docTowards New Paradigms - Tropenbos International
download 
Report Transcription
Towards New Paradigms - Tropenbos International
Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (TRHS): Towards New Paradigms A Study Conducted By: Tropenbos International Indonesia Programme Commissioned By: Unesco Office - Jakarta Indonesia Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (TRHS): Towards New Paradigms A study conducted by TROPENBOS INTERNATIONAL INDONESIA PROGRAMME COMMISSIONED BY UNESCO OFFICE - JAKARTA BOGOR, 9 JUNE 2015 i Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (TRHS): Towards New Paradigms Tropenbos International Indonesia Programme Edi Purwanto Technical support: Landsat Interpretation BBSNP (Eko Manjela), KSNP (Bukhari), GLNP (Kasuma Wijaya) Land cover data analysis Eko Manjela, Ujang Susep Irawan Literature research Irpan Foto cover: Encroachment at Lapangan Tembak, Village: PIR-ADB, Resort: Sekoci, Besitang Subdistrict, Langkat District, North Sumatra Province. Source: Fly-over photo by GLNP (2013) ii Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards new paradigms TABLE OF CONTENT Soft Cover .......................................................................................................................................... Table of Content ................................................................................................................................. List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... List of Boxes ...................................................................................................................................... List of Appendices ............................................................................................................................. List of Acronyms and Glossary of Terms ........................................................................................... Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... i ii iv v vi vi vii x xi Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 1.2. Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 1.3. Outputs .................................................................................................................................... 1.4. Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 1.4.1. Assessment of encroachment threats in TRHS ............................................................ 1.4.2. Collection of information through FGD ....................................................................... 1.4.3. Literature study .............................................................................................................. 1 1 3 4 4 4 4 5 Chapter 2. Status and trend of encroachment in TRHS ............................................................. 2.1. Geographic position ................................................................................................................ 2.2. Key Features and Threats ....................................................................................................... 2.2.1. Gunung Leuser National Park (GLNP) ........................................................................ 2.2.2. Kerinci Seblat National Park (KSNP) .......................................................................... 2.2.3. Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park (BBSNP) ............................................................ 2.3. Trend of Encroachment .......................................................................................................... 2.3.1. Encroachment in GLNP ........................................................................................... 2.3.2. Encroachment in KSNP ............................................................................................ 2.3.3. Encroachment in BBSNP ......................................................................................... 2.4. Encroachment Pattern in TRHS .............................................................................................. 2.5. Concluding Remarks .............................................................................................................. 6 6 9 9 12 14 15 15 18 21 24 26 Chapter 3. Review of Anti-encroachment Initiatives in TRHS from 1990 -2014 : Impact and Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................. 3.1. Protected Areas: Conservation Vs Unsustainable Development .......................................... 3.2. Typology and perceptions of the squatters .................................................................... 3.3. Encroachment crimes handling based on law No.41/1999 .......................................... 3.4. Gunung Leuser National Park ............................................................................................. 3.4.1. The Leuser Development Programme ....................................................................... 3.4.2. GLNP efforts to control severe encroachment in Besitang ...................................... 3.4.3. Ecosystem Restoration .............................................................................................. 3.4.3.1. Restoration at Sei Serdang, Cinta Raja Resort, Langkat District ................. 3.4.3.2. Restoration at Sei Betung Resort .................................................................. 28 28 29 33 35 35 37 42 42 43 iii 3.4.4. Community Based Ecotourism Program in Tangkahan ............................................ Kerinci Seblat NP ................................................................................................................ 3.5.1. The Kerinci ICDP ...................................................................................................... 3.5.2. KSNP efforts to control encroachment in Sipurak Hook, Merangin District ............ 3.5.3. Collaborative forest management in the forest edge communities ........................... 3.5.4. Kerinci Seblat Tiger Protection and Conservation .................................................... 3.5.5. Pilot project to stop encroachment at village level in Kerinci District ...................... Bukit Barisan Selatan NP .................................................................................................... 3.6.1. CANOPI .................................................................................................................... 3.6.2. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Indonesia ....................................................... 3.6.3. Rhino Protection Units ........................................................................................... 3.6.4. BBSNP efforts to control encroachment ................................................................. 3.6.5. Maintaining healthy tiger populations at landscape level .......................................... 3.6.6. Community Based Forest Restoration ........................................................................ Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................................... 44 45 45 49 50 50 51 52 52 53 53 54 58 59 60 Chapter 4. Recommendations on anti-encroachment measures ............................................. 4.1. Overcoming Conservation Deadlock .................................................................................... 4.2. Recommendations: Towards New Paradigms ..................................................................... 4.2.1. Strengthen Conservation Governance: ...................................................................... 4.2.1.1. Build stronger collaboration with stakeholders at regional and national level ....................................................................................... 4.2.1.2. Strengthen security patrol and ground presence of NP staff ...................... 4.2.1.3. Strengthen Village Conservation Governance: Link village development with conservation ...................................................................................... 4.2.1.4. Enforce Agrarian Reform and Constitutional Court Ruling No.35/2012 ... 4.2.1.5. Strengthen law enforcement targeted to syndicates and mastermind of illegal activities ........................................................................................... 4.2.1.6. Monitor encroachment areas using conservation drone ............................. 4.2.1.7. Strengthen collaboration with conservation and social NGOs ................. 4.2.2. Integrated landscape approaches: Shift from PA to integrated landscape based management ............................................................................................................... 4.2.2.1. Manage TRHS on integrated landscape approaches .................................. 4.2.2.2. Enforce voluntary and mandatory certifications to control oil palm plantation expansion surrounding TRHS .................................................... 4.2.2.3. Improve SVLK standard to control IPK from PA ..................................... 4.2.2.4. Enhance the quality of ecosystem restoration ............................................ 4.2.2.5. Pride campaigns and environmental education .......................................... 4.2.5. Build social buffer along the critical Parks boundaries .............................................. 4.2.3.1. Build community forestry schemes on special use zone ........................... 4.2.3.2. The need of ministerial decree to streamline procedures on NTFP collection by local community .................................................................... 4.2.3.3. Build long-terms partnerships, community development facilitations and technical assistances to community and key champions surrounding the Park ...................................................................................................... 4.2.3.2 Establish research area; intensify research activities and linkwith international ecoutrism operator ................................................................ 65 65 66 66 3.5. 3.6. 3.7. 66 69 70 71 73 76 77 77 77 79 80 80 81 82 82 85 86 89 iv 4.3. 4.4. Key requirements ................................................................................................................. 4.3.1. Building of internal power ........................................................................................ 4.3.2. Support of the national government .......................................................................... Concluding Remarks ........................................................................................................... 91 91 92 92 References ..................................................................................................................................... 101 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 107 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Table 2.2. Table 2.3. Table 2.4. Cummulative landcover change in GLNP ................................................................ Cummulative landcover change in KSNP 1990-2014 .............................................. Cummulative landcover change in BBSNP 1990-2014 ............................................ Accumulated encroachment in three national parks of TRHS during 1990-2014 .................................................................................................... Table 2.5. Percentage of encroachment in the three national parks of TRHS in 2014 .............. Table 2.6. Distribution of land area in the national parks by slope steepness ............................ Table 2.7. Annual encroachment rate on three NPs on three different periods .......................... Table 2.8. Summary of encroachment facts in TRHS ................................................................ Table 3.1. Typology of Squatters in TRHS ................................................................................ Table 3.2. Law institutions and their roles and responsibilities .................................................. Table 3.3. Encroachment crimes sanctions according to Law No. 41/1999 on Forestry ............ Table 3.4. Major Achievements of the GLNP ICDP ................................................................. Table 3.5. Efforts to eradicate illegal crops in the encroached areas .......................................... Table 3.6. Efforts to relocate squatters in Besitang Sub-district ................................................. Table 3.7. Restoration ecosystem of encroached areas in GLNP ................................................ Table 3.8. Achievements of the Kerinci ICDP ............................................................................ Table 3.9. Encroachment history and anti-encroachment measures ........................................... Table 3.10. Summary of anti-encroachment initiatives and key lessons learned in TRHS ......... Table 3.11. Anti-encroachment measures supporting factors of success stories and underlined causes of failures ........................................................................................................ Table 4.1. Government authorities to address the underlyning causes of NP encroachment ...... Table 4.2. The power and existing roles of NP’s key partners/stakeholders ............................. Table 4.3. A paradigm shift in PA management ........................................................................ Table 4.4. Example of sustainable livelihood facilitations to support the integrity of the ark’s ecosystem ............................................................................................. Table 4.5. Key strategies on community empowerment facilitations .................................. Table 4.6. Strategies, actions plan, performance indicators and key stakeholders ...................... 16 19 22 24 25 25 27 27 29 33 34 36 40 41 43 47 56 61 63 65 67 78 87 88 93 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. Figure 2.2. Figure 2.3. Figure 2.4. Figure 2.5. Figure 2.6. Figure 2.7. Figure 2.7. Figure 2.8. Figure 2.9. Figure 2.10. Figure 2.11. Figure 2.12. Figure 2.13. Figure 2.14. Figure 2.15. Figure 2.16. TRHS comprises of GLNP at the north, KSNP, and BBSNP at the south ............ Percentage of three NPs by province administration ........................................... Percentage of GLNP by districts administration ................................................. Percentage of KSNP area by districts administration .......................................... Percentage of BBSNP by district administration ................................................ Gunung Leuser National Park ........................................................................... Gunung Leuser National Park ........................................................................... Kerinci Seblat National Park ............................................................................. Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park ................................................................. Landcover change in GLNP until 2014 .............................................................. Historical landcover change in GLNP Year 1990 (A), Year 2000 (B), Year 2010 (C), and Year 2014 (D) .................................................................................... Trend of encroachment in GLNP during 1990-2014 ........................................... Landcover change of KSNP until 2014 ............................................................ Trend of encroachment in KSNP during 1990-2014 ........................................... Hystorical landcover change in KSNP Year 1990 (A), Year 2000 (B), Year 2010 (C), and Year 2014 (D) .................................................................................... Landcover change in BBSNP until 2014 .......................................................... Historical landcover change in BBSNP: Year 1990 (A), Year 2000 (B), Year 2010 (C), and Year 2014 (D) ............................................................................ Figure 2.17. Trend of encroachment in BBSNP during 1990-2014 ................................. Figure 2.18. Encroached areas in TRHS (A) and rate of encroached area during 1990-2014 (B) ...................................................................................... Figure 2.19. Distribution of land encroachment by slope steepness ........................................ Figure 3.1. Processes in handling forestry-related crimes based on Law No.41/1999 ............. Figure 3.2. Expansion of encroachment at Besitang from year 2009 to 2012 ........................ Figure 3.3. The remnant of Sekoci Resort Office ................................................................ Figure 3.4. The relationship between law enforcement and encroachment in BBSNP ............. Figure 4.1. Several awareness and education materials for community and students (OWT) ........................................................................................ Figure A5.1. Encroached areas in Sekoci, squatters built field houses to mark their presences .................................................................................... Figure A5.2. Discussion on the temporary results of satellite imagery interpretation with YOLOIC GIS Team in Medan ................................................................................ Figure A5.3. FGD in KSNP office in Sungai Penuh Town, as attended by UNESCO representative ................................................................................................. Figure A5.4. FGD in GLNP in Medan, the NP Head presented on the encroachment problems Figure A5.5. FGD in BBSNP in Kota Agung Office .............................................................. Figure A5.6. Small group discussion in KSNP ................................................................. 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 12 14 16 17 18 19 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 34 39 40 55 82 113 113 113 113 113 114 vi LIST OF BOXES Box 1.1. Box 1.2. Box 2.1. Box 2.2. Box 2.3. Box 2.4. Box 3.1. Box 3.2. Box 3.3. Box 4.1. Biodiversity richness and the unique natural beauty of TRHS ........................................ National park in Indonesia .............................................................................................. The history and legal status of GLNP ............................................................................ Leuser Ecosystem ........................................................................................................... The history and legal status of KSNP ............................................................................ The history and legal status of BBSNP ......................................................................... What re ICDPs? ............................................................................................................. SWOT analysis to control encroachment in GLNP ......................................................... Repressive measures to control encroachments in BBSNP in 2013....................... Key outcomes and recommendation of National Workshop on the Forestry Law: Constitutional Court Ruling No.35/PUU-X/2012, 29-30 August 2013, Jakarta, Indonesia, organized by UNORCID ............................................................................... Box 4.2. Anti-Corruption and Anti-Money Laundering ................................................................ Box 4.3. Social Forestry Scheme .................................................................................................... Box 4.4. Security of Tenure ........................................................................................................... Box 4.5. Operation Wallacea Ltd: a Best Practices Ecotourism Promotion ................................. 1 2 10 11 13 15 35 41 57 72 74 84 85 90 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1. Emergency Action Plan (EAP) Land Encroachment ................................................. Appendix 2. Flow diagram in developing encroachment data ........................................................ Appendix 3. Photo Documentations ............................................................................................... Appendix 4. Highlight of encroachment by district .................................................................. 108 112 113 115 vii LIST OF ACRONYMS AND CLOSSARY OF TERMS ADB AGO AHP APL AMAN BAPPENAS BANGDA BBSNP BDK BPDAS BKSDA BPKEL BPKH CANOPI CEPF CSO DI DKN DPR DSOCR EAP EC EUTR FAO FEC FFI FGD FLEGT FORDA GAM GIS/RS GLNP GoI HCV HD HKm HoB ICDP IDP IGA ILEA Asian Development Bank Attorney General Office, Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia ASEAN Heritage Park Areal Penggunaan Lain/non-state forest land Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara/Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional/National Development Planning Agency Ditjen Bina Pembangunan Daerah/Directorate of Regional /Development, Ministry of Home Affairs Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park Balai Diklat Kehutanan, Forestry Training Center Balai Pengelolaan DAS, Watershed Management Agency Balai Konservasi dan Sumber Daya Alam/Natural Resource Conservation Agency, Ministry of Environment and Forestry Badan Pengelola Kawasan Ekosistem Leuser/Leuser Management Unit Badan Pemantapan Kawasan Hutan/Agency for Forest Boundary Consolidation Conservation Action Network Program Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund Civil Society Organization/NGO Daerah Istimewa/Special Province Dewan Kehutanan Nasional, National Forestry Council House of Representatives/Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Desired State of Conservation for Removal Emergency Action Plan European Commission European Union Timber Regulation Food and Agriculture Organization Forest Encroachment Commission Fauna & Flora International Focused Group Discussion Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Forest Research and Development Agency Gerakan Aceh Merdeka/Free Aceh Movement Geo-Information System/Remote Sensing Gunung Leuser National Park Government of Indonesia High Conservation Values Hutan Desa/Village Forest Hutan Kemasyarakatan/Community Forestry Heart of Borneo Integrated Conservation Development Project Internal Displaced People Income generating activity Integrated Law Enforcement Approach viii ISPO IPK IRF IUCN IWGFF KAP KEL Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil Indonesia Ijin Pemanfaatan Kayu/ Timber Utilization Permits International Rhino Foundation International Union for Conservation of Nature Indonesian Working Group on Forest Finance Knowledge, Attitude and Practices Kawasan Ekosistem Leuser/Leuser Ecosystem KUHP KETAPEL KPK KPHK KREDI KSNP LDP LE LIF LMU LPT LTA LTB MDK MoF MoEF MoHA MoVDAT Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana/Criminal Code Procedures Kelompok Tani Pelindung Leuser, Local NGO Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi/Commission for Corruption Eradication Kesatuan Pemangkuan Hutan Konservasi/Conservation Forest Management Unit Ketambe Reforestation and Ecotourism Development Kerinci Seblat National Park Leuser Development Programme Leuser Ecosystem Leuser International Foundation Leuser Management Unit Lembaga Pariwisata Tangkahan Lembaga Tumbuh Alami, Indonesia Lembaga Tiga Beradik Model Desa Konservasi/Village Conservation Model Ministry of Forestry, (now MoEF) Ministry of Environment and Forestry Ministry of Home Affairs, Kementerian Dalam Negeri Ministry of Village, Disadvantage Areas Development and Transmigration, Kementerian Desa, Pembangunan Daerah Tertinggal dan Transmigrasi Ministry of Agriculture, Kementerian Pertanian Ministry of Agraria and Spatial Planning. Kementerian Agraria dan Tata Ruang/Badan Pertanahan Nasional Muller Ecosystem Areas Memorandum of Understanding Non-Governmental Organization Nota Kesepatan Bersama, Memorandum of Understanding National Park National Park Community Facilitator New Planting Procedure Operasi Wallacea Terpadu Protected Areas Penilai ekosistem hutan/ Parks’ functional staff specifically to assess the quality of forest ecosystem. Pengelolaan Hutan Berbasiskan Masyarakat/Joint Forest Management with the Community Protection and Preservation Agency Pusat Pelaporan Analisis Transaksi dan Keuangan/the Indonesian Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (INTRAC) Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam/Directorate of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation, Ministry of Forestry and Environment MoA MoASP MEA MoU NGO NKB NP NPCF NPP OWT PA PEH PHBM PPA PPATK PHKA ix PPNS RBM RSPO RUU RPJM-Desa RPU SC SPORC SOEDP SVLK TNI TRF TRHS UNDP UNESCO UNEP UNODC UNORCID VCA VGA WARSI WH WHP WHS WHWG WRU WWF WCS YABI YLI YOSL-OIC Petugas Penyidik Pegawai Negeri Sipil/Civil Servant Investigator Resort Based Management Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil Rancangan Undang-Undang/ Draft Bill Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Desa/RPJM/mid-term development planning Rhino Protection Unit Supreme Court/Mahkamah Agung Satuan Polisi Kehutanan Reaksi Cepat/Response Unit Forest Ranger Sumatra Orangutan Ecotourism Development Project Sistem Verifikasi Legalitas Kayu/Timber Legality Assurance Systems Tentara Nasional Indonesia/National Army The Rain Forest Foundation Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatera United Nations Development Programme United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization United Nations Environmental Programme United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime United Nations Office for REDD+ Coordination in Indonesia Village Conservation Agreement Village Conservation Grants Warung Konservasi Indonesia World Heritage World Heritage Property World Heritage Sites World Heritage Working Group Wildlife Response Unit World Wide Fund for Nature Wildlife Conservation Society Yayasan Badak Indonesia Yayasan Leuser International/Leuser International Foundation Yayasan Orangutan Sumatra Lestari-Orangutan Information Centre village To be cited as: Purwanto E, 2015. Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards new paradigms. Tropenbos International Indonesia programme and UNESCO-Jakarta, 121 pp x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank all those who participated in and contributed to the formulation of the report. Some of them are: Tony Whitten (Fauna Flora International), Maartje Hilterman (IUCN-‐ NL), Johanes Subijanto (Coral Triangle), Wahjudi Wardojo (The Nature Conservancy), Hariadi Kartodihardjo (KPK/IPB), Nur Hasanah (UNESCO), Frans Siahaan (Consultant), Wiratno (MoEF), Listya Kusumawardani (MoEF), Gatot Subiyantoro (MoEF), Irdika Mansur (Biotrop/IPB), Sapto Aji Prabowo (GLNP), David (KSNP), Muniful Hamid (BBSNP), Erly Sukrismanto (Kutai NP), Ani Adiwinata Nawir (CIFOR) and Tia Arwida (CIFOR). Sincere appreciation to the Head of GLNP, Head of KSNP,Head of BBSNP and all resources persons who have devoted their valuable time to attend Focus Group discussions conducted at each national park.. Great appreciation also go to Chandrasa Sjamsudin who coducted English editing of the manuscript. The author’s great gratitute finally goes to Mr. Shahbaz Khan and Ms. Nur Hasanah for their trust and kind assistances during the implementation of the study. xi Executive Summary: The Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (TRHS) was inscribed in the World Heritage list in 2004 by the World Heritage Committee (WHC)-UNESCO for its unique natural beauty, the importance of its habitats for the conservation of endemic species, and the significant role of its on-going ecological and biological processes in its ecosystems to the global landscape. TRHS comprises of three widely separated National Parks (NP); Gunung Leuser, Kerinci Seblat and Bukit Barisan Selatan. They cover a total area of 2.5 million hectares, constituting one of the biggest conservation areas in Southeast Asia. The main threats to TRHS’ integrity are deforestation and encroachment of NP areas due to the expansion of monocultures (oil palm, rubber, coffee, etc.) and infrastructure development. Encroachment is often compounded with other problems such as illegal logging and poaching. In the meantime, problems have become entrenched due to the economic and political interests associated with the use of resources within park boundaries. These continuous threats led to the inscription of TRHS to the In-Danger list of World Heritage by the World Heritage Committee in 2011. There have been many initiatives carried out by the three national parks (NPs) and various stakeholders for anti-encroachment measures; however those have been left unacknowledged, while many lessons can be obtained from the experience of implementing the initiatives. This study aims at reviewing the anti-encroachment initiatives that have been undertaken at the three NPs within TRHS and analyzing their strengths and weaknesses, as well as associated impacts to the integrity of the NPs area. These lessons learned will be the basis in the formulation of anti-encroachment recommendations as a strategic action to remove TRHS from the World Heritage In-Danger list. This report is composed of four chapters; (a) Chapter 1: Introduction; (b) Chapter 2: Status and Trend of Encroachment in TRHS; (c) Chapter 3: Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in THRS from 1990-2014: Impacts and Lessons Learned; (d) Chapter 4: Recommendations on Anti-Encroachment Measures. To define the status and trend of encroachment (illegal occupation of state forest land) in TRHS, forest covers year 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2014 were interpreted and mapped across TRHS areas using Landsat imageries. In 2014, the encroached areas in GLNP was doubled compared to 1990, while the rate of encroachment declined from year 1990 to year 2000 before the sharp rise in 2000 to 2014. The significant increment seems to be caused by the rising land demand for palm oil plantation. Similar to GLNP’s case, the total encroached area in 2014 in KSNP was also doubled than in 1990. Its rate of encroachment also declined in 1990 to 2000. There was a slight increase in 2000 to 2010 which turned into a sharp increase in 2010 to 2014. BBSNP has a different encroachment pattern compared to previous NPs. Its total encroached area in 2014 was tripled compared to in 1980s. The Indonesian government sponsored spontaneous transmigrations from Java to Lampung and Southern parts of Sumatra in 1970s, which has led to the conversion of vast forest areas to small-scale farms. The highest encroachment occured in KSNP with a total area of 130,322.2 ha or 52.6% of the total encroached area in TRHS and the encroachment rate is 2,737 ha/year during 1990-2014. BBSNP has the second largest encroached area of 74,988 ha followed by GLNP with a total encroachment area of 42,487.8 ha (both accounted for 30.3% and 17.1% of the total encroached area in THRS respectively). During 1990-2014, the encroachment rates in BBSNP and GLNP were 1,240.2 ha/year and 972.4 ha/year respectively. Up to 2014, most of land-cover changes in GLNP were caused by dry cultivation land that reached up to 18,026.80 ha. This is followed by mixed tree crops and oil palm plantation with total area that reached up to 9,672.63 ha and 8,429.87 ha respectively. In KSNP, most of landcover changes were caused by mixed tree crops (89,486.75 ha), followed by dry cultivation land (12,654.89 ha) and crop plantations such as rubber, cocoa, coconut, etc. covering an area of 2,924.37 ha; while the largest land use in BBSNP up to 2014 was for crop plantations (36,488.85 ha) followed by dryland farming (15,520.58 ha) and mixed tree crops (11,182.19 ha). Squatters on sites can be cathegorized into five types based on their nature: landless indigenous people, local migrant, Javanese immigrant, poor landless migrant and skilled opportunist. The underlying causes of encroachment are: (a) The government designated the three NPs in areas that were already settled by indigenous people and partly Javanese immigrants who arrived in several migration waves since 1905; (b) Javanese and local migrants continued to move into the area even xii after the NP was created; (c) There is still an unclear pattern to what extent communitiesare involved in the management of NPs: (d) The widespread of district partition during decentralization era has led to jurisdictional overlap between several district areas and conservation areas; (e) The management of NPs has failed to demonstrate real economic contribution on nature preservation that supports community livelihoods or enhances gross domestic product of the district; (f) The local government has recognized, legalized and strengthened the presence of villages and communities within NP boundaries; (g) National and local government authorities, private companies operating in the area and community members are pursuing development goals through building roads, markets, schools and office complexes, providing electricity and telecommunications, mining and converting forests to plantation areas; (h) The NP agency lacks the capacity and authority to enforce and implement its mandate and lacks support from the local government. The management of NP has responded to the encroachment problem through: (a) Preventive measures: Inclusion of regular patrols by forest rangers, public extension on forestry regulation, community development through village conservation model etc.; (b) Repressive measures: Periodic joint operations by the forest rangers together with the national police and army, (c) Judiciary process: from the arrest and prosecution of violators until final conviction; (d) Special operation to protect the forests, and flora and fauna diversity from external non-natural disturbances, such as conducting patrols in fire prone areas, especially areas close to human activities; (e) Ecosystem restoration: Forest areas restoration (usually conducted after coercive operation and other non-natural disturbances) through accelerated natural succession, supported with intensive monitoring and maintenance. The key supporting factors for anti-encroachment measures based on lessons learned in 1990-2014 can be summarized as below: Conservation governance: (a) For consortium projects such as ICDP and CANOPI, the existence of a leading organization with a strong leadership is a must; (b) The determination of NP towards good governance and involvement of key stakeholders at the national and regional level. Law enforcement (LE): Lesson learned from LE in BBSNP (1985-1997): (a) LE should target the masterminds behind illegal activities; (b) LE should be supported by intelligence operation which could identify targets since its early stage; (c) Quick responses to any encroachment problems should be required instead of delaying the problem until it becomes big and complicated; (d) LE should be supported with adequate resources; (e) Strong and confident law enforcers. Village Conservation Agreement (VCA): Lessons learned from Tangkahan community based ecotourism development: (a) Villagers should feet an urgent need of VCA (awareness raising is necessary prior to the facilitation of the VCA formulation), (b) The villages have strong social capital; (c) The villages have high potential natural resource to be protected and sustainably utilized; (d) Intensive facilitation to be conducted before and after VCA implementation; (e) The VCA should have high linkages to key conservation objectives. Village Conservation Grant (VCG): Lessons learned from ICDP LDP and Tangkahan case: (a) VGC are to be delivered to villages depending on their needs and requests; (b) VGC should have high linkages to conservation goals, (c) Proper selection of beneficiaries, (d) intensive facilitation and technical assistances on VCG proposal and spending are needed. Ecosystem Restoration (ER): Lessons learned from UNESCO’s restoration program in TRHS: (a) ER should be conducted together with local community covering nursery development, planting, maintenance of planted trees and securing the NP’s borders from encroachment; (b) The constant presence of NP staff and ER facilitators on restoration sites are needed; (c) Capacity building for local communities on ecosystem restoration including the development of sustainable livelihoods helps raise awareness; (d) Intensive and continuous facilitation and technical assistance for local xiii communities are needed; (e) Experienced NGO(s) on ecosystem restoration should be involved since the start. Ecotourism development: Lessons learned from Tangkahan community based ecotourism: (a) The establishment of well-legitimated and accepted local organization; (b) Willingness of NP to delegate its management authority to local legitimated organization; (c) Clear benefit sharing mechanism. Recommendation of anti-encroachment measures: Having learned from the successes and failures of past anti-encroachment measures, the following strategies are proposed: (A) Strengthen Conservation Governance: (a) Strengthen Conservation Governance: Building stronger collaboration with stakeholders at regional and national level; (b) Strengthen security patrol and ground presence of NP staff; (c) Strengthen Village Conservation Governance:lLinking village development to conservation; (d) Enforce Agrarian Reform and Constitutional Court Ruling No.35/2012; (e) Strengthen law enforcement targeted to syndicates and mastermind behind illegal activities; (f) Monitoring encroachment areas using conservation drone; (g) Strengthen collaboration with conservation and social NGOs; (B) Integrated landscape approaches: Shifting from PA to integrated landscape based management: (a) Manage TRHS through integrated landscape approaches; (b) Enforcevoluntary and mandatory certifications to control oil palm plantation expansion surrounding TRHS; (c) Improve SVLK standard to control IPK from PA; (d) Enhance the quality ecosystem restoration; (e) Pride campaigns and environmental education; (C) Build social buffer along the critical Parks boundaries: (a) Build community forestry schemes on special use zone (b) Establish a ministerial decree arranging procedure for NTFP collection by local community; (c) Build long-terms partnerships, community development facilitations and technical assistances to community and key champions surrounding the park; (d) Establish research areas, intensify research activities and link with international ecotourism operator. New power are required to implement the recommended strategies in a consistent manner. Where could this power be obtained ? It could be gained by reforming NP management, combined with strong political supports of the centre government. Build internal power: (a) A park’s organization structure is defined according to the park’s specific needs (based on specific challenges, threats and pressures), not just defined according to MoEF’s general rules and regulations; (b)The number of resorts, villages faciltiation target, community empowerment strategies and supporting resources and facilities needs are defined based on a park’s specific strategies; (c) The number of required managerial, administration and functional staff, i.e. forest rangers, PEH and forest extension workers are defined based on a park’s specific development needs; (d) A park’s annual budget and its allocations should give priority on field activities and is defined on the basis on a park’s justified actions plan; (e) The capacity building of staff parks at all level are continuously monitored and strengthened and should be based on reliable capacity building/training needs assessment; (f) Most field activities should actively be led by and or are coordinated by park officials and not rely too much on partners/ stakeholders/consultants; (g) The park management should be strongly supported by MoEF’s technical implementing units at regional level, such as FORDA, BDK, BKSDA, BPDAS etc. Support from Central Government: DPR, MoHA, MoVDAT, BAPPENAS, MoASP, MoA, AGO, SC etc, guided by WHWG, have to provide strong support to; (a) Enhance NP conservation governance and management by providing strong political support to NP authorities at regional level (b) Resolve the permanent conflict settlement of chronic encroachments through integrated land xiv enforcement and judiciary process; (c) Settle misinterpretations regarding NP areas related to the appointment of forest and waters at the Province level; (d) Establish buffer zones in KSNP and BBSNP and define them as National Strategic Areas; (e) The development of policies related to the establishment of community forestry in NP; (f) Revise Law No 5/1990 on natural resource conservation and adjustment of punishment to perpetrators; (g) Enact Law on Recognition and Protection the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; (h) Enact Ministerial decree on the extraction of NTFPs by local community; (i) Improve SVLK which requires auditors to assess IPK permit holders; (j) Audit all oil palm concessions surrounding TRHS to ensure that they have been RSPO/ISPO certified; (k) Fulfill the optimal number of young forest rangers especially recruited olocal people; (l) Fulfill the optimal number of young forest extension workers (village conservation governance and comunity development facilitators) especially recruited from local people; (m) Enhance NP budget for patrols, field operations, community development and village government capacity building and facilitations; (n) Build the capacity of NP staffs especially aligned with dynamic challenges, threats and pressures; (o) The Joint Four Ministerial Decree dated 17 October 2014 concerning procedures for the settlement of land tenure in State Forest Land that should not be implemented before its technical guidelines is enacted. A big leap in the management of NP at the national and on the ground level is required. This must be strongly supported with ‘Not Business As Usual’ spirit with emphasis on preventive measures, such as building intensive communication with local communities and bringing most NP investments into the operational level for conducting intensive data collection (supported with advance GIS/RS database) and patrol, reconciling NP borders with local communities, enhancing the quality of longterm partnership on community development programs, strengthening awareness through campaigns and initiating social forestry program in the zone of special use, and the development of NTFP and other NP environmental services which could