VcA) 2THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIAMINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKSDIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HIGHWAYS

IiI.

NORTHERN SUMATRA REGIONJ X ROAD PROJECT

* ENVIRONMENTAL AND* SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

1 December 1996

A..I Carl Bro International a/s

in association with3 PT. Multi Phi BetaPT. Amythas ExpertsPT. Delta Marga Kreasi

l

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

lt:; THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA

l 0 MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HIGHWAYS

I .REGIONAL- fiADS TRANSPORT PRIORITIES'ANALYSIS StUDY (RRTPA)

VOLUME 3

ENVIRONMENTAL ANDSOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

lDecember 1996

3 Carl Bro International a/sin association withPT. Multi Phi BetaI PT. Amythas ExpertsPT. Delta Marga Kreasi

l

SUMMARY

A draft Preliminary Environmental and Social Impact Assessment' was submitted as Annex Eof the Phase I report in September 1996. For completeness, much of the material submitted inthe draft is repeated here, but at the same time there are substantial changes in this finalversion, especially in the treatment of sociological issues and legislation, in the proposals for anenvironmental screening methodology, and in the detailed preliminary screening of potentialsub-projects that has been carried out, as well as in formulating proposals for the handling ofenvironmental issues during the proposed Northem Sumatra Regional Road Project (NSRRP).

Chapter 1 gives an outline account of the existing physical and social environment, whileChapter 2 summarizes the environmental implications of road development. The currentlegislation in Indonesia is summarized in Chapter 3, and the implications for environmentalmanagement are discussed in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 proposes a methodology for the preliminaryscreening of road projects, and provides guidelines on the costs of the ANDAL studies that maybe required; it also proposes a strategy to strengthen the management of the environmental andsocial measures that are required. Finally the preliminary screening results of identified sub-projects are presented in Chapter 6.

The Regional Roads Transport Priorities Analysis Study (RRPTA) is classified as a categoryA project under the World Bank's Operational Directive 4.01, requiring full environmental andsocial impact assessment. Not all proposed sub-projects, however, will require such fullevaluation (categories B and C). The Indonesian Government's environmental legislation foranalysing and managing the negative environmental and social impacts of development(AMDAL) is actually more comprehensive than the Bank's, and compliance is mandatory.However, the institutional capacity to implement the legislation is still undergoing developmentand there remains much room for improvement. There are weaknesses in consultant capacity toundertake the AMDAL studies, and in budgetary and institutional capacity to implement theenvironmental and social mitigation measures recommended from the studies. Within BinaMarga, it is envisaged that the on-gtoing ISEM project fiunded by the World Bank willstrengthen the capacity of the AMII)AL. sections to supervise environmental management in theroads sector.

Preliminary screening of proposed projects has been carried out (see Chapter 6). This estimatesthe size and scale of the ANDAL that may be required, but this will be confirrned only after theInitial Environmental Evaluation (Kajian Lingkungan) has been carried out. Systems ofsectoral evaluation are applicable in other cases, with mitigation measures incorporated in theexisting technical guidelines and standard operating procedures.

The Indonesian environmental legislation encompasses social issues as a component of theenvironment, whereas the World Bank tends to treat them as separate issues. Both 'environmental'and 'social' components form the subject of this report.

From the viewpoint of environmental management, proposed sub-projects can be divided intothree categories:

a) Capacity Expansion. This mostly concems the widening or in some cases realignment ofexisting routes that carry heavy traffic, often in or close to urban centres. Such projectsmay have major social issues especially concerning k nd acquisition, but the physical andbiological impacts can generally be handled by routine procedures. A proforma forscreening such projects based on analysis of 1:50,000 topographic maps is presented inTable 5.2. Preliminary screening along the main national and provincial corridors ispresented in Table 6.2; an indicative classification has been applied of the size of theANDAL study that may be required, but this will depend on the degree of wideningproposed. ,1

b) New construction, mainly of inter-kabupaten links (new construction of the requisiteprovincial road network, mainly in Aceh and North Sumatra, is already on-going).Considered to be very important for the agricultural development of the more remote areas, Imost of these projects require the upgrading of existing poor quality kabupaten roads, butwith some new construction. There may be a variety of environmental impacts (physical,biological and social), but the impacts are generally not severe. The screening proforma for Inew roads is presented in Table 5.1. Table 6.1 likewise gives an indicative category of thesize of the ANDAL study that may be required. Some of the identified routes carry majorimpacts and are included with the next category. I

c) Major new corridors. These provide entirely new routes, generally inter-kabupaten, whichin most cases cross steep forested mountainous terrain. Roads which are planned to crossthe NW-SE 'strike' of the land are particularly steep. Most would have severe impacts andclearly require full ANDAL studies, but it is uncertain whether the institutional capacity isin place, in both the short-term and in perpetuity, to handle the impacts on the physical andbiological environment (such as damage to watersheds, forest clearance, illegal logging, Ihunting or trade in wildlife etc.). In a few cases there may also be significant impacts onvulnerable isolated communities.

In general, the watersheds over most of the Project Area are still in good condition. However,in order to protect these watersheds, upon which the welfare of the densely populated lowlands Ipartially depend, it is recommended that roads are not constructed in montane forests unlessexceptional social or economic justification can be established. Where constructed, highpriority must be given to the management, in perpetuity, of the land, forest and biological 3resources along the route. In view of the fact that new provincial roads are being constructed insuch terrain (in Aceh and West Sumatra), either apparently without any enviromnentalevaluation or with ANDAL studies that sometimes fail to address adequately the main issues(see Section 4.5), and in view of the concerns about the lack of sufficient local govemrnmentcapacity to control negative impacts consequent upon the new access provided by such roads,great concern is expressed here about this issue. Recommendations are made in Section 5.10 tostrengthen the institutional aspects of environmental management, with the establishment of anEnvironmental Oversight Committee in each province (whose mandate would extend lateroutside the transport sector), and with annual environmental workshops to address such issues.Priority should be given to the need to mnanage the watershed forests along the provincialroads already constructed, especially in Aceh Province.

l

ii ~~~~~~I

There are varied interpretations, between regions and projects, of Keppres 55/1993 concemingland acquisition and resettlement, although this regulation provides a framework for landI acquisition that is compatible with the Bank's resettlement policies and Operational Directive4.30. However, it is considered that standard operational guidelines are required specifically forthe use of Bina Marga in road construction and widening projects, in order to ensure that

* methods of compensation are fair and transparent. It is recommended that consultation andcommunity participation are made an integral part of land acquisition procedures. The GOImust accord priority to the allocation of sufficient funds for the purpose of acquiring landwhere necessary on capacity expansionlrealignment projects, and indeed Bank approval toproceed will be conditional upon satisfactory resolution of such problems.

3 ' Likewise there are doubts concerning the institutional capacity for the handling of socialimpacts in remote areas. Act No. 10 of 1992 on population policy has potential to assistvulnerable isolated communities to develop at a pace in accordance with their socio-culturalI abilities, protected from the negative impacts of rapid development and outside pressures.However, to date, no guidelines have been issued to facilitate the implementation of this law,and such guidelines are considered urgent. Unfortunately this Act does not have provision forguaranteeing inherited land rights, and so the legal anomalies of adat rights remain.

It is assumed that sub-projects proposed for implementation during the first year of NSRRPwill either not require AAIDAL studies or such studies will have already been completed andaccepted; it is further assumed that issues relating to land acquisition will have been resolvedsatisfactorily. Other sub-projects will be postponed to the second or later years in order toU permit environmental and social evaluation to be carried out and arrangements for landacquisition to be effected.

3 The AMDAL process is considered by some as a further bureaucratic constraint todevelopment, and the size of this volume might tend to support this viewpoint, particularlywhen the screening tables in Chapter 6 appear to suggest that every project requires ANDAL.3 In fact the process is designed to support development and to ensure that the negative impactsthat may result frormt projects are effectively managed in order to prevent them becomingdetrimental to sustainable development in the long term. The benefits of constructing anexpensive road across a high, steep forested watershed will be negated if the indirect impactsresult in an increase in the frequency and severity of floods and droughts in the denselypopulated adjacent lowlands that are dependent upon that watershed.

* Indeed the main constraints tend to be in planning and handling the AMDAL process. Themajority of road projects do not have significant negative impacts, and those listed in Tables6.1 and 6.2 as having a NI or Cl ANDAL code may belong to this category (as wouldprobably some with N2 or C2 codes). This will be determiined only after the preliminaryscreening and Kajian Lingkzungan. It is recommended that KL is carried out for every project,but this need be neither a time constraint nor a budget constraint when planned efficiently on aprovincial basis.

l

Iii

The problems lie in:

+ recognizing those relatively few projects that carny really significant impacts especiallyin terms of:* problems relating to land acquisition and resettlement* issues concerning the new provision of road access to isolated communities I* damage to watersheds and the hydrographic regime* loss of forest and biological resources* conversion for non-sustain able use that results in irreversible land degradation

* developing the capacity of the consultants undertaking the ANDAL studies, and thoseresponsible for reviewing and approving the studies, so that the studies focus on thereally significant issues, and

* developing the capacity and commitment of the responsible authorities, especially thoseoutside the proponent agency, for ensuring that the resulting recommendations are fullycarried out.

The recommendations for technical assistance support for environmental managementpresented in Chapter 5, in parallel with the ongoing ISEM project in Bina Marga and relatedprojects in other agencies, are designed to improve the overall capacity to deal with these iproblems effectively at all levels in the development process.

I

Il

*I

l

iN |~~~~~~

TABLE OF CONTENTS

| Page

| 1 The existing environment in the study area I1.1 Geography (geology, topography, climate, natural hazards) 11.2 Population 31.3 Land use 51.4 Importance for biodiversity 61.5 Spatial plans 81.6 Existing road network 11

2 Environmental implications of road development 132.1 General impacts of road projects 13I 2.2 Project-specific impacts of road development 142.3 Isolated communities 163 2.4 Cultural resources 18

3 Legislation for environmental and social issues in Indonesia 193.1 AMDAL legislation 19I 3.2 Spatial plans 223.3 Land acquisition 253.4 Resettlement 303.5 Community consultation 323.6 Utilization of forest land 33

3 4 Management of environmental and social issues 354.1 General considerations at the different phases of a project 354.2 Projects having no significant environmental impacts 37

| 4.3 Projects having significant environmental impacts 394.4 Significant impacts not requiring full ANDAL 404.5 Problems in environmental management 413 4.6 Costs of ANDAL studies 44

5 Management of environmental and social issues in the proposed project 455.1 Methodology for environmental/social screening of proposed road projects 455.2 Size and costs ofAMDAL studies 505.3 Social impact issues 545.4 Spatial planning 55

* 5.5 Indigenous/isolated peoples 555.6 Cornmunity consultation 57

* V,

5.7 Land acquisition 615.8 Resettlement 61 I5.9 Supporting actions to the proposed methodologies 625.10 Environmental oversight committee 635.11 Manpower requirements on NSRRP 64

6 Preliminary environmental screening of proposed sub-projects 696.1 Phase II level screening 69 |6.2 Environmental screening of proposed roads; Aceh 696.3 Environmental screening of proposed roads: North Sumatra 736.4 Environmental screening of proposed roads: West Sumatra 81 36.5 Environmental screening of proposed roads: Riau 87

List of tables

1.1 Percentage distribution of landforms by province 11.2 Population by province ('000) 4 |1.3 Population density by kabupaten, 1994 41.4 Distribution of land use types and forest by province (sq. kn) in 1985 51.5 Protection and Conservation Forests by province (sq. kin) 81.6 Gazetted conservation areas in the project area (terrestrial only). 91.7 Recommended Development Areas 101.8 Length of roads by province 111.9 Length of kabupaten roads by kabupaten 123,1 Illustrative land prices in North Java 283.2 Illustrative land prices in West Sumatra (basic price, 1994) 28 53.3 Compensation costs for buildings and crops in West Sumatra (1994) 295.1 Environmental screening for network extension 485.2 Environmental screening for capacity expansion 495.3 Size and cost of ANDAL studies for network extension projects 53 L

5.4a Criteria for detemiing size of ANDAL studies for capacity expansion projects 535.4b Size and cost ofANDAL studies for capacity expansion projects 545.5 Topographic maps required per province 62 I6.1 Environmental and sociological screening of proposed network extension 89

projects -916.2 Environmental and sociological screening of proposed capacity expansion 92- I

projects 103

*I

viI

List of Figures (following Table 6.2)

I 1 1 Simplified landforms a) Aceh b) North Sumatra c) West Sumatra d) Riau2 Population density by kabupaten (1994)3 Simplified land use a) Aceh b) North Sumatra c) West Sumatra d) Riau4 Location of isolated and vulnerabl, communities and indigenous groups5 Protected areas a) Aceh b) North Sumatra c) West Sumatra d) Riau

| 6 Outline spatial plan for Riau province

Interkabupaten Proposed Route Maps

3 7 Natal - Pasaman (corridor P21)8 Takengon - Peureulak (NS 102/10: / IK 107)9 Medan - Kabanjahe (IK 304/310/3 i 1/312)

I 10 Sibolga - Sarulla (NS 304 / IK 330-331)1I Sipenggeng - Sipirok (IK 331 /NS 306)

12 Parsoburan - Damuli (IK 319/322)* 13 Tapanuli Utara/Selatan - Labuhanbatu (IK 301J321/326/32713281329)

14 PasamanfLimapuluhkota - Kampar (IK 603/605/625)

3GlossaryReferences

I

I

I I

I Hp'

III t

I

I

I

II

I

IIUI

III

1 THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT IN THE STUDY AREA

1 1.1 Geography (Geology, topography, climate, natural hazards)

The four provinces of northern Sumatra that constitute the Project Area have a total land areaof some 268,0C; sq. km. No less than 29% of this area is mountainous, and indeed 54% ofAceh and 46% of West Sumatra are classified as mountains (see Table 1.1 and Figures la-d).The percentage is reduced in North Sumatra by extensive eastem lowlands and centralplateaus, and Riau is primarily a lowland province. Indeed, peat swamps occupy 40% of Riau,but elsewhere are confined to a narrow coastal zone.

3 Table 1.1 Percentage distribution of landforms by province

Lauidform Aceh N Sum W Sum Riau Totall Coastal 3 2 2 3 2

Alluviuma 10 13 5 16 12Peat swamp 5 5 4 40 18Lowland plains 14 35 25 28 27Hills 14 17 18 4 12Mountains 54 28 46 9 29Total 100 100 100 100 100Total sq. klb _ 56,748 72,501 41,690 98,597 268,097

Source. RePPProT 1988in*ludes measured areas of lakes and rivers

- as measured by RePPProT (these totals differ sligitty from official figures)

Many of these mountains are igneous in origi, and there are active volcanoes in North andWest Sumatra. Lake Toba is the crater resulting from one of the biggest eruptive episodes inthe World's geological history. The highest Sumatran peak is Kerinci, on the West Sumatra -Jambi border, at 3805 m. The mountains are part of the chain known as the Barisan Mountains

* that run the length of westem Sumatra and give the island its distinctive NW-SE strike. Amajor feature of this range is the fault-bound rift valley (the "Semangko fault zone") that runsthe length of the island, and which, together with the recent volcanoes, has had significantimpacts on human settlement patterns.

As typical of mountainous regions in tropical climates, slopes tend to be universally steep. OneI of the most widespread land systems mapped by RePPProT (1988) is Bukit Pandan, which hasan average slope range greater than 60%. Indeed, according to the Ministry of Forestry's owncriteria for designation of Protection Forest (which includes slopes steeper than 40%),I RePPProT recommended that over 78,000 sq. km. should have this status, an increase of 70%of the actual area classified as Protection Forest (see Table 1.5). Smoother landformsaccompany the fertile lower slopes of the recent volcanoes, and the tuff plateaus of NorthI. Sumatra. The rivers tend to follow the regional NW-SE strike, but then cut through theadjacent steep ridges to the sea usually by means of deep gorges.

3 There is a narrow zone of coastal lowlands lying west of the Barisan Range, although locallythe hills drop steeply to the sea, creating an impedance to land conmmunication routes (Lamnoand Tapaktuan in Aceh, Sibolga in North Sumatra, and Padang-Painan in West Sumatra).

lI

There are also some narrow swamps behind the coast, often deep-water swamps that aredifficult to reclaim.

There is a much wider zone of lowlands on the east coast, from Lhokseumawe southwards, andmost of Riau lies in these lowlands. Particularly fertile are the Toba Tuff plains of the Medanregion, but elsi where the monotonous peneplain of low (but often steep) rolling hills produce Jsoils of somewhat inferior quality. The east coast of Riau is one of rapid accretion, and verydeep peats (up to 20m in places) occur in the inter-riverine zones.

The islands off the west coast, such as Simeuleuwe, Nias and Siberut, are mostly steep andhilly, but non-volcanic. Those off the east coast, such as Batam and Bintan, lie on theundulating graritic Sunda Shelf

Climate

The mountains and the west coast have annual rainfall exceeding 3000 mm, and wide areasexceed 4000 mm. West-facing slopes behind Padang exceed 5000 mm. Rainfall is heavy at allseasons and there are no dry months (months having less than 100 mm). By contrast, theeastem coastal lowlands and some intermontane valleys lie in a rain shadow and annual totalsare less than 2000 mm. Parts of the NE coast of Aceh and some of the valleys record less than1500 mm. A few localities have one or even two dry months, but the region as a whole is Ispared the annual droughts which occur in southem Indonesia. Seasons of maximum rainfallare somewhat ill-defined, but are generally very different from those occurring for example inJava. Thus the driest months tend to be December to March, and the wetter months are April tand October-November, but floods often occur on the Aceh west coast in June-July.

A characteristic feature of the climate of the eastem lowlands is the hot, dry fohn windsdescending off the mountains during the SW monsoon (especially June to August). Best knownis the 'Bohorok' which hits the Medan plains, but the winds which blow across Padang Lawas(the Gunungtua region of North Sumatra) are particularly dessicating. Although not recordedin the literature, there is evidence of the reverse situation, with fohn winds on the west coastduring the NE monsoon.

Most rain is high intensity. Over Indonesia as a whole, up to 1981 there were 212 recordedevents of daily totals exceeding 400 mm (see RePPProT 1990), and falls of more than 700 mmare known. It would be unreasonable to design roads and associated small structures towithstand major events of this kind, which have a return period of 40 to 100 years, but theyshould be able to withstand the more typical short storms which have very high intensity. Fallsof over 100 mm in one hour have a return period of 5 to 10 years.

Natural hazards

Natural hazards are a way of life in tropical regions of high tectonic instability and highrainfall. They can be classified into four types: volcanoes, earthquakes, floods and landslides.The volcanoes that contribute so much to the fertility of the region are also a threat, althoughlmodem technology generally has the means to delineate the danger zones and provide adequate Iwarning of activity. Science has not yet found the means to predict earthquakes, and

2

2

events in recent years serve to confirm that the Barisan region is a major zone of instability.Tarutung in North Sumatra has had two major earthquakes in the past decade.

From the viewpoint of the road engineer, floods and landslides (which are oftencontemporaneous) are a hazard that must be taken into account during design. Lesscatastrophic than earthquakes, the accun.ulative impact is much greater. Both hazards areexacerbated, to an unknown but probably significant degree, by the extensive deforestation thatis taking place in the watershed regions. This is one reason why such importance is attached tothe negative indirect impacts of road construction through the montane forests.

Road construction may contribute greatly to the risk of landslides, although sound engineeringpractice should reduce this risk substantially. However, in the montane parts of the study area,slopes are so steep and lithologically unstz ble that the costs of protection may be too high forthe road to be economic. This is an important consideration in the construction of roads acrossthe strike ridges of Aceh and North Sumatra.

Flooding is an annual event, and the indigenous inhabitants generally have a much betterknowledge of when to expect them than do road engineers and government officials fromoutside the area. Two types of flooding should be considered, the high velocity flash-floods ofnarrow inland valleys with their very damaging coarse sediment loads, and the medium velocityover-the-bank floods of the lower valleys with their fine sedirnent loads. The former generallyrise and fall within a day, the latter may last a week or more.

1.2 Population

The population of the four provinces in 1994 was 22.2 million. The provincial breakdown isgiven in Table 1.2, which also gives the 1986 figures of rural population density and rates ofgrowth as calculated by RePPProT (1990). Table 1.3 gives the 1994 population density bykabupaten, which is illustrated in Figure 2.

Analysis of population distribution is revealing. The traditional zones of settlement are mnostlyin the fertile rift valleys, young volcanic footslopes and tuff plateaus of the montane interior, asevidenced by the Minangkabau culture of West Sumatra (Agam, Tanah Datar) and the Bataksof North Sumatra (Karo, Simalungun). If a land use map was produced for these highlandareas for 1896, it would not differ significantly from that of today. Indeed a description of theToba highlands in 1824 indicates that there had already occurred extensive deforestation, anddegraded grasslands were widespread even at that time (Whitten et al. 1984). Although theMedan plains now carry some of the densest population, historically this was not the case. Theforests here were cleared early in the colonial era for high-value estate crops, which led to laterheavy migration into the region both from Java and from the Batak highlands.

The lowland province of Riau has the lowest population density, reflecting its inherentinfertility. However, consequent upon this, it also has the widest availability of land and thehighest growth rate, because of both sponsored and spontaneous in-migration. Traditionally,the early settlements in Riau (other than forest-dwelling tribes) were almost entirely based uponriver valleys, benefiting from river transport and the more fertile alluvial soils. Subsequently,roads (both government and logging roads) provided access to the forests of the inter-riverine

I 3

l~~~~~areas, and the modem era of forest clearance was then enabled to commence. The process isreflected in the zonation that is repeated throughout lowland Sumatra, from old or maturerubber near the road, through young rubber growing in dense secondary growth, to arablecrops and new clearance at the 'cutting edge', perhaps a day's walk from the road. Latterly, thetransmigration programme has tended to take over the forests that remain.

Not all of rural Riau is so sparsely populated. The highest density (apart from the offshoreislands) is in Indragiri Hilir, where there has been extensive settlement of the coastal region bymigrants, many from South Sulawesi. The soils here have only shallow peat, but they are -1potentially extremely acid when drained. Originally the settlers grew rice, but now most of theland is under coconut plantations (and mapped as intensive land use, see below).

Table 1.2 Population by province'000

Aceh N Sum W Sum RiauPopulation 1986 2,899 7,458 3,050 2,463Rural density/kM2 49 94 72 22Growth rate (%Yo) 1980-86 2,40 2.19 1.82 3.73Population 1994 3,416 10,981 4,266 3,560

Source: RePPProT 1990, Propinsi 'dalam anga'. 3Table 1.3 Population density by kabupaten, 1994

Kabupaten Popn Density Kabupaten Popn Density I('000) pr km2 ('000) pr kml2

Aceh North SurnatraAceh Besar 240.2 74 Nias 638.1 120Pidie 420.0 123 Tapanuli Selatan 1036.5 55Aceh Utara 846.3 178 Tapanuli Tengah 234.3 107Aceh Tengah 199.6 36 Tapanuli Utara 709.1 67Aceh Timur 585.9 76 Labuhan Bata 815.9 88Aceh Tenggara 185.8 19 Asahan 920.3 198Aceh Barat 385.6 32 Simalungun 834.6 188 3Aceh Selatan 342.9 38 Dairi 288.7 92

Karo 271.9 128West Sumatra Deli Serdang 1755.5 377Pesisir Selatan 397.2 70 Langkat 850.3 135Solok 456.8 64Sawahlunto 296.7 47 Riau _

Tanah Datar 350.2 257 Kampar 633.3 22Padang Pariaman 518,1 63 Indragin Hulu 417.3 26Agam 415.4 184 Indragiri Hilir 510.3 44Limapuluh Kota 306.9 89 Bengkalis 964.9 31Pasaman 493.1 63 Kepulauan Riau 466.2 58

Source: Propinsi 'dalam angka' INote. Population of kotamadva are not included in this analysis.

4

1.3 Land Use

Simplified land use is presented in Figures 3a-d and summarized in Table 1.4. It must beemphasized that the source of this data is RePPProT (1988, 1990), which is based on satelliteimagery dated 1985. Furthermore, the mapped forest cover in the figures is believed to give anI exaggerated picture of the actual forest cover in 1985, owing to factors of generalization toaccomodate the small scale. Extensive land use systems include areas of shifting cultivation,but they also include the secondary bush and alang-alang grasslands that have resulted fromearlier usage. Intensive land use includes all forms of permanent cropping (estates, wetlandrice, permanent dryland arable crops, intensive smallholder tree crops).

Table 1.4 Distribution of land use types and forest by province in 1985.sq. km

Aceh N Sum W Sum Riau TotalForest cover 38,823 28,120 25,904 59,365 152,212% forest 68 39 62 60 57Extensive land use systems 9,102 20,077 8,646 19,827 57,652Intensive land use systems 6,403 22,782 6,706 11,621 47,512Area of forest cleared since 1985 4,056 5,116

I Source: RePPProT 1990

Despite the reservations expressed above, forest was still measured to occupy 57% of the areain 1985. It should be realized, however, that the forest mostly occurs in the mountains (29% ofI area - see Table 1.1), hills (12% of area) and peatswamps (18% of area). Lowland forest, oftherthan swamp forest, has been almost totally eradicated from the region.

3 Deforestation

Nationwide, the estimates of annual rates of deforestation range from about 600,000 ha to overI 11.3 million ha (World Bank, 1994). In the Project Area, the most rapid deforestation is likely tohave occurred in Riau province, consequent upon the inferior quality of that province's soilsand hence the low rate of traditional utilization. Modem agronomic techniques, together withI oil palm estates and industrial tree crops, permit much more extensive use of such soils. Ananalysis was made of forest clearance in North Sumatra and Riau from the most recentavailable cloud-free Landsat imagery, compared with the RePPProT land use maps based onI mainly 1985 imagery. This is dated July 1994 - June 1995 for North Sumatra and March 1995- June 1996 for Riau. For the mainland regions (only), the forest clearance over this decade isestimated to have been over 4000 sq. km in North Sumatra and over 5,100 sq. km in Riau, or1 14.4% and 8.6% respectively of the 1985 forest cover (see Table 1.4). The implication is thatover 40,000 ha in North Sumatra and over 51,000 ha in Riau have been cleared each year overthe last decade. Rates are likely to be slower in the more mountainous Aceh and West Sumatraprovinces. The interpretation of the imagery was visual and rapid, and the figures areillustrative only. Estate and industrial tree crop projects are responsible for the major portion ofthe clearance in the lowlands, but most of the clearance in the highlands appears to have beenby smallholders (with some contribution from timber extraction for pulpwoods).

I )

The forest cover portrayed for Riau in Figure 3d is believed to bear little resemblance to that oftoday (see also Figure 6).

Recent LANDSAT imagery (1995) has now been obtained for much of the Project Area. Therewere delays in delivery, and it was not possible to analyze these during Phase I of the project.An analysis will be made during Phase II, when the imagery will be used for environmentalscreening of land use along priority sub-projects.

Isolated communities

The problem of isolated and vulnerable communities is discussed further in Section 5.5. Figure4 shows the distribution of areas that are remote from road access. These areas are often underforest, but it is within these boundaries that some isolated communities are found, practisingtraditional forms of agriculture. Their traditional land rights are inherited, but the village mayalso have communal rights for hunting and harvesting of natural products. The presence of aremote village on the map does not necessarily signify a traditional agricultural community.There will be cases where such villages were developed for small-scale gold mining activities,or settled following the access provided by logging. Within the project region, communitiesidentified as named indigenous tribes occur only in Riau (although the Lubu occupy the bordersbetween Riau, West Sumatra and North Sumatra), and their distribution is shown on Figure 4.

1.4 Importance for biodiversity

Sumatra lies in the Sundaic biogeographical province, with elements of fauna and flora that areshared with Java and/or Kalimantan and/or the Malay Peninsula. Perhaps the most famousmember of its fauna is the Orang Utan Pongo pygmaeus, shared with Kalimantan, but inSumatra restricted to Aceh and North Sumatra provinces. South of this, rumours persist of aso-far undiscovered 'jungle-man', currently the subject of expeditions to the remaining wildregions near the West Sumatra - Jambi borders. Other notable primates are the three species ofGibbon occurring on Sumatra ( Hylobates agilis. H. lar. H. syndactylus). Another notablemammal is the Asian Elephant Elephas maximus, increasingly becoming reported as a potentialdanger owing to man-elephant conflicts resulting from the loss of the latter's traditional terrain.There is considerable intemational concern at the depletion of Sumatran (and indeed Asian)mammals such as the Tiger Panthera tigris and Sumatran Rhinoceros Dicerorhinussumatrensis. The Sumatran populations of these are now estimated at only 400-500 and 300respectively (Species, 1996). Other mammals that might be mentioned would be the Dhole(wild dog, Cuon alpinus), the Serow (wild goat, Capricornis sumatrensis) and the very poorlyknown Sumatran Hare (Nesolagus netscheri). Best-known forest plants are the Rafflesia andAmorphophallus.

Out of some 600 bird species, there are at least 12 that are endemic to mainland Sumatra, andnearly all of these are montane in distribution. Particularly notable are the Salvadori's PheasantLophura ignita in the south and west, and its close cousin Lophura hoogerwerfi in the north.The latter is so poorly known that the male is still undescribed. The lowland avifauna, otherthan in peatswamps, has been decimated by forest clearance, although pockets remain, such asthe newly established Siberida nature reserve in the south of Riau. One endemic taxon that hasnot been observed for many decades is the Chestnut-necklaced Partridge Tropicoperdix

66

lcharltonii, which may be confined to the hills of SE Aceh. Critically endangered are the White-winged Duck Cairina scutulata and Storm's Stork Ciconia stormi, both dependent uponwetland forest of the coastal plains, and Sumatra has global responsibility for these species.Probably Sumatra holds the largest population of the White-winged Duck in the world, withkey locations in Aceh Selatan and Tapanuli, and in Indragiri. Finally, the east coast from AcehTimur south to South Sumatra is now known to have extren..e importance for migratoryshorebirds in the East Asia - Australasia flyway, as well as for the protection of some largewaterbirds such as the Milky and Lesser Adjutant Storks Mycteria cinerea and LeptoptilosJavanicus.

There is evidence of continuing illegal trade in or hunting of wildlife, in the form of.

* the export of animal parts for their supposed medical propert& s (rhino hom, tiger parts);. the export of high value animal parts for omamentation or status (elephant tusks, tiger

skins);* the capture of wild birds for boti the intemational and especially (in the case of Sumatra)

the domestic bird markets;. hunting other than for subsistence purposes,* shooting for "sporting purposes", commonly by urban dwellers who are unaware of the

significance of their targets.

Without adequate controls, which are rarely available, it is inevitable that new roads provideready access for all these activities. Thus there is abundant anecdotal evidence that manyspecies of birds that were formerly comrnon in the mountain forests of northern Sumatra havebecome rare in all the accessible areas merely because of the almost unlimited demand for thesebirds on the domestic market. Just two examples would be the White-crested Laughing-thrush('Boksai') Garrulax leucolophus and Straw-crowned Bulbul ('Cicakrawa') Pycnonotuszeylanicus, while an example of a bird that has been hunted to near-extinction locally (egBrestagi) would be the Bronze-tailed Peacock-pheasant Polyplectron chalcurum.

Additional wetland areas of ecological significance

3n view of the emphasis on montane forests in the reserve network (see Section 1.5), and theimportance of the wetlands, the maps in Figures 5 (Protected Areas) also show areasconsidered to have wetlands of ecological significance that are not currently under any form ofprotection (source partly derived from the Wetland Inventory, Silvius et al 1987). Those inAceh and westem North Sumatra are believed to be fine examples of the west coast swamphabitat, and as noted above important for such globally endangered bird species as White-winged Duck. A nature reserve of 85,000 ha. has been proposed for Singkil Barat in AcehSelatan (the area south of Kluet), but on the spatial plan the area is proposed for development.The deep water peat swamps of this region would be difficult to reclaim, and more attention isurged to be given to the recommendation for a nature reserve. It should be noted that theprovincial west coast road runs through the Kluct extension, but its impact is not recorded; itinterrupts the coastal succession of vegetation types, and presumably provides access to illegalactivities.

On the east coast, several areas have been annotated as having significance. Mostly these are(or were) surviving examples of good mangrove forest, but the strip of coast in the north-west

l

I 7

of Riau has special significance as possibly the last remaining breeding locality (unfortunatelynot yet confirmed) of the Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis in SE Asia, and alsoimportant for the Lesser Adjutant Stork. The adjacent area of the Bagan Siapi-api peninsula Ihas been identified as important for the endangered Storm's Stork, but this probably applies toall the remaining peat swamp forests of Riau, for which there are already several reserves.Tanjung Datuk and Pulau Bakung, in the south-east of Riau, have been proposed for nature Ireserve status (55,000 ha), primarily for the tidal areas which support large numbers ofmigratory shorebirds, including the globally threatened Asian Dowitcher Limnodromussemipalmatus.

1.5 Spatial Plans

Spatial plans have been prepared for each of the provinces, identifying areas for protection, forforest management, and for agricultural or industrial development. The plans are availableeither in book form or as large scale maps. In most cases, the protected areas do not differ Igreatly from the TGHK forest categories. The spatial planning legislation is discussed inSection 3.2.

Table 1.5 summnarizes the areas of Protection Forest (hutan lindung) and Conservation areas(national parks, nature reserves, game reserves etc). They are portrayed in Figures 5a-d. Themore important gazetted conservation areas are tabulated in Table 6. These are based mainly Ion the TGHK classification as depicted on the RePPProT maps, but in the case of WestSumatra and Riau, some revisions have been incorporated based on the RUTRW maps. Thereappear to be some anomalies, such as the boundaries of Kerinci-Seblat national park. These Iuncertainties would only be significant where a proposed sub-project impacts a conservationarea, and this would be ascertained during Phase [1 of the study.

Table 1.5 Protection and Conservation Forests by provincesq. kmi

Aceh N Sum W Sum Riau TotalConservation areas - TGHK 8,420 2,552 5,481 4,107 20,560Protection forest - TGHK 9,704 16,174 12,608 7,176 45,662

-Protection forest - recommendeda 28,106 23,348 19,001 7,834 78,289

Source: RePPProT 1990- area of protection forest re-ommended by RePPProT based on landfortn criteria. 3

The Govenmient of Indonesia has set aside 19 million ha or 10% of its total land area as parksand reserves, and a further 30 million ha as protection forests (World Bank 1994). Within theProject Area, some 8% of the total area consists of parks and reserves, and 17% as protectionforest. Of major significance is the 790,000 ha Gunung Leuser national park in Aceh/NorthSumatra, and the 1, 485,000 ha Kerinci-Seblat national park that extends into the Project Areain West Sumatra. Pristine montane forest is extensive in both of these, although there isencroachment on most of the borders. Management projects are already in progress orscheduled for both parks (Leuser - EEC funded, Kerinci-Seblat - IBRD funded); this includescommunity development in the buffer zones.

l

8

Table 1.6 Gazetted conservation areas (>50 ha) in the project area (terrestrial only).

I Name Status Kabupaten Area (Ha)AcehHutan Pinus/Janthoi CA Aceh Besar 8,000

_~ ~ ~ ~~~~~__ ____________

Lingga Isag TB Aceh Tengah 80,000Acch Raffiesia IIII Serbojadi CA Aceh Timur 300Pulau Weh TW Aceh Utara 1,300Gunung Leuser' TN (Aceh and N. Sumatra) 792,675North SumatraSicikeh Cikeh TW Dair 575Holiday Resort Torgamba TW Labuhan Batu 1,964Karang Gading SM_ LangkatlDeli Serdang 15,765Dolok Tinggi Raya CA Simnalungun 167Dolok Sibual-bual CA Tapanuli Selatan 5,000Dolok Sipirok CA Tapanuli Selatan 6,970Siranggas SM Tapanuli Selatan 5,657Barumun SM Tapanuli Tengah 110,330?Dolok Surungan SM Tapanuli Utara 23,800Bukit Barisan THR 51,600West SumatraLembah Harau CA Lima Puluh Koto 270.5Dr. Muhammad Hatta THR Padang 500Tai Tai Battit SM Padang Pariaman 56,500Siberut TN Padang Pariaman 190,500Rimbo Panti CA Pasaman 2,830Rimbo Panti TW Pasaman 570-Lembah Anai CA Tanah Datar 221Kerinci-Seblat TN (Four provinces) 1,484,650Riau ______Riau_Kepu_i_aua

Batam TW RiauKepulauan 4,933Danau Bawah-Pulau Besar SM Bengkalis 25,000Pulau Berkeh CA Bengkalis 500Kefumutan SM Kampar, Indragiri Hulu 120,000I Pulau Bumng CA Riau Kepulauan 200Pulau Laut CA Riau Kepulauan 400Pulau Rempang TB Riau Kepulauan 16,000

*Siberida CA Indragiri Hilir/Hulu 120,000?

