gap analysis report on existing policies and regulations...

Deliverable #3

Gap Analysis Report on Existing Policies and Regulations for RBM, and RBM Capacity and Implementation and Management and Planning Skills Needed in the Three Project Sites

Wildlife Conservation Society

1

Gap Analysis Report on Existing Policies and Regulations for RBM, and RBM Capacity and

Implementation and Management and Planning Skills Needed in the Three Project

Sites

Submitted by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) as part of its grant

agreement with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) for

RFP/UNDP/E-PASS/001/2016 entitled, “Enhancing Systemic and Institutional

Capacity for Financially Sustainable Planning and Management of Sulawesi PA

System through Three PA Pilot Project Site”

© Wildlife Conservation Society - Indonesia Program Jl. Tampomas No. 35, Babakan, Bogor Tengah

Bogor - Indonesia 16151 Telepon +62 251 8342135

December 2016

2

List of Abbreviations APBN Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara

APBN National Budget and Expenditures

BKSDA Balai Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam

BNWNP Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park

EPASS Enhancing the Protected Area System in Sulawesi

FCU Field Coordination Unit

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GoI Government of Indonesia

GPS Global Positioning System

KKBHL Kawasan Konservasi dan Bina Hutan Lindung

KKBHL Conservation Areas and Protected Forests

KLHK Ministry of Environment and Forestry

KSDAE Conservation of Natural Resources and Ecosystem

KSDAE Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam dan Ekosistem

LLNP Lore Lindu National Park

PA Protected Area

PEH Pengendali Ekosistem Hutan

PEH Forest Ecosystem Managers

Pokja Kelompok Kerja

Pokja Working Group

RBM Resort-based Management

SIM Information Management System

SIM Sistem Manajemen Informasi

SMART Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool

SOP Standard Operational Procedure

TWA Taman Wisata Alam

UPT Technical Implementation Unit

UPT Unit Pelaksana Teknis

WCS Wildlife Conservation Society

3

Executive Summary This report seeks to identify gaps in Resort-based Management (RBM) implementation and management and skill needs in the three EPASS project sites (Tangkoko Nature Reserve, Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park, and Lore Lindu National Park). Using criteria and indicators set by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, WCS-IP conducted a qualitative assessment of RBM performance in 25 resorts in three EPASS project sites. Through Focus Group Discussion (FGD), in-depth interviews, and review of relevant regulations and secondary documents, WCS-IP team put together resort profiles and conducted gap analysis on RBM performance in the three project sites. Our assessment in three EPASS project sites in Sulawesi reveals that in general, RBM implementation has been slow, most resorts are at stage 4 (office is available but no routine activity) and stage 5 (Office and officers are available, but activities limited to passive surveillance). According to the EPASS Project Document, through its interventions, it is expected that at least 70% of the resorts across the island of Sulawesi would have achieved stage 6 (Officers are routinely present in the resort and actively performing the full range of prescribed tasks). These results reflect the absence or inadequacy of some prerequisites for effective RBM implementation. There is currently no management standard or performance-monitoring system to ensure staff accountability and ability to deliver expected results for conservation area management. The job description of the field operation staffs is weakly defined, if not absent. The Ministerial Decree that the RBM implementation fully depends on, is still pending as noted in the EPASS Project Document, which results in weaker incentives to pursue RBM (or formally label activities as RBM) in each Technical Implementation Unit (Unit Pelaksana Teknis, UPT). The motivation of the field staff remains low, as does the capacity, and the availability of minimum supporting equipment. Limited institutional capacity at the headquarters, as well as at the resort level prevented effective implementation of RBM. In the absence an information management system at each UPT, it is harder to progress RBM implementation. It is important to highlight that resort establishment often does not follow the sequence of the 7 process indicators as set by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Our findings revealed that there are resorts that may not have physical office building (stage 3), but is already performing a range of RBM activities, including surveillance (stage 5). And there are resorts that may be the opposite, where the physical office building is already available, but they are not routinely present in the office. This is precisely why the resort profiles, which is attached to this main report, presents a more comprehensive assessment of the RBM performance in each resort. There are some quick wins that can be achieved in RBM implementation, including the adoption of SMART RBM. In addition to that, high motivation among staffs in some resorts is a true asset for effective RBM implementation, therefore it needs to be encouraged.

4

Ringkasan Eksekutif Laporan ini bertujuan untuk mengidentifikasi kesenjangan dalam implementasi Manajemen Berbasis Resort (RBM) dan juge kebutuhan keahlian manajemen keterampilan yang dibutuhkan untuk implementasi di tigak lokasi proyek EPASS (Cagar Alam Tangkoko, Taman Nasional Bogani Nani Wartabone, dan Taman Nasional Lore Lindu). Dengan menggunakna kriteria dan indicator yang telah ditetapkan oleh Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan, WCS-IP melakuakn penilaian kualitatif terkait kinerja RBM di 25 resort di tiga lokasi proyek ePass. Melalui Focus Group Discussion (FGD), wawancara mendalam, dan review peraturan terkait dan dokumen sekunder, tim WCS-IP menyusun profil resort dan melakukan analisis kesenjangan kinerja RBM di tiga lokasi proyek. Hasil penilaian kami di tiga lokasi proyek EPass di Sulawesi menunjukkan bahwa secara umum, pelaksanaan RBM masih lamban, kebanyakan resort masih di tahap 4 (Kantor tersedia tetapi tidak ada aktivitas rutin) dan tahap 5 (Kantor dan petugas ada, namun kegiatan terbatas pada patrol pasif). Berdasarkan proyek dokumen EPASS, diharapkan bahwa setidaknya 70% dari resor di pulau Sulawesi akan mencapai tahap 6 (Petugas secara rutin hadir di resor dan aktif melakukan berbagai tugas yang ditetapkan). Kesenjangan ini menunjukkan masih adanya beberapa prasyarat implementasi RBM yang belum optimal. Saat ini masih belum ada standar manajemen atau sistem pemantauan kinerja untuk memastikan kinerja dan akuntabilitas staff dalam pengelolaan kawasan konservasi. Deskripsi pekerjaan dari para staf operasi lapangan terkadang belum jelas, atau bahkan tidak ada. Keputusan Menteri yang menjadi dasar pelaksaan RBM juga masih tertunda, sebagaimana yang telah dinyatakan di dokumen proyek EPASS, yang berdampak pada kurangnya insentif untuk implementasi RBM di tingkat UPT. Motivasi dari staf lapangan juga masih rendah, begitu pula kapasitas, dan ketersediaan peralatan pendukung minimum. Kapasitas kelembagaan yang terbatas di kantor pusat, serta di tingkat resort juga mencegah pelaksanaan RBM yang efektif. Dan tentu saja, tidak adanya sistem informasi manajemen di setiap UPT mempersulit upaya untuk mendorong RBM. Penting untuk ditekankan bahwa pendirian resort sering kali tidak mengikut urutan 7 indikator yang telah ditetapkan oleh KLHK. Temuan kami menunjukkan bahwa ada resor yang tidak memiliki gedung kantor fisik (tahap 3), tetapi sudah melakukan berbagai kegiatan RBM, termasuk patroli (tahap 5). Dan ada resor yang mungkin sebaliknya, di mana gedung kantor fisik sudah tersedia, tetapi mereka tidak secara rutin hadir di kantor. Inilah mengapa profil resor menyajikan penilaian yang lebih komprehensif dari kinerja RBM di setiap resort. Kami juga mengidentifikasi beberapa “quick wins” yang dapat dicapai dalam implementasi RBM, termasuk adopsi SMART RBM. Selain itu, dicermati bahwa tingginya motivasi staff di beberapa resor merupakan modal kuat dari implementasi RBM kedepannya yang perlu terus didorong.

5

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 6

Report objectives ................................................................................................................................... 8

Existing policies and regulation for RBM ...................................................................................... 8

Methods ...................................................................................................................................................10

Results ......................................................................................................................................................12 RBM in Tangkoko Conservation Forest Management Unit (KPHK Tangkoko) ........................ 14

About KPHK Tangkoko ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Gap Analysis on RBM Implementation in KPHK Tangkoko ........................................................................ 15 Management and planning skills needed for the implementation of RBM in KPHK Tangkoko . 17 Recommendations to improve RBM implementation in Tangkoko KPHK ............................................. 0

RBM in Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park (BNWNP) .................................................................. 0 About BNWNP ................................................................................................................................................................... 0 Gap Analysis on RBM Implementation in BNWNP ............................................................................................ 0 Management and planning skills needed for the implementation of RBM in BNWNP ..................... 3 Recommendations to improve RBM implementation in BNWNP .............................................................. 0

RBM in Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP).................................................................................................. 0 About LLNP ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0 Gap Analysis on RBM Implementation in LLNP ................................................................................................. 0 Management and planning skills needed for the implementation of RBM in LLNP ........................... 3 Recommendations to improve RBM implementation in LLNP .................................................................... 0

Conclusion and Recommendation ................................................................................................... 0

References ................................................................................................................................................ 0

Annex .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Annex 1. List of Attendees for RBM Workshop Gorontalo (BNWNP I) ........................................... 2 Annex 2. List of Attendees for RBM Workshop Tangkoko .................................................................. 3 Annex 3. List of Attendees for RBM Workshop Kotamobagu (BNWNP II) ...................................... 5 Annex 4. List of Attendees for RBM Workshop Lore Lindu (I) ............................................................ 6 Annex 5. List of Attendees for RBM Workshop Lore Lindu (II) ........................................................... 8 Annex 6. List of Attendees for RBM Workshop Lore Lindu (III) ...................................................... 10

