Document of The World Bank Public Disclosure Authorized
Report No. 14989-IND
STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT
Public Disclosure Authorized INDONESIA
KERINCI SEBLAT INTEGRATED CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENTPROJECT
Public Disclosure Authorized APRIL 3, 1996 Public Disclosure Authorized Agriculture Operations Division Country Department III East Asia and Pacific Region CURRENCYEQUIVALENTS (As of March 1996)
Currency unit = Rupiah (Rp) US$1.00 = Rp 2,331 Rp I million = US$429 SDR I = US$1.47592
GOVERNMENTOF INDONESIA FISCALYEAR
April I - March 31
WEIGHTSAND MEASURES
Metric System ABBREVtATIONSAND ACRONYMS
AMDAL - Environmental Impact Assessment (Analisis Mengenai Dampak Linkungan) APBN - Central Budget Allocation APBD - Provincial Budget Allocation BANGDA - Department of Regional Development BANGDES - Village Development Agency BAPPEDA - Regional Development Planning Board (Badan Perencanaan Daerah) BAPPENAS - National Development Planning Agency (Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional) BCPP - Biodiversity Conservation Promotions Program BRI - Bank Rakyat Indonesia Bupati - District head Camat - Sub-districtHead CIFOR - Centre for Intemational Forestry Research DG - Director General DUP - Proposed Budget Plan DIP - Final Budget Plan GEF - Global Environmental Facility GIS - Geographic Information Systems GOI - Govemment of Indonesia HPH - Forest Concession (Hak Pengusaha Hutan) HTI - Industrial Forest Plantaitons (Hutan Tanaman Industri) ICDP - Integrated Conservation and Development Project IDT - Presidential Poverty Alleviation Fund (Inpres Desa Tertingal) INPRES - Presidential Instruction (Instruksi Presiden) INTAG - DG of Forest Inventory and Forest use (Inventarisasi dan Tata Guna Hutan) IPCC - Inter-Provincial Coordination Committee JGF - - Japanese Grant Facility KPKN - Office of the State Treasurer (Kantor Perbendaharaan dan Kas Negara) KPHP - Permanent production forest management units (Kesatuan Pengusahan Hutan Produksi) KSNP - Kerinci-SeblatNational Park LEI - Indonesian Ecolabelling Institute (Lembaga Ekolabel Indonesia) LIPI - Indonesian Institute of Sciences (Lembaga I/mu Pengetahuan Indonesia) LKMD - Village Community Resilience Institute (Lembaga Ketahanan Masyarakat Desa) MoFr - Ministry of Forestry MoHA - Ministry of Home Affairs NGO - Non-govemmental Organization PCC - Project Coordination Committee PHPA - Directorate Generalof Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (Perlindungan Hutan dan Pelestarian Alam) PIMPRO - Project Director/Manager TGHK Forest Consensus Boundary (Tata Guna Hutan dan Kesepakatan) VCA - Village Conservation Agreement WARSI - Clearing House for Conservation Information (Warung Informasi Konservasi) WWF - Worldwide Fund for Natur ZOPP - ZielOrientierteProjektPlanung(Objectiveoriented project planning)
INDONESIA
Kerinci Seblat Integrated Conservation and Development Project
LOAN/GRANTAND PROJECTSUMMARY'
Borrower The Republic of Indonesia
Implementing Agency Ministries of Forestry and Home Affairs and local govermment in the four participating provinces.
Beneficiaries The globally important National Park of Kerinci-Seblat, and people living in the park buffer zones.
Poverty Program of targeted interventions. The villagers living in the Park buffer zone are the beneficiaries, including tribal people (the Kubus), and belong to the poorest sections of society. The project interventions are focussed on arriving at a village conservation agreement which legalizes village access to resources in the Park and buffer zone and providing social benefits, in return for community cooperation in Park protection and conserving biodiversity resources in village lands and forestry concessions.
Loan Amount US$19.1 million equivalent
Terms Standard variables interest rate for a term of 20 years, including five years of grace for currency pool loans.
Commitment Fee 0.75 percent on undisbursed loan balances, beginning 60 days after signing, less any waiver.
Grant Amount GEF Trust Fund Grant of SDR 10.2 million (US$15.0 million equivalent)
Terms Grant
Financing Plan See table on page 16.
Economic Rate of Return National Park (not applicable); Area/Village Development and Forest ConcessionMonitoring 16% (63% of total costs).
Map IBRD 27251
Staff Appraisal Report 14989-IND
Project IlD Number ID-PA-3699/GE003
GEF and IBRD are financingmutually dependant activities and thereforethis documentis intendedto meet both GEF and IBRD processingrequirements. A GEF projectdocument based on the SAR has been prepared to meet GEF Council and Public Informationneeds.
- ii -
CONTENTS
1. PROJECT BACKGROUND ...... I A. Indonesia's Biodiversity Resources ...... 1 B. Government Strategy and Legal Framework ...... 2 C. Institutional Framework of Protected Areas ...... 3 D. Kerinci Seblat National Park's Setting ...... 4
2. BANK/GEF INVOLVEMENT AND LESSONS LEARNED ...... 6 A. Lessons learned from previous GEF and Bank Operations ...... 6 B. Rationale for GEF/Bank Financing and Consistency with Country Assistance Strategy and Economic and Sector Work ...... 7
3. THE PROJECT ...... 8 A. Project Objectives ...... 8 B. Project Design and Description ...... 8 C. Project Costs and Financing ...... 15
4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ...... 17 A. Project Organization and Management ...... 17 B. Implementation Plan ...... 20 C. Procurement ...... 21 D. Disbursements ...... 24 E. Project Accounts, Audits, Reporting and Bank Supervision ...... 26
5. PROJECT IMPACT ...... 27 A. Economic Benefits ...... 27 B. Social and Environmental Impacts ...... 30 C. Project Sustainability ...... 33 D. Risks ...... 33
6. AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATION .35
TABLES in Main Text
This report is based on the findings of an Appraisal Missionthat visited Indonesiaduring June 1995, comprising Messrs./Ms.Ben van de Poll (Task Manager),Asmeen Khan, ThamrinNurdin, Pieter Evers, John Dalton, Oyvind Sandbukt. Assistancewas also providedby Messrs. Jim Douglas,Scott Guggenheim,Charles Di Leva and Ms. Salenna Prince. The peer reviewers were Mss. Susan Shen and Augusta Molnar. The GEF extemal technical reviewerswere Mr. Jeff McNeely(IUCN) and Ms. ChristinePaddoch (New York BotanicGarden). Ms. Marianne Haug, Director,EA3 and Mr. GershonFeder, Chief,EA3AG, have endorsedthe project. ANNEXES
1. Details of Project Components A. Park Management B. Area/Village Development C. IntegratedBiodiversity in Forest ConcessionManagement D. Monitoringand Evaluation 2. Summary Social Assessment Informationfor BoundaryVillages 3. CommunityParticipation and StakeholderConsultation Activities 4. Indicative Development Activities 5. Technical AssistanceRequirements 6. Project Implementation Schedule 7. Project SupervisionPlan 8. Project Performance Indicators 9. Expenditure Accounts by Componentsand Detailed Costs by Components 10. Estimated DisbursementSchedule and Plan 11. Regional Impact Assessment 12. Incremental Costs of BiodiversityConservation 13. Economic Analysis of Project Components 14. Documents in Project File
CHARTS
1. Project Organization 2. Planning and Funds Flow for Integrated Area DevelopmentActivities
MAP
IBRD 27251 - I -
1. PROJECT BACKGROUND
A. INDONESIA'S BIODIVERSITY RESOURCES
1.1 Biodiversity Value. Indonesia is rich in biodiversity. It contains nearly 10 percent of the world's closed tropical forests. It also has extensive coral reefs and more marine coastline than any other tropical country. Although the archipelago represents only 1.3 percent of the earth's land surface, it contains an estimated 25 percent of the world's fish species, 17 percent of all bird species, 16 percent of reptile and amphibian species, 12 percent of mammal species, 10 percent of plant species, and unknown numbers of species of invertebrate animals, fungi, and microorganisms. These habitats and species are now threatened by logging, mining and over fishing, as well as by agricultural development and other competing land uses.
1.2 Economic Importance. Indonesia's biological resources are economically important both globally and nationally. Many plant species originated in Indonesia, including cloves, black pepper, sugar cane and several tropical fruits. Indonesians use over 6,000 species of plants and animals. Daily they gather or cultivate these species for food, handicrafts, medicines, fuel and building materials. Some 40 million people directly depend on a wide range of forest and non-forest products for subsistence. Natural ecosystems, and the environmental functions they protect, strongly influence Indonesia's agriculture, forestry, livestock and fisheries which together contributed about 19 percent of GDP in 1993 directly; a significant proportion of industry sector output is also highly dependent on natural resources.
1.3 Biodiversity Areas. The biodiversity and natural habitats most at stake for priority in situ conservation are the 49 million hectares (ha) of terrestrial areas, as well as the 30 million ha of marineand littoral habitats, which GOI has identified for conservation by the year 2000. In addition, there are some 65 million ha designated for production forests, which have an equally important share of the biodiversity and natural habitats, particularly the lowland forests. While certain of these lowland forests would therefore also call for conservation, as a priority, most of these areas require sustainable management. .Out of the 366 established conservation areas, there are 33 National Parks, covering nearly 8.8 million ha, one of which is Kerinci Seblat. the focus of this project. The Kerinci Seblat National Park (KSNP) spans four provinces in Sumatra covering some 1.3 million ha. The Park and its adjacent forests have been internationally recognized as one of the most important conservation areas in Southeast Asia.'
l IUCN Review of the Protected Areas System in the Indomalayan Realm, 1986. - 2 -
B. GOVERNMENT STRATEGY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
1.4 Biodiversity Action Plan. This plan, prepared in 1991/92, is the main policy statement by GOI for Indonesia's biodiversity conservation strategy. The Plan provides a framework for biodiversity conservation during the current five-year Development Plan (REPELITA VI - 1994/5- 1998/9) and for the twenty-five Year Development Plan. The main objectives of the Plan are to (a) reduce the loss of terrestrial and marine habitats of primary importance for biodiversity; (b) expand biodiversity data and information to policy makers and the public; and (c) foster the sustainable use of biological resources. The strategy to attain these objectives would be carried out through an integrated process of institutional, policy and legal reform and development coupled with investment through selected projects. The Plan has four components. First, in situ conservation in National Parks, reserves and protection forests; second, in situ conservation outside the protected area network in forests, wetlands and agricultural landscapes; third, in situ conservation of marine and coastal resources; and fourth, ex-situ conservation, including gene and seed banks, preservation of crop varieties, and captive breeding programs. An important prerequisite for the Plan's implementation is an increased participation by the public, particularly by communities living in and adjacent to areas of high biodiversity value. The Plan also provides for local NGOs to play an active role in fostering such participation.
1.5 The legal framework. Indonesia has ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity and has an international and legal commitment to both conserve and sustainably use its biodiversity, including the equitable sharing of benefits. One of the main laws regulating in situ biodiversity conservation is Law No. 5/1990 on Living Natural Resources and Their Ecosystems. This law provides the legal basis for the enactment of National Parks and other protected areas and refers to the possibility of sustainable use of living natural resources. It also provides a concept of zoning within these conservation areas (core zone, use zone for recreation and tourism, wilderness zone and traditional management zone). The law is also specific about the buffer zone and describes it as an area outside the conservation area capable of protecting the integrity of the conservation areas by providing natural symbiosis between all forms of life, ensuring sustainable ecological balance and a higher quality of life for the community. However, implementing regulations or models for National Park and buffer zone development have not yet been introduced. Another important law concerns the Spatial Management Law No. 24 of 1992. This law intends to combine spatial management with resource utilization and requires that all provinces and districts formulate spatial plans. It also provides for the spatial management of protection areas, including National Parks, and suggests that National Parks of the dimensions of KSNP would justify a separate spatial plan and subsequently be integrated in the provincial spatial plans. While the law addresses general environmental concerns, biodiversity conservation has not been singled out as an issue in its own right nor as a condition for sustaining ecological balance in-and outside a National Park. The subject of land and user rights for people living within the Park and buffer zone is addressed in a number of laws (e.g. Basic Agrarian and Forestry laws). Individual and community rights related to forest lands remain in general a major source of dispute, and in the particular case of KSNP, this is aggravated by the fact that Park boundary for the proposed project, including the delineation of forest/non forest boundary within the buffer zone, has not yet been confirmed in its entirety. -3 -
1.6 The strategy taken in Indonesia to manage the conservation areas, including their biodiversity, is through Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs). This approach attempts to ensure the conservation of biological diversity by reconciling the management of protected areas with social and economic needs of local people. These projects range from small biosphere reserves with multiple-use area within the boundary of the protected area, to larger projects which link land use plans and regional development initiatives to protected area management. In Indonesia there are currently eight National Parks where ICDP's will be tested.2 The ICDP approach in Indonesia seeks the systematic devolution of management responsibility to people living around the protected area. This requires a steady decentralization of management authority to local agencies, including the funding of protected areas.
C. INSTITUTIONALFRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS
1.7 The designated government authority responsible for the management and stewardship of the protected area system is the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHPA) within the Ministry of Forestry (MoFr). PHPA's mandate covers the planning, designation and management of all protected areas, and the planning and supervision of protection forests. At the provincial level, PHPA is represented by the Natural Resources Sub Regional Office (Sub-Balai Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam) under the authority of the provincial forestry department (Kepala Kanwil Departemen Kehutanan), headed by a representativeof the Minister of Forestry. In addition there are regional representatives of the DG PHPA called Balai KSDA covering several provinces with sub-offices in each province. Most National Parks are managed by a special body, the National Park Office or Management Unit, headed by a director who reports directly to the DG PHPA through the Provincial Forestry office.
1.8 The responsibility for survey and demarcation of protected area boundaries in the field rests with the DG of Forest Inventory and Management (INTAG). The mandate for enforcement of protected area legislation is with PHPA in cooperation with local law enforcement agencies. The area bordering the protected area -- the buffer zone--is managed by provincial and district authorities. The key person is the Bupati, the head of the district (Kabupaten), who is responsible for coordinating and managing all government activities in the district. He is assisted in his task by the provincial planning board (BAPPEDA II) who plays a key role in coordinating, planning, advising and monitoring developmrentprograms and the (Dinas) technical agencies that implement sectoral programs. For the past several years the National Planning Agency (BAPPENAS)with the Ministry of Forestry has convened a national forum to coordinate agency planning and development activities in areas surrounding National Parks. Other institutions that have responsibility for managing biodiversity include: Ministry of Environment, Agriculture, Home Affairs, and the Indonesian Institute of Science (LIPI). There are several institutional and policy constraints facing GOI as it attempts to implement its protected areas conservation strategy. PHPA and other institutions with responsibility for biodiversity conservation suffer from an acute lack of trained and dynamic staff, frequent transfer of experienced staff, and a lack of adequate funding. Coordination between the
2 The eight national parks include Gunung Leuser, Kerinci Seblat, Gede-Pangrango, Halimun, Bromo-Tengger Semeru, Kutai, Dumoga-Bone and Lore Lindu. - 4 - forestry agencies and the regional governments in the management and enforcement of rules and regulations in and around protected areas is often totally lacking. This situation is exacerbated by the lack of effective incentives for local governments and smallholders to protect habitat and biodiversity, and of integrated management plans that link management of protected areas with district or provincial development plans.
D. KERINCI SEBLATNATIONAL PARK'S SETTING
1.9 The KSNP is the largest conservation area in Sumatra, straddling the four provinces of West Sumatra, Jambi, Bengkulu, and South Sumatra (see map). With an area of about 1.3 million ha the Park is one of the largest conservation areas in South East Asia. Based on extensive field surveys by FAO and PHPA the Park was nominated in 1982 by the Minister of Forestry as a National Park. However, it is only now that MOFr is preparing the final text of the decree that will formally gazette Kerinci Seblat as a National Park. The Park boundary demarcation process is nearly completed and most boundaries adjoining settlements have been demarcated but not yet agreed upon by all stakeholders. There are some 450 villages in the nine districts which share common boundaries with the Park. The population of the sub-districts closest to the Park is approximately 1.75 million. In some villages, the boundary demarcation is under review, as some of their agricultural land has fallen within the Park. The project will focus on these villages in the area/village component. There is considerable ethnic variation between the villages and some evidence of nomadic Kubu people (Orang Rimba) entering the Park buffer zone to hunt.
1.10 The Park and its environs encompass a spectrum of habitats from species-rich lowland forests through hill forests and unique highland wetland systems to montane forests and subalpine habitats on Sumatra's highest mountain. The Park is remarkable for its species richness with more than 4000 plants (1/60 of the world total), 180 birds (1/50 of all birds), including at least 14 of the 20 Sumatran mainland endemics, and 144 mammals (73 percent of the Sumatran mammal fauna and 1/30 of the world total, including five island endemics). Many of the habitats and species protected within the Park and its immediate forest buffer zone are poorly represented or absent from other conservation areas in Sumatra or elsewhere in Asia. This area harbors some of the last viable populations of endangered mammals such as the endemic Sumatran hare Nesolagus netscheri, Sumatran rhinoceros Dicerorhinus sumatrensis, Sumatran tiger Panthera tigris sumatrensis, clouded leopard Neofelis nebulosa, Malay tapir Tapirus indicus and Asian elephants Elephas maximus. Many of the large predators and forest herbivores require large areas of lowland forests and other natural habitats to protect their home ranges and ensure access to vital mineral-licks. The high biodiversity value of the Park and surrounding forests is a result of both the area's large size and wide range of habitats and is dependent on the long-term protection of an adequate continuum of habitats from lowland forests to subalpine montane systems. The integrity of the Park and its high biodiversity values are threatened by encroachment from shifting cultivation and cinnamon plantations, forest logging, mining, commercial plantations and road development.
1.11 There are twelve forest concessions (HPHs) bordering the Park (see map). These HPHs total some one million ha and provide potentially an important buffer zone habitat for biodiversity conservation. In 1985 over 200,000 ha of lowland and hill forest were transferred from the proposed Park mainly to benefit the logging concessions in Jambi. The HPH areas are based on a thirty-five -5 - year logging cycle, but the actual leases for the concessions to private logging companies are for twenty years. The precise location of the concession boundaries are difficult to determine given the large areas concerned and the nature of the terrain. This can quite easily lead to logging operations taking place in protected or other conservation forest areas. While the legal framework covering forest exploitation seems to be adequate, supervision of logging plans and operations by the responsible provincial forest service is inadequate so that the implementation and enforcement of appropriate logging practices is generally poor, threatening biodiversity and affecting watershed management.
1.12 Apart from being surrounded by estate crop areas and transmigration settlements, KSNP also has a number of gold and coal mining concessions straddling the Park. Most of the small concessions belong to domestic companies; the fewer but bigger ones are owned by Indonesian- foreign joint ventures. Most operations are in the exploration stage with the smaller ones not very active due to lack of capital. No economically mineable resources have so far been revealed in the Park and together with the fact that existing laws and regulations are generally putting limitations on mining activities in gazetted National Parks, it is believed that mining operations on the Kerinci Seblat Park and its environment will be limited and controlled. - 6 -
2. BANK/GEF INVOLVEMENT AND LESSONS LEARNED
A. LESSONS LEARNED FROM PREVIOUS GEF AND BANK OPERATIONS
2.1 The Global Environment Facility (GEF) has supported two biodiversity conservation initiatives in Indonesia: the Biodiversity Collections Project (US$7.2 million) and the Conservation Strategies for Rhinos in Southeast Asia Project (US$2.0 million). An amount of US$1.56 million from the GEF[UNDP Pre-lnvestment Facility (PRIF) was approved to finance preparation of the Biodiversity Collections Project, Kerinci Seblat ICDP and a Conservation Awareness Program. Project implementation under the Bank managed Biodiversity Collections Project is proceeding well, with technical advisors recruited and workshop and key planning/consultation activities well underway. The UNDP managed South East Asia Rhinos Project will develop organized and trained rhino protection units in KSNP to assist in anti-poaching and community outreach programs. As both operations are newly launched it is too early to draw applicable lessons for KSNP.
2.2 Over the period 1988-1995, the Bank committed a total of US$731 million of its own resources and resources it administers on behalf of the international development community to 84 projects or project components with explicit objectives for biodiversity conservation in 51 countries around the world3. Bank support to parks and protected areas has grown rapidly over the last five years. The Bank's IBRD/IDA portfolio of biodiversity related activities has included some twenty- seven projects with a total loan/credit value of US$287 million equivalent between FY92-95. In addition, the Bank (as GEF implementing agency) has worked closely with local project sponsors on thirty one biodiversity programs, for which the GEF Participants/Council have allocated US$244 million between FY92-95. In an independent evaluation of the GEF pilot phase (11/93), the assessment of some thirty UNDP/WB biodiversity projects showed that: (a) too little consideration had been given to local people, their expertise and priorities, and the need to engage and empower local communities, NGOs and other stakeholders in designing and implementing projects; (b) NGO involvement was found to be inadequate; (c) long-term financing of such projects was sometimes doubtful; and (d) the need to monitor and evaluate arrangements in projects and adopt an action- learning approach with the flexibility to adapt project activities to take account of lessons learned during implementation. Similar observations are found in the 1991 OED analysis of forestry and conservation lending, which also concluded that: (a) realistic incentives are needed for conservation activities, and (b) conservation and buffer zone management components should be based on a clear prioritization of areas and a realistic plan for related rural development activities targeted to nearby populations.
2.3 In Indonesia, the Bank has supported investment in management and infrastructure development in twelve National Parks in Indonesia through the Forestry Institutions and Conservation Projects I & II. These projects have revealed PHPA institutional weaknesses which KSNP will also have to face, namely, frequent movement of senior staff, moratorium of recruiting new guard staff with low educational qualifications, lack of incentives for technicians and guards to
3 Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development: A World Bank Assistance Strategy for Implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity, ESD, October 1995. - 7 - perform their assigned tasks, and overemphasis on blueprints and planning rather than learning by trying and doing. More generally, experience with the Bank's portfolio in Indonesia has highlighted difficulties associated with: (a) inter-agency coordination; and (b) timely appointment of consultants and their effective interaction with government staff. The proposed project will address these difficulties by building on some very positive experiences gained from WWF and WARSI (a group of local NGOs) involvement in community participation and village development around Kerinci Seblat. The approach will be a rebalancing of responsibilities toward decentralized government agencies, NGOs, and local communities. Project design has built on the lessons learned from conservation project experience in Indonesia and elsewhere. The principal lesson is that projects which have focused on purely biological and ecological concerns, and have attempted to insulate the project site from surrounding economic and social pressures, have often failed. This project recognizes that protection of the biodiversity assets of this large and populous area can only be achieved through significant change in social and economic factors affecting the lives of people who live and work in the Park, and its surrounding areas.
B. RATIONALE FOR GEF/BANK FINANCING AND CONSISTENCYWITH COUNTRY ASSISTANCE STRATEGY AND ECONOMIC & SECTOR WORK
2.4 The proposed project is fully consistent with the Convention on Biological Diversity and guidance from the Conference of the Parties. It has been identified as a national priority in the Biodiversity Action Plan- (see para 1.4) and proposed activities will: strengthen conservation, management and sustainable use of ecosystems and habitats (including threatened lowland and hill forests as well as montane habitats); demonstrate innovative measures (linking conservation and district development) to conserve biodiversity; and give priority to involvement of local people in Park and natural resource management. KSNP and its surrounding forests can be regarded as one of the last opportunities in Southeast Asia to conserve a diverse and complex mammal predator-prey system. Forestry management to integrate conservation values into forestry practice and maintain permanent forest cover in the Kerinci forest buffer zone will not only effectively increase the conservation estate by maintaining natural habitat beyond Park boundaries, but could provide a model for sustainable forestry throughout Indonesia.
2.5 The proposed Kerinci Seblat ICDP is also consistent with the Bank's Country's Assistance Strategy (CAS) for Indonesia which was discussed by the Board of Executive Directors on March 21, 1995. This strategy projects increased lending for natural resources and conservation management, and focuses on sustainable environmental and natural resource management, targeted poverty reduction, human resource development, and more decentralized and participatory approaches. Assistance will focus on watershed management and conservation, integrated management and conservation of National Parks (both terrestrial and marine), and coral reef rehabilitation and management. The project is a logical progression from the Bank's past support for conservation issues. These include efforts at supporting Park planning and management and the on-going Biodiversity Collections Project which will improve GOI's capacity in. biodiversity inventory and monitoring. The proposed Kerinci Seblat ICDP project is viewed by GOI as the demonstration model for future National Park interventions elsewhere in the country, and both GOI and the Bank are heavily committed to its successful implementation. With respect to Economic and Sector work this project follows the recommendations of the Bank study on Conserving Biological Diversity in the Asian Pacific Region (1992) and the Bank Country Study for Indonesia on environment and development (1994). - 8 -
3. THE PROJECT
A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
3.1 Project Concept. The project would address the first objective of the Biodiversity Action Plan (in situ conservation of natural habitats para. 1.4) and is largely process oriented. While it would primarily focus on the protection of one of the country's largest National Parks, it would deal with major institutional, policy and development issues whose resolution is vital for the development of an integrated protected-area system covering all major terrestrial habitats in Indonesia. It would strengthen PHPA, the main agency responsible for conservation areas. On the developmental side, it would use an integrated conservation and development approach (ICDP) that reconciles Park management with the social and economic needs of the local people and within the framework of some of the development goals set for the four provinces bordering the Park. This requires a steady decentralization of management authority to local agencies and governments. It would aim at finding better modus operandi for local community participation and the use of NGOs in management decision making concerning Park boundary demarcation and land use and buffer zone regulations.
3.2 Specific Project Objectives. The overall objective of the project is to secure the biodiversity of KSNP and stop further habitat fragmentation by: (a) improving Park protection and management, including the involvement of local communities; and (b) promoting sustainable management and the maintenance of permanent forest cover in the remaining buffer zone concession areas. The project will develop a model for ICDP which can be applied to other Parks in the Indonesia protected area system (and elsewhere in Asia) to reconcile conservation and regional and district development. The ICDP would follow an integrated two pronged approach to help stabilize the Park boundary and protect biodiversity within the Park and adjacent areas, as well as to enhance the livelihoods of poor households living around the KSNP by providing them with alternative livelihood opportunities consistent with Park conservation objectives. The project design proposes to meet this objective by institutional strengthening in the areas of integrated planning, coordinated implementation and regular monitoring and enforcement at provincial and local levels; building institutional capacity through increased staffing and in-service training; and improving livelihoods through improved resource management and services delivery.
B. PROJECT DESIGN AND DESCRIPTION
3.3 The background for project design and components is based on eighteen technical reports (see Annex 14) completed in June 1993 and funded by the GEF/UNDP Pre-Investment Facility (para 2.1). Detailed design followed with funding provided by a Japanese Grant. Community and stakeholder consultation activities have played a major role in project preparation and design. Beginning in 1992, preparation teams have engaged in rapid rural appraisal exercises in boundary villages with the objective of creating village profiles, understanding land use patterns and people- Park interactions, and eliciting stakeholder feedback on ICDP design. Wherever possible, project activities will build on local knowledge and practices that are compatible with biodiversity -9- conservation and sustainable use of resources in and around KSNP. Annex 2 provides social assessment information particularly relevant to the Park's buffer zone communities.The area/village development component will focus on the target groups identified, most of which belong to the poorer sections of Indonesia's population. Annex 3 provides a summary table of the major consultation activities that have taken place during the preparation phase, including workshops with foreign and local NGOs, affected villagers, and government officials. The proposed project to be implemented over a six-year period will include four major components which are complementary to project objectives: (a) park management; (b) area and village development; (c) integrating biodiversity in forest concession management; and (d) monitoring and evaluation. Supporting activities are: (a) policy and planning; (b) training and community facilitation; (c) promotion of conservation awareness; and (d) studies.
Project Components
3.4 Park Management (estimated costs US$13.4 million). One of the first major project activities will be the preparation and implementation of a management plan, including zonation, for KSNP. The component will strengthen Park protection, management, enforcement and participatory planning through institutional strengthening of Park personnel, training and infrastructure support. It will also support boundary rationalization activities, species inventory, ecological monitoring, socio- economic and other research necessary for Park and buffer zone planning and management. The component will be implemented by a Park director and his staff, supported by technical assistance. More detailed information is provided in Annex 1, with full details in Working Paper I of Annex 14. Given the institutional and management constraints facing the Park, a longer time horizon beyond the initial six year project period will be required to implement the strategy to elevate the Park to a fully protected and functioning conservation estate. Accordingly, the Park management strategy is based on short, medium and long-term objectives as follows:
Short-Term (1-2 years):
D Legal establishment of the Park through formal gazettement and further boundary rationalization.; * Mobilizationof senior andjunior staff, includingtechnical assistance; and * Set up of managementplan, M&E system and training.
Medium-Term(3-12 years):
* Develop and implement a Park management plan including a comprehensive zoning system; * Develop and reinforce Park management and protection, including efficient coordination with local government; * Effective protection for the preservation of viable natural ecosystems and endangered species: * Improve management of people-Park interactions, particularly with buffer zone local communities;and * Facilitate human use for recreationand education; - 10-
Long-Term(13-25 years):
* Regenerate degraded areas; * Maintain habitats for specificconservation objectives; and * Focus activities to utilize the Park for recreation, research and tourism.
3.5 AreaNVillageDevelopment (estimated costs US$25.9 million). The area development component is designed to improve land use planning, land use rights and community resource management in about 134 selected villages in the interaction zone surrounding the Park, including villages adjoining or within logging concessions bordering the Park. It will be based on an iterative participatory development process involving four steps namely: situational assessment, designing village development plans, implementing and monitoring, and review and evaluation leading to a revised design. The main aim of this process is to arrive at a village conservation agreement (VCA) which legalizes village access to resources in the Park and its buffer zone (e.g. access to non-timber forest products, intensification of agricultural production systems and community forestry) or social benefits (such as improved marketing and village infrastructure improvements, including processing and storage) and guarantees specified development assistance in return for community cooperation in Park protection and conserving biodiversity resources on village lands. This process, that will require a long preparation and delivery time of up to three years, will be initiated and sustained in each target community by resident project facilitators in collaboration with formal village leaders, traditional and formal village groups. While the target group of resource-poor farmers most dependent on the Park will be the main focus of this activity, the overall village community will necessarily be parties to this consensus VCA. In villages adjoining forest concessions, the component will mainly promote community forestry management. Some key preparatory work in regard to planning and training has already been commenced by WWF and financed by the Japanese grant (para 3.3). Further details of this component are shown in Annex 1 with full details on operation and legal framework given in the Working Papers 2, 3 and 9 in Annex 14.
