UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Assessing the necessary width of buffer zones : an ecological study in Ruteng Strict Nature Reserve,… de Fretes, Yance 1996

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1996-14738X.pdf [ 7.34MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0075270.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0075270-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0075270-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0075270-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0075270-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0075270-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0075270-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0075270-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0075270.ris

Full Text

ASSESSING THE NECESSARY WIDTH OF BUFFER ZONES: AN ECOLOGICAL STUDY IN RUTENG STRICT NATURE RESERVE, FLORES, INDONESIA by Yance de Fretes Drs., Cenderawasih University, 1985 MES., Yale University, 1991 I A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR IN PHILOSOPHY IN THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department Forest Resources Management) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard v THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July 1996 ©Yance de Fretes, 1996 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of ^V^^^rX The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date DE-6 (2/88) A B S T R A C T The buffer zone has become an important component i n a l l reserve management plans or c o n s e r v a t i o n . i n i t i a t i v e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t r o p i c a l regions. Buffer zones have been proposed as both an additional protection to e x i s t i n g reserves and a means to provide opportunities for people l i v i n g adjacent to the reserves to maintain t h e i r l i v e l i h o o d . One fundamental problem of the buffer zone approach i s that there are no methods available to determine appropriate buffer zone width for any given reserve. Many suggestions for a standard buffer zone width have been offered, but these are l a r g e l y based on i n t u i t i o n . There i s a serious lack of ecological studies to support those suggestions. In areas where land i s abundant and population density i s low, we may make "prudent guesses" i n determining buffer zone width. However, i n areas where human population pressure has led tb increasing l e v e l s of resource consumption and an increase i n land-use c o n f l i c t s , ecologically-based studies should be used i n determining buffer zone width. Considering the accelerated rate of habitat destruction and loss coupled with chronic reserve management problems, long-term and detailed ecological studies to determine buffer zone width .for each i n d i v i d u a l reserve are i n f e a s i b l e and u n r e a l i s t i c . What i s needed i s a method that can be used to gather biophysical data for determining necessary buffer zone width. Such a method should be simple, inexpensive, and e a s i l y -taught to and used by park planners and communities around the reserves; yet, i t should also be comprehensive enough to provide r e l i a b l e information. The method proposed i n t h i s thesis i s based on analysis of species richness, species d i v e r s i t y , stem density and species compositions. The major concept i s that areas around the reserve showing si m i l a r species richness, species d i v e r s i t y , stem density and species composition to the core habitats of the reserve, should be l e g a l i z e d as buffer zone. The proposed method must be used i n conjunction with considerations about the socio-economic and c u l t u r a l conditions of the people l i v i n g around the reserve. The p o t e n t i a l of the proposed method i s demonstrated by an application focusing on plants i n the area around the Ruteng S t r i c t Nature Reserve on Flores Island, Indonesia. TABLE OF CONTENT Abstract i i Table of content i v L i s t tables and figures v i Acknowledgement v i i i L i s t of abbreviations ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2 : PROTECTED AREAS 6 2.1. Protected Areas and Associated Management Problems 6 2.2. Protected Area Systems i n Indonesia 11 2.3. Problems i n Protected Area Management in Indonesia 19 2.4. New Approaches to Protected Area Management 21 CHAPTER 3 : BUFFER ZONE DEVELOPMENT 25 3.1. The Buffer Zone Concept 25 3.2. The Buffer Zone: Progress and Gaps 28 3.3. Buffer Width: Other's Suggestions 29 3.4 Need for A New Approach to Determine Buffer Zone Width 31 3.5. C r i t e r i a for An Effective Buffer Zone Width 33 3.5.1. Biophysical c r i t e r i a 33 3.5.2. Socio-economic c r i t e r i a 39 CHAPTER 4: STUDY AREA 49 4.1. Ruteng, Flores Island 49 4.2. Protected Areas on Flores 60 4.2.1. Proposed Ruteng S t r i c t Nature Reserve 62 4.2.2. Threats to the reserve 66 4.3. Social and Economic Conditions 68 4.3.1. Socio-economic characteristics 68 4.3.2. Wood contribution to the household economy 69 4.3.3. Alternatives to s e l l i n g wood for income 72 4.4. Governance 75 4.4.1. Traditional systems of governance 75 4.4.2. The effectiveness of t r a d i t i o n a l systems of 77 governance CHAPTER 5 : PROPOSED METHOD AND ITS APPLICATION 79 5.1. Overview of the Method 79 5.2. Sampling Design 83 5.2.1. Study sites 84 5.2.2. Biophysical data 87 5.3. Data Analysis 87 5.4. Results 89 5.4.1. Species richness 93 5.4.2. Species d i v e r s i t y 97 5.4.3. Stem density 99 5.4.4. Species composition between transects 102 i v 5.5. Conclusion 103 5.5.1. Ecological determination 103 5.5.2. Buffer zone determination for the RSNR 105 CHAPTER 6 : DISCUSSION: THE METHOD'S POTENTIAL 109 6.1. Introduction 109 6.2. Assessing the Ruteng Application 109 6.3. Recommendation: Refining the Method 112 6.4. General Application 113 6.5. Conclusion 115 Bibliography 116 Appendix 129 v LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Tables Table 2. 1: Indonesian Forest C l a s s i f i c a t i o n 16 Table 2. 2: Current Gazetted Protected Areas 18 Table 2. 3: Threatened of Selected Taxa i n Indonesia 21 Table 3. 1: Suggested buffer zone widths 30 Table 4. 1: Population of Manggarai D i s t r i c t 1961 to 1990 52 Table 4. 2: Population and density by s u b - d i s t r i c t 1991 53 Table 4. 3: GRDP (in Rupiah) for the East Nusa Tenggara Province 1990-1992 without gas and o i l 55 Table 4. 4: Land Use i n the Manggarai D i s t r i c t 60 Table 4. 5: Protected areas i n the Flores 62 Table 5. 1: Arithmetic mean for species richness, Shannon Di v e r s i t y Index, and stem density 90 Table 5. 2: Summary of ANOVA results using s i t e s as true rep l i c a t e s to compare species richness, species d i v e r s i t y and stem density between the transects 94 Table 5. 3: Summary of ANOVA results using sample plots as pseudoreplicates to compare species richness between the transects at each s i t e 96 Table 5. 4: Summary of ANOVA results using sample plots a pseudoreplicates to.compare species d i v e r s i t y between the transects at each s i t e 99 Table 5. 5: Summary of ANOVA results using sample plots as pseudoreplicates to stem density between the transects at each s i t e 10 Table 5. 6: Morisita's s i m i l a r i t y index for species io: composition between the transects on each s i t e s v i Figures Figure 3. 1: Relation between plant d i v e r s i t y and animal d i v e r s i t y . 37 Figure 4. 1: Nusa Tenggara, Timur Province 50 Figure 4". 2: Mean r a i n f a l l i n Ruteng 51 Figure 4. 3: Forest types on Nusa Tenggara and Proposed Ruteng S t r i c t Nature Reserve 64 Figure 5. 1: Study Sites 85 Figure 5. 2: Sample Design 86 Figure 5. 3: Species Area Curve 91 Figure •5. 4: Mean Species Richness 95 Figure 5. 5: Mean Species Div e r s i t y 98 Figure 5. Mean Stem Densities 101 v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT During my study, I received generous help and invaluable guidance from many individuals and i n s t i t u t i o n s . I cannot name them a l l here, but I sincerely thank a l l of them. Many thanks to the EMDI Phase 3 Project s t a f f i n Lombok,. Jakarta and Halifax, p a r t i c u l a r l y Pauline Lawrence and Valerie Sexton; the Kantor KLH; and the WWF Indonesia Programme in Jakarta, especially Evie Adipati. Thanks are also due to Dr. E. Widjaya; Dr. J. P. Mogea and s t a f f from Lembaga Biologi Nasional, Bogor for helping with plant i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . In Ruteng, I was helped by Father J. A. J. Verheijen and Pak Simom Jemaat. Without the help of Pak Irinus Ros and Fabi Magus, my f i e l d assistants, the f i e l d work would have been almost unmanageable. Pak Stanis and Ansi Tatul helped.with social and c u l t u r a l information. I thank them a l l . In addition, I would l i k e to thank Dr. M. M. J. van Balgooy of the Rijksherbarium, Leiden, Netherlands for helping with plant i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ; Dr. B. Beehler of the Smithsonian Institute; Dr. J. Holloway; and Ibu Moria Moeliono for sharing her reports on the forestry issues i n Manggarai. Many friends i n Canada and the United States gave generous support and help during my study and i n the preparation of this thesis. Thanks are due to Karen Peachey for her e d i t o r i a l help and Kathy Sestrich for.comments on the e a r l i e r drafts. This study would not be possible without generous fin a n c i a l support from EMDI/CIDA. I would to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Kathryn A. Monk, my field, advisor for her tremendous help and care, both during my f i e l d work and i n preparation of this thesis. I am p a r t i c u l a r l y indebted to my research supervisor Dr. Alan Chambers, and committee members Peter Broothroyd, Dr. Geoffrey Hainsworth, and Dr. Tom Sullivan at University of B r i t i s h Columbia, for their help, patience and understanding. v i i i LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ADB Asian Development Bank BAPPENAS National Development Planning Bureau (Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional) BPS Central Bureau of S t a t i s t i c (Biro Pusat S t a t i s t i k ) CIDA Canadian International Development Agency dbh diameter at breast high (1.33 m) EMDI Environmental Management Development i n Indonesia FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GNP Gross National Products GRDP Gross Regional Domestic Products ha hectare IPAS Integrated Protected Areas Systems IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Nature Resources KLH State Ministry of Population and Environment (as A p r i l 1993, renamed State Ministry for Environment) km k i l o meter (= 1.8 miles) KSDA Nature Conservation Office (Konservasi Sumberdaya Alam) MF Ministry of Forestry NTT East Nusa Tenggara (Nusa Tenggara Timur) PHPA Forest Protection and Nature Conservation Office (Perlindungan Hutan dan Pelestarian Alam) RePPProT Regional Physical Planning Programme for Transmigration Rp Rupiah (the Indonesian currency) RSNR Ruteng S t r i c t Nature Reserve UNESCO United Nations Educational, S c i e n t i f i c and Cultural Organization UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme UU Decree (Undang-undang) WB World Bank WCMC World Conservation Monitoring Centre WRI World Resources Institute WWF World Wide Fund for Nature (World W i l d l i f e Fund) i x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION During the l a t t e r half of the twentieth century, a global constituency demanding the creation of Nature Reserves or Protected Areas has grown into an almost i r r e s i s t i b l e p o l i t i c a l force. The result has been the establishment of protected areas' by national and regional governments with the express purpose to preserve and conserve some of the planet's remaining ecosystems that are r e l a t i v e l y unchanged by human a c t i v i t y . Despite a steady increase in the establishment of protected areas world wide, however, problems of habitat loss and degradation continue, even within the protected areas themselves. The ultimate cause of this degradation and loss i s the combined global increase i n human population and the increase i n resource use per capita. The l a t t e r i s amplified by economic growth, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Asian countries where p o l i t i c a l s t a b i l i t y and infusions of capital encourage continued infrastructure and ind u s t r i a l development. On the African continent, where p o l i t i c a l i n s t a b i l i t y has slowed the rate of economic development, population growth alone has made the creation of protected areas d i f f i c u l t . There, degradation and loss of natural habitats occurs even i n those areas that have been designated under protected area systems, as a growing population t r i e s to both feed i t s e l f and participate in the cash economy. 1 Two primary sources or causes of degradation can be i d e n t i f i e d . The f i r s t i s associated with i n d u s t r i a l development, the second with i t s alternative, the subsistence economy. Of these, the l a t t e r i s the most ubiquitous and d i f f i c u l t for national and l o c a l governments to deal with. Faced with the task of reducing or eliminating the exploitation of "protected areas" by l o c a l residents, p o l i c i e s designed to "keep them out" were introduced. Generally, these p o l i c i e s have proven to be in e f f e c t i v e . Subsequently, a number of "new ideas" were proposed, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the context of protected areas management in t r o p i c a l countries. The central'premise of these new p o l i c i e s i s that people must be allowed to participate i n the planning and the management of the' reserve. Furthermore, this p a r t i c i p a t i o n must provide tangible benefits to people, especially to those l i v i n g adjacent to the protected areas. .. Among the. new ideas, the use of buffer zones i s well known. The buffer zone concept which allows certain human a c t i v i t i e s around protected areas was advocated by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, S c i e n t i f i c and Cultural Organization) two decades ago (Shafer 1990). To date, however, p r a c t i c a l methods have not been developed- to help planners and lo c a l communities determine necessary buffer zone widths under varying ecological conditions, 2 nor have s p e c i f i c guidelines been offered to guide the design of management regimes that may be successfully implemented i n a wide variety of socio-economic circumstances, following the determination of buffer zone width (cf. MacKinnon et al. 1990). The central purpose of this dissertation i s to develop and i l l u s t r a t e the use of a method for c o l l e c t i n g biophysical data, which can be used to determine appropriate buffer zone widths for any given t r o p i c a l reserve. Such a determination must also take into consideration the social and economic conditions of the people around the protected areas. The method i s based on the analysis of tree species richness, species diversity, stem density and species composition. The underlying p r i n c i p a l i s that an area i n the periphery of a reserve, despite human a c t i v i t y , s t i l l shows s i m i l a r i t y i n terms of species richness, species diversity, stem density, and species composition to an area near the core of the protected area. This peripheral . area should be legalized as a buffer zone. This method was developed i n the context of the Ruteng S t r i c t Nature Reserve (RSNR), Flores Islands, Indonesia. Throughout this thesis, the terms "protected area", "conservation area" and "reserve" are used interchangeably, and loosely refer to an area or areas designated for preservation 3 and/or conservation purposes. While "preservation" i s a management approach that strongly leans to completely ban any human use of resources within the protected area, "conservation" i s an approach that would allow for sustainable human use of resources within the protected area. Both approaches can be applied simultaneously (for example, i n management of a National Park) or separately (for example, i n management of a S t r i c t Nature Reserve). However, when a s p e c i f i c protected area i s mentioned or discussed, the proper or legal category (Chapter 2) w i l l be used, especially for protected areas i n Indonesia. It must be stressed that there i s a wide gap between the legal status (henceforth, management approach) given to a protected area and the actual management r e a l i t y on the ground. For example, Ruteng protected area i s under the S t r i c t Nature Reserve category, where no human a c t i v i t y i s allowed, but l o c a l people s t i l l extract fuel wood on da i l y basis from within the reserve. I have not conducted an in-depth do s o c i a l and economic analysis i n this thesis, but wish to continually caution others that i n actual application of this method, s o c i a l and economic conditions of the people around the protected area must be analysed. The description of social and economic conditions of people around RSNR, presented i n this thesis, was intended to i l l u s t r a t e what kind of analysis could be done or should be 4 considered. Such an analysis must be included with the biophysical data i n determination of the appropriate buffer zone width. This thesis i s presented i n six chapters. Chapter 1 b r i e f l y describes the objectives of the thesis. Chapter 2 gives background information on protected areas, with a focus on Indonesia, especially to outline some of the threats and problems i n the management of protected areas. Chapter 3 discusses buffer zone development, especially i t s progress and information needs, and establishes biophysical c r i t e r i a for the determination of buffer zone widths. This chapter also b r i e f l y discusses and offers some ideas on how to develop meaningful socio-economic c r i t e r i a for determining buffer zone width. Chapter 4 provides a description of soci a l and economic conditions of the people around Ruteng, the Ruteng S t r i c t Nature Reserve, and i t s management problems. Chapter 5 gives an overview of the method, data c o l l e c t i o n and analyses, and offers some suggestions for buffer zone widths for RSNR. Lastly, Chapter 6 discusses the application of the method i n and around RSNR, and provides some recommendations for refinement of the method i n i t s future applications. 5 CHAPTER 2 : PROTECTED AREAS 2.1. Protected Areas and Associated Management Problems The increasing human population and i t s consequent increasing demand for resources has led to the reduction of natural habitat and the decline of b i o l o g i c a l d i v e r s i t y world wide. Consequently, as b e l i e f i n the i n e x h a u s t i b i l i t y of resources began to f a l t e r , the idea to "set aside" areas of unspoiled land or wilderness emerged. The modern conservation movement started shortly af t e r i t was r e a l i z e d that the "go West young man" philosophy of early European s e t t l e r s , the very philosophy that was used to r a t i o n a l i z e conquering larger tracts of forestland and grassland i n western North America, had d r a s t i c a l l y diminished forests, degraded grassland and increased the extent of waste lands. American n a t u r a l i s t s and s c i e n t i s t s r e a l i z e d that t h e i r c i v i l i z a t i o n was being jeopardized by uncontrolled resource e x p l o i t a t i o n . This inspired them to adopt "set aside" ideas for resource management (Miller 1988). Yellowstone National Park (established i n 1872) i s widely claimed to be the f i r s t national park i n the world 1. However, 1 Although some American historians point out that Hot Spring Reservation in Arkansas was the f i r s t reserve, since i t was established in 1832 (Al l in 1990). 6 land preservation dates back many centuries. . In Europe, for instance, i n 1084 King William I of England made an inventory of land and resources in. his kingdom to provide a basis for rat i o n a l plans for resource management and development. The concept of protected areas can be traced back to the 4 t h century B.C. i n India, and to.about the 3 r d century B.C. i n S r i Lanka (MacKinnon et al. 1990; Singh and Rodgers 1990; C o l l i n s et al. 1991). • Indeed, many tr a d i t i o n s and cultures around the world have practised resource conservation for centuries (McNeely and P i t t 1985; Usher 1987; A l l i n 1990; C o l l i n s et al. 1990; Poffenberger 1990; Western et al. 1994). Early preservation e f f o r t s through the establishment of forest reserves and w i l d l i f e sanctuaries were c l o s e l y linked to the b e l i e f s and r i t u a l practices of the people. Often, reserves were established for the exclusive enjoyment of kings and c o l o n i a l r u l e r s , unlike modern conservation e f f o r t s such as the establishment of Yellowstone National Park. Increased public understanding of the importance of habitat conservation and preservation of b i o l o g i c a l d i v e r s i t y has led governments to designate more land for protected areas. Between 1910 and 1990, a steep r i s e i n the designation of both t e r r e s t r i a l and marine ecosystems as protected areas, brought the t o t a l number of reserves to approximately 8,163 and the t o t a l 7 area protected to approximately 170 m i l l i o n has (WRI et al. 1992). Many of these reserves have not always met the conservation and preservation objectives for which they were . established. This i s not surprising, considering that both the human population and per capita resource use continue to increase. In recent years, conservation e f f o r t s have focused on solving the problem of rapid .destruction of t r o p i c a l r a i n f o r e s t s . These ecosystems account for only 7% of the t o t a l land surface, yet harbour more than 50% of known species (Myers 1988). Due to th e i r high rate of deforestation, the number of species they contain, and the inherent economic and; medical"values they promise, many conservation e f f o r t s have been directed.at saving t r o p i c a l r a i n f o r e s t s . These e f f o r t s have expanded beyond the designation of new reserves tb include management of e x i s t i n g protected areas which have been degraded by hunting, poaching, and logging, even when these a c t i v i t i e s are sanctioned and or licensed by government aut h o r i t i e s . The problem of management of ex i s t i n g protected areas i s hot peculiar to t r o p i c a l regions or less developed countries. Many parks and protected areas i n the USA, for instance, are i n as great danger as the reserves i n t r o p i c a l regions. As the country 8 and i t s c i t i z e n s have prospered, the demand for resource use has increased. In 1972 population and economic pressures were i d e n t i f i e d as the main threats to parks i n the USA (Fisher 1972). Only two decades l a t e r , the l i s t of threats has grown to include a i r p o l l u t i o n , adjacent physical development (roads, dams, and housing), a g r i c u l t u r a l development, f i n a n c i a l constraints, overcrowding, and the invasion of exotic species (Alder, and Glick 1994; Babbitt 1994; M i t c h e l l 1994). Threats to protected areas and parks i n the USA and Canada are s i m i l a r . For example, infra s t r u c t u r e development has engulfed and i s o l a t e d many reserves and parks i n Canada. Yet l i t t l e i s known about the long-term effects of such i s o l a t i o n on animals i n the parks (Eidsvik and Henwood 1990). With the existence of roads into reserves, poaching i s an increasing threat to large mammals inside the parks (Dearden 1991). As i n the USA, the t o u r i s t industry has become a major problem for many parks i n Canada. Although the causes of these problems are apparent, many of them remain unsolved. Other problems, such as a g r i c u l t u r a l and housing development and logging operations near the parks f a l l beyond the park's j u r i s d i c t i o n . Consequently, solutions are even more d i f f i c u l t to i d e n t i f y and enforce. 