Source: BirdLife International (1994), RePPProT (1985)CA - Cagar Alam (Nature Reserve) THR - Taman Hutan Raya (Forest Park)SM - Suaka Margasatwa (Wildlife Reserve) TN - Taman Nasional (National Park)TB - Taman Buru (Hunting Reserve) TW - Taman Wisata (Tourist Park)

|Biosphere reservcs

1 9

For the other reserves, it is assumed that Govemment resources do not permit adequatemanagement or protection, and that encroachment and illegal harvesting of timber or wildlife iswidespread. Although the list of reserves in Table 1.6 may be quite impressive, the majority of Ithese are in the mountains, and lowland forests are inadequately represented. There are severallowland reserves in Riau, but these mostly lie in peat swamps. Considerable importance isattac hed, therefore, to the newly gazetted Siberida nature reserve, on the Riau-Jambi border, a

which includes significant areas of low hills, and also to the Kluet extension of the Leusernational park, which reaches the coast in Aceh Selatan.

It is noted that the spatial plan for Riau (Figure 6) includes development of major areas of peatswamps, for either oil palm estates or industrial tree crops (also as a source of brickettes as anenergy source, while there is an experimental plot of melons in progress). It is reported that upto 5 )0,000 ha have already been developed, and a further 500,000 ha are destined forconversion, with some adjustments being made to the existing spatial plan to accomodate thesedevelopments. It is not clear which of these blocks is covered by the activities of PT MultiGambut International (MG1), as a contractor to central government, currently opening up500,000 ha in Kecamatan Keteman, Kabupaten Indragiri Hilir. A regional transport study isnot the place in which to comment on the wisdom of such activities, but strong arguments have Ibeen presented elsewhere for the preservation of the natural functions that peat swamp forestsprovide. Indeed in some project areas in Malaysia, crop failures and secondary negativeimpacts of peat swamp reclamation have necessitated expensive efforts to restore the original Ihydrological balance and to regreen the peatwamps. The only comment made here is toquestion the justification for constructing roads to serve these projects, in view of the rivernetwork that already exists and the 40 km of lOOm wide drains that will be dug in the project |area.

One of the products of the RePPProT mapping was the identification of 'RecommendedDevelopment Areas' (RDAs), areas of between 10,000 and 25,000 ha that were under-utilizedbut which have agricultural potential. It should be remembered that the primary focus of theRePPProT study was the identification of land suitable for transrngration. Within the StudyArea, a total of 54 such areas were identified, as shown in Table 1.7.

Table 1.7 Recommended development areas

Province _ Development models |Wetland Dryland Treecrop Mixed Totals

Aceh 0 0 4 1 5North Sumatra 1 0 9 2 12West Sumatra 0 o 2 o 2Riau 10 1 6 18 35

Source: RePPProT 19S8

The distribution of RDAs strongly reflects the land availability as discussed earlier, especiallyin Riau province. However, almost by definition, RDAs will consist of land that requires arather high level of management, including heavy fertilizer treatment, because the better qualityland has already been occupied. The concept of RDAs has never been widely accepted by theprovincial planners, despite the fact that they have mostly accepted the data-base (land systems |

10 1

and mapped land use) on which the RDAs were based, and RDAs are now mainly of historicalinterest. Land allocations within the spatial plans have in many cases already proceeded beyondthe stage of identifying RDAs. However, their distribution has been taken into account in thetransport planning programme where still relevant.

* 1.6 Existing road network

From Table 1.8, it is seen that some 30,400 km of motorable road exist in the Study Area,including 2,686 km of National roads, 9,513 km of Provincial roads, and 18,204 km ofmotorable Kabupaten roads (asphalt roads, and gravel roads in good condition). Road lenghisare analyzed by ratios of total area and of population to kilometre of road. Over the ProjectI. Area as a whole, there is one kilometre of motorable road for every 731 head of population.The most favourable ratio is in Aceh (1:431 people), and the least in North Sumatra (1:972people), the province with the highest density of population. In terms of area, there is oneU kilometre for every 880 ha The highest density is in North and West Sumatra equally (1:640ha), and the lowest is in Riau (1:2120 ha), reflecting the most fertile and least fertile provincesrespectively.

At kabupaten level (Table 1.9), there are some unexpected variations. Generally, thosekabupatens with the highest density of population have the lowest ratios of roads to people, forI example Pidie and Aceh Utara in Aceh, Deli Serdang and Asahan in North Sumatra. It issurprising to see that the population of the highland Aceh Tengah kabupaten appears to be aswell served by roads as that of Aceh Besar.

In terms of ratio of land area to roads, obviously those kabupatens with the lowest intensity ofland use, owing to reasons of mountainous or swampy terrain or low inherent fertility, have theI lowest ratio, for example Aceh Tenggara, or the four mainland kabupatens of Riau. Bengkalis(Riau) has the lowest ratio of one kilometre of road to 27,600 ha, but this reflects the fact thata large proportion of the area is peat swamp, while much of the population lives alongsideI rivers or estuaries and relies on boat transport. In general, the most intensively cultivatedkabupatens have the highest ratio, with more than 1,000 ha served by one kilometre (TanahDatar in West Sumatra is the extreme with 280 ha/km).

Table 1.8 Length of National and Provincial Roads by province

Province Area Popn Roads Sq. Km. Popn.(sq. kcm) ('000) Nat. Prov. Kab. Total per per

km km kin km km road kn roadAcch 56,748 3,416 507 2,575 4,839 7,921 18.4 1,108N. Sumatra 72,501 10,981 1.010 3,232 7,059 11,301 17.1 2.589W. Sumatra 41,690 4,266 511 1.816 4,195 6,522 17.9 1,833Riau 98,597 3,560 658 1.890 2,111 4,659 38.7 1,397Total 268,097 22,223 2,686 9,513 18,204 30,403 22.0 1,822

I

I 11

Table 1.9 Length of Kabupaten Roads by kabupaten

Kabupaten AreaL I Popn I Motorable roads (km)2 per km road:| (sq.km) I ('O) MAsph 1Grav ITotal Sq. Kmn. I Popn.

AcehAcehBesar 3,240 240.2 583 54 637 5.1 377Pidie 3,415 420.0 443 32 475 7.2 884AcehUtara 4,755 846.3 624 380 1004 4.7 843Aceh Tengah 5,575 199.6 367 142 509 11.0 392Aceh Timur 7,760 585.9 490 330 820 9.5 715Acch Tenggara 9,635 185.8 217 46 263 36.6 706Acch Barat 12,100 385.6 382 186 568 21.3 679Aceh Selatan 8,910 342.9 510 53 563 15.8 609

55,390 3,206.3 3,616 1,223 4,839 11.4 663North SumatraNias 5,318 638.1 306 22 328 16.2 1,945Tapanuli 18,897 1036.5 619 164 783 24.1 1,324Selatan ___Tapanuli 2,198 234.3 268 7 275 8.0 852 ITengah_Tapanuli Utara 10,605 709.1 1,059 61 1,120 9.5 633Labuhan Batu 9,323 815.9 571 56 627 14.9 1,301Asahan 4,649 920.3 273 227 500 9.3 1,841Simalungun 4,439 834.6 996 102 1,098 4.0 760Dairi 3,146 288.7 378 22 400 7.9 722Karo 2,127 271.9 445 63 508 4.2 .535Deli Serdang 4,658 1755.5 638 154 792 5.9 2,217|Langkat | 6,320 850.3 483 145 628 10.1 1,354

______________ l71,680 8,355.2 6,036 1,023 7,059 10.2 1,184West SumatraPesisir Selatan 5,700 397.2 359 132 491 11.6 809

_. _ _ _ ,__ ,_ ,__.,_ I Solok 7,144 456.8 521 143 664 10.8 688Sawahlunto 6,377 296.71 338 231 569 11.2 521Tanah Datar 1,363 350.2 488 6 494 2.8 709P. Pariaman 8,186 518.1 450 96 546 15.01 949Agami 2,257 415.4 406 70 476 4.7 873LimapuluhKota 3,434 306.9 337 105 442 7.8 694Pasaman 7,835 493.1 421 92 513 15.3 961

_____________ l42,296 3234.4 3,320 875 4,195 10.1 771RiauKampar 28,355 633.3 289 433 722 39.3 877Indragiri Hulu 15,854 417.3 155 327 482 32.9 866IndragiriHilir 11,606 510.3 220 47 267 43.5 1,911Bengkalis 30,647 964.9 56 55 111 276.1 8,693KepulauanRiau 8,100 466.2 528 1 529 15.3 881

i____________ 194,562 2,992.0 1,248 863 2,111 44.8 1,417Source: RRPTA' Source from official statistics. Mfeasured areas on RePPProT maps differ significantly. 2 Roads are Classified as

baik good rusak = poorsedang = fair rusak berat badsedang rusak fairtopoor

Asphalt roads that are classified as good to poor, and stone/gravel roads as good to fair, are assumed to be motorable. All earth roads Uare assurned to be non-motorable. because they do njot provide all-year access (manay are little more than footpaths).

I121

2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF ROAD DEVELOPMENT

2.1 General Impacts of Road Projects

Routine impacts that are specific to road construction include, inter alia, the following:

• issues of compensation where the road traverses intensive agricultural or settled areas;* some building relocation/resettlement;* some potential displacement of traditional cultural areas such as burial sites;* potential major imnpacts through inappropriate material removal from unplanned quarry

sites;* riverbed or coastal erosion resulting from removal of building materin Ls;* disruption to communities during transport of materials as a result of noise and dust;* contamination of drinking water supply through careless storage and placement of bitumen

drums,* indirect impacts associated with increased accessibility such as uncontrolled clearance or

harvesting of forest products in conservation areas, protection forest, and sensitiveecological habitats, hunting and trapping of wildlife etc;

* possible disruption to indigenous communities.

Besides the routine aspects of environmental impact analysis of road development, specifictypes of impact are associated with different classes of road and construction type. The lists areindicative only, and obviously not exclusive.

New construction projects

New road construction involves opening an area to access, often for the first time. Commonlysome form of access already exists (such as an earth road or footpath) and the induced impactsresulting from access may have already occurred. However there may be major environmentaland social implications from new construction, and it is anticipated that almnost all proposednew construction on national and provincial roads, and major inter-kabupaten links, willrequire full environnmental assessment. Negative impacts specific to new construction include:

* damage to fragile ecological habitats such as montane forest, mangrove swamps etc;. increased exploitation of natural resources along the new road;. illegal logging and firewood collection in protected forest areas adjoining the new road;* illegal hunting of endangered and protected wildlife in protected forest areas;* the negative effect of the barrier imposed by the new road, and habitat fragmentation;* disruption of traditional land use practices;* disruption to indigenous and isolated communities along the road;a competition for limited land resources as a result of spontaneous in-migration;* impacts induced by altering land use pattems as a result of increased access;* impacts caused by land speculation by outside investors;* land acquisition/resettlement in agricultural areas and in village/urban areas.

I

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~13

Capacity expansion projects

Capacity expansion projects for national and provincial roads are generally located in areas |where any natural environment has already been transformed into one characterized byintensive land use or settlement, and commonly also rapid economic growth. By far the mostsignificant environmental impacts in this situation are predicted to be social, although there Imay still be significant negative impacts on the physical environment New urban by-passprojects would be similar in terms of type of impacts.

• disruption to and displacement of roadside activities and businesses, industrial facilities,and road frontage development;

* displacement of community facilities, and disruption to communities through displacement 1and resettlement;

* disruption to agricultural activities;* potential land speculation; I* increased barrier effect;* disruption to natural watercourses and/or irrigation systems;

* impediment to traffic access and existing pedestrian networks; -disruption to traffic during construction activities;

* increased air pollution;* aesthetic issues during various phases of construction.

Urban roads: new construction or ma?jorwienn

The most significant impacts of urban road development are social and economic, andgenerally a relatively large number of people and businesses are affected.

• displacement of significant numbers of people and the need for resettlement plans;* land acquisition and associated issues;* pedestrian severance and associated impacts on businesses and other economic activities as I

a result of the barrier effect;* increased levels of air and noise pollution;-* disturbance to traffic and increased congestion during construction activities; I* damage to neighbouring roads and bridges during the transport of heavy building materials.

2.2 Project-specific Impacts of Road Development IIn environmental assessment, it is customary to analyze the predicted impacts in the context ofthe physical, biological and socio-economic environment. While many of the impacts listed Iabove are routine to any road development, a number are specific to the Project Area. Theimpacts that have played the greatest role in the preliminary assessment of sub-projects (see -

Section 6) are listed below.

l

iA ~~~~~~I

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A). Impacts on the physical environment.

Any new road through forested terrain in the hills or mountains is likely to have major negativeimpacts, due to:

. the physical damage of road construction in very steep terrain;* increased potential for erosion and landslides;* the provision of access for illegal logging or other exploitation of natural resources;* the provision of access to spontaneous settlement and land clearance for unsustainable

formns of agriculture;* the downstream impacts of any consequent forest clearance on the hydrological regime.

The importance of the role of mountain forests in protecting dov nstream river regimes isparamount. It is for this reason that these forests are accorded protection status in the kawasanhutan of the spatial plan, and that permission is required from the Minister of Forestry beforeroad construction in such areas can proceed (see Section 3.6). Planners should also consider theguidelines on maximum longitudinal gradients, which are 6-10% according to class of road(Standard Specifications for Geometric Design of Rural Highways, Peraturan PerencanaanGeometrik Jalan Raya, No. 13/1970). Costs of road construction in steeplands will be animportant consideration. Whereas new construction of a 6 metre road to asphalt stage mightcost Rp 500 million/km, the same road in steep terrain might cost at least Rp 2,500-3,000millionlkm (assuming 15-20 m of cut, in material that is 30% rock and 70% overburden).Retaining walls are not included in this total.

The physical impacts are also considered to be serious in swamplands, particularly peatswamps, but the incidence of planned new roads in such terrain is relatively low.

B). Impacts on the biological environment.

in this case, interest is mainly focussed on the indigenous fauna and flora. Thus, any new roadthrough the remaining forests of the region, whether in the mountains or the swamps, is likelyto have major negative impacts, due to:

- damage to fragile ecological habitats;. illegal hunting of endangered and protected wildlife;. the negative effect of the barrier imposed by the road, and habitat fragmentation.

In section 1.4 it was noted that there is still widespread hunting or capture of wildlife for avariety of purposes, and clearly any improvement of access into the remaining forests is likelyto increase such activities.

C). Impacts on the socio-economic environment.

Two very different situations are envisaged here. In already intensively used terrain, such asfertile agricultural areas or on the outskirts of towns, there may be problems of land acquisitionwherever a new road is constructed or an existing road is widened. Some of the major socialimpacts caused by road projects are:

* 15

* compulsory acquisition of land, property and business;* economic losses for affected individuals and farm families;

temporary or permanent loss of income for subsistence; I* people with fewer resources and skill become more vulnerable;* social and family disruption due to displacement and relocation;-* loss of community benefits and social disintegration .

Following construction, the new road may provide opportunities for new settlement, and thereis commonly appreciation in real estate values. These issues require proper management by -local government to prevent ribbon development.

In more remote areas, the issues are very different: I* disruption of traditional land use practices and impacts induced by altering land use

pattems;• disruption to indigenous and isolated communities, who may be disadvantaged by land

speculation, in-migration, or allocation of concessions.

These problems are discussed more fully below and in Section 4.6.

2.3 Isolated Communities ;

Both the World Bank and the Govemrnment of Indonesia (GOI) have a special concern forcommunities who have been disadvantaged, or left behind, in the development process, but theirviews differ in the identification of these peoples. The World Bank focus of concern has been"indigenous peoples", while the GOI's has been "isolated peoples" (suku (erasing). In somecases the two are synonymous, but they are not identical. IThe World Bank identifies "indigenous peoples" as ".,.social groups with a social and culturalidentity distinct from the dominant society that makes them vulnerable to being disadvantaged jin the development process" (Operational Directive 4.20). The concern of the World Bank isthat peoples so identified share in the development process, but in a manner which does notdisrupt or damage their unique socio-cultural heritage. I"Isolated peoples" in the eyes of the GOI are not necessarily culturally or ethnically differentbut are physically residing in remote areas having poor communications. Hence Javanese 3communities in mountainous regions of Java which are accessible only by footpaths are"isolated" but are not socially or culturally distinct from lowland Javanese communities (i.e.not "indigenous peoples" according to the World Bank definition),

The focus of transport planning is to provide, as far as economically feasible, equitabletransport access to all communities. Thus as previously discussed in an earlier review of theKabupaten Roads Program (IBRD 1994), it is more appropriate to use the Indonesian conceptof Masyarakat terasing as defined by the GOI Dept. of Social Welfare:

16

The Masyarakat ferasing are the people who have the same physical, social andcultural characteristics, live in areas that are difficult to reach, remote (terpencil),scattered (terpencar) so that they experience a social and cultural gap (kesenjangan)that has caused their welfare to be very low and disadvantaged (terbelakang).

I The term terasing for this use has the meaning as a static condition (kondis, statis) andremote or isolated from outside groups of people who are more advanced so that thereis little interaction with and influence from outside groups. The condition of themasyarakat terasing is still well below national socioeconomic averages,

The only addition is special attention to peoples who are not only "isolated" but as a result oftheir isolation have developed unique cultural characteristics, such as a distinct, language,religious beliefs, or other distinct socio-cultural forms. Improvements in tratnsportationinfrastructure linking these peoples to a more dominant, or the national, culture should takeI care not to disturb unduly the existing socio-cultural values of the peoples. Undertaken withproper precautions, development of an integrated transportation network should be able toserve the GOI purposes of equitable development of national transportation infrastructure whilemaintaining cultural diversity.

To achieve the latter, regional transportation development should be based upon informedparticipation by all affected groups and communities. Preferences of local communities,especially those with unique socio-cultural attributes, should be carefully weighed witheconomic, political and environmental factors in the development of a regional integratedI transport network. In the case of transport links affecting distinctive cultures, specialdevelopment plans may need to be considered, but in all cases community consultation shouldbe the norm for transportation planning (see Sections 3.5 and 5.6).

No fixed procedure for dealing with unique cultural groups with respect to regional integratedtransport development is proposed herein. Instead a sensitivity to the needs and unique situationof indigenous peoples should be instilled within the planning system as a whole. Identificationof indigenous peoples, recognition of the unique nature and aspects of their culture, and fluidconmmunication with communities from the planning stage through post-construction are whatis needed. In particular transport planners need to identify specific components of the cultureof indigenous peoples which might pose issues of conflict in development of transportationlinks, such as land tenure practices, and then work with the communities to deternine equitable3 options before conflicts arise.

The general guidelines of World Bank Operational Directive 4.20 provides a solid startingpoint for dealing with indigenous peoples. Refinements of OD 4.20 specific to Indonesia shouldbe included in the first irnplementation phase of the regional transport project. For the fourprovinces of the project region, it appears that only in Riau are there unique cultural groupsdistinct from the dominant ethnic population. Thus the first regional transport project shouldbe able to develop and test in applied situations procedures for dealing with indigenous peopleson a limited trial basis. Hence tested and refined procedures will be in place when subsequentregional transportation projects are begun in areas such as Kalimantan and Irian Jaya whichare inhabited by numerous distinct cultural groups.

* 17

;~~~~~~~~~~2.4 Cultural resources

Cultural resources can include a range of sites, structures and practices that have unique |archaeologic, historic, religious or social value. Procedures governing the chance discovery ofsuch artifacts during project construction are governed by Act UU 5/1992 and included instandard Bina Marga tender documents.

.I

33

l

l

18 1~~~~~~

3 LEGISLATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES IN INDONESIA

3.1 AMDAL Legislation

The general direction for environmental management in Indonesia is embodied in the Guidelinesfor State Policy, which is the basis for the national policy on the management of naturalresources for each Repelita (Five-Year Development Plan). There are a number of generalregulations relating to environmental management, the most important being the Environmental

*. ~ Management Act No. 4 of 1982, called the 'Basic Provision for the Management of the LivingEnvironment'. This act specifies responsible institutions to carry out the broad mandate ofsustainable environmental management, including the Ministry of Public Works. The AMDAL

*. (environmental) legislation was formerly embodied in Government Regulation (PP) No. 29 of1986, but this has now been replaced by PP No. 51 of 1993. The Regulation aims atcontrolling and mitigating environmental impacts arising from any development activities.

X AMDAL is now required to be an integrated project assessment process to coordinate theplanning and review of development projects, including all ecological, socio-economic, andcultural components.

PP 5111993 outlines the revised AMDAL processes. For example, the Preliminary EvaluationReport or PIL is no longer required, although often some form of field screening is necessary.I Procedures are now available for integrated/multisectoral evaluations (AMDAL KegiatanTerpadulMultisektoral) under the authority of more than one technical agency (for example atransmigration project integrated with conservation of the adjacent forest resource), areaI evaluations (AMDAL Kawasan) such as an industrial estate, and regional evaluations (AMD)ALRegzonal) which would include various interrelated activities under the jurisdiction of more3 than one agency, lying in one zone of a regional development planning area.

Development activities that are predicted to have significant impacts are described, togetherwith the types of impacts that are considered to be significant. It is categorically stated that theI AMDAL process shall form part of the feasibility study for a proposed activity. It stipulatesthat the expenses to prepare AMDAL documents shall be included in the budget of the proposedactivity and shall be borne by the proponent, and also that the environmental management andI monitoring costs shall be charged to the operational budget of the relevant activity.

KEP-]]/MENLH/3/]994 Appendix I lists the development activities that require AMDAL| studies. In the highways sector, full EIA studies (ANDAL. RKL, RPL) are required for:

* new construction of toll roads;| . fly-overs;

interurban roads greater than 25 kmn in length;* urban roads greater than 5 km; andI- . betterment outside the right-of-way (DAA4JA) for urban and metropolitan roads greater

than 5 km in length.

3 For kabupaten roads, and road projects of smaller dimension than listed above, includingcapacity expansion projects, a preliminary level of screening is required to determine the

l

* '9

possible extent of impact on fragile/sensitive areas and/or the need for resettlement andcompensation. All activities bordering a protected area as listed in Appendix 11 of KEP-11/1994 also require AMDAL. The AMDAL screening process in Bina Marga lists 20 Icategories of sensitive areas as listed in the screening flow-chart as shown below.

Clearly the list of sensitive areas is comprehensive, and it mnight be interpreted to includle almost any terrain. It does, however, emphasize the commitment of Bina Marga to address theenvironmental legislation. For project purposes, it is assumed that steep slopes refer to slopes>40% (or to RePPProT land systems that are classified as having slopes in this category). Area Iof significant social impact is taken to include urban and 'peri-urban' areas (the latter term isused to describe both the outer fringes of towns and the ribbon development that has oftenoccurred along main roads), but a distinction is made in the preliminary evaluation (section 5) Ibetween intensively used land (productive land, especially arable land) and extensively usi dland (tree crops, shifting cultivation etc.). IFor new construction projects which traverse sensitive environments, an environmental fieldstudy will be completed (Kajian Lingkungan or KL). Where this study determines thatsignificant impacts are expected, a full EIA (ANDAL) will be required. The KL will provide Iinputs for the preparation of the Terms of Reference for the ANDAL study. Environmentalmanagement and monitoring plans (RKL and RPL) shall be prepared as separate documentstogether with the ANDAL.

The developing agency is responsible for imnplementing and providing the budget for the RKLand RPL, although it is generally required to work together with associated institutions for the |post-construction management. However the supervision and reporting on the implementationof the plans is the responsibility of a team that is set up either by the responsible Minister fornational projects, or the Governor for provincial projects. Supervision costs are borne by theinstitutions comprising this team.

Guidelines for the compilation of AMDAL studies are contained in Kep-14/MENLH13/1994. 3Where the construction activity is considered to have negligible environmental impacts, or havesignificant impacts that can be handled through standard technical procedures, environmentalmanagement shall be covered by standard environmental management and monitoringprocedures (UKE and UPL) as directed by Kep-12/MENLH13/1994. UKL and UPL are notsubject to evaluation by the AMDAL commission, but are the responsibility of the concernedagency. The guidelines issued by Bina Marga for the preparation of UKL and UPL are generalin nature, but the Central Technical Consultancy (CTC) for Kabupaten roads has preparedsectoral environmental studies (see Section 4.2) that have been adopted generally as guidelinesfor the management of minor environmental impacts (Hoff & Overgaard et al 1992). 3Guidelines for the deterrnination of significant impacts are contained in BAPEDAL Decree05613/1994. In summary, these relate to criteria of number of people affected, areal extent of -impact, duration of impact, intensity of impact, number of other components affected by 3impact, cumulative nature of impact, and reversibility/irreversibility of impact.

l

ll

20) 3

mm-- -- -- ------ - - -

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: SCREENING FOR ROAD PROJECTS

NEWCONSTRUCrION Requires ANDAL (Environmental ImpactNEWCONSTRtJCIION _~~~~~~3" YESso YES Si Statement), RKL (EnvironmentalManagement

* Toll Roads dand Flyovers Plan) RPL (Environmenhl Monitoring Plan).* National and Prov incial Highways > 25 km

* Urban and Mctropolitan Roads > 5 km* Urban and Metropolitan Road Betterment

Outside of right of way > 5 kmv Bridges > 60 m long

Will the proposed project traverse: Potentially significant

NO impact?I Area of Significant Social Impact2 Strict Nature Reserve (CA)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - -_ 3 Wildlife Reserve (SM) ?4 Conservation Forest?

New Construction of National and i YES 5 Biodiversity ProtecUon Area? YES ENVIRONMENTAL FIELD STUDY

Provincial roads < 25 km I 6 Wildlife Refuge (Kajian L n gkungan)I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 Protection Forest (H-L)? -

I 8 Swamp/Wetland Area?

I Road betterment outside the right of 9 Upper Watershed Areas?way for urban and metropolitan t10 River Buffer Zones ?

: roads < 5 km l 11 Areas surrounding Lakes and Reservoirs? No significant impactl l 12 Springs and Water Supply Areas?

New local (kabupaten) road t 13 Marine and Freshwater Conservation Areas ?

I construction I 14 Mangrove Areas ?l l15 National Parks? r - __

16 Nature Parks ?I | 17 Recreation Parks t UKL (Environmental Management

18 Cultural Reserve and Scientific Research Areas ? I Plan) and tIPL (Environmental

19 Natural Hazard Zones? l Monitoring Plan.)20 Steep Slope and Other Fragile Areas?

Special cases of minor road improvement on

No existing roads within right of way in sensitive

areas should be dealt with on a case by case

batsis.t

NO

Roa…d betterment within the right of wLy… YES Inentation of Standard Operaing Procedures

routine and perioctic niaintenance I (Sectoral t1KL / UI>L)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

3.2 Spatial Plans

In February 1990 a Spatial Planning Team was formed on the authority of Keppres 57/1989 todevelop a set of guidelines for compiling spatial plans (Pedoman Penyusuan Rencana TataRuang, 1990). The result of this was the national Spatial Planning Act No. 24 of 1992(Undang-undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 24 Tahun 1992 tentang Penataan Ruang).

The Spatial Planning Act specifically incorporates the environmental management principlesset forth in the Basic Law of the Living Environment No. 4 of 1982 (Preface) and the 1990Basic Law on the Conservation of the Living Environment and Ecosystems No. 5 of 1990(Elucidation Preamble, part 5). Within the Act the conditions of spatial use management aregiven as the integrated, environmentally sound and sustainable utilization of natural and man-made resources in an efficient, effective and appropriate way, to improve the quality of humanresources, to embody the protection function of space, and to prevent as well as overcomenegative environmental impacts (Article 3).

Spatial use management is based upon the primary functions of the area encompassing theprotection area (kawasan lindung) and the cultivation area (kawasan budidaya) (Article 7). Inaddition to land space, spatial use management includes sea and air space to the extent asprovided for in applicable legislation (Article 9). Spatial use management may be ecosystembased, and as such may overlap administrative boundaries. The same is true for transportplanning. Where spatial use mnanagement covers more than one kabupatenlkotamadya (Dati-Il),it is to be coordinated by the Govemor as head of the province (Dati-)). Spatial usemanagement covering more than one province is to be coordinated by a Minister assigned tosuch duty by the President (Articles 8 and 29). Spatial use management is to be implemented instages with identified strategic and prioritized areas (Articles 10 & 11).

This Act has introduced spatial planning and spatial use management as central conceptswithin government planning. Spatial use management is to be undertaken through a processand procedure of preparing and adoptinrg a spatial plan based on provisions in applicablelegislation (Article 13). According to the Act, spatial planning and spatial use management areto be undertaken at the national, provincial and kabupaten levels. The process of spatialplanning is top down from macro to micro level planning.

The National Spatial Plan is prepared in the perspective of the next 25 years, with elaborationin five-year space utilization programs for incorporation within the cycle of the Five-YearDevelopment Plans (REPELITA). Subsequently, each five-year space utilization program isfurther elaborated into annual development activities in line with the fiscal year (Elucidation,Article 20). Broad national spatial plans are prepared using a territorial map of the country atthe minimum scale of 1: 1,000,000 (Elucidation, Article 19, para. 2).

Within the framnework of the National Spatial Plan, each province prepares its own SpatialPlan with a fifteen-year perspective. T'his plan is further elaborated into five-year spaceutilization programs to be incorporated into the PELITA of the province. Elaboration intoannual development activities is subsequently prepared in line with the fiscal year (Elucidation,Article 21). Somewhat more specific than national spatial plans, provincial spatial plans areprepared using a map at the minimum scale of 1: 250,000 (Elucidation, Article 19, para. 2).

22

In line with the directions and policies in the spatial plans at the national and provincial levels,each kabupaten and municipal district prepares a Spatial Plan for a time period of ten years.I Further elaboration is on a five year basis of space utilization programs for incorporation intothe kabupaten/kotamadya PELITA. Annual development activities are further elaborated forinclusion in the annual fiscal year plans and budget (Elucidation, Article 22). KabupatenI spatial plans, while still somewhat general in scope, are prepared on the basis of a map at theminimum scale of 1: 100,000, with spatial plans for municipal districts being based upon amap at the minimum scale of 1: 50,000 (Elucidation, Article 19, para. 2).

Although Dati I and II spatial plans only cover periods of fifteen years and ten yearsrespectively, they are to recognize rights agreements which exceed these periods. In particularare the cases of individuals who possess 20-year Building Rights (Hak Guna Bangunan, orHGB) or 30-year Exploitation Rights (Hak Guna Usaha or HGU (Elucidation, Articles 21and 22). This has implications with respect to land acquisition for road widening andI construction of new roads.

Use rights for forestry, mining or fisheries, whether based on legislation or traditional law andcommon practice, are to be acknowledged within the spatial plans, but they are not immutable.Spatial plans can include spatial use management other than that currently existing. In cases

" ~~~~where they can prove that they are directly harmned as a result of the implementation ofdevelopment activities in accordance with spatial plans, rights holders of the land and ofnatural resources management are to be given fair compensation. Rights over space meansrights to utilize land, sea and air space (Elucidation, Article 4, para. 2).

hndividual and community participation in the spatial planning and spatial use managementprocesses are clearly considered to be central since references to them are found throughout theAct. According to Article 4 it is the right of every person: a) to know spatial plans; b) toparticipate in the preparation of a spatial plan; and c) to receive fair compensation for any lossarising from the implementation of development activities complying with the spatial plan. It isfurther stated that spatial use management shall be undertaken by the Government withcommunity participation (Article 12). The Government is to announce and disseminate thespatial plans to the people, along with creating and developing awareness and responsibility of3 the people through extension works, guidance, education and training (Article 25).

Public participation is further reinforced in the Elucidation of the aforementioned Articles. It isthe right of every person to participate in spatial use management through expression of ideas,recommendations or objections to the government concerning spatial use management(Elucidation, Article 4). Communities have the role as partners to the government in spatial usemanagement, and should express their ideas as a means to carry out public participation inI order to achieve the objectives of spatial use management (Elucidation, Article 12).Dissemination of information regarding spatial use management to the community is to beundertaken openly through the media. Furthermore, there should be development of communityparticipation and improvement in the quality of space undertaken through extension programs,guidance, education and training in a continuous manner for every level of the government andcommunity strata (Elucidation, Article 25).

l

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~23

Spatial plans are general so do not require extreme details of exact management activities forspecific areas to be included, but rather a set of goals and programs to achieve these goals.Further details should be forthcoming in annual workplans and budgets addressing these goalsand programs.

Unfortunately there is a serious lack of understandi.ng of the concept and objectives of spatialplanning. The current so-called spatial planning documents are barely more than a continuationof the old sectoral planning strategy which has proven unsatisfactory for integrated transportplanning. Hence there is a need for both provincial and kabupaten training to improve .1understanding of what spatial planning and spatial use management mean, and how to organizeand implement integrated spatial management plans. This training should iniclude: |

1) Clear explanations of the concepts "sf atial", "spatial planning", "spatial usemanagement" and "natural and human-use regions" (kawasan lindung and kawasanbudidava).

a) Explanation that spatial planning is not based upon administrative boundaries, 3but upon appropriate natural or human-use regions.

b) Explanation that spatial planning is not sectoral planning, but looks at the roleof each sector in sustainable management of identified spatial regions. I

2) Discussion of the importance of using a spatial planning approach to obtainsustainable use management of natural and human resources.

3) With respect to the transport planning component of spatial planning: 3a) Transport planning should be integrated multi-modal, not sectoral.

b) The present transport network should be superimposed upon the map showing i

the identified natural and human use regions. Subsequently an assessmentshould be made of the degree to which the existing network serves theobjectives of the identified spatial regions.

c) Future transport network development should be planned keeping in mind theobjectives of the spatial plan. 3

The Spatial Planning Act contains a good set of principles embodying the concepts of spatialuse and management of the environment. Weakness with regard to the legislation lies primarily 3with its practical implementation at the local levels of government. From the macroperspective spatial planning is top-down. A national spatial plan is drawn up, following whichan individual provincial spatial plan is prepared within the framework of the national plan.Subsequently, each kabupaten prepares its spatial plan within the framework of the provincialplan. Unfortunately mechanisms for information to go upward do not function very smoothly.

3

24 3

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~At the same time that the spatial planning process is top-down, the legislation calls forindividual and community participation in both its planning and its management. This is acommendable principle, but it is doubtful that it has been carried out in practice. The text ofthe legislation provides no indications of how public involvement is supposed to occur.

| Directives call for Dati-I and Dati-JI to undertake integrated spatial planning, which inpractical terms means BAPPEDA Dati-I and Dati-Il calling together local representatives of allthe sectoral agencies to assist them. Within the government structural system there is noU. tradition of public forum to provide community input into what is perceived to be governmentplanning. Similarly the iegislation calls for public announcements of spatial plans, although itis doubtful that any non-government official has ever seen a copy of a spatial plan.

The Spatial Planning Act calls for the development of community participation in spatial usemanagement through extension programs, guidance, education and training in a continuousU manner. However, again the legislation does not provide any instructions for accomplishingthis. Development of community participation in spatial use management is an important rolewhich can be played by this project for integrated regional transportation. Further discussionI of community participation is discussed in Section 3.5.

3.3 Land Acquisition

Road expansion (widening) and network extension requires acquisition of land Where the landis government owned (tanah negara) this involves obtaining a release from the appropriate3 governnent agency responsible, usually either the National Land Board (Badan PertanahanNasional - BPN) or the Forestry Department (Departmen Kehutanan), but does not requireany monetary compensation. Problems arise when the land to be acquired is privately owned3 (tanah milik).

The national Basic Agrarian Law of 1960 (Undang-undang Agraria No. 5, 1960) contains theprinciple of "eminent domain" under which private land can be expropriated by the govermnent"for the good of the public". But until Presidential Decree Number 55 of 1993 (Keppres 55)there was no formal mechanism for land acquisition. Previously land required for the "publicinterest", such as for physical infrastructure development, was through compulsory acquisition.Keppres 55 now requires conimunity consultation and consensus agreement on "fair"compensation for land and other immovable properties expropriated. Keppres 55 complies with

| the World Bank's Operational Directive 4.30.

