based on their observations. Day walks were taken through the areas of interest and were
designed to maximize observations within various forest strata and/or grassland.
Amphibian and reptile species were more likely to be encountered at night. Night trips were taken to
survey for amphibians and reptiles and this occurred concurrently with spotlighting for mammals. The
same survey routes were used to search for both reptiles and amphibians as well as for mammals.
Amphibians or frogs were found by following their calls and searching for them in the understorey.

Social Data
The primary technique for collecting social data was through face-to-face interviews. During the scoping study
interviews were undertaken with the following key stakeholders:- Village leaders and ordinary villagers- NGOs and Government Departments- Company staff, especially those from the Sustainability and Lands Departments
Combined with this, the assessors walked through the assessment areas to gain an understanding of the terrain
and the natural landscape that will be converted. Observations were made about the villages, rivers and othernatural habitats. This was focused on areas where natural resources were being used (e.g. fishing or cutting
timber).
For the full SEIA; questions were prepared for meetings at the village level to understand and evaluate-

The current situation within the proposed development areas. Particularly with reference to:o The communities’ awareness and preparation for the development.
5 (Vanclay et al., 2015).
6 The procedure is provided in Rosoman, G. et al, (2017).
7 There are no nationally protected threatened vegetation species.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 48

-o Economic development and stabilityo Access to government services (e.g. education, health, infrastructure)
The dependency of community members on natural ecosystems to fulfil basic needs and identify any
important cultural sites.
How the customary land would be managed after it had been converted.

In all cases, meetings were attended by the clan leaders and other interested parties. Regarding the number ofpeople attending; a member of the NBPOL Sustainability Department contacted each village beforehand andorganised the community meeting. NBPOL encouraged as many people to join as possible, but ultimately couldn’t
force anyone to come. No percentage attendance was aimed for.
In each interview a general introduction to the purpose and context of this SEIA was made. This was followed bya Focus Group Discussion (FGD) in order to collect data on social and cultural aspects. There was also a general
discussion about the important natural resources in the area and changes to resource availability over the lasttwenty years. Following the FGD, a series of one-on-one interviews took place, where the assessors interviewed
community members about their personal circumstances (e.g. source of income, expenditure, number of family
members) in order to build up a more complete picture of the community. The interviews all took place in Tok
Pisin and were undertaken by a native speaker.
Following this the assessors went for a walk around the village and the gardens to observe things like the quality
and type of construction of the houses, water sources, gardens (making note of the crops that were being grown
and the level of maintenance within the gardens).

Figure 1. Focus Group discussion underway in Kae Village.

Participatory MappingAt each village interview the communities were asked to mark up the complete area of their land to ensure (1)that the oil palm development did not impact on their gardening area, (2) if it did overlap with their gardening
area that this would not force them to go and open up areas of forest elsewhere and (3) if there were any
resources that were likely to be affected by oil palm development (e.g. hunting areas). Additionally, any areasof community set asides, within the assessment area, were asked to be mapped out.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 49

Following this the assessors went to have a look at the areas of interest within the area. Examples of areas ofinterest would be:- Springs- Sak-sak areas- Cultural sites
Having studied these maps and digitised all the data on marked up maps into the GIS, the assessor found someinconsistencies and some of the data was incomplete. During the final consultation the assessor asked thecommunities more questions and asked further clarifications in order to resolve the inconsistencies.

Figure 2. Reconfirming some of the results of the Participatory Mapping (Tapakasi).

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 50

Figure 3. Marking boundaries on prepared maps.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 51

Following the identification of management strategies, the impact significance is reassessed to indicate the residual impact significance. This allows anassessment of the effectiveness of the proposed management strategies. The residual impact significance is also assessed on the likelihood and consequenceof impacts occurring, as described above.
Table 8. Positive Impacts of development
Ref

ImpactDetails1

Increased income levels andimproved employment
conditions

•

•

•

This will enable approximately 1000 ha be to be developed. Using a ratio of 4 ha per
worker. The equivalent of 200 workers will be employed on a full-time basis. Householdincome levels are expected to rise significantly, providing employees and their families
with opportunities to enhance their living standard.
Landowners must be provided with current contracts relevant to their engagement withNBPOL. This will be either a land rental and royalty payments contract (for ME) or a FFB
supply contract. All pricing mechanisms must be clearly documented in these contracts.
Levies must not be charged unless they are included in the contracts.
Landowners should be encouraged to purchase trucks so that they can manage their own
FFB delivery.

Consequence

Likelihood

Significance

4

5

20

2

Improved access to healthservices for employees andtheir families

NBPOL provides health services to employees and their families. For people living in remoteareas such as Kintakiu the road will be upgraded, enabling better access to health services.

3

5

15

3

Improved access to schools

Similar to health services. If the road to remote areas is upgraded then it will be easier forchildren to get to school.

3

5

15

4

Improved housing for
employees and their families

For the employees who work on Lingalinga, these people will be housed in workers
compounds. The improvement in housing, and particularly the provision of running water andtoilets, is expected to provide a more sanitary and hygienic environment, that is expected tocontribute to positive long term health outcomes among workers (who reside within theestates) and their families.

3

4

12

2

3

6

For the other areas, additional income should enable better quality housing.
5

Increased skill levels among
employees

NBPOL must provide adequate training to all employees and smallholders so they can safely
and effectively complete the work required of them. The application of training packages
undertaken elsewhere by NBPOL will increase skill levels among many employees and for some,will provide opportunities for them to gain employment in other industries or other parts ofPapua New Guinea in the future.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 52

Ref

ImpactDetails

6

Reduction in subsistence
resources•

Provide housing and gardening areas for employees who live in work compounds (relevant
to Lingalinga)•

Establish a plan for the provision of firewood and low combustion stoves to estate workers
and their families (relevant to Lingalinga)•

Develop a program of development support for local communities to build strong
relationships.

•

Hopefully this will cause a reduction in exploitation of natural resources (e.g. marine
resources and hunting) which will enable these ecosystems to recover.

•Back load steamed buns (EFB) out to communities so that they can be spread on theirgardens. Ideally the addition of these as a source of fertiliser will reduce the need to clear
more forest.

Consequence

Likelihood

Significance

2

3

6

Table 9. Negative Impacts of development
Ref

7

Social / Environmental
ImpactProposed Management Strategy

Roading in Sensitive areas(particularly relevant to the
Kapuluk River road)•

Ensure the road is gravelled and well maintained.

•

Build silt traps so that run-off does not enter the river
directly.

•

Water monitoring –•oOf particular concern is the runoff from the Kapuluk
River road. This will require taking water samples
upstream of the estate (as a control) anddownstream of the road. If sediment loads areabove acceptable limits corrective action must takeplace.

oOther sensitive areas include the Balave River, wherea similar strategy must be employed.

Responsibility

NBPOL

Timeframe

Ongoing

Impact SignificanceConsequence

Likelihood

Significance

3

4

12

Ensure a lining of native vegetation is maintained between
the Kapuluk River road and the river.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 53

Ref

8

Social / Environmental
ImpactProposed Management Strategy

Concerns regarding thequality of drinking water•

Test water quality where villages source drinking water
nearby the plantation. This would be most relevant to
Kandoka and Kintakiu•

Conduct a regular water quality monitoring program•

Provide awareness on the results•

Assist communities in developing safe drinking watersupplies (e.g. rain water tanks or bores). Rather than beinga requirement, this could be part of the CSR program.

Responsibility

Timeframe

Impact SignificanceConsequence

Likelihood

Significance

NBPOL

Should bestarted before
land clearing
in order toestablish abaseline.

3

3

9

9

Concerns regarding air
quality•

Reduce speed limits in the vicinity of villages, schools andother facilities

NBPOL

Ongoing

1

2

2

10

An increase in injuriescaused as a result of
increased vehicular traffic•

Ensure all drivers are adequately trained and awarenessprovided on the importance of maintaining good
relationships with local communities. (e.g. driving very
slowly during dry season so that dust is minimised). NB: all
drivers must have a valid PNG drivers license, which is agovernment responsibility. However, reinforcing safetyissues to drivers (e.g. through toolbox talks is required).

NBPOL

Ongoing

4

1

4

•

Conduct awareness within villages about keeping smallchildren off the roads.

•

Impose and enforce speed limits near all villages. Again
speed limits are ultimately a government responsibility,
but there should be constant reinforcement to drivers
about driving slowly near villages and being very aware ofpeople running onto the road.

•

Give employment preference to local residents and boost
local employment by targeted training programs.

NBPOL

As

3

3

9

11

Social problems as a resultof increased employment
and more people living on

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 54

Ref

12

13

14

Social / Environmental
ImpactProposed Management Strategy

the estates (this is probably
most applicable toLingalinga where there will
have to be a significant
number of workers brought
into the area. In the otherareas, the workers would
come from the villages).

•

Ensure only workers and their immediate families live on
the estates•

Provide awareness to workers on the importance of
maintaining good relationships with local communities

Social problems resulting
from alcohol and drug
abuse, as a result of higher
income levels•

Ensure only workers and their immediate families live on
the company managed compounds (keeping squatters andpassengers out)•

Provide financial literacy and healthy living awareness toemployees and their families, which will include andencourage saving practises, healthy diets and responsible
behaviour•

Provide packages of resources that can be bought with FFB
income (e.g. water reticulation infrastructure such as
water tanks and pumps, toilets other than bush toilets)•

Provide housing and gardening areas for employees wholive in work compounds (relevant to Lingalinga)•

Establish a plan for the provision of firewood and low
combustion stoves to estate workers and their families(relevant to Lingalinga)•

Develop a program of development support for local
communities to build strong relationships with thecommunity (e.g. assisting communities install water tanks
or ground water pumps).

•

Facilitate visits to established ILGs ( Incorporated Land
Group) that have been successful to inspire community
members so that they can see what can be achieved.

Reduction in subsistence
resources (this is a positive
impact)Provide assistance with the
management of ILGs (Incorporated Land Group) to
increase the chance that

Responsibility

Timeframe

Impact SignificanceConsequence

Likelihood

Significance

NBPOL

Ongoing

3

2

6

NBPOL

Ongoing

2

3

6

NBPOL

Should besuggesting thisto ILGs (Incorporated

4

4

16

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 55

Ref

Social / Environmental
ImpactProposed Management Strategy

they are properly
administered•

Make professional staff available to assist with ensuringthat the required meetings take place and reports get
produced. Ultimately, NBPOL cannot “force” staff upon
the community, but as part of CSR, they could offer andprovide assistance.

•

Provide professional staff to assist with running meetings,
taking notes and producing reports.

•

Encourage the members to have any payments to be madeto members bank accounts directly

Responsibility

Timeframe

Impact SignificanceConsequence

Likelihood

SignificanceLand Group)
now.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 56

Section 4: HCV-HCSA Assessment; OR
ALS HCV and Standalone HCSA assessment
RSPO Note: This section will be used to analyse that there has been no land clearing in the area before the NPP is
submitted. Arrangement should be following the proxy dates indicated in section 2.2.7 of the current NPP Document.
Please ensure that the minimum resolution is 300 dpi. What are the methodology(ies), people involved in the process,date of assessment and findings? Note: Should an assessment carried out by internal staff, just fill the name of thestaff and his/her designation.
Date of RSPO approval as satisfactory: Jan 2020
Name of Assessor: Jules Crawshaw
Assessor Designation and Company: Jules Crawshaw - Consultant – PT Hijau Daun
• Fully Licensed Assessor (ALS14006JC)
Table 10. Independent consultants engaged to undertake the integrated HCV-HCSA assessment
Name
Jules
Crawshaw

MichaelHansbyAssessment role

Qualifications

Experience with HCV and HCS / Languages

Lead
Assessorand Social Team
Leader•••B.For.Sc., M.Bus.Sys
ALS Fully Licensed Assessor (ALS14006JC)HCS Register Practitioner.

••

PNG, Indonesia, Solomon Is, Myanmar,
Malaysia
English, Indonesian

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

BSc (Forest Science)
Grad Dip (Bushfire management)
HCS Registered Practitioner.
ALS Provisionally Licensed Assessor
BSc Degree in Forestry
Expert in tree identification
FSC experience
HCV and HCS experience
BSc (Hons) Forestry
Expert in tree identification
FSC experience
HCV and HCS experience
Masters in Conservation Biology.
4 HCV assessments
Biodiversity Assessments in PNG
Bachelor of Science in Applied Chemistry,
1984, PNG University of Technology
Master of Engineering Science in Hydrology
and Water Resources Management (Hydrochemistry), 1999, University of Adelaide,
Diploma of Professional Writing and Editing(2012), Australian College QED, Sydney,
Australia
BSc Degree in Geography and Environmental
Science
Experience with social research and social
surveys•••

PNG, Solomon Is, Cambodia
EnglishRemote sensing / GIS

•
•

PNG
English, Tok Pisin

•
•

PNG
English, Tok Pisin••

PNG, Solomon Is
English, Tok Pisin

•
•

PNG
English, Tok Pisin

•
•

PNG
English, Tok Pisin

Biodiversity
Team Leader
Forest Inventory

Jeffery
Lawrence

Vegetation
ExpertForestInventory

Clement
BaileyVegetation
ExpertForestInventory

MellieMusonera

Birds
andMammals Expert•
Narua Lovai

Social Expert••
Juliana MoheSocial Expert•

Table 11. Field team of NBPOL staff, who assisted with the fieldwork component of the assessment
Name

Assessment RoleNBPOL Position

Qualifications

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 57

•Diane Mirio

Social
FPIC

specialist-

Community
Engagement andDevelopment
Officer•

Masters in Management Studies– University of Natural Resources& Environment VUDAL PNG (Ongoing)
Course work, Elements of Public Administration, UPNG
7.5 years Community Engagement Officer, NBPOL
11 years Alumni Member - Leadership PNG & 4 years Alumni
Member Emerging Pacific Leaders Dialogue
6.5 years FSC Certification Support, FORCERT•••

Kadijah Barrah

SocialNew Development
Officer•

Bachelor of Science in Agriculture

Lillian Holland

Social–FPIC(Negotiation&
Lands Advisory)

SeniorOfficer•

Bachelor of Lands Studies, PNG University of Technology

Brian Balib

Biodiversity

GIS
OfficerSmallholders
Affairs Department•

Diploma in Tropical Agriculture, 2010,PNG University of Natural
Resources & Environment-Vudal Campus••

Bachelor in Environmental Sciences & Geography-University of
Papua New Guinea
Certificate in Land Administration & Documentation ProcessesPNG University of Technology.
Certificate in GIS Level II-PNG University of Technology.

•

Diploma in Forestry Science – University of Technology, Lae - PNG•

Currently
undertaking
Postgraduate–
MastersinManagement Studies– University of Natural Resources &Environment VUDAL PNG-(Final Write up of thesis)
Graduate Certificate In Managements Studies-( 2002)
University Of Natural Resources –(2002)
Diploma In Tropical Agriculture ,University Of Natural
Resources- (1995)

Richard Mova

Joshua Kialo

Wilfred Tangole

Biodiversity (Flora)

Biodiversity
assessment - NPP

Assist in Social
Awareness-FPIC

Assistant
Officer

Lands

Lands

Projects Officer

Head Of Small
Holder’s
Affairs
Department.

