An impact analysis of RSPO certification on Borneo forest cover and orangutan populations

Abstract

Executive summary This report compares deforestation rates between RSPO and non-RSPO oil-palm estates within 2,771 palm-oil estates across the island of Borneo, and the implications of this for orangutan conservation. Out of these 2,717 estates, 20% were inactive in 2016 (i.e., no palm had been planted within the boundaries of the estates and concessions; 8.1% were RSPO members. In 2015, more than 13.3 million ha had been allocated to the mapped oil-palm estates and concessions across the island (or 17.1% of the total land mass), but only 36.2% of the mapped concessions and estates had been planted with oil-palm (4.8 million ha). 2.8 million ha (or 21.2% of the total) was still forest in 2015. We note that at this stage in the study, a significant number of estates in Sabah have not yet been reliably mapped and that the total area allocated to oil-palm is higher than the 13.3 million ha mentioned in this study. Our results show that:  Total loss of intact and logged forest between 2000 and 2015 in RSPO-certified concessions and estates (815,592 ha) was 73,559 ha (i.e., 9.0% of total concession area).  Total loss of intact and logged forest between 2000 and 2015 in concessions and estates that were active and non-RSPO-certified in 2016 was 1,748,123 ha of forest loss (in 10,152,756 ha of concessions and estates, i.e., 17.2% of total concessions and estates area).  Annual forest loss rates in RSPO-certified areas have consistently declined after 2005 (the RSPO cutoff date for deforestation avoidance), from 13,417 ha per year between November 2005 and November 2007 to 1,839 ha per year after May 2014, whereas those in non-RSPO areas have stayed consistently higher.  Overall average planted area for active non-RSPO concessions and estates (41%) is much lower than that for RSPO-certified areas (82%), probably indicating better and more efficient land management and also potentially better resolution of land conflicts.  Active RSPO-certified concessions and estates retain less forest on average (4.5% in 2015) than active non-RSPO areas (10.9% in 2015), but forest loss rates between 2000 and 2015 are much higher in non-RSPO areas. Our analysis also reveals that there is still extensive overlap between oil-palm concessions and estates and orangutan habitats, especially in West and Central Kalimantan, to a lesser extent in East Kalimantan, 2 few in Sabah and apparently none in Sarawak. In 2014, we estimate that 275 orangutans were occurring in 32 RSPO-certified estates, while 9,300 individuals were found in non-RSPO estates. Between 1999 and 2014, orangutan populations in areas that are now RSPO-certified declined by 34% from 419 to 275, or about 2.2% population loss per year. In the same period, orangutan populations in non-certified concessions and estates declined by 31.0% from 13,480 to 9,302, or about 2.1% population loss per year: This suggests that the absolute loss of orangutans is significantly lower in RSPO areas on Borneo than in non-RSPO-certified areas, but that relative loss rates are about the same. Nevertheless, RSPO-certified concessions and estates are not yet meeting the target stipulated in P&C 5.2 as orangutan populations continue to decline in certified plantation areas and improvements need to be made in this regard.

Full text

1
An impact analysis of RSPO certification
on Borneo forest cover and orangutan
populations
A B or n eo Fut u r es report for the Orangutan Land Trust a nd W i lma r Internationa l
Borneo Futures, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam
Doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35387.21287
Erik Meijaard1,2, Courtney Morgans2, Husnayaen3, Nicola K. Abram1,4, and Marc Ancrenaz1,5
1 Borneo Futures, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam
2 School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
3 Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia
4 Living Landscape Alliance, Reading, UK
5 HUTAN/Kinabatangan Orang-utan Conservation Programme, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

2
Executive summary
This report compares deforestation rates between RSPO and non-RSPO oil-palm estates within 2,771
palm-oil estates across the island of Borneo, and the implications of this for orangutan conservation.
Out of these 2,717 estates, 20% were inactive in 2016 (i.e., no palm had been planted within the
boundaries of the estates and concessions; 8.1% were RSPO members.
In 2015, more than 13.3 million ha had been allocated to the mapped oil-palm estates and concessions
across the island (or 17.1% of the total land mass), but only 36.2% of the mapped concessions and
estates had been planted with oil-palm (4.8 million ha). 2.8 million ha (or 21.2% of the total) was still
forest in 2015. We note that at this stage in the study, a significant number of estates in Sabah have not
yet been reliably mapped and that the total area allocated to oil-palm is higher than the 13.3 million ha
mentioned in this study.
Our results show that:
 Total loss of intact and logged forest between 2000 and 2015 in RSPO-certified concessions and
estates (815,592 ha) was 73,559 ha (i.e., 9.0% of total concession area).
 Total loss of intact and logged forest between 2000 and 2015 in concessions and estates that
were active and non-RSPO-certified in 2016 was 1,748,123 ha of forest loss (in 10,152,756 ha of
concessions and estates, i.e., 17.2% of total concessions and estates area).
 Annual forest loss rates in RSPO-certified areas have consistently declined after 2005 (the RSPO
cut-off date for deforestation avoidance), from 13,417 ha per year between November
2005 and November 2007 to 1,839 ha per year after May 2014, whereas those in non-
RSPO areas have stayed consistently higher.
 Overall average planted area for active non-RSPO concessions and estates (41%) is much lower
than that for RSPO-certified areas (82%), probably indicating better and more efficient land
management and also potentially better resolution of land conflicts.
 Active RSPO-certified concessions and estates retain less forest on average (4.5% in 2015) than
active non-RSPO areas (10.9% in 2015), but forest loss rates between 2000 and 2015 are much
higher in non-RSPO areas.
Our analysis also reveals that there is still extensive overlap between oil-palm concessions and estates
and orangutan habitats, especially in West and Central Kalimantan, to a lesser extent in East Kalimantan,
few in Sabah and apparently none in Sarawak. In 2014, we estimate that 275 orangutans were occurring
in 32 RSPO-certified estates, while 9,300 individuals were found in non-RSPO estates. Between 1999
and 2014, orangutan populations in areas that are now RSPO-certified declined by 34% from 419 to 275,
or about 2.2% population loss per year. In the same period, orangutan populations in non-certified
concessions and estates declined by 31.0% from 13,480 to 9,302, or about 2.1% population loss per
year: This suggests that the absolute loss of orangutans is significantly lower in RSPO areas on Borneo
than in non-RSPO-certified areas, but that relative loss rates are about the same. Nevertheless, RSPO-
certified concessions and estates are not yet meeting the target stipulated in P&C 5.2 as orangutan

3
populations continue to decline in certified plantation areas and improvements need to be made in this
regard.
The key challenge to be addressed through the PONGO Alliance is to prevent the loss of nearly 10,000
orangutans that currently still occur in Bornean oil-palm areas. There is one sector that is best
positioned to do this and that is the palm-oil sector itself. But a number of fundamental changes need to
occur for the oil-palm sector to take a more proactive in protecting rather than killing orangutans. RSPO-
certified growers remain a minority and most threatened orangutans are in concessions certified by
compulsory Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) and Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) criteria.
Either these criteria are insufficient to prevent deforestation and loss of orangutan habitat or the
implementation of certified practices under ISPO and MSPO remains insufficiently audited and
corrected. The onus is on ISPO and MSPO to ensure their certified members adhere to similar practices
that reduce environmental impacts as RSPO-certified members.
Our recommendations are:
 At least 10% of natural forest must be retained and properly managed within oil-palm estate
with orangutans. Forests are essential to sustain orangutans and to make the oil-palm
cultivation more profitable;
 Land-use planning must avoid high-priority orangutan habitats if the species is to survive in
Borneo and Sumatra. Large areas of oil palm concessions in Kalimantan are unplanted. Rather
than giving out new licenses, the government should focus on increasing management
efficiency;
 Positive outcomes for orangutan conservation will be achieved through careful management of
remaining orangutan habitats: companies need to hire qualified environmental staff that can
influence decision-making at the plantation level;
 Peat swamp areas, mangroves and floodplains must not be developed for oil-palm production
 For the PONGO Alliance to spearhead this initiative to manage orangutans within an oil-palm
landscape via dialogue, practical recommendations and adequate training.

4
Background
The loss of tropical forest over the past four decades has been mostly attributed to large scale land
conversion for industrial agriculture. Within South East Asia, the rapid expansion of oil-palm (Elaeis
guineensis) crops, particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia, has been correlated with significant declines in
tropical forests and biodiversity and has become a major concern for conservation. In Borneo, industrial
oil-palm concessions were responsible for 37,000–40,000 km2 of forest loss between 1973 and 2015, or
between 20 and 22% of total deforestation on the island (Gaveau et al. 2016b). Indonesia and Malaysia
are the largest global producers of palm-oil, contributing 53% and 34% respectively to global trade, and
governments in these countries consider the industry to be central to development. Having the highest
yield of any vegetable oil, palm-oil is a cost effective crop to fulfil rapidly growing global demand for
vegetable oils. Given this demand for oils, and the lack of financially viable synthetic alternatives, a shift
away from palm-oil would mean the development of larger areas of oil crops and concomitant
environmental and social costs elsewhere.
Despite economic benefits, the oil-palm industry is frequently criticized for an array of negative impacts
including human labor rights violations, land use conflicts and environmental degradation. Such criticism
tends to become especially emotional when oil-palm expansion occurs at the expense of orangutans,
the Critically Endangered great ape species of Asia. This negative association with orangutan survival has
harmed the public perception of the oil-palm industry, much more so than other industries engaged in
vegetable oil production (e.g., maize, rapeseed, coconut or soy). Despite this severe criticism that has
been maintained for at least two decades, there is surprisingly limited information available on the
overlap between orangutan distribution and palm-oil concessions, and thus the relative contribution
that oil-palm plantations make to the decline of orangutans compared to other threats (e.g., hunting,
deforestation for small-holder agriculture, fire).
In response to concerns over the industry’s sustainability standards, the Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm-oil (RSPO) was formed in 2004 by a collective of industry representatives and civil society groups.
The RSPO broadly aims to “promote the growth and use of sustainable Palm-oil products through
credible global standards and engagement of stakeholders.” Although any interested party can become
a RSPO member, RSPO certification can only be achieved by adhering to the 8 operating Principles
covering 39 criteria that form the scheme’s guidelines. These principles and Criteria (P&C) relate to
economic, social and environmental aspects of oil-palm plantation development, management and
production. In addition to the P&C, recently launched New Planting Procedures require that all RSPO
grower members comply regardless of whether they are currently seeking certification for an estate or
concession or not.
Since its initial establishment in 2004, RSPO has grown to represent nearly 3,000 members, certifying
2.83 million hectares of oil-palm plantations, 157,115 ha High Conservation Value forest, and nearly 16
million tons of sustainable palm-oil and palm kernel oil (RSPO 2016), equating to over 20% of global
trade. However, despite the initial promise of the certification scheme, RSPO is frequently criticized as a
‘slow bus’ lacking the authority to uphold and regulate standards in the palm-oil industry. As a sign of

5
this criticism, a well-known orangutan conservation NGO, PanEco, recently resigned from RSPO, citing
“‘sheer level of inaction”.
In 2015, in an attempt to speed up improved management of oil-palm in orangutan habitat, a number of
conservation NGOs and palm-oil companies came together and formed the Palm-Oil and NGO (PONGO)
Alliance. Its mission is to serve as a collaborative platform that supports managing orangutans within an
oil-palm landscape. The PONGO Alliance recognizes that orangutans are increasingly found in oil-palm
landscapes, but that they cannot survive in oil-palm alone and need secure forest areas within the oil-
palm landscapes. On-the-ground experiments have shown that orangutan populations can survive
within such mix landscapes, but it requires commitments from oil-palm estate owners and managers to
keep forest set asides and corridors, and ban hunting. It also requires an understanding of the costs and
benefits of setting aside and managing forest areas within oil-palm estates. Within RSPO’s compensation
procedures there are opportunities for funding such orangutan conservation initiatives.
To start implementing the PONGO Alliance mission, a first necessary step is to clearly delineate where
remaining orangutan habitats overlap with oil-palm plantation and specifically with RSPO-certified palm-
oil. At the moment such data are not available, further fueling the polarized debate on palm-oil and
orangutans that is often fed by disinformation. In addition to understanding where orangutans and
responsible palm-oil overlap, there is a need to quantify what RSPO certification means on the ground in
terms of protection of High Conservation Value forests and reduction in deforestation levels, compared
to non-certified concessions.
This report intends to firstly, evaluate whether RSPO certification is beneficial to orangutans, at a macro
level (throughout Borneo) and a micro level through a fine-scale analysis within a well-renowned region
for orangutan (in the Kinabatangan, eastern Sabah); and, secondly, share recommendations with the
industry to improve the chance of long-term survival of this highly iconic species in oil-palm landscapes.

