FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Transcription

1

2 FINAL RESEARCH REPORT Impact of Batang Toru Hydropower Construction on Primary Forest, Orangutan Population and Habitat, Drought and Flood, Greenhouse Gases Emission and Socio-Economic Surroundings In Cooperation between: Research Team: Prof. Dr. Ir. Yanto Santosa, DEA Dr. Ir. Iwan Hilwan, MS Dr. Ir. Nana Arif Jaya, MS Dr. Ir. Arzyana Sunkar, MS Dede Aulia Rahman, PhD Ir. Idung Risdiyanto, M.Sc THE CENTER OF STUDY, ADVOCACY AND NATURE CONSERVATION (PUSAKA KALAM) Bogor 2018

3

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Construction of the 510 Mega Watt Batang Toru Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP) is one of the implementation of the "35000 MW National Strategic Project" (based on the 2016 Electricity Power Supply Business Plan/RUPTL) to meet the electricity power supply shortages that have been experienced by North Sumatra Province, particularly during peak electricity demands. This hydropower plant will implement environmentally friendly technology known as "Run off Hydroelectricity" which is prepared to replace fossil fuelled power plants, such as oil, natural gas, and coal. Simply put, the working principle is to utilize river water flow in the absence of reservoir that requires large inundation area. 2. The construction of a Hydroelectric Power Plant in the Batang Toru valley has also drawn various objectionts/accusations from several researchers and NGOs. The environmental activists suspect that the hydropower project will adversely affect the habitat of Tapanuli orangutans (Pongo tapanuliensis), the world s rarest great ape species, with only 800 individuals left. Other concerning issue is the negative environmental impacts of the hydroelectric power plant project, namely on the loss of forest cover due to forest clearance at the initiation of the plant development and other related land preparation activities which are suspected to be a potential cause of floods, which often occur when Batang Toru overflows. Another stated concern is that electricity generation from hydropower sources will emit about one billion tons of greenhouse gases, or 1.3 percent of the total annual global emissions. The Batang Toru HPP is also accused of eliminating the livelihoods of 1,400 residents who are dependent on the surrounding forests and rivers. 3. Related to the above mention negative objections/accusations, THE CENTER OF STUDY, ADVOCACY AND NATURE CONSERVATION (PUSAKA KALAM) deems it necessary to conduct a comprehensive study (involving experts from various scientific disciplines) to obtain accurate and valid scientific data and information about "the impacts of Batang Toru Hydroelectric Power Plant development on primary forests, orangutans habitats and populations, floods and droughts, methane/greenhouse gas emissions and socio-economic conditions of the local communities". This research is aimed at obtaining accurate and scientific data and information to provide answers to the following question: is it true that the Batang Toru HPP development has/will: (a) damage primary forests; (b) threaten the habitat and population of the Tapanuli orangutans; (c) cause floods and droughts; (d) generate methane/greenhouse gas emissions by 1.3 percent of the total annual global emissions and (e) eliminate the livelihoods of 1,400 residents. 4. To achieve the purpose and benefits of the research as described above, the methods that have been used in this study were: literature studies (journals/scientific publications, seminars/workshop proceedings, statistical books etc.), field observations/measurements involving 65 surveyors (equipped with 1 unit of drone, 50 i

5 camera traps, 12 cameras, 12 binoculars, 12 wet/dry ball thermometers, 13 GPS etc.), interviews with resource persons and local communities living in the upstream villages, project construction site and downstream villages (totalling to 90 respondents from 3 villages). In addition, overlays of activity maps with image interpretation maps of Landsat images ( coverage) were also conducted. The use of time-series data both for hydrological climate data and land cover/land use change forms an integral part of the research method. 5. Results of the interpretation of the Landsat images, together with field ground checks on several sites that were affected by the HPP development activities, as well as vegetation analysis especially on sites that are presumably primary forests (left and right cliffs of Batang Toru ), revealed that most of the lands that are allocated for the hydropower development activities are not primary forest cover with the following facts: (a) the stand structures of the forest located on the right and left cliffs of the Batang Toru are dominated by understorey, especially seedlings and saplings, with relatively very few large diameter trees. Pioneer species make up the composition of the vegetation, suggesting that the forested area inside the project site, has been disturbed (not primary forest) and (b) the biomass and carbon contents of the stands are comparable to the biomass and carbon contents of the secondary forest in the North Padang Lawas area of North Sumatra. 6. Based on the results of the ground check on the 2015 orangutan nest distribution map, most locations that have been reported as nest finding points, are no longer used for nesting activities. Only 10.34% of the nests are classified as new nests (or nest A class) which are mostly dominated by old nests (nest E class = 51.72%), while percentages for nest B, C and D classes are 6.89, and 17.24% respectively. Another appealing finding from the ground check surveys, is that most of the orangutans nest findings in 2015, lie on steep cliffs that are relatively "very difficult" to reach, especially when using ordinary method in the survey of "orangutan nest". Any mistakes/errors in the application of this method in the field will result in inaccurate data and cannot be used as a scientific "reference". Such fact also indicates that the project sites used to develop Batang Toru HPP are seldomly used by orangutans, hence cannot be categorized as orangutan main habitats. 7. The analysis on nest density data, by including all factors of population estimation correction, has given the estimation value of orangutan population density in Batang Toru HPP site to be amounted to 0.22 individuals/km 2 (95% CI: individuals/km2) or equivalent to 1 individual/500 ha. This result is similar to the result found on the overall study of Batang Toru Forest Complex (Wich et al., 2011), and tends to be smaller compared to the orangutan densities in Dolok Sibual-buali, Ketambe and Mamas of Gunung Leuser National Park ( individuals/km 2 ). The low density of orangutans is possible because most of the areas have been converted into plantations, namely oil palms and rubbers, where the land use have been converted long before the establishment and development of Batang Toru HPP. ii

6 8. Direct encounters with orangutans occur in Marancar and Sipirok areas, with 2 individual sightings in Marancar area (1 adult male and 1 adult female) and 3 individual sightings in Sipirok (1 adult male, 1 adult female with 1 infant). Surveys using camera traps resulted in no sightings. These direct findings seem to be congruent to the findings by Kuswanda and Noor Ch in These findings and item (7) above, clearly indicate that the size of the orangutan population within the project site is very small. 9. The inundation area is estimated to be 67.7 ha with an effective pondage of 3.89 million m 3. When the normal loads is 18 hours ( western Indonesia time), the water discharge of Batang Toru decreases in downstream. For every 1 turbine operation, the discharge increases by m 3 /second. During the peak loads of 6 hours ( western Indonesia time) where four turbines are operating, the water discharge increases to m 3 /second. Thus, there will be an increase of >80% from the average discharge of 115 m 3 /sec. Since the hydropower dam is not completely shut, the water will continue to flow downstream, hence will not cause drought in downstream area nor will it cause flood, because sedimentation-related problems and floods have occurred in the area long prior to the establishment and development of Batang Toru HPP. 10. The giant dam terminology is put forward by the International Organization based in USA, referring to dams with heights of more than 150 m. Measures such as capacity volume and inundation area are also parameters for assessing giant dams (International, 2018). Literature review and study on dams dimensions (height, volume and area of inundation), have resulted in 186 dams having heights of more than 150 meters, 80 dams with pool areas of more than 515 km 2 and 48 dams with volumes of more than 12,500 million m 3. The highest dam in Indonesia is Cirata Dam (125 meters) in Purwakarta of West Java, which damaged the Citarum. The widest inundation dam is Riam Kanan (9,200 ha) in Banjarbaru of South Kalimantan. Dam with the biggest water volume is Jatiluhur Dam in Purwakarta of West Java (KNIBB, 2017). These data show that Batang Toru HPP, having dimensions of only 72.5 meters in height with an area of 90 ha of inundation and volume of water storage of 3.89 million m3, does not fall under the category of a "giant dam". 11. Results of the GHG net emissions calculation of Batang Toru HPP using the G-Res model on scenario-1 is 349 tons CO2e/year, while for scenario-2 is 267 tons CO2e/year. These figures are very small compared to the global emission figure, as well as Indonesia's national emission figure. The GHG emission at global level is 49 Gt/year, while Indonesia's GHG emission is 1.79 Gt/year (Indonesia Second National Communication, 2010). The contribution of Batang Toru HPP GHG emissions to global emission is % (scenario-1) and % (scenario-2), while its contribution to national GHG emission is 0.019% (scenario-1) and 0.015% (scenario-2). Therefore, allegations stating that Batang Toru HPP will produce CH4 emissions greater than agricultural land are incorrect. iii

7 12. The communities agricultural lands/fields that are adjacent to the river, are those close to the tributaries of the Batang Toru and not directly adjacent to the main body of the Batang Toru. The location of the hydropower development is on the main body of the Batang Toru which is mostly dominated by steep and narrow cliffs on the left and right of the river body. Thus, it can be ascertained that the communities lands/fields will not be affected by land clearing activities. Thus the issue that the development of Batang Toru HPP will harm the local people livelihoods is incorrect. In addition, the majority of the people in each village (36.67% in Aek Batang Paya Village, 60% in Marancar Gondang Village and 50% in Bantar Tarutung Village) state that the hydropower development does not damage the environment. In fact, the majority (53.33% of Aek Batang Paya villagers, 96.67% of Marancar Gondang villagers and 43.33% of Bantar Tarutung villagers) support the establishment and development of the Batang Toru HPP. 13. As many as 60% of the Aek Batang Paya villagers state that the hydropower development has disrupted their agriculture production and 66.67% state it has reduced the agricultural productivity. Nevertheless, the construction site where most land clearance activities took place (the hydropower entrance) is in Marancar Gondang Village, which is located more downstream than the Aek Batang Paya Village. Thus the construction should not cause detrimental impacts on the Aek Batang Paya Village. The results of the interviews show that the majority of the people in Marancar Gondang Village (93.33%) and the majority of the people of Bantar Tarutung Village in downstream area (70%), state that the hydropower development do not interfere with their agriculture activities, and the majority of people in Marancar Gondang Village (93.33%) and Bantar Tarutung Village (63.33%) state that the hydropower development has not resulted in the reduction of their agricultural productivities. Such facts eliminate the allegation that the establishment and development of Batang Toru HPP has/will sacrifice the agricultural lands that are the sources of livelihoods for the local communities. 14. The Batang Toru HPP development in accordance with the applied technology, will not apply the construction of a giant dam, thus will not require the clearing of a large part of land. The area to be inundated is only 90 hectares with 24 hectares are naturally formed (river body). Such data verifies that the accusation of the hydropower development involving the construction of a giant dam and will sink 9600 ha is false. 15. Responses of the communities in the three studied villages toward the impacts of the hydropower development on floods, are very positive, i.e, Batang Toru HPP development does not cause floodings as stated by 93.33% of Aek Batang Paya villagers, 100% of Marancar Gondang villagers and 46.67% of the Bantar Tarutung villagers. Thus, the accusation that Batang Toru HPP development would flood the local agricultura lands is not supported by the local communities' opinions. iv

8 16. A total of 46.67% of the Aek Batang Paya villagers state that the hydropower development has caused agricultural lands to become dry and has disrupted agricultural activities (60%), although as many as 30% of the same villagers state otherwise. On the contrary, the majority of the communities in two other villages state that the hydropower development has not cause droughts on their land (93.33% of villagers in Marancar Gondang Village and 70% of Bantar Tarutung villagers). Considering that the hydropower entrance is in Marancar Gondang Village and the location of Aek Batang Paya Village is in the upper stream, the impacts of the development will affect the areas around the site and more towards the downstream rather than the upstream. Thus, the accusation that Batang Toru HPP development will cause droughts is also unreasonable. 17. Communities are dependent on water to meet their household and agricultural needs. The majority of the Aek Batang Paya communities (56.67%) state that the hydropower development does not meet their needs for agricultural water, while 90% of Marancar Gondang villagers and 63.33% of the Bantar Tarutung villagers state otherwise. Regarding household water needs, the majority of Aek Batang Paya villagers (46.67%) responses were neutral (although the second most responses, i.e. 40%, agree) to the statement that the hydropower plant development does not interfere with household water needs, as also stated by 67.67% of Marancar Gondang villagers and 100% of the Bantar Tarutung villagers. Based on these perceptions, it can be concluded that the accusation that the hydropower development will disrupt the water supply for the local households and agricultural needs of the surrounding community cannot be accepted. 18. The majority of responses in the three study villages (60% of Aek Batang Paya villagers, 80% of Marancar Gondang villagers and 50% of Bantar Tarutung villagers) state that the hydropower development does not pollute the river, as well as it helps maintain river water quality as observe by the majority of responses (53.33% of Aek Batang Paya villagers, % of Marancar Gondang villagers, and 33.33% of the Bantar Tarutung villagers, despite the majority (46.67%) say do not know. Overall, the majority of responses in each village (36.67% of Aek Batang Paya villagers, 80% of Marancar Gondang villagers and 50% of Bantar Tarutung villagers) agree that the hydropower development does not damage the environment. 19. Currently, only 3.33% of all respondents do not use electricity (in Aek Batang Paya Village), while in the other two villages, all respondents (100%) use electricity from PLN (State-owned electricity company). Nevertheless, all of the studied villages are still experiencing daily or weekly power outages, the most frequent is in Marancar Gondang Village with 73.33% of respondents experiencing daily power cuts, while all respondents in the other two villages are experiencing weekly power cuts. Such power outages indicate that these areas are still short of electricity supply. Considering that the community around a project site should receive the most benefits from the project, the accusation that the Batang Toru HPP development is not necessary since North Sumatra still has a surplus of electricity, cannot be accepted. v

9 20. The conclusions of this study suggest that the objections/accusations of several researchers and non-governmental organizations against the development of Batang Toru HPP were scientifically invalid and incorrect. Hence, it is suspected that the environmental activists have received erroneous (incorrect and invalid) data. The development of Batang Toru HPP and the sustainability of the Tapanuli orangutans along with other biodiversity are not options to choose, instead, they form an integrated, complementary and mutually supportive program. As one of the national strategic projects to meet the electricity power needs, using the "environmentally friendly" technology of "Run off Hydropower" that does not require large inundation areas and located on "non-forested area"/other land use areas dominated mostly by secondary forests and mixed plantations, should be continued and encouraged by all stakeholders to accelerate the project completion. The sustainability of the forest ecosystem and its rich biodiversity is an inherent demand that must be preserved to maintain the sustainability of the Batang Toru HPP itself. 21. Recommendations: the environmental management and monitoring activities as stated in the ironmental enmanagement plan/monitoring plan, are "legally and substantially binding EIA documents" should be done consistently. The aspects that should be managed must include all physical components (soil, climate, hydrology and landscapes), biotics (wild plants and animals including Tapanuli orangutans and their habitat) as well as socio-economic well-beings of the local communities around the Batang Toru HPP project location. vi

10 PREFACE We are grateful to the Almighty Allah SWT who has given us health and committment to conduct this research and complete the report writing according to plan. The objections/accusations put forward by various researchers and non-governmental organizations on the adverse environmental impacts of the development of Batang Toru Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP), has encouraged the implementation of this study. In conducting the study, objectives and results are intended to provide scientific clarification/justification on the 5 concerns that are raised by the environmental activists, namely: (1) destruction of primary forests, (2) destruction of Tapanuli orangutans habitat and population, (3) methane gas emissions, (4) occurrence of floods or droughts and (5) loss of livelihood of 1400 local residents. Literature reviews, field observation, interpretation of landsat images and interviews with resource persons and respondents have been conducted. To facilitate the understanding of this report contents, this document is systematically structured as follows: background and objectives are presented in Chapter I, followed by description of the Batang Toru HPP development in Chapter II. Chapter III to Chapter VII present answers to the following accusations/questions: Is Batang Toru HPP has and will: damage primary forests (Chapter III); threaten Tapanuli orangutans habitat and population (Chapter IV); cause floods and droughts (Chapter VI); cause 1.3 g/ton/year of methane gas emissions (Chapter VI) and eliminate the livelihoods of 1,400 surrounding residents (Chapter VII). Conclusions and recommendations are presented in Chapter VIII. We convey our deepest appreciations to the Leaders and Staffs of PT. NSHE for the trust that they have given us to carry out this research and for all the assistances and cooperation during field data collection. Our sincere gratitude also goes to all those who have contributed in providing suggestions and opinions that made this Report possible. We hope that our research will be and this document will be useful. Bogor, September 2018 Research Team vii

11 viii

12 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... i PREFACE... vii TABLE OF CONTENTS... ix TABLE OF TABLES... xii TABLE OF FIGURES... xv TABLE OF ATTACHMENTS... xvii INTRODUCTION... 1 A. Background... 1 B. Objective and benefits... 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF BATANG TORU HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT 3 A. Company Profile... 3 B. Legal Bases of Batang Toru HPP... 4 C. Field Activities Plans and Realization... 5 IS IT TRUE THAT BATANG TORU HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT HAS AND WILL DAMAGE PRIMARY FOREST?... 9 A. Introduction... 9 B. Methodology... 9 C. Results and Discussions D. Conclusions IS IT TRUE THAT BATANG TORU HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT THREATEN THE TAPANULI ORANGUTAN HABITAT AND POPULATION? A. Introduction B. Methodology C. Result and Discussion D. Conclusion IS IT TRUE THAT BATANG TORU HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT CAUSES FLOODS AND DROUGHTS? A. Introduction B. Methodology C. Results and Discussion D. Conclusions ix

13 IS IT TRUE THAT BATANG TORU HPP WILL PRODUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS? A. Introduction B. Methodology C. Results and Discussions D. Conclusions IS IT TRUE THAT BATANG TORU HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT WILL DESTROY THE LOCAL LIVELIHOODS? A. Introduction B. Methodology C. Results and Discussion D. Conclusions IS IT TRUE THAT THE BATANG TORU HYDROPOWER HAVE AND WILL DECREASE MAMMALS AND BIRDS DIVERSITY? A. Introduction B. Methodology C. Result and Discussion D. Conclusion CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Conclusions B. Recommendations REFERENCES LIST OF ATTACHMENTS x

14 xi

15 TABLE OF TABLES Table 1 Company profile of PT NSHE... 3 Table 2 Names of villages that are the sites of the Batang Toru HPP development... 3 Table 3 Policy and legislative framework for the development of Batang Toru HPP... 4 Table 4 Timeline for the implementation of Batang Toru HPP development... 5 Table 5 List of land requirements for the Batang Toru HPP and transmission developments... 6 Table 6 List of land requirements for Batang Toru HPP... 6 Table 7 Construction of Camp A (Sipirok) and Camp G (Marancar)... 7 Table 8 Field coordinates for the vegetation analysis observation... 9 Table 9 List of dominant and co-dominant plant species for each growth strata in Marancar Sub-district Table 10 List of dominant and co-dominant plant species for each growth strata in Sipirok Sub-district Table 11 Sorensen Similarity Value in Marancar Table 12 Sorensen Similarity Value in Sipirok Table 13 Sorensen Similarity Value in Marancar-Sipirok Table 14 Biomass and carbon content of tree stands Table 15 Phases in spatial analysis approach in mapping Tapanuli orangutan Table 16 Criteria of orangutan nest age (Figure4) Table 17 Categorization of age class and sex of orangutan based on morphology and dominant behaviour Table 18 Ground check of points of nest findings in the 2015 YEL survey Table 19 Discharge event possibilities of Batang Toru at the project site Table 20 Data and maps uses in spatial analysis Table 21Tallest dams in Indonesia Table 22 List of dams in Indonesia with the largest inundation area and water volume Table 23 CO2e emissions of coal, natural gas, High Speed Diesel (HSD) and Marine Fuel Oil (MFO) to produce the same amount of electricity and duration as Batang Toru HPP Table 24 Respondents characteristics Table 25 Perceptions of local communities on the impacts of Batang Toru HPP development Table 26 Local perceptions on household electricity Table 27 Local perception on orangutans population and habitats Table 28 Level of perception based on respondents response Table 29 Respondents characteristics in the three study sites Table 30 Share of income from agriculture, plantations and fishery on the total income and total expenditure Table 31 Covering of income from agriculture, plantations and fishery on the total households expenses Table 32 Existing conditions of household electricity in the studied villages Table 33 Local perception of orangutan and its habitat Table 34 Perceived benefits and loss as the impacts of Batang Toru HPP development xii

16 Table 35 People aspirantions related to batang Toru HPP development Table 36 Number of mammal species and the protection status on each location Table 37 Number of bird species and the protection status on each location Table 38 Community evenness index between locations Table 39 Community evenness index between locations xiii

17 xiv

18 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1 Shape of plot for collecting vegetation data Figure 2 Forest Area Appointment Map based on Decree 579 of Figure 3 Location map of Batang Toru HPP project site according to UNEP (2011) Figure 4 Location map of Batang Toru HPP project site according to CI Indonesia (2015) Figure 5 Top view aerial photo of the inundated area close to dam taken by drone Figure 6 The number of plant species observed in each growth stratum Figure 7 Plants diversity and richness in Marancar Sub-district Figure 8 Plants diversity and richness in Sipirok Sub-district Figure 9 Biomass and carbon contents of forest stands and mixed garden Figure 10 Ground checking of nest findings points in the study by Yayasan Ekosistem Lestari (YEL, 2015) Figure 11 Age class of orangutan nest (Ancrenaz, 2004) Figure 12 Map of the survey locations using camera traps Figure 13 Nest findings resulted from ground check based on nest finding points survey by Yayasan Ekosistem Lestari (YEL) in Figure 14 Orangutan individuals directly encountered in the survey Figure 15 Monthly discharge distribution of Batang Toru in Sipetang Figure 16 Discharge distribution of Batang Toru at project site Figure 17 Daily discharge fluctuation of Batang Toru HPP during drought season (July) 41 Figure 18 Floodwall built by The Ministry of Public Works Figure 19 GHG emissions scheme before decomposition and inundation Figure 20 Carbon cycle scheme of a dam after inundation Figure 21 Interview with respondent in Aek Batang Paya Village Figure 22 Livelihoods in Bantar Tarutung Village: (a) fishery and (b) sand mining Figure 23 Tributary of Batang Paya flowing over the three hamlets of Aek Batang Paya Village Figure 24 Perceived economic impacts of Batang Toru HPP development in Aek Batang Paya Village Figure 25 Perceived economic impacts of Batang Toru HPP development in Marancar Godang Village Figure 26 Perceived economic impacts of Batang Toru HPP development in Bantar Tarutung Village Figure 27 Perceived sosial impacts of Batang Toru HPP development in Aek Batang Paya Villager Figure 28 Perceived social impacts of Batang Toru HPP development in Marancar Godang Village Figure 29 Perceived social impacts of Batang Toru HPP development in Bantar Tarutung Village Figure 30 Perceived environmental impacts of Batang Toru HPP development in Aek Batang Paya Village Figure 31 Perceived environmental impacts of Batang Toru HPP development in Marancar Godang Village xv

19 Figure 32 Perceived environmental impacts of Batang Toru HPP development in Bantar Tarutung Village Figure 33 Information on orangutan was once posted in this village information board by the Forestry Service Figure 34 Observation s transect illustration Figure 35 Map on worksites and locations of survey areas... 1 Figure 36 Number of mammal species for each family Figure 37 Black furred gibbon, one of the mammals that was encountered Figure 38 Species diversity and evenness indices on each observation site Figure 39 Rhinoceros hornbill (Buceros rhinoceros) observed perching Figure 40 Diversity and evenness indices of mammal species on each observation site. 113 Figure 41 Mammals species composition similarity values between the project and nonproject sites Figure 42 Bird species composition similarity index between the project and non-projects sites xvi

20 TABLE OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 List of world s tallest dams Attachment 2 List of world s largest dams Attachment 3 List of World s Largest Dams by Volume Attachment 4 Input model for G-res Scenario Attachment 5 Input model for G-res Scenario Attachment 6 Output model G-res Scenario Attachment 7 Output model G-res Scenario Attachment 8 List of undergrowth found on right cliff of Marancar Sub-district Attachment 9 List of seedlings found on right cliff of Marancar Sub-district Attachment 10 List of saplings found on right cliff of Marancar Sub-district Attachment 11 List of poles in right cliff of Marancar Sub-district Attachment 12 List of trees on right cliff of Marancar Sub-district Attachment 13 List of undergrowth on left cliff of Marancar Sub-district Attachment 14 List of seedlings on left cliff of Marancar Sub-district Attachment 15 List of saplings on left cliff of Marancar Sub-district Attachment 16 List of poles on left cliff of Marancar Sub-district Attachment 17 List of trees on left cliff of Marancar Sub-district Attachment 18 List of undergrowth in mixed garden of Marancar Sub-district Attachment 19 List of seedlings in mixed garden in Marancar Sub-district Attachment 20 List of saplings in mixed garden in Marancar Sub-district Attachment 21 List of poles in mixed garden in Marancar Sub-district Attachment 22 List of trees in mixed garden in Marancar Sub-distirtc Attachment 23 The nest of Orangutan tapanuli Attachment 24 Dokumentasi Orangutan dan satwa lain yang ditemui Attachment 25 Documentation during data collection Attachment 26 List of the birds found through all study area xvii

21 xviii

22 INTRODUCTION A. Background Power shortages is experienced by North Sumatra Province. In meeting the electricity demands of the province, especially during peak demands, the government through PJB has decided to build a Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP) with a capacity of 510 Mega Watts in the Batang Toru of Sipirok Village, South Tapanuli District in North Sumatra Province. The project, which has a catchment area of 2,405 hectares, will contribute around 15 percent of the peak load of North Sumatra. PJB (PT. Pembangkitan Jawa Bali) has assigned PJBI (PT PJB Investasi, a subsidiary of PJB) to become the developer and shareholder in the development of Batang Toru HPP Independence Power Producer (IPP) on January 5, The commercial operation date (COD) of Batang Toru HPP is in 2022 in accordance with the 2013 Electricity Supply Business Plan (RUPTL). Batang Toru HPP is an effort by PJB to maximize the potentials of water resources in producing domestic electricity. This hydropower plant will implement an environmentally friendly technology known as "Run off Hydropower". In simple terms, the working principle is to utilize river water flow in the absence of reservoir that can cause large areas to be inundated. The use of penstock is an important part of the energy flowing from the water by utilizing gravity and maintaining previous falling water pressure that flows into the turbine. With the continuous sophistication in technology development, it is now possible to build a hydropower plant with a small daily pondage, comprising of 24 hectares of the existing river bodies and an additional 66 hectares of areas inundating the very steep areas with no residential areas. This hydropower is part of a future environmental friendly power plant, which is developed to replace fossil-fuelled power plants, such as petroleum, natural gas, and coal. In addition to absorbing no less than 1,000 workers at the construction stage, when it is operational, the Batang Toru HPP will be able to reduce carbon emissions by 1.6 Megatons annually from the use of diesel. This means a savings of USD 400 million (equivalent to Rp trillion per year). In addition, this HPP will contribute around 15% of the peak load of North Sumatra and will be a substitute to diesel and gas-generated electricities. Nevertheless, the presence of a Hydroelectric Power Plant in Batang Toru valley has also drawn much objections/accusations from various researchers and NGOs. Environmentalists believe that habitat fragmentation due to the establishment of the hydropower project, will have significant impacts especially on the survivals of the Tapanuli orangutans (Pongo tapanuliensis), currently the world's rarest great ape species with only 800 individuals left. The location of the hydropower plant is feared to divide and separate the orangutan populations inhabiting the western block, from those in the Sibual-buali Strict Nature Reserve. Another concern is the environmental damage due to the project, namely the loss of forest cover that will be cleared for land preparation activities. Clearance of 1

23 hundreds of hectares of forests is feared to have a serious impact on the forest ecosystem and Batang Toru watershed. Damage to ecosystems also has the potential to cause floods, which often occurs when the Batang Toru overflows. Furthermore, the hydropower plant is thought to be located on the Toru fault, which is the fault with earthquake potentials. As mentioned in the BioScience publication, Volume 66, November 1, 2016, within a period of 100 years, it is expected that power plants derived from water sources (hydropower) will generate more methane than those produced by agricultural lands. Hydroelectric dam project is also assumed to emit around one billion tons of greenhouse gases (GHG), that represents 1.3 percent of total annual global emissions. To note, the contribution of methane to global warming, is itself three times more than the contribution of CO2. The economic impacts that cannot be ignored from the development of Batang Toru HPP is the people dependence on the surrounding forest. Dana Prima Tarigan, Director of the North Sumatra Forum for the Environment (WALHI) says that there are around 100,000 people who are dependent on Batang Toru forest areas. If the hydropower operates, not only will the development affect the project sites, but also threatens downstream areas of Batang Toru. Such area is estimated to cover around 1,200 ha of productive agricultural lands belong to the local farmers and residents, as well as the freshwater fishermen whose live depend on Batang Toru flow. Related to such controversies, the CENTRE OF STUDY, ADVOCATION AND NATURE CONSERVATION (PUSAKA KALAM) considers it necessary to conduct a comprehensive study (involving experts from various scientific disciplines) to provide accurate and valid scientific data and information about "the impacts of Batang Toru HPP on biodiversity, greenhouse gas emissions, water balance and socio-economic conditions of the local community". B. Objective and benefits This research is aim at obtaining accurate and scientific data and information to answer the questions: is it true that Batang Toru HPP development has/will: a. Damages primary forests b. Threatens the habitat and population of Tapanuli orangutans c. Causes floods and droughts d. Produces methane gas emissions totalling to 1.3 percent of total annual global emissions e. Eliminates the livelihoods of 1,400 residents The results of this study are expected to provide scientific clarification/justifications on data/information that has been received by several researchers and nongovernmental organizations, who have raised objections/negative accusations toward the Batang Toru hydroelectric power plant development. 2

24 PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF BATANG TORU HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT A. Company Profile PT North Sumatra Hydro Energy (PT. NSHE) is one of the companies that participated in the identification of potential sites for hydropower plants in North Sumatra. PT NSHE has conducted a study on the potentials of Batang Toru, which is one of the largest rivers in South Tapanuli. The following information (Table 1) details the profile of PT NSHE: Table 1 Company profile of PT NSHE Company profile Name of Company PT. North Sumatera Hydro Energy Type of Legal Body Limited Liability Company Company s Address Jl. Dharmawangsa VII/7, Kebayoran Baru, Jakarta Selatan Telephone Number (6221) Facsimile Number (6221) rkapita.alle@gmail.com Status of Investment PMDN Type of Business and/or Project Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP) Capacity 510 MW Project Location South Tapanuli District (Sub-districts of Sipirok, Marancar and Batang Toru) Person in Charge Name Richard P. Sulilatu Position Director Source: PT NSHE Second Semester Report of Environmental Management/Monitoring Plan The project location of the 510 MW Batang Toru Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP) is in South Tapanuli District with an administrative area covering 3 sub-districts and 17 villages as shown in Table 2 below. Table 2 Names of villages that are the sites of the Batang Toru HPP development No Sub-district Village 1 Sipirok Luat Lombang Aek Batang Paya Bulu Mario Sitandang 2 Marancar Huraba Gunung Binanga Pasar Sempurna Marancar Godang Simaningir Aek Naraba Tanjung Dolok 3

