Cooperative Agreement between USAID and WWF Indonesia NO. 497-A-00-00-00002-00 Independent evaluation conducted by S. Juliani Dr. Helen Schneider WWF Indonesia-NRMIUSAID - November 2002 WWF THE OUTER ISLAND BIOREGIONAL PROGRAM: INTEGRATED PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT AND SPATIAL PLANNING IN d KALIMANTAN AND PAPUA Cooperative Agreement beween USAID and WCYF Indonesia, NO. 497-A-00-00-00002-00 END OF PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT BY S. Juliani Dr Helen Schneider CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................... ... .- -........ 1 I1 . PROJECT OBJECTIVES .................................................................................. 3 I11 . FINDINGS ......................................................... G .. ........... .........-.-.. 3 1 . PROJECI IDENTIFICA~ON AND DESIGN ...................................................................................................... 4 (a) Project design ........................................................................................................................................ 4 . . (b) Project sues ........................................................................................................................................... 4 . . . . (c) Changes in rlrepolrtrcal and socio-economic srtrmtlon ......................................................................... 5 2 . PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................................ 6 (a) Internal Aspects ..................................................................................................................................... 6 (b) Enernal Aspects .................................................................................................................................... 9 . . (c) Coordrnatron: ...................................................................................................................................... I I 3 . ACHIEVEMENTOFPROJECT OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................... 12 IV . CONCLUSIONS 8: RECOMhlENDATIONS .-- ......................... 24 1 . CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 2J (a) Achievement of objectives .................................................................................................................... 24 (b) Srrstainabiiity of achievenlenrs: ........................................................................................................... 27 ... (c) Rep1rcabrlrty ....................................................................................................................................... 27 (d) Clmilenges: .......................................................................................................................................... 27 . . (e) Opponrrnities arising from decenrralrsatron: ...................................................................................... 27 2 . REC0.W MENDATIONS 28 V . LESSONS LEARNT - ............................... ".".- ..................... -- -- 29 . . (a) Effects of Decentralrxrron ...................................................................................................................... 29 . . (b) Socio-economic and cdtrrral condrnons ................................................................................. ............... 29 (c) Program nunagenlent ............................................................................................................................. 29 VI . UNRESOLVED ISSUES ........ ......--- ................................ ..-. -30 REFERENCES .......................................................................................... - 102 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I This report comprises the results of the external, independent evaluation of the 'Outer Island Bioregional Program: Integrated Protected Area Management and Spatial Planning in Kalimantan and Papua', a three year USAID-h%;M funded program implemented by \lWF Indonesia, which commenced in October 1999 and is due to finish at the end of October 2002. The evaluation aimed to determine the degree to which the pro-mm has achieved its objectives in biodiversity conservation, protected area management and capacity building of stakeholders, to analyse enabling and hindering factors, and to provide recox&endations on future courses of action. In general, it is concluded that, on avenge behveen the two sites chosen for the pro-rn activities, around 80% of the planned outputs have been achieved consistently across the workplans for the three years. Significant progress has been made in terms of identifying high priority biodiversity resources, increasing awareness of some of the key endangered species present, and facilitating the inclusion of the protection of these resources within draft district spatial plans. Lessons have been learnt as to the effects of decentralisation on the process of designating protected areas, and on the need for appropriate and intensive approaches to all stakeholders, including local government and communities. Good relationships have been established with decision-makers at the district level and their capacity in land use planning policy-making has been increased through provision of data, maps and advice, as well as technical training. Appropriate alternative income generation activities, which would relieve pressure on biodiversity resources from local communities, have been identified and preliminary training has taken place. However, the ultimate objective of an increase in the area of protected resources and the associated best practices in protected area management, has yet to be fully achieved due to a number of hindering factors, including some which were unforeseeable. The draft spatial plans in both districts have been compiled with input from WWF but neither has yet been presented to the parliament for discussion and ratification due to circumstances beyond the control of the program. Given the substantial achievements so far, and the unique advantage IF has in terms of the relationships built with local stakeholders and their image as a credible, useful, neutral agency by both local government and community members, it is recommended that the proTD- be granted a no-cost extension in order to achieve the above outstanding objective. It is also recommended that WWF continue to build on existing achievements and relationships in both of the project sites in the medium term to further facilitate the institutionalisation of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development criteria within the spatial planning process, and to support stakeholders in the development of locally appropriate protected area management models. 1 I. INTRODUCTION I 1. BACKGROUND TO NRM-WWF PROGRAM In October 28, 1999, USAID and LF/I signed a Cooperative A-geement for the implementation of The Outer Islands Bioregional Proram: Inte-mted Protected Area Management and Spatial Planning in Kalimantan and Papua. It is called WAF Indonesia - NRM/USAID Program. The length of program is three years, which started from 21 October 1999 and will be completed by October 27, 2002. The total amount of financial resources funded by USAID was estimated at Rp14,739,416,092. The program is implemented by WWFn full time staff consisting of a Pro-mm Coordinator, Program Managers, Bioregional Planners and Administrative Support Staff in both provinces. Additional works were and still are done by consultants on a part-time basis. In addition the program should collaborate with NRM-2 partners, the Nature Conservancy (TNC), Conservation International (CI), local NGOs, Kemala, local governments and the private sector. For the implementation of this project, two priority areas were selected: Sebuku-Sembakung watersheds in Nunukan district, East Kalimantan province, and Jamursba ~Medi - Xorth Tamrau situated in the Vogelkop (Bird's Head) area, Sorong and Manokwari districts, Papua province. Section 1.7 (c) of the Agreement requested the recipient (w\.VFIr) to arrange for an independent, external evaluation two months prior to the completion of the project. This is the legal basis for this evaluation. a) To produce an independent evaluation of project implementation to date, referenced to project objectives and workplans by particularly focusing on conservation achievements, capacity building (local govemment, community and local NGOs), partnerships (stakeholders framework), and local govemment and community acceptance of the ARM pro,pm. b) To review work-plans proposed for the remainder of the project period with regard to likelihood of the project to achieve its objectives. c) To provide recommendations for improving current activities or for alternative courses of action. The Scope of Work of this independent external evaluation can be found in Annex I.' ' Annex I: Scope of Work of independent. external evaluation team 2 The findings of this evaluation are based on a literature review of workplans and reports, observations in the field, together with comments and'input from a variety of staikeholders that were interviewed during the course of the evaluation (see Annex 11'). Unfortunately, due to scheduling difficufiies, it was not possible to use Focus Group Discussion methods as had been - originally planned. The itinerary of the evaluation team can - be found in Annex 111'. ~ . The overall goal of the project is to strengthen institutional capacity, participatory planning and effectiveness in achieving biodiversity conservation at a biore3onal scale. The goal is to be achieved through the following four objectives: Objective I: Identify high priority biodiversity resources, describe how specific human activities adversely affect these resources, identify lower impact alternatives, and increase the area of protected resources where best practices are being implemented. Objective 2: Establish biodiversity conservation as an important planning and decision making criteria, recommending changes to the institutional and legal framework, and educating government and private sectors. Objective3: Strengthen protected area management through participatory planning and facilitation of stakeholder agreements, and test innovative institutional and funding arrangement for protected area management. Objective4: Develop the capacity of stakeholders in protected qa management and bioregional planning through training, workshops and cross-visits. There are two main aspects of the project to be evaluated as stated in the Scope of Work (1) Project identification and design (2) Project implementation. These two aspects are critical to the overall impact of the project on the beneficiaries, locally, regionally, and nationally. See Annex 11: List of stakeholders interviewed Annex 111: Itinerary of Evaluation Tam 18~ September - 16" October 2002. 3 In essence, although the project's main assumption is to work at the local level, empowering local communities and local government, all parties concerned in this project ,mssly underestimated the impact of decentralization. In fact, this is one of the main lessons learnt that has been identified in the course of this evaluation exercise. (a)Project design - The project design was sufficiently clear in terms of objectives and activities to be carried out by WWF. However, the proiect objectives can be seen to have been over-ambitious given the time period of the project and WVF's previous experiences in the time taken to establish protected areas and carry out participatory approaches- to management plan design and implementation. . The Cooperative Agreement worked well for both USAID-NRM and IVlVF Indonesia, in that both parties should agee any new andfor modified activities through documented communication between the hvo parties. This includes approval of workplans on an annual basis, and within the time period of each workplan, approval of any modifications that were deemed necessary to contribute to the success of the project. Project management also plays an important part in ensuring that project activities are canied out and supported by the organization: for instance, financial and administrative mechanism procedures that support field activities; resource management for each project site; Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E); and coordination within NR1M-WWF projects, as well as among the various projects within WWE In this project, M&E was carried out internally by IVJVF, focusing on ensuring that any administrative requirements such as narrative and financial reports were submitted in a timely manner so that subsequent financial disbursement from USAJD-NRM would not be delayed. The mechanism for substance monitoring, on the other hand, was weak, as emphasis was put on ensuring that reports are done on time. A substantial part of the project design required dealing with communities. through a participatory approach to protected area management, as well as with public administration in relation to incorporating biodiversity values into spatial planning. Aspects related to coordination with local government and the complexities of local culture (particularly in Papua) were underestimated. This caused delays and changes in the workplan and activities, as well as the location of field staff, as issues arose which needed to be addressed through newldifferent strategies. In this regard, the project design was sufficiently flexible to accommodate the changes that were needed to address issues arising from the implementation of local autonomy in each project site. (b) Project sites The areas chosen for this project were identified as having important biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, endangered species, etc.) and as being subject to immediate or potential threats to the maintenance of that biodiversity. Within the regions of Kalimantan and Papua, the project has identified several sites that fit these criteria. However, the logistics of needing to work closely with district level government, as a result of decentralisation, and the sheer size and accessibility problems in these two regions meant that, after initial identification of key biodiversity resources, the project had to focus on one key site in each area i.e. Sebuku-Sembakung in Nunukan District, East Kalimantan and Jamursba Medi￾Tamrau Utara in Sorong & Manokwari Districts, West papu$. (c) Changes in the political and socio-economic situation This is the first WWF project to deal directly with district level (KabupatenKota) in the decentralized government. WWF has an MoU with the Ministry of Forestry and this is the main government agency they have traditionally worked with at national and local levels (BKsDA'). WWF has substantial experience working with-the ministry to -designate protected areas and develop management plans for these areas, in recent years with more emphasis on participation of local stakeholders and incorporating community development activities to encourage sustainable management through the ICDP~ model. Although this process could take as long as 8-10 years, previously the strategy was that once management lans were in place, WWF could leave implementation to the Ministry P (through UPT or Balai Taman NasionaZ) as protected area status more or less guaranteed protection. However, in recent years encroachment into established protected areas has increased dramatically and it is clear that centrally designated protected area status is no longer sufficient to guarantee conservation of these areas. The change of WWFs approach has arisen due to realisation that other land uses and resource exploitation are now also affecting biodiversity conservation within protected areas. In addition to working through spatial planning at the district level, WWF has also recently commenced national programs on illegd logging, palm oil and forest fires in reco~ition of the fact that these threats cannot only be handled at the local level but rather require co-ordinated efforts to influence forest law and governance. It has become clear that, due to decentralisation, direct and continuous interaction with district government agencies is now needed. The power and authority of the kfinistxy has been significantly undermined by decentralisation regulations (e.g. UU2211999) and attempts to reclaim some of this authority, for example through PP3412002 on Forest kind -. Use and Compilation of Forest Management Plans, have been largely ignored by district governments. This situation, combined with the effects of the prolonsed economic crisis and the lack of law enforcement, has led to an unprecedented increase in logging, particularly in Kalimantan and Sumatera. This process has been facilitated by the issuance of small scale logging and land clearancdre-planting permits by district governments without the necessary institutional capacity to monitor these activities or develop the comprehensive land use plans needed to rationalise their distribution. In addition, some district governments have taken to 'legalising' illegally logged timber by imposing local 'See Location Maps in Annexes X & XI BKSDA = Local Natural Resource Conservation Office of the Depmment of Forestry ICDP= Integrated Conservation and Development Program ' UPT= Unit Pelaksanaan Teknis or Technical Implementation Unit 5 fees and taxes or auctioning off the captured timber and then issuing the necessary permits to allow the timber to be 'exported' out of the districts. - The effects of decentralisation on project implementation are discussed further in the following section. - Assessment of the NRM-WWF project implementation in both sites (Nunukan and Sorong) revealed three main groups of aspects that have affected pro,gess over the past three years, i.e. a) Internal: Workplans and reports, staffing and organizational structure, management of financial resources, approach and mechanism for stakeholders participation, and impact on and sustainable activities by the local beneficiaries b) External: Effects of decentralization, culture; site conditions . c) Coordination: with and amongst donors, peer organizations, and other local, regional, and national stakeholders The following section reports on the findings of factors, both positive and negative, affecting the achievement of project objectives according to each of these aspects. Factors have been differentiated by whether they are internal or external: internal enabling factors are the strengths of the project design, implementation and management while internal hindering factors are the weaknesses. Similarly, external enabling factors can be considered as opportunities and external hindering factors as threats to the achievement of the project objectives. (a) Internal Aspects (i) Workplans and reports In both sites, the annual workplan submitted each year included some agreed modifications, mostly caused by delays due to a number of technical and social factors, such as logistics, consultants schedule, weather, and other unexpected circumstances including the influx of returning illegal migrant-workers to ~unuki from across the Malaysian border and rejection of WWF activities by some communities in Sorong. The minor changes included activities being expandedcontracted as necessary, and these changes were easily traceable. Achievements were still within the same category of objective(s). Achievements - illustrated in terms of percentage of completion of each output as stated in the workplan - and comments for each project site can be found in Annex ZV: Achievements against workplans - Sorong and Nunukan. In the third year workplans, an increased focus on what targets were achievable within the remaining timeframe resulted in a change in workplan format to include targets and milestones, &well as the necessary activities, towards achieving those targets. Individual reports and documentation for particular activities were referenced andor attached to the semi-annual reports. A positive note should be mentioned here on how thorough most of the reports were, which not only contained list of activities but more see fcr example. McCanhy (2001) 6 importantly the progress of each activity. However, random sampling of retrieval of reports showed that the cataloguing/indexing system was insufficient to enable quick and easy access to the reports database. Lack of knowledge management system (i.e. database, indexing, cataloguing, for easy and quick access to any report needed) if left as is now could lead to further under-utilization of data, and create an image of an unorganised system of datdlibrary management in WWF Indonesia. (ii) Staffing and organizational stnicture During the three year period of this project implementation, some changes were made to the organisational structure. The decentralised decisions on project implementation, that had been a tradition for WWF Indonesia, were revisited. To bitter communicate lessons learned, a national co-ordinator position was established in Jakarta to best facilitate sites and donor's communication - as opposed to providing a technical and supervisory role to the programme managers in the field. While the prolonged transitional period of management changes had taken its toll in field support in the first two years of its implementation, the management decision to ensure that essential project team members were stationed in the field was most appropriate. WeaXnesses/Hindenng Factors: General (both sites): Changes in staffing of the projectg, resulting in gaps and the need to re-establish relationships with stakeholders and re-learn the history of the project Initial decision in the proposal, to base the location of the WW- hRM Prosoram Managers (and some staff) in Jayapura and Balikpapan meant insufficient socialisation of the program with stakeholders in the early stages. Intensive interaction with the local participants accelerated only in the third year once staff were permanently stationed on site. Under the new \DVF st~cture, the mechanisms for institutional