Chapter 2 Measuring Performance of Orangutan Protection and Monitoring Unit: Implications for Species Conservation

Transcription

1 Chapter 2 Measuring Performance of Orangutan Protection and Monitoring Unit: Implications for Species Conservation Jito Sugardjito and Asep S. Adhikerana Introduction The orangutan is the only great ape species that inhabits Asia. During the Pleistocene, they occurred throughout Southeast Asia, from Southern China in the North to Java in the South (Hooijer 1948; von Koeningswald 1981). Current distribution of this species is limited to the northern part of Sumatra and fragmented forest areas in Borneo (Reijksen and Meijaard 1999). Recently, experts have suggested that the orangutan populations on each island represent unique species (Pongo abelii on Sumatra and P. pygmaeus on Borneo; Groves 2001; Warren et al. 2001). The Bornean species is generally divided into three subspecies: P. p. pygmaeus, Pongo p. wurmbii, and P. p. morio (Groves 2001). The Bornean orangutan is categorized on the 2002 IUCN Red List as Endangered (IUCN 2002), and it has been estimated that approximately 17,000 30,000 individuals reside within the protected areas (Sugardjito and van Schaik 1992). The 90,000 hectares of Gunung Palung National Park (GPNP) contains large patches of continuous forest that are capable of supporting a healthy orangutan population. Holding some 2,500 orangutans with great habitat diversity from peat swamp up to the hill forests, the GPNP forms one of the most important refuges for this population (IUCN 2002). Orangutan density in the GPNP is higher than the other protected areas in Kalimantan, ranging from 4.1 in peat forests and 2.4 in montane forests (Johnson et al. 2005). Despite the high conservation value of forest habitat in the GPNP, the adjacent forest corridors are threatened by conversion to oil palm plantations and transmigration sites. Recently, density estimate of Bornean orangutans living in both outside and inside protected areas is about 60,000 individuals, with the largest population located in the south-western of Borneo (IUCN 2004). J. Sugardjito (*) Research Centre for Biology, The Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jalan Raya Jakarta-Cibinong Km.48, Cibinong, 16911, Indonesia jitos@cbn.net.id S. Gursky-Doyen and J. Supriatna (eds.), Indonesian Primates, Developments in Primatology: Progress and Prospects, DOI / _2, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

2 10 J. Sugardjito and A.S. Adhikerana The main threats to the survival of the orangutans residing outside the protected areas are habitat loss and illegal trade (Reijksen and Meijaard 1999). Previous studies have shown that logged forest reduces nest densities, an index used for population densities, in swamp forest to 21% and in evergreen lowland forest from 30% to local extinction (Felton et al. 2003; Rao and van Schaik 1997; Aveling 1982). A more recent survey of orangutan population density in GPNP area indicated that the density has declined, especially in the area near the park boundary where logging were active recently (Prasetyo and Sugardjito 2007). The threat to immediate survival prospects of the orangutan has been recognized by the experts meeting in Balikpapan, East Kalimantan (IUCN 2002). During the workshop, it was recommended that in order to strengthen law enforcement for habitat and orangutan protection, it is necessary to develop a community-based patrol specializing in orangutan protection. In particular, it was suggested that these patrols follow similar programs previously developed for rhino and tiger protection in Sumatra. These programs place a high priority on preventing illegal capture, habitat protection from logging, and conversion through law enforcement and community awareness programs. In responding to this need, the Orangutan Protection and Monitoring Unit (OPMU) was established in OPMU regularly patrol forest habitat in order to prevent forest crime. The inclusion of community rangers in patrolling has significantly reduced the potential for conflicts between community and forest rangers when combating illegal loggers and other intruders. To further reduce remaining forest crimes from local communities, OPMU has also conducted community outreach programs by facilitating the development of buffer zone village forest protection regulations and agreements, securing community access to forests surroundings the National Park. These programs have been conducted from 2004 to In this paper, we use data from 2004 to 2007 to measure the effectiveness of OPMU activities. This includes description of findings as well as the actions taken to address the findings in the field. Further, we discuss the importance of the community-based patrol system and the implication for species conservation. Methods Orangutan Protection and Monitoring Unit (OPMU) During , each OPMU team consisted of three community members and one forest ranger as a leader. The three team leaders were chosen from among the forest park rangers, all of which possess a license for prosecution. The nine other team members were selected from the local communities surrounding the park. Because of the extension of area covered in the beginning of 2007, the OPMU was restructured in accordance with the jurisdiction of conservation agencies in the region. Two units in the park, each was led by a forest ranger, and the other one unit operates outside the park was led by personnel from the Province Nature Conservation Agency. Both members and the leaders of OPMU were selected following standard recruitment procedures. Prior to its operations, the OPMU teams