Keppres 55/1993 revokes previous ministerial decrees, and the process is elaborated inImplementation Directive 1/1994 of the State Minister for Agrarian Affairs/Chairman of BPN.Only if the required area is less than 1.0 ha may the developing agency acquire the landdirectly. The basic procedure is as follows:

I i. The developing agency submits a request to the governor/bupati/mayor (as appropriate) torelease land.

ii This official issues a decree announcing that the land is to be released for the project, and* instructs the Land Acquisition Committee (commonly known as the 'committee of nine')

through the Bupati or Mayor to prepare an inventory of land, buildings and trees.

I

31 25

iii. The committee is required to inventorize land, buildings, crops, investigate legal status,assess and advise amount of compensation, give information to the land right holders, andas an internediary to arrange direct consultations (musyawarah) between land holders andthe developing agency, to reach agreement on form/amount of compensation, and torecommend to the Govemor rates of compensation for various classes of land. These are 3supposed to be based on current prevail ng values.

iv. The governor issues another decree stating the rates of compensation for various classes ofland and other properties. The proportion of the amounts paid depends on the actual rightsheld.

v. The property owners are offered their compensation, although they may decide not toaccept the rates offered. There are procedures for grievances.

vi. If the owners accept, they are given tims to vacate. Farmers may continue to cultivate theland until such time as it is required for mplementation.

On a major project, this may be a lengthy procedure. An estimate was made of six to seven Imonths for the North Java Road Improvement Project (Indro Djarwo 1995).

Keppres 55 specifies compensation rates for land held under formal govermment rights (hak) in Iaccordance with the Basic Agrarian Law of 1960. Compensation rates are:

1) HakMilik (Right of Ownership) l- 100% valuation - with land certificate- 90% valuation - without land certificate

2) Hak Guna Usaha (Right of Exploitation)- 80% valuation - if rights still valid and well cultivated- 60% valuation - if rights expired but land still cultivated I- 0% valuation - if rights expired and land not well tended

3) Hak Guna Bangunan (Right of Building) 3- 80% valuation - if rights still valid- 60% valuation - if rights expired but land still used by rights holder

4) Hak Pakai (Rights of Use)- 100% valuation - if unlimited period of validity and land used- 70% valuation - if utilization rights are up to 10 years |- 50% valuation - if rights expired but land still used by the holder

5) Wakaf (Religious/Community Use Land) |- 100% valuation - with the provision that compensation shall be given im the

form of land, building and equipment.

Unfortunately compensation rates for land held through customary (adat) tenure are notstipulated in Keppres 55, just as adat tenure is not fully recognized under the Basic AgrarianLaw of 1960. Ministry for the Environrment Act No. 10 of 1992 (Undang-Undang Nomor 10Tahun 1992) on Population Development and Building Prosperous Families calls for a

26

guarantee of generational development of indigenous areas according to adat but does not makeany clear or specific reference to guaranteeing continuation or inheritance of land rightsaccording to adat.

Adat tenure includes parcels of land held by individuals, families and descent groups (extendedaimilies holding group land rights), as well as communal land (hak ulayat) owned by acommunity as a whole. This is of critical importance as much of land ownership or rights3 outside Java and the major urban areas, if the not the majority, are based on adat.

Many parcels of rural land in Sumatra have never been formally surveyed and issued with anownership certificate (Sertifikat Hak Milik) or any other form of government land rights issuedI. -by the BPN. Hence there needs to be a more comprehensive mechanism to cover compensationfir adat tenure lands, as well as government tenure lands, acquired for road works. This willrequire community consultation in adat land areas to develop an acceptable procedure and setI rates (most likely a percentage of valuation) of compensation for adat lands similar to those inKeppres 55 for government tenure lands.

3 Under Keppres 55 there is a general system for determining the value of land, buildings andother immovable property, such as productive trees. Each kabupaten forms a nine person LandRelease Committee headed by the Bupati or Mayor (Walikota). The basic price of land (harga

; dasar) is determined periodically by the committee and is intended to be based on actual salesprices during the preceding three months for 42 different types of land use and locations(Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri 1/1975). Based on this, district governments prepare official

| land price tables for their districts. The establishment of basic land prices has not been changedsignificantly by Keppres 55/1993, which stipulates that the actual or real value of land shouldtake into account the latest Sale Value as assessed for the purpose of determining Land and3 Building Tax (Nilai Jual Objek Pajak or NJOP). However, these prices are generally wellbelow market value. It has been estimated on projects carried out on Java that market value iscommonly at least 50% higher than taxable value. hn some cases, the market value was up tofour times the taxable value. NJOP is determined according to some 50 classes of land use,ranging from high value urban and industrial properties, through intensively cultivated lands tolow quality rainfed farming land. However, the system of classification varies between regions.

I Actual experience from urban infrastructure development projects shows a trend towards morerealistic rates of compensation, but systems vary. The amount paid is further modifiedaccording to tenure status (see above), and also according to the proportion of the land holding

* that will be acquired. Those without rights occupying land in rural areas would expect toreceive only a 'settlement' (santunan), and they are at risk of receiving nothing. However, strictobservance of Law No. 24/1992 on Spatial Use Management should ensure that no group goesuncompensated.

Compensation entitlements for loss of buildings are based on building values established byCipta Karya, with an allowance for depreciation of 2% per year from date of construction.Assessments for partial loss are very complex, and also vary between districts and projects.

l* 27

Table 3.1 provides some basic figures of land prices ascertained on the North Java RoadImprovement Project, while Table 3.2 compares prices for different land use types in differentkabupatens of West Sumatra.

Table 3.1 Illustrative land prices in North Java |

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~~~~~~~Rp/sg.mLand Price Building Price

Sector: N.J.O.P. Actual N.J.O.P. ActualBekasi - Karawang 94,280 410,192 219,167 403,077Karawang - Cikainek 60,727 148,311 154,762 308,545Pejabagan - Brebes 18,344 57,333 75,929 117,688Batang - Weleri 7,356 34,972 61,519 94,135Lamongan - Gresik 8,571 41,167 82,143 98,800

Source: Indro Djarwo (1995). 1Table 3.2 Illustrative land prices in West Sumatra (basic price, 1994)

Rp/sq.mLand use type: Agricultural Housing Commercial Unused

Land Land Land LandKabupaten: I_1 _ 1_X

Kodya Padang 12,000 30,000 300,000 -Kodva Bukittinggi 25,000 50,000 150,000 17,500Kodva Sawahlumto 9,000 12,000 - 6,000Kab. Sawahlunto 2,000 3,000 6.000 300Kab. Solok 6,000 10,000 -

Kab. PadangPariman 5,500 13,500 17,000 1,000

Source: BAPPEDA.

It is assumed that the prices in Table 3.2 correspond to the NJOP prices listed in Table 3.1. Itis interesting to observe that the price of agricultural and housing land is significantly higher inBukittinggi than it is in Padang, presumably owing to the generally higher levels of fertility inthe interior plains. Even unused land in Bukittinggi seems to be almost as expensive as 3agricultural land. As expected, by contrast the price of commercial land is higher in Padang.

Another recent study in a rural area on the North Java coast gives NJOP values for buildingsas Rp 98,000/m2 for permanent houses, Rp 71,000 for semi-permanent houses and Rp 50,000for temporary or non-permanent houses. It is interesting to note that these are significantlylower than those quoted for West Sumatra in Table 3.3. Unit costs for trees ranged from Rp15,000 for banana to Rp 35,000 for coconut and Rp 75,000 for kapok. Total land acquisitionand resettlement costs on this project are Rp 2,236 million, including Rp 1,750 m foracquisition of 25 ha, Rp 270 m for purchase of 53 houses to be demolished, Rp 13 m for trees,and Rp 203 m for adrninistrative and other costs (SMEC 1995).

l

I28 3

lTable 3.3. Compensation costs for buildings and crops in West Sumatra (1994)

Cultivated Permanent Seni- Industrial Cormnerc.________________ crops houses permanent buildings buildingsKabupatenKodya Padang 16,000 248,352 211,099 340,632 255,474Koda Bukittinggi 36,000 329,000 324,000 489,000 489,000Kodya Sawanlunto 15,000 274,620 233,427 339,138 253,980Kab. Sawahlunto 15,000 311,236 264,550 340,632 255,470Kab. Solok 15,000 323,972 275,376 381,717 286,151Kab. Pad. Pariaman 15,000 267,457 227,337 333,909 250,245

Cropland is separated into cultivated and "uncultivated", but compensation rates are mostly thesame (in two cases lower). It is not exactly clear what is intended by the two categories.Likewise, the rates for buildings are listed as per m2 or per unit, and again the meaning is notclear (rate per sq. metre is assumed). Again it is observed that all rates are significantly higherI in Bukittinggi than they are in Padang, where they compare with those current in the provincegenerally.

3 The Comniittee is responsible for making an inventory of the land, investigating the legal statusof the land and supervising negotiations between the land owners and the agency wishing toacquire the land. Keppres 55 also provides general instructions for conducting negotiationswith land owners, although the Committee has the right to set compensation rates ifnegotiations fail. Should land owners still be dissatisfied, they may file a complaint with theGovernor, as head of the provincial government. At this point the provincial Land Release3 Conmmittee, headed by the Governor, reviews the matter and makes a final binding settlement.

Compensation may be made in the form of money, land for replacement, relocation, or anycombination of these or other agreed forms. In practice the regulations do not specify howcompensation other than in monetary form will be effected. In particular, no procedures arespecified for relocation and resettlement.

I In the past, monetary compensation has rarely been paid for the acquisition of land forkabupaten road widening projects, as it is argued that the improved infrastructure is sufficientcompensation. While small farmers apparently often accept this, it can nevertheless be a majorsource of dispute.

While areas of less than 1.0 ha may be handled directly by the developing agency, it is not clearhow this would apply in the case of a road widening project that perhaps involves many smallparcels of land of a few square metres each. There would clearly be logistical andadministrative advantages in permitting the project to handle land acquisition, provided that theprocess is as transparent and equitable as intended by Keppres 55/1993.

I .

* 29

In addition to the issue of rates of compensation for land held under adat tenure, there is theissue of actual financing of compensation payments once rates are agreed upon. Other than for 3urban road works, road project budgets have not included funds for land acquisitioncompensation. Typically there has not been any compensation paid for rural and village landtaken for road works. Where it is determined that compensation must be paid for landacquisition or loss of irmmovable property, it is left to th 3 local government to finance it. Such aprocedure poses serious problems. Local government sources of funds are limited so financingthe cost of land acquisition for road works is difficult. A further complication is theidentification of which agency of the local government should be responsible for obtaining and -1dispersing compensation funds. Finally there is the question of how the local government is todetermine the funds needed for an activity undertaken by a sectoral agency.

Keppres 55/1995 is clearly still open to interpretation Very recently, there were protests inTangerang (West Java) over the lack of compensation tor land in a road widening project, butthe land holders were informed that the "rule of not compensating residents is based on a 1993 Ipresidential rule on plots affected by the public interest" (Jakarta Post 22 August 1996). Theywere informed that they were only entitled to corpensation for buildings and plants. Thesituation in Tangerang is presumably a result of inadequate funds being made available in the Ioriginal development budget, because under the Spatial Planning Law (No. 24/1992),everybody has rights to reasonable compensation if the development activity is in accordancewith the spatial plan.

In summation, it is recommended that Bina Marga needs to:

1) address the issue of compensation for acquisition of land held under adat tenure,

2) refine the consultation procedure for determination of land acquisition rates, and ;

3) include the costs of land acquisition, loss of immovable property and moving buildingsin road works project budgets, or assist the local government in obtaining adequate |funds for this purpose.

Finally it should be noted that the total emoluments to the Commriittee to cover fees and costs i

amount to 4% of the total estimated compensation; this is charged to the agency requiring theland.

In certain cases land acquisition for road works will require relocation, or resettlement, ofpeople who have been displaced. The cost of resettlement may become another financialconsideration. The broader issue of resettlement is discussed in the following section. |

3.4 Resettlement

The World Bank has particular concern for people displaced by development activities. It hasestablished an Operational Directive (OD 4.30) to provide guidelines for what is referred to as"involuntary resettlement". Any project that involves land acquisition should be reviewed forpotential resettlement requirements, hence all road projects must review the possibility ofresettlement early in their project cycle.

30

lThe OD 4.30 guidelines provide a good set of principles as a starting point for managingresettlement. They include policy considerations in project design and preparation:

1) Involuntary resettlement should be avoided or minimized through exploration of allviable alternatives, including realignment of roads.

2) Where displacement is unavoidable, resettlement plans should be developed whichprovide displaced people with sufficient resources and opportunities to share in thebenefits of the project. This should include adequate compensation for losses,assistance in relocation and assistance in re-establishing their lives in the new location.

3) Community participation is required ir planning and implementing resettlement.

4) There must be social and economic integration of resettlers into host community.

5) Land, housing, infrastructure and other compensation must be provided to resettlers.

3 Where road works projects will result in forced relocation of displaced peoples, ResettlementActions Plans (RAP) will need to be prepared. Guidelines for preparing RAP in Indonesia areavailable already (ADB 1995) so the discussion herein will focus on specific issues of who are

f likely to be displaced by road works projects and when there is likely to be a need for a formalresettlement plan.

Road development (particularly widening) typically displaces single families or individuals,rather than whole communities. In such cases formal resettlement plans should not be required,but there should be a guarantee that compensation is adequate to allow the displaced people to3 find suitable replacement homes and land by themselves. Adequate compensation should bedefined as that which allows the displaced family to build or purchase an equivalent home orland within the same community. The displaced family should not be forced to move to anothercommunity or area simply because it is cheaper, although the displaced family should beallowed the option to use the compensation payment to relocate to another community shouldthey so desire.

To ensure that a displaced person or family is able to obtain in the same community areplacement home/land equivalent to that lost, sometimes compensation might best take theform of a property exchange, or property and cash, rather than a wholly cash compensationpaymnent. In such cases there will need to be a procedure through which an appropriate pieceof available property is located and an assessment made to determine if it is equivalent inquality and value to that lost. Selection of replacement property should be done in openI consultation with the displaced parties to ensure their acceptance of the identified replacementproperty. Subsequently there will need to be a clear procedure for purchase of the replacementproperty and orderly legal transfer of this property in exchange for that needed for transportpurposes.

l

1 31

Post-construction settlement

Following construction, there should be separate consideration of people who have resettled:

1) "illegally" along the new links in restricted areas, 32) in an uncontrolled manner along the new links and whose settlement subsequently has

become a problem, and

3) along new links that provide access to environmentally sensitive areas, leading to suchdeleterious activities as forest clearance, illegal logging and wildlife poaching. 3

All thr e of these are due to lack of proper spatial planning and management by localgovermment authorities, rather than being caused directly by development of the road. Thisplaces resettlement responsibility in these instances with the provincial or kabupaten IBAPPEDA as the local government agency responsible for management within thedetermiination of the region's spatial plan. Hence any Resettlement Action Plans for these post-construction settlers should be developed and implemented by the local government rather than IBina Mlarga.

3.5 Community Consultation |

There are a number of aspects of community consultation which are of concern to this projectand integrated transport planning. First among these is community participation in the spatial Iplan. According to Article 4 of the Spatial Planning Act No. 24 of 1992 it is the right of everyperson: a) to know spatial plans; b) to participate in the preparation of a spatial plan; and c) toreceive fair compensation for any loss suffered arising from the implementation of development Iactivities complying with the spatial plan. It is further stated that spatial use management shallbe undertaken by the Govermnent with community participation (Article 12). In practice, it isquestioned whether community consultation has been carried out regularly in road developmentprojects, and there are no indications within the text of this legislation of how publicinvolvement is supposed to occur.

One mechanism for community consultation which exists within the Ministry of Home Affairsadministrative planning structure is that of P5D (Pedoman Penyusunan Perencanaan danPengendalian Pembangunan di Daerah or Guidelines for Preparing and Managing IDevelopment in the Regions). This is supposed to be the first step in the annual govenmmentdevelopment planning cycle, but it appears to be often forgotten. Theoretically the annual cyclehas six steps as follows:

1. First Step: Discussion on development projects by the people at the village level(Musyawarah Pembangunan Tingkat Desa/Kelurahan or |MUSBANG).

2. Second Step: Meeting on development at the kecamatan level (Temu KarvaPemnbangunan Tingkat Kecamatan).

32 3

3. Third Step: Meeting on development coordination at the kabupaten level (Rapat3 Koordinasi Pembaingztnan (Rakorbang) Daerah Tingkcat If).

4. Fourth Step: Meeting on development coordination at the provincial level (RapatKoordinasi Pembamngunan (Rakorbang) Daerah Tinglalt I).

5 Fifth Step: Consultation on regional development (Konszdltasi RegionalPembangunan) at the national level.

6. Sixth Step: Consultation on national development (Konsultasi NasionviPenmbangunan) at the national level.

If this were implemented correctly, the P5D planning system would appear to be an ideal forumfor comnnunity participation and consultation, but with respect to integrated transportI development planning there is an inherent weakness in the P5D system. The system is strictlybottom up and assumes that project ideas originate with and are planned by the Institution forVillage Resilience (LK;D) and then submritted upward to kecamatan authorities. While

| community consultation is desirable, it can not be expected that villagers have this capacity.

Kabupatens are the lowest fully functional level of govemment, meaning the lowestadministrative level which has sectoral agencies and technical staff such as road engineers andregional planners. Likewise, it is the lowest level for which spatial planning is undertaken.Integrated transport planning, which is a component of spatial planning, thus can not becoordinated below the kabupaten level. Hence transport planning and project proposals mustbegin at the kabupaten level and go down to the kecamatan and village level for communityconsultation, not the other way around.

1 3.6 Utilization of Forest land

In accordance with the Decision of the Minister of Forestry Number 495/kpts-I 1/1989. releaseof protected forest areas (protection or consen.ation forest) for non-forest purposes requires theexpress permission of the Minister. For purposes of road construction, this will nornallyconsist of permission to use, or izin pinjam pakai. The process is from the project proponentvia the Bupaif to tboe Ka-nwil Kehuitanan and finally the Governor to the Milister. Permission inprinciple (izin prinsip) may be released quickly but it is dependent upon a full ANDAL study

| being carried out and approved, prior to permission to construct being granted.

l

* 33

I

I

I- I

I. IIIIII

IIII

4 MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES

I. 4.1 General Considerations at the Different Phases of a Project

Environmental and social impacts due to road development can be divided into those impactsdirectly caused by development of the road, which need to be managed as part of transportplanning and secondly those impacts which occur only as an indirect cause of transportdevelopment. The latter must be taken into consideration during planning but will need to bemanaged not by transport agencies such as Bina Marga, but by the local govemment.

Environmental and social issues can be divided into three planning and management phases - 1)* Pre-Project Planning, 2) Projecf Construction and 3) Post-Project Management. The first

phase should be the joint responsibility of the planning section of government transportagencies and local govemment. The second phase is predominately the responsibility of thetechnical section of transport agencies, and the third is primarily the responsibility of localgovernmetit.

| Pre-Project Planning

Selection of capacity expansion and network extension projects should start with the spatialplan. Long and medium term development plans must first be synchronized with the generalpriorities of the ten year (Dati-1I) or fifteen year (Dati-D) spatial plan. Subsequently transportlinks selected for the annual work plan are required by law to be in agreement with the spatialI plan, meaning that they should be in keeping with the five year spatial use managementprogram of the region.

Further selection of routes and alternatives should be based upon broad social andenvironmental considerations. Environmental examples would be avoidance where possible ofroutes through steepland, swamp regions, forests or any designated conservation areasidentified on the spatial plan. Permission from the Minister of Forestry is required shouldconstruction in protection or conservation forests be unavoidable. Routes through steeplandshould respect the 6-10% maximum gradient of Bina Marga's own regulations. Socialexamples would be the design of routes which best serve significant population centres, areasof present and future industrial development, and areas of present or potential importantagricultural production.

Evaluation of the planned link works then needs to determine all of the specific identified socialand environmental impacts arising from the route selection. The negative impacts ofdevelopment of a particular link must be weighed against the expected positive impacts. Wherethe outcome is strongly negative (i.e. there are more negative impacts than the expected positivegains), serious efforts should be given to seeking an alternative route or construction design, ordeletion of the works from the list of proposed projects.

Communities to be affected by proposed road projects should participate in the planning ofthose projects. Proper consultation in the pre-project planning stage will ensure communityacceptance of the project. Commnunity members can often provide guidance to transportplanners in choosing the best route and design to serve the local social-economic needs.

53z

lLikewise, continued community consultation during project construction and the post-projectmanagement of the area will lessen the likelihood of unexpected social impacts arising during 3these phases.

Project Construction 3During the construction phase environmental impacts are those resulting from direct physicalconstruction activities, such as earthworks. In addition there are the minor short term impactssuch as dust and smoke raised by construction activities. Mitigation of the former impactsshould have already been covered within the project design. Careful planning and scheduling ofimplementation of physical construction activities should minimize the short term impacts. 3The most important social impacts occurring during this phase are social-economicdisplacement. Loss of land or other property is the most significant long term social impact.Short term social impacts include inconveniences during the period of construction, as well as Ipossible health problems. For residents this may mean merely temporary difficulties in access,and minor health problems caused by dust or disruption of water services. For shop keepers,offices and factories this could mean a decrease in business, and subsequent loss of economic Iopportunities, due to difficulty of access to their place of business.

Mitigation of property loss should be achieved through equitable and adequate compensation |and resettlement where necessary. Mitigation of short term social impacts comes from carefulplanning and timely implementation. Mitigation of the disruption of access to homes and placesof business through careful timing of construction activities, and providing temporary Ialternative routes, should minimize social-economic impacts. Likewise, careful timing ofconstruction activities should minimize the health hazards caused by physical construction.

Post-Proiect Mananement

After a road project has been completed there are a number of social and environmental 3impacts which rnight arise as an indirect result of the project. These impacts arise due to poorpost-project management rather than directly as a result of the project itself.

Where projects provide new or improved access to environrnentally sensitive or protectedregions, such as conservation forests or steeply sloping land, poor post-project management ofthe region can result in serious negative impacts such as |

* illegal conversion of forests for agricultural uses,* human settlement of environmentally inappropriate or restricted areas, |* erosion of steep slopes,* illegal logging and uncontrolled harvesting of forest products, 1* poaching of endangered species, etc.

Such negative impacts are ongoing and may spread and increase in severity if uncontrolled.

I36 3

lEven in areas which are not environmentally sensitive, poor post-project management of theregion can lead to serious negative impacts. Uncontrolled ribbon development along new ornimproved road links can lead to environmental problems. Even more important in such

instances are the unintended social impacts. Unplanned and uncontrolled human settlementsalong new or improved road links can result in negative health impacts due to inadequate waterI and sanitary infrastructure, and dangerous traffic conditio is affecting both pedestrians andvehicles, among other potential social-economic impacts.

Responsibility for negative post-project impacts is generally not the fault of the agency whichimplemented the improvement, but rather it lies with the local governnent. Local governmenthas responsibility for spatial use management within the region under its administration.I ~ Planning and controlling development of the lands adjacent to new roads is primarily themanagement responsibility of the BAPPEDA as the administr tive arm of the Bupati/ Govemorwho heads the local government.

Secondary responsibility for post-project management also falls within the duties of theNational Land Board (BPN) and the Forestry Department. The former is responsibile forI issuance of permits for non-forest land use and as such must be held partially accountable forallowing uncontrolled development of human settlements along new or improved roads.Likewise, the Forestry Department is responsible for management of all lands within theofficial Forest Region (kawasan hutan) and hence is partially accountable for allowing illegalor uncontrolled activities to occur in forests near the roads.

Reduction in post-project environmental and social impacts will only come about through co-operative spatial management on the part of local government, BPN and the ForestryDepartment, with participation by members of local communities. The role of transportagencies such as Bina Marga will be to maintain good communications and planning links withthese three agencies and local communities so that all parties have full advance knowledge ofupcoming projects. The Forestry Department must be made fully aware at the planning stage ofany proposed road through regions under its jurisdiction, especially protection or conservationforests, and of the expected negative impacts for which it must make definitive plans forcontrol. With advance knowledge of proposed transport project activities and communityparticipation, BAPPEDA, BPN and the Forestry Department should be able to prevent seriouspost-project social and environmental impacts from arising.

4.2 Projects having No Significant Environmental Impacts

A large number of road projects are small-scale and do not have significant negativeenvironmental or social impacts. They fall outside the criteria of projects requiring full EIA

* studies as determined according to KEP-] 1/MENLH1/3/994 (see section 3.1). A methodologyhas been prepared to handle the environmental management of these through the IBRD-fundedRural Roads and Kabupaten Roads Development Projects (ref Hoff & Overgaard 1992,1993), and this has become accepted practice for road projects at kabupaten level. Themethodology involves Sectoral Environmental Assessment ("Umbrella PILs') andManagement. Six types of sub-projects are covered:

l

* Type Dw (direct impacts only, with widening - these cover upgrading and widening ofroads that are already open to 4-wheel vehicles); 1Type Dnw (direct impacts only, with no widening);Type Db (bridge construction projects on roads already open to 4-wheel vehicles);Type IDnr (new road construction involving both direct and some indirect impacts but not |passing through an area listed as sensitive according to the legislation);Type IDw (upgrading with widening of existing roads that were not previously open to 4-wheel vehicles, and which therefore may have some indirect impacts, but the roads do notpass through sensitive areas);Type IDb (bridge construction on existing roads that were not previously open to 4-wheelvehicles). .5

The management measures required to handle the minor negative impacts of these types ofprojects are mostly incorporated into the existing Technical Guidelines and Specifications forKabupaten roads, namely:

Technical Guidelines for Engineering Survey and Design for Betterment of Kabupaten |Roads;

i Technical Guidelines for Design of Kabupaten Bridges;

* Standard Specifications for Kabupaten Road Betterment and Maintenance Works; 5- General Specifications for Kabupaten Bridges;* Technical Guidelines for Site Supervision and Quality Control of Kabupaten Road and

Bridge Construction. |

Extracts from these documents are included in Hoff & Overgaard (1992) and clearlydemonstrate that environmental matters are included. Likewise, the environmental monitoringwill be part of the normal supervision activities, by ensuring that the guidelines are correctlyfollowed.

The Sectoral Assessment methodology is applicable to, and under the current legislation servesas the UKL and UPL for, all road sub-projects that are screened as having only minor impacts,that do not require any further assessment (i.e. do not require Kajian Lingkungan). Althoughdesigned to be applicable to kabupaten roads, it is of course equally applicable to village roads,and there is no reason why it cannot be applied to small-scale betterment projects on nationaland provincial roads providing that the criteria are confornable. Indeed interim standardenvironmental mitigation measures for national and provincial roads have been drawn up in X

draft (Seksi AMDAI Bipram 1993), based on the kabupaten roads model, and it isrecommended that the ISEM project will ensure that these are finalized and issued as StandardOperating Procedures.

However, while the guidelines cover all aspects of sound engineering practice, the sectoralassessments do not cover management of negative impacts on the biological and social Icomponents. By definition, these are classified as minor on such projects, but the impacts maystill require management.

ll

3x

In the case of the biological component, careful screening should ensure that the impactsconsist of no more than the direct loss of flora and fauna caused by land clearing, whileI impacts on the biological composition of water bodies will be covered by properimplementation of the technical guidelines (culverts, pollution avoidance etc.). Where moresignificant and indirect impacts are predicted (such as improved access into forest areas), theI sub-project is not covered by the sectoral approach, and a KL will be necessary (leading eitherto ANDAL or to project-specific UKL/UPL).

In theory, the minor social impacts of these small projects are covered by the legislation forland acquisition (see Section 3.3). In practice, compensation has very rarely been paid for landacquired in the kabupaten road programme, because the affected people have been encouragedto accept that their minor losses are for the benefit of the community in general. This is anunsatisfactory situation, and it is recommended that under RRPTA there should be fullobservance of Keppres 55/1993. If widening is involved, although the individual pockets ofland along the length of the road may be very small, it is unlikely that the total area requiredwill be less than 1.0 ha (which would permit acquisition to be handled by the developingagency). It might however be argued that the land required lies within the existing Right-of-Way (Damija), and that therefore there is no necessity to compensate for the land. This isclearly a source of potential dissatisfaction. Even if no compensation is made for land, it is stillrequired to be paid for loss of crops, buildings or business facilities.

It is recommended that the Ministry of Public Works should prepare guidelines or anoperational directive for the implementation of Keppres 55/1993 on projects under its5 jurisdiction. This might, for example, become an output of the current ISEM project. It is alsorecommended, in view of the importance of the issues concerned, that adequate implementationof Keppres 55 might become a condition of any future loan funding.

4.3 Projects having Significant Environmental Impacts

Many of the identified sub-projects listed in the tables in Section 6 are classified as havingsignificant impacts in at least one component, in at least one segment of the proposed corridor.For these, the reconmmended procedure is for a preliminary field screening (Kajian Lingkunganor KL). This will determine whether a full ANDAL is required, in which case the data collectedwill assist in the preparation of the Terms of Reference (KA). If an ANDAL is not required, thenegative impacts can be handled by project-specific UKIJUPL. These documents will beprepared based on the findings of the study, and thus they will differ from those covered bysectoral assessments discussed in the previous sections. Even where the criteria dictate that anANDAL is mandatory, this preliminary KL is still recommended as a general procedure.

Enviromnental assessment is required as early as possible in the project development cycle.Ideally the phasing should be as shown below. A factor to be considered in the phasing is therequirement for permission to be obtained from the Minister of Forestry before roadconstruction can proceed in Protection or Conservation Forest (see Section 3.5). All such sub-projects are identified as requiring ANDAL.

l* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~39

Project cycle EIA activities

Project identification and Initial impact assessment andfeasibility studies identification of study needs (Kl)

Pre-appraisal stage Full ANDAL report _

Project appraisal Review of RKL

Contract award Enivirornmental training

Construction and supervision Implementation of RKL and RPL IProject completion report Environmental evaluation

4.4 Significant Impacts not req. iiring full ANDAL.

There may be circunstances in which the preliminary assessment may confirm that although Ithe predicted impacts are significant, a fMll evaluation is unnecessary. Examples are givenbelow:

a) Steepland. Where the only significanct impact that has been predicted is related to steepterrain, and the terrain is already cleared of forest, it is expected that the standardguidelines for road construction in steep terrain will be sufficient to handle the affects on Ierosion, watershed protection etc. This would apply to the construction or upgrading ofroads in mountain areas that have already lost their forest cover for several decades, andno longer provide a watershed protection function. Project-specific UKL would be drawn Iup that focus on implementation of the appropriate guidelines. Full ANDAL wouldhowever be required where the steep terrain still has a forest cover, or where there may beimpacts on vulnerable isolated communities living within the mountains.

b) Areas still having a protective forest status (protection or conservation forest) but whichhave long lost the vegetation cover for which this status was originally applied. There are Imany areas classified as Hutan Lindung or even Cagar Alam but which are totallydeforested, even farmed, and which no longer serve any protective function. In these cases,it would be appropriate for application to be made to the Provincial Government for Irevisions to the Spatial Plan. In the meantime, however, even if no ANDAL is conducted,Minister of Forestry pennission is still required.

c) There may be cases where the planned road is associated with major developments inanother sector, either on-going or imminent, although under a different developmentagency. An example might be a road through a planned oil-palm estate or pulpwood |concession. It would be pointless to conduct an environmental study on a planned roadthrough peat swamp forest, because of its impact on the flora and fauna, if the entireforest is scheduled for early clearance for an estate. In such a situation, a multisectoralassessment is required, but the concessionaire would be the pnrmary project proponent, notDG Highways.

40

In each of these cases, the preliminary assessment would be submitted to the EnvironmentalCornmission in the usual way, and the recommendation must be accepted that no ANDAL willI be executed. One objective of this will be to conserve the limited resources of manpower andfunds for those detailed environmental studies where they are really required.

| 4.5 Problems in Environmental Management

The environmental legislation is concise and practical, but experience to date indicates thatmany problems remain in its implementation. It is for this reason that two separate projects arefocusing on strengthening the institutions concemed with environmental management, namelyISEM for the environmental units within Bina Marga, and SPEM for the concemed provincialinstitutions (with pilot projects in Central Kalimantan and Irian Jaya). Repeatedly it is seen thatthe ANDAL reports and subsequent implementation follow "the letter but not the spirit of thelaw". Comments will be made on one recent ANDAL report in illustration of this. Only theI Executive Summary of this report has been studied, and of course more detailed explanation ofsome of the issues will have been given in the other volumes. Nevertheless, the summary isassumed to provide a valid precis of the entire contents.

ANDAL report

The ANDAL report in question was approved this year. The proposed road of over 66 km willhave a Right-of-Way of 12 m, with a surface of 4.5 m width. It crosses 33 km of steep,forested mountain terrain, and approximately 40 km of the route lies in a national park. TheI summary acknowledges that the terrain is very steep, the existing footpath being difficult tofollow because it is sangat terjal, and that there is a major risk of erosion and landslides.However, there is nowhere a description of what the actual slopes are (under the section on theI existing environment, slopes in the montane area are merely described as exceeding 10%, butthis presumably refers to the road gradient, not the in situ slope). Furthermore there is nostatement on highest altitude along the trace, so the reader cannot judge the magnitude ofascent. The road begins near sea level, while spot heights along the watershed, including onevery close to the trace, exceed 2000 m On the RePPProT land system map, average slopes are41->60%. The required forest clearance has a width of 25 m. The planned maximum gradientof the road is 15%, with bends having a radius not smaller than 10-15 m. In addition, one ofthe quarries is proposed to be sited within the park.

The significance of the wild fauna is acknowledged, but in generalities. Taking the avifauna asan example, it refers to 140 species of birds known from the national park, of which 26 are rareand protected. It then lists 12 species that were observed during the survey, but 8 of these arewidespread species of open country; for an expert this list is meaningless. Ornithologists knowthat there are at least 12 single-island endemic bird species on Sumatra (Marle & Voous 1988),all of them montane, and two of these are currently well-known from the region of the ANDALsurvey: Salvadori's Pheasant Lophura ignita and Schneider's Pitta Pitta schneideri. These aretwo out of some half-dozen species in the region listed as threatened (Collar et al. 1994). It isnot necessary for the ANDAL consultant to have detailed knowledge of every sub-component,but the consultant should know where to get the information (such as the IndonesianOmithological Society, BirdLife Intemational-Indonesia, Wetlands International-idonesia,World-wide Fund for Nature Indonesia Programme)

441

Several pages are devoted to the socio-economic and socio-cultural environment, but inevitablythis refers only to the settled areas at the start and end of the route. Clearly there is need forinfrastructural development in these areas, but the relevance to road construction through thepark is not clear. As is customary, the local population is in favour of the project.

The report structure

Overall, it is not very easy to ascertain what are the really serious impacts of the proposedroad, because the report is constrained by the official guidelines that dictate the structure, andthe procedural requirement to analyze the impact of every activity on every environmentalcomponent. In this particular situation, it barely seems necessary to spend limited resources onmeasuring pre-project levels of dust and decibels of noise, and similar components, only toconclude that the predicted impacts will be a temporary increase of "5% or 10%" in air andnoise pollution during construction.

A result of following the official guidelines and directives is that every ANDAL report will bevery simnilar to any other, reporting on and analyzing impacts that are common to all roadprojects, while the impacts which are really significant, and the substantial measures that willbe required to deal with them, tend to become lost in the body of the report. Impacts that wouldnormally be covered by UPL/UKL are given as much space as those that are important. Eventhe Executive Summary is but a mere precis of the entire report, and fails to provide a realsummary of what is really significant. At least one summary section should be prepared thatfocusses only on the major, proiect-svecific impacts and their mitigation measures.

The RKL/RPL

The recommended treatment to control erosion in the RKL is to construct retaining walls. Whilemore details are presumably provided in the full report, the fact appears to be overlooked thatsuch structures in very steep terrain would be likely to create scars in the national parkconsiderably greater than 25 m wide, with very large volumes of cut-and-fill. Walls are likelyto be needed both above and below the road. Besides other implications, there would be majornegative impacts on the scenic value and integrity of the park.

TIhe recommendation to reduce disturbance to the fauna and flora during construction is tocontrol the working hours and to lirnit the space required by the road, but the significance ofthese recommnendations is not clear. In practice, project workers from outside the region arecommonly the worst offenders in taking back 'wildlife souvenirs'.