6

Introduction Indonesia is one of the most biologically diverse countries in the world (World Bank, 2001). Eighteen of the World Wildlife Fund’s “Global 200 eco regions” are located in Indonesia, and two of Conservation International’s 25 biodiversity “hotspots” are in Indonesia (Myers, et al. 2000). The Government of Indonesia (GoI) has taken the necessary steps to identify unique resources, and establish areas in which economic activity is restricted in recognition of their inherent value to the country and the world. Until now, the GoI has established 566 protected areas covering 36,069, 366 ha, consisting of 490 terrestrial protected areas (22,540,170 ha) and 76 marine protected areas (13,529,197 ha). The terrestrial protected areas include 43 National Parks, 239 Nature Reserves, 70 Game Reserves, 13 Hunting Parks, 22 Grand Forest Parks, and 103 Nature Tourism Parks. Forests in Indonesia cover 88,495,000 ha containing rich biodiversity, particularly the lowland forests (KSDAE, 2015). The protected area system accounts for approximately 9 percent of the total land area in Indonesia, and the national parks make up well over half of this area. The management of these protected areas falls under the jurisdiction of the Directorate General of Nature Conservation and Ecosystem (KSDAE) within the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan-KLHK). Sulawesi has been highlighted as a globally important conservation area. The Wallace’s Line, running from between Bali and Lombok and between Sulawesi and Borneo, marks the location of a deep oceanic trench and the point over which land animals and plants could not cross easily. Similarly, the Lydekker’s line, which runs from between Timor and the Australia shelf to between Halmahera, Seram and New Guinea arks the point where Australasian flora and fauna could not easily pass. (Whitten, et al. 1987). Due to its geographical location in between the two lines, Sulawesi retains high levels of endemism, particularly fauna. The percentage of Sulawesi’s species that are endemic is exceptionally high. For example, of the 127 known mammal species in Sulawesi, 72 (62%) are endemic and 34% of the nearly 1500 bird species recorded on the island are endemic (EPASS Project Document, 2010). Despite the designation of protected areas in Indonesia, fragile habitats and ecosystems continue to face threats affecting biodiversity loss and species extinction, including in Sulawesi. Multiple sources of threat have undermined the efforts to conserve the island’s unique biodiversity. WCS’s analysis on deforestation in and around EPASS projects sites in Sulawesi between 2000 and 2015 revealed a reduction in forest cover: in LLNP (0.5%); BNWNP (2.2%); and KPHK Tangkoko (40.4%) (WCS, 2016). Encroachment and illegal logging were identified as the main drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in these areas. Therefore a comprehensive and effective protected area management system is critical for ensuring the protection of these invaluable resources. It is generally agreed that the protected area system management in Indonesia requires further strengthening. Gaps are present, including the absence of essential skills and infrastructure to safeguard the protected areas. Indonesia’s protected area system is currently undergoing a transformation, and the establishment of Resort-Based Management (RBM) has become one of the

7

key components in enhancing site level management. In 2011, The General Director of Protection and Nature Conservation (PHKA) (now Directorate General of Nature Conservation and Ecosystem- KSDAE) issued a Letter number S. N 295/ IV-KKBHL/2011, which initiated the RBM system. RBM represents a bottom-up approach to conservation area management and is considered most appropriate given the available resources. RBM system focuses on energizing the smallest field operational units within the national parks, designated as “resorts”. Each resort is directly responsible to manage and protect its defined working area. Effectively, resorts are at the forefront of protected area management and protection. According to the Ministry of Finance, RBM also has the potential to deliver significant cost-savings benefit compared to the traditional management methods with a more centralized approach. Each resort is expected to perform the basic function of protection, preservation and utilization. Therefore, an emphasis on resorts will provide opportunities for better monitoring of results, which in turn may create better incentives for enhanced individual performance. RBM also provides crucial and much needed opportunities to improve engagement with local community. In Indonesia there are communities living inside and surrounding the conservation areas, who are highly dependent upon the natural resources and ecosystem services for their livelihoods. Therefore, the ability to manage the relationship with local communities will be crucial to mitigate pressures and threats to the national parks. The resorts, and strategic placement of national park staff in resorts that are bordering villages, will create opportunities for local engagement, and potentially co-management and improved buffer zone management. Despite the initiation of RBM in 2011, the management of national parks is still highly centralized. Most park managers are located away from the national park, in the headquarters, making it harder for them manage their working areas. In addition to that limited human resources capacity at the resort level has severely hindered efforts to increase the efficacy of protected area management. In general, RBM implementation has been slow due to multiple barriers. The motivation of the field staff remains low, so is the capacity, and the availability of minimum supporting equipment. Limited institutional capacity at the headquarters, as well as at the resort level prevented effective implementation of RBM. There is currently no management standard or performance-monitoring system to ensure staff accountability and ability to deliver expected results for conservation area management. The job description of the field operation staffs is weakly defined, if not absent. The Ministerial Decree that the RBM implementation fully depends on, is still pending as noted in the EPASS Project Document. The incremental stages in resort establishment, which may serve as process tracking indicators have been defined by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry and are as follows: 1. No RBM implementation 2. Protected area has been divided into resorts (no infrastructure or officers) 3. Resort infrastructure set up (but no officers assigned) 4. Infrastructure and officers set up (but no routine activities) 5. Officers are routinely in the resort, but passively doing the surveillance job 6. Officers are routinely present in the resort and actively performing the full range of prescribed

tasks, including surveillance, flora and fauna monitoring, data collection, community outreach and others.

7. Resort data and information are used on an on-going basis to prepare and update management plan and policy arrangements.

8

According to the EPASS Project Document, through its interventions, it is expected that at least 70% of the resorts across the island of Sulawesi would have achieved stage 6 level of implementation. The implementation of RBM will be supported under EPASS at the resort and section levels through the provision of equipment and physical infrastructure, skills development and enhancement, routine enforcement and reporting systems to mitigate and tackle encroachment, illegal poaching and mining and other pressures to the protected areas.

Report objectives This report aims to:

1. Provide an overview on the regulatory framework for RBM in national parks in Indonesia 2. Identify gaps in the implementation of RBM in the three EPASS project sites 3. Identify the management and planning skills needed for the implementation of RBM in the

three EPASS project sites.

Existing policies and regulation for RBM RBM puts the resort as the key administrative unit in the management of conservation areas. This will allow for a better understanding of the conservation area and, as a consequence, better protection of the ecosystem and biodiversity within it. Effective resort management should also lead to a better division of labor that, in turn, results in adaptive, proportional and forward-looking management of the conservation areas. Key regulations concerning the implementation of RBM in Indonesia are the following: The Letter of the Director General of Protection and Nature Conservation (PHKA) S. N 295/ IV-KKBHL/2011 on Resort- based Management in 50 national parks issued June 27, 2011 As outlined in the Director General of PHKA’s Strategic Plan SK. 181/IV-Set/2010 dated November 18, 2010, RBM would be implemented in 50 national parks across Indonesia. As a follow up, this letter prescribed four key actions for the head of those 50 national parks to support RBM implementation, namely: 1. Establishment of a working group 2. Strengthening the institutional capacity for RBM implementation 3. Resort zoning 4. Establishment of an information management system. RBM was set as one of the key strategies to improve the management effectiveness of conservation areas, which is one of the Key Performance Indicators (Indikator Kinerja Utama - IKK) for KSDAE to achieve in 2014. The Annex of the Decision of the Director of Conservation Areas and Protected Forests (Kawasan Konservasi dan Bina Hutan Lindung- KKBHL) SK./KKBHL-6/ issued March 2013 set the criteria and indicators to measure the readiness and RBM implementation The indicators set in this document serve as guideline for monitoring and evaluation of RBM readiness and implementation in 50 national parks, which also serve as an evaluation tool to measure one of KKHBL’s IKK. There are 3 criteria to evaluate RBM readiness, comprising: 1. Establishing a working group in each Technical Implementation Units (Unit Pelaksana Teknis -

UPT) (consists of 3 indicators) a. Decree of the head of the National Park on the establishment of the working group

9

b. Representation of the different elements in the working group- must include resort level staff, section level staff, region level staff, and other staffs including administrative and treasury c. Division of tasks among members of the working group

2. Planning document for RBM (7 indicators) a. RBM planning document b. The RBM document preparation process (whether it was inclusive, top-down or bottom up) c. Decree of the national park head regarding the institutional structure of the resort and staff placement d. Availability of office space/building for the resort e. Availability and distribution of the means of transportation (land/water/sea) f. Distribution of basic equipment to support essential functions at the resort (GPS, map, and digital camera) g. Budget allocation for EBM implementation (in 2012)

3. Establishing an information management system (4 indicators) a. Availability of Information Management System for RBM (Sistem Manajemen Informasi- SIM RBM) application b. Decree of the head of the national park regarding the management of SIM RBM c. Data collection protocol from the resort to the national park headquarter d. Availability of tally sheet for data collection

And there are four criteria to measure and evaluate RBM implementation in each UPT. It consists of; 1. Zoning and the availability of the resort’s work area (4 indicators, below)

a. Decree designating the work area of each resort b. Work area map, printed and distributed with appropriate scale and size c. Zoning based on the typology of the area, taking into account the threats and pressures d. Resort map containing information such as, roads, river, infrastructure, threats, potential, and the land use types

2. Institution building in each resort (5 indicators, below) a. Designation of the minimum functions of the resort b. Trainings and capacity development (knowledge and skills) conducted by the national park headquarter c. Minimum number of staff in each resort d. Distribution of budget to support activities at the resort level (in 2011) e. Basic equipment to support the essential functions at the resort has been distributed

3. Information system management (5 indicators, below) a. Data completeness b. Data accuracy c. Data timeliness d. Data analysis e. The use of data as policy inputs and feedbacks

4. Evaluation (2 indicators, below) a. RBM evaluation is conducted regularly (annually) b. The use of evaluation results as feedback in future planning

Using the evaluation form, the readiness and implementation of RBM in 50 national parks were assessed by the national RBM working group (Kelompok Kerja RBM- Pokja RBM). The highest possible score for the RBM readiness and implementation is 100%. For readiness, a score of >90% is classified as supportive; 70%-90% is classified as quite supportive; and, <70% is classified as less