be managed by local communities. More efforts should focus on establishing social buffer along critical borders, while dispute settlements around severe encroachment should be performed through collaborative efforts between local police force, local government, prosecutors, supported by KPK and PPATK to convict the masterminds and eradicate the syndicates, networks and businesses involved in illegal activities. The management of NP should have strong communication and networking capacity to promote the pivotal roles of TRHS as the life support system to regional economic development and of nature conservation, by demonstrating the economic benefits through innovative ecotourism marketing. The management of NP should be inclusive and willing to involve the regional government on the planning, execute collaborative management of work, monitoring and evaluation of NP program. MoEF/PHKA together with the NP should redesign the administration park, including its regulatory instruments, planning, budgeting, resources allocations and related systems which should be dedicated to address key threats and pressures of NPs. Capacity building of field staff, technical staff, managerial staff need to be strengthened in line with the key threats and pressures of the parks, while staff tour of duty should also consider the impacts on the institutional capacity building of the parks. xv Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1. Background Tropical rainforests contain some of the most species-rich and highly threatened habitats in the world (Myers et al. 2000). Threats to these habitats generally come from deforestation and habitat degradation, which directly and indirecgtly reduces biodiversity through habitat fragmentation. Deforestation rates in Sumatra, Indonesia, are some of the highest in the world (Holmes 2001). Despite its importance, Sumatran forests are being cleared by illegal loggers and by commercial and subsistence agriculturalists, leading to recent estimates that all of the island’s lowland forest will be cleared within several years (Jepson et al. 2001). The Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (TRHS) was inscribed in the World Heritage list in 2004 by World Heritage Committee (WHC)-UNESCO for its’ unique natural beauty, the importance of its habitats for conservation of endemic species, and the significant role of its on-going ecological and biological process in its ecosystems to the global landscape. TRHS comprises of three widely separated National Parks; Gunung Leuser (GLNP), Kerinci Seblat (KSNP) and Bukit Barisan Selatan (BBSNP), and covers a total area of 2,595,124 Ha, constituting one of the biggest conservation areas in Southeast Asia. The site is located on Bukit Barisan range and holds the greatest potential for long-term conservation of the diverse biota of Sumatra, including many endangered species (WHP, 2014). Box 1.1. Biodiversity richness and the unique natural beauty of TRHS1 The biodiversity of the property is exceptional in terms of both species numbers and uniqueness. There is an estimated 10,000 species of plants, including 17 endemic genera. Animal diversity in TRHS is also impressive, with 201 mammal species and around 580 species of birds, of which 465 are residents and 21 are endemics. Of the mammal species, 22 are endemic to the Sundaland hotspot and 15 are confined to the Indonesian region, including the endemic Sumatran orang-utan. Key mammal species also include the Sumatran tiger, rhino, elephant and Malayan sun-bear. The TRHS includes the highest volcano in Indonesia, Gunung Kerinci (3,805 m asl) along with many other physical features of exceptional natural beauty, including; Lake Gunung Tujuh the highest lake in Southeast Asia, numerous other volcanic and glacial high-altitude lakes, fumaroles, waterfalls, cave systems and steep rocky backdrops. Both Gunung Leuser National Park and Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park contain frontages to the Indian Ocean, extending the altitudinal range of the TRHS from the highest mountains tops on Sumatra to sea level. All three protected areas in the TRHS exhibit wide altitudinal zonation of vegetation, from lowland rainforest to montane forest, extending to sub-alpine low forest, scrub and shrub thickets and covering an astounding diversity of ecosystems. In addition to being a high biodiversity country with numerous endemic and endangered species, Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world, and is rapidly developing despite the economic setbacks due to the Asian financial crisis. Sumatra has a large and increasing human population living in hundreds of villages often surrounding or even settling within the remaining forests and NPs. This is a challenge to the park managers who have to balance the need to protect natural habitats and wildlife while respecting the rights and livelihoods of the local people. Encroachment (illegal occupation of state forest land, penyerobotan lahan hutan negara) and land claims have become major problems in the parks 1 World Heritage Property TRHS (2014) 1 leading to the loss of lowland forests with high biodiversity as in the cases of Besitang Area in GLNP, Sipurak Hook in KSNP and Rata Agung in BBSNP. Box 1.2. National Park in Indonesia Law no. 5/1990 defines a national park as an area designated to protect natural ecosystems and managed by the National Park Agency using a system of spatial zoning. A national park is to be used for research, education, cultural needs, tourism or recreation. This definition complies with the IUCN classification for national parks as Category II protected areas, established to: (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations; (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area; (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible. Some of the main threats to TRHS integrity are the encroachment for illegal logging and settlement, the expansion of monocultures (oil palm, rubber, coffee, etc.), and infrastructure development (mainly road development), which continuously deplete the forest areas in TRHS. The continuous threats to the outstanding universal value of TRHS, led to the inscription of the property to the In-Danger list of World Heritage (WH) by the World Heritage Committee in 2011. The omission of the three NPs from the World Heritage Sites (WHS) list will give serious implication such as: (a) Portraying a lack GOI’s commitments to protect WHS; (b) Increased threats to international trade of oil palm and rubber from Indonesia; (c) No international control to support the protection of the parks. IUCN-UNESCO WH monitoring missions to Sumatra in 2006 explained their recommendation for the inscription of the TRHS on the Danger List: ‘The capacity of management to effectively respond to and resolve critical situations has failed to keep pace with the mounting threats due to a range of institutional constraints, including funding constraints; inadequate cooperation and support from local, provincial and central government agencies, including in some cases law enforcement agencies; confusion over the rights of local government within national parks; and bureaucratic procedural constraints and inefficiencies. In addition, local communities and local government remain largely uninformed about the importance of and threats to WH property, and are therefore often antagonistic. (Hitchcock and Meyers, 2006) As a response, the Indonesia Wold Heritage Task Force has established an Emergency Action Plan (EAP, 2007 – 2011, see Annex 1) that should lead to the removal of the TRHS from the World Heritage in Danger List (WH 38 Decision). The Action Plan highlights several activities aimed at resolving the increasing threat caused by encroachment of forest areas and maintaining the integrity of TRHS area through law enforcement and collaborative efforts with stakeholders such as the local communities and local governments. The government of Indonesia has carried out many initiatives to prevent and resolve encroachment in protected areas, including TRHS, using both litigation and non-litigation approaches. At the national level, a Task Force on Anti-Encroachment was established by the Ministry of Forestry in 2011. The National World Heritage Task Force, coordinated by the Ministry of People’s Welfare, is coordinating the efforts with related ministries and local (provincial and district) governments. At the local level, the three national parks in TRHS have tried several initiatives: from repressive approaches, such as field operations and 2 eviction of the illegal settlers, to persuasive approaches such as refugee relocation, through agreements developed with the local communities. In addition, there are many initiatives from NGOs working in the field to prevent and resolve encroachment in the TRHS. However, the economic and development pressures in areas adjacent to the national parks often outpace the available resources preventing encroachment, leaving a continuation of forest degradation . Until recently, many initiatives carried out by various stakeholders have been left unacknowledged, even though many lessons can be drawn from the experience of implementing each initiatives, with different degrees of success achieved. In October 2013, the IUCN reactive monitoring mission visited Jakarta with the aim to finalize the Desired State of Conservation for Removal (DSOCR) from the Danger List, to identify and agree on a set of Corrective Measures. The mission clearly states: ‘Encroachment remains the most serious threat to the property, both in the immediate future and in the longer-term. Land cover pressures in the areas surrounding the three national parks are often high, including pressure to expand coffee and oil palm plantations‘(Merm, R. and S. Perkin, 2013). The report intends to compile and review the anti-encroachment initiatives that have taken place in the three national parks in TRHS and analyze the strength and weakness of the methods, and the impact of the initiatives to the integrity of the national park area. Based on the analysis, the key factors that influence the achievement of initiatives, positive and negative, will be identified, and recommendations on suitable anti-encroachment methods in TRHS will be provided. Furthermore, an encroachment site has been identified as an effort to put the pilot implementation of the encroachment initiatives in place in one of the national parks in the TRHS. A series of activities is expected to support the effort in resolving encroachment issue in TRHS, assisting in the implementation of the EAP, thus contributing to maintaining the integrity of TRHS, with the ultimate goal of assisting in the removal of the TRHS from the World Heritage in Danger list. 1.2. Objectives The objectives of the research are: a. b. c. d. e. To identify anti-encroachment initiatives that have been carried out in three national parks of the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (Gunung Leuser, Bukit Barisan, and Kerinci Seblat), covering from 1990 to the present. To analyze the short and long-term impacts of the anti-encroachment initiatives to maintain the integrity of the TRHS and its adjacent areas. To synthesize the lessons learned, including the supporting and non-supporting factors that influence the results of anti-encroachment initiatives in TRHS both at the local and national level. To provide recommendations on suitable anti-encroachment methods applicable in each national park of TRHS. To identify potential sites for the pilot implementation of anti-encroachment initiatives and propose tailor-made interventions for each site. 3 1.3. Outputs The outputs of the research are: a. b. c. d. e. 1.4. A detailed description of the anti-encroachment initiatives that have been carried out in TRHS by the government, NGO, and other related stakeholders from 1990 until 2013. A compilation of lessons learned from the anti-encroachment initiatives, including the supporting and non-supporting factors that influence the results of anti-encroachment initiatives in TRHS at both the local and national level. This will include analysis of the short and long-term effects of the initiatives from the ecological, socio-cultural and economical perspectives. A set of recommendation on suitable anti-encroachment methods applicable in each national parks of TRHS taking into account the different contexts of the area’s most affected by encroachment in each of the parks. A recommendation on potential sites and the suitable approach for pilot implementation of anti-encroachment initiatives. A comprehensive report on all project activities. Methodology 1.4.1. Assessment of encroachment trend in TRHS To determine the rates of encroachment in TRHS (defined as complete forest conversion to farmland), forest cover from 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2014 was mapped across TRHS areas using Landsat imageries. All images were geometrically corrected to accurately represent the land-cover on the ground and radiometrically corrected to remove the effects of atmospheric haze. A false colour composite image was produced for each image by combining bands 5, 4 and 2 in this order. A forest change map was then constructed using an on-screen digitizing method to map forest and non-forest classes from the different years. A multistage visual technique was used with on-screen interpretation to directly digitize land cover units and validate the results using high resolution images from Google Earth and supported with interviews with resource persons during FGD in TRHS. See Appendix 2. 1.4.2. Collection of information through FGD FGD was considered as the most effective way to collect information with the limited amount of resources for conducting fieldwork and vast coverage, considering the long period (1990 2014) that the study looked into. FGD in BBSNP was conducted in Kotaagung Town; Tanggamus District, Lampung Province on September 16, 2014, while in GLNP, this was held in Medan, North Sumatra Province, on October 10, 2014. The FGD in KSNP was conducted in Sungai Penuh Town, Jambi Province, on October 21, 2014. These discussions were conducted at the NP offices by gathering all NP key staffs, ranging from Resort Head to the Head of NP (40 - 50 persons). It composed of the following steps: (a) TBI presented the objectives of UNESCO’s study and the goals of the FGD; (b) Presentation of NP Head on encroachment problems; (c) FGD participants were divided into several groups based on their regional sections; each section discussed about the encroachment problems and antiencroachment measures which have been conducted from 1990 to 2014; (d) Each group presented the results of the discussion during the plenary session; (e) Conclusions and recommendations. Field check on the limited encroached areas was conducted in GLNP and BBNP 4 1.4.3. Literature study Given the limited resources to conduct fieldwork and direct field observations of the encroachment problems, the study puts a lot of emphasis on the results of literature reviewscovering the following issues: (a) Completion/final reports of several conservation programs in TRHS; (b) Scientific articles published in international journal; (c) Semipopular publications in Indonesian; (d) Books and articles published by Indonesian conservationists; (e) NGO project reports, (f) UNESCO reports/documents. The study was supported with intensive email correspondences with Indonesian and international experts. 5 Chapter 2. Status and trend of encroachment in TRHS 2.1. Geographic position TRHS is located on the chain of Bukit Barisan Mountain Range which, apart from minor interruptions extends along the full length of the island, stretching northwest-southeast and shaping the form of the the mainland of the Sumatran island. GLNP is situated in the northernmost of Bukit Barisan Selatan Mountain Range, KSNP in the center, and BBSNP in the southernmost. Each of the three Parks consists of different types of tropical rainforest which harbors high flora and fauna biodiversity of the island. GLNP includes all the major rainforest types of Northern Sumatra, it stretches from the west coast sandy beach forests and peat swamp forests in Kluet, up to the alpine formation on the mountain complex, of Leuser, Kemiri, Simpali, and Bandahara. KSNP encompasses a spectrum of habitats ranging from species-rich lowland rainforests through hill forests and unique highland wetland systems to montane forests and subalpine habitats on Sumatra’s highest mountain, while BBSNP comprises coastal, lowland, highland and sub-montane forests (Anonymous, 2003). Figure 2.1. The Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra comprises Gunung Leuser National Park in the north, Kerinci Seblat National Park in the centre, and Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park in the south 6 KSNP GLNP BBSNP Figure 2.2. The three NPs province administration by percentage GLNP is located in two provinces of which most area is located in Aceh Province (81.2%) and the rest is in North Sumatra Province (18.8%). Based on district boundaries in 2014, GLNP region is spread out across nine districts where its largest area lies in Aceh Tenggara (SE Aceh) District (35.65%), while the rest are in the districts of Gayo Lues (21.85%), Langkat (18.75%), Aceh Selatan (S. Aceh, 14.54%), Aceh Barat Daya (S.W. Aceh, 8.94%), Aceh Tamiang (0.17%), Karo (0.07%), Deli Serdang (0.01%), and Dairi (0.01%). See Figure 2.3 for illustration. Figure 2.3. GLNP districts administration by percentage in 2014 KSNP is located in four provinces:South Sumatra (17.9%), Bengkulu (25.0%), West Sumatra (25.4%), and Jambi (31.7%). Based on its district boundaries in 2014, KSNP is spread over eleven districts, in which its largest area lies in Pesisir Selatan district (19.3%), while the other districts are: Musi Rawas (17.2%), Kerinci (16.8%), Bengkulu Utara (13.0%), Merangin (12.3%), Rejang Lebong (9.2%), Solok (5.9%), Muko-Muko (2.9%), Bungo (2.7%), Lubuk Linggau (0.7%), and Sawahlunto/Sijunjung (0.2%), see Figure 2.4. 7 Figure 2.4. KSNP Area districts administration by percentage in 2014 BBSNP lies within two provinces of which most of the area is located in Lampung Province (79.1%) and with the remaining area in Bengkulu (20.9%). BBSNP region is spread over four districts; most of its region is located at Pesisir Barat District (58.55%), while other areas are in the districts of Kaur (20.84%), Lampung Barat (West Lampung, 16.52%), and Tanggamus (4.08%). See Figure 2.5for illustration. Figure 2.5. BBSNP district administration by percentage in 2014 Sumatran forests are by no means free from disturbances. Population increase, agriculture expansion, and exploitations of biological and physical resources of the forests, have put tremendous pressure to the forests. Some of the main threats to TRHS integrity are the encroachment for illegal logging and settlement, the expansion of monocultures (oil palm, rubber, coffee, etc.), and infrastructure development (mainly road development), which continuously deplete the forest areas in TRHS. The continuous threats to the outstanding universal value of TRHS, led to the inscription of the property to the In-Danger List of World Heritage by the World Heritage Committee in 2011. The status and trends of encroachments in the three nastional parks of TRHS are described below. 8 2.2. Key Feature and Threats 2.2.1.Gunung Leuser National Park (GLNP) GLNP (838,872 Ha) established in 1980 and located within Leuser ecosystem (2.1 million Ha) was designed as a buffer-zone for the park (see Box 2.2). The park is also concurrently designated as a Biosphere Reserve (1981), an ASEAN Heritage Park (AHP, 1984) and a National Strategic Area (2008). See Figure 2.6. The park consists of steep, almost inaccessible mountainous terrain, with altitudes that range from 0 meter in Kluet (South Aceh), to 3,381 meter on top of Gunung Leuser (SE Aceh), which the park is named after. The Alas River runs through the park, thus dividing it into eastern and western halves. The NP is particularly significant for conservation since it is the last place where orangutan, tigers, elephants, rhinoceros and leopards cohabitat. The Park also serves as the upper watersheds of nine economically important rivers that are increasingly prone to devastating floods. Figure 2.6. Gunung Leuser National Park 9 Box 2.1. The history and legal status of GLNP2 The history of GLNP’s establishment started in 1914 when local Acehnese leaders asked the Dutch colonial government to protect the forest of Singkil and Alas Landen, and ban logging there. In 1928 a Dutch rubber planter Dr. F.C. van Heurn made the first proposal for a reserve. In 1932 Van Heurn's revised the proposal that led to the establisment of the wildlife reserve of Gunung Leuser in 1934. The reserve endorsed by the then governor of Aceh, Van Aken, comprised of an area of 416,500 Ha. In 1936, the Kluet Swamps (20,000 Ha) were added to the reserve, and two years later, Sekundur (79,100 Ha), Langkat Barat and Langkat Selatan (127,075 Ha) reserves were established. More than three decades later, two stations which later played a vital role in the development of research, protection and ecotourism of GLNP were established. In 1972, a Dutch couple, Herman and Ans Rijksen, started orangutan rehabilitation/ research station at the Ketambe River. A year later, another orangutan rehabilitation center was established by Monica Borner and Regina Frey at the Bahorok River in Langkat. In 1976 the Government of Indonesia established Suaka Margasatwa (wildlife reserve) Kappi (150,000 Ha). All the reserves in Gunung Leuser area were later fused. On 6 March 1980, the Government through the Ministry of Agriculture formally announced the establishment of Gunung Leuser National Park, one of the first five Parks to be declared officially in Indonesia, with an area of 792, 675 Ha. In 1984, a formal letter by the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation stated that the area of the Park was expanded to 862, 975 Ha for the inclusion of 5 wildlife reserves: Gunung Leuser, Kappi, Langkat, Kluet, Sikundur; 1 forest recreation area: Lawe Gurah; and 2 protection forests: Serbolangit and Sembabala. Source: GLNP, 2015 The Park’s boundary was formally established by the Decree of the Minister of Forestry Number: 276/kpts-VI/1997 regarding the appointment of GLNP covering an area of ± 1,094,692 Ha in the Province of DI. Aceh and North Sumatra. There is also the Ministry of Forestry Decree No. 865/Menhut-II/2014 and No. 579/Menhut-II/2014 regarding the updated establishments of appointment of forests and waters in the Province of DI. Aceh and North Sumatra, respectively. To accommodate spatial planning D.I. Aceh, the GLNP size area has now become 838,872 Ha, a reduction of 255,820 Ha form its former size (No. 276/Kpts-VI/1997), see Figure. Large part of the new size areas has been gazzeted. The new size has caused somewhat a misconception amont MoEF (Directorate General Planology), GLNP authority and the Provincial Government of D.I.Aceh. 2 Anonymous 2003 and World Heritage Property TRHS (2014) 10 Dipterocarp lowland rainforests below 600 meters above sea level are the most important vegetation type, covering 12 percent of the park area. 105 species of mammals recorded in the park represent 60 percent of Sumatran mammals, many of which are threatened elsewhere. The park conserves the last viable population of Sumatran rhinoceros, estimated to be 130 to 200 in population. Other important large mammals include tiger, clouded leopard, leopard cat, Asiatic golden cat, orangutan, white-handed gibbon, Thomas's leaf monkey, Asian wild dog, sun bear, Sumatran serow, and Asian elephant. There are also 325 bird species currently that represent 60 percent of the Sumatran total (ACB, 2010, Carr Kelman, 2013). Box 2.2. Leuser Ecosystem The status of the Leuser Ecosystem/Kawasan Ekosistem Leuser (2.1 million) is bound by Act No 26, 2007 regarding National Spatial Plans. In the implementation details of this Act, Presidential Decree No 26, 2008, the Leuser Ecosystem is declared to be a Strategic Area - an area that is of national importance, especially for economic and environmental reasons. Leuser Ecosystem forms a massive buffer zone around the park created and institutionalised by the Leuser Development Program. Consequently it is illegal to undertake any activities inside the Leuser Ecosystem that are not directly related to either the protection or restoration of the ecosystem. It isthe strongest protection status possible under the law in Indonesia. Moreover, both provincial and district level spatial plans comply with the regulations established in Jakarta and the boundaries of the Leuser Ecosystem have been socialized to communities that live along its periphery. The main threats to the ecosystem include large-scale illegal logging, poaching, agricultural encroachment by small farmers, destructive logging operations, conversion of neighbouring forests for estate crops and transmigration projects, and road construction. Recognizing the need to protect the Leuser Ecosystem specifically, the Governor of Aceh, with the agreement of the Aceh Parliament, established a special body to manage the Leuser Ecosystem – Badan Pengelola Kawasan Ekosistem Leuser (BPKEL). Approximately 690,000 people live inside or adjacent to the Leuser Ecosystem. The main threats to the park include (a) large-scale, organized illegal logging; (b) poorly managed forest concessions on the park boundaries; (c) agricultural encroachment by smallholders farmers; (d) conversion of neighbouring forests for estate crops and transmigration; (e) road construction in and around the park; (f) development of oil palm plantation; (g) poaching of protected mammals, especially Sumatran tiger and elephant; (h) Internal Displaced People (IDP), who took refuge in the area due to the armed conflict between the Indonesian Military and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM). The Park has also been surrounded with about 320 villages (Sapto Aji, pers. comm, 2015). Since 2004 the threat of forest loss in Aceh has increased due to a number of fundamental changes. First, Aceh’s 30-year period of civil conflict ended in August 2005, during which time there was political and economic uncertainty and investment was constrained. Second, there was the 2004 Tsunami which led to a massive reconstruction effort and thus a strong demand for timber. As a result, deforestation rates have increased dramatically in Aceh, rising from an average of 20,000 ha per year to an estimated 130,000 ha per year in 20052006 or a 3.66% rate of deforestation. In addition the involvement of the army and police in illegal logging has been reported. GLNP receives minimal support for law enforcement from the local governments who strongly resent the fact that alarge proportion of their territories is occupied by the park, even though the infertile and steep park lands are unsuited for agriculture or sustainable logging. Illegal encroachment and logging within the park are clearly expanding and are apparently not constrained by any enforcement measures ((Carr Kelman, 2013). 11 2.2.2. Kerinci Seblat National Park (KSNP) KSNP extends across 1,389,510 ha and represents the largest continuous area of undisturbed primary forest in Sumatra. KSNP is the largest national park in SE Asia and also designated as an ASEAN Heritage Park (AHP, 1984). The park protects economically important rivers runnging through Jambi province. KSNP stretches along the volcanic Barisan mountain chain nearly 350 km from south to north with a maximum width of about 70 km and surrounds the densely populated mountain valley enclave, which is part of the central rift valley of the Barisan range. The enclave extends to 70 km in length and 25 km in width, lying at an altitude between 900 m and 1300 2 m a.s.l. The Kerinci valley consists of alluvial plains, harbouring also the 41 km a Lake Kerinci with a depth size of 110m. In the south the park is divided from the Lebong-valley in Bengkulu by the volcanic bar around Mount Sumbing (2,507 m) and Mount Masurai (2,935 m) and at its northern end from the lateral valley around Muara Labuh by Mount Kerinci. The park contains more than twenty unique wetland areas, including volcanic lakes and peat swamp forests. It contains several major peaks: Mt. Kerinci, an active volcano and one of the highest mountains of Indonesia (3,804 m), Mt. Pantaicermin (2,690 m), Mt. Tujuh (2,604 m), Mt Terembung (2,577 m), Mt. Rasam (2,566 m), Mt. Boleng (2,560 m) and Mt. Raya (2,543 m). East of the Barisan mountain chain the landscape slopes gently to the inland plains, while in the west the slopes down to the coast are quite steep. Morphological processes typical for the humid tropics have formed the relief of the national park. The deeply weathered soils and high precipitation make erosion serious and landslides common. As a result, the relief is characterized by steep slopes and relatively flat valley bottoms, forming the typical ‘rolling hills’ in the lowlands and hill zones (Werner, 2001). Figure 2.7. Kerinci Seblat National Park 12 Box 2.3. The history and legal status of KSNP3 Prior to its announcement as a national park, KSNP consisted of variousforest areas with different status, e.g. protection forests, nature reserves, wildlife reserve etc. In 1921, while the country is under the Dutch Government, a nature reserve status was given to Indrapura and Bayang forests (205,550 Ha) in Pesisir Selatan, and Solok Districts. In the same year, Merangin Alai forests in Bungo Tebo and Sarko Districts (24,287 Ha) were given protection forest status, and Sangir, Jujuhan and Kambang forests in Solok, Sijunjung and Pesisir Selatan Districts (40,800 Ha) were given production forest/limited production forest status. Subsequently, in 1929, Vick van Inderapura and Bukit Tapan forests in Kerinci and Bungo Tebo Districts (279,550 Ha) were given nature reserve status. Protection forest status was given in 1936 to Batanghari I, Lubuk Nyiur and Kambang forests (129,580 Ha) in Pesisir Selatan District. Under the Government of Indonesia, Rawas Ulu Lakitan forests in Musi Rawas District (281,120 Ha) received wildlife reserve status in 1979. During 1980 and 1981, Bukit Kayu Embun and Bukit Gedang forests in Bengkulu Utara and Rejang Lebong Districts (154,750 Ha) also received wildlife reserve status. In 1982 after extensive field surveys done earlier by FAO and PHPA (now PHKA, the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation), under the Ministry of Forestry, the forests in Kerinci Seblat areas were nominated as a national park by the Ministry of Agriculture. After the designation of Kerinci Seblat National Park region by the Minister of Forestry through Decree No. 192/Kpts-II/1996 dated May 1, 1996, the Kerinci Seblat National Park was delineated with the signing of the Minutes Boundary in each province. KSNP boundaries were determined by the Minister of Forestry Decree Number. 901/Kpts-II/1999 dated October 14, 1999 regarding the Establishment of the National Park Kerinci Seblat located in the Province of West Sumatra, Jambi, South Sumatra and Bengkulu area covering an area of 1,375,349.867 hectares. There were future extensive additions of 14,160 hectares of production forests in Sipurak Hook, Merangin District, Jambi Province, to KSNP. Later, the Decree of the Minister of Forestry No. SK.420/Menhut-II/2004 dated October 19, 2004 once again further defined the area of KSNP. Kerinci-Seblat contains a variety of habitats according to its range of elevations. Lowland evergreen forests are the most important from a conservation perspective, however, the most threatened, as well. Important types of mammals including the Sumatran tiger, elephant, Siamang, gibbon, tapir, and Sumatran rabbit are endangered. Most of these mammals and birds are found in the closed-canopy forests below 1,000 meters above sea level, where encroachment has been most severe. The main threats to the park include: (a) road construction, (b) wildlife poaching, (c) agricultural encroachment, (d) in-migration, (e) illegal logging, (f) mining, (g) collection of non-timber forest products, (e) mining and geothermal energy development4. The Park has also been surrounded with about 420 villages (David pers. comm, 2015). 3 Anonymous, 2003 and World Heritage Property TRHS (2014) 4 According to Law No 21/2014 on geothermal: regulation, permit and investment opportunity that geothermal is not a mining process, however it is incompatible landuse for WHP. 13 2.2.3. Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park (BBSNP) BBSNP is the third-largest protected area (356.800 ha) in Sumatra. BBSNP was declared a wildlife sanctuary in 1935 and became a national park in 1982. Located in south-western of the island, it is a part of the provinces of Lampung (79.12%) and Bengkulu (20.88%). The park extends 150 km along the Bukit Barisan mountain range, and is composed of diverse topography that ranges from coastline in the south to mountainous forest in the north. The park is narrow in shape, with a perimeter about 700 km in length (Kinnaird et al. 2003) and is bordered by about 190 villages (Anonymous, 2015), agriculture, and plantations, which have considerably high population density. One pivotal function of the park is its hydroorology function as life support system. The park is a catchment area and lies in the upstream areas of 181 rivers from which 91 main rivers flow downstream for used by the community in three provinces (Lampung, Bengkulu, and South Sumatera) to support agriculture, micro-hydro, and fisheries. The park has a very rich biological diversity, natural scenic beauty and natural phenomena, which holds tremendous potentials for many purposes such as science, education, supporting cultivation and breeding, and ecotourism. It is composed of a continuous ecosystem from coastal forest (1%), lowland rainforest (45%), hilly rainforest (34%), lower mountain rainforest (17%), to highland mountain forest (3%). As the ecosystems are richly diverse, the park has become an ideal habitat for at least 514 plants species, 126 orchid species, 26 rattan species, and 15 bamboo species, including the largest (Rafflesia sp.) and the tallest (Amorphophalus sp.) flower in the world (Kinnaird et al. 2003). Figure 2.8. Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 14 Forest loss becomes the greatest threat to the conservation of BBSNP. The dramatic loss of forest-cover is attributed to a variety of factors, including estate crops development, forest fires, and illegal logging and conversion to agriculture by opportunistic settlers and those arriving through Indonesia’s official transmigration program (Sunderlin et al. 2001). Gaveau et al. (2009) reported that coffee prices, law enforcement, and rural poverty became the primary causes of deforestation and encroachment in south-west Sumatra, BBSNP included. Box 2.4. The history and legal status of BBSNP5 The history of the establishment of BBSNP dated back in 1935, when the then Dutch colonial government gave a wildlife reserve status to the area known formerly as Sumatra Selatan 1 (or SS1). On 1 April 1979, under the Government of Indonesia, the wildlife reserve status of the area was replaced by a nature reserve status. In 1982, under the decree of the Minister of Agriculture, the area was given a status as a national park. The name Bukit Barisan Selatan was given in 1984. The decree of the Minister of Forestry No. 71/Kpts-II/1990 dated 15 February 1990 established Bukit Barisan Selatan Marine Reserve, covering an area of 21,600 Ha. From then onward, the marine reserve has become an integral part of BBSNP and is under the BBSNP Management. BBSNP was established as a NP under the decree of the Minister of Agriculture No. 736/MENTAN/X/1982 dated 14 October. The existence of the Park was strengthened by the decree of the Minister of Forestry No. 096/Kpts-II/1984 dated 12 May 1984. Under the same decree, the Park's name was changed from Sumatra Selatan 1 (SS1) National Park to Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park. The Park covers an area of 356,800 Ha. The area and borders of the Park have remained the same since its area was established as a wildlife reserve under the Dutch colonial government in 1935. Under the decree of Ministry of Forestry No. 71/Kpts II/1990 dated 15 February 1990, the Marine Natural Reserve or Cagar Alam Laut (CAL) was included in the management of BBSNP. 2.3. Trend of encroachment Encroachment is worsening due to activities such as poaching of tiger and rhinoceros, and illegal logging, which are extremely rampant on the island within and outside protected areas (PA). TRHS exhibit evidence of major and on-going agricultural encroachment which is most likely the single greatest on-going threat to all three national parks of the world heritage property. 2.3.1 Encroachment in GLNP The most concerning encroachments, such as in the Langkat, Sekundur, and Alas Valley, were related to a system for small logging operations (HPHH permits), which were most active in the period of 1976-1988. Recent encroachments in the areas, such as Simpur, Marpunge, Jumalada, Sei Kerapuh, Sei Lepan, and Sei Minyak, are mainly in smaller scale and conducted by individuals or small groups aiming to convert areas in the Park for agricultural purposes (Anonymous, 2003). In 2014, the recorded encroached areas in GLNP increased 121.9% compared to 1990. The encroached area in 1990 was 19,151.4 ha while in 2014 was 42,487.8 ha. This enroached area 5 Anonymous, 2003 15 in GLNP has the lowest encroached area compared to the other NPs. Encroachment status, change, and trend in GLNP during 1990-2014 is presented in Table 2.1. Table 2.1. Cummulative landcover change in GLNP (TBI, 2015) Landcover Class Year (ha) 1990 2000 2010 2014 BRL 181.92 395.76 711.11 812.98 DCL MTC 4,401.15 1,950.78 8,077.90 3,584.57 14,218.44 6,521.53 18,026.8 9,672.64 OPL 6,655.60 7,743.76 8,370.14 8,429.86 RCF RPL 1,119.82 227.57 1122.97 313.74 1,123.94 693.71 1,123.94 881.32 SCH 933.76 951.12 951.12 951.12 SSH 1,244.37 1246.33 1,246.72 1,246.72 Total 16,714.97 23,436.15 33,836.71 41,145.38 Note : BRL (Bareland), DCL (Dry Cultivation Land), MTC (Mixed Tree Crops), OPL (Oil Palm Plantation), RCF (Rice Field), RPL (Rubber plantation), SCH (Shrub), SSH (Swamp shrub) Inspecting Table 2.1, the dominant landcover changes in the GLNP is to DCL (18,026.8 ha), followed with MTC (9,672.63 ha) and OPL (8,429.87 ha). See Figure 2.9. The largest encroachment occurred in Aceh Tenggara (20,721.96 ha),followed by Langkat (8,911.40 ha) and Gayo Lues (7,462.27 ha) Districts where most encroached areas were located alongside the roads across NPs (See Figure 2.10 and Appendix 4.). The encroached areas in Langkat District concentrated on Besitang Sub-District as a result of unresolved Aceh refuges colonisation in the NPs during the end of 1990sto date. The trend of encroachment in GLNP during 1990-2014 based on Minister of Forestry No. 276/kpts-VI/1997 is presented in Figure 2.11. Figure 2.10. Landcover change in GLNP until 2014 Note : DCL (Dry Cultivation Land), MTC (Mixed Tree (TBI, Crops), 2015) OPL (Oil Palm Plantation), SSH (Swamp shrub, RCF (Rice Field), SCH (Shrub), RPL (Rubber plantation), BRL (Bareland), Figure 2.9. Landcover change of GLNP until 2014 From 1990-2000 encroachment rate was 548.97 ha/year, during 2000-2010 the encroachment rate was increased 1,459.85 ha/year, and declined 324.83 ha/year during 2010-2014. See Table 2.7. 16 A B C D Figure 2.10. Hystorical landcover change in GLNP Year 1990 (A), Year 2000 (B), Year 2010 (C), and Year 2014 (D) 17 Figure 2.11. Trend of encroachment in GLNP during 1990-2014 2.3.2 Encroachment in KSNP KSNP is especially vulnerable to encroachment because of its elongated and irregular shape. Maintaining and patrolling the approximately 2,600 km boundary is an enormous task for the Park Management. Despite the Park's long history of establishment, people have disrespected the Park border. In some other cases, people unknowingly had performed encroachment in the Park or had settled in the Park before the establishment of KSNP. Many people cultivate the land and build houses within the Park, along the boundaries, and sometimes far inside. Total encroached areas in KSNP in year 2014 (130,322.20 ha) is nearly doubled than in 2000 (73,089.61 ha), after KSNP was established (1996). The encroachment change and trend in KSP during 2000-2014 is presented in Table 2.2. The encroachment rate persistently increased from 1990 to 2014. In 1990-2000, encroachment rate was 846.93 ha/year, from 2000-2010, after the establishment of KSNP, the encroachment rate slightly increased to 1,414.20 ha/year, and then again sharply increased from 2010 to 2014 (10,772.65 ha/year). The largest encroachment areas in KSNP occurred in Kerinci District (27,798.93 ha),followed by others such as, Rejang Lebong (26,528.65 ha), Lubuk Linggau (17,666.58 ha), Solok (15,738.17 ha), Pesisir Selatan (15,312.19 ha), and Musi Rawas (11,882.91 ha) Districts, see Figure 2.14 and Appendix 4. By inspecting Table 2.2 and Figure 2.12. it can be determined that land cover changes from 1990 to 2014 were dominated by MTC (89,486.75 ha). The creation of cinnamon (Cassiavera6) gardens and plantations in Kerinci, Merangin and other districts has been one of the major forms of encroachment. Satellite images show that forest clearing has taken place in many areas within the Park, where relatively flat land harbors human inhabitants. Only very steep slopes tend to slow encroachment (Anonymous, 2003). The larger part of encroachment areas have ccured during the last ten years, as shown by the rising rate of encroachment from year 2000 to year 2014. Partition of district boundaries and expansion of district development (roads and infrastructure) is usually followed by increasing encroachment. The trend of encroachment in GLNP during 1990-2014 is presented in Figure 2.13. 