6
Methods
Mapping concession boundaries
For Kalimantan, we created a concessions and estates map in ArcGIS 10.0 through the compilation of
multiple data sets. First, we obtained a layer of oil-palm concessions developed by the Indonesian
Ministry of Agriculture (Kalimantan oil-palm concession shape file 2014) through the World Resources
Institute (WRI). Next we obtained shape files for several RSPO-certified concessions and estates from
the Sustainable Palm-oil Transparency Toolkit (SPOTT; Zoological Society of London Sustainable Palm-oil
Platform (ZSL SPOM)) and from Global Forest Watch (GFW). Additional shape files were obtained from
RSPO ACOP reports where available. Names, parent companies and provinces of all 535 oil-palm
plantations in Indonesian Borneo were compiled from the Oil-palm Plantation Company directory
produced by the Indonesian Bureau of Statistics (2014). From here, we cross-referenced concession and
estate names with data included in RSPO ACOP reports, company annual reports and sustainability
dashboards hosted by The Forest Trust (TFT). As supply chain certificates are given to Palm-oil Mills
(POM), RSPO-certified mills were also mapped along with the estates from which they are supplied.
For Sarawak, we obtained a map of all oil-palm estates through GFW. As with Kalimantan, RSPO-certified
estates were identified through RSPO certification certificates and ACOP reports.
Figure 1. Estate boundary data set for Sabah used in the current study and its relationship to planted oil-palm (Gaveau et al.
2016b)
For Sabah, official government land title/estate data are not publicly available, although some
information became viewable online very recently, but remains still not accessible for download. As a
result, we used existing digitized cadastral data developed in previous studies, from georeferenced
cadastral maps (Abram 2016; Abram et al. 2014). These data covered approximately 50-60% of Sabah.
We extracted the commercial land titles (known as Country Lease titles) for oil-palm from these
datasets. Some of the digitized estates (but not all) had details such as estate names, company and
parent company names, and whether they were certified or members of the RSPO. To identify all RSPO-
certified oil-palm estates, we cross-checked and updated with those RSPO- certified estates identified in
the ZSL online SPOTT database; and with available RSPO-certified Mill locations downloaded from GFW

7
(although some of these mills had location errors). If such RSPO estates were missing, we digitized the
boundaries and assigned the relevant information into the oil-palm estate dataset. Due to difficulty in
acquiring cadastral maps for the remaining areas of Sabah, the oil-palm estate data is incomplete (Figure
1). As a result, our estate data covers around 50% of planted oil-palm in Sabah, although a relatively
large proportion of planted oil-palm is under smallholder titles, which we excluded from this study. Of
this 50%, 17.7% estates had estate boundaries, estate names/company and parent company names; and
32.2% had estate boundaries but no estate or company details.
Errors and omission in boundaries maps
Because official spatial data on Indonesian and Malaysian concession and estate boundaries are
currently not available, we used a range of different sources to generate these datasets. These data
introduce error, although we don’t know the magnitude of the error nor do we know whether we over-
or under-estimate the areas given out for oil-palm development. For Kalimantan, online government
data indicate that we may over-estimate the area (Figure 2), but then again it is unclear how accurate
the government data are. For example, some of the Indonesian concession boundaries in our dataset
may refer to the original izin prinsip or izin lokasi, rather than the ultimate HGU (Right to Exploit; Hak
Guna Usaha) or licensed area. We are currently unable to rectify these boundary errors, which would
require for the government to make correctly registered cadastral data publicly available. Such errors
are also likely to exist in the Sarawak dataset that has been put together from a variety of data sources
(see Runting et al. 2015). For Sabah, we attempted to refine estate boundary locations by cross-
referencing digitised cadastral data with satellite images, although accuracy can be further improved in
this dataset where there was obscurity in either the cadastral maps that were digitised or in the satellite
images. Nevertheless, errors on boundary locations are likely relatively small, enabling good spatial and
statistical analyses of our deforestation rates and orangutan population trends.
Figure 2. Online concession data made public in graphic format by the Indonesian Ministry of Land and Spatial Planning
(peta.bpn.go.id) compared to our concession data set for the same area. The left map shows HGU areas only

8
Forest cover and deforestation analyses
We determined the decline in forest area for the period 2000 – 2015 combining two published
LANDSAT-based datasets: 1) a forest map revealing the area of remaining natural forest in Borneo in
year 2000 (Margono et al. 2014) with a Tree Loss map revealing annual losses of trees from January
2001 to December 2015 (Hansen et al. 2013; Hansen et al. 2016). This Tree Loss map does not
distinguish between removal of natural and planted trees (Margono et al. 2014). To reduce any error
resulting from this ambiguity, we excluded Tree Loss pixels outside of the area occupied by natural
forests according to the 2000 Forest map, to only determine losses in natural forest area rather than
losses in planted trees. The definition of Forest includes any natural closed-canopy evergreen forest that
has remained in sufficiently good condition to be classified as intact or nearly intact forest in the near-
infrared, mid-infrared, and red bands of LANDSAT imagery. This definition includes old-growth forest
(Dipterocarps and Kerangas on dry mineral soils, on fresh-water and peat swamps as well as mangrove
forests), selectively logged forest, and some forest only mildly impacted by ground fires (Gaveau et al.
2014). It excludes young forest regrowth, scrublands, tree plantations, agricultural land, and non-
vegetated areas.
Orangutan population trends
We determined orangutan population numbers and population trends in RSPO and non-RSPO oil-palm
concessions and estates by using a data set prepared by Santika et al. (in review). This dataset is based
on analyses in a Bayesian framework of orangutan nest counts and presence-absence data. The nest
count data were obtained from aerial and ground line transect surveys (while the presence-absence
data were derived from two survey approaches: 1) recce transects and targeted surveys of nest
observations, and 2) interview surveys of direct orangutan sightings. We divided the data into three
time periods: 1) 1997-2002, 2) 2003-2008, and 3) 2009-2014, thus providing an analysis of the change in
orangutan abundance every six years. This time interval conforms to the minimum inter-birth intervals
(the time between consecutive offspring) of female Bornean orangutan (Knott et al. 2009). It also
conforms roughly to the time frames of orangutan conservation plan at a national level for Indonesia
(Soehartono et al. 2007) and a state level for Malaysia (Sabah Wildlife Department 2012).
We adapted a dynamic population model for integrating count data and presence-absence data of the
species. Our model generalizes the negative binomial model for open populations and assumes that
abundance patterns are determined by an initial territory establishment process followed by gains and
losses resulting from births, mortalities and dispersal. It also accounts for varying detection errors
inherited from the different nature of survey data. We assessed orangutan population trends by
measuring the change in the total number of individuals. For this, we assessed the relative importance
of drivers of orangutan population declines by region relating environmental covariates explaining
survival rates in areas where orangutans are predicted to occur with known actual threats observed on
Borneo, which includes: 1) habitat fragmentation, i.e. breaking up intact forest habitats into small forest
patches, 2) habitat loss, i.e. the loss of natural forest of orangutan habitats due to conversion of forest
to agriculture and other types of land-uses, 3) human-orangutan conflicts, and 4) anthropogenic human
activities, such as hunting and poaching. For further details of the analysis, refer to Santika et al. (in

9
review). This model provided 1 x 1 km2 density estimates for Borneo across three time periods (1997 –
2002, 2003 – 2008, 2009 – 2014). This data was then overlaid with oil-palm concession data and a
spatial correlation performed in Arc GIS (v10).
Fine-scale analysis on RSPO/Non-RSPO oil-palm estates, in Sabah
To get a more detailed picture of whether RSPO estates are meeting environmental/biodiversity related
standards of specific RSPOs Principles and Criteria (RSPO 2013), we undertook fine-scale analyses of
RSPO, Non-RSPO and estates of unknown status in the Lower Kinabatangan region of eastern Sabah
(Figure 3), an area well-regarded for its orangutan population (Ancrenaz et al. 2004; Ancrenaz et al.
2015). For this part of the study, we refined the accuracy of the estate boundaries within the Lower
Kinabatangan, to ensure more accurate results, and we similarly excluded titles that were for
smallholdings (Native Titles) or State lands (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. (A) Lower Kinabatangan region in eastern Sabah; (B) Oil-palm estate selected in the Lower Kinabatangan region that
have been identified as RSPO certified estates or parent companies of those estates are RSPO members (green), or non-RSPO
estates (orange), or estates with unknown information on estate and company names (beige).

