Document of

The World Bank

Report No. 14989-IND

STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT

INDONESIA

KERINCI SEBLAT INTEGRATED CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

APRIL 3, 1996

Agriculture Operations DivisionCountry Department IIIEast Asia and Pacific Region

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

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS(As of March 1996)

Currency unit = Rupiah (Rp)US$1.00 = Rp 2,331

Rp I million = US$429SDR I = US$1.47592

GOVERNMENT OF INDONESIAFISCAL YEAR

April I - March 31

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Metric System

ABBREVtATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AMDAL - Environmental Impact Assessment (Analisis MengenaiDampak Linkungan)

APBN - Central Budget AllocationAPBD - Provincial Budget AllocationBANGDA - Department of Regional DevelopmentBANGDES - Village Development AgencyBAPPEDA - Regional Development Planning Board (Badan Perencanaan

Daerah)BAPPENAS - National Development Planning Agency (Badan Perencanaan

Pembangunan Nasional)BCPP - Biodiversity Conservation Promotions ProgramBRI - Bank Rakyat IndonesiaBupati - District headCamat - Sub-district HeadCIFOR - Centre for Intemational Forestry ResearchDG - Director GeneralDUP - Proposed Budget PlanDIP - Final Budget PlanGEF - Global Environmental FacilityGIS - Geographic Information SystemsGOI - Govemment of IndonesiaHPH - Forest Concession (Hak Pengusaha Hutan)HTI - Industrial Forest Plantaitons (Hutan Tanaman Industri)ICDP - Integrated Conservation and Development ProjectIDT - Presidential Poverty Alleviation Fund (Inpres Desa Tertingal)INPRES - Presidential Instruction (Instruksi Presiden)INTAG - DG of Forest Inventory and Forest use (Inventarisasi dan Tata Guna Hutan)IPCC - Inter-Provincial Coordination CommitteeJGF - - Japanese Grant FacilityKPKN - Office of the State Treasurer (Kantor Perbendaharaan dan Kas Negara)KPHP - Permanent production forest management units (Kesatuan

Pengusahan Hutan Produksi)KSNP - Kerinci-Seblat National ParkLEI - Indonesian Ecolabelling Institute (Lembaga Ekolabel

Indonesia)LIPI - Indonesian Institute of Sciences (Lembaga I/mu Pengetahuan

Indonesia)LKMD - Village Community Resilience Institute (Lembaga Ketahanan

Masyarakat Desa)MoFr - Ministry of ForestryMoHA - Ministry of Home AffairsNGO - Non-govemmental OrganizationPCC - Project Coordination CommitteePHPA - Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature

Conservation (Perlindungan Hutan dan Pelestarian Alam)PIMPRO - Project Director/ManagerTGHK Forest Consensus Boundary (Tata Guna Hutan dan

Kesepakatan)VCA - Village Conservation AgreementWARSI - Clearing House for Conservation Information (Warung

Informasi Konservasi)WWF - Worldwide Fund for NaturZOPP - ZielOrientierteProjektPlanung(Objective oriented project planning)

INDONESIA

Kerinci Seblat Integrated Conservation and Development Project

LOAN/GRANT AND PROJECT SUMMARY'

Borrower The Republic of Indonesia

Implementing Agency Ministries of Forestry and Home Affairs and local govermment in the fourparticipating provinces.

Beneficiaries The globally important National Park of Kerinci-Seblat,and people living in the park buffer zones.

Poverty Program of targeted interventions. The villagers living in the Park buffer zone arethe beneficiaries, including tribal people (the Kubus), and belong to the poorestsections of society. The project interventions are focussed on arriving at a villageconservation agreement which legalizes village access to resources in the Park andbuffer zone and providing social benefits, in return for community cooperation inPark protection and conserving biodiversity resources in village lands and forestryconcessions.

Loan Amount US$19.1 million equivalent

Terms Standard variables interest rate for a term of 20 years, including five years ofgrace for currency pool loans.

Commitment Fee 0.75 percent on undisbursed loan balances, beginning 60 days after signing, lessany waiver.

Grant Amount GEF Trust Fund Grant of SDR 10.2 million (US$15.0 million equivalent)

Terms Grant

Financing Plan See table on page 16.

Economic Rate of Return National Park (not applicable); Area/Village Development and ForestConcession Monitoring 16% (63% of total costs).

Map IBRD 27251

Staff Appraisal Report 14989-IND

Project IlD Number ID-PA-3699/GE003

GEF and IBRD are financing mutually dependant activities and therefore this document is intended to meet both GEF andIBRD processing requirements. A GEF project document based on the SAR has been prepared to meet GEF Council andPublic Information needs.

- ii -

CONTENTS

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................. IA. Indonesia's Biodiversity Resources ................................................................. 1B. Government Strategy and Legal Framework ................................................................2C. Institutional Framework of Protected Areas ................................................................. 3D. Kerinci Seblat National Park's Setting ................................................................. 4

2. BANK/GEF INVOLVEMENT AND LESSONS LEARNED ................................................. 6A. Lessons learned from previous GEF and Bank Operations .......................................... 6B. Rationale for GEF/Bank Financing and Consistency with Country Assistance

Strategy and Economic and Sector Work ................................................................. 7

3. THE PROJECT ................................................................. 8A. Project Objectives ................................................................. 8B. Project Design and Description ................................................................. 8C. Project Costs and Financing ................................................................ 15

4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................ 17A. Project Organization and Management ................................................................ 17B. Implementation Plan ................................................................ 20C. Procurement ................................................................ 21D. Disbursements ................................................................ 24E. Project Accounts, Audits, Reporting and Bank Supervision ...................................... 26

5. PROJECT IMPACT ................................................................ 27A. Economic Benefits ................................................................ 27B. Social and Environmental Impacts ................................................................ 30C. Project Sustainability ................................................................ 33D. Risks ................................................................ 33

6. AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATION .35

TABLES in Main Text

This report is based on the findings of an Appraisal Mission that visited Indonesia during June 1995, comprisingMessrs./Ms. Ben van de Poll (Task Manager), Asmeen Khan, Thamrin Nurdin, Pieter Evers, John Dalton, OyvindSandbukt. Assistance was also provided by Messrs. Jim Douglas, Scott Guggenheim, Charles Di Leva and Ms.Salenna Prince. The peer reviewers were Mss. Susan Shen and Augusta Molnar. The GEF extemal technicalreviewers were Mr. Jeff McNeely (IUCN) and Ms. Christine Paddoch (New York Botanic Garden). Ms. MarianneHaug, Director, EA3 and Mr. Gershon Feder, Chief, EA3AG, have endorsed the project.

ANNEXES

1. Details of Project ComponentsA. Park ManagementB. Area/Village DevelopmentC. Integrated Biodiversity in Forest Concession ManagementD. Monitoring and Evaluation

2. Summary Social Assessment Information for Boundary Villages3. Community Participation and Stakeholder Consultation Activities4. Indicative Development Activities5. Technical Assistance Requirements6. Project Implementation Schedule7. Project Supervision Plan8. Project Performance Indicators9. Expenditure Accounts by Components and Detailed Costs by Components10. Estimated Disbursement Schedule and Plan11. Regional Impact Assessment12. Incremental Costs of Biodiversity Conservation13. Economic Analysis of Project Components14. Documents in Project File

CHARTS

1. Project Organization2. Planning and Funds Flow for Integrated Area Development Activities

MAP

IBRD 27251

- I -

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND

A. INDONESIA'S BIODIVERSITY RESOURCES

1.1 Biodiversity Value. Indonesia is rich in biodiversity. It contains nearly 10 percent of theworld's closed tropical forests. It also has extensive coral reefs and more marine coastline than anyother tropical country. Although the archipelago represents only 1.3 percent of the earth's landsurface, it contains an estimated 25 percent of the world's fish species, 17 percent of all bird species,16 percent of reptile and amphibian species, 12 percent of mammal species, 10 percent of plantspecies, and unknown numbers of species of invertebrate animals, fungi, and microorganisms.These habitats and species are now threatened by logging, mining and over fishing, as well as byagricultural development and other competing land uses.

1.2 Economic Importance. Indonesia's biological resources are economically important bothglobally and nationally. Many plant species originated in Indonesia, including cloves, black pepper,sugar cane and several tropical fruits. Indonesians use over 6,000 species of plants and animals.Daily they gather or cultivate these species for food, handicrafts, medicines, fuel and buildingmaterials. Some 40 million people directly depend on a wide range of forest and non-forest productsfor subsistence. Natural ecosystems, and the environmental functions they protect, stronglyinfluence Indonesia's agriculture, forestry, livestock and fisheries which together contributed about19 percent of GDP in 1993 directly; a significant proportion of industry sector output is also highlydependent on natural resources.

1.3 Biodiversity Areas. The biodiversity and natural habitats most at stake for priority in situconservation are the 49 million hectares (ha) of terrestrial areas, as well as the 30 million ha ofmarine and littoral habitats, which GOI has identified for conservation by the year 2000. In addition,there are some 65 million ha designated for production forests, which have an equally importantshare of the biodiversity and natural habitats, particularly the lowland forests. While certain of theselowland forests would therefore also call for conservation, as a priority, most of these areas requiresustainable management. .Out of the 366 established conservation areas, there are 33 National Parks,covering nearly 8.8 million ha, one of which is Kerinci Seblat. the focus of this project. The KerinciSeblat National Park (KSNP) spans four provinces in Sumatra covering some 1.3 million ha. ThePark and its adjacent forests have been internationally recognized as one of the most importantconservation areas in Southeast Asia.'

l IUCN Review of the Protected Areas System in the Indomalayan Realm, 1986.

- 2 -

B. GOVERNMENT STRATEGY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

1.4 Biodiversity Action Plan. This plan, prepared in 1991/92, is the main policy statement byGOI for Indonesia's biodiversity conservation strategy. The Plan provides a framework forbiodiversity conservation during the current five-year Development Plan (REPELITA VI - 1994/5-1998/9) and for the twenty-five Year Development Plan. The main objectives of the Plan are to (a)reduce the loss of terrestrial and marine habitats of primary importance for biodiversity; (b) expandbiodiversity data and information to policy makers and the public; and (c) foster the sustainable useof biological resources. The strategy to attain these objectives would be carried out through anintegrated process of institutional, policy and legal reform and development coupled with investmentthrough selected projects. The Plan has four components. First, in situ conservation in NationalParks, reserves and protection forests; second, in situ conservation outside the protected areanetwork in forests, wetlands and agricultural landscapes; third, in situ conservation of marine andcoastal resources; and fourth, ex-situ conservation, including gene and seed banks, preservation ofcrop varieties, and captive breeding programs. An important prerequisite for the Plan'simplementation is an increased participation by the public, particularly by communities living in andadjacent to areas of high biodiversity value. The Plan also provides for local NGOs to play an activerole in fostering such participation.

1.5 The legal framework. Indonesia has ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity andhas an international and legal commitment to both conserve and sustainably use its biodiversity,including the equitable sharing of benefits. One of the main laws regulating in situ biodiversityconservation is Law No. 5/1990 on Living Natural Resources and Their Ecosystems. This lawprovides the legal basis for the enactment of National Parks and other protected areas and refers tothe possibility of sustainable use of living natural resources. It also provides a concept of zoningwithin these conservation areas (core zone, use zone for recreation and tourism, wilderness zone andtraditional management zone). The law is also specific about the buffer zone and describes it as anarea outside the conservation area capable of protecting the integrity of the conservation areas byproviding natural symbiosis between all forms of life, ensuring sustainable ecological balance and ahigher quality of life for the community. However, implementing regulations or models forNational Park and buffer zone development have not yet been introduced. Another important lawconcerns the Spatial Management Law No. 24 of 1992. This law intends to combine spatialmanagement with resource utilization and requires that all provinces and districts formulate spatialplans. It also provides for the spatial management of protection areas, including National Parks, andsuggests that National Parks of the dimensions of KSNP would justify a separate spatial plan andsubsequently be integrated in the provincial spatial plans. While the law addresses generalenvironmental concerns, biodiversity conservation has not been singled out as an issue in its ownright nor as a condition for sustaining ecological balance in-and outside a National Park. The subjectof land and user rights for people living within the Park and buffer zone is addressed in a number oflaws (e.g. Basic Agrarian and Forestry laws). Individual and community rights related to forest landsremain in general a major source of dispute, and in the particular case of KSNP, this is aggravated bythe fact that Park boundary for the proposed project, including the delineation of forest/non forestboundary within the buffer zone, has not yet been confirmed in its entirety.

-3 -

1.6 The strategy taken in Indonesia to manage the conservation areas, including theirbiodiversity, is through Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs). This approachattempts to ensure the conservation of biological diversity by reconciling the management ofprotected areas with social and economic needs of local people. These projects range from smallbiosphere reserves with multiple-use area within the boundary of the protected area, to largerprojects which link land use plans and regional development initiatives to protected areamanagement. In Indonesia there are currently eight National Parks where ICDP's will be tested.2

The ICDP approach in Indonesia seeks the systematic devolution of management responsibility topeople living around the protected area. This requires a steady decentralization of managementauthority to local agencies, including the funding of protected areas.

C. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS

1.7 The designated government authority responsible for the management and stewardship of theprotected area system is the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation(PHPA) within the Ministry of Forestry (MoFr). PHPA's mandate covers the planning, designationand management of all protected areas, and the planning and supervision of protection forests. Atthe provincial level, PHPA is represented by the Natural Resources Sub Regional Office (Sub-BalaiKonservasi Sumber Daya Alam) under the authority of the provincial forestry department (KepalaKanwil Departemen Kehutanan), headed by a representative of the Minister of Forestry. In additionthere are regional representatives of the DG PHPA called Balai KSDA covering several provinceswith sub-offices in each province. Most National Parks are managed by a special body, the NationalPark Office or Management Unit, headed by a director who reports directly to the DG PHPA throughthe Provincial Forestry office.

1.8 The responsibility for survey and demarcation of protected area boundaries in the field restswith the DG of Forest Inventory and Management (INTAG). The mandate for enforcement ofprotected area legislation is with PHPA in cooperation with local law enforcement agencies. Thearea bordering the protected area -- the buffer zone--is managed by provincial and districtauthorities. The key person is the Bupati, the head of the district (Kabupaten), who is responsible forcoordinating and managing all government activities in the district. He is assisted in his task by theprovincial planning board (BAPPEDA II) who plays a key role in coordinating, planning, advisingand monitoring developmrent programs and the (Dinas) technical agencies that implement sectoralprograms. For the past several years the National Planning Agency (BAPPENAS) with the Ministryof Forestry has convened a national forum to coordinate agency planning and development activitiesin areas surrounding National Parks. Other institutions that have responsibility for managingbiodiversity include: Ministry of Environment, Agriculture, Home Affairs, and the IndonesianInstitute of Science (LIPI). There are several institutional and policy constraints facing GOI as itattempts to implement its protected areas conservation strategy. PHPA and other institutions withresponsibility for biodiversity conservation suffer from an acute lack of trained and dynamic staff,frequent transfer of experienced staff, and a lack of adequate funding. Coordination between the

2 The eight national parks include Gunung Leuser, Kerinci Seblat, Gede-Pangrango, Halimun, Bromo-Tengger Semeru, Kutai,Dumoga-Bone and Lore Lindu.

- 4 -

forestry agencies and the regional governments in the management and enforcement of rules andregulations in and around protected areas is often totally lacking. This situation is exacerbated bythe lack of effective incentives for local governments and smallholders to protect habitat andbiodiversity, and of integrated management plans that link management of protected areas withdistrict or provincial development plans.

D. KERINCI SEBLAT NATIONAL PARK'S SETTING

1.9 The KSNP is the largest conservation area in Sumatra, straddling the four provinces of WestSumatra, Jambi, Bengkulu, and South Sumatra (see map). With an area of about 1.3 million ha thePark is one of the largest conservation areas in South East Asia. Based on extensive field surveys byFAO and PHPA the Park was nominated in 1982 by the Minister of Forestry as a National Park.However, it is only now that MOFr is preparing the final text of the decree that will formally gazetteKerinci Seblat as a National Park. The Park boundary demarcation process is nearly completed andmost boundaries adjoining settlements have been demarcated but not yet agreed upon by allstakeholders. There are some 450 villages in the nine districts which share common boundaries withthe Park. The population of the sub-districts closest to the Park is approximately 1.75 million. Insome villages, the boundary demarcation is under review, as some of their agricultural land hasfallen within the Park. The project will focus on these villages in the area/village component. Thereis considerable ethnic variation between the villages and some evidence of nomadic Kubu people(Orang Rimba) entering the Park buffer zone to hunt.