learning are not yet clear. Traditionally, communication between WWF projects has been limited because they have tended to be site-based/project orientated. The challenge remains lo unite individual projects into a national strategy; there is a need to change staffs mindsets to have a more strategc overview rather than be solely focussed on individual projects A Monitoring and Evaluation system which focuses on fulfilling donor requirements through submission of workplans and reports but appears to have no clear mechanism for sharing learning between projects and project sites, both current and past Snecific to Panua: Restructuring of the Sahul ~ioregion", designed to rationalise resources and encourage & less site-based and more strategic programmatic approach, has meant that resources have to be shared between projects and this has occasionally led to delays, for example where heavy demands have been placed on GIs resourceslexpertise Due mainly to some team members being unable to relocate to district capitals 'O See AnnexV Organogam of staffing structure - WWF Sahul Bioregion 7 In the first two years with the Program Manager initially based in Jayapura, when problems then arose with some communities, the Sorong based staff did not feel they had the authority to take decisions on how to proceed Strengti~s/Enabling Factors: General: WWF is seen by local governments, local NGOs and most communities in Nunukan and Sorong, as a credible, neutrallindependent organisation Good spatial planning and GIs expertise/equipment within WWF-NILM Pro-- in both Kalimantan and Papua Project staff experienced with working within government, strong lobbying skills and protected area management experience. For example, in Kalimantan the new Program Manager and the Bioregion Director together have decades of experience as Heads of National Parks. In Papua, the lobbying skills of staff are evidenced by their initial success in encouraging the District Head and the Governor to issue recommendation letters for JMTU to be designated as a protected area. (iiijManagemenr offinancial resources The budgetary information made available was insufficiently detailed to do in-depth analysis of budget against expenditure with regard to individual activities or objectives over the course of the project or between the two sites. The only findings under financial resource management & distribution that can be made are therefore as follows: 0 In the first year of the project, the budget for Papua was only 85% of that for Kalimantan. Both projects overspent the budget in the first year by 106.61% and 104.22% respectively. In the second year the two budgets were approximately equal; in Papua 95% of this budget was expended, while in Kalimantan; according to figures supplied, only two-thirds of the planned budget was spent. In the final year, the Papua budget is over 120% of that of Kalimantan due to increased expenditure on multi-stakeholder meetings, as part of the public consultation process, and also an increase in the number of field activities to socialise the results of the process and elicit more information about the conditions and needs of communities. There has been some minor confusion over USAID financial accounting and procurement systems, resulting in having to reimburse some funds for activities which did not satisfy requirements (ivjApproach and mecl~anisrn for stakeholders pa&ipation The mechanism for local participation, was traditionally done through meetings, workshops, monitoring visitsm, and involvement in biodiversity and socioeconomic surveys. In both sites, WWF staff were warmly welcomed in the various local government offices visited during the evaluation. nis was an indication that the approach taken with the local government decision-makers offices has been positively received. Mechanisms for stakeholders participation and the public consultation process in both sites are described in more detail under Objective 3 in the Findings section of this report. In Papua, initial rejection of some of W\T's activities by some communities has required a more concentrated effort on identifying and implementing participation mechanisms, and community development activities, as well as socialisation of the project to beneficiaries. (v) Impact on, and sztstainable activities by, local bet~eficiaries As WWF-NRM in both places were the first large NGO to work directly and intensively with the local government, traces of their activities are very easily seen. WIW - NRh4 produced maps and other data are clearly used in many government offices. Staff, as well of Heads of Divisions, in all local government offices visited during the course of the evaluation, recognized and greeted WWF staff as soon as they walked in. GIs maps produced by WWF are used not just by local governments, but village heads also came to the \WVF office to request maps to use in their own discussions with district and sub-district administrations. Many of the alternative income generation activities developed during the course of this project have only just started to be implemented by local communities so the long term success and impact of WWF's training in this field cannot yet be measured. However, the fact that villagers from outside the area of WWF's work have approached WWF to develop similar programs in their villages shows the enthusiasm of local communities to be involved in these activities. @) External Aspects (i) Effects of decentralization TTzreatsLYindering Factors (General) Need for continuous socialisation and lobbying of local government requires projects to be based in district capitals with resulting implications for resource allocation and logistics" Biodiversity conservation issues have to compete for the attention of local government with private sector interests e.g. HPH", oil palm investors, mining companies etc. who promise to bring much needed local revenue Enthusiasm for regional autonomy and the changes resulting from refonnasi has meant that local communities are now more vocal than previously in demanding compensation for loss of traditional resource rights (more so in Papua) Issuance of numerous small-scale forest exploitation licences by the Bupati to KOPERMAS13/ "Community Co-operatives" before a comprehensive spatial plan " See also Hindering Factors under site conditions "HPH = Hak Pemarlfaatan &ran or Forest Exploitation Licencd concession granted by the Ministry of Forestry to logging companies - 9 is in place and without the necessary institutional capacity within local government to monitor their activities (more so in Nunukan) Re-organisation of government departments (creation of new departments) and sub-division of Districts requiring re-organisation of local government structure and staffing and resulting in inexperienced staff in key positions, as well as delays in the ratification of the Spatial Plan Inexperience/low level of education of district parliamentarians Unexpected factors such as the sudden influx of mi,pnt workers into Nunukan which has taken precedence over all other issues being handled by the local government since August 2002, leading to WWF unable to influence the local parliament schedule in order to ensure that the Spatial Planning process is completed according to WWF-NILLI workplan schedule Opportrtnities/Enabling Factors: (General) Greater authority of district government (and provincial government under Special Autonomy Status for Papua) includes the ability to issue local government regulations (PERDA") that should in theory better reflect local conditions and the needs and rights of local people Stronger role of DPRD" potentially means greater accountability of local government to their constituents New district governments more open to input from other stakeholders such as WWF Sorong is an older more established local government with plenty of central government funding (under Special Autonomy provisions) and therefore potentially under less pressure to exploit resources for short-term gain. The Bupati has a vision of sustainable development for Sorong and a commitment to stop unsustainable exploitative activities, such as those of HPH, in the district. However, the implementation of this vision faces numerous problems with existing regulations, available funds, local government capacity1 human resources, and national and local politics (ii) Cultwal factors The following apply to both sites but have been particularly influential on the project in Papua nzreatsMindering Factors Complex and unclear structure and authority of traditional communities and the institutions that claim to represent them (LMA'~) causing misunderstandings and l3 KOPERMAS = Koperasi Masyarakar or 'C!ommunity Co-oper3tive" which has been gnnted small-scale forest roduct exploitation licence by the Bupati. ' PERDA = Peraruran Daerah or Local Government Regulation DPRD = Dewan PensakiIan Rakyaar Daerah or People's Local Consultative Assembly (local parliament) 10 protests from communities who feel they are not adequately represented involved in decision making over their traditional resource use rights. OpportunitiesEnabli?zg Factors Some traditional cultural beliefs which support consenWion of natural resources (e.g. taboos, sacred sites, traditional resource use patterns). (iii)Site conditions - Threatsfidering Factors Poor accessibility - size of area, transport, time, influence of weather - affects project activities, as well as restricts the level of govemment services and local government knowledge of the situation in isolated villages, and also the economic and community development of those communities ~ - .~ ~ Facilities - poor communication facilities in district capiials e.g. unreliable telephone/fax, unreliable or non-existent email access, frequent power cuts (c) Coordination: Co-ordination is a term often discussed but not so easily implemented. However, in this project, efforts to co-ordinate have shown positive results: Peer organisations. In Nunukan, WWF-NFW has successfully partnered with CtWE to work in some of the villages within the proposed protected area, with CARE focusing on community development activities. In Papua, staff of local organizations have interned with 1WW-NRiM through joining their field activities. In both places, joint proposals have been written for future funding. 0 Local Government. In both places, efforts have been put into more frequent communication and involvement of both executive and le$slative bodies of the local government. In these three years, however, the focus was put on the former, causing the latter to complain and urging WWF - NFW to increase their efforts to coordinate with DPRDs (local parliament). Legal Drafting gaining w% one of the efforts targeted toward capacity buildinb for DPRD members. Donor agencies. WW has to date benefited from good working relationships with not only their network of WWF organisations internationally, but also with donors such USAID, GTZ, EU, etc. Activities under the WWF-NL funded Action Network programs in Kalimantan and Papua have complemented USAID-NILM funded activities under this program. Currently, proposals are being submitted to DFID and NOAANW. Fisheries Centre for further funding to complement andor extend activities in the current ~~~NRhl sites. l6 LMk Lembagn Masjarakat Adat or 'Traditional Community" Institution 11 3. ACHIEVEMEKT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES The following section discusses the performance of the WWT-hXM Program against objectives. Outputs against objectives according to each years' workplan can be found in Annex ZV: Achievements against workplans - Sorong and Nunrrkan. The descriptions klow address issues outlined in the Scope of Work for the independent consultants assigned for this external evaluation1'. The underlying issue in all explanations below is the impact of project activities on beneficiaries. For Nunukan, approximately 80-90% of the outputs have been produced according to the workplans. For Sorong, on average 7540% of planned outputs have been achieved in each of the three years of the project. PAPUA Objective 1 - Identify high priority biodiversity resources, describe how specific human activities adversely affect these resources, identify lower impact alternatives, and increase the area of urotected resources where best ~ractices are being imdemented. Biodiversity Analysis An inventory of high priority resources has been carried out for the province of Papua based on a review of existing literature" and the results of two biodiversity planning workshops involving a number of Indonesian and international experts19. This analysis identified the Bird's Head region as containing the highest priority biodiversity resources in need of protection. Within this region, the coastal area of Jamursba Medi - the world's fourth largest nesting beach for Leatherback turtles (Den~oclzelys coreacea) - and the inland Vogelkop montane and associated lowland forests of Tamrau Utara - one of the key priority biodiversity ecoregions identified above - became the focus of the hXC1 pro-pm in Papua. Rapid Biodiversity Assessments (RBA) have been caked out in the eastempart of Tamrau utara20 and in Jamursba ~edi~l and the resulting data have been compiled in the NRM database. Plans to conduct a comparative survey in a third location* in the western part of the area which is part of a logging concession could not be realised due to rejection of WWF's activities by some members of the community. In addition, for the whole of the Bird's Head area, existing spatial and tabular data have been collected and processed, along with up-to-date information on vegetation and land use from the interpretation of LANDSAT TM 7 satellite ima~es (November 2000), to form the basis of a GIs. "Annex I: Scope of Work of independent, external evaluation tam '' e.g. Ronald Petocz (1385); Biodivenity Conservation Priorities Map produced by Consewation International and others (1997); National Biodiversity Action Plan (1993); other reports & propowls from FA0 j9 Biodiversity Planning Workshop March 2000 (co-sponsored by WIVF-NRMNSAID. Bapedalda. CI and NRMEPIQ) & Biodiversity Swey Planning Workshop Aug 2000 (co-funded by Sahul Action Network & WWF-NRhWSAID). RBA of Saukorem subdistrict, Manokwari district June - August 2001 RBA carried out in June 1999 as part of the existing turtle monitoring Progan. Wewe Kwwr, Sausapor sub-dismct, Sorong district 12 Threat Analysis & Lower Impact Alternatives Threat analyses categorising types of threats, actual and otential threats and level of severity have been carried out for the selected area2? as well as to a more general extent at the district level'! Data from macro-economic reviews of the districts of Sorong and Manokwari undertaken with other funding have been compiledx. Socio-economic surveys and participatory mapping/PRA methods in villages within the . Jarnursba Medi - Tarnrau Utara (JIMTU) area have improved understanding of the current resource use practices of the local communities and potential threats to biodiversity arising therefrom. The needs and aspirations of the communities have also been elicited, as a basis for identifying appropriate alternative economic activities which improve the welfare of the people without threatening biodiversity. 'NWF and their counterparts in BKSDA have- implemented a community-based NRIM model based on employing and training community members to guard and monitor the turtle nesting beaches. Results of on-going research and monitoring by WWF have shown that this model has been successful in practically eliminating poaching of adult turtles and collection of eggs'6 as it builds upon the customary connection between the community and the turtles while at the same time offering an alternative source of income (since outsiders used to pay in kind for the right to take eggs from the beaches where the community holds traditional resource use rights). In addition, IVWF's BKSDA and the local NGO Yayasan Alam Lestari, have been working with local communities to investigate ways to mitigate threats to turtle eggs and hatchlings from natural predators, for example through erecting an electric fence along the beach in the nesting season. In the inland areas, in recognition of threats from exploitative activities such as lo,o@ng by -'HPH and KOPERMAS, WWF has developed a strategy to facilitate alternative income" generation activities for local communities so that they are not dependent on income received from logging. The majority of local communities have recognised the negative impact of logging on their natural resources and have issued statements rejecting HPH activities on their traditional lands. The Bupati has suspended the HPH licence of PT Multi Wahana Wijaya for contravening regulations (illegal logging), based on the communities' protests and analysis of HPH company's activities in Sorong with input from \VA9. Increase in area of vrotected resources At a WWF workshop in December 1999 a proposal was put forward by BKSDA to join Tamrau Utara Nature Reserve with Jamursba Medi under a single National Park designation. This proposal was supported by participants, including some of the coastal communities who would be affected, based on awareness of the negative effects on the coastal ecosystem caused by degradation of forested areas in the Kwoor River catchment due to logging activities of HPH PT Multi Wahana Wijaya. Under the new proposal this WWF (2001d) WWF (2000) 25 See Annex VI: Spatial data collected at provincial and regional scale in Papua 26 see for example Hitipeuw. C & John Maturbongs (2002) WWF (200ia) 13 area of Limited Production Forest, together with an area of existing Protection Forest, would also be included in the National Park thus protecting the biodiversity of the whole landscape unit. This proposal to designate the area as a National Park originally received strong support in the form of recommendation letters from the Bupati (no. 5031546 May 2000) and the Governor (no. 522.511676lSET June 2000). Ordinarily, the next step would have been to legalise this status through a Ministerial Decree from the Ministry of Forestry in Jakarta but adverse reactions from communities who had not been involved in the process delayed the establishment of a National Park and required a change of approach from \W and other stakeholders supporting the proposal28. Objective 2 - Establish biodiversity conservation as an important planning and decision making criteria, recommending changes to the institutional- and legal framework, and educating government and private sectors. htihrtional and legalframework WWF have collected available data on planning policy and reviewed the existing framework and process of planning and decision making in Sorong district in 2000: as well as analysing the status of development and conservation in the district? Through close collaboration with district government offices, WWF have kept upto-date with the developments and changes that have occurred as a result of decentratisation and Special Autonomy status for Papua, although there is still much confusion within local government itself over roles and responsibilites for natural resource management and spatial planning processes and the situation is still very dynamic. In the initial stages of project, relationships were established with provincial level government agencies and local NGOs involved in planning and conservation. As the role and authority of district government increased as a result of the passing of decentratisation legislation, WWF began to concentrate on establishing positive relationships at the district level. Representatives of district and sub-district government, local NGOs and Letnbaga Adar Masyarakat interviewed by evaluation team all confirmed good relationships with WVF and appreciation of the input WWF have provided in terms of data, maps and advice. As a result of these endeavours, the new draft spatial plan for Sorong district incorporates WVF's recommendations for the Jamursba-Medi to be designated a Wildlife Sanctuary and Tamrau Utara's current Nature Reserve status remains the same. However, there is some confusion over the proposed status of the contentious area behveen the two which is currently designated as Limited Production Forest. In the draft plan this area is mapped as "Hzrran PPA", which is not a standard designation for either production or protected forest and for which there is apparently no further explanation within the plan document. As yet the session to discuss, amend and ratify this plan by the DPRD has yet to be scheduled. However, the potential incorporation of these high priority biodiversity resources as a 25 see findings under Objecrjve 3 '%WF (2001b) & (2001~) WW (2000) protected area within the district spatial plan will open up the opportunity for locally legislated protected area status which is more acceptable to the local communities3' Edrrcating government officials & private sector Government officials interviewed during the course of this evaluation showed an awareness of the importance of conserving species, particularly flagship species,3' such as turtles, and bird species such as cendravasih (Birds of Paradise), in Sorong. - However, it was also clear that WVF has had to be pra,gnatic in their approach to ensuring high priority biodiversity resources are protected through the spatial planning process, given that revenue raising and the prosperity of the people are the main concerns of the local government. WVF have therefore also been stressing the importance of the functions of intact ecosystems in maintaining ecological- processes, such as the hydrological cycle, thereby maintaining water supply, and preventingflloods, soil erosion etc which would have negative economic impacts..Similarly, particularly in Papua, the maintenance of those traditional cultural values, rights and practices of indigenous people, which are generally biodiversity friendly, has been promoted as a key issue in the planning and development process, in addition to biodiversity per se. Criteria It is clear that FVWF needs to do more to promote the importance of biodiversity in a format which is both understandable to government (both legislative ad executive) and which clearly shows the economic value of biodiversity conservation. Without this it is difficult to establish biodiversity as a key planning and decision-making criteria at the district level. I Objective 3 - Strengthen protected area management through participatory planning and facilitation of stakeholder a.greements, - and test innovative institutional and funding I larrangements for protected area mana, aement - It was agreed that the activity of documentation of lessons learnt would concentrate on those arising from this project in the two sites in Kalimantan and Papua, rather than a more global documentation of WWF's experience throughout Indonesia as outlined in the original proposal. This document is scheduled to be submitted along with the project final report. Participatory planning Since the first year of the project WW has carried out many activities to socialise the concept of sustainable natural resourcemanagement and biodiversity conservation with local communities, NGOs and government. However, there have been some problems with " See findings under Objective 3 and section on Decentralisation for more discussion on kal Replariodchrlnges lo Jegjjslatjon "Charismatic species which appeal to people due to their size. appearance. 