The report recognizes the potential for damage to the national park, and the recommendationsfor control are quite sound: 100 m buffer zone of cultivated trees on both sides of the road,strict supervision of the activities of people inside the park, guard posts at the park entranceand centrally to control illegal logging or clearance (and presumably wildlife capture alsoalthough this is not stated), and development of the economic facilities of the surroundingcommunities in order to reduce the need to find work opportunities in the forest. Presumablythis is discussed in much greater detail in the RKL document. The buffer zone concept is a

l

42 3

good one, although it is not clear why it needs to be much wider than the cleared trace(supposedly only 25 m). The cultivated trees would necessarily belong to the Ministry ofI Forestry, although the local people might be given rights to harvest their products, if this is inaccordance with the zonation system of the park.

I The main problem is finding the key to ensuring that the recommendations are followed.Measures proposed during construction are under the direct control of the developing agency,and systems of monitoring are in place to ensure adherence. However, many of the most

*I * significant measures concem the forest resources and status, which are beyond the control ofDG Highways. In this instance, a management plan for the national park will soon commenceoperations, and the recommendations therefore have a chance of succeeding, but it is difficultto envisage successful implementation in other circumstances. The implementing agency forforestry measures would be the Dinas Kehutanan, but the budget must be provided by theproject. It is easy to construct three guard posts, but extremely difficult to ensure that they arestaffed full-time, with personnel having sufficient incentive and integrity to carry out theirtasks. The road will surely facilitate illegal wildlife trade, which is almost impossible tocontrol, both inside and outside reserves. Even with guard posts, there will almost certainly beI rampant illegal logging, harvesting of rattan etc, consequent upon the new access.

The concept to develop the economy of the surrounding communities, to be implemented byI PEMDA, in order to reduce the pressures on the forest, is a global concept and is far toogeneral to have any meaning. Presumably the road itself would contribute to this target,although it is not always the present residents who benefit the most.

The budget for the implementation of both the RKL and the RPL must be provided by thedeveloping agency, but the budget for the supervision and reporting is provided by theinstitutions responsible for these tasks. The source of such budget requires clarification.

In summary, even with proper implementation of the engineering guidelines and environmentalrecommendations, it is doubtful whether significant physical damage to the watershed can beavoided. The doubts concerning the capacity to preserve the integrity of the forest and thenational park are even more serious. The justification for improving the infrastructure for thecommunities outside the park is apparent, but the justification for constructing the road throughthe park must be balanced against the enormous environmental costs.

It is for these reasons that there are strong environmental grounds to reject anyrecommendations to construct new roads in mountain forests, especially across the NW-SEstrike of the land, even where the social or economic justification exists, until there is theinstitutional capacity to ensure that mitigation measures can be effectively implemented, and nofurther damage to this unique heritage will occur.

II 4,

4.6 Costs of ANDAL studies

The cost of an ANI)AL study should be proportional to the type of project (whether newconstruction or widening of an existing road) and the degree of environmental impactspredicted by the preliminary screening. Assuning the use of Indonesian environmentalconsultants only, the cost of a full ANDAL is likely to range from between Rp 70 million up toas much as Rp 200 million.

Costs should always be reduced as much as possible by focusing the Terms-of-Reference in -Iorder to avoid unnecessary man-months on disciplines that are peripheral to the study, that is,issues that could equally be handled through UKL/UPT. Many environmental impacts and theirmitigation measures are common to all road projects and do not require project specific studies. It is to be hoped that one result of institutional strengthening (such as thi cugh the ISEMproject) will be facilitation for focusing and streamlining of ANDAL studies. As always, costscan also be reduced by grouping studies in packets, based for example on all projects proposed Im one year for one province.

As a general guide, the cost of an ANDAL should not exceed 5% of the total cost of the |engineering design for the project (which is about 5% of the total project cost) (Suratmo 1985).

These costs refer to the study costs only. Costs proposed for environmental management and 3monitoring, including resettlement where required, are of course additional to this. Costs arebased on conditions as prevailing at the present time, and no allowance is made for inflation.

Further discussion on scale and costs of ANDAL studies is presented in Section 5 under themethodology proposed for the project.

3llI

*I

44 1

5. MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES IN THE| PROPOSED PROJECT

5. I Methodology for Environmental/Social Screening of Proposed Road Projects

For all network extension and capacity expansion sub-project, to be implemented under theproject, a preliminary environmental and social impact screening will be required, i.e.KajianLingkungan or KL. This will be done inl two stages, first through the collection of secondarydata and secondly by ground truthing.

A rapid first stage screening (desk study) will first be carried out for every proposed link on themost up-to-date 1:50,000 topographical maps, as well as othe- mapped sources (RePPProT,INTAG, spatial plans). Estimates will be made on the types )f terrain, land use and foreststatus traversed by the link, and other parameters that can be identified from secondary

* sources. For links through difficult terrain, preliminary alignment studies will be made, basedon the 1:50,000 maps.

The proforma illustrated in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 can be used for screening, respectively fornetwork extension (new construction) and capacity expansion (widening) projects. These arepreliminary forms that require to be tested during the first year of the project, and it is likelyI that modifications will be made as a result of testing. For each item on the form, the estimateddistance in kilometres is entered. The first column is for use during the preliminary desk study,and the second column for use during field study.

Different forms are used for network extension and capacity expansion projects because theenvironmental and social parameters differ. Many criteria will be the same however. For

3 capacity expansion projects, the road already exists, and it commonly lies in already settledterrain. The most irnportant criteria are the proposed degree of widening, and the density of thepopulation and land use. Social impacts predominate, and in the North Sumatra region, few

i instances of capacity expansion will have negative impacts on restricted forest categories.However, the widening of some roads may be constrained in highland areas by topography. Bycontrast, few network extension projects will be in densely populated or intensively used areas,I and topography, forest cover and forest status are much more significant issues (physical andbiological impacts predominate). In some cases, there may be social impacts where new roadsare built to or near isolated villages that previously lacked road access.

The information on the profortna is intended to be indicative only, and flexibility is permitted inthe analysis. The main objective is to scope projects to determine whether an ANDAL isrequired, and the likely scale of the study. Section xx below examines the scale and costs ofANDAL studies.

The provincial transport co-ordinator would have the responsibility to ensure that thesecondary data have been collected and analyzed for each proposed project. Tables 5. 1 and 5.2represent only a very rapid desk-bound screening carried out in order to estimate the scale ofETA/SIA problems that may be encountered. A more careful screening would now be requiredfor each proposed sub-project, and a field study (KL) then canied out to confirm and expandon the findings of the desk study. It is essential that the 1:50,000 topographic maps

45

l~~~produced for Sumatra in the 1980s (based on 1974 air photographs) by BAKOSURTANALand/or JANTOP are purchased and made available for the desk study.

Screening for Network Extension Projects

In the proforma (Table 5.1) for screening network extension projects, the primary fo,.us is theimpact of new road construction, and the possible physical and biological impacts that mayresult. Therefore landform is considered first, and prominence is given to forest cover andstatus.

Under landform, the very steep category is based first on slopes in excess of 40%/o, but thiscategory is concerned mainly with mountainous terrain. In practice, commonly the summitswould exceed 1000m altitude and slopes exceed 60%. The distinction between the first twocategories ('mountainous' and 'hilly') is interpretative. Routes that follow valleys through suchterrain are evaluated as a separate category. The undulatingfrolling category is designed mainlyto encompass such terrain in the lowland plains; in practice, slopes in low rolling terrain oftenexceed 40% but the irnplications for erosion are much lower than in the hills and mountains.

The topography classes were originally based on the RePPProT land systems, but to a certainextent these have been superseded in North Sumatra by the availability of good quality1:50,000 scale topographic maps. Percentage slopes are provided for guidance only, andclearly the categories are open to interpretation.

Forest status analysis is measured independently of actual forest cover, and makes allowancefor not only the forest status of land that still carries a forest cover, but also for land withoutforest cover that is technically under MoF control (land that has forest status according toTGHK - 'kawasan hutan rusak'). If the analysis under land use identifies 10 km of forest, thenunder forest status this 10 km sector will be classified according to three categories of forest(which include conversion forest or 'HPK' and land with a non-forest classification). Whereland having forest status extends into deforested terrain, this is entered under the 'damagedforest' category.

The land use categories reflect both biological and social impacts. For network extensionprojects, the more important negative impacts are likely to be in forested terrain, and this islisted first. The intensively used categories include not only the main rice-growing areas, butalso other areas of intensive cropping, such as transmigration settlements and dense stands oftree crops. It is acknowledged that the categories may be somewhat diffuse, particularlybetween the categories of 'intensive' and 'extensive' use, and between bushland (which mayinclude secondary forest) and forest (which includes primary undisturbed and logged forest).Densely settled urban or suburban land is not usually encountered in network extensionprojects.

For isolated villages, a proposed criterion would be that the village is separated from non-forested and settled terrain by at least 10 km of predominantly forested, roadless terrain. This isan arbitrary criterion and would require testing. Criteria would vary in different regions of

46

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Indonesia, and other transport modes must also be considered. A village on a navigable riverwould not be considered isolated, perhaps even if it is navigable only by canoe from the nearestI larger settlement. Settlements that are served only by light aircraft may or may not beconsidered isolated, according to the criteria that may apply in that region. In particular, theissue relates specifically to indigenous communities that might be vulnerable in theI development process, and recent settlements that have developed as a result of present orprevious logging or mining activities would not be included.

It is also required to ascertain the length of existing (motorable) road, and the landuse/settlement density of the terrain traversed. Very simple categories are used, mainly tohighlight the possible social impacts where widening is required. Where the project requiressubstantial widening along a significant length of existing road, it would be better to use theproforma for capacity expansion projects for that segmnent.

3 Screening of capacity exMansion projects.

In the proforma in Table 5.2 for screening of capacity expansion projects, slightly differentI criteria are used. Information is required for each proposed link on:

* widening category,I * present land use/vegetation cover, including 'population density',* forest status, and

a * topography.

The widening categories (WI-WI 1) are those adopted for use in the project. For purposes ofenvironmental/social screening, these are grouped on a scale of 1 to 5 as follows:

WC 1. no widening or widening by less than l metre,WC2. widening by 1 - 2 metres,I WC3. widening by 2 - 3 metres,WC4. widening by 3 - 5 metres,WC5. widening by over 5 metres.

The land use/settlement density categories here reflect a scale of likely social impacts accordingto numbers of buildings or crops that will be displaced or destroyed. At the top end of the scaleare the purely urban locations, not only in the major cities such as Medan or Padang but alsothe smaller towns. Any widening scheme in urban areas will require substantial land acquisitionand resettlement. The 'peri-urban' category is also very important, as it includes not only thesemi-urbanized surroundings of many towns, but also the 'ribbon development' that so oftenoccurs along existing highways. It sometimes also includes roads traversing densely populatedrice-growing areas where villages occur very frequently along the road.

I Under capacity expansion projects, the main criterion for topography is the extent thatwidening of existing roads may be constrained by the slopes, and the need for extensive cut-and-fill, with the environmental implications that this entails. Roads that follow the base ofsteep narrow valleys are included in the steepest category.

I 47

Table 5.1 Environmental Screening for Network Extension:Route From/to: |

On the proposed route, how many kilometres consist of ?: Km KmA. Existing road (type Dnw - no widening)

- through densely occupied terrain (urbanlperi-urbanfindustrial)- through agricultural/settled terrain- through non-settled/barely settled terrain or forest X

- restricted land status (protection forest etc)

B. Existing road (type Dw - with widening)- through densely occupied terrain (urban/peri-urban/industrial)- through agricultural/settled terrain- through non-settledlbarely settled terrain or forest- restricted land status (protection forest etc)

C. New construction (type ID or IDw), i.e. - new roads, or upgrading with widening of existing non-motorable roads? If category C, how many kilometres consist of new construction through:

Landform- very steep mountainous terrain (peaks >lOOOm, slopes commonly >60%)- other steepland (hilly, peaks 500-lOOOm, slopes mostly 2640%) I- valleys within mountainous terrain- ulndulating or rolling terrain (lowlands <500m, slopes mostly not >40%)- flat, non-swampy terrain 3- alluvial or swampy terrain- coastal land systems (beaches, mangroves, estuarine)- othcr (specify) l

Land use/cover- forest (primary or logged)- bushland/shiftinxg cultivation- extensive land use systems (unimproved agriculture)- intensive land use systems (mainly dryland/treecrops, few sawahs)- intensive land use systems (mainly sawahs and associated villages) I- densely occupied land (urban, suburban, industrial)- other (specify)

Forest status- conservation areas (nature reserve, national park etc.)- protection forest l- permanent forest (production forest, includes HTI)- non-forest land (unclassified, or conversion forest)- damaged forest/non-forest within forest status ('kawasan hutan rusak")- other (specify)

Isolated villagesHow many villages? l_ l_ |_ What is the approxirnate population of these isolated villages?

Agricultural potential |What is the potential for new agricultural settlement (low/medium/high)?What is the potenitial for agricultural intensification (low/medium/high)?'

Will the road cause impacts to areas of biogenetic or ecological importance? l

l

Table 5.2 Environmental Screening for Capacity Expansion:Corridor_

Link:_ From/to: Length km

Widening categorv:s ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Eval. k1 km

WI (existing up to 12m, widen to up to 15-17m) 4 l _ | lW2 (widen to 14-15m) 4W3 (existing 12-14m. widen to 22-24m) 5W4 (existing >14m, widen to 22-24m) 5W5 (existing >14m. widen to up to 15-17m) 3W6 (existing >14m, no widening required) 1W7 (existing min. width up to 4m, widen to 4.5-7m) 3W8 (existing min. width 6.1 -6.9m, widen to 7m when justified) 1W9 (existing min. width 6m., widen to 7m when justified) IWIO (existing min. width 5.0-5.9m, widen to 7m) 2WIlI (existing min. width 4.1-4.9m, widen to 7m) 3Realignment (= new construction) 5

Land use/settlement density:- densely populated urban residential terrainI - densely occupied commercial or industrial properties- mixed densely populated and intensively used agricultural terrain

(includes penri-urban land, ribbon development) [ 1]I - predominantly intensively used agricultural terrain but withresidential areas/villages (may include sawahs. mixed cropping etc)

- estate tree crops (includes HTI, "'hutan milik")I3- predominantly smallholder tree crops- extensive ("unimproved") land use systems- bushland/shifting cultivation

X - forest- other (specifyv)

Forest status:I - forest (primary or logged) - status Conservation or Protection l l

- status Productiondamaged forest/non-forest - status Unclassified/Conversion

- damaged forest/non-forest vwithin forest status ("kawasan hutan rusak")- other (specify)

Topographv:- very steep (widening constrained by slopes >40% or narrow valleys)I. ^- steepland (slopes mostly 26-40% /, widening slightly constrained)- undulating to rolling land (slopes mostly not >25%)- flat land (non-swampy)- swamps/wetlands

| - other (specify)

l

i~~~~~~~~~~5.2 Size and costs of AMDAL studies

Kaiian Lingkungan studies

Existing kabupaten roads that are not proposed for widening are covered by sectoral KLstudies. In project terms, this may be taken to mean that an existing road in widening category1 (W6, W8 and W9) that traverses rural terrain in gentle topography, without restrictive foreststatus, would not require any further KL study, and standard environmental/sociologicalmanagement procedures would apply. In all other cases, a field KL would be recommended,and in most cases would be essential. The product of the KL would be either standardmanagement procedures (UKLIUPL) or the Terms of Reference for the ANDAL study. 3Hoff & Overgaard (1995) give some provisional estimates of the cost of KL and ANDALstudies. These assume the use entirely of Indonesian Consultants. For a KL on a kabupatenroad, the cost was estimated to be Rp 11,000,000, derived as follows: I

Senior Environmentalist @ 1 month Rp. 6,900,000Travel costs Rp. 2,000,000Field costs (survey, vehicle hire etc.) Rp. 1,600,000Incidentals Rp. 500,000Total Rp. 11,000.000

The assumption is made that the one person is competent to analyze all components, includingthe social issues, and to prepare either the UKL/UPL or the Terms of Reference for the |ANDA<. The single expert is likely to be an environmental engineer, but the primary disciplinewould vary according to the nature of the project. A sociologist may be more appropriate on awidening project. For a major project, the required professional inputs could be doubled,allowing for more than one discipline, and the cost would be ca Rp. 18,000,000.

These figures are based on a single study and are considered to be unnecessarily high. It wouldbe appropriate that a consultant environmental team be engaged to undertake all the KL studiesfor projects in, say, each province each year, as a single package. Where possible, consultantsfor KL studies should be engaged from within the province. 3Collection of secondary data assumes availability at the proponent's office of 1:50,000topographic maps. Following the collection of secondary data, using the profonna illustrated inTables 5.1 and 5.2, the amount of time required for fieldwork will vary according tocircumstances. On a capacity expansion project, there is already good vehicle access, and oneday per 10 km may be sufficient to register the various environmental and sociologicalparameters; if some preliminary discussions with affected people are required, this could rise totwo days. Where there is new construction required, there may be no existing access. However,at the KL stage it would not be necessary in every case to traverse the entire route, assumingthe availability of good 1:50,000 maps and providing that adequate confirmation of thesecondary data can be gathered from the starting and/or end points. Allowance should be madefor not more than two days fieldwork per 10 km.

50 I

If we assume that an annual programme in one province consists of 10 projects [comprising: 1capacity expansion project (significant widening for 20 km on a national/provincial road), and9 new construction projects (20 km on one national/provincial road, and 80 km on kabupatenroads with 10 km each)], then the time required is estimated as follows:

8 days for collection of secondary data at provincial level;4 days for collection of secondary data at kabupaten level;30 days for collection of primary data on site;I . 8 days for travel (within province);20 days for reportiug (following standardized formats)5 days for contingencies75 days total, say 2.5 months.

The estimated cost for the 10 KL studies might be:

Senior environmentalist @ 2.5 months Rp 17,250,000Professional @ 2.5 months Rp 12,500,000Support staff Rp 2,000,000Field costs (survey, vehicle hire) Rp 7,500,000Incidentals Rp 2,750,000Total Rp 42.000,000

Tfhus the cost per sub-project would be only Rp 4,200,000. If the consultant team is not hired3 locally, there would be additional costs for interprovincial flights etc. Even this figure may bean over-estimate, It is assumed that the team would consist of two professionals, one each toassess social and physical/biological impacts, but in practice, five man-months of professionaltime may be excessive. Indeed one all-round experienced environmentalist should be competentto handle the entire study at the KL stage. The allowance for days on site and for reporting mayalso be generous. The figures are illustrative only.

I WANDAL studies

The Hoff & Overgaard (1995) estimate for an ANDAL study on a kabupaten road would be Rp83,500,000, which allows for 5 months for a Senior Environmentalist at Rp 6,900,000 permonth, and five months in total for less senior professionals at Rp 5,000,000 per month. For a3 national or provincial road, with up to 8 months for the latter professionals, the estimnate wouldexceed Rp 100,000,000, derived as follows:

Senior Environmentalist (team leader) @ 5 months: Rp. 34,500,000Professionals @ 8 man-months: Rp. 40,000,000Travel costs (mobilization etc.) Rp. 10,000,000Field costs Rp. 3,000,000Laboratory analysis etc. Rp- 2,500,000Report Rp. 10,000,000Incidentals Rp. 5,000,000Total Rp. 105,000 000

I 51

In this case, it is assumed that national level consultants may need to be hired, and mobilizationcosts (interprovincial flights) are included in these figures. The budget for the report is high,but it must be remembered that 15 - 25 copies are required at both the draft and final stage, and Ifurthermore an allowance is included for administrative costs for the presentations, which areusually charged to the consultant. No allowance is made here for inflation during the course ofthe RRPTA project-

ANDAL on Network Extension Proiects

It is useful to analyze ANDAL study costs in greater detail. We can assume that a basicANDAL team on a new road construction project would have four professionals, covering theirrespective disciplines as follows:

* Physical Environment (earth sciences, including geology, geomorphology, soils,hydrology); I

* Biological Environment (land use and agriculture, forestry, fauna and flora, ecology);* Sociological Environment (anthropology, sociology, rural sociology, agricultural

economnics, land tenure/land acquisition, resettlement), -* Environmental Engineering (geotechnical, civil engineering).

On a larger project, these would be the section heads, and there will be requirements for Iadditional inputs from more specialized experts. For example, the biologist would rarely beproficient in both agriculture and forest ecology. There might need to be specialist inputs fromexperts in, say, land acquisition or isolated communities). The emphasis would change, Iaccording to the findings of the KL and the Terms-of-Reference prepared from this. The basicteam above includes the team leader, but his/her discipline may likewise vary. 3The number of predicted man-months required for ANDAL study is based on length of newroad construction (regardless of road status) and terrain type. This assumes that access on footis the main time constraint in surveying a new alignment, and this will be heavily influenced by Iterrain type and land use/forest cover. Easy terrain means that it is neither steep nor swampy,and does not have a forest cover, whereas difficult terrain would include steepland, swamps,and/or forest. Conservation and Protection Forest qualify as "difficult terrain", as would the Ipresence of isolated villages, because these categories may increase the number of man-monthsfor study. Five broad categories of size of study are proposed in Table 5.3, which also gives anestimate of man-months required, and approximate total cost for the ANDAL study, but it must |be emphasized that these are only guidelines. Category N signifies study for new constructionproject.

Il

523

lTable 5.3. Size and cost of AJNDAL studies for network extension projects3 (illustrative only)

IAADAL Kin. in Km. in No. man- Cost ofCategonr easy terrain difficult months for A.VDAL

terrain ANDAL (Rp m)N I <10 10 84N2 10-20 <10 13 0o0N3 20-30 10-20 18 125N4 >30 20-30 24 160N5 >30 up to 30 up to 200

As in the case of KL studies, it is recommended that costs are reduced by issuing contractpackets for groups of ANDAL studies. Thus two studies might be done for, say, 150% of theI cost of one study, or three studies for 200% of the cost of one.

ANDAL on Capacity Expansion Projects

In capacity expansion projects, the emphasis would in most cases be mainly sociological (landacquisition, possibly resettlement issues), with perhaps just one other discipline required,preferably an environmental engineer, to handle other impacts. Total number of man-monthsrequired for ANDAL study should generally therefore be lower than on a new road study. Thenumber of predicted man-months would be based mainly on length of road affected and3 settlement density, but the degree of widening also has relevance. Five broad categories of sizeof study are again proposed, shown in Table 5.4. Category C signifies ANDAL study forwidening project.

U Table 5.4a. Criteria for determining size of ANDAL studies for capacity expansionprojects (illustrative only)

I | Land Use Length0-10 km 10-20 km 20-30 km 3040 km >40 km

Urbani/peri-urban C2 C3 C3 C4 C4JIntensive = C I C2 C2 C3 C3Extensive C1 C1 C1 C2 C2

Table 5.4a is based on widening of less than 5 metres (widening categories WC2 to WC4).Where widening of 5 metres or more is proposed (WC5), then the ANDAL category isincreased by one (e.g. Cl becomes C2, C4 becomes C5). Significant lengths of steepland orconservation/protection forest may also raise the ANDAL category.

I

I~~~~~~~~

Table 5.4b. Size and cost of ANDAL studies for capacity expansion projects(illustrative only)

ANDAL No. man- Cost ofcategory mioniths for ANDAL

ANIDAL (RD m)Cl 7 70C2 9 80C3 12 95 3C4 14 105C5 up to 20 up to 140

The legislation presents some anomalies in terms of inputs. PP 51/1993 states that the decisionon acceptance of the report should be issued within 45 days of receipt, or within 30 days of 3receipt of a revised report if the first draft does not meet requirements. Normally at least thekey members are required to attend the two presentations (to Tim Teknis and to Komisi Pusat),which means that the team must be held available for this purpose after completion of their 3draft report. Again, costs can be reduced if contracts are awarded in packets, and thepresentations made together. There should also be a penalty clause in the contract to cover theconsultant's fees if the presentation meetings are not held within a stipulated number of daysafter submission of the draft report. Only the team leader would be called upon for any furtherpresentation required after revisions.

5.3 Social Impact Issues i

Several significant issues related to social impact assessment have been covered in the report.These include spatial planning, indigenous/isolated peoples, resettlement, land acquisition andcommunity consultation. These issues have been identified and some approaches for dealingwith them have been discussed, but there have not been definitive solutions to handling all theissues within the context of integrated transport planning and management. Duringimplementation of the forthcoming NSRRP it is recommended that these issues be addressed inmore detail on an applied level.

An important objective of the Project should be to design and test in practical applications theformats and procedures for addressing each of the identified social irnpact issues. Whensatisfactory and workable solutions are derived, efforts should be made to codify them in the Ilegal and administrative structure as standard operating procedures. Subsequent actions shouldbe oriented towards assuring that appropriate agencies and personnel within the NorthemrSumatra Region, and later nationally, clearly understand the objectives of the procedures and Ihow to implement them in a timely fashion.

A brief discussion of each of the key social impact issues and a list of tasks which should be |assigned to Project personnel is provided in the following sections. Determination of whichconsultants are to be responsible for which tasks, and when each should be undertaken, can bemade when once the final project design is known I

54 3

5.4 Spatial Planning

I In 1992 spatial planning was adopted by the central govemment as the key principle fordevelopment planning at all levels of govemment. Short term spatial use management planningat all levels is in a five-year time frame to match the cycle of Five-Year Development Plans(PELITA). Integrated transport plans should be a component of the spatial plans.

The spatial plans of the four provinces comprising the project area, as elsewhere, show a lackof understanding of the true principles of spatial planning. An important objective of theNSRRP should be to improve spatial planning and the transport component contained therein.A list of consultant tasks is provided below to achieve this objective.

1) Present a short seminar (1 day) for all spatial planners from BAPPEDA Dati-I andDati-II to clearly explain the principles of spatial planning and spatial useI management. Hold a group discussion on how a spatial planning approach differsfrom a sectoral planning approach. Provide examples of spatial planning, includingidentification and plotting of spatial regions on a topographical map, a sample of agood long term spatial plan and a sample of a good five year spatial use managementplan (using a fictional rather than a real place so that "ideal" examples can be shown).

3 2) Provide support in the development and implementation of the system of RegionalTransport Planning Coordinators proposed in this report. Assist in preparation of clearand precise job descriptions for the RTPC at each level (national, provincial and

I kabupaten). Job descriptions should include both duties and responsibilities of theRTPC, including coordinating integrated transport planning with transport plannersfrom the four transport DG (Highways, Land Communications, Sea CommunicationsI and Air Communications) and preparation of descriptive and integrated transportnetwork map materials to be incorporated in the spatial plan.

3) Provide special training for the RTPC and planners from each of the four transport DGin integrated transport planning. Supervise and monitor the same group's activitiesduring annual integrated transport planning activities. Monitor spatial planning

i activities of BAPPEDA Dafi-IlDati-Il to ensure incorporation of integrated transportplanning.

3 5.5 Indigenous/Isolated Peoples

Social and economic equality in development is a concern of both the GOI and the World Bank.With respect to planning and development of an integrated transport network this means takingspecial efforts to reduce the physical isolation of communities, thereby allowing them to moreequitably share in the social and economic gains of development activities availablc to other

| conununities. At the same time efforts need to be made not to unduly disrupt the social valuesand distinct cultural traditions of indigenous peoples.

l

I 5

It is difficult to make a fixed procedure for dealing with indigenous or isolated peoples. Whatis required is a sensitivity to the unique needs and concerns of each group. Transport plannersmust exercise judgement in identifying which communities and groups will require special Iattention. In the project area, distinct indigenous peoples have been identified only in Riau butisolated conmmunities occur in the other provinces. During the first year of the project theconsultant should select examples as test cases.

For the identified communities the consultant's tasks should include:

1) Corrmunity consultation on integrated transport planning should be more extensive,and will need to explore a wider range of issues to determine potential additional socialimpacts arising from the isolation or cultural characteristics of the community. The -consultant should begin by using the general guideline; of World Bank OperationalDirective (OD) 4.20, and during the first year should develop a checklist guideline forfuture community consultation meetings along the principle of Rapid Rural 5Appraisal/Participatory Appraisal (RRA/PA) techniques. Once a satisfactorytechnique is developed, the consultant should train transport planners in its use.During subsequent years the consultant should monitor transport planners utilization of 5RRAIPA techniques in isolated/indigenous community consultations.

2) Once the consultant has a reasonably complete picture of the community, he shoulddesign a development plan to address its unique nature and the distinctive socialimpacts expected to occur. Again, OD 4.20 should be referred to as an initialguideline. The consultant should work closely with the integrated transport planners 5from the relevant government agency on this activity so that in the future they canundertake this activity themselves. In subsequent years the consultant shouldincreasingly play the role of supervisor, monitoring these activities as they are carriedout by integrated transport planners.

It may prove very difficult to provide any form of security of tenure to such communities.However, under the Spatial Planning Act, 'every person has the right to receive faircompensation for any loss suffered arising from the implementation of development activitiescomplying with the spatial plan'. Furthermore, Act No. 1011992 on population policy providesequal rights to every citizen, and protects the land and cultural rights of traditional Icommunities. The descendants of such communities are guaranteed the right to develop theirinherited lands in their own manner, and not to be disadvantaged by new arrivals. When theirland is subject to development, they should have priority to benefit from the increased value of Ithe area, for example in employment opportunities.

Act No. 10/1992 clearly has important implications where new roads are constnicted throLgh Ilands traditionally occupied by isolated communities. However it is uncertain whether thislegislation has ever been fully applied in practice, and certainly no implementation guidelineshave yet been issued. In view of the increasing expansion of the road network into areas 1fonnerly remote from centres of population and intensive land use, throughout the OuterIslands, it is recommended that urgent priority be given to the issue of the requisite guidelinesin order to facilitate implementation of Act No. 10/1992.

56

5.6 Community Consultation

According to the Spatial Planning Act No. 24 of 1992 all people have a right to be involvedwith the preparation, and have knowledge, of the spatial plan. However, mechanisms forimplementation of community consultation are not set forth within the Act, nor have they beenincluded in local operational guidelines (Peraturan Daerah or Perda) for the Act. Hencepublic participation or community consultation has not been a functional component of spatialplanning at any level,

For road transport planning, SK No. 77 of Bina Marga also calls for community consultationthrough the P5D procedure (see Section 3.5), but often this procedure is not followed.Furthermore, as discussed earlier there are logistical and operational problems in using the P5Dprocedure for integrated and regional transport planning. An important objective of theNSRRP will be to devise, test and refine a workable procedure for community consultation.

There are three variants of community consultation which are needed for integrated regionaltransport. The first is for general community consultation on planning for an integratedregional transport strategy and network. The second will be for land acquisition andcompensation for land, buildings and itrmovable property. The third type of communityconsultation will be for the special case of resettlement. The project should focus on these threetypes of community consultation in this order since this is the sequence in which these issueswill be faced by integrated transport planners.

Community consultation for transport planning

Accepting that transport planning and project proposals originate at the kabupaten level (seesection E3.5), then all communities should have an opportunity to participate annually indiscussions on the proposals, but this presents many difficulties. Having many villages within akecamatan, some difficult to reach, it would be physically demanding for kecamatan planningofficials to hold MUSBANG type meetings in every one. Time is another constraint as allvillage level meetings have to be held by May and the results compiled into the kecamatandevelopment plans during June/July. Subsequently the Rakorbang Dati-II (third step) has to becompleted in August so that planning process can continue upward to the provincial andnational levels. Thus kecamatan officials often overlook the community consultation step(MUSBANG) of the P5D process altogether.

When village level consultation does occur it is likely to be a group meeting between kecamatanofficials and official village leaders (kepala desalhtrah) and not with the general public. Eventhe official MUSBANG meetings of the P5D system are managed by the LKMD, consisting ofthe village headman (kepala Desa/Lurah) and infornal village leaders, and are not a publicforum. This system precludes true community and representational consultation. Village headsare govermnent emnployees (pegawai) so they cannot be considered to be fully objective andunbiased and may not truly represent the wishes of the community. As government employeesthey may tend to agree with any development proposals put forward by govemment officials, orbe subject to subtle pressures to do so.

l

* 57

A workable solution to the lack of community consultation for the planning of a regionalintegrated transport network needs to be addressed in the forthcoming Project. This should beconsidered a test case in the development of a suitable procedure for use throughout thecotntry Keeping in mind the difficulties in holding transport planning meetings in everyvillage, it is recommended that alternatives to current MUSBANG (Step 1) of the P5D systembe devised and tested. One )ossibility is for each village to select one or two people, other thanthe kepala desa, to represent them in an annual kecamatan-wide transportation planningmeeting. Another possibility is for kecamatan planners to hold group meetings with clusters offour to six adjacent villages, in order to reduce the total number of annual meetings they needto hold.

Once a community consultation system has been developed which kecamatan transportplanners consider to be woi kable, and which is acceptable to villagers, it should be officiallyincorporated into the legal administrative structure of local government. This will necessitateformal legislation by the Ministry of Home Affairs, followed by issuance of appropriate SuratKeputusan (Letter of Decree or SK) by each Bupati. Camats do not have legal legislativeauthority so local regulations must be issued by the Bupati and Kabupaten Government. Oncea new planning procedure has been officially decreed, care should be taken to ensure that allkecamatans fully understand and actually imlement the stem.

Community consultation for land acquisition and compensation

A separate, but similar, system of community consultation needs to be devised for landacquisition and compensation. The present system of the nine member Land ReleaseCommittee needs an improved community consultation component. There should be atransparent forum and format for community discussion and agreement on compensationvaluation for land, buildings and other immovable property for specific cases of landacquisition. Particular emphasis needs to be given to recognition of land and other propertyheld under adat tenure and development of equitable valuation and compensation rates.

Within the Project area forums and procedures for conimunity consultation on land acquisitionand compensation should be devised, tested and refined. Once a suitable system has beendeveloped it should be formalized through the aforementioned procedure in the Ministry forHome Affairs and in the individual kabupatens- Again, it is important that all the partiesinvolved clearly understand the objectives of the procedures and actually utilize them.

Community consultation for resettlement

A third community consultation forum which needs to be developed is that for the special caseswhere resettlement is required. There needs to be a clear agenda for transport planners to meetwith the peoples who will be affected.