1.10 The Park and its environs encompass a spectrum of habitats from species-rich lowlandforests through hill forests and unique highland wetland systems to montane forests and subalpinehabitats on Sumatra's highest mountain. The Park is remarkable for its species richness with morethan 4000 plants (1/60 of the world total), 180 birds (1/50 of all birds), including at least 14 of the 20Sumatran mainland endemics, and 144 mammals (73 percent of the Sumatran mammal fauna and1/30 of the world total, including five island endemics). Many of the habitats and species protectedwithin the Park and its immediate forest buffer zone are poorly represented or absent from otherconservation areas in Sumatra or elsewhere in Asia. This area harbors some of the last viablepopulations of endangered mammals such as the endemic Sumatran hare Nesolagus netscheri,Sumatran rhinoceros Dicerorhinus sumatrensis, Sumatran tiger Panthera tigris sumatrensis, cloudedleopard Neofelis nebulosa, Malay tapir Tapirus indicus and Asian elephants Elephas maximus.Many of the large predators and forest herbivores require large areas of lowland forests and othernatural habitats to protect their home ranges and ensure access to vital mineral-licks. The highbiodiversity value of the Park and surrounding forests is a result of both the area's large size andwide range of habitats and is dependent on the long-term protection of an adequate continuum ofhabitats from lowland forests to subalpine montane systems. The integrity of the Park and its highbiodiversity values are threatened by encroachment from shifting cultivation and cinnamonplantations, forest logging, mining, commercial plantations and road development.

1.11 There are twelve forest concessions (HPHs) bordering the Park (see map). These HPHs totalsome one million ha and provide potentially an important buffer zone habitat for biodiversityconservation. In 1985 over 200,000 ha of lowland and hill forest were transferred from the proposedPark mainly to benefit the logging concessions in Jambi. The HPH areas are based on a thirty-five

-5 -

year logging cycle, but the actual leases for the concessions to private logging companies are fortwenty years. The precise location of the concession boundaries are difficult to determine given thelarge areas concerned and the nature of the terrain. This can quite easily lead to logging operationstaking place in protected or other conservation forest areas. While the legal framework coveringforest exploitation seems to be adequate, supervision of logging plans and operations by theresponsible provincial forest service is inadequate so that the implementation and enforcement ofappropriate logging practices is generally poor, threatening biodiversity and affecting watershedmanagement.

1.12 Apart from being surrounded by estate crop areas and transmigration settlements, KSNP alsohas a number of gold and coal mining concessions straddling the Park. Most of the smallconcessions belong to domestic companies; the fewer but bigger ones are owned by Indonesian-foreign joint ventures. Most operations are in the exploration stage with the smaller ones not veryactive due to lack of capital. No economically mineable resources have so far been revealed in thePark and together with the fact that existing laws and regulations are generally putting limitations onmining activities in gazetted National Parks, it is believed that mining operations on the KerinciSeblat Park and its environment will be limited and controlled.

- 6 -

2. BANK/GEF INVOLVEMENT AND LESSONS LEARNED

A. LESSONS LEARNED FROM PREVIOUS GEF AND BANK OPERATIONS

2.1 The Global Environment Facility (GEF) has supported two biodiversity conservationinitiatives in Indonesia: the Biodiversity Collections Project (US$7.2 million) and the ConservationStrategies for Rhinos in Southeast Asia Project (US$2.0 million). An amount of US$1.56 millionfrom the GEF[UNDP Pre-lnvestment Facility (PRIF) was approved to finance preparation of theBiodiversity Collections Project, Kerinci Seblat ICDP and a Conservation Awareness Program.Project implementation under the Bank managed Biodiversity Collections Project is proceedingwell, with technical advisors recruited and workshop and key planning/consultation activities wellunderway. The UNDP managed South East Asia Rhinos Project will develop organized and trainedrhino protection units in KSNP to assist in anti-poaching and community outreach programs. Asboth operations are newly launched it is too early to draw applicable lessons for KSNP.

2.2 Over the period 1988-1995, the Bank committed a total of US$731 million of its ownresources and resources it administers on behalf of the international development community to 84projects or project components with explicit objectives for biodiversity conservation in 51 countriesaround the world3. Bank support to parks and protected areas has grown rapidly over the last fiveyears. The Bank's IBRD/IDA portfolio of biodiversity related activities has included some twenty-seven projects with a total loan/credit value of US$287 million equivalent between FY92-95. Inaddition, the Bank (as GEF implementing agency) has worked closely with local project sponsors onthirty one biodiversity programs, for which the GEF Participants/Council have allocated US$244million between FY92-95. In an independent evaluation of the GEF pilot phase (11/93), theassessment of some thirty UNDP/WB biodiversity projects showed that: (a) too little considerationhad been given to local people, their expertise and priorities, and the need to engage and empowerlocal communities, NGOs and other stakeholders in designing and implementing projects; (b) NGOinvolvement was found to be inadequate; (c) long-term financing of such projects was sometimesdoubtful; and (d) the need to monitor and evaluate arrangements in projects and adopt an action-learning approach with the flexibility to adapt project activities to take account of lessons learnedduring implementation. Similar observations are found in the 1991 OED analysis of forestry andconservation lending, which also concluded that: (a) realistic incentives are needed for conservationactivities, and (b) conservation and buffer zone management components should be based on a clearprioritization of areas and a realistic plan for related rural development activities targeted to nearbypopulations.

2.3 In Indonesia, the Bank has supported investment in management and infrastructuredevelopment in twelve National Parks in Indonesia through the Forestry Institutions andConservation Projects I & II. These projects have revealed PHPA institutional weaknesses whichKSNP will also have to face, namely, frequent movement of senior staff, moratorium of recruitingnew guard staff with low educational qualifications, lack of incentives for technicians and guards to

3 Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development: A World Bank Assistance Strategy for Implementing the Convention onBiological Diversity, ESD, October 1995.

- 7 -

perform their assigned tasks, and overemphasis on blueprints and planning rather than learning by tryingand doing. More generally, experience with the Bank's portfolio in Indonesia has highlighted difficultiesassociated with: (a) inter-agency coordination; and (b) timely appointment of consultants and theireffective interaction with government staff. The proposed project will address these difficulties bybuilding on some very positive experiences gained from WWF and WARSI (a group of local NGOs)involvement in community participation and village development around Kerinci Seblat. The approachwill be a rebalancing of responsibilities toward decentralized government agencies, NGOs, and localcommunities. Project design has built on the lessons learned from conservation project experience inIndonesia and elsewhere. The principal lesson is that projects which have focused on purely biologicaland ecological concerns, and have attempted to insulate the project site from surrounding economic andsocial pressures, have often failed. This project recognizes that protection of the biodiversity assets ofthis large and populous area can only be achieved through significant change in social and economicfactors affecting the lives of people who live and work in the Park, and its surrounding areas.

B. RATIONALE FOR GEF/BANK FINANCING AND CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTRY ASSISTANCESTRATEGY AND ECONOMIC & SECTOR WORK

2.4 The proposed project is fully consistent with the Convention on Biological Diversity andguidance from the Conference of the Parties. It has been identified as a national priority in theBiodiversity Action Plan- (see para 1.4) and proposed activities will: strengthen conservation,management and sustainable use of ecosystems and habitats (including threatened lowland and hillforests as well as montane habitats); demonstrate innovative measures (linking conservation and districtdevelopment) to conserve biodiversity; and give priority to involvement of local people in Park andnatural resource management. KSNP and its surrounding forests can be regarded as one of the lastopportunities in Southeast Asia to conserve a diverse and complex mammal predator-prey system.Forestry management to integrate conservation values into forestry practice and maintain permanentforest cover in the Kerinci forest buffer zone will not only effectively increase the conservation estate bymaintaining natural habitat beyond Park boundaries, but could provide a model for sustainable forestrythroughout Indonesia.

2.5 The proposed Kerinci Seblat ICDP is also consistent with the Bank's Country's AssistanceStrategy (CAS) for Indonesia which was discussed by the Board of Executive Directors on March 21,1995. This strategy projects increased lending for natural resources and conservation management, andfocuses on sustainable environmental and natural resource management, targeted poverty reduction,human resource development, and more decentralized and participatory approaches. Assistance willfocus on watershed management and conservation, integrated management and conservation of NationalParks (both terrestrial and marine), and coral reef rehabilitation and management. The project is alogical progression from the Bank's past support for conservation issues. These include efforts atsupporting Park planning and management and the on-going Biodiversity Collections Project which willimprove GOI's capacity in. biodiversity inventory and monitoring. The proposed Kerinci Seblat ICDPproject is viewed by GOI as the demonstration model for future National Park interventions elsewhere inthe country, and both GOI and the Bank are heavily committed to its successful implementation. Withrespect to Economic and Sector work this project follows the recommendations of the Bank study onConserving Biological Diversity in the Asian Pacific Region (1992) and the Bank Country Study forIndonesia on environment and development (1994).

- 8 -

3. THE PROJECT

A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

3.1 Project Concept. The project would address the first objective of the Biodiversity ActionPlan (in situ conservation of natural habitats para. 1.4) and is largely process oriented. While itwould primarily focus on the protection of one of the country's largest National Parks, it would dealwith major institutional, policy and development issues whose resolution is vital for the developmentof an integrated protected- area system covering all major terrestrial habitats in Indonesia. It wouldstrengthen PHPA, the main agency responsible for conservation areas. On the developmental side, itwould use an integrated conservation and development approach (ICDP) that reconciles Parkmanagement with the social and economic needs of the local people and within the framework ofsome of the development goals set for the four provinces bordering the Park. This requires a steadydecentralization of management authority to local agencies and governments. It would aim atfinding better modus operandi for local community participation and the use of NGOs inmanagement decision making concerning Park boundary demarcation and land use and buffer zoneregulations.

3.2 Specific Project Objectives. The overall objective of the project is to secure thebiodiversity of KSNP and stop further habitat fragmentation by: (a) improving Park protection andmanagement, including the involvement of local communities; and (b) promoting sustainablemanagement and the maintenance of permanent forest cover in the remaining buffer zone concessionareas. The project will develop a model for ICDP which can be applied to other Parks in theIndonesia protected area system (and elsewhere in Asia) to reconcile conservation and regional anddistrict development. The ICDP would follow an integrated two pronged approach to help stabilizethe Park boundary and protect biodiversity within the Park and adjacent areas, as well as to enhancethe livelihoods of poor households living around the KSNP by providing them with alternativelivelihood opportunities consistent with Park conservation objectives. The project design proposesto meet this objective by institutional strengthening in the areas of integrated planning, coordinatedimplementation and regular monitoring and enforcement at provincial and local levels; buildinginstitutional capacity through increased staffing and in-service training; and improving livelihoodsthrough improved resource management and services delivery.

B. PROJECT DESIGN AND DESCRIPTION

3.3 The background for project design and components is based on eighteen technical reports(see Annex 14) completed in June 1993 and funded by the GEF/UNDP Pre-Investment Facility (para2.1). Detailed design followed with funding provided by a Japanese Grant. Community andstakeholder consultation activities have played a major role in project preparation and design.Beginning in 1992, preparation teams have engaged in rapid rural appraisal exercises in boundaryvillages with the objective of creating village profiles, understanding land use patterns and people-Park interactions, and eliciting stakeholder feedback on ICDP design. Wherever possible, projectactivities will build on local knowledge and practices that are compatible with biodiversity

-9-

conservation and sustainable use of resources in and around KSNP. Annex 2 provides socialassessment information particularly relevant to the Park's buffer zone communities. The area/villagedevelopment component will focus on the target groups identified, most of which belong to thepoorer sections of Indonesia's population. Annex 3 provides a summary table of the majorconsultation activities that have taken place during the preparation phase, including workshops withforeign and local NGOs, affected villagers, and government officials. The proposed project to beimplemented over a six-year period will include four major components which are complementary toproject objectives: (a) park management; (b) area and village development; (c) integratingbiodiversity in forest concession management; and (d) monitoring and evaluation. Supportingactivities are: (a) policy and planning; (b) training and community facilitation; (c) promotion ofconservation awareness; and (d) studies.

Project Components

3.4 Park Management (estimated costs US$13.4 million). One of the first major projectactivities will be the preparation and implementation of a management plan, including zonation, forKSNP. The component will strengthen Park protection, management, enforcement and participatoryplanning through institutional strengthening of Park personnel, training and infrastructure support. Itwill also support boundary rationalization activities, species inventory, ecological monitoring, socio-economic and other research necessary for Park and buffer zone planning and management. Thecomponent will be implemented by a Park director and his staff, supported by technical assistance.More detailed information is provided in Annex 1, with full details in Working Paper I of Annex 14.Given the institutional and management constraints facing the Park, a longer time horizon beyond theinitial six year project period will be required to implement the strategy to elevate the Park to a fullyprotected and functioning conservation estate. Accordingly, the Park management strategy is based onshort, medium and long-term objectives as follows:

Short-Term (1-2 years):

D Legal establishment of the Park through formal gazettement and further boundaryrationalization.;

* Mobilization of senior and junior staff, including technical assistance; and* Set up of management plan, M&E system and training.

Medium-Term (3-12 years):

* Develop and implement a Park management plan including a comprehensive zoningsystem;

* Develop and reinforce Park management and protection, including efficient coordinationwith local government;

* Effective protection for the preservation of viable natural ecosystems and endangeredspecies:

* Improve management of people-Park interactions, particularly with buffer zone localcommunities; and

* Facilitate human use for recreation and education;

- 10-

Long-Term (13-25 years):

* Regenerate degraded areas;* Maintain habitats for specific conservation objectives; and* Focus activities to utilize the Park for recreation, research and tourism.

3.5 AreaNVillage Development (estimated costs US$25.9 million). The area developmentcomponent is designed to improve land use planning, land use rights and community resourcemanagement in about 134 selected villages in the interaction zone surrounding the Park, includingvillages adjoining or within logging concessions bordering the Park. It will be based on an iterativeparticipatory development process involving four steps namely: situational assessment, designingvillage development plans, implementing and monitoring, and review and evaluation leading to arevised design. The main aim of this process is to arrive at a village conservation agreement (VCA)which legalizes village access to resources in the Park and its buffer zone (e.g. access to non-timberforest products, intensification of agricultural production systems and community forestry) or socialbenefits (such as improved marketing and village infrastructure improvements, including processingand storage) and guarantees specified development assistance in return for community cooperationin Park protection and conserving biodiversity resources on village lands. This process, that willrequire a long preparation and delivery time of up to three years, will be initiated and sustained ineach target community by resident project facilitators in collaboration with formal village leaders,traditional and formal village groups. While the target group of resource-poor farmers mostdependent on the Park will be the main focus of this activity, the overall village community willnecessarily be parties to this consensus VCA. In villages adjoining forest concessions, thecomponent will mainly promote community forestry management. Some key preparatory work inregard to planning and training has already been commenced by WWF and financed by the Japanesegrant (para 3.3). Further details of this component are shown in Annex 1 with full details onoperation and legal framework given in the Working Papers 2, 3 and 9 in Annex 14.

3.6 Each of the target villages will receive about US$50,000 as village grants, depending on theirneeds, for a combination of small-scale infrastructure, agriculture intensification and business/enterprise activities. Much of the budget allocation process will follow the process of "Certificationfor Development Assistance Budget" (SPABP). The Village Community Resilience Institution(LKMD) and the Discussion Forum of the Area Development Unit (UDKP) at sub-district level willform the key local institutions for implementing the program (see Chart 1). Project assistanceprovided for the agriculture related activities may consist of community or individually focusedactivities which are based on a menu of indicative interventions and guiding principles rather thanthe standard top-down sub-sectoral packages provided by the provincial agricultural service.Activities will be based on areas' potential in terms of natural resources which vary considerably,(altitudes ranging from 0-2000m, climate, topography and in particular the difference betweenvolcanic and podzolic soils). Nevertheless, there will be two generic benefits which will begenerated by the project. The first will be related to the poor soils encountered in the podzolic landsused by villages, most of which have a fertility problem which can be improved by large initial

- 11 -

applications of rock phosphate. The other one will be related to genetic and managementimprovements in the availability of tree crop related stock (e.g. jungle rubber). The technicalsupport team (para. 4.4) would evaluate each of the proposed village activities and productiveinvestments and their recommendations for improvement would be taken into consideration for theimplementation of subsequent activities.

3.7 The eligibility criteria associated with the village development investments would be basedon: (a) conservation of biodiversity; (b) targeting common interest groups which are mostdisadvantaged; (c) technical and financial feasibility; social and institutional feasibility; and (d)impact and sustainability. Additional requirements are: (a) public infrastructure investments mustbe justified by the number of users and the cost per user; (b) village grant and village contributions,including labor, must be sufficient to complete the sub project; and (c) implementation/contractualarrangements must be clear. Assurances were obtained at negotiations that village grants would bemade available in accordance with procedures and conditions satisfactory to the Bank.

