BIODIVERSITY AND SOCIAL BENEFITS IN COMMUNITY-BASED FOREST
MANAGEMENT: THE LEUSER ECOSYSTEM, INDOhTSIA
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculîy of Graduate Studies
of
the University of Guelph
VINCENT J- DESCHAMPS
In partial fulfilment of requirements
for the degree of
Master of Science
April, 2000
O Vince Deschamps, 2000 National Library Bibliothèque nationale du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. nie Wellington OîtawaON KlAON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada Your iik? Votre referenœ
Our file Noue ref~rence
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microfonq vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/6lm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'zuteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otheMrise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. BIODIVERSITY AND SOCIAL BENEFITS IN COMMUNITY-BASED FOREST MANAGEMENT: THE LEUSER ECOSYSTEM, INDONESIA
Vince Deschamps Advisor: University of Guelph, 2000 Dr. Hanry Cummings
This thesis examines the ability of Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) systems to serve the dual function of maintaining biodiversity while providing benefits to local communities. It examines the relationship between biodiversity and social benefit in a variety of forest zones in the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest in South Aceh,
Indonesia. The Manggarnat Cornmunity Forest is the flagship CBFM initiative in the Leuser
Ecosystem, an area of global biodiversity significance. The CBFM system in Manggamat is guided by Adat, a traditional set of laws derived by the community in order to manage resources fiom the forest
The research utilized a formative, results-based evaluative approach, and indicates that CBFM has the potential to balance the protection of keystone and other significant species with the ability to provide benefit at a level equal to, if not superior, other rural areas in South Aceh and the province of D.1- Aceh. Although the system is intended to distribute benefits in a equitable marner, there is some disparity in the distniution of incorne through unsustainable harvesting of timber for sale by a small rninority of resource users. While this puts the sustainability of the CBFM system at risk, it is a problem that is addressed in the research, and cm likely be resolved through negotiation at the community level using Adat in representing greater community interests. ACKNOPYLEDGMENTS
This thesis marks the culmination of a long journey of exploration that 1began in
May of 199 1 as a bright-eyed CUSO Couperant in the quaint fishing village of Tarnan Jaya
in West Java, Indonesia. 1 started on my quest al1 alone, but 1met a lot of people during my journey. Many of them have helped me find my way; some have even corne with me. On
a number of occasions 1 gave up, fnistrated, and were it not for the support and
undertsanding of my wife Indah, my mother Wilma Deschamps, Indah's mother Aniek
Suryati, my dear fiend Mïke Griffiths, and now my son Jacob, 1would not be wrïting these words today. These wondefil people inspire me to make the world a better place.
Research cannot be carried out by ambitions alone, and 1wish to thank the following for making this undertaking a success. Funding for the research was generously provided by the CDA Awards for Canadians Program. Dr. Harry Cummings gave me the vision, skills, focus, and offered his wisdom on a range of topics over the past two years. Dr. David
Rapport served on my Cornmittee and provided invaluable input to the research process.
1would also like to thank Dr. John Graham and Ms. Dora Goh fiom DRC in Singapore for meeting with me and giving me access to their substantial reference library.
In Indonesia 1 am indebted to the Leuser Management Unit and its wonderhi staff, notably Mike, Dr. Kathryn Monk, Ken Proud and Jarnal Gaw-, as well as al1 the people who assisted me in the field and put up with my fiequent questions in the office. I wish the best to my fiends in Manggamat, especially Pak Bintara Yakup and Pak Nyak Merdu of
YPPAMAM; 1 hope to see our chikiren play together someday. TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLEOFCONTENTS ...... ii
LIST OF TABLES ...... vii ... LISTOFMAPS ...... VIII ... LISTOFFIGURES ...... viii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIA'HONS ...... ix CHAPTERI-INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Problem Statement ...... 1 1.2 Goals and Objectives ...... -7 1.3 Significance of the Research ...... 4 2.4 OutIine of the Thesis ...... -4
CWTER2-LITEMTUREREVIEW ...... 6 2.1 The State of Tropical Forests and Rural Cornmunities ...... -6 2.1.1 Lntegrated Conservation Development Projects (KDPs) and Protected Areas ...... -9 2.1.2 The Role of Buffer Zones ...... 14 2.1.3 Comrnunity Forests as BufZer Zones ...... 16 2.2 Ecosystem htegrity. Ecosystem Health and Biodiversity ...... 16 2.2.1 Ecosystem integr@ and Ecosystem Health ...... 16 2-32 Ecosystem Integnty and Biodiversity ...... 18 2-23 Keystone Species as hdicators of Biodiversity ...... 19 2.2.3.1 Elephas macimus: Portrait of a Keystone Species ...... 19 2.2.4 Minimizing Stress: Managing the Buffer Zone at the Community Level ...... 21 2.3 Valuing Ecosystem SeMces ...... -22 2.4 Planning and Development Theones at Work ...... -25 2.4.1 Access and Barriers to Community Participation ...... -25 2 .4.2 Development Theory: S ustainable Development ...... -27 2.4.3 Planning Theorïes ...... -29 2.4.3.2 Macro-level Planning Theory: Social Refonn ...... 29 2.4.3.2 Community-level Planning Theory: Social Leaming ...3 1 33 2.4.4 Planning for Sustainablility ...... 33 2.4.5 Decentralization as the Supporîing Concept ...... -35 2.5 Summary ...... 36 mTER3-METBODOLOGY ...... 37 3.1 Refing the Research Question ...... -37 3.2 Goals and Objectives ...... -38 3.3 Field Research ...... -40 3.3 .1 Logistics and Support Activities ...... -41 3 -3-1.1 Institutional Support and Involvement ...... -42 3.3.1.2 Site Selection ...... -42 3 2.1 -3Persona1 Preparation for Undertaking the Research . .. -43 3 -3-2 Research Approach ...... -43 3-3 .2.1 Logical Framework Analysis ...... -44 3-3 .2.2 Component Logic of the LFA ...... 47 3 3 3 -2.2.3 Indicators ...... -49 3.3.2.4 Limitations and Delimitations of the LFA ...... 53
CHAPTER 4 O RESEARCH CONTEXT ...... O...... -..-54 4-1 The Leuser Ecosystem ...... -54 4.1.1 Biophysicd Characteristics ...... 56 4.1.1.1 Location & Topography ...... 56 4.1.1.2 Geology ...... -57 4.1.1.3 Climate ...... -58 4.1.1.4 Biodiversity ...... -58 4.1.2 The People of the Leuser Ecosystem ...... -59 4-1.21 History of Conservation in the Leuser Ecosystem ...... 60 4.2 The Manggamat Community Conservation Forest ...... -61 4.2.1 Introduction to Manggamat ...... -61 4.2.2 Socio-economic Characteristics ...... -63 4.2.2.1 Demographics ...... -64 4.2.2.2 Resource User Profile ...... -67 4.2.2.3 Education ...... -68 4.2.2.4 Wealth ...... -70 4-33 Summary Profile: The 'Typical' Manggamat Household ...... 76 4.3 Summary ...... 77
CHAIPTE;R 5 .TEIE CBFM MODEL IN MANGGAMAT ...... -79 5.1 Adat: The "Official Plan" of the Manggamat Cornmunity Conservation Forest ...... 80 5.1.1 Basic Principles of Adat ...... 81 5.1.1.1 Implementation and Jurisdiction ...... 82 5.1.2 Similarities to the Onîario Planning Mode1 ...... 83 5.1.2.1 Intent of the Official Plan ...... 83 5.1.2.2 Need for the Plan ...... -83 5.1.2.3 Process ...... -84 5.1.2.4 Amenciments to the Plan ...... -84 5.2 Forest Zones: Zoning in the Manggamat Cornrnunity Conservation Forest ...... 85 5.2.1 Protection Forest (Hutan Lindung) ...... -87 5.2.2 Cornmunity Forest (HmKemulÜmam) ...... -87 5.2.3 Traditional Village Forest (Kutan Adat Desa) ...... 87 5.2.4 Garden Forest (Hutan Kebun) ...... -88 5.2.5 Dry-field Garden (Ladang) ...... -89 5.2.6 National Park (Taman Nasional) ...... -89 5.2.7 Similarities to the Ontario Planning Model ...... -89 5.2.7.1 Intent of the Zoning Scherne ...... 89 5.2.7.2 The Need for Zoning in Manggamat ...... -90 5.2.7.3 Amendments to the Zoning Scheme ...... -90 5.3 CBFM Activities ...... -91 5.4 Market Manipulation ...... -97 5.5 Summary ...... 98
CaAPTlER 6 .BENEFTI'S OF USING THE CBFM IN MANGGAMAT ...... -99 6.1 Design of the Resource-user Survey ...... 99 6.1.1 Selection of the Sample ...... -99 6.1 -2 Applying the Survey: Challenges and Opportunities ...... 100 6.1.3 Results ...... 100 62 Sustainability of the CBFM System ...... 101 6.2.1 Resource Consumption indicators ...... 101 6.2.1.1 Frequency ...... 101 6.2.1.2 Duration ...... 102 6.2. 1.3 Distribution ...... 102 6.2.1.4 Magnitude ...... 102 6.2.2 Benefits Denved Through the CBFM System in Manggamat . . 105 6.2.2. 1 Total Incorne Generated by Survey Respondents ..... 105 6-2.2.2 Total Estimated Income Generated by CBFM in Manggamat ...... 107 6-2-23Incorne Generated by Forest Zone ...... 109 6.3 Stabilized or Reduced Level of Dependency on Forest Products ..... 115 6.3.1 Percent of Total Household Income Derived from CBFM Activities ...... 115 6.4 Cornparison with Other Locales ...... 115 6.4.1 hcomesinSouthAcehandD.1. Aceh ...... 216 6.4.2 Alternative BaerZone Type: Bungara Oil Palm Plantation ...... 117 6.5 Enhancing Community Well-being ...... 119 6.5.1 CBFM and Stress on the Ecosystem ...... 119 6.5.2 Impacts on Ecosystem Services and Human Welfare ...... 119 6.5.2.1 Conflicts with Wildlife ...... 120 6.5.2.2 Diarrhea ...... 120 6.5.2.3 Erosion ...... 120 6.5.2.4 Floods ...... 221 6-5.2-5 Forest Fires ...... 121 6.5.2.6 Malaria ...... 121 6.6 Summary ...... -122
CHAPTER 7 .CBFM AND MAINTAINING BlODTVE1RSITY ...... -124 7.1 Keystone and Other Significant Species ...... 125 7.1.2 The Resource-user Survey ...... 130 7.2 Research Station Composite ...... 130 7.3.1 Species Suite in the Research Station Composite: Establishing the Baseline ...... 133 7.3 Species in the Forest Zones of the Manggamat Comrnunity Conservation Forest ...... 134 7.4 Surnmary ...... 137
CHAPTER 8 .SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS AND REXOMMENDATIONS . 138 8.1 Summary of the Research Findings ...... 138 8.2 Conclusions on the Effectiveness of CBFM as a BufEer Zone Initiative ...... 142 8.2.1 Reaching the Goal: Safeguarding Biodiversity in the Core Conservationkea ...... 142 8.2.2 Meeting the Objectives: the Benefits of CBFM in Manggamat ...... 143 8.3 Recommendations ...... 147 8.3. 1 Reduce the Level of Timber Extraction for Sale ...... 147 8.3.1.1 Role of the Manggamat Community ...... 149 8.3.1.2 Role of the Leuser Management Unit ...... 149 8.3.2 Develop E'xternal Markets for Non-timber Forest Products ... 150 8.3 2.1 Role of the Manggarnat Commdty ...... 150 8-3.2.2 Role of the Leuser Management Unit ...... 151 8.3.3 hcrease Awareness of the Links Between Conservation and Human Welfare, Equity and Sustainability ...... 151 8.3 3.1 Role of the Manggamat Community ...... 152 8.3.3.2 Role of Leuser Management Unit ...... 152 8.4 Areas for Further Research ...... 153 8.5 Closing Reflections ...... 153
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 155
APPENDIX A: COMMUMTY CONSERVATION LAWS AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT RIGHTS .. . . . -...... ,...... -161 APPENDIX B: CBFM RESOURCE-USER SUIRVEY ...... ,180 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Ecosystem Services and Functions ...... -24 Table 3.1 Logical Framework Analysis ...... -46 Table 4.1 Actual and Adjusted Densities for Rural Populations ...... -65 Table 4.2 Education Levels in D.I. Aceh, South Aceh and Manggamat ...... -69 Table 4.3 Literacy Levels in D.I. Aceh, South Aceh and Manggamat ...... -70 Table 6.1 Trips per week made by resource-users in the Manggamat Cornmunity Forest ...... 101 Table 6.2 Hours Spent per Visit to the Forest ...... 102 Table 6-3 Distance Traveled to Worksite fiom Household ...... 103 Table 6.4 Rates of Participation in CBFM Activities ...... 105 Table 6.5 CBFM Income Generated by Survey Respondents ...... 106 Table 6.6 Total Estimated CBFM Income Generated in Manggarnat ...... 107 Table 6.7 Participation and Income in Garden Forest ...... 109 Table 6.8 Participation and Income in Traditional Village Forest ...... 110 Table 6.9 Participation and Income in Community Forest ...... 111 Table 6.10 Participation and Income in Protection Forest ...... 113 Table 6.1 1 Participation and Incorne in Dry-field Garden ...... 113 Table 6.12 Participation and Income in Unspecified Forest Types ...... 114 Table 6.13 Interquartile Household Incomes in Manggamat, South Aceh and D.L Aceh ...... 116 Table 6.14 Annual hcomes in Manggamat Community Forest and Bungara Oil Palm Plantation ...... 118 Table 7.1 Suite of Species Used Ui the Resource-user Smy ...... 126 Table 7.2 Species Frequency in Individual Research Stations and as a Composite ...... 13333 Table 7.3 Species Frequency in Manggamat Forest Zones and Research Station
vii Composite ...... 135
LIST OF MAPS Map 4-1 Location of the Leuser Ecosystem ...... 55 Map 4.2 Gunung Leuser National Park ...... -55 Map 4.3 Location of South Aceh Regency and Manggamat ...... 62 Map 5.1 Forest Zones in the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest ..... 86 Map 7.1 Research Stations in the Leuser Ecosystem ...... 131
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1 Types of Roofing Materiah Used in DL Aceh, South Aceh and Manggarnat ...... 77 Figure 4.2 Types of Cooking Fuels Used in D.I. Aceh South Aceh and Manggamat ...... 72 Figure 4.3 Toilet Facilities in D.I. Aceh, South Aceh and Manggamat ...... 74 Figure 4.4 LuwItems Owned ...... -75 Figure 6.1 Sources of CBFM lncome in Manggamat Community Conservation Forest ...... 108 Figure 7.1 Average Species Score by Forest Zone ...... 136 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Adat : Traditional Law
BAPPENAS: National Development Planning Agency
BPS: Biro Pusat Statistik (Central Statistics Bureau)
CBFM: Community Based Forest Management
Hutan Adat Desa: Traditional Vil1age Forest
Hutan Kebu.: Garden Forest
Hutan Kemukimam Community Forest
Hutan Lindung: Protection Forest
ICDP: Integrated Conservation Development Project
Kabupaten: Regency (comparable to an Ontario County)
Kepala Adat: Head of Traditional Law
Kepala Desa: Head of ViIlage Administration
Ladang: Dry-field Garden
LDP: Leuser Development Programme
LW: Leuser Management Unit
Taman Nasional: National Park
YPPAMAM: Yayasan PenvaI ian Pelestarian Alam Masyarakat Adat Manggamat
(Nature Conservation Trust of the Traditional Manggamat
Community) CHAP'IER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem Statement
Most of the research which has been conducted on buffer zones adjacent to National
Parks and other protected areas has focused on either the social benefits of exploiting these
areas, or the resulting impacts on biodiversity- In essence, consumption and conservation fomthe crux of any buffer zone initiative, yet the relationship between them within a single system is rareiy examined. This is shown throughout the literature, and in the failure of many well-intended integrated Conservation Development Projects (ICDPs). The researcher also came to this conclusion after havÏng worked in the field on 'both sides ofthe fence' in conservation projects in Indonesia fkom 199 1 to 1994 in Ujung Kulon National
Park, Meru Betiri Niztional Park and Danau Sentarum Wildlife Reserve.
The researcher feels that the buffer zone is frequently treated as a 'grey area', where strict conservationists concede that some sort of socially-beneficial activities, such as
Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM), are required in order to garner local support and appreciation for the greater goals of the host conservation area. However, it is
Frequently unclear where the line between consumption and conservation should be drawn.
Limiting growth and development in buffer zones is difficult (and some may argue unethical) when most of the inhabitants have a subsistence-based Iifestyle. But growth at the expense of depleting the local natural capital, be it in the form of biodiversity or any other natural resource, is unsustainable in the long m. A balance must be struck, and in order to do so the following issues need to be addressed: a> The impacts of CBFM activities on biodiversity in bufFer zones surrounding
protected areas.
1 b) The benefits to local cornmunities of employing CBFM systems. c) The nature of the interface vvhere biodiversity and exploitation meet. The first two issues follow the classic forms of baer zone analysis. The third issue is specifically addressed through this research- As such, the problem statement posed by the research is:
Problem Statement:
Tan CBFM serve the dual functions of safeguarding biodiversity while
providing for the needs of local communities?"
There is a demonstrated need to develop a greater understanding of the relationship between the two components at the grass-roots level. This not only promises exploring a new dimension for analyzing CBFM, but also opens the door for innovative possibilities with regards to research rnethodology,
1.2 Goals and Objectives
The research explores the value of both components in a systematic manner. The rnethodology employs Results-based Management, using a Logical Framework Analysis as the primary tool to examine the CBFM mode1 in question. The quasi-experimental design ofthe research alIows for the cornparison of the CBFM system to relevant baseline data from a variety of alternative land-use types. As such, the goal of this research is:
To examine the relationship between biodiversity and social benefit in a variety
of forest use types within the context of a CBFM system in the Leuser
Ecosystem, South Aceh, Indonesia.
The premise behind this goal is that the forest in the prïrnary research site, the Manggamat
Community Conservation Forest in South Aceh Regency, pIays a vital role in the local
2 economy, as well as harboring a plethora of diverse wildlife species. The interface between
CBFM activities and wildlife species are the forest zones which have specific uses under the
CBFM system. It assumes that species would be distributed throughout the forest zones if
there were no CBFM activities present; species distribution and abundance in the
Manggamat forest are now dictated by the distribution and nature of these activities. The
specific objectives of the research are to:
a) Establish rhe rnodel of Commun@ Based Forest Management (CBFM us a bger
zone inir iut ive in the Manggurnut Communil),Consemut ion Forest.
The first objective relates to the naNe of the CBFM system, including the role played by
the cornmunity in implementing it.
b) Determine the levels of keysrone and other significant species in a varie@ of forest
zones within the CBFMrnudel.
c) E-ramine the benefits to local communi&iesof ming rhese same forest zones wirhin
the CBFM conrext.
These two objectives refate to the impacts of the CBFM activities on the community and on biodiversity. They are descriptive in nature, providing the context for analyzing the
relationship between them. d) Compare CBFM with other bfler zone initiatives in the Leuser Ecosystem.
This objective is airned at assessing the success of the CBFM system in maintaining biodiversity and providing benefit with regards to other beerzone initiatives. e) Muke generul recomrnendationsfor improving the CBFM systern in Munggamat.
The final objective provides recommendations based on the research experience and an overall reflection of the research design and methodology.
3 1.3 Significance of the Research
The research is significant for a nurnber of reasons. First, conserving biodiversity
and providing benefits to local communities are viewed as two conflicting objectives in buffer zone development. Yet, they are both crucial cornponents of most ICDPs. If these two cornponents are expected not only to CO-exist,but to mutually succeed, then it is of
utrnost importance that the relationship between them at the most basic level is understood
Second, one of the reasons for the lack of this type of research in the past has been the difficulty of cornparing impacts to benefits. As benefits can typically be measured in standardized monetary terms, it is rnuch easier to explain benefits resdting fiom expIoitation in baerzones than to explain impacts on biodivetsity-
Finally, the research is innovative in its use of community knowledge as a means of measuring impacts, by aiding them to developing meaningfui indicators and measuing them through their day-to-day activities. Ln the long run, it may assist the people using CBFM to detemine the value of their surroundings, and enforce the stewardship ethic reqùred to ensure a sustainable system.
1.4 Outline of the Thesis
The thesis is divided into eight chapters. The first three chapters are organized to provide background to the research topic and the means of implementation. This introductory chapter is followed by a Literature Review in Chapter 2, featurïng buffer zones, comunity forest and valuing ecosystem senrices. The Iiterature illustrates the dichotomy between biodiversity conservation and benefits to the community in buffer zone systems, and places clear priority on the former in the context of buffer zones surrounding protected areas. Chapter 3 provides a detailed research design and methodology. The Logical
4 Framework Analysis UA)is the himight of this chapter, as it is the central research tool being applied. The chapter descnbes the cornponent logic of the LFA and provides descriptions of the chosen indicators for each component. The chapter also details the field research, inciuding logistics and support, as well the justification used in selecting the primary research site.
Chapter 4 provides the context for the research in the forrn of an ove~ewof ncrthem Sumatra, South Aceh Regency and the Leuser Ecosystem- It also describes the biophysica1 and socioeconornic characteristics of the primary research site, Manggamat, at the time of the research. Chapter 5 presents the CBFM mode1 in Manggamat, including the structure and organization of the system, the role of the comrnunity in employing it, definitions of forest zones and the associated consumptive CBFM activities.
Chapter 6 and 7 examine the relationship between biodiversity and benefits to community of the CBFM system in Manggamat. In Chapter 6, an assessment of the CBFM benefits (both financial and service-based) to Manggamat is conducted using data gathered through a resource-user survey of a representative sarnple of forest users. Chapter 7 uses data fiom the same survey to assess the impacts on keystone and other significant species ofthese CBFM activities with relation to baseline data fiom a composite of research stations tocated in 'pristine' areas of the Leuser Ecosystem.
Chapter 8 provîdes a summary of the research findings, final conclusions of the research, and recornrnendations for irnproving the CBFM systern in Manggamat- It also gives recomrnendations for Merareas of research, The chapter concludes the thesis with closing reflections by the researcher. CUTER2 - LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 The State of Tropical Forests and Rural Communities
The World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development (WCFSD) estimates that the world's remaining forested areas are approximately evenly divided between non-tropical (bored and temperate-zone forests) and tropical forests (WCFSD,
1999:3). WCFSD estirnates that about 3.6 billion hectares remain from an original forested area of more than 6 billion hectares (ibid), rneaning that approximately 1.8 billion hectares of tropical forest rernain.
In Southeast Asia, tropical forests extend westward fiom the island of New Guinea through the Indonesian archipelago to the Malay Peninsula, then north through the Mekong drainage basin to southem China and westward to the Indian Peninsula (WCFSD, 1999:6).
The region contains about 568 million hectares, or about 16% of the world's remaining forests, dthough only six percent of the potentidly forested land retains primary forests
(WCFSD, 1999: 12).
Between 2990 and 1995, tropical Asia endured high rates of deforestation, averaging
1.1 % per year (WCFSD, 1999: 13). Indonesian forests were particularly hard-hit, losing over
12 million hectares, or ten percent of its natural forests (ibid) during this period. Forest decline in Asia has occurred mainiy through clearing for agriculture in the forms of shifting cultivation and commercial farming, and timber extraction in the forms of harvesting and converting natural forests into plantations (ibid).
Forest decline threatens the genetic diversity of the world's plants and animals, particularly in the tropics where diversity is greatest. The International Union for the
Conservation ofNature (TUCN) recently calculated that about 12.5% of the world's 270,000
6 species of plants, 44% of birds, 57% of arnphibians, 67% of reptiles and about 75% of
mammals are threatened by forest decline and the progressive erosion of other natural
habitats (ILTCN, 1996,1997).
Forests are also a major direct contributor to the livelihoods and independence of
millions of people, many of whom may be only marginal participants in national or regional
economic systems (WCFSD, 1999: 19). Much of the economic importance of forests is not
reflected in financial transactions at dl. Forests provide a wide range of other wood and
non-wood products which are not reflected in national incorne accounts but which remain critical to large nurnber of rural residents. They provide materials and seMces to rural popdations that act as buffers against poverty, provide small-scale processing and trading activities, food security, small-scale agricultural productivity and watershed protection in regulating water flow and quality (WCFSD, l999:2O).
In recognition of the importance of safeguarding tropical forests, the conservation of wild living resources has been placed on the agenda of govemments. Govemments have been rnoving to help species threatened within their borders, pnrnarily through the establishment of protected areas. According to the World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED), nearly four percent of the Earth's land area is managed explicitly to conserve species and ecosystems, and al1 but a handful of countn-es have national parks
(WCED, 1987: 147). The worldwide network of protected areas totals more than 4 million square kilometers (WCED, 1987: 165). In Asia, protected areas cover about 4.3% ofthe land area Since 1970 the networks have expanded in extent by more than 80%; about two-thirds of which are in the Thïrd World. However, a great deal remains to be done; a consensus of professional opinion suggests that the total expanse of protected areas needs to be at least 7 tripled if it is to constitute a representative sample of the Earth's ecosystems (WCED,
1987:166). Given the expense of developing and maintaining such networks and the Iirnïted resources available in developing nations, participation by local communities is a key component in the strategy for a successful system (WCFSD, 1999:24). One concIusion reached by the WCED is that governments should think of 'parks for developmenty, insofar as parks serve the dual purpose of protection of species habitats and development processes at the same time (WCED, 1987: 159)-
Some 350 million of the world's poorest people depend almost entirely on forests for their subsistence and suMval needs (WCFSD, 1999:58). A Mer1 billion people, about one-fifth of the world's population, depend on remnant woodlands, homestead tree gardens and agro-forestry systems for their fuelwood, food and fodder needs. They also derive home construction materials, medicines, employment and income opportunities from forests
(WCFSD, 1999:59).
Many rural communities living in proxirnity to protected areas in hdonesia have relied upon a vm-ety of ecosystem seMces for thousands of years. But, the recent exploitation of forests and other biological resources has been accelerated by the push for rapid economic growth, primarily through large-scate extraction of comrnodities for the world market. Benefits of this growth usually do not reach the local communities, and in fact may have placed them at risk, Although most biodiversity conservationists recognize the importance of establishing and maintaining effectively managed natural protected areas, it is widely agreed that these areas have little chance of succeeding iinless surrounding economic and social realities are taken into account (Barber et al., 1995). Two audiences must be convinced of the importance of integrating conservation into their needs and
8 interests: the government economic policy-makers and their private-sector agentsAicensees,
and the local communities that Iive adjacent to these protected areas. While not
downplaying the importance of the former group, this literature review will clearly focus on
the latter.
Community participation is a crucial cornponent of the integrated planning and
management ofprotected areas, especially in developing countries where financial resources
are scarce and management can be relatively inexperienced, As human settlernents are
prohibited in Indonesian protected area, the human component of these sites is restricted to
'buRer zones' which are located outside of, yet adjacent to, core conservation areas. As a
result, the needs of these comrnunities are typically inadequately addressed in management
plans, and greater emphasis is placed on strict preservation of the biological aspects of the
site. Resource-based conflicts result as inhabitants of the local comrnunities cannot meet
basic requirements, such as producing crops, collecting firewood, building houses, etc. At the same time, the activities of these communities may impact upon local biodiversity and
in turn upon the integrity of the ecosystern upon which they are dependent.
21Lntegrated Conservation Developrnent Projects (ICDPs) and Protected Areas
In Indonesia and other developing countries, a recent mode1 known as Integrated
Conservation Developrnent Projects (ICDP) is being advocated by conservation plamers.
The ICDP concept reconciles conservation and community interests and promotes "social and economic development among communities adjacent to protected area boundaries"
(Wells, 1990). ICDPs engage in three types of operations: protected areas management, buffer zone development and local social and economic development. As the research pertains specifically Po the Manggamat CBFM system as a buffer zone initiative for the
9 Leuser Ecosystem, this literature review will Lunit itself to this type of ICDP operation-
In the past decade the ICDP mode1 has enjoyed increasingacceptance by government
agencies, NGOs and international donors. The Biodiversity Action Phfor Inçlonesia
(BAPPENAS, 1993) prescribes the ICDP approach (known locaily as Terpadu Programs)
for protecting nahucal areas; eight National Parks were targeted as test sites in 1992 in an
interagency effort coordinated by the National Development Planning Agency, BAPPENAS.
The projects were supported by major donors such as the Asian Development Bank, World
Bank and USAID, as welf as several large international NGOs, including World Wide Fund
for Nature (WWF), Conservation International and the Nature Conservancy.
ICDP approaches share certain assumptions and features. An analysis of the approaches taken in Indonesia reveal the following (Barber et al., 1995):
Conservation cannot succeed unless it is linked to economic opportunities and
investments targeted at those whose pursuit of livelihood threatens protected areas
viability;
The ICDP approach requires reorienting land-use policies and practices;
To be effective, ICDP efforts must enlist the cooperation of Iocal comrnunities;
Development and management of KDPs requires skills beyond those of traditional
protected areas managers; and
Under KDP, protected areas management cannot end at the reserve border nor focus
exclusively on keeping people out.
Recognizing the needs of comrnunities and the potentiai for existing cornrnunity forest management systems as a planning and management tool is integral to the ICDP approach. The World Commission on Forests and Sustainable DeveIopment recognizes
10 participatory decision-making and localized management as key principles for sunainable
forest management. WCFSD states that managing forests sustainably involves more than
technicai issues, and must address hurnan issues-bettement of the hurnan condition, social
equity, poverty reduction, power relations and gender roles-which lie at the heart of forest
resource problems and conflicts- Ernbracing these issues requires the participation of a broad cross-section of people in decisions about forest management (WCFSD, 1999234).
WCFSD dso argues that locaiized management of forest resources is likely to assist in the alleviation of poverty by a more equitable sharing of the benefits from the use of this public resource than the large-scale corporate exploitation of forests has done (WCFSD, Z999:86).
At the policy level, Indonesia has made progress in promoting community participation; the Biodiversity Action Planfor Iidonesia (BAPPENAS, Z 993)contains four definitive Articles and six specific Actions that recognize cornrnunity rights to, and potential for, involvement in managing buffer zones that neighbor protected areas- These are as follows:
Chapfer 4: National Objectivesfor Comervution andSuritainable Utilization of Biodiversiiy,
Section B: Actions Needed to Conserve Biodiversity Resources
Article 5.l "Consewation programmes cannot succeed without strong public support at
al1 levels from national decision makers to local goverment officials and
particularly local communities. Local communities ofien have traditional
rights, harvesting systems and knowledge that is relevant to conservation of
biodiversity in terrestrial, wetland and marine habitats both within and
outside reserves." Arîicïe 5.2 "Approximately 40 million people live in, or are dependent on, resources in
the public forest estate. These people are the de fmo forest managers and
this must be recognized. This means recogniPng their rights to land and
resources and working with them to develop sustainabIe systems of forest
management, land restoration and agrosilvicultural production for both local
and national needs."
ArtiCCe 5.3 "Lf forest-dwelling and forest-dependent communities are to play an active
rofe in biodiversity conservation and management they must have a decisive
voice about resource use in their area. NGOs can be an important vehicle for
advocacy of their positions and for mediation between the govemrnent and
the cornmunity.
Amle 5.4 "The integrity of consewation areas cannot be maintained without providing
alternative resources and income-generating opportunities to local peopIe
who are directly dependent upon resources from those areas. Buffer zone
development and cornmunity participation are important mechanisms for
providing such alternatives, îhereby relieving pressure on conservation
areas. "
Action 5.6 "Use traditional land tenure arrangements as a basis for planning and
executing conservation projects and those concerned with sustainable
utilization of biological resources. "
12 Action 5.7 "Evaluate traditional land and sea management systems. Disseminate
information on management systems which are productive and allow
sustainable harvesting of biological resources."
Action 5.8 "Design projects which benefit local peoples and maintain sustainable
resource practices. incorporate traditional knowledge into project designs,
especially buffer zone and forest and marine management projects."
Action 5-10 "Develop mode1 pilot projects for active cornmunity participation in
management of protected areas, baerzones, resource forests and wetland
ecosysterns. Recognize that different prescriptions will be needed for
different groups, e-g. indigenous peoples, transmigrants or pioneer settlers
with different land and resource use practices."