10
Forest loss from 2005 and 2014
To calculate the extent of forest and forest loss for the lower Kinabatangan area, we used forest extent
data digitized from satellite images for the years 2005 (Landsat 30 m resolution), and 2014 (SPOT 1.5 m
resolution), within ArcGIS 10.3. Forest extent for these years was digitized for the entire region,
regardless of whether forested areas were in commercial oil-palm estates; or indeed on other land title
types or on state land. For the selected estates, forest for 2005 and 2014 were extracted and forest loss
from 2005 was calculated.
High Conservation Values
Orangutan habitat (HCV 1): To identify selected oil-palm estates that had orangutan habitat, we used
existing orangutan distribution data developed for the Kinabatangan region, at 1 hectare resolution, for
2010/11 (see Abram 2016). We updated this 2010/11 distribution by extracting overlapping areas with
the 2014 forest extent data, and then overlaid the updated 2014 orangutan distribution with the
selected oil-palm estate boundaries and calculated the area of orangutan habitat per estate.
Fire: To look at fires in oil-palm estates, we used fire occurrence data for the selected estates in the
Kinabatangan from the Global Forest Watch “Southeast Asia NOAA-18 active fires” dataset. These data
demonstrated locations of fire hotspots using imagery provided by the NOAA-18 satellite at around a
1km pixel resolution between the dates of 22-10-2014 to 22-12-2016. We overlaid these fire hotspot
data with our estate boundaries and calculated the number of estates that had fires.
Protected Areas: We identified which of the selected oil-palm estates border protected areas (PAs),
whether fully protected or adjacent to a Forest Reserve that has natural forest management. A simple
positive or negative value was assigned to estates, regardless of extent of boarders with PAs.
Riparian Reserves: To identify which of the selected estates comply with riparian reserve legislation in
the State, we first identified those estates that have rivers running through their boundaries, or rivers
that are directly proximal to their boundary. Of these estates, we manually looked at each estate to
identify whether there was compliance with State legislation fully in regards to the minimum
requirement for width or riparian reserves. We categorized those estates as: Yes, fully complying;
partially complying; or, noncompliance.
Slopes, peat and unsuitable areas for oil-palm: To understand the extent of remaining forest on slopes,
we used digitized topographic map data at 10 m intervals for Sabah. Using ArcGIS tools, we converted
these contour data to slope data (at 90 m resolution) and identified all areas with slopes of 25 degrees
and above, and calculated the extent within the selected estates. We then overlaid slope with 2014
forest data to identify the remaining forest on slopes within estates. To identify the extent to of soil
associations with peat, and how much forest remaining on these areas, we used digitised soil association
data developed in the 1970s (Land Resource Division, 1974). Within these data we selected those soil
associations with parent material that included peat (i.e., Klias, Sapi, Sipitang, and Weston) and overlaid
these with the selected estate boundaries, and 2014 forest extent. Extensive areas of oil-palm failure in
the region due to unsuitable conditions have been mapped previously (Abram et al. 2014). We updated
these data, originally mapped for 2010/11, using 2014 images to identify failed oil-palm that had

11
approximately 25% palm capacity or less, typically in seasonal or tidal flood prone areas (see Abram et
al. 2014), and overlaid these with the estate boundaries.
High Carbon Stock (HCS) forest
We used an existing carbon stock spatial data developed by Abram et al. (2016). These data were
classified into six categories (using metric tons of carbon per hectare i.e. tC/ha): Class 1=‘<50 tC/ha’;
Class 2=‘50-100 tC/ha’; Class 3=‘100-200 tC/ha’; Class 4=‘200-300 tC/ha’; Class 5=‘300-400 tC/ha’; Class
6=‘>400 tC/ha. The High Carbon Stock (HCS) threshold proposed to the RSPO is 75 metric tons of carbon
per ha (tCha) and above, for above-ground carbon. To identify High Carbon Stock (HCS) in the
unprotected forests, we reclassified these six categories to map out areas that are: (1) below, and (2)
above the proposed HSC carbon stock value. To determine this we took the mid-point range in Class 2,
which is 75 tCha, meaning Classes 1 and 2 were classified as non-HCS forest, and Classes 3 – 6 were
classified as HCS forest. We calculated the extent (in ha) and mapped the location of HCS and non-HSC
forests in the Kinabatangan region.

12
Results
Summary data
We mapped a total of 2,771 oil-palm concessions and estates on Borneo, divided across the
geographical units of the island as follows: Sabah (1285); North Kalimantan (57); East Kalimantan (211);
South Kalimantan (93); Central Kalimantan (414); West Kalimantan (463); and Sarawak (248) (see Figure
4 and Figure 5). We note that this data set is incomplete, as we were unable to map all estates.
Of the 2,771 oil-palm concessions and estates on Borneo, 2,168 were active in 2016 as judged from the
presence of planted oil-palm as identified by Gaveau et al. (2016b). The remainder (603; 22% of all
mapped) were inactive and had no planted oil-palm in their license area. Inactive concessions and
estates are primarily located towards the center of Borneo (Figure 4). Of the 2,771 oil-palm concessions
and estates on Borneo, 220 (8%) were RSPO-certified at the time of our study, divided as shown in Table
1 across the geographic units.
Table 1. Number of RSPO and non-RSPO estates on Borneo. Note that Sabah data are incomplete.
Geographic unit
Number of RSPO estates mapped
(percentage of total estates mapped
in that geographic unit)
Number of active non-
RSPO estates (percentage
of total estates mapped in
that geographic unit)
Number of inactive non-
RSPO estates
(percentage of total
estates mapped in that
geographic unit)
Sabah
134 (10.4%)
907 (70.6%)
244(18.9%)
North Kalimantan
0 (0%)
34 (59.6%)
23 (40.4%)
East Kalimantan
9 (4.2%)
146 (69.2%)
56 (26.5%)
South Kalimantan
23 (24.7%)
41 (44.1%)
29 (32.9%)
Central Kalimantan
35 (8.5%)
285 (68.8%)
94 (22.7%)
West Kalimantan
11 (2.4%)
326 (70.4%)
126 (27.2%)
Sarawak
8 (3.2%)
217 (87.5%)
23 (9.2%)
TOTAL
220 (7.9%)
1956 (70.6%)
595 (21.5%)
The total area of mapped oil-palm concessions and estates on Borneo was 13,327,233 ha in 2015, with
an average estate/concession area of 7,778 ha. This equals about 18.1% of the total land area of Borneo.
The total area of planted oil-palm within these concessions and estates was 4,826,296 ha in 2015, which
indicates that only about 36.2% of the totally available license areas on Borneo is actually planted with
oil-palm. Of the remaining areas of unplanted oil-palm concessions and estates, 2,827,143 ha (21.2 of
total) was still forest in 2015. We note that the total area of planted industrial-scale oil-palm on Borneo
is 7.9 Mha (Gaveau et al. 2016a), which suggests that 3.07 Mha of industrial-scale oil-palm occurs
outside of the estate boundaries that we had available in this study, much of this in Sabah, for which our
data set remains incomplete (Figure 5).

13
Figure 4. 2015 Land cover in Borneo’s oil-palm estates and concessions

14
Figure 5. Planted area of oil-palm in Sabah, Kalimantan, and Sarawak (after Gaveau et al. 2016), and the extent to
which we could assign ownership.

15
Of the total area of mapped oil-palm concessions and estates on Borneo (13,327,233 ha), 815,592 ha
(6.1% of total) was RSPO-certified in 2016. The area of active, non-RSPO concessions and estates was
10,152,756 ha (76.2% of total). The remainder (2,358,885 ha, or 17.7% of total) were non-active, non-
RSPO concessions and estates.
Total loss of intact and logged forest area between 2000 and 2015 in all concessions and estates
(13,327,233 ha) was 1,952,537 ha. The deforestation and forest protection rates differ between the
RSPO and non-RSPO areas and between active (planted) and inactive (unplanted) areas (Tables 2, 3, and
4).
Table 2. Average percentage forest cover per estate/concession for 2000 and 2015, and total deforestation for RSPO certified
concessions in different parts of Borneo for time periods relevant to the RSPO Compensation Mechanism.
Regional units (number
of estates or
concessions)
Average
% Forest
2000
Average
% Forest
2015
Average
%
planted
Total forest
loss Nov ’05 –
Nov’07 (ha)
Total forest
loss Nov’07 –
Dec ’09 (ha)
Total forest
loss Jan ’10 to
May ’14 (ha)
Total forest
loss after May
9, 2014 (ha)
Sabah (134)
14.30
5.63
92.42
1,203.35
983.92
1,130.26
48.27
North Kalimantan (0)
-
-
-
-
-
-
East Kalimantan (9)
0.47
0.19
60.40
19.89
5.85
45.33
3.74
South Kalimantan (23)
2.58
1.07
54.44
250.23
185.55
119.63
322.29
Central Kalimantan (35)
14.14
1.70
78.87
20,788.90
5,684.60
2,862.08
278.99
West Kalimantan (11)
19.34
4.63
50.00
3,850.27
4,950.82
3,984.98
1178.95
Sarawak (8)
6.10
2.22
87.76
722.31
323.50
79.74
7.03
TOTAL
12.64
4.52
82.69
26,834.95
12,134.24
8,222.02
1,839.27
FOREST LOSS PER YEAR
13,417
6,067
2,530
1,839
Total loss of intact and logged forest between 2000 and 2015 in RSPO-certified concessions and estates
(815,592 ha) was 73,559 ha (i.e., 9.0% of total oil-palm license area). Of this, 49,030 ha were lost after
November 2005, or about 0.6% of the total oil-palm license area per year. There is a declining trend in
annual forest loss from RSPO concessions and estates after November 2005 from 13,417 ha per year
between November 2005 and November 2007 to 1,839 ha per year for the same total oil-palm license
area after May 2014.
Table 3. Average percentage forest cover per estate/concession for 2000 and 2015, and total deforestation for active
(planted) non-RSPO certified concessions in different parts of Borneo for time periods relevant to the RSPO Compensation
Mechanism.
Regional units (number of
estates or concessions)
Average
% Forest
2000
Average
% Forest
2015
Average
%
planted
Total forest
loss Nov ’05
– Nov’07 (ha)
Total forest
loss Nov’07 –
Dec ’09 (ha)
Total forest
loss Jan ’10 to
May ’14 (ha)
Total forest
loss after May
9, 2014 (ha)
Sabah (907)
17.22
7.82
87.48
7,299.09
5,851.14
10,492.77
1.055.65
North Kalimantan (34)
77.42
38.59
36.78
11,734.23
33,769.04
61,702.29
13,377.44
East Kalimantan (146)
36.04
19.98
39.67
25,214.66
25,908.88
82,612.25
18,330.39
South Kalimantan (41)
9.31
6.77
35.87
1,615.07
537.03
1,223.63
637.00
Central Kalimantan (326)
25.45
10.78
52.87
74,377.78
77,541.89
99,435.59
20,386.78
West Kalimantan (326)
25.16
12.03
31.17
52,471.05
105,208.68
229,196.38
65,566.19
Sarawak (217)
52.53
15.16
67.01
91,106.54
175,745.14
171,987.22
13,689.16
TOTAL
25.23
10.86
65.60
263,818.47
424,561.88
656,650.59
133,042.68
FOREST LOSS PER YEAR
131,909.24
212,280.94
202,046.15
133,042