6 Cinnamomum spp., Lauraceae. Close associate of C. zeylanicum, true cinnamon, and also cultivated for its aromatic bark 18 Table 2.2. Cummulative landcover change in KSNP 1990-2014 (TBI, 2015) Landcover Classes BRL CPL DCL MTC RCF SCH SET SSH TPL Total Year (ha) 1990* 2000 2010 2014 28.61 170.25 10,202.55 37,024.50 133.90 14,126.03 34.60 2,544.06 355.82 28.61 338.56 15,079.54 39,065.03 133.90 15,509.49 34.60 2,544.06 355.82 28.61 338.56 24,560.82 41,097.16 133.90 18,138.06 34.60 2,544.06 355.82 949.37 2,924.37 12,654.89 89,486.75 175.81 21,178.26 52.86 2,544.06 355.82 64,620.33 73,089.61 87.231.59 130,322.18 Note: BRL (Bareland), CPL (Crop plantation: rubber, cocoa, coconut), DCL (Dry Cultivation Land), MTC (Mixed Tree Crops), RCF (Rice Field), SCH (Shrub), SET (Settlements), SSH (Swamp shrub), TPL (Timber plantation), * = before the establishment of KSNP Note : MTC (Mixed Tree Crops), SCH (Shrub), DCL (Dry Cultivation Land), CPL (Crop plantation), SSH (Swamp shrub), BRL (Bareland), RCF (Rice Field), TPL (Timber plantation), SET (Settlements) , Figure 2.12. Landcover change of KSNP until 2014 Figure 2.13. Trend of encroachment in KSNP during 1990-2014 19 A B C D Figure 2.14. Historical landcover change in KSNP Year 1990 (A), Year 2000 (B), Year 2010 (C), and Year 2014 (D) 20 2.3.3 Encroachment in BBSNP The Lampung Province, where most of BBSNP is located, is the main gate of land transportation from Java to Sumatra. Its local economy is quite dependent on agriculture and plantation sectors. It supplies agricultural products to many big cities in Indonesia. Additionally, the province is also famous for itscoffee exporting zone. Lampung has a special place in the history of Indonesian transmigration. It was the initial place in implementing the Dutch colonization policy aimed to spread the high population growth in Java to the outer islands. The first government-sponsored transmigration to Lampung took place in 1905. It then, remained a destination of the Indonesian transmigration program in 1970s (Safitri, M.A. 2006). The major turning point in terms of in-migration was the 1977 peak in the international price of robusta coffee (Coffea robusta)7. This triggered spontaneous mass migration to the mountainous areas of southern Sumatra and led to the development of a major deforestation front on the eastern fringe of the BBSNP. Between 1976 and 1982, about 195,000 ha were cleared and converted into coffee plantations by an estimated 100,000 immigrants mainly originating from Java. Deforestation rates were closely correlated with local coffee prices. By the end of the twentieth century, all easily accessible forests which had a protection status (hutan lindung) to the east of the Park were converted into coffee plantations (Gaveau et al. 2009). Deforestation in areas which are currently known as BBSNP started in 1960s. The image analysis supporting this finding shows that before 1972 46.100 ha of the forest cover of BBSNP was lost . This represented a 13% loss (from an initial 356.800 ha) in BBSNP. From 1972 until 2006, the deforestation rate in the BBSNP was in average 0.64% per year. The forest cover loss in BBSNP was 67,225 ha of the original forest of 310,670 ha that remained in 1972, representing a 21% loss from 1972 to 2006. The image analysis indicated that the majority (80%) of forest conversion resulted from agricultural development and started from the buffer area of BBSNP going inside the park (Suyadi, 2007). Kusworo (2000) and Verbist et al.(2004) stated that the conflict over land ownership between Lampung-based local groups and the government and conflicts among government institutions have triggered further encroachment. The encroached areas increment from 1982 to year 2000 is mainly caused by the expansion of community-based Robusta coffee plantation in the NP. Land cleared for coffee production increased by 28% in Lampung between 1996 and 2001 (O’Brien, 2001). ). The expansion finally came to a limit, which aligned with the diminishing suitable areas for coffee cultivation combined with the plummeting global coffee price. Similar issues were also addressed by WWF (2007) reporting that an estimated 28 percent (or 89,224 Ha) of the park’s original forest-cover has been destroyed as a result of coffee plantation development. Sixty percent of those encroached areas or 55,042 ha are now serve an active agricultural land, while the remaining 33,822 Ha is for reforestation of grass, shrub or secondary forest. The study shows that ca. 20,000 tons out of a total of about 285,000 tons of Robusta coffee produced in Lampung were illegally grown inside BBSNP. This represents ca. 4% of Indonesian overall annual robusta coffee production (Gaveau et al. 2009). 7 The preference for coffee as the major cash crop is due to multiple factors: soils and climate are suitable; seedlings are easy to find; the crop is not too susceptible to pests; it starts producing after only 3 years; it is easy to store and transport; prices fluctuate but never stay low for long; and it is easy to sell as there are many buyers. According to the type of encroachment, coffee is cultivated as a monocrop, part of a complex agroforestry system, or simply cropped with cocoa or various fruit trees (Levang, et. al. 2012). 21 After Asian economic crisis, deforestation rate in BBSNP increased dramatically 13.00% per year, compared to the deforestation rate in the first two decades (1972-1996) which was around 9.09% per year (Suyadi, 2007).The encroachment rate continuously increased from 1980s to year 2000 then sharply declined from 2000 to 2014 (Figure 2.17). In reference to Table 2.7, during 1990-2000 the encroachment rate was 2,244.80 ha/year, it then sharply declined during 2000-2010 (532.8 ha/year) and 2010-2014 (198.9 ha/year). The largest encroachment areas in BBSNP occurred in Lampung Barat (34,500.25 ha) and Pesisir Barat (31,002.14 ha) Districts (see Figure 2.16 and Appendix 4.). From Table 2.3, we can see that crop plantation/CPL (coffee plantation) is causing the largest landcover changes in BBSNP until 2014 with total area of 36,488.85 ha, followed by dry cultivation land (15,520.58 ha) and mixed tree crops (11,182.19 ha). See Figure 2.15. Table 2.3. Cummulative landcover change in BBSNP 1990-2014 (TBI, 2015) Landcover Classes BRL CPL DCL MTC RCF SCH SET SSH WAB Total 1990 1,676.83 18,470.25 8,562.80 7,767.26 67.23 8,614.66 66.65 383.45 45,609.14 Year (ha) 2000 2010 185.70 217.94 24,957.52 27,428.38 815.66 13,860.25 16,844.01 15,258.66 65.35 99.90 24,737.66 16,071.72 69.85 0.29 383.45 66.65 508.57 68,059.20 73,512.36 2014 229.55 36,488.85 15,520.58 11,182.19 102.26 12,120.69 22.88 66.65 499.26 76,232.91 Note : BRL (Bareland), CPL (Crop plantation : rubber, cocoa, coconut, coffee), DCL (Dry Cultivation Land), MTC (Mixed Tree Crops), RCF (Rice Field), SCH (Shrub), SET (Settlements), SSH (Swamp shrub), WAB (Water Body) Note : CPL (Crop plantation), DCL (Dry Cultivation Land), SCH (Shrub), MTC (Mixed Tree Crops), BRL (Bareland), RCF (Rice Field), SSH (Swamp shrub), SET (Settlements). Figure 2.15. Landcover change of BBSNP until 2014 22 A C B D Figure 2.16. Historical Landcover change in BBSNP: Year 1990 (A), Year 2000 (B), Year 2010 (C), and Year 2014 (D) 23 Figure 2.17. Trend of encroachment in BBSNP during 1990-2014 2.4. Encroachment Pattern in TRHS The encroachment pattern of each NP is specific and highly dictated by the rising demand of crop commodity and land accessibility, especially proximity to access roads and slope steepness. Linkie et.al. (2009), of which study about KSNP states that forest accessibility presents the possibility of forests closed to settlements, forest borders, and areas with lower elevations and on flatter lands being cleared for farmland.Accumulated encroachment during 1990-2014 in TRHS is presented in Table 2.4. and 2.5. Table 2.4 shows that about 247,798 ha of TRHS area had been until 2014. Some of the largest encroachment areas occured in KSNP (130,322.2 ha or 52.6% of the total encroachment area in TRHS), while the second rank is in BBSNP (74,988 ha or 30.3%) and the third rank is GLNP (42,487.8 ha or 17.1%). Meanwhile the highest rate of encroachment was in KSNP (2,737 ha/year), followed with BBSNP (1,240.2 ha/year) and GLNP (972.4 ha/year). Table 2.4. Accumulated encroachment in the three national parks of TRHS during 1990-2014 National Park GLNP BBSNP KSNP Total Encroachment Rate 1990-2014 (ha/year) Encroached Area (ha) 1990 2000 2010 2014 19,151.4 45,223.2 24,641.1 67,671.2 39,239.5 72,998.7 42,487.8 74,988.0 972.4 1,240.2 64,620.3* 128,994.9 73,089.6 165,401.9 87,231.6 199,469.8 130,322.2 247,798.0 2,737.6 4,950.1 Note : * = before the establishment of KSNP Table 2.5. Percentage of encroachment in the three national parks of TRHS in 2014 National Park Total area of NP (ha) Total encroachment (ha) Percentage of encroachment to NP area (%) Percentage of encroachment to TRHS area (%) Percentage to total encroachment (%) GLNP 838,872 42,487.8 5.0 1.6 17.1 BBSNP 356,800 74,988.0 21.0 2.9 30.3 KSNP 1,389,510 130,322.2 9.4 5.0 52.6 24 Total 2,595,124.0 247,798.0 9.5 100.0 A B Figure 2.18. Encroached areas in TRHS (A) and rate of encroached area during 1990-2014 (B) It is of interest to understand the preference of terrain conditions to the squatters. As presented in Figure 2.19, 64.7% of encroachment areas occurred on flat and gentle terrain, while 23.2% occurred on sloping land (25-40%) and only 12.1% occurred on steep to very steep slope areas. This is understood as most of encroached areas are used for commercial agriculture purposesKinnaird et. al. 2003, based on their encroachment research in BBSNP, concluded that lowland forest disappear faster than hill/montane forest (by a factor of 6 ) and forests on gentle slopes disappear faster than forests on steep slopes (by a factor of 16 ). TRHS terrain, being dominated by sloping lands, fortunately leads to the flattening encroachment rate which is in line with the diminishing areas suitable for commercial agriculture. Table 2.6. Distribution of national parks land area by slope steepness National Park GLNP KSNP BBSNP Total area per slope class (ha) 0-8 % 8 – 15% 15 – 25% 25 – 40% 72,663.33 78,548.37 61,428.64 65,894.58 172,533.35 74,280.65 130,591.01 323,172.67 84,643.32 255,813.39 436,315.08 67,247.71 Total (ha) > 40% 559,597.77 359,435.02 27,177.50 1,084,560.08 1,370,004.49 314,777.80 The highest percentage of encroached areas within the three NPs is BBSNP (21%). This is much lower than the prediction given by Kinnard et. al. 2003 that by 2010, 70% of the Park will be agricultural land. BBSNP encroachment areas is followed with KSNP (9.4 %) and GLNP (5%). Based on these findings, the highest park fragmentation/ degradation occurred in BBSNP. This is understandable as BBSNP’s terrain is dominated by gentle slope (8% 40%), in contrast with GLNP which is dominated by very steep slope (>40%), while KSNP is dominated by steep slope (> 25%). In comparison with BBSNP, GLNP has suffered less forest fragmentation; this is shown by the much lower percentage of forest encroachment (5% vs 21%) and also the flattening trend of the annual encroachment rate (Figure 2.15). In fact both BBSNP and GLNP seemed to have reached the flattening trend aligned with the diminishing gentle sloping land, in contrast with KSNP where encroachment rate tends to rise (Figure 2.16), due to the considerable amount of gentle sloping land making it accessible for agriculture. 25 Figure 2.19. Distribution of land encroachment by slope steepness 2.5. Concluding Remarks The largest encroachment areas occurred in KSNP with a total area of 130,322.2 ha or 52.6% of total encroachment area in TRHS.The encroachment rate during 1990-2014 is 2,737 ha/year. BBSNP is the second largest with an encroachment area of 74,988 ha (30.3%) and the third is GLNP with a total encroachment area of 42,487.8 ha (17.1%). During 1990-2014 the encroachment rate in BBSNP and GLNP is 1,240.2 ha/year and 972.4 ha/year respectively. Until 2014, most of landcover change in GLNP was caused by dry cultivation land that reached up to 18,026.80 ha and followed by mixed tree crops and oil palm plantation with a total area reaching up to 9,672.63 ha and 8,429.87 ha respectively. In KSNP, most of the landcover change was caused by mixed tree crops (89,486.75 ha), and followed by dry cultivation land (12,654.89 ha) and crop plantation such as rubber, cocoa, coconut, etc. covering an area of 2,924.37 ha; while the largest land-use in BBSNP until 2014 is crop plantation (36,488.85 ha) followed by dry cultivation land (15,520.58 ha) and mixed tree crops (11,182.19 ha). Table 2.7. , shows that by comparing encroachment rate 1990 – 2000 and 2000-2010, there is a significant declining rate of encroachment in BBSNP after the Park was inscribed as a World Heritage Park in 2004. This was however not the case for GLNP and KSNP. The underlined causes could be the improved management quality of the BBSNP, or by refering to the above analysis; due to the diminishing suitable areas for agriculture due to slope steepness. This obstacle was not present for GLNP and KSNP where suitable areas for agriculture were still abundant during 2000-2014. By comparing encroachment rate year 2000-2010 and year 2010-2014, there is also a significant declining rate of encroachment in BBSNP and GLNP after TRHS was inscribed in the ‘In-Danger’ list of World Heritage. The underlined causes could be the enhanced management of the Parks in responses to the Emergency Action Plan (EAP, 2007 – 2011, see Annex 1) or the further diminishing areas suitable for agriculture land in both Parks due to 26 slope steepness. Interestingly, both were not the case for KSNP, the increasing trend of encroachment persisted. This was most possibly caused by abundant agriculture land combined by the complexity of socio-economic problems on elongated and irregular boundary shape of the Park. Table 2.7. Annual encroachment rate on three NPs on three different periods Annual encroachment rate (ha/year) 1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2014 548.97 1,459.84 324.83 2,244.80 532.75 198.93 846.93 * 1414.2 4,309.06 National Park GLNP BBSNP KSNP Note : * = before the establishment of BBSNP Table 2.8. Summary of encroachment facts in TRHS No. Facts Remarks 1. The largest encroachment areas KSNP 130,322.2 Ha 2. The least encroachment areas GLNP 42,487.8 ha 3. The highest annual encroachment rate KSNP 2,737. Ha 4. The severest Park fragmentation BBSNP 21 % of Park Area 5. The less severe Park fragmentation GLNP 5% of the Park area 6. The declining (flattening) encroachment rate 7. The increasing trend of encroachment areas KSNP 8. The dominant land cover changes in GLNP Dry land cultivation/rainfed agriculture 9. The dominant land cover changes in KSNP Mixed tree crop (Cassiavera plantation) 10. The dominant land cover changes in KSNP Crop plantation (Coffee plantation) trend of BBSNP, GLNP Fortunately most of the land cover changes in KSNP was mixed-tree cropping/cinnamon based agroforestry (Table 2.2.). it is hoped that land management quality align with soil and water conservation measures. Most importantly, the fact sends a clear message to the park management that more serious actions are urgently needed to ameliorate the existing condition. 27 Chapter 3: Review of Anti-encroachment Initiatives in TRHS from 1990 2014: Impacts and Lessons Learned 3.1. Protected Area: Conservation Vs Regional Development The problems of protected area (PA) management in Indonesia derived from two different interests from the conservationists and general public interests. The interest of the conservationists are the preservation of natural beauty, biodiversity and maintaining functions of natural resources as life supporting system, versus the public interests for the need of living space for economic development. The competition between these two different interests occurred already from the international level to the grass roots level. Countries adjacent to the North Pole such as America and Europe, those that are mostly developed countries, are obsessed with the beauty of the heritage landscape, which pushes conservation areas to remain ‘sterile’ from human interventions. The ideas are then transmitted to the southern region of the world, especially to thetropical areas. Since 1980s, governments have made a common approach to prevent deforestation particulary since an estimated of 23% of the Earth’s humid tropical forest biome is now under protection (UNEP, 2007). In fact, until the early 1980s, the Indonesian government was more interested in development than in conservation, and achieved little in preventing illegal loggings and encroachments in PAs. Throughout 1970s, the Indonesian government generated cash for economic development by logging its vast forest resources. The remarkable policy changes happened after UNDP/FAO National Parks Development Project, through the promulgation of the first Environmental Management Act (Law No. 4/1983 concerning Basic Rules of Environmental Management and the third World Parks Congress held in Bali in 1982. Several NPs were announced, some were upgraded status from PA established during Dutch colonial time. Unfortunately, many PAs have lost some or all of their natural habitats through conversion to agriculture (Gaveu et. al, 2008). The adoption of the PA concept in Indonesia ran smoothly during the colonial time until the end of 1970s, where PA was preserved from anthropogenic deforestation by its remoteness and by the generally low population density across the wider region. However the pressing problems started to explode during the reformation era supported by a democracy euphoria and the pressing need of land to speed up economic development to respond to the high demands of international cash crops. The conflicts have been supported by the slow responses of PA management against the rapid social and political dynamic beyond the PA boundaries, among others: (a) there is still unclear patterns to what extent community are involved on PA management: (b) The widespread of districts (kabupaten) proliferation/partition during decentralization era8 have led several districts jurisdiction areas overlap (even until 100%) with conservation areas which have led to conflicting authorities between district and PA management; (c) PA management failed to demonstrate the real economic contribution on preserving nature to support community livelihoods or enhancing gross domestic product of the local government. 8 Kabupaten (District) rapidly became smaller and more numerous during the period after decentralisation, as new dividing lines were made, complicating regional planning and coordination. 28 The land conflicts enhanced significantly during the end of 1990s, a series of crises destabilized the New Order and led to massive upheaval and reorganization of Indonesian government and society. Drought, fires, and famine across Sumatra combined with the Asian economic crisis9 to fracture the power of the New Order regime, led to chaos and transformation. The fall of Soeharto in 1998 and the ensuing process of rapid democratization and decentralization to regional autonomy had serious consequences for conservation practices in Indonesia. Decentralization has created broader authorities for local governments; but it is used to stimulate rent-seeking behaviour of local bureaucrats and politicians, not for resource sustainability, or for better livelihoods of the local communities, nor most importantly to ascertain’s people’s rights to land and forest. As a result, the Indonesian decentralization law, even if it was perceived as an amazing moment of changing governance system, has little impact on state people relations (Safitri, M.A., 2006). Negative consequences include the breakdown of the rule of law that prevailed in the years immediately following the economic crisis and collapse of the Soeharto regime. During the desperate economic situation and disjointed political climate of the late 1990s, many Indonesians saw that there would not likely be any punishment for certain unlawful actions in PA (McCarthy, 2006), while at the same time the profitability of export crops increases, leading to more forest land being converted for agriculture. The overall results were increased illegal activities in PAs, including farming, settlements, poaching and illegal logging. This chapter discussed typology and perceptions of the squatters and anti-encroachment initiatives which have been conducted by many parties in collaboration with NP management in TRHS from 1990-2014; the collaboration, mostly in the form of projects, which range in size from big to small, include activities conducted by NPs using national budget (APBN). Information presented in this chapter resulted from literature reviews supported with collected information during Focused Group Discussions (FGD) in three NPs. 3.2. Typology and perceptions of the squatters Squatters are people illegally farming plots inside the Park. They might live and farm inside the Park boundaries, or live in villages close to the Park with at least part of their holding inside the Park (Levang et.al. 2012). The natures of squatters vary among sites and can be categorized into five types, i.e. indigenous landless, local migrant, Javanese immigrant, poor landless migrant and sly opportunist. See Table 3.1. Table 3.1. Typhology of Squatters in TRHS Squatters Characteristics Type 1 Indigenous landless Origin Their presence within and surrounding the Park Motives Type of farming/business Awareness on breaking the law Native Far before creation of the Park Utmost poverty Subsistence food crop Mostly unaware 9 Beginning in mid-1997, Asian currencies lost value against the US dollar, leading to an unprecedented regionwide economic crisis. Among all the Asian countries affected, none fared worse than Indonesia. 29 Local Migrants Negative impact of Park Creation Local wisdom to live in harmony with forest Type 2 Origin Their presence within and surrounding the Park Motives Type of farming/business Javanese Immigrants Awareness on breaking the law Negative impact of Park Creation Local wisdom to live in harmony with forest Type 3 Origin Their presence within and surrounding the Park Motives Type of farming/business Poor landless migrants Awareness on breaking the law Negative impact of Park creation Local wisdom to live in harmony with forest Type 4 Origin Their presence within and surrounding the Park Motives Displace and reduce agriculture land Hold local wisdom Immigrant of indigenous community within the same district, province or island Mostly after creation of the Park Interesting economic opportunity Plantation crop (coffee, cacao, cassia vera, temperate crop, rubber and oil palm) Mostly aware None None Mostly Javanese displaced during Dutch colonization10, Indonesian government-sponsored or spontaneous migrant joining the government sponsored ones Some of them have been present far before creation of the Park11, many of them move or expand agriculture land within the Park after the creation of the Park. Interesting economic opportunity Plantation crop (coffee, cacao, cassia vera, temperate crop, rubber and oil palm) Mostly aware None None Local or immigrant After creation of the Park Utmost poverty 10 Kolonisatie was an agricultural colonisation programme developed by the Dutch in 1905, aiming at correcting the demographic imbalance between the islands of Java and Sumatra. Renamed Transmigration after Independence, the programme was amplified during the Suharto era (Levang et. al., 2012). 11 Two enclaves in BBSNP, i.e. Way Pamekahan (671 Ha) and Way Haru ((4,900 Ha), Bengkunat, Lampung Barat District have been established since more than century ago, long before the area was given the NP status. 30 Type of farming/business Sly opportunists Awareness on breaking the law Negative impact of Park creation Local wisdom to live in harmony with forest Type 5 Origin Their presence within and surrounding the Park Motives Type of business Awareness on breaking the law Negative impact of Park creation Local wisdom to live in harmony with forest Subsistence food crop mixed with plantation crop Mostly aware None None Native or migrant After creation of the Park Financial or political interest Land speculator, illegal logger, politics Fully aware None None Werner (2001), based on her community perception study on villages dominated by indigenous landless in the eastern lowland fringe of the KSNP (Jambi and West Sumatera Provinces), presented that the park is inflicting losses upon them, because their space to open new fields, rainfed and sawah, has been severely restricted. Furthermore, game animals such as deer and small antelope are damaging the fields of the farmers, but they are not allowed to kill them. This also resulted in a reduction of the harvest and therefore has negative repercussions on the household economies. They do not understand why, on the one hand, people from outside may extract huge amounts of wood, or plant wide areas of land but, on the other hand, they should not even be allowed to take some trees or open a small field to have enough to eat. Farmers might also be driven off their land to make place for government-sponsored transmigration from outside. This simply does not make sense to the indigenous people. They feel treated unfairly if they are not allowed to collect trade products such as rattan lianas in the PA. The people have traditionally always collected various items in the primary forest, some for own use or consumption, some for sale. Because there are very few crops or products, which can be sold by the villagers, they feel severely hurt by this regulation. Anybody who wanted to collect rattan intended for sale in PA should get a permit first. The permit is issued for 3 or for 6 months and must be paid. According to an official of the NP the permit is very cheap, but according to the local people it costs several hundred thousand Rupiah (i.e. > 50 US$, during year 2000). Although this amount seems to be an overestimation, it is possible that the local people are sometimes charged more than the actual fee, which might not be known to them. They also expressed a general incomprehension as to why they should protect the forest if it did not belong to them. In their opinion, those who own it, i.e. the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, should also be those responsible to protect it. These findings are in accordance with the statement of Weber and Reveret (1993, in Werner), that common property resources 31 from which the commons are excluded through means of policies prohibiting their access, are in response not regarded as common property resources to be managed locally anymore. According to Werner (2001), indigenous people’s integrated concept of nature conservation is not in accordance with access restriction to forest products through conservation objectives. If indigenous communities are prohibited to use the forest, the social ties between them and the forest become disturbed and the utilitarian value of the forest for the people is lost. Therefore the necessity for indigenous people to protect the forest decreases, it becomes a resource which can be exploited and depleted, because it is not their responsibility and interest anymore to protect it. Only a resource, which is owned by local community still holding local wisdom of living in harmony with forest would lead to long-term, sustainable use. Another argument of the indigenous people for not respecting national park borders is that, according to them, even government officials are participating in timber theft and opening of cinnamon plantation on PA. Levang et. al. (2012) conducted a community perception study on villages dominated by poor migrant squatters in BBSNP. They asked questions to squatters why they encroach NP for agriculture activities? They often reply that they have no other option at hand. A popular answer is: “Better encroach in the Park than become a thief.” Extreme poverty and the lack of alternative jobs are the main reasons put forward by poor migrant squatters for encroaching the Park, and by local authorities for not reacting swiftly against squatters. If one challenges their level of poverty or lack of other opportunities, then the next reason is generally: “I am not the only one. Others do the same, especially the more wealthy ones who open large tracts of forest. They are never bothered by the police.” When asked why the number of squatters started to peak after the end of Suharto’s authoritarian rule, no one appeals to a sudden rise in poverty. Obviously, reduced law enforcement is the main determining factor (in the absence of more attractive legal opportunities). All squatters are aware that they are breaking the law when they clear land within the Park. However, as long as others do the same, and they are not bothered by the authorities, such encroachment will continue. No individual squatter would dare to go alone; they do so in a group, thinking that in such a way, everything becomes possible. The decentralization era has driven the emergence of the Sly opportunists squatters in TRHS (Levang et.al., 2012). They are premans12, wealthy businessmen, land speculators, wellconnected politicians or influential politicians acting as masterminds who attract and back up a large number of people to encroach the Park to secure their business or interests. By attracting numerous migrants to the NP areas, it becomes complicated to evict the squatters. A large number of dependent squatters make up a promising constituency for local elections. Small farmers are often encouraged to grab NP land by local governments, and local speculators who have little interest in biodiversity conservation because NP provide few economic returns locally (Levang et al., 2007 in Gaveau, 2012). The latter is supported by a study from the London School of Economics entitled ‘The Political Economy of Deforestation in the Tropics’ which demonstrated a close relationship between the political economy and the deforestation rate in Indonesia. The study shows that, under the decentralization policy, the proliferation of districts in several provinces with extensive forests has triggered the acceleration of deforestation. The analysis of satellite imagery proves that illegal logging in protected forest increased dramatically in the two years leading 12 The term derives from the Dutch ‘free man’, referring to someone who is free of legal constraints. The preman generally devote their activity to any kind of lucrative business with, unfortunately, the more illegal activities being the more lucrative (Levang, e.al., 2012). 32 up to local elections. Meanwhile in PA logging went up sharply in the year before and after these elections (Fariz, D., 2012 in UNODC, 2012). 3.3. Encroachment crimes handlings based on Law No. 41/1999 The provisions in Law No. 41/1999 on Forestry outline the processes involved for law enforcers handling forestry crime. According to Criminal Code Procedures (KUHAP), parties that can investigate forestry crime include the police, forest rangers, and civil servants from the forestry office (PPNS) working under police coordination. The outcome of any investigation will be forwarded to the state prosecutor to prepare an indictment for submission to a district court. A judge will then examine the case and reach a verdict in consideration of the provisions of Law No. 41/1999 on Forestry. Generally, forestry-related crimes are processed exclusively according to the provisions of Law No. 41/1999 on Forestry (Santoso, T. et. al, 2011). Processes in handling forestry-related crime and encroachment crimes sanction based on Forestry Law No. 41/1999 is presented on Table 3.2. Table 3.2. Law Institutions and their roles and responsibilities Institution Roles and Responsibilities National Police. The National Police of the Republic of Indonesia is the national entity authorized to maintain security and public order. National Police officers are also responsible for enforcing forest crime law. More specifically, provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) authorize the National Police to undertake investigations and inquiries against all criminal acts, including forest crimes. The National Police's authority to undertake environmental investigations does not reduce the authority held by other investigators, including PPNS. Public Prosecutor The Office of the Public Prosecutor is a government institution that prosecutes crimes. The functions of the Public Prosecutor are performed by the Office of the Attorney General, the High Prosecutor’s Office and the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Attorney General is located in Jakarta and its jurisdiction includes the state jurisdiction. The High Prosecutor is located in provincial capitals and its jurisdiction covers the provincial territories, while the Public Prosecutor is located in the regency/city capital and its jurisdiction covers the regency/city territory. In an forest crime criminal context, the Public Prosecutor’s duty involves (a) carrying out prosecutions against violators, (b) executing judge rulings and court decisions, (c) supervising and administering conditional criminal decisions, and (d) completing cases sometimes requiring coordination with investigators. Similarly, in forestry administrative and civil context, the Public Prosecutor has wide latitude to act both inside and outside of court in the name of the government. Judiciary The judiciary consists of four different jurisdictions under the Supreme Court. Two subsystems are closely related to environmental cases, namely the general judiciary (District Court/Pengadilan Negeri and High Court/Pengadilan Tinggi) and the administrative judiciary (Administrative Court/PTUN and High Administrative Court/PTTUN). The general judiciary has jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases. The state administrative judiciary has jurisdiction over administrative disputes. Two other subsystems, the religion and military courts, do not relate to forest crime cases. 33 Suspected crime Forest ranger/civil service Investigation Police investigation Court case Verdict Figure 3.1. Processes in handling forestry-related crime based on Law No. 41/1999 (after Santoso, T. et. al, 2011) Table 3.3. Encroachment crimes sanction according to Law No. 41/1999 on Forestry Type Legal basis Sanction Illegally occupying a forest area Article 50 Article 78 (3) No person is allowed to: cultivate and/or use and/or occupy illegally a forest area; (2) Whosoever knowingly violates the provisions of Article 50, paragraph (3) letter (a), letter (b), or letter (c), shall be liable to punishment by imprisonment up to a maximum of 10 (ten) years and a maximum fine of IDR 5 000 000 000 (five billion rupiah). Grazing livestock without a permit Article 50 Article 78 (3) No person is allowed to: i. graze livestock within the forest area which is not assigned specifically by authorised officials for that purpose; (8) Whosoever knowingly violates the provisions of Article 50,paragraph (3), letter (i), shall be liable to punishment by imprisonment up to a maximumof 3 (three) months and a maximum fine of IDR 10 000 000 (ten million rupiah). 34 3.4. Gunung Leuser National Park 3.3.1. The Leuser Development Programme The Leuser Development Programme (LDP is funded by European Commission/EC. The project began on 10 November 1995 and was originally designed as a seven-year project finishing on 9 November 2002. To complete the complex work of finalizing the legal basis for the conservation of the Leuser Ecosystem (LE, see Box 2.1) and its management, the project had an extension for two years (9 November 2004). The LDP was designed on the basis on Integrated Conservation Development Program (ICDP) principles, see Box 3.1. Box 3.1. What Are ICDPs?13 The ICDP has been applied to a diverse range of initiatives with a common goal: linking biodiversity conservation in PA with local social and economic development. In practice, ICDPs refer not just to a general concept but to a specific set of activities targeting a PA and, usually, the inhabited zone around it. ICDPs aim to provide incentives that increase the net local benefits-and therefore attractiveness-of conservation and sustainable resource use in and around PA. Most ICDPs strongly emphasize local participation in their design and implementation. Indonesia was one of the first countries to implement ICDPs. Approximately 20 ICDPs were planned and implemented in Indonesia beginning in the early 1990s. ICDPs principle emerged during 1980s and considered as new approaches for PA management. First, because they offer a simple and intuitively appealing alternative to earlier, unsuccessful approaches to PA management that have come to be regarded as politically infeasible. Second, because ICDPs offer the attractive prospect of contributing to three of the most sought-after goals on the sustainable development agenda: (a) more effective biodiversity conservation; (b) increased local community participation in conservation and development, and (c) economic development for the rural poor. These features seem virtually irresistible to many NGOs, government departments, and development agencies. Despite their popularity, the ingredients for ICDP’s success are not so wellknown. Establishing ICDPs that actually work has proven to be rather more challenging than marketing the concept and raising funds. This is partly due to most ICDPs having barely started. But nearly a decade after ICDP approaches were first popularized, successful and convincing cases where local peoples' development needs have been effectively reconciled with PA management are still notably lacking. Among other problems, many ICDPs have ignored important lessons from the field of rural development and have been unable to establish coherent linkages between their development activities and conservation objectives. Thus far, the case for ICDPs is far from convincing. According to Carr Kelman, 2013 problems in the early stages of ICDPs project in GLNP and KSNP have been: (a) a focus on project activities rather than biodiversity outcomes; (b) addressing local symptoms while ignoring macro-level problems and vice-versa; (c) lack of adaptive management; plans that dictate a time-bound project cycle with externally imposed deadlines; (d) a failure to cede significant decision-making authorities to local communities, thereby preventing local ownership of project goals; (e) acting as if communities are homogeneous entities; (f) expectations of win-win scenarios and a failure to consider the potential tradeoffs. 13 Well, M. et.all., 1999. 35 The idea about the project grew from of the recognition of GoI and EC that sustainable development depend on the wise use of the ecological services emanating from the world’s wild lands. As a fundamental precondition for the implementation of this programme, a special conservation concession to manage the Leuser Ecosystem was given out by the GoI to a foundation specifically created for this purpose - the Leuser International Foundation (LIF, Yayasan Leuser International/YLI14). For the duration of the LDP, LIF delegated the day-today management of the area to a specially created technical body containing both Indonesian and European professional staff, known as the Leuser Management Unit (LMU). After the end of the programme the task of implementing the management of the conservation of the Leuser Ecosystem reverted back to LIF. The major achievements have been reviewed and summaried by Car Kelman, 2013, and presented on Table 3.2. Table 3.4. Major achievements of the GLNP ICDP (Carr Kelman, 2013) Project Component Achievements Component A: Improving Conservation Governances Effective project efforts protected the park from two planned roads and various swamp-forest drainage projects, four transmigration schemes, and halted plans for six new logging concessions and five large oil palm plantation permits within the LE. The boundaries of the LE were demarcated in the field and incorporated into the spatial plans of most existing (and newly established) sub-district and districts, as well as at the provincial and national levels. During the programme extension of two years (2002–2004), an Alur Buluh Airstrip was built in Kutacane and handed over to Aceh Tenggara District. Component B: Area and Village Development A total of 613 small-scale village development projects were conducted in 11 districts in Aceh and Northern Sumatra between 1995 and 2001. These projects were delivered to villages depending upon their needs and requests, and the ability of the LDP to provide such projects, which are included a wide range of activities including providing seedlings for gardens, animals for raising, canoes or motors for boats, educational activities, family planning clinics, lodges for ecotourism, small grants for start-up businesses such as embroidering men’s hats or processing grains, building of bridges and irrigation canals, and many other types of projects. Component C: Biodiversity and Wildlife Conservation Biological studies were carried out to identify the most important conservation areas of the park, and a corridor was established to connect the biodiversity of Singkil Swamp area to the Leuser Ecosystem. Antipoaching unit of 45 members, which conducted monthly patrols in remote locations to protect rhinoceros, an elephant patrol unit, mobile patrol units that documented illegal logging activities, and a hidden camera programme that provided photographic evidence of the large terrestrial mammals. 14 YLI is a private foundation, received a seven-year conservation concession to manage the ecosystem n 1995 through a decree from the minister of forestry, approved by the president. This was the first example of a conservation concession being granted to a private organization in Indonesia. During the project’s implementation, YLI is directed by the project steering committee chaired by BAPPENAS includes three ministers and two provincial governors. 