9 Like the problems i n parks and reserves i n the USA and Canada, A f r i c a also has very s p e c i f i c problems (Lusigi 1982; Burnett 1990; Kayanja 1990). These include p o l i t i c a l i n s t a b i l i t y and a lack of q u a l i f i e d s t a f f , both of which make i t d i f f i c u l t to enforce laws or to design long-term plans for protected area management. Often during p o l i t i c a l c o n f l i c t s , animals within reserves become the p r i n c i p a l food resource of warring parties (Purvis 1995). For l o c a l people, land values and ownership are an important part of t h e i r material and c u l t u r a l existence. Park establishment alienates them from both land and animals. Furthermore, l o c a l population and economic growth, coupled with park establishment, accelerates and exacerbates land s c a r c i t y . Hunting prohibitions within protected areas are an a l i e n concept to many Africans, as i s the a l l o c a t i o n of land for s p e c i f i c purposes such as parks or w i l d l i f e sanctuaries. Although tourism i s becoming an important income resource for several A f r i c a n countries, only a small proportion of the benefits accrue to l o c a l residents. While many people i n the West enjoy the out-door recreation that parks f a c i l i t a t e , recreation i s not part of the A f r i c a n culture, thus, the existence of parks does not necessarily provide s o c i a l benefits for them. Many A f r i c a n countries and protected areas were established across seasonal migration routes of various species, thus 10 preventing animals from migrating during these seasons. This condition forces animals to reside and graze at p a r t i c u l a r areas over the year, which i n turn, leads to over-grazing and s o i l erosion. S o i l erosion and over-grazing w i l l prevent regrowth of new grasses. In the long-run, these problems create shortage of grasses and force animals to feed on a g r i c u l t u r a l land. In addition, because d i f f e r e n t countries adopt d i f f e r e n t conservation measures, animals may well be protected i n one country but not i n the others. .Thus, i f animals enter a neighbouring country, they may be hunted or k i l l e d . In the absence of e f f e c t i v e cooperation i n the development of protected area systems between neighbouring countries, w i l d l i f e conservation i s threatened. Such cooperation must be established with people who l i v e around the park or on migration routes. For instance, neighbouring countries may implement a si m i l a r protection status for animals, or e s t a b l i s h s u f f i c i e n t migration corridors, that w i l l ensure the animal's migration to and from habitats between countries. 2 . 2 . Protected Area Systems i n Indonesia Indonesia i s one of the largest i s l a n d nations i n the world, with more than 13 thousand islands that l i e . between two continents and spread across two biogeographic realms, the Aust r a l i a n and the Oriental. Due to i t s l o c a t i o n and ecology, 11 Indonesia i s i d e n t i f i e d by Myers (1988a) as a megadiversity country. With the t o t a l land area of 1,926 m i l l i o n km2, Indonesia harbours about 10% of the world's plant species; 12% of mammal species; 16% of r e p t i l e and amphibian species: and 17% of the b i r d species (MF/FAO 1991). Despite the loss of t r o p i c a l r a i n f o r e s t world wide, Indonesia s t i l l has the second largest t r a c t of t r o p i c a l r a i n f o r e s t a f t e r B r a z i l (Jacobs 1988; Whitmore 1990). Sayer and Whitmore (1991) estimate that about 11,880,000 km2 of r a i n f o r e s t remains i n Indonesia, covering approximately 56% of the land area. However, the rate of deforestation i s also remarkably high, amounting to 100,000 - 120,000 km2 annually (Sayer and Whitmore 1991). Conservation e f f o r t s have long existed i n Indonesia; formal i n i t i a t i v e s were introduced and enforced by the c o l o n i a l administration. The f i r s t reserve was established i n 1889 on Mount Gede Pangrango and the f i r s t protection ordinance was issued i n 1905 by the Dutch administration (Cribb 1988). However, as i n other places, conservation and protection measures are not a new concept for Indonesians. For centuries, t r a d i t i o n a l communities have employed quite sophisticated approaches to resource u t i l i z a t i o n (Polunin 1985; M i t c h e l l et al. 1990; Zerner 1994). 12 Shortly af t e r the U.N. ^Conference on the Human Environment' i n Stockholm i n 1972, the Indonesian government engaged i n a number of conservation and environmental a c t i v i t i e s . It began with the establishment of a Ministry of State Development Supervision and the Environment i n 1978, which l a t e r became the Mini s t r y of State for Population and the Environment (KLH) i n 1983. This ministry changed again to become the Ministry of Environment (LH) i n A p r i l 1993. With both f i n a n c i a l and technical support from abroad, the government has issued a number of acts and regulations to deal with environmental and conservation issues i n Indonesia. For instance, i n 1982, the government issued decree No. 4, AThe Basic Provision for the Management of the Liv i n g Environment'. In the same period, the government also produced a series of xNational Conservation Plans' for the country (MacKinnon 1982). KLH launched a number of projects designed to improve environmental management capacity through i n s t i t u t i o n a l strengthening and human resource development. For instance, with f i n a n c i a l support from CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) and Dalhousie University, KLH embarked on EMDI (Environmental Management Development i n Indonesia) projects, s t a r t i n g i n 1984. Through these EMDI projects a number of a c t i v i t i e s have been c a r r i e d out, both i n Indonesia and Canada, 13' including the establishment of environmental impact assessment methods and environmental standards for Indonesia and the pub l i c a t i o n of a series of ecology text books. The f i r s t comprehensive protected area system was- designed i n the early 1980s. The Directorate General of Forestry (then, within the Ministry of Agriculture), with technical and f i n a n c i a l assistance from FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), WWF (World W i l d l i f e Fund) and IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Nature Resources), formulated a national conservation plan for Indonesia. The plan, presented i n eight volumes and covering a l l the biogeographic provinces i n Indonesia, reviewed the status of natural conservation and proposed a system of protected areas (MacKinnon 1982). The plans provide a b r i e f description of the proposed protected areas, reasons for t h e i r protection, recommendations of protection status, scoring (includes genetic value,' socio-economic j u s t i f i c a t i o n , management v i a b i l i t y and p r i o r i t y ) , and threats. These volumes provide very basic information that needs to be developed into a more detailed management plan for each .'protected area (MaKinnon 1982). Unfortunately, however, many reserves that have been proposed by the plans remain ungazetted. Some gazetted reserves • 14 e x i s t with no or very minimal management. Nevertheless, the Government of Indonesia has made better progress i n the establishment of protected areas than have other countries i n the A s i a - P a c i f i c region (Braatz 1992), e s p e c i a l l y i f we consider Indonesia's population size, challenging economic situations, b i o l o g i c a l d i v e r s i t y , and the l e v e l of endemism. Other countries i n the A s i a - P a c i f i c region, which are economically more prosperous (in term of GNP per capita) and have smaller populations than Indonesia, only designate a small proportion of t h e i r land as protected areas. In current forestry policy, forest areas are c l a s s i f i e d into the f i v e forest types defined below and further d e t a i l e d i n Table 2.1 (adapted from MF/FAO 1991): • Conservation Forest: for nature and genetic conservation i n which no exploitation i s permitted; • Protection Forest: for water and s o i l conservation i n which no forest e x p l o i t a t i o n i s permitted (note: there are examples, however, where mining e x p l o i t a t i o n take place i n such protection f o r e s t s ) ; • Limited Production Forest: for erosion prevention where timber production by selec t i v e cutting i s permitted; • Permanent Production Forest: for commercial timber production, where both clear and se l e c t i v e cutting are permitted; and • Conversion Forest: allocated for agriculture or other uses, clear cutting i s permitted. 15 Table 2.1: Indonesian Forest C l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Forest types Total Area Percentage (km2) (of forest land) Permanent forest Protection forest 303,160 16 Conservation f o r e s t 2 175,213 9 Production forests Permanent 338,660 18 Limited 305,250 16 Other forest land Conversion forest 305,370 16 Conversed forest 491,010 26 Source: C o l l i n s et al. (1991). Indonesia applies two major conservation approaches: in situ and ex situ. The in situ approach designates marine and t e r r e s t r i a l ecosystems to be protected under the current protected area management regimes, while the ex s i t u approach encourages conservation of f l o r a and fauna species outside t h e i r natural habitats though the establishment of botanical gardens, zoos and gene banks. Currently, protected areas have been managed through three main reserve categories (adapted from MF/FAO 1991): • Nature Reserve: small to large-sized areas (5,000 - 130,000 ha), usually undisturbed, having high conservation values (species d i v e r s i t y and endemism, rareness, ecosystem representative, and naturalness). Designated to "preserve" and maintain ecological processes within the reserve (IUCN Category I 3) ; 2 PHPA (1994) gives higher figure for the conservation forest. 3 See McNeely and Mi l l er (1984) for the IUCN Reserve Category. IUCN (1994) provides the newest IUCN Reserve category. 16 • W i l d l i f e Sanctuary: medium-sized areas (20,000 - 160,000 ha) with rather s p e c i f i c conservation goals, i.e.., to protect c e r t a i n taxa/animal groups (IUCN Category IV); and • National Park: medium to large-sized undisturbed areas (50,000 - 130,000 ha), with outstanding natural values, high p o t e n t i a l for recreation, and easy access to v i s i t o r s . A national park w i l l be managed through varied zoning systems(IUCN Category I I ) . Another c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of forests that i s often perceived as a "protected area" system i s for recreation and the protection of water catchment areas. These forest management designations are: • Hunting Park: medium to large-sized natural or semi-natural areas managed for recreational purposes,, e s p e c i a l l y for hunting; • Protection Forest: medium to large-sized areas, covering either natural or man-made forests. The main objectives are: to protect water-catchment areas and to prevent land s l i d e s and s o i l erosion; • Recreation Forest: small-sized natural areas of high recreational value. Primarily for recreational purposes; and, • Grand Forest Park: medium to large-sized areas " s i m i l a r " to a botanical garden, but management i s focused more toward recreational uses. As of June 1994, Indonesia had designated about 16 m i l l i o n has of t e r r e s t r i a l ecosystems as protected areas or 8.3% of the t o t a l land surface (Table 2.2). Another 2.7 m i l l i o n has of t e r r e s t r i a l ecosystems w i l l be added to the e x i s t i n g protected areas by 1998/99 (MF/FAO 1991; BAPPENAS 1993). Also, about 2.2 17 m i l l i o n has of marine ecosystems have been designated as marine reserves (PHPA 1994), which w i l l be expanded to 20 m i l l i o n has by the year 2000 (BAPPENAS 1993). Table 2.2: Current Gazetted Protected Areas 4 (June 1994). Protection regimes Numbers Total Area (ha) T e r r e s t r i a l Ecosystem S t r i c t Nature Reserve 164 6,111,272 W i l d l i f e Sanctuary 47 3,635,121 National Park 26 5,609,437 Recreation Forest 76 272,4 57 Grand Forest Park 7 213,307 Hunting Park 14 235,198 Marine Ecosystem S t r i c t Nature Reserve 8 253,780 W i l d l i f e Sanctuary 4 66,120 National Park 5 2,292,955 Recreation Reserve 12 151,569 TOTAL 363 18,841,218 Source: PHPA (1994). For ex situ conservation, the Government and.some private i n s t i t u t i o n s have set up several botanical gardens, arboreta and z o o s H o w e v e r , only a few of these f a c i l i t i e s were established to meet conservation purposes, such as the Bogor Botanical. 4 It should be noted that several government institutions give s l ight ly different figures for protected areas, as well as for their size, protection regime, and status for each protected area. 18 Garden. Other f a c i l i t i e s were created to meet c e r t a i n demands, mainly for recreational purposes, and to lesser degrees for agriculture and for medical research and development. Various attempts have been made to estab l i s h farms and propagation f a c i l i t i e s for cert a i n commercially important plant and animal species,, but t h e i r contribution to species conservation remains unclear. The Government also has passed a number of decrees to protect plants and animals. Currently, there are about 30 r e p t i l e s , 379 birds and 95 mammals which are protected by various acts (PHPA 1994). 2.3. Problems i n Protected Area Management i n Indonesia Economic and health-care improvement, coupled with p o l i t i c a l s t a b i l i t y , has led to steady growth i n Indonesia's population. Consequently, both the Government and the people make more demands on a wide range of resources. The fact that Indonesia s t i l l depends c r i t i c a l l y ' on the extraction of. natural resources to support i t s economic and physical development indicates that such demands w i l l d i r e c t l y a f f e c t natural habitats and t h e i r conservation. Despite the fact that the Government has set aside about 9% of the t o t a l land as conservation areas (MF/FAO 1991), habitat degradation and loss continue to accelerate even within protected areas, due to lack of actual management and.law. enforcement. In Indonesia, common causes of habitat loss and degradation are conversion to a g r i c u l t u r a l f i e l d s (plantations), transmigration, i r r i g a t i o n projects, logging, s h i f t i n g c u l t i v a t i o n , and f o r e s t - f i r e s . Most of these a c t i v i t i e s are attrib u t a b l e to economic pressures to meet the needs of a growing population. In places where proposed or ex i s t i n g protected areas are present, majority of the people s t i l l depend on the d a i l y use of the natural resources. In numerous cases, people who l i v e adjacent to protected areas s t i l l use the resources within the reserves to meet t h e i r d a i l y subsistence needs. Many protected areas have been planned without the knowledge of l o c a l residents, or i n s u f f i c i e n t e f f o r t has been made to inform them during the planning, implementation, or management phases. Boundaries of reserves often cut through people's t r a d i t i o n a l gardens or hunting grounds. This si t u a t i o n , coupled with inadequate government funding for conservation, lack of s k i l l e d conservation s t a f f , complicated land tenure systems, and complex land uses, has created a number of d i f f i c u l t problems. The major problems that must be addressed include i l l e g a l logging, hunting and w i l d l i f e trade, resettlement, and cash crop plantations inside protected areas (MacKinnon et al. 1982; 20 Sumardja et al. 1982; Petocz 1991; MF/FAO 1991). Many ex i s t i n g and proposed t e r r e s t r i a l and marine reserves remain without proper boundary demarcation, exi s t without a d e t a i l e d management plan, or are under-staffed. This has led to the degradation of about 22% of the natural habitats designated as the conservation forests (Ramli and Ahmad 1993). More s p e c i f i c a l l y , these conditions threaten the nation's r i c h biota (Table 2.3) and w i l l r e s u l t i n a dramatic reduction i n ecological d i v e r s i t y and balance. Table 2.3: Threatened Selected Taxa i n Indonesia 5. Taxa Total Threatened Reptile 511 21 B i r d 1, 534 122 Mammal 515 . 77 Sources: MF/FAO (1991), KLH (1992), and Groqmbridge (1993). 2.4. New Approaches To Protected Area Management Faced with the above obstacles and problems i n the management of protected areas, many new approaches have been proposed by conservationists. To some extent, these approaches have been implemented i n t r o p i c a l regions. These approaches include s o c i a l forestry, integrated protected area systems (IPAS), extractive reserves, and the use of buffer zones 5 WGMC (1994) gives detai l reference about species survivorship status. 21 ( O l d f i e l d 1988; Fearnside 1989; Sayer 1991; MacKinnon et al. 1990; Wells et al. 1992; Salafsky et al. 1993). The common philosophy behind most of these new approaches involves 1) the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the l o c a l residents i n the planning and management of protected areas; 2) the notion that park and protected area development must be linked with the economic and s o c i a l development of l o c a l people; 3) the idea that economic benefits generated from park management, such as tourism, must go to the people who l i v e i n the v i c i n i t y ; and 4) the r a t i o n a l use of resources within protected areas. These approaches are i n many ways contrary to the old conservation philosophy that leans toward complete habitat preservation and protection, excluding people, e s p e c i a l l y those l i v i n g adjacent to reserves. c Thematic c r i t e r i a f i r s t outlined by the IUCN (1980) c l e a r l y assert that people must be involved i n the planning subsequent the implementation of protected area management. This notion i s supported by the B a l i Declaration (McNeely and M i l l e r 1984, p.xi) which seeks to: "recognize the economic, c u l t u r a l , and p o l i t i c a l contexts of protected areas; increase l o c a l support for protected areas through such measures as... revenue sharing, p a r t i c i p a t i o n 22 i n decisions, complementary development schemes adjacent to the protected area..." Both the World Conservation Strategy and the B a l i Declaration are supported by the Global B i o d i v e r s i t y Strategy. Because m i l l i o n s of r u r a l people i n many b i o l o g i c a l l y - r i c h countries i n t r o p i c a l regions are economically poor, the declaration of a protected area may mean that these people must lose t h e i r access to natural resources either p a r t i a l l y or completely. Thus, the Global B i o d i v e r s i t y Strategy c a l l s for "creating conditions and incentives for e f f e c t i v e conservation by l o c a l communities". In Indonesia, the need for p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the l o c a l people i n the conservation of natural habitat i s c l e a r l y established i n the Conservation Act (Chap. IX art. 37). This Act . s p e c i f i c a l l y grants people the right to p a r t i c i p a t e i n conservation. In addition, Indonesia's Sixth Five Year Development Plan (1994/95-1998/99) argues i n favour of the need for such p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the whole spectrum of forest management, ranging from forest u t i l i z a t i o n , protection and conservation, to restoration (Anon 1994). This acknowledgement i s long overdue. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , many r u r a l communities have been involved i n conservation practices and resource management (Polunin 1985; M i t c h e l l et al. 23 1990; Zerner 1994), but t h i s right has often been eroded by inappropriate management practices. Letting people p a r t i c i p a t e i n protected area management also provides them with employment alternatives to replace hunting or a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s which may be l i m i t e d following the establishment of a protected area. These approaches are now well ingrained i n many conservation projects world wide and are perceived as promising solutions to the problems of protected areas management. In turn, these new approaches are very appealing to many donor agencies (ADB 1992; Wells et al. 1992; Anon 1995). Despite t h e i r popularity, however, there i s very l i t t l e , experience or documentation to either support or challenge the approaches. Therefore, i t i s necessary to examine these approaches further. This study i s focused on one of the approaches: the use of buffer zones around protected areas. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the major objective of t h i s study i s to develop, apply and evaluate a method which park managers, together with l o c a l residents, can use to obtain the necessary biophysical data to determine appropriate buffer zone width for any given reserve. 24 CHAPTER 3: BUFFER ZONE DEVELOPMENT 3.1. The Buffer Zone Concept Buffer zones have gained much support from park planners, conservationists and governments around the world. The buffer zone concept has achieved p a r t i c u l a r prominence since 1974 when i t was advocated by UNESCO through i t s Man and Biosphere (MAB) Program (Shafer 1990). The concept, however, was used i n reserve management as early as 1935 for U.S. National Parks (see Shafer 1990), i n the 1950s around the Nsefu Game Reserve i n Zambia, and i n the Corbertt National Park i n northern India (Sayer 1991). Since then, buffer zones have become an important part of planning and management of protected areas, e s p e c i a l l y i n t r o p i c a l regions and less developed countries (Sayer 1991; Wells et a l . 