•

•
•
•

•
•
Ashley Barnes

Logistics
ordinator

co-

Head
of
EstatesMini••

Roseworthy College Diploma of Agric. & Roseworthy Coll. Diplomaof Agric. Technology (recognised as Agric. Degree)
20 years with PNG Dept. of Agric, incl 3 years lecturer at Vudal
Agric College, ENB & 10 years as Oil Palm Coord’tor. HKN & Bialla
smallholder projects.
Six years Hargy Oil Palms, Bialla - smallholders; 1 year plantn
Manager.
18 years NBPOL Mini Estate establishment, Lands.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 58

•Michael Bragg

Biodiversity
Socialand

Sustainability
Manager - WNB•••

Bachelor of Systems Agriculture with a Major in Agronomy
University of western Sydney (NSW)
Honours in International Development University of Western
Sydney (NSW)HCVRN Training Course with Wild Asia
1.5 Yrs. Sustainability Manager - WNB

Table 12. Timelines associated with this integrated assessment ( refer to table 5. Integrated HCV /HCS Assessment Report)
Step

Step description

Dates undertaken/scheduled

1Compilation of secondary and available primary data, including preliminary
stakeholder consultation during a short, initial visit to the license areas (Scoping
Study)

16 – 20th October 20172

Developing a proposal and contracting

October – December 2017

3

Team formation and briefing on project scope

February-March 2018

5

Planning for fieldwork and agreement on field methods for primary data collection

January-April 20186

Fieldwork and primary data collection, including direct stakeholder consultation

28th April – 20th May 20187

Data analysis and interpretation

May 2018 – February 20198

Preparation of a Draft Report, including HCVA maps and management andmonitoring recommendations (phase 1)

May 2018 – February 20198a

Writing a Social and Environmental Impact Assessment, - which included a land
tenure and social baseline study.(Appendix 14.20)5 .

May 2018 – February 20199

Public consultation to report interim HCV findings and refine threat assessment
Consultation with NGOs

7th March – 15th Mar 201912th November 201910

Amend the draft report based on the Public Consultation

November 2019 – January 202011

Meeting with neighbours of smallholder blocks.

January 2020

12

Submission of the HCV/S Report to HCVRNJanuary 2020

Social methods
Literature review and use of secondary data
There was a wealth of secondary data available in this area from various sources including:- Satellite images (ranging in dates from 2017 in early 2018)- Academic papers (e.g. research from Curtin University, Australian National University) – these ranged in dates
from 2002 – 2017. The individual references are included in this section- Census (Papua New Guinea National Statistical Office, 2011) – this is the latest census- Data from government departments (e.g. Education, Health, Police) – these were ad hoc data sets that they
kept and were ongoing data from the last couple of years (e.g. no. of schools).
- Knowledgeable individuals in the area
The fact that some of the datasets (especially the census) are now quite dated can be seen as a limitation of the study.
Secondary data for the assessment of HCV 5 and 6 were available from EIAs and Habitat Assessment reports provided
by the company from other areas in the WNB where NBPOL has its main operations. These described a range of socialand economic classes, livelihoods, and village infrastructure. There was no secondary data relevant to this particular
area.
RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 59

At the same time as the HCV / HCS assessment was being done, data was being collected for the SEIA – which included
a land tenure and social baseline study.

Social methodology
FPIC
This study is one step in the FPIC process. There have been a number of FPIC activities that have spanned many years
for each of the projects that are being considered. While each group differs; the main activities are (1) an initial
request for development from the community, (2) socialisation with the community, (3) a land investigation reportand (4) NBPOL support with establishing an Incorporated Land Group ( ILG).

Social Fieldwork
The social methods are based on the Common Guidance. However, the assessor does use a method from the PNG
Toolkit to add extra detail on resource usage, this is a level of dependency table.
Using the CG as a reference, questions were prepared for meetings at the village level to evaluate the dependency ofcommunity members on natural ecosystems to fulfil basic needs (HCV 5) and identify any important cultural sites(HCV 6).
Table 13. List of all affected communities for each site. (see Table 4 for mapping between sites, villages and clans)Site name

Affected communities

Tapakasi North and South

Tarobi, Kae and Sismi Villages – located nearby the sites

Lingalinga

No affected communities at Lingalinga – the only person living in the area is the caretaker and his
family. The owner has an agreement that the caretaker will return to his village when development
takes place.
The social AOI does overlap with Talegone village land (Information on this group is provided in thelevel of dependency table)

Kintakiu
BalaveKandoka

Kintakiu Village – next to the site
Kandoka Village– next to the Balave and Kandoka sites

Richard’s Block

Richard and Land Settlement Scheme neighbours– next to the site

Otto’s Block

Otto and his neighbours (who are also Otto’s family) – next to the site

The data capture method varied across the proposed development areas involved participatory mapping and Focus
Group Discussions augmented by household interviews. This involved all the affected communities:
1. Five village interviews being undertaken in the villages directly affected by the development (see Appendix
14.2 of WNB_HCS_HCVRN for attendance lists). Generally, the interviews were done at the village-wide level.
During the interviews, maps of both the development area and the wider landscape were used as the basis
for participatory mapping. At each interview with all the affected communities during the full assessment theassessor asked the communities whether there was anyone that objected to the survey. No one objected inany of the interviews to the survey taking place. The assessor noted this. This information was augmented
by permission being given by all the communities at NBPOL meetings. The assessor wrote this in his notebook
that there was no objection to the survey. The assessor considers no objection to be consent. Note thatconsent is not defined in the HCVRN documentation.
2. After the village interviews, Hijau Daun interviewed a sample of families separately.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 60

3. Three village interviews with villages located within the wider landscape that could in some way be affectedby the development.
4. An interview regarding Lingalinga, which is freehold land and owned by an individual. In this case the owner,
Julius Ngatia, his son and an employee were interviewed about the area.
5. Two smallholder interviews (Richard’s and Otto’s Blocks).
Regarding the number of people attending the interviews, a sample invitation letter was provided by Hijau Daun to
NBPOL. This letter was to be sent to each group (specifying that it did not just want to meet leaders but woman andother groups also). As well as this an NBPOL staff member followed-up with the villages, organising a daily schedule.
Hijau Daun encouraged as many people to join as possible, but ultimately couldn’t force anyone to come. The
sampling method did not aim for a percentage attendance, the method was just to get input from as many people
as possible.
Especially given that the clans had contacted NBPOL and requested plantation development, there was a good turnout at every meeting (Figure 4). Meetings were attended by the clan leader and many other interested parties (e.g.
women, younger people, farmers). In each interview a general introduction to the purpose and context of HCV wasmade. The assessor did not go into complex explanations but introduced the purpose in terms of the company’s“no deforestation commitment” and reviewing the community’s reliance on natural resources to ensure that thedevelopment doesn’t interfere with this. The biodiversity team worked in the area at the same time as the social
team. An explanation was made of the biodiversity team’s activities and several members of the community joined
the biodiversity team to act as guides and help with the measurements.
This was followed by a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) in order to collect data on social and cultural aspects. The FGD
approach is an effective way to collect information on social and cultural dimensions of village life in an informal
setting that permits discussion and exchange of ideas between group members. As part of the social survey
questions were asked to identify groups within the community (that might result from such things as income
disparity, ethnicity or religion). It was recognised that it was important to ensure representatives from all groups
were present.
At the clan level meeting, typically it was the leaders that answered most of the questions. For this reason, following
the clan-based interview, family level interviews took place. The method was basically a random walk and ask
someone to do a family-based interview. These interviews continued until it was confirmed the results were similar(most people in these villages lived very similar lifestyles). The people doing the interviews were PNG nationals that
deliberately targeted a cross section of the community (e.g. youths, elderly, mothers as well as leaders). Typically,
there were 4 - 6 family-based interviews accompanying the clan-based interview. The reason that 4 – 6 families
were interviewed was that it was found that the responses were very similar among families. So the assessors
continued to interview families until the assessors felt (based on their professional opinion) that they had areasonable data set that covered the situation in the village. At the family-based interview more specific questions
relating to subsistence at family level were asked. Similarly, people were queried about their understanding of theoil palm development. One of the observations made here was that there was almost no percolation of information
down from the clan leaders to the family level. This is an important observation, which feeds into the way thatNBPOL must communicate with these villages.
Regarding the sampling size – the FGD was the whole community – basically everyone from the community came tothe meeting. As such it can be regarded as a “census” not a sample. For the family level interviews the assessors

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 61

kept sampling until they felt that all the results were similar (i.e. confirmed that no one was saying anything
significantly different from previous interviews).

Figure 4. Focus Group Discussion taking place at Kintakiu

The interviews all took place in Tok Pisin (the PNG lingua franca), which is widely spoken in the area. Occasionallyquestions and important points were translated into a local dialect.
Additionally, clan members joined the HCV / HCS survey team when the team surveying the blocks. During this time
informal discussions took place about a range of topics (e.g., land ownership, disputes, resource use, population
expansion and cultural identification with natural areas). This was very useful supporting information for the survey.
While surveying the blocks, clan members were asked to take the team to cultural sites and places of interest. GPS
points were taken where appropriate (e.g. graveyards) or, where a creek was used for taking water, this was marked
on the survey map. Similarly, the clan leaders were asked to mark-up on maps the complete extent of their lands.
This was used to confirm there would be sufficient land after oil palm development for gardens. Also areas whereother resources were located was also marked on the maps.
At the end of each meeting next steps were discussed. These were (1) writing a draft report which will map out the
GO / NO GO areas and (2) returning to the village to socialise the results of the mapping and seek feedback / approval
from the communities.
In the case of Richard’s Block the interview was mainly to find out about the ownership and the land use on thearea.
Limitations of these methods may have been that the assessment team missed some key point because someone
didn’t speak up or that someone was in town and missed the meeting. However the team visited each village at

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 62

least three times and gave everyone the opportunity to raise questions or concerns. So, it was felt that the assessor
had undertaken “best endeavours” to collect and fairly represent the information.

Figure 5. Marking up the extent of the clan's lands at Balave. The community were asked to mark up the complete extent of their clan’s
land on maps. The maps had the proposed development area and satellite images of the surrounding area on them.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 63

Figure 6. Household interviews were undertaken after the clan based interviews. These were used to get more personal information andconfirm peoples’ understanding of the potential oil palm development.
Table 14. How consent from other affected communities were obtained, verified and documented.

Site nameTapakasi North and SouthClan Names: Kambulbulu, Ilalau,
Baumumu

Affected communities

Kae and Sismi Villages –located nearby the sites

Initial FPIC to the continuation of the process8

An interview during the full assessment washeld with the affected communities. The
assessor asked about the information that had
been provided about the survey by NBPOL. The
assessor noted that the community had an
adequate understanding of the assessment
process and understood that the area may be
converted to OP. The assessor asked theseparties whether the assessment team had thecommunity’s consent to start working on theirlands and engaging with them. To which thecommunity replied “Yes”. The assessor took thisas being consent and noted it.

The specification of
mechanisms
forsubsequentinteractions
betweencommunities
andthe company

The community are
setting up an ILG (Incorporated Land
Group).Lettersshould be addressedto the chairman
otherwise
villagemeetings were OK.
The assessor noted
this.

NBPOL had a procedure whereby minutes ofcompany meetings were taken at every meetingwith attendance lists. Copies of the minutes
8 The incredibly vague statement was interpreted by a third party social expert as meaning “informed consent from thecommunities is needed before the assessor starts working on their lands and engaging with them.”

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 64

were subsequently sent back to the village. The
villagers were able to show the assessor adossier of these records. Which the assessor
verified.

Lingalinga
Freehold owned by an individual

No affected communities
at Lingalinga – the only
person living in the area isthe caretaker and his
family. The owner has anagreementthatthecaretaker will return to his
village when development
takes place.
The social AOI does overlap
with Talegone village land(Information on this groupis provided in the level ofdependency table)

Kintakiu
Clan : Lobe and Poligokoru

Kintakiu Village – next tothe site

An interview during the full assessment washeld with the owner of the site. The assessor
asked about the information that had been
provided about the survey by NBPOL. The
assessor noted that the owner had an adequate
understanding of the assessment process andunderstood that the area may be converted to
OP. The assessor asked the owner whether theassessment team had the owner’s consent tostart working on his lands and engaging withhim. To which the owner replied “Yes”. The
assessor took this as being consent and noted it.
NBPOL had a procedure whereby minutes ofcompany meetings were taken at every meetingwith attendance lists. Copies of the minutes
were subsequently sent back to the owner. The
owner was able to show the assessor a dossierof these records. Which the assessor verified.

An interview during the full assessment washeld with the affected communities. The
assessor asked about the information that had
been provided about the survey by NBPOL. The
assessor noted that the community had an
adequate understanding of the assessment
process and understood that the area may be
converted to OP. The assessor asked theseparties whether the assessment team had thecommunity’s consent to start working on theirlands and engaging with them. To which thecommunity replied “Yes”. The assessor took thisas being consent and noted it.
NBPOL had a procedure whereby minutes ofcompany meetings were taken at every meetingwith attendance lists. Copies of the minutes
were subsequently sent back to the village. The
villagers were able to show the assessor adossier of these records. Which the assessor
verified.

BalaveClan : Loko

KandokaClan : Kandoka and Loko

Kandoka Village– next to
the Balave and Kandoka
sites

The owner said justto ring him or sendanemail.
The
assessor noted this.

An interview during the full assessment washeld with the affected communities. The
assessor asked about the information that had
been provided about the survey by NBPOL. The
assessor noted that the community had an
adequate understanding of the assessment
process and understood that the area may be
converted to OP. The assessor asked theseparties whether the assessment team had thecommunity’s consent to start working on theirlands and engaging with them. To which thecommunity replied “Yes”. The assessor took thisas being consent and noted it.

The community are
setting up an ILG (Incorporated Land
Group).Lettersshould be addressedto the chairman
otherwise
villagemeetings were OK.
The assessor noted
this.

The community are
setting up an ILG.
Letters should be
addressed to thechairman otherwise
villagemeetings
were
OK.
The
assessor noted this.

NBPOL had a procedure whereby minutes ofcompany meetings were taken at every meetingwith attendance lists. Copies of the minutes

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 65

were subsequently sent back to the village. The
villagers were able to show the assessor adossier of these records. Which the assessor
verified.

Richard’s Block
Freehold (owned by an individual)

RichardandLand
Settlement
Schemeneighbours– next to thesite

An interview was held with Richard as well as
the neighbours. The assessor asked about the
information that had been provided about thesurvey by NBPOL. The assessor noted that thecommunity had an adequate understanding of
the assessment process and understood thatthe area may be converted to OP. The assessor
asked these parties whether the assessment
team had the community’s consent to startworking on their lands and engaging with them.
To which the community replied “Yes”. The
assessor took this as being consent and noted it.

Richard said just to
ring him or send an
email. The assessor
noted this.

NBPOL had a procedure whereby minutes ofcompany meetings were taken at every
meeting. with attendance lists. Copies of theminutes were subsequently sent back to thevillage. The villagers were able to show theassessor a dossier of these records. Which theassessor verified.

Otto’s BlockClan : Hie

Otto and his neighbours(who are also Otto’s
family) – next to the site

CLUA

Otto said he lived
next door to theoffice and they could
call out to him if theywanted to discuss
something.
The
assessor noted this.

Participatory mappingAt each village interview the communities were asked to mark up the complete area of their land to ensure (1) thatthe oil palm development did not impact on their gardening area, (2) if it did overlap with their gardening area that
this would not force them to go and open up areas of forest elsewhere and (3) if there were any resources that werelikely to be affected by oil palm development (e.g. hunting areas). Additionally, any areas of community set asides,
within the assessment area, were asked to be mapped out.
Following this the assessors went to have a look at the areas of interest within the area. Examples of areas of interest
would be:•••Springs
Sak-sak areas
Cultural sites

Having studied these maps, the assessor found some inconsistencies and some of the data was incomplete. During
the final consultation the assessor asked the communities more questions and asked further clarifications.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 66

Environmental methods
Literature review and use of secondary data
Vegetation survey
Much of this phase of the assessment sought to understand if any species likely to be found within the study areas
are listed under various international agreements or are protected under any national legislation. Any potential
species found during this phase of the assessment were cross referenced against the digital herbarium records at theForest Research Institute (FRI) at Lae (Papua New Guinea) for records of listed species occurring in the Bismarck
Archipelago and then specifically on New Britain Island. From this search, a potential candidate species list wasformed, which was further refined by general habitat and elevation (where possible). Resources utilised during thedesktop review are listed in Table 38. The results of the IUCN red list search are provided in Table 39 of WNB_HCSHCV-HCVRN.
Table 38. Major information sources used to perform desktop review.