3.6 Each of the target villages will receive about US$50,000as village grants, depending on their needs, for a combination of small-scale infrastructure, agriculture intensification and business/ enterprise activities. Much of the budget allocation process will follow the process of "Certification for Development Assistance Budget" (SPABP). The Village Community Resilience Institution (LKMD) and the Discussion Forum of the Area Development Unit (UDKP) at sub-district level will form the key local institutions for implementing the program (see Chart 1). Project assistance provided for the agriculture related activities may consist of community or individually focused activities which are based on a menu of indicative interventions and guiding principles rather than the standard top-down sub-sectoral packages provided by the provincial agricultural service. Activities will be based on areas' potential in terms of natural resources which vary considerably, (altitudes ranging from 0-2000m, climate, topography and in particular the difference between volcanic and podzolic soils). Nevertheless, there will be two generic benefits which will be generated by the project. The first will be related to the poor soils encountered in the podzolic lands used by villages, most of which have a fertility problem which can be improved by large initial - 11 - applications of rock phosphate. The other one will be related to genetic and management improvements in the availability of tree crop related stock (e.g. jungle rubber). The technical support team (para. 4.4) would evaluate each of the proposed village activities and productive investments and their recommendations for improvement would be taken into consideration for the implementation of subsequent activities.
3.7 The eligibility criteria associated with the village development investments would be based on: (a) conservation of biodiversity; (b) targeting common interest groups which are most disadvantaged; (c) technical and financial feasibility; social and institutional feasibility; and (d) impact and sustainability. Additional requirements are: (a) public infrastructure investments must be justified by the number of users and the cost per user; (b) village grant and village contributions, including labor, must be sufficient to complete the sub project; and (c) implementation/contractual arrangements must be clear. Assurances were obtained at negotiations that village grants would be made available in accordance with procedures and conditions satisfactory to the Bank.
3.8 Integrating Biodiversity in Forest Concession Management (estimated costs US$2.9 million). The primary objectives of this component are the following:
* establishment of a clear institutional and policy basis for the effective management of forested areas bordering the Park to act as an effective buffer zone for biodiversity;
* identification, monitoring and protection of high biodiversity sites of conservation value within the concessions;and
* linking the managementof forest concessionswith the overall regional land use priorities supported by the project.
3.9 One of the main activities to be undertaken under this component will be ecological and biodiversity assessments of the logging concession areas with the view for GOI to reallocate forest land to appropriate land use and management regimes as needed in the six logging concessions. This process would also assist in the rationalization of the Park boundary (see paras. 5.12-5.14). Some initial survey work has already commenced through WWF/CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research) assistance and financed by the Japanese Grant (para 3.3). The intention is that the rapid ecological assessments will be complemented by the longer term KPHP (Permanent Production Forest Management Units) process. The KPHP is a new program instituted by MOFr as a planning mechanism to redefine concession boundaries based on land use, biophysical and social development considerations. As part of this process, areas of high biodiversity or watershed conservation values would be identified so that they can be left as protected forest areas within the concession. The component will also include independent audit contracts to review and monitor forestry logging and conservation practices in some selected forestry concessions around the Park. The audits will be based on standards for forest management, environmental and social performance and contracts will be issued by the Directorate General for Forest Utilization. Further details are described in Annex 1 and in Working Paper 4 of Annex 14.
3.10 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) (estimatedcosts US$3.8 million). M&E is a support component which is linked to the project's Park management, area/village development and concession management for biodiversity activities. The M&E is intended to support the planning - 12 - and decision-making processes in each of the three intervention components and are key to their effective implementation. The proposed project monitoring activity will support three major planning and resource management functions: (a) technical and financial progress monitoring; (b) impact analysis; and (c) performance evaluation. Specific objectives for each of the three components include the following:
Park Management
* to provide appropriate tools for monitoringencroachment, poaching and other development impacts within Park boundaries;and
* to develop monitoringand performanceindicators to assess the health and well-beingof the Park such as boundarystability, habitat condition, species survival and distribution.
Area/Village Development
* to strengthen institutional capabilities for analyzing the impact of rural development activities on the Park; and
* to facilitate the assessment of project effectiveness in enhancing social and economic development for boundarycommunities.
Integrating Biodiversityin Forest ConcessionManagement
e to establish a system for monitoring the integrity of Park and concession boundaries, includingthe effectivenessof preservingbiodiversity; and
* to develop a capability to monitor and evaluate forest management practices within concessionareas, includingthe success of conservationsites within concessionboundaries.
Further details are described in Annex I and in Working Paper 5 of Annex 14.
Additional Project Activities (includedabove but not described).
3.11 Policy and Planning (US$1.7 million). Project interventions in policy and planning will be mainly focused on the improvement of the regulatory guidelines for inter-provincial spatial planning and regional planning practices with the aim to influence the regional economic development of the greater Kerinci Seblat area in taking more "conservation friendly" directions. The project intends to do this through the support of three activities:
* short-term policy and planning support to BAPPENASand the Ministryof Home Affairs at the central level to incorporate environmentalconcerns, particularlyrelated to biodiversity conservation,in the regulatory guidelinesof regional and spatial planning;
* long-term support to BAPPEDA I and 11 for provincial and district planning in the four provinces encompassing KSNP, particularly to ensure that KSNP's development will reflect agreed communityresource managementand conservationpriorities; and - 13 -
the preparation of a comprehensiveland zoning plan for the entire project area which will address inter-provincial development priorities, including forest production, commercial plantations, mining and infrastructureand transportation development,so that the landuse zonation and management of the Park and its buffer zone can be endorsed by the four provincial governments. Further details are provided in the preparation report and the regional and spatial planning Working Paper 6 shown in Annex 14 and its costs are mainly included in the area/village developmentcomponent.
3.12 Training and Community Facilitation (US$6.1 million). Specific training activities have been identified (see Annex I and 14) for each component that are necessary for capacity building and successful project implementation (see para. 4.7). The project will assist in designing and conducting a training needs assessment of all involved stakeholders, the implementation of relevant theoretical and practical training programs, contracting of training services, and supervision and monitoring of training impacts. The extension services in the districts will be used in the area/village development component as and when required and will complement the community facilitation process. (See Working Paper 3 in Annex 14).
3.13 Conservation Awareness (US$1.3 million). The Biodiversity Conservation Promotions Program (BCPP) included in the project will play a key role within Park management and rural development activities by disseminating information to people in boundary villages, government agencies and the community at large on the value of the Park for biodiversity, watershed protection, and local development. It will assist in the survey of current awareness levels and attitude, and design multi-media programs aimed at specific target groups, building on local practices and traditions wherever possible. Details of this activity are shown in Annex 9 tables 1.2/3 and in the BCPP Working Paper 7 in Annex 14.
Studies (US$0.8 million)
3.14 Financial Sustainability. KSNP will require a long-term sustained program of investment and institutional development to achieve its overall goal of conserving biodiversity through integrated buffer zone development. The proposed project would contribute to long-term sustainability through its emphasis on capacity-building and community involvement in project design and implementation. In addition, recurrent costs associated with proposed project activities will be financed by GOI during the project period, reflecting the national commitment to effective operation of KSNP and ICDP activities. The project's fiscal requirements over the long term are not escalating. However, to protect the Park from any possible budget cut, and to ensure financial sustainability beyond the project period, GOI wishes to explore what options would be available for future recurrent cost/investment financing and development assistance for both the Park and buffer zones on an off-budget basis. The study would review the structure by which money could be raised for and spent on protectedareas management and come up with an approach to ensure continuity of funding sources, including decentralized funding mechanisms with responsiveness to local conditions as the guiding principles. The study would include also a review of the feasibility and requirements for establishing a trust fund or other financing mechanism. Consequently, during years 1-3 of project implementation, a special study will be commissioned to assess options and make recommendations for future action. -14-
3.15 Ecotourism. Tourism could provide a source of revenue towards Park maintenance costs as well as alternative livelihood opportunity for some village communities. At present KSNP offers very little facilities and services to attract any type of ecotourism. In addition, experience from other tropical forest habitats in Asia suggest that ecotourism potential is limited, unless it is accompanied by other attractions. This need for additional attractions would be considered in the framework of the preparation of the spatial plan (para. 4.3). At the same time the project, with additional support from technical assistance provided for under the Park management component, would undertake a study to assess the potentials and constraints for KSNP to become an ecotourism site. If a real potential would exist for KSNP and depending on the type of ecotourist (e.g. budget and time available) the study would also outline how the ecotourism would have to be organized and managed, including the roles of the local people, govemment and the private sector.
3.16 Kubu Assistance Plan. The Kubu or Orang Rimba (people of the forest) have a tradition of nomadic rain forest foraging, the only traditional hunter-gatherersto be found on mainland Sumatra. They generally are distributed outside the Park throughout the Batang Hari and Musi drainage basins but they have begun to venture into the KSNP buffer zone, particularly in or near the forest concessions because of the continuing depletion of their traditional forest resources. While the Kubus' livelihood is mainly derived from a combination of swidden cultivation, harvesting non- timber forest products and hunting and trapping, the overall depletion of resources has also led to an increase in commercial hunting and trapping of many rare and threatened animals in and around Kerinci Seblat because of lucrative prices paid by middlemen. The information on the Kubu and possible development actions are described in Working Paper 8 of Annex 14.
3.17 Preliminary surveys indicate that there may be as few as two to three families to as many as several hundred Orang Rimba living in the buffer zone of the Park. While the Kubu are not likely to suffer any adverse effects from the proposed project other than that the project will enforce standard legal provisions against poaching of wildlife (especially endangered wildlife) for commercial purposes, the project will review the actual Kubu dependence on buffer zone and KSNP resources and based on this impact assessment will prepare, if required, a plan which will propose measures to continue the continued access of the Kubus to natural resources vital to their subsistence and livelihood in a manner to be acceptable to them, but within the constraints of a sustainable management of KSNP and its buffer zone. If deemed necessary selected pilot activities among Kubu groups, possibly in the field of health improvements and education, would be initiated under the project.
3.18 Because of the Kubus' highly mobile nature and their tendency to range in small groups over an enormous territory, it appears that a two step approach may be the most appropriate means to further assist them. The first step would include a 2-3 year review process carried out by the project and mainly dealing with:
* establishing and training of a small multidisciplinaryteam consisting of both NGO and government to effectively communicate with the Kubu and act as interlocutors between the Kubu and the district and provincial government officials;
* the collection by the team of more basic baseline information on what-where Kubu presence, and dependence on resources in buffer zone and Park, including ecological and socio-economic impact assessments; - 15-
* determining Kubu livelihood and resource needs through an action plan in the event that partial or full restrictions on resource utilization or access exist for the Kubu in the Park and buffer zones;
Assurances were obtained at negotiations that (a) not later than September 30, 1998, the results of the baseline study and impact assessment would be sent to the Bank for comments; (b) based on the results of the study and of the assessment, and taking into account the KSNP management plan, the land zoning plan for the project area, and the comments of the Bank on the baseline study and impact assessment, prepare, not later than June 1, 1999, an action plan designed to ensure that the Orang Rimba do not suffer adverse effects as a result of the implementationof the above plans; and (c) promptly thereafter, carry out such action plan in a manner satisfactory to the Bank.
C. PROJECT COSTS ANDFINANCING
3.19 The total cost of the project, summarized in Table 3.1, is estimated at US$46.0 million (Rp.103.6 billion equivalent), inclusive of taxes and duties in the amount of US$3.7 million (Rp.10.1 billion). Foreign exchange costs amount to about US$9.4 million or 20 percent of total costs. Physical contingencies are based on an average amount of 5 percent for goods and services, except for village allocations which are excluded from physical contingencies due to their programmatic nature. Price contingencies reflect foreign inflation of 2.4 percent per annum and local inflation of 8.7 percent per annum throughout the project period. The local inflation rate has been adjusted to take account of expected dollar appreciation against the Rupiah since most costs are dollar-based. Total contingencies are estimated at US$5.0 million or 11 percent of total costs. Further details of project costs are presented in Annex 9.
Table 3.1 PROJECT COST SUMMARY % % Total (Ruplah Million) (USS'000) Foreign Base Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Exchange Costs
1. Park Management 17,910.7 8,934.4 26,845.1 7,971.6 3,976.5 11,948.1 33 29 2. AreaNillage Development 45,460.1 6,326.9 51,787.0 20,233.2 2,816.0 23,049.2 12 56 3. ConcessionBiodiversity 4,428.3 1,359.2 5,787.5 1,970.9 605.0 2,575.9 23 6 Assessment 4. Monitoring& Evaluation 5,194.2 2,543.5 7,737.7 2,311.8 1,132.1 3,443.9 33 8 Total BaselineCosts 72,993.2 19,164.1 92,157.3 32,487.6 8,529.5 41,017.1 21 100 PhysicalContingencies 1,957.7 341.2 2,298.8 871.3 151.8 1,023.2 25 2 PriceContingencies \a 7,585.1 1,576.1 9,161,3 3,254,0 676.2 3,930.2 17 10 Total Project Costs 82,536.1 21,081.4 103,617.4 36,612.9 9,357.5 45,970.4 20 112
\a Pricecontingencies are convertedat the currentexciange rate.
3.20 The financing plan in Table 3.2 presents the GEF, Bank and GOI contribution over the six year project period. The Bank Loan of US$19.1 million equivalent, combined with a GEF Grant of SDR 10.2 million, would finance about 74 percent of project costs or 81 % of project costs exclusive of taxes, duties, vehicles and fertilizers which would be purchased by GOI. The GEF grant would finance the incremental costs of the proposed project to conserve the unique global biodiversity in the KSNP, and would be-targeted to elements of the project that contribute wholly or largely to - 16 -
achievement of global biodiversity objectives (47 percent of total foreign costs and 32 percent of local costs). The detailed incremental cost analysis (with information on the costs of the baseline scenario and GEF alternative) is presented in Annex 12. The proposed Bank loan would finance 38 percent of foreign costs and about 47 percent of local costs. The balance of project costs, covering 15 percent of foreign costs and 20 percent of local costs, or a total of US$11.8 million equivalent, including taxes, would be financed by GOI.
Table 3.2 COMPONENTS BY FINANCIERS (US$000) Local GOI GEF IBRD Total Foreign (Excl. Duties & Amount Amount Amount Amount Exch. Taxes) Taxes
1. Park Management 4,937.2 8,505.4 - 13,442.6 4,343.3 8,294.1 805.1 2. AreaNillage Development /a 4,696.3 4,565.9 16,601.6 25,863.8 3,097.4 20,543.8 2,222.6 3. Concession Biodiversity 1,612,1 1,240.2 - 2,852.3 670.2 1,893,7 288.4 Assessment 4. Monitoring & Evaluation 558.9 709.4 2,543.6 3,811.8 1,246.7 2,180.5 384.7 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS 11,804.4 15,020.9 19,145.2 45,970.4 9,357.5 32,912.1 3,700.8 \a This component is implemented in villages next to the Park boundary - 17-
4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
A. PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
4.1 The overall organization of the project is shown in Chart 1. The three main interventions, i.e. Park management, area/village development and concession management for biodiversity would each be managed by a project manager (PIMPRO) responsible for contracting services, implementing activities and preparing reports. The PIMPRO for the Park Management component will be appointed by the DG PHPA and be responsible to the KSNP Park manager and be based in Park headquarters in Sungai Penuh (see map). The Park manager will be supported by a project-financed Technical Advisory Group and a Management Support Unit which will assist him with annual planning, financial management, monitoring and reporting. Staff of the Forestry Ministry's provincial offices (Kanwil Kehutanan) in Jambi and Bengkulu will be assigned as PIMPROs for the Concession Management for Biodiversitycomponent. They will be responsible for activity implementation, and report directly through the Kanwil's office to the Project Management Committee (PMC). Field activities will be under the supervision of the Dinas Kehutanan TK II in the Kabupaten which have concession areas identified for project activities. In line with the further devolution of responsibility for local development planning and implementation and in support of the KSNP management program, implementation of the Area/Village Development component will be devolved to organized village community groups through the LKMD. These village groups will be assisted by resident facilitators and the visiting TA team working in coordination with sub-district extension workers to plan and implement the component activities. The planning and implementation of village infrastructure investments will follow the general guidelines outlined in the technical manual prepared for the Village Infrastructure Project (Ln. 3888-IND). The component will be coordinated in each of the Kabupatens by a district committee chaired by the head of BAPPEDA TK II with a PIMPRO pointed from the same office as the secretary. A similar Provincial Coordinating Committee chaired by the BAPPEDA TK I with the PIMPRO TK I as secretary will ensure district project plans are incorporated into the improved provincial spatial plans being prepared with assistance from the project planners. The Park director will take overall responsibility for the development and implementation of the Monitoring and Evaluation System. His office will establish a "base" for the information system. Each of the agencies responsible for implementing components (BAPPEDAS and Kanwils Kehutanan) will be strengthened with a "subset" of the overall project monitoring system.
4.2 The inter-provincial project coordination will be achieved through an Inter-Provincial Coordinating Committee (IPCC) with membership incorporating all project PIMPROs drawn from the BAPPEDAS in each participating province and district and from the Forestry Ministry's provincial offices. The IPCC will be responsible for ensuring that the Park management plan and the various district and provincial plans are coordinated into an overall land zoning plan for the Park and surrounding areas, and that the annual series of planned activities and budget proposals are integrated and consistent with other component objectives and overall project goals. The chairmanship of the IPPC will rotate through the four provinces and will be serviced by a project secretariatmaintained by each province. Meetings will be chaired by the Head BAPPEDA TK I of the host provincewhile the Park manager will be the committee's permanent secretary. In addition, - 18 - there is an overall National Steering Committee covering all ICDPs, chaired by the National Planning Board (BAPPENAS),with members representing the Ministries of Finance, Home Affairs, Agriculture, Forestry, National Land Agency, the four Governors, the Indonesian Institute of Sciences and representatives of national environmental NGOs. A working group will be attached to this Committee to review project performance and deal with policies, laws and regulations, particularly those "perverse" incentives that discourage conservation.
4.3 The "greater" KSNP land zoning plan (para 3.11) should be completed by September 30, 1998, including recommendations for the long-term management plan for KSNP. Assurances to this effect were obtained at negotiations. It is intended as a tool to get the four provinces to endorse the final zonation plan for KSNP and its surrounding districts, including commitment to what the plan deems necessary for the further integration of biodiversity conservation and development in and around the Park. Particularly the environmental, land use (e.g. roads and mining) and socio- economic impact implications of KSNP have to be addressed and inter-provincial issues need to be resolved. Assurances were also obtained at negotiations that GOI not later than June 1, 1999, would review the land zoning plan for the project area, and, thereafter, carry out the recommendations of such review, taking into account the comments of the Bank. Both the IPCC as well as the national steering committee will review the 'greater" KSNP land zoning plan, in time for the project's Mid- Term-Review.
4.4 Technical Assistance (TA) The project involves the introduction of many new conservation techniques and processes that are still not very well known in Indonesia. To ensure effective technology and managerial transfer and train and build institutional capacity, the project has included some 1,300 staff-months of short and long-term local and foreign experts, including NGOs. About 82 percent of the TA is for the support for operational activities and institutional development of which 60 percent is expected to be carried out by local and 40 percent by foreign consultants. The remainder of TA (18 percent) is set aside for studies and research. Details are described in Annex 5. The TA is provided to cover the following main fields:
(a) Park management and enforcement;
(b) village land use and development planning and community based implementation;
(c) regional and spatial planning;
(d) concession managementfor biodiversityand inspection audits;
(e) monitoring and evaluation; and
(f) studies and research.
4.5 Most experts to be located in Sungai Penuh will provide support to the areas in Jambi and West Sumatra, whereas the TA team to be located in Curup (see map) will provide support to villages and districts in Bengkulu and South Sumatra. Assistance from both local and foreign NGOs will also be provided. Particularly in the village planning and implementation process of the area/village development component, they are one of the most valuable resources for the project. The terms of reference for the key technical assistance assignments are summarized in Annex 14 D. - 19 -
4.6 Annual Plan Preparation and Fund Flow. The Project Managers of the Park Development and Concession Management for Biodiversity components will prepare the annual budget plans (DUPs) and funds will be made available when annual plan proposals have been approved (DIPs) by BAPPENASand DG BUDGET. Funds released for the AreaNVillagesDevelopment component will basically conform to the specific grant of DATI II (see Chart 2). The SPABP will go to the PIMPRO in BAPPEDA TK II through KPKN. The PIMPRO will make the request to BRI to finance the village community project. The village community group assisted by the TA team will prepare an annual contract, according to the approved village development plan, with the appropriate district PIMPRO. The annual village development contract would be approved by the Camat before submission to the PIMPRO. The village community group will receive funds from BRI Unit Desa at Kecamatan to meet the expenditures. The PIMPRO accounts for BRI's expenditures incurred on the basis of the PIMPRO's request to KPKN to replenishment to BRI. This replenishment to BRI, being reimbursement of expenditures incurred, is paid from the Special Account. The leaders of each community group will be assisted by the accountant from the village development council (LKMD) to manage and account for the funds released to them. They will also be supervised and trained by the facilitators and the TA team. The annual work-planwill be prepared by the Kabupaten PIMPROs of the area/village development component, based on participatory planning at the village-level to produce project proposals. These proposals will be screened by the Kabupaten and Provincial Guidance teams before they are forwardedto BAPPENASand DG BUDGET.
4.7 Training. The overall objective of project-relatedtraining is to develop skills and institutional capacity to implement ICDP activities by implementingagencies. Training plays a large part in the Park management component, where the focus is on building Park management skills, community awareness and extension skills and familiarizing Park staff and communitiesof the biodiversity within KSNP. In the area/village development component the focus is primarily in improving integration between biodiversity conservationand rural development through integrated planning and community- based program planning exercises. Training will also focus on improved biodiversitymonitoring and development impact specifically through training of forestry personnel in concession audit techniques. Table 4.1 illustrates the different types of training to be financed through the project. The project proposes to deliver nearly 802 staff-monthsof training through short-coursesat the provincial, district, and sub-district level. Ir addition, the project will support four Park management staff to attend overseas short training course on Park Management,and seven staff to visit Malaysian National Parks on working visits to learn ICDP managementtechniques being implementedin Kota Kinabalu National Park. PHPA staff will also visit other National Parks currently implementingICDP types of projects within Indonesia. Prior to implementing training activities, each component will first conduct a training needs assessment. - 20 -
Table 4.1 Proposed TrainingInterventions (staff-months)
Component PYI PY2 PY3 PY4 PY5 PY6 TOTAL Park Management
Field Staff 1.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 34 Short-Courses 2 2 - - 4 (overseas) 2 2 3 - - 7 Working-Visits 1.5 1.5 - - - 3 Traveling Seminars 34 34 34 34 34 34 204 District workshops 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 Extension Training 282 Area/Village Dev
Project Manager 1.5 1.5 3 training 2.5 2.5 5 Planners training 7 17.5 10.5 35 Extension worker 35 52.5 70 52.5 210 training 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 14 Community organizer 267 training ZOPP meetings Concession Biodiversity
Traineeships 10 20 20 20 20 10 100 Monitoring & Eval.
M&E staff training 18 18 36 Decision-makers 4.5 4.5 9 training 50 58 108 Planner's GIS training 153
B. IMPLEMENTATIONPLAN
4.8 Implementation Schedule The project will be implemented over six years. A project implementation schedule, showing the key events of project implementation for the first two years has been prepared. Details are summarized in Annex 6. In general there are three key steps for project start-up implementation: - 21 -
(a) the preparation of the decrees (Surat Keputusan-SK) concerning the appointments of the PIMPROs, coordinating teams/committees and 1996/7 budgets, which have to be prepared by GOI;
(b) the preparation and processing of procurement of the project's technical assistance program so that the TA and NGO teams can be mobilized immediately;and
(c) the completion of Park boundary demarcation.
4.9 With respect to the Park Management component, little project action can be expected before the appointment by the Secretary DG PHPA of the senior Park staff. Assurances were obtained at negotiations that not later than August 1, 1996 a KSNP project management unit, with competent staff and in adequate numbers, would be established and thereafter be maintained until project completion. Concerning the Area/Village Development component it would be important to have the resident village facilitators (pendamping) for the first ten villages selected, trained and in place by July 1996. The meeting of this deadline is possible as the training and pre-planning activities for the ten villages by WWF were started in November 1995, with funds provided by the Japanese Grant (para. 3.3). With respect to the Concession Management for Biodiversity component, there is a need to commence the rapid ecological assessments in the concession forthwith so that biodiversity management zones in the concessions and along the Park boundary can be identified (see para. 5.12).
4.10 During appraisal a list of draft monitoring and performance indicators to be used over the life of the project was developed and which should be finalized during the first year of implementation once key staff are in place and key TA personnel are mobilized. The Project's supervision requirements are summarized in Annex 7. While the project would carry out yearly reviews on progress and if required, would make appropriate adjustments during the project cycle, a MTR will be completed by March 1, 1999. The MTR report would be prepared under terms of reference satisfactory to the Bank. The MTR will review project effectiveness in meeting ICDP goals and in stabilizing Park boundaries and reducing biodiversity loss. It will also be used for making appropriate technology and institutional adjustments in project design if required, including follow- up actions for the "greater" KSNP land zoning plan (para. 4.3) and Kubu action plan (para. 3.18). The MTR report will be reviewed with the Bank by June 1, 1999 and thereafter GOI would take all measures to ensure the efficient completion of the project based on the conclusions and recommendations of the MTR report, and taking into account the views of the Bank. A project completion report would be prepared by the Ministry of Forestry on the basis of Bank guidelines within six months of the closing date of the loan and grant. Assurances regarding the above were obtained at negotiations.
C. PROCUREMENT
4.11 The procurement arrangements are summarized in Table 4.1 and reviewed below. Goods and Works would be procured in accordance with the provisions of the "Guidelines for the Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits", dated January, 1995, and revised in January, 1996. The DG of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (MoFr) will be responsible for coordinating the procurement activities related to the Park Management component, the DG for - 22 -
Forest Utilization (MoFr) will do so for the Concession Management for Biodiversity component and the DG of Regional Development (BANGDA) in MoHA will be responsible for the Area/Village Development and M&E components. Since the consulting services required for this project are quite large and interrelated between the various components it will be BAPPENAS who will coordinate the initial.procurement process of these services. GOI would finance purchases of vehicles and fertilizer from its own resources because under GO] procurement rules these items are not open for intemational competitive bidding. Assurances were obtained at negotiations that such a procurement will be in accordance with schedules agreed with the Bank.
Table 4.2 PROCUREMENTARRANGEMENTS (USs'000) Procurement Method National Competitive Consulting Bidding Other /a Services N.B.Flb Total
A. Civil Works Buildingsand Structures 2,314.3 - - - 2,314.3 [1,388.6] [1,388.6]
VillageInfrastructure - 5,761.2 - - 5,761.2 (4,609.0) (4,609.0) B. Equipment, Fumiture. Office/Fieldequipment & Fumiture/c 633.7 66.1 - - 699.8 (188.1) (5.6) (193.7) [318.7] [47.2] [365.9] Aerial photography 604.5 - - - 604.5 (483.6) (483.6))
RemoteSensing Equipment - 47.4 - 47.4 (37.9) (37.9) C. Vehicles - - - 986.8 986.8 D. Training - 3,084.8 - 288.8 3,373.5 (1,127.5) (1,127.5) [1,523.3] [1,523.31 E. ConsultantServices - - 12,723.0 144.2 12,867.1 (4,907.4) (4,907.4) [6,572.2] - [6,572.2] F. Studies - - 825.5 - 825.5 (743.0) (743.0)
G. Surveyand Research - - 4,579.1 - 4,579.1 (1,022.8) (1,022.8) [3,098.3] [3,098.3] H..Extension & Planning - 6,127.0 - - 6,127.0 (4,050.3) (4,050.3) [1,346.4] [1,346.4] I. Agriculturaland Other Inputs/d - 1,453.8 - - 1,453.8 (1,163.0) (1,163.0) J. IncrementalOperational Costs - - 1,703.4 4,278.8 5,982.2 (806.9) (806.9) [726.2] [726.2] TOTAL 3,552.5 16,540.2 19,831.0 6,046.7 45,970.4 (671.6) (10,993.4) (7,480.1) - (19,145.2) [1,707.3] [2,916.9] [10,396.8] - [15,020.9] Note: Figures in () and( arethe amountsfinanced by IBRDand GEF respectively. \a Includes national shopping, direct contracting and community participation works, simplified procurementprocedures for smallwork and training. \b NBF - Not Bank Finanoed \c Amountless than $200.00per contract. \d Includinginputs for villageenterprises, but excludingfertilizers. - 23 -
4.12 Civil works (US$8.1 million) would comprise buildings and village infrastructure. The works for small offices and other buildings would involve small contracts over scattered areas which would not attract foreign bidders. These works would be procured following national competitive bidding procedures (NCB) acceptable to the Bank. Civil works for village infrastructure (US$5.8 million) would be small sub-projects between US$10,000-40,000in often very remote areas. These works would be carried out mostly by the LKMDs by direct village labor (community participation) or by lump-sum, fixed price contracts awarded on the basis of quotations obtained from three qualified domestic contractors in response to a written invitation, with implementation agreements with the Kabupaten Department of Public Works. Agricultural and other inputs (US$1.5 million) would consist of planting materials, labor, small tools, and other goods required by small enterprises. Inputs also include fertilizers valued at about US$0.07 million and not financed by the Loan/Grant. These inputs would make up the bulk of the farm or community forest treatments and spread over a large number of areas and farms in and around the Park buffer zone. The size of each input would be too small (on average less than US$15,000) to attract international or national competitive bidders. They would, th-erefore,be procured under national procedures acceptable to the Bank, mostly through national shopping and with at least three price quotations. Vehicles (US$1.0 million) are considered reserved procurement and would not be financed by the Loan or Grant. Office and field equipment (US$1.4 million) would be mainly for small packages or items below US$200,000 and be procured under NCB acceptable to the Bank and with at least three price quotations. For small items that cannot be conveniently packaged under NCB in amounts not exceeding US$20,000 per contract up to a aggregate of US$70,000, national shopping procedures acceptable to the Bank would be used. Aerial photographs would be procured through NCB procedures acceptable to the Bank as this would be for packages between US$50,000-100,000 for which capable domestic companies are available and which would be too low to attract interest by international companies. Satellite imagery would, with the Bank's prior agreement, be procured by direct contracting as this would only be available from either Spot or Landsat. Training (US$3.4 million), of which about US$0.3 million would not be financed by the Loan/Grant, would be carried out by procedures acceptable to the Bank. Extension and Planning (US$6.1 million) would be procured by national shopping procedures acceptable to the Bank. Consultancy Services, Studies and Surveys and Research (US$18.3 million) would be procured in accordance with the Bank's Guidelines for Use of Consultants. For complex, time-bound assignments, contracts would be based on the standard form of contract for consultants'services issued by the Bank. The project's TA requirements would be coordinated by an independent Project Coordination consultant attached to PHPA but responsible to the KS-ICDP working group of the Project Steering Committee. An NGO as a sole sourced contract would carry out the village participation operations of the area/village development component. It is likely that WWF would be chosen on account of their long involvement with villages in KSNP. The balance of project costs are Incremental Operational Costs (US$6.0 million), most of which (US$4.3 million) would not be financed by the loan/Grant. About US$ 1.7 million would be procured following the Bank's guidelines for the use of consultants.