16
Sabah and Sarawak stand out for having much higher percentages of their estates actually planted with
oil-palm (averaging 92.42% and 87.76% respectively). This tends to be much lower in the Kalimantan
provinces (varying from 50% to 78.9%). At the same time, Sabah had the highest average percentage of
forest set asides within estates (5.63%), whereas this was much lower in most of Kalimantan. This
indicates that great parts of Kalimantan’s RSPO-certified concessions and estates are neither used for
oil-palm development nor forest protection, and instead presumably for small-holder agricultural uses,
contested land claims in non-forest areas, burnt areas etc.
Total loss of intact and logged forest between 2000 and 2015 in concessions and estates that were
active and non-RSPO certified in 2016 was 1,748,123 ha of forest loss (in 10,152,756 ha of concession
areas, i.e., 17.2% of total concession area). Of this, 1,478,073 ha were lost after November 2005, or
about 14.56% of the total concession area per year. We note the very high rates of forest loss in the
recently (2012) established province of North Kalimantan, and also in Sarawak. The trend in annual
forest loss from active non-RSPO concessions and estates is not clearly going up or down, with high
losses from November 2007 to May 2014 and reduced losses after May 2014.
Similar to the RSPO-certified concessions and estates, Sabah and Sarawak have higher averages for
planted areas (87.48% and 67.0% respectively), compared to Kalimantan (between 31.2% and 52.87%).
It is noteworthy that the overall averages planted area for active non-RSPO concessions and estates
(65.6%) is much lower than that for RSPO certified areas (82.7%), probably indicating better and more
efficient land management and also potentially better resolution of land conflicts. On the other hands,
RSPO-certified concessions and estates retain less forest on average (4.52% in 2015) than active non-
RSPO concession (10.7% in 2015). Then again forest loss rates between 2000 and 2015 are much higher
in non-RSPO concession as pointed out above.
Table 4. Average percentage forest cover per estate/concession for 2000 and 2015, and total deforestation for non-active
(unplanted) non-RSPO certified concessions in different parts of Borneo for time periods relevant to the RSPO Compensation
Mechanism.
Regional units (number
of estates or
concessions)
Average
% Forest
2000
Average
% Forest
2015
Average
%
planted
Total forest
loss Nov ’05 –
Nov’07 (ha)
Total forest
loss Nov’07 –
Dec ’09 (ha)
Total forest
loss Jan ’10 to
May ’14 (ha)
Total forest
loss after May
, 2014 (ha)
Sabah (244)
62.45
55.61
-
394.01
898.13
2697.35
667.90
North Kalimantan (23)
61.37
53.96
-
2,168.61
3,339.93
8,853.97
2,886.86
East Kalimantan (56)
48.71
43.56
-
1,479.71
1,368.66
6,135.28
3,015.30
South Kalimantan (29)
15.35
12.27
-
89.06
178.80
103.35
180.67
Central Kalimantan (94)
46.19
39.01
-
11,637.95
6,479.21
14,984.08
11,949.23
West Kalimantan (126)
19.94
17.44
-
2,124.11
2,974.78
4,566.14
4,544.03
Sarawak (23)
35.64
29.38
-
399.23
689.67
4,145.88
1,242.14
TOTAL
45.72
40.18
-
18,292.70
15,929.18
41,485.98
24,486.13
FOREST LOSS PER YEAR
9,146.35
7,964.59
12,764.92
24,486.13
Total loss of intact and logged forest between 2000 and 2015 in concessions and estates that were
inactive and non-RSPO certified in 2016 was 130,854 ha of forest loss (in 2,358,885 ha, or 6% of total oil-
palm license area). Of this, 100,194 ha were lost after November 2005. We reiterate that these losses

17
were not caused by the planting of industrial-type oil-palm, but by other causes like fires and small-scale
agriculture.
Forest cover in these non-active plantations is still high (40.2% on average for all of Borneo in 2015), and
nearly 1 million ha of forest could potentially be lost if these concessions become active.
Orangutan populations and trends in RSPO and non-RSPO concessions
Our analysis revealed that there is still extensive overlap between oil-palm concessions and orangutan
habitats, especially in West and Central Kalimantan, to a lesser extent in East Kalimantan, few in Sabah
and apparently none in Sarawak (Figure 6). Some concessions have over 300 orangutans on their land.
RSPO-certified concessions make up a small subset of the concessions with orangutans (Figure 7).
Figure 6. All oil-palm concessions (RSPO and non-RSPO) on Borneo with orangutans. Predicted
population numbers per concession as in the legend.

18
In 2014, an estimated 275 orangutans occurred in 32 RSPO-certified oil-palm concessions and estates
(Table 5), and an estimated 9,302 orangutans in the non-RSPO areas. Between 1999 and 2014,
orangutan populations in areas that are now RSPO-certified declined by 34% from 419 to 275, or about
2.2% population loss per year. In the same period, orangutan populations in non-certified areas declined
by 31.0% from 13,480 to 9,302, or about 2.1% population loss per year (Figure 8 and Figure 9). This
suggests that the absolute loss of orangutans is significantly lower in RSPO concessions and estates on
Borneo than in non-RSPO certified areas, but that relative loss rates are about the same.
Figure 7. RSPO certified concessions that had orangutans within their boundaries in 2014. Predicted population numbers per
concession as in the legend.

19
Table 5. RSPO concessions and estates where our analysis indicates the presence of orangutans. Population estimates per
concession provided for 2003, 2009, and 2014.
Estate Name
# in 2003
# in 2009
# in 2014
Tagas Estate
7
5
5
Litang Estate
6
6
6
Tabin Estate
6
5
4
Tabin Estate 2
3
4
0
Sungai Segama II
3
2
0
Unknown estate
3
0
0
Mayvin Grouping
2
0
0
Sg. Pin Estate
2
0
0
Linbar 1 and 2 Estates
1
1
1
Unknown ?
1
0
0
Rimmer
0
2
0
Dharma Inti Sawit Nugraha
1
2
1
Dewata Sawit Nusantara
1
0
0
Agro Bukit
86
62
50
Globalindo Alam Perkasa
29
34
27
Unggul Lestari
4
0
0
Sukajadi Sawit Mekar
39
45
29
Sawit Sumber Mas Sarana
46
38
29
Bumi Sawit Kencana
1
0
0
Teguh Sempurna
1
0
0
Tapian Nadenggan
2
1
3
Kridatama Lancar
7
2
2
Karya Makmur Bahagia
2
4
7
Bina Sawit Abadi Pratama
35
34
22
Wilmar Sambas Plantation
2
0
0
Agronusa Investama
2
1
0
Kencana Graha Permai
18
10
3
Harapan Sawit Lestari
104
102
82
Indo Sawit
5
0
0
Swakarsa Sinar Sentosa
0
1
1
Rea Kaltim Plantation
0
1
1
Sarana Titian Permata
0
0
2

20
The predicted orangutan population sizes are based on Bayesian modelling that takes into consideration
a various input data (helicopter nest counts, transect nest counts, and interview data) and predictors.
Unlike forest cover change which can be directly measured and has small errors, the error in the
orangutan populations estimates is less clear. We do know however that these predictions contain some
error. For example, we know that the list of RSPO concessions with orangutans misses out some
concessions that certainly do have orangutans, such as the Mentaya Sawit Mas concession in Central
Kalimantan belonging to the Wilmar group, which has a population of some 30 orangutans (Meijaard et
al. 2016a). Also, several RSPO-certified plantations in the Kinabatangan area in Sabah are known to have
small numbers of resident or transient orangutans. These populations were however not identified in
the current analysis and further more detailed analysis would be required to ensure all RSPO
concessions with orangutans are correctly recorded, allowing for targeted management interventions
that ensure no further declines in orangutans.
Figure 8. Population trends from 1999 to 2014 for all oil-palm concessions on Borneo (top) and RSPO-certified concessions
(bottom).

21
Figure 9. Orangutan population trends in Borneo oil-palm concessions between 1999 and 2014. The top line shows trends for
concessions that were not RSPO certified in 2015 and the bottom line RSPO concession.
In Kalimantan, RSPO certified concessions were found to have lower predicted orangutan population
sizes than non-certified concessions prior to the implementation of RSPO (i.e., 1999 – 2002). This is not
surprising as RSPO certification criteria stipulates that endangered species presence must be “identified
and operations managed to best ensure that they are maintained and/or enhanced” (RSPO P&C 5.2).
High densities of Orangutan within oil-palm concessions are likely correlated with large portions of
intact Forest, the conversion of which would make a concession ineligible for RSPO certification. When
controlling for concession size and percent forest loss between 2000 and 2014, RSPO-certified
concessions experience a slower rate of orangutan population decline than non-certified concessions
(Figure 10). Despite this comparative success, RSPO-certified concessions are not meeting the criteria
stipulated in P&C 5.2 as orangutan populations continue to decline in certified concessions and
improvements need to be made in this regard. Nevertheless, this data suggests that RSPO-certified
concessions are better at working towards this outcome than non-certified concessions (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Average change in orangutan population size over time in RSPO certified concessions and non- certified
concessions in Kalimantan when controlling for concession size and percent forest loss since 2000.
13480
11206
9302
419 359 275
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
1999-2002 2003-2008 2009-2014
Non-RSPO
RSPO
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1999 2014
Predicted average Orangutan
population size per concession
RSPO
Non-RSPO

22
Fine-scale analysis in the Lower Kinabatangan, Sabah
For the Lower Kinabatangan region, we identified 71 RSPO estates, 62 non-RSPO estates and a further
156 estates with unknown information regarding estate names. In general, RSPO estates were larger
than non-RSPO, averaging at 1,443 ha compared with 577 ha (or 489 ha for unknown titles) (Table 6).
The RSPO estates performed better regarding preventing forest loss. We found 14% (689 ha) forest loss
from 2005 to 2014 in RSPO estates, compared to 24% (674 ha) in non-RSPO estates, and 26% (1,133 ha)
in unknown estates (Figure 11). In a number of non-RSPO estates, forest regeneration had occurred
from 2005-2014, contributing 466 ha of secondary forest.
Figure 11. Area of forest loss from 2005-2014 (medium green), and remaining forest (dark green) and regenerating forest
(light green) in 2014, within RSPO certified/member estates, non-RSPO estates and other unknown estates; and other
forested areas outside of these estates (black).
Within the RSPO estates, we calculated a total of 4,326 ha of forest in 2014, of which 90% was identified
as orangutan habitat (Figure 12), and 65% was estimated to have HCS (i.e., above-ground carbon of ≥75
tCha) (Table 6). For non-RSPO estates, we identified 1,633 ha of 2014 forest within the estate
boundaries, 84% of this was orangutan habitat and 68% was HCS forest. Unknown estates had
collectively 3,142 ha of forest in 2014, of which, 57% was orangutan habitat and 37% was classified as
HCS forest.

23
Figure 12. Orangutan habitat (orange) identified in 2014 within RSPO certified/member estates, non-RSPO estates and other
unknown estates, additionally with 2014 remaining forest in other areas (black).
Only 10% of forest on slopes ≥25 degrees had been converted in RSPO estates by 2014. Generally,
however, there were few slopes found in estates in the region, especially in non-RSPO and unknown
estate boundaries. For forests associated with peat soils, most had already been lost prior to 2005. Post
2005, however, still saw the conversion of forest on peat with 59% of peat forest removed in RSPO
estates from 2005-2014, 26% removed in non-RSPO estates, and 46% in unknown estates. In general,
there were few fire events in estates in the region from 2014-2016; two in RSPO and two non-RSPO
estates respectively, and four in unknown estates.
For RSPO estates, 46% were adjacent to one or more protected area, whereas for non-RSPO estates 42%
bordered a protected area, and 19% for unknown estates. This demonstrates the need for pro-
conservation practices within estates that take into consideration impacts on adjacent protected
forests. Despite legal State requirements, for those RSPO estates that had rivers within or adjacent to
them, only 41% had sufficient riparian reserves, 31% had partial riparian areas, and 28% had no riparian
areas at all. Non-RSPO estates seemed to perform better than those associated with RSPO, with 30%
of those estates with rivers having riparian reserves and the remaining 70% having partial riparian
areas. For unknown estates, 47% had full riparian areas, 24% had partial, and 29% had none.