25 No Sub-district Village Haunatas Marancar Hulu 3 Batang Toru Sipenggeng Hapesong Baru Telo Keluarahan Wek I Source: PT NSHE Second Semester Report of Environmental Management Plan/Monitoring Plan B. Legal Bases of Batang Toru HPP The development of Batang Toru HPP needs to be seen in the context of Indonesian policies and legislation, of which one of the outputs is to conduct an environmental impact analysis (EIA) study. Table 3 below presents the policy and legislative framework used as references and form the legal basis for the Batang Toru HPP development. Table 3 Policy and legislative framework for the development of Batang Toru HPP No Regulation/legal aspects Legal Basics 1 Various policies and legislations cited in the formulation of EIA addendum and the Environmental Management Plan/ Monitoring Plan of the 510 MW Batang Toru HPP Act No. 30 of 2009, Article 2 paragraph 22 and Article 4 paragraph 2 concerning Electricity Regulation of the Minister of Environment of the Republic of Indonesia No. 5 of 2012 concerning types of business plan and/or activity that required to have an environmental impact analysis Act No. 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management. Indonesian Government Regulation No. 27 of 2012 concerning Environmental Permit. Indonesian Presidential Regulation No. 4 of 2016 concerning the Acceleration of Electricity Infrastructure Development 2 Collaboration between PT Contract Number: 017/DIR-/SPP/NSHE/VII/2017 NSHE and PT Global Inter Sistem 3 Related permissions Location permit from the Regent of South Tapanuli number 503/1150/2012 regarding location permits for the construction of Batang Toru 1 HPP to PT Anugrah Alam Lestari Energi of Sipirok Sub-district, South Tapanuli District South Tapanuli Regent's Permit Number /2015/2012 concerning the amendment of South Tapanuli Regent's permit number 5003/8209/2011 dated November 2, 2011 concerning location permits for the development needs of the Aek Batang Toru III and V hydroelectric power plants to PT. North Sumatra Hydro Energy in Marancar, Sipirok, Batang Toru Sub-districts of South Tapanuli District, North Sumatra. South Tapanuli Regent's Permit Number: 503/5284/2013 dated July 23, 2013 concerning location expansion permit for Batang Toru HPP development on behalf of PT. North Sumatra Hydro Energy,a total area of 1000 ha in Sipirok Sub-district of South Tapanuli District. South Tapanuli Regent's Permit Number: 503/5285/2013 dated July 23, 2013 concerning the Location Permit for the Construction of Batang Toru HPP Transmission to PT. North Sumatra Hydro Energy, Marancar Sub-district, Batang Toru Sub-district, Angkola Barat Sub-district of South Tapanuli District. 4

26 No Regulation/legal aspects Legal Basics South Tapanuli Regent's Permit Number: 503/2438/2015 dated April 8, 2015 concerning the Extension of Location Permit for Batang Toru HPP development needs to PT. North Sumatera Hydro Energy in Marancar, Sipirok and Batang Toru Sub-districts of South Tapanuli District. Decree of the Governor of North Sumatra Number: 660/50/DPMPPTSP/5/IV/I/2017 concerning changes to the Environmental Permit for the construction plan of Batang Toru HPP from a capacity of 500 MW to 510 MW (4 x MW) and changes in quarry location in South Tapanuli District, North Sumatra Province by PT. North Sumatra Hydro Energy. 4 EIA Decree Decree of the Head of the Environmental Agency of North Sumatra Province As the Chair of the EIA Commission of North Sumatra Province Number: 1798/BLH-SU/BLT-A/2013, dated 11 September 2013, concerning the Terms of Reference for Environmental Impact of the 500 MW Batang Toru HPP development and 275 kv Transmission Network from Batang Toru HPP to Parsakaran Village of Angkola Barat Sub-district, South Tapanuli District, North Sumatra Province by PT. North Sumatra Hydro Energy. Governor of North Sumatra Decree Number: /135/KPTS/2014 dated February 19, 2014, concerning the Environmental Feasibility Plans of te 500 MW Batang Toru HPP Development and 275 kv Transmission Network by PT. North Sumatra Hydro Energy from Batang Toru HPP to Parsakaran Village, Angkola Barat Sub-district, South Tapanuli District, North Sumatra Province. Governor of North Sumatra Decree Number: /750/KPTS/2016 dated December 23, About: Environmental Feasibility Addendum on Environmental Impact Analysis, Environmental Management Plan and Environmental Monitoring Plan of Batang Toru HPP development from 500 MW Capacity to 510 MW (4 X MW) and Changes in the Location of Quarry in South Tapanuli District, North Sumatra Province. Source: PT NSHE EIA AND Report of Environmental Management Plan and Monitoring Plan C. Field Activities Plans and Realization The EIA Study of Batang Toru HPP was prepared based on the feasibility study conducted by PT North Sumatra Hydro Energy. In the EIA documents, there are 2 major plans to be carried out, namely the Batang Toru HPP development plan and the plan for the construction of a 275 KV transmission network from switchyard of the Batang Toru HPP to the village of Parsakaran of Angkola Barat Sub-district (Padang Sidimpuan City boundary). The developments are estimated to take up 5 running years, with the following timeline (Table 4): Table 4 Timeline for the implementation of Batang Toru HPP development No. Timeline Activity Land acquisition 2 Jan Mar 2014 Power purchasing agreement (PPA) with PT PLN development 3 April 2014 Buildings of facilities (access road, base camp, workshop, etc.) 5

27 No. Timeline Activity 4 Sept August 2015 Diversion building works (dam and diversion tunnel) 5 August Apr 2018 Dam construction and intake 6 Feb Jan 2017 Waterway and surge tank constructions 7 Apr 2015 July2017 Penstock construction 8 Feb Sept 2016 Power house construction 9 Jan Nov 2017 Electro-mechanics and transmission network constructions 10 Apr 2018 June 2018 Commissioning and testing 11 June 2018 Commercial operation date Source: PT North Sumatera Hydro Energy 2013 The Batang Toru HPP development activities took place on public land, thus land inventory activities were carried out to determine the total land area that will be use, type of land use and rights to the land. Afterwards, deliberations with village officials and the local sub-district heads were held to negotiate prices. The locations for land acquisition that will/have been agreed are presented in Table 5. Table 5 List of land requirements for the Batang Toru HPP and transmission developments No. Type of land usage/activity Plan (m 2 ) Description 1 Reservoir/dam and intake Base camp Workshop, Batching plant and Crushing Plant 3 Inundation area Area between the highest and lowest water level 4 Access road Portal Waste spill and spoil sites from spoil bank 7 Surge tank Power house and tailrace Switchyard Transmission channel Foundation area 11 Quarry area quarry sites Total Source: EIA of PT. NSHE 2014 Based on the 2016 Environmental management Plan-monitoring Plan of the EIA Addendum document, the quarry location which were originally located in Sitandang Village of Sipirok Sub-district (volume 704,845 m 3 ) and Sipenggeng Village of Batang Toru Sub-district (volume 222,100 m3) were moved to Marancar Godang Village and Simaninggir Village located in Marancar Sub-district (Volume 1,218,000 m 3 ). Table 6 lists the land requirements for the Batang Toru HPP development plan. Table 6 List of land requirements for Batang Toru HPP No List of Land Usage/Activity Required Land (m 2 ) Plan (m 2 ) Addendum 1 Reservoir/dam and intake Base camp Inundation area Access road

28 No List of Land Usage/Activity Required Land (m 2 ) Plan (m 2 ) Addendum 5 Portals Waste and spoil Surge tank Power house and tailrace Switchyard Transmission network Quarry area Total Source: 2018 PT NSHE Report of Environmental Management Plan/Monitoring Plan Of the 5,639,500 m 2 (564 Ha) total land requirement, the actual total land area that has been acquired according to the 2018 Second Semester Environmental Management Plan-Monitoring Plan Report is 600 ha. All land in the development areas have been cleared, except for activity number 10 for which further activities have not been carried out. Other activities that have been performed include top soil/soil and rock collections from R2 development activities to spoil bank 1. In addition, several access roads have been developed, including: 1. Construction of access road R1 2. Construction of access road R2 (1.2 km) 3. Construction of access road R3 (0.7 km) 4. Construction of road within spoil bank 1 5. Access road to quarry in Marancar Godang Village (3.5 km) 6. Access road to dam (3.5 km) 7. Access road from base camp to provincial road (1.6 km) 8. Access road from base camp to crossing (1.9 km) Base camp has been built, which involves land clearance activities such as cutting down trees. The ongoing activities are the construction of Camp G at Marancar and the construction of Camp A in Sipirok. The ongoing activities are listed in Table 7 below: Table 7 Construction of Camp A (Sipirok) and Camp G (Marancar) No Sipirok Area Marancar Area 1 Construction of Camp A in spoil bank 1 area Excavation quarry 2 Construction of laboratory in spoil bank 1 area Excavation in area A 13 3 Construction of R2 road of 1,900 meter Temporary road construction in R17 4 Excavation of R5 road Construction at aggregate processing plant 5 Construction of 35 meter tunnel Pioneer road construction R3 6 Excavation of R3 road Pioneer road construction R5 7 Pioneer road construction R10 8 Cutting Trees R3 9 Land levelling in CAMP G 10 Geological exploration power house 7

29 8

30 IS IT TRUE THAT BATANG TORU HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT HAS AND WILL DAMAGE PRIMARY FOREST? A. Introduction The location permit for the construction of the 510 Mega Watt Hydroelectric Power Plant on Batang Toru of Sipirok Village, South Tapanuli Regency in North Sumatra Province totalled to 7,200 ha, although the actual total project site is not more than 652 ha. The difference between the two areas has triggered accusations from environmental activists stating that the "Batang Roru HPP development" will damage the Batang Toru primary forest ecosystem. The terminology primary forest has in fact raises various other accusations, such as "threats to orangutans habitat and population, decrease in biodiversity and occurrence of floods or droughts. It is therefore important to conduct a study to clarify these accusations. The term primary forest in this study refers to "the physical appearance of the forest, characterized by the absence of logging activities and marks by the absence of land clearance and logging spots. The "Secondary Forest (SF)" is the physical appearance of forests in lowlands and hills, that have shown some former logging activities, marked by the appearance of cleared land areas and logging spots. Thus, if interpretation of Landsat images or results of field ground checks show images/conditions unlike the two definitions above, it will be categorized as "mixed gardens/farms, shrubs, bare land or water bodies" B. Methodology Research Location The research was conducted at the PT NSHE (North Sumatra Hydro Energy) project site in the framework of Batang Toru HPP development. Sample plots were placed in different areas, namely in Marancar and Sipirok Sub-districts (Figure 7). Observation points in each location were carried out in three different land cover types, namely Right Cliff of Batang Toru, Left Cliff of Batang Toru and Mixed Garden. These three observation points were selected since they showed the greatest interactions in the development of Batang Toru HPP development and implementation activities. Plant identification was carried out at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) at Cibinong Bogor. Table 8 Field coordinates for the vegetation analysis observation Location N E Marancar Left Cliff Marancar Right Cliff Marancar Mixed Garden Sipirok Left Cliff Sipirok Right Cliff Sipirok Mixed garden

31 Equipments and Materials The following equipments were needed in data collection, i.e., tape measurement of 100 meters in length, phi band, machete, leaf pole, scissors, knives, wood stakes, rope, plastic rope, clear plastic rope, gunny sacks, stationery, GPS (Global Positioning System), binocular, and camera. The materials that were used include alcohol of concentration 70%, labels, newspapers, tally sheets, and vegetation in PT NSHE. Reserach Procedure The plot were purposely placed comprising of a single plot of size 113m x 113m, to observe the growth strata of poles and trees, while sub-plots measuring 40m x 40m was used to observe the undergrowth, seedlings, saplings and palms (Figure 15). To facilitate data collection, considering the steep topography of the field, modification of the single plot shape was necessary. Using the same total area, sub-plots for poles and trees observation were altered to 25 m x m and sub-plots for observations of undergrowth, seedlings, saplings, poles and palms was changed to 15 m x m. The plots were developed longitudinal following the direction as Batang Toru contours and river. Figure 1 Shape of plot for collecting vegetation data Data collected in this study were the number of individuals and the number of species making up the vegetation composition. In addition, stem diameter at breast height (DBH) were also measured within the sub-plots of poles and trees growth strata, to estimate biomass. To be more representative, data in plots and sub-plots were collected for all growth strata through census, due to the heterogeneity of the constituent vegetation. Data Analysis Shannon - Wiener (H ) Species Diversity Index Note: s H = ( ni ni ) (ln N N ) H = Shannon Wiener species index value ni = Number of individuals in a species within a sample plot i=1 10

32 N S = Number of total individuals = Number of species observed (Dmg) Species Richness Index R = (S 1) ln(n) Note: E S N = Species richness index = Number of species observed = Number of total individuals (E) Species Evenness Index E = H ln(s) Note: E = Species evenness index H = Shannon Wiener species diversity index S = Number of species observed (IS) Index of Similarity IS = 2C A + B Note: IS = Index of Similarity C = Number of similar species observed in both communities (A and B) A = Number of spesies observed in community A B = Number of spesies observed in community B Biomass and Carbon Estimations Estimation of biomass for pole and tree growth strata were calculated using the allometric equation of B = (D) , where D is the diameter value at breast height (DBH) with an accuracy level of 0.89% (Krisnawati et al. 2012). Carbon content was calculated using the formula C = B x 0.47 following the National Standardization Agency (2011). C. Results and Discussions Location of Batang Toru HPP Referring to the Forest Area Appointment Map based on Decree 579 of 2014 (Figure 2), Batang Toru HPP is located on Other Land Uses Area (APL). Similarly, based on the 11

33 map published by UNEP in 2011 (Figure 3), Batang Toru HPP is also located within the APL area, in the form of rubber plantations, oil palm plantations, and a small area of disturbed forests (secondary forests). As for the 2015 land cover map issued by Conservation International Indonesia (CI Indonesia) (Figure 4), Batang Toru HPP is located in secondary dryland forest and mixed dryland agriculture. Figure 5 shows the photos taken from a close range using drone aircraft, showing better and clearer conditions of the vegetation of the area to be inundated, which is entirely in the form of disturbed forest (secondary forest). Figure 2 Forest Area Appointment Map based on Decree 579 of

34 Location of Batang Toru HPP Figure 3 Location map of Batang Toru HPP project site according to UNEP (2011) Lokasi PLTA Batang Toru Figure 4 Location map of Batang Toru HPP project site according to CI Indonesia (2015) 13

35 Figure 5 Top view aerial photo of the inundated area close to dam taken by drone Stand Structure and Species Composition The number of plant species recorded in the sample plots is presented in Figure 6. Figure 6 shows that the number of observed species in Marancar is higher than in Sipirok, in all sample plots (right and left cliffs as well as mixed gardens). The highest number of plant species found on Marancar right cliff is 125 species belonging to 55 families and the lowest was found in Sipirok mixed garden, with a total of only 80 species of 44 families Right Cliff Left Cliff Marancar Mixed Garden Right Cliff Left Cliff Sipirok Mixed Garden Species Number Family Species Number Family Figure 6 The number of plant species observed in each growth stratum The stand density, based on the sample plots at Marancar, ranges from 7791 trees/ha to trees/ha comprising of tree stratum and its understory (seedlings, saplings, and poles). Tree stratum (DBH 20 cm) proportion is very small comprising of no more than 5%. The biggest compositions are seedlings and saplings comprising of more than 95%. The number of trees having diameter 100 cm is only 4 trees/ha. These forest characteristics create an inverted J curve as a general character of natural forest. Dominant Species 14

36 Dominant species is a species with the highest Important Value Index (IVI), followed by the co-dominant species. The lists of dominant and co-dominant species for each growth strata are given in Table 9 and 10. Table 9 List of dominant and co-dominant plant species for each growth strata in Marancar Sub-district IVI Plot Strata Species D(ind/ha) (%) Undergrowth Ixora sp Right Cliff Piper porphyrophyllum N.E.Br Seedlimg Meliosma pinnata (Roxb.) Meissn Canarium caudatum King Sapling Dehaasia sumatrana Kosterm Coelostegia borneensis Becc Pole Aglaia odoratissima Blume Neouvaria acuminatissima (Miq.) Airy Shaw Trees Aglaia odoratissima Blume Aglaia eximia Miq Left Cliff Undergrowth Arcypteris irregularis Taenitis blechnoides Seedlimg Piper macropiper Aglaia odoratissima Blume Sapling Aglaia odoratissima Blume Lepisanthes senegalensis (Poir.) Leenh Pole Aglaia odoratissima Blume Lepisanthes senegalensis (Poir.) Leenh Trees Aglaia odoratissima Blume Nephelium uncinatum Leenh Mixed garden Undergrowth Selaginella plana Cyclosorus sp Seedlimg Leea sp Hydnocarpus kunstleri (King) Warb Sapling Aglaia tomentosa Teijsm. & Binn Pole Trees Lepisanthes senegalensis (Poir.) Leenh Hevea brasiliensis (Willd. ex A.Juss.) Müll.Arg Macaranga bancana (Miq.) Mull. Arg Hevea brasiliensis (Willd. ex A.Juss.) Müll.Arg Macaranga hypoleuca (Rchb.f. & Zoll.) Muell. Arg

37 Table 10 List of dominant and co-dominant plant species for each growth strata in Sipirok Sub-district Sample Plot Strata Species D (ind/ha) IVI (%) Right Cliff Undergrowth Arcypteris irregularis Tetracera scandens (L.) Merr Seedling Piper macropiper Aglaia odoratissima Blume Sapling Pipturus sp Aglaia odoratissima Blume Pole Lepisanthes senegalensis (Poir.) Leenh Aglaia odoratissima Blume Trees Dysoxylum arborescens (Blume) Miq Lepisanthes senegalensis (Poir.) Leenh Left Cliff Undergrowth Selaginella willdenowii (Desv. Ex Poir) Baker Mixed Garden Clidemia hirta (L.) D. Don Seedling Coffea sp Aglaia odoratissima Blume Sapling Coffea sp Aglaia odoratissima Blume Pole Ardisia macrophylla Reinw.ex Blume Aglaia odoratissima Blume Trees Ardisia macrophylla Reinw.ex Blume Aglaia odoratissima Blume Undergrowth Dicranopteris linearis Arcypteris irregularis Seedling Hevea brasiliensis (Willd. ex A.Juss.) Müll.Arg Cinnamomum verum J. Presl Sapling Hevea brasiliensis (Willd. ex A.Juss.) Müll.Arg Garcinia lateriflora Blume Pole Hevea brasiliensis (Willd. ex A.Juss.) Müll.Arg Archidendron ellipticum (Blume) I.C. Nielsen Trees Hevea brasiliensis (Willd. ex A.Juss.) Müll.Arg Parkia speciosa Hassk Tables 9 and 10 clearly show that the dominant species is Aglaia odoratiss, dominating the tree stratum in each district, while rubber (Hevea brasiliensis), white underside (Macaranga hypoleuca), and stinky bean (Parkia speciosa) dominate the tree stratum in mixed gardens. In the Sub-district of Marancar, several large-diameter commercial timbers (DBH 60 cm) were found, representing the remaining species from primary forests. These species were: medang (Dehaasia sumatrana), beech tree (Lithocarpus elegans), bayur (Pterospermum javanicum), and gutta-percha tree (Palaquium gutta). No Dipterocarp species was observed. The family of Dipterocarpaceae often comprised of commercial woods like meranti (Shorea spp.) and kruing (Dipterocarpus 16

38 spp.). In addition, two pioneer species from the Macaranga group, i.e., Macaranga bancana and Macaranga tanarius were recorded on the left cliff, which indicates that the area is a secondary forest. On the basis of the presence of pioneer species, it seems that the forest area on the right cliff of Marancar Sub-district is a protection forest that has not ben or is slightly disturbed, hence there is still the possibility of a primary forest area within. Similarly, several commercial timber-producing trees were also found within the sample plots in Sipirok Sub-district. Other species observed include Quercus gemmeliflora and Dehaasia caesia. No members of Dipterocarp family were found. Other plant species observed include several types of fig (Ficus spp.), which are very important as wildlife habitats, cultivated plants (rubber, rambutan, stink bean), and some more diverse types of pioneer trees compared to those in the Marancar Sub-district, namely Macaranga hypoleuca, M. triloba, M. gigantifolia, and M. recurvata. These types of Macaranga are found both on the right and left cliffs. Based on the findings of pioneer tree species, it appears that the forest area on the right and left cliff of Sipirok Sub-district has experienced a disruption, so it can be categorized as a secondary forest. Although only separated by the Batang Toru, the composition of the plant species in the two sample plots on the right and left cliffs, both in Marancar and Sipirok Sub-districts, show different species composition. This is reflected by the low value of the Sorensen Similarity Index, which is less than 0.75 (Table 11 and 12). Likewise is the plant species composition in the sample plot namely between the sample plot on the right cliff and the left cliff (Table 13). Table 11 Sorensen Similarity Value in Marancar Land cover type Right Cliff Left Cliff Mixed Garden Right Cliff Left Cliff Mixed Garden 1 Table 12 Sorensen Similarity Value in Sipirok Land cover type Right Cliff Left Cliff Mixed Garden Right Cliff Left Cliff Mixed Garden 1 Table 13 Sorensen Similarity Value in Marancar-Sipirok Land cover type Right Cliff Marancar Left Cliff Marancar Mixed Garden Marancar Right Cliff 0.44 Left Cliff 0.49 Sipirok s Mixed Garden 0.24 Species Diversity and Richness 17

39 The level of species diversity as reflected by the Shannon-Wiener Species Diversity Index (H'), is generally classified as moderate (2<H'<3), with only a few categorized as high (H'> 3), both in Marancar (Figure 7) and Sipirok (Figure 8) Sub-districts. Likewise, the level of species richness based on the Margalef Species Richness Index (Dmg), most of which are classified as moderate (Dmg<5.0). Figure 7 and 8 indicate that tree strata on the left cliff plots in the Sub-districts of Marancar and Sipirok, have the highest Species Diversity Index (H') and Species Richness Index (Dmg). On the other hand, pole stratum in mixed gardens has the smallest H'and DMg values, observed in both the Sub-districts of Marancar and Sipirok Und Seed Sapli erst ling ng orey Pal ms Tree s Und Seed Sapli erst ling ng orey Figure 7 Plants diversity and richness in Marancar Sub-district Pal ms Tree s Und Seed Sapli erst ling ng orey Pal ms Right Cliffs Left Cliffs Mixed Gardens Tree s H' DMg E H' DMg E Und Seed Sapli erst ling ng orey Pal ms Tree s Und Seed Sapli erst ling ng orey Pal ms Tree s Und Seed Sapli erst ling ng orey Figure 8 Plants diversity and richness in Sipirok Sub-district Pal ms Right Cliffs Left Cliffs Mixed Gardens Tree s H' DMg E H' DMg E 18

40 Biomass and Carbon Contents Table 14 and Figure 9 show the biomass and carbon contents of forest stands and mixed gardens. The highest biomass and carbon content is found in the forest stands on the right cliff of Sipirok, each amounts to tons/ha and tonsc/ha. All sample plots in the Sub-district of Sipirok has a higher biomass and carbon contents compared to the Subdistrict of Marancar. The lowest biomass and carbon content values were found in mixed gardens. Location Marancar Sipirok Table 14 Biomass and carbon content of tree stands Sample Plot D Average of Biomass Carbon (stands/ha) DBH (cm) (ton/ha) (tons/ha) Right Cliff Left Cliff Mixed Garden Right Cliff Left Cliff Mixed Garden Right Cliff Left Cliff Marancar Mixed Garden Right Cliff Left Cliff Sipirok Mixed Garden Biomass (ton/ha) Carbon (tonc/ha) Biomass (ton/ha) Carbon (tonc/ha) Figure 9 Biomass and carbon contents of forest stands and mixed garden Results of Siregar's (2018) study in Production Forest in the Padang Lawas Utara of North Sumatra, found that the Production Forest still has a high stand density (primary forest), forest biomass content of tons/ha and a carbon content of 136,17 tons/ha. While, areas with low density (secondary forest), the biomass content is only tons/ha and the carbon content is tons/ ha. Referring to such data, the biomass and carbon content in the sample plots as given in Table 14, shows that the forest area in the Batang Toru HPP project area is categorized as a secondary forest. The Impacts of Batang Toru HPP Development on Vegetations In the Addendum of EIA Document and the Environmental Development Plan/Monitoring Plan of Batang Toru HPP (2016), it is stated that the land to be used for the construction of the Batang Toru HPP is 643 ha, comprising of 192 ha secondary forest and 372 ha of mixed plantations (APL). Out of the 192 ha secondary forest, as much as

41 ha will be used for inundation areas, while the remaining ha will be cleared for road access, spoils bank and quarry. Therefore, the total area of secondary forest that will be affected by the development of Batang Toru HPP is 192 ha or 34.04% of the total forest area in the project site. A loss of 192 ha of secondary forest is equivalent to the loss of tons of biomass or tonc. D. Conclusions 1. The stands structure of the forest on the right and left cliff of Batang Toru is dominated by understory, especially seedlings and saplings. Large diameter trees are not common. 2. The plant species composition is partly filled with pioneer species which indicate that the forest area inside the project area has been disturbed. Very few remaining commercial timber species are found. 3. The level of species diversity and richness is classified as moderate to high. 4. The content of stand biomass and carbon is proportional to the secondary forest biomass and carbon content in the Padang Lawas Utara area of North Sumatra. 5. Secondary forests that will be affected by the Batang Toru HPP development covers a total of 192 ha, which is equivalent to the loss of tons of biomass or tonc. 20

42 IS IT TRUE THAT BATANG TORU HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT THREATEN THE TAPANULI ORANGUTAN HABITAT AND POPULATION? A. Introduction The Batang Toru ecosystem is believed to be the habitat for 2 of the three sub-species of orangutans. Recent studies in the world of genetics, anatomy and acoustics, have for decades succeeded in producing amazing breakthroughs in species identification. The results of a study published in the journal Current Biology in 2017 have identified a new species named Tapanuli orangutans, the third orangutan species after Borneo and Sumatra (Nater et al. 2017). Amid the news of the discovery of the new orangutan, the issue of conservation has become a central topic considering that Sumatran orangutans have been categorised as endangered species due to the population, which is thought to continue to decline (Singleton et al. 2008). Until now, there are believed to be 800 individuals of Tapanuli orangutans that live wildly in the Batang Toru ecosystem. The total population of Sumatran orangutans themselves is in small numbers, less than 6,500 individuals, with limited distribution and threat of habitat changes that are high enough to result in an estimated extinction rate faster than the orangutan of Kalimantan. The conversion of forests to plantations, hunting and conflict between humans and orangutans have led to the deaths of a number of wild orangutans (Kuswanda 2007; Wich et al. 2011) Hydropower construction in the Batang Toru Forest developed by PT. North Sumatra Hydro Energy (NSHE), in the future will provide benefits in moving the wheels of development in North Sumatra, especially in overcoming the electricity crisis and advancing the economy of the Tapanuli community. However, in any development activity, changes in the landscape are inevitable and have the potential to cause negative impacts on the biodiversity richness within. The Batang Toru HPP development plan is faced with various issues of threats to habitat and local extinctions for orangutans and is considered as an activity of forest destruction which has a wider impact, not only for the orangutan survival but also for the communities around PT. NSHE. Referring to Act No. 18 of 2013 concerning Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction, forest destruction itself is a process, method, or act of destroying forests through illegal logging activities, use of forest areas without permission or use of permits that are contrary to the purpose and objectives of granting permits in designated forest areas that been appointed, or is being processed by the Government Construction of various facilities such as roads, tunnels, power lines and dams is thought to cause habitat damage, 8% of orangutan habitat will experience changes as believed by William Laurance of ALERT. Also, the construction of the dam break the connectivity of the West to East blocks and the West block with Sibuali-Buali Strict Nature Reserve and is expected to cause flooding in the orangutan habitats located around the 21

43 Batang Toru Watershed. In the end, various habitat damage issues have direct implications for reducing the number of orangutan populations. Even Hans Nicholas Jong suspects that there will be a decline in the orangutan population of at least 83% of the current population after the Batang Toru HPP development, which may lead to the future local extinction of Tapanuli orangutans. However, it should be keep in mind that in the comparison between the 141,748 hectares of Batang Toru forest and the 650 hectares of project area, the Batang Toru HPP project area is only 0.64 percent of the total forest. Through scientific studies, these issues need to be further verified. As stated by Akcakaya (2002); Blake and Hedges (2004); Murray et al. (2009), any conservation management that is based on misinformation, rough estimates, expert opinion or guesswork, may create a risk of false decisions and is counterproductive toward the activities being carried out. Information and data related to the condition of pre-and post-development of orangutans carried out by PT. NSHE should be the main reference in resolving this prolonged polemic. Therefore, it is important to obtain scientific evidence of various issues developed in the community related to the development carried out by PT. NSHE through direct surveys in the field. B. Methodology This study included the use of literature review approaches, and field surveys (1 spatial/space use mapping by Tapanuli orangutans; (2) estimating population density based on nest surveys; (3) population monitoring based on direct encounters; and (4) population monitoring using camera traps). Literature Study Literature study was intended to: 1) Obtain the most up-to-date data and information regarding the condition of the population and distribution of orangutans, prior and after HPP development carried out in the PT. NSHE management site and the surrounding area included in the location permit of PT. NSHE. 2) Obtain credible scientific information related to the parameters used in estimating postdevelopment Tapanuli orangutan population densities in PT. NSHE and around location permits. Field Survey Field survey activities were carried out to verify the use of space by orangutans in their habitat and to estimate the latest orangutan population density in the area that became the site of the management and location permit of PT. NSHE. The ground checking activity of nest findings became the basis for determining the areas at management site of and around the location permit of PT. NSHE that were suspected of still being used by orangutans to date. For each vegetation cover, estimation of orangutan population density is conducted based on indirect encounters through a nest transect survey approach and direct encounter with individual orangutans. 22

44 Spatial Mapping/Space Use by Tapanuli Orangutan Analysis of space use by Tapanuli orangutans in their habitat aimed to collect the latest data and information related to space use in the management site and location permit of PT. NSHE. The software used was ArcGIS In accordance with habitat terminology and restrictions in Act No. 5 of 1990, the threat to Tapanuli orangutan habitat is closely related to the habitat's ability to support the normal breeding of the organisms that live in it, namely by providing all the survival requirements of the organisms, related to the need of food, shelter and breeding grounds. Scientific design approach through space use by Tapanuli orangutans, was used to assess how an activity or human activity affects the habitat's ability to provide space for the orangutans (Table 15) Table 15 Phases in spatial analysis approach in mapping Tapanuli orangutan No. Data and Map Description Landsat 8 OLI/TIRS August 2018 satellite imagery Land cover analysis, 1 ( determination of survey location in the management site of PT. NSHE 2 Indonesian Topographic (RBI) and land use map with 1:50,000 Determination of study area scale (BIG, 2018) boundary Map of dams and HPP development (Figure 4) Parameterisation of location and ground checking of information 3 on the direct and indirect encounters with orangutans in PT. NSHE management site, from various sources. The last study conducted by YEL in 2015 on the site and the area around the location permit of PT. NSHE is used as a reference in this study. The survey area covers 725 ha of PT. NSHE. A total of 148 nesting points were found in a survey conducted by YEL. Each point is confirmed regarding the presence or absence of nests through direct checking in the field. All points that have been confirmed are then mapped in the PT. NSHE area. Population Density Estimation based on Nest Survey Construction of access roads, tunnels, and transmission and stockpiling of primary forests with the debris of excavations carried out by PT. NSHE, allegedly will cause the habitat around Batang Toru to no longer be feasible and cause a disconnection between the Sumatran orangutan population in the West Block and other populations and ultimately lead to the extinction of Tapanuli orangutans. Direct observation of orangutans in small populations is very difficult (van Schaik et al., 1995). Estimation of orangutan population density is based on the approach of finding nests, former faults, feed marks, and/or trajectories. The discovery of nest and feed marks found within a location indicates that the location has been occupied by orangutans. According to various studies (Rijksen, 1978; Sugardjito, 1986; van Schaik et al., 1995; Djojoasmoro et al., 2004), orangutans always build new nests, both for resting and sleeping at night. On a preferred nest tree, one orangutan can build 3-4 nests. In general, the shape of the orangutan nest is very similar to those of an eagle, a large squirrel, and a sun bear. In conducting the survey, the team took more attention to the possibility of misidentification of the type of nest made. All of the nests found in the study 23