3 2 Measuring Performance of Orangutan Protection and Monitoring Unit 11 received training including jungle survival, intelligence, ground checking, forest fire control, search and rescue techniques, and primate monitoring technique. The OPMU teams undertake the operation in a shift schedule scheme. When two teams are operating, the other team is stationed at the OPMU base. They then shift, so that all teams have equal time operating in the field as well as at the base. The OPMU is primarily concerned with four issues related to protection: (1) patrolling; (2) monitoring of wildlife; (3) forest crime investigation; and (4) conservation awareness. Patrolling The forest crimes encountered in the field by the OPMU primarily fall into four main types: (a) illegal logging; (b) forest encroachment; (c) illegal gravel mining; and (d) animal hunting. Illegal Logging Groups of people cutting down trees with the purpose of selling the wood constitutes illegal logging. During observations of illegal logging, the following data were collected: location coordinates using GPS, date and time of encounter, condition of the crime site (old or new), type of logs (log or processed timber), tree species when possible, and the number of illegal loggers. When the loggers are found in the field, an investigation is undertaken to obtain information on the purpose, financial support, market, and transportation methods of the wood. The OPMU team then undertakes confiscation, issues a warning letter, and promotes conservation awareness in the area. Forest Encroachment When people cut down trees individually, with the purpose of conversion of forest land to agricultural land, it constitutes forest encroachment. The data recorded for forest encroachment include: the location coordinates using GPS, date and time of encounter, condition of the crime site (old or new), type of planting system ( ladang or plantation), and the number of illegal farmers. When the illegal farmers are found in the field, an investigation is undertaken to obtain information on the reason behind the forest encroachment. The OPMU team then confiscates the tools, issues a warning letter, and promotes conservation awareness in the area. Gravel Mining When people extract minerals from the land for commercial purpose, it constitutes gravel mining. The data recorded for gravel mining include: location coordinates using GPS, date and time of encounter, condition of the crime site (old or new),

4 12 J. Sugardjito and A.S. Adhikerana type of mining, and the number of illegal miners when directly encountered. When illegal miners are found in the field, an investigation is undertaken to obtain information on the purpose. The team then confiscates the minerals, presents the miners with a warning letter and promotes conservation awareness in the area. Animal Hunting When people seek either live or dead animals for consumption or future sale, it constitutes animal hunting. The data for animal hunting include: location coordinates using GPS, date and time of encounter, condition of the crime site (old or new), equipment used for hunting animals, and number of hunters. When the hunters are found in the field, an investigation is undertaken to obtain information on the purpose, financial support, and market. The team then confiscates the hunted animals, issues a warning letter whilst promoting conservation awareness in the area. Wildlife Monitoring During operation, the team also recorded the wildlife species encountered in the field, with special attention to the presence of the orangutan. Records are commonly made on the geoposition, date and time of encounter, species encountered, and whether the species encountered could be seen or heard. When it was seen, the number of individuals was noted. As for the orangutan, the number of nests observed was also recorded. Crime Investigation The data consist of all information that can be collected from the perpetrators of the crime. Specific information, such as incident location, the people who are financially supporting the crime, the market destinations, the size of log/timber being collected, the current price of logs or timbers, and the transportation system for transferring the logs/timber out of the forest, can also be collected. Promoting Awareness Implementation of a village meeting with either formal or informal leaders in the village adjacent to the orangutan s habitat. During patrolling in the field, consultation meetings with farmers bordering the park are also undertaken.