24
For RSPO estates, 38 (of 71) had failed oil-palm within their boundaries totaling 1,827 ha. Using Net
Present Value (NPV) estimates from Abram et al. (2014), we estimate annual NPV in the area of failed
oil-palm of over US$ 118,755 (based on values of US$ 65/ha/year over 25 years). In the non-RSPO
estates 1,454 ha in 27 estates, and 1,186 ha in the unknown estates, were identified.
Table 6. Fine-scale summary data of: forest loss, and selected environmental/biodiversity related standards within RSPO
P&Cs for RSPO estates, non-RSPO estates, and estates with unknown names.
RSPO (n= 71)
Non-RSPO (n = 62)
Unknown (n = 156)
Average estate size
1,443 ha
577 ha
489 ha
Total extent of estates
102,433 ha
35,749 ha
76,234 ha
Total forest extent in 2005 (no. estates)
5,015 ha (44)
2,773 ha (33)
4,299 ha (57)
Total forest extent in 2014 (no. estates)
4,326 ha (39)
1,633 ha (27)
3,142 ha (42)
Regenerating forest extent from 2005-2014
0 ha
466 ha (4)
24 ha (3)
> Forest lost in estates from 2005-2014 (% lost)
689 ha (14%)
674 ha (24%)
1,133 ha (26%)
Extent of High Carbon Stock forest (>75 metric
tons C/ha) (% of 2014 forest)
2,810 ha (65%)
1,116 ha (68%, excl.
regen. forest)
1,182 ha (38%, excl.
regen. forest)
Extent of orangutan habitat (% of 2014 forest,
excluding regenerating forest)
3,904 ha (90%)
1,367 ha (84%)
1,778 ha (57%)
Extent of slopes of ≥25 degrees (no. estates)
114 ha
2 ha
41 ha
> Forest on slopes ≥25 degrees in 2014 (% lost)
103 ha (10%)
0 ha (100%)
1 ha (98%)
Extent of peat soil association
6,654 ha
3,400 ha
4,751 ha
> Extent of peat forest in 2005
186 ha
275 ha
923 ha
> Extent of peat forest in 2014 (% lost since 2005)
76 ha (59%)
200 ha (26%)
501 ha (46%)
No. estates next to a protected area (% of estates)
33 (46%)
26 (42%)
29 (19%)
Occurrence of fires from 2014 - 2016 (%)
2 (3%)
2 (3%)
4 (3%)
No. of estates adjacent to river (% of estates)
29 (41%)
10 (16%)
17 (11%)
> Estates adjacent to river with riparian reserves
(% of estates)
Yes 12 (41%);
Partially 9 (31%);
Non 8 (28%)
Yes 3 (30%);
Partially 7 (70%);
Non 0
Yes 8 (47%);
Partially 4 (24%);
Non 5 (29%)
Extent of failed oil-palm (% of total area in estates;
no. of estates)
1,827 (2%; 38)
1,454 (4%; 27)
1,186 (2%; 51)
> Total of NPV based on US $-65 /ha-yr25)
-$118,755
-$94,510
-$77,090
> Total of NPV based on US $-299 /ha-yr25)
-$546,273
-$434,746
-$354,614

25
Discussion
The oil-palm industry on Borneo has been criticized for years for its major environmental impacts,
especially by environmental NGOs and conservation advocacy groups. There has been limited nuance in
this critique (Meijaard & Sheil 2011), and especially through social media unsupported claims about
impacts have done much to damage the reputation of the industry (for example a recent unsupported
claim by the Orangutan Foundation International that 5000 orangutans claim annually because of oil
palm). Much of this critique is justified: the oil-palm industry on Borneo has been a major driver of
deforestation and wildlife losses, especially in Malaysian Borneo, and more recently also in Indonesian
Borneo (Gaveau et al. 2016b). Whether or not these impacts are the same for all companies operating in
the industry remains a matter of debate, however. There has been a strong push from within the
industry to improve environmental practices, especially through RSPO certification, but many of the
industry’s opponents maintain that there is no such thing as responsible palm-oil and that all palm-oil is
associated with high environmental impacts. Our current study is the first to shed some objective light
on this issue.
We find that RSPO-certified companies are not free from deforestation, with 49,030 ha of forest being
lost after November 2005 from a total concession area of 815,592 ha. We cannot determine the extent
to which these forests were identified by the company as High Conservation Value forest, for which
RSPO requires protection. We can only determine that these forest areas were either old-growth or
selectively logged, as determined from medium-resolution satellite imagery, and quite likely contained
conservation values. Forest loss in RSPO concessions declined from 13,417 ha per year between
November 2005 and November 2007 to 1,839 ha per year after May 2014. In 2015, the average
percentage forest cover in these RSPO concessions was 4.21%, so the potential for further forest loss
was there but seemingly responsible companies have improved their management and forest loss in
RSPO concessions appears to increasingly be avoided now.
As opposed to RSPO-certified companies, non-RSPO companies have a far greater impact on forest loss,
both in absolute and relative terms. Just looking at active concessions, we identified a total forest loss
of 1,795,408 ha between 2000 and 2015, which is 25 times as much as in RSPO-certified concessions.
Importantly, annual forest loss rates show no clear declining trend, indicating that the non-RSPO
certified part of the industry is not attempting to reduce deforestation rates, and has little incentive to
do so.
Our preliminary analyses found that, in 2014, an estimated 275 orangutans occurred in 32 RSPO-
certified oil-palm concessions, and an estimated 9,302 orangutans in the non-RSPO concessions.
Between 1999 and 2014, orangutan populations in areas that are now RSPO-certified declined from 419
to 275. In the same period, orangutan populations in non-certified concessions declined from 13,480 to
9,302. This suggests that the absolute loss of orangutans is significantly lower in RSPO concessions on
Borneo than in non-RSPO certified concessions, but that relative loss rates are about the same.
The key challenge to be addressed through the current program is to prevent the loss of nearly 10,000
orangutans that currently still occur in Bornean oil-palm concessions. There is one sector that is best

26
positioned to do this and that is the palm-oil sector itself. But a number of fundamental changes need to
occur for the oil-palm sector to take a more proactive in protecting rather than killing orangutans.
Fine-scale analysis of RSPO vs non-RSPO estates
In a similar vein to the findings at the Borneo wide level, the fine-scale analyses in the Lower
Kinabatangan region, in Sabah, found that forest was lost in RSPO estates from 2005-2014, despite this
being prohibited for new plantings of oil-palm (see, RSPO Criteria 7.3). Nevertheless, there was less
forest loss in RSPO estates (14%) than non-RSPO (24%) or unknown estates (26%). Many of these forests
were identified as being orangutan habitat, and having high carbon stock. These findings further support
the notion that although compliance to RSPO standards are not fully met by companies, and
improvements are required, in general estates under RSPO seem to have better practices regarding
forest conservation and the conservation of orangutan habitat. Although the identified orangutan
habitat was very fragmented, ground and aerial surveys in the region have demonstrated the use of
these fragments by orangutans, marking these areas critical for facilitating orangutan movement in this
highly transformed and mosaic landscape (Ancrenaz et al. 2004; Ancrenaz et al. 2016; Ancrenaz et al.
2015).
According to the Malaysian National Interpretation of RSPO’s Principles and Criteria (4.3), oil-palm
should not be planted on slopes of 25 degrees and over. Indeed, it seems that RSPO estates are
complying, for the most part, with restrictions on planting on slopes, with most slopes still harbouring
forest within the identified RSPO estates. For forests associated with peat soils, the majority of peat
forest has been lost with only 17% remaining in total from historical extents in the selected estates. We
note that estates under RSPO certification may have existing plantings on peat (see, Criteria 4.3) but
must manage these areas at least to the standard set out in the ‘RSPO Manual on Best management
Practices (BMPs) for existing oil-palm cultivation on peat’. For new plantings however, RSPO prohibits
planting on marginal and fragile soil which includes deep peat (Criteria 7.4). Similarly, if there are
existing areas of plantings on unsuitable soil with drainage issues, RSPOs P&C guidance suggests ceasing
planting after two cycles of crop and rehabilitate the area. Nonetheless, from 2005 to 2014, peat forest
continued to be converted with 59% being lost in RSPO estates, with further conversions in non-RSPO
estates (26%) and in unknown estates (46%).
Similarly, if there are existing areas of plantings on unsuitable soil with drainage issues, RSPOs P&C
guidance suggests ceasing planting after two cycles of crop and rehabilitate the area. On top of this, the
Malaysian National Interpretation of RSPO’s P&C also stipulates that soil suitability information should
be used for planning planting within estates and that unsuitable areas should be zoned, and forest
retained for conservation purposes (see Criteria 7.4). Nevertheless, extensive areas of failed oil-palm
occur in RSPO certified estates (1,826 ha) with little evidence of these areas being rehabilitated back to
forest. Such failed areas were also found in non-RSPO and unknown estates, and these are extensive
throughout much of the Kinabatangan landscape according to a previous study (circa 16,000 ha, see
Abram et al. 2014). Costs of these areas can be very high, making planting in these areas not only a
failure for ensuring biodiversity conservation within these agri-forest mosaic landscapes, but financially
costly for all planters.

27
In regards to mixed agri-forest landscapes, 46% of RSPO estates were adjacent to one or more protected
areas, whereas for non-RSPO estates 42% bordered a protected area, and 19% for unknown estates,
highlighting the need for pro-conservation practices within estates whether they are RSPO-certified or
not. For those estates that had rivers bordering their boundaries or within them, only 41% of RSPO
estates had sufficient riparian reserves, 31% of RSPO estates had partial riparian areas, and 28% had no
riparian areas at all – despite being legal State requirement under the Sabah Water Resources
Enactment (1998). Non-RSPO estates seemed to perform better, with 30% of those estates with rivers
having riparian reserves, and the remaining 70% having partial riparian areas. For unknown estates, 47%
had full riparian areas, 24% had partial, and 29% had none. Although riparian reserves can and do
facilitate wildlife movement through oil-palm plantations, this is not the principal function for riparian
reserves. Nevertheless, in regions whereby plantations stretch hundreds of kilometers, narrow riparian
areas can serve as a life-line to numerous threatened species (Ancrenaz et al. 2015). Yet, noncompliance
of riparian reserves is found throughout much of Sabah’s waterways, with little prosecution of
companies by the State.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Overall, this analysis reinforces the fact that (except for a few notable exceptions), oil-palm companies
largely do not retain enough forest within their estate. Our data show that forest conversion is greater
in non-RSPO than in RSPO companies. The debate about retaining forest patches within an agro-
industrial landscape is not new: this idea has been discussed at length in many meetings and
conferences, and a significant literature exists that show what would be the socio-economic and
environmental benefits to do so (see for example Ancrenaz et al. 2016).
What are largely missing though, are practical recommendations to guide field practitioners and
managers about what to retain or to restore, where and how. It is beyond the scope of this first report
to present detailed practical recommendations to design a more environmentally-friendly landscape
within an oil-palm context. However, this report should be seen as a first step toward achieving this
goal. Subsequent work should use the results of this report and apply the recommendations given below
in a practical oil-palm context.
With RSPO-certified oil-palm areas performing better in terms of avoiding loss of forest and of
orangutan habitats than non-RSPO concessions there is a need to either a) expand the number of RSPO-
certified concessions and estates, b) ensure that non-RSPO certified companies adhere to principles and
criteria that are similar to those required by RSPO; or c) ensure that the currently inactive concessions
where most forest remains are not developed for oil-palm. It is unclear which of these three options has
a greater chance to avoid near-future destruction of the habitat of some 10,000 orangutans, as much
will depend on the political and industry support that would be given to these different options and thus
their likelihood of succeeding.
Two sets of recommendations are given below. General recommendations present the overall decision
framework that would be necessary to retain viable orangutan populations across oil-palm areas in