45 area were counted, photographed, and carefully identified to determine whether the nests were indeed orangutan s nest. This action was intended to obtain a high level of precision and accuracy in estimating the number of orangutan populations. 24

46 25 Figure 10 Ground checking of nest findings points in the study by Yayasan Ekosistem Lestari (YEL, 2015)

47 Nest observation was carried out using a combination of line transect method with nest count method. In each type of habitat, the transect is placed systematically with a random starting point and of 1,000-2,500 m transect (east-west direction) on a ± 500 m (north-south direction) distance between transects, to ensure representations of the entire study area. The sampling design for nest transect placement is stratification based on different habitat types. Determination of habitat type was based on land cover maps and altitude maps using the ArcGis program assistance. Each type of land cover was calculated as the basis for determining the number and distribution of study pathways in each (proportional) habitat type. A total of 30 lanes of study pathways (65.90 km) were scattered along the location of nest finding points in the nest survey study conducted by YEL in Nest Age A B C D E Table 16 Criteria of orangutan nest age (Figure4) Criteria New, fresh, all leaves are green Not too long, all leaves are still there, leaves colour start to be brown Long (old), some of the leaves are gone, the nest still seem sturdy and intact Very old, holes are found in the nest Almost disappear, only a few twigs and branches left, the original shape of the nest is gone Retrieval of nest data in thetransect is carried out repeatedly, the observer follows the transect to the end, and then return to the starting point where the transect was made. This action is related to the possibility of not detecting the nest in the first search. The observer recorded the information or variables related to the calculation of orangutan population based on nests findings, which include GPS waypoint position at the beginning and end of transect path, transect direction, transect length, coordinates of nest findings, PPD (perpendicular distance) between nest position and transect path. The age class and type of tree in which the nest was found within the survey location were identified. The classification of nest age class refers to Ancrenaz (2004) criteria, as presented in Table

48 Nest in age class A Nest in age class B Nest in age class C Nest in age class D Nest in age class E Figure 11 Age class of orangutan nest (Ancrenaz, 2004) 27

49 The formulation used to estimate the orangutan population density was based on nest findings as described by Fowler et al. (1998); Kuswanda & Sugiarti (2005). 1) The average width of the j th observation line(dj) Explanation: d j = d i k i di = Perpendicular distance of nest s tree position to transect line (m) ki = Number of nest findings dj = Estimated transect width (m) 2) Estimated orangutan density of the j th line (Dj) (van Schaik et al., 1995) N D j = L. 2d j. p. r. t Explanation: N = Number of nest in observation line (line) L =Length of line (km) p = Proportion of nest built in a population of orangutan r = Average number of nest built per day (nest/day/individual) t = Length of time for orangutan nests to be observable 3) Estimated average density on the k th habitat type (Dk) Explanation: D k = D j n j nj = Number of line on the k th location (line) 4) Estimated population on each habitat type (P) P = Dk x A Explanation: A = Total area of each habitat type (km 2 ) 5) Standard Deviation (SD) Explanation: n = Number of habitat type 6) Standard error (SE) 7) Confidence interval (CI) SD = (x i x ) 2 n 1 SE = SD n CI = x ± tα. SE (n 1) 2 Parameters related to the values of p, r and t are based on the results of previous studies in several locations that are directly adjacent to study area, or located on and are part of the island of Sumatra. Rijksen (1978) in his study in Ketambe obtains a value of 1.8; Suaq Belimbing, Gunung Leuser National Park, 1.6; while the study by van Schaik et al. (1995) obtained r-value of 1.7. Based on the results of the study, the average value of r used for 28

50 estimating the orangutan population in our study was 1.7 nests/day/individual. The value of t used in this study is the average t value of the study conducted by van Schaik et al. (1995) on sub-montana ecosystems (t = 170 days) and Lubis et al. (2001) with a value of t = 219 days. Furthermore, the p-value used is 0.9, by the results of a study conducted by van Schaik et al. (1995), Buij et al. (2002), and Husson et al. (2009). The results of the research at Ketambe and in Suaq Belimbing show that as many as 90% of the orangutan population makes nests every day, while the rest (10%) are babies individual who is still in the care of their mothers and does not make nests. All parameters in van Schaik et al. ( 1995); Fowler et al. (1998); Kuswanda & Sugiarti (2005) as described above were analysed using software Distance 7.2. Monitoring of population based on a direct encounter Although direct observation of orangutans in small populations is very difficult (van Schaik et al., 1995), but the survey team recorded each direct encounter with orangutans, both during the nest transect survey and survey activities for the other purpose, to maximise the results of field surveys conducted. Orangutan individuals found were distinguished by sex and age structure (adult male, adult female, teenage male, teenage female and child). The categorisation of age and sex classes (Table 17) refers to general differences in morphological and behavioural forms in Sumatran orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus abelii) advised byrijksen s (1978)and additional characteristics of Tapanuli orangutans as reported by Nater et al. (2017). Compared to Sumatran orangutans, the Tapanuli orangutan tends to have hairs that more red in colour and louder voice on male orangutans. Table 17 Categorization of age class and sex of orangutan based on morphology and dominant behaviour No. Age Class Morphology Behaviour 1. Infant Weight between 2-6 kg. The baby orangutan has a bright coat around the eyes while the mouth and face have a dark colour. Have long hair around the face 2. Juvenile Age years weighing between 6-15 kg. Fur colour is similar to the baby orangutan 3. Adolescent Ages 5-8 years are weighing between kg. Teenage orangutans still have long feathers around their faces. Initially, the faces of teenage orangutans have bright colours but will then turn darker. It is very difficult to distinguish Baby orangutans are always carried by their mothers and depend entirely on their mothers to eat. The baby orangutan sleeps in a nest along with its mother Juvenile orangutan still depends on their mothers but have been able to find their food. The juvenile likes to play alone or together with other juvenile orangutans. Initially, a juvenile orangutan is still sleeping with his mother, but after that, it can build its own nest close to the mother's nest Orangutan sexual behaviour has begun to appear, likes to play with other teenage orangutans and has moved from one place to another in groups 29

51 No. Age Class Morphology Behaviour between male and female orangutans in an adolescent. 4. Sub-adult male Ages 8-13/15 years with a weight between kg. Orangutan's face colour is dark. The beard has begun to grow, and the hair around the face is no longer long 5. Adult female Age 8+ years with a weight between kg. Adult female orangutans already have beards, and it is very difficult to distinguish them from half-adult female orangutans 6. Adult male Age 13/15+ years with a weight between kg. The adult male orangutan has a very large body size, has cheek pads, neck pockets, beard and has long and dense fur In this age class, genitals are complete, sexually mature, and always avoid encounters with adult male orangutans Adult female orangutans are usually followed by their children Solitary life and often articulated long calls (Mackinnon, 1971) 7 Old > 35 years old. Hair has begun to thin The movement is getting slower. Lead a solitary life Monitoring of population using camera trap During the nest survey and other surveys (biodiversity potential), to maximise the chance of encounters with orangutans, the team installed camera traps in locations suspected to be orangutan crossing routes or at locations that were allegedly used by orangutans for activities (new faeces, urine or nest found). A total of 50 camera traps were installed for this purpose with effort accumulation of 500 trap days during the study. Figure 12 Map of the survey locations using camera traps 30

52 In surveys with camera traps, we divided the locations included in the area permit of PT. NSHE to a 4 km2 grid cell. The grid cell size was based on the daily range of Sumatran orangutans. Each camera trap is placed in a grid cell (Figure 12), mounted on the nearest tree, and directed to another tree which is thought to be the last tree where the orangutan carried out the activity the previous day. Installation of camera traps is carried out at a certain height based on the height at which traces of the last activity were detected when the survey took place. C. Result and Discussion The results and discussion are arranged in question sentences that are appropriate to the background of this study. There are two main questions in the study of threats to orangutans in the Batang Toru hydropower management site, namely (i) Is it true that the development of the Batang Toru hydropower reservoir and all its facilities have destroyed Tapanuli orangutan habitat, particularly in the areas of the management sites of PT. NSHE? (ii) Is it true that the Batang Toru hydropower development will disrupt the tapanuli orangutan population, especially in areas managed by PT. NSHE and generally at the location of the permit as a whole? The following is a discussion and answers to these questions. Is it true that the Batang Toru hydropower and various other facilities development destroyed the habitat of Tapanuli orangutan? In accordance with habitat terminology and restrictions in Act No. 5 of 1990, that threats to animal habitats are closely related to the ability of habitats to support the normal breeding of organisms that live in them, namely by providing all the needs of organisms, both related to the need for feed, shelter and breeding grounds. Furthermore, referring to the forest habitat as described in the Act of the Republic of Indonesia No. 41 of 1999 that a forest is an ecosystem unit in the form of a stretch of land containing biological natural resources that are dominated by trees in their natural environment, which cannot be separated from each other. The natural environment partnership in question includes reciprocal relationships between various components of the habitat both biotic and abiotic to create harmony between the sharing of these components and create life force for the various living things contained therein. Batang Toru Ecosystem is believed to be one of the habitats for various Sumatran endemic animals, both for various types of large mammals such as Tapanuli orangutans, gibbons, ungko, Sumatran tigers, bears, forest goats and various species of birds and herpetofauna As is known, the findings and identification of new primates, namely Tapanuli orangutan is an advancement in the world of science, especially for the taxonomic development of the primate world. However, the determination of this new type, causes a polemic for many parties who have an interest that seems to cross one another. Hydropower development in the Batang Toru Forest, which will be developed by PT. North Sumatra Hydro Energy (NSHE), is predicted to be the answer to the efforts of the local government and the private sector in meeting electricity supply needs that can drive the wheels of development for the people of North Sumatra in particular; but on the other hand, the development of hydropower is considered to be one of the threats that can destroy sustainability habitat of Tapanuli orangutan population. As the study conducted by the 31

53 Sustainable Ecosystem Foundation (YEL) in 2015, and given the fact that the results of the survey that have been conducted are the only one of many references in mapping and estimating the population density of orangutans at PT. NSHE, we found the latest fact that based on the results of ground checking, orangutans no longer use most locations that have been reported as nest finding in nesting activities (Table 18). However, it should be noted and become shared attention that the area that is part of the work site and location permit of PT. NSHE based on field observations still shows its function as part of Tapanuli orangutan habitat. Orangutans still use these areas in their activities. Although the number of new nests found is far less than the number of old nests, this indicates that the developments in several locations such as in Marancar and Sipirok, does not necessarily cause drastic changes in space use patterns by orangutans inhabiting the habitat (Figure 7). Point No. Table 18 Ground check of points of nest findings in the 2015 YEL survey Nest Findings Not Found Found Point No. Nest Findings Not Found Found Point No. Nest Findings Not Found Found Point No. 38 v 66 V 94 v 122 v 39 v 67 v 95 v 123 v Nest Findings Not Found Found 40 v 68 V 96 v 124 v 41 v 69 V 97 v 125 v 42 v 70 v 98 v 126 v 43 v 71 V 99 v 127 v 44 v 72 V 100 v 128 v 45 v 73 v 101 v 129 v 46 v 74 v 102 v 130 v 47 v 75 v 103 v 131 v 48 v 76 v 104 v 132 v 49 v 77 v 105 v 133 v 50 v 78 v 106 v 134 v 51 v 79 v 107 v 135 v 52 v 80 v 108 v 136 v 53 v 81 v 109 v 137 v 54 v 82 v 110 v 138 v 55 v 83 v 111 v 139 v 56 v 84 v 112 v 140 v 57 v 85 v 113 v 141 v 58 v 86 v 114 v 142 v 59 v 87 v 115 v 143 v 60 v 88 v 116 v 144 v 61 v 89 v 117 v 145 v 62 v 90 v 118 v 146 v 63 v 91 v 119 v 64 v 92 v 120 v 65 v 93 v 121 v 32

54 Percentage of Nest Class 52% 10% 7% 14% 17% Kelas Sarang A Kelas Sarang B Kelas Sarang C Kelas Sarang D Kelas Sarang E Figure 13 Nest findings resulted from ground check based on nest finding points survey by Yayasan Ekosistem Lestari (YEL) in 2015 Minimal landscape changes made by PT. NSHE are a positive action, which certainly will minimise habitat damage for Tapanuli orangutans, especially those living in the PT. NSHE. The dam design and the working method of the Batang Toru HPP will only use a land area of 67.7 hectares as water logging area, and 24 hectares of another land, which is in the river body. Minimal, but efficient and effective land use is the key to preserving the environment and ecosystems of Batang Toru. Integrating the two interests above, i.e. the fulfilment of the need for electricity for the community while maintaining the preservation of orangutans, is an absolute necessity for the effort to wisely and environmentally friendly use of nature. Is it true that the Batang Toru hydropower development will cause the extinction of the Tapanuli orangutan population? Density or number of wildlife populations at a certain time is a measure of whether or not an animal population survives in the future. Various studies carried out by relevant agencies, both under the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), universities and various other research institutions have been carried out and resulted in population size or density varying from one to another. Quite a lot of study has been carried out in the Batang Toru ecosystem, but the number of study in the management and location permits of PT. NSHE is still very limited. For example, in Sibual-Buali Strict Nature Reserve (SNR) which is located around the management site of PT. NSHE, it is known that the average density is 0.8 individuals/km 2 in the western part of the SNR and 0.3 individuals/km 2 in the Eastern part of the SNR. In other locations, that is within the area of Dolok Sipirok SNR; it is estimated that there are as many as 0.47 individuals/km 2 with an estimated population of individuals (Kuswanda, 2014). Furthermore, Perbatakusuma et al. (2006) revealed that the density of orangutans in each forest area in the western part of Batang Toru ranged from

55 to 1.2 individuals/km 2. Meanwhile, research by LIPI, Newmont Horas Nauli and Hartfield (2005) in Perbatakusuma et al. (2006) estimated that the population density of orangutans in natural forest areas at the location of the Martabe Prospect protected forest, and concession of PT. Nauli Bay in South Tapanuli ranges from individuals/km 2.Furthermore, Kuswanda (2006) stated that overall, the estimated orangutan population in the Batang Toru Forest was around 170 individuals. Allegations of orangutan density in the Batang Toru watershed were also stated by Simorangkir (2009) which stated that the highest density was estimated at individuals/km 2. Both of these research results are quite different from the results of studies conducted by the Sustainable Ecosystem Foundation and Walhi, which were presented in the "Proposing Change of Function into Protection of Batang Toru Watershed Forests in North Tapanuli District, South Tapanuli, and Central Tapanuli, North Sumatra Province". The latter explained that estimates of the size of the orangutan population for the Batang Toru West forest (740 individuals) and the Batang Toru Timur forest were 250 individuals. Using a value of 0.9 for the proportion of nest builders (Husson et al. 2009), a score of 1.7 for nests built per day (Husson et al. 2009), and a value of 175 days for nest decay rates (Kuswanda and Noor Ch, 2017), we calculated that the average density of orangutans was 0.22 ind/km 2 (95% CI: 0.17 to 0.27 ind/km 2 ). In other words, there were around 3-4 individuals, respectively in the East and West Batang Toru Watershed including in the 125 ha area of PT. NSHE. The calculation of the total population size of Tapanuli orangutan in the location permit of PT. NSHE has produced a number of 17 orangutans inhabiting this area. The highest density of orangutans is found along the corridor, east of the Batang Toru river 0.23 ind/km 2 (95% CI: 0.17 to 0.30 ind/km 2 ). Overall, orangutan densities in highland habitats of the Batang Toru Forest Complex (mean = 0.23 ind/km 2 ; Wich et al. 2011) are relatively low compared to other Sumatran orangutan populations (mean = 2.88 ind/km 2, range = ind/km 2 ; Husson et al. 2009). However, the calculated density value for the hydropower project area is in the range of standard density values for all Sumatran orangutans. In the western part of PT. NSHE, a lower density of orangutans is found (0.21 ind/km 2 ; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.26 ind/km 2 ). The low density of orangutans on this west sideis probably because most of the area has turned into plantation land, especially oil palm and rubber plants, which had been developed long before PT. NSHE begins to operate and build all its facilities. A direct encounter with orangutan occurred in Marancar and Sipirok areas, in which two individuals (1 adult male and one adult female) were found in Marancar, and three individuals (1 adult male, one adult female, and one juvenile) were found in Sipirok (Figure 8). Camera traps survey at the same locations could not capture any sign of orangutan. The direct encounter results are in line with the findings of Kuswanda and Noor Ch in This finding showed that the population number of orangutan along Batang Toru watershed area, in particular, the management site of PT. NSHE is very small. The small number of population in those various survey may indicate several matters: 1) that the area of management site and permit location of PT. NSHE is a habitat that can provide maximum needs of food, shelter, and reproduction space only for the small number of population, or in other words, the carrying capacity of the habitat has reached its maximum and can only carry 5-7 individuals of orangutan found in the 2017 and 2018 survey, 2) population decline occurred due to human activity, as uncovered by Kuswanda (2014) that the orangutan 34

56 migrated to other areas due to high frequency of human activities along Batang Toru or other causes, such as the fact that the forest stands in the Southern part of PT. NHSE area had changed into plantation even long before PT. NHSE started the development so that the area is currently cannot support the development of the orangutan population. Forest quality in South Tapanuli has decreased as much as 60-70% due to increasing forest function conversion to agricultural land, plantation, mine, and settlement (Kuswanda, 2014). However, currently, Tapanuli orangutans are endangered and become the attention of the international community that its conservation efforts must be continuously improved. Few forest clearing activities for orangutan habitat will certainly be a concern, because it will further isolate orangutan populations. Minimum construction and land clearing on PT. NSHE may help in conserving this species. (a) Adult male in Marancar (b) Adult female in Marancar D. Conclusion (c) Adult male and juvenile in Sipirok Figure 14 Orangutan individuals directly encountered in the survey Based on the very small estimated size of the orangutan population (only around 0.22 to 0.23 ind/km 2 ) found in the area of the Batang Toru HPP, a direct encounter with 5 orangutans during the field survey, and the result of a ground check on the activity traces of 35

57 orangutan (in which only 10.34% of the 148 nesting points in the 2015 YEL survey were found), the area of the Batang Toru hydropower development site was not the main habitat of the Tapanuli orangutan population. With an expansion of land clearing limited to 652 ha, the Batang Toru hydropower project will not significantly damage both orangutan habitat and other biological species diversity. 36

58 IS IT TRUE THAT BATANG TORU HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT CAUSES FLOODS AND DROUGHTS? A. Introduction The plan to develop Batang Toru HPP by PT. NSHE in North Sumatra, has raised various public issues concerning its development that must be scientifically justified. Hydrological issues related to hydropower power plant development include floods and droughts, thus hydrological studies are required to produce scientific justifications related to the future potential problems associated with the use of water from Batang Toru. Batang Toru is one of the largest rivers in South Tapanuli, with a length from upstream to downstream streches to ± 174 km. Some general characteristics of Batang Toru in the project area include: river slope between 45-60% with estimated river widths of m, slope of riverbed length 1.5% - 2.5%, river water velocity of m/sec and generally stable rock conditions (AMDAL, 2014). The Batang Toru HPP development plan was issued the Location Permit from the South Tapanuli Regent's Permit Number 503/1150/2012 regarding location permits for the construction of Batang Toru 1 HPP to PT Anugrah Alam Lestari Energi of Sipirok Subdistrict, South Tapanuli District and South Tapanuli Regent's Permit Number /2015/2012 concerning the amendment of South Tapanuli Regent's permit number 5003/8209/2011 dated November 2, 2011 concerning location permit for the development needs of the Aek Batang Toru III and V hydroelectric power plants to PT. North Sumatra Hydro Energy in Marancar, Sipirok and Batang Toru Sub-districts of South Tapanuli District, North Sumatra. Other permit include the South Tapanuli Regent's Permit Number: 503/5284/2013 dated July 23, 2013 concerning expansion of the location permit for Batang Toru HPP development on behalf of PT. North Sumatra Hydro Energy, a total area of 1000 ha in Sipirok Sub-district. In its development process, several issues and concerns have been put forward with regards to drought, sedimentation and flooding due to the damming of river flow for the operational needs of the Batang Toru HPP. These are believed to have impacts on the people's lifestyles, people's livelihoods as well as altering the ecosystems. Therefore, this study was conducted to study the impacts of the development of Batang Toru HPP related to hydrology, especially drought, sedimentation and flooding. B. Methodology This study is at the early stages of reviewing planning documents, and a brief review based on field observation. The documentations that are studied include: Feasibility Study of PT NSHE, EIA and SEIA. Field visit was conducted for orientation purpose only, without carrying out direct measurements, detailed data collection and survey. 37

59 Discharge (m3/sec) C. Results and Discussion Hydrological Analysis Batang Toru HPP is located in the Batang Toru catchment area in North and South Tapanuli Districts, on the Island of Sumatra. The main river in the Batang Toru watershed is the Batang Toru, which originates from Lintongnihuta (1,529 m asl) and channels to the Indonesian Ocean. The area of the Batang Toru watershed in the dam location is 319,300 ha, with a catchment area of 240,500 ha. The length of Batang Toru is around 173 km at the outlet with an average longitudinal slope of around 0.9%. As for the Batang Toru catchment area at the project site, the length of the river is almost 100 km with an average slope of around 21%. The slope of the riverbed averages to about 0.7%. Based on the field survey, it can be said that the land is generally dominated by several types of vegetation, forests, shrubs and plantation areas, as have been stated in SinoHydro (2017). The total area of the water catchment under the dam is 78,800 ha. Based on the 2014 EIA document, a 50 year period hydrological data were used (1960 to 2010), consisted of data on climate, rainfall, water level and discharge, even though some data were missing in certain years. To obtain discharge data in the planned intake dam of Batang Toru HPP, Water Estimation Post station or WLR (Water Lever Recorder) was used at Hapesong WLR station (277,300 ha) and Sipetang WLR Station (230,000 ha). In the revised document (Synohydro, 2017), discharge data that is considered able to represent the location of the Batang Toru HPP is Sipetang WLR (Figure 15). The location discharge data for WLR was recorded from , where the measurement took place on the Batang Toru bridge in Sipetang Source: Synohydro (2017) Figure 15 Monthly discharge distribution of Batang Toru in Sipetang 38

60 The average discharge of Batang Toru in Sipetang is 111 m 3 /sec with the highest monthly distribution in April, November and December, and the lowest discharge occurred in July. To better represent the discharge at the project site, calibration was carried out for the site using discharge data at Sipetang. The combined discharge data of Sipetang and Hapesong is considered to represent the project site with an average discharge of 115 m 3 /sec with distribution as shown in Figure 16: Source: Synohydro (2017) Figure 16 Discharge distribution of Batang Toru at project site To obtain continuous discharge data and information, it is necessary to analyze the frequency and calculate the mainstay discharge so that it can be statistically accountable (Nash, 1970). A complete distribution of the percentage of discharge events is presented in Table 19. Table 19 Discharge event possibilities of Batang Toru at the project site % Event Discharge (m 3 /sec) Source : Synohydro (2017) From the above data, the average discharge used in the planning of Batang Toru HPP is 115 m 3 /sec as the average annual discharge at the project site with 90% mainstay 39

61 discharge of 56 m 3 /sec. Based on the results of rain analysis, which is an input to the hydrological system of Batang Toru, it is known that the average annual rainfall is 2,326 mm/year. There are two peaks occurring in April (250.3 mm) and November (247.1 mm). Therefore, the total potential rainwater in the prospective Batang Toru dam with an area of 240,500 ha, is 5,594,030,000 m 3 /year. With an average discharge plan of 115 m 3 /sec or equivalent to 3,626,640,000 m 3 /year or 64.8% of the rainfall flow is changed into Batang Toru stream flow. The Batang Toru base flow is 40.1 m 3 /sec (Synohidro, 2017), thus the baseflow is equal to 1,264,594,000 m 3 /year. With such contribution of the baseflow, runoff, lateral flow and return flow amount to 2,362,0460,000 m 3 /year. Water of Batang Toru is classified as highly potential with a water yield of 15,079 m3/year/ha or equivalent to liter/sec/ha. Based on the 2014 EIA study carried out by the CV GLOBAL INTERSISTEM (AMDAL, 2014) it is known that the average annual discharge of Batang Toru is 106 m 3 /sec, with a minimum discharge of m 3 /sec and maximum discharge of 484 m 3 /sec. Therefore, Batang Toru can be used to generate electricity/energy using hydropower with a maximum capacity of 4 x 125 MW with a total water requirement of 4 x m 3 /sec. (AMDAL, 2014; Synhydro, 2017) The rainfall patterns for the past 20 years tend to increase, hence the average discharge in Sipetang is 107 m 3 /sec, with a minimum discharge of 98 m 3 /det and a maximum of 117 m 3 /sec. The average discharge of Batang Toru ranges from m 3 /sec and since 1990, it has never been below 110 m 3 /sec, with an average discharge of 115 m 3 /sec. Batang Toru HPP Operation Plan The water stored in the dam, will be regulated during the operation of the Batang Toru HPP, which is adjusted to the peak load time. It is estimated that peak load will occur for 6 hours daily while normal load for 18 hours. The weir serves to accommodate daily pondage, the normal water level is 427.5; low water level 425 and high water level 430. Therefore, the height of the drawdown (daily water level fluctuation in the weir) is 5 m (430 m m) which is done during peak hours for 6 hours. The pattern for of water regulation is as follows: each turbine with a capacity of 125 MW requires a discharge of m 3 /sec, so the water requirement to drive four turbines would be m 3 /sec. The four turbines operate together for only 6 hours, namely during peak hours. Furthermore, during the normal load of 18 hours, the operation of the turbines depends on the availability of water, i.e., when the availability of water is abundant, all four turbines can be operated. The discharge of Batang Toru will fluctuate in the dry season when it decreases and occur between the hours of 00:00 to 18:00 from a discharge of m 3 /s to m 3 /sec between the hours of Discharge from DAM-powerhouse segment of 2.5 m 3 /s and DAM-Powerhouse segment of 6.8 m 3 /sec (AMDAL, 2014), will result in the discharge of m 3 /sec at the outlet powerhouse as shown in Figure

62 Discharge (m3/sec) Powerhouse DAM Hilir HOUR Figure 17 Daily discharge fluctuation of Batang Toru HPP during drought season (July) The inundation area is estimated to occupy 67.7 ha with an effective reservoir of 3.89 million m 3. During the normal load of 18 hours ( WIB) the water discharge of Batang Toru decreases in the downstream. For every operated turbine, the discharge will increase to m 3 /sec. During the peak load of 6 hours ( WIB) where the four turbines operate, the water discharge will increase to m 3 /sec. Thus there will be an increase of > 80% from the average discharge of 115 m 3 /sec. This explanation counter the argument that Batang Toru HPP development will cause drought in the downstream area, because the dam is not completely shut, allowing the water to continue flowing downstream. The average July discharge at the project site is 88.8 m 3 /sec, and with the operation of 1 turbine with water discharge of m 3 /sec, there will be a discharge reduction of 36.91m 3 /sec or m 3 /18 hours. The water will be released to drive 2 turbines for 6 hours requiring a total of 2,241,648 m 3. The daily amount of water that reaches downstream will be the same, because the water will only be reserved temporarily. On the contrary, during rainy season when river discharge is excessive, water will pass the spillway and 4 turbines, hence the allegations that Batang Toru HPP development is associated with flooding is irrelevant. If the dam is fully filled with water of more than 3.89 million m 3, the water will pass through the spillway. Along the Batang Toru segment between the dam and power house about ± 12 km in length, the water is designed to continue flowing at 2.5 m3/sec. Throughout this segment, no rice fields were observed, hence there should be no problems concerning water supply for irrigation. In addition, there are other rivers and tributaries that flow into Batang Toru between the weir and the power house, namely: (1) Aek Sitandiang, (2) Aek Siholus, (3) Aek Napot-pot, (4) Aek Batang Guarna, (5) Aek Sirabun, (6) Aek Sialang, (7) Aek Binanga, (8) Aek Toras, and (9) Aek Ulu Hala Namenek. These rivers and tributaries will increase the water volume of Batang Toru between the dam and the power house. In the downstream areas of Batang Toru, the people in the District of Angkola Sangkunur (Bandar Tarutung, Simataniari, Aek Rambe, Kel. Rianiate Villages) and Batang Toru District (Bandar Hapinis, Muara Hutaraja, Terapung Jaya, Upu, Pardamean, Kel. 41

63 Hutaraja and Muara Ampolu villages) will be affected by the Batang Toru HPP. The river is the source of irrigation water for the rice fields. Likewise, the existence of Lake Siais in the downstream area needs to be assessed due to the open cover and discharge fluctuations of Batang Toru. In the rainy season, the community utilizes the benefit of flooding period as a means for seasonal fishing. Batang Toru is also used for transporting oil palm fruits downstream. The relatively flat condition of downstream area and the number of damaged irrigation channels (Figure 18) as well as sedimentation in the forms of river deltas, have caused the downstream area to be frequently flooded even prior to the development of Batang Toru HPP. Figure 18 Floodwall built by The Ministry of Public Works Figure 18 shows the walls that was built to withstand floods from the Batang Toru. These walls were at one time could not stand the strong current of the Batang Toru. Sedimentation and land cover are highly dependent, and the most important is the correlation between sedimentation and discharge. Based on the measurement, the sedimentation rate is equivalent to 1.26 million m 3 /year of suspended load and a total sedimentation of 1.7 million m 3 /year (Synohydro, 2017). The sedimentation originated from all watersheds and land covers in the upstream areas. D. Conclusions Issues related to drought in downstream areas are incorrect because the hydropower dam is not completely shut, thus the water is able to continue its flow downstream. Furthermore, sedimentation and floods are common/regularly occur in the study area even long prior to the development of Batang Toru HPP. 42