Resource
National
herbarium – Lae(digital)

Relevant
guidesfield

IUCN Red list

CITES prohibited

Nationallyprotected
speciesComment
This resource was used to understand the potential presence or absence of RTEs
identified by the PNG HCV National Interpretation, or individuals found from the areabased search of the CITES or IUCN databases. Record data (if present) was interrogatedto understand potential location, habitat and growth form of the species. The online
herbarium is not complete, but provides an excellent starting point for understanding
the potential distribution and ecology of RTE’s.
Once the indicative list was compiled, the following references were interrogated tounderstand any information about the identified species (full bibliographic entry in thereference list);• Peekel, P. G (1984). Flora of the Bismarck Archipelago• Verdcourt, B. (1979). A manual of New Guinea legumes• Baker, W. J and Dransfield, J. (2006). A field guide to the palms of New Guinea.
• Lewis, B. A and Cribb, P. J.(1991). Orchids of the Solomon Islands and Bougainville.
• Handbooks of the flora of Papua New Guinea Vols 1, 2 and 3
An area-based search using the IUCN online database was performed before thecommencement of field work in May, 2018. A list of all flora species with an IUCN ratingof vulnerable or greater (i.e. inclusive of endangered or critically endangered), wascollated. The area of focus was the Papua New Guinea in general, with further
investigation determining the relevance of each listed species to the WNB Province
context
An area-based search using the CITES online database was performed before thecommencement of field work May, 2018. The area of focus was the Papua New Guinea
in general, with further investigation determining the relevance of each listed species
to the Bismarck Archipelago and New Ireland Province.,
Little guidance is provided by the Papua New Guinea government as to the formal
protection of particular plant species, but the HCV toolkit for Papua New Guinea (PNG
FSC, 2005) provides a range of species that a considered rare, threatened or
endangered by IUCN or prohibited for trade under the CITES convention.

It should be acknowledged that the understanding about the ecology or distributions of much of the PNG rainforest
flora is imperfectly known, with many species’ descriptions being known only from original type specimens that arehoused in various herbaria in Australia and Papua New Guinea.
This component of the field assessment was integrated with the requirements of the HCS approach field assessment,with each field team being equipped with the list of target species and searches being carried out in the vicinity ofeach HCS plot and on the traverse between.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 67

Of the 18 species identified broadly identified for consideration, a short list of 8 species were identified as high priority
for targeted species searching, due to their known location being New Britain Island, or as a conservative measure,from the Bismarck Archipelago broadly. Of this list, three are considered endangered (EN) and five consideredvulnerable (VU). Interrogation of herbarium records held at Lae and other botanical references such as Womersley(1995) indicated the high likelihood of occurrence within remnant forest across the AOI, and were therefore given thehighest priority for targeted searching.
All CITES Appendix 1 species were orchids and their habitats were confined to rocky or montane areas (which are notpresent in the assessment area). It is of interest to note that listed species are climax community species mostly
present in large expanses of relatively undisturbed forests.
The broad, initial species selection is shown in Table 39, with the high priority target species shown in red.
Table 39. RTE tree species identified for targeted species searching across the assessment areas ( refer to HCV/HCS Assessment Report).
Red List
FamilyBinomial
Red List criteria
Location 1
statusMELIACEAE
Aglaia barbanthera
VU
A1c
Papuan Islands
MELIACEAE
Aglaia rubrivenia
VU
A1c
North Solomons
CALOPHYLLACEAE
Calophyllum walienseEN
B1+2abcde
Bismarck Archipelago
EBENACEAE
Diospyros gillisonii
EN
A1cd+2cd, C2aLouisiade Archipelago
EBENACEAE
Diospyros insularisEN
A1cd+2cd, B1+2c
New Ireland
SAPINDACEAE
Guioa novobritannica
VU
D2
West New Britain
PROTEACEAE
Helicia neglecta
VU
A1cd, C2aNew Britain
PROTEACEAE
Helicia polyosmoides
CR
B1+2abcde
Manus Island
FABACEAE
Intsia bijuga
VU
A1cd
Bismarck Archipelago
ANACARDIACEAE
Mangifera altissima
VU
A1d
Bismarck Archipelago
RUBIACEAE
Mastixiodendron stoddardii
VU
A1cd+2cd, B1+2abcde
New Britain
MYRISTICACEAE
Myristica polyantha
VU
D2
Goodenough Island
MYRISTICACEAE
Myristica psilocarpa
VU
D2
Manus Island
ARALIACEAE
Osmoxylon lanceolatum
VU
D2
New Ireland
A2acd+3cd+4acd;
Paphiopedilum
ORCHIDACEAE
CR
B1ab(ii,iii,v)+2ab(ii,iii,v);
Bougainville Island
bougainvilleanum
C1+2a(i,ii); D
Paphiopedilum
ORCHIDACEAE
CR
A2acd+3cd+4acd; C1+2a(i)Bougainville Island
wentworthianum
ARECACEAE
Drymophloeus hentyi
EN
A1a+2cEast New Britain
COMBRETACEAE
Terminalia archipelagi
EN
A1cd+2cd, C2a
Bismarck Archipelago

Bird Survey ( refer to 8.1.121 - HCV/HCS Assessment Report)
Information on species that were potentially present within the areas of interest were collated from field guides((Coates and Peckover, 2001) and (Beehler, Pratt and Zimmerman, 1986)), documentation on Endemic Birds Areasand from previous field experience in similar geographical areas within WNB. This resulted in a list of potentiallypresent bird species.
Mammal Survey ( refer to 8.1.1.3 - HCV/HCS Assessment Report)
Mammal species were mainly identified by speaking with the NBPOL employees and the local villagers. Both groups
were invaluable in providing information of extant mammals in the areas of interest; mainly based on their pastexperience. Day walks taken through the areas of interest were designed to maximize observations within various
forest strata and/or grassland.
Reptiles and Amphibians Survey ( refer to 8.1.1.4 - HCV/HCS Assessment Report)
A desktop review of current and relevant literature was conducted to collate data on extant reptile and amphibian
species which may likely be encountered within the areas of interest

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 68

Slope Analysis ( ( refer to 8.1.1.5 - HCV/HCS Assessment Report)
Excessive slope (i.e. that greater than 25o) is an operational constraint (prescribed by RSPO) needing to be factored
into decision making, although the paucity of topographic data available for this study made this process difficult
within the GIS environment. Slope analysis was performed using the Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) derived ALOSPALSAR as an input, then using the ‘slope’ (spatial analyst) tool within ArcGIS to convert elevation values to slope
values. While the ALOS PALSAR dataset is useful to understand relative elevation differences, its use in higher
resolution, operational planning is limited.
Environmental field work ( refer to 8.1.2 - HCV/HCS Assessment Report)
Based on the information gleaned from the secondary data as well as the assessment team’s experience with similar
surveys in other parts of PNG it was decided that the focus of the environmental survey should be on forest areas.
The environmental survey therefore focussed on forest areas, however the assessment team still passed throughareas of cultivation, grassland, bareland and village areas in the process of accessing the forest and was constantly
vigilant regarding sighting of species of interest in these land cover types. The birds and mammals surveyor frequently
walked along forest edges where birds were more easily able to be seen. Similarly the vegetation team walked
through all landcover types and was vigilant for any species of interest in all landcovers. Though, as predicted, thevegetation of interest for HCV was located in the forest areas.
HCSA forest assessment and vegetation survey ( refer to 8.1.2.1 - HCV/HCS Assessment Report)
The in-field vegetation survey was combined with the HCS plot data collection. The survey focussed on forested areas.
Grasslands were not considered a priority, given the small extent of this community across the study areas (37ha),with those present being either coastal grasslands (within 100m of the shore), swamp grasslands (buffered by riparianzones) or of anthropogenic origin – this is not to say these areas were ignored, these areas were still surveyed but
from the surveyors’ experience they were less likely to harbour HCV vegetation species and for surveying efficiency
focused on other areas. Coastal grasslands and swamp grassland were already protected by other HCVs anyhow. HCS
plot measurement involved assessing fixed area plots (described in more detail below) and searching for Rare,Threatened or Endangered (RTE) vegetation in the vicinity of and whilst walking between plots.
The field inventory performed for this project was primarily used to:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Collect HCSA plot data
Ground truth the output of the initial image classification and to quantify the above-ground woody biomass (i.e.
that within trees) found within each of the strata, across the study areas
Actively search for RTE species listed under national or international acts or conventions within the study areas
and adjacent landscape.
Verify the ecosystems that were described as present based on the secondary data review. Where possible, refine
the boundaries and better describe these ecosystems.
Develop a vegetation species list.
Develop a description of the forest associations in the area, along with information on levels and type of
disturbance and threats.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 69

Figure 7. Stylised representation of HCSA plot used during this assessment.

HCSA plot sampling design ( refer to 8.1.2.2 - HCV/HCS Assessment Report)
Plot sample design was conducted in accordance with the HCSA Toolkit Version 2, Module 4, and sought to develop
statistically separate mean biomass values that are ascribed to the HCSA strata defined during image classification, toa 90% confidence interval.
Mean biomass and standard deviation values from previous field assessments in other parts of Papua New Guinea
and the Solomon Islands were used as inputs into this process, with both the equation from pp 27 (see below) in HCSA
Toolkit Version 2, Module 4 and the ‘winrock sample plot calculator spreadsheet tool’9 were tested to compare thesample sized needed for this assessment (Table 15).

𝑵 = 𝒕𝟐 𝒔𝟐 /𝑬𝟐Where:
t = t-value from Student’s t-test table for 90% confidence intervals = standard deviation based on existing datasets from similar forest types
E = probable error, expressed as a percentage of the estimated mean value (from existing datasets)

9 https://www.winrock.org/document/winrock-sample-plot-calculator-spreadsheet-tool/

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 70

Table 15. HCSA plot sample size derived from various methods ( refer to table 40 of HCV/HCS Assessment Report).
N (winrock sample plot
StrataMean biomass (t/ha) Standard deviation (t/ha)
N (HCSA equation)
calculator)
HCS forest
278.1
169.5
102
124
Young
regenerating
129.5
76.3
95
35
forest
Scrub
42.1
22.1
75
10
Total
274
166

A sample of 263 HCSA plots was planned, a large survey effort given assessment time constraints, weather related
downtime and logistical complications, such as distance between study areas and limitations on accommodation.
Due to access constraints for some of the study areas (Linga Linga in particular) a combination of both stratified
random sampling (using ‘create random point’ in ArcGIS) and systematic sampling on transects was used, withsampling transects planned across gradients where they were identifiable during the field assessment planning.
Table 41 shows the breakdown of plots by strata measured during the field assessment, with map 34 to map 42 of
WNB_HCS-HCV-HCVRN showing the plot locations.
It should also be noted that the field work for this assessment was part of a larger program, where the field assessment
for two separate report submissions (17 sites in total) was conducted concurrently, mainly due to the logisticalchallenges described above. This particular assessment equates to 9 of the 17 individual study areas that weresurveyed, and the locations of the other sample points are provided in Appendix 29.
Minimal biomass sampling was undertaken in Non-HCS vegetation, as in the context of this assessment, suchvegetation was generally treeless or non-woody vegetation such as active gardens, grassland areas or areas
dominated by palms, such as Coconut or Sago. Non-HCS vegetation is usually encountered for one of the following
reasons; a) a change in landcover has occurred since the mapping was conducted (e.g. a new garden has been
established) or b) because of poor or incorrect classification.
This approach is consistent with pp 27 in Module 4 of the HCSA toolkit (Rosoman, et al., 2017), which states:‘Although Scrub (S) and Open Land (OL) are likely to contain very low levels of carbon, the HCS assessment process does seek tosample a limited number of field plots to confirm this assumption. Other classes, such as existing plantation areas (e.g. oil palmand food crops), and areas not to be developed including community areas, peatlands, and HCV areas, are generally not assessed
as it is expected that these areas are separately demarcated unless required for carbon accounting’ .
Table 41. Planned and measured HCS plots for this assessment.( refer to HCV/HCS Assessment Report)
StrataPlots planned
Plots measured
HCS forest
103
77
Young regenerating forest
78
50
Scrub
74
60
Non-HCS vegetation
8
14
Total
263
201

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 71

Figure 8. Final HCS class, plot locations and track log for the Balave Nth study area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 72

Figure 9. Final HCS class, plot locations and track log for the Balave Sth study area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 73

Figure 10. Final HCS class, plot locations and track log for the Kandoka study area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 74

Figure 11. Final HCS class, plot locations and track log for the Kintakiu study area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 75

Figure 12. Final HCS class, plot locations and track log for the Linga Linga study area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 76

Figure 13. Final HCS class, plot locations and track log for the Ottos Block study area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 77

Figure 14. Final HCS class, plot locations and track log for the Ritchies Block study area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 78

Figure 15. Final HCS class, plot locations and track log for the Tapakasi Nth study area

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 79

Figure 16. Final HCS class, plot locations and track log for the Tapakasi Sth study area

Inventory method ( refer to 8.1.2.3 - HCV/HCS Assessment Report)
All field inventory was performed in March 2018, and was done as per the methodology set out in Module 4, HCSA
(2017). This inventory method consists of two nested circular plots with plot radii of 5.64m and 12.61m, equating to
100m2 and 500m2 respectively. Trees between 5 -14.9 cm are measured within the 5.64m plot and all trees >15.0 cm
are measured within the 12.61m plot. Further detail can be found in HCSA (2017).
While HCSA plot data generally has a focus relating to determining above ground woody biomass, a range of otherdata is collected at each plot, such as species information, vegetation type, vegetation condition, stand structure anddisturbance history, all of which proved to be a useful aid in determining the vegetation likely to be encounteredduring this assessment.
Carbon calculation and data analysis ( refer to 8.1.2.4 - HCV/HCS Assessment Report)
All plot data was analysed with ‘R’ statistical software package. Main outputs were summary statistics and the Scheffe
post-hoc ANOVA. A summary of this analysis can be seen below in Section 9.4.
All biomass calculations were performed according to the method outlined in Chave et al., (2014). This method is a
two-step approach and utilises two models, Equation 4 and Equation 6a. Both models are pan-tropical allometrics,
with equation 4 being a biomass allometric and equation 6a being a diameter / height allometric.
Critical to Equation 6a is a climatic variable or ‘E-value’. This value is a co-efficient that is derived from the combinationof both temperature seasonality (TS) and climatic water deficit (CWD). The E-value increases with both increasing TS
and increasing CWD, with equation 6a predicting that tree height for a given diameter will decline with increasing