10

supportive. For implementation, >90% is classified as intensive; 70%-90% is classified as quite intensive; and, <70% is classified as less intensive. Each national park was then labeled as A1, A2, S3, B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, and C3, based on its readiness and implementation assessment results1. In addition to the two key regulations to assist RBM implementation, the Directorate General KSDAE and Director of KKBHL issued a series of instructions focusing on data integration and management. Decision of the Director General No. 151/IV-KK/2010 issued October 12, 2010 and Letter of the Directorate General PHKA No. S. 37/IV-KKBHL/2011 issued January 31, 2011. These letters were issued to establish a spatial data network system and a team in charge for the Geographic Information System and Remote Sensing System, respectively. Letter of KKBHL Director Number S. 337/KKBHL-1/ 2012 issued July 16, 2012 This letter instructed the distribution of an open source application (PHP-SQL), a field form, video tutorial and note to assist the data integration and management. Letter of the Director of KKBHL No. S.422/KKBHL-1/2012 issued August 8, 2012 For increasing learning and communication between UPT, a web forum was created. In addition to that, each UPT is instructed to conduct in-house training for the application used to build database. Between 2010 and 2013, some 60 workshops on RBM and training related to RBM were conducted in various locations, joined by over 77 resort managers (PHKA, 2013). In 2013, there were at least 32 national parks across Indonesia that has taken steps towards RBM implementation, one of which was Lore Lindu National Park. A range of activities took place, including: trainings, team building exercises, the development of information systems, institutional reforms at the resort level, the procurement of facilities and infrastructure improvement. However, this progress was halted after 2014 due to a change in the administration, which results in the change of IKK. Since the RBM system was removed from the IKK of the KSDAE, the Ministry can no longer allocate budget for RBM activities- formally. Though in reality, the management of the conservation areas in Indonesia thus resembles resort based management. It is important to note that under EPASS, RBM implementation is evaluated using the 7 step process indicators, defined by KLHK. The target set under EPASS is that at least 70% of the resorts across the island would have achieved stage 6 level of implementation, which stipulates “officers are routinely present in the resort and actively performing full range of prescribed tasks, i.e. surveillance, flora and fauna monitoring, data collection, community outreach etc.” It is arguably broader compared to the strict criteria set under the KKBHL guidelines.

Methods A series of Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted by WCS in the three target EPASS sites (Tangkoko Nature Reserve, Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park and Lore Lindu National Park). The FGDs involved staff from 25 resorts, and staff from the section and national park headquarters.

1 A1: readiness supportive, implementation intensive; A2: Readiness supportive, implementation quite intensive; A3:

readiness supportive, implementation less intensive; B1: readiness quite supportive, implementation intensive; B2: readiness quite supportive, implementation less intensive; B3: readiness quite supportive, implementation less intensive; C1: readiness less supportive, implementation intensive; C2: readiness less supportive, implementation less intensive; C3: readiness less supportive, implementation less intensive.

11

We used the criteria and indicators set by KKHBL to assess the readiness and implementation of RBM in each resort. The assessment was not conducted to generate new scores, as it is not mandated by EPASS. Instead, the aim was to qualitatively assess the RBM performance in each UPT. The guidelines provide a useful set of criteria to assess the readiness and implementation of RBM, which we then put in the context of the EPASS project. All staff from the resorts were present during the FGD, and asked to work together to fill out the assessment forms and to discuss the results with inputs from the section staff and/or the national park headquarter staff. In addition to the FGD, we conducted a simple planning exercise in each resort to observe the level of capacity in planning and identifying resort needs. The second part of the data collection conducted by WCS involved site visits and in-depths interviews with staff from several resorts that were identified by the EPASS FCUs, with inputs from the national park, as being potential RBM pilot sites. In addition to that, we also collected relevant documents, including EPASS documents and field reports from the FCU to help enrich our understanding of the state of RBM implementation in each UPT. We also utilized existing data and studies conducted by WCS. Parallel to assessing RBM readiness and implementation, we also collected data to develop a profile for each resort. The profile consists of eight components; 1. Institutions and organization; 2. Human resources; 3. The implementation of the management plan; 4. Budgeting; 5. Resort facilities; 6. Biophysical information of the resort 7. Potential utilization/opportunities for utilization in the resort; and, 8. Recommendations for capacity building (which has relevance to EPASS Deliverables 6 and 7). The resort profile provides more detailed information on the challenges and opportunities in each resort. It also provides a broader context to RBM readiness and implementation in each resort. The FGDs were conducted from September to October 2016, and visits to the resort office were conducted in November (Table 1). Table 1. List of FGD and interviews conducted for EPASS RBM assessment

ID Event Date Venue Participants

1 Workshop RBM Gorontalo (BNWNP I)

Sept 7-8, 2016

Hotel Maqna, Gorontalo

Resort staffs and representatives from the NP; EPASS FCU; WCS-IP

2 Workshop RBM Tangkoko Sept 23, 2016

Kantor BKSDA Resort staffs and representatives from the NP; EPASS FCU; WCS-IP Total #participants: 37

3 Workshop RBM Kotamobagu (BNWNP II)

Sept 28-29, 2016

Hotel Sutan Raja, Kotamobagu

Resort staffs and representatives from the NP; EPASS FCU; WCS-IP

4 Workshop RBM Lore Lindu (I)

Oct 18, 2016

Bidang II TNLL Resort staffs and representatives from the NP ; EPASS FCU; WCS-IP Total #participants: 23

5 Workshop RBM Lore Lindu (II)

Oct 24, 2016

Bidang III TNLL Resort staffs and representatives from the NP ; EPASS FCU; WCS-IP Total #participants: 22

12

6 Workshop RBM Lore Lindu (III)

Oct 26, 2016

Bidang I TNLL Resort staffs and representatives from the NP EPASS FCU; WCS-IP Total #participants: 24

7 In depth interview TWA Batu Putih (Tangkoko)

Nov 8, 2016

TWA Batu Putih Resort staffs and WCS-IP Total #participants: 5

8 In depth interview TWA Batu Angus (Tangkoko)

Nov 8, 2016

TWA Batu Angus Resort staffs and WCS-IP Total #participants: 3

9 In depth interview Resort Simoro (LLNP)

Nov 12, 2016

Resort Simoro Resort staffs, EPASS FCU, and WCS-IP Total #participants: 5

10 In depth interview Bobo (LLNP)

Nov 14, 2016

Resort Bobo Resort staffs, EPASS FCU, and WCS-IP Total #participants: 5

11 In depth interview Doda (LLNP)

Nov 12, 2016

Resort Doda Resort staffs, EPASS FCU, and WCS-IP Total #participants: 6

12 In depth interview Resort Tulabolo Pinogu (BNWNP)

Nov 15, 2016

Resort Tulabolo Pinogu

Resort staffs and WCS-IP Total #participants: 3

13 In depth interview Resort Bone (BNWNP)

Nov 16, 2016

Resort Bone Resort staffs and WCS-IP Total #participants: 3

14 In depth interview Resort Bolango (BNWNP)

Nov 16, 2016

Resort Bolango Resort staffs and WCS-IP Total #participants: 3

15 In depth interview Pinogaluman(BNWNP)

Nov 19, 2016

Resort Pinogaluman Resort staffs and WCS-IP Total #participants: 5

16 In depth interview Dumoga Timur (BNWNP)

Nov 19, 2016

Resort Dumoga Timur

Resort staffs and WCS-IP Total #participants: 3

Results Kelompok Kerja (Pokja) RBM conducted an assessment of RBM readiness and implementation in 50 national parks between 2010 and 2013. The assessment focused mainly on national parks in Indonesia, and the Natural Resource Conservation Office (Balai Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam-BKSDA) was not considered priority for RBM assessment mainly because the management capacity was deemed not yet supportive for RBM implementation. Two of the EPASS project sites were assessed during this time, resulting in a score of 92.75 (supportive) for readiness, and 77.50 (quite intensive) for implementation in Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park and a score of 77.75 (quite supportive) for readiness and 78 (quite intensive) for implementation for Lore Lindu National Park. Although the nature of RBM implementation and readiness in each UPT differs, some general patterns emerged. Under EPASS, RBM implementation is evaluated using the 7 steps process indicators, defined by KLHK. The target set under EPASS is that at least 70% of the resorts across the island would have achieved stage 6 level of implementation, which stipulates “officers are routinely present in the resort and actively performing full range of prescribed tasks, i.e. surveillance, flora and fauna monitoring, data collection, community outreach etc.” Using these process indicators, most resorts in all three-project sites are still between stages 4 and 5. All three UPTs have been divided into resorts (stage 2), almost all have a minimum resort infrastructure (stage 3), including a building for workspace at the resort, and allocation of staffs for the resort. However, staffs are not routinely present in the resort (stage 4). Some resorts are performing

13

better than others, but that is because of external factors such as the motivation of staff or their proximity of the office and their home. In resorts where the staffs are motivated and live in close proximity to the office, they tend to be present more often in the resort and conduct basic patrol and surveillance jobs. The staffs are involved in routine patrol and other surveillance activities mainly because the headquarters of the national parks is assigning it. To get to stage 6, where staff are routinely present and are able to conduct basic tasks including surveillance and flora and fauna monitoring, most resorts fall short in many aspects. Some of the gaps including the lack of essential skills at the resort level, limited number of staffs assigned to the resort, limited- and sometime non-existence- availability of the essential equipment, and the structure that would allow resort staffs to be involved in the management of the resort through planning and budgeting processes. Across all four-action points prescribed by PHKA in 2011, the RBM readiness and implementation are still slow due to various factors, both at the resort level and the headquarters. We report on these four points in detail below. 1) Establishment of a working group: The staffs at the resort level see this process as more top

down, without meaningful consultation with the staff from the resorts. In some cases, the resort staffs are not aware of the existence of such working group. Genuine inclusiveness means providing a formal voice in the decision making process, yet it remains a challenge when involving resort staff. This is mainly due to the perception about the capacity of the field level staff in the national parks. Most staff in the resorts is considered to have a lower capacity, especially in planning aspects.

