INDONESIA

PROPOSED KERINCI-SEBLAT INTEGRATED CONSERVATION ANDDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

REGIONAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

EXECuTIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND REcomIhNDATioNs

INTRODUCTION

A Brief Description of the Biodiversity of the Kerinci-Seblat Area

The Kerinci-Seblat ICDP proposal is located in the southern half of Sumatra in theprovinces of Jambi, South Sumatra, Bengkulu and West Sumatra. It extends for adistance of nearly 350 kan along the spine of the Barisan Mountain Range from Padang inthe north to Bengkulu in the south, and contains Indonesia's second highest mountain,Mt. Kerinci, at 3,805 m. The natural ecological communities of the Kerinci-Seblat areaare of outstanding biodiversity significance: including species-rich lowland dipterocarpforests at elevations from 300 m to 1,000 m; unique wetlands, and subalpine communitiesat aLmost 4,000 m. These ecological communities support a rich flora and fauna:

- at least 4,000 species of plants, including Raffelsia, the world's largest flower,Amorphophallus, the world's tallest flower, and the only natural occurrence of thegenus Pinus in the southem hemisphere;

a 144 mammaan species including several threatened or endangered species such asSumatran rhino, tiger, elephant, tapir, and gibbons;

* 180 bird species (2 percent of the world's total), including three species of hornbill,the rare Kerinci Scop's owl and the great argus pheasant;

* 19 animal species endemic to Sumatra-14 birds and 5 mammals.

Kerinci-Seblat was initiaily proposed as a national park by the Minister of Forestsin 1982. This initial proposal, comprising an area of 1,484,650 ha, was a consolidation ofseparate blocks of conservation reserves and protection forests. A series of subsequentboundary revisions has reduced the park by about a third to its present size of 996,850 ha.The biodiversity value of the Kerinci-Seblat area is threatened by the reduction in parkarea and by a host of development pressures, such as access proposals, encroachment forshifling cultivation and cinnamon plantations, and logging in the lowland forests.

Regional Impact Assessment: Definition and Purpose

As the name implies, a regional impact assessment (RIA) is an analysis of theconsequences of one or more development projects, where the project or projects are

This doimt s bee eodoned by hM WorldBn& :- 17. mL. is3 e;i fieiw-:= i |- weme,9&. -- x.^-. ..

*- --- *-------- *~~~~~~~~~*i.- -_ anh,m__|_- -_* |fh ,,|,,W_s a-|nw.. nsLs;_w..J... 21......n..... -m. ;.b....n.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

3

productivity and biodiversity, has risen from 67 percent to 86 percent. Overall, of 27landscape units (based on differences of climate, topography and lithology) identified asrepresentative of the original park, 15 have been reduced by 80 percent or more and 8have been completely eliminated. The boundary is currently the single most critical issueof project design. The park has lost a significant proportion of its biodiversity and may nolonger contain the habitats necessary for the long-term protection and maintenance of its"flagship" wildlife species-elephant, tiger, rhinoceros, tapir, gibbon and the wealth oflowland evergreen rainforest birds. Adjacent lands are being subjected to such seriousdisturbance from logging and such rapid deforestation by encroachers that they may loosemuch of their biodiversity and buffer zone function. If the situation is to be retrieved, anumber of steps must be taken immediately.

1. Demarcation of the current boundary should proceed in order to expedite parkgazettment, but there must be a clear statement from the Government of Indonesiathat the boundary is recognized as inadequate and that major boundaryrationalization to improve its biodiversity status will take place progressively overthe next five years.

2. A rapid environmental appraisal, involving biodiversity and wildlife habitat, mustbegin immediately to determine the most important areas for repatriation to thepark, concentrating on the Jambi and Bengkulu park boundaries. Work shouldbegin immediately, utilizing remaining JGF funding, on two concessions adjacentto the park, one in Jambi and one in Bengkulu, with the following selectioncriteria: high biodiversity; large proportion of protection and limited productionforest; and/or lease expiring within the next two years. Candidates for these firstappraisals are the Sarestra II and Nusa Leases in Jambi and the Bina Samaktha andMaju Jaya Raya leases in Bengkulu. These two appraisals should be undertaken aspart of the concession reviews, see below, and be completed by December 1996with firm recommendations for the transfer of low elevation areas of highbiodiversity back to the park.

Enforcement

From even a casual field trip around the park boundary, it is evident thatencroachment by agricultural squatters is now largely uncontrolled, and that greatlyupgraded capability to deal with the problem is needed immediately. In addition it is alsoevident that serious wildlife poaching occurs in many areas of the park. The projectdesign calls for 100 new pack guards to be engaged as "pegawi proyek" at 25 per yearfor four years starting in 1996. By the time this force becomes effective it may well betoo late for many areas inside the park boundary, let alone areas of value adjacent to thepark. It is therefore recommended that, prior to project appraisal, the Government ofIndonesia develop an effective bridging enforcement strategy to be implemented in priorityareas; starting in April 1995 and continuing until new project staff are trained and in place.The strategy should contain: (i) a description of legal enforcement procedures; (ii) staffinglevels and responsibilities; and (iii) a summary of enforcement actions to date.

5

4. Where communities remain in the park they should do so under a formal park usecontract. :Every effort should be made to acconmnodate these communities in parkmanagement programs and to capitalize on the tourism potential of their culture andway of life.

Impacts of Other Development Activities

Forest Management

As previously noted, many of the areas of the original park proposal excised by thecurrent boundary were reallocated to timber concessions even though they were classedas, or met the criteria for, protection forest. The majority of the concessions around theboundary of Kerinci-Seblat are now wholly or largely within protection forest, and pastenforcement against encroachment has been so inadequate that intact forest on someconcessions now exists only in steep hill systems. Logging in such systems is invariablyextremely destructive both to the forest and to watershed values. The followingrecommendations are made with respect to forest concession management within theKerinci-Seblat Buffer zone:

l. A one year moratorium should be in place on the logging of any areas classed byRePPProT as Protection Forest within the original 1982 park boundary, pendingpriority application of the KPHP analysis to forest concessions on both the Jambi andBengkulu boundaries of the park; such analysis to be completed by December 1996.The KPHP analysis should be synchronized with the rapid environmental appraisalsreferred to under park boundary recommendations.

2. Upon completion of the KPHP and rapid environmental appraisals, areas of highbiodiversity or conservation value outside the rationalized concession boundaries Willbe repatriated to the park.

3. Areas of intact forest not required for the park and not suitable for industrial loggingtechniques should be placed in community forests where local people may harvestminor forest products or hand log commercial timber species on a sustainable basisunder a buffer zone use contract administered jointly by local govenmment and the parkauthorities.

Roads

New roads or even upgrading of existing tracks have potentially significantimplications for both park management and biodiversity conservation, since they provideaccess to new settlers and opportnities for the expansion of existing agricultural activitiesthrough access to new markets. There are few if any examples in Indonesia of effectiveprevention of encroachment when new roads have been constructed into areas of naturalforest. Current road "proposals" fall into two categories: first, "roads of convenience'that transect the park linling communities that already have road access; and second,roads to enclave communities inside the park which do not now have road access. There

.,

7

the subsidized processing of ore belonging to small alluvial gold miners in order tolessen their dependence on mercury in and adjacent to the park.

The Impact of the ICDP on Regional Development Opportunities

This section of the RIA was impossible to complete with accuracy and technicalrigor because of existing project design uncertainties, such as the boundary, and realinformation deficiencies. What is evident is that, in its current form, the ICDP project hasfew opportunity costs because the land area has major use limitations. Steep topographyand the poverty of dominant soils are major constraints to sustainable agriculture. Almosttwo thirds of the area of existing forest concessions meet the soil, slope and rainfalintensity criteria for protection forest, and in theory should not be available for commercialtimber production. Continued logging of these areas will have serious implications forfuture forest production and watershed stability. Earlier economic analyses (DHV Report8, 1993) probably significantly overestimated the economic opportunity costs of the ICDPproject to agriculture and forestry because it assumed wrongly that existing land uses andlevels of resource exploitation were largely sustainable.

The impact of the park and ICDP on mineral resource development is expected tobe minimal, though this can not be confirmed until the three existing concessions completefeasibility studies acconmnodating the restrictions recommended above. Because all threeprojects overlap the park boundary or lie outside the park, these restrictions should notpresent serious problems to an economically viable precious metal deposit.

The recommended restricti-ns on access development must be placed in thecontext that no community outside the park boundary currently lacks road access. Eventhe enclaves inside the park, legal and illegal, are serviced by tracks and many haveflourished with such access for decades. The current road access proposals transectingthe park are primarily stimulated by inter-provincial competition for the marketing,processing and shipment of commodities, primarily cassiavera, from the Kerinci valley.Such considerations are likely to result in costly duplication of access and should not beallowed to jeopardize park and biodiversity values.

This report was preparedfor the Government of Indonesia by Sustainable Visions Natural Resource andEnvironmental Management Consultants Victoria. British Columbia, Canada, March 1995

ANNEX 14 C

INTEGRATED CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (ICDP)A GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) PROPOSAL

KERINCI-SEBLAT NATIONAL PARK

.ErI: I.A e.i S. W..

REGIONAL IMPACT A

A REPORT PREPARED FOR BAPPENAS AND THE WORLD BANKBY

SUSTAINABLE VISIONSNATURAL RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS -

VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA. e_n

MARCH 1995-=f

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMEMDATIONS

I NTRODUCTI ON

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE BlODIVERSITY OF THE KERINCI-SEBLAT AREA

The Kerinci-Seblat ICDP proposal is located in the southern half ofSumatera in the provinces of Jambi, South Sumatra, Bengkulu and WestSumatera. It extends for a distance of nearly 350 km along the spine ofthe Barisan Mountain Range from Padang in the north to Bengkulu in thesouth, and contains Indonesia's second highest mountain, Mt. Kerinci, at3805m. The natural ecological communities of the Kerinci-Seblat areaare of outstanding biodiversity significance: including species-richlowland dipterocarp forests at elevations from 300m to 1000m; uniquewetlands, and subalpine communities at almost 4000m. These ecologicalcommunities support a rich flora and fauna:

* at least 4000 species of plants, including Raffelsia, the world'slargest flower, Amorphophallus, the world's tallest flower, and theonly natural occurrence of the genus Pinus in the southern hemisphere;

* 144 mammalian species including several threatened or endangeredspecies such as Sumatran rhino, tiger, elephant, tapir, and gibbons;

- 180 bird species (two percent of the world's total), including threespecies of hornbill, the rare Kerinci Scop's owl and the great arguspheasant

* 19 animal species endemic to Sumatera - 14 birds and 5 mammals.

Kerinci-Seblat was initially proposed as a national park by theMinister of Forests in 1982. This initial proposal, comprising an area of1,484,650 ha, was a consolidation of separate blocks of conservationreserves and protection forests. A series of subsequent boundary revisionshas reduced the park by about a third to its present size of 996,850 ha.The biodiversity value of the Kerinci-Seblat area is threatened by thereduction in park area and by a host of development pressures, such asaccess proposals, encroachment for shifting cultivation and cinnamonplantations, and logging in the lowland forests.

.' 2

REGIONAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: Definition and Puroose

As the name implies, a regional impact assessment (RIA) is ananalysis of the consequences of one or more development projects, wherethe project or projects are anticipated to have significant environmental,social or economic effects far beyond their immediate locality. RIAs areparticularly appropriate where impacts affect a number of differentsectors and require a coordinated management response, or whereeffective impact management requires policy or institutional change.RIAs fall into two broad categories:

1) assessment of the cumulative impacts of a number of developmentprojects on a geographic region, and the design of a common,coordinated impact management program to guide the activities ofgovernment and the various project proponents; and

2) assessment of the impacts of single large project with extensiveenvironmental, land use and socio-economic developmentimplications, the management of which requires significant policy,administrative and fiscal responses from national and localgovernments.

The Kerinci-Seblat RIA clearly belongs in the second category, and itspurpose has been to evaluate the following:

1 the extent to which the ICDP design meets basic objectives fornatural resource and biodiversity conservation;

2) the potential impacts of adjacent development activities onbiodiversity conservation and park integrity; and

3) the impacts (positive and negative) of the Kerinci-Seblat ICDP designon opportunities for future economic development.

Reflecting these objectives, the main RIA document contains the followingchapters: a description of the existing environmental and social settingfor the Kerinci-Seblat area; a description of the ICDP proposal; a criticalanalysis of project design; and an assessment of the impact of the projecton regional development opportunities.

3

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES

Project Design

* THE PARK BOUNDARY

* The majority of the boundary revisions alluded to above haveexcised species-rich lowland and low elevation hill forests. The areashave been reclassified from nature reserve or protection forest toproduction forest, and placed in adjacent logging concessions. Acomparison of the original boundary with the current boundary revealsthat there has been an overall reduction in the area of low elevationsystems of 72%, however, some important systems have suffered muchhigher loss: plains systems reduced by 81%, and the larger alluvialvalleys so important to many wildlite species reduced by more than 99%.The proportion of mountain systems, with lower biological productivityand biodiversity, has risen from 67% to 86%. Overall, of 27 landscapeunits (based on differences of climate, topography and lithology)identifiad as representative of the original park, 15 have been reduced by80 % or more and 8 have been completely eliminated. The boundary iscurrently the single most critical issue of project design. The park haslost a significant propc,rtion of its biodiversity and may no longer 'jontainthe habitats necessary for the long-term protection and maintenance ofits 'flagshipw wildlife species - elephant, tiger, rhinoceros, tapir, gibbonand the wealth of ;owland evergreen rainforest birds. Adjacent lands arebeing subjected to such serious disturbance from logging and such rapiddeforestation by encroachers that they may loose much of theirbiodiversity and buffer zone function. If the situation is to be retrieved,a number of steps must be taken immediately:

1. Demarkation of the current boundary should proceed in order to expeditepark gazettment, but there must be a clear statement from theGovernment of Indonesia that the boundary is recognized as inadequateand that major boundary rationalization to improve its biodiversitystatus will take place progressively over the next five years.

2. A rapid environmental appraisal, involving biodiversity and wildlifehabitat, must begin immediately to determine the most important areasfor repatriation to the park, concentrating on the Jambi and Bengkulupark boundaries. Work should begin immediately, utilizing remaining

4

* JGF funding, on two concessions adjacent to the park, one in Jambi andone in Bengkulu, with the following selection criteria: highbiodiversity; large proportion of protection and limited productionforest; and/or lease expiring within the next two years. Candidates forthese first appraisals are the Sarestra II and Nusa Leases in Jambi and

I the Bina Samaktha and Maju Jaya Raya leases in Bengkulu. These twoappraisals should be completed by December 1995. Appraisals of allother concessions should be undertaken as part of the concessionreviews, see below, and be completed by December 1996 with firmrecommendations for the transfer of low elevation areas of highbiodiversity back to the park.

ENFORCEMENT

From even a causal field trip around the park boundary, it is evidentthat encroachment by agricultural squatters is now largely uncontrolled,and that greatly upgraded capability to deal with the problem is neededimmediately. In addition it is also evident that serious wildlife poachingoccurs in many areas of the park. The project design calls for 100 newpark guards to be en-gaged as "pegawi proyekw at 25 per year for fouryears starting in 1996. By the time this force becomes effective it maywell be too late for many areas inside the park boundary, let alone areasof value adjacent to the park. It is therefore recommended that, prior toproject appraisal, the Government of Indonesia develop an effectivebridging enforcement strategy to be implemented in priority areas;starting in April 1995 and continuing until new project staff are trainedand in place. The strategy should contain: i) a description of legalenforcement procedures, ii) staffing levels and responsibilities, and iii) asummary of enforcement actions to date.

ENCROACHMENT AND RESETTLEMENT.

Generally the tools available to deal with existing parkencroachment are to amend the park boundary, to demarcate and enforceenclave boundaries, or to resettle/relocate. These will have to be appliedon a case-by-case basis after careful study during the first few years ofproject implementation. Decisions should take into consideration criteriasuch as the impact on wildlife management and biodiversity conservation,sustainability of the cropping practice, whether the use is compatiblewith park or buffer zone management criteria, and the potential

5

reversibility of the vegetation change. In addition the traditionalattitude of park managers that "people have no place in parks" mustchange. Indigenous people who have lived in a region for decades orcenturies should be considered an integral part of the local ecology. Theircustoms and the way they relate to natural systems becomes an addedObiodiversity value". If relocation is the most appropriate and desirableoption, every effort should be made to encourage the persons orcommunity to relocated voluntarily. This can be accomplished byproviding an acceptable relocation site and adequate compensation torshifting, and by allowing continued use of the original site for a setperiod through the 'kebun kehidupan' concept of temporary utilizationzones.

It is clear that at present there is neither sufficient information toassess the impacts of individual encroaching communities nor the staffcapability to plan and manage a ccmmunity resettlement program. Forthese reasons the following implementation steps are recommended:

1. lmmed,ate measures must concentrate on the stabilization of thepark and forest concession boundaries to ensure no newencroachment takes place, through the interim enforcement strategyrecommended above.

2. No further resettlement of established individuals or communitiesshould occur for three years pending completion of the parkmanagement plan and wildlife-biodiversity studies of encroachedareas, unless the request comes unsolicited from the people. Thewildlife-biodiversity studies should establish objective criteria forassessing the impacts of communities living and farrniing inside thepark and establish priority areas where resettlement may berequired. Terms of reference for these studies should be sent to theWorld Bank for review prior to project appraisal.

3. Resettlement should be contemplated only where communitiesjeopardize biodiversity values that are still intact, where there is alikelihood of permanent human/wildlife conflict or where thecommunity occupies land with significant potential for therehabilitation of habitat values. Wherever possible, resettlementshould be voluntary and carried out in accord with a ResettlementAction Plan prepared in consultation with the affected people. An

6

objective economic analysis of both the earnings of currentagricultural practice and the potential earnings of the alternativesavailable to encroaching communities (i.e. transmigration and pohonkehidupan) should be prepared and submitted to the World Bank inyear one of project implementation.

4. Where communities remain in the park, they should do so under aformal park use contract. Every effort should be made toaccommodate these communities in park management programs andto capitalize on the tourism potential of their culture and way oflife.