64 IS IT TRUE THAT BATANG TORU HPP WILL PRODUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS? A. Introduction Development of Batang Toru HPP is faced with the issue of GHG emitters, where it is allegedly claim to produce CH4 emissions that are larger than agricultural land and is a source of emission of more than 1 billion tons of GHG or 1.3 percent of the total annual global emissions. This issue needs to be clarified with a scientific approach that is based on credible data and methods. The global emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) are estimated at around 49 ± 4.5 Gt CO2eq/year (IPCC, 2014). The biggest contribution is CO2 gas (76%). Other GHG gases such as CH4, N2O and F contribute about 16%, 6% and 2% respectively. Economic sectors that are the sources of global emissions consist of those supplying electricity and heat (25%), industry (21%), transportation (14%), activities in buildings (6%), agriculture, forestry and land uses ( 24%) and other energy uses (10%). Based on the contribution of the type of gas and the economic sector, the largest source of CO2 emissions comes from the use of fossil fuels and industrial processes (65%). The contribution of CH4 to the global anthropogenic GHG emissions is 16%, and are derived from agricultural activities, waste management, energy use, and biomass burning (US-EPA, 2018). In addition to anthropogenic sources, CH4 emissions also originated from natural sources such as wetlands, open water bodies (rivers, lakes), sea geological processes (offshore and onshore), vegetation, termites, wildlife and others. The amount of CH 4 global emissions from all sources that are estimated using bottom-up approach is ± 736 million tons/year (Saunois et al., 2016). Contributing sources include wetlands (31%), production of fossil fuels and natural gas (13%), coal mines (7%), agriculture, livestock and waste (33%), biomass burning (5%) and other natural sources (11%) (Saunois et al., 2016; Fevre, 2017). The estimation of global CH 4 emissions from open water bodies such as rivers, lakes and reservoirs, is currently lack in certaintly. Kirschke et al. (2013) estimates the total global emissions from these sources amounted to ± 40 million tons/year, while Saunois et al. (2016) estimates around million tons/year and uses the median value of 122 million tons/ha as a reference value to calculate the global CH4 balance. In previous studies, the global emission value of CH4 from open water bodies varied from million tons/year as calculated by Smith and Lewis (1992) and 4-48 million tons/year based on measurements in sub-tropical and tropical regions (Bastviken et al., 2004). Each study uses different measurement and calculation methods, each of which is debatable. Therefore, Saunois et al. (2016) in their study of the global CH4 balance sheet, state that CH emissions from open water bodies still requires consideration and studies from various aspects to 43

65 reduce the scientific uncertainty, including its measurements in spatial and temporal scale and data updating of global open water body. Amid scientific uncertainty, the source of emissions from these open water bodies has become a concern in the calculation of global GHG emissions. This is in line with the increasing energy needs in developing countries and efforts to fulfil the supply from hydropower (HPP) sources. Mäkinen and Khan (2010) even mentioned that existing knowledge of the emissions of a hydropower reservoir, can contribute significantly to climate change, especially in tropical countries where much of the future dam construction is expected. Hydropower reservoir emission issues have also been recognized internationally by the Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board (CDM) (UNFCCC, 2006) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2006) Measurements of emissions from hydropower reservoirs vary according to time, space and methods used. Scientific studies on GHG hydropower emissions firstly published in 2000, and have since then, covered many studies on emissions from hydropower reservoirs. St Louis et al. (2000) estimates the global GHG emissions from reservoirs to be 2300 million tons of CO2e/year (CO2 and CH4) with a reservoir area of 1,500,000 km 2, while Barros et al. (2011) estimates the global CH4 emissions to be 288 million tons CO2e/year consisting of 48 million tons of CO2/year and 3 million tons of CH4/year with a reservoir area of 350,000 km 2. Both results show significant difference for the emission value per unit area, which is 192 tons CO2e/km 2 (St Louis et al., 2000) and 6571 tons CO2e/year/km 2 (Barros et al., 2011). Research conducted by MED India networking for Health (2007) gives a result of 104 million tons of CH4/year sourced from large dams in the world. The latest study of global emissions from hydropower reservoirs found the emissions to be 1.7 Pg CO2e/year or 1.7 Gt CO2e with a range of Pg CO2e/year) (Deemer et al, 2016). This value is equivalent to 3.5% of the global anthropogenic GHG emissions. These results still cause controversy and scientific debates. On a site scale, measurements of GHG emissions from HPP reservoirs also produce various results. Gruca-Rokosz et al. (2011) measurement obtain a figure of 0.26 to 6.14 g- CH4/m 2 /day for Nielisz Reservoir in Southeast Poland. Emma Hällqvist (2012), researching in three reservoirs in Brazil, find the emission value of each reservoir to be g- CH4/m 2 /day, g- CH4/m 2 /day and g- CH4/m 2 /day. Different values have also resulted from several studies (Le Yang et al., 2014). Deemer et al. (2016) summarizes the results from various studies and produce the emissions values of g- CH4/m 2 /day and g-co2/m 2 /day Different measurements were also reported in studies conducted in Indonesia. The CH 4 emissions of Jatiluhur reservoir range from 0.00 to 5.27 g/m 2 /day, while for Saguling reservoir is 0.00 to 8.17g/m 2 /day and Cirata reservoir to be g/m 2 /day (Sofia et al., 2013) Related to the above GHG emission values, the Batang Toru HPP development is faced with the issue of producing methane and contributing to one billion tons of GHG emissions or 1.3% of the total global value. The value of 1.3% of global GHG emissions is a very large number, which is around Gt CO2e. Referring to the results of the study by Deemer et al. (2016), Batang Toru HPP reservoir can be considered as the biggest contributor to GHG, which is around 19.4% of all reservoir emissions in the world. This accusation must be scientifically proven. Therefore, this study will assess the calculation of 44

66 GHG emissions for Batang Toru HPP reservoir and to make comparison with other GHG emission sources. Objectives 1) To calculate GHG emissions (CO2 and CH4) of the Batang Toru HPP dam construction. 2) To compare the value of GHG emissions generated by the Batang Toru HPP with other emission sources such as from agricultural land around the HPP. 3) To calculate the Batang Toru HPP net emissions based on the 510 MW of electrical energy to be produced and compare it with the sources of electrical energy derived from fossil fuels and natural gas. B. Methodology This study uses several methods comprising of literature review, spatial analysis, modelling and field survey. Literature Study The literature study is intended to: 1) Obtain GHG emission values at global level and site scale from various sectors and sources of emissions. 2) Determine a scientific and credible GHG emission calculation model. 3) Collect values and parameters used in GHG emissions calculation model from HPP reservoir, including the technical specifications of Batang Toru HPP reservoir. 4) Collect data and information that can be used to compare GHG emissions from other HPP reservoirs and other sectors/sources, such as agriculture. The above facts show that Batang Toru HPP dam is not categorized as a giant dam. Even for Indonesia, its size cannot be considered as a big dam. Therefore, the statement that Batang Toru HPP dam is a giant dam, is not valid and cannot be accounted for scientifically. This also indicates that it is unlikely that Batang Toru HPP dam will contribute to GHG emissions that amounts to 1.3% of the total global emissions. Spatial Analysis Spatial analysis in this study aims to collect data and parameters used in developing the GHG emissions calculation model of Batang Toru hydropower. The software used is ArcGIS 10.1 and SWAT (Soil Water Assessment Tools). Table 20 provides the spatial data and analysis applied in this study. Table 20 Data and maps uses in spatial analysis No Data and Map Notes 1 Landsat Images 8 OLI/TIRS August 2018 Land cover analysis ( 2 Indonesia Topography Map and land use map of scale 1:50000 (BIG, 2018) Determination of study area boundaries, land cover and land use analysis 45

67 No Data and Map Notes 3 DEM SRTM 30 meter (( Surface hydrology analysis to determine surface flow networks, water catchment boundaries and inundation areas 4 Site demographic data (BPS, 2017) Determine spatial distribution of the population 5 Map of dams and HPP development plan Parameterization of GHG emission calculation model G-Res Modelling G-res is a software model for calculating GHG emissions from hydroelectric dams in a landscape context. This device was introduced at the 2017 World Hydropower Congress in Addis Ababa by the International Hydropower Association (IHA) and UNESCO Chair in Global Environmental Change (Prairie et al., 2017). The principles of this calculation model are: The calculation of GHG is in the context of landscape (upstream catchment, reservoir area, downstream river) before the dam (Figure 19) The model has considered attributes related to the specific environmental conditions of the dams such as climate, geography, edaphic, land cover and hydrology. Hydrological functions such as time of water concentration in the dam, has been used as one of the parameters in calculating GHG emissions. Displacement of GHG emission locus, i.e., the emissions originating from other sources in the upstream water network of the dam and released into the atmosphere in the HPP dam. Net emissions have calculated the released nutrients and organic substances from human activities that occur in the upstream area or in the dam. Calculating indirect emissions sources related to transportation and construction of the dam infrastructures. The G-Res model, calculates CO 2 and CH 4 emissions based on carbon cycle processes and GHG that are released into the atmosphere from the HPP (Figure 19). The end result is the CO2e carbon balance in a hydroelectric dam. The parameters inputted to the model can be grouped into three parts, namely: 1) Parameters of the catchment area, which include (i) total catchment area, (ii) vegetation cover and land use, (iii) population, (iv) waste management of the catchment area, (v) discharge and river surface flow. 2) Dam parameters, which include (i) inundation area, (ii) inundation volume, (iii) depth of dam (iv) technical specifications for weir such as weir height and intake, (v) soil carbon, (vi) climate zone and climate data such as wind, radiation and temperature, (vii) vegetation cover and land use in the area to be inundated. 3) Construction parameters, to calculate indirect emissions from transportation activities and construction of the dam. This includes the consumption of fuels used during the 46

68 construction process. In this study, construction parameters are not counted as a source of emissions. Source: Prairie et al., (2017) Figure 19 GHG emissions scheme before decomposition and inundation Source: Prairie et al., (2017) Figure 20 Carbon cycle scheme of a dam after inundation The G-Res model application in this study will use two scenarios related to vegetation cover and land use within the inundation areas. The scenarios are as follow (i) inundation is carried out on existing land cover; and (ii) inundation is carried out after forest clearance. Field Survey Field survey was carried out to verify vegetation cover and land use. For each vegetation cover, biomass measurements are conducted using allometric approach. Biomass values generated from field measurements are then used to change the emission factor of each land cover in the G-Res model. In addition, this field survey was also conducted to ascertain the boundaries of the inundation area and the dam point. C. Results and Discussions 47

69 Results and discussion are arranged in questions that are appropriate to the background of this study. There are three main questions to be answered: (i) Is Batang Toru HPP categorize as a giant dam, hence will contribute greatly to climate change?; (ii) Will Batang Toru HPP generate GHG emissions of one billion tons or 1.3% of the total global emissions?; and (iii) Is it true that Batang Toru HPP will produce higher CH4 emissions than the agricultural sector? The followings are the discussion and answers to these questions. Is Batang Toru HPP a giant dam? Dams, according to the Government Regulation no. 37 of 2010 are "buildings in the form of earthworks, stone, concrete, and/or stone pairs built in addition to holding and storing water, can also be built to hold and accommodate mine waste (tailings), or collect mud so that a reservoir is formed. Under the same regulation, a reservoir is defined as an "artificial container formed as a result of the construction of a dam". The scope of this government regulation is to regulate (i) dams with a height of 15 m or more, measured from the deepest foundation; (ii) a dam with a height of m which has a peak weir length of at least 500 m, a capacity of 500,000 m 3 and a maximum flood discharge of at least 1000 m 3 /second; or (iii) dams that have special difficulties on foundations or dams designed using new technology and/or which have a high hazard class. Batang Toru hydroelectric dam falls under the scope of this regulation. Such regulation does not define a giant dam. 1 The definition of a giant dam until now has not been defined. Available definitions are for large dams. The International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) defines a large dam as a dam with a height of 15 metres or greater from lowest foundation to crest or a dam between 5 metres and 15 metres impounding more than 3 million cubic metres. Based on that definition, ICOLD has registered 33,000 large dams around the world in the World Register of Dams database. ICOLD does not define a giant dam. Based on the ICOLD definition, Batang Toru dam is classified as a large dam, having a height of 72.5 meters from the lowest foundation (AMDAL PLTA Batang Toru, 2014; Synohydro, 2017) The term giant dam was put forward by the International organization based in the USA. This organization records as many as 57,000 large dams worldwide with heights of more than 15 m. The country with the largest dams is China with 23,000 dams, followed by USA with 9,200 dams, India, Japan and Brazil. Among the largest dams, there are around 300 giant dams, having heights of more than 150 m. Measures such as capacity volume and inundation area are also suggested as parameters to assess giant dams (International, 2018). Literature reviews and data on dams based on dimensions (weir height, volume and area of inundation) in this study, have resulted in 186 dams with heights of more than 150 meters, 80 dams with inundation areas of more than 515 km 2 and 48 dams with a volume of more than 12,500 million m 3 (Attachment 1, 2 and 3). The highest dam in the world is Jinping-I Dam (305 m) on the Yalong-China (Chinese Committee on Large Dams. 2011). The widest inundated dam is Owen Falls Dam/Lake Victoria (66,400 km2) in the White Nile -Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda (Shalash, 1980), while dam with the largest volume of water is Lake Kariba Dam (180.6 billion m3) on the Zambezi-Zambia and Zimbawe s (Avakyan and Ovchinnikova, 1971). No dams in Indonesia are included in such lists (Tables 21 and 22). 48

70 Table 21Tallest dams in Indonesia Bendung Name of Peak Volume No Location Height(m Dam Length (million ) (m) m 3 ) 1 Cirata Purwakarta, West Java Citarum Wadas Kebumen, Central Lintang Java Badagelan Batu Tegi Talang Padang, Lampung Way Sekampung Mrica Banjarnegara, Central Java Serayu Jatigede Sumedang, West Java Cimanuk Jatiluhur Purwakarta, West Java Citarum Wonorejo Tulungagung, East Java Gondang-Brantas Saguling Bandung, West Java Citarum Balambano Karabe, South Sulawesi Larona Karangkates Malang, East Java Brantas Karabbe Soroako, South Sulawesi Larona Table 22 List of dams in Indonesia with the largest inundation area and water volume No Volume of Name of Inundation HPP Location Reserved Water Dam Area (ha) (millions m 3 (MW) ) 1 Riam Kanan Banjarbaru, South Riam Kalimantan kanan Jatiluhur Purwakarta, West Java Citarum Cirata Purwakarta, West Java Citarum Saguling Bandung, East Java Citarum Kedungombo Boyolali, Central Uter dan Java Serang Jatigede Sumedang, West Java Cimanuk Batu Tegi Talang Padang, Way Lampung Sekampung Bili bili Makasar, South Sulawesi Jenebarang Karangkates Malang, East Java Brantas Wadas Kebumen, Central Lintang Java Badagelan Mrica Banjarnegara, Central Java Serayu The highest dam in Indonesia is Cirata (125 meters) located in Purwakarta, West Java, which dammed the Citarum. Dam with the widest inundation area is Riam Kanan 49

71 (9,200 ha) in Banjarbaru-South Kalimantan, while dam with the biggest water volume is Jatiluhur Dam in Purwakarta-West Java (KNIBB, 2017). These data show that Batang Toru dam is not classified under the category of highest, largest and biggest dams in Indonesia. The height of the Batang Toru dam is 72.5 meters, with an inundation area of 90 ha and water storage volume of 3.89 million m 3 (AMDAL PLTA Batang Toru, 2014; Synohydro, 2017) The facts above show that Batang Toru hydroelectric dam is not a giant dam. Even for Indonesian size, it is not the biggest dam. Therefore, the statement that Batang Toru HPP is a giant dam is false and cannot be accounted for scientifically. This also suggests that it is unlikely that Batang Toru HPP will contribute to 1.3% of the global GHG emissions. Is it true that Batang Toru HPP will produce GHG emissions totalling to as 1 billion tons or equivalent to 1.3% of the global emissions? Results of GHG net emissions calculation for Batang Toru hydroelectric dam using the G-Res model in scenario-1 is 349 tons CO2e/year, while for scenario-2 is 267 tons CO2e/year (Attachment 5). These results are very small, compared to the global emissions value, as well as to Indonesia's national emissions value. GHG emission at global level is 49 Gt/year, while Indonesia national GHG emission is 1.79 Gt/year (Indonesia Second National Communication, 2010). The contribution of Batang Toru HPP to global emissions is only % (scenario-1) and % (scenario-2), while its contribution to national GHG emissions is 0.019% (scenario-1) and 0.015% (scenario-2). The input parameters used in the G-Res model are catchment area and dam parameters (Attachment 4). The GHG emissions value of Batang Toru hydroelectric dam area are not only sourced from inundated areas, but also from wastes originated from upstream anthropogenic activities. The sources of anthropogenic emissions from upstream are calculated based on parameters of land use and waste per capita in dam catchment area. This source of emissions is an integral part in net emissions calculation for dams. In scenario-1, the amount of net emissions originated from CO2 emissions of 302 tons/year and CH4 of 47 tons CO2e/year or 1.88 tons/year, while in scenario-2, is 221 tons CO2/year and 1.88 tons CH4/year. The values indicate that the two scenarios are only differ in CO2 emissions. This is an indicator that forest clearance prior to inundation, can reduce CO2 emissions, but does not change the balance of CH4 emissions. This is because anthropogenic CH 4 emissions from upstream part of the dam provides greater value than emissions from the dam, which is around 87%. CH4 emissions from dam consist of bubbling, diffusive and degassing processes. Diffusive CH4 fraction is 30.4%, degassing 64.1% and bubbling 6.5%. The average CH4 emissions are 0.02 g/ m 2 /day, which falls in the range of measurement as compiled by Deemer et al. (2016) and measurements conducted in Indonesia by Sofia et al. (2013). The biggest CH4 emissions come from the degassing process due to the release of CH4 from dam outlet after passing through the turbine. Is it true that Batang Toru HPP produce CH4 emissions greater than agriculture? The CH4 emissions from agriculture across Indonesia in 2005 were 50,670 Gg CO2e/year or equivalent to Gg CH4. The contribution of paddy rice was 1,649 Gg 50

72 CH 4 (Indonesia Second National Communication, 2010). According to the Environmental Agricultural Pollution Study (Lolingtan), Jakenan in Fahmudin et al. (2004), the CH4 emissions varied between kg CH4/ha/season. If one season is assumed to consists of 100 days, then the average CH4 emission of paddy fields ranges from to 0.798g/m2/day. This value is greater than the output of the G-Res model which produces 0.02g/m2/day of CH4 emissions for the dam. The area of rice fields in Batang Toru HPP catchment area is 30,123.2 ha. If this area is used for one seasonal planting in a year, it will produce CH4 emissions ranging from 3233 to tons CH4/year. This value is greater than CH4 emissions from Batang Toru HPP which is only 1.88 tons/year. Thus the claim that Batang Toru HPP will produce CH4 emissions greater than agriculture is incorrect. Can Batang Toru HPP reduce CO2e emission and what is the value? Batang Toru HPP generates 510 MW of electricity. The operational scenario of this hydropower is at peak load and is estimated to last for 8 hours/day. Based on the results of the G-Res model, the operation of the hydropower will produce CO2e emissions of around tons CO2e/year, which is much smaller if compared to other power plants that use fossil fuels (Table 23). The operation of Batang Toru HPP can reduce CO2e as much as million tons of CO2e/year. Table 23 CO2e emissions of coal, natural gas, High Speed Diesel (HSD) and Marine Fuel Oil (MFO) to produce the same amount of electricity and duration as Batang Toru HPP No Source of Energy Emission Factor (kg Emission(million tonns CO2e/kwh) CO2e/year) 1 Coal 0,940 1,340 1,39 1,99 2 Natural gas 0,678 1,01 3 HSD (Solar) 1,053 1,57 4 MFO (Oil) 0,876 1,30 D. Conclusions 1. Referring to the criteria provided by the International organization based in the USA, Batang Toru HPP dam is not in the category of "giant dams" (the height is only 72.5 meters with an inundation area of 90 ha and water storage volume of 3.89 million m 3 ). 2. The results of the GHG net emissions calculation for Batang Toru HPP dam using the G-Res model in scenario-1 produces a value of 349 tons CO2e/year, while for scenario- 2 is 267 tons CO2e/year. The contribution of Batang Toru Hydropower emissions to global emissions is only % (scenario-1) and % (scenario-2), while its contribution to the national GHG emissions is 0.019% (scenario-1) and 0.015% (scenario-2). Thus the allegation that Batang Toru HPP will produce CH4 emissions greater than agricultural land is false. 51

73 52

74 IS IT TRUE THAT BATANG TORU HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT WILL DESTROY THE LOCAL LIVELIHOODS? A. Introduction Water and electricity are two important resources in supporting economic growth and improving human living standards (Snoussi et al. 2007; Yuksel 2009). National investment in renewable energy development is expected to be able to supply electricity for regional development and regional investment, including in North Sumatra Province. Currently, renewable and clean electricity are the choices for the development of sustainable energy and are important in mitigating environmental pollution. According to the Ministerial Decree 5899 of 2016 concerning the Ratification of the PLN RUPTL, the considerable potential energy sources available in North Sumatra are hydropower and geothermal energy because this province does not have coal potential. On the other hand, natural gas/geothermal sources have experienced a decline while several rivers in North Sumatra Province have the potentials to be developed into power plants. In connection to this, the construction of Batang Toru Hydroelectric Power Plant with a capacity of 510 Megawatts in South Tapanuli Regency, North Sumatra is expected to spur realization of investments throughout Sumatra. The Batang Toru HPP is part of the 35,000MW National Strategic Project to encourage equitable development and economic growth outside Java. This project uses renewable energy. Hydropower projects, as well as any other project, can have a variety of impacts on the surrounding communities living close to the project site, both positive and negative. Positive impacts on socio-economic conditions include the provision of employment, welfare and market accessibility (Koch 2002). Negative impacts that are often raised are related to the loss of vegetation, changes in river flow, loss of wildlife habitat, health and displacement of local communities (Sharma and Rana 2014) although most studies on the impacts of hydropower projects on socio-economic conditions often focus on the problem of impoverishment of landowners (economic displacement) (Isaacman 2005; Tefera and Sterk 2008; Brown and Xu 2010) with adverse consequences for the livelihoods of the affected communities (Trussart et al. 2002; Isaacman 2005). These negative impacts are the subject of strong opposition from various environmental organizations. In the same line, development of Batang Toru HPP is also inseparable from the allegations above. This hydropower is considered by some community groups to be detrimental to the socio-economic conditions of the local community, considering that their livelihoods are still largely dependent on nature, i.e., on agriculture, plantations and fisheries. Some concerns include the loss of community livelihoods because their land will be cleared, flooded and even will cause drought when the hydropower is in the operation state. These accusations need to be verified, because PT. NSHE claims to use environmentally friendly technology, known as the Run off Hydropower or currently 53

75 called the Daily Pondage. In general, hydropower operates by building dams that block the flow of water to create a reservoir with a capacity to store water, but on daily pondage, in simple terms, the working principle is to utilize river water flow without the need to build dams with large inundation areas. Development of Batang Toru HPP involves the construction of a dam withouth having to large inundated areas and did not cover arable land or settlements, since the river valleys were steep and narrow, hence, thelocal community will not loose their agricultural land and will not be displaced. Its operation is based on daily system and operated only duringpeak electricity demands. Therefore, the puidrose of this field verification is to identify and analyze community perceptions of the impacts of Batang Toru HPP development on the households socio-economic conditions and the environment (related to orangutans). B. Methodology Site Selection Impact of the hydropower development is always associated with space, covering upstream areas, hydropower site and downstream areas. Administratively, the upstream region of the Batang Toru is located in Sipirok Sub-district, downstream in Batang Toru Sub-district, but in the watershed boundary, the downstream is located in Angkola Sangkunur District. Location of the study sites are as follows: 1. SipirokSub-district Aek Batang PayaVillage comprised of three hamlets, i.e, Paske, Dano Lombang and Gunung Hasahatan (Pargodungan is more common amog the communities). Other than located upstream, this village is the village closest to the location of orangutans nest findings; 2. MarancarSub-district Marancar Godang Villageis the main entrance of the project; 3. Angkola SangkunurSub-district Bandar Tarutung Village islocated downstreamwhere the community is still dependent on fisheries. Data Collection Method Respondents Characteristics and Their Perceptions Exploration of the community perceptions of the impacts of Batang Toru HPP development and household economic conditions uses a qualitative social approach, because it offers the flexibility to explore and understand problems as a whole from the perspective of the affected individuals. In addition, this approach is also a comparison with the results obtained through the Social and Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA) activities that have been carried out in advance using Focus Group Discussion (FGD) method (PT.NSHE and IPB 2018) in each village that were visited. In this study, for each study village, 30 respondents were interviewed. Individual interviews (Figure 21) represent individual, household and livelihood characteristics (Table 24). Due to time constraints, accidental sampling technique was used to select and interview respondents. This technique takes the respondent as a sample based 54

76 on chance, i.e, anyone who accidentally meets the researcher and meets the criteria as a respondent. Interviews were prepared using Likert Scale statements. Community perceptions on the impacts of Batang Toru HPP development refer to the statements in Table 25. Given that some accusations state that this area has enjoyed a surplus in electricity, data collection is conducted to explore the households perceptionson electricity needs (Table 26) Figure 21 Interview with respondent in Aek Batang Paya Village Table 24 Respondents characteristics Characteristics Individual caracteristic 1. Age (Yrs) Origin Local Migrants 3. Gender Men Women 4. Marital Status Not married Married Widow 5. Formal Education No formal education Elementary Junior high High school University 6. Reason of living in the area Local Socal Economy Household characteristics & livelihoods 7. Family size (individuals)

77 Characteristics 8. Total area of private agricultural land(ha) No land Years of living in the area Agricultural activities Species planted: Water source for agriculture 11. Monthly main income (IDR) Monthly supporting income (IDR) Status of agriculture land (ricefield/dryfield) Customary State Privately owned 14. Distribution pattern of agricultural land Grouped Scattered 15. Time spent working the land Full time Part waktu (main) Part time (supporting) 16. Distance from home to agricultural land Near (< 1 km) Moderate (1-2 km) far (> 2 km) 17. Labours Member of main family Member of other family Non-family 18. Agricultural inputs Chemical Organic 19. Orientation of household economy Subsistence Subsistence + market Market 20. Source of information on batang Toru HPP Company (PT. NHE) Friend/neighbour Local government Other organization 21. Housing conditions Permanent Semi-permanent Non-permanent 56

78 22. Source of household electricity PLN Batang Toru Others Characteristics Additional information: 1. Perceived benefits received from Batang Toru HPP: a.... b.... c Perceived damage/loss due to Batang Toru HPP: a.... b.... c.... Table 25 Perceptions of local communities on the impacts of Batang Toru HPP development No. Statements Economy 1 Increases household income Compensate the community land 2 used Will not reduce agricultural 3 productivity Can meet water requirements for 4 agricultural activities Increases the development of 5 village infrastructure Does not interfere with family's 6 daily water needs Social 1 Cause immigration Enhances social relations among 2 the community I have received compensation for my land which was released for 3 the construction of Batang Toru HPP 4 Creates jobs 5 Reduce unemployment rate 6 Helps local empowerment Does not result in conflict with 7 the community The community supports the 8 existence of Batang Toru HPP Environment Its construction does not damage 1 the environment 2 Does not cause flooding Will not disturb agricultural 3 activities 4 Helps maintain river water quality 5 Does not pollute the river Likert Scale Stringly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly disagree agree Don t know Notes 57

79 No. Statements Helps maintain the quality and 6 volume of groundwater Does not cause agricultural land 7 to become dry 8 Can be use as habitats for wildlife 9 Do not disturb the wildlife 1 Does not require forest clearance 0 Likert Scale Don t Stringly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly know disagree agree Notes Table 26 Local perceptions on household electricity Village Studied (%) Statement Aek Batang Paya Marancar Podung Bandar Tarutung Source of household electricity Does not use electricity PLN Batang Toru Intensity of power cuts Daily Weekly Monthly Expenses for electricity (IDR) per month 0-20,000 21,000-40,000 41,000-60,000 > 61,000 Species recognition In addition, the existence of Tapanuli orangutan species, is used as the fundamental reason for various parties to halt the construction of this hydropower plant, Meijaard et al. (2011) state that to understand species populations that have not been widely revealed but easily recognized by local people, interview-based surveys is a cost effective method, that should provide an estimate of the relative presence and encounters with the species. Therefore, to determine the community's perception of orangutans, Table 27 was used. Data on the perceptions of orangutans was collectedonly in the Village of Aek Batang Paya because it is the closest village to the point of orangutan discovery based on the findings from previous research. Secondary data was also gathered from documents originating from the government and private sectors, including PT. NSHE, the company developing the Batang Toru hydropower plant. Tapanuli orangutan is a species that is currently feared to undergo population decline due to the development of Batang Toru HPP. Some allegations even state further, that the Tapanuli orangutans could go extinct if the hydropower development continues. In relation to this, to support the statements given by the community in Table 25 above, species recognition method is also used by showing photos of orangutan species in Indonesia (Figure 27), to ascertain whether the community can recognize the Tapanuli orangutan, and 58

80 identify the variables that made the great ape recognizable. This will provide additional information about the frequency of their encounters with this species. Table 27 Local perception on orangutans population and habitats No. Perception Percentage (%) 1 Sightings of orangutans Yes Never 2 Form of encounter Direct Indirect 3 Location of sightings of orangutans Never Garden/dryland Settlement/village 4 Number of orangutan Decreases Increases Don t know 5 Disturbance by orangutan Cause disturbance No disturbance 6 Opinions if orangutan population decrease Not happy Happy Don t care 7 Orangutan hunting Don t know Hunting is still observed No hunting 8 Benefits of orangutan Beneficial None 9 Land clearance by the local communities Yes No 10 Presence of forbidden forest/customary forest Don t know Yes None 11 Species that are mostly disturbed by orangutan Don t know Durian Stinky bean Chocolate Palm sugar Rubber 12 Availability of information board on orangutan Available Not available 59

81 No. Perception Percentage (%) 13 Information dissemination on orangutan Informed Not informed 14 Knowledge on orangutan conservation status Know that orangutans are protected species Don t know Data Analysis Method Local People Perceptions The community perceptions consist of perceptions of the economic, social and environmental impacts of the Batang Toru HPP development, anddescriptively analyzed using basic statistical processing techniques, in the form of frequency values presented in percentages (%). Data on perceptionsare grouped based on the score of each response. Scoring to assess the statements, follows Likert Scale guidelines from 0 to 5 (0: don't know, 1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: neutral, 4: agree, 5: strongly agree). Categorization is based on the total score obtained from the respondents for each aspects. Scores from each aspect are categorized based on the response value intervals as shown in Table 28 below. Table 28 Level of perception based on respondents response No Interval nilai tanggapan Tingkat persepsi Agree 2 3 Neutral Disagree 4 0 Don t know Economic Conditions of Households The economic significance of the cultivated lands wasapproached using two variables, i.e., share of income from agriculture and total income (equation 1) and covering of income on household s expenses (equation 2). Covering is the contribution of income in meeting household needs (Fadilah 2016) S = πs πt X 100%...(1) Where: S = Shareof agricultural income on the total income πs= Household income from agriculture (IDR/month) πt= Total household income (IDR/month) I = πs B X 100%...(2) Where: I = Coveringof households expenses (%) πs= Househols income from agriculture (IDR/month) 60

82 B = Total household expenses (IDR/month) The percentage of share and covering of household income on the total income and household expenditures,; follows the category by Sundari et al. (2012), namely: Very low, if the percentage of share and covering is <25%; Low, if the percentage of share and covering is 25% - 49%; High, if the percentage of share and covering is 50% - 75%; and Very High, if the percentage of share and covering> 75%. C. Results and Discussion Respondents characteristics The immediate environment is a determinant of the welfare of rural households, although little is known about the perceptions of community living in a place that is experiencing an ongoing development or will be developed (Hunter et al. 2010). Furthermore, there have been few studies comparing local community perceptions of natural resource management and identifying the factors that shape these perceptions (Mngumi et al. 2013). Frequently, various opinions regarding the impacts of a development on the social, economic and environmental conditions of a region are raised by environmental organizations,whereas the perceptions of the local communities themselves do not received much attention as they should (Guthiga 2008). Sari's research (2017) find that perceptions of environmental impacts are influenced by the length of time a person has lived in an area; the perceptions of social impacts is influenced by ethnic cultural backgrounds; while perceptions of economic impacts are not influenced by any individual characteristics. Communities in the three study villages are locals and migrants. Although migrants, most of them have lived in the area for more than 11 years as shown in the data given below in Table 29. Table 29 Respondents characteristics in the three study sites Characteristics Village studied (%) Aek Batang Paya Marancar Godang Bantar Tarutung Individual characteristic Gender Man Woman Age (Yrs) Origin Local Migrants Reason of living in the area Economic Socal Locals Formal Education No formal education Elementary Junior high