4.13 Procurement Review. All contracts for goods would be grouped into bid packages whenever possible to attract competition and permit bulk purchasing. GOI would use and conform to the Bank's standard Bidding documents i.e. procurement of goods and works, including works for smaller contracts, which would facilitate the tender and contract preparation by the various agencies involved. Civil works' contracts for offices and other buildings, equivalent to US$500,000,or more, would be subject to the Bank's prior review. Given their small amounts and their large number, the - 24 - need for quick approval and the safeguards in project design (field engineers and other TA will be in place to assist) to supervise the process, the contracts for village infrastructure, except for the first five contracts, would not require prior review. All tender documents and contracts for goods, estimated to cost the equivalent of US$200,000 or more would be reviewed by the Bank, including the first contract. All contracts for consultants' services, including studies, surveys and research, valued at US$100,000 or more for engagement of firms and US$50,000 or more for engagement of individuals would be subject to prior review by the Bank. The exceptions to prior review of contracts for consultants'services would not apply to: (a) the terms of reference for such contracts; (b) single-source selection of consulting firms; (c) assignments of a critical nature, as reasonably determined by the Bank; (d) amendments to contracts for the employment of consulting firms raising the contract value to US$100,000 equivalent or more; and (e) amendments to contracts for the employment of individual consultants raising the contract value to US$50,000 or more. This would result in prior review of about 55 percent of all contracts procured. Contracts below the threshold levels would be subject to selective post-review by visiting missions. This review would concentrate, among others, on the competitiveness of prices paid and on the physical inspection of the inputs provided. Assurances were obtained from GOI at negotiations that these procurement arrangements would be followed.
D. DISBURSEMENTS
4.14 The Bank loan of US$19.1 million and a GEF grant of SDR 10.2 million (about US$15.0 million equivalent) are expected to be disbursed over a six-year period. The period of disbursement is less than the disbursement profile for agricultural projects in Indonesia. However, with the pre- implementation activities now taking place in the buffer zone and a dynamic Park Director already present, it is believed that the targets should be achieved during the project period provided that the technical assistance team can be mobilized promptly. The project loan and grant closing dates are September 30, 2002. The proposed Loan and Grant allocation and a summary of estimated disbursements by year is presented in Annex 10. Disbursementsof the Bank loan would be made on the following basis:
(a) 80% of expendituresfor civil works for area/village development;
(b) 100% of foreign expenditures, 100 % of local expenditures(ex-factory cost) and 65% for other items procured locally for equipment,furniture and mapping materials;
(c) 80% of expendituresfor agriculturaland other inputs, excludingfertilizers;
(d) 60% of expendituresfor training;
(e) 80% of expenditures for planning and extension activities related to buffer zone development;
(f) 80% of expendituresfor technical assistance.;
(g) 90% of expendituresfor studies; - 25 -
(h) 30% of expendituresfor surveys; and
(i) 15% of incrementaloperating expenditures related to the buffer zone.
4.15 Disbursements of the Grant would be made as follows:
(a) 60% of expendituresfor civil works in the Park;
(b) 100% of foreign expenditures, 100% of local expenditures (ex-factory cost) and 65% for other itemsprocured locally for equipment, furniture and mapping materials;
(c) 90% and 20% respectivelyof expendituresfor Park and buffer zone related training;
(d) 80% and 10% respectivelyof expendituresfor planning and extension activities related to Park and buffer zone development;
(e) 90% and 50% respectively of expendituresfor surveys and research related to Park and buffer zone;
(f) 90% on expendituresfor technical assistance related to Park and NGO Services; and 10% for TA related to buffer zone development,excluding NGO Services; and
(g) 15% for incrementaloperating expenditures related to the Park.
4.16 For disbursement purposes, full documentation will be required for all contracts at or exceeding the following amounts: (a) for civil works US$500,000 and the first five contracts related to village infrastructure; (b) for goods US$200,000 and the first contract of both the loan and the grant; (c) for consulting services' contracts, including studies, surveys and research, with firms US$100,000; and (d) for consulting services'contracts, including studies, surveys and research, with individuals US$50,000. For all expenditure in those categories below the limits specified and for expenditures on training, agricultural inputs, extension and planning, and incremental operating expenditures, disbursements will be made on the basis of certified statements of expenditures (SOEs). SOE for village infrastructure works will be supported by progress reports certified by the Camat (head sub-district). This documentation will be available for the required audit and also to Bank supervision missions.
4.17 To expedite disbursements, two Special Accounts would be opened in an amount of US$1.8 million and US$1.5 million respectively for the Loan and the Grant by GOI in Bank Indonesia, or at a commercial bank acceptable to the Bank for the purpose of the project. This account should be maintained by the Directorate General of Budget and would be used for all eligible foreign and local currency expenditures. Replenishment to the Special Accounts will be made on a monthly basis, or when 20 percent of the Special Accounts' balance have been used, whichever comes first. - 26 -
E. PROJECT ACCOUNTS, AUDITS, REPORTING AND BANK SUPERVISION
4.18 Separate detailed accounts would be kept by the provincial project and program offices, for each budget under their charge by sub-project and project year. Project accounts are subject to two audits by: (a) the Inspector General of concerned ministries; and (b) the Financial and Development Supervisory Board (BPKP). The work of both auditors has generally been found satisfactory on Bank-assisted projects. Assurances were obtained at negotiations that the project records and accounts, including the Special Account, would be audited for each fiscal year and furnished to the Bank within six months of each Government fiscal year. Such audit would also contain a separate opinion on the SOEs. In addition, all project related contracts, documents related to the SOEs, and orders and receipts, would be kept for at least one year after the Bank has received the audit report for the fiscal year in which the last withdrawal from the loan and or grant account was made. Annual financial audits would include at least 10 percent coverage of randomly selected village infrastructure sub-projects.
4.19 An annual work program outlining the proposed activities and budget would be submitted to the Bank by no later than October 15. The MIS developed and improved under the project would review the reporting mechanisms and update them through to the national level, as well as the BAPPEDA offices at district and provincial levels. Annual progress reports on each separate component will be prepared by the appropriate PIMPRO but with a consolidated project summary prepared by the Park manager (information data base will be located in the Park management office in Sungai Penuh) would be submitted to the Bank no later than June 30 each year and would also elaborate on the constraints and problem solving aspects of the project.
4.20 The above progress reports will also reflect the monitoring of key performance indicators of the various project components. The Performance Indicators (both implementation and impact) for each project component would be finalized during the first year of implementationonce key staff are in place and key TA personnel have been mobilized and had time to review and update their work program and TORs. Key indicators are discussed in Annex 8. The project would be supervised according to a supervision plan summarized in Annex 7 and priority would be given during the three launching workshops in the first project year to institutional arrangements (e.g. project coordination), to review first year work program and TORs and to get full agreement on the project indicators among the various project units. While this plan is likely to be modified as the project becomes fully operational, the plan suggests that regular supervision be carried out by RSI, with specialized project reviews to be coordinated by Bank HQ, including the milestone missions. Three milestone supervision missions would have to be undertaken by the Bank and GOI, namely (a) first year launching workshops: project start-up, after TA mobilization, and after end of full implementation year to review project component indicators and to review suggestions for project adjustments; (b) MTR, particularly to review KSNP land zoning plan, including social and environmental impacts and Kubu development follow-up; and (c) implementation completion mission. - 27 -
5. PROJECT IMPACT
5.1 The project would benefit some I to 1.5 million people living in the thirty-six sub-districts surrounding the Kerinci Seblat National Park, both directly as a result of specific income generating investments made under the project, and indirectly as a result of improved soil and water quality delivery resulting from better protection of forested areas in and around the Park. The project would generate the following benefits:
(a) environmental benefits, including protection of unique biodiverse habitats and rare and endemic species native to Kerinci Seblat for current and future generations and improved watershed protection for the four surrounding provinces. More specifically the project would reduce negative environmental impacts of local people on biodiversity and increase a better appreciation of protected areas and the social and economic benefits accruing from conservation. Downstream soil and water impacts of stabilizing the Park area and forest cover in neighboring forest concessions are likely to be significant, given the high density of population and intensity of land use on lowland areas of Sumatra affected by erosion of watersheds;
(b) socio-economic benefits by improved employment and income generation opportunities for poor households and communities living in Park boundary villages by giving them more control over the long-term management of their resource base, including resolution of land use conflicts. More specifically about 13,400 households, considered to be the poorer sections in the four provinces, would directly benefit from the investment funds availability to the 134 villages communities and some 300,000 households would indirectly benefit through improved biodiversity conservation. The project would ensure participation of women, tribal communities and other disadvantaged people in community decisions about resource distribution and investment selection in both the National Park and buffer zone; and
(c) the capability of institutions would be enhanced through human resource development, strengthening of sector institutions and policy reform. More specifically the project would improve Park and buffer zone management, through an improved spatial/regional planning process and policy and regulatory framework, including enforcement and a more participatory role of village communities. It would provide an innovative pilot model, which if successful, could be replicated in other conservation areas in Indonesia.
A. ECONOMIC BENEFITS
5.2 Given the nature of this project, it has been difficult to quantify the benefits. As a result, varying degrees of precision can be attached to estimates made for the various components. - 28 -
5.3 With respect to the biodiversity value of the Park, the Project Preparation Study (Report 8 on Resource Economics-Annex 14) concluded that "the value of KSNP as a conservation estate is likely to be similar to the opportunity cost (of timber harvest) in the worst case scenario and that there is a potentially large economic gain to be achieved in the best case scenario". The benefits of KSNP investments are very broad, and many of them are also long term. Such benefits can be difficult to estimate directly, particularly because there is not yet a generally accepted method in the environmental economics literature on how to estimate these. In the case of biodiversity and conservation benefits associated with KSNP, the net present value of selected benefits has been estimated ranging from US$70 to US$200 million, with the mid-point being US$135 million. The costs of achieving these can be calculated by adding the direct investment costs involved, to the value of logging benefits foregone in this forested area. In this case these costs were estimated at about US$93 million.
5.4 At the same time, the investments in Park Management and the planned activities in the buffer zones are a sine-qua-non for maintaining the integrity of the Park. Many of the large predators and forest herbivores require large areas of forests for food and to maintain viable populations. This sets a minimum threshold to Park size and, correspondingly, to investment in management and monitoring. Similarly, once the Park area is defined, then stabilization in the entire zone buffering that Park is necessary. It seems that the proposed level of investments of about US$13.2 million for Park Management and other components of US$34.0 million form a minimum amount that would safeguard the biodiversity value of the Park. With respect to the cost recovery of these investments and the Park's future recurrent cost financing, since the project's benefits are mainly long-term and indirect in nature, the project will carry out studies to find an effective mechanism to ensure long- term recurrent cost financing of KSNP, particularly since few effective measures presently exist (para. 3.14). It is believed that the fiscal implications of continued Park management beyond the life of this project are not large, and are well within the budgetary capability of GOI to cover.
5.5 With respect to the village infrastructure investments (e.g. upgrading village roads, drinking and irrigation water), employment and cash compensation to village laborers is an important feature of the project. The cash to be earned under the project should provide an important addition to the poorer household budgets. Labor-intensive methods are also efficient for the public budget. Villagers are willing to work for the equivalent of about Rp 4-5,000/day (e.g. share rubber tapper), and at those costs labor intensive methods are competitive with capital intensive methods for the simple type of works envisaged, particularly for the relatively isolated villages in the Park's buffer zone. The villagers have generally to undertake the maintenance of the village facilities. However, having participated in the construction and because it is for their own benefit it is likely they would do the maintenance themselves. Assuming that rural roads increase farmers' income by 10 percent, due to better access to markets in the rainy season, easier access to employment, health and other services outside the village (see: Yogyakarta Upland Development Project; 3305-[ND) and using data on buffer zone villages in the KSNP Project gives an economic rate of return for rural roads of 37 percent. With respect to the village development in the Park buffer zone, the communities commitment to Park protection and to improvement of the management of the natural resources they utilize, will to a large extent determine the project's success to meet above objective. Since most of the resource management decisions of these generally isolated villages are motivated by varying combinations of family needs for livelihood, local knowledge and customs, topography and climate, including a wide array of external factors, the interaction with the environment represents - 29 - for each of these villages an unique set of resource management and community development opportunities and constraints. Hence, critical decisions into possible changes in village landuse and resource management will be made with each target village through a participatory process of planning and implementation. This process would be iterative, flexible and responsive to each community's particular situation and development requirements.
5.6 Individual farmer benefits in newly agreed land use activities to be brought about by the village and Park zonation plans are difficult to quantify. The proposed changes in land use within the Park will be mainly governed by achieving more optimum "conservation" principles, with community benefits as a secondary objective and mainly comprising "security of access to certain subsistence resource uses in the Park". The effectiveness of introducing land use changes in the village buffer zone will mainly depend on the financial attractiveness for the target group compared to the activities it is already engaged in. There is a huge variety of farming systems in the buffer zone determined by a wide variation in plot and farming size, soils (volcanic and podzolic) and soil depth, elevation (0-2,000 m), rainfall (2,000-5,000 mm/year) and proximity of markets and input supplies. The project intends to bring about improved land use changes in these farming systems according to a menu of indicative principles rather than a clearly described menu of packages. Some of the indicative principles are: (a) emphasis on tree crops and existing farming systems; (b) work on factors which improve securing of markets and input supplies (e.g. coffee, cinnamon and rubber have well established market structures; one of the main limiting factors to increased productivity is the small amount of phosphorous available in the podzolic soils); (c) return on labor; and (d) improvement and availability of planting material. At the same time there are clearly highly profitable improvements in certain farning areas, the project could instantly introduce (e.g. in the SE part of the project area where jungle rubber provides the main cash crop and where farmers are less well off, the introduction of improved varieties with either budded stumps or polyclonal seed for remote areas, could more than double the yields).
5.7 As part of project preparation, a study was carried out for various farming systems to calculate the economic rate of return for agriculture investment under the village grants. The ERR for jungle rubber is estimated to be 40 percent, for cassiavera (cinnamon), 60-90 percent, depending on the bark grade and for oil palm, 35 percent. Also, on the basis of incremental benefits for agroforestry on 3,720 ha in the buffer zone, an ERR of 34 percent has been estimated. Additionally, as part of the project preparation study, incremental benefit calculations have been carried out for irrigation intensification. These involve investments in an area of 930 ha spread out over sixty-two villages. The economic rate of return is estimated to be 53 percent. It should be made clear that the benefits of these direct investments in agricultural productivity are incremental to the benefits from investments in infrastructure,discussed in para 5.5.
5.8. The village/area development component is both the largest item of expenditure under the project and the one most directly related to social development and income improvement for communities, in the project area. It accounts for 57 percent of total base costs. Therefore, it is necessary to provide an overall rate of return for this component. Because of the difficulty of estimating specific activity returns, given that both the infrastructure requirements and agriculture - 30 - land use options in each village are as yet unknown (para. 3.5), an ERR of 34 percent is considered representative for infrastructure and agriculture without inclusion of all TA and overheads - this being the lower end of the range of returns discussed in paras 5.5-5.7 above. Once all costs of component overheads and associated TA are added in for the village/area development component an ERR of 16 percent for this component results.
5. 9 Sensitivity analysis. The major risk would consist of an inadequate consultation process with target communities with the result that not all villages would participate in the village conservation agreement process (para 3.5). Assuming that 20 percent of villages would not participate, this would result in an ERR of 13 percent. Other likely scenario would be for the project to be delayed by one year due to delay in NGO and other technical assistance mobilization or for the project to receive reduced incremental benefits, say by 10 percent These outcomes would correspond to reduced ERRs of 12 percent and 13 percent respectively. This project component is therefore relatively insensitive to these major categories of risks and maintains an acceptable return.
5.10 In respect to the economic benefits derived from a better monitoring in the forestry concessions bordering the Park, an ERR of some 15 percent has been estimated. This calculation is based on the approach taken in a paper on the economics of sustainable forest management which was presented to GOI in September 1995 and assumes that adequate protection of the regenerating stands produced from project activities can be maintained. The economic calculations prepared for two main project components (area/village development and integrating biodiversity in forest concession management) are given in Annex 13.
B. SOCIALAND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
5.11 The project is expected to have a highly beneficial environmental impact. The main goal of the project is the protection of the approximately 1.3 million ha of the Kerinci Seblat National Park and the surrounding buffer zone. The project has extensive environmental, land use and socio- economic development implications. The major environmental impacts facing the Park, including the proposed mitigation measures are described in a Regional Impact Assessment (RIA) report prepared for BAPPENAS in December 1994 and released by GOI to the Bank on April 20, 1995. A summary analysis is provided in Annex Il. While the project has addressed these issues by including a number of policy, administrative and fiscal responses in the project design (see Working Paper 9, Annex 14) the final understanding with GOI on the more prominent issues will be sought at negotiations. These issues are as follows:
5.12 Boundary Rationalization and Forest Concessions. The rationalization of the current Park boundary is critical for the successful development and sustainability of the Park as buffer zone lands are being subjected to serious disturbance from logging and encroachers. Unless the Park will represent a compromise boundary between social and biological pressures, the completion of the Park and buffer zonation/land use plan would be futile and the Park would not be sustainable. While it is important for project implementation to have the Park boundary gazetted in the shortest possible time, it is equally important that the Park boundary, once gazetted, can in future be further rationalized in areas contested by villages (forest/non-forest boundaries) and in forest concessions - 31 -
bordering the Park with high biodiversity values and with lands categorized as "protected forest" areas so that further adjustments to village and forest concession boundaries can take place. During negotiations GOI provided the Bank with a 1:250,000 base map of the Park showing (a) the delineation of the Park boundary based on the proposed gazetted Park area of approx.1,368,000 ha, and (b) the location of all forest concessions adjoining or near the Park.
5.13 The following assurances were obtained at negotiations: (a) by March 31, 1997, the demarcation of the KSNP boundary would have been completed and that not later than September 30, 1997 the gazettement of the Park would be completed; (b) by March 31, 1997 GOI would have reviewed measures to improve biodiversity management in the logging concessions adjacent to the Park, including the possibility of excluding logging activities in certain areas. Thereafter, GOI would immediately implement any measure that is found to be feasible; and (c) GOI would take all steps to ensure that existing logging permits for forest concessions in areas adjacent to the Park are not renewed or extended without the inclusion of a biodiversity management zone for the areas adjacent to the Park. Such biodiversity management zones would remain in effect until biodiversity surveys would have been carried out for purposes of identifying significant biodiversity sites to be protected. Thereafter, the identified biodiversity sites would remain as biodiversity management zones.
5.14 The measures which will be evaluated for keeping logging operations as far from the KSNP boundary as possible will include the following: (a) the transfer of intended operations which are adjacent to the Park boundary, to blocks further away from the boundary, and (b) an intense monitoring program under the project of surveillance and observance of the 500-1000 m buffer zone which already applies in GOI regulations to concessions bordering the Park. With respect to the renewal and extension of logging operations in concessions bordering the Park, logging operations will not proceed inside a 3-km biodiversity managementzone along the boundary, where applicable, until a biodiversity survey has been carried out.
5.15 Mining Concessions. There are a number of concession holders (gold and coal) currently engaged in mining operations which could potentially have adverse impact to the Park. So far their impact on the Park has been small as most concession holders are still at the exploration stage. To reduce the potential impact of these mining operations on the Park, assurances were obtained at negotiations that:
(a) current exploration permits in the Park area (whether under the initial three-year period or under one of the two one-year extensions) would not be extended after expiration, and that promptly upon the determination by the Ministry of Mining that an area subject to a mining concession lacks significant mineral potential, the applicable mining concession is terminated in accordance with applicable legislation;
(b) prior to the granting of exploration permits and exploitation or production licenses in KSNP, furnish to the Bank for comments, the full Environmental Impact Assessments (AMDAL) evaluation by GOI's Sectoral AMDAL Commission (AMDAL Kegiatan Terpadu /Multisektoral), including the specifications of exploration, mining and extraction methods, and any other mitigation measures required to minimize any adverse impact on KSNP from the proposed activity; - 32 -
(c) take all measures necessary to ensure that the exploration permit and the exploitation or production license, is granted solely on terms consistent with the findings and recommendations of GOI's Sectoral AMDAL Commission and the Bank's comments on the AMDAL evaluation; and
(d) thereafter, ensure that all recommended mitigation measures are promptly and fully carried out.
5.16 Road Development. New roads or even upgrading of existing tracks have potentially significant implications for the sustainability of the Park and biodiversity conservation, since they provide access to new settlers and opportunities for the expansion of existing agricultural activities in the Park. To mitigate against potential impact of road development in the Park, assurances were obtained at negotiations that no roads would be constructed or upgraded within KSNP until the completion of the Park Management Plan and the land zoning plan for the project area (para. 4.3), and that an AMDAL would have been carried out. GOI would also ensure that any construction or upgrading would be carried out in a manner consistent with the recommendations of the AMDAL, including recommendations for the carrying out of mitigating measures, and the requirements of the management plan and land zoning plan.
5.17 Park Encroachment. Generally the tools available to deal with existing Park encroachment are to amend the Park boundary, to demarcate and enforce enclave boundaries and/or to resettle/relocate encroachers. However, due to the large size of the Park and insufficient staff available to monitor the current impact of individual Park encroachment, there is insufficient information available to assess the current Park encroachment and to decide which course of action should be taken by the project to mitigate such impact. For this reason, assurances were obtained at negotiations that GOI would, until April 1, 1999, not cause or permit involuntary resettlement of persons residing within KSNP and thereafter, confine any involuntary resettlement to that required for purposes of protection of KSNP's biodiversity. During this initial period of about three years, the Project will identify key areas for biodiversity conservation,finalize Park zoning and set criteria for resettlement, if any. The project will generally seek to find all possible alternatives to involuntary resettlement through the use of zonation and land use improvement. If there is any involuntary resettlement to be carried, GOI would fumish to the Bank for approval the RehabilitationAction Plan (OD 4.30) and, thereafter, carry out the resettlement and rehabilitation of affected persons in accordance with the Resettlement and RehabilitationAction Plan approved by the Bank. Assurances to this effect were obtained at negotiations.
5.18 Women, Tribal Groups and Poverty Impact. The project potentially would affect the livelihoods of tribal group, women, landless and other poor people living in and around KSNP. A major emphasis of the village/area development efforts financed under the project will be to target poor households and poor communities living in Park boundary villages. Over half the project costs are directed to village development affecting 13,400 households the majority of which are poor, landless and/or living in remote areas. Given the targeting and the estimated ERR, the project is expected to have substantial poverty reduction benefits. In the preparation process stakeholder - 33 - consultation with these groups have contributed to project design (para. 3.3). Project implementation of both the Park, rural development and the concession component will be carried out through a process of participatory decision making, particularly regarding behavior change to benefit conservation and increase opportunitiesfor sustainable livelihood. Tribal group involvement complies with the requirements of OD 4.20 and the project action plan to deal with these concerns are described in paras 3.16-19.
C. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY
5.19 The long-term sustainabilityof KSNP will to a large extent depend on a shared responsibility in Park conservation between the Ministry of Forestry, local governments of the nine Kabupaten making up the Park and the village communities bordering the Park. Participatory planning, including land use zonation, development of incentives and alternative livelihood opportunities, decentralized decision making and empowerment of local communities, and successful conflict resolution of land related issues, will therefore be crucial. It will also depend on the ownership by the four provincial governments of the zonation/managementplan to be made for the Park and on the spatial plan to be prepared for "greater" KSNP, as both plans deal with long-term development perspectives of the Park. The prospects for sustainability are enhanced by the fact that the Bank is assisting GOI in preparing additional rural development projects in the three provinces of Jambi, West Sumatra and Bengkulu, which would provide alternative livelihood to the population and will take pressure off the Park. At the central level the project's sustainability will depend on some critical policy support and willingness to allow flexible administrative and management arrangements. Lastly, public support and awareness for the need of protected area conservation, including access to viable post-project financing would be equally important. The latter is particular important to the long-term sustainability of the Park. While the project would increase the Park's annual budget by two-fold compared with the 1994/5 KSNP budget, it is expected that GOI's fiscal implications beyond the project period would level off to slightly above the current fiscal outlay for KSNP, which are about US$1.2 million per year. Nevertheless, the project will embark on exploring options for future recurrent cost/investmentfinancing of the Park (para 3.14).
D. RIsKS
5.20 The major risks associated with the project are the threats to KSNP from sources such as road development, human encroachment, and poor logging and concession management practices, thus causing further biodiversity impoverishmentand potential Park fragmentation. In addition, care will have to be exercised to deliver the appropriate incentives and effective community participation process and local government commitment to deflect encroachment pressures away from the Park to sustainable development alternatives. Unless GOI shows clear commitment to controlling these risks, including the resolving of any infringement of rights of foreign and national concession holders, the Park's biological diversity will not be maintained over the long-term. The issue of Park integrity will be addressed in certain policy agreements and interventions by GOI prior to and during - 34 - project implementation (paras 5.11/17). Other risks concern the present lack of integrated management plans, coordination between agencies, and enforcement of regulations within the Park and the buffer zones. These risks will be addressed by an ICDP project approach which will introduce a greater participatory role of local govemment officials and local communities, integration of regional and Park planning, and the establishment of an inter-provincial project secretariat. This will be linked to a strong project environmental and socio-economic monitoring program to provide feedback to project management and allow refinement or corrections in proposed project interventions. It is clear that this project has significant risks. Nevertheless, the project should proceed because Sumatra's forests and biodiversity have been decimated over the last twenty years and the remaining primary forests and biodiversity is largely contained in the protected area network, particularly Kerinci Seblat. It should also proceed because of its importance as a pilot project to demonstrate Park interventions which can be replicated elsewhere in Indonesia, particularly conceming the critical role of people in conservation and in developing a planning process that integrates biodiversity conservation with development. - 35 -
6. AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATION
6.1 During negotiations the following assurances were obtained from Government:
(a) village grants would be made availableaccording to proceduresand conditions satisfactoryto the Bank (para 3.7);
(b) no later than September30, 1998, the results of a baseline study and impact assessment would be sent to the Bank for comments followed by an action plan for the Kubu, if required to be prepared no later than June 1, 1999, as described under para. 3.18;
(c) the "greater" KSNP land zoning plan will be prepared by September 30, 1998 and reviewed no later than June 1, 1999, with long-termrecommendations (paras. 3.11 and 4.3);
(d) not later than August 1, 1996, a KSNP management unit with competent staff in adequate numbers would be established(para. 4.9);
(e) preparation of a MTR no later than March 1, 1999, followed by a review by June 1, 1999, (para 4.10);
(f) procurement arrangementswould be followed as outlined in paras 4.11/13;
(g) audit requirements would be carried out as outlined in para. 4.18;
(h) reporting and review requirementswould be carried out as outlined in para. 4.19;
(i) a number of steps regarding boundary rationalizationand forest concessions would be carried out by GOI as outlined in pam 5.13;
(j) mining operationswould be carriedout under qualificationslisted in para. 5.15;
(k) road development in the Park would be subject to conditions as set out in para. 5.16; and
(I) involuntaryresettlement from persons residing within KSNP would not take place until April 1, 1999, and thereafter, if required be subject to action plans as described in para. 5.17.
Recommendation
6.2 With the above assurances, the proposed project would be suitable for a Loan of US$19.1 million equivalent with a twenty year maturity at the Bank's variable rate, including a grace period of five years, and a GEF Trust Fund Grant of SDR 10.2 million, to the Republic of Indonesia. -36 - ANNEX_ Page 1 of 10
DETAILS OF PROJECT COMPONENTS
A. PARK MANAGEMENT
Management Planning and Park Zonation
1. The first major project activity will be the preparation of a comprehensive management plan for the Park This plan will guide and control the management of Park resources, zoe land use within the Park, and provide a plan for infrastructure development within the Pak and its buffer zone. The planning process will be implementedwith close consultation and coordination with the regional planning agencies (BAPPEDAs),local governments and target conmmunities.
Institutional Strengthening
2. The institutional strengthening component will focus on the fbllowing activities:(a) strengtheningPark personnel through additionalrecruitment and technical assistance;(b) providing in-service training to Park personnel for management and extension activities; and (c) improving Park infrastructurefor enhanced managementand enforcementactivities.
(a) Strengthening Park Personnel: Currently the Park is understaffed with a totl complement of 71 personnel. The GOL as part of its commitment towards enhancingPark management,has agreed to assign four senior PHPA staff to ah province, based on performance and staff formation given by the State Minister of AdministrativeReform, who would assist the Park director by coordinatng Park activities within each province. In addition, 100 new project field staff, Pcgawai Proyek, would be recruited over the life of the project to supplement edsting field staff. The GOI has agreed to regularize these staff as permanent employeesbased on performance and the number of staff allocated by the State Minister of Administrative Reform. In addition PHPA will start a "Conuunity Parnership Program" through which 190 field-staff will be recruited from local target communitiesas Park communityextension workers. The Project will also support PHPA through the provision of long-term technical assisnce including an ineemationally recruited Park planner, and wildlife enforcement officer. In addition,local staff or intemationalvolunteers will be assigned to the Park tO assist with ecology, management,extension and training.
(b) Training: Training will be provided to Park management staff field staff and community extension workers. The project will focus on developing staff capabilitiesto protect and manage the Park through both formal and infomualin- service training provided by trainers on the TA team. The project will send four qualified senior staff on three month short course in Park management, as well as -37 - ANNEX 1 Page 2 of 10
intemational working visits to national Parks in the region. In years 2-3, traveling seminars will be held for PHPA technical staff to visit other Indonesian national Parks. Field staff will receive broad trauiningon enforcement and ecological monitorng from the Senior Planner and wildlife specialist, as well as receive field manuals for identifyingmajor wildlife. The project will also train and equip four special mobile enforcement teams in each province as special task forces for back- up enforcement The community extension workers will be provided with in- service training in organizing village conservation groups, and wildlife identification. Training will be provided by the Park sociologists, extension and education officers.
(c) Park Infrastructure Support: Infrastructure support consists of cost-sharing the upgrading and rehabilitationof existing Park structures (8 field stations and Park headquarters) and constructionof provincial field quarters (4), new field stations (40), information centers (6) and visitor centers (2). In addition the project will provide over 100 signposts and entrance posts providing information on the Park. Annual maintenance of these structures will be provided through the GOrs recurrent budget. The project will assist in providing a full-range of office, technical and field equipment, including communications equipment to facilitate enforcement and management activities.The GOI has agreed to assign additional vehicles and motor cycles to Park authorities to facilitate field enforcement and mobile extension activities.
Boundary Rationalization and Biodiversity Sustainabiity
3. Boundary rationalization activities, including biodiversity sustinability, focus on two major issues: (a) boundary conflictresolution with target villageswithin and along the park; and (b) improvement of biodiversity sustainabilityin the forest concessions bordering the Park. Boundary ratioalization activities regarding disputed land between villagers and or encroachers and Park mangement would continueto be carried out during the first 2 or 3 years of project implementation and are directly related to preparation of the Park management plan. The project would also review measures to improve biodiversitymanagement within the logging concessionsbordering the park, particularly in areas adjacent to KSNP. The project would pay for the biodiversity survey work in these areas. The project will also work with forest concessionairesand the MoFr Forest Utilization directorate to institute a KPHP program which would improve the management of the forest concessions.