28
Indonesia and Malaysia. More specific recommendations follow, which target what PONGO Alliance
could do to move forward.
General Recommendations
1. Retaining forest patches (as set-asides or corridors) within a palm-oil estate should become a
priority for the industry. Areas that are planted purely with oil-palm are not suitable for
orangutan survival. Only few generalist (and often invasive) species will maintain or increase
their number in such a poor landscape. In the contrary, orangutans need forest areas within oil-
palm estates to survive. While there are exceptions (Meijaard et al. 2016b), most companies
have set aside only small areas of forest, and these are mostly too small for viable populations
of orangutans to survive. Forests in oil-palm plantations must be maintained according to HCV
(High Conservation Value) and HCS (High Carbon Stock) assessments. As a rule of thumb, the
forest cover should represent at least 10% of any plantation (in cases where HCV/HCS areas are
less than 10%) (Ancrenaz et al. 2016); forests should be ecologically connected through forested
corridors; and they must be protected and managed properly to ensure that: 1) these
ecosystems are not encroached; 2) a no-kill policy is enforced and thus orangutans and other
wildlife are safe; 3) the forest ecosystem itself is maintained and restored and its overall
conditions are improved.
2. Land-use planning must avoid high-priority orangutan habitats if the species is to survive in
Borneo and Sumatra. Local, regional and national governments have played and still play today
a major role in the demise of orangutans by allocating lands for oil-palm development that
overlap with significant existing orangutan habitat. Avoiding forest areas and peatlands that
contain viable populations of orangutans is the best way to avoid destroying these populations
and impacting the species negatively. More broadly, both governments and the industry must
avoid oil-palm developments in sites where the social and environmental costs outweigh the
economic, environmental, and societal benefits.
3. Ecological expertise is required to manage orangutan populations in oil-palm areas. Where
orangutans and oil-palm overlap, companies can achieve positive outcomes for orangutan
conservation through careful management of remaining orangutan habitats. Experience shows
that this can only be effective if the companies take on qualified environmental staff that can
influence decision-making at plantation level regarding land clearance, spatial planning, and
management practices.
4. Peat swamp areas, steep slopes, mangroves and floodplains must not be developed for oil-palm
production. Oil-palm needs water to thrive and is often developed in relatively wet areas such as
floodplains, mangroves, and peat swamps. However, conversion of forests in such areas leads to
increased floods, sub-optimal or negative revenues for oil-palm producers, and negative impacts
for local communities living near rivers or floodplains (such as water pollution or collapse of
fisheries). Industrial-scale oil-palm should be allocated in areas where flooding risks are limited.
Keeping oil-palm out of peat areas is also necessary for reducing carbon emissions and fire and
haze problems that are a global and very costly issue.

29
Recommendations for PONGO Alliance
1. A series of meetings/workshops needs to be conducted to discuss the implications of this
analysis with 1) all PONGO Alliance members; 2) RSPO; 3) other partners (including both
government of Malaysia and Indonesia; industry players that are not RSPO members; NGOs).
These discussions should lead to the development of a series of practical follow-up activities.
These could include:
a. Determine the best ways to communicate the findings of the current study to national
and international media.
b. Develop a list of all concessions (RSPO and non-RSPO) that have orangutans on their
land, and share this list with authorities in Malaysia and Indonesia providing
recommendations about management.
c. Work on the ground with a few selected/volunteer companies to identify practical ways
to implement the general recommendations to manage an orangutan sub-population at
the scale of an estate.
d. Develop training videos and toolboxes that can be shared with and used by all
companies that have orangutans on their land.
e. Send management recommendations to all companies with orangutans. Instruct these
companies that they need to manage and that rescue/translocation is only a final resort
or emergency measure (or for genetic distribution such as moving a male from time to
time).
f. Enhance capacities of oil-palm estates to manage orangutans (trainings and capacity
building).
2. Communicate progress, innovations and impacts in order to demonstrate benefits of these
measures both in terms of protecting forests and orangutans as well as making a business case
for more efficient and sustainable management of oil-palm areas.

30
References
Abram, N. K. 2016. Trade-offs between ecosystem protection and oil-palm development. Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors, London, UK.
Abram, N. K., P. Xofis, J. Tzanopoulos, D. C. MacMillan, M. Ancrenaz, R. Chung, L. Peter, R. Ong, I.
Lackman, B. Goossens, L. Ambu, and A. T. Knight. 2014. Synergies for Improving Oil-palm
Production and Forest Conservation in Floodplain Landscapes. PLoS ONE 9:e95388.
Ancrenaz, M., B. Goossens, O. Gimenez, A. Sawang, and I. Lackman-Ancrenaz. 2004. Determination of
ape distribution and population size using ground and aerial surveys: A case study with orang-
utans in lower Kinabatangan, Sabah, Malaysia. Animal Conservation 7:375-385.
Ancrenaz, M., E. Meijaard, S. A. Wich, and J. Simery. 2016. Palm-oil paradox. Sustainable solutions to
save the great apes. UNEP/GRASP, Nairobi, Kenya.
Ancrenaz, M., F. Oram, L. Ambu, I. Lackman, E. Ahmad, H. Elahan, and E. Meijaard. 2015. Of pongo,
palms, and perceptions – A multidisciplinary assessment of orangutans in an oil-palm context.
Oryx 49:465–472.
Gaveau, D. L., S. Sloan, E. Molidena, H. Yaen, D. Sheil, N. K. Abram, M. Ancrenaz, R. Nasi, M. Quinones,
and N. Wielaard. 2014. Four decades of forest persistence, clearance and logging on Borneo.
PloS one 9:e101654.
Gaveau, D. L. A., R. Pirard, M. A. Salim, P. Tonoto, H. Yaen, S. A. Parks, and R. Carmenta. 2016a.
Overlapping Land Claims Limit the Use of Satellites to Monitor No-Deforestation Commitments
and No-Burning Compliance. Conservation Letters:n/a-n/a.
Gaveau, D. L. A., D. Sheil, M. Husnayaen, A. Salim, M. Ancrenaz, P. Pacheco, and E. Meijaard. 2016b.
Rapid conversions and avoided deforestation: examining four decades of industrial plantation
expansion in Borneo. Scientific Reports 6:32017.
Hansen, M., P. Potapov, R. Moore, M. Hancher, S. Turubanova, A. Tyukavina, D. Thau, S. Stehman, S.
Goetz, and T. Loveland. 2013. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change.
science 342:850-853.
Hansen, M. C., A. Krylov, A. Tyukavina, P. V. Potapov, S. Turubanova, B. Zutta, S. Ifo, B. Margono, F.
Stolle, and R. Moore. 2016. Humid tropical forest disturbance alerts using Landsat data.
Environmental Research Letters 11:034008.
Knott, C. D., M. E. Thompson, and S. A. Wich. 2009. The Ecology of Reproduction in Wild Orangutans.
Pages 171–188 in S. Wich, S. Utami, T. Setia, and C. van Schaik, editors. Geographic Variation in
Behavioral Ecology and Conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Margono, B. A., P. V. Potapov, S. Turubanova, F. Stolle, and M. C. Hansen. 2014. Primary forest cover
loss in Indonesia over 2000-2012. Nature Clim. Change 4:730-735.
Meijaard, E., R. Dennis, and D. Liswanto. 2016a. Review of best management practices and collaboration
between BOSF, MSM, and local government in PT MSM. Page 10. PT Habitat Hutan Alam
Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Meijaard, E., Nardiyono, H. Rahman, S. Husson, K. L. Sanchez, and G. Campbell-Smith. 2016b. A case
study of oil-palm contributing to biodiversity conservation. International Journal of Natural
Resource Ecology and Management 4:179-187.
Meijaard, E., and D. Sheil. 2011. A modest proposal for wealthy countries to reforest their land for the
common good. Biotropica 43:544-548.
RSPO. 2013. RSPO. Roundtable on Sustainable Palm-oil. Principles and Criteria for the Production of
Sustainable Palm-oil.
RSPO. 2016. Impact Report 2016. RSPO Roundtable on Sustainable Palm-oil, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Runting, R. K., E. Meijaard, N. K. Abram, J. A. Wells, D. L. A. Gaveau, M. Ancrenaz, H. P. Posssingham, S.
A. Wich, F. Ardiansyah, M. T. Gumal, L. N. Ambu, and K. A. Wilson. 2015. Alternative futures for

31
Borneo show the value of integrating economic and conservation targets across borders. Nat
Commun 6.
Sabah Wildlife Department. 2012. Sabah Wildlife Department Orang-utan Action Plan 2012-2016, Kota
Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.
Santika, T., K. A. Wilson, M. Ancrenaz, S. Spehar, S. A. Wich, S. S. Utami-Atmoko, S. J. Husson, C. P. van
Schaik, I. Sapari, A. Russon, G. L. Banes, Nardiyono, A. Leiman, A. Panda, H. Hartanto, Musnanda,
N. Makinuddin, M. Voigt, H. Kuehl, N. Abram, K. Mengersen, J. A. Wells, and E. Meijaard. in
review. Integrating field surveys and interviews reveals the persistence of orangutans over
nearly two decades in human-dominated landscapes of Borneo Scientific Reports.
Soehartono, T., H. D. Susilo, N. Andayani, S. S. U. Atmoko, J. Sihite, C. Saleh, and A. Sutrisno. 2007.
Strategi dan rencana aksi konservasi orangutan Indonesia 2007-2017. Ministry of Forestry of the
Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.