36 Project Component Achievements Component D: Monitoring and Evaluation This component supported landscape monitoring activities, including field transect walks, fixed-point photography, socio-economic surveys, hydrological studies, data collection on illegal logging activities and GIS surveys. Some remarkable outputs/outcomes: (a) the delineation of the LE boundaries in Aceh and North Sumatra Provinces with MoF endorsement; (b) the issuance of declarations by local communities expressing support towards the conservation of the LE; (c) the establishment of the Elephant Patrol Unit in Aras Napal in cooperation with the MoF; (d) the rehabilitation of the Singkil - Bengkung wildlife corridor; (e) the publication, distribution and socialization of the Leuser conservation books for elementary, junior and senior high schools in 11 districts; (f) the construction of the Alur Buluh Airstrip in Kutacane; (g) the closure of several road projects that would have destroyed LE; (h) the cancellation of six logging concessions and three inappropriately plantations; (i) the termination of several swamp drainage schemes, and the saving of almost half a million ha of forest that would otherwise have been clear felled and converted to agriculture. Lessons Learned: In terms of the approaches, the project had gained a new ground in conservation by having: (a) adopted an integrated landscape management approach: the establishment and legal protection of the LE. This was done through the designation of the LE as a conservation concession to the LIF, by expanding NP to cover the areas of rich biological diversity and intact ecosystems, especially lowlands. This innovative institutional design was one of the first examples in Indonesia of the shift from landscape-planning to landscape conservation planning (Wells et al. 1999) based on ecological data and an integrated, multi-scalar approach to governance; (b) paid substantial attention of establishing powerful political support, a sound legal basis, and functional institutional arrangements at high level; (c) established a strong, centralized, and well-supported park and project management unit independent of the Ministry of Forestry (through a concession) in a provincial capital rather than in the park; (d) understood the importance of balancing positive incentives with law enforcement; (e) established a flexible financing mechanism; (f) established contractual agreements specifying the conservation obligations of beneficiaries of project development investments. On the other hand the project also received some critics, especially from The Rainforest Foundation (TRF)15 due to the general lack of consultation in the project preparation stage and little or no community participation. 3.4.2. GLNP efforts to overcome chronic encroachment in Besitang The severe encroachment in Conservation Section (STPN) IV Besitang (hereinafter called as Besitang Area), is under the Regional Conservation Section Stablat. The Besitang Area lies in Sei Lepan and Besitang Sub-districts. Around 25,000 ha (Basrul, A. 2013) of encroached forest areas have degraded lowland rainforest with many inhabitants, mostly local displaced 15 http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/id/node/203 37 people, who took refuge in the area due to the armed conflict between the Indonesian Military and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM). Before being designated as part of GLNP, the Besitang Area was part of Sikundur Wildlife Reserve (± 79.100 ha), Langkat Barat and Selatan Wildlife Reserve (±127.075 ha) established by the Dutch colonial in 1938. The boundary marking of the Besitang Areas was conducted during colonial time, and was first reconstructed in 1982. From 1970 to 1977, three wildlife reserves were logged under three forest concessionaires. Prior the issuance of Law No. 5 1990, it was possible to conduct limited forest exploitation in the wildlife reserves. From 1977 to 1982, the areas was designated by the Directorate General of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture as a pilot for the ‘Wildlife Population and Habitat Management’ in collaboration with PT. Raja Garuda Mas/RGM (comprising a 30,000 ha of land) for 20 years. Despite the ideal mission suggested by the title of the program, its implementation was not much different than the usual forest exploitation, such as logging of pristine forest using heavy machineries in the name of improving wildlife population by making grassing ground. In 1982, the collaboration was stopped as the RGM was considered to be violating the agreement. The activity degraded the quality of Besitang ecosystem. In 6 March 1980, Gunung Leuser was designated as a National Park by the Ministry of Agriculture (±792.675 Ha) and managed based on zonation system by Protection and Preservation Agency (PPA) of Gunung Leuser based in Kutacane, Aceh Tenggara (SE Aceh) District. After the establishment of the Ministry of Forestry in 1983, the PPA was changed into Gunung Leuser National Park-Technical Implementation Unit. In 1981, Langkat Regent designated an area of ± 5.864 Ha for regeneration, rehabilitation of community rubber plantation. Due to lack of coordination with BKSDA I (Natural Resource Conservation Agency I based in Medan), the designated area became overlap with Besitang Areas (at Sekoci and Sei Lepan Villages). In 1982, Langkat District with funding support from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) developed a local transmigration program within Langkat District to equaly distribute its population by developing community nucleus based oil palm plantation (PIR-ADB). Due to lack of coordination with the PPA of Gunung Leuser, the designated local transmigration areas once again overlapped with Besitang Area (at Sekoci Village). This area is currently known as PIR-ADB (±1,500 ha). The oil palm plantation in Sekoci has attracted investors to develop oil palm plantation in Langkat District, partly by encroaching Besitang Area. Several oil palm plantations then emerged, such as PT. Rappala (± 200 ha), PT. Putri Hijau (± 150 ha), PT. Bandar Meriah (± 70 ha), PT. Mutiara Sei Lepan (± 53.50 ha). The encroachment of Besitang Areas became severe after the arrival of IDP as a result of the armed conflict between the Indonesian Military and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) during the end of 1990s. Aceh refugees cut down forests and cultivated the land in Besitang Area. The occupation of Aceh refugees had attracted land speculators of various sizes. The settlements of Aceh refugees were distributed on several settlement blocks, which covered several villages, i.e. Sekoci, Sei Minyak, Barak Induk, Damar Hitam etc. Besitang Area became an area for ‘bought and sold’ land with limited control from GLNP. Logging and clearing of pristine forest continued to occur, as logging became source of livelihoods of part of Aceh refuge. See Figure 3.2. 38 Photo by: GLNP Figure 3.2. Expansion of encroachment at Besitang from year 2009 to 2012 (GLNP, 2014) Efforts to control encroachment: (a) Since 2005, collaboration with Langkat Police District has conducted the due process of law on small-scale squatters and land speculators in Sekoci, Sei Minyak and Sei Lepan Villages. Many of them had gone to jail for three to nine months, and some of them put on the Wanted List (DPO); (b) A collaboration with the army in conducting restoration program of the former encroached land; (c) Joint litigation coercive operation with the Police, Army, prosecutor sand SPORC16, during litigation efforts. The joint team eradicated illegal plantations, collected field evidences as the basis to perform due process of law; (d) Conducted due process of law on several plantation enterprises which were accused of encroaching GLNP, such as PT. Raya Padang of which the case was won by GLNP; (e) Relocations of refugees. The efforts have been conducted several times involving the roles of Coordinator Minister for Social Welfare (Menkoskesra) and the Ministry of Transmigration. See Table 3.2. All the relocation efforts were not successful, most of the relocated households returned to Besitang; (f) In collaboration with Forest Mapping Agency I, GLNP conducted the NP boundary marking reconstruction; (g) Special coercive operation (Operasi Khusus Pengamanan Hutan/OKPH) was conducted from 27 to 29 June 2011 involving the Army, Police, prosecutors, Province and district parliaments. The forceful eviction failed due to a strong resistance put by the squatters which resulted in the Sekoci Resort office being burned down, see Figure 3.3. 16 Satuan Polisi Kehutanan Reaksi Cepat/Response Unit Forest Ranger 39 Table 3.5. Efforts to eradicate illegal crops in the encroached areas Site Total eradicated crop Total encroachment area (Ha) 1,870 Ha 6,800 3500 rubber trees 200 - Sekoci Village, Besitang, Langkat District 2012 Sei Lepan Village, Besitang, Langkat District 2012 Lau Sekelam Village, Langkat District 20 Ha 2013 Cinta Raja Village, Langkat District 20 Ha 2012 Lawe Gurah Village, Aceh Tenggara District 10 Ha Datuk Saudane, Lumban Tua and Mutiara Damai Villages, Aceh Tenggara District 22 Ha 2014 Tanjung and Alur Baning Villages, Aceh Tenggara District 21 Ha 2014 Senebuk Keranji Village, Aceh Selatan District 100 Ha 100 Photo by: TBI Indonesia 2011-2012 Year Figure 3.3. The remnant of Sekoci Resort Office From December 2011 toFebruary 2012, GLNP eradicated about 1,500 ha of illegal plantation such as palm oil, rubber, cacao and annual rainfed crop. The special coercive operation had solidified the resistances and militancy of squatters to NP Rangers and staffs. Politically, the coersive eviction had put the squatters in a better position. With the revival of human right issues, DPRD started to put pressure on NP authority and claiming that the evicted areas werea under DPRD’s control. This has in overall, put the NP in a difficult position and 40 feeling left to work alone on this issue. This has led to the ‘loss’ of NP’s control on the expansion of encroached areas in Besitang. For security reasons, NP rangers were reluctant to visit the areas, while the burned Sekoci resort has not been rebuilt and has not been active since June 2011. Table 3.6. Efforts to relocate squatters in Besitang Sub-district Year Number of Households Relocation Areas 2001 144 2003 30 2004 50 Dumai District, Riau Province 2010 24 Musi Banyu Asin, South Sumatra Province Rokan Hulu District, Riau Province Tapanuli Selatan District, North Sumatra Province Lessons Learned: (a) The severe encroachment in Besitang Areas is an accumulation of mismanagement in the past, where the national guideline had not yet been in place (i.e. Law No. 5, 1990); (b) NP actions to control encroachment just started after the problem developed into a severe and critical state; (c) Response to the problems was slow and there was a lack of confidence, due to the limited support from NP’s stakeholders and human right issues; (d) The management of NP is not able to be conducted effectively without strong acknowledgement of local government, strong supports of law apparatus and NGOs; (e) Lack of political supports from Centre Government in solving encroachment consistently and comprehensively; (f) The use of conservation areas for refuge inhabitants have put conservation areas under high risk. This was also the case for other areas; i.e the case in Buton, where production forest was used to accommodate Ambon refugees which incurred rampant destruction of production forest in overall. Box 3.2. SWOT Analysis to control encroachment in GLNP Strength: (a) The park has been gazetted; (b) Legitimated Park institution; (c) Availability of human resources, fund support and facilities; (d) The Park is widely acknowledged as a World Heritage Site, an ASEAN Heritage Park and a National Strategic Areas Weakness: (a) Open-access; (b) accidental anti-encroachment measures; (c) Lack of intensive coordination and communication with NP stakeholders; (d) Lack of genuine support from district and province governments. Opportunity: (a) MoU with the Army and Police for anti-encroachment measures; (b) Support from UNESCO and international and national NGOs; (c) The use of limited production forest as a buffer of NP. Threats: (a) Encroachments have become political issues; (b) Squatters eviction is a sensitive human right issues; (c) Land speculators took advantage out of the encroachment problem; (d) Land grabbing of large-scale agro-commodity business; (d) The existence of market that absorb products from encroached areas. Source: GLNP (2013) 41 3.4.3. Ecosystem Restoration Since 2005, GLNP together with UNESCO17 have had a collaborative work to conduct restoration ecosystem and promote sustainable livelihood in villages located in the surroundings of GLNP. 3.4.3.1. Restoration at Sei Serdang, Cinta Raja Resort, Langkat District During 2005-2008, GLNP supported by law apparatus conducted persuasive and repressive measures to take over the state forest areas which were encroached, such as in Cinta Raja Resort, Besitang in which around 53.5 Ha were encroached upon by oil palm plantation, i.e. PT. Tunas Baru and PT. Mutiara Sei Lepan. Through litigation and negotiation process, in 2006 the encroached areas were finally returned to GLNP. However, , the plantation enterprises did not overthrow the planted oil palm trees after. In response to the problem, GLNP supported with UNESCO and FORDA formulated scientific based ecosystem restoration through accelerated succession. The program was conducted through the following steps: (a) Conducted socio-economic survey to understand community perceptions on restoration program and NP management; (b) Formulated scientific based restoration design; (c) Conducted knowledge attitude and practices (KAP) survey, followed by socialization of the restoration program; (d) Established restoration base-camp; (e) Delivered restoration training; (f) Established natural succession pilot (1.25 Ha); (g) Overthrew palm oil trees; (h) Developed indigenous species tree nursery; (i) Conducted planting campaign; (j) Monitored and evaluated; (k) maintenance/replanting. Impacts and Lessons Learned: 18,675 tree seedlings were planted on 21 Ha; their survival rate was 70%. While the restored areas were only 21 ha, the deterrent and multiplier effects have been much larger than the restored areas (Wiratno, 2013). Through this initiative, GLNP has secured around 500 ha as the restoration was supported by law enforcement (Hasanah18, pers. comm, 2015). The restoration program has reduced community encroachment to plant rubber; it is well-proven that the ground presence of field staff is the key to control encroachment. The restored areas have expanded wildlife habitat, this was proven by more frequent occurrence of wildlife after restoration. The success of restoration program is partly caused by the presence of high dedicated NP staff, i.e. Pak Keleng Ukur, a Cinta Raja Resort Head. In 2013, the restoration efforts then expanded with supporting fund from UNESCO using the same approaches on 73 Ha encroached forest areas. The restoration efforts were facilitated by YOSL-OIC19. Lessons Learned: The intensive management, especially on the ground presence of NP staff, was the key success of the restoration program, which seems to outweigh the rather less involvement of local community. From a technical point of view (Suryadi, in Wiratno, 2013); it was also noted that attention should be put on weeds control, drastic eradication that led to dryer micro-climate which reduces the survival rate of tree seedlings; The planting of holes size should not be too deep and it is should be aligned with the size of seedlings. 17 Since 2006, the World Heritage Center (WHC) and the Spanish Government (through UNESCO) have provided funds for the training, mentorship or Park staff, meeting with partners and for equipment. 18 Nur Hasanah, Project Assistant, Environmental Science, UNESCO Office, Jakarta 19 Yayasan Orangutan Sumatra Lestari-Orangutan Information Centre (OIC) was established in 2001 by a group of Indonesian conservationists, and partnered with the Sumatran Orangutan Society (SOS), to raise awareness of environmental and orangutan conservation issues amongst local communities. 42 There are two ways to involve community in the program and improve their participation. First, there should be a commitment from the project management and their field implementers. The model of Sei Serdang ecosystem restoration indicated that even though the community’s participation is less but when the management’s commitment and intensive supervision are high the project will likely be a success. 3.4.3.2. Restoration at Sei Betung Resort The restoration program was facilitated by YOSL-OIC and KETAPEL20. The restoration, which was initiated in 2007, had taken some lessons learned from similar initiative in Cinta Raja Resort. This initiative was also initiated by the removal of illegally planted oil palm trees, and then subsequently followed by improving soil quality using organic fertilizers and manual weeding. Community members including local village women have developed seedling nurseries to support this programme. Table 3.7. Ecosystem restoration of encroached areas in GLNP Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 Area (Ha) Villages 250 Agusan Village, SPTN IV, BPTN II 250 Trenggulun Village, SPTN VI, BPTN III 250 Sei Betung Village, SPTN VI, BPTN III 500 Simpur Jaya, SPTN IV, BPTN II 3,140 Sekoci, SPTN VI, BPTN III 100 Bohorok, SPTN V, BPTN III 250 Bakongan and Kluet Selatan Villages, SPTN II, BPTN I 250 Kluet Selatan Village, SPTN II, BPTN I 1,000 Trenggulun Village, SPTN VI, BPTN III 1,000 Sei Lepan Village, SPTN VI, BPTN III 650 Sei Betung Village, SPTN VI, BPTN III 200 Simpur Jaya VillageSIMPUR JAYA, SPTN IV, BPTN II 300 Rumah Bundar Village, SPTN IV, BPTN II 1,000 Alur Baning, SPTN IV, BPTN II 1,000 Putri Betung, SPTN III, BPTN II Two types of trees species were selected for restoration, (a) indigenous hardwood tree species that naturally grow in the forests; (b) Multi-purposes tree species (mostly fruit trees) which were planted in the buffer-zones areas. The program strongly involved local community participation to develop nurseries, conduct planting campaign and regular maintenance of planted trees to ensure their survival and growth also monitor the restored land from re 20 KETAPEL is a group of local farmers set up as a result of this project who serve as in-field supervisors for programme activities. 43 encroachment. The project also provided sustainable livelihoods for local community, i.e. trees nurseries and agroforestry development21. Impacts: About 100,876 tree seedlings were planted on 82.6 Ha of degraded NP forest land. Communities who were involved on the restoration program have better capacity to develop nurseries as a source of alternative livelihoods. Communities have ownership to the restored areas which are strong social capital to protect the GLNP from future encroachment. Lessons learned: (a) It is different from therestoration approach in Sei Serdang; the involvement of local communities is the key for success. A restoration program of preencroached NP areas should involve and enhance the capacity of local communities as a way to strengthen the community’s capacity and ownership to the restored areas. It is fundamental to develop a community development program supporting restoration to give additional benefits for local community, such as: agroforestry or ecotourism (Puska UI, 2012); (b) In many other cases, for security and other reasons, restoration programs have been conducted in collaboration with the Army (TNI). Tree seedlings are normally brought from other areas (not locally developed by community). For some cases, restoration programs are just like planting campaign events, which possibly have limited impacts on the sustainability of the restored areas. Similar restoration programs, with the same approach were also conducted by YOSL-OIC in Ketambe and surrounding villages, Aceh Tenggara District in 2009. Learning from the restoration program in GLNP, i.e. Sei Serdang and Sei Betung, and in BBSNP, i.e. Padamaran Village, facilitated by OWT (see on Section 3.6.6), the annual reasonable target ranges from 50 - 100 Ha of areas being restored. 3.4.4. Community Based Ecotourism Program in Tangkahan Tangkahan is situated at the junction of two rivers, the Buluh River and the Batang River which offer international ecotourism on landscape beauties (water fall, hot spring), jungle and elephant trekking. It is located ubSei Serdang and Namo Sialang, Batang Serangan Subdistrict, Langkat District. Tangkahan ecotourism was initiated in 2002 and officially launched in 2004. Currentlythe area has developed into one of the key destination tourism site in North Sumatra. There are about 36,000 domestic (Hasanah, pers. comm, 2015) and 6,000 foreign tourists annually visit the site. Tangkahan is a best practice on how community based eco-tourism can stop illegal logging, improve livelihood, and develop a sense of pride amongst the locals. The livelihood of local community used to be illegal loggers. The initiative started with the establishement of legitimated and well-accepted organization which is called Lembaga Pariwisata Tangkahan (LPT) on 19 May 2001. The establishment of LPT was supported by many parties, including Indonesian ecotorism network (Indecon), Leuser Manajemen Unit and Flora Fauna International (FFI) to develop Master Plan of Village Ecotorism Development (RIPDES) in 2002. The key milestone was the signing Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the GLNP and LPT on 22 April 2002, in which GLNP delegated the authority to Namo Sialang and Sei Serdang Villages through LPT as ‘one gate management system’ to manage ecotourism in Tangkahan. This led to a new policy on entrance fees and fair benefit sharing 21 www.orangutancentre.org 44 distribution. This innovative policy served as a good lessons learned for NP management in Indonesia, which demonstrated that local community has access and control to NP management of more than 10,000 Ha. Indecon has provided intensive training, facilitation and technical assistances to establish Village Regulation of ecotourism management (No. 4/2004)., The regulation has become the umbrella forcommunity-based ecotourism management activities, such as infrastructure development and waste handling, including sanctions and penalties to communities that conduct illegal logging, encroachment, wildlife poaching. During 2012-2013 with the support of UNESCO under Sumatra Orangutan Ecotourism Development Project (SOEDP and /Tangkahan Ecotourism Development Initiative (TEDI), YOSL-OIC and Simpul Indonesia delivered a series of trainings on ethical interpretive guiding and knowledge of forest and biodiversity to the local guide association in Tangkahan. It was facilitated by LPT to review ecotorism planning, facilitated Namo Sialang and Sei Serdang in reviewing and defining a new Village Regulation (No. 7/2014, 22 January 2014). They also trained and facilitated organic fertilizer making as alternative livelihoods to local community. Lessons learned: (a) Tangkahan gives important lessons learned to NP management in Indonesia. NP management should have a strong political will to involve local communities to utilize and conserve NP resources. This should not be limited for natural beauty and for ecotourism but also on the use of well-monitored non-timber forest products, and if it is necessary also the use of special zone in the NP for agroforestry development. (b) the established village regulation is considered as the first effective village regulation which participatively formulated to rule the roles and ethics of community to conserve and utilize natural resources. 3.5. Kerinci Seblat NP During the last ten years, after termination of ICDP, KSNP received substantially less international support and collaborative works than the other two national parks of TRHS. The only direct international support received by KSNP is provided by FFI. FFI activities focus on surveying and monitoring species in the park including tigers, elephants and tapirs, and helping the national park to improve its management. FFI is also working with park officials and other partners in establishing anti-poaching teams. 3.5.1. The Kerinci ICDP The Kerinci Seblat ICDP (USD 19 million), which ran between 1997 and 2002, was designed as a model for reconciling conservation and development throughout Indonesia and Asia and was aimed to address the problem of deforestation by adopting an integrated approach that would: (a) link park management to regional development and spatial planning; (b) coordinate implementation; (c) undertake regular monitoring and enforcement activities, (d) increase staff and in-service training, and (e) improve resource management and service delivery (World Bank 1996). The project was originally envisioned as an introductory stage of a longer-term programme required for ful protectection of the park and integration of its management with regional development. However, there was never any commitment from the World Bank to conduct a 45 multi-phased project. Such might have been achieved through an Adaptable Program Loan, and there was no commitment from the GoI to continue funding after the ICDP. Instead, it stood out on the notorious ICDP failure, partly due to its high profile and large investment from the World Bank, combined with the unsatisfactory results and cancellation (Linkie et al. 2008). The ICDP project's complexities partly arise from the involvement of four separate provinces and nine districts that contain parts of the park, together with three directorate-generals from two ministries (PHPA and Directorate of Forest Production/PH) from the Ministry of Forestry and Directorate of Regional Development (BANGDA) from the Ministry of Home Affairs. BAPPENAS, yet another agency, has the overall responsibility for the project but no field presence. The project was implemented and managed largely by various foreign consultants hired by the World Bank, in partnership with WWF Indonesia and Jambi based NGO, WARSI (Warung Konservasi Indonesia). Approximately USD 1.5 million was spent for development projects in 74 villages adjacent to Kerinci Seblat NP. These projects focused on infrastructure, microcredit, animal husbandry, and agricultural management schemes because it was thought that improving local livelihoods would reduce the unsustainable use of natural resources in the forest. Each targeted village received Village Conservation Grants (VCG) of USD 50,000 per village which was given in two instalments several years apart to ensure cooperation. Project grants were administered through Village Conservation Agreements (VCA22) that stipulated that villages, in return for inclusion in the development schemes, would not convert their traditional forest areas to farmland and would not farm KSNP (World Bank. 2003). Although the Kerinci-Seblat ICDP includes several innovative and ambitious features, any contributions to biodiversity conservation seem likely to be outweighed by the combination of an overly complex project design, lack of institutional capacity, and weak commitments from the key agencies. The major achievements have been reviewed and summaried by Car Kelman, 2013, and presented on Table 3.5. Results and Impacts: In 1999, after lengthy consultations with adjacent communities, the boundaries were agreed to and the park was legally gazette. KSNP was the first national park in Indonesia to achieve this status. After six years of project implementation, the ICDP failed to achieve its conservation objectives. On 27 February 2002 a Note of Agreement on Protection and Conservation of KSNP (Nota Kesepakatan Bersama tentang Perlindungan, Pengamanan dan Pelestarian TNKS) was signed by four Governors and 9 Bupati (District Head) whose areas are within the Park, and Head of District Parliament (DPRD Kabupaten). It stated that: (a) all parties will work together to protect, secure and conserve KSNP; (b) all parties agree to fill a law suit and give administrative sanction according to the present law to any party who directly or indirectly cause disturbance to the Park (encroachment, non-timber forest product theft, mining, establishing sawmill, causing fires, etc), and (c) central and local governments will review the laws that contradict with efforts to conserve KSNP (Anonymous, 2003). 22 This was the first Indonesian example of a contractual agreement specifically linking development investments with conservation obligations. 46 Table 3.8. Achievements of the Kerinci ICDP (Carr Kelman, 2013) Project Component Achievements Component A: Park management This appears to have been the most successful part of the Kerinci ICDP, and these activities were all related to formal park governance, such as achieving the formal gazetting of Kerinci as a national park in 2000 after a complex, 11-step process including demarcation on the ground using wooden and concrete markers. Kerinci was the first NP in Indonesia to be legally gazetted. Despite boundary disputes with local communities and companies holding adjacent logging concessions, the park would not have had proper management without the ICDP. A management plan was produced, which continues to be used as the basis for annual KSNP work plans. A baseline survey of forest cover was made, to be used for landscape monitoring, with a goal of identifying ‘hot spots’ of encroachment. Each year, the Park GIS unit buys NASA Landsat data for translation into GIS maps for tracking changes in the forest cover of the park over time and conducting patrolling activities. In addition, the project stimulated the addition of park staff, an increase from 71 to 180, including numerous university graduates (first time graduates had been recruited as field staff). These new staff were trained and taken on study tours to parks in Indonesia and Malaysia as a part of Component A. Also, a new interpretation centre with a library was established at the park headquarter. Component B: Area and Village Development This component was planned and implemented by WWF Indonesia and WARSI in concert with World Bank consultants. This was done by providing development assistances to 74 villages surrounding the park, to take pressure away from park edges. Agricultural encroachment by local people was perceived as a principal direct threat to the park. The strategy used involved a contractual commitment from each village to undertake certain conservation measures (VCA) in exchange for a development grant. The VCGs from the World Bank of USD 50,000 per village were for infrastructure or economic development such as revolving funds or agricultural inputs. Despite conflicting viewpoints about the relative success of the outcomes of Component B, there seems to be agreement that there was very little, if any, connection or linkage between the VCAs and the small VCGs given to the villages when it comes to the success or failure of either, even though the main point of the grants was to provide an incentive for conservation and this was meant to be the main linkage point between conservation and development in the ICDP. Component C: Integrating Biodiversity in Forest Concession Management This component was largely futile. Biological surveys showed that several concessionaires were logging within the park, and that the concessions given to these companies were incredibly species-rich areas that deserved repatriation to the park, but the Directorate General of Forest Management took no action. Component D: Monitoring and Evaluation This component supported landscape monitoring activities, including field transect walks, fixed-point photography, socio-economic surveys, hydrological studies, data collection on illegal logging activities and GIS surveys. 47 Today, KSNP is still under threat from agricultural encroachment, illegal logging, roads construction, mining and geothermal energy. Park staff members were unable to stop encroachment and illegal logging, even with generous resources for patrolling, training, and equipment. Few of the beneficiary communities maintained their reciprocal commitments to respect park boundaries. Some beneficiaries continued to encroach into the forest, and were often a greater threat than villages that received no benefits (Linkie et.al, 2008). It was not realistic to expect that providing development options would induce local communities to reduce their impact on KSNP forests, especially since much of the agricultural expansion is not for subsistence but for wealthy planters to expand a valuable cash crop (Carr Kelman, 2013). Lessons Learned: (a) The project design was too ambitious and took too long for the preparation while the implementation time was too short: This is the weakness of many projects, especially those which receive big funding from donor agencies, the planning and fund disbursement process takes a long time, while the implementation are often too rigid and the implementation time was too short and the time for exit strategy is also very limited. (b) Too big funding but lack of facilitation process: The project demonstrated that funding is not everything; conservation is a process and cannot be enforced merely through funding. The combination of continuous facilitation process, strong political supports and sufficient funding supports are the key for conservation achievements. (c) Complex institutional arrangements with lack of cooperation and unclear leading agency: The project should not be exclusive, it should involve many relevant institutions and organizations. The coordination line and the lead agency must be very clear from the beginning. The lack of leadership has led to conflicting actions and wastes the precious funds. Well, M. et. al, 1999, stated that: ‘KSNP was not successful to take leadership in addressing biodiversity conservation in the concessions that granted to logging companies in forests surrounding the park. BANGDA and Regional Development Planning Board (BAPPEDA) staff had little conservation expertise and were unclear about the types of development activities to be supported in villages, while BAPPENAS did not have the field presence to provide on-the-ground coordination and leadership. Despite the long preparation period, WWF-IP is just beginning to work out how to scale up its earlier project, while local NGOs lack the capacity to provide the range of support required by the planned project activities’. (d) Incorrect assumptions leading to improper selection of project beneficiaries: The emphasis on village development was based on the unproven assumption that poverty and lack of alternative livelihoods was the reason for deforestation. In fact, some of the villages targeted were some of the wealthiest villages (Carr Kelman, 2013). In additional, much of the forest clearance for cash crops and illegal logging were instigated by wealthy and influential individuals who are often based far from the park. Under such conditions, unenforceable conservation agreements with local villages are unlikely to be effective. Development grants through the ICDP were always regarded as supplementary rather than alternatives to highearning crops such as cinnamon. (e) Insufficient attention to land tenures issues: Linkie et al. (2008) published a quantitative analysis of the relationship between forest cover changes and inclusion of villages in the 48 Kerinci ICDP. They found that a village’s participation in the project had no effect on local deforestation rates compared to non-participating villages. They conclude that strengthening community-based conservation projects need to be supplemented with efforts to strengthen traditional land-tenure systems and to enforce the relevant legislation within PA. Such an approach should stem from a firm understanding of relevant socio-political factors and could have a strong community-based emphasis as long as the community is effective in retaining or transferring control over access and resources. 3.5.2. KSNP efforts to control chronic encroachment in Sipurak Hook, Merangin District The most remarkable and severe encroachment in KSNP occurred on Sipurak Hook (14.160 Ha), Lembah Masurai Sub-district. It is located at the limited production forest (Hutan Produksi Terbatas) near concession areas of PT Serestra I and II subsidiaries of Malaysian company Tanjung Johor I. PT. Sarestra I stopped its operation in 1997, while PT. Sarestra II was in operation until 2002. Since the end of 1990s, groups of farmers from Bengkulu, South Sumatra, Lampung, Java and Jambi havestarted planting coffee on the logged over areas left by PT. Sarestra I and II. Now the area and part of KSNP has been inhabited by around 5,000 households of coffee farmers who grow more than 30 millions coffee trees. In 1997, FFI established research camp in Sipurak Catchment Area to conduct flora and fauna survey in the limited production forest near PT. Sarestra I and II concession areas. On June 3, 2002, FFI and KSNP claimed that the primary lowland hill forest under limited production area status is rich of biodiversity and has high ecological values. It contains of primary lowland forest of less than 800 m above sea level and supports a large water catchement area. At the same time, the area is an important habitat for Sumatran rhino and Sumatran tiger, as well as important flower species of Amorphophallus sp. and Rafflesia sp. As a follow-up, through a letter No. 050/136/II/Bappeda dated 29 April 2002, Bupati (Subdistrict Head) of Merangin, Rotani Yutaka, stated his support for the inclusion of the Sipurak Hook area into KSNP. The area was finally incorporated into the KSNP in October 19, 2004 by which time encroachers (Lampung, South Sumatra etc) were within 200-300 m of the proposed new park borders but there was no encroachment into the natural forest area at the time of repatriation. WALHI Jambi conducted extensive counselling and awareness campaign to the encroachers regarding the revised park borders pointing out that it was primary forest, with no remains of logging etc (Whitten, pers. comm, 2015). In August 2010, Merangin Regent and Province Forestry Office appealed to all coffee farmers to leave the forest area; otherwise they would be accused of breaking law No. 41/1999 verse 50 on sanction/penalty of encroacher (see Table 3.1). As a follow up, Joint coercive operation was conducted from 10 – 25 November 2010 involving SPORC (Response Unit Forest Ranger), Forest rangers of KSNP, Jambi Province and Merangin District Forest Rangers (148 persons). As a result, NGOs and human right activists protested and several litigation parties such as the army, province police and prosecutors, cancelled the joint litigation operation. The joint litigation coercive operation was not effective, apart from limited personnel, coffee farmers were also supported by Jambi based NGO coalition named ‘Gerakan Pecinta Manusia’ (Human Lovers Movement) who protected farmers against human right violation. 49 Lessons Learned: (a) The inclusion of forest with high population pressures (coffee farmers) into NP areas would only raise management problems; (b) Coercive operation conducted by eradicating coffee plantations, burning farmers houses should be avoided sincethe coercive actions would not reach the intended target, but enhance farmer militancy and blame by activists of violation to human rights; (c). Treatment of severe encroachment cases should be reached through win-win solution using the best available scheme. 3.5.3. Collaborative forest management in the forest edge communities This program is initiated by UNESCO in collaboration with FFI and LTB. The objective of the program is to increase the capacity of forest edge communities to protect and manage their customary forest estate in perpetuity, and secure legally-recognized rights to these areas to reduce threat of forest conversion. The project took place in KSNP buffer zone in Merangin District, Jambi Province, which faced large-scale clearance due to commercial plantation concessions, and incremental ‘mosaic’ deforestation as natural forest was being converted for agriculture, such as coffee plantations. Impacts: These activities made an important and timely contribution to wider efforts to reduce rates of deforestation and increase local capacity to sustainably manage forest in KSNP and buffer zone forest within Merangin District. Merangin District Government ultimately supported 17 formal proposals for Village Forest (Hutan Desa/HD) to the Ministry of Forestry in May 2010. The HD approach supported the district to establish an alternative management framework for the remaining forest estate, reducing the threat of wholesale forest conversion for commercial plantations and also building community commitment and capacity to protect their forest estate for the future. Lessons Learned: Strengthening the access of local communities to forest area (production and protection forest) surrounding NP is an important measure towards the protection of NP areas. 3.5.4. Kerinci Seblat Tiger Protection and Conservation This project was implemented by FFI in partnership with KSNP authority. The program has become the most active tiger protection program in South East Asia with five Tiger Protection & Conservation Units active and in the field working at four base camps around the KSNP. The objective is to secure the long-term conservation of wild Sumatran tigers, through the control over poaching of tiger and prey, habitat loss and effective mitigation of human-tiger conflict. Impacts: The enhanced capacity of KSNP and local government staff and forest-edge community to tackle tiger and other wildlife crime and conserve tigers and their habitat and protectthe tiger rich buffer-zone forests which are threatened by land clearance for palm oil and road construction23. 23 http://www.21stcenturytiger.org/previous-projects/kerinci-seblat-tiger-protection-and-conservation-20072012/ 50 Lessons Learned: The increasing awareness of local community on the value of NP will help support NP conservation efforts. The awareness campaign is necessary to aimies young (educated) generation. 