4. Encroachment of Park lands is a major issue for Park enforcement and integrity, and is a direct result of inadequate enforcement There are 134 target village areas where boundary conflict resolution is required. The process of resolving conficts with local communities over land use within the Park will be handled through several options: (a) negotiating temporary land-use rights in the Park; (b) implementingboundauy changes; and (c) providing rural development incentives based on signing agreements that commit communities to respect demarcated boundaries and agreed land-use practices. This strategy would reduce the need for Park enforcement In additiona fourth option, of "Pohon Kehidupan" program, will also be implemented which allows settlers several options includingvoluntary resetdement, or gradual conversionof existingfarming systems to permanent multipurposefruit tree production. -38 - ANNEX 1 Page 3 of 10
Management Activities
5. Three categones of management activitieswill be implementedby PBPA field staff during the course of the project: (a) wildlife protection and management; (b) establishnt of a living boundary marking and posting; and (c) habitat rehabilitation. The project will focus on protection of large mammal fauna by developing effective enforcement systems to combat poachmg Activities include field surveys; establishing elephant patrols; and barriers agamst animal raiding. Live boundary marking will be implemented over the life of the project by demarcatng 500 km of boundary using Arenga palm seedlings. Local villagers will be contract to plant and care for these seedlings. These in combinationwith cement boundary markers will assist the public in determining the exact boundary of the Park. Habitat rehabilitation activities will focus on yealy assessment and status update of encroached land within the Park (4000 ha per year will be surveyed); rehabilitation of degraded areas with multi-purpose indigenous trees; and the development of 10 village nurseries to raise 65,000 seedlings for replantingprograms.
Research
6. The project will support management-orientedresearch, including species distributionand population dynamics. Rapid biodiversityappraisals to determine appropriate use and Park ming will be done in the first two years of project implementationthrough specialist institutes such as the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), the Center for IntemationalForestry Research (CIFOR) and local Sumatran universities. Ecological monitoring activities will be identified by the Park managementteam includingconsultant biologists, and will be implementedby the monitoringteam whose activities are described under the monitoring component In addition a small project- supported research fund will provide seed money for research projects consistent with Park management objectives submitted by local NGOs and university researchers. Proposals for biodiversity grants would be reviewed by the Park authorities assisted by a peer review panel of e,demal experts.
Monitoring
7. Monitoring activities will be implemented by the monitoring team whose activities are described under the monitoringcomponent.
Extension and Awareness
S. The project will develop a broad public awareness program to promote local appreciation of the Park through conservationpromotion interventions.The program will be initiated in year 2 and cotinue through the duration of the project. Priority target groups include (a) local communities; (b) local government officials; (c) educationaland religious institutions; (d) media and the press. Activities include development of community-based conservafionmaterials; local workshops; public information;training; promotion of ecotourism opportunities; and educational materials development -39- ANNEX 1 Page 4 of 10
Management and Implementation
9. The project will be based at Park headquarters in Sungai Penuh (Jambi province), and will establish and equip a field office in Curup (Bengkulu province) near priority areas targeted for integrated development and Park management activities. The Project manager assisted by a PMPRO wili be responsible for the overall management of project staff and technical assistance team. He will be assisted by the four senior-provincebased staff in implementingproject activities and will also receive support from technicalassistance staff.
10. Implementationof field activitieswill be through the existing line structure with extension workers and community field workers implementing community awareness, extension and enforcementactivities and reporting through the provincial field-staffstructure to the Park Manager (Figure 1). Pre-project implementationactivities will focus on rehabilitationof Park headquarters, re-deployment and recruitment of staff, assessment of potential Park boundary problem areas. During the first year of project implementation,Park managementactivities will focus on: initiating community parnership programs; coordinating with local govemment; preliminary species surveys; boundary and encroachmentsurveys; social forestry and boundary demarcation activities; and extension and communityawareness programs.
Component Linkages
11. The Park management component will be closely coordinated with the area/village development component and the forest concessionmanagement component through the following: (a) targeted site selection of villages for rural development activities - in the first year of implementationactivities will be in four sites (Tapan, Jangkat, Katenong, Ketahun) where human interactions are having a major adverse impact on biodiversity;(b) through coordinatedcommunity awareness programs linked to enforcement activities; (c) through boundary demarcation and completionof Park gazettement; and (d) through biodiversitysurveys and protectionof biodiversity habitats within the concessions. Coordinationof component activities will take place through the inter-provincialcoordination committee (IPCC) described under the project organizationsection.
B. AREANILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
Objective
12. The rural development component's main objective is to reduce encroachment and conserve biodiversity,by providing incentivesfor alternativelivelihoods to local communitieswho currently use Park resources. This component aims to provide assistance to 134 target boundary villages to improve resource managementon village lands, ensure security of access to traditionally used resources, increase agricultural productivity and improve village infrastructure. Project activities will target groups, most dependent on Park resources, and provide them with altemative income-generating opportunities. Activities will be implemented by local government agencies with technical support from project-financedadvisors and local NGOs. The component will be largely implemented by the communities in the park interaction zone in accordance with a participatory development process involving four steps, namely: situational assessment, planning -40- ANNEXI Page 5 of 10 and work programming, implementing and monitoring, review and evaluation and re-plannig This iterative process will be initiated and sustained in each target community by resident project facilitatorsworking in close collaborationwith formal and infoimal leaders and though traditional or newly-organized common-interst groups. In close conjunction with members of visiting technical assistance team and various staff from the Kecamatan and Kabupaten, each commuity will be assisted to first generate by concensus their own village land use and village development plan.
Village Resource Management
13. The village planning process would rationalize land use, secure access to resources, establish development priorities and conserve biodiversityin selected Park boundary villages. Ihe project will assist communitiesmap village boundaries and current land use/ownership practices, evaluate and capability, and through a consultative decision-making process, institute land use zonation for agriculture, non wood forest products and conservationareas. The land use plan will be formalized as a Community Conservation Agreement, that legalizes village access to resources in the Park and its buffer zone, and guarantees specified development assistance, in return for community cooperation in Park protection and conserving biodiversity resources on vilage lands. The project will assist the local Kabupaten legislature to prepare and pass legisla recognizingthe legality of such agreements.
Vlllage Development
14. Village development activities raise the economic status of the whole village by providing infrastructure support (water, small roads, culverts) to raise income and create goodwill for the Park~and assistance for diversifyingagriculture thus providing poor villagers with higher income from village lands. Each target village will receive a maximum of US$50,000 for a combinationof infrastructue and agriculturalassistance. Activity selectionwill be based on developmentpriorities set in the village development plan, produced through a participatory decision-maldng process coordinated by the village head and the village development council (LKMD). Activities will be selected from a menu of development activitiesthat meet project criteria. Villagers would provide labor, and if necessary use credit to purchase fertilizer and other inputs. The implementing agency will provide expertise, extension, equipment and construction materials financed by the project Development activitieswill be phased with ten villages selected in the first year, I8 in year 2, 19 in year 3, 28 in year 4, 29 in year 5 , and 30 in year 6 or a total of 134 target villages. This gradual phasing will allow local organizationstime to develop sufficient institutionalcapacity to implement participatory, communitybased activitiesat the village-level.In addition the project will support a series of feasibilitystudies to determine the economicfeasibility of a number of altenative income- generating enterprises such as ecotounsmn. These will be identified by the Project Stering Committee during implementation.The studies will be commissionedthrough local business and marketing consultants.
Planning Support
15. Village-level plans will be based on the village-resource management exercise, and will involve local NGO staff working with local commuities, using PRA and micro-planning techniques, over a 6-8 month period to prepare an annual work program as well as an overall five- -41- ANNEXI Page 6 of 10 year village plan. This plan will identify priority activities requirng external support, finaning, time-frame and include communitycontributions. Similarly at the district-level,for the five priority Kabupatens, spatial plans will be revised to account for natural resource distribution,the impact of their utilizationand other forms of development(such as roads) on biodiversityconservation. This multi-sectoralplanning will be conducted by BAPPEDA II (the planning agency at the Kabupaten- level) with technical assistance providedby the project
Training
16. Training is a major activity in terms of building insfitutionalcapacity to implement ICDP activities. A training needs assessment will be conducted in the first or second year of project implementationto devise a Rural Development Training Plan tailored to the needs of project coordinators, Bappeda Planners, kecamatan staff and extension agents. In addition, annual Zopp participatory planning meetings will be held with principal project stakeholders to ensure that feedback from community groups and implementationagencies is incorporated in annual project work-plans. Training will be provided by members of the Technical assistance team and planning advisors. PRA training for community organizers (para 19) selected from boundary villages, and local NGOs will be provided by WWF.
Management and Implementation
17. The lead agency managing this componentwill be the BAPPEDA 11,who will act as the Kabupaten-level coordinator(PIMPRO). The Kabupaten-coordinatoris the primary manager for inplementing and monitoringcomponent activities. The PIMRO coordinatesthe activities of the relevant technical agencies (Dinases) providing technical and extension services to target villages and the technical advisoryteam includinglocal NGOs. Each district involved in the project will be faciltated by a management support group composed of the PIMPRO, the WWF district coordinator and visitingWWF specialist staff, visiting members of the technical support team (this includes: a rural development advisor, agricultural advisors, small enterprise advisors, planners), and representatives of participating extension agencies selected as the situation requires. The PIMPRO reports to the Bupati (District Head) and the BAPPEDA I at the provincial-level. The Technical Assistance to be provided by WWF would focus on the process of participatory village land use and village development planning, including facilitating a CommmunityConservatin Agreement and training of village facilitators,whereas the technical support team would provide a more specific technical facilitating role, including regional planning and would be closely associated with the staff of the technical agencies. Coordinationof activities between Kabupatens and Provinces takes place through the Inter-ProvincialCoordination Committee. This committee is composed of representatives of the four govemors, the Park Director, a representative of the MoFr Forest Utilizationdirectorate, and WWF.
18. Implementation of component activities is built around three major processes: village selection; formulating an activity menu; and village implementation. Village selection will begin ardy in implementation to prioritize villages and identify special management areas. Each Kabupaten will develop an activity menu of project approved activities that will be formulated through a process of expert evaluation, feasibility study and information exchange with other kabupatens. Implementation follows a phased sequence of activities: survey, situation analysis, facilitation,planning, implementationand monitoring. Village development activity proposals are -42 - ANNEX 1 Page 7 of 10 prepared by target groups (facilitated by local communityorganizers and NGOs), reviewed by the village counci (LKMD) and forwarded by the village head as a development proposal (DUP) through a consultative process (UDKP) at the sub-district (kecanatan-level). These are then forwarded to the Kabupaten where the proposals will be reviewed by the Kabupaten PIMPRO and forwarded to a provincial guidance team for approval. Funds will be channeled through the Kabupaten PIMPRO who will release them to the lead technical agency responsible for assisting villagers implement a project activity.
19. Resident village facilitators (tenaga/pendamping) will play a key role in the village development component They will initiate and supervise all community-basedimplementation of project activities in each target village, including the identification and strengthening of existing common-interest groups and the organization of target groups, orienting and assisting them with participatory rural appraisal, village land use- and development planning, annual work programming and budgetting, and with implementing their planned development interventions. Owing to the critcal importance of this facilitation function, the work involved, and the isolation and size of most target villages, there will be two facilitatorsassigned to each village. The village conservation facilitator (VCF) will be a graduate or high school diploma-holder experienced in community work recruited from the district. The local community organizer (LCO) will be recruited from the village and nominated by the LKMD. The LCO will act as the local assistant trainee to the VCF and towards the end of the establishment phase (i.e. during the third year of implementation) will assume increasing responsibility for facilitating project processes in the village. After the third year the VCF will move on to initiate and facilitate the project in the other villages targeted during the expansion phase (Years 4-6).
Component Linkages
20. The areavillage development component has close links to Park management, improved concession management and planning activities. In Park management, target village selection and boundary rationalizationactivities have to be coordinated with Park management activities. Park staff will also participate in negoiating communityconservation agreements with boundary villages as a prerequisite for development investment The two components will also develop monitoring indicators for human impact on the Park. In concession areas, the rural development component will target twenty four villages for development assistance. Planning advisors will also assist the Kabupaten technical advisory team to ensure the project activities conform to regional and spatial plans. -43 - ANNEX I Page 8 of 10
C. INTEGRATINGBIoDIVERSrrY IN FOREsr CONCESSIONMANAGEMFENT
Concession Biodiversity Assessment
21. This component will support four main activities. These include: training for enhanced biodiversity conservation within forest concessions; independent audits of logging operations; biodiversityassessment conservationwithin production areas; and communityforestiy activities.
Training for Improved Forest Managementwithin Conservation Areas
22. The project will provide short-term technical expertise to assist the Ministry of Forestry, provincial forest agency (Dinas Kehutanan) and concessionaires with the irnplementation of improved biodiversity conservationwithin concession areas. Focus will be on forest sites during and after logging. The project will provide training support to selected trainees from the Ministry, Dinas, concessions. Training will focus on techniques and knowledge needed to conserve in-situ biodiversityin concessionareas. The project will provide support for 220 traineeships of 2-3 week duration. The project will also fund production of training materials, visiting experts and field travel as required. Training activities will be linked to biodiversity assessment information generated from concessions.
Independent Audits of Logging Operations
23. To ensure that upgraded monitoring and enforcement is having the desired effect the project will contract the services of a forest inspection firm to audit operations in the eleven concessions bordering the Park. Standards for forest management, environmental and social performance based on those currently being developed by the Indonesian Ecolabelling Institute (LEI) in collaborationwith the internationalForest Stewardship Council will be employed. The LET will be invited to participate in field inspection activities.Inspection activitieswill be phased with, two concessions (picked at random) selected per year for audits. Audit results will be submitted to the IPCC and the Directorate of Forest Utilization for appropriate follow-up and action.
Biodiversity Conservationwithin ConcessionAreas.
24. The project will support field ecologicalsurveys to identifyand locate especially biodiverse areas within the concessions. The surveys will make use of eisting field, GIS and remote sensing data available from INTAG (Directorate for Forest Inventory), and other GOI agencies. The project will also support initial activities to demarcate and manage these areas. Ihis component will require close coordinationwith the Park Management team and the Park Director. Project funds will pay for short-term field biodiversityspecialists and field survey costs.
Community Forestry
25. The project will identify areas (based on remote sensing and ground survey) where significant encroachment has occurred into logged-over and unlogged production forest areas. -44- ANNEX Page 9 of 10
Communitiesliving in or near such areas will be identified through field socio-economicsurveys, and engaged in communityforestry and rural development activities as described under the rural development component. Such communitieswill be selected for allocationof communityforestry agreements, and the project will provide income generating investments, and inputs to improve land use on these sites. The continuity of financial support will be made contingent upon performance in curtailing encroachment. Some twenty four villages will be selected out of the 134 target villages near forest concession areas. Activities under this sub-component will be implementedjointly with the rural developmentcomponent
Management and Implementation
26. A staff of the Kanwil Kehutanan Jambi, section responsible for concessionmonitoring, will be assigned as the project manager (PIMPRO) for the project The PIMPRO is responsible for the day-to-day implementationof activitiesfinanced under this component, and will report through the Kanwil Kehutanan to a Project Management Committeein the Ministry of Forestry. The PIMPRO will be supported by a project-fundedManagement Support Unit and Technical Advisory Group which will assists with annual planning, financial management, monitoring and reporting. The technical advisory team will include a: senior ecologist, training and biodiversityconsultants and a community forestry advisor attached to the rural development team. Field programs will be implemented through the Dinas Kehutanan II (Pimbagpro) in the Kabupatens covering the target concession areas (Sarolangun Bangko and Bungo Tebo in Jambi and Bengkulu Utara in Bengkulu).
27. An ICDP Project Management Committee(PMC) will be established to supervise the Park Management and ConcessionManagement components within the Ministry of Forestry. The PMC will provide policy and technical guidance. The PMC will be chaired by the Director Bureau of Foreign Cooperation(KLN) with members from the DG Forest Inventory and Land Use (INTAG), DG PHPA (Director of National Parks, and Director Bina Programs), DG Forest Utilization (Director of KPHP and Director Bina Programs), the Secretary General's Office, Forest Research and a representativeof the forest concessionaire'sassociation (APHI).
Component Linkages
28. Activities financed under the Concession Management Component will be closely coordinated with the Park Management component, specifically: boundary delineation and ecological surveys within the concession areas; and with the Rural Development component; specifically selection of target villages for community forestry activities and the financing and implementationof village infrastructureand incomegenerating activities.
D. PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION
29. The monitoringprogram aims to develop the institutionalcapacity of the various agencies involved in the conservationand protection of the Park to monitorbiodiversity and socio-economic conditions and to plan "Park friendly" economic programs. The program will support the Park Management and Biodiversity Conservation component by providing tools for monitoring encroachment, poaching, and other uncontrolled development activities within the Park and by developingperformance indicatorsassessing the health and well-being of the Park. It will support - 45- ANNEX 1 Page 10 of 10 the ConcessionManagement componentby monitoringthe integrity of the boundaries betwee the concessionsand the Park and by monitoringforest conditionsand managementpractices wihin the concessions. It will support the Rural Development component by developing capacities for analzn the impacts of rural developmentactivities both on the Park and on the local communities in the buffer zone around the Park and by assessing the project's effectiveness in enhancing the socio-economicconditions of local people.
30. The project will provide technical assistance support in the first year of the project to design and establishthe overall monitoringsystem, including the GeographicInfonnation Systenm In addition, assistance will be provided to finalize the selectionof appropriate indicators, develop a Data Base Management syem, input baseline data, introduce and integrate the system into the eistng institutional environment, and implement a human resource development program to enable the staff of the various governmentagencies at various levels to operate the system In the second and third years of the project, the practical application of the system will be tested. The system will be filly operational at this stage to support evaluationand impact assessment acivities. Following a thorough review, additional data and indicators will be added to the database. The monitoring and evaluation systems will include Geographic Information System capabilities that will be integrated into the overallManagement Infornation System
31. The technical assistance will include appoximatelY 99 staff-monthsof support (16 nwnths expatriate and 83 months local). The TA will include a long-term local GIS/monitoringspecialist who will serve as team leader and assist the Park manager in supervising the M&E activities. It will also include an expatriate monitoringadvisor, an MIS specialist, and an evaluation specialist The project will provide support for computer hardware and software for the monitoring and evaluation activities at the Park office and at the provincial and kabupaten planning offices. Support will also be provided for data collection and conversion. This will include satellite imagery, aerial photography, map baseline data, ground verification data, and socio-economic surveys. Training (approxmael 153 staff-months)will be provided to provincial,kabupaten, and Park managers to ensure the systematic use of the monitoring infornation in the planning and decision-makingprocesses.
32. The monitoringand evaluationactivity will fall under the direction and responsibilityof the Park management office in Sungai Penuh. This office will establish a "base" for the information system and will collaborate and cooperate with the existng infornation coltection and analysis activities of a local NGO (World Wildlife Fund). Each of the agencies with a responsibilityfor implementing components of the project (e.g., the BAPPEDAs and the Kanwils Kehutanan) will also be strened with a "subset" of the ovrall mnitoring systenL The Park manager will be overalt responsible for the developmenctandimplementation of the M&E sysem -46 - ANEX2 Page 1 of 4
SUMMARY SOCIAL ASSESSMENT INFORMATION FOR BOUNDARY VILLAGES
Demographic Factorn
1. The population in the nine buffer zone districts (kabupatens) suroundig the Park is approximately3.3 million. The 36 sub-districts (Kecamatas) bordering the Park have a populationof 1.64 million. The populationof the 468 boundaryvillages ranges from 500-700,000 people. The largest populationconcentrations in the immediatevicinity of the Park, are at Sungi Penuh (62,000) in the center, Lubuk Linggau (103,000) and Curup (131,000) in the South. Population density in the rural kecamatansvaries between 8-80 persons per km2. The village populationsrange from severalhundred to more than a thousand inhabitants(50-300 households). The population in the four provincesgrew by 2.8 percent p.a. in the period 1970-90,well above the national average of 2.0 percent. In-migrationis the major cause of this high level of population growth, in particular in Bengkulu province where annual growth was close to 4.4 percent. The province of West Sumatrais an exception,where growth rates are decreasingfrom 2.2 to 1.6 percent due to a long traditionof male out-migration.
Table 1. Population Distribution by province and Kabupaten ftoiwm KatqLmat W. Sumatr Pe" Seld (6) 323,490 Salak(4) 173,342 sawahhaato(1) 44,213 Ji Kuina (6) 2S3,924 BmgoTebo (3) 154498 BaRon(5) 133,247 S. Sumna Mui Rawa (4) 181.046 DElanacu R*anLmbw(4) 132,914 BenAluUte (3) 157,606 The project strategy is to develop a series of programs ranging from incentivesto pull people away from the boundaryvillages, to alternativeincome generating programs for householdsin these villages.
Cultural Groups and Local Institutions
2. There is considerableethnic variationbetween the four provinces,and with this variation in traditionalvillage organizations, systems of communityorganization, and village-leveldecision- making over resourcemanagement. The followingtable gives a breakdown of the predominant ethnic groups and their use of local institutionsfor resource management. There are two sets of institutionsthat operate in these boundary villages:traditional organizationssuch as the Nimk Mamak Kaum and Marga, and government established institutions such as the Lembaga Ketahanan Mas>wakatDesa (LKMD) and the LembagaMaswrakat Desa (LMD) the village developmentcouncil and consultationforum which takes decisionson developmentactivities at -47 - ANNEX 2 Page 2 of 4 the villagelevel and is the officiallyrecognized forum for village-basedconsultation. In many of the boundary villages, due to in-migrationof Javanese and other ethnic groups, traditional institutionsno longer play a significantrole in regulatingresource use. This allows outsiders to enter protected forest areas for agriculture,tree crops and other opportunisticuse. Traditional organizationscontinue to exert a majorinfluence in land use and resourceaccess decision-making in boundaryvillages in West Sumatra,Kabupaten Kerinci and in some villagesin Bengkulu. The project design calls for an in-depth inventory of these institutions and will support their involvementin project implementationas well as formalvillage institutions.
Table 2. Distribution of Ethnic Groups by Province
Provinc Etmik GOp Vdlw OrRM&WiM Wag SUMr Minang Nhnk Mamak XMD.IMD Kwinc Km Iavane LKMD, LMD Sunda Baak South Sum Reiang Marp Liam, LMD B=Wkidu Rejag Mag Javan IXMD, LMD Min" Bask
Categories of Encroachers
3. There are five categoriesof encroachersoperating in KSNP boundaryvillages:
(a) Wealthy"Patrons" ( Pertani berdasi) who financefarm workers to clear forest and plant cinnamon. The worker receivea monthlywage, food and 50 percent of the crop valueafter harvest, usuallya periodof up to 10 years. Some patrons purchase young (1-2 year old) cinnamonplantations.
(b) Local People (elit desa) who live outside the Park but enter to developplantations ranging in size from 4-500 ha in multiple plots and sites. The trees are progressivelyfelled as they mature and after one or two coppice crops, the soil is abandonedand the farmer claimsownership of the abandonedplot.
(c) People who live outside the Park (pemukin dikawasan)do not own a house or farm outside and have lived in settlements for many years. Some of these settlements are officiallyregistered as enclaves within the Park and have village status.
(d) Newcomers(pendatang) from outsidethe Park, mainlyyoung couples. -48 - ANNEX 2 Page 3 of 4
(e) Farm workers (anak ladang)who work for "patrons"and others.
Project interventions range from stricter enforcement against category (a) sad (b), and disincentivesfor categories (d) and alternativeincome generating opportmities for category (c) and (e).
Adat Institutions and Resource Control
4. In boundary villageswhere Adat Institutionsare still fimctioning,they play a significant role in regulatingresource use, protecting watershed areas and in West Sumatra, reWling the complex system of communalland tenure. The followingdescription of how the adat institution fiunctionsin Lempur, a typicalboundary village, in kabupatenKernci, provides input in how such institutionscould play a key role in biodiversityconservation.
5. In Lempur Vldlagethe smallest social unit is described as a tumbi (household),several lumbi - based on kinship - form a perut. A group of perut are described as a kalbu and seveal kalbu form a kaum or clan. A village may contain several kaums which are called kwug kampung. The adat leader of the whole village is called the Depati Agung. His decisionsare based on consultation,and he is assisted in his tasks by two other Depads. Decisionsare only made when all three are present at a meeting. Each Depah has specificroles: one deals with the government, the second is responsible for naes and laws and the third is responsible for developmentactivities. Depatis are chosen based on their economic standingin the community. Villers follow adat restrictions,mainly for fear of social ostracizationfrom the community. Many Adat leaders also play a dual role as govenmmentrepresentatives in 'official' village institutions such as council members of the LMD or as the village head. Most village-level disputes and conflictsare resolvedthrough village meetings chaired by the Depati. In Lempur villagethis traditionalinstitution has played a major role in resolvingboundary conflicts with the Park and developinga consaesusvillage-land use plan and zonation whichwill be enforcedby the Kaum.
6. In "ethnically"homogenous villages, such traditionalinstitutions can play a major role as intermediariesbetween Park authoritiesand villagersin resolvingboundary and land use conflicts. In more heterogeneousvillages, with new migrants,the more formal governmentadministered institutionsand religiousinstitutions assisted by NGOs will play this role. During the first year of project implementation,the local NGOs will assist the implementinginstitutions identify traditional groups and institutions in the boundary villages to work with in implementing developmentactivities and enforcingconservation agreements. -49- ANNEX 2 Page 4 of 4 lAnd Tenure
7. Very little land near the Park boundary,outside of transmigrationsites is titled. In West Sumatranboundary villages land is controliedthrough a system of communaland individualland temnre,with most wet rice plots being individuallytitled, whereas tree crop (ladang) lands are controlled by clan ownership. In the other provinces, with the decline in the influence of traditionalorganizations, coupled with ambiguityof land tenure, there is limited internal village control on outside migrants coming-inand openingnew upland fields withinthe Park boundary. Further work on land tenure systemsin the boundaryvillages will be done during implementation. The project will develop Community Conservation Agreements which will give usufruct rights to local communitiesfor buffer zone areas and allow them to prevent outsidersfrom opening new landswithin the Park. - 50 - ANNEX3 Page I of 7
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES
1. Community and "stakeholder" consultation activities have been an integral part of project preparation, design and will continue to play an important role during project implementation. The project "stakeholders" include the following groups: provincial and local governments; PHPA (Park Management Authority); sectoral technical agencies; forest concession holders; industrial crop estates; local and national NGOs; local communities and traditional organizations.
2. The objective of the consultation activities were the following:
* Inform project stakeholders of the proposed project and its objective; * Allow opportunities for information to be presented by stakeholders and communities on issues and problems related to KSNP and its buffer zone; * Allow for stakeholder input in ICDP project design from primary stakeholders.
These consultation activities have used a range of participatory techniques to meet these objectives. The following tables provide summary information on these consultation activities, stakeholder involvement, duration and outputs.
Table 1. Summary Information on Consultation During ICDP Preparation 1992-1993 ConsultationActivity StakeholdersInvolved Duration Output
RapidRural Appraisal Boundary village November - December Village profiles, land use Exercise in 12 Boundary Communities: 1992, sketch maps, institutional Villages in 4 provinces by W. Sumatra(3 villages);Jambi 1 weekper village diagrams, transects, DHV-Kepas preparation (4 villages); Bengkulu (4 identificationof peopli-Park consultants villages); S.Sumatra (1 interactions. village). Consultation and village Boundaryvillage communities November1992- February Identification of adat profileof 6 KSNP boundary In: W. Sumatra(1); S.Sumatra 1993 institutions,and major social villagesby WWF (1); Bengkulu(2); and Jambi and economicissues facing (2) communities in target villages Consultaon meetings with Local NGOs from WARSI November 1992- March Consultation meeting in localand NationalNGOs by networkin Jambi,W.Sumatra, 1993 Palembang; consultation NGO facilitator on DHV S.Sumatra,and Bengkulu; and meeting in Padang; preparationteam wlth representatives of consultation meeting in nationalenvironmental NGOs Jakarta;6 NGOsparticipated in inceptionreport meeting; Inter-provincial consultation meeting in Singkarak W.Sumatra; consultation meeting in Jambi; NGO round-table discussion in Jakarta; and background reporton NGOrole in ICDP. - 51 - ANNEX3 Page 2 of 7 Table 2. Consultation Activities During ICDP Preparation 1994-1995
ConsuitationlParticipation StakeholdersInvolved Duration Output Adivity
Provincial meeting with Bappeda I, Forestry, Agriculure, July- September1993 Feedback from principal sectoral and Transmigration, Land Agency, stakeholderon preliminary planningagencies to discuss Park Management, Local ICDP design;identification ICDP preparationreports and Govemment,NGOs of need for further design participatory preparation and phased project implementationapproach
Japanese Grant Facility WVvF working with 6 boundary July 1994- June 1995 Data set of biophysical (JGF) to WWF for communities in: Rantau Kermas, and socio-economic participatory pilot project Muara Hemat and Renah Kayu information;analysis and identificationactivities in six Embun villages (Jambi province); profile of people-Park boundary villages, base-line and Sukamerindu, Sungai Ipuh, interaction; survey, database and Talang Arah villages (Bengkulu implementation model; preparationof manuals Province), field guide, and identificationof institubons and training of individuals as community organizers for projectimplementation.
WARSI assistance in 12 local NGOs in four provinces July 1994- June 1995 Strengthening of local strengthening community working wih communitiesin four NGO network to help participation in proposed boundary villages: Sungai Kalu implementICDP activities, KSNP ICDPactivities (W.Sumatra), Pesisir Bukit survey of local institutions (Jambi); Napal Licin (S.Sumatra); and analysis of potential and KatenongI (Bengkulu). for ICDP involvement: development of participatory information collection techniques; developmentof media and information packets for boundarycommunities on proposedICDP
ZOPP pruticipatoryPlanning Bappeda I and 11 from target August- December1994 Participatoryproblem Workshopsin Jambi,West Kabupatens,Camats, Head of identificationand analysis; Sumatra, Bengkulu and Dinas agencies for forestry, prioritizationtarget areas SungalPenuh agriculture,tree crops, livestock, & activitiesfor ICDP tourism, cottage Industry, PHPA, implementation; Kanwil Kehutanan, identificationof concessionaires, adat leaders, Implementingagencies & village heads, local NGOs and mechanismsfor WWF coordinatingactivities; consensusbuilding betweenstakeholders holdingdivergent views.
Review to discuss Regional Local govemments, central ApriWl-ay1995 Tables from BAPPENAS ImpactAssessment (RIA) govemment agencies, private of 5/9/95 indicating sector,local NGOsand WWF. agreement In principle to RIA. - 52 - ANNEX3 Page 3 of 7
Community Consultation Activities with Local NGOs
3. Community consultation activities have provided invaluable project design input, by allowing participants from representative boundary villages the opportunity to identify problems and issues related to the Park and possible development initiatives that could be implemented by local institutions. Village-level community consultation has been conducted by WWF and WARSI, a local network of conservation and development NGOs. These activities have provide valuable base-line information for the project, as well as have supported local-level institutional development. These consultation activities have been implemented in ten boundary villages in the four provinces. Villages were selected on the basis of high-level of interaction between the community and the Park. Financial support for these activities, including further start-up training and planning (to be completed before April 1996) was provided by JGF.