32
Appendix. Estimated land cover change trajectory of RSPO concessions on Borneo
Name
Province
Concession
area
Forest area
in 2000
Forest area
in 2015
Planted oil-
palm
Forest Loss Nov
’05 – Nov’07 (Ha)
Forest Loss Nov’07 –
Dec ’09 (Ha)
Forest Loss Jan ’10 –
May ’14 (Ha)
Forest Loss After
May 9, 2014 (Ha)
Agro Bukit
C Kal
15,390.25
10,180.26
35.13
14,805.48
9,394.64
127.88
136.87
7.67
Agronusa Investama
W Kal
9,661.16
6,651.82
1,306.11
7,336.70
1,742.34
1,142.87
336.99
32.20
Agronusa Investama
W Kal
5,664.26
797.10
297.46
3,990.58
249.71
141.81
40.75
6.25
Mentaya Sawit Mas
C Kal
17,324.38
1,219.32
994.50
8,700.12
54.28
45.54
38.86
14.46
Swakarsa Sinar Sentosa
E Kal
16,881.21
0.00
0.00
15,077.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Dharma Inti Sawit Nugraha
E Kal
9,809.58
0.00
0.00
8,915.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Rea Kaltim Plantation
E Kal
4,537.20
0.00
0.00
2,395.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Rea Kaltim Plantation
E Kal
13,612.53
21.94
20.14
5,653.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Rea Kaltim Plantation
E Kal
2,952.15
0.00
0.00
2,158.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Rea Kaltim Plantation
E Kal
4,520.84
157.69
45.36
1,026.34
19.89
5.85
45.33
3.74
Sawit Sumber Mas Sarana
C Kal
194.12
51.93
8.18
167.61
0.04
0.00
0.56
0.00
Maju Aneka Sawit
C Kal
1,497.31
1.98
1.98
972.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Maju Aneka Sawit
C Kal
3,089.49
693.01
101.92
2,151.37
459.68
36.54
61.87
32.93
Maju Aneka Sawit
C Kal
6,255.74
931.16
70.27
4,779.18
753.41
30.50
60.02
9.67
Sukajadi Sawit Mekar
C Kal
697.84
0.00
0.00
688.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Unggul Lestari
C Kal
14,655.37
3,813.93
399.22
11,021.00
801.07
1,432.19
1,069.36
5.01
Agro Indomas
C Kal
225.31
0.00
0.00
218.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Agro Indomas
C Kal
46.11
0.00
0.00
39.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Agro Indomas
C Kal
408.49
0.00
0.00
397.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Kerisawit Indonesia
C Kal
18,957.43
2,198.96
74.05
17,777.53
236.31
100.34
50.19
9.23
Sukajadi Sawit Mekar
C Kal
12,349.19
3,929.65
149.10
10,118.86
3,096.08
436.26
136.53
63.79
Sawit Sumber Mas Sarana
C Kal
7,516.89
1,462.85
113.68
6,879.33
75.36
277.85
25.90
0.05
Indotruba Tengah
C Kal
5,878.43
1.49
0.00
5,660.97
0.69
0.01
0.00
0.00
Indotruba Tengah
C Kal
712.25
0.00
0.00
540.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sawit Sumber Mas Sarana
C Kal
12,822.99
6,771.46
110.62
12,535.93
474.49
2,012.36
269.46
1.90
Teguh Sempurna
C Kal
12,029.13
0.00
0.00
10,329.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

33
Agro Indomas
C Kal
299.73
0.00
0.00
299.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sarana Titian Permata
C Kal
19,056.23
911.23
24.80
18,137.06
736.93
104.79
36.78
0.00
Mustika Sembuluh
C Kal
4,735.89
1,054.55
30.30
4,705.60
158.78
8.10
29.39
2.39
Mustika Sembuluh
C Kal
7,251.78
1,202.56
29.01
6,836.69
97.47
1.09
6.74
0.54
Mustika Sembuluh
C Kal
8,433.99
138.76
51.01
5,588.42
33.61
0.00
29.24
24.90
Karya Makmur Bahagia
C Kal
10,574.46
1,662.61
74.40
2,656.91
1,127.65
88.27
312.08
5.72
Teguh Sempurna
C Kal
4,544.20
248.03
0.00
4,522.94
204.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
Kridatama Lancar
C Kal
2,410.42
740.18
24.88
1,429.84
385.19
206.82
101.34
0.36
Tapian Nadenggan
C Kal
12,728.64
1,169.65
202.32
11,797.89
200.56
246.16
120.24
18.27
Kridatama Lancar
C Kal
16,993.44
1,247.25
20.42
16,427.14
1,001.15
162.72
59.36
0.00
Karya Makmur Bahagia
C Kal
9,038.78
35.20
0.00
6,596.47
0.00
8.19
20.54
0.00
Bina Sawit Abadi Pratama
C Kal
11,126.04
8,088.76
3,283.35
6,404.48
1,479.64
349.63
291.76
82.12
Sukajadi Sawit Mekar
C Kal
2,406.20
0.00
0.00
2,211.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sukajadi Sawit Mekar
C Kal
7,245.75
51.22
5.62
6,512.18
11.97
9.36
5.01
0.00
Buana Artha Sejahtera
C Kal
6,568.73
10.80
0.00
6,478.01
5.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
Swadaya Andika
S Kal
493.45
0.00
0.00
116.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Smart Corporation
S Kal
7,555.52
1.54
0.94
4,352.18
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.00
Smart Corporation
S Kal
7,003.29
129.37
80.76
1,248.35
21.51
12.25
6.57
1.35
Sajang Heulang
S Kal
1,624.80
26.66
24.95
1,528.92
0.00
0.00
1.53
0.18
Sajang Heulang
S Kal
56.89
0.00
0.00
31.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sajang Heulang
S Kal
150.48
0.00
0.00
114.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Laguna Mandiri
S Kal
88.72
0.00
0.00
76.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Laguna Mandiri
S Kal
89.19
0.00
0.00
78.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Laguna Mandiri
S Kal
266.03
0.57
0.57
184.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Laguna Mandiri
S Kal
93.74
0.00
0.00
79.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bersama Sejahtera Sakti
S Kal
110.59
0.00
0.00
109.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bersama Sejahtera Sakti
S Kal
1,070.12
77.62
25.44
466.26
16.68
7.27
6.71
0.23
Bersama Sejahtera Sakti
S Kal
3,849.17
243.64
198.91
1,366.14
9.36
1.95
4.23
24.02
Gawi Makmur Kalimantan
S Kal
7,296.54
351.13
245.85
4,171.16
2.98
0.00
15.63
16.20
Kencana Graha Permai
W Kal
14,396.42
1,228.33
65.06
9,157.37
83.39
918.25
97.00
5.32

34
Harapan Sawit Lestari
W Kal
35,071.24
9,664.93
3,020.82
23,487.81
1,432.99
915.52
2,671.61
1,067.14
Harapan Sawit Lestari
W Kal
1,356.38
523.85
148.59
882.98
188.83
123.69
16.48
10.93
Harapan Sawit Lestari
W Kal
9,766.73
2.61
2.61
3,154.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Harapan Sawit Lestari
W Kal
448.51
0.00
0.00
245.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Harapan Sawit Lestari
W Kal
4,537.76
7.16
6.46
2,795.31
0.00
0.70
0.00
0.00
Langgeng Muara Makmur
E Kal
832.66
0.00
0.00
165.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Langgeng Muara Makmur
S Kal
4,149.31
119.67
69.07
2,585.51
25.56
17.74
3.24
0.82
Langgeng Muara Makmur
S Kal
1,935.09
329.04
27.18
1,315.15
124.70
89.30
44.10
16.50
Dewata Sawit Nusantara
E Kal
9,248.94
54.25
54.25
8,326.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Tapian Nadenggan
E Kal
2,488.72
0.00
0.00
1,575.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sajang Heulang
S Kal
200.67
12.32
5.74
166.46
0.00
0.00
5.24
1.35
Sajang Heulang
S Kal
328.99
0.57
0.00
320.49
0.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sajang Heulang
S Kal
217.44
1.60
1.42
119.45
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.09
Mitra Inti Sejati Plantation
W Kal
15,329.44
2,490.58
412.12
9,069.46
138.16
1,007.08
792.95
48.83
Suai
Sarawak
5,360.41
36.37
6.40
4,975.55
1.36
14.51
1.02
0.00
Rajawali
Sarawak
3,384.92
115.85
73.08
1,492.05
0.00
0.00
38.51
1.86
Derawan
Sarawak
19,340.65
365.01
82.29
17,126.49
31.31
219.41
5.66
0.09
Saremas I
Sarawak
9,630.35
1,700.58
409.44
8,967.44
304.24
18.92
20.80
5.07
Keresa Plantation
Sarawak
4,411.92
486.05
37.11
4,329.61
287.64
0.00
0.28
0.01
Layang Estate
Sarawak
21,646.96
1,046.54
926.55
20,403.92
46.68
6.92
10.86
0.00
Saremas Ii (Kaminsky)
Sarawak
4,733.81
197.52
24.55
4,703.24
51.08
63.74
2.61
0.00
Segarmas
Sarawak
4,500.23
230.95
230.95
4,129.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sime Darby
Sabah
2,200.18
0.00
0.00
2,200.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sime Darby
Sabah
413.97
0.00
0.00
413.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ioi Corporation Bhd.
Sabah
4,942.42
34.84
34.83
4,869.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ioi Corporation Bhd.
Sabah
2,621.36
0.00
0.00
2,619.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ioi Ladang Sabah Grouping
Sabah
2,317.60
8.21
6.51
2,311.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ppb Oil-palm Berhad
Sabah
8,482.43
261.86
1.88
8,237.67
108.18
44.74
35.56
1.13
Ioi Corporation Bhd.
Sabah
201.31
0.00
0.00
201.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Very Good Estate Sdn Bhd
Sabah
89.35
0.00
0.00
43.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

35
Very Good Estate Sdn Bhd
Sabah
2,515.96
0.00
0.00
2,515.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Carotino Sdn. Bhd. - Asia Pom
Sabah
2,346.23
0.00
0.00
2,346.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Melewar Pom
Sabah
324.45
0.00
0.00
324.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Felda Global Ventures
Sabah
2,559.87
15.32
15.30
2,535.54
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
Felda Global Ventures
Sabah
1,958.72
8.27
8.23
1,942.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Felda Global Ventures
Sabah
2,066.00
11.87
11.87
2,046.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Felda Global Ventures
Sabah
2,185.98
0.55
0.55
2,183.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Felda Global Ventures
Sabah
2,001.70
3.67
2.80
1,994.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Genting Plantations Bhd.
Sabah
1,627.97
0.33
0.33
1,625.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Melewar Pom
Sabah
3,990.14
0.00
0.00
3,990.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Melewar Pom
Sabah
207.22
0.00
0.00
207.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Melewar Pom
Sabah
1,904.32
0.00
0.00
1,904.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Unknown
Sabah
192.28
0.00
0.00
192.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Melewar Pom
Sabah
94.70
0.00
0.00
94.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Melewar Pom
Sabah
205.81
0.00
0.00
205.81
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Carotino Sdn. Bhd. - Asia Pom
Sabah
2,886.30
0.00
0.00
2,886.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Genting Plantations Bhd
Sabah
4,765.68
6.43
0.00
4,765.67
4.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
Morisem Plantations Sdn Bhd
Sabah
2,026.91
0.00
0.00
2,021.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hap Seng Plantations Holdings
Berhad
Sabah
3,154.28
0.00
0.00
3,110.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hap Seng Plantations Holdings
Berhad
Sabah
3,245.45
4.19
3.83
3,196.28
0.00
0.00
0.36
0.00
Ladang Asas Sdn Bhd
Sabah
1,221.90
0.00
0.00
1,221.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hap Seng Plantations Holdings
Berhad
Sabah
2,762.24
0.00
0.00
2,762.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ba Plantations Sdn Bhd
Sabah
1,763.71
0.00
0.00
1,763.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Malbumi Group
Sabah
1,597.74
0.00
0.00
1,597.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sime Darby
Sabah
3,548.94
0.00
0.00
3,548.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sime Darby
Sabah
2,089.94
36.38
36.38
2,030.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Kuala Lumpur-Kepong (Sabah)
Sdn Berhad
Sabah
2,023.17
0.00
0.00
2,023.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Unknown
Sabah
652.18
1.42
0.00
651.24
0.04
1.26
0.12
0.00
Ioi Ladang Sabah Grouping
Sabah
366.85
0.00
0.00
366.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

