Case 2 – Forestry and Segregative Nature Conservation:

The Designation of Conservation Areas

The following case presents a re-designation of forest conservation areas to National Parks of Mount Merapi and the Mount Merbabu complex. This redesignation of forest function areas refers to MoF No.134/2004 and No. 135/2004 which respectively cover area about 6.410 ha and 5.725 ha.

a) The case (case 2a)

The redesignation of Mt. Merapi and Mt. Merbabu from a former Nature Reserve, Protective Forest, and Nature Recreation Park into a National Park has created pros and cons. The new designation came from the central government, i.e. MoF while the cons came mainly from local communities and NGOs. They argued that some designated National Parks in Indonesia have been merely established based on economic considerations e.g. flows of trans-national capital rather than environmental reasons and those they have lead to various degrees of degradation of those national parks (Haryono 2006). Natural Parks in Indonesia are managed by the central government. Their designation often changed former borders affected silviculture or impaired local communities’ access to the forest resources which they had relied on for generations. In many cases the central government gave even licenses such as for mining activities, although the forest area was meant to be protected (Tempo 2002). Insofar, the designation of a National Park will not necessarily guaranty environmental sustainability. It might even risk worsening the level of degradation.

Actually, the designation of a National Park should follow the existing natural conditions of the area. Usually a zoning system is implemented, and previous Nature Reserves are indicated as core-zone (zona inti), the previous protective forests as buffer-zone (zona rimba), the previous Nature Recreation Parks (Taman Wisata Alam) as utility-zone (zona pemanfaatan) and other relevant zones might be preserved to maintain tradition, as rehabilitation area, for religion purposes or for other special purposes.

Referring to Government Regulation No. 68/1998 on Natural Resource Conservation and Natural Area Preservation, a core-zone of a National Park shall be inclusively in natural condition and undisturbed by humans. The previous Nature Reserve of the Mt. Merapi which only covered 165,75 ha was presumed to be undisturbed and in natural condition while in the case of the Mt. Merbabu, there is no such area, and the remaining protective forest consisted of plantation forests. In this respect, it is most remarkable that a small area of undisturbed natural forest in the Mt. Merapi National Park and plantation forests in the Mt. Merbabu National Park have been designated as core-zones. In addition, according to some academic experts, this procedure violated against the law, particularly because no Environmental Impact Assessment (Analisa Mengenai Dampak Akan Lingkungan) nor a people consultation process were conducted, although they are both stipulated in the Law No. 23/1997 on Environmental Management; article 5 (Kompas 2005). Referring to the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), these areas have not even been mentioned as protected areas (Whitten et al. 1997).

However, according to MacKinnon et al. (1982 in Wikramanayake et al. 2002), another 15.000 ha of the Mt. Merapi and Mt. Merbabu were proposed as recreation forests rather

than other conservation types. Since Mt. Merapi is situated north of Yogyakarta, one of Java's larger cities is very attractive for recreation purposes.

All in all, the designation of the Mt. Merapi and Mt. Merbabu as National Parks in the Western Java Montane Rain Forest ecoregion seems to be incompatible with Law No.

5/1990.

b) Conclusions and recommendations concerning forest functions arrangement and management.

Policy can give a strong and direct impact on forming the landscape e.g. through designating different types of management intervention. In the presented case, the category of a National Park does not match with the actual conditions of the area. Such inappropriate designation has the potential to be contentious; not only for the management of the area but for all stakeholders.

Efforts to conserve nature are not automatically accepted in the society. A social process and adequate accompanying studies should be implemented to reduce potential conflicts.

Basically the conservation status of the entire ecoregion is categorized as critical, and a high level of protection of the respective areas is crucial. An appropriate protection status may follow category III (National Monument) by IUCN (Kozlowski and Peterson 2005), where high levels of protection exclude incompatible extractive uses in face of their natural, cultural and aesthetic richness. This kind of protection status is also essential for the preservation of biodiversity and for providing the necessary information for monitoring change.

a) Another case (case 2b)

The following study case is another area designation that has been considered as incompatible. From the juridical perspective of designation, Mt. Lawu (under Eastern Java Bali Montane Rain Forest ecoregion) is not yet preserved adequately, although a primate species population in this area is ranked among the rarest and most endangered primate species in the world. Consequently Mt. Lawu has been proposed by WCMC to be protected (Whitten et al. 1997). Primate species can be taken as an indicator for ecosystem health.

The broad geographic perspective of the Sundaic Shelf region is important in this respect as it harbours a disproportionately large number of primate species and primate endemics (Mittermeier and Konstant 1996/1997 in Nijman 2001).