Base-line Socio-economic and Landscape Surveys
4. WWF has conducted a baseline socio-economic and landscape survey in the following six villages: Rantau Kermas, Muara Imat, Renah Kayu Embun (Jambi Province) and Sukamerindu, Sungei Ipuh, Talang Arah (Bengkulu province). The specific objectives of this activities were as follows:
* To compile an integrated database of physical and socioeconomic information to be used for participatory planning and project monitoring activities; * To prepare participatory plans in the interaction zone of the survey areas; and * To test and develop implementationstrategies to assist the ICDP.
These activities are being conducted in close collaboration with the local community, local government representatives and Park management authorities.
NGO Community ConsultationActivities
5. WARSI is a network of twelve local Sumatra-based NGOs, many of whom are actively assisting local communities with development activities in villages adjacent to the Park. The NGOs are working in boundary villages in the four provinces covering KSNP-(Sungei Manau Atas in W. Sumatra; Napal Licin in S.Sumatra; Katenong in Bengkulu and Pelompek in Jambi). WARSI is assisting the ICDP preparation by undertaking the following activities:
* strengthening the local NGOs so they can actively participate in implementing the ICDP; * conducting surveys on local institutions and community organizations working in the villages and assessing their potential to participate in the ICDP; * producing a series of case studies on people-Park interactions and identifying mechanisms for conflict resolution; - 53 - ANNEX3 Page 4 of 7
* working with local communities in identifying development activities that could be financed by the ICDP; * developing media materials (posters, videos, pamphlets, newsletter) to provide information to local communities on the ICDP.
Description of Participatory Techniques
6. WWF and WARSI are using several innovative participatory "tools" to involve boundary communities in ICDP project design. Both groups are using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques to involve community members in problem identification, analysis and development of potential ICDP interventions. Some of the tools used are described as follows:
* Sketch-maps of the boundary villages drawn by community members, showing village land use, settlements, and Park boundary; * Land use Transects identifying land use linked to topography, soils, agricultural and tree crops, interaction with the Park and problems constraining production; * Time Lines indicating history of village settlement, and introduction of external development interventions including boundary demarcation; SSeasonal Calendars indicating variation in seasonal agricultural activities; * Ranking and Trends:priority ranking exercises to identify possible interventions; and analysis of village development trends in health, transportation, education, commodity production and interaction with Park boundary; and * Institutional Diagrams identifying different institutions working at the village level, their role in decision-making and level of interaction between institutions.
In addition, the local NGOs are working closely with traditional leaders and community groups through regular village-based community meetings to discuss land use near the Park boundary, ways to develop consensus zonation near the boundary, Park protection and implementation of ICDP activities.
Zopp1 Planning Workshops
7. Objective
The primary objective of the participatory planning workshops (ZOPP) are the following:
* to train representatives of different stakeholder groups involved in implementing the ICDP in participatory planning methodology; * to develop a planning document (project planning matrix, plan of operations) utilizing the methodology; * improve communication and common understanding of the issues among the Dinas agencies to be involved in executing the project; and * improve community participation by discussing and analyzing problems jointly with community representatives.
Objective Oriented Project Planning (Ziel Orientierte Projekt Planung). - 54 - ANNEX 3 Page 5 of 7
The Process
8. The Zopp methodology uses participants knowledge and experience, and allows them to express their opinions freely through a system of presenting written information on cards. These cards are then analyzed by the group. The workshop, conducted over a period of four days, and facilitated by an experienced ZOPP facilitator follows a process-oriented approach which builds on group analysis, discussion and consensus. The following steps describe the ZOPP process:
* Step 1: problem analysis and identification of core problem; * Step 2: identification of causes leading to the problem, developing a problems tree which allows complex relationships to be portrayed; * Step 3: the problem tree is transformed into an objective tree by translating a negative existing situation into a desired situation in the future by providing several alternative solutions; * Step 4: solutions are screened using project planning criteria; Step 5: involves developing a project planning matrix which shows how the project should be carried out, what is the project goal; how it is proposed to achieve this goal; what external factors influence this; how to measure the extent by which the objectives have been attained; data required for evaluation and cost estimates for project activities.
ZOPP workshops were conducted for ICDP stakeholders in all four provinces. These ZOPP workshops helped bring together the principal "stakeholders" - community members, NGOs, local government agencies, and PHPA- who will be responsible for implementing the project in the future. The project planning matrix described in Box I indicates the preliminary results from the ZOPP held in Jambi.
Output
9. The output of the workshop is a project planning matrix that helps decision makers overview the project strategy, indicators for achieving its goal, and the purpose and result of the project. This analyses allows the government technical executing agencies develop a plan of operation which spells out who has to do what, when, where, and how much the activity will cost. The important output of the process is a greater understanding among the different agencies involved, which results in improved coordination and cooperation which is essential for the ICDP project. - 55 - ANNEX3 Page 6 of 7
Box 1 Project Planning Matrix for ICDPin Jambi and South Sumatra 1995-1999 as formulated by ZOPP workshop participants
1. Goal: ensure the future conservation of biodiversity in KSNP.
2. Purpose: communities living near the Park become aware of its existence and the importance of Park protection.
3. Output: implement measures that improve community income; increase extension services; improve coordination among government agencies and community groups; increase community participation in boundary demarcation; and improve law enforcement to support Park protection.
4. Activities: introduce new improved farning practices; conduct training and provide support for income generation activities; prepare guidelines for communities to participate in boundary demarcation activities; improve bottom-up planning process, improve skills of extension personnel, etc.
5. Indicators: reduction in nurnbers of Park encroachers, increased income of target households, numbers of households involved in boundary demarcation, etc.
6. Input: resources provided include: APBN (reforestation funds) APBN, APBD 1, APBD II, GEF support
Participation during Project Implementation
10. Based on the experience gained through participatory project preparation the ICDP project will continue to use the following participatory techniques during project implementation:
* NGO-assisted training of boundary communities in PRA techniques to conduct village-based analysis and design of ICDP development interventions financed by the project; * preparation of village-level maps, delineating land use and zonation based on consultation and participatory field-based sketch mapping. These maps will provide - 56 - ANNEX3 Page 7 of 7 the basis for negotiating community conservation agreements between boundary communities and the Park and local government authorities; * participatory (ZOPP) planning workshops to be organized on an annual basis with project stakeholders to provide feed-back to improve project implementation; and a preparation of extension materials on the Park and biodiversity conservation for local communities using innovative media techniques. - 57 - ANNEX 4 Page 1 of3
INDICATIVE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
A number of candidate development activities were proposed by government officials, and by the project preparation team. These activities fall into the categories of agriculture, forestry, small enterprise/industry, social welfare, tourism, and public village infrastructure. These indicative development activities are listed and briefly described below:
AGRICULTURE
1. Cassiavera Intensification: To increase returns and sustainability of this profitable tree crop through selective breeding, better agronomic practices, and inter-cropping with other tree or food crops.
2. Tea: To establish smallholder tea estates on unused land for poor or landless families. This concept has already been proven successful in Kabupaten Solok, West Sumatra.
3. Vegetable Integrated Pest Management: To decrease the use of environmentally destructive pesticides in temperate vegetable growing areas around the Park through introduction of IPM techniques.
4. Vanilla: To introduce this high value crop to agro-ecologically suitable areas. Vanilla is already being grown successfully on a small scale in Kabupaten Kerinci.
5. Improved Jungle Rubber: To increase the productivity and biodiversity value of this low intensity agricultural system found extensively in the lowlands to the east of the Park. Initial exploratory research on this system has been conducted by French scientists.
6. Cage fish culture: To introduce these highly productive systems to villages that have an adequate source of flowing water, and a market for the fish. Cage culture is already established at the outlet of Lake Kerinci.
7. Fish Ponds: To introduce these relatively low input protein production systems to villages that do not have access to fish from rivers or lakes. Fish production has the potential to reduce hunting pressure on wild animal populations inside and outside the Park.
8. Small Ruminants: To introduce goats to poor families as a source of protein and income.
9. Bee Keeping: To introduce the skill and inputs of bee keeping to target groups that have small plots of land. Honey is a high value, easily transported produce that requires little land for its production. - 58 - ANNEX4 Page 2 of 3
FORESTRY
10. Agroforestry: To introduce agroforestry systems based on cassiavera or other tree crops to the project area. ICRAF has already begun preliminary agroforestry research near the Park in West Sumatra.
11. Community Forestry: To introduce community forests as one type of village land use. WWF has already pioneered this approach in Keluru Village in Kabupaten Kerinci. It has the dual benefit of providing the community with fuel wood and timber, as well as forming a buffer zone on the Park boundary.
12. Nurseries: To assist target groups or individuals to establish village nurseries for the following commercial purposes: sale of fruit or timber tree seedlings to fellow villagers; sale of palm tree seedlings to PHPA for marking the Park boundary; sale of seedlings to Dinas PKT for use in regreening and reforestation.
13. Rattan Plantations: To explore the possibility of establishing village rattan plantations to replace rattan that is currently being harvested in the Park. Initial research by Stephen F. Siebert of the University of Montana indicates that the clustering rattan, Calamus exiles could be grown sustainably in the project area because this species resprouts after harvesting. The small canes are used primarily for handicrafts.
14. Turpentine Tapping: To increase the practice of tapping pine trees for resin for sale to turpentine factories. Many pines have already been planted for reforestation, and demand for turpentine exceeds the supply of resin.
SMALLENTERPRISES/INDUSTRY
15. Rattan Handicrafts: To introduce rattan handicrafts more widely in the project area, and expand the range of products and markets. this builds on an existing handicraft tradition.
16. Village Industries: To explore the possibility of introducing small village industries such as black-smithing or simple furniture making.
17. Agricultural Processing: To explore the possibility of introducing simple agriculture processing techniques to add value to cassiavera or other products. - 59 - ANNEX4 Page 3 of 3
SOCIAL
18. Scholarships: To provide scholarships for children in SMA villages to attend school in nearby towns or cities to provide them with a better education, and to encourage them to move away from their village when they reach adulthood.
19. Land Titling: To assist selected villagers to obtain government ownership certificates for their land. This would only be done in exceptional circumstances as titling is an expensive and time-consuming process.
TOURISM
20. Hospitality Training: To train village women in the cooking, sanitation, language and hospitality needed to attract international visitors to their homes for a remote homestay experience. WWF has already been successful in providing this training in the village from which visitors begin the ascent of the Mount Kerinci.
21. Guide Training: to provide young men with the necessary language, intercultural, and nature interpretation skills to guide foreign visitors into the Park.
PUBLIC VILLAGE INFRASTRUCTURE
22. Access Roads: to build light traffic access roads to villages close to the existing road network. Prior to approval, these roads would have to be evaluated for possible negative impacts on the Park, through AMDAL process.
23. Small Scale Irrigation Systems: To construct simple irrigation systems with village labor to increase rice production in villages that border a stream or river.
24. Drinking Water Supply Systems: To provide a reliable and clear source of drinking water to the entire village to improve sanitation and reduce the amount of time needed to obtain water.
THE SELECTION PROCESS
25. The villages assisted by the project will receive a tree year cycle of intervention that includes surveys, situation analysis, facilitation, planning, implementation, and monitoring. These steps will be repeated during each year of the cycle as a learning experience for the villagers, and to allow mid-course corrections to be made. All sub-components would be integrated into this process.
26. The village intervention process is guided by the Kabupaten Coordinator in consultation with the Camat. Activity proposals would be reviewed through the standard GOI process that includes the LKMD at the village level and the UDKP at the Kabupaten level before being submitted to the Kabupaten Coordinator. Facilitation will be done by LCOs and local NGO staff, and the Community Participation Advisor and the WWF supervisor would provide periodic assistance. Kabupaten technical agencies would implement development activities. The TAT would assist village leaders and target groups to write activity proposals in the DUP format. INDONESIA Kernci Seblat Integrated Conservation and Development Project Proposed Technical Assistance
Estimated Standard Con- Responsibility List of TA Implementing Total Cost No. of Statusof TOR (Date) Short List (Date) tract Prepared for Supervision Contract/Activity Purpose/Objectives Agency (USSOOO) Staffmonth Prepared Expected Prepared Expected (Y/N) RSI HQ A. Preparation/ Implementation Support (a) Park Management Assist in the preparation& PHPA 1,881 302 (foreign) 12/94 implementationofaPark 448 214(local) 12/94 Managementplan.
(b) Area/VillageDcvt. Assist selected villages in Kabupaten/ Lumpsum = 3,440 1/96 (i) Village intervention resource stabilizationand Carnat/LKMD (NGOs/LCOs) process incomegeneration. 1,336 186 (foreign) 12/94 1,581 334 (local) 1/96 (ii) Regional and spatial Integrationof park planning BAPPEDAI & II 144 9 (foreign) 3/95 planning with regional/provincial 781 152(local) 3/95 planning.
(c) ConcessionBiodiversity Assist in boundary delinea- KANWIL 98 17 (foreign) 1/96 Asscssment tion and provisionof inspec- Forestry 0 tion service,incl. training.
(d) Monitoring& Evaluation Impact assessment,analysis, PHPA 293 16 (foreign) 12/94 & managementimprovement. KANWILFor. 355 83 (local) 1/96 BAPPEDAs
B. IustitutioaalCapacity Building The above consultant services are completelyintertwined with institutionalcapacity building.
C. Policy Advice/Studies 10 percent of the consultant services provided under Preparation/ImplementationSupport shouldbe regardedas improvementof policiesand regulations.
KerinciTrust Fund Study PHPA Lump sum= 101 4/96 °Q InterprovincialSpatial Plan BappedaI & 1I Lumpsum = 152 4/96 EcotourismStudy PHPA Lump sum=51 4/96 o U Kubu Development SocialDept Lump sum= 522 4/96 Ph Tourism Devt Planing PHPA Lump sum -0 4/96
adlouding conting acies - 61 - ANNEXS Page 2 of 2 Technical Assbtance and Studies by Component and Lead Agency Central Estimated Lead Requirements Costs Agency (Staffmonth) (USS'000) TechnicalAssistance
Central Coordinating Consultants PHPA 72 620 (Working Group PSC) Park Management Component MoFr - PHPA Snr. Park Planner/Mgt. Specialist 39 736 Park & Wildlife Enforcement Officer 36 681 Curriculum Development Specialist 2 11 Writers (two) 10 45 Park Mgt. Officer 60 27 Education Extension Officer 60 27 Training Officer 60 27 Conservation Officer 65 77 Elephant Specialist 6 112 Communications Specialist 24 449 Ecologist 60 27 Sociologist 94 110 Subtotal 516 2,329 Area/Village Development Component MoHA - BANGDA Rural Development Advisor/Team Leader 28 521 Assistant Team Leader 52 277 Agricultural Advisor 52 270 Community Forestry Specialist 28 521 TrainingAdvisor 40 210 Community Participation Advisor 52 270 Small Enterprise Advisors (two) 78 17 Work Engineers (two) 126 663 Regional Planner 9 144 Planning Advisors (four) 152 781 Accountant 64 168 Village Facilitating NGOs MoFr - PHPA - 3,440 Subtotal 681 7,282 Concession Blodiversity Assesment Component MoFr - PA Trainer in Concession Management 17 98 Monitoring & Evaluation Component MoHA - BANGDA Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist 16 293 MIS Specialist 9 46 Evaluation Staff 8 2 M&E and GIS Consultant 66 355 Subtotal 99 696
TOTAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1,385 11,025
Park ManagementComponent TourismDevelopment Planning MoFr - PHPA - 10 Area/VillageDevelopment Component KerinciTrust Fund Study MoFr- PHPA - 101 Interprovincial Spatial Plan MoHA - BANGDA - 152 Ecotourism Study MoFr - PHPA - 51 Kubu Development MoHA- BANGDA - 522
TOTAL STUDIES - 836 KSNP Project Implementation Schedule
1995 1 1996 1 1997 1 1998 1 1999 1 2000 [ 2001 2002 ID Task Name Duration Start Finish 234r 1 21314 2 13 14 11213 14! 1[ 2 13[1444111213[12 1 Project lmpwmentation Schedul - KSNP 1913d 6/1/95 9/30/02
2 Start-up ActivhYes 608d 6/1195 9/30/97 _j
3 Appraisal 65d 6/1/95 8/30/95
4 Submit Maps on Concession& Mining Operations Od 4/23196 4/2396 23
5 Gazettementfor KSNP Od 9/30/97 9/30/97 9/30
6 Negotiations 1w 4/23/96 4/29196
7 GEF Approval Od 1/5196 1/5/96
a BoardApproval Od 4/30/96 4130/96 30
9 Grant Effectiveness Od 7131196 7/3196 .
Od 7/31/96 7/31/96 10 Loan Effectiveness 7/3;1 11 Start-upMission 2w 7/31196 8113/96
12 JGF Contract with WWF 150d 12/18195 7/12/96
13 Implement10 Villages(Training & VillagePlan) 30w 12118/95 7/12/96
14 Low-landForest EcologicalAssessment 30w 12V18/95 7/12/96
15 Staff PIMPROAppointments 130d 6/3/96 11/29/96
16 SK Park Mgr as PIMPROfor Park Mgmt.Component 130d 6/3/96 11/29/96
17 SK for ConcessionBiodiversity Assessment 130d 6/3/96 11/29/96
18 SK for Appointmentof PlMPROsin BappedaTK 1 & 11 130d 6/3/96 11/29/96
19 Establish IPCC 130d 6/3/96 11/29/96
20 EstablishWorking Group of KS for PSC 130d 6/3/96 11/29/96
21 Establish PMC 130d 61396 11/29/96
Task Summary RolledUp Progress Progress Rolled Up Task Milestone Rolled Up Milestone CD
w0. KSNP Project Implementation Schedule
1995 I 1996 1997 1998 1 1999 1 2000 1 2001 1 2002 ID TaskName Duration Start Finish 2Z13 41 234|1 2341 234 23411|2|3|411|2|3|412|3 22 EstablishCentral Coordination Team for AreaDevt. 130d 6/3/96 11/29/96
23 EstablishPCCAIPCC 130d 6/3/96 11/29/96
24 Appoint4 SeniorStaff for KSNP 130d 6/3/96 11/29/96
25 Procurem ntofTAs 160d 7/31/96 2/25/97
26 IndependentTA Coordinator 26w 7/31/96 1/28U97
27 TAs for the3 cornponents 30w 7/31/96 2/25/97
28 Implemntaton 1718d 8131/95 3/30/02
29 Preparationand Approval of Budgets 150d 8131/95 3/27196
30 DUP Preparationfor aN3 components 22w 8/31/95 1/31/96
31 DIP Preparationfor all 3 components 8w 2/1/96 3/27/96
32 Task ImpleentIon 1479d 7/31/96 3/30102
33 Park Management 1479d 7/31/96 3/30/02
34 InvoluntaryResettlement Moratorium 697d 7/31/96 4/1/99 _ :
35 RoadDevelopment Moratorium 697d 7/31/96 4/1/99 . -.
36 Implment Park ManagementPlan 957d 7/31/98 3/30/02
37 Areallabge Development 1479d 7/31/96 3/30/02 _ ___ -
38 Prepareland zoning planfor projectarea 566d 7/31/96 9/30/98
39 Review& implementland zoning plan 174d 10/1/98 6/1/99
40 Long-TermDevelopment for KJBU 740d 7/31/96 6/1/99
41 Area/villge planningimplementation 1479d 7/31/96 3/30/02
42 Concession Blodivemity Assessment 1479d 7/31/96 3/30/02 _ _i
Task Summary _ RolledUp Progress Progress RolledUp Task Milestone RolledUp Milestone KSNP Project Implementation Schedule
1995 |1996 1 1997 | 1998 | 1999 2000 2001 2002 ID Task Name Duration Sbrt Finish 2131411 1213141112131411121314112| 144!l hI24 43 Reviewbiodiversily mgt in loggingconcessio 174d 7/31/96 3131/97
44 Finalizebiodiversity mgt in loggingconcessio 900d 7/31/96 1/11/00 . .
45 Carry out audits in loggingconcession 1218d 7/31/97 3/30/02
46 MAonitoing& Evaluation 1551d 711/96 6/21/02 1 i
47 Mid-Tern Review 6w 1/19/99 3/1/99
48 Annual Report 1306d 61/97 6/1/02 K q O O O
56 Annual Planning and Budgeting Report 1304d 1011/96 10/1/01
62 Auditing Report 13d 10/1/96 10/1/01 0 0 0 K K O
69 Supervision 1561d 7/1/96 6/21/02 - mi --
70 1st SupervisionMission 3w 7/1/96 7/19/96
71 iMor 1053d 1/15/97 1/26/01 | | | | I
77 Minoir 1045d 6116/97 6/15/01 I I I I
83 Final 3w 63/02 6/21/02
84 Cornpletion Od 3/30/02 3/30/02
85 Closing Od 9/002 9/3021
Task Summary RolledUp Progress Progress Rolled Up Task Milestone Rolled Up Milestone O CD II - 65 - ANNEX 7 Page I of 2
PROJECT SUPERVISION PLAN
The matrix below indicates the mix of specialties and frequency and duration of missions likely to be needed to ensure adequate project supervision. The footnotes suggest some of the key events requiring particular attention of the supervision missions. Some underlying assumptions for the matrix are as follow:
Bank supervision input:
* Regular supervision needs for the review of progress reports, procurement actions, correspondence, etc. are estimated to require six staff weeks per year (n=t shown in the matrix). In addition, specialized review time depending on which year will be required to deal with key project activities (biodiversity assessment, MIS/GIS, regional and spatial planning, training, village agreements and its land use, etc.) and key events (project start-up i.e. finalization of project indicators, review of TORs of TA and agency coordination, MTR i.e. para 4.10 of SAR main report, ICR, etc.). * Each of the four provinces should be visited at least once per year, including typical project actions (village development, park zonation, boundary adjustments, social forestry etc.). * Staff from the Resident Mission (both from PMU and ESIU) would assist in the supervision of this project, in particular in nursing along start-up activities related to boundary rationalization and biodiversity assessments in concession areas, random ex-post review of SOE documentation, particularly village infrastructure investments and attendingPCC/IPCC meetings.
Borrower's Contribution to Supervision:
* A one-day overall project launch workshop in Sungai Penuh is to be organized by GOI in about June 1996, followed by a two-day provincial workshop (between July and October, 1996 pending on critical TA mobilization) in each of the four provincial capitals. * The KS Working group for Project Steering Committee and PSC to meet as needed and the meetings for IPCC, PCC and DCC will be held normally in January/February of each year to discuss previous year project performance and current year program * The monitoring and project data base will be coordinated through the park director in Sungai Penuh, including the (semi)-annual progress reports. The project coordination consultant for the TA, would, apart from the TA procurement monitoring also be involved in project reporting/supervision. - 66 - ANNF Page 2 of 2
Table 7.1 Duration of Missions
Mission Time STAFF WEEKS dl . TOTAL No. MO/YR. AE A E E/B MIS LSP OS Staff Weeks I a/ 7/96 2 2 2 3 4 9 2a/ 11/96 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 12 3 a/ 2/97 2 2 2 2 4 8 4 9/97 1 1 2 2 2 2 6 10 5 2/98 1 1 1 2 2 5 7 6 9/98 2 2 2 1 4 6 7 b/ 2/99 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 14 8 b/ 9/99 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 9 2/00 1 1 2 3 4 10 9/00 2 2 1 1 4 6 1 1 2/01 1 1 1 1 4 4 12 9/01 2 2 2 1 1 5 8 13 c/ 2/02 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 14 14 c/ 6/02 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 Total 114 a/ Launching workshops during first year of project b/ Mid-term Review c/ Implementation Completion mission dI Specialities: AE = Agricultural Economist; A = Agriculturist; E = Engineer; EB Ecologist/Biologist, MIS/GIS = M. E. Specialist; LSP = Land Use/Spatial Planner; OS = Other Specialists. - 67 - ANNEX8 Page I of 4
PROJECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The project indicators are grouped into two categories:
(a) implementation indicators (these are related to the implementation schedule in Annex 6). When this input/output system will be set up by the various implementation agencies during the first project year it will rely heavily on the initial physical and institutional parameters set out in the SAR (e.g. cost tables in Annex 9, phasing of village investments in WP 3 of Annex 12, number of key events shown as dated covenants e.g. road construction moratorium). It covers indicators such as procurement technical assistance progress, disbursement, staff appointment, biodiversity areas surveyed both in the park as well as the forest concessions, availability of funds for each of the components. The physical progress will be monitored as set out in WP 5 of Annex 14 and reflected in a progress reporting system. Technical assistance for the setting up of the project monitoring system, including the performance indicators, is included in the project and initial assistance will also be provided by environmenta] GIS staff from ENVLW. The setting up of project indicators by project staff will receive the highest priority during the three project launching workshops and the draft indicators shown in Table I would be reviewed with each of project units, PIMPROS and technical assistance staff.
(b) impact indicators. The project is based on the application of instruments (such as boundary rationalization; restriction of fragmenting infrastructure within the Park area, particularly roads; income generation in potentially encroaching buffer zone communities; conservation management in neighboring forest areas; improved technology and human resources in park management) to the basic objective, which is to protect the Kerinci Seblat Park environment and biodiversity, and that of its immediate environs. It will be possible to monitor the extent to which the instruments are developed and applied: the rate at which boundaries are agreed and demarcated; improvements in community and farm incomes; physical and human resource developments in the park management structure; habitat and forest stabilization in the Park; decline in poaching activities and illegal hunting and trapping of large mammels and birds as indicator of improved park protection; developments in the forest concessions. These aspects will be included in the project's M&E system but will require constant reassessement during project implementation. Although the instruments chosen are believed to be the best possible in this case, it will nevertheless be a difficult and time consuming task to directly assess their contribution to biodiversity and habitat survival, and other major factors involved in protection of the Park environment as a whole. It will take many years, for example, to deternine whether sustainable production with an acceptable degree of conservation and protection, is being achieved within the forestry concessions- and other environmental trends will be similarly slow in emerging. It should not - 68 - ANNEXS Page 2 of 4 be assumed, therefore, that all major impacts from the project will be in full evidence prior to the end of the project period. Remote sensing and other technologies can be applied to the task of longer term environmental impact assessment, and decisions will need to be taken on the extent to which this can and should be done as the project is implemented.
(c) With respect to the economic performance indicators, the project will only attempt to measure those related to the area/village development component as both the park management, and the concession biodiversity assessment components do not lend themselves to such application.
SK NEEDED FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
SURAT KEPUTUSAN PREPARED BY DAi
1. SPABP (Area/Villages Dev. Project) MOHA/BAPPENAS/MOF April 1996 2. DUP for BAPPEDA I and II (Area MOHA/BAPPENAS April 1996 Dev. Project. sub-component: Dinas Tkt I dan Tkt II) 3. SK Program Director BAPPENAS Sept. - Oct. 1995 4. SK Project Management Committee Ministry of Forestry Sept. - Oct. 1995 (PMC) 5. SK Pimpro for Forest Concession Ministry of Forestry DIP (April 1996) Management Component 6. SK Pimpro for National Park Ministry of Forestry DIP April 1996 Management Component, Include TA 7. SK Pimpro for Intg. Area Dev. Ministry of Home Affairs DIP April 1996 Component at the center 8. SK Coordination Team Ministry of Home Affairs Sept. - Oct. 1995 9. INMERNDAGRI on Project Ministry of Home Affairs DIP April 1996 Coordination and Supervision 10. SK Provincial Coordinating Governor After April 1, 1996 Committee (PCC)/IPCC 11. SK Pimbagpro for Area/Village Governor INMENDAGRI April 1996 Dev. Component at the province 12. SK District Coordinating Committee Bupati INMENDAGRI April 1996 (DCC) ANS'FX 8 Page 3 of 4
Table 1: MONITORINGAND EVALUATION INDICATORS OF RURALDEVELOPMENT COMPONENT, ICDP
LEVEL OF INFORMATION TIM[E FR.AMoEWORK ______~~~~~~~~~~~~REGIONAI'PARKCDISTRICT/ECOSYSTEM VILLAGEIPOPULAnION USE OF DATA FOR J PROJECTr MAE INDICATORS/ Da'INITMON/ CL SOURCEOF SCALE SOURCEOF SCALE SOURCEOF BASE MONITORING/ MONITORING EVALUATION COMPONENT MONITORING CHARACTERISTIC INFORMATION INFOrIMATION INFORMATION LINE EVALUATION
_ _d UN ZRWD*Wc r. Of - _dif. 1:25001W Rd"%T._Iu.Y 10OD 50db. I 25.00 BPA.W Pb. y .. I y .hd" 0 . t". F _ mIy 10.0100
AA.E-.If1W Z_ Du - Id. bft d 1:290.01 ToF ft dal 12301 C Tb .m.k od.( is I 1.21W2a 71. It.dl nyo. NM, w . d.
* -L1wt*ftA @0 O_ b_ c _ I:0W R04T1WLI I 101W SWl I (CA.5 B 0ow. I251W Bomb d CSAR. Me.d ow A 1 I odwRI R_e1 0 BOSIL - 1WWr. Diumbm of mmh 12501W RW- 110 OD Rw*.dTqpoaJ I 211W0 Amol o 1ym,2l-Sym. PinDimm~~~~ 1W b. pmk OW@Tako,pbml w I 0BWUm~Io
-F." DdNOa W _ .i .d b 1CBY.000 R PA& 1oI005 R1WRq., PbI W0mb 1.25.1W A.. 2!y .WM cmbWk by WDb w Mn thi, Sm. MA1W b r 5 mI *E !
*O.-m . hmo * 1.2501 PNbd Sdd 1._0b! D 0S.lWArdf 25.0b b LOm Go .0 I I .22-3! ._ . _b.B __ A-AwI__ .. _
* Ad.&Ioo PI.,iI Id.Nk *- 1:250.00 BW- 1.3010w Rq1W 1 251OD CBSILoot Goo.i. 0- I 5- MILS. iota, 1d oil k..i
501 -Pw otb.I PWkm ioSM. byDIfa CBS?WWa.li 1W by Sbd- CBS/PoAK-o ad by w. Cm Id Popo.IIi-. 0 I0OIy_ P.on dIdly. P-& m E..l. C- dkMoa E--.. C-m Rqp.io by al *mm m ~~~- bd by -eh60m .ILm- z S m byDlAaCSb imb. AgclalCbCS n \xIE! by .ao. -W I S Oi I * Mift DdhU by mijomow 1 by DiMi CBSIAWkIb.W b3 S.d- CBS1AgbooluotC- by V.110 0 Asn.b.ht. in gyUm-copi. 1ou. W.& wkimim Cm db.oko 01,.