1992). This noble concept, though i t s success or f a i l u r e has rarely been tested i n the f i e l d , did inspi r e the Indonesian government to l e g a l i z e the buffer zone concept i n the Ecosystems Conservation Act (UU No.5, 1990) (Anon 1990). However, although the Act l e g a l i z e d the buffer zone approach i n the management of protected areas, no s p e c i f i c guidelines are offered. In some ways, t h i s i s unfortunate for reserve management (protection) because the Act may act u a l l y " j u s t i f y " and " l e g a l i z e " resource e x p l o i t a t i o n i n protected areas by allowing people to continue to 25 u t i l i z e resources within the buffer zones (and protected area) without any guidelines. Buffer zones have been defined i n many d i f f e r e n t ways. MacKinnon et al. (1990) define them as "areas adjacent to protected areas, with l i m i t e d land use and [that] give an additional protection layer to the protected areas". Sayer (1991) defines a buffer zone as "a zone, peripheral to a national park or equivalent reserve, where r e s t r i c t i o n s are placed upon resource use or special development measures are undertaken to enhance the conservation value of the area". In Indonesia, two main d e f i n i t i o n s of buffer zones have been widely used. Wind (1991), who has worked extensively i n planning and managing protected areas i n the country, o f f e r s the following d e f i n i t i o n : "[a] buffer zone area i s made between the natural areas/conservation areas and c u l t i v a t e d areas/settlements' to protect the conservation area against negative influences from outside, and also to protect c u l t i v a t e d areas/settlements with t h e i r resources against negative influences o r i g i n a t i n g from the conservation area". Another d e f i n i t i o n based on the Ecosystem Conservation Act defines the buffer zone as: "areas outside nature reserves i n the form of forest land, state lands, u n t i t l e d lands, or lands whose rights have been assigned, which are needed 26 and able to support/safeguard the i n t e g r i t y of the reserve"(Anon 1990). Clearly, .the main properties of buffer zones are that they act to protect both reserves and c u l t i v a t e d land, they regulate resource use, and they are located outside the reserve. None of the d e f i n i t i o n s mention whether or not "a buffer can be f e a s i b l y established inside a reserve, for instance, . i n cases where settlement (enclaves) occur inside the reserve. Despite the fact that the buffer zone concept has been accepted as a t a c t i c for protected area management world wide, and has been addressed i n the.growing number of socio-economic based studies on the subject, seldom have ecologically-based studies been conducted by conservationists. A study by Salafsky (1993) on the mammalian use of a buffer zone near Gunung Palung National Park, West Kalimantan, indicated that a "buffer zone" f a i l e d to protect l o c a l people's crops from animals within the park. Certainly, more studies on the subject are required to determine i n what ways various kinds of buffer zone' do or do not safeguard the protected areas themselves as well as gardens from animals within reserves, a claim widely made by buffer zone proponents (Oldfield 1988; Wind 1990; MacKinnon e t a l . 1990; Sayer 1991). Furthermore, studies are needed to develop methods 27 or procedures for determining buffer zone widths (see for example Dearden 1991; Prins and Wind 1993; Given 1994). 3.2. The Buffer Zone: Progress and Gaps Many ex i s t i n g documents on buffer zone management o f f e r a range of insights into the concept and report on i t s application i n d i f f e r e n t countries. O l d f i e l d (1988), Sayer (1991) and Wells et al. (1992) provide examples from around the world where a v a r i e t y of "buffer zone" management practices occur, but there i s no evaluation of the effectiveness i n safeguarding protected areas. In Indonesia, buffer zones have been established around a number of reserves (Mitchell et al. 1990; WWF and Kanwil Kehutanan 1990; Wind 1990, 1991). It i s important to note that the term buffer zone has been used i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y by many conservationists when they discuss reserve management. Therefore, use of the term i n government proposals does not necessarily imply the implementation of the buffer zone approach as i t has been defined by MacKinnon et al. (1990), Sayer (1991), and Wind (1991). In spite of i t s popularity i n reserve management p o l i c y and conservation programs, the buffer zone concept s t i l l lacks p r a c t i c a l guidelines as to how buffer zone width should.be determined, how i t should be implemented, and what constitutes i t s success. Many ex i s t i n g documents pn the buffer zone, for 28 instance, f a i l to provide examples of the e f f e c t of the a p p l i c a t i o n of the buffer zone approach on t h e i r current protect area management strategy, e s p e c i a l l y to safeguard protected area. While i t may be u n r e a l i s t i c to ask for these r e s u l t s , which may require some time to become apparent, we should remember that the concept was adopted into reserve management decades ago. We must also remember that time i s not on our side i n habitat conservation or b i o d i v e r s i t y preservation. Therefore, the need to be rigorous and demanding i s e s s e n t i a l . Furthermore, we.must be cautious about the p o t e n t i a l impacts of allowable human a c t i v i t i e s i n the buffer zone on the reserve and i t s biota, as well as the p o t e n t i a l impact of the buffer zone on people's gardens and the resource extraction a c t i v i t i e s . 3.3. Buffer Width: A Range of Suggestions In regard to how wide a buffer zone should be, Wind (1990) recommends that e f f e c t i v e buffers, i n the form of natural forests, should be more than 2.5 km i n width, while MacKinnon et al. (1990) suggest that hunting should be banned 1 to 2 km from reserve boundaries. Craven and de Fretes (1987) propose a 1-km wide buffer between reserves and cash crop plantations i n the Arfak Mountains Nature Reserve, Irian Jaya, Indonesia. Janzen (1983, 1986), i n his study of the Santa Rosa National Park (northwestern Costa Rica), suggests that anthropogenic successional habitats within 5 km of a park w i l l l i k e l y influence 29 habitats i n the park. O l d f i e l d (1988) proposes a 2-km buffer for the Lake Manyara National Park i n Tanzania. Hadisepoetro (1991), Indonesia's Director of National Parks and Recreation Forests, points out that current forest p o l i c y requires that a 500-m buffer be established between a forest concession (logging) and a park boundary, or a 1 km zone i f the reserve boundary has not yet been marked. In the l a s t Buffer Zone Symposium i n Jakarta (February 1991), Wind (1991) suggests buffer zone widths ranging from 500 m to 6 km depending on adjacent land uses (Table 3.1). It i s important to note that many of these suggestions are based on i n t u i t i o n . There i s a serious lack of empirical evidence supporting these suggestions. I n t u i t i v e l y , wider buffer zones would be the best strategy. Such an approach would help f i l t e r negative impacts of human settlements around the reserves by putting additional natural or semi-natural areas into the reserve. However, wider buffer zones w i l l require more e f f o r t to be managed, and may r a i s e unnecessary c o n f l i c t s with other land uses. A wide buffer can be declared i n areas where population densities, land pressure and demands on resource u t i l i z a t i o n are low. In areas where a v a i l a b i l i t y of arable land for a g r i c u l t u r a l expansion i s l i m i t e d and demand for resource use i s high e f f o r t s should be made to determine an appropriate buffer width that w i l l meet the conservation 30 objectives of the reserve while s a t i s f y i n g the needs of the people l i v i n g i n the v i c i n i t y of the reserve. Table 3.1: Suggested buffer zone widths. Suggested width Remarks Reference > 5 km park within 5 km or more w i l l be affected by antrophogenic successional habitats Janzen 1983, 1986. 1 km between reserve and cash crop plantations Craven & de Fretes 1987. 2 km buffer extension O l d f i e l d 1988. > 2 . 5 km buffer should be i n the form of natural forest Wind 1990. 1 to 2 km no hunting should be permitted MacKinnon et al. 1990. 0.5 km between logging area and reserve Hadisepoetro 1991. 1 km between logging area and unmarked reserve Hadisepoetro 1991. 0.5 to 6 km depends on the land use types Wind 1991. 3.4. Need f o r A New Approach to Determining Buffer Zone Width Despite the fact that buffer zones are widely used i n protected areas management, s i t e - s p e c i f i c and. d e t a i l e d ecological and socio-economic data are not commonly used to determine appropriate widths of buffer zones, nor are they generally used to prescribe management practices to be applied within them. 31 Considering current rates o f . f o r e s t degradation and conversion, what i s needed i s an approach that i d e n t i f i e s s i t e s p e c i f i c data upon which to e s t a b l i s h appropriate buffer widths. Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t to t h i s thesis i s the need for a method that can be applied quickly and inexpensively to gather the necessary biophysical data, yet one that provides r e l i a b l e information. The method should also be both simple and e a s i l y taught. In addition, data gathered must be easy to analyze using either a hand-calculator or any spreadsheet .program. Such an approach would not only provide biophysical data for the determination of l e g a l i z e d buffer widths, but also, due to i t s s i m p l i c i t y and low cost, would provide greater opportunities for l o c a l residents to p a r t i c i p a t e and to understand what are the purposes and c r i t e r i a of buffer zone management.and regulation. Given current problems i n the management of protected areas, e s p e c i a l l y those related to the cost of enforcement, the p r e s c r i p t i o n of buffer zones must c a r e f u l l y consider the s o c i a l , economic and c u l t u r a l circumstances of the people l i v i n g i n the v i c i n i t y of the protected area. It i s widely recognized by many conservationists and reserve managers that the p o l i c i n g required to enforce a "keep them out" p o l i c y i n reserve management i s l i k e l y to be both expensive and i n e f f e c t i v e . In contrast, reserve management that recognizes the needs of l o c a l residents and provides for t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s l i k e l y to be more 32 e f f e c t i v e and can usually be achieved at much lower operational cost (Lewis et al. 1990). 3.5. C r i t e r i a f o r an E f f e c t i v e Buffer Zone Width 3.5.1. Biophysical c r i t e r i a Studies that involve data c o l l e c t i o n i n the f i e l d must deal with a number of constraints: Although empirical data are expected to meet the requirements of rigorous s t a t i s t i c a l analyses, f i e l d ecdlogists must deal with constraints of time and l o g i s t i c s as well as the complexity of natural ecosystems. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y so i n t r o p i c a l regions where i t i s e f f e c t i v e l y impossible to measure a l l properties of these diverse and complex ecosystems. Whitmore (1990:32), for example, suggests that complete enumeration of just the vegetation on a one hectare plot of evergreen rai n f o r e s t i n Horquetas (Costa Rica) requires 10 person-years. Because many t r o p i c a l species e x i s t i n very low densities, large areas must be sampled to obtain s u f f i c i e n t data to e s t a b l i s h any measure of s t a t i s t i c a l confidence (Greig-Smith et al. 1967). What i s required, then, i s to i d e n t i f y a set of indicators that r e f l e c t s the condition of the natural system. Two such indicators have been suggested i n the l i t e r a t u r e . The f i r s t , the presence or absence of s o i l nutrients, has been used to determine whether or not ecosystems remain " i n t a c t " , and whether or not habitats recover . (Harcombe 1977; Uhl and Jordan ' • 3 3 1983). Because nutrient cycles i n t r o p i c a l regions are completely dependent on vegetation (Uhl and Jordan 1983; Whitmore 1984; Jordan 1985), sampling must take place over a very long period of time to obtain sets of representative data. The second indicator suggested i n the l i t e r a t u r e , b i o l o g i c a l d i v e r s i t y , i s by far the most commonly used and widely accepted. B i o l o g i c a l d i v e r s i t y or b i o d i v e r s i t y refers to the v a r i e t y of plant and animal species that'exist within or between ecosystems, and genetic v a r i a t i o n the v a r i e t y that exists within a single species. B i o d i v e r s i t y i s further c l a s s i f i e d as follows: 1. alpha-diversity ( d i v e r s i t y within habitats) - often represented by a l i s t of species present i n any given habitat; 2. beta d i v e r s i t y (diversity between habitats or a comparison of the alpha d i v e r s i t y of d i f f e r e n t habitats; and 3. gamma d i v e r s i t y - d i v e r s i t y over landscapes or d i f f e r e n t geographic regions (Shmida and Wilson 1985). Of the three, alpha d i v e r s i t y or species richness, which uses i n d i v i d u a l species or biomass as the measurement unit, i s the easiest to measure. Further, b i o d i v e r s i t y has two components: species richness, or simply the number of species present, and species evenness or the r e l a t i v e abundance of species present i n the habitat. B i o d i v e r s i t y can be represented i n three ways: d i v e r s i t y index, species abundance model, and a combination of species richness and abundance- (Magurran 1988). 34 Species richness or alpha d i v e r s i t y i s the most frequently used and widely accepted (Krebs 1989). Studies of habitat change r e s u l t i n g from natural and human disturbances use species richness, d i v e r s i t y , and composition to determine the degree of disturbance and rate of recovery of a va r i e t y of ecosystems (Johns 1985, 1992; Holloway et al. 1992; King and Chapman 1983; Th i o l l a y 1992, 1995). These measures are also used i n studies of forest (ecosystem) dynamics (Foster 1980; Denslow 1980, 1984; Whitmore 1984a; Primarck and Ha l l 1992). However, the l o g i s t i c a l dilemma remains: i t i s d i f f i c u l t to inventory the enormous number of species present i n t r o p i c a l ecosystems with any measure of s t a t i s t i c a l confidence. This d i f f i c u l t y , combined with the sense of urgency r e s u l t i n g from the current rate of habitat destruction (for example, Myers 1988; Sayer and Whitmore 1991), has inspired ecologists to focus on cer t a i n well-known taxonomic groups. Plant taxa (together with b u t t e r f l i e s , r e p t i l e s , birds and mammals) have been used at a broad conservation strategy (policy) l e v e l . The "Hotspots" and the "Megadiversity" country concepts, for instance, use plant taxa as an indicator to i d e n t i f y global hotspots and megadiversity countries (Myers 1988a; Dinerstein and Wikramanayake 1992). 35 Because of the enormous data requirements of b i o d i v e r s i t y studies at the species l e v e l , other ecologists have also proposed the use of higher taxa (Williams and Gaston 1994) or g u i l d -indicators (Severinghaus 1981; Verner 1984). These suggestions have r a r e l y been followed, probably because i t i s d i f f i c u l t to associate the d i v e r s i t y of a l l taxa with that of one or even a small group. Many studies have shown, however, that tree species d i v e r s i t y i s well-correlated with the d i v e r s i t y of other taxa (Fig. 3.1)(MacArthur and MacArthur 1961, Murdoch et al. 1972, Currie 1991). Considering the st r u c t u r a l , hydrological and cli m a t o l o g i c a l functions that single trees, l e t alone entire forests make to the ecosystems which they inhabit, and most importantly t h e i r function as a primary producer, th i s conclusion i s hardly surprising. It i s supported by adding to these considerations, the important role that trees play i n nutrient c y c l i n g i n t r o p i c a l forest ecosystems. Prominent i n the l i t e r a t u r e addressing c r i t e r i a that functional buffer zones should meet i s the contribution of Sayer (1991). He suggests that good buffer zones should: 1. maintain tree cover and habitats i n a natural, or near natural state; 2. resemble i n i t s vegetation that of the protected area, both i n species composition and physiognomy; 3. exhibit s i m i l a r b i o l o g i c a l d i v e r s i t y when compared with the protected area; and 4. retain, as far as possible, t h e i r capacity to recycle s o i l nutrients. 36 Figure 3.1: Relation between plant d i v e r s i t y and animal d i v e r s i t y (from Murdoch et al. 1972). 200 150 100 50 <b#> o 0 ° of °' ° ° n ° AVES MAMMALIA 60 40 a °B ^ AMPHIBIA 100 150 80 60 40 20 0 a D O ° o 1 REPTILIA 50 100 150 \ TREE-SPECIES RICHNESS 37 These c r i t e r i a c a l l for a set of data that would require years to c o l l e c t (Greig-Smith et al. 1967; Whitmore 1990). They are, therefore, impractical i f we are to accept, even i n part, the urgency of the s i t u a t i o n described by Myers (1980, 1988), Wilson (1988) and many others. Is i t possible, under these circumstances, to i d e n t i f y c r i t e r i a that, although less precise, o f f e r a degree of approximation that l i e s between those of the "educated guess" approach described i n above (sec. 3.3.), and Sayer's desired, but v i r t u a l l y unattainable precision? If, for example, the d i v e r s i t y and physiognomy of tree species within buffer zones i s maintained i n a state that can be considered to be " s i m i l a r " to the d i v e r s i t y and physiognomy of tree species within the protected area, i t may be reasonable to conclude that the capacity of the ecosystems to recycle s o i l nutrients w i l l be maintained, and that these ecosystems are l i k e l y to regain t h e i r natural or near natural b i o d i v e r s i t y . Many studies i n t r o p i c a l regions indicate that natural disturbances a c t u a l l y provide mechanisms by which a forest maintains i t s species d i v e r s i t y (Foster 1980; Denslow 1980, 1984; Whitmore 1984a; Hartshorn 1989; Primarck and H a l l 1992). Studies of s e l e c t i v e l y logged forests show that, given s u f f i c i e n t time, forests w i l l recover t h e i r d i v e r s i t y and structure (King and Chapman 1983). There i s no agreement on whether or not other taxa, such as birds and mammals, regain t h e i r o r i g i n a l d i v e r s i t y 38 and species composition after s e l e c t i v e logging. Nonetheless, studies by Johns (1985, 1992) indicate that :some b i r d and primate species were able given s u f f i c i e n t time, to f u l l y recover a viable l e v e l of d i v e r s i t y (see also T h i o l l a y 1992 and Holloway et al. 1992). Based upon a l l of the above, i t seems clear that, i n the context of forested ecosystems, the key biophysical c r i t e r i a for a functional buffer zones, should be associated with the physiognomy and tree species richness of the forest. Thus, what i s needed are measures of tree species richness, forest physiognomy, or stand density at a v a r i e t y of diameters, and an analysis of the changes that occur from centre to the periphery of the reserve. 3.5.2. Socio-economic c r i t e r i a Since protected areas are established to protect natural habitats within them, buffer zone widths and subsequent management prescriptions should be determined'to meet t h i s objective. However, i n l i g h t of the operational,, socio-economic and p o l i t i c a l problems involved i n the management of protected areas, buffer zone widths that are s o l e l y based oh biophysical c r i t e r i a are u n l i k e l y to be successfully enforced. .This consideration, plus the fact that the objectives of buffer zones are not only to safeguard protected areas but also to protect the 39' l i v e l i h o o d and/or safety (from animals) of people l i v i n g around the park, thus means that a good buffer zone should meet not only biophysical c r i t e r i a but also a set of s p e c i f i c administrative, p o l i t i c a l , and socio-economic c r i t e r i a . I should make i t clear that my study i s not designed to examine the socio-economic c r i t e r i a . My purpose i s to show that the l i t e r a t u r e acknowledges these equally as important as biophysical c r i t e r i a . Therefore, the method I suggest needs to incorporate a planning and management approach that pays attention to, respects, and also d i r e c t l y involves l o c a l people. The application of socio-economic c r i t e r i a implies a d i f f e r e n t approach to one that simply addresses biophysical c r i t e r i a . It implies that l o c a l people w i l l have to be involved, both i n developing the appropriate c r i t e r i a , and . i n applying them as part of a co-management arrangement. Only i n exceptional circumstances have, protected areas been established i n unoccupied or uninhabited areas of the world. Most frequently, t h e i r establishment displaces both subsistence and market a c t i v i t i e s pf l o c a l residents that otherwise would occur within the area receiving protected status. The economic well-being of these people, therefore, i s often severely compromised. Not surpr i s i n g l y , the t y p i c a l response of l o c a l people i s to ignore the new designation and continue t h e i r 40 l i v e l i h o o d practices as before. In such cases t h i s reaction leads to an increasing rate of e x p l o i t a t i o n of resources within the newly designated area. In other situations, where a new protected status regulation i s s t r i n g e n t l y enforced, the re s u l t of the new buffer zone designation i s to impoverish l o c a l people (Ghimire 1991; Gadgil 1992; Colchester 1994). The suggestion that d i r e c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n of l o c a l people can be a s u f f i c i e n t solution or safeguard may be true i f we consider only the d i r e c t and immediate benefits, or d i r e c t use values. Other benefits, however, such as options for future use and services that a protected area can provide, have been usually over-looked (see Munasinghe 1992 and Wells 1992). Protected areas are often characterized and defended as long-term s o c i a l investments. With the increasing i n t e r e s t and involvement of international donors and conservation organisations i n providing technical and f i n a n c i a l assistance to encourage t r o p i c a l countries to e s t a b l i s h protected areas (and subsequently, buffer zones), many new jobs and f a c i l i t i e s have been created (Wells et al. 1992; Anon 1995). Unfortunately, however, these d i r e c t benefits most often occur at the in t e r n a t i o n a l , national and regional le v e l s not at the immediate l o c a l l e v e l (Schaik et al. 1992; Wells 1992).' Creation of protected areas thus frequently deprives l o c a l residents of access to use values within the reserve without providing 41 compensatory benefits. Such a r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs and benefits appears to be inequitable and unjust. While t h i s conclusion i s often drawn by both l o c a l residents and t h e i r governments6, i t i s es p e c i a l l y true for l o c a l residents who often have no alternative for either subsistence or market a c t i v i t i e s following the establishment of a protected area. Attempting to counter such negative assessments, and to demonstrate that protected areas also benefit l o c a l people, a number of studies have been undertaken to document such impacts and longer-term e f f e c t s . The evidence gathered by some of these studies suggests that, although l o c a l residents may lose t h e i r " d i r e c t use value" when a protected area i s established, over time they often a c t u a l l y do receive some s o c i a l and i n d i r e c t economic benefits, although these benefits have not generally been compared, quantitatively, with benefits l o s t (Munasinghe 1992; Wells 1992). Others suggest that the c o l l e c t i o n of non-timber forest products and li m i t e d timber extraction by l o c a l people — a c t i v i t i e s that can be permitted i n buffer zones— can act u a l l y provide s o c i a l and economic gains that are comparable to income from logging or agriculture, and that these can be more "sustainable" (Fearnside 1989; Peters et al. 1989; Costello 1990; Balick and Mendelsohn 1992). 