Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
The fate of orangutan conservation in Indonesia and strategies for improvement
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

The fate of orangutan conservation in Indonesia and strategies for improvement

1,516

Published on

Despite laws put in place for their protection, orangutan populations in the wild continue to decline. From the populations existing in 1900, only 7% of the Bornean orangutan population and 14% of the …

Despite laws put in place for their protection, orangutan populations in the wild continue to decline. From the populations existing in 1900, only 7% of the Bornean orangutan population and 14% of the Sumatran orangutan population have survived into the 20th century. In this presentation, CIFOR scientist Linda Yuliani discusses why orangutan conservation efforts seem to have had such little success, and provides some possible alternative approaches for more effective orangutan conservation. This presentation was given to delegates at the 2nd World Biodiversity Congress held recently in Malaysia.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,516
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. The fate of orangutan conservation in Indonesia and strategies for improvement E. Linda Yuliani, M. Moeliono, H. Adnan,   (CIFOR), Deni Bakara, Ade Bujani (Riak Bumi), E Linda Yuliani M Moeliono H Adnan (CIFOR) Deni Bakara Ade B jani (Riak B mi) Budi Suriansyah, Muhammad Ilyas (DSNP Authority)THINKING beyond the canopy
  • 2. Presentation outlinePresentation outline• Introduction• Objectives• Methods• Results
  • 3. INTRODUCTION
  • 4. Orangutan distribution* and recent  population estimates** ** • Sumatra (Pongo abelii) – 6,624 ( g ) , • Borneo: – Northwest (Pongo pygmaeus subsp.  pygmaeus) ‐ 3,000–4,500 – Central (P pygmaeus subsp Central (P. pygmaeus subsp. wurmbii) at least 34,975 – Northeast (P. pygmaeus Northeast  (P. pygmaeus subsp. morio about 15,800)*Map: Caldecott, J. and Miles, L. (Eds.) 2005. World Atlas of Great Apes and Their Conservation, UNEP  and WCMC** Wich, S.A., Meijaard, E., Marshall, A.J., Husson, S., Ancrenaz, M., Lacy, R.C., van Schaik, C.P.,  Sugardjito, J., Simorangkir, T., Traylor‐Holzer, K., Doughty, M., Supriatna, J., Dennis, R., Gumal, M.,  Sugardjito J Simorangkir T Traylor Holzer K Doughty M Supriatna J Dennis R Gumal M Knott, C.D. and Singleton, I. 2008. Distribution and conservation status of the orangutan (Pongo spp.) on Borneo and Sumatra: How Many Remain? Oryx 42(3): 329‐339.
  • 5. A comprehensive legal framework A comprehensive legal framework• During colonial: 1925 Ordinance (Dierenbeschermingsordonnantie) g ( g )• National laws and regulations: – Law 5/1990 on the Conservation of the Living Resources and ther a 5/ 990 o t e Co se at o o t e g esou ces a d t e Ecosystems, with implementing regulations on endangered species  conservation (Peraturan Pemerintah 7/1999) and exploitation of  endangered species (PP 8/1999); endangered species (PP 8/1999); – Law 41/1999 on Forestry, with implementing regulations on forest  protection (PP 45/2004), forest governance, planning and exploitation of  forests (PP 6/2007) and the Ministerial decree on guidelines for managing  ( / ) conflict between humans and wildlife (P.48/Menhut‐II/2008) ; and – Law 26/2007 on Spatial Planning. / p g• National Strategy and Action Plan for Orangutan, whose implementation  is formalized through the Forestry Ministry decree P.53/Menhut‐IV/2007 g y y / /
  • 6. However, orangutan populations in the  wild continue to decline Out of the populations extant in  1900, only 7% of the Bornean orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) pygmaeus)  population and 14% of the  Sumatran orangutan (P. abelii)  Sumatran orangutan (P. abelii) population survived the 20th  century Rijksen, H.D. & Meijaard, E. 1999. Our  Vanishing Relative: The Status of Wild  Vanishing Relative: The Status of Wild Orang‐Utans at the Close of the Twentieth  Century. Tropenbos Publications.  Wageningen. Kluwer Academic Publishers,  g g , Dordrecht.
  • 7. In Danau Sentarum NP and its surrounding  landscape (West Kalimantan) Parameter Russon et al. 2001 Our results (Jan‐Jul (data collection:  2010) 1997) No. of locations 7 10 Total length of  T ll h f Approx.  A Approx.  A transect 3km/location 6km/location Total 15.75 km Total 15 75 km Total 52 51 km 52.51 km No. of nests found 264 147• A work in progress, but the results indicate a serious decline of OU population• In one location Russon found 20‐57 nests we found none as the In one location, Russon found 20 57 nests, we found none as the  forest has been totally cleared for oil palm
  • 8. Major threats Direct causes: • Habitat loss due to forest  conversion, mainly for mining,  i i l f i i oil palm plantations and timber  plantations;  • Habitat degradation and  fragmentation caused by road  construction, forest fires and  construction, forest fires and illegal logging • Poaching and illegal tradingUnderlying causes: • Poor governance• Weak law enforcement  Weak law enforcement• Ambiguous policy that explicitly protects species but not their habitat• Lack of awareness of the laws in place to protect endangered species• Poor coordination amongst key actors, and poverty  Poor coordination amongst key actors and poverty• Conflict with humans 
  • 9. Conservation efforts and comprehensive legal framework have failed to stop the declining orangutan habitat WHY?? WHAT CAN BE DONE? WHY?? WHAT CAN BE DONE?
  • 10. Study of conservation policies and stakeholders  perception on orangutanObjectives:• To improve understanding  of why conservation in  f h ti i general has been  characterized by so few  characterized by so few examples of success – from  social perspectives• To develop alternative  approaches for more  effective orangutan conservation
  • 11. METHODS• Conventional method: direct  observation, questionnaire  and in‐depth interview with  district government,  government conservation  government conservation agencies, NGOs and local  p p people• Action research: PRA  techniques (Venn diagram,  village sketch, FGDs), small  workshops and meetings
  • 12. RESULTS