Action 5.11 "Use rapid appraisal planning methods at village cornmunity IeveI in bufTer
zones bordering conservation areas, forests and in wetlands to improve the
participation of local communities in the planning and management of
natural resources and the conservation of biodiversi~."
Action 5.14 "Encourage local communities to form cornmunity organizations, appropriate
to their cultures, practices and needs, to participate in development decisions
on resource use." 2.1.2 The Role of Buffer Zones
In Iaymads tems, the objective of buEer zones is '%O create a better protected conservation are% with a complete set of species in a healthy ecosystem and with the absence of disturbances" (Wind, 1991 : 1 1). A more scientific definition is '?O maintain the biotic integrity of the conservation area" (ibid). In both cases, it is clear that protection of the core conservt?tiionarea is the principal objective. Wind *tes that the prirnary reason for the faihre of bufEer zones in many ICDP initiatives is that this principal objective has not been clear. Many objectives have been applied at the same time, without stating the relative priority of these objectives or how they relate to each other. Other objectives, such as increasing livelihoods of local people or providing alternatives for local people should be considered secondary objectives, and are ovemled by the principal objective of maintaining biotic integrïty of the conservation area, and not the other way around.
This argument is supported in the literature, and is the opinion expressed in the 1990
World Bank Report "Parks and People" (Wells, Brandon and Hamah, 1 990). In Indonesia it is has a legal bais in Forestry Law No. 5, 1990 (Conservation of Natural Resources and
Ecosystems). In article 16, paragraph 2, this law states that "Buffer zone areas are outside of the conservation areas, in the form of forest land, 'fkee' Government land, or lands under assigned rights, which are needed and able to sdeguard the integriv of the conservation area." (Rijksen & Griffiths, 1995:230).
One conclusion reached by Wind was ICDP outlines seldorn clearly analyze how beer zones differ from other development areas, apart from their location adjoining conservation areas. According to Wind, they fail to provide a clear method of how to relieve pressure from conservation areas by ICDP initiatives or how to establish effective buffer
14 zones, or how to measure or rate buffer zone properties-
Regardless of the fom they take, or the care taken during their implementation,
consumptive bufFer zone activities have measurable effects upon the host ecosystem. The
stresses placed on ecosystems and their indi-Jidual cornponents through human pressures such as hanresting, physical restructuring and the introduction of exotic species can adversely affect the integrity of an ecosystem through affecting one or more of its various components and assorted linkages. These may not oniy reduce the ability of the baerzone to maintain ecosystem integrity, but also severely limits the ecosystem's ability to provide services which are extrernely important to the well-being of people in local cornmunities.
Combined with intensimg pressure fiom outside, large-scale extractive activities, cornmunities are increasingly walking a fine line between conservation and over- consurnption of the resource base contained in baer zones.
As a consequence, negative impacts on ecosystem integrity in managed buffer zones also impact upon biodiversity in the core conservation area- If buffer zones are truly intended to act as transition areas between intensified mal production areas to forests maintained in a relatively pristine state, they must also maintain their own ecological integrity, albeit not necessarily in a pristine natural state. En the case of wildlife populations, this would ensure reduced emigration of certain key species fiom the core to replenish stocks in the bufferzone, provide additional protection to more secretive, forest interiorspecies and also lessen the incidences of human-wildlife conflict, The challenge therefore becomes developing a baer zone to maintain the ecological integrity of this transitional state, through the enhancement and maintenance of habitat to suit a suite of desirable species. 2.Community Forests as BuEer Zones
One of the gaps in the howledge base that needs to be filled is identi%ng and evaluating the conservation link of Cornmunity-Based Forest Management (CBFM) systems as a baerzone initiative, in relation to the principle goal of safeguarding biodiversity in the core conservation area through maintaining ecological integity in the beer zone. At the same time, consideration must be given to the CBFM system's effectiveness with regards to the secondaq b&er zone objective of providing benefit to tocal communities.
2.2 Ecosystem Integrity, Ecosystem Health and Biodiversity
2.2.1 Ecosys tem In tegrity and Ecosystem Health
While the term 'Ecosystem Health' is widespread and often use& a consensus for the term's definition, even by experts in the field, is sîill a matter of debate. The understanding, if not the definition, that the researcher finds the most comprehensive and comprehendible is "A systern is hea(rhy fir nzai~lrainsits cornplexity adcapaciîy for self- organiza!ion" (Norton, 1992:26)- In the case of a community forest, the 'systern' is represented by the interface where biodiversity and consumptive activities meet: the CBFM forest zones as defined by the community.
In "What is Clinical Ecology?" (1992:145), Rapport states that in the ecological reaim, the concept ofhealth is generally associated with a state of nature that is characterized by systems iritegrity; healthy nature exhibits certain fundamental properties of self- organiPng complex systems. According to Rapport et al. (1998:397), there are three indicators of Ecosystem Health: Vigor, Organization and Resilience. These are descnbed as folIows:
Vigoc Vigor is measured in tems of 'activity, metabolism or primary productivity'. In the
16 context of comrnwllty forests, reduced +yr cmbe demonstrated by the declining
ability of the interface to sustain either of its two prirnary components (biodiversity
and consumptive activity).
Organization: Organization can be assessed as the diversity and uurnber of interactions
between system components. The presence of higher-order 'sensitive'
species are a measure of the organizational capabilities of the interface.
Rapport (1992: 147) States that in sorne ecosysterns, the first symptom of
distress is registered by losses these species, and their replacement by
opportunistic, predominantly introduced forms.
Resilience: Resilience, or counteractive capacity, is measured in terms of a system7s
capacity to maintain structure and function in the presence of stress. When
resilience is exceeded, the system cm 'Bip' to an alternative state- The
interface's ability to maintain the indigenous species which form its natural
structure and fhction in the presence of consumptive activities measures the
interfaces resilience.
Defining the parameters for measurïng Ecosystem Health proves difficult, especially without a clear-cut definition for the term. Ehrenfeld (1992:240-141) cites three major obstacles in coining a definition for Ecosystem Health. The first is:
"That it is extremely d@mlt to determine a normal state for comrnmities
whose parumeters are Men in a condition offlu because of naturd
disturbance ";
Followed by:
"The idea of ecosystem health is char ecosysrems have manyfûnctions and
17 processes, not all of them sirongly related to euch other *';
and finally:
"A general word such as 'Kealfh' can end up wirh all kinds of narrowing
quul~~cutionsand cmlose some of ils originul rneaning ifwe upply ir too
rigorowly to examples of specific cornmmity. "
Ehrenfeld states that one way around al1 three of these obstacles is to avoid using the word
'health' in ecology, and suggests that ecologists prefer the much more definable and concrete
term 'stress'. If Ecosystem Health is characterized by system's integrity (Rapport,
1992:145), and its ability to maintain complexity and capacity for self-organization in the
presence of stress, then the focal point turns fiom attemptingto measure health to measuring
the impacts of stress,
2.2.2 Ecosystem Integrity and Biodiversity
Biodiversity is one of the defining characteristics of an ecosystem- Withïn an ecosystem, decreasing biodiversity represents a change in ecosystem structure and hction, and is linked directly to decreased ecosystem services and hurnan health nsks (Rapport,
1998:399). The concept that decreases in indigenous biodiversity can assist in rneasuring stress upon the integrity of an ecosystem is supported in the literature. Norton (199226) states that an ecological system has maintained its integrÎty if it retains the total diversity of the system (being the surn total of the species and associations that have held sway historically) and the systernatic organization which maintains that complexity through time.
Within this paradigm, he stresses the centrality of protecting biological complexity as it is directly related to self-organization. Ln summary, he states that:
"The obligation tu prutect biodiverszty con now be fonnulated us above al2
18 an obligation to protect biological integriîy to the extent possible and to
proted health where past actions have already des~oyedthe integrity of
large systems. "
The link between biodiversity and system integrity is now clear- Decreased biodiversity has consequences on the integrïty of the ecosystem. In tum, this diminished integrity is a stress which will affect the vigor, organization and resilience of the ecosystem,
2.2-3 Keystone Species as Lndicators of Biodiversity
The monitoring of keystone and other significant indigenous wildlifi species as indicators ofbiodiversity is one technique in evaluatingthe effects of stress on an ecosystem.
Typically, distributions are determined for al1 vertebrate species in the study area that are undergoing known or suspected declines. Emphasis is placed on species with narrow environmental tolerances, usually associated with specific ecosystems, and îherefore more susceptible to ecological di~siurbances.The ecological foundation for this approach assumes that the maintenance of keystone and other significant species at desired tevels reflects that the ecosystem on which they interacts has also been maintained (Robinson and BoIen, 1989).
2-2.3.1 Elephas rnuximus: Portrait of a Keystone Species
Many species of wildlife fom an intricate part of the environment in which they interact. This section looks at one such species, the Asian elephant (Ekphas maximus) as an example of the numerous links that a single species can have with its host ecosystem.
Given the thousands of species found Mthin a tropical rainforest cornplex, it is easy to comprehend the importance of ensuring the future of each and every one of them.
Grazing anirnals, such as Asian elephants, are important for the role they play in patterning forest communities through seed dispersal, feeding and creating pathways through
19 thick tropical forests. They are a keystone species in the Leuser Ecosystem, where the most
recent estimate for the population is 410-545 (Griffiths, 1993). As it is generally accepted
that the minimum number required for a viable Asian eIephant population is about 500
individuals (Griffiths, 1993), it appears that the Leuser population is perilousiy close to
extinction. The species is classified as Endangered in Indonesia (BAPPENAS, 1993), and
the Leuser population likely represents the last viable popdation on the island of Sumatra
(Griffiths, 1993)- Although the population is small, it is relatively stable (ibid)- But the
diversity of habitat requirernents of the elephant population (in terms of diet, range size and
herd size) leaves it vulnerabIe to disturbances. Fragmentation of contiguous habitat poses
the greatest threat to the population's viabiliîy (ibid). Large tracts of pristine habitat and
well-planned and managed community/elephant interfaces are necessaq to ensure herd
viabiiity while still meeting the resource needs of the local communities.
In Leuser, elephants are only found in lowland areas, and as a result corne into
fiequent conflict with humans who utilize these areas for widespread agricultural and
foresw practices (Griffiths, 1992). Given the nature of conflict beîween hurnans and
elephants in the ecosystern, it appears that they are in cornpetition for limited resources.
Current densities of elephants in suitable habitats in the Leuser Ecosystem range
between 0.3 - 0.68 individuals per square kilometer (Gnffiths, 1993)- In order to sustain a
minimum viable population of 500 elephants, this would require at least 735 - 1,667 square
kilometers of contiguous suitable habitat Gunung Leuser National Park (GLNP), at the core of the Leuser Ecosystem, currently encompasses 8,080 square kilometers (BAPPENAS,
1993), ofwbich approximately 700 square kilometers are lowland evergreen raidorest; ideal elephant habitat (Griffiths, 1993). After including less-than-ideal habitats (including semi-
20 evergreen rasorest) in GLNP, as well as suitable habitats outside of, but contiguous to
GLNP, it appears that sufficient habitat is available within GLNP and the Leuser Ecosystem to support a viable population of elephants. The fact that a significant proportion of this habitat, including crucial migration corridors, is located outside of GLNP adds to the importance of community participation in consenring elephants and their habitats.
2.2.4 Minimizing Stress: Managing the Buffer Zone at the Community Level
Resource consumption at the community level has impacts on local biodiversity-
This involves the small-scale traditional or semi-traditional uses of resources by members of the local cornmunity. At this level, use is rnainly direct consumption or barter-type trade that takes place within a specific geographic area, according to a welldefined local system of rules and obligations (known as A&). Adat was developed to provide negligible impacts on biodiversity as local ecosystem fùnctions are conserved to provide services essential to the well-being of the comrnunity. Human comrnunities may also minimize the risk of ecosystem failure through seasonal cultivation or hanresting of a cornplex portf;olio of species- The portfolio appraach should minimize the impact on any one species or resource.
These two elernents, adat and the portFolÏo approach, characterïze traditionai CBFM systems, ftom which a complex senes of activities are implernented by the communities to meet their resource needs. However, as the population of the comrnunity increases, so does resource consumption and the level of stress placed on its assorted components, including indigenous biodiversity.
2.3 Valuing Ecosystem Services
Placing value on the services provided by an ecosystem is a daunting and somewhat controversial undertaking. Ahhough some object to the notion of placing monetary value
21 on an ecosystem or the components thereof, the literature supports the concept as the most
presently practical measure of comparing costs and benefits, or gains and Iosses, and it yields
a qmtified rneasure of peoples' preferences (Prugh et al., 1995). In their article "The Value
of the World 's Ecosystern Services and Ncrtural Capital", Costanza et al. (1997) conducted
extensive research into determining the value of 17 ecosystem services for 16 of the planet's
biomes, based on published studies and a few original calculations. They calculated a
conservative value of these senices to be between US$16-54 trÎliion per year, with an
average of US33 trillion per year. At the same time, global gross national product (GNP)
totals approximately US$18 trillion per year
The core of placing value on the seMces of natural capital was based on determining
the effects on human well-being made by relatively small changes in these se~ces.
Changes in the quality or quantity of these senices change the benefits associated with
human activity, or can aiter the cost of those activities. These changes in benefits and cos&
can have impact on human activities either through established commercial markets or through non-market activities-
In order to determine the value of market and non-market activities, Costanza et al
(1997) used a 'willingness to pay' (WTP) principle. The principle looks at what an individual would be willing to pay for ecosystem services that they deem important, such as aesthetic beauty, recreation, or conservation of a species. One critique of this technique is that WTP studies "depend on what people Say they wodd do, rather than what they actually would do" (Prugh et al, 1 99S:lOl). This critique cites a study ofMontana fishermen who supported the protection of two important rivers, yet resulted in only 1.1 percent of these supporters actually providing donations for the cause (Passell, 1993). However,
22 Costanza et al stiil included this valuation system in order to estimate the total value of ecological services, regardless of whether they are currently marketed.
Table 2.1 is recreated from the Costanza study (2997:254). It identifies the 17 ecosystem services and fhctions used in the study. Ecosystem goods (such as food) and services (such as waste assimilation) represent the direct and indirect benefits denved by people fiom ecosystem functions. For simplicity's sake, the study combined ecosystem goods and ecosystem services and refers to them jointly as ecosystem services. One important concept is that the st~~dyaimed at valuing the services that the ecosystem is providuig, as opposed to the infiastructure that provides them. For example, Raw Materlals does not only value the Iumber that comes from cutting down trees, it also values the service provided by the ecosystem in the growing of trees. Furthemore, the study included only renewable ecosystem senices, excluding non-renewable fueIs and minerak and the atmosphere.
Although it is difficult to monetize the benefits of these services, there are costs to be borne in the forrn of impacts on these se~cesshould no action be taken to reduce ecosystem stress. The World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development identifies three categones of consequences should increased levels of stress remain unchecked (WCFSD, 1999: 122). These include Environmental Disruption in the forms of accelerated forest decline, species loss, land degradation, disruption of water flows and more forest fies; Increased Social Hardship in the forms of more poverty, fuel scarcity and pressure on marginalized groups; and Increased Economic Hardship in the forms of
çquandered capital, fewer employrnent oppominities, reduced commercial potential and reduced non-commercial potential.
23 Table 2.1. Ecosystem Se~*cesand Functions I I Number Ecosysîem Service Ecosystem Functions
1 Ckreplation Rcgulation ofatmosphcric COJO, balance Tor WB protedon composition- and SO, Icvcls. .L -- RcguIation ofglobal tempcniturr. Granhouse gas rcgulation. DMS pra5pitation and othcr biologïcnlly production affiting cloud formation. m&ni ciimatic proccrrcs at globai or Idlcvck
Capacitnncc, damping and intcgdy of Storm prottcnon tIood coniroi, ccosystcm rrsponsc to cnknrncntai drought mvcryand othcr aspects of fluctuations- habitat rrsponsc to cnvïmnmcntal variabilily mdlycontrollcd by vcgrtation structure
Rovisioning of \vatcr for agricdtural (such as inigation) or ind& (such as miiling) proccsss or transportdon. 1 5 Wntcr suppiy Storagc and rcfmîtion of water.
EroGon mntrol and scdirncnt Raentim of soi1 within an ccosystcm Pmcntion ofloss OPsoi1 by wind. retention ruaoff or 0th- rcmovai procsss, storagc of silt in lakm and wcthds.
7 Soii formalion Soil formation procrsses. Walhering orrock and the accumulation oforganic matcrial.
8 Nutnat cycting Storagc. intemai cycfing, processing Nitrogcn fWng, N, P and otf~cr and acquisition of nutricnts. clcmcntal or nutrient cycles.
9 Waste treatmnit Rccovrry ofmobilc nutricnts and Wastc treatntcnt, pouution contrai, rcrnovnl or brrakdown ofa?tass or dctoxification. scnic nutricnts and wmpounds. I Provisioning of pollinators for thc reproduction orplant populations.
Kqstone pxuiator wntrol of prcy specics, rcduction of hhivory by top pdators.
12 Rcfugia Habitat for mident and hansient NufscnfScncs,Iiabitat for migratory popuIations. *es. regional habitats for locally harvestcd specics. or ovcnvintcring grounds,
Food production The portion orgross prünary Production of food, game, crops, nuts production crtractablc as food. by hunting, gathcrïng, subsistena !kming or fisfiing. - 14 Raw mattrials That portion of ptïmary production Ihc production of ümbcr. fucI or atmctable ris mw matcds t-oddcroddcr
Souras of unique biological rnatds Medicine, products for materials and products. sciena, gcncs for rsistancc to plant pathogcns nnd crop pests, ornamental @cs (pets and hortîcuitura1 varictia of plants).
Providing opportunitics for rarcationai Eco-tourism, sport tïshing and otha activitics. outdoor rcncational activitics. I - -- - 17 CulturaI Pmviding opportunitics for non- Asthctic. artistic. cduatiod commercial usts- miritual andtor scicntific values. Source: Costama et al, 1997. 2-4 Planning and Development Theories at Work
This section draws upon and critically compares and contrasts selected planning and development theones as they apply to maintaining biodiversity and social benefits through
CBFM, Following a brief discusukz on the nature and characteristics of the issue, a nurnber of relevant theones are discussed in terms of their ability to explain the issue. Sustainable
Development is examined as the Developrnent T'heory that instigates the development of a particular type of protected area planning and management style. The following two sub- sections describe how two planning theories, Social Reform and Social Leaming, are being applied within their respective realms at the macro-policy and local community levels, as well as how they are meeting somewhere in the middle- Supporting these theories is the need for Decentralization, and this is discussed as an essential supporting concept- Theories were selected from among those discussed in classroom lectures, guest speakers, readings for course number 95-624, Rural Planning and Development Theory and other sources.
2.4.1 Access and Barriers to Community Participation
Participation by communities in and around protected areas in indonesia is subject to the same difficulties and barriers as it is in other rural systems. Agriculture dominates the local economies, and poverty continues to pervade these areas as trade and fiscal policies often discriminate against agricult~we(Dixon, date unknown.). Parker (1 995) identifies an uneven allocation of resources between the rural and urban sectors; the agicultural sector employs about 70 percent of the labour force and generates 40-45 percent, but receives less than 20 percent of public investment- Public investment that is made in the agriculture sector tends to benefit large, wealthy farmers, and a relatively small tax base (combined with a centralized public investment system) severely restricts the rural areas fiom developing
25 financial resources locdly, As a result of this Urban Bh,rural people have a iow ability
to participate in the political system, or to articulate their political demmds, due primarily
to three factors:
the cost of organization and communication;
low levels of education and informational status; and
investrnent in political pressure is risky, and any achievement of results takes place
over too long a time penod,
The effects of community participation are limited to the local are%with little effects
or benefits being translated to higher regional, provincial or national levels. Indonesia
typifies this exarnple. In what is described as a somewhat "deconcentrated" planning
system, Femzi (1993: 174- 176) identifies three systematic constraints to village to district
bottom-up planning in Sulawesi:
a) local revenue generation;
b) influence over funding; and
c ) influence over nature of programs/projects.
Although a formalized 'bottom-up' village planning system exists by which villages
and sub-district groups may corne fonvard with proposals for development projects, al1
proposals must be translated into a forma1 request (DUPs)and be approved up to the national
level, with numerous stops along the way, before fuads are dispersed and the project is
impiemented The entire process, fiom initial proposa1 to the beginning of irnplementation, takes approximately seventeen months. Priority is given to projects that are in line with
BAPPENAS objectives as outlined in their five-year development plan (REPELITA).
Again, poorer mal cornmunities rnay once again fa11 victim to Urban Bias, and projects in
26 these areas are fiequently passed over. Communities situated in buffer zones are Mer
subjected to the conundrum of maintainkg biodiversity as the primary goal of managed
buffer zone, while attempting to derive benefit fiom their site.
2.4.2 Development Theory: Sustainable Development
The phrase 'Sustainable Development' gained international prominence in 1980
when the IUCN published the World Conservation Strategy (WCS). The WCS had the
overail aim of "achieving sustainable development through the conservation of living
resowces" WCN, 1980). According to the WCS, development could be sustained only if
human activities operate within the reality of resource limitations and carryingcapacities of
ecosystems. The WCS thus emphasized the biophysical sustainability of ecosystems, and
assumed that hurnan well-being would autornatically follow hmefforts to maintain
ecosystem health. However, the WCS failed to recognize the politicai nature of the
development process as it assumed that the benefits fiom consewation could bypass
structures of inequality and reach the poor (WCFSD, l999:2 1).
In 2987, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) re- examined the concept of sustainable development, and largely laid out the framework for
modern-day thuiking on the topic. In its report, popuIarly known as the Brundtland Report,
WCED defined sustainable development as ''development that rneets the needs ofthe present
without cornpromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (WCED,
1987:43). The definition and the approach of the Brundtland Report moved the debate beyond the goal of achieving physical sustainability by advocating 'cntical objectives' of sustainable development as the satisfaction ofbasic needs and conserving and enhancing the resource base of the poor, with emphasis on both inter-generational and intra-generational
27 equity (WCFSD, f 999:î 1).
In applying Sustainable Development as the development theory in this research, both conservation managers (in this case the Leuser Management Unit, or LMU) and
Manggamat locals want to conserve the natural resources of the Manggamat forest. Any development which has the potential to impact these resources has to be of a sustainable nature, or the goal of either interest group is diluteci. In applying Sustainable Development's
System Perspective with regards to resource uti1ization, both groups have defined social goals towards which development is aimed, based on their particular definition of conservation value. Both groups have dso selected, or in the case of Manggamat evolved, distinctive po Iicy fiameworks to articulate and employ these values to wards achieving their social goals. Chapter 4 of the Biodiversity Action Pian for Indonesia provides a clear opening for recognizing the social goals of cornmunities in Article 5.1 (see Section 2.2.1).
Although this article is limiting community participation by merely looking for 'strong public support', it does recognize the rights, systems and knowledge of communities, and therefore wouid also have to recognize the social values of these communities.
Continuing on with Sustainable Development's System Perspective, the economic goals of Manggamat must be met through development that does more than merely satise basic needs; it must support existing local economic structures, and where possible enhance the rnechanisms that ensure their longevity and prosperity. Again, this appears to be supported in the Biodiversity Action P(an for Indonesia's Article 5.4.
Conservation area managers and the Govemment of Indonesia must also satisfy the needs ofglobalizing environrnentalism, and although these may not be direct financial goals, the economy of politics has great impacts upon developing nations. IfIndonesia were to put
28 'money in the bank' through conserving natural areas of global significance, it may be seen in a more favorable light than other developing nations with which it is competing.
The final component in Sustainable Development's System Perspective, environmental goals, provides the necessary guidelines for development to ensure that activities and initiatives are conducted in a sustainable, equitable rnanner whereby environmental and ecological integrity are maintained, or if possible, improved. Local communitïes have proven that they cmlive sustainably, and have the capacity to continue doing so. Through the Lndonesian govenunent's recognition of Manggamat's entitlemen; to
Naturai Capital and their knowledge and ability to utilize it within the bounds of local ecological carrying capacity, environment and economy can be more easily integrated, and hopeklly sustained.
2.4.3 Planning Theories
As described by Friedman (2987) the issue is being subjected to two concurrent, and apparently opposing planning theories: Social Reforrn's formal 'topdown' approach of protectedarea planning and managing by central govemment agencies, and Social Learning's informal, double-looped 'learning-by-doing' approach which has enabled local cornmunities to develop short-terrn coping strategies and long-term adaptive strategies,
2.4.3.1 Macro-level Planning Theory: Social Reforrn
According to the WCED, in terms of genetic conservation, governments must be selective, and ask which gene reservoirs most merit a public involvement in protective measures. However, as a more general proposition, governments should enact national laws and public policies that encourage individual, community or corporate responsibility for the protection of gene reservoirs (WCED, 1987:149).
29 Protected area planning and management in indonesia is based on the principles of
"Scientific Management" and "Public Regdation". Through the direction of BAPPENAS, and usually supported by foreign expertise and financial resources, it uses a rational approach to identi@ and prioritize suitable sites through scientific analysis. Areas with unique wildlife, critical habitats of Endangered species and areas of high biodiversity are selected, regardless of a hurnan presence in the area. Once selected, coordinated efforts are directed towards developing comprehensive management plans and specific actions ta protect these areas through zoning to control human access and restrkting activities.
The human component in protected areas is divided between three main user groups: the tourists, primarily foreign or wealthy Indonesian NationaIs, who have access to the recreation zones; researchers, who have quite privileged access to the more sensitive preservation zones primarily for researching endangered species; and the local comrnunities, who are largely poor, agriculture-based villages whose activities are restncted to the buffer zone that encircles the core conservation area. Legal access to the conservation area proper by members of the local communities is rare, unless they are involved in guiding tourists or researchers. The bottom line of the macro-level planning initiative is defined by the ability of the area to meet the conservation objectives of the management plan (be it measured through the number of Sumatran rhinos present, total tourïst visitation days, or reductions in the numbers of illegal nce paddies in the core). Although this approach has merit in protecting and gaining appreciation for some highiy endangered species and spaces, it severely limits the benefits to local communities by excluding them physically and as participants in the decision-making process. 2.43.2 Community-level PIanning Theory: Social Learning
SrnaIl mal communities have existed in and around areas that are now 'protected' in hdonesia since prehistoric times. Over the miIlennia, complex societies evolved with sophisticated relationships to the natural world. Centuries of practice and learning resulted in sustainable survival strategies developed by linking knowledge to action, and action to knowledge. Sustainable resource-use practices were developed through a double-loop learning approach inwhich successtùl short-term coping mechanisms were developed, likely as a result of experimentation by small groups within individual cornmunities, and adapted to form long-term adaptive strategies by cornmunicating and sharing these experiences with members of other communities.
These transfomative processes aided in developing societal values that not only enabled inàividuals and communities to survive, but to do so on a sustainable basis. An example of this learning process is as follows: Through experimentation with wild plants as potentid sources of food or medicine, the Sundanese of West Java found that a tea-like broth made with the bark of the common Malapari tree (Pongamiapinnata), serves as both a prophylaxis and a treatrnent for malaria. Regular consumption of this tea may have assisted in developing a srnaII amount of natural immunity to the malaria parasite arnong the
Sundanese. This double-loop leaming process largely contributed to the development of
Adat in communities which have strong ries to forests and dependencies on them.
Today, communities in and around protected areas are challenged with formulating new short-term adaptive mechanisms to deal with macro-level planning initiatives, and transforming these into long-term suwival strategies and values. Part of the problem in making this transition is that the 'conservation area' is a conceptual entity; the land, forests
31 and wildlife are more or less the same as they have been for centuries, but they are no longer
accessible to the communities because of this new land-use designation. The theory of
realiîy is evident as members of these communities may unwittingly violate regdations by
performing what they understand as being basic subsistence activities to which they are
entitied vis-à-vis centuries-old traditions. It is easy to see why animosity exists between
villagers and protected areas given the heavy restrictions placed upon their livelihoods.
Furthermore, rural areas in developing nations are subjected to high population
growth and widespread poverty. If farrners in these communities are forced to continue with
extensive agriculture, which is inherently unstable and leads to constant movement, then
fiamers will tend to spread throughout remaining wildlife environments (WCED, 1987: 153).
Unfortunately, Urban Bias inhibits the formulation of political strategy and action
within and among these communities, therefore curtailing the abifity of Social Learning to
affect greater societal change. As Social Learning provides no blueprint for development
to be fonned by the communities, they remain remote and isolated. Furthermore, traditional
methods of communication between communities is hampered by the difficdty of access
between them. Social exchanges are fewer and devefopment is slowed and uneven between
communities. The greater Social Learning process has been compromised.
Outside solutions may not provide a complete answer. Malaria is back with a vengeance, largely because of evolving strains of the parasite which have become resistant to modem medicine, particularly the ones that villagers can access and afford. Mthough solutions derived through traditional Social Leaming processes rnight not offer the quick and apparently complete solutions as those derived by modem science, there is logic and meaning in the ways they were developed; traditional knowledge, and the processes that
32 created it, should be respected as such.
2-4.4 Planning for Sustainablility
AIthough enormous changes are currently taking place in Indonesia, it is unlikely
(and arguably unfeasible) for the curent 'top-dom' planning process to be replaced by a
completely participatory, bottom-up planning approach. However, as descrÏbed earlier, two
seemingly opposing planning theories are at work: Social Reform and Social Learning.
Although these two approaches may seem to be at odds, they rnay very well complernent
each other under the proper direction.
As outlined in the previous section, the Biodiversiry Action Plan for Indonesfa
(BAPPENAS, 1993)makes fiequent mention ofthe importance of community participation,
indicatingthat a cornmunity-fnendly policy structure appears to be in place- If a cooperative
management approach is to be suggested, it is crucial that the level of community
participation is defined, which dictates its role in planning and managing these areas.
"Partnership" as described in Amstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969) is one of the
highest levels (sixth of eight) of citizen power and enables comrnunities '70 negofiaie and
engage in trade-offs wirh the ~adiiionalpowerholders"- Partnership appears to be the most
suitable role to be played by communities in this scenario. The role of 'traditional
powerholders' being is played by management.
One may ask why settle for Participation, why not complete Community Control, or at least Delegated Power? The answer is two-fold: First, Urban Bias constrains the abilities of rural communities to plan and manage such large areas (some conservation areas in
Indonesia, such as the Leuser Ecosystem, are in excess of 1 million hectares). Second, protected aresare part of a comprehensive, national system. Individual protected areas, for
33 ail their differences and characteristics, are part of a greater system- ifdl conservation areas
were to be managed completely, or even near-completely by local cornrnunities, the
combined effects of Urban Bias and an unequal distribution of resources wouId likeiy cause the collapse of the whole system. However, through Partnership at the site level, communities operate on a level playing field with management, and through Social Learning may have some bubble-up effect on the system as a whole. This assists in 'making space at the top', one of the key points of implementing Sustainable Development. It is improbable that the Social Learning approach would become the dominant planning system in Indonesia, but it is possible that the effectiveness of community participation be enhanced to develop rnacro-policies which have relevance to the livelihoods of poor rural communities.
From a Social Reform view, a crucial point for protected area management is the recognition of communities' entitlement to Natural Capital at the macro-policy level. Again, reference is made to this in the Biodiversiry Action Plan for indonesirr, in Article 5.2.
Recognizing Natural Capital is critical for negotiations as per the Partnership definition above. Once the Partnership is struck, new cooperative management units must understand and prornote the livelihoods that are conducive to conserving Natural CapitaI, using local cornrnunities' adaptive strategies as their entry point. This is where top mets botîom: policies forined through Social Reforrn bhd with adaptive strafegies formed through
Social Learning. With extemal support in the form of capital or institutional development frorn either the central government, foreign aid, or sorne combination thereof, the launching- pad for an effective management approach based on Sustainable Developrnent seems to be in place. Emphasis would be placed on sustaining systems in ternis of their capacity to cope with shocks and stress, economic efficiency, social equity and ecoIogica1 integn-ty.
34 The role to be played by management includes training, marketing support, materials and equipment. This requires the full support of government, including ensuring that conservation poiicies are designed with the benefit of agicdture in mind- It may be expedient to emphasize the value to farmers rather than to wildiife of this approach, but in fact the destinies of the two are intertwined. Species conservation is tied to development, and the problems of both are more political than technical (WCED, 1987:153).
2-4.5 Decentrahtion as the Supporting Concept
The WCFSD identifies decentralization as a key issue in many countrïes. It identifies the challenge as forming agreement on new roles between comrnunity, state and the private sector; to issue and ensure the security of adequate and equitable rights, and to build capacity
(WCFSD, 1999:85). In order to achieve a workable and sustainable partnership approach, a certain level of decentralization in the existing management structure must take place.