83 Characteristics Village studied (%) Aek Batang Paya Marancar Godang Bantar Tarutung High school University Marital Status Not married Married Widow Household characteristics & livelihood Family size (individuals) Years of living in the area Agricultural land (ha) Don t have ha ha ha > 10 ha Main occupation Farmer Staff in the project Traders Fishermen Others Supporting occupation None Farmer Staff in the project Traders Fishermen Others Monthly main income (IDR) 2,000, ,000,000-5,000, ,000, Monthly supporting income (IDR) Tidak ada ,000, ,000,000-5,000, ,000, Total expenses 2,000, ,000,000-5,000, ,000, Status of agriculture land (ricefield/dryfield) No worked land Customary State Privately owned Rented Distribution pattern of agricultural land Groups

84 Characteristics Village studied (%) Aek Batang Paya Marancar Godang Bantar Tarutung Scattered Time spent working the land Full time Part time (main) Part time (supporting) Distance from home to agricultural land Near (< 1 km) Moderate (1-2 km) Far ( 2 km) Labours Member of main family Member of other family Non-family Agricultural inputs Chemical Organic Orientation of household economy Subsistence Subsistence + market Market Housing conditions Permanent Semi-permanent Non-permanent Source of information on batang Toru HPP Company (PT. NHE) Friend/neighbour Local government Other organization Composition of the community in the three studied villages varied. Local people dominatesthe Aek Batang Paya Village (86.67%), migrants in Marancar Godang Village (76.67%) and the same composition of migrants and locals (50% each) in Bantar Tarutung Village. Generally, the educational backgrounds of the migrants were higher as found in Marancar Godang Village, which has the highest number of secondary school graduates. The three study villages have a high to very high dependencies on the surrounding agricultural lands, indicating the communities livelihoodsare very much dependent on nature, be it agriculture, plantations or fisheries. Verification of Accusation 1 - The construction and development of Batang Toru HPP will result in the livelihoodsloss of 100 thousand people because the construction will damage the surrounding ecosystem which are the major sources of livelihoods for the local communities "Livelihoods and daily life will disappear slowly and threatened" "Many people still depend on the life and daily needs of the Batang Toru for plantations and agriculture" "In Batang Paya Village, there are agricultural land which have been passed down by generations and worked by the local people" 63

85 "In the downstream area, there are 1200 hectares of productive agricultural land owned by the community that are threatened by the construction of the Batang Toru HPP" "Construction of a dam will cause irregular river flowson the upstream and downstream areas, thus will affect the life of the community and cause the river to become dry" "If the hydropower is built, the water needs of the surrounding community will be disrupted"; "Imagine there is a dam above. Suppose the water is drawn up to 12 m for power requirements, meaning that the level of river water will be reduced, thus the community can no longer use the river since there is time when the water dry up "The arrival of PT NSHE does not benefit the community, but is detrimental because it will eliminate the livelihoods of people who depended on agricultural lands The dam will radically alter the nature of downstream water courses, significantly impacting the local people. It will produce electricity during periods of peak demand, typically between 6pm and midnight. During the day, the river will be blocked and the reservoir above the dam will gradually fill up, to be released later through the tunnel and turbines to generate electricity. Downstream communities, which normally experience drought and flood cycles a few times a year, will now have to learn to cope with them on a daily basis Various accusations were directed at the Batang Toru HPP development as indicated by the statements above. These statements imply that if the hydropower project is to continue, the surrounding agricultural lands, which are the sources of livelihoods for the local people will be sacrificed. There is the opinion that these lands will be cleared for the hydropower construction and development needs. This in return will requirethe lands to be flooded and at certain period will experience drought, hence reducing the agricultural productivity drastically. Referring to the negative ecological allegations made by various parties that Batang Toru HPP development will open primary forests, the above argumentsactually show the inconsistencies of the accusations. On one hand, the environmental activistsclaim that the forest around Batang Toru is still a primary forest, but in the above social arguments, concerns were expressed that community lands would be sacrificed. As has been explained in the previous chapter,primary forest does not show signs of human interference/activities, thus it is clear that the area are definitely not a primary forest. To provide scientific explanation for the verification, the accusations above can be divided into 3 (three) main issues, namely clearing of agricultural lands, floods and drought, as well as surplus in electricity. Table 29 indicates that the majority of the people in the three villages depend their livelihoods on agriculture, which formed the most composition of the respondents interviewed. This result is also confirmed by data in Tables 31 and 32, which show that the role of agriculture, plantation and fisheries in meeting household needs are categorized as high and very high. Agriculture and hydropower development are the two main sources of livelihoods among the villagers in the three study villages. Table 29 shows that these two professions are not only form the backbone of the household economic conditions, but also as sources of secondary livelihoods in supporting the economic condition of the households. The high number of farmers/planters in Aek Batang Paya and Marancar Godang Villages where farming as secondary jobs, also indicates that the land around the community settlement is the only source of livelihood, while specifically in 64

86 Batang Tarutung Village, fisheries play a more important role, since as many as 26.67% of the people rely on being fishermen to earn some extra cash. Table 30 Share of income from agriculture, plantations and fishery on the total income and total expenditure No Village Share toward Average Average total households income Income income (%) Category 1 Aek Batang IDR 1,703,333 IDR 2,654, High Paya 2 Marancar IDR 1,278,333 IDR 2,885, Low Godang 3 Bantar Tarutung IDR 2,515,000 IDR 3,391, High Table 31 Covering of income from agriculture, plantations and fishery on the total households expenses No Village Average of Covering towards Average total households expenditure expenditures expenditures (%) Category 1 Aek Batang IDR 1,703,333 IDR1,890, Very high Paya 2 Marancar IDR1,278,333 IDR 2,076, High Godang 3 Bantar Tarutung IDR 2,515,000 IDR 2,153, Very high RegardingTable 30, it can be said that the livelihoods of the local people are categorized as economicallysufficientbecause the total values ofthe main and side incomes far exceeded their expenditures. The South Tapanuli Regency Minimum Wage (UMK) is IDR 2,476, while the income from the main occupation of the villagers is dominated by a nominal of IDR 2-5 million,in addition a side job up to IDR 2 millionthat can improve family incomes, while the households expenditures across the three villages are dominated by a nominal of IDR 2 million, especially in Aek Batang Paya Village. Table 29 also indicates that the local villagers of Aek Batang Paya Village (26.67%) and Marancar Godang Village (33.33%) participate as well in the development activities of Batang Toru HPP. Similar results were also observedas stated in the Environmental Management Plan/Monitoring Plan documents and implementation reports (PT. NSHE 2018) Unlike the two villages, a great percentage of the community in Bantar Tarutung Village (23.33%) are fishermen (Figure 22a). The people of Bantar Tarutung Village in downstream area do not have any knowledge of the existence of Batang Toru HPP. They know of the information from the surveyor during the interviews. This could indicate that the current state of the projectdevelopment has not affected the people in the downstream area. Supposedly, when people fish daily in the river, will quicklyrealized if the aquatic environment where they look for fish, has changed through decreasing fishery productivity. Communities in this village also partially do mine sands as side jobs (Figure 22b). 65

87 (a) (b) Figure 22 Livelihoods in Bantar Tarutung Village: (a) fishery and (b) sand mining In general, the communities cultivated land is individually owned and dispersed. As much as 75% of the community of Batang Paya Village and 60% of Marancar Godang Villagershave an average area of cultivated land per family of less than 2 ha, while 68% ofbantar Tarutung Villagersowne lands between 2-5 ha. These arable lands are also located less than 2 km from their houses. Especially for those whose livelihoods are mainly from agriculture, Table 29indicate that the locations of their landsare relatively close, that is less than 1 km from their homes. The cultivated lands are also located adjacent to the river, but the tributary of Batang Toru (Figure 22) and not the main body. The main construction sites are mainly took place around the main body of the Batang Toru, which is predominantly dominated by steep and narrow lands on both sides of the river body. Considering the technology used in the development of Batang Toru HPP that involves only a very small area that required land clearing and located on the left and right of the main body of Batang Toru, it is certain that the community lands/fields will not be affected by the land clearing. Bearing in mindthat the average land cultivated by the community is less than 2 km from their homes, it can be concluded that the community's cultivated land will not be opened and still workable. Thus the claim that the development of Batang Toru hydropower will sacrifice the arable land belong to the community is proven false. Figure 23 Tributary of Batang Paya flowing over the three hamlets of Aek Batang Paya Village 66

88 Pernyataan The construction of Batang Toru HPPin line with the technology used, does not use dams with wide inundation areas and does not require to open much land, while the area to be inundated is only 90 hectares with 24 hectares already in its natural form (the river), as confirmed by the result of the field study by KLHK carried out in early September The technology and study results from KLHK verify that Batang Toru HPP development would not include the construction of a giant dam, let alone sink 9600 Ha. In addition to data on individual and household characterisics, as well as livelihood characteristics, perceptions of the surrounding community is also important to obtain, considering that community is one of the main stakeholders who are directly impacted by the establishment and development of Batang Toru HPP. Community perceptions in the three villages with regards to the economical, social and environmental impacts of Batang Toru HPP development are analyzed below. Perceptions of the economic impacts are presented in Figure There is a very clear distiction from the three graphs, that each village has its own perception of the impacts. For the people of Aek Batang Paya Village located upstream, negative perceptions were shown towards the economic impacts of the Batang Toru HPP development (Figure 24), while the opposite occurred in Marancar Godang Village where most provides positive responds (Figure 25). Unlike the people in these two villages, many of the Bantar Tarutung villagers gave a neutral response or did not know the impacts of the Batang Toru HPP development. This is because many people in Bantar Tarutung Village are currently unaware of the hydropower project. Due to its location downstream, since the project is only at the construction state and is not yet running, people downstream have not been impacted yet. People of Aek Batang Paya Village believe that the establsihment of Batang Toru HPP has not given any significant impacts on the development of the village infrastructures and facillities as stated by 93.33% of the respondents. Nevertheless, as many as 46.67% agree that the Batang Toru HPP development would enhance household incomes (Figure 25) Some local communities have been iinvolve in the project, and some have experienced a boost in income by opening local food stalls. PLTA Batang Toru: Tidak mengganggu kebutuhan air keluarga Meningkatkan sarana prasarana desa Memenuhi kebutuhan air pertanian Tidak mengurangi produktivitas pertanian Memberikan ganti rugi lahan masyarakat Meningkatkan pendapatan rumah tangga Tidak Tahu Tidak Setuju Netral Setuju Persentase (%) Figure 24 Perceived economic impacts of Batang Toru HPP development in Aek Batang Paya Village 67

89 Pernyataan Most (66.67%) also state that the hydropower development reduced their agricultural productivities, because they feel that since the development of the hydropower, wild boar population has increased which disturbed their mixed garden/field crops. Compared to the other two villages in this study, Aek Batang Paya Village has the most respondents whose livelihood depend on the surrounding lands. Table 26 shows that the main and side jobs are from agriculture and plantations. In terms of providing water for their agricultural activities, as many as 56.67% of Aek Batang Paya Village respondents agree that the hydropower development has not been able to meet these needs, even though 40% of the total respondents feels that the hydropower development do not interfere with the household's water requirements. Some of the respondents are could not ascertain in the case of reduced water availability, whether the cause was due to the impact of the hydropower development or only because of the dry season. In contrast to the opinions of the people in the Village of Aek Batang Paya, the people of Marancar Godang Village are very positive in viewing the impacts of the hydropower development. Figure 25 shows that all statements related to the economic impacts of the hydropower development were responded positively by the community with a very significant percentage. This could be due to the current location of the hydropower project construction sites which are currently close to Marancar Godang village, thus drawing a large portion of the local workforce from this region. For the people of Bantar Tarutung Village, which are located downstream, no negative impacts are felt from the Batang Toru HPP development, indicated by the positive responses that the hydropower development does not interfere with the fulfillment of household water needs, agricultural water needs and no pronounced impacts on agricultural and fishery productions (Figure 26). The only answer with a significant negative response (53.33%) is showed towards the statement that the hydropower development increases household s income. This is understandable considering that currently, the project is still under construction and only covers the upstream and entrance areas, where downstream area will have the most impact when the hydropower plant is operational. PLTA Batang Toru: Tidak mengganggu kebutuhan air keluarga Meningkatkan sarana prasarana desa Memenuhi kebutuhan air pertanian Tidak mengurangi produktivitas pertanian Memberikan ganti rugi lahan masyarakat Meningkatkan pendapatan rumah tangga Tidak Tahu Tidak Setuju Netral 0Setuju 50 Persentase 100(%) 150 Figure 25 Perceived economic impacts of Batang Toru HPP development in Marancar Godang Village 68

90 Pernyataan Pernyataan PLTA Batang Toru: Tidak mengganggu kebutuhan air keluarga Meningkatkan sarana prasarana desa 3.33 Memenuhi kebutuhan air pertanian Tidak mengurangi produktivitas pertanian Memberikan ganti rugi lahan masyarakat Meningkatkan pendapatan rumah tangga Tidak Tahu Tidak Setuju Netral Setuju Persentase (%) Figure 26 Perceived economic impacts of Batang Toru HPP development in Bantar Tarutung Village Unlike the perceived economic impacts that are mostly show negative responses, the Aek Batang Paya villagers respond more positively to the social impacts of the Batang Toru HPP development (Figure 28). Although as many as 70% of the community state that the construction of this hydropower had caused conflict with the community, on the other hand, 80% admit that there had been an increase in number of employment so that it helps with community empowerment (60%). Overall, the communities in the three hamlets that formed Aek Batang Paya Village, supported the construction of the hydropower which are shown by the majority of responses (53.33%) and only 16.67% did not support it. The high assumption that hydropower development has caused conflict in the community is mainly due to the negative response given by the community in Pargodungan Hamlet, where almost all are opposed to the construction of this hydropower plant. Based on the interviews, it was revealed that no community in this hamlet was involved as a worker in the hydropower project, only 1 person works as a security (the son of the former Head of Hamlet) and that they were never been invited to discussion about the project, in addition to irregular land compensation. Hence, the negative response could be triggered by these factors and not by the negative impacts of the hydropower development itself. PLTA Batang Toru: Didukung oleh masyarakat Tidak menimbulkan konflik dengan Membantu pemberdayaan masyarakat Mengurangi tingkat pengangguran Membuka lapangan kerja Saya telah menerima ganti rugi atas lahan saya Meningkatkan hubungan sosial masyarakat Meningkatkan jumlah penduduk disekitarnya Figure 27 Perceived sosial impacts of Batang Toru HPP development in Aek Batang Paya Villager Tidak Tahu Tidak setuju Netral 0 10 Setuju Persentase (%)

91 Pernyataan Pernyataan In line with the positive responses by Marancar Godang community related to the economic impacts, the perceived social impacts receive similar responds (Figure 28), while people of Bantar Tarutung Village mostly responded did not know (Figure 29). PLTA Batang Toru: Didukung oleh masyarakat Tidak menimbulkan konflik dengan masyarakat Membantu pemberdayaan masyarakat Mengurangi tingkat pengangguran Membuka lapangan kerja Saya telah menerima ganti rugi atas lahan saya Meningkatkan hubungan sosial masyarakat Meningkatkan jumlah penduduk disekitarnya Tidak Tahu Tidak setuju Netral Setuju Figure 28 Perceived social impacts of Batang Toru HPP development in Marancar Godang Village Persentase (%) PLTA Batang Toru: Didukung oleh masyarakat Tidak menimbulkan konflik dengan masyarakat Membantu pemberdayaan masyarakat Mengurangi tingkat pengangguran Membuka lapangan kerja Saya telah menerima ganti rugi atas lahan saya Meningkatkan hubungan sosial masyarakat Meningkatkan jumlah penduduk disekitarnya Tidak Tahu Tidak setuju Netral Setuju Persentase (%) Figure 29 Perceived social impacts of Batang Toru HPP development in Bantar Tarutung Village 70

92 Pernyataan Figure 30 Perceived environmental impacts of Batang Toru HPP development in Aek Batang Paya Village PLTA Batang Toru: Tidak perlu dilakukan pembukaan hutan Tidak mengganggu satwaliar Dapat menjadi tempat tinggal satwa liar Tidak menyebabkan lahan pertanian menjadi kering Membantu menjaga kualitas dan volume air tanah Tidak mencemari sungai Membantu menjaga kualitas air sungai Tidak mengganggu pertanian masyarakat Tidak menyebabkan banjir Tidak merusak lingkungan Tidak Tahu Tidak setuju Netral Setuju Persentase (%) Figure 31 Perceived environmental impacts of Batang Toru HPP development in Marancar Godang Village 71

93 Pernyataan PLTA Batang Toru: Tidak perlu dilakukan pembukaan hutan Tidak mengganggu satwaliar Dapat menjadi tempat tinggal satwa liar Tidak menyebabkan lahan pertanian menjadi kering Membantu menjaga kualitas dan volume air tanah Tidak mencemari sungai Membantu menjaga kualitas air sungai Tidak mengganggu pertanian masyarakat Tidak menyebabkan banjir Tidak merusak lingkungan Figure 32 Perceived environmental impacts of Batang Toru HPP development in Bantar Tarutung Village The communities in the three villages (93.33% in Aek Batang Paya, 100% in Marancar Godang Village and 46.67% in Bantar Tarutung Village) agreed that Batang Toru HPP development does not cause any flooding. Likewise with accusations that stated that Batang Toru HPP development would cause the cultivated land to become dry. Although as much as 46.67% of the people in Aek Batang Paya Village agree that the hydropower development has caused their agricultural land to become dry (46.67%) and disrupted community agriculture (60%), as many as 30% state otherwise. The hydropower construction area is currently taking place in the Village of Marancar Godang which is located downstream of Aek Batang Paya Village, the responds of the 46.67% of the people in Aek Batang Paya is unreasonable. Unlike Aek batang Paya, the majority 93.33% of Marancar Godang Village and 70% of Bantar Tarutung Village) agree that Batang Toru HPP development does not cause their land to become dry. The hydropower development also does not cause adverse environemntal damage: does not pollute the environment (according to 60% of Aek Batang Paya people, 73.33% of Marancar Godang s and 96.67% of Bantar Tarutung s): helps maintain river water quality (53.33% Aek Batang Paya, 96.67% Marancar Godang Village and 33.33% Bantar Village Tarutung); and help maintains the quality and volume of ground water (33.33% Aek Batang Paya, 100% Marancar Godang Village and 46.67% Bantar Tarutung Village). It can be concluded from the results obtained through interviews on the perception of the environment, that the people of Aek Batang Paya Village are the most with the negative attitude towards development of Batang Toru HPP and who are most concerned about the decline in their agricultural productivity. However, in general, in all villages, the communities agree that Batang Toru HPP development does not damage the environment as shown by the majority of responses in each village (36.67% Aek Batang Paya, 80% Marancar Godang Village and 50% Bantar Tarutung Village) Tidak Tahu Tidak setuju Netral Setuju Persentase (%)

94 Verification of Accusation 2 The People already Enjoyed a Surplus of Energy thus Batang Toru HHP is not necessary North Sumatera has an energy surplus (YEL) Ironically, North Sumatra Province, which the new hydroelectric project is intended to supply, reportedly has a suidrlus of energy-generating capacity. Furthermore, even if extra capacity is required, there are a number of far less environmentally-damaging alternatives available that would be capable of providing more than the capacity of the currently planned project. For instance, a nearby geothermal project, which aims to generate 330MW, could provide up to 1GW ( According to the Chairman of the House of Representatives Commission VII as written in several mass media, the statement regarding the energy surplus in North Sumatra Province is misleading, because a surplus of 160 megawatts is currently only temporary. He argued that "North Sumatra really needs electricity development. A power outage that continue to occur in North Sumatra proves that the electricity capacity in North Sumatra is inadequate. Local communities are part of the main stakeholders who must benefit from the development of Batang Toru HPP. Although there is an opinion that North Sumatra has a surplus of energy, i.e., Batang Toru HPP development is not necessary, on the contrary, the community acknowledges that there are still frequent power outages in their villages, as can be seen in Table 32 below. Table 32 Existing conditions of household electricity in the studied villages Statement Village studied (%) Aek Batang Paya Marancar Godang Bandar Tarutung Source of household electricity Does not use electricity PLN Batang Toru Intensity of power cuts Daily Weekly Monthly Pengeluaran untuk listrik (IDR) per bulan Expenses for electricity (IDR) per month 0-20, ,000-40, ,000-60, Table 32 shows that only 3.33% of all respondents who do not use electricity, and only found in respondents among Aek Batang Paya villagers, while in the other two studied villages, both villages are currently using electricity from PLN. It can be concluded that electricity is an important part of human survival. In all study villages, most of the people experienced daily or weekly power outages, the most frequent being in Marancar Godang Village, of which 73.33% of the respondents experienced a power outage every day, while the other two villages all experienced weekly power cuts. Power outages can indicate that 73

95 electricity is still lacking so it cannot be said as a surplus as stated in various accusations above. In addition, the continuous flow of electricity can improve the economy of the community and also by using hydropower can reduce the electricity expenditures of households, especially in the downstream area. Bandar Tarutung Village is the village with the largest monthly expenditure on electricity compared to the other two villages in this study. In addition, responding to the above remark that states geothermal power can be an alternative that is better than hydropower due to its smaller environmental and social impacts, various scientific studies from (Huttrer 2001; Evans et al ) found otherwise, that geothermal energy has an environmental impact that is even greater than hydropower plants due to greater greenhouse gas emissions, with a figure of 170 CO2 for geothermal and 41 CO2 for hydro power (Evans et al ) Verification of Accusations 3 The Batang Toru HPP location is the habitat of 800 orangutans Biodiversity is often used as an ecological or even political indicator in providing an assessment of ecosystem management. The construction of Batang Toru HPP is often associated with the disruption of the Tapanuli orangutan habitat (Pongo tapanuliensis) and is even accused of causing the extinction of this species as indicated by the following statements (adapted from the Hoax Chronology tabulated by PT. NSHE) "The construction of the hydropower plant causes environmental damage" "Construction of dams, roads, tunnels and power lines causes the extinction of orangutan populations and damage orangutan habitat" "The orangutan population is extinct" "The company ignores the existence of endangered species The assessment of wildlife existence is generally based on biological and ecological data only, and forgetting the human dimension in it (Kaltenborn et al. 2003), yet biodiversity is part of social construct (Machlis 1992). People who are dependent on nature for their survival are aware of their environment that allow them to have local knowledge of the existing biodiversity and the resulting impacts due to development. As neighbors of the Batang Toru Forest ecosystem, which is claimed to be the only Tapanuli orangutan s habitat, the daily lives of most of the people living around this area are influenced by one or more of these interactions. Given the close proximity to the Batang Toru forest, most of the local people, especially those who earn their livings from the arable lands around the Batang Toru, often come into contact with wildlife on their plantations and beyond. Moreover, some planted species are also consumed by the orangutans. Even so, according to the community, orangutans in this area are not hunted despite disturbing community crops. Nevertheless, the level of actual interaction between the community and the Tapanuli orangutans in the vicinity of the Batang Toru varies greatly depending on the location of the village (distance to the farm/plantation) and daily human activities (farming, grazing, fishing, trading, working in government etc.) Wildlife can be liked and disliked for various reasons. Studies on preferences for animals (Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Kellert & Westerveld, 1983) find that preferences vary 74

96 and are related to differences in socio-demographic backgrounds, use of animals as material for consumption and increased welfare, length of stay in the area, frequency of interaction with wildlife, and the attitude towards wildlife in general. Table 33 tabulates the perceptions of Aek Batang Paya community on the existence of Tapanuli orangutan as an endemic species of Batang Toru. Table 33 Local perception of orangutan and its habitat No. Local Perceptions Percentage (%) 1 Sightings of orangutans Yes Never Form of encounter Direct 100 Indirect 0 3 Location of sightings of orangutans Garden/dryland 100 Settlement/village Number of orangutan Decreases 6.67 Increases Don t know 10 5 Disturbance by orangutan Cause disturbance 90 No disturbance 10 6 Opinions if orangutan population decrease Not happy Happy Don t care 20 7 Orangutan hunting Don t know 6.67 Hunting is still observed 0 No hunting Benefits of orangutan Beneficial 0 None Land clearance by the local communities Yes No Presence of forbidden forest/customary forest Don t know 30 Yes 6.67 None Species that are mostly disturbed by orangutan Don t know Durian Stinky bean Chocolate 2.13 Palm sugar

97 No. Local Perceptions Percentage (%) Rubber Availability of information board on orangutan Available Not available Information dissemination on orangutan Informed 30 Not informed Knowledge on orangutan conservation status Know that orangutans are protected species Don t know Table 33 provides an overview of the frequency of community encounters with orangutans in general. It can be seen that only 46.67% had direct encounters with orangutans and all encounters occurred in their farms/fields. This is consistent with the community's argument that orangutans consumed their cultivated crops that are grown in their mixed garden, especially durians (stated by 44.68% respondents) and stinky bean (stated by 34.04% respondents). One of the determinants of orangutans distribution according to various scientific studies is the availability of fruits (Felton and Engström 2003). The presence of orangutans that are more often found in mixed gardens/fields is supported by the results from the ecology surveyors (see earlier chapter of this report) who directly encounter only 3 individuals APL area. As many as 90% of the respondents said orangutans often disturb their fields/mixed gardens, by consuming their crops and fruits including damages to flowers and twigs). In addition, the communities feel that orangutans do not benefit them. Therefore, 56.67% would be happy if the number of orangutans decreased, because the disturbance to their crops and fruits could be reduced, since durians are also sold to obtain additional income. Nevertheless, orangutans are not hunted. Respondents who object to the reduced number of orangutans are those who know the status of orangutan protection and do not have farm/mixed garden. Changes to future orangutans habitat may still occur considering as many as 33.33% of respondents said forest clearing is still on-going by the community to convert it into mixed garden/farm. The community recognizes orangutans from their reddish hair color. As many as 43.33% of the people stated that their form looked frightening. Of all the people who had direct encounter with the orangutans, as many as 81.75% were able to identify the Tapanuli orangutan species from the photo shown, and they are on average are old-aged people. An orangutan hunting ban information board was once posted on the village announcement board in Dano Lombang Hamlet (Figure 32), while the socialization was carried out by the North Sumatra Natural resources Conservation Agency (BKSDA), Jakarta-based NGO (2015) and information from the local community working on the hydropower plant. 76

98 Figure 33 Information on orangutan was once posted in this village information board by the Forestry Service Benefits, Losses and Aspirations of the Local Communities in Aek Batang Paya, Marancar Godang and Bantar Tarutung Villages on Batang Toru HPP Development The presence of Batang Toru HPP will certainly impact the local communities around the area, therefore information on theperceived benefits and losses (Table 34) and aspirations related to the Batang Toru HPP (Table 35) are required to minimize conflicts and also to indicate that the company give attention and take some considerations related to the local people's wishes and expectations. Table 34 Perceived benefits and loss as the impacts of Batang Toru HPP development Impacts Village studied (%) Aek Batang Paya Marancar Podang Bantar Tarutung Perceived benefits 1. None Job opportunities and reduced unemployment 3. Increased public purchasing power and household economy 4. More people are comingto the village Perceived loss 1. None Increased number of pests 3. Loss of livelihood sources(agricultural land) 4. Reduced water discharged Table 35 People aspirantions related to batang Toru HPP development People s aspirations Village Studied (%) Aek Batang Paya Marancar Podang Bantar Tarutung The company employs more local people Reduced nepotism in recruiting employees and clear time line in

99 People s aspirations Village Studied (%) Aek Batang Paya Marancar Podang Bantar Tarutung determining whether or not applicants are accepted to work in the hydropower The company helps the community to eradicate wild boar pests which destroy cultivated land in Paske and Danu Hamlets Assistance and family activities are carried out more consistently and evenly The existence of clear information regarding the construction of Batang Toru HPP that will have impacts on local state of livings Table 34 generally implies that the presence of Batang Toru HPP is expected to improve the economic conditions of the local community. Looking at the aspect of loss, most of the people in Marancar Gondang Village (96.67%) said they did not feel any loss, while their village is the closest to the hydropower construction site. This is important becausethey are the ones that are mostly effected, yet they did not consider the hydropower as given adverse impacts for households conditions. For the people of Bantar Tarutung Village, with regard to losses and profits, all (100%) said they did not know, because they have not acknowledge the existence of the development of batang Toru HPP and thus have not experience the impacts. The aspirations forwarded by the community (Table 35) indicate that the aspirations conveyed are directed more toward PT. NSHE instead of the hydropower project itself. It can be said that for the community, Batang Toru HPP is synonymous with PT. NSHE. D. Conclusions Results of the interviews with the local communities of Batang Toru HPP project indicate that accusations that Batang Toru HPP will: (a) damage local livelihoods; (b) sink 9600 Ha; (c) flood agricultural or cause drought; (d) cause disruption in community water needs; (e) damage the environment and that North Sumatra already has a surplus energy hence Batang Toru HPP should not be development, all is false. 78

100 IS IT TRUE THAT THE BATANG TORU HYDROPOWER HAVE AND WILL DECREASE MAMMALS AND BIRDS DIVERSITY? A. Introduction Increased economic activity in the province of North Sumatra (Pinem et al.2015) allegedly resulted in a lack of electricity supply. To meet these needs, the Government through PJB has begun building a 510 Megawatt Hydroelectric Power Plant (PLTA) located in BatangToru, Sipirok Village, South Tapanuli Regency. These activities have drawn protests or accusations from several researchers and NGOs regarding the impact on the decrease of species biological diversity (Laurance et al. 2014; Newbold et al. 2015) The researchers and NGOs believe that the process of making roads, basecamps and other activities, which open land cover, will damage plants and habitats of various types of wildlife that live in/around them. Meanwhile, the diversity of animal species has their own role in the environment (Lawler et al. 2002).Birds (Erniwati et al. 2016, Canterbury et al. 2000, Lawler et al. 2002) and mammals (Pearce and Venier 2005) are indicator of environmental change,and they also contribute to seed dispersal and pollination processes (Donald et al. 2001, Burgees et al. 2002, Erniwati et al.2016) With regard tothis, it is very important to conduct a study that can explain the possible impact of the Batang Toru hydropower development activities especially on the diversity of species of mammals and birds B. Methodology Time and Location The survey of species diversity of mammals and birds was conducted on August 25, September 1, The survey location was divided into two major locations namely Marancar and Sipirok. Each location is divided into two areas. The Marancar location consists of Area A and Area B, while the Sipirok location consists of Area C and Area D (Figure 36). Determination of the observation plots follows the conditions of the sites and land cover types. Only Areas A, B and D are the hydropower project sites. Thus, the difference of wildlife diversity found within the project sites and those outside the project sites will be known. Birds and mammals species diversity survey The diversity of bird and mammal species was observed using the transect method with a length of 1 km and a width of 100 m, as can be seen in Figure