3.8 Integrating Biodiversity in Forest Concession Management (estimated costs US$2.9million). The primary objectives of this component are the following:

* establishment of a clear institutional and policy basis for the effective management offorested areas bordering the Park to act as an effective buffer zone for biodiversity;

* identification, monitoring and protection of high biodiversity sites of conservation valuewithin the concessions; and

* linking the management of forest concessions with the overall regional land use prioritiessupported by the project.

3.9 One of the main activities to be undertaken under this component will be ecological andbiodiversity assessments of the logging concession areas with the view for GOI to reallocate forestland to appropriate land use and management regimes as needed in the six logging concessions.This process would also assist in the rationalization of the Park boundary (see paras. 5.12-5.14).Some initial survey work has already commenced through WWF/CIFOR (Center for InternationalForestry Research) assistance and financed by the Japanese Grant (para 3.3). The intention is thatthe rapid ecological assessments will be complemented by the longer term KPHP (PermanentProduction Forest Management Units) process. The KPHP is a new program instituted by MOFr asa planning mechanism to redefine concession boundaries based on land use, biophysical and socialdevelopment considerations. As part of this process, areas of high biodiversity or watershedconservation values would be identified so that they can be left as protected forest areas within theconcession. The component will also include independent audit contracts to review and monitorforestry logging and conservation practices in some selected forestry concessions around the Park.The audits will be based on standards for forest management, environmental and social performanceand contracts will be issued by the Directorate General for Forest Utilization. Further details aredescribed in Annex 1 and in Working Paper 4 of Annex 14.

3.10 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) (estimated costs US$3.8 million). M&E is a supportcomponent which is linked to the project's Park management, area/village development andconcession management for biodiversity activities. The M&E is intended to support the planning

- 12 -

and decision-making processes in each of the three intervention components and are key to theireffective implementation. The proposed project monitoring activity will support three majorplanning and resource management functions: (a) technical and financial progress monitoring; (b)impact analysis; and (c) performance evaluation. Specific objectives for each of the threecomponents include the following:

Park Management

* to provide appropriate tools for monitoring encroachment, poaching and other developmentimpacts within Park boundaries; and

* to develop monitoring and performance indicators to assess the health and well-being of thePark such as boundary stability, habitat condition, species survival and distribution.

Area/Village Development

* to strengthen institutional capabilities for analyzing the impact of rural developmentactivities on the Park; and

* to facilitate the assessment of project effectiveness in enhancing social and economicdevelopment for boundary communities.

Integrating Biodiversity in Forest Concession Management

e to establish a system for monitoring the integrity of Park and concession boundaries,including the effectiveness of preserving biodiversity; and

* to develop a capability to monitor and evaluate forest management practices withinconcession areas, including the success of conservation sites within concession boundaries.

Further details are described in Annex I and in Working Paper 5 of Annex 14.

Additional Project Activities (included above but not described).

3.11 Policy and Planning (US$1.7 million). Project interventions in policy and planning will bemainly focused on the improvement of the regulatory guidelines for inter-provincial spatial planningand regional planning practices with the aim to influence the regional economic development of thegreater Kerinci Seblat area in taking more "conservation friendly" directions. The project intends todo this through the support of three activities:

* short-term policy and planning support to BAPPENAS and the Ministry of Home Affairs atthe central level to incorporate environmental concerns, particularly related to biodiversityconservation, in the regulatory guidelines of regional and spatial planning;

* long-term support to BAPPEDA I and 11 for provincial and district planning in the fourprovinces encompassing KSNP, particularly to ensure that KSNP's development willreflect agreed community resource management and conservation priorities; and

- 13 -

the preparation of a comprehensive land zoning plan for the entire project area which willaddress inter-provincial development priorities, including forest production, commercialplantations, mining and infrastructure and transportation development, so that the landusezonation and management of the Park and its buffer zone can be endorsed by the fourprovincial governments. Further details are provided in the preparation report and theregional and spatial planning Working Paper 6 shown in Annex 14 and its costs are mainlyincluded in the area/village development component.

3.12 Training and Community Facilitation (US$6.1 million). Specific training activities havebeen identified (see Annex I and 14) for each component that are necessary for capacity buildingand successful project implementation (see para. 4.7). The project will assist in designing andconducting a training needs assessment of all involved stakeholders, the implementation of relevanttheoretical and practical training programs, contracting of training services, and supervision andmonitoring of training impacts. The extension services in the districts will be used in thearea/village development component as and when required and will complement the communityfacilitation process. (See Working Paper 3 in Annex 14).

3.13 Conservation Awareness (US$1.3 million). The Biodiversity Conservation PromotionsProgram (BCPP) included in the project will play a key role within Park management and ruraldevelopment activities by disseminating information to people in boundary villages, governmentagencies and the community at large on the value of the Park for biodiversity, watershed protection,and local development. It will assist in the survey of current awareness levels and attitude, anddesign multi-media programs aimed at specific target groups, building on local practices andtraditions wherever possible. Details of this activity are shown in Annex 9 tables 1.2/3 and in theBCPP Working Paper 7 in Annex 14.

Studies (US$0.8 million)

3.14 Financial Sustainability. KSNP will require a long-term sustained program of investmentand institutional development to achieve its overall goal of conserving biodiversity throughintegrated buffer zone development. The proposed project would contribute to long-termsustainability through its emphasis on capacity-building and community involvement in projectdesign and implementation. In addition, recurrent costs associated with proposed project activitieswill be financed by GOI during the project period, reflecting the national commitment to effectiveoperation of KSNP and ICDP activities. The project's fiscal requirements over the long term are notescalating. However, to protect the Park from any possible budget cut, and to ensure financialsustainability beyond the project period, GOI wishes to explore what options would be available forfuture recurrent cost/investment financing and development assistance for both the Park and bufferzones on an off-budget basis. The study would review the structure by which money could be raisedfor and spent on protected areas management and come up with an approach to ensure continuity offunding sources, including decentralized funding mechanisms with responsiveness to localconditions as the guiding principles. The study would include also a review of the feasibility andrequirements for establishing a trust fund or other financing mechanism. Consequently, during years1-3 of project implementation, a special study will be commissioned to assess options and makerecommendations for future action.

-14-

3.15 Ecotourism. Tourism could provide a source of revenue towards Park maintenance costs aswell as alternative livelihood opportunity for some village communities. At present KSNP offersvery little facilities and services to attract any type of ecotourism. In addition, experience fromother tropical forest habitats in Asia suggest that ecotourism potential is limited, unless it isaccompanied by other attractions. This need for additional attractions would be considered in theframework of the preparation of the spatial plan (para. 4.3). At the same time the project, withadditional support from technical assistance provided for under the Park management component,would undertake a study to assess the potentials and constraints for KSNP to become an ecotourismsite. If a real potential would exist for KSNP and depending on the type of ecotourist (e.g. budgetand time available) the study would also outline how the ecotourism would have to be organized andmanaged, including the roles of the local people, govemment and the private sector.

3.16 Kubu Assistance Plan. The Kubu or Orang Rimba (people of the forest) have a tradition ofnomadic rain forest foraging, the only traditional hunter-gatherers to be found on mainland Sumatra.They generally are distributed outside the Park throughout the Batang Hari and Musi drainage basinsbut they have begun to venture into the KSNP buffer zone, particularly in or near the forestconcessions because of the continuing depletion of their traditional forest resources. While theKubus' livelihood is mainly derived from a combination of swidden cultivation, harvesting non-timber forest products and hunting and trapping, the overall depletion of resources has also led to anincrease in commercial hunting and trapping of many rare and threatened animals in and aroundKerinci Seblat because of lucrative prices paid by middlemen. The information on the Kubu andpossible development actions are described in Working Paper 8 of Annex 14.

3.17 Preliminary surveys indicate that there may be as few as two to three families to as many asseveral hundred Orang Rimba living in the buffer zone of the Park. While the Kubu are not likely tosuffer any adverse effects from the proposed project other than that the project will enforce standardlegal provisions against poaching of wildlife (especially endangered wildlife) for commercialpurposes, the project will review the actual Kubu dependence on buffer zone and KSNP resourcesand based on this impact assessment will prepare, if required, a plan which will propose measures tocontinue the continued access of the Kubus to natural resources vital to their subsistence andlivelihood in a manner to be acceptable to them, but within the constraints of a sustainablemanagement of KSNP and its buffer zone. If deemed necessary selected pilot activities among Kubugroups, possibly in the field of health improvements and education, would be initiated under theproject.

3.18 Because of the Kubus' highly mobile nature and their tendency to range in small groups overan enormous territory, it appears that a two step approach may be the most appropriate means tofurther assist them. The first step would include a 2-3 year review process carried out by the projectand mainly dealing with:

* establishing and training of a small multidisciplinary team consisting of both NGO andgovernment to effectively communicate with the Kubu and act as interlocutors betweenthe Kubu and the district and provincial government officials;

* the collection by the team of more basic baseline information on what-where Kubupresence, and dependence on resources in buffer zone and Park, including ecological andsocio-economic impact assessments;

- 15-

* determining Kubu livelihood and resource needs through an action plan in the event thatpartial or full restrictions on resource utilization or access exist for the Kubu in the Parkand buffer zones;

Assurances were obtained at negotiations that (a) not later than September 30, 1998, the results ofthe baseline study and impact assessment would be sent to the Bank for comments; (b) based on theresults of the study and of the assessment, and taking into account the KSNP management plan, theland zoning plan for the project area, and the comments of the Bank on the baseline study andimpact assessment, prepare, not later than June 1, 1999, an action plan designed to ensure that theOrang Rimba do not suffer adverse effects as a result of the implementation of the above plans; and(c) promptly thereafter, carry out such action plan in a manner satisfactory to the Bank.

C. PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING

3.19 The total cost of the project, summarized in Table 3.1, is estimated at US$46.0 million(Rp.103.6 billion equivalent), inclusive of taxes and duties in the amount of US$3.7 million(Rp.10.1 billion). Foreign exchange costs amount to about US$9.4 million or 20 percent of totalcosts. Physical contingencies are based on an average amount of 5 percent for goods and services,except for village allocations which are excluded from physical contingencies due to theirprogrammatic nature. Price contingencies reflect foreign inflation of 2.4 percent per annum andlocal inflation of 8.7 percent per annum throughout the project period. The local inflation rate hasbeen adjusted to take account of expected dollar appreciation against the Rupiah since most costs aredollar-based. Total contingencies are estimated at US$5.0 million or 11 percent of total costs.Further details of project costs are presented in Annex 9.

Table 3.1 PROJECT COST SUMMARY% % Total

(Ruplah Million) (USS '000) Foreign BaseLocal Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Exchange Costs

1. Park Management 17,910.7 8,934.4 26,845.1 7,971.6 3,976.5 11,948.1 33 292. AreaNillage Development 45,460.1 6,326.9 51,787.0 20,233.2 2,816.0 23,049.2 12 563. Concession Biodiversity 4,428.3 1,359.2 5,787.5 1,970.9 605.0 2,575.9 23 6

Assessment4. Monitoring & Evaluation 5,194.2 2,543.5 7,737.7 2,311.8 1,132.1 3,443.9 33 8Total Baseline Costs 72,993.2 19,164.1 92,157.3 32,487.6 8,529.5 41,017.1 21 100Physical Contingencies 1,957.7 341.2 2,298.8 871.3 151.8 1,023.2 25 2Price Contingencies \a 7,585.1 1,576.1 9,161,3 3,254,0 676.2 3,930.2 17 10Total Project Costs 82,536.1 21,081.4 103,617.4 36,612.9 9,357.5 45,970.4 20 112

\a Price contingencies are converted at the current exciangerate.

3.20 The financing plan in Table 3.2 presents the GEF, Bank and GOI contribution over the sixyear project period. The Bank Loan of US$19.1 million equivalent, combined with a GEF Grant ofSDR 10.2 million, would finance about 74 percent of project costs or 81 % of project costs exclusiveof taxes, duties, vehicles and fertilizers which would be purchased by GOI. The GEF grant wouldfinance the incremental costs of the proposed project to conserve the unique global biodiversity inthe KSNP, and would be- targeted to elements of the project that contribute wholly or largely to

- 16 -

achievement of global biodiversity objectives (47 percent of total foreign costs and 32 percent oflocal costs). The detailed incremental cost analysis (with information on the costs of the baselinescenario and GEF alternative) is presented in Annex 12. The proposed Bank loan would finance 38percent of foreign costs and about 47 percent of local costs. The balance of project costs, covering1 5 percent of foreign costs and 20 percent of local costs, or a total of US$11.8 million equivalent,including taxes, would be financed by GOI.

Table 3.2 COMPONENTS BY FINANCIERS(US$ 000)

LocalGOI GEF IBRD Total Foreign (Excl. Duties &

Amount Amount Amount Amount Exch. Taxes) Taxes

1. Park Management 4,937.2 8,505.4 - 13,442.6 4,343.3 8,294.1 805.12. AreaNillage Development /a 4,696.3 4,565.9 16,601.6 25,863.8 3,097.4 20,543.8 2,222.63. Concession Biodiversity 1,612,1 1,240.2 - 2,852.3 670.2 1,893,7 288.4

Assessment4. Monitoring & Evaluation 558.9 709.4 2,543.6 3,811.8 1,246.7 2,180.5 384.7

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS 11,804.4 15,020.9 19,145.2 45,970.4 9,357.5 32,912.1 3,700.8

\a This component is implemented in villages next to the Park boundary

- 17-

4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

A. PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

4.1 The overall organization of the project is shown in Chart 1. The three main interventions,i.e. Park management, area/village development and concession management for biodiversity wouldeach be managed by a project manager (PIMPRO) responsible for contracting services,implementing activities and preparing reports. The PIMPRO for the Park Managementcomponent will be appointed by the DG PHPA and be responsible to the KSNP Park manager andbe based in Park headquarters in Sungai Penuh (see map). The Park manager will be supported by aproject-financed Technical Advisory Group and a Management Support Unit which will assist himwith annual planning, financial management, monitoring and reporting. Staff of the ForestryMinistry's provincial offices (Kanwil Kehutanan) in Jambi and Bengkulu will be assigned asPIMPROs for the Concession Management for Biodiversity component. They will be responsiblefor activity implementation, and report directly through the Kanwil's office to the ProjectManagement Committee (PMC). Field activities will be under the supervision of the DinasKehutanan TK II in the Kabupaten which have concession areas identified for project activities. Inline with the further devolution of responsibility for local development planning and implementationand in support of the KSNP management program, implementation of the Area/VillageDevelopment component will be devolved to organized village community groups through theLKMD. These village groups will be assisted by resident facilitators and the visiting TA teamworking in coordination with sub-district extension workers to plan and implement the componentactivities. The planning and implementation of village infrastructure investments will follow thegeneral guidelines outlined in the technical manual prepared for the Village Infrastructure Project(Ln. 3888-IND). The component will be coordinated in each of the Kabupatens by a districtcommittee chaired by the head of BAPPEDA TK II with a PIMPRO pointed from the same office asthe secretary. A similar Provincial Coordinating Committee chaired by the BAPPEDA TK I withthe PIMPRO TK I as secretary will ensure district project plans are incorporated into the improvedprovincial spatial plans being prepared with assistance from the project planners. The Park directorwill take overall responsibility for the development and implementation of the Monitoring andEvaluation System. His office will establish a "base" for the information system. Each of theagencies responsible for implementing components (BAPPEDAS and Kanwils Kehutanan) will bestrengthened with a "subset" of the overall project monitoring system.

4.2 The inter-provincial project coordination will be achieved through an Inter-ProvincialCoordinating Committee (IPCC) with membership incorporating all project PIMPROs drawn fromthe BAPPEDAS in each participating province and district and from the Forestry Ministry'sprovincial offices. The IPCC will be responsible for ensuring that the Park management plan andthe various district and provincial plans are coordinated into an overall land zoning plan for the Parkand surrounding areas, and that the annual series of planned activities and budget proposals areintegrated and consistent with other component objectives and overall project goals. Thechairmanship of the IPPC will rotate through the four provinces and will be serviced by a projectsecretariat maintained by each province. Meetings will be chaired by the Head BAPPEDA TK I ofthe host province while the Park manager will be the committee's permanent secretary. In addition,

- 18 -

there is an overall National Steering Committee covering all ICDPs, chaired by the NationalPlanning Board (BAPPENAS), with members representing the Ministries of Finance, Home Affairs,Agriculture, Forestry, National Land Agency, the four Governors, the Indonesian Institute ofSciences and representatives of national environmental NGOs. A working group will be attached tothis Committee to review project performance and deal with policies, laws and regulations,particularly those "perverse" incentives that discourage conservation.