Although remaining a part of the national protected area system, individual sites matbe endowed the ability to form partnerships with communities, and to empower these partnerships with decision-making abilities as well as the institutional and financial resources required to carry them out. Of the four types of decentralization, Delegation is the most suitable approach for this management style. In a Delegated system, power is transferred to subnational governrnent organizations in the form of individual conservation areas pattnered with local comrnunities. As decentralizationapproaches are context-specific, a successfbi Delegated approach requires the right mix ofpolitical elernents, represented by enhanced comrnunity participation through partnerships; fiscal elemenrs, through greater resource mobilization by government, and self-sustainability by local communities promoting livelihoods conducive to conserving natural capital; and institutional elernenfs
35 through increased accountability and institutional capacity building at the Partnership level-
2.5 Summary
in summary, there is a fundamental relationship between biodiversity and social
benefits at the interCace level of CBFM that must be explored. Although the emphasis of
protected areas and the baer zones around them is clearly on rnaintaining biodiversity,
there is a human element in the baerzones that mut be considered. However, as people
derive benefit fiom the consurnption of products fiom the fores codict often develops
when biodiversity is perceived to be negatively afTected. The conflict is considerably
present in relation to Integrated Conservation Development Projects, many of which have
failed in the past due to a Iack of understanding of the reIationship between biodiversity and
resource consurnption. In order to provide a solution to the dilemma, it is important to strike
a balance between biodiversity and consurnption at the interface IeveL
The hdamental research question arising from the literature is: 'How do CBFM
systems affect biodiversity while providing benefits to the communities that employ it?"
More specific to this paper, the fundamental question is: "What is the relationship between biodiversity and social benefits at the interface of the CBFM systern in the Leuser
Ecosystem?"
In answenng these questions, there is a need for research to examine the nature of the CBFM systern, the benefits to the community of using such a system, and the resulting impacts on local biodiversity. This research is addressed by this study, within the context of the Manggamat Comrnunity Conservation Forest in South Aceh, Indonesia as the primary research site. The following chapter outlines the methodological approach, which is based on the use of a forma1 evduative approach.
36 CHAPTEX 3 - METHODOLOGY
3.1 Refining the Research Question
Through the literature review, it has been established that there is a need for research into the relationship between biodiversity and resource consurnption in the interface of
CBFM systerns. hitially, the fundamental research question posed for this study was:
What is the effectiveness of Community-based Forest Management as a buffer
zone initiative in the Leuser Ecosystem?
Although elements of this question are still relevant to the research in a much broader scale, the literature review has enabled the study to focus on the critical relationship between biodiversity and resource consumption at the most basic level. Therefore, this relationship in the context of Comrnunity-based Forest Management is now emphasized, producing the followi-ng fundamental research question:
Can CBFM serve the dual functions of safeguarding biodiversity while
providing for the needs of local communities?
The two processes, safeguardîng biodiversity and resource consurnption in the provision of benefits to fulfill cornmunity needs, are inextricably linked at the interface of the CBFM system- This interface is the critical point where resource consumption takes place in natural and managed forests. Therefore, both biodiversity and resource consumption need to be explored in the context of the interfaces in which they are found.
A single CBFM system may be made up of a number of interface types, based on the forest zone prescribed under the CBFM systern. These in tuni provide a variety of benefits, wtiich need to be deterrnined. Biodiversity in the interface is Iikely af5ected by the nature of the interface type, the extent of which also needs to be determined.
37 Past research has rnainly focused on either the social or ecological elements of the
issue. While this research promises to look at both of these elements individually, of greater
importance is the examination into the relationship between the two. Understanding this
relationship may assisi future planning initiatives in stnking the balance required if CBFM
systems are to succeed in the future.
The following sections outline the methodological approach undertaken to conduct
the research. The first section outIules the goals and objectives of the research. The second
section outlines the field research, focusing on institutional support, site selection and
personal preparation by the researcher. The third section deals with the research approach,
in this case the use of a formal evaluative approach, using a Logical Framework Analysis
as the prùnary research tool. The section examines the LFA in detail; component logic of
the LFA is explained and specific indicators are described. The chapter concludes with a
discussion on the limitations and delimitations of the LFA.
3.2 Goals and Objectives
The goal of the research program is:
To examine the relationship between biodiversity and social benefit in a variety
of forest use types within the context of a CBEiM system in the Leuser
Ecosystem, South Aceh, Indonesia.
The premise behind thÏs goal is that the forest in Manggamat plays a vital role in the
local economy, as well as harboring a plethora of unique and diverse wildlife species. The
interfaces between CBFM activities and wildlife species are the forest zones which have
specific uses under the CBFM system. It is assumes that species would be distributed throughout the forests if there were no CBFM activities present; species distibution and
38 fiequency in the Manggamat forest are now dictated by the distribution and nature of these activities.
The objectives of the research program are: a) Establish the rnodel of Commun@ Based Forest Manugemenf (CBFM as a bz&%er
zone initiative in the Manggamat Comrnunity Forest.
The first objective relates to the nature of the CEGM system, including the role played by the cornrnunïty in implementing it
6) Determine the leveis of keystone and other significant species in a variety of forest
zones within the CBFMmodeL
C) Examine the benefits to local cornmunifies of using these same forest zones within
the CBFM context.
These two objectives relate to the impacts of the CBFM activities on the community and on biodiversity. They are descriptive in naturei providing the context for analyzing the relationship between them. The assumption behind these objectives is that the two processes, sustaining biodiversity and resource consurnption in the provision of social benefit, are inexûicably linked at the intetface of the CBFM system. Changes in the level of consurnption has effects on the level of biodiversity. Although the reverse is not likely, the level of biodiversity can serve as an indicator of the overaI1 integrity of the ecosystem, which in tum has implications for ecosystem health, and in tum oa the ecosystemis ability to provide benefit in the form of ecosystem services to the community. Thus, the nature of the relationship apparently lies in the nature of resource consumption in the interface. d) Compare CBFM with other bger zone initiatives in the Leuser Ecosystern.
This objective is aimed at assessing the success of the CBFM system in maintaining
39 biodiversity and providing benefit with regards to other beerzone initiatives.
e) Make gened recommetzdationsfor improvzng the CBFMsysfemin Manggmm
The final objective provides recommendations based on the research expenence and an overall reflection of the research design and methodology.
3.3 Field Research
The research prograrn was completed in one five-month trip to lndonesia fi-om late
Apd until late September, 1999. However, the researcher was quite familiar with the area and subject matter, having lived and worked in Indonesia fiom 199 1to 1994 on conservation projects related to protected areas. Previous visits were made to Gunung Leuser National
Park, which forms part of the Leuser Ecosystem's core conservation area in 199 1. Upon amval in hdonesia in late April 1999, the researcher made his way to Medan, the capital city of North Sumatra and headquarters of the Leuser Management Unit (LMU), the in- country institutional sponsor for the field research. Numerous trips were made to the field; although at the time of this research tensions were high in Aceh province as rebel activity and military counter-measures were of concern in the northern regencies of the province.
Akhough the research was directed away from conflict areas, there was still a military presence in the research area at the time it was conducted. Subsequent to the researchers departure fiom South Aceh, the LMU vehicle used in the research was seized by unknown forces and bumed. Although the driver was releaçed unharmed, the Javanese researchers he was escorting to their study site were abducted and it is suspected that they were executed, In December of 1999, LMU called a moratorium on research in Aceh until security issues were addressed. To date no explanation has been given for the incident; and levels of conflict and abduction have increased as separatist calls for a referendum on Aceh's
40 independence fYom Indonesia grows. Despite these onerous and regrettable events, the
research was completed on-schedde and to the satisfaction of the researcher and LMU.
33.1 Logistics and Support Activities
3.3.1.1 Institutional Support and Involvement
Institutional support for the research was provided by the Leuser Management Unit
(LMU) in Aceh and North Sumatra.. Sponsorship fiom LMLT was beneficial. LMU is the operational component of the Leuser DeveIopment Programme, a cooperative venture
between the Government of Indonesia and the European Union, It is one the largest
undertakings of its kind in the country, employing almost 300 Indonesian stafTsu1d about 5 ememely knowledgeable and capable expatiates. While LMU as an organization was new to the researcher, he had previous working experience or informal ties with at lest seven of
LMU's staf5ers. This familiarity was most advantageous as a good reputation can open many doors, especially on a fixed time schedule such as this research.
LMU worked together with the researcher in refining the research methodology as well as selecting the research site. As a great deal of LMU's work involves community in conservation, there was a mutual benefit to the research for both researcher and institution.
Al1 data gathered by the researcher were shared with LMU, and it is expected that a copy of this thesis will be presented to LMU as a working document in fonvarding the management of the Manggarnat Community Conservation Forest and for evaIuating MerCBFM systems in the Leuser Ecosystem.
LWwas helpful in providing resources, personnel and logistical support The researcher was always accompanied by LMU staff in the field, their assistance in developing and conducting interviews, surveys and finding the most delicious Acehnese coffee was
41 invaluable to the research. The researcher would welcome any possïbility of collaborathg
with LMU again in the future.
3.3.1.2 Site Selection
Although many communi*ties exist in the buffer zone adjacent to the Leuser
Ecosystem, few of them actuaily incorporate a stnictured CBFM system. With the
assistance of LMU, the Manggamat Communïty Conservation Forest in South Aceh
Regency was chosen on the rnents of two factors:
a) LWhas a strong relationsbip with the Manggamat community, and is active in the
area developing community-level projects and initiatives such as Damar and Krueng
resin marketing sîrategies; and
6) The Manggamat Comunity Conservation Forest is one of the few of its kind to
receive fonnal recognition by the Government of hdonesia In late 1998, the
Ministry of Forestry granted a 'Hutan Kemukimarn Konservasi7 (Community
Conservation Forest) concession to the people of Manggamaf to be managed by
local authority under the terms of recognized Adaî. This process was in large part
brokered by the efforts of LMU.
Even though the concession granted to Manggamat is fairly recent history, the actual CBFM practices been in place for some decades in an informal way. A detailed description of the biophysical and socio-economic conditions in the Manggmat Community is provided in section 4-2-
33.13 Persona1 Preparation for Undertaking the Research
As stated previously the researcher was quite familiar with the area and subject matter before undertaking the research. During his previous stay in Indonesia fiom 1991-
42 1994, he attained a hi& 1eveI of fluency in Bahasa Indonesia, the national language of
Indonesia. Once in-comhy, accommodations were secured in Medan for the duration ofthe
research period.
Logistics for the research were coordinated between the researcher and LMU-
Although adequate funding for the initial budget was generously provided by the CDA
Awards for Canadians, the drastic fluctuations in the Indonesian econorny Ieft the initial
project budget in a somewhat precarious situation. Forhinately, LWwas gracious enough
to provide logistical support to the researcher wherever possible to ensure the success of the
research- However, the researcher did not limit his range of contact to LMU; meetings and email contact were also held with WWF-hdonesia in Jakarta, IDRC in Singapore, CIFOR
(Center for Intemational Forestry) in Bogor and Mr. John DUE, a Canadian currently assisting in monitoring biodiversity in Ke~ci-SeblatNational Park in central Sumatra.
3.3.2 Research Approach
The research uses Resdt-based Management in a formative style, using a Logical
Framework Analysis (LFA) to establish indicators of success for each element with a focus on outcornes. The LFA is an organizational framework, often a 4 by 4 matruc, that identifies the components for a program or project in its planning, monitoring and evaluation phases
(Cummings, 1997588). The LFA was developed and introduced by USAID in the late
1960s and early 1970s. From the Iate 1970s until recently, the Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA) and other donor countries have promoted the use of the LFA in development project planning and management (Sawadogo and Dunlop, 1997598). The traditionalLFA, which is used in this research, employs a double logic- the horizontal logic and the vertical logic-presented in the four rows and columns of the matrix, forming
43 sixteen 'views' of the project or prograrn. The key principle to the LFA is the
intercomected cause and effect and non-overlapping relationships between elements of the
vertical logic, which represent the linkages between the four hierarchical levels (Goal,
Objectives, Outputs and Inputs). These levels are described as follows:
Goal: The highest level in the hierarchy, located in the top row of the LFA. It is the
major purpose of the project or program, and indicates its contribution to the
improvement of society as a whole.
Objectives: Objectives are the desired effects from the production of outputs. They are
the operational results against which a project or program's success is
normally judged. They contribute to the achievement of the Goal.
Outputs relate to the achievements of particular activities in the project or
prograrn. Outputs indicate that activities have been completed and represent
expected resdts fkom the use of the inputs. Outputs are meant to be the
cause of the achievement of Objectives.
Inputs: Inputs refers io the resources, operational activities and processes required
to produce Outputs.
This research employs the LFA as part of a quasi-experimental design, used in a comparative shidy of the primary research site against baseline socio-econornic, demographic, and biodiversity data from alternative land-use types as wetl as regional data from the home Regency (South Aceh ) and Province (D.1. Aceh) of the primary research site.
3.3.2.1 Logical Framework Analysis
As part of an integrated protected area strategy, buffer zones are designed to safeguard ecosystem integrity in the core conservation area. In this case, the buffer zone
44 initiative in question is a Community Forest. Its goal is to ssfeguard biodiversity in the core
conservation area. This goal is to be achieved through three objectives:
a) Development and long-term cornmitment to a sustainable Comrnunity-Based Forest Management system; b) Stabilizingor reducing the leve! of dependency on forest products from the site; and
c) Enhancing the level of well-being of the local communities. Although the first two objectives are well-accepted and applied by biodiversity conservationists, project managers and pro tected area managers, the third objective is subject to debate. In many cases, 'enhancing' is interpreted as generating additional (as opposed to alternative) profit at a financial level, and is measured through such things as wealth indicators. From a conservation standpoint, initiatives aimed at enhancing well-being in this rnanner fiequently contradict the conservation-focus of buffer zone achvities, and initiatives can become rnuddled However, if well-being is defined as the benefits provided to local communities through ecosystem-related services, and initiatives are aimed to enhance these senices, then enhancing local well-being becomes a viable objective. As a safeguard, the
Iimits that define this well-being, and the indicators developed to measure it, must be carefidly and objectively selected. When in doubt, always ask: "What does it do for conservation?" (M. Griffiths: May 1999, pers. cornm.). The Logical Framework Analysis
(LFA) for evaluating ecosystem integrity in community forest buffer zones is presented in
Table 3.1 on the following page. 'sluewnaop pe/o~dpue ueld *peu~epseuepunoqeuot 'eae luewe6eueui jo MelneJ aJnleJell1 (o Jafinq pue eeJe uopuesuo3 eJo3 (o uollehiesuo~e~o:, JO senlpelqo (o
iooe pue lue 3.3.2.2 Component Logic of the LFA
The horizontal logic, as presented in the columns of the LFA, deals with three main elements: the Narrative Summary, which describes the project level; the Objectively
Verifiable Lndicators of the four project levels; and the Means of Verification for the achievement of these indicators. It also identifies Critical Assumptions that couid affect the achievement of outcornes at the four levels and the overall success of the project or program.
These assumptions include the context in which the project takes place and the risks that may be inherent in that context. This section provides a description of the vertical and horizontal logic applied to the project levets in the LFA used in this research.
Inputs (Kews 13 tu Id)
Vertical Logic:
A comprehensive list describing current socio-economic environments at the
Kabupaten and user-comrnunity level, as well as the conservation objectives of the core conservation area The list contextualizes predominantly local inputs to the system, as well as provides a baseline to make cornparisons in subsequent evaluations of the same system, or when comparing simiIar or alternative baer zone initiatives-
Horizontal Logic:
Emphasis is placed on providing a 'snapshot in time' which can be easily replicated.
Reliance upon literature review and interviews with key informants aims to develop a sense of standardization in formulating the snapshot.
Outputs (views 9 90 12)
Vertical Logic:
The outputs, primarily the decision-making mechanisms, land-use patterns and the
47 resulting consumptive activities, are achieved through the inputs by the local communïty; a sense of ownership and responsi%ility is secureci The integrated set of outputs forms the framework for the CBFM systern, which feed into the objectives at the next level
Horizontal Logic:
Changes in the nature and scope of consmptive activities are measured individdy and as part of the larger decision-making process. Again, assisted beneficiary-based accounting is the predominant means of measurement.
Objectives (r/fews 5 tu 8)
Vertical Log&
The objectives feed into the goal by focusing on realistic, prïmarily incorne-based objectives by participating cornmunities. The objectives do not change the natural environment directly, but do so via the activities carried out by the comrnwiities in order to achieve hem. This reinforces the concept of incorporating human activities as part of the ecosystem.
Horirontul Logic:
The CBFM system relies upon the communities to define and measure their own objectives. This is accomplished through the development and measurement of both biotic
(e-g consumption) and abiotic (e-g. dependency, well-being) indicators. It also aims to contextualize the well-being of the community in relation to the broader administrative areas and alternative baerzone initiatives.
Goal (Viaus 2 to 4)
Verticd Logic:
Cornrnunity forests are one of a number of buffer zone types, which codd also
48 include plantation and production forests. Even though it is not shown in the LFA,
community forests contibute to a larger-scale network ofbuffer zone initiatives throughout
the Leuser Ecosysteq which in twn support the National Biodiversity PIm-
Horizonful Logic:
The goal contains a strong conservation-bias throughout. As such, it incorporates hurnan activity as part of the ecosystem functions and local knowledge as a means of verification and monitoring rather than excluding it Communities typically may not operate at this level as their prïmary (short-term) needs are typically satisfied with the generation of incorne at the Objectives level.
3.3.2.3 lnd icators
A number of indicators have been adapted fiom the G!obal Environment Facility's
(GEF) Guidelinesfor Monitoring and Evaluarion for Biodiversity Projects (World Bank unpublished report, 1998) for use in the LFA. As noted in the second colurnn of the LFA, the Objectively Verifiable Indicators to be used in this evaluation are defined as follows:
Input Indicators
At this level, indicators aim to rneasure the level of human pressure being applied to the forest system, as well as the physical extent of the available bufTer zone forest with respect to the core conservation area. Daru for these indicators were collected through review of mentlirerature, which included project documents, and informal inferviewsof people familiar with the area. This information is presented in Chapter 4.
Population: Population and density are important in calculating potential hurnan
pressures on the forest. Rapid population growth is often associated with
biodiversity loss.
49 Demographic Profie: Dernographic structure is important in examining the character of the
popdation.
Werfare Indica~ors: Although some 'traditional' wealth indicators will be included,
emphasis is placed on indicators which present an option for users to
choose between 'local' products and 'manufactureci' products.
Resource Users: The number of resource users provides a more accurate estimate of
human pressures on the forest- The nurnber of resource users at a
&en time will also determine the nurnber of surveys to be conducted
to fôrm a representative sample, as well to develop multipliers to be
used in calculating total consumption by resource users.
Locui/'Externai Users: The ratio of 1ocaI:external consumers indicates the source of demand
for forest products.
Boundaries: Location of the core conservation area and bufTer zone boundaries represent
the definitive physical lirnit for CBFM activities. Although these typically
remain constant, boundaries may change over time tu reflect more accurate
field conditions.
Ourput Idkators
At this level, indicators are used to establish categories and bnef descriptions on the nature of CBFM components. Data for these indicators were collected througlt interviews with key informants. including vilhge leaders.project managers andlCDP personneII This information is presented in Chapter 5.
Decision-making: The presence of an existing decision-makingmanagernent
mechanism is establîshed and the structure described, including the
50
activities in the forest Dwation was measured by the number of
hours spent per trip. DWibuiion was measured by the area of forest
used throughout one calendar year. Magnitude measured the extent
to which CBFM activities are conducted by members of the
comunity.
Benefts Derived: Benefits derived fiom CBFM activities were measured through an
activity profile, which included activity type, forest zone where the
activity was conducted, income attained per activity on an annual
basis, and the proportion of the harvest used for household
consumption or sold for profit. From a representative sample, a
multiplier was applied to calculate total consumption by the entire
community.
Depettdenq Indicator
Percent Incorne: The proportion of total household income which resdts fiom the
CBFM activities aided in detennining the level of dependency on
forest products at the household level.
Enhancement Indicators indicator evenfs: The frequency of defined events assisted in determining the level of
well-being in the community, at the household level,
Goal Indicators
BiadivemrSZtyhdicator
This level is primarily concemed with sustaining biodiversity in the CBFM interface.
Keystone and other significant species in the Leuser Ecosystem were included, as changes
52 in their number and distribution can assist in measuring ecosystem stress. Data for this
Ïndicator were gathered through the application of a resource-user smey, using a
representative sample drawnfiom the Manggamat cummunity. and personal observation-
This information is presented in Chapter 7.
Keystone Species: The frequency of observations by resource users of keystone and
other significant species of wildlife in the forest zones.
3.3.2.4 Limitations and Delimitations of the LFA
As presented here, the LFA is most applicabie in measuring the effectiveness and eficiency of Community Forests but may also be applied in other buffer zone types, most notably in plantation forests. The potential for quantitative data collection is substantial.
It is also somewhat applicable in measuring reach and equity because of the strong conservation-bias of buf5er zones, and as such tends to address issues in the poorer areas affected by the over-extraction of forest products- Again, caution must be used when attempting to define and assess benefits to IocaI cornmunities; indicators must have clear links to the ecosystem services being provided. CEAPTER 4 - RESEARCH CON'IXXT
This chapter outlines the Biophysicd and Socio-economic context for the primary
research site, the Manggamat Cornmunity Consemation Forest in Kabupaten (Regency)
South Aceh in the province of D.I. ~ceh'(Daerah Istimewa Aceh). Baseline data have been
assembled; secondary Provincial- and Kabupaten-level data are available through the
Intercensal Population Survey (BPS, 1996), which is conducted every five years and
categorizes settlements as either Urban or Rd-The most recent survey was conducted in
1995. Primary data were gathered through inte~ewsand surveys wïth Manggamat
residents, using categories selected fiom the lntercensal Population Survey. Descriptions
are also provided on the biophysical characteristics ofthe Leuser Ecosystem, as well as sets
the research context using selected population, demographic and welfare indicators of the
Manggamat comniunity in cornparison to the Rural components of D.I. Aceh and the
Kabupaten of South Aceh.
4.1 The Leuser Ecosystern
The Leuçer Ecosystem is situated in the Indonesian provinces of D.I. Aceh and North
Sumatra, as shown in Map 4.2 (van Schailq 1996). The ecosystem Is one of the richest
expanses of tropical raidorest in Southeast Asia. Approximately two million hectares in
extent, it is the last place on Earth where elephants, rhinoceros, tigers, clouded leopards and
orangutan are found within one area. Moreover, some 2 million people depend directly on
this area for their water resources.
'the province of D.L Aceh ir made up of eight Kabupaten, including Aceh Selatm, and two municipalities.
54 Map 4.1 (Bottom) Location of the Leuser Ecosystem and Map 4.2 (Top) Gunung Leuser National Park (van Schaik, 1996). 4.1.1 Biophysical Characteristics
4,1,1.1 Location & Topography
The following section hm been adapted fiom C.G.G. vanBeek 's "Geologv.
Geomorphology and Chnate of Gunung Leuser National Park" (1996).
The island of Sumatra, with a total surface area of about 435,000 km2, has an
elongated fomstretching from latitude 6" South to 6O North and fiom longitude 95" to 106"
East, fiom Semanka Bay in the southeast to Banda Aceh in the far northwest, The mainland form of the island is deterrnined by the Bukit Barisan Mountain Range, also called the spine of the island, which, apart from some minor interruptions, nins the full length of the islmd
The width of the mountain range varies fiom about 300 km in the south to about 100 km northwards. The highest peaks are Gunung Kerinci (about 3,80Om), located approximately in the middle of Sumatra, and Gunung Leuser (3,404m) in the north.
On the western side of the mountain range, the slopes are very steep and the piedmont and coastal plains are very narrotv, making the rnountains almost inaccessr~le.On the eastern side of the range, the mountain slopes are more gentle. Kere there is a slow transition between the mountains and the gentIy sloping hills that lie between the mountain range and the wide coastal plain. The length-wise axis of the Bukit Barisan Mountain Range is interrupted twice by small strips of lowland area, knom as passes: near Sinlàl at Sinkil
Bay, and near Meulaboh, northwest of the Blangpidie Plain.
Most of the Leuser Ecosystem lies mainly in the Bukit Barisan Mountain Range,just between these two passes. The Leuser Ecosystem lies between 3 - 4.5" North and 96.5 - 98"
East (Map 4.2). It covers approximately two million hectares of tropical rainforest, encompassing 890,000 hectares of Gunung Leuser National Park (GLNP, or TNGL as
56 portrayed in the map), as well as extensive areas of protection and production forest in northern Sumatra The ecosystem contains two major volcanoes, three lakes, and nine major
river systems that flow to the east and west coasts of the idand
In general, the Leuser Ecosystern can be characterized as a raidorest comrnlrnity and the typical vegetation type up to 600 metres above sea level is tropical lowland forest dominated by trees of Dipterocarpaceae. Several logging concessions are currently within or overlap the boundaries of the ecosystem. Outside the ecosystem, apart fiom logging concessions, the land is a mixture of shifting agricultural fields, imgated rice fields, and plantations (particularly nutmeg on a srnall scale and oil palm and nibber on a large scale).
4.1.1-2 Geology
Rijksen and Griffiths (1995) descriie the Leuser region as having a rich and eventhl geological history, as it is Iocated right at the subduction zone of the Indian and the Asian tectonic plates. Certain high-grade metarnorphic samples collected in the area during the mineral survey of 1973 are believed to belong to the oldest rock-%es on Earth, dating back to the Paleozoic (350 million years ago). Uplift fiorn the tectonic plate created strong mountain-building activity throughout the Tertiary, which gave rise to the Bukit Barisan
Mountain Range. The subduction also caused strong vulcanism of which the remains can still be found today in the numerous hotsprings, su1fÙ.r springs, fumaroles and block faults of the Leuser Ecosystem. The processes of uplifi and faulting must have been accompanied with violent earthquakes, and eventually it produced the forbidding topography of much of the present region.
Volcanic activity came to a dramatic climax around 75,000 years ago when the Toba volcano exploded in one of the largest volcanic explosions the world has ever witnessed
57 (Rijksen and Griffiths, 1995). The ashes ejected from this explosion covered large areas of
North Sumatra, and formed the Batak Highlands with tuEs up to 600m deep. The collapsed
caldera is now Lake Toba, the deepest lake in Southeast Asia Remarkably, none of the
mountain summits of the western Bukit Barisan Mountain Range north of Lake Toba are of
volcanic origin (Rijksen and Griffith, 1995)- The Leuser summit is the highest non-
volcanic rnountain in Sumatra; it is in fact one of three peaks of almost equal height in the
Ecosystem (Gunung Kemiri at 33 Mm and Gunung Simpali at 3270111).
4.1.1.3 Climate
The annual average rainfall for the Leuser Ecosystem is 2,544m.m(in Kutacane), and
the mean dai1y temperature under the forest cover in the lowlands rarely exceeds 26°C
during the day, or drops below 22" C at ni@ In generd, the ciriest months are February and
June/July; the wettest usually MarcWApril and September/OctoberMovember(vanBeek,
1996). The recent clirnatic disturbances in 1998 resulted in a drought fiom lanuary to May
of that year. Even so, the Leuser Ecosystem did not experïence the catastrophic fies that
devastated so much of southern Sumatra and Kalimantan. Only a small percentage of forest was bmt by uncontrolled field bwing by farmers (LDP, 1999).
4.1.1.4 Biodiversity
The Leuser Ecosyçtem has an amazing level of biodiversity. Of the 20,000 species recorded in the West hdo-Malayan Region, 45% are found in the Leuser Ecosystem.
Spectacular plants such as Raflesia (the largest flower in the world) and AmorphophaIIus
(the talle* flower in the world) are among the plants protected here (Rijksen and Gnffiths,
1995).
At least 95 species of reptiles and amphibians and 382 bird species have been
58 recorded within the Leuser Ecosystern (Rijksen and Griffiths, 1995). It is also home to at
least f 05 mammal species, including the Asian elephant (Elaphas maximus), Sumatran tiger
(Panrhera tigris), Sumaîran rhinoceros (Dicerorhinussumatremis) and Orangutan (Pongo maeus). Al1 the large rnamrnals are threatened by illegal poaching and loss of habitat
(Ftijksen and Griffiths, 1995).
The richness and importance of the area for biodiversity conservation alone is reflected in the fact that even simple surveys still reveal new records for the region or even new species. During 2997 alone, for example, a one-month survey of bamboo revealed five new species from three genera and nine new records for the Leuser Ecosystem, and a brief survey of fish in only one river revealed three new species (LDP, 1999).
4.1.2 The PeopIe of the Leuser Ecosystem
Indonesia's informal motto is 'Unity in di ver si^". This concept is weI1-reflected in the cultural fabric of the area. At least seven ethnic groups live around the Leuser
Ecosystem: Gayo, Alas, Acehnese, Batak Pakpak, Karo, Singkil and Melayu. No indigenous people have ever lived within these northern forests as faras is known (LDP, 1999). Almost three million people fiom these diverse communities surround the Leuser Ecosystem. The ecological senices emanating from the ecosystem provides lasting benefit in the forms of a steady supply of water, sustained soi1 fertility, local climate regdation, flood control, Pest mitigation and natdbeauty.
Traditionally, the Gayo people live mostly in the hi11 country growing tobacco and coffee. The Alas, as with the Gayo people with whom they have developed some relationship, have developed handicraft industries producing, for example, finely woven pandan-leaf mats. The Acehnese Iive mainly adjacent to GLNP dong the west and in the
59 northeast of the Ecosystem and now have extensive imgated ricefields (LDP, 1999). The
Manggamat Community is made up almost exclusively of Acehnese; members of the Kluet
clan of Acehnese whose traditional homeland ranges between Gunung Trumon and Gunung
Tango.
The Batak Pakpak hunt wildife as well as collect forest products such as wild honey
and petai beans, while the other Batak group, the Karo, are also typical highlanders but their
lands extend mersouth. The Singkil exploit the forests around GLNP, gathenng rotan,
darnar and sometimes developing riverside settlements along the major rivers in the area,
most notably along the Alas River, The Melayu are the original coastal dwellers on the
eastern shores of Sumatra and, of al1 the groups in Indonesia, are the group whose native
language is the basis for the national Ianguage, Bahasa Indonesia (LDP,1999).
4.1.2.1 History of Conservation in the Leuser Ecosystem
The importance of the Leuser region's forest was first articulated in the late 1920s,
when local leaders in South Aceh objected to Dutch proposals to exploit oil and mineral
resources, They were especially eager to protect the Gunung Leuser area, the unoccupied
pristine forests of which were considered sacred according to traditional beliefs. After cornplex negotiations, the Dutch colonial government and the Acehnese leaders agreed to conserve extensive parts of the area now known as the Leuser Ecosystem. The first officia1 document to protect the area, the "Tapaktuan Declaration", was signed by both parties on
Febniary 6,1934 (LDP, 1999).
In the 1990s, illegal logging and wiidlife poaching posed a serious threat to the viability of the Leuser Ecosystem- Growing concern among traditional and religious leaders prompted them to seek a way to revitalize the old ideas of conservation. A seminar held in
60 Banda Aceh on 12 & 13 August 1997 resulted in the "BandaAceh Declaration7', a resolution
to campaign for the conservation of the Leuser Ecosystem. The declaration was signed by
Aceh's most influentid leaders. Subsequentiy, this strong local cornmitment was endorsed
by the Government of Indonesia through Presidentid Decree No. 33/1998. The latest
support was expressed on September 30,1998 by the signing of the "Langkat Declaration"
by formal and informal leaders nom North Sumatra. The Leuser Developrnent Programme
(LDP) ,a joint cooperation between the Governrnent of Indonesia and the European Union,
is now creating the environment in which a new approach to the management of the Leuser
Ecosystern cmflourish. This is being undertaken primarily tkough the Leuser Management
Unit (Lm,the body formed to irnplement the LDP and to develop the expertise needed
to continue the management of the ecosystem into the future.
