payment for environmental services and conservation ... · payment for environmental services and...
Post on 26-Oct-2019
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Payment for Environmental Services and Conservation Efforts in Gunung HalimunSalak National Park (GHSNP)
Bambang SupriyantoDirectorate of Environmental Services and EcotourismMinistry of Forestry, Republic of Indonesia
1992 : Halimun
NP (40.000 ha)
Production Forest: 73.357 ha
History of GHSNP
(1) Forest Cover Change 1989 - 2004
1989
1994
1998
Forest Cover -2004
Degradation rate
=1.16% per year
(2) 70 percen of 3 provinces rely on Watershed of Cisadane River:
(3) Habitat of Javan Gibbon
3. Habiiat of wildlife Primates (Java Gibbon)
A Wise Decision of Gov of Indonesia
• 2004 : Production of forest (legal logging) of 73.357 ha have been converted to conservation forest (part of Gunung Halimun NP) then the name of national park was renamed into Gunung Halimun Salak NP.
• Big Challanges: how to manage former of production forest into conservation forest with a wise decision – “win win solution”
• Human development index = 0,64 < HDI of Indonesia (0,7 –0,749)
• Average Income = US$ 33 as a part time labour of Tea Plantation
(4) 314 Sub Villages located nearby/
inside of Gunung Halimun Salak NP
“Common Vision: NP co-exit with People “Objectives(1) Facilitating the community empowerment through conservation education, conflict resolution and community access to non timber forest product (resin), self restoration and creating public support for community alternative income generation,
(2) Participatory mapping,
(3) Facilitating the use of non timber forest product/NTFP (resin production, marketing) and allocated the obtained NTFP for conservation fund to restore the areas, and
(4) To prepare a proposal on carbon trading for the pilot project under voluntary REDD scheme and a tree adoption program.
Methods
1. To achieve objectives 1 – 3
Conservation Kampong Model (CKM)(i) Participatory observation;
(ii) Restoration carried out in the degraded area inside the park with participation of local communities;
(iii) Income generating
(Supriyanto B, Hideyuki K (2010) From fence-and-fine to participatory conservation : mechanism oftransformation in conservation governance at the Gunung Halimun salak National Park, Indonesia.Biodivers Conserv DOI 10.1007/s10531-010-9803-3; Published online 12 March 2010)
2. To achieve objectives 4Allometric Equation Methods
Transformation of actor’s perceptions at site area
Typical comment on the other actor
before the experimentation began
Typical comment on the other
actor one year after the
experimentation began
Field
officer
Villagers are engaged in illegal logging so
that I need to carefully monitor them.
Farming is a main livelihood.
Without recognizing their
farming practice, I cannot win
their support for forest
conservation.
Local
people
National park officers are arrogant and
coercive. They always suspect us as
illegal loggers.
Field officer’s opinion is the
same as ours. We should
conserve forest for water and
paddy fields.
know
Understand
AwareAct Conservation/ Sustainable use
PES from Community
• GHSNP gives an acces to Purasari community through LDMH for non timber forest product (resin).
• Community allocated 20% additional income from resin selling to restore critical zone in GHSNP PES (47.25 ha/year)
• Restoration area was designed by participatory mapping which is collaberated between GHSNP Officer and Purasari Local Community.
Participatory Mapping To define GHSNP Zoning
Income Each Member and Restoration Fund
No Name Total
Production
Production
per Month
Income per 5 Months Restoration Fund
Kg Kg IDR US$ IDR US$
1 Uman 763 127 2.289.000 254 763.000 85
2 Tarma 1177 196 3.531.000 392 1.177.000 131
3 Sahid 687 115 2.061.000 229 687.000 76
4 Sawa 771 129 2.313.000 257 771.000 86
5 Anim 575 96 1.725.000 192 575.000 64
6 Sanata 349 58 1.047.000 116 349.000 39
7 Pepen 1234 206 3.702.000 411 1.234.000 137
8 Amat 877 146 2.631.000 292 877.000 97
9 Ata 792 132 2.376.000 264 792.000 88
10 Aca 113 19 339.000 38 113.000 13
11 Jana 284 47 852.000 95 284.000 32
12 Ginanjar 254 42 762.000 85 254.000 28
TOTAL 7876 1313 3.938.000 438 7.876.000 875
AVERAGE 109 328.167 36 656.333 73
Land Cover Change in GHSNP 1989 - 2008
Fig. a Purasari area land cover year 1989 Fig. b Purasari area land cover year 2003
Fig. c Purasari area land cover year 2007 Fig. d Purasari area land cover year 2008
The calculation of Purasari forest area Carbon Potency
YearForest
Plantation
Forest
The
potential
carbon of
forest
The potential
carbon of
plantation
forest
The total of
potential
carbon
ha ha ton ton million ton
1989 3092.76 96.75 785561 17214.73 0.80
2003 2130.3 81.54 541096.2 14508.41 0.56
2007 1881.45 136.44 477888.3 24276.77 0.50
2008 1879.74 128.52 477454 22867.56 0.50
2014 1879.74 837.27 477454 148447.97 0,64
Legend : the values of forest carbon = 254 Mg/Ha (Prasetyo, 1999)
the values of plantation forest carbon = 177,93 Mg/ha (Haryadi, 2005)
Graphic of Potential Carbon in Purasari Forest Area
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
19892003
20072008
2014
potential carbon of forest
potential carbon of plantation forest
Graphs of carbon potential in Purasari forest area within 3 conditions, namely fixed production forest, to forest conservation (stop illegal logging), forest conservation (stop illegal logging and restoration).
2nd scenario
1st scenario
3rd scenario
Scenario of Carbon Stock in Purasari Forest Area until 2014
• Scenario 1 : If the status of forest still in production forest management while logging is permitted, the potential value of carbon will continue to decline reached 0.4 million tons even lower.
• Scenario 2 : If status of forest changed to forest conservation and there is no illegal logging and encroachement, the value of fixed carbon potential of 0.5 million tons.
• Scenario 3 : If cooperation between society and TNGHS staff well maintained, safe area of illegal interference, restoration activities (PES) still continued than carbon potential value to the next 15 years can reached 0.88 million tons.
Tree Adoption Program
Involvement of local farmers in the activity of
Tree-Adoption Programme
IDR 50.000 equal US$ 5.56 per tree for 5
years. The use of money will be 10% for
seedling, 10% for plantation, 40% for
generating income for the people who take
care the plantation, 20% for four years
enrichment just in case the tree planted is
dead, 10% for monitoring, and 10% for
capacity building.
No Activity Before Project On Going Project
1. Monthly Income Part time of Labour
Tea Plantation
US$ 33 per month
Part time of Labour Tea Plantation
US$ 33 per month
Involved resin tapping
US$ 36 per month
Alternative income of tree adoption program
US$ pm per month (need to be researched)
Total : US$ 69 + pm
Minimum standard income per month US$
97.02
2. Restoration No restoration fund
available
20% of resin production revenue
20% of tree adoption program
47.25 ha per year
3. Illegal Logging 10 cases/ year 2 cases/ year
4. Forest Encroachment Occur Limited
Acknoledgment
We would like to thanks to JICA GHSNP Project and CIFOR which give a grant to support this project running smoothly, and GTZ Forclime Indonesia to make our travel to Hanoi possible.
(Human can be seen as a threat or opportunity depending on a wise decision)- Bsmbsng Supriyanto, 2010-
top related