An Anti-encroachment Strategy for the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms An Anti-encroachment Strategy for the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms New of Towards Heritage Sumatra: Rainforest the Tropical for An Anti-encroachment Strategy Edi Purwanto
An Anti-encroachment Strategy for the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Edi Purwanto
2016 This report is an independent publication commissioned by UNESCO. It is the result of a research carried out by Tropenbos International between mid-2014 and mid-2015 commissioned by UNESCO.
The opinios and views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of UNESCO. The research team of Tropenbos International Indonesia is responsible for the choice and the presentation of the facts contained in this book and for the opinions expressed herein.
Copyright: UNESCO and Tropenbos International Indonesia, 2016 Published by: Tropenbos International Indonesia, Bogor, Indonesia Citation: Purwanto, Edi. (2016). An Anti-encroachment Strategy for the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms. Jogyakarta, Indonesia: Tropenbos International Indonesia and UNESCO, xiv + 126 p. Author: Dr. Edi Purwanto Natural resources management analyst and Programme Director of Tropenbos International Indonesia Programme English editing: Patricia Halladay Design and layout: Juanita Franco ISBN: 978-90-5113-130-7 Photos: Cover: Stephane Bidouze (Adobe stock), Thomas Leonhardy (Adobe stock) and Tropenbos International Indonesia; p iiiv: Stephane Bidouze(Adobe stock); p 1: Adobe stock; p 7: Thomas Leonhardy (Adobe stock); p 29, 43, 71 and appendix 2: Tropenbos International Indonesia Printed by: Debut Press, Jogyakarta, Indonesia Available from: Tropenbos International Indonesia Jl. Akasia Raya Blok P6/23 RT03/RW05 Kedung Waringin, Tanah Sareal, Bogor 16161 Indonesia www.tropenbos.org
Indonesia Table of Contents
Executive Summary ix
1. Introduction 1 Background 1 Objectives 4 Outputs 5 Methodology 5
2. Status and trend of encroachment in TRHS 7 Geographic position 7 Key Feature and Threats 10 Encroachment trends 17 Encroachment Pattern in TRHS 25 Conclusions, Chapter 2 27
3. Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014 29 Protected Areas: Conservation vs. Regional Development 29 Type and perceptions of squatters 31 Fighting encroachment through Law No. 41/1999 35 Gunung Leuser National Park 37 Kerinci Seblat NP 49 Bukit Barisan Selatan NP 56 Conclusions, Chapter 3 64
4. Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations 71 Overcoming Conservation Deadlock 71 Recommendations 73 Key requirements 100 Conclusions, Chapter 4 102
References 109 Appendix 1. Emergency Action Plan (EAP) Land Encroachment 116 Appendix 2. Flow diagram in developing encroachment data 119 Appendix 3. Photo Documentations 120 Appendix 4. Summary of encroachment by district 121 Glossary of terms
ADB Asian Development Bank AGO Atorney General Officer, Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia AMAN Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara/Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago APL Areal Penggunaan Lain/non-state forest land BAPPENAS Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional/National Development Planning Agency BANGDA Ditjen Bina Pembangunan Daerah/Directorate of Regional development, Ministry of Home Affairs BBSNP Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park BDK Balai Diklat Kehutanan, Forestry Training Center BKSDA Balai Konservasi dan Sumber Daya Alam/Natural Resource Conservation Agency, Ministry of Environment and Forestry BPDAS Balai Pengelolaan DAS, Watershed Management Agency BPKH Badan Pemantapan Kawasan Hutan/Agency for Forest Boundary Consolidation CANOPI Conservation Action Network Programme Indonesia CEPF Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund DI Daerah Istimewa/Special Province DPR House of Representatives/Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat DPRD District House of Representative DSOCR Desired State of Conservation for Removal EAP Emergency Action Plan EC European Commission FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FEC Forest Encroachment Commision FFI Fauna & Flora International FGD Focused Group Discussion FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade FORDA Forest Research and Development Agency GAM Gerakan Aceh Merdeka/Free Aceh Movement GIS/RS Geo-Information System/Remote Sensing GLNP Gunung Leuser National Park GoI Government of Indonesia HCV High Conservation Values HD Hutan Desa/Village Forest HKm Hutan Kemasyarakatan/Community Forestry HoB Hearth of Borneo ICDP Integrated Conservation Development Project IDP Internal Displaced People IGA Income generating activity
IV IPK Ijin Pemanfaatan Kayu/Timber Utilization Permit IRF International Rhino Foundation ISPO Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil system IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IWGFF Indonesian Working Group on Forest Finance KAP Knowledge, Attitude and Practices KEL Kawasan Ekosistem Leuser/Leuser Ecosystem KETAPEL Kelompok Tani Pelindung Leuser (local NGO) KPHK Kesatuan Pemangkuan Hutan Konservasi/Conservation Forest Management Unit KPK Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi/Corruption Eradication Commission KREDI Ketambe Reforestation and Ecotourism Development KSNP Kerinci Seblat National Park KUHAP Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana/Criminal Code Procedures LDP Leuser Development Programme LE Leuser Ecosystem LIF Leuser International Foundation LMU Leuser Management Unit LPT Lembaga Pariwisata Tangkahan LTA Lembaga Tumbuh Alami, Indonesia LTB Lembaga Tiga Beradik MDK Model Desa Konservasi/Village Conservation Model MEA Muller Ecosystem Areas MoA Ministry of Agriculture/Kementerian Pertanian MoASP Ministry of Agrarian and Spatial Planning/Kementerian Agraria dan Tata Ruang/Badan Pertanahan Nasional MoEF Ministry of Living Environment and Forestry MoF Ministry of Forestry (now MoEF) MoHA Ministry of Home Affairs/Kementerian Dalam Negeri MoU Memorandum of Understanding MoVDAT Ministry of Villages, Disadvantaged Areas Development and Transmigration/ Kementerian Desa, Pembangunan Daerah Tertinggal dan Transmigrasi NGO Non-governmental organization NP National Park NPCF National Park Community Facilitator OWT Operasi Wallacea Terpadu PA Protected Areas PEH Penilai ekosistem hutan/Park functional staff (with special duties to assess the quality of the forest ecosystem) PHBM Pengelolaan Hutan Berbasiskan Masyarakat/Joint Forest Management with the Community
V PHKA Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam/Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (Ministry of Forestry) PPA Protection and Preservation Agency PPATK Pusat Pelaporan Analisis Transaksi dan Keuangan/the Indonesian Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (INTRAC) PPNS Petugas Penyidik Pegawai Negeri Sipil/Civil Service Investigator RBM Resort-based Management RPJM-Desa Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Desa/RPJM/mid-term village development planning RPU Rhino Protection Unit RSPO Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil RUU Rancangan Undang-Undang/Draft bill SC Supreme Court/Mahkamah Agung SPORC Satuan Polisi Kehutanan Reaksi Cepat/Response Unit Forest Range SVLK Sistem Verifikasi Legalitas Kayu/Timber Legality Assurance System TNI Tentara Nasional Indonesia/National Army TRHS Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime UNORCID United Nations Office for REDD+ Coordination in Indonesia VCA Village Conservation Agreement VGA Village Conservation Grant WALHI Wahana Lingkungan Hidup WARSI Warung Konservasi Indonesia WCS Wildlife Conservation Society WH World Heritage WHP World Heritage Property WHS World Heritage Sites WHWG World Heritage Working Group WRU Wildlife Response Unit WWF World Wide Fund for Nature YABI Yayasan Badak Indonesia YLI Yayasan Leuser International/LIF YOSL-OIC Yayasan Orangutan Sumatra Lestari-Orangutan Information Centre
VI Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank all those who participated in and contributed to the formulation of the report.
They include Tony Whitten (Fauna Flora International), Maartje Hilterman (IUCN-NL), Johanes Subijanto (Coral Triangle), Wahjudi Wardojo (The Nature Conservancy), Hariadi Kartodihardjo (KPK/IPB), Nur Hasanah (UNESCO), Frans Siahaan (The Asia Foundation, Indonesia), Wiratno (MoEF), Listya Kusumawardani (MoEF), Gatot Subiyantoro (MoEF), Irdika Mansur (Biotrop/IPB), Sapto Aji Prabowo (GLNP), David (KSNP), Muniful Hamid (BBSNP), Erly Sukrismanto (Kutai NP), Myrna Safitri (Epistema) and Ani Adiwinata Nawir (CIFOR).
Great thanks also go to the Heads of GLNP, KSNP and BBSNP and all the resource people who spent their valuable time attending the focus group discussions conducted on each NP.
The author’s great gratitude also goes to Shahbaz Khan and Nur Hasanah for their trust and kind assistance during the development of the report.
VII VIII Executive Summary
The Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (TRHS) was inscribed in the World Heritage list in 2004 by the World Heritage Committee (WHC)-UNESCO for its unique natural beauty, the importance of its habitats for the conservation of endemic species, and the significant contribution of its ongoing ecological and biological processes to the global landscape. TRHS comprises three widely separated National Parks (NPs): Gunung Leuser (GLNP), Kerinci Seblat (KSNP) and Bukit Barisan Selatan (BBSNP). They cover a total area of 2.5 million hectares, constituting one of the largest conservation areas in Southeast Asia.
The main threats to TRHS integrity are deforestation of and encroachment on the NP areas due to the expansion of monocultures (oil palm, rubber, coffee, etc.) and infrastructure development. Encroachment is often compounded by other problems, such as illegal logging and poaching. These problems have become entrenched due to the economic and political interests associated with the use of resources within park boundaries. In 2011 these continuous threats led to TRHS being included by the WHC on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Many anti-encroachment initiatives have been carried out by the three national parks and various stakeholders; however, many have been left unacknowledged, despite the many lessons learned from them. This report reviews the anti-encroachment initiatives that have taken place in the three NPs under the TRHS and analyzes their strength and weakness and associated impacts on the integrity of the NP area. These lessons learned will form the basis of anti-encroachment recommendations as strategic actions to remove TRHS from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The report contains four chapters: 1) Introduction; 2) Status and trend of encroachment in TRHS; 3) Review of Anti-encroachment Initiatives in TRHS from 1990–2014: Impacts and Lessons Learned; and 4) Recommendations on anti-encroachment measures.
Encroachment is defined here as the illegal occupation of state forest land. into farm land To determine the extent and trend of encroachment in TRHS, the study interpreted forest cover from 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2014 and mapped it across TRHS areas using Landsat imagery. In 2014, the encroached area in GLNP had doubled compared to 1990; although the rate of encroachment declined from 1990 to 2000, it rose sharply from 2000 to 2014. This increase seems to have been caused by the rising demand for land for palm oil plantations. Similarly, the total encroached areas in 2014 in KSNP had also doubled compared to 1990, with the rate of encroached areas declining from 1990 to 2000, slightly increasing from 2000 to 2010, and sharply increasing from 2010 to 2014. BBSNP has experienced different encroachment patterns; the total encroached areas in 2014 were triple those in the 1980s. In addition to palm oil development, spontaneous and government-sponsored migration from Java to
IX Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Lampung and southern parts of Sumatra in the 1970s contributed to massive areas of forest being converted to small-scale farming.
The greatest encroachment occurred in KSNP, with an area of 130,322 ha — 52.6% of the total encroachment area in TRHS — and an encroachment rate of 2,737 ha per year between 1990 and 2014. BBSNP had the second largest encroachment area, at 74,988 ha (30.3% of the total). GLNP had the third largest, with a total encroachment area of 42,488 ha (17.1% of the total). From 1990 to 2014, the encroachment rate was 1,240 ha/year in BBSNP and 972 ha/year in GLNP.
Until 2014, most of land-cover change in GLNP was caused by dry cultivation (up to 18,027 ha), followed by mixed tree crops (9,673 ha) and oil palm plantations (8,430 ha). In KSNP, most land-cover change was caused by mixed tree crops (89,487 ha), followed by dry cultivation (12,655 ha) and plantations of rubber, cocoa, coconut, etc. that covered an area of 2,924 ha. The largest land-cover change in BBSNP was crop plantations (36,489 ha), followed by dry cultivation (15,521 ha) and mixed tree crops (11,182 ha).
Five types of people live on these sites: indigenous landless farmers, local migrants, Javanese immigrants, poor landless migrants and what Levang et al. (2012) term “sly opportunists.” There are eight underlying causes of encroachment: • The government designated the three parks in an area already settled by indigenous and Javanese immigrants, who had arrived in several migration waves since 1905; • Javanese and local migrants continued to move into the area after the parks were created; • There is a lack of clarity on the extent to which communities are involved in park management; • Widespread district partitioning during the decentralization era has led to several district boundaries overlapping with conservation areas; • NP management has failed to demonstrate the real economic contribution that preserving nature can make to supporting community livelihoods and enhancing the gross domestic product of district governments; • Local governments recognize, legalize and strengthen villages and communities within NP boundaries; • National and local government authorities, private companies operating in the area and community members pursue development goals by building roads, markets, schools and office complexes, providing electricity and telecommunications, mining and converting forests to plantation areas; and • The NP agency lacks the capacity and the authority to enforce its mandate, and lacks support from local government.
X Executive Summary
NP management has responded to encroachment in several ways. Preventive measures include regular patrols by forest rangers, public extension on forestry regulations, and community development through village conservation models. Repressive measures include periodic joint patrol by the forest rangers, together with national police and army. Judicial processes include arrest, prosecution and, in some cases, conviction of violators. Special operations to protect the forests and their floral and faunal richness from non-natural disturbances from outside the parks include conducting patrols in fire- prone areas, especially those close to human activities. Restoration of forest areas, usually conducted after non-natural disturbances, is carried out through accelerated natural succession and supported by intensive maintenance and monitoring.
Based on various anti-encroachment measures carried out during 1990–2014, several key factors support anti-encroachment measures.
Conservation governance For integrated conservation development projects and the Conservation Action Network Programme Indonesia (CANOPI), the existence of lead organizations with strong leadership is a must. The management of national parks must include good governance and must involve key stakeholders at the national and regional level.
Law enforcement BBSNP was heavily targeted by the illegal activities of power brokers from 1985 to 1997). Law enforcement was supported by intelligence operations that could identify target areas early on, during the initial stages of enroachment; this quick response to encroachment was important, so as not to wait until the problem became large and complicated. Law enforcement was supported by adequate resources and a strong legal apparatus.
Village Conservation Agreements (VCAs) Learning from community-based ecotourism development in Tangkahan, North Sumatra, villagers should feel the urgent need to develop a VCA; awareness raising is necessary prior to VCA formulation. The villages have strong social capital, and have extensive potential natural resources that need to be protected and sustainably utilized. Intensive facilitation is needed before and after VCA implementation, and the VCA should have strong links with key conservation objectives.
Village Conservation Grant (VCG) Learning from the ICDP of the Leuser Development Programme and in Tangkahan, VCGs must be delivered to villages depending upon their needs and requests. A VCG should have strong links with conservation goals, and must select the appropriate beneficiaries. Intensive facilitation and technical assistance is required for VCG proposals and implementation.
XI Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Ecosystem Restoration (ER) Learning from the UNESCO restoration program in TRHS, ER was conducted together with the local community; it involved nursery development, planting and maintenance of trees and securing the NP boundary from encroachment. The presence of NP staff and ER facilitators at restoration sites was required. Capacity building for the local community is needed on ecosystem restoration, including the development of sustainable livelihoods. Intensive and continuous facilitation and technical assistance is required for the local community. It is important to involve NGOs who have extensive experience with ecosystem restoration.
Ecotourism development Learning from community-based ecotourism in Tangkahan, it is essential to establish legitimate and accepted local organizations. The NP must be willing to delegate its management authority to these organizations, and there must be clear benefit- sharing mechanisms.
Recommendations Learning from the success and failures of the anti-encroachment measures, the following strategies are proposed:
Strengthen Conservation Governance It is vital to strengthen conservation governance by greater collaboration with stakeholders at the regional and national level, and with conservation and social NGOs. Increased security patrols and ground presence of NP staff are needed. Conservation governance can be strengthened by linking village development to conservation. It is necessary to enforce agrarian reform and Constitutional Court Ruling No.35/2012, and to increase law enforcement by targeting illegal activities. Monitoring encroachment areas can be carried out using a drone.
Integrated landscape approaches Shifting from a protected area approach to integrated landscape-based management involves enforcing voluntary and mandatory certification to control the expansion of oil palm plantations surrounding TRHS. The Timber Legality Assurance System (Sistem Verifikasi Legalitas Kayu/ SVLK) must be followed in order to control Timber Utilization Permits (Ijin Pemanfaatan Kayu/IPK). The quality of ecosystem restoration must be enhanced, and awareness campaigns and environmental education are needed.
Buffer zones along critical park boundaries When establishing community forestry schemes in a special-use zone a ministerial decree is needed on procedures for collection of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) by local communities. It is also essential to build long-term partnerships, facilitate community development and provide technical assistance to community members and
XII Executive Summary key champions surrounding the park. In addition, it is important to establish a research area, intensify research activities and link with an international ecotourism operator.
Greater empowerment is required to implement the recommended strategies in a consistent and sustained manner. This can be achieved through reforming NP management, combined with strong political support from the central government.
Building internal power Park organizational structures should be set up according to specific challenges, threats and pressures, and not follow a template defined by the Ministry of Living Environment and Forestry (MoEF) general rules and regulations. The number of resorts (field offices), village facilitation targets, community empowerment strategies and support must be based on park-specific strategies. The number of managerial, administration and functional staff (e.g., forest rangers, Park functional staff, or Penilai ekosistem hutan/PEH, with special duties to assess the quality of the forest ecosystem, and forest extension workers) must be based on park-specific development needs. Each park’s annual budget should give top priority to field activities and should be defined on the basis of the park’s action plans. Capacity building of park staff at all levels should be provided and continuously monitored and should be based on a reliable assessment of training needs. Most field activities should be led by or coordinated with park officials and not rely too much on partners/ stakeholders/ consultants. Park management should be strongly supported by MoEF’s technical implementation units at the regional level.
Support from central government Central government, guided by the World Heritage Working Group (WHWG), has to provide strong support. To enhance NP conservation governance and management, strong political support for NP authorities is needed at the regional level. Central government can also provide support to settle conflicts related to chronic encroachments through integrated law enforcement and judiciary processes. It can reconcile misinterpretation of NP areas related to the delineation of forest and waters at the provincial level, and can establish buffer zones in KSNP and BBSNP and define them as National Strategic Areas. It can develop policy to establish community forestry in NPs. Legal measures include Revised Law No 5/1990 on natural resource conservation, more severe punishment for perpetrators; the Law on Recognition and Protection the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and the Ministerial decree on the extraction of NTFPs by the local community.
The central government can improve SVLK by requiring auditors to assess IPK permit holders and audit all oil palm concessions surrounding TRHS to ensure that they have been certified. It can increase the number of young forest rangers and young forest extension workers (village conservation governance and comunity development facilitators), especially those recruited from local communities. It can increase the NPs’
XIII Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms budget for patrols, field operations, community development and village government capacity building and facilitation, and ensure that capacity building for NP staff is aligned with park-specific challenges, threats and pressures. It can facilitate the Joint Four-Ministerial Decree of 17 October 2014 concerning procedures for the settlement of land tenure in State Forest Land, but only after its technical guidelines are enacted.
A major new initiative must be put forward by NP management at the national and local level, which moves beyond a “business-as-usual” approach to emphasize preventive measures and communication with local communities. This approach must bring the majority of NP investment to the field level to conduct intensive data collection (supported by advance GIS/Remote Sensing), carry out patrols, and reconcile NP boundaries with local communities. Other crucial management actions include extensive communication with the local community, enhancing the quality of long-term partnerships for community development, strengthening awareness campaigns, initiating social forestry programs in the special-use zone, and developing NTFP harvesting and other NP environmental services that could be managed by the local community. Much more effort should be focused on establishing a social buffer along critical boundaries. Disputed settlements and chronic encroachment should be dealt with through collaborative efforts involving the local police, local government and prosecutors. These efforts require support from the Commission for Corruption Eradication and the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre to convict the perpetrators and eradicate the syndicates, networks and businesses involved in illegal activities.
NP management should have strong communication and networking capacity to promote the pivotal role of TRHS as a system that supports regional economic development, and to demonstrate the economic benefit of nature conservation through innovative ecotourism marketing. NP management should be inclusive: it must be willing to involve the regional government in the planning, collaborative management, monitoring and evaluation of NP programs.
MoEF — together with each national park — should redesign park administration, including regulatory instruments, planning, budgeting, resource allocations and related systems. These should be dedicated to addressing the key threats and pressures that face each NP. Capacity building of field staff, technical staff and managerial staff needs to be strengthened in line with these key threats and pressures.
XIV 1. Introduction
Background
Tropical forests contain some of the most species-rich and highly threatened habitats in the world (Myers et al. 2000). The main threats to these habitats are deforestation and habitat degradation, which reduces biodiversity through habitat fragmentation. Deforestation rates on the Indonesian island of Sumatra are some of the highest in the world (Holmes 2001). Despite the importance of this forest, it is being cleared by illegal loggers and by commercial and subsistence agriculturalists, leading to fears that all of the island’s lowland forest will be cleared within several years from today (Jepson et al. 2001).
The Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (TRHS) was inscribed in the World Heritage list in 2004 by the World Heritage Committee (WHC) of UNESCO for its unique
1 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms natural beauty, the importance of its habitats for conservation of endemic species, and the significant contribution of its ongoing ecological and biological processes to the global landscape (Box 1.1). TRHS comprises three widely separated national parks: Gunung Leuser (GLNP), Kerinci Seblat (KSNP) and Bukit Barisan Selatan (BBSNP). It covers a total area of 2,595,124 ha, constituting one of the largest conservation areas in Southeast Asia. The site, which is located in the Barisan mountain range, holds the greatest potential for long-term conservation of the diverse plants and animals of Sumatra, which include many endangered species (WHP 2014).1
Box 1.1 Biodiversity richness and the natural beauty of TRHS1 The biodiversity of the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra is exceptional, both in species numbers and uniqueness. It is home to an estimated 10,000 species of plants, including 17 endemic genera. Animal diversity in TRHS is also impressive, with 201 mammal species and some 580 species of birds, 465 of which are resident and 21 endemic. Of the mammal species, 22 are endemic to the Sundaland hotspot and 15 are confined to the Indonesian region, including the endemic Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii). Key mammal species also include the Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae), Sumatran rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis), Sumatran elephant (Elephas maximus sumatranus) and Malayan sun bear (Helarctos malayanus).
TRHS includes the highest volcano in Indonesia, Mount Kerinci (3,805 masl), along with many other physical features of exceptional natural beauty, including Lake Gunung Tujuh (the highest lake in Southeast Asia), numerous other volcanic and glacial high- altitude lakes, fumaroles, waterfalls, cave systems and steep rocky backdrops. Both GLNP and BBSNP contain areas that border the Indian Ocean; the altitudinal range of the TRHS extends from sea level to the highest mountains on Sumatra. All three protected areas in TRHS exhibit wide altitudinal zonation of vegetation, from lowland rainforest to montane forest, extending to subalpine low forest, scrub and shrub thickets and covering an astounding diversity of ecosystems.
Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world, and is rapidly developing despite the economic setbacks of the Asian financial crisis. Sumatra has a large and increasing human population, many living in hundreds of villages that surround or even lie within the remaining forests and national parks (Box 1.2). This is a challenge to park managers, who have to balance the need to protect natural habitats and wildlife while respecting the rights and livelihoods of the local people. Encroachment (illegal occupation of state forest land, or penyerobotan lahan hutan negara) and land claims have become major problems in the parks, leading to the loss of lowland forest with high biodiversity in the Besitang area in GLNP, Sipurak Hook in KSNP and Rata Agung in BBSNP.
1 See WHP (2014).
2 Introduction
Box 1.2. National parks in Indonesia Law no. 5/1990 defines a national park as an area designated to protect natural ecosystems and managed by the National Park Agency using a system of spatial zoning. A national park is to be used for research, education, cultural needs, tourism or recreation. This definition complies with the IUCN classification (Dudley, 2008) of national parks as Category II protected areas, established to: (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations; (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area; (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible.
Some of the main threats to TRHS integrity are encroachment for illegal logging and settlement, the expansion of monocultures (oil palm, rubber, coffee, etc.), and infrastructure development (mainly roads); these are depleting the forest areas in TRHS. The continuous threats to the outstanding universal value of TRHS led to the World Heritage Committee including it on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 2011. This has serious implications for the reputation of the Government of Indonesia (GOI) due to its poor commitment to protect its World Heritage Sites.
Members of the IUCN-UNESCO WH monitoring missions to Sumatra during 2006 explained their recommendation for adding TRHS to the Danger List:
“The capacity of management to effectively respond to and resolve critical situations has failed to keep pace with the mounting threats due to a range of institutional constraints, including funding constraints; inadequate cooperation and support from local, provincial and central government agencies, including in some cases law enforcement agencies; confusion over the rights of local government within national parks; and bureaucratic procedural constraints and inefficiencies. In addition, local communities and local government remain largely uninformed about the importance of and threats to WH property, and are therefore often antagonistic” (Hitchcock and Meyers 2006; 4).
In response, Indonesia’s National World Heritage Task Force has established an Emergency Action Plan (EAP 2007–2011; see Appendix 1) that should lead to the removal of TRHS from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The action plan highlights several activities aimed at resolving the increasing threats caused by encroachment of forest areas, and maintaining the integrity of TRHS area through law enforcement and collaborative efforts with stakeholders such as local communities and local governments.
The Government of Indonesia has carried out many initiatives to prevent and resolve encroachment in protected areas such as TRHS, using both litigation and non-litigative approaches. At the national level, the Ministry of Forestry established a Task Force
3 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms on Anti-Encroachment in 2011. The National World Heritage Task Force, coordinated by the Ministry of People’s Welfare, is coordinating efforts with the related ministries and with provincial and district governments. At the local level, the three national parks in TRHS have tried several initiatives, including repressive approaches such as field operations and eviction of illegal settlers, and persuasive approaches such as refugee relocation through agreements developed with the local communities. In addition, there are many initiatives by NGOs working in the field to prevent and resolve encroachment in the TRHS. However, the economic and development pressures in areas adjacent to the national parks are often greater than the resources available to prevent the encroachment; this means that the degradation of the forest continues. Until recently, many initiatives carried out by stakeholders have been left unacknowledged. Many lessons can be learned from the experience of implementing these initiatives, and from assessing their degree of success.
In October 2013 an IUCN monitoring mission visited Jakarta and aimed to finalize the Desired State of Conservation for Removal (DSOCR) from the Danger List, which involved identifying and agreeing on a set of Corrective Measures. The mission clearly stated its view:
Encroachment remains the most serious threat to the property, both in the immediate future and in the longer term. Land cover pressures in the areas surrounding the three national parks are often high, including pressure to expand coffee and oil palm plantations (van Merm and Perkin 2013; 9).
This report compiles and reviews the anti-encroachment initiatives that have taken place in three national parks under the TRHS, analyzes their strengths and weaknesses, and assesses their impact on the integrity of the national park area. Based on this analysis, the report identifies the key factors that influence the achievement of initiatives, and provides recommendations for suitable anti-encroachment methods in TRHS. The recommended activities are expected to help resolve encroachment in TRHS, and assist in the implementation of the Emergency Action Plan (EAP), thus contributing to maintaining the integrity of TRHS, with the ultimate goal of removing TRHS from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Objectives
The study outlined in this report had four objectives: 1. identify anti-encroachment initiatives that have been carried out in three national parks of TRHS (Gunung Leuser, Bukit Barisan Selatan, and Kerinci Seblat) since 1990; 2. analyze the short- and long-term impacts of anti-encroachment initiatives on maintaining the integrity of TRHS and its adjacent area;
4 Introduction
3. synthesize the lessons learned, including the factors that support and hinder anti- encroachment initiatives in TRHS, from the local to national level; and 4. provide recommendations on the suitable anti-encroachment methods to be applied in each national park of TRHS.
Outputs
The study had three outputs: 1. detailed descriptions of the anti-encroachment initiatives that have been carried out in TRHS by the government, NGOs, and other related stakeholders from 1990 until 2013; 2. compilation of lessons learned from the anti-encroachment initiatives, including the factors that help and hinder anti-encroachment initiatives in TRHS from the local to national level — this includes analysis of the short- and long-term effects of the initiatives from the ecological, socio-cultural and economic perspective; and 3. recommendations on the suitable anti-encroachment methods to be applied in each national park of TRHS, taking into account the different contexts of the areas most affected by encroachment in each park.
Methodology Assessment of encroachment trends in TRHS Encroachment is defined here as the illegal occupation of state forest land. To determine the rate of encroachment in TRHS, the study mapped forest cover from 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2014 across TRHS using Landsat imagery. The images were geometrically corrected to accurately represent land cover on the ground, and radiometrically corrected to remove the effects of atmospheric haze. A composite image was produced for each image. The forest change map was then constructed, using an on-screen digitizing method that mapped forest and non-forest classes from the various years. A multi-stage visual technique was used with on-screen interpretation to directly digitize land cover units and validate the results using high-resolution images from Google Earth and supported by interviews with resource persons during focus group discussions. See Appendix 2.
Collection of information Focus group discussions (FGDs) were considered the most effective way to collect information due to the limited amount of time and resources available to conduct fieldwork, and the study’s vast area and long duration period (1990–2014). The FGD in BBSNP was conducted at Kotaagung Town; Tanggamus District, Lampung Province on 16 September 2014; in GLNP it was held in Medan, North Sumatra Province on 10 October 2014; and in KSNP it was conducted in Sungai Penuh Town, Jambi Province
5 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms on 21 October 2014. An FGD conducted at the NP office gathered all NP key staff members, ranging from the resort head to the head of the NP (40–50 persons).
Each focus group discussion comprised five steps: • TBI presented the objectives of the UNESCO study and the goals of the FGD; • the NP head gave a presentation on encroachment problems; • FGD participants were divided into several groups, based on region, and each group discussed the encroachment problems and the anti-encroachment measures that were conducted from 1990–2014; • each group presented the results of their discussion in the plenary session; • conclusions and recommendations of the FGD participants and field checks on the encroached areas were conducted in GLNP and BBNP.
Literature study Given its limited resources to conduct fieldwork and carry out field observations of the encroachment areas, this study places greater emphasis on the results of a literature analysis. The following sources were used: completion reports of several conservation programs in TRHS; scientific articles published in international journals; non-academic publications in Indonesia; books and articles published by Indonesian conservationists; NGO project reports; and UNESCO reports/documents. The study was also supported by intensive email communication with Indonesian and international experts.