5 2 Measuring Performance of Orangutan Protection and Monitoring Unit 13 Fig. 2.1 Sites in which the OPMU patrolled in Gunung Palung National Park during the period of 2004 up to 2007 The data are recorded in the form of journal from the beginning of field work at 7.00 until Later at the field station, the journal is transferred into a spreadsheet and converted into a database format suitable for GIS mapping purposed. At the early stage, OPMU patrolled inside the GPNP, and later, it was expanded to nearly all critical habitats of orangutan (Fig. 2.1). The same sites could be revisited during the operations, but the records will cover with the changes from the previous conditions. Data Analysis The data used for analysis consist of all the illegal activities observed between 2004 and 2007 as well as the frequency the OPMU team encountered wildlife. For the analytical purpose only, those new encounters are included in the analysis, i.e., those observed as new illegal logging activity, new encroachment area and/or activity, new mining activity, or new animal hunting events. Otherwise, all records will become an accumulation of all records during the operations. For wildlife, the records covered all noticeable and identifiable species, but the analysis only addressed specific species, such as hornbill, orangutan, agile gibbon, and maroonleaf monkey, all of which are very much dependent on forest habitat.

6 14 J. Sugardjito and A.S. Adhikerana We used statistical analysis described in Sokal and Rohlf (1969). The nature of analysis for this paper is more descriptive rather than analytical. This approach was applied since the aim is describing all efforts that have been accomplished for effectiveness of patrolling and monitoring systems. Although the OPMU has been operating since 2004, the early data are not appropriate for any analysis. This was due to the fact that in the beginning of its operation, the OPMU has focused on the training for its members in patrolling system. Consequently, only 6 patrols comprising 20 patrol days for 2004 were included in this paper. Patrol day ratio was calculated from the number of patrol days in a year divided by total patrol days for 4 years. Average patrol day was calculated from the total patrol days divided by the number of patrols. The staff ratio was obtained from the number of staff in a year divided by total number of staff for 4 years. The OPMU performance denotes the annual staff performance, which also represents the effectivenes of a patrol man-day. The OPMU performance is calculated by dividing the total patrol day ratio with the average number of staff ratio. The patrol cost was obtained from the total annual cost divided by patrol days of corresponding year, whereas the patrol cost-day was calculated from the patrol cost divided by average patrol day. The patrol cost day was converted to log-based number in order to measure the efficiency. The OPMU efficiency was calculated from patrol performance divided by patrol cost-day, whereas the OPMU efforts is the number of points observed during the operation, and only the percentages of efforts undertaken inside and outside of the Gunung Palung National Park are utilized for the analysis. Encounter rate is calculated from the number of encounter divided by the efforts. Results and Discussion Table 2.1 summarizes characteristics of OPMU related activities from 2004 to At its early stage, OPMU was only operating inside the national park. However, it was estimated that about 75% of orangutan populations occur outside the protected areas (Reijksen and Meijaard 1999). Therefore, a collaboration was developed with the Province Nature Conservation Agency (BKSDA) in 2006 to respond the critical orangutans habitat outside the Park. As a consequence, efforts to observe the areas outside the park were gradually increased beginning 2006 (Fig. 2.2). It shows that such a need is later justified by the findings revealing that forest crimes are more prevalent outside the park boundaries. Figure 2.3 shows that both the OPMU operational performance and its operational efficiency have been improving since its early establishment. This means that the OPMU has a better understanding on how to perform well with efficient financial management. When the OPMU is confronted with forest crimes, such as illegal logging, encroachment, gravel mining, and animal hunting, OPMU always undertakes firm actions, including seizure of the illegal materials, legal notification, destruction of confiscated materials (equipments such as chainsaw, axes or machetes; huts; and logs), and