-Ow P odx by P dio w aop. by by 12mb. CBS/Arkdb.J by Ais CBEIA.Vico2m C- by VidIh5 A910050. -m 1W 0oIS I
F- S-I..lIe of h1W (1Wkhd by 12100 CBSJAgOojoI by ub- CBS1A/A,ofI.i Cm byV.IIlo Aoco.-hI -.i 1W xoI 0 0 1d -- W&A.M by W.- com dim 0 Std,..
Coo 1W I somIso. *L.W TmmO0otIdqo hh-la Iom f. by DimiO CBSIAV-WI0.tI by bA- CBSIApic.Joon Cm by VOl.0 . AjpwWOo1 -d C- !W 0.1W.
hi.Fm.- 1W-. -W .! 10.- by DiMo CBS by BA. C'BS b, oslIqo AV,-.I-oo C-o,. .oo s o.
s..., Co..bo D.o.op~ C -- y bo Dimao bo .b- by Vl.L.0
-P. o.O wdIOi-, 27 haR. 1W by CBS byVOILgo CBS o
I d- B------nI ANNEX8 Page 4 of 4
Table 1. (Continued)
LEVEL OF INFORMATION T REGIONALL /PARK DISTRICT/ECOSYSTEM VILLAGE/POPULATION I USE OF DATA FOR TIME FRAMEWORK I EVALUATION PROJECT MO4&EINDICATORl/ DEFINFflON SCALE SOURCEOF SCALE SOtURCEOF SCALE SOURCEOF J BASE MONITORING/ MONITORING COMNONENT MONITORING CHARAClERISTIC INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION | LINE EVALUATION
x 1oubisI 2-3 .Pk Bc_ty LqJ | of R p I 2d 01 FiTAG 1 50C00 INTAG I 25.050/ INrAG 1O- 0.b d bl_by _ I 10 000
I 0h3y V _ o th-IKo 1 " of _ . _ 1:250.000 D5V/0_y 150 ODD S0,I 1 25 ODD Aa.111Pbo(Why .d -bk ik~~~dPub 0501b1 lh y I.W00sIAO.l I 1-3, Put TK . of fodbI_ ubbW 1:250000 BiSSOwndIi 1.50000 S.difto 1.25000 AFWIIoloqbP F~P.q.1m. 11mod by _* vqAk 1_guY I.=y/A5.io amft wkmMdPh*u.b
Ld SyM-IM Mop Pbsopi _ tp.W PAO 1:250.000 C5RdYOTAR 150 000 LREPIiCSARI j 25 ODD BPN/Ali USDA.W.&(CSAEL) phuhooppy
CI_* (ia MoIy. ._ n _ w 1 2500O RdW.TILREPI/P 1:50050 BMGCSAR 1 25Oo CSAR I_ 1o(.b d l .p BMG
250000 TK dMI 50000 T1 iF do 1 2500D T50 r. or d .' l Y 2I3 SodilEnW- RJ& 1 , by U.5E bd - . .*.koy do. k -). -byud5
-Eb- G_ b_b d.ok 0 0of 1:250.000 RW W 1500 Rpd.V 25000 A5.l Pl-py
I 21 _ yo - H4*4w TypT of b*o b_ I 2W0500 Pu lM_ I 50.00 Pu M- 1 25500DD x - X
I .y 2-3y O sp-5be F_.W 'd 111 * d_.I_II I 2WOO BD7opm?b 1:350R R--d.Sb43 I 25.000 Rn
I y_ 2.3 Vl *FWh" _ Poo . _ . io 1-210000 R_..~0 1:5000 Ra dSdy 1 2 ODO d Ra0x
* hmdhw ~hm klIy ly 2-55y2.15 .W Pubb pwk R.0- 7ktu-lk_ of ma'o,o* I :W.O25000250 Ry I5001:30000 b'MiaI000bxR/So. U 00DR l.a*2*4l4 o
M13y I oy. E_ AnIAby E *4,IIy l so by bv Pub ' M by VRhI Vi_ L.&- *4 -N DWWi kb4**Pk* isd ioom
0 [I o y 2.1 y- CoW. b _ C _B.o Pub_il3 6 I 2W0 DGP,11INTAG L500 oo DGPH,IITAG 1255o0 DOPH
0 I Y- 2-1y) Fo C-C_ FP. Dh F.iD 0ub _ I 250:oo DGI. ASPF. I 50 PR DG04 ASPH2 I 2500 ASPR1. AUM
2-3I _ Q.guQy Qoik .i 1M50500 PK4.ASPH2Rd. I 50.9 Ptl. MIT. Sd5 125PR 0y_ I1_ I_I . CASPHU IFI IY- ,x2-Soy L"x-9 0.0y*4of d -M-k - 1'25000 PK ASR41 150500 PK.ASPR.A~..I I12505 opoi AuoI - 71 -
ANNEX9 Page 1 of 12
Expenditure Accounts by Components
Totals Including Contingencies (US$ '000)
Concession Monitoring Park Areaillage Biodivermity and Management Development Assessment Evaluation Total 1. Investment Costs A. Civil Works Buildings & Structures 2,192.3 - - 2,192.3 B. Village Grants la Agricultural & Other Inputs (Park) 251.7 562.3 - - 813.9 Agricultural & Other Inputs (Village) - 1,453.8 - - 1,453.8 Village Infrastructure - 5,761.2 - - 5,761.2 Subtotal Village Grants 251.7 7,777.3 - - 8,029.0 C. Equipment & Vehicles Fumiture - 32.1 - - 32.1 Vehicles - 166.3 - 26.8 193.1 Office Equipment 149.9 94.8 - 193.8 438.5 Field Equipment 962.7 626.7 - 651.8 2,241.2 Office Rental 124.3 29.0 - - 153.3 Project Management 75.4 775.8 - 32.3 883.5 Subtotal Equipment & Vehicles 1,312.2 1,724.6 - 904.8 3,941.6 D. Training & Study Tours 804.9 1,454.1 288.8 251.4 2,799.1 E. Extension & Planning 1,505.7 4,389.4 - - 5,895.0 F. Technical Assistance Foreign TA 2,540.0 1,553.7 98.1 293.1 4,484.9 Local TA 633.1 2,361.9 46.1 402.7 3,443.9 NGO Services - 3,439.5 - - 3,439.5 Subtotal Technical Assistance 3,173.1 7,355.1 144.2 695.8 11,368.2 G. Studies 10.1 825.5 - - 835.7 H. Survey & Research 1,496.3 191.0 2,233.2 1,513.7 5,434.2 Total Investment Costa 10,746.3 23,717.1 2,666.1 3,365.7 40,495.1 11.Recurrent Costs A. Project Management Costs 651.0 2,101.0 - 401.6 3,153.6 B. Staff Costs Honoraria, per diem & travel 185.9 45.6 - - 231.5 Incremental staff oosts 1,056.8 - 14.9 - 1,071.7 Regular staff salaries 341.2 - - - 341.2 Subtotal Staff Coats 1,583.8 45.6 14.9 - 1,644.4 C. Maintenance Building maintenance 68.3 - - - 68.3 VehicleO&M 373.0 - 171.3 15.5 559.8 Equip. maint. & fum. replacement 20.1 - - 29.1 49.2 Subtotal Maintenance 461.5 - 171.3 44.6 677.3 Tobtl Recurrent Costa 2,696.3 2,146.7 186.2 446.2 5,475.3 Total PROJECT COSTS 13,442.6 25,863.8 2,852.3 3,811.8 45,970.4
Taxes 805.1 2,222.6 288.4 384.7 3,700.8 Foreign Exchange 4,343.3 3,097.4 670.2 1,246.7 9,357.5
\a The village grants may also Include a small amount for village enterprises. Indonesia Kerinci Seblat ICDP Table 1.1. Park Management Project Management Detailed Costs (USS)
Quantites Unit Totals Including Contingencies (C000) Unit 96/97 97/98 98l99 99/00 00/1 01/02 Totl Cost 96/97 97198 98/99 99M00 00/01 01/02 Total
L laystnnant Coats A. Project Maagemnt 1. Mana t PlannIn & Park Zoning Reglor Team Conultations meeting 1 - - - - - 1 978 1.1 - - - - 1.1 WorkhopMangementPlan worksho 1 2 3 - - - 8 29,441 30.4 62.2 95.5 - - - 188.0 Daft gaiing survey 1 - - - - - 1 4,907 5.1 - - - 5.1 Fieldwork survey 1 3 2 - - - 6 4,907 5.1 15.5 10.8 - - - 31.2 Astal wrveys hour 10 10 10 10 10 10 6o 589 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.5 6.7 6.8 38.7 Reogilo onsulon district 3 6 - 9 488 1.7 3.4 - - - - 5.1 Managementzoning unit - - 1 - 1 9,761 - - 11.6 - - - 11.6 Boundwyreviewand klc zoning unit - 1 1 - 2 4,880 - 5.7 5.8 - - - 11.5 Tourisn devedopnt plnning/a study 10.1 - - 10.1 Prpamtion nddistributionofplan/b unit - - 1 2 - - 3 4,680 - - 5.8 11.9 - - 17.7 Suboa Manag nt P-lg A Pelt ZonIng 59.4 93.0 135.7 18.4 6.7 6.8 320.1 2. Equipmnt & Veicl a. Offic equipment: Daklpconpulers unit 5 - - - - - 5 2,487 13.5 - - - - - 13.5 Nodbookcomputers unit I - - 1 1.990 2.2 - - - - - 2.2 Digtiezr unit 1 - - - - 1 1.492 1.8 - - - - - 1.6 SOwrl program 10 - - - - 10 497 5.4 - - - - - 5.4 Larpriner unit 2 - - - - 2 796 1.7 - - - - - 1.7 Facsimil ma*ne unit 2 - - - - - 2 1.492 3.2 - - - - - 3.2 Phoboopy unit unit I - - - - - 1 2,487 27 - - - 2.7 Volsge stablrszes unit 8 - - - - - 75 0.6 - - - - - 0. UPS ystbm unKt 2 * - - - - 2 1,194 2 - - - - - 2.6 SSBradio units unit 4 - - - - - 4 3.382 14.7 - - - - - 14.7 Solarpanes & batteries unit 4 13 13 - - - 30 3,709 16.1 53.5 54.7 - - 124.3 RYGunltswithanntena unit 8 10 10 10 10 - 48 497 4.3 5.5 5.6 5.8 5.9 - 27.2 Slideproector system uni 1 - - - - - 1 796 0.9 - - - - - 0.9 Stereoscopes uni 2 - - - - - 2 497 1.1 - - - - - 1.1 Stereoscopes(portable) unt S - - - - - 5 25 0.1 - - - - - 0.1 Mapsand aerialphotos lumpsum 2.7 - - - - - 2.7 Libraryand references lumpsum 2.2 - - - - - 2.2 Desksand chairs (sets) set 5 - - - - - 5 124 0.7 - - - - - 0.7 Desks(large) uni 2 - - 2 149 0.3 - - - - - 0.3 Swivelchairs unit 2 - - - - - 2 189 0.4 - - - - - 0.4 Shelves uni 5 - - - - - 5 249 1.3 - - - - - 1.3 Team conferencetable unit 1 - - - - - 1 497 0.5 - - - - - 0.5 Map tables unit 2 - - - - - 2 1,492 3.2 - - - - - 3.2 Lighttables unit 2 - - - - - 2 249 0.5 - - - - - 0 S> Misc,tables unit 4 -4 75 0.3 - 0.3 Misc filecabinets unit 5 - - - - - 5 149 0.8 - - - - - 0.8 tN) White boards unit 3 - - - - - 3 99 0.3 - - - - - 0.3 0 Subtotal Otficeequipment 84.0 59.0 60.4 6.8 5.9 - 215.0 X Kind Seb ICDP Tabl 1.1.ParkMAaeet Pr*d MargerR DdWW Coet (USS)
Quatts Unit TotW Including Contngee CMOO) Urnit 9/9w7 971 MM/3 00101 01102 Tobl Cost 9U97 97/58 NM N0 001 01102 Total bhFied equimt Binnczs unit 5 - 5 298 1.8 - 1.6 Abi's unit 3 - - - - - 3 248 0.8 - - - 0.8 Co ees_ wt 10 - - - 10 35 0.4 - - 0.4 Phlopoiocequnist set 1 - - - - 1 1,985 2.1 - - 2.1 Tent ( do) sa 2 - - 2 397 0.9 - - - . 0.9 Canyingeq_umitfA set 40 40 40 - - - 120 1:191 51.8 52.8 54.1 - 158.5 Spol0k wilt 2 - - - - - 2 149 0.3 - - - - - 0.3 Mieneb wllt 20 - - - - - 20 50 1.1 - - - - - .1 LinUqWe u2-It 20 20 50 1.1 - - - - 1.1 Genle Wotds ) wlt 3 - - - - 3 498 1.8 - - - - - 1.8 Glb posi g sym lt 4 - - - - - 4 1.985 8.6 - - - - - 8.6 scpW t/d unt - - - 1 - 2 2.730 - - 3.2 3.2 - 6.4 S b pUF%g -qup 70-1 52.8 54.1 3.2 3.2 - 183.4 c. VehIcle Fouumledvwkh owood/a unit 4 4 - - - - 8 27,792 120.4 123.3 - - - 243.6 TrialmToblIf uit 18 32 24 20 20 - 112 1,985 34.4 70.4 54.1 46.2 47.3 - 252.3 Pirk- bucki unit 1 4 - - - 5 29,777 32.2 132.1 - - - 164.3 MiblIadul onm dWo wunit - 1 1 49,628 - 55.0 - - - - 55.0 Subobtal Vehce 187.0 380.8 54.1 46.2 47.3 - 715.3 SW*MW Eqipw & Vehles 341.0 492.6 168.6 55.1 56.4 - 1,113.8 Totl 400.5 585.8 304.3 73.5 63.1 6.8 1,433.8 la To be conducd in year 3 of prd i n VoInduds draft plan evalution, rneg. aid ditbion of plan. includesapproval mneetingwith World Bank, BAPPENAS.PHPA, BAPPEDA. le Incdudestens, sleping bap, rucsk aid oabw campingequipmnwt for Park guards d Equpment requed for exenen pwpoees be Ufkation: 2 in park HQ; 4 in povnl coordinat offices;2 in Curupprojed fil office;4 in Swatenforcement teams. V Location: a in ParkHQ; 8 in prvincl coodnati offices; 80: 2 each in 40 fild sations; 8 in Curuppjed office; 8 for extension teams. Ig Fourwhee drivewith font wnch. Locabon:I in park HO; 4 in provincil coordan offies. YiFour whetl driwe qipped
w O Indonesia Kerinci Seblat ICDP Table 1.2. Park Management Technical Assistance Detailed Costs (USS)
Quantities Unit Totals Including ContUngencIes('000) Unit 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 Total Cost 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00101 01/02 Total
1.Investment Cosrt A. Technical AssIstnce 1. Technical Assistance CentralConsuttantCoordinator staffmnonth 12 12' - ' - - 24 15,000 185.6 190.1 - - -375.7 Asst CentralConsuttant Coordinator stafflionth 12 12 12 12 - - 48 4,763 58.9 60.4 61.8 63.3 - - 244.4 Snr. Parks Planner/Mgt Specialist staffmonth 3 12 12 12 - - 39 17,500 54.1 221.8 227.1 232.5 - - 735.5 Parks& WldilfeEnforcementOfficer staffmonth - 12 12 12 - - 36 17,500 - 221.8 227.1 232.5 - - 681.4 ElephantSpecialist staflmonth - 3 3 - - - 6 17,500 - 55.4 56.8 - - - 112.2 CommunicationsSpecialist staffmonth - 12 12 - - - 24 17,500 - 221.8 227.1 - - - 448.8 Curriculumdevelopmentspecialist staffday 12 12 12 - - - 36 300 3.7 3.8 3.9 - - - 11.4 Eoologist(volunteer) /a staffmonth - 12 12 12 12 12 60 400 - 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.6 26.6 Writers/b staffday 25 25 22 - - - 72 300 7.7 7.9 7.1 - - - 22.8 Park Mgt Officer (volunteer) staffmonth - 12 12 12 12 12 60 400 - 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.6 28.6 Wrvters/c staffday 50 50 44 - - - 144 146 7.5 7.7 7.0 - - - 22.2 EducationextensionOfficer(Volunteer) staffmonth - 12 12 12 12 12 60 400 - 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.6 26.6 Training Officer(volunteer) staffmonth - 12 12 12 12 12 60 400 - 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.6 26.6 Sociologist(localsecondment)/d staflfionth 10 24 24 12 12 12 94 1,074 11.1 27.2 27.9 14.3 14.6 15.0 110.0 p. ConservatonOfficer(localSecondment) staffmonth 5 12 12 12 12 12 65 1,074 5.5 13.6 13.9 14.3 14.6 15.0 76.9 Subtotal Technical Assistance 334.3 1,051.7 880.4 578.1 51.0 52.2 2,947.7 2. Travel Travel/e trip 400 400 400 400 400 400 2,400 49 20.1 20.6 21.1 21.6 22.1 22.7 128.3 IntemationalAirTravel trip 1 2 6 2 2 1 14 3,000 31 63 19.5 6.6 6.8 3.5 45.8 In-CountryAirTravel trip 20 20 20 20 20 20 120 390 81 82 84 8.6 8.9 9.1 51.3 Subtotal Travel 31.3 35.2 49.0 36.9 37.8 35.2 225.4 Total 3656 1,0869 9294 615.0 88.8 87.4 3,173.1
\a Volunteersto be recruitedthrough intemationalvolunteer programs \b Short-termwriters hired by the project kcLocal writers hired by the projectto write bahasaa articJes \d Two persons secondedfrom WWF Kernci keStaff travel to Jakarta, towns,field, estimatedat US$50/dayx 10 persons x 40 days per year
CD 0Q @
a 2 O- X1 Indonesia Kennci Seblat ICDP Table 1 3. Park Management Training & Conservabon Awareness Detailed Costs (US$)
Quantitles Unit Totals Including Contingencies ('000) Unit 96i97 97198 98199 99/00 00/01 01/02 Total Cost 96/97 97/98 98199 99/00 00/01 01/02 Total
1. Investment Costs A. Training & Conservaton Awareness 1. Training FiedStaffTrainlng Pstrolling persession 1 4 4 4 4 4 21 494 0.5 2.2 2.2 23 24 2.4 120 Short Courses (Inbemational) /a course - - - 2 2 - 4 14,810 - - - 34.4 35 3 - 69.7 WoringVitlntemtbonal)lb pervisd . 2 2 3 - - 7 4,542 - 10.1 103 15.8 - 36.2 Trove"tSernnmrs sernNar - 1 1 - 1 3 16,784 - 18.6 19.1 - 20.0 - 57.6 Kacarmaan Vtrkshop Briefing per ssion 38 38 38 38 38 38 228 987 40.6 41 8 42.6 43.6 44.7 45.7 258.8 Kabupaten hVkshop Briefing per session 3 3 3 . - . 9 2,468 8.0 8 2 8 4 - . 24 6 ExtenwsnTrainlng persession - 1 1 1 1 1 5 3,357 - 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 19.5 PRnproTra-nn course 1 - - - - - 1 29,820 321 - - - - - 32.1 MasterDegree Program person 4 . , 4 64,176 278.0 - - . 278.0 FieldManuals/c permanual - - 350 350 350 350 1,400 10 - - 3.9 4.0 4.1 42 163 Subtotal Training 359.2 64.4 90.4 104.1 110.4 56.5 8049 2. Consfrvation awarenes activites a. Conservon s ti.4auWplirte9tm*baien PAMEFWr unittyear 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 20,692 23.5 24.0 24 6 25 2 25 8 26 4 149 6 NatW Lovers Cub5 wiyam 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 32,600 37.0 37 9 38.8 39 7 40.7 416 235.6 MolbeExhnsion Unit unit - I - 1 7,320 - 8.5 - - - - 8 5 VigeflouidryBiMaps/d penuisp - - 100 100 100 100 400 2 - - 0.3 03 0.3 03 1.2 Coinr TeomnMeeing meeting - 10 10 10 10 10 50 976 - 11.3 11.6 11.9 12.2 12 5 59 5 KertnciGames gains * I 1 1 1 1 5 9,761 - 11.3 11.6 11.9 122 12.5 59.5 Subtl Conservaton awan 5 93.1 869 89.0 91.1 93.3 5138 b. Social maketg n Radiotspots, sioTm 23,360 23,360 23,360 23,380 23,360 116,800 1 25.9 26.5 27.1 27.8 284 - 1357 PrhbforPublicRelabions evenUtf/i 12 12 12 12 12 - 60 2,440 33.2 34.0 34.8 35.7 36.5 - 1742 Taeionspolper nh Spot - 4 4 3 1 1 13 3.904 - 18.1 18.6 14.3 49 5.0 60.8 Prossona video production Video - I - - 1 48,803 - 56.7 - - - - 58.7 Flip-charts cdart - 2,000 - 2,000 - - 4000 5 - 113 - 11.9 - * 23.2 Quarterly bubtin buletin 4 4 4 4 4 - 20 976 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.8 4 9 - 23 2 Leaflets leafet 10,000 10,000 - - - - 20,000 2.8 2 8 - - - - 5 6 Vipae Presentations vilage 10 16 16 26 26 30 124 244 2.8 4 5 4.6 7.7 7.9 9.3 36.9 Local governmentpresentations meeting 10 20 20 20 20 20 110 122 1.4 2.8 2.9 30 3.0 31 163 Training. serninar traitrln 4 4 3 2 1 1 15 976 4.4 4 5 3.5 2.4 1.2 1.2 17.3 Invitations b special events event 1 3 2 1 1 1 9 244 0.3 0 9 0.6 0 3 0.3 0.3 2 6 VIageCounselirg village 10 16 16 26 30 - 98 488 5.5 9.1 9.3 155 18.3 - 576 School local cticukum development materiat 22.1 - - - - - 22.1 Conservationawarenesssurvey Survey 1 - 1 - * 1 3 9.761 11 1 - 116 - - 12 5 35.1 Subtotal Social marketing 113.9 175.9 117.7 123.2 1054 31.5 6675 c. Equlpment Audio-Visual Equipment unit - 1 I - 2 9,928 - * - 11.5 118 * 234 VisitorCenter Equipment set - - 1 1 2 9.949 - - - - 118 12 1 24 0 lnbfornalCerenterEquip. (for3centers) set - - - 3 3 - 6 4.974 - * - 17.3 17.8 35.1 Subtot Equipnwmnt - - 28.9 41.4 12.1 8244 Subtotal Conservation awreness acivties 174.3 268.9 204.6 241 0 238 0 136.9 1,263.8 > Total 533.5 353.3 294 9 345.2 348.4 193.4 2,06877 O i ta traeng in park management \b To Kota Kenal Belu. Malaysia ic Four field Manuals will be prepared to be used by guards and communityextension workers \d Includes producdion,duplication and distnbution of maps 1:50,000 sidicating Park boundary to Boundary Villages \e four radio spots per day in sixteen klcal statins Indonesia Kerinci Seblat ICDP Table 1.4. Park Management Civil Works & Boundary Activities Detailed Costs (USS)
Quantities Unit Totals Including Contingencies ('000) Unit 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 Total Cost 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 Total
I. Investment Costs A. Civil Works & Boundary Activites 1. Civil Works Provincial Field Headquarters/a station - 4 - - - - 4 87,456 387.9 - - - - 387 9 Park Field Stations/b station - 10 10 10 10 - 40 23.584 - 261 5 267.8 274.2 280 8 - 1,084.2 Park lnformaibonCenlers /c center - - - 3 3 6 24,566 - - - 85.7 87 7 - 173.4 Park EntranceGates gate - 2 3 3 - - 8 2,457 - 5.4 8.4 8 6 - - 22.4 Park Visitor Centers center - - - 1 1 - 2 58,959 - - - 685 70.2 - 138.7 Park Headquarters/d unit 1 - - - - - 1 206,061 223.1 - - - - - 2231 Upgrading & Rehabilitationof Field Stations/e stabon - - 4 4 - - 8 17,688 - - 80.3 82.3 - - 162 6 InformationSigns unit 20 20 20 20 20 - 100 357 7.7 7.9 8.1 8 3 8 5 40.6 Boundary signposts unit - 100 100 100 100 100 500 10 - 1.1 12 1.2 1.2 1.2 5.9 Building Site Survey and Planning/f lumpsum - 18.2 18.6 19.1 19.5 - 75.4 Subtotal Civil Works 230.9 682.1 384.4 5478 4680 1.2 2,314.3 2. Boundary Activities Boundary Revisions and Adjustments unit 1 - - - - - 1 19,521 22.1 - - - - - 22.1 Boundary and EncroachmentArea Survey ha/year 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 24,000 5 20.2 20.7 21.2 21.7 22.3 22.8 1290 Seed Procurementfor Boundary Markers seedling 30.000 30,000 30.000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 12.7 13.0 13.3 13.7 14.0 143 810 1 Live Boundary Marking Labor km 100 100 100 100 100 100 600 41 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5 2 29.6 Seed ProcurementforAgroforestry seedling 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 240,000 21.2 21.7 22.2 22 B 23.3 23.9 135.0 Boundary Monumenting/g km - - 50 50 50 50 200 224 - - 13.4 137 140 14.3 55.4 Social ForestryAcbvilies Labor ha 200 200 200 200 200 200 1,200 39 89 9 1 93 95 97 10.0 56.4 Village Nursery Development seedling - 35,000 30.000 - - - 65,000 - 19.0 16.7 - - - 35.6 Habitat Rehabilitation(Labor) ha - - - - 50 - 50 73 - - - - 4.6 4.6 Transferof Elephantsto Bengkulu elephant - 5 - - - 5 683 - 4.0 - - - 4.0 PatrollingRoute Developmenl km - 150 150 - - - 300 98 - 17.0 17.4 - - - 34.4 InstallationofArtificial Mineral Lakes /h site - - - 10 - - 10 390 - - - 4.8 - - 4.8 Trenche Fencing for Elephants km - - - 2.5 2.5 - 5 9,761 - - - 29.7 30.4 - 60.2 Preliminary Species Surveys year 1 - - - - 1 16,556 17.1 - - - - - 17.1 Subtotal Boundary Activities 106.9 109.2 1184 120.8 123.4 90.5 669.1 3. Biodiversity Research Biodiversity Research . year - 1 1 1 1 1 5 176,648 - 186.5 191.0 195.6 200.3 205.1 978.5 Small Research Grants year - 1 1 1 1 1 5 19,628 - 20.7 21.2 21.7 22.3 22.8 108.7 Subtotal Biodiversity Research - 207.3 212.2 217.3 222.5 227.9 1,087.3 Total 337.7 998.5 715.0 885.9 813.9 319.6 4,070.7 ba 300 square meters; based on GOI standard cost per sq. meter of Rp. 480.000. vb 100 square meters (equipped); basedon GOI standardcosts of Rp. 480,000 per sq. meter. vc 100 square meters equipped \d Rehabilitationand upgrading ri : e Includes costs of renovabonof 70 sq. meter post (US$9,000);equipping post (US$1,000); and expansion of post by 30 sqmeters (US8,000). V Addresses issues of permanent water supply; eslimated at 7% of costs of buildings. \gto be carried out by BipHut 0 h Vi Large Mnanal core areas r Indone-s KerinciSeblat ICDP Table 1.5. ParkManagement RecurrentCosts Debiled Costs (USS)
QuantJties UnIt Totals Including ContIngencIes('000) UnIt 96197 971S8 9S99 99100 00/01 01102 Total Cost 96197 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 Total
II. Recurrnt Costs A. Support Staff to TA M AdmnnlskbvnOftckr(2persons) staffmonth 10 24 24 24 24 24 130 732 7.5 18.6 190 19.5 19.9 20.4 1049 Seaetary (2 persons) staffmonth 10 24 24 24 24 24 130 634 8.5 16.1 16.5 16.9 17.3 17.7 90.9 Oraftsran (two) staffmonth 10 24 24 24 24 24 130 732 7.5 18.6 19.0 19.5 19.9 20.4 1049 Watcmen (two) stafftmonth 10 24 24 24 24 24 130 195 2.0 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.3 5 4 28 0 Driven (3prona) staffnionth 15 36 36 36 36 36 195 293 4.5 11.1 11.4 117 12.0 12.2 82.9 Local HkeSb stbffday 500 500 500 500 500 500 3,000 8 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 45 25.7 Subtotal Support Staff to TA 32.2 73.4 75.1 76.9 78.8 80.7 417.2 S. Park Staff ParkDiedcr year 2.5 2.6 2 7 2 7 2.8 2.9 16.2 SeniorParkOflters(Spersons) sffyear 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 1.659 9.0 9.2 9.4 9.6 99 10.1 57.2 ParkVorPublic RelatonsOfficer year 1.8 - - - - 1.8 Provtrial Cowrdas (4peorle) year 4 4 4 4 4 4 24 1,659 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.7 7.9 8.1 45.8 Pronidal Otters (B staff) year 8 8 8 8 8 8 48 1,659 14.4 14.7 15.1 15.4 15.8 16.2 916 ParkG ud (4 slaf) year 46 46 46 46 46 46 276 830 41.3 42.3 43.3 44.4 45.4 46.5 263.3 AddinslPork Guards year 25 75 150 250 250 750 830 - 23.0 70.6 144.7 246.9 252.9 738.1 Mahuts(ElephentKcpers,10stafl) year - 10 10 10 10 - 40 830 - 9.2 9.4 9.6 99 - 38.1 Cartogr,her year 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 630 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 I0 10 5.7 Draftslln year 1 I 1 1 1 6 830 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 t.0 5.7 1 Data Mslyst year 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 830 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 I 0 1.0 5.7 Secreariess(t3SU year 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 830 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 30 3.0 1712 Mechanics(2stat year 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 878 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 121 Drivers(6 staf) year 6 8 6 6 6 6 36 830 5.4 5.5 5.7 5.8 5.9 6 1 34 3 CoimurnityPrhters year 37 76 114 152 190 190 759 73 2.9 6.2 9.5 12.9 166 170 650 Subtotal PrkStaff 91.8 127.5 180.9 260.8 369.1 367.9 1,398.0 C. Honoraria, Per Diemand Travel Park StaffConrltation/c year 1 1 1 I 1 1 6 24,011 26.0 26.6 27.3 27.9 28.6 29.3 165.7 PHPAPrrecdt Beng session 1 1 1 1 1 I 8 Z928 3.2 3.2 3.3 3 4 3 5 3.6 20.2 ReportMig year 1 1 I I 1 I 6 1,952 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 13.5 Translaton year * 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 3.5 9,761 5.4 11.1 5.7 5.8 11.9 39.9 Administrtion rnonth 5 12 12 12 12 12 65 488 2.6 6.5 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.1 36 7 Conmmnications mnonth 5 12 12 12 12 12 65 1,464 7.9 19.5 19.9 204 20.9 21.4 110.1 Miscellaneous year 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 4,880 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.7 5.8 S.9 33.7 Subtotal Honoraria,Per Diem & Travel 47.1 68.8 76.0 72.2 73.9 s1i6 419.7 0. Operaton and Maintenance O&M for4Whed DriveVehice month 40 216 216 216 216 216 1,120 122 5.3 29.2 299 30.6 31.4 321 158.6 O&M Motorbikes unittmonth 80 576 864 1.104 1,344 1,344 5,312 24 21 15.6 23.9 31 3 390 400 1520 ElephantsCareandMamtenance elephant - 5 5 5 5 5 25 2,147 11.9 12.2 12.5 12.8 131 624 BuildingsO&M site/year 8 23 43 64 79 79 296 197 1.7 5.0 9.6 14.6 18.5 18.9 68 3 RadioLicensing unit 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 420 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.6 14.5 RYG Lcensing unit 8 10 10 10 10 10 58 50 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 3.3 RYGAnnual Licensing Renewal license - 8 18 28 38 38 130 15 - 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.7 2.3 00; Subtotal Operaton and Maintenance 11.8 64.7 78.9 92.6 105.5 108.0 461 5 [D Total 183.0 334.5 410.9 502.5 627.3 638.2 2,6963 ['Z
Ia SupportStaff spilt betweenOffice hi SungaiPenih and Curup VoGuides. porlers, etc. estimatedat Rp. 17,000per dy x 10 peson x 50 dayasr vcConaons ince BAPPENAS,PHPA, Knl Keuhn nd otherlol goveriunt staff. Indonesia Kerinci Seblat ICDP Table 2. AreaNillage Development Detailed Costs (USS)
Quantities Unit Totals Including Contingencies ('000) Unit 96197 97198 98/99 99100 00101 011/02 Total Cost 96197 97198 98199 99/00 00/01 01102 Total