Most primate species are confined to natural forests like the ebony leaf monkey/surili (Presbytis comata), formerly called P. aygula. But all respective decrees to preserve them (MoAg Decree No. 247/1979; MoF Decree No. 301/1991 and No. 882/1992) just focus on the species and do forget about their habitats.

P. comata is known to be strictly arboreal - as one of the principal arboreal shoot- and leaf eating mammals of the Javan rain forest (Medway 1970 in Nijman 2001). Fruits are also eaten when available (Sujatnika 1992 in Nijman 2001). The habitat is primary or secondary forests, with a preference for younger plantations rather than mature forest stands (Supriyatna et al. 1994 in Nijman 2001). However, degraded forests or plantations may not guarantee that the species can survive for a long period of time. The distribution pattern is in mixed-lowland to hills-rain forests, and montane ever-wet forest with a vast majority of records originating from the wettest areas.

Their habitats have been destroyed and, based on IUCN Category, the species has become ‘endangered’. 33 forest patches of their habitats have been identified all over Java, from Ujung Kulon in the west to Mt. Lawu in the east. Fossils have been found in Middle Pleistocene deposits (collected by Eugene Dubois) in Mt. Wilis-Liman (eastern Mt. Lawu). It shows that this species was previously extended further eastward than Mt. Lawu. The populations are supposed to have disappeared due to a volcanic eruption from Mt. Wilis. In the Bengawan Solo River Basin, the remnant population is only found in the far east of Mt.

Lawu at 1000 – 3000 m a.s.l. at the border between East and Central Java (Bartels 1937 in Nijman 2001).

Some authors argued, that P. comata in Mt. Lawu was synonymous with P.c.

fredericae and therefore categorized it as sub-species. Based on a study in 1994 - 2001, IUCN categorized it as ‘data deficient’. Due to the geographical variation, other authors alleged that differences between P. comata and P.c. fredericae could hardly be found in diagnostics, because some intra-species variation is such a clinal nature (slowly change). In order to preserve this intra-species variation, it is about time that all remaining populations and their habitats, especially those in Central-Java become actively protected. If the P.c.

fredericae should not be synonymous with P. comata, it would be ranked among the rarest and most endangered primate species in the world, restricted to 4 isolated forest areas including Mt. Lawu (Nijman 2001), making it a top priority for primate conservation (Brandon-Jones 1995 in Nijman 2001).

However, up to current time, their forest habitat in Mt. Lawu is not yet adequately protected, although the population size has been estimated to be declining. Theoretically it has been calculated in a range between 8040 (MacKinnon 1987 in Nijman 2001) and 2285 individuals (Supriatna et al. 1994 in Nijman 2001).

Overlaying their current distribution with the current forest function map of Mt. Lawu, the area is designated as Protective Forest concerned with water and soil protection and managed by the state forest company Perhutani. The vegetation cover is secondary dry land forest and plantations (pinus and acacia). The land cover of Mt. Lawu is dominated by

vegetable agriculture even on the steep slopes. There is no appropriate management provision for the preservation of P. comata (fredericae) or for their habitat.

Different from the habitat requirements of P. comata a species which is strictly arboreal and will become extinct if the forest is cleared up, a primate species like Macaque fascicularis or long-tail macaque is able to survive in man-made habitats. During the dry season of 2004 in the Sukoharjo Regency (Central-Java), thousands of long tail Macaques was not only attacking the farms but also the villages and villagers after no food could be found on the farms. Shortage of water and food in the (southern) mountainous forests was regarded as the source of the problem (Kedaulatan Rakyat 2004). Referring to MoF Decree No. 618/1996 on the Population Management of non-protected Wild Animals, M. fascicularis is nowadays categorized as ‘pest’. This fact apparently shows that a conflict with respect to natural resources can also appear between humans and animals. This leaves no other conclusion than to rehabilitate their habitats and to control the population.

b) Conclusions and recommendations concerning forest functions arrangement and management

Both cases illustrate that the conservation concept in the Indonesia forestry sector must be altered with regard to the following issues:

(1) There is not only a fatal lack concerning the legal support for species conservation through habitat protection, i.e. in considering the habitat of endangered species as essential requirement for their survival; but also a lack of wildlife management concepts in cultural landscapes. The P. comata population in Mt. Lawu has not even been recognized in the management record of the East Java Nature Conservation Agency (personal communication 2004), because its habitat is managed under the water and soil protection function.

(2) To control boom populations of aggressive species like M. fascicularis is needed to protect farms and farmers. An appropriate hunting program to control the population growth within a formal wildlife management framework should be considered. This of course, would also have to include the appropriate preservation of their original habitats.