4.3 The "greater" KSNP land zoning plan (para 3.11) should be completed by September 30,1998, including recommendations for the long-term management plan for KSNP. Assurances to thiseffect were obtained at negotiations. It is intended as a tool to get the four provinces to endorse thefinal zonation plan for KSNP and its surrounding districts, including commitment to what the plandeems necessary for the further integration of biodiversity conservation and development in andaround the Park. Particularly the environmental, land use (e.g. roads and mining) and socio-economic impact implications of KSNP have to be addressed and inter-provincial issues need to beresolved. Assurances were also obtained at negotiations that GOI not later than June 1, 1999, wouldreview the land zoning plan for the project area, and, thereafter, carry out the recommendations ofsuch review, taking into account the comments of the Bank. Both the IPCC as well as the nationalsteering committee will review the 'greater" KSNP land zoning plan, in time for the project's Mid-Term-Review.

4.4 Technical Assistance (TA) The project involves the introduction of many new conservationtechniques and processes that are still not very well known in Indonesia. To ensure effectivetechnology and managerial transfer and train and build institutional capacity, the project hasincluded some 1,300 staff-months of short and long-term local and foreign experts, including NGOs.About 82 percent of the TA is for the support for operational activities and institutional developmentof which 60 percent is expected to be carried out by local and 40 percent by foreign consultants. Theremainder of TA (18 percent) is set aside for studies and research. Details are describedin Annex 5. The TA is provided to cover the following main fields:

(a) Park management and enforcement;

(b) village land use and development planning and community based implementation;

(c) regional and spatial planning;

(d) concession management for biodiversity and inspection audits;

(e) monitoring and evaluation; and

(f) studies and research.

4.5 Most experts to be located in Sungai Penuh will provide support to the areas in Jambi andWest Sumatra, whereas the TA team to be located in Curup (see map) will provide support tovillages and districts in Bengkulu and South Sumatra. Assistance from both local and foreign NGOswill also be provided. Particularly in the village planning and implementation process of thearea/village development component, they are one of the most valuable resources for the project.The terms of reference for the key technical assistance assignments are summarized in Annex 14 D.

- 19 -

4.6 Annual Plan Preparation and Fund Flow. The Project Managers of the Park Developmentand Concession Management for Biodiversity components will prepare the annual budget plans(DUPs) and funds will be made available when annual plan proposals have been approved (DIPs) byBAPPENAS and DG BUDGET. Funds released for the AreaNVillages Development component willbasically conform to the specific grant of DATI II (see Chart 2). The SPABP will go to the PIMPROin BAPPEDA TK II through KPKN. The PIMPRO will make the request to BRI to finance thevillage community project. The village community group assisted by the TA team will prepare anannual contract, according to the approved village development plan, with the appropriate districtPIMPRO. The annual village development contract would be approved by the Camat beforesubmission to the PIMPRO. The village community group will receive funds from BRI Unit Desa atKecamatan to meet the expenditures. The PIMPRO accounts for BRI's expenditures incurred on thebasis of the PIMPRO's request to KPKN to replenishment to BRI. This replenishment to BRI, beingreimbursement of expenditures incurred, is paid from the Special Account. The leaders of eachcommunity group will be assisted by the accountant from the village development council (LKMD)to manage and account for the funds released to them. They will also be supervised and trained bythe facilitators and the TA team. The annual work-plan will be prepared by the Kabupaten PIMPROsof the area/village development component, based on participatory planning at the village-level toproduce project proposals. These proposals will be screened by the Kabupaten and ProvincialGuidance teams before they are forwarded to BAPPENAS and DG BUDGET.

4.7 Training. The overall objective of project-related training is to develop skills and institutionalcapacity to implement ICDP activities by implementing agencies. Training plays a large part in thePark management component, where the focus is on building Park management skills, communityawareness and extension skills and familiarizing Park staff and communities of the biodiversity withinKSNP. In the area/village development component the focus is primarily in improving integrationbetween biodiversity conservation and rural development through integrated planning and community-based program planning exercises. Training will also focus on improved biodiversity monitoring anddevelopment impact specifically through training of forestry personnel in concession audit techniques.Table 4.1 illustrates the different types of training to be financed through the project. The projectproposes to deliver nearly 802 staff-months of training through short-courses at the provincial, district,and sub-district level. Ir addition, the project will support four Park management staff to attendoverseas short training course on Park Management, and seven staff to visit Malaysian National Parkson working visits to learn ICDP management techniques being implemented in Kota Kinabalu NationalPark. PHPA staff will also visit other National Parks currently implementing ICDP types of projectswithin Indonesia. Prior to implementing training activities, each component will first conduct atraining needs assessment.

- 20 -

Table 4.1 Proposed Training Interventions (staff-months)

Component PYI PY2 PY3 PY4 PY5 PY6 TOTAL

Park Management

Field Staff 1.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 34Short-Courses 2 2 - - 4(overseas) 2 2 3 - - 7Working-Visits 1.5 1.5 - - - 3Traveling Seminars 34 34 34 34 34 34 204District workshops 5 5 5 5 5 5 30Extension Training 282

Area/Village Dev

Project Manager 1.5 1.5 3training 2.5 2.5 5Planners training 7 17.5 10.5 35Extension worker 35 52.5 70 52.5 210training 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 14Community organizer 267trainingZOPP meetings

ConcessionBiodiversity

Traineeships 10 20 20 20 20 10 100

Monitoring & Eval.

M&E staff training 18 18 36Decision-makers 4.5 4.5 9training 50 58 108Planner's GIS training 153

B. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

4.8 Implementation Schedule The project will be implemented over six years. A projectimplementation schedule, showing the key events of project implementation for the first two yearshas been prepared. Details are summarized in Annex 6. In general there are three key steps forproject start-up implementation:

- 21 -

(a) the preparation of the decrees (Surat Keputusan-SK) concerning the appointments ofthe PIMPROs, coordinating teams/committees and 1996/7 budgets, which have to beprepared by GOI;

(b) the preparation and processing of procurement of the project's technical assistanceprogram so that the TA and NGO teams can be mobilized immediately; and

(c) the completion of Park boundary demarcation.

4.9 With respect to the Park Management component, little project action can be expectedbefore the appointment by the Secretary DG PHPA of the senior Park staff. Assurances wereobtained at negotiations that not later than August 1, 1996 a KSNP project management unit, withcompetent staff and in adequate numbers, would be established and thereafter be maintained untilproject completion. Concerning the Area/Village Development component it would be importantto have the resident village facilitators (pendamping) for the first ten villages selected, trained and inplace by July 1996. The meeting of this deadline is possible as the training and pre-planningactivities for the ten villages by WWF were started in November 1995, with funds provided by theJapanese Grant (para. 3.3). With respect to the Concession Management for Biodiversitycomponent, there is a need to commence the rapid ecological assessments in the concessionforthwith so that biodiversity management zones in the concessions and along the Park boundarycan be identified (see para. 5.12).

4.10 During appraisal a list of draft monitoring and performance indicators to be used over the lifeof the project was developed and which should be finalized during the first year of implementationonce key staff are in place and key TA personnel are mobilized. The Project's supervisionrequirements are summarized in Annex 7. While the project would carry out yearly reviews onprogress and if required, would make appropriate adjustments during the project cycle, a MTR willbe completed by March 1, 1999. The MTR report would be prepared under terms of referencesatisfactory to the Bank. The MTR will review project effectiveness in meeting ICDP goals and instabilizing Park boundaries and reducing biodiversity loss. It will also be used for makingappropriate technology and institutional adjustments in project design if required, including follow-up actions for the "greater" KSNP land zoning plan (para. 4.3) and Kubu action plan (para. 3.18).The MTR report will be reviewed with the Bank by June 1, 1999 and thereafter GOI would take allmeasures to ensure the efficient completion of the project based on the conclusions andrecommendations of the MTR report, and taking into account the views of the Bank. A projectcompletion report would be prepared by the Ministry of Forestry on the basis of Bank guidelineswithin six months of the closing date of the loan and grant. Assurances regarding the above wereobtained at negotiations.

C. PROCUREMENT

4.11 The procurement arrangements are summarized in Table 4.1 and reviewed below. Goodsand Works would be procured in accordance with the provisions of the "Guidelines for theProcurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits", dated January, 1995, and revised in January,1996. The DG of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (MoFr) will be responsible forcoordinating the procurement activities related to the Park Management component, the DG for

- 22 -

Forest Utilization (MoFr) will do so for the Concession Management for Biodiversity componentand the DG of Regional Development (BANGDA) in MoHA will be responsible for theArea/Village Development and M&E components. Since the consulting services required for thisproject are quite large and interrelated between the various components it will be BAPPENAS whowill coordinate the initial.procurement process of these services. GOI would finance purchases ofvehicles and fertilizer from its own resources because under GO] procurement rules these items arenot open for intemational competitive bidding. Assurances were obtained at negotiations that such aprocurement will be in accordance with schedules agreed with the Bank.

Table 4.2 PROCUREMENT ARRANGEMENTS(USs '000)

Procurement MethodNational

Competitive ConsultingBidding Other /a Services N.B.F lb Total

A. Civil WorksBuildings and Structures 2,314.3 - - - 2,314.3

[1,388.6] [1,388.6]

Village Infrastructure - 5,761.2 - - 5,761.2(4,609.0) (4,609.0)

B. Equipment, Fumiture.Office/Field equipment & Fumiture/c 633.7 66.1 - - 699.8

(188.1) (5.6) (193.7)[318.7] [47.2] [365.9]

Aerial photography 604.5 - - - 604.5(483.6) (483.6))

Remote Sensing Equipment - 47.4 - 47.4(37.9) (37.9)

C. Vehicles - - - 986.8 986.8D. Training - 3,084.8 - 288.8 3,373.5

(1,127.5) (1,127.5)[1,523.3] [1,523.31

E. Consultant Services - - 12,723.0 144.2 12,867.1(4,907.4) (4,907.4)[6,572.2] - [6,572.2]

F. Studies - - 825.5 - 825.5(743.0) (743.0)

G. Survey and Research - - 4,579.1 - 4,579.1(1,022.8) (1,022.8)[3,098.3] [3,098.3]

H.. Extension & Planning - 6,127.0 - - 6,127.0(4,050.3) (4,050.3)[1,346.4] [1,346.4]

I. Agricultural and Other Inputs /d - 1,453.8 - - 1,453.8(1,163.0) (1,163.0)

J. Incremental Operational Costs - - 1,703.4 4,278.8 5,982.2(806.9) (806.9)[726.2] [726.2]

TOTAL 3,552.5 16,540.2 19,831.0 6,046.7 45,970.4(671.6) (10,993.4) (7,480.1) - (19,145.2)

[1,707.3] [2,916.9] [10,396.8] - [15,020.9]Note: Figures in () and ( are the amounts financed by IBRD and GEF respectively.\a Includes national shopping, direct contracting and community participation works, simplifiedprocurement procedures for smallwork and training.\b NBF - Not Bank Finanoed\c Amount less than $200.00 per contract.\d Including inputs for village enterprises, but excluding fertilizers.

- 23 -

4.12 Civil works (US$8.1 million) would comprise buildings and village infrastructure. Theworks for small offices and other buildings would involve small contracts over scattered areas whichwould not attract foreign bidders. These works would be procured following national competitivebidding procedures (NCB) acceptable to the Bank. Civil works for village infrastructure (US$5.8million) would be small sub-projects between US$10,000-40,000 in often very remote areas. Theseworks would be carried out mostly by the LKMDs by direct village labor (community participation)or by lump-sum, fixed price contracts awarded on the basis of quotations obtained from threequalified domestic contractors in response to a written invitation, with implementation agreementswith the Kabupaten Department of Public Works. Agricultural and other inputs (US$1.5 million)would consist of planting materials, labor, small tools, and other goods required by small enterprises.Inputs also include fertilizers valued at about US$0.07 million and not financed by the Loan/Grant.These inputs would make up the bulk of the farm or community forest treatments and spread over alarge number of areas and farms in and around the Park buffer zone. The size of each input wouldbe too small (on average less than US$15,000) to attract international or national competitivebidders. They would, th-erefore, be procured under national procedures acceptable to the Bank,mostly through national shopping and with at least three price quotations. Vehicles (US$1.0million) are considered reserved procurement and would not be financed by the Loan or Grant.Office and field equipment (US$1.4 million) would be mainly for small packages or items belowUS$200,000 and be procured under NCB acceptable to the Bank and with at least three pricequotations. For small items that cannot be conveniently packaged under NCB in amounts notexceeding US$20,000 per contract up to a aggregate of US$70,000, national shopping proceduresacceptable to the Bank would be used. Aerial photographs would be procured through NCBprocedures acceptable to the Bank as this would be for packages between US$50,000-100,000 forwhich capable domestic companies are available and which would be too low to attract interest byinternational companies. Satellite imagery would, with the Bank's prior agreement, be procured bydirect contracting as this would only be available from either Spot or Landsat. Training (US$3.4million), of which about US$0.3 million would not be financed by the Loan/Grant, would be carriedout by procedures acceptable to the Bank. Extension and Planning (US$6.1 million) would beprocured by national shopping procedures acceptable to the Bank. Consultancy Services, Studiesand Surveys and Research (US$18.3 million) would be procured in accordance with the Bank'sGuidelines for Use of Consultants. For complex, time-bound assignments, contracts would be basedon the standard form of contract for consultants'services issued by the Bank. The project's TArequirements would be coordinated by an independent Project Coordination consultant attached toPHPA but responsible to the KS-ICDP working group of the Project Steering Committee. An NGOas a sole sourced contract would carry out the village participation operations of the area/villagedevelopment component. It is likely that WWF would be chosen on account of their longinvolvement with villages in KSNP. The balance of project costs are Incremental OperationalCosts (US$6.0 million), most of which (US$4.3 million) would not be financed by the loan/Grant.About US$ 1.7 million would be procured following the Bank's guidelines for the use of consultants.

4.13 Procurement Review. All contracts for goods would be grouped into bid packageswhenever possible to attract competition and permit bulk purchasing. GOI would use and conformto the Bank's standard Bidding documents i.e. procurement of goods and works, including works forsmaller contracts, which would facilitate the tender and contract preparation by the various agenciesinvolved. Civil works' contracts for offices and other buildings, equivalent to US$500,000, or more,would be subject to the Bank's prior review. Given their small amounts and their large number, the

- 24 -

need for quick approval and the safeguards in project design (field engineers and other TA will be inplace to assist) to supervise the process, the contracts for village infrastructure, except for the firstfive contracts, would not require prior review. All tender documents and contracts for goods,estimated to cost the equivalent of US$200,000 or more would be reviewed by the Bank, includingthe first contract. All contracts for consultants' services, including studies, surveys and research,valued at US$100,000 or more for engagement of firms and US$50,000 or more for engagement ofindividuals would be subject to prior review by the Bank. The exceptions to prior review ofcontracts for consultants'services would not apply to: (a) the terms of reference for such contracts;(b) single-source selection of consulting firms; (c) assignments of a critical nature, as reasonablydetermined by the Bank; (d) amendments to contracts for the employment of consulting firms raisingthe contract value to US$100,000 equivalent or more; and (e) amendments to contracts for theemployment of individual consultants raising the contract value to US$50,000 or more. This wouldresult in prior review of about 55 percent of all contracts procured. Contracts below the thresholdlevels would be subject to selective post-review by visiting missions. This review wouldconcentrate, among others, on the competitiveness of prices paid and on the physical inspection ofthe inputs provided. Assurances were obtained from GOI at negotiations that these procurementarrangements would be followed.

D. DISBURSEMENTS

4.14 The Bank loan of US$19.1 million and a GEF grant of SDR 10.2 million (about US$15.0million equivalent) are expected to be disbursed over a six-year period. The period of disbursementis less than the disbursement profile for agricultural projects in Indonesia. However, with the pre-implementation activities now taking place in the buffer zone and a dynamic Park Director alreadypresent, it is believed that the targets should be achieved during the project period provided that thetechnical assistance team can be mobilized promptly. The project loan and grant closing dates areSeptember 30, 2002. The proposed Loan and Grant allocation and a summary of estimateddisbursements by year is presented in Annex 10. Disbursements of the Bank loan would be made onthe following basis:

(a) 80% of expenditures for civil works for area/village development;

(b) 100% of foreign expenditures, 100 % of local expenditures (ex-factory cost) and 65%for other items procured locally for equipment, furniture and mapping materials;

(c) 80% of expenditures for agricultural and other inputs, excluding fertilizers;

(d) 60% of expenditures for training;

(e) 80% of expenditures for planning and extension activities related to buffer zonedevelopment;

(f) 80% of expenditures for technical assistance.;

(g) 90% of expenditures for studies;

- 25 -

(h) 30% of expenditures for surveys; and

(i) 15% of incremental operating expenditures related to the buffer zone.