Impacts of Other Development Activities

FOREST MAN&AEMENI

As previously noted, many of the areas of the original park proposalexcised by the current boundary were reallocated to timber concessionseven though they were classed as, or met the criteria for, protectionforest. The majority of the concessions around the boundary of Kerinci-Seblat are now wholly or largely within protection forest, and pastenforcement against encroachment has been so inadequate that intactforest on some concessions now exists only in steep hill systems.Logging in such systems is invariably extremely destructive both to theforest and to watershed values. The following recommendations are madewith respect to forest concession management within the Kerinci-SeblatBuffer zone:

1. A one year moratorium should be place on the logging of any areasclassed by RePPProT as Protection Forest within the originat 1982 parkboundary, pending priority application of the KPHP analysis to forestconcessions on both the Jambi and Bengkulu boundaries of the park;such analysis to be completed by December 1996. The KPHP analysisshould be synchronized with the rapid environmental appraisalsreferred to under park boundary recommendations.

2. Upon completion of the KPHP and rapid environmental appraisals, areasof high biodiversity or conservation value outside the rationalizedconcession boundaries will be repatriated to the oark.

7

3. Areas of intact forest not required for the park and not suitable forindustrial logging techniques should be placed in community forestswhere local people may harvest minor forest products or hand logcommercial timber species on a sustainable basis under a buffer zoneuse contract administered jointly by local government and the parkauthorities.

RA

New roads or even upgrading of existing tracks have potee-,tiallysignificant implications for both park management and biodiversityconservation, since they provide access to new se':;ars and opportunitiesfor tile expansion of existing agricultural activities through access tonew markets. There are few if any examples in Indonesia of effectiveprevention of encroachment when new roads have been constructed intoareas of natural forest. Current road "proposals" fall into twocategories: first, 'roads of convenience" that transect the park, linkingcommunities that already have road access; and second, roads to enclavecommunities inside the park which do not now have road access. Thereare about seven proposed roads which fall into the first category. These,with attendant human encroachment, pose by far the more serious threatto park integrity; potentially fragmenting the park into isolated blocks,disrupting animal migration, and preventing the flow of genetic resources.It recommended that:

1. No new roads will be approved or constructed in or through the parkpending completion of the park management plan and a regional (bufferzone) land use and transportation plan agreed to by all four provinces.Road construction should also be predicated on the strengthening ofenforcement capability to prevent encroachment.

2. Any road proposals that may be deemed acceptable in the park andbuffer zone plans must be subject to rigorous environmentalassessment and project justification through a full ANDAL report.

3. The unpaved 3 km of the proposed Muara Labuh-Kambang road should bestabilized with proper drainage controls and put to bed under atemporary vegetation cover pending a future decision on itsacceptability.

8

MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT.

Only three mining concessions are now said to exist within the parkor surrounding buffer zones. Two of these companies, P.T. BarisanTropical Mining (gold) and P.T. Ketahun (gold/copper), are undertakingfeasibility studies and one, P.T. Lusang Mining, is still at the explorationstage. The following recommendations are made with respect to miningactivity:

1. No further mining concessions should be granted by the Ministry ofMines and Energy within both the areas included in the original 1982park boundary and the hatched area shown in Figure 10 until the finalboundary of Kerinci-Seblat is decided.

2. Feasibility studies and controlled mineral exploration on the threeexisting concessions should be allowed to continue in the park on theunderstanding that if no economically viable mineral potential isdetermined within five years, the concessions will be cancelledwithout compensation.

3. If mineable mineral deposits are found, the acceptability of mining willbe determined on a case-by-case basis through the AMDAL process. Thefollowing limitations should be considered for any potential mineprojects: 1) no open pit extraction would be allowed inside the park ora 5 km buffer zone; 2) all mine infrastructure must be located outsidethe 5 km buffer; and 3) equipment, worker and ore transport within thepark and buffer must be by a method other than road (i.e. overheadbucket or rail tram). Where a potentially viable mine is not allowed toproceed, compensation will be limited to exploration expenses only.

4. Any ore processing in the area should be by a closed-circuit cyanideprocess with a built-in cyanide destruction system (e.g. Inco SO2).Consideration should be given to the subsidized processing of orebelonging to small alluvial gold miners in order to lessen theirdependence on mercury in and adjacent to the park.

9

THE IMPACT OF THE ICDP ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTOPPORTUNITI ES

This section of the RIA was impossible to complete with accuracyand technical rigour because of existing project design uncertainties,such as the boundary, and real information deficiencies. What is evidentis that, in its current form, the ICDP project has few opportunity costsbecause the land area has major use limitations. Steep topography and thepoverty of dominant soils are major constraints to sustainableagriculture. Almost two thirds of the area of existing forest concessionsmeet the soil, slope and rainfall intensity criteria for protection forest,and in theory should not be available for commercial timber production.Continued logging of these areas will have serious implications for futureforest production and watershed stability. Earlier economic analyses(DHV Report 8, 1993) probably significantly overestimated the economicopportunity costs of the ICDP project to agriculture and forestry becauseit assumed wrongly that existing land uses and levels of resourceexploitation were largely sustainable.

The impact of the park and ICDP on mineral resource development isexpected to be minimal, though this can not be confirmed until the threeexisting concessions complete feasibility studies accommodating therestrictions recommended above. Because all three projects overlap thepark boundary or lie outside the park, these restrictions should notpresent serious problems to an economically viable precious metaldeposit.

The recorrmmended restrictions on access development must beplaced in the context that no community outside the park boundarycurrently lacks road access. Even the enclaves inside the park, legal andillegal, are serviced by tracks and many have flourished with such accessfor decades. The current road access proposals transecting the park areprimarily stimulated by inter-provincial competition for the marketing,processing and shipment of commodities, primarily cassiavera. from theKerinci valley. Such considerations are likely to result in costlyduplication of access and should not be allowed to jeopardize park andbiodiversity values.

10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KERINCI-SEBLAT ICDP PROPOSAL

1.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE REGIONAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER II THE EXISTING BIOPHYSICAL SETTING FOR KERINCI-SEBLAT AND VICINITY

2.1 THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

2.1.1 Major Physiographic Zones2.1.2 Vegetation Zones and Important Floristic Species2.1.3 Faunal Species and Critical Habitats2.1.4 The Biodiversity Importance of Kerinci-Seblat2.1.5 Forest Zonation and Land Suitability

2.2 THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

2.2.1 Traditional Forest Use2.2.2 Hunting and Poaching2.2.3 Human Population and Settlement2.2.4 Agricultural Practice and Park Encroachment2.2.5 Forest Concessions2.2.6 Commercial Plantations2.2.7 Mining Concessions2.2.8 Infrastructure and Transportation Development2.2.9 Park Management and Tourism2.2.10 Government Administrative Structure2.2.11 Non-governmental and Community Organizations

11

CHAPTER III A DESCRIPTION OF THE KERINCI-SEBLAT ICDPPROPOSAL

3.1 THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITY AND INTEGRATEDCONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

3.1.1 Criteria for Global Environmental Facility Projects3.1.2 The ICDP Concept in Kerinci-Seblat

3.2 KERINCI-SEBLAT NATIONAL PARK

3.2.1 National Park Objectives3.2.2 Park Boundary Options and Decisions3.2.3 Resettlement and Rehabilitation Programs3.2.4 Compensation for Commercial Resource Tenures3.2.5 Park Administration, Management and Enforcement

Programs3.2.6 Community Consultation and Involvement

3.3 BUFFER ZONES

3.3.1 Buffer Zone Management Objectives3.3.2 Community and Rural Development Programs3.3.3 Forest Concessions and Community Forests

3.4 INTEGRATED PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES FOR ICDPIMPLEMENTATION

3.4.1 National Steering Committee3.4.2 Interprovincial Coordinating Committee3.4.3 Planning Secretariat3.4.4 Inventory, Monitoring and Information Management

Services

12 /

CHAPTER IV A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF PROJECT DESIGN: ISSUESAND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 PARK DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT

4.1.1 The Park Boundary4.1.2 Enforcement Programs4.1.3 Encroachment and Resettlement

4.2 MANAGING THE IMPACTS OF OTHER LAND USES

4.2.1 Buffer Zone Planning4.2.2 Forest Management: Concessions and Community Forests4.2.3 Mineral Resource Development4.2.4 Road and Access Development4.2.6 Agriculture

CHAPTER V THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ICDP ON REGIONALDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

5.1 THE REGIONAL LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CONTEXT

5.1.1 Provincial Development Planning and EnvironmentalAssessment

5.1.2 Regional Values and Potential Benefits of the ProposedICDP

5.2 THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ICDP ON SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTSECTORS

5.2.1 Agriculture5.2.2 Timber and Wood Fibre Production5.2.4 Mining and Mineral Resource Development5.2.5 Transportation and Infrastructure

REFERENCESAPPENDIX IAPPENDIX II

13

FIGURES

Figure 1. Physiographic Regions

Figure 2. Landscape Systems.

Figure 3. Major Drainage Systems

Figure 4. Dominant Soil groups

Figure 5. Forest Zonation (TGHK) and Land Use

Figure 6. Land Suitability for Sustainable, Permanent, AgriculturalCropping

Figure 7. Environmental Hazards

Figure 8. Historic Park Boundary Options

Figure 9. Rapid Environmental Appraisal, KSNP Boundary

Figure 10. Priorities for Boundary Enforcement and EncroachmentStabilization

14

TABLES

Table 1 Key Faunal Species of the Kerinci-Seblat Area

Table 2 Land Use and Forest Zonation Designations for ForestConcessions in the Kerinci-Seblat area.

Table 3 A Summary Comparison of Landscape Diversity Betweenthe Original and INTAG Boundaries

PHOTOGRAPHS

Photographs 1 a.b&c. Forest concession encroachment and conversion,Sarestra I Concession.

Photographs 2 a&b. Major haul road construction, Nusa Lease.

Photographs 3 a&b. Skid road construction, Nusa Lease.

Photographs 4 a&b. Residual stand damage, Nusa Lease.

Photographs 5 a,b,c&d. Road-induced park encroachment.

16

KERINCI-SEBLAT NATIONAL PARKINTEGRATED CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

REGIONAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KERINCI-SEBLAT ICDP PROPOSAL

1. The Kerinci-Seblat ICDP proposal is located in the southern half ofSumatera in the provinces of Jambi, South Sumatra, Bengkulu and WestSumatera. It extends for a distance of nearly 350 km along the spine ofthe Barisan Mountain Range from Padang in the north to Bengkulu in thesouth. The area was proposed as a national park after extensive fieldsurveys by FAO and PHPA in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Amanagement plan prepared by FAO in 1981 was the basis for the Ministerof Forests' nomination of the area for park status the following year.This initial proposal, comprising an area of 1,484,650 ha, was a complexof 17 gazetted and propose-d wildlife and nature reserves, adjacentprotection forests, and connecting areas between these separate blocks.Though many of the separate reserves have legal protection asconservation areas, the area as a whole has no legal status as a NationalPark; in fact, until 1990 there was no enabling legislation to create suchan entity.

2. The original park boundary enclosed ecological communities ofoutstanding biodiversity significance; ranging from species-rich lowlanddipterocarp forests at elevations around 500m to alpine tundra at almost4000m. In 1985 the oagreed-to forest function" or TGHK process (seesection 2.1.5 below) revised forest land use zonation for the fourprovinces. During this process the Ministry of Forests revised thedesignation of certain forest lands in and around the proposed park fromprotection forest (Hutan Lindung) to full production (Hutan Produksi) andlimited production (Hutan Produksi Terbetas) forest. Approximately232,000 ha of lowland and low elevation hill forests were reallocated tologging concessions, mainly in Jambi province. In 1991 the Directorate

17

General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHPA) beganpreparation of a new park management plan which defined the area of thepark as 1.04 million hectares - 30% smaller than the original proposal.

3. In 1991 Kerinci-Seblat was nominated for Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF) funding under the concept of an integrated conservation anddevelopment project (ICDP). It became apparent in preliminary discussionsthat the 1985 boundary changes may have reduced the park's biodiversityto such an extent that its eligibility for GEF funding might be affected. Agovernment initiative was already underway to revise and rationalize thePark boundaries and a World Bank mission in October 1991 requc -ted thatthis should be done in such a way as to omaximize biodiversity andminimize resettlement" (DHV Report 2,1993).

4. Boundary review continued throughout 1991 and 1992. In July 1992a new 'consensus' boundary was established through discussions betweenforest agencies, provincial authorities, and concessionaires. This newboundary has been mapped by the Directorate General of Forest Inventory(INTAG). The area of park has been further reduced by the INTAG boundaryto 996,850 ha, only two-thirds of its original size. All of the reductionhas been at the expense of lowland rainforest ecosystems below 1000 m.Subsequently, Jambi province, concerned about catchment deforestationand potential worsening of -existing flooding problems, has asked formajor revisions to the Jambi park boundary to include many of the areasexcised in 1985.

5. In 1991 and 1992 DHV Consultants prepared a project inceptionreport with 20 background reports containing a wide-ranging set ofrecommendations on park establishment and management. Unfortunatelyit appears that no mechanism was established by the World Bank and theGovernment of Indonesia to review and address these recommendations.In August 1994 a project preparation process was established whichwould lead to formal project appraisal by the Government of Indonesia,the World Bank and the Global Environmental Facility. This RegionalImpact Assessment is intended to fulfil the World Bank's requirementsunder Operational Directives 4.01, 4.20 and 4.30 as part of that projectpreparation process.

18

1.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE REGIONAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Regional Impact Assessment: Definition and Purpose

6. As the name implies, a regional impact assessment is an analysis ofthe consequences of one or more development projects, where the projector projects are anticipated to have significant environmental, social oreconomic effects far beyond their immediate locality. Regional impactassessments are particularly appropriate where impacts affect a numberof different sectors and require a coordinated management response, or

* where effective impact management requires policy or institutionalchange. Regional impact assessments fall into two broad categories:

a) assessment of the cumulative impacts of a number of developmentprojects on a geographic region, and the design of a common,coordinated impact management program to guide the activities ofgovernment and the various project proponents; and

b) assessment of the impacts of single large project with extensiveenvironmental, land use and socio-economic developmentimplications, the 7nanagement of which requires significant policy,administrative and fiscal responses from national and localgovernments.

7. The Kerinci-Seblat ICDP Regional Impact Assessment clearlybelongs in the second category. It must be stressed that the assessmentof impacts and identification of management opportunities should not beundertaken retrospectively after project design, but rather is an integralpart of project development from inception. In other words, initialimpact scoping carried out in the context of overall project objectivesand goals should lead to design criteria that avoid or minimize scopedimpacts. Thus the purpose of this regional assessment was to evaluatethe following:

1) the extent to which the ICDP design meets project objectives fornatural resource and biodiversity conservation;

2) the potential impacts of adjacent development activities onbiodiversity conservation and park integrity; and

19

3) the impacts (positive and negative) of the Kerinci-Seblat ICDPdesign on adjacent human communities and on opportunities forfuture economic development.

8. For the purposes of this analysis, the study area chosen for anassessment of direct impacts is bounded by the road from Pedang toSolok, the trans-Sumateran Highway from Solok to Lubuk Linggau, the roadfrom Lubuk Linggau to Bengkulu, and the coastline from Bengkulu toPadang. In addition, where considered necessary and where adequateinformation is available, some assessment will be made of the moreindirect impacts at the provincial levels.

CHAPTER 11 THE EXISTING BIOPHYSICAL SETTING FOR KERINCI-SEBLAT AND VICINITY

2.1 THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

2.1.1 Major Physiographic Zones and Landforms

9. The study area contains three broad physiographic regions (Figure1), from west to east: the Western Coastal Foothills; the BarisanMountains and associated rift valleys; and the Jambi-Palembang Plains.Though the whole study area is broadly classed as tropical perhumidclimate, the three regions have somewhat different moisture andtemperature regimes because of their alignment at right angles toprevailing weather systems and the extreme altitudinal variation.Generally there is a trend from moister in the west to drier in the east,with the mountains characterized by great diversity. These climaticvariations have a significant influence on vegetation patterns. Figures 2and 3 show generalized landscape systems and drainage patterns,respectively, for the study area.

10. The Western Coastal Foothills vary from steep-sided ridge systemsunderlain by acid igneous rocks north of Mukomuko to more moderate hillsand ridges between Mukomuko and Bengkulu developed on sedimentarystrata. These hills and ridges are dissected by about 25 steep-gradient,youthful rivers flowing short distances from headwaters in the foothills

20

;' ILj

Iri INt , ta_a

* 1Lubuk Mega bu

I \NlK - , v t>lOU hom~ .55C

It-~~~~~~~~~IC

L -

jL E GE ND I9 It - .W2S estern Coastal Foothils I - S f gj n

@iCentral Barisan flou,itai,ts I.+ , MISouiher Earisan Mountains!1s

IEDjavbi-Pak,nbang Plains: ;a Park boundar3 7>

I. .

0Kmu 0 220 1 m

FIgu.ral. Ph3sioy-apliic Regions.

21

[Inc;%.G oir Siluniung cSu0*

L r G ED.afi a

EBa Mountait~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.s. in ad i .1

Ikai TonaTurnun Olis

MuOrO Elurgo

of-

I I Alhviat/Colil)vial Mattals .:- Pniali

Moutaisouc

__IFigure Z. LancclSwpa Sg5temo.

22

I S OSiunjung

PDANG

Allahon Pao n n

i<>ure3 Majo .rT u,n uKoa5 or

^,oruo

' < \K > O~~~ ~~~~~~~rk m a

E3 Park Doundary lgo, Pen

Figure~~ Monoo ring yses

23

straight to the sea. In the study area only two rivers penetrate theBarisan Range to drain central rift valleys: Air Dikit and its majortributary Air Langkap; and Air Ketahun. Rainfall varies from 3000-3500mm/yr on the coast to 3500-4200 mm/yr in the foothills. The dominantsoils of this physiographic region are deep, acidic, very infertile ultisolsand oxisols.