'cute' behaviour etc and which can be used as a foundation of conservation campaigns 15 the mechanism of participation. In the first instance, only the coastal communities were represented at the workshop where the proposal for the National Park was first put fonvard and supported. Although this proposal received much support from the local government in the form of recommendations from the Bupati and Governor, some Karon communities in the Tamrau Utara area, and those in living within the area currently designated as Production Forest. objected to the proposal. In particular, the inclusion of the village of Kwoor meant that some local people would lose income from involvement in loging activities and these people protested the proposal. ?VWF attempts to overcome this opposition through socialisation of the proposal through local NGOs and traditional community institutions (Lembaga Masyarakat Adat - LMAs) were less than successful. Through more recent direct consultations with the communities themselves it has become clear that many community members felt that these institutions did not adequately represent them and, in some cases, even exploit communities' customary resource use rights for the LMA's own gain (through compensation claims, the money from which is said not to reach the villagers themselves). In order to ensure the participation of all stakeholders in the decision-making process on the future status of the area, WWF organised a public consultation meeting in February 2002~~. Prior to the meeting itself several other meetings were held to socialise the purpose of the public consultation meeting and to solicit input from all communities likely to be affected by the proposal, both those for and against. A publicity campaign was also organised through stakeholder dialogues on the radio and articles in the local newspapers in the run-up to consultation meeting. This process has been reco,gised by the local government as the first truly democratic consultation to be held in the district. Stakeholders Agreements The public consultation process resulted in several written statements from the communities involved that could be considered as the basis for stakeholders' a,oreements. The statements assert that the majority of communitiesU in the area support the \W￾Program and efforts to conserve the nature and culture of the area over which they hold traditional rights. They also state that the project should also include human resource and economic/community development. The majority also a,-to conserve the natural resources of JMTU and reject the activities of the HPH PT Multi Wahana Wijaya, demanding that their licence be permanently revoked. However, these communities reject the proposal to designate the area as a National Park due to negative perceptions of the term "Nati~nal"~~. Instead they propose that the area be designated "The Karon Indigenous Communities Nature Conservation Area"M and that this protected area designation should be enshrined in a local government regulation (PERDA) with the proviso that the "participants included community representatives, local government, Ministry of Foresuy officials and members of the National Parliament %See Annex V1I:"Approximation of which areas accept and which reject the proposed protected in P3pd' 35 considered to mean that the land would belong to the state and therefore traditional resource use rights uould not be fully recognised ?6 Kawasan Pelesfarian Alum Masyarahf Adaf Karon 16 management of the area be the responsibility and right of those who hold traditional resource use rights there. Instit~rtional and legal framework IVWF has been lobbying district and provincial governments to issue recommendations that reflect the communities' aspirations. Similarly IVWF in Jakarta has been lobbying the two Papuan members of the National Parliament who attended the Public Consultation to influence the national government (Ministryof Forestry) to do the same. To try to overcome the problems caused by inadequate representation of communities by traditional community institutions, WWF-NR?M has also bee" working on instinitional strengthening of LMAs and local NGOS". Funding arrangements Given the need for developing of alternative economic activities in the villages as part of the stakeholder agreement for managing the area, WVF has increased its emphasis on needs assessment and identification of feasible income generation alternatives in co￾operation with local government agen~ies'~. As a result of this cooperation, and socialisation of the results to the local parliament (DPRD), there have been a number of positive reactions from local government to provide economic incentives to local cornmunitie~'~. In addition BKSDA have agreed to prioritise the available conservation budget for Jamursba Medi - Tarnrau Utara. WWF has also been lobbying district and provincial government for introduction of economic tools (incentives and disincentives) to promote conservation. Sug-zstions include the allocation of conservation funds from the national to the district sovernment and the facilitating of access to the global market for stakeholders implementing best practices in forestry, agriculture or other natural resource management related economic development activities. At a provincial scale, WWF has helped establish the Biodiversity Trust Fund for Papua, an innovative conservation funding mechanism. In order to build on progress so far, WWF is also currently discussing several proposals with other donor^.^ Objective 4 - Develop the capacity of stakeholders in protected area management and bioregional planning through training, workshops and cross-visits 37 see findings under Objective 4 38 see findings under Objective 4 l9 BAPPEDA to seek funding for introduction of shipping ansport and DPRD have agreed to allocate funds to subsidise the cost of airplane tickets to the inland area in order to help improve accessibility of communities' roduce to markets. Joint proposal with local NGO YAPALVO to Dm) Multistakeholder Forestry Program to develop local communitjes' and LMAs' puricipation in the planning process for natunJ r-ce managemem; Proposal to NOMV Fisheries Centre to develop marine protected area mnagement system with local communities in the Jamwsba Medi area 17 Training & workshops In order to increase the capacity of stakeholders in protected area management and spatial planning WWF has implemented a number of activities. Training in participatory mappingPRA has been provided to researchers, NGOs and local government staff who havethen been directly involved in such activities in villages in the proposed protected area. GIS and landscape planning training for relevant local government offices has been carried out at provincial and district levels in Manokwari but has yet to be carried out in Sorong due to lack of equipment. However, BAPPEDA in Sorong have expressed a willingness to fund training in GIs should this become feasible and representatives from-Sorong district government have attended the provincial level training. Those government officials and NGO staff interviewed in the course of this evaluation that had been involved in the above activities all considered that their capacities in these areas had increased. However, Ww appears to have had no structured mechanism to measure this increase in capacity. Information collected through socio-economic surveys has formed the basis for development of alternative economic options for local communities. Training has included kiosk management and various food and non-timber forest product processing methods. These trainings have been enthusiastically received and there have been requests from the communities for other similar training activities, for example in tailoring and cultivation and processing of traditional medicinal plants. WWF has even been approached by communities living outside the proposed protected area who would also like to benefit from these projects. Socialisation activities & cross-visits In addition, there have been several awareness raising activities and socialisation of sustainable natural resource management concepts, vision and mission of WWF and the meaning of protected area status to villages. This has been particularly importit given the initial misunderstandings over the meaning of National Park designation, for example. The success of these activities can be seen in the increase in the number of communities accepting the WWF ~ro~ram~'. A cross visit to Kakadu National Park in AustraIia increased awareness of of the role of indigenous communities in the management of protected areas and the potential of eco-tourism. Other capaciry building activities Finally, in order that they be better able to adequately represent their constituents, the institutional capacity of both local NGOs and LMAs has been stren,hened through the establishment of a local network and the facilitation of work plan development. WVF has also been involved in discussions on the establishment of Dmvm Adat as provided for in " as noted under Objective 3 above *'head of LMA AbunlKaron, Director of Yayasan Fisita, Member of DPRD Somng, community member from Sausapor village. See comments from participants in SAR May-Oct 2001 Appendix I Special Autonomy Law W21l2001 as an opportunity to develop a new management model that involves and respects the traditional resource use rights and culture of local communities. EAST KALIMANTAN Objective 1 - Identify high priority biodiversity resources, describe how specific human activities adversely affect these resources, identify lower impact alternatives, and increase the area of protected resources where best practices are being implemented. Biodiversity analysis The database on biodiversity resources was based on a combination of past works by WWF in Indonesia by McKinnon & Blower, Frank Momberg, and this USAID - NRtM project. Past funding included the Kalimantan Action Network (WWF Netherlands) which provided funds of US$2.5 million for an intensive survey on biodiversity resources identification over several areas in Kalimantan, as well as funds from GTZ, W-US, and WWF-Gemany. This project's contribution toward the database included updated information on elephant range (along the Malaysian border), ground truthing, and GIs data interpretation. The areas covered were lowland forests, heath forests, and peat swamps. Species recorded were categorized into Protected Species, IUCN Status, and CITES listed. Threat analysis A list of logging companies operating in the area (HPH), as well as community cooperatives (HPHH) were identified. In addition to this, land cover - land use thematic maps were produced covering Nunukan District. In addition, UW produced a land￾suitability map which showed that only 20% of the land in the district is suitable for a&culture and plantations. Based on this, threats against the Sebuku - Sembakung proposed area of conservation were identified, and scenarios of alternatives were prepared to illustrate impact of activities in the area. The scenarios presented to the local government included updated data (from satellite imaees " taken in 2001) and field checks with the assistance of local community members. This pragmatic approach resulted in the 3 scenarios regarding the size of the proposed protected areas), ranging from most ideal to minimum requirements for protected areas in ;he Kabupaten. So far, the threat analysis was focused more on the functions of the forest in terms of soil conservation and watershed management and less on the protection andlor importance of species. This is not to say that the threat analysis based on soil conservation andor land use is significantly flawed, but that the explanation to stakeholders (both local government and communities) on what would be lost andor gained from each scenario was insufficient. Nevertheless, awareness about the importance of maintaining forest cover, for whatever reasons deemed impoflant to them (e.g share of fees for timber cut, soil conservation, etc.) has been sufficiently strong to cause local communities to successfully stop a number of HPHs from operating in some areas. Field checks, however, proved that some logng activities are still taking place, some operating legally, complete with heavyduty equipment. In contrast, local communities that have been cutting logs in the forests around their villages have been doing so armed with no more than chainsaws and small trucks at the most. The amount of destruction caused by local villagers is considered minimal compared to the large commercial logging companies armed with bulldozers, large trucks, and 700m3 capacity pontoons in the river. Both local and large-companies logging activities cause environmental de-mdation. However, WWF realized that the latter would create more damage if their replanting program was not implemented - which unfortunately has been the case to date - i.e. that HPH and KOPERMAS (currently more the latter) are buying timber cut by villagers (and providing them with the equipment to do so). At the same time not only paying villagers compensation/fees for each cubic meter they themselves cut but are also promising replanting of cash crops to benefit that local communities and that these promises are not being kept - both disadvantages the communities and causes environmental de,pdation. Lower impact alternatives Linked with the pra,matic approach previously mentioned, alternative income generating activities were identified, focusing on agricultural activities. Not much was by both the Government and WWF staff on advantages and disadvantages of monoculture plantations such as the oil palm plantation. Oil palm is frequently presented by the Govemment andlor private investors (read: logging companies) as the best economic development option. Needs assessment carried out in villlages around the-Sebuku - Sembakung area revealed people's interest in cash crops such as vanilla, pepper, etc. The uniformity of cash crops identified may indicate lack OF options (short, mid, and longer term) for other cash crops that would be moresuitable in theirareas. - CARE is currently working in a number of villages that are already \Ws local partners, and will be focusing on agricultural and community development activities. The evaluation consultants did not pursue further information on the type of community development activities they will be implementing under their FOR;MACS~~ propin. It should be mentioned here that of the 19 villages along the Sebuku - Sembakung rivers, 4 are transmigrants' and 15 are local Dayak (of a several tribes) villages. The transmigrants are predominanly farmers, and while the Dayaks are hunter-gatherer- .farmers. The needs assessment, which yielded answers that are too similar, the methodology toward people making their own decision may be open for debate in that the communities were presented a list of ready answers as opposed to options and consequences (of each choiceloption). 'Objective 2 - Establish biodiversity conservation as an imponant planning and decision making criteria, recommending changes to the institutional and legal framework, and educating government and private sectors. " FORMACS =Forest Management Carbon Sequestration 20 * Sparid planning Biodiversity resources identification and threats analysis results are hvo of the fundamental arguments put forward in the various scenarios presented to the local government for ratification. However, parallel to these effons, \VlVF also started to lay the groundwork to ensure the appropriateness and sustainability of the "end result" (i.e. "protected area management as approved by the stakeholders") as explained below: Institzitional and legal framework Traditionally, Spatial Plans were proposed by local governments (Technical Team on Spatial Plan), with guidelines provided by the Regulations issuedby the ministry of Home Affairs in Jakarta (PerMendagri 811998). A Technical Guideline on Implementation of Local Spatial Planning was also issued. The decision to approve the plan would be made at the ~elnda~' Office (executive body of the local government) with heavy influence by the central government. In Nunukan, however, there has been a new development in that the district has been designated as being subject to "national security issues" since it shares its northern borders with Malaysia, making this a national concern and authority as opposed to a local one. This has led to a further delay in discussion and ratification of the district spatial plan and may well mean that central government has more influence on land use planning in the border area than the district government.} However, two issues emerged in the current implementation of spatial planning: (1) Lack of adjusted regulations and guidelines (for the local government) regarding spatial planning has caused delays in the making the decisions at the local level (i.e. tus-of-war between local and central government), (2) Unclear criteria on spatial plan - specifically on natural resources management - has made the inclusion of protected area management criteria an adhoc effort at this stage. No manual has been produced on the process and mechanism by which conservation and/or protected area management criteria should be included in the spatial planning considerations that would enable other Districts and/or W\W projects to adopt (and adapt) the criteria in other KabupatensKotas in Indonesia that include protected areas. Trainine Also parallel to the efforts above, local Dovernment officials (Dinas Pertandim Daerah, Sj Dinas Tata Ruang, Dinas Lingkungan ) were given GIs training by W1VF - h4V. Workshops on issues concerning spatial planning were also carried out and attended by stakeholders (local government, NGOs, local communities). This was an effort toward ensuring sustainability of a more comprehensive spatial plan process in the future, with particular emphasis put on empowering the communities (through awareness raising campaign) and capacity building (of technical staff and decision-makers) at the local government level. It was not surprising to discover that such training (technical on GIs, as well as community participation) was the first carried out in Nunukan District, and was U Pemdo = Pen~erimoh DnPra~ or Local government IS Dinas Penanalran Daerah = District Land Agency, Dinas Tufa Ruang = District Spatial Planning Agency. Dinas Lingkiorgan = District Environmental Agency 2 1 considered an eye opener for many. One successful impact of this training is the fact that Dinas Pertanahan Daerah recognised the need for GIS capability within their own office and asked WVF- NRM for advice and specifications on what GIS hardware and sofnvare to purchase. The inclusion of WWF - NRii as an official member of the Technical Team for Spatial Plan in Nunukan District was an ad hoc effoit, since there are no clear criteria that can be used as a reference for protected area management considerations, particularly in the spatial planning preparation process that take place at the KabupatedKota level at the local government. However, should the proposed District Spatial Plan, as initially prepared with \nNF-NRiM input, be accepted and approved (i.e. "scenario 1": 600,000 ha are assigned as conservation area in Nunukan District), the success of this approach could be a model that can be studied and perhaps adopted in other districts. I Objective 3 - Strengthen protected area management through participatory planning and facilitation of stakeholder agreements, and test innovative institutional - and funding 1 larrangements for protected area management - Protected area management The term "National" Park is no longer acceptable to many local stakeholders due to its connotation of centralized government. Similarly, the phrase "Protected Area" to the local communities is interpreted as meaning "totally restricted". Instead, the phrase used by this project is Conservation Area Management, which includes descriptions of activities that are acceptable in diffetent zones of the area in order to ensure sustainability of biodiversity resources. Stakeholder agreement Approaches toward stakeholders' conservation agreements were canied out mostly through meetings, either locally in the village or in Nunukan town (attended by representatives of villages). A more thorough and systematic approach at the local level has not yet been canied out by WWF - NRM, thus meaning this level of effort is very preliminary. This is caused by not building into the project design a community facilitation trainings for local community members (TOT) to carry out facilitation on a regular basis in their own villages. A three-year process without intensive facilitation at the local level, with clear channel of communication to the local govemment, is too short a time period to yield a "Stakeholder Agreement on Conservation Management" as such. With regard to the status of the Proposed Conservation Area, the local parliament @PRD) who are now in charge of approving the Spatial Plan proposed by the Pemerintah Daerala (Executive), have not yet approved the Proposed Spatial Plan (with input from WVF). The unexpected problems and pressures caused by the influx of thousands of undocumented Indonesian workers (TKI) from Malaysia have not only delayed the agenda to discuss the plan, but also put more pressure on the district govemment to establish oil palm plantations for the economic benefit of Nunukan District and to provide local employment opportunities for the expelled TKI. Conflicts that occurred in the area appeared to be based on two issues: 1. Cultural, where the transmigration communities favor opening of new areas for their permanent fanning activities while the local Dayak communities favor maintaining a balance beween their traditional hunting-gathering and agricultural activities. 