3.5.5. Pilot project to stop encroachment at village level in Kerinci District The project was implemented by LTA and funded by IUCN NL Ecosystem Grants Programme for twenty months (2007-2009). This project aims to stop encroachment in three villages in the Mt Kerinci area, i.e. Pelompek Village, Gunung Tujuh Sub-district, Giri Mulyo and Kerisik Tuo, Kayu Aro Sub-district, Kerinci District, to prevent future encroachments and to develop mechanisms for restoring recently cleared land. This were to be achieved through: (a) Securing political will and practical implementation of law enforcement through development of a MoU between the Park authority and governments at district levels; (b) Inventory of spatial and socio-economic information about the encroachment in the villages; (c) Developing and implementing a communication strategy, and increasing the knowledge and respect of the local community for the park and its boundaries; (d) In cooperation with the local community, developing a detailed approach to restore the degraded lands; and (e) Ensuring that the Memorandum of Understanding is applied in the field to solve the encroachment problem. Based on general assessment of progress conducted by Syaf and Wood, 200924, the project impacts and lessons learned are the following: Impacts: Overall this project has been successful, as it has stopped further encroachment in the project area (at least temporarily) and initiated a process of collaboration between the key stakeholders involved in the issue. In doing so it has been successful in addressing an issue that much larger projects and NP has been unable to address. Good choice of approach and identification of stakeholders was key in this success, and is shown by the willingness of village officials to support the project and of most of the encroachers themselves to provide information on their activities and to be identified as people who have land inside the NP. The District head, District legislature, and the NP have also indicated their support for the project through their participation in several meetings, formation of the working group on encroachment, development of a work plan and initiation of activities. NP and District Government were enthusiastic on the project as ways to avoid repressive law enforcement. Lessons learned: (a) The frequent presence of LTA field facilitators and other staff, and the consistency of the message between actors, and between communications and actions, helped build trust with village stakeholders; (b) Collaboration between the three stakeholders, i.e. District Government, legislature and NP key was crucial for the progress in tackling the problem of encroachment. District Government plays the leading role in local economic and social development, including in those communities which are interacting with the NP, the legislature has the power to approve the use of local and national budgets in the region, the NP management authority has the authority to arrest encroachers and destroy farms inside the Park if necessary; (c) Given that MoU process was going to take longer than expected, LTA started work on the formation of the working group and the development of model activities on the ground. This parallel strategy has been successful, since it has meant that there are 24 Rudy Syaf and Pete Wood visited the project on 31 March – 4 April 2009 to conduct general assessment of progress or results. The evaluation was also requested by LTA to provide inputs to strategy. 51 concrete results and examples from the field which can be used to inform and catalyse the political process; (d) Provided alternative source of livelihoods to squatters (developing and disseminating coffee seedlings and rabbit breeding) as an effective ‘entry points’ to working with the community; (e) LTA also facilitated legal action against an encroacher who continued to encroach after others had agreed to stop. Enabling conditions that remain to be discussed and defined betwen NP, village and District Government are: (a) will the future management model involve continued management of land inside the Park, what will be permitted and what rights and responsibilities will farmers have. It is believed that revision of the NP management plan to create a ‘traditional use zone’, which allows local community to extract NTFP; (b) to what extent is it hoped that encroached areas can be restored; (c) Is it desirable and possible to revise the boundary of the NP to exclude some of the most intensively used areas from the NP 3.6. Bukit Barisan Selatan NP 3.6.1. CANOPI WCS-IP has been helping the management of BBSNP since 1997. The activities of WCS-IP in BBSNP include: (a) The establishment of the Way Canguk Research Station and Conservation Education Center; (b) Research and conservation of Sumatran tiger. WCS-IP is working together with Indonesian Rhinoceros Conservation Program (Program Konservasi Badak Indonesia --PKBI) to create Tiger Protection Unit (TPU). PKBI is an NGO working to conserve and rescue Sumatran rhino through the establishment of Rhino Protection Unit/RPU (see section 3.6.3.). TPU conducts antipoaching patrol activities for tiger protection, and monitors the distribution and population of the threatened species; (c) Research and conservation of the Asian elephant. In 2002, WCS-IP initiated the development of CANOPI project proposal involving conservation NGOs25 in Lampung and Bengkulu. At the end of 2004, the NGOs consortium led by Wildlife Conservation Society-Indonesia Program (WCS-IP) supported by UNESCO and PHKA developed Conservation Action Network Program (CANOPI): ‘Partnership for the Conservation of Sumatran Natural Heritage’ with financial support from the UN Foundation (UNF) and Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF). The project, with a budget of nearly US$ 2 million, aims at testing networking and partnership development approaches to build and strengthen collaboration among government, civil society and private sector for the conservation of TRHS. The project focuses mainly on the BBSNP under an integrated conservation management scheme including research and training, park management, public awareness, and investment strategy and regional planning. Outputs26: (a) the establishment of a partnership model for conservation action; (b) the establishment of baseline information and on-going research and monitoring related to the ecology and socio-economics of BBSL; (c) increased capacities of park staff and other stakeholders. 25 WATALA, Yayasan ALAS Indonesia, GARSI (Garuda Sylva), LSPPM (Lembaga Studi dan Pelayanan Penyuluhan Masyarakat); NIPAH; YASADHANA; YBWS (Yayasan Bina Wana Sejahtera) and PRATALA (Panthera Rafflesia) 26 WCS, 2005. 52 Lessons Learned: (a) The key theme of CANOPI is to promote partnership among stakeholders, strengthen the capacity of actors, and develop a collaborative approach to tackle the threats and problems in the conservation of BBSL. This theme has attracted the attention of and gained the appreciation of relevant stakeholders. The concept provides ample room for actors with different fields of knowledge and capacity to engage in a series of constructive dialogue to articulate their commitment and determine their respective roles: (b) With varied capacity and educational backgrounds, local NGOs are highly dynamic. Attempts to strengthen NGOs capacity are frequently collored with heated debates and intense disagreements, which sometimes lead to conflicts. Tedious time was spent for debate with slow and unclear actions; (c) A high expectation regarding the timing and amount of resources to be provided for CANOPI projects, and delays in receiving these funds, gave rise to conflicts and distrust among some partners. The conflicts among NGOs since the beginning of the program have reduced the quality of program implementation in the field. The CANOPI program showed that NGOs consortium might be effective to attract funding, but the implementations are often hampered by internal conflicts within the consortium. 3.6.2. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Indonesia WWF Indonesia has started its activities in BBSNP since 2000 by establishing the WWF AREAS (Asian Rhino and Elephant Action Strategy), a programme that prioritizes saving Sumatran rhinos and Sumatran elephants. The target of the programme is to maintain the population of Sumatran rhino and Sumatran elephant in BBSNP. It is expected that by 2010 the population will be stable and, if possible, even increased. The activities include ensuring the level of protection of Sumatran rhino so that no more Sumatran rhino and Sumatran elephant are hunted or traded; helping the Park management to improve the Park Management and ensure the Park's integrity; and facilitating the local government to revise the District Spatial Plan and create a more conservation based District Spatial Plan (Anonymous, 2003). 3.6.3. Rhino Protection Units BBSNP is one of the three (together with Way Kambas NP and GLNP) major habitats for Sumatran rhino. At present, it is predicted that there are 30 – 50 rhino in TNBBS (Anonymous, 2015). The main threat is poaching for horn, which is used in traditional Chinese medicine, while increasing encroachment and new road construction in the Southern part of the park, combined with an invasive weed, have pushed rhino further to the central and northern regions indigenous weed called Mantangan27 (Merremia peltata). The rampant 27 Mantangan is an indigenous weed with morphological character of wide leaf, fruit, flower, stem and roots which contain of white latex turning into yellowish color when it is open to the air. This species is a local pioneer which has ability to adapt on variety of conditions and is very aggressive when it comes to suitable habitats. Mantangan also has allelopati characteristic that interferes other types of wood. It reproduces by seeds and roots; this plant is a ivy type. Some have spread massively and become dominant in certain areas and some have been scattered in small areas in the whole area of BBSNP (Purwanto and Setyawati, 2013). 53 degraded land within BBSNP has stimulated the growth of Mantangan as invasive species, Matangan is forming a blanket cover over existing vegetation which if left will eventually destroy rhino habitat. Saving the remaining rhino population needs a series of efforts to protect the remaining population by activating rhino patrol and strengthening its anti-‐‑poaching activities, until poacher activity and habitat dectruction is reduced to the point of elimination. Yayasan Badak Indonesia (YABI) or Indonesia Rhino Foundation has a special mission to save the Sumatran Rhino in its natural habitat and beyond. YABI operated several anti-poaching units which are called as Rhino Protection Units (RPU) in BBSNP, Way Kambas and Ujung Kulon NPs. RPU is established and devised to control poacher activity and habitat disturbance (including encroaher). RPU has been widely respected and considered as highly effective work in the field. The RPU’s roles and tasks: (a) Implement intensive patrols to prevent poaching, encroachment and other illegal activities in the park; (b) Conducting an intensive patrol through the region to detect the presence of snares, and also captures intruders poaching offenders; (c) destroying snares found in the area; (d) Implement monitoring rhino populations through a survey of the area to identify the signs of rhino like tread, dirt, puddles, and others; (e) Conducting intelligence operations to help arrest the perpetrators of illegal hunting; (f) Helping national park in joint operations decrease in forest encroachers: (g) Implement education and awareness activities. 3.6.4. BBSNP efforts to control encroachment Following the creation of BBSNP in 1982, NP authorities conducted a several protracted eviction campaigns to remove illegal settlers, who had established coffee plantations inside the park. The illegal settlers were from poor districts in Central Java to take advantage of high coffee prices. They had settled alongside abandoned logging trails in the Park’s southern peninsular. An Indonesian navy-owned logging company had carved a logging road network of >1000 km between 1970 and 1978 in BBSNP before the status of this reserve was upgraded to a national park in 1982. Gaveu et. al. 2009 with UNESCO and CEPF fund supports conducted a study to understand how law enforcement can mitigate habitat loss due to small-holder coffee growing in BBSNP by comparing 34 years of empirical data on deforestation rates and coffee prices across a zone of high law enforcement and a zone of low law enforcement using satellite imagery, ecological data, interviews, and GIS modeling. The result of the study suggests that law enforcement is necessary to safeguard the integrity of BBSNP from migrant farmers, and subsequently enabled extensive forest re-growth, which instead of forest clearance for growing coffee (Figure 3.4). 54 Figure 3.4. Correlation between law enforcement and encroachment in BBSNP (Suyadi, 2008) The effects of law enforcement in BBSNP have waned since the fall of former President Suharto in 1998 and the implementation of regional autonomy in 2000. Since 1998, NP budgets have been reduced and thus patrols declined. Meanwhile, the newly democratically elected local and national Indonesian governments have deemed evictions from PAs to be morally unjust. Even with the implementation of regional autonomy in 2000, local governments have shown little interest in biodiversity conservation because national parks fall under the jurisdiction of the national government and provide few economic returns locally, which weaken the collaboration between BBSNP staff and local authorities. In this context, illegal coffee farmers have become more defiant, and some have taken advantage of recent political changes to return to sites from which they were evicted. As a result, boundary conflicts between farmers and BBSNP authorities have increased see Table 3.9. and Box 3.3. Furthermore, most rangers live locally with their families, so any forceful intervention inside BBSNP is liable to retaliation. Without support from local authorities, rangers are reluctant to jeopardize their family’s welfare in return for a low salary. Therefore, BBSNP’s once strong law enforcement regime of the early 1980s has been weakened by the changing economic and political circumstances. 55 Table 3.9. Encroachment history and anti-encroachment measures (Levang et.al, 2012) Encroachment sites Encroachment history and anti-encroachment measures Sidorejo Soon after the Suharto regime started to weaken in 1998, rumours about a new transmigration project in Sidorejo were propagated throughout Lampung and as far as Java. By the end of 1998, the first migrants who had paid off their registration fees to the local head of village were allotted 2 ha of forest per household. Allotment maps were produced by a special team directed by the village head. In 1999 and 2000, a hundred families moved to the encroachment. At the same time, a local logging companybelonging to a well connected politician opened an access road and started operating in the area. In 2001, the logging company was tried for illegal logging and its manager sentenced to prison. Neither the owners of the company nor the head of the village were prosecuted. Following the trial, many migrants took fright and left the encroachment. Some never came back, while others waited for the tension to subside before returning. Between 2001 and 2003, only very few squatters entered the encroachment. During the 2004 campaign for the election of the head of the district, the protection of the squatters against eviction was among the main promises of the major candidates (among whom was the owner of the already mentioned logging company). As a direct result of the election, in 2005 the number of squatters increased again. Rata Agung The village of Rata Agung started to attract settlers from 1983 onwards, once the road from Krui to Bengkulu was opened. As much forest was still available outside the Park, encroachments remained very limited. With the surfacing of the road in 1993, the site became more attractive and the number of settlers inside the Park increased steadily. In 1996, the Park rangers decided to evict all squatters from the Rata Agung encroachment. One month before the raid, the Park office had been leaking information and the squatters were able to move their shacks to the Park border. In 1997/98, the monetary crisis resulted in more households joining the encroachment. In 1999, a member of the village elite in Rata Agung managed to obtain a logging permit for a location outside the Park, where the last tree had been felled long ago. For two years, logging operations went on inside the Park (with alleged backing by some Park officers), and the number of squatters increased considerably. In 2001, the operations were stopped, the rangers involved were transferred, and the village elite were sued. This attempt on law enforcement had an immediate effect on the reduction in the number of squatters. But in 2002, the village elite were released of all charges (through an unofficial ‘outside court’ settlement) and thus won additional renown. From then on, the number of squatters increased regularly. 56 Encroachment sites Encroachment history and anti-encroachment measures Suoh This village is located outside the Park but close to its border. In the early 1980s, a local entrepreneur engaged about 30 Javanese workers to build a road from Suoh to Bumi Hantatai. At the end of the project, rather than releasing his employees he switched to illegal logging activities, and the workers opened clearings inside the Park. The manager was soon arrested and sentenced to one year imprisonment. The workers moved their residence outside the Park but continued to farm their plots located inside the Park. In 1994, a member of the local elite running as a candidate for mayor claimed the major encroachments around the village as being customary forests. Thus, he gained the support of all squatters living in the vicinity. Once elected, he took advantage of the presence of the numerous squatters to obtain more subsidies from the district and imposed land taxes even on plots inside the Park. Way Nipah In 1968, the Indonesian Navy started to run a logging concession in the area. Clear-cutting affected areas both inside and outside the Park. Squatters soon followed, taking advantage of forest tracks and previously cleared areas. The number of squatters increased dramatically in 1986 when the squatters of Talang Kejadian and Talang Canguk, two encroachments located well inside the Park, were driven off by the Park rangers. Subsequently, around 3,000 people resettled in Pematang Sawah, close to the Park’s border Box 3.3. Repressive measures to control encroachments in BBSNP in 201328 a. Pedamaran, Talang Kelampaian and Karang Berak-Tirom located in Siring Tanggamus district, and Siring Gading (Way Haru) located in Pesisir Barat district are the targets of an operation involving 400 personnels of BBSNP, Lampung’s Police, Tanggamus’s Police, Army, Private Sectors, Local Government, and NGO’s. The results of the operation include: Demolition of 25 hut units, exotic plants eradication about 141.5 Ha, also planting as much as local plants such as kongki, cempaka, pulai, medang. b. An operation in Sukabumi, involved 100 personnel of BBSNP, West Lampung’s Police, Local Government, Army. The result of the operation: 79.5 ha area of encroachment has been secured. c. An operation in Serdang, involved 100 personnel of BBSNP, West Lampung’s Police, Local Government, Army. The results of the operation: 51.5 ha area of encroachment has been secured and the team managed to demolish 20 hut units. d. An operation in Pancurmas, involved 100 people of BBSNP, West Lampung’s Police, Local Government, and YABI - RPU. The operation found 16 families and briefed them, and then they left the land. About 82 ha area of encroachment has been secured. e. An operation in Duku Island in Kaur Bengkulu district, involved relevant parties with total personnel of 100 people. The team managed to demolish 68 huts, with details of 22 huts in Talang Air Durian, 21 huts in the Talang Kapak Seratus and 25 huts in the 28 WHP, 2014 57 Talang Cikabuan. The team also found encroachers as many as 20 families. The encroachers then made a statement to leave the area of arable land in BBSNP for good, never returned and unpacked each hut. f. An opertation in Ujan Mas in Kaur Bengkulu district, involved relevant parties with total personnel of 100 people. The team evicted 16 families without any resistance. They also demolished 15 huts and 1 bridge which was used for access. g. An operation in Bukit Makmur in Kaur Bengkulu district, involved relevant parties with total personnel of 100 people. The team evicted about 25 families without any resistance. They also demolished 19 huts, with the details: 9 huts in Talang Air Mantai and 10 huts in Talang Simpang Lima. h. An operation in Bangun Bersama in Merpas - Kaur Bengkulu district, involved relevant parties with total personnel of 100 people. The team evicted 39 families from Desa Batu Lungun village. The team also destroyed 15 huts and 1 bridge which is used for accessibility A major weakness of underpinning conservation success on strong law enforcement is that any sudden major political or economic disruption can negate long years of investment made for conservation. Other alternatives to law enforcement inside PAs are necessary for reducing deforestation. An estimated 735 million people live near remote tropical forests because of agricultural land due to an increasingly scarce resource which remains abundant in the forests. In the absence of tangible benefits of conserving tropical forests, farmers seek to maximize profits by clearing protected forests for cash crops. Gaveu et.al (2006) showed that the performance of the BBSNP in conserving forest habitats has achieved mixed results. On the one hand, the BBSNP performed better than its neighbouring landscape. It halted the development of large-‐scale logging mechanism and to some extent promoted forest re-‐growth. On the other hand, it failed to slow down agricultural encroachments. Certification of origin for sustainable Robusta coffee has been proposed as a suitable way to increase farmers’ income and reduce deforestation inside PAs. WWF has recently urged major coffee buyers and roasters to adopt certification of origin around BBSNP (WWF, 2007). An important criterion for defining sustainability is that coffee should not be grown inside PAs. However, enforcing this criterion in practice is difficult because coffee buyers and roasters are reluctant to bear the costs of Robusta coffee certification (Sanderson, 2005). Low premium price paid to coffee farmers for sustainable Robusta coffee would not discourage farmers from following growing practices within protected areas. Premium prices may encourage fraud within the coffee trade, given the difficulty in differentiating between coffee beans grown outside or inside the park (WWF, 2007). Community forestry inside PAs combined with law enforcement may under the right circumstances assist rural communities in the preparation of long-term plans for agricultural intensification, certification programs, non farming employment and higher education levels. 3.6.5. Maintaining healthy tiger populations at landscape level Wildlife Response Unit (WRU), consisting of BBSNP staff, local communities and WCS-IP technical staff was set up with an aim to monitor and provide a rapid response to threats and human-wildlife conflicts in and adjacent to the BBSNP. As top predators, the Sumatran tigers play a crucial role in the ecology of the BBSNP and its surrounding landscape. Their 58 absence will increase their prey population disproportionately affecting the functioning of forest ecosystems. The project also supported a number of wildlife crime investigations in collaboration with law enforcement agencies to track tiger and wildlife traders in the BBS landscape. The first prosecution for tiger possession took place in Indonesia during this project, following the seizure of four living Sumatran tigers. Impact: The project has been useful for maintaining the integrity of NP boundary. Together with NP, WWF, RPU and the Police, they have evicted illegal coffee planters in 9,689 ha of NP land in the West Lampung District. Lessons learned: The routine monitoring of NP boundary is an effective measure to control early stage encroachment, before developing into more severe state. The important role of WRU is to mitigate tiger-human conflicts and maintain the integrity of tiger habitats or controlling habitat loss due to agricultural activities. 3.6.6. Community Based Forest Restoration at Way Nipah Resort The activity was initiated by UNESCO in collaboration with Operasi Wallacea Terpadu (OWT). The restoration site is located in Padamaran Village, Resort Way Nipah, Sukaraja, BPTN Semaka. The squatters are dominated by Javanese tribe. Joint coercive operation, involving the police and army, was conducted in November 2013 to evict squatters out of Padamaran forest area and eradicate the exotic species planted by farmers. OWT, a Bogor based national NGO, was invited by UNESCO to facilitate the community based restoration in Padamaran in which the encroached areas are located near the settlements areas of the former squatters. Main approaches taken by OWT are the following: (a) Putting local communities as the key actors for restoration, from germ-plasm selection and procurement, development of tree nursery, planting campaign and maintenance of the planted trees; (b) Delivering intensive learning-by-doing training to local communities, which includes generative and vegetative propagation and organic fertilizer development; (c) Providing intensive step by step facilitation and technical assistance throughout restoration. OWT key staff who are in charge in this program have lived in the restoration site; (d) Providing intensive awareness campaign through social and technical approaches by screening mobile awareness film; (e) Conducting intensive coordination with NP management. Impacts: (a) Local communities have strong ownership to the nursery as they are involved since the beginning. While the planting campaigns have not been conducted, but it is believed that they are willing to take care of the planted trees; (b) Reconciliation of conflicts between communities and NPs, as both parties are currently teaming up to restore encroached areas; (c) Squatters have strong capacity on vegetative and generative propagations which will be a good capital to develop sustainable livelihoods. Lessons Learned: (a) Providing Squatters with on-site and intensive facilitation and technical assistances has proven to enhance respect of local communities toward NP regulations; (b) NGO or facilitators working for community development should live in the project site. Their presence should not only be one day based activity. Having a presence in the communities and intensive transfer of knowledge, also is also a good strategy to gain fully-hearted local supports, ensuring long-terms impacts of the restoration. 59 3.7. Concluding Remarks Squatters can be cathegorized into five types based on their nature: indigenous landless, local migrant, Javanese immigrant, Poor landless migrant and sly opportunist. The underlying causes of encroachment are: (a) The government designated the three NPs in an area already settled by indigenous and partly Javanese immigrants who had arrived in several migration waves since 1905; (b) Javanese and local migrants continued to move into the area even after the NP was created; (c) There is an still unclear pattern of to how much communities are involved in the management of NPs: (d) The widespread of district partition during decentralization era has led to jurisdictional overlap between several district areas and conservation areas; (e) The management of NPs has failed to demonstrate real economic contribution on nature preservation that supports community livelihoods or enhances gross domestic product of the district; (f) The local government has recognized, legalized and strengthened the presence of villages and communities within NP boundaries; (g) National and local government authorities, private companies operating in the area and community members are pursuing development goals through building roads, markets, schools and office complexes, providing electricity and telecommunications, mining and converting forests to plantation areas; (h) The NP agency lacks the capacity and authority to enforce and implement its mandate and lacks support from the local government. The management of NP has responded to the encroachment problem through: (a) Preventive measures: Inclusion of regular patrols by forest rangers, public extension on forestry regulation, community development through village conservation model etc.; (b) Repressive measures: Periodic joint operations by the forest rangers together with the national police and army, (c) Judiciary process: from the arrest and prosecution of violators until final conviction; (d) Special operation to protect the forests, and flora and fauna diversity from external non-natural disturbances, such as conducting patrols in fire prone areas, especially areas close to human activities; (e) Ecosystem restoration: Forest areas restoration (usually conducted after coersive activities and other non-natural disturbances) through accelerated ecological succession, supported with intensive monitoring and maintenance. The limited success of law enforcement on encroachment issue is rooted to internal and external factors. Internal factors are composed of: (a) Limited presence of NP rangers in the field; (b) Several NP staffs are involved (directly or indirectly) in illegal activities; (c) Varied supports from NP Heads which are much dependent on personal basis rather than the system and long-term program; (d) Unclear boundary marking. Some are displaced by outsiders; (e) Limited coordination with law apparatus; (f) Limited monitoring of PHKA. While external factors include: (a) Illegal activities conducted by organized groups which own unlimited resources; (b) Illegal activities often backed up by strong politicians or military; (c) High pressing demand on land for cash crops (oil palm, rubber, coffee, cinnamon) and mining; (d) Limited or inconsistent law apparatus support. As an implication of both factors, law enforcement has limited success in putting the masterminds or cukong in custody. As a result, law enforcement has not functioned as an effective deterrent. By learning various anti-encroachment measures during 1990–2014, key supporting factors for success and underlying causes of failures can be summarized in in Table 3.9, while key supporting factors for success and underlined causes of failures are summarized in Table 3.10. 60 Table 3.10. Summary of anti-encroachment initiatives and key lessons learned in TRHS (1990 – 2014) No. Project/activities Funding, Year Implementator Gunung Leuser National Park Key lessons learned 1. The Leuser Development Programme GLNP effforts to overcome encroachment in Besitang EC/1995-2004 LIF/LMU APBN, 2005 – to date GLNP Integrated landscape management approach (from GLNP to Leuser Ecosystem) Big resources are required to control chronic encroachment. 3. Restoration at Sei Serdang, Cinta Raja Resort, Langkat District UNESCO, 2009 – 2013 GLNP 4. Community based restoration at Sei Betung Resort UNESCO, 2010 2012 YOSL-OIC KETAPEL 5. Community Based Ecotourism Program in Tangkahan APBN, UNESCO, 2001 – to date GLNP LPT Indecon YOSL-OIC 6. The Kerinci ICDP World Bank, 1997 - 2002 7. KSNP efforts to contol encroachment in Sipurak Hook 2. - and Coercive evictions were not the right solution The ground presence of NP staff is the key success of the restoration, while the restored areas has effectively protect the surrounding Park areas from encroachment The involvement of local community is the key the success of the restoration The powerful of community based ecotourism organization (LPT) and Village Regulations to change local community attitudes and livelihoods from illegal logging to ecotourism Kerinci Seblat National park 8. Collaborative management forest communities 9. 10. Seblat APBN, 2010 KSNP, Four Provinces governments, MoF (PHPA & PH), BAPPENAS, MoHA (BANGDA),WWF, WARSI KSNP, SPORC, Merangin District UNESCO, 2008 2012 FFI, LTB Kerinci Seblat Tiger Protection and Conservation FFI, 2008 - 2012 KSNP, FFI Pilot project to stop IUCN-NL, 2007 - LTA forest in the edge The project design was too ambitious and took too long for the preparation while the implementation time was too short; complex institutional arrangements with lack of coordination during project implementation Inclusion of forest having high population pressures (coffee farmers) into NP areas would call NP management problems. Coercive evictions was not the right solution Strengthening the access of local community to forest area (production and protection forest) surrounding NP is important toward the protection of NP areas. The awareness of local community on the value of NP is the key for NP conservation efforts. Collaboration between the three 61 encroachment at village level in Kerinci District 2009 stakeholders, i.e. District Government, legislature and NP are keys to control encroachment. Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 11. CANOPI UNF, CEPF,20042008 12. Rhino Protection Unit (RPU) IRF, WWF, 2002 – to date BBSNP efforts to control encroachment APBN, 19831997; 1998 – to date 13 14. 15. Maintaining healthy tiger populations at landscape level Community Based Forest Restoration at Resort Way Nipah BBSNP, WCS-IP, Watala, Pratala, Yasadhana, Alas Indonesia, Garsi etc. YABI NGOs consortium might be effective to attract funding, but the implementation are often hampered by internal conflicts within the consortium. Intensive patrols is the key to control encroachment BBSNP Law enforcement is necessary to safeguard the integrity of BBSNP from migrant farmers. WCS-IP, 2006 2000- WRU UNESCO, 2015 2014- OWT The magnitude of encroachment areas are highly correlated with law enforcement efforts Routine monitoring of NP boundary is the key to control encroachment Intensive technical assistances and awareneess campaigns supported with alternative income generating activity are keys to gain fully-hearted supports of the former squatters to maintain the restored areas. Table 3.11. Anti-encroachment initiatives (1990-2014): supporting factors of success stories and underlined causes of failures. Anti-encroachment measures Success Failures Conservation governance Supporting factors: For consortium project such as ICDP and CANOPI, (a) the existence of lead organization having strong leadership is a must; (b) The high spirit of NP toward good governance and involvement of key stakeholders at national and regional level. Underlying causes: (a) Lack of leadership led to conflicting actions which waste precious resources; (b) Half-hearted involvement of key NP stakeholders and poor governance of NP management Law enforcement (LE) Supporting factors: Learning from LE in BBSNP (1985-1997): (a) LE was targeted to the masterminds behind illegal activities; (b) LE was supported by intelligence operation which could identify target since its early stage; (c) Quick responses to any encroachment problem, and not delay until the problem escalates and becomes complicated; (d) LE was supported with Underlying causes: Learning from LE measures after reformation: (a) LE was frequently targeted to small-scale infringements; (b) Slow response of NP management, LE were mostly conducted after the encroachment problems escalated and got complicated; (c) LE through coercive 62 Anti-encroachment measures Success adequate resources; (e) confident of law apparatus. Village Conservation Agreement Village Conservation Grant (VGC) Ecosystem restoration Failures Strong Supporting factors: Learning from Tangkahan community based ecotourism development: (a) Villagers should feel an urgent need of VCA (awareness rising is necessary prior VCA formulation facilitation), (b) The villages have strong social capital; (c) The villages have high potential natural resource to be protected and sustainably utilized; (d) Intensive facilitation before and after VCA implementation; (e) The VCA should have high linkage with key conservation objectives. measures often failed as the planned operation had been known by the transgressors; (d) Lack of confidence from law apparatus side, as the squatters were back up by human right groups and lack of supports from NP stakeholders. Underlying causes: From the case of ICDP Kerinci: (a) Villagers have not yet fully realized the urgency of VCA, as the initiatives were much driven by external agents, (b) Limited facilitation during and after VCA formulation, and limited efforts to link it with key conservation objectives; (c) Uninstitutionalized sanctions for violators. Supporting factors: Learning from Underlying causes: Learning ICDP LDP and Tangkahan case: (a) from ICDP Kerinci: (a) Blanket VGC is delivered to villages depending assumptions on local community upon their needs and requests; (b) VGC needs and amount of the grants; should have high linkage with (b) Improper selection of village conservation goals, (c) Proper selection beneficiaries; (c) Lack of of beneficiaries, (d) intensive facilitation and technical facilitation and technical assistances on assistances on VCG proposal and VCG spending. associated spending. Supporting factors: Learning from UNESCO restoration program in TRHS: (a) ER was conducted together with local community from nursery development, planting, maintenance of planted trees and securing of the NP boundary from encroachment; (b) The presence of NP staff and ER facilitators on restoration sites; (c) Capacity building for local communities on ecosystem restoration including the development of sustainable livelihoods; (d) Intensive and continuous facilitation and technical assistance of local community; (e) Involving the role of NGO having long experience on ecosystem restoration. Underlying causes: Learning from NP-TNI (army) restoration projects: (a) Treated ER as a usual reforestation project; (b) Limited involvement of local communities, as most seedlings were bought from outside of the villages; (c) Limited capacity building for local community leading to limited ownership over the restored areas. 63 Anti-encroachment measures Success Failures Ecotourism development Supporting factors: Learning from Tangkahan community based ecotourism: (a) The establishment of well-legitimated and accepted local organization; (b) Willingness of NP to delegate its management authority to local legitimated organization; (c) Clear benefit sharing mechanism. Underlying causes: Most of ecotourism are directly managed by NP authority with little or insufficient involvement of local communities. 64 Chapter 4: Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations 4.1. Overcoming Conservation Deadlock Despite substantial international and national fundings put in place to protect TRHS, the rates of deforestation, followed by encroachment, show little sign of abatement suggesting that preceding efforts have had limited success. TRHS deforestation tends to be driven by high population putting pressure on the surroundings of the Park leading to the expansion of agricultural frontiers, such as oil palm, rubber, coffee and cinnamon, and also expansion related to accessibility, such as forest proximity to roads and elevation. As a consequence, TRHS’s lowland forests, which host the highest levels of biodiversity and carbon storage, are highly threatened because they contain high quality timber that loggers are after and are prone to conversion for agricultural development. Table 4.1. Government authorities to address the underlying causes of NP encroachment No Underlying causes 1. The creation of NP has displaced indigenous and migrants living space Migrants moving to the surroundings of NPs Unclear patterns of community involvement in the management of NP District partition NPs fail to demonstrate economic contribution Local government legalized villages within NP boundaries High development pressure surrounding NP Lack of NP governance capacity 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. NP and government authorities NP Centre Province District X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Taking into consideration the underlying causes of encroachment as discussed in Chapter 3, they can be mapped against relevant management authorities as seen in Table 4.1. This is done to understand why NP management failed to control the encroachment problem, as much of the underlying causes laid beyond their management access and capacity. It is clear that encroachment can not be solved solely by the management of NP. Strong supports and commitments are needed from relevant agencies at the regional and national level. There is also no single approach and solutions to control encroachment and other forest crimes. As stated by Wiratno (2010), ‘no single step can overcome the deadlock. What is needed is a series of integrated, coordinated and complementary actions’. However, the key role remains on the management of NP itself which should serve as a stimulator and facilitator to navigate the running support system to the right direction. In this context, the framework of cluster World Heritage status play an important role as a tool and instrument to help NP gather local, national, and international stakeholders in the attempt to solve the problems threatening the World Heritage site. Having learned from the existing best practices discussed in Chapter 3, list of recommendations are discussed and addressed to NP, key partners and stakeholders. The strategies, actions plan, performance indicators and key stakeholders are presented in Table 4.6. 65 4.2. Recommendations: Towards new paradigms 4.2.1. Strengthen Conservation Governance 4.2.1.1. Building stronger collaboration with stakeholders at the regional and national level NPs management authority lies on the Central Government, which led to a general misconception among NPs or local governments. The latter often feel that NPs management are clearly beyond their responsibilities, while NPs management, realizing that they are independent, often overlook the roles of the District government as an important stakeholder at the regional level. The NPs management do not oblige to involve local government participation on the planning, monitoring and evaluation. By omitting the roles of local governments, NPs management becomes exclusive; a kingdom within a kingdom. As a result, local governments do not take care of NPs problems. They even respect squatters by providing grants, schools and other public facilities and acknowledge the encroached areas as villages. On the other hand the impacts of district partitions and development during reformation era have raised high land demand for infrastructure development, settlement areas and agriculture lands. Due to the poor vision in valuing nature, they often percieve that the existence of NP has hampered regional development. They often complain that the major part of their district are composed of NP areas which are beyond their power access and control. To speed up regional economic development, district governments stimulate large scale investment on natural resources utilization leading to pressing demands on releasing state forest status into APL. Taking that into consideration, the management of NPs should not be isolated from the dynamics of development beyond the NPs boundary. This is not only the case for governance, but also for law enforcement and management issues. NPs stakeholders are spread out from local, regional to national level. Based on the analysis presented in Table 4.2, most of the stakeholders have the opportunity to give negative impacts to the existing governance and management of NPs. The management of NPs are strongly dependent with many partners and stakeholders, while most of them are likely to give uncomfortable feedback. It requires extra ordinary efforts to turn this condition around. Such efforts has been well realized and addressed by ICDP. Much of ICDP strategies focused on improving conservation governance through better coordination among various stakeholders to resolve conflicting plans of different agencies, including central and provincial governments, private sector, NGOs, and villagers, as well as donor agencies and international stakeholders in which efforts are aligned with IUCN paradigm shift in PA management, as seen in Table 4.1. In fact, road and transmigration projects, mining operations, large plantation development programs become the most serious threats to TRHS, which do not happen on an impulse. They are discussed and planned by the local and provincial governments. 