4.15 Disbursements of the Grant would be made as follows:

(a) 60% of expenditures for civil works in the Park;

(b) 100% of foreign expenditures, 100% of local expenditures (ex-factory cost) and 65%for other items procured locally for equipment, furniture and mapping materials;

(c) 90% and 20% respectively of expenditures for Park and buffer zone related training;

(d) 80% and 10% respectively of expenditures for planning and extension activities relatedto Park and buffer zone development;

(e) 90% and 50% respectively of expenditures for surveys and research related to Park andbuffer zone;

(f) 90% on expenditures for technical assistance related to Park and NGO Services; and10% for TA related to buffer zone development, excluding NGO Services; and

(g) 15% for incremental operating expenditures related to the Park.

4.16 For disbursement purposes, full documentation will be required for all contracts at orexceeding the following amounts: (a) for civil works US$500,000 and the first five contracts relatedto village infrastructure; (b) for goods US$200,000 and the first contract of both the loan and thegrant; (c) for consulting services' contracts, including studies, surveys and research, with firmsUS$100,000; and (d) for consulting services'contracts, including studies, surveys and research, withindividuals US$50,000. For all expenditure in those categories below the limits specified and forexpenditures on training, agricultural inputs, extension and planning, and incremental operatingexpenditures, disbursements will be made on the basis of certified statements of expenditures(SOEs). SOE for village infrastructure works will be supported by progress reports certified by theCamat (head sub-district). This documentation will be available for the required audit and also toBank supervision missions.

4.17 To expedite disbursements, two Special Accounts would be opened in an amount of US$1.8million and US$1.5 million respectively for the Loan and the Grant by GOI in Bank Indonesia, or ata commercial bank acceptable to the Bank for the purpose of the project. This account should bemaintained by the Directorate General of Budget and would be used for all eligible foreign and localcurrency expenditures. Replenishment to the Special Accounts will be made on a monthly basis, orwhen 20 percent of the Special Accounts' balance have been used, whichever comes first.

- 26 -

E. PROJECT ACCOUNTS, AUDITS, REPORTING AND BANK SUPERVISION

4.18 Separate detailed accounts would be kept by the provincial project and program offices, foreach budget under their charge by sub-project and project year. Project accounts are subject to twoaudits by: (a) the Inspector General of concerned ministries; and (b) the Financial and DevelopmentSupervisory Board (BPKP). The work of both auditors has generally been found satisfactory onBank-assisted projects. Assurances were obtained at negotiations that the project records andaccounts, including the Special Account, would be audited for each fiscal year and furnished to theBank within six months of each Government fiscal year. Such audit would also contain a separateopinion on the SOEs. In addition, all project related contracts, documents related to the SOEs, andorders and receipts, would be kept for at least one year after the Bank has received the audit reportfor the fiscal year in which the last withdrawal from the loan and or grant account was made.Annual financial audits would include at least 10 percent coverage of randomly selected villageinfrastructure sub-projects.

4.19 An annual work program outlining the proposed activities and budget would be submitted tothe Bank by no later than October 15. The MIS developed and improved under the project wouldreview the reporting mechanisms and update them through to the national level, as well as theBAPPEDA offices at district and provincial levels. Annual progress reports on each separatecomponent will be prepared by the appropriate PIMPRO but with a consolidated project summaryprepared by the Park manager (information data base will be located in the Park management officein Sungai Penuh) would be submitted to the Bank no later than June 30 each year and would alsoelaborate on the constraints and problem solving aspects of the project.

4.20 The above progress reports will also reflect the monitoring of key performance indicators ofthe various project components. The Performance Indicators (both implementation and impact) foreach project component would be finalized during the first year of implementation once key staff arein place and key TA personnel have been mobilized and had time to review and update their workprogram and TORs. Key indicators are discussed in Annex 8. The project would be supervisedaccording to a supervision plan summarized in Annex 7 and priority would be given during the threelaunching workshops in the first project year to institutional arrangements (e.g. projectcoordination), to review first year work program and TORs and to get full agreement on the projectindicators among the various project units. While this plan is likely to be modified as the projectbecomes fully operational, the plan suggests that regular supervision be carried out by RSI, withspecialized project reviews to be coordinated by Bank HQ, including the milestone missions. Threemilestone supervision missions would have to be undertaken by the Bank and GOI, namely (a) firstyear launching workshops: project start-up, after TA mobilization, and after end of fullimplementation year to review project component indicators and to review suggestions for projectadjustments; (b) MTR, particularly to review KSNP land zoning plan, including social andenvironmental impacts and Kubu development follow-up; and (c) implementation completionmission.

- 27 -

5. PROJECT IMPACT

5.1 The project would benefit some I to 1.5 million people living in the thirty-six sub-districtssurrounding the Kerinci Seblat National Park, both directly as a result of specific income generatinginvestments made under the project, and indirectly as a result of improved soil and water qualitydelivery resulting from better protection of forested areas in and around the Park. The project wouldgenerate the following benefits:

(a) environmental benefits, including protection of unique biodiverse habitats and rareand endemic species native to Kerinci Seblat for current and future generations andimproved watershed protection for the four surrounding provinces. More specificallythe project would reduce negative environmental impacts of local people onbiodiversity and increase a better appreciation of protected areas and the social andeconomic benefits accruing from conservation. Downstream soil and water impactsof stabilizing the Park area and forest cover in neighboring forest concessions arelikely to be significant, given the high density of population and intensity of land useon lowland areas of Sumatra affected by erosion of watersheds;

(b) socio-economic benefits by improved employment and income generationopportunities for poor households and communities living in Park boundary villagesby giving them more control over the long-term management of their resource base,including resolution of land use conflicts. More specifically about 13,400households, considered to be the poorer sections in the four provinces, would directlybenefit from the investment funds availability to the 134 villages communities andsome 300,000 households would indirectly benefit through improved biodiversityconservation. The project would ensure participation of women, tribal communitiesand other disadvantaged people in community decisions about resource distributionand investment selection in both the National Park and buffer zone; and

(c) the capability of institutions would be enhanced through human resourcedevelopment, strengthening of sector institutions and policy reform. Morespecifically the project would improve Park and buffer zone management, through animproved spatial/regional planning process and policy and regulatory framework,including enforcement and a more participatory role of village communities. Itwould provide an innovative pilot model, which if successful, could be replicated inother conservation areas in Indonesia.

A. ECONOMIC BENEFITS

5.2 Given the nature of this project, it has been difficult to quantify the benefits. As a result,varying degrees of precision can be attached to estimates made for the various components.

- 28 -

5.3 With respect to the biodiversity value of the Park, the Project Preparation Study (Report 8 onResource Economics-Annex 14) concluded that "the value of KSNP as a conservation estate is likelyto be similar to the opportunity cost (of timber harvest) in the worst case scenario and that there is apotentially large economic gain to be achieved in the best case scenario". The benefits of KSNPinvestments are very broad, and many of them are also long term. Such benefits can be difficult toestimate directly, particularly because there is not yet a generally accepted method in theenvironmental economics literature on how to estimate these. In the case of biodiversity andconservation benefits associated with KSNP, the net present value of selected benefits has beenestimated ranging from US$70 to US$200 million, with the mid-point being US$135 million. Thecosts of achieving these can be calculated by adding the direct investment costs involved, to thevalue of logging benefits foregone in this forested area. In this case these costs were estimated atabout US$93 million.

5.4 At the same time, the investments in Park Management and the planned activities in thebuffer zones are a sine-qua-non for maintaining the integrity of the Park. Many of the large predatorsand forest herbivores require large areas of forests for food and to maintain viable populations. Thissets a minimum threshold to Park size and, correspondingly, to investment in management andmonitoring. Similarly, once the Park area is defined, then stabilization in the entire zone bufferingthat Park is necessary. It seems that the proposed level of investments of about US$13.2 million forPark Management and other components of US$34.0 million form a minimum amount that wouldsafeguard the biodiversity value of the Park. With respect to the cost recovery of these investmentsand the Park's future recurrent cost financing, since the project's benefits are mainly long-term andindirect in nature, the project will carry out studies to find an effective mechanism to ensure long-term recurrent cost financing of KSNP, particularly since few effective measures presently exist(para. 3.14). It is believed that the fiscal implications of continued Park management beyond the lifeof this project are not large, and are well within the budgetary capability of GOI to cover.

5.5 With respect to the village infrastructure investments (e.g. upgrading village roads, drinkingand irrigation water), employment and cash compensation to village laborers is an important featureof the project. The cash to be earned under the project should provide an important addition to thepoorer household budgets. Labor-intensive methods are also efficient for the public budget.Villagers are willing to work for the equivalent of about Rp 4-5,000/day (e.g. share rubber tapper),and at those costs labor intensive methods are competitive with capital intensive methods for thesimple type of works envisaged, particularly for the relatively isolated villages in the Park's bufferzone. The villagers have generally to undertake the maintenance of the village facilities. However,having participated in the construction and because it is for their own benefit it is likely they woulddo the maintenance themselves. Assuming that rural roads increase farmers' income by 10 percent,due to better access to markets in the rainy season, easier access to employment, health and otherservices outside the village (see: Yogyakarta Upland Development Project; 3305-[ND) and usingdata on buffer zone villages in the KSNP Project gives an economic rate of return for rural roads of37 percent. With respect to the village development in the Park buffer zone, the communitiescommitment to Park protection and to improvement of the management of the natural resourcesthey utilize, will to a large extent determine the project's success to meet above objective. Sincemost of the resource management decisions of these generally isolated villages are motivated byvarying combinations of family needs for livelihood, local knowledge and customs, topography andclimate, including a wide array of external factors, the interaction with the environment represents

- 29 -

for each of these villages an unique set of resource management and community developmentopportunities and constraints. Hence, critical decisions into possible changes in village landuse andresource management will be made with each target village through a participatory process ofplanning and implementation. This process would be iterative, flexible and responsive to eachcommunity's particular situation and development requirements.

5.6 Individual farmer benefits in newly agreed land use activities to be brought about by thevillage and Park zonation plans are difficult to quantify. The proposed changes in land use withinthe Park will be mainly governed by achieving more optimum "conservation" principles, withcommunity benefits as a secondary objective and mainly comprising "security of access to certainsubsistence resource uses in the Park". The effectiveness of introducing land use changes in thevillage buffer zone will mainly depend on the financial attractiveness for the target group comparedto the activities it is already engaged in. There is a huge variety of farming systems in the bufferzone determined by a wide variation in plot and farming size, soils (volcanic and podzolic) and soildepth, elevation (0-2,000 m), rainfall (2,000-5,000 mm/year) and proximity of markets and inputsupplies. The project intends to bring about improved land use changes in these farming systemsaccording to a menu of indicative principles rather than a clearly described menu of packages. Someof the indicative principles are: (a) emphasis on tree crops and existing farming systems; (b) work onfactors which improve securing of markets and input supplies (e.g. coffee, cinnamon and rubberhave well established market structures; one of the main limiting factors to increased productivity isthe small amount of phosphorous available in the podzolic soils); (c) return on labor; and (d)improvement and availability of planting material. At the same time there are clearly highlyprofitable improvements in certain farning areas, the project could instantly introduce (e.g. in the SEpart of the project area where jungle rubber provides the main cash crop and where farmers are lesswell off, the introduction of improved varieties with either budded stumps or polyclonal seed forremote areas, could more than double the yields).

5.7 As part of project preparation, a study was carried out for various farming systems tocalculate the economic rate of return for agriculture investment under the village grants. The ERRfor jungle rubber is estimated to be 40 percent, for cassiavera (cinnamon), 60-90 percent, dependingon the bark grade and for oil palm, 35 percent. Also, on the basis of incremental benefits foragroforestry on 3,720 ha in the buffer zone, an ERR of 34 percent has been estimated. Additionally,as part of the project preparation study, incremental benefit calculations have been carried out forirrigation intensification. These involve investments in an area of 930 ha spread out over sixty-twovillages. The economic rate of return is estimated to be 53 percent. It should be made clear that thebenefits of these direct investments in agricultural productivity are incremental to the benefits frominvestments in infrastructure, discussed in para 5.5.

5.8. The village/area development component is both the largest item of expenditure under theproject and the one most directly related to social development and income improvement forcommunities, in the project area. It accounts for 57 percent of total base costs. Therefore, it isnecessary to provide an overall rate of return for this component. Because of the difficulty ofestimating specific activity returns, given that both the infrastructure requirements and agriculture

- 30 -

land use options in each village are as yet unknown (para. 3.5), an ERR of 34 percent is consideredrepresentative for infrastructure and agriculture without inclusion of all TA and overheads - thisbeing the lower end of the range of returns discussed in paras 5.5-5.7 above. Once all costs ofcomponent overheads and associated TA are added in for the village/area development componentan ERR of 16 percent for this component results.

5. 9 Sensitivity analysis. The major risk would consist of an inadequate consultation processwith target communities with the result that not all villages would participate in the villageconservation agreement process (para 3.5). Assuming that 20 percent of villages would notparticipate, this would result in an ERR of 13 percent. Other likely scenario would be for the projectto be delayed by one year due to delay in NGO and other technical assistance mobilization or for theproject to receive reduced incremental benefits, say by 10 percent These outcomes would correspondto reduced ERRs of 12 percent and 13 percent respectively. This project component is thereforerelatively insensitive to these major categories of risks and maintains an acceptable return.

5.10 In respect to the economic benefits derived from a better monitoring in the forestryconcessions bordering the Park, an ERR of some 15 percent has been estimated. This calculation isbased on the approach taken in a paper on the economics of sustainable forest management whichwas presented to GOI in September 1995 and assumes that adequate protection of the regeneratingstands produced from project activities can be maintained. The economic calculations prepared fortwo main project components (area/village development and integrating biodiversity in forestconcession management) are given in Annex 13.

B. SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

5.11 The project is expected to have a highly beneficial environmental impact. The main goal ofthe project is the protection of the approximately 1.3 million ha of the Kerinci Seblat National Parkand the surrounding buffer zone. The project has extensive environmental, land use and socio-economic development implications. The major environmental impacts facing the Park, includingthe proposed mitigation measures are described in a Regional Impact Assessment (RIA) reportprepared for BAPPENAS in December 1994 and released by GOI to the Bank on April 20, 1995. Asummary analysis is provided in Annex Il. While the project has addressed these issues byincluding a number of policy, administrative and fiscal responses in the project design (see WorkingPaper 9, Annex 14) the final understanding with GOI on the more prominent issues will be sought atnegotiations. These issues are as follows:

5.12 Boundary Rationalization and Forest Concessions. The rationalization of the current Parkboundary is critical for the successful development and sustainability of the Park as buffer zonelands are being subjected to serious disturbance from logging and encroachers. Unless the Park willrepresent a compromise boundary between social and biological pressures, the completion of thePark and buffer zonation/land use plan would be futile and the Park would not be sustainable. Whileit is important for project implementation to have the Park boundary gazetted in the shortest possibletime, it is equally important that the Park boundary, once gazetted, can in future be furtherrationalized in areas contested by villages (forest/non-forest boundaries) and in forest concessions

- 31 -

bordering the Park with high biodiversity values and with lands categorized as "protected forest"areas so that further adjustments to village and forest concession boundaries can take place. Duringnegotiations GOI provided the Bank with a 1:250,000 base map of the Park showing (a) thedelineation of the Park boundary based on the proposed gazetted Park area of approx. 1,368,000 ha,and (b) the location of all forest concessions adjoining or near the Park.

5.13 The following assurances were obtained at negotiations: (a) by March 31, 1997, thedemarcation of the KSNP boundary would have been completed and that not later than September30, 1997 the gazettement of the Park would be completed; (b) by March 31, 1997 GOI would havereviewed measures to improve biodiversity management in the logging concessions adjacent to thePark, including the possibility of excluding logging activities in certain areas. Thereafter, GOIwould immediately implement any measure that is found to be feasible; and (c) GOI would take allsteps to ensure that existing logging permits for forest concessions in areas adjacent to the Park arenot renewed or extended without the inclusion of a biodiversity management zone for the areasadjacent to the Park. Such biodiversity management zones would remain in effect until biodiversitysurveys would have been carried out for purposes of identifying significant biodiversity sites to beprotected. Thereafter, the identified biodiversity sites would remain as biodiversity managementzones.

5.14 The measures which will be evaluated for keeping logging operations as far from the KSNPboundary as possible will include the following: (a) the transfer of intended operations which areadjacent to the Park boundary, to blocks further away from the boundary, and (b) an intensemonitoring program under the project of surveillance and observance of the 500-1000 m buffer zonewhich already applies in GOI regulations to concessions bordering the Park. With respect to therenewal and extension of logging operations in concessions bordering the Park, logging operationswill not proceed inside a 3-km biodiversity management zone along the boundary, where applicable,until a biodiversity survey has been carried out.