I

~~~~~~~I

The first requirement is constructive discussions between the community and transport plannerson possible alternative routes which will eliminate or reduce population displacement. If thereis still a need for resettlement, there should be a consultative forum which allows for the needsof each displaced individual or family to be addressed. Transportation development is linear,thus it displaces individuals and families, not whole communities. Subsequently regionalI transport consultation procedures for resettlement need to be tailored to the unique needs ofindividuals and families. Some displaced people may, choose resettlement in the samecommunity, others may choose resettlement in another community and still others may opt for alifestyle change (i.e. a fanner who loses his house and land using a cash settlement to go intobusiness in town).

3 As with the previous two types of community consultation, the Project should experiment withvarious possible forums and procedures for community and individual consultation forresettlement. Once various options have been tested and a suitable format devised, a3 resettlement consultation (community and individual) operational procedure should beformalized under the Ministry for Home Affairs and the kabupatens.

| Proposed tasks

A strong emphasis on community consultation should be included in the first year of the3 NSRRP so that subsequent years can be devoted to refining formats and procedures,legislatively formalizing the final procedures, training of integrated transport planners fromappropriate government agencies in good techniques, and monitoring the implementation of3 community consultation procedures. Consultants tasks include:

1) Devising and testing forums, formats and procedures for community consultation forintegrated transport planning. This should include informing the public of the regionaland multi-modal nature of integrated transport planning and network development.Likewise, the consultant should check to see that proposed transport plans are inagreement with the spatial plan and ensure that the spatial natulre of integratedtransport network development is understood by the public.

2) Detennination should be made of whether instead of consultation meetings in everyvillage, a representational or multiple community forum would be feasible andefficient. A suitable fornat for consultation meetings should be designed and testedwhich allows fair and equitable input from all sectors of society, and from individualsI as well as groups which will be affected by transport network development. Finally,community consultation procedures should be refined and submitted to the appropriategovernment authorities to be formalized through legislative action.

3) Once the above has been accomplished during the first year, during the second year theconsultant should begin a program of training integrated transport planners from

*, appropriate government agencies in the approved procedures. Subsequently theconsultant should supervise implementation of these procedures in field situations.Monitoring of comrnunity consultation should continue through the third and fourthyears of the project.

1 59

4) Simnilar to the format and procedures developed for community consultation forintegrated transport planning, the same needs to be done with respect to landacquisition. To a degree this will be incorporated in the aforementioned communityconsultation in that at the planning stage the community should be consulted aboutexpected land acquisition and be allowed to voice their opinions on options such asaltemative and bypass routes.

5) Once the project link has been set there will need to be a review of the existing"committee of nine" system used for determination of land and property compensationrates. The current system should be discussed in consultation with communities and ifit is decided that changes should be made, the consultant should work with appropriategovernment authorities to devise a system more responsive to the needs and concemsof the public.

6) Special attention needs to be paid to the situation of land held under traditional (adat)tenure. The consultant should meet with community leaders (both formal andtraditional) to devise a system for clarification of adat ownership rights anddetermination of equitable compensation. If possible a system of adat land rightscategories and valuation percentages for compensation should be established similar tothat in force for land held under government tenure. Once tested and refined in a formacceptable to the public, efforts should be made to legislatively codify this system.

7) The consultant should provide training in any new procedures which are developed andsupervise implementation of these procedures during subsequent years of the project.By the fourth year of the project the consultant's role should be simply monitoring ofthe activities of others carrying out these activities.

8) The special case of resettlement will necessitate development of special procedures forpublic consultation. Where it is expected that involuntary resettlement will occur, thismatter should be first discussed in the general integrated transport planning communityconsultation meetings. Public opinions on altemative routes which would eliminate orreduce involuntary resettlement should be discussed and weighed before the route ofthe project link is finalized.

9) Should resettlement still be required by a transport link project, a special set ofprocedures needs to be devised for consultation with those who will be displaced.Since transport development is linear, displacement will be of individuals and families,not communities. Hence there needs to be a case by case, or individualistic,consultation procedure devised and tested to handle this matter.

10) Once an appropriate resettlement consultation procedure has been devised, theconsultant should train the appropriate officials who will be responsible for thisactivity. The consultant should also supervise and monitor the activities of the trainedpersonnel during the latter years of the project.

l

Il

60 3

l1) If the resettlement procedure which is developed proves to be successful, the consultantshould make efforts to legislatively codify the procedure to ensure its continuity anduse elsewhere.

| 5.7 Land Acquisition

The most imnportant aspect of land acquisition is that of recognition of traditional (adat) tenureand the subsequent compensation for land which is held by adat tenure- This has been covered

* -- under task #5 immediately above. A second important aspect of land acquisition is actualfinancing of compensation payments. Currently this is supposed to be done by the localgovernment but this poses two problems. The first is whether or not the local government hasthe financial resources for compensation and the second is communication between the agencyimplementing the development project and the local government. A third issue is monitoring ofland valuation and payment of compensation.

Tasks of the consultant would include:

1 1) Work with local governments to determine ways to finance land acquisition necessaryfor transport development projects. Should it be determined that local governments donot have adequate sources of financing to cover such land acquisition, alternativeI sources of financing should be sought.

2) Consultant should work with the implementing transport agencies and local| government to devise a forum and format for improving communications between them

so that local govemrnents have better advance knowledge of the amount of financialresources which will be needed for upcoming projects.

3) Consultant should devise a system to monitor the "committee of nine" to ensure fairand equitable determination of land rates and percentage valuations for compensation.Furthennore, the consultant should devise a system for monitoring actualcompensation payments to land owners to ensure they receive all of the allocatedfunds.

I According to World Bank procedures, the proposed road development plan must include adetailed programme for land acquisition and resettlement, with full budget provisions, andapproval to proceed would be conditional upon the land acquisition process being close tosatisfactory completion.

* 5.8 Resettlement

Involuntary resettlement should be avoided whenever possible. Community consultation shouldbe the first step in attempts to find altematives to involuntary resettlement. Displacement ofpeople by road development projects is linear, thus any resettlement would concern individualsand families and not communities. Thus a case by case or individualized consultationprocedure needs to be devised. The main issue of resettlement which has not already beencovered by consultant tasks described above is that of monitoring:

* 61

1) The consultant should devise and test a monitoring system to follow the resettlementprocess to ensure that resettlement is equitable. He should determine who within the |institutional structure of local government should be responsible for undertakingmonitoring of resettlement. A system of adjudication should be developed shoulddisputes arise. 3

5.9 Supporting actions to the proposed methodologies 3Topographic maps

Hitherto, planimetrically accurate contoured topographic maps were a rare luxury in Indonesia,but now 1:50,000 maps are available for all the project area from either BAKOSURTANALand/or JANTO1, compiled by photogrammetry from the 1974 Sumatra-wide air photography.Indeed, accurate topographic maps are becoming available for all of the Republic. 1:250,000 Imaps have also been compiled from the larger scales. It is now timely to maxirnize theutilization of such maps for planning purposes, and to introduce them widely in the provincesand even the kabupatens. The environmental screening carried out during Phase II was based Ion the 1:50,000 maps, and their availability is basic to the system proposed in section 5. 1.

The proposal is made that the project would supply a complete set of 1:50,000 and 1:250,000 ;maps to the BAPPEDA Dati-I of each province to support transport planning. To facilitateprocedures, the central office of Bina Marga would arrange the purchase and distribution. Thepurchase price is currently not more thaTi Rp 20,000 per sheet. Including the off-shore islands, Ithe total number of map sheets is shown in Table 5.5, and the cost should not exceed Rp11,000,000. It is imperative that adequate provision is made in the BAPPEDA office for theproper storage and handling of maps.

Table 5.5 Topograhic maps required per province. I1:50,00( 1:250.000 Cost

l (No. shieets) (No. sheets) (Rp)Aceh 103 11 2.280.000North Sumatra 128 11 2.780.000West Sumatra 85 11 1,920.000Riau 163 13 3.520.000TOTAL 479 46 10,500(000

Air photographs ILarge-scale air photographs (not smaller than 1:20,000 but preferably 1:10,000) should bemade available as a matter of course to facilitate the planning of major capacity expansion projects in urban/pen-urban areas (widening category WC4 or WC5, or by-pass projects).These are required especially to assist in ascertaining the social impacts and land acquisition |

I

6,2 3

requirements. Existing photographs up to five years old (flown, say, since 1990) could be used,provided that the age limitation is realized and subsequent changes are entered on the photo-I map from field survey. It is likely that such air photography already exists for the majority ofthese areas, and it should rarely be necessary to incur the cost of new flying.

Smaller scale piotography (say 1:25,000 to 1:40,000) should also be sought for planning thealignments of new roads to be constructed through mountainous terrain.

Where the decision is taken to obtain new air photography, every effort should be made toreduce costs by combining project areas into a single contract package, because mobilization ofu the plane is a major component of the total costs.

5.10 Environm, ntal Oversight Committee.

The provincial govemment via BAPPEDA Tk I is responsible for environmental management aspart of their regional planning and development function, while Biro Bina Lingkungan Hidup(BBLH) provides the organizational framework for execution of this. The Badan Pengelola1 Dampak Lingkungan (BAPEDAL) has established a regional office (Kantor Wilavah) atPekanbaru to supervise environmental management in the Northem Sumatran region, but thisoffice is still in its infancy and its more immediate tasks are likely to be concerned withindustrial pollution.

It is proposed that an environmental screening committee be organized in each province, to benamed the Environmental Oversight Committee (EOC), with the responsibility of reviewingand approving sub-project screening and environmental management and monitoring plans, andgeneral oversight and evaluation of these activities in NSRRP. The consultantenvironmentalist(s) (see Section 5.11) would report and make recommendations directly to thiscommittee. The EOC of each province would comprise members from the followinginstitutions:

1 . BAPEDAL TVilayah

e BAPPEDA Tk I (head of physical planning section)

. ?Biro BLHPropinsia Kanwil Bina Margae Biro Bina Penyusunan Program.

* It is also proposed that the EOC, assisted by the TA consultants, will conduct an annualworkshop in each province that will bring together the project proponents and principalstakeholders, in order to discuss the environmental and social issues arising from the NSRRP.NGOs would be included as representatives of the affected communities. The workshop wouldseek inputs from all participants on the handling of any negative impacts, and would also seekto ensure that the local government institutions responsible for the management and monitoringof different environmental/social components are made fully aware of the duties expected fromthem and the budgets required to undertake these duties.

l

g 63

One of the most important functions of this workshop would be to emphasize the importance ofthe roles of the provincial offices of BPN and Forestry in long-term management of the impactsarising from road development projects. BPN has the mandate to prevent uncontrolledsettlement (ribbon development) that tends to occur along new roads in regions of rapideconomic development, which so often negates some of the benefits that the road is intended to 3supply.

Management of Protection and Conservation forests lies under the jurisdiction of the KanwilKehutanan, but routine policing of the forest areas is the responsibility of the Kepala ResortPemankuan Hzutan (KRPH) at the Dinas Kehutanan Tk II, which has its RPH staff in thekecamatans. The NSRRP should give urgent attention to the strengthening of the management 3activities of the provincialVkabupaten forest offizes in those regions where new roads aretraversing sensitive forest zones, especially in the mountains. These issues, along roads newlyconstructed already in the mountain forests, might well become subjects for study at the annualworkshops.

In this context, it is recommended that priority be given to the management and monitoring ofthe mountains forests of Aceh Province that are traversed by newly constructed provincial Iroads. Preliminary screening was carried out on these, before it was learnt that the roads werealready constructed or under construction, and the screening indicated major ANDALrequirements. These links have been retained in the screening table (Table 6.1), because it is Ifeared that in some cases the requisite ANDAL studies have not been made. Negative impactsalong these roads have the potential to be very severe, and the Kanwil Kehutanan of Aceh has aheavy responsibility to prevent ensuing damage. Protection of these forests is considered to be 3of paramount importance.

5.11 Manpower requirements on NSRRP. 3The need for several disciplines has been indicated in Section 5, and these are summarizedbelow, according to component of p-roposed Technical Advisory Consultants teams (TAC).Precise staffing in terms of individual experts and man-months required will be related to finalproject proposals.

Environmental Planner (Strategic Planning, BAPPEDA)

Jobs include- |

liaising with and making recommendations to the Environment Oversight Comunittee ofeach province, and advising for the annual environmental workshops; |

* establishing liaisons between the Environmental Study Centre (Pusat Lingkhngan, PSL) ofthe iocal university, which is responsible for provincial environmental assessments, and theprovincial BAPPEDA and Bina Marga; |

* assisting in establishing an environmental library in the provincial BAPPEDA for manuals,reports and copies of relevant legislation, for use by all groups involved withenvironmental/social assessments including Bina Marga and other government agencies,contractors and consultants, NGOs and university researchers.

64

l• providing environmental input for the integrated transport plan incorporated in the

provincial spatial plans;* addressing environmental and social issues at all stages of the planning process, working

closely with the Transport Planning Coordinator, and assessing alternative options wherenegative impacts are potentially serious.

Environmental Impact Specialist (Feasibilitv studies. PIU))

*. Jobs include:

a with the Social Impact Specialist, carrying out the preliminary map-based screening (asoutlined in Section 5 1) for each short-listed sub-project under the Feasibility Studies teammandate,

. with the Social Impact Specialist, carrying out the Kajian Lingkztngan for each proposedsub-project, and preparing the Terms of Reference for ANDAL studies where required;

* supervising the work of the AMDAL consultants undertaking ANDAL studies, and assisting1 Komisie Daerah and the EOC in evaluating these studies;* training field supervisors (PIMPROs) in implementation of RKLIRPL and UKL/UPL, and

ensuring tender documents and construction contracts incorporate the mitigation measures;* proposing improvements in environmental training and certification of contractors and

consultants, as well as environmental contractorlconsultant selection procedures;* co-ordinating with local government institutions to ensure that they fully understand the

requirements of the RKL,'RPL, and have the manpower and budgets to undertake theappointed management and monitoring tasks (especially BPN and Forestry);

3 Environmental Analyst (Bina Marga, Planning Support)

Jobs include:

. reviewing and updating first stage environmrental screening of all roads in the network inline with procedures under Kabupaten Roads projects and in conformity with GOI'senvironmental legislation and the requirements of external donors;

* carrying out the preliminary map-based screening (as outlined in Section 5.1) for eachshort-listed sub-project in the annual road development plan;

. carrying out the Kajian Lingkungan for each proposed sub-project, and preparing theTerms of Reference for ANDAL studies where required;

* liaising with the field consultants for implementation (or, in the absence of consultants,directly with the contractors) to ensure proper monitoring of the mitigation measuresrecommended at the pre-construction/construction phases;

* assisting in supervising the implementation of mitigation measures by the contractors;| ' . undertaking post-construction envirotimental audits and monitoring especially of mitigation

measures being undertaken by local government institutions.

l

ll* 65

Transport Planner (Strategic Planning, BAPPEDA)

Section 5.4 outlines a programnme for institutional strengthening in spatial planning activities in |the provinces. The Transport Planner is not an 'environmental' post, but this expert will:

be responsible for conducting training in transport planning in the context .f spatialplanning as outlined in Section 5.4, with participants from the RTPC (from Bidang Fisikdan Prasarana) of the provincial and kabupaten BAPPEDA and planning staff from theprovincial and kabupaten Bina Marga, as well as planning staff from the three transportDG of Perhubungan;

* work with the RTPC, Bina Marga Dati I, and the three transport DG of Perhubungan inpreparing integrated transport plans, and reviewing the same activity in earh of thekabupatens and providing supervision where necessary;

* work with the provincial BAPPEDA in incorporating the integrated transport plan in theprovincial spatial plan, and reviewing and supervising where necessary the same activity in each of the kabupatens;

* supervise ongoing and routine transport planning activities by RTPC and by the planningsection of the provincial Bina Marga, and reviewing and supervising where necessary the Isame activity in each of the kabupatens;liaise with the provincial EOC and the Environmental Planner as well as with theEnvironmental and Sociologist consultants in the PIU;

Sociologist (Strategic Planning.z BAPPEDA)

In view of the importance attached to community consultation m the planning process andenvironmental management, it is proposed that a Sociologist be engaged to assist in setting upthe consultation programrnme outlined in Sections 5.5 - 5.7. Because capacity expansion projects Iwill predomninate in NSRRP, especially during the initial years, most sociological issues arelikely to relate to land acquisition and resettlement, and it is felt that this should be the mainconcem of the sociologist. There would be a heavy programme of consultations to be set up I(although initially these are unlikely to affect remote locations), and one sociologist is proposedfor each province during the first year. Subsequently, a single sociologist would be sufficient tooversee that proper consultation processes are operating in all four provinces. The sociologist Ishould have experience in dealing with the more isolated communities, as issues relating tothese may arise during the later years.

The sociologists will work with the provincial BAPPEDA and Bina Marga to:

* review identified issues related to social impact assessment as discussed in Section 5.3;|* design and test procedures for addressing identified social issues;* review procedures for conmmunity consultation of various types (road planning, land

acquisition, involuntary resettlement, isolated/indigenous people etc. - refer to sections 5.5 1and 5.6);

* observe implementation of community consultation procedures by BAPPFDA and BinaMarga and provide recommendations for improvements; 3

66 3

I* assist in revisig procedures or preparing new procedures and see that these are legallyformulated in the form of Perda. S.irat Keputusan, or local implementation regulations-

* assist in undertaking a study of loc:al pri-nciples of adat ownership and nghts to land, plantsor other property (for each ethnic group or suku in each province), and prepare guidelineson land acquisition and compensation based upon local variations of adat law;

* assist provincial BAPPEDA and Bina Marga in preparing land acquisition proceduresbased upon local adat law and see that these are legally formulated in the form of Perdca.Surat Keputusan, or local implementation regulations;

* assist these authorities in prepanng procedures and implementing activities related toinvoluntary resettlement (see section 5.8);

* work with the Transport Planner to ensure that social issues are adequately addressed inthe integrated transport plan of the spatial plan;

* liaise with the provincial EOC and Transport Planner and Environmentalist consultants.

I Social Impact Specialist (Feasibility studies. PIJU)

| Jobs include:

* assisting the Environmental Impact Specialist in carrying out the preliminary map-basedscreening (as outlined in Section 5. 1) for each short-listed sub-project under the FeasibilityStudies team mandate;

• assisting the Environmental Impact Specialist in carrying out the Kajian Lingkungan foreach proposed sub-project, and preparing the Terns of Reference for ANDAI. studieswhere required;

- supervising the social component of the work of the AMDAL consultants and assistingKomisie Daerah and the EOC in evaluating these studies,

* training field supervisors (PBIPROs) in implementation of land acquisition andcompensation measures;

. co-ordinating with local government institutions to ensure that they f9ully understand theimplications of land acquisition. compenisaiion and resettlement, and have the manpowerand budgets to undertake these tasks;

l

Il

* 67

I

I

I

I* IIIIIIUIUI

.IIIII

6. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL/SOCIAL SCREENING OF POTENTIALROAD PROJECTS

6.1 Phase II level screening

I A rapid first stage screening (desk study) has already been carried out during Phase II ofRRPTA, namely the examination of each link on the most up-to-date 1:50,000 topographicalmaps, as well as other mapped sources (RePPProT, INTAG, spatial plans, recent satelliteI . imagery). This has been done both for network extension projects and for capacity expansionprojects that require significant widening (see Section 5.1). Estimates were made on the typesof terrain, land use and forest status traversed by the link. For new construction projectsthrough difficult terrain, preliminary alignment studies and recommendations were made, basedon the 1:50,000 maps. This screening is reproduced in Tables 6.1 and 6.2. Maps are presented(Figures 7 to 14) where altemative options have been studied for proposed links throughI difficult terrain. A bnref summary for every screened road is given m this chapter.

The primarv objective of this rapid screening is to make a general assessment of the volume of1 ANDAL studies that may be required during the project. It is must be stressed that morethorough initial map-based screening would be required for each selected project. The ANDALcodes given in the final column in each table refer to the size of ANDAL studies estimated inI Tables 5.3 and 5.4. These are intended to be indicative only, and will be conditional upon theresults of the Kajian Lzngkungan (KL) which, it is assumed, will be carried out in every case.It is likely that the KL will substantially revise the prelimninary proposals for size of ANDAL,

i while in many cases those projects marked as NI or C I will require merely UKL/UIL.

In some cases, projects remain listed in Table 6.1 although it was later leamt that the roads areI already constructed or undergoing construction. This is true especially for Aceh (see Section5.10). The size of ANDAL studies indicated is a guide to the importance of post-constructionmanagement and monitoring of the mountain forests.

6.2. Envirornmental Screening of Proposed Roads: Aceh.

P 10. Geumpang - Tutut. Links P025.1 and P025.2. This is ongoing project is nearingcompletion. The route crosses mountains with slopes that range to above 60%. From Tutut,which lies at 50m altitude, the route either has to follow extremely deep, steep, narrow valleys,or altematively very steep climbs, first to 400m, then to >800m, and eventually to about1000m, before dropping to the Geumpang riceplains which lie at 500m altitude. The terrain istnder forest, but except perhaps for a short section of Protection Forest, is classified asLimited Production Forest (Protection Forest status would be more appropriate). The road islikely to have impacts in all three environmental components and an ANDAL should have beencompleted. A major effort is now required to protect the steep forest resources along the road.

3 69

P 12. Seuliman - Jantho - Keumala. Road P029.1 and P029.2. Construction is reportedcompleted on this strategic link with the final 30 km scheduled for asphalting during the nexttwo years. Most of the mountains have already been deforested, and the biological impactswould be minor. Nevertheless a portion is still officially classified as Protection Forest.

P 12/NS 104. Genting Gerbang - Pameu - Geumpang. The route crosses mountainousterrain with slopes commonly exceeding 60%. From Genting Gerbang, there is a relatively easyroute along a valley, rising from 900m altitude at Genting Gerbang to 1300m, then descendingto 500m at Pameue. The surrounding mountains reach altitudes of 2000m. From Pameuewestwards, the route is very difficult, because the mountains are 1500m to the north and2000m to the south, while the Pameue valley down to Rumahbaru becomes very narrow, deep 1and steep. One alignment would be to try and follow this valley (which may be very difficult),from whence there is a relatively easy strike route to NW, rising to 75 Om before descending to450m at Geumpang. Alternatively, from Pameue the route must climb due west, across veryrugged terrain, reaching 1300m before descending very steeply to Geumpang. Neither route is Ian obvious choice. The forests mainly have Protection Forest status. This road is likely to havemajor environmental impacts in all three components, possibly including the social impacts ofopening up isolated villages such as Pameue and Rumahbaru. It may prove very difficult to Imanage the mitigation measures that are required to control the negative impacts.

It is reported that 6 kmn are under construction at the Geumpang end (Abri Masuk Desa 3programme), and the first 50 km from Genting Gerbang are constructed and scheduled foraphalting. Thus the remaining difficult sector has yet to be built. It is recommended that anANDAL is given priority if one has not yet been conducted, giving priority to route selection in Ithis difficult terrain, and to protection of watersheds and forest resources.

P 13. Jeuram - Lhokseumot - Beutong Ateuh (Atas) - Takengon. Road P022 and P049.Beutong Ateuh is believed to correspond to Blangpuuk on the topographic maps. Beutong waspreviously an isolated village in a montane valley with no road access. From Lhokseumot toJeuram there is an alluvial plain. Beyond this, the route ascends the Barisan scarp with Iextremely steep longitudinal gradients. Within 18 km it rises from 100m to a col at 1850m(following a ridge top route), then descends to 600m within 8 km to Beutong. The lowerportion of the route was visited m 1992, and longitudinal gradients on the cleared traverse were |considered to be too steep for non 4-wheel drive vehicles. The forest status is LimitedProduction Forest (Protection Forest would be more appropriate). From Beutong (600m) toGenting Gerbang (900m), the 25 km alignment must cross very rugged terrain, rising to1500m. Most of the route is forested, incorrectly assigned as Production Forest west ofBeutong, but as Protection Forest east of Beutong. This road is likely to have major negativeimpacts in all three components, but it may prove very difficult to manage the mitigationmeasures that are required to control these.

P 14. Babah Rot - Trangon - Blangkejeren. Road P030. The sector from Babah Rot to the |Aceh Tenggara border is very steep initially, and there is no obvious alignment, but it isreported that a gravel road has already been constructed. From sea level, the route must climbto at least 1000m altitude, perhaps 1250m. The first 15 km lies through dissected hilly country,rising to 300m, but all alignments from 300m to the watershed are extremely steep.

70

lThe route then falls steeply to Tongra or Malejang at 400m in the Tripa valley. From here, thedirect route, rather than following the Tripa valley, would be over a 950m pass, rising gentlyI but dropping very steeply, to Kala Keruh and the Rampong valley at Trangon, at 75 Om. Thereis an existing road from Trangon to Blangkejeren. All the mountains are forested, the steepinitial portion is incorrectly allocated as Production Forest, but beyond this there is ProtectionI Forest. It is not known whether an ANDAL study has bek n conducted, but there may be majorenvironmental impacts along the Babah Rot-Trangon sector and it may prove very difficult tomanage the mitigation measures that are required to control these.

P 14. Peureulak - Lokop - Blangkejeren. Road 027. There is an existing route throughcomparatively gentle terrain from Peureulak to Peunaron, Pangguh and Bulutan, and there isI. assumed to have been rapid agricultural development in this zone. From Bulutan to thekecamatan town of Lokop, there is an existing road of s )me 12 km, along nrce valleys and alow col at 350m. It is reported the Peureulak to Lokop is already asphalted, and from Lokop toBlangkejeren is gravel. The 50 km sector from Lokop to Pining follows the base of deepvalleys, with a 700m col, and the terrain is difficult because the valleys are narrow,increasingly so southwards. The 23 km sector from Pining to Gajah follows a very narrow3 valley floor, then widens into the rice plains at Gajah. The 18 km from Gajah (lOOOm altitude)to Blangkejeren climbs over a very steep 1800m col; this is the steepest segment of the route. Itis not known whether the villages along the route should be considered as 'isolated, vulnerable

| communities'. Parts of the route lie in Protection Forest. It is not known whether an ANDALstudy has been conducted, but the sector from Lokop to Blangkejeren may be causing majorenvironmental impacts, and it may prove very difficult to manage the mitigation measures that3 are required to control these.

P 15. Kr. Raya - Laweung - Gronggrong. Road P054. This is an alternative north coastroute to Pidie, and already exists (10 km asphalt, 50-60 kmn gravel). The terrain is undulating tomoderately steep, and the entire route is deforested, without forest status.

IK 101. Uleeglee - Samalanga. Pidie to Aceh Utara. These are existing asphalt links of 3.5 to6.0 m width, in agricultural terrain, and no project-specific environmental impacts arcpredicted in their upgrading provided that there is no widening.

* NS 101. Jantho - Lamno. Aceh Besar - Aceh Barat. The mountains lying west of Jantho andIndrapura reach 1500-2000m altitude, and therefore the alignment would need to run southfrom Jantho, initially through gentle terrain. From there, there is a very steep climb to 1250mcols in a 1400-1950m ridge, and a very steep descent to the Kr. Lambeuso/Inong valley, whichthe route would follow to Lamno. The route rises and falls from 500m to 1250m and back to500m altitude in 7 km (or 750m to 1250m to 750m in just 3.5 km). Slopes here would exceed

* 60%. Most of the route is forested, and the middle portion is Protection Forest. The routecannot be recommended, as there would be major environmental impacts. However, it isreported that 20 km have been constructed already, while 25 km are scheduled for 1997-99. Ifan ANDAL has not been carnred out, one is required urgently, paying particular attention tominimizing damage to the watersheds and forest resources.

l

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~71

NS/IK 102. Pondok Baru - Samar Kilang- Aceh Tengah - Aceh Timur. See Figure 8. Thiscould be a strategic route linking Takengon via Peunaron to Langsa. Pondok Baru to SamarKilang is kabupaten link 61, which has 25 km gravel (to approximately Tembolan), open yearround, and 56 km earth, closed to traffic (on the map, distances are ca.18 km and 18 kmrespectively). The new construction crosses land systems having >60% slopes, but a mapstudy shows that slopes are not excessive. From Tembolon (altitude 400m) the rout, climbs to Ia 500m col and then descends the Air Putih valley to Samar Kilang (lOOm). Much of theterrain probably still has a forest cover, and the route possibly skirts the northem boundary ofLingga-Isaq conservation area. The environmental impacts could be significant in all *Icomponents, but nevertheless this is considered one of the more viable cross-country proposals.Extension of this route to Peunaron, however, is difficult (see NS103). It is reported thatconstruction is ongoing, but it is not known whether an ANDAL study has been condu cted.

NS 103. Peunaron - Samar Kilang. See Figure 8. From Peunaron the first 24 km to the NWis through quite gentle terrain, which has probably now been developed. Any alignment due J

west from this point would be extremely steep, crossing a ridge that climbs to 1000m (locally2000m), and therefore the preferred option would be to continue NW for a further 12-15 kmnthrough fairly gentle terrain to Sarah Raja or Tanah Merah, on the Jamboaye river. (From here, Iit is only 12-15 km through to Cot Girek, see 1K 107). However, the only route from here toSamar Kilang would be over some 30 km of difficult terrain along the Jamboaye. Forest statusis Limited Production Forest. It is reported that the proposed route follows a former logging Iroad.

IK 103. Pante Breuh - Paya Naden. Aceh Utara to Aceh Timor. There are existing roads |(asphalt or gravel/telford of 3.5 to 5.0 m width) lying in irrigated riceland inland of themangroves, and no project-specific environmental impacts are predicted in their upgrading,provided that there is no widening. IIK 104. Aceh Timur - Langkat (North Sumatra). A number of altemative routes east of thenational highway might be considered, linking Kuala Simpang and Tangsilama in Aceh Timur Ito Langkat Tamiang in Langkat- They all cross agricultural terrain, and present conditionsrange from earth to asphalt roads, width 3.5 to 6.0 m. Options would be from Tangsilama orthe Pertamnina complex in Aceh south to Damar Condong (Langkat), through to Limaumungkur Iand Salahaji (Langkat), thence back to the national highway at either Langka Tamiang(Langkat) or Sungai Liput (Aceh). There would be no predicted environmental impacts in theirupgrading provided that there is no widening. 5NS/IK 105. Kedataran - Gelombang. Aceh Tenggara to Aceh Selatan. The route follows theAlas and Simpang Kiri valleys, along the eastern boundary of Gunung Leuser National Park. It |would therefore have very major impacts, and should be considered only in the context of themanagement plan for the park. There may already exist an earth track which is not motorable,and any development would be considered as new construction. Land systems are all steep,with slopes commonly exceeding 60%, but actual slopes will depend on whether or not the rivervalleys are incised. However, it has been reported that an ANDAL study has already beenmade, which recommended rejection of the route.

l72

lIK 107. Cot Girek - Peunaron. (Aceh Utara to Aceh Timur). See Figure 8. This route isdiscussed under NS 103. There would be some 50 km of new construction required, throughfairly gentle terrain that is believed to have good potential for agricultural settlement orintensification- The forest status is Limited Production Forest.

6.3. Environmental Screening of Proposed Roads: North Sumatra

P 21. Batang Toru - Batu Mondum - Tabuyung - Natal. Road P099-101. This is an on-going project that will form part of the west coast route through North Sumatra. From BatangToru to Batu Mondum, it follows the river of the latter name ( a former course of the BatangToru), and then for most of the rest of the route, it follows the beach zone, which is backed inmost places by deep water peat swamps- Although there are small settlements along the route(and large transmigration settlements in the Batang Toru and Natal areas), this has been up tonow one of the last remaining 'wild corners' of the province. It is considered to have majorecological significance as an example of the deep west coast wetlands. For example, it is likelyto be an important habitat for the White-winged Duck Cairina scutulata, but no surveys havebeen made yet. Danau Siais in the Batu Mondum valley could be particularly important.Although the route is depicted as a required main route in the structural plan (RUTRW, 1993),the coastal strip is delineated as a protection zone (kawasan lindung), and the hinterland,between agricultural areas at Batu Mondum and Natal, is allocated as permanent forest. Thusthe route is presumably planned for through traffic rather than to develop agricultural potential,and its justification is questioned. If an ANDAL has not yet been carried out, one is required,to focus on measures to conserve the wetland ecology.

P 21. Natal - Batahan - Pasaman/Natal - Sp Gambir - Pasaman. See Figure 7. There ispresumably an existing track along the coast between Natal and Batahan, although Batahanalso has separate access from inland. New construction along this section of the coast wouldhave minor impacts. If the west coast arterial route is to be developed, the preferred route toPasaman in West Sumatra might be to follow the Batahan valley inland from Batahan toSukorejo and Silaping, a distance of 38 km in total. The alignment may be able to utilize somelogging roads. This route may be preferable to the present interprovincial route which liesinland from Simpang Gambir (onl the Natal - Muara Soma road) to Taming and Silapuig (thisroad already exists, and is not merely planned as shown on Figure 7). The proposed new routeis believed to have relatively mninor environmental impacts, although full AMDAL studieswould be necessary. A more direct alternative than the Batahan - Silaping route would be tofollow a more southern alignment to Air Runding on the Silaping - Air Bangis road (see map),although this would require an additional 11 km of new construction: the saving in distancewould be about 23 km.

NSIIK 301. Gunungtua - Kotapinang. Tapanuli Selatan to Labuhan Batu. See IK329 andFigure 13.

IK 302. Kota Lama - Hamparan Perak (Karang Gading). Langkat to Deli Serdang. Thislink consists of existing roads through an intensively cultivated area of rice and villages, andimprovements may be justified. Kota Lama to Karang Gading would not be the appropnrate

73

route, however, because the kabupaten boundary at Karang Gading is an estuarine river. Abetter route would be from Kota Lama (or nearby) south to Kota Datar in Deli, and then southto Pacitan. This may require some 7 km of new construction along existing village tracks. AKL/ would be required if there is new construction or widening.

NS 302. Siabu - Sibuhuan. Tapanuli Selatan. The route cuts across a high mountain ridgewith >60% slopes, climbing from 200m to at least 1150-1250m altitude. A major section liesthrough montane forest, which has Protection Forest status and has been recornmended as agame reserve (SM Barumon). While the strategic importance of this route is recognized, thepotential for environmenial damage would be very high, and there is no obvious altemativealignment. It cannot be recommended.

NS/IK 303. Pakat - Parlilitan - Salak - Sukarame. Tapanuli Utara to Dairi. (See also IK320). This strategic link would present fbw environmental problems if the correct aligmnent isselected. However there seems to be little agricultural potential along the route, except perhapson the Dairi side. Pakat to Parlilitan is asphalt. From Parlilitan, K072 has 9A4 km of asphalt(3 .5m wide) and 11.6 km of telford (3 .Om wide, severely damaged), while the remaining 4.2 kmis an earth track. On the Dairi side, Sukarame to Ulu Merah consists of 13A4 km of asphaltroad.

There are two alternatives for the K072 route of 25.2 kn. The first option is to follow NNWup an occupied (and probably degraded) valley to Sitapung, Hutagalung (820m altitude) andSindostar, and then over Dolok Semponan, with a col at 150Om. This col has an extremelysteep southern slope but the northern slope is more gentle. Dolok Semponan has forest withProtection status. The second and preferred option is to NNE around the east side of a ridge,through Sitapung, Sosorkiling, Siduanbilik, Ambala and Sigumnpar. There are no steep slopeson this route, which rises gradually to 1 400m, but the terrain is acid heath forest, probably withlimited agricultural potential.

IK 304. Kutalimbaru - Namno Ukur.- Bekancan - Kutarayat. See Figure 9. Deli Serdang -Langkat - Karo. The IK 304 corridor is proposed as an altemative route from Medan andBinjai to Kabanjahe, to replace the Medan-Brestagi route which is occasionally closed bylandslides, and periodically busy owing to tourist traffic as well as the Kabanjahe agriculturaltraffic. It is already defined as a provincial road (P105).

Kutalirnbaru to Namo lJkur would not necessarily be the selected route from Medan toBekancan. There appears to be an earth road from Kutalimbaru to Berdikari, but fromBerdikari to the Langkat border may require new construction. The undulating terrain supportsestates and well-developed smaliholder tree crops, and a Kl. would be required on this sector inview of the compensation issues. Should the Bekancan - Kutarayat road be built as analtemative route to Kabanjahe, there may be justification for a direct new link fromKutalimbaru to Bekancan. The terrain is undulating to rolling, under intensive use, but therewould be no serious environmental issues other than compensation.

From -Namo Ukur south to Bekancan (kabupaten roads K041 and 039) and beyond to eitherPamah Semilir (K077) or Liang Lebah (K187), there are existing 4.0 or 3.5m roads, mostly

l74 I

asphalt. Widening would be required, however, and the land use is mostly rather intensive.From Bekancan southwards, there is an extremely steep climb from 850m to 1400m, within aI distance of about 3 km. From the distribution of contours, it would be recommended that a newalignment be planned due south from Bekancan that does not utilize the existing K077 orK187. The alignment is considered to be notably steeper than the Medan-Bekasi road. The

* watershed forms the Langkat-Karo border, and beyond this, the route could follow the contourthrough an undulating area and there would be no major environmental problems.

| - The RePPProT/INTAG maps indicate a forest cover over the unbuilt sector of the route, andConservation Forest on the Langkat side. Unfortunately the 1995 Landsat image available tothe project has cloud cover at the critical point, but it is reported that there has been widespread

*' conversion of forest on the Karo side. It is assumed that forest still remains on the steep slopeon the Langkat side, and that the Conservation Forest is actually an arm of Gunung Leusernational park. Thus there would be major environmental impacts, and full coordination with theongoing Gunung Leuser management plan is essential.