11. The Barisan Mountains and associated rift valleys are characterizedby great topographic, climatic and lithologic diversity over very shortdistances. Mountain peaks commonly reach 2000m and in places exceed3000m. Geology consists of a complex mix of basic volcanics, acidigneous rocks, and matamorphic and sedimentary strata. Drainagepatterns are also very complex, with major river systems flowing to allpoints of the compass. Rainfall in the mountains to the west of thecentral rift valley varies between 3500 and 5500 mm/yr. The rift valleysexperience a significant rainshadow effect, with precipitation rangingfrom 1700 to 2300 mm/yr. Rainfall in the eastern mountains is moremoderate than in the western ranges, varying from 2500 to 3000 mm/yr.Soils are as varied as the geology, ranging from fertile andepts onbasaltic volcanic parent materials to extremely acid, very infertilepodzolic oxisols and ultisols on acid igneous, sedimentary andmetamorphic parent materials.

12. The Jambi-Palembang Plains consist of longitudinal ridges andplains of minor relief traversed by slightly-incised river floodplains.Geology of the region consists of calcareous, carbonaceous or tuffaceoussedimentary rocks - siltstones, shales, sandstones and lignites. Theentire area is drained by tributaries of two of Sumatera's major riversystems - Batang Hari and Sungai Musi. Rainfall varies from 2500 to3000 mm/yr. Soils are dominated by very nutrient deficient, acidic toextremely acidic u:tisols and oxisols.

1 3. These brief regional descriptions reveal a region of greattopographic, climatic and lithologic diversity. Much more detailedlandform descriptions are provided in Appendix I. These are taken almostentirely from RePPProT (1988), and RePPProT landform symbols are givenfor ease of reference to that study's 1:250,000 land system/suitabilitymaps. This detailed description is provided as a basis for two importantanalyses in later sections of this RIA:

24

1 ) Landforms are the basic building-blocks of biodiversity, determiningboth the richness and productivity of primary vegetation and theform and persistence of seral stages after disturbance. In theabsence of up-to-date information on vegetation associations,landforms provide the only reliable basis for an assessment of theeffectiveness of park design in biodiversity conservation.

2) Soils and slope are amongst the major determining factors ofcapability and suitability for human use. Landform thus provides agood basis for an analysis of the opportunity costs of reserving landin park status.

2.1.2 Vegetation Zones and Important Floristic Species

14. The extreme elevational range of Kerinci-Seblat places it in a uniqueposition in terms of biodiversity conservation, since it is one of the fewareas in Southeast Asia where the full elevational range of tropicalvegetation types can be found in one location. These elevational zonesinclude Lowland Evergreen Rainforest (up to 500m), Low ElevationEvergreen Hill Forests (500-1OOm), Lower Montane Forests (1000-1800m), Upper Montane Forests (1800-2700m), and Subalpine Forests(>2700m). The evergreen rainforests of low elevation hills and plains aredominated by the family Dipterocarpaceae, which in Sumatera isrepresented by 10 genera and approximately 300 species. No otherrainforest in the world shows such abundance and diversity of a singlefamily of large trees. Also represented in these low elevation systems, inparticular west of Tapan, are diverse alluvial peat and freshwater swampcomplexes containing open sedge/grass plains, palm swamps, and peatforests interspersed with lowland dipterocarp forest. The Lower MontaneForest is a zone of transition between tropical and sub-temperatevegetation where lowland trees and shrubs of families such asDiptocarpaceae, Leguminoseae and Datiscaceae give way to trees andshrubs of the families Fagaceae, Lauraceae, and the order Coniferae.Major tree species include oaks of the genus Lithocarpus, chestnuts of thegenus Castanopsis, and conifers of the genera Agathus, Phyllocladus,Podocarpus, Dacrycarpus and Dacrydium. In the Upper Montane theseconifers begin to dominate the tree canopy , with understory vegetationfrom the heather family, especially the genera Rhododendron andVaccinium, and the myrtle family. The subalpine zones are characterized

25

by dwarf shrublands of conifers and heathers, interspersed with grassyheaths, boggs, scree/pummice slopes and rock. Herbaceous vegetationconsists of temperate grasses, such as Agrostis and Festuca, and rushesand sedges, such as Juncus, Carex, Scirpus and Cyperus.

15. The Kerinci-Seblat area has at least 4000 species of floweringplants alone, and is estimated to contain one-sixth of the total Indonesianand one-sixtieth of total world floral species (DHV 1993). Approximately60% of these floral species occur in lowland evergreen forests below600m which are becoming increasingly rare in Sumatera. Though thehigher elevation vegetation types have much lower biodiversity, they alsocontain many endemic species. If it can be successfully established, theKerinci-Seblat ICDP proposal could become a major genetic reservoir ofmany commercially important species that are rapidly disappearing fromthe rest of Indonesia and Southeast Asia: Dipterocarp timber genera suchas Shorea, Parashorea, Dipterocarpus, and Dryobalanops; other commercialtrees such as Agathus damara, gaharu Aquilaria spp., wild cinnamon, wildcitrus and other fruit trees. Other important and noteworthy florainclude: Rafflesia arnoldi, the world's largest flower and two otherRafflesia species; Amorphophallus titanum, the world's tallest flower;the star flower Rhizanthes zippelli; an endemic race of Pinus merkusii,thought to be the only natural occurrence of the genus in the southernhemisphere; at least 300 species of orchids; pitcher plants of the genusNepenthes; the tall edelweiss, Anaphilajavanica; high and low elevationwetland complexes; and the ferns Gleichenia and Dipteris, whose closestrelatives are fossil ferns from the Cretaceous period. (DHV 1993).

2.1.3 Faunal Species and Critical Habitats

16. As might be expected, this vegetation diversity supports an equallydiverse and impressive wildlife fauna (Table 1). There are 144mammalian species including nine ungulates, three large predators, eight

* small to medium sized predators, 1 0 primates, three otters, at leasteleven rodents/lagomorphs and numerous bats and small terrestrialinsectivores. aFlagship" species include the Sumateran tiger, elephantand rhinoceros, siamang and agile gibbons, Malatan tapir, clouded leopard,Malayan sun bear, long-tailed and pig-tailed macaques, and silvered,banded and red leaf-monkeys. The region has more than 180 species ofbirds that include six species of kingfishers, possibly as many as ninehornbills, pheasants, woodpeckers, barbets, pigeons, thrushes, and

26

Table 1. Key Faunal Species in the Kerinci-Seblat Area

Mammals

Aeromys tephromelas Black flying squirrelAethalops alecto Grey fruit-batAonyx cineria Oriental small-clawed otterArcticus binturong Bearcat (binturong)Arctonyx collaris Hog badgerCallosciuris prevostii Prevost's squirrelCapricornis sumatraensis Mountain goat (serow)Cervus unicolor Sambar deerCuon alpinus Wild dogCrocidura attenuata Grey shrewCynocephalus variegatus Flying lemurCynogale bennetti Otter civetDicerorhinus sumatrensis Sumateran rhinocerosEchinosorex gymnurus moonratElephas maximus Sumateran elephantFelis bengalensis Leopard catFelis planiceps Flat-headed catFelis marmorata Marbled catFelis temmincki Asian golden catHelarctos malayanus Malayan sun bearHylobates agilis Agile gibbonHylobates syndactylus SiamangLeopoldamys edwardsi Edward's ratLutra lutra Eurasian otterLutra sumatrana Hairy-nosed otterMacaca fascicularis Long-tailed macaqueMacaca nemestrina Pig-tailed macaqueManis javanica Pangolin (scaly anteater)

* Maxomys inflatus RatMaxomys hylomyoides RatMuntiacus munjak Common barking deerMus crociduroides Volcano mouseMustela hamakeri Sumateran weaselMustela lutreolina WeaselMustela nudipes Malayan weaselMydaus javanensis Malayan badger (teledu)

27

Neofelis nebulosa Clouded leopardNesolagus netscheri Kerinci hareNiviventer rapit Mountain spiney ratNycticebus coucang Slow lorisPanthera tigris Sumateran tigerPresbytis cristata Silvered leaf-monkeyPresbytis melalophorus Banded leaf-monkeyPresbytis rubicunda Red leaf-monkeyRattus baluensis Kinabalu ratRattus korinchi Kerinci ratRatufa affinis Giant squirrelRatufa bicolor Black giant squirrelSundamys infraleutus Giant Sumateran ratSus scrofa Bush pigTapiris indicus Malay tapirTarsius bancanus TarsierTragulus javanicus Lesser mouse deerTragulus napu Greater mouse deer

Birds

Anorrhinus galeritus Bushy-crested hornbillArborophila rubirostris Red-billed partridgeArgusianus argus Great argus pheasantBerenicornis comatus White-crowned hornbillBuceros rhinoceros Rhinoceros hornbillChioropsis venusta Blue-masked leafbirdCochoa beccarli Sumateran cochoaDendrocitta occipitalis Short-tailed magpieDicrurus sumatranus Sumateran drongoLophura ignata Crested fireback-pheasantLophura inornata Salvadori's pheasantMyiophoneus melanurus Shiny whistling thrushNopthera rufipectus Rusty-breasted wren babblerOtus stresmanni Kerinci Scops owlPellorneum buettikofer Buettikofer's babblerPitta venusta Black-crowned pittaPolyplectron chalcurum Sumateran peacock-pheasantPycnonotus leucogrammicus Cream-striped bulbulPycnonotus tympanistriga Spot-necked bulbul

28

-Rhinoplax vigil Helmeted hornbillRhyticeros corrugatus Wrinkled hornbill-Rhyticeros undulatus Wreathed hornbill

29

babblers. The Kerinci-Seblat region contains14 of the endemicSumateran birds and 5 of the endemic Sumateran mammals. Much less isknown about reptile, amphibian and invertebrate fauna, however, becauseof their relative immobility they are likely to show much greaterincidence of rareness and endemism than the mammals and birds.

17. In an area of great topographic and vegetation diversity such asKerinci-Seblat animal species fall generally into the following threegroups:

1. Animals adapted to closed forest as habitat and food source.

Depending on location, this group includes between 70 and 85 percentof the mammalian species, 70 and 75 per cent of the bird species, andprobably close to 100% of amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates. Thispreponderance of forest-dwelling species is not surprising since it isthe most complex vegetation type with the most niches and, until veryrecent human intervention, evergreen rainforest dominated thelandscape of Sumatera. Common species in this group include lemurs,tarsiers, squirrels, gibbons and siamang, the leaf-monkeys, sun bear,pig-tailed macaque, hornbills, woodpeckers, and a host of smallerbirds. As a general rule, species in this group are less mobile, morestatic in their ranges, and often, as with gibbons, very territorial.Exceptions are the sun bear, banded leaf monkey, and pig-tailedmacaques which all appear to range and forage widely within closedcanopy forest.

2. Terrestrial grazers and browsers, and associated predators.

This group of species is adapted to mixtures of closed-forest,shrublands and grasslands, utilizing the forest for cover and travel, andthe grass-shrub lands for food. Under original evergreen rainforestcover, they fed primarily on the lush growth of grasses, forbs andshrubs in swamps and alluvial valley bottoms, which still probablyconstitute critical habitats, and on pioneer regrowth resulting fromlandslips and other natural disturbances. Common herbivore andomnivore species in this group include elephant, tapir, rhinoceros, deer,bear cat, pig, and long-tailed macaque. All of these species travel longdistances over extended ranges in search of suitable food, though allthe herbivors appear to be very dependent on traditionally-used mineral

30

genera, at about 1300 m within the montane zone (Wells, Hails andHails). On Gunung Benom, a 2100 m peak in central Malaya, Medway(1972) observed that of 191 bird species and 81 mammal species, 30and 29 respectively were recorded only below 300 m, the first andminor species disjunction. Both birds and mammals show a majordisjunction at 750 m, the transition between lowland and lowermontane zones, with 74 and 85 percent of species, respectively, notfound any higher. Of the lowland bird species only 3 percent werefound above 1200 m, and there is a small montane avifauna of 46species not found below that elevation.

18. The species distributions and habitat requirements described abovehave fundamental consequences for park boundary and buffer zonemanagement considerations, if Kerinci-Seblat National Park is to provideany significant wildlife conservation function. As Whitmore (1984)observed, *The general conclusion ....is that the cooler, moister montaneforests support smaller and less diverse faunas. Montane forest carryingcapacity is less and the total animal biomass per hectare is lower.Beyond this no general picture can yet be formed....except that thesteepland boundary seems usually to be very important. Mountain forestsare at present under less threat of destruction than lowland forests, butthey cannot be regarded as suitable habitat for self-sustainingpopulations of the distinctive and rich lowland faunas....".

2.1.4 The Biodiversity Importance of Kerinci-Seblat

19. The Kerinci-Seblat area has high biodiversity value because itcovers the whole spectrum of vegetation types and wildlife species fromlowland forests to alpine, representing the full floral and faunal diversityof lowland, hill and mountain tropical rainforests. This is the largestremaining intact block of tropical rainforest in Southern Sumatera.Species-rich dipterocarp forests below 600 m and wetland habitats areparticularly valuable since they are the most threatened ecosystems inSumatera and are poorly represented elsewhere in the Sumateran reservesystem (DHV 1993). Unless the current rates of deforestation and landdegradation are arrested, it is likely that within ten years Kerinci-Seblatand Leuser National Parks may be the only significant areas of intactupland rainforest left in Sumatera. Both of these areas will then becomevital reservoirs of genetic material for any attempts at natural forest re-establishment. In addition, Kerinci-Seblat may represent one of the last

31

opportunities in Southeast Asia to conserve a diverse and complex large-mammal predator-prey system.

2.1.5 Land Suitability

20. Three aspects of land suitability will be discusses in this section:forest zonation; land suitability for sustainable permanent agriculturalcultivation; and environmental hazards.

Forest Function Zonation (Tata Guna Hutan Ke eakatan-TGHKI

21. The Indonesian forest function classification (TGHK) is a landzonation tool that attempts to deal with interagency conflicts over theuse of lands under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forests. it wasinitiated in the 1970s under Government Regulation No. 33 of 1970 andformalized in a set of Minister of Agriculture Decrees in 1980 and 1981.The deadline set for completing initial TGHK designations in all provinceswas 1985. The process was coordinated by the regional planning boards(BAPPEDA) with strong involvement by the regional Ministry of Forestsrepresentative (Kanwil Kehutanan).

22. TGHK defined five broad functional land use designations as follows:Lnd Functioa Primary P-uroe Timber Extraction

Nature Reserve Genetic conservation. None.(PPA/HSA)

Protection (HL) Watershed protection. None.

Limited production Timber production and Selection felling only,(HPT) Watershed protection. with very restrictive

diameter limit.

Regular production Natural timber production. Selection or clear(HBT/HNB) felling as determined

by forest type.

Conversion Potentially convertible Clear felling if the(HPK) to other uses. area is to be

converted.

32

The distinction between protection, limited production, and regularproduction is based on a sirmple erosion index derived from the dominantsoil type, slope and rainfall intensity. Numerical values for each of thesecharacteristics are summed to determine the functional category. Land isplaced in the protection category regardless of index if: the slope issteeper than 40%; soils are in the most erodible class (5) and slope is over15%; altitude is greater than 2000m; or the area is within 200m of aspring. No attempt has been made to give a numerical distinction betweenregular production and conversion designations and the division of landbetween these two is largely the function of consensual land use planningprocesses. TGHK designations were originally delineated on 1:50.0,000map sheets and have formed the basis for many subsequent land usedecisions.

23. While the theory behind the TGHK may have been sound, in mostregions the 1985 designations were deeply flawed because adequateinformation was not assembled in any organized way to support anobjective classification. Thus the resulting TGHK zoning became highlysubjective, inconsistent and often very inaccurate. In addition, thedecision was made that the designations protection and limited productionwould constrain only the timber harvesting system not road design andconstruction, which are often the most hydrologically damaging aspects oflogging operations.

24. One of the major activities undertaken by the Regional PhysicalPlanning Program for Transmigration (RePPProT) was to organizebiophysical, land zonation and land status information for use in regionalland use planning. In reviewing the TGHK designations, RePPProT teamsfound that the 1:500,000 map series on which they were plotted was veryinaccurate, with features and category boundaries often not matchingbetween adjacent map sheets. To correct this the TGHK boundaries werereplotted on new 1:250,000 base maps. The first province on which thisreplotting was completed was Central Kalimantan, and it immediatelybecame obvious that there were fundamental problems with the 1985functional designations. Not only were there large areas of ounclassifiedlands", but there was seldom any consistency between the zones andeither actual biophysical units or present land use/land condition. For allsubsequent provinces the RePPProT teams proposed extensive revisions tothe TGHK designations based on present land use/land condition, a greater

£33

degree of ecological consistency within zones, and the application of thebest available and most recent information on soils, topography andrainfall. These RePPProT maps presently represent the mostaccurate and reliable reflection of the TGHK criteria and will beused in this assessment even though they may not yet have beenaccepted by the Ministry of Forests. The RePPProT TGHK zonation

* for all of the lands within the study area outside the INTAG park boundaryis shown in Figure 5. As can be seen, the overwhelming proportion of landadjacent to the park falls within the protection forest classification, as

* do the majority of the lands excised from the park and placed in timberconcessions (see section 2.2.5 below).

Suitability for Sustainable. Permanent AgriculLural Production

25. Major soils of the study area (see Figure 4) include fertile volcanics(alfisols and andep!s), acidic and infertile red-yellow podsols (oxisols andultisols), wet organic soils (histosols and aquatic entisols) and complexesof colluvial and alluvial sediments (inceptisols and entisols).

26. By far the most common soils, on an areal basis, are the ultisols andoxisols. For practical purposes these two soil orders can be consideredtogether, and they encompass most of the ured" soils of the humid tropics.They develop from the long-te.rm weathering of acidic to intermediaterock types under conditions of constant humidity and high rainfall.Physical properties are generally good, but chemical properties are verypoor and include: high acidity; aluminum toxicity; deficiencies ofphosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulphur, zinc and othermicronutrients; and low effective cation exchange capacity which meansthey have a high leaching potential. There appears to be a growingconsensus by soil scientists and agronomists that rainfed dryland annualcropping on ultisols and oxisols is likely to be neither sustainable norprofitable except in the short-term. There appears to be no economicallyviable way under continuous cropping to neutralize acidity, overcomealuminum toxicity, and replace nutrients that are constantly being leachedaway. In addition, these soils are highly erodible under poor management.The traditional method of working these fragile soils by shiftingcultivation allows fertility to be regained with at least five year's offallow after one year's cropping. This allows the topsoil to regain somehumus and organic matter; both of which are important as stores ofnutrients, in conserving soil moisture and in regulating soil temperature.

