WWF Project Technical Progress Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
WWF Project Technical Progress Report Project / Sub-Project Number ID. 0180.02-9999-711 Sub-Project Title Pristine Forest Cover Establishment in Bukit Tigapuluh – Bukit Rimbang Baling Forest Corridor within District Spatial Planning Reporting Period January – June 2005 I. Highlight achievements and impact during the period. • The District Government of Kuantan Singingi District completely revised its Spatial Plan, 2001-2010 and accepted all WWF-Greenomics revision (please see maps at end of document). • The District Government of Indragiri Hulu has re-opened Indragiri Hulu District Spatial Plan 2001 – 2011 and is reviewing it this time with environmental components. • The Head of Indragiri Hulu District was very careful and selective in giving concession permit in 2004/5 after he has been sued by WWF and an NGO alliance on giving illegal permits in the PT IFA concession. Following the permits granted to the three concession holders on PT IFA concession area, WWF and NGO alliances in Riau are still attempting to take legal action to the District Head of Indragiri Hulu on suspending the permits as they are against the higher regulations. • There has been a class action law suit by Riau NGO alliance against the Head of Indragiri Hulu District who gave the permit to establish a timber plantation in the PT IFA concessionaries. The concession permit was revoked when the case was filed to the Government High Court • The Riau NGO alliances have also established technical guidelines and a comprehensive plan for spatial advocacy for Riau province. II. Progress on Objectives 1. To influence spatial planning of Kuantan Sengingi and Indragiri Hulu Districts to zone for and preserve pristine forest cover as a biological corridor between Bukit Tigapuluh National Park and Bukit Rimbang Baling Game Reserve: A review on the spatial planning has been done in the two Districts through a document study on the district development and spatial planning by using a descriptive analysis. The review was intended to determine if the spatial planning complied with the regulation concerning the district spatial planning. Together with the descriptive analysis, a formative evaluation was conducted to result in recommendations of sustainable forest resource management to the district spatial planning of Indragiri Hulu and Kuantan Singingi where the biological corridor is situated. The review showed that in : a. Indragiri Hulu District: - The spatial planning of Indragiri Hulu District was targeted on settlement establishment, land and river transportation, and drainage system to make the connection between areas possible. However, the Indragiri Hulu spatial planning did not put much considerations on the importance of protected area, in particular Kerumutan Reserve, Bukit Tigapuluh National Park, Cinaku Protected Forest, Batabuh Protected Forest that serve biological corridors connecting the Bukit Tigapuluh National Park with Rimbang Baling Game Reserve. - In formulating land use and spatial planning to include the protected area, production area and the structure of area, the criteria as in the Regulation No. 47, 1997 Ministry of Settlement and Infrastructure should be used as a reference. b. Kuantan Singingi District : - The major problem of the Kuantan Singingi District Spatial Plan, 2001-2010 has been that forestry regulation are not promoted. - The Kuantan Singingi (Kuansing) District spatial analysis has resulted in: 1. The 2001-2010 Kuantan Singingi District Spatial Planning has included problems in natural resources management in the area as stated in the POLDAS and PROPEDA as the following : i. Teenurial conflicts between local communities and plantations and forestry ii. lack of law awareness in the communities iii. weakened control of legal institutions iv. economic assets focused on the groups of big enterprise v. Increasing poverty. The number of poor people in the Kuantan Singingi is approximately 48,56 % of the total population; and uncontrollable traditional land encroachment in 6 areas. 1. The major problem of the Kuantan Singingi District Spatial Planning for 2001- 2010 has been law concerning forestry not yet accommodated. 2. Inconsitence in the protected area allocation. ( Page IV-13 RTWK Kuantan Singingi 2001-2010 proposes the protected areas in Kuantan Singingi which are 22,9 % of the district size. But on page IV-18 of the document, as much of 14% of the administrative district area designated as ptotected areas. 3. The protected area and the production area allocated still do not conform to the national land use criteria, in particular Government Regulation 47/1997. 4. The Kuantan singingi District Spatial Planning did not follow the Spatial Palnning procedure as regulated by the Ministry of Infrastructue 327/Kpts-M/2002. Therefore, the document did not draw on the analysis required in the procedure. 5. The lack of procedure in the Kuantan singingi Spatial Planning has caused it to be regarded as being incomplete. 