2. Ownership, where the local Dayak communities would see a differentiation of benefits - given between the transmigrants (who are "newcomers"). There appears to be two main issues raised by the local Dayak communities, i.e. the land on transmi-gation sites rightfully belong to their tribes (hak ulayat), and that development pro-pms may benefit the transmigrants more than the local Dayak communities due to the differences in land use patterns (between transmigrants and Dayaks). Innovative institutional funding agreements by the government andlor by local communities toward conservation area management have been discussed in various meetings (workshops, seminars, trainings, community gatherings), where comparisons were drawn against compensation payments and economic development pro-pms providedlpromised by logging companies and co-operatives. So far, this has been an effort to continue the discourse only, including treating "innovative institutional funding'' as an important topic to discuss. Therefore, this activity has been more of an awareness-raising tool than an actual testing of an innovative model, which at this case stage is all that can be done in the first three years of this project. International funding has not been ruled out, e.g. from GTZ, but such fundinz may not be sustainable. The successful experience of the establishment of a Davan Pertgmcas Kmmsan Kayan ent tar an$^ to manage another protected area in Xunukan and the neighbouring district of Malinau has been used as a model to share with stakeholders in the Sebuku-Sembakung area. Objective 4 - Develop the capacity of stakeholders in protected area management and bioregional planning through training, workshops and cross-visits Capacity building of stakeholders Sustainability of activities can only be ensured when the capacity building effofls of stakeholders - with regard to conservation area management - are carried out systematically, with appropriate monitoring and evaluation mechanism built into the system. The M&E mechanism is necessaryto allow all stakeholders to check their own progress, and to allow modifications as necessary without losing sight of the goal. Training worMlops a Dexan Pengowas Kowoson Koyn hlentarang = Kayan Mentanng Area Supervisory Board. v-hich makes decisions on the management of Kayan Mentarang National Park and includes local community laden as well as local ard central government representatives 23 Training Workshops on GIs and spatial planning were carried out by WAF - NRiV as planned in Tarakan and Balikpapan. Workshops were used as a means for a rapid needs assessment in Nunukan, with the participation of local stakeholders (except the private sector). These workshops also were a means of disseminating information back to the stakeholders. As a result of these trainings and workshops, \VWF NR;M in Nunukan is known for the availability of maps for the district. Although the maps were not detailed down to sub￾district (kecamatan) administrative boundaries, they are more comprehensive and detailed than those previously available to the local government. The frequency (which tend to increase in the third year of the project) of stakeholders coming-to request such maps is a good indication of how maps produced by WWF are more and easily accessible than from the local government. At the same time, WVF also seized the opportunity to get information from these stakeholders, and take action to update-their information-database as necessary. Cross visits were designed as a means to provide the stakeholders with alternative perspectives on conservation area management. Participants of such activities also included relevant local government and representatives of local communities. Both the training workshops and cross visits have been appropriately designed to take place in the latter part of the project, after a degree of trust was built through intensive communication between WWF - NRM and the stakeholders/partners. Cross visits may not be enough to encourage better practices of conservation management, or to encoumge local farmers to establish demonstration plots. More work still needs to be done to ensure that lower impact alternatives - preferably with economic benefits to the communities - can be tested andlor implemented. Cross visits should also not be restricted to Java only, but also to other areas in Kalimantan that have success stories (e.g Kayan hlentarang) 1 IV. CONCLUSIONS & R.ECOMMENDATIONS - For Nunukan, approximately 80-90% of the outputs have been produced according to the workplans. For Sorong, on average 75-80% of planned outputs have been achieved in each of the three years of the project. From the above analysis, the following conclusions can be drawn. (a) Achievement of objectives4' "See Annex IV: Achievements az3inst workolans: Soronn and Nunuknn 24 Objective 1 Biodiversity Analysis 1. Areas with high priority biodiversity resources have been identified largely based on bringing together existing information and knowledge 2. Activities have added to existing knowledge on: a) Local distribution of some species from results of Rapid Biodiversity Assessments and specific researchtsutveys on turtles and elephants b) Resource use patterns and 'tenurial' rights of traditional communities (although these data are still very general and more in-depth study is needed) Threat Analysis 3. Specific threats to chosen sites have been identified and in a number of cases have been significantly decreased e.g. predation of turtle eggs, halting of illegal logging in JMTU. In Nunukan, a number of logging companies were temporarily stopped from operating due to pressure from the local communities. Lower impact alternatives 4. Some locally appropriate income generation activities to reduce communities' dependence on unsustainable exploitation of forest resources have been identified and initial capacity building has taken place. It is too early to tell how successful these activities will be especially given cultural factors which mean people are not used to planning and managing activities in a systematic manner and therefore require on-going facilitation and support. In addition, \VWF is 'in competition' with logging companies who also promise local communities economic and community development opportunities (e.g. through planting of cash crops, building of roads, schools, churches etc) and even more attractive immediate cash returns in the form of feeslcompensation for timber cut from their traditional lands Increase in area of protected resources 5. The process of biodiversity resources being provided protected status under law has been facilitated (through incorporation into spatial plans) although these have yet to be ratified. should the curren; proposed spatial piam be adopted then the area of protected resources in both districts will have been increased. Objective 2 Educating government officials & private sector 6. Awareness of the need to protect high biodiversity ecosystems in order to maintain ecological processes and to conserve high profile species has been increased among local government 7. There has been resistance from private sector interests e.g. HPH./KOPERh.IAS, oil palm investors I~tstitrttional and legal framework 8. Recommendations have been made for designation of protected area status under local government regulations (through incorporation in spatial plans) in both districts. Criteria 9. Criteria for protection in Terns of Reference for Spatial Plan compilation are still - based on biophysical conditions, with little considention of biodiversity. - 10. Inclusion of biodiversity conservation criteria are still-done on an ad hoc basis, for example through the inclusion of WAF-NRM as a member of the Spatial Plan Technical Team in Nunukan, as opposed to being institutionalised in the Guidelines for Spatial Plan compilation and implementation, at- all levels (local, provincial, national) . 4 Objective 3 Participatory planning 11. After some initial problems with the approach, serious efforts have been made to facilitate participatory planning with all stakeholders through socialisation of concepts and methods, multi-stakeholder meetings, PRA etc. Stakeholder agreement 12. In Papua, the communities' statements produced as a result of the public consultation process could form the basis of future stakeholder agreements on community based protected area management in JMTtJ. In Nunukan, the public consultation mechanism did not produce a similar stakeholder agreement as such. Funding arrangements 13. Innovative funding mechanisms, such as the Papua Trust Fund, have been initiated. In both districts, alternative economic development propms have been implemented with local communities as a mechanism to ensure income generation activities are in keeping with protected area management. . 14. Allocation of local govemment budzet for sustainable community development activities has been lobbied for, with some success e.g. subsidy of air transport for in Sorong (air fare reduced from Rp.300.000 to Rp.150,000 per person, with the remaining Rp150,OOO subsidized by the local government). However, this may not be sustainable as air transportation may limit the type of agricultural produce that can be carried on the plane. Objective 4 Capacity building 15. Based on comments from stakeholders interviewed. capacities have been increased both within local govemment and NGOslLMAs although this process has not be consistently monitored by the project (b) Sustainability of achievements: 16. The incorporation of the proposed areas into the district spatial plan and ratification under local government regulations is only the first step. To ensure sustainability the next stage would be to facilitate local communities and government to formulate a model of protected area management which acknowledges and accommodates traditional land use rights, as well as conservation of biodiversity. Initial support would also be needed in the implementation of such a model, including ensuring the enforcement of appropriate local policy and regulations, and participation of all stakeholders (c) Replicability: 17. The program process in Papua can be seen as strategic in terms of its approach to community involvement in biodiversity conservation and in bridging local and central government. Initially this was the case in Nunukan, East Kalimantan, but currently the pressure has shifted to Border Security and became a national issue again. Therefore, the efforts toward ensuring an integrated spatial planning approach (with protected area management issues incorporated) designed to yield a result of a Spatial Plan approved by the local government (DPRD, Bupati) be weakened, as it would now be taken by the central government that may not take conservation and or protected area management issues into account. (d) Challenges: 18. To facilitate a community-based protected area management model which - recognises the traditional resource use rights of the local communities and which incorporates alternative economic development activities 19. To compile more detailed biodiversity, socio-economic and natural resource valuation data to form the basis for proposals to increase the area of protected resources and to influence spatial planning and economic development policy on wider scale (i.e. not just site-based). 20. How to work within the context of decentralisation to ensure effective biodiversity conservation within the framework of district and provincial level spatial planning (e) Opportunities arising from decentralisation: 21. There is potential for more local control of natural resources - stronger voicelrole of local community; ability of local government to issue PERDA relevant to local situation, which would be potentially stronger and more likely to be enforced than nationally imposed regulations; local accountability of DPRD to their constituents 22. Local governments, especially in new districts, are more open to input from organisations like WVF who are seen as neutral bodies with the means to acquire data and access expertise currently lacking within lccal government Given the substantial achievements made so far, and the unique advantage of W\VF in that they are seen as a credible, neutraltindependent sustainable development organization by both local government and local communities/organizations, the following recommendations are made: 1. Using the remaining budget still available at the end of the project, USAID - IURM approves a no cost extension for WWF with the proviso that monies are used effectively to achieve specific and realistic targets within the time of this extension, e.g. Continue campaign and socialisation of conservation and sustainable development concepts (esp. CB-PAM I I Sorong4') :n I Analysis on alternative suitability of land use for oil palm 1 (a) (b) (c) (d) Nunukan J J J J Activities Participatory survey & mapping to determine traditional resource rights distribution Intensive lobbying of Bupati and DPRD toward adopting a sustainable development based Kabupaten Spatial Plan which includes the proposed conservation areas (PERDA, to be approved, or at the very least be on the agenda, before end of December 2002) Updating and dissemination of GIs data to relevant stakeholders as necessary Implement on-the-job training for Dinas Pertanahan Kabupaten Nunukan GIs staff More detailed matrices of activities which could be undertaken at each site in order to complete unfinished activities in the workplan can be found in Annexes MI1 & IX. Sorong J J J ., . 1 in refation to spatial planning development with others to better develop follow-on program (or revlslt proposal already prepared) to optimise WWF's I streneths and ensure stronoer ca~acitv building efforts 2. WWF to continue activities in both areas in the medium term (3-5 years) through: a. Further strengthening efforts toward institutionalising sustainable development based Spatial Planning, based on current achievements and \Ws established advantage in both sites e.g. lobby and build capacity of local government to develop policy, regulations, sanctions, law enforcement ability to support a-4 Spatial Plan d J *'Community based protected area management 28 J b. Building capacity of local government and civil society (communities, traditional community institutions and local NGOs) to sustainably manage resources within and outside protected areas through: i) Provision of data, advice, awareness raising - including solid, clear evidence of the economic benefits of maintaining diverse ecosystems; ii) Technical training - management, legal drafting, journalistic; iii) Identification and facilitation of alternative income generation/ revenue raising activities c. Revisiting staffing and budget requirements to best address issues identified during the duration of this project. d. Identifying and collaborating with local, regional, national, and international partner organizations/institutions to enhance participatory capacity building efforts and optimise achievements in both sites (a) Effects of Decentralization 1. The speed and effects of decentralization were underestimated but have had major influences on the structure, activities and achievements of the project. Papua with its Special Autonomy status poses different sets of issues in dealing with local government, communities and Lenlbaga Adar than those faced in Nunukan. (b) Socio-economic and cultural conditions 2. Recognition that the situation (sociocultural, economic, political and biophysical factors) in every districtlarea will be different so that the appropriate activities and the rate and level of progress will therefore also vary between areas 3. The economic needs of the local communities need to be taken into account in conservation planning 4. It is important to understand the structure of traditional communities, how decisions are taken and the system of representation to ensure that socialisation of the mission of the project is communicated clearly to all and that the aspirations of all members of the communities are represented. (c) Program management 5. Some deficiencies in the management of consultants in both sites has meant that some data and reports from external consultants have not been received and this has caused delays in other activities dependent on the results in these reports. Recognition of needs for other specialists andlor lobbyists: similarities and differences in each site. In both places, an anthropology specialist is needed, especially in Papua, to help understand the structure and culture of Lembaga Adat. A community facilitatorltrainer is also needed in both places, to help the local community empower thkmselves through a process of community participation. Proposals for protected area status require participatory planning and continuous socialisation to the local communities involved. The concept and model of community￾based protected area management must come from the communities themselves (bottom￾up approach). There is a need to recognise that such an approach is a long process, which requires flexibility both in terms of timeframe and in terms of activities. The need for an integrated approach - a basis of strong scientific, spatial and economic data, expertise in spatial planning, understanding of local-communities, and lobbying skills- in order to effectively promote biodiversity conservation ata bioregional scale There has been an under-utilization of biodiversity data in both sites to promote the importance of biodiversity conservation rather than just the importance of maintaining vegetationJforest cover. WWF could tap their own existing databases as well as those of their local, national and international networks to provide information in a form that local communities and decision makers can understand. Monitoring and Evaluation systems need to be designed and implemented to include documented baseline information on biophysical data and existing capacity, awvareness and behaviour of beneficiaries. Methods and indicators for measuring improvements from the baselines then need to be devised and the results documented to provide more substantial evidence of progress towards objectives rather than just completion of planned activities. Finally, it is suggested that monitoring and evaluation is seen as a process for reflection and learning within and between projects with the overall aim to improve methodology and increase progress through learning from experience. Two issues that may be considered as "unresolved". Albeit that these are not a direct impact of WWF-NRM USAID project; they would nevertheless have an affect on future projects in the area: 1. National Border Security - as illustrated in previous explanations (e-g. Nunukan: bordering Malaysia) - in which the central government takes precedence over local government authority. 2. Special Autonomy in Papua - at which level the local autonomy rests, in particular with protected andlor conservation area management issues: provincial or kabupaten level? Future projects to be designed need to look closely at these issues to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to address them. ANNEXES Ah-EX I: SCOPE OF WORK OF IhmEPENDENT, EXTERNAL EVALUATIOS TUN. ..-...--.. -32 AbXEX 11: LIST OFSTAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED ............................................................ 41 ANNEX 111: ITINERARY OF EVALUATION TEAM isTd SEPT. - 16~ OCT. 2002 ---.......,.....-- 46 AXXEX IV: ACHIEVEMENTS AGAISST WORKPLANS - SOROSG AXD h7JhXKAN ---............ 49 ANNEX V: ORGANOGIWM OF IVWF SAHUL BIOREGION ....................... ,.. 93 ANNEX VI: SPATIAL DATA COLLECTED AT PROVINCIAL AND REGIONAL SCALES IN PAPUA .. .. . . .. .. .. ... . . .... . . . .... ..... . . .. .... . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . .. . ......... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . .. . .. . --..-. -- --..........-.- 94 ANNEX VII: APPROXIhIATION OF WHICH AREAS ACCEPT AND WHICH REJECT THE PROPOSED PROTECTED AREA IN PAPUA ................................................. ... -96 ANNEX VIII: WEST PAPUA - ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS OF ACTIVITIES FOR 3 OR 4 MOZTH NO COST EXTENSION ............................................. --..-...-.--...........-.--- 97 ANNEX rX: SPECIFIC WORKPLAN FOR NO-COST-EXTENSION FOR NUiWKAN, EAST KALIICUNTAN .......................................................................................... 99 ANNEX X: LOCATION hIAP FOR PAPUA SITE .................................... ,,,lo0 Ah-TX XI: LOCATION MAP FOR KALIMANTAN SITE ............................... ....-. : ...... 