6 2. Status and trend of encroachment in TRHS
Geographic position
The Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (TRHS) is located in the Barisan Mountain Range. Apart from minor interruptions this range runs the full length of Sumatra, extending northwest-southeast; it is the island’s main landform. It contains three national parks. Gunung Leuser (GLNP) is situated in the northernmost part of the range; Kerinci Seblat (KSNP) is located in the middle; and Bukit Barisan Selatan BBSNP in located in the southernmost reaches (Figure 1).
Each of the three parks has different types of tropical rainforest, which harbour the island’s high floral and faunal biodiversity. GLNP includes all the major rainforest types of Northern Sumatra, from sandy beach forests on the west coast and peat
7 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms swamp forests in Kluet to the alpine formation on the mountain complex of Leuser, Kemiri, Simpali and Bandahara. KSNP encompasses a spectrum of habitats, from species-rich lowland rainforests through hill forests and unique highland wetland systems to montane forests and subalpine habitats on Sumatra’s highest mountain. BBSNP comprises coastal, lowland, highland and sub-montane forests (PHKA 2003).
Gunung Leuser National Park
Kerinci Seblat National Park
Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park
Figure 1. Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra
GLNP extends across two provinces; most of it is located in Aceh Province (81.2%), and the rest is in North Sumatra Province (18.8%) (Figure 2). GLNP includes nine districts (Figure 3).
GLNP KSNP BBSNP
18.8% 17.9% Jambi 31.7% 20.9% Aceh West Sumatra Lampung North Sumatra 25.0% Bengkulu South Sumatra 81.2% 79.1% 25.4% South Sumatra
Figure 2. Percentage of three national parks by province
8 Status and trend of encroachment in TRHS
Aceh Tenggara 35.7% Gayo Lues 21.9% Langkat 18.7% Aceh Selatan 14.5% Aceh Barat Daya 8.9%
District Aceh Tamiang 0.2% Karo 0.1% Deli Serdang 0.0% Dairi 0.0% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Percentage (%) Figure 3. GLNP by districts, 2014
KSNP extends across four provinces: South Sumatra (17.9%), Bengkulu (25.0%), West Sumatra (25.4%), and Jambi (31.7%). Based on district boundaries in 2014, KSNP is spread across eleven districts (Figure 4).
Pesisir Selatan 19.3% Musi Rawas 17.2% Kerinci 16.8% Bengkulu Utara 13.0% Merangin 12.2% Rejang Lebong 9.2% Solok
District 5.9% Muko-Muko 2.9% Bungo 2.7% Lubuk Linggau 0.7% Sawahlunto 0.2% 0 5 10 15 20 Percentage (%)
Figure 4. KSNP by district, 2014
BBSNP extends across two provinces; most of it is located in Lampung Province (79.2%), with the remaining area in Bengkulu (20.8%). BBSNP is spread over four districts (Figure 5).
Pesisir Barat 58.6%
Kaur 20.8% District Lampung Barat 16.5%
Tanggamus 4.1%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percentage (%) Figure 5. BBSNP by district, 2014
Sumatran forests are threatened by disturbances. These include population increases, agriculture expansion and exploitation of the forests’ biological and physical resources. Some of the main threats to TRHS integrity are encroachment for illegal logging and settlements, the expansion of monocultures (oil palm, rubber, coffee, etc.), and infrastructure development (mainly roads). The ongoing threats to the
9 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms outstanding universal value of TRHS led to its being included on the List of World Heritage in Danger by the World Heritage Committee in 2011. The status and trend of encroachment in the three national parks of TRHS is described below.
Key Feature and Threats
Gunung Leuser National Park Gunung Leuser National Park (GLNP) was established in 1980 (Box 2.1). With a size of 838,872 ha, it is located within the Leuser Ecosystem (2.1 million ha), which was designed as the buffer zone of the park (see Box 2.2). The park was designated as a Biosphere Reserve in 1981, an Asean Heritage Park in 1984, and a National Strategic Area in 2008 (see Figure 6).
The park consists of steep, almost inaccessible mountainous terrain, with altitudes that range from 0 metres asl in Kluet (South Aceh) to 3,381 m at the top of Mount Leuser (SE Aceh), which it is named after. The Alas River runs through the park, dividing it into an eastern and western portion. The park is particularly significant for conservation, since it is the last place on earth where orangutans, tigers, elephants, rhinoceros and leopards live together. The park also contains the upper watersheds of nine economically important rivers, which are increasingly prone to costly flooding.
Figure 6. Gunung Leuser National Park
10 Status and trend of encroachment in TRHS
Box 2.1. The history and legal status of GLNP2 The history of GLNP started in 1914, when local Acehnese leaders asked the Dutch colonial government to protect the forests of Singkil and Alas Landen to prevent logging there. In 1928 a Dutch rubber planter made the first proposal for a reserve. In 1932 he revised the proposal; this led to the establishment of the wildlife reserve of Gunung Leuser in 1934. The reserve, which was endorsed by the Governor of Aceh, comprised of an area of 416,500 ha. In 1936, the Kluet Swamps (20,000 ha) were added to the reserve; two years later, Sekundur (79,100 ha) and Langkat Barat and Langkat Selatan (127,075 ha) reserves were established. More than three decades later, two stations were established that later played a vital role in the development of research, protection and ecotourism in GLNP. In 1972, a Dutch couple established an orangutan rehabilitation and research station at the Ketambe River. A year later, two women started another orangutan rehabilitation centre at the Bahorok River in Langkat. In 1976 the Government of Indonesia established the Kappi wildlife reserve (Suaka Margasatwa), with an area of 150,000 ha.
All the reserves in the Gunung Leuser area were later combined. On 6 March 1980, the government, through the Ministry of Agriculture, formally announced the establishment of Gunung Leuser National Park, one of the country’s first five national parks, with an area of 792,675 ha. In 1984 the area of the park was expanded to 862,975 ha to include five wildlife reserves (Gunung Leuser, Kappi, Langkat, Kluet and Sikundur); a forest recreation area (Lawe Gurah); and two protection forests (Serbolangit and Sembabala).
Figure box 1. Boundaries of GLNP based on MoF decree 1997 (1,094,692 ha) and 2014 (838,872 ha). (Source: GLNP 2014)
The park’s boundary was formally established by a Decree of the Minister of Forestry, and covered an area of approximately one million ha in the Provinces of D.I. Aceh and North Sumatra. To accomodate spatial planning, the area of GLNP is now 838,872 ha, a reduction of 255,820 ha (see Figure box 1). A large part of the park has been gazetted. The new size has caused different perceptions among MoEF (Directorate General of Forest Planology), the GLNP authority and the Provincial Government of D.I. Aceh. 2
2 See PHKA 2003 and WHP TRHS 2014.
11 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Dipterocarp lowland rainforests occurring below 600 metres are the most important vegetation type, and cover 12% of the park area. The 105 species of mammals recorded in the park represent 60% of the Sumatran total, many of which are threatened elsewhere. The park supports the last viable population of Sumatran rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis), estimated at 130 to 200 individuals. Other important large mammals include tigers (Panthera tigris sumatrae), clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa), leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis), Asiatic golden cat (Catopuma temminckii), orangutan (Pongo abelii), white-handed gibbon (Hylobates lar), Thomas’s leaf monkey (Presbytis thomas), Asian wild dog (Cuon alpinus), Malasian sun bear (Helarctos malayanus), Sumatran serow (Capricornis sumatraensis), and Asian elephant (Elephas maximus). The park’s 325 bird species represent 60% of the country’s total (ACB 2010; Kelman 2013).
Box 2.2. Leuser Ecosystem The Leuser Ecosystem/Kawasan Ekosistem Leuser (2.1 million ha) was declared a Strategic Area of national importance, mostly for economic and environmental reasons. The ecosystem forms a massive buffer zone around GLNP. It is illegal to undertake any activities inside the Leuser Ecosystem that are not directly related to either its protection or restoration; this is the strongest protection status possible under Indonesian law. Moreover, both provincial and district-level spatial plans comply with national regulations, and the communities that live along its periphery have become aware of the boundaries of the Leuser Ecosystem. The main threats to the ecosystem include large-scale illegal logging, wildlife poaching, agricultural encroachment by smallholder farmers, destructive logging operations, conversion of neighbouring forests for crops and settlements, and road construction. Recognizing the need to protect the Leuser Ecosystem, the Governor of Aceh, with the agreement of the Aceh Parliament, established a special body to manage it: the Badan Pengelola Kawasan Ekosistem Leuser. Approximately 690,000 people live in or adjacent to the Leuser Ecosystem.
The main threats to the park include illegal, large-scale logging; poorly managed forest concessions on the park boundaries; agricultural encroachment by smallholder farmers; conversion of neighbouring forests to crops; road construction in and around the park; development of oil palm plantations; poaching of protected mammals, especially Sumatran tiger and elephant; and Internal Displaced People (IDP), who took refuge in the area due to the armed conflict between the Indonesian military and the Free Aceh Movement. The park is also surrounded by about 320 villages (Sapto Aji, pers. comm., 2015).
Since 2004 forest loss in Aceh has increased due to two fundamental changes. First, Aceh’s 30-year period of civil conflict ended in August 2005, at which time there was political and economic uncertainty and investment was constrained. Second, the 2004 tsunami was a human and infrastructural disaster, leading to a massive reconstruction effort and a strong demand for timber.
12 Status and trend of encroachment in TRHS
Deforestation rates have increased dramatically in Aceh, rising from an average of 20,000 ha per year in 1990s to an estimated 130,000 ha per year in 2005–2006, a rate of 3.66%. The involvement of the army and police in illegal logging has been reported. GLNP receives minimal support for law enforcement from local governments; they strongly resent the large proportion of their territories occupied by the park, even though the steep and infertile parklands are unsuitable for agriculture or sustainable logging. Illegal encroachment and logging inside the park are clearly expanding and are apparently not constrained by any enforcement measures (Kelman 2013).
Kerinci Seblat National Park Kerinci Seblat National Park (KSNP) covers 1,389,510 ha and represents the largest continuous area of undisturbed primary forest in Sumatra (Figure 7; Box 2.3). It is the largest national park in Southeast Asia and is also designated as an Asean Heritage Park. The national park protects economically important rivers that drain into Jambi Province.
Figure 7. Kerinci Seblat National Park KSNP extends along the volcanic Barisan Mountains nearly 350 km from south to north, with maximum width of about 70 km. The park surrounds a densely populated mountain valley enclave, which is part of the central rift valley of the Barisan range. The enclave extends to 70 km length and 25 km width, lying at an altitude between 900 m and 1300 m a.s.l. The Kerinci valley consists of alluvial plains and includes Lake Kerinci. In the south, the park is divided from the Lebong valley in Bengkulu by Mount
13 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Sumbing (2,507 m) and Mount Masurai (2,935 m); at its northern end it is separated from the lateral valley around Muara Labuh by Mount Kerinci. The park contains more than twenty unique wetland areas, including volcanic lakes and peat swamp forests. It contains several major peaks: Mount Kerinci, an active volcano and one of the highest mountains in Indonesia (3,804 m), Mount Pantaicermin (2,690 m), Mount Tujuh (2,604 m), Mount Terembung (2,577 m), Mount Rasam (2,566 m), Mount Boleng (2,560 m) and Mount Raya (2,543 m). East of the Barisan Mountains the landscape slopes gently to the inland plains, while in the west the slopes down to the coast are quite steep. Morphological processes typical in the humid tropics have formed the relief of the national park. The deeply weathered soils and high precipitation make erosion and landslides common. The relief is characterized by steep slopes and relatively flat valley bottoms, forming typical rolling hills in the lowlands and hill zones (Werner 2001).3
Box 2.3. History and legal status of KSNP3 Prior to the establishment of KSNP as a national park, its forest areas had a different status. In 1921, while the country was under Dutch governance, Indrapura and Bayang forests (205,550 ha) in Pesisir Selatan and Solok districts were designated as nature reserves. In the same year, Merangin Alai forests in Bungo Tebo and Sarko Districts (24,287 ha) were designated as protection forests, and Sangir, Jujuhan and Kambang forests in Solok, Sijunjung and Pesisir Selatan Districts (40,800 ha) were designated as production forest/limited production forests. In 1929, Vick van Inderapura and Bukit Tapan forests in Kerinci and Bungo Tebo Districts (279,550 ha) were designated as nature reserves. Protection forest status was given in 1936 to Batanghari I, Lubuk Nyiur and Kambang forests (129,580 ha) in Pesisir Selatan District.
Under the Government of Indonesia, Rawas Ulu Lakitan forests in Musi Rawas District (281,120 ha) received wildlife reserve status in 1979. During 1980 and 1981, Bukit Kayu Embun and Bukit Gedang forests in Bengkulu Utara and Rejang Lebong Districts (154,750 ha) were also designated wildlife reserves. In 1982, after extensive field surveys by FAO and the Ministry of Forestry, these forests were nominated as a national park by the Ministry of Agriculture.
After the designation of Kerinci Seblat National Park region by the Minister of Forestry, KSNP was delineated. KSNP increased its area to 1,375,349.867 ha. This was formalized by the Ministry of Forestry on 14 October 1999. In 2004 the park was expanded by about 14,160 ha to include production forests from Sipurak Hook in Merangin District, Jambi Province.
Kerinci-Seblat contains a variety of habitats at a range of elevations. Lowland evergreen forests are the most important from a conservation perspective, and the most threatened. Important mammals include Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris
3 See PHKA 2003 and WHP TRHS 2014.
14 Status and trend of encroachment in TRHS sumatrae), elephant, siamang, gibbon, tapir and Sumatran rabbit. Most of the park’s mammals and birds are found in the closed-canopy forests below 1,000 m, where encroachment has been the most severe.
The main threats to the park include road construction, wildlife poaching, agricultural encroachment, in-migration, illegal logging, mining, collection of non-timber forest products, mining and geothermal energy development.4 The park is surrounded by about 420 villages (David, pers. comm., 2015).
Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park (BBSNP) is the third-largest protected area (356,800 ha) in Sumatra (Figure 8). The area was declared a wildlife sanctuary in 1935 and become a national park in 1982 (Box 2.4). Located in the southwestern part of the island, it extends across the provinces of Lampung (79.12%) and Bengkulu (20.88%). The park extends 150 km along the Barisan Mountains, and its diverse topography ranges from coastline in the south to mountainous forest in the north. The park is narrow, with a perimeter about 700 km long (Kinnaird et al. 2003). It is bordered by about 190 villages with a high population density (WCS, WWF and YABI 2015), whose inhabitants carry out subsistence agriculture and have cash-crop plantations. The park’s hydrological function is a life support system. The park is a catchment area and lies in the upstream areas of 181 rivers; 91 main rivers flow downstream for use by communities in three provinces (Lampung, Bengkulu, and South Sumatra), supporting agriculture, micro-hydro and fisheries.
The park has a rich biological diversity and natural scenic beauty, which hold the potential for many purposes, such as science, education, supporting cultivation and breeding, and ecotourism. It includes coastal forest (1%), lowland rainforest (45%), hilly rainforest (34%), lower mountain rainforest (17%), and highland mountain forest (3%). Since its ecosystems are richly diverse, the park has become an ideal habitat for at least 514 plant species, including 126 orchid species, 26 rattan species and 15 bamboo species, including the largest (Rafflesia sp.) and the tallest (Amorphophalus sp.) flower in the world (Kinnaird et al. 2003).
Forest loss has become the greatest threat to the conservation of BBSNP. The dramatic loss of forest cover is attributed to variety of factors, including illegal logging and conversion to agriculture by settlers and people arriving through Indonesia’s official transmigration program, development of estate crops and forest fires (Sunderlin et al. 2001). Gaveau et al. (2009) report that high coffee prices, lack of law enforcement, and rural poverty are the primary causes of deforestation and encroachment in southwest Sumatra, including BBSNP.
4 According to Law No 21/2014, geothermal is not a mining process; however, it is an incompatible land use for a WHP.
15 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Figure 8. Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park
5
Box 2.4. The history and legal status of BBSNP5 The history of BBSNP started in 1935, when the Dutch colonial government gave wildlife reserve status to the area known formerly as Sumatra Selatan 1. On 1 April 1979, under the Government of Indonesia, the area became a nature reserve. In 1982, under the decree of the Minister of Agriculture, the area was declared a national park. In 1990 the Minister of Forestry established Bukit Barisan Selatan Marine Reserve, covering an area of 21,600 ha. Since then, the marine reserve has become an integral part of BBSNP and is managed by the park.
The existence of the park was strengthened by a decree of the Minister of Forestry in 1984, which changed its name to Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park. BBSNP covers an area of 356,800 ha. The area and borders of the park have not changed since it was established as a wildlife reserve.
5 See PHKA 2003.
16 Status and trend of encroachment in TRHS
Encroachment trends
Patterns of encroachment in TRHS are worsening the impacts of other activities, such as the poaching of tiger and rhinoceros, and illegal logging, which is rampant on the island, both within and outside of protected areas (PAs). TRHS also exhibits evidence of major and ongoing agricultural encroachment. This is probably the single greatest ongoing threat to all three national parks within the world heritage property.
Encroachment in GLNP The most serious encroachment took place in the Langkat, Sekundur and Alas valleys and was related to small logging operations, which were most active from 1976 to 1988. Encroachment in areas such as Simpur, Marpunge, Jumalada, Sei Kerapuh, Sei Lepan and Sei Minyak is mainly by individuals or groups aiming to convert areas in the park into agriculture.
In 2014, the encroached areas in GLNP were 42,488 ha, an increase of 121.9% from the 1990 total (19,151 ha). This encroached area was a lower percentage of the park’s total area than in KSNP and BBSNP. The change in land cover in GLNP during 1990–2014 is presented in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1. Cumulative land-cover change in GLNP (ha), 1990–2014 Landcover Classes 1990 2000 2010 2014 Bare land 182 396 711 813 Dry cultivation land 4,401 8,078 14,218 18,027 Mixed tree crops 1,951 3,585 6,522 9,673 Oil palm plantation 6,656 7,744 8,370 8,430 Rice field 1,120 1,123 1,124 1,124 Rubber plantation 228 314 694 881 Shrub 934 951 951 951 Swamp shrub 1,244 1246 1,247 1,247 Total 16,715 23,436 33,837 41,145
As shown in Table 2.1, the dominant land-cover change in GLNP was to dry cultivation land, followed by mixed tree crops and oil palm plantation. See also Figure 9. The largest encroachment occurred in Aceh Tenggara (20,722 ha), followed by Langkat (8,911 ha) and Gayo Lues (7,462 ha) districts, where most of the encroached areas are located alongside the roads that cross the park (See Figure 10 and Appendix 4). The encroached areas in Langkat District are concentrated in Besitang Sub-District and are the result of unresolved conflicts related to Aceh refugees in the park from the end of the 1990s to the present. The trend of encroachment in GLNP during 1990–2014 is presented in Figure 11.
17 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Dry Cultivation Land 18,027 Mixed Tree Crops 9,673 Oil Palm Plantation 8,430 Swamp shrub 1,247 Rice Field 1,124 Shrub 951
Landcover classes Rubber Plantation 881 Bareland 813 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Total Area (ha) Figure 9. Land-cover change in GLNP until 2014
During 1990–2000, the encroachment rate was 549 ha/year. During 2000–2010 the encroachment rate increased by 1,460 ha/year, but from 2010–2014 it declined to 325 ha/year. See Table 2.7.
1990 2000
2010 2014 Figure 10. Historical land-cover change in GLNP
18 Status and trend of encroachment in TRHS
45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 Total Encroached Area (ha) Encroached Total 0 1990 2000 2010 2014 Year Figure 11. Trend of encroachment in GLNP, 1990–2014
Encroachment in KSNP KSNP is especially vulnerable to encroachment because its elongated and irregular shape creates a very long boundary. Maintaining and patrolling this boundary, which is approximately 2,600 km long, is an enormous task for park management. Despite the park’s long history, people have not respected its border in many places. In other cases, people have unknowingly encroached on the park or settled within it before the park was established. Many people cultivate land and build houses along the boundary and sometimes far inside the park.
Encroachment changes and trends in KSP during 2000–2014 are presented in Table 2.2. In 2014 the total encroached areas in KSNP had nearly doubled compared to 2000. The encroachment rate has increased from 1990 to 2014. After the establishment of KSNP the encroachment rate increased slightly, and then increased sharply from 2010 to 2014. The largest encroachment areas in KSNP are in Kerinci District (27,799 ha), followed by Rejang Lebong (26,529 ha), Lubuk Linggau (17,667 ha), Solok (15,738 ha), Pesisir Selatan (15,312 ha), and Musi Rawas (11,883 ha) districts (see Figure 14 and Appendix 4).
As shown in Table 2.2 and Figure 12, the land-cover changes from 1990 to 2014 were dominated by mixed tree crops. The creation of cinnamon6 gardens and plantations in Kerinci, Merangin and other districts has been one of the major forms of encroachment. Satellite images show that forest clearing has taken place in many areas within the park, especially on relatively flat land that is bordered by settlements. Only very steep slopes tend to slow the encroachment (PHKA 2003). The largest area of encroachment has occurred in the last ten years, as shown by the rising rate of encroachment from 2000 to 2014. The partitioning of district boundaries and expansion of district development (roads and infrastructure) have been followed by an increase in encroachment. Trends of encroachment in GLNP during 1990–2014 are presented in Figure 13. 6 Cassia Vera (Cinnmomum burmannii, Lauraceae) is a close associate of C. zeylanicum, true cinnamon, and is also cultivated for its aromatic bark.
19 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Table 2.2. Cumulative land-cover change in KSNP (ha), 1990–2014 Landcover Classes 1990* 2000 2010 2014 Bare land 29 29 29 949 Crop plantation: rubber, 170 339 339 2,924 cocoa, coconut Dry cultivation land 10,203 15,080 24,561 12,655 Mixed tree crops 37,025 39,065 41,097 89,487 Rice fields 134 134 134 176 Shrub 14,126 15,509 18,138 21,178 Settlements 35 35 35 53 Swamp shrub 2,544 2,544 2,544 2,544 Timber plantations 356 356 356 356 Total 64,620 73,090 87,232 130,322 * = before establishment of KSNP
Mixed Tree Crops 89,487 Shrub 21,187 Dry Cultivation Land 12,655 Crop plantation 2,924 Swamp shrub 2,544 Bareland 949 Timber plantation 356
Landcover classes Rice Field 176 Settlements 53 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 10,0000 Total Area (ha)
Figure12. Land-cover change in KSNP 1990–2014
140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 Total Encroached Area (ha) Total 0 1990 2000 2010 2014 Year
Figure 13. Trend of encroachment in KSNP, 1990–2014
20 Status and trend of encroachment in TRHS
1990 2000
2010 2014 Figure 14. Historical land-cover change in KSNP
Encroachment in BBSNP Lampung Province, where most of BBSNP is located, is the main entry point for migrants from Java. Its local economy depends on agriculture and plantations. It supplies agricultural products to many big cities in Indonesia, and the province is famous as a coffee exporter. Lampung has a special place in the history of Indonesian transmigration. It was the initial place for implementing the Dutch colonization policy that moved people from Java to the outer islands. The first government-sponsored transmigration to Lampung took place in 1905. It remained a destination of the Indonesian transmigration program until the 1970s (Safitri 2006).
21 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
The major turning point in terms of migration was the 1977 peak in the international price of robusta coffee.7 This triggered spontaneous mass migration to the mountainous areas of southern Sumatra and led to major deforestation on the eastern fringe of BBSNP. Between 1976 and 1982, about 195,000 ha were cleared and converted into coffee plantations by an estimated 100,000 immigrants, most of whom originated in Java. Deforestation rates were closely correlated with local coffee prices. By the end of the twentieth century, all easily accessible forests under protection status (hutan lindung) to the east of the park had been converted into coffee plantations (Gaveau et al. 2009).
Deforestation in areas that are now part of BBSNP started in the 1960s. Satellite image analysis supports this finding, and shows that since 1972 the forest cover of BBSNP has been reduced by 46,100 ha; this represents a 13% loss of the total area of BBSNP (356,800 ha). From 1972 until 2006, deforestation in the BBSNP averaged 0.64% per year. The forest cover lost in BBSNP in that period was 67,225 ha of the 310,670 ha that remained in 1972, representing a 21% loss from 1972 to 2006. Image analysis indicates that the majority of forest conversion (80%) resulted from agricultural development; it started in the buffer area of BBSNP and moved inside the park (Suyadi 2011). Kusworo (2000) and Verbist and Paya (2004) note that conflicts over land ownership between Lampung-based local groups and the government and among government institutions have accelerated encroachment.
Encroachment from 1982 to 2000 was mainly caused by the expansion of community-based robusta coffee plantations in the park. The land cleared for coffee production increased by 28% in Lampung between 1996 and 2001 (O’Brien 2003). The expansion eventually receded due to less available land suitable for coffee cultivation combined with the plummeting world coffee price. WWF (2007) reported that an estimated 28% (or 89,224 ha) of the park’s original forest cover had been destroyed as a result of coffee plantation development: 60% of those encroached areas (55,042 ha) are now active agricultural lands, while the remaining 33,822 ha has regrown as grass, shrub or secondary forest. The study conducted by WWF shows that approximately 20,000 tonnes of a total of about 285,000 tonnes of robusta coffee produced in Lampung was illegally grown inside BBSNP. This represented around 4% of Indonesia’s annual robusta coffee production (Gaveau et al. 2009).
Table 2.3 and Figure 15 indicate that crop plantations (including coffee plantations) were the largest land-cover changes in BBSNP in 2014, followed by dry cultivation land and mixed tree crops. The largest encroachment areas in BBSNP were in
7 The preference for coffee as the major cash crop is due to multiple factors: the soils and climate are suitable; seedlings are easy to find; the crop is not very susceptible to pests; it starts producing after only three years; it is easy to store and transport; prices fluctuate but never stay low for long; and it is easy to sell, as there are many buyers. According to the type of encroachment, coffee is cultivated as a monocrop, part of a complex agroforestry system, or cropped with cocoa or various fruit trees (Levang et al. 2012).
22 Status and trend of encroachment in TRHS
Lampung Barat (34,500 ha) and Pesisir Barat (31,002 ha) districts (see Figure 16 and Appendix 4). The encroachment rate continuously increased from the 1980s to 2000, then sharply declined from 2000 to 2014 (Figure 17 and Table 2.7). After the Asian economic crisis that began in 1997, the deforestation rate in BBSNP increased dramatically by 13.00% per year, compared with the deforestation rate in 1972– 1996 of 9.09% per year (Suyadi 2011).
Table 2.3. Cumulative land-cover change in BBSNP (ha), 1990–2014 Landcover Classes 1990 2000 2010 2014 Bare land 1,677 186 218 230 Crop plantation: rubber, 18,470 24,958 27,428 36,489 cocoa, coconut, coffee Dry cultivation land 8,563 816 13,860 15,521 Mixed tree crops 7,767 16,844 15,259 11,182 Rice field 67 65 100 102 Shrub 8,615 24,738 16,072 12,121 Settlements 0 70 0.3 23 Swamp shrub 67 383 67 67 Waterbody 383 0 509 499 Total 45,609 68,059 73,512 76,233
Crop plantation 36,489 Dry Cultivation Land 15,521 Shrub 12,121 Mixed Tree Crops 11,182 Bareland 230 Rice Field 102
Landcover classes Swamp shrub 67 Settlements 23
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 Total Area (ha)
Figure 15. Land-cover change in BBSNP, 1990–2014
23 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
1990 2000
2010 2014 Figure 16. Historical land-cover change in BBSNP
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000 Total Encrached Area (ha) Total
0 1990 2000 2010 2014 Year
Figure 17. Trend of encroachment in BBSNP, 1990–2014
24 Status and trend of encroachment in TRHS
Encroachment Pattern in TRHS
The encroachment pattern of each NP is specific to it and is largely dictated by the rising demands for commodity crops, land and proximity to access roads. It is also related to slope. Research by Linkie, Rood and Smith (2009) in KSNP indicated that areas with greater forest accessibility (forests close to settlements, at the forest edge, at lower elevations and on flatter land) was more likely to be cleared for farmland. Accumulated encroachment during 1990–2014 in the three parks of TRHS is presented in Table 2.4 and 2.5.
As shown in Table 2.5, encroachment in TRHS is about 10% of the total area. The largest encroachment was in KSNP, followed by BSNP and GLNP (Figure 18). The highest rate of annual encroachment was also in KSNP, followed by BBSNP and GLNP.
Table 2.4. Accumulated encroachment in three national parks of TRHS, 1990–2014 National Encroached Area (ha) Annual encroachment Park 1990 2000 2010 2014 1990–2014 (ha/year) GLNP 19,151 24,641 39,240 42,488 972 BBSNP 45,223 67,671 72,999 74,988 1,240 KSNP 64,620 * 73,090 87,232 130,322 2,738 Total 128,995 165,402 199,470 247,798 4,950 * = before the establishment of KSNP
Table 2.5. Percentage of encroachment in three national parks of TRHS, 2014 Total % of % of National Total area % of total encroachment encroachment encroachment Park of NP (ha) encroachment (ha) of NP area of TRHS area GLNP 838,872 42,487 5.0 1.6 17.1 BBSNP 356,800 74,988 21.0 2.9 30.3 KSNP 1,389,510 130,322 9.4 5.0 52.6 Total 2,585,182 247,798 9.5 100.0
25 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
KSNP KSNP
BBSNP BBSNP 42,487.8 ha 972.4 ha/yr GLNP GLNP
130,322.2 ha 2,737.6 ha/yr 74,988 ha 1.240,2 ha/yr
A B
Figure 18. Encroached areas in TRHS (A) and rate of encroached area 1990–2014 (B)
Terrain conditions influence where settlers live. As presented in Table 2.6 and Figure 19, most encroachment occurred on flat and gentle terrain (0–25% slope), while 23.2% occurred on sloping land and only 12.1% occurred on steep to very steeply sloping areas. This is understandable, as most encroached areas are used for commercial agriculture. Kinnaird et. al. 2003, based on encroachment research in BBSNP, concluded that lowland forest disappeared six times faster than hill/montane forest, and forests on gentle slopes disappeared sixteen times faster than forests on steep slopes. Because TRHS is dominated by sloping land, encroachment rates have declined, as has the area suitable for commercial agriculture.
Table 2.6. Distribution of national parks land area by slope steepness National Total area per slope class (ha) Total (ha) Park 0–8% 8–15% 15–25% 25– 40% >40% GLNP 72,663 65,895 130,591 255,813 559,598 1,084,560 KSNP 78,548 172,534 323,173 436,315 359,435 1,370,004 BBSNP 61,429 74,281 84,643 67,248 27,178 314,779
BBSNP has the highest percentage of encroached areas (21%). This is much lower than the prediction by Kinnard et. al. (2003) that by 2010, 70% of the park would be used for agriculture. KSNP has the second highest percentage (9.4%), followed by GLNP (5%). Based on this finding, the highest park fragmentation/degradation occurred in BBSNP. This is understandable; BBSNP terrain is dominated by gently sloping lands (8–40% slope), in contrast with GLNP, which is dominated by very steeply sloping lands (>40% slope), and with KSNP, which is dominated by steeply sloping lands (>25% slope).