5.15 Mining Concessions. There are a number of concession holders (gold and coal) currentlyengaged in mining operations which could potentially have adverse impact to the Park. So far theirimpact on the Park has been small as most concession holders are still at the exploration stage. Toreduce the potential impact of these mining operations on the Park, assurances were obtained atnegotiations that:

(a) current exploration permits in the Park area (whether under the initial three-yearperiod or under one of the two one-year extensions) would not be extended afterexpiration, and that promptly upon the determination by the Ministry of Mining thatan area subject to a mining concession lacks significant mineral potential, theapplicable mining concession is terminated in accordance with applicable legislation;

(b) prior to the granting of exploration permits and exploitation or production licenses inKSNP, furnish to the Bank for comments, the full Environmental ImpactAssessments (AMDAL) evaluation by GOI's Sectoral AMDAL Commission(AMDAL Kegiatan Terpadu /Multisektoral), including the specifications ofexploration, mining and extraction methods, and any other mitigation measuresrequired to minimize any adverse impact on KSNP from the proposed activity;

- 32 -

(c) take all measures necessary to ensure that the exploration permit and the exploitationor production license, is granted solely on terms consistent with the findings andrecommendations of GOI's Sectoral AMDAL Commission and the Bank's commentson the AMDAL evaluation; and

(d) thereafter, ensure that all recommended mitigation measures are promptly and fullycarried out.

5.16 Road Development. New roads or even upgrading of existing tracks have potentiallysignificant implications for the sustainability of the Park and biodiversity conservation, since theyprovide access to new settlers and opportunities for the expansion of existing agricultural activitiesin the Park. To mitigate against potential impact of road development in the Park, assurances wereobtained at negotiations that no roads would be constructed or upgraded within KSNP until thecompletion of the Park Management Plan and the land zoning plan for the project area (para. 4.3),and that an AMDAL would have been carried out. GOI would also ensure that any construction orupgrading would be carried out in a manner consistent with the recommendations of the AMDAL,including recommendations for the carrying out of mitigating measures, and the requirements of themanagement plan and land zoning plan.

5.17 Park Encroachment. Generally the tools available to deal with existing Park encroachmentare to amend the Park boundary, to demarcate and enforce enclave boundaries and/or toresettle/relocate encroachers. However, due to the large size of the Park and insufficient staffavailable to monitor the current impact of individual Park encroachment, there is insufficientinformation available to assess the current Park encroachment and to decide which course of actionshould be taken by the project to mitigate such impact. For this reason, assurances were obtained atnegotiations that GOI would, until April 1, 1999, not cause or permit involuntary resettlement ofpersons residing within KSNP and thereafter, confine any involuntary resettlement to that requiredfor purposes of protection of KSNP's biodiversity. During this initial period of about three years, theProject will identify key areas for biodiversity conservation, finalize Park zoning and set criteria forresettlement, if any. The project will generally seek to find all possible alternatives to involuntaryresettlement through the use of zonation and land use improvement. If there is any involuntaryresettlement to be carried, GOI would fumish to the Bank for approval the Rehabilitation Action Plan(OD 4.30) and, thereafter, carry out the resettlement and rehabilitation of affected persons inaccordance with the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Action Plan approved by the Bank. Assurances tothis effect were obtained at negotiations.

5.18 Women, Tribal Groups and Poverty Impact. The project potentially would affect thelivelihoods of tribal group, women, landless and other poor people living in and around KSNP. Amajor emphasis of the village/area development efforts financed under the project will be to targetpoor households and poor communities living in Park boundary villages. Over half the project costsare directed to village development affecting 13,400 households the majority of which are poor,landless and/or living in remote areas. Given the targeting and the estimated ERR, the project isexpected to have substantial poverty reduction benefits. In the preparation process stakeholder

- 33 -

consultation with these groups have contributed to project design (para. 3.3). Projectimplementation of both the Park, rural development and the concession component will be carriedout through a process of participatory decision making, particularly regarding behavior change tobenefit conservation and increase opportunities for sustainable livelihood. Tribal group involvementcomplies with the requirements of OD 4.20 and the project action plan to deal with these concernsare described in paras 3.16-19.

C. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY

5.19 The long-term sustainability of KSNP will to a large extent depend on a shared responsibilityin Park conservation between the Ministry of Forestry, local governments of the nine Kabupatenmaking up the Park and the village communities bordering the Park. Participatory planning,including land use zonation, development of incentives and alternative livelihood opportunities,decentralized decision making and empowerment of local communities, and successful conflictresolution of land related issues, will therefore be crucial. It will also depend on the ownership bythe four provincial governments of the zonation/management plan to be made for the Park and on thespatial plan to be prepared for "greater" KSNP, as both plans deal with long-term developmentperspectives of the Park. The prospects for sustainability are enhanced by the fact that the Bank isassisting GOI in preparing additional rural development projects in the three provinces of Jambi,West Sumatra and Bengkulu, which would provide alternative livelihood to the population and willtake pressure off the Park. At the central level the project's sustainability will depend on somecritical policy support and willingness to allow flexible administrative and managementarrangements. Lastly, public support and awareness for the need of protected area conservation,including access to viable post-project financing would be equally important. The latter is particularimportant to the long-term sustainability of the Park. While the project would increase the Park'sannual budget by two-fold compared with the 1994/5 KSNP budget, it is expected that GOI's fiscalimplications beyond the project period would level off to slightly above the current fiscal outlay forKSNP, which are about US$1.2 million per year. Nevertheless, the project will embark on exploringoptions for future recurrent cost/investment financing of the Park (para 3.14).

D. RIsKS

5.20 The major risks associated with the project are the threats to KSNP from sources such asroad development, human encroachment, and poor logging and concession management practices,thus causing further biodiversity impoverishment and potential Park fragmentation. In addition, carewill have to be exercised to deliver the appropriate incentives and effective community participationprocess and local government commitment to deflect encroachment pressures away from the Park tosustainable development alternatives. Unless GOI shows clear commitment to controlling theserisks, including the resolving of any infringement of rights of foreign and national concessionholders, the Park's biological diversity will not be maintained over the long-term. The issue of Parkintegrity will be addressed in certain policy agreements and interventions by GOI prior to and during

- 34 -

project implementation (paras 5.11/17). Other risks concern the present lack of integratedmanagement plans, coordination between agencies, and enforcement of regulations within the Parkand the buffer zones. These risks will be addressed by an ICDP project approach which willintroduce a greater participatory role of local govemment officials and local communities,integration of regional and Park planning, and the establishment of an inter-provincial projectsecretariat. This will be linked to a strong project environmental and socio-economic monitoringprogram to provide feedback to project management and allow refinement or corrections in proposedproject interventions. It is clear that this project has significant risks. Nevertheless, the projectshould proceed because Sumatra's forests and biodiversity have been decimated over the last twentyyears and the remaining primary forests and biodiversity is largely contained in the protected areanetwork, particularly Kerinci Seblat. It should also proceed because of its importance as a pilotproject to demonstrate Park interventions which can be replicated elsewhere in Indonesia,particularly conceming the critical role of people in conservation and in developing a planningprocess that integrates biodiversity conservation with development.

- 35 -

6. AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATION

6.1 During negotiations the following assurances were obtained from Government:

(a) village grants would be made available according to procedures and conditionssatisfactory to the Bank (para 3.7);

(b) no later than September 30, 1998, the results of a baseline study and impact assessmentwould be sent to the Bank for comments followed by an action plan for the Kubu, ifrequired to be prepared no later than June 1, 1999, as described under para. 3.18;

(c) the "greater" KSNP land zoning plan will be prepared by September 30, 1998 andreviewed no later than June 1, 1999, with long-term recommendations (paras. 3.11 and4.3);

(d) not later than August 1, 1996, a KSNP management unit with competent staff inadequate numbers would be established (para. 4.9);

(e) preparation of a MTR no later than March 1, 1999, followed by a review by June 1,1999, (para 4.10);

(f) procurement arrangements would be followed as outlined in paras 4.11/13;

(g) audit requirements would be carried out as outlined in para. 4.18;

(h) reporting and review requirements would be carried out as outlined in para. 4.19;

(i) a number of steps regarding boundary rationalization and forest concessions would becarried out by GOI as outlined in pam 5.13;

(j) mining operations would be carried out under qualifications listed in para. 5.15;

(k) road development in the Park would be subject to conditions as set out in para. 5.16;and

(I) involuntary resettlement from persons residing within KSNP would not take place untilApril 1, 1999, and thereafter, if required be subject to action plans as described inpara. 5.17.

Recommendation

6.2 With the above assurances, the proposed project would be suitable for a Loan ofUS$19.1 million equivalent with a twenty year maturity at the Bank's variable rate, including agrace period of five years, and a GEF Trust Fund Grant of SDR 10.2 million, to the Republic ofIndonesia.

-36 - ANNEX _

Page 1 of 10

DETAILS OF PROJECT COMPONENTS

A. PARK MANAGEMENT

Management Planning and Park Zonation

1. The first major project activity will be the preparation of a comprehensive managementplan for the Park This plan will guide and control the management of Park resources, zoe landuse within the Park, and provide a plan for infrastructure development within the Pak and itsbuffer zone. The planning process will be implemented with close consultation and coordinationwith the regional planning agencies (BAPPEDAs), local governments and target conmmunities.

Institutional Strengthening

2. The institutional strengthening component will focus on the fbllowing activities:(a)strengthening Park personnel through additional recruitment and technical assistance; (b) providingin-service training to Park personnel for management and extension activities; and (c) improvingPark infrastructure for enhanced management and enforcement activities.

(a) Strengthening Park Personnel: Currently the Park is understaffed with a totlcomplement of 71 personnel. The GOL as part of its commitment towardsenhancing Park management, has agreed to assign four senior PHPA staff to ahprovince, based on performance and staff formation given by the State Minister ofAdministrative Reform, who would assist the Park director by coordinatng Parkactivities within each province. In addition, 100 new project field staff, PcgawaiProyek, would be recruited over the life of the project to supplement edsting fieldstaff. The GOI has agreed to regularize these staff as permanent employees basedon performance and the number of staff allocated by the State Minister ofAdministrative Reform. In addition PHPA will start a "Conuunity ParnershipProgram" through which 190 field-staff will be recruited from local targetcommunities as Park community extension workers. The Project will also supportPHPA through the provision of long-term technical assisnce including anineemationally recruited Park planner, and wildlife enforcement officer. Inaddition, local staff or intemational volunteers will be assigned to the Park tO assistwith ecology, management, extension and training.

(b) Training: Training will be provided to Park management staff field staff andcommunity extension workers. The project will focus on developing staffcapabilities to protect and manage the Park through both formal and infomual in-service training provided by trainers on the TA team. The project will send fourqualified senior staff on three month short course in Park management, as well as

-37 - ANNEX 1Page 2 of 10

intemational working visits to national Parks in the region. In years 2-3, travelingseminars will be held for PHPA technical staff to visit other Indonesian nationalParks. Field staff will receive broad trauining on enforcement and ecologicalmonitorng from the Senior Planner and wildlife specialist, as well as receive fieldmanuals for identifying major wildlife. The project will also train and equip fourspecial mobile enforcement teams in each province as special task forces for back-up enforcement The community extension workers will be provided with in-service training in organizing village conservation groups, and wildlifeidentification. Training will be provided by the Park sociologists, extension andeducation officers.

(c) Park Infrastructure Support: Infrastructure support consists of cost-sharing theupgrading and rehabilitation of existing Park structures (8 field stations and Parkheadquarters) and construction of provincial field quarters (4), new field stations(40), information centers (6) and visitor centers (2). In addition the project willprovide over 100 signposts and entrance posts providing information on the Park.Annual maintenance of these structures will be provided through the GOrsrecurrent budget. The project will assist in providing a full-range of office,technical and field equipment, including communications equipment to facilitateenforcement and management activities. The GOI has agreed to assign additionalvehicles and motor cycles to Park authorities to facilitate field enforcement andmobile extension activities.

Boundary Rationalization and Biodiversity Sustainabiity

3. Boundary rationalization activities, including biodiversity sustinability, focus on twomajor issues: (a) boundary conflict resolution with target villages within and along the park; and (b)improvement of biodiversity sustainability in the forest concessions bordering the Park. Boundaryratioalization activities regarding disputed land between villagers and or encroachers and Parkmangement would continue to be carried out during the first 2 or 3 years of project implementationand are directly related to preparation of the Park management plan. The project would alsoreview measures to improve biodiversity management within the logging concessions bordering thepark, particularly in areas adjacent to KSNP. The project would pay for the biodiversity surveywork in these areas. The project will also work with forest concessionaires and the MoFr ForestUtilization directorate to institute a KPHP program which would improve the management of theforest concessions.

4. Encroachment of Park lands is a major issue for Park enforcement and integrity, and is adirect result of inadequate enforcement There are 134 target village areas where boundary conflictresolution is required. The process of resolving conficts with local communities over land usewithin the Park will be handled through several options: (a) negotiating temporary land-use rightsin the Park; (b) implementing boundauy changes; and (c) providing rural development incentivesbased on signing agreements that commit communities to respect demarcated boundaries andagreed land-use practices. This strategy would reduce the need for Park enforcement In addition afourth option, of "Pohon Kehidupan" program, will also be implemented which allows settlersseveral options including voluntary resetdement, or gradual conversion of existing farming systemsto permanent multipurpose fruit tree production.

-38 - ANNEX 1Page 3 of 10

Management Activities

5. Three categones of management activities will be implemented by PBPA field staff duringthe course of the project: (a) wildlife protection and management; (b) establishnt of a livingboundary marking and posting; and (c) habitat rehabilitation. The project will focus on protectionof large mammal fauna by developing effective enforcement systems to combat poachmgActivities include field surveys; establishing elephant patrols; and barriers agamst animal raiding.Live boundary marking will be implemented over the life of the project by demarcatng 500 km ofboundary using Arenga palm seedlings. Local villagers will be contract to plant and care forthese seedlings. These in combination with cement boundary markers will assist the public indetermining the exact boundary of the Park. Habitat rehabilitation activities will focus on yealyassessment and status update of encroached land within the Park (4000 ha per year will besurveyed); rehabilitation of degraded areas with multi-purpose indigenous trees; and thedevelopment of 10 village nurseries to raise 65,000 seedlings for replanting programs.

Research

6. The project will support management-oriented research, including species distribution andpopulation dynamics. Rapid biodiversity appraisals to determine appropriate use and Park mingwill be done in the first two years of project implementation through specialist institutes such asthe Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), the Center for Intemational Forestry Research (CIFOR)and local Sumatran universities. Ecological monitoring activities will be identified by the Parkmanagement team including consultant biologists, and will be implemented by the monitoring teamwhose activities are described under the monitoring component In addition a small project-supported research fund will provide seed money for research projects consistent with Parkmanagement objectives submitted by local NGOs and university researchers. Proposals forbiodiversity grants would be reviewed by the Park authorities assisted by a peer review panel ofe,demal experts.

Monitoring

7. Monitoring activities will be implemented by the monitoring team whose activities aredescribed under the monitoring component.

Extension and Awareness

S. The project will develop a broad public awareness program to promote local appreciationof the Park through conservation promotion interventions. The program will be initiated in year 2and cotinue through the duration of the project. Priority target groups include (a) localcommunities; (b) local government officials; (c) educational and religious institutions; (d) mediaand the press. Activities include development of community-based conservafion materials; localworkshops; public information; training; promotion of ecotourism opportunities; and educationalmaterials development

-39- ANNEX 1Page 4 of 10

Management and Implementation

9. The project will be based at Park headquarters in Sungai Penuh (Jambi province), and willestablish and equip a field office in Curup (Bengkulu province) near priority areas targeted forintegrated development and Park management activities. The Project manager assisted by aPMPRO wili be responsible for the overall management of project staff and technical assistanceteam. He will be assisted by the four senior-province based staff in implementing project activitiesand will also receive support from technical assistance staff.

10. Implementation of field activities will be through the existing line structure with extensionworkers and community field workers implementing community awareness, extension andenforcement activities and reporting through the provincial field-staff structure to the Park Manager(Figure 1). Pre-project implementation activities will focus on rehabilitation of Park headquarters,re-deployment and recruitment of staff, assessment of potential Park boundary problem areas.During the first year of project implementation, Park management activities will focus on: initiatingcommunity parnership programs; coordinating with local govemment; preliminary speciessurveys; boundary and encroachment surveys; social forestry and boundary demarcation activities;and extension and community awareness programs.

Component Linkages

11. The Park management component will be closely coordinated with the area/villagedevelopment component and the forest concession management component through the following:(a) targeted site selection of villages for rural development activities - in the first year ofimplementation activities will be in four sites (Tapan, Jangkat, Katenong, Ketahun) where humaninteractions are having a major adverse impact on biodiversity; (b) through coordinated communityawareness programs linked to enforcement activities; (c) through boundary demarcation andcompletion of Park gazettement; and (d) through biodiversity surveys and protection of biodiversityhabitats within the concessions. Coordination of component activities will take place through theinter-provincial coordination committee (IPCC) described under the project organization section.