  • 13. The fate of (orangutan) conservation in  Indonesia • Inconsistent national and  regional policies; • Failure to involve local people  in conservation efforts; • Failure to assign clear rights,  roles and responsibilities; • Lack of coordination and  communication; and • Unclear accessibility and  g allocation of funding
  • 14. Inconsistent national and regional policies g p• Indonesia’s laws: recognise the importance of protecting orangutans (and other key species), but this is not reflected in government  programmes and policies.  programmes and policies.• National Strategy and Action Plan on Orangutan Conservation launched  by the President in December 2007, but neither national nor local  governments adopt the strategies. 
  • 15. Examples pNational Strategy:  gy Reality: yThe best way to protect  National and district land use orangutans is by protecting their  planning: prioritizing large scale habitat plantations and mining  forest  plantations and mining forest clearingTranslocation is to be a last resort if  Government  conservation habitat rehabilitation is impractical  agencies: relocation and or impossibleor impossible translocation are the only option  translocation are the only option for saving the remaining  orangutans from non‐protected  areas, as they are unable to stop  deforestation, and receive no  support from other sectors.  support from other sectors
  • 16. Failure to involve local people p pGrowing realisation and efforts to involve local people, but:• M l h Mostly characterized by a one‐way communication and not promoting  i db i i d i social capital improvement: – informing local people of the programme informing local people of the programme – imposing restrictions without dialogue or adequate consultation – treating local people as threats rather than working through their  potential to support conservation
  • 17. Failure to involve local people • Lack of capacity and  knowledge of the key  institutions on both  orangutan ecology and ecology and  socio‐cultural context of  p p the local people • The fundamental meaning  of participatory/  collaborative management  is poorly understood
  • 18. Unclear rights, roles and responsibilitiesUnclear rights roles and responsibilities • Conservation: responsibility of all  citizens with specific roles and duties,  however key stakeholder groups  consider conservation as the  consider conservation as the responsibility of the government  agency for nature protection alone. • Laws: not enforced, but government  bodies are debating the creation of  more regulations rather than  more regulations rather than implementing the existing • Government actions should rigidly Government actions should rigidly  follow the law and territoriality , and  availability of budget  no action  during emergency d i
  • 19. Lack of coordination and communication• Among government sectors• Government structure:  absence of authority to  coordinate other sectors and  coordinate other sectors and levels of government• Efforts to build coordination  and communication:  – Too formal – Too high profile Too high profile – Too much focus on producing  formal documents – Lack of processes to build Lack of processes to build  mutual trust, understanding  and in‐depth communication
  • 20. Unclear accessibility and allocation of funding • Conservation funds: donors  and government d • From donors:  – F For orangutan i l is larger than  h for other species – Short period, difficult to  p , undertake long‐term  planning – One case: large funding One case: large funding  coordinated by one  organization, but who could  apply and what activities  l d h t ti iti could be funded are unclear
  • 21. Unclear accessibility and allocation of fundingUnclear accessibility and allocation of fundingGovernment’s budget: • Relatively small, mostly for  routine operating costs  and salaries and salaries• Rigid allocation +  territoriality + bureaucracy Insufficient funds for rescue  or emergency operations,  or emergency operations awareness‐raising  programmes, capacity  building and monitoring
  • 22. SOME ALTERNATIVE APPROCHESSOME ALTERNATIVE APPROCHES • Local people as Local people as  conservation cadres • I t Integrating formal law  ti f ll with customary rules • Appropriate reward  mechanisms • Meaningful multi‐ stakeholder/  collaborative processes
  • 23. Local people as conservation cadreKey:  Through:• B ild l l Build local people self‐ l lf • AAwareness programs and  d motivation and self‐ capacity building based on  organizing capacity g g p y folklore, local knowledge  g• Rooted in local culture and  and traditional norms knowledge • Proper recognition and  reward from outsiders df id
  • 24. Integrating policies/formal regulations with  traditional systems d l• L Law and customary rules d t l • P Processes to build in‐depth  t b ild i d th• Protected area zonation with  communication, mutual trust  traditional land use system traditional land‐use system and understanding g • A series of training‐workshop  on law enforcement
  • 25. Appropriate reward mechanisms Appropriate reward mechanisms• Long‐term and equal benefits • Often in practical and simple forms, • Gender equity e.g.:• No elite‐capture – Education facilities and healthcare,  praying house, micro‐hydro power,  praying house micro hydro power• Build self‐reliance rather than  – Connection to NTFP market,  dependency capacity building to improve  quality and get certification,  association to stabilize NTFP price – Media coverage and network with Media coverage and network with  civil societies  visitors  better recognition and additional  income  snowball effect income snowball effect • Work well when there is strong and  clean local institution with good  leadership
  • 26. Meaningful multi‐stakeholder/collaborative  processes• Focus on potentials rather than problems Focus on potentials rather than problems • Use organizational  Use organizational development tools, e.g.:• To promote communication, relation and  sharing knowledge, NOT bureaucracy and  – Appreciative inquiry creation of formal documents – Accelerated learning• Should build the key stakeholders’ sense  – Vibrant facilitation of belonging and pride, NOT simply aimed  of belonging and pride NOT simply aimed • Every one has something  Every one has something to meet project targets important to say • What I can contribute, NOT  what others should do
  • 27. THANK YOU

×