6. Attache is the proposed land use maps and the District Spatial Planning maps, which have been approved. - The land use planning in the Kuantan Singingi District Spatial Planning did not show clearly that it was based on the history of protected area and production area as indicated in the related spatial regulation. Therefore the Kuantan Singingi District Spatial Planning is illegal and could not be incorporated into the planning process of Riau Province Spatial Planning. In fact, the Kuansing Spatial Planning is contradictory to the standing Riau Province Spatial Planning. The area allocation of Bukit Batabuh shows that only small part area is used for protected area, but in the Provincial Spatial Planning, all area of Bukit Batabuh is used for protected area. In this way, the Kuansing Regulation is contradictory to the Riau Province Regulation (see the map) - The Kuantan Singingi District Spatial Planning needs to be improved in accordance to the standing regulations, putting specific attention to protected areas and production areas. 2. To influence the land-use planning of the PT. IFA concessionaires to maintain a limited production forest rather than clear-cut to establish an acacia plantation forest. Activities to influence the land use planning have been done, including interviews, questionnaires, investigations, information dissemination and workshops. To influence decision making of the land use planning of PT. IFA concessionaries, a field analysis was made to obtain a clear field description. From the analysis, it was known that the permits given to the three timber companies (PT Artelindo Wiratama, PT Bukit Batabuh Sei Indah, and PT Citra Sumber Sejahtera) were illegal as they were not based on the legal basis and they were against authority to give permit. The three concessions were granted by the Head of Indragiri Hulu District, but they used to be PT IFA concessionaires. These permits are against the Government Regulation No. 34, 2002 concerning FOREST USE AND FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN. The head of district issued the concession permits on the standing PT IFA concession area, meaning that it is against article 30 in the Government Regulation No. 34, 2002. In addition, in the government regulation, the timber plantation establishment should be done the free area, bush or natural forest with less than 20 m cubic timber per ha. Attempts have been made by WWF together with NGO alliances in Riau to take it to the Pekanbaru court, though it lost. At present, another attempt is being made to take the case to the higher court and it is now still in the process. On the eastern part of PT IFA area, is a PT RAPP concession known as Puntianai Block. We have talked to RAPP and reminded them on not prioritizing the Puntianai Block to be converted to acacia plantation. They have agreed upon the corridors linking Bukit Tigapuluh NP to Bukit Batabuh. Also, we proposed the block to be returned to the MoF as the expansion area of Bukit Tigapuluh NP and encouraged them to conduct HCVF analysis. 3. To design materials and implementation plans that can by used as a reference for other NGOs in conducting advocacy and campaign to save pristine forest from further legal conversion in other parts of Sumatra. The document review of both Indragiri Hulu Spatial Planning and Kuantan Singingi District Spatial Planning as well as the case study on the land use planning of PT IFA concessionaries have resulted in an Advocacy Guidelines for prevention status change and function of Protected Area through spatial planning, and promoting water catchments based spatial planning. To complement the technical guidelines of advocacy for spatial planning, an economic value assessment of watershed in Bukit Batabuh Protection Forest and Rimbang Baling Game Reserve was done (attached report by Greenomics). The result of this has been the two documents used by JIKALAHARI, YASA, and ATTR (NGO alliance for Riau Spatial Planning) as a tool in the advocacy efforts to the spatial planning of Indragiri Hulu District and Kuantan Singingi District. At the moment, the advocacy effort is still going on. The Indragiri Hulu District will soon make a revision of their spatial planning during this year’s budget, while the Kuantan Singingi District will conduct annual review of their spatial planning. III. Describe constraints which have affected progress and measures taken to address them. - There have been different interests between the District Government and NGOs about the land use. A major focus of the government toward the land use is on economic development, whereas NGOs consider land use for purposes of conservation and sustainable development. These different interests have made coordination even more difficult to achieve between all involved in the program development. - To access secondary data from the government proved to be very difficult, so most data collected was from other sources, from non government institutions. - To revise the District Spatial Planning is very procedural and depends much on the funds available. So, some targets are likely to be beyond the project reach. IV. Referring to the financial report for the period, explain any variances between budget and actual by relating them to the progress of the project.