4.2 The Manggamat Community Conservation Forest
4.2.1 Introduction to Manggamat
The Manggamat Comrnunity Conservation Forest comprises approximately 12,000
hectares in South Aceh Regency (see Map 4.3). It is located approximately 15 kilometers
inland along the scenic Kluet River. Although most travel in and around the Manggamat
area is restricted to the river, a road has recently been constmcted linking the community to
the main coaçtal highway. AIthough none of the locals appeared to own vehicles, there area
a few trucks owned by people living close to the highway which make infkequent trips into
Manggamat for trade and transporting Manggamat residents to and fio. Even though the community itself may seem isolated, the people are not necessarily 'cut-off fiom the outside world; the researcher was surprised to find nurnerous satellite dishes dotting the landscape, Mnp 43Location of South Ac& Regency (ICibupattn Ac* Seiatui) ond Manggamat.
INDIAN OCEAN
He% and was able to get caught up on world events on CNN while in the ares-
This site was selected in consu1tation with Lm,wbich supported the research in the
field- Manggamat was chosen on its merit ofbeing one ofthe £ïrstcommunities in indonesia
to receive legd recognition of its rights to manage forest resources according to Adat. LMU
played a crucial role in formalizi-ng this recognition, and continues an active role in
supporting the initiative.
The Manggamat Community consists of 13 villages situated dong the Manggamat
and Kluet Rivers. These villages are: Jarnbo Papeun, Siurai Urai, Kampung Sawah, Mo
Air, Simpang Dua, Alur Keujnin, Koto Xndarung, Malaka, Meursak, Koto, Kampung
Padang, Simpang Tiga and Lawe Malang. The dominant means of livelihood in the comrnunity is a combination of wet- and dry-land farming-
The 12,000 hectares dedicated to the Manggamat Cornmunity Conservation Forest straddles the boundary of the Leuser Ecosystem's core conservation are& About three- quarters of the forest is located inside the core conservation area; the remaining quarter, the southenimost reaches, is outside. As such, the forest is incorporated into the baerzone of the Leuser Ecosystem; the Leuser Management Unit defines buffer zones as "Those areas inside the Leuser Ecosystem that are managed to protect the Conservation Area agaùist the impact, shock or damage fiom increasing demand for land and resources" (K. Proud: May
1999, pers conim-).
4.2.2 Socio-economic Characteristics
The following section examines the socio-economic characteristics of the
Manggamat Community. It also compares Manggamat to its host regency, South Aceh, as weI1 as the province of D.I. Aceh as a whole- This provides insight as to the standard of
63 living of Manggamat residents in reIation to their imrnediate smroundings. It also describes the lifestyles of the residents of Manggamat, which cm largely be attributed to benefits derived fiom CBFM activities,
As stated earlier, the Intercensal Population Survey (SPS, 1996) categorizes provincial- and Kabupaten-level data into either Urban or Rural. For the remainder of this chapter, demographic data will focus strictly on the residents of the Rurd component of the survey in comparing statistics to Manggamat. Although the Intercensal Population Survey data were gathered in 1995 and the Manggamat Resource-user Survey was conducted as part of this research in 1999, the cornparison of the two data sets remains valid. The Indonesian economy went through sorne dramatic circumstances in the four years between the two surveys, however through discussions with the residents of Manggamat it was determined that rnost, if not al1 of the socio-economic conditions reflected in the data gathered during the 1999 Resource-user Survey were already in place previous to the 1997collapse, and have not changed much since the early 1990s- Furthemore, the dramatic efFects of the economic collapse had greater impact in urban areas; regions with vibrant agricultural foundations, such as the rural areas of DL Aceh, were much less affected as most people in these areas have strong, direct ties to agriculture.
4.2.2.1 Demographics
Total Population
This is represented by the total population at the three levels. The total nrral population inD.1- Aceh is 3,0S7,1413or79.4% of the total provincial population (BPS, 1996:
Table 3). In South Aceh the rural population encompasses 33 1,954 people, or 89.2%of the total population (BPS, 1996: Table 3). Although the exact number of people living in
64 Manggamat is unknown, there are 2,360 resident households in the community. Given that
the resource user survey revealed an average of 3.68 residents per household, the total
population ofManggarnat can be estimated at approximately 8,685 people- Al1 of the survey
respondents considered themselves wal residents, so it could be stated that 100% of
Manggarnat's totd population is rural-
Population Density
Population density can be measured in two ways, The first rneasure is acfualdensisf,
and is calculated by dividing the total rural population by the area of the Kabupaten in km2.
However, this calculation does not take into account that proportion of land that is located
in the core conservation area, and therefore not legislated for human habitation or
consumptive activities. As such, the second, more useful rneasure for this exercise, is
adjusteddensity, which is calculated by dividing the total rural population by the area of land
which is located outside of the core conservation area2. Caiculations for actual and adjusted
densities in the three administrative areas are presented in Table 4.1 below.
Table 4.1. Actual and Adjusted Densities for Rural Populations. Administrative Actual Area outside of Area (km-) Adjusted Density Area Density conservation area D.L Aceh 55,392 55.Ukm2 3 5.23 2km2(64%) 86.8h2 South Ac& 8,774 37_8/krn2 3,153 km' (36%) 1 05.3km2 Mansmat 1 20 72-4/km2 1 20 km' (1 00%) 72-4/lan3 Som: Lcuser Management Unit 1999.
It should be noted that even though most of the Manggarnat Cornmunity Conservation Forest
is located inside the core conservation area, its special status as a Comrnunity Conservation
Forest allows for its use by locals of the Manggarnat cornmunit. As such they are entitled
Land area oaupied by Urban settiements is minimai, and has not been subtracted fiom the total land area.
65 to use the entire 12,000 hectares, even though they currently use ody a portion of it. As
shown in the table, once the population densities are adjusted to reflect the amount of land
available for habitation, the densities of these areas is quite hi& As a result, most lowland
areas outside of the core conservation area are intensively cultivated. Unfortunately, these
areas were traditionally the areas of highest biodiversity, and most of this has been lost to
land clearing.
Age Composition
Two measures of age may be considered. Average age represents the mean age of the popuiation in years. Kowever, this number may be misleading as people 75 years and older have been combined into a 75+ years category, making an accurate catculation difficult. A more useful measure is Interquc-rrtile Age Groups, which indicate the age classes of 25, 50 and 75 percent of the population Changes in the location of these interquartiles will assist in determining whether the population is 'aging7 or 'getiing younger'. However, these numbers should not be used alone in making this assurnption; for exarnple, an 'older' quartile rnay be the result of immigration into the area. hterquartile statistics were checked against the total population to determine whether the change is a result of immigration or natural birth rates.
At1 three areas show a similar trend in that they have 'young' and 'growing' populations. Twenty-five percent of residents in the malareas ofD.1. Aceh and South Aceh are under the age of ten @PS, 1996: Table 2). In Manggamat, twenty-five percent are under the age of twelve (1 999 Resource-user Survey). In D.I. Aceh, South Aceh and Manggamat,
50 percent, or half of the total rural population, is under the age of 25 (BPS, 1996: Table 2 and 1999 Resource-user Survey). In Manggamat, 75% of the population is under the age of
66 36 (1999 Resource-user Survey) In D.I. Aceh and South Aceh, 75% percent of the rural
population are under 40 years of age (BPS, 1996: Table 2). The current ratio of yod(under
40) to older people (40 and over) is almost 3 to 1, and indicates that there is a hi& level of
dependency on youth to support the older generations. If this ratio is upheld as the
population ages, it could result in significant population growth in Manggarnat, South Aceh
and the province of D.I. Aceh for some time to corne.
4.2.2.2 Resource User Profile
Source of Incorne
Sources of income at the household Level are assigned to one of three categories:
Non-agriculture, Agriculture and Mùced. The proportion of rural households which draw their income corn these sources provide insight into the magnitude of dependency on agriculture at each level. For the purposes of this research, CBFM activities are considered agicultural even though they rnay have close ties with forestry. The logic behind this is twofold First, CBFM activihes for the research were defined by the comrnunity of
Manggamat, Secondly, in this definition, the resource users see the extraction of timber as a means of clearing land for eventual use for agriculture, therefore including it as part of the agricultural process.
Dependency on agriculture as the primary source of income accounts for 57.6% of mal households in D.I. Aceh, 55.1% of mal households in South Aceh, and 92.4% in
Manggamat (BPS, 1996: Table 37.2 and 1999 Resource-user Survey). Overall, agiculture contributes to 74.5% of household incomes in D.I. Aceh, 75.8% percent of household incomes in South Aceh and 100% of household incomes in Manggarnat when it is included as part of a mixed-income household (BPS, 1996: Table 37.2 and 1999 Resource-user
67 Survey).
Nderofpeople extracfingfiom the Manggumaf Commmîty Conservation Forest
The Resource-user Survey measured the total number of people consuming forest products in the Manggamat Comrnunity Conservation Forest. In Manggamat, a total of
2,360 households are resident in 13 local desas. Using the estimate of 92.4% of these households for which agriculture is a primary source of income, approximately 2,181 households extract forest products as part of the Manggarnat CBFM system. The rernaining
179 households are likely to draw some income fiom the CBFM system, but are not directly extracting from the forest (Le. Traders, business people and rniddlemen).
Ratio local:externai consmers
In Manggamat, al1 consumers corne fiom the local cornmunities, even though some of the produce is sold to extemal markets (1999 Resource-user Survey).
4.2.2.3 Education
The Intercensal Population Survey and Reso urce-user Survey measured the average highest ievel of education attained per househoId member. For this study, the following categories were used: No schooling (never attended or never finished SD); SD (completed
Primary School); SMP (completed Junior High School); SM (completed Senior High
SchooI) and Post-secondary (completed Diploma I/II, AcademyDiploma III, or University).
Table 4.2 summarizes the levels of education in the three administrative areas. Al1 three administrative areas demonstrate low levels of education On the whole, residents of
Manggamat appear to have a higher level of basic education than either the province or
Kabupaten. This is represented by a higher proportion of people with an SD or SMJ?
68 education, and a lower proportion of people with no schooling at d. There is an SD and an
SMP in Manggamat. However, Manggamat students who wish to pursue Merstudies must go outside of the area- Many of the survey respondents said that, as a result, the better educated young people have left Manggamat for work in larger cornmunities; a trend that is relatively cornmon in largely agricultural areas. The lone university graduate surveyed was, incidentally, a businessman.
Table 42. Education tevels in D.L Ac&, South Aceh and Manggamat, 1 1 D.L Aceh 1 Sou& Aceh 1 Manggamat N/A(too young) 9.7% 9.7% 13.7%
No schooiing 29.7% 34.7% 10.6%
SD 34.2% 34.3% 45.4%
SMP 14.5% 11-7% 21-3%
SM. 10.3% 8.2% 6.5%
Post-secondary 1.5% 1.4% 0.2% No rcsponse 2.2% Total 100% 1 00% 100% Source: BPS, 1995: Table 7.6 & i999 Resource-user Survey-
Literacy
The surveys measured the average Iiteracy level of the household members. Many communities in mal areas do not have higher levels of schools, but still retain relatively high levels of Iiteracy. Rates of literacy in the rural areas are higher than might be expected given the lirnited amount of education in the area. Literacy rates, which are based on the ability to read and write (the two are not mutually exclusive) are shown in Table 4.3
There appears to be a lower Ievel of literacy among Manggamat residents than at the provincial and Kabupaten levels. This is Iikely directly related to the fact that the Intercensal Population Survey only calcdates literacy among residents over 10 years of age; the
Resource-user Survey calculated literacy among all residents of Manggamat. Therefore, if
children under 10 were excluded from the Resource-user Survey, levels of literacy in
Manggamat are IiLkely similar to those of the province and regency.
TabIe 43, Literacy Levels in DL Aceh, South Aceh and Manggamat. I 1 I I 1 DL Aceh South Aceh Manggamat
Literate 88.9% 87.00/0 71.5%
IUiterate 11.1% 13.0% L 1.5%
No Response 3.1% 1 NIA (too yomg) 1 1 1 13.5% I Source: BPS, 1995: Table 11.6 & 1999 Rcsource-user Suwey-
4.2.2.4 Wealth
As discussed in Section 3-3 -2-3 : Indicators, some traditional wealth indicators have
been induded in detenniningthe welfare of the average household in Manggamat. However,
wherever possible, emphasis is placed on indicators which present an option for users to
choose between Manufactured (Le. produced ficm non-locdly available materials and
purchased) and Local (Le. made from locally-available rnaterials).
People per Household (PPH)
The surveys measured the average number of people per rural household in the three
administrative areas. In D.I. Aceh, there are 658,483 rural households (BPS, 1996: Table
37.2). South Aceh has 68,25 1 nual households (BPS, 1996: Table 37.2) and Manggamat has
2,360 (1999 Resource-user Survey). When the nirai populations are divided by their respective number ofhouseholds, the average number ofpeople per household (PPH) is 4.64 for D.I. Aceh, 4.86 for South Aceh and 3.68 for Manggamat The lower PPH value for Manggamat may be a function of the out-migration of SMA and university-age students as
noted under section 4.2.2.3 above; this age group (16-23) was under-represented in the
demographic portion of the resource use survey. If this is the case, then it cannot be
assumed that education is not a priority arnong Manggarnat residents, rather just that many of the upper-age studeuts are away conducting their studies.
Roofing Material
The surveys measured the primary type of rooflng materid used in the household dwelling. Options inchded: Concrete, Wood, TiIe, Asbestos, Corrugated Zinc, Sugar Palm
Fiber, Leaves and mer. These types of materiaIs have been placed into local products and manzrfuctured products . Figure 4.1 provides a breakdown of use of roofuig materials in the three administrative areas. Percentages rnay not total to exactly 100 percent due to rounding-
Figure 1. Types of roofmg materials used in DL Aceh, South Aceh and Manggamat. South Aceh
= Asbestos Manggarnat = Concrete
O = Other S = Sugar Palm
= Wood = Zinc
Sourcc: E ;, 1995: Table 44-2 & 1999 Rcsource-user Survcy.
71 Manggamat residents demonstrate a higher greater preference for roofs made from manufactured rnaterials, even though natural materials are plentiful in the immediate area.
This preference may also be the result of a greater ability of Manggamat residents to purchase these types of rnaterials, compared to rural residents in D.I. Aceh and South Aceh.
Cooking Fuel
The surveys measured the primary type of cooking hel used by the household
Possible types of cooking fuels are: Electricity, Gas, Kerosene, Wood, Charcoal and Other-
Figure 4-2 provides a breakdown on the types of cooking fuels used in the three Kabupaten.
Totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Figure 4.2. Types of cooking fiieb used in DL Ac&, South Aceh and Manggamat. D.I. Aceh Soual Aceh
Manggamat
E = Electricity G = Gas (LPG) K = Kerosene
i
Source: E3PS, 1995: Table 5 1.2 & 1999 Rcsource-user Survey.
In this instance, Manggamat residents show a preference to use locally-available
72 firewood for cooking- This may be because locals cannot afford to buy manufactured
sources of fuel. More likely, this is the result of the ease ofaccess to the resource, combined
with the limited access to manufactured sources of coolang fuel-
Dr inking Water
The surveys measured the primary source of dnnking water for the household.
Manggamat residents are consistent with DI. Aceh and South Aceh in terms of their dependency on natural sources of water. They rely on groundwater, spnngs, rives and min for 100%, 98.9% and 99.8% respectively as sources of dnnking and cookuig water (1999
Resource-user Survey and BPS, 1996: Table 52.2). The remaining percentage of drinking water in South Aceh and D.I. Aceh are purchased in bottle form (BPS, 1996: Table 52.2).
As discussed prevîously the Leuser Ecosystem provides water for approxirnately 2 million inhabitants, many of whom are in rural areas. Although Manggamat has a locally-organized reservoir providing piped water to residents, most still prefer to gather water from the river.
Upstream fiom Manggarnat, the river is crystal clear and cool. However, as areas along the riverbank are cIeared for Dry-field Garden production, some localized impacts of soil moff are noticeable. It is not known to what degree this has af3ected the quality of dnnking water in the community.
Toilet Facilifies
The surveys measured the prïmary type of toilet facilities used by the household.
Possible types of toilet facilities are: Private toilet, Shared toilet, Direct on CesspooI,
Bushes, Pond, River and Others. Figure 4.3 describes the use of the various toilet facilities in the three administrative areas. Totals rnay not add up exactly to 100 percent due to rounding,
73 Figure 43. ToiIet facilities in DL Ac- South Aceh and Manggamat t 0.1. Aceh South Aceh
Manggamat 16 = Bushes 1 C = Cesspool O = Other Po = Pond Pr = Private Toilet R = River S = Shared Toiiet I
h Source: E
Manggamat residents also show a high preference to use the river as a toilet facility, which is likely attributable to culturd tradition However, it rnay also dernonstrate that there is a lack of lmowledge on the part of the residents as to the downstream effects of using the river in this manner, especiatly ifthey have the abilityto constnrct contained toilet facilities.
Luxury items
The surveys rneasrired luxqitems through a list of purchasable items owned by the individual household, which includes: bicycles/rowboats, radios/cassette players, televisions, rnotorcycles/motorboats, and cars/ships. The luxury item Iists are based on categories established by the National Intercensal Population Silrvey. Figure 4.4 provides details on the nurnber of households which possess these luxury items in Manggamat, South Aceh and
D.I. Aceh. Figure 4 1. Luxury items owned,
Radio
South Aceh ~anggarnatl
Source: E S, 1995: Table 572 & Resource-user Survey, 1999.
Although the table shows that Manggarnat residents possess, on average, fewer luxury items, this may be rnisleading as to the real wealth of the household for the following reason: Many of the items are large and bw,and therefore difficult to transport into the rernote cornrnunity. Large barges cannot travel up the shallow river, and truck traffic is infrequent. What is interesting is the high proportion of motorcycles/motorboats owned by
Manggamat residents. These are both practical ways of getting around the are% and obviously easy to transport. If the residents of Manggamat were less wealthy than rurd residents of other areas in D.1, Aceh and South Aceh, they would not likely be able to purchase these items at such a rate. 42.3 Summary ProfiIe: The 'Typical' Manggamat Household
This section describes the 'typical' Manggamat household as illustrated by the data and supported by personal observation. This is not to Say that al1 householdç in Mangggamat are identical, but there are common threads which weave their way through them to form a unique, yet definable cornmunity.
The typical home in Manggamat is constructed of locally-harvested wood, with a concrete floor and a cormgated zinc roof The intenor of the home is clean and tidy, without a great deal of fùmiture as it is difficult to transport, and most people traditionally sit on the floor on woven mats of pandan leaves lcnown as tikar. Although there is not likely a television or a radio in the house, chances are that one of the neighbors have one or both.
Most of the homes have access to electricity, which the majority use for lighting in the evenings. Almost al1 of the cooking is done over an open fire using wood gathered on frequent trips to the forest.
UsualIy three or four people live in the house; a husband, wife and two school-age children. The farnily may also have older children, but they rnay be away at senior high school (SMA) in the larger towns outside of Manggamat. The farnilies are staunchly
Muslim. Their primary source of income is agriculture, which is undertaken by al1 fmily members, including the children when they are not in primary school (SD) or junior high school (SMP). Almost al1 of the people in the family can read and write.
The river plays an important role for the household, serving both as a source of drinking water and a latrine. It is also an important transportation route, allowing the farnily access to upstream areas to gather forest products from family Garden Forest and Dry-field
Garden plots, Access to outside markets is made via the recently constructed road linking 76 Manggamat to Kota Fajar and eventually to Tapakmthe capital of South Aceh Regency-
Increasing numbers of households are purchasing motorcycles to travel outside of
Manggamat, although most travelers prefer to ride the unreliable and crowded trucks that pIy the route several times a day. For the most part, people tend to stay in Manggamat as al1 basic needs are available locally at the Koto market, which is held on Thursday and
Sunday.
For the most part Manggamat appears to be self-sustaining and thrïving. Even as the population grows and becornes more affluent, it appears that strong family values, faith in their religion and cooperationamong its residents will continue to be the cornerstones of this unique, admirable cornmunity.
4.3 Summary
At ktglance, Manggamat may look tike the 'poor cousin' likely because of isolation and lack of access to major markets. Residents demonstrate a high rate of dependency on local resources for &y-to-day activities and needs; a pressure that will gow with increasing population. Although this dependency may seem to be contradictory when compared to their preference/ability to purchase rnanufactured roofing materials motorcycles, motorboats, and to send their children to school out-of-tom the use of local services over manufactured/imported services is likely a result of supply and practicdity .
As stated earlier, vehicle traff~cto Manggarnat is infiequent at best; it is more practical for residents to rely on local resources for day-to-day needs such as cooking fuel drinking water and toilet facilities. 'Once-off requirements, such as roofing materials and luxury items, are not bound by access restrictions (more so for roofing than for Iwrusf items as the latter would be less practical to make special trips for).
77 Given the information presented above, and derhaving spent thein Manggamat and many other malcommunities throughout Indonesia, the researcher is ofthe opinion that the residents of Manggamat have a lifestyle that is, in many ways, supetior to those of other rural areas. The acquisition of this wealth, however, is dependent upon the extraction of certain forest products, which are the primary cash comrnodities to corne out of the area.
The activity of extracting forest products is an integral component of the CBFM model in
Manggamat, combined with Adat and a comprehensive forest zoning scheme. The next chapter examines the structure of the CBFM model in Manggarnat- The following chapter,
Chapter 6, provides an in-depth analysis of the benefits provided to the comrnmity by ernploying the CBFM model, thereby providing the residents of Manggamat with the lifestyles described in this chapter. CHAPTER 5 - THE CBFM MODEL IN MANGGAMAT
The Manggamat Cornmunity Conservation Forest (Hutm Kemukimm Komervasi
Manggarnat) is located dong the Kluet River in South Aceh Regency. The area, encompassing some 12,000 hectares, has been used by the local community for generations as a source of resources for meeting the basic requirements of Me. As more and more pressure was placed on forest resources in South Aceh and other areas of the Leuser
Ecosystem, primarily through 'outside' logging concessionaires and plantation developers, a need was identified to protect the interests of the Manggamat Comrnunity and ensure their livelihoods into the firture.
As discussed earlier in this document, the Biodiversity Action P[un for hdonesia
(BAPPENAS, 1993) promotes the rights and responsibilities of local communities in rnanaging community forests as baerzones, according to sets of traditional desknown as Adat. In the Manggamat case, Adat forrns the backbone of an integrated CBFM system.
This chapter will discuss the development and implementation of the CBFM system in the planning context. It will also examine the validity of the Manggamat CBFM as a planning approach, through discussion of its sirnilarities to the Ontario pIanning model. At its core, three primary cornponents are at work in the Manggamat CBFM system: a) Adat serves as the 'Officia1 Plan', providing vision and direction for forest use; b) Forest Zones serve as the Zoning By-law, providing structure and practicality in
irnplementing Adat; and c) CBFMAcfzvities,which abide by the two planning regimes and make the system
corne to life. 5.1 Adat: The LLOfficialPlann of the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest
Al1 extractive activities in the Manggamat Cornmunity Conservation Forest are governed by a strict set of traditional des, known as Adat- In order to provide the legal bais for administering Adat as a means of managing the Manggamat Community
Conservation Forest, the traditional set of desregarding the extraction of forest products, as interpreted by current Manggamat Adat leaders and village elders, was translated into
Bahasa Indonesia and recorded as a written document. The Engiish translation of the
Manggamat Adat document, entitled ''Comun~Comewatiun Lms andNatural Resource
Management Rights " (YPPAMAM, 1998) is included as Appendix A of this thesis. This undertaking was organized by the Nature conservation Trust of the Traditional Manggamat
Community, or YPPAMAM (Yayasan PerwaIian Pelestanan Alam Masyarakat Adat
Manggamat). YPP AMAM is cornprised of administrative representatives (Kepala
DesalAdat) fiom the 13 villages, irrigation cooperative managers, Moslem scholars, oîher scholars and other notable community figures.
With the assistance of LW,negotiations were held with the Ministry of Foresûy and Plantations to recognize the rights of the residents of Manggamat to manage the forest.
In November 1998, Ministry of Forests and Plantations Decree 445KPTSiKWL-41998 granted the rights for a Cornmunis Conservation Forest concession. The designation represents one of the htlegislated acknowledgrnents of traditional community rights to forests in Indonesia,
Management for the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest now falls under the jurisdiction of YPPAMAM, with the Adat document seMng es the visionary, "Official
Plan" for resource use. YPPAMAM has recently confirrned support fiom local police and
80 military officids that outsiders who violate Adat can be arrested and prosecuted according to the law. As the formal recognition of Adat as an enforceable law only came to pass in
November 1998, few infractions have been recorded; of the fourteen violations recorded up during the penod until August 1999, ten were committed by non-residents.
11Basic Principles of Adat
Purpose
Adat is a set of traditional laws which regulate nearly al1 aspects of life in the comrnunity, and are not necessady restricted to natural resource use. Resource-based Adat in Manggamat has a clearly defined purpose. Chapter 2, Section 2 of the Manggamat Adat document describes this purpose as:
"The protection role and mage of the community conservationforest is bmed on
bdanced conservation and use of nutural resources considering duralcondirzons,
economy and equal distribu&ion, and rhe well-being of present und future
generarions " (YPPAMAM, 1 998)-
Formulation of Ruies and Reguations
As described in Chapter 1, Section 1 of the Adat document, regulations of the
Manggamat Community Conservation Forest are laws created by the community and administered by YPPAMAM. These regulations have both traditional and legal laws, and controI the rights, responsibilities and legal sanctions of people residing inside and outside of the Manggamat Community.
Rights of Ownership and Use
The extraction of forest products fiom the Manggamat Cornrnunity Conservation
Forest is restricted to residents of Manggamat. Although private land-holdings are not
81 permitted in the forest, individuals may lay daim (HakMd&) for the use of leor even
specinc trees, within the area with permission fiom the appropriate representative. This
right can be passed dong to family members or tradedkold to other members of the same
village- In the case of Dry-field Gardens, the n'ght of use can be taken away fiom the user
and redistributed should it remain unused for a period of six months (YPPAMAM, 1998).
5.1.1.1 Implementation and Jurisdiction
The Adat document details the rights and responsibilities with regards to resource
extraction. These are based on the principle that Manggamat residents have equal rights to
a healthy environment, namely to use and protect the Community Conservation Forest and
participate in the planning, implernentation and planning process. It also defines the size,
location, area boundaries and harvest locations of forest products.
The document identifies the administrativejurisdiction assigned to forest blocks, and
outlines the roles of the various institutions, their tasks and levels of authonS. Areas of
natural forest, disturbed forest, old and new shrubs and areas which have been cut within the
boundarïes of the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest are the responsibility of
YPPAMAM, and are to be conserved and developed according to nature conservation
practices. Forest areas outside of the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest,
including Protection Forest accessed by Manggamat resource-users, fa11 under the jurÏsdiction of the Forestry Department Et also provides the hmework for compensation
and restoration costs to violators of Adat, including iegal aspects and violation sanctions,
which are based on a combination of Indonesian and traditional law. 5.1.2 Similanties to the Ontario Planning Mode1
5.1.2-1 Intent of the Officisl Plan
In many ways, intentional or not, the use of Adat in Manggamat paralleIs the Official
Plan intent process and as used in Ontario. According to the Ontario Ministry ofMunicipaI
Affairs (1 997),an Official Plan is intended to:
mescribe the local or county or wonalcouncil 's policies on how [and
in the commity should be used Ir is prepared with inpuifiom Ïts citizem
and helps to ensure thut future planning and development wiZl meet the
specific nee& of the comrnunity. "
In this context, the Manggamat Adat mirrors this intent in that it is intended to guide the use of forest resources, through a process of community inpuf for present and future generations. In this case, the 'council' is represented by YPPAMAM representatives, who are selected by the community to represent them in matters concerning Adat. The Adat itself was developed over generations of resource use which, by nature, aims for sustainability of forest resources.
5-1.2.2 Need for the Plan
Both the Ontario and Manggamat planning approaches Mfill several cornmon needs.
The following needs for the Officia1 Plan in Ontario (OMMA, 1997) have been identined as being relative needs that are addressed by the use of Adat in Manggamat: a) Et lets the public know what the municipality's (Le. Manggamat Cornrnunity's)
general land use policies are; b) It makes sure that growth is coordinated and meets the community's needs; c) ?t helps al1 members of the community understand how their land can be used now
83 and in the fùture; d) It provides a framework for setthg regulations and standards; e) Tt provides a way to evaluate and settle conflicting land uses while meeting local,
regional and provincial interests; and f ) It shows the councii's cornmitment to the planned growth of the community. 5.1.2.3 Process
Following the public input component, an Officiai PIan in Ontano may corne into effect in Ontario in one of two ways: as a plan exempt fiom approval, or as a plan not exempt fiom approval. Given the high level of centralized power in the Indonesian planning system, it is not surprising that the route followed by Manggamat Adat was the latter. Under the approval system, afier the Adat was adopted by YPPAMAM., it was submitted to the appropriate authority for approval. As it was a matter of forest use, the appropriate authority in Manggamat was the Ministry of Forestry and Plantahons, which approved of the plan and granted the Community Conservation Forest concession in November 1998.
Now that Adat has been accepted as the de facto Officia1 Plan for the Manggamat
Cornmunity Conservation Forest, it will guide al1 of the resource use decisions. Specifically, it means that al1 members of YPPAMAM, notably AdatNillage Heads at the village levei, must follow the plan; al1 new extraction undertakings must confonn to the plan; and al1 forest zones must compIy with the officia1 plan. Zoning is addressed in section 5.2.
5.1.2.4 Amendments to the PIan
Similar to Ontario's Official Plan, amendments to Adat in Manggarnat must go through council before being approved. However, as the specific rules and regulations regarding Adat have been developed by the residents of Manggamat Comrnunity, there is
84 no need to seek Meroutside approvd to the plan, lest it involve major expansion of the land base- However, before changes to the Adat would be made, extensive discussions as to the nature and need of the change wodd be heid before YPPAMAM would make a decision,
5.2 Forest Zones: Zoning in the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest
The extensive variety of habitat types impedes rnanaging forest resources in
Manggamat at the habitat Ievel. Instead, management and decision-making mechanisrns are based on designations assigned to blocks of forest (see Map 5.1). Five forest zones, are present in the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest These are:
Protection Forest (Huturz Lindung);
CommUIUty Forest (KunKemukimam);
Traditionai Village Forest (Hutan Adat Desa);
Garden Forest (Hutun Kebun); and
Dry-field Garden (Ladang).
A sixth zone, National Park (Taman Nasional) is Iocated close by. Each zone has a defined set of desgoverning the extraction of forest pro duc?^. M.D5.1 Forest Zoncs m the Miapnunrt Commanits Conservation Forest
LEGEND 1. Protection Forest 2. Community Forest 3. Traditional Village Forest 4. Garden Forest 5. Dry-field Garden 6. Villages & Fields 5.2.1 Protection Forest (Etutan Lindung)
Although it is not technically located inside of the Manggamat Cornmunity
Conservation Forest, Protection Forest ab@ the outer boundary of the forest block, and it
is exploited by Manggamat residents under the CBFM system. Protection Forest falls under
the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forests and Plantations. Typically, Protection Forest is
comprised of forest blocks located on slopes that exceed a 40% gradient, making them
unsuitable for logging or plantations. Extraction of non-wood forest products is allowed
(with the exception of bamboo and rattan) with permission fiom local Ministry of Forests
and Plantations oficials. Protection forest is located dong the border of the Manggamat
Comrnunity Conservation Forest, separating it from Gunung Leuser National Park to the east
by some ten kilometers of impassable terrain
5.2.2 Community Forest (Hutan Kemukimam)
Areas in the Manggamat Cornrnun&yConservation Forest that are not claimed as part
of the traditional land base of any individual village are designated as Community Forest, and are managed directly by YPPAMAM. Prior to extraction fiom Comrnunity Forest, permission must be obtained from the Head of Adat for the Comrnunity Forest, who then confers his approval through YPPAMAM. Approval to gather fiom the Community Forest
is granted upon the provision of evidence that the resource is no longer available in the
Traditional Village Forest of the person rnaking the request. As the majority of extractive activities in Manggamat are concentrated in Traditional Village Forest, most of Community
Forest is still in a relatively pristine state.