GLNP has suffered less forest fragmentation than BBSNP; this is indicated by the much lower percentage of forest encroachment (5% vs. 21%) and the flattening trend of the annual encroachment rate (Figure 11). In fact, in both BBSNP and GLNP the flattening trend is aligned with the diminishing amount of gently sloping land available. This is
26 Status and trend of encroachment in TRHS in contrast with KSNP, where the encroachment rate has risen (Figure 13), due to the considerable amount of gentle sloping land which is both accessible and suitable for agriculture.
>40
25-40
15-25
8-15
0-8 Degree of slope steepness 0 30000 60000 90000 120000 150000 Hectares
Bukit Barisan Selatan Gunung Leuser Kerinci Seblat
Figure 19. Land encroachment based on slope steepness
Conclusions, Chapter 2
The largest encroachment areas occurred in KSNP, followed by BBSNP and GLNP. Until 2014, most land-cover change in GLNP was caused by dry cultivation, followed by mixed tree crops and oil palm plantations. In KSNP, most land-cover change was caused by mixed tree crops, followed by dry cultivation and crop plantations such as rubber, cocoa and coconut. The largest land-use in BBSNP was crop plantations, followed by dry cultivation and mixed tree crops.
As shown in Table 2.7, encroachment declined significantly in BBSNP after the park was inscribed as a World Heritage Park in 2004; it did not decline in GLNP or KSNP. The decline in encroachment in BBSNP is likely connected with the improved overall park management, or with the limited amount of suitable agricultural lands due to the park’s steeper slopes. In contrast, GLNP and KSNP still had abundant areas suitable for agriculture during 2000–2014. See Table 2.8.
As shown in the encroachment rates for 2000–2010 and 2010–2014, there was also a significant decline in encroachment in BBSNP and GLNP after TRHS was inscribed on the List of World Heritage In Danger. The underlying causes for declining encroachment could be the enhanced park management in response to the Emergency Action Plan (EAP 2007–2011; see Appendix 1), or the diminishing areas suitable for agriculture in both parks due to the constraints of steeply sloping lands. Interestingly, these factors were not the case for KSNP, where the increasing trend of encroachment persists. This is most likely because of an abundance of suitable agriculture land
27 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms and due to the complex socio-economic issues along the elongated and irregular boundary of the park.
Table 2.7. Annual encroachment rate in three NPs in three different periods National Park 1990–2000 2000–2010 2010–2014 GLNP 549 1,460 325 BBSNP 2,245 533 199 KSNP 847 * 1,414 4,309 *= before the establishment of KSNP
Table 2.8. Summary of encroachment facts, TRHS Fact Remarks Largest encroachment areas KSNP 130,322 ha Smallest encroachment areas GLNP 42,488 ha Highest annual encroachment rate KSNP 2,737 ha Most severe park fragmentation BBSNP 21% of park area Least severe park fragmentation GLNP 5% of park area Declining (flattening) rate of encroachment BBSNP, GLNP Increasing rate of encroachment KSNP Dominant land-cover changes in GLNP Dry land cultivation/rainfed agriculture Dominant land-cover changes in KSNP Mixed tree crops (Cassiavera plantation) Dominant land-cover changes in KSNP Crop plantations (coffee)
Most of the land-cover changes in KSNP were for mixed-tree cropping/cinnamon- based agroforestry (Table 2.2.). It is hoped that better land management will align with soil and water conservation measures. More importantly, the facts on encroachment send a clear message to park management that more serious actions are urgently needed to address the existing condition.
28 3. Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014
Protected Areas: Conservation vs. Regional Development
The problems of protected area (PA) management in Indonesia result from conflicts between two different interests: conservation and economic development. Conservationists work to preserve natural beauty, biodiversity and the functions of natural resources as life-supporting systems; economic development involves roads, logging and other initiatives. Conflicts between the two interests occur at the local, national and international level. Developed countries in the Northern Hemisphere have long supported the value of heritage landscapes and have supported protected areas free from human settlement to ensure more efficient and effective conservation. The national parks in Sumatra have followed similar policies in the past.
29 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Although parks and protected areas now cover an estimated 23% of the Earth’s humid tropical forest biome, these forest landscapes remain threatened (Chape et al. 2003). In fact, until the early 1980s, the Indonesian government was more interested in development than conservation, and achieved little in preventing illegal logging and encroachment in PAs. Throughout the 1970s, the Indonesian government generated cash for economic development by logging its vast forest resources.
Remarkable and positive policy changes happened after the UNDP/FAO National Parks Development Project, the country’s first Environmental Management Act and the third World Parks Congress, which was held in Bali in 1982. Several national parks were announced, some of which had their status upgraded from protected areas (established during the Dutch colonial period).
Unfortunately, many PAs have lost some or all of their natural habitats through conversion to agriculture (Gaveau et al. 2009). The adoption of the PA concept in Indonesia ran smoothly during the colonial time until the end of the 1970s. PAs were preserved from human-caused deforestation by their remoteness and by the regions’s generally low population density. However, pressing problems increased dramatically during the reformation era, with the growing demand for land to respond to the high market for international cash crops.
The conflicts between conservation and development have been worsened by the slow responses of PA managers to the intensifying social and political pressures near PA boundaries. For example, it is still unclear how much communities are involved on PA management. In addition, the widespread proliferation/partition of districts (kabupaten) during the decentralization era8 has led to several districts overlapping with conservation areas. This has led to conflicts between district and PA management. Also, PA management has failed to demonstrate the real economic contribution of preserving nature to supporting community livelihoods or enhancing the gross domestic product of the local government.
Land conflicts increased significantly at the end of the 1990s, when a series of crises destabilized the new order and led to massive upheaval and reorganization of Indonesian government and society. Drought, fires and famine across Sumatra, combined with the Asian economic crisis,9 led to chaos and transformation. The fall of the Soeharto regime in 1998 and the ensuing process of rapid democratization and decentralization to regional autonomy had serious consequences for conservation practices in Indonesia.
8 Kabupaten (districts) rapidly became smaller and more numerous in the decade after decentralization, and new boundaries were drawn; this complicated regional planning and coordination. 9 Beginning in mid-1997, Asian currencies lost value against the U.S. dollar, leading to an unprecedented region-wide economic crisis. Among all the Asian countries affected, none fared worse than Indonesia.
30 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014
Decentralization has created broader authority for local governments, but it has also stimulated rent-seeking behaviour on the part of local bureaucrats and politicians. It has not created resource sustainability or better livelihoods for local communities, or — importantly — clarified people’s rights to land and forests. As a result, Indonesian decentralization law has had little positive impact on state-people relations (Safitri 2006). Negative consequences include the breakdown of the rule of law in the years immediately following the economic crisis and collapse of the Soeharto regime. In the desperate economic situation and disjointed political climate of the late 1990s, many Indonesians saw that there would not likely be any punishment for unlawful actions in PAs (McCarthy 2006). At the same time, the profitability of export crops increased, which led to more forest land being converted to agriculture. The overall result was an increase in illegal activities in PAs, including farming, settlements, poaching and illegal logging.
This chapter discussed the type and perceptions of so-called “squatters.” It also describes anti-encroachment initiatives conducted by various parties in collaboration with NP management in TRHS from 1990 to 2014. This collaboration, in projects that range from small to large, includes activities conducted by NPs using national funds. Information presented in this chapter comes from a literature review supported by information collected during focus group discussions (FGDs) in each of three NPs.
Type and perceptions of squatters
Pejoratively called “squatters,” these are landless poor people who illegally (informally) have established agricultural plots inside parks and protected areas. Some squatters live and farm inside the park boundaries; others live in villages close to the park, with at least part of their holding inside the park (Levang et al. 2012). The type of squatter varies among sites and can be categorized into five types: indigenous landless, local migrant, Javanese immigrant, poor landless migrant and “sly opportunists.” See Table 3.1.
31 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Table 3.1. Type of squatters in TRHS Squatters Characteristics Type 1 Origin Native to the area When they came to the area Long before the creation of the park Motives To overcome abject poverty Type of farming/business Subsistence food crop Indigenous landless Awareness of breaking the law Mostly unaware Displacement and reduced agriculture Negative impact of park creation land Local knowlege about living in Have local wisdom harmony with the forest Type 2 Migrant from an indigenous Origin community within the same district, province or island When they came to the area Mostly after the creation of the park Motives Economic opportunity Local Plantation crops (coffee, cacao, cassia Migrants Type of farming/business vera, temperate crops, rubber and oil palm) Awareness of breaking the law Mostly aware Negative impact of park creation None Local wisdom about living in None harmony with the forest Type 3 Mostly displaced during Dutch colonization*, sponsored by Origin Indonesian government, or spontaneous migrants Some of them came long before creation of the park;** many of them When they came to the area moved or expanded their agriculture Javanese land within the park after it was Immigrants created Motives Economic opportunity Plantation crop (coffee, cacao, cassia Type of farming/business vera, temperate crop, rubber and oil palm) Awareness of breaking the law Mostly aware Negative impact of park creation None
32 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014
Squatters Characteristics Local wisdom about living in None harmony with the forest Type 4 Origin Local or immigrant Their presence within and After creation of the park surrounding the park Motives To overcome abject poverty Poor Subsistence food crop mixed with landless Type of farming/business plantation crop migrants Awareness of breaking the law Mostly aware Negative impact of park creation None Local wisdom about living in None harmony with the forest Type 5 Origin Native or migrant Their presence within and After creation of the park surrounding the park Motives Financial or political interests Sly Type of business Land speculator, illegal logger, politics opportunists Awareness of breaking the law Fully aware Negative impact of park creation None Local wisdom about living in None harmony with the forest * = Kolonisatie was an agricultural colonisation programme developed by the Dutch in 1905, aiming at correcting the demographic imbalance between the islands of Java and Sumatra. Renamed Transmigration after Independence, the programme was expanded during the Suharto era (Levang et al. 2012). **= Two enclaves in BBSNP: Way Pamekahan (671 ha) and Way Haru (4,900 ha), in Bengkunat, Lampung Barat District, were established more than century ago, long before the area was given NP status.
In her study on community perceptions in villages dominated by indigenous landless in the eastern lowland fringe of the KSNP (Jambi and West Sumatra provinces), Werner (2001) found that the national park was inflicting losses on landless people by severely restricting their ability to open new fields. Furthermore, game animals such as deer and small antelope are damaging farmers’ fields, but farmers are not allowed to kill them. This reduces the harvest and therefore has negative repercussions on household economies. Farmers do not understand why people from outside may extract huge amounts of wood, or plant large areas of land, but local farmers are not even allowed to cut some trees or open a small field to have enough to eat. Farmers are also often driven off their land to make way for government-sponsored transmigration schemes. This simply does not make sense to the indigenous people.
33 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
The indigenous people feel unfairly treated when they are not even allowed to collect non-timber forest products such as rattan lianas in the PA. They have traditionally collected various items in the primary forest, some for their own use, some for sale. Because there are very few crops or products that can be sold by the villagers, they feel severely aggrieved by this regulation. Anybody who wants to collect rattan intended for sale in a PA must first get a permit. The permit is issued for three or six months and must be paid for. According to an official of the NP the permit is very cheap, but according to the local people it costs several hundred thousand rupiah (i.e., more than 50 US$ in 2000). Although this amount seems to be an overestimation, it is possible that the local people are sometimes charged more than the actual fee, the amount of which might not be known to them.
They also expressed a general incomprehension as to why they should protect the forest if it does not belong to them. In their opinion, those who own it, i.e., the Ministry of Forestry, should also be responsible for protecting it. These findings are in accordance with the statement of Weber and Reveret (1993:71), “that common property resources from which the commons are excluded through policies that prohibit their access are no longer regarded as common property resources to be managed locally”. According to Werner (2001), indigenous people’s integrated concept of nature conservation is not in accordance with restrictions on forest products that are put in place to achieve conservation objectives. If indigenous communities are prohibited from using the forest, the social ties between them and the forest become disturbed and the utilitarian value of the forest to the people is lost. Therefore, as the necessity for indigenous people to protect the forest decreases, it becomes a resource that can be exploited and depleted, because it is not their responsibility anymore. Only if a resource is owned by the local community, who still have local wisdom and live in harmony with it, will there be long-term, sustainable use. Another argument of the indigenous people for not respecting national park borders is that, according to them, government officials are participating in timber theft and in opening cinnamon plantations in PAs.
Levang et. al. (2012, p. 252) conducted a community perception study in villages dominated by poor migrant squatters in BBSNP. They asked squatters why they encroach on the NP for agricultural activities. The squatters often replied that they had no other options. A popular answer was: “Better encroaching in the park than becoming a thief.” Extreme poverty and the lack of alternative jobs are the main reasons put forward by poor migrant squatters for encroaching on the park, and by local authorities for not reacting swiftly against squatters. If the squatters’ level of poverty or lack of other opportunities are questioned, then the next reason they provide is: “I am not the only one. Others do the same, especially the more wealthy ones who open large tracts of forest. They are never bothered by the police.”
When asked why the number of squatters started to peak after the end of Soeharto’s authoritarian rule, no one cites a sudden rise in poverty. Obviously, reduced law
34 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014 enforcement was the main determining factor. In general squatters are aware that they break the law when they clear land within the park. However, as long as others do the same, and are not bothered by the authorities, such encroachment will continue. No individual squatter dares to go alone, but in a group, everything becomes possible.
The decentralization era has led to the emergence of what Levang et al. (2012) term as “sly opportunist” squatters in TRHS. They are premans,10 wealthy businessmen, land speculators, well-connected politicians and influential politicians, who attract and provide backing for a large number of people to encroach in the park. By attracting numerous migrants to the NP areas, they make it complicated to evict the squatters. In addition, a large number of dependent squatters make up a new constituency for local elections.
Smallholder farmers are often encouraged to grab NP land by local governments, and local speculators have little interest in biodiversity conservation because the NP provides few local economic returns (Levang et al. 2007 in Gaveau 2012, p. 8). The latter is supported by the study The Political Economy of Deforestation in the Tropics (Burgess et al. 2011), which demonstrates a close relationship between the political economy and the deforestation rate in Indonesia. The study shows that, under the decentralization policy, the proliferation of districts in several provinces with extensive forests triggered the acceleration of deforestation. Analysis of satellite imagery proves that illegal logging in protection forest increased dramatically in the two years leading up to local elections. Meanwhile, Donal Fariz reports that logging in PAs went up sharply in the year before and after those elections (UNODC 2012: 31).
Fighting encroachment through Law No. 41/1999
Provisions in Law No. 41/1999 on Forestry outline the processes for law enforcers who handle forestry crime (Figure 20). According to Criminal Code procedures (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum AcaraPidana, or KUHAP), parties that can investigate forestry crimes include the police, forest rangers, and civil servants from the forestry office (Petugas Penyidik Pegawai Negeri Sipil, or PPNS) who work under police coordination. The outcome of any investigation is forwarded to the state prosecutor, who prepares an indictment that is submitted to a district court. A judge then examines the case and reaches a verdict. Generally, forestry-related crimes are processed exclusively according to the provisions of Law No. 41/1999 on Forestry (Santoso et al. 2011). See Table 3.2 and 3.3.
10 The term derives from the Dutch term for “free man,” referring to someone who is free of legal constraints. The preman generally devotes his or her activity to any kind of lucrative business; unfortunately, illegal activities are often more lucrative (Levang et al. 2012).
35 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Suspected crime
Forest ranger/civil service Investigation
Police investigation Court case Verdict
Figure 20. Processes in handling forestry-related crime based on Law No. 41/1999 (after Santoso et al. 2011)
Table 3.2. Legal institutions and their roles and responsibilities Institution Roles and Responsibilities National The National Police of the Republic of Indonesia is the national entity Police authorized to maintain security and public order. National Police officers are also responsible for enforcing the forest crime law; provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) authorize the National Police to undertake investigations and inquiries against all criminal acts, including forest crimes. The National Police’s authority to undertake environmental investigations does not reduce the authority held by other investigators, including PPNS. Public The Office of the Public Prosecutor is a government institution that Prosecutor prosecutes crimes. The functions of the Public Prosecutor are performed by the Office of the Attorney General, the High Prosecutor’s Office and the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Attorney General is located in Jakarta and its jurisdiction includes the state jurisdiction. The High Prosecutor is located in provincial capitals and its jurisdiction covers the provincial territories, while the Public Prosecutor is located in the regency/city capital and its jurisdiction covers the regency/city territory. In the context of forest crime, the Public Prosecutor’s duty involves (a) carrying out prosecutions against violators, (b) executing judges’ rulings and court decisions, (c) supervising and administering conditional criminal decisions, and (d) completing cases, which sometimes requires coordination with investigators. Similarly, in the forestry administrative and civil context, the Public Prosecutor has wide latitude to act, both inside and outside of court, in the name of the government. Judiciary The judiciary consists of four jurisdictions under the Supreme Court. Two are closely related to environmental cases: the general judiciary (District Court/ Pengadilan Negeri and High Court/Pengadilan Tinggi); and the administrative judiciary (Administrative Court/PTUN and High Administrative Court/PTTUN). The general judiciary has jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases. The state administrative judiciary has jurisdiction over administrative disputes.
36 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014
Table 3.3. Encroachment crimes according to Law No. 41/1999 on Forestry Type Legal basis Sanction Illegally occupying a Article 50 Article 78 forest area (3) No person is allowed to: (2) Whosoever knowingly violates cultivate and/or use and/or the provisions of Article 50, occupy illegally a forest area paragraph (3) letter (a), letter (b), or letter (c), shall be liable to punishment by imprisonment up to a maximum of 10 (ten) years and a maximum fine of IDR 5 000 000 000 (five billion rupiah) Grazing livestock Article 50 Article 78 without a permit (3) No person is allowed (8) Whosoever knowingly to: i. graze livestock within violates the provisions of Article the forest area which is not 50, paragraph (3), letter (i), assigned specifically by shall be liable to punishment by authorised officials for that imprisonment up to a maximum of purpose 3 (three) months and a maximum fine of IDR 10 000 000 (ten million rupiah)
Gunung Leuser National Park
The Leuser Development Programme The Leuser Development Programme (LDP) was funded by the European Commission (EC). The programme began on 10 November 1995; originally designed to last seven years, it was extended for two years, ending 9 November 2004. The LDP was designed as an Integrated Conservation Development Project (ICDP); see Box 3.1.
The idea for ICDPs was based on the recognition by the Government of Indonesia and the European Community that sustainable development depended on the wise use of the ecological services that emanate from the world’s wild lands. As a fundamental precondition for the implementation of the Leuser Development Programme, a special conservation concession to manage the Leuser Ecosystem was awarded by the government to the Leuser International Foundation/Yayasan Leuser International (YLI), a private foundation specifically created for the purpose.11 This was the first example of a conservation concession being granted to a private organization in Indonesia. For the duration of the programme, the foundation delegated the day-to-day management of the area to a specially created technical body known as the Leuser
11 In 1995 YLI received a seven-year conservation concession to manage the ecosystem through a decree from the Minister of Forestry, approved by the president. YLI is directed by the project steering committee, which is chaired by BAPPENAS and includes three ministers and two provincial governors.
37 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Management Unit (LMU), which comprised both Indonesian and European professional staff. After the programme ended the task of implementing the management of the conservation of the Leuser Ecosystem reverted to the foundation. The ICDP’s major achievements have been reviewed and summarized by Kelman (2013); see Table 3.4. 12
Box 3.1. Integrated Conservation Development Projects12 Integrated Conservation Development Projects (ICDPs) include a diverse range of initiatives with a common goal: linking biodiversity conservation in PAs with local social and economic development. In practice, the term refers not just to a general concept but to a specific set of activities that target a PA and, usually, the inhabited zone around it. ICDPs aim to provide incentives that increase the local benefits — and therefore the attractiveness — of conservation and sustainable resource use in and around PAs. Most ICDPs strongly emphasize local participation in their design and implementation. Indonesia was one of the first countries to implement ICDPs: approximately 20 ICDPs were planned and implemented in the country beginning in the early 1990s.
The principles that underlie ICDPs emerged during the 1980s and were considered a new approach to PA management. They offer a simple and intuitively appealing alternative to earlier, unsuccessful approaches to PA management that had come to be regarded as not politically feasible. In addition, ICDPs can contribute to three of the most sought-after goals on the sustainable development agenda: more effective biodiversity conservation; increased local community participation in conservation and development; and economic development for the rural poor.
These features attracted many NGOs, government departments and development agencies. Despite the popularity of ICDPs, however, not a lot is known about the ingredients for success. Establishing ICDPs that actually work has proven to be rather more challenging than marketing the concept and raising funds. Nearly a decade after ICDP approaches were first popularized, successful and convincing cases — where local peoples’ development needs have been effectively reconciled with PA management — are still notably lacking. Among other problems, many ICDPs have ignored important lessons from the field of rural development and have been unable to establish coherent linkages between their development activities and conservation objectives. Thus far, the case for ICDPs is far from convincing.
According to Kelman (2013), early ICDPs in GLNP and KSNP had several problems: a focus on project activities, rather than biodiversity outcomes; addressing local symptoms while ignoring macro-level causes, and vice versa; lack of adaptive management, with plans that dictate a time-bound project cycle and have externally imposed deadlines; a failure to cede significant decision-making powers to local communities, thereby preventing local ownership of project goals; acting as if communities are homogeneous entities; and expectations of win-win scenarios and a failure to consider the potential trade-offs.
12 Box 3.1 is based on Wells et al. 1999.
38 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014
Table 3.4. Major achievements of the GLNP ICDP Project Component Achievements Effective project efforts protected the park from two planned roads and various swamp-forest drainage projects and four transmigration schemes, and halted plans for six new logging concessions and five large oil palm plantations within the A: Improving Leuser Ecosystem (LE). The boundaries of the ecosystem were Conservation demarcated in the field and incorporated into the spatial plans Governance of most existing (and newly established) districts and sub- districts, and at the provincial and national levels. During the programme extension (2002–2004), an Alur Buluh airstrip was built in Kutacane and handed over to Aceh Tenggara District. A total of 613 small-scale village development projects were conducted in 11 districts in Aceh and Northern Sumatra between 1995 and 2001. These projects were delivered to villages depending on their needs and requests, and on the ability of the B: Area and Village LDP to provide such projects. A wide range of activities included Development providing seedlings for gardens, animals for raising, canoes or motors for boats, educational activities, family planning clinics, lodges for ecotourism, small grants for start-up businesses such as embroidering men’s hats and processing grains, and building bridges and irrigation canals. Biological studies were carried out to identify the most important conservation areas of the park, and a corridor was established to connect the biodiversity of Singkil Swamp area with that of C: Biodiversity and the LE. An anti-poaching unit of 45 members established monthly Wildlife Conservation patrols in remote locations to protect rhinoceros, an elephant patrol unit, mobile patrol units that documented illegal logging activities, and a hidden camera programme that provided photographic evidence of large terrestrial mammals. This component supported landscape monitoring activities, D: Monitoring and including field transect walks, fixed-point photography, socio- Evaluation economic surveys, hydrological studies, data collection on illegal logging activities and GIS surveys. (Source: Kelman 2013)
Outputs/outcomes The project achieved the delineation of the LE boundaries in Aceh and North Sumatra provinces, with MoF endorsement, and declarations by local communities expressing support for the conservation of the LE. An elephant patrol unit was established in Aras Napal in cooperation with the MoF. The Singkil-Bengkung wildlife corridor was rehabilitated. Books on the conservation of the LE were published and distributed to elementary, junior and senior high schools in 11 districts. The Alur Buluh Airstrip was built in Kutacane. Several road projects that would have destroyed LE were cancelled, as were six logging concessions and three plantations. Several swamp
39 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms drainage schemes were cancelled, and almost half a million ha of forest were saved that would otherwise have been clear-felled and converted to agriculture.
Lessons Learned The project adopted an integrated landscape management approach to the establishment and legal protection of the Leuser Ecosystem. This was done by designating it as a conservation concession of the LIF, and by expanding GLNP to include areas of rich biological diversity and intact ecosystems, especially lowlands. This innovative institutional design was one of the first examples in Indonesia of the move from landscape planning to landscape conservation planning (Wells et al. 1999) based on ecological data and an integrated, multi-scale approach to governance. The project paid substantial attention to establishing powerful political support and a sound legal basis, and to functional institutional arrangements at a high level. It established a strong, centralized and well-supported park and project management unit that was based in the park and was independent of the Ministry of Forestry. Project team members understood the importance of balancing incentives with law enforcement. They established a flexible financing mechanism and contractual agreements that specified the conservation obligations of project beneficiaries. However, the project has also received some criticism, especially from The Rainforest Foundation,13 due to the general lack of consultation in the project preparation stage and little or no community participation.
GLNP efforts to overcome chronic encroachment in Besitang There is significant and chronic encroachment in the Besitang Area in Sei Lepan and Besitang sub-districts. Around 25,000 ha of encroached forest areas have degraded lowland rainforest with many occupiers (Basrul 2013), mostly internally displaced people (Javanese migrants), who took refuge in the area due to the armed conflict between the Indonesian military and the Free Aceh Movement.
Before being designated as part of GLNP, the Besitang area was part of the Sikundur Wildlife Reserve (±79.100 ha) and the Langkat Barat and Selatan Wildlife Reserve (±127.075 ha) established by the Dutch colonial government in 1938. The boundaries of the Besitang area were marked during the colonial period and redrawn in 1982.
From 1970 to 1977, the three wildlife reserves were logged by three forest concessionaires. Prior to the issuance of Law No. 5 1990, it was possible to conduct limited forest exploitation in wildlife reserves. From 1977 to 1982, the areas were designated by the Directorate General Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture as a pilot area for wildlife population and habitat management; this work, covering 30,000 ha, was carried out in collaboration with PT. Raja Garuda Mas (RGM) for 20 years. Despite the ideal suggested by the name of the program, the field activities were not much
13 See The Rainforest Foundation 1998.
40 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014 different than the usual forest exploitation, such as logging of pristine forest using heavy machinery (in this case, to make grasslands to increase wildlife populations). In 1982, the collaboration was stopped; RGM was considered to have violated the agreement. The activities had degraded the quality of Besitang ecosystem.
On 6 March 1980, Gunung Leuser was designated as a national park (±792.675 ha) by the Ministry of Agriculture and was managed based on a zoning system by the Protection and Preservation Agency (PPA) of Gunung Leuser, based in Kutacane, Aceh Tenggara (SE Aceh) District. After the establishment of the Ministry of Forestry in 1983, the PPA name was changed into the GLNP Technical Implementation Unit.
In 1981, Langkat Regent designated an area of ±5.864 ha for regeneration and rehabilitation of community rubber plantations. Due to a lack of coordination with Natural Resource Conservation Agency I, based in Medan, the designated areas overlapped the Besitang area at Sekoci and Sei Lepan villages.
In 1982, Langkat District, with funding support from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), developed a local transmigration programme within the district to more equally distribute populations by developing communities based on oil palm plantations. Due to a lack of coordination with the PPA of Gunung Leuser, the designated transmigration areas overlapped the Besitang area at Sekoci Village, an area that is now widely known as PIR ADB (±1,500 ha). The oil palm plantation in Sekoci has attracted investors to develop an oil palm plantation in Langkat District, partly by encroaching on Besitang area. Several oil palm plantations were developed, such as PT. Rappala (±200 ha), PT. Putri Hijau (±150 ha), PT. Bandar Meriah (±89 ha), and PT. Mutiara Sei Lepan (±53,50 ha).
The encroachment of Besitang became severe after the arrival of Javanese migrants, who fled the armed conflict between the Indonesian military and the Free Aceh Movement at the end of the 1990s. The Aceh refugees cut forest in order to cultivate the land of the Besitang area. The occupation by Aceh refugees also attracted land speculators.
The settlement of Aceh refugees took place on a range of settlement blocks that covered several villages, such as Sekoci, Sei Minyak, Barak Induk and Damar Hitam. Besitang area became the site of significant land sales. Land was bought and sold by preman and speculators (cukong) from Langkat, Binjai and Medan, who used the presence of Aceh refugees as a shield for expanding their encroached land. The Aceh refugees have drawn the interest of opportunist politicians, who want to to gain voters during district elections. As a result, logging and clearing of pristine forest has continuously occurred, as logging became a source of livelihoods in the area. See Figure 21.
41 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Figure 21. Expansion of encroachment at Besitang, 2009–2012 (Source: Wiratno, 2013)
Efforts to control encroachment Since 2005, in collaboration with Langkat Police District, have used due process of law on small-scale squatters and land speculators in Sekoci, Sei Minyak and Sei Lepan villages. Many of them have been put in jail for up to nine months, and some of them have been placed on the List of Searched Persons. In collaboration with the army, which was conducting a restoration programme on former encroached land, joint efforts by the police, army, prosecutor and SPORC14 have eradicated illegal plantations (Table 3.5) and collected field evidence as the basis for applying the law. Legal processes have targeted several plantation enterprises that are accused of encroaching on GLNP, such as PT. Raya Padang (the case was won by GLNP).
Refugees have been relocated (Table 3.6), which involved the Coordinator Minister for Social Welfare (Menkoskesra) and the Ministry of Transmigration. Few of the relocation efforts were successful; most of the relocated households returned to Besitang. In collaboration with the Forest Mapping Agency I, GLNP conducted NP boundary-marking reconstruction. A forcible eviction operation (Operasi Khusus Pengamanan Hutan/OKPH) was conducted from 27–29 June 2011 that involved the army, police and prosecutors, as well as provincial and district parliaments. The effort failed due to the strong resistance of the squatters, who, in response, burned the Sekoci Resort office; see Figure 22.
14 This is a Response Unit Forest Ranger (Satuan Polisi Kehutanan Reaksi Cepat).
42 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014
Table 3.5. Efforts to eradicate illegal crops in encroached areas, GLNP Year Site Total eradicated Total encroachment crop area (ha) 2011–2012 Sekoci village, Besitang, Langkat 1,870 ha 6,800 District 2012 Sei Lepan village, Besitang, 3,500 rubber 200 Langkat District trees 2012 Lau Sekelam village, Langkat 20 ha n/a District 2013 Cinta Raja village, Langkat 20 ha n/a District 2012 Lawe Gurah village, Aceh 10 ha 100 Tenggara District Datuk Saudane, Lumban Tua, and 22 ha n/a Mutiara Damai villages, Aceh Tenggara District 2014 Tanjung and Alur Baning villages, 21 ha n/a Aceh Tenggara District 2014 Senebuk Keranji village, Aceh 100 ha n/a Selatan District
Figure 22. The Sekoci Resort office, after being burned
Between December 2011 and February 2012, GLNP eradicated about 1,870 ha of illegal plantations, such as palm oil, rubber, cacao and annual rain-fed crops. However, the special coercive operation solidified the resistance and militancy of squatters against the NP rangers and park staff. Politically, the coercive evictions have placed the squatters in a better position. Given concerns about human right issues, the DPRD has pressured the NP authority to place any eviction under the DPRD’s control. Overall, this has put the NP in a difficult position and park managers now feel as though they must work alone on this issue. This situation led to the loss of NP control of the expansion of encroachment areas in Besitang. For security reasons, NP rangers
43 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms remain reluctant to visit the areas, while the burned resort has not been rebuilt and has not been active since June 2011.
