Illegal logging in protected area and buffer zone support programs: Case Study of Gunung Palung National Park, West Kalimantan

ONDA Nariaki, KATO Shogo, H. R. PUTRO & MASUDA Misa 1. Background Illegal logging is the biggest problem of forest and forestry in Indonesia. It has been known that official production figures on timber output from Indonesian’s forests have been far from accurate (Anne 2002). Also in the conservation area, it is carried out unexceptional. In Indonesia the first, five national parks established in 1980, and, it has come to count 41 places in 2003. But, it has been known that many problems of management after the decentralization. R. Soekmadi (2002) pointed out that “natural resource dependent people”, ”land conflict”, and “lack of law enforcement” as major problem for managing all national parks in Indonesia. He mentioned that appropriate forest management is needed. In addition, he mentioned that “land hunger”, “law enforcement”, “lack of appreciation from local people” and “illegal logging” is an urgent issue that needs to be tackled in Gunung Palung National Park (GPNP) of West Kalimantan Province. Thus, GPNP Office (Unit Gunung Palung National Park: UGPNP) and local government developed a buffer zone support program for the national park. The aim of this paper is to find out the effectiveness of the buffer zone support program in natural conservation area. 2. Background Descriptions 2.1. Detail of GPNP Initially in 1937,the park was a natural and wildlife preservation with its area of 37,750 ha. Pekayang, Sebruang Mountains, Labuhan Batu and the surrounding area comprising 60,000 ha were then merged with Gunung Palung Wildlife Sanctuary in 1981. As a result, land area increased to 97,750 ha. However, when the Ministry of Forestry decelerated the GPNP, the area decreased to 90,000 ha. The GPNP is located in the Ketapang District in West Kalimantan Province at 1°03' – 1°22' SL, and 109°54' - 110°28' EL (Figure 16.1). The GPNP overlaps in five sub districts which are Sukadana, Matan Hilir Utara, Simpang Hilir, Sei. Laur, and and Nanga Tayap (UGPNP, 2001) (Figure 16.2).

16

210

Figure 16.1. Study Site: Gunung Palung National Park

Figure 16.2. Gunung Palung National Park Protected areas in Gunung Palung National Park contain seven eco-system types. The first eco-system is sub-alpine rainforest. It is located at Mt. Palung (1,116m) and Mt. Panti (1,050m). The second eco-system is mountain rain forest. The third eco-system is lowland rain forest. The forth eco-system is alluvial land forest. The fifth is swamp forest. The sixth is mangrove forest, and the last is rheophyte forest. The GPNP eco-system is also a habitat for rare and frequently endangered fauna including oranghutan (Pongo pygmeus) (Figures 16.3.& 16.4), proboscis monkey (Nasalis laryata), parakit ekor panjang

211

(Pstittacula longicauda), ivory hornbill (Renophax vigil), vampire bat (Ptereropus vampyrus), clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa) , and sun bear (Helarctos malayanus).

Figure 16.3. Orangutan (August 2003) Figure 16.4. Nest of orangutan (August 2003) The UGPNP has responsibility to manage GPNP and support the welfare of the people who live in the buffer zone. In 2002, the UGPNP was formally decided by the decree of the Minister of Forestry. The main office was in Ketapang with its branches in Sukadana and Teluk Melano. However, the decree has not been carried out yet. At present Ketapang, the main office, still has four branches; Sukadana, Kebin, Batu Barat and Pangkal Tapang in the border of GPNP. Seventy-eight people work in UGPNP, which consist of 5 administrative officers, 27 foresters, 41 forest policemen and 5 office workers in 2004. In 2004, the number of worker in the branch decreased. The area that was patrolled by the 4 branches was 90,000 ha. But, there were only one forest police and one forester in each branch. Over ten years have passed after the establishment of the GPNP. However, the zoning system inside the national park, prescribed by the Conservation of Nature Law in 1995, has not carried out. 2.2. Buffer zone support programs Before decentralization, the GPNP office mainly implemented the buffer zone support program. From 1996 to 2001, the buffer zone support program was carried out by total of 26 villages, 793 households (Table 16.1). The program mostly covered agricultural aspects, such as distribution of nursery plants (rubber and a fruit trees), distribution of manure and livestock (UGPNP, 2002) (Table 16.2). After decentralization, by the decree of Ministry of Home Affairs in 2001, the authority over the buffer zone was transferred to the local government. From the issuance of this decree, the management of the GPNP buffer zone was mainly implemented by the local development agency (Badan Perencanaan dan Pengendalian Pembangunan Daera; Bapedalpembda). The UGPNP and local government agencies play their role according to the decree of Ketapang District Governor1. According to the local development agency, there were 109 support programs planned by 2014. Most of the support programs (104 programs) kept their focus on primary industry aiming to enhance and aid the agricultural sector become the main source of income for the people living in the buffer zone. However, there were 3 conditions that disable the local government to play a good management practices:

1 Decree of Ketapang District Governor No.173, 2002 (Keputusan Bupati Ketapang Nomor : 173 Tahun 2002)

212

lacked availability of detailed statistical data on the buffer zone.;

lack of number and capacity of staffs who can take care of the vast area of the buffer zone; and

variety of coverage area and characteristics of the buffer zone. A GPNP officer mentioned that “the range of the buffer zone is wide and regional characteristics varies so management is difficult2.” Table 16.1. Buffer zone support program of Unit Gunung Palung National Park

Year Villages House holds Contents of program 1996/97 5 55 The distribution of the seedling of the fruit tree 1997/98 3 103 The distribution of the seedling of the fruit tree 1998/99 4 170 The distribution of the seedling of the fruit tree, rubber and vegetable

1999/2000 8 260 The distribution of the seedling of the fruit tree and vegetable Support for farmers groups

2000 2 100 The distribution of the seedling of the fruit tree and vegetable The distribution of the dung

2001 4 95 The distribution of the seedling of the fruit tree The distribution of the livestock

Source: UGPNP (2001)

Table 16.2. Buffer zone support program of local government

Contents of program Number of programs Support for agriculture and fishery 104

The other 5 Total 109

Source Bapedalpembda (2003)

2.3. Illegal logging in GPNP According to the annual report of GPNP, damage by illegal logging was 68,500ha, which estimate to 80% of total area of the national park (UGPNP, 2002) (Figure 16.5). The Ketapang District Governor warned 4 times from 2001 to 2003 to stop logging activities to "the village society that illegally log GPNP3.” In 2001, almost all area of GPNP - such as Matan Hilir Utara, Sukadana (Figures 16.6& 16.7), Simpang Hilir and Sengai Laur sub-districts - were seriously damaged by illegal logging (ibid.). In 2004, the area that was most seriously damaged by illegal logging was Matan area: the northeastern part of the national park (Figure 16.8).

2 Interview to GPNP officer, August 2004 3 Decree of Ketapang District Governor No.680.0200, 2003. (Bupati Ketapang 680/0200/Dhk 2003) Decree of Ketapang District Governor No.661.1118, 2002. (Bupati Ketapang 661/1118/ -Bapedalpembda,2002) Decree of Ketapang District Governor No.661.1118, 2002 (Bupati Ketapang 661/0747/ -Bapedalpembda,2002) Decree of Ketapang District Governor No.661.691, 2001 (Bupati Ketapang 681/691/Bapedalpembda,2001)

213

Figure 16.5. Damaged area in Gunung Palung National Park (1999-2003) Source: Paper of UTNGP.

Figure 16.6. Logging road in Gunung Palung National Park (August 2003)

Figure 16.7. Timber basin in Gununp Palung National Park (August 2003)

214

Figure 16.8. Timber basin at Matan Area (August 2003) 2.4. Illegal Cultivation People who live around the park cultivate some parts of GPNP. Most of the areas that have been occupied local people are in Sukadana and Matan Hilir Utara dub-district. Base on the annual report of Gunung Palung National Park, the damaged area is 7,200ha (UGPNP, 2003). 2.5. Illegal Mining Rocks have been collected in Sungai Belit, Munting hamlets and Teluk Datuk Beach, which is inside of the GPNP. People take rocks for road and house constructions. The area damaged from collecting is around one hectare and total damaged areas are 3,600ha (UGPNP, 2003). 2.6. Forest Fire Forest fire are causes by land clearing and opening of land for cultivation. Base on annual report of GPNP, total damaged area are 10,800ha (UGPNP, 2003). 3. Study Site and Methods P village that is adjacent to the GPNP in the district Kutapan, West Kalimantan. Double cropping is possible in this village because a waterway constructed near a rice field has rich water sources that originate from the mountain (Figure 16.9). The water comes from the mountain irrigated by the paddy field. There were 129 households with 91% of them Melayu. In terms of religion, 96% were Moslem and 4% were Buddhist. Agriculture supports 96% of the population in the village.