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 80

water and temperature stress (Chave et al., 2014). The E-value dataset is supplied in raster format at resolution of 2.5
arc seconds (approximately 4.5km x 4.5km at latitude of the AOI), and the spatial locations of each of the HCSA plots
were used to extract the appropriate E-value for each.
Faunal survey methods ( refer to 8.1.2.4 - HCV/HCS Assessment Report)
Faunal survey locations are shown below on Maps 43 – 48. Day time surveys (birds and mammals) utilised the track
created by HCS / vegetation survey plot work, usually the next day, in order to minimise the chance of disturbing
target taxa. Nocturnal amphibian and reptile surveys were mostly undertaken along the same routes.
A river-based survey (bird search) was conducted on the Kapaluk River, the eastern boundary of the Linga Linga study
area.
Bird survey
In surveying birds, the line transect sampling method was employed where the observer walks along a designatedpath (in this case it was mostly existing tracks or roads through the study areas) and pauses for five to ten minutes atregular intervals. At each interval, bird species are either recognised by their calls or if they are sighted. Bird species
identified by either vocalization or sightings are recorded as well as a tally drawn for the number of individuals of eachunique species seen or heard(Bibby, Jones and Marsden, 1998)(Imanuddin, S. Percy, D. Priatna, L. D’Arcy, L. Sadikin,2013).
Observations commenced between 5:30 AM and 6:00 AM. During the day, opportunistic sightings and otherinteresting observations made of birds were also recorded. An audio recorder (Zoom H1) was also used to capturebird calls. The audio records were analyzed post-survey to ascertain the presence of bird species at each location as
well as identify other birds that may have been overlooked during the field surveys. A pair of binoculars (Olympus,
10 x 50 magnification) was used to visually identify birds while a point-and-shoot camera (Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100)
was used to photograph birds, whenever possible, including the habitats in which birds were observed.
A comprehensive guide of the birds of Melanesia (Dutson, 2011) was used during informal interviews with membersof the communities visited to verify the presence or absence of birds as well as collect local names of birds. During
the survey, attempts were made to survey as many different habitat types as possible so as to affirm the extant species
in these habitats as well as to find species that were included in the expected list of birds.
Mammal survey
Mammal species were mainly identified by speaking with the NBPOL employees and the local villagers. Both groups
were invaluable in providing information of extant mammals in the areas of interest; mainly based on their pastexperience. Day walks taken through the areas of interest were designed to maximize observations within various
forest strata and/or grassland.
Reptiles and amphibians
Amphibian and reptile species were more likely to be encountered at night. Night trips were taken to survey foramphibians and reptiles and this occurred concurrently with spotlighting for mammals. The same survey routes wereused to search for both reptiles and amphibians as well as for mammals. Amphibians or frogs were found by following
their calls and searching for them in the understory as well as under bush. An audio recorder (ZOOM H1) was also
used to record frogs calling. The search for reptiles was done using a spotlight (Coleman HCX – 450 Lumens), handheld LED torches and headlamps. The survey teams kept a close eye on the roads followed at night since snakes
especially have a tendency to lie across the road at night. When a snake was spotted, photographs were taken andthe species identified and recorded. Local denizens were also asked to recount any encounters they have had withreptiles or amphibian species in the past.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 81

Map 38. Faunal survey location for Balave North and Balave South study areas.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 82

Map 39. Faunal survey location for Kandoka study area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 83

Map 40. Faunal survey location for Kintakiu study area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 84

Map 41. Faunal survey location for Linga Linga study area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 85

Map 42. Faunal survey location for Tapakasi North study area.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 86

Map 43. Faunal survey location for Tapakasi South study area.

Environmental HCV and HCS forest results
HCSA forest classification and carbon assessment ( refer to 8.2.2 - HCV/HCS Assessment Report)
Field inventory sought to develop distinct classes, with statistically separate mean values, to a 90% confidence level,
consistent with the requirements of HCSA (2017). Areas of each class that are relevant to the statistical analysis areprovided in Table 17 and descriptive statistics for these classes shown in Table 18. The results of the post-hoc Scheffe
analysis of variance are provided in Table 19 to Table 21. and respectively.
The mean above ground carbon (ABC) values reported here are consistent with previously published carbon studies
relevant to the PNG context, such as Fox et al., (2010) and Arihafa et al.,(2015).
The results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test were positive with ‘P-value’ for the analysis being <.01, and the‘null hypothesis’ rejected, indicating that overall variation between mean biomass values can be explained by HCS
class. The results of the Scheffe, multiple comparison test, however, indicate variability present in the data, with nostatistically significant separation being present between the YRF and Scrub, although 90% confidence interval error
bars around the means do not overlap.
Although the results of the Scheffe test for this comparison returned at negative result, the fact that the ‘P-value’ forthis comparison was very close to that needed to pass the test (0.12 when the value needed to pass the test is <=0.1,
see Table 20) and that 90% CI error bars around the strata means do not overlap, indicates that the results are close
and that there is likely some separation between these classes.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 87

Separation between the HCSA forest classes (i.e MDF, LDF and YRF), was variable, with the relatively small sample in
the MDF possibly contributing to this result.
Further analysis into the root causes driving the Scheffe analysis results revealed the following:
1. Scheffe analysis only considers the above ground carbon value, and does not take other factors, such as
disturbance history and/or species composition at the plot level into account. The analysis is therefore only
reporting on part of the factors that drive HCS plot classification, a serious limitation of this analysis.
2. Variation in the mean values reported for each HCS class is largely driven by variation in DBH at the plot level,
and the presence of outliers within each HCS class. The scrub class has a very high concentration of trees with
DBH <= 10cm, as to be expected for young, highly disturbed vegetation. There are, however, many trees withlarger DBH present in the scrub class, a situation that accurately reflects the on-ground reality of delineating
this class within the context of PNG. For example, it is very common for larger shade-bearing or fruit trees tobe present in abandoned or fallow gardens (scrub class). If such trees fall within the pre-located plot, they areroutinely measured and included in the analysis for that plot. The presence of such large trees could be
eliminated by a number of approaches, such as moving the plot, not measuring such trees in the field, or
removing ‘outliers’ during analysis. Such approaches represent poor inventory practice, and will have theeffect of introducing unnecessary bias to the data, a situation not supported by the assessment team.
Advice Note 03: HCV – HCSA Assessment (HCSA, 2020) states the following:‘Insignificant difference under the Scheffe test is not necessarily a failure unless there is some other contributing factor,
such as poor stratification or sampling design’.
This being the case, and the fact the strata descriptions are accurate and based on field observation, a two sample,
unequal variance Students T-Test was performed, using 0.05, a higher confidence interval than prescribed in the
Scheffe test (Table 16). This test returned a positive result and thus indicate significant difference between these twomean values.
Table 16. Results of Students T-Test, comparing mean above ground carbon values between the ‘Scrub’ and ‘YRF’ classes ( ( refer to table
42, 8.2.2 - HCV/HCS Assessment Report).

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Scrub
YRF
Mean
38.68
80.26
Variance
1789.245356.28
Observations
53
50
df
77
t Stat-3.5036
P(T<=t) one-tail0.0004t Critical one-tail2.3758P(T<=t) two-tail0.0008t Critical two-tail2.6412
Table 17. Area of HCSA classes by study area. ( refer to table 44, 8.2.2 - HCV/HCS Assessment Report)
Tapaka Tapaka
BalaveBalaveKandok Kintaki Linga
Ottos
Ritchie
Final HCSA class
si
si
North
South
a
u
Linga
Block
s Block
North
SouthHigh density forest (HDF)
68.54
0.00
55.01
0.00
168.02
0.00
0.00
13.67
0.00
Medium density forest (MDF)
4.63
0.00
93.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
39.89
Low density forest (LDF)
157.73
70.89
54.99
35.94
240.11
5.88
0.54
0.00
0.00

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 88

Grand
Total
305.24137.80566.07

Young regenerating
(YRF)
Scrub
Non-HCS

forestGrand Total

39.84

15.80

16.85

54.43

55.46

0.00

0.00

3.94

0.00

186.31

56.96
35.57

89.33
0.00

273.86124.51121.180.00

400.29
94.08

7.08
2.37

8.59
3.76

2.18
0.00

15.02
0.00

363.26176.02618.50211.55957.96

15.32

12.89

19.78

54.90

974.49260.292430.1
9

Table 18. Summary of statistical analysis of carbon stocks per vegetation class ( refer to table 45, 8.2.2 - HCV/HCS Assessment Report)
Confidence limits (90%)
Carbonstock
Land cover
Plot #
Mean Carbon
Total Carbon(tC/ha)Area (ha)standard
error
class
(n)
stock (tC/ha)stocks (tC)
(tC/ha)
Lower
Upper
HDF

305.2420

185.5524.17

145.91225.1956636.67

MDF

137.8012140.9221.72

105.30176.55

19418.59

LDF

566.0745

111.69

11.45

92.91

130.4763224.01

YRF

186.31

50

80.26

10.35

63.29

97.24

14953.56

Scrub

974.49

53

38.68

5.81

29.15

48.20

37693.12

Non-HCS

260.29

12

91.07

18.43

60.85

121.2923704.17

Total

2430.19215630.11

Table 19. Results of ANOVA test ( refer to table 46, 8.2.2 - HCV/HCS Assessment Report)
ANOVA
Source
Model
Error
Total

SS
3787659441501322916

df
5
186
191

MS
75753
5076

v.r
14.92

Sig Diff (F pr.)Yes (<0.1)

Table 20. Scheffe post hoc analysis results ( refer to table 47, 8.2.2 - HCV/HCS Assessment Report)
Difference

Lower 90%

Upper 90%tP-value

Scrub vs YRF-41.59

-84.6

1.46

-2.9610.1246

Scrub vs LDF-73.01-117.3-28.75-5.0560.0002

Scrub vs MDF-102.25-172.1-32.44-4.4890.0017

Scrub vs HDF-146.87-204.2-89.57-7.8550

YRF vs LDF-31.43

-76.3

13.44

-2.1470.4681YRF vs MDF-60.66-130.99.53-2.6490.225

YRF vs HDF-105.29-163.1-47.52-5.5860

LDF vs MDF-29.24-100.241.71-1.2630.9011

LDF vs HDF-73.86-132.5-15.18-3.8580.0131

MDF vs HDF-44.62-124.435.11-1.7150.7088Significant(p – value <0.1)

Comparison

no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
no

Table 21. Significant differences from Scheffe post hoc analysis ( refer to table 48, 8.2.2 - HCV/HCS Assessment Report)
Land cover class
HDF
MDF
LDF
YRF
Scrub
HDF
NO
YES
YES
YES
MDF
NO
NO
YES
LDF
NO
YES
YRF
NO
Scrub

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 89

The total area for conservation is 1445.62 ha of the 2430.18 ha that were assessed. This is 59% of the area is forconservation. This reflects that there is a very high level of forest cover in this landscape.

HCV 1

Presence
Present

Area(ha)

Justification
The Blue Eyed Cockatoo, New Britain Sparrowhawk, Bismarck Kingfisher, Redknobbed Imperial Pigeon (all IUCN:VU) and Blyth's Hornbill (Protected GoPNG)
were sighted in and around the assessment areas. The vegetation species ofinterest are Diospyrus insularus (IUCN:EN), Pterocarpus indicus (IUCN:VU) andIntsia bijua (IUCN:VU).

896.65Mangroves identified during image analysis at two sites (Linga linga andKandoka)
HCV1 was mapped in six sites: Balave North, Balave South, Kintakiu, Kandoka,
Lingalinga and Tapakasi North. This was based on the presence of thepreviously mentioned species.

HCV 2

Not
Present0

HCV 3

Present
736.61

HCV 4

Present

Therefore, HCV 1 was deemed present in six sites: Balave North, Balave South,
Kandoka, Kintakiu, Linga linga and Tapakasi North.
There is no intersection between the assessment area with intact forested
landscapes (nor any forested landscapes of the required threshold size). The
New Britain Sparrowhawk, an HCV 2 indicator species, was sighted in Balave.
However, in recent years the IFL that once existed nearby Balave has been
pushed back several kilometres. These intact forest dependent species haveprobably not adjusted to the loss of forest habitat. For this reason, HCV 2 isdeemed Not Present.
The endangered ecosystems that overlap with the assessment area aremangroves, swamp forests and “lowland rainforest (plains and fans).” Theseare present in all the blocks (except Otto’s and Richard’s Block and Kintakiu)
HCV3 is therefore deemed Present.
There are many rivers, swamps and mangroves in the assessment area.
Additionally, many of the estates are on the coast. All these require buffersthat are considered HCV 4.

475.94HCV 5

Additionally areas with slopes greater than 25 degrees are considered HCV 4.
Therefore, HCV 4 was deemed present in three sites: Balave North, Lingalinga
and Kandoka
In Richard’s block HCV 5 is deemed to be absent because it is essentially avacant block with no one living or using this area.

Present

1.71

HCV 6

Present
21.13

For the other areas. The communities living in and around the assessment areas
are reliant on natural areas for meeting their basic needs. Of note are timber
for house construction, drinking water, fish the occasionally hunted animal foreating and fuel wood. Most of these resources are currently sourced
throughout the whole landscape at a very low extraction density. The plan isthat all these resources will be sourced external to the development area. HCV
5 is mapped over the areas external to the assessment area. Additionally, HCV
5 is mapped within the assessment area over the swamps, springs and rivers;
these areas are important as a source of fish and water (drinking water was
typically taken from ground water). Therefore HCV 5 is deemed Present.
In the Kintakiu there is Lake Dakataua which is outside the assessment area andthe large strangler fig and sacred hill in Lingalinga. Therefore HCV 6 is deemed
to be Present.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 90

HCS
ForestPresent

1196.85

In every block there are forested patches that are considered HCS forest.

Table 22. Area Statement (ha) . The locations of the HCV areas are mapped in( refer to 10.4 - HCV/HCS Assessment Report)

Area TypeArea (ha)HCV1

896.65

HCV2

0

HCV3

736.61HCV4475.94

HCV5

1.71

HCV6

21.13

HCS

1196.85

Total Conservation Area

1445.62

Total Developable Area

967.86

Total Assessment Area

2430.18

Section 5: FPIC
Guidance Note: This section is where the information on stakeholder mapping is put and all required informationthat the building blocks for FPIC have been conducted. References and pictorial evidence are recommended. What
are the methodology(ies), people involved in the process, date of assessment and findings?
FPIC Prior to the HCV-HCS Study
There had been many community meetings, dating back as far as eight years (in some cases). So, the assessor wasconvinced that every member of the community was well informed about oil palm development. A chronology ofmeeting is available in Appendix 14.6. Permission to undertake the survey is documented in meeting notes - 14.25.
Hard copies of these were provided during Scoping and FA. The following is documentation of FPIC at the time of theassessment start.
Balave / Kandoka

DOCUMENTATION SUMMARY ON PROPOSED BALAVE PROJECT
Date
Jun-0924/05/20
10
26/05/20
18
19/11/20
13
19/05/20
18
19/01/20
18
18/05/20
17
14/01/20
16

Description
Initial Interest (Verbal)_refer to 1st Inspection Report dated 24/05/2010.
1st Inspection report, inspection conducted on 13/05/2010
Awareness Meeting at Kandoka with Loko Clan members -Minutes yet to compile
Brief update & map on Balave HCV field investigation
Minutes - Meeting with Balave clan leaders on 19/04/18
Report on Land Investigation performed by Provincial Lands Office for the application ofCustomary Land Title (VCLR) by Loko ILG ( Incorporated Land Group)
Follow up on status of NBPOL's Pre-Assessement reports
Internal email correspondence regarding NBPOL's pre-assessment of HCS on Balave
project

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 91

13/01/20
16
10/'04/20
13
01/11/20
14
10/12/20
11

Meeting Minutes - regarding HCS assessments as per NPP requirements and the likely
outcome of this assessment over Balave project
FPIC Meeting at Kandoka village
2nd Inspection report
Balave HCVF field work payment record
Kintakiu

DOCUMENTATION SUMMARY ON PROPOSED KINTAKIU PROJECT
Date
15/01/200
8
28/09/200
9
28/02/201
1
24/09/201
1
13/04/201
6
12/'04/20
10
09/'08/20
11
4/12/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/7/2014
Feb-12Oct-11
Oct-11
8/5/2011

Description
Intial Interest Letter
1st Inspection report, inspection conducted on 17/09/2009
FPIC meeting held at Kintakiu Village on 16/02/2011
Email conversation re WNB HCV assessments by Lewie Dekker
Meeting with Kintakiu Landowners RSPO
2nd Inspection report with map, inspection conducted on 17/03/2010
Record of RHCV payments & field work done by S.Keu
Meeting Minutes - Meeting with Kintakiu Leaders at Mosa
Email conversation with B.Mane re dispute over Kintakiu
Meeting with Kintakiu landowners at Kintakiu village - Minutes yet to complete
RSPO NPP - Draft Summary Report of HCV & SEIA
HCVF report by A.J.F.M Dekker
Report on Rapid HCV assessment on Kintakiu by S.Keu
Report on Preliminary HCV assessment on Kintakiu by S.Keu
Draft report on RHCVFRSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 92

Figure 17. Initial Expression of Interest letter from the community regarding Kintakiu (dated 15-01-08)

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 93

Lingalinga

DOCUMENTATION SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LINGALINGA PROJECT
Date
5/12/2008

27/07/2016
Oct-14
12/7/2012

Description
Initial Interest Letter
Meeting with Julius Ngatia re NPP Assessments over Lingalinga Plantation - Minutes
yet to compile
Email Correspondence - Oil palm development & RSPO assessments
Full High Conservation Value Assessment Report for Lingalinga - By Ted Mamu
Email Correspondence - HCV & Social Impact Assessment over Lingalinga Pltn

Jun-12

Proposed New Mill Site Assessment Report

18/12/2010

Email Correspondence - Lingalinga

19/04/2018

30/03/2010

Email Correspondence regarding Julius Ngatia's Request for support letter to attachwith his bid for an Ausaid project at Bialla
Draft letter
Draft letter
Maps
Tapakasi North and SouthNo.