B. AREANILLAGE DEVELOPMENT

Objective

12. The rural development component's main objective is to reduce encroachment andconserve biodiversity, by providing incentives for alternative livelihoods to local communities whocurrently use Park resources. This component aims to provide assistance to 134 target boundaryvillages to improve resource management on village lands, ensure security of access to traditionallyused resources, increase agricultural productivity and improve village infrastructure. Projectactivities will target groups, most dependent on Park resources, and provide them with altemativeincome-generating opportunities. Activities will be implemented by local government agencieswith technical support from project-financed advisors and local NGOs. The component will belargely implemented by the communities in the park interaction zone in accordance with aparticipatory development process involving four steps, namely: situational assessment, planning

-40- ANNEXIPage 5 of 10

and work programming, implementing and monitoring, review and evaluation and re-plannigThis iterative process will be initiated and sustained in each target community by resident projectfacilitators working in close collaboration with formal and infoimal leaders and though traditionalor newly-organized common-interst groups. In close conjunction with members of visitingtechnical assistance team and various staff from the Kecamatan and Kabupaten, each commuitywill be assisted to first generate by concensus their own village land use and village developmentplan.

Village Resource Management

13. The village planning process would rationalize land use, secure access to resources,establish development priorities and conserve biodiversity in selected Park boundary villages. Iheproject will assist communities map village boundaries and current land use/ownership practices,evaluate and capability, and through a consultative decision-making process, institute land usezonation for agriculture, non wood forest products and conservation areas. The land use plan willbe formalized as a Community Conservation Agreement, that legalizes village access toresources in the Park and its buffer zone, and guarantees specified development assistance, inreturn for community cooperation in Park protection and conserving biodiversity resources onvilage lands. The project will assist the local Kabupaten legislature to prepare and pass legislarecognizing the legality of such agreements.

Vlllage Development

14. Village development activities raise the economic status of the whole village by providinginfrastructure support (water, small roads, culverts) to raise income and create goodwill for thePark~ and assistance for diversifying agriculture thus providing poor villagers with higher incomefrom village lands. Each target village will receive a maximum of US$50,000 for a combination ofinfrastructue and agricultural assistance. Activity selection will be based on development prioritiesset in the village development plan, produced through a participatory decision-maldng processcoordinated by the village head and the village development council (LKMD). Activities will beselected from a menu of development activities that meet project criteria. Villagers would providelabor, and if necessary use credit to purchase fertilizer and other inputs. The implementing agencywill provide expertise, extension, equipment and construction materials financed by the projectDevelopment activities will be phased with ten villages selected in the first year, I8 in year 2, 19 inyear 3, 28 in year 4, 29 in year 5 , and 30 in year 6 or a total of 134 target villages. This gradualphasing will allow local organizations time to develop sufficient institutional capacity to implementparticipatory, community based activities at the village-level. In addition the project will support aseries of feasibility studies to determine the economic feasibility of a number of altenative income-generating enterprises such as ecotounsmn. These will be identified by the Project SteringCommittee during implementation. The studies will be commissioned through local business andmarketing consultants.

Planning Support

15. Village-level plans will be based on the village-resource management exercise, and willinvolve local NGO staff working with local commuities, using PRA and micro-planningtechniques, over a 6-8 month period to prepare an annual work program as well as an overall five-

-41- ANNEXIPage 6 of 10

year village plan. This plan will identify priority activities requirng external support, finaning,time-frame and include community contributions. Similarly at the district-level, for the five priorityKabupatens, spatial plans will be revised to account for natural resource distribution, the impact oftheir utilization and other forms of development (such as roads) on biodiversity conservation. Thismulti-sectoral planning will be conducted by BAPPEDA II (the planning agency at the Kabupaten-level) with technical assistance provided by the project

Training

16. Training is a major activity in terms of building insfitutional capacity to implement ICDPactivities. A training needs assessment will be conducted in the first or second year of projectimplementation to devise a Rural Development Training Plan tailored to the needs of projectcoordinators, Bappeda Planners, kecamatan staff and extension agents. In addition, annual Zoppparticipatory planning meetings will be held with principal project stakeholders to ensure thatfeedback from community groups and implementation agencies is incorporated in annual projectwork-plans. Training will be provided by members of the Technical assistance team and planningadvisors. PRA training for community organizers (para 19) selected from boundary villages, andlocal NGOs will be provided by WWF.

Management and Implementation

17. The lead agency managing this component will be the BAPPEDA 11, who will act as theKabupaten-level coordinator (PIMPRO). The Kabupaten-coordinator is the primary manager forinplementing and monitoring component activities. The PIMRO coordinates the activities of therelevant technical agencies (Dinases) providing technical and extension services to target villagesand the technical advisory team including local NGOs. Each district involved in the project will befaciltated by a management support group composed of the PIMPRO, the WWF districtcoordinator and visiting WWF specialist staff, visiting members of the technical support team (thisincludes: a rural development advisor, agricultural advisors, small enterprise advisors, planners),and representatives of participating extension agencies selected as the situation requires. ThePIMPRO reports to the Bupati (District Head) and the BAPPEDA I at the provincial-level. TheTechnical Assistance to be provided by WWF would focus on the process of participatory villageland use and village development planning, including facilitating a Commmunity ConservatinAgreement and training of village facilitators, whereas the technical support team would provide amore specific technical facilitating role, including regional planning and would be closelyassociated with the staff of the technical agencies. Coordination of activities between Kabupatensand Provinces takes place through the Inter-Provincial Coordination Committee. This committeeis composed of representatives of the four govemors, the Park Director, a representative of theMoFr Forest Utilization directorate, and WWF.

18. Implementation of component activities is built around three major processes: villageselection; formulating an activity menu; and village implementation. Village selection will beginardy in implementation to prioritize villages and identify special management areas. Each

Kabupaten will develop an activity menu of project approved activities that will be formulatedthrough a process of expert evaluation, feasibility study and information exchange with otherkabupatens. Implementation follows a phased sequence of activities: survey, situation analysis,facilitation, planning, implementation and monitoring. Village development activity proposals are

-42 - ANNEX 1Page 7 of 10

prepared by target groups (facilitated by local community organizers and NGOs), reviewed by thevillage counci (LKMD) and forwarded by the village head as a development proposal (DUP)through a consultative process (UDKP) at the sub-district (kecanatan-level). These are thenforwarded to the Kabupaten where the proposals will be reviewed by the Kabupaten PIMPRO andforwarded to a provincial guidance team for approval. Funds will be channeled through theKabupaten PIMPRO who will release them to the lead technical agency responsible for assistingvillagers implement a project activity.

19. Resident village facilitators (tenaga/pendamping) will play a key role in the villagedevelopment component They will initiate and supervise all community-based implementation ofproject activities in each target village, including the identification and strengthening of existingcommon-interest groups and the organization of target groups, orienting and assisting them withparticipatory rural appraisal, village land use- and development planning, annual workprogramming and budgetting, and with implementing their planned development interventions.Owing to the critcal importance of this facilitation function, the work involved, and the isolationand size of most target villages, there will be two facilitators assigned to each village. The villageconservation facilitator (VCF) will be a graduate or high school diploma-holder experienced incommunity work recruited from the district. The local community organizer (LCO) will berecruited from the village and nominated by the LKMD. The LCO will act as the local assistanttrainee to the VCF and towards the end of the establishment phase (i.e. during the third year ofimplementation) will assume increasing responsibility for facilitating project processes in thevillage. After the third year the VCF will move on to initiate and facilitate the project in the othervillages targeted during the expansion phase (Years 4-6).

Component Linkages

20. The areavillage development component has close links to Park management, improvedconcession management and planning activities. In Park management, target village selection andboundary rationalization activities have to be coordinated with Park management activities. Parkstaff will also participate in negoiating community conservation agreements with boundary villagesas a prerequisite for development investment The two components will also develop monitoringindicators for human impact on the Park. In concession areas, the rural development componentwill target twenty four villages for development assistance. Planning advisors will also assist theKabupaten technical advisory team to ensure the project activities conform to regional and spatialplans.

-43 - ANNEX IPage 8 of 10

C. INTEGRATING BIoDIVERSrrY IN FOREsr CONCESSION MANAGEMFENT

Concession Biodiversity Assessment

21. This component will support four main activities. These include: training for enhancedbiodiversity conservation within forest concessions; independent audits of logging operations;biodiversity assessment conservation within production areas; and community forestiy activities.

Training for Improved Forest Management within Conservation Areas

22. The project will provide short-term technical expertise to assist the Ministry of Forestry,provincial forest agency (Dinas Kehutanan) and concessionaires with the irnplementation ofimproved biodiversity conservation within concession areas. Focus will be on forest sites duringand after logging. The project will provide training support to selected trainees from the Ministry,Dinas, concessions. Training will focus on techniques and knowledge needed to conserve in-situbiodiversity in concession areas. The project will provide support for 220 traineeships of 2-3 weekduration. The project will also fund production of training materials, visiting experts and fieldtravel as required. Training activities will be linked to biodiversity assessment informationgenerated from concessions.

Independent Audits of Logging Operations

23. To ensure that upgraded monitoring and enforcement is having the desired effect theproject will contract the services of a forest inspection firm to audit operations in the elevenconcessions bordering the Park. Standards for forest management, environmental and socialperformance based on those currently being developed by the Indonesian Ecolabelling Institute(LEI) in collaboration with the international Forest Stewardship Council will be employed. TheLET will be invited to participate in field inspection activities. Inspection activities will be phasedwith, two concessions (picked at random) selected per year for audits. Audit results will besubmitted to the IPCC and the Directorate of Forest Utilization for appropriate follow-up andaction.

Biodiversity Conservation within Concession Areas.

24. The project will support field ecological surveys to identify and locate especially biodiverseareas within the concessions. The surveys will make use of eisting field, GIS and remote sensingdata available from INTAG (Directorate for Forest Inventory), and other GOI agencies. Theproject will also support initial activities to demarcate and manage these areas. Ihis componentwill require close coordination with the Park Management team and the Park Director. Projectfunds will pay for short-term field biodiversity specialists and field survey costs.

Community Forestry

25. The project will identify areas (based on remote sensing and ground survey) wheresignificant encroachment has occurred into logged-over and unlogged production forest areas.

-44- ANNEX Page 9 of 10

Communities living in or near such areas will be identified through field socio-economic surveys,and engaged in community forestry and rural development activities as described under the ruraldevelopment component. Such communities will be selected for allocation of community forestryagreements, and the project will provide income generating investments, and inputs to improveland use on these sites. The continuity of financial support will be made contingent uponperformance in curtailing encroachment. Some twenty four villages will be selected out of the 134target villages near forest concession areas. Activities under this sub-component will beimplemented jointly with the rural development component

Management and Implementation

26. A staff of the Kanwil Kehutanan Jambi, section responsible for concession monitoring, willbe assigned as the project manager (PIMPRO) for the project The PIMPRO is responsible for theday-to-day implementation of activities financed under this component, and will report through theKanwil Kehutanan to a Project Management Committee in the Ministry of Forestry. The PIMPROwill be supported by a project-funded Management Support Unit and Technical Advisory Groupwhich will assists with annual planning, financial management, monitoring and reporting. Thetechnical advisory team will include a: senior ecologist, training and biodiversity consultants and acommunity forestry advisor attached to the rural development team. Field programs will beimplemented through the Dinas Kehutanan II (Pimbagpro) in the Kabupatens covering the targetconcession areas (Sarolangun Bangko and Bungo Tebo in Jambi and Bengkulu Utara inBengkulu).

27. An ICDP Project Management Committee (PMC) will be established to supervise the ParkManagement and Concession Management components within the Ministry of Forestry. The PMCwill provide policy and technical guidance. The PMC will be chaired by the Director Bureau ofForeign Cooperation (KLN) with members from the DG Forest Inventory and Land Use (INTAG),DG PHPA (Director of National Parks, and Director Bina Programs), DG Forest Utilization(Director of KPHP and Director Bina Programs), the Secretary General's Office, Forest Researchand a representative of the forest concessionaire's association (APHI).

Component Linkages

28. Activities financed under the Concession Management Component will be closelycoordinated with the Park Management component, specifically: boundary delineation andecological surveys within the concession areas; and with the Rural Development component;specifically selection of target villages for community forestry activities and the financing andimplementation of village infrastructure and income generating activities.

D. PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION

29. The monitoring program aims to develop the institutional capacity of the various agenciesinvolved in the conservation and protection of the Park to monitor biodiversity and socio-economicconditions and to plan "Park friendly" economic programs. The program will support the ParkManagement and Biodiversity Conservation component by providing tools for monitoringencroachment, poaching, and other uncontrolled development activities within the Park and bydeveloping performance indicators assessing the health and well-being of the Park. It will support

- 45- ANNEX 1Page 10 of 10

the Concession Management component by monitoring the integrity of the boundaries betwee theconcessions and the Park and by monitoring forest conditions and management practices wihin theconcessions. It will support the Rural Development component by developing capacities foranalzn the impacts of rural development activities both on the Park and on the local communitiesin the buffer zone around the Park and by assessing the project's effectiveness in enhancing thesocio-economic conditions of local people.

30. The project will provide technical assistance support in the first year of the project todesign and establish the overall monitoring system, including the Geographic Infonnation SystenmIn addition, assistance will be provided to finalize the selection of appropriate indicators, develop aData Base Management syem, input baseline data, introduce and integrate the system into theeistng institutional environment, and implement a human resource development program toenable the staff of the various government agencies at various levels to operate the system In thesecond and third years of the project, the practical application of the system will be tested. Thesystem will be filly operational at this stage to support evaluation and impact assessment acivities.Following a thorough review, additional data and indicators will be added to the database. Themonitoring and evaluation systems will include Geographic Information System capabilities thatwill be integrated into the overall Management Infornation System

31. The technical assistance will include appoximatelY 99 staff-months of support (16 nwnthsexpatriate and 83 months local). The TA will include a long-term local GIS/monitoring specialistwho will serve as team leader and assist the Park manager in supervising the M&E activities. Itwill also include an expatriate monitoring advisor, an MIS specialist, and an evaluation specialistThe project will provide support for computer hardware and software for the monitoring andevaluation activities at the Park office and at the provincial and kabupaten planning offices.Support will also be provided for data collection and conversion. This will include satelliteimagery, aerial photography, map baseline data, ground verification data, and socio-economicsurveys. Training (approxmael 153 staff-months) will be provided to provincial, kabupaten, andPark managers to ensure the systematic use of the monitoring infornation in the planning anddecision-making processes.

32. The monitoring and evaluation activity will fall under the direction and responsibility of thePark management office in Sungai Penuh. This office will establish a "base" for the informationsystem and will collaborate and cooperate with the existng infornation coltection and analysisactivities of a local NGO (World Wildlife Fund). Each of the agencies with a responsibility forimplementing components of the project (e.g., the BAPPEDAs and the Kanwils Kehutanan) willalso be strened with a "subset" of the ovrall mnitoring systenL The Park manager will beoveralt responsible for the developmenctand implementation of the M&E sysem

-46 - ANEX2Page 1 of 4

SUMMARY SOCIAL ASSESSMENT INFORMATION FORBOUNDARY VILLAGES

Demographic Factorn

1. The population in the nine buffer zone districts (kabupatens) suroundig the Park isapproximately 3.3 million. The 36 sub-districts (Kecamatas) bordering the Park have apopulation of 1.64 million. The population of the 468 boundary villages ranges from 500-700,000people. The largest population concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the Park, are at SungiPenuh (62,000) in the center, Lubuk Linggau (103,000) and Curup (131,000) in the South.Population density in the rural kecamatans varies between 8-80 persons per km2. The villagepopulations range from several hundred to more than a thousand inhabitants (50-300 households).The population in the four provinces grew by 2.8 percent p.a. in the period 1970-90, well abovethe national average of 2.0 percent. In-migration is the major cause of this high level ofpopulation growth, in particular in Bengkulu province where annual growth was close to 4.4percent. The province of West Sumatra is an exception, where growth rates are decreasing from2.2 to 1.6 percent due to a long tradition of male out-migration.

Table 1. Population Distribution by province and Kabupaten

ftoiwm KatqLmatW. Sumatr Pe" Seld (6) 323,490

Salak(4) 173,342sawahhaato (1) 44,213

Ji Kuina (6) 2S3,924Bmgo Tebo (3) 154498BaRon (5) 133,247

S. Sumna Mui Rawa (4) 181.046DElanacu R*anLmbw(4) 132,914

BenAluUte (3) 157,606

The project strategy is to develop a series of programs ranging from incentives to pull peopleaway from the boundary villages, to alternative income generating programs for households inthese villages.