2) Strengthening the institutional capacity for RBM: The institutional capacity includes human

resources, the availability of equipment at the resort, and budget allocation. The management of a protected area system in Indonesia remains very centralized, despite the commitment to implement RBM. Both staffing and budgeting are still controlled by the KSDAE office at the national office. This has led to several issues in the management of conservation areas, including talent shortages (e.g., in all project sites, there are not enough Forest Ecosystem Managers (Pengendali Ekosistem Hutan, PEH), as a consequence, resorts are often unable to conduct activities related to biodiversity monitoring management), inadequate staff, both in terms of quantity and quality and budget allocation that may not fully reflect the need of the resort. Each year, the UPT issues a decision concerning staff allocation in each resort, followed by description of specific functions. Though this letter is quite detailed in providing basic information about staff allocation, it is often not accompanied by clear Standard Operational Procedure (SoP) for each function. The baseline capacity of each resort staffs is generally low, most resort staffs have high school diploma only, and this coupled with inadequate training makes for lower skilled forest managers. The majority of the forest managers are not able to identify the flora and fauna within their working area. This would include species identification from direct sightings and from indirect signs, such as footprints, marking and fences. In addition to that, the availability of equipment to support rangers and other field staffs is also limited. Even when adequate equipment is available, it is often not accompanied by the capacity to operate the equipment. For example, many staffs still are not able to operate a Global Positioning System (GPS) or computer. The ability to effectively assess resort performance depends on the existence of a robust and effective reporting and evaluation system between levels (i.e. the resort, section, regional and national headquarters), yet unfortunately this system is not fully in place. The evaluation and reporting team at the national park headquarter currently focuses on assessing the absorption

14

of funds, and not results or performance of the staffs. In addition to this, as pointed out in the project document, the Ministerial decree is not yet finalized, which creates ambiguity in the mandate to implement RBM across national parks and protected areas in Indonesia.

3) Resort zoning: Though information contained in site maps is still limited, each UPT has

provided working maps for each resort and they have been provided with a clear delineation of the working area. Even though the boundaries are quite clear for the resort managers, many are not communicated well often resulting in small boundaries dispute with the local communities. Equally important, zoning in some sites is not done based on the typology of the area.

4) Establishment of an information management system: Currently, there is no centralized data management system at the national level despite the designation of SIM RBM during the early days of RBM implementation. During the RBM implementation in 2014, resorts were given a RBM tally sheet to help record information. However, most of the RBM related activities were halted in 2014, due to a change in the administration, which results in the removal of RBM from the IKK. As a direct consequence, RBM implementation was eliminated from the National Budget and Expenditures (Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Nasional- APBN). Despite this, the UPTs require field staff and forest rangers to record data that they have obtained from patrols. This effort will remain futile without a proper data management and recording system. Currently, the rangers record information without a specific format in most UPTs. The information would then be collected for each section, which then compiles the report. Generally, there is lack of capacity to collect, analyze, interpret and disseminate data especially at the resort level.

Ideally, resort staff and the national park headquarter should have a streamlined data collection, recording and monitoring system that would allow both rangers and policy makers to use data as policy inputs, monitoring, and tool for evaluation. One option is SMART (Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool) RBM, which allows for a systematic way of conducting ranger-based patrols to ensure efficient data collection and compilation. Using SMART, rangers can directly record threats encountered and potential within their area, and track routes using a handheld GPS unit, this data would then be downloaded and entered into a database. SMART is not only a tool that can help patrol but also a useful law enforcement-monitoring tool that can generate systematic data to assess the effectiveness of patrol efforts and results. This tool will also allow for a more standardized data collection not only within the UPT but also nationally. Currently, at the national level there is already a Pokja for SMART, which will help mainstream the use of SMART in conservation area management in Indonesia. Options for biodiversity monitoring, including assessment on SMART is also discussed under EPASS del #10 “Field Technical Guidelines for Biodiversity Monitoring”.

RBM in Tangkoko Conservation Forest Management Unit (KPHK Tangkoko) About KPHK Tangkoko KPHK Tangkoko is located in North Sulawesi province. It consists of three forest areas namely Tangkoko-Duasaudara Nature Reserve, Batu Putih Nature Recreation Park (TWA Batu Putih) and Batuangus Nature Recreation Park. This area as established through the Directorate General of KSDAE decision number 17/KSDAE/Set-3/2016 dated January 22, 2016. For management purposes, TWA Batu Putih was merged under KPHK Tangkoko, which was established through the Ministry of Environment and Forestry regulation number 748/Menlhk/Setjen/PLA.0/9/2016 regarding the establishment of KPHK Tangkoko di Bitung city, the province of North Sulawesi with an area of approximately +/- 8.545 ha.

15

KPHK Tangkoko lies at 0–1350 m asl and has three main forest types: lowland forest (0-300 m asl); hill forest (300-800 m asl); and, sub-montane forest (400-1,400 m asl). The largest part of the KPHK lies between 300 and 800 m asl. In the year 2000, forest cover inside the KPHK was 105.1 km2. Between 2000 and 2015 the KPHK lost 44.5 km2 of its forest cover. The main drivers of deforestation in this area are encroachment for smallholder agriculture, illegal logging and forest fires. KPHK Tangkoko is also home to rich biodiversity, including the endemic black-crested macaque (Macaca nigra), Sulawesi dwarf cuscus (Strigocuscus celebensis), Sulawesi bear cuscus (Ailurops ursinus), and the Red-knobbed hornbill (Rhyticeros cassidix). 16 villages surround the area, which spreads across 4 districts. The natural design of Tangkoko is generally sufficient to support species and habitat conservation however; the small size of the area makes it vulnerable to external threats. Gap Analysis on RBM Implementation in KPHK Tangkoko Unlike Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park and Lore Lindu National Park, Tangkoko is not part of the 50 national parks assessed for RBM performance in 2013 because it is managed under BKSDA. Therefore no previous score was available for Tangkoko. WCS-IP conducted in depth interviews in two resorts in Tangkoko, and the information we gathered indicates basic skills and equipment to implement RBM are largely absent. Each resort is already equipped with office space, yet RBM implementation remains weak with the absence of clear SoP and data management system. Table 2. List of Resorts in Tangkoko and stage of RBM implementation

ID Resort Stage of RBM implementation

1

Resort Batu Putih

Stage 5. Resort staffs are routinely present in the resort performing various tasks including surveillance, management of tourism activities in Batu Putih resort, and habitat conservation. However, the ability to perform tasks such as flora and fauna monitoring and data collection are being severely limited by low skills and lack of budget allocation.

2

Resort Batu Angus

Stage 5. Resort staffs are present most of the time in the resort and mainly doing surveillance job. In addition to low capacity, and limited budget, the operation in Resort Batu Angus is being severely limited by inadequate equipment. For example, to secure the area in Batu Angus the rangers need to secure the beach also as it is one of the entry points for illegal loggers, however, in the absence of adequate equipment such as boat to patrol the area, this remains a challenging task. In addition to that, currently there is no running water in the resort office and no tally sheet for data collection.

Below is our assessment on all four actions-points prescribed by KSDAE in 2011 to measure RBM readiness and implementation in Tangkoko Nature Reserve. 1. Establishment of a working group: In 2013, a working group was established in Tangkoko,

however, lack of directives from the BKSDA (effectively, the absence of SK from the head of the UPT) led to the inactivity of this group. Based on the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) assessment in Tangkoko, currently there is no agreed objective of the conservation area, meaning the stakeholders have not put together a plan, which contains specific management objectives. Both the resort staffs and the staffs at BKSDA admitted that the establishment of a RBM working group is crucial in ensuring effective implementation of RBM in Tangkoko.

16

2. Strengthening the institutional capacity for RBM: The institutional capacity to implement RBM

in Tangkoko is still very weak. Ingenuity of the resort staffs is one of Tangkoko’s great strengths. In Batu Putih for example, the resort staffs came up with a patrol system that ensure each staffs are routinely present in the resort to perform essential tasks. However, limited capacity and skills presents a significant barrier for the staffs to manage the resort more effectively. The number of staffs in each resort is far from adequate given the management challenges that they need to overcome. This observation is consistent with the METT assessment results, in which it was identified that the number of staff in BKSDA Tangkoko is insufficient to perform important management activities, both in terms of number and technical skills. For example, resort staffs, both in Resort Batu Putih and Resort Batu Angus, are still unable to identify flora and fauna in their respective areas. Some admitted they could identify the flora and fauna in their local names, which effectively means they can only identify flora and fauna that are commonly used by the local community. In addition to that, none of the resort staffs are able to operate computer, which will be an essential skill to have once a data management system is in place. One of the biggest challenges facing the management of conservation area in Tangkoko is the pressure from development, and often-competing interests from tourism activities, which should not be the case. Balancing this has proven to be challenging, especially given the capacity at the resort level. However, the resort is greatly benefitted from the ability of the resort staffs to conduct outreach and maintain strategic engagement with relevant stakeholders. Additionally, a clear disconnect between the needs in the field and policy responds leave a huge gap in the management of the area. As one of highly vulnerable and unique sites with rich biological diversity, resorts in Tangkoko has to resign the management of the ecosystem and key species to community members who are hired to assist the resort staffs because currently there is no PEH assign to either resort. Another prerequisite of RBM is the availability of facilities and equipment. In Tangkoko, basic facilities, including office building are available, but it is deemed inadequate. Other equipment, such as GPS, computer and binocular are not available in the resort. When the equipment is available, such as pocket camera, it is often not sufficient to support essential functions. In terms of budgeting, the allocation is still pretty much centralized in BKSDA. There is no specific allocation for RBM implementation at the resort level, and according to the resort staff, little room to influence budget allocation at the BKSDA. Thus, it is generally challenging to implement program or activities that are considered urgent by the resort manager, but are not perceived as priority by BKSDA. For example, activities related to stakeholder engagement, which according to the resort staffs need to be conducted frequently; it can only be conducted once a year, following budget allocation from BKSDA. Therefore, the staffs need to be creative in finding ways to fund or implement activities that are crucial on the ground. Although the core activities in each resort are funded by BKSDA, innovations and initiatives at the resort level depends on support from third party.