6 Studies indicate that while the economic and social benefits are (see Munasinghe 1992) incurred within local , national/regional, and international communities, the costs must be borne by local and national communities (Schaik et al. 1992; Wells 1992). 42 In spite of such evidence, however, habitat destruction within protected areas continues, and i s often the r e s u l t of a c t i v i t i e s of l o c a l people. In t h e i r search for solutions, conservationists argue convincingly that many of these problems can be overcome by involving l o c a l residents i n the planning and management of protected areas, and by providing them with d i r e c t s o c i a l and economic benefits from these a c t i v i t i e s , (Lusigi 1982; Lewis et al. 1990; Wells et al. 1992; Wells 1994). Numerous s o c i a l and economic studies of the relationships between parks and people i n t r o p i c a l countries suggest that the loss of access to resources within the protected areas i s the p r i n c i p a l concern of l o c a l people. In situations where t h i s access i s maintained, people show a p o s i t i v e attitude toward protected areas (Newmark et al. 1993; Mkanda and Munthali 1994-) , even when t h e i r crops are damaged by w i l d l i f e from protected areas (Studsrod and Wegge 1995). Crop damage by w i l d l i f e from protected areas i s also a major concern of many people l i v i n g adjacent to protected areas (Sharma 1990; Salafsky 1993; Newmark et aJ. 1994). A f t e r the loss of access to values they once harvested from newly protected areas, l o c a l people surveyed consistently rate the concern for preservation of w i l d l i f e as t h e i r second most serious concern. 43 While these studies generally found that despite such concerns, a majority of l o c a l residents do support the existence of protected areas. However, they do not always show sim i l a r attitudes toward park employees. This may be due to the past " p o l i c i n g " practices i n the management of protected areas. Nevertheless, Newmark et al. (1993) found that a v i s i t from a well informed and " c u l t u r a l l y s e n s i t i v e " protected area employee can a c t u a l l y improve l o c a l peoples' attitude toward a protected area's employees. It i s important to note here that, despite various socio-economic hardships, l o c a l people interviewed during the above studies often do attach more importance to the non-use value of a protected area than to the option of converting i t to a g r i c u l t u r a l or other uses. Thus, i n assessing benefits of protected areas and buffer zones, "economic returns" should not be overemphasized. Many s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l factors can also play e s s e n t i a l roles i n the support for and safeguarding of protected areas. The use of socio-economic indicators to assess the s o c i a l and economic health of a given population of people i s apparent i n an ever-growing l i t e r a t u r e (Khan 198 6; Unesco 1986). Many government i n s t i t u t i o n s and international organizations regularly publish data or express concern over the l e v e l or magnitude of 44 such i n d i c a t o r s . Economic journals and mass media report them monthly or even d a i l y . Among the most commonly used and widely accepted socio-economic indicators are GNP (Gross National Product) per capita, GRDP (Gross Regional Domestic Product) per capita, rates of infant mortality and adult l i t e r a c y , and so on (Khan 1986). Based on these indicators, s o c i a l and economic development objectives are then established and judgments made concerning the progress a country or region i s making on improving socio-economic performance. Changes i n the development p o l i c i e s of national governments, and the a l l o c a t i o n of inte r n a t i o n a l assistance, are often driven by the performance of these in d i c a t o r s . Despite the fact that these indicators are so widely accepted, Denison (1977), Khan (1989), Daly and'Cobb (1989), Smil (1993), and many others, have c r i t i c i z e d t h e i r use, and value l a r g e l y because they f a i l to account for many'key s o c i a l and environmental factors. Attempts ,to develop new .indicators that measure the welfare (or quality of l i f e ) of a people have been made, but such indicators are neither widely used nor un i v e r s a l l y accepted (Daly and Cobb 1989; Nordhaus and- Tobin 1977) . Recently, a World Bank group of experts proposed new measures of GNP which include, i n addition to produced assets, both natural c a p i t a l and human resources (Zagorin 1996). Almost invariably, socio-economic indicators r e l y on measurements of economic productivity on a broad scale ( i . e . , for a country or province) yet many s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s argue that the "well-being" of a population depends upon much more than what i s produced and d i s t r i b u t e d through the cash economy. Often, conclusions drawn from the use of such aggregate (or average) indicators seem to be based on the assumption that the economic a c t i v i t y measured, and the government services provided, are d i s t r i b u t e d equally among the people. Subsistence a c t i v i t i e s are seldom, i f ever, accounted for. While such aggregate indicators may be appropriate for use at national and in t e r n a t i o n a l scales, they can become meaningless when used to assess s o c i a l and economic conditions at the scale of l o c a l communities e s p e c i a l l y i n the t r o p i c a l countries which are under discussion.here. An assessment of the o v e r a l l impacts and contribution.that protected areas can make must be conducted over a v a r i e t y of temporal and s p a t i a l scales. In the context of protected area and buffer zone management, however, what appears to be lacking i s some method for measuring the dependence of the l o c a l population on a c t i v i t i e s that have been conducted within the proposed protected areas. These may be "economic" a c t i v i t i e s , i n 46 the sense that people are gathering items "for sale", or they may be characterized as "subsistence" a c t i v i t i e s , i n the sense that they involve gathering or growing items for consumption or other use at home. When combined with an understanding of the biophysical c a p a b i l i t i e s of an area, such information can be used to determine the extent to which alternative options for l o c a l residents must be found or provided i n order to "protect" the environmental and socio-economic v i a b i l i t y of an area. Considering the lack of economic options for l o c a l residents, and the f i n a n c i a l and administrative l i m i t a t i o n s of national governments, the fate of many protected areas w i l l i n e v i t a b l y depend to a large extent on l o c a l residents (Wells et al. 1992). Thus, i t makes more sense to es t a b l i s h s o c i a l and economic c r i t e r i a for buffer zones that recognize the circumstances of l o c a l , rather than those that are based on national or regional communities. A monetary incentive mechanism should be established to compensate l o c a l and regional communities. As Wells et al. (1992:30) put i t "... l o c a l people should not have to make economic s a c r i f i c e s to protect an area established to provide global benefits...". From a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t perspective, Wind (1991) proposes that buffer zones should "... protect c u l t i v a t e d areas/settlements with t h e i r resources against negative influences o r i g i n a t i n g from the conservation area". 47 Based on a l l the above considerations i t can be concluded that a well-designed buffer zone can reduce the c o n f l i c t between conservation objectives and those who l i v e adjacent to the reserve i f i t meets the following socio-economic c r i t e r i a : 1. maintain access to the exi s t i n g subsistence and economic a c t i v i t i e s of l o c a l residents, or provide alternative, comparable opportunities to these people, and 2. monitor and reduce crop and livestock damage caused by animals or plants from reserve and other negative " s p i l l over e f f e c t s " such as the possible impacts of eco-tourism. Socio-economic data, however gathered, should document people's perceptions about the net benefits they get from protected areas (buffer zone), including t h e i r perceptions of economic losses due to crop and livestock damage by w i l d l i f e from protected areas 7. These data should be gathered p r i o r to the determination of an appropriate buffer zone width and management regime to apply within i t . A monitoring plan to compare o r i g i n a l data with that gathered, say, i n the t h i r d or f i f t h year following the establishment of a buffer zone, could be used to determine whether or not the management regime meets the socio-economic c r i t e r i a . 7 In data col lect ion, park planners must be cautious when conducting interviews with local people, especially with regard to how questions are asked, who is asked questions, and when is the best time to ask questions. In addition, the interviewer must be aware of social class distinctions in a group interview setting, as lower class residents may not be wi l l ing to voice their views in the presence of a landowner or a member from a higher class. 48 CHAPTER 4: STUDY AREA 4.1. Ruteng, Flores Island The method for the determination of buffer zone widths was applied around RSNR, Ruteng. This reserve was chosen because t h i s area r e f l e c t s conditions s i m i l a r to many other protected areas i n the country (Chapter 2) . RSNR i s one of. the most important reserves i n the Nusa Tenggara region (sec 4.2.1), and i n terms of l o g i s t i c support for. f i e l d work, i t i s better situated than many other reserves i n Indonesia. Ruteng i s the c a p i t a l of the. Kabupaten ( D i s t r i c t ) Manggarai. It i s located on Flores Island (8° 30'S 121° 00'). The i s l a n d i s about 17>150 km2 i n size,' and stretches approximately 360 km from West to East, and varies from 12 to 70 km wide. Administratively, Flores and i t s small offshore islands are divided into f i v e d i s t r i c t s , a l l of which f a l l under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the East Nusa Tenggara Province (Fig 4.1). The f i v e d i s t r i c t s are: Flores Timur, Sikka, Ende, Ngada,. and Manggarai (ca. 7136,4 km2). The Manggarai D i s t r i c t i s s p l i t into 10 kecamatan ( s u b - d i s t r i c t s ) : Komodo, Lembor, Satarmese, Mborong/ Elar, Cibal, Ruteng, Kuwus, and Reoq. In order to f a c i l i t a t e .development, l o c a l government has created another seven area representatives. •49 R a i n f a l l i n the Manggarai D i s t r i c t varies from 1,000 mm annually i n the lowland areas to 3,500 mm i n highland areas (Fig 4.2). Average r a i n f a l l i n Ruteng i s more than 3,000 mm annually, with heavy r a i n f a l l between November/December and March. The dry season begins i n May and continues to October. The average temperature i s between 18° and 25° C. Figure 4.2: Mean r a i n f a l l (mm) i n Ruteng (constructed with data from RePPProT 1989) . 500 n 0 I — I 1 ••—I : 1 1—: 1 1 1 I 1 I J F M A M J J A S O N D The population of Manggarai D i s t r i c t has increased very ra p i d l y from 254,000 i n 1961 to approximately 500,000 i n 1990 (Table 4.1). The average annual population growth was 2.36%. Although o v e r a l l population density for the Manggarai D i s t r i c t i s about 70 people per km2, population density i n some s u b - d i s t r i c t s i s remarkably high (Table 4.2). For instance, the average density of 3 s u b - d i s t r i c t s (i. e . , Ruteng, Kota-Ruteng and 51 Perwakilan Ruteng sub-district) around the town of Ruteng i s approximately 350 people per km2 (Moeliono 1993). Table 4.1: Population of Manggarai D i s t r i c t 1961 to 1990 (in parenthesis are figures for Indonesia). Year Total (000) Density (km2) Annual growth .(%) 1961 253.7 [97,085] 35 [50] 1961-1971 2.39 [2.1] 1971 320.6 [119,208] 45 [62] 1971-1980 2.39 [2.4] 1980 397.5 [147,490] 56 [77] 1980-1985 2.31 [2.2] 1985 450.7 [164,047] . 66 [85] 1985-1990 2.31 [1.8] 1990 499, 5 [179, 248] 70 [93] Sources: RePPProT (1989), KLH (1992a), and WB (1994). Prior to the 20th century, the Manggarai population appears to have been r e l a t i v e l y stable. Gordon (1975) suggested that i n these e a r l i e r times that time, population density was quite low, or no greater than 20 people per km2. The majority of the people were p r a c t i s i n g slash and burn agr i c u l t u r e . However, i t can be argued that some elements of the l o c a l culture, bad health care conditions, and frequent famines during the previous centuries were the major factors that maintained a low population i n Manggarai. 52 Table 4 . 2 : Population and density by s u b - d i s t r i c t 1991 ( i t a l i c i z e d are s u b - d i s t r i c t s located near to the RSNR). Sub - d i s t r i c t s Area (km2) Population Density Komodo 1,219.8 28,152 23. Perwakilan Komodo 555.18 17,142- 30 Lembor 694.99 41,420 59 Satarmese 572.04 42,874 75 Borong 490.2 6 38,397 .78 Perwakilan Borong 491.94 32,368 66 Elar 567.59 20,152 35 Perwakilan E l a r 4 00.09 17,753 44 Lambaleda 3 60.43 21,784 60 Perwakilan Lambaleda 209.24 40/467 193 Ruteng 176.61 50,178 284 Kota Ruteng 60.54 40,123 663 Perwakilan Ruteng 75.55 ' 18,601 243 Cibal 188.27 27,776 147 Reoq 595.41 21,778 36 Kuwus 208.44 29,901 143 Perwakilan Kuwus 2 69.05 18,649 69 . Total Manggrai 7,136.43 Average 507,515 71 Source: adapted from Moeliono (1993). With the a r r i v a l of the Dutch i n 1908, and subsequently. the Catholic church i n 1917, Manggarai experienced rapid s o c i a l , economic and physical changes Improvements i n health-care, the introduction of new crops and new techniques of farming and pest control, a l l led to a simultaneous•increase i n population and a decrease i n forest cover. Gordon (1975) has suggested that the Dutch were aware of the hydrological importance of forest cover around Ruteng and as a re s u l t declared forest reserves i n which cutting was monitored. After Indonesian independence i n 1945, the Catholic Church continued to play an important role i n ; enhancing health care and agriculture systems i n t h i s region ' (Webb 1990) and i n remote places elsewhere i n the country. Since 1965, there has also been a s i g n i f i c a n t acceleration of economic growth throughout Indonesia. This growth, however, has p r i m a r i l y been concentrated around major c i t i e s and i n provinces i n the western parts of the country. Most places i n the eastern part of the country, and es p e c i a l l y i n Kabupaten Manggarai, have been less fortunate i n regard to t h e i r share of the benefits r e s u l t i n g from th i s rapid economic growth. Table 4.3 shows GRDP and GRDP per capita for Manggarai. 54 Table 4 . 3 : Data Gross Regional Domestic Product (in Rupiah) for the East Nusa Tenggara Province 1990-1992 without gas and o i l revenues ( i t a l i c i z e d d i s t r i c t s are on Flores) . D i s t r i c t s Total GRDP (million) GRDP per capita 1990 1992 1990 1992 Kupang 287,515 428,069 520,368 747,423 Timor Tengah Selatan 93, 31 124,315 60,745 336,859 Timor Tengah Utara 53,260 68,974 316,321 397,073 Belu 38,348 91,692 305,482 395,038 Alor 60,417 72,563 405,550 472,528 Flores Timur 81,783 91,692 296,744 387,043 Sikka 88,408 115,290 346, 164 440,076 Ende 85,612 119,406 378,653 517,409 Ngada 66,372 89,872 225,090 430,816 Manggarai 152,897 202,170 297,104 378,718 Sumba Timur 68,615 91,355 430,908 556,058 Sumbawa Barat 89,865 119,532 299, 108 384,106 TOTAL East Nusa Tenggara 1,196,773 1, 631, 622 352,536 466,240 INDONESIA (*= t r i l l i o n ) 115* 130* 934,604 1,234,724 Sources: Kantor S t a t i s t i k NTT (1994) and BPS (1995). The majority of the population i n Manggarai i s engaged i n agri c u l t u r e . Of the t o t a l 65,600 households, about 62,570 households (or 96.18%) were engaged agriculture i n 1983. As the population continued to increase, the number of households working as farmers has correspondingly increased. In a 10-year 55 period, 1983-93, the number of households that engage i n agriculture increased from 62,570 to 80,920 out of a t o t a l of 88,190 households i n 1993 (Kantor S t a t i s t i k 1994). Manggarai i s not only faced with rapid population growth but also must deal with uneven population d i s t r i b u t i o n . Very high population densities are found i n urban areas (i . e . , around the town of Ruteng). A d i r e c t consequence of accelerated population growth has been the decline i n arable a g r i c u l t u r a l land per capita from 1.72 hectares per household i n 1983 to 1.07 hectares i n 1993. The percentage of households owning land less than 0.5 hectares has increased from 8,840 households (of the t o t a l 62,570 or 14.13%) in 1983 to 22,390 households (of the t o t a l 80,920 or 27.67%) i n 1993 (Kantor S t a t i s t i k 1994). Consequently, as more households are engaged i n agriculture, less land i s available to each family. In Manggarai, as i n many other places i n the country, land claims are based on the p r i n c i p l e of f i r s t c u l t i v a t i o n . A piece of land automatically belongs to the f i r s t person to clear forested land and bring i t under c u l t i v a t i o n . In a t r a d i t i o n a l Manggarai v i l l a g e two functionaires have t r a d i t i o n a l l y played important roles i n the land a l l o c a t i o n and land use: tu'a teno 56 ( a g r i c u l t u r a l chief) and tu'a golo (village c h i e f ) . While the tu'a teno dealt with the agriculture a c t i v i t i e s i n the v i l l a g e , the tu'a golo dealt with p o l i t i c a l a f f a i r s i n the v i l l a g e or i n neighbouring v i l l a g e s and i n p a r t i c u l a r i n the case of land disputes. The tu'a teno function i s usually held by the f i r s t c u l t i v a t o r , his descendant (son), or a member of his clan, while the tu'a golo function may be given to the second most important clan i n the v i l l a g e (Gordon 1975). Often, however, both positions are held by one person. In a t r a d i t i o n a l Manggarai v i l l a g e , there are one or several circular-shaped gardens {lingko). In cases where forest was newly cleared for a garden, the tu'a teno would a l l o c a t e land for the families i n his v i l l a g e . A f t e r he performed a series of r i t u a l ceremonies, the circular-shaped garden was divided into several pie-shaped pieces (lodok). Depending on family size, or on one's prestige i n the v i l l a g e , a family w i l l be given one or several pieces to be cu l t i v a t e d . Although land can be permanently owned or cu l t i v a t e d by a family, land can only be replanted a f t e r the tu'a teno has performed a r i t u a l ceremony. Only sons i n the family w i l l i n h e r i t the land when a father i s old or deceased. A daughter i s regarded as an "outsider" i n the family (as she w i l l move to her husband's v i l l a g e ) ; therefore, she can never i n h e r i t her father's land. Although adat (custom) 57 laws remain strong i n the everyday l i f e of the Manggarai people today, land transfer to people from outside the v i l l a g e or the clan does sometimes occur. Despite enormous e f f o r t s by the Dutch administration, and l a t e r by the Indonesian Government, to improve a g r i c u l t u r a l techniques and to introduce changes i n land use practices systems, t r a d i t i o n a l land use s t i l l remains strong. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y true where land i s under dryland c u l t i v a t i o n . A number of lingkos exist around Ruteng today. In addition, land claims that are based on the t r a d i t i o n a l t e n u r i a l system remain strong. Often t h i s situation, coupled with increasing land sc a r c i t y , triggers f a t a l land disputes between v i l l a g e s around Ruteng. A majority of people i n Manggarai practice slash and burn c u l t i v a t i o n . A tra c t of forested land i s cleared, and tree or shrub debris i s l e f t to dry and i s l a t e r burned. Then, the land i s c u l t i v a t e d , mainly with corn, dry r i c e , cassava and several types of vegetable. In general, after the second harvest, land pr o d u c t i v i t y w i l l be sharply diminished. People w i l l then abandon the f i e l d and move to new forested land. Usually, after a fallow period, which ranges from 10 to 20 years for Ruteng (Ruwiastuti 1992), the land w i l l be forested again, and the cycle 58 repeats i t s e l f ; However, due to population growth, and physical development, a g r i c u l t u r a l land has become scarce, forcing farmers to shorten the fallow period. This s i t u a t i o n , i n turn, leads to a decline i n s o i l f e r t i l i t y , making i t suitable only for the growth of scrubby vegetation and alang-alang (Imperata cylindrica) . In addition, many fallow plots, i n the- area have been burned to generate new shoots for grazing. This practice prevents the regrowth of the o r i g i n a l vegetation. It i s not surprising, therefore,, that land i n Manggarai i s currently dominated by scrub, alang-alang grassland, and secondary forests. Surrounding the v i l l a g e s located on h i l l y t e r r a i n around Ruteng, land use i s dominated by wetland-rice terraces. In addition, a large proportion of the land i s under small scale plantations, planted by coffee or eucalyptus and pine trees. Due to the a v a i l a b i l i t y of a g r i c u l t u r a l land and the current land use pattern i n Ruteng, there i s mounting pressure by l o c a l farmers to use resources' and land within the RSNR. Table 4.4 shows land usage i n Manggarai. 59 Table 4 . 4 : Land Use i n the Manggarai D i s t r i c t (1991). Type of land use Area (ha) % of t o t a l Settlements 2,921 0.41 Wetland r i c e (irrigated) 10,196 1.43 Wetland r i c e (rain-fed) 13,207 1.85 Dryland f i e l d s 76, 328 10.69 Small, scale estates 4,355 0. 61 Mixed gardens 54,325 7 . 61 "Closed" forest 95, 084 13.32 Secondary forest 158,241 22.17 Plantation forest 16, 849. 2.36 Scrub/alarig grasslands 280,401 39.29 Wetlands/ponds/lakes 1,64 6 0.23 "Badlands" 15 0.002 Other uses 102 0.01 Total 713,643 Sources: Data Pokok Pembangunan Daerah (as c i t e d by Moeliono 1993). 4.2. Protected Areas on Flores Flores and i t s off-shore islands f a l l under the Lesser Sunda Islands Biogeographic Province. Based on b i r d d i s t r i b u t i o n , the Lesser Sunda biogeographic province, can further be c l a s s i f i e d into three biogeographic units: Sumba, Timor and Flores (MacKinnon et al. 1982). The Flores biogeographic unit consists of Flores, Lombok, and Sumbawa through the Alor Islands. 60 The f l o r a resembles Melanesian f l o r a s with only 3% of endemism. In Flores, however, there are some Aust r a l i a n forms, such as Eucalyptus spp. and sandalwood, Santalum album. In general, t h i s biogeographic province has a low species d i v e r s i t y and endemism, es p e c i a l l y for non-flying t e r r e s t r i a l mammals, but i t has r i c h b i r d species d i v e r s i t y and endemism. For example, about 66 of 242 birds (30%), 8 mammals (12%), and 17 r e p t i l e s (22%) are endemic to thi s region (MacKinnon and MacKinnon 1986). FAO l i s t e d eight protected areas on Flores (Table 4.5), of which only four have been gazetted and four remain without any le g a l protection status (MacKinnon et al. 1982). Regardless of t h e i r l e g a l status (gazetted or ungazetted), these reserves face increasing threats from a g r i c u l t u r a l expansion, wood extraction, f i r e and poaching. Habitat loss i s one of the major threats for a l l endemic birds on Flores. For instance, a short-term b i r d survey on the proposed Kerita Mese W i l d l i f e Sanctuary and the proposed Ruteng S t r i c t Nature Reserve i n 1993 confirmed that three of the four birds found only on Flores are present i n these reserves, yet both reserves have no legal protection status (Butchart et al. 1993). Therefore, important conservation steps that have been proposed are: to give a l l remaining proposed reserves l e g a l status ( i . e . , gazetted), and subsequently, to ensure e f f e c t i v e management to prevent further habitat loss and degradation. 