215

Figure 16.9. P village (August 2003) Field survey was conducted for a month in August 2003 for collecting information about the general conditions for through direct-observation transect and semi-structural interview. Then in 2004, interview was conducted by using questionnaire. Sample of 40 households (31%) that were engaged in agriculture from 129 households were randomly sampled from residential list based on tax list and interview for head of village. 4. Results and Conclusion The household engaged in the forestry labor were 23 people from 19 households out of 40 households. This forestry labor was implemented in Matan area. All the people engaged in the forestry labor were men, and the social status did not matter. 23 people (36%) out of 64 people in the man from 15 years old to 55 years old engaged in the forestry labor. The period that man began their forestry labor classified into 4 terms: before decentralization term until 1996 (term 1): the period of Asian economic crisis from 1997 to 1998 (term 2); the shifting period of decentralization from 1999 to 2001 (term 3); and the after the decentralization after 2002 (term 4). Seven people engaged in forestry labor at term 1, 2 people in term 2, 10 people in term 3, and 4 laboring term 4. It was clear that many people got engaged to forestry labor after the era of decentralization. In addition, the study categorized households engaged and those who did not in forestry labor and compared managed agricultural land area with agricultural conditions for each household. It was identified that those households who were engaged in forestry labor scored high point on agricultural income, livestock than those household who were not engaged. From this result it was clear that the households engaged in forestry labor maintained good condition for agriculture management (Table 16.3). Table 16.3. Comparisons of agricultural condition between logging activity (July 2003-August 2004)

Logging Activities

H.H Average of managed

land area (ha) Agri. income

(Rp.) Agri. input

(Rp.) Agri. benefit

(Rp.) Live stock

(Rp.) Active 19 1.4 2,047,237 373,289 1,673,948 2,191,579

Non-act. 21 1.4 1,173,810 361,381 812,429 1,554,286 Total 40 1.4 1,588,688 367,038 1,221,650 1,857,000

Source: Field Survey (2004)

216

The household who were engaged in logging activity and those who were not in relation with manpower were compared. The agriculture management area of the male manpower for around one person was shoe low score, therefore it was analyzed that those household who were engaged in forestry labor had little time for agricultural activities (Table 16.4). Table 16.4. Comparisons of household condition between logging activity (July 2003-August 2004)

Logging activities

H.H. Average

old of H.H. Number of

H.H.members The Number of manpower

Number of male

manpower

Agri. management area per male

manpower (ha) Active 19 38.2 4.9 3.7 2.0 0.7

Non-act. 21 40.7 3.9 2.5 1.3 1.0 Total 40 39.5 4.4 3.1 1.6 0.9

Source: Field Survey (2004)

It was clear that the existence of the male manpower was essential. It is worth noting that the households who were engaged in the forestry labor was comparatively rich. Therefore the buffer zone support program should reconsider the agricultural support for the low income households. The surplus labor can be the key actors for future program design. Acknowledgments We wish to thank JICA expert Fujimoto Noboru and his staffs for their encouragement and guidance throughout this research. And, we are also grateful to staff of Unit Gunung Palung National Park for access to the national park and for providing information. We thank residence of P village for support our field survey. References Anne C. and Krystof O, 2002. From new order to regional autonomy: Shifting dynamics of “illegal” logging in

Kalimantan, Indonesia. World Development (30)12; 2133-2151

BAPEDALPEMBDA Kabupaten Ketapang, 2003. Pemerintah Kabupaten Ketapang rencana penglolaan daerah

penyangga Taman Nasional Gunung Palung. BAPEDALPEMBDA Kabupaten Ketapang, Ketapang.

Soekmadi, R., 2002. National park management in Indonesia: focused on the issues of decentralization and local

participation. Cuvillier Verlag, Gottingen.

UTNGP, 2001. Buku informasi potensi kawasan Taman Nasional Gunung Palung. UTNGP, Ketapang.

UTNGP, 2002. Statistik Unit Taman Nasional Gunung Palung tahun anggaran 2001. UTNGP, Ketapang.