5.2.3 Traditional Village Forest (Hutan Adat Desa)
Traditional Village Forest combines the forest cornponent of the traditional land 87 bases of the 13 villages in the Manggamat Commwüty into a cohesive forest zone. These
forests are centered on their host village, and are usually defined by traditional boundanes
such as streams, rivers or mountain ridges. Parts of these forests are frequently developed
and converted by Locals into Garden Forest and Dry-field Garden, where a variety of
income-generating and subsistence activities take place. In eEect the 13 traditional forests, and their associated Dry-field Gardens and Forest Gardens, act as 'sub-units' of the larger
Traditional Village Foresî zone. They are however, managed somewhat independen*
Adaî limits resource-users to conducting activities in the forest area allocated to the village
in which they live. This inctudes the conversion of forest to Dry-field Garden and Garden
Forest. As such, permission is required from the respective Head of Village/Adat prior to extraction, The Head of Village/Adat is a representative fiom each village who is chosen by its residents.
5.2.4 Garden Forest (Hutan Kebun)
At estglance, many Garden Forest cm be mistaken for secondary, or even primary minforest However, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that most of the trees in these forests have been pIanted over a period of time. Many, if not al1 of trees in the Garden
Forest are intended to provide a harvest of sorts, be it fiom fruit, coffee, or even a natural
Kernpes tree lefi standing in the hopes of attracting honey bees. Most of these forests appear natural, and if not tended to will harbor some non-extractive species. Occasionally, small plantations are operated by private individuals, where a variety of more traditional plantation cash crops may be grown, including Oi1 Palm and Rubber, but these are quite rare in
Manggamat. 5.2.5 Dry-field Garden fladang)
Many people in rural areas in D.I. Aceh and North Sumatra have traditionally
cultivated small, upland dry-field gardens to grow spices, vegetables and a variety of
stimulants including CoEee, Betel Nut and Tobacco. In many instances these gardens have been expanded, at the expense of pnmary forest and even Garden Forest, to include a vm*ety of cash crops, including Nilam, Candlenut, and Nutmeg.
5.2.6 National Park (Taman Nasional)
In Indonesia, the management of National Parks falis under the jurisdiction of the
Ministry of Forests and Plantations' Directorate of Forest Protection and Nature
Conservation (PerlNldungan Hutun dan Pelestarian Alam, or PHPA). Extractive activities of any kind are strictly forbidden- However, tightly-controlled tourism development md research activities are permitted.
Although the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest does not bclude National
Park, it is included here as GLNP forms the greater part of the core conservation area for the
Leuser Ecosystem. As such, it is the reason d'etre for the Leuser Ecosystem buffer zone.
While Manggamat residents do not extract from GLNP, its close proximity has implications for Manggamat in the long-term, such as continued interest and support from LMU and restrictions on expansion and development in the area.
5.2.7 Similarities to the Ontario Planning Model
5.2.7.1 Intent of the Zoning Scheme
As in the Ontario planning model, the zoning scheme used to designate forest zones in Manggamat is intended to control the use of land in the community. It States exactly how the land may be used through the types of activities which are allowed in the different forest
89 types. It works together with Adaî in the following way: if Adat sets the community's
general policies for forest use, then the forest zones put Adat into effect and provide for its
day-to-day administration- The Manggamat Community Conservation Forest has a
comprehensive zoning scheme that divides the forest into different forest zones, based on
traditional boundarîes that use natural featues such as strearns, ridges and valleys. These
boundaries have now been mapped for easier interpretation.
5.2.7.2 The Ndfor Zoning in Manggamat
Both the Ontario and Manggamat zoning approaches fulfill several common needs.
The following needs for the Zonîng By-laws in Ontario (OMMA, 1997) have been identified
as being relative needs that are addressed by the use of forest zones in Manggamat:
a) They implement the objectives and policies of their respective plans (Ontario's
Official Plan and Manggamat's Adat);
b) They provide a Iegal way of managing land use and fùture development; and
c) The protect resource users fiom conflicting and possibly dangerous land uses in the
cornrnunity,
The third need is well-pronounced in Manggamat. As there are 13 villages sharing
the Traditional Village Forest zone, it is essential that each villages' Traditional Village
Forest is clearly defined and accepted by neighboring villages. As the 13 villages also share the Community Forest, it is also important that al1 potential users understand what activities are allowed in the forest zone and who is responsibte for Adat in it.
5.2.7.3 Amendxnents to the Zoning Scheme
Re-zoning a forest zone in Manggamat is not possible under the curent scheme, and in this way it differs fiom the Ontario Zoning By-law. However, it is possible to add 90 activities to a forest zone through Hak Milik, or to conduct an activity in another locatioit
Here's an example of how it would work: If a farmer wanted to extract Damar resin as part of his CBFM activities, but there were no more Damar trees available in his home
Traditional Village Forest, he could use Hak Milik to daim unused Darnar trees in the
CommunïtyForest At this point he would request permission fiom the Head of Adat of the
Community Forest for use of the trees. A second option would be to request the use of available Darnar trees in another Traditional Viliage Forest. In this case, he could not use
Hak Milik as he cannot claim trees in a Traditional ViIlage Forest were he does not reside, rather he wodd ask for the permission of the resident Head of Village Adat for use of the trees, and likely pay a fee for their use. From discussions the researcher had with resource users in Manggamat, the first option is the most appealing, as once Hak Mil& is applied and permission is granted, the activity can be carried out indefinitely, and the right passed on to the fanners children- Furthemore, they do not have to pay the fee for operating in another
Traditional Village Forest,
5.3 CBFM Activities
Through conducting inte~ewswith key informants and persona1 obsewation at each of the three study sites, the following list comprises the extractive CBFM activities taking place in the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest. In calculating the price of goods, an exchange rate of 5,000 Indonesian Rupiahs (Rp) to one Canadian Dollar (CDN$) is being used as an arbitrary rate. During the survey period (June to August, 1999), this rate fluctuated between Rp4,460 and Rp5,dOO to the dollar. The prices shown here represent the amount received by the resource usedfarmer on the open market, Coffee
In Manggamat, coffiee (Csffea arabica) is grown in Garden Forest and Dry-field
Garden for consumption by the household and for sale in local markets for Rp16,000/kg
(CDN$3 -20)-
Damar Resin
Resin fiom the Damar tree (Hopea sungal and H dryobafanoides)is collected fiom wild trees in the Manggamat forest and sold as a binding agent in paints and vamishes.
Locals have now taken to planting Damar trees in their Garden Forest, but it will be at least two generations before any harvests can be made. Prices for Darnar resin on the open market have recently taken a downturn; in February 1999 one kilogram fetched Rp 7,000
(CDN$I -40). In July 1999 this price had fallen to Rp 500/kilogram (CDN$O. 1O). This has damaging eEects on the incentive of collectors in the trade, as they must travel many kilometers through very rough terrain in order to collect enough resin to make it worthwhile.
Frravood
Dead branches and twigs for cooking fuel are collected from the fioor of Garden
Forest, Traditionai Village Forest and Community Forest in the Manggamat foiest.
Although it is not usually sol4 firewood fetches a market price of RplSOkg (CDN$0.03). Fish Ponds
Some residents of the Manggamat forest use Hak Milik to establish fish ponds as part of their Garden Forest where they grow a number of carp species for consurnption and sale.
Ponds are fed through mal1streams that then flow into the rice paddies. The fish are fed a diet of fishmeal, rice husks and vegetable matter. These fish have a market value of
Rp7,5OO/kg (CDN$l.50)-
92 Fruit
A variety of wild fits are collected using Hak Milik fiom trees in Traditional
ViIlage Forest, Comunity Forest. These include Durian (Bombcrx valetonii), Jackmiit
(Artocarpus sp.) and Mango (Mangifera sp.). Typically, fittrees are grown in Garden
Forest and occasionally as part of Dry-field Garden. Fniits grown here include Oranges
(Citrus sp.), Bananas (Musa spp.), Rambutan (NephaIium sp.) , Jambu (Ezigenia
maliaccensis) as well as domestic Durian (Durio zibithinus), Mango and Jackfruit. On
average, hithave a market price of Rp4,000/kg (CDN$0.80).
Honey
Wild Honey is occasionalIy collected fiom trees in the TraditionaI Village Forest,
Community Forest and Garden Forest Large nests of wild bees (Apistossata) are frequently found in the tall Kempes tree (Koornpmsia acelsa); local climbers use rope to scaIe their
10% heights. Many of these trees in Manggamat are claimed through Hak Milik. Because of the relatively few number of accessible trees left in the area (Kempes trees are also sold for their wood), honey fetches a good price at the market at Rp10,OOOkg (CDN$2.00).
Hunting for meat takes place in Manggamat It is not practical for villagers in the upper reaches of the Kluet River to keep goats or sheep as they are frequently predated by tiger. Instead, large game such as Sambar Deer (Cervrcs unicolor)are ûapped in Traditional
Village Forest and Comrnunity Forest. Sambar meat is sold at the market for Rp12,000/kg
(CDN$2.40). Although the Manggamat Community is a staunchiy Muslim society they do hunt Wild Pig (Sus scrofa) in Garden Forest as they are seen as pests that destroy crops and endanger people. Consequently, locals appreciate the role played by tigers in controllingthe
93 pig population and the large predators are not hunted-
Kemiri
Kemiri, or Candienut (Aleuriresmoluccana) is grown in small plantation-style plots
as part of their Dry-field Garden. A small amount of the produce is consumed Iocally in
spicy samba1 sauce; but most of it is sold as a cash crop sold for Rp1,300/kg (CDN$0.26).
Kmg
Krueng (Dzpterocarpus grandz~om)is another forest-giant which Iocals in
Manggamat tap for resin. Once collected, heng resin must be processed through an
evaporation system similar to Canadian-style Maple Symp. Processed Krueng resin is sold
for use as an additive in cosmetics. Like Damar, it has suffered recently as the pice on the
open market has dropped from Rp8000/kg (CDN$1.60) of unprocessed resin in Febniary
1999 to oniy Rp350kg (CDN$0.07) in August 1999.
Livesîock keeping, or Peternakan, is practiced in Manggamat the lower reaches of the Kluet River. Comrnonly seen species are: Water Buffalo, Goats, and Chickens.
Although each animal belongs to a specific household, most of them are eee-ranging,
usually in Dry-fïeld Garden areas. Water Buffalo are frequently seen bathing in the KIuet
River- Animals may be purchased alive or ready to eat, and are priced as follows: Rp7,500
(CDN$l. 50) for a whole chicken, Rp6,OOO-7,500kg (CDN$1.20- 1-50) for goat and either
Rp 1,200,000 (CDN$240) for a whole water buffdo, or Rp30,OOOIkg (CDN$6.00).
Medicinal Plants
A wide variety of plants containing medicina1 properties are available in Manggamat.
The most important of these are the Gingers (Zingiber sp. ) which are grown in Garden Forest
94 and occasionally gathered fiorn Traditional Village Forest and Community Forest These plants are typicdly used by the household, yet they do fetch a market value of Rp5000/kg
(CDN$l-00)- Nh
Nilam (Pogostemonsp.) is a small, rnint-like plant that is grovm in Dry-field Garden.
Nilam Oil is sold as an essence in perfumes. in processing the oi1, the entire plant is heated in a large vat for a number of hours until the oil has reached the desired consistency- Et takes approximately 40 kilograrns (measured as one Kurong) of unprocessed nilam plants to produce one kilogram of Nilam Oil. One Pangung is 18 metres x 18 metres in size, and grows about 900 plants, enough for six karong. Nilam OiI was the local farmers' rnost lucrative crop until recently (as Pak Binatara Yakup, Chief Executive of YPPAMAM said:
''Zhere S nof u house in Manggurnat rhat wusn 't builrfiom Nilam. "). As with Damar and
Krueng resins, the price for Nilarn Oil has fallen drastically since February 1999 fiom betweenRp1,000,000-2,000,000/kg(CDN$200-400) to onlyRp70,OOO-80,00O/kg(CDN$14
- L6/kg) in JuIy 1999. By mid-August, this price had rebounded somewhat to RPl O8,OOO/kg
(CDN$2 1.60).
Nmeg
Nutmeg (Myrisricasp.) is grown in Dry-field Garden, in a sirnilar fashion to Kemiri, and is one of the largest cash-crops in South Aceh. Most of the Nutmeg produced in the area is sold for export. The current market pnce for Nutmeg is Rp I 1,00O/kg (CDN$2.20).
Oil PaZm
Most of the large plantation sites in North Sumatra and D.1- Aceh provinces grow Oil
Palm (Elaeis quzncensis). Very little is grown in Manggamat; one of the conditions fiom
95 LMU for supporting cornmunity forests in the Leuser Ecosystem is that Oil Palm will not
be included in developing the CBFM system. However, should a farmer have a small
number of trees in place, it is not expected that these trees be discarded Current (July 1999)
prices for 0i1 Palm fiom these plantations is about Rp200kg (CDN$0.04) for unprocessed
oil palm miit.
Rubber
Rubber (Heuvea brasiIiensis) is similar to Oil Palm in that it is typicaiiy produced
in large plantations throughout North Sumatra and D.I. Aceh. A srna11 nurnber of rubber
trees are grown by sorne locals in Garden Forest. The current pnce is Rp1,200/kg
(CDN$O -24).
Timber Extraction
Timber extraction still takes place in the Manggamat forest, with the permission of
the Kepala DesdAdat if it is from the Traditional Village Forest, or from the Kepala
KemukimamM?PAMAM if it is from the Comrnunity Forest. However, illegal logging
does take place by outsiders who venture into these areas without permission. Current pnces
for timber make the activity quite lucrative. One tonne of unprocessed timber fetches
Rp900,OOO (CDN$180), or about ~p585,000/m~(CDN$l17) as one cubic metre ofwood has
an approximate weight of 0.65 metric tomes.
Vegetubles
A variety of vegetables are typicalty grown in Dry-field Garden and occasionally
around the houses of Manggamat. Vegetables are usually consumed in the household, but occasionally are sold in local markets where they fetch about Rp650/kg (CDN$O. 13). 5.4 Market Manipulation
The market for forest products can be quite lucrative. Given the rernote location of
the Manggamat Cornrnunïty Conservation Forest and the lack of exposure to outside
markets, the system is vulnerable to manipulation. During the course of the research,
particularly at the weekly market, the role of middIernen and traders in determining the
prices of these commodities was quite evident.
Manipulation was most evident in the unexplained simultaneous 'drop' in the prices of three commodities (Damar, Krueng and Nilam) subsequenr to the wost of the Asian financial crisis. Local vendors were suspicious as to whether these reflected real drops, or whether the market was sornehow being manipulated with the farmers coming out on the losing end Their argument suggested that as the products are sold for export and the value of the Indonesian Rupiah had declined in the past two years, then shouldn't the prke (in
Rupiah) of these commodities have nsen rather than declined? A counter argument may be a question of demand: if the products were sold for use in the domestic market, a decrease in demand for these local products may have caused a sharp decline in the demand for raw materials.
Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope of this research to ascertain the reason for the decline, even though it could have detrimental impacts on the environment According to
YPPAMAM, bersmay forsake collecting these materiaIs in favor of illegal logging, where they can rnake more than Rp. 1,000,000 per tree, depending on the species. However, in terms of the viability of the Manggamat CBFh4 system in the long-term, it would be helpfül if the resource-users/vendors had direct access to outside markets. This would provide them with a fair oppominity at benefitting frorn their hard labour, while at the same 97 tirne add credence to the CBFM system upon which they are reliant,
5.5 Summary
The CBFM model in Manggamat is still relatively new, but is based on principles that are understood by resource users in the comrnunity. As such, it provides the framework to offer equd opportunity for each of the users to exploit forest resources to meet their basic needs and beyond- As a planning method, the CBFM model in Manggamat also aims to use forest resources in a sustainable manner, which is of utmost importance as the majority of residents draw their livelihoods directly fiom the forest. Although the system is vulnerabIe to some manipulation, it is a dynamic system which will likely work through these barriers with the assistance of LMU. The next chapter examines the level of benefit drawn from the
Manggamat Cornmunity Conservation Forest under the existing CBFM system. CaAPTER 6 - BENEFTI'S OF USING CBFM IN MANGGAMAT
This chapter provides details on the benefits derived from the CBFM mode1 in
Manggamat, methods used for their calculation and their sources. Primq data for these
benefits were gathered through the application of a Resource-user Survey and, where
appropriate, are combined with secondary data corn the 1995 Intercensal Population Survey.
The intent of the chapter is to examine the CBFM system's performance in achieving the
three objectives of the Manggamat Comrnunity Conservation Forest as a Bder Zone
initiative in the Leuser Ecosystem. These were discussed in 2.3.2.1, but to reiterate are :
1. Development and long-term cornmitment to a sustainable CBFM system;
2. Stabilinng or reducing the Ievel of dependency on forest products fiom the site; and
3. Enhancing the level of welfare of the local communities.
6.1 Design of the Resource-user Survey
The resource-user survey was developed to measure resource consumption at the
household level, with emphasis on the 27 CBFM activities and forest zones descnbed in
Chapter 5. LMU and YPPAMAM played key roles in facilitating the survey process by
inforrning fmersof the survey and garnering their support for it. The suxvey was designed
to take place in the field; the researcher and several field assistants spent several weeks in
Manggamat surveying resource-users. The survey itself was written in Bahasa Indonesia,
but as the field assistants were drawn frorn local LMU and YPPAMAM staff and supporters,
the Iocal dialect (F3ahasa Kluet) was also used occasionally to clan@ points and concepts.
The CBFM Resource-user Survey, translated into English, is provided as Appendix B.
61.1 Selection of the Sampte
As described in section 4.2.2.2, there are approximately 2,360 households in the
99 Mauggarnat Community- Of these, 92_4%(2,18 2) conduct CBFM activities as part of theu total household income. On account of the remoteness of the site, the uncertain political
environment in D.I. Aceh at the time of the research, and the diEculty in arranging surveys with farmers, the researcher initially set a target of completing enough surveys to attain a
90% confidence level. This target was surpassed; a 95% confidence level was eventuaily attained.
6.1.2 Applying the Survey: Challenges and Opportunities
During the time the survey was carried out, the province of D.I. Aceh was uudergoing a great deal of political tunnoil, A National General Election was held a few weeks earlier which was largely rejected in the province. Acehnese separatists began calling for a Referendum on D.I. Aceh's independence frorn Indonesia, and rebeIs fiorn the Free
Aceh Movement (GAM) were reportedly active in the Manggamat area. Aithough the researcher at no time was threatened by these events, the overall sense of suspicion around
D.L. Aceh at the time of the research had the potential to disnipt, if not completely undennine, the survey process- At times survey respondents appeared nervouç about speaking to ccoutsiders",but once they were informed of the reasons for the survey and its support by YPPAMAM and LWtheir fears were usually alleviated. Respondents appeared happy to speak of their use of forest products and, as Iong as the conversation steered clear of politics, were quite open to provide opinions on how the system could be improved.
6.1.3 ResuIts
Ln total, 11 7 households took part in the CBFM Resource-user Survey; enough for a 95% confidence level (using the Psize sample size calculation program provided in 95-638:
Application of Quantitative Techniques in Rural Planning and Developmcnt).
100 6.2 Sustainability of the CBFM System
This section provides detail on the benefits derived fiom the Manggmat CBFM
system using the Objective-level Indicators descnbed in Chapter 3. All of the primary data
were gathered through the Resource-user Survey. Upon completion of the surveys, the data
were organized into a Quatbro Pro spreadsheet, then analyzed using SPSS version 20.0.
6.2.1 Resource Consumption hdicators
6.2.1.1 F requency
Frequency rneasures the nurnber of days a week that resource-users spend conducting
CBFM activities in the forest Table 6.1 shows the fiequemies of the number of days spent
in the forest per resource user (n = 1 13). On average, resource user spend a little over four days per week conducting CBFM activities in the forest. The median is also four days; meaning that 50% of resource users spend four days in the forest per week, although more than 42% spend five or more days there.
Table 6-1. Trips per week by resource-users to the Man~amatCommunity Conservation Forest. 1 Trips perweek 1 Respoodents 1 Percent 1 Cumulative percent 1 - -- 7 1 9 8.0% 8.P?
2 9 8.0% 15.9%
3 2 1 18.6% 34.5%
4 26 23.00/0 57-5'343
5 32 28.3% 8 5,8%
6 8 7.1% 92,9%
7 8 7.1% 100%
Tota1 113 100% C Source: 1999 Resource-user Swey. 6.2.1.2 Duration
Duration rneasures the number of hours spent by resource user per trip to the forest,
This does not include the time it takes to travel to the worksite; just the time spent conducting the activity- Table 6.2 shows that more than half of the resource-users spend between three and six hours pertrip to the forest (n = 117). An additional 32.5% spend more
than 6 bours. As the Manggamat Forest is tocated very close to the equator, only twelve
hours of daylight are available in any one day. It is therefore dikelythat any more than ten or eleven hours a day are spent in the forest per work day
Table 62 Hours spent per Visit to the Forest. i I I I I Hours per trip Respondents Percent 1 Cumulative Percent 1
9+ 12 10.3% 100%
117 100% Source: 1999 Resource-user Survey-
6.2.1.3 Distribution
Distribution of CBFM is the area of forest under use by resource users. It is measured in the distance traveled by the resource users to get to their worksite. As the forest areas around the villages are heavily utilized, it can also be assumed that al1 areas between the household and individual worksites are also being used- Table 6.3 provides detail on the distances traveled by resource users to their worksites (n = 126). Table 63. Distance Traveled to Worksite fmm Household. I I 1 1 i 1 DutaoceTravded 1 Respoodeots 1 Percent 1 ~umulativepercent 1
I Total 1 116 1 100% 1 Source: 1999 Rcsourcc-user Swey.
As show in the table, most of the resourçe users travel less than 5 km to their
worksites. This indicates extensive use of the forest in close proximity to the desas. The
thirteen percent of resource users who travel in excess of five kilometers are apt to spend
more time at theïr worksite in order to make up for the Ionger distance traveled. Al1 of these
respondents indicated that they operate sites that are only accessible via river travel; to travel
more than 5 km through the heavy forests and steep hills of the Manggamat forest would be
extremely dificult In many cases, they may have established temporary shelters on their
worksite for the occasional ovemight stay.
6.2.1.4 Magnitude
Magnitude measures the extent ofthe CBFM system through nurnber of respondents
conducting each of the activities. No single resource-user conducts every activity, but some
do conduct more than others. Similady, some activities are more frequently applied than others, likely due to higher returns on the time invested and the availability of the resource.
Table 6.4 shows the rates of participation by survey respondents according to activity type.
Firewood collection is the most widespread activity; 100% of resource users indicate the collection of firewood for either cooking in their homes, or as fuel for processing Nilam
203 or Knieng oil. NiIarn and Candlenut are the two most common cash crops, with
approximately 80% of resource users participating. Rates of participaticn appear to be in
Iine with the developrnent objectives of LWin that participation in both OiI Palm and
Rubber is extremely low, at just under one percent. Furthemore, LMU has in the past
sponsored the development of Damar and Knieng as cash crops, which resource-users gather fiom in-siru trees (much Iike fniit trees), and encourages them not to cut down the trees. Rates for participation in Damar and Krueng are 27-4% and 25.6% respectively-
Fruit, a more established cornrnodity in Manggamat, has a higher rate of participation
(35.9%). As the value of Damar and Krueng become more established in the Manggamat
CBFM scheme, their rates of participation wiIl Iikely also rise. Table 6.4 Rates of Participation in CBFM Activities- 1 I I Activity Type 1 Respondentp Pecipaîing Rate of Participation Candienut 93 79.5%
Coffee! 44 3 7,6%
Darnar 32 27.4%
Firewood t 17 100.0%
Fish Ponds 43 3 6.8%
Fruit 42 35.9%
Honey I 0.9%
Hunting 12 10.3%
Krueng 30 25.6% - - - - Livestock 53 45.3%
Medicines 21 17-9%
Nilam 94 80.3%
Numeii 29 24.8% r Oil Pdrn 1 0.9%
Ru bber 1 0.9%
1 Vegetables 1 14 1 12.0% 1 Source: Resource-user Survey, 1999.
The relative importance of individual activities, in terms of income generated by forest type, is discussed in Section 6.2.2.3.
6.2.2 Beoefits Derived Through the CBFM System in Manggamat
6.2.2.1 Total Income Generated by Survey Respondeots
Househoid income from CBFM activities was reported by the 1 17 households in the survey. Table 6.5 provides detail on the gross income reported by these households, according to Forest Zone and for the Manggamat Community Forest as a whole. It Mer breaks this income down into commodities used in the home and those sold or traded,
Table 6.5 CBFM Income Generated by Survey Respondents (in Rupiahs). 1 1 I 1 Forest Zone 1 Used in Home 1 Sold or Traded 1 Total l Garden Forest 257,458,440 4 12,65 1,254 670,109,694
Traditional Village I Forest 1 60û,S84,238 1 1,673,100,058 1 2,273,484,296 I Community Forest 342,000 1O 1,937,000 102,279,000
Protection Forest 490,050 3,925,950 4,4 16,000
Dry-field Garden 52,563,985 1,069,700,4 17 1,122,264,402
Total 1 922,832,513 1 3,364,078,557 4,286,9 11,070 Average per EIE 7,887,457 28,752,808 36,640266
Median per HH 2,665,140 9,703,860 12,396,000 Source: Resource-user Survey, 1999.
As shown in the table, aImost Rp4.3 billion (CDN $860,000) in income was generated by the 1 17 survey respondents through CBFM activities. Although the average income generated through CBFM activities per household is over Rp36.6 million (CDN
$7,320), this nurnber is skewed by the small percentage of respondents (11.3%) who generated in excess of RplOO million (CDN $20,000). A more accurate representation is the median income per household, which shows that 50% of the households generated ahost
Rp12.4 million (CDN $2,480). Other quartile statistics reveal that 25% of the survey respondents generated less than Rp4.9 million (CDN $980) while 75% generated just over
Rp27.5 million (CDN $5,500). Incorne generated fiom CBFM activities by the survey respondents ranged from Rp198,OOO (CDN $39.60) to Rp546,354,000. (CDN $109,271).
The disparity in incorne is a reflection of the value of timber extraction in the Manggamat
Area. Of the 13 respondents that reported an excess of RplOO million, 11 listed timber
106 extraction as their primary source.
The survey also indicated thaf on average, 2 1-5% of th-s income was in the form of
goods used in the household. The remaining 78.5% was income derived through the sale or trade of products attained through CBFM activities.
6.2.2.2 Total Estimated Income Generated by CBFM in Manggamat
By using the survey data, a sarnpling multiplier was applied to estimate the total income generated by CBFM activities for the whole Manggamat Communi~. This multiplier was calculated by dividing the total number of resource-user households taking part in an activity as a percentage of the overall sarnple. This multiplier was then applied against the total resource-user households in the comrnunity to estimate the total income generated by that activity. Table 6.6 shows the estimated total income generated by CBFM activities in the Manggamat Comrnunity Conservation Forest.
Table 6.6 Total Estirnated CBFM incorne Generated in Mangpamat (in Rupiahs). i Forest Zone Used in Home Soid or Traded To ta1
Garden Forest 4,799,289,3 82 7,692,242,607 12,49 1331,989 Traditional Village 1 l,l9l,777,975 3 1,188,301,081 42,380,079,056 1 Forest 1 1 1 1 Community Forest 6,3 75,23 1 1,900,21023 1 1,906,585,462 1 Protection Forest 1 9-135,035 1 73,183.735 1 82,3 18,770 1 .- . Dry-field Garden 979,846,600 19,940,3 12,893 20,920,159,493 Uns pecified 21 6,120,323 1,915,624,085 2,13 1,744,408
Average per HH 7,887,457 28,752,808 3 6,640,266
Mean per HH 1 2,665,140 1 9,703,860 1 12,3 96,000 1 Source: Resource-user Survey, 1999.
As shown in the table, the CBFM system in Manggamat generates a total annual income of Rp79,9 l2,4 19,178 (CDN $lS,982,484). Over haif of this, 53%- is generated in
Traditional Village Forest (See Figure 6.1); again the dominance of Timber extraction becornes evident. Dry-field Garden is the second most important econornic zone, generating
26.2% of CE34 income, mostly through the cultivation of Nilam. Garden Forest ranks third, contnbutiug 15.6% oftotal CBFM income. As one could expecf Cornmunity Forest and Protection Forest made smaller contniutions to income, at 2.4% and 0.1% respectively. nie source of the rernaining 2.7% of CBFM income was unspecified
Unspecified For arden Forest (1 5.63%)
Dry-field Garden (26.1 8%)
Protection Forest (0.1 0%) - Cornmunity Forest (2.39%)
Traditional Village Forest (53.03%)
Source: Resource-user Survs; 1999. The composition ofactivities and resulting income generated by Forest Zone will be examined in the next section. 6.2.23 Income Generated by Forest Zone
Garden Forest
Garden Forest is the third most important economic zone, accounting for aIrnost
Rp12.5 billion (CDN $2.5 million), or 15.6% of the total Manggarnat CBFM income. It is
the most diverse in terms of the number of activities conducted Twelve of the 17 CBFM
activities occur in Garden Forest, although participation in some is small. Table 6.7
illustrates rates of participation and income generated by CBFM activity in Garden Forest
Table 6.7 Participation and Income in Garden Forest. I i Rate of Used in Sotd or Total Income IXI 1 A&vitY 1 Participation I Household I Traded 1 Coffee 37.6% 2,637,242,83 1 2,121,149,893 4,758,392$724 38.1% 30 1,985 17,862 3,O 19,847 . Damar 0.9% 2,7 0.0% Fhvood 37.6% 151,663,385 1,744,800 153$08,185 1.2% Fish Ponds 31.6% 80 1.658926 492,379205 1 J94,03 7,63 I 10.4% Fruit 29.9% 992,057,489 3,773,796,603 4,765,854,092 38.2% Honey 0.9% O 33,553,846 33,553,846 0.3% Hunting 1.7% O 21 1,577,132 21 1,577,132 1.7%
Oil Palm 0.9% O 1,118,462 1,118,462 0.0% Timber 1.7% 130,860,000 1,046,880,000 1,177,740,000 9.4% I 1 Total 1 1 4,799,289,382 1 7,692,242,608 1 12.49 1,53 1,990 1 100.0% Source: Resource-user Survey, 1999.
Coffee and Fruit production are the most important incorne generating activities in
Garden Forest. Firewood collection is just as widespread as Coffee production, but has less econornic value. However, as al1 resource-users in Manggarnat use firewood, it is a crucial activity in the CBFM system. Timber extraction in Garden Forest is only conducted by 1.7% of resource usen, yet it provides 9.4% of Garden Forest income. Conversely, roughly
the same number of resource users are conducting Damar and Krueng activities, but the
combined contribution to income is less than one percent-
Truditiond Village Forest
Traditional Village Forest is the most important economic zone in the Manggamat
CBFM system. It provides an annual income of almost ofRp42.4 billion (CDN $8,476,0 16)'
or 53% of Manggamat's total CBFM income, It is less diverse than Garden Forest in tems of the number of activities occurring, with 8 of the 17 activities present. Table 6.8 illustrates rates of participation and income generation by activïty in Traditional Village Forest
Table 6.8 Participation and Incorne in Traditional Village Forest. I 1 I I 1 I l Rate of Used in Sold or 1 Ad- 1 Participation 1 Household Total lncome
Rub ber l 0.9% 1 O 1 20,132,308 20,132,308 0.0% Tirnber 17.1% 10281,670JOO 30,I98,562200 40,480,232,400 95.5% Total 1 11,191,777,974 31,188,301,081 42,380,079,055 100.0% Source: Resource-user Survey, 1999.
From the table, the dominance of Timber extraction in Traditional Village Forest is evident. AIthough it ranks fourth in terms of the participation rate in the zone, it outperforms the combined income of the other seven CBFM activities by a ratio of 19:1.
This statistic is worrying in that it questions the long-term sustainability of the CBFM system. At the current rate of extraction, it is altogether likely that Timber resources in
Traditional Village Forest are becoming more and more scarce. Eventudly, resource users
wiH have to access Cornrnunity Forest to emctat the sarne level, as well as to conduct
other CBFM timber-related activities such as Damar and Krueng collection (assuming that
eventually these trees will be cut down in Traditional Village Forest as the timber resources
continues to dwindle). This already appears to be taking place. If Timber stocks in
Comrnunity Forest were to becorne depleted, it couid result in the cotlapse of the entire
CBFM and ecological systems.
Communi~Forest
As explained earlier in Section 5.1.1, CBFM activities can only take place in
Community Forest if the resource is no longer available within the resource user's home
Traditional Village Forest- However for reasons explained above, primarily Timber
extraction in Traditional Village Forest, CBFM activities are now being camed out in
Comrnunity Forest. Although they are still low in rates of participation, four CBF'M
activities are now undertaken in Cornrnunity Forest. These activities generate over Rp1.9
billion (CDN $380,000 ) or 2.4% of the total CBFM income in Manggamat. Table 6.9
illustrates rates of participation and income generation by activity in Community Forest.