Activity

Date

1

Tapakasi Letter to SHA,

30/06/201
6

2

3

4

5
6
7
8

9

Time

Venue

8.00 am-9.55am

Mosa, Lands

NBPOL
Joint
Lands
&
Sustainability
Village meeting Pre-NPP
Consultant Visit Meetingplan
Tapakasi Sketch Map
Summary of Events
leading
up to May 2018 NPPAssessments
Application for Timber
RightsPermitTapakasi North & Southsketch maps
FPIC Engagement-HCV 5Notes
Schedules of Owners,
Status and Rights to theLand
NPP
Scoping
Entry
Meeting

20/04/201
6

16/10/201
7

Conference RoomRSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 94

10

NPP Scoping Assessment

16/10/201
7

1.00-4.00 pm

Tapakasi
North/South
Projectarea

11

11/04/201
8

FFPIC Meeting

1.35-2.35pm

Mosa, Lands

12

Social Assessment report

14/06/201
8Whole Day

Conference Room
Kae,
Sisimi,Taborbi
Villages

13

FPIC Meeting

17/04/201810.15 am-12.00

Moroa Plantationpm

OfficeBrief
History
Baumumu
Clan

14

of

07.09.18

At the actual assessment the following procedures were used for the final consultation. The procedure for thecommunities was for a member of the NBPOL Sustainability Department to visit each of the communities one weekprior to the assessor visiting them and give them a copy of the map (Conserve / Develop Map) which showed theresults of the assessment that was relevant to their land. This would give them time to look at the map and consider
their options.
Additionally, the assessor used this opportunity to check the outputs of the Participatory Mapping. Especiallyregarding the complete extent of clan’s land, sometimes this didn’t make sense, so the assessor went back to the clan
to reconfirm it. Additionally, the assessor explained the methods and the results of the assessment to thecommunities and answered any questions. Finally asking the communities if they understood the results and agreed
with the outcome (which, in all cases they accepted the outcome).
All clans had the next steps explained. The assessor pointed out this involved getting the report reviewed by HCVRN.
This took a long time and suggested the community start negotiating with NBPOL regarding the terms and conditionof their agreements.
Table 23. Final Consultation Results (these were group meetings)

Community

Date

Tapakasi
12.3.2019
North and
South

No.
Attending10
4Discussion

Assessor Response

1. This area is mired in internalland disputes.
In Tapakasi
North there are 4 clans (Ilaolao,
Mararea, Hailili and Ugeuge). As
well as this Jacob Patore had
tried to develop Tapakasi North
with no proper consultation
with the villages involved. At
this stage Kosmos Bubu statedthat he wanted to see nodevelopment of the area.
2. In Tapaksi South the area wasbeing disputed by Camilus
Kaore. There was a court

1. The assessor stated that this was
the communities’ opportunity to getsome development. If they didn’t
resolve their internal problems thenthis window of opportunity would
rapidly close.

10 Not including company staff

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 95

Kintakiu

13.3.201933

Otto’s Block14.3.20191

Richie’s
14.3.2019
Block(sometimes
referred to1

dispute over the area and up forland mediation. Up till now
there is no resolution.
3. A second meeting wasundertaken with the other clan
members.
Unfortunately,
Jacob Patore had told all theother members to go home.
There were only 4 people left.
This was seen as evidence of thedivisions relating to this land.
1. Some clan members didn’t
attend because they had otheraffairs to attend to, but they
had discussed the map and themembers that were present
were given the approval to go
ahead.
3. The community were in
general keen to go ahead withthe development of theKintakiu land. They wanted toknow what they could do in theconservation area. Was limited
timber extraction permissible.
The assessor replied that hewas currently following up on
this issue because he wasunsure himself.
4. Was land rental going to be
paid over the protected area?
5. The community requested
help
markinguptheconservation area.
NBPOL
agreed that a team could besent out with some materials to
assist.
6. The community were keen to
use the “give and take” option.
Theymarkedup
theapproximate areas of “give andtake” and asked that theassessor balanced the areas
appropriately.
1. Questioned why it was taking
so long. Could he go ahead anddevelop the area now.
1. There were no questions orconcerns.

1. The assessor mentioned that theirvillage was in a KBA and asked
whether the people were aware ofthis. They mentioned that a scientist
had told them about it but neversought their approval nor hadanyone consulted them.
2. Regarding land rental – The
assessor replied that this was
something that would have to benegotiated with NBPOL.
3. The assessor said theat he would
incorporate their “give and take”
into the final result.

The assessor replied that if he went
ahead NBPOL wouldn’t be able tobuy fruit off him.
Noted

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 96

as Richards
Block–these terms
areusedinterchange
ably)
Lingalinga
14.3.2019

Kandoka

15.3.2019Balave15.3.20192

1.Regarding conservation in thearea. He had a caretaker in thearea and that is why for the last
40 years the area had beenconserved and was in goodcondition.
2.The area of the access roadwould be excised from theconservation area.
3.Questions were raised thenational highway that was to bebuilt through the area
1.Explanation that even though
the Kandoka clan is owned by
the Loko Clan, as a result ofintermarriage there is a very
close relationship between thetwo clans. As such they haveagreed to give them the right toutilise the area. This would bedone under a CLUA.
3.The community also asked
what does conservation mean;e.g. can they take bird watchers
down tracks, could they extract
trees.
4.There was a discussion about
the “give and take” options. The
community highlighted someexample areas, but said they
preferred that the assessor
rebalanced the development
and conservation and gave theplan back to them.
1.There was some discussion
over the total area and theeffect potential other areas
along the roadline would haveon their developable area.
3. In the rivers in theconservation area they takecrabs and harvest sago. Thiswasconfirmed
tobepermissible.

The assessor said that if a national
highway were put through the area,
he assumed this would be a forcedsale and this would be outside theowner’s control and would notaffect HCV/S commitments.

1.The assessor mentioned that if
they went ahead with thedevelopment they wouldn’t be able
to utilise the conservation land.
That would mean that they would
have to walk a long way to open up
new gardens. The assessor madetwo suggestions. Either (1) they
expand the community use area togive themselves enough space forgardens or (2) or they use a LSS
model of 4 ha oil palm and 2 hagarden. The community responded
that they would have to get back to
the assessor on this.
2. The assessor explained that bird
watchers were fine, however,extracting trees and opening
gardens was not OK.
3. The assessor said he would givethe plan back to them when it wascomplete.
1. The assessor walked into some of
the areas along the roadline in order
to confirm the status of thevegetation.
2. Regarding leasing of theconservation area. It was stated that
this was an issue for
Lands
Department. It was part of FPIC.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 97

Otto’s Block20.1.2020

Richie’sBlock

20.1.2020

4. Questions were also asked
whether NBPOL would lease
the conservation area.
5. The community stated thatthey were happy with what was
proposed and just wanted tosee development.
There was a discussion about
resource use and sacred sites inthe block. The neighbours(Otto’s relatives) said theygardenedandcollected
resources from their own land.
However, they had opened
some areas and collected a few
coconuts from Otto’s land. Thiswas only incidental use. There
were no sacred sites present.

There was a discussion about
resource use and sacred sites inthe block. The neighbours said
they gardened and collectedresources from their own land.
There were no sacred sites
present.

With the aid of hard copy landcovermaps (that were relevant to the
Otto’s Block) we pointed out that we
had not mapped any HCV/S area.
We also mentioned that no RTE
species of plants, birds andmammals had been sighted. In all
the interviews people were asked ifthey had any questions orcomments about the outcome ofthe process. In all cases there were
no questions nor comments.
Additionally,
thecommunity
conveyed information about theabsence of use of natural resources
and about the absence of sacredsites. This information was used toconfirm (at the end of the interview)that HCV 5 and 6 were not present
in the assessment area. This was
agreed by the community. At theend of the interview, after all thedata had been collected, it wasagreed as a form of meeting wrapup, by all the participants that theuse of natural resources within the
AOI was confined to their own land.
With the aid of hard copy landcovermaps (that were relevant to theRichie’s Block) we pointed out that
we had not mapped any HCV/S area.
We also mentioned that no RTE
species of plants, birds andmammals had been sighted. In all
the interviews people were asked ifthey had any questions orcomments about the outcome ofthe process. In all cases there were
no questions nor comments.
Additionally,
thecommunity
conveyed information about theabsence of use of natural resources
and about the absence of sacredsites. This information was used to

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 98

confirm (at the end of the interview)that HCV 5 and 6 were not present
in the assessment area. This was
agreed by the community. At theend of the interview, after all thedata had been collected, it wasagreed as a form of meeting wrapup, by all the participants that theuse of natural resources within the
AOI was confined to their own land.
A follow-up meeting to discuss the results of the integrated assessment was requested. However, NBPOL informed
Hijau Daun that this was not possible as all the public servants in Kimbe had been stood down and were in the processof re-applying for their jobs. Hijau Daun sought further clarification and was told that the government offices were
empty and there was no one to meet there.
CEPA – (PNG Conservation and Environment Protection Authority) – a meeting was requested by NBPOL in Port
Moresby with this organisation to present the results of the survey. After two requests were sent with no adequate
response from CEPA; it was deemed that CEPA did not consider this survey of being of sufficient importance and nofurther requests were made.
It is recommended that NBPOL follow up with the government when it is possible and socialise the results of theassessment and seek comments and suggestions.
Another follow up on the request by NBPOL was made to CEPA (PNG Conservation and Environment Protection
Authority). During the NBPOL WNB annual compliance inspection on 08/11/21, meeting and site visit was than carriedout by CEPA (Conservation and Environment Protection Authority) .

Summary
The assessor considered the consultations have covered sufficient representation of relevant stakeholders within thedefined AOI because all affected communities were visited and there was a good turnout to all meetings. Clearly

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 99

there were difficulties dealing with the government; however the assessor undertook best endeavours to schedule
meetings. The fact that no one was at work can be considered a limitation of the assessment. Forcert – the only NGO
that is active in the area was consulted, as was Cecile Benjamin – who is community advocate and had worthwhile
comment about the survey.
Section 6: Soil and topography
RSPO Note: This section should indicate the type of soil identified and the area of it. Sampling points should beindicated. Topographic maps will be included here as well. Any potential areas identified as steep terrain according to
the P&C 2018 definition should be mentioned accordingly. What are the methodology(ies), people involved in theprocess, date of assessment and findings? Note: Should an assessment carried out by internal staff, just fill the nameof the staff and his/her designation.Suitability is rated against the following matrix :Table 24. Soil suitability matrix.
Order
S (suitable)Class
S1 (highly suitable)

Definition
Land having no or only minor limitations to sustain cultivation of oil palm or any other crop for that matter

S2 (moderately suitable)

Land having limitations that in aggregate are moderately severe for sustained oil palm cultivation.
Productivity will be smaller and inputs will be more costly that S1

S3 (marginally suitable)

Land having limmitations that in aggregate are moderatey severe for sustained oil palm cultivation.
Productivity will be reduced and input costs so great that use of this land may not be marginally justified.

N (not suitable) N (Not suitable)

Land qualities are not suitable for sustained oil palm cultivation.

Lingalinga
Date of Assessment: August 2018
Name of Assessor: Dr Murom Barnabas
Assessor Designation and Company: Head of Agronomy -PNG OPRA ( externally)
Methodology
The soils survey comprised several stages including :a) background literature review and preparation of maps,b) a scoping visit to proposed areas for detailed survey planningc) carrying out the actual field survey and collecting soil samples for chemical analysis andd) reporting the survey results.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 100

Figure 18. Soil sampling points.
Table 25. Soil Survey results for Lingalinga
Characteristics
ClimateAnnual rainfall (mm)Dry season (months)
Mean annual max. temp. (°C)
Mean annual min. temp. (°C)
Mean annual temp. (° C)
Sunshine hours hrs/day
Topography
Slope (%)
Soil wetness
Drainage Class
Flooding
Soil physical conditions
TextureStructure
Depth (cm)Depth to top of sulfuric horizon (cm)Thickness of Peat (cm)Chemical conditions
Effective CEC
Base saturation in A horizon
Organic C in A horizon
Salinity 50 cm depth
Micronutrients

Flat alluvial plains

Suitability

Wet alluvial plains

Suitability

Ridges and slopes

Suitability

3,700
nil
29+
20+
25+
4.5

S1
S1
S1
S1
S1
S2

3,700
nil
29+
20+
25+
4.5

S1
S1
S1
S1
S1
S2

3,700
nil
29+
20+
25+
4.5

S1
S1
S1
S1
S1
S2

Flat

S1

Flat

S1

>45

NS

poorly drained
Not flooded

S3
S1

very poor
moderate to severeNSNSwell drained
not flooded

S1
S1

SCL
moderately developed
70-100
N/A
N/A

S2
S1
S2

No detailed survey
No detailed survey
Under water
No detailed survey
No detailed survey

NS

SCL
moderately developed
>100
N/A
N/A

S2
S1
S1

>30
>70
>3.0
N/A
N/A

S1
S1
S1

No detailed survey
No detailed survey
No detailed survey
N/A
N/A

>28
>75
>3.0
N/A
N/A

S1
S1
S1

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 101

Figure 19. Soil suitability map - Linglinga

Results• There is surplus water throughout the year and proper drainage system is required.
• No peat in the plain suited for oil palm production.
• N and K fertilisers will be major nutrients required• Proper roads and drainage system to be established before field planting• The wet areas around the lagoon and river banks to be avoided• Approximately 474.3 ha is suitable for oil palm cropping.