I. Investment Costs A. Project Management 1. Planning Meetings Inter-ProvincialCoordinabon Meeting /a meeting 2 4 4 4 4 4 22 3,904 8.9 18.1 18.6 19.0 19.5 19.9 104.0 KabupatenCoordination Meebng /b meeting 30 60 60 107 107 107 471 244 8.3 17.0 17.4 31.8 32.6 33.3 140.4 Subtotal Planning Meetings 17.2 35.1 36.0 50.8 52.0 53.3 244.5 2. Equipment Computer Systems /c system 9 - - 9 4.974 48.5 - - 48.5 Subtotal Project Management 65.6 35.1 36.0 50.8 52 0 53.3 292.9 B. Village Development Activities Feasibility Studies study - 3 3 3 - - 9 19,628 - 62.2 63.7 65.2 - - 191.0 CommunityProjects(infrastructure) village 10 18 19 28 29 30 134 39,042 401.8 739.4 797.9 1,202.3 1,273.2 1,346.7 5,761.2 CommunityProjects (aginputs) village 10 18 19 28 29 30 134 9,784 100.9 186.0 201.0 303.4 321.7 340.8 1,453.8 SpecialAreaManagement/d area - 2 3 3 2 - 10 48,922 - 108.5 166.6 170.6 116.5 - 562.3 LocalGovernmentoperationalcosts/e village 10 18 19 29 28 30 134 2,440 27.7 51.0 55.1 86.2 85.2 93.5 398.7 VilageLanduseMapping / village 10 18 19 29 *28 30 134 14,641 166.1 306.1 330.9 517.1 511.3 561.0 2,392.5 LCOstaffinvestments/g unit 120 336 440 780 912 1,044 3,632 317 41.2 118.2 1585 2877 344.4 403.7 1,353.7 Village level supplyrequirements unit 120 336 440 780 912 1,044 3,632 99 12.9 37.0 49.6 90.0 107.8 126.3 423.6 Kecamatanlevel supplyrequirements unit 80 120 200 200 200 180 980 179 15.5 23.8 40.6 41.5 42.5 39.2 203.1 Subtotal Village Development Actvhties 766.0 1,632.1 1,8639 2,764.0 2,802.7 2,911.3 12,739.9 C. Technical assistance 1. Technical assistance 9 Rural developmentadvisor/Team Leader staffmonth 4 12 12 - - - 28 17,500 72.2 221.8 227.1 - - 521.0°C AssistantTeamLeader staffmonth 4 12 12 12 12 - 52 4,880 20.1 61.8 63.3 64.8 66.4 - 276.5 1 Agriculturaladvisor staffmonth 4 12 12 12 12 52 4,763 19.6 60.4 61.8 63.3 64.8 - 269.9 CommunityForestry Specialist slaffmonth 4 12 12 - - - 28 17,500 72 2 221.8 227.1 - - - 521.0 TrainingAdvisor staffmonth 4 12 12 12 - - 40 4,880 20.1 61.8 63.3 648 - 210.1 Communityparticipaton advisor staffmonth 4 12 12 12 12 - 52 4,763 19.6 60.4 61.8 63.3 64.8 - 269.9 Small enterpriseadvisors (two)/h staffmonth 6 24 24 24 - 78 200 1.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 - 16 8 Work Engineers(two) staffmonth 6 24 24 24 24 24 126 4,763 29.5 120.7 123.6 126.6 129.6 1327 662.7 Regional Planner staffmonth - 6 3 - - - 9 15,000 - 95.0 48.7 - - 143.7 PlanningAdvisors (four)A1 staffmonth 8 48 48 48 - - 152 4,763 39.3 241.4 247.2 253.2 - - 781.1 Accountant staffmonth 4 12 12 12 12 12 64 2,382 9.8 30.2 30.9 31.6 32.4 33.2 1681 CoordinatingNGO /) lumpsum 399.6 495.5 437.7 675.9 707.0 723.8 3,439.5 Keuinci Trust Fund Study tumpsui I - - - - - 1 98,138 101.2 - - - - 101.2 InterprovinrialSpabal Plan lumpsum 151.8 - - - 151.8 Ecolounsm study lumpsum 1 - - - - - 1 49,069 50.6 - - - - 50 6 KubuDevelopment (TA) lumpsum 60.7 155.4 159.2 - - - 375.3 Kubu Development(Equipments) lumpsum 15.2 51.8 79.6 146.6 Subtotal Technical assistance 1,082.9 1,883.1 1,8365 1,348.8 1,065.0 889.7 8,106.0 2. Equipment & Vehicles Four WD vehicles unit 4 - - - - 4 24,767 107.3 - - - - - 107.3 Two WD Vehicle unit 2 - - - - 2 14,860 32.2 - - - - - 32.2 W Motorcycles unit 10 - - - - - 10 1,486 16.1 - - - - 16.1 Computer system unit 8 - - 8 4,974 43.1 - - - - - 43.1' o Facsimile machine unit 2 - - 2 1,492 3.2 - - - 3.22 O Officefurniture office 2 - - - - - 2 14811 32.1 - - - - - 32.1 'z Vehicle Rental day 100 - - - - - 100 99 10.7 - - - - - 10.7 Subtotal Equipment & Vehicles 244.7 - - - - - 244.7 Indoneels Kerict SebiatICDP Table2. AreaMNlgeDevelopnent Detailed Coats(US$)
QuanWtlee Unit TotalsIncluding Contingencies('000) Unit 96/97 97198 98199 99100 00)01 01102 Total Cost 9t6197 97/98 9U99 99100 00101 01/02 Total
3. Miscellaneouscosts OfficeRental mnonth 4 12 12 12 12 - 52 488 21 6 5 6 6 6.8 7 0 - 29.0 Comrnunications month 8 24 24 24 24 - 104 978 8 5 26.0 26.6 27.2 27 9 * 116.1 Reportng month 8 24 24 24 24 - 104 586 5.1 15.6 16.0 16.3 16.7 69.7 Travel trip 100 520 520 400 200 1,740 49 53 281 28.3 22.7 116 96.6 lntmnatona travel trip 5 4 5 4 5 - 23 3.000 15.5 127 162 133 170 - 747 PerDDiem statfday 250 1,480 1,480 1,000 500 - 4,710 49 132 801 82.0 567 291 261.1 OperationrandMaintennce officelrnont 8 24 24 24 24 * 104 1,952 16.9 51.9 53.2 54 5 55 a 232 3 Subtotal Iscellaneouscosts 665 2209 2294 197.6 1651 8795 4. Training AgribusnessTrainki Center course - 1 1 1 - 3 78,986 - 87.8 89.7 91.8 - - 2691 ComrnunityTraining viltage 10 18 19 29 28 30 134 4,487 48.6 89.6 96 8 151.3 149.6 1641 700 0 ProiectMagrs Curse - 1 1 .- - 2 2,962 - 3.3 3.4 - - 66 Ptuners course - 2 2 * * * 4 2,962 - 6.6 6 7 - - - 13 3 Extenson workers course - 2 5 3 - * 10 1,975 - 4 4 11 2 6.9 - - 22.5 ZOPPMretag ting - 1 1 1 1 - 4 4,937 - 55 5.6 5.7 5.9 22.7 LCOtravn lurpsum 26.6 49.0 61 9 89.1 94 1 99 4 420.0 SubtotalTraining 75.2 245 8 275.3 344.8 249.6 283 5 1,4541 Subtotal Techncal asistance 1,469.2 2,3498 2,3412 1,891.2 1,4796 1,153.2 10,684.2 Total InvestmentCosts 2,300.8 4.0170 4,241.1 4,706.0 4,3343 4.1178 23,717.1 11.Recurrent Coats A.Support staffto TA Adrnnitrator(two) staffmonth 4 24 24 24 24 - 100 3,904 16.1 98.9 101.3 103.8 1062 - 4264 Seueaieslour) staffmonth 18 48 48 48 48 - 208 976 16.1 49.5 50.7 51.9 531 - 2212 Dnver(1eight) staffmonth 32 96 96 96 98 - 416 488 16.1 49.5 50.7 51.9 53.1 . 221.2 Officeassistants(hur) staffmonth 18 48 48 48 48 - 208 293 4.8 14.8 15.2 15.6 159 - 664 Subtotl Supportstaff to TA 53.1 2127 217.8 223.1 228.4 - 9352 B. Project Management StaffHonoraria staffmonth 90 90 90 90 90 90 540 39 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 43 24.2 Extension Vkers incentive Payments staffmonth 36 48 54 84 108 48 378 49 1 9 2.6 3 0 4.8 6.3 2 9 21 4 OfficeSupplies office/nmont 108 108 108 108 108 108 648 98 11.4 11.7 120 123 12,5 129 72.7 Comnunications office/nont 108 108 108 108 108 108 648 293 34.2 35.1 35 9 36.8 37.6 38 6 2182 Reporting office/miont 36 108 108 108 108 108 576 195 7.6 23.4 23 9 24.5 25A1 25 7 130 2 Travel trip 200 400 400 400 400 400 2,200 49 10.6 21.6 22 2 22 7 23 2 23.8 124.1 PerDiem staffday 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 11,000 49 528 1082 1108 113.5 1162 1190 620.6 Subtotal Projct Managemnt 122.4 2065 2118 2186 225.2 227.0 1.2114 Total Recurrent Costa 175.5 4192 4296 441.6 4536 2270 2,1467 Total 2,476.4 4,4362 4,6707 5,1477 4,787.9 4,344.8 25,8638
%aThirty people at 675 per day traveland per diem VbMonthy meeting coordinated by KabupatenPimpro in five Kabupatensyears 1-3 and ninekabupatens yearn 3-8 vbIncludes PC, pnnterand software 0 td Theseare areas which requirespecial management to preventfurther encroachment ¶eCalculated at 5%of villte investntentcosts V Mappingcontract to BPN at Rp 2000per hectare. average village size 15000ha Ig this coversthe cost of the villageLCOs, subsistence and Kabupatenkaison for 5 yearsand is part of the coordinabtngNGO contract t Interuaeothae volunteOs \i Assigred to BAPPEDA I 'O \i Includes other local NGOs Indonesia KerinciSeblat ICDP Tibie 3. ConcessionBlodiversity Assessment Detailed Costs (USS)
Quantities Unit Totals Including Contingencies ('000) Unit 96197 97198 98199 99100 00/01 01102 Total Cost 96197 97198 98199 99/00 00/01 01/02 Total
1.Investment Costa A. Field Activitiesand Equipment 1. Concession biodiversity mgmt & training a. Training Travel S allowance/a person 20 40 40 40 40 40 220 987 21.4 43.8 44.8 45.9 47.0 48.1 251.1 Suppliesand venue trainirg 1 2 2 2 2 2 11 2,962 3.2 6.6 6.7 6.9 7.1 7.2 37.7 Subtotal Training 24.6 50.4 51.6 52.8 54.1 554 28868 b. Biodiversity surveys /b Vehile hire day 6 6 6 6 6 6 36 491 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.4 19.3 Surveyequipment and materialsIC set 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 39,255 40.5 41.5 42.4 43.5 44.5 45.6 257.9 InternationalTravel/d trip - 4 4 4 4 4 20 2,944 - 12.4 12.7 13.0 134 137 65.2 Localtravel trip 6 6 6 6 6 6 36 491 3.0 3.1 3.2 3 3 3.3 3.4 19.3 Fieldper diem day 450 450 450 450 450 450 2.700 49 22.8 23.3 23.9 24.4 25.0 25.6 145.1 Subtotal Blodivertty surveys 69.3 83.4 85.4 87.5 89.6 91.7 506B9 Subtotal Concession blodivertty mgmt & tmng 93.9 133.8 137.0 140.3 1436 147 1 795.7 8. Technical Assistance t. Technical Assistance Ecologist staffmonth - 12 12 12 12 - 48 17,174 - 217.6 222.8 228.2 233 7 - 902.3 BiodiversitySpecialists (two) /e saffnmonth - 4 4 4 4 4 20 17,174 - 72.5 74.3 76.1 779 79.8 380.5 Trainingspecialist staffmonth - 1 1 1 1 1 5 17,174 - 18.1 18.6 190 19.5 19.9 95.1 Biodiversityspecialists tf staffmonth 6 6 6 6 6 6 36 4,907 30.4 31.1 31.8 32.6 33.4 34.2 193.4 O Fieldcrew (four) /g staffmonth 48 48 48 48 48 48 288 491 24.3 24.9 25.5 26.1 26.7 27.3 154.8 O Trainerin concessionmigt. staffmonth 2 3 3 3 3 3 17 5,250 10.8 16.6 17.0 17.4 17 9 18.3 98 1 Subtotal Technical Assistance 65.5 380.9 390.0 399.4 409S0 179.5 1,824.3 2. Office Staff Secretary staffmonth 6 12 12 12 12 12 66 634 3.9 8.0 8.2 8.4 56 88 461 Subtotal Technical Assistance 69.4 388 9 398.3 407.8 417.6 188.4 1,870.4 Total Investment Costs 163.3 522.7 535.3 548.1 561.3 335.4 2,666.1 II. Recurrent Costs A. Staff IncrementalField StaffIh staffmonth 12 24 24 24 24 24 132 98 1.3 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.9 14.9 B. Other Recurrent Costs Vehide Hire for Field Stafffi day 126 252 252 252 252 252 1,386 98 13.3 27.3 27.9 28.6 29.3 30.0 156.4 FuelandVehicleMaintenance month 6 12 12 12 12 12 66 195 1.3 2.6 2.7 2.7 28 2.9 14.9 Subtotal Other Recurrent Costs 14.6 29.9 30.6 31.3 32.1 32.8 171.3 Total Recurrent Costs 15.9 32.5 33.2 34.0 349 35.7 186.2 Total 179.2 5552 568.5 582.1 596.1 371.1 2,852.3
\a Fifteenday field-basedtraining for concession,dinas and kanwilstaff \b surveysof eleven HPHsover projectlife tc Includesfield eqipmnentrequired for flora and fauna surveys vdTravel for foreignexperts > veHerpetologists, botanist, entymologist, avifauna specialist \ Botanists,zoologists \g local NGO or university graduates H \h Staff from kanwil and Dinas office t' \i one seven day inspectiontour by dinas staff per monthper province Karkd Sdlm ICDP Tae 4. MaMm Id Eva_Mon D_tmt Comb (USS)
Quails Unit Totl icluding Cinenle roe.) Unit ? 971# wn meo 501 01 -2ro-tel cost -I7T 97/8 9 19RIO ow1 01102 Totsl
L bwebeb Cmta A. Equ midMMWpIng 1. Compuw E
Pueori Co.rputu urn, 3 3 a 3.482 11.3 - - 12.4 - 23.7 Dolt udli 2 - 2 1.990 4.3 - - - - 4,3 La Pdrnlar unt 2 2 4 995 2.2 - - - 2.4 4.5 Color PrierjPbofr unit 2 - - 1 3 3.979 8.8 - - - 4.7 - 13.4 UPS Sydem unit 2 - -- 2 1.194 2.6 - - 2.6 So&ll (GIS andtDe) mst 3 - - - - - 3 3.979 12.9 - - - 12,9 Suw l S3ietaat 41.9 - - - 19.5 - 61.4 b. Sle Offices PwsuonlCompaAus unl 5 5 - - - 10 3,482 1t.9 19.3 - - * 38.2 PunArS uwit 5 5 - . 10 796 4.3 4.4 - - * 67 ColorPrhr udt 5 5 10 190 10.6 11.0 - - - 21,8 UPS Syam uil 5 5 - - - - 10 1.194 6.5 6.6 - - 13.1 solbajunit 5 5 - - 10 3.979 21.5 22.1 - - - 43.6 Seolobl Site Ofices 6f1.9 03.4 - - - - 125A4 Subtoa Com e Equpmnt 103.8 63.4 - - 19.5 - 186.6f °- 2. Otrn Equpnt and Fumrure OUo Fuminre (Seeaat) so 4 - - - - 4 995 4.3 - - - - 4.3 Pholocopier unmt I - 1 2.487 2.7 2.7 Subtotal Othr Equipment and Furniture 7.0 - - - *o 3. Mp DtdabesuMp(1:250,000)la mopee 25 52 - . - 77 248 6.7 14.3 - - - 21.0 DelabaseMopt1:25.000) nlpbheet 300 376 75 - - - 751 199 64.5 82.8 169 - . 164.1 Exiest Ai Photo no. 2,100 , 2.100 17 38.4 - , , 38.4 NowAeramPhoDo WOha -he 75 75 * 150 2,184 - - 185.9 - 195.0 380.9 Saw" Inegmy scane 2 2 2 6 8,948 15.0 - 15.8 16.5 - 47A4 Subtotal Mapping 124.8 97.1 218.6 211.5 - 651.8 4. VMrnis FourehW elODrtVeh1de I * - 1 24,767 26.8 - - - - - 26f8 Subtotal Equipnwt andMappIng 262.3 160.5 2186 - 231.1 - 872.5 B. Technical Assistance 1. Consultanta Mondr &nd Eva onSpecial satdtionth 6 10 - - - 16 17,500 108.3 184.8 - - - - 293.1 MIS Specat (Local) dsffalthi 3 3 3 - - - 9 4.880 15.1 15.5 15.8 - - 46.4 Evalon Stuff (Local) stffnM - 4 - 4 8 195 - - 0.8 - - 0.9 18a -I M&E andGIS C;onau (Local staViiboth 6 12 12 12 12 12 66 4.880 30.2 61.8 63.3 84.8 66.4 68 0 354 6 ra Subtotal Conultat 153.6 262.1 80.0 8f4.8 86f.4 68 9 695 8 e 2. Travel M&ESpKistaTrvel UVI 12 12 12 12 12 12 72 390 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.6 5.7 32.3 Z SubtotalTechnIcal Aaele81Ane 158.6 267.3 85.3 70.3 72.0 746 728.1 I90 C- T_W 4l 1_M WAEvdbn Deb" Com
WIn.ltk Txdn thit #ff WM n ne dlCostNW gy nS-a Om 01e2
C. Dat Coleco"l S _dEWmcSu vpk /Ctk I 9 - 9 - 9 27 29,Ut4- 279J8 - M934A 307.5 M.8 Lid Fild Suiwys Ad kImpeum 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.e 5.7 322 htdeendI _selnaudl/a rtonsessal - 2 2 2 2 3 11 49.069 - 103.6 106.1 108.7 111.3 170.9 600.6 SublD D C4lecUon 5.1 388.6 111.4 407.5 116.9 484.3 1,513.7 D. Tratg Trak*1g M ESbI dslha id 18 18 - - - - 36 1,185 23.1 23.6 - - 46.7 Deblon MkmTrankg gfsla 18 18a - - 36 740 14.4 14.8 - - 29.2 PhmeraTMf(ignmGIS) stmimmidi 50 58 - - - 108 1,481 80.2 95.2 - - - 175.4 SubTtalTang 117.7 133.7 - - - 251.4 Tow'l h I Cost 543.7 950.1 415.4 477W8 419.9 558.9 3,365.7 V. Recwrml CostsI A. Support Staff to TA M8ESbIa(2u11M atammidi 12 24 24 24 24 24 132 1,952 24.2 49.5 50.7 51.9 53.1 54.4 283.7 M seaetay sddImo,ih 6 12 12 12 12 12 e8 634 3.9 8.0 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 48.1 Driver stalfmonh 6 12 12 12 12 12 66 293 1.8 3.7 3.8 3 9 4.0 4.1 21.3 Subtal Support Staff to TA 29.9 61.2 62.7 64.2 65.7 67.3 351.1 B. Malnten Equpn MWntm'et n ak ne - 5.5 5.7 5.8 6.0 6.1 29.1 Vdele Oam MlWp 1.3 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 15.5 Subtotal MaIntenan 1.3 8.2 8.4 8.7 8.9 9.1 44.6 C. Supple. Suppil aind ObS Opeloso Costs lnSi 7.9 8.1 8.3 8.5 8.7 8.9 50.5 Total Reurret Costs 39.1 77.6 79.5 81.4 83.3 85.3 446.2 Total 582.8 1,027.7 494.8 559.1 503.2 644.2 3,811.8
%aUnder CoWdact b UndwrCouarad lc Undr TA a UndWeTA omma e To be aded lo hdepwnd .Wot
OQ
- z o2 - 83 -
ANNEX 10 Page I of 2
DISBURSEMENT PLAN (US$ Million)
Amount DisbursementRate categ IMIRD EE GEF Civil Works: - Buildings and Structures 1.2 60% - Village Infrastructure 4.2 80%
Equipment& Furniture/a - Parks 0.3 100Y; 100%;65% - Buffer zone 0.6 100%; 100%;65%
Training: - Parks - 1.1 - Buffer zone 1.0 0.3 60% 20%.
ConsultantServices: - Parks 2.6 - 90% - Bufferzone& Land Zoning 4.4 0.5 80% I0% - CommunityServices 2.8 - 90%
Extension& Planning: - Parks 0.8 80% - Buffer zone 3.7 0.4 80% 10%
Survey& Research: - Parks 1.2 90% - Buffer zone 0.9 1.6 30% 50%
Studies 0.7 - 900/0
Agricultural Inputs /b 1.0 - 80%
IncrementalOperating Expenditure 0.7 0.7 15% 15%
Unallocated 1.9 1.5 10% 10Y.
TOTAL 19.1 15.0 /a 1I00 of foreig exeditu on equipment,fumiture and mapping; 100%of local expenditures(ex- factoryprices) for locally manufactred equipmentand funiture and 65% for locally procureditems. /b Excludingfertilizer which GOI will finance. - 84 -
Page 2 of 2 Estimated Disbursement Schedule (UsSvooo)
IBRD International Bank for Global Disbursement Fiscal Year Reconstruction & Development Environmental Trust Profile/a Semester Per Semester Cumulative % Per Semester Cumulative % (f) 1996 2 1,500 1,500 8 1,000 1,000 7 1997 1 910 2,410 13 850 1,850 12 3 2 910 3,320 17 850 2,700 18 6 1998 1 1,850 5,170 27 1,688 4,388 29 14 2 1,850 7,020 37 1,688 6,076 41 22 1999 1 1,786 8,806 46 1,450 7,526 50 30 2 1,786 10,592 55 1,450 8,976 60 38 2000 1 1,832 12,424 65 1,470 10,446 70 46 2 1,832 14,256 74 1,470 11,916 79 54 2001 1 1,669 15,925 83 1,175 13,091 87 62 2 1,669 17,594 92 1,175 14,266 95 70 2002 1 680 18,274 95 310 14,576 97 78 2 680 18,954 99 310 14,886 99 86 2003 1 191 19,145 100 114 15,000 100 90 2 ------98 2004
1 . - - 100 /a Standard Disbursement Profiles - 1995; Indonesia, Agriculture Sector, by Semester from Board Appraisal; Financial Information Center, July 31, 1995. /b Project Closing Date as September 30, 2002 -85 - ANNEX I I Page I of 7
REGIONAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
A Brief Description of the Biodiversity of the Kerinci Seblat Area
1. The Kerinci Seblat ICDP proposal is located in the southern half of Sumatra in the provinces of Jambi, South Sumatra, Bengkulu and West Sumatra. It extends for a distance of nearly 350 km along the spine of the Barisan Mountain Range from Padang in the north to Bengkulu in the south, and includes Indonesia's second highest mountain, Mt. Kerinci, at 3,805 m. The natural ecological communities of the Kerinci Seblat area are of outstanding biodiversity significance: including species-rich lowland dipterocarp forests at elevations from 300 m to 1,000 m; unique wetlands, and subalpine communities at almost 4,000 m. These ecological communities support a rich flora and fauna:
* at least 4,000 species of plants, including Rafflesia, the world's largest flower, Amorphophallus, the world's tallest flower, and the only natural occurrence of the genus Pinus in the southern hemisphere; * 144 mammalian species including several threatened or endangered species such as Sumatran rhino, tiger, elephant, tapir, and gibbons; * 180 bird species (2 percent of the world's total), including three species of hornbill, the rare Kerinci Scop's owl and the great argus pheasant; * 19 animal species endemic to Sumatra - 14 birds and 5 mammals.
2. Kerinci Seblat was initially proposed as a national Park by the Minister of Forests in 1982. This initial proposal, comprising an area of 1,484,650ha, was a consolidation of separate blocks of conservation reserves and protection forests. A series of subsequent boundary revisions has reduced the Park by about to its present size of 1-1.3 million ha. The biodiversity value of the Kerinci Seblat area is threatened by the reduction in Park area and by a host of development pressures, such as access proposals, encroachment for shifting cultivation and cinnamon plantations, and logging in the lowland forests.
Regional Impact Assessment: Definition and Purpose
3. As the name implies, a regional assessment (RIA) is an analysis of the consequences of one or more development projects, where the project or projects are anticipated to have significant environmental, social or economic effects far beyond their immediate locality. RlAs are particularly appropriate where impacts affect a number of different sectors and require a coordinated management response, or where effective impact management requires policy or institutional change. RIAs fall into two broad categories: - 86 - ANNEX 1I Page 2 of 7
(a) assessment of the cumulative impacts of a number of development projects on a geographic region, and the design of a common, coordinated impact management program to guide the activities of government and the various project components; and
(b) assessment of the impacts of single large project with extensive environmental, land use and socio-economicdevelopment implication, the management of which requires significant policy, administrative and fiscal responses from national and local governments.
4. The Kerinci Seblat RIA clearly belongs in the second category, and its purpose has been to evaluate the following:
(a) the extent to which the ICDP design meets basic objectives for natural resource and biodiversity conservation;
(b) the potential impacts of adjacent development activities on biodiversity conservation and Park integrity; and
(c) the impacts (positive and negative) of the Kerinci Seblat ICDP design on opportunities for future economic development.
5. Reflecting these objectives, the main RIA document contains the following chapters: a description of the existing environmental and social setting for the Kerinci Seblat area; a description of the ICDP proposal; a critical analysis of project design; and an assessment of the impact of the project on regional development opportunities.
A BRIEF SUMMARYOF MAJOR ISSUES
PROJECTDESIGN
The Park Boundary
6. The majority of the boundary revisions alluded to above have excised species-rich lowland and low elevation hill forests. The areas have been reclassified from nature reserve or protection forest to production forest, and placed in adjacent logging concessions. A comparison of the original boundary with the currently boundary reveals that there has been an overall reduction in the area of low elevation systems of 72 percent, however, some important systems have suffered much higher loss: plains systems reduced by 81 percent, and the larger alluvial valleys so important to many wildlife species reduced by more than 99 percent. The proportion of mountain systems, with lower biological productivity and biodiversity, has risen from 67 percent to 86 percent. Overall, of 27 landscape units (based on differences of climate, topography and lithology) identified as representativeof the original Park, 15 have been reduced - 87 - ANNEX 1I Page 3 of 7 by 80 percent or more and 8 have been completely eliminated. The boundary is currently the single most critical issue of project design. The Park has lost a significant proportion of its biodiversity and may no longer contain the habitats necessary for the long-term protection and maintenance of its "flagship" wildlife species - elephant, tiger, rhinoceros, tapir, gibbon and the wealth of lowland evergreen rainforest birds. Adjacent lands are being subjected to such serious disturbance from logging and such rapid deforestation by encroachers that they may loose much of their biodiversity and buffer zone function. If the situation is to be retrieved, a number of steps must be taken immediately.
(a) Demarcation of the current boundary should proceed in order to expedite Park gazettement, but there must be a clear statement from the Government of Indonesia that the boundary is recognized as inadequate and that major boundary rationalization to improve its biodiversity status will take place progressively over the next five years.
(b) A rapid environmental appraisal, involving biodiversity and wildlife habitat, must begin immediately to determine the most important areas for repatriation to the Park, concentrating on the Jambi and Bengkulu Park boundaries. Work should begin immediately, utilizing remaining JGF funding, on two concessions adjacent to the Park, one in Jambi and one in Bengkulu, with the following selection criteria: high biodiversity; large proportion of protection and limited production forest; and/or lease expiring within the next two years. Candidates for these first appraisals are the Sarestra II and Nusa Leases in Jambi and the Bina Samaktha and Maju Jaya Raya leases in Bengkulu. These two appraisals should be undertaken as part of the concession reviews, see below, and be completed by December 1996 with firm recommendationsfor the transfer of low elevation areas of high biodiversity back to the Park.
Enforcement
7. From even a casual field trip around the Park boundary, it is evident that encroachment by agricultural squatters is now largely uncontrolled, and that greatly upgraded capability to deal with the problem is needed immediately. In addition it is also evident that serious wildlife poaching occurs in many areas of the Park. The project design calls for 100 new pack guards to be engaged as "pegawi proyek" at 25 per year for four years starting in 1996. By the time this force becomes effective it may well be too late for many areas inside the Park boundary, let alone areas of value adjacent to the Park. It is therefore recommended that, prior to project appraisal, the Government of Indonesia develop an effective bridging enforcement strategy to be implemented in priority areas; starting in April 1995 and continuing until new project staff are trained and in place. The strategy should contain: (1) a description of legal enforcement procedures; (2) staffing levels and responsibilities;and (3) a summary of enforcement actions to date. - 88 - ANNEX 11 Page 4 of 7
Encroachment and Resettlement
8. Generally the tools available to deal with existing Park encroachment are to amend the Park boundary, to demarcate and enforce enclave boundaries, or to resettle/relocate. These will have to be applied on a case-by-case basis after careful study during the first few years of project implementation. Decisions should take into consideration criteria such as the impact on wildlife management and biodiversity conservation, sustainability of the cropping practice, whether the use is compatible with Park or buffer zone management criteria, and the potential reversibility of the vegetation change. In addition the traditional attitude of Park managers that "people have no place in parks" must change. Indigenous people who have lived in a region for decades or centuries should be considered an integral part of the local ecology. Their customs and the way they relate to natural systems becomes an added "biodiversity value." If relocation is the most appropriate and desirable option, every effort should be made to encourage the persons or community to relocate voluntarily. This can be accomplished by providing an acceptable relocation site and adequate compensation for shifting, and by allowing continued use of the original site for a set period through the "kebun kehidupan" concept of temporary utilization zones.