Cultural Groups and Local Institutions

2. There is considerable ethnic variation between the four provinces, and with this variationin traditional village organizations, systems of community organization, and village-level decision-making over resource management. The following table gives a breakdown of the predominantethnic groups and their use of local institutions for resource management. There are two sets ofinstitutions that operate in these boundary villages: traditional organizations such as the NimkMamak Kaum and Marga, and government established institutions such as the LembagaKetahanan Mas>wakat Desa (LKMD) and the Lembaga Maswrakat Desa (LMD) the villagedevelopment council and consultation forum which takes decisions on development activities at

-47 - ANNEX 2Page 2 of 4

the village level and is the officially recognized forum for village-based consultation. In many ofthe boundary villages, due to in-migration of Javanese and other ethnic groups, traditionalinstitutions no longer play a significant role in regulating resource use. This allows outsiders toenter protected forest areas for agriculture, tree crops and other opportunistic use. Traditionalorganizations continue to exert a major influence in land use and resource access decision-makingin boundary villages in West Sumatra, Kabupaten Kerinci and in some villages in Bengkulu. Theproject design calls for an in-depth inventory of these institutions and will support theirinvolvement in project implementation as well as formal village institutions.

Table 2. Distribution of Ethnic Groups by Province

Provinc Etmik GOp Vdlw OrRM&WiMWag SUMr Minang Nhnk Mamak

XMD. IMDKwinc KmIavane LKMD, LMDSundaBaak

South Sum Reiang MarpLiam, LMD

B=Wkidu Rejag MagJavan IXMD, LMDMin"Bask

Categories of Encroachers

3. There are five categories of encroachers operating in KSNP boundary villages:

(a) Wealthy "Patrons" ( Pertani berdasi) who finance farm workers to clear forest andplant cinnamon. The worker receive a monthly wage, food and 50 percent of thecrop value after harvest, usually a period of up to 10 years. Some patrons purchaseyoung (1-2 year old) cinnamon plantations.

(b) Local People (elit desa) who live outside the Park but enter to develop plantationsranging in size from 4-500 ha in multiple plots and sites. The trees areprogressively felled as they mature and after one or two coppice crops, the soil isabandoned and the farmer claims ownership of the abandoned plot.

(c) People who live outside the Park (pemukin dikawasan) do not own a house orfarm outside and have lived in settlements for many years. Some of thesesettlements are officially registered as enclaves within the Park and have villagestatus.

(d) Newcomers (pendatang) from outside the Park, mainly young couples.

-48 - ANNEX 2Page 3 of 4

(e) Farm workers (anak ladang) who work for "patrons" and others.

Project interventions range from stricter enforcement against category (a) sad (b), anddisincentives for categories (d) and alternative income generating opportmities for category (c)and (e).

Adat Institutions and Resource Control

4. In boundary villages where Adat Institutions are still fimctioning, they play a significantrole in regulating resource use, protecting watershed areas and in West Sumatra, reWling thecomplex system of communal land tenure. The following description of how the adat institutionfiunctions in Lempur, a typical boundary village, in kabupaten Kernci, provides input in how suchinstitutions could play a key role in biodiversity conservation.

5. In Lempur Vldlage the smallest social unit is described as a tumbi (household), severallumbi - based on kinship - form a perut. A group of perut are described as a kalbu and sevealkalbu form a kaum or clan. A village may contain several kaums which are called kwugkampung. The adat leader of the whole village is called the Depati Agung. His decisions arebased on consultation, and he is assisted in his tasks by two other Depads. Decisions are onlymade when all three are present at a meeting. Each Depah has specific roles: one deals with thegovernment, the second is responsible for naes and laws and the third is responsible fordevelopment activities. Depatis are chosen based on their economic standing in the community.Villers follow adat restrictions, mainly for fear of social ostracization from the community.Many Adat leaders also play a dual role as govenmment representatives in 'official' villageinstitutions such as council members of the LMD or as the village head. Most village-leveldisputes and conflicts are resolved through village meetings chaired by the Depati. In Lempurvillage this traditional institution has played a major role in resolving boundary conflicts with thePark and developing a consaesus village-land use plan and zonation which will be enforced by theKaum.

6. In "ethnically" homogenous villages, such traditional institutions can play a major role asintermediaries between Park authorities and villagers in resolving boundary and land use conflicts.In more heterogeneous villages, with new migrants, the more formal government administeredinstitutions and religious institutions assisted by NGOs will play this role. During the first year ofproject implementation, the local NGOs will assist the implementing institutions identifytraditional groups and institutions in the boundary villages to work with in implementingdevelopment activities and enforcing conservation agreements.

-49- ANNEX 2Page 4 of 4

lAnd Tenure

7. Very little land near the Park boundary, outside of transmigration sites is titled. In WestSumatran boundary villages land is controlied through a system of communal and individual landtemnre, with most wet rice plots being individually titled, whereas tree crop (ladang) lands arecontrolled by clan ownership. In the other provinces, with the decline in the influence oftraditional organizations, coupled with ambiguity of land tenure, there is limited internal villagecontrol on outside migrants coming-in and opening new upland fields within the Park boundary.Further work on land tenure systems in the boundary villages will be done during implementation.The project will develop Community Conservation Agreements which will give usufruct rightsto local communities for buffer zone areas and allow them to prevent outsiders from opening newlands within the Park.

- 50 -ANNEX3

Page I of 7

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND STAKEHOLDER

CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES

1. Community and "stakeholder" consultation activities have been an integral part of projectpreparation, design and will continue to play an important role during project implementation. Theproject "stakeholders" include the following groups: provincial and local governments; PHPA (ParkManagement Authority); sectoral technical agencies; forest concession holders; industrial cropestates; local and national NGOs; local communities and traditional organizations.

2. The objective of the consultation activities were the following:

* Inform project stakeholders of the proposed project and its objective;

* Allow opportunities for information to be presented by stakeholders andcommunities on issues and problems related to KSNP and its buffer zone;

* Allow for stakeholder input in ICDP project design from primary stakeholders.

These consultation activities have used a range of participatory techniques to meet these objectives.

The following tables provide summary information on these consultation activities, stakeholder

involvement, duration and outputs.

Table 1. Summary Information on Consultation During ICDP Preparation 1992-1993

Consultation Activity Stakeholders Involved Duration Output

Rapid Rural Appraisal Boundary village November - December Village profiles, land useExercise in 12 Boundary Communities: 1992, sketch maps, institutionalVillages in 4 provinces by W. Sumatra (3 villages); Jambi 1 week per village diagrams, transects,DHV-Kepas preparation (4 villages); Bengkulu (4 identification of peopli-Parkconsultants villages); S.Sumatra (1 interactions.

village).

Consultation and village Boundary village communities November 1992- February Identification of adatprofile of 6 KSNP boundary In: W. Sumatra (1); S.Sumatra 1993 institutions, and major socialvillages by WWF (1); Bengkulu (2); and Jambi and economic issues facing

(2) communities in targetvillages

Consultaon meetings with Local NGOs from WARSI November 1992- March Consultation meeting inlocal and National NGOs by network in Jambi, W.Sumatra, 1993 Palembang; consultationNGO facilitator on DHV S.Sumatra, and Bengkulu; and meeting in Padang;preparation team wlth representatives of consultation meeting in

national environmental NGOs Jakarta; 6 NGOs participatedin inception report meeting;Inter-provincial consultationmeeting in SingkarakW.Sumatra; consultationmeeting in Jambi; NGOround-table discussion inJakarta; and backgroundreport on NGO role in ICDP.

- 51 -

ANNEX3Page 2 of 7

Table 2. Consultation Activities During ICDP Preparation 1994-1995

ConsuitationlParticipation Stakeholders Involved Duration OutputAdivity

Provincial meeting with Bappeda I, Forestry, Agriculure, July - September 1993 Feedback fromprincipal sectoral and Transmigration, Land Agency, stakeholder on preliminaryplanning agencies to discuss Park Management, Local ICDP design; identificationICDP preparation reports and Govemment, NGOs of need for furtherdesign participatory preparation

and phased projectimplementation approach

Japanese Grant Facility WVvF working with 6 boundary July 1994 - June 1995 Data set of biophysical(JGF) to WWF for communities in: Rantau Kermas, and socio-economicparticipatory pilot project Muara Hemat and Renah Kayu information; analysis andidentification activities in six Embun villages (Jambi province); profile of people-Parkboundary villages, base-line and Sukamerindu, Sungai Ipuh, interaction;survey, database and Talang Arah villages (Bengkulu implementation model;preparation of manuals Province), field guide, and

identification of institubonsand training of individualsas community organizersfor project implementation.

WARSI assistance in 12 local NGOs in four provinces July 1994 - June 1995 Strengthening of localstrengthening community working wih communities in four NGO network to helpparticipation in proposed boundary villages: Sungai Kalu implement ICDP activities,KSNP ICDP activities (W.Sumatra), Pesisir Bukit survey of local institutions

(Jambi); Napal Licin (S.Sumatra); and analysis of potentialand Katenong I (Bengkulu). for ICDP involvement:

development ofparticipatory informationcollection techniques;development of media andinformation packets forboundary communities onproposed ICDP

ZOPP pruticipatory Planning Bappeda I and 11 from target August - December 1994 Participatory problemWorkshops in Jambi, West Kabupatens, Camats, Head of identification and analysis;Sumatra, Bengkulu and Dinas agencies for forestry, prioritization target areasSungalPenuh agriculture, tree crops, livestock, & activities for ICDP

tourism, cottage Industry, PHPA, implementation;Kanwil Kehutanan, identification ofconcessionaires, adat leaders, Implementing agencies &village heads, local NGOs and mechanisms forWWF coordinating activities;

consensus buildingbetween stakeholdersholding divergent views.

Review to discuss Regional Local govemments, central ApriWl-ay 1995 Tables from BAPPENASImpact Assessment (RIA) govemment agencies, private of 5/9/95 indicating

sector, local NGOs and WWF. agreement In principle toRIA.

- 52 -

ANNEX3Page 3 of 7

Community Consultation Activities with Local NGOs

3. Community consultation activities have provided invaluable project design input, byallowing participants from representative boundary villages the opportunity to identify problems andissues related to the Park and possible development initiatives that could be implemented by localinstitutions. Village-level community consultation has been conducted by WWF and WARSI, a localnetwork of conservation and development NGOs. These activities have provide valuable base-lineinformation for the project, as well as have supported local-level institutional development. Theseconsultation activities have been implemented in ten boundary villages in the four provinces.Villages were selected on the basis of high-level of interaction between the community and the Park.Financial support for these activities, including further start-up training and planning (to becompleted before April 1996) was provided by JGF.

Base-line Socio-economic and Landscape Surveys

4. WWF has conducted a baseline socio-economic and landscape survey in the following sixvillages: Rantau Kermas, Muara Imat, Renah Kayu Embun (Jambi Province) and Sukamerindu,Sungei Ipuh, Talang Arah (Bengkulu province). The specific objectives of this activities were asfollows:

* To compile an integrated database of physical and socioeconomic information to be usedfor participatory planning and project monitoring activities;

* To prepare participatory plans in the interaction zone of the survey areas; and* To test and develop implementation strategies to assist the ICDP.

These activities are being conducted in close collaboration with the local community, localgovernment representatives and Park management authorities.

NGO Community Consultation Activities

5. WARSI is a network of twelve local Sumatra-based NGOs, many of whom are activelyassisting local communities with development activities in villages adjacent to the Park. The NGOsare working in boundary villages in the four provinces covering KSNP-(Sungei Manau Atas in W.Sumatra; Napal Licin in S.Sumatra; Katenong in Bengkulu and Pelompek in Jambi). WARSI isassisting the ICDP preparation by undertaking the following activities:

* strengthening the local NGOs so they can actively participate in implementing the ICDP;* conducting surveys on local institutions and community organizations working in the

villages and assessing their potential to participate in the ICDP;* producing a series of case studies on people-Park interactions and identifying

mechanisms for conflict resolution;

- 53 -ANNEX3

Page 4 of 7

* working with local communities in identifying development activities that could befinanced by the ICDP;

* developing media materials (posters, videos, pamphlets, newsletter) to provideinformation to local communities on the ICDP.

Description of Participatory Techniques

6. WWF and WARSI are using several innovative participatory "tools" to involve boundarycommunities in ICDP project design. Both groups are using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)techniques to involve community members in problem identification, analysis and development ofpotential ICDP interventions. Some of the tools used are described as follows:

* Sketch-maps of the boundary villages drawn by community members, showing villageland use, settlements, and Park boundary;

* Land use Transects identifying land use linked to topography, soils, agricultural and treecrops, interaction with the Park and problems constraining production;

* Time Lines indicating history of village settlement, and introduction of externaldevelopment interventions including boundary demarcation;S Seasonal Calendars indicating variation in seasonal agricultural activities;

* Ranking and Trends: priority ranking exercises to identify possible interventions; andanalysis of village development trends in health, transportation, education, commodityproduction and interaction with Park boundary; and

* Institutional Diagrams identifying different institutions working at the village level, theirrole in decision-making and level of interaction between institutions.

In addition, the local NGOs are working closely with traditional leaders and community groupsthrough regular village-based community meetings to discuss land use near the Park boundary, waysto develop consensus zonation near the boundary, Park protection and implementation of ICDPactivities.

Zopp1 Planning Workshops

7. Objective

The primary objective of the participatory planning workshops (ZOPP) are the following:

* to train representatives of different stakeholder groups involved in implementing theICDP in participatory planning methodology;

* to develop a planning document (project planning matrix, plan of operations) utilizingthe methodology;

* improve communication and common understanding of the issues among the Dinasagencies to be involved in executing the project; and

* improve community participation by discussing and analyzing problems jointly withcommunity representatives.

Objective Oriented Project Planning (Ziel Orientierte Projekt Planung).

- 54 -ANNEX 3Page 5 of 7

The Process

8. The Zopp methodology uses participants knowledge and experience, and allows them toexpress their opinions freely through a system of presenting written information on cards. Thesecards are then analyzed by the group. The workshop, conducted over a period of four days, andfacilitated by an experienced ZOPP facilitator follows a process-oriented approach which builds ongroup analysis, discussion and consensus. The following steps describe the ZOPP process:

* Step 1: problem analysis and identification of core problem;* Step 2: identification of causes leading to the problem, developing a problems tree

which allows complex relationships to be portrayed;* Step 3: the problem tree is transformed into an objective tree by translating a

negative existing situation into a desired situation in the future by providing severalalternative solutions;

* Step 4: solutions are screened using project planning criteria;Step 5: involves developing a project planning matrix which shows how the projectshould be carried out, what is the project goal; how it is proposed to achieve thisgoal; what external factors influence this; how to measure the extent by which theobjectives have been attained; data required for evaluation and cost estimates forproject activities.

ZOPP workshops were conducted for ICDP stakeholders in all four provinces. These ZOPPworkshops helped bring together the principal "stakeholders" - community members, NGOs, localgovernment agencies, and PHPA- who will be responsible for implementing the project in the future.The project planning matrix described in Box I indicates the preliminary results from the ZOPP heldin Jambi.

Output

9. The output of the workshop is a project planning matrix that helps decision makers overviewthe project strategy, indicators for achieving its goal, and the purpose and result of the project. Thisanalyses allows the government technical executing agencies develop a plan of operation whichspells out who has to do what, when, where, and how much the activity will cost. The importantoutput of the process is a greater understanding among the different agencies involved, which resultsin improved coordination and cooperation which is essential for the ICDP project.

- 55 -

ANNEX3Page 6 of 7

Box 1 Project Planning Matrix for ICDP inJambi and South Sumatra 1995-1999

as formulated by ZOPP workshop participants

1. Goal: ensure the future conservation of biodiversity in KSNP.

2. Purpose: communities living near the Park become aware of its existence and theimportance of Park protection.

3. Output: implement measures that improve community income; increase extensionservices; improve coordination among government agencies and community groups;increase community participation in boundary demarcation; and improve law enforcementto support Park protection.

4. Activities: introduce new improved farning practices; conduct training and providesupport for income generation activities; prepare guidelines for communities to participatein boundary demarcation activities; improve bottom-up planning process, improve skillsof extension personnel, etc.

5. Indicators: reduction in nurnbers of Park encroachers, increased income of target

households, numbers of households involved in boundary demarcation, etc.

6. Input: resources provided include: APBN (reforestation funds) APBN, APBD 1, APBD II,GEF support

Participation during Project Implementation

10. Based on the experience gained through participatory project preparation the ICDP projectwill continue to use the following participatory techniques during project implementation:

* NGO-assisted training of boundary communities in PRA techniques to conductvillage-based analysis and design of ICDP development interventions financed by theproject;

* preparation of village-level maps, delineating land use and zonation based onconsultation and participatory field-based sketch mapping. These maps will provide

- 56 -ANNEX3Page 7 of 7

the basis for negotiating community conservation agreements between boundarycommunities and the Park and local government authorities;

* participatory (ZOPP) planning workshