Gary Paoli discusses stakeholder expectations for reducing the impacts of oil palm on the environment.

1. Principles,
prac-ces
and
stakeholder
expecta-ons
for
reducing
impacts
of
oil
palm
on
the
environment
Gary
D.
Paoli
&
Philip
L.
Wells

2. Reducing
Impacts
of
Oil
Palm
How
do
we
iden-fy
and
protect
Avoid
‘High
Risk’
areas
that
should
not
be
developed
for
OP?
How
do
we
minimize
Mi-gate
impacts
where
OP
will
be
developed?
How
(should?)
we
offset
impacts
Offset
that
cannot
be
mi-gated
where
OP
is
developed?

3. Indonesia
ility
Ethos
g
Sustainab
Emergin
•
Leading
OP
producer
in
the
world
•
Key
to
meet
surging
global
demand
•
Poten-al
to
expand
rapidly
•
GOI
&
investor
support
for
expansion

4. Main
Thema-c
Threads
Vision
Objec-ves
&
Targets
Informa-on
Data
&
Knowledge
Decision
Tools
Analysis
&
Decision
Factors

5. Reducing
Environmental
Impacts
of
OP
How
do
we
iden-fy
and
protect
Avoid
‘High
Risk’
areas
that
should
not
be
developed
for
OP?
Mi-gate
Spa-al
Planning
&
Site-­‐level
ESIA
Offset

6. Spa-al
Planning
Promote
economic
development
&
Vision
protect
key
environmental
resources
Topography,
eleva-on,
Informa-on
drainage,
substrate,
rainfall
(but
not
land
cover)
Numerical
criteria
plus
gestalt
(e.g.
Decision
Tools
low
lying
areas
near
rivers
=
good
for
agriculture,
known
deep
peat
areas
avoided
where
possible)

7. Spa-al
Plan

8. Forest
Areas
at
Risk
for
Conversion
40
Protected
(HL/HSAW)
35
Conversion
(HPK/APL)
Produc-on
(HP/HPT)
35%
30
25
20
41%
15
10
5
0
0-­‐300m
300-­‐500m
500-­‐1000m
>1000m
Source:
SPOT
Veg
2008
–
SARvision
c.
55
million
ha

9. Social
&
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
Promote
sustainable
development
by
screening
(reject)
or
modifying
Vision
opera-ons
with
unacceptable
risk
to
people
&
environment
Informa-on
Variety
of
field
&
spa-al
data
types
Decision
Tools
Legal
requirements,
discussion
&
gestalt

10. Has
spa1al
planning
plus
EIA
helped
to
avoid
environmental
impacts
from
OP?

12. What
explains
failures
to
date?
•
Based
on
suitability
criteria
not
sustainability
•
Limita-ons
of
data
(types
&
quality)
•
EIA
authority
is
decentralized
(local)
&
decision
making
prone
to
abuse

13. Norma-ve
Approach
to
Planning
Avoid
forested,
high
carbon,
high
Vision
view,
this
biodiversity,
High
Conserva-on
int
of ay
!
Value,
and
other
sensi-ve
areas
al
po e
tod
a
leg e
don
From uld
b
co
Informa-on
Are
these
data
available?
Decision
Tools
What
analy-cal
tools
are
available
to
support
informed
planning?

14. Forest
Cover
Miejnen
et
al.
2010
-­‐
Enhanced
MODIS
(ALOS
+
Landsat)

15. Forest
Cover
Aerial
photography
(<1
m
res)
Aerial
vs
MODIS

16. Peat
lands

17. High
Conserva-on
Value
Areas
HCV
3

18. Erosion
Prone
Areas

19. Norma-ve
Approach
to
Planning
Avoid
forested,
high
carbon,
high
biodiversity,
High
Conserva-on
Vision
Value,
and
hydrologically
sensi-ve
areas
Informa-on
Are
these
data
available?
Decision
Tools
What
analy-cal
tools
are
available
to
support
informed
planning?

20. Decision
Support
Tools
Koh
et
al.
2010
•
Spa-ally
explicit
trade-­‐off
analysis
model
University
of
Queensland
•
Marxan
with
Zones

21. Marxan
with
Zones
University
of
Queensland
Create
X
jobs
and
plant
Y
ha
of
oil
palm
without
exceeding
Z
mt
of
GHG
emissions
or
replacing
any
HCV
areas
Oscar
Venter,
Univ.
of
Queensland

22. Avoiding
Impacts
from
OP
Opportuni-es
Challenges
• Sustainability
ethos
• Forging
a
consensus
Vision
emerging
• Rapidly
growing
pool
of
• Balancing
data
coverage,
data
&
analy-cal
tools
resolu-on
and
cost
• Scope
to
improve
ESIA
for
• Regulatory
reform
(peat)
site-­‐level
screening
• Absolute
vs
Rela-ve
loss
• Due
diligence
by
progressive
companies
to
• Crea-ng
incen-ves
to
screen
high
risk
promote
behaviors
• GOI
commitment
to
make
• Making
available
‘low
available
‘low
carbon’
carbon’
deforested
lands
deforested
lands

23. Reducing
Impacts
of
Oil
Palm
Avoid
How
do
we
minimize
Mi-gate
impacts
where
OP
will
be
developed?
Offset

24. Mi-ga-ng
Impacts

25. Local
Community
Logged
over
Matrix
of
swidden
Forest
Reserve
forest
farms
&
forest
patches

26. Business
as
Usual

27. No
Direct
Nega1ve
Impact

28. Zero
Net
Impact

29. Secure
Long
Term
Posi1ve
Net
Impact

30. Secure
Longterm
Mi-ga-on
Outcome
Posi-ve
Net
Impact
Zero
Net
Impact
No
Direct
Nega-ve
Impact
Mi-ga-on
Effort

31. Popula-on
fragmenta-on

32. Mi-ga-ng
Impacts
1. Maximize habitat area & quality
2. Maximize connectivity
3. Enhance the oil palm matrix

33. Cross-­‐boundary
Management
Maximize
Area
License
area
=
3000-­‐20000
ha

34. Retaining
Forest
Strips
as...
Corridors
Habitat

35. Maintaining
Forest
Strips
on
Peatlands
Asia
Pacific
Resources
Interna-onal
Limited
-­‐
APRIL

36. Mosaic
Planta-on
Model
APRIL
APRIL

37. Enhance
the
Oil
Palm
Matrix
Retain
2-­‐4
remnant
trees
per
ha

38. ‘Shaggy
Planta-on’
Model

39. Mi-ga-ng
Impacts
from
OP
Opportuni-es
Challenges
• Ac-ve
area
of
• Government
policy
scien-fic
research
• Cost
vs
benefits
• Unplanned
• High
expecta-ons
experimenta-on
• Conflict
with
local
• Cross
boundary
communi-es
collabora-on
• Pressures
from
indirect
• REDD+
finance
land
use
change

40. Reducing
Impacts
of
Oil
Palm
Avoid
Mi-gate
How
(should?)
we
offset
impacts
Offset
that
cannot
be
mi-gated
where
OP
is
developed?

41. Offsejng
Impacts
of
Oil
Palm

42. SLOSS
Revisited
?

43. Biodiversity
Value
Mineral
Peat
Fragment
Size
Cost
of
Management
($/ha)

44. Are
there
circumstances
where
it’s
beter
to
convert
&
offset
?
Biobank
License
to
Destroy
vs
Logical
Best
Alterna-ve

45. Acknowledgements
Zoological
Society
of
London
Wildlife
Conserva-on
Society
Proforest