9. It is clear that at present there is neither sufficient information to assess the impacts of individual encroaching communities not the staff capability to plan and manage a community resettlement program. For these reasons the following implementation steps are recommended:
(a) Immediate measures must concentrate on the stabilization of the Park and forest concession boundaries to ensure no new encroachment takes place, through the interim enforcement strategy recommended above.
(b) No further resettlement of established individuals or communities should occur for three years pending completion of the Park management plan and wildlife- biodiversity studies and encroached areas, unless the request comes unsolicited from the people. The wildlife-biodiversity studies should establish objective criteria for assessing the impacts of communities living and farming inside the Park and establish priority areas where resettlement may be required. Terms of reference for these studies should be sent to the World Bank for review prior to project appraisal.
(c) Resettlement should be contemplated only where communities jeopardize biodiversity values that are still intact, where there is a likelihood of permanent human/wildlife conflict or where the community occupies land with significant potential for the rehabilitation of habitat values. Wherever possible, resettlement should be voluntary and carried out in accord with a Resettlement Action Plan prepared in consultation with the affected people. An objective economic analysis of both the earnings of current agricultural practice and the potential earnings of the alternatives available to encroaching communities (i.e., transmigration and pohon kehidupan) should be prepared and submitted to the World Bank in year one of project implementation. - 89 - ANNEX II Page 5 of 7
(d) Where communities remain in the Park, they should do so under a formal Park use contract. Every effort should be made to accommodate these communities in Park management programs and to capitalize on the tourism potential of their culture and way of life.
IMPACTS OF OTHER DEVELOPMENTACTIVITIES
Forest Management
10. As previously noted, many of the areas of the original Park proposal excised by the current boundary were reallocated to timber concessions even though they were classed as, or met the criteria for, protection forest. The majority of the concessions around the boundary of Kerinci Seblat are now wholly or largely within protection forest, and past enforcement against encroachment has been so inadequate that intact forest on some concessions now exists only in steep hill systems. Logging in such systems is invariably extremely destructive both to the forest and to watershed values. The following recommendations are made with respect to forest concession management within the Kerinci Seblat buffer zone:
(a) A one year moratorium should be in place on the logging of any areas classed by RePPProT as Protection Forest within the original 1982 Park boundary, pending priority application of the KPHP analysis to forest concessions on both the Jambi and Bengkulu boundaries of the Park; such analysis to be completed by December 1996. The KPHP analysis should be synchronized with the rapid environmental appraisals referred to under Park boundary recommendations;
(b) Upon completion of the KPHP and rapid environmental appraisals, area of high biodiversity or conservation value outside the rationalized concession boundaries will be repatriated to the Park.
(c) Areas of intact forest not required for the Park and not suitable for industrial logging techniques should be placed in community forests where local people may harvest minor forest products or hand log commercial timber species on a sustainable basis under a buffer zone use contract administered jointly by local government and the Park authorities.
Roads
11. New roads or even upgrading of existing tracks have potentially significant implications for both Park management and biodiversity conservation, since they provide access to new settlers and opportunities for the expansion of existing agricultural activities through access to new markets. There are few if any examples in Indonesia of effective prevention of encroachmentwhen new roads have been constructed into areas of natural forest. Current road "proposals" fall into two categories: first, "roads of convenience" that transect the Park, linking - 90 - ANNEX I1 Page 6 of 7 communities that already have road access; and second, roads to enclave communities inside the Park which do not now have road access. There are about seven proposed roads which fall into the first category. These, with attendant human encroachment, pose by far the more serious threat to Park integrity; potentially fragmenting the Park into isolated blocks, disrupting animal migration, and preventing the flow of genetic resources. It is recommended that:
(a) No new roads will be approved or constructed in or through the Park pending completion of the Park management plan and a regional (buffer zone) land use and transportation plan agreed to by all four provinces. Road construction should also be predicated on the strengthening of enforcement capability to prevent encroachment.
(b) Any road proposals that may be deemed acceptable in the Park and buffer zone plans must be subject to rigorous environmental assessment and project justification through a full AMDAL report.
(c) The unpaved 3 km of the proposed Muara Labuh-Kambang road should be stabilized with proper drainage controls and put to bed under a temporary vegetation cover pending a future decision on its acceptability.
Mineral Resource Development
12. Only three mining concessions are now said to exist within the Park or surrounding buffer zones. Two of these companies, P.T. Barisan Tropical Mining (gold) and P.T. Ketahun (gold/copper), are undertaking feasibility studies and one, P.T. Lusang Mining, is still at the exploration stage. The following recommendationsare made with respect to mining activity:
(a) No further mining concessions should be granted by the Ministry of Mines and Energy within both the areas included in the original 1982 Park boundary and the hatched area shown in Figure 10 until the final boundary of Kerinci Seblat is decided.
(b) Feasibility studies and controlled mineral exploration on the three existing concessions should be allowed to continue in the Park on the understanding that if no economically viable mineral potential is determined within five years, the concessions will be canceled without compensation.
(c) If mineable mineral deposits are found, the acceptability of mining will be determined on a case-by-case basis through the AMDAL process. The following limitations should be considered for any potential mine project: (i) no open pit extraction would be allowed inside the Park or a 5 km buffer zone; (ii) all mine infrastructure must be located outside the 5 km buffer; and (iii) equipment, worker and ore transport within the Park and buffer must be by a method other than road (i.e., overhead bucket or rail tram). Where a potentially viable mine is now allowed to proceed, compensation will be limited to exploration expenses only. - 91 - ANNEX II Page 7 of 7
(d) Any ore processing in the area should be by a closed-circuit cyanide process with a built-in cyanide destruction system (e.g., Inco SO2). Consideration should be given to the subsidized processing of ore belonging to small alluvial gold miners in order to lessen their dependence on mercury in and adjacent to the Park.
The Impact of the ICDP on Regional Development Opportunities
13. This section of the RIA was impossible to complete with accuracy and technical rigor because of existing project design uncertainties, such as the boundary, and real information deficiencies. What is evident is that, in its current form, the ICDP project has few opportunity costs because the land area has major use limitations. Steep topography and the poverty of dominant soils are major constraints to sustainable agriculture. Almost two thirds of the area of existing forest concessions meet the soil, slope and rainfall intensity criteria for protection forest, and in theory should not be available for commercial timber production. Continued logging of these areas will have serious implications for future forest production and watershed stability. Earlier economic analysis (DHV Report 8, 1993) probably significantly overestimated the economic opportunity cost of the ICDP project to agriculture and forestry because it assumed wrongly that existing land uses and levels of resource exploitation were largely sustainable.
14. The impact of the Park and ICDP on mineral resource development is expected to be minimal, though this can not be confirmed until the three existing concessions complete feasibility studies accommodating the restrictions recommended above. Because all three projects overlap the Park boundary or lie outside the Park, these restrictions should not present serious problems to an economically viable precious metal deposit.
15. The recommended restrictions on access development must be placed in the context that no community outside the Park boundary currently lacks road access. Even the enclaves inside the Park, legal and illegal, are serviced by tracks and many have flourished with such access for decades. The current road access proposals transecting the Park are primarily stimulated by inter-provincial competition for the marketing, processing and shipment of commodities, primarily cassiavera, from the Kerinci Valley. Such considerations are likely to result in costly duplication of access and should not be allowed to jeopardize Park and biodiversity values.
This report was prepared for the Government of Indonesia by Sustainable Visions Natural Resources and Environmental ManagementConsultants. Victoria,British Columbia, Canada, March 1995. - 92 - ANNEX 12 Page I of 3
INCREMENTAL COSTS OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
1. Summary. The proposed GEF Grant of US$ 15.0 million equivalent (net of taxes) would finance elements of the project that contribute wholly or largely to achieve- ment of global biodiversity objectives. It is estimated that the "baseline" project scenario (without global benefits) would cost about US$ 26.5 million, while the cost of the "GEF alternative" (including global benefits) is estimated at US$ 46.0 million. A comparison of project costs for the Baseline Scenario and GEF Alternative results in incremental costs of about $19.5 million for achieving biodiversity conservation and sustainable use objectives in KSNP and its buffer zones.
2. Baseline Scenario. Under the baseline scenario, it is assumed that GOI would maintain management and enforcement activities in and around KSNP at historical levels (based on expenditure trends over the past 10 years). With respect to area/village devel- opment expenditures, the baseline scenario includes planned rural infrastructure programs for villages in KSNP buffer zones over the next 6 years; however, as these programs do not address biodiversity conservation or sustainable use objectives, it is assumed for base- line purposes that GOI would also initiate watershed protection programs in the project area. Currently, supervision of timber concession management in the KSNP buffer zones is inadequate, so it has been assumed for baseline purposes that GOI would begin to ad- dress this weakness by investing in field programs and personnel to bring the situation under better control. In the absence of the proposed project, limited monitoring and eval- uation activities would have been undertaken in the project area. The cost of proposed baseline activities is estimated at $ 26.5 million.
3. Activities and expenditures under the baseline scenario are compatible with sus- tainable development in the project area and national and social development objectives. Although baseline activities would result in the protection of critical watersheds and stricter enforcement of logging regulations on private concessionaires, they would be insufficient to halt Park encroachment (human and road development) and to integrate biodiversity conservation concerns into forestry management practices in the buffer zone. This would lead to further biodiversity loss and habitat fragmentation in and around the KSNP (particularly in the bordering concessions). Continued degradation and poor man- agement in the Park and buffer-zones over the long term would result ultimately in the loss of these ecosystems' habitat and biodiversity conservation functions. It is believed that the most effective way to prevent such biodiversity loss is through regionally-based programs, fully supported by local stakeholders, such as will be tested under the proposed Kerinci Seblat Integrated Conservation and Development Project (ICDP). - 93 - ANNEX 12 Page 2 of 3
4. GEF Alternative. With GEF/Bank financial assistance, GOI would be willing to undertake a much more ambitious protection/buffer zone development program in and around the Kerinci-Seblat National Park with the explicit objective of conserving biodi- versity resources and assisting local villagers to shift to environmentally sustainable forms of economic behavior (the ICDP model). Park management and enforcement would be strengthened, and efforts would be intensified (with NGO support) to resolve human conflicts and minimize encroachment into the Park. Area/village development activities would be specifically oriented to assisting villagers living in and around KSNP shift to economic livelihood activities that would be compatible with habitat and biodiversity conservation both inside and outside Park boundaries. Biodiversity assess- ments and community forestry activities in the logging concessions would lead to incor- poration of certain blocks into the Park and/or ensure their conservation under concession management. Intensive monitoring and evaluation activities would be instituted to permit documentation of trends related to the impact of project activities on participating villages and peoples and on the area's biological resources. The cost of the GEF Alternative is estimated at $ 46.0 million.
5. The GEF Alternative, in addition to producing national sustainable development benefits, would secure the biodiversity of the Park and its buffer zones, which include threatened lowland and hill forests as well as montane habitats. KSNP and its surround- ing forests provide one of the last opportunities in Southeast Asia to conserve a diverse and complex mammal predator-prey system. The strengthening of Park management and protection, the involvement of local communities, and the integration of conservation values into forestry management practices are expected to effectively increase the conser- vation estate by maintaining natural habitat beyond Park boundaries. The project will develop a model for integrated conservation and development programs, which could be applied to other parks in the Indonesia protected area system (and elsewhere in Asia).
6. Incremental Costs. The costs of the Baseline Scenario and the GEF Alternative are presented below, by major project component (in US$/million):
MaIjorComponents Baseline GEF Alterative
I) KSNP Park manag_ment $ 5.0 $ 13.4 2) Area/village development $ 19.5 $ 25.9 3) Biodiversity/forest concessions $ 1.5 $ 2.9 4) M/E in Park/buffer zone $ 0.5 $ 3.
Total $ 26.5 $ 46.0 - 94 - ANNEX 12 Page 3 of 3
The comparison of Baseline Scenario costs ($265 million) with the costs of the proposed GEF Alternative ($46.0 million) results in an incremental cost of achieving global benefits of about $19.5 million. The GEF grant of $15.0 million would contribute substantially to financing these incremental costs. Given the associated (non-quantified) national benefits from improved ecosystem functioning that the GEF Alternative would generate, the GOI has indicated its willingness to finance the residual incremental costs of roughly $4.5 million out of non-GEF (IBRD loan) resources. - 95 - ANNEX 13 Page I of 6
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PROJECT COMPONENTS
1. As indicated in the main text of this report, aspects of the benefits from the project are difficult to quantify, in the conventional sense. The methodology used to evaluate the benefits of direct investment in biodiversity and conservation within the KNSP area is discussed in the main text of the report: this annex deals with the estimation of returns to investment in the Village Development and the Integrating Biodiversity in Forest Concession Management components.
Village Development Investments
2. The Village Development Component of the project represents the largest expenditure category for the project - US$27 million, consisting of investments in village infrastructure, and grants for agricultural activities, as detailed in Annex 4 of this report.
3. Although these investments are designed largely on the basis of reducing the impacts of encroachment onto the KNSP area by surrounding populations, this component uses a methodology to achieve that end which involves improving incomes in communities which are marginalized, and poor. It also uses a participatory approach which means that the details of some of the agricultural activities which will be sponsored under the project will not be decided until the project is under implementation and consultation activities regarding the village land use plan are in progress. Moreover, these activities will vary widely from one location to another, so ex ante valuation of returns is problematical.
4. Within these limitations, and also with some allowance for judgment on the proportion of total project overheads which can be assigned to this component, an indicative evaluation of costs and benefits for this component can be made.
5. Investments under this component will, as noted above, consist of infrastructure improvement, which is expected to have a general upward impact on agricultural and other economic activities in the target areas, and specific agricultural production investments. It is important to note that investments in infrastructure improvements and agricultural productivity are incremental and additive. This can be shown in the graph of the production function below, where K is infrastructure capital and Y is output.
y FI(K) '4
AY, Y, ------;;Fz Fo (K)
YO ------K
K_ K - 96 - ANNEX la Page 2 of 6
Investments in infrastructure capital, AKO, bring about an increase along the curve of AY0, whereas investments in knowledge expansion (through extension, demonstration, access to improved seeds, etc.) would imply a shift of the production function (AY,). This implies that there is no double counting involved in the rate of return calculations of infrastructure and agriculture investments.
6. Evaluation of returns to direct investment in various farming systems which will be involved in the village investments have been made in the preparation process. The crop budgets and farming system models used to estimate the benefits are shown in Technical Report 3 of Annex 14 of the Preparation Report. The Economic Rate of Return (ERR) to incremental benefits from irrigation intensification is estimated at 53% pa; to jungle rubber production it is 40%; to cassiavera (cinnamon) 97%; to oil palm 35%; and for an agroforestry alternative, 34% pa. For the purposes of evaluating this component as a whole, the rate of return to direct investment (referred to in the accompanying tables as Initial Costs) in output producing activities in agriculture in the target villages, and the complementary infrastructure improvement inputs, is assumed to be the lower bound of these estimates -i.e. 34% pa.
7. Because this project is concerned with a wider set of objectives than improvement of village infrastructure and agricultural production, there is a high input of technical assistance and other overhead expenses under the project. A significant proportion of this input will, however, be used to ensure that the village investments are properly implemented and monitored - not only for their impact on incomes on the target population, but also for their success in reducing encroachment onto the KNSP area. In this analysis, 60% of total project technical and other overhead expenses have been attributed to this component: this is about the proportion of total project costs taken up by this component. There are also recurrent costs (for maintenance of infrastructure and so on ) which will attach to both the Initial Costs and Additional Investment Costs streams, through the total investment and benefit period considered in this case (25 years.).
8. There is a large budget assigned in this project for Monitoring and Evaluation. The bulk of this is intended to keep surveillance over the integrity of the Park boundary. However, some monitoring and evaluation of the performance of the village development investments will be necessary and in this analysis it has been assumed that 25% of total monitoring and evaluation costs are used for this.
9. Table I below presents the base case data for an analysis of the ERR of the Village Development component. The ERR resulting from the data and assumptions used in this case is 15.2 % p.a. Note that benefits are assumed to build gradually, and do not reach a maximu until Year 7.
It should be noted that in Tables I to 4 below, values are shown only for years 1 to 8: in all cases, all costs and benefitsfigures beyond year 8 are identifcal to thosefor year 8. - 97 - ANNEX 13 Page 3 of 6
Table 1. Economic Analysis of Village Development Activities - Base Case (in US$'000 and excluding taxes)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Initial Costs 639 1,279 1,430 2,226 2,210 2,442 Recurrent Costs ------229 229
Add'i Investment " 1,000 1,708 1,581 1,588 1,552 941 Add'I Recurrent 123 207 213 220 227 229 Total Costs 1,762 3,195 3,223 4,034 3,989 3,612 229 229 Increm. Benefits - 218 654 1,141 1,900 2,653 3,485 3,485 Net Benefits (1,762) (2,977) (2,569) (2,893) (2,090) (959) 3,256 3,256 IRR 15.2%
Add']lInvestment Project Mgmt 55 32 34 47 49 50 TA 1,389 2,415 2,409 2,378 2,343 1,263 Sub- Total 1,444 2,447 2,443 2,425 2,392 1,313 Sub-Total less 40% 866 1,468 1,466 1,455 1,435 788 M&E(25%ofprojecttotal) 133 240 115 133 117 154 TOTAL 1,000 1,708 1,581 1,588 1.552 941
10. The major risk factors associated with investments of this type are: (a) some significant proportion of the target group will not participate in the project, so that the overheads incurred have to be spread over a narrower group of beneficiaries; (b) benefits will be slower in emerging than originally expected, and (c) actual benefits produced by the investments will be less than those projected.
11. Table 2 illustrates the impact of reducing the beneficiary population under this component by 20%. This reduces the ERR to 13%.
Table 2. Sensitivity Analysis of Village DevelopmentActivities 20% of villages do not participate (in US$'000 and excluding taxes) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Initial Costs 511 1,024 1,144 1,781 1,768 1,954 Recurrent Costs ------229 229 Add'i Investment 1,000 1,708 1,581 1,588 1,552 941 Add'] Recurrent 123 207 213 220 227 229 Total Costs 1,634 2,939 2,937 3,589 3,547 3,124 229 229 Increm. Benefits - 174 523 913 1,520 2,122 2,788 2,788 Net Benefits (1,634) (2,765) (2,414) (2,676) (2,028) (1,002) 2,559 2,559
IRR 13.0% - 98 - ANNEX 13 Page 4 of 6
12. Table 3 below illustrates the impact of delaying the entire benefit stream of the project by one year, and this results in a decline in the ERR to 12.9% pa.
Table 3. Sensitivity Analysis of Village Development Activities Delay Benefits by 1 Year (in US$'000 and excluding taxes)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Initial Costs 639 1,279 1,430 2.226 2,210 2,442 Recurrent Costs ------229 229 Add1 Investment 1,000 1,708 1,581 1,588 1,552 941 Addi Recurrent 123 207 213 220 227 229 Total Costs 1,762 3,195 3,223 4,034 3,989 3,612 229 229 Increm. Benefits - - 218 654 1,141 1,900 2,653 3,485 Net Benefits (1,762) (3,195) (3,005) (3,380) (2,848) (1,713) 2,424 3,256
IRR 12.9%
13. The final sensitivity test is to assume that overall benefits from the project are reduced by 10%. This reduces the ERR to 13.4%:
Table 4. Sensitivity Analysis of Village Development Activities Reducing Benefits by 10% (in US$'0OOand excluding taxes) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Initial Costs 639 1,279 1,430 2,226 2,210 2,442 RecurrentCosts ------229 229 Add'l Investment 1,000 1,708 1,581 1,588 1,552 941 I, Add'I Recurrent 123 207 213 220 227 229 Total Costs 1,762 3,195 3,223 4,034 3,989 3,612 229 229
Increm.Benefits - 196 588 1,027 1,710 2,387 3,137 3,137
Net Benefits (1,762) (2,999) (2,635) (3,007) (2,280) (1,225) 2,908 2,908
IRR 13.4%
Integrating Biodiversity in Forest Concession Management
14. The project will invest grant funds in ecological surveys and biodiversity assessments in the forestry logging concessions bordering the Park. No attempt has been made to quantify these benefits, although it is believed a positive flow of returns will result from these inputs. Given the uncertainty of this outcome, however, it is unlikely that GOI would invest in such activities at least until the benefits have been demonstrated.
15. Under the inspection and monitoring activities in the project, considerable input will be made into producing an effectively regenerating forest area, so that sustainable forest management becomes possible. In September 1995, the Bank delivered a policy paper to the - 99 - ANNEX 13 Page 5 of 6
Government of Indonesia' in which a case was made that the economic consequences of persistence with current non-sustainable forest logging and use practices in Indonesia would be significant, when compared with the outcome of using the same area of forest for sustainable production.
16. The results developed in that nation wide analysis can be applied on an adjusted pro rtla basis, as follows:
(a) First, the basic parameter assumptions given in the Bank policy paper referred to in footnote 1, are required:
* FOB value of plywood $380 per cubic meter * FOB value of sawn timber $250 * FOB value of other products (mouldings, furniture etc) $600 * real FOB price inflation rate for plywood and sawn timber 2% pa * real FOB price inflation rate for other products 2.8%opa * logging and transport cost $45 per cubic meter 3 processing cost plywood $155 pprocessing cost sawn timber $100 * processing costs other products $350
(b) It is assumed that under sustainable forest use, there will be a faster adaptation by the processing sector to raw material scarcity, so that recovery rates (i.e. produced out per unit of log input) will rise earlier in the time series. Industry recovery rates move from 45% to 60 % by 2001 under the sustainable scenario, but reach only 50% by that year under the non-sustainable scenario.
17. Next, these estimates can be applied to the concessions bordering KSNP: Figures gathered during the preparation of the Kerinci Seblat ICDP indicated that about 500 000 ha of intact forest remains in the II concessions bordering the park. For indicative purposes, it can be assumed that this resource will be used at the same rate, and for the same purposes, as applies under current practices nationally: this will lead to depletion of the resource within a twenty year period, with serious declines setting in after about ten years. This outcome can be compared to the alternative of a lower initial rate of use which will be sustainable. In this case, it can be assumed that the costs of attaining this lower rate of use will be more effective inspection and monitoring, such as will be provided under the project. A net benefit stream can then be calculated by subtracting annual profits from the non-sustainable current practice outcome, from the equivalent figures for the sustainable outcome (taking the additional costs of inspection and monitoring under the component). From this, rates of return can be derived. Table 5 below shows the profit streams generated under the sustainable and non-sustainable scenarios for the concessions.
The Economics of Long Term management of Indonesia's Natural Forests Paper presented to panel discussion at Ministryof Forestry, Jakarta, September30 1995 - 100 - ANNEX 13 Page 6 of 6
Table 5: Stream of Profits in Concession Management
YEAR SUSTAINABLE CURRENT Sustainable PROFITS ($ pa) PROFITS ($ pa) net profits 1995 68.70 76.40 -7.89 1996 67.77 76.22 -9.04 1997 67.40 77.72 -10.92 1998 67.51 79.25 -12.36 1999 67.93 80.68 -13.38 2000 68.96 81.63 -13.06 2001 71.99 83.24 -11.25 2002 74.00 82.98 -8.98 2003 76.42 82.59 -6.17 2004 79.73 78.89 0.84 2005 82.29 77.31 4.98 2006 85.83 70.74 15.09 2007 89.51 63.17 26.34 2008 93.33 59.67 33.67 2009 95.01 59.85 35.16 2010 101.44 61.06 40.38 2011 105.74 41.06 64.67 2012 110.20 24.89 85.31 2013 114.84 7.75 107.08 2014 119.65 0.00 119.65
18. This procedure yields a rate of return from attainment of sustainability in the concessions bordering the park of 15% pa. Given that this does not include any valuation of the biodiversity benefits from the survey and other purely conservation based work for which costs are included in this component, it is reasonable to suggest it is a conservative estimate of the real returns to investment in this component, provided it is accepted that protection of the regenerating stands can be achieved.
19. The rate of return is reasonably robust, because it is calculated by comparison of two income streams which are affected by the same variables. Thus, reduction of product prices or raising of processing costs for outputs from the forests does not lower the ERR significantly: net present value, however, is reduced (from $21.82 m to $15.83 m at a 12% discount rate) when product prices are reduced by 20%. If it is postulated that coverage of the monitoring process is less than complete, so that only half the forested area actually comes under sustainable management as a result of the project, then again the rate of return is relatively unaffected, while in that case the net present value of the project would be reduced considerably, to $9.9m still substantially positive. - 101 - ANNEX 14 Page I of 2
DOCUMENTS IN PROJECT FILE
A. INITIALPREPARATION BY DHV CONSULTANTSBY, JUNE 1993
Technical reports:
1. Project History and Background 2. Biodiversity Conservation and Park Management 3. Local Area Development and Resource Rights Rationalization 4. Micro-Regional Development and Planning 5. Resettlement 6. Integrated Watershed Management 7. Participation and Promotion 8. Resource Economics 9. Rapid Appraisal of Major Socio-Economic Groups in KSNP border Area 10. Concepts and Strategies in Designing ICDP for protecting Indonesia's Biodiversity Assets 11. Rapid Appraisal of Some Major Landscape Profiles in the KSNP Border Area 12. Analysis of the Park Border Ecosystem in KSNP, Jambi Province 13. Analysis of the Park Border Ecosystem in KSNP, South Sumatra Province 14. Analysis of the Park Border Ecosystem in KSNP, Bengkulu Province 15. Analysis of the Park Border Ecosystem in KSNP, West Sumatra Province 16. Social and Economic Conditions in Six Villages in the KSNP Border Area 17. Forest Integrity and Bird Diversity in the KSNP Border Area 18. Study into the Role of NGOs in ICDP, KSNP, Southern Sumatra, Indonesia
B. FINALPREPARATION, AUGUST 1994 - MARCH1995
Kerinci Seblat ICDP - Project Preparation Report, March 1995
Working Papers (WP):
WP I Park Management Component,by R.Petocz, November 1994. WP 2 Rural Development Component, by J. Schweithelm , November 1994. WP 3 Area/Village Development Component,by J. Dalton, June 1995. WP 4 Forestry Concession Biodiversity Assessment, November 1994. WP 5 Monitoring and Evaluation, November 1994. WP 6 Regional and Spatial Planning in Support of ICDP Kerinci Seblat, by H.van Raay, November 1994. WP 7 Biodiversity Conservation Promotions Program, by Global Vision, Inc, June 1995. - 102 - ANNEX 14 Page 2 of 2
WP 8 The Kerinci Seblat National Park and the Kubu. Preliminary Assessment and recommendations, by 0. Sandbukt, June 1995. WP 9 Legal Issues on Kerinci-Seblat National Park, By J. Evers, July 1995.
C. REGIONAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT.
A Report prepared for BAPPENAS and The World Bank by Sustainable Visions, Natural Resource and Environmental Management Consultants, March 1995
D. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Terms of Reference, June 1995
E. BASELINE LANDSCAPE - SoCIo-ECONOMIC SURVEY FOR SIX VILLAGES ADJACENT TO KERINCI SEBLAT NATIONAL PARK
A local Level Functional Coordination Model of ICDP in KSNP, by Worldwide Fund for Nature, September 1995.
F. NGO ASSISTANCE IN STRENGTHENINGCOMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN AND AROUND KERINCI SEBLAT
Progress and Village Level Planning, by WARSI, June 1995. CHART 1
PROJECT ORGANIZATION
Minitryf MiistrAofMinistry of Ministry of iityo Forestry Agriculture BAPNS Home Affairs Transmigration Fnne
H Project Steering Committee (PSC) Working Group ( ofDG PH ) (DG of PHPA I ' WrigGoup- ) for KS-ICDP
CENTER (-Min. of Forestry Min. of Home Affairs Project Management Coordination Team Committee (PMC) (Tim Koordinasi Pusat)
------R GOERO-
'Kanwil Kehutanan Provincial PROVICE PIMPRO Coordinating r--- (Project Management Committee(PCC) Concession) 1PCC*
Projectifunction Lie fordinact Coordinating T rotates a_nually. Commite
. | _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~DISTRICT
(PoectManager fo Poect Mnger fr ParDeeopment) Area Dvelopment)
Project~~~ function Line function ------Coordination
The Chairmanrotates annually.
CHART 2 PLANNING AND FUNDS FLOW FOR INTEGRATED AREA DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
FUNDS FLOW ' PLANNING FLOW
' ---- ::::-- ,e WORLD: : ' ( . ~~BANK/RSI BAPPENAS : : ^ ...... ------...... OABN NATIONAL~~~~~~~~~ONSBN NATIONAL ' ' MINISTRY OF - B I :. . FINANCE . GOI . sPAsP <- Financing SA KONREG-ICDP A-' ~~~A
PROVINCE BI RAKORBANGI Branch Office
DISTRICT ( KPKN II <,OPERATIONAL ,(RKBAGI DISTRICT ~- - BANK RAKORBANG H
BAPPEDA II/ ,L . PIMPRO ~BANKor SUBDISTRICT Other Financial UDKP Discussion Institution F
*~ .B *~ .
VILLAGE LKMD
Note: -- --Document Flow
-' Funds Flow Bappenas= National DevelopmentPlanning Agency BRI = Bank Rakyat Indonesia(People's Bank of Indonesia) LKMD= Village CommunityResilience Institution SA = Special Account
IBRD 27251 T [oPdodngpajo,,g N D O N E S I A r.jHAILAND-
Solok KE I C IJ~LJ~MAAYSIA ALSI T. LbugKERINCI SEBLATINTEGRATED N%LAYSIA
Padang CONSERVATION AND M KAbr ALI Lubuksulasih DEVELOPMENTPROJECT ID ON E S I A X 9,\ X I SrZ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1.~ngkjlu Area of map Jekorte
A W A
SUMATERA Kotabaru BARAT T ,-
denommoafons and any * ~~~~~~~~~~~~other.l,,not,on'.sho-n an tPhsmop do not / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mply,on the port of The World Bank Gro.p, 'Jiv o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ayjudgment on the legal status of any terr9;ory. % ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~orany endlorsement \%/ \ , or acceptonceof such JA B I boundaries
'e GUNUNG KERINCI
Penuha\go \ %BSungoi
o s MURX\ ,.
\ ~m ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ev,_L.A-' SOMfATERA .7
KERINCISEBLAT NATIONAL PARK A FORESTCONCESSIONS \ I~ |LOCAL AREADEVELOPMENT PRIORITY AREA G
MAIN ROADS Lubuk
0 SELECTED TOWNS B E N G K U L U (3 PROVINCECAPITALS Curup PROVINCEBOUNDARIES INTERNATIONALBOUNDARIES (INSET)
0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS (approximatescalel
SEPTEMBER 1995
IMAGING
Report No: 14989 IND Type: SAR