101 Ir*' Annex I: Scope of Work of independent, external evaluation team WWF TERMS OF REFERENCE (FOR EVALUATION TEAM) Statement of Work for Evaluation of the Natural Resource Management Program (NRM) Cooperative Anreernent between USAID and WVF Indonesia, NO. 497-A-00-00-00002-00 The Outer Island Bioregional Program: Integrated Protected Area Management and Spatial Planning in Kalimantan and Papua Activity to be assessed: The implementation of Cooperative Agreement between the United States Agency for lntemational Development (USAID) and Yayasan WWF lndonesia (WWFJI) on NRM Program entitled The Outer Island Bioregional Program: lntegrated Protected Area Management and Spatial Planning in Kalimantan and Papua' A. Background In October 28, 1999, USAID and WWFJI had signed a Cooperative Agreement for the implementation of The Outer Islands Bioregional Program: lntegrated Protected Area Management and Spatial Planning in Kalimantan and Papua. It is called WWF Indonesia - NRMAJSAID Program. The length of program is three years, which started from 21 October 1999 and will be completed by October 27, 2002. The total amount of financial resources funded by USAID was estimated at Rp14,739,416,092. The program is implemented by WWFA full time staff consisting of a Project Coordinator, Project Managers, Bioregional Planners and Administrative Support Staff in both provinces. Additional works were and still are done by consultants on part time basis. In addition the program should collaborate with NRM-2 partners, the Nature Conservancy (TNC). Conservation International (CI), local NGOs. Kemala, local governments and the private sector. Section 1.7 (c) of the Agreement requested the recipient (WWFA) to arrange for an independent. external evaluation two months prior to the completion of the program. This is the legal basis for these terms of reference. For the implementation of this program, two priority areas were selected, Sebuku-Sembakung watersheds in Nunukan district, East Kalimantan province, and Jamursba Medi - North Tamrau that is situated in the Vogelkop (Bird's Head) area, Sorong and Manokwari districts. Papua province. Sebuku-Sembakung watersheds The rationale for selecting Sebuku-Sembakung as the place for developing a spatial planning model for bioregional approach is because in terms of geographical setting, Sebuku-Sembakung has strategic values. Sebuku-Sembakung area is located along the border with Sabah State (Malaysia) which shares similar ecoregion. Sebuku-Sembakung has a rich but threatened biodiversity area consisting of five ecosystem-types of forests that exist in Kalimantan. The area is not only rich in land-based resources which include 32 resources in montane, moist and heat forests, but also in water-based resources which include those in peat swamp forests and mangroves. This unique feature has been generating benefits for many generations by providing economic goods such as timber. traditional medicines and fd, and ecological selvices such as water regulation, protection from erosion, shelter for local people and flood mitigation. Furthermore, the area has been functioning as an important habitat for many populations of endangered wildlife such as Elephant (Elephans mauimus), Buffalo (60s javanicus). Orangutan (Pongo pygmeus) and Proboscis Monkey (Nasailis lawatus). However, its status is still an unprotected area. Consequently, destructive and illegal logging has occurred intensively for more than two decades in this area, particularly in the forest along the border of East Kalimatan and Sabah State. Malaysia. Jamursba Medi - North Tamrau The rationale for selecting Jamursba Medi - North Tamrau as a priorii area is because in terms of nature conservation and scientific knowledge development. Jamursba Medi coastal area and North Tamrau montane forest have high strategic values. For Jamursba Medi, the area is not only an ideal place for marine biological research but also acts as a living museum for the conservation of the coastal community culture in Papua, especially of those living along the coast of the Kepala Burung Cape. In other words, the Jamursba Medi coastal area has a very good prospect in socicrcutkure Vd development. This development can play a significant role for the future development of the area that integrates conselvation activities and the development of community-based natural resource management, eco-tourism and biological research. Jamursba Medi coastal area also plays an important part for biodiversity conservation especially for the endangered leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). The area is the fourth largest beaches in the world for sea turtles to lay their eggs after Kuala Trengganu (Malaysia), French Guyana and Suriname. For leatherback turtles, this coastal area is classified as one of the largest place in the world. where this species of turtles lays their eggs. Other species of turtle also nest in the Jamursba Medi area such as Green turtles (Chelonia mydas). Hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) and Olive Ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea). The health of the coastal area also depends on the preservation of the surrounding forest area. North Tamrau. The Jamursba Medi coastal area is part of the same ecosystem as the North Tamrau forest area. For example, excessive sedimentation from cleared forest area effects the quality of the sand that the turtles will lay their eggs in. Hence by protecting the forest the turtles nesting habitat is protected and at the same time this will protect other endemic species that live in this forest region. including mammals (tree kangaroos, cuscus). reptiles (iguana, snakes) and birds (birds of paradise, cockatoos, parrots, cassowary). Some of these animals are endemic or also endangered and protected by Indonesian law. Recent development towards regional autonomy and political power decenhalization leads to new opportunity and responsibility as well as challenges for regional and local authorities, in collaboration with local communities, which they represent. This collaboration is essential to establish and reguiate biodiversity priority areas embedded in their regional setting. An important approach of WWF - NRMNSAID is therefore, to encourage and support local and regional stakeholders' initiatives and implemented efforts toward integration of biodiversity conservation within the overall regional development. This is based on a process driven by stakeholders' interests, targets and commitments. The ideal output of the process is establishment of biodiversity conservation areas by local government together with local communities. . Program Objeciives The overall goal of this project is to strengthen institutional capacity, participatory planning and effectiveness in achieving biodiversity conservation at a bioregional scale. The goal is achieved through the following four objectives as listed below: - Objective 1: Identify high priohty biodiversity resources, describe how specific human activities adversely impact these resources, identify lower impact alternatives, and increase the area of protected resources where best practices are being implemented. This objective has two components, namely: (A) biodiversity analysis, and (B) threat analysis. Objective 2: Establish biodiversity conservation as an important planning and decision-mafing criteria - by developing and testing concepts and techniques, recommending -changes to the - institutional and legal framework, and educating government officials and the private sector. Objective 3: Strengthen protected area management within priority bior6gions through participatory project planning and facilitation of stakeholder agreement, and test innovative institutional and funding agreements for protected area management in Kalimantan and . ~ Irian Jaya. Objective 4: Develop the capacities of stakeholders in protected area management and bioregional W' planning through training workshops and cross-visits. Beneficiaries The ultimate beneficiaries of the program are : 1. Provincial, district, sub-histrict govemment and National Park Staff 2. Local communities living in and around the proposed protected areas 3. The private sector related to mining, agriculture and forestry The expected intermediate beneficiaries of the project are: - 1. The Ministry of Forestry (DG PHKA) 2. The Ministries of Home Affairs, Mining and Energy, Public ~orks~~ourism and Transmigration at central level B. Objectives of the Program Evaluation Main objectives of this evaluation 1. To produce an independent evaluation of project implementation to date, referenced to proposed objectives and workplans by particularly focusing on conservation achievements. capacitv building (local government, community and local NGOs), partnerships fstakeholders framework), and~ica~ and community acceptance-of $4 NRM 2. Review work-plans proposed for the remainder of the project period with regard to likelihood of the project to achieve its objectives. 3. Provide recommendations for improving current activities or for aiternat~e courses of action. Specific objectives Project identification and desian a. Review on framework condition relevant to the project with respect to the changing political, social, institutional, and economic situation during the project design. b. Assess the appropriateness of the project's objectives and approaches in the context of the current policy framework for natural resources management in Indonesia. c. Assess whether the pre-conditions and the special condilions of the Cooperative Agreement have been met, and assess the impact of any conditions that have not been met during the project implementation. d. In light of the progress of the project to date, identify any problems that are likely to arise during the lifetime of the project due to Cooperative Agreement conditions superseded by events, and make justifications for such amendments and modifications. e. Similarly review the project's Annual Workplans, keeping in mind that the project is involved in participatory processes that demands a mechanism which allows the project to respond in a flexible manner to changes (e.g. the implementation of decentralization, etc) as knowledge on management effectiveness of protected areas and other natural resources is accumulated. Project implementation a. Assess to what extent the project is achieving the expected resuns and objectives established in the Cooperative Agreement and Annual Workplans and assess whether the distribution of financial resources between the two project areas continues to be realistic. b. Assess and make recommendations on the appropriateness of the project management organization structure, working mechanism, staffing (including part time experts) and networking. c. Examine the extent to which the concepts and methodologies generated by the project have been implemented by the beneficiaries. d. Review the participatory level of the stakeholders during project implementation and monitoring. e. Assess and make recommendations on potential replication of project's results to other areas. f. Assess and make recommendations on potential sustainability of the resuns. .Indicate the gaps and recommend alternatives if there are problems of program sustainability. 9. Recommend priority program components/activities for the future. C. Important questions In order to understand to what extent the main objectives of NRM Program have been achieved, there are important questions that need to be answered. General questions: 1. To what extent have the workplans that have been established consistently applied in the ~. implementation of NRM program? 2. To what extent have current available resources been optimized and what additional resources or time are required to meet project goals? 3. Is the approach that is used appropriate to local government and community? 4. Has the internal management of WF lndonesia succeeded in supporting-the implementation of the project, in terms of organization, technical guidance and financial disbursement? Regarding objective I: Identiv high priority biodiversity resources, describe how specik human activities adversely impact these resources, identify lower impact altematives, and increase the area of protected resources where best practices are being implemented. This objective, has lwo components, namely: (A) biodiversity analysis, and (6) threat analysis. questions need to be answered: 5. Had biodiversity assessment and social economic studies of priority areas been conducted? 6. Are there any demonstration plots andlor field activities that had been conducted as an example of good practice of natural resources management ? 7. How does local community respond to example of good practice of natural resources management ? 8. What is the situation regarding illegal logging and desecration/environmental degradation in the Priority Areas? 9. Do the NRM strategies reduce degradation of the environment within the priority (protected) areas? Regarding objective 2. Establish biodiversily conservation as an important planning and decision￾making criteria by developing and testing concepts and techniques, recommending changes to :he institutional and legal framework, and educating government officials and the private sector. Questions need to be answered: 10. Is the project goal attainablelrealistic? 11. What impediments have been encountered and have significantly prevented the implementation of the project? Is the existing enabling environment a factor in Project success? 12. What significant lessons can be learned from the Project? 13. What will be the predicted impacts on the long-term success related to decentralization on NRM Program? 14. Which stakeholders have the greatest impact on the Project, and has collaboration wilh them been satisfactory? How can collaboration be improved? 15. Are there unexpected positive and negative impacts of the project? 16. What are the important recommendations for improving NRM Program in the next future? Regarding objective 3. Strengthen protected area management within priority bioregions through partic@atory project planning and facilitation of stakeholder agreement, and test innovative institutional and funding agreements forprotected area management in Kalimantan and Papua. . Questions need to be answered: 17. Has there been a determined attempt to increase conservation funding for NRM Program? 18. What should be the follow up direction of this project to ensure maximum leverage for conservation in the Priority Areas and other conservation1 protected areas in East Kalimantan and Papua, and elsewhere in Indonesia? 19. At present, what is the status of the Proposed conservation Areas? 20. Is there a process to resolve conflicts behveen the community and other stakeholders (local government, private sectors, etc)? Regarding objective 4. Develop the capacities of stakeholders in protected area management and bioregional planning trough training workshops and cross-visits. Questions need to be answered: 21. How intensive is local community involvement in the activities of NRM Program, and how does the community access to of NRM Program? 22. What kind activities that had been organized with regards to the improvement of the capacities of stakeholders? 23. Has the project activities been socialized to concerned stakeholders? How and what are their responses? D. Deliverables By the end of the evaluation period, the team will produce a final report. The report will be prepared and presented to USAlD and WWFll in Jakarta. The report should contain the team's findings and conclusions and recommendations. The Final Project Evaluation Report will be submitted to WWFII within one week after the team's presentation of field findings and draft report. WWFll and USAlD will comment on the draft within three days. Reproduction of the final report will be done by the project. The final report should be no more than 30 pages, excluding annexes. The report should adhere to the following format - although others formats may be considered on request from the team. a. Executive summary b. Introduction. c. Project objectives. d. Findings - facts collected by the team concerning performance or factors influencing performance. e. Conclusions and recommendations - describing achievements of project objectives and proposed actions for follow-up activities of this project. f. Lesson learns - broader implications for similar programs in different setting or for future activities. g. Unresolved issues. h. Annexes as needed. i. References. The report is in English, and shall be submitted in both hard copy and electronic format E. Evalz~ation Methods An initial consultation in Jakarta shall be conducted to familiarize with the cooperative agreement, both through a review of available literature and selective interviews with Project Coordinator of WWFIUSAID-NRM program, Technical Consultant of WWFNSAID-NRM Program, olher WWF Staffs. PKA Staffs, Deputy Director Forest of WWF, and Program Managers NRM of USAID. This is to be followed by field visits to project sites to assess the performance of the project through process of a direct evaluation of achievements and selective interviews with representatives of Me community around the project areas, partner organization. BKSDA. Dinas Kehutanan. Bappeda Kabupaten Nunukan and Sorong, DPRD Kabupaten Sorong and Nunukan, Local NGOs, Lembaga Masyarakat Adat (LMA), CARE, Project Manager of WWFNSAID-NRM Program in Nunukan and Sorong. staffs of WWFIUSAID-NRM Program in Nunukan and Sorong and WWF Indonesia Directors for Sundaland Kalimantan and Sahul Papua. F. Composition of the Evaluation Team The evaluation team will consist of two specialists. A conservation biologist or a natural resources management specialist and institutional capacity building specialist. This two-persons team will consist of a team leader and a member and will work complimentarily. Team Leader This specialist will have an appropriate advanced degree and at least 10 years of relevant experience including 5 years field experience in regional development, project management and project evaluation. The specialist should possess a wide experience on natural resources management. Previous working experience in outer island and familiarity with the logical framework methodology are essential. Team Member Specialist within fhe team who shall have an advanced degree jn forestry and a minimum of 10 years working experience. This will include practical experience with government agencies, lam and regulations, capacity building, the forestry-private sector, and non-governmental organization institutions related to forestry. Previous working experience with community participation is essential. G. Procedures, Schedules, Logistics and Budget - The evaluation should occur over a three-week period beginning on first week of September 2W2. The work will be started in Jakarta for initial project briefing and familiarization with project's background information and reports, consultation with project partners and donor. Field trips will be conducted to project sites in Sorong and Nunukan for obtaining direct inputs on project progress arId constraints. Interviews and discussions will be done with project managers and staff and other relevant stakeholders. Report writing can be done simultaneously both in the field and Jakarta. presentation of draft and final reports will be done in Jakarta. - Schedule . Briefing/discussion at the WWF and USAID Office in Jakarta 1 &Y Review files and meeting in Jakarta 2 days Travel to East Kalimantan 5 days Travel to Papua 5 days Preparation of the report 6 days Finalization of Final Report 2 days Total team days 21 days . - The evaluation team will start to work from 18 September . 2002 and for a period pf a further 26 working days. - - September 0 October 38 Budget : Total estimated budget is Rp150.000.000 which incorporates: Professional fee for the evaluation team members (S268.75lperson including taxes) in 21 days: Rp95.943.750 - Field visit costs (airfare and accommodation) in East Kalimantan (5 days): Rpl0.000.000 in Papua (5 days): Rp16.000,000 Meetings and presentation Rp20,000.000 Reporting Rp8.056,250 H. Key Contact Persons To be able to conduct effective and transparent evaluation, the team needs to meet or contact some important persons as follow: WWF Indonesia: In Jakarta: Agus Purnomo, Executive Director Dewi Suralaga, Director of National Program Emil S. Tarigan, Director of Internal Services Agus Setyarso, Deputy Director for Forest Program Fitrian Ardiansyah, NRM Project Coordinator Jahja Hanafie, NRM Technical Consultant (Former NRM Project Coordinator) Zulfira Warta, Ecoregional Planner for Tesso Nilo (Former NRM Project Manager in Papua) Klaas Jan Teule, Program Development Manager (Former Acting Director of Sahul Region Papua) In East Kalimantan: Tonny Soehartono, Director of Sundaland Region Kalimantan Wawan Ridwan, NRM Project Manager in Nunukan NRM Project Staff in Nunukan Paul Kimrnan. Former NRM Project Manager in East Kalimantan In Pa~ua: Benja V. Mambai, Director of Sahul Region Papua Suhandri, NRM Project Manager in Sorong Rudy Wondowoi, Ecoregion Coordinator of Bird Head John Maturbongs. Species conservation Manager of Papua (Former Head of WWF Indonesia￾Sahul Region, Sorong Office) Roy Rindorindo, Communication Manager of Papua NRM Project Staff in Jayapura, Sorong and Manokwari REMIUSAID Jakarta: I Ketut Djati, Project Manager Anne Peterson. Deputy Director Fred Pollock, Director Wouter Sahanaya. Environmental Officer The Ministry of Forestry: . I Made Subadia, Director General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHW . Widodo S. Ramono, Director of Area Conservation Stakeholders in East Kalimantan: In Samarinda: Head of BKSDA (Office for Natural Resource Conservation) In Nunukan: Head of District fBu0atil .,, Head of District Development Planning (Bappeda) Head of District Forestry Office Head of District Land Use Office Other relevant district agencies District Spatial Planning Team District Parliament Relevant NGOs and media Stakeholders in Papua: In Java~ura: . Head of Forestry Provincial Office In Sorona: Head of District (Bupati) Head of District Development Planning Office (Bappeda) Head of District Spatial Planning Office (Dinas Tata Ruang) Head of District Forestry Office Relevant NGOs, traditional community organizations and media Annex 11: List of stakeholders interviewed West Papua Name of institution District HeadRegent's Office Kantor Brtpati Kabzpaten Sorong District Planning Agency BAPERDA Kabrtparen Sorong Natural Resources Conservation Office, Region I1 Balai KSDA Paptta N District Environment and Sanitation Service ., Dinas Lingkztngan Hidrrp dan Kebersihan Kabrtparen Sorong Person interviewed Drs. Tri Budiarto District Secretary (Sekreralis Daeralz) Drs. Hendrik Sa-~m Msi. (Head of R&D - Kepala Bidang Lirbang) Luther Salamala (Staff of Community Services Section - Staf Baperdo Bidang Pelayanan Mnsyarakat) Ir. Constan Sorondanya (Head - Kepala) Natanael (Head of Pollution Monitoring and Control sub section - Kepala Sub Dinas Penzanrartan don Penzztlilmn Pencenzaran) Agstinus Asem (Head of Preventative Investigation section - Kepala Seksi Kajian Prevent3 District Spatial Planning 3ffice Fredrik Yomame SS. (Head of Spatial Planning and Development section - Dinas Tata Rztang Kabupaten Sorong Kepala sub Dinas Taro Rztang dun ~e~rzbaqztnan) 11. Samuel Siada (Head of Planning Section - Kepala Seksi Perencanaan) listrict Forestry Service 3inas Kehuranan Yabrtpaten Sorong h. Hendrik Runaweri (Acting Head - PJS Kepala West Papua Name of institution Local Environmental & Cultural NGO, Sorong Yayasan ~en~kajian Adat dun Lingkrrngan Vogelkop - (YMMVO) Sorong Malarnoi Traditional Community Institution LMA - MALAMOI Sorong Abun Traditional Community Institution Lembaga Masyarakat Adat Papzca S~tkrc Abzcn (LEMAPSA) Karon Traditional Community Institution Lentbaga Masyarakat Adat Karon (LEMAKA) Local Conservation and Community Development YGO, Raja Ampat krnbaga Konservasi dan Pembangrcnan Masyarakat Raja Ampat iorong (KONPERS) Sub-district ~drninistration, Sausapor Person interviewed Melky Muabuay Nevy hroya - .