34

JL nI.

r.--=Aid:;c,..e $ ;>

'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

-I -: ________._!

IAs

al (I Atie. -7o,,

~~- - f -K.i' ;zs. . aI:aI

Fur4 b"ominm-t 5i Grup

1Az8eviAn- l9i ttl-. N < 9

I CoIkv/!?I (Ivceri 'olso 9 c.

I Pat/!.1icks(U (oIlsrIifO!b6, .I9.___ ___ __ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ __15 Prll):EjaGKULU

F'5ure4. tbomina~nt SoiL Groups.

35

4 AN

Thn~~~~~er Conc.es~ ~ ~~~~ndaf Oea,-n."Pd gI

....... .. S uDu^ss; ll ~~~PROVINCE

(sQ~et~t ji~ &ie5 k

s°25 | \ ~~~~~~~~~Roniciu Pnnici,lg

Fi~~ur ~ B.Frs o~i0 T K n ang se

- s\leaN

3uaf o .>knne~~~~qra_ Af nsuq

iL E GE ND iLUDUk

[I.M Wc-6-r.5hCd Protecftion.I "gXL-L- Limnited Prodc6ction. X

Full Prod-ionJ/Corsion. Nature Reserve. i -

RZM T'ransrnirahar,/TrzGchps. .- 5 trl , rJn6e Cor5sion5. ! NGKULU

(Suto t for Gmp&ng na),' oKIDK Igo 220 |1

Figyre 5S. Forest Zontmon (TG IK) and Land Use.

36

Continuous cropping, which is practised by many in-migrants, willeventually lead to nutrient depletion and permanent site degradation. Atbest, the least acidic of these soils may be considered marginallysuitable for aluminum tolerant tree crops (rubber) and dryland food crops(cassava), but only if the latter are rotated and only if uheroic' measuresare undertaken to maintain soil organic matter.

27. Volcanic soils include youthful andepts and older alfisols. Most aredeep, very friable and dark-coloured, and are characterized by appreciableamounts of an amorphous clay mineral called allophane which has a highcation exchange capacity. The level of organic carbon in the soil isnormally high but base saturation varies considerably. Phosphorus iscommonly deficient for many crops because of a very strong chemicalbonding to the allophane, which renders it unavailable for plant uptake.While these soils have generally favourable chemical characteristics, theyhave the limitation of extreme erodibility, a major consideration giventhat there are no really flat-lying volcanics in the study area. Because ofthis, these soils probably rate no better than marginally and locallysuitable for dryland crops, anid their main value may be in the cultivationof cassiavera, particularly if the plantations are not clean-weeded.

28. It is difficult to generalize about alluvial/colluvial materials, sinceinherant productivity will be related to the characteristics of the originalparent rocks. They tend to be younger soils, the product of relativelyrecent weathering and erosional processes, and thus are of somewhathigher productivity that older, more highly-weathered soils derived fromthe same parent materials. Acidic podzolic soils under waterloggedalluvial or irrigated conditions, are not subject to the same limitations asthe upland ultisols and oxisols. The flooding and resultant anaerobicconditions, whether natural or induced by irrigation, neutralize acidity,immobilize alumium, release fixed phosphorus, and enhance nitrogenlevels through the nitrogen-fixing abilities of blue-green algae. Fertilitymay be even further enhanced, independent of in-situ soil fertility, ifirrigation waters originate from basic volcanic watersheds. Colluvialmaterials, particularly those composed of friable volcanic debris, are veryprone to erosion and require a high degree of care under permanentagriculture. Like most unstable materials, they are probably only suitablefor perennial tree and shrub crops with no undercropping.

29. Organic soils are subject to two serious limitations: sulphide

37

oxidation under cultivation in coastal wetlands; and subsidence due toaccelerated decomposition in deep peats. The chemical processes leadingto acid generation in coastal wetlands are well understood, but thedistribution of sulphide materials is so complex that mapping to avoidthese problematic materials is very expensive. There is much differenceof opinion over the groundwater regimes and maximum depths of peat thatcan be sustainably and economically cultivated without danger ofsubsidence and inundation. There are also many failed experiments. Forthese reasons, cultivation for the time being should be limited to peatdepths of less than 50 cm that are not subject to sustained flooding. Inthe study area this applies both to the coastal peat swamps west of Tapanand to the high elevation wetlands in the Kerinci Valley.

30. Under any given climatic regime, analysis of suitability forsustainable agriculture must consider the relationship between landform,moisture regime and inherant soil fertility. Figure 6 shows a verygeneralized suitability rating for the study area, borrowing heavily on theRePPProT land suitability analysis. This analysis will form the basis of alater assessment of the impact of the park on agricultural potential(section 5.2.1)

Environmental Hazards

31. Figure 7 shows those parts of the study area that are most at riskfrom four types of natural hazard: landslides resulting from unstable soilmaterials on steep slopes; flooding of major river systems; volcaniceruptions; and earthquakes along major rift valley fault lines (adaptedfrom RePPProT 1984).

32. Though landslides are individually neither as spectacular nor asdamaging as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions or floods, they are much morecommon and widespread. They thus probably cause more damage than anyother environmental hazard. Throughout the study area there are manyareas of colluvial fans and terraces that are in a state of 'dynamicequilibrium" under present conditions. Increases in moisture content or,more commonly, excavations of the toe of the slope for road constructioncan alter the stability of the deposit causing it to slip downhill along anunderlying consolidated layer. In other cases, landslides can result fromagriculture or forest harvesting abuse. As illustrated in Figure 7,landslide-prone landscapes occupy almost 90 per cent of the study area,