3. Resort zoning: The zoning in Tangkoko is clear, however, the impacts of the recent establishment of KPHK Tangkoko to the management of resorts remain to be seen.

4. Establishment of an information management system: Currently, there is no data collection and

management protocol in Tangkoko. It is important to bear in mind, that even if the protocol is in place, significant skill upgrade is necessary at the resort to allow for data collection; currently, none of the resort staffs can identify flora and fauna in their resort. Though the resort staffs are

17

required to submit monthly report, mainly containing information regarding attendance in the office and number of visitors, there is no systematic data collection related to threat or flora and fauna monitoring at the resort level. The METT assessment for BKSDA revealed that according to the managers, the information about habitat, species and ecological processes and other values in the conservation area is not sufficient to support planning and the decision making process. Findings from the resort are often not recorded. Since it is not being recorded systematically, it is difficult for the BKSDA, or even the resort managers sometime to try and identify patterns of threat and potential, to help inform decision-making. Evaluation is still largely absent, at best BKSDA usually conducted ad hoc evaluation activities.

Management and planning skills needed for the implementation of RBM in KPHK Tangkoko Although adding staffs at the resort level may seems extremely difficult at the moment, over the long term, the UPT needs to consider this as a crucial aspect in energizing RBM. The number of the staff today, and the equipment that are available, are far from adequate to support effective RBM implementation. Equally important is the ensuring the capacity of the resort staffs is adequate to manage the area, and opportunities for skill upgrades are available. Most management and planning skills needs have been identified through WCS-IP EPASS Del #6 “Capacity Development Score Card”. For more detailed information regarding the needs in each resort, please see profile of each resort. Conservation Area Management and Policy

1. Basic knowledge in PA management and laws/regulations related to wildlife conservation area Training and or capacity building aimed at creating common understanding and improving comprehension of the resort staff regarding the laws and principles guiding the management of protected area

2. Training related to general capacity (leadership skill) This is especially relevant for the head of the resort, to support effective management of the area. This training could also be applicable for the head of the section and region. These trainings could focus on training and effective leadership and organizational management, and “kesamantaan”. This is complementary to the formal and informal training that have been received by the staffs.

3. Basic law enforcement techniques Training on legal enforcement techniques, and information sharing regarding options/strategies managers can obtain in enforcing the law, including potential collaboration with partners and law enforcers, including collaboration with the Wildlife Crime Unit established in each management unit.

4. Advance enforcement technique Clear.

Management Information System

1. Data collection technique Training on data collection especially biodiversity, resources and threats data in the area. From available options presented in the training, the managers would then be able to determine which method would be most suitable given the resources available (human resource and financial resource). This training should also include data inventory, and reporting. For this to happen, the staffs first need to be equipped with the ability to identify flora and fauna n their area.

18

2. Biodiversity management data After collecting the data, staffs need to be able to manage the data, so that it could be used as input in planning process and the management of the area. Data management training could include data organization, cleaning and simple analysis. This capacity should be available at the resort level.

3. SMART Database training for data operator (basic training and refresher) Clear

4. SMART Patrol Training for Forest Ranger Clear

5. SMART Patrol training for managers Clear

Partnership and Community Development

1. Collaborative management among stakeholders Some resorts share borders with settlement and or has potential to be developed as tourism destination, therefore resort managers need to be able to establish and maintain collaboration effectively with other stakeholders, while making sure the initial purpose and interest of the protected areas are being advocated For this to happen, capacity to network, conduct stakeholder analysis, interest mapping and the capacity to develop relationship and collaboration are crucial.

2. Conflict resolution in natural resource management There area still some conflicting and or overlapping boundaries in the three protected areas, therefore the capacity to mitigate and resolve conflict is necessary in managing the area, especially with increasing pressures from outside, due to economic hardship and population increase, among other things, risks of conflict related to national resource will also intensify. Therefore training related to conflict assessment, problem and actor mapping and available tools and strategy for conflict mitigation, also how to integrate conflict mitigation as part of the planning at the resort level.

3. Community engagement and awareness Support and involvement of the local community is one of the key factors determining effective protection of the area. Therefore, the capacity to increase awareness to external party is key. More importantly, the capacity to trigger and sustain community participation in the process is also needed. To achieve this, park managers need include a landscape approach in managing their area.

Recommendations to improve RBM implementation in Tangkoko KPHK

ID Resort

Resort typolo

gy2

Stage of RBM Imple

mentation

RBM Target- EPASS (2020)

Recommendation for RBM Improvements

Correlation with

Management Effectiveness

Tracking Tool (METT)

Note

Activity type

Recommendation

1 Batu Putih

Utilization

5 6 Facility/infrastructure

GPS procurement, communication device, binoculer, computer, printer, desks and chairs; infrastructure to support patrol/protection, including speed boat

#18 Equipment

#18 BKSDA's current score is 2 (two), these procurements could directly increase METT score

Human resource

Additional staff for preservation activities / improve capacity of existing staffs to conduct activities related to preservation

#13 Number of staff

#13 BKSDA's current score is 1 (one), additional staffing could directly improve METT score

Human resource

Training on how to operate GPS, basic computer skills, flora and fauna identification and management of tourism activities

#14 Staffs are trained

#14 BKSDA's current score is still 1(one); trainings that are adjusted to the need of the area managers could directly improve the METT score, indirectly, this activity could help improve capacity to conduct protection related activities (#10)-current score 1 (one); resource inventory (#9)- current score 1(one); and research (#11)- current score 1(one)

2 based on resort staff's perception

1

Human resource

Training on strategic planning at the resort level and collaborative management especially related to tourism activities


#14see above, in addition to that, these particular trainings could also- though indirectly- increase the capacity to collaborate with government and private sector (#22) current score is still 1; indigenous community involvemnt (#23)- current score is still 1; local community (#24)- current score is still 1; and Economic gains (#25)- current score is still 1

2 Batu Angu

s

Protection


GPS procurement, communication device, binoculer, computer, printer, desks and chairs; infrastructure to support patrol/protection

#18 Equipment

See note #18 Batu Putih

Human resource

Additional staff for protection activities / improve capacity of existing staffs to conduct activities related to protection

#13 Number of staff


Human resource

Training on how to operate GPS, basic computer skills, flora and fauna identification and management of tourism activities



Human resource

Training on strategic planning at the resort level and collaborative management



RBM in Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park (BNWNP) About BNWNP Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park (BNWNP), consisting of eleven resorts with a total area of 2,832.38 km2, is the largest protected area in Sulawesi. It is located in North Sulawesi and Gorontalo Provinces. More than half of the area is located on steep and very steep slopes. The park consists of four main types of forest: lowland forest (0-300 m asl); hill forest (300-800 m asl); sub-montane forest (800-1400 m asl); and, montane forest (>1400 m asl). Around 70% of the land cover within the park is primary forest and around 24% is secondary forest. In 2000, the forest cover in BNWNP was 2,721.6 km2. Between 2000 and 2015 the park lost 60.6 km2 of its forest cover. Encroachment for small-scale agriculture and traditional mining were identified as the significant drivers of deforestation (Halidah et al. 2012). As Sulawesi’s largest national park BNWNP supports over 65% of the mammal species and 38% of the bird species present on the island. The park is a habitat for maleo (Macrocephalon maleo), babirusa (Babyrouss babyrussa), anoa (Bubalus depsessicornis), and yaki (Macaca nigra), which are endemic species to Sulawesi. BNWNP is surrounded by 130 villages distributed across 27 sub-districts, 5 districts and 2 provinces. Dumoga Barat and Bolaang Mangondow in the North Sulawesi Province are the most populated sub-districts while the sub-districts in the Gorontalo Province are less populated. Gap Analysis on RBM Implementation in BNWNP The assessment in 2013 classified RBM performance in BNWNP as supportive and quite intensive (readiness, 92.75% and implementation, 77.50%). At the time of the assessment, the working group for RBM was already established and it was deemed inclusive, meaning the different functions and level at the national park were well represented in the team, and the process itself was inclusive. Despite the result in 2013, our assessment in 2016 revealed that some staffs, especially those based in the resorts, are not aware of the working group existence. In 2013, more than 50% of the resort offices have been built and SIM RBM was ready, yet less than 50% of the essential equipment has been distributed to the resort. In terms of budget allocation, more than 25% of the budget from headquarter was already allocated for activities on the ground. Although the minimum objective of the resort had not been identified, RBM implementation in BNWNP was classified as “quite intensive”, which reflects the availability of working map, sufficient staff assigned in each resort, and availability of budget for RBM activities. And despite obtaining high score on data management readiness (i.e. readiness of SIM RBM), the information management system was still poor in BNWNP. In 2013-2014 the UPT had initiated a data management system, yet it remained not operational due to lack of funding. The data from the resort had not reached the headquarters, and there is no tally sheet used for data collection. So it was not surprising that the data had not been analyze and or used as inputs in decision-making process. Consistent with the pattern in the other sites, there is no evaluation processes in BNWNP, and this situation persists in 2016. Although the assessment in 2013 suggests supportive condition for RBM implementation in BNWNP, realization of RBM has been slow. Today, the data management system is still not operational, and on average the resort staffs still have very poor management skills. In addition, the provision of essential equipment to the resorts is also very low; most resorts do not have a working GPS. Table 3. List of Resorts in BNWNP and stage of RBM implementation

1


1 Resort T. Pinogu

Stage 5. There is already an office and staffs assigned to this resort; however, they are not routinely present in the office. Therefore there seems to be no routine activities, except for activities being assigned by the NP HQ.