NS 304. Sibolga - Pahae Julu. Tapanuli Tengah to Tapanuli Utara. See IK 330-331 andFigure 10.

NS/IK 305. Ujung Batu - Kampar. Tapanuli Selatan (North Sumatra) to Kampar (Riau).I This appears to be an altemative route between the two provinces besides the main route(P024) via Dalu-Dalu. In Tapanuli Selatan, K034 is a 23.8 km asphalt road to Pinarik. Anyattempt to link Pinarik eastwards to Papaso (on K 141) is not recommended, as the Rokan KiriI river cuts deeply through precipitous strike ridges, although these are only 400m high. Thereseems no justification for such a difficult route. There would be good potential, however, toupgrade K141, which is 3.5m wide, of which 14 km is gravel and 17 km earth road. TheI condition of the link on the Kampar side, through to Pasir Pengarayan, is not known.

NS306. Padang Sidempuan - Aek Godang. This direct route is designed to reduce theI distance between the two tow^ns by 9.3 kmp.. The route crosses a hill ridge, rising steeply from300m to at least 650m. There is a forest cover with Protection Forest status The route isconsidered feasible, although difficult to justify and may cause unnecessary environmental

I damage.

IK 306. Sp. Deras - Bandar Khalifah. Asahan to Deli Serdang. This is an intensively settledcoastal area. The existing roads are asphalt or gravel, 4.04.5m wide, except for 6.9 km ofearth road (also 4.5m wide). It needs to be determined whether there is a bridge across the S.Pagurawan on the Asahan side. A KL would be required only if there is widening.

IK 307 - 309. Three routes from Sondi Raya in Simaltngung to the Tebing Tinggi region inDeli Serdang (respectively to Negeridolok - Sarang Ginting, Sindar Raya - Pondok Song, andSindar Raya - Sipispis). All lie in intensively used tmdulating terrain, and are already asphaltor in some cases gravel roads. Most are also associated with estate roads, and there seems to belittle justification for strengthening these links. KL studies would be required only if tiere iswidening.

1 75

IK 310 - 311. Tongkoh and Tigapanah - Gunung Meriah. See Figure 9. Karo to DeliSerdang. Existing roads on the Karo side are asphalt, 3.0 or 4.5m wide (from Tigapanan/Tigajumpa) or asphalt/gravel! telford, 3.Om wide (from Tongkoh), as far as Serdang (altitude1250m) near the kabupaten border. From here to Gunung Meriah (altitude 700m) in DeliSerdang there would be some 12 km of new construction over a very steep forested ridge at1500-1750m. Slopes are likely to exceed 60% and the forest has Protec ion Forest status. Onenvironmental grounds this link cannot be recommended. IK311 appears to be an existingkabupaten road to Serdang and is not further considered.

IK 312. Sinaman (Tigapanah) - Sp. Cingkes (Paribuan). See Figure 9. Karo to Simalungun.There are existing 3.0 or 3.5m wide links through an intensively used undulating to rollingarea. There are two options, through Sinaman/Talimbaru 11 or through Semangat/ Rumamis.Both options are suitable, or if a major corridor is proposed, it might bf more appropriate toconstruct 3 km of new road from Sinaman to Cingkes.

This route has potential to become an alternative for the KabanjahelBrestagi to Medan road,via Gunung Meriah and Tigajuhar, when necessary. There are 21.3 km of kabupaten roads(K036/K090) that would require upgrading between Gunung Meriah and Tigajuhar (width4.0m, mainly asphalt/ gravel/telford except for 2 krn of earth road).

IK 313. Laukidupen - Sarintonu- Karo to Dairi. On the Karo side, there are existing roads asfollows: Kutambelin - Juhar (K158, asphalt), Juhar - Sp Jandi (K048, telford), Kelabangen -Ketawaren (K047, telford), and Ketawaren - Laukidupen (K049, gravel). The terrain is notvery steep. On the Dairi side, K158 (Sp Tigalingga - Sukadame) and K075 (Sarintonu - BatasKaro) are earth tracks, but K060 from Sarintonu to Kedai Berek is asphalt. The probable routewould be from Laukidupen to Sambungan, Sarintonu and Kedai Berek. Laukidupen lies at800m altitude, and the route climbs to a 11 75m ridge before dropping to Sambungan at 600m.The ridge is very steep, but it is unclear whether it carries a forest cover, heath forest, orscrubland. There seems to be very little agricultural development potential, and littlejustification for the new construction.

IK 314 - 316. Three routes from Simalungwi to Asahan, respectively Pematang Tanah Jawa -Prapat Janji, Pematang Tanah Jawa via Pasar Baru, and Perdagangan via Pasar Baru. Allthree routes lie in intensively used undulating terrain. IK314 appears to be a complex of estateroads, and roads of variable quality through smallholder rubber, and there seems to be littlejustification for developing this link. Likewise IK315 and 316 appear to be existing roadsthrough rubber growing terrain.

IK 317 - 318. Two routes are proposed to Asahan (S. Kepayang/S. Sembilang) fromGuntingsaga (Aek Naetek and Aek Kanopan) in Labuhanbatu, but they effectively fonn asingle link. This is an intensively used area of swampy estuarine soils, mainly sawahs on theLabuhanbatu side and coconuts on the Asahan side. From Guntingsaga to Teluk Binjai, KO 17has 24.4 km of asphalt and 5.2 km of earth track. K037 from Teluk Binjai to Tg Leidang is40.2 km of earth track, while K038 is a further 6.8 km of earth track to the kabupaten border.

l

76

On the Asahan side, there are some 6 km of earth tracks (K057) This route would appear to beimportant in order to support the agricultural production of the area, but there would be a riverI crossing at Tg. Leidang. As there would be extensive new construction along existing earthroads in wet terrain, a KL1 would be required to determine any further ANDAL requirements.

IK 320. Pusuk - Sukarame. This is another route vi.t Parlilitan in Tapanuli Utara to Dairi SeeIK 303 for comments

IK 319. Parsoburan - Damuli.IK 321. Garoga - Simangambat - Kpg Pajak.IK 322. Garoga - Rianiate - Damuli. See Figure 12.I. ̂These are three proposed links from Tapanuli Utara to Labuhan Batu. Both IK 319 and 322would need to pass Gonting, and follow the same route to Damuli. Gonting lies at lOOOmaltitude, while Damuli is in the coastal lowlands, and it is very difficult to find a route down.I However, in view of the deforestation and severe environmental degradation that is believed tohave occurred in these steeplands through unimproved agricultural practices, road developmentis considered important in order to facilitate smallholder tree crop development. The corridorI also appears to have strategic importance, as a new route between the Toba plateau and theLabuhan Batu plains (including east coast ports).

There is an asphalt road from Porsea to Parsoburan and Gonting. From Gonting, K030 runseast to Janji and Sipogu (= Pangarambangan?). 18 km are asphalt/telford, while 6.5 km areearth track (requiring new construction). As Janji lies at 700m and Sipogu at only 300m, thisroute provides an easy means, possibly the only means, to drop gently from 1000m to 300maltitude. [An alternative might be K029 to Pagar Gunung, at 450m; this is 4.5 km asphalt and14.6 km earth track, but the onward route from the latter location to Damuli is less favoured].

From Sipogu, the route would follow the Kualo valley. The best alignment is likely to be tofollow the tributary A. Gonting, which lies west of the Kualo, and then finally either to cutacross low hills from the Kualo to Hasang or Damuli, or follow the Kualo down toGwutingsaga. These routes avoid further climbs to 500m in the hills east of the Kualo. The newconstruction would be 6.5 km to Sipogu, and then sorne 25 km from Sipogu to Hasang.

Although there has been extensive deforestation in the region, the middle section of the Kualovalley still appears to have a forest cover (Landsat, July 1994), and there are major risks that anew road along the valley would encourage further deforestation. Very strong managementmust be enforced to prevent this, and no plans to implement such a road should be permitteduntil such management can be guaranteed. Owing to inappropriate allocation of forest status,only a small section of the route actually crosses Protection Forest.

There is also potential to connect Garoga to the Parsoburan - Damuli corridor via Rianiate andGonting, although the IK326 option might be preferred for a Garoga - Labuhanbatu link, fromthe viewpoint of forest conservation (see below and Figure 13). K093 northwards from Garogahas 15.5 km of asphalt road, and then 13.9 km of earth track to Rianiate. There is an asphaltroad from Rianiate to Gonting (K176/028, 24.7 km). The asphalt road from Garoga to

77

Sibalanga and Gontingsalak climbs to 800-1000m altitude. The earth track either then climbsfrom Sibalanga to 1250m before dropping to Rianiate (1200m), or goes NW fromGontingsalak climbing to 1400m before dropping. The former route is preferred. However, inview of the fact that there is still a forest cover on the Sibalanga-Rianiate sector, this route isnot recommmended. 3Simangambat lies on a 1000m plateau, and would be easy to access from Rianiate-Gonting,but from Simangambat to Rambisan (and thence to Kampong Pajak in the Labuhanbatu plains)would require 18 km of new construction through very steep and difficult terrain. If routed Ihere, IK 321 would have very high environmental costs and little justification. However, aneasier alternative is considered below under IK326 (vii) below (see Figure 13).

IK 323 - 324. Sp. Sisomut - Panipahan - Sp. Tengki. Coastal route from Labuhan Batu (IK323) to Bengkalis in Riau (IK 324). There appear to be no physical or biological constraints todeveloping IK 323, which lies wholly in North Sumatra. This comprises the following Ikabupaten roads: 023, 087, 046, 106, 096, 095 and 097. The total distance is 93.4 km, ofwhich 23.2 km is either asphalt or telford, and the remainder is unmotorable earth road. Therecould be good justification for upgrading, which assumes new construction for 70.2 kin, and no Imajor negative impacts are predicted.

By contrast IK 324, in Riau, runs along a swampy coast that is barely settled. The link |numbers are 128-137, which include 60 km of maintained earth road, 15 km of asphalt, and 51kIm of unmotorable earth track. Inland there is forested Protection Forest (peat swamp), but thecoast is unclassified, and the forests appear to be much disturbed (recent Landsat data). IHowever, the mangrove swamps on the coast should preferably also have protection status.The coastal sector follows a zone of estuarine alluvium between the coastal mangroves and thepeat swamp forest inland. The area is ecologically sensitive, for example Sungai Daun might Ibe the only suspected breeding location in all SE Asia for the Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanusphilippensis (unfortunately not yet confirmed). There may be justification to give this entirecoastal zone protection forest status, and not to permit any development. Certainly the road Ishould be accorded low priority, although it is observed that the route would be in accordancewith the existing spatial plan.

A full ANDAL would be recommended to determine what the impacts on the physical andbiological environment would be. The total length of new construction of the interkabupatenlink would be approximately 120 km, all in more or less swampy terrain.

IK 325. Sorkam - Silangkitang. Tapanuli Tengah to Tapanuli Utara. This route follows theSibundung valley up from Sorkam, and then passes through a col at Hajoran on the kabupatenboundary, thus avoiding the steepest and deepest section of the valley. The route throughTapanuli Utara then returns to the main valley again, but there may be steep sections here.There is an existing road for at least part of the route, K06 from Sorkam has 16.2 km ofasphalt but then 8.4 km of either earth road, or non-existent. On the Tapanuli Utara side as faras Hajoran, KI 17 is 38 km, only 2.5m wide, earth road, and probably only a track. Thus theremay be some 46 km of new construction. This may be hard to justify, although the Sihaporasvalley near Hajoran may have some potential for agricultural development. The forest status isProtection Forest, although little forest is believed to remain.

78

lIK 326 - 328. Tapanuli Selatan to Tapanuli Utara.NS/IK 301 and IK 329. Tapanuli Selatan to Labuhanbatu. See Figure 13.IK 326-328 are three alternative routes from the Sipagimbar/Sipiongot region of TapanuliSelatan to the Pangaribuan/Garoga region of Tapanuli Utara, while IK 301 and 329 are linksfrom the same region into Labuhanbatu. Much of this hilly region has been deforested, and isbeing subject to environmental degradation due to unimproved agricultural systems and amoderately dense population. There may be good justification for improving the access into thisregion, in order to support agricultural development, poverty alleviation, and watershedmanagement. Some areas have Protection Forest status, but this has little relationship withactual existing forest cover Land systems vary, but 26-40% slopes are widespread, but thereare also very steep land systems locally. However, several of the proposed routes followvalleys. A regional review follows of potential links and their constraints.

The starting points for this review will be Sipagimbar and Sipiongot in Tapanuli Selatan (withavailable access from Sipirok and Gunungtua respectively), Pangaribuan and Garoga inTapanuli Utara (with access from Tarutung or Siborongborong via Sipahutar), andLanggapayung and Rantau Prapat in Labubanbatu.

i. Sipagimbar - Sibiobio - Sipiongot - Simundol - Hatiran (Rantau Prapat) (IK301)

K126 from Sipagimbar to Sibiobio has 11.4 km of asphalt or telford, and 18.2 km of earthroad (which would presumably require new construction). Sipagimbar lies at 900m, and theroute follows a rolling plateau at 1150m, but there is a series of very steep steps down toSibiobio at 400m. K140 from Sibiobio to Sipiongot is 20.2 km of mainly telford road. FromSipiongot to Simundol, K232 is 16 km of probably new construction, while Simundol toHatiran K139 is reported to be 23.6 km (3GOm wide) of telford road. Hatiran has links toLingga Tiga and thence to Rantau Prapat. Both Sipiongot and Simundol are at 1 00m altitude,but the link between them crosses steep rugged terrain, rising to 450m, of which 5 km may bevery steep. It is assumed that the body of the road already exists. Thus Sipiongot to Hatiranrequires 16 km of new construction, but Sipagimbar to Sipiongot would require a further 18.2km.

ii Sibiobio - Simundol (aK301)

There would be potential for a direct link between Sibiobio and Simundol, requiring some 8km of new construction, but the terrain is steep. It would link up with K232 (Sipiongot-Simundol) and thence to Hatiran.

3iii. Sipiongot - Hutagodang (Lang&apayung) (IK3 29)

There would be a very easy link along the A. Kanan valley from Sipiongot to Hutagodang.K026 and K041 from Hutagodang to Marsonja and Binangatolu have 7.4 km of asphalt and15.3 km of earth track. Bimangtolu lies on the kabupaten border and presumably close to theGunungtua-Sipiongot road. Thus the link requires some 15 km of new construction in gentleterrain. The alternative, K292 from Pijarkoling (Sipiongot) to Janjimanahan is notreconmmended, as being more rugged. Janjimanahan also lies on the kabupaten border, and maybenefit from a new link to Hutagodang (4 km).

1 79

iv. Pangaribuan - Parurean - Sipagimbar (IK328)

There is an existing route in Tapanuli Utara (K020, 3. Om wide) from Pangaribuan to Parurean, X

39.6 km in length, of which 18.0 km is asphalt, and 21.6 km is earth road. K137 is a shortasphalt/telford link in Tapanuli Selatan from Parurean to Sipagimbar. The route follows astrike valley, with numerous villages, and there would be good justification for upgrading, withno serious negative impacts predicted.

v. Pangaribuan - Parinsoran - Sibiobio (IK327) IIn Tapanuli Utara, K 155 from Parinsoran to Pangorian is 10 km, of which 1.5 km is asphalt,but the remainder is an earth track. From Pangorian to Sibiobio there is no named kabupatenlink, but the maps indicate a path through the villages of Simatorkis, Sibargot, Tolang,Sigolang, Tapus to Sibiobio. This would require some 40 km of new construction, of which 30km would be through rolling terrain and 10 km steep. The route as outlined above minimizes Ithe number of deep valley crossings. The area is a rolling plateau at 500-900 m altitude, in acidtuffs (Batuapung land system in RePPProT), and although mostly deforested, the population israther low, suggesting that the region has low fertility. The justification for building this Iproposed link would depend on determination of the agricultural potential of the region.

vi. Garoga - Pearaja - Sibiobio (lK326) 3Similar reservations apply to this proposed link, depending upon determination of agriculturalpotential. In Tapanuli Utara, K092 from Garoga to Pearaja is 12.8 km in length, of which 9.0 |kin consists of asphalt or telford, and the remaining 3.8 km is an earth track. From Pearaja toSibiobio would require some 23 km of new construction across a rolling plateau, the easiestroute being to link up with IK327 at Sigolang. Ivii. Garoga - Pearaja - (Rantau Prapat) (IK321).

An alternative route from Pearaja that requires further study would be a direct link down theBila valley towards Rantau Prapat. This would be a preferred route for the IK321 link whichwas considered above and rejected. The route would be across the rolling plateau from Pearaja |to Hutatonga, Hasahatan and Sipagobu, to the Bila valley, a distance of some 18 km. The routedown the Bila valley may present problems, however, the valley perhaps being too narrow andsteep, the distance is approximately 12 km. From this point, in Labuhanbatu the route would 3veer north through Pinarik or Tanjung Beringin (KIOI or 102) to Padanglaut on the AirKetiak, from where there is an asphalt road (K04) to Rantau Prapat. The total newconstruction would be some 40 km, and the middle section in the Bila valley is classified asProtection Forest, although much of the forest has been cleared.

IK 330. Sibolga - Sarulla. See Figure 10. Tapanuli Tengah to Tapanuli Tengah. IK 330 is ~ 1taken to be synonymous with NS 304. There is an existing road from Sibolga to Hutanabolon,from where an asphalt road continues for 8 km (KG17). From the end of this road to Sarullawould require new construction for 28 km through montane forest, with a very steep climb to>500m, and then through rolling montane terrain eventually climbing to ca 1000m, and

80

finally a very steep drop to 600m (Sarulla lies at 450m altitude). For some reason themountains are mostly not classified as Protection Forest. The route would be very difficult toI justify and there may be severe environmental damage.

If it is really desirous to link Sibolga with the Tarutung - Sipirok road, the only practicalI alternative would appear to be from Adian Koting, midway from Sibolga to Tarutung, to OnanHasang. The distance is 14 kn, and rises from 850m to 1100m before dropping to 700m. Thisroute would save some 50 km via Tarutung, but it will not alleviate problems on the narrow,3 winding Sibolga - Tarutung road, which are most severe below Adian Koting.

(IK 331). Sipeuggeng - Sipirok. See Figure 10 and 11. Tapanuli Tengah to TapanuliSelatanlUtara. Similar to IK 330, IK331 would likewise require 30 km of new constructionthrough simnilar terrain, rising from 100m to >900m elevation, and then dropping to Sarulla. Itcannot be justified. Other options from the Lumut - Batang Toru road to Sip ifrok are consideredhere.

One proposed route is Sipenggeng - Pasar Marancar - Bulumario - Sp Bulumario - Sipirok.K019 from Sipenggeng to Ps Marancar is a 14.5 km asphalt road. From Sp Bulumario to PsMarancar, K017 has 9.9 km of asphalt or telford, and then 8.9 km of earth track. However, the8.9 km of new construction around the NW slopes of Dolok Sibualbuali would require3 crossings of three 150m-deep valleys, in forested highlands with Protection status, and therecould be serious environmental damage.

| A better altemative is to construct a direct route from Ps Marancar to Kilangpapan, betweenDolok Sibualbuali and Dolok Lubukraya. From Ps Marancar, K079 runs east for 5 km (partasphalt, part telford) and then continues south towards Padang Sidempuan. From this tum, 4akm of new construction would connect to Labuhanrasoki, from which there is an existing track,apparently not a kabupaten road, for 5 km to Kilangpapan. Although this route also crossessome forested terrain with Protection status, slopes are not very steep.

Sipenggeng to Sipirok via Ps Marancar and Kilangpapan is a total distance of ca. 38.5 km.The same distance via Padang Sidempuan is 56 km. There may be some potential foragricultural intensification along the new section of road.

Sp Nagasaribu - Portibi. Near Gunungtua, Tapanuli Selatan, North Sumatra. There is anexisting 16 km link K29 (Sp Nagasaribu to Nagasaribu) said to be in good condition although

* mostly earth road. Nagasaribu to Portibi would appear to be new construction. The route lies inopen savanna cotutry (16-25% slopes) and no serious impacts are predicted.

6.4. Environmental Screening of Proposed Roads: West Sumatra

* Kambang - Muara Labuh. Road P073. Pesisir - Solok. The route crosses forested mountainswith slopes up to or exceeding 60%, and the northem arm of Kerinci-Seblat national park. Theroute requires substantial new construction in very steep forested terrain. An ANDAL has beencompleted (PT Akurat Supramindo Konsultant), and this is believed to have been approved in

* 81

February 1996, thus satisfying one of the requirements for obtaining pennission from theMinistry of Forestry, although it is not clear whether this has actually been processed.However, it would be recommended that no construction proceeds, or continues, until the IKerinci-Seblat park management project has commenced, and then only if the route isconsidered strategic in the context of the park's management plan. The ANDAL reportindicates that the alignment lies, from sea level, up a ridge west of the Batan Lengapayang Iriver, which would bring it to a maximum elevation of 1750m or higher (then descending toMuara Labuh at 500m). It is difficult to visualize how the negative impacts can be managedsuccessfully.

NS/IK 601. Angge - Pua Datar - Mangkirai. Agam to Limapuluh Kota. Most of the 33 kmroute appears to exist, and requires upgrading. However the terrain is very steep (perhaps>60%), although it is possible that a major section follows a river valley. Much of the routeappears to be forest, and a portion has Protection Forest status.

IK 602. Sp. Andilan - Muara Pungkut. Pasaman in West Sumatra to South Tapanuli inNorth Sunatra. On the Tapanuli side, K062 from Muara Pungkut is 24 kmn (3.0-3.5m wide,asphalt and telford) and serves a narrow valley to Hutagodang and Sp Banyak at I 100m. On Ithe Pasaman side, K025 from Sp Andilan to Sp Dingin is 12.5 km (3.5m, asphalt), and servesexisting villages and ricefields. Sp Dingin lies at 800m. There may be good justification toupgrade these existing roads, but to join them would require some 10 km of new construction Ialong montane valleys and across a watershed at 1400m altitude. The route is not excessivelysteep, but crosses montane forest with Protection status, and there would seem to be littlejustification. Certainly it would be difficult to justify on environmental grounds. IIK 603. Gelugur - Muara Sei Lolo. See Figure 14. Limapuluh Kota to Pasaman. The twolocations lie in the deep Kampar valley, connected by a 30 km earth track (K168). Gelugur on ithe Limapuluh Kota side is connected to Durian Tinggi by kabupaten roads KI 13 (gravel, 6.3km), and K69 (24 km, earth road, may be new construction). On the Pasaman side, K012 runsfrom Tingkarang (near Rao) to Muara Sei Lolo, of which 26.5 km is said to be asphalt or igravel, while 24.7 km is an earth track. The alignment is difficult to locate, but is believed tofollow initially the Ciranting (near Rao) - Muaratais road (KO 16). The probable route would beTarnbang - Ranahbatung - Rumahbatu - Sopan, which ascends to over 800m, with very steepslopes. There may be a northerly alternative via Pangean - Hululayang - Matundak -Batukambing. In view of the considerable distances of new construction through steep andsometimes very steep terrain, the corridor cannot be recommended. Although only part of the 3route is likely to be still forested, nearly all the route has Protection Forest status. However,upgrading of the road from Muara Paiti to Gelugur and Sungailolo may be feasible.

IK 604. Koto Tinggi - Bonjol. Limapuluhkota - Pasaman. There appears to be an existing Iroad through most of the route,, following a settled river valley through Koto Tinggi butlatterly crossing a steep mountain range (unless the route follows valleys); it also intersects 1Malampah Alahan Panjang nature reserve which appears to have been newly gazetted. Theremay also be some new construction, but there are uncertainties of precise location and foreststatus. 3

l

82

IK 605. Muara Paiti (Lubuk Alai) - Siberuang. See Figure 14. Limapuluh Kota to Kampar(Riau). This route would require some 10 km of new construction (Muara Paiti to Tabing),across a strike ridge which, although only 400m high, has very steep slopes. The route wouldalso require two major river bridges, across the Batang Kapur and the Kampar Kanan. Theridge no longer carries a forest cover. The route may be difficult to justify.

NS 605. Lingkar Maninjau. Agam. This apparently consists of upgrading of the existingkabupaten roads around the shores of the south side of the lake. The 28 km road, 3 .Sm wide, isreported to be asphalt but broken. A KL would be required if widening is proposed, especiallyin view of the impact of physical damage on the aesthetic (tourist) attraction.

NS 606. Kayu Tanam - Padang Panjang. Pariaman - Tanah Datar. This would be a newalignment to relieve congestion on the Padang - Bukit Tinggi nationa' road. Realignment orwidening along the existing main highway is difficult because of the constraints of steep slopesand deep valley sides, therefore a complete new route is proposed from Kayu Tanam overBukit Rangkang to Padang Pariaman via Kandangtasiar. It is assumed that the width will be atleast 12m, and the road will carry heavy traffic. A reconnaissance survey (undated) has alreadybeen carried out by the provincial Bina Marga. Kayu Tanam lies at 150m altitude, and PadangPanjang at 850m. The proposed route is over 21 km, including over 11 km of existing links(some of which will need realignment) and over 10 km of footpath which takes the road overlOOOm altitude on Bukit Rangkang. The westem slopes are very steep, and the forested hillshave Protection Forest status (it might also lie within Lembah Anci nature reserve). Clearly aroad with the geometric requirements of a primary artery would have major physical impacts insuch steep terrain.

IK 606. Bukit Limbuku (Payakumbuh) - Lipat Kain. This the first of two altemative routeslinking Payakumbuh to Lipat Kain in Kampar (Riau). Some 54 kmn appears to be newconstruction, with some of the route in very steep terrain (>60%). This is mainly forested onthe West Sumatra side but under scrub agriculture on the Riau side. The West Sumatra sidelies either in Protection Forest or in a nature reserve (Lembah Harau); the status on the Riauside is partly Protection Forest, partly Production Forest, although little forest remains. In viewof the major lengths of new construction through steep terrain, half of which is still underforest, the environmental damage could be very high. The status of the nature reserve needs tobe confirned.

IK 607. Labuh Gunung (Payakumbuh) - Lipat Kain. This, the second of two altemativesbetween Payakumbuh and Lipatkain, has very similar conditions. In view of the very steepterrain along the provincial border, neither can be recommended.

NS/IK 608. Pasar Baru - Alahan Panjang. Pesisir - Solok. There is an existing asphalt roadcovering the 24.2 km from Pasar Baru to Muara Air. Beyond this there is a gravel road for 5.1km, but the rest of the route is an unmotorable earth road (or non-existent). The newconstruction would be across a steep mountain ridge (41-60%). This appears on the RUTRWto be a northem extension of Gunung Kerinci national park. Regardless of forest status, newconstruction across this forested mountain ridge would have major physical and biologicalimpacts. This corridor should only be developed in the context of the Kerinci-Seblatmanagement plan.

l* 83

IK 609. Sp. Baso - Sp. Padang Tarap. Tanah Datar to Agam. The route crosses a narrow butsteep forested ridge, and there seems to be little justification.

NS[IK 610. Alahan Panjang - Pulau Punjung (Kiliranjo). Two routes (IK 610 and 620)have been proposed across the wide, forested, mountainous area between Alahan Panjang(Solok) and the Trans-Sumatra Highway (Corridor N3) in Sawahlunto. For both routes, theremay be strong justification to upgrade the earth roads that serve a network of villages,especially on the Solok side, but the environmental costs of constructing links across thekabupaten boundary would be very high.The mountains are steep (41->60%) and under aforest cover, although there may be opportunities to make maximum use of valleys. Foreststatus in the mountains is Protection Forest on the Solok side, but Production Forest on theSawahlunto side. The routes follow the same earth road to Batu Bajanjang, where they split - 3(IK 610 to Garabak, and across to Silago and Pulau Punjung, and IK 620 to Lubuk Tarab andN3 at Tanah Badantung). For IK 610, there would be some 80 km of new construction (eitherexisting unmotorable earth tracks or footpaths) on the Solok side, but there are 45 km of |mainly gravel road along the valley through Silago to Pulau Punjung. The maximum altitudeon this route is believed to be about 900m, through a col, and this is believed to be the morefavourable route. However, new construction across these mountains would have major Iphysical and biological impacts. If a corridor from Alahan Panjang to Kiliranjo has highpriority, then it would be recommended that only one of the routes is developed (although, asstated above, there could be good justification for developing the kabupaten links, in order to |intensify the agriculture of the region and avoid further degradation). Ideally, air photos wouldbe required to plan the alignment.

NS/IK 61 1. Talao - TKA. Solok to Bungo Tebo (Jambi). This link would apparently serve aprivate estate on the West Sumatra - Jambi borders. No obvious negative impacts arepredicted. The precise location is not clear.

IK 612. Kumanis - Panmusian. Sawahlunto to Tanah Datar. On the Sawahlunto side, there areexisting gravel roads, and some short sections of asphalt, but the final 12 km from Sumpur toUnggan have an earth road of 3.5 m width. The route through Tanah Datar from Unggan toPamutsian is also an earth road, and may be unmotorable. Thus up to 23 km of track may beclassified as new construction. Sumpur to Unggan lie in a flat-floored valley with sawahs, butthe route from Kumanis to Sumpur, and from Unggan to Pamusian, lie in steep terrain (41->60%1/o), which is mainly forested and under Protection Forest status. There may be goodjustification to upgrade the kabupaten links to Sumpur and Unggan, but the justification for theUnggan - Pamusian sector is questioned, in view of the steep forested terrain and forest status.

IK 613. Kumanis - Tigo Jangko. Sawahlunto to Tanah Datar. This seems to be an alternativeroute along the Sijunjung - Payakumbuh road. The 10 km links are either asphakt or telford, I3.5-4.5 m wide, in rolling (16-25%) agricultural terrain with rubber estates, and no significantnegative impacts are predicted from upgrading. 1

*I

84

IK 614. Lubuk Basung - Sei Garingging. Agam to Padang Pariaman. This is an existing road(3.0-4.Om wide) through intensively cultivated terrain on mid-slopes (9-40%) of volcanicorigin. There would be no environmental restraints to upgrading provided that no widening isrequired.

|1 IK 615. Malalak (Again) - Padang Pariaman (Koto Mambang or Ulubandar). There aretwo options, both of existing kabupaten roads- The first optioni is K236 from Malalak toUlubandar (asphalt and gravel, 14.8 km, 3.5m wide), and then K064 which leads to Pariaman.I. The second option is K106 (16.6 km, 3.0-3.5m, asphalt and gravel) to Paladangan, and thenK091 (10.2 km, 4.Om wide, asphalt) to Kotomambang. The first option crosses less steepterrain and is preferred. As the region is presently rather isolated, and may be subject to majortraffic increases, a KL is recommended, and would be essential if there is widening.

IK 617 - 618. Solok - Batusangkar (Tanah Datar). Two routes are listed north from Solok,IK 617 emerging west of Batusangkar and IK 618 to the east. They are both mainly existingasphalt roads (3.5-4.5 m wide) through agricultural terrain that is quite steep (generally 41-60%). There could be significant negative impacts in widening (possibly on IK 617), or newU construction (1K 618 has 7.5 km of unmotorable earth road on links 2 and 233, plus a shortsegment of Telford road), in view of the terrain, although it should be feasible to handle thesethrough standard UKL/UPL.

IK 619. Solok - Sumpur (Tanah Datar). This is an existing asphalt road (3.5-4.0 m wide)along the west shore of Danau Singkarak. If widening is required, there could be serious

J damage to the tourist environment in view of the steep terrain and consequent need for cut-and-fill.

3 IK 620. Alahan Panjang - Tanah Badantung (Tg Gadang, Kiliranjo). (See IK 610). Thesame comments apply as for IK 610. On the Sawahlunto side there are some 12 km of existingashalt road, but most of the 50 km on the Solok side are unmotorable earth tracks or paths. The

i route from Batu Bajanjang to Sumiso and Tubuk Taroh rises to perhaps well over I 000m, andthis is the less favoured of the two routes.

3 IK 621. Teluk Air Putih - Abaisiat. Solok - Sawvahlunto. The alignment of this route is notclear, and data sources cannot be reconciled. There is a nctwork of kabupaten/ transmnigrationroads on the Sitiung plains on the Sawahlunto side. On the Solok side the route apparently lies

| in forest, but this requires checking. Slopes are in the range 16-25%. Further checking of thealignment is required before AMDAL requirements can be determined.

IK 622. Hilalang Panjang - Sontang. Pesisir - Kerinci (Jambi). There is an existing road forthe 11.4 km to Kampung Dalam, partly asphalt and partly gravel, but the remainder of theroute to Sontang and into Jambi province is non-existent (possibly up to 50 km). The route3 4 crosses a high and very steep mountain ridge, most of which is forested, and a large section liesthrough the Kerinci-Seblat national park. This route would have very severe physical andbiological impacts, and cannot be recommended on environmental grounds, unless required in3 the context of the Kerinci-Seblat management plan.

I1 85

IK 623. Lubuk Minturun - Paninggahan. Kodya Padang - Solok. Paninggahan lies on theshores of Danau Singkarak. This is an existing road across the forested mountains (41-60%slopes), of which 20 km have status of nature reserve (Lembab Anai) and Protection Forest. AKajian Lingkinan has already been carried out and approved, and apparently the impacts ofupgrading the existing road are considered sufficiently minor to be handled by UKI.'UPL,despite the mountain forests and restricted forest status.

IK 624. S. Tarab - Payakumbuh. Tanah Datar to Limapuluh Kota. This is an existing 11.4km asphalt road. It crosses some steep terrain which appears to still have a forest cover.

IK 625. Ujungbatu - Rokan - Muaratais - Rao. See Figure 14. (Kampar in Riau to Pasamanin West Sumatra). This newly identified alignment could become a major new corrido- fromDumai to Duri, Tandun, Ujungbatu, Rokan, Rao and Bukit Tinggi. It appears to be th- onlyfeasible route across the strike ridges between the Ujungbatu region and West Sumatra. Thereare existing kabupaten roads from Ujungbatu to Rokan (KO18 - 29 km, 4.Om wide, gravel), Iand Rokan to Tandikat (K048 - 27 kin, 4.Om wide, gravel). The latter sector is the mostdifficult of the entire route, because the Rokan valley is deep and steep, and the road mustclimb to a 400/500m ridge, before dropping down to the Tandikat valley. On the Pasaman side, IK016 is under construction from Ciranting to Muaratais (the section already built, along theSumpur valley, was monitored by the CTC Environmental Team in 1995). It is proposed toconstruct a new link from the Rokan-Tandikat road down to Lubukingo, which lies 6 km north Iof Tandikat. From there, some 25 km of new construction would be required along theTibawan valley to Muaratais. The terrain is not notably steep, and the existing land use islikely to be smallholder rubber. This major new corridor provides not only through access, but Ialso supports considerable potential for agricultural intensification in the strike valleys alongthe West Sumatra - Riau border. A link from Rokan to Tandikat and Gelugur would also befeasible.

Duku - Ketaping - Pariaman. Pariaman. This rerouting for the Padang - Paniaman road ismainly designed to serve the planned new airport at Ketaping. It will involve widening of Iexisting kabupaten roads through cultivated alluvial terrain (coconuts and rice), as well as newconstruction. It is reported that a KL has already been completed, and presumably a fullANDA L will be required. IBukit Tinggi by-pass. Major social impacts are predicted due to the intensity of land use. It isreported that a KL has already been completed.

6.5. Environmental Screening of Proposed Roads: Riau 3P 43. Tembilahan - Enok - Batas Jambi. Road P045. This route consists of existingkabupaten links, crossing rather intensively occupied terrain, mainly under coconuts, onestuarine soils. Environmental impacts are predicted to be not significant.

*I

8C 1

lP 44. Sp Beringin - Buatan - Siak Sri Indrapura - Mengkapan. Roads P024/033/035.Mostly this route consists of existing roads, perhaps mainly earth roads (including Caltexroads). Indirect impacts may therefore have already occurred, for example hunting andtrapping in the peat swamp forests of the lower Siak region, and further impacts fromupgrading may not be significant.

NS 901. Dumai - Lubuk Gaung. This 10 km link along the coast west from Dumai ispresumed to exist already.

NS 903. S. Akor - Bagan Jaya. Indragiri Hilir. This is a proposed link (P054) from the N6Pekanbaru - Jambi highway towards the Kuala Enok developments. The route would be newconstruction across shallow to moderately deep peat, which was formerly under forest. TheJune 1996 Landsat imagery shows that a road of some form already exists for at least part ofthe length, and the forest has been cleared along this road, while the latter sectors of the routeare under swamp agriculture. For the present time, it is assumed that this is entirely newconstruction, but AMDAL requirements cannot be determined without further information onthe site conditions.

Dalu-Dalu - Sp. Manggala. Bengkalis (Riau). The route (PO47), at least 75 km in length,mostly lies in somewhat swampy and peaty terrain, but not deep peat. There are transmigrantsettlements in the initial sections; the remainder was formerly logged forest but recent satelliteimagery shows that most of the area has now been cleared or is undergoing clearance. Thereare extensive oil palm estates in the region. Enviromnental impacts are predicted to be minor,but initial surveys are required if there is new construction.

Tembilahan - Teluk Pinang - S. Gunting. Indragiri Hilir (Riau). Kabupaten roads exist as faras Teluk Pinang. From there to S. Gunting, there would be rnew construction. Depending on theroute taken, there could be up to nine crossings of tidal rivers/estuaries, or else the route will befurther inland in which case it would cross forested deep peat swamps. In either case, there aresome 20-25 km of deep peat swamp forest before reaching S. Gunting. However it is possible,that the region has now been cleared. or is undergoing clearance, for a peat swampdevelopment project (see Section 1.5 ofthis volurme), and Bina Marga would not be the properauthority responsible for carrying out the AAMDAL studies for roads that would be only onecomponent of the p-ioject.

lI

l

3 87

- m m - - - - m

Table 6.1. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Network Extension Projects

_____ ~~~~~~~~~~~~EXISTING ROAD NEW CONSTRUCTION

______ ____________________ _ -7 1 5TLAND USE __(K LANDFOR (Km) LAND USE (Km) STATUS (Km) __-

H-W (c

CORRIDOR LINK NAME M I -2 1 m z O u A5 TL

2 z 1 z -~~~~~~~~~~~ H- ~~~~0 See Table

P12 JaDnthoeuma empn 80?0 7o 4 0l 5 1 0 0ai __ _ 0 0 7 G w md N

H- z .2 e~~~~~~~~ CO -j H-~~~~~~~~ ~~e;

P14____ _______ ______?90_33 _ 1 30 7505 10 30==1 0 30 25 0 1x low med N3

P14 Trangon-Babahrot = ~~~~~~57 60< 20 5 30 1 _ = = = UJ 10 40 02 0 3=b me _ N5_3Ns0K02<u'XASn36718__ i3 X__ _ 1 2102 3__ _____ -5 ? 20 67 x med med NaP14 __ PeureLJlak-Lokop 780 ?80 740~cj ui 740 - >_ ____

__ - - - low med N3~~~~:D~ l- a U)w

K1D4 : B-angkeea 50 30 t--_ .___ . ~ ___5 <X __I_ 25 20b low md N2Sheet 1_____ Kr. Raye-Gronggong 60 60 40 20 7 ____ow med cL

1K104 Lengketamiang-Tangsilema 30 - 30 30 low low Ni~~F- 0 0 u

K107 Peunth eurnaCtGr 50 ___ 0 __ 50 730-- 730 7 -~ hi h med N

Sheet 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 7 o e N

Table 6.1. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Network Extension Projects

EXISTING ROAD NEW CONSTRUCTION________________________ ~~~~~LAND USE (Km4 -LANDFORM (Kin) LAND ES(Km) STATUS(Km)

H eLi Ui NDA

0 Q CD

CORRIDOR LINK NAME Z0LU z a-ANA

-J U. . z Z i H See Table

z w U Z Li Li )- L

-JLu to 2w 0 -J ~~~ > H H tO 0

Li w C>- w ( ZJW O O--J - oz 0 H

-~ C z ~ -J -J H -U, X 0 0 2 flc

P21 5~~~S Gambir-Silaping 40< 40 400 mo ma N

P21 _ Natal-Batahan-SilapIng 58 19T 1-9 39 81 15 18 5,20 19 ?h~jmed N4

P21 Batang Toru-Natal 125 451 457 8 A0- 20 80 5 30- 25 50 30 7 low med N5

NS/1K301 Sipagimbar-Hatiran 79 45 ___25 20 401 34 15 8 1 1 34 34 med med N5

NS302 Siabu-Sibuhuan 20 20 15 - - - 218 - 34 1 2 low- low- N3

IK(302 Kotalama-Pacltan __ 22 715 - 77 3 4 _ 7 7- low med Ni

NS/IK303/320 _ParIiIltan-Salak __32 12 6 s 8 _ 0 5 1i T10 1 5 15 x imed med N

IK304 Kutalimbaru-Namu Ukur 715 710 10 75 ___5-5 5 low med NI

(I K304) Bekanoan-Kotabaru __17. 6 6 __ 11 -4447525 low low N3

NS304/IK<330 Hutanobolan-Sarulla __ 36 8 -8 -28 1f4 1 4 -4 24T- -10 1-8 l-71ow l~ow N4Adiakotng-nenhssn 1_ 1 4 4 10 14 1 4 Ilow lIow N3

NS30d5ao_ig9Oa32en32 ~ -- 7 1 7 - 5 12 ___ low Imed N2

NS306 P. Sidem puan-Aek Godang 20 8 4 4 1 2 _ 5 7 4 8 1 2 low low N3

11(310 Sra Gnn Meriah 12 12 12 2 10 10 2 low low N21(312 ~~Ti apanahi-Paribuan 15 15 15 73 ___ __33__lw med Ni

Ti aua-Gunung Meriah 21 21, 21 _____lw_low N2

1Z3_13 Luiue-Srnou3 20 20 10 5 5 - 07 3 - low low N3IK317/318 Guntingsaga-Teluk qhnjai?83 36 - 6_____ 47 4 77 4 _ o ih N

IK319 Gonting-Damuli ____ 54 20 2_34 5___5 __62 4 lw md

1(321 Garoga-Rau Prapa - 50 10 10 40 10 20 1 -5- 30 5 - 20 15 5 x med med N5

11K322 Garoga-Gonting 54 4 40 14 14 -- __14 -- 14 _4_ lo-w m ed N3

1K323-324 Sp. Sisomut-Bengkalis 22 9 49 5 21 -70 51 60 61 - - 70 51 7 low med N5

1(325 Sorkam-Rurajluf 62 16 16 46 20 10 16 31 15 - 20 ___x med med N4

IK-326 ~ Garoga-Sipiongwt 56 29 29 ___27 _ _ 27 -27 6 6__ lw md N

11(327 jPangaribuan-Sipiongot 72 22 22 ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~50 10 40 50 __ 2 20 1 0 low med _ N4

11K328 jPangaribuan - Sipagimbar 42 421 42 20 -- - -low medu Ni-1K329 S__ ipiongot-Hutagodang 1s 7 7 12 ___ 12, 12 2 10 med_ med N2

1K331 SpMuara-Bonanidolok -40 10 5 5 30 10 20 51 151 10 20 low low N4

____________Sipenggeng-Sipirok 29. 20-- 2 01-9 ___ 4 5 T_ OW med Ni___________'Sp, Nagasaribu-Portibi _261 16__ 161 10__ 101 10 lo~w- -low ~ NI

Shoet 2

Table 6.1. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Network Extension Projects

__________________ ~~~EXISTING ROAID NEW CONSTRUCTION

_________ ____________________ ~~~~~LAND USE (Km) -- - - LANDFORM (Kmn) __ LAND USE (Kn) STATUS (Km)

CORRIDCR LINK NAME _ U

_______ _ _ __ __ 12 __~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c _ _ SDee al

11(602 _ Sp~~~~AndiIan-M. Pungkut 45 37 37 6~~0 a 8 N3

1K604 Koto TInggi-BonjoI 12 ~~~~~~~~~12 7 5 ? d low med 3NS605 Lingkar ManInjau 26 _~~~ ~ ~ 28 28 low low N2

NS606 Kayu Tanam-P. Panlang 22~~~L 12 -A 8 4 10 100 7 W lwN

1K607 - LabuhGunung-(LipatKain) 50 5 - 5 45~~~~~~~~~~( 20 10 1 25 20 715 71 0- lw lw NNS/1K608____ Pasar 9aru-Alahan Panjang 45 30 3 0 1 5 5 736994 2 low low N4 2 w c

1K609 Sp. aso-Sp. Paang Tarapw -w 3 : lw lw N

11(610 __ A.Karnjang-Muara Lauh g 254 145 454 27___ 1 10 2502 40 2 0 - 11 2 lw e N5

IK602 Ku,Andils-MPa ungkan 65 36 30 8 ?2 1 - lome imed I N3

0(61 2u6kT ugS eingn 3 13__ 1 ow MO" N

11(15__ K__ Malla-S. unn i 2 21 21 ow7 med NI

Migare-Kt Manin bau g2 7__ 2 low low Ni

-1K615 SMuk-ara San 1a2 18 1611 low ltow NI

NS6061 - SlK-ayu TangmPkPa 2 19 o T 10 10 _____ low Ilow N211(S609Sla-u5u 26 26 28 - lw lwN

11(620 A. Panlang-BedantLrng ~~~62 12 _ 12 ___ 50 22 8 10104 26 24 ?12- ?10 8 xlw md N1IK6206__ St._T mbukAruti-bLsipat Kain 1- ____5_ 3 ? low lo 71K6227 HllabuGnuPngn LpatKain) 6 11 -1 _ __?50 5-20t 15 1 5 20 30 305 30___ ___ low low N5

NS/ K682 Pabak MiaruAlhn Panlngaang 330315 1 15 5 low low N2

1K 624- Sp. Basob-S.Padangbu _ Tarap ii 5_ 2low low Ni

1K 62 Rok an-irantigPua Puna n 122 73 53 2 17 4 s 2524 20_ -40 2 241 _ 525 x I led med N5

NS9O13_u_ _ K bu ~ ng10 I 5low low Ni1

N59-017 So Ako-Batu angkara 50 158 is I5 2 5 5 - - 35 1 low med N4I

Sheet 3Ik-auagkr ~ -1 -0 0 - o lw -N

Table 6.2. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects

LINK DATA LAND USE (km) FOREST (kin) LANDFORM (kmn) - ANDAL

o za ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 z oaANDAL

LINKNAME 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0a > > 0 c~CODEa ~~~~~~~~LN NAME 83C) ZuD z See Table