61 Table 4 . 5 : Protected areas i n the Flores and offshore islands ( i t a l i c i z e d are gazetted reserves). Reserve types Size (ha) A l t i t u d e (m) P. Threats CA Pulau 17 11,900 sea l e v e l na na CA Ruteng 30,000 900-2400 1 wood extraction, agriculture encroachment, gravel mining CA Gn. Abulombo 5, 000 1000-2149 3 a g r i c u l t u r a l encroachment SM Wae Wuul 3, 000 0-300 2 animals poaching, f i r e , settlement expansion SM Keri t a Mese 15,000 0-1000 2 f i r e and hunting SM Tg.Watupajung 5 sea l e v e l 3 poaching NP Komodo 219,322 0-735 1 poaching, f i r e , dynamite f i s h i n g NP Kalimutu 5,340 1000-1500 2 agriculture expansion, f i r e , wood extraction, and l i t t e r from t o u r i s t s Sources: MacKinnon et al. (1982) and Balai KSDA VII (1992). CA: s t r i c t nature reserve SM: w i l d l i f e sanctuary NP: national park P.: p r i o r i t y for conservation 4.2.1. Proposed Ruteng S t r i c t Nature Reserve The proposed RSNR l i e s i n the Flores biogeographic unit of the Lesser Sunda Island Biogeographic Province (MacKinnon and MacKinnon 1986). The reserve stretches over a series of seven 8 FAO l i s t s this reserve as a proposed s t r i c t nature reserve (MacKinnon et al. 1982), while KLH (1992) l i s t s i t as a s t r i c t nature reserve meaning i t has been gazetted, but fa i led to give clear reference as to when i t was gazetted. ADB (1992) refers to i t as the Ruteng Grand Forest Park. 62 volcanic mountains with alt i t u d e s ranging from 900 to 2,400 m above sea l e v e l . The area i s formed on b a s a l t i c substrate and covered by t r o p i c a l semi-evergreen and upper montane r a i n f o r e s t s . Due to i t s biogeographic processes, the distance from bigger islands, and i t s dry climate, the Lesser Sunda region i s considered low i n species d i v e r s i t y and endemism compared with the other biogeographic regions i n Indonesia. A large proportion of the region has been deforested. Most of the remaining forests occur at higher a l t i t u d e s and i n steep h i l l y t e r r a i n . Flores i s not exceptional i n these a t t r i b u t e s . Nevertheless, the RSNR contains one of the most continuous t r o p i c a l semi-evergreen and upper montane rainforests (MacKinnon and MacKinnon 1986) i n the whole Nusa Tenggara (Fig 4.3). Moreover, because of i t s p o s i t i o n as t r a n s i t i o n zone between the Australian and the Oriental realms, i t o f f e r s unique opportunities for future biogeographic and evolutionary studies. The protection of natural habitats i n th i s region w i l l ensure the completeness of habitat types, i n the Indonesian protected area system. In terms of w i l d l i f e d i v e r s i t y , about 100 b i r d species, including 20 endemic species, are l i k e l y to occur i n the reserve (ADB 1992). There are about seven endemic mammals which are mainly rodents and bats (Petocz 1989) . 63 In 1936 about 39,000 hectares of forest around Ruteng were declared a forest reserve by the Dutch administration to prevent further deforestation by the rapidl y growing population (Gordon 1975; ADB.1992). In 1982, FAO developed a comprehensive protected area system for Indonesia. The Ruteng protection forest was proposed as a cagar alam ( s t r i c t nature reserve), with a t o t a l area of 30,000 hectares. It was designated as a reserve with P r i o r i t y I 9 status (MacKinnon et al. 1982). Along with RSNR, FAO proposed about six reserves on Flores (excluding recreational reserves). The RSNR contains the highest peak on Flores. The protection of the RSNR and other reserves at lower a l t i t u d e s ( i . e . , Tanjung Kerita Mese) w i l l ensure that a l l natural habitats and biota of Flores w i l l be covered i n the protected area system.. The main objective of the reserve i s to protect the hydrological functions of the forest and to preserve rare and r i c h habitat types with .endemic f l o r a and fauna (Gordon 1975; MacKinnon et al. 1982). Unfortunately, as with many other protected areas i n the region, almost 10 years have passed since i t was f i r s t proposed. No further action has been taken to 9 Pr ior i ty I is given to an area of major conservation importance whose omission from the reserve system would constitute major gaps in the habitat coverage (MacKinnon et al. 1982). ' 65 implement the FAQ recommendations. In 1990, the reserve was reproposed as the Ruteng Mountains Grand Forest by the Asian Development Bank and the Forestry Department (ADB 1992).-4.2.2. Threats to the reserve In many ways, Manggarai's s o c i a l and economic s i t u a t i o n r e f l e c t s that of other areas i n Indonesia. Development.efforts have l a r g e l y focused on s o c i a l and physical needs ( i . e . , health care and agriculture p r o d u c t i v i t y ) , r e s u l t i n g i n continued and increased pressure on land and natural resources within reserves. The reduction of available a g r i c u l t u r a l land and the increases i n opportunities to engage i n cash exchange economic a c t i v i t i e s has led people to explore other means to provide for t h e i r basic d a i l y needs. The r i s i n g demand for firewood and bui l d i n g materials due to population growth and on-going physical development has also provided new incentives for people to obtain cash through the cutting and s e l l i n g of wood (Moeliono'1994). In fact, for some families, .selling wood may be the only available income option, e s p e c i a l l y for those who own less than 0.5 hectares of a g r i c u l t u r a l land on which to support t h e i r families. The main threat to the reserve is-the c o l l e c t i o n pf building materials and firewood from within the protected area. Almost a l l l o c a l residents use forest products to obtain cash income 66 through the sale of poles for building and firewood. Only a small proportion of the products taken from the reserve are for di r e c t household use. On any path to the reserve, about 10 to. 15 l o c a l people can be observed d a i l y . Each w i l l be dragging more than three raw poles (approximately 7 m long and between 10 and 30 cm i n diameter). Dragging of poles has also caused quite serious s o i l erosion. Firewood c o l l e c t i o n , usually conducted by secondary and high school students, occurs less i n t e n s i v e l y than the c o l l e c t i o n of building materials. Apart from d i r e c t threats generated by l o c a l people, there are a number of other serious management problems for the reserve. Despite i t s location near the c a p i t a l of the Manggarai D i s t r i c t , there are no signs of active management (i . e . , p rotection). The only i n d i c a t i o n of the reserve boundary are a few posts, a l l of which are covered by vegetation. The boundary posts are too small and too short to be e a s i l y seen by l o c a l residents or v i s i t o r s . No marker sign exists to indicate the presence of the reserve. Moeliono (1993) suggested that, with only about 17 forest wardens to cover approximately 269,629 hectares of forest i n the Manggarai D i s t r i c t , proper guardianship i s simply not possible. It i s not surprising, therefore, that during a one year period of f i e l d study around the reserve, the author never encountered any of the forest wardens, despite the 67 fact that every day v i l l a g e r s cut trees from the protected f o r e s t s . 4.3. Social and Economic Conditions 4.3.1. Socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s About 80,920 households (or 92%) i n Manggarai are engaged i n agri c u l t u r e . If, on average, one hectare of a g r i c u l t u r a l land (that includes wet-rice f i e l d [sawah] and dry-land [ladang]) i n Manggarai produced 2.17 tons of r i c e (N = 17; SE = +0.72), then each household (owning one hectare of agriculture land) w i l l be earning about Rp. 90,416 (or approximately US$45) 1 0 monthly. However, since most of the a g r i c u l t u r a l land (68%) (Barlow et a l . 1991; Moeliono 1993) i s under s h i f t i n g c u l t i v a t i o n ( i . e . dry-land), then land productivity w i l l be lower, producing about 0.5 tons of r i c e per hectare (Kantor S t a t i s t i k 1994a). In other words, the t o t a l earning capacity from agriculture for one average farming household i s much lower than the c a l c u l a t i o n above would suggest. Average monthly spending (to meet a basic cost of li v i n g ) per person i n 1991 i n Manggarai was calculated at Rp. 40,000 1 0 The land productivity figures were calculated from Table 3, p. 3 (Kantor Statistik 1994a). Land productivity figures were less than in Java, where the average is > 4 tons rice per hectare. Due to the lack of water in Ruteng, farmers can only cultivate their land once a year, except for in some coastal areas (Gordon 1975). The total earning from agriculture is far too small given that an average family in Manggarai consists of six people (Moeliono 1993). 68 (Kantor S t a t i s t i k NTT 1994). Consequently, a household (consisting of six persons) requires about Rp. 240,000 monthly. Thus, i t can be concluded that farmers must seek other income opportunities to meet household monthly spending. Increasing the f i n a n c i a l demands on the low income families, are many t r a d i t i o n a l ceremonies s t i l l practised by l o c a l residents. From a s t r i c t l y economic point of view, some t r a d i t i o n a l customs, such as b r i d a l price and wedding ceremonies are very expensive, leaving residents with a sizeable debt (and often permanent indebtedness). 4.3.2. Wood contribution to the household economy It i s d i f f i c u l t to make a "clear-cut" c a l c u l a t i o n based on residents' monthly income and cost of l i v i n g (see 4.3.1), but economic conditions suggest that income from agriculture i s i n s u f f i c i e n t for family support on a monthly basis. Thus, for many households, s e l l i n g wood i s an important supplementary a c t i v i t y to earn extra money. As Moeliono (1993: 18) concludes, "nowadays, many people earn the major part of t h e i r income from cutting wood". S e l l i n g wood has become an important income alternative for the residents because: 1) residents have easy access to the forest, 2) i t requires no c a p i t a l investment (except for a machete or hand-saw), 3) i t involves almost no r i s k , 4) there are 69 no seasonal l i m i t a t i o n s (such as i n agriculture or temporary jobs), 5) i t i s easy to s e l l the wood and there i s a high demand for wood around Ruteng, and 6) there are l i t e r a l l y no laws or regulations for harvesting. Demand for wood i s remarkably high i n Manggarai. Government data for fuel usage i n 1990 showed that, of 85,811 households i n Manggarai, about 82,102 (or 95%) used wood d a i l y for cooking. Only 1/332 households (less than 5%) used kerosene, and 138 households (less than 0.2%) used e l e c t r i c i t y (Kantor S t a t i s t i k NTT 1994). With a t o t a l population of about 108,902 around Ruteng (Table 4.5), of whom 90% used firewood for cooking, i t can be estimated that they need approximately 98,000 m3 of firewood for t h i s purpose annually 1 1. If on average wood volume i s estimated at about 170 m3/ha for f o r e s t s 1 2 i n Nusa Tenggara, then about 576 ha of forest are needed annually to meet the fuel wood demand i n Ruteng alone 1 Such demand requires, at the very least, an output equivalent to the annual increment of 8,500 ha of plantation of Pinus merkusii and Tectona grandis (see Repetto et a l . 1989). 1 1 Estimated figure for firewood consumption per capita outside Java is 0.9 m3 annually (see ADB 1992; Moeliono 1994). 1 2 See Repetto et al. (1989: 30) for this calculation. 70 In addition to f u e l , people use wood to b u i l d houses. In 1990, approximately 30% of households i n Manggarai used wood for house f l o o r surfaces and another 45% for the outer walls (Kantor S t a t i s t i k NTT 1994). Unfortunately, no figures were available for house types and wood usage for houses around Ruteng. However, Moeliono who studied wood demand for the Manggarai D i s t r i c t , estimated that about 10,000 m3 wood was needed for house construction annually (Moeliono 1994). Although a d i r e c t assessment of the contribution to house hold income from s e l l i n g wood cannot be made, i t can be concluded based on the current wood demand i n Manggarai, that s e l l i n g wood, either for fuel or building material, makes a s i g n i f i c a n t contribution to the incomes of l o c a l residents. Data on either the amount of wood sold or wood prices are unavailable. This i s because the s e l l i n g of wood i s a small-scale a c t i v i t y involving many people, making i t d i f f i c u l t to trace. Despite the fact that s e l l i n g wood has become a major income source for l o c a l people, i t i s mostly been c a r r i e d out on a "non-commercial" basis. Consequently, a 5-m piece of wood i s l i k e l y to be priced the same as a 4-m piece (Moeliono 1993). Income from s e l l i n g f u e l wood varies, but, i n and around Ruteng, a person w i l l earn about Rp. 750 - Rp. 1,500 (approximately 50 71 cents US$) d a i l y 1 3 (Moeliono 1993), which, according to Moeliono (1993), provides a s i g n i f i c a n t contribution to t h e i r household income. 4.3.3. Alternatives to s e l l i n g wood f o r income Unfortunately, there are not many alte r n a t i v e ways to earn money r e a d i l y available to l o c a l residents, except for working i n agriculture or i n temporary construction jobs. The cement factory i n Kupang (on Timor Islands) was the only large-scale i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t y 1 4 i n the East Nusa Tenggara Province, with a t o t a l of 274 workers i n 1989 (Purba 1991). In 1992 there were about 10 small-scale industries with a t o t a l of 92 workers, and about 1,863 handicraft industries i n Manggarai employing a t o t a l of 2,779 workers (Kantor S t a t i s t i k NTT 1994).' A lack of other natural resource industries and endowments, such as mining or forestry (timber resources for large scale industry), infrastructure, or support f a c i l i t i e s (such as good roads, harbours, and a i r p o r t s ) , seriously l i m i t s the prospects for i n d u s t r i a l development i n Manggarai. There i s also an apparent lack of entrepreneurship from the Manggarainese, as well as l i m i t e d c a p i t a l funds and the small size of l o c a l markets 1 3 Almost equal to a day wage of unskilled labor around Ruteng, which was Rp. 2,000. 1 4 An industry is classified as large-scale i f i t employs more than 100 workers, as medium i f 20-99 workers are employed, and as small i f i t comprises 5-19 workers (Purba 1991) 72 (Purba 1991). With a lack of raw materials, and the d i s t r i c t ' s long distance from Java, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to predict new i n d u s t r i a l development i n Manggarai occurring spontaneously (or even on a subsidized basis) i n the foreseeable future. In addition to the lack of job opportunities i n the i n d u s t r i a l sector, the average wage earned was not higher than wages i n agriculture. In general, workers were paid between Rp.75,000 to Rp. 150,000 monthly i n 1990 for i n d u s t r i a l work. Therefore,, even i f people can f i n d work i n industry they would s t i l l require extra money to meet monthly l i v i n g expenses. Although there i s a sizeable coffee plantation near Ruteng, i t was quite small and r e l a t i v e l y unknown i n Indonesian markets which are dominated by coffee from other parts of the country. In 1993, about 15,073 hectares of coffee plantation i n Manggarai produced only 7,428 tons coffee (Kantor S t a t i s t i k NTT 1994). Coffee owners often under-priced t h e i r coffee to brokers or middlemen to obtain advance money. Thus, the coffee business doe not appear to be benefiting the coffee c u l t i v a t o r s but, rather, the coffee traders and middlemen. Tourism development i n Ruteng i s constrained by poor land, sea, and a i r access even during the pleasant dry season. Ruteng also lacks restaurants and food that i s generally appealing to 73 t o u r i s t s (ADB 1992), and does not have many physical or c u l t u r a l attractions that would appeal to the t y p i c a l t o u r i s t . O f f i c i a l figures indicate that i n 1993 about 46,678 foreign t o u r i s t s v i s i t e d the Manggarai D i s t r i c t , but almost a l l of them t r a v e l l e d only as far as Labuan Bajo (the west t i p of Flores) and to the Komodo Islands. Based on the current economic s i t u a t i o n , as discussed above, i t can be concluded that there are very l i m i t e d alternatives to the people around the RSNR to substitute for t h e i r dependence on agriculture, and the cutting and s e l l i n g of wood. The above discussion on the socio-economic s i t u a t i o n around the reserve reveals that, without providing income alternatives or some kind of economic assistance d i r e c t l y to the residents around the reserve, buffer zone management and the protection of the reserve i s u n l i k e l y to be-successful. Furthermore, a complete ban on wood extraction may simply rai s e wood prices, which i n turn w i l l encourage i l l e g a l cutting. However, without any kind of management ( i . e . , control), wood extraction from the reserve w i l l ultimately destroy the reserve-— the only water catchment area around Ruteng—'• within a matter of years. This, i n turn, w i l l threaten many hectares of r i c e f i e l d s 74 around the reserve ( i . e . , Ruteng, Iteng and Mborong), as well as jeopardising the water resources of many residents around Ruteng. 4.4. Governance 4.4.1. Local systems of governance T r a d i t i o n a l l y , the Manggarai people l i v e d i n a group based on the male blood l i n e (parti genealogic) . This system l i k e l y began when a farmer succeeded at cle a r i n g a forest t r a c t and bringing i t under c u l t i v a t i o n . This success i n c u l t i v a t i o n , i n turn, allowed people to s e t t l e around the new garden. The settlement slowly evolved to become a v i l l a g e (beo) . The f i r s t c u l t i v a t o r then became the leader of the v i l l a g e . Since agriculture was one of the most important aspects of Manggarai l i v e l i h o o d , i t played an essential role i n the t r a d i t i o n a l system of governance. Many customary regulations dealt exclusively with a g r i c u l t u r a l related a c t i v i t i e s (Djagon 1959; Gordon 1975; Hemo 1988; Lewis 1991; Erb 1994). During the f i e l d study, I f a i l e d to observe any form of formal association or c u l t u r a l or s p i r i t u a l connection between people and the l o c a l environments or nature. Nor did I f i n d a set of regulations on how people should manage the natural resources surrounding them as these can be found elsewhere i n the country (for example see M i t c h e l l et a l . 1990 and Zerner 1994). Some old tales suggested that t r a d i t i o n a l l y the Manggarainese believed 75 that t h e i r ancestors were protected or helped by c e r t a i n animals, and therefore they were prohibited to hunt and eat those animals (ceki or mawa) . But the tales o f f e r no further d e t a i l s , such as which clan should protect what animals, or to what extent people s t i l l abide by these rules (Djagon 1959; Hemo 1988). The fact that t r a d i t i o n a l systems of governance i n Manggarai society centre mainly on a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y ( i . e . , around the vi l l a g e ) suggests that the t r a d i t i o n a l systems of governance o f f e r l i t t l e help to enhance reserve protection. For instance, unlike other places i n Indonesia, forested land and mountains were not under "stewardship" or claimed by people i n Ruteng. In addition, despite t h e i r dependence on land and agriculture, t r a d i t i o n a l systems of governance have become weak since Manggarai was ruled by Goa i n the 16 t h century, Bima i n the early of the 18 t h century, and then l a t e r the Dutch from the early 19 t h century (Hemo 1988). Current national laws do not make much allowance for t r a d i t i o n a l systems of governance. Land s c a r c i t y and the importance of agriculture for the household economy around Ruteng can be c a p i t a l i s e d on to encourage people's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n buffer zone management. Only by ensuring a better land tenure system, and o f f e r i n g some kind of assistance i n agriculture, may a more e f f e c t i v e management system become possible. 76 4.4.2. The effectiveness of t r a d i t i o n a l systems of governance When Manggarai was ruled by Goa, t r a d i t i o n a l systems of governance were replaced (Hemo 1988). To enhance tax c o l l e c t i o n , the Goa divided Manggarai t e r r i t o r y into dalus and gelarangs. Even afte r f i r s t Bima, and l a t e r when the Dutch took over Manggarai, the new dalu systems were maintained. However, afte r Indonesia gained p o l i t i c a l independence, these dalu systems of Manggarai were replaced with the d i s t r i c t (kabupaten) and sub-d i s t r i c t (kecamatan) systems as were i n s t i t u t e d elsewhere i n the country. Due to these h i s t o r i c a l changes, the t r a d i t i o n a l system of governance, where tu 'a teno played a very important role i n d a i l y l i f e , became weaker, e s p e c i a l l y i n places near Ruteng town. In addition, land transfers as a consequence of population growth, physical development, the increasing influence of outside cultures, and national regulations on government a f f a i r s and land tenure, further weakened the t r a d i t i o n a l systems of governance. In a l l the study s i t e s located r e l a t i v e l y close to Ruteng, the t r a d i t i o n a l systems are long gone. Recent deadly disputes occuring around Ruteng (Anon 1996) over land located between neighbouring v i l l a g e s , were not necessarily a r e f l e c t i o n of t r a d i t i o n a l land management problems, but triggered by land s c a r c i t y . Planning and management must take into consideration both t r a d i t i o n a l and current governance issues, and must work 77 with l o c a l governance systems to consider the implications of socio-economic data presented above. 