2 Resort Bone

Stage 5. There is already an office and staffs assigned to this resort. However, there is no essential equipment to support the functions at the resort. Resort staffs are involved in performing basic tasks such as patrolling and managing a tourist site inside the resort.

3 Resort Bolango Stage 5. There is already an office and staffs assigned to this resort. Resort staffs are involved in performing basic tasks such as patrolling and managing a tourism site inside the resort.

4 Resort Bone Pantai

Stage 5. There is already office and staffs assigned to this resort. The staffs are present in the office, mainly to conduct patrols. As reported by the resort staffs, there are no other activities in this resort.

5 Resort Pinogaluman

Stage 5. Resort staffs are routinely present in the resort to perform a variety of tasks including basic surveillance, habitat monitoring and community outreach. To get to stage 6, this resort needs have an established data collection and flora and fauna monitoring protocol.

6 Resort Pantai Selatan

Stage 5. Resort staffs are routinely present in the resort performing basic surveillance tasks. Basic infrastructure, such as office building is available, however the equipment to support staffs in performing essential functions is inadequate. There is no activity related to flora and fauna monitoring and data collection. None of the resort staffs can identify the flora and fauna inside their work area.

7 Resort Lolanan Stage 4. There is no office building for this resort. However, the staffs are present in the area to conduct surveillance activities and preservation activities.

8 Resort Dumoga Timur

Lolayan

Stage 4. Some resort staffs are routinely present to perform basic functions, but not all. Despite the relative popularity of the resort due to existence of Maleo habitat and popularity among birdwatchers, preservation activities remain very minimal. In the absence incentive system for staffs to innovate at the resort level, innovations are mainly driven by individuals, and support from partners.

9 Resort Dumoga Utara

Stage 5. Resort staffs are present in the resort performing basic surveillance tasks. Basic infrastructure, such as office building, is available, however the equipment to support staffs in performing essential functions remains inadequate. There is no activity related to flora and fauna monitoring.

10 Resort Dumoga Barat

Stage 4. Although the office is not adequate, with no running water and electricity, resort staffs are present in the resort performing basic surveillance tasks including patrol. No preservation activities are currently undertaken by the staffs, however, there is a research station inside the resort run by partner organization.

2

11 Resort Boroko Stage 5. Resort staffs are performing basic surveillance task, even though the equipment available to support this essential function remains inadequate. The office space is available.

Below is our assessment on all four actions-points prescribed by KSDAE in 2011 to measure RBM readiness and implementation in BNWNP.

1) Establishment of a working group: In 2013, the national park headquarters issued a letter

designating working group for RBM in BNWNP (Letter BTNBNW-1/2013). The letter set the formation a data collection, entry, management and validation, and monitoring and evaluation team. These teams consists of staffs from headquarter and representative from each resort. The RBM working group has been established and most of the resort staffs are aware of this working group. However, the working group remains inactive due to lack of direct mandate from the KLHK on RBM implementation.

2) Strengthening the institutional capacity for RBM: As identified in the RBM performance

assessment in 2013, BNWNP is relatively adequate to implement RBM mainly due to the number of staffs it has. However number is not the only ingredient contributing to effective resort management. Another important component is skills and clear directives. Each year the national park issued a letter, which allocates staffs in each resort, prescribing their tasks and function. However, it is generally agreed that the SOP is not detail enough to give useful guidelines for the national park staffs on the ground. The capacity of the staffs at the resort levels remains very low. Based on the METT assessment, even the staffs at the UPT perceived the trainings and skills available are inadequate to meet the management objectives.

Limited availability of the equipment at the resort level is also preventing effective management of the area. Only 2 resorts currently have GPS, the rest of the resorts either have to borrow from the national park headquarter or secure their own. And none of the resort is equipped with computer. Equally concerning is the ability of the staffs to operate tools like GPS and computer, some even admits to not being able to read map. These skills are obviously crucial to perform essential functions including patrol and data collection. In addition to that, conforming to the pattern in other project sites, the ability to identify flora and fauna remains very poor among the resort staffs. Similar to Tangkoko, budgeting in BNWNP is currently still very centralized at headquarter, preventing field level staffs to pursue strategy or policy that may not fall under the priority of the national park headquarter.

3) Resort zoning: The UPT has created a clear delineation of the resort’s working area, though

some parts are not demarcated well. Each resort has been provided with a working map containing basic information including boundaries, and other basic geographic components. Some boundaries of the park are still disputed; therefore building common understanding between stakeholders is crucial.

4) Establishment of an information management system: In 2013, the park already established an

RBM working group, in which several teams were assigned to collect, monitor, manage, and evaluate data, which involves staffs from the resort. However, this group remains inactive due to lack of funding, and so was the information management system. The UPT initiated a database they called SIBOBO. It was designed as a centralized data management system at UPT, but the development was halted due to lack of funding. Since 2003, The UPT has actually collected data for one of its key species, Maleo. And starting in 2010, the UPT has also collected

3

Babirusa and Anoa data. Through support from partner, the UPT has also tested SMART RBM in some parts of the park. In general, there is no clear protocol for data collection and reporting at the resort level. This is true in all three project sites, the capacity to collect, analyze and disseminate data is still weak in BNWNP.

Management and planning skills needed for the implementation of RBM in BNWNP In addition to the need for data management system, the capacity of the resort staffs needs to be improved significantly. BNWNP needs to address the fundamental problem of low staff motivation, among other things. Most management and planning skills needs have been identified through WCS-IP EPASS Del #6 “Capacity Development Score Card”. For more detailed information regarding the needs in each resort, please see profile of each resort. Conservation Area Management and Policy

1. Basic knowledge in PA management and laws/regulations related to wildlife conservation

area

Training and or capacity building aimed at creating common understanding and improving

comprehension of the resort staff regarding the laws and principles guiding the

management of protected area

2. Training related to general capacity (leadership skill)

This is especially relevant for the head of the resort, to support effective management of the

area. This training could also be applicable for the head of the section and region. These

trainings could focus on training and effective leadership and organizational management,

and “kesamantaan”. This is complementary to the formal and informal training that have

been received by the staffs.

3. Basic law enforcement techniques

Training on legal enforcement techniques, and information sharing regarding

options/strategies managers can obtain in enforcing the law, including potential

collaboration with partners and law enforcers, including collaboration with the Wildlife

Crime Unit established in each management unit.

4. Advance enforcement technique

Clear.

Management Information System


2. Biodiversity management data After collecting the data, staffs need to be able to manage the data, so that it could be used as input in planning process and the management of the area. Data management training

4

could include data organization, cleaning and simple analysis. This capacity should be available at the resort level.








Recommendations to improve RBM implementation in BNWNP

ID Resort Resort typology3

Stage of RBM

Implementation


Recommendation for RBM Improvements

Correlation with

Management

Effectiveness Tracking

Tool (METT)

Note

Activity type Recommendation

1 Tulabolo Pinogu

Preservation/protectio

n


Procurement GPS, communication device, binoculer, computer, printer, desk and chairs

#18 Equipments

#18 BNWNP's current score is 2 (two), these procurements could directly increase METT score

Human resource

Identify mechanisms/ strategy to boost motivation of the staff at the resort #10

Protection system

#10. BNWNP's current score is 2, the availability of staffs at the resort could directly improve perception of the security of the conservation area, it could also allow for better patrol/ activities to secure the area

Human resource

Training on how to operatate GPS, basic computer skills, flora and fauna identification


#14 LLNP's current score is 2(two), trainings that are adjusted to the need of the area managers could directly improve the METT score, indirectly, this activity could help improve capacity to conduct protection related activities (#10)); resource inventory (#9)); and research (#11)

Human resource

Additional staff with skills to conduct preservation activities/ improve skills for exisiting

#13 Number of staffs

#13 BNWNP's current score is 1 (one), additional staffing could directly improve METT score

3 based on resort staff's perception

1

staffs

2 Bone Preservation


Procurement/ fix GPS, communication device, binoculer, computer, printer, desk and chairs

#18 Equipments See note #18 Tulabolo Pinogu

Human resource

Addiitonal staff/MMP to conduct utilization/ preservation activities

#13 Number of staffs See note #13 Tulobolo Pinogu

Human resource


#14 Staffs are trained See note #14 Tulobolo Pinogu

Human resource



#14 see above, in addition to that, these particular trainings could also- though indirectly- increase the capacity to collaborate with government and private sector (#22); indigenous community involvemnt (#23); local community (#24)

3 Bolango Preservation




Human resource

Additional staff with skills to conduct preservation activities/ improve skills for exisiting


2

staffs

Human resource



Human resource

Training on strategic planning at the resort level

#14 Staffs are trained See note #14 Bone

4 Bone Pantai Protection 5 6 Facility/infrastructure



Human resource

Additional staff/MMP at the resort office


Human resource



Human resource



5 Pinogaluman Preservation




Human resource

Additional staff with skills to conduct preservation


3

activities/ improve skills for exisiting staffs

Human resource



Human resource



6 Pantai Selatan

Pengawetan




Human resource

Additional staff with skills to conduct preservation activities/ improve skills for exisiting staffs


Human resource



Human resource



7 Lolanan Utilization/Preservatio

n


Construction of the office building and its supporting facility, procurement of


4

communication device, binoculer, computer and printer

Human resource

Additional staff/MMP at the resort office


Human resource

Enhance skills on flora and fauna identification


Human resource



8 Dumoga Timur-Lolayan

Preservation/Utilizatio

n




Human resource

Additional staff with skills to conduct preservation activities/ improve skills for exisiting staffs


Human resource

Training on how to operatate GPS, basic computer skills, flora and fauna identification, management and protection of endemic species (especially the


5

Maleo)

Human resource



9 Dumoga Utara

Protection 5 6 Facility/infrastructure



Human resource



Human resource



Human resource

Training on collaborative management


10 Dumoga Barat

Protection 4 5 Facility/infrastructure

Renovate resort office; GPS procurement, camera and communication devices, binoculer, computer, printer and chairs


6

Human resource



Human resource



11 Boroko Preservation




Human resource



Human resource



RBM in Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP) About LLNP Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP) is located in the province of central Sulawesi and covers 2,169.9 km2 – the park is divided into 12 resorts. In year 2000, forest cover inside the LLNP was 2,061.7 km2. From 2000-2015 LLNP lost 10.5 km2 of its forest cover (Figure 1). Illegal logging and forest encroachment were identified as the main drivers of deforestation in the park. The park has four main forest types: lowland forest (0-300 m asl); hill forest (300-800 m asl); sub-montane forest (800-1,400 m asl); and, montane forest (>1,400 m asl). Sub-montane and montane forests are the dominant forest cover. LLNP lies between 100 and 2,500 asl and is dominated by hill and mountainous areas. The majority of the area is very steep (41%) and steep (28%). LLNP is also an important water catchment area for two watersheds, Lariang in the east and Gumbasa in the north, which are the main sources of water for Palu, the capital of province. The park is home to 78 endemic bird species including maleo (Macrocephalon maleo) and Red-knobbed hornbill (Rhyticeros cassidix), as well as Babirusa (Babyrouss babyrussa) and anoa (Bubalus depsessicornis and Bubalus quarlesii), which are endemic to Sulawesi. The long term management plan of LLNP recognizes these wildlife species as under threat due to hunting and habitat destruction. 77 villages in two districts surround the park. Gap Analysis on RBM Implementation in LLNP The assessment in 2013 classified RBM performance in LLNP as “quite supportive” and “quite intensive” (readiness, 77.75% and implementation, 78%). In 2013, the working group for RBM was already established, even though it was deemed not inclusive enough, meaning the different functions and level at the national park were not well represented. In addition to that, the job descriptions for team member were not clear. There is no significant improvement in this criterion from 2013 to 2016. The information we gathered from the focus group discussion confirmed how some staffs, especially at the resort level, are still unaware of the existence of such working group. In 2013, less than 50% of the resort office had been built, and only 10-25% of the UPT budget was allocated for activities on the ground. Based on our interview with the UPT staffs, the figure is now at around 70%. Though the tally sheet has been distributed to each resort in 2013, and some resorts still use it for data collection until now, there is currently no data management system in place. In 2013, RBM implementation in LLNP was classified as “quite intensive”, which reflects the availability of working map. Our assessment in 2016 revealed significant gaps in the implementation of RBM in LLNP. This is due to several factors, including: 1. The minimum objective of each resort has not been identified; 2. Lack of staffs, there are only 2 person staffs or less in each resort, with some nearing retirement age; and 3. The absence of data management system. It is useful to note that until now, most resort in LLNP still use the RBM tally sheet to record information, in addition, they also submit monthly report to the section. However, it is not being done routinely and the data is stored in hard copy, making it harder when trying to identify pattern or aggregate the information from different sites. This begs the question whether the data and information really feeds into the decision making process at headquarter. Resort staffs admitted that the activities in 2014 as part of the RBM implementation imparted some skills and practices that they considered useful, including the use of tally sheet. Table 4. List of Resorts in LLNP and stage of RBM implementation

1


1 Resort Tuare

Stage 5. Resort staffs are present in the resort performing basic surveillance tasks and monitoring of key species habitat (Babirusa). The office has been built and the staffs are assigned to the resort. Still, there is no established data management collection system.

2 Resort Toro

Stage 5. Resort staffs are present in the resort performing basic surveillance tasks and monitoring of key species habitat (Anoa and Babirusa). The patrols are conducted following the activities budgeted by headquarter. Under RBM, in 2014 a socio-economic survey and assessment of the biophysical aspects of the resort was conducted. Currently, there is no systematic data collection system in place and no formal community engagement activities.

3 Resort Tongoa

Stage 5. Staffs are already assigned in the resort, though office space is still unavailable. The staffs used a research station as a base to perform essential functions including surveillance and management of the tourism in the area.

4 Resort Simoro

Stage 4. The building is inadequate for office space. It is located near a river, and currently its nearing collapse. Most parts of the building are not safe and suitable for work. The staffs are routinely present at the resort to perform essential functions such as patrol, community engagement, habitat monitoring (including for Maleo), and management of tourism in the area. The skills, although the motivation is sufficient, still inadequate to perform essential tasks at the resort.

5 Resort Sidoa

Stage 5. The staffs have already been assigned to resort Sidoa and they are able to perform essential functions including patrol. However, the activities are limited to patrol only at the moment. Although physical building are present in resort Sidoa, but the facilities are not adequate.

6 Resort Sibalaya

Stage 5. The staffs are routinely present at the resort, though they the current research station is not entirely adequate as office space. In addition to that, the terrain in this resort is dangerous and extreme, making patrol quite difficult. They require mountaineering equipment- which are not available at the moment. The staffs are involved in essential functions including patrol and monitoring of key habitats. This resort has PEH assigned, therefore allowing them to do activities such as habitat protection.

7 Resort Moa

Stage 4. The resort staffs are present in the resort performing basic surveillance tasks, which is conducted 4 times a month. There is also the habitat monitoring activity for Macaca and survey potential. However, there is currently no office space available. The staffs are using Sedaunta research station as office space. The resort is equipped with a set of laptop and printer, GPS and a pocket camera.

8 Resort Lindu

Stage 4. Resort staffs are present in the resort performing basic surveillance tasks, which is conducted 4 times a month. There is also the habitat monitoring activity for Macaca and survey potensi. However, there is currently no office space available. The staffs are using Sedaunta station as an office. The resort is equipped with a set

2

of laptop and printer, GPS and a pocket camera.

9 Resort Lelio

Stage 4. Staffs are assigned to the resort, however, the office space is not yet available. Staffs are involved in basic surveillance- regular patrol. There are other activities in the resort, however, it depends on the budget allocated by the office.

10 Resort Kadidia

Stage 4. Staffs are assigned to resort Kadidia, however, the office and other infrastructure is not ready. Staffs are already doing patrol and other essential functions. It is however, limited by the lack support including through budget, skills and equipment.

11 Resort Bobo Stage 5. Staffs are routinely present to perform essential functions such as surveillance, habitat monitoring and surveys.

12 Resort Doda

Stage 4. Staffs are assigned to Doda, however, due to the location that is hard to reach- challenging terrain, staffs are not routinely present. They still perform basic functions such as surveillance and monitoring of the habitat- flora and fauna. Though there is potential for habitat development, there is no PEH assigned to this resort therefore preventing the implementation of the any preservation activities in this resort. In addition to that, although the office building has been built, there is no running water or electricity in the office.

Below is our assessment on all four-action points prescribed by KSDAE in 2011 to measure RBM readiness and implementation in LLNP. 1) Establishment of a working group: A working group was established in LLNP following the

directive of Directorate General PHKA SK./KKBHL-6 issued in March 2013. But, like in Tangkoko and BNWNP, the working group remains inactive due to lack of funding and mandate from the KLHK after RBM was taken out of the IKK. Each year, the national park headquarter issues a letter, which provides detail on the designation of the resort staffs and each function. The letter provides job description for each function (i.e. Polhut, PEH, Penyuluh), but not description of tasks regarding resort management.

2) Strengthening the institutional capacity for RBM: The capacity and availability of the human

resources to implement RBM remains very low in LLNP. The number of staffs, given the total area that needs to be managed is far from adequate. The ratio staff and area that they need to secure ranges from 3,000ha to 27,000ha. The total average is around 11,000, which shows generally the number of field staff is inadequate. This is not taking into account the level of threats and pressures in each resort and capacity of each resort staff. At the moment, most resorts only have one staff, which is almost exclusively forest ranger, and some of them are nearing retirement age. Therefore to perform essential functions in each resort, the staff depends heavily on Community Partner of Forest Ranger (Masyarakat Mitra Polisi Hutan-MMP) or recruits from the community. However, the assistants usually have very low level of skills, and on top of that, they are not paid regularly which limits their time availability to assist the rangers. In addition to that, some resorts clearly need PEH to be assigned to perform various preservation activities. However, due to limited number of PEH in LLNP, PEHs are only available at the section level. Staffs received regular training, both in house, and conducted by the KLHK, however most of these trainings are considered inadequate both in terms of frequency and or efficacy to deliver results- skills upgrade.

3

The infrastructure is also still inadequate in some resorts. Making it hard for the resort staff to be routinely present in the resort, even if they want to be. The equipment is also largely inadequate. Unlike BNWNP and Tangkoko, each resort is already equipped with computer and printer in LLNP. Currently there is no budget allocated specifically, at the national park level to help improve the performance of RBM. Most of the budgeting are still very centralized, in which the resort can make suggestions on possible programs or activities needed in their working area, however, the headquarter and section determine which activities that will be funded, effectively deciding programs in each resort.

3) Resort zoning: The area has been divided into different resorts, and maps have been distributed

to the section office. However, the maps that are distributed to the resort contain very little information, if they get to be seen at all- since some resorts still don’t have an office. The UPT divides the working area of each resort not based on the typology or natural boundaries of the area

4) Establishment of an information management system: There is no official information

management system in LLNP. Every month, the resort heads submit report to headquarter in forms of hard copy. Most resorts still use the RBM tally sheet for data collection. It is not clear whether these reports are being catalogued or managed at headquarter.