38

~~~Sa~Ok Squngung &G3U~~~~~ hUMAI Rh:W 50101s snua.,.5b

s : .. :a S a~~~~~~~~~~~~naeln ,ln Oea§DI

' ~> 'I3t A elkO Tonan Tumtoun

ICoDoQ Mucra Bungo

L VP>'' u; POvI hC E

Ranlou Ponlong

:; L

s . "El.cmull @n ~

LEGEND 9Ml nsuitalole (slo e,ferhli9lj

l) Unsuitable fe3 -h:<

iUlVhr3 vialI sultableR- aopS,1Z Itagnls,i - iopi -~

igmSu iat2efordy i,Y I,;gK;J

Ogm too 220Km _ -

Figure 6. Land 5uitabi litj for Sustainable, PermnnientAgricu lturai Croppm3.

39

| 1 w _ _ L~~~~~~uit tgMelakats anono Tmbu

,} + a _ 0 3fl5o~~~~~~~~~~~~ntou Ponjong

tLaridsl,de- prone Areas. 1* Il Flood- prone Areas.

Areas ofvoic-arit AdlhlB ri

OK. 1l0 2L 0\M

'Fgure. EnviroemebLt hlkarck.

40

which has significant consequences for land use and watershedmanagement activities.

33. Almost all tributaries of the Batang Hari and Sungai Musi aresubject to regular, serious flooding. In the upper reaches of these riversystems, shown in blue in Figure 7, flooding has been aggravated by theexcessive catchment deforestation and land disturbance that has occurredin recent years. The resulting accelerated erosion has probably causedsignificant riverbed accretion. These floods are of high velocity andcommonly transport a heavy, coarse and very damaging sediment load. In1992 the Batang Hari flooded, destroying hundreds of hectares of crops,inundating at least 200 villages and killing 1 0 people. The economy ofJambi City was paralysed for over a week (DHV Report 6. 1993) Until nowcommunities on the in the western coastal foothills have been sparedsignificant flooding, however, increasing deforestation and catchmentdegradation, combined with steep-gradient streams and narrow valleys,may increase the probability of future flooding and debris torrents.Development in all parts of the study area is proceeding very rapidly,resulting in accelerated deforestation, soil erosion and sedimentdeposition. There is an urgent need to reassess and enforce land userestrictions and land tenures.

34. Approximately twenty areas most likely to be affected by volcanicactivity have been identified on Sumatera by RePPProT, and four of theseoccur in the study area. These include Mts. Malenggok-Kerinci-Tuju northof the Kerinci Valley, Mts. Sumbing and Masurai near Dusun Tuo, and thecluster of six volcanoes north of Curup.

35. The two major geological faults flanking the central rift valley inthe Barisan Mountains makes this area extremely prone to seismicactivity and deep-focus earthquakes. Parts of the rift such as MuaraLabuh, Lubuk Gadang, the Kerinci Valley and Muara Aman are denselypopulated with significant deforestation and land degradation. In suchareas even minor earthquakes can trigger damaging landslides.

2.2 THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

2.2.1 Traditional Forest Use

36. Ethno-botanical surveys have noted 116 native forest species in

41

Kerinci-Seblat used by indigenous people (DHV Report 17, 1993). Many ofthese species have more than one use, which include: timber andconstruction wood (59); food sources (25); handicrafts and tool making(10); resins and glues (7); medicinal (6); binding and roofing materials (5);spices (5); incense and perfume (5); ceremonial purposes (2); wrappingmaterial (2); and insecticide (1). The major commercial harvests of minorbotanical products from the park and surrounding forests are incense wood(gaharu), rattan (Calamus spp), and the resens dammar and Manila copal,tapped from trees of the Diperocarp family and the coniferous genusAgathus respectively. The harvest of these resources is entirelyunregulated and some, such as rattan, are now showing signs of seriousover-exploitation.

2.2.2 Hunting and Poaching

37. Some meat hunting takes place adjacent to, and probably within, thepark for deer and, where religion permits, bush pig. Elephant, pig, deermacaque and some of the predator species are probably killed regularly inagricultural areas. Poaching of tiger and rhinoceros is reported,particularly along the western boundary of the park in the Tapan, PasirSelatan and Indrapura areas. It is probable that increasing vegetationclearance adjacent to the park has drawn the rhinoceros (for food) and thetiger (for prey) outside the park where they are more vulnerable topoachers. Illicit bird capture is also thought to be increasing, withnoticeable impact in the park on the main target species, the straw-headed bulbul (Pycnonotus zeylanicus) and the white-rumped shama(Copsychus malabaricus).

2.2.3 Human Population and Settlement

38. The major original ethnic groups near the Park are the Minang in thenorth, their closely related neighbours the Kerinci in the centre, the lpuhalong the coast, and the Rejang in the south. Though maintaining many oftheir original customs (i.e. matrilinearity among the Minang and Kerinci),the cultural patterns of these groups have evolved under the influence ofIslam, colonial rule, wartime Japanese occupation and the modernIndonesian State (DHV Report 3, 1993). These people are the mainclaimants to the traditional or adat uses described above.

39. In-migration of non-indigenous people (mainly from Java but also

42

from other parts of Sumatera and from Sulawesi) began in colonial timesand has continued to the present day. Initially these people came ascontract labourers for tobacco, rubber, coffee and tea estates, and manyopted to settle as small iarmers when their contracts expired. Afterindependence the Government initiated an official transmigration programinvolving the creation of ethnically mixed communities on previouslyunoccupied lands. Approximately thirty-two such settlements have beenestablished in the study area (Figure 5). These settlements have createdfoci for another wave of in-migrants, the swakarsa or unassistedtransmigrants, many of whom have recently come to establish cassiaveraplantations for absentee landlords (DHV 1992). Jambi, Bengkulu, andSouth Sumatera have been primary destinations for both official andswakarsa transmigration. As a result the population growth rates otthese provinces have averaged 1.5 to 2 times the national average. Annualpercentage population growths for the periods 1971-80 and 1980-1985have average '4.1 and 3.6 for Jambi; 4.5 and 4.0 for Bengkulu; and 3.4 and3.2 for South Sumatera. By contrast, West Sumatera, which was never asignificant transmigration destination, had annual population growths forthe same periods of only 2.2 and 1.5 per cent. The net effect ofimmigration to the former three provinces over this period was theaddition of 1.252 million people. Many authorities now believe thatSumatera's population has reached or even exceeded agricu'tural carryingcapacity, and view this rapid population growth as the main factorresponsible for many of the serious environmental problems on the islandof Sumatera. In 1991 the Ministry of Transmigration's multi-disciplinaryTransmigration Advisory Group reported to the Ministry uspontaneous in-migration is one of the greatest environmental hazards faced by Sumateraand greatly upgraded measures to plan for this movement now seems to beimperative".

40. By 1990 the four provinces surrounding the park had a totalpopulation of 13.5 million people. The nine Kabupaten overlying the parkhave a total population of 3.3 million, and the thirty-six Kecamatan thateffectively contain the park a combined population of 1.75 million. Thepopulation of the 194 villages directly adjacent to the park boundary isbetween 230,000 and 250,000 people. The largest population centres inthe viciiity of the park are Sungai Penuh (62,000), Curup (131,000) andLubuk Linggau (103,000). Several communities now exist within the parkboundary, some of which are apparently of long standing. It is claimedthat the village of Tanjung Kerasi, on Air Langkap west of Dusun Tuo,

43

dates from the 1920s and has existed for six generations. The enclave ofRenah Pemetik, in the Low Barisans east of the Kerinci Valley, is said tohave been established by escaped conscript labourers during the Japaneseoccupation. In all, it is estimated that approximately 45,000 peoplecurrently live within the park boundary, of whom perhaps 3000 to 4000may reside in areas of critical conservation importance (DHV Report2,1993).

2.2.4 Agricultural Practice and Park Encroachment

41. True shifting cultivation is much less common now in Sumatera thanin other provinces, probably because of the significant in-migration andcompetition for land. It has been replaced by a system of more of lesspermanent settlements situated close to home gardens and irrigated orrainfed rice fields. Perennial cash crops - rubber, coffee, or cassiavera -are raised in upland gardens (referred to as either ladang or kebun), thatmay be up to a two-hour journey from the homesite. This two-hour figureis very consistent between communities and seems to be the outside limitof travel time that does not seriously detract from the time spent in cropcultivation. This travel time has is a significant consideration whenlooking at the potential impact of roads on agricultural encroachment.Annual food crops may be rotated within the cash crop areas, which arecommonly up to 2 ha in extent

42. Agricultural encroachment into the park is estimated at more than50,000 ha, and falls into three general categories: first, cash andsubsistence crop cultivation along the park boundary, often on steepslopes, by people living outside the park; second, wetland rice cultivationand dryland agriculture in community enclaves within the park, usuallyassociated with rich volcanic soils in the rift and alluvial valleys; andthird, cassiavera plantations on upland slopes along roads that transectthe park, farmed by sharecroppers who usually reside outside the park.

2.2.5 Forest Concessions

43. Seventeen logging concessions belonging to twelve companies borderalmost the full length of the park boundary in Jambi and Bengkuluprovinces. Statistics on these concessions differ widely between sources.In order to develop data that was at least internally consistent,concession maps were obtained from the office of the Directorate General

44

of Forest Inventory and Forest Use in Jakarta. Boundaries were plotted onthe RePPProT 1:250,000 map bases and all subsequent area calculationswere made from these maps. The result of this exercise is presentedschematically in Figure 5, and in Table 2 which shows total concessionareas and the percent of each concession by TGHK category. Maps were notavailable for one block of the Mugitriman concession and for the BinaLestari concession, and areas of these have been inferred. Thepercentages are probably more reliable than the area figures, but both areprobably as accurate as any data that can be generated from existingsources.

44. The data shows, not surprisingly, that an overwhelming proportionof these concession areas, almost 70 per cent, lie in hill systems whichmeet the TGHK criteria for protection forest. Observations made in twofield inspections associated with the Kerinci-Seblat project preparationmission indicate that, in most concessions, few areas of limitedproduction or full production/conversion designation remain in naturalforest cover. Travelling the main haul road of the Sarestra I lease, forexample, the first 30 km inside the concession are entirely jungle rubberfadang, a transmigration site consisting of dryland rice and cassava wasencountered at about 32 km and small patches of encroachment weretaking place up to 40 km inside the boundary (see photos la, b and c). Thefirst intact natural forests occurred at about km 39, which coincided withthe transition from rolling to steep hill systems. It has been estimatedthat the proportion of the Jambi concession areas presently deforestedranges from a low of 31 per cent for Rimba Karya Indah to a high of 58 percent for Mugitriman, with an overall decline in forest cover of about 48per cent.

45. There are probably a number of factors contributing to the high rateof deforestation, amongst them an apparent total lack of enforcementagainst encroachers by Forest officials, concessionaires and localgovernment. The underlying cause, however, may be the continuinginappropriate application of the Indonesian selection cut system (TPTI).As noted by FAO (1990), the TPTI system is designed for Dipterocarpforests with a supra-normal diameter class distribution; relying on thesmall number of large diameter cornmercial stems in such stands toensure an appropriately light harvest (usually 6-8 stems per hectare).Increasingly, it is being realized that many Dipterocarp and most non-Dipterocarp forest stands do not meet this criterion, and that other

Table 2. Land Use and Forest Zonatlan Deslgnatlons for Forest Concesslons

Map I Concesslon * of Concesslon % Area by TGHK Zone or Existing Land Use(Ref. (Company Name) Blocks Area (Ha)Fig. 5)

Protection Limited Full Already Already TotalForest Production Production Converted: Converted:

Forest or Trans- Tree CropsConversion migration

Forest

1 Tldar Keningl Agung 1 13,950 61 39 100 Z

2 AimbaKaryalndah 2 45,900 61 25 14 100 CJ

3 Migitriman 2 101,100 100 1004 Sarestra I 1 61,000 81 17 2 1005 Nusa Lease 3 60,800 78 22 1006 Sarestrall 1 57,300 22 40 38 1007 Injapsin 1 50,500 39 50 11 1008 Dirgahayu Rlmba 1 115,200 62 15 23 1009 MaJu Jaya Raya 1 83,700 76 2 22 10010 Bina Samaktha 1 68,900 76 16 8 10011 Sari Bauok 1 43,200 44 1 a 26 12 10012 Bina Lestarl 1 60,000 100 100

Total Area and Overall % 17 761,450 68 14 9 8 1 100

Total Area (ha) by Category 517,800 106,600 68,500 60,900 7,650 761,450

48

mechanisms of yield control are required to prevent effectiveclearfelling. In a study of a Dipterocarp logging operation in Kalimantan,Cannon et al 1994) found that, prior to logging, Dipterocarp trees over the50 cm selection cut diameter limit comprised 70 per cent of stand basalarea. Logging removed 43 percent of total basal area and resulted in suchdamage to the residual stand that future yields were likely to becompromised. Large stand reductions leave the forest very vulnerable toagricultural encroachment. There is an urgent need to apply TPTI in amuch more discriminating manner and to develop alternatives to apply tostands of sub-normal diameter class distribution. This is most importantas logging moves into steeper hill catchments where forest degradationwill have even more serious environmental consequences.

46. Yet another factor pushing the pace of deforestation on a regionalscale in Jambi is the great disparity between processing capacity andsustainable wood supply. Total processing capacity in the province hasremained constant at just under under 2.0 million m3 of round wood since1 980. Over this same period, however, "sustainable" wood supply hasfallen with increased forest conversion from 1.7 million to slightly lessthan 0.5 million m3 (ODA, personal communication). A significantproportion of this latter figure now comes from hill forests that meet theTGHK criteria for protection forest and should not, in theory, be logged.

47. The logging of hill forest systems is of great concern becauseconcessionaires generally appear to lack the expertise and equipment tolog in an environmentally safe manner in even moderately steep terrain(Dick and Purwono 1991 and Schweithelm and Zuwendra 1991). In the verysteep hills of the Nusa Lease block between Sarestra I and the park, themain access road has been driven up the ridge spines at road gradesapproaching 18 per cent. Despite the fact that the road will be used foronly 2 to 3 years, it consists of very deep cuts with the cut materialsimply sidecast downslope (photos 2 a and b). Bladed skid roads, often onvery steep slopes, branch out from the main haul to collect felled logs(photos 3 a and b). Access to felling sites in such steep and brokentopography requires a much greater density of haul and skid roads, even tocollect the fewer trees allowed by the 60 cm diameter limit theoreticallyapplied in limited production forests. Directional felling onto skid roadsdoes not appear to be the rule here, and as a result there is considerableresidual stand damage (photos 4 a and b).

52

* 48. The levels of management observed during site visits to the NusaLease and Sarestra I concessions have many shortcomings even from the

* perspective of industrial forest operations. They are completelyinappropriate in the context of watershed and buffer zone management fora major biodiversity ICDP project. Environmental audits and casualobservations by the author throughout Indonesia would indicate that theconditions on these two leases are probably generally representative ofthe management practices on the other concessions in the study area.

2.2.6 Commercial Plantations

49. Commercial plantation or estate crop development with oil palm,rubber and cocoa is most common along the West Sumatera/Jambi borderand north of Bengkulu along the coast road. Tea plantations have beenestablished in the Kerinci Valley, at Lubuk Gadang and at Solok since the1920s. Over the past decade, given some of the mediocre results oforiginal food-crop transmigration programs, there has been increasingemphasis on "nucleus estate" transmigration (PIR-Trans). On suchprojects, blocks of commercial plantations are owned and tended bytransmigrant small-holders, with the produce sold to the uestate" forprocessing and marketing. Thus far there has been little consideration ofpark or wildlife interactions in the planning of any estate crops. Severaloil palm plantations in Jambi ana Bengkulu suffer regular damage of newerplantings from elephant, bush pig and macaques.

2.2.7 Mining Concessions

50. In the past five years a total of eight mining concessions haveexisted in the park and immediately-adjacent areas. One of theseconcessions was located completely within the park, five straddled thepark boundary and two others lay immediately adjacent to the park. Theseconcessions delineated the area over which a company could explore orprospect for minerals or coal. Five of these exploration operations appearto have revealed no economically mineable resources and the concessionshave bee.A subsequently surrendered. Of the remaining three, one is stillat the exploration stage and two are said to be undergoing feasibilitystudies. Promising areas of mineral potential, such as gold or copper, areusually very :ocalized and any subsequent production leases will probablybe issued for a fraction of the present concession areas. The twoconcessions undertaking feasibility studies are P.T. Barisan Tropical

53

Mining (gold), which lies outside the park along the extreme southeasternboundary in South Sumatera Province, and P.T. Ketahun (gold/copper),which straddles the park boundary east of lpuh in Bengkulu Province. Thecompany still at the exploration stage is P.T. Lusang Mining (gold/copper)which straddles the park boundary immediately south of P.T. Ketahun.Many small miners work stream and river valleys in and adjacent to thepark for placer or alluvial gold. Though considerable physical damage isoften caused by excavation of river sediments, a much more seriousenvironmental hazard results from the use of elemental mercury toseparate gold flakes from fine rock particles. Though mercury is benign inits liquid elemental form, in the natural environment it is convertedthrough a chemical process called methylation to organic compounds thatare very toxic and very persistent in food chains.

51. Coal resources, because they are almost always associated with flat-lying sedimentary strata, can be much more extensive than mineral orebodies. The impacts of mineral mining, particularly underground, may beslight and associated largely with the mine infrastructure. By contrast,the impacts of coal mining, which is often opencast, can be verysignificant, involving extensive land disturbance and environmentaldegradation which may last well beyond the period of active mining. Coaland lignite deposits occur in sedimentary rock strata in and around thepark, but there is no record of any coal mining or exploration activity.

2.2.8 Infrastructure and Transportation Development

52. Major road systems circle the park: the coast road from Bengkulu toPadang; the Trans-Sumatera Highway from Solok to Lubuk Linggau; and theconnector roads from the two provincial capitals to the Highway.Secondary roads leave these main highways at intervals to servicecommunities near the park; the main centres being, from north to south,Talao, Dusun Buat Air Liki, Dusun Tuo, Pulau Kidak, and Muara Aman. Tworoad systems traverse the park: the road from Bangko to Sungai Penuh andthe two arteries from Sungai Penuh to Tapan in the west and to LubukGadang in the north; and the short secondary road from Dusun Tuo to MuaraManderas. A number of factors, including park encroachment andinterprovincial competition, have created some demand for new roadsthrough the park. The main road proposals are: the partially started andcontroversial road from Muara Labuh to Kambang; a connection from SungaiPenuh east to the Renah Pemetik enclave; a connection from Lempur in the

54

Kerinci Valley south along the central rift to Muara Manderas or DusunTuo; a connection from lpuh on the Bengkulu coast to Muara Manderas; andfinally, a connection from Katenong along the southern rift to MuaraManderas. Tracks passible by foot and animals already exist along some ofthese routes.

53. New roads or even upgrading of existing tracks have potentiallysignificant implications for both park management and biodiversityconservation since they provide access to new settlers and opportunitiesfor the expansion of existing agricultural activities through access to newmarkets. Ladang cultivation, mainly for cassiavera, exists along almostevery road bordering the park, and encroachment is common whereverroads cross the boundary (see photos 5 a, b, c and d). The main constraintto further park encroachment is the lack of access since the furthestdistance between dwelling/home gardens and a Jadang is apparently a twohour trip. There are few if any examples in Indonesia of effectiveprevention of encroachment when new roads have been constructed intoareas of natural forest. As noted above, current road "proposals' fall intotwo categories: first, "roads of convenience" that transect the park,linking communities that already have road access; and second, roads toenclave communities inside the park which do not now have road access.There are four main proposals which fall into the first category. These,with attendant human encroachment, pose by far the more serious threatto park integrity; potentially fragmenting the park into isolated blocks,disrupting animal migration, and preventing the flow of genetic resources.

2.2.9 Park Management and Tourism Development

54. Since the park was proposed in 1982, the park authority (PHPA) hasrun it as a "project" activity with very limited fiscal, staff andequipment resources. In 1984 a project office was established in KersikTuo to coordinate activities across the four provinces surrounding thepark. The project office is headed by a Park Director who is a senior PHPAofficial. When government started the ICDP project in 1991, the project'sbudget immediately increased from Rp 147 million to 1,141 million. Themain project activities relate to biological inventories and boundarydemarcation.

55. Staffing levels total 74 persons; 18 in the project office at KersikTuo and 56 park guards resident in 20 guard posts. The first figure

57

includes about ten people who care for the small captive elephant herd atthe park headquarters. There are presently no district park offices andtherefore no deputies in the four provinces to assist the Park Director ininter-provincial coordination. Transportation consists of two elderlyvehicles, one on permanent loan from the World Wildlife Fund, four motorbikes at headquarters and another four distributed around the 20 guardposts. Park guard posts are generally some distance from the park and,since most guards have no transportation, patrolling and enforcementactivities are limited. For legal enforcement in the field, guards mustrely heavily on local government and police support. Mobilizing thissupport is a slow process and the damage (encroachment and poaching) isusually complete before preventative or enforcement actions can be taken.

56. Tourism development in Kerinci-Seblat has thus far been limited.Initial development of eco-tourism has taken place at Kersik Tuo near thepark headquarters, and at Napal Licin west of Pulau Kidak in SouthSumatera. The development at Kersik Tuo is aimed at enhancing theparticipation of the local community by developing homestay facilities,interpretation contres and guide services. PHPA has developed visitorfacilities at the park headquarters including guesthouses on the slopes ofGunung Tujuh and recreational elephant rides. The development at NapalLicin is privately funded by local and foreign travel agencies.Recreational amenities include forest lodges and river rafting. For theforeseeable future, tourism activities will probably centre on hiking,nature interpretation (mountain forests and Rawa Bento) and mountainclimbing in the Gunung Kerinci, Gunung Tujuh and Kerinci Valley areas.