Balave and Kandoka
Date of Assessment: March 2022
Name of Assessor: Dr Murom Barnabas
Assessor Designation and Company: Head of Agronomy – PNG OPRA ( externally)

Methodology
The soils survey comprised several stages including :a) background literature review and preparation of maps,b) a scoping visit to proposed areas for detailed survey planningc) carrying out the actual field survey and collecting soil samples for chemical analysis andd) reporting the survey results.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 102

Soil Sampling Points

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 103

Figure 20. Soil Sampling Points Kandoka and Balave.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 104

Figure 21. Soil suitability map
Table 26. Balave North Soil Suitability.
Characteristics
ClimateAnnual rainfall (mm)Dry season (months)
Mean annual max. temp. (°C)
Mean annual min. temp. (°C)
Mean annual temp. (° C)
Sunshine hours hrs/day
Topography
Slope (%)
Soil wetness
Drainage Class
Flooding
Soil physical conditions
TextureStructure
Depth (cm)Depth to top of sulfuric horizon (cm)Thickness of Peat (cm)Chemical conditions
Effective CEC (cmol/100g)
Base saturation in A horizon (%)
Organic C in A horizon (%)
Salinity 50 cm depth (ds/m)
Micronutrients

Alluvial plains
Site values/observations

Suitability

Slope hilly areas
Site values/observations Suitability

Steep hilly ridges
Site values/observations Suitability

4,223
nil
29+
20+
25+
4.5

S2
S1
S1
S1
S1
S2

4,223
nil
29+
20+
25+
4.5

S2
S1
S1
S1
S1
S2

Generally flat (0-5)

S1

Gentle to moderate slopes

S2

Steep slopes

NS

Poorly drained
Not flooded

S2
S1

Well drained
Not flooded

S1
S1

Well drained
Not flooded

S1
S1

Mostly sandy clay loam
Moderately developed
70-110 cm
N/A
N/A

S2
S1
S1

Mostly sandy clay loam
Moderately developed

S2
S1

Mostly sandy clay loam
Moderately developed

S2
S1

23
65
>3.0
N/A
N/A

S1
S1
S1

4,223
nil
29+
20+
25+
4.5

S2
S1
S1
S1
S1
S2

140 cm +RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 105

Table 27 Balave South Soil Suitability.
Characteristics
ClimateAnnual rainfall (mm)Dry season (months)
Mean annual max. temp. (°C)
Mean annual min. temp. (°C)
Mean annual temp. (° C)
Sunshine hours hrs/day
Topography
Slope (%)
Soil wetness
Drainage Class
Flooding
Soil physical conditions
TextureStructure
Depth (cm)Depth to top of sulfuric horizon (cm)Thickness of Peat (cm)Chemical conditions
Effective CEC (cmol/100g)
Base saturation in A horizon (%)
Organic C in A horizon (%)
Salinity 50 cm depth (ds/m)
Micronutrients

Alluvial plains
Site values/observations

Suitability

Slope hilly areas
Site values/observations

Suitability

Steep hilly ridges
Site values/observations Suitability

4,223
nil
29+
20+
25+
4.5

S2
S1
S1
S1
S1
S2

4,223
nil
29+
20+
25+
4.5

S2
S1
S1
S1
S1
S2

Generally flat (0-5)

S1

Gentle to moderate slopes

S2

Steep slopes

NS

Well drained
Not flooded

S1
S1

Well drained
Not flooded

S1
S1

Well drained
Not flooded

S1
S1

Sandy clay to sandy clay loam
Moderately developed
180 cm
N/A
N/A

S2
S1
S1

Sandy clay to sandy clay loam
Moderately developed

S2
S1

180 cm +

S1

>23
>80
>3.0
N/A
N/A

S1
S1
S1

4,223
nil
29+
20+
25+
4.5

S2
S1
S1
S1
S1
S2

S2
S1

Recommendations for Kandoka and Balave
•
•
•
•
•
•

There is surplus water throughout the year and proper drainage system is required.
No peat in the alluvial plains suited for oil palm production.
N and K fertilisers will be major nutrients required and best applied between May and September.
Proper roads and drainage system to be established before field planting
The wet areas around sago palms and river/creek banks to be avoided
Approximately for Balave North 56.2 ha, Balave South 88.7 and Kandoka 350.5 ha are suitable for oil palm
cropping.

Ottos and Richie’s Blocks
Date of Assessment: June 2004
Name of Assessor: Thomas Betitis
Assessor Designation and Company: Head of Agronomy – Dami Research Station
A report on the soils of Dami Plantation were used for these blocks. These blocks are on the border of Dami Plantation.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 106

Results : The soils of Dami are generally young free-draining pumiceous soils. Physical description indicates very low
clay content within the soil profile with soil textures mostly medium to coarse. Organic matter is within the medium
range, this is an important source of N and must be sustained through organic matter management. Soil L and Mg
appear to be generally low and are reflected in the visual deficiency symptoms. It is important that fertilser
applications continue in the drier months.

Kintakiu
Date of Assessment: August 2018
Name of Assessor: Dr Murom Barnabas
Assessor Designation and Company: Head of Agronomy – PNG OPRA ( externally)

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 107

Figure 22. Soil sampling points – Kintakiu

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 108

Table 28. Soil suitability results - Kintakiu

Characteristics
ClimateAnnual rainfall (mm)Dry season (months)
Mean annual max. temp. (°C)
Mean annual min. temp. (°C)
Mean annual temp. (° C)
Sunshine hours hrs/day
Topography
Slope (%)
Soil wetness
Drainage Class
Flooding
Soil physical conditions
TextureStructure
Depth (cm)Depth to top of sulfuric horizon (cm)Thickness of Peat (cm)Chemical conditions
Effective CEC (cmol/100g)
Base saturation in A horizon (%)
Organic C in A horizon (%)
Salinity 50 cm depth (ds/m)
Micronutrients

Site values/observations

Suitability

4,877
nil
29+
20+
25+
4.5

S2
S1
S1
S1
S1
S2

Generally flat (0-5)

S1Well drained
Not flooded

S1
S1

Mostly loamy sandweakly - moderately developed
120 +
N/A
N/A

S2
S1
S1

>20
>70
>3.0
N/A
N/A

S1
S1
S1

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 109

Figure 23. Soil Suitability

Kintakiu Results
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Soils and climate are highly suitable for oil palm production.
Site is generally flat to gently sloping and is highly suitable for cropping
Soils are weakly-moderately developed and require good field establishment and topsoil management tominimise soil erosion
Soils are well drained and do not have peat soils
N and K fertilisers will be major nutrients required
Soluble fertiliser application to be applied from May to August to minimise leaching
Approximately 211.6 ha is suitable for oil palm cropping.

Tapakasi
No formal soil survey was undertaken in Tapakasi because it is a very small area but secondary data was relied upon
Tapakasi North was mapped as a freshwater swamp and that is the reason why most of the area was not suitable fordevelopment.
Tapakasi South is over “silty loams to clay loams over gravels and sands”. The parent material is volcanic ash, pumiceand sand.
Table 29. Peat and Slope summary by block

Block

SlopesPeat

Lingalinga

All flat in the development area

No Peat

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 110

Balave

All flat

No PeatKandoka

Rolling but less than 25 degrees

No PeatOtto’s BlockAll flat

No PeatRichie’s BlockAll flat

No PeatKintakiu

All flat

No PeatTapakasi North and SouthAll flat

No Peat

Section 7: Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
RSPO Note: this section should be used to explain the findings that come out from the usage of the New Development
GHG calculator. Please include what are the significant sources and type of emissions expected from this area. What
are the methodology(ies), people involved in the process, date of assessment and findings? Note: Should anassessment carried out by internal staff, just fill the name of the staff and his/her designation.
Date of Assessment: July 2019
Name of Assessor: Jules Crawshaw
Assessor Designation and Company: External Consultant – PT Hijau Daun and Hollow-wood Enterprise
Table 30. Carbon /GHG assessment team members and qualifications
Name

Organisation

Qualifications

Role

Michael Hansby

Hollow-wood
Enterprises

GHG Lead. Forest Inventory
and GIS manager

Jules Crawshaw

PT. Hijau Daun

BSc (Forest Science), Grad Dip (Bushfire
Management)
Bachelor of Forestry Science andMaster of Business Systems
BSc (Forestry)

Field team member

BSc (Forestry)

Field team member

Jeffery Lawrence
Clement Bailey
Michael Bragg
Joshua Kialo
Richard Mova

Independent
consultant
Independent
consultant
NBPOL

Bachelor of Systems Agriculture with a
Major in Agronomy
Honours in International Development
Diploma in Forestry Science
Bachelor in Environmental Sciences &Geography

Report and data review

Field team member
Field team member
Field team member

Methods and procedures used for conducting the carbon stock and GHG assessments
The following section has been taken from the Integrated HCV/HCS assessment (Hijau Daun, 2019) that was
conducted in May (2018) as part of NBPOL’s commitment to ‘No Deforestation’. This section deals with the methods
utilised for imagery analysis and field inventory.
Image analysis.
The study areas for this assessment were a series of polygon boundaries supplied to the assessment team by NBPOL.
It was decided that two sources of satellite imagery were to be used for the project:
Sentinel 2 (freely available from European Space Agency (ESA))RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 111

High resolution World View imagery purchased by NBPOL for the purpose of the project.

Recent Sentinel 2 was used to gain an understanding of the vegetation present across the broader landscape and was
the primary imagery dataset used for land cover classification during the early stages of the project (i.e. preparing forthe scoping study and fieldwork). The higher resolution World View 2 satellite imagery was used for refinement of
the initial land cover classification, based on field observation and the current condition of the site shown in Sentinel
2. The World View imagery will also be a key tool in deriving test points for the final accuracy assessment.

Based on previous experience, it is the opinion of the assessor that an integrated approach to land cover mapping
provides the most accurate representation of the vegetation present across a study area. Supervised image
classification (further detail below) was performed to derive an initial mapped extent of relevant land cover classes.

Analysis of plot data and interrogation of higher resolution imagery is then used to inform polygon line work using
aerial photograph interpretation (API) techniques, such as those outlined in Kuchler and Zonneveld (1988). The outputof this combined approach, utilising field observation and both image classification and interpretation is ultimately
the dataset that land use planning maps and recommendations are derived from for this study. Optical and radar
derived datasets used for this project are shown below in Table 2.
Table 31. Radar and optical satellite datasets utilised during this integrated assessment

Data source

Sentinel 2

World View
2

ALOS
PALSAR-

Image identifier

Capture date

Resolution
(m)

Cloud
cover (%)

T56 MKU

09/01/2018

10

<20

T55 MHP

30/11/2017

10

<20

T55 MGP

22/08/2017

10

<20

T55 MHQ

22/08/2017

10

<20

17AUG25002822-S2AS-057849605010

25/08/2017

0.5

<20

17MAY30003626-S2AS_R1C1-057849605010

30/05/2017

0.5

<20

17MAY30003608-S2AS-057849605010

30/05/2017

0.5

<20

17JUN21002315-S2AS-057849605020

21/06/2017

0.5

<20

17AUG31003649-S2AS-057849605030

31/08/2017

0.5

<20

17DEC28003036-S2AS-057849605040

28/12/2017

0.5

<20

17OCT14004232-S2AS-057849605050

14/10/2017

0.5

<20

AP_11938_FBS_F7060_RT1

2011

12.5

n/a

AP_11938_FBS_F7070_RT1

2011

12.5

n/a

AP_13477_FBS_F3720_RT1

2011

12.5

n/a

AP_13477_FBS_F3730_RT1

2011

12.5

n/a

AP_13477_FBS_F3740_RT1

2011

12.5

n/a

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 112

AP_13703_FBD_F7080_RT1

2011

12.5

n/a

AP_13951_FBD_F7070_RT1

2011

12.5

n/a

AP_14374_FBD_F7070_RT1

2011

12.5

n/a

AP_14870_FBS_F7060_RT1

2011

12.5

n/a

AP_14870_FBS_F7070_RT1

2011

12.5

n/a

Pre-processing (Sentinel 2)
Imagery utilised for this assessment was obtained as tiled, raster datasets. All Sentinel 2 datasets were downloaded
from the ‘Copernicus’ website maintained by the European Space Agency (ESA) and proprietary images (WV 2) wereobtained under licence by an Australian third-party provider.
Three key applications were used perform pre-processing:‘Sen2Cor’ atmospheric correction toolbox found in the ESA ‘SNAP’ image processing software package;The ‘composite bands’ function in ArcGIS 10.5.1 andThe ‘Seamless mosaic’ workflow in ENVI 5.1

The ‘Sen2Cor’ function converts a Level 1C dataset (i.e. top of atmosphere corrected, orthorectified image) into a 2A
dataset, i.e. a bottom of atmosphere (BOA) corrected reflectance product. No atmospheric correction was performedon the World View data, as such processing had already been completed by the provider.

The processed image bands were then combined into a single, 7 band image, utilising the 10m resolution (RGBI) bandsof the Sentinel 2 sensor as well as a 20m resolution bands, ‘red edge’ band (Band 5) and short wave infrared 1 (SWIR
1) (Band 11).

Seamless mosaic tool was used to create a single image mosaic that extended across the assessment AOI. The ‘cloud’(QI) dataset the is part of the Sentinel 2 information package for each scene was used as a mask, and any clouded
pixels were removed from the mosaic, within the limits of this approach.

Use of high-resolution World View 2 imagery
The World View 2 scenes that were utilised during this study were all captured in either October 2015 or April 2016.
These two capture dates were chosen as they possessed the lowest percentage cloud cover over the study area. It is
acknowledged that the large difference in capture times between the images is problematic for broad scale image
classification, with this fact being the main reason for the difficulty in producing a seamless, colour-balanced rastermosaic across the study area. Due to this inconsistency, this imagery was primarily used for visual interpretation,
relying on the knowledge of the analyst and ground truthed points (HCSA plots) to inform the interpretation.

Band combinations, ratios and indices
During the initial image classification, and range of band ratios, combinations and Indicies were explored to find thegreatest contrast between the classes of interest. These can be seen below

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 113

Table 32. Band ratios, combinations and Indices utilised for this study.
Name

PurposeBands used

True colour

Visual interpretation

Red, green, blue

Colour infrared

Vegetation vs non-vegetation

Near-infrared, red, green

Vegetation classification

Contrast between vegetation types, with
SWIR responding to increasing soil moisture

Short-wave infrared, near infrared,
blue

Normalised
differential
vegetation index (NDVI)

Measures water content (or turgor) withinvegetation, with actively growing vegetation
showing higher values than bare ground ordead vegetation(NIR – Red) / (NIR + Red)

Simple vegetation ratio

Contrast between vegetation types

NIR / Red

Training sample preparation
Initial training samples for image classification were prepared based on the assessment team’s prior knowledge of
PNG vegetation communities and the data gained by the lead assessor (GPS points and pictures) during the scoping
study.

Training samples sought to create spectrally separate land cover classes, consistent with the requirements ofRosoman et al., (2017a). At the initial stage, no attempt was made to separate High, Medium or Low Density forest
types, as per Table 1 in Rosoman et al (2017), with the focus being on identifying and separating ‘remnant’ or ‘HCSA’forest from ‘young regenerating forest’ and ‘scrub’. Given the threshold for development, the assessor feels that
adequate separation between ‘young regenerating forest’ and ‘scrub’ is most critical, but often the most difficult toseparate spectrally. Other land classes were also defined due to their occurrence across the landscape, these included
mangroves, swamp woodlands (Metroxylon sagu dominated areas), wetlands and oil palm plantations. Training
samples aimed to capture between 600 - 1000 pixels, amounting to 0.6 – 1 ha sample for each class.

Image classification
Once adequate training samples were developed, the ‘maximum likelihood classification’ method was used to provide
an initial, classified image. Initial classification was performed using supervised classification, utilising a range offunctions found within the ArcGIS ‘spatial analyst’ extension. The output of this process was used to inform aspectsof sample design such as sample intensity and plot location.

