Payment for Environmental Services and Conservation Efforts in Gunung HalimunSalak National Park (GHSNP)

Bambang SupriyantoDirectorate of Environmental Services and EcotourismMinistry of Forestry, Republic of Indonesia

1992 : Halimun

NP (40.000 ha)

Production Forest: 73.357 ha

History of GHSNP

(1) Forest Cover Change 1989 - 2004

1989

1994

1998

Forest Cover -2004

Degradation rate

=1.16% per year

(2) 70 percen of 3 provinces rely on Watershed of Cisadane River:

(3) Habitat of Javan Gibbon

3. Habiiat of wildlife Primates (Java Gibbon)

A Wise Decision of Gov of Indonesia

• 2004 : Production of forest (legal logging) of 73.357 ha have been converted to conservation forest (part of Gunung Halimun NP) then the name of national park was renamed into Gunung Halimun Salak NP.

• Big Challanges: how to manage former of production forest into conservation forest with a wise decision – “win win solution”

• Human development index = 0,64 < HDI of Indonesia (0,7 –0,749)

• Average Income = US$ 33 as a part time labour of Tea Plantation

(4) 314 Sub Villages located nearby/

inside of Gunung Halimun Salak NP

“Common Vision: NP co-exit with People “Objectives(1) Facilitating the community empowerment through conservation education, conflict resolution and community access to non timber forest product (resin), self restoration and creating public support for community alternative income generation,

(2) Participatory mapping,

(3) Facilitating the use of non timber forest product/NTFP (resin production, marketing) and allocated the obtained NTFP for conservation fund to restore the areas, and

(4) To prepare a proposal on carbon trading for the pilot project under voluntary REDD scheme and a tree adoption program.

Methods

1. To achieve objectives 1 – 3

Conservation Kampong Model (CKM)(i) Participatory observation;

(ii) Restoration carried out in the degraded area inside the park with participation of local communities;

(iii) Income generating

(Supriyanto B, Hideyuki K (2010) From fence-and-fine to participatory conservation : mechanism oftransformation in conservation governance at the Gunung Halimun salak National Park, Indonesia.Biodivers Conserv DOI 10.1007/s10531-010-9803-3; Published online 12 March 2010)

2. To achieve objectives 4Allometric Equation Methods

Transformation of actor’s perceptions at site area

Typical comment on the other actor

before the experimentation began

Typical comment on the other

actor one year after the

experimentation began

Field

officer

Villagers are engaged in illegal logging so

that I need to carefully monitor them.

Farming is a main livelihood.

Without recognizing their

farming practice, I cannot win

their support for forest

conservation.

Local

people

National park officers are arrogant and

coercive. They always suspect us as

illegal loggers.

Field officer’s opinion is the

same as ours. We should

conserve forest for water and

paddy fields.

know

Understand

AwareAct Conservation/ Sustainable use

PES from Community

• GHSNP gives an acces to Purasari community through LDMH for non timber forest product (resin).

• Community allocated 20% additional income from resin selling to restore critical zone in GHSNP PES (47.25 ha/year)

• Restoration area was designed by participatory mapping which is collaberated between GHSNP Officer and Purasari Local Community.

Participatory Mapping To define GHSNP Zoning

Income Each Member and Restoration Fund

No Name Total

Production

Production

per Month

Income per 5 Months Restoration Fund

Kg Kg IDR US$ IDR US$

1 Uman 763 127 2.289.000 254 763.000 85

2 Tarma 1177 196 3.531.000 392 1.177.000 131

3 Sahid 687 115 2.061.000 229 687.000 76

4 Sawa 771 129 2.313.000 257 771.000 86

5 Anim 575 96 1.725.000 192 575.000 64

6 Sanata 349 58 1.047.000 116 349.000 39

7 Pepen 1234 206 3.702.000 411 1.234.000 137

8 Amat 877 146 2.631.000 292 877.000 97

9 Ata 792 132 2.376.000 264 792.000 88

10 Aca 113 19 339.000 38 113.000 13

11 Jana 284 47 852.000 95 284.000 32

12 Ginanjar 254 42 762.000 85 254.000 28

TOTAL 7876 1313 3.938.000 438 7.876.000 875

AVERAGE 109 328.167 36 656.333 73

Land Cover Change in GHSNP 1989 - 2008

Fig. a Purasari area land cover year 1989 Fig. b Purasari area land cover year 2003

Fig. c Purasari area land cover year 2007 Fig. d Purasari area land cover year 2008

The calculation of Purasari forest area Carbon Potency

YearForest

Plantation

Forest

The

potential

carbon of

forest

The potential

carbon of

plantation

forest

The total of

potential

carbon

ha ha ton ton million ton

1989 3092.76 96.75 785561 17214.73 0.80

2003 2130.3 81.54 541096.2 14508.41 0.56

2007 1881.45 136.44 477888.3 24276.77 0.50

2008 1879.74 128.52 477454 22867.56 0.50

2014 1879.74 837.27 477454 148447.97 0,64

Legend : the values of forest carbon = 254 Mg/Ha (Prasetyo, 1999)

the values of plantation forest carbon = 177,93 Mg/ha (Haryadi, 2005)

Graphic of Potential Carbon in Purasari Forest Area

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

19892003

20072008

2014

potential carbon of forest

potential carbon of plantation forest

Graphs of carbon potential in Purasari forest area within 3 conditions, namely fixed production forest, to forest conservation (stop illegal logging), forest conservation (stop illegal logging and restoration).

2nd scenario

1st scenario

3rd scenario

Scenario of Carbon Stock in Purasari Forest Area until 2014

• Scenario 1 : If the status of forest still in production forest management while logging is permitted, the potential value of carbon will continue to decline reached 0.4 million tons even lower.

• Scenario 2 : If status of forest changed to forest conservation and there is no illegal logging and encroachement, the value of fixed carbon potential of 0.5 million tons.

• Scenario 3 : If cooperation between society and TNGHS staff well maintained, safe area of illegal interference, restoration activities (PES) still continued than carbon potential value to the next 15 years can reached 0.88 million tons.

Tree Adoption Program

Involvement of local farmers in the activity of

Tree-Adoption Programme

IDR 50.000 equal US$ 5.56 per tree for 5

years. The use of money will be 10% for

seedling, 10% for plantation, 40% for

generating income for the people who take

care the plantation, 20% for four years

enrichment just in case the tree planted is

dead, 10% for monitoring, and 10% for

capacity building.

No Activity Before Project On Going Project

1. Monthly Income Part time of Labour

Tea Plantation

US$ 33 per month

Part time of Labour Tea Plantation

US$ 33 per month

Involved resin tapping

US$ 36 per month

Alternative income of tree adoption program

US$ pm per month (need to be researched)

Total : US$ 69 + pm

Minimum standard income per month US$

97.02

2. Restoration No restoration fund

available

20% of resin production revenue

20% of tree adoption program

47.25 ha per year

3. Illegal Logging 10 cases/ year 2 cases/ year

4. Forest Encroachment Occur Limited

Acknoledgment

We would like to thanks to JICA GHSNP Project and CIFOR which give a grant to support this project running smoothly, and GTZ Forclime Indonesia to make our travel to Hanoi possible.

(Human can be seen as a threat or opportunity depending on a wise decision)- Bsmbsng Supriyanto, 2010-