- Samuel Mainolo . (Head - Ketzca) Marthen Yewen (Secretary - Sekreraris) Simon Yekwarn (Head - Ketzca) . Albert Yewen (Advisory Board member - Badm Penasehat) Gaspar Bam (~dvisory Board Member - Badan Penasehat) Kornelis Baru (Secretary - ~ekreraris) Lipmi Dimalouw (Head - Kerrca) 0 Village Head (Pak Canlat) West Papua Name of institution WWF Sahul Bioregion Person interviewed Drs. Benja Mambai (Sahul Bioregion Director, WWF Jayapura) Ir. Suhandri, WWFNRM Program Manager 8i Smior Bioregional Pianner, Sorong Rudy Wondowoi (Birds Head Eco-region Action Program Manaser, Manokwari) Johanes Maturbongs SSE (ex Program Manager ~orong,currentl~ Species Trade Program Sahul Bioregion, Jayapura) Roy Rindo-Rindo (WWF Sahul Bioregion, AdvocacyICampaigns Program, Jayapura) Lukas Rumetna, Community Organiser, WXF Sahul, Sorong Creusa Hitipeuw MSc, Co-ordinator WW Sahul Bioregion Species & Marine Tarzet Driven Prom East Kalimantan I Name of institution Person interviewed Nunukan District Parliament DPRD Kabupaten Nunukan District Planning Agency, Nunukan BAPPEDA I H. Mansyur (Head - Kehta) District Land Agency, Nunukan Dinas Pertanahan Sutan Siburian, S.Si Head of General Planning Sub-section (Kepala Subagian Perencanam Utnunz) H. Darmin Jumadil, SH (Head - Kepala) Name of institution PT. PERHUTANI Kunyit village Sekikilan Village YGO Autonomy Centre rikung River traditional :omunities Masyarakat Adat Sungai ~ikring KWF Sundaland 3ioregion East Kalimantan Person intemewed Ir Sangudi Muhammed Head of East Kalimantan Forest Area Management Unit (Kepala Satrian Pengelolaan Areal Hutan Kaitint) , Ir Susilo B.W.(Staff) Drs Roben Jungkat Community member (Tokoh n~asyarakot) Cornelius Karnain Village Head (Kepala Desa) Pangeran Ismail Customary Leader (Kepala Adat) I Tonny Suhartono PhD, WWF Sundaland Bioregion Director Halim Rizal, Finance Manager WWF Sundaland Ir Wawan Ridwan, PM WWF-NRiM Program Nunukan Adi Sudarmanto SIP, ex Community Organiser, \VWF￾NRM Nunukan Drasospolino MSc, Senior Spatial Planner, \VlVF-NRM Nunukan G. Manjela Eko Hartoyo SSi, GIs Specialist WWF-NFN Nunukan Name of institution I WWF Indonesia, Independent Consultant ( Directorate General Spatial Planning, Ministry of Settlements and Regional I Infrastructure I Ditjen Tata Ruarzg, Kirnpraswil Jakarta Person interviewed Agus Pumorno, Director * Dewi Suralaga, ~ational Program Director Fitrian Ardiansyah MSc, \VF-LWM Pro,garn Coordinator Jahja Hanafie PhD, ex WWF-NRM Program Co-ordinator, now WWF-NRM consultant Agus Setyarso PhD, Deputy Director for Forest Pro,~ram Emil ~arigan, Internal Services Manager 0 Klaas Jan Teule, ex Acting Director WWF Sahul Bioregion, currently WWF Indonesia Program Development Manager Miriam van Heist, Team leader NRM-EPIQ evaluation team I Ketut Djati, Program Manager Anne Peterson, Deputy Director Carey Yeager, Conservation Advisor Budi Siturnorang, Head of Sub-directorate of National Spatial Planning Annex 111: Itinerary of Evaluation Team 18& Sept. - 16~ Oct. 2002 I. - Contract signed. 18-Sep-02 - Interviewed Klaas van Teule (ex WAF Papua) - -. - Literature review 2. - Literature review Interviewed Wawan Ridwan (F'M WWF Nunukan) Interviewed Fitrian WAF-NRM Program Coordinator) ! I 3. ! - Interviewed Agus Pumorno (%VWF ~akarta:~irector) Interviewed Agus S (Deputy Director Forest Program WWF Indonesia) i 20-Sep-02 1 ~nterviewed DFID ~akarta I - Interviewed Emil Tarigan (WWF Jakarta, Intemal Services Manager) '' 1 21-Sep-02 review Traveled to Sorong WWF Sorong Presentation eetings in Sorong: (Sahul Bioregion Director, WWF Jayapura) 1 1 Representatives of local community &MA) j 1 1 W%T Sorong Staff+D20 I 7. Meetings in Sorong: I - Bappeda Kabupaten Sorong . I ' 24-Sep-02 - Dinas Tata Ruang Kabupaten Sorong - Local NGO YAF'ALVO I - WWF Sorong Staff 8. Meetings in Sorong: - Setda Kab Sorong I 25-Sep-02 - Dinas Lingkungan Kab Sorong - LMA Malamoi I 1 Conference call to Jayapura (Rudy, WVF Sahul Bioregion) eetings in Sorong: Kab Sorong Conference call to John M (ex JM PM, Sahul Bioregion) Jayapura LMA Malamoi call to Jayapura (WR& Sahul Bioregion) Conference call to Roy Rindo-Rindo Sahul Bioregion, Media) Interviewed Camat Sausapor 1 Debriefing WWF sorongstaff 27-Sep-02 raveled to Bali b - 28-Sep-02 Arrange appoitments for interviews in Bali - Arranged tickets for Nunukan 29-Sep-02 - Interviewed Tonny Suhartono (WFW Kalimantan Director) Travelled to Balikpapan (overnight in Balikpapan) Meeting with TrVWF Balikpapan staff (and Adi, ex Nunukan Pro_-: - - Meeting with Adi (continued) Travelled to Nunukan Meeting with Ketua DPRR Kab Nunukan - Meetings with: - NRM staff at Sekda Kabupaten Nunukan D2-Oct-02 - Kantor Perhutani - Member of Kunyit village (Roben) - WWF Nunukan Presentation Meetings adwith: - Ketua BPN Kabupaten Nunukan 33-Oct-02 - WWF Staff - Kamain, Village Head, Sekikilan village, Sungai Tulid - Sain, Autonomy Center (Local NGO) Travelled to Kekayap village, Sungai Sebuku )4-0ct-02 :Meeting with Pangenn Ismail. Local leader 15-Oct-02 ravelled to Jakarta P Literature review Meeting with Miriam van Heist (NRM EPIQ) Data gathering (from Nunukan and Sorong offices) Meetings with 08-Oct-02 - Dewi Suralaga (National Program Director, WVF Indonesia - Budi Situmorang @i jen Tata Ruang, Kimp~wil) - Preparation for presentation to WWF - Field Findings Presentation to WlVF Indonesia 09-Oct-02 -Financial and HRD data collection from WW 10-Oct-02 1 NRM - USAID Presentation Literature review and analysis 22i f 11-Oct-02 /Analysis and report writing 12-Oct-02 nalysis and report writing 23. 1 I 24. 1 14-0ct-02 l4 nalysis and report writing 25. 15-Oct-02 . Analysis and report writing - 16-Oct-02 Draft Report submission Annex IV: Achievements against workplans - Sorong and Nunukan YEAR I - SORONG No. I Activity I Achievement I Output Comtncnts eview sttidy repofis and docunrents that relate m Iriafl Jaya's area systeni, and conductfield studies to identqy poorly ecosystem types and remairring unprotected natural .-~ .... .~ . Obj I 1.2.3/Collect tabuli~r datn Identify high priority RD resources, describe how specific hunmn uctivitles adversely impact these resources, identify lower impact nlternutives, and increase tllc nreu of protected resources where best practices are being implemented - secondary biological datn F ollect maps, digital satellite images and digital files such as CIS ovcrilge files, sutellite raw data. GPS data files . .~ ~~- ~ ... -. Workshop held 21-23 March. Preliminary '0°% recomn~en+~tions ~ ~~ -. . .. .. ~~ loo% 100% (Prov. &district maps collected Report of review of data from CS & Petocz , Threat analysis in NRM database ~. Stsits of 1rj1 Forestry Dcpt 99. 'IrJn in 100' rlumbcrs 99'. NR slats Sorong 9718 Info in NRM dat:lb:~se I \see SAR Nov99-JunOO for '0°% ~~ . list. Duo to hck of existing Range of data collected & cli~ssified ibr loo' CIS entry up-to-di~tc dm, plan lo buy DKrOP digital mups & Flora & fauna at ~ provinci:~l ~.. -.. . OctOO 1. Activity I forest-use statrrs. Select priority area for survey. develop survey team and choose methodlequipments - i onduct Rapid Biological Survey (RBS) in two locations to be 1'3'2 ktermined during workshop (1.2.1) 1.3.3 Report writing & dissemination of Rapid Biological Survey (RBS: Achievement Output Comments xplore ~rrethodologies and conduct rapid biological assessnlent (RBA) in areas with potentially high biodiversity that are t andidutes for new or strerrgthecledprotectiott through changes - -- -- )' .. s -- Y - Jf - from activities 1.1-1.3 to identi/y ecosystem. critical species habitats tlrat are under-represented in the protect area sy.stenr (PAS), propose new protected areas otlrer facilitated allocatiorr ojlarrd in oflrer land rise tlrcrt meet biodiversity conservation reqrrirentents Priority area (JMTU) selected on basis of results of BD survey planning workshop Birds I.Iead sclected as 40% Aug 00 co-funded by WWF-NL. Survey priority for WWF Sahul postponed awaiting more favourable 200 1-2002 weather JM already surveycd as part of turtle prog. Other areas dep. on results of 40% Jun99 Aug workshop on JM available. Other areas to be on basis of results of hug workshop ompiled data coded but still awaiting 40% more up-to-date data from more recent satellite images t 1.4.2 I Sccnnrios .- of priority areas and new -. land use plan - t ecommerrd changes to the current protected arccr system, a11d .5 econ~rnend ways to trrainfabr or irvprove the bll~diversity value i ~~n~orfant sites out.ddc tire system D. Activity Workshop on Jamursba Medi (JM) protected area in Sorong '"" District Boundary survey, mapping and propose legal status from the 1S'2 Ministry of Forestry and Estate Crops for JM as a protected area biodiversity strategy for conservation plan in Sorong attdplrysical indicalors of biodiversily in 1.6.1 Rev~ew former research to identify biophysical indicators I 1.6.2l~round-truthing surveys on specific location in Sorong 1.6.3 Data plotting and development of models to support RBA of llrreats accordirrg to tlie type of agenl, and social, legal, and econot~iic factors anderlyiag specific Ranking of threats according N, ils severily, magnitude ~~~ . . . . ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ of threats according to type of agent, and actions to counter such thrcnts 1.7.2 An~~lyze, cutegorirc and rank of threats and description of biological andplrygical impacls typesjrom niajur threat types I 1.8.1 Determine level of thre:lls in specific ecosystem - cllievcnient .- Output Workshop led to recommendation for 100% proposed NP to include JM. TU &area of I4M' & HL between. Iloundary survey of JM & '1'M by provincial Forestry office. Map of proposed NP boundary created by WWFINRM Initial analysis started based on information ompiled data from taxa specialists for ., . . . . ,.. , .~ . 50% kndary dm plotting comploed Reschetluled to 2nd year & will focus on' Proposctl PA 8 participants from ~mmunity, Sorong govt. apedalda, Forestry, NGOs .ec letters - Dupati MayOO, iov. JunOO 1 Iependent on activities in 1.4 'rimnry dat:~ dcpcndent on .4 I -- - )a I--- Activity Projecting trends of threat-intensities and related biodiversity "8'21decline. !h4auuine distribntion of tlrreals in relotion to irnoortartt iodiversity values visualisation of threats sharing towards stakeholders & partners Fstablish biodivcrsity conservation as an importnnt planning nnd decision-mnking criterin by developing nnd, testing ~bj 2 onccpts and tecl~nlques, recommending cl~nnges to the I institutional and leenl framework. nnd educntine Gov. oflicinls 1'9'3 d~ievement ( Output Comments ditto Develop threat analysis methods lo be used at the protected area level (as opposed to the kabupaten or biorcgion) (ditto - , , l~iscussions held with Sorong govt. Biphut I - I Rescheduled to 2nd year I lecentralis;~tionot yet clear Review of Sorong district govt plan 2001 & pro6ess has on,y Act No.22199 & Reg. m2000. Not done at Spccinl Alltonomy provincial level I St;ltus iust o rumciur at [his stage Activity dentify key cortnferparls in govt and develop close relotionsl~ips wit11 tlrern. Influence decisiorrs at key points in 111 eplanning rocess in ways that srcppott biodiversily coaservation. Work will GOs, NRMparlners and relevant donorfimdedprojects lo everage inflrrence. Lobby at tlte national level for rnodi/cafion f centrally planned activities that will adversely affect I iodiversify. eview existing develops~errtalpla~~s established in Irja and districts irtclrrding the REPELITA, RTR WP (Prov. Plan) Irja, RTR WK (District Spatial Plan) Sorong, plans and plans for majorprivate sectorprojects nren nlnnngenicnl willrin prlorily project plnnnlng nnd nnd test Innovotive nnd funding nrmngcrncnts for PAS nnnngerncnt cornrn~rnify parlicipation in the plaaning ojprofected rea rnanagemenl and bnffer zoue cleveloptnest. I'rovine s~nall forparficipafoty ampping, lmd n.seplnnning nd bufler zone developnient initiatives -. cliicvcment 90% Output )sitive relationships established with APPEDA Tk I, Bapedalda Tk I, Forestry epts, BKSDA 1/11, National Land Agency k I and NGOs in Jayapura & Soronp, field 1ri1,s to utlvoccrte Tor susl. NRM with 1 1 eview conducted, some preliminary mclusions dcrived. Report to be )rnpleted in next workplan period omms. 1;istitutional strcngthcning of .MAS - kilitation of work plan planned activities on-going process ~roduction. filcilitation of ultcrnetivc ncome generation i~ctivitics in Wnrmandi see SAR Nov99-JunOO k ~nubiba in context of ICDP Activity -I evelop specific agreements for snstainable management of resozrrces at a bioregional scale innovative funding mecl~anisrns (Irian Trrrst Fund & Protected nrea project) - collaboratively with CI lo facilitate lrian Jaya's Biodiversity rust Fund i.3.2 Promote conservation incentive for community in and adj:~ccnt to protected area from Protected Area Project sources ...... ... ~,," .... 1.3.3 Develop community agreement of proposed JM protected area I Develop the copncities of slnkeholders in protected nren bj 4 mnnagement ond l~loregionnl plnnnlng through lrnlnlng workshops ond cross-vislls . -- ................... ... --. ............ - .... chievement 50% - Ontpnt n-going discussions with stnkcholdcrs re: ~tus of proposed PA meetings in Jayapura in 99. Director of rWF Sahul elected as chairman of Board BTF. Meetings in June, Oct & DecOO. ccision to k~unch project in FebOl in JKT csponsibility for Protected ~rka Project loved from B;~ped;~lda toDinas khutanan. Project subsequently isconlinued. etter from community Sept 99 expressing 4lingness lo manage area as a onscrvation area. Agreements from lnkel~olders at Dec 99 workshop. ocialisntion of workshop results to illages. Some elements of Kwoor ommunity disagree cliedulcd for year 3 chedulcd far year 3 ue of somc cotimnnities ecting NI' ststus :cision to separate PTF 3ject from WWWNRM >jcct & fund from other urces YEAR 11 - Sorong Activity Identify hidl priority l3D resources, describe how specific . - human activities ad;ersely impact these resources, klcntify I O''j I lowcr impact ulternatives, and increase the urea of prutccted I lrcsources where best practices are being in~piemented - .- -- maps (3Oshects) &digital satellite image (12 scene: Search for appropriale n~etlrodology and cunducti~~g rapid 1.2 1 iological assesstne~rl (RBA) forpote~llially high Biodiversity reas beirg candidales to acquire the statrrs of nature reservafion nrea. 1.1.2 .~~ . Develop andlor analyze digital maps obtained from satellite imagery (Landsat TM MSS 7 Band) to produce thematic maps (topography, vegetation, landuse etc). ..... - chievemen 100% 100% . . 100% . ,. - ~.. > 100% , 50% 1.2.1 . 100,000 topo maps for Sorong & , lanokwari. Select potentially high biodiversity nrea, choose metl~od/equipmcnts and set up a survey team ~~ ~~ ~ . ~ p~ , . .. Conduct Rapid Dialogical Asscssrncnt (RBA) on two locntions in 1'2'2~orong (locations will bc detcrn~incd) ;~tcllitc images analyscd, maps produc MTU selected as priority in ~bg 00 ~orkshop. Survey teilm selected from .IPI. UNCEN, UNlPA & Birdlife Int GO. Survey plnn completdd :onducted in Snukorem, Mnnokwari un.AugO1 Activity lal report and dissemination of Rapid Biological Assessment BA) of Sorong KSDA. Survey results shall be presented before eminar ralyze information collected drrring Acts. 1-3 in order to ident$j wystems & critical species habitats under-represettled in the rrerttprotected area system, and based on that propose new PA: other facilitated allocation of land )ding, visualization and rendering image of all data, identify osystems and critical species habitats that are under-represented eld survey to re-examine specific location in Sorong :ncral recommendation concerning biodiversity status and nditions on ecosystem found within the protected areas . .... !comntend changes to the current protected area system, and commend ways to nai~rtairt or iurprove the biodiversity valrte oj tportant sites outside protected area ~ ~ :commend changes to the Protected Area System in Sorong cl~icvemcnt ( Output Co~t~n~cnts I I Report on insects completed, data on Veg & bird dm. find report 75P/o amphibisns, reptiles, mammals in dbase not yet rcceivcd from LIPI/BPI Veg data from satellite images. This & other data anolysed with stakeholders in Further analysis dependent on *'% workshop on 'Ecoregion & landscape 1.2.3 planning' May 2001 50% In Manokwnri only Dependent on 1.2.3 Based on available RBA data from JM & see SAR May-OctO1 App. For loo% Saiikorem, identified BD status of JMTU more dctoils - Continued socialis:ition of JMTU as conservation :ma with stakeholders. 100% Dupati suspended licence of HPII in prolmsed orc:~. DG PKA issued plan to ma[) proposcd area Activity I Recommend ways to maintain or improve the biodiversity value of 4'2 important sites outside the protected area system (Sorong) dentqy biological andplrysical indicators of biodiversity in kd.wape nnits I Review earlier research report with the purpose of identifying hiophysicnl indicators in Landscape unit 5.2 Data plotting and development of models to support RBA evelop typology of llrreals according to flre type ofagent, and hysical, social, legal, and ecorromic factors underlying specific hreats. Ranking of ll~reats according to its severity, nagn nil ride t nd frequency - Develop typology of threats accordmg to type of agent and actions to counter such threats ..- - threats of biological andphysical in~paets .7.1 Dctcrmine level of threats in specific ecosystem I . .. Projecting trends ifyhreat-intensities and related biodiversity - . .- of threats in relation to iwcporfarrt l>cfinc important biodiversity values Mapping distribution of thrcats in relation to importimt biodlversit, 4chievement ( Output Co~nmcnts 100% I loo% General recommendations based on results of village surveys in Ambcrlxrkem & Saukorcm, Manokwari Indicators from analysis of Petocz & CI report and RBA's already carried out Already have a lot of data but not yet complete enough to determine models see I .6. l above & SAR NovOO. AprOl & May-0ct01 ~~~ ~" - ~ 100% ditto p~ ~~ ~ see SAR May-0~101 App. For more details Dependent on results from RBA surveys - fin;,l not lCO% [itto ditto I I 100% 100% Values determined see SAR Nov00-Apt01 Pu. Miry￾OctOl Mnp of threats to proposcd NP I I n Act* - P evelop threat analysi.