66 Table 4.2. The power and existing roles of NP’s key partners/stakeholders29 Roles Governance Law Enforcement Impacts Level NP partners/ Stakeholders Power30 International +++ Central Province32 District Sub-district +++ +++ ++ + Village ++ Supreme Court +++ X X Attorney General High Court +++ +++ X X X X High Administrative Court (PTTUN) High Prosecutors +++ X X + X - Neutral =31 Political supports X X X X X X X X ++ X +++ X KPK +++ X X X and funding Little interest in biodiversity conservation because national parks fall under the jurisdiction of the national government and provide few economic returns locally High population pressure, unequal distribution of available agricultural lands, powerful economic interests Weak penalties, due to weakness in the criminal justice system, resulting insufficient punishment to deter criminal behaviour Anti encroachment Task Force PPATK/INTRAC Social NGOs Remarks Lack of cooperation (and supports) amongst law enforcement agencies Complexities of defining and monitoring suspicious financial transactions and linking them to forest crime offences Under-resourced, and face case loads that greatly ex ceed their financial and human capacity to cope efficiently. Supporting squattters againts eviction. 29 Stakeholders are defined here as those who have rights or interests in a system. It can be communities, social groups, governments or organizations who can affect, or are affected by the achievement of the NP park goals. 30 Stakeholder power can be understood as the extent to which stakeholders are able to persuade or coerce others into making decisions and following certain courses of action. 31 So far has limited contribution 32 Law No 23/2014 on Regional Governance set regional autonomy at Province level. 67 Conservation NGOs ++ X BKSDA ++ X District Court +++ X X Lack of integrity, accountability, independence and impartiality leading to unfair application of the law National Police +++ X X National Army +++ X X Lack of capacity to administer and enforce the law; Poor dispute resolution, which can lead to unofficial ‘outside court’ settlement Private sector (plantation and mining) +++ X Land grabbing of large scale agro-commodity business Politicians +++ X Protection of the squatters against eviction Media ++ X Good partner to promote NP activities, management performance and achievements Conservation NGOs ++ X Scientific community ++ X Good partners for biodiversity data collection, tracking management effectiveness, community development, conservation campaigns and forest crime detection Migrant community + X Indigenous community ++ X Key partner governance good Key partner to implement strategic plan to control forest crime activities Administrative Court (PTUN) Public Prosecutors Management for Land hungers Conservation of global biodiversity requires strong and resilient institutions. Head of NPs and the supporting key staff should have strong communication and networking capacity to promote the pivotal roles of TRHS as life supporting system of economic development. NP should have the capacity to build an integrated multi-scalar conservation governance networks, a heterogeneous network of agents representing communities, governments, international and local NGOs, multilateral organisations, and academia all working together 68 to negotiate consensus to reach common goals. This requires a paradigm shift from management by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry or park agency alone to collaborative and adaptive management by stakeholder groups, from managing a national park as an isolated unit to managing it as part of the overall region, including geographical, political, economic and social integration on the basis on good forest governance principles such as transparency, accountability, status of rights and responsibilities, democratization, participation, equity and equality of power (Mayers and Vermuelen 2005). Therefore, NPs Head ideally should have a strong leadership, high integrity and respected figure. He/she should be active in the broader governance issues, including inter-agency cooperation for more effective conflict-resolution and law enforcement. NPs management must be solid and able to demonstrate effective management system. They are able to manage diverse organization network in policy making. As the term suggest that ‘NP management’ should work to manage the Park and not only administer the government fund allocated to the Park. They should be able to leverage fund by utilizing potential resources in sustainable manner. The strict regulation of Centre government (MoEF/PHKA) should be adjusted to give innovative space for NP management, including well-planned tour of duty and transparent leadership performance evaluation. 4.2.1.2. Strengthen security patrol and ground presence of NP staff The m underlying cause behind forest encroachment problems is the lack of presence of the field staff on site. NP officials often visit the hotspots only after receiving reports, where in most cases, problems have become difficult to control. The encroachment may not be as severe as now if many NP field staffs conducted their field tasks properly. They spent much of working time in the field. This is what is called by Wiratno (2012) as resort based management (RBM), which is indeed the key to control encroachment. If RBM programs are successfully implemented, TRHS will save resources for repressive measures to curb encroachment, illegal logging and forest fire. Thus, the resources can be spent to manage and restore NP ecosystem (Wiratno,2012). This approach has been successfully implemented in Java and should be replicable in TRHS. It is in consideration that TRHS situation is different with the general conditions in Java. In Java, one resort manages 10,000 – 12,000 ha, while in GLNP for instance, one resort manages 50,000 – 100,000 ha or 5 to 10 times bigger and more problematic. In Java, one forest ranger controls 5,000 – 10,000 ha, while in Sumatra s/he can cover up to 30,000 ha. Lack of human resource, facility and infrastructure has become the scapegoat of bad forest management. The presence of NP staff in the field will be able to control encroachment since at initial stage. Park Rangers regular patrol will discourage newcomers from entering the Park. The routine patrol can be conducted more frequent, from 4 days to 15 days a month. If RBM Team find encroachment case, they can directly processed and report to NP section office. Spending most of working time in the field will enable staff to build intensive communication and collaborative work with village champions. They should become NP management’s communicators and at the same time community empowerment facilitators. The recruitment of young and energetic field staff either as Forest Ranger or Habitat Improvement Specialist (PEH) having strong knowledge and skills on community development are urgently in high demand. In fact, the existing field staff (Resort Head) are dominated by older generations, whom mostly recruited in the end of 1970s. Most young and educated staff (university graduate, 69 BSc holders) is reluctant to work in the field. To overcome this, PHKA needs to develop a merit system to stimulate young educated staff to work in the field. This could be partly conducted by improving the existing career plans. For instance all young educated staff should be posted in the field for certain years before being promoted to higher rank, better renumeration for field staf, bringing most of the NP resources (budget) for field activities etc. As noted by Wiratno (Wiratno, 2012), RBM program is not simply implemented by building new resort office or moving staff into the field. This program should be followed by improvement in communication and working relationships, improved capacity building for staff, building intensive communication resort-section-head park office, improved social communication with local community and NP stakeholders and more importantly prioritizing investment for backing field activities. Establishment of base-line data at field level will be the first step towards building strong RBM. The collected data will be used as a basis to design the strategy of ranger patrols, which should focus on the most vulnerable NP areas, i.e. forest located at lower elevation and close to roads, rather than just in fewer larger forest patches. This is particularly important for TRHS having large areas often with limited financial resources. Controlling encroachment may involve various actions, but the most important and possibly the cheapest one is patrolling the existing NPs areas to prevent illegal logging and encroachment, or respond to them before they escalate. Understanding that all Park areas fall under administrative unit (village, sub-distirct and district) and the vast areas of the Park, it will be doable/manageable if the RBM implementation strongly collaborates with local forestry district. This is also the case when the concept of KPHK (Conservation Forest Management Unit) will be implemented in the near future (Wahjudi Wardojo, pers..comm, 2015). 4.2.1.3. Strengthen Village Conservation Governance: Linking Village development to Conservation The newly enacted Law No. 6/2014 on villages has provided a new perspective on village natural resource management. The law provides more room and stronger positions for village governments in managing their natural resources. The vision behind the legislation is to establish villages that are strong, developed, independent and democratic — the key to enabling the welfare of a community. Villages are not the sub-system of district/town governments but rather a unitary state of Indonesia. Village government is a self-governing community, like a “small state”, which has clear boundaries of jurisdiction, authority, community and natural resources. This manifest in two (out of 14) village governance principles: recognition and subsidiary. Recognition principle means that the government acknowledges village-specific governance, which is rooted in their origin, history or indigenous traditions. This contradicts past practices, in which the government nationalized diverse indigenous village governance systems33. Subsidiary principle means that villages hold full authority to define their own development direction, including the human capital needed to execute the development. Thus, all development activities that can be handled by the villages should not be tackled by the government. Support from the government, if any, 33 The previous village governance law (No. 5/1974) generalized village governance system where the government did not acknowledge the legitimacy of customary governance systems. At the village level, these two structures stand in rivalry with each others ever since, causing confusion and the weakening of traditional (indigenous) governance system. 70 should be in line with the village development plan. Villages will become the subject of development, rather than the object. The promulgation of new Village Law should be considered as a golden opportunity for better sustainable natural resource management at the grass root level. Considering its importance, the role of the NPs, NGOs and other stakeholders are required to mainstream natural resource management. Weak relationship between districts and province agencies and Village management should be treated as a golden entry-point for NP to drive the management of village natural resources for the benefit of NP area integrity (Purwanto, 2014b). Realizing that all NP land is under villages administration, the big hands of NPs and supporting NGOs are called for, especially to support and facilitate villages in developing Green Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Desa/RPJM or Green mid-term village development planning, to ensure that the big village fund (as villages will receive a much bigger share of the national budget) will be spent on the right direction which are aligned with NP conservation goals. Efforts are also needed to capacitate village government accountability to administer village funds. Considering the limited NP resources, NP management and partners could select the key villages which have most strategic position as a buffer of NP area. 4.2.1.4. Enforced Agrarian Reform and Constitutional Court Ruling No.35/2012 Agrarian reform is an alternative solution to address encroachment in PA. In practice, the agrarian reform can be implemented through two approaches, i.e. access reform and land distribution. So far, GoI has touched the first stage, i.e. access reform, this is the case for social forestry scheme which are implemented in production and protection forest. Land distribution is strongly demanded by smallholder farmers. The target of land distribution is abandoned lands that controlled by private sectors and big capital owners. At the same time, policy on ownership and tenure restrictions must be enforced align with Law No. 56 of 1966. Agrarian reform should be strongly supported by improved demography administration. The demography administration and migration policies should be integrated at the national level. Related to Adat communities, Constitutional Court Ruling No. 35/201234 can assist in solving forestry related conflicts by acknowledging adat communities’ place and existence to protect adat rights. So far, there has been no attempt by the government to implement this decision. Instead, the Minister of Forestry issued a letter SE 1/Menhut-II/2013 on Constitutional Court’s Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012 addressed to the Governor, the Regent/Mayor and Chief of Forestry services throughout Indonesia, which confirmed that customary forests will be determined by the Ministry of Forestry. In order to do this, the Ministry of Forestry requires local governments to set up regulations to identify customary forests. The Ministry of Forestry has been appointed coordinator of the bill preparation process on Recognition and Protection the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (RUU Pengakuan dan Perlindungan Masyarakat Hukum Adat/PMHA). There has not yet been significant progress toward the issuances of regional regulations to follow up the court as the interest of the central and regional government are similar, 34 On 16 May, 2013, the Indonesian Constitutional Court issued a decision on the Judicial Review which was delivered by the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN) and two Indigenous Communities against Law 41/1999 on Forestry. In decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012, the Constitutional Court confirmed that Customary Forests are forests located in Indigenous territories, and should no longer be considered as State Forests. It has been few months since the Constitutional Court's decision. 71 arranging permits of large-scale business rather than managing land tenure for indigenous Peoples (DKN, 2014). Thus, justice for Indigenous Peoples is continuously ignored by the State and this in turn causes of rampant encroachment in the PA. GoI should immediately implement the Constitutional Court’s ruling No. 35/PUU-X/2012 at both the national and the local level. It is also demanded that the newly established House of Representatives (20142018) to adopt the Bill on Recognition and Protection the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The actions could refer the outcomes and recommendation of National workshop organized by UNORCID, see Box 4.1. Box 4.1. Key outcomes and recommendation of National Workshop on the Forestry Law: Constitutional Court Ruling No.35/PUU-X/2012, 29-30 August 2013, Jakarta, Indonesia, Organized by UNORCID Appoint/designate a body, agency, or ministry, perceived as trusted and neutral, to be explicitly tasked with consolidating and overseeing the implementation process of Ruling (a) No. 35/2012. Relevant ministries, agencies, and implementing bodies should report back to this central body or authority regularly. Harmonise and synchronise regulations on defining and recognising masyarakat hukum adat (1) Definitional clarity on who qualifies as masyarakat hukum adat would be greatly aided by the acceleration of the settlement of the draft bill regarding the recognition and protection of masyarakat hukum adat (RUU Pengakuan dan Perlindungan Masyarakat hukum adat, aka RUU PMHA). (2) Diversity in local contexts and solutions can be accommodated through existing mechanisms that support decentralisation and continuing attempts to strengthen the capacity of provincial and local governments so that they can structure participatory processes to inventory and register masyarakat hukum adat. (3) Principles and procedures for defining who constitutes masyarakat hukum adat need to (b) be consolidated on the national level with input from relevant existing regulation and processes at sub-national level. Clear guidance for provincial and local level identification and registration of hutan adat needs to be formulated. Existing standards for codification within ministerial and other regulations should be reviewed and clarification provided in cases of contradiction. (4) Processes for mapping hutan adat need to be outlined, and existing maps need to be consolidated, reviewed, and accepted by relevant government bodies, particularly the National Land Agency (BPN). (5) Relevant national and international experiences in balancing cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity in democratic governance and natural resource management should be consolidated and shared, particularly between sub national contexts. Emphasise sub national capacity building to ensure the micro-level balance of the 7% growth 41% emissions reduction equation. The on-going national conversation about the definition of equity, and regarding attempts to accommodate different realisations of (c) development, must be oriented t owards the goal of implementation and continued improvement in basic services delivery, rights realisation, and access to economic opportunity. Implementation of the verdict should be instituted in a participatory manner, reflecting the (d) principles of inclusion, empowerment, and engagement, and in a manner where the means is part and parcel of the achievement of the ends. In response to frequent agrarian (tenurial) conflict with indigenous community, the MoEF has recently formed a cases complaint team to response and settle complaints of local community/indigenous people to state forest land. This team involves NGOs (HuMa, Walhi, AMAN, Sajogyo Institute, Ecosoc, Epistema Institute, Green Peace Indonesia etc.) which act as a directing team. 72 October 17, 2014, a joint decree of four ministers was enacted, Ministry of Home Affair (No. 79/2014), Ministry of Forestry (No. PB.3/Menhut-II/2014), Ministry of Public Works (No. 17/PRT/M/2014) concerning the procedures for the settlement of land tenure in State Forest Land. The joint decree was prepared by inter-ministerial agencies binded by Memorandum of Understanding (Nota Kesepakatan Bersama/NKB) to accelerate state forest gazetting. The joint decree aimed at granting rights to individuals/community groups who legally control the land within state forest land who have been harmed during improper state forest gazetting implementation. At present, 64% state forest land has been gazetted, however it does not mean that conflict over land tenure have been fully settled (Safitri, M.A., 2015). Many foresters (including Park managers) were worried that the implementation of the decree could bring a time bomb for further forest degradation (Handadhari, 2015). Inthe case of TRHS this will have affect on whitewashing of illegal encroachment. It was stated on Chapter 3 article 8 verses 1 and 2 that all state forest land (including NPs) which are controlled and utilized continuously by community for 20 years, even when less than 20 years, within the framework of agrarian reform, can have recognition and assertion rights (pengakuan dan penegasan hak). If the controlled land does not comply with both conditions, the land can be managed through community empowerment approach. Such generalized and simplified approaches will give strong insentive to all types of squatters. People will be incline to encroach forest land, since at the end they can receive right assertion. Again, the conflict resolution over forest encroachment could not be conducted through blanket approaches, but should be fairly settled case by case. 4.2.1.5. Strengthening law enforcement targeted to syndicates and mastermind of illegal activities Efforts to establish incentives for conservation by investing in development are being frustrated by inadequate law enforcement. Strengthening law enforcement can include a variety of activities, but commonly involves empowering police and courts to better detect and punish illegal activities. Illegal and damaging activities supported by sly opportunist squatters often continue with very little restraint. Not surprisingly, the local communities are unlikely to support NP law, when they see powerful groups or individuals freely using NP without being sanctioned. In this context, it can also be argued that granting local community’s effective control over land and resources in and around NPs might not encourage more sustainable land cover practices and custodianship, when the rewards from using NP resources illegally are high and the costs to the culprit are relatively low. Saving the Park from conversion into agro-commodity crops will not be possible without strict law enforcement, if nothing is done to evict the sly opportunist squatters, the present trend will become irreversible. It is good that law enforcement is combined with opportunities for alternative livelihoods for landless squatters involved on the process, although forceful and brutal evictions of squatters are no longer necessary. Law enforcement is the pre-requirement for the success of any community development program in the NPs. However, this should be directed to sly opportunist squatters, the organisers of land clearance syndicates and taking action against people illegally selling land they did not own, while the landless squatters used by the cukong could be treated as justice collaborators. In the meantime, security patrol with strong litigation efforts should be strengthened to control the new squatters. 73 Box 4.2. Anti-Corruption and Anti-Money Laundering The use of anti-corruption (Law No. 20/2001) and Prevention and Eradication of the Crime of Money Laundering (Law No. 8/2010 in the forestry sector is still new. Concerns have been raised that using these legal instruments will weaken the focus of investigation and prosecution of crimes in the forestry sector. However, this can be prevented by assessing each case to ascertain whether it concerns only forestry crime, or whether it is linked to corruption and money laundering. If forest encroachment were an ordinary crimes, involving only poor community living surrounding the forest, it would not be difficult to stop. With the involvement of financial backers, big scale land speculator or cukong, who operate like an institution of organised crimes, NP encroachment becomes a complex problem. The existing forestry law enforcement approach (Law No. 41/1999) has failed to capture the masterminds behindencroachment, allowing most perpetrators to be acquitted. The enforcers focus on finding field physical evidence of the encroached areas. As such, the easiest targets for law enforcement are small-holder farmers cultivating the land. As an alternative is the use of the Forestry Law, the cukong (corporate) of encroachment could be indicted under the anti-corruption law No. 20/2001, as long as law enforcement officers can prove the bribery took place and (in granting/gaining permits) leading to the loss of state assets. Forests and biodiversity are state assets, illegally harvested forests will create losses to the state revenue and have serious negative ecological and economic impacts. Therefore, it is very important to enforce the law and to handle forest crime cases using the anti-corruption law. The money laundering law enforcement approach which ‘follows the money’ provides an important option to deal with the masterminds of behind encroachment. This new approach requires banks and other financial service providers to be more active and prudent in dealing with financial transactions related of their customers. Bank customers could include financiers of land speculator. Overall, proper implementation of the anti-money laundering regime should provide opportunities for promoting prudent banking practices and sustainable forest management and for curtailing forestry crimes. While for big encroachment cases, such as Besitang, which have absorbed NP resources while the achievements have been limited should be handled by the Central Government. DPR together with MoEF have to establish Forest Encroachment Commission (FEC or Panja Penyerobotan Lahan hutan) to crack down syndicates of organized crime. The FEC will work with Commission for Corruption Eradication (KPK), Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK) to examine and prosecute encroachment financial backers using Anti-corruption and Anti-money laundering laws see Box 4.2. Mostly, criminal wrongdoing in the forestry sector is only prosecuted under the provisions of the Forestry Law (No. 41/1999), the Conservation Act (Law 5/1990) and recently with Law on Prevention and Eradication of Forest Degradation (Law No. 18/2013). Illegal activities, according to the Forest Act are largely restricted to activities within the forests themselves. The consequence of this is that the crimes (and actors) detected were predominantly less powerful actors. These sanctions are ineffective in stopping crimes in the forestry sector because they only catch the petty criminals in the field, limited to individuals as perpetrators and/or managers from legal entities or enterprises linked to forestry crime. Meanwhile, the main actors who fund and plan large-scale illegal activities evade sanctions.These include government officials authorised to issue permits, and businesspeople and capital owners indirectly linked to enterprises or legal entities violating forestry provisions. Forest encroachment is a multidimensional crime addressed in several legal instruments in Indonesia, including the Forestry Law, the Anti-Corruption Law (Law No. 20/2001 on 74 Amendments to Law No. 31/1999), the Anti–Money Laundering Law (Law No. 8/2010) and the Environmental Protection and Management Law (Law No. 32/200935). The complexity and extent of the network of perpetrators of forest encroachment and other environmental violation require that law enforcement apply a more unified, integrated and comprehensive approach (ILEA). CIFOR has developed guideline for investigation and indictment using an integrated approach to law enforcement; Customer Due Diligence and Enhanced Due Diligence Guidelines for the Bank of Indonesia to assist these efforts. Another concern in applying anti-corruption and anti–money laundering laws in the forestry sector is the doctrine of lex specialis derogat legi generali, which states that a law governing a specific subject matter (lex specialis) overrides a law that only governs general matters (lex generalis). In this case, the law on forestry is seen as lex specialis and the laws on corruption and money laundering as lex generalis. This suggests that forestry crimes should only be tackled using the forestry law, not other laws. It is key that forestry bureaucrats and law enforcement authorities from various institutions do not work together. Refer to Constitutional Court’s ruling No. 18/PUU-XII/2014, related to material examination of Law No. 32/2009 article 59 paragraph 1, MoEF hold right to coordinate law enforcement agencies to conduct integrated law enforcement measures against environmental violators. Prosecutors must analyse which provisions are most appropriate for use, whether one or more provisions can be used, and whether the perpetrator(s) can be indicted singularly, alternatively, secondarily or cumulatively. Sanctions imposed on perpetrators of forestry-related crime should include criminal and administrative penalties. Perpetrators should also be made to pay compensation for damage and resulting losses to the state, by paying for rehabilitation, forest recovery orother acts required. (Santoso, et. al., 2011). However, few prosecutions have been made under the new approaches, mainly because of : (a) the complexities of defining and monitoring suspicious financial transactions and linking them to forest crime offences; (b) the secrecy of banking operations, (c) lack of supports of relevant agencies, due to ego-sectoral or limited awareness on integrated law enforcement; (d) the reluctance of the police to use the new legislation; (e) limited capacity of law enforcement agencies and law courts and (f) lack of cooperation amongst law enforcement agencies. FEC is badly needed to establish, maintain and strengthen integrated law enforcement. With the involvement of KPK and PPATK, time for the cases of Forestry Crimes can be revealed by tracing the Corruption Crimes, and Money Laundering Crimes which should go hand in hand involving coordination and cooperation among Forest ranger, civil servant forest crime investigators/PPNS Kehutanan, police and prosecutors, KPK and PPATK. The job could only be optimally executed if it is strongly supported with capacity building of MoEF officials and key stakeholders, such as: Forest Ranger, PPNS Kehutanan, Police officers and Financial Institute Officer. Judiciary training for other enforcement officers in the forestry sector is also important. 4.2.1.6. Monitoring encroachment areas using conservation drone 35 Law No. 32/2009 was formulated based on a long reflection from the journey of environmental management in Indonesia. The law is the substitution of the previous law, Law No. 23 Year 1998 concerning Environmental Management (Law No. 23/1997) which is also the substitution of its former law: Law No. 4 Year 1983 concerning Basic Rules of Environmental Management. 75 Monitoring and mapping land-cover changes in conservation areas are currently rely on satellite-based remote sensing.. Although satellite images are freely available (e.g., Landsat [landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov] and MODIS [modis.gsfc.nasa.gov]), this is not suitable for detecting encroachment due to its low-resolution, while other sub-meter resolution images can be prohibitively costly (e.g., QuickBird [digitalglobe.com], IKONOS [geoeye.com]). Yet, such high-resolution data are often critical for accurately detecting and tracking encroachment at the landscape scale (< 1,000 ha). Furthermore, much of the humid tropics is often obscured from remote sensing satellites due to a persistent cloud cover. As such, cloud-free satellite images for a specific time period and location are often not readily available. To address these challenges, it is recommended for NP to use inexpensive drone (<$2,000), it is a low-‐cost and low-‐impact solution to environmental managers working in a variety of ecosystems to detect encroachment as well as for surveying and mapping forests and biodiversity36. Drones are robotic planes, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and remotely piloted aircrafts (RPA). They have evolved and developed rapidly over the PAt decade, after being driven primarily for military and civilian purposes. Although they have a military background, it has now become clear that there are a lot of other areas where they might prove useful. Although they still remain to be fully developed and researched, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) will soon be an important commercial tool for monitoring purposes (Getzin et al. 2012). The conservation drone is a model aircraft fitted with an autopilot system. The autopilot unit consists of a computer, a GPS, a comPAs, a barometric altimeter and a few other sensors. A conservation drone is meant to carry useful payloads such as a video camera and/or photographic camera. It must also be equipped with a software that allows the user to program a mission and enable useful commands and operations. Drones are categorized according to their size, mobility, autonomy, equipment and areas of use that they have been developed for. For example, most drones rely on well-‐developed positioning systems, which often use a GPS receiver or WiFi to follow a predetermined map, or to free fly with the help of ground control commands (Ivosevic, B., et. al., 2015). The photographs and videos obtained by conservation drone can be used to monitor land cover change. Larger crops, such as oil palm trees, could easily be distinguished; even relatively small crops, such as maize stands could be identified from the photographs. The Conservation Drone can also acquire evidence of human activities in the landscape, such as logging, forest trails and forest fires. Therefore the drone could detect encroachment on early state. Furthermore, owing to the negligible cost of operating the drone, target areas could be repeatedly surveyed at high frequency to monitor potential land cover changes and human activities (Koh LP, Wich SA. 2012). 4.2.1.7. Strengthen collaboration with conservation and social NGOs 36 Assessment and monitoring of biodiversity is largely achieved through ground surveys, which can be timeconsuming, financially expensive, and logistically challenging in remote areas. For example, ground surveys of orangutan populations (Pongo spp.) in Sumatra, Indonesia can cost up to ~$250,000 for a two-year survey cycle. Due to this high cost, surveys are not conducted at the frequency required for proper analysis and monitoring of population trends. Concequently, some remote tropical forests have never been surveyed for biodiversity due to difficult and inaccessible terrain (Koh LP, Wich SA. 2012). . 76 Strong, well-rooted conservation/environmental and social/human right NGO/CSO can effectively help to voice NP and community concerns and influence corporations and governments to comply with binding and non-binding regulations to protect forested landscapes, to integrate social and ecological standards into their policies and practices and to introduce alternative forest governance solutions. The emergence of NGOs represents organised responses by civil society especially in those areas in which the state has either failed to reach or done so in adequately. The importance of public awareness and NGOs involvement in environmental protection is acknowledged worldwide. Align with the most recent Ministerial Decree on Collaborative Management P.85/MenhutII/2014, NGOs having long-term commitments to support NP management should be included as actors to support NP strategic plan. In this context, NP should have a strong posisiton to align NGO’s work-plan with urgent problems and needs of the NP. NP management should be transparents and have willingness to share funding with NGOs. In short, the relation between NP and NGOs should be equal and they have better communication and coordination system. NGOs are expected to develop local conservation cadres originated from NP staff and local champions, in a way that all the initiatives introduced can be maintained by NP staff and local community. To strengthen anti encroachment measures, NP needs NGOs that have strong backgrounds and experiences in community development, village conservation planning and sustainable livelihoods development. NP should also build strong partnership with trustful social NGOs to gain win-win solutions on handling conflict resolutions with local and adat community. 4.2.2. Integrated landscape approaches: Shifting from PA to integrated landscape based management 4.2.2.1. Managing TRHS on integrated landscape approaches Indonesian landscapes are subject to unprecedented changes. Populations are growing, roads, dams and cities are being built, the climate is changing, and the demand for resources is increasing. A diversity of local, regional and global stakeholders claims a share of land and resources. Landscapes must fulfil an increasing number of functions to satisfy a broader range of stakeholders holding divergent interests. In many cases, this leads to conflict and unsustainable land cover. Large areas of land lie idle, or fulfil only a fraction of their potential functions, while outsiders grab productive lands to convert them into monofunctional landscapes dominated by agro-commodity crops (C.Tafur and R. Zagt, 2014). The integrated landscape approach has increasingly been promoted as a new perspective on addressing global challenges at a local level; this is aligned with paradigmn shift as outlined by IUCN, 2004 (Table 4.3). There is a growing recognition that policies directed purely at PA, or purely at agriculture, have a limited sustainably; integrated and holistic landscape approaches are needed Table 4.3. A paradigm shift in PA management (IUCN, 2004) The conventional understanding The Emerging understanding 77 of PA management Establish as separate units of PA management Plan as part of national, regional and international system Manage as islands Manage as elements of networks (protected areas connected by “corridors”, “steppingstones” and biodiversity-friendly land covers) Manage reactively, within a short time scale, with little regard to lessons from experience Manage adaptively, on a long time perspective, taking advantage of ongoing learning Protection of existing natural and landscape assets Protection, but also restoration and rehabilitation, so that lost or eroded values can be recovered Set up and run for conservation (not for productive use) and scenic protection (not ecosystem functioning) Set up and run for conservation but also for scientific, socio-economic (including the maintenance of ecosystem services) and cultural objectives Established in a theoretic way Established as political act, requiring sensitivity, consultations and astute judgment Managed by natural scientists and natural resource experts Managed by multi-skilled individuals, including some with social skills Established and managed as a means to control the activities of local people, without regards to their needs and without their involvement Established and run with, for and in some cases by local people; sensitive to concerns of local communities (who are empowered as participants in decision making) Run by the central government Run by many partners, including different tiers of government, local communities, indigenous groups the private sector, NGOs and others Paid for by taxpayers Paid for by many sources and, as much as possible, self sustaining Benefits of conservation assumed as self-evident Benefits of conservation evaluated and quantified Primarily benefits visitors and tourists Benefits primarily the local communities who assume the opportunity costs of conservation Viewed as an asset for which national considerations prevail over local ones Viewed as a community heritage as well as a national asset Managing TRHS based on integrated landscape approaches holds the key to solving these competing claims for land problems. NP areas and other land covers should be addressed as an integrated landscape to be managed on the basis of sustainable land cover planning, with due regard for the balance between natural ecosystems, socio-cultural, economic and political aspects. To achieve that, NP management should not operate in isolation of other development agents. It should promote communication among various stakeholders to resolve conflicting plans and agendas among different agencies. More importantly, given that 78 most NP problems lay beyond its authority (Table 4.1), NP governance, law enforcement and management could only be strongly upheld with the outstanding political support of Central Government. Otherwise, the present trends will become irreversible, and large part of TRHS will soon be converted into plantations A good case has been provided by Leuser Ecosystem (LE) which established the massive buffer zone around the park. Consequently, both provincial and district level spatial plans comply with the regulations articulated by Centre Government and the boundaries of the LE should be well-acknowledged by province and district government. The approaches were taken for other PA, such as the Heart of Borneo (HoB), Muller Ecosystem Areas (MEA) etc which are basically adopted the concept of Biosphere Reserve (Purwanto, 2014b). It is word to transform KSNP and BBSNP protection into sustainable development of the KS and BBS landscape. Summarising, TRHS management planning should not be conducted on NP management unit but should be on the landscape level (province level) this imply to the need of collaborative work with relevant government at regional level, this is well-aligned with ecoregion management principle as mandated by Law No. 32/1999 on regional governance. 4.2.2.2 Enforcing voluntary and mandatory certifications to control oil palm plantation expansion surrounding TRHS Oil palm plantations development often develops at the expense of NP areas. As such, centre government should make use the voluntary certification, Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)37 and mandatory certification Indonesian Certification Palm Oil (ISPO)38 as a tool for sustainable oil palm development surrounding NP areas. In January 2010, a new procedure was introduced by RSPO to ensure that the members which expand their plantations not at the expense of natural forest. This is called as New Planting Procedure (NPP), which is not an addition to the RSPO guidelines for sustainable palm oil production, but rather helps reinforce the RSPO’s already existing criteria governing responsible expansion. NPP is a safeguard ensuring the RSPO principles are implemented at the very beginning of oil palm plantation development to ensure that from January 2010 all the new plantations owned by all RSPO members will eventually receive certification, because it demonstrates that from the start of the plantation they have been compliant with the RSPO standard. Ministry of Agriculture should impose oil palm plantations which share boundary with TRHS to hold RSPO or ISPO certifications. 