Table 6.9 Participation and Income in Corn rnunity Forest. Rate of Used in SoId or Total Income % Participation Household Traded
1 Total 1 1 6,37523 1 1 I,900,2iO,231 1 1,906,585,462 1 100.0% Source: Rcsourcc--user Survey, 1999. Once again, the zone is dominated by Timber extraction. In fact, timber accounts for
hast al1 of the income generated from Cornrnunity Forest. This strengthens the argument
that curent leveIs of Timber extraction in Traditional Village Forest are unsustainable.
What makes matters worse is the fact that 100% of the Tirnber extracted fiom Community
Forest is sold or traded; none of it is reported as being used in the household by resource
users. Community Forest represents the largest remaining area for potential exploitation by
CBFM activities, but it also represents the final stock of Timber resources, If the forests of
Hutan Kemukirnam were to become exhausted, residents of Manggamat would have no
Meraccess to Timber, or any of the Timber-related CBFM activities.
Protection Fores[
Not surprisingly, Protection Forest is the least important of the forest zones in temis
of CBF'M income and diversity of activities, contributing just over Rp82.3 million (CDN
$16,464), or O. 1% of the total Manggamat CBFM income. This is likely the result of the
distance of Protection Forest from the villages, and the tight restrictions on extracting forest
products in Protection Forest. Only two activities, Damar and Kmeng, are conducted in
Protection Forest; approval for conducting these activities had to be obtained from the local
representative of the Ministry of Forestry. However, as Tirnber extraction in Protection
Forest is prohibited, Damar and Krueng trees are plentifid, making these activities attractive to resource users. Tzble 6.10 illustrates rates of participation and income generation by activity in Protection Forest. Table 6-10 Participation and Incorne in Protection Forest I 1 1 I I i Rate of Used in Sold or Total Income 1 Aousehold 1 Traded 1 Damar I 5-1% 1 9,135,035 1 47,73 8,735 1 56,873,770 1 69.1% I
Tord 1 1 9,135,035 1 73,183,735 1 8318,770 1 100.0% Source: Resource-user Survey, 1999- As the table shows, Damar collection exceeds Knieng by more than double. This is likely due to the better prices available for Damar and its ease of collection and processing-
Dry-fieldGarden
Dry-field Garden is the second rnost important forest use type in terms of CBFM income, generating almost Rp2l billion (CDN $4.2 million), or 26.2% of the total CBFM income for Manggarnat. It is also diverse in the number of activities with eight. Dry-field
Garden is also the most labour intensive of the forest zones as al1 of the products must be planted, cared for, cultivated, harvested and, in some cases, processed. Extensive land preparation is also required before Dry-field Garden can be undertaken. Table 6.1 1 illustrates rates of participation and income generation by activity in Dry-field Garden
Table 6.11 Participation and Income in Dry-field Garden, 1 I I I I i Rate of Used in Total Income 1 1 Participation 1 Aousehold
Fish Ponds I 5.1% 67,941,538 128,343,462 1 96,2901000 0.9% Fruit 2.6% 33,553,846 235,77 1,692 269,3E23 8 1,3% Livestock I 44-4% I 6 12,609,346 1 458,764,962 1 1,07IJ74,308 1 5.1%
Total 1 1 979,846,600 19,940J 12,894 20,920,159,494 100-0% Source: Resourcc-user Smey, 1999- As shown in the table, Nilam and Candlenut are the two rnost important economic commodities in Dry-field Garden, both in terms of their rates of participation and contniutions towards the total income- Mrnost 80% of resource users in Manggarnat conduct at least one of the two activities. As Dry-field Garden are areas that have been cleared of forest in Traditional Village Forest, they also serve as an indicator of the sustainability of the CBFM system. To this point in îime, no Dry-field Garden activities are present in Comrnunity Forest; they are al1 confined to former Traditional Village Forest sites. However, there is a chance that they will expand into Cornmunity Forest should
Timber extraction in this forest type continue.
Umpecified Fores!
Some survey respondents faiIed to speciQ the forest types where some of their
CE3FM activitiestake place. The researcher felt it was important to include these regardless as they contribute over Rp2.1 billion (CDN $426,349), or 2.7% of the total CBFM income in Manggamat. Four activities were identified as falling into this category. Table 6.12 illustrates rates of participation and income generation by activities where the resource users failed to specify the forest we.
Table 6.12 Participation and Lncome in Unspecified Forest Types, Sold or Activity Rate OC Total lncome I Participation Household I Traded 1
Total 1 1 216,L20,323 1 1,9 15,624,085 1 2,13 1,744,408 Source: Resource-userSurvcy, 1999. As these activities are not tied to a forest type, they should be considered only as additions to the total CBFM system. However, given the nature of the activities, it is likely that they take place in either Traditional Village Forest or Community Forest.
6.3 Stabilized or Reduced Level of Dependency on Forest Products
6.3.1 Percent of Total Household Income Derived from CBFM Activities
The proportion oftotal household income derived fiom CBFM activities refers to the income from products that are either sold or traded; products used in the household are not included. This allows for an estimate to be made for the importance of CBFM towards the overall economy of Manggarnat-
Zn Manggamat, the average household reports earning 5 1.5% of its income from
CBFM activities. This is close to the median figure, but is slightly higher because of the small percentage of resource users who sel1 large amounts of Timber and Nilam oil. The survey indicated that one-quarter of the resource user households generate 75% of their income fiom CBFM activities. Half of the households (the median) generate 48% of their income fiom CBFM activities. Three-quarters of the households reIy on CBFM activities to provide 35% of their total income. Therefore, it appears that CBFM provides a substantial contribution to the Manggamat economy; approximately half of the cash incomes is generated thro ugh CBFM activities.
6.4 Cornparison with Other Locales
The following section compares the incomes generated by CBFM activities in
Manggarnat with those eamed in other locales. On a regional level, incomes in Manggamat are compared with those in rural areas of the Regency of South Aceh and the province of
D.I. Aceh. A second cornparison pits the Manggamat Community Forest against the benefit potential avaiiable for workers at an Oil Palm plantation, one of the competing land-use
115 types far b&er zone space around the Leuser Ecosystern-
6.4.1 Incornes in South Aceh and DL Aceh
Table 6.13 details incorne levels at the household level for rural households in South
Aceh and D.I. Aceh, as wetl as for Manggamat. Lncome data for the two administrative districts are drawn fkom the 1995 Intercensal Population Survey @PS, 1996). The sunrey uses a series of categories in which individual household incomes are placed, but categonzes al1 incomes above Rp3,600,000 into a single category- As such, the most accurate means of comparing the data are by using interquartile statistics for the two administrative areas as well as from the Manggamat Resource-user Survey. One of the cautions in looking at these figures is that data for South Aceh and D.I. Aceh were gathered in 1995; prior to the collapse of the Indonesian economy in 1997 and eady 1998. Therefore, while the 1995 income data for South Aceh and D.I. Aceh wodd arguably be lower based on this circumstance, the researcher strongly feels that the statistics are valid for cornparison with 1999 data fiom
Manggamat as income has not kept Pace with price increases of some commodities.
Table 6.13 Interquade Household incornes in Manggamat, South Aceb and DLAceh. i 1 I I 1 Quartiie Manggamat South Aceb I D.L Aceh
I 75% Rp27,500,00 1 Rp3,300,000 Rp2,700,000 I Sources: 1995 intcrcensai population Survq and 1999 Resource-user Survcycy
As the table shows, Manggamat appears to have the ability to provide higher rates of income to its residents. Furthemore, the difference in incomes in Manggamat compared to South Aceh and D.I. Aceh implies that it is much better able to provide income over and above levets in the two broader areas. One clue to this in the 1995 data set is that the 75% quartile statistic for South Aceh is higher than that for DL Aceh. This mems that somewhere in the Regency there are opportunities for higher sources of income; in al1 likelihood this may be the impact of broader-based CBFM-type activities, including
Manggamat, across the regency.
6.4.2 AIternative Bu ffer Zone Type: Bungara Oïl Palm Plantation
The Bungara Oil Palm Plantation is located in Langkat Regency, North Sumatra
Province, where it is operated by PT London Sumatra (LonSum). As Oil Palm plantations fiequently abut the Leuser Ecosystem, Bungara's inclusion here adds a bais of comparkon for the benefits provided by the CBFM system in Manggamat.
Plantation workers are recruited from local communities to work, and live, on-site.
Bungara uses two types of work crews, narnely Upkeep and Oii PaIm Harvesting. Each crew is overseen by a Crew Foreman. Typically the heavier harvesting crews are comprised of men (the average Oil Palm fiuit weighs about 25kg). Most of the labour for the upkeep crews, which ensure that pathways to the trees are kept clear of fallen debris and overgrown plants, are women hired on a daily piecework basis. In total, 356 people work at Bungara.
The collection and use of forest products at the plantation are resticted. AI1 activities are dictated by the work programs and supported by a clear chah of command.
There is very little to gather in these largely monoculture forests anyway, and PT LonSum has made efforts to provide the basic necessities to workers in order to maximize their productivity. This includes the provision of housing, use of fuel-burning stoves and electricity. Furthermore, each house is provided with a yard extending seven metres fiom the front and ten metres from the back for the farnily to plant vegetable gardens, etc.
Little naturai forest is found on the site, although PT LonSum does enforce a policy
117 of leaving natwal vegetation dong streams and riverbanks. Bamboo is grown in these small
patches and is used in maintenance activities. Plantation workers are not allowed to gather
from these small forests, although some small game hunting, most notably birds, does take
place. As the livelihoods of the workers depend on the salaries that they draw from their
employment with the plantation, confom-tyto plantation rules is very high; no forest-related
Uifractions have been reported from Bungara in the past year.
Estirnated revenues for Bungara in 1999 was Rp85.6 billion (CDN $17.1 million).
Benefits provided to the workers were in the form of cash and services. In terms of cash, worken stood to earn as much as Rp8,952,000 (CDN $1,790) in annual sdary and production bonuses. A MerRp5,638,000 (CDN $1,128) was earned in the form of housing, utilities and other seMces provided by PT LonSurn. TabIe 6.14 provides a breakdown of the benefits provided to Bungara plantation workers with Manggamat.
Table6.14. Annual Incornes in Manggamat Community Conservation Forest and Bungara Oii Palm Plantation n Rupiahs). Source Bungara Manggamat Cash Incorne: Maximum Eaming Potential Median Income 1. Annual Salaqc 3,024,000 2. Production Bonus: 4,200,000 3. Annual Bonus: 756,000 4. Idul Fitri Bonus: 252,000 5. Bi-weekly shopping 720,000 6. CBFM income: 9,703,860
Other Sources of incorne: Yes TOTAL CRTHINCOME: 9,703,860+
SeMce incomes: Rovided by PT LonSurn Provideci by In-home use Housing/Water/Medicai: 4,000,000 Rice Allowance: 1,638,000 Building materials and food: TOTAL SER WCE INCOME: TOTAL INCOME Som:Resource User Survcy, 1999. As show in the table, workers at Bungara appear to earn more than residents of
Manggarnat if the latter is restricted to CBFM activities. However, as CBFM activities form
only a part of most Manggamat househoId incomes, a median of households earn 48% of the
total income, then half of the residents of Manggarnat are able to earn as much as
Rp20,2 16,374 in total cash income. Furthemore, the ability to participate as part of the
CBFM system provides greater satisfaction and a sense of empowerment to the dlagers
who use it, as opposed to having their day-to-day routine dictated by the regimented work
program. On the flipside, work at the Oil Palm plantation is relatively stable, and workers
are somewhat protected from market fluctuations and manipulation, the likes of which have
impacted some Manggarnat CBFM products in the past year.
6.5 Enhancing Community Well-being
6.5.1 CBFM and Stress on the Ecosystem
Tropical Forests are identified by Costanza et al (1997) as one of the world's major biomes. However, as forests continue to be cut down, converted, or altered in any way, including through the implementation of CBFM activities, the value of services that can be provided by the forests decreases. Once the forest is removed it will likely never revert to its original state; chances are it will be converted to Dry-field Garden, n'ce paddies or rural residential use. As such, the economic gains that can, and are being made through extractive practices may be higher than the value of ecosystem services in the short-term. However, the loss of key ecosystem senrices in the long run far out-value the short-term gains of extraction, as well as increase the risks to human well-being.
6-52 Impacts on Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being
The research identified six ecosystem service-related events which commonly occur
Il9 in Manggamat. These are: Confiicts with WildIife, Diarrhea, Erosion, Floods, Forest Fires
and Malaria. Although these are events that may appear 'natural', they are frequently the
result of human activity, or at least amplified from their natural levels as a result thereoE
Either way, the fiequency of these events on the population of Manggamat reflects stress
upon the ecosystern, and affects its ability to provide services to the community This, in
turn, has direct impacts on the well-being of Manggamat residents.
6.5-2.1 Confiicts with Wildlife
Conflicts with wildiife occur as communities encroach on natural systems. These
conflicts range in Eequency and seriousness Eurn nighttime raids by pigs on household
gardens to villagers being eaten by tigers (which, by reports, results in at least one death
every five years). In Manggamat, 46.2% of resource users report having conflicts with
wildlife, mostly pigs raiding Dry-field Garden crops and Garden Forest.
6.5.2.2 Diarrhea
Dianrhea is an indicator of sanitary conditions around the desa. As most Manggamat residents use natural sources of water for consurnption and as a Iatrine, measuring incidences of diarrhea at the household also serves as an indicator of water quality. Diarrhea, which can be very dangerous in the hot tropics, affects 77.8% of the households in Manggamat.
6.5.2.3 Erosion
Erosion is closely associated with flooding, and carries two direct threats: landslides and loss of topsoil. Landslides, locally known as Longsor,that occur along riverbanks also impact the quality of local water supplies. Erosion is more evident on steep terrain, especially where vegetation with erosion-reducing root systems has been cleared away. This occurs in many Dry-field Garden areas in Manggamat where Nilam is growo; the small
120 plants provide Iittle to no soi1 conservation value. Unfortunately, a great deal of
Manggarnat's Nilam is cultivated on steep slopes. As a result, 35.9% of residents report having their worksite affected by erosion.
6.5.2-4 Floods
Flooding is a regular, natural occurrence throughout Sumatra. It occurs in the Leuser
Ecosystem during two annual rainy seasons (rnid-March to mid-May and mid-September to
Decernber). However, given the steep topography of the sites, the fiequency and maugnitude of floods are drastically arnplified by forest clearing This frequently occurs in the
Manggamat Forest as the hills surrounding the Huet River are very steep and quite susceptible to the phenornenon. Flooding affects 40.2% of the residents in Manggarnat-
6.5.2.5 Forest Fires
Forest fires and Indonesia have become synonymous in recent years. Although fires do occur naturally in the dry season, the finger of blame points primarily to timber concessionaires and slash-and-burn agrïculturists as the culpnts, although to different extents. Not onIy do these fires destroy natural forests at an alarming rate, but they also pose a significant health hazard to humans both in indonesia and abroad. Fires do occur in the
Manggarnat forest during land clearing activities, but these have not yet resulted in any large-scale forest fires. Fires do however, affect 6.0%. of the residents annually.
6.5.2.6 Malaria
Malarîa is common throughout Sumatra. AIthough it occurs naturally, the mosquito that cam-es the parasite breeds ~ppo~sticallyin pools of standing water, such as cesspools, garbage heaps and other poorly drained areas. Measm-ngoccurrences of malaria at the household Ievel adds insight into the sanitary conditions of the comrnunity. In
121 Manggamat, 55.6% of households report contracting malaria annually.
The relationship between resource extraction and the impacts on ecosystem services and well-being are not yet realized by the majonty of residents in Manggamat, even though they are having an affect on health in the community. Although CBFM activities are currently proving to be profitable in an economic sense, the true costs of these activities, in tems of impacts on ecosystem services and well-being in the cornrnunity, have largely been overlooked for the sake of short-term financial gain- As such, the fiequency of these events should be closely monitored in the future as a measure of sustainability of the CBFM system.
6.6 Summary
This chapter has showthat CBFM activities play a vital rote in providing benefit to the residents and economy of Manggamat. Almost a11 residents have an income associated with CBFM activities; some households are completely dependent upon them for their livelihoods. It is further estimated that CBFM activities contribute almost 50% of the total local cash econorny, as well as providing high levels of basic foodstuffs and building materials. Tt is also apparent that the contribution of CBFM to the Manggamat economy has enabled the residents of Manggamat to attain a Iifestyle that is superior to those in other rural areas in South Aceh and D.I. Aceh- The fact that the system is based on traditional Adat is a definite strength, making it a valid planning approach. Furthermore, its legal status provides the opening for enforcing Adat, which will be cmciaI to the success of the system.
As such, the CBFM is meeting the first two objectives of the Comrnunity Forest as a Buffer
Zone initiative (see LFA View 5):
Development and long-term commitrnent to a sustainable CBFM system; and
. Stabilizing or reducing the dependency on forest products fiom the site.
122 However, the system is still relatively new and has some Mllnerable points. The remoteness and lack of access to major centres make the local market for CBFM products vulnerabIe to manipulation by traders and middlemen There is a great deal of disparity in the distribution of CBFM income in terms of the beneficiaries and the types of activities which produce higher levels of income. Higher-level income generating activities invoIve unsustainable Ievels of Timber extraction, forest clearing and Dry-field Garden-style farming. Over-indulgence in these components of the CBFM system is putting stress on the ecosystem. This is already having effects on the ability of the ecosystem to provide se~ces to the community, with noticeable impacts on human welfare and health. As such, the
CBFM system is stniggling to meet the third objective of the Community Forest as a Buffer
Zone:
Enhancing the level of well-being to the local communities.
The next chapter examines this stress Mer. Specifïcally, examines the impacts of
CBFM activities on keystone and other significant species of wildlife in the Manggamat
Cornmunity Conservation Forest, towards an examination into the overall goal of the
Community Forest as a BaerZone initiative, which is to safeguard biodiversity. CETAPTER 7 - CBFM AND MAWI"I'G BIODIVERSiTY
The previous chapter showed how CBFM activities are an important source of
income for the community of Manggamat, contriiuting as much as 50% of the local cash
economy while providing household income beyond that of other rural areas in South Aceh
and D.I. Aceb However, at the sarne time it appears that stress is being put on the
ecosystem by these activities, which is having impact on the level of ecosystem services and
hurnan welfare- This chapter wiIl examine Ievels of stress on wildlife in the Manggamat
Community Conservation Forest, which as aBuffer Zone initiative of the Leuser Ecosystem,
has the overal goal (see LFA view 1) of
Safeguarding Biodiversity in the core conservation area.
As a transition zone between consurnption and conservation areas, the Community
Forest must also provide some measure of protection for biodiversity. This chapter describes
the level of protection provided for biodiversity, by examining the impacts of CBFM
activities on a suite of keystone and other significant species in each of the forest zones
implernented under the Manggamat CBFM system.
Frequency data for the suite of species were gathered by resource-users according
to forest zone as part of the Resource User Survey. These data are compared to baseline data
denved From a composite of four research stations located in relatively pristine forest
locations throughout the Leuser Ecosystem. The use of a composite ofresearch stations over the use of a single station lessens the influence of species concentration at any one station, and offers a more realistic basis to compare the level of these species throughout their individual ranges in the ecosystem. 7.1 Keystone and Other Significant Species
Through literature review and discussions with scientists with expertise in the Leuser region, a suite oftwelve keystone and other significant species in the Leuser Ecosystem was developed- LMU has identified four large mammals which it considers to be keystone species in the Leuser Ecosystem because of their significance in designating the required size of the area requiring protection. These are: Asian Elephant, Sumatran Tiger, Sumatran
Rhinoceros and 0ranguta.n. These species are rare, require large areas, and play a major role in the biological communities in which they occur as habitat rnodifiers, as dispersers of woody plants, or as predators that maintain mammal and bird diversity (Rijksen and
Griffiths, 1995). Strangling Fi g trees are also included as a keystone species because of the important role they play in providing essential staple-food to a wide vanety of wildlife, and through the modification of and provision of habitat (van Schaik, 1996). Three of the mammd species (Asian Elephant, Sumatran Tiger and Ormgutan) were incf uded in the suite of species to be used in the Resource-user Survey. The Sumatran Rhinoceros was omitted fiom the list as it is extremely rare, and very little data are available on its fiequency in the
Leuser Ecosystem. Strangling Fig was alsc included in the suite as a keystone species-
Other significant species were chosen based on their stahis and value as important fruiting trees, seed dispersers and pollinators for keystone fruiting species, or species which favor regenerating or disturbed environments- Each of the species in the suite has a historie range which includes the Manggarnat Community Conservation Forest and each of the four research stations that make up the composite. Emphasis was also placed on selecting species which were easily recognizable by survey participants. The complete list of species in the suite utitized in the Resource-user Survey is shown in Table 7.1.
125 At least 18 species of Strmgliug Fig are known to exist in the Leuser Ecosystem.
These trees begin life as a seed dropped by a bird or primate into the crown of a forest giant-
Over the years the fig puts down roots to the ground, which enlarge to form a strong latticework around the tnink of the host tree, eventually 'strangling' it to death, and leaving a scaffold of intertwined fig roots behind. The figs are especially important for wildiife when other food sources are scarce. Almost al1 of the primates, hornbills, pigeons and arboreal civets feed on the h*tin the crown, and pigs, mouse deer and partridge consume the fallen firuit on the jungle floor. However, in many cases strangling figs are seen as a pest by tirnber harvesters as they damage valuable timber trees.
The armored bit of wild Durian trees is eaten by many of the Iarger animais in the
Leuser Ecosystem, including the elephant, tiger, orangutan and sun bear. It also has a high commercial value for people, who cultivate it as a domestic species (Durio zibethinm), but also gather fiom the four wild species which are found in the Ecosystem. Mungo
Mangoes are another important source of nutrition for a variety of wildlife. They are also prized commerciaI1y by locals in Leuser, who cultivate Mmgfera indica as well as gather From the seven wild species found in the Ecosystem-
Raftun
Rattans, or Spiny Palms, are an important group of clirnbing planis, which provide food and cover for ground-dwelling wildlife. They produce strong stems, of unifom thickness sometimes up to 100 metres in length, and are highly valued in making fumiture- indonesia has some 350 species of rattans, however many of the furniture-grade rattan is now virtually extinct in and around the Ecosystem as a resuIt on large-scale coilecting between 1985-89, a pattern repeated elsewhere in Sumatra.
Oranguc an
The Orangutan is the ody "Great Ape" found in Asia. The Sumatran sub-species of the Orangutan is found only in the Leuser Ecosystem. They are the largest arbored mammals in the world; large males can weigh as rnuch as 90kg At present there are about
5,000 orangutans in the Leuser Ecosystem, however this population is under continuous threat as the major part of its diet is made up of fleshy fiuits found only in the lowland forests. These forests are most often targeted for exploitation by timber extraction.
Siamang
At 11 kg, the totally black Siarnang is the largest of the "Lesser Apes", Hylobatidae.
It possesses a naked throat sac that produces Ioud, reverberating booms when infiated during singing. As they announce their whereabouts each rnorning in this fashion, their voices carry over lkm to produce one of the most characteristic and memorable sounds of Leuser's
127 forests-
Long-tuiled Macaque
These primates are great opportunists and have done well by exploiting human settlements. niey are easily adaptable to a variety of environs, and are fiequentiy found close to human settlements. Macaques are gregarious, often found in groups of more than
20 individuals, and prefer to sleep in tree branches close to nvers. They are also sometimes considered a pest by locals for raiding crops.
Wird Pig
Wild pigs are found tbroughout most of the lowland forests but are most cornrnon around forest edges. As s result, they cause a great deal of damage to agriculture in areas where their main predator, the tiger, has been exterminated. Pigs are not stnctly herbivores, but also feed on camion.
Sumatran Tiger
The Sumatran sub-species of tiger is the last in Indonesia The Bali tiger became extinct in the 1940's and Iast Javan tiger was recorded in the early 1980's. The Sumatran tiger is now rare but can still be fond in most areas of the Leuser Ecosystem below 1,800m, where it seems to like hunting in disîurbed open habitats on forest edges where deer and pig are comon. By regulating the nurnbers of their major prey species (pigs, ungulates, and several other locally abundant species including macaques, ground squirrels, python and monitor lizards), tigers may prevent the local extinction of many birds and mammals whic h would othenvike be out-competed and indirectly maintain plant diversity by keeping densities of seedling browsers to levels that allow selective regeneration. Asian Efephant
The Surnatran sub-species of the Asian elephant is much smaller than the mainland races. Sumatra was famous among the earliest explorers for its large elephant population; during the Dutch colonial war against Aceh around the tum of the twentieth century, tame eiephants were used for construction labour. Aithough the species was still widespread until the 1960s, it is becoming increasingly scarce as a result of illegal hunting and displacement fiom its forested ranges. Current estimates pIace the elephant population in the Leuser
Ecosystem between 410 - 545 individuaIs- However, many people living close to the
Ecosystem consider elephants as nuisance animals.
Large FIyÎng Fox
Typical fiuit bats are usually Iarger, less agile and have larger eyes than their insect- eating relatives. Close scrutiny of their morphology reveals that they are in fact more closely related to the primates. The Large Flying Fox is the most spectacular of these, with a wingspan of approximately one metre. They are gregarious, roosting in flocks of hundreds of individuals hanging exposed in the canopy of a large tree during the day. At dusk they leave the roost in small groups in search of miit trees. The flock may occupy a roost for up to a month before moving to another roost dong a fixed route that follows the fruiting seasons in different parts of the Ecosystem.
Homb ills
Hombills are among the most spectacular birds in the rainforest. Al1 the western
Indo-rnalayan species are present in the Leuser Ecosystem. They are among the largest of flying birds in the world, and many species make a distinct Ioud chugging sound as they fly.
In the case of HornbiLls, no one species has been targeted fiom the Iist of nine possibilities
129 as overlap betweeri species and localsrability to differentiate one species from the other may
provide complications. As seed dispersal is a characteristic of all Hombill species, it seems
appropriate that they be combined into a singie Hombill category.
7.1.1 The Resource-user Survey
This species suite List was included in the survey to assess the frequency of the
species as observed by resource users in the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest
This format was also applied to the research stations in the formulation of a composite to
establish baseline data. The survey used an ordinal scale for respondents to indicate the
frequency with which they encountered each of the species in the forest zones they used for
CBFM activities over the pst calendar year. Encounters were not limitedto direct sightings, but also included hearing calls, or corn-ng upon tracks or scats which indicated that the species had recently been in the vicinity. The scale used the following values:
O = Never encountered in the past year: 0% of the time;
1 = Rarely encountered in the past year: around 25% of the time;
2 = Occasionally encountered in the past year: around 50% orthe time;
3 = Usually encountered in the past year: around 75% of the time; and
4 = Always encountered in the past year: around 100% of the tirne.
This technique was quite successful, generating a total of 3,412 records by respondents. These records were then assembled into a Quattro Pro spreadsheet and analyzed using SPSS. The following two sections will discuss the results of the survey in the research station composite and the forest use zones of Manggamat
7.2 Researcb Station Composite
Four research stations are operated by LWin the Leuser Ecosystem (see Map 7.1).
130 h3 X, LEUSER ECOS~STEM PROGNCIAL CAPITAL N \
a ARE4S OF HIGH BIODIVERSITY 0 TOWN II IN THE LEUSER ECOSYSTEM - PROVINCIAL BORDER ---.,. . RESEARCh STATION - REGENCY BORDER O 1 OOW --I .-- - -- ._ ------.- - - -. . - -. . . .-. _ - . , - - 4 .*_ ... - > - . . ..- Ketambe Research Station, located in the heart of Gunung Leuser National Park in Aceh
Tenggara Regency is the oldest of the four stations, having been established in 1970 as a rehabilitation centre for illegaIly seized orangutans. The station no longer maintains this function, focusing instead on ecological research. The three other research stations are relatively new, and are located at Suaq (South Aceh), and Bengkung (Aceh Tenggara) and
Seroya (South Aceh).
Ail of the research stations receive direction Erom the Research, Monitoring and
Information Division @MD)ofthe Leuser Management Unit. Each station is ouffitted with a Station Manager and local support staff, many of whom corne fkom local communities.
They are also frequented by a variety of füll-time researchers and short-term visitors. On- site facilities are typicalty located on a 50 metre by 150 metre clearing, and comprise one to eleven buildings designed in a fashion as to not put stress on the local environment (Le. toilets with septic tanks, LPG for cooking and water purnped from groundwater).
Understandably, no unauthorized consurnptive activities are allowed within the area that make up the research stations, or in the forest surrounding it. Rules regarding collection of forest products are strictly enforced by research station staE On some occasions, locals enter the forest around the research station to hunt birds and Sarnbar deer, as well as to collect rattan and Gaharu (Aquilaria sp) trees used in the manufacture of incense.
Extraction is minimal; LMU reports observing these intrusions less than five times a year.
The composite of research stations represents conditions found in relatively pristine rainforest conditions throughout the Leuser Ecosystem in South Aceh as well as neighboring
Aceh Tenggara Regency. Although Bengkung and Seroya are located on former logging concessions, the main body of forest at these two sites remains largely untouched. Al1
132 stations are located within the core conservation area of the Leuser Ecosystem, in forest areas similar to Manggamat The logic behind using them as a composite (rather than treating them individually or simply choosing the station closest to Manggamat) hopes to reduce any effects of high or low Iocal concentrations of individual species in the suite. The idea is to get a picture of the average fiequency of these species across their ranges in the
Leuser Ecosystem, which would provide a redistic basis to compare more intensively-used sites such as Manggamat.
7.2.1 Species Suite in the Research Station Composite: Establishing the Baseline.
Data were assembled from LMU staff and researchers who came to a consensus on the fiequency of species in the suite at each of the research stations. These are presented In
Table 7.2 for each of the stations, as well as the average fiequency forming the composite of the four sites (Le. the surn of the species' fiequency divided by four). Note that some totaIs may not add up exactIy due to rounding.
Orangutan 2 3 2 4 1 2.8 T Siarnang - 2 2 2 2 2.0
! Long-tailed macaque 3 4 2 4 3.3 Wild Pig 3 4 3 3 3 -3 Sumatran tiger 2 2 1 2 1.8 Asian elephant 3 O 1 O 1.O Large Fiying Fox 2 3 2 2 2.3 Hombills 4 4 4 4 4-0
27 - Total I 30 34 28 I 29.8 Average Score 1 2.5 2.8 1 2.3 1 2.3 1 2.5 1
The table shows that the four sites exhibit similar fiequencies of the species suite, although there is some variety in the composition of the suite among the sites. This is due to the uneven distn'bution of species throughout the Leuser Ecosystem, a phenornenon typical of large-scale ecosystems. However, the average score, as shown in the bottom row, indicates that the sites are Fairly similar to the composite average. Of the four sites, Ketarnbe appears to be the most prolific in terms of species in the suite with a high score of 34 out of a possible 48, or a rnean of 2.8 per species- This is even more notable as elephants have not been recorded there in the past year. Conversely, Seroya has the Ioweçt total score, 27 out of 48, but has recorded each of the species in the past year. The two rernaining sites,
Bengkung and Suaq, have similar scores of 30 and 28 respectively, aIthough elephants were not recorded in the latter. The lack of elephant records at Ketarnbe and Suaq in the past year show the importance of maintaining migration corndors for the species. Although both sites are within histonc elephant range in the Leuser Ecosystem, local populations have diffculty accessing these sites as the links between them and other sites that herds use throughout the year have been damaged through logging and development.
All in all, the research stations remain in relatively pristine condition. Using the research station composite provides a realiçtic baseline to compare species in the suite with other forest uses in the Leuser Ecosystem. The next section uses this approach to measure the fiequency ofkeystone and other significant species in the forest zones of the Manggamat
CBFM system.