~ metl~ods lo be used a1 tlteprolecled area eve1 (as opposed lo the kabtrpaten or bioregion) evelop metlrod to miligate specijk tlrreals. Idenlqy reguirenrenls itnproving legal framework or capacity brrilding of agencies esign and implenten1 strategy for mitigating and countering lo biodiversity in large! location ~ eview the irnplertrenlation of nrell~ods anddesign of threat a1 the PA level .. . .. . biodiversity conservation as on important planning and decision-mnk~n~criterin by developing nnd testing Obj 2 concepb and techniques, recommending changes to the I / institutional and Icgol framework, and educating Gov. onciacials and tl~c private sector - .. -. - lire reporl regarding lhe framework of Bioregional lannin&* in Sorong Dislricl cbicvcn~cnt Outpnt Con~n~cnts Stakeholder workshops planned for Manokwari Mar02 & Sorong May 02 not '-+: in arried finalout year due to focus on other targets BKSDA &local NCO developed methods for JM Not yet completed for TU . , . _ ~~ . ~ - Not carried out due to change in focus in I as for 1.9 & 1.10. Discussions on sust. 50% NRM & alternative income gen, with I omms during field trips "Analysis of institutional of local govt & local NGOs to NR and ecosystem See Appendices 3&4 SAR see Report on field visits to Waibem, WIU. Wormon & Kwoor LC Activity eveloping a viable network with stakeholders to improve consetvatiorr planning process eview existing developmentalplans established in Irja and districts inclrrdi~rg the REPELITA, RTR WP (Prov. Spati6 RTR WK (District Spatial Plan) Sorong, Pad~tserari ( \(~ores( knduse Map) agreeaents between main stakeholders, 1.e. concerning tlr~ biodiversity database GIS Network evelop, in cooperatio~ with stakelrolh IN the Dkrict of L5 k orong, alternative spatialplans incorporatirtg biodiversity Slrcngthcn protcclcd nrcn tnnnngcrncnt will~in priority biorcgions lhrougl~ purtlcipntory project plnnning and inslilutlonnl nnd funding orrnngcn~cnls for PAS mnnngcnlcst I lrlun Juyn .chicvcmcnt I Output I Comn~cnts NGOLMA network established - involved in field survey to JM & Kwoor. Research in Manokwori district involved BI'K. LIPI, UNIPA. Lobbying of local I 100' govt - results included Bupati's suspension of HPH licence, letter from MOFOR to WWFconfirming that change of status of JMTU in process Review of RTRWK Sorong in Report 100% "Development & Conservation in Sorong area" with Forestry & Bapedalda level. GTS training carried e Appendix 4 SAR May- ~01. Review of existing plan: t RTRWK is currently being dated (with input from 'W -. ranges in govt structure due dccentralis:ltion means GIS sponsibility 11ot yet clear. No cilitiw ill district Icvel ~RWKstill in process at this :~gc. Necd niorc socio- :onomic'& hiodivcrsity data F ~sjs . Activity acilitate cortrrnunity participation at the planning stage of the 3.1 stablishrnent of Jamrrrsba Medi Tamrarr as National Park as well as developme~lt ofits brrfJer zone F 3.1.2Conduct PRA & dcmogrnphic survey at village level I I 3.1.1 Aoalyse PRA for economic alternatives & local institutional 1 3'1'3 strengthening I Appoint & train team & NGO partners for PRA i~~novativefindi~~g mechartis~ns fur NRM model e.g. overnntenf badget, corpornte sector and international agencies 3.1.4 site-spec(fic stakeholders agreements (e.g. Partnerslrlp parties and park mcrnager~~ent) with regard 10 th Assist stakeholders to develop small scale NRM model in selected . villages adjacent to proposed NP I pinable rnanagmterrt of natrrral resources (third year) Survey method designed &team ompiled. Training modules produced. loolo mining conducted Mar01 in Manokwari for 40 people including local govt t 50% PRA in . . . . I Analysis done on available data. Further loolo ideas for economic activities. 75"/0 Advice given on improving agric production. Kiosk management training for villages in Sorong with locnl office of Dcpt of Co-ops. 50% Socialisiction of results of soscc surveys to mlcvant govt agencies. Govt icppreciate of dim but lack funds for CD ' Year I11 - Sorong Support from the local government and community is obtnina for conservntion of Jnn~ursbn Mcdi - North Tnmrnu by October 2002 Mile￾stone 1: Tltefor~nulalion of Janlursba Medi - North Tamrair as conservation area isfollowed rip by the di.slrictgoverr~~~~e,It by October 2002 1.1. Facilitate meeting and logistic of partners (head of Sorong district head of sub-district, BKSDA, government forestry agency of Sorong and local parliament) visiting the villages in Sorong and Manokwuri districts Lobby district governments of Sorong and Manokwari to stop continuing HPH operation and to gain their commitments not to issue Kopermas in the proposed conservation area 1.2. ile- The agreentent from community to stippport cortservation in tlri; sto~le &. b reu is increased by June 2002 Lobby and facilitate local government (district and sub-district) to conduct collaborative survey on socioeconomic, alternative income generation, ecotourism potential, tenurial in Sausapor and sevcral areas in Kebar and Amberbaken ,chievemcnt Output Bupati has suspended licence of PT Multi loo% Wahana Wgaya indefinitely Meeting with local govt in March 02 produced strong endorsement from govt. fc WWs activities & agreement to carry out 100% joint surveys. BAI'PEDA to seek funding for improved tr:msport (ship) to improve cotnms ncccss to mnrkcts. UKSDA qyeed lo priorrise funding for JMTU. Public consult:~tion mccting Feb 2002 & meetings leading up to it involved both government as well as reps from nll communities concerned Comments ecent report in national apers that MOFOR lvc permanently :voked this HPN :e activities undcr arget 2 for deteils of .1rvcys+E9 ce App 3 SAR NovOl￾hpro? Carry out socialization about the visit of verification team of departmement to the communities (Sausapor. Amberbaken. Kebar) -- Organize meeting of community to meet the verification team Karon (Amber Baken. Kebar. Sausapor coastal dan remote areas) Organize public participation workshop to find the best solution ifor the management of conservation area in JMNT I up and socialize the results of verification team in Sorong ---- ~ ---- ~ .. . ~ . .. upport from media for the eslablishernent of cortservation area North Tamrau is obtained by September 2002 - .~ .. . ~ . ~ campaign in Sorong town and villages using Bahasa and local languageon the importance of protection of amursba Medi beach Make a documentary about leatherback turtles in Jatnursba Medi (TVRI and SCTV) - .- All data and iaformatlon, Including social and economlc I- vulur~tlon and CIS nlups rcqulrcd to develop the ~onscrvntinn get 2 ren proposal of Jun~ursbn Mcdl - North l'nnlma (JMNT) arc /- co~npletctl by July 2002. c~~ievement I output I Mectings with local community 100% representatives from Sausapor, Amberbaken See App 2 SAR NovOl & Kebar 12-24 Feb02. Media campaign AprO2 WWF provided the logistics for community loo% reps to attend public consultation mtg , , .. .- .- ... .~ -~ ~-.~~ See App 3 SAR NovOl 100% Public consultation meeting Feb 2002 Al,rq2 . ~~~ '5% if didn't Socialisation to villages carried out as part include of sosec, tenurial & eco-tourism potential Manokwari surveys AprOZ, ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ...,. SCTV crew filmed loch community' lraditions &turtle egg-laying in JM. Series 100% )f national broadcasts on Sat lunchtime in ' . ' I , , Sept 02 raised i~w;~rencss of imporlence of I wnscrving turtles. 'le￾ne onduct tenurial study and Update GIs data of Sausapor, nnd Kebar through the implementation of participator) Socio-economic and biodiversity information and rnapping arc completed by July 2002. 1. Imapping in Kebar and Sausapor Conduct socio-economic survey together with district government team in Sausapor sub-district. Monitor and record numbers of turtles coming to nesting site in 3' amursba Medi I 4. Study of potential ccoturism in lamursha Medi & North Tamrnu. chievement Output Surveys carried out in April in villages in Sausapor sub-district (Tamrau Utara area) &coastal comms (JM). Socialisation of results of consultation meeting & proposal loo% for PA status also carried out at same time. Survey team included reps from UNIPA, local govt, BKSDA, NGO & community members. . ~ arried out at same time as above. Understanding of tenure still only general. 7596 IIas been too sensitive an issue to explore i~ - -- ..-. i more depth arricd out at siinie time as 2.1 i~bove. Infc ee Report in App 9A, B & 9C SAR NovOl￾rpr02 ;ee Report on 'opul:~tion Monitoring )f Leatherback Turtles i 'M beaches App. G SAF '40~0 1 -Apr02 See llel)ort in Apl) 9A, >I3 & 9C SAR NovOl￾Apr02 Complete report of Rapid Biodiversity Assessment (RBA) and semiannual report I (period Nov 2001 - April 2002) The proposal of JMNT ns conservation areas is integrated into 1r- spatial plan of Sorong district, will be accepted by relevant stnkcholdcrs (provincial nnd district governments, local communities and relevant agencies) and will be agreed by the central government (the Ministry of Forestry) by October 200: Conservation of NRM is integrated in district and provincial by Seplernber 2002. 1. Lobby the governments and local parliaments to incorporate conservation of NRM to the spatial planning. Lobby thc local govcrnmcnts for strategic development of 2. 1 amursba Medi-NorthTamrau and Ambcrbnken and Kebor.[Villa~ level) output I ~omn~ents :mi-Annual Report completed. Problems ith changes of staff within LIP1 mean that BA final report not yet received although Ita from other researchers is already aila able nbbying of DPRD 11. Spatid Planning SP draft completetl by Nlice & SP consultants carried out. Most consult;~nts but not yet f the proposed PA integrated into the draft formally presented. pntial Plan (SP) discussed, ratified by DPRD. abbyingof sub-district govts carried out. 1 igrcemen~ for sub-dislrict govt to be Mi~n:~ge~ncnt ~I;IIIS not nvolved in socinlisation and surveys in yet possible as lcgi~l illages. Prcsent:~tion of rcsults of village antus of the proposed urveys to DPRD June 02 resulted in iIrcn no, ommitment to hcln imnrove mess lo . . nnrkets - Lobby district governments to consider integrating village 3.3. development into the development plans of Sorong and Manokwari districts (District level) Mile- ariicipatory comt~~rmity based biodiver.sity management is stone 2: esigned by October 2002. Strengthen income generation activities (rlrnrpst kebar, rrro~rkar 3.4. kelrrdi, coconut oil, peanut, community cooperative) in villages around Jamursba Medi and North Tamrau. stakeholders (local governments.NCOs, communities, workshop on proposed Jamursbr Medi & North arnrau Strategic Plan (in District) - on August 2002 ~ .- . ~ ~~~ . Strengthening the copncity building of locnl NCOs, conlrnunities and other stnkeholden is inlplcmented by .- September ~ ~ . 2002. ~~.. . --~ -~ .~ ~ 'Ie- Ilrte#nn resonree ojstokelroliicrsjor Natnrnl diversity is rtrengBened by Angust 2002. ~ ~~ -- cl~ievement Output Lobbying of DPRD 11. Spi~tial Planning 50% Office. BAPPEDA & SP consultants carriec JM villages small business groups based on production & processing 80% f agric & meat products. Kiosli Workshop was intended to result in strengthened network but so far have 40% concentr;~ted on more infromal discussions due to that fact that structure of key community reps (LMAs) still in scale of tlu: - ~ ~ ... - draft completed by lsultants but not yet mally presented, cussed, ratified by 'RD. :port on training in q~ 7 SAR NovOl￾r02. YEAR I - NUNUKAN Identify high priority biodiversity resources, describe how specific human nctivitics ndversely nffcct impact these resources, Identify lower impact nlternntives, and increase the area of protected resources where best prnctices are being implemented Review literature on Kalimantan's protected nrea system and related field studies to identifipoorly represe&d ecosystem types and remaining unprotected natural ecosystems Collect spatial data on physical, biological, and socio￾economic attributes of Kalimantan, nnd begin development of the initial layers of a bioregional planning GIS Explore methodologies and conduct rapid biological assessments in areas with potentially high biodiversity that are candidates for new or strengthened protection by changes in forest-use status Analyze information from Activities 1-3 to ident~fy ccosystcms and critical spccics habitats that are under￾rcprcsented in the current protected nrea system, propose new protectcd areas or other facilitated nllocation of land in other use categories that meet biodiversity conscrvntio~ requirements Report listing ranking of priority areas Tor conservation and appropriate use s GIS database structure and set up * Digitized maps Data overlays and combinations Survey report, outlining: Methodology of survey adopted Field surveys data Priority ranking of selected areas refined Updated GIS d:~tabase and catalog GIS supported Ranking of Priorities and Biodiversity values of areas and landscapes Visudizotion and qui~ntification GIS supported Biodiversity sccnurio Survey was carried our as planned. Results are in the report submitted, with the conclusion that fitrther study would he needed in the l'uture. Data is sh;~rcd with WWI: Sahul Bioregion Thc GIS team that incorporated findings from previous field surveys produced corrcctcd and upd:~tcd land suitability map. I Wap the distribution of threats in relation to important riodiversity values ... - - Scope East Kalimantan. Central Kalimantan ~.~~ ~. ... (2nd yr) Develop methods for threat analysis for use at the protected area level (as opposed to the province or bioregion) ~.. ~ (2nd year) Develop and test approaches for mitigating specific threats. Identify requirements for improving the legal framework or strengthening enforcement capability (2nd yr) Design and implement a strategy for mitigating and countering biodiversity threats in target provinces Document how threat scenarios evolve as the, intensity. and type of development changes, using present conditions in Kalimantan to illustrate three stages of threa intensity Establish biodiversity conscrvntion ns nn important plnnnlng and decision-making criteria by developing and teetcd concepts and tcchniqucs, rcco~nmending chnnges to tl~c Institutionnl and legal fromework, and cdtrcaling government olliclnls, ond the prlvatc sector ~ .-~ leport outlining: GS supported visualization of threa distribution and trends Field surveys Presentation and feedback from stakeholders Expected effectiveness Action Plan Set of what-if scenarios for biodiversity conservation measure against existing and anticipnted threats and opportunitie! (GIs) Swamp forest study on Sebuku Deltd ligital maps avitil:~ble from the GIS include he forest concessions. oil palm establishment ,r claims, roads, popu1:ttion centers. {egeration types, degrilded forests, etc. Planned to take phce in the second year II Planned to take place in [he second year I This activity will be covered by the what-if scenarios for the Nunukan district to be developed in the coming period. , I The results presented to the broad audience of smkeholders, h:ts illrendy lend to a member of the District I'arlictmcat requesting the District Government to not givc out any (morc) licenses for oil palm development in the area permitting processes for private sector financed development, the environmental impact assessment process, and other laws and regulations Identify key counterparts in government, and develop working relationships with them. Influence decisions at key points in the planning process in ways that support biodiversity conservation. Work with NGOs. NRM partners, and relevant donor funded projects to leverage influence. Lobby at the national level for modification of Lobbying at national level centrally planned activities that will adversely affcct biodiversity ~ . . . .- . .- - . -- ~~~~ Scope East Kalimantan Stakeholder and partner networks and groups established - - --- 2.4 Development of the alternative plans Sthkeholder and partner networks and groups established . ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ This activity also ~,efcrs to the MoU, the partnership between WWF and the District, and the role WWF is pli~ying in coordin:~ting input and support from other organizations and donors to the Nunuk:~n concept. .. This activity is not carrictl out in Centrd 'Kalimen~an, inste;~d. full ibcus in given in Eust K:dimant?n only. I Activity ieview existing plans in the target provinces and districts ncluding the REPELITA, spatial plans, sectoral plans, md plans for major private sector projects Scope East Kalimantan - -- Development of the alternative plans, scope East Kalimantan Alternative plans promoted to be endorsed by the East Kalimantan government levels ~ ~ Strengthen protected nrea management within prioritJ bioregions through pnrticipntory project plnnning and fncilitution ofstukeholder ngrccmcnts, and test innovative institutional and funding nrrnngrmcnts for protccted area nunagcment in Knlimnntnn . . .-. -~ (2nd yr) Documenting lessons learned by WWF in the course of implementi~g protected area Gojects in Indonesia. Using these lessons, and the findings of recent assessments of the Integrated Conservation and Development approach, recommend ways that the conccp and approaches currently used in the design of protected area conservation projects should be revised in the form o - a manual - -- 1 Detection of Biodiversity threats and opportunities Compared to the what-if biodiversity and threat scenarios -~~ bgional Development and Biodiversitj rcenarios developed . ... .... Government decision making levels adopt alternative plans - --- Updated ICDP Manuals Experiences and know-how of the scenario building and biodiversity md threat usscssmcnts made avr~ihble to smkchoiders The Nunukan District was still at the beginning of making its own development 2nd spatial plan and WWF and its p;!rtners worked toward providing input for Bnppeda and rclcvant agencies. Appendices and Reports were submitted for this particular activity This activity refers to the biodiversity scenarios to be developed next. and which will be part of the what-if scenarios to be dcveioped in the coming period -- ----A Dnto (CIS, reports, etc) were summarized into informotion materinls strcli as the Conccpl Brief in Bahnsn Indonesia, the Project Brief in English, hi~ndouts of prcsentntions in Bnbusn Indonesia. I:urtherniore, most data and maps arc being slif~red with the Nunukiln Government agencies. the first pilot landscape (Nunukan) to Villages, District and Province (Draw up a protocol of participation and a work schedule together with stakeholders (1st. 2nd landscape)) and survey results from the second pilot landscape to Villages, District and Province (Formalize stakeholder support with a MoU acceptable to the involved parties (1st. 2nd landscape) 6 Draw up a protocol of participation and a work schedule together with stakeholders (Ist, 2nd landscape) .7 Hold a reconnaissance flight over the pilot lnndscupcs with participants fron the District (kt, 2nd pilot landscape) .8 Formalize stakeholder support with a MoU acceptable to the involved parties (1st. 2nd lnndscnoc) Outnnt Increased participants involvement with the presented topics and issues Confidence building among stakeholders and between stakeholders and WWF￾NRM, finding common ground. Direct feed-back of stakeholders, and a tentative joint program for further cooperation - Increased participants involvement Common ground found among stakeholders Direct feed-back of stakeholders, and a tentative joint program for further cooperation - . .. - -- . .-- A draft protocol of participation. program objectives and a joint work schedule between WWF-NRM and stakeholders. - Stakeholder awareness ilnd feedback. Vidct and photo recordings. GPS readings of the flight route. Detection of recent dcvelopments. The MoU signed by the Nunuknn District und WWF. Comnients b WWF gave input to draft regional development strategy for Kab. Nunukan 8 The research department of the provincial Bappeda worked on the development of this strategy plan 1 Village communities provided input toward spatial planning of their village area and the planningof the management of the village's natural resources This activity takes place in the third WWF-NRM Program year. The rationale for a MoU and a first draft has been discussed with the District (Dupati. Kett!a Dappeda, Sekda, others) already since March 2000. Signing of MOU never took place, as the Local Government was not comfortable with signing of MOU with an NGO. IIowevcr, efforts to do so were already optimal. ,. This was postponed awiiting the formal decision to cancel the implementation of a seccind pilot I:ltldsc;~pe. .. Postponed until further agreement and I'undinl: ~ .. ,- Postponed until further consultnlion and cliwity - ik big concern of the Dupati Kots on their lini~ncinl and political responsibilities. , , P Activity 1 Achievement Promote and support suslainable integration of conscrvation and development in regional - landscape) Amended to: I Work with District Govenln~ent Planning Agencies to prepare the spatial plan andparts of the regional developrne~~t plan) Perform biodiversity analysis using GIS applications .. . . Assign conservation priorities and intensities within the pilot landscape! Develop several alternative scenario! for biodiversity conscrvation (patterns of conscrvalion priorities) Hold a stakeholder workshop at District levcl to demonstrate the GIS application and sccnnrios llold a stiskcholder workshop at Village level to demonstrate the 01.5 application and scenarios - Outpnt Projections of biodiversity (biodiversity map) for the 1st landscape. . - The conservation attributes of thc various areas are recorded in the GIS database, printed as hard-copy maps. and documentec in ;I brief tcclinical renort. The two alternative scenarios, available as thematic layers in the GIS, printed as l~nrdcopy mops, and documented in a bricf technical report with descriptions and dnta￾sheets. Documcntntion of the workshop's results. Same us above, focusing on village stakeholders ~ .,, ~, n preparation for this closer cooperation, and in accordance vith the NRM's 2nd year workplan and budget developed ~nd approved in November 2000, the project team was elocated from Balikpapan to Nunukan. 211 are reported in Scnii Annual Tleliort July - Novcmbcr LO01 ' 'Ilc discussion among st;lkcholdcrs concerning hiotliversity onscrvi~tion brought to s broader ;~nd tilore pnxnincnt level. gold a stakeholder workshop at 3istrict level to demonstrate and jiscuss the scenarios - Hold a stakeholder workshop at Village level to demonstrate and discuss the scenarios Develop What-If scenarios for regional development, integrating conservation and utilization Review existing development plans including the Propeda. RUTR, public and private sector plans (1st. 2nd landscape) Amended to: Analysis and evaluation of biodiversity Identify framework of government dcvelopmcnt policies and targets Amcndcd to: Assigr~ conservatiotr priorities within the pilot lundscape, in fwo alternative scetiarios for co~~servation Analyze stakeholder needs, expectntions and stmtegies (Ist, 2nd landscape) )ocumentation of the workshop's results. The discussion among stakeholders :oncerning biodiversity conservation )rought to a bronder and more prominent evel. - jame as above, focusing on village ;takeholders - cnt -- - -- , Documented study I 1 C t I I I Part of the documented study under 2.3.1 A report on the stakeholder profiles. and use opportunities and constraints, and the land uitability scenario, have been discussed mostly informally ~ith District stakeholders. Land suitilbility maps have been istributed. -- - tedback was registered through questionnaires, sketch lapping, and tliscuss~ons/intcrv~ews. :he biodiversity analysis and evaluation was kept simple ~nd practical, since the biologist and GIS officer who were vorking in more detail on the issue both left in January !001. . . ..