~~~~ w~~~~L o z 0: -' 0 ui 0~ uio a ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~U F -j :D a. 2- 1 a o > u0 a .i

Ni 1, 1 BAN DA ACE H -KM 77 34 0,0 63,6 120 I 4 4 - - -- -4 C2N I 1,1 BANDA ACEH -KM.77 69,3, 3,6 42,0 38,4 5,1 WIO 2 3 1 2 1 5 8 _38_ C3N I 1,1 BANDA ACEH -KM.77 -69,3 42,0 77,01 35,0 5,1_I __ 3 5 3 20 1 817 03Ni_ 1,2 KM.77 -SIGLf _ 33,1 77,0 _I112,0 35,0 -5,3 Wio 2 4 1 1 20 ____15 1 19 16 02Ni 2_,0 SIG_LI - BEUREUN4UN-- 11,3~ 112,0 124,0 12,0 6,0 W9 1 2 55 ___ 11 I C2Ni 3,1 BEUREUNUN - BTS CABOIN ACEH UTARA 45,7~ 155,0 173,0 18,0 5,0 _____ 3 19 24 ___ 46 C3Ni 3,1 BEUREUNUN -BTS CABDIN ACEH UTARA 45,7F 124,0 155,0 31,0 6,0 Wll 3 4 __ 24, 3 31 03Ni 3,2 BTS CABDIN PIDIE - BIREUEN 42022 -I 21-,0 o -1,0 5,0 __ 3 1 1 4 1 6 02Ni1 3,2 BTS CABDIN PIDIE - BIREUEN 42,0 173,0 202,0 29,_0 5,0 WIO 2 _ 5 14 -10- ___ -29 03Ni -4,_0 B~IREUEN -LHOK SUMAWE 52,3 218,0 274,0 56,0 8,3_ 6 17 21 6 -53 3 03Ni 5,1 LHOKSUMAWE -SIMPANG (KMV328) _ _51,8 319,0 328,0 9,0 7 - - 2 7 - 9 -C2Nl 5,1 LH-OKSUMAWE-SIMPAN.G(KM 32.8) 5_~1,8 _274,0 319,0 45,0 7,0 18 i --2 _ 43 2 02NI _5_,2 SIM_PANG (KM 328) - PEUREULAK (KM 392) 61,4 328,0 392,0 64,0 7,0 W8 1 2 20 34 8 - 6 2Ni 5,3 PEUREULAK (KM 392) -LANGSA - 46,01 392,0 440,0 48,0 -7,0 _W8 1 2 30 16 T _48 02Ni 6,0 LANGSA -BTS.SUMUT 49,5 440,0 491,6 51,6 6,9 WV9 1 32 20- _ 52 02

NI 1,0 SIMPANG -BTS. ACEH 26,2 91,0 117,8 26,8 6,0 W8 I1 _ 14 1 4 ____28 02Ni 2,0 TJ. PURA-SIMPANG 29,8 61,0 91,0 30.0 6.0 WV2 4 2 14 14 __30 03Ni 3,0 BINJAI -TANJUNGPURA 3_1_,6 -0,0 0,0 31,6 7,0 __2 15 15 ___ 32 03 Ni 3,0 KT. POS BINJAI -WK. KT. MADYA 7,2 29,2 29_2 7_2 7_7 Wl_ 2_-- 7 02Ni1 4,0 MEDAN - BINJAI 15,.3 -8,7 16,6 7,9 18,0 W4_ 5 ~4 4 - _ ~ 8 0 3NI 4,0 Jf.r.Ojuanda (Medan) _______ 2,1 16,6 220 54 18,0 5____Nl 4,0 JI.DR.Mansyur (Medan) 1,2 2,2 8,71 6,5 18,0 ____ 7 7___I Ni 4,0 Ji.Setia Budi (Medan) _______L3,4 0,0 0,0 3,4 18,0 ___ 3 ____3 1 04NI 4,0 JIJ.end.Gatot Subroto(Medan) 2,0 0,0 0,0 2,0) 0,0 _ 22 NI AI4Ll JI.BinjaiRaya (Medan) 25, 006T a 25 - 3L ~-

Sheet I

Table 6.2. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects

___ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~LINK DATA LAND USE (kin) - FOREST (kin) -LANDFORM (kin) ANDAL

Lii 0 C) . ANDAL

LINKNAME In 0 I- Z- 2 Z CO ', -J D z See Table

CD a r < - >; < w i I 5.4z 0 z lo 02 Li 0 z mw tr w o 0 ui 0 'r w Q W

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~-J LL _I .J _. _: z, 0.L L it 0.0 > C' Om ii- ,

P1 2-9-,1 SEULIM UM-JANTHO-BTS.PI DI E 30,0 41,1 3, 11,9 5,8 new'?

p-12 -2,1- S~EULiMUIM-JANTHO-STS.PIDIE 30,0 53,0 71,1 18,1 3,0

P12 29,2 BTS.A.8ESAR-KEUMALA 25,0 -87,7 1-12~,7 25-,0 3,0 ___14_13

P12 9,2 EMALA -GEUMPANG 60,4 178.0 210,0 32,0 5,0 ___ _ 4 1 32 C2

P1I2 9, KMALA -GEUMPANG 60,4 146,0 178,0 32,0 4,0 Wll 3 1 18 10 3 3 __ _ 32 0

P12 55,01GENTING GERBANG-PAMEU 48,0 342,2 352,0 9,8 4,0 ________ new?

P12 55,0 GENTING GERBANG-PAMEU 48.0 -352.06 36-5,0 13,0 3,0 ___ 13 131 13,

P12 55,0 (ENTINGGERSANG-PAMEU 48,01 365,0 379,0 14,0 3,0 __1 4 14 __ 1 4

P12 55,0 GENTINGGERBANG-PAMEU 48,0 379,0 390,2 11,2 4,0 - 1 1 ___

P1 2 1.9,1 TAKENGON -UWAK (KM 379) 52.6 319.0 379,0 60,0 -4,7 W-i7- -3 -1 9 0 1 04 2 _C2

P1 2 19,2 UWAK (KM 379)-BTS ACEH TENGGARA (K. 316390415,0 36,0 5,0 Wil 3 __ 10 21 5 5 - -- 25 17j

P~12 19,3 8TS ACEH TENGAH -BLANGKEJEREN 53,5415-,0 -4-76,0 -61,0 5,1 Wil1 3 - 2 14 20 25 10 15 - 45 1 6 ____ 2

P121-4-,1 BLANGKAJEREN - LAWEUANAN 64,1 -476,3 - 516,01 39.7 3.0 W7 3 4 36 36 36 4 0C2

P12 14,1 8LANGKAJEREN -LAWEUANAN 64,1 516,0 5_43,0 27,0 4,7__ _ 27 27 27 C___ 2

P12 14,2 LAWEUNAN - KOTACANE __ 39,5 543,0 582,6 39,6 4,9 W7 -3 20 4 16 16 40 02

P12 16,0 KUTACANE-BTS.SUMUT 31,3 582,6 615,0 32.4 5.0 WII1 3_ 1 31- 2 -29' 03

P1-234-,0 K.B-ULUH-LAWE PAKAM 40,3 171,0 179,0 8,0 4,0 x x __ x x I___

P12 34,0 K.BULUH-LAWEPAKAM 40,3 166,0 171,0 5,0 4,0 x x x

P1 40K.6SULU -LAWE PAKAM 40,3 151,0 166,0 15.0 4.0 ______ x x 10

P12 34,OK.-B-ULUH-LAWEPAKAM ____ 40,3 14-1,01 151, 0 1_I0-,0 3,5____x x ____

P12 340 KBULUH-LAWE PAKAM 40-,3 -136, 3 141,0 4,7 4,0 W7 3 x xx -

P12 36, SIDIKLANG-K.BULUH ______ 52.4 154,5 210,0 56.5 4,0 W7 3 3 3_ 50 43_4 7_____

P12 37,0 PANJI - SIDfKALANG __64_WI 9,3 144,6 15,. 9,9 6,IWO 2 7 ___

P12~ 68,1 DOLOK SANGGUL-BTS. DAIRI -46,8 120,4 169,9 -49-,5 0WIl 3 146 22 47 3 02___________________________________ _____ 5~~~~~~~~~~~0 3 -~~~ -- 2 4 4

P126, PANJI-BTS. TAP. UTR. 1I 26.4 144,6 172,6 28.0,0 _ x _____

pm7oSIBORONGBORONG - D. SANGGUL 26,2 105,0 114,0 9,0 5,0 x x x xc

P1 90SIBORONGBORONG - D. SANGGUL - - 26,2 -114,0 -12-0,0 -6-,0 6,0 xxP12 99,0 BATANG_TORU -_RIANIATE -BATU MUNDOM 62,0 0,0 0,0 62.0 3,0 Wil 3 x x __ ____ __x_ ____

P1~269,0O SIBORONGBORONG -D. SANGGUL 26-,2 92150 18 5 WIl 3 x x _____ ___

Sheet 2

Table 6.2. EnvIronmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects

LINK DATA LAND USE (kmn) __FOREST (km) __ LAN DFORM (kin) ANDAL

o Coo co

I ~~~~~~~WO w LU a a' ANDAL

LINK NAME cm > > u-0 r z CD

z 0 z 0 oD ir UJ 'C j. c Z w Z o > co a-See Table

o~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LU u 0 Cl) rr 0 Ji w P 5 uo -J IL a.-j w IL I 0- 0 0 > o ix IL

P1 11BIREUEN-BTS ACEHT-ENGAH 30,7 2 18,1 253,0 34-,9 -5,7 WiI1 1 33 1 0 2 19 -- ~CP 13 11,2 BTS ACEH UTARA -TAKENGON 669 5 ,0 31, ~ 5,0 WIl 3 1 8 113 6 28 45 21 C

P13 49,0 TAKENGON-CEULALA-BfTS.A.BARAT/ACEH BES 68,01 319,0 340,0 21,0 4,2 __ 2 3 88 8 8 -2 1 2_

P13 49,0 TAKENGON-CEULALA-BTS.A.BARATIACEH- BES 68,07 340,0 38-7,0 -47,0 3~,0O 1 4 37 -5 -5 _____43 4 kC2

P~13 22,0 JE URAM-L H-OKSUGM-AT -BTS. ACEH TENGAH 60,2 300,0 315,0 15,0 5,0 WIO 26 9 -5 C2

P-13 24N,0 SP.PEUT -JEURAM 12,5' 86,8 300,0 13,2 5.0 -W710 -2 7 6 13____C2

P151 37,0 Sp.Rima- SteKodya BandaAceh ______ 2,3 0,0 0,0 -2,3 4,9 Wli 3 -x x -~

P1l 37,0 BTS. ACEH BESAR - ULEE LH-EE22 9,0 11,3s 2,3 5,0 Wil 3 x x<-- -- -I 0

P1 38,0 BTS. KODYA - BLANG BINTANG 9,31 5.2 14,8 9.8 5. i13 x ____02

P1 380 BANDA ACEH -BSA.SA/S.KDA4,7 0,35,2 4,9 5,0 WD 2_ P1 30SP.KR.RAYA-DARUSALA-BT-S.ACEH-BESAR ~37 49 7,1 2,2 1 1,0 WI 4 _ x --- I___15 70BANDA ACEH - KRUENG RAYA 26,3 - -2,3 5, W10 2 x xCl

P5 70BANDA ACEH - KRUENG RAYA 4, 4,7 4,7 4,4 8,2 _ x XI x C2

P15 54,1 KR.RAYA-BTS,PLDIE 33,0 21,0 65,0 44,0 4,4 __ _x x _X C

PI15 54,2 STS.ACEH BESAR-LAWEUNG GRONGGRONG - 410 65,0 75.0 100 40_ _x

P1T554,2 BTS.ACEH BESAR-LAWEUNG GRONGGRON 410 5, 0, 50 , __ _

P15 54,2 BTS ACEH BESAR-LAWEUNG GRONGGRONG 41,0 806,0 106,0 26,0 4,0 x

P11 8,1 BANDA ACEH- - BTS ACEH BARAT 3,5 0.3 4.0 3.7 127 W3 5 4- 1C

P11 8,1 BANDA ACEH -BTS ACEH BARAT -- 55,4 -4,0 -63, 0 59q,0 -5, 0 W-i 0 2 -4-, -- 3-0 1 0 1 5 - - 15T is, 44_ ____

P11 8,2 BTS ACE-H ESAR -KM 125 59,2 63,0 125,0 52,0 5,01 W10 2 10 31 1 8 8 ___ 8 21 241 9 02

P11 8,3 KM 125 -KM 180 51,7 125,0 180.0 55.0 5,31 W 1OC 2 3 __10_ _2 402 5 T2 r2

P11- -8,4 RMM -180 -MEULABOH 60,0 180,0 244,0 84,0 5,01 W10 2 4- 13 14 33 - - 3 -58-T 3 C2

P11 12,0OMEULABOH-KUALATUHA 17,7 244,0, 262,0 18,0 7,8 WIO 2 2 2 10 4 17- _ ____

P113,0 KUALA TUHA -SP.PEUT -9,0 282,0 271.0 -9.0 5, il33 _ 6 ___ _

P11 15,1 SP.PEUT -BTS ACEH SELATAN JKM.337) 65,8 271,0 337,0 66,0 5,0 Wil 3 7 1 0 49 __ __02

P11 15,2 BTS ACFH BARAT- BLANG PIDIE 51,8 337, 0 38- 9,06 52,0 5,0 WlI 3 10 422 C3_

P1 {11 f 15,3 SLAN -G P ID)I E -T A PA KT UAN 59,8 389,0 449,0 6 0, 0 5,0 Wll 3 8 5 _ 601 03

P15u1 -17,1 TAPAK TUAN -BAKONGAN (KM 51)60,8 449,0 510,0 61,0 -- 4-,8- W-7 3 2 1 15 15 12 1

Pl1, 1 17,2 BAKONGAN (KM 510)- KR G LUAS (KM 5 49 I50, 6, 50,0 5,0 wi 3 14 22 1

Pll, 17,3,KRUENGLUAS(KM560)-BTSSUMUT 59,6 6, 1, 98~ 3_ 3 8 1 3838 __ 6 50

Put 38,0 SIDIKALANG-BATAS PROP. - 2 9 150,8 164 56 fL0 2 2 3 2 2 2 7 5_______

Sheet 3

mm- m-- ~--

Table 6.2. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects

LINK DATA ___LAND USE (k) OREST (km) LANDFORM (k) ANDAL

a. ~~~ANDALLINK NAME w COee ai

m Z U) (L z~~~~~~~0 Z SeTaIZ ~ ~~ cl oJ

w U] 0 zR I.- Ow ~ Ž ,- .~~ 5.40 ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~-J Il. .4 Z. a-L Z 2

N2 5.0 MEDAN -L.PAKAM 15.2 11,3 28.0 1671, 5 3 3 14 - -____

N2 5,0 JL>SISINGMANGARAJA 10,2 00 3,3 3,3 15,N2 5,0 SP.HALAT-BTS.KOTA.MEDAN(2)(SM.AJ) 10 2 ,2 11,3 9.1 14,01W4 S - 7 2 9C

N2 5.0 SP.HALAT-BTS.KOTA.MEDAN(2)(SM.RAJA) 10,2 2, 13 9.1 15,0 ~W4 5_- -

N2 6,0 LUBUK PAKAM - PERBAUNGAN ,1 28,0 30 8,0 10,N2 7,1 PERBAUNGAN - BTS. DELI GERDA~NG 11 (1) __12.9 36, 48.4 12.4 84

N2 7,2 BTS. DELI SERDANG 1 (2) SI RAMPAH 13,2 48,4~ 61,0 12,6 9,0 W2 4 2 1 1 13_ __

N2 8.0 TUGU BTS. KODYA - PATOK KM 79 52 1, 786 17.6 9,51 WS 1 - -__

N21 8,0 SE APAH -TEBING TlNGGI 30 00 00 1, 7,0 CN2 9,1 675. KTT. TINGGI (2)-BTS.S-1MALUNGUN 190 8 0. 83 60 W2 4 - 2 _ 161 1 __C

N2 6,-1 TEBI-NG TINGGI - PAMATANG_SIANTAR 5,7 78,6 84, 5,8 9,8 W2 46 I

N2 9,2 BTS.DELI SERDANG Ili2-)-6BTS.KT.P.SI-AN - 1-4.9 102,7 120, 181 6,7t W-2 -4 3 15i

N2 10i-,0 PS.KM.125 +300 -SP.KE PRAPAT 8,2 120,8 128,8 8,0 9,0 W2 4 - _ _ ___

N2 10, -SKM.125 300. -SfP.KE-PRWA - 8,2 125,3 133,6 8, 1,0N2- 10,0O PS.KM.125 + 300 - SP.KE PRAPAT 8.2 128,8 1-36.2 7.4 9 -

N-2 10iO,0 PEMATANG -SIANTA'R -PRPAT 43,6 136,2 175,0 36,8 6. 4 2 5 1 5 5 1_ _ _ 2 12 27 C

N2 11,1 PRAPAT-BTS.TAPT.l 1. 7, 864 1. ,0W _

NR2 11,2 BTS.SIMALUNGUN (2)-SILIMBAT 34,1 186,4 221,0 34,6 -2

N2 12,0 SILIMBAT -SIBORONG BORONG 21,2 221,0 257,0 36,0 - , i 2 3 1 6__ _ _ 26___

N2 12,0 SIBORONG BORONG -TARUTUNG 25,6 257,0 I283,0 26,0 4,5i Wll 3 2 2 13 _9 i 0

N 1,0TARUTUNG- BY PASS 6,1 276,5 282 7 6,2 5,2 W9 1N214.1 TARUTUNG_-_BTS.TAPSEL I (1) 53.7 6, 119,8 53,9 5,2 Wll 3 2 2 12 31 ___

N2 14,2 BTS.TAPUT 1 (2) -SIPIROK 186198 130 -18,2 5,01 WIl 3 2 3 3 10__10 __ -2c

N2 17.0 PAL IX -SIPIROK 21214, 2,0 2, 6,0 FW9 I - __ ____

N2 18.0PSIDEMPUAN -PAL IX 14,71 88,7 104A,0 15,3 -6,0~ W9 -1 -__

N2 i19,1 P. SIDEMPUAN - BTS. TAPSEL 11 36,8 6880 127,0 39,0 8,0 2

N21 19.2 BTS.TAPSELI - JEMB3ATAN MERAH- 43.8 127,0 173.4 46.4 50Wl3 _ 3 18 25 -0 2 --2

N2 20,0 JBT. ME RAH - RANJAU BATU - 57,2 173,4 23.4,0 60,6 5,0~ WIl 3 5 25 26 36 25 C _

N2 32.0 Ponit! -Batas Sumut 37.7 198,3 238.0 37.7 5,0. WIlI 3 2 25 8 __ __

N2 30,0 Lubuk Sikaping - Panti 30,2 168,0 198,3 30,3 50 WII3 2 25 3 3 ____25__

__2 Buk___gg_-_Lb_k_ _a_n_ 12,3- 74,0 82,0 7380 6W 4 116 7-C

_ _q __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ____- - __ A_ ____ _ _C

N2 29,0 LBukittungg -LbkSikapcing __ _ 15,1 94,3 47,9 142,6 6, 2 4 _ i

N2 45,0 PadangLPunar-BLuar 1gi2,5 04,0 02,01 2,5 12,0 WI 4 I_ I L 2..6...

N2 1,0 JI.Arau (Padag 1,8 0,0 1 8,2 18,2 12,0W 4 - C -___

J2 1,0 PADANG -LUBUK ALUNG 157 1, 33 11 7 i 4- 2 13 - - - -

Sheet 4

Table 6.2. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects

LINK DATA LAND USE (kmn) FOREST (kin LANDFORM (km) ANDAL-i

10 U)~~o C ANDAL

O LINKNAME z ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a m> UCODE0 > z ui l'- z~~~~~~H~ O See Table

U) (0 ~~~~~~~~~ (0 H ~~~~~~~~~w < -~~~~~~~~ ~~c w ) = > i Z

x < 0 z LU a: :;~~~~~~~~~~~c 2 0 Z ~ ~ w - .

c~~~~~~~) ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~-j U. -J ) D~ z u Li. 0 0 > U) x Ui.

'P23 7~3,0 SI-BOLGA-BTS. ~BARUS 1- -0, 1,9 1,9 6,0 W9 1- 2- -_-C

P~23 73-,0 S-IBOLGA -BARUJS 63,0 1,9 11,0 9,1 5,0 6 5 11 Cl

P2-3 73-,0 SIBOLGA - BARUS 630 11,0 35,7 24,7 3,5 _ 10 15 ~18 7 CI

P02-3 73-,0 S§IBOLGA - BARUS 63,0 35,7 42-,0 -6,3 -3,3 _ 66 _ C I

P231 73,0 SIBOLGA -BARUS _ ___ 63,0 42,0 63,0 21,0 3,1 21 _ 21 -Ci

P237 97,0 BARU$S-MANDUAMAS -BTS ACEH 49,7 97,9 116,0 18,11 5,0 ___ __ 8 ~- -9-

P23 97,0 BARUS -MANDUAMAS -BTS ACEH- _ 49,7 7-1,4 9~7,9 27754,0___2727 Cl

P1 -16,1 SIBOLGA -BTS.TAPANUL-I E~EL.I 39,9 -3,7 4-6,0 42,3 5,0 WIl 3 - 2 21 19 C

P021 16,1 7UGU -F. TOBING - WTS. KODYA SfBOLGA 3.5 3,7 46,0_ 42,3 5,6 WV2 421 98, BT-STAPU7T-SIPANGIM1BA-R 30,0 170 17,0 1,0 -3,4

P521 98-,0 BTS- TA PUT -SIPANG I MBA R ___O 3,0 169,0 177,0 8,0 4.~17___ __

21110BATU M U NDOM -TABUYU NG 64. 00 0, 40 5,0 __ _1______nw

P21 100,1 NATAL - SIKARAKARA - TABUYUNG 40,0 268,0 273,0 5,0 4,0 __ new?

P2T00-,1 NATA-L- SIKARA~KARA - TABSUYUJNG 40.0 262,8 288,0 5,2 3,0 new?

P021 1-00-,2 N~A-TAL - SIKARAKARA - TABUYUNG 40.O0 2-9-9,0 305,0 -6,0 -5,0 ___new?

P2-1 ~100,2 NATAL - SIKARAKARA - TABSUYUNG 40,0 -273,0 29-9,0 -26,0 -5,0 --- -- --- _new----

P2-1 8~5,0 SiP.GAMBIR-MANISAK(BTS. SUMBAR) 30,3236,0 268,1 32,1 4,0 32 c

~2-1 670SILAPING-BEDANG RAPAT - BTS. SUMUT 15735,C586 66 ,

P21 65,0UJUNG GADING (AIR BALAM)-SILAPING 18,0 334,4 365,7 31,3 4,6 W7 3 _ 11 20 19 12 C2__

P211 34,2 UJUNG GADING (AIR BALAM) - AIR BANGIS 12,7 334,4 347,8 13,4 4,0 W7 3 4 9 3 _

P211 34,1 SP.EMPAT -UJUNG GADING (AIR BALAM) 5, 7, 9, 15 508 1

P211 47,2 PADANG SAWAH - SP. EMPAT 39-,0 134,1 1i75,0 -40,9 5,0 WIl 3 - 2 39 41____

P211 34,1 SP.EMPAT - UJUNG GADING (AIR BALAM) 5-9,0 2-:94,0 --334,4 40,4 -4,0 _

P2 71MANGGOPOH -PADANG SAWAH 32, 1022 134,1 31,9 5,0 WII 3 1 20 11 ____ 6 _ 5 27 ____

P212, Pariaman -_Manguopoh .450_5,6_7, 31,45 WO 2201 _____

P211 24,0 Pariamian - Manggopoh 45,0 87,0 102,2 15,2 6,0 10 5 c

P2 1 -46,0 Kuraiti_- Pariaman 5,6 50, 55,6 5 L.OW 4 - 2 4

-P211 27,0 Lubuk Alung -Kuraittali 16!333,Qj 0 -WI0 2 9 8 E 17 02

Sheet 5

Talble6l.2. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects

LINK DATA LAND USE (km FOREST (kin) LANDFORM (kin ANDAL

a co0 z o a. ANDAL

w 0 0 ~~0 r)a CD

LINK NAME cc, >z LU 0 ODZ z D~~~~~~ C c a z See Table

LU ;i L ': > U.~~j 5.4

0 a: . w >. . U) a~ Li.