78 CHAPTER 5 : PROPOSED METHOD AND ITS RUTENG APPLICATION 5.1. Overview of the Method Considering problems we face i n management of protected areas (Chapter 2), the thesis c a l l s for a method that i s simple, inexpensive, and easily-taught, yet which provides r e l i a b l e information for determining buffer zone widths for any given reserve. Such a method should also include simple though rigorous data analysis and that w i l l allow for greater p a r t i c i p a t i o n of park planners, conservationists, and l o c a l communities. The method proposed i n t h i s thesis for determining functional buffer zone widths i s one based on the analysis of species richness, species d i v e r s i t y , stem density and species composition. The method assumes that a reserve has l e g a l l y been established and that there i s " i l l e g a l " incursion by people l i v i n g outside the reserve seeking to use resources 'within i t . The proposed method involves 1) establishing biophysical c r i t e r i a for functional buffer zone widths; 2) data c o l l e c t i o n along transects; and 3) data analysis. The biophysical c r i t e r i a for the method were established i n Chapter 3. They are based on a number of suggestions (for example see O l d f i e l d 1988; Sayer 1991; Wind 1991) as to how buffer zones should function. 79 The data c o l l e c t i o n component of the method involves f i r s t e s t ablishing a series of transects (a) p a r a l l e l to the reserve periphery, (b) within the e x i s t i n g reserve from the periphery toward the core, and (c) from the e x i s t i n g human a c t i v i t i e s at various s i t e s i n the pot e n t i a l buffer zone (see F i g . 5.1, for example). The p o t e n t i a l buffer zone within an e x i s t i n g reserve i s considered to be the area where people are a c t i v e l y (even though i l l e g a l l y ) harvesting resources. Secondly, for the reasons explained i n Chapter 3 and elsewhere, tree species > 5 cm diameter at breast height were within each transect. The same procedure i s followed i n a l l transects at a l l s i t e s . The analysis involves comparing tree species richness, species d i v e r s i t y , stem density, and species composition between the transects at each s i t e . The basic proposition underlying the analysis' i s that, despite i l l e g a l human incursions, i f areas just within the periphery of the reserve show " s i m i l a r i t y " with areas closer to the core of the reserve i n terms of species richness, species d i v e r s i t y , stem density, and species composition, then, those areas at the periphery can be, and perhaps should be, accepted and l e g a l i z e d as a buffer zone, i n which people are l e g a l l y permitted to maintain t h e i r e x i s t i n g a c t i v i t y . This i s so because the analysis has shown that t h e i r a c t i v i t y at the e x i s t i n g l e v e l and with the e x i s t i n g p r o d u c t i v i t y does not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r the b i o l o g i c a l d i v e r s i t y of the reserve. By 80 establishing a buffer zone, do not only the new regulations better match actual practices i n and around the reserve, but i t also creates rules for the buffer zone to ensure that the l e v e l of human a c t i v i t y does not increase or extend beyond the now "de facto" buffer zone. If, on the other hand, there i s less s i m i l a r i t y between periphery and core, then we may conclude that a l e g a l buffer zone needs to be established outside the reserve i n order to protect the b i o l o g i c a l d i v e r s i t y of the e x i s t i n g reserve. If i t i s found that a buffer zone can be established i n the reserve's area currently used by people, then the width w i l l be determined by where, i n the measurement toward the periphery, s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n species richness, species d i v e r s i t y , stem density, and species composition ( d i s s i m i l a r i t y ) begin. If i t i s found to be necessary to esta b l i s h the buffer zone outside the reserve, then a desired width can be i n i t i a l l y estimated (later to be tested) from the analysis of species ,richness, species d i v e r s i t y , stem density and species composition within the reserve. For example, i f human a c t i v i t y has caused the b i o l o g i c a l d i v e r s i t y within the reserve to deteriorate up to 2 km from the periphery towards the core at a ce r t a i n s i t e , then i t may be i n i t i a l l y determined that a buffer zone outside the reserve at that s i t e should be 2 km wide. 81 Application of the method focuses on plant taxa because studies have shown that plant d i v e r s i t y i s well-correlated with d i v e r s i t y of other taxa (see Chapter 3). Through evolutionary processes, plants have developed defence (or survival) mechanisms against c e r t a i n animals, e s p e c i a l l y insects and large herbivores. In turn, animals, through evolutionary processes, have also developed mechanisms to feed on certain plant species (Gilbert 1980). These mechanisms have resulted i n a s p e c i f i c association between c e r t a i n plant and insect species. Studies have shown a consistent r e l a t i o n s h i p between plant taxonomic and s t r u c t u r a l d i v e r s i t y with insect d i v e r s i t y (Murdoch et al. 1972; Southwood et al. 1979; Currie 1991). Similar relationships have also been observed i n b i r d communities (MacArthur and MacArthur 1961; MacArthur et al. 1966; Karr 1968; Karr and Roth 1971). There are a few studies on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between plant s t r u c t u r a l d i v e r s i t y and d i v e r s i t y of other taxa, such as mammals (Rosenzweig 1973, where only two species were studied) and l i z a r d s (Pianka 1967). The results showed a s i m i l a r trend. H o l l i n g et al. (1995) points out that i n any given ecosystem, hundreds or thousands- of species i n t e r a c t amongst themselves and with the physical and chemical environment. However, not a l l species have the same strength and d i r e c t i o n i n such inte r a c t i o n s . Only a small number of b i o t i c (species) and a b i o t i c variables form templates or niches, which i n turn allow 82 other species to exist.. In other words, the d i v e r s i t y of a whole community i s dependent on only a few species that i n t e r a c t with a b i o t i c factors, such as s o i l and water. Unfortunately, i t i s not clear i n t h i s context which those species are (Holling et al. 1995). However, i f one considers the roles of plant species (trees) i n the forest ecosystem, t h e i r functions tend to f i t t h i s type of r o l e . Undoubtedly, plant interactions with a b i o t i c environments provide niches for other species, as indicated by numerous studies c i t e d above. If we consider the i n t e r a c t i o n between plants and a b i o t i c variables i n t r o p i c a l . f o r e s t ecosystems, i t shows that trees play important roles i n the interaction, e s p e c i a l l y i n regard to nutrient c y c l i n g where large amounts of biomass and nutrients are stored i n trees (Whitmore 1984). Thus, the biophysical c r i t e r i a proposed here not only r e f l e c t d i v e r s i t y of the community, but also the i n t e r a c t i o n between b i o t i c and a b i o t i c components i n any given ecosystem. 5.2. Sampling Design In order to i l l u s t r a t e and t e s t , t h i s method for determining b u f f e r zone width, biophysical data were c o l l e c t e d around the proposed and l e g a l l y established RSNR, Flores. Two f i e l d studies were undertaken: one over three months i n the summer of 1992 and one over 12 months from May 1993 to May 1994.' In 1992, 83 preliminary reconnaissance was conducted to select study s i t e s around RSNR. A basic c r i t e r i a for an area to be selected as a study s i t e i s there must be a " s i m i l a r " l e v e l and i n t e n s i t y of human a c t i v i t i e s within the protected areas. Fieldwork was conducted from May- 1993 to May 1994 to c o l l e c t data. 5.2.1. Study s i t e s Four s i t e s within the reserve and adjacent to Tenda, Laci, Poka and Nano v i l l a g e s were chosen for t h i s study (Fig. 5.1). At three of the s i t e s , people from the respective v i l l a g e s use the forest within the reserve daily, mainly to extract wood. Near Nano v i l l a g e , the fourth s i t e , wood extraction i s much less, or, i s non-existent. At each study s i t e , four transects 50 m wide x 100 m long running p a r a l l e l to the reserve boundary.were established to. sample tree species. Transect 1 was located at the reserve's periphery, transect 2 at 500 m, and transect 3 at 1000 m. Transect 4 was i n a l l cases beyond the e x i s t i n g range of human a c t i v i t y (Fig. 5.2). Thus, i n t o t a l , there were 16'transects established (9 transects at s i t e s where wood extraction was occurring and 7 transects at the s i t e where there was no or less much wood extraction). 84 Figure 5.2: Sample and Plots Designs. SI S2 S3 T2 T3 T4 -transect size 100 m 50 m sample plot s i 20 m 25 m i 1 86 5.2.2. Biophysical data Biophysical data were c o l l e c t e d i n the 16 transects. A l l l i v e trees > 5 cm i n diameter at breast height (dbh - 1.33 m) were measured and counted i n 10 plots of 20 m x 25 m. The species name, number of stems, and diameter were recorded. Three sets of tree specimens were c o l l e c t e d and l a b e l l e d for further i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Two sets were sent to the Herbarium Bogorience (Balai Penelitian dan Pengembangan Botani), Bogor, Indonesia and the Rijksherbarium, Leiden, Netherlands. The specimens were i d e n t i f i e d by Dr. J. P. Mogea of the Herbarium Bogorience, and Dr. M. M. J. van Balgooy of the Rijksherbarium. 5.3. Data Analysis Only trees with diameter > 10 cm at dbh were used i n the data analysis. The number of species was used to calculate tree species richness for each transect. The number of species was used to calculate a d i v e r s i t y index for each transect. Community ecologists have developed numerous formulae to create species d i v e r s i t y indices (MacArthur 1965; Pielou 1966; Berger and Parker 1970; Hurlbert 1971; Whittaker 1972). These, i n turn, have led to d i f f e r e n t d i v e r s i t y measurements (Peet 1974; Routledge 1979; Magurran 1988). Among indices, log series (alpha), Shannon-Weiner d i v e r s i t y index, and Simpon's index are 87 widely used (Magurran 1988), but there i s l i t t l e agreement among ecologists as to which index should be used. Magurran (1988), using the d i v e r s i t y of moths from ten areas i n the Banagher woodlands (UK), examined the results of these indexes i n measuring species d i v e r s i t y and found that many indexes showed si m i l a r r e s u l t s . She argued that a good index should meet four c r i t e r i a : 1) a b i l i t y to discriminate between s i t e s , 2) dependence on sample size, 3) the component of d i v e r s i t y that i t was intended to measure, and 4) whether or not the index i s widely used and understood. I used the Shannon-Weiner15 Index of D i v e r s i t y (H*): H'= -E pi In pi where pi = proportion of i t h species, to calculate tree species d i v e r s i t y (Pielou 1966; Magurran 1988; Krebs 1989). Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) was used to compare tree species d i v e r s i t y (H')f species richness (5), and tree density among the transects. If s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (P < 0.05), then the Tukey test (Fowler and Cohen 1990) was used determine the difference between transects. 5 Henceforth, referred to as Shannon Diversity Index. 88 T= q x Vvariance within/n where, n: number of sample; and q: Tukey value for the varying number of samples and degrees of freedom, obtained from Tukey tables For the comparison of tree species composition among the transects i n each s i t e , the Morisita's index of s i m i l a r i t y was used (Magurran 1988; Krebs 1989): C x = 2 T.nXijXik (XI + X2)NjN* where, Cx - Morisita's index of s i m i l a r i t y between samples j and k XijXik = Number of individuals of species i i n sample j and k Nj = ZXij = Total number of individuals i n sample j Nk = "LXik .= Total number of. individuals i n sample k. The program SIMILAR by Krebs (1989) was used to calculate the Morisita's index of s i m i l a r i t y . 5.4. Results Based on arithmetic means, Site 4 had higher species richness, d i v e r s i t y , and stem density than Sites 1, 2 or 3 (Table 5.1). There was a tendency for transects located near the reserve boundary (i . e . , TI and T2) to have higher tree density (due to regrowth) than transects closer to the core of reserve ( i . e . , T3 and T4). Many of these trees were smaller i n diameter compared to the trees i n T3 and T4 1 6. Because of t h i s s i t u a t i o n , 1 6 SI: Site 1, TI: Transect 1, S1T1: Transect 1 at Site 1, etc. 89 a preliminary analysis which included a l l l i v e trees (> 5 cm at dbh) was inconclusive. For that reason, only l i v e trees > 10 cm were used i n the data analysis. E c o l o g i c a l l y t h i s approach can be j u s t i f i e d , since many of the smaller trees showed high mortality (Whitmore 1984; Jacobs 1988). Thus, t h e i r roles i n long-term tree species d i v e r s i t y and conservation remain unknown. Certainly, t h i s approach made data analyses more manageable. Table 5.1: Arithmetic mean ( + S.E.) for species richness, Shannon Div e r s i t y Index, and stem density (n = 10 for each transect). Species Richness (S) Shannon Di v e r s i t y Index (if' ) Stem density (ha) S1T1 5.9 (+2.511; 1.25 (+ 0.62) 380 (+ 134) •^ :•:•;•:•:•:•:•:•:•^ :•:•:•:•:•:•:•;•^ ^^ :^•:•^ +«:: :•; : S1T2 7.5 (+2.88) 1.74 (+ 0.56) 244 (+ 79) S1T3 14.7 (+ 2.41) 2.50 (+0.21) 436 (+ 161) S1T4 13.9 (+ 5.30) 2.34 (+0.42) 592 (+ 211) j S2T1 8.7 (+ 2.87) 1.93 (+ 0.36) 282 (+ 98) | S2T2 10.3 (+ 3.27) 2.13 (+ 0.33) 372 (+ 141) S2T3 9.8 (+ 2.74) 2.02 (+ 0.40) 386 (+ 125) S2T4 14.2 (+ 5.63) 2.42 (+ 0.46) 428 (+ 210) S3T1 6.2 (+ 1.69) 1.62 (+ 0.32) it-:-::-::-:-::::-:-::-:-:-::::1 *** :•: 214 (+83) ++++ S3T2 9.3 (+ 4.01) 1 .95 ,( + 0.54) 324 (+ 111) 1 S3T3 13.2 (+2.82); 2.39 (+ 0.29) 4 64 (+ 92) S3T4 14.9 (+ 3.28) 2.49 (+ 0.29) 474 (+ 81) S4T1 16.9 (+ 5.15) 2.50 (+ 0.32) 710 (+ 261) S4T2 16.5 (+ 2.55) 2.47 (+ 0.20) 856 (+ 168) S4T3 19.0 (+ 3.46) 2.63 (+ 0.18) 922 (+ 298) S4T4 16.2 (+ 3.71) 2.47 (+ 0.27) 734 (+ 279) 90 About 71 tree species (> 10 cm at dbh) were sampled both at SI (Kenda) and.S3 (Poka), and 81 tree species were sampled both at S2 (Laei) and S4 (forest near Nano vi l l a g e ) (Appendix 1). Fdr ANOVA, data for species richness and stem density were log a r i t h m i c a l l y (normal) transformed (Fowler and Cohen 1990). Figure 5;3 shows the species area curve. This figure was constructed with tree richness data from S4 (T2), because th i s transect was the r i c h e s t . The figure showed cumulative tree species sampled from 10 of 20 mx 25 m p l o t s . The curve was r e l a t i v e l y f l a t at the 0.5 hectare range. Figure 5 . 3 , : Species Area curve (trees with dbh > 10 cm) . 70 0.5 ha 91 In general, the s i m i l a r i t y analyses using the Mo r i s i t a index of s i m i l a r i t y showed that tree species composition at T4 (core area) tended be "s i m i l a r " to T3 as compared to TI and T2 on a l l s i t e s (Table 5.6). However, one should be cautious with these re s u l t s considering the high d i v e r s i t y i n t r o p i c a l forest ecosystems and that trees were sampled only i n 0.5 ha pl o t s . Using sample plots as pseudoreplicates, ANOVA showed that there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n species richness, species d i v e r s i t y , and stem density between the transects at SI and S3. Only tree species d i v e r s i t y was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t between TI and T4 at S2. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n species richness, d i v e r s i t y , and stem density between the transects at S4. Using pooled data from SI, S2, and S3, ANOVA showed there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n species richness, d i v e r s i t y and stem density between the transects. Using s i t e s (SI, S2, and S3) as true r e p l i c a t e s , ANOVA revealed that there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n species richness between TI and T3, TI and T4, and T2 and T4. For species d i v e r s i t y , there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences between TI and T3, and TI and T4; while there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n stem density, between TI and T4, and T2 and T4 (Table 5.2). 92 The s i g n i f i c a n t differences between species richness, species d i v e r s i t y and stem density between the transects i n SI, S2 and S3 can be attributed to the current human a c t i v i t i e s within the protected area. Biophysical data were analysed i n two ways: 1) s i t e s were treated as true r e p l i c a t e s , and 2) sample plots were treated as "pseudoreplicates" (Hurlbert 1984), because i n many f i e l d s i tuations, i t may be impossible to obtain data from other s i t e s that can serve as true r e p l i c a t e s . 5.4.1. Species richness While species d i v e r s i t y takes into account the r e l a t i v e abundance of each species (number of individ u a l s or stems i n the species), species richness measures only species present (Table 5.2 and Fig . 5.4). 93 Table 5.2: Summary of ANOVA results using s i t e s (SI, S2 and S3) as true re p l i c a t e s to compare species richness, species d i v e r s i t y and stem density between the transects (ns = not s i g n i f i c a n t , ** = P < 0.05). Parameters F3,8 P Tukey test TI T2 T3 Species Richness 12.30 0.005 T2 ns T3 ** ns T4 ** ** ns Species D i v e r s i t y 7.40 0.01 T2 ns T3 ** ns T4 ** ns ns Stem Density 5.58 0.025 T2 ns T3 ns ns T4 ** ** ns 94 Figure 5.4: Mean Species Richness on TI, T2, T3, and T4 at SI, S2, S3 and S4 (from 10 plots of 20 m x 25 m). 95 Where s i t e s were treated as true r e p l i c a t e s , ANOVA revealed that there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n species richness between TI and T3, TI and T4, and T2 and T4. When sample plots were treated as pseudoreplicates, ANOVA suggested that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n species richness at S2 and S4, but there was a difference at SI and S3. The differences occurred between TI and T3, TI and T4, T2 and T3, and T2 and T4 (Table 5.3). Pooled s i t e s showed that there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences between TI and T3, TI and T4, and T2 and T4. Table 5.3: Summary of ANOVA results using sample plots as "pseudoreplicates" to compare species richness between the transects at each s i t e . Species Richness F 3 , 36 P TI . Tukey T2 test . T3 Site T2 T3 T4 1 14.32 0.001 ns * * * * * * * * ns Site 2 2.33 0.07 Site T2 T3 . T4 3 . .15.8 6 0.001 ns '. * * * * '**'' ns Site 4 1.03 0.39 Sites T2 T3 T4 1, 2, 3 pooled ( F 3 , i i 6 ) 23.36 • 0.001 ns * * *•* ns ns 96 5.4.2. Species d i v e r s i t y Figure 5.5 shows species d i v e r s i t y for SI, S2, S3 and S4. ANOVA, using s i t e s (1, 2, 3), revealed that there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the transects (Table 5.2). There were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n species d i v e r s i t y between TI and T3, and TI and T4. Using sample.plots, ANOVA showed there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n species d i v e r s i t y between the transects at SI, S2 and S3 (Table 5.4). There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n species d i v e r s i t y between transects at S4. At SI, the differences occurred between TI and T3, TI and T4, T2 and T3, and T2 and T4., At S2, the difference occurred between TI and T4; while at S3 between TI and T3, TI and T4, and T2 and T4. 97 Figure 5 . 5 : Mean Species D i v e r s i t y on TI, T2, T3, and T4 at SI, S2, S3, and S4 (from 10 of 20 m x 25 m p l o t s ) . Site 1 T1 T2 T3 T4 Site 3 T1 T2 T3 T4 Site 2 3 i >*5 -P •H T2 T3 T4 Site 4 T1 T2 T3 T4 98 Table 5 .4: Summary of ANOVA results using sample plots as "pseudoreplicates" to compare species d i v e r s i t y between the transects at each s i t e . Species D i v e r s i t y F 3 ( 3 6 P Tukey test TI T2 T3 Site 1 14.26 0.001 T2 ns T4 ** ** ns Site 2 3.01 0.05 T2 ns T3 ns ns T4 ** ns ns Site 3 11.49 0.001 T2 ns T3 ** ns T4 ** ** ns Site 4 0.89 0.41 Sites 1,2, 3 pooled (F3,nS) 20.48 0.001 T2 ns T3 ** ns T4 ** ** ns 5.4.3. Stem density Using s i t e s (1, 2, and 3) as true r e p l i c a t e s , ANOVA showed that there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n stem density between TI and T4, and T2 and T4 (Table 5.2). Using sample plots as pseudoreplicates, ANOVA showed that there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n stem density between the transects at SI and S3 (Table 5.5). At SI, stem densities were d i f f e r e n t between T2 and 99 T3, and T2 TI and T2, Figure 5 .6 and T4; while at S3 the differences occurred between TI and T3, TI and T4, T2 and T3, and T2 and T4. shows mean stem density on TI, T2, T3, and T4. Table 5 . 5 : Summary of ANOVA results using sample plots as "pseudoreplicates" to stem density between the transects at each s i t e . Stem Density F 3, 3 6 P Tukey test TI T2 T3 Site 1 7.43 0.001 T2 ns T3 ns T4 ns ** ns Site 2 1.47 0.24 Site 3 19.62 0.001 T2 T3 T4 ** ** ns Site 4 1.73 0.18 Sites 1,2, 3 pooled (F 3, 1 1 6) 12 . 14 0. 001 T2 ns T3 ** ns T4 ** ** ns 100 Figure 5 . 6 : Mean Stem Density on TI, T2, T3, and T4 at SI, S2, S and S4 (from 10 plots of 20 m X 25 m). 950 c0 700 4-> •H CO C Q) P cu 4-J in 450 200 i i i l l IP T1 Site 4 I T3 T4 101 5.4.4. Species composition between transects One of the c r i t e r i a to determine buffer zone width i s the s i m i l a r i t y of species composition i n the core area and areas at the reserve's periphery. In other words, despite human a c t i v i t y , areas at the reserve periphery which show some s i m i l a r i t y i n species composition to the core area can be considered to be properly functioning buffer zones. As s i m i l a r i t y measures are descriptive, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to conduct meaningful s t a t i s t i c a l comparisons (tests.of Significance) between the transects (Krebs 1989). The index varies from 0 (no s i m i l a r i t y ) to 1 (more s i m i l a r i t y ) . Thus, transects that show a higher s i m i l a r i t y index have a more " s i m i l a r " species composition than transects which show.a lower . index. The main in t e r e s t here is. to compare species' s i m i l a r i t y , i n core areas (T4) with that in.areas at the periphery (TI, T2, and T3). It can be concluded that T3- c l o s e l y resembles T4 i n species composition,' more so than TI and T2 (Table 5.6).. 102 Table 5.6: Morisita's s i m i l a r i t y index for species composition between the transects on each s i t e (0 = no s i m i l a r i t y , 1 = more s i m i l a r i t y ) . Site TI T2 T3 Site T2 T3 T4 1 0.80 0.14 0.05 0.38 0.22 0.50 Site T2 T3 T4 2 0.06 0.05 ' 0.29 . 0.91 0.46 0.50 Site T2 :; T3 T4 3 0.26 0.22 0.17 0. 65 . 0.36 0.70 Site T2 T3 T4 4 0.73'. 0.58 0.42 0.57 0.50 0.74 5.5. Conclusion. 5.5.1. Ecolo g i c a l determination ANOVA, using sample plots as pseudoreplicates, showed that there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n species d i v e r s i t y , richness and stem density between s i t e s SI, S2 and S3. But there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n species richness, species d i v e r s i t y and stem density between the transects at S4. Using pooled data from SI, S2, and S3, 7ANOVA showed that there, were highly s i g n i f i c a n t (P < 0.001) differences i n species richness between TI and T3, TI and T4; and T2 and T4. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n species richness between T3 and T4. There were also highly 103 s i g n i f i c a n t (P < 0.001) differences i n species d i v e r s i t y between TI and T3, TI and T4; and T2 and T4, but there was no difference between T3 and T4. Similar results were apparent i n the analyses of v a r i a t i o n i n stem dens i t i e s . That i s , there were highly s i g n i f i c a n t (P < 0.001) differences i n stem densities between TI and T3, TI and T4; and between T2 and T4, but there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n stem densities between T3 and T4. In general ANOVA, using s i t e s as true r e p l i c a t e s showed si m i l a r r e s u l t s . There were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n species richness between TI and T3, TI and T4, and T2 and T4. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between TI and T2, and T3 and T4. For species d i v e r s i t y , differences were observed between TI and T3, and TI and T4, while there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between TI and T2, T2 and T3, T2 and T4, or between T3 and T4. There were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n stem density between TI and T4, and T2 and T4. Tests of s i m i l a r i t y indicated that species composition was " s i m i l a r " i n T3 and T4 at a l l s i t e s , and that a l l transects at S4 were more si m i l a r i n species composition when compared with the transects at SI, S2, and S3 (Table 5.6). The differences between SI, S2, S3 and S4 appeared to be d i r e c t l y related to wood extraction that took place at SI, S2 and S3. 104 5.5.2. Buffer zone determination f o r the RSNR The f i e l d study results at RSNR suggest that there i s a need to established buffer zones outside the reserve at Sites 1, 2, and 3. The analysis indicates that the width for Site 1 and Site 3 should be established at 1,000 m from the reserve, but can be less than 1,000 m at Site 2. These findings show that s i t e s p e c i f i c analyses, followed by s i t e - s p e c i f i c buffer zone p r e s c r i p t i o n i s recommended, rather than a general management for a l l s i t e s . However, thi s may prolong the study period because data must be c o l l e c t e d and analyzed for each s i t e . P r i n c i p l e regulations and enforcement should remain as uniform as possible i n the entire area around the reserve. It i s important to note that s t r i c t l y enforced conservation regulations to protect the RSNR w i l l d i r e c t l y a f f e c t about 50% of the l o c a l residents, whose live l i h o o d s depend on s e l l i n g wood. Pote n t i a l l y , i t w i l l cost the l o c a l community about Rp. 500,000 to Rp. 750,000 (approximately 187 to 375 US$) per day. Thus, another option for the buffer zone i s "adaptive management". Instead of a complete ban on wood extraction,, park agencies can impose a p a r t i a l or temporary ban. For example, i n the f i r s t year, a l l wood extraction beyond 1.5 km of the reserve would be banned. Or, a temporary ban could be imposed on s i t e s where forests are badly degraded. This approach can only be e f f e c t i v e i f park agencies also o f f e r other alternatives for the l o c a l 105 people, such as p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n agroforestry or timber plantations. As management progresses, for example, to the 10 t h year, park agencies may impose a complete ban on cutting wood from the reserve. The protection of the RSNR i s not only challenged by the socio-economic conditions around the reserve, but i n d i r e c t l y by the physical l i m i t a t i o n s around i t . A survey made by RePPProT (1989) concludes that s o i l f e r t i l i t y and water a v a i l a b i l i t y are the main l i m i t i n g factors for a g r i c u l t u r a l development around Ruteng. Although Ruteng receives r a i n f a l l between 1,000 to 3,500 mm annually, i t i s d i s t r i b u t e d unevenly throughout the year. Thus, despite large amounts of rain, many farmers can only c u l t i v a t e t h e i r land once a year. Other l i m i t a t i o n s include a lack of suitable land for agriculture, and an abundance of steep slopes prone to s o i l erosion and land s l i d e s during the monsoon season. These conditions, coupled with rapid population growth around Ruteng, have increased dependence on wood extraction from the reserve. The ADB (1992) recommends several small-scale development and agroforestry options for people around the reserve. Recommendations cover a range of options including providing staple food (especially for famine prone communities around the reserve), cash and annual crops, apiculture, timber plantations, 106 and tourism. However, i n l i g h t of the RePPProT's (1989) findings, the ADB's recommendations sound overly ambitious. Cases exist, however, i n which people l i v i n g i n s i m i l a r socio-economic conditions.and physical l i m i t a t i o n s to those described above are able to improve t h e i r l i v i n g conditions and physical environment with f i n a n c i a l and technical assistance from the government and private sector. For instance, Oh (1985) describes the case of a Korean community, which, aft e r years of timber exploitation, had to deal with severe flooding, drought, s o i l erosion, low a g r i c u l t u r a l productivity, shortage of fuel wood and fodder, and general poverty. However, with government f i n a n c i a l and technical assistance, a better land tenure agreement and the involvement of l o c a l NGOs, the community was successful i n meeting t h e i r fuel wood, fodder and timber needs, as well as i n improving t h e i r incomes, a l l within a r e l a t i v e l y short period of time. Certainly, these achievements cannot be d i r e c t l y duplicated i n Ruteng, but there are lessons that can be learned. The fact that nutrients i n t r o p i c a l s o i l s are stored i n the biomass suggests that s o i l nutrients i n the tropics can be improved through the growth of vegetation. Thus, despite the lack of s o i l nutrients, agroforestry i s , i n t h i s sense, possible around Ruteng. There i s ample evidence around Ruteng suggesting 107 that many cash crops, such as coffee and cacao grow well under nitrogen f i x i n g trees. What i s needed i s government investment and a long-term commitment. In addition, i f the l o c a l residents can be offered a better land tenure system, e s p e c i a l l y one addressing the needs of the landless, they may be encouraged to p a r t i c i p a t e i n agroforestry a c t i v i t i e s i n the buffer zones'. Also, there i s need to t r a i n the l o c a l residents i n better marketing techniques and income management than they now are able to p r a c t i c e . 108 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION: THE METHOD'S POTENTIAL 6.1. Introduction The application of the method around RSNR showed that the method can be used to determine functional buffer zone widths for any given reserve. Further applications of the method are recommended to examine i t s effectiveness and to improve i t s uses i n the future. The application also showed that data c o l l e c t i o n and analysis can be done i n a timely manner and r e l a t i v e l y inexpensively. With a crew of three people, i t took three to four days to sample a l l trees > 5 cm at dbh i n a transects. F a m i l i a r i t y with the plants or taxa under study and f i e l d conditions would help i n data c o l l e c t i o n . Data analyses are straightforward and can be done by using a hand-calculator or spreadsheet program (Exell 5.1 was used for ANOVA). Therefore, i t can be concluded that, i n addition to the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the method, i t i s also inexpensive, time e f f i c i e n t , easily-taught, and can be used by park planners, conservationists, and l o c a l communities. This chapter offers suggestions on how to improve and apply the method i n the future. 6.2. Assessing the Ruteng Application The application of t h i s method around RSNR suggests that i n future studies, only trees > 10 cm (at dbh) should be sampled. 109 Trees > 10 cm l i k e l y play important roles i n physiognomy of the forest. In terms of s t a t i s t i c a l analyses, s i t e s treated as true r e p l i c a t e s showed sim i l a r results as sample plots treated as pseudoreplicates. Therefore, a suggested study should focus on c o l l e c t i n g data from dispersed sample plots, which are located i n transects (Hurlbert 1984). S t a t i s t i c a l analyses adopted i n t h i s method indicated that these analyses can be used to d i s t i n g u i s h the differences i n habitat parameters ( i . e . , species richness, species d i v e r s i t y , and stem density) between the transects, e s p e c i a l l y at the s i t e s were wood extraction occurred. Although rigorous s t a t i s t i c a l analyses could not be made for the comparison of species composition between the transects, the analysis used i n t h i s method showed that a " s u f f i c i e n t " comparison can be made. When equal sample sizes are obtained, data can be e a s i l y analyzed either with a hand calculator or a spread-sheet program. Analysis of variance i s recommended for s l i g h t l y more rigorous s t a t i s t i c a l analyses, but certain requirements must be met (Fowler and Cohen 1990). For instance, observations (data) should be normally d i s t r i b u t e d . Non-parametric tests, such as 110 the Kruskal-Wallis test may also be considered. This test i s simpler than ANOVA, since i t requires neither normally d i s t r i b u t e d data, nor the computation of variances and means. However, by using the Kruswall-Wallis test, one cannot determine the differences between transects. Thus analyses may be focused on comparing transects located i n core areas (e.g., T4 i n th i s study) rather than transects (TI, T2, and T3) that are located near the reserve boundary. In other words, comparisons should be made between T4 and TI, T2, and T3. Based on the application of t h i s method around RSNR, i t i s concluded that t h i s method could be used to determine appropriate buffer zone width. If the analysis shows that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n terms of species richness, species d i v e r s i t y , stem density, and species composition i n the area at the periphery of the protected area compared to the area i n the core of the protected area, then buffer zone width should be as wide as where the difference begins. Thus, for instance, i f the analysis found that the s i g n i f i c a n t difference begins at 2 km from the protected area's periphery toward the core of the protected area, then 2-km a wide buffer ( i . e . , forest) i s needed for that protected area. The area ( i . e . , f o r e s t ) , that w i l l be established a as buffer zone, should be allocated outside the protected area. • I l l 6.3. Recommendation: Refining the Method 1) This study found that disturbed areas have smaller trees (due to regrowth) than r e l a t i v e l y undisturbed areas, which have bigger trees. In other words, because disturbed areas were dominated by smaller size trees, they contained more trees per hectare than undisturbed areas. Because the measurements of species d i v e r s i t y , richness and stem density were based on areas sampled, disturbed areas tend to have a higher d i v e r s i t y and density than undisturbed areas. Therefore, i t i s recommended that future studies should sample only trees > 10 cm at dbh. Certainly, l i m i t i n g sampling to trees > 10 cm at dbh w i l l give extra time to either sample a bigger area or other taxa. However, for a better understanding of forest dynamics i n the buffer zones, tree saplings should also be sampled, but perhaps these could be sampled i n a few small areas. 2) Tree sampling should be done i n a long l i n e or rectangle rather than a square shaped area. This type of sample procedure w i l l give a better chance to sample most of the tree species present i n the area than a square shaped survey area (Whitmore et a l . 1987). 3) Only plant taxonomic (species) d i v e r s i t y has been surveyed i n t h i s study. Future studies should also include 112 s t r u c t u r a l d i v e r s i t y . MacArthur and Horns (1969) provide a method to measure st r u c t u r a l d i v e r s i t y of plant communities. 4) Although i t i s d i f f i c u l t to ensure an equal sample size i n the f i e l d , equal sample size w i l l make s t a t i s t i c a l analyses easier than unequal sample s i z e . With equal sample size i t i s easier to conduct s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. This i s very important i n sampling procedures, considering that not a l l forestry o f f i c e s have computers or can afford s t a t i s t i c i a n s to analyze the data. Simple data analysis, using hand calculators or spread-sheet programs, w i l l also provide an opportunity for the l o c a l people to be involved i n the data analysis. It should be noted that determination of- buffer zone width i s a first step of buffer zone management. In actual planning, a management p r e s c r i p t i o n must follow aft e r width determination. 6.4. General Application The measure of species richness and d i v e r s i t y should focus on the resources people extract from within the reserve and the objectives of the reserve. For instance, i f people hunt animals from the reserve, then the method should be adjusted to measure d i v e r s i t y of animals. If a reserve was established to protect ce r t a i n b i r d populations, then the species richness, d i v e r s i t y 1.13 and density of these populations should also be measured. When time and l o g i s t i c s permit, the case study should also examine more than one taxa. Nonetheless, based on e a r l i e r studies of the rela t i o n s h i p between plant d i v e r s i t y and d i v e r s i t y of other taxa, i t can be suggested here that the primary focus should be on plant d i v e r s i t y . Although some socio-economic data from governmental i n s t i t u t i o n s and independent studies were presented i n Chapter 5 r e l a t i n g to my study^area. In actual buffer zone planning cases, appropriate time would have to be allocated to planning how to gather l o c a l socio-economic data (for example, many government i n s t i t u t i o n s provide only data for d i s t r i c t or p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l s , which do not necessarily r e f l e c t the conditions at the v i l l a g e or community l e v e l ) . In the Ruteng study, I benefited greatly from d i r e c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n of l o c a l people and th e i r knowledge of tree species (Verheijen 1982). Tree species i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n the f i e l d was made possible with t h e i r help. This suggests that, i n ec o l o g i c a l l y based analysis, the d i r e c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n of l o c a l people (either farmers or hunters) should be considered. Certainly, information i n regard to s o c i a l , economic and l o c a l customs can be obtained through l o c a l people as well. 114 6.5. Conclusion By no means w i l l the method proposed here p r e c i s e l y determine an e c o l o g i c a l l y sound buffer zone width that takes into account a l l the relevant socio-economic and c u l t u r a l circumstances of the people. But, considering the problems i n the management of e x i s t i n g protected areas, t h i s method offers an ecologically-sound approach for park planners. Soule' (1985, 1986:6) points out that "conservation biology i s a c r i s i s d i s c i p l i n e . In c r i s i s d i s c i p l i n e s , i n contrast to "conventional" science, i t i s sometimes imperative to make an important t a c t i c a l decision before one i s confident i n the s u f f i c i e n c y of data". He adds "... the r i s k s of non-action may be greater than the r i s k s of inappropriate action". These remarks c e r t a i n l y apply to the establishment of protected areas and buffer zones, despite the fact that both t a c t i c s have been practiced for decades. Park planners, conservationists, and l o c a l people must make the "best possible" decisions or recommendations for protected areas management, based on whatever methods and data are a v a i l a b l e . The method proposed here i s very much i n i t s infancy, but hopefully i t makes a contribution toward providing a broader methodology that w i l l be an improvement upon e x i s t i n g practices of forest resource and reserve management. 115 BIBLIOGRAPHY ADB. 1992. Management and conservation of t r o p i c a l forest ecosystems and b i o d i v e r s i t y . T.A. No. 1430-INO. Draft F i n a l Report. Alder, J. and D. Glick. 1994. No Room, No Rest. Newsweek, August, 1994. A l l i n , C. W. (ed.). 1990. International handbook of national parks and nature reserves. Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Anon. 1990. Undang-undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 5 Tahun 1990. Jakarta: Menteri/Sekretaris Negara Republik Indonesia. Anon. 1994. Rencana Pembangunan Lima Tahun Keenan 1994/95 -1998/99. Buku I I I . Jakarta: Koperasi Kantor BAPPENAS. Anon. 1995. Untuk fungsi TNKS: Bank Dunia sediakan dana penyelamatan Rp. 80 milyar. Kompas, 4 A p r i l 1995. Anon. 1996. Perkelahian antardesa, 3 tewas 16 rumah dibakar. Kompas, 30 January 1991. Babbit, B. 1994. Our National Parks. National Geographic. 186(4): 12-13. Bal a i KSDA VII. 1992. Laporan Tahunan 1991/1992. Kupang. Balick, M. J. and R. Mendelsohn. 1992. Assessing the economic value of t r a d i t i o n a l medicines from t r o p i c a l r a i n forests. Conserv. Biol. 6(1): 128-134. BAPPENAS. 1993. Biodiversity: action plan for Indonesia. Jakarta: BAPPENAS. Barlow, C , A. B e l l i s , and K. Andrews (ed.). 1991. Nusa Tenggara Timur: The challenges of development. P o l i t i c a l and Social Change Monograph 12. Canberra: The Australian National University. Berger, W.H. and F.L. Parker. 1970. D i v e r s i t y of planktonic Foraminifera i n deep-sea sediments. Science 168: 1345-1547. BPS. 1995. Gross Regional Domestic Product of provinces in Indonesia by industrial origin 1983-1993. Jakarta: Cv. F i a n f i n Sejahtera. 116 Braatz, S. 1992. Conservation biological diversity. A strategy for protected areas in the Asia-Pacific region. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Butchart, S.H.M., T.M. Brooks, C.W.N. Davies, G. Dharmaputra, G.C.L. Dutson, J.C. Lowen, and A. Sahu. 1993. Cambridge Flores/Sumbawa conservation project 1993. Summary report. 12pp. Burnet, G. W. 1990. Kenya. In International handbook of national parks and nature reserves, ed. C. W. A l l i n , 235-252. Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Colchester, M. 1994. Salvaging nature: indigenous peoples, protected areas and biodiversity conservation. UNRISD Discussion Paper #55. Collins., N. M., J. A. Sayer, and T. C. Whitmore. (ed.). 1991. The conservation atlas of tropical forests Asia and the Pacific. London: MacMillan Press Ltd. Costello, M. G. 1990. The economic of protected area establishment and management. Report submitted to the WWF Indonesia Programme and ADB. Craven, I. and Y. de Fretes. 1987. Arfak Mountains Nature Conservation Area, I r i a n Jaya. Management plant 1988-1992. A WWF report for the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation. Cribb, R. 1988. The politics of environmental protection in Indonesia. A u s t r a l i a : The Centre of Southeast Asian Studies Monash University. Currie, D. J. 1991. Energy and large-scale patterns of animal-and plant-species richness. Am. Nat. 137(1): 27-49. Daly, H. E. and J. B. Cobb. 1989. For the common good. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Dearden, P. 1991. Parks and protected areas. In Resource management and development, ed. B. M i t c h e l l , 130-152. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Denison, E. F. 1977. Welfare measurement and the GNP. In Economic of the environment: selected reading, ed R. Dorfman and N. S. Dorfman, 469-478. 2nd Ed i t i o n . New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Denslow, J. S.. 1980. Patterns of plant species d i v e r s i t y during succession under d i f f e r e n t disturbances regimes. Oecologi.a 46: 18-21. 117 Denslow, J. S. 1984. Influence of disturbance on species d i v e r s i t y : reply to T.C. Whitmore. Biotropica 16(3): 240. Djagon, D. 1959. Myths i n Manggarai, West Flores, Indonesia as a part of the or a l l i t e r a t u r e . MA Thesis. Cebu C i t y . Dinerstein, E. and W. D. Wikramanayake. 1992. Beyond "Hotspots": how to p r i o r i t i z e investments to conserve b i o d i v e r s i t y i n the Indo-Pacific region. Conserv. Bio. 70(1): 53-65. Eidsvik, H. K. and W. D. Henwood. 1990. Canada. In International handbook of national parks and nature reserves, ed. C. W. A l l i n , 61-81. Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Erb, M. 1994. Cuddling the r i c e : myth and r i t u a l i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l year of the Rembong of Northern Manggarai, Indonesia. Contribution to Southeast Asian ethnography. No. 10: 151-184. Fearnside, P. M. 1989. Extractive reserves i n B r a z i l i a n Amazonian: an opportunity to maintain t r o p i c a l r a i n f o r e s t under sustainable use. Bioscience. 39(6): 387-393. Fisher, J. L. 1972. Population and economic pressures on national parks. Second World Conference on National Parks, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, USA, Sept. 18-27, 1972. p.102-114. Foster, R. B. 1980. Heterogeneity and disturbance i n t r o p i c a l vegetation. In Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective, ed. M. E. Soule' and A. Wilcox, 75-92. Massachusetts: Sinauer Asso., Inc. Fowler, J. and L. Cohen. 1990. Practical s t a t i s t i c s for field biology. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Gadgil, M. 1992. Conserving b i o d i v e r s i t y as i f people matter: a case study from India. Ambio 21(3): 266-270. Ghimire, K. B. 1991. Park and people: livelihood in National Parks management in Thailand and Madagascar. UNRISD Discussion Paper #29. Gilb e r t , L. E. 1980. Food web organization and conservation of Neotropical d i v e r s i t y . In Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective, ed. M. E. Soule' and A. Wilcox, 11-33. Massachusetts: Sinauer Asso., Inc. Given, D. R. 1994. Principles and practice of plant conservation. Hong Kong: Timber Press Inc. 118 Gordon, J. L. 1975. The Manggarai: economic and social transformation in an Eastern Indonesian society. PhD. Thesis. Harvard University. Greig-Smith, P., M. P. Austin and T. C. Whitmore. 1967. The application of quantitative methods to vegetation survey: association-analysis and p r i n c i p a l component ordination of rai n forest. J. Ecol. 53: 483-503. Groombridge, B.(ed.). 1993. 1994 IUCN Red List of Threatened animals. Compiled by the WCMC. Cambridge: The World Conservation Union. Hadisepoetro, S. 1991. The p o l i c y of a management of national park i n Indonesia. In Symposium on rain forest protection and national park buffer zones, ed. J. Wind, 6pp. Jakarta: National Park Development Project, Buffer Zone and Research Management. Harcombe, P. A. 1977. Nutrient accumulation by vegetation during the f i r s t year of recovery of a t r o p i c a l forest ecosystem. In Recovery and restoration of damaged ecosystems, ed. J. Cairns, Jr., K. L. Dickson, and E. E. Herricks, 347-378. C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e University Press of V i r g i n i a . Hartshorn, G. S. 1989. Application of gap theory to t r o p i c a l forest management: natural regeneration on s t r i p clear cuts i n the Peruvian Amazon. Ecology 70: 567-569. Hemo, D. 1988, Sejarah daerah Manggarai, Propinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur. Ruteng. Holling, C. S., D. W. Schindler, B. W. Walker, and R. Roughgarden. 