Management and planning skills needed for the implementation of RBM in LLNP The number for field staffs in LLNP is small relative to the area that they need to secure. And, as has been pointed out in the section above, many are nearing retirement age. MMP and temporary staffs could significantly help reduce the load for each staff; however, they often do not have the right skills and or proper training. The centralized nature of the staffing in KLHK may present another challenge in trying to energize the resort through additional staffing; therefore the MMP and temporary staffs are an agreeable alternative. The UPT should consider a more strategic approach in hiring and training the MMP to help increase the effectiveness of resort as a management unit. Most management and planning skills needs have been identified through WCS-IP EPASS Del #6 “Capacity Development Score Card”. For more detailed information regarding the needs in each resort, please see profile of each resort. Conservation Area Management and Policy

1. Basic knowledge in PA management and laws/regulations related to wildlife conservation area Training and or capacity building aimed at creating common understanding and improving comprehension of the resort staff regarding the laws and principles guiding the management of protected area

2. Training related to general capacity (leadership skill) This is especially relevant for the head of the resort, to support effective management of the area. This training could also be applicable for the head of the section and region. These trainings could focus on training and effective leadership and organizational management, and “kesamantaan”. This is complementary to the formal and informal training that have been received by the staffs.

3. Basic law enforcement techniques Training on legal enforcement techniques, and information sharing regarding options/strategies managers can obtain in enforcing the law, including potential collaboration with partners and law enforcers, including collaboration with the Wildlife

4

Crime Unit established in each management unit. 4. Advance enforcement technique

Clear. Management Information System


2. Biodiversity management data After collecting the data, staffs need to be able to manage the data, so that it could be used as input in planning process and the management of the area. Data management training could include data organization, cleaning and simple analysis. This capacity should be available at the resort level.








Recommendations to improve RBM implementation in LLNP

ID Resort Resort typology

4

Stage of RBM

Implementation


Recommendation for RBM Improvements Correlation with

Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool

(METT)

Note

Activity type Recommendation

1 Tuare Utilization


Procurement of communication device, binoculer, computer, printer, desk and chairs #18

Equipments

#18LLNP's current score is 2(two), facility improvements and addition could directly contribute to effective management, and consequently METT score

Human resource

Additional staff/ MMP to conduct activities related to utilization and preservation #13 Number of

staff

#13 LLNP's current score is 1, additional staffing at the resort could directly improve the METT score

Human resource

Training on how to operate GPS, basic computer skills, and skill to identify flora and fauna


#14 LLNP's current score is 2(two), trainings that are adjusted to the need of the area managers could directly improve the METT score, indirectly, this activity could help improve capacity to conduct protection related activities (#10)- current score is 2 (two); resource inventory (#9)- current score is 1 (one); and research (#11)- current score is 1(one)

Human resource

Training on strategic planning at the resort level and training on collaborative management #14 Staffs are

trained

#14 see above; indirectly, this activity could also increase the capacity to collaborate with government and private sector (#22)-current score is 2 (two);

4 (based on resort staff's perception

1

indigenous community involvemnt (#23)- current score is 1(one); local community (#24)- current score is 1(one)

2 Toro Preservation


Improvements of the facilities at the office, including resting area for the staffs, GPS procurement, procurement of camera and communication devices

#18 Equipments See note #18 Tuare

Human resource

Additional staff/MMP at the resort

#13 Number of staff See note #13 Tuare

Human resource


#14 Staffs are trained See note #14 Tuare

Human resource

Training on strategic planning at the resort level and training on collaborative management


3 Tongoa Protection


Construction of office building and its supporting facility, procurement of communication device, binoculer and printer


Human resource

Additional staff/ MMP to conduct activities related to preservation


Human resource

Training on how to operate GPS, basic computer skills, and skill to identify flora and


2

fauna

Human resource



4 Simoro Utilization


Improvements of office and supporting facility, procurement of binoculer, desk and chairs


Human resource

Additional staff/ MMP to conduct activities related to preservation


Human resource



Human resource



5 Sedoa Protection


Improvements of office and its supporting facility, fixing the GPS, procurement of camera and communication device and binoculer, printer, desk and chairst.


Human resource

Identify mechanisms/ strategy to boost motivation of the staff at the resort

#10 Protection system

#10. LLNP's current score is 2, the availability of staffs at the resort could directly improve perception of the security of the conservation area, it could also allow for better patrol/ activities to secure the area

3

Human resource



Human resource

Additional staff/ MMP to conduct activities related to utilization and preservation


6 Sibalaya Protection


Procurement of office building and its supporting facility, procurement of GPS, communication device, binoculer, computer and printer, and desk and chairs


Human resource

Training on how to operate the GPS, basic computer skills, identify flora and fauna, and the protection and management of endemic species (especially the Maleo)


Human resource

Training on the management of tourism area/activity in the area and training on the protection of endemic species such as the Maleo


Human resource

Training on collaborative management in protected area


7 Moa Protection


Construction of the resort office and supporting infrastructure/facility; procurement of communication device,


4

binoculer

Human resource



Human resource

Improve skills on flora and fauna identification and reporting


Human resource



8 Lindu Protection


Construction of the resort office and supporting infrastructure/facility; procurement of communication device, binoculer


Human resource



Human resource

Training on how to operate the GPS, basic computer skils, flora and fauna identification


Human resource



9 Lelio Protection


Construction of the resort office and supporting facility; procurement of communication device, binoculer, computer and


5

laptop

Human resource



Human resource



Human resource



10 Kadidia Pengawetan


construction of the resort office and supporting facility; procurement of communication device, binoculer, and printer


Human resource



Human resource



11 Bobo Preservation


Procurement of communication device and improvements of supporting facilities such as water access (PDAM) and the kitchen


6

Human resource

Additional staff for awareness building and community engagement and preservatino activities


Human resource



Human resource

Training on collaborative management in protected area and planning at the resort level


12 Doda Protection


Improve supporting facilities at the resort such as electricity, water, rest area; procurement of communication device and computer


Human resource



Human resource



Human resource



Conclusion and Recommendation • Although the essence of RBM has been adopted in each UPT through the zoning of resort,

assignment of staffs at the resort level, and in some UPTs, additional budget for field level activities, RBM performance is still poor due to lack of capacity at the resort level and the absence of an information management system in each UPT.

• In the absence of clear mandate from the national government on RBM implementation (i.e. the absence of the Ministerial Decree on RBM), the incentive to actively pursue RBM at the UPT level remains weak.

• Due to the lack of an information management system, currently there is no institutional memory of the threats and potential in each conservation area- or when the information is available it is usually dotted and in poor quality, preventing the UPT from pursuing adaptive management of the area. Therefore, the establishment of an information management system is essential for effective RBM implementation.

• In ensuring effective implementation of RBM, the capacity of the Ministry of Forestry and Environment at both national and provincial levels need to be strengthened. This can be achieved through other EPASS deliverables including the METT and Capacity Development Strategy.

• Capacity at the resort level needs significant improvement for RBM to be effective. This includes providing access to basic trainings (as identified in this document and EPASS Del #5 Capacity Development Score Card and Del #9 METT). And it is important to recognize the need to upgrade skills of both the resort staff and also the MMP.

• The incentive mechanism for resort level innovation in order to address the fundamental issue of low motivation among rangers and other field staffs needs to be established.

• The adoption of SMART RBM can help address some fundamental problems in resort management including, poor data collection, recording and utilization in planning, poor staff performance evaluation and monitoring. It also serves as a law enforcement-monitoring tool that can generate systematic data to assess the effectiveness of patrol efforts and results. This can also be achieved through EPASS del #10 “Field Technical Guidelines for Biodiversity Monitoring”.

References Halidah et. al. (2012). The threats to the sustainability of Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park.

Info BPK Manado Vol. 2 No. 2. Available at: http://forda-mof.org/files/INFO_Manado_2.2.2012-1.Halidah,_dkk.pdf

KSDAE. (2015). Rencana Strategis Direktorat Pemanfaatan Jasa Lingkungan dan Hutan Konservasi Tahun 2015-2019. Bogor, November 2015. Retrieved December 14, 2016 from http://ekowisata.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Renstra-Dit-PJLHK-2015-2019.pdf

Norman Myers et.al. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, Volume 403. February 24, 2000. Retrieved December 13, 2016 from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6772/pdf/403853a0.pdf

WCS. (2016). Technical Report: Modelling deforestation patterns and predicted risk in and around Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park, Lore Lindu National Park and Tangkoko Forest Management Unit. Bogor, Indonesia. Under preparation.

Whitten. T.M., Mustafa., and G.S. Henderson. (1987). The Ecology of Sulawesi. Gadjah Mada University Press : Yogjakarta, Indonesia. Republished by Periplus, Hong Kong, 2002

http://forda-mof.org/files/INFO_Manado_2.2.2012-1.Halidah,_dkk.pdf

http://forda-mof.org/files/INFO_Manado_2.2.2012-1.Halidah,_dkk.pdf

http://ekowisata.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Renstra-Dit-PJLHK-2015-2019.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6772/pdf/403853a0.pdf

1

World Bank. (2001). Indonesia Environment and Natural Resources Management in a Time of Transition. Published by the East Asia Pacific Office. Retrieved on Dec 1, 2016 from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/981141468772750085/pdf/multi0page.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/981141468772750085/pdf/multi0page.pdf

2

Annex Annex 1. List of Attendees for RBM Workshop Gorontalo (BNWNP I) Please refer to EPASS FCU in Bogani

3

Annex 2. List of Attendees for RBM Workshop Tangkoko

5

Annex 3. List of Attendees for RBM Workshop Kotamobagu (BNWNP II) Please refer to EPASS FCU in Bogani

6

Annex 4. List of Attendees for RBM Workshop Lore Lindu (I)

8

Annex 5. List of Attendees for RBM Workshop Lore Lindu (II)

10

Annex 6. List of Attendees for RBM Workshop Lore Lindu (III)

gap analysis report on existing policies and regulations...

Documents