N5 42,0 T2EBlNGT~~~~~~GGi-KP.BfNJAI ~~~3,3 _11 4,4 3,3 6,0 WI 4 3 _ _ 3_ 2NST42_____T__TINGGI__KP___BINJAI__ 3,8 77,3 81,11 3, 60 __ C2

N5- -43,_1 KRBINJAI - ~BTS. ASAHAN j, 84,-4 -90,4 6,0 7,0 W2 4 6 6 __

N5 43,2 BTS.DELI SERDANG 11(5)-TJ.KASAU -- 13, 90,4 94,0 3,6 7,0 W2 4 ~ 4 I 4 _ ClN5 44,O YJKASAU -)NDRAJPURA , 94,0 104,0 10.0 6.0 W2 4 - 2 2 6 1 _ 0 02

N5- 47-,0 INDRAPURA - LIMAPULUH 1 104,0 120,0 16, 0 6,0 W10 2 - C-NS 6- 1,0 -P L. PULHS EANKR_ 176120,0 138,0 18,0 -6,0 W-9 -1 _ C

NS5SB-EJANGKAR - KISARAN~ 19.8 138,0 158,0 W9- _ ClNS 5-~4,0 KISARAN-SP. KAWAT 14,2 158,0 172,4 14,4 ,1W9 1 C

NS 57,1 SP. KAWAT-BTS. LABUHAN BATU -45,1 172,4 218,0 - 45,6 6, W9 1 T -NS57,2 BT.AA-A(6-.PAA 68,4 -2-18,0 219 __0_C

~NS57,34 BTS. ASAHAN(6)-R. PRAPAT 68,4 219,0 288,0 69, 6 -Wil -3 2 _ 37 30 8 6 C3N5 5-~8-,0 R-P-RAPAT - AEK NABARA 1-9.3 288.0307,5 -19,5 6,8 2 0Nq5 60,0OAEK NABARA -SR.KOTA PINANG ~ -32,6 37,11 340,5 33,4 6 ,0 W9 -1 __cl

N5 84,0 KOTAPINANG-BTS.RIAU ~~~~~~~~~34,1- 340,5 375,0 34,5 6,0 W9 1 CNS 19,3 BG BATU - BTS SUMUT 30.3 319,6, 350,4 30.8 5,0 WIO 2 clNS 19,2 SP BALAM -5 BG ATU 27,5 291,71 319,6 27,9 5,0WO 2 - -C

N-5 1-i9,1 S-PBA-TANG -SP BALAM 54,3 -236,6 291,7 -,55,1 6,0 WIO 2- C2N5 18,0, SRP D-UM AI - S-P BAT A N G 3-6.3 199,7 -23 6,6 36.9 6,8 W1O 2 02N5 7,0 DURI - DUMAI 64,4 130,0 13808,0 6,0 __ _

N5S -7,0 DUI- I64-,4 1-~38,0 -145,0 7,0 6,0IN5 7,0) DURI - UMAI 64,4 145,0 151,0 6,0 6,0IN15- -7.0 -D UR -17 DUMA I 6-4-,4 151,0 160,0 9,0 _6,0 I C2

N5 7,0 OURI - DUMAI ____ 64,4 160,0 199,7 37 7.NS5 -7,0 O-UR)-I DUMA) 64,4 124,2 130,0 5,8 6, 0 -WI- -2NS' 6.2 KANDIS - OURI 58,7 64,6 124,2 59,6 5-,3 WIO 2 __-

N5 6,1 BTS CABDIN BENGKALIS -KANDIS 41122,9 -64,6 41,7 7. 402N~OPKANBAR -- BTS CABDIN BENk*A-L1S 2- 2,6 .0,0 22,9 22.9 8,0 WI 42 _ C3

Sheet 6

Table 62. Environmental and Sociological Screening ofProposed Capacity Expanlsion Profects

LINK DATA -_ _LAND UJSE (kmn) F_ OREST (m) LANDFORM (kmn) ANDAL

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~0zANDALLINK NAME D0z LI. o C

C))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U EL z See Table

z ii o~~~ ~ ~ ~ o z ~~ u Li5.4

o) Z)u x UZ

N6 16,2 Tugu Frdmnan -Bts Kota Sibol-ga ________03 , ,3 50W 1V 3 _________- G

N6 162BTS. KOTA Si BOLGA 1)-_BTS.TAPUJT I (22,2 3, 26,9 23,3 6, +WIl- 3 - 2 _I1 1 0 __ __

_616,1 BTS.TAPTENG (1) -TARUTUNG 38,0 26, 66,0 39,1 4,5 --Wll 3 2 1 3629 8 2C

N4 6,1 JL. ISKANOAR MUDA __ ______ 2,2 0,0 2,2 2,2 13, 4 W3- 6 xx__

N4 2_6,1 JL. PAlriMURA __ 7.8 0.2 _16,6 15,4 9,0 WI 4 x __ _ C4

N4 28,1 MEDAN - 8TS. TANAH KARO 38,2 156 4,0 38,4 6,2 ____ __ - C

N4 32-,0 KA-BAN JAH E -ME R EK 21,9 76,0 99,2 23,2 5,3 Wlo 2 x 0 - 2-

N4 6,2 BTS.DELI SERDANG -KABAiJ-A-HE- 20,8 54,0 76,0 2-2,0 6, W c2-

N43, EREK- ~BATAS DAIRI (2) 13,5 99,2 113,5 14,3 6,0 WIO -2- ,7- 2 C2

__ ____2_BTS. TANAH KARO (3)-PANJI 29,3 113,5 _14, , Wlo_ 2___122417 7

P24 63,0 PAL. XI -AEK GODANG 12,5 104,4 117,0) 12,6 5,0 W10 2 FCl_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 32 ,7 _~ ,

C 3

__ 64,2 KM. 15-0 -SIBUHUAN 34,6 150,0 169,0 19,0 4,0 ___

P24 64,2 KM. 150 -SIBUHUAN __ _ 46176,0 1765,0 7,0 4,0 --- ___I

P2 UJUSRPNGBATUIA-BT TSSIUMT24,1 181,9 213,0,7 4, 5,00 Wi 329____

31WC

_ _ ___2 _ _ PANGARA___AN _____ _2__13_______16 02

RTBEAGI TNUN_! _4__T6, 31, 40 , 321 4 Cl

Sheet 7

m m m m - m - m m m - - - m - m

Table 6.2. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects

LINK DATA LAND USE (km) FOREST (km) LANDFORM (km) ANDALw

_L. _NK __A.. EU 0 - ANDAL

a. ui > LU ~g ~CODE

P1 40Padang Panjang- Kubu Kerambil_ _ _____ -, 7276,9 _4,7 6,0 __ =-=-2 __ ___ |_5___=

P3tl 4,0 Padang Panjang - Kubu Kerambil __4,8 78,9 81,5 4,6 5,0CI W1 3 2 3 __ |__ __5IC

P3tl 5,0 Kubu Kerarbll-8LIk 41,5 81,5 122,0 40,550 W11 3 - 2 15 24 i 1 2 6

P31 C,0 Kubu Kerambil - Solok 3,9 122,0 125,7 3,7 6,0 ________ 4 _3 C1

P311771,0 SOLOK - MUARA PANEH - ALAHAN PANJANG _ 49,5 62,4 77,0 _14,6 4,6 W7 3 8 5 2 8 7 C2_________________________ 9_____ _7__0 - ,C3 ~73 4021 -1 __ _____

P311 71,C SOLOK- MUARA PANEH - ALAHAN PANJANG 495 77,0 114,3 3734, __ _ .__ . 1e 2017 _ C22 Surianr-SimpangPadangAra - 65,2 99,5 166,2 66,7 5,0 Wil -357 10 - - 20 47 = C2

P31i 14,3 Simpang Padang Aro - Batas Jambi 4__ 34,0 166,2 190,0 23,8 4,8 W7 3 24 24 I

P31_14,3 SImpng Padang Ar - Batas Jamb, 34,0 190,0 201,0 11,0 4,0 _ 1 -= _ = 6 5 2 I C2

P3 14,3 Simpang Padang Aro - Batas Jambi 34,0 190,0 201,0 11,0 4,0 ___ _____.

N3 22,0 JI.BagindoAzisChan-J Agussalim 10.2 00 0,0 10.2 15.5 WS 3 5 5 i _ 5 C3N322,0 Padang -Lubuk Seai 1, , 0, 0,2 5,0 W1lO 2

N3 22.0 SimpangHaru-BatasKotaPadang- 2,0 2,0 25,2 23,2 7,2 5 10 81…… 8 8 71 _ C3

Padang -Lubuk Selasih 22,9 30,0 35,4 5.4 5,0 5 5 cl

N3 22,0 E 22'9PadangL -ubuk Selih 250 T -, ,0 _ N3 23,0 Lubuk Selasih - Solok _ 240 0,0 0,0 24,0 5,0 W10 2 I II

N3 219 35,4 Lubuk S61asih - Solok 195 26,1 _5,8 W2 4 _ 2 19 5 3 10 1__ 02N3 6,0 Slok Muara Kaban 240,0 24,0 ,W9 I -0 4 21 24 C1

N3 6,0 Solok- Muara Kalaban __ __ _2,5 64,1 64,1 _ 2,5 6,0 W2 4 3 _ 3 Cl,0 Muara Kalaban - Tanah Badantung 25,7 88,1 14,0 25,9 TO7,0 _I = - 1 11| 26 C2

N3 - 9,0 Tanah Badantung - Kiliranjau _ 50,5 114,0 165,0 510 6,0 28 33 30 20 31 02

N3 51,0 Kiliranjau -Sei Dareh 20,8 165,0 186,0 21,0 6,0 W9 1 21 15 8 13 11

i31 52,0 Sei Dareh - Junction __ __ 31,7 186,0 218,0 32,0 6,0 W9 I -12 20 32 C02

53,0 Junction - Satas Jambi 12,6 218,0 230,8 12,8 6,0 Wg 1_ | 13 13 _ C1

Sheet 8

- - m m m - -- m m m m - m m

Table 6.2. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects

LINK DATA _ LAND USE (km) FOREST (km LANDFORM (km) ANDAL

0i 0 aANDAL

) LINK NAME ;a <w0 0 0 CODEP32 41 0 Bukittinggi - Baso 7 9 0 0 0 0 7 9 7 0 W2 4 8 8 C2~~~~~m F- LLINK NAME Z - Z f > z' w P ' z

z D 0) z ~~~~~~a See Tableco oz 0 z o m Ž l > a_- 5O ~~~~~ w ~~~~~ Q iLl ~~~~~~~~~~~ a~~~~ w 0ruiL ci ui

U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~-J LL H J x > ELl aw Li L

P32 41,0 Bukittinggi - Baso 7,9 0,0 0,0 7,9 7i0 W2 4-W- C2

B-21, ukittinggi -Baso _ 3,0 94,6 94,6 3,0 7,3 Wl 4 _3 3 Cl

P32 42,0 Baso _Pavakumbuh 15,5 102,2 113,0 10,8 6,0 W9 1 1 1 = 4 7 C1F'321 42,0 Baso - Payakumbuh 6,9 113 0 124,6 11,6 8,3 3 3 612C

___ .___________.___.____ ___ ___ _____CP « Pay-akumbuh- Batas Riau ~~5,4 -124,6 -129,8 -5,2 8,0 2 3 IC2

P32 43,0 PayakuMhuh- Batas Riau= 84,4 129,8 213,0 83,2 5,1 Wll 3 2 17 43 2 10 20 33]40 10 C3

P321 4,0 RTBEANGIN -BT SUMBAR 18,6 76,4 95,3 18,9 5,5 WIO 2 i 5 14 X 9C1

BANGKINANG - RT BERANGIN 315,4 6110 76,4 15,4 6,0 W9 I 10 5 _ _15

1532T1 2,0 PEKANBARU -BTS CABDIN KAMPAR- - -43,0 00 00 30 6,0 W 14 3 15 25 __ _ g|_43 = C2

-P32 2 ,0 PEKANBARU - BTS CABDIN KA-MPAR 1T6,9 0,8 18, 17,2 7,4 -7 -10 I112 -5 C1

~P3 1,O -pEKN R -Sp= TIGA _ 5,6 _ 0,0 _5,5 _5,6 19,0 _ 31 3 _ _ _ - -- ------- C2P3 80Pdng ui uus55__5,5_ _ _ 4 C2

P3.4 _ 16,0 Bukit Putus-Painan4711 __ 62,0 7 0, 0 _ 4,0 _4_ _41 1C1

P341j16 BukitPut- Pain 7 28,3 -620 -- 33-7 -4,11W7 3 _- _ 4 151512 C2

P3 6Bukit Putus -Panan 21,8 _70,0 _28,3 - .5 0 2 5,5 = 2 f C2

-Kambang I5212 110,0 13150 21,0 4,8 41 7 C1- -21 ~ - 0P3 71Painan - _Karnbang 52 2 77,0 ,0 __33,0 4,0 W7 3 I is8 151 - -2 1 C2-

.Kambang3- lnderapura 551 1 10 154,01 23,0 4,6 W7 3 is= 5 = C2

P341 17,2 Kambang- lnderapura 55,1 154,0 188,0 34,0 4,0 1 221 2 I I 1 1 241 02

P3419,0 iInderapura-Tapan 23,4 188,0 212,2 24,2 4,8 Wl1 3 2 22 1-2 4 02P34| 21,0 Tapan-BatasBengkulu 38,2 212,2 251,7 39,5 4.3 Wl1 3 2 37 1 || 0 C2

Sheet 9

Table 6.2. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects

LINK DATA LAND USE (kin) FOREST (km)___ LANDPORM (kin) ANDALw co

Ui0 ZU ANDAL

0 > a~~LNKAM ~ L* U0 CODE0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5w= 1ZSee Table

cr z z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- .w : cl -JM < z 0 ~~~~~~z 0 0 Lz a z 0 w

0 O i i

N-6 _ib, BTS.CAB.KAMPAR -SIKIJANG MATI 184 0,0 0,0 18,4, 6-0 -1 _

N63, T.ABKMA-IIJNMT 1, 21,113, 74 , I 176___ 171 ClN6 30,2 SUKIJANG MAT - SIMPANG LAGO 2 7 38,5 64,7 26, 2 -6,0O W-9 1 26 __ 26 01i

N 141SP.LAGO-SOREKI 509 64,7 11, 5,E60W9 152 ____ 520

N6 14,2 SOREK I - TS.INHU 40,3 116,1 157,1 41,0 6,0 Wg 1I14 02NK6 1-4,3 B-TS.INHU - SIMPANG .JAPURA ~25,7 -157,1 183-,42 6,3 -6,0 -W9- I 26 26______ ClN6 35,0OSIMPANGJAPURA-PEMATANG REBA ~ 17,1 183,4 200,7, 17,3 6,0 W9 1 17__ 17 Cl

P4 1, LK-KUANTAN -CERENTI__ _ 60.1 164,0 225,0 61,0 5,3 1 2 61 61 C_ 2P42 11,2 CERENTI-AIRMOLEK ~~~~~~~48,6 225,0 274,0 49,0 5,0 WIO 2 49C___4 2

P42 11,3 AIR MOLEK-SP JAPURA 2-~0,1 2-74,0 29-4,1 20,1 -5,0 W1O 2 20 20 CP42 26,0 PEMATANG REBA -RENGAT 16,1 200,7 217,2 16,5 4,0 I 12333 14C

P43 13,0 RNGAT- KA.INAKU 23,0 217,2 240,6 23,4 5,0 Wll 3 2 2 _____23 Cl

P431 17,1 K CINAKU -RB JAYA ___ 375 406 768,8 -38-,2 5,0 Wll 3 -20 15 8 8 C 2

P43 17,2 RB.JkY-A- TEMPULING (S.SALAK) 10.8 278,8 289,8 11.0 3,0' _ 11 III1 Cl

P43 150TEMPULING -TEMBILAHAN ____ 246 8,1 1,1 20 30W7 325 25~ ClP34,1 TEMBILAHAN - ENOK 23,0 314,11 337,1 23,0 33 23 23 Cl

P43 45,2 lOK- BATAS JAMBI ___ 47,3 337,11 384,5 47,4 ~7 47' __ 47 02

P44 24, SP.8EINGIN-SP.BUATAN ___ 46, 5,0 72,6 21, 6,0 _ 22_ 12 _ 1P4~ 24,0 SP.BERINGIN -SP.BUATAN -46,.3 2~5,5 51,0 25,5 6,0 __ __26 _ 26 __ _ Cl

P44 32,0 SP.BUATAN - BUATAN 110,4 89,6 94,0 . , 9 1440P433,1 S-p.Bu-atan Sp. Siak Sriindr2pura 3, 3, 3, , , _

P4 31SpBuatan Sp ikridaua3, 96110 4, , 1 __h 4 _ _ __ f3 1I0P4 3, Sp.iek Indra Puire-Mnkpn2, a 19 6 9 I - L 1 22 2 0

Sheet 10

- --- - --- m m - -

Table 6.2. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects

LINK DATA _ LAND USE (km) FOREST (km) LANDFORM (km) ANDAL

a 0

i ° L Ns NAME I 0 ° L< ANDALP45i L2N7NA1E DUMAI SEPAHAT .. _ l59P CODE. Li 2, 2 85

P > D_ _ C ODLINK NAME3 (0 H Z < < > I - . 5z 0 z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U - ( )

P4027i DUMAI -SEPAHAT _ _ _ _ _ __ 590 2331iD1 234,0 _ i,0 ............... 80 _ ._ __ _. __ _ 1 __ Zt < e T0: -nU H -- I0 0 _ _ _ _I

P45[ 27,1 DUMAI -SEPAHAT _ 59,0 232,0 223,0 201,0 8,0 ___ 1. . _ 1 ___ . __ 5,15i ____

P45 i27,1 DUMAI -SEPAHAT _ 5 9,0 _195,0 - -22 2 -3, 2, _=43 1 5I = J|2

<_7SP_T- SIPKN _ 128,0 46,0 5,0 (if | 1 _- l6i 10 C1P45| 27,1 [(Al SEPAHAT-SEI PAKNING 59,0 233,0 234,0 22,0 4,0 _ _1 _ r 11 1 __

______-___ KTTEN_AH - SP KMUH 0 _ = 0 9,82408 ---27i,Lo -30_2 4i8 W10-2 t < 30t ~-- --- | 1 - 30t I 02P45 27,1 DUAI-SEPANAU _ 59,0 234,0 2508, ___ - 1 6 ! 25-

P45 27,1 DUMAIL-SEPAHAT _ _____1___ 9, 25,0 223,0 1,0 8,0 W10 2 2 2 4 1P4' __A- _- 31 __, 231 __|_2 20 --

U MAI-S-EPAHAT _5___ 59,0 199,0 222,0 23,0 8,0 13 4 is2_

P41 97,2 TS iSE MAHA-T-SEIMPAKNING 40 75,0 0,0 26,0 6,0 13 1 I13 1 5i 10 GIC

P451 27,2 SEPAHATi -SEI PAKNING 48,0 280,0 302,0 22,0 4,0 IT-- 11 ii -- - , _ 17 5 C2

P46 _36,1 SEI RANGAU -KOTO TENGAH -34,1 190,8 240,8 _50,0 4,8 2__ 30V - 0- 0P46 29,0 OURI-SEI RANGAU - ~~~~~_66_6_ ~4, _ W2----4, W9 2_ 103021 __ __6 21

P4 2,0 _U__ - SE[ RANGA 31,0 124,4 155,4 31,0 6,8 _ _ 1 __ 0 2_25

P41 13,0 KiTr-an-Jau - Satas Riau 23,1 165,0 173,0 8,0 6,0 WV11 3 8 __- ~8: 01

P41 1-0,0 TL-KUANTAN -BT SUMBAR 387136228 39,2 50Wi 312 0 7 7 _2 12 1 5 02

P41 9,3 IVALtEMBU -TLK KUANTAN j 3510, 6, 3, , 9 1 5 29 301 4 2

-P4 9, BT_SINH_U- MA LEMBU 50,4 788 130,0 51,2 6,0_ V9_ -1 51 --51 1 __ 2

P41 9,1 B3T§SCBDiN_KAM1PAR -BTES cABDN INHU_ 638b 14,0 78,8 64,8 6,0 W9 I 556 6 02

P41 9,0 SP TIGA - BTS KAMPAR -8:3 5,6 14,0 8,4 7,0 W2 4 8 =- C1

Sheet 1 1

I

III

J FIGURES

I

I

III

I

I

II

If,

III

GENERALIZED LANDFORMS

LEGEND)

L/k v..,. - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PROVINCE U(UNCANY

R IVE~R

LA NCFO RM S

MOUNTA NDi

HIL.S

J NERIUONTAN LNN

L 1 DV~II. AND Pl.[N5

ALLUVIAL PLAINS

~~ ~~ PEAr SWAMPIS

CO ~~~~~~~~~T DAL. SWAMPS

-. ~~~~~~IGURE .

C) ~~~~Nz

0 175 52.5 87.5 K~I S~j~N~IPT18

- - - m - - - - -

,+-g NORTH SUMATRA

GENERALIZED LANDFORMS

--.--- .4? -. : | _PROVINCE BOUNDARY

C~~ ~ E HE RIVERND

LAKEI

LA ND FOR M S

4R ~ ~MOJNTAINS

HILLS

I I ~~~INTERNONTANE PLAINS

LOWLAND PLAINS

ALLUVIAL PLAINS

PEAT SWAMPS

TIDAL SWAMPS

FIGURE lb.

0 175 ~52.5 87.5 K.SWreRePPP,OT 1988

WESM AT E R

m m m - ---- - - - -

N O R TH S U M A T E R A WEST SUMATRA

GENERALIZED LANDFORMS

LEGEND

-4---- +-+-, PROVINCE BOUNDARY

LAKE

LANDUFORM S

R I A U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MON AN

HILLS

IN'ERMONTANE PLAINS

LOWLAND PLAINS

PADANG'q ALLUVIAL PLAINS

PEAT SWAMPS

A.'- hIZ <TIDAL SWAMPS

FIGURE Ic

N

0 175 5Z5 8L5 Kr~

-l ~~~So- R,PPP,oT INNS

-~ m - - --m m m - -

RIAU

GENERALIZED LANDFORMS

z~~ __

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~LEGEND~

-H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~-4----4 -4- PROVNCE BOUNDARY

N V ER

~~~ *~~~~~'~~~.P'~~~~~~ ~LA NDF ORMS

c ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~VMOUNTAINS

~~~~ ~~~~~ .',.. . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HI LLS

m ~~~INTERMONTANE PLAINS

LOWLAND PLAINS

AILLuIVIAL PLAINS

PEAT SWAMPS

PAANBA W TIDAL SWAMPS

FIGURE I d.

i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~0 17.5 52.5 875 KM

So,urc*; RePPPuoT NOR8

+ VN~~~~A

- - -- - - - -- - -- - -

THE PROJECT AREA

LEGEND

±--4---4+----4 PROVINCE BOUNDARY

(Q7ZAdZi7i/,V LAKE

cM DAN-

POPULATION DENSITYTaFAK1NJAN Ct ,< ,

0 -50 /sq km.

| | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~51 -I O0 /sq kem

5il 100 /sq km.

151 - 200 / sq A

.1Q6CNN~S~U~S 20 -400/sq km.

Kotamoidya Not ncluded)

PAKANT5ARU .......

FIGURE 2

TMBL--

N

0 35 105 i75 e,

m~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ m - -

ACEHAANDA ACEAC

GENERALIZED LAND USE

LEGEND

+--I-+--4-PROVINCE BOUNDARY

~~~ ~ RIVER

INTENSIVE LAND USE SYSTEMS

EXTENSIVE LAND USE SYSTEMS

FORESTI 1965 BOUNDARY)

La

FIGURE

z ~~~~~~~0 175 52.5 87'.5Km oreRPPOT98

m -- -- m -NORT'H SUMATRA

GENERALIZED LAND USE

: "~~~~~D

LU_ETGEND

A C EH .4.-+-4.- 4.- -PROVINCE BOUNDARY

RIVER

L AKE

INTENSIVE LAND USE SYSTEMS

EXTENSIVE LAND USE SYSTEMS

FOREST 1 1985 BOUNDARY)

FIGURE .3 b.

N

Source: R,PpproT. 19B8

W E ST \.

- - r

.N O R T'H S U M A T E R A Xt j WEST SUMATRA

GENERALIZED LAND USE

LEGEND

-9--$--.-*---' FROVINCE BOUNDARY

INTENSI'VE LAND USE SYSTEMS

R I A U EXTENSIVE LAND USE SYSTEMS

FOR EST 11985 BOUNDARY)I

FIGURE 3c

J A M BI

GI \ 0 I7.5 52.5 ST.5Km

1•" C \ (t) ° t5 >5 8 Source RePPProT 1988

mu m m- - m - - --- ---

RIAU

GENERALIZED LAND USE

LEGEND

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_---~--~- PROVJNCE BOUNDARY

Wl ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~RIVER

INTENSIVE LAND USE SYSTEMS

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EXTENSIVE LAND USE SYSTEMS

~~~~~~~~~~~~~z ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~FOREST( 1985 BOUNDARY)

-~~~~~~~~~~~~ / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~FIGURE 3 d.

N -*~~~~~~~~~~~~-.~~~~~~G ~~~0 175 SZ.S eT5K.

~~~ ~~~ -e~~~~~*~~~~~-*4:-~~~~~~~) ~ ~ ~ ~ /\) ~~~~Sou,ce RePPProT 1988

+ J A M B I

- - - - - - - -- - m m m

BANDA ACEH

LOCATION OF ISOLATEDAND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES

AND INDIGENOUS GROUPS

Elm DAN< < | LEGEND

iA ; A a Forest Areras in Which Isolated Ccommunitiesare Found.

Indigenous Communities

IT 8 \ A K r+---t-+ Province Boundory

ORi s W > t4ORANG LAUT

ORAN LA UTlKANSARU~~~~~~RAGLAJ

FIGURE 4

PADANO TAAG NAMAK

JAMBI A -

___________________ ~~~~~~~~~~S-Cr.: PT. GEOSYS Intipi-nt\tY . BENGKULU oc:PGoYInirnt

- -m - - - - - - - - - - -- -

BANDA ACEH ACEH

PROTECTED AREAS

LEGEND

. + i _ -- -L+E G PROVNCE EOUNDARY

RIV ER

LiIi FWJ\'\N PROTECTION FOREST

.~~~ CONSERVATION AREAS

WETLANO AREAS WITH ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

FIGURE 5o.

-. ~~ ~~~~ ~~0 17.5 52.5 87.5 Km o.c RPRo 8

. - ~~~~NFIP(INTAr.

- -- -- - -- - - -- - - m - - -

NORTH SUMATRA

v X . PROTECTED AREAS

MEOANLEGEND

AX C E H ;\_.++^svNesu)R4------- PROVINCE BOUNDARY

(J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 ~~~~~~~~RIVER

r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LAKE

PROTECTION FOREST

CONSERVATION AREAS

WETLAND AREAS WITH ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

FIGURE 5b

-/. 4 Jr'* W E S T \r-ria A , 175 52.5 87 SKm Sourc- RePPProT [988

W E S T \ R - NFIP .INTAG.

S U M A T E R A - '

m -mmmi m m - -

N O R TH S U M A T E R A WEST SUMATRA

N, <PROTECTED AREAS Source RePPProT/ RUTRW)

If ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~LEGEND

----- 4---- PROVINCE BOUNDARY

L AKE

PROTECTION FOREST

I F A U CONSERVATION AREAS

PADAN X -i

N~~~~~~~~

J AJ M S FIGURE 5c

]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-G o i, 52. lT

\~ 4O (\I\~(t ' N 7 a z

''C-aX ._. .

rnn- m -m - - - mRIAU

\; 3 PROTECTED AREAS

LEGEN

/ -+-t-+-+-+-- PROVINCE BOUNDARY

~~~ ~ R V ER

CII~~III1 \ PROTECTION FOREST

CONSERVATION AREAS

mWETLAND AREAS WITH ECOLOGICAL. SIGNIFICANCE

| PAK TANJUNG DATUIH

FIGURE .5d

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~0 17.5 52.5 85m S-- RePPrFOT 19888S~~-NF P IIT

|. -s < | °- -suRVTRW PROVINCE

, A B I RIAR

- - - - -- m m - m - - m - -

RiAU

OUTLINE SPATIAL PLAN

z LEGEND

= - FROVINCE BOUNDARY

-I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IE

DEVELOPMENT AREAS

(I) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Protection

FIGURE 6.

0 175 52.5 87.5 K(m

ll| LEGEND TO INTER-KABUPATEN PROPOSED ROUTE MAPS

(FIGURES 7 - 14)

I : EXISTING ROAD

= -= - - PROPOSED NEW LINK , RECOMMENDED ROUTE

PROPOSED NEW LINK, NOT RECOMMENDED

II IPI11111 :BOUNDARY OF STEEPLAND

I - -- : BOUNDARY OF PROVINCE

-- - - :BOUNDARY OF KABUPATEN

3 * RIVER

I

II~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FIGURE 7 NGtQl - Pasamon P 21

MUARA SOMA

To. BatangToro. SIMPANGGAMBIR

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SLPNf

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

!-T 1a:@- - - .

l 5 0 .5 SI

-- -- -- -- -- - - - -- - -

T. LhoS.ko

CIQ rl~~~~~~~~~~~

COT G[REI

AIG4 ~ \

* 1/ \ X ,1MERAH/

10~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

^s; XC_/ ,,,,,, X > As< N /,~~~/ 1

Q2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_ S a M A R KILANAN G

K4- TAKENGO= _ 4/ L r rA "

0

99 < 5 C g4,9 \ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LOKO ( n

-' .. < - ; t L -- 6--to 2. K.

~~~~~, .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C~~~~~~~-

FIGURE 9 MEDAN -KABANJAHE IK 304/310/311/312

r /

| . _ ~~NAMOUKUR

KUTALIMBARU

| Q >tERO~~~~~~~~~~RIKARI /

I I'

s'X /\Od Zi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

4 T A A N A >* T IG A J U H A R X

I: > \ II§ r~

, / z ~~~~BERASTAGI5 \ , * ~~DtANAU f I ,.

; I<~~AWARv\

_, \ GUNUNGMERIAH

I . \ j w-\ IK 310_gABANJAH >t1:

s ~~~TO . K UTACA4N E-C| ~~N TIGAPAA j !

A v ~~~~~~~~~SINAMAN; *i-a. H SARANPANDANG '

* V Y O ) Xk o~~~~~~m I CiNGKES U 1- A \ RUM MIS Q .<PARIBUAN

O 5 iO 15Km| | E * \( \ +t6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FIGURE 10 SIBOLGA-SARULLA NS 304/1K 330-331

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TARUTUNG

l~~~~~~~~~~~~N 30 lIKADIAN KOTING SN= HASANG

x

I~

I~~~~IOG

l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | SIPENGGENGtX V<

3 ! . 9 ~~~. - - 'X

X 5$/ to t5 K.

7.. P SID

1* 7'% /A 0X .

lI - ;t I \ _I:AANTR IPNGNI ~ - _;;G1 _m mSIDEWPy~

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I ~~FIGURE It SIPENGGF-NG SI PIROK iK 331 ,NS 306

| , i j Z 0SIPAGIMBAR

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

_~~~~~~~~~~A BLUMUKRAYA M

| - xS~~~IPENGGENG PARGARUT /

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N 2A AEKGOD36 _

l ~~~~~~~~~PADANGSIDEMPUAN _V

l~~~~ l o 1 15 20Km

-7\i

FIGURE 12 PARSOBURAN- DAMULI IK 319/ 322

5 PAF~~HITEAP /AEKKANOPAN *

Ax/

* .7 : .

-=HASANG

3 . O / g / ( tyA AMULt

3 ro BALIGE I OG

PAGAR GUNUNG

X f~~~SR RIANIATE /IAGMT__ N'SIMANGAMBAT o

5O 15 20 Km

F A~~~~~~7

SALANGA N 4 -..

* ~ ~~~TO PANGARIBUAN PEARA.JA

- - - - - - - - -- --ex.~I BUU

V G g at 0 <

A E K SG)

V~~~~~~~0,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L

AANG LAUT RTU PtRAP

GA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

HATI~~~~~~

IMUNDOLJME4HN

~~aDA~~~~XV _ = < S 10 \~~~HU7GOA~ ID

A / R ; ~~~~~~PR; SIP T -XAR~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a

A /S X dX ~~~~~~~~N A ' HAND N UR It cc)\l ANGGA * N

N)'i

0 t^ 10 t5 20= __ _ Km

F G uRe 4 PA)AA /LIA PUUK -s KAMPA 1K 603/65/62

l a~~j -t 4

U w,I lI. >-10~ 4..4's.zS 0<

I~A.z

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~GLOSSARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL TERMS

AMDAL Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan - the process of environmentalanalysis, management and monitoring.

ANDAL Analisis Dampak Lingkungan - the detailed environmental and social impactanalysis (EIA/SIA). It provides an analysis of the potentially significantenvironmental effects, both positive and negative, generated by a project, andserves to identify and evaluate possible solutions.

KA Kerangka Acuan - Terms of Reference for ANDAL. Project-specificguidelines and criteria which define the scope of studies and analyses thatshould be undertaken by proponents in their preparation of an ANDAL.

| KL Kajian Lingkungan - initial environmental study. A preliminary level ofenvironmental studies that describes the existing conditions of an area, andtypes and magnitude of predicted project impacts. The KL further serves as a

J ecision document' that supports a determination of the project's need for adetailed ANDAL study. For projects that do not require further study (and arethus considered as exempt from the AMDAL process), the KL guides thepreparation of the related UKL and UPL.

RKL Rencana Pengelolaan Lingkungan - environmental management plan. Aspecific guide derived from an ANDAL that sets out the design and operatingrequirements for mitigating environmental effects caused by proposedprojects. The RKZ may specify operatig procedures, compliance standards,activity responsibilities and schedules.

RPL Rencana Pemantauan Lingkungan - environmental monitoring plan. Aspecific guide derived from an ANDAL that describes the means formonitoring project compliance with requirements and procedures provided inthe RKL as well as with established environmental standards.

UKL UJpaya Pengelolaan Lingkiungan - an environmental management action plan.This is derived from the KL which has determined that predicted projectimpacts are not significant and can be managed by standard operatingprocedures. The UKL is operational in scope and serves as a bindinginstrument for the proponent with regard to environmental management. UKLand UPL documents do not form part of the AMDAL process, as they are notsubject to evaluation by the responsible AMDAL commission but rather areunder the direct responsibiity of the technical agency responsible for

|: ^supervising the proposed project activity.

UPL Upaya Pemantauan Lingkungan - environmental monitoring action plan.This is the monitoring counterpart to the UKL.

REFERENCES

| Asian Development BankfDG Highways - Indonesia. 1995. Operational guidelines forresettlement management in road projects: a handbook. TA 2268-1NO for CapacityBuilding for Resettlement Management in Road Projects.I Asian Wetland Bureau. 1992. Environmental Impact Assessment Integrated SwampsDevelopment Project (Riau, Jambi, West Kalimantan). Second draft. PHPA/AWB,Bogor.I , Balen, S. van. 1991. An ornithological survey of the Kampar and Rokan rivers and theiradjacent forests, Riau, Sumatra. PHPA/AWB Sumatra Wetland Project Report No.23, Bogor.

DHV Consultants BV and associates. 1996. Bali Urban Infrastructure Program. UmbrellaEnvironmental Assessment (Executive Summary). BAPPEDA TKI Bali.

BirdLife Intemational - Indonesia. 1994. Kawasan Konservasi yang telah dikukuhkan diI Indonesia. Draft report.Bum, J. & N. Brickle. 1992. Spirit of Sumatra 1992, Preliminary report, including status and

notes on the ecology of Cairina scutulata (White-winged Wood Duck) and CiconiaI stormi (Storm's Stork) in the Sumatran provinces of Riau and Jambi, Indonesia.Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, UK.

Collar, N.J., M.J. Crosby & A.J. Stattersfield. 1994. Birds to Watch 2. The World List of1 Threatened Birds. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 4, BirdLife Intemational,

Cambridge, UK.Giesen, W. & S. van Balen. 1991. The wetlands of Giam-Siak Kecil Wildlife Reserve, Riau,

Sumatra. PHPA/AWB Sumatra Wetland Project Report No. 22, Bogor.- Hoff & Overgaard a/s. 1992. Fnvironmental Assessment, IBRD Kabupaten Roads in Eastern

Indonesia. Vol. 3: Environmental Management. Project Management Unit, IBRDRural Roads Development Project.

Hoff & Overgaard als. 1993. Overview of current practices for the acquisition of land forroad development projects. Draft report to the Proposed Second Highway SectorProject, Indonesia.

Hoff & Overgaard a/s. 1995. Environmental and social aspects of road network expansion.Draft report for The World Bank.

IBRD. 1994. Indonesia Kabupaten Roads Program: KR3, KREI, KR5, Environmental andSocial Aspects. IBRD Infrastructure Operations Division, Country Department III,East Asia and Pacific Regional Office.

Indro Djarwo, H. 1995. TA 2209: Land Acquisition and Resettlement Program for theProposed North Java Road Improvement Project. Main Report. Dir. ProgramDevelopment, DG Highways.

Louis Berger Intemational hic. and associates. 1995. Strategic Urban Road Infrastructure* Project. Summary Environmental Assessment. DG. Highways, Directorate of Urban

Road Development.Marie, J.G. van & K.H.Voous. 1988. The birds of Sumatra: an annotated checklist. Brit. Om.

Union Check-list No. 10, Tring, UK.

I.

l

RePPProT. 1988. Review of Phase I Results, Sumatra. Regional Physical Planning ProgrammeI for Transmigration. Land Resources Dept. ODNRI, London, and DG SettlementPreparation, Dept. Transmigration.

RePPProT. 1990. The Land Resources ofIndonesia: a National Overview. Regional PhysicalPlanning Programme for Transmigration. Land Resources Dept. ODNRI, London, andDG Settlement Preparation, Dept. Transmigrat.on.

Seksi AMDAL Bipram. 1993. Environmental Management of National and Provincial Roads| Projects. Interim Standard Environmenlal Mitigation Measures. (Draft). DG.

Highways, Sub-Directorate of General Planning, Enviromnental Section.Silvius, M.J., A.P.J.M. Steeman, E.T. Berczy, E Djuharsa & A.W. Taufik. 1987. The

Indonesian Wetland Inventory. A preliminary compilation of existing information onwetlands of Indonesia. PHPA, AWB/Interwader, EDWIN, Bogor.

Silvius, M.J. 1988. On the importance of Sumatra's eaw t coast for waterbirds with notes on theAsian Dowitcher Limnodromus semipaimatus. Kukila 3 (3-4): 117-137.

Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Ltd. 1995. Resettlement Plan, Bodri River FloodControl Sub-project. North coast of Java Water Resources Development and FloodControl Study. DG Water Resources Development.

Species - Newsletter of the Species Survival Commission, IUCN - The World ConservationUnion. No. 26-27, June-December 1996.

Whitten, A.J., S.J. Damanik, J. Anwar & N. Hisyam. 1984. The Ecology of Sumatra. GadjahMada University Press.

World Bank. 1994. Roads and the Environment. A Handbook. Report TWU 13.| World Bank. 1994. Indonesia: Environment and Development. A World Bank Country Study.

-I

l

I I

I