~ - four'ore:is proposed for conservation (see 2.3.1 .) hi~ve leen overlaid with land suitability for agriculture, existing :ommercial Innd use conccssions. irnd scttlcmcnt areas. Idettte,rtify ad attalyze overall pen~~trott mtd sectoral 100% developntettt policies, targets, ntd ~. . . .. . Work with villnses to identify village resource n~mtngentent attd 100% Iattd use priorities Integrate conservation and utilization scenarios following stakeholders' needs, expechtions, and strategies (1st land.) Assess the environmental costs and benefits of the combined utilization & conservation scenarios -. Assess the socio-economic costs and benefits of the combined utilization & conservation scenarios Present and discuss the What-If scenarios with the District and 100% Provincial Government Present and discuss the What-If wmrios with the Village 100% Governments Analyze changes needed in policies, institutional and Icgttl 100% ilrrangcments to support the Whnt￾If scenarios Output Reports on spatial plan and the Kabupaten's strategic plan (Propeda) Villagers have access to the data and information compiled by WWF The conservation and utilization scenarios are combined in 2-3 "what-if" scenarios, following the outcome of the workshops 2.1.4.2.1.5.2.2.7.2.2.8. Results of the assessment are presented as part of the documentation on the what-if scenario's, and are incorporated within the GIS database Record of the discussion. Record of the discussion. Results of the tln:~lyscs are prcsct~ted as p:vl of the docunienlntion on the what-if sccni~rios.Record of the discussion. Comnients lans, ideas, reports have been collected through informal ~eetings and discussions with District government staff. - - 'illagers start to be interested to proceed with the planning rocess and give input for a follow-up program Amended - already integrated to other parts of objective 2 (see above) . . JWIJ~ lunnaial ssamd nuc ai!nbav swa1ds03a lcin~cu palaalo~dun puc sadh walsXsoaa pa~uasaidai-iapun 01 sa!l!io!ld uS!sse 01 ocp 78 ain~cial!l $0 Apn~s saamosw &]!sm~!polq pqaqo~dun pun qa!q WIM J~UJS~UUI aol!d puom u )uautnaop pun paps -- Activity Iigitize, and edit secondary data on :opography, rivers, planimetric katures. infrastructure Acquire secondary data on iemography, socio-economy Edit, incorporate secondary data on demography, socio-economy . . Acquire secondary data on biodiversitv Edit, incorporate secondary data on biodiversity Acquire primary digital data on vegetation and land use from remote sensing sources Process primary digital data on vegetation and land use from remote sensing sources Design field-survey for socio￾economy, land use, and local customs data ~ ~ Digitize, and edit secondary data or soils. geomorphology land systems, land suilobility ~ ~ . .. ~ ~~ Acquire, process primary data on socio-economy, land use, local customs, through field-survey . .~ chievemenl IS di~tnbi~se including the. themes covered. Data described, analyzed, and documented. Sub-sets of the data incorporated in the GIS Relevant reports and documents compiled and cataloged. -- -- Data described. analyzed. and documented. Sub-sets of the data incorporated in the GIS database. Two or three Landsat7 scenes, with the rav data on CD-ROM . . . . . . Processed and interpreted Landsat7 scenes. incorpor$ed in the GIS Survey design, implementation plan, TOR, and budget GIS database including the themes covered Relevant reports and documents compiled and cati~logcd. Survey report. Pritnary data analyzed and structured. kquire. process primary data on )iodiversity, through field-survey 'rocess biodiversity data with GIS I 100% Design vegetation nnd soil data field-surveys, including ground￾truthing Acquire, analyze primary data on vegetation types and soils, through field-survey Process primary data on vegetation types and soils with GIS Document second pilot landscape .. . . Print thematic maps and data-sheets Produce document with quantitative and qualitative description of second pilot landscape Develop nltcrnntive designs for protected area cslnblishment, manngement, and control at tl~e reglonal level. P - Output Survey report. Primary data analyzed and structured. The updated GIs application for biodiversity analysis, along with the documentation of the program. -Projections of biodiversity (biodiversity map) for the 2nd landscape. Survey design, implementation plan, TOR, and budget Survey report. Primary data analyzed and structured. Thematic maps and data-sheets printed and distributed to relevant stakeholders. ~~ ----. . ... - . - -. Document contoining the information or links to the information compiled under activity 3.2. ~ - . YEAR 111 - NUNUKAN - 'arget 1: Activity Xstrict Spntinl Man of Nunuknn Dlstrict Is completed by October !002. ;parial Planning Tea111 rtnblished :onduct consultation and iiscussion with Rappeda to :stablish Planning Team of Spatial Plan. Term of Reference (TOR) of Regional Spatial Plan developed by NRM Program is accepted by fhe Nnnrrkon Gnvernrnent by December ZOO1 Develop Term of Reference of Spatial Plan of Nunukan District. Amended to: Develop TOR with ruore concern on llte ir~tegralior~ oj biodiversity conservatio~~ and regioncrl d~velop~~~o~t as grridelir~e tlmt call be trsed in designing the Regional Spatial plot^ of Nenuknr~ (Rencana Tata R~mng Wilayah Knbrrpatef~ Nunrkarr/RTRWK) Organize consultation and discussion mceting among members of Planning Team of Spatial Plan of Nunukan District. Planning Team of Spatial Plan is Draft ToRorIand Framework of Regional 100% Spatial Plan (RTRWK) of Nunukan Distric to be presented to the Govt of Nuquknn Frumcwork, guideline and concept of spnti; 100%~ plan thnt will be used in dcvcloping spatial , Conimcnts , 3hnges in the report writing were ;~pplied in this third yew. where WWP focused as evidence of efforts outlined in each ~ctivity initially proposed in the annual workplan Final vcrs~nn.ofTOR wns nrncl~~cctl ~~nd sulnnitted In (It( ~nf.Rn~pcrta of Nun~~knn i~nd W:IS Intrr nn :ICCCI)~C~ h.dl pnrticc involving in tI~e tr:lnn 011 l:cI~r~t:lrv 28. 2002 This was made possible by appointment of WWF as ;I member of the Tim Teknis Tata Ruang (Spati;rl Planning Technical Teem) Kab. Nunukan. Input is largely concerning fmtions of forests (protection, cultivnlion) and less input oi biodiversity conservation in pmliculi~r ,I . As part of the Spiltid Plan Techninnl'l'cam, this is u regular activity for WWF. Report on their progress is also nvnilnblc Activity Zonduct consultation and iiscussion with government. 3PRD. community, and other nstitution and social organization :oncerning TOR and Planning Process in developing Spatial Plan. Survey, data collection and data znalysis of Spatial Plan are completed by June 2002 Carry out lobbying, consultation, and discussion with Bappeda of East Kalimantan province in relation to land use status of Sebuku-Sembakung, Lwking possibility for changing from non￾forest (KBNK) to forest utilization! (KBK). Improve and update data and information required including GI2 Maps. Dcvelop sccnario of several alternalivcs for setting a new biodiversity conservation or protcctcd nrca in Sebuku￾Sembnkung Watershed TheToR and planning process of Spatial Plan are accepted by all parties involves Details ore given in each activily Expected result changes the land use of Sebuku-Sembakung from non-forest to forest utilization area Data base of Nunukan District is completed and of GIS maps are available, both in hard copy and CD ROM Proposal of biodiversity conservation or protccted arcos in Sebuku-Sembakung Comments Draft Kab. Nunukan's spatial plan has been developed by a consulting firm contracted by Bappeda, and presented in all relevant agencieslbodies. Process of approval was delayed. as the local parliament did not rank it as a high priority in their agenda. The ohput expressed here is requires clarification in terms of tangible and measurable results. I-lowever, all activities outlined have been carried out and documented by the WW team. NRM-WWF has become well known by the local govt bodieshgencies and other stakeholders (NGOs. heads of villages, community'lenders, etc) ns the place to get GIS processed maps of Nunukan 4 scenarios were developed und presented to BappeddDin;~ Tata ~ubng for distribution and discussion Conduct reconnaissance elephant survey in three sub-watersheds of Sebuku watershed and its vicinity - 'nrgct 4: Conduct elephant survey phase 11 in Sebuku watersheds and its vicinity Cnpncity and cnpnbillty of NRM programs' pnrtners (locnl government ofliclnls nnd locnl community) on nnturnl resource mnnngement are Improved by October 2002. Conduct a worksftop on natnral resource management in Ntmukan by May 2002 Conduct workshop on natural 4.1. resource planning, manngement. evaluation nnd monitoring Conduct workshop on eco-region 4'2' conservotion Data and information of socioeconomic and Survey was carried out in conjunction with activity 3.1. 100% culture of pilot landscape is available. Above. Final draft report still to be submitted P Data and information of biodiversity. particularly elephant status and distribution. are available. Elephant habitat and distribution biodiversity can be identified. ~ltllo~gh actual of the clepIlant were not Data and information of biodiversitv. successfi~l, abundant evidence of their existence was particularly elephant's status and I documented . . distribution, are available. Also, elephant habitat and distribution biodiversity can be identified. I Knuwledge, skills, capacity and capability of relevnnl ~ovcrnmcnt officinls and I stakcl~oldcrs on natural resource plnnning, management, evuluation and monitoring This was postponed due lo new development on unexpected increased inllux of Indonesii~n illcg;ll mig~xnt workers from M111:lysia into Nunuknn Develop collaboration agenda through local community workshops 100% Conduct community workshop at village level on sustainable management and conservation 100% (Sebuku) process and computing.~&chas designing Geographic Information System (GIS), using computer for reporting, planning and database Conduct conflict resolution workshop through local community panlclpatory mapping Empower local community in participatory mapping through education, training progrnms, comparntivc study and regular 100% meeting Strengthen local community organizdion on sustainable natural 100a resources management Output Close collaboration between local community and WWF is established Alternative designs in managing natural resources and conservation are developed Knowledge of computing and mapping skills of relevant government officials and stakeholders are increased Close collaboration between local community and WWF is established Relevant local communities agree and map resource allocation of selected landscape Community orgimiz~~lions on cnvironmcnla cilre nnd conscrvition awe created Comments 'illage meetings to discuss issues on protectedlconservatior reas held regularly in Sebuku and Sembakung villages. dvities 4.3 - 4.9 are closely related. with both local overnmcnt officials and community members met quently in mectingslworkshops. iovernment officials undertook GIS training Annex V: Organogram of WWF Sahui Bioregion Education Services Director Sahui Bioregion Benja V. Mambai Manager EAP Birds Head Manager EAP (Forest) - Soiomon￾Manokwari Bismarck Rudy Wondowoi Staff in Sorong Manager EAP Lorentz (Freshwater1 Forest) NRM Program Co-ordinator Species & Marine Target Driven Program I Creusa Hiti~euw MSc Community Manager EAP Wasur (Freshwater I Forest) Manager Program Support Eco-region H planning Advocac yl I Campaign H 3 Forest Specialist I I Species Trade W Annex VI: Spatial data collected at provincial and regional scales in Papua Provincial Level Forestry Land Use from Dept of Forestry 1:1,000,000 Spatial Plan of Irian Jaya Province for 19922007 Map of Irian Jaya's Forest, Freshwater and Marine resources from Forestry Dept. 1:250,000 legalised by Decree No89Kpts/2/1999 Biodiversity Action Plan for Irian Jaya Sixth Irian Jaya Fiver Year Regional Development Plan Book I1 & V Transmigration Implementation Plan in Irian Jaya from 199912000 to 200012001 Road Network Map of Irian Jaya Province, Oct 1998 List of General Mining and decress of mining concessions in Irian Jaya Birds Head region Map of the District of Manokwari designating various land use; Research report published by the Center for Forest Study, University of Cendrawasih (Pusat Studi Kehutanan di ManokwariPSKH) pertaining to the Jarnursba Medi Tamrau national park Program. Maps of current forest utilization or designation; Annual report concerning the District of Manokwari's Agricultural Potency; Annual report concerning the District of Manokwari's Estate Potency; Annual report concerning the District of Manokwari's tourism industry development; Annual report concerning the District of Manokwari's road network and current condition; Present and Proposed Human ReSettlementhansrnigration Program within the District of Manokwari; Report concerning the District of Manokwari's Mining Potency; The District of Manokwari's Fishing Industry Potency; Report concerning the District of Manokwari's current Industrial development and future expansion; The District of Manokwari's current water supply and future development; Annual statistic of the District of Manokwari District, of 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 Monograph of the District of Manokwari, 1994 - 1999 Annual statistic of Arnbarbaken SubDistrict, of 1997,1998,1999 PDRB (District annual gross income) of 1993-1998 and 1999 Report on development plan of Biak economic exclusive zone Report on the 25 years Basic Development Plan (POLDAS) and General Spatial Development Plan of the District of Manokwari, 1999 Sorong District Spatial Plan 19912010 Existing digital files: ESRI data for population, roads, soil, geology, visiograph, elevation & precipitation CI data on pattern of endemnics, priority habitats, birds, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater and marine plants Summer Institute of Linguistics map of ethnic groups based on language, language group and language family W .," RWF data on rivers, contours, administrative boundaries, airports (5) and major ~OWIIS (12 points) NOAA: Bathymetric Imagery, Topogaphic Imagery, Climate Anomaly WCMC: list of endemnic, protected and endangered species AECC: locations of villages in Irian Jaya AirFlow Corp: precipitation, temperature, humidity, air pressure Annex VIII: West Papua - Alternative scenarios of activities for 2 or 4 month no cost ,.., extension What can be achieved during a no-cost extension period? Ratification of fhe proposed protected area of Janzursba Medi - North Tamran in the Sorong District Spatial Plan? The government has recently decided that discussion of the draft plan and ratification of the final version should await the planned division of the district into more sub-dismcts. While WWF can continue to lobby for inclusion of the protected area in the spatial plan, the abive process is likely to take more than 2 months especially given that the the work of the local government in months of November and December is likely to be disrupted due religious events (Ramadan, Idul Fitri, Christmas). Increased commun&v support for the conservation ofJamursba Medi - North Tamrau? The initiation of economic development activities in both coastal -and inland villages and the socialisation and survey activities to the villages has increased awareness and acceptance among local communities of the ICDP model. There are also increased expectations of, and opportunities for, developing alternative economic activities to reduce local people's dependence on unsustainable exploitation of forest resources. WAF staff in Sorong believe that, with continued support, by the end of December 85% of the communities within and adjacent the proposed protected area would be supportive of a protected area model which took into account their traditional resource use rights, as long as this included alternative income generation opportunities. In order to engender this level of support, Wn7F would need to: Complete participatory mapping & socio-econornic/eco-tourism potential survey data Continue to build the capacity of local communities to develop alternative economic development activities and access to markets through training and faciliation Continue efforts to increase understanding among all stakeholders of the concept of community-based protected area management Continue to build the institutional capacity of local NGOs and LMAs to adequately represent the local communities The extent of achievement would depend on the extension period as follows: Activity Output 1 2months 1 4months ~ahrau (JMNT) complete Target: All data and information, incl~cding social and economic valuation and GIS nurps required to develop the Conservation Area proposal of Jamursba Medi Nonh 100% 100% Survey and participatory mapping Survey of ecotourism potential Complete data on hak ufaynt distribution of communities Complete date on ecotourism potential 80% Target The proposal of JIW as a conservarion area inregrared into rlte spatial plan o Sorong district, accepted by relevant stakeholders (provincial and distric governments, - local contmunities and relevant anencies) - and anreed - by the cenrra government (the Ministry of Forestry) WWF can continue to lobby for inclusion of the area in the final version of the Spatia Plan . However, the government has recently decided that discussion of the draft plar and ratification of the final version should await the ~lanned division of the distric into more subdistricts. This is likely to take more than a few months. Economic development 1 Establishment of models I 100% activities with coastal & of economic development inland communities that reduce pressure on forest resources htensive consultation with Consistent perception and 75% 100% stakeholders agreement among stakeholders of community based PAM :rosslearning between (GOs and LMAs re: CB- 'AM concept iocialisation of the :oncept to local ,omunities 11 NGOs, conununities and i Increased support from local NGOs and LMAs for the concept of CBPAM that takes into account the culture of local communities Communities su~~ort concept of CB-P'KM (that includes economic development initiatives) rer stakehoj 80% 75% TS 85% (of :ommunities) Annex IX: Specific Workplan for No-Cost-Extension for Nunukan, East Kalimantan Based on the assumption that the Nunukan, East Kalimantan component of this project still has 55% of funds budgeted for 2001-2002 remaining, there should be funds sufficient to cover activities in the next 5 months. The actual funds remaining may need to be verified, but a range of a minimum of 3 months and a maximum of 6 months Since most of the outputs have been fulfilled by the Nunukan, East Kalimantan component of this project, the following are recommendations on completion and follow on activities that can be canied out by the team on site: 1 Objectivel "ctivities 1 Target I Target 4 Conflict resolution workshop (item4,6) through local conmiunity participatory mapping Targets 1 & 2 (items 1.11 and 2.2, respectively) Intensive lobbying with Bupati and DPRD toward adopting a sustainable development based Kabupaten Spatial Plan which included the proposed conservation areas (PERDA, to be approved, or at the very least be on the agenda, before end of December 2002) Report outlining I draft community agreements toward resolution mechanism, draft village boundaries, draft list of potential conflicts Report outlining documented progressldi,pss DPRD agenda (dates and issues discussed and decisions taken, re: spatial plan) The main objective of this is maintaining the momentum of support from DPRD Chairperson Target 2 (item 2.1) Producing campaign materials (updated version of materials already prepared but not printed), e.g. posten leaflets brochures. Content: Conservation issues, WWF. Posters, brochures, leaflets Target 2 Analysis of alternative suitability of land-use for oil palm in relation to spatial planning development Report outlining documented progressldigress technical explanation on environmental impact of monoculture, particularly oil palm The main objective of this is ensuring WWF NRM support toward local stakeholders BAPPENAS (1993) Biodiversity Action Plan for Indonesia. Jakarta Hitipew, C. and Maturbongs, J. (2002) Marine Turtle Conservation Program Jamursba- ~Medi Nesting Beach, North Coast of the Bird's Head Peninsula, Papua. In Kinan, I (ed.) Proceedings of the Western Pacific Sea Turtle Co-operative Research and Mana, oement Workshop, February 5-8, 2002, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Honolulu H: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council p.161-175. McCarthy, J.F. (2001) Decentralization, local communities and forest management in Barito Selatan District, Central Kalimantan. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. Petocz, R.G. (1987) Conservation and Development in Irian Jaya: A Strategy for Rational Resource Utilisation. Pustaka Grafiti, Jakarta. WWF (2000) Development & Conservation in Sorong area. Internal Report WTVF Indonesia, Bioregion Sahul - Irian Jaya 2001 (in Bahasa Indonesia) WWF (2001a) About Logging Companies in Sorong District and the Development of the Activities of HPH PT Multi Wahana Wijaya (in Bahasa Indonesia). WWF (2001b) An analysis of the institutional framework of local government & local NGOs with regard to natural resources and ecosystem conservation development in Sorong District. Internal Repoa WWF Indonesia, Bioregion Sahul - Irian Jaya 2001 (in Bahasa Indonesia) WWF (2001~) The Development Planning Process in Sorong District. Internal Report \VWF Indonesia, Bioregion Sahul - Irian Jaya 2001 (in Bahasa Indonesia) WWF (2001d) Analysis of threats to proposed National Park Jamursba Medi Tamrau Utara. Internal Report WWF Indonesia, Bioregion Sahul - Irian Jaya 2001 (in Bahasa Indonesia)