101 50 m 50 m S O O O Direction of observation S 1 km S Figure 34 Observation s transect illustration Mammals An inventory of mammal species diversity was carried out using a combination of line transect and observation points using camera trap installed for 3 x 24 hours duration at location C. Observations (with the help of binoculars) were carried out in the morning (06:00-08: 00 WIB) and afternoon (15: 30-17: 30 WIB) as many as three repetitions. The collected data was then recorded in a complete and structured tally sheet. The objects foundwere documented using a digital camera. The documentation were also used as referencesin identifying species of mammals that cannot be directlyidentified. Birds Observations were carried out in the morning (06: 00-08: 00 WIB) and in the afternoon (15: 30-17: 30 WIB) with as many as three repetitions. The data recorded included: time of the meeting, species of animals found, the number of individuals of each species found and traces of animals in the form of sound. Observations were made with the help of binoculars to facilitate the identification of the species. The data obtained were recorded in a complete and structured tally sheet. Data Analysis Species Richness Index is calculated using the Margalef Species Richness Index (richness species), which functions to find out the species richness of each species in each community found in the following formula (Magurran, 1988) Dmg = S 1 ln(n) Explanation: Dmg = Species richness index S = Number of species ln = Logarithm natural N = Number of species individuals Evenness index of species was calculated using the following formula: Explanation: E = Evenness index S = Number of species ln = Logarithm natural E = H lns 80

102 H = Species diversity index The similarity between species composition between sites were calculated using the Sorensen Species Similarity Index (Magurran 1988): Where: IS = 2C A + B IS = Index of Similarity A = Number of species found in location A B = Number of species found in location B C = Number of species found in location A and B 81

103

104 82 Sipirok C D A B Marancar Figure 35 Map on worksites and locations of survey areas

105 C. Result and Discussion Variation of Species Diversity Mammals The total number of mammals species found in 4 locations, which were scattered in 2 sub-districts, was 13 species as presented in Table36. The highest number of mammals was found in Location Bof Marancar area, whereas in other locations 6-7 species of mammals can be found in each location. No. 1 Table 36 Number of mammal species and the protection status on each location Local Name Bajing tiga warna Scientific Name Callosciurus prevostii Ministerial Decree of Environment and Forestry No. P CITES IUCN Location of Activity Site Not Location of activity Marancar Sipirok Sipirok Location A LocationB LocationD LocationC - - LC - - v - 2 Jelarang hitam Ratufa bicolor - II NT - - v v 3 Bajing kelapa 4 Beruk Callosciurus nootatus Macaca nemestrina v - v - II VU v v v - 5 Owaungko Hylobates agilis DL I EN v v Jelarang bilalang 7 Lutung budeng 8 Monyet ekorpanjang 9 Musang luwak 10 Orangutan tapanuli 11 Siamang Ratufa affinis - II NT v Trachypithecus auratus Macaca fascicularis Paradoxurus hermaphroditus Pongo tapanuliensis Symphalangus syndactylus DL II VU v v v - - II LC v v III LC v DL - CT - - v v DL I EN v v - v 12 Tupai v v Kubung Galeopterus variegatus - - LC - v v v Grand Total Most mammals species (Figure 37) found are species belonging to the Sciuridae family (Figure 37) such as bajing tiga warna, jelarang hitam, and civet. We recorded 6-7 species of mammals found at the site of the activity located at locations A, B and D. Whereas in Location C, which was outside the site of activity with habitat characteristics similar to a secondary forests, six mammals were found. Of the four locations, the dominant mammal species are Beruk (Macaca nemestrina) with 20 individuals. The location with the highest number of beruk individuals is Location D with 14 individuals. 110

106 Cercopith ecidae Cynocep halidae Hominid Hylobatid ae Sciuridae Viverrida e jumlah Figure 36 Number of mammal species for each family The highest diversity of mammal species with a Margalef index of 2.73 was found at location B compared to other locations including location C, which is not a site for hydropower activities; while the lowest Margalef Index was found in location D. The species evenness indices of the locations were also varying. The evenness indices of mammal species ranged between The highest evenness index was found in location B with a value of 0.96; while the lowest species evenness index was found in location D. The two locations are the project sites. Figure 37 Black furred gibbon, one of the mammals that was encountered Compared to non-worksite location, the evenness and diversity indices of mammals found in the non-work sites locations are lower. The variation of indices value is influenced by the number of individuals for each species in each land cover (Ludwig and Reynold 1988). In addition, Santosa (1995) stated that if each species has the same number of individuals, then the evenness of the species in the community will have a maximum value, but if the number of individuals in each species differs considerably, then the species evenness will have a minimum value. Variation analysis showed that the species richness in each location significantlydiffered, as shown in Figure 38; while the species evenness did not vary 111

107 significantly.nonetheless, the comparison of the species richness index at locations A, B and D with Location C differed significantly. Location C had a higher value of species richness than location D, but lower than locations A and B. Mammal species found in location C with the highest number individuals was Siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus). Siamang is a species of mammal that generally lives in the interior forests of Sumatra such as Sipirok, BatangToru (Nurmansyah 2012) Area A Area B Area C Area D Marancar Sipirok E DMG E DMG Figure 38 Species diversity and evenness indices on each observation site Bird The graph in Figure 39 shows that the highest bird species richness index is found in location C. The location is located on the right bank of the BatangToru river with dense forest conditions, even though there were traces of logging and some mixed forest sites found in the location. Meanwhile, the highest bird species richness indexwas foundat location D with a value of 0.91 (Figure 39). Observation locations at Sipirok location are located on the right and left cliffs of the BatangToru river. Whereas in the Marancar area (locations A and B) the species richness indices are 3.16 and Habitat conditions at the Marancar location were not much different from the conditions in Sipirok. Nevertheless, the Marancar location hada more open land cover and more mixed gardens than Sipirok. The differences in habitat conditions are thought to cause variations in species diversity and species richness (Welty 1982; Darmawan 2006) found in each location. 112

108 Figure 39 Rhinoceros hornbill (Buceros rhinoceros) observed perching Overall, 33 species of birds were found in both locations (Marancar and Sipirok) as shown in the following table (Table W). The highest variation of bird species was found on the right cliff of BatangToru river, which is location C. Whereas, there were only three species of birds found in location D. The highest number of bird species found in Location C with Sumatran tangkar-uli (Dendrocitta occipitalis) dominating the number. The number of species found at location A differed slightly from the number of species in location C, namely 15 species of birds with the rhinoceros hornbill (Buceros rhinoceros) as the dominant species Area A Area B Area C Area D Marancar Sipirok E DMG E DMG Figure 40 Diversity and evenness indices of mammal species on each observation site Land clearing for road construction was being carried out in Location D during the survey. However, forest vegetation stands could still be found in this locations. The condition affects the presence of animal species of birds, as birds have a high sensitivity to human activity (Sekercioglu e.t al 2002). Nevertheless, the rhinoceros hornbill (Buceros rhinoceros) species, which is a frugivore (fruit-eating) bird(kitamura 2011),was still found. 113

109 This bird also has a wide home range coverage (Kitamura 2011) because it can travel for hours (Leighton 1982; Poonswad and Tsuji 1994). Therefore, the land clearing activities have not significantly affected the existence of bird species. Meanwhile, the clearing of forests into plantations showed changes toward generalist bird species (Erniwati et al. 2016; Yule 2010; Dislich et al.2016). No. 1 Common Name Olive-backed Sunbird Table 37 Number of bird species and the protection status on each location Scientific Name Ministerial Decree of Environment and Forestry No. P CITES IUCN Location A Location found Location B Location C Cinnyris jugularis - - LC v Location D 2 Rufouscollared kingfisher Actenoides concretus DL - NT v 3 Cuckoo Centropus sp. - - LC v Greater Green Leafbird Lesser Green Leafbird Scaly-breasted Bulbul Black-headed Bulbul Sooty-headed Bulbul 9 Black Eagle 10 Crested Serpent Eagle Chloropsis sonnerati Chloropsis cyanopogon Pycnonotus squamatus DL - VU v DL - NT v - - NT v Pycnonotus atriceps v Pycnonotus aurigaster Ictinaetus malaiensis - - LC v DL II LC v v Spilornis cheela DL II LC v 33 Glossy wiftlet Collocalia esculenta - - LC v Grand Total Overall there are eight species of birds protected under the Ministerial Decree of Environment and Forestry No. P.29 Year 2018, as seen in table W. Some protected bird species includedcekakak hutanmelayu(actenoides concretus), eagle and small bird species such as takur. In addition to this list, there are several species included in the CITES Appendix II status. The status implied that those bird species couldbe sold on a limited basis under certain regulations. The species included elanghitam, elangular-bido, pelatukayam, dan rangkongbadak. As for the IUCN Red List, there are nine species of birds that are included in the list with different statuses. The number of bird species recorded as threatened species (NT) is eight species and one bird species with vulnerable (VU) status, namely cicadaunbesar. Species Evenness Composition Mammals 114

110 Each location has a different composition of mammal species. The lowest composition similarity was found between locations C and D. Both locations arelocated on different cliffs. Location C is on the right cliff while Location D is on the left bank of Sipirok area. In addition, both locations had different habitat conditions even though bothwere secondary forests. Location C had denser canopy cover compared to location D. Furthermore, human activity was more common in location D. The presence of human activity can affect the presence of animals (Wanger et al.) that also affects mammals. Therefore, fewer number of species could be found in this location than the number of species found in a location with fewer human activities. Table 38 Community evenness index between locations Location A Location B Location C Location D Location A Location B Location C 1 0 Location D 1 Therefore, the mammals species composition similarity index on project sites (A, B and D) show the value far from 1(Figure 40). Nevertheless, the number of species found between the project sites are almost similar. Figure 42 below shows that the composition similarity between the two sites was only 59%. The findings of 5 mammals species found in both sites increases the similarity value. This also shows that both areas (project and nonproject sites) have relatively have similar habitat conditions for mammals. Therefore, the existence of the Batang Toru HPP does not effect the mammals species composition similarity Figure 41 Mammals species composition similarity values between the project and nonproject sites Birds index of similarity The composition of bird species between each location shows variation. So does the similarity between each location. All locations had similarity index values of species composition less than 0.1 / 10%. The highest species composition similarity was found between location A and B (6%), while the lowest similarity was between location C and B, 115

111 which was 0.02 (2%). Overall, the community similarity index showed that bird species composition between locations was significantly different. Table 39 Community evenness index between locations Location A Location B Location C Location D Location A Location B Location C Location D 1 These differences resulted from different habitat conditions at sampling locations. As previously explained, location A and B in Marancar had more open conditions compared to the conditions of locationsin Sipirok. The condition resulted in a higher number of generalist bird species, such as bubut and bird species belonging to the Pycnonotidae family. Kedasi hitam bird that does not depend on the presence of forest can also be found here. The same condition was found in location D, where Merbah cerucuk, a generalis species that does not depend on forest existence, could be found index of similarity 0.11 Figure 42 Bird species composition similarity index between the project and non-projects sites The species composition similarity index between the project and non-project sites ontains a value that is far from 1, which indicate that the bird species compositions between the two land cover types are significanylt different. Only as many as 11% of the same bird species that are found between the sites. Such percentage shows that only 2 species out of the whole 33 species that are found in both sites. Thus, the presence of Batang Toru HPP affect the changing species composition of the birds. D. Conclusion 1. The Batang Toru HPP development activities have not decreased the diversity of mammals, but it decreases the diversity of birds. 2. Batang Toru HPP development activities has caused changes in the composition of bird species at the project sites with more generalist bird species found that depend on forest existence. On the contrary, mammals species composition does not change significanty. 116

112 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Conclusions The objections/negative accusations by several researchers and non-governmental organizations against the Batang Toru HPP plant were not scientifically proven (incorrect), so it was believed that the environmental activists might had received erroneous data. The development of Batang Toru HPP and the sustainability of Tapanuli orangutans along with other biodiversity, is not an option to choose from but should form one program package that is interrelated with one another, complementary and mutually supportive. As one of the national strategic projects in order to meet the electricity supply needs, using "environmentally friendly" technology ("Run off Hydropower") so that it does not require large areas of inundation, located on "non-forest area"/other land use areas ( APL) with land cover mostly dominated by secondary forests and mixed plantations must continue and need to be encouraged by all stakeholders to accelerate its completion. As for the sustainability of forest ecosystems and their natural wealth are an "inherent" demand that must be carried out to maintain the sustainability of the Batang Toru HPP itself. B. Recommendations Environmental management and monitoring activities as stated in the Environmental Management Plan/Monitoring Plan, which are the "document results of EIA that are legally and substantially binding", should absolutely be carried out consistently. The aspects that are to be managed, must include all physical components (soil, climate, hydrology and landscapes), biotics (wild plants and animals including Tapanuli orangutans and their habitats) as well as the socio-economic communities around the Batang Toru HPP project site. 117

113 118

114 REFERENCES [PT.NSHE dan IPB] PT. North Sumatra Hydro Energy dan Fakultas Kehutanan Institut Pertanian Bogor Sosial and environmental impact assessment proyek PLTA Batang Toru. PT. NSHE, Tapanuli Selatan. Akcakaya, H.R Estimating the variance of survival and fecundities. Animal Conservation 5, Ancrenaz, M Orangutan nesting behavior in disturbed forest of Sabah, Malaysia: Implications for nest sensus. Journal Primatology 25, Bastviken, D., Cole, J., Pace, M., and Tranvik, L, Methane emissions from lakes: Dependence of lake characteristics, two regional assessments, and a global estimate, Global Biogeochem. CY. 18, GB4009, doi: /2004gb Blake, S., Hedges, S Sinking the flagship: the case of forest elephants in Asia and Africa. Conservation Biology 18, Buij, R., Wich, S.A., Lubis, A.H., Sterck, E.H.M Seasonal movement in the Sumatran Orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus abelii) and consequences biological for conservation. Biological Conservation 107, Brown PH, Xu K Hydropower development and resettlement policy on China s Nu. Journal of Contemporary China 19(66): Canterbury GE, Martin OE, Petit DR, Petit LJ, Bradford DF Bird Communities and Habitat as Ecological Indicators of Forest Condition in Regional Monitoring. Conservation Biology. 14(2): Darmawan MP. Keanekaragaman Jenis Burung Pada Beberapa Tipe Habitat Di Hutan Lindung Gunung Lumut Kalimantan Timur. (Skripsi). Bogor (ID) Fakultas Kehutanan Institut Pertanian Bogor. Deemer, Bridget & Harrison, John & Li, Siyue & Beaulieu, Jake & DelSontro, Tonya & Barros, Nathan & Bezerra-Neto, José & Powers, Stephen & dos Santos, Marco & Vonk, Jan. 2016). Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Reservoir Water Surfaces: A New Global Synthesis. Bioscience /biosci/biw117 Dislich C, A.C. Keyel, J. Salecker, Y. Kisel, K.M. Meyer, M. Auliya, A.D. Barnes, M.D. Corre, K. Darras, H. Faust, B. Hess, S. Klasen, A. Knohl, H. Kreft, A. Meijide, F. Nurdiansyah, F. Otten, G. Pe er, S. Steinebach, S. Tarigan, M.H.Tölle, T. Tscharntke, K. Wiegand, Biol. Rev, 92, 1539 Djojoasmoro, R., Simanjuntak, C.N., Galdikas, B.M.F., Wibowo, T Orangutan distribution in North Sumatra. Jurnal Primatologi Indonesia 4, 2 6. Donald PF, Green RE, Heath MF Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe's farmland bird populations. Biological Science. DOI: /rspb

115 Emma Hällqvist Methane emissions from three tropical hydroelectrical reservoirs. Committee of Tropical Ecology, Uppsala University, Sweden Erniwati, Zuhud EAM, Santosa Y, Anas I Bird diversity at smallholding and large scale palm oil plantation in different age class at Riau province. Biodiversitas. 17(12): Evans A, Strezov V, Evans TJ. Assessment of sustainability indikators for renewable energy technologies. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2009;13: Felton AM, Engström LM, Felton A & Knott CD Orangutan population density, forest structure and fruit availability in han-logged and unlogged peat swamp forests in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biological Conservation, 114(1), doi: /s (03) Fevre, Chris Le, Methane Emissions: from blind spot to spotlight. OIES PAPER: NG 122. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. ISBN Gassman, P.W. Reyes, M. R, Green C.H. and Arnold J.G The Soil and Water Assesment Tool: Historical Development, Application, and Future Research Directions American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers ISSN Vol 50 (4) Global Intersistem Rencana Pembangunan Pembangkit Listrik Tanaga Air (PLTA) Kapasitas 500 MW dan jaringan Transmisi 275 KVA dari PLTA Batang Toru sampai Desa Parsalakan Kecamatan Angkola Barat Kab Tapanuli Selatan,Propinsi Sumatera Utara. Medan Gruca-Rokosz, R., E. Czerwieniec, J. A. Tomaszek. 2011). Methane Emission from the Nielisz Reservoir, Environment Protection Engineering. Vol. 37, 2011, No. 3 Guthiga, P. M. (2008). Understanding local communities perceptions of existing forest management regimes of a kenyan rainforest. International Journal of Sosial Forestry, 1(2), Hunter, Lori M, Strife, Susie, Twine, Wayne Environmental Perceptions of Rural South African Residents: The Complex Nature of Environmental Concern', Society & Natural Resources, 23: 6, Husson, S.J., Wich, S.A., Marshall, A.J., Dennis, R.D., Ancrenaz, M., et al Orangutan distribution, density, abundance and impacts of disturbance. In: Wich, S.A., Utami Atmoko, S., Mitra Setia, T., van Schaik, C.P, editors. Orangutans: Geographic Variation in Behavioral Ecology and Conservation. New York: Oxford University Press; pp Huttrer GW. The status of world geothermal power generation Geothermics 2001;30:1 27. IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume 4 on agriculture, forestry and other land use. Japan: IGES. IPCC, 2014: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel 120

116 and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Isaacman A Displaced people, displaced energy, and displaced memories: The case of Cahora Bassa, International Journal of African Historical Studies 38(2): Kaltenborn BP, Mayengo M, Nyahongo JW People and Wildlife Interactions around Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Norwegia (NO): Norwegian Institute for Nature Research Kellert SR, Westervelt MO Children s attitudes, knowledge and behaviors toward animals (Phase S). Washington, DC: U.S. Fish 8c Wildlife Service. Kellert, S. R., Wilson, E. O. (Eds.) The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. Kirschke, S., Bousquet, P., Ciais, P., Saunois, M., Canadell, J. G., Dlugokencky, E. J., Bergamaschi, P., Bergmann, D., Blake, D. R., Bruhwiler, L., Cameron-Smith, P., Castaldi, S., Chevallier, F., Feng, L., Fraser, A., Heimann, M., Hodson, E. L., Houweling, S., Josse, B., Fraser, P. J., Krummel, P. B., Lamarque, J. F., Langenfelds, R. L., Le Quere, C., Naik, V., O Doherty, S., Palmer, P. I., Pison, I., Plummer, D., Poulter, B., Prinn, R. G., Rigby, M., Ringeval, B., Santini, M., Schmidt, M., Shindell, D.T., Simpson, I. J., Spahni, R., Steele, L. P., Strode, S. A., Sudo, K., Szopa, S., van der Werf, G. R., Voulgarakis, A., van Weele, M., Weiss, R. F., Williams, J. E., and Zeng, G.: Three decades of global methane sources and sinks, Nat. Geosci., 6, , doi: /ngeo1955, Kitamura S Frugivory and seed dispersal by hornbills (Bucerotidae) in tropical forests. Acta Oecologica. 37(6): Koch FH Hydropower the politics of water and energy: Introduction and overview. Energy Policy 30(14): Krisnawati H, Adinugroho WC, Imanuddin R Monograf Model-Model Alometrik untuk Pendugaan Biomassa Pohon pada Berbagai Tipe Ekosistem Hutan di Indonesia. Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kehutanan, Departemen Kehutaan. Bogor Kuswanda, W., Sugiarti Potensi habitat dan pendugaan populasi orangutan (Pongo abelii, Lesson 1827) di Cagar Alam Dolok Sibual-buali. Jurnal Penelitian Hutan dan Konservasi Alam 2, Kuswanda, W Ancaman terhadap kelangsungan hidup orangutan sumatra (Pongo abelii Lesson). Jurnal Penelitian Hutan dan Konservasi Alam 4, Kuswanda, W Orangutan Batang Toru: Kritis di Ambang Punah. Balai Penelitian Kehutanan Aek Nauli, Forda Press, Sumatera Utara. Laurance WF, Sayer J, Cassman KG Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends Ecol Evol 29: Lawler J J, White D, Sifneos J C and Master L L 2002 Rare species and the use of indicator groups for conservation planning Conservation Biology 17(3): Leonard, R.A., W.G. Knisel, and D.A. Still GLEAMS: Groundwater loading effects of agricultural management sytems. Trans. ASAE 30(5): Le Yang, Fei Lu, Xiaoping Zhou, Xiaoke Wang, Xiaonan Duan, Binfeng Sun Progress in the studies on the greenhouse gas emissions from reservoirs. Acta 121

117 Ecologica Sinica, Volume 34, Isue 4. Pages ISSN Lubis, A.H., Wich, S.A., Sterck, E.H.M., Buij, R Population Estimates and Seasonal Movement in Sumatran Orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus abelii). Proseding Seminar Primatologi Indonesia Fakultas Kedokteran Hewan dan Fakultas Kehutanan Universitas Gajah Mada. Yogyakarta. Ludwig JA, Reynolds JF Statistical Ecology: A Primer on Methods and Computing. New York (US). John Wily and Sons. Machlis GE The Contribution of Sociology to Biodiversity Research and Management. Biological Conservation 62: Mäkinen, K. and Khan, S Policy considerations for greenhouse gas emissions from freshwater reservoirs. Water Alternatives 3(2): Meijaard E, Mengersen K, Buchori D, Nurcahyo A, Ancrenaz M, et al Why Don t We Ask? A Complementary Method for Assessing the Status of Great Apes. PLoS ONE 6(3): e doi: /journal.pone MED India networking for Health Capture-and-Burn-Methane-in-Dams-a-New- Proposition-to-Counter-Global-Warming. Mngumi L, Shemdoe RS, Liwenga E Community perceptions and willingness to accept and execute REDD+ initiative: The case of Pugu and Kazimzumbwi Forest Reserves, Tanzania. Cross-Cultural Communication, 9(3), Murray, A.R., Kisin, E., Leonard, S.S., Young, S.H., Kommineni, C., Kagan, V.E., Castranova, V., Shvedova, A.A Oxidative stress and inflammatory response in dermal toxicity of single-walled carbon nanotubes. Toxicology 257, Nash, J.E. and Sutcliffe J.V Flow Forecasting Through Conceptual Models Part I-aDiscussion of Principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10(3), Nater, A., Mattle-Greminger, M.P., Nurcahyo, A., Nowak, M.G., de Manuel, M., Desai, T., Groves, C., Pybus, M., Sonay, T.B., Roos, C., Lameira, A.R., Wich, S.A., Askew, J., Davila-Ross, M., Fredriksson, G., de Valles, G., Casals, F., Prado-Martinez, J., Goossens, B., Verschoor, E.J., Warren, K.S., Singleton, I., Marques, D.A., Pamungkas, J., Perwitasari-Farajallah, D., Rianti, P., Tuuga, A., Gut, I.G., Gut, I.G., Orozco-terWengel, P., van Schaik, C.P., Bertranpetit, J., Anisimova, M., Scally, A., Marques-Bonet, T., Meijaard, E., Krützen, M Morphometric, Behavioral, and Genomic Evidence for a New Orangutan Species. Current Biology 27, Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill, SLL, Contu S, Lysenko I, Senior RA, Börger L, Bennett DJ, Choimes A, Collen B Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520: Pearce, J., and L. Vernier Small mammals as bioindicators of sustainable boreal forest management. Forest Ecology and Management. 208: Perbatakusuma, E.A, Supriatna, J., Siregar, R.S.E., Wurjanto, D. Sihombing, L., Sitaparasti, D Mengarustamakan Kebijakan Konservasi Biodiversitas dan Sistem Penyangga Kehidupan di Kawasan Hutan Alam Sungai Batang Toru Provinsi Sumatra Utara. Laporan Teknik Program Konservasi Orangutan Batang Toru. Conservation International Indonesia- Departemen Kehutanan. Pandan. Prairie YT, Alm J, Harby A, Mercier-Blais S, Nahas R The GHG Reservoir Tool (Gres) Technical documentation, UNESCO/IHA research project on the GHG status 122

118 of freshwater reservoirs. Version 1.1. Joint publication of the UNESCO Chair in Global Environmental Change and the International Hydropower Association. 76 pages. PT North Sumatera Hydro Energy Addendum ANDAL, RKL-RPL Pembangunan PLTA Batang Toru. Medan Rallison, R.E. and N. Miller Past, present and future SCS runoff procedure. p In V.P. Singh (ed.). Rainfall runoff relationship. Water Resources Publication, Littleton, CO. Rijksen, H.D A Field Study on Sumatran Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus abelii Lesson, 1872): Ecology, Behavior and Conservation. H. Veenman & Zonen, Wegeningen. Saunois et al., The global methane budget Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 8, , 2016 ( doi: /essd ) van Schaik, C.P., Priatna, A., Priatna, D Population Estimates and Habitat Preferences of Orangutans Based on Line Transects of Nest. Plenum Press. New York and London. Sari E Persepsi masyarakat sekitar tentang dampak perkebunan sawit PT Surya Agrolika Reksa dan PT Adimulya Agrolestari. Skripsi pada Departemen Konservasi Sumberdaya Hutan dan Ekowisata, Fakultas Kehutanan, Institut Pertanian Bogor. Tidak dipublikasikan. Sekercioglu CH, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR Ecosystem consequences of bird declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. 101(2004): Sharma HK dan Rana PK. Assessing the Impact of Hydroelectric Project construction on the s of District Chamba of Himachal Pradesh in the Northwest Himalaya, India, International Research Journal of Sosial Sciences, 3(2), pp.21-25, Available at Simorangkir, R.A Kajian Habitat dan Estimasi Populasi Orangutan (Pongo abelii Lesson) di Kawasan Hutan Batang Toru, Sumatra Utara. Tesis Program Pascasarjana. Institit Pertanian Bogor. Bogor. Singleton, I., Wich, S.A., Griffiths, M Pongo abelii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 18 September Siregar YF Potensi Cadangan Karbon Hutan Nabundong, KPH Wilayah VI Sumatera Utara. Tesis Sekolah Pascasarjana IPB. Bogor Smith, L. K. and Lewis, W. M, Seasonality of methane emissions from five lakes and associated wetlands of the Colorado Rockies, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 6, , Snoussi, M. L., Kitheka, J., Shaghude, Y., Kane, A., Arthurton, R., Tissier, M., & Virji, H. (2007). Downstream and coastal impacts of damming and water abstraction in Africa. Environmental Management, 39, doi: /s Sofia, Y., Tontowi., Brahmana, S.S., Rahayu, S Emisi Gas Metana dari Waduk Saguling, Cirata dan Jatiluhur. Jurnal Sumber Daya Air, Vol. 9 No. 2, November 2013 : St Louis, V.L.; Kelly, C.A.; Duchemin, E.; Rudd, J.W.M. & Rosenberg, D.M. (2000). Reservoir surfaces as sources of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere: A global estimate. Bioscience, Vol.50. No.9, Sep, pp ,

119 Sugardjito, J Ecological Constrains on the Behaviour of Sumatran Orangutan in the Gunung Leuser National Park, Indonesia. Thesis Utrecht. Synohydro Hydrological Study for Batang Toru Project, Update Tefera B dan Sterk G Hydropower-induced land use change in Fincha a watershed, western Ethiopia: Analysis and impacts. Mountain Research and Development 28(1): Trussart S, Messier D, Roquet V, Aki S Hydropower projects: A review of most effective mitigation measures. Energy Policy 30(14): UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Thresholds and criteria for the eligibility of hydroelectric power plants with reservoirs as CDM project activities. Annex 5 to the report of the 23rd meeting of the Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism. (diakses 8 September 2009) US-EPA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, (diakses 10 September 2018) BSN [Badan Standarisasi Nasional] SNI 7724:2011:Pengukuran dan Perhitungan Cadangan Karbon Pengukuran Lapangan untuk Penaksiran Cadangan Karbon Hutan (Ground based Forest Carbon Accounting).Jakarta: Badan Standarisasi Nasional. Wich, S., Riswan, Jonsen, J., Refisch, J., Nellemann, C (Editor). 2011a. Orangutan dan Ekonomi Pengelolaan Hutan Lestari di Indonesia. Alih Bahasa : Gunung Gea. UNEP. Penerbit Barragraphia. Hal: Welty J.C The Life of Bird. Philadelphia (US): Saunders College Publishing Yu ksel, I. (2009). Dams and hydropower for sustainable development. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 4, doi: /

120 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 List of world s tallest dams Name Height Type Country Year completed Jinping-I Dam 305 m Concrete arch China Yalong 2013 (1,001 ft) Nurek Dam 300 m (980 ft) [1][2][3] Embankment, earth-fill Tajikistan Vakhsh 1980 Xiaowan Dam Xiluodu Dam Grande Dixence Dam Enguri Dam Yusufeli Dam Vajont Dam (disused) Nuozhadu Dam Manuel Moreno Torres (Chicoasén) Dam [4] Tehri Dam Mauvoisin Dam [5] Laxiwa Dam Deriner Dam Alberto Lleras (Guavio) Dam Mica Dam Gilgel Gibe III Dam Sayano Shushenskaya Dam Ertan Dam Changheba Dam La Esmeralda Dam Oroville Dam El Cajón Dam Shuibuya Dam 292 m (958 ft) m (937 ft) 285 m (935 ft) m (891 ft) 270 m (890 ft) m (858 ft) m (858 ft) 261 m (856 ft) m (855 ft) 250 m (820 ft) 250 m (820 ft) 249 m (817 ft) 243 m (797 ft) 243 m (797 ft) 243 m (797 ft) 242 m (794 ft) 240 m (790 ft) 240 m (790 ft) 237 m (778 ft) m (770 ft) 234 m (768 ft) 233 m (764 ft) Concrete arch China Lancang 2010 Concrete arch China Jinsha 2013 Concrete gravity Switzerland Dixence 1964 Concrete arch Georgia Enguri 1987 Arch, double- Turkey Çoruh 2018 curvature Concrete arch Italy Vajont 1959 Embankment China Lancang 2012 Embankment, earth-fill Mexico Grijalva 1980 Embankment, India Bhagirathi 2006 earth-fill Concrete arch Switzerland Bagnes 1957 Concrete arch China Yellow 2009 Concrete double-arch Embankment, rock-fill Embankment, earth-fill Rollercompacted concrete gravity Concrete archgravity Concrete archgravity Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill Embankment, rock-fill Embankment, earth-fill Concrete double-arch Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill Turkey Çoruh 2012 Colombia Guavio 1989 Canada Columbia 1973 Ethiopia Omo 2015 Russia Yenisei 1985 China Yalong 1999 China Dadu 2016 Colombia Bata 1976 United States Feather 1968 Honduras Humuya 1985 China Qingjiang