4.2.2.3. Improve SVLK standard to control IPK from PA 37 The RSPO is a voluntary market certification scheme that requires growers to avoid the conversion of primary and High Conservation Value (HCV) forests, respect the customary rights of communities and demonstrate legal compliance with all applicable legislation. The RSPO’s Principles and Criteria are adapted to the Indonesian context through the Indonesian National Interpretation. 38 Recently, the Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) system was developed by the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture to provide assurance of sustainability to sensitive markets. 79 Timber Legality Assurance Systems/TLAS/Sistem Verifikasi Legalitas Kayu, certification standard, are the regulations which have been initiated by the European Union enacting the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT). The Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA39s) between GoI and EU was signed in September 2013, and ratified in April 2014. Certification against the SVLK will be the basis for any licensing system activated under the VPA. The credibility of the EU-Indonesia VPA is therefore directly linked to that of the SVLK. However, the existing SVLK standard does not control Timber Utilization Permits/IPK holder’s operation areas which could be originated from PAs. The issue was discussed by the Environmental Investigation Agency, in its recent published report in December 20014. The discussion is excerpted below: The standard does not require auditors to assess whether IPK holder’s operation areas are located in the appropriate land classification according to legally binding spatial plans. The consequence is that the SVLK still provides scope for the legitimization of timber produced from forest conversion for plantations in PA or other restricted classifications. Further, the SVLK does not require or empower auditors to look at corruption in the permit procedure. The standard largely looks for the existence of permits, rather than the processes that led to them being issued. This is open opportunity that un-procedural permit allocation is perhaps the foremost illegality in the plantation sector, leading to illegal land acquisition underpinning many IPKs. The failure to build the SVLK into their standards in Indonesia is a missed opportunity that should be resolved at the earliest opportunity. Finally, it is vital to ensure that the SVLK is continuously updated and improved so that it reflects and reinforces the varied and evolving legal base that underpins the timber and plantation sectors in Indonesia. The MoEF should order SVLK audits of all IPK permit holders against the current standard, and ensure similar audits occur for each annual IPK issued to concessionaires or their subcontractors from here on in. In parallel, it should carry out an audit of all oil palm concessions to ensure that companies are not clearing forest without IPK. 4.2.2.4. Enhance the quality of ecosystem restoration Best practices of ecosystem restoration activities after coercive operation have been in place in GLNP and BBNP, mostly with supports of UNESCO. The best practices should be adopted and replicated on the whole TRHS. Restoration ecosystem is not only planting campaign conducted at particular event, but integrated program having three objectives: (a) To restore ecosystem and secure the post encroached state forest areas; (b)Reconcile social problems with local community; (c) Empower community to restore the degraded area in measurable manner; and (d) To ensure the productivity of restored land for the former squatters. Refer to Wiratno (2013), restoration should not be considered as ‘Gerhan Plus’, but forest areas restoration through accelerated natural succession, supported with intensive monitoring and maintenance. Restoration should be managed as routine and long-term activities should not be treated as short term project where the only performance is the planting area target. The evaluation of the restoration program should not only quantitatively measure, but should also be assessed through qualitative methods. This is important since the existing national rehabilitation project called Gerhan or RHL mostly emphasized on the scale 39 Once activated VPAs require that timber exported to the EU from a partner country without a shipmentspecific FLEGT Licence will be refused entry by EU member states. Conversely, FLEGT Licensed timber is exempt from the provisions of the European Union Timber Regulation (EUTR) – another core plank of the FLEGT Action Plan, which prohibits illegal timber from the EU market. Indonesia and the EU entered formal VPA negotiations in March 2007, and agreed the VPA in May 2011. 80 of the project area. Unfortunately, it only led the management to search for the project area instead of the quality of the program (Puska UI, 2012). 4.2.2.5. Pride campaigns and environmental education Conservation’s greatest challenge is human behavior. This can be addressed through intensive public campaign and envronmental education. Conservation campaign should be strongly mainstreamed and promoted to inspire communities to take pride in their natural resources leading to conservation actions ‘From collective awareness to collective actions’ (Nakhoda, 2004 in Wiratno, 2015). Various types of promotion materials for awareness (poster, stickers, standing banners etc.), which were based on Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (KAP) survey, should be agressively developed and widely published and installed in public areas, such as airports, schools, government offices and houses of village champions. See Figure 4.1. Awareness campaign could agressively be published on local television, local or community radio. This should be supported by conservation education for young generations, such as developing local content in the study curriculum touching the issue related to TRHS, from elementary to secondary schools. Such efforts have been conducted by LDP and could ideally be replicated to the whole TRHS to provide environmental education vision for future generation. Conservation education is ideally able to enhance; (a) awareness, a sensitivity to the environment associated problems; (b) Knowledge – an understanding of how the environment functions, how people interact with and depend on the environment, and how environmental problems can be solved; (c) Attitudes – a concern for the environment and the personal motivation and commitment to participate in environmental improvement and protection; (d) Skills– the ability to identify and investigate environmental problems and to contribute to their resolution and; (e) Participation , active involvement in working towards the resolution of environmental problems. Promoting program with T-shirt Conservation campaigns through films and stickers 81 Developed local content currriculum on environmental education Figure 4.1. Several awareness and education materials for community and students (OWT) 4.2.3. Building social buffer along the critical Parks boundaries 4.2.3.1. Building community forestry schemes on special use zone Traditional NPs management often involved evicting people from areas designated as NPs and then trying to keep local people out, based on the conservationists' view that human activities were incompatible with ecosystem conservation. Many PA neighbours lost their livelihoods and their homes as a result. PA authorities became deeply unpopular, not only with local people but also with local governments. Having comprehensively alienated neighbours while failing to build political support have resulted NPs have neither capacity nor resources to manage the vast NPs areas. Growing human impacts eventually helped NPs managers to realize they need to work more effectively with their neighbours. Conservationists moved rapidly toward a new consensus that NPs survival depended on increasing the local benefits from NPs. This led to a trickle and eventually avalanche efforts to reconcile NPs management with local social and economic development. Now, there is widespread recognition that conservationists must continue to work closely with a wide variety of actors in the field, particularly communities in and around parks. What remains less clear is exactly how these partnerships should work, and how conservation and social needs should be linked. The most challenging issues on managing NPs are how to integrate local community position on NP management. Much serious efforts are needed to explore various opportunities to utilize land forest resource to reduce population pressure on land. This could be conducted on areas which have high population pressure, dominated by landless indigenous and migrants communities. Recognition of tenure right is a key incentive for local community to support Park protection. As such, GoI is recomended to implement social or community forestry schemes, i.e. Community Forestry (HKm) and village forest (HD) on the Special Use Zone (Zona Pemanfaatan Khusus). Refer to the Ministerial Decree No. P.56/Menhut-II/2006 on guidelines for zoning of national parks, a special use zone is defined ‘a zone to accommodate local communities that have been residing in the area since before it was designated a 82 national park, or to accommodate public facilities and infrastructure such as telecommunication towers, roads and electricity installations’. Mulyana et. al. 2010 recommends a different definition for special use zones: a zone within a national park that accommodates the interests of local people. The zone would accommodate people who live within park boundaries or use the land, and would establish collaborative management. Each national park would ideally have its own model of special use zone, rather than a generic model for all parks. A special use zone can help overcome conflicts between local people and the NP, since it is an area where the needs of people and of the park can be reconciled. Mulyana et. al. 2010 also recommend that NP management should designate only 2 zone types: core zones, reserved strictly for biodiversity conservation, and special use zones rather than 7 zones (core or sanctuary, wilderness, traditional use, rehabilitation, religious use, protection of culture and history and special use) along the spectrum of conservation and use which will be difficult to manage and open to wide interpretation. This should be simplified, some circumstances, 3 zones may be required, if core and wilderness zones must be differentiated. The special use zone is intended to accommodate all types of use mentioned in the Ministerial Degree, and to include those that contribute to local people’s livelihoods. Implementing community forestry on a special use zone in NPs should not be considered whitewashing illegal encroachment into state forest areas. Instead it is an attempt to overcome the deadlock in managing NPs. However, given the high variability of socioeconomic, social capital, motives, degree of access and control to land within and outside the Park, a thorough feasibility study is required before the implementation and development of community forestry, otherwise the scheme will only triger further encroachment. Actions to solve chronic land encroachment in the Park can not be simplified and generalized, the problem should be clearly mapped and its resolution should be tailored case by case. Identification and selection of individuals (persons) to be involved in the community forestry should be taken with extra care. The following procedure is proposed: (a) Identify squatter name and size of encroached area; (b) Identify size of accessed/controlled agriculture land by each squatter within and outside the Park; (c) Classify encroached areas based on specific squatter socio-economic condition, especially the exisitng access and control on agriculture land within and outside the Park, for instances: (i) encroachmed areas farmed by landless indigenous farmers; (ii) encroached areas farmed by landless migrants; (iii) encroached areas farmed by large land holder outside the Park; (d) Management treatment (including law enforcement) could not be generalized but should be based on squatter specific conditions. For example: (i) Squatter A should be evicted from NP as he/she has controlled sufficient agriculture land (say more than 3 ha) outside the Park, (ii) Squatter B could be involved on community forestry program as he/she only control less than 0.5 ha outside the Park etc. The conflict resolution over forest encroachment could not be conducted through blanket approaches, but should be fairly settled case by case (Wahjudi Wardojo, pers. comm, 2015). Community forestry will help to overcome conservation deadlock if the following assumptions are fulfilled (modified from Mulyana, et.al., 2010): (a) The selection of individual to be involved on the scheme should be conducted with extra care; (b) The MoEF is committed to strengthen law enforcement to create order and clarity on what is allowed and what is not; (c) Land resources within HKm and HD remain state land with a conservation function; (d) Community only receive rights of use (Hak Kelola) but no rights of ownership; (e) Land cover management must be environmentally friendly, developed under joint 83 decision and close supervision of Park Management40; (f) All stakeholders are willing and able to cooperate and collaborate, regulated through a Memorandum of Understanding clearly stating respective rights, duties and responsibilities; (g) Law enforcement by the MoEF is supported by relevant government agencies; (h) There are no transfers of land cultivation rights to other persons or organizations without NP management consent/permit; (i) NP should conduct intensive monitoring and at least annual evaluation. Box 4.3. Social Forestry Scheme41 Community Forestry (Hutan Kemasyarakatan –HKm). The HKm is one of several governmentinitiated programs since the early 1980s to involve communities in state forest management for a certain purpose, such as forest conservation or rehabilitation. Since it was initially developed, the approaches, types and levels of community participation have been evolving, under the influence of the government’s policy orientation, such as the decentralisation policy implemented since 1999. Under this scheme, rights are granted to cooperatives in the form Community Forest Concession Permit. Any tree-planting as part of forest rehabilitation is usually developed as part of intercropping practices. Technical guidelines on the procedure for obtaining the permit and licensing process are regulated in MoF Decree No. P.37/Menhut-II/2007 on Community Forestry, which was later, revised by No.P.18/Menhut-II/2009; with regards to regulations No. P.13/Menhut-II/2010 and No.P.52/Menhut-II/2011. Village forests (Hutan Desa - HD). As with HKm, the government also gave the village forest management rights in protection forests and production forests to the rural institutions (LKMD, LMD etc.) and is stipulated in MoF Decree No. P.49/Menhut-II/2008. HD aims to provide access for local communities, through village institutions, to utilise forest resources sustainably in order to improve the welfare of local communities in a sustainable manner. Permit holders in protection forests may manage the areas, environmental services and collect non-timber forest products (NTFP). While in production forests they can utilise as in protection forests coupled with harvesting timber and non-timber forest products. From 2010-2014, Ministry of Forestry has issued Hkm permits of 327,077 ha in 79 districts, and HD of 288,016 ha in 213 villages in 85 districts. MoEF targeted HKM and HD of 1 million Ha each during 2015-2019. Providing land management access (right of use) to local community surrounding NPs can be considered as a big leap, as the management of conservation areas only respect to partnership agreement and limited collaborative work. In the HKm and HD schemes, community concessions areas is legally defined by the MoEF, while the business permit is issued by the Regent for HD and Governor for HKm. The concession time is 35 years and possibly could be extended for the second term will strengthen security of tenure to local community (see Box 4.4.). The scheme also provide guarantee to local community to utilize forest land for planting trees or develop agroforestry for the long term period. This will increases total supply of wood, improves relationships with communities, and provides them with alternative income streams and employment opportunities. The initiative calls the greater roles of NPs and NGOs to provide continuous facilitation and technical assistances for institutional capacity building of the farmer groups by building cooperative, linking local products to domestic and international market, better access to capital (bankable) etc. 40 This is aligned with article 15 of the Agrarian Law No. 5/1960, that land right holders should manage the land on sustainable manner. 41 Adiwinata Nawir, et. al., 2013 84 A study conducted by Gutomo et. al. (2014) in five social forestry villages in Kuningan District, West Java (PHBM) and West Lampung (HKm) showed that, (a) The social forestry had given control of land-forest to households in the villages around the forest up to 2 ha, (b) the contribution of income from the social forestry program towards the total household income in the villages around the forests had the largest average that varied between 10% to 60%, (c) the reduction in the level of poverty in rural households around the forest through the social forestry program was very high which was between 10% to 90%. The poverty reduction variation were influenced by four factors, i.e (a) the differences in the social forestry models that were applied in each village, (b) the selected agroforestry techniques practiced by the forest farmer groups, (c) the social forestry institutions in each area, and (d) the relationship between the agrarian households in the villages around the forest. The security of people’s tenure on the forestland is central for a successful community forestry program. Having security of land and forest resource is the communities’ main consideration in practicing sustainable forest management. The national medium term development plan 2015-2019 allocates 12.7 million Ha to support social forestry program which prioritise for forest fringe communities; Clearly that the time is mature to establish social forestry scheme on a special use zone to respond the many complicated, dynamic and ever-changing conflicts and challenges faced. Box 4.4. Security of Tenure Security of tenure is an individual perception of having a piece of land or resource on a continuous basis, free from imposition or interference from outside sources, and getting the benefits of labour and capital invested in that land, either in use or upon transfer to another holder. For a legal analytical purpose, tenure security can be elaborated into some elements Lindsay (1998, in Safitri M.A. 2005) describes as follows. • The clarity of rights (criteria of rights holders, their rights and obligations, and the object of rights are clearly stated). • The legal certainty of rights (rights cannot be taken away or changed unfairly). • The appropriate durability of rights (the duration of rights are long enough for the holder to take benefit). • The enforceability of rights (there is a mechanism for protecting rights holders against the state). • The exclusivity of rights (rights holders can exclude or control outsiders to the resources). • The clear legal status of right holders (rights holders recognized as legal personality and are able to do activities and protecting their interest under the recognition of law). • The government has proper position and authorities in granting the rights. 4.2.3.2. The need of ministerial decree arranging procedure for NTFP collection by local community NTFPs provide a wide range of goods for domestic use and for the market, among which are charcoal, fuelwood, game, fruit, nuts, medicinal herbs, forage, and thatch for roofs. In contrast to timber, NTFPs tend to have little or no capital requirements and tend to be available in open-access or semi-open access settings. NTFP functions as a safety net, they are a source of emergency sustenance in times of hardship, i.e., when crops fail, when economic crisis hits. NTFPs tend to be seasonal and to perform a gap-filling function. 85 Today, efforts to promote more environmentally benign use of forests has led to increased interest in NTFP collection and marketing as an instrument for sustainable development. In TRHS, damar, gaharu (a resin-impregnated fragrant wood), benzoin (a tree resin used chiefly for incense, perfume and medicine), honey, rattan and medical plant are among most important NTFP. Steady but low income from dammar in BBNP was seen to be valued more than the high returns from coffee because of the dammar income’s contribution to household food security. In GLNP, benzoin was found to be particularly important to middle-income villagers; in both absolute and relative terms, this group has a much higher income from benzoin than the poorest group. CIFOR has demonstrated the potential role of NTFP markets in degradation of forest resources, and underlines the difficulty in achieving a balance between improving the livelihood of forest-dependent people and forest conservation (CIFOR, 2003). Refer to Government Regulation No. 28/2011 on Nature and Conservation Reserves Management, community living surrounding NPs allow to collect NTFP on utilization and traditional utilization zones. However so far there is no Ministerial Decree guiding its technical implementation. It is different with the utilization of Park for community based ecotourism which has been arranged through Government Regulation No. 36/2010 and Ministerial Decree No. 40/2010, and water utilization with Ministerial Decree No. 64/2013. MoEF is recommended to issue a ministerial decree on NTFP collection for local community, it is either part of social forestry scheme (Hutan Desa/Village Forest) or as a stand alone permit. Learning from Tangkahan Community Based Ecotourism, community could establish a well-legitimated body as ‘one gate management system’ to coordinate the collection of NTFPs. NP supported with relevan partners (FORDA, Universities, NGOs) acts as management and scientific authorities to define the quota and monitor the extraction of NTFP. 4.2.3.3. Build long-term partnerships, community development facilitations and technical assistances for communities and key champions surrounding the Parks NPs should become an agent of development to villages located in the Park surroundings. MoEF has long considered the main role of local community on NP management. Since 2006, PHKA has initiated Village Conservation Model (VCM, Model Desa Konservasi/MDK) in the conservation areas. Similar community development program have also been developed in the buffer zone areas. The initiative, however, could not be rated as successful in controlling forest enchroachment as it is often trapped to general approaches and short-term project oriented activities to reach only particular achievement under a limited time and budget. In fact, many community development projects assume that community is a homogenous entity, while in reality community is diverse. Therefore, community development should be designed on the basis of specific case. Approaches which were proven to be successful in a certain village will not guarantee the success when it is extrapolated into neighbouring villages. Community development should be tailored to the local level, aligned with socio, economic, political and cultural conditions. The blanket approaches of community development will not affect the protection of NP but rather a waste of precious fund. The sustainable of the Park is strongly controlled by capacity, characters, behaviors and livlihood strategies of community living surrounding the Park, however NP management and its stakeholders put little attention on socio-economic, livelihoods, sociology/anthropology 86 research of local community living surrounding the Park. Much attentions are given to wildlife population and distribution, which is strongly dictated by donor interest. So far, community is not considered as a subject, but an object, the subject is NP itself, while centre government policy has little considered and address local community interests. NP management performance is generally measured by their capacity to absorb national budget and its compliance against existing administration and financial regulations, no matter whether the work has any relations with community needs/satisfactions or not (Hariadi Kartodihardjo, pers. comm. 2015). Having learned from the ICDPs in TRHS, Linkie, et. al., 2008 disccused about the underlying causes of unsuccessful community development in conservation are rooted under the following constraints; (a) it is argued that community-based projects fail due to logistical and institutional reasons. For example, communities may lack the capacity to implement projects in remote areas with poor infrastructure, facility and governance; (b) these projects often fail to make explicit linkage between short-term sources of potential benefit, such as establishing ecotourism ventures, and their final goal of halting biodiversity loss. Even if successful projects do not achieve their conservation targets while achieving economic improvement, it is not reinvested in conservation, but is rather used as a source of supplementary alternative livelihoods as opposed to income generating sources; (c) These conservation projects may fail to identify the main drivers of biodiversity loss and cannot succeed without tackling these underlying problems. Continuity and commitment are key factors for community development in conservation. The establishment of long-term partnerships are therefore likely to be more fruitful than short term ‘projects’ as a model for conservation efforts. As addressed by Linkie, 2008, community development should be able to strengthen local institution, demonstrate short-tem and longterm benefits impacts which can address the main drivers of biodiversity loss. Conservation is a long-term process, not a product that can be delivered by a project, because conservation is never finished. As such, community development should be strongly supported by continuous facilitation, intensive learning by doing training and technical assistances (see Table 4.5.). The facilitation should be inclusive, this should involve local champions and connected with various development agents working at village level to enhance the ownership of the initiative. Sustainable livelihoods empowerment should enhance the dependency of local community to Park ecosystem integrity (see Table 4.4.), introduction of agrocommodity such as coffee, cacao and hurticulture should be avoided. Table 4.4. Example of sustainable livelihhood facilitations to support Park ecosystem integrity No. Activity/products Facilitation On-site Park/forest based sustainable livelihoods 1. 2. 3. 4. Ecotourism Rattan Gaharu (Agar Wood) Honey bee 5. Food mushroom 6. 7. Benzoin, chestnut Fruits Linking with national and international tour operators Sustainable extraction, processing and marketing Sustianable extraction, marketing Sustainable extraction, hygienic processing, pakaging, marketing Proper identification and collection, processing and marketing Sustainable extraction, processing and marketing Sustainable extraction, processing and marketing 87 Off-site Park/forest based sustainable livelihoods 1. Permanent agriculture 2. Gaharu plantation 3. 4. 5. Sugar palm planting Honey bee culture Mushroom cultivation 6. Plant and animal breeding 7. Tree planting 8. Stream water Development and application of organic fertilizer (mol, bokashi, Bio Max Grow etc.) Develop gaharu innoculum (for bio-induction42) at village level43 Development of sugar and ethanol Bee cultivation, hygienic processing, pakaging, marketing Mushroom cultivation, hygienic processing, pakaging, marketing F1 and F2 progenies are returned to the Forest, F3 can be traded (orchid, medical plant, deer, birds). Improving local propagation both fast growing and high quality indigenous species Pico-hydro, micro-hydro power, develop productive use energy Table 4.5. Key strategies on community empowerment facilitations44 Key strategies 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Since the beginning, NP community facilitator (NPCF) does not promise cash money in return to community participation NPCF delivers intensive technical assistance/facilitations and in-kind support (high quality seeds, fertilizers etc.) NPCF provides technical assistance to those who are interested; the target is not number but the quality of participants NPCF should live in on the targeted villages All trainings for local community is designed as ‘learning by doing’ and conducted at field level Selection of training topic is based on community need; NPCF invites experts to solve farmers technical problem NPCF makes use key village champions as a starter and driver of project interventions NPCF facilitates the establishment of learning site as demonstration pilot NPCFs are equipped with strong technical skill and willing to do dirty work together with local community. NPCF stimulates learning among farmers/local community, using farmer garden for comparative study; also stimulate inter-village comparative studies and also visiting research center for the case of agriculture/agroforestry development. NPCF facilitates women based activities to enhance women participation NP should develop target audience oriented communication strategy. 42 At the moment, bio-induction or artificial production technology of gaharu trough inoculated microbes such as Fusarium solani, F. Oxysporum, Acremonium sp, etc., have been carried out by various research institutes, universities and NGO such as FORDA, Biotrop, BPPT, OWT and others. Artificial microbes’ innoculation has proven adequate satisfactory result by the production of gaharu resin in similar quality to natural gaharu. 43 Multiplication of microbe inoculums (gaharu inoculums) actually can be done in village in a simple way by developing mini laboratory to multiply gaharu inoculums. The availability of innoculum in village will ease people in the injection activity of their cultivated gaharu as well as part of people capacity improvement effort to be more empowered in gaharu production (Purwanto, 2014b). 44 Modified from Purwanto 2012 and 2014 a 88 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. NPCF should involve all relevant development agents (local government, extension workers, local NGOs) For agroforestry development facilitation, NPCF visits farmer group twice a week and always try to bring new things to stimulate learning process. Stimulate replication, from pilot to individual farmer and from targeted group to surrounding groups/villages (spontaneous/replication group). NPCF organizes monthly meeting among farmers groups to conduct reflection and learning from each other. NPCF also delivers technical assistances to solve environmental and governance issues. In addition, NP needs to establish conservation cadres networking who become the informal liaison persons of the NP management. This could be composed of respected village champions having strong passions on conservation measures. Conservation cadres could be selected through various mechanisms; those can be selected by NP staff, proposed by villagers or village government. The key criteria is that they should be respected by and have influential power, those could be a formal or informal leaders. To enhance capacity and maintain the network, NP should define their roles, rights and responsibilities. Regular communication (dialogue) forum also need to be established for share learning and consolidated conservation actions. The roles and responsibilities of conservation cadres are: (a) To give feedbacks on NP policy; (b) As local agent of change to improve community attitudes towards sustainable NP resource management; (c) To communicate NP policy to local community; (d) To strengthen community based NP forest protection at local level (village or sub-village level). 4.2.3.4. Establish research area; intensify research activities and linking with international ecotourism operator One of the key efforts to save TRHS is by promoting its biodiversity, social and cultural values to the world. This can be done through intensifying research activities involving domestic and foreign universities, and publishing the results online and in national and international scientific journals. To do so, NP’s should allocate research areas within special use zones for biodiversity research and invite long term collaboration with national and international universities and other organisations. Scientific ecotourism is expected to give multiplier effects on local economic development. Local community can be involved as porters, guides, interpreters and rent their rooms/houses as home-stays. The initiative, among others, has been very successful in Lambusango Forest, Buton and in Wakatobi National Park, Wakatobi. The scientific ecotourism in the areas was facilitated by Operation Wallacea Ltd. (Opwall). The international marketing capacity is the key weakness of promoting ecotourism in Indonesia. NP management should collaborate with international ecotourism operators which actively promote and facilitate ecotourism worldwide. Opwall has promoted Wakatobi Marine NP and Lambusango Forest by demonstrating the unique wildlife of these areas and also by giving presentations at Universities and schools across the world. Since 1995, Opwall in collaboration with local community-based organizations has successfully facilitated students and researchers from all over the world to visit Wakatobi and Lambusango Forest. On average between six hundred to one thousand students visited both areas during summer holiday, i.e. June, July and August each year. See Box 4.5. 89 Box 4.5. Operation Wallacea Ltd: a Best Practices Ecotourism Promotion45 Operation Wallacea (Opwall) is a funding body for long term ecological studies. There are currently more than 200 academics participating in the program and the Opwall program is co-funding 42 PhD students. The funding for Opwall comes from tuition fees paid by undergraduates or high school groups with teachers who join the projects to gain experience of biodiversity research or to gather data for an independent research report. The research programs are designed to gather the data needed to inform wildlife conservation interventions should they be required. In SEA Opwall operates in Indonesia and the organization has promoted Wakatobi Marine NP and Lambusango Forest NR (SE Sulawesi Province) both by demonstrating the unique wildlife of these areas and also by giving presentations at Universities and schools across the world about these areas. Opwall has offices in the UK, US, Canada, Mexico, Honduras for Central America, Brazil, Sweden for the Nordic countries, Italy and Portugal for the southern European countries, China, Indonesia for SE Asia, Australia and New Zealand, so their network of academic contacts is unrivalled and the scope for promoting the research sites at which they work across the world is enormous. In 2015 there will be >3000 students working on these research programs which are now running in Honduras, Cuba, Mexico, Guyana, Peru, Dominica, Ecuador, South Africa, Madagascar, Greece, Transylvania and China, and the demand for this sort of field based research experience is growing rapidly. At least one more long term research site in SE Asia will be required by Opwall in the next few years and there is therefore a great opportunity to have biodiversity research at a site fully funded and that site promoted internationally. 4.3. Key requirements New powers are required to implement the recommended strategies in consistent manner. Where can the power be obtained ? It should be gained through the reformation of the management of NPs, combined with strong political support of the central government. 4.3.1. Building internal power Park management and governance should be designed and adjusted to cope with the key NP challenges in terms of administration arrangement, resources governance and stakeholder management. Park administration, including its regulatory instruments, planning, budgeting, resources allocations and related systems should be dedicated to address key threats and pressures of the Parks. Field park officials should be equipped with the minimum capacity and tools to provide basic practical operational services on park resources and range of park monitoring. This would include inventoryzing, assessment/identification, data processing/reporting, mapping, field assessment and handling such as rescue, forest fire, patrolling etc, community organizing, public consultation, awareness techniques and development of awareness materials, community perception monitoring and stakeholder participation engagement such as organizing volunteers, ecotourism activities, mobilizing community empowerment program/activity. Such skills may not be tasked to a single field park official, but have to be built and well embedded within the system. 45 Purwanto, 2013b 90 Apart from having a supervisory position over the field officials, the next park management level should hold wide range of field managerial techniques and tools capacities such as park governance, spatial and temporal park planning, tools for measuring park management effectiveness, emergency and enforcement rules of engagement, sustainable tourism code of conduct, human rights practices, awareness campaign management, search and rescue management, stakeholder negotiation techniques, effective communication, forest fire management, surveillance management, combating encroachment management, community organizing, visitor management and park administration. The leadership level of the park management should understand and is keen to lead the above mentioned knowledge and skills, especially at the decision-making level, including allocating and prioritizing resources to do so as well as aligning those in the park management system and coordinating at various levels. The park leadership should also have the capacity to represent and negotiate for the best interest of the park at stakeholders or other similar level of meetings. The capacity to mobilize supports and resources for the park management will be a big advantage for a park leadership team. The ability to effectively communicate with stakeholders at local, national and international is required. Overall the park management team should have the capacity to maintain a high level of effective field leadership. The required knowledge and skills could be gained through a series of training and courses. Meanwhile the field leadership and attitude might be best to be nurtured via a rigorous special field training or mentoring. During the end of 1970s to early 1990s, MoF in collaboration with Dutch Government operated a ‘School of Environmental Conservation Management’ (SECM)46. The school provided capacity building for PHKA officials. The existence of the school with modified system and curriculum seems necessary for park managers and technical staffs. Key requirements: (a) A park’s organization structure is defined according to the park’s specific needs (based on specific challenges, threats and pressures), not just defined according to MoEF’s general rules and regulations; (b)The number of resorts, villages faciltiation target, community empowerment strategies and supporting resources and facilities needs are defined based on a park’s specific strategies; (c) The number of required managerial, administration and functional staff, i.e. forest rangers, PEH and forest extension workers are defined based on a park’s specific development needs; (d) A park’s annual budget and its allocations should give priority on field activities and is defined on the basis on a park’s justified actions plan; (e) The capacity building of staff parks at all level are continuously monitored and strengthened and should be based on reliable capacity building/training needs assessment; (f) Most field activities should actively be led by and or are coordinated by park officials and not rely too much on partners/ stakeholders/consultants; (g) The park management should be strongly supported by MoEF’s technical implementing units at regional level, such as FORDA, BDK, BKSDA, BPDAS etc. 4.3.2. Support from National government 46 SECM (1978 – 1993) is a collaboration between Ministry of Agriculture (then MoF since 1983) and Dutch Goverment/Ministry of Foreign Affairs/DGIS (Agriculture Technical Assistance. ATA 90/HTA 40 B). The campus of SECM was initially in Ciawi. Itthen moved to Bogor Forestry Training Center after the establishment of MOF (Purwanto, 1991). 91 Support from Central Government: DPR, MoHA, MoVDAT, BAPPENAS, MoASP, MoA, AGO, SC etc, guided by WHWG, have to provide strong support to; (a) Enhance NP conservation governance and management by providing strong political support to NP authorities at regional level (b) Resolve the permanent conflict settlement of chronic encroachments through integrated land enforcement and judiciary process; (c) Settle misinterpretations regarding NP areas related to the appointment of forest and waters at the Province level; (d) Establish buffer zones in KSNP and BBSNP and define them as National Strategic Areas; (e) The development of policies related to the establishment of community forestry in NP; (f) Revise Law No 5/1990 on natural resource conservation and adjustment of punishment to perpetrators; (g) Enact Law on Recognition and Protection the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; (h) Enact Ministerial decree on the extraction of NTFPs by local community; (i) Improve SVLK which requires auditors to assess IPK permit holders; (j) Audit all oil palm concessions surrounding TRHS to ensure that they have been RSPO/ISPO certified; (k) Fulfill the optimal number of young forest rangers especially recruited olocal people; (l) Fulfill the optimal number of young forest extension workers (village conservation governance and comunity development facilitators) especially recruited from local people; (m) Enhance NP budget for patrols, field operations, community development and village government capacity building and facilitations; (n) Build the capacity of NP staffs especially aligned with dynamic challenges, threats and pressures; (o) The Joint Four Ministerial Decree dated 17 October 2014 concerning procedures for the settlement of land tenure in State Forest Land that should not be implemented before its technical guidelines is enacted. 