7.3 Species in the Forest Zones of the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest
Species data gathered through the Resource User Survey are presented according to forest zone type in Table 7.3. As the table shows, the average score rises as the Forest Zone moves closer to a state similar to the research station composite. Al1 animal species ïncrease in score as the scale moves towards the composite. The only two species which deviate from this pattern are Durian and Mango, which have their greatest concentration in Garden Forest. This is expected as Garden Forest is the primary source of miit in Manggamat, contributing92.2% oftotal miit sales for the system. As such, these trees were likely either planted fiom domestic stock or wild trees which have been deliberately left in place. The other two plant species, Strangling Fig and Rattan, are of less commercial value than hittrees, the former providing inferior wood and inedible fniit, while the latter, although an economically valuable species, takes too long to grow to rnake cultivation worthwhile. Figure 7.1 illustrates the gradua1 increase in average score between zones. Figure 7.1. Average Species Score by Forest Zona I
y-field Garden Trad. Village Foi-est Plrotection Forest Garden Forest Comrnunity Forest Station Compa
Although the average score rises as the forest zone gets closer to a pristine state, the rise in the scores between zones is not in even increments. AIthough the final three coiurnns are almost equal, the est three columns, representing Dry-field Garden, Garden Forest and
Traditional Village Forest show greater disparity, A first guess that the scores would be inversely proportional to the income of that forest type would be incorrect; Traditional
Village Forest produces the highest CBFM income of any of the forest zones.
Upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that the difference in these scores is due to the level of timber extraction that is being conducted in the zones. Timber is the largest source of income in the Manggamat CBFM systern at around Rp45.7 billion (CDN
$9.13 million), and 88.7% of this total cornes fiorn Traditional Village Forest. Timber extraction is not conducted in Dry-field Garden as there are no trees to cut down, is of
136 srna1ler value in Garden Forest as most timber trees have been cut dom and replaced with
fruit trees, is expanding in Comrnunity Forest as trees are becorning fewer and fewer in
Traditional Village Foresf and is not permitted in Protection Forest- This line of logic also
explains why the average score in Community Forest is less than Protection Forest, as timber
extraction has now begun to impact wildlife populations in Community Forest.
7.4 Summary
Once again the sustainability of the CBFM system in Manggamat is threatened by the over-extraction of timber in Traditional Village Forest. This time however, it is keystone and other significant species of wildlife which are behg aEected- As tirnber extraction is the precursor to Garden Forest and Dry-field Garden, expansion of the activity fùrther into
Traditional Village Forest and Comrnunity Forest will drarnatically impact upon wiidlife species in the Manggamat Comrnunity Conservation Forest-
Overall, the Community Forest is largely meeting its goal of sustaining biodiversity in the core conservation area as levels of keystone and other significant species in
Comrnuni~Forest and Protection Forest are at levels comparable to the research station composite. However, the long-term sustainability of this goal is at risk, as IeveIs of timber extraction in Traditional Village Forest are forcing it to expand and impact upon timber stocks in Community Forest. As such, the curent acceptable level of species protection will
Iikely not be maintained if timber e-xtractionis allowed to continue in its present fom.
This chapter marks the end of the research component of the thesis. The next chapter will present discuss the findings of the research and draw conclusions as to the effectiveness of CBFM in attaining its goals and objectives. It will also provide recommendations on the future direction of the CBFM system in Manggarnat and areas for continued research. 137 CEAPTER 8 - SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND REZOMMENDATIONS
This chapter provides discussion on the fïndings of the research. In particular, it
provides an overall sunuri_ary of the research findings and conclusions as to the effectiveness
of the CBFM system in Manggarnat in attaining its goals and objectives as a bufTer zone
initiative in the Leuser Ecosystem. It also provides recommendations on improvements to
the system, including one possible scenario for reducing tirnber extraction as a pre-ernptive
mesure to strengthen the sustainability of the CBFM system, in conclusion, the chapter
identifies areas for hther research in the field, and closing reflections by the researcher.
8.1 Summary of the Research Findings
The research was conducted with the goal of examinhg the relationship between
keystone and other significant species of wildlife and sociai benefit in a variety of forest
zones, within the context of a Community-based Forest Management (CBFM) system. The
research was prescribed to address the question of whether CBFM can serve the dual
function of safeguarding biodiversity while providing for the needs of Iocal communities.
Through the literature review, it was shown that tropical forests are important in their
ability to protect genetic diversity QUCN l996,1997), as weIl as provide for the livelihoods of rurai comrnunities (WCED, 1987). However, these forests are quickly disappearing, and that cornrnunity participation for managing these areas is a critical component in ensuring them into the firme (WCFSD, 1999). The rnost recent mode1 being used to apply this approach is Integrated Conservation Development Projects (ICDP). Wind (1991) states that one of the shortcomings of many ICDPs in undertaking baer zone initiatives around protected areas is the lack of clearly-defined objectives which enable them to relieve pressure fiom conservation areas. The literature cited reveals that prioriîy in ICDPs should
138 be placed on maintaining ecological integrity both in the core conservation area and adjacent
buffer zones. mer objectives, such as increasing the livelihoods of local people or
providing alternatives to them should be considered as secondary to the principle objective
of maintaining ecological integrity-
Even with a clear emphasis on maintaining ecological integrity over the provision of social benefits, the nature ofbuffer zones and ICDP dictates that the cooperation of local communities be enlisted in order to be effective- Furthemore, the literature cited reveals that conservation cannot succeed unless it is linked to economic opportunities and investments targeted at those whose pursuit of livelihood threatens the viability of the conservation area. me Biodiversis,PZun for Inrionesia (BAPPENAS, 1993) provides clear support for CBFM as one of the means whereby comrnunities can play a critical role in the
ICDP process, especially in the planning and management of forested buffer zone areas.
Sustainable Development was shown to be the predominant Development theory, as is demonstrated through the cooperation of state and commwnity in achieving defined social goals towards which development is based. Pursuit of these goals is enacted by distinct policy frameworks implemented through two planning approaches: a 'top-down' approach applied by the date and a 'bottom-up' approach applied by the Manggamat Comrnunityty
This 'top-down' approach to managing follows the Social Reforrn planning theory as put fonvard by Friedman (1987). However, in the manner it is being applied, it also provides an opening for 'bottom-up' planning vis-à-vis the use of CBFM as a practical management application. Field research investigated the viability of CBFM, through the examination of the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest, a 12,000 hectare forest block located in South Aceh Regency on the island of Sumatra in Indonesia. Field research
139 was undertaken in Manggamat with the support of the Leuser Management Unit and
financid assistance fiom the CIDA Awards Program for Canadians fiom May to September,
1999.
The CBFM approach was shown to be a viable planning initiative, with many
parallels to contemporary Ontario planning processes. The CBFM mode1 in Manggamat
comprises three integrated components: Adat, or traditional law, which serves as a Iegally-
binding "Officia1 Plan" that provides the vision and direction for forest use; five Forest
Zones, which serve as the '2oning By-la< in providing structure and practicality in
administering Adat; and CBFM ActMfies, which abide by Adat and the Forest Zones to
make the system corne to Iife, Adat in Manggamat was fomed by centuries of Social
Learning, resulting fkom the adaptation of successful short-tem coping mechanisms into
long-terrn adaptive strategies at the cornmunity level. The Manggarnat CBFM model in its
current fom is relatively new, having been fomally adopted in November 1998. As such
it is still vulnerable to some manipulation and to externai threats, most notabIy pnce fixing by unscmpulous middlemen and illegal logging. However, it is a dynamic model,
empowered by the framework and legal basis to address these shortcornings.
CBFM plays a vital role in providing benefit to the residents and economy of
Manggamat. Two types of benefits are generated through the extraction of forest products:
those for direct consumption by the household and those harvested for sale andlor trade.
Almost dl households in Manggamat have an incorne associated with CBFM and some households are completely dependent upon them. It is estirnated that dmost 50% ofthe total local cash economy is denved fi-om forest products, as well as the provision of many basic
foodstuffs and building materials. Ln total, the CBFM system provides Manggamat with a
140 total estimated annual benefit of almost Rp 80 billion (CDN $16 million), comprised of Rp
17.2 billion (CDN $3.5 million) used in the household and Rp 62.7 billion (CDN $12.5
million) in commodities that are either sold or traded However, this income is not evenly
distriibuted, nor is it sustainable at the higher end of the spectrum. This is because about
11% of the resource-users in Manggamat over-extract timber for sale frorn two of the Forest
Zones, namely fiom Traditional Village Forest (Hutun Adut Desa) and Cornmunity Forest
(Hutan Kemukimam).
Furthemore, excess timber extraction is stressing the ecosystem's ability to provide
service to people in Manggamat. The well-being of the community is being flected by
ecosystem-related events such as conflicts with wilcilife, diarrhea, erosion, floods, forest fies
and malaria, the effects of which are being arnplified by the stress placed on the ecosystem.
Aithough the benefits generated fiom CBFM has enabled the residents of Manggamat to
attaLn a lifestyle that is in many ways superior to those in the other rural areas of south AceEi
Regency and the province of DL Aceh, it is coming at the expense of ecosystem services and human well-being.
The CBFM systern is currently sustaining keystone and other significant species throughout most of the MAnggamat Cornrnunity Conservation Forest at levels comparable to research stations located in pristine sites in the Leuser Ecosystem. The research shows that levels of these species increase as (evels ofcertain CBFM activities, most notably timber extraction and Dry-field Garden (Ladarzg) related activities, decrease. The Traditional
Village Forest zone is the critical interface, where species levek fall as a result of first contact with extensive tirnber extraction. In the Community Forest zone, where Iess timber extraction has been conducted, there are significantly higher levels of species. In the
141 Protection Forest zone (Hutan LNidzing), where timber extraction is prohibited but some
environrnentally-f+ïendIy activities take place, species levels are almost equaI to those of the
research stations.
From a planning perspective, the research shows that neither the Social Reform or
the Social Leaming approach acting alone would be sunicient in scope to manage the buffer
zone around the Leuser Ecosystem, but that an approach uniQing the two can succeed.
CBFM, which is developedthrough Social Leaming, makes a major contribution as a viable
management strategy. This is consistent with the assumptions of KDPs as described in the
literature review-
8.2 Conclusions on the Effectiveness of CBFM as a Buffer Zone Initiative
8.2.1 Reaching the Goal: Safeguarding Biodiversity in the Core Conservation Ares.
The overall goal of the CBFM as a BuEer Zone initiative in Manggamat is to
safeguard biodiversity in the core conservation area of the Leuser Ecosystem. This was
initially presented in View 1 ofthe Logical Framework Analysis in Chapter 3. The ïndicator
used in measuring this goal is the protection of a suite of keystone and other significant
species in the five Forest Zones in the Manggamat CBFM system. As shown in Chapter 7,
the CBFM system in Manggamat is currently meeting its goal as a Buf5er Zone initiative by
maintaining keystone and other significant species at levels comparable to those found in
more pristine sites. Of the five forest zones used in the Manggamat system, Protection
Forest and Cornmunity Forest are very close to levels of protection aEorded to wildlife
species as the four research centres in the Leuser Ecosystem. However, as human activity
intensifies in the form of CBFM activities these levels of protection drop significantIy.
Traditional Village Forest, Garden Forest and Dry-field Garden, while still providing some
142 measure of protection for these keystone and other significant species, provide substantially
less ttian the other two groupings.
One might consider the current situation as ideal; human activities and areas of high
biodiversity are somewhat separated, or buffered, fiom each other by a strip of forest which
decreases in use intensification as it approaches the core conservation are& However, this
assumption reveals one of the shortcomings of the system: the sustainability of timber
extraction in Traditional Village Forest. The research shows that levels of timber extraction
in Traditional Village Forest are not sustainable. The indicator of this is the fact that timber
extraction is now being carried out in Community Forest. According to Adat, extraction of
any resource f?om this zone is prohibited unless that resource is no longer present in the
resource-users home Traditional Village Forest- It can therefore be assumed that if timber
extraction were to be continued at the same rate in Community Forest as it has been in
Traditional Village Forest, then the resource would soon be exhausted there too.
However, the research also shows that almost al1 ofthe timber, about 77%, extracted
fkom Manggamat, is soId or traded for profit by a minority of resource users, about 11 percent. Most of this timber is emacted fiom Traditional VilIage Forest. A11 of the timber extracted fiorn Cornmunity Forest is currently being sold As a result, the long-tem goal of the CBLWsystem is at risk. In order to sustain keystone and other significant species at current levels in Community Forest it is critical that this practice be halted
8.2.2 Meeting the Objectives: the Benefits of CBFM in Manggamat
The three objectives of the CBFM mode1 revolve around the sustainability of the system in Manggamat, and revolve around the consumption of forest products to provide benefits to resource-users in the community. These were initially presented in View 5 of the
143 Logical Framework Analysis in Chapter 3. The level of success in meeting the individual
objectives of the CBFM system as a Buffer Zone are discussed as follows:
Objective 1: Development and hg-term-commifvtenî to a sustainable CWMsystem.
The research shows that CBFM activities play an important roie in the comrnunity
of Manggamat. Al1 residents of the comrnunity benefit in some way fiom the exploitation
of forest products; 92.4% of the households extract directly fiom the forest. The remaining
7.6% also use forest products, although they do not extract directly. Based on the research,
forest products account for almost Rp80 billion (CDN $16 million) annually, which is split
between products used in the home (2 1-5%) and those sold or traded (78.5%).
The research argues that CBFM activities are the primary source of income and
employment in the local economy. On average, resource users spend more than half of their
working hours and the rnajority of working days per week conducting activities in the forest.
The remainder of incorne and work time is likely allocated to other consumption activities,
notably fishing and rice cultivation.
The research shows that resource users prefer to use areas close to their home in
order to cut domon travel time and maximize the working day. Most of the resource-users
exploit areas that are within 2.5 kilometres of their home. However, they will travel greater
distances than this to reach their work sites, and they tend to spend longer hours,
occasionally staying for perîods of a few days or even weeks, to rnaximize the hours on-site
at distances greater thm five kilometres. The result is an intensive use area ranging fiom
the communities to about 2-5 km inland, with merintensive use located along the major waterways in the area. Typically, intensive use along the watenvays is restricted to low-
lying areas, although some cultivation does take place on steep riverbanks and hillsides.
144 The CBFM system in Manggamat is quite extensive, comprising 17 extractive
activities- No one resource-user conducts dl of the activities, but al1 users conduct more
than one- Activities are conducted to provide for the day-to-day needs of the household,
such as collecting firewood and certain foodrmffs, as well as for cash crops both cuItivated
(such as Candlenut andNilam) and extracteci nom wild stock (such as Tirnber and Hunting).
The diversity of the forest product porîfolio provides stability to the system, which
contributes to sustainability in the long m. The research shows that the leveZ of benefits
derived fiom the CBFM system are extensive, and provide a level of income above those at
the Kabupaten and Provincial level. They also appear to contribute to a level of income that
is above those available to workers in alternative buffer zone initiatives, notably Oil Palm
plantations, which also provide far less protection for keystone and oîher significanî species and biodiversity.
The present CBFM system in Manggamat developed over a long penod of time, and continues to change. As certain cornmodities become more important in terms ofthe hcome they generate through saies, they become more and more susceptible to larger market forces.
However, for the most part the community of Manggamat demonstrates that it is committed to this system, and with the proper application of Adat that it be sustainable into the future.
As such, the CBFM system in Manggamat is meeting its first objective.
Objective 2.- StabiIizing or reducing the belof dependency onforestproduclsfio~ the site.
The research shows that while CBFM activities make up a great deal of the local economy, the residents of Manggamat are nearly, but not completely, dependent upon forest products in providing for their livelihoods. CBFM products contniute 48% of the income for half of the households in the cornrnunity. One-quarter of Manggamat's households
145 derive 75% of their incorne fiom CBFM activities, and threequarters of the households
denve at least 35% of their income fiom CBFM activities. In total, it is estimated that just
over half of the cash economy in Manggamat is generated through CBFM activities.
Although this may appear to indicate a leve1 of dependency on forest products, it
should also be noted that most of this income is derived through the sale of products rather than their use in the home, For the most part this results in disposable income that is not critical to the 1iveIihoods of the community, and also creates disparity in incorne arnong
users. The level of disposable income derived £rom the over-exploitation of forest products couid be reduced wïthout undue effects on the rnajorïty of residents in the community.
Currently, the level of dependency on forest products in Manggamat for use in the home and rnaintaining a reasonable level of cash income (as compared to Regency-level incornes,
Provincial-level incomes and incomes available in alternative buf3er zone alternatives) is acceptable, but the dependency on the same as a source of excess disposable income is not.
As such, the CBFM system in Manggamat is currently meeting it second objective, albeit with some concerns.
Objective 3: Enhancing the belof well-being of the local communifzes.
The research indicates that the ecosystem in Manggamat is expenencing measurable levels of stress which cmbe linked to CBFM activities. This stress is affecting the ability of the ecosystem to provide seMces to the comrnunity, which in turn impacts upon hwnan well-being in the comrnunity. Although there are no baseline data to compare with, the high incidences of confiicts with wildlife, diarrhea, erosion, floods, forest fires or malaria as descri3ed by residents of Manggamat lead the researcher to believe that the desire for short- term gains to be had by exploiting forest products are surpaçsing the importance of
146 ecosystem seMces and human well-being Furthemore, it is likely that the relationship
between over-extraction and well-being is not clearly understood by most of Manggamat's
residents. Ifthis knowledge were more widely available there may be 2 shifi in priority. As
a resdt, the CBFM system in Manggamat is not meeting its thïrd objective, dthough it does
provide the bais for at least one recommendation ta improve the system.
8.3 Recommendations
The resuits and conclusions presented in this report have enabled the researcher to
develop three general recommendations that may assist in ensirring the Manggamat
Cornrnunity Conservation Forest as a viable BufYer Zone initiative, This section will outline
the recommendations, includïng their rationale, as well as guidelines for the two prirnary
players in the scenario, the Manggamat Comrnunity and the Leuser Management Unit, in
implementing these recommendations. These recornmendations are consistent with much
broader policy interventions suggested by the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable
Development (WCFSD, 1999: 1 B),and are as follows:
Reduce the level of timber extraction for sale;
Develop external markets for non-timber forest products; and
hcrease awareness ofthe links between conservation and human welfare, equity and
sustainability.
8.3.1 Reduce the level of timber extraction for sale
The over-extraction of timber for sale fiom Traditional Village Forest and recently fiom Cornrnunity Forest poses the greatest threat to the sustainability of the CBFM system in Manggamat. The research shows that this practice at its current rate is unsustainable, and is impacting the system in two ways: by exhausting the resource base on which the people 147 of Manggamat are dependent for local building materials, and by exhausting the forests
which are essential to sustaining keystone and other significanî species. At its curent rate,
it is altogether likely that the resource will eventually become exhausted in al1 Traditional
Village Forest, as well as in the Community Forest-
Etiminating, or at the very least reducing, the level of timber harvesting for sale
would impact upon but not cause niin to the local economy. Ifthe harvest of timber for sale
was completeiy elimlnated ftom the CBFM system, it would result in a toss of just over
Rp35 billion (CDN $7 million) to the local economy, or roughly 43.8% of the total provided
by CBFM. However, only about Il percent of the residents of Manggamat conduct the
practice, and as a result the average incomes of these households are substantia1ly higher
than the incomes of the households who do not seIl timber. Ifthe income Eiom timber sales
where to be removed from the households who sel1 it, they would be lefi with an incorne
more in-line with the rest of the cornmunity, and still above the average incorne of the
Kabupaten and the Province. This wodd furtber reduce the disparity of wealth, and would
do a great deal to address the fair distribution of equity in the community which is one of the guiding principles of Adat
Second, eliminating or reducing the harvest of timber for sale would not deny access to the resource for use in building materials, ES the researcher feels that this practice cmbe camed on sustainably. The indicator from the research to support this is the fact that al1 timber used for local building materials is drawn fiom Traditional Village Forest and Garden
Forest, and has not had to expand to Commmity Forest due to lack of resources.
Timber extraction and Traditional Village Forest appear to be the keys to the sustainability of the CBFM system in Manggamat. Traditional Village Forest is the cntical
148 interface between intensive CBFM activities and wildlife habitat Timber extraction ts the key activity in determining the quality of habitat available to keystone and other significant species. It is essential to the long-term success of the CBFM system that timber extraction in Traditional Village Forest become a sustainable activity and that it not to expand at its current unsustainable level-
8.3.1.1 Role of the Manggamat Community
Of the three recommendations made here, reducing the level of timber harvesting for sale poses the greatest challenge. If the Adat leaders make the decision to restnct or reduce the level of timber harvest for sale, it is important that al1 harvesting of timber be closely monitored to ensure that it is in fact used locally. It is also important that they clearly convey the logic for restricting the practice, especially the point that it is in the best interests of the CBFM system and the community at large. As only a small minority of the residents conduct the practice, support for the motion in the community is likely to be widespread.
The researcher is aware that there cwrently are tensions between c%mber-sellers" and "non- sellers" in the cornmunity due to the former's activities, which are Iargely fkowned upon.
However, it is suggested that the Adat leaders not use the decision as a way of laying blarne, rather express it as a way of benefitting the community as a whole and lending credibility to the Manggamat CBFM system
8.3.1.2 Role of the Leuser Management Unit
LMU can support the recommendation in two ways. First, they can provide the scientific expertise in detemining a sustainable rate of harvest in Traditional Village Forest
This will allow Adat leaders to decide how much each resource user is allowed to harvest, and will determine the level of timber extraction for sale. Second, LMU can assist in
149 rnonito~grates of harvest and supporting Adat leaders in enforcing regulations, to the point
of prosecution if necessary. This is aimed primarily at securing the Manggamat Community
Forest from extemal threats such as timber poachers and unscrupulouç middiemen.
8.3.2 Develop External Markets for Non-timber Forest Products
The diverse portfolio of CBFM activities in Manggamat produces a plethora of
products, many of which are gathered in a sustainable marner and provide substantial
incornes. The best example of this is fruit, which yields approximately Rp 5.17 billion
(CDN $1.03 million) annually to the local economy. However, many of the other
c'enVir~nmentally-fiendly"products such as Damar resin, Honey and Krueng resin have not
developed large enough markets to make them serious alternatives to timber extraction and
Dry-field Garden-based activities (which require the clearing of naturd forest). In order to bring these types of activities to the forefront of the CBFM economy, it would be beneficial to examine the market potential for these cornrnodities beyond Manggamat, and if they do appear viable, then develop a means by which locds can access these markets directly in order to maximize benefits fiom their products. While the researcher was in the field, the need to have clear access to outside markets was fiequently mentioned as a b-er to the go* of support for these products.
8.3.2.1 Role of the Manggamat Community
In order to enact this recornrnendation, it is necessary that some sort of Iocally- controlled marketing cooperative be established that provides incentives for resource-users to make Damar, Honey and Krueng a greater part oftheir use portfolio. This would best be overseen by YPPAMAM, as it the best-organized local NGO with numerous ties to the resource-user cornmuni@, and has the capacity to fill the position. Transparency is an issue;
150 measures must be taken to ensure the resource users that they are receiving the actual market price for their goods, and that it is not in some way being manipulated through the cooperative. While it is possible, and probabty preferable, that the marketing cooperative could deal with al1 CBFM products, the incentive for focusing on eovironmentally-friendly products may be through a scaled tariff for transport of products to market, with either no tas, or a relatively low tariff, being applied to environmentally-f7iendly products.
8.3.2.2 Role of the Leuser Management Unit
LMU cm support the recommendation in two ways. The first is in the form of a thorough market analysis for these products, including an economic viability analysis, marketing stmtegy and logistical plan. The second is in the form of assistance to the
Manggamat marketing cooperative in becoming established in the community and provide training to cooperative members. LMU may also consider subsidizing the transport of enviro nrnentally-friendiy products until the cooperative becomes self-sustaining.
8.3.3 Increase Awareness of the Links Between Conservation and Human Weil-being,
Equity and Susbinability.
The research shows that there is a risk to human well-being in the community through the over-exploitation of forest products through CBFU Furthemore, the over- harvesting of thber for sale has irnpacted upon the sustainability of the system and created disparity in the community. While the research indicates that these impacts are cornrnon knowledge throughout the comrnunity, the link between these problems and the unwise extraction of forest products and use of ecosystem services rnay not be clearly understood by all. lii order to address this, it would be beneficial to conduct an awareness program in the community to increase the level of understanding between unwise resource consumption
151 and the impacts upon human welfare. This program should also clarifjr the relationship between applying the p~ciplesof Adat in making the CBFM system in Manggamat sustainable and fair to all resource users in the community. Showing how people will benefit fiom wise use of the system will promote wise use throughout the community, and hopefully wilI reduce the impacts rnentioned above- Previous studies by LMU have shown that the human-environment relationship is more highly valued and more easily understood by residents in the area than most other principles of conservation areas, such as maintaining biodiversity.
833.1 Role of the Manggamat Community
The population in Manggamat is widespread and diverse in terms of the interests it represents. In order to act on this recommendation, it would be important to organke the various interest groups in the community, especiaily those that aïe directly involved in
CBFM activities, in order to participate in awareness presentations and workshops.
However, as al1 members of the community are dependent on the services provided by the local ecosystem, especially where the use of water is concerned, it would also be valuable to have non-resource user groups pwticipate.
8.3.3.2 Role of the Leuser Management Unit
Once again, there are two ways in which LMU can forward this recommendation.
The first is to develop a program of awareness presentations to be used in the cornrnunity, focusing on the human-ecosystem relationship as the entry point. Where possible, the p~esentationsshould have a local flavor, possibly through the use of local theairical groups or media which are distinctly Acehnese. LMU should work together with the community to identiq potential groups and stories fiom within Manggamat that could be used.
152 The second way in which LMU codd contriiute to this recommendation would be
to conduct extension programs in the field on techniques to reduce the fkequency of the six
environment-related events identified by the cornmunity (Conflict with Wildlife, Diarrhea,
Erosion, Floods, Forest Fires and Malaria). Not only would this contnbute to well-being in
the community, but would also assist in the long-term sustainability of the CBFM system
by promoting consumptive practices that are based on welI-being rather than on financial
gain.
8.4 Areas for Further Research
Based on the recommendations above, there are a number of areas in which mer
research would be required. Where possible, cooperative efforts between LMU research
staff and representatives of the Manggamat resource-user community should be undertaken
in order to exchange knowledge between the two organizations and provide a sense of
ownership ofthe programme in the community. The recommeuded research undertakings
incl ude the following:
1. Detennine a sustainable rate of tirnber harvest fiom Traditional Village Forest;
2. Conduct a market analysis and feasïbility study for the export of Non-timber Forest
Products fiom the Manggamat area to larger markets in Medan and elsewhere;
3. Explore appropriate media and content for developing a two-tiered extension
pr0gra.m in Manggamat focusing on wise resource use and field techniques for
executing CBFM activïties.
8.5 Closing Reflections
These closing reflections represent the close of a decade-long journey that has led the researcher to this happy conclusion: People and Wildlife can live together. The curiosity
153 that led to this research was based on the desire to help people living in andaround protected
areas in Indonesia, and elsewhere for that matter, to do so in a way that they could live a
decent life while having a minimum of impact upon the local environment. Comrnunities
which live under these conditions are always in tenirous situations; the rigors of day-to-day
life are compounded by limitations and unfamiliar systems which largely interfere with their
ability to have a 'normal' life. The researcher is familiar with the stress that this cm place
on a community, on a family, and on each and every one of us after having lived in rural villages in and around Indonesian protected areas fiom 1991 to 1994.
Coming nom a conservation background, it was always easy to place conservation needs above those in the community, and in Canada this is easily justified as the needs of people are not so closely tied to the land we live on. However, in Indonesia, and especially in places like Taman Jaya, Bukit Tekenang and Manggamat it is quite a different story.
People there need the land; they are inseparable fiorn it. In one way or another we al1 are; but sometimes it takes an experience such as this research to remind and cornfort us. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arnstein, S.R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Partici~ationAmerican Instïtute of Planners,
Vol. 35(4): 216-224.
Barber, Charles Victor, S. Afiff and A. Purnomo. 1995. Tieer Bv The Tail? Reorienting
Biodiversitv Conservation and Development in Indonesia. World Resources Institute.
Washington, D.C. November 1995. 6 1 pages.
Biro Pusat Statistik. 1996. Po~dationof Daerah Tstimewa Aceh: Results of the 1995
Intercensal Po~ulationSurvev. Series S2.O 1. Central Bureau of Statistics. Jakarta. 30 1
pages,
Chambers. R. 1992. Rural A~praisal:Ra~id Relaxed and Partici~atory.Discussion Paper
3 11. Institute of Development Studies. Brighton, UK. 90 pages.
Costanza, Robert, R, d' Arge, R, de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limbwg, S.
Nasem, R-V. O'Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P- Sutton and M- van den Belt. 1997.
'The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital." Nature.
387(6629): 253-260.
Cummings, F. Hany. 1997. "Logic Models, Logical Frarneworks and Results-Based
Management: Contrasts and Comparisons." In Results-Based Performance Reviews and
Evaluations. Stxcial Issue- Canadian Journal of Develooment Studies. Volurne XVm.
University of Ottawa and Canadian Association for the Shidy of International
Development. pp. 587-596.
Dixon, Chris. Unknown. Rural Develo~mentin the Third World- Chapter 1: the Rural
Context. From Rural Planning and Development Theory Required Readings. 20 pages.
Ehrenfeld, David 1992. "Ecosystem Health and Ecological Theones." From Ecosvstem
155 Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Edited by R Costanza, B. Norton
and B. Hakell. Island Press, Washington, DC. pp. 135-143-
Ferr-, Gabriel. 1993. "Constraints and Opportunities in Village to District Bottom-up
Planning: Experiences fiom North Sulawesi." In Indonesia: Multidimensional
Development. Canadian Journal of DeveIopment Studies, Ottawa pp. 167-187.
Friedmann, John. 1987. Plannine in the Public Domain. Princeton University Press.
Princeton, New Jersey. 50 2 pages.
Grifiths, Mike. 1992. Leuser. Directorate General of Forest Protection and Naîure
ConservationMrorld Wide Fund for Nature Indonesia Programme. Jakarta 64 pages.
Gnffiths, Mike. 1993. FinaI Re~ort- Proiect ID01 06. The Protection of Gunung Leuser
National Park IJdy 1991 to A~ril1993). World Wide Fund for Nature Indonesia
Programme unpublished report. Jakarta. 58 pages.
Hodges, Donald G. and James L. Regens. 1996. "Methodological Issues in Valuing Forest
Ecosystem Health". In Ecosvstem Health. vol. 2 no. 1, March 1996. 1996 Blackwell
Science, Inc. pp. 40-5 1.
Holmes, Thomas P. and Randal1 A Kramer. 1996. "Contingent Valuation of Ecosystem
Health". In Ecosystem Health. vol. 2 no. 1, March 1996. 1996 Blackwell Science, Inc.
pp. 56-60.
International UnÏon for the Conservation of Nature. 1980. World Conservation Strateq
Gland, Switzerland. TCTCN.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 1996. iUCN Red List of Threatened
Animals. Gland, Switzerland. IUCN,
International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 1997, IUCN Red List of Threatened
156 Plants. Gland, Switzerland, TUCN.
Leuser Development Programme. 1999. Leuser Develo~mentPromanme: Coo~eration
Between the Govemment of Indonesia and the European Union. Unpublished Report
4 pages.
MacKinnon, J,, K. MacKinnon, G. Child and .J. Thorsell, 1986, Managinp; Protected Areas
in the Tropics. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources, Gland, 295 pages.
Ministry ofNational DevelopmentPlanningNational DeveIopment Planning Agency. 1993.
Biodiversitv Action Plan for Indonesia Stee~gCornmittee ofBiodiversity Action Plan
for Indonesia Report. Jakarta 141 pages plus appendices.
Norton, Bryan G. 1992. "A New Paradigm for Environmental Management." From
Ecogstem Health: New Goals for Environrnental Management. Edited by R. Costanza,
B. Norton and B. Hakell- Island Press, Washington, DC. pp. 23-41.
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs. 1997. "Official Plans". Citizen's Guide No. 2 in
a Series. Queens' Park, Toronto. 8 pages-
Ontario Ministry of Municipal AfFairs. 1997. '7oning By-laws". Citizen's Guide No. 3 in
a Series. Queen's Park, Toronto. 8 pages.
Parker, Andrew. 1993. Decentrakation: The Wav Fomd for Rural Develo~ment.
Agiculture and Nahrral Resources Depariment Report. World Bank. Washington, DC.
30 pages.
PasseIl. P. 1993. c'Disputed New Role for Polis: Putting a Pnce Tag on Nature." The New
York Times, September 6.
Primack, R.B. 1993. Essentials of Conservation Biolow- Sinauer Associates, Inc.