Field Inventory
The field inventory performed for this project sought to ground truth the output of the initial image classification andto quantify the above-ground woody biomass (i.e. that within trees) found within each of the strata, across the study
areas.

Sample design
Sample intensity (sample size) for each of the classes identified during image analysis was determined by:••

The area of the strata
The mean and standard deviation values of HCSA strata captured during previous fieldwork in Papua New
Guinea and the Solomon Islands (Hollow-wood, 2016; TFT, 2016)RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 114

Mean biomass and standard deviation values from previous field assessments in other parts of Papua New Guinea
and the Solomon Islands were used as inputs into this process, with both the equation from pp 27 (see below) in HCSA
Toolkit Version 2, Module 4 and the ‘winrock sample plot calculator spreadsheet tool’ were tested to compare thesample sized needed for this assessment (Table 5).

N= t^(2 ) s^2/E^2Where:
t = t-value from Student’s t-test table for 90% confidence intervals = standard deviation based on existing datasets from similar forest types
E = probable error, expressed as a percentage of the estimated mean value (from existing datasets)

StrataHCS forest
Youngforestregenerating

Scrub

Table 33. HCSA plot sample size derived from various methods
Initial Estimate of Initial Estimate of Standard
N (HCSA equation)
Mean biomass (t/ha) deviation (t/ha)

N (winrock sample plot
calculator)

278.1

169.5

102

124

129.5

76.3

95

35

42.1

22.1

75

10

274

166

Total

A sample of 263 HCSA plots was planned, a large survey effort given assessment time constraints, weather related
downtime and logistical complications, such as distance between study areas and limitations on accommodation.

Due to access constraints for some of the study areas (Linga Linga in particular) a combination of both stratified
random sampling (using the random point generator tool in ArcGIS) and systematic sampling on transects was used.
Transect traverses were planned across ecological gradients where they were able to be identified during field
assessment planning

Table 34 shows the breakdown of plots by strata measured during the field assessment.

StrataTable 34. Planned and measured HCS plots for this assessment.
Plots planned
Plots measured

HCS forest

103

77

Young regenerating forest

78

50

Scrub

74

60

Non-HCS vegetation

8

14

Total

263

201

Note that the values used represent mean Above Ground Biomass for the whole survey area. This survey area includes
a number of other blocks that were later separated from the scope of this survey. However, the assessor believes

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 115

that the forest association present in the blocks were sufficiently similar and has included this data in order to reduce
the standard deviation.

Inventory method
All field inventory was performed in 28th April – 20th May 2018, and was done as per the methodology set out in
HCSA Toolkit Version 2 – Module 4 (Rosoman et al., 2017).

This inventory method consists of two nested circular plots with plot radii of 5.64m and 12.61m, equating to 100m2
and 500m2 respectively. Trees between 5 -14.9 cm are measured within the 5.64m plot and all trees >15.0 cm aremeasured within the 12.61m plot. Further detail can be found in Rosoman et al., (2017).

All field data was collected digitally, using a data collection form specific to HCSA assessment, designed by Hollowwood. Information collected during field inventory can be seen below in Table 35.
Table 35. Data collected during HCSA field inventory.

Attribute

Value

MethodDate

dd/mm/yyyy

Form calculation

Assessors

initials

User entry

Location

Easting / Northing

Form calculation

Elevation

Meters above sea level

Form calculation

Plot number

Integer

User entry

Text

User entry

Canopy cover

Projected foliage cover (%)

Visual estimate

Canopy height

Site tall tree (m)Clinometer / rangefinder

Mid heightMid strata mean (m)Clinometer / rangefinder

HCSA strata

Class
from
classification

Site slope

Site slope (degrees)

Clinometer

Basal area

m ha -1

Dendrometer

Plot comments

text

User entry

Photo #1 (north)Photo identifier

User entry

Photo #2 (south)

Photo identifier

User entry

Photo #3 (canopy)

Photo identifier

User entry

Plot type (i.e. radius)m

Plot radii chain

DBHOB

cm

Diameter tape

Species

Genus / species

User entry

Tree data

Plot Attributes

Assessment
name

area

initialPresence / absence

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 116

Data Analysis.
All biomass calculations were performed according to the method outlined in Chave et al., (2014). This method is a
two-step approach and utilises two models, Equation 4 and Equation 6a. Both models are pan-tropical allometrics,
with equation 4 being a biomass allometric and equation 6a being a diameter / height allometric.
Critical to Equation 6a is a climatic variable or ‘E-value’. This value is a coefficient that is derived from the combinationof both temperature seasonality (TS) and climatic water deficit (CWD). The E-value increases with both increasing TS
and increasing CWD, with equation 6a predicting that tree height for a given diameter will decline with increasingwater and temperature stress (Chave et al., (2014). The E-value dataset is supplied in raster format at resolution of
2.5 arc seconds (approximately 4.5km x 4.5km at latitude of the AOI), and the spatial locations of each of the HCSA
plots were used to extract the appropriate E-value for each.
All biomass values calculated using this method were converted to carbon content using a factor of 0.47 as per
Rosoman et al., (2017) pp 37.
Below-ground biomass was calculated using root to shoot ratio of 0.21 as reported in Mokany et al, (2006) for moist
tropical rainforests.
Above ground biomass in grassland communities was calculated using the default value of 7 t/ha, as published by the
Climate Change and Development Authority, (2017), and the belowground biomass value was calculated using tropicalgrassland root to shoot ratio of 1.887, as published by Mokany et al, (2006)
Land conversion scenarios
In order to assess the emissions potential of the proposed development, the net areas to be managed (Table 36) aretested through 4 different scenarios. Each conversion scenario makes a different assumption regarding the type ofconservation type which will be retained or converted into oil palm. All of the scenarios assume that there will be nomethane capture during the first rotation of the oil palm plantation, though this may change depending on financing.
The scenarios that were tested are described in Table 37, with the area-based results in Table 36. Emissions (tC) andareas per land cover class per scenario.
Table 36. Results of the ‘patch analysis decision tree’ (ha)Study Area

BalaveNorth

BalaveSouth

Kandoka

Kintakiu

Linga
Linga

Ottos
Block

Ritchies
Block

Tapakasi
North

Tapakasi
South

Total

Proposedconservationarea

304.7986.64

219.9290.99

624.14

-

-

17.61

39.89

1383.98

Community
enclave area

-

-

9.73

-

7.29

-

-

-

-

17.02

Proposeddevelopment
area

58.31

89.29

388.49120.56

325.60

15.32

12.89

2.18

15.02

1027.65

Total Area

363.11

175.93618.12211.55957.02

15.32

12.89

19.78

54.90

2428.64

Table 37. Land conversion scenarios. HCVMA = ‘High Conservation Value Management Area’, HCSF = ‘High Carbon Stock Forest’
Scenario
Description
Scenario 1

Develop all landcover classes. No ‘HCVMA’ are conserved. No ‘HCSF’ areas are conserved, all other classes
are developed (excluding ‘Village areas’ and ‘Open water’). No Methane capture is installed in the next 5
years.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 117

Scenario 2

Only areas indicated as ‘HCSF’ are conserved. No ‘HCVMA’ areas are conserved, all other classes aredeveloped (excluding ‘Village areas’ and ‘Open water’). No Methane capture is installed in the next 5
years.

Scenario 3

Only areas classified as ‘HCVMA’ are conserved. No HCSF areas are conserved. All other classes aredeveloped (excluding ‘Village areas’ and ‘Open water’). No Methane capture is installed in the next 5
years.

Scenario 4

All areas classified as ‘Community enclave’, ‘HCVMA’ or ‘HCSF’ are conserved. All other classes aredeveloped (excluding ‘Village areas’ and ‘Open water’). No Methane capture is installed in the next 5
years.

Table 38. Summary of conversion scenarios. Preferred scenario outlined in yellow.

Scenario 1

Classification

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Conserve

Develop

Conserve

Develop

Conserve

Develop

Conserve

DevelopHigh density forest-

305.00305.00-302.882.12

305.00-Mediumforest-137.74

58.01

79.73

137.74137.74--565.71498.6967.02

520.7644.95

533.3532.36

Young regenerating
forest186.22

61.82

124.41

164.1422.08

164.1422.08

Swamp woodland

-

72.95

72.95

72.95

72.95

-

Scrub

-

973.86111.79862.08968.00117.65856.21

Grasslands

-

37.34

25.35

11.99

37.34

25.35

11.99

Plantation - oil palm

-

3.76

Plantation - coconut-

108.58Open lands

20.47

Open waterGrand Total

density

Low density forest

5.87

3.76

0.00

3.76

-

3.76

7.55

101.04-108.587.55

101.04

-

20.47

-

-

20.47

20.47

-

17.00

-

17.00

-

17.00

17.00

-

37.47

2391.16

1178.621250.02

1148.391401.201027.43

1280.25

Results of the greenhouse gas emissions scenario modelling.
The land conversion scenarios were utilised as basic inputs into modelling the potential Green House Gas emissions
resulting from the implementation of each scenario. The following tables summarise the results of modelling obtainedby using the RSPO New Development Greenhouse Gas Calculator RSPO-PRO-T04-003 V2.0 ENG and utilising the above
land cover classifications coupled with the carbon density values found during the High Carbon Stock study. Note thatfor each scenario a different amount of land is assumed to be put into conservation. Table 39 summarises net fieldemissions and sinks results of the 4 land conversion scenarios.

Measures taken to maintain and enhance carbon stocks within the new development areas
After consideration of the lands that have been made available by land owner consent and the removal of areas thatare either High Conservation Value or High Carbon Stock, Scenario 4 has been chosen as the preferred development
option. The greatest contributor to reduction of GHG emissions from the new development is through avoided
emissions that would have been derived from land use change through the application of the High Carbon StockApproach and the protection of High Conservation Values.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 118

By the application of the HCSA ‘patch analysis decision tree’, a range of land use types have been excluded fromdevelopment. This includes any areas of high conservation value or natural vegetation classes with a carbon density
higher than that of ‘scrub’, patches of ‘young regenerating forests’ with a core less than 10ha or outside of the 200
meter proximity of forest patches containing significant carbon. This has greatly reduced the potential emissions fromland use change. Figure 24 - Figure 26 illustrate the emissions of Scenario 4 as estimated by the GHG calculator.

Scenario 4 also accounts for the 1401 ha of High Conservation Value Management Area (HCVMA) and High Carbon
Stock Forest (HCSF) NBPOL have committed to the lease and management of. Such areas include riparian zones,
wetland areas and a significant area of native forest that will be regenerated using native forest species seed of local
provenance.
It should be noted that the effect of the ‘conservation credit’ that is reported in Table 39 is derived from the default
estimated carbon sequestration rate (for South-east Asia) of 2.5 tC/ha/yr. The area that is ‘set aside’ for conservation
purposes in each of the scenarios is accounted for as a conservation credit.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 119

Table 39. Results of the greenhouse gas emissions scenario modelling, yellow box indicating preferred Development Scenario. Field emissions and sinks assume vigorous growth for oil
palm, used by large scale operations. Data derived from RSPO GHG Calculator (RSPO-PRO-T04-003 V2.0 ENG).
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Field emissions & sinks

tCO2e

t CO2e/ha

tCO2e/tFFB

t CO2et CO2e/hat CO2e/t
FFBt CO2et CO2e/hat CO2e/t
FFBt CO2et CO2e/hat CO2e/t
FFB

Land clearing

35,722
.76

15.76

0.64

11,815.26

9.97

0.41

9,833.86

8.24

0.34

7,651.70

7.86

0.32

Crop sequestration

21,218
.41

-9.36

-0.38

11,092.24

-9.36

-0.38

11,178.86

-9.36

-0.38

-9,117.10

-9.36

-0.38

Fertilisers

1,643.
51

0.73

0.03

859.170.73

0.03

865.880.73

0.03

706.18

0.73

0.03

N2O

2,122.
13

0.94

0.04

1,109.38

0.94

0.04

1,118.04

0.94

0.04

911.840.94

0.04

Field fuel162.64

0.07

0.00

85.02

0.07

0.00

85.69

0.07

0.00

69.88

0.07

0.00

Peat

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Conservation credit

0.00

0.00

0.00

-2,946.55

-2.49

-0.10

-2,922.14

-2.45

-0.10

-3,503.01

-3.60

-0.15

Total

18,432
.64

8.13

0.33

-169.96

-0.14

-0.01

-2,197.54

-1.84

-0.08

-3,280.51

-3.37

-0.14

Mill emissions & credit

tCO2e

t CO2e/ha

tCO2e/tFFB

t CO2et CO2e/hat CO2e/t
FFBt CO2et CO2e/hat CO2e/t
FFBt CO2et CO2e/hat CO2e/t
FFB

POME

10,884
.69

4.80

0.20

5,690.14

4.80

0.20

5,734.57

4.80

0.20

4,676.92

4.80

0.20

Mill fuel429.660.19

0.01

224.610.19

0.01

226.370.19

0.01

184.620.19

0.01

Purchased electricity

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Credit (excess electricity
exported)

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Credit (sale of biomass for
power)

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 120

Total11,314.36

Total emissions, tCO2e(field and mill)

29,74
7

5,745

3,763

1,581

t CO2e/t CPO

2.00

0.74

0.48

0.25

t CO2e/t PK

2.00

0.74

0.48

0.25

4.99

0.20

5,914.75

4.99

0.20

5,960.94

4.99

0.20

4,861.54

4.99

0.20

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 121

10,000

Emission sources/sinks

8,000
6,000
4,000

tCO2e

2,000

Credit (electricity & biomass)

Purchased electricity

Fuel (mill & field)

POME

Conservation credit-6,000Fertilisers & N2O-4,000Peat-2,000

Crop sequestration

Land clearing

0-8,000-10,000

Figure 24. Carbon (tons of CO2 equivalents) emission sinks and sources from Development Scenario 4

Field emissions
10,000.00
8,000.00
6,000.00
4,000.00-8,000.00

Peat

Conservation credit-6,000.00

Field fuel-4,000.00

Fertilisers & N2O-2,000.00

Crop sequestration

0.00

Land clearing

tCO2e2,000.00-10,000.00
Figure 25. Field based emissions from Development Scenario 4

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 122

Mill emissions
6,000.00

tCO2e5,000.00
4,000.00
3,000.00
2,000.00
1,000.00
0.00
POME

Mill fuelPurchased
electricity

Credit (excess
electricity
exported)

Credit (sale ofbiomass for
power)

Total

Figure 26. Mill emissions from Development Scenario 4

Justification for the selection of optimal development scenario
The selection of Development Scenario 4 is the result of a long process of engagement with the land owners. During
this process information regarding the biophysical limitations to development of their lands (i.e. HCVMA or HCSA),
were shared with them and the implications that this would have on their options for income generation werediscussed. Utilising this information, the landowners took an informed decision to indicate which lands they would
set aside for their own use and which lands they would authorise NBPOL to develop.

Table 37 shows crop and plantation sequestration to be an important emissions sink, with this fact balancing carbon
emissions from land use change to the point that (based on the assumptions of the GHG calculator) Development
Scenario 4 is slightly carbon emission positive, with an estimated emission of 1581 tCO2e.

It should also be acknowledged that this emission estimate is likely to be a conservative over-estimate, as it does notfactor in operational constraints like slope or soil type, and as such the areas identified for conversion in Scenario 4
should be considered ‘gross area’ of potential, rather than an operational reality.

Other measures that may be taken into consideration to mitigate the net GHG emissions are methane capture at thepalm oil mill, local sourcing of fertilisers, reducing usage of inorganic fertilisers (i.e. using Empty Fruit Bunches),
reducing fuel consumption when deemed economically feasible as per Principle 3 of the RSPO.