36
Ioi Ladang Sabah Grouping
Sabah
258.03
0.78
0.12
255.99
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.33
Ppb Oil-palm Berhad
Sabah
4,600.95
0.72
0.00
4,573.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ioi Corporation Bhd - Mayvin
Pom
Sabah
582.13
0.00
0.00
582.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Kwantas Plantation Sdn Bhd
Sabah
1,485.42
114.55
76.92
1,315.66
27.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
Unknown
Sabah
157.67
150.71
143.03
3.04
2.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hap Seng Plantations Holdings
Berhad
Sabah
2,597.04
0.00
0.00
2,597.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ioi Corporation Bhd - Mayvin
Pom
Sabah
2,299.46
0.00
0.00
2,299.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Kuala Lumpur-Kepong (Sabah)
Sdn Berhad
Sabah
2,606.71
0.00
0.00
2,606.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Very Good Estate Sdn Bhd
Sabah
1,959.60
443.91
79.54
1,875.56
0.00
4.34
11.69
0.00
Genting Plantations Bhd
Sabah
3,421.07
0.00
0.00
3,408.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sime Darby
Sabah
2,391.33
0.00
0.00
2,391.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Pine Capital Sdn Bhd
Sabah
1,355.83
161.69
6.13
1,347.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Pr Enterprise Sdn Bhd
Sabah
1,998.89
163.20
160.95
1,712.19
0.00
0.00
2.25
0.00
Ba Plantations Sdn Bhd
Sabah
2,131.36
0.00
0.00
2,001.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Morisem (Sabah) Sdn Bhd
Sabah
1,952.97
0.00
0.00
1,952.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sime Darby
Sabah
3,185.18
9.60
7.65
3,165.94
1.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
Unknown
Sabah
169.51
0.00
0.00
169.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Kwantas Plantation Sdn. Bhd.
Sabah
87.18
0.00
0.00
87.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Very Good Estate Sdn Bhd
Sabah
2,145.21
436.86
163.11
1,970.80
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.27
Very Good Estate Sdn Bhd
Sabah
2,020.80
0.00
0.00
2,020.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Very Good Estate Sdn Bhd
Sabah
1,930.96
0.00
0.00
1,930.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Very Good Estate Sdn Bhd
Sabah
1,803.30
0.00
0.00
1,803.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Melewar Pom
Sabah
190.96
0.00
0.00
190.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Carotino Sdn. Bhd. - Asia Pom
Sabah
220.52
0.00
0.00
220.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Priceland Sdn Bhd
Sabah
2,087.18
0.00
0.00
2,087.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Carotino Sdn. Bhd. - Asia Pom
Sabah
3,883.30
0.00
0.00
3,883.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Very Good Estate Sdn Bhd
Sabah
1,950.14
0.00
0.00
1,950.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ioi Ladang Sabah Grouping
Sabah
1,910.31
0.00
0.00
1,910.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ioi Ladang Sabah Grouping
Sabah
3,576.34
0.00
0.00
3,533.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

37
Ioi Ladang Sabah Grouping
Sabah
1,203.46
0.99
0.99
1,190.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Unknown
Sabah
117.88
0.00
0.00
117.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Unknown
Sabah
59.27
0.00
0.00
59.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Unknown
Sabah
73.52
0.00
0.00
73.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ioi Corporation Bhd - Mayvin
Pom
Sabah
3,133.24
27.71
27.71
3,100.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ppb Oil-palm Berhad
Sabah
1,752.18
133.53
4.91
1,709.79
0.00
0.00
4.06
0.00
Ppb Oil-palm Berhad
Sabah
3,233.88
2,455.11
1,499.82
1,584.20
1.26
0.83
0.23
0.02
Ioi Corporation Bhd - Sakilan
Pom
Sabah
1,137.70
1.06
1.06
1,136.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ioi Corporation Bhd - Sakilan
Pom
Sabah
1,253.66
0.00
0.00
1,253.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Pamol Group
Sabah
543.92
5.66
5.66
534.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Pamol Group
Sabah
4,907.73
130.83
123.62
4,738.43
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.18
Ppb - Sri Kamusan Pom
Sabah
1,218.47
1,211.90
456.45
761.21
7.87
23.97
0.00
0.00
Ppb - Sri Kamusan Pom
Sabah
222.19
214.40
28.67
193.53
0.62
1.60
0.60
0.21
Ppb - Sri Kamusan Pom
Sabah
1,704.64
1,398.64
1,191.96
379.74
0.76
205.65
0.14
0.14
Ppb - Sri Kamusan Pom
Sabah
1,382.01
1,318.60
318.59
1,053.69
112.21
16.57
24.42
1.56
Ppb - Sri Kamusan Pom
Sabah
406.99
406.97
146.99
259.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ppb - Sri Kamusan Pom
Sabah
882.84
811.28
174.15
618.01
461.37
22.99
32.76
0.32
Ppb - Sri Kamusan Pom
Sabah
278.46
258.58
158.04
119.06
18.67
2.80
0.00
0.00
Ppb - Sri Kamusan Pom
Sabah
1,664.02
936.71
428.72
1,039.44
77.72
329.19
26.12
0.86
Haranky Sdn Bhd
Sabah
1,124.55
3.91
2.46
1,113.52
0.00
0.00
1.22
0.05
Carotino Sdn. Bhd. - Asia Pom
Sabah
1,174.07
0.00
0.00
1,173.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ppb - Sri Kamusan Pom
Sabah
2,775.99
2,199.60
497.18
2,263.76
12.17
5.91
13.71
0.14
Ppb - Sri Kamusan Pom
Sabah
244.31
214.56
28.07
198.16
2.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ppb Oil-palm Berhad
Sabah
1,269.88
0.00
0.00
1,269.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Pamol Group
Sabah
4,305.07
71.58
1.46
4,299.76
50.80
15.24
2.63
1.13
Ppb - Sri Kamusan Pom
Sabah
637.80
58.66
38.79
594.78
3.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hap Seng Plantations Holdings
Berhad
Sabah
562.35
528.38
33.44
527.06
1.53
206.09
278.77
0.00
Hap Seng Plantations Holdings
Berhad
Sabah
4,428.63
463.00
135.07
4,163.22
0.00
0.00
326.04
1.89

38
Sabah
195.73
0.00
0.00
194.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hap Seng Plantations Holdings
Berhad
Sabah
1,001.23
0.00
0.00
1,001.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Unknown
Sabah
181.55
78.02
26.36
142.82
0.12
0.00
49.07
0.05
Unknown
Sabah
193.17
154.54
12.68
177.63
79.91
11.25
31.65
0.00
Hap Seng Plantations Holdings
Berhad
Sabah
2,238.42
87.54
72.51
2,131.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hap Seng Plantations Holdings
Berhad
Sabah
1,552.65
8.88
8.88
1,523.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sime Darby
Sabah
3,085.17
46.17
45.33
3,016.80
0.00
0.00
0.84
0.00
Very Good Estate Sdn Bhd
Sabah
1,622.47
18.61
18.61
1,595.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Very Good Estate Sdn Bhd
Sabah
1,539.47
945.52
302.47
1,208.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sawit Kinabalu Bhd
Sabah
244.35
78.84
77.87
147.91
0.00
0.00
0.97
0.00
Sawit Kinabalu Bhd
Sabah
2,482.91
2,326.53
2,066.15
19.08
51.68
18.62
55.89
0.27
Hap Seng Plantations Holdings
Berhad
Sabah
1,988.58
0.00
0.00
1,973.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hap Seng Plantations Holdings
Berhad
Sabah
3,432.05
0.00
0.00
3,432.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hap Seng Plantations Holdings
Berhad
Sabah
2,420.33
49.05
31.59
2,385.66
6.54
3.99
6.59
0.34
Ioi Ladang Sabah Grouping
Sabah
1,738.97
68.59
68.44
1,649.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ioi Ladang Sabah Grouping
Sabah
2,137.40
0.00
0.00
2,129.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ioi Ladang Sabah Grouping
Sabah
2,094.24
0.00
0.00
2,095.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hap Seng Plantations Holdings
Berhad
Sabah
2,149.69
8.97
0.79
2,125.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hap Seng Plantations Holdings
Berhad
Sabah
4,834.32
46.39
27.74
4,802.89
0.00
0.00
2.16
0.30
Ppb Oil-palm Berhad
Sabah
6,382.70
15.57
3.07
6,349.91
0.12
2.05
2.91
0.16
Pamol Group
Sabah
4,429.64
654.26
134.76
3,815.85
105.39
1.17
41.97
9.53
Ppb - Sri Kamusan Pom
Sabah
93.23
0.00
0.00
93.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ppb - Sri Kamusan Pom
Sabah
129.59
60.86
19.46
110.14
0.00
0.27
0.00
0.00
Ppb - Sri Kamusan Pom
Sabah
772.45
195.29
82.61
677.45
49.95
58.32
1.16
0.17
Ppb - Sri Kamusan Pom
Sabah
235.39
29.16
20.19
200.77
1.15
1.16
5.67
0.99
Ppb - Sri Kamusan Pom
Sabah
242.94
231.06
22.33
207.88
7.50
5.83
0.00
0.00
Ppb - Sri Kamusan Pom
Sabah
180.28
97.14
16.75
162.40
4.53
0.08
0.00
0.00

39
Unknown
Sabah
136.45
0.00
0.00
136.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bornion Pom
Sabah
1,808.79
2.33
2.33
1,800.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bornion Pom
Sabah
5,717.64
14.19
14.15
5,696.18
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
Bornion Pom
Sabah
3,240.06
7.91
7.91
3,232.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bornion Pom
Sabah
1,329.75
0.00
0.00
1,329.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ioi Corporation Bhd - Baturong
Pom
Sabah
1,766.49
0.00
0.00
1,766.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bornion Pom
Sabah
1,298.93
0.00
0.00
1,298.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ppb-Sabahmas Pom
Sabah
11,272.41
686.60
503.37
9,753.93
0.00
0.00
161.91
21.32
Bornion Pom
Sabah
372.06
0.00
0.00
372.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ioi Corporation Bhd
Sabah
7,858.43
38.80
37.81
7,790.87
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.50
Sime Darby Plantation Sdn Bhd
Sabah
43.59
27.48
6.98
23.52
0.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sime Darby Plantation Sdn Bhd
Sabah
2,042.76
213.27
190.15
1,645.47
0.00
0.00
2.83
2.24
Klk
Sabah
14,300.46
132.60
123.23
14,140.27
0.00
0.00
4.69
4.69