7 2 Measuring Performance of Orangutan Protection and Monitoring Unit 15 Table 2.1 OPMU performance and its operational efficiency Year Total Patrol days Number of patrol Number of staff Average number of staff Average patrol days Patrol day ratio = patrol day in a year: total patrol days for 4 years Number of staff ratio = number of staff in a year : total number of staff for 4 years Patrol performance = Effective patrol man-day = patrol day ratio: number of staff ratio Total annual cost (IDR) 139,275, ,568, ,400,225 57,801, ,376,548 Average monthly budget (IDR) 11,606,300 14,547,398 14,533,352 14,450,313 Average monthly budget (USD) 1,290 1,616 1,615 1,606 Patrol cost = total annual cost: patrol days 580,315 1,961,447 1,959, ,899 Patrol cost-day = patrol cost: average patrol day 174, , ,192 48,809 Patrol cost-day in USD (USD 1 = IDR 9000) Patrol cost-day (log-based number of patrol cost-day) OPMU Efficiency = performance: patrol cost-day

8 16 J. Sugardjito and A.S. Adhikerana Fig. 2.2 OPMU patrolling efforts inside and outside of the Gunung Palung National Park Fig. 2.3 OPMU performance and its efficiency for the period of 2004 up to 2007 keeping out the intruders from the areas. Such on-the-spot prosecution actions have significantly deterred the offenders to enter illegally into the park, and directly reduced forest crimes. Table 2.2 shows the number of locations observed during OPMU operations, whereas Table 2.3 indicates the encounter rate with illegal activities during OPMU

9 2 Measuring Performance of Orangutan Protection and Monitoring Unit 17 Table 2.2 Number of points observed (efforts) during OPMU operations in the Gunung Paalung National Park in Locations Inside Outside Total ,071 Table 2.3 Encounters with forest crime and wildlife during OPMU operations Encounter rate = number of Number of encounters Encounter rate encounter: efforts Illegal logging Inside Outside Total Encroachment Inside Outside Total Gravel mining Inside Outside Total Animal hunting Inside Outside Total operations. It shows that illegal logging activity inside the park drastically decreased in 2005, but increased outside the park, particularly in Such an increase may not be attributed to a real increase, but may represent the increased efforts of the OPMU to observe the areas outside the park. The illegal logging might have been occurring outside the park for a long time, but it was just considerably recorded since OPMU expanded the operation outside the Park in The correlation between patrol performance, total efforts, and illegal activities can be seen in Table 2.4. The negative correlation means that the performance imposes a positive impact on the forest crimes. More specifically, increased performance by the OPMU results in a noticeable decrease in forest crimes. Forest encroachment in the park has also drastically decreased since 2005 if it is compared with outside the park (Table 2.3). However, in 2006, it was the opposite, whereby forest encroachment outside the park was higher than inside the park. Once again,this might be due to the results of expansion of observation areas outside the park. This might also show that the on-the-spot prosecution effectively deters the loggers. Both gravel mining and animal hunting inside the park were significantly decreased when compared with those outside the park in 2005, whereas in 2006, animal hunting was higher outside the park than inside the park. On the other hand, no more gravel mining has been observed since Table 2.4 shows that the OPMU operation has a significant impact on the findings of these illegal activities

10 18 J. Sugardjito and A.S. Adhikerana Table 2.4 The direction of performance, which impacts on the encounters of illegal activities in the field. Coefficient correlation between Patrol Performance and total efforts, and encounter rates of forest crimes for the period of Correlation between patrol performance Total Outside Inside Total efforts Forest Crimes: Illegal logging Forest encroachment Gravel mining Animal hunting Note: The number on each cell is coefficient correlation between patrol performance, total efforts, and forest crimes encountered by OPMU during Fig. 2.4 Offenders detected both inside and outside bordering the park during 2004 up to 2007 in the field. This also indicates that the OPMU operation has imposed a deterrent impact on those offenders. The number of offenders (i.e., loggers, farmers, miners, and hunters) operating inside the national park has been declined drastically, although it was increased outside the park in 2007 (Fig. 2.4). The extent of encroachment areas has also been reduced inside the park (Fig. 2.5). Wildlife Encounters The nature of wildlife observation during the OPMU operation is supplemental to forest crime patrol and monitoring. Observational notes are always made for certain