121 Name Height Type Country Year completed Chirkey Dam [6] m Concrete arch Russia Sulak 1976 (763 ft) Goupitan Dam m Concrete China Wu Jiang 2009 (763 ft) double-arch Karun-4 Dam 230 m Concrete arch- Iran Karun 2010 (750 ft) gravity Bhakra Dam [6] 226 m Concrete gravity India Sutlej 1963 (741 ft) Luzzone Dam [6] 225 m Concrete arch Switzerland Lago di 1963 (738 ft) Luzzone Hoover Dam m Concrete arch- United States Colorado 1936 (726.6 ft) gravity Jiangpinghe Dam 221 m Embankment, China Loushui 2012 (725 ft) concrete-face rock-fill Contra Dam 220 m (720 ft) Concrete arch Switzerland Verzasca 1965 La Yesca Dam Mratinje Dam Dworshak Dam Longtan Dam Glen Canyon Dam Toktogul Dam Daniel-Johnson Dam Dagangshan Dam Keban Dam San Roque Dam Ermenek Dam Irapé Dam Bakun Dam Karun-3 Dam Zimapán Dam Dez Dam Almendra Dam Campos Novos Dam 220 m (720 ft) 220 m (720 ft) m (717 ft) m (710 ft) m (710 ft) 215 m (705 ft) 214 m (702 ft) 210 m (690 ft) 210 m (690 ft) 210 m (690 ft) 210 m (690 ft) 208 m (682 ft) 205 m (673 ft) 205 m (673 ft) 203 m (666 ft) 203 m (666 ft) 202 m (663 ft) 202 m (663 ft) Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill Concrete archgravity 126 Mexico Rio Grande de Santiago 2012 Montenegro Piva 1976 Concrete gravity United States NF Clearwater Roller- China Hongshui compacted concrete gravity Concrete arch- United States Colorado 1966 gravity Concrete gravity Kyrgyzstan Naryn 1974 Concrete multiplearchgravity Canada Manicouagan 1970 Concrete arch China Dadu 2015 Combined: rockfill and concrete gravity Turkey Euphrates 1974 Embankment Philippines Agno 2003 Concrete double-arch Turkey Göksu 2009 Embankment, Brazil Jequitinhonha 2006 rock-fill Embankment, Malaysia Balui 2011 concrete-face rock-fill Concrete arch- Iran Karun 2005 gravity Concrete arch- Mexico Moctezuma 1993 gravity Concrete arch- Iran Dez 1963 gravity Concrete arch Spain Tormes 1970 Embankment, concrete-face Brazil Canoas 2006

122 Berke Dam Guangzhao Dam Kölnbrein Dam Name Height Type Country Year completed rock-fill Shahid Abbaspour Dam (Karun 1) New Bullards Bar Dam Itaipu Dam Altinkaya Dam [6] Boyabat Dam Kárahnjúkastífla Dam New Melones Dam W.A.C. Bennett Dam Sogamoso Dam Arkun Dam Miel 1 Dam Aguamilpa Dam Kurobe Dam Pubugou Dam Zillergründl Dam Sanbanxi Dam 201 m (659 ft) m (658 ft) 200 m (660 ft) 200 m (660 ft) m (645 ft) 196 m (643 ft) 195 m (640 ft) 195 m (640 ft) 193 m (633 ft) m (625 ft) m (625 ft) 190 m (620 ft) 188 m (617 ft) 188 m (617 ft) 187 m (614 ft) 186 m (610 ft) 186 m (610 ft) 186 m (610 ft) m (609 ft) Concrete arch- Turkey Ceyhan 2001 gravity Concrete gravity China Beipan 2008 Concrete double-arch gravity Concrete double-arch Concrete archgravity Concrete gravity 127 Austria Streams in upper Malta 1977 Iran Karun 1976 United States Yuba 1969 Brazil / Para guay Paraná 1984 Embankment, Turkey Kizil Irmak 1988 rock-fill Concrete gravity Turkey Kizilirmak 2012 Embankment, Iceland Jökulsá 2009 concrete-face rock-fill Embankment, earth/rock-fill Embankment, earth-fill Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill United States Stanislaus 1979 Canada Peace 1968 Colombia Sogamoso 2014 Embankment, earth-fill Turkey Çoruh 2014 Roller- Colombia Miel 2002 compacted concrete gravity Embankment, Mexico Rio Grande de 1993 concrete-face Santiago rock-fill Concrete arch- Japan Kurobe 1963 gravity Embankment, China Yalong 2010 concrete-face rock-fill Concrete arch Austria Ziller 1986 Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill China Yuanshui Oymapinar Dam m Concrete arch Turkey Manavgat 1984 (609 ft) Barra Grande Dam 185 m Embankment, Brazil Pelotas 2005 (607 ft) concrete-face rock-fill Katse Dam 185 m Concrete Lesotho Malibamat'so 1996 (607 ft) double-arch Tekeze Dam 189 m Concrete Ethiopia Tekeze 2009 (620 ft) double-arch Three Gorges Dam 181 m Concrete gravity China Yangtze 2008 (594 ft) Mossyrock Dam m Concrete arch- United States Cowlitz

123 Shasta Dam Techi Dam (Deji, Tachian) [6] Artvin Dam Tignes Dam [6] Dartmouth Dam Emosson Dam Amir Kabir Dam Name Height Type Country Year completed (606 ft) gravity Piedra del Águila Dam Upper Gotvand Dam Hongjiadu Dam Longyangxia Dam Tianshengqiao Dam El Cajón New Don Pedro Dam Danjiangkou Dam Takase Dam Marun Dam Hasan Ugurlu Dam [6] Karakaya Dam Alpe Gera Dam [7] Revelstoke Dam Thissavros Dam Hungry Horse Dam Cahora Bassa Dam Denis-Perron Dam [8] Kajiwa Dam m (602 ft) 181 m (594 ft) 180 m (590 ft) 180 m (590 ft) 180 m (590 ft) 180 m (590 ft) 180 m (590 ft) 180 m (590 ft) 180 m (590 ft) m (589 ft) 178 m (584 ft) 178 m (584 ft) 178 m (584 ft) 178 m (584 ft) m (579 ft) 176 m (577 ft) 175 m (574 ft) 175 m (574 ft) 173 m (568 ft) 174 m (571 ft) 174 m (571 ft) 172 m (564 ft) m (564 ft) 171 m (561 ft) 171 m (561 ft) 171 m (561 ft) Concrete archgravity United States Sacramento 1945 Concrete arch- Taiwan Dajia (Tachia) 1974 gravity Concrete arch- Turkey Çoruh 2016 gravity Concrete arch- France Lac du Chevril 1952 gravity Embankment, Australia Mitta Mitta 1979 earth/rock-fill Concrete arch Switzerland Barberini 1973 Concrete arch Iran Karaj 1961 Concrete gravity Argentina Rio Limay 1993 Embankment, rock-fill Iran Karun 2012 Embankment, China Liuchong 2005 concrete-face rock-fill Concrete arch- China Yellow 1992 gravity Embankment, China Nanpan 2000 concrete-face rock-fill Embankment, Mexico Rio Grande de 2007 concrete-face Santiago rock-fill Embankment, United States Tuolumne 1971 earth-fill Concrete gravity China Han 1973 Embankment, Japan Shinano 1978 rock-fill Embankment Iran Marun 1998 Embankment, rock-fill Turkey Yesilirmak 1981 Concrete arch- Turkey Euphrates 1987 gravity Concrete gravity Italy Cormor 1964 Concrete gravity Canada Columbia 1984 Embankment, Greece Nestos 1996 rock-fill Concrete arch- United States Flathead 1953 gravity Concrete arch- Mozambique Zambezi 1974 gravity Embankment, Canada Sainte rock-fill Marguerite Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill 128 China Muli

124 Name Height Type Country Year completed Kığı Dam 170 m Embankment, Turkey Peri (560 ft) rock-fill Paute Dam 170 m Concrete arch- Ecuador Paute (560 ft) gravity Atatürk Dam 169 m (554 ft) Embankment, rock-fill with Turkey Euphrates clay-core Daryan Dam 169 m Embankment, Iran Sirvan (554 ft) rock-fill Idukki Dam 168 m Concrete arch India Periyar 1973 (551 ft) Bruno Creek Tailings 168 m Embankment, United States Bruno Creek Dam (551 ft) earth-fill Charvak Dam [6] 168 m Embankment, Uzbekistan Chirchik 1970 (551 ft) earth/rock-fill Guandi Dam 168 m Concrete gravity China Yalong (551 ft) Gura Apelor Dam 168 m Embankment, Romania Raul Mare (551 ft) rock-fill Seven Oaks Dam 168 m (551 ft) Embankment, earth/rock-fill United States Santa Ana Dongfeng Dam 168 m Concrete arch China Wu (551 ft) Grand Coulee Dam m (550 ft) Concrete gravity United States Columbia Koldam Dam 167 m (548 ft) Embankment, rock-fill India Sutlej 2015 Mazar Dam [6] 166 m (545 ft) Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill 129 Ecuador Paute Vidraru Dam 166 m Concrete arch Romania Arges (545 ft) Kremasta Dam 165 m (541 ft) Embankment, earth-fill Greece Achelous Thomson Dam 165 m (541 ft) Embankment, earth-fill Australia Thomson Wujiangdu Dam 165 m Concrete arch- China Wujiang (541 ft) gravity Trinity Dam 164 m Embankment, United States Trinity (538 ft) earth-fill Masjed Soleyman Dam 164 m Embankment, Iran Karun (538 ft) concrete-face rock-fill with clay-core Sardar Sarovar Dam 163 m Concrete gravity India Narmada 2017 (535 ft) Guri Dam 162 m Concrete gravity Venezuela Río Caroní (531 ft) Talbingo Dam 162 m Embankment, Australia Tumut (531 ft) earth-fill Huites Dam 162 m Concrete arch- Mexico Fuerte (531 ft) gravity Robert-Bourassa Dam [9] 162 m (531 ft) Embankment, earth-fill Canada La Grande Tankeng Dam 162 m Embankment, China Ou (531 ft) concrete-face rock-fill Tokuyama Dam 161 m Embankment Japan Ibi

125 Xiangjiaba Dam Name Height Type Country Year completed (528 ft) Bento Munhoz da Rocha Netto Dam Grand'Maison Dam Jinanqiao Dam Los Leones Dam Ranjit Sagar Dam Ross Dam Yellowtail Dam Guanyinyan Dam Pai Querê Dam Cougar Dam Emborcação Dam Naramata Dam Pangduo Dam [10] Rudbar Lorestan Dam Geheyan Dam Dongjiang Dam Jilintai I Dam Okutadami Dam Speccheri Dam Malutang Dam Miyagase Dam Shatuo Dam [12] Nukui Dam Swift Dam Urayama 161 m (528 ft) 160 m (520 ft) 160 m (520 ft) 160 m (520 ft) 160 m (520 ft) 160 m (520 ft) 160 m (520 ft) 160 m (520 ft) 159 m (522 ft) 158 m (518 ft) 158 m (518 ft) 158 m (518 ft) 158 m (518 ft) 158 m (518 ft) 158 m (518 ft) 157 m (515 ft) 157 m (515 ft) 157 m (515 ft) 157 m (515 ft) 157 m (515 ft) 156 m (512 ft) 156 m (512 ft) 156 m (512 ft) 156 m (512 ft) 156 m (512 ft) 156 m (512 ft) Concrete gravity China Jinsha Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill Brazil Iguazu Embankment, France Eau d'olle rock-fill Concrete gravity China Jinsha Embankment, Chile Los Leones earth-fill Embankment India Ravi Concrete thinarch United States Skagit Concrete arch- United States Bighorn gravity Roller- China Jinsha compacted concrete gravity Embankment, Brazil Pelotas concrete-face rock-fill Embankment, United States McKenzie rock-fill Embankment, Brazil Rio Paranaíba earth-fill Embankment, Japan Naramata rock-fill Embankment, China Lhasa 2013 rock-fill Concrete gravity Iran Rudbar 2016[11] Concrete arch China Qingjiang Concrete arch China Lishui Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill China Kashi Concrete gravity Japan Tadami Concrete arch Italy Vallarsa Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill China Panlong Concrete gravity Japan Nakatsu Concrete arch China Wu 2009 Concrete arch Japan Takayama Embankment, earth-fill Rollercompacted 130 United States Japan Lewis Arakawa

126 Zeuzier Dam Zipingpu Dam Name Height Type Country Year completed concrete gravity Nagawado Dam (Tepco Upper Azumi) Sakuma Dam Bashan Dam Lijiaxia Dam Göscheneralp Dam Place Moulin Dam [13] Kenyir Dam Ralco Dam Turkwel Dam Liyuan Dam Bhumibol Dam Serra da Mesa Dam Xiaolangdi Dam Gepatsch Dam Curnera Dam Monteynard-Avignonet Dam Santa Giustina Dam Tedorigawa Dam Flaming Gorge Dam Alqueva Dam Torul Dam Fierza Dam (Fierze) Menzelet Dam Zervreila Dam 156 m (512 ft) 156 m (512 ft) m (510 ft) m (510 ft) 155 m (509 ft) 155 m (509 ft) 155 m (509 ft) 155 m (509 ft) 155 m (509 ft) 155 m (509 ft) 155 m (509 ft) 155 m (509 ft) 154 m (505 ft) 154 m (505 ft) 154 m (505 ft) 153 m (502 ft) 153 m (502 ft) 153 m (502 ft) 153 m (502 ft) 153 m (502 ft) 153 m (502 ft) 152 m (499 ft) 152 m (499 ft) 152 m (499 ft) 151 m (495 ft) 151 m (495 ft) Concrete arch Switzerland Lienne Embankment China Min Concrete arch Japan Azumi Concrete gravity Japan Tenryū Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill China Ren Concrete arch- China Yellow gravity Embankment, Switzerland Göschenerreus earth-fill s Concrete arch Italy Buthier Embankment Malaysia Kenyir Rollercompacted concrete gravity Chile Biobío Concrete arch Kenya Turkwel Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill China Jinsha Concrete arch Thailand Ping Embankment Brazil Tocantins Embankment, rock-fill China Yellow Embankment, Austria Faggenbach, I rock-fill nn Concrete arch Switzerland Curnera Concrete arch France Drac Concrete arch Italy Noce Embankment Japan Tedori Concrete thinarch United States Green Concrete arch- Portugal Guadiana gravity Embankment, Turkey Harşit concrete-face rock-fill Embankment, Albania Drin rock-fill Embankment Turkey Ceyhan Concrete arch Switzerland Rhine 131

127 Name Height Type Country Year completed Porce III Dam 151 m (495 ft) Embankment, concrete-face Colombia Porce New Exchequer Dam Messochora Dam [14] Roselend Dam Canelles Dam Dongjing Dam Baishan Dam El Infiernillo Dam Moiry Dam Salvajina Dam Santa Giustina Dam Gigerwald Liujiaxia Dam Maoergai Dam Mangla Dam Longshou II Dam Jilebulake Dam Fontana Dam Belisario Domínguez (Angostura) Dam Limmern Dam Hassan I Dam Mohale Dam Srisailam Dam Tagokura Dam 150 m (490 ft) 150 m (490 ft) 150 m (490 ft) 150 m (490 ft) 150 m (490 ft) m (490 ft) 149 m (489 ft) 148 m (486 ft) 148 m (486 ft) 148 m (486 ft) 147 m (482 ft) 147 m (482 ft) 147 m (482 ft) 147 m (482 ft) m (481 ft) m (480 ft) m (480 ft) 146 m (479 ft) 146 m (479 ft) 145 m (476 ft) 145 m (476 ft) 145 m (476 ft) 145 m (476 ft) rock-fill Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill Concrete gravity-archbuttress 132 United States Greece France Merced Achelous Roselend Concrete arch Spain Noguera Ribagorzana Embankment, China Beipan concrete-face rock-fill Concrete archgravity China Second Songhua Embankment, Mexico Balsas rock-fill Concrete arch Switzerland Gougra Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill Colombia Rio Cauca Concrete arch Italy Santa Giustina Concrete arch Switzerland Tamina Concrete gravity China Yellow Embankment, China Heishui rock-fill Embankment Pakistan Jehlum 1967 Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill China Heihe Embankment, China Haba concrete-face rock-fill Concrete gravity United States Little Tennessee Embankment Mexico Grijalva Concrete arch Switzerland Limmern Embankment, earth-fill Morocco Lakhdar Embankment, Lesotho Sequnyane concrete-face rock-fill Concrete gravity India Krishna Concrete gravity Japan Tadami

128 Name Height Type Country Year completed Ney Braga 145 m (476 ft) Embankment, concrete-face Brazil Iguazu Virdnejávri Dam Vacha Dam Adiguzel Dam Özlüce Dam Tarbela Dam Lei Dam Morrow Point Dam Murum Dam Takhtakorpu Dam [15] Oddatjørn Dam Warragamba Dam Valle di Lei Dam Detroit Dam Aldeadávila Dam Gordon Dam Xingó Dam Bath County PS Upper Dam Arimine Dam Bureya Dam Gissarak Dam [17] Chamera Dam Srinagarind Dam Jiangkou Dam Anderson Ranch Dam Ahai Dam 145 m (476 ft) m (474 ft) 144 m (472 ft) 144 m (472 ft) m (470 ft) 143 m (469 ft) 143 m (469 ft) 143 m (469 ft) m (468 ft) 142 m (466 ft) 142 m (466 ft) 141 m (463 ft) 141 m (463 ft) 140 m (460 ft) 140 m (460 ft) 140 m (460 ft) 140 m (460 ft) 140 m (460 ft) 140 m (460 ft) 140 m (460 ft) 140 m (460 ft) 140 m (460 ft) 139 m (456 ft) 139 m (456 ft) 138 m (453 ft) rock-fill Concrete arch Norway Alta- Kautokeino Concrete gravity Bulgaria Vacha Embankment, earth/rock-fill Turkey Buyuk Menderes Embankment, Turkey Peri concrete-face rock-fill Embankment Pakistan Indus 1976 Concrete arch Italy Lei Concrete double-arch United States Gunnison Roller- Malaysia Murum compacted concrete gravity Embankment, Azerbaijan Samur 2013 rock-fill with clay-core Embankment Norway Ulladalsåna Concrete gravity Australia Warragamba Concrete arch Switzerland Graubünden Concrete gravity United States North Santiam Concrete arch- Spain/ Portu Douro gravity gal Concrete arch Australia Gordon Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill Embankment, earth/rock-fill 133 Brazil United States São Francisco Back Creek Concrete gravity Japan Wada Concrete gravity Russia Bureya 2003[16] Embankment, Uzbekistan Aksu 1988 rock-fill Concrete gravity India Ravi Embankment Thailand Khwae Yai Concrete arch China Furong Embankment, United States Boise earth/rock-fill Concrete gravity China Jinsha

129 Name Height Type Country Year completed Frera (Belviso) Dam 138 m Concrete arch- Italy Frera (453 ft) gravity Shahid Rajaee Dam 138 m Concrete Iran Tajan (453 ft) double-arch Wawushan Dam 138 m (453 ft) Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill China Zhougonghe Wuluwati Dam Union Valley Dam Malpaso Dam Çine Dam Jiudianxia Dam Caracoles Dam Cancano Dam Los Reyunos Dam Minamiaiki Dam Cabril Dam Carters Dam Sauris Dam Alicura Dam Dongping Dam Longma Dam Ilisu Dam 138 m (453 ft) 138 m (453 ft) m (451 ft) m (448 ft) m (448 ft) 136 m (446 ft) 136 m (446 ft) 136 m (446 ft) 136 m (446 ft) 136 m (446 ft) 136 m (446 ft) 136 m (446 ft) 135 m (443 ft) 135 m (443 ft) 135 m (443 ft) 135 m (443 ft) Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill Embankment, earth/rock-fill China United States Kalakashi Silver Creek Embankment Mexico Grijalva Rollercompacted concrete gravity Turkey Çine Embankment, China Tao concrete-face rock-fill Concrete gravity Argentina San Juan Concrete archgravity Italy Adda Embankment Argentina Diamante Embankment, Japan Minamiaiki rock-fill Concrete arch Portugal Zêzere Embankment, earth-fill United States Coosawattee Concrete Italy Lumiei double-arch Embankment, Argentina Limay concrete-face rock-fill Concrete arch China Zhong Embankment, concrete-face rock-fill Embankment, earth-fill China Lixian Turkey Tigris

130 Attachment 2 List of world s largest dams Name Country Dam Outflow Area (km 2 ) Area (sq mi) [n 1] Lake Victoria Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda Owen Falls Dam White Nile 66,400 25,600 Irkutsk Dam Angara 32,000 12,000 Irkutsk Reservoir Russia Lake Baikal Lake Winnipeg [n 3] Canada Jenpeg Dam Nelson 24,420 9,430 Lake Volta Ghana Akosom Volta 8,500 3,300 bo Dam Smallwood Canada Multiple Churchi 6,527 2,520 Reservoir ll Reindeer Lake [n 4] Canada Whitesa nd Dam Reindee r 6,500 2,500 Kuybyshev Reservoir Russia Zhiguli Dam Volga 6,450 2,490 Lake Kariba Zambia, Zimbabwe Kariba Dam Zambez 5,580 2,150 i Bukhtarma Kazakhstan Bukhtar Irtysh 5,490 2,120 Reservoir [n 5] ma Dam Bratsk Reservoir Russia Bratsk Dam Angara 5,470 2,110 Lake Nasser Egypt Aswan Dam Nile 5,200 2,000 Rybinsk Reservoir Russia Rybinsk Dam Volga 4,550 1,760 Caniapiscau Reservoir Canada Multiple Caniapiscau 4,318 1,667 Lake Guri Venezuela Guri Dam Caroni 4,250 1,640 Sobradinho Reservoir Brazil Sobradin ho Dam São Francisco 4,225 1,631 Volgograd Russia Volga Dam Volga 3,117 1,203 Reservoir Lago Tucuruí Brazil Tucuruí Dam Tocanti ns 2,875 1,110 Robert-Bourassa Reservoir Canada Robert- Bourassa Dam 135 La Grande 2,815 1,087 Tsimlyansk Russia Tsimlyansky Don 2,702 1,043 Reservoir Dam Cahora Bassa Lake Mozambique Cahora Zambez 2,665 1,029 Bassa Dam i La Grande-3 Reservoir Canada La Grande-3 La Grande 2, Dam Vilyuy Reservoir Russia Vilyuy Dam Vilyuy 2, Balbina Reservoir Brazil Balbina Dam Uatumã 2, Sanmenxia Reservoir China Sanmen Yellow 2, xia Dam Boguchany Russia Boguch Angara 2, Reservoir any Sérgio Motta Reservoir Brazil Dam Eng Sérgio Paraná 2,

131 Name Country Dam Outflow Area (km 2 ) Area (sq mi) Motta Dam Kremenchuk Reservoir Ukraine Kremenchuk Dnieper 2, Dam Cheboksary Reservoir Russia Cheboks ary Dam Volga 2, Kakhovka Reservoir Ukraine Kakhov Dnieper 2, ka Dam Lake Argyle Australia Ord Ord 2, Dam Krasnoyarsk Russia Krasnoyars Yenisei 2, Reservoir k Dam Manicouagan Reservoir Canada Daniel- Johnson Manicouagan 1, Dam Ust-Ilimsk Reservoir Russia Ust- Ilimsk Dam 136 Angara 1, Kama Reservoir Russia Kama Dam Kama 1, Kapchagay Reservoir Kazakhstan Kapcha gay Dam Ili 1, Saratov Reservoir Russia Balakovo Volga 1, Dam Williston Lake Canada W.A.C. Peace 1, Bennett Dam Yacyretá Reservoir Argentina, Paraguay Yacyretá Paraná 1, Dam Lake Sakakawea United States Garrison Missou 1, Dam ri Lake Oahe United States Oahe Dam Missou ri 1, Brokopondo Reservoir Suriname Afobaka Dam Surina me 1, Furnas Reservoir Brazil Furnas Dam Grande 1, Itaipu Reservoir Brazil, Paraguay Itaipu Dam Paraná 1, Laforge-1 Reservoir Canada Laforge-1 Dam Laforge 1, Nechako Reservoir Canada Kenney Dam Nechak o 1, Ilha Solteira Reservoir Brazil Ilha Solteira Dam Paraná 1, Votkinsk Reservoir Russia Votkinsk Kama 1, Dam Nizhnekamsk Russia Nizhneka Kama 1, Reservoir msk Dam Three Gorges Reservoir China Three Gorges Yangtze 1, Novosibirsk Reservoir Russia Dam Novosibirs k Dam Ob 1,

132 Name Country Dam Outflow Area (km 2 ) Area (sq mi) Jebel Aulia Reservoir Sudan Danjiangkou Reservoir China Três Marias Reservoir Brazil Pipmuacan Reservoir Canada Jebel Aulia Dam Danjiangk ou Dam Três Marias Dam Bersimis-1 Dam White Nile 1, Han 1, São Francisco Betsiamites Missou ri 1, Fort Peck Lake United States Fort Peck Dam Kiev Reservoir Ukraine Kiev Dam Dnieper ChardaraR Kazakhstan Chardara Syr Darya eservoir Dam El Chocón Argentina El Limay Reservoir Chocón Dam Truman Reservoir United States Harry S. Truman Dam Luiz Gonzaga Reservoir Brazil Luiz Gonzaga Dam Osage São Francisco Lake Atatürk Dam Turkey Atatürk Dam Euphrat es Srisailam Reservoir India Srisailam Dam Itumbiara Brazil Itumbiara Reservoir Dam La Grande-4 Reservoir Canada La Grande- 4 Dam Hirakud Reservoir India Hirakud Dam Toledo Bend Reservoir Emborcação Reservoir United States Brazil Toledo Bend Dam Emborc açãoda m Lake Powell United States Glen Canyon Dam Krishna Paran aíba La Grande Maha nadi Sabine Paran aíba Color ado Kaniv Reservoir Ukraine Kaniv Dam Dnieper Keban Reservoir Turkey Keban Dam Euphrates São Simão Reservoir Brazil São Simão Dam Lake Mead United States Hoover Dam 137 Paran aíba Color ado

133 Name Country Dam Outflow Area (km 2 ) Area (sq mi) Água Vermelha Reservoir Outardes-4 Reservoir Brazil Canada Água Vermel ha Dam Outard es-4 Dam Grande Outar des Lake Assad Syria Tabqa Dam Euphrates Mingachevir Reservoir Eastmain Reservoir Kamianske Reservoir Kayrakkum Reservoir Capivara Reservoir Azerbaijan Mingachevi r Dam Kura Canada Multiple Eastm ain Ukraine Kamia Dnieper nske Dam Tajikistan Kayrak Syr Darya kumda Brazil m Capivara Dam Paranapane ma

134 Attachment 3 List of World s Largest Dams by Volume Rank Name Reservoir Country Year Completed Nominal volume km³ 1 Kariba Dam Lake Kariba Zambezi Zambia and Zimbabwe 2 Bratsk Dam Bratsk Angara Russia Reservoir 3 Akosombo Dam Lake Volta Volta Ghana Daniel-Johnson Manicouagan Manicouagan Canada Dam Reservoir 5 Guri Dam Lake Guri Caroní Venezuela Aswan High Dam Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam W. A. C. Bennett Dam Krasnoyarsk Dam Zeya Hydroelectric Station(ru) Robert-Bourassa generating station La Grande-3 generating station Ust-Ilimsk Dam Boguchany Dam Zhiguli Hydroelectric Station Cahora Bassa Dam Serra da Mesa Dam Brisay generating station Pati Chapetón(propos al) Bukhtarma Hydroelectric Power Plant Danjiangkou Dam Atatürk Dam Irkutsk Dam Lake Nasser Nile Egypt Blue Nile Ethiopia under constructi on Williston Lake Peace Canada Krasnoyarsk Yenisei Russia Reservoir (ru) Zeya Reservoir Zeya Russia Robert- Bourassa Reservoir La Grande-3 Nord Reservoir Ust-Ilimsk Reservoir Boguchany Reservoir Kuybyshev Reservoir Cahora Bassa Serra da Mesa Reservoir Caniapiscau Reservoir Bukhtarma Reservoir (ru) Danjiangkou Reservoir Lake Atatürk Dam Irkutsk Reservoir La Grande La Grande 79 Canada Canada Angara Russia Angara Russia Volga Russia Zambezi Mozambique Tocantins Brazil Caniapiscau Canada Paraná Argentina? 53.7 Irtysh Kazakhstan Han (Yangtze tributary) People's Republic of China Euphrates Turkey Angara Russia

135 Rank Name Reservoir Country 24 Tucuruí Dam Tocantins 25 Loma de la Lata Los Barreales Neuquén Dam? (Cerros Lake?[verificati Colorados on needed] Complex) [verificatio n needed] 26 Planicie Banderita hydroelectric power plant (Cerros Colorados Complex) 27 Three Gorges Dam Mari Menuco Lake?[verificati on needed] Three Gorges Reservoir Neuquén Yangtze 140 Year Completed Nominal volume km³ Brazil Argentina Argentina People's Republic of China United States Hoover Dam Lake Mead Colorado 29 Winar Canada Grue? [verification needed] 30 Roseires Dam Roseires Blue Nile Sudan Reservoir 31 Vilyuy Dam (ru) Vilyuy Vilyuy Russia Reservoir (ru) 32 Glen Canyon Lake Powell Colorado United States Dam 9 33 Kenney Dam Nechako Nechako Canada Reservoir Kemano 34 Sobradinho Dam Sobradinho São Francisco Brazil Reservoir 35 Churchill Falls Smallwood Churchill Canada Reservoir 36 Jenpeg Dam Lake Canada Winnipeg outl et 37 Keban Dam Keban Dam Lake 38 Volga Volgograd Hydroelectric Reservoir Station 39 Sayano Shushenskaya Dam Sayano Shushenskoye Reservoir (ru) Euphrates Turkey Volga Russia Yenisei Russia Garrison Dam Lake Sakakawea Missouri United States Kossou Dam Lake Kossou Bandama Ivory Coast Iroquois Dam St. Lawrence Canada Oahe Dam Lake Oahe Missouri United States Itaipu Dam Lake Itaipu (pt) Paraná Brazil and Paragu ay 45 Rybinsk Dam Rybinsk Reservoir Volga Russia

136 Rank Name Reservoir Country 46 Sanmenxia Dam Sanmenxia Reservoir Year Completed Nominal volume km³ Yellow People's Republic of China Kura Azerbaijan Mingachevir_Da m Mingachevir reservoir 48 Merowe Dam Nile Sudan

137 Attachment 4 Input model for G-res Scenario

138 Attachment 5 Input model for G-res Scenario

139 Attachment 6 Output model G-res Scenario

140 Attachment 7 Output model G-res Scenario

141 Attachment 8 List of undergrowth found on right cliff of Marancar Sub-district No. Latin Name Family Total Number 1 Homalomena cordata Schott. Araceae 33 2 Species 12 Araceae 8 3 Species 4 Araceae 9 4 Rhaphidophora korthalsii Schott. Araceae 42 5 Arenga pinnata Arecaceae 13 6 Daemonorops draco Arecaceae 6 7 Daemonorops sp. 1 Arecaceae 30 8 Daemonorops sp. 2 Arecaceae 6 9 Oncosperma tigillarium Arecaceae 2 10 Oncosperma tigillarium (Jack) Ridl. Arecaceae 6 11 Pinanga sp. Arecaceae Diplazium cordifolium Blume Athyriaceae 7 13 Gironniera hirta Ridl. Cannabaceae Garcinia nervosa Miq. Clusiaceae Cheilocostus speciosus Costaceae Rhynchospora corymbosa (L.) Britton Cyperaceae Tetracera scandens (L.) Merr. Dilleniaceae Codiaeum variegatum (L.) Rumph. Ex AJuss. Euphorbiaceae 8 19 Dicranopteris linearis Gleicheniaceae 4 20 Bauhinia semibifida Roxb. Leguminosae Donax Canniformis (G. Forst.) K. Schum Maranthaceae Clidemia hirta Melastomaceae Appendicula sp. Orchidaceae 6 24 Freycinetia insignis Blume Pandanaceae 4 25 Piper porphyrophyllum N.E.Br Piperaceae Piper sp. Piperaceae Bambusa sp. Poaceae Goniophlebium percussum Polypodiaceae 8 29 Taenitis blechnoides Pteridaceae Acranthera sp. Rubiaceae Ixora sp. Rubiaceae Mycetia cauliflora Reinw. Rubiaceae Arcypteris irregularis Tetrariaceae Cyclosorus sp. Thelypteridaceae Ampelocisus imperialis (Miq.) Planch. Vitaceae Alpinia malaccensis (Burm.f.) Roscoe Zingiberaceae 2 37 Species Total number of individuals