When the above discussed factors are taken into consideration, the company considers the development across theWest New Britain New Plantings project area, that is consistent with that set out in Scenario 4, is justified.
Section 8: Land Use Change Analysis (LUCA)RSPO Note: This section will be used to analyse that there has been no land clearing in the area before the NPP is
submitted. Arrangement should be following the proxy dates indicated in section 2.2.7 of the current NPP Document.
Please ensure that the minimum resolution is 300 dpi. What are the methodology(ies), people involved in the process,date of assessment and findings? Note: Should an assessment carried out by internal staff, just fill the name of thestaff and his/her designation.
Date of RSPO approval as satisfactory: Not reviewed because there is no land clearance
Name of Assessor: Jules Crawshaw

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 123

Assessor Designation and Company: Consultant – PT Hijau Daun
Methodology involved the following steps :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Less cloud composite data development within Earth Engine
Imagery clip
Geometric correction
Radiometric correction
Segmentation
Define the segmentation classes
Object oriented classification on each period
Change detection

The sample locations for the training are as follows:

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 124

Figure 27. Examples of training sample locations - Lingalinga

Figure 28. Examples of training sample locations – Balave and Kandoka

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 125

Figure 29.Examples of training sample locations – Richie’s Block
Table 40. Coefficients and definitions of landcovers

Land Cover

Coef

Description

Coastal grassland

0 Grassland along the coastal area

Coastal strand forest

1 Forest along the coastal area

Disturbed forest (pioneer
dominant)

0.7 Disturbed forest, less density

Freshwater swamp

0 Inundated area with freshwater, either permanently or seasonally.

Freshwater swamp forest

1

Garden fallow

0 Garden fallow

Grassland

0 Grassland

Lowland forest

1

Lowland forest is an ecological community of forest and some related,structurally complex forms of dry forest

Mangroves

1

Mangroves are a group of trees and shrubs that live in the coastalintertidal zone.

Nypa swamp

1 Nypa forest is a swampy area with brackish water.

Open land

0 No vegetated / cleared area.

Open water

0 River, lake, sea

Plantation - cocoa

0 Cocoa plantation

Plantation - coconut

Forests which are inundated with freshwater, either permanently orseasonally.

0.4 Coconut plantation, some vegetation may live beneath it.

Plantation - Oil Palm

0 Oil palm plantation

Sago swamp forest

The sago palm, Metroxylon sagu, is part of tropical lowland
forest and freshwater swamps acrossSoutheast Asia and New Guinea
1and is the primary source of sago. It tolerates a wide variety of soils andmay reach 30 meters in height (including the leaves).

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 126

Swamp grassland

0 Grassland within the swampy area.

Village area

0 Settlement

Table 41. Lingalinga

PeriodLand Cover

Vegetation Coefficient

2005

2007

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 127

2009

2014

2019

Table 42. Balave and Kandoka

PeriodLand Cover

Vegetation Coefficient

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 128

2005

2007

2009

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 129

2014

2019

Table 43. Kintakiu

PeriodLand Cover

Vegetation Coefficient

2005

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 130

2007

2009

2014

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 131

2019

Table 44. Otto’s Block

PeriodLand Cover

Vegetation Coefficient

2005

2007

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 132

2009

2014

2019

Table 45. Richies’s Block

PeriodLand Cover

Vegetation Coefficient

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 133

2005

2007

2009

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 134

2014

2019

Table 46. Tapakasi

PeriodLand Cover

Vegetation Coefficient

2005

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 135

2007

2009

2014

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 136

2019

Environmental remediation
Table 47. Environmental remediation is zero hectares in every year because there has been no corporate land clearance.

PeriodPeat

Riparian

Slope

Total

After May 9, 2014

0

0

0

0

April 2011 to May 9, 2014

0

0

0

0

Jan 1, 2010 to April, 2011

0

0

0

0

Dec 1, 2007 to Dec 31,
2009

0

0

0

0

Nov 1, 2005 to Nov 30,
2007

0

0

0

0

Total (sum of row)

0

0

0

0

Table 48. Raw liability - this is zero hectares in every year because there has been no corporate land clearing.

Land cover class

Vegetation
Coefficient

Nov 1,
2005 toNov 30,2007

Dec 1,
2007 to
Sept 2008

Sept 2008
to 20092009 toMay 9,
2014

After May9, 2014

One or more land
cover classes which
fulfill the criterion ofvegetation
coefficient 1.0

1.0

0

0

0

0

0

One or more land
cover classes which
fulfill the criterion ofvegetation
coefficient 0.7

0.7

0

0

0

0

0

One or more land
cover classes which
fulfill the criterion of

0.4

0

0

0

0

0

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 137

vegetation
coefficient 0.4
One or more land
cover classes which
fulfill the criterion ofvegetation
coefficient 0.00

Total (sum of row)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Table 49. Final Compensation Liability - this is zero hectares in every year because there has been no corporate clearing.

PeriodLand controlled by anon-member attime of clearance

Land controlled by
an RSPO member at
the time ofclearance. This
includes landacquired from other
RSPO members

After May 9, 2014

00

April 2011 to May 9, 201400

Jan 1, 2010 to April, 201100

Dec 1, 2007 to Dec 31,
2009

0

0

Nov 1, 2005 to Nov 30,
2007

0

0

Total (sum of row)00

Section 9: Conclusions
RSPO Note: Please conclude all the findings of the assessment and how this will be translated into a management
plan. If there is any known significant issue, the RSPO member needs to acknowledge its existence and ensure it is apriority for the management to address those issues.
Medium and high forest cover landscapes, such as New Britain, pose a difficult situation for RSPO certified companies,
as the no deforestation, peat or exploitation polices (NDPE) inherent in sustainability certification effectively restrict
sustainable developments to anthropogenic grasslands or highly degraded scrublands. This situation is clearly evident
across the study area landscape, with only previously degraded vegetation proving suitable for establishment ofindustrial Oil Palm.

From a development potential standpoint, the findings of this assessment indicate mixed results, with approximately
60% of the area proposed for development being excluded for either community use or not available due to thepresence of HCV management areas or HCS forest. The assessment team considers areas that are classified as‘indicative develop’ suitable for conversion to oil palm, provided that the recommendations of this integrated
HCV/HCSA report are implemented.

The assessment team found that the condition of vegetation within the proposed development areas was related toprevious land use history and proximity to villages, with areas close to village areas or having long land use histories
being in a severely degraded condition.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 138

The rapid faunal assessment generally found impoverished faunal assemblages across the study areas, mainly due tothe interrelated factors of long land use history, vegetation condition and proximity to settlements. From abiodiversity perspective the main recommendations are to prevent encroachment and fire within the areas. Tropicalforest will recover very quickly in this fertile area.

All the communities were very keen to see development as soon as possible. The success of the project will require
benefits of development to be shared equitably. This in turn involves running the ILGs ( Incorporated Land Group)
properly and transparently. If the governance breaks down the conservation areas are likely to be compromised. It
is both the responsibility of the individual ILGs ( Incorporated Land Group) as well as NBPOL to ensure this is
successfully undertaken. Some communities are a long way down the track in developing an ILG ( Incorporated Land
Group), whilst others are mired in disputes.
There are no really significant issues but this development will require careful management and findings will betranslated into management plan.
Table 50. Threats to biodiversity and social values.

Value
Threatidentified

Management

Monitoring

HCV 1• Hunting• Fire• Invasive species• Logging• Agricultural clearance• National road throughLingalinga• Agreements
withthecommunity about no hunting ofbirds / mammals in the HCV areas
nor logging.
• Awareness raising in villages todiscourage random fire lighting.
Enforcement of the “No Burn
Policy”• Very little can be done about
invasive species.
• Agreements
withthecommunity about no clearance /logging within the HCV areas. Thisis especially relevant to thenational road through Lingalinga.

• Undertake bird / mammals surveys tomeasure changes in bird mammal
abundance / presence.
• Map out areas of burns.
• Recording the presence of invasive
species.
• Monitoring using a combination ofmonitoring from satellite images aswell as on the ground patrols and being
informed by staff working in the village
about encroachment or logging.
• Existing road in Lingalinga will have tohave security to ensure that people do
not enter the area and cut timber fromthe adjacent HCV area.

HCV 2• Not present in the assessment area

HCV 3

• These follow HCV1 and are not repeated.

HCV 4• Burning to assist
agriculturaldevelopment
withinthe riparian buffer
strip.
• Lack of awareness bycompany employees
and contractors about
HCV 4, particularly
small river riparianbuffers
and• Ensure that the communities
realise that the riparian buffers
are not empty land available for
agriculture.
This should bespecifically stated in agreements
and socialized to the community.
• A slope survey and demarcatingareas greater than 25 degrees tobe reserved from development.
• Existing road in Lingalinga will
require special management toensure run-off from the road is• Monitoring using a combination ofmonitoring from satellite images aswell as on the ground patrols and being
informed by staff working in the village
about encroachment or logging.
• Monitoring of land clearing to ensure
buffers and steep areas are notcleared.
• Water quality monitoring.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 139

5(internal)

5(external)

mismanagementof filtered before it enters thehigh risk activities Kapulok River. This is provided inwithin buffer areas (e.g detail in the SEIA.
building roads throughriparian areas, clearingof steep slopes).
• People constructing
hutsandliving(permanentlyor
temporarily)
andmaking gardens inriparian areas.
• River changing courseand destroying riparianareas• Fire – this will stop
tree lined riparian strips
being established /maintained.
• There is an existingroad
throughtheriparianbufferin
Lingalinga . It has to berecognized that thisroad goes through theriparian buffer andrequiresspecialattention.
• Agricultural chemicals • Ensuring the spring in Kandoka isin the ground water mapped and buffered prior to(relevant to Kintakiu land clearing.
• Ensuring adequate areas are
and Kandoka).
• Claims and disputes available for the community togarden and collect naturalon land.
materials (outside the lease area).
• Mapping of clans’ lands (not justthose areas to be leased) andassisting to have the land includedin the ILGs ( Incorporated Land
Group). This is to ensure securityof the land and right to use theland in the future.
• Ensuring all claims and disputes
areregistered
under
the
company’s grievance process.
• Currently people have stated• Overfishing.
• Deforestation in the that the level of fishing is notcatchment
causing degrading marine resources. With
the development of OP, hopefully• Monitor against HCS metrics of 0.5 haof garden land per person available.
• Monitoring recommendations for
HCV 1 & 4 will overlap with HCV 5 andare not repeated.
• Ground water monitoring points
should be established along withweather stations. A relationshipbetween rainfall and water table levelshould be established. Establishing
this immediately will enable a baseline
to be developed. As the palms growchanges in the water table can bemonitored.
• Keeping abreast of disputes andprovidingassistancetothecommunities where possible ornecessary.
• Monitoring the prevalence of marine
indicator species also the size ofcatches.
• Recording problems with settlers.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 140

6siltation of the marine
areas.
• Continued
agricultural expansion
putting
increasedpressure on naturalareas. Most likely thiswill be caused by oilpalm companies thatare not RSPO members
nor have a “nodeforestationcommitment”• Fires in el nino years.
• Settlers (or otherparties) buying land in
undocumented / illegal
deals.

this will reduce the pressure on • Mapping of the number and size ofmarine resources.
fires.
• Really this is in the hands of thecommunity as it is their land. It is
hard to say whether it is inevitable
as the community are desperate
for development.
• Agreements
withinthecommunity• Accidental clearing of
cultural sites by NBPOL
staff.
• Fires that may burnthese sites.

• Demarcation in the field prior toland clearing and planting.
Including an appropriate buffer tomake sure these areas are notdisturbed by operations.
• Demarcation on operationalmaps• Documentation of cultural andhistorical values• Awareness raising with thecommunities to try to discouragethem lighting fires.
• On-going fire-fighting to put out
fires before they get large anduncontrollable.

Peat• Not present in the assessment areas

HCS
forest• These follow HCV1 and are not repeated here

• Checks to make sure enclaved areas
are still clearly delineated.
• Mapping of the number and size offires.

Table 51. Summary of environmental and social values (in hectares) identified during this assessment
Environment
al and social
values to beconserved

Balave North

Balave South

Kandoka

Kintakiu

Linga Linga

Ottos Block

Ritchies
Block

Total

HCS forest
areas

271.8287.3

221.3991.55

466.81--1138.87

HCV 1

256.2

73.63

55.38

36.15

461.51--882.87

HCV 2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

HCV 3

269.24

87.3

55.38

-

270.68

-

-

682.6

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 141

HCV 482.14-

113.57-280.23--475.94

HCV 5

-

-

1.71

-

-

-

-

1.71

HCV 6

-

-

-

-

21.13

-

-

21.13

Total
HCV
area
(all
overlaps
removed)

307.1

87.32

115.2936.15

578.43--1124.29

Area
enclaved forcommunity
usage

-

-

9.73

-

7.29

-

-

17.02

Totals (ha).
Conservation + enclave
areas withall overlaps
removed.

307.1

87.32

267.96

91.55

633.71001387.64

Total Area

363.28176.01

618.49211.55957.96

15.32

12.89

2355.5

Total
Developable
Area

56.18

88.69

350.53120

324.25

15.32

12.89

967.86RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 142

Figure 30. Balave North, which shows only a small developable area. This area is swamp forest, with the areas east of the river being ingood condition. The areas mapped as developable are areas that are in poor condition following the 2015 fires.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 143

Figure 31. Balave South, which shows only a small developable area (88.69 ha). This area is swamp forest. The areas mapped as
developable are areas that are in poor condition following the 2015 fires.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 144

Figure 32. Kandoka. There is a substantial area for development in this area. This is primarily a community garden area with areas ofsemi-abandoned coconut plantations. There are areas of better quality forest, mangroves and sago swamps in the north west.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 145

Figure 33. Kintakiu. The development area consists of ex-garden areas and forest areas that have been burnt in the 2015 fires. The forest
gets progressively better further east.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 146

Figure 34. Lingalinga –Development areas are ex-coconut plantations. The area in the south is a sacred mountain as well as intact forest.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 147

Figure 35. Otto’s Block. The full area is available for development. It is a mix of gardens and coconut plantation.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 148

Figure 36. Richie’s Block. The full area is available for development. It is primarily a garden site.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 149

Figure 37. Tapakasi North. The developable area is an ex-garden site. The rest is forest in good condition

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 150

Figure 38. Tapakasi South. The developable area is a garden site.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 151

Figure 39. Development potential for Balave North – this is all the area that is neither HCV nor HCS.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 152

Figure 40. Development potential for Balave South – this is all the area that is neither HCV nor HCS.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 153

Figure 41. Development potential for Kandoka – this is all the area that is neither HCV nor HCS.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 154

Figure 42. Development potential for Kintakiu – this is all the area that is neither HCV nor HCS.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 155

Figure 43. Development potential for Linga Linga – this is all the area that is neither HCV nor HCS.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 156

Figure 44. Development potential for Otto’s Block – this is all the area that is neither HCV nor HCS.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 157

Figure 45. Development potential for Ritchie’s Block – this is all the area that is neither HCV nor HCS.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 158

Figure 46. Development potential for Tapakasi North – this is all the area that is neither HCV nor HCS.

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 159

Figure 47. Development potential for Tapakasi South – this is all the area that is neither HCV nor HCS.

Section 10: Confirmation of Report
This confirms that all findings are accepted by the grower and NBPOL – West New Britain Region – the company will
be responsible for its ownership and development process for as long as it is within the company’s control. NPP siteverification completed, 29th August 2022.

Signature
Name

Zaralyn Yakopa

Position

Sustainability Manager - WNB

RSPO NPP 2021 Summary of Assessments 160