11 2 Measuring Performance of Orangutan Protection and Monitoring Unit 19 Fig. 2.5 The encroachment or pioneer farming areas identified by OPMU during the period of 2004 up to 2007 wildlife species encountered in the field, especially those that can be identified by the OPMU team. There are, for example, a number of hornbill species in the operation areas, but the team has no capacity in identifying them into the species level. This paper only deals with all hornbills that were recorded by the team during the operations. On the other hand, the team can easily identify orangutan and its nest since the team has been provided with a training on identifying primates of the areas, such as agile gibbon (Hylobates agilis) and red-leaf monkey (Presbytis rubicunda). The encounters with wildlife during OPMU operations are presented in Table 2.5. When all wildlife encounters are lumped together, it shows that the wildlife encounter rate tends to decrease in This could actually be attributed to the low encounter with wildlife outside the national park area as well as increasing efforts to observe the areas outside the park where most of the forest has been disturbed. As a consequence, it has affected the records of orangutans and their sleeping nests when their encounters are low in the period of Large animals such as the orangutan need large areas with adequate productive fruit tree densities, and are therefore threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation. Furthermore, capturing orangutans can provide considerable financial gains. These factors have lead to the poaching of baby orangutans while killing the mother, further reducing their population densities and increasing their dependency on protected areas for survival. This phenomenon could be supported by the results showing that the orangutan and its sleeping nests are more common inside the national park areas than outside the GPNP. The same figure also shows that hornbills, agile-gibbon, and red-leaf monkey are more easily found inside than outside the park (Table 2.5). The size of the protected area is particularly important because edge effect is pronounced for large arboreal animals such as orangutan (Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1988). However, large protected areas are also more costly to maintain and many

12 20 J. Sugardjito and A.S. Adhikerana Table 2.5 Encounters with wildlife during OPMU operations Encounter rate = number Number of encounters Encounter rate of encounter: efforts Hornbill Inside Outside Total Agile gibbon Inside Outside Total Orangutan Inside Outside Total Number of nests Inside Outside Total Red-leaf monkey Inside Outside Total Fig. 2.6 Mean successful number of forest crimes detected and processed per year by OPMU during patrol are underfunded (James et al. 1999). Therefore, concentrating OPMU patrols in key areas, with a mandate to detect and destroy all traps and deter poachers or offenders with force, if appropriate, may circumvent the need to protect the whole area. During OPMU patrols, poaching equipments such as air-rifles and traps were found, and they have been either confiscated or disabled (Fig. 2.7). The more frequent patrol conducted by OPMU per year the more the incidences encountered (Fig. 2.6). Orangutans were recorded in all habitat types in GPNP but most frequently within lowland hill and peat swamp forests (Johnson et al. 2005). This emphasizes