142 Attachment 9 List of seedlings found on right cliff of Marancar Sub-district No. Latin Name Family Total Number 1 Ryparosa hullettii King Achariaceae 7 2 Semecarpus acuminata Wall.ex Voight Anacardiaceae 9 3 Anisophyllea disticha (Jack.) Baill. Anisophyleaceae 1 4 Desmos chinensis Lour. Annonaceae 16 5 Mitrella kentii (Blume) Miq. Annonaceae 15 6 Alstonia macrophylla Wall. ex G. Don Apocynaceae 18 7 Canarium caudatum King Burseraceae Gironniera subaequalis Planh. Cannabaceae 22 9 Calophyllum venulosum Zoll. Clusiaceae Garcinia rigida Miq. Clusiaceae 9 11 Agelaea macrophylla (Zoll.) Leenh. Connaraceae 1 12 Rourea mimosoides Planch. Connaraceae Rourea minor (Gaertn.) Alston Connaraceae Elaeocarpus nitidus Jack Elaeocarpaceae 3 15 Macaranga hypoleuca (Rchb.f. & Zoll.) Muell. Euphorbiaceae 4 Arg. 16 Quercus gemmeliflora Blume Fagaceae 2 17 Cinnamomum porrectum (Roxb.) Kosterm. Lauraceae Dehaasia caesia Blume Lauraceae 2 19 Persea rimosa Zoll.ex Meissn. Lauraceae Archidendron ellipticum (Blume) I.C. Nielsen Leguminosae 9 21 Archidendron microcarpum (Benth.) I.C. Nielsen Leguminosae 2 22 Archidendron sp. Leguminosae 3 23 Parkia speciosa Hassk. Leguminosae Aglaia eximia Miq. Meliaceae 4 25 Aglaia odoratissima Blume Meliaceae Aglaia simplicifolia (Bedd.) Harms Meliaceae 3 27 Chisocheton patens Blume Meliaceae 4 28 Coscinium fenestratum (Goetgh.) Colebr. Menispermaceae 6 29 Artocarpus nitidus Trec. Moraceae 2 30 Ficus drupacea Thunb. Moraceae 2 31 Knema laurina Warb. Myristicaceae Myristica maxima Warb. Myristicaceae 4 33 Myristica villosa Warb. Myristicaceae 8 34 Syzygium sp.1 Myristicaceae 4 35 Adinandra dumosa Jack Pentaphylaceae 4 36 Eurya acuminata DC. Pentaphylaceae 4 37 Antidesma leucopodum Miq. Phyllanthaceae Antidesma neurocarpum Miq. Phyllanthaceae 5 39 Baccaurea sp. Phyllanthaceae Podocarpus neriifolius D. Don Podocarpaceae Ardisia purpurea Reinw.ex Blume Primulaceae

143 No. Latin Name Family Total Number 42 Embelia ribes Burm.f. Primulaceae 9 43 Ziziphus angustifolia (Miq.) Hatus. ex Steenis Rhamnaceae Ixora javanica (Blume) DC. Rutaceae Melicope accendens (Blume) T.G. Hartley Rutaceae Meliosma pinnata (Roxb.) Meissn. Sabiaceae Meliosma simplicifolia (Roxb.) Walp. Sabiaceae 4 48 Nephelium cuspidatum Blume Sapindaceae Eurycoma longifolia Simaroubaceae Symplocos fascifulata Zoll. Symplocaceae Species Species 11 1 Total number of individuals

144 Attachment 10 List of saplings found on right cliff of Marancar Sub-district No. Latin Name Family Total Number 1 Aglaia simplicifolia (Bedd.) Harms Meliaceae 5 2 Aglaia sp. Meliaceae 2 3 Alstonia macrophylla Wall. ex G. Don Apocynaceae 7 4 Anisophyllea disticha (Jack.) Baill. Anisophyleaceae 1 5 Archidendron microcarpum (Benth.) I.C. Nielsen Leguminosae 6 6 Artabotrys suaveolens (Blume) Blume Annonaceae 11 7 Calophyllum venulosum Zoll. Clusiaceae 9 8 Chisocheton patens Blume Meliaceae 3 9 Coelostegia borneensis Becc. Malvaceae Dehaasia caesia Blume Lauraceae 2 11 Dehaasia sumatrana Kosterm. Lauraceae Eurycoma longifolia Simaroubaceae Fissistigma latifolium (Blume) Merr. Annonaceae Garcinia rigida Miq. Clusiaceae 2 15 Goniothalamus sp. Annonaceae 7 16 Hydnocarpus kunstleri (King) Warb. Achariaceae 2 17 Ixora javanica (Blume) DC. Rutaceae 3 18 Knema cinerea (Poir.) War. Myristicaceae 8 19 Macaranga triloba (Thunb.) Muell. Arg. Euphorbiaceae 1 20 Melicope accendens (Blume) T.G. Hartley Rutaceae 3 21 Nephelium cuspidatum Blume Sapindaceae 2 22 Parkia speciosahassk. Leguminosae 3 23 Podocarpus neriifolius D. Don Podocarpaceae 2 Total number of individuals

145 Attachment 11 List of poles in right cliff of Marancar Sub-district No. Latin Name Family Total Number 1 Aglaia odoratissima Blume Meliaceae 13 2 Anaxagorea javanica Blume Annonaceae 3 3 Archidendron ellipticum (Blume) I.C. Nielsen Leguminosae 3 4 Ardisia macrophylla Reinw.ex Blume Primulaceae 3 5 Ardisia purpurea Reinw.ex Blume Primulaceae 3 6 Canarium caudatum King Burseraceae 1 7 Elaeocarpus nitidus Jack Elaeocarpaceae 1 8 Embelia ribes Burm.f. Primulaceae 1 9 Eurya acuminata DC. Pentaphylaceae 4 10 Goniothalamus sp. Annonaceae 2 11 Knema laurina Warb. Myristicaceae 2 12 Neouvaria acuminatissima (Miq.) Airy Shaw Annonaceae 5 13 Nephelium cuspidatum Blume Sapindaceae 1 14 Parkia speciosa Hassk. Leguminosae 1 15 Pimelodendron griffithianum (Muell. Arg) Benth.ex Euphorbiaceae 1 Hook.f 16 Rourea minor (Gaertn.) Alston Connaraceae 1 17 Ryparosa hullettii King Achariaceae 1 18 Spathodea campanulata Beauv. Bignoniaceae 1 Total number of individuals

146 Attachment 12 List of trees on right cliff of Marancar Sub-district No. Latin Name Family Total Number 1 Aglaia eximia Miq. Meliaceae 6 2 Aglaia odoratissima Blume Meliaceae 33 3 Aglaia silvestris (M. Roem.) Merr. Meliaceae 1 4 Aglaia simplicifolia (Bedd.) Harms Meliaceae 1 5 Aglaia tomentosa Teijsm. & Binn. Meliaceae 1 6 Alstonia macrophylla Wall. ex G. Don Apocynaceae 4 7 Antidesma leucopodum Miq. Phyllanthaceae 2 8 Aporosa frutescens Blume Phyllanthaceae 1 9 Apostasia wallichii R. Br. Apostasiaceae 1 10 Aquilaria malaccensis Lam. Thymelaeaceae 1 11 Archidendron ellipticum (Blume) I.C. Nielsen Leguminosae 1 12 Ardisia lanceolata Primulaceae 1 13 Ardisia macrophylla Reinw.ex Blume Primulaceae 5 14 Artabotrys suaveolens (Blume) Blume Annonaceae 1 15 Astronia spectabilis Blume Melastomataceae 2 16 Baccaurea kunstleri King ex Gage Phyllanthaceae 1 17 Baccaurea sp. Phyllanthaceae 1 18 Brugmansia ex candida Pers. Solanaceae 1 19 Calophyllum venulosum Zoll. Clusiaceae 1 20 Clausena excavata Burm.f. Rutaceae 1 21 Coelostegia borneensis Becc. Malvaceae 1 22 Dehaasia sumatrana Kosterm. Lauraceae 1 23 Drypetes longifolia (Blume) Pax & K. Hoffm. Putranjivaceae 2 24 Elaeocarpus nitidus Jack Elaeocarpaceae 1 25 Elaeocarpus stipularis Blume Elaeocarpaceae 1 26 Embelia coriacea Wall. ex A. DC. Primulaceae 1 27 Endiandra rubescens (Blume) Miq. Lauraceae 2 28 Eurya acuminata DC. Pentaphylaceae 2 29 Garcinia lateriflora Blume Clusiaceae 2 30 Garcinia parvifolia (Miq.) Miq. Clusiaceae 2 31 Goniothalamus sp. Annonaceae 1 32 Ixora javanica (Blume) DC. Rutaceae 1 33 Species Knema laurina Warb. Myristicaceae 1 35 Lasianthus stipularis Blume Rubiaceae 1 36 Lithocarpus elegans (Blume) Hatus. ex soepadmo Fagaceae 4 37 Litsea robusta Blume Lauraceae 2 38 Melicope accendens (Blume) T.G. Hartley Rutaceae 2 39 Neesia altissima (Blume) Blume Malvaceae 1 40 Nephelium cuspidatum Blume Sapindaceae 3 41 Nephelium uncinatum Leenh. Sapindaceae 6 151

147 No. Latin Name Family Total Number 42 Palaquium gutta (Hook.) Baill. Sapotaceae 1 43 Paropsis vareciformis (Griff.) Mast. Passifloraceae 1 44 Timonius wallichianus (Korth.) Valeton Rubiaceae 1 45 Uvaria hirsuta Jack Annonaceae 1 Total number of individuals

148 Attachment 13 List of undergrowth on left cliff of Marancar Sub-district No. Latin Name Family Total Number 1 Albertisia papuana Becc. Menispermaceae 12 2 Alpinia malaccensis (Burm.f.) Roscoe Zingiberaceae 33 3 Amorphophallus paeoniifolius Araceae 10 4 Ampelocisus imperialis (Miq.) Planch. Vitaceae 54 5 Appendicula sp. Orchidaceae 8 6 Arcypteris irregularis Tetrariaceae Arenga pinnata Arecaceae 25 8 Astronia spectabilis Blume Melastomataceae 9 9 Cheilocostus speciosus Costaceae Clidemia hirta Melastomataceae 3 11 Colocasia esculenta Araceae 2 12 Cycas sp. Cycadaceae 2 13 Cyclosorus sp. Thelypteridaceae Daemonorops draco (Willd.) Blume Arecaceae 5 15 Garcinia nervosa Miq. Clusiaceae Goniophlebium percussum Polypodiaceae Homalomena cordata Schott. Araceae Species Species 3 Araceae Species 4 Araceae 3 21 Species Mapania cuspidata (Miq.) Uitt. Cyperaceae Memecylon paniculatum Jack Melastomataceae Mitrephora teysmannii Scheff. Annonaceae Mycetia cauliflora Reinw. Rubiaceae 9 26 Pinanga sp. Arecaceae 1 27 Piper crocatum Ruiz. & Paz. Piperaceae Piper porphyrophyllum N.E.Br Piperaceae Piper sp. Piperaceae Piper umbellatum L. Piperaceae 1 31 Selaginella plana Selaginellaceae Selaginella willdenowii (Desv. Ex Poir) Baker Selaginellaceae Taenitis blechnoides Rubiaceae 273 Number of individuals

149 Attachment 14 List of seedlings on left cliff of Marancar Sub-district No. Latin Name Family Total Number 1 Agelaea macrophylla (Zoll.) Leenh. Connaraceae 9 2 Aglaia eximia Miq. Meliaceae 6 3 Aglaia odoratissima Blume Meliaceae Alphonsea javanica Scheff. Annonaceae 9 5 Ardisia macrophylla Reinw.ex Blume Primulaceae Ardisia sanguinolenta Blume Primulaceae 11 7 Astronia spectabilis Blume Melastomataceae 28 8 Baccaurea lanceolata (Miq.) Muell. Arg Phyllanthaceae 7 9 Canarium caudatum King Burseraceae 6 10 Desmos chinensis Lour. Annonaceae Drypetes longifolia (Blume) Pax & K. Hoffm. Putranjivaceae 6 12 Dysoxylum arborescens (Blume) Miq. Meliaceae Ficus botryocarpa Miq. Moraceae 9 14 Species Species Leea sp. Vitaceae Lepisanthes senegalensis (Poir.) Leenh. Sapindaceae Macaranga recurvata Gage Euphorbiaceae Macaranga tanarius Euphorbiaceae Microcos tomentosa Malvaceae 3 21 Myristica maxima Warb. Myristicaceae 4 22 Oreocnide rubescens (Blume) Miq. Urticaceae Orophea sp. Annonaceae 5 24 Piper macropiper Piperaceae Pipturus sp. Urticaceae Pometia pinnata J.R.& G. Forst. Sapindaceae Pterospermum javanicum Jungh. Malvaceae Saurauia sp. Actinidiaceae 6 29 Toxidendron radicans Anacardiaceae Ziziphus angustifolia (Miq.) Hatus. ex Steenis Rhamnaceae 131 Number of indiciduals

150 Attachment 15 List of saplings on left cliff of Marancar Sub-district No. Latin Name Family Total Number 1 Aglaia eximia Miq. Meliaceae 10 2 Aglaia odoratissima Blume Meliaceae Alstonia macrophylla Wall. ex G. Don Apocynaceae 2 4 Antidesma leucopodum Miq. Phyllanthaceae 2 5 Ardisia macrophylla Reinw.ex Blume Primulaceae 70 6 Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam. Moraceae 7 7 Baccaurea lanceolata (Miq.) Muell. Arg Phyllanthaceae 5 8 Cinnamomum burmanni (Nees & T.Nees) Blume Lauraceae 16 9 Drypetes longifolia (Blume) Pax & K. Hoffm. Putranjivaceae 5 10 Dysoxylum arborescens (Blume) Miq. Meliaceae Embelia ribes Burm.f. Primulaceae 2 12 Ficus variegata Blume Moraceae 7 13 Species Lepisanthes senegalensis (Poir.) Leenh. Sapindaceae Magnolia gigantifolia (Miq.) Noot. Magnoliaceae 4 16 Myristica villosa Warb. Myristicaceae Neesia altissima (Blume) Blume Malvaceae 3 18 Nephelium uncinatum Leenh. Sapindaceae Piper macropiper Piperaceae Pipturus sp. Urticaceae Pometia pinnata J.R.& G. Forst. Sapindaceae Pterospermum javanicum Jungh. Malvaceae Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze Anacardiaceae Ziziphus angustifolia (Miq.) Hatus. ex Steenis Rhamnaceae 34 Number of individuals

151 Attachment 16 List of poles on left cliff of Marancar Sub-district No. Latin Name Family KBH 1 Acalypha caturus Blume Euphorbiaceae 1 2 Aglaia eximia Miq. Meliaceae 2 3 Aglaia odoratissima Blume Meliaceae 23 4 Aglaia simplicifolia (Bedd.) Harms Meliaceae 1 5 Aglaia tomentosa Teijsm. & Binn. Meliaceae 4 6 Anaxagorea javanica Blume Annonaceae 1 7 Antidesma leucopodum Miq. Phyllanthaceae 2 8 Ardisia macrophylla Reinw.ex Blume Primulaceae 5 9 Bhesa robusta (Roxb.) Ding Hou Celastraceae 5 10 Canarium caudatum King Burseraceae 1 11 Diospyros macrophylla Blume Ebenaceae 1 12 Drypetes longifolia (Blume) Pax & K. Hoffm. Putranjivaceae 1 13 Ficus drupacea Thunb. Moraceae 1 14 Species Species Lepisanthes senegalensis (Poir.) Leenh. Sapindaceae Lepisanthes tetraphylla Radlk. Sapindaceae 1 18 Lithocarpus elegans (Blume) Hatus. ex soepadmo Fagaceae 2 19 Macaranga bancana (Miq.) Mull. Arg. Euphorbiaceae 1 20 Macaranga tanarius Euphorbiaceae 1 21 Myristica maxima Warb. Myristicaceae 1 22 Myristica villosa Warb. Myristicaceae 3 23 Neoscortechinia sp. Euphorbiaceae 1 24 Pipturus sp. Urticaceae 1 25 Polyalthia rumphii (Blume ex Hench.) Merr. Annonaceae 2 26 Pometia pinnata J.R.& G. Forst. Sapindaceae 1 Total number of individuals

152 Attachment 17 List of trees on left cliff of Marancar Sub-district No. Latin Name Family Total Number 1 Adinandra sarosanthera Miq. Pentaphylaceae 1 2 Aglaia eximia Miq. Meliaceae 4 3 Aglaia odoratissima Blume Meliaceae 15 4 Aglaia simplicifolia (Bedd.) Harms Meliaceae 1 5 Aglaia tomentosa Teijsm. & Binn. Meliaceae 1 6 Alphonsea javanica Scheff. Annonaceae 2 7 Alstonia macrophylla Wall. ex G. Don Apocynaceae 2 8 Anaxagorea javanica Blume Annonaceae 2 9 Antidesma leucopodum Miq. Phyllanthaceae 3 10 Aquilaria malaccensis Thymelaeaceae 1 11 Ardisia macrophylla Reinw.ex Blume Primulaceae 5 12 Ardisia sanguinolenta Blume Primulaceae 2 13 Artocarpus elasticus Reinw. ex Blume Moraceae 2 14 Baccaurea sp. Phyllanthaceae 2 15 Bhesa robusta (Roxb.) Ding Hou Celastraceae 1 16 Coelostegia borneensis Becc. Malvaceae 3 17 Cryptocarya infectoria (Blume) Miq. Lauraceae 2 18 Diospyros macrophylla Blume Ebenaceae 2 19 Drypetes longifolia (Blume) Pax & K. Hoffm. Putranjivaceae 1 20 Dysoxylum arborescens (Blume) Miq. Meliaceae 8 21 Embelia ribes Burm.f. Primulaceae 2 22 Eurya acuminata DC. Pentaphylaceae 1 23 Ficus drupacea Thunb. Moraceae 1 24 Goniothalamus sp. Annonaceae 2 25 Species Knema laurina Warb. Myristicaceae 1 27 Lansium parasiticum (Osbeck) K.C. Sahni & Bennet Meliaceae 1 28 Lasianthus stipularis Blume Rubiaceae 7 29 Lepisanthes senegalensis (Poir.) Leenh. Sapindaceae 9 30 Lepisanthes tetraphylla Radlk. Sapindaceae 2 31 Myristica villosa Warb. Myristicaceae 1 32 Neesia altissima (Blume) Blume Malvaceae 4 33 Neouvaria acuminatissima (Miq.) Airy Shaw Annonaceae 2 34 Nephelium uncinatum Leenh. Sapindaceae 9 35 Palaquium gutta (Hook.) Baill. Sapotaceae 1 36 Pometia pinnata J.R.& G. Forst. Sapindaceae 5 37 Pterospermum javanicum Jungh. Malvaceae 3 38 Symplocos sp. Symplocaceae 1 Total number of individuals

153 Attachment 18 List of undergrowth in mixed garden of Marancar Sub-district No. Latin Name Family Total Number 1 Acranthera sp. Rubiaceae 7 2 Ampelocisus imperialis (Miq.) Planch. Vitaceae 13 3 Arcypteris irregularis Tetrariaceae Arenga pinnata Arecaceae 62 5 Bauhinia semibifida Roxb. Leguminosae 7 6 Clibadium surinamense L. Compositae 5 7 Clidemia hirta Melastomaceae Codiaeum variegatum (L.) Rumph. Ex A.Juss. Euphorbiaceae 10 9 Colocasia esculenta Araceae Cyclosorus sp. Thelypteridaceae Daemonorops sp. 1 Arecaceae Daemonorops sp. 2 Arecaceae 5 13 Donax Canniformis (G. Forst.) K. Schum Maranthaceae Freycinetia insignis Blume Pandanaceae Garcinia nervosa Miq. Clusiaceae Homalomena cordata Schott. Araceae Species 12 Araceae 5 18 Species Species 7 Araceae Species 9 Melastomataceae Korthalsia sp. Arecaceae 3 22 Molineria latifolia (Dryand. ex W.T. Aiton) Herb. ex Hypoxydaceae 12 Kurz. 23 Mycetia cauliflora Reinw. Rubiaceae 8 24 Neesia altissima (Blume) Blume Malvaceae Oncosperma tigillarium Arecaceae Pinanga sp. Arecaceae Piper crocatum Ruiz. & Paz. Piperaceae 8 28 Piper porphyrophyllum N.E.Br Piperaceae 8 29 Piper sp. Piperaceae Rhaphidophora korthalsii Schott. Araceae 5 31 Rhynchospora corymbosa (L.) Britton Cyperaceae Rubus chrysophyllus Reinw.ex Miq. Rosaceae Salacca zalazza Arecaceae 5 34 Sauropus androgynus Phyllanthaceae Selaginella plana Selaginellaceae Selaginella willdenowii (Desv. Ex Poir) Baker Selaginellaceae Syzygium sp.1 Myristicaceae 8 38 Taenitis blechnoides Pteridaceae 77 Total number of individuals

154 Attachment 19 List of seedlings in mixed garden in Marancar Sub-district No. Latin Name Family Total Number 1 Aglaia odoratissima Blume Meliaceae 12 2 Antidesma leucopodum Miq. Phyllanthaceae 7 3 Aquilaria malaccensis Lam. Thymelaeaceae 33 4 Archidendron ellipticum (Blume) I.C. Nielsen Leguminosae 1 5 Archidendron microcarpum (Benth.) I.C. Nielsen Leguminosae 12 6 Artocarpus elasticus Reinw. ex Blume Moraceae 4 7 Artocarpus nitidus Trec. Moraceae 2 8 Baccaurea macrophylla (Muell. Arg.) Muell. Arg. Phyllanthaceae 9 9 Canarium caudatum King Burseraceae 2 10 Cinnamomum burmanni (Nees & T.Nees) Blume Lauraceae 5 11 Clausena excavata Burm.f. Rutaceae 8 12 Coelostegia borneensis Becc. Malvaceae 2 13 Coffea sp. Rubiaceae Eurya acuminata DC. Pentaphylaceae Ficus drupacea Thunb. Moraceae 2 16 Ficus variegata Blume Moraceae 2 17 Garcinia parvifolia (Miq.) Miq. Clusiaceae Glochidion lutescens Blume Phyllanthaceae 5 19 Hevea brasiliensis (Willd. ex A.Juss.) Müll.Arg. Euphorbiaceae Hydnocarpus kunstleri (King) Warb. Achariaceae Leea sp. Vitaceae Lepisanthes senegalensis (Poir.) Leenh. Sapindaceae Lepisanthes tetraphylla Radlk. Sapindaceae Litsea robusta Blume Lauraceae Macaranga hypoleuca (Rchb.f. & Zoll.) Muell. Arg. Euphorbiaceae Macaranga recurvata Gage Euphorbiaceae Macaranga triloba (Thunb.) Muell. Arg. Euphorbiaceae 6 28 Microcos antidesmifolia (King) Burret Malvaceae Oreocnide rubescens (Blume) Miq. Urticaceae Podocarpus neriifolius D. Don Podocarpaceae 6 31 Pometia pinnata J.R.& G. Forst. Sapindaceae 3 32 Quercus gemmeliflora Blume Fagaceae Ryparosa hullettii King Achariaceae 7 34 Salacia sp. Celastraceae 9 35 Ziziphus angustifolia (Miq.) Hatus. ex Steenis Rhamnaceae 37 Total number of individuals

155 Attachment 20 List of saplings in mixed garden in Marancar Sub-district No. Latin Name Family Total Number 1 Aglaia odoratissima Blume Meliaceae 2 2 Aglaia tomentosa Teijsm. & Binn. Meliaceae Alangium havilandii Bloemb. Cornaceae 6 4 Alstonia macrophylla Wall. ex G. Don Apocynaceae 2 5 Aquilaria malaccensis Thymelaeaceae 31 6 Archidendron ellipticum (Blume) I.C. Nielsen Leguminosae 3 7 Ardisia macrophylla Reinw.ex Blume Primulaceae 58 8 Baccaurea lanceolata (Miq.) Muell. Arg Phyllanthaceae 5 9 Baccaurea macrocarpa (Miq.) Muell. Arg. Phyllanthaceae 9 10 Baccaurea macrophylla (Muell. Arg.) Muell. Arg. Phyllanthaceae 3 11 Bruinsmia styracoides Boerl. & Koord. Styraxaceae 9 12 cinnamomum burmannii Lauraceae 1 13 Clausena excavata Burm.f. Rutaceae 7 14 Coelostegia borneensis Becc. Malvaceae 6 15 Coffea sp. Rubiaceae 6 16 Dillenia excelsa (Jack) Martelli ex Gilg. Dilleniaceae Drypetes longifolia (Blume) Pax & K. Hoffm. Putranjivaceae Dysoxylum arborescens (Blume) Miq. Meliaceae Eurya acuminata DC. Pentaphylaceae 1 20 Ficus fistulosa Reinw. ex Blume Moraceae Ficus obscura Blume Moraceae 5 22 Ficus variegata Blume Moraceae 1 23 Garcinia atroviridis Griff. ex T. Anderson Clusiaceae 1 24 Glochidion lutescens Blume Phyllanthaceae 4 25 Hevea brasiliensis Euphorbiaceae Lepisanthes senegalensis (Poir.) Leenh. Sapindaceae Litsea robusta Blume Lauraceae 2 28 Macaranga bancana (Miq.) Mull. Arg. Euphorbiaceae 2 29 Macaranga gigantea (Rchb.f. & Zoll.) Muell. Arg. Euphorbiaceae Macaranga hypoleuca (Rchb.f. & Zoll.) Muell. Euphorbiaceae 2 Arg. 31 Macaranga recurvata Gage Euphorbiaceae Macaranga tanarius Euphorbiaceae 1 33 Microcos antidesmifolia (King) Burret Malvaceae 2 34 Myristica maxima Warb. Myristicaceae 4 35 Neonauclea excelsa (Blume) Merr. Rubiaceae Nephelium uncinatum Leenh. Sapindaceae Parkia speciosa Hassk. Leguminosae 3 38 Persea rimosa Zoll.ex Meissn. Lauraceae 1 39 Polyalthia cauliflora Hook.f. & Thomson Annonaceae Polyosma ilicifolia Blume Escaloniaceae

156 No. Latin Name Family Total Number 41 Pometia pinnata J.R.& G. Forst. Sapindaceae 7 42 Pterospermum javanicum Jungh. Malvaceae Rourea mimosoides Planch. Connaraceae 3 44 Ryparosa hullettii King Achariaceae 2 45 Saurauia sp. Actinidiaceae 3 46 Styrax benzoind Dryand. Styraxaceae 3 47 Symplocos fascifulata Zoll. Symplocaceae 7 48 Timonius wallichianus (Korth.) Valeton Rubiaceae Toxidendron radicans Anacardiaceae 31 Total number of individuals

157 Attachment 21 List of poles in mixed garden in Marancar Sub-district No. Latin Name Family Total Number 1 Aglaia sp. Meliaceae 1 2 Alstonia macrophylla Wall. ex G. Don Apocynaceae 2 3 Aquilaria malaccensis Thymelaeaceae 1 4 Archidendron microcarpum (Benth.) I.C. Nielsen Leguminosae 6 5 Ardisia sanguinolenta Blume Primulaceae 1 6 Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam. Moraceae 2 7 Artocarpus nitidus Trec. Moraceae 1 8 Baccaurea macrophylla (Muell. Arg.) Muell. Arg. Phyllanthaceae 1 9 Bhesa robusta (Roxb.) Ding Hou Celastraceae 1 10 Durio zibethinus L. Malvaceae 1 11 Garcinia atroviridis Griff. ex T. Anderson Clusiaceae 1 12 Hevea brasiliensis (Willd. ex A.Juss.) Müll.Arg. Euphorbiaceae Species Macaranga bancana (Miq.) Mull. Arg. Euphorbiaceae Macaranga gigantea (Rchb.f. & Zoll.) Muell. Arg. Euphorbiaceae 1 16 Macaranga hypoleuca (Rchb.f. & Zoll.) Muell. Arg. Euphorbiaceae 9 17 Myristica maxima Warb. Myristicaceae 1 18 Neouvaria acuminatissima (Miq.) Airy Shaw Annonaceae 1 19 Pipturus sp. Urticaceae 1 20 Symplocos fascifulata Zoll. Symplocaceae 6 Total number of individuals

158 Attachment 22 List of trees in mixed garden in Marancar Sub-distirtc No. Latin Name Family Total Number 1 Aglaia simplicifolia (Bedd.) Harms Meliaceae 2 2 Archidendron microcarpum (Benth.) I.C. Nielsen Leguminosae 2 3 Baccaurea lanceolata (Miq.) Muell. Arg Phyllanthaceae 1 4 Baccaurea sp. Phyllanthaceae 1 5 Canarium caudatum King Burseraceae 1 6 Durio zibethinus L. Malvaceae 2 7 Eurya acuminata DC. Pentaphylaceae 1 8 Hevea brasiliensis (Willd. ex A.Juss.) Müll.Arg. Euphorbiaceae 53 9 Macaranga bancana (Miq.) Mull. Arg. Euphorbiaceae 9 10 Macaranga hypoleuca (Rchb.f. & Zoll.) Muell. Arg. Euphorbiaceae 7 11 Nephelium uncinatum Leenh. Sapindaceae 1 12 Polyalthia lateriflora (Blume) Kurz. Annonaceae 1 13 Ryparosa hullettii King Achariaceae 1 14 Saurauia sp. Actinidiaceae 1 15 Spathodea campanulata Beauv. Bignoniaceae 1 Total number of individuals

159 Attachment 23 The nest of Orangutan tapanuli No Name Documentation Explenation 1 The nest of Orangutan The nest which found in Area C 3 The nest of Orangutan The nest which found in Area D 4 The nest of Orangutan The nest which found in Area A 5 The nest of Orangutan The nest which found in Area B 164

160 Attachment 24 Dokumentasi Orangutan dan satwa lain yang ditemui No Nama Jenis Dokumentasi Keterangan 1. Chameleon Found in all study area 2 Whiskered Treeswift Found in all study area 3 Rhinoceros Hornbill Found in all study area 4 Orangutan Found in all study area 5 Siamang Found in all study area 165

161 No Nama Jenis Dokumentasi Keterangan 6 Colugo Found in all study area 7 Chestnut-bellied Malkoha Found in the area C 166

162 Attachment 25 Documentation during data collection No Name of the Activities Documentation Explanation 1. Camera trap installation In the C area 2 Animal and Orangutan observation In the area A 3 Vegetation analysis In the area D 4 Preparation before going into the field Marancar 167

163 No Name of the Activities Documentation Explanation 5 Rest during the observation 6. Vegetation analysis Salak 168