1995. B i o d i v e r s i t y i n the functioning of ecosystems an ecological synthesis. In Biodiversity loss: economic and ecological issues, ed. C. Perrings, K-G Maler, C. Folke, C. S. Holling, and B-0. Janson, 44-83. New York: Cambridge University Press. Holloway, J. D., A. H. Kirk-Spriggs, and C. H. Khen. 1992. The response of some r a i n forest insect groups to logging and conversion to plantation. In Tropical rain forest: disturbance and recovery, ed. A. G. Marshall and M. D. Swaine, 425-436. Proceeding of Royal Society Discussion Meeting. Hurlbert, S. H. 1971. The concept of species d i v e r s i t y : a c r i t i q u e and alternative parameters. Ecology 52: 577-586. Hurlbert, S. H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological f i e l d experiment. Ecol. Monog. 54: 187-211. 119 IUCN. 1980. World conservation strategy: living resource conservation for sustainable development. IUCN, UNEP, and WWF. Switzerland. .; '•' IUCN. 1994. Guidelines.for Protected Areas Management Category. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland. / Jacobs,. M. 1988. The tropical rain forest: a first encounter. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. •- ,  .; Janzen, D. H. 1983. No park i s an islan d : increase i n interference from outside as park.size decreases. Oikos 41 (3): 402-410 • - v • Janzen, D.H. 1986. The eternal external threat. In Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity, ed. M.E. Soule',., 286-303, Massachusetts: Sinauer Asso.' Inc. Johns, A. Dv 1985. Selective .logging arid w i l d l i f e conservation i n t r o p i c a l r a i n - f o r e s t : problems and .recommendations. Biol. Conserv. 31: 355-375. Johns, A. D. 1992. Vertebrate responses to, s e l e c t i v e logging: implications for the design of logging systems. In Tropical rain, forest: disturbance and recovery, ed. A. G. Marshall and M. D. Swaine, 437-442. Proceeding :of Royal Society Discussion Meeting. Jordan, C. F. 1985. Nutrient cycling in tropical forest, ecosystems,. Chichester, UK: John Willey &. Sons. Karr, J. R. 1,968. Habitat and avian d i v e r s i t y on strip-mined land i n east-central I l l i o n i s . Condor 70: 348-357. Karr, J. R. and R. R. Roth.; 1971. Vegetation structure and avian d i v e r s i t y i n several new world areas. Amer. Natur. .105(945): 423-435. • Kantor S t a t i s t i k . 199.4. Sensus Pertanian 1993: H a s i l pendaftaran rumahtangga Kabupaten Manggarai. Ruteng. -. Kantor S t a t i s t i k . 1994a. S t a t i s t i k produksi tanaman pangan Kabupaten Manggarai Tahun 1993. Ruteng: Kantor S t a t i s t i k Manggarai. Kantor S t a t i s t i k NTT. 1994. Nusa Tenggara Timur. dalam angka 1993. Kupang: Kantor S t a t i s t i k Nusa Tenggara Timur. Kayanja, F. I. B. 1990.. Uganda. In International handbook of national parks and nature reserves, ed. C. W. A l l in,. 373-393. • Connecticut: Greenwood Press. 120 \ Khan, H. 1986. Socioeconomic development of Asean: an international perspective. Asia P a c i f i c Monograph. #1. Singapore: Chopmen Publisher. King, G. S. and W. S. Chapman. 1983. F l o r i s t i c composition and structure of a rainfo r e s t area 25 years a f t e r logging:. Aust. J. Ecology 8:415-423 KLH. 1992. Indonesian country on biological diversity. Jakarta: KLH. KLH. 1992a. Penduduk Indonesia selama Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Tahap I: Nusa Tenggara Timur. Jakarta: KLH. Krebs, C. J. 1989. Ecological Methodology. New York: Harper C o l l i n s Publisher. Lewis, E. D. 1991. The relations of s o c i a l order, a g r i c u l t u r a l practice, and environment i n Tana 'Ai, Flores. Indo-Pacific Assn. Bulletin 10: 235-247. Lewis, D. M., A. Mwenya, and G.B. Kaweche. 1990. A f r i c a n solution to w i l d l i f e problems i n A f r i c a : insights from a community-based project i n Zambia. Unasylva 161(41): 11-20. Lus i g i , W. J. 1982. New approaches to w i l d l i f e conservation i n Kenya. The Ecologist 12(3): 101-106. MacArthur, R. H. 1965. Patterns of species d i v e r s i t y . Biol. Rev. 40: 510-533. MacArthur, R. H and J. W. MacArthur. 1961. On b i r d species d i v e r s i t y . Ecology 42: 594-598. MacArthur, R. H. and H. S. Horn. 1969. Foliage p r o f i l e by . v e r t i c a l measurements. Ecology 50(5): 802-804. MacArthur, R. H., H. Recher, and M. Cody. 1966. On the r e l a t i o n between habitat selection and species d i v e r s i t y . Amer. Natur. 100 (913): 319-325. ' MacKinnon, J. 1982. National conservation plan for Indonesia, Vol. 1: introduction, evaluation methods and overview of national nature richness. FO/INS/78/061. F i e l d Report 38. Bogor. MacKinnon, J., R. Beudels, A. Robinson, and M. B. Artha. 1982. A national conservation plan for Indonesia Vol. VI: Lesser Sundas. UNDP/FAO National Park Development Project. FO: INS/78/061. F i e l d Report 44. Bogor 121 MacKinnon, J. and K. MacKinnon. 1986. Review of the protected areas systems in the Indo-Malayan realm. Gland, Switzerland: World Conservation Union. MacKinnon, J., K. MacKinnon, G. Child, J. T h o r s e l l . 1990. Pengelolaan kawasan yang dilindungi di daerah tropika. Translated by H.H. Amir. Jogyakarta: Gajah Mada University Press. Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological diversity and i t s measurement. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. McNeely, J. A. and K. R. M i l l e r (ed.). 1984. National parks, conservation, and development: the role of protected areas in sustaining society. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian I n s t i t u t i o n Press. McNeely, J. A. and D. P i t t (ed.). 1985. Culture and conservation: the human dimension in environmental planning. New Hampshire: Groom Helm. MF/FAO. 1991. Indonesian tropical forestry action, programme: Country Brief. Jakarta. M i l l e r , G. T. 1988. Living in the environment: an introduction to environment science. C a l i f o r n i a : Wadsworth Publishing Company. M i t c h e l l , A., Y. de Fretes, M. Poffenberger. 1990. Community p a r t i c i p a t i o n for conservation area management i n the Cyclops Mountains, I r i a n Jaya. In Keeper of the forest: land management alternatives in Southeast Asia, ed. M. Poffenberger, 237-252. Connecticut: Kumarian Press. M i t c h e l l , J. G. 1994. Legacy at r i s k . National Geographic 186 (4); 22pp. Mkanda, F. X. and S. M. Munthali. 1994. Public attitudes and needs around Kasungu National Park, Malawi. Biodiver. Conserv. 3: 29-44. Moeliono, M. 1993. Forestry i n Manggarai. A study on the present s i t u a t i o n and development of the forestry sector i n the Kabupaten Manggarai. Typed report. Moeliono, M. 1994. Wood use i n the Manggarai: a study on the demand and supply of wood. Draft Report. Ruteng. Munasinghe, M. 1992. B i o d i v e r s i t y protection p o l i c y : environmental valuation and d i s t r i b u t i o n issues. Ambio 21(3): 227-236. 122 Murdoch, M.W., F.C. Evans, and CH. Peterson. 1972. D i v e r s i t y and pattern i n plants and insects. Ecology 53(5): 819-829. Myers, N. 1988. Tropical forests and t h e i r species: going, going...? In Biodiversity, ed. E.O. Wilson and F.M. Peter, 28-35. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Myers, N. 1988a. Threatened biotas: "Hotspots" i n t r o p i c a l f o r e s t s . Environmentalist 8(3): 187-208 Newmark, W. D., N. L. Leonard, H. I. Sariko, and D. M. Gamassa. 1993. Conservation attitudes of l o c a l people l i v i n g adjacent to fi v e protected areas i n Tanzania. Biol. Conserv. 63: 177-183. Newmark, W. D ; , D. N. Manyanza, D. M. Gamassa, and H. I. Sariko. 1994. The c o n f l i c t between w i l d l i f e and l o c a l people l i v i n g adjacent to protected areas i n Tanzania: human density as a predictor. Cons. Biol. 8(1): 249-255. Nordhaus, W. D. and J. Tobin. 1977. Measures of economic welfare. In Economic of the environment: selected reading, ed. R. Dorfman and N. S. Dorfman, 479-488. 2nd Edi t i o n . New York: W.W. Norton&Company. Oh, Ho-Sung. 1985. Economic development and changing forest problems and p o l i c i e s : the case of Korea. In Community forestry: lessons from case studies in Asia and the Pacific region, ed. Y. S. Rao, M. T. Hoskins, N. T. Vergara, and C. P. Castro, 135-147. FAO and East-West Center. O l d f i e l d , S. 1988. Buffer zone management in tropical moist forests: case studies and guidelines. The IUCN Tropical Forest Programme. Switzerland: IUCN. Peet, R. K. 1974. The measurement of species d i v e r s i t y . Ann. Rev. Ecol. System. 5: 285-307. Peters, C. M., A. H. Gentry, and R. 0. Mendelsohn. 1989. Valuation of an Amazonian r a i n f o r e s t . Nature 339: 655-656. Petocz, R. G. 1989. Strategic planning for the WWF Indonesia Conservation Programme: a review of current programme components planning strategy. Recommended project concepts. Jakarta: WWF International/Indonesia. Petocz, R. G. 1991. General summary p r o f i l e for Nusa Tenggara. Paper presented on workshop on Indonesian b i o d i v e r s i t y conservation and management, Ci l o t o , Jawa Barat. 123 PHPA. 1994. Statistik Kehutanan: bidang Perlindungan Hutan dan Pelestarian Alam Tahun 1993/1994. Jakarta: PHPA. Pianka, E. R. 1967. On l i z a r d species d i v e r s i t y : North American f l a t l a n d deserts. Ecology 48(3): 333-351. Pielou, E.C. 1966. The measurement of d i v e r s i t y i n d i f f e r e n t types of b i o l o g i c a l c o l l e c t i o n s . J.theor.Biol. 13:131-144. Poffenberger, M (ed.). 1990. Keepers of the forests. Connecticut: Kumarian Press. Polunin, N. V. C. 1985. Tr a d i t i o n a l marine practices i n Indonesia and bearing on conservation. In Culture and conservation: the human dimension in environmental planning, ed. McNeely and P i t t , 155-179. New Hampshire: Croom Helm. Primack, R. B. and P. H a l l . 1992. B i o d i v e r s i t y and forest change i n Malaysian Borneo. Bioscience 42(11): 829-837. Prins, H. H. T. and J. Wind. 1993. Research for nature conservation i n South-East Asia. Biol. Conser. 63: 43-4 6. Purba, K. 1991. Industry i n NTT. In Nusa Tenggara Timur: the challenges of development, ed., Barrow et a l . , 145-153. P o l i t i c a l and So c i a l Change Monograph 12. Canberra: The Austr a l i a n National University Purvis, A. 1995. Sounds of gunfire i n the mist. Time, October 2, 2pp. Ramli and Ahmad 1993. Rente ekonomi pengusahaan hutan Indonesia. Jakarta: Wahana Lingkungan Hidup. Repetto, R., W. Magrath, M. Wells, C. Beer, and F. Rossini. 1989. Wasting assets: natural resources in the national income accounts. Washington, D.C.: WRI. RePPProT. 1989. Review of Phase I Results Maluku and Nusa Tenggara. Land Resources Department ODNRI, Overseas Development Administration Foreign and Commonwealth O f f i c e . United Kingdom. Routledge, R. D. 1979. Diversity: which ones are admissible? J.theor. Biol. 76: 503-515. Rosenzweig, M. L. 1973. Habitat s e l e c t i o n experiments with a pair of coexisting heteromyid rodent species. Ecology 54: 111-117. 124 Ruwiastuti, M. 1992. Management and conservation of tro p i c a l , forest ecosystems and b i o d i v e r s i t y . T r a d i t i o n a l land rights i n IPAS the cases of the IPAS i n Togian, Ruteng/Manggarai and Lorentz. Jakarta: ADB and Government of Indonesia. Salafsky, N. 1993. Mammalian use of a buffer zone agroforestry system bordering Gunung Palung National Park, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Conserv. Biol. 7(4): 928-933. Salafsky, N., B.L. Dugelby, and J. W. Terbogh. 1993. Can extractive reserves save the rai n forest? An ecological and socioeconomic comparison of nontimber forest product extraction systems i n Peten', Guetemala, and West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Conserv. Biol. 7(1): 39-52. Sayer, J. 1991. Rainforest buffer zones: guidelines for protected area managers. IUCN Forest Conservation Programme. United Kingdom: IUCN. Sayer, J. and T. C. Whitmore. 1991. Tropical moist forests: destruction and species extinction. Biol. Conserv. 55: 199-213. Severinghaus, W. D. 1981. Guild theory development as a mechanism for assessing environmental impact. Enviro. Manag. 5: 187-190. Shafer, C. L. 1990. Nature reserves: island theory and conservation practice. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian I n s t i t u t i o n Press. Sharma, U. R. 1990. An overview of park-people interactions i n Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Landscape Urban Plann. 19(2): 133-144. Shimida, A. and M. V. Wilson. 1985. B i o l o g i c a l determinant of species d i v e r s i t y . J. Biogeogr. 12: 1-20. Smil, V. 1993. Global ecology: environmental change and social flexibility. New York: Routledge. Singh, S. and W. A. Rodgers. 1990. India. In International handbook of national parks and nature reserves, ed. C. W. A l l i n , 183-196. Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Soule 1, M. E. 1985. What i s conservation biology? Bioscience ' 35(11): 727-734. Soule', M. E. 1986. Conservation biology and the "real world". In Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity, ed. M. E. Soule', 1-12. MA: Sinaeur Asso., Inc. 125 Southwood, T. R. E., V. K. Brown and P. M. Reader. 1979. The relationships of plant and insect d i v e r s i t i e s , i n succession. Biol. J. Lin. Soc. 12: 327-348. Studs rod, J. E. and P. Wegge. 1995; Park-people relationships:' the case of damage caused by park animals around the Royal Ba'rdi National Park, Nepal. Environmental Conservation 22(2): 133-142. Sumardja, E. A., Harsbno, and J. MacKinnon. 1982'. Indonesia's network of protected areas. In National parks, conservation, and development: the role of protected areas in,sustaining, society, ed". J. A. McNeely and K. M i l l e r , 224-227. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian I n s t i t u t i o n Press. Thiollay, J-M. 1992. Influence of se l e c t i v e logging on b i r d species d i v e r s i t y i n a Guianan r a i n forest. Conser. Biol. 6(1): 47-63. Thiollay, J-M. 1995. The role of t r a d i t i o n a l agroforests i n the conservation of r a i n forest b i r d d i v e r s i t y i n Sumatra. Conserv. Biol. 9 (2) : 335-353. • ' '• ' ' " Uhl, G. and C; F. Jordan. 1983. Succession and nutrient 'dynamics following forest cutting and burning i n Amazonia., Ecology 65. (5) 1476-1490. - . Unesco.. 1986. Socio-economic analysis and planning: c r i t i c a l choice of methodologies. Socio-economic studies 12. ' Usher, P. J. 1987. Indigenous management systems and the conservation of w i l d l i f e i n the Canadian North. Alternatives 14 (1) : 3-9. i . , van Schaik, C., R. Kramer, P. Shyamsundar and N. Salafsky. 1992. Biodiversity of tropical rain forests: ecology and economics of an elusive resource. Center for Tropical Conservation, Duke University. Verheijen, J. A. J. 1982. Dictionary of Manggarai^plant names. Department of Lingustics, Research School of P a c i f i c Studies. Series D No. 43. Cambera: Australian National University. Verner, J. 1984. The gu i l d concept applied to management of b i r d populations. Enviro. Manag. 8(1) : : 1-14. Webb, P. R. A. F. 1990. Rural development and tradition: the churches in Bali and Flores. Centre of Southeast Asian Studies. Working Paper 65. Monash University. Wells, M. 1992. B i o d i v e r s i t y conservation, affluence and poverty: mismatched costs and benefits and e f f o r t s to remedy them.' Ambio 21 (3) : 237-243. Wells, M. P. 1994. B i o d i v e r s i t y conservation and l o c a l . development aspirations: new p r i o r i t i e s for the 1990s. In Biodiversity conservation: problems and policies, ed. C. A. Perrings, K-G. Maler, C. Folke, C. S. Holling, and B-0. Janson. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publisher. Wells, M., K. Bradon, and L. Hannah. 1992.People and parks: linking protected area management with local communities. The World Bank, WWF, USAID. Washington, D.C.: World Bank- Publications Western,,D., R. M. Wright, and S. C. Strum (eds.). 1994. Perspectives in community-based conservation. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Whitmore^ T. C. 1984.. Tropical rain forests of the Far East. 2nd Editon. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Whitmore, T. C. 1984a. Gap size and species richness i n t r o p i c a l f o r e s t s . Biotroplca 16 (3): 239. Whitmore, T. C. 1990. An introduction to tropical rainforests. New York: Oxford University Press. Whitmore, T. C , K. Sidiyasa, and T. J. Whitmore. 1987. Tree species enumeration of 0.5 hectare on Halmahera. Gard. Bull. Sing. 40 (1) : 31-34. Whittaker, R. H. 1972. Evolution and measurement of species d i v e r s i t y . Taxon 21: 213-251. Williams, P. H. and K. J. Gaston. 1994. Measuring more of bi o d i v e r s i t y : can higher-taxon richness predict wholesale species richness? Biol. Conserv. 69: 211-217. Wilson, E. 0. 1988. The current state of b i o l o g i c a l d i v e r s i t y . In Biodiversity, ed. E. 0. Wilson and F. M. Peter, 1-18. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Wind, J. 1990. Apa yang dimaksud dengan daerah penyanggah yang e f f e k t i f ? Buffer zone management: Proceeding Seminar National. WWF/Kanwil Kehutanan Propinsi I r i a n Jaya. Wind, J.. (ed.) 1991. Symposium on rainforest protection and national park buffer zones. Jakarta: National Park -Development Project.. 127 WB. 1994. Indonesia: sustaining development. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. WCMC. 1994. Threatened Animals of Indonesia. WCMC. Cambridge, UK WCMC Database. WRI, IUCN, and UNEP. 1992. Global biodiversity strategy: guidelines for action to save, to study, and use Earth's biotic wealth sustainably and equitably. Washington, D.C. WWF/Kanwil Kehutanan. 1990. Prosiding seminar nasional pengelolaan kawasan penyangga, Jayapura 16-17 Oktober 1990. Jayapura: WWF/Kanwil Kehutanan Irian Jaya. Zagorin, A. 1995. Real wealth of nations. Time, Oct. 2. Ip. Zerner, C. 1994. Transforming customary law and coastal management practices i n the Maluku Islands, Indonesia, 1870-1992 In Prespectives in community-based conservation, ed. D. Western, R. M. Wright, and S. C. Strum, 80-112. Washington, D.C: Island Press. 128 S4T4 ro rH o rH rH r~ C M rH rH rH 00 rH ro C M rH S4T3 rH •^ r cr, rH C O •^ r rH rH ro VD rH ro S4T2 QO LT> • C M C M C M C M ro C M C M ro C M ro S4T1 cr. L O rH rH rH rH r~ C M ro rH C M m rH C M rH S3T4 rH o rH rH VO rH C M rH C D rH S3T3 rH C M C M VD if) ro C M C M rH C M S3T2 C M rH rH rH rH rH rH ro C M C M C M C M S3T1 rH rH C M ro rH rH ex. C M ro rH rH S2T4 rH rH ro cn C O ro *a* <S\ rH ro rH rH C M C D 00 ro r-S2T3 rH C M C M rH ro rH rH rH rH C M S2T2 ro rH C M C M ro rH rH rH rH S2T1 C M rH rH ro rH rH C M ro rH lO S1T4 CJl C M C M L O O rH r - C M lO -a* C M rH ro stu S1T3 rH rH C M C M rH r -rH rH C M ro ro VO rH rH rH is S1T2 C M C O C M rH rH rH rH rH rH C M & SlTl in C M VD C M rH -H es sampled Family Aceraceae Rutaceae Lauraceae Theaceae Fabaceae Myrsinaceae Sapindaceae Rutaceae Anacardiaceae Rubiaceae Ulmaceae Oleaceae Theaceae Borraginaceae Lauraceae Lauraceae Podocarpaceae Myrtaceae Meliaceae Elaecarpaceae Elaecarpaceae Elaecarpaceae Elaecarpaceae Sapindaceae Rutaceae Theaceae Moraceae Moraceae Moraceae Moraceae Flacourtiaceae Appendix 1: Tree speci Species Acer laurinum Acronychia trifoliata Actinodaphne sp. Adinandra javanica Archidendron sp. Ardisia sp. Arytera litoralis Atalantia sp. Buchanania arborescens Canthium sp. Celtis tetandra Chionanthus ramiflorus Clethra canescens Cordia sp. Cryptocarya costata Cryptocarya densiflora Dacrycarpus imbricatus Decaspermum fruitcosum Dysoxylum nutans Elaeocarpus punctatus Elaeocarpus sp. Elaeocarpus.sp.1 Elaeocarpus sphaericus .Elattostachys cf. verrucosa Euodia sp. Eurya acuminata Ficus sp. Ficus sp.l Ficus variegata Ficus wassa Flacourtia indica CM T P rH m CM TT r~ rH rH rH CM o rH ro rH CTl CM CM CM rH VD TP lO CM VD ro rH rH lO CM ro r- rH rH ro CTl rH CTl r- r-CM TP r- CM CM o 00 CM 00 ' rH rH rH TP CTl CM rH rH CTi tH ro LO TP 00 CM VD rH i n m CM rH rH VD CM VD rH TT rH rH CM TP O CM TP CM LO rH CM TP rH m 00 TP rH . m rH CO r H . 00 rH TT ro rH tH rH CM ro CM CM ro ro ro lO CM rH CM CO ro rH CM VD . ro LO CM CM CM CM TP CM CM rH rH rH TT CM rH rH ro ro rH 00 CM rH CM rH LO r o . CM ro CM CO CM CM TT CM rH ro rH r o . ro rH rH CM rH ro m rH CM CM rH CM TP rH lO CM r -rH ro i n ro CM VD VD rH rH • VD CM CM rH VD LO ro rH rH TP rH rH rH o rH CM rH rH VD VD rH • CM TP rH CM rH rH m rH rH rH ro TP to m rH r— rH rH CTl rH ro O ' rH rH ro lO rH o rH CM CO ro . LO CM CM rH 10 rH ro TP CM rH CM CM rH cn rH VD CM VD rH CM rH rH rH rH rH CO rH rH ro CM rH TP ro TP ro CM ro Oleaceae Clusiaceae Clusiaceae Araliaceae Loganiaceae Euphorbiaceae Icacinaceae Theaceae Tiliaceae Proteaceae Aquifoliaceae Saxifragaceae Vitaceae . Myrtaceae Urticeae . Lauraceae Lauraceae Lauraceae Lauraceae Solanaceae Euphorbiaceae Magnoliaceae Magnoliaceae . • Melastomataceae .-Sabiaceae . . Sabiaceae Sterculiaceae Sapindaceae Lauraceae Lauraceae Euphorbiaceae Euphorbiaceae Apocynaceae Sapotaceae Fraxinus griffithii Garcinia celebica Garcinia spl. Gastonia papuana Gehiostoma rupestre Glochidion philippicum Gomphandra mappioides Gordonia excelsa. Grewia glabra Helicia cf. seratta TI ex•odor ata -Jtea macrophylla Leea indica • • Leptospermum flavescens Leucosyeke capitellata Lindera polyantha Litsea diversifolia Litsea resinosa Li tsea sp. - ", ' •.-Lycianthes sp. Macaranga tanarius' Magnolia candolHi Manglietia glauca Melastoma sylavaticum Meliosma pinnata Meliosma symplicifolia Melochia umbellata Mischocarpus sundaicus Neolitsea cassiaefolia• Neolitsea sp. Omalanthus gigantheus Omalanthus populneus Pagiantha sphaerocarpa Palaquium sp. 130 CO rH m ro CO rH rH ro rH CM rH rH rH ro CM rH CM ro r -ro vO rH m rH CM ro ro o iO rH 00 rH CM ro rH o~» rH rH rH rH rH m ro L O -a* CM rH rH CM O rH CM CM rH KD rH rH ro CM rH CM CM T L O 00 ro rH o L O rH r -rH CO CM CM r -ro r -CM ro ro •rr vD CM ro rH vO rH CM rH ro •^r CM 00 rH CM 00 m cr» ro CM ro rH CM tr. CM ro Ot CM ro rH rH rH ro ro CM iO \ D CM rH rH T . '3' CM CM rH r ~ rH rH CM T ro o ro rH •*r rH ro o rH CM rH rH ro CM TJ-ro . rH rH CM rH lO rH rH O CM rH rH ro ro O l CM CM rH rH ro ro rH rH r -rH CM rH CM rH iO rH CM" rH CM rH ro LO rH ro ro m •CM LO CM CM rH ro T r - CO rH CM CM ro r - CM CM rH ro ro ro r -rH fH ro ro rH L O •^r rH r - rH ro CO rH ro i n rH t — ro LOZ l> rH CM-CM r - T rH m ro CM CM vO ro ro o r -rH tN CM rH rH CM o rH IT-CM o CM rH CD o CM CM rH rH ro CM m o\ CM ro L O ro rH ro rH L O ro ro O rH r - rH o CM rH iO rH 00 cn cn rH CSJ ,CM T CM ro rH ro rH ro rH ro rH 00 rH r -ro CM CM rH m rH rH rH CM r -rH rH CM rH ro . CM T rH T ' CM r -o CM Rubiaceae Lauraceae Lauraceae Lauraceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Pittosporaceae Sapotaceae Rubiaceae Podocarpaceae Podocarpaceae Saxifragaceae Sapotaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rhamnaceae Sarcospermaceae Saurauiaceae Euphrbiaceae Araliaceae Symplocaceae Symplocaceae Myrtaceae Myrtaceae Myrtaceae Ulmaceae -Staphyleaceae-Asteraceae Caprifoliaceae Cunoniaceae Rubiaceae Pavetta sp. Persea excelsa Persea sp. Phoebe cf. tenuifolia Photinia integrifolia Photinia sp; Pittosporum moluccanum Planchonella obovata Plectronia didyma Podocarpus amarus Podocarpus neriifolius Polyosma integrifolia Po.uteria sp. Prunus arborea Prunus wallaceana Phamnus nepalensis Sarcosperma paniculata Saurauia verheijenii Sauropus androgynus Schefflera sp. Symplocos cochinchimensis Symplocos lucida Syzygium lineata d IQ E ' H tr. >, N Syzyqium spicata Trema orientaJ is Turpinia sphaerocarpa Vernonia arborea Viburnum coriaceum iVeinmannia blumei Wendlandia cf. rufescens Total species Total stems 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0075270/manifest

Comment

Related Items