Table 3.6. Efforts to relocate squatters in Besitang Sub-district Year Number of households Relocation areas 2001 144 Rokan Hulu District, Riau Province 2003 30 Tapanuli Selatan District, North Sumatra Province 2004 50 Dumai District, Riau Province 2010 24 Musi Banyu Asin, South Sumatra Province
Lessons Learned The chronic encroachment problem in Besitang Areas is due to mismanagement of the PA, where national guidelines (such as Law No. 5, 1990) are not yet in place. NP actions to control encroachment started only after the problem became chronic and massive. Response to the problem was not only slow; it lacked confidence, due to the limited support from the NP’s stakeholders and because of human rights issues. NPs cannot be managed effectively without strong support from local government, the legal apparatus and NGOs. There is a lack of political support from the central government to solve the encroachment problem consistently and comprehensively. The use of conservation areas for refugee inhabitants have put conservation areas at high risk. In Buton, for example, where production forest was used to accommodate Ambon refugees, the overall result was the destruction of the forest.
As part of the lessons learned a SWOT analysis to control encroachment in GLNP was made (see box 3.2). 15
Box 3.2. SWOT analysis to control encroachment in GLNP15 Strengths: (a) The park has been gazetted; (b) there is a legitimate park institution; (c) human resources, funds and facilities are available; (d) the park is a World Heritage Site, Asean Heritage Park and a National Strategic Area Weaknesses: (a) Open access to resources; (b) non planned anti-encroachment measures; (c) lack of intensive coordination and communication with NP stakeholders; (d) lack of support from district and province governments Opportunities: (a) an MoU is in place with army and police for anti-encroachment measures; (b) supported by UNESCO and by national and international NGOs; (c) the use of production forest as a buffer for the park. Threats: (a) Encroachment has become a political issue; (b) Squatter evictions are causing concerns about human rights issues; (c) encroachment has been capitalized on by land speculators; (d) land grabbing for large scale agro-commodity businesses has occurred; (d) there is a market for products from encroached areas.
15 See Basrul A. 2013
44 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014
Ecosystem Restoration Since 2005, GLNP — together with UNESCO16 — has done collaborative work to restore ecosystems and promote sustainable livelihood in villages near GLNP.
Restoration at Sei Serdang, Cinta Raja Resort, Langkat District During 2005–2008, GLNP conducted persuasive and repressive measures to take over the state forest areas that had been encroached, including the Cinta Raja Resort and Besitang, where around 53.5 ha were encroached by oil palm plantations (PT. Tunas Baru and PT. Mutiara Sei Lepan). In 2006, through litigation and a negotiation process, the encroached areas were returned to GLNP. Unfortunately, however, the former plantation enterprises did not remove the planted oil palm trees. In response, GLNP — supported by UNESCO and FORDA — formulated scientific-based ecosystem restoration through accelerated succession.
The program was conducted using the following steps: a socio-economic survey to understand community perceptions on restoration programmes and NP management; developing a scientific-based restoration design; conducting a Knowledge Attitude and Practices (KAP) survey, followed by a local awareness campaign about the restoration program; establishing restoration base-camps; delivering restoration training; establishing a natural succession pilot area (1.25 ha); removing palm oil trees; developing a nursery for indigenous tree species; conducting a planting campaign; monitoring and evaluation; and maintenance and replanting.
Impacts The programme team planted 18,675 tree seedlings on 21 ha; the survival rate was 70%. Although the restored area was small, the deterrent and multiplier effects have been much larger (Wiratno 2013); through this initiative, GLNP has secured around 500 ha as part the forest restoration programme supported by law enforcement (Nur Hasanah,17 pers. comm., 2015). The restoration programme reduced community encroachment for planting rubber; the ground presence of field staff is the key to controlling encroachment. The restored areas have expanded wildlife habitat, which was proved by the more frequent sightings of wildlife after restoration. The success of restoration program is partly due to the presence of highly dedicated NP staff, i.e., Pak Keleng Ukur, a Cinta Raja Resort Head. In 2013, the restoration efforts expanded, with supporting funds from UNESCO. The same approach was used on 73 ha of encroached forest areas, with restoration efforts facilitated by YOSL-OIC.18
16 Since 2006, the World Heritage Center (WHC) and the Spanish government (through UNESCO) have provided funds for the training and mentorship of park staff, for meetings with partners and for equipment. 17 Nur Hasanah is Project Assistant, Environmental Science, UNESCO Office, Jakarta. 18 Yayasan Orangutan Sumatra/Lestari-Orangutan Information Centre (OIC) was established in 2001 by a group of Indonesian conservationists. It partnered with the Sumatran Orangutan Society to raise awareness of environmental and orangutan conservation issues among local communities.
45 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Lessons Learned Intensive management, and the ground presence of NP staff, was key to the success of the restoration programme; they seem to make up for the fact that the local community is not very involved. From a technical point of view (Wiratno, 2013), it was also noted that care should be taken in weed control, as a drastic eradication of weeds can lead to drier micro-climates that can reduce the survival rate of tree seedlings; also, planting holes should not be too deep and should be aligned to the size of seedlings.
There are various ways to involve communities in restoration and increase their participation. Crucially, there should be a commitment from the project management and the field extension; the model of Sei Serdang ecosystem restoration indicated that even though the community did not participate very much, management’s commitment and intensive supervision allowed the project to be a success.
Restoration at Sei Betung Resort The restoration program was facilitated by YOSL-OIC and KETAPEL.19 The restoration, which was initiated in 2010, was based on lessons learned from the similar initiative in Cinta Raja Resort. This initiative also started by removing illegally planted oil palm trees; it then followed up by improving soil quality through organic fertilizer and manual weeding. Community members, including local village women, have developed seedling nurseries to support this programme.
Table 3.7. Restoration of encroached areas in GLNP Year Area (ha) Villages 250 Agusan village, SPTN IV, BPTN II 2010 250 Trenggulun village, SPTN VI, BPTN III 250 Sei Betung village, SPTN VI, BPTN III 500 Simpur Jaya, SPTN IV, BPTN II 2011 3,140 Sekoci, SPTN VI, BPTN III 100 Bohorok, SPTN V, BPTN III 250 Bakongan and Kluet Selatan villages, SPTN II, BPTN I 250 Kluet Selatan village, SPTN II, BPTN I 2012 1,000 Trenggulun village, SPTN VI, BPTN III 1,000 Sei Lepan village, SPTN VI, BPTN III 650 Sei Betung village, SPTN VI, BPTN III 200 Simpur Jaya village, SPTN IV, BPTN II 2013 300 Rumah Bundar village, SPTN IV, BPTN II 1,000 Alur Baning, SPTN IV, BPTN II 1,000 Putri Betung, SPTN III, BPTN II
19 KETAPEL is a group of local farmers set up as a result of this project who serve as in-field supervisors for programme activities.
46 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014
Two types of trees species were selected for restoration: indigenous hardwoods that grow naturally grow in the forests; and multi-purpose tree species (mostly fruit trees), which were planted in the buffer zone. The programme involved extensive local community participation to develop nurseries, conduct planting, regularly maintain the planted trees to ensure their survival and growth, and monitor the restored land to prevent re-encroachment. The project also provided sustainable livelihoods for the local community in the form of tree nurseries and agroforestry development.20
Impacts About 100,876 tree seedlings were planted on 82.6 ha of degraded NP forest land. The community that was involved in the restoration program received trainings to develop nurseries as a source of alternative livelihoods. The community had ownership of the restored areas, which reinforced their efforts to protect the GLNP from future encroachment.
Lessons learned In contrast to the restoration approach in Sei Serdang, the project involved the local community, which was the key to success. Restoration of encroached NP areas should involve and enhance the capacity of the local community as the way to strengthen community commitment to the restored areas. It is fundamental to develop a community development programme that supports restoration by providing additional benefits for the local community, such as agroforestry or ecotourism (Puska UI 2012).
In many cases, for security and other reasons, restoration programmes have been conducted in collaboration with the army. Tree seedlings are normally brought from other areas, not locally grown by the community. In these cases, restoration programs may have limited impacts on the sustainability of the restored areas. Similar restoration programmes have been carried out, with the same approach used by YOSL-OIC, in Ketambe and surrounding villages in Aceh Tenggara District in 2009. Learning from the restoration programme in GLNP and in Padamaran village in BBSNP, a reasonable annual target ranges from 50 to 100 ha.
Community-Based Ecotourism in Tangkahan Tangkahan is situated at the confluence of two rivers: the Buluh and the Batang. The area has ecotourism potential, with landscape aesthetics (waterfall, hot spring), jungle and elephant trekking. It is located in Sei Serdang and Namo Sialang, Batang Serangan Sub-district, Langkat District. Ecotourism was initiated in 2002 and officially launched in 2004; the area has developed as one of the key tourist destinations in North Sumatra, with about 36,000 domestic tourists (Nur Hasanah, pers. comm., 2015) and 6,000 foreign tourists visiting annually. Tangkahan reflects best practices in how community-based ecotourism can stop illegal logging, improve livelihoods, and
20 See OIC 2011.
47 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms instill a sense of pride among local people. Before ecotourism, the livelihood of most local community members was illegal logging.
The initiative started with the establishment of the legitimate and well-accepted organization called Lembaga Pariwisata Tangkahan (LPT) on 19 May 2001. LPT was supported by many parties, such as the Indonesian ecotorism network (Indecon), the Leuser Management Unit and Fauna and Flora International (FFI) to develop a Master Plan of Village Ecotorism Development in 2002.
The key milestone was the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between GLNP and LPT on 22 April 2002. GLNP delegated authority to Namo Sialang and Sei Serdang villages through LPT as a “one-gate management system” to manage ecotourism in Tangkahan. This led to a new policy on entrance fees and equitable benefit sharing. This is an innovative approach to NP management in Indonesia. The local community had access to and management control of more than 10,000 ha in the park.
Indecon provided intensive training, facilitation and technical assistance to establish a village regulation on ecotourism management. The regulation applies to community- based ecotourism management activities, such as infrastructure development and waste handling, including sanctions and penalties for community members who carry out illegal logging, encroachment or wildlife poaching.
During 2012–2013, with UNESCO’s support within the Sumatra Orangutan Ecotourism Development Project and the Tangkahan Ecotourism Development Initiative, YOSL-OIC and Simpul Indonesia delivered a series of training sessions on ethical interpretive guiding and knowledge of forest and biodiversity to the local guide association in Tangkahan. This initiative facilitated LPT to review ecotorism planning, and prompted Namo Sialang and Sei Serdang to review and define new village regulations in January 2014. They also trained local people in organic fertilizer making as an alternative livelihood.
Lessons Learned Tangkahan provides important lessons for NP management in Indonesia. NP managers should have strong political will to involve the local community in utilizing and conserving NP resources. This should not be limited to preserving natural beauty for ecotourism, but should also involve the well-monitored use of non-timber forest products, and, if necessary, the use of a special zone in the NP for agroforestry development. The village regulations were the first to be formulated in a participatory manner; they govern the roles of the community in conserving and utilizing natural resources.
48 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014
Kerinci Seblat NP
For the last ten years, since the termination of the ICDPs, KSNP has received substantially less international support and collaborative efforts than the other two national parks of TRHS. The only direct international support it receives is provided by FFI. FFI activities focus on surveying and monitoring species in the park, including tigers, elephants and tapirs, and helping the national park to improve its management. FFI is also working with park officials and other partners to establish anti-poaching teams.
The Kerinci Seblat ICDP The Kerinci Seblat ICDP (US$ 19 million), which ran between 1997 and 2002, was designed as a model for reconciling conservation and development throughout Indonesia and Asia. It aimed to address the problem of deforestation by adopting an integrated approach that would link park management to regional development and spatial planning; coordinate implementation; undertake regular monitoring and enforcement activities; increase staff and in-service training; and improve resource management and service delivery (World Bank 1996).
The ICDP was originally envisioned as the introductory component of a much longer programme that was required to fully protect the park and integrate its management with regional development. However, there was no commitment from the World Bank to a multi-phased project, such as might have been achieved through an Adaptable Program Loan, and no commitment from the GoI to continue funding after the ICDP. Instead, it stands out as a notorious failure, partly due to its high profile and the large investment by the World Bank, combined with unsatisfactory results and ultimate cancellation (Linkie et al. 2008).
The ICDP’s problems partly arose from the complexities of involving four separate provinces and nine districts (which all contain parts of the park), together with three directorate-generals from two ministries. BAPPENAS, yet another agency, had overall responsibility for the project, but no field presence. The project was implemented and managed largely by various foreign consultants hired by the World Bank, in partnership with WWF Indonesia and the Jambi-based NGO, WARSI (Warung Konservasi Indonesia).
Approximately US$ 1.5 million was spent on development projects in 74 villages adjacent to KSNP. These projects focused on infrastructure, micro-credit, animal husbandry and agricultural management schemes; it was thought that improving local livelihoods would reduce the unsustainable use of natural resources in the forest. Each targeted village received a Village Conservation Grant (VCG) of US$ 50,000, which was paid in two instalments several years apart to ensure cooperation. Project
49 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms grants were administered through Village Conservation Agreements (VCAs).21 The agreements stipulated that villages, in return for inclusion in the development schemes, would not convert their traditional forest areas to farmland and would not farm within KSNP (World Bank 2003).
Although the Kerinci Seblat ICDP included several innovative and ambitious features, any contributions to biodiversity conservation were likely to be defeated by the combination of an overly complex project design, lack of institutional capacity, and weak commitments from the key agencies. The major achievements have been reviewed and summarized by Kelman (2013) and are presented in Table 3.8.
Table 3.8. Achievements of the Kerinci Seblat ICDP Project Component Achievements This appears to have been the most successful part of the Kerinci ICDP. Activities related to formal park governance included the formal gazetting of Kerinci as a national park in 2000 after a complex, 11-step process that included demarcation on the ground using wooden and concrete markers. Kerinci was the first NP in Indonesia to be legally gazetted. Given the boundary disputes with local communities and companies holding logging concessions adjacent to the park, KSNP would not have had effective management without the ICDP. A management plan was produced, which continues to be used as the basis for annual KSNP work plans. A baseline survey of A: Park management forest cover was made, to be used for landscape monitoring, with a goal of identifying hot spots of encroachment. Each year, the park’s GIS unit buys NASA Landsat data for translation into GIS maps to track changes in the forest cover of the park over time and to help conduct patrols. In addition, the project stimulated the increase of park staff from 71 to 180, including numerous university graduates (the first time graduates had been recruited as field staff). These new staff members were trained and taken on study tours to parks in Indonesia and Malaysia as a part of Component A. Also, a new interpretation centre with a library was established at the park headquarters. This component was planned and implemented by WWF Indonesia and the NGO WARSI in concert with World Bank consultants. Development assistance was provided to 74 B: Area and Village villages surrounding the park, to take pressure away from park Development boundary areas. Agricultural encroachment by local people was perceived as the principal direct threat to the park. The strategy used involved a contractual commitment from each village to undertake certain conservation measures (Village Conservation
21 This was the first Indonesian example of a contractual agreement specifically linking development investments with conservation obligations.
50 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014
Project Component Achievements Agreements) in exchange for a development grant from the World Bank. The grants of US$ 50,000 per village were used for infrastructure or economic development initiatives such as revolving funds or agricultural inputs. Despite conflicting viewpoints about the success of Component B, there seems to be agreement that there was very little, if any, linkage between the VCAs and the small grants given to the villages, even though the main point of the grants was to provide an incentive for conservation and this was meant to be the main linkage point between conservation and development in the ICDP. This component was largely futile. Biological surveys showed that C: Integrating several concessionaires were logging within the park, and that Biodiversity in the concessions given to these companies were incredibly species- Forest Concession rich areas that deserved repatriation to the park. In spite of this, Management the Directorate General of Forest Management took no action. This component supported landscape monitoring activities, D: Monitoring and including field transect walks, fixed-point photography, socio- Evaluation economic surveys, hydrological studies, data collection on illegal logging activities and GIS surveys. (Source: Kelman 2013)
Impacts In 1999, after lengthy consultations with adjacent communities, the boundaries of KSNP were agreed to and the park was legally gazetted. KSNP was the first national park in Indonesia. On 27 February 2002, a Note of Agreement on Protection and Conservation of KSNP was signed by four Governors and nine Bupati (District Heads), whose areas are within the park, and the Head of District Parliament (DPRD Kabupaten). It stated that all parties would work together to protect, secure and conserve KSNP; all parties agreed to file a lawsuit and sanction any party who directly or indirectly causes disturbance to the park (encroachment, non-timber forest product theft, mining, establishing a sawmill, causing fires, etc.); and central and local governments would review the laws that hinder efforts to conserve KSNP (PHKA 2003).
Today, KSNP is still under threat from agricultural encroachment, illegal logging, road construction, mining and geothermal energy projects. Park staff members are unable to stop encroachment and illegal logging, even with generous resources for patrolling, training and equipment. Few of the beneficiary communities maintained their reciprocal commitments to respect park boundaries. Some beneficiary villages continued to encroach on the forest, and were often a greater threat than villages that received no benefits (Linkie et al. 2008). It was unrealistic to expect that providing development options would induce local communities to reduce their impact on KSNP forests, especially since much of the agricultural encroachment is not for subsistence but for wealthy planters to expand a valuable cash crop (Kelman 2013).
51 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Lessons Learned: (a) The project design was too ambitious, preparation took too long, and the implementation time was too short: This is the weakness of many projects, especially those receiving large amounts of funding from donor agencies. In such cases, the planning and fund disbursement process takes a long time, while the implementation schedule is often too rigid, the implementation time is too short, and there is a very limited time for an exit strategy.
(b) Significant funding was in place, but a facilitation process was not: The project demonstrated that funding is not everything; conservation is a process and cannot be enforced merely through funding. The combination of a continuous facilitation process, strong political supports and sufficient funding supports is the key to conservation achievements.
(c) Complex institutional arrangements were compounded by a lack of cooperation and a lack of clarity about who the lead agency was: The project can involve many relevant institutions and organizations, but the coordination process and the lead agency must be clear from the beginning. The lack of leadership led to conflicting actions and wasted precious funds. Wells et al. 1999; 22 stated: “BANGDA and Regional Development Planning Board (BAPPEDA) staff had little conservation expertise and were unclear about the types of development activities to be supported in villages, while BAPPENAS did not have the field presence to provide on-the-ground coordination and leadership. Despite the long preparation period, WWF-IP is just beginning to work out how to scale up its earlier project, while local NGOs lack the capacity to provide the range of support required by the planned project activities.”
(d) Incorrect assumptions led to improper selection of project beneficiaries: The emphasis on village development was based on the unproven assumption that poverty and a lack of alternative livelihoods was driving deforestation. In fact, some of the villages targeted were some of the wealthiest (Kelman 2013). Additionally, much of the forest clearance for cash crops and illegal logging was instigated by wealthy and influential individuals, who were often based far from the park. Under such conditions, conservation agreements with local villages are unlikely to be effective, especially if they are unenforceable. Development grants through the ICDP were always regarded by villagers as supplementary, rather than alternatives to high-earning crops such as cinnamon.
(e) Insufficient attention was paid to land tenure: Linkie et al. (2008) published a quantitative analysis of the relationship between forest cover changes and inclusion of villages in the Kerinci ICDP. They found that a village’s participation in the project had no effect on local deforestation rates compared to non-participating villages. They concluded that community-based conservation projects need to be supplemented by efforts to strengthen traditional land-tenure systems and enforce the relevant
52 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014 legislation within the PA. Such an approach should stem from a firm understanding of the relevant local socio-political factors and should have a strong community-based emphasis; the community needs to retain or obtain control over access and resources.
KSNP efforts to control chronic encroachment in Sipurak Hook, Merangin District The most extreme and chronic encroachment in KSNP occurred at Sipurak Hook (14.16 ha), Lembah Masurai Sub-district. It is located in the limited production forest (Hutan Produksi Terbatas) near the concession areas of PT Serestra I and II. PT. Sarestra I stopped its operations in 1997; PT. Sarestra II was in operation until 2002. Since the end of the 1990s, groups of farmers from Bengkulu, South Sumatra, Lampung, Java and Jambi have planted coffee in the logged-over areas. Now the area and part of KSNP have been inhabited by around 5,000 households of coffee farmers, who grow more than 30 million coffee trees.
In 1997, FFI established a research camp in Sipurak Catchment Area to conduct surveys of flora and fauna in the limited production forest near these concession areas. On 3 June 3 2002 FFI and KSNP gave limited production area status to the forest for its rich biodiversity and ecological values. It contains primary lowland forest at less than 800 m above sea level and supports a large water catchment area. The area is also an important habitat for Sumatran rhino and Sumatran tiger, as well as important flower species such as Amorphophallus sp. and Rafflesia sp. As a follow-up, the Bupati (Sub-district Head) of Merangin stated his support for the inclusion of the Sipurak Hook area in KSNP.
The area was incorporated into KSNP on 19 October 2004. By that time encroachers from Lampung, South Sumatra, etc. were within 200–300 m of the proposed new park borders, but had not encroached on the natural forest area. WALHI Jambi conducted extensive counselling and awareness campaigns with the encroachers regarding the revised park borders, pointing out that it was primary forest (Tony Whitten, pers. comm., 2015).
In August 2010 the Merangin Regent and Province Forestry Office appealed to all coffee farmers to leave the forest area, advising them that if they didn’t, they would be breaking the law (see Table 3.3). As a follow up, a joint coercive operation was conducted from 10–25 November 2010 that involved SPORC (Response Unit Forest Rangers) and forest rangers from KSNP and from Jambi Province and Merangin District (148 persons). As a result of protests by NGOs and human rights activists, however, several litigation parties, including the army, provincial police and prosecutors, cancelled the operation. The coffee farmers were also supported by the Jambi-based NGO coalition Gerakan Pecinta Manusia (Human Lovers Movement), who protested against human rights violations.
53 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Lessons Learned The inclusion of forests with high population pressures (such as from coffee farmers) into NP areas should be seen as a management problem, not an enforcement issue. Coercive operations that eradicate coffee plantations and burn down farmers’ houses should be avoided; they will not reach the intended target, but instead will enhance farmers’ militancy and be regarded by activists as a clear violation of human rights. Solutions to chronic encroachment should be reached through mutually agreeable approaches that use the best available resources.
Collaborative forest management in forest edge communities A project initiated by UNESCO in collaboration with FFI and LTB took place in the KSNP buffer zone in Merangin District, Jambi Province. The objectives were to increase the capacity of forest edge communities to protect and manage their customary forest estate in perpetuity, and to secure legally recognized rights to these areas to reduce the threat of forest conversion. The buffer zone faces large-scale clearance for commercial plantation concessions and incremental patches of deforestation as natural forest is converted to agricultural uses such as coffee plantations.
Impacts These activities made an important and timely contribution to wider efforts to reduce rates of deforestation and increase local capacity to sustainably manage forest in KSNP and the buffer zone forest within Merangin District. The Merangin District government ultimately supported 17 formal proposals for Village Forest (Hutan Desa/ HD) that were submitted to the Ministry of Forestry in May 2010. The HD approach is supporting the district to establish an alternative management framework for the remaining forest estate. This reduces the threat of large-scale forest conversion for commercial plantations and builds community commitment and capacity to protecting the forest estate for the future.
Lessons Learned Strengthening the legal access of local communities to the forest area (production and protection forest) surrounding NPs is an important measure in protecting NP areas.
Tiger Protection and Conservation in KSNP This project was implemented by FFI in partnership with the KSNP authority. It has become the most active tiger protection programme in Southeast Asia: five Tiger Protection and Conservation Units are active and working in the field out of four base camps throughout the park. The objective is to secure the long-term conservation of wild Sumatran tigers through controlling the poaching of tigers and their prey, preventing habitat loss and effectively mitigating human-tiger conflicts.
54 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014
Impacts The staff of KSNP and local government and forest-edge community members have enhanced capacity to tackle crimes related to tigers and other wildlife, conserve tigers and their habitat, and protect the tiger-rich buffer zone forests that are threatened by clearance for palm oil and road construction.22
Lessons Learned The increasing awareness of local community members of the value of the NP will help to support conservation efforts in the park. The awareness campaign is directed at the young (educated) generation.
Pilot project to stop encroachment at the village level in Kerinci District The project was implemented by LTA and funded by IUCN’s NL Ecosystem Grants Programme for twenty months (2007–2009). It aims to stop encroachment in three villages in the Mount Kerinci area (Pelompek, Giri Mulyo and Kerisik Tuo), prevent future encroachment and develop mechanisms for restoring recently cleared land. This will be achieved in five ways: • securing political will and practical implementation of law enforcement through development of an MOU between the Park authority and district governments; • carrying out an inventory of spatial and socio-economic information about encroachment in the villages; • developing and implementing a communication strategy, and increasing the local communities’ knowledge of and respect for the park and its boundaries; • in cooperation with the local community, developing a detailed approach to restore degraded lands; and • ensuring that the MOU is applied in the field to solve the encroachment problem.
Based on a general assessment of progress conducted by Syaf and Wood 2009,23 these are the project impacts and lessons learned:
Impacts Overall, the project has been successful. It has temporarily stopped further encroachment in the project area and initiated a process of collaboration among the key stakeholders. In doing so, it has been successful in addressing an issue that much larger projects and NPs have been unable to deal with. A good choice of approach and identification of stakeholders were key to this success, which is shown by the willingness of village officials to support the project and of most of the encroachers to provide information on their activities and be identified as people who have land
22 See FFI 2012. 23 Rudy Syaf and Pete Wood visited the project 31 March to 4 April 2009 to conduct a general assessment of progress. The evaluation was requested by LTA to provide inputs to the strategy.
55 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms inside KSNP. The district head, district legislature and NP have also indicated their support for the project through their participation in several meetings, formation of the working group on encroachment, development of a work plan and initiation of activities. The NP and district government were enthusiastic about the project as a way to avoid repressive law enforcement.
Lessons learned The frequent presence of LTA field facilitators and other staff, the consistency of the message among participants, and the link between communication and action helped to build trust with village stakeholders. Collaboration among the three stakeholders — the district government, legislature and NP — was key to making progress with encroachment. The district government takes the lead in local economic and social development, including in those communities that interact with the NP; the legislature has the power to approve the use of local and national budgets in the region; and the NP management authority has the authority to arrest encroachers and destroy farms inside the park if necessary. When the MOU process took longer than expected, LTA started work on the formation of the working group and the development of model activities on the ground. This approach was successful, since it meant that there were concrete results and examples from the field that could be used to inform and catalyze the political process. Providing alternative sources of livelihoods to squatters (such as growing and disseminating coffee seedlings and rabbit breeding) was an effective entry point to working with the community. LTA also facilitated legal action against someone who continued to encroach after others had agreed to stop.
Enabling conditions still need to be discussed and defined by the NP, the villages and District Government. Will the future management model involve continued management of land inside the park? What will be permitted and what rights and responsibilities will farmers have? For example, it is believed that revision of the NP management plan to create a traditional use zone will allow local community members to extract NTFPs. To what extent can the encroached areas be restored? Is it desirable or possible to revise the boundary of the NP to exclude some of the most intensively used areas from the park? These questions need answers.
Bukit Barisan Selatan NP
CANOPI The Wildlife Conservation Society-Indonesia Program (WCS-IP) has helped manage BBSNP since 1997. Its activities include establishing the Way Canguk Research Station and Conservation Education Center, and research on and conservation of the Sumatran tiger. WCS-IP is working with the Indonesian Rhinoceros Conservation Programme (Program Konservasi Badak Indonesia/PKBI) to create a tiger protection unit (TPU). PKBI is an NGO that works to conserve and rescue Sumatran rhinos through the establishment of rhino protection units (see section 3.6.3). TPU conducts anti-
56 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014 poaching patrols for tiger protection, monitors the distribution and population of this threatened species, and also works on research about and conservation of the Asian elephant. In 2002, WCS-IP initiated the development of the Conservation Action Network Programme Indonesia (CANOPI), which involved conservation NGOs24 in Lampung and Bengkulu.
At the end of 2004, the NGO consortium — led by WCS-IP and supported by UNESCO and PHKA — developed the CANOPI proposal, “Partnership for the Conservation of Sumatran Natural Heritage,” with financial support from the UN Foundation and the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. The project, with a budget of nearly US$ 2 million, tests networking and partnership development approaches to build and strengthen collaboration among government, civil society and the private sector for the conservation of TRHS. The project focuses on BBSNP under an integrated conservation management scheme that includes research and training, park management, public awareness, investment strategies and regional planning.
Outputs25 A partnership model for conservation action was established. Baseline information was established, and research and monitoring related to the ecology and socio-economics of BBSL were carried out. The capacity of park staff and other stakeholders was increased.
Lessons Learned The key goal of CANOPI is to promote partnerships among stakeholders, strengthen the capacity of participants, and develop a collaborative approach to tackling the threats and problems related to the conservation of BBSL. This goal is shared by the relevant stakeholders. The approach provides ample room for participants with different fields of knowledge and capacity to engage in a constructive dialogue and determine their respective roles.
Local NGOs have varied capacity and educational backgrounds, and are highly dynamic. Attempts to strengthen NGOs capacity are frequently subject to heated debates and intense disagreements, which sometimes lead to conflicts. The time spent debating issues takes away from time spent on addressing the issues.
High expectations regarding the amount of resources to be provided for CANOPI projects, and delays in receiving these funds, gave rise to conflicts and distrust among some partners. The conflicts among NGOs since the beginning of the programme have reduced the quality of its implementation in the field.
24 These NGOs were WATALA, Yayasan ALAS Indonesia, GARSI, LSPPM, NIPAH; YASADHANA; YBWS and PRATALA. 25 See WCS 2005.
57 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
The CANOPI programme showed that an NGOs consortium might be effective to attract funding, but implementation may be hampered by internal conflicts within the consortium.
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Indonesia WWF Indonesia started its activities in BBSNP in 2000 by establishing the Asian Rhino and Elephant Action Strategy (AREAS). The programme’s target is to maintain and, if possible, increase the population of Sumatran rhino and Sumatran elephant in BBSNP. Activities include protection so that no more Sumatran rhino and Sumatran elephant are hunted or traded; helping improve park management and ensure the park’s integrity; and facilitating the local government to revise the District Spatial Plan and create a more conservation-based plan (PHKA 2003).
Rhino Protection Units BBSNP is one of three major habitats (along with Way Kambas NP and GLNP) for Sumatran rhino. It is estimated that the rhino population in BBSNP ranges from 30 to 50 (WCS, WWF and YABI 2015). The main threat is poaching for rhino horn, which is used in traditional Chinese medicine. In addition, increased encroachment and new road construction in the southern part of the park have pushed the rhino to central and northern areas where mantangan is found. The rampant degraded land within BBSNP has stimulated the growth of this invasive species; matangan26 is forming a blanket cover over existing vegetation; if not removed, it will eventually destroy rhino habitat.
Saving the remaining rhino population needs a series of efforts. Rhino patrols and anti- poaching activities need to be strengthened. The Indonesia Rhino Foundation (Yayasan Badak Indonesia, or YABI) has a mission to save the Sumatran rhino in its natural habitat and beyond. YABI operates several anti-poaching rhino protection units (RPU) s in BBS, Way Kambas and Ujung Kulon national parks. RPUs control poacher activity and habitat disturbance (including encroachment). The units are widely respected and considered to be highly effective.
The RPUs implement intensive patrols to prevent poaching, encroachment and other illegal activities in the park. They detect snares and destroy them, and capture poachers. They monitor rhino populations by identifying signs such as footprints, disturbed soil and puddles. They conduct intelligence operations to help arrest the perpetrators of illegal hunting. They help the national park with joint operations that decrease forest encroachment, and implement education and awareness activities.
26 Mantangan (Merremia peltata) is an indigenous weed that has the ability to adapt to a variety of conditions and is very aggressive. Mantangan also has characteristics that interfere with other types of wood. It has become dominant in some areas of BBSNP and is found throughout the park (Purwanto and Setyawati 2013).
58 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014
BBSNP efforts to control encroachment Following the creation of BBSNP in 1982, park authorities conducted several protracted eviction campaigns to remove illegal settlers who had established coffee plantations inside the park. The settlers had come from poor districts in Central Java to take advantage of high coffee prices and had established communities along abandoned logging trails in the park’s southern peninsula. A logging company owned by the Indonesian navy had carved a network of logging roads more than 1000 km long between 1970 and 1978, before the reserve was upgraded to the status of national park.
Gaveau et. al. 2009, with funding from UNESCO and the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, conducted a study to understand how law enforcement could mitigate habitat loss from small-holder coffee growing in BBSNP. They compared 34 years of empirical data (from satellite imagery, ecological data, interviews and GIS modelling) on deforestation rates and coffee prices in two zones: one with strong law enforcement and one with weak law enforcement. The results suggested that law enforcement is necessary to safeguard the integrity of BBSNP from migrant farmers and to prevent the forest from being cleared in order to grow coffee (Figure 23).
1972 - 1985 1985 - 1997 1997 - 2006 1. Low law enforcement 1. High law enforcement 1. Low law enforcement 2. Legal logging (r2=0.771) 2. Eviction 2. Illegal logging 3. High coffee price (r2=0.484) 3. High coffee price (r2=0.494)
Figure 23. Relationship between law enforcement and encroachment (ha/y) in BBSNP (Source: Suyadi 2011)
Law enforcement in BBSNP has waned since the fall of President Suharto in 1998 and the implementation of regional autonomy in 2000. Since 1998, NP budgets have been reduced and patrols have declined. In addition, newly democratically elected local and national governments have deemed evictions from PAs to be morally unjust. And since the implementation of regional autonomy, local governments have shown little interest in biodiversity conservation, because national parks fall under the jurisdiction of the national government and provide few local economic returns. This has weakened collaboration between BBSNP staff and local authorities.
59 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
In this context, illegal coffee farmers have become more defiant, and some have taken advantage of recent political changes to return to sites from which they were evicted. As a result, boundary conflicts between farmers and BBSNP authorities have increased (see Table 3.9 and Box 3.3). Furthermore, most park rangers live locally with their families, and any forceful intervention by them inside BBSNP could lead to retaliation. Without support from local authorities, rangers are reluctant to jeopardize their family’s welfare in return for a low salary. BBSNP’s strong law enforcement regime of the early 1980s has been weakened by these changing economic and political circumstances.
Table 3.9. Encroachment history and anti-encroachment measures, 1990–2014 Encroachment sites Encroachment history and anti-encroachment measures Sidorejo Soon after the Suharto rule started to weaken in 1998, rumours Sub-district about a new transmigration project in Sidorejo spread throughout Lampung and as far as Java. By the end of 1998, the first migrants who had paid their registration fees to the local head of village were each allotted 2 ha of forest per household. Allotment maps were produced by a special team directed by the village head. In 1999 and 2000, one hundred families moved to the area. At the same time, a local logging company belonging to a well-connected politician opened an access road and started operating in the area. In 2001, the logging company was tried for illegal logging and its manager was sentenced to prison. Neither the owners of the company nor the head of the village were prosecuted. Following the trial, many migrants took fright and left the area. Some never came back; others waited for the tension to subside before returning. Between 2001 and 2003, very few squatters entered the areas of encroachment. During the 2004 campaign for the election of the head of the district, protection for the squatters against eviction was among the main promises of the major candidates (among whom was the owner of the logging company mentioned above). In 2005, as a direct result of the election, the number of squatters increased. Rata Agung village Rata Agung started to attract settlers in 1983, when the road from Krui to Bengkulu was opened. Since a large forest area was still available outside the park, encroachment remained very limited. With the surfacing of the road in 1993, the site became more attractive and the number of settlers inside the park increased steadily. In 1996, the park rangers decided to evict all squatters from the Rata Agung encroachment. One month before the raid, the park office leaked information about it and the squatters had time to move their shacks to the park border. In 1997–98, the monetary crisis resulted in more households joining the encroachment. In 1999, a member of the village elite in Rata Agung managed to obtain a logging permit for a location outside the park, where the last tree had been felled a long time outside the park, where outside the
60 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014
Encroachment sites Encroachment history and anti-encroachment measures park, outside the park, where the last tree had been felled a long time before. For two years, logging operations went on inside the park (allegedly, with backing by some park officers), and the number of squatters increased considerably. In 2001, logging operations were stopped, the rangers involved were transferred, and the village elite were sued. This attempt at law enforcement immediately reducted the number of squatters. But in 2002, the village elite were freed of all charges (through an unofficial out-of- court settlement) and thus won additional renown. From then on, the number of squatters increased regularly. Suoh village This village is located outside the park but close to its border. In the early 1980s, a local entrepreneur engaged about 30 Javanese workers to build a road from Suoh to Bumi Hantatai. At the end of the project, rather than releasing his employees he kept them on to carry out illegal logging, and his workers opened clearings inside the park. The manager was soon arrested and sentenced to one year in prison. The workers moved outside the park, but continued to farm their plots located within it. In 1994, a member of the local elite who was running as a candidate for mayor claimed that the major encroachments around the village were customary forests. Thus, he gained the support of all squatters living in the vicinity. Once elected, he took advantage of the presence of the squatters to obtain more subsidies from the district and imposed land taxes, even on plots inside the park. Way Nipah village In 1968, the Indonesian navy started to operate a logging concession in the area. Clear-cutting affected areas both inside and outside the park. Squatters soon followed, taking advantage of forest roads and previously cleared areas. Their number increased dramatically in 1986, when squatters from Talang Kejadian and Talang Canguk, two encroachments located well inside the park, were driven to the area by park rangers. Subsequently, around 3,000 people resettled in Pematang Sawah, close to the park’s border. (Source: Levang et al. 2012) A major weakness of basing conservation success on strong law enforcement is that any sudden major political or economic disruption can negate long years of investment in conservation. Options other than law enforcement inside PAs may be necessary to reduce tropical deforestation. An estimated 735 million people live near remote tropical forests because agricultural land, an increasingly scarce resource, remains abundant at the forest margin. In the absence of tangible benefits to conserve tropical forests, farmers seek to maximize profits by clearing protected forests for cash crops. Gaveau et al. (2007) showed that the ability of BBSNP to conserve forest habitats has been mixed. On the one hand, the BBSNP performed better than its neighbouring landscape, halting the development of large-scale mechanized logging and to some extent promoting forest regrowth. On the other hand, it failed to slow agricultural encroachment.
61 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Box 3.3. Repressive measures to control encroachment in BBSNP in 201327 An operation was carried out in Pedamaran, Talang Kelampaian and Karang Berak- Tirom, located in Siring Tanggamus district, and in Siring Gading (Way Haru), located in Pesisir Barat district. It involved 400 personnel from BBSNP, Lampung police, Tanggamus police, the army, the private sector, local government and NGOs. Results included the demolition of as many as 25 huts, eradication of about 141.5 ha of exotic plants, and the planting of more than 2,000 local plants such as kongki, cempaka, pulai and medang.
An operation in Sukabumi involved 100 personnel from BBSNP, West Lampung police, local government, and the army. As a result, a 79.5-ha area of encroachment has been abandoned.
An operation in Serdang involved 100 personnel from BBSNP, West Lampung police, local government, and the army. As a result, a 51.5-ha area of encroachment was abandoned and the team managed to knock down 20 huts.
An operation in Pancurmas involved 100 people from BBSNP, West Lampung police, local government, and a YABI rhino protection unit. After being confronted by the team, 16 families pulled down their huts and left their land. About 82 ha of encroachment have been abandoned.
On Duku Island in Kaur Bengkulu district a 100-person team managed to destroy up to 68 huts. Outside the target area, the team found as many as 20 families of encroachers. The encroachers stated that they would leave the area of arable land in BBSNP and not come back, and dismantle their huts.
An operation in Ujan Mas in Kaur Bengkulu district involved 100 people. The team evicted as many as 16 families of encroachers without any resistance. They also destroyed 15 huts and one bridge that was used by the encroachers.
In Bukit Makmur in Kaur Bengkulu district, a 100-person team evicted about 25 families without any resistance. They also destroyed 19 huts: 9 in Talang Air Mantai and 10 in Talang Simpang Lima.
In Bangun Bersama in Merpas-Kaur, Bengkulu district, a 100-person team evicted 39 families from Desa Batu Lungun village. The team also destroyed 15 huts and one bridge that was used for access.
27 Certification of origin for sustainable robusta coffee has been proposed as an appropriate way to increase farmers’ income and reduce deforestation inside the park. WWF has urged major coffee buyers and roasters to adopt certification of origin around BBSNP (WWF 2007). An important criterion for sustainability is that the coffee be grown ouside of the park. However, in practice, enforcing this criterion is fraught with difficulty; coffee buyers and roasters are reluctant to pay the costs
27 See WHP 2014.
62 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014 of certification (Sanderson 2005). The low price premium paid to coffee farmers for sustainable robusta coffee will not discourage them from farming within protected areas. In fact, price premiums may encourage fraud within the coffee trade, given the difficulties in differentiating between coffee beans grown in and out of the park (WWF 2007). Under the right circumstances community forestry inside PA, combined with law enforcement, may assist rural communities with long-term plans for agricultural intensification, certification programmes, off-farm employment and higher education levels.
Maintaining healthy tiger populations at the landscape level A wildlife response unit was set up in the park, consisting of BBSNP staff, local community members and WCS-IP technical staff. The goal was to monitor and provide a rapid response to threats and human-wildlife conflicts in and adjacent to the park. As a top predator, the Sumatran tiger plays a crucial role in the ecology of BBSNP and its surrounding landscape. When these top predators are absent, prey populations increase disproportionately, which affects the functioning of forest ecosystems. The project also supported a number of investigations in collaboration with law enforcement agencies to track tiger and wildlife traders in the BBS landscape. The first-ever prosecution for tiger possession took place in Indonesia recently, following the seizure of four live Sumatran tigers.
Impact The project has been useful in maintaining the integrity of the NP’s boundaries. Among other activities, the NP staff, WWF, RPU and Police had evicted illegal coffee planters in 9,689 ha NP land in the West Lampung District.
Lessons learned Routine monitoring of the NP boundary is an effective measure to control encroachment in the early stage, before it develops into a chronic problem. The wildlife response unit is important in mitigating tiger-human conflicts, maintaining the integrity of tiger habitat and controlling habitat loss due to agricultural activities.
Community-Based Forest Restoration at Way Nipah Resort This activity was initiated by UNESCO in collaboration with the Bogor-based NGO Operasi Wallacea Terpadu (OWT). Efforts focused on a restoration site near Padamaran Village, Resort Way Nipah, Sukaraja District, where Javanese squatters were the dominant social group. A joint coercive operation, involving the police and army, was conducted in November 2013 to evict the squatters from the Padamaran forest area and eradicate the exotic species they planted. OWT was invited by UNESCO to facilitate the community-based restoration of the encroached area, which was located near the settlement areas of the former squatters.
63 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
OWT involved the local community as the key actor in restoration, including germ-plasm selection and procurement, development of a tree nursery, planting, and maintenance of the planted trees. The NGO delivered intensive learning-by-doing training with the local community, which included topics such as propagation and organic fertilizer development. OWT provided detailed facilitation and technical assistance in all steps involved in restoration, and their key staff members were in charge of the program and lived at the restoration site. They provided an awareness campaign through social and technical methods and coordinated extensively with NP management.
Impacts The local community has a strong sense of involvement in the nursery, since they have been involved in developing it, and with planting and maintenance of the trees. Conflict resolution has emerged between the community and the NP. Squatters have strong capacity in plant propagation, which provides physical resources to help develop sustainable livelihoods.
Lessons Learned Intensive facilitation and technical assistance during restoration activities have increased the former squatters’ awareness of NP regulations. Ideally, NGO or facilitators who work on community development should live with the local community and not just appear on a daily or less frequent basis. This helps transfer knowledge and is also a good strategy to gain full-hearted local support, which in turn helps ensure the long-terms impacts of restoration.
Conclusions, Chapter 3
The nature of squatters varies among the sites. They can be divided into five types: indigenous landless, local migrants, Javanese imimigrants, poor landless migrants and sly opportunists.
Several causes underlie encroachment: • The government designated the three NPs in an area already settled by indigenous and Javanese migrants, who arrived in several migration waves beginning in 1905. • Javanese and local migrants continued to move into the area after the NPs were created. • It is still unclear as to how much communities are involved in park management. • Widespread district partitioning during the decentralization era has led to several district jurisdictional areas overlapping conservation areas. • Park management has failed to demonstrate the real economic contribution of preserving nature to supporting community livelihoods or enhancing the gross domestic product of the district government.
64 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014
• Local governments have recognized, legalized and strengthened the presence of villages and communities within NP boundaries. • Local and national government authorities, private companies operating in the area and community members are pursuing development goals through building roads, markets, schools and office complexes, providing electricity and telecommunications, mining and converting forests to plantation areas. • The NP agency lacks the capacity and enforcement authority to implement its mandate and lacks support from local government. • Poor governance, including lack of transparency, accountability and participation, affects spatial planning development. • Many of those who benefit from resources, goods, or services — mainly bureaucrats and politicians — do not pay for them.
NP management has failed to respond to encroachment. Preventive measures are needed, including regular patrols by forest rangers, public extension on forestry regulations, and community development through village conservation efforts such as micro-hydro, ecotourism and nursery development. Repressive measures are also required, including periodic joint operations by forest rangers with the national police and army, and use of judicial processes to arrest, prosecute and convict violators. Special operations to protect the forests and their floral and faunal richness from non-natural disturbances from outside the park include patrols in fire-prone areas, especially those close to human activities. Restoration of ecosystems and forest areas (usually conducted after coercive operations and other non-natural disturbances) should involve accelerated natural succession that is supported by intensive monitoring and maintenance.
During the reformation era, NPs had limited success in controlling the flow of newcomers or expelling longer-term encroachers. PHKA officials often felt powerless in the face of these violations, although NP rangers are authorized to arrest offenders and hold them for 24 hours before either turning them over to the police or releasing them. But even in collaboration with the police, NP rangers usually target small-scale infringements; large-scale and well-organized illegal activities, controlled by powerful interests, continue unchecked. In response to the situation, as noted by Levang et al. 2012, local elites usually blame this ineffectiveness on allegedly corrupt and inefficient park rangers, while the rangers complain about the lack of political support from the local elites. Both assertions are partly true. Although political candidates publicly lament the destruction of the park, they rigidly oppose any attempt to expel squatters from the park, as most of them cannot resist promising their constituents open access to the NP.
The limited success of law enforcement in solving the encroachment problem is rooted in both internal and external factors. Internal factors include the limited presence of NP rangers in the field and the involvement of several NP staff (directly or indirectly) in illegal activities. NP heads provide inconsistent support; it very much depends on
65 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms the person rather than the long-term programme. Boundary markers are not clear and some of them are moved by outsiders. There is limited coordination among judicial processes and limited monitoring of the park. External factors include the fact that illegal activities are conducted by organized groups with extensive resources. In addition, illegal activities are often backed by strong political or military support. There is a pressing demand for land for cash crops (oil palm, rubber, coffee, cinnamon) and mining. There is limited or inconsistent use of the law and its support apparatus, and law enforcement has had limited success in putting masterminds or cukong in jail. As result, law enforcement has not provided an effective deterrent.
Anti-encroachment measures during 1990–2014 are summarized in Table 3.10. Key supporting factors for the success or failure of initiatives are summarized in Table 3.11.
Table 3.10. Summary of anti-encroachment initiatives and key lessons learned in TRHS, 1990–2014 Project/activity Funding Year Implementor Key lessons learned Gunung Leuser National Park Leuser EC 1995– LIF/LMU Integrated landscape Development 2004 management approach Programme (from GLNP to Leuser Ecosystem) GLNP effforts APBN 2005 to GLNP Significant resources are to overcome present required to control chronic encroachment in encroachment. Besitang Coercive evictions were not the right solution Restoration at UNESCO 2009– GLNP The ground presence of NP Sei Serdang, 2013 staff was key to the success Cinta Raja Resort, of the restoration, and Langkat District the restored areas have effectively protected the areas surrounding the park from encroachment Community-based UNESCO 2010– YOSL-OIC The involvement of local restoration at Sei 2012 and KETAPEL community was key to the Betung Resort success of the restoration Community- UNESCO 2001 to GLNP, LPT, A powerful community- based Ecotourism present Indecon and based ecotourism Program in YOSL-OIC organization (LPT) and Tangkahan village regulations changed local community attitudes and shifted livelihoods from illegal logging to ecotourism
66 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014
Project/activity Funding Year Implementor Key lessons learned Kerinci Seblat National Park Kerinci Seblat World 1997 KSNP, four The project design was too ICDP Bank –2002 provincial ambitious and took too governments, long to prepare, while the MoF (PHPA implementation time was too and PH), short; complex institutional BAPPENAS, arrangements, and a lack MoHA of coordination during (BANGDA), project implementation, also WWF, hindered success WARSI KSNP efforts APBN 2010 KSNP, Including forests with to contol SPORC, high population pressures encroachment in Merangin (coffee farmers) into NP Sipurak Hook District areas caused management problems Coercive evictions were not the right solution Collaborative UNESCO 2008– FFI, LTB Strengthening the access forest 2012 of local community to management production and protection in forest edge forests surrounding the park communities is important in the protection of NP areas Kerinci Seblat FFI 2008– KSNP, FFI The awareness of the local Tiger Protection 2012 community of the value and Conservation of the NP is the key to NP conservation efforts Pilot project to IUCN-NL 2007– LTA Collaboration among the stop encroachment 2009 three stakeholders, (District at the village level government, legislature in Kerinci District and NP) was the key to controlling encroachment Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park CANOPI UNF, 2004– BBSNP, WCS- An NGO consortium CEPF 2008 IP, Watala, was effective to attract Pratala, funding, but implementation Yasadhana, was often hampered by Alas internal conflicts within the Indonesia, consortium Garsi, etc. Rhino Protection IRF, WWF 2002 to YABI Intensive patrols are the key Unit (RPU) present to controlling encroachment
67 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Project/activity Funding Year Implementor Key lessons learned BBSNP efforts APBN 1983– BBSNP Law enforcement is to control 1997; necessary to safeguard the encroachment 1998 to integrity of BBSNP from present being compromised by migrant farmers The extent of encroachment areas are highly correlated with law enforcement efforts Maintaining WCS-IP 2000– WRU Routine monitoring of the healthy tiger 2006 NP boundary is the key to populations at the controlling encroachment landscape level Community-based UNESCO 2014– OWT Intensive technical assistance Forest Restoration 2015 and awareneess campaigns, at Resort Way supported by alternative Nipah income generating activities, are keys to gaining the full support of former squatters to maintain the restored areas
Table 3.11.Anti-encroachment initiatives, 1990–2014: supporting factors and causes of failure Anti-encroachment Supporting factors Causes of failure measure For consortium projects such The lack of leadership led to as ICDPs and CANOPI, a conflicting actions that wasted lead organization with strong precious resources, and the Conservation leadership is a must; and NP half-hearted involvement of key governance management must be committed NP stakeholders and poor NP to good governance and to management were also problems involving key stakeholders at the national and regional level Learning from BBSNP (1985– LE was frequently targeted 1997), efforts were targeted to small-scale infringements; to the masterminds of illegal NP management was slow to activities; LE was supported by respond, with efforts mostly Law enforcement intelligence operations that could conducted after the encroachment (LE) identify encroachment in its early problems got bigger and more stage; quick responses were complicated; coercive measures needed to any encroachment often failed because the problem, not waiting until the transgressors knew about the problem became big and planned operation in advance;
68 Review of Anti-Encroachment Initiatives in TRHS, 1990– 2014
Anti-encroachment Supporting factors Causes of failure measure complicated; LE must be there was a lack of confidence supported with adequate in the legal system; the squatters resources; people must have were backed by human rights confidence in the legal system groups; there was a lack of support from NP stakeholders Learning from Tangkahan For the ICDP in Kerinci, villagers community-based ecotourism had not yet realized the urgent development, villagers should need for VCAs, as the initiatives feel the urgent need for VCAs were largely driven by external (awareness raising is necessary agents; limited facilitation was prior to VCA formulation); carried out during and after VCA Village the villages have strong social formulation, and only limited Conservation capital and extensive potential efforts were made to link with Agreements natural resources to be protected key conservation objectives; (VCAs) and sustainably utilized; institutionalized sanctions for intensive facilitation was carried violators were not in place out before and after VCA implementation; the VCA should have strong linkages with key conservation objectives Learning from the ICDP, LDP and Learning from the ICDP in Tangkahan case: VGCs should be Kerinci, blanket assumptions delivered to villages depending about local community needs on their needs and requests; and appropriate amount Village VGCs should have extensive of the grants were an issue; Conservation linkages with conservation village beneficiaries were not Grants (VGCs) goals; effective selection of chosen well; there was a lack beneficiaries is necessary; of facilitation and technical intensive facilitation and technical assistance for the VCG proposal assistance are needed for VCG and associated spending spending Learning from the UNESCO Learning from NP-TNI (army) restoration program in TRHS, restoration projects, ER ecosystem restoration was was treated like any other conducted together with the reforestation project; there was local community, including limited involvement of the local nursery development, planting, community, as most seedlings Ecosystem maintenance of planted trees were bought from outside restoration and securing the NP boundary villages; limited capacity building from encroachment; the presence for the local community was of NP staff and ER facilitators carried out, leading to a limited on restoration sites was helpful; sense of involvement in the capacity building restored areas on the part of the local community
69 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Anti-encroachment Supporting factors Causes of failure measure of local community on ecosystem restoration was carried out, including the development of sustainable livelihoods; intensive and continuous facilitation and technical assistance was provided to the local community; NGOs with extensive experience in ecosystem restoration were involved Learning from Tangkahan Most ecotourism is managed community-based ecotourism, directly by NP authority, which a legitimate and well- has not sufficiently involved the accepted local organization local community Ecotourism was established; the NP development was willing to delegate its management authority to the local organization; and a clear benefit-sharing mechanism was established
70 4. Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations
Overcoming Conservation Deadlock
Despite substantial international and national support to protect TRHS, the rates of deforestation, which was followed by encroachment, show little sign of abating, suggesting that these efforts have had limited success. TRHS deforestation tends to be driven by the high population pressure surrounding the parks, which leads to the expansion of agriculture such as oil palm, rubber, coffee and cinnamon; this is typically related to accessibility (such as the forest’s proximity to roads) and elevation. Consequently, TRHS’s lowland forests, which have the highest levels of biodiversity and carbon storage capacity, are highly threatened: they contain high-quality timber and are accessible to agricultural development.
71 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
It is understandable why NP management has failed to control the encroachment problem, as much of the underlying causes are beyond their management scope and capacity. The underlying causes of encroachment are discussed in Chapter 3 and listed according to the relevant management authorities in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Government authorities responsible for addressing the underlying causes of NP encroachment Authorities Underlying causes NP Central Province District gov’t. NP creation has displaced indigenous and migrants Migrants moving to surrounding NPs Unclear extent of community involvement in NP management District partitioning NP failure to demonstrate the park’s economic contribution Villages within NP boundaries legalized by the local government High development pressure surrounding NPs Lack of NP governance capacity Poor governance for spatial planning development Intervention of free riders
It is clear that encroachment cannot be solved by NP management alone and that very strong support is needed from the relevant agencies at the regional and national level. There is no single approach or solution to control encroachment and other forest crimes. As stated by Wiratno (2010; 1), “no single step can overcome the deadlock. What is needed is a series of integrated, coordinated and complementary actions.”
However, the key responsibility is that of NP management itself, which should stimulate and harmonize all the existing support. World Heritage status is an important tool to help the NP bring together local, national and international stakeholders, and help solve the problems that threaten World Heritage Sites. Based on the existing best practices discussed in Chapter 3, a list of recommendations is discussed below; it is addressed to NP and key partners and stakeholders.
72 Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations
Recommendations
Strengthening Conservation Governance Building stronger collaboration with stakeholders at regional and national level NPs management authority lies with the central government. NPs often fail to realize that the district government is an important stakeholder at the regional level, although NP managers do feel obliged to involve local governments in planning, monitoring and evaluation. Local governments often feel that NP management is beyond their responsibilities.
By not including the local government, NP management becomes exclusive; it is like a kingdom within the kingdom. As a result, the local government tends to neglect NP problems. It respects squatters by providing grants, schools and other public facilities, and acknowledges encroached areas as villages. The impacts of district partitioning and development during the reformation era have increased the demand for land for infrastructure development, settlement areas and agriculture. Because the local governments do not value nature, they often perceive that the existence of the NP has hampered regional development. They frequently complain that the major part of their district is composed of NP areas that are beyond their access and control. To speed up regional economic development, district governments stimulate large-scale investments in natural resource use, which leads to pressing demands to change the status of state forest land.
The managers of NPs should not be isolated from the dynamic of sustainable development beyond the park’s boundary. This is not only the case for management, but also for law enforcement and governance. The NP stakeholders’ network spreads across the local, regional and national level. Based on the analysis presented in Table 4.2, most stakeholders can have negative impacts on existing NP governance and management. The managers of NPs are strongly dependent on many partners and stakeholders, despite the fact that most of these partners are highly likely to give uncomfortable feedback.
An extraordinary effort is required to turn this situation around. A well-designed ICDP approach can help achieve this. Most ICDP strategies focus on improving conservation governance by coordinating the efforts of various stakeholders to resolve the conflicting plans of different agencies, including central and provincial governments, the private sector, NGOs, and villagers, as well as donor agencies and international parties. (These efforts are aligned with a shift in PA management; see Table 4.3). Roads, transmigration projects, mining operations, and large plantation developments, which are the most serious threats to TRHS, do not happen spontaneously. They are discussed and planned by local and provincial governments.
73 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Table 4.2. The power and roles of NP’s key partners/stakeholders NP partners/ Impacts Level Power** Remarks Stakeholders* + — 0 =*** International +++ Political and funding support Central gov’t. +++ Province**** +++ Little interest in biodiversity District ++ conservation because national parks fall under the jurisdiction Sub-district + of the national government and provide few economic returns
Governance locally Village ++ High population pressure, unequal distribution of available agricultural land, powerful economic interests Supreme Court +++ Weak penalties, due to Attorney +++ inefficiencies in the criminal justice General system, are insufficient punishment to deter criminal behaviour High Court +++ High Administrative Court (PTTUN) High +++ Prosecutors Anti- ++ Lack of cooperation (and support) encroachment among law enforcement agencies Task Force Financial +++ Complexities in defining and Transaction monitoring suspicious financial Reports and transactions and linking them to
Law Enforcement Analysis forest crime offences Center (PPATK/ INTRAC) Corruption +++ Under-resourced, with case loads Eradication that greatly exceed their financial Commission and human capacity to cope (KPK) efficiently Social NGOs Support squattters against eviction Conservation ++ Key partner for good governance NGOs
74 Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations
NP partners/ Impacts Level Power** Remarks Stakeholders* + — 0 =*** Natural ++ Key partner to implement the Resource strategic plan to control forest Conservation crime activities Agency/Balai Konservasi dan Sumber Daya Alam (BKSDA) District Court +++ Lack of integrity, accountability, Administrative independence and impartiality, Court (PTUN) leading to unfair application of Public the law Prosecutors National +++ Lack of capacity to administer police and enforce the law; poor dispute National army +++ resolution, which can lead to unofficial out-of-court settlements Private sector +++ Land grabs for large-scale agro- (plantation commodity business and mining) Politicians +++ Protect the squatters against eviction Media ++ Good partner to promote NP activities, management performance and achievements Conservation ++ Good partners for biodiversity NGOs data collection, tracking management effectiveness, Management Scientific ++ community community development, conservation campaigns and forest crime detection Migrant + Need for land community Indigenous ++ community * Stakeholders are defined here as those who have rights or interests in a system. They include communities, social groups, governments and organizations who can affect, or are affected by, the NP. ** Stakeholder power can be understood as the extent to which stakeholders are able to persuade or coerce others into making decisions and following certain courses of action. *** So far has limited contribution. **** Law No 23/2014 on Regional Governance set regional autonomy at the provincial level. Power: + : powerless, ++ ; powerful; ++++ : very powerful. Impact levels: + : Positive impacts; - : Negative impacts; 0 : Neutral
75 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Conservation of global biodiversity requires strong and resilient institutions. The head of the NP and key staff members should have a large communication and networking capacity in order to promote the pivotal contributions of TRHS to economic development. NPs should have the capacity to build an integrated multi-scale conservation governance network that represents communities, governments, local and international NGOs, multilateral organizations and academics, all working together to negotiate consensus and reach common goals. This requires a major shift, from management by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry or park agency alone to collaborative and adaptive management by stakeholder groups, and from managing a national park as an isolated unit to managing it as part of the overall region. It requires geographical, political, economic and social integration on the basis of good forest governance principles such as transparency, accountability, status of rights and responsibilities, democratization, participation, equity and equality of power (Mayers, Bass and Macqueen 2005). Any NP head must have strong leadership skills and integrity and be a respected figure. He or she should be active in larger governance issues, including inter-agency cooperation for effective conflict resolution and law enforcement.
NP management must be able to demonstrate that they are effective. Managers must be able to include diverse organizational networks in their policy making. They should work to manage the park, not just administer the government funds allocated to it. NP managers should be able to leverage funds by utilizing potential resources in a sustainable manner. The strict regulations of the central government should be adjusted to create space for NP management to be innovative, including a well- planned shift in position and transparent evaluations of leadership performance.
Strengthen security patrols and the ground presence of NP staff The prime underlying cause of forest encroachment is the lack of presence of field staff. NP officials often visit areas only after receiving reports of problems; in most cases, the problems have by then become difficult to control. Encroachment problems might not be as severe if NP field staff conducted their field tasks effectively. They should spend much of their working time in the field, something that Wiratno (2012) calls “resort-based management” (RBM); this is indeed the key to controlling encroachment. If RBM programmes are successfully implemented, TRHS will save resources by not having to implement repressive measures to curb encroachment, illegal logging and forest fires. Resources could instead be redirected to managing and restoring the NP ecosystem (Wiratno 2012).
This approach has been successfully implemented in Java and should be replicable in TRHS. It is true, however, that the TRHS situation is different than that in Java. In Java, one resort manages 10,000–12,000 ha, while in GLNP, one resort manages 50,000– 100,000 ha: an area five to ten times larger, with much more severe problems. In Java, one forest ranger controls 5,000–10,000 ha; in Sumatra, the area controlled by a ranger can be as large as 30,000 ha.
76 Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations
The lack of human resources, facilities and infrastructure have led to poor forest management. The presence of NP staff in the field will help to control encroachment at an initial stage; regular patrols by park rangers will discourage newcomers from entering the park. Routine patrols should be conducted more frequently, from 4 to 15 days per month. If patrol members find encroachment, they can deal with it directly and report it to the NP section office. Spending most of their working time in the field will enable staff to develop intensive communication and collaborative work with villagers. They should become the NP’s communicators and should facilitate community empowerment. The recruitment of young and energetic field staff who have strong knowledge of and skills in community development, either as Forest Rangers or Habitat Improvement Specialists, is urgently required.
The existing field staff (Resort Head) are dominated by the older generation, most of whom were recruited in the late 1970s. Many young and educated staff (university graduates, BSc holders) are reluctant to work in the field. PHKA needs to develop a merit-based system to stimulate young educated staff to work at the field level. This could be encouraged by improving existing career planning; for instance, all young educated staff members should be posted in the field for a certain time before being promoted to a higher level. Better remuneration for field staff and using most of the NP budget for field activities would also help.
As noted by Wiratno (2012), an RBM programme is not implemented simply by building new resort offices or moving staff to the field. It should be followed by making changes to working relationships to improve staff capacity building, build intensive communications between resort heads and the park office, and improve communication with the local community and NP stakeholders. Most importantly, managers should make more investment at the field level a priority.
Establishing base-line data at the field level must be the first step to building strong RBM. The data collected can be used as the basis of designing the strategy for ranger patrols, which should be focussed on the most vulnerable NP areas, such as forest areas located at low elevations and close to the road. This is particularly important for TRHS, which has a large area and limited financial resources. Controlling encroachment may involve various actions, but the most important — and possibly the cheapest — is patrolling the existing NP areas to prevent illegal logging and encroachment at an early stage of development.
RBM implementation must be carried out through strong collaboration with the local forestry district. This will also be the case when the Conservation Forest Management Unit is implemented in the near future (Wahjudi Wardojo, pers. comm., 2015).
77 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Strengthen Village Conservation Governance: Linking Village development to Conservation The recently enacted Law No. 6/2014 on villages has provided a new perspective on natural resource management. The law provides wider scope and more control to village governments in managing their natural resources. The goal of the legislation is to establish villages that are strong, developed, independent and democratic; these are the keys to inproving the welfare of a community. In Indonesia, villages are not a subsystem of district/town governments; they are self-governing communities, similar to small states, with clear boundaries and jurisdiction over natural resources.
Two village governance principles are important. The recognition principle involves the central government acknowledging village-specific governance, which is rooted in a community’s origin, history and indigenous traditions. This contradicts past practices, by which the government nationalized diverse indigenous village governance systems.28 The subsidiary principle involves villages holding full authority to define their own development direction, including human capital to execute this development. Development activities that can be handled by villages should not be taken on by the central government. Support from the government, if any, should be in line with the village development plan. Villages must make their own decisions about development, rather than being recipients of central government projects.
The new village law is a golden opportunity for better sustainable natural resource management at the landscape level. Of course, this cannot be taken for granted. The work of the NPs, NGOs and others is required to mainstream natural resource management. The weak relationships between district and provincial agencies and village management should be strengthened to allow the NP to support village natural resource management that will benefit the integrity of the park area (Purwanto 2014c).
Since all NP land is under village administration, the resources of NPs and supporting NGOs are called for, especially to support and facilitate villages in developing Green mid-term village development plans (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Desa, or RPJM). These plans will ensure that increased village funds (villages will receive under the new law a much bigger share of the national budget) will be spent in a way that is aligned with the park’s conservation goals. Efforts are also needed to increase the village government’s capacity to administer funds. Given the NP’s limited resources, park managers and their partners could select key villages that have the most strategic position as buffers of the NP area.
Enforced Agrarian Reform and Constitutional Court Ruling No. 35/2012 Agrarian reform is an alternative solution to addressing encroachment in PAs. In practice, agrarian reform can be achieved by one of two approaches: access reform
28 Under the previous village governance law (No. 5/1974) the government did not acknowledge the legitimacy of customary governance systems. At the village level, the presence of two types of governance caused confusion and weakened traditional (indigenous) governance.
78 Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations and improved land distribution. So far, the Government of Indonesia has used access reform. This is the basis of social forestry schemes, which have been implemented in production and protection forests. However, better land distribution is strongly demanded by smallholder farmers. The target of this distribution is abandoned land that is controlled by the private sector. In order to redistribute land, policy on ownership and tenure restrictions must be enforced and aligned with Law No. 56 of 1966. Agrarian reform must be strongly supported by improved population administration. Population administration and migration policies should be integrated at the national level.
Constitutional Court Ruling No. 35/201229 can assist in solving forestry-related conflicts by acknowledging adat communities and protecting their rights. Until now there has been no attempt by the government to implement this ruling. Instead, the Minister of Forestry issued a letter addressed to the Governor, Regent/Mayor and Chief of Forestry services throughout Indonesia, which confirms that customary forests will be determined by the Ministry of Forestry. In order to do this, the Ministry of Forestry requires local governments to set up regulations to identify customary forests. The Ministry of Forestry has also been appointed coordinator of preparation process for the draft bill on the Recognition and Protection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Pengakuan dan Perlindungan Masyarakat Hukum Adat).
There has not yet been significant progress on regional regulations on customary forests. The interests of the central and regional government are similar: arranging permits for large-scale businesses, rather than managing land tenure for indigenous peoples (DKN 2014). Justice for indigenous peoples is continuously ignored by the state; this injustice has has become an underlying cause of the rampant encroachment of protected areas. The Government of Indonesia should immediately implement the Constitutional Court’s ruling at both the local and national level. In addition, the House of Representatives must adopt the Bill on Recognition and Protection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These actions could support the recommendations of the national workshop on forest law organized by the United Nations Office for REDD+ Coordination in Indonesia (UNORCID); see Box 4.1.
In response to frequent tenure conflicts with indigenous communities, MoEF has recently established a complaint team that responds to and settles complaints from local community/indigenous people about state forest land. This team includes NGOs such as HuMa, Walhi, AMAN, Sajogyo Institute, Ecosoc, Epistema Institute, and Greenpeace Indonesia, to provide guidance.
29 On 16 May 2013, the Indonesian Constitutional Court issued Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012 on the Judicial Review delivered by the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN) and two Indigenous Communities against Law 41/1999 on Forestry. In its decision, the Court confirmed that Customary Forests are forests located in indigenous territories, and should no longer be considered as state forests.
79 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms
Box 4.1. Key outcomes and recommendations of national workshop on the Forestry Law.30 a. Appoint/designate a body, agency, or ministry, perceived as trusted and neutral, to be explicitly tasked with consolidating and overseeing the implementation process of Ruling No. 35/2012. Relevant ministries, agencies, and implementing bodies should report back to this central body or authority on progress regularly. b. Harmonise and synchronise regulations on defining and recognising masyarakat hukum adat 1. Definitional clarity on who qualifies as masyarakat hukum adat would be greatly aided by the acceleration of the settlement of the draft bill regarding the recognition and protection of masyarakat hukum adat (RUU Pengakuan dan Perlindungan Masyarakat hukum adat, aka RUU PMHA). 2. Diversity in local contexts and solutions can be accommodated through existing mechanisms that support decentralisation and continuing attempts to strengthen the capacity of provincial and local governments so that they can structure participatory processes to inventory and register masyarakat hukum adat. 3. Principles and procedures for defining who constitutes masyarakat hukum adat need to be consolidated on the national level with input from relevant existing regulation and processes at sub-national level. Clear guidance for provincial and local level identification and registration of hutan adat needs to be formulated. Existing standards for codification within ministerial and other regulations should be reviewed and clarification provided in cases of contradiction. 4. Processes for mapping hutan adat need to be outlined, and existing maps need to be consolidated, reviewed, and accepted by relevant government bodies, particularly the National Land Agency (BPN). 5. Relevant national and international experiences in balancing cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity in democratic governance and natural resource management should be consolidated and shared, particularly between sub national contexts. c. Emphasise subnational capacity building to ensure the micro-level balance of the 7% growth 41% emissions reduction equation. The on-going national conversation about the definition of equity, and regarding attempts to accommodate different realisations of development, must be oriented to the goal of implementation and continued improvement in basic services delivery, rights realisation, and access to economic opportunity. d. Implementation of the verdict should be instituted in a participatory manner, reflecting the principles of inclusion, empowerment, and engagement, and in a manner where the means is part and parcel of the achievement of the ends.
30
30 See UNORCID 2013
80 Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations
On 17 October 2014, a joint decree of four ministers — Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Forestry, the Ministry of Public Works and Ministry of Agrarian and spatial planning— was enacted concerning procedures for the settlement of land tenure issues on state forest land. The joint decree was prepared by inter-ministerial agencies who are bound by a Memorandum of Understanding (Nota Kesepakatan Bersama) to accelerate state forest gazetting. The joint decree grants rights to individuals/ community groups who legally control state forest land and who have been adversely affected by improper implementation of state forest gazetting. At present, 64% of state forest land has been gazetted; however, this does not mean that conflicts over land tenure have been fully settled (Safitri 2015).
Many foresters (including park managers) worry that the implementation of the decree could in fact bring about further forest degradation (Handadhari 2015). In the case of TRHS, it could facilitate the whitewashing of illegal encroachment. Chapter 3, article 8, verses 1 and 2 of the decree affirm that all state forest land (including NPs) that is controlled and utilized continuously by a community for 20 years (less than 20 years within the framework of agrarian reform), can have recognition and assertion rights (pengakuan dan penegasan hak). If the controlled land does not comply with the requirements mentioned in the decree the land can be managed through a community approach. Such general and simplified approaches will give strong incentives to all types of squatters; they will be inclined to encroach forest land, as in the end they will have their rights recognized. Conflict resolution over forest encroachment cannot be conducted through a blanket approach, but should be settled fairly case by case.
Strengthening law enforcement targeted to syndicates and masterminds of illegal activities Efforts to establish incentives for conservation by investing in development are being frustrated by inadequate law enforcement. Strengthening law enforcement can include a variety of activities; it commonly involves empowering police and courts to better detect and punish illegal activities. Illegal and damaging activities by squatters often encounter very few restrictions. Not surprisingly, local communities are unlikely to support NP law when they see powerful groups or individuals freely using the park without sanction. It can also be argued that granting the local community effective control over land and resources in and around NPs might not encourage more sustainable land practices, when the rewards from illegally using NP resources are high and the costs to the culprits are relatively low.
Saving the park from conversion to agro-commodity crops will not be possible without strict law enforcement. If nothing is done to evict opportunist squatters, the present trend will become irreversible. It is good that law enforcement is being combined with opportunities for alternative livelihoods for landless squatters, and that forceful and brutal evictions of squatters are no longer necessary. Law enforcement is required for the success of any community development programme in the NPs. However, this should be directed at opportunist squatters, the organizers of land clearance
81 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms syndicates and people who illegally sell land they do not own, and not the landless squatters used by the cukong. In the meantime, security patrols and litigation efforts should be strengthened to control any new squatters.
Cases of extensive encroachment on NP lands, such as in Besitang, must be handled by the central government. The House of Representatives, together with MoEF, have to establish a Forest Encroachment Commission to crack down on syndicates of organized crime.
The commission would work with the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK) to examine and prosecute the financial backers of encroachment using the corruption and money laundering laws (see Box 4.2).
Box 4.2. Anti-Corruption and Anti-Money Laundering The use of laws on corruption and money laundering in the forestry sector is still new. Concerns have been raised that using these legal instruments will weaken the investigation and prosecution of crimes in the forestry sector. However, this can be prevented by assessing each case to ascertain whether it concerns only forestry crime, or whether it is also linked to corruption and money laundering.
If forest encroachment were an ordinary crime, involving only poor communities that surround the forest, it might not be difficult to stop. However, with the involvement of financial backers, large-scale land speculators or cukong, who operate like an institution of organized crime, NP encroachment becomes a complex problem. Enforcement of the existing forestry law has failed to capture the leaders of encroachment, and has allowed most perpetrators to be acquitted. The enforcers focus on finding physical evidence, and the easiest targets are smallholder farmers. As an alternative to prosecution under the Forestry Law, the cukong of encroachment could be indicted under the anti-corruption law, as long as law enforcement officers can prove that bribery was used in the granting of permits, leading to the loss of state assets. Forests and biodiversity are state assets, and illegally harvested forests will create losses of state revenue as well as serious negative ecological and economic impacts. Therefore, it is important to enforce the law and to handle forest crime cases using the anti- corruption law.
The law related to money laundering follows the money and provides an important option to deal with the masterminds of encroachment. This approach requires banks and other financial service providers to be more prudent in dealing with their customers. Bank customers include financiers of land speculation. Effective implementation of the money laundering law should provide opportunities to promote responsible banking practices, and can contribute to sustainable forest management and curtailing forestry crimes.
82 Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations
Most criminal wrongdoing in the forestry sector is prosecuted under the provisions of the Forestry Law, Conservation Act and the Law on Prevention and Eradication of Forest Degradation. Illegal activities under the Forestry Law are largely restricted to actions within the forests. As a consequence, the crimes (and criminals) detected are predominantly not very powerful. Sanctions are ineffective in stopping crimes in the forestry sector because they catch only the petty criminals in the field who are linked to forestry crime. Meanwhile, the main actors — who fund and plan large-scale illegal activities from outside the forest — evade sanctions. These include government officials authorized to issue permits, and business people and capital owners linked to enterprises that violate forestry provisions.
Forest encroachment is a multi-dimensional crime. It is addressed in several legal instruments in Indonesia, including the Forestry Law, the Anti-Corruption Law, the Anti– Money Laundering Law and the Environmental Protection and Management Law.31 The extent and complexity of the network of perpetrators of forest encroachment and other environmental violations require law enforcement to apply a more unified, integrated and comprehensive approach. The has developed guidelines for investigation and indictment that take an integrated approach to law enforcement. These include Customer Due Diligence and Enhanced Due Diligence Guidelines for the Bank of Indonesia.
Another concern in applying anti-corruption and anti–money laundering laws in the forestry sector is the doctrine that states that a law governing a specific subject matter overrides a law that governs general matters. In this context, Forestry law is considered as specific, while anti-corruption and anti-money laundering laws are general. This suggests that forestry crimes should only be tackled by Forestry law and not necessary tackled by anti-corruption and anti-money laundering laws.
It is key that forestry bureaucrats and law enforcement authorities from various institutions work together. MoEF has the right to coordinate law enforcement agencies to conduct integrated law enforcement measures against environmental violators. Prosecutors must analyze which provisions are most appropriate, decide which provisions can be used, and determine how to indict the perpetrator. Sanctions imposed on perpetrators of forestry-related crimes should include criminal and civil (administrative) penalties. Perpetrators should also be made to pay compensation for damage and losses to the state in the form of rehabilitation, forest recovery or other measures (Santoso et al. 2011).
Few prosecutions have been made under the new laws. This is partly due to the complexities of defining and monitoring suspicious financial transactions and linking them to forest crime offences, and to the secrecy of banking operations. It is also 31 Law No. 32/2009 (Environmental Protection and Management Law) was formulated based on a long history of environmental management in Indonesia. It replaces Law No. 23/1997 concerning Environmental Management, which in turn replaced Law No. 4/1983.
83 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms because of the lack of support for the relevant agencies, due to limited awareness of integrated law enforcement. In addition, the police are reluctant to use the new legislation, and there is limited capacity on the part of of law enforcement agencies and the courts, and a lack of cooperation among law enforcement agencies. A Forest Encroachment Commission is badly needed to establish, strengthen and maintain integrated law enforcement.
By involving the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK), the causes of forestry crimes can be revealed by tracing the corruption and money laundering that support them. This would involve coordination and cooperation among forest rangers, civil servants, forest crime investigators/PPNS Kehutanan, police and prosecutors. These efforts must be strongly supported by capacity building for MoEF officials and key stakeholders, including forest rangers, PPNS Kehutanan, police officers and PPATK officers. Judicial training for other enforcement officers in the forestry sector is also important.
Monitoring encroachment areas using conservation drones Mapping and monitoring land-cover changes in conservation areas currently rely on satellite-based remote sensing. Although satellite images are freely available (e.g., Landsat and MODIS), they are not suitable for detecting encroachment due to their low resolution; high resolution images can be prohibitively costly (e.g., QuickBird and IKONOS). High-resolution data are often critical for accurately detecting and tracking encroachment at the landscape scale (<1,000 ha). Furthermore, much of the humid tropics is often obscured from remote-sensing satellites due to persistent cloud cover. Cloud-free satellite images for a specific time period and location are not often readily available.
To address these challenges, it is recommended that NPs use drones (remotely guided planes) to detect encroachment and to survey and map forests and biodiversity. They are a low-cost ( Drones have evolved and developed rapidly over the past decade. After being used primarily for military purposes, it has become clear that there are many other areas where they might prove useful. Although they still need to be fully developed and researched, drones will soon be an important tool for monitoring purposes (Getzin,Wiegand and Schöning 2011). 32 For example, ground surveys of orangutan populations (Pongo spp.) in Sumatra can cost up to $250,000 for a two-year survey cycle. Due to this high cost, surveys are not conducted at the frequency required for proper analysis and monitoring of population trends. In addition, some remote tropical forests have never been surveyed for biodiversity due to their inaccessible terrain (Koh and Wich 2012). 84 Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations A conservation drone is fitted with an autopilot system that consists of a computer, GPS, compass, barometric altimeter and a few other sensors. A conservation drone also carries a video camera and/or still camera. It must also be equipped with software that allows the user to program a mission and enable useful commands and operations. Most drones rely on well-developed positioning systems, which often use a GPS receiver or WiFi to follow a predetermined map or to free-fly with the help of a controller on the ground (Ivosevic et al. 2015). The photographs and videos obtained by conservation drones can be used to monitor changes in land cover. Larger crops, such as oil palm trees, can easily be distinguished; even relatively small crops such as maize stands can be identified from drone images. Conservation drones can also acquire evidence of forest fires and human activities such as logging and forest trails. They can detect encroachment at an early stage. Furthermore, owing to the negligible cost of operating the drone, target areas could be surveyed repeatedly (Koh and Wich 2012). Strengthen collaboration with conservation and social NGOs Strong, well-rooted conservation/environmental and social/human rights NGOs and civil society organizations can help to voice the concerns of NPs and communities. They can also influence corporations and governments to comply with binding and non- binding regulations to protect forested landscapes, integrate social and ecological standards into their policies and practices, and adopt alternative forest governance solutions. The emergence of NGOs represents an organized response by civil society, especially in those areas in which the state has either failed to address problems or has done so inadequately. The importance of public awareness and NGO involvement in environmental protection is acknowledged worldwide. Aligned with the new Ministerial Decree on collaborative management, environmental NGOs with long-term commitments to support park management should be included in strategic planning for NPs. NGO work plans should align with the NP’s real and urgent needs, rather than be driven by the interests of their donors. NP management should be transparent and managers must be willing to share resources with honest and trustworthy NGOs. The relationship between NPs and NGOs should be based on equality, and both bodies should build strong communication and coordination systems. NGOs are expected to develop local conservation cadres from NP staff and local people, so that they can operate and maintain park initiatives. To strengthen anti- encroachment measures, the NP needs NGOs who have extensive experience with improving the governance of forested landscapes, and with community development, landscape/village conservation planning, ecosystem restoration and development of sustainable livelihoods. NPs should also build strong partnerships with NGOs to develop solutions to resolve conflicts with the local and adat community. 85 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms Integrated landscape approaches: shifting from PAs to integrated landscape- based management Managing TRHS with an integrated landscape approach Indonesian landscapes, like landscapes in many parts of the tropics, “are subject to unprecedented changes. Populations are growing, roads, dams and cities are being built, the climate is changing, and the demand for resources is increasing. A diversity of local, regional and global stakeholders claims a share of land and resources. Landscapes must fulfil an increasing number of functions to satisfy a broader range of stakeholders holding divergent interests. In many cases, this leads to conflict and unsustainable land cover. Large areas of land lie idle, or fulfil only a fraction of their potential functions, while outsiders grab productive lands to convert them into mono- functional landscapes” (Chavez-Tafur and Zagt 2014: vi). The integrated landscape approach has increasingly been promoted as a new perspective on addressing global challenges at the local level; this is aligned with the major shift in management outlined by Borrini-Feyerabend, Kothari and Oviedo 2004 (Table 4.3). There is a growing recognition that policies directed only at PAs, or only at agriculture, have limited success. An integrated and holistic landscape approach is needed. Table 4.3. A shift in PA management Conventional PA management The new approach to PA management Establish PAs as separate units Plan PAs as part of a national, regional and international system Manage PAs as islands Manage PAs as elements of networks (connected by corridors, “stepping stones” and biodiversity-supportive land covers) Manage reactively, within a short time Manage adaptively, with a long-term scale, with little regard to lessons learned perspective, taking advantage of ongoing from experience learning Protect existing natural and landscape Protect these assets, but also restore and assets rehabilitate them, so that lost or eroded values can be recovered Establish and manage PAs for Establish and manage PAs for conservation, conservation (not productive use) and but also for scientific, socio-economic (including scenic protection (not ecosystem function) the maintenance of ecosystem services) and cultural objectives Establish in a technocratic way Establish as a political act, requiring sensitivity, consultations and astute judgment Manage by natural scientists and natural Manage by multi-skilled individuals, including resource experts some with social skills 86 Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations Conventional PA management The new approach to PA management Establish and manage as a means to Establish and run with, for and in some cases control the activities of local people, by local people; sensitive to the concerns of without regard to their needs and without local communities (who are empowered as their involvement participants in decision making) Run by the central government Run by many partners, including different tiers of government, local communities, indigenous groups, the private sector, NGOs and others Paid for by taxpayers Paid for by many sources and, as much as possible, self sustaining Benefits of conservation are assumed to Benefits of conservation are evaluated and be self-evident quantified Primarily benefit visitors and tourists Primarily benefit the local communities, who assume the opportunity costs of conservation Viewed as an asset for which national Viewed as a community asset as well as a considerations prevail over local ones national asset (Adapted from Borrini-Feyerabend, Kothari and Oviedo 2004) Managing TRHS based on an integrated landscape approach holds the key to solving the competing claims for land. NP areas and other land uses should be addressed as an integrated landscape. This landscape would be managed on the basis of sustainable land-cover planning, with due regard for the balance between natural ecosystems and socio-cultural, economic and political aspects. To achieve this, NP management cannot operate in isolation from other agencies. It should promote communication among various stakeholders to resolve their conflicting plans and agendas. Most importantly, given that most NP problems lay beyond its authority (Table 4.1), NP governance, law enforcement and management can be strongly upheld only with the political support of the central government. Otherwise, the present trends will become irreversible, and a large part of TRHS will soon be converted to plantations. A good example is provided by Leuser Ecosystem (LE), which established a massive buffer zone. Both provincial and district-level spatial plans comply with the regulations articulated by the central government and acknowledge the boundaries of the ecosystem. The landscape approach was taken for other PAs, such as the Heart of Borneo and Muller Ecosystem Areas, (Purwanto 2014b). It is worth transforming protection of KSNP and BBSNP into sustainable development of the KS and BBS landscape. In summary, TRHS should not be seen as an isolated unit, but should be managed at the landscape level (provincial level) and this work should be in line with collaborative work among the relevant government actors at the regional level. This will allow management to align well with the ecoregion management principle, as mandated by the law on regional governance. 87 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms Enforcing voluntary and mandatory certification to control oil palm plantation expansion surrounding TRHS Oil palm plantations often develop at the expense of NP areas. The central government should make use of voluntary certification by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)33 and mandatory certification by the Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil system (ISPO)34 to encourage sustainable oil palm development in areas that surround NPs. In January 2010 RSPO introduced the New Planting Procedure to ensure that members who expand their plantations do not do so at the expense of natural forest. This procedure is not an addition to the RSPO guidelines; instead, it helps reinforce the RSPO’s existing criteria that govern responsible expansion. The procedure is a safeguard that ensures that RSPO principles are implemented at the beginning of oil palm plantation development. It helps ensure that all new plantations owned by all RSPO members and established since January 2010 will eventually receive certification, because it demonstrates that they have complied with the RSPO standard since they were established. The Ministry of Agriculture should require RSPO or ISPO certification for all oil palm plantations that flank the boundaries of TRHS. Improve the Timber Legality Assurance System The Timber Legality Assurance System/Sistem Verifikasi Legalitas Kayu (SVLK) is a certification standard and regulation initiated by the European Union’s Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) initiative. Certification under the SVLK will be the basis of any licensing system under a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA).35 The VPA between the Government of Indonesia and the EU was signed in September 2013 and ratified in April 2014. The credibility of the VPA is therefore directly linked to that of the SVLK. However, the SVLK standard does not control Timber Utilization Permits/IPK holder’s operational areas, which could be located in a PA. The issue was discussed by the Environmental Investigation Agency, in its recent report (EIA 2014:24) 33 RSPO is a voluntary market certification scheme that requires growers to avoid the conversion of primary and High Conservation Value (HCV) forests, respect the customary rights of communities and demonstrate legal compliance with all applicable legislation. The RSPO’s Principles and Criteria are adapted to the Indonesian context through the Indonesian National Interpretation. 34 The Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) system was developed by the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture to provide assurance of sustainability. 35 The VPA states that timber exported to an EU member state from a partner country without a shipment-specific FLEGT licence will be refused entry. Conversely, FLEGT-licensed timber is exempt from the provisions of the European Union Timber Regulation, another core plank of the FLEGT Action Plan, which prohibits illegal timber from entering the EU market. Indonesia and the EU entered VPA negotiations in March 2007, and agreed to the VPA in May 2011. 88 Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations … the SVLK does not require or empower auditors to look at corruption in the permit procedure…The failure to build the SVLK into their standards in Indonesia is a missed opportunity that should be resolved at the earliest opportunity.…The MoEF should order SVLK audits of all IPK permit holders against the current standard, and ensure similar audits occur for each annual IPK issued to concessionaires or their subcontractors from here on in. In parallel, it should carry out an audit of all oil palm concessions to ensure that companies are not clearing forest without IPK. Enhance the quality of ecosystem restoration Ecosystem restoration activities after coercive operations have been carried out in GLNP and BBNP, mostly with the support of UNESCO. The best practices of these activities should be adopted throughout TRHS. Restorating an ecosystem is more than a planting campaign. It is an integrated programme with four objectives: to restore the ecosystem and secure the post encroached state forest areas; to reconcile conflicts with local communities; to empower communities to restore the degraded area in a quantifiable manner; and to ensure the productivity of the restored land for the former squatters. As Wiratno (2013) states, forest restoration should be carried out through accelerated natural succession, supported by intensive maintenance and monitoring. Restoration should be managed as a routine and long-term activity, not a short-term project where the only goal is the planting area target. The restoration activities should be measured quantitatively and qualitatively. This is important: the existing national rehabilitation project emphasized the scale of the project area. Unfortunately, this led management to focus on the size of the project area instead of the quality of the program (Puska 2012:2). Awareness campaigns and environmental education Conservation’s greatest challenge might well be overcoming certain types of human behaviour. Conservationists have failed to convince people to respect nature, and central-level policy makers have neglected to consider the complexity of landscape change. These problems can be partly changed through intensive public awareness campaigns and environmental education. Conservation campaigns should inspire communities to take pride in their natural resources, leading “from collective awareness to collective actions” (Wiratno, 2015). Various types of awareness materials (poster, stickers, standing banners, etc.), developed on the basis of a Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (KAP) survey, should be widely distributed in public areas such as airports, schools and government offices and in houses of village champions (see Figure 24). Awareness campaigns could be advertised on local television and community radio. This should be supported by conservation education for the younger generation, such as developing local curriculum content in the communities surrounding TRHS, from elementary to secondary schools. These efforts have been conducted by the Leuser Development Programme and ideally could be replicated throughout TRHS to provide an environmental vision for the next generation. 89 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms Figure 24. Awareness and education materials for community and students (Source: Operasi Wallacea Terpadu (OWT)) Ideally, conservation education is able to enhance five factors: • awareness — sensitivity to problems associated with the environment; • knowledge — an understanding of how the environment functions, how people interact with and depend on it, and how environmental problems can be solved; • attitudes — concern for the environment, and personal motivation and commitment to participate in environmental improvement and protection; • skills — the ability to identify and investigate environmental problems and to contribute to their resolution; and • participation — active involvement in working to resolve environmental problems. Building a buffer along park boundaries Community forestry in special-use zones Traditional NP management often involved evicting people from park areas and trying to keep local people out of the park, based on a strict conservationist view that human activities were incompatible with ecosystem conservation. Many PA neighbours lost their livelihoods and their homes. As a result, PA authorities became deeply unpopular, not only with local people, but with local governments. Alienating neighbours while failing to build political support has resulted in NPs having neither the capacity nor the resources to manage vast park areas. Increasing human impacts eventually helped NPs managers realize that they needed to work more effectively with local communities. Conservationists have moved rapidly toward a new consensus that the survival of NPs depends on increasing the local benefits that they provide. This led to a wide range of efforts to reconcile NP management with local social and economic development. 90 Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations Now there is widespread recognition that conservationists must continue to work closely with a wide variety of stakeholders in the field, particularly communities in and around parks. What remains less clear is exactly how these partnerships should work, and how conservation and social needs should be linked. The most challenging issue is how to equitably integrate local communities in NP management. More efforts are needed to explore various opportunities for utilizing forest resources to reduce the population pressure on land. These initiatives should be conducted in areas that have high population pressures and are dominated by landless indigenous and migrant communities. Recognition of tenure rights is a key incentive for the local community to support park protection. It is recommended that the Government of Indonesia implement social or community schemes such as community forestry (Hutan Kemasyarakatan/HKm; see Box 4.3) and village forests (Hutan Desa/HD) in the special-use zone (Zona Pemanfaatan Khusus). The Ministerial Decree on zoning of national parks defines a special-use zone as one that accommodates local communities that were established in the area before it was designated a national park, and accommodates public facilities and infrastructure. 36 Box 4.3. Types of Social Forestry36 Community forestry (Hutan Kemasyarakatan/HKm). HKm is one of several programmes initiated by the government since the early 1980s to involve communities in state forest management for a specific purpose, such as forest conservation or rehabilitation. Since the programme was initially developed, its approaches and levels of community participation have evolved. These changes have been influenced by the government’s orientation, such as the decentralisation policy implemented in 1999. HKm grants rights to cooperatives through Community Forest Concession Permits. Any tree planting carried out as part of forest rehabilitation is usually part of inter-cropping practices. Technical guidelines on the procedure for obtaining the permit and licensing process are regulated by MoF decree. Village forests (Hutan Desa/HD). As with HKm, the government gives forest management rights in protection forests and production forests to rural institutions, as stipulated by MoF decree. HD aims to provide forest access to local communities, through village institutions, so that they can utilise forest resources sustainably and improve their lives. Permit holders in protection forests may manage the areas and their environmental services and collect non-timber forest products (NTFPs). In production forests they can also harvest timber. From 2010 to 2014, MoF issued Hkm permits for 327,077 ha in 79 districts, and HD permits for 288,016 ha in 213 villages in 85 districts. In July, 2015, the MoEF has set a target of redistributing 12.7 million ha of social forests (2015-2019). 36 See Adiwinata Nawir et al. 2013:65. 91 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms Mulyana et. al. 2010 recommend a different definition for special-use zones: a zone within a national park that accommodates the interests of local people. The zone would accommodate people who live within the park boundaries or use its land, and would assist in establishing collaborative management. Ideally, each national park would have its own type of special-use zone, rather than a generic model being adopted for all parks. A special-use zone can help overcome conflicts between local people and the park, since it is an area where their needs can be reconciled. Mulyana et. al. 2010 also recommend that NP management designate only two zoning types: core zones, reserved strictly for biodiversity conservation; and special-use zones, rather than seven zones as used now (core or sanctuary, wilderness, traditional use, rehabilitation, religious use, protection of culture and history, and special use). Seven zones would be difficult to manage and open to wide interpretation. These zones should be simplified; in some circumstances, only three zones may be required, if core and wilderness zones must be differentiated. The special-use zone is intended to accommodate all types of use mentioned in the Ministerial Degree, and to include those uses that contribute to local people’s livelihoods. Implementing community forestry in a special-use zone in NPs should not be considered as allowing illegal encroachment into state forest areas. Instead, it is an attempt to overcome the deadlock in managing NPs. However, given the high variability of socio-economic, social capital, motives, degree of access and control to land within and outside the park, a thorough feasibility study is required before developing and implementing community forestry; otherwise, the initiative may only trigger further encroachment. Actions to solve chronic land encroachment in the park cannot be simplified or generalized; the problem should be assessed comprehensively and its resolution should be tailored specifically to the circumstances. Individuals to be involved in community forestry should be selected with extra care. The following procedure is proposed. • Identify squatter name and size of encroached area; • Identify the amount of agricultural land controlled by each squatter within and outside the park; • Classify encroached areas based on specific squatter socio-economic conditions, especially existing access to and control of agricultural land within and outside the park, including encroached areas farmed by landless indigenous farmers, landless migrants, and large land-holders outside the park; • The management approach, including law enforcement, should not follow a general template, but should be based on the specific conditions of the squatters. For example, squatter A should be evicted from the park, since he or she has sufficient agricultural land (i.e., more than 3 ha) outside the park, while squatter B could be involved in the community forestry programme, since he or she controls less than 0.5 ha outside the park. Resolving conflicts over forest 92 Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations encroachment should not be conducted through a blanket approach, but must be settled fairly case by case (Wahjudi Wardojo, pers. comm., 2015). Community forestry will help to overcome current conservation deadlocks if the following conditions are fulfilled (modified from Mulyana et al. 2010): • Individuals to be involved in the scheme are selected with great care. • The MoEF is committed to strengthening law enforcement to create order and to clarify what is allowed and what is not. • Land resources within community forests and village forests remain state land with a conservation function. • Communities receive rights of use only (Hak Kelola), not rights of ownership. • Land management must support environmental objectives and be developed through joint decisions and with the close supervision of park management.37 • All stakeholders are willing and able to cooperate and collaborate, and are regulated through a Memorandum of Understanding that clearly states their respective rights, duties and responsibilities. • Law enforcement by the MoEF is supported by the relevant government agencies. • Land cultivation rights cannot be transferred to other persons or organizations without the consent of NP management. • NP managers conduct intensive monitoring and evaluation at least once per year. Providing land management (right of use) to local communities near NPs was a big leap, as by the law, it is not allowed. In HKm and HD schemes, community concession areas are legally defined by the Ministry, but business permits are issued by the Governor. The concession time is 35 years; this could possibly be extended for a second term to strengthen security of tenure for local communities (see Box 4.4). The schemes also provide a guarantee to the local community that they can use forest lands for planting trees or developing agroforestry for a long-term period. Community forestry will also increase the supply of timber, improve the relationship between government and communities, and provide communities with alternative income and employment opportunities. Social forestry requires NP managers and NGOs to provide ongoing facilitation and technical assistance in order to build the institutional capacity of farmer groups. This involves establishing cooperatives, linking local products to domestic and international markets, and ensuring better access to capital. 37 This is aligned with article 15 of Agrarian Law No. 5/1960, stating that land right holders should manage the land in a sustainable manner. 93 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms A study conducted by Aji et al. (2014) in five villages in Kuningan District, West Java (joint forest management) and West Lampung (community forestry) showed that social forestry had given control of up to 2 ha of land and forests to households in the villages near the forest. The social forestry programmes contributed between 10 and 60% of household income in the villages. The reduction in the level of poverty in the households studied was very high: up to 90%. Box 4.4. Security of Tenure Security of tenure over an area of land or resource must be provided on a continuous basis, free from interference from outside sources. It allows the tenure holder to benefit from the labour and capital invested in that land, either in use or on transfer to another holder. Tenure security has several elements (Safitri M.A. 2005): • The clarity of rights (the criteria of rights holders, their rights and obligations, and the object of rights are clearly stated). • The legal certainty of rights (rights cannot be taken away or changed unfairly). • The appropriate durability of rights (the duration of rights is long enough for the holder to benefit). • The enforceability of rights (there is a mechanism for protecting rights holders against the state). • The exclusivity of rights (rights holders can exclude outsiders from the resources or control their access to the resources). • The clear legal status of right holders (rights holders are recognized in law and are able to carry out activities and protect their interests under the protection of law). • The government has the authority to granting the rights. Poverty reduction was influenced by four factors: • the type of social forestry that was applied in each village; • the agroforestry techniques practised by the forest farmer groups; • the social forestry institutions in each area; and • the relationship among the households in the villages. The security of people’s land tenure is central to a successful community forestry programme. Having secure tenure over land and forest resources is the communities’ main consideration in deciding whether to practise sustainable forest management. The national medium-term development plan for 2015–2019 allocates 12.7 million ha to support social forestry programmes that prioritise forest fringe communities. It would be useful to establish a social forestry scheme in a special-use zone so as to respond to the many complicated and dynamic and conflicts and challenges that these areas face. 94 Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations The need for ministerial decrees on NTFP collection Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) provide a wide range of goods for domestic use and for sale. They include charcoal, fuelwood, game, fruits, nuts, medicinal herbs, forage and thatch for roofs. In contrast to timber, NTFPs tend to require little or no capital requirements and are usually available through open access or semi-open access. NTFPs function as a safety net. They are a source of emergency sustenance in times of hardship; that is, when crops fail or when an economic crisis hits. NTFPs tend to be seasonal. Efforts to promote more environmentally sustainable use of forests has led to increased interest in NTFP collection and marketing. In TRHS, the most important NTFPs are dammar (a varnish resin), gaharu (a fragrant, resin-impregnated wood), benzoin (a tree resin used chiefly for incense, perfume and medicine), honey, rattan and medical plants. In BBNP low but steady income from dammar was valued more than the higher returns from coffee because of dammar’s contribution to household food security. In GLNP, benzoin was particularly important to middle-income villagers; this group has a much higher income from benzoin than the poorest group. CIFOR has demonstrated the potential for NTFP markets to degrade forest resources, however, and underlines the difficulty in achieving a balance between improving the livelihoods of forest- dependent people and forest conservation (CIFOR 2003). Under the government regulation on Nature and Conservation Reserve Management, communities living in and near NPs are allowed to collect NTFPs in multiple- and traditional-use zones. However, so far there is no Ministerial Decree to guide technical implementation. MoEF is recommending that a ministerial decree be issued on NTFP collection by local communities, either as part of village forest schemes or as a stand- alone activity. Learning from the experience of Tangkahan’s community-based ecotourism, communities could establish a one-gate management system to coordinate the collection of NTFPs. NPs that are supported by partners (such as FORDA, universities or NGOs) can better act as management and scientific authorities to define the quota of NTFPs and monitor their extraction. Long-term partnerships, community development and technical assistance NPs should become the agents of development for the villages that surrounding them. Indeed, the MoEF has long considered the prime role of the local community in NP management. Since 2006, for example, PHKA has worked under the Village Conservation Model (Model Desa Konservasi/MDK) in conservation areas, and has developed similar community development programmes in buffer zones. This initiative, however, could not be rated as successful in controlling forest encroachment. It is often trapped in a cycle of general approaches and short-term project activities, trying to reach particular goals with limited time and budget. 95 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms Many community development projects assume that communities are homogenous entities, while in reality they are diverse. Therefore, community development should be designed on a site-specific basis. Approaches that were successful in a certain village are not guaranteed to succeed in a neighbouring village. Community development should be tailored to the local level and must align with socio-economic, political and cultural conditions. A blanket approach to community development will not assist in protecting NPs; it will only waste precious funding. The sustainability of the park is strongly affected by the capacity, behaviour and livelihood strategies of the communities that surround the park. Unfortunately, NP managers and stakeholders have to date placed too little attention to these communities. Instead, they have focused on wildlife populations and distribution, a focus that is strongly dictated by donor interest and not the community. Central government policy has also given limited consideration to addressing local community interests. The performance of NP management is generally measured by its capacity to meet its budget and comply with existing administrative and financial regulations, and not by whether its work has any relevance to community needs (Hariadi Kartodihardjo, pers. comm., 2015). Based on the ICDPs in TRHS, Linkie et al. 2008 argue that community-based projects fail for logistical and institutional reasons. For example, communities may lack the capacity to implement projects in remote areas due to poor infrastructure, facility and governance. Projects often fail to make explicit links between short-term sources of potential benefit (such as establishing ecotourism ventures) and their final goal of halting biodiversity loss. This means that even successful projects do not achieve conservation targets, since the economic benefits of the project are not invested in conservation; instead, alternative livelihoods are supplementary rather than alternative sources of income.38 In addition, conservation projects may fail to identify the main drivers of biodiversity loss, and they cannot succeed without doing so. Continuity and commitment are the key factors in community development in conservation. The establishment of long-term partnerships is more likely to be fruitful than the completion of projects. As stated by Linkie et al. 2008, community development should strengthen local institutions and demonstrate short-tem and long-term benefits that can address the main drivers of biodiversity loss. Conservation is a long-term and ongoing process, not a product that can be delivered by a project. Developing sustainable livelihoods should enhance the dependency of local community on the 38 Offering alternative income generating activities (IGAs) to communities that surround the forest is a common approach to reduce their dependence on unsustainable activities. Several problems make this difficult to achieve: the new IGA introduced by the project is often unsustainable after the end of the project; even if the new IGA is sustainable, this does not guarantee the achievement of conservation targets, as it provides only supplementary income, rather than alternative income; the old business (e.g., illegal logging) continues. For these reasons this approach should be strongly supported by changing/ strengthening the natural resource governance system. 96 Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations integrity of the park’s ecosystem (see Table 4.4); the introduction of agro-commodities such as coffee and cacao should be avoided. Table 4.4 Sustainable livelihhood options to support park ecosystem integrity Activity/product Factors needed On-site, park/forest-based options Ecotourism Linking with national and international tour operators Rattan Sustainable extraction, processing and marketing Gaharu (Agar wood) Sustainable extraction and marketing Honey bees Sustainable extraction, hygienic processing, packaging and marketing Mushrooms Accurate identification and collection, plus processing and marketing Benzoin, chestnut Sustainable extraction, processing and marketing Fruits Sustainable extraction, processing and marketing Off-site options Permanent agriculture Development and application of organic fertilizer (mol, bokashi, Bio Max Grow, etc.) Gaharu plantations Develop gaharu innoculum (for bio-induction)* at the village level** Sugar palm planting Refining of sugar and ethanol Honey bee culture Bee cultivation, hygienic processing, packaging and marketing Mushroom cultivation Hygienic processing, packaging and marketing Plant and animal F1 and F2 progenies are returned to the forest, F3 can be breeding traded (orchid, medical plant, deer, birds) Tree planting Improving local propagation for fast-growing and high- quality indigenous species Damming/diverting Pico-hydro, micro-hydro power, develop productive use stream water energy * At the moment, bio-induction (artificial production of gaharu through inoculated microbes of species such as Fusarium solani, F. Oxysporum, Acremonium sp., etc.), has been carried out by various research institutes, universities and NGOs, such as FORDA, Biotrop, BPPT and OWT. It has proved satisfactory in producing gaharu resin of similar quality to natural gaharu. ** Multiplication of microbe inoculums (gaharu inoculums) can be done in the village in a simple way by developing a mini-laboratory. The availability of innoculum in the village will help local people in cultivating gaharu and empower them in gaharu production (Purwanto 2014b). Community empowerment should be strongly supported by continuous facilitation, intensive learning-by-doing training and technical assistance (see Table 4.5). The facilitation should involve local champions and be connected with various development agents working at the village level to enhance villagers’ acceptance of the initiative. 97 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms Table 4.5. Key strategies for community empowerment39 Key strategies Since the beginning, the NP community facilitator (NPCF) has not promised cash benefits in return for community participation The NPCF delivers intensive technical assistance/facilitation and in-kind support (high- quality seeds, fertilizers, etc.) The NPCF provides technical assistance only to those who are interested; the target is not the number but the level of interest of participants The NPCF should live in one of the targeted villages All training for local community is designed as “learning by doing” and conducted at the field level Training topics are selected based on community need, and the NPCF invites experts to solve farmers’ technical problems The NPCF makes use of key village champions as starters and drivers of project interventions The NPCF facilitates the establishment of a learning site as a demonstration pilot NPCFs are equipped with strong technical skills and are willing to do hands-on work together with the local community The NPCF stimulates learning among farmers/local community members, using the farmers’ gardens for comparative study; also stimulates inter-village comparative studies and visits the research centre The NPCF facilitates activities that enhance women’s participation The NP develops a communication strategy that is oriented to the target audience The NPCF should involve all relevant development agents (local government, extension workers, local NGOs) To facilitate agroforestry development, the NPCF should visit farmer groups twice per week and always try to bring new ideas to stimulate learning The NPCF should stimulate replication of success, from the pilot site to individual farmers and from the targeted group to surrounding groups/villages The NPCF should organize monthly meetings among farmers groups so they can reflect on their activities and learn from each other The NPCF should also deliver technical assistance on environmental and governance issues In addition, NPs need to establish conservation cadres, who will become the informal liaison people for park managers. They could be composed of respected village champions who have strong passions concerning conservation measures. Conservation cadres could be selected through various mechanisms, either chosen by NP staff, or proposed by villagers or village government. The key criteria is that they are respected by the community and have influential power; they may be formal or informal leaders. To enhance capacity and maintain the network of cadres, NPs should clearly define their roles, rights and responsibilities. Regular communication forums are also 39 Modified from Purwanto 2012 and 2014 a. 98 Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations needed to establish a process that facilitates learning and consolidates conservation actions. The members of conservation cadres should give feedback on NP policy; be local agents of change to improve community attitudes towards sustainable NP resource management; communicate NP policy to the local community; and strengthen community-based protection of forests in national parks at the local (village or sub- village) level. Establish research area; intensify research activities and link with international ecotourism operators One of the key ways to save TRHS is by promoting its biodiversity and its social and cultural values to the world. This can be helped through intensifying research activities in the area that involve domestic and foreign universities, and publishing the results online and in national and international scientific journals. NPs should allocate research areas within special-use zones for biodiversity research and invite long-term collaboration with national and international universities and other organizations. Scientific ecotourism is expected to have a multiplier effect on local economic development. Local community members can be involved as porters, guides and interpreters and can rent their rooms/houses as home-stays. This has been very successful in Lambusango Forest, Buton and in Wakatobi National Park, Wakatobi. Scientific ecotourism in these areas has been facilitated by Operation Wallacea (Opwall). Lack of capacity in international marketing is the key weakness of promoting ecotourism in Indonesia. NP management should collaborate with international ecotourism operators who promote and facilitate ecotourism worldwide. Opwall has promoted the Wakatobi Marine NP and Lambusango Forest by demonstrating the unique wildlife of these areas and by giving presentations at schools and universities across the world. Since 1995, in collaboration with local community- based organizations, Opwall has successfully facilitated students and researchers from all over the world to visit Wakatobi park and Lambusango Forest. Between six hundred and one thousand students visited both areas during their summer holiday (i.e., June, July and August) each year. See Box 4.5. Key requirements New powers are required to implement new approaches in a consistent manner. From where might these powers be obtained? The answer lies in reforming NP management, combined with strong political support from the central government. 99 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms Box 4.5. Operation Wallacea Ltd: a Best Practices Ecotourism Promotion40 Operation Wallacea (Opwall) is a network of academics from European and North American universities, who design and implement biodiversity and conservation management research expeditions. Currently, more than 200 academics participate, and Opwall also co-funds 42 PhD students. The funding for Opwall comes from tuition fees paid by undergraduates or high school groups with teachers, who join the projects to gain experience in biodiversity research or to gather data for an independent research report. The research projects are designed to gather the data needed to inform wildlife conservation interventions should they be required. Opwall has offices in the UK, US, Canada, Mexico, Honduras, Brazil, Sweden, Italy, Portugal, China, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand. Their network of academic contacts is very large and there is broad scope for promoting the research sites where they work across the world. In 2015, more than 3,000 students worked on these research projects, which are now running in Honduras, Cuba, Mexico, Guyana, Peru, Dominica, Ecuador, South Africa, Madagascar, Greece, Transylvania and China. The demand for this sort of field-based research experience is growing rapidly. At least one more long-term research site in Southeast Asia will be required by Opwall in the next few years; this could provide an opportunity to have biodiversity research at an Indonesian site fully funded and promoted internationally. Increasing internal power Park management and governance should be designed and adjusted to cope with the key NP challenges in terms of administrative arrangements, resource governance and stakeholder management. Park administration — including its regulatory instruments, planning, budgeting, resource allocations and related systems — should be dedicated to addressing the key threats and pressures that face the park. 40 Park officials in the field should be equipped with the capacity and tools to provide basic practical operational services related to park resources and park monitoring. These include activities such as inventories, assessment/identification, data processing/ reporting, mapping, field assessment and handling issues such as rescues, forest fires and patrols. Other activities include community organizing, public consultation, awareness techniques and development of awareness materials, monitoring of community perceptions and stakeholder engagement (such as organizing volunteers, ecotourism activities, mobilizing community empowerment programme/activities). Such skills should not be focused on a single field park official; they have to be built and embedded within the system. 40 See Purwanto 2013b 100 Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations Park management also requires a wide range of techniques and tools. These include park governance, spatial and temporal park planning, tools for measuring the effectiveness of park management, emergency and enforcement procedures, developing a code of conduct for sustainable tourism, human rights practices and awareness campaigns, as well as management of search and rescue operations. They also include stakeholder negotiation techniques, effective communication, forest fire management, surveillance, management of measures to combat encroachment, community organizing, visitor management and park administration. Senior park managers should understand and be keen to acquire these skills, especially those staff members who make decisions about park management. Skills are needed in allocating and prioritizing resources, and in coordinating park management efforts. Park leaders should also have the capacity to represent the park and to negotiate for its best interests with stakeholders and at various levels of meetings. The capacity to mobilize support and resources for the park will be a big advantage for a park leadership team. The ability to communicate effectively with stakeholders at the local, national and international level is also required. In addition, the park management team should have the capacity to maintain a high level of effective field leadership. The required knowledge and skills can be gained through a series of training and courses. Field leadership might best be nurtured through rigorous field training or mentoring. From 1978 to 1993, MoF, in collaboration with the Dutch government, operated the School of Environmental Conservation Management.41 The school provided capacity building for PHKA officials. A similar school, with curriculum developed for the specific needs of each park, is needed for park managers and technical staff. Key requirements The park’s organizational structures must be defined according to its needs and its specific challenges, threats and pressures, not on general MoEF rules and regulations. The number of resorts, village facilitation targets, community empowerment strategies and supporting resources and facilities needs must be based on strategies specific to the park. The number of managerial, administrative and operations staff, including forest rangers, PEH and forest extension workers, should be determined based on the park’s specific needs. The park’s annual budget should give maximum support to field activities and be defined on the basis of the park’s action plan. Capacity building of park staff members at all levels must be continuously strengthened and monitored and should be based on a reliable assessment of capacity building and training needs. Most field activities should be led and/or coordinated by park officials and not rely too much on partners, stakeholders or consultants. Park management should be strongly supported by MoEF’s technical implementation units at the regional level. 41 The School of Environmental Conservation Management was a collaboration between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Dutch Goverment/Ministry of Foreign Affairs/DGIS. Its campus was initially located in Ciawi; it moved to the Bogor Forestry Training Center in 1983 (Purwanto 1991). 101 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms Support from the central government Various ministries, guided by the World Heritage Working Group, must enhance NP conservation governance and management by providing strong political support to NP authorities at the regional level. They must also support permanent settlement of conflicts related to chronic encroachment through integrated land enforcement and judiciary processes. They need to calrify the misinterpretation of NP boundaries related to the appointment of forest and waters at the provincial level, and establish buffer zones adjacent to KSNP and BBSNP and define them as National Strategic Areas. They should develop a policy to establish community forestry in NP, and implement Revised Law No 5/1990 on natural resource conservation, including more severe punishment for perpetrators. They must enact the proposed Law on Recognition and Protection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Other supports include facilitating the ministerial decree on the extraction of NTFPs by local communities, and improving SVLK in a way that requires auditors to assess IPK permit holders. The government should audit all oil palm concessions surrounding TRHS to ensure that they have been certified by RSPO or ISPO. The number of young forest rangers and young forest extension workers (village conservation governance and community development facilitators) should be increased, especially those recruited from local communities. The government should increase NP budgets for patrols, field operations, community development, and village government capacity building and facilitation. It should also build the capacity of NP staff members in a way that aligns with the dynamic challanges, threats and pressures that face the park. It should implement the Joint Four Ministerial Decree of 17 October 2014 concerning procedures for the settlement of tenure in state forest land, but not before its technical guidelines are enacted. Conclusions, Chapter 4 Major support for NP management by government at the local and national level is required, and this must be strongly supported by an approach that makes clear that it is not “business as usual.” The approach must emphasise preventive measures, building intensive communication with local communities, and investing most NP resources in the field level to conduct intensive data collection (supported by conservation drones and an advanced GIS/RS database) and patrols. Moreover, there is an urgent need to reconcile NP boundaries (and their management) with local communities, build intensive communication with local communities, enhance the quality of long-term partnerships for community development programmes, strengthen awareness campaigns, initiate social forestry in the special-use zone, and develop NTFP collection and other park environmental services that could be managed by the local community. Efforts should focus on establishing buffer zones along the park’s critical boundaries. Settlement of disputes related to chronic encroachment should be solved through collaborative efforts that involve the local police, local government, prosecutors, and the KPK 102 Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations and PPATK, to convict the masterminds and eradicate the syndicates, networks and businesses involved in illegal activities. The NP should have strong communication and networking capacity to promote the pivotal roles of TRHS in supporting regional economic development and to demonstrate the economic benefit of nature conservation through innovative ecotourism marketing. NP management should be inclusive and be willing to involve the regional government in the planning, execution of collaborative management work, and the monitoring and evaluation of NP management. The central government should provide strong political support to national parks, while MoEF/PHKA, together with the park, should redesign park administration, including its regulatory instruments, planning, budgeting, resource allocations and related systems. All these components should be dedicated to addressing the key threats and pressures of the NP. The process of capacity building for field staff, technical staff and managerial staff needs to be strengthened in line with the key threats and pressures that face the park. The strategies, actions plan, performance indicators and key stakeholders are presented in Table 4.6. Table 4.6. Strategies, action plans, performance indicators and key stakeholders Key actors and Actions Performance Indicators stakeholders Strategy: Build stronger collaboration with stakeholders at regional and national level External actions: TRHS is a system that supports NP, MoEF, MoHA, • Intensify coordination among various national and regional WHWG, district stakeholders to resolve conflicts between development government, the plans of different agencies, including provincial This contribution to development central and provincial governments, the government is acknowledged by key private sector, NGOs, and villagers, as development agents at the well as donor agencies and international national and regional level parties • Stimulate local government involvement The ownership of national and in planning, implementing, monitoring and regional government in the NP evaluating NP programmes conservation programme is enhanced Key requirement: • Strong political support from MoHA Collaborative management between NP and key NP Internal actions: stakeholders is developed • Improve conservation governance in NP on the basis of mutual management understanding, trust and • Build the institutional capacity of NP benefits management by improving the system for job promotion and giving capacity NP management is continuously building for NP staff developing into a better governance system 103 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms Key actors and Actions Performance Indicators stakeholders Key requirements: • Strong support from MoEF • MoEF/PHKA, together with the NP, should redesign its budget to better align it with NP needs, emphasizing work and responsibilities at the field level • Increased capacity of NP staff Strategy: Strengthen security patrols and the ground presence of NP staff • Recruit young educated staff who are Potential encroachment areas NP, village willing to work in the field. are effectively prevented or government • PHKA needs to develop a merit system to halted at an early stage stimulate young educated staff to work The expansion of existing at the field level encroachment is effectively • Develop a new communication protocol controlled between managers and filed staff • Collect baseline data at the field level to determine security patrol routes and strategies • Spend a larger part of the NP budget on field activities • Enhance boundary marking and make village governments and local communities aware of this Key requirements: • MoEF/PHKA, together with the NP, should redesign its budget to better align it with NP needs, emphasizing work and responsibilities at the field level • Increased capacity of NP staff Strategy: Link village development to conservation • Select key villages surrounding NPs that Capacity building for villages MoVDAT, district are strategically important to NP area in conservation planning and government, integrity implementation is conducted NP, village • Facilitate the development of RPJM in selected villages that are government Desa in key villages and enhance village strategically important to NP governance capacity integrity Key requirements: • NP has a sufficient number of village governance facilitators • Strong political support from MoVDAT • Increased capacity of NP staff 104 Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations Key actors and Actions Performance Indicators stakeholders Strategy: Enforce agrarian reform policy and Constitutional Court ruling No.35/2012 • Enforce agrarian reform by distributing Severe existing encroachment DPR, MoEF, abandoned lands that are controlled involving syndicates of WHWG, KPK, by the private sector Support agrarian organized crimes is resolved PPATK, national reform through improved population and law enforcement has police, national administration effective long-term deterrent army, AGO, SC, • Integrate demography administration effects FEC, MoEF, NP and migration policies at the national level • GOI should immediately implement Constitutional Court ruling No. 35/ PUU-X/2012 at both the local and national level • The House of Representatives should adopt the Bill on Recognition and Protection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Strategy: Strengthen law enforcement targeted to syndicates and masterminds of illegal activities • Intensify security patrols and respond Severe existing encroachment DPR, MoEF, quickly and efficiently to reports of involving syndicates of WHWG, KPK, illegal activities organized crimes is resolved PPATK, national • DPR and MoEF should support the and law enforcement has police, national FEC cracking down on syndicates of effective long-term deterrent army, AGO, SC, organized crime effects FEC, MoEF, NP • FEC should form a task force comprising KPK, PPATK and MoEF to examine and prosecute corruption in permit allocations Strategy: Monitor encroachment areas using a conservation drone • Train NP technical staff to in the use Encroachment is detected at an UNESCO, MoEF, of drones to monitor areas prone to early stage NP encroachment • Purchase conservation drones • Use the results to design patrol strategies Strategy: Strengthen collaboration with conservation and social NGOs • NP: include NGOs that have long- NPs have dedicated partners in NP, MoEF, NGOs, term commitments to supporting park managing their areas UNESCO management and its strategic plan • NGOs: develop local conservation cadres from NP staff and local champions, in such a way that all the introduced initiatives can be maintained by NP staff and local community members 105 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms Key actors and Actions Performance Indicators stakeholders Strategy: Manage TRHS using an integrated landscape approach • National government (MoASP, BAPPENAS, KS and BBS landscapes are BAPPENAS, MoEF): promote the integrated landscape defined as National Strategic MoHA, approach to protect TRHS Areas provincial/ • National government: define the area district surrounding KSNP and BBSNP as a buffer goverments, zone WHWG, NP, • National and provincial governments: MoEF, UNESCO promote the landscape approach at the district and provincial level and promote the use of National Strategic Areas Key requirement: • Strong political support from BAPPENAS and MoHA Strategy: Enforce voluntary and mandatory certifications to control expansion of oil palm plantations • National government: issue a new Voluntary and mandatory GoI, MoEF, MoA, regulation requiring the management certification are an effective RSPO, ISPO of palm oil plantations surrounding PAs tool for PA conservation to be aligned with RSPO and ISPO standards • RSPO and ISPO: include SVLK certification as an indicator of legal compliance by IPK holders Strategy: Revise the SVLK standard to prevent IPKs from being issued for PAs • GoI: revise the 2014 SVLK standard Illegal logging and GoI, MoEF to require and guide assessments of encroachment in the PAs is corruption and other legal violations in effectively controlled permit allocation and land acquisition • MoEF: immediately order SVLK audits of all IPK holders against the 2014 Standard, and revoke related permits where holders fail to submit to an audit • MoEF: ensure that land clearance ceases in any concessions that do not comply with the 2014 SVLK Standard, seize the related timber, and initiate legal proceedings 106 Strategy of anti-encroachment in TRHS: recommendations Key actors and Actions Performance Indicators stakeholders Strategy: Enhance the quality of ecosystem restoration • NP: manage restoration as routine and Ecosystem restoration is an MoEF, NP, long-term activities and involved the effective way to restore the UNESCO, NGOs community in them productivity of encroached • NP: ask field staff to facilitate state forest areas, and to help community-based restoration reconcile social problems with • If dedicated NP staff members the local community dedicated to ecosystem restoration are not available, the park could collaborate with NGOs who are willing to work with the community • MoEF: conduct an intensive review of the results of ecosystem resoration that has been conducted in collaboration with TN Strategy: Conduct pride campaigns and environmental education • Conduct a KAP survey as the basis of People, especially the younger NP, MoEF, district communication materials generation, surrounding NPs governments, • Develop various communication materials are aware of the roles of the Ministry of and install/implement them at strategic NP as a life-supporting system, Education sites and are proud of the NP’s • Work collaboratively with education existence and willing to support agencies at the district level to develop its protection local curriculum on nature conservation, from elementary to secondary school Key requirements: • NP has sufficient staff for conservation campaigns and education • Capacity of NP staff is built Strategy: Develop community forestry schemes for the special-use zone • NP, together with regional government: Existing and potential land MoEF, NP, district conduct a feasibility study to identify tenure conflicts can be settled and provincial suitable sites within the NP to be through solutions that benefit government managed using social forestry both sides • NP: develop a special team to help the local community and local government implement social forestry schemes in the special-use zone of the park • MoEF: adjust the existing law and regulation to allow social forestry in NPs 107 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms Key actors and Actions Performance Indicators stakeholders Strategy: Advocate for a ministerial decree related to NTFP collection by local community • NP, together with FORDA: conduct an Community involvement in NP NP, MoEF, inventory of those NTFPs that have the areas is enhanced FORDA potential to be collected by the local community in a sustainable manner • NP, supported by FORDA: define the boundary of the NTFP extraction areas within the park and determine the annual extraction quota • MoEF: formulate new regulations on issuing permits for NTFPs in NPs Strategy: Build long-term partnerships, and facilitate community development and technical assistance to the community and key champions surrounding the park • Select key champions at the village level The NP functions as an agent NP, MoEF, village who are passionate about conservation of development for surrounding governments, • Facilitate the establishment of a villages, and villagers have local people communication forum among conservation respect for NP authority cadres • Formulate a capacity-building program for conservation cadres • Develop long-term partnerships with villages who are strategically important to the integrity of NP areas • Replicate the success of the partnership pilot programme in the neighbouring villages • Promote best practices with the villages that surround the NPs and beyond Strategy: Establish a research area, intensify research activities and link with an international ecotourism operator • Select areas within the NP as scientific Information from research NP, universities, research areas/zones is available regarding: tour operators, • Invite national and international biodiversity of flora and fauna, NGOs universities to conduct research in the NP social and cultural values, • Connect with national and international environmental services, among ecotourism operators to market and other. facilitate ecotourism activities in the NPs The local community will receive significant additional income from ecotourism activities 108 References References Aji, G.B., J. Suryanto, R. Yulianti, A. Wirati, A.Y. Abdurra him and T.I. Miranda. 2014. Poverty Reduction in Villages around the Forest: The Development of Social Forestry Model and Poverty Reduction Policies in Indonesia. Research Center of Population, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jakarta. ACB (Asean Center for Biodiversity). 2010. The ASEAN Heritage Parks: A jouney to the natural wonders of SE Asia. Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines. Adiwinata Nawir, A., P. Gunarso, H. Santoso and Julmansyah. 2013. Country Case Study: Indonesia. Experiences, lessons and future directions for Landscape Restoration. Center for International Forestry Research. Bogor. 65 pp. Balai Besar Taman Nasional Gunung Leuse (GLNP). 2012. Ekspose pengelolaan TNGL. Disampaikan dalam Rapat Dengar Pendapat dengan Komisi B DPRD Prov. Sumut Medan, 15 Agustus 2012 Balai Besar Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser (GLNP). 2014. Ekspose pengelolaan TNGL. Disampaikan dalam FGD Tropenbos di Medan. Basrul, A. 2013. Upaya penyelesaian perambahan di Kawasan TNGL Wilayah Kabupaten Langkat, Propinsi Sumatra Utara. Unpublished report. Burgess, R., M. Hansen, B.A. Olken and S. Sieber. 2011. “The Political Economy of Deforestation in the Tropics.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 127(4). doi: 10.2307/41812147. CIFOR, 2003. Non-timber forest products in Tropical Forest. Brief. Chape, S., S. Blyth, L. Fish, P. Fox and M. Spalding. 2003. United Nations List of Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN –The World Conservation Union, and Cambridge, UK: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Chavez-Tafur, J. and R.J. Zagt (eds.). 2014. Towards Productive Landscapes. ETFRN News 56. Tropenbos International, Wageningen, the Netherlands. xx + 224 pp. Dudley, N. (Editor), 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. x + 86pp. DKN (Dewan Kehutanan Nasional/National Forestry Council). 2014. Posisi Dewan Kehutanan Nasional Terhadap Kehutanan Indonesia. Isu Pokok dan Prioritas Kebijakan Kehutanan 2015–2019. EIA (Environmental Investigation Agency). 2014. Permitting Crimes: How palm oil expansion drives illegal logging in Indonesia. London: EIA. FFI (Fauna and Flora International). 2012. Kerinci-Seblat Tiger Protection and Conservation 2007-2012. Report on activities conducted with support of Dreamworld Conservation. 109 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms Gaveau, D.L.A., H. Wandono and F. Setiabudi. 2007. “Three decades of deforestation in southwest Sumatra: have protected areas halted forest loss and logging, and promoted regrowth?” Biological Conservation 134 (4): 495–504. Gaveau, D.L.A., M. Linkie, Suyadi, P. Levang, N. Leader-Williams. 2009. “Three decades of deforestation in southwest Sumatra: Effects of coffee prices, law enforcement and rural poverty.” Biological Conservation 142 (3) 597–605. Gaveau, D.L.A. 2012. Protected Areas in Sumatra. ARD Learning Exchange, 6–11 May 2012. CIFOR and World Bank. Getzin S., K. Wiegand and I. Schöning I. 2011. “Assessing biodiversity in forests using very high-resolution images and unmanned aerial vehicles.” Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3: 397–404. Handadhari, T. 2015. “Bom Waktu Perusakan Hutan.” Kompas, 24 February 2015. Hitchcock, P. and K. Meyers. 2006. Report on the IUCN-UNESCO World Heritage Monitoring Mission to the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra, Indonesia. Gland: World Conservation Union and World Commission on Protected Areas, UNESCO. Holmes, D. 2001. Deforestation in Indonesia: A Review of the Situation in Sumatra, Kalimantan and Sulawesi. World Bank, Jakarta, Indonesia. ICEL (Center for Environmental Law), MoE (State Ministry of Environment) and the AECEN (Secretariat of Asian Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network. 2008. Environmental Compliance and Enforcement in Indonesia. Rapid Assessment. Ivosevic, B., Y.G. Han, Y. Choi and O. Kwon. 2015. “The use of conservation drones in ecology and wildlife research.” Journal of Ecology and Environment 38(1): 113–118. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 1994. Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., A. Kothari and G. Oviedo (eds.). 2004. Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas. Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation. Guidance on Policy and Practice for Co-managed Protected Areas and Community Conserved Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Jepson P., J.K. Jarvie, K. MacKinnon and K.A. Monk. 2001. “The end for Indonesia’s lowland forests?” Science 292: 859–861. Kelman, C.C. 2013. “Governance Lessons from Two Sumatran Integrated Conservation and Development Projects.” Conservation and Society 11(3): 247–263. doi: 10.4103/0972-4923.121028. Kinnaird, M.F., E.W. Sanderson, T.G. O’Brien, H.T. Wibisono and G.Woolmer. 2003. “Deforestation trends in a tropical landscape and implications for endangered large mammals.” Conservation Biology 17: 245–257. 110 References Koh, L.P. and S.A. Wich. 2012. “Dawn of drone ecology: low-cost autonomous aerial vehicles for conservation.” Tropical Conservation Science 5 (2): 121–132. Kusworo, A. 2000. Perambah Hutan atau Kambing Hitam? Potret Sengketa Kawasan Hutan di Lampung. Bogor. Pustaka Latin. Levang, P., S. Sitorus, D. Gaveau and T. Sunderland. 2012. “Landless farmers, sly opportunists, and manipulated voters: The squatters of the Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park (Indonesia).” Conservation and Society 10(3): 243–255. Linkie, M., R.J. Smith, Y. Zhu, D.J. Martyr, E. Suedmeyer, J. Pramono and N. Leader- Williams. 2008. “Evaluating biodiversity conservation around a large Sumatran protected area.” Conservation Biology 22(3): 683–690. Linkie, M., E. Rood and R.J. Smith. 2009. “Modelling the effectiveness of enforcement strategies for avoiding tropical deforestation in Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra.” Biodiversity and Conservation 19 (4):973–984. Mayers, J., S. Bass and D. Macqueen. 2005. The Pyramid: A Diagnostic and Planning Tool for Good Forest Governance. Power Tools Series. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). www.policypowertools.org/ Tools/Engaging/docs/pyramid_tool_english.pdf. McCarthy, J. 2006. The Fourth Circle: a political ecology of Sumatra’s rainforest frontier. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Mulyana, A., M. Moeliono, P. Minnigh, Y. Indriatmoko, G. Limberg, N.A. Utomo, R. Iwan, Saparuddin and Hamzah. 2010. “Establishing special use zones in national parks: Can it break the conservation deadlock in Indonesia?” Brief No. 01, April 2010. Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca and J. Kent. 2000. “Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.” Nature 403: 853–858. O’Brien, T.G., and M.F. Kinnaird. 2003. “Caffeine and conservation.” Science 300, No.5619: 587. OIC (The Orangutan Information Centre). 2011. Gunung Leuser National Park Restoration Programme. Final Performance Report for Rainforest Rescue Australia. PHKA (Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam). 2003. Submission for Nomination of Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra by the Government of the Republic of Indonesia to be included in the World Heritage List. Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation Ministry of Forestry, January 2003. Purwanto, E. 1991. School of Environmental Conservation Management. Past, Present and Future Development. Balai Latihan Kehutanan Bogor. Purwanto, E. 2012. Kecamatan Development Program and Environment (PNPM- Green) in Sulawesi. Component Training and Awareness. Completion Report (2008–2012) submitted to World Bank, 127 pp. 111 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms Purwanto, E., 2013. Training needs assessment on biodiversity and climate change related to the management of protected areas, particularly ASEAN Heritage Parks in SE Asia. Report submitted to Biodiversity and Climate Change Project, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH GIZ, Asean Centre for Biodiversity. Purwanto, E., and T. Setyowati. 2013. Perceptions of government officials, secondary students and local community on Invasive Species. Forest Research and Development. Bogor, Indonesia. Purwanto, E. 2014a. Development of tree-based sustainable livelihoods. Experience from Agroforestry Project in Kolaka District, SE Sulawesi Province, Indonesia. Purwanto, E. 2014b. Evaluation of the Heart of Borneo. Muller-Schwaner Project, WWF-Indonesia 2011–2013, Protection of Biodiversity, Livelihood and Ecological Functions through Integrated Forest Conservation and Sustainable Land cover Management in the HOB Phase II. Consultant’s Report based on mission 9–19 December 2013. Purwanto, E. 2014c. “New Village Law and Natural Resources.” The Jakarta Post, July 26, 2014. Puska UI. 2012. Pengembangan Strategi Promosi Restorasi Ekosistem Di Besitang, Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser, Sumatra Utara. UNESCO. Safitri, M.A. 2006. Change Without Reform? Community Forestry in Decentralizing Indonesia. Paper presented at the 11th IASCP Conference, Bali. Safitri, M.A. 2015. “Mencari Perusak Hutan.” Kompas, 10 March 2015. Sanderson, S. 2005. “Poverty and Conservation: The New Century’s ‘Peasant Question?” World Development 33: 323–332. Santoso, T., R. Chandra, A.C. Sinaga, M. Muhajir and S. Mardiah. 2011. A Guide to Investigation and Indictment Using an Integrated Approach to Law Enforcement. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. Sunderlin, W.D., A. Angelsen, D.P. Resosudarmo and A. Dermawan. 2001. “Economic crisis, small farmer well-being and forest cover change in Indonesia.” World Development 29: 767–782. Suyadi. 2011. “Deforestation in Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia.” Jurnal Biologi Indonesia 7(2): 195–206. Syaf, R. and P. Wood. 2009. General assessment of LTA progress and results. IUCN NL Ecosystem Grants Programme (EGP). The Rainforest Foundation. 1998. The Report European Commission Development Funding: Environmental and social Impacts in Tropical Forest Areas. http://www. downtoearth-indonesia.org/id/node/203. 11 January 2015. UNESCO. 2011. Adaptive and carbon-financed forest management in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra. Indonesia. UNESCO 112 References UNODC. 2012. Corruption, Environment and the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Compilation of papers presented at the event “Impact of Corruption on the Environment and the United Nations Convention against Corruption,” organised by UNODC at the Conference of States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, Marrakesh, Morocco, 24–28 October 2011. UNODC. UNORCID. 2013. Summary National Workshop on the Forestry Law: Constitutional Court Ruling No.35/PUU-X/2012. Jakarta. 29-30 August 2013. http://www. unorcid.org/index.php/redd-in-the-news/redd-indonesia/180-national- workshop-on-the-forestry-law-constitutional-court-ruling-no-35-puu-x-2012- speeches-and-presentations-are-now-available. 03 March 2015. Van Merm, R. and S. Perkin. 2013. Report on the Mission to Jakarta from 24 to 30 October Regarding the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra. IUCN. 9 pp. Verbist, B.J.P. and G. Paya. 2004. “Perspektif Sejarah Status Kawasan Hutan, Konflik dan Negosiasi di Sumberjaya, Lampung Barat-Propinsi Lampung.” Agrivita 26 (1): 20–28. WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society). 2005. CANOPI: A Program to Unite and Strengthen the Conservation of the Bukit Barisan Selatan Landscape in Sumatra, Indonesia through Information-building, Capacity-building, and Management. CEPF Final Project Completion Report. Indonesia. WCS – Indonesia Program. WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society), WWF (Worldwide Fund for Nature) and YABI (Indonesia Rhino Foundation/Yayasan Badak Indonesia). 2015. Conserving the Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park as UN World Heritage in Sumatra. Project proposal. Weber J and Reveret JP 1993. Biens communs: les leurres de la privatisation. In: Une terre en reconnaissance, les semences du dévelopment durable, pp. 71-73. Collection Savoirs, No. 2. Paris, Le Monde Diplomatique. Wells, M., S. Guggenheim, A. Khan, W. Wardojo and P. Jepson. 1999. Investing in Biodiversity: a review of Indonesia’s integrated conservation and development projects. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. 22 pp. Werner, S. 2001. Environmental Knowledge and Resource Management: Sumatra’s Kerinci-Seblat National Park. PhD thesis, Faculty of Environment and Society, Technischen Universität, Berlin, Germany. WHP (World Heritage Property). 2014. State of conservation status of the world heritage in Indonesia. World Heritage Property of Tropical Heritage of Sumatra (N 1167). Wiratno. 2010. Conservation deadlock. http://konservasiwiratno.wordpress.com/ conservation-deadlock/ [17 April 2010]. Wiratno. 2012. Tersesat Di Jalan Yang Benar. UNESCO. Wiratno. 2013. Dari Penebang Hutan Liar ke Konservasi Leuser. UNESCO. 113 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms Wiratno. 2015. Mengelola Hutan Dengan Jalan Damai dan Beradab: Masukan Untuk Pembangunan KPH Konservasi. Publikasi terbatas melalui email. World Bank. 1996. Republic of Indonesia Kerinci Seblat integrated conservation and development project: project document. 15124-IND. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. World Bank. 2003. Implementation Completion Report 25753. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. WWF (Worldwide Fund for Nature). 2007. Gone in an Instant: How The Trade In Illegally Grown Coffee Is Driving The Destruction Of Rhino, Tiger and Elephant Habitat in Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park. Indonesia: WWF-Indonesia and AREAS (Asia Rhino and Elephant Action Strategy), Bukit Barisan Selatan Programme. WWF (Worldwide Fund for Nature). 2012. The RSPO New Planting Procedure: ensuring responsible expansion by palm oil producers. http://www.rspo.org/ sites/default/files/The%20RSPO%20New%20Planting%20Procedure%20 FINAL%20Jan%202012.pdf. 03 January 2015 YLI (Yayasan Leuser International). 2012. The Leuser Development Programme. http://www.leuserfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_ content&view=article&id=107&Itemid=106. 02 January 2015 114 Appendices 115 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms Stakeholders NP authorities, Ministry ofNP authorities, and Labour, Transmigration Ministry of Social Affairs, Ministry of Justice and Human BRR, district/provincial Rights, District Parliament, government, national army, national police, institutions indigenous Ministry ofNP authorities, national national police, Forestry, local district government, army, communities Performance Indicators Performance Reliable information on the Reliable status and total area of enclave in relocating land Progress encroachers outside the property Patrols in encroached areas Patrols ofNo emergence re- encroachment in previously encroached areas and restoration Rehabilitation of encroached areas • • • • • Time Frame 2007–11 2007–11 Strategy Historical analysis of encroachment of Carry out inventory illegal inhabitants (characteristics) and encroached areas boundaries Designate enclave Hold a technical coordination meeting on encroachment compensation areas Provide outside NP security patrols Integrate Identify encroached areas and oflevel damage plantations within the Eradicate park Area rehabilitation and ofrestoration the encroached areas • • • • • • • • • Programme To limit and reduce encroachment level To the occurrence of encroachment prevent new To functions maintain and returned forest To economic values forest develop To management of institutions in sustainable forest increase the roles indigenous To Handling ofHandling relocation and enclave of encroachers outside World property Heritage ofManagement encroached areas functions to restore forest Appendix 1. Emergency Action Plan (EAP) Land EncroachmentAppendix 1. Emergency : Objectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 116 Appendix 1 Stakeholders NP authorities, Department NP authorities, of National Education, district District Parliament, government, research and NP Partners, institutions/ development indigenous universities, local institutions institutions, agricultural/ NP authorities, tourism plantation service, service, District Parliament, research and development NP institutions/universities, indigenous ASITA, partners, institutions District NP authorities, national police, Parliament, judicial bodies Performance Indicators Performance Conservation extension Conservation extension programme Nature development programme in Community involvement management forest of buffer Development forest villages of sign boards about Posting TRHS and NPs site ofDevelopment TRHS web No encroachment of Development protected area agreement of pools as gene Availability dietary source Community involvement in ecotourism and NTFP development Research and development and of added forest value servicesenvironmental to prevent Law enforcement encroachment new encroachment No new • • • • • • • • • • • • • Time Frame 2007–11 2008–11 2007–11 Strategy Raise encroachment as national Raise issue Outreach/extension activities education Environmental Construction and posting of sign boards Construction site of TRHS web Note of Agreement between Heads of District NP/local institutional capacity development ofInventory pool important gene of Inventory environmental services and ecotourism products of development Collaborative with local ecotourism programme people ofDevelopment seedling centre Continuous communication and coordination with security patrols Regular • • • • • • • • • • • • • Programme Socialization and public awareness Socialization and public awareness of TRHS and the importance of safeguarding the NP ofDevelopment alternative economic activities in line with conservation principles to Coordinated law enforcement encroachment new prevent 117 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms Stakeholders NP authorities, indigenous indigenous NP authorities, local institutions institutions, Director General NP authorities, and Nature of Protection Forest Conservation, IUCN/UNESCO, donor DPRD, WH Centre, institutions/countries BPKH, district/ NP authorities, Director government, provincial and ofGeneral Protection Forest Nature Conservation, Indonesian Institute of research Sciences, institutions/ and development Ministry NP partners, universities, of Forestry Regional agreement Regional Performance Indicators Performance Allocation of communal zone within the area of the communityInvolvement in management forest of the communityInvolvement in decision making of funds allocated Availability conflicts socio-cultural for Coordination with national and international donor institutions Studies on areas proposed WH from to be excluded and those to be property inscribed Establishment of definitive boundaries 3. on area boundaries • • • • • • • • Time Frame 2008–11 2007–11 2008 Strategy Establish Note of Agreement with local communitiesNP zoning for of local communitiesInvolvement in park management local communities as Position NP partners (collaborative management) problems Identify socio-cultural within the parks handling for Allocate budget problems socio-cultural Carry out studies on problem areas regional planning and Study socio-culture aspects those areas to be Study within TRHS integrated Meet to establish Note of Agreement on park boundaries • • • • • • • • • Programme Community empowerment in Community empowerment management sustainable forest of funds to address Availability conflicts social and cultural of NP boundaries Redesignation ofand formation area 118 Appendix 2 Appendix 2. Flow diagram in developing encroachment data Landsat data multi year Pre processing, image composite Land cover High Resolution classification Imagery Interpretation Land cover Land cover Land cover Land cover National park 1990 2000 2010 2014 boundary Overlay Land cover Land cover Land cover change change change 1990 - 2000 2000 - 2005 2010 - 2014 Query (Forest, non forest) Land encroachment data 119 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms Appendix 3. Photo Documentations Encroached areas in Sekoci, where Discussion on the initial results of satelite squatters built field houses to mark their imagery interpretation, with the YOSL-OIC presence. GIS team in Medan. Focus group discussion in the KSNP office Focus group discussion in GLNP in Medan, in Sungai Penuh Town, attended by a where the NP Head gave a presentation UNESCO representative. on encroachment. Focus group discussion in BBSNP in the Kota Agung office. Small group discussion in KSNP. 120 Appendix 4 Appendix 4. Summary of encroachment by district Gunung Leuser National Park • GLNP areas in this district comprise ± 237,009 ha, or ± 21.85% of the NP. • The encroached areas cover ± 2.98% of the park. • The topography of the encroached area is flat, gently sloping or sloping (<40%). • The land cover in the encroached areas is dominated by rainfed agriculture and mixed tree gardens. Gayo Lues District • The crops grown in the encroached areas are nutmeg, cacao and annual rainfed crops. • Most of the squatter is local community. • GLNP areas in this district comprise ± 386,700 ha, or ± 35.65 % of the NP. • The encroached areas cover ± 5.26 % of the NP. • The topography of the encroached area is flat, gently sloping or sloping (<40%). • The land cover in the encroached areas is dominated by rainfed agriculture, mixed tree gardens (hazelnut/kemiri) and oil Aceh Tenggara District palm. • Crops grown in the encroached areas are palm oil, rubber, nutmeg, cacao and annual rainfed crop. • GLNP areas in this district comprise ± 157,729 ha, or ± 14.54 % of the NP. • The encroached areas cover ± 2.79 % of the NP. • The topography of encroached area is flat or gently sloping (<15%). • The land cover in the encroached areas is dominated by oil palm, kemiri and rubber plantations. Aceh Selatan District • Encroachment is ongoing; the squatters are from Aceh Selatan and surrounding areas. 121 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms • GLNP areas in this district comprise ± 1,855 ha, or ± 0.17 % of the NP. • The encroached area covers ± 6.27 % of the NP. • The topography of the encroached area is flat or gently sloping (<15%). • The land cover in the encroached areas is dominated by oil palm and annual rainfed crops. Aceh Tamiyang District • Encroachment is conducted permanently; the squatters are from Aceh Tamiang and surrounding areas. • GLNP areas in this district comprise ± 203,350 ha, or ± 18.75 % of the NP. • The encroached areas cover ± 4.29 % of the NP. • The topography of the encroached area is flat or gently sloping (<15%). • The land cover in the encroached areas is dominated by oil palm, kemiri and rubber plantations and annual rainfed crops. Langkat District • Encroachment is ongoing; the squatters are from Langkat District and from Aceh. Kerinci Seblat National Park • KSNP areas in the district (West Sumatra Province) comprise ± 263,000 ha. The encroached areas cover ± 16,000 ha. More than 80% of the encroached area has less than 40% slope. • The land cover in the encroached areas is dominated by coffee, durian, cinnamon and annual rainfed crops. Pesisir Selatan District • KSNP areas in this district (Jambi Province) comprise ± 229,000 ha. • The encroached areas cover ± 29,082 ha. • More than 85% of the encroached area has less than 40% slope • The land cover in the encroached areas is dominated by coffee, potatoes and cinnamon. • Encroachment is conducted permanently, Kerinci District the squatters are from Kerinci District 122 Appendix 4 • KSNP areas in this district (Jambi Province) comprise ± 167,000 ha. • The encroached areas cover ± 13,000 ha. • More than 90% of the encroached area has a slope of less than 40%. • The land cover in the encroached areas is dominated by rubber and coffee. Merangin District • KSNP areas in this district (Jambi Province) comprise ± 36,000 ha. • The encroached areas cover ± 283 ha. • More than 20% of the encroached area has a slope of more than 40%. • The land cover in the encroached areas is coffee and rubber. • Encroachment is ongoing; the squatters are from Bungo District and surrounding areas. Bungo District • KSNP areas in this district (South Sumatra Province) comprise ± 235,000 ha. • The encroached areas cover ± 13,000 ha. • More than 90% of the encroached area has a slope of less than 40%. • The land cover in the encroached areas is coffee and rubber. • Encroachment is conducted permanently, the squatters are from Musi Rawas District Musi Rawas District and surrounding areas • KSNP areas in Lubuk Linggau Town (South Sumatra Province) comprise ± 9,000 ha. • The encroached areas cover ± 8,610 ha. • 95% of the encroached area has a slope of less than 40%. • The land cover in the encroached areas is rubber. Lubuk Linggau Town 123 Strategy of anti-encroachment in the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: Towards New Paradigms • KSNP areas in this district (Bengkulu Province) comprise ± 126,000 ha. • The encroached areas cover ± 26,000 ha. • 85% of the encroached area has a slope of less than 40%. • The land cover in the encroached areas is coffee and rubber. Rejang Lebong District • KSNP areas in the district (Bengkulu Province) comprise ± 177,000 ha. • The encroached areas cover ± 1,378 ha. • 85% of the encroached area has a slope of less than 40%. • The land cover in the encroached areas is coffee and rubber. • Encroachment is ongoing; the squatters are from Bengkulu Utara and surrounding Bengkulu Utara District areas. • KSNP areas in the district (West Sumatra Province) comprise ± 80,000 ha. • The encroached areas cover ± 15,500 ha. • More than 80% of the encroached area has a slope of less than 40%. • The land cover in the encroached areas is dominated by coffee, rubber, cinnamon and annual rainfed crops. Solok District • KSNP areas in the district (Bengkulu Province) comprise ± 39,000 ha. • The encroached areas cover ± 895 ha. • 85% of the encroached area has a slope of less than 40%. • The land cover in the encroached areas is coffee and rubber. Mukomuko District 124 Appendix 4 Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park • Encroachment occurred in four sub-districts and comprised about 3,560 ha; the largest area is in Pematang Sawah Sub-district, with an area of 2,356 ha. • The slope of encroached areas is mostly less than <40%. • Crops grown in the encroached areas are mostly coffee, cocoa, and wetland and dryland rice. Tanggamus District • Squatters are local people from the surrounding villages and from Java. • The encroached area in the NP is 34,500 ha. Encroachment occurred in nine sub- districts, mostly in Batu Brak, Suoh and Sekincau sub-districts. • The slope of the encroached area is mostly less than 40%. • Crops grown are mostly coffee and cacao. • Squatters are from the surrounding villages and from Java. Lampung Barat Districts • The encroached area in the NP is 31,002 ha. Encroachment occurred in six sub- districts, mostly in Lemong and Pesisir Selatan sub-districts. • The slope of the encroached area is mostly less than 40%. • Crops grown are mostly coffee and cacao. • Squatters are from the surrounding villages and from Java. Pesisir Barat District • The encroached area covers an area of 65,652 ha in Kaur Selatan, Kaur Tengah, Maje and Nasal sub-districts. The largest encroachment is in Nasal Sub-district, with an area of 5,068 ha. • The slope of the encroached area is mostly less than 40%. • Crops grown are mostly coffee, cacao, dry land crops, and resin trees. Kaur District • Squatters are from Java, Ogan Komering Ulu, and local communities. 125 126 ical interestsassociatedwiththeuseofresourceswithinparkboundaries. These problemshavebecomeentrenchedduetotheeconomicandpolit compounded byotherproblems,suchasillegalloggingandpoaching. of monoculturesandinfrastructuredevelopment.Encroachmentisoften main threatsaredeforestationandencroachmentduetotheexpansion However, variousthreatshavejeopardizedtheintegrityofTRHS. The in 2004bytheWorld HeritageCommittee(WHC)-UNESCO. notsurprisingthatTRHSwasinscribedintheWorldbirds. It’s Heritagelist 10,000 speciesofplants,201mammalsand580 extraordinary beautifullandscapesandexceptionalbiodiversityincluding (GLNP), Kerinci Seblat(KSNP)andBukitBarisanSelatan(BBSNP),with ares. ItcomprisesthreewidelyseparatedNationalParks: GunungLeuser conservation areasinSoutheastAsiawithatotalareaof2,595,124hect The Tropical Rainforest HeritageofSumatra(TRHS)isonethebiggest country. learned andtherecommendationsmayberelevanttootherNPs inthe to removeTRHSfromtheListofWorld HeritageinDanger. Thelessons recommendationsareprovidedasstrategicactions Anti-encroachment and weaknessesassociatedimpactsontheintegrityofNPareas. stakeholders inthethreeNPs undertheTRHSandananalysisofstrengths have beencarriedoutbythegovernment,NGOs,andotherrelated initiativesthat This bookprovidesareviewontheanti-encroachment List ofWorld HeritageinDangersince2011. These continuousthreatsledtoTRHSbeingincludedbytheWHCon Indonesia - - An Anti-encroachment Strategy for The Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (TRHS): Towards New Paradigms