4.4. Concluding Remarks A big leap in the management of NP at the national and on the ground level is required. This must be strongly supported with ‘Not Business As Usual’ spirit with emphasis on preventive measures, such as building intensive communication with local communities and bringing most NP investments into the operational level for conducting intensive data collection (supported with advance GIS/RS database) and patrol, reconciling NP borders with local communities, enhancing the quality of longterm partnership on community development programs, strengthening awareness through campaigns and initiating social forestry program in the zone of special use, and the development of NTFP and other NP environmental services which could be managed by local communities. More efforts should focus on establishing social buffer along critical borders, while dispute settlements around severe encroachment should be performed through collaborative efforts between local police force, local government, prosecutors, supported by KPK and PPATK to convict the masterminds and eradicate the syndicates, networks and businesses involved in illegal activities. NP should have strong communication and networking capacity to promote the pivotal roles of TRHS as life support system of regional economic development and demonstrate the economic benefit of nature conservation through innovative ecotourism marketing. The management of NP should be inclusive and willing to involve the regional government on the planning, executing collaborative management work, monitoring and evaluation of NP program. Centre government (DPR, MoHA, MoVDAT, BAPPENAS, MoASP, MoA, AGO, SC etc) should provide strong political support to NPs, while MoEF/PHKA together with NP should redesign park administration, including its regulatory instruments, planning, budgeting, resources allocations and related systems dedicated in addressing key threats and pressures of NP. Capacity building of field staff, technical staff, managerial staff need to be strengthened in line with the key threats and pressures of the parks, while staff tour of duty should also consider the impacts on the institutional capacity building of the parks. 92 Tabel 4.6. Strategies, actions plan, performance indicators and key stakeholders Key Actors and stakeholders Strategies Actions Performance Indicators 1. Strengthen Conservation Governance: Build stronger collaboration with stakeholders at regional and national level External actions: 1.1. Intensify coordination among various stakeholders to resolve conflicting plans of different agencies, including central and provincial governments, the private sector, NGOs, and villagers, as well as donor agencies and international parties. 1.2. Stimulate local government involvement on planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluation of NP programmes. The pivotal roles of TRHS as life support system at national and regional development are wellacknowledged by key development agencies at national and regional level NP, MoEF, MoHA, WHWG, District Government and Province government The ownership of national and regional government on NP conservation program are significantly enhanced. Key requirement: Strong political support of MoHA Collaborative management between NP and key NP stakeholders have been developed on the basis on mutual understanding, trust and benefits. The NP management has continuously developed towards a better governance system. Internal actions: 1.1. Improve conservation governance of NP management. 1.2. Institutional capacity building of NP management by improving merit system and career planning and tour of duties of NP staff through trainings and performance evaluation. Key requirement: 1. Strong support from MoEF 2. MoEF/PHKA together with NP should redesign its bugeting policy to align with NPs’ needs to emphasize their work and responsibilities at field level 3. Capacity building of NP staff 93 Strategies 2. Strengthen security patrol and ground presence of NP staff Performance Indicators 2.1. Recruitment of young educated staff who are willing to work on the field. 2.2. PHKA to develop merit system to stimulate young educated staff to work on the field level 2.3. Build new communication protocol on resort-section-head park office 2.4. Collect base-line data at field level to develop security patrol routes and strategies. 2.5. Spend larger part NP budget for field activities 2.6. Enhanced the boundary marking and socialize the boundary of the Park to village government and local community living surrounding the Park. Potential encroachment areas can be effectively prevented at the early stage, while the expansion of old encroachment can be effectively controlled Key requirements: 1. MoEF/PHKA together with NP should redesign its bugeting policy to align with NP needs to emphasize their work and resposibilities at field level 2. Capacity building of NP staff 3. Actions Strengthen Village Conservation Governance: Linking Village development to Conservation 3.1 Selection of key villages surroundiung NP having strategic position for NP area integrity 3.2 Facilitation of key villages in developing RPJM Desa and enhance village governance capacity. Key requiremenst: 1. NP has sufficient number of village governance facilitators. 2. Strong political support of MoVDAT 3. Capacity building of NP staff Key Actors and stakeholders NP, Village Government Capacity building of villages conservation planning and facilitation of its implementation have been conducted on selected villages having strategic position to NP integrity MoVDAT, District Government, NP, Village government, Ministry of Village , underdeveloped regions and transmigration 94 Strategies 4. 5. EnforceAgrarian Reform Policy and Constitutional Court No.35/2012 Strengthen law enforcement targeted to syndicates and matermind of illegal activities 6. Monitorencroachment areas using conservation drone Key Actors and stakeholders Actions Performance Indicators 4.1. Enforced Agrarian reform by distributing abandoned lands that are controlled by private sectors and big capital owners. 4.2. The Agrarian reform should be supported by improved demography administration. 4.3. The demography administration and migration policies should be integrated at national level. 4.4. GoI should immediately implement the Constitutional Court’s ruling No. 35/PUUX/2012 at both the national and the local level. 4.5. House of Representatives (2014-2019) adopt the Bill on Recognition and Protection the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 5.1. Intensify the security patrol and the reports of illegal activities should be quickly and efficiently responded. 5.2. DPR and MoEF establish Forest Encroachment Commision (FEC) to crack-down syndicates of organized crime. 5.3. FEC should form a task force comprising KPK and PPATK and MoEF to examine and prosecute corruption that occur during permits allocation. The population pressureover land resources surrounding PAs are reduced. The technical mechanism to provide fair treatment to the indigeneous people over their anchestor lands are established 6.1. Train NP technical staff to apply conservation drone to monitor prone encroachment areas 6.2. Procurement of conservation drones 6.3. Design patrol strategies based on results Encroachment can be detected at early stage UNESCO, MoEF, NP MoASP/BPN, MoHA, MoEF, NGOs, DPR The old and severe encroachment involving syndicates of organized crimes are solved and function as effective long term deterrent effects DPR, MoEF, WHWG, KPK, PPATK, National Police, National Army, AGO, SC, FEC, MoEF, NP 95 7. 8. Strategies Actions Performance Indicators Strengthen collaboration with conservation and social NGOs 7.1. NP should include commited NGOs to support NP management in its NP strategic plan. 7.2. NGOs is expected to develop local conservation cadres from NP staff and local champions, in such a way that all the introduced initiatives can be maintained by the NP staff and local community. NPs have high dedicated partners to manage the NP areas. 8.1. National Govenment (MoASP, BAPPENAS, MoEF) promote the integrated landscape approach concept to protect TRHS 8.2. National government define landscape boundary surrounding KSNP and BBSNP which can function as ‘bufferzone’. 8.3. National and provinces government promote the landscape to district and provinces level as National Strategic Areas. KS and BBS landscapes are defined as National Strategic Areas Manage TRHS on integrated landscape approaches 9. Enforce voluntary and mandatory certifications to control oil palm plantation expansion 10. Improve SVLK standard to control IPK from PA Key requirement: Strong political support from BAPPENAS and MoHA 9.1. National government issues the new regulation that the management of palm oil plantations surrounding PAs are wellaligned with RSPO and ISPO standards. 9.2. The RSPO and ISPO must include SVLK certification as an indicator of legal compliance for IPK holders in their own certification standards. 10.1. The GoI should ensure the 2014 SVLK Standard is revised to Key Actors and stakeholders NP, MoEF, NGOs, UNESCO BAPPENAS, MoHA, Province/district Governments, WHWG, NP, MoEF, District Government and Province government, UNESCO The voluntary and mandatory certification becomes an effective tool for PAs conservation GoI, MoEF, MoA, RSPO, ISPO Illegal logging and encroachment in the PAs GoI, MoEF 96 Strategies Actions 10.2. 10.3. 11. Enhance the quality of Ecosystem Restoration 11.1. 11.2. 11.3. 11.4. Key Actors and stakeholders Performance Indicators mandate and guide assessments of corruption and other legal violations regarding permit allocation and land acquisition. MoEF should immediately order SVLK audits of all IPK holders against the 2014 Standard, and revoke related permits where holders fail to submit MoEF should ensure land clearance ceases in any concessions found not in compliance with the 2014 SVLK Standard, seize its related timber, and initiate legal proceedings . could be effectively controlled NP should manage restoration as routine and long-term activities and involved the participation of local communities. NPs should dedicate its field staff to facilitate community based restoration On the absence of dedicated NPs staff, restoration program may be conducted in collaboration with honest NGOs willing to facilitate community on the ground level. MoEF should conduct intensive reviews on the results of ecosysatem resoration which have been conducted in collaboration with TN Ecosystem restoration would be an effective way to restore productivity of the post encroached state forest areas, and reconcile social problems with local community. MoEF, NP, UNESCO, NGOs 97 Strategies 12. Pride campaigns and environmental education Actions 12.1. 12.2. 12.3. People, especially young generation, residing around the NPs are aware of the roles of NP as a life support system , are proud of the NP existence and are willing to support the protection. Key requirements: 1. 2. 13. Build community Conduct KAP survey as a basis to develop communication materials Develop various communication materials to instal on strategic sites Develop collaborative work with Education Agencies at district level to develop local content curriculum on nature conservation from elementary to secondary school. NP has sufficient staff for conservation campaigns and education Capacity building of NP staff 13.1. forestry schemes on special use zone 13.2. 13.3. NPs together with regional the government conduct feasibility study to identify suitable sites (socio economic and social capital) within NP to manage using social forestry scheme. NPs define special team to facilitate local community and local government to prepare the implementation of social forestry schemes in special use zone of the Park. MoEF adjust exisiting law and regulation to implement social forestry in NPs Key Actors and stakeholders Performance Indicators The existing and potential land tenure conflicts can be settled through win-win solutions NP, MoEF, District governments, Ministry of Education MoEF, NP, District Government and Province Government 98 Strategies 14. The need of ministerial decree to arrange NTFP collection by local community Actions 14.1. NPs together with FORDA conduct an inventory of types of NTFPs which has the potential to be collected by local community in sustainable manner. 14.2. NP supported with FORDA define the boundary of the NTFP’s extraction areas within NP and define the annual extraction quota. 14.3. MoEF formulate new regulation, including technical procedure on issuing permits of NTFPs in NPs Key Actors and stakeholders Performance Indicators Enhanced community ownership to NP areas MoEF, FORDA 15. Building long-terms partnerships, community development facilitations and technical assistances to community and key champions surrounding the Park 15.1. Selection of key champions at (sub) village level passionate about conservation. 15.2. Facilitate the establishment of communication forum among conservation cadres. 15.3. Formulate capacity building program for conservation cadres 15.4. Develop long-terms partnership program to villages located in the surrounding NP areas. 15.5. Replicate the success of partnership program to the neighboring villages. 15.6. Promote the best practices to the whole villages surrounding NPs and beyond. NP can function as agent of development to surrounding villages, while villagers have a great respect to NP authority NP, MoEF, village governments 99 Strategies 16. Establish research area, intensify research activities and link with international ecotourism operator s Actions 16.1. 16.2. 16.3. Select areas within NP as scientific research areas/zone Invite national and international universities to conduct researches in NP Connect with national and international ecotourism operators to market and facilitate ecotourim activities in NPs Key Actors and stakeholders Performance Indicators Local community will receive significant additional income sources from ecotourism activities NP, universities, tour operators, NGOs 100 References Book/Article: Anonymous, 2003. Submission for Nomination of Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatraby the Government of the Republic of Indonesia to be included in the World Heritage List. Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation Ministry of Forestry, January 2003. Anonymous, 2008. Environmental Compliance and Enforcement in Indonesia. Rapid Assessment. ICEL, USAID, UNEP. Anonymous, 2014. Permitting Crimes. How palm oil expansion drives illegal logging in Indonesia. Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). Anonymous, 2015. Conserving the Bukit Barisan Selatan national Park as UN World Heritage in Sumatra. Project proposal of WCS, WWF and YABI to KfW. Asean Center for Biodiversity, 2010. The ASEAN Heritage Parks: A jouney to the natural wonders of SE Asia. Los Banos, Laguna , Philippines. Adiwinata Nawir, A., P. Gunarso, H. Santoso, Julmansyah. 2013. Country Case Study: Indonesia “Experiences, lessons and future directions for Landscape Restoration”. Center for International Forestry Research. Bogor. Alers, M., A. Bovarnick., T. Boyle., K. Mackinnon., and C. Sobrevila. 2007. Reducing Threats to Protected Areas: Lessons from the field. Washington, DC: UNDP, The World Bank and GEF. Balai Besar Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser, 2006. Buletin Jejak Leuser, Menapak Alam Konservasi bersama TNGL. Vol.2 No.3. ISSN 1858-4268. Balai Besar Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser. 2012. Ekspose pengelolaan TNGL. Disampaikan dalam Rapat Dengar Pendapat dengan Komisi B DPRD Prov. Sumut Medan, 15 Agustus 2012 Basrul, A. 2013. Upaya penyelesaian perambahan di Kawasan TNGL Wilayah Kabupaten Langkat, Propinsi Sumatra Utara. Unpublished report. CIFOR, 2003. Non-timber forest products in Tropical Forest. Brief. Chavez-Tafur, Jorge and Roderick J. Zagt (eds.). 2014. Towards Productive Landscapes. Tropenbos International,Wageningen, the Netherlands. xx + 224 pp. DKN, 2014. Posisi Dewan Kehutanan Nasional Terhadap Kehutanan Indonesia. Isu Pokok dan Prioritas Kebijakan Kehutanan 2015-2019. ELSAM. 2011. Buletin Asasi, Analisis Dokumentasi Hak Asasi Manusia. Edisi JanuariFebruari 2011. 101 FORDA. 2014. Completion Report: Evaluation of Restoration Activities at Cintaraja Gunung Leuser National Park. Bogor. UNESCO. Gaveau, D. LA., H. Wandono., and F. Setiabudi. 2006. Three decades of deforestation in southwest Sumatra: have protected areas halted forest loss and logging, and promoted regrowth? Elsevier Ltd. Gaveau, D.L.A., M. Linkie., Suyadi., Patrice Levang., N.L. Williams., 2009. Three decades of deforestation in southwest Sumatra: Effects of cofee prices, law enforcement and rural poverty. Biological Conservation 142 (2009) 597-605. Gaveau, D. L.A., 2012. Protected Area in Sumatra. ARD Learning Exchange 2012. CIFOR, World Bank. Getzin S, Wiegand K, Schöning I. 2012. Assessing biodiversity in forests using very highresolution images and unmanned aerial vehicles. Methods Ecol Evol 3: 397-404. Global Eco Rescue. 2010. Project Summary: The Leuser Ecosystem REDD Project Aceh. Indonesia. Gutomo, B Aji. 2014. Poverty Reduction in Villages around the Forest: The Development of Social Forestry Model and Poverty Reduction Policies in Indonesia”. Research Center of Population – Indonesian Institute of Science. Jakarta. Hermosilla, A.C and C. Fay, 2005. Strengthening forest management in Indonesia through land tenure reform: issues and framework for action. Forest trends. Hitchcock, P. and K. Meyers. 2006. Report on the IUCN-UNESCO World Heritage Monitoring Mission to the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra, Indonesia. Gland: World Conservation Union, World Commission on Protected Areas, UNESCO. Holmes D. 2001. Deforestation in Indonesia: A Review of the Situation in Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Sulawesi. World Bank, Jakarta, Indonesia. Ismarson, I.Y., and S. Fujisaki. 2011. An Institutional Analysis of Deforestation : A Case Study on a Village inside Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park, West Lampung Regency,LampungProvince,Indonesia.http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/ 10535/7191/73.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Ivosevic, B., Y.G. Han, Y. Choi and O. Kwon. The use of conservation drones in ecology and wildlife research. J. Ecol. Environ. 38(1): 113-118, 2015. IUCN. 1994. Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK IUCN. 2004. “Indigeneus and Local Communities and Protected Areas. Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation. Guidance on Policy and Practice for Co-managed Protected Areas and Community Conserved Areas.” Best Practice Protected Area. 102 IWGFF, 2011. ToR: Forestry Crimes, Corruption, and Money Laundering; Cooperation Strengthening Inter Government Institutions to Prevent and Combating Corruption and Money Laundering in Forest Crimes. UNODC. Jepson P., Jarvie J.K., MacKinnon K. and Monk K.A. 2001. The end for Indonesia’s lowland forests?. Science 292: 859–861. Kelman, C.C. 2013. Governance Lessons from Two Sumatran Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. Conservation and Society 11(3): 247-263. Kinnaird, MF., EW. Sanderson, TG. O'Brien, HT. Wibisono, & G.Woolmer. 2003. Deforestation trends in a tropical landscape and implications for endangered large mammals. Cons. Biol. 17: 245-257. Koh, L.P. and Witch. S.A., 2012. Dawn of drone ecology: low-cost autonomous aerial vehicles for conservation. Mongabay.com Open Access Journal - Tropical Conservation Science Vol.5 (2):121-132, 2012 Kusworo, A. 2000. Perambah Hutan atau Kambing Hitam?Potret Sengketa Kawasan Hutan di Lampung. Bogor. Pustaka Latin. Laurance,W.F. 1999. Reflections on the tropical deforestation crisis. Biological Conservation 91: 109–117. Levang, P., S. Sitorus, D. Gaveau and T. Sunderland. 2012. Landless Farmers, Sly Opportunists, and Manipulated Voters: The Squatters of the Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park (Indonesia). Conservation and Society 10(3): 243-255. Linkie, M., R.J. Smith, Y. Zhu, D.J. Martyr, E. Suedmeyer, J. Pramono, and N. LeaderWilliams. 2008. Evaluating biodiversity conservation around a large Sumatran protected area. Conservation Biology 22(3): 683–690. Linkie, M., E. Rood, and R.J. Smith. 2009. Modelling the effectiveness of enforcement strategies for avoiding tropical deforestation in Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatera . Biodivers Conserv (2010) 19:973–984. Mayers, J. 2005. Stakeholders Power Analysis. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED): London. Mayers, J. and S. Vermuelen. 2005. The Pyramid: A Diagnostic and Planning Tool for Good Forest Governance. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED): London. McCarthy, J. 2006. The fourth circle: a political ecology of Sumatra’s rainforest frontier. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Mulyana, A., M. Moeliono, P. Minnigh, Y. Indriatmoko, G. Limberg, N.A. Utomo, R. Iwan, Saparuddin and Hamzah, 2010. Establishing special use zones in national parks. Can it break the conservation deadlock in Indonesia. Brief. CIFOR. No. 01 April 2010 103 MacKinnon, J., 1982. National Conservation Plan for Indonesia, Vol II Sumatra. FAO. Bogor. Indonesia MacKinnon, J., J. Bompard, M. Merkle, and A. Oosterman. 2004. Final report: technical pre-completion evaluation and review. Mission of Leuser Development Programme. Project No. ALA 94/26. Jakarta: European Commission. Merm, R. and S. Perkin. 2013. Report on the Mission to Jakarta from 24 to 30 October Regarding The Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra. IUCN. Myers N., Mittermeier R.A., Mittermeier C.G., da Fonseca G.A.B. and Kent J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858. O'Brien, T. G., and M. F. Kinnaird. 2003. Caffeine and Conservation. Science 300: 587 Purwanto, E. 1991. School of Enviroanmental Conservation Management. PAt, Present and Future Development. Balai Latihan Kehutanan Bogor. Purwanto, 2012. Kecamatan Development Program and Environment (PNPM-Green) in Sulawesi. Component Training and Awareness. Completion Report (2008-2012) submitted to World Bank, 127 pp. Purwanto, E., 2013a. Communication strategy to mainstream invasive alien species. OWT Report submitted to UNEP/GEF IAS Project. Purwanto, E., 2013b. Training needs assessment on biodiversity and climate change related to the management of protected areas, particularly ASEAN Heritage Parks in SE Asia. A report submitted to Biodiversity and Climate Change Project, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH GIZ, Asean Centre for Biodiversity. Purwanto, E. 2014a. Development tree based sustainable livelihoods. Experience from Agroforestry Project in Kolaka District, SE Sulawesi Province, Indonesia Purwanto, E. 2014b. Evaluation of the Heart of Borneo. Muller-Schwaner Project, WWFIndonesia 2011-2013, Protection of Biodiversity, Livelihood and Ecological Functions through Integrated Forest Conservation and Sustainable Land cover Management in the HOB Phase II; Consultant Report based on mission 9-19 December 2013. Purwanto, E., 2014c. New Village Law and Natural Resources. The Jakarta Post, July 26, 2014. Puska UI, 2012. Pengembangan Strategi Promosi Restorasi Ekosistem Di Besitang, Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser, Sumatra Utara. UNESCO. Safitri, Myrna A., 2006. Change Without Reform? Community Forestry in Decentralizing Indonesia. Paper presented at the 11th IASCP Conference, Bali. Safiri, Myrna. A., 2015. Mencari Perusak Hutan. KOMPAS, 10 March 2015. 104 Sanderson, S. 2005. Poverty and Conservation: The New Century’s ‘‘Peasant Question?’’. World Development 33, 323–332. Syaf, R. And P. Wood, 2009. General assessment of LTA progress and reults. IUCN NL Ecosystem Grants Programme (EGP). Sunderlin, W.D., A. Angelsen, DP. Resosudarmo, and A. Dermawan. 2001. Economic crisis, small farmer well-being and forest cover change in Indonesia. World Development 29: 767-782. Sunderlin, W.D., A. Angelsen, and Wunder, S. 2004. Forests and Poverty Alleviation. Center for International Forestry Research. Bogor. Santoso, T., Chandra, R., Sinaga, A.C., Muhajir, M. dan Mardiah, S. 2011. A guide to investigation and indictment using an integrated approach to law enforcement. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Suyadi. 2008. Tropical Deforestation in Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park, Sumatera, Indonesia. Jurnal Biologi Indonesia 7(2): 195-206. Handadhari, T. 2015. Bom Waktu Perusakan Hutan. KOMPAS, 24 Ferbruary. UNODC, 2012. “Impact of Corruption on the Environment and the United Nations Convention against Corruption” UNEP. 2007. 2003 United Nations list of Protected http://www.unep.org/PDF/Un-list-protectedareas.pdf Areas. United Nations. UNESCO. 2011. Adaptive and carbon-financed forest management in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatera. Indonesia. UNESCO Verbist, B.J.P., and G. PAya. 2004. Perspektif Sejarah Status Kawasan Hutan, Konflik dan Negosiasi di Sumberjaya, Lampung Barat-Propinsi Lampung. Agrivita 26 (1): 20-28. Wells, M., S. Guggenheim, A. Khan, W. Wardojo, and P. Jepson. 1999. Investing in biodiversity: a review of Indonesia’s integrated conservation and development projects. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Werner, S., 2001. Environmental Knowledge and Resource Management: Sumatra’s KerinciSeblat National Park. PhD Thesis Faculty of Environment and Society, Technischen Universität, Berlin, Germany. WHP. 2014. State of conservation status of the world heritage in Indonesia. World Heritage Property of Tropical Heritage of Sumatra (N 1167). Wiratno. 2010. Conservation deadlock.http://conservasiwiratno.wordpress.com/conservationdeadlock/ [17 April 2010]. Wiratno, 2012. Tersesat Di Jalan Yang Benar. UNESCO. 105 Wiratno, 2013. Dari Penebang Hutan Liar ke Konservasi Leuser. UNESCO. Wiratno, 2015. Mengelola Hutan Dengan Jalan Damai dan Beradab: Masukan Untuk Pembangunan KPH Konservasi. Publikasi terbatas melalui email. WCS. 2005. CEPF Final Project Completion Report: CANOPI: A Program to Unite and Strengthen the Conservation of the Bukit Barisan elatan Landscape in Sumatra, Indonesia through Information-building, Capacity-building, and Management. Indonesia. Wildlife Conservation Society – Indonesia Program. World Bank. 1996. Republic of Indonesia Kerinci Seblat integrated conservation and development project: project document. 15124-IND. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2003. Implementation completion report 25753. Washington, DC: World Bank. WWF. 2007. Gone in an Instant : How The Trade In Illegally Grown Coffe Is Driving The Destruction Of Rhino, Tiger and Elephant Habitat Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park. Indonesia: WWF-Indonesia and AREAS ( Asia Rhino and Elephant Action Strategy), Bukit Barisan Selatan Programme. Downloads: http://www.21stcenturytiger.org/previous-projects/kerinci-seblat-tiger-protection-andconservation-2007-2012/. “Kerinci-Seblat Tiger Protection and Conservation 2007-2012”. http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/id/node/203. “EU-funded Leuser project slammed”. http://www.leuserfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107&Ite mid=106. “The Leuser Development Programme (LDE-EC)”. http://orangutancentre.org/programme/gunung-leuser-national-park-restoration/.“Gunung Leuser National Park Restoration”. http://www.rspo.org/sites/default/files/The%20RSPO%20New%20Planting%20Procedure%2 0FINAL%20Jan%202012.pdf. “The RSPO New Planting Procedure: ensuring responsible expansion by palm oil producers”. 106 Appendices 107 Appendix 1. Emergency Action Plan (EAP) Land Encroachment Objectives : 1. To limit and reduce encroachment level 2. To prevent the occurrence of new encroachment 3. To maintain and return forest functions 4. To develop forest economic values 5. To increase the roles of indigenous institutions in sustainable forest management Programmes 1. Handling of enclave and relocation of encroachers outside of WH property Strategies Time Frame 1. Historical analysis of the 2007/11 occurrence of encroachment 2. Illegal inhabitants inventory (characteristics) and encroached areas 3. Carry out enclave boundaries 4. Carry out Technical Coordination Meeting on Encroachement 5. Provide compensation areas outside NP Performance Indicators 1. Clear statements of status and total area of enclave 2. Appearance of progress of relocating land encroachers outside the property Stakeholders NP authorities, Ministry of Transmigration and Labour, Ministry of Social Affairs, Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, BRR, District/Provincial Government, District Parliament, Indonesian National Police, Indonesian Army, Indigineous Institutions 108 Programmes Strategies Time Frame Performance Indicators 1.Integrated security patrols 2.Identification of encroached areas and the level of damage 3.Eradication of plantations within the park 4.Area rehabilitation and restoration of the encroached areas 2007/11 1. Patrolling activities on previously 3. Socialization to increase public 1. Raising encroachment as 2007/11 awareness on TRHS and the importance of safeguarding the NP national issue 2. Outreach/ extension activities 3. Environmental education 4. Construction and posting of sign boards 5. Construction of TRHS web-site 6. Note of Agreement between Heads of District 7. NP/local institutional capacity development 2. Management of previously encroached areas to return forest functions encroached areas 2. Zero emergence of re- encroachment on exencroachment areas 3. Rehabilitation and restoration of areas ex-encroachment 1. Conservation extension programme 2. Nature development programme 3. Community involvement in forest management 4. development of forest buffer villages 5. Posting of TRHS sign boards and NP’s 6. Development of TRHS website 7. No encroachment 8. development of protected area agreement Stakeholders NP authorities, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesian National Police, Indonesian Army, District Government, local communities NP authorities, Department of Nasional Education, District Government, District Parliament, NP Partners, Research and Development Institutions/Universities, Indigineous Institutions, Local Institutions 109 Programmes Strategies Time Frame 4.Development of alternatives economic activities in line with conservation principles 1. Gene pools inventory that are important and beneficial 2. Inventory of environmental services and ecotourism products 3. Collaborative development of ecotourism programme with local people 4. Development of seedling centre 2008/11 5. Law enforcement on new encroachment through coordination with law enforcers. 1. Continuous communication and coordination with security 2. Conduct regular patrolling 2007/11 6. Community empowerment in sustainable forest management 1. Establish Note of Agreement with local communities in NP zoning 2. Involvement of local communities in the management of the parks 3. Local communities serving as NP Partner (collaborative management) 2008/11 Performance Indicators 1. Availability of gen pools as dietary source 2. Community involvement in ecotourism and non timber forest products development 3. on research and development of value added forest and environmental services 1. Law enforcement on new encroachers 2. Zero occurrence of new encroachment a. Allocation of communal zone within the forest area 1. Involvement of community in forest management 2. Involvement of community in decision making Stakeholders NP authorities, Agricultural/Plantation Service, Tourism Service, District Parliament, Research and Development Institutions/Universities, NP Partners, ASITA, Indigineous Institutions NP authorities, District Parliament, Indonesian National Police, Judicial Power NP authorities, Indigineous Institutions, Local institutions 110 Programmes Strategies Time Frame Performance Indicators Stakeholders 7.Availability of funds allocated for social and cultural conflicts 1. Identification of sociocultural problems within the parks. 2. Budget allocation for handling socio-cultural problem 2007/11 1. Availability of funds allocated for NP authorities, Director General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation, IUCN/UNESCO, WH Cetre, DPRD, Donor Institutions/Countries 1. Carry out studies on problem areas 2. Studies on regional planning and socioculture 3. Studies on areas to be integrated within TRHS 4. Meeting to establish Note of Agreement on the boundaries of the parks 2008 8. Redesignation of NP boundaries and formation of area social cultural conflicts 2. Coordination with national and international donor institutions 1. Studies on areas proposed to be excluded from WH property and those to be inscribed into the property 2. Establishment of definite outer boundaries 3. Regional agreement on areas boundaries NP authorities, BPKH, District/Provincial Government, Director General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Research and Development Institutions/Universities, NP Partners, Ministry of Forestry and Environment 111 Appendix 2. Diagram flow in developing encroachment data. LANDSAT DATA MULTI YEAR LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION High Resolution Imagery PRE PROCESSING , IMAGE COMPOSITE INTERPRETATION Landover 1990 Land Cover 2000 Land Cover 2010 Land Cover 2014 National Park Boundary OVERLAY Land Cover Change 1990 -2000 Land Cover Change 2000-2005 Land Cover Change 2010 - 2014 QUERY (Forest, Non Forest Cover) Land Encroacment Data 112 Appendix 3. Photo Documentations Figure A.5.1. Encroached areas in Sekoci, squatters have built field houses to mark their presences Figure A.5.2. Discussion on the temporary results of satelite imagery interpretation with YOL-OIC GIS Team in Medan Figure A.5.3. FGD in KSNP office in Sungai Penuh Town, attended by UNESCO representative Figure A.5.4. FGD in GLNP in Medan. The NP Head presented on the encroachment problems Figure A.5.5. FGD in BBSNP in Kota Agung Office 113 Figure A.5.6. Small group discussion in KSNP 114 Appendix 4. Highlight of encroachment by district A. Highlight encroachment in GLNP by districts Gayo Lues District Aceh Tenggara District Aceh Selatan District • GLNP areas that administratively lies on this district is ± 237,009.03 ha or ± 21.85% of the NP. • The encroached areas is ± 2.98% of the NP. • The topography of encroached area ranging from flat, gentle to sloping land (<40%). • The type of land-cover in the encroached areas are dominated by rainfed land and mixed tree garden. • Crop species developed in the encroached areas are nutmeg, cacao and annual rainfed crop. • Most of the squatter is local community. • GLNP areas that administratively lies on this district is ± 386,699,75 ha or ± 35.65 % of the NP. • The encroached areas is ± 5.26 % of the NP. • The topography of encroached area ranges from flat, gentle to sloping land (<40%). • The type of land-cover in the encroached areas is dominated by rainfed land, mixed tree garden (hazelnut/kemiri) and palm oil. • Crop species developed in the encroached areas are palm oil, rubber, nutmeg, cacao and annual rainfed crop. • GLNP areas that administratively lies on this District is ± 157,729.49 ha or ± 14.54 % of the NP. • The encroached areas is ± 2.79 % of the NP. • The topography of encroached area is on aflat to gentle slope (<15%). • The type of land-cover in the encroached areas is dominated by Palm Oil, Kemiri and Rubber plantations. • Encroachment is conducted permanently; the squatters are communities from Aceh Selatan and surrounding areas. 115 • GLNP areas that administratively lies on this district is ± 1,855.14 ha or ± 0.17 % of the NP. • The encroached area is ± 6.27 % of the NP. • The topography of the encroached area is on a flat to gentle slope (<15%). • The type of land-cover in the encroached areas is dominated by Palm Oil and annual rainfed crop. • Encroachment is conducted permanently, the squatters are communities from Aceh Tamiang and surrounding areas. Aceh Tamiyang District • GLNP areas that administratively lies on this district is ± 203,350.42 ha pr or ± 18.75 % of the NP. • The encroached areas is ± 4.29 % of the NP. • Topography of encroached area is on flat to gentle slope (<15%). • Type of land-cover in the encroached areas is dominated by Palm Oil, Kemiri, Rubber Plantation and annual rainfed crop • Encroachment is conducted permanently; the squatters are communities from Langkat District and Aceh. Langkat District 116 B. Highlight encroachment in KSNP by districts • KSNP areas that administratively lies on the district (West Sumatra Province) is± 263,000 ha. • The encroached areas is ± 16,000 ha • More than 80% of the encroached area is less than 40% of slope. • The type of land-cover in the encroached areas are dominated by coffee, durian, cinnamon and annual rainfed crop Pesisir Selatan District • KSNP areas that administratively lies on this district (Jambi Province) is± 229,000 ha. • The encroached areas is ± 29,082 ha • More than 85% of the encroached area is less than 40%. of slope • The type of land-covers in the encroached areas are dominated by coffee, potato and cinnamon • Encroachment is conducted permanently, the squatters are local community from the Kerinci district Kerinci District • KSNP areas that administratively lies on this district (Jambi Province) is ± 167,000 ha. • The encroached areas is ± 13,000 ha • More than 90% of the encroached area is less than 40%. • The type of land-covers in the encroached areas are dominated by rubber and coffee. Merangin District 117 • KSNP areas that administratively lies on this district (Jambi Province) is± 36,000 ha. • The encroached areas is ± 283 ha • More than 20 % of the encroached area is more than 40%. • Type of land-cover in the encroached areas is coffee and rubber • Encroachment is conducted permanently, the squatters are community from Bungo District and surrounding areas Bungo District • KSNP areas that administratively lies on this district (South Sumatra Province) is ± 235,000 ha. • The encroached areas is ± 13,000 ha • More than 90 % of the encroached area is less than 40%. • the type of land-covers in the encroached areas are coffee and rubber • Encroachment is conducted permanently, the squatters are community from Musi Rawas District and surrounding areas Musi Rawas District • KSNP areas that administratively lies on Lubuk Linggau Town (South Sumatra Province) is ± 9,000 ha. • The encroached areas is ± 8,610 ha • 95 % of the encroached area is less than 40%. • Type of land-cover in the encroached areas is rubber Lubuk Linggau Town 118 • KSNP areas that administratively lies on this district (Bengkulu Province) is± 126,000 ha. • The encroached areas is ± 26,000 ha • 85 % of the encroached area is less than 40%. • The type of land-covers in the encroached areas are coffee and rubber Rejang Lebong District • KSNP areas that administratively lies on the district (Bengkulu Province) is ± 177,000 ha. • The encroached areas is ± 1,378 ha • 85 % of the encroached area is less than 40%. • Type of land-cover in the encroached areas is coffee and rubber • Encroachment is conducted permanently, the squatters are community from Bengkulu Utara and surrounding areas Bengkulu Utara District • KSNP areas that administratively lies on the district (West Sumatra Province) is± 80,000 ha. • The encroached areas is ± 15,500 ha • The slope of more than 80% of the encroached area is less than 40%. • The type of land-cover in the encroached areas is dominated by coffee, rubber, cinnamon and annual rainfed crop Solok District 119 • KSNP areas that administratively lies on the district (Bengkulu Province) is ± 39,000 ha. • The encroached areas is ± 895 ha • 85 % of the encroached area is less than 40%. • Type of land-cover in the encroached areas is coffee and rubber Mukomuko District C. Highlight encroachment in BBSNP by districts • • • • Encroachment occurred in 4 sub-districts reaching about 3,560 hectares, om which a major area of it is in Pematang Sawah Sub-district with an area of 2,356 ha. The Slope of encroached areas are mostly less that <40% . Crop species developed in the encroached areas are mostly coffee, cocoa, and wet and dry lands rice. The origin of the squatters are from local people from surrounding the NP and from Java. Tanggamus District • The encroached area in the NP reaches 34,500.25 ha. Encroachment occurred in 9 sub-districts, and the major part of encroachment occured in Batu Brak, Suoh and Sekincau Sub-districts. • The slope of the encroached area is mostly below 40 % • Crop species developed are mostly coffee and cacao • The origin of squatters are from the surrounding villages and people from Java Lampung Barat Districts 120 • The encroached area in the NP reaches 31,002.14 ha. Encroachment occurred in 6 sub-districts, and the major part of encroachment occured in Lemong and Pesisir Selatan Sub-districts. • The slope of the encroached area are mostly below 40 % • Crop species developed are mostly coffee and cacao • The origins of squatters are from the surrounding villages and people from Java Pesisir Barat District • The encroached area covers an area of 65, 652 Ha which occured in Kaur Selatan, Kaur Tengah, Maje and Nasal Subdistricts.The largest encroachment is in the Nasal Sub district with an area of 5,068 ha • The slope of the encroached area is mostly below 40 % • Crop species developed are mostly coffee, cacao, dry land farming, and resin • The origins of squatters are from Java, Ogan Komering Ulu (OKU), and local communities Kaur District 121