157 Sunderland, Mass, 564 pages-
Pmgh, Thomas. 1995. Natural Capital and Hurnan Economic Survîval. Internationai
Society for Ecological Economists. Solomons, MD. 198 pages.
Rapport, David J. 1992. "What is Clinical Ecology?" From Ecosystem Health: New Goals
for Environmental Management. Edited by R. Costanza, B. Nortort and B. Hakell.
Island Press, Washington, DC. pp. 144-156.
Rapport, D. J., R. Costama and A. J. McMïchael. 1998- "Assessing Ecosystem Health". In
TREE, vol. 23 no. 10. October 1998. pp. 397-402.
Rijksen, H.D. and M. Griffiths. 1995. Leuser Develo~rnentProeramme Masterplan: ICDP
for Lowland Rainforests in Aceh. IBN-DLO. Wageningen, NL. 276 pages.
Robinson, W.L. and E.G. Bolen. 1989. Wildlife Ecolow and Management - Second
Edition. Macmillan Publishing Company- New York- 574 pages.
Sawadago, Jean-Baptiste and Kaîhryn Dunlop. 1997. "Managing for Results with a
Dynarnic Logistical Frarnework Approach: fiom Project Design to Impact
Measurement. " In Results-Based Performance Reviews and Evaluations, S~ecialIssue.
Canadian Journal of Develo~mentStudies, Volume XVm. University of Ottawa and
Canadian Association for the Study of International Development. pp. 597-6 12.
Spears, J. 1988, Containinp; Tro~icalDeforestation: A Review of Pnoritv Areas for
Technolo2ical and Policy Research. Environment Department Working Paper No. 10.
The World Bank, Washington D.C. 61 pages. vanBeek, C.G.G. 1996. "Geology, Geomorphology and Climate of Gunung Leuser
National Park". From Leuser: A Sumatran Sanctua- C.P. van Schaik and J. Supriatna
eds. Yayasan Bina Sains Hayati Indonesia (YABSHI). Depok, Indonesia. pp. 33 - 48.
158 van Schaik, C.P. and J. Supnatna 1996. Leuser: A Sumatran Sancîuay- Yayasan Bina
Sains Hayati indonesia (YABSKI). Depok, Indonesia. 348 pages.
Wells, M, K. Brandon and L. Hannah 1990- Parks and People: Linkin Protected Area
Management with Local Communities. The World Bank Environmental Department,
Washington D.C. 125 pages.
Wells, M. 1994. "Cornmunity-Based Forestry and Biodiversity Projects Have Promised
More Thau They Have Delivered Why is This and What Can Be Done?" Paper
presented at the International Symposium on Rain Forest Management in Asia, Centre
for Development and the Environment, Oslo, Norway, 23-26 March.
Whitten, A.J., S.J. Damaniri J. Anwar and N. Hisyam. 1984. The Ecologv- - of Sumatra.
Gadjah Mada University Press. Yogyakarta, Indonesia. 583 pages.
Wind, Jan. 199 1. B&er Zones. Volume 1: A Concept for Park Protection and Community
Partici~ation. DHV Consultants BV. Amersfoot, The Netherlands. June 1991. 84
pages.
Wily, Liz. 1994. A Guide to New Techniques for Rapid Rural A~~raisalof Natural
Resource Use as the Basis of Establishing Partnership in Conservation Management,
with S~ecificReference to Danau Sentarum Wildlife Reserve, Indonesia. Asian Wetland
Bureau unpublished report. Bogor, West Java. 53 pages.
World Bank. 1998. Guidelines for Monitoring and Evaluation for Biodiversity Proiects.
Environment Department Biodiversity Series Paper No. 065. Washington DC. June
1998. 33 pages.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 2987. Our Common Future.
Oxford University Press. Oxford, UK. 383 pages.
159 World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development, 1999. Our Forests, Our
Future- Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK. 205 pages.
Yazvenko, Sergei and David J. Rapport, 1996. "A Framework for Assessing Forest
Ecosystem Health." In Ecosvstem Health- voI. 2 no. 1, March 1996. 1996 Blackwell
Science, Inc. pp. 40-5 1.
Yayasan Penvalian Pelestarian Alam Masyarakat Adat Manggamaî. 1998. Community
Conservation Laws and Natural Resource Management Rights- Koto, Indonesia. 24
pages. APPENDIX A: (Translated from Bahasa Indonesia)
COMMUNITY CONSERVATION LAWS AND NATURAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT RIGaTS
CHAPTEIi 1
GENEW REGULATIONS
Section 1
This document uses the following definitions:
1.1 Natural resources are living elements (plants, animals, and hurnans) and non-living
elements (soil, weather, and water) that are interrelated and interdependent fiom one
another to form the ecosystem.
1-2 Manggamat Community Conservation Forest is an area categonzed as a conservation
area with the following conditions:
It has natural forest cover crops, forma1 legal status and customs and can be used
based on consideration of the long term advantages and disadvantages it creates; has
benefit for the communities residing closest to this conserved area; has certain
boundaries that are legally and customarily acknowledged; is situated outside nature
consemation boundaries organized by government; adrninistratively belongs to
village administration and or certain traditional regions; and is forest managed by the
communities with policy, technical and development support from governrnent as
well as other institutions-
1-3 Manggamat Comm unity is a tradi tiondly-recognized region ofapproximately 26 -207
ha consisting of thirteen villages: Jambo Papan, Koto Lndaning, Siurai-uni, Malaka,
Lawe Melang, Koto, Meursak, Karnpung Sawah, Kampung Padang, Pulau Air,
161 Simpang Dua, Simpang Tiga and Mur Keujnui, administratively located at North
Kluet Township, Regency of South Aceh, Province of Daerah Istirnewa Aceh. This
cornmunity has administrative boundaries; the Head of the Cornmunity; the Head of
the Village and his village administrators and Community Assembly (lembaga
milçvawarah kemukiman); certain social noms; social-economy facilities and
particuIar nature guard; and vaLid Iaws and customary.
1.4 Regdations of the 23 villages of the Manggamat Community are laws created and
determined by administration of 13 villages Community Assembly and other
predominant social gcoups. These regulations have both traditionai and legal laws,
and control the rights, responsïbilities, and legal sanctions of people residing inside
and outside of the Manggamat Traditional Cornrnunity.
1.5 The Nature Conservation Trust of the Traditional Manggamat Community
(YE'PAMAM) is a cornmunity group with a typical structural organization and was
formed temporarily for an uncertain time period. Its members consist of village
administration representatives f?om the 13 villages, Manggamat Comrnunity
Assembly, Kejreun Blang, Modem Scholars, scholars and other cornrnunity figures
that are achowledged by those who have jurisdiction- Moreover, this Trust is
formed to bridge management solutions for natural resources conservation problems
in the Traditional Manggamat Community, especially the management of the
Manggamat Community Conservation Forest.
1.6 Conservation, and/or protection and the benefits of the Community Conservation
Forest are attained through the management of natural resources which guarantee the
livelihoods of villagers. Forest conservation also aids development of the villages
162 which preserve, improve, and increase the quality of plants and animals varieties,
and other factors such as soi1 protection, climate and water for the well-being of
present as well as firture generations,
National Park Buf5er Zone is the area outside presenred and conserved natural areas
(National Park). It could be other forested areas, country's fiee land, or land with
responsibility to protect the integrity of National Park, Those who have jurisdiction
are responsible for the management of the BufEer Zone.
Protection Forest is forest area that, due to its natural characteristics, is used to
control water, flood and erosion, and maintain soi1 fertility.
National Park is a preserved namal area that has undisturbed ecosystems, managed
with a zoning system and is used for research purposes, bowledge, education,
agronomy support, tourism, and recreation.
Protected Areas are areas with the main fünction to protect conservation of
environment including natural and man made resources.
CHAPTER II
PRINCIPLE, BENEF'IT, AND PURPOSE
Section 2
The protection role and use of Manggamat Community Conservation Forest resources is based on balanced conservation and use of natural resources considering culturd conditions, economy and equal distribution, and the well-being of present and fûîure generations.
Section 3
Affirmation of Manggamat Community Consenration Forest and its management have important advantages, such as:
163 (1). Supply of raw construction materials for the comrnunity'ç social facilities;
(2). SuppIy of raw materials for household consurnption and home industry needs;
(3). Supply of plant seeds and seedlings for agronomy
(4). Protection of springs and feeder streams in the Manggamat Community Conservation
Forest area;
(5). Protection of varieties of plants and wild anùnals to maintain the interrelationship among natural elements (topsoil formation, ground water storage, pollination, seed distribution, species population control, insect and weed control, plant nutrition supply, and local weather maintenance);
(6).Legal acknowledgmentof natural resources management ofthe community conservation area; and
(7) As a Nationd Park Buffer Zone and Protection Forest, to increase quality and usage of
Gunung Leuser NationaI Park area and conserve the adjoining Manggamat Cornmunity
Conservation Forest-
Section 4
The main goals of Manggamat Community Conservation Forest management and development are to rehabilitate deforested land, protect naturai diversity (plants and animds), maintain spring quality and soi1 fetility, maintain water catchent areas, create traditional conununity roles in environmental conservation to support progress in community life and achieve legal awareness in maintaining the qualiiy and usage of forested areas around Gunung Leuser National Park and Protection Forest.
Section 5
Specifically, the goals of Manggamat CommunÏty Conservation Forest management and
164 developrnent are:
(1). To protect the functïons and natural processes of the Manggamat Cornmuni-ty
Conservation Forest area;
(2) To preserve the ability of the fimctions, processes, and usage of natural resources and
cornmunity environment;
(3) Legd acknowledgrnent of the traditional forest area in the village by the South Aceh
Regency Administration, as an effort to maintain traditional customs inherited fiom
ancestors in managing natural resources wisely;
(4) To maintain and improve the role, position, and responsibilities of the traditional
cornmunity institution to carry out its role as cornmunity mentor and to guide the community
in rnanaging the villages' natural resources, particularly the Manggamat Community
Conservation Forest; and
(5) Evenly distribute the opportunity for people of the Manggamat Traditional Cornmunity
derive benefit from the wise use of the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest in
fulfilting their basic necessities, increasing prosperity and quality of life.
CHAPTER m
RIGHT AND RESPONSTBILIT3ES OF TRADITIONAL COMMUNITY
Section 6
Each of village's community members who reside inManggamat Community must obey and
implernent the decisions and regdations of the 13 villages with regards to the Manggamat
Community Conservation Forest.
Section 7
Traditional community members residing in the Manggamat Cornmunity have equd rights
165 to a healthy environment, namely to use and protect the Manggamat Community
Conservation Forest and participate in the entire planning, impleme~tationand evaluation processes.
Section 8
The members of the Manggamat Traditional Community are responsible for undertaking maintenance activities, improving, pro tecting and preventing darnage to the fùnctions and quality of the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest as a water recharge area They mutalso contribute to flood control, soi1 erosion control, insect and weed control, weather control, soi1 fertility protection, protection of diversity of plants and wild animais and helpingto maintain the quality and functioos of Gunung Leuser National Park and Protection
Forest.
Section 9
Rights and responsibilities of the community residents in maintenance activities and natural resource protection and use are:
(1). Replant trees and forest vegetation suitable to the local environmental conditions and the need of local communities in areas of cleared forest in the Manggamat Cornrnunity
Conservation Forest as well as other open spaces in the community (Le. yards, street edges, channel edges, river fmsand gardens) which is done collectively, regularly, controlled, organized and continuous, using species such as dadap tree, rambung, bamboos, pongas, durian, kesongsong, medang kambing, durian hutan, mentun, mernali, macang hutan.
(2). Prohïiited fiom cutting trees or eliminating any kind of plant categorized as a main food source for anirnals, such as Rarnbung trees, and/or unique and rare plants, plants which seeds are for agronomy, sources for traditional medicine, eees grown near springs, ravines, steep
166 slopes, edges of feeder streams and channels.
(3) Prohibited fiom killing animals that act as seed distributors or pollinators, predators of insects and weeds, soi1 fertilizers, and or rare anirnals protected in the Manggamat
Cornmunity Conservation Forest area, Protection Forest and Gunung Leuser National Park, except animais endangering people's well-being.
(4) Prohibited from disposing of non-degradable giirbage such as plastic, rubber, metals, and glass in the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest area-
(5) Proh'bited from building socid facilities (Le. asphalt roads, schools, meunasah, rnosques) or permanent houes in the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest.
(6) Prohiiited from using Manggamat Communîty Conservation Forest unsuitably for agriculture either as new agricultural fields or as extensions of rice and dry fields, except in an emergency situation. In this case, a permit is required from the Nature Conservation Trust of the Traditional Manggamat Community and the relevant Village Adminiseator (Kepala
Desa).
(7) Prohibited from entering Manggarnat Community Conservation Forest in large groups, except Mangamat Cornmunïiyresidents who are conductingforest protection activities with permission fiom the Nature Conservation Trust of the TraditionaI Manggarnat Cornmunity.
(8) Prohibited fiom burning objects inside or adjacent to the Manggamat Community
Conservation Forest.
(9) Prohibited from buying and selling portions of the Manggamat Comrn~tyConsewation
Forest or using it as security for bank loans.
(10) Prohibited fkom cutting al1 kind of rambung plants, especially Rambung Kubangan,
Rambung Tampuk Pinang, Rambung Beringin in the Manggamat Community Conservation 167 Forest, Protection Forest, Gunung Leuser National Park, and around houses.
(1 1) Must prevent the openiag of new agricultural fields in the Manggamat Community
Conservation Forest, Protection Fore* and Gunung Leuser National Park-People in the
Community are not allowed to neglect their available Dry-field Gardens (Ladang), which must be marked with the growing of Meluku, Sapot and Merong plants, for a period of 6 months. If they neglect them, their right of use to the field is retumed to the Nature
Conservation Trust of the Traditional Manggamat Commuaity, This nght will then be given to other fanners who do not have or do not have enough dry agricdtural fields.
(13) Prohibited fiom taking or possessing or killing Labi-labi, Elang Selidi and Burung
Merakbak. These animals can prevent plant insects and maintain fish in the ponds.
(13) Prohibited from taking fish (semerah, rarnpung, gemuk, serokan), shrimp and its kind, along Kluet/Lawe Melang rivers in the Manggarnat Community using any kinds of man made toxin or pesticides, firing, bombing, eiectrocuting in Lawe Ngamat and fishing with the following nets: bedning bukuh, nginging kelarnbu, and selangat.
(24) Prohibited fkom destmying my kind of forest vegetation usefil to the comrnunities, such as Gading Bamboo (used for soi1 fertilizer), Kesongsong tree (used to prevent grasshoppers), Benang Rattan, Bahing and Lilin Rattan (used for ropes), Ponggas, Surian and Menturi trees (used as log supplies), and trees for bat nests and ormgutan.
(15) Prohibited fiom bringing tools and materials generally used for taking, catching, hunting, cutling, destroying and carrying forest resources (plants and animals) inside the
Manggamat Comrnunity Conservation Forest, Protection Forest and Gunung Leuser National
Park for the purpose of trade or industrial supply, except al1 people's rights determined in items 19 to 25 of Section 9.
168 (16) Must maintain, obey, hprove and respect forest and nature boundaries determined, legalized and acknowledged in conservation Cornmuniiy, Protection Forest and Gunung
Leuser National Park
(17) Other than decrees under Section 3 Undang-Undang (Legislation) No- 5 1990, in
Gmmg Leuser National Park everyone has to respect the foZlowing prohiiitions: a entering the area without permission f?om those who have jurisdiction; b-carrying toots commonly used to take, catch, hunt, cut, destroy and carry forest resources; c. carrying out activities that can destroy and pollute the environment; d- taking, pding, breaking and picking parts of plants; e- disturbing and catching animals or taking animal parts; and f. disposing garbage
(18) Muçt maintain and take care of springs and feeder streams in the Manggamat
Community Conservation Forest area to ensure the present and future supply of water for dnnking, bathing and imgation of fields.
(19) Have the right to take forest products for construction material to constnict and maintain private houses, from inside the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest, and not for trading purposes, with consideration for supply and firture needs.
(20) Have the nght to take forest products from the Manggamat Cornmunity Conservation
Forest for household industry materials fkom the designated locations considering the supply and future needs. For example: handicrafts and traditional medicine industries.
(21) Have the right to take forest products from the Manggamat Community Conservation
Forest for seeds and seedlings fiom the locations designated for propagation. This will enrich plant varieties inside the forest as well as in open spaces in the Community (Le- yards,
169 gardem. street edges, and river edges) as long as the plant stocks; do not become exhausted
(22) Have the right to take forest product fiom the Manggamat Communiîy Conservation
Forest for traditional medicines (Le, leaves, fnrif tree bark, fl owers, and root) fiom certain location designated for community health purposes for people imside as well as outside the
Manggamat Comrnunity.
(23) Have the right to use the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest as a recreation
(limited tourism) place, for study, and for scientific research that gives positive feedback to the Manggamat Comrnunity.
(24) Have the nght to use the fallen tree branches as firewood for the household from designated locations in the Manggamat Community Conservatiam Forest.
(25) Have rîght to make marks and traps close to valuable trees in the Manggamat
Community Conservation Forest to prevent commercial cuttïng, especidly on trees located at easy-to-reach places.
(26) Have the right to participate in expressing opinions, suggestions, and critiques in the planning and implementation processes of Manggamat Community Conservation Forest management and development.
(27) Have the obligation to report forest destruction in Manggarnat Comrnunity
Conservation Forest, Protection Forest and Gunung Leuser National Park to Nature
Conservation Trust of the People of Traditional Manggamat Comrnunity andor those with jurisdiction.
(28) Traditional community's rights to take forest products as mentioned in items 19,20,2 1. and 22) above with the following qualifications: a Those community members reside in Manggamat Community who want to harvest forest
170 products in Manggamat Commmiîy Consewation Forest, have to report to and get written permission fi-om Nature Consewation Trust of the Traditional Manggamat Community.
The%together with the appointed person, go to the location where the trees are going to be cut or taken, b, Those comrnunity members who cut trees in the Manggamat Cornrnunity Conservation
Forest area, agree to replant and maintain seedlings until the trees become established, pIanting as many as 25 seedlings (from the same species) for every tree cut and 5 rarnbung seedlings around the area where the tree is cut. c- Trees ca~otbe cut using a motorked saw, tree location is considered (slope, vicinity to weWspring), and abundance of the desired species is considered (abundance, moderate, low).
CHAPTER N
Sm,LOCATION, AREA BOUNDARTES AND HARVEST LOCATION
OF FOREST PRODUCTS
Section 10
The total area of the Manggarnat Comrnunity Conservation Forest is approximately 12,000 hectares or 46% of the total area of the Manggamat Community. The Manggamat
Community Conservation Forest is divided into a West Block of approximately 5,200 hectares and an East Block of approximately 6,800 hectares.
Section 11
Geographically, Manggamat Community Conservation Forest covers the administrative areas of Jambo Papan, Koto Indanmg, Siurai-urai, Malaka, Lawe Meiang, Koto, Meursak,
Kampung Sawah, Kampung Padang, Pulau Air, Simpang Dua, Simpang Tiga, and Mur
Keujrun villages in the Township of North Kluet, Regency of South Aceh. It is situated
171 outside of the Protection Forest and Gunung Leuser National Park boundaries.
Section f 2
Based on surveys and mapping conducted by the communities and approved by the villages, the boundaries of the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest are as follows:
West Block Comrnunitv Forest:
Starts fiom the south end, at the peak of Gunung Tanjung Gugong and moves to the north to the peaks of Gunung Kukusan, Gunung Sinabah, Gunung Alur Kliat, Gunung Alur Trop,
Gunung Panglima Laut respectively, and on the west side is bordered by Tapaktuan
Township administration boundanes-
East Block Cornmuni@ Forest:
Starts fiom the peak of Gunung Jarnur Puncak and moves towards the peaks of Gwung Batu
Empahat, Gunung Alue Ketapang, Gunung Meluir, Gunung Karang Putih, Gunung Bayas and then crosses Lawe Melui towards the east and abuts the Protection Forest.
Section 13
The Manggamat Community Conservation Forest contained withinthe boundaries as defined under Section 12 above, is designated as a Baer Zone area for Gunung Leuser National
Park and Protection Forest
Section 14
Borders between Manggamat Cornmunity Conservation Forest, Protection Forests and communities' fields located outside of the Manggamat Community Conservation Forest will be marked with tin plate or cernent pillar written "B.HKK" (Batas Hutan Kemukimam
Konservasi, or Manggmat Cornmunity Conservation Forest Boundaries) andor defined natural boundaries-
172 Section 15
The location and boundarïes of Traditional Village Forests (Hutan Adat Desa) and their
management are based on discussion at meetings attended by the 13 village adminiçtrations,
Manggamat Community Assembly, and other community figures, and approved by the
Buparnegent Kepala Daerah Tingkat II South Aceh Regency, the Head of the Regional
Forestry Department, the Head of the ProWicia.1 (Aceh) Forestry Department, and al1 other
related institutions through signing the Manggarnat Comrnunity Land-use Planning Map and legalization /authorization of Manggamat Community Development Planning documents.
Section 16
Forest product harvest locations in the Manggamat Conservation Commmity Forest area wïllbe designated in the Manggamat Land-use Planning Map and Manggamat Cornmunity
Development Planning documents based on surveys conducted by a group of governrnent and non-government institutions and the local comrnunities.
CHAPTER v
FOREST ADMINISTRATION
Section 17
At this time, forests designated as natural forest, deforested lands, old and new shbsand cut areas inside the Manggarnat Comrnunity Conservation Forest area boundaries as defined in Section 12 above are considered as reserved forest. These areas need to be detennined and affirmed as forests owned by the Manggarnat Traditional Community, which are managed through the Nature Trust of Manggamat Traditional Cornrnunity to be preserved and developed according to nature conservation practices. Section 18
Administrative status of naturd forests outside oftheManggamat Community Conservation
Forest boundaries is the jurïsdiction of the Forestry Department (Dinas Kehutanan) for
Protection Forest areas and UPT Tarnan National Gunung Leuser for the National Park area-
CHAPTER VI
INSTITUTIONS, TASK, AND AUTHORITY
Section 19
In the implementation, monitoring, control and legd sanction execution in preserving and utilizing Manggamat Community Conservation Forest, the Nature Conservation Trust of
Manggamat Traditional Cornmunity is formed. It consists of administrationrepresentatives ofthe 73 villages, Kejm Blang, Moslern Scholars, Scholars and other community figures, the Communiîy Trust and the Village Trust. Its task and authority will be decided through
Community Trust decisions.
Section 20
Nature Conservation Trust of the Traditional Manggamat Community cm cooperate with local govenunent institutions, related individuals, non-goverment institutions or community groups outside of the Manggamat community in the development of the Manggamat
Community Conservation Forest.
Section 2 1
Specifically, Kejrun Blang in the village Ievel helps the ViIIage Trust especially in controlling irrigation as follows: a. Decide the timing for startuig up the rice fields; b. Control field irrigation and drainage;
174 c. Decide kenduri Uleelung (special ceremonies); and
d Responsible for springs, feeder sireams and channel protection in the Manggamat
Community Conservation Forest
Section 22
Initially, the structural ~rga~zationof the Nature Conservation Trust of Manggamat
Traditional Community is as follows:
Chief : Ali Makmur
Chief Executive : Bintara Yahb
Secretary 1 : Bina Arif
Secreîary II : Sahddin San
Finance :Nyak Merdu
Chief Community Relation : Adarnsah
Vice Chief :Yusin
Chief Legal Monitoring :Zulkifli
Vice Chief :Burhan
Chief Forest Utilization :Jear, BA
Vice Chief : Ajirudin
Chief Planning and Report :T. Iskandar Muda
Vice Chief : Sari?
Chief Activity Development :N. Hamzah
Vice Chief : Gumilang Cahya CHAPTER VII
COMPENSATION AND RESTORATION COSTS
Section 23
Any person or group of people inside or outside Manggamat Community who is legally
proven of damaging the quality, functions, or processes of the forest environment will have
to pay for the loss and restoration/recovery costs to the victim as stated in the
Undang-Undang Ri No 4, section 20 ofyear 1982 regarding the EnvironmentaI Management
Decree, and other valid regulations.
CHAPTERvm
LEGAL ASPECTS AND VIOLATTON SANCTIONS
Section 24
Any person or group of people who intentionally break the Community Conservation Laws
and Natural Resources Management Rights in the Manggamat Traditional Community,
North Kluet Township, will be penalized either traditionally or legally based on the valid law
of Republic Indonesia.
Section 25
Traditional comrnunity sanction is given after the Head of the Village Adat and/or the Head
of the Village report to the Manggarnat Cornmunity Adat to decide the fom of valid
traditional sanction.
Section 26
Traditional sanctions are not harsh sentences and given in order to educate the violator.
Section 27
The traditional sanction forms indicated above are sentenced after community members
176 warn the violator/s. Those sanctions are as follows:
(1). Gempar Malu: The violator's face is painted completely yellow with coloured flou
paste,
(2). Malu Raja: The violator must pay the equivalent of one goat, plus anything decided by
the Head of the Village through assembly. If they disobey the sanction, their househoId
activities are not served
(3) If the violator disobeys traditional law twice in a row, while the first one has not been
paid, the sanction is one water bufTalo, complete with its implements.
Section 28
Legal sanctions stated in Section (14) above are those based on Undang-undang no 1 of the
year 1946 regarding Criminal Law Legislation, and Undang-undmg no 5 of the year 1990 regarding Natual Resources and Its Ecosystems Conservation, and related legislation.
Section 29
Legal sanctions are sentenced when traditional sanctions are not canied out or sentenced traditional sanctions do not change the violator's behavior.
Section 30
Tn the case descnbed in Section 29, a writîen report will be sent by the Head of the Nature
Conservation Trust of the Traditional Manggamat Community to government institutions or Police to be processed legally &er being approved by the Head of the Village where the violator resides.
Section 3 1
For people residing outside of the 13 villages of the Manggamat Community, the reporting process goes directly to the Police by the Head of the Nature Conservation Tmst of the
177 Traditional Manggmat Cornmuni-ty, without approval fiom a village administraor.
CHAPTER IX
FZNANCE AND ACTNITES DEVELOPMENT
Section 32
(L) Field implementation in developing Manggamat Traditional Community is financed through self-help of people of the 13 villages.
(2) In order to get finance to support field activities implementation, Naîure Consetvation
Trust ofManggamat Traditional Cornrnunity cooperate with related government institutions, or other non-profit organizations both within and outside of Indonesia who have interests in nature conservation activities.
(3) Other than stated in items numbers 1 and 2 above, fiancial resources also corne £?om harvested rice of the 13 villages' members.
(4) To reduce people's dependency on agricultural fields in the future, economical deveIopment efforts can be created, such as:
(a) Increasing knowledge and skills outside agricdtural and forestry sectors or increase agricultural product values;
(b) Increasing understanding of an advanced way of life;
(c) Increasing fish cultivation in the river (karamba), nce fields (mina), and animal husbandry;
(d) lncreasing agricultural products marketing; and
(e) Other activities increasing economic prosperity and not damaging the naturd environment. CHAPTER X
OTHER RULES
Section 33
With the designation and validation of concurrent regdations of the 13 villages of this
Manggamat Cornrnunity, dlunwfitten traditional laws are still in effect.
CHAPTER XI
CLOSING RULES
Section 34
(1) After the effective date these concurrent regulations cm be updated if in the future a
mistake or weakness is found.
(2) These concurrent regulations can be used as legal basis of valid laws or other higher
Iaws.
(3) These concurrent regulations of the 13 villages of community forest are the result of
Executive Team formed at coordination meeting May 17, 1995 between village administration and community figures fkom the 13 villages in Manggamat Comrnunity.
(4) Executive Team stated in item 3 above consists of Samaun, Zulkifli pesa Kp. Sawah),
Yusin, Iskandar ED. Tengku Cut Arnat, Tengku Ali Makrnur, Adam Syah, M. Ciat, Bintara
Yakup dan Jakfar RA pesa Koto), Syariie (Desa Jambo Papan), Amd Adani (Desa Lawe
Melang)
(5) Items not included in this decision will be dedin the future decisions. APPENDIX B: CBFM RESOURCE-USER SURVEY
1. What Desa is your household located in? 2, For each rnember of your household, please fil1 in the foIlowing table: Name Sex Eighest Level Literacy (cm Present (be sure to inchde yourself) Age (MorF) of Education read and write) Occupation
t
3. What kind of roofing matenal does your house have? (Check one only) 0 Concrete Wood 5 Tile Asbestos Zinc Sugar Paim 0 Leaves Other
4. What küid of cooking fiel does your household use? (Check one only) Electricity 0 Gas (LPG) 0 Kerosene Wood Charcoal 0 Other
5. What is your household source of drinking water? (Check one only) Pipe 0 Pump 0 Well Spring 0 River Rain Bottled Other 6. What toilet facility does your household use? (Check one only) O Private Toilet a Shared Toilet Cf Cesspool Pond a River 0 Other 7. Does your household own any of the following items? (Check al1 that apply) 0 BuffetBideboard 0 Bicycle or Rowboat Radio or Cassette Television Motorcycle/Motorboat Car or Ship
Resource Corrsurnption 8. How often do you visit the forest? days per week. 9. How long do you stay per visit? hours per visit. 10. How far do you travel to the forest to gather? km per visit, 11- What activities do you conduct in the forest? LfYes, where? % of time Amount % used in the Yo sold or ActMty (Rank accordmg dedicated to conected iD one hoUSehOld hded to importance) acîÏvîîy year QTluan- Coffée! n~utmi~dat~esl -kg a NO n &tan Kcmukmiam fiom 0 Yes nKIlran~~tbun trees
_"- n~utantindung Damar ~'HUI~A~Z~D, -k!3 0 No ~tfutan~tmulrunam f?om = Yes Q~rrtnnKdJun uees Ladang Hutan Lindutg Firewood a HmAdat Dsa No utan an ~cmukimam -k YS O Hutan Kdxn
_" LadanL3 a Hutan Lindung Fis h Ponds uta an ~datDC~ -kg n No Huta0 Krmukimam fiom OYes D ~umKcbun ponds Ladanl3 CI Hutan Lindung Fmit CI Hum Adat Dtsa - NO Hutan Kcmukimam &om OY, Hutan Kcbun es ='-i3 ='-i3 l Hutan Lindung Honey tlutan dot sa -kg No O trutan mu- fiom DY= =' Hutan kbun treeS
O-g Ci Hutan Lïndung EIunting HumAdat Dcsl anirnals Hutan Kcrnukimam fiom OYes Huimkbun species
=' Ladani? Hutan Limdung Kemiri CI HumAdat Desa -kg NO ~utulKcmu~iimm fiom '=YS Hu- Kcbun tXeeS
O-g '=' Hum Lindung =eng '=' Hutari Adat Dcra -kg ON0 O Hutan Kcmukimam &om UYes O HUW mm trees O-l3 CiHutan Lindung Mediculal Plants Ci Hutan Adat Dcsn plants No a F1uta11Kemukimnm fr0m '=Ys '=' Hutan Kcbun speCie5 Ladm3 KI Hum Lindung Niiarn '=' HumAdat Dsa -kg D NO Hum Kcmukimam from
OYa HU, ~cbun p1anî.s Ladanl3 Hutan Lindung Nutmeg Hutan Adat Dcsa -kg * No '= Hum Kmd5mam fiom clYS Huùm Kicbun treeS Ladang Huîan Lindung Oü Pdm A&t '=' E-Iutan Dcsa -kg NO '=' Hum bubarn fhm '=YS EIutan Kcbun tr- Ladang Hutan Lindung Livestock '=' Hum Adat Dcsa animais NO Hum Kcmukirnam fi0m mye a Hutan Kcbun ~pe~ie~ = Ladanf3 '= Hum Lindung Rubber '=' Hum ~datDcsa -kg NO Ci Hutan hukimam from '='YS '=' Hutan Ktbun treeS Ladang Elutan Lindung Timber Extraction Hutan Adat Desa mâ CiHutan Kcrnuiïïmam fi0m No trees '='Y, Hutnn Kcbun a bdmg
...... Hutiin Kcmukimum Hutan Kebun
...... Hutrm Lindmg ------Huta.Adat ----- Desa------Wild pig
S umatran tiger
Kutan Lindung Hutan A&t Dcsri ------Asian elephant
Large flyïng fox
14. In the past year, has your household been affected by the following? (Check al1 that ~PP~Y Flood Erosion IJ Forest Fire 0 Con£iict with forest 0 Malaria 0 Diarrhea animals