The fate of orangutan conservation in Indonesia and strategies for improvement
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.
The fate of orangutan conservation in Indonesia and strategies for improvement
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
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.
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 / /
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.
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
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
Conservation efforts and comprehensive legal framework have failed to stop the declining orangutan habitat WHY?? WHAT CAN BE DONE? WHY?? WHAT CAN BE DONE?
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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