13 2 Measuring Performance of Orangutan Protection and Monitoring Unit 21 Fig. 2.7 Poaching efforts on wildlife in Gunung Palung National Park as indicated by the number of animal traps found, and the air-rifles which have been confiscated during the patrols the need to protect this habitat, which occurs at the borders of GPNP (Prasetyo and Sugardjito 2007). However, these lower elevation forests experience the greatest human population pressure, with palm oil plantation, forest fires, commercial and illegal logging, mining operations, and pioneer farming, all resulting in loss of orangutan habitat. Conclusions and Recommendations Along the way, the OPMU team has been able to improve its performance and its operational efficiency. This provides evidence that continuous support to the OPMU has had a phenomenal impact on its operation and that surely further support will not only enhance its performance and efficiency but also its capacity in dealing with forest crime and wildlife identification. The OPMU structure, which consists of a team of forest rangers and community members, provides an opportunity of transparency in dealing with processing forest crime cases. Indeed, the OPMU team could only promptly react to forest crime in the field by an on-the-spot prosecution. However, such an action against the forest crime seems to be effective in deterring the offenders to disturb further the forest habitat. The offenders then realise that there is a rule of protection enforced in the field. The OPMU is also needed for the protection of orangutan habitat that is not situated in the conservation area. More than 50% of orangutan population in Kalimantan inhabit forest outside the conservation area (Reijksen and Meijaard 1999). The concerned areas could be orangutan habitat in Ketapang and Kapuas Hulu districts, where peat swamp and lowland forests being converted to industrial forest for oil palm plantations.

14 22 J. Sugardjito and A.S. Adhikerana Although the main goal of OPMU is to protect orangutan populations and their habitat, the monitoring functions particularly well in detecting changes due to their intensive appearance in the field. Many incidences on forest habitat could be detected early. Frequently, the OPMU team destroyed wildlife traps or bird nets that were set by the hunters. Despite the effectiveness of OPMU for species conservation and habitat protection, they need to be refreshed regularly in order to avoid fatigue. A refreshment program such as physical training or outbound is needed for every personnel who works in securing natural wildlife habitat. Acknowledgments We thank USFWS and KNCF for providing support to FFI for the implementation of OPMU. We are grateful to the management and staff of GPNP, especially Mr. Prabani Setyoherdianto for assisting field operations of OPMU. We have a debt of gratitude to the unwavering commitment and diligence of the OPMU staff. References Aveling RJ (1982) Orang-utan conservation in Sumatra, by habitat preservation and conservation education. In: de Boer LEM (ed)orang-utan, its biology and conservation. The Hague, pp Felton AM, Engstrom LM, Felton A, Knott CD (2003) Orangutan population density, forest structure and fruit availability in hand-logged and unlogged peat swamp forests in West Kalimantan. Indonesia Biol Cons 114: Groves CP (2001) Primatew taxonomy. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC Hooijer DA (1948) Prehistoric teeth of man and the orangutan from central of Sumatra with notes on the fossil orangutan from Java and Southern China. Zoologische Mededeelingen, Reijksmuseum, Leiden IUCN/SSC (2002) Orangutan conservation and reintroduction workshop June Palangka Raya, Kalimantan, Indonesia. Final Report IUCN/SSC (2004) Orangutan population and habitat viability assessment January Jakarta, Indonesia. Final Report James AN, Gaston KJ, Balmford A (1999) Balancing the Earth s accounts. Nature 401: Johnson AE, Knott CD, Pamungkas B, Pasaribu M, Marshall AJ (2005) A survey of the orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus) population in and around Gunung Palung National Park, West Kalimantan, Indonesia based on nest count. Biol Conserv 121: Prasetyo D, Sugardjito J (2007) Orangutan survey in Gunung Palung National Park and its surroundings. Final Report to Defra Rao M, van Schaik (1997) The behavioural ecology of Sumatran orangutans in logged and unlogged forest. Trop Biodivers 4: Reijksen HD, Meijaard E, (1999) Our vinishing relative: the status of wild orangutan at the close of the twentieth century. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1969) Biometry. Freeman, San Francisco Sugardjito J, van Schaik CP (1992) Orangutans: current populations status, threats, and conservation measures. In: Proceedings of the Great Apes Conference (Jakarta, Pangkalan Buun) Jakarta, pp von Koeningswald GHR (1981) Are there still orangutans in China (in Germany). Nat Mus 111(8): Warren KS, Verschoor EJ, Langenhuijzen S, Heriyanto, Swan RA, Vigilant L, Heeney JL (2001) Speciation and intraspecific variation of Bornean orangutans, Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus. Mol Biol Evol 18: Woodroffe R, Ginsberg JR (1988) Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science 280:

15