2.2.10 Government Administrative Structure

57. The administrative setting for Kerinci-Seblat is extremely complex;a situation that will pose a very serious challenge to park managementand, in particular, to effective buffer zone management. The park overliesfour provinces - Jambi, West Sumatera, Bengkulu, and South Sumatera;nine Kabupaten (districts or regencies); and thirty-six Kecamatan (sub-districts). A total of 194 desa (villages) have been identified adjacent tothe park boundary. Managing through this administrative complexity willrequire mechanisms of intergovernmental integration and coordinationthat simply do not exist in Indonesia (or, for that matter, in many othercountries) at the present time.

58

2.2.11 Non-governmental and Community Organizations

58. A number of international and local NGOs currently work withinboundary village communities. The World Wildlife Fund Indonesia (WWF)has established the Kerinci-Seblat National Park Development Programwhich caries out the following activities related to park management:

1) assistance to park authorities in boundary surveys, mapping,wildlife and vegetation monitoring, and boundary surveillance;

2) assistance to local government in socia-economic surveys to assessthe extent and impact of human activities;

3) participation in the eco-tourism activities at Kersik Tuo; and

4) public education relating to the park boundary and independentmediation of conflicts between local communities and the park,including buffer zone management considerations.

There are also approximately 12 local NGO's working in four pilot areasaround the park under an umbrella conservation network called WARSI.WARSI's major interest is in grass-roots community development andbiodiversity conservation. WARSI and its constituent NGOs are assistingproject preparation activities by facilitating community consultation.

59. The DHV studies single out two village organizations that willprobably play a significant role in developing and implementing theintegrated conservation and development project: the Lembaga Sosial Desaor LSD, responsible for advising the village head and approving villagedevelopment plans and budgets; and the Lembaga Ketahanan MasyarakatDesa or LKMD, which is primarily a public participation mechanismconsidered the abottom rung" of the rural development planning process.

59

CHAPTER III A DESCRIPTION OF THE KERINCI-SEBLAT ICDPPROPOSAL

3.1 GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY AND INTEGRATED CONSERVATIONAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

3.1.1 Criteria for Global Environment Facility Proposals

60. The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) is a three year pilot projectto help developing countries protect the global environment. Specificallythe GEF is designed to assist developing countries by off-setting, at leastin part, the opportunity costs of: 1) greenhouse gas reduction; 2) ozonelayer conservation; 3) biodiversity conservation; and 4) protection ofinternational waters and aquatic resources. The Facility, which becameoperational in 1991, is administered by the United Nations EnvironmentProgram (UNEP), United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and theWorld Bank. General GEF criteria stipulate that a project must:

a) contribute to human welfare and sustainable development;b) be replicable in an international context;c) contain an incentive design to secure sustainability;d) be unlikely to be implemented by the country without GEF funding

(i.e. domestic costs exceed domestic benefits but global benefitsexceed domestic costs);

e) develop human and institutional capability;f) have a firm scientific basis;g) have a good chance of succeeding;h) have political, fiscal, legal, and administrative conditions that

favour effective implementation;i) include plans for regular project evaluation and dissemination of

results and knowledge; andk) include plans that demonstrate the project will be sustained by the

host country beyond the initial GEF funding.

61. In addition to these general criteria, areas considered forbiodiversity conservation support must meet one or more of the followingcriteria:

a) contain high ecological diversity and species richness;b) known to contain significant numbers or proportion of endemic

60

species;c) contain genetic resources of species of social, cultural or economic

importance;d) reflect sound principles of sustainable biodiversity management;e) threatened by destruction, degradation or conversion;f ) critical to the conservation of other associated ecosystems;g) contain habitats important to migratory species or to species that

clearly fall under international treaties, laws, agreements andconventions (i.e. RAMSAR, CITES etc)

3.1.2 The ICDP Concept in Kerinci-Seblat

62. If biodiversity conservation funding is to be obtained for the Kerinci-Seblat area there is an urgent need to reconcile the strong forcesfavouring further resource exploitation, primarily for wood production andcash-crop agriculture, with the interests to conserve the area's uniquebiodiversity and watershed protection values. The species-rich lowlandforests, which now exist if at all only as scattered remnants, and lowelevation hill forests are of prime concern, along with wetlands and theaccelerated encroachment of lower montane forest for cassiaveracultivation. The mechanism proposed to achieve this reconciliation inKerinci-Seblat is the concept of an Integrated Conservation andDevelopment Project (ICDP). This concept is similar to the InternationalBiosphere Reserve program of UNESCO in which core biodiversity andnatural resource conservation- zones are linked to surrounding areas ofintensive human use by intermediate buffer zones accommodating avariety of low impact uses. The Kerinci-Seblat ICDP proposal will consistof the following elements:

1 ) conservation of the outstanding biodiversity values through nationalpark and buffer zone management;

2) development of economic opportunities that are compatible with, orcomplimentary to, biodiversity conservation, in order to strengthenpublic and local community support for, and participation in, parkprotection and management;

3) protection of watersheds to prevent flooding and ensure sustained,quality water supply for downstream users;

4) a pilot project in the rationalization and strengthening of the legaland institutional framework for biodiversity and national parkmanagement and protection;

61

5) development of buffer zone management regimes that protect andenhance park and watershed management, and contribute to theprosperity of local communities;

6) development of practical and effective mechanisms for publicparticipation in on-going design and implementation of the ICDP;

7) raising public awareness of biodiversity values and commitment totheir protection;

8) development of new and innovative funding mechanisms forbiodiversity conservation; and

9) a demonstration project leading to improved mechanisms of regionaldevelopment planning and spatial planning to more effectivelyintegrate natural resource conservation and sustainable economicdevelopment.

3.2 KERINCI-SEBLAT NATIONAL PARK

3.2.1 National Park Objectives

63. Project design has posed four major objectives for National Parkmanagement:

1) to secure and protect within the park an ecologically completerepresentation of the continuous spectrum of biotic zones andassociated vegetation communities in the Kerinci-Seblat region;

2) to conserve the rich, diverse,and often endemic, low elevation andmontane fauna of the region through population management andprotection, and through securing within the park all the habitatnecessary for the long-term maintenance of genetically viablepopulations;

3) to provide opportunities for nature education, wildland recreation,wildlife viewing and eco-tourism for the benefit and enjoyment ofIndonesian citizens and foreign visitors;

4) to provide a centre and an opportunity for long term research intropical plant and animal ecology, and a benchmark against which tomeasure the impacts of intensive human land uses in similar areasin central and southern Sumatera.

3.2.2 Park Boundary Options and Decisions

64. Kerinci-Seblat was proposed as a national park after extensive field

62

surveys by FAO and PHPA in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Amanagement plan prepared by FAO in 1981 was the basis for the Ministerof Forests' nomination of the area for park status the following year.This initial proposal, comprising an area of 1,484,650 ha, was a complexof 17 gazetted and proposed wildlife and nature reserves, adjacentprotection forests, and connecting areas between these separate blocks.Over the intervening years from 1985 to 1991 a series of boundaryrevisions reduced the area of the park to approximately 996,500 ha, thegreat majority of the losses involving lowland forests and low elevationhill systems. This latter area has been mapped by the Directorate Generalof Forest Inventory and Land Use (INTAG), and this mapping nowconstitutes the uofficial" park boundary. More recently the province ofJambi has recommended the repatriation of large areas of the eastern hillsystems to the park, and the DHV project inception team recommended aseries of boundary changes to: increase representativeness, particularlyof low elevation systems; excise areas so heavily encroached or degradedthat they no longer warrant protection; and improve manageability of anoverly complex and convoluted boundary. These various boundary optionsare shown in Figure 8. Most of the western, southern and northernboundary have been surveyed and demarcated. The eastern boundary inJambi Province is still subject to a consensus-building process, a pre-requisite to finalization and demarcation.

3.2.3 Resettlement and Rehabilitation Programs

65. Over the past few years PHPA has pursued a program of voluntaryresettlement for communities and individuals living within the park,through the government transmigration program. Relocation criteria arenot explicit but the program has, apparently, met with some successbecause of the desirability of securing placement on the nuclear estate(PIT-TRANS) projects. The project preparation team has alsorecommended broader application of the 'kebun kehidupan' concept oftemporary utilization zones. This technique allows the resettlees toharvest the crops they planted, and then to continue to use the area for aset period for the production of more 'natural' crops such as fruits, nutsand other minor forest products. At the end of the set period the landreverts unencumbered to the park.

63

& r W ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SUMATRA \,'' ;.x,

Alahon Ponlong Indian Ocea. odn

LObun Lubuk MelakO Tnnornr Tumnouh

uoco B3ungo

\>QA _vDulz odo< < t l PROVINCE

ti \ iS p2~~rSik rU %Ui oua <lck ra Raniouicil54- RonIOu Ponlra g

I J \ ~~~~~)Skn~~gas Pen"ugai Mnonu SOng

E\JDHV1 arr roun Tuo

- Km lIvo ~~M o Sur aKu

*i e S. Histor ; Park ndPUr _pti\ Q \ ~~~~Kolanon IN E

_ & 98t~~~~~~~~~~oro Amon

L E G E N D Lubuk 13OSInaIP^rkBOUnJA84 PPROVINCE I~~~~~~~~~~~i I -)\ramrpSas up

O | )* * ILJ~~~~~~~~~GKULU

lQ 220K« l

Figure 8. Historic Park Boundary Options.

64

3.2.4 Compensation for Commercial Resource Tenures

66. No consideration has been given in project design to compensationfor resource tenures pre-empted by park gazettment. The major potentialconsideration for compensation may be mineral concessions, however,recommendations will be made later in this report on ways to minimizepotential compensation.

3.2.5 Park Administration, Management and EnforcementPrograms

67. Project design recommends major steps to upgrade the capabilityand effectiveness of park management programs. The first major activitywill be the preparation, by year three of the project, ot a parkmanagement plan and a comprehensive park zoning system. Themanagement plan will provide long-term objectives and shorter-termstrategies to guide and control: the management of park resources; theestablishment of acceptable levels and types of park use; the developmentof park management and visitor facilities; research, inventory andmonitoring activities; staff recruitment, training and allocation; theacquisition and distribution of vehicles and equipment; and thedevelopment of annual budgets. The park management plan will providethe context for the development of an uevergreenu, five-year OperationalAction Plan, which will provide the substance for annual budget requests.

68. Significant staff additions have been recommended for the project,to be phased in over five years of project development. At the seniormanagement level four senior PHPA staff will be allocated to the projectas Deputy Park Directors to head coordinating units in each of the fourprovinces. These units will coordinate, implement and supervise parkmanagement operations, and consult with Provincial, Kabupaten andKecamatan authorities under the general direction of the Park Director.In order to upgrade boundary and park use enforcement, BAPPENAS hasapproved the recruitment of 100 upegawi proyeku park guards over the sixyear period of the project.

69. To improve capability in anti-poaching patrols and generalenforcement, a specialist mobile enforcement unit will be established ineach provincial sub-office. These teams, equipped with 4-wheel drivevehicles and radio communications, will provide back-up to local park

65

guards and liaise closely with local police. They will also provide initialand on-going enforcement training to the "pegawai proyek" park guards.

3.2.6 Community Consultation and Involvement

70. The Park Director will initiate a "community partnership program"in the first year of the project which will employ 190 local people overthe first five years to work with park and World Wildlife Fund staff aspark extension workers. These extension programs will include park andbiodiversity awareness, strengthening of village-based conservationorganizations and community participation in park management.

3.3 BUFFER ZONES

3.3.1 Buffer Zone Management Objectives

71. Management in the buffer zones surrounding Kerinci-Seblat NationalPark will have the following objectives:

1) to Tcushion" park ecosystems and ecological processes from theimpacts of intensive land uses and resource developments;

2) to limit the potential for negative interactions between people andpark wildlife;

3) to encourage local peoples' active involvement in park protection,and participation in park-based commercial recreation and tourismdevelopments;

3) to provide local communities with a secured supply of traditionaluse items from the natural forest, and with the opportunity tosupplement their income from low intensity harvesting ofcommercial forest products;

4) to reduce flood potential and minimize water quality degradationthrough the implementation of sound watershed managementprinciples;

5) to allow the cultivation of perennial crops consistent with otherbuffer zone objectives;

6) to function as a demonstration project in integrated, interprovincialspatial planning;

7) to provide migration corridors and supplementary food sources forthe forest fringe dwelling wildlife group (especially elephant andrhinoceros) in traditionally-used ranges outside the park.

66

72. Clearly not all of these objectives can be accomplished in all areasand the width of the buffer zone will vary depending on adjacent parkvalues and external land uses. The challenge of buffer zone planning andmanagement will be to match land use regimes both to park values and tolocal community needs.

3.3.2 Community and Rural Development Programs

73. Rural development programs are a major component of buffer zonemanagement, sponsoring activities designed to mobilize the cooperationof communities adjacent to the park in the protection and management ofpark resources. The intent is to create a vested interest in biodiversityprolection and resource conservation by allowing local communities tobenefit economically from both the existence of the park and throughgreater access to buffer zone resources. This type of assistance,however, is only really effective if it is complemented by regulatoryenforcement and park/biodiversity awareness programs.

74. Over the six years of the ICDP project, community and ruraldevelopment would focus in the following seven functional areas:

1) Village Resource Management, assisting villagers to evaluate andmap village resources, improve village land use, secure access toresources, establish development priorities, and conserve localbiodiversity;

2) Village Develooment. providing funds and technical assistance tointensify or diversify agriculture and improve villageinfrastructure;

3) Target Group Assistance. providing resources for the poor andlandless, who are most dependent on exploiting park resources, toadopt alternative income-generating activities;

4) Special Area-Management, encouraging and assisting residents inecologically sensitive areas to relocate without loss of prosperityor cultural identity;

5) Reduction of In-migrant Imoacts. developing incentives and/ordisincentives to prevent illegal use of park and buffer zoneresources by opportunistic migrants from other areas;

6) Planning Sugort, to assist government agencies in ICDP planning, inincorporating village development activities in Regional and

67

Provincial Development Plans, in incorporating village land useplans into regional spatial plans, and in ensuring an eventual orderlytransition from the GEF project to routine government programs; and

7) Training, to strengthen the capability of government officials,community facilitators, and villagers to play their respective rolesin ICDP implementation.

75. Specific rural development activities proposed by the projectpreparation team include:

1) Agricultural Intensification: involving improved cassiavera andjungle rubber cultivation, nuclear tea estate projects, integratedvegetable pest management, wider cultivation of vanilla,introduction of cut flower cultivation, fish production in ponds andcages, small livestock culture, bee keeping and butterfly farming;

2) Social Forestry: involving agroforestry systems, communityforests, tree nursery production for regreening and forestenrichment, rattan plantations, and resin tapping;

3) Small Enter2riselInfustrv: involving rattan craft, village industriesand the processing of agriculture products;

4) Social Considerations: relating to educational scholarships, andtenures to land and resources;

5) Tourism: involving training and revolving loan assistance to localpeople to enhance their capability to attract tourists to homestays,and training to guides in nature interpretation and managing eco-tours and treks; and

6) Village Infrastructure DeveloMen3t: involving improved access,small-scale irrigation and improved portable water supply.

76. The management structure described in section 3.4 below willprovide assistance to villages in developing proposals, and will alsoestablish a 'transparent review and approvals system to ensure that theproposals are consistent with ICDP objectives.

3.3.3 Forest Concessions and Community Forests

77. This component of the project will develop an action plan for theforest concessions along the park boundary in Jambi and BengkuluProvinces. The objective stated for this planning is to manage andstabilize the remaining lowland forest areas bordering the park to

68

effectively extend the conservation estate and protect biodiversity withinproduction forests. The planning is anticipated to borrow heavily on thePermanent Forest Production Unit (KPHP) process being developed jointlyby the Ministry of Forests and the U.K. Overseas DevelopmentAdministration.

78. It is proposed that community forests be established in areasdegraded either by previously logging or agricultural encroachment.Support for land rehabilitation and enrichment planting would come ftomthe rural development component.

3.4 THE INTEGRATED PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE FOR ICDPIMPLEMENTATION

79. As alluded to above, the project is proposed to consist of fourcomponents: 1) Park Management; 2) Concession Management; 3) PolicyCoordination, Evaluation and Monitoring; and 4) Rural Development. Eachcomponent will have a separate project supervisor or Pimpro, responsiblefor overseeing the disbursement of project funds. The organizationalstructure for project coordination consists of a National ICDP SteeringCommittee, and an Interprovincial Coordinating Committee supported by aPlanning Secretariat and technical advisory 'eams.

3.4.1 National Steering Committee

80. The National Steering Committee will be chaired by BAPPENAS. withmembers representing the Ministers of Forestry, Agriculture, HomeAffairs and Finance. This committee will also include representatives ofthe tour Governors, the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), andnational environmental NGOs. This committee will meet infrequently andits major role will be to coordinate the activities of the agenciesresponsible for the separate project components: Ministry of Forests(Park and Concession Components); Ministry of Home Affairs (RuralDevelopment Component) through the National Regreening Program; and theInterprovincial Coordinating Committee (Policy Coordination, Evaluationand Monitoring Component).

3.4.2 Interprovincial Coordinating Committee

81. The interprovincial Coordinating Committee will comprise senior

69

representatives of the four governors, the Park Director, a representativefrom the improved concession management component, and the WorldWildlife Fund Indonesia. The major function of this committee will be tocoordinate and integrate on-going project implementation at theprovincial, kabupaten and kecamatan levels. To carry out this function itis proposed that the committee would be supported by a Policy andPlanning Secretariat.

3.4.3 Planning Secretariat

82. The proposed planning secretariat would be composed of technicalstaff seconded from appropriate agencies of the four provincialgovernments. The major function of this secretariat would be to providesupport to the Interprovincial Coordinating Committee in interprovincialand intergovernmental coordination of project implementation. TheSecretariat would also provide an independent project evaluation functionand administer inventory, monitoring and information managementfunctions that service all components of the ICDP project. TheSecretariat would probably be located in Sungai Penuh.

3.4.4 Inventory, Monitoring and Information ManagementServices

83. In designing this component of the project, the project preparationteam had two options: 1) to fragment the function amongst the threeoperational components; or 2) create an integrated service function thatwould take direction from the operational managers but could capitalizeon interdisciplinary synergies and efficiencies. The project team haschosen the latter option. In order to ensure the broadest application andutilization of these services, it is proposed to place the inventory,monitoring and information management function under the PlanningSecretariat. These services will include: the collection, housing, storage,management, interpretation and dissemination of natural resource andsocio-economic information; and the establishment of indicators andcollection of information for the evaluation of the project's technical andfinancial progress, and trends in environmental and social status.

70

CHAPTER IV A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF PROJECT DESIGN: ISSUESAND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 PARK DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT

4.1.1 The Park Boundary

84. As noted in earlier sections, the majority of past park boundaryrevisions have excised species-rich lowland and hill forests,reclassifying the areas from protection forest to production forest andplacing them in adjacent logging concessions. Current information onvegetation condition of the study area is not available, and in factvegetation cover is probably experiencing considerable change on a year toyear basis because of the accelerating rates of forest conversion. As a"default", generalized RePPProT landscape units were used in this.ssessment to determine the impact of boundary revisions on park

biodiversity. In all 27 landscape units were identified as representativeof the study area, defined by differences in climatic region, topographyand lithology (Appendix 11).

85. A comparison of the original boundary, as mapped by BPN, with thecurrent INTAG boundary (Table 3) reveals that there has been an overallreduction in the area of low elevation systems of 72 per cent, however,some important systems have suffered much higher loss: plains systemsreduced by 81 per cent, and the larger alluvial valleys so important tomany wildlife species reduced by more than 99 per cent. In all 14 of the27 landscape units were reduced by 80 per cent or more and the remaininglow elevation systems exist primarily as scattered remnants around theperifery of the park. The proportion of mountain systems, with lowerbiological productivity and biodiversity, has risen from 67 per cent to 86per cent. The boundary is currently the single most critical issue ofproject design. The park has lost a significant proportion of its faunal

* and floral biodiversity and may no longer contain the habitats necessaryfor the long-term protection and maintenance of its "flagship" wildlifespecies - elephant, tiger, rhinoceros, and tapir. Adjacent lands are beingsubjected to such devastating logging practices and such rapiddeforestation by encroachers that they may loose much of theirbiodiversity and buffer zone function. In the light of these problemsKerinci-Seblat may no longer meet the criteria for Global EnvironmentFacility funding outlined in section 3.1.1. There is no doubt that Kerinci-

71

Table 3. A Summary Comparison of Landscape DiversityBetween the Original and INTAG Boundaries*

Physiographic Original % of Total INTAG % of Total % ReductionType Boundary Area Boundary Area in Area

(Area in Ha) (Area in Ha)

Mountain Systems 1,027,280 69.40 864,505 86.BO 16

Hill Systems 211,140 14.25 84,750 8.50 60

Plains Systems 211,325 14.30 42,285 4.20 80

Fans & TeTaces 14,650 1.00 1,505 0.15 88

Lahar Slopes 10,045 0.70 1,955 0.20 8 1

Alluvial Valleys 3.550 0.20 35 c.10 99

Wetlands 2,395 0.15 1,430 0.15 40

1,480,385 100.00 996,465 100.00

' See Appendix I for more detailed comparisons

72

Seblat still has the potential to be one of the most important and valuablebiodiversity projects in Southeast Asia. If the situation is to beretrieved, however, a number of steps must be taken immediately:

1. Current demarkation of the INTAG boundary should proceed in order toexpedite park gazettment, but there must be a clear statement fromthe Government of Indonesia that the boundary is recognized asinadequate and that major boundary rationalization to improve itsbiodiversity status will take place progressively over the next fiveyears.

2. A rapid environmental appraisal, involving biodiversity and wildlifehabitat, must begin immediately to determine the most importantareas for repatriation to the park, concentrating on the Jambi andBengkulu park boundaries (Figure 9). Work should begin immediately,utilizing remaining JGF funding, on two concessions adjacent to thepark, one in Jambi and one in Bengkulu, with the following selectioncriteria: high biodiversity; large proportion of protection and limitedproduction forest; and/or lease expiring within the next two years.Candidates for these first appraisals are the Sarestra II and NusaLeases in Jambi and the Bina Samaktha and Maju Jaya Raya leases inBengkulu. These two appraisals should be completed by December1995. Appraisals of all other concessions should be undertaken aspart of the concession reviews, see section 4.2.3, and be completedby December 1996 with firm recommendations for the transfer oflow elevation areas of high biodiversity back to the park.

3. Consideration should also be given to the inclusion in the park of thelow elevation wetland/swamp forest complex west of Tapan and thelimestone-karst formations east of the Alahan Panjang-Lubuk Gadangroad since both ecosystems were poorly represented even in theoriginal park boundary.

4.1.2 Enforcement Programs

86. From even a casual field trip around the park boundary, it is evidentthat encroachment by agricultural squatters is now out of control and thatgreatly upgraded capability to deal with the problem is neededimmediately. The project design calls for 100 new park guards to beengaged as upegawi proyek" at 25 per year for four years starting in 1996.

73

inan~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

sK Solk Sgp.jnjBng

KoneDono ) L u D u > er t ~~~~~~PROVIINCE

ij\Sulak lD z oniou Peniong

a t

Mul.ur *o+% - ¢-2<r~~~~~~~~~~~- *

Pa. :-, nan s . _ng.

-3 Preewt -o',.arj - 4--uc r l'lonle ror T

K_renong BuniO

KamDanq JAMB,t Aman

Bo9 pnLinsl SNPun

EmnromerLaA Ppeai auaoMneoC4 tNGKULU

110 22OKS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ QL TR

*iur RriiviipBunar E5nviomna)frta,K onas

74

The Government of Indonesia should clarify its intentions with regard tothe status of the upegawi proyek" at the end of the project. Whatever itslonger-term future, by the time this force becomes effective it may wellbe too late for many areas inside the park boundary, let alone areas ofvalue adjacent to the park. It is therefore recommended that theGovernment of Indonesia develop, and submit to the World Bank prior toproject appraisal, an effective "bridging" enforcement strategy to beimplemented by December 1995 in priority areas and to continue until newproject staff are trained and in place. The strategy should contain: i) adescription of legal enforcement procedures, ii) staffing levels andresponsibilities, and iii) a summary of enforcement actions to date.Priority areas for both boundary enforcement and encroachmentstabilization are shown in Figure 10. These bridging enforcementactivities may also assist in preventing further encroachment intoselected areas of the surrounding timber concessions.

87. Developing an effective enforcement program requires more thansimple numbers of staff. Morale is probably the single most importantissue in enforcement agencies, particularly when staff must enforce,often unpopular, government regulations on their neighbours. If parkenforcement is to become effective, senior staff at all levels up to andincluding the Minister must create the proper institutional climate. StaffMorale will be dependant on the following considerations:

1 ) Staff must be made to feel that they are engaged in a "great andnoble enterprise" whose achievement is important to the nation andsociety (staff education and training);

2)Staff must be made to feel that what they do matters directly to thesuccess of the enterprise (job descriptions and performanceevaluations);

3)Staff must believe that the objectives of the enterprise areachievable and not out of reach (the past situation of 56 park guardsresponsible for 2750 km of boundary could hardly have inspired suchconfidence);

4)Staff must believe that the organization they work for is anefficient one that will provide a context for the effectiveemployment of their efforts (strategic and operational planning);

5)Staff must, as far as possible, be given the legal and material toolsto carry out their jobs (enforcement authority, such as the ability toissue cease and desist orders and seise property, back-up

75

501011 Silunlung J m,

APDANG \

. 3 > kAlonon Pon Drno Cln. Pan icfWiZ \ 5\ ~w SUMATRA Re u

.ii M c Mugr 8aLuk .e.skO Tonu n TumDuo

\\ , 1 \ f -s * f are Bungo

Koni4&> Luu~ t PROV§INCE

\ \ - '^Z uo Amr LlbE ;=-'onvJ \ \; gnool Penun -

. . \ | . 8 t s sa¢: Dusun Tuo

E rlcorobchwterLt ir M--- Sufu1V0

1 P . ~~~~~~P \S \ i <. IQ~~~~~~:Pfa Ko u I.a

Ipuh *SHUMTA

| __ ' - g < itu~~~~~~~~Oro ASmon

LEGEND LubuknO

E Encro achme nt 5ta 6lization.'

X , lLNuvmbMx rezer to ,urupo ~~disc-ussion irL tegt.

NGKULU

°'M Ila 210K_

Figure 10. Priorities ior BounJar Enforcement andEncroachment Sta6ilization.

76

assistance, appropriate transportation and field equipment);6)Facilities and living conditions for field staff must be made as good

as they can be.

4.1.3 Encroachment and Resettlement

88. Encroachment into the park falls into three general categories: first,cash and subsistence crop cultivation, often on steep slopes, along thepark boundary by people who live outside the park; second, wetland ricecultivation and dryland agriculture in community enclaves within thepark, usually associated with rich volcan;c soils in the rift and alluvialvalleys; and third, cassiavera plantations on upland slopes along roadsthat transect the park, usually by sharecroppers who reside outside thepark. It will require quite different techniques to deal adequately withthese different types of encroachment. Generally the tools available areto amend the park boundary, to demarcate and enforce enclave boundaries,or to resettle/relocate. These will have to be applied on a case-by-casebasis after careful study during the first few years of projectimplementation. Decisions should take into consideration criteria such asthe impact on wildlife management and biodiversity conservation,sustainability of the cropping practice, whether the use is compatiblewith park or buffer zone management criteria, and the potentialreversibility of the vegetation change. In addition the traditional attitudeof park managers that upeople have no place in parks' must change.Indigenous people who have lived in a region for decades or centuriesshould be considered an integral part of the local ecology. Their customsand the way they relate to natural systems becomes an added'biodiversity value".

89. If relocation is the most appropriate and desirable option, every effortshould be made to encourage the persons or ccmmunity to relocatedvoluntarily. This can be accomplished by providing an acceptablerelocation site and adequate compensation for shifting, and by allowingcontinued use of the or.iginal site for a set period through the 'kebunkehidupan' concept of temporary utilization zones.

90. It is clear that at present there is neither sufficient information toassess the impacts of individual encroaching communities nor the staffcapability to plan and manage a community resettlement program. Forthese reasons the following irm-plementation steps are recommended:

77

1. Immediate measures must concentrate on the stabilization of thepark and forest concession boundaries to ensure no newencroachment takes place, through the interim enforcement strategyrecommended above.

2. No further resettlement of established individuals or communitiesshould occur for three years pending cotnpletion of the parkmanagement plan and the wildlife-biodiversity studies discussedabove, unless the request comes unsolicited from the people. Thewildlife-biodiversity studies should establish objective criteria forassessing the impacts of communities living and farming inside thepark and establish priority areas where resettlement may berequires. Terms of reference for these studies should be sent to theWorld Bank for review prior to project appraisal.

3. Resettlement should be contemplated only where communitiesjeopardize biodiversity values that are still intact, where there is alikelihood of permanent human/wildlife conflict or where thecommunity occupies land with significant potential for therehabilitation of habitat values. Wherever possible, resettlementshould be voluntary and carried out in accord with a ResettlementAction Plan prepared in consultation with the affected people. Anobjective economic analysis of both the earnings of currentagricultural practice and the potential earnings of the alternativesavailable to encroaching communities (i.e. transmigration and pohonkehidupan) should be prepared and submitted to the World Bank inyear one of project implementation.

4. Where communities remain in the park, they should do so under aformal park use contract. Every effort should be made toaccommodate these communities in park management programs andto capitalize on the tourism potential o' their culture and way oflife.

4.2 MANAGING THE IMPACTS OF OTHER LAND USES

4.2.1 Buffer Zone Planning

91. Effective buffer zone management, matching buffer zone uses topark values and community needs, will be the most complex and difficult

78

task of coordination in the ICDP project. The primary focus of thiscoordination will be to exercise some degree of zoning and control of landuse within a defined buffer zone. The recognition here is that anyboundary, no matter how well designed, is largely' an artificial creation.If certain types of human use extend up to that line, the impacts will befelt for considerable distances into the park. The idea of ICDP is tointluence land use adjacent to the boundary to: a) protect park resources,b) minimize the potential for negative interactions between the park andits neighbours; and c) provide real economic benefits to buffer zonecommunities. In the present case, the buffer zone will also complimentthe park in the important downstream function of watershed protection.

92. Looking at the administrative structure of the project, particularlythe fragmentation between park, concession and rural developmentcomponents, it is hard to generate much confidence that the requireddegree of coordination will occur. Success will largely depend on thecoordination, planning and evaluation activities of the PlanningSecretariat. Unfortunately this will probably be classed as a "functional"rather than a ustructural" organization", and past experience has beenthat such entities often iail to attract the "best and the brightest".Every effort must be made to provide the types of incentives that willattract the influential, dynamic and technically competent individualsnecessary to make this group effective. Consideration should also begiven, as soon as possible, to the establishment of butfer zone criteria,standards and boundaries in Governors' or even Presidential Decrees.

93. Some of the required land use change can be effected throughgovernment regulation, but it will also take some incentives to localpeople to get them to 'buy in' to the buffer zone concept, and this is theprimary function of the rural development component. While thecommunity and rural development component of the project appearsinnovative and well designed, the writer has seen no writtendocumentat.on that boundary communities accept the program or that theproposec development activities will result in real economic benefits. Inparticular, the focus of social forestry on the creation of communityforests only in areas degraded by past logging and agricultural cultivationis not likely to be completely acceptable to local people. It will also beimportant to establish community forests from intact hill forests surplusto biodiversity needs in which local people can derive benefits and incomefrom the low-impact harvesting of natural forest products (see section

79

4.2.2). To date all of the benefits derived from natural systems (esp.timber production) are enjoyed at a distance from the Kerinci-Seblat area,while most of the benefits from forest conversion are enjoyed locally.Unless this flow of benefits can be reversed through ICDP land useplanning, there will be no incentive for local people to change theirpractices, and the buffer zone function will fail. Buffer zone land useplanning is one of the weakest parts, along with the boundary, of presentproject design.

4.2.2 Forest Management

94. As previously noted, many of the areas of the original park proposalexcised by the INTAG boundary were reallocated to timber concessionseven though they were classed as, or met the TGHK criteria for, protectionforest. The majority of the concessions around the boundary of Kerinci-Seblat are now wholly or largely within protection forest, and pastenforcement against encroachment has been so inadequate that intactforest on some concessions now exists only in steep hill systems. Loggingobserved in such systems on a recent field inspection was extremelydestructive both to the forest and to watershed values. The reason thatsuch fragile landscapes are now being logged is that wood processingcapacity in Jambi province now exceeds sustainable forest production by2.5 to 3 times, and this discrepancy is driving timber exploitation in thestudy area. The following recommendations are made with respect toforest concession management within the Kerinci-Seblat Buffer zone:

1. A one year moratorium should be place on the logging of any of theprotection forest areas classed by RePPProT as Protection Forestwithin the QCgfiWL 1982 park boundary, pending priority applicationof the KPHP analysis to forest concessions on both the Jambi andBengkulu boundaries ot the park. This analysis should besynchronized with the rapid environmental appraisals referred tounder park boundary recommendations and should: identify remainingareas of functioning primary and secondary forest; define whichareas of intact forest and disturbed vegetation are of significantbiodiversity value and should be repatriated to the park; determinewhich remaining areas are amenable to commercial logging; anddefine sLandards and conditions under which logging may be carriedout in an environmentally safe manner. All of these analyses should

80

be completed by December 1996.

2.Upon completion of these analyses, areas of high biodiversity orconservation value outside the rationalized concession boundarieswill be repatriated to the park.

3.Areas of intact forest not required for the park and not suitable forindustrial logging techniques shall be placed in community forestswhere local people may harvest minor forest products or hand logcommercial timber species on a sustainable basis under a buffer zoneuse contract administered jointly by the project's PlanningSecretariat and local governments.

4.2.3 Mineral Resource Development

95. The following recommendations are made with respect to miningactivity:

1. No further mining concessions should be granted by the Ministry ofMines and Energy within both the areas included in the oriainal 1982park boundary or the hatched area shown in Figure 10 until the finalboundary of Kerinci-Seblat is decided.

2. Feasibility studies and controlled mineral exploration on the threeexisting concessions should be allowed to continue in the park on theunderstanding that if no economically viable mineral potential isdetermined within five years, the concessions will be cancelledwithout compensation.

3. If mineable mineral deposits are found, the acceptability of miningwill be determined on a case-by-case basis through the AMDALprocess. The following limitations should be considered for anypotential mine projects: 1) no open pit extraction would be allowedinside the park or a 5 km buffer zone; 2) all mine infrastructuremust be located outside the 5 km buffer; and 3) equipment, workerand ore transport within the park and buffer must be by a methodother than road (i.e. overhead bucket or rail tram). Where apotentially viable mine is not allowed to proceed, compensation willbe limited to exploration expenses only.

81

4.Any ore processing in the area should be by a closed-circuit cyanideprocess with a built-in cyanide destruction system (e.g. Inco SO2).Consideration should be given to the subsidized processing of orebelonging to small alluvial gold miners in order to lessen theirdependence on mercury in and adjacent to the park.

4.2.4 Road and Access Development

96. New roads or even upgrading of existing tracks have potentiallysignificant implications for both park management and biodiversityconservation since they provide access to new settlers and opportunitiesfor the expansion of existing agricultural activities through access to newmarkets. There are few if any examples in Indonesia of effectiveprevention of encroachment when new roads have been constructed intoareas of natural forest. Current road "proposals" fall into two categories:first, "roads of convenience" that transect the park, linking communitiesthat already have road access; and second, roads to enclave communitiesinside the park which do not now have road access. There are about sevenproposed roads which fall into the first category. These, with attendanthuman encroachment, pose by far the more serious threat to parkintegrity; potentially fragmenting the park into isolated blocks, disruptinganimal migration, and preventing the flow of genetic resources. It isstrongly recommended that:

1. A three year moratorium be place on the construction of all newroads, pending completion of the park zoning and management plan,research to improve impact prediction and the strengthening ofenforcement capability to prevent encroachment. Research should bepartly funded by those government agencies sponsoring roaddevelopment.

2. At the end of the moratorium any road proposals that may be deemedacceptable must be subject to rigorous environmental assessmentand project justification through a full ANDAL report.

3. The unpaved 3 km of the proposed Muara Labuh - Kambang road shouldbe stabilized with proper drainage controls and put to bed under atemporary vegetation cover pending a future decision on itsacceptability.

82

4.2.5 Agriculture

97. Effective management of buffer zones will require agriculture cropzoning guidelines. Cassiavera, for example has been described as a"perfect buffer zone crop", but this is only true where the major bufferzone consideration is watershed protection and then only if the plantationis not clean weeded for undercropping. Like most agricultural crops,cassiavera does little for biodiversity protection. Likewise crop andlivestock cultivation in areas of high wildlife density will only generatewildlife human conflicts. Rural development programs must aim toinfluence choices of crops and cultural practice through farmer educationand program incentives.

CHAPTER V THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ICDP ON REGIONALDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

98. This section of the regional assessment is presently impossible tocomplete with accuracy and technical rigour because of existing projectdesign uncertainties, such as the boundary, and real informationdeficiencies. What is evident is that, in its current form, the ICDP projecthas few opportunity costs because the land area has major uselimitations. The economic analysis prepared as part of the inceptionreport (DHV Report 8, 1993) probably overestimated the economicopportunity costs because it assumed existing land uses and levels ofresource exploitation were largely sustainable. A full economic analysisof opportunity cost is beyond the scope of this analysis. Rather it ishoped that the following observations will contribute to such an analysisif deemed necessary at a later stage of project appraisal.

5.1 THE REGIONAL LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CONTEXT

5.1.1 Regional Development Planning and EnvironmentalAssessment

99. In an ideal world, integrated provincial development planning wouldresolve intersectoral conflicts through necessary negotiation and trade-offs, and establish regional resource management objectives that areconsistent and complimentary. Regional spatial plans would translatethese objectives, on the basis of land suitability and capability, into

83

zonation that minimizes conflicts and competition over the land base. Thetask of the environmental assessment practitioner then becomes straight-forward. If a project falls within an area zoned for that use, theassessment becomes one of identifying and mitigating site-specificimpacts. If a project falls within an area zoned for another use ormultiple use, then the assessment must deal with identifying andmitigating the potential impacts of the project on the objectives set forthe production or use of these other resources. Few areas in the worldhave been able to create this context for impact assessment and, notsurprisingly, the provincial plans in the study area fail to do this also.Practical demonstrations of this vertical linkage and dependency betweenplanning levels should be one of the main objectives in the institution-building activities of the Rural Development Component of this project.

5.1.2 Regional Values and Potential Benefits of theProposed ICDP

100. It is unlikely that the ICDP project will make a significant regionaleconomic contribution in the short-term. If, over the remainder of thisdecade, the project -leads to a significant slowing in the degradation ofland, water and biological resources, it will have made a majorachievement. Over the medium term the best that may be expected will begrowing park-based tourist revenues associated with eco-tourism andwildland trekking, and increasing prosperity resulting from some of thecommunity development initiatives. Over the longer term, perhaps ten tofifteen years, as infrastructure improves and more is known about thedistribution and abundance of wildlife species, Kerinci-Seblat coulddevelop into a significant wildlife viewing area in Southeast Asia.

5.2 THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ICDP ON SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTSECTORS

5.2.1 Agriculture

101. As discussed in section 2.1.5 and illustrated in Figure 6, capabilityin the study area for sustainable agriculture is seriously limited. Theoriginal boundary may have included about 3,550 ha suitable for irrigatedagriculture and 101,000 ha marginally suitable for tree crops. Theboundary revisions in 1985 and 1991 have virtually eliminated any landwith a potential for irrigation and reduced the area marginally suitable

84

.

for tree crops to about 20,900 ha. Many of these areas have been soheavily encroached, however, that the real "loss" of land to cropproduction is difficult to determine without a major land use study.

5.2.2 Timber and Woodfibre Production

102. Section 2.2.5 and Table 2 indicate that, of the existing forestconcession area of 761,450 ha, 517,000 ha meet the criteria forprotection forest and should not be available for commercial woodproduction. Only 106,600 ha of limited production forest and 68,000 ha offull production forest exist within the concessions, and many of theseareas have already been converted to ladang. The total area of intactforest in these two categories included in, or that might be repatriated to,the park is approximately 65,000 ha. Sutter (1989) reports the averagerecorded net yield per ha on the first pass through forest concessions inJambi and Bengkulu as 8.15 m3/ha for full production and 5.40 m3/ha forlimited production forest. Using these figures, the estimated volume ofcommercial timber on these lands would be approximately 338,300 m3.Some of this wood deficit could be made up by production from licencedhandlogging in protection forests allocated to community forests withinthe ICDP buffer zones.

5.2.3 Mining and Mineral Resource Development

103. The impact of the park and ICDP on mineral resource development isexpected to be minimal, though this cannot be confirmed until the threeoperating concessions complete feasibility studies accounting for therestrictions proposed in section 4.2.4. Because all three projects overlapor are outside the park boundary the conditions should not present seriousproblems to an economically viable precious metal prospect. The questionof longer term loss of mineral potential due to park establishment is moredifficult to assess. Much of the park was covered in the past withexploration concessions, which have subsequently been surrendered,presumably because no viable mineral deposits were discovered. Thiswould seem to imply that the economic mineral potential of the park areais negligible.

5.2.4 Transportation and Infrastructure

104. Road development proposals must be placed in the context of the

85

fact that no community outside the park boundary currently lacks roadaccess. Even the enclaves inside the park, legal and illegal, are servicedby tracks and many have flourished with such access for decades. Arecent cumulative environmental impact study of Kabupaten roaddevelopments undertaken by the Ministry of Public Works (1994) concludesthat "where the land was suitable and not too steep, the lack of roadaccess has never been a constraint to local farmers". The justificationgiven to the project design team in Padang for the Muara Labuh-Kambangroad "that it will provide reliable alternative access to the southernareas of West Sumatera in case of disruptions to the coastal road" isdifficult to accept. Its impossible to conceive of a road through steep,mountainous, volcanic terrain as a reliable route to anywhere. The currentroad access proposals transecting the park are primarily stimulated byinter-provincial competition for the marketing, processing and shipmentof commodities, primarily cassiavera, from the Kerinci valley. Suchconsiderations are likely to result in costly duplication of access andshould not be allowed to jeopardize park and biodiversity values. One ofthe preconditions to any new road access through the park should be aregional access/transportation plan agreed-to by all four provinces,perhaps developed through a process of consensus-building mediated byBAPPENAS.

86

REFERENCES

Dick, J.H. 1991. Forest Land Use, Forest Use Zonation, and Delorestation inIndonesia. A Background Paper for the 1992 UNCED ConferencePrepared for the State Minister for Population and Environment andthe Environmental Impact Management Agency (BAPEDAL).

Dick, J.H. and B. Purwono.1991. A Report on an Environmental Audit of theP.T. Oceaneas Timber Concession, East Kalimantan. BadanPengendalian Dampak Lingkungan, GOI.

DHV Consultants BV. 1993. Kerinci Seblat National Park and IntegratedConservation and Development Project:Inception ReportBackground Report No. 1. Project History and BackgroundBackground Report No. 2. Biodiversity Conservation and Park

ManagementBackground Report No. 3. Local Area Development and Resource

Rights RationalizationBackground Report No. 4. Micro-Regional Development and PlanningBackground Report No. 6. Integrated Watershed managementBackground Report No. 8. Resource Economics

Cannon, C.H., D.R. Peart, M. Leighton, K. Kartawinata. 1994. The Structure ofLowland Rainforest After Selective Logging in West Kalimantan,Indonesia. Forest Ecology and Management 67 (1994) 49-68.

Collins. N.M., J.A.Sayer and T.C. Whitmore. 1991. The Conservation Atlas ofTropical Forests of Asia and the Pacific. The World ConservationUnion.

FAO. 1990. Situation and Outlook of the Indonesian Forestry Sector. Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the Ministryof Forestry, Government of Indonesia.

King, B., M. Woodcock and E.C. Dickinson.1 987. A Field Guide to the Birds ofSouth-East Asia. Collins.

McKinnon, J. 1990. Field Guide to the Birds of Java and Bali. Gadjah Mada

87

University Press.

Medway, Lord. 1972. The Gunong Benom Expedition of 1967. TheDistribution and Altitudinal Zonation of Birds and Mammals. Bull. Br.Mus. Nat. Hist. D. 23, 105-54.

Ministry of Public Works. 1994. Cummulative Environmental Impact Studyof Kabupaten Rural Road Development in Bengkulu and AcehProvinces. Directorate General of Highways, Ministry of PublicWorks.

Regional Physical Planning Program for Transmigration (RePPProT). 1988.Sumatra: Review of Phase I Results. Land Resources Department, U.K.Overseas Development Administration and Directorat Bina Program,Direktorat Jenderat Penyiapan Pemukiman, DepartemenTransmigrasi, GOI.

Sutter, H. 1989. Forest Resources and Land Use in Indonesia. Food andAgricultural Organization of the United Nations and the Ministry ofForestry, GOI.

Schweithelm, J. 1994. Kerinci Seblat National Park/ICDP, RuralDevelopment Component Preparation Report, World Bank, Jakarta andBAPPENAS, GOI.

Schweithelm, J. and Ir. Zuwendra. 1991. Report on an Environmental Auditof the P.T. Wenang Sakti Timber Concession, North Sulawesi. AMDALSub-Directorate, Directorate of Nature Conservation, Ministry ofForests, GOI.

Transmigration Advisory Group (TAG). 1991. Forest Clearance Study.Directorate Bina Program, Directorate General SettlementPreparation, Ministry of Transmigration. May, 1991.

Wells, D.R., C.J. Hails, and A.J. Hails. A Mist-netting Study of AvifaunalVariation In Lowland Tropical Forest in Malaysia. Reference cited asOIn Preparation" by Whitemore 1 984.

Whitmore, T.C. 1984. Tropical Rainforests of the Far East, Second Edition.Oxford Science Publications, Clarendon Press, Oxford, U.K.

88

Whitten, A.J. et al. 1987. The Ecology of Sumatra. Gadjah Mada UniversityPress. Indonesia.

89

APPENDIX I

A LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS OF THE KERINCI-SEBLAT REGION

The study area contains three broad physiographic regions, fromwest to east: the Western Coastal Foothills; the Barisan Mountains andassociated rift valleys; and the Jambi-Palembang Plains. Though thewhole study area is broadly classed as tropical perhumid climate, thethree regions have somewhat different moisture and temperature regimesbecause of their alignment at right angles to prevailing weather systemsand the extreme altitudinal variation. Generally there is a trend frommoister in the west to drier in the east, with the mountains characterizedby great diversity. These climatic variations have a significant influenceon vegetation patterns.

Tlhe Western Coastal Foothills

1. In the study area, the lithology of the western hill systems is oftwo distinctive types. North of Mukomuko the dominant rock types areacid igneous - granite, granodiorite, diorite, and fine and coarse grainedtephra. South of Mukomuko there is an abrupt change to sedimentarystrata consisting of sandstone, shale, mudstones, conglomerates andminor lignites. Young alluvial/colluvial sediments are restricted tonarrow coastal sections and even narrower riparian valleys at rightangles to the coast and separated from one another by coastal hills. Onlyin the delta of the Indrapura River and its tributaries, west of Tapan, arethere any substantial alluvial deposits, consisting largely of beach sandsand riverine sediments overlain by basin peat swamps.

2. Rainfall varies from 3000-3500 mm/year on the coast to 3500-4200 mm/year in the higher foothills. There is little variation inprecipitation through the year, with 9-11 wet months (>200mm) and nodry months (c00mm). Annual temperature variation is slight, withmaximum temperatures ranging between 26 and 330C and minimumbetween 18 and 230C.

3. Drainage consists mainly of about 25 small, steep-gradient,youthful rivers perpendicular to the coast and flowing short distancesfrom headwaters in the foothills straight to the sea (Figure 3). Only twoof these westerly-flowing rivers penetrate the Barisan Mountains to drain

90

the central rift valleys: Air Dikit and its major tributary Air Langkap; andAir Ketahun. Because of the steepness of these rivers there are few areasamenable to irrigated agriculture except for the lowest reaches of someof the broader floodplains, where the capability for freshwater or tidalirrigation is probably already fully utilized.

4. The Western Coastal Foothills in the study area contain fourdominant and eight minor landforms. The coast from Padang to Painan isstrongly indented, consisting of deep bays flanked by steep, hillyheadlands. These hill systems (BBR) have developed from acid igneousrocks, and take the form of nErrow, steep-sided ridges. There are only afew major valleys and these are dominated by coarse alluvial/colluvialfans and terraces (KNJ, LBS). From Painan to Air Dikit a coastal plain hasdeveloped, consisting of narrow beach/swale deposits (PTG, BLW) in thenortherly and southerly sections and much more extensive freshwaterpeat/alluvial marsh estuary (GBT, MDW, BLI, TNJ) at the outlet of theIndrapura River. The Indrapura swamps/marsh complex contains one ofonly three significant peat deposits on the west coast of Sumatera.Immediately inland of this coastal plain is the same mixture of acidigneous hill systems (BBR) and narrow river valleys (KNJ, LBS) describedabove.

5. From Air Dikit to Bengkulu the change from igneous to sedimentaryrocks has produced a much more moderate landscape composed of long,narrow parallel ridge systems (MPT) interspersed near the coast with ahillocky plain (TWH). These hills and plains extend all the way to thecoast, and thus beaches (PTG) are either narrow (near Bengkulu) or non-existent. River valleys (BKN) which dissect these hill and plain systemsare characterized by narrow floodplains and low broad alluvial/colluvialterraces. In three discrete areas - east of Mukomuko, east of Ketahun, andnortheast of Bengkulu - past volcanic activity has deposited a layer ofbasaltic material over the older sedimentary hill systems (MPT), toproduce a landscape of very steep-sided parallel ridges (BMS).

6. Soils in the Western Coastal Foothills are characterized by very lowvariability (Figure 4). Beach/swale deposits support very impoverishedsandy soils (psamments). Poorly drained peat and alluvial wetlandsconsist of saturated, largely-undecomposed, organic deposits (histosols)and waterlogged soils (wet inceptisols). The dominant soils of the region,however, occupying almost all of the hills, plains, and well drained

alluvial/colluvial fans and terraces, are deep, acidic, very infertileultisols and oxisols (stable slopes) and inceptisols (erosional slopes).The exceptions are the three areas of basaltic hill systems describedabove, where more youthful, basic volcanic parent materials haveweathered to richer, but very erosion prone, andepts.

The Baflsan Mountai

7. The Barisan Mountains form a prominent 'backbone" to the wholeisland of Sumatera, separating the western coastal foothills from theeastern plains (Figure 2). Peaks in the Barisan Ranges commonly reach2000m and in places exceed 3000m. The ICDP proposal includes Mt.Kerinci which, at 3805 m, is the second highest point in the IndonesianArchipelago. The Barisan Ranges were formed by the convergence of thesedimentary rocks of the Indian and Sundan tectonic plates. The forces otthe converging plates combined to produce a north-south, up-arching'bubble", higher to the west than to the east, which subsequently splitand collapsed longiti;dinally to produce two mountain "rims" flanking acentral rift valley. The western rim is usually termed the High BarisanRanges and the eastern rim the Low Barisan Ranges. Continuing tectonicstresses were periodically relieved by volcanic eruptions and igneousintrusions at intervals along the rift faults. These partially filled therift and divided the mountains into separate and distinctive blocks. Overtwenty volcanic cones or caldera occur in the study area.

8. In the study area the Barisan Mountains are divided into twosubregions - the Central and the Southern Barisans - roughly along an east-west line delineated by the Air Merangin and Air Dikit valleys (Figure 1).The main distinction between the two subregions is in the nature of theoriginal rock strata of the continental plates.

9. In the Central Barisans the basement strata are slates, shales,limestones, and marbles. These rock types dominate the surface geologyof the ranges to the northeast of the Padang-Lubuk Gadang road, wherethere has been little volcanic activity. To the west and south thesesedimentary and metamorphic strata underlie, and outcrop through,andesitic and basaltic lavas and breccias. The main areas of volcanicactivity in the Central Barisans are the Rasam-Pantaicermin-Padan-Malenggok-Patahsambilan-Kerinci-Tujuh mountain series.

92

10. In the Southern Barisans the basement strata are weakly-metamorphosed quartzites, phyllites, sandstones, tuffs, slates and

* shales, which occur in widely-spaced bL:t large outcrops. Overlyingvolcanic andesites and basalts are more dispersed than in the CentralBarisans, and there are more extensive areas of acid igneous rocks. Themain centres of volcanic activity are the Sumbing, Masurai, Seblat,Runcing mountains and a cluster of six volcanos near Curup.

11. Climatic patterns in the Barisan Mountains are very complex andcharacterized by rapid change over very short distances. Rainfall in thewestern ranges varies from 3500 to 5500 mm/yr, with the higher levelsrecorded in the Central Barisan subregion. The rift valleys experience asignificant rainshadow effect, with precipitation ranging from 1700 to2300 mm/yr. Rainfall in the eastern ranges is more moderate than in thewestern ranges, varying from 2500 to 3000 mm/yr. Rainfall in the areais fairly evenly distributed through the year, with 8-10 wet months(>200mm) and 0-2 dry months (.100mm). Recorded maximum andminimum temperatures are 23-28 OC and 14-19 OC, which are ratherhigher than might be expected for these altitudes, probably because of a-chinookw effect.

12. Drainage systems are quite complex (Figure 3). The western flanksof the High Barisans drain exclusively to the Indian Ocean. In the CentralSubregion the eastern stopes of the High Barsisan, the western slopes ofthe Low Barisan and the rift valley drain north and east via tributaries ofthe Batang Hari, and south and east via Air Merangin. In the SouthernSubregion, the major portion of the rift valley and adjacent mountainslopes drain north and west via the Air Langkap/Dikit and Air Ketahunvalleys. The extreme southerly portion of the rift drains south and eastvia Sungai Musi. The entire eastern slopes of the Low Barisans in bothsubregions drain east to the Berhala/Bangka Straits via the BatangHari/Tembesi and Sungai Musi/Air Rawas systems. Areas amenable tointensive irrigated agriculture, with potential for enhanced production,occur at a number of points in the rift valleys: at Muara Labuh, in theKerinci Valley, at Muara Aman, and at Curup.

13. In the Central Subregion landforms differ significantly between theHigh and Low Barisans. The High Barisans comprise a series of basalticvolcanic mountains (BBG, TGM), all over 2000 m elevation. These peaksgrade at lower elevatione into volcanic hill systems (BMS). The Low

93

Barisans are a much more complex mixture of basic volcanic, acid igneousand sedimentary/metamorphic rocks. North and east of the road between

* Alahan Panjang and Muara Labuh is a low (1500-2000 m) mountain ridgesystem composed primarily of sandstone (PDH) and metamorphic (BPD)materials, with smaller areas of limestone lenses (GGD) and compactblocks of granite (TWI). These mountain ridges grade into sedimentary(MPT), metamorphic (BGA), and acid igneous (BBR) hill systems at lowerelevations, primarily to the east. The rift valley in this area widensprogressively from north to south and contains significant deposits oflahar (TLU) and volcanic fan materials (GJO) at three points -Bukitgadang, Muara Labuh and Lubukgadang. The latter area is really thenorthward extension of the Kerinci Valley which was cut off when the riftvalley was plugged by lava materials (TGM, MNU) from eruptions of Mt.Kerinci and the Tujuh caldera. The Low Barisans to the east of the KerinciValley consist primarily of basaltic volcanics (BBG) and minor igneousgranites (TWI) over sandstones (PDH) and metamorphic (BPD) strata.These sedimentary/metamorphic rocks outcrop in large blocks along theeastern edges of the mountains. The Kerinci Valley is a poorly-drained,volcanic, alluvial plain (SLK) with flanking, undulating fans (GJO, KNJ),terraces (UBD, PKS), and lahar slopes (TLU). At the north end of the valleyis a large marshy area (KLR), called Rawa Bento, which contains thehighest peatswamp forest in western Malesia.

14. In the Southern Subregion both the High and Low Barisan Rangesconsist of a series of mountain peaks and ridges, about a half of which arebasaltic volcanic (BBG, TGM), and quarter each acid igneous (TWI) andmetamorphic (BPD). There are five distinct peaks in the High Barisans andseven in the Low Barisans. Peak elevations are generally lower than thosein the Central Subregion. At the extreme north of the Low Barisans arethree adjacent basic volcanic cones (TGM); Masurai, Sumbing and a lowerunnamed peak. These volcanos have produced extensive lava flows (BTK)stretching 15 to 25 km eastward as a near-circular, rolling hummockyplain or plateau, which contains some of the richest, flat-lying soils inthe region. To the southeast of this plateau, in the headwaters of BatangTembesi is a major block of metamorphic rocks characterized byprecipitous, longitudinal mountain ridges. Further south, centred aroundCurup, is a scattered group of six volcanos - five cones (TGM) and onecaldera (MNU) - three on each side of the rift valley. The lower slopes inthis area contain la.a hills (BMS), lava plains (BTK) and lahars (TLU). Therift valley in this subregion is generally narrow and V-shaped, opening

94

wider into alluvial plains only in the extreme south near Curup.

15. Soils in the Barisan Mountains are as varied as the geology (Figure4). Dominant upland soils range from fertile andepts on basaltic volcanicparent materials to extremely acid, very infertile podzolic oxisols andultisols on acid igneous and sedimentary/metamorphic parent materials.Small areas of karstic limestone strata support thin mollisols with highbase status. Most of these upland areas are very steep and the soilshighly erodible. The dominant soils are thus interspersed with associatederosional entisols. The nature and productivity of soils on lowlandalluvial/colluvial landscapes depends largely on the inherent fertility ofthe parent materials from which they were derived.

Jambi-Palembang Plains

16. This region has been described as an area of "monotonous, rollingsedimentary plains and hills" whose sole purpose is to separate theBarisan Mountains from the Eastern Coastal Swamplands (Figure 2). Thetransition from the mountains to these plains and hills occurs quiteabruptly at elevations between 50 and 200 m. Older references refer tothis area as a Piedmont-Peneplain Zone". The Jambi-Palembang Plainslie entirely within the drainage areas of the Batang Hari and Sungai Musi,two of Sumatera's largest river systems (Figure 3).

17. The geology of the region is only slightly less monotonous than thelandscape, consisting of calcareous, carbonaceous or tuffaceoussedimentary rocks - siltstones, shales, sandstones and lignites.

18. Rainfall varies from 2500 to 3000 mm/yr, with only minor seasonalvariaTion; 6-8 wet months (>200 mm) and 0-1 dry months (<100 mm).Temperatures are high and constant. Maximum temperature vary from 30to 330 C and minimums from 21 to 240 C.

19. The general landscape consists of longitudinal ridges and plains ofminor relief, traversed by slightly-incised river floodplains. The areathroughout is interspersed with small, enclosed, linear swampydepressions. The most extensive land systems are low, undulating torolling, tuffaceous plains (MBI, SAR, PKS, SKA), surrounding very long,narrow, steep-sided, asymmetrical ridges (AHK). The plains contain manypeat swamp (MDW) and marshy (KLR) depressions. The plains in the Batang

r95

Hari drainage (PKS, SkA) are dominated by extremely acidic, igneous andvolcanic tuff parent materials. Their transition to the Barisan Mountains

* is through a series of smaller, equally acidic, increasingly hillocky plainsunits (TTG, BTG). Further south, in the Sungai Musi drainage, parentmaterials are less strongly acidic mudstones, siltstones, sandstones andtephra (MBI, SAR). Major river valleys have wide floodplains (TNJ) andmeanderbelts (SBG), grading to narrow floodplains and terraces (BKN) insmaller tributaries.

20. Upland soils are dominated by very nutrient deficient, acidic toextremely acidic ultisols and oxisols (Figure 4). Soils in marshydepressions are peaty histosols and waterlogged inceptisols. Floodplainsoils are defined as wet entisols (fluvents) and inceptisols (aquepts).

t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I96

APPENDIX 11TABULAR SUMMARIES OF COMPARISONS BETWEEN LAND FORM DIVERSITY

IN THE ORIGINAL AND INTAG PARK BOUNDARIES

I

II

97

U

Appendix ha. Regional Summary Comparison of Landscape DiversityBetween the Original and INTAG Boundaries

Physiographic Original % of Total INTAG % of Total % ReductionType Boundary Area Boundary Area in Area

(Area in Ha) (Area in Ha)i

1. Westem CoastalFoothills

1.1 Hill Systems 77,885 5.30 22,735 2.30 711.2 Plains Systems 5,365 0.40 0 0.00 1001.3 Fans & Teraces 5,765 0.40 0 0.00 1001.4 Alluvial Valleys 2,430 0.16 35 c0.10 991.5 Wetlands 510 c0.10 0 0.00 100

2. Barisan Mountains

2.1 Mountain Systems 1,027,280 69.40 864,505 86.70 162.2 Hill Systems 122,955 8.30 58,600 5.90 522.3 Plains Systems 167,340 11.30 39,040 3.90 772A Fans & Terraces 8,885 0.60 1,505 0.15 832.5 Lahar Slopes 10,045 0.70 1,955 0.20 812.6 Alluvial Valleys 905 cO.10 0 0.00 1002.7 Wetlands 1 ,865 0.13 1,430 0.14 24

3. Jarnbi-Palembangn ~~~Pb-ins

3.1 Hill Systems 10,300 0.70 3,415 0.34 673.2 Plains Systems 38,620 2.60 3,245 0.33 923.3 Alluvial Valleys 215 <0.10 0 0.00 100

1,460,385 100.00 996,465 100.00

Appendix lb. Detallea Com$arlsan of Landscape Diveraity Between the Original ana INTA1 Boundarles

Physiographic Landscape Qeological Original INTAG % ReductionUnit Unit Type Boundary Boundary In Area

(Area In Ha) (Area In Ha)

WESTERN COASTAL Hill Systems Acid Igneous 32,670 5,630 82FOOTHILLS Sedimentary 15,955 2.285 65

Volcanic 29,260 14,820 49Plains Systems Sedimentary 5,365 0 100Fans & Terraces 5,765 0 100Alluvial Valleys 2,430 35 98Wetlands 510 0 100

BARISAN MOUNTAINS Mountain Systems Acid Ignecus 241,635 206,005 15Sedimentary 18,345 14,910 18Metamorphic 50,005 32,080 36Volcanic 717,295 611,510 15

Hill Systams Acid Igneous/Tuff 35,315 14,430 59Sodimentary 24,040 20,835 13Volcanic 63,600 23,335 63

Plains Systems Acid Igneous/Tuft 30,205 9,485 66Sedimentary 5,875 4,100 30Volcanic (Lava) 131,260 25,455 51

Fans & Terraces 8,885 1,505 63Lahar Slopes 10,045 1,955 81Alluvlal Valleys 905 0 100Wetlands 1,885 1,430 24

JAMBI-PALEMBAG Hill Systems Acid Igneous 690 0 100PLAINS Sedimentaryl 7,580 3,415 55

MetamorphicVolcanic 2,030 0 100

Plains Systems Acid Igneous/Tuft 110 0 100Sedimentary/ 36,510 3,245 92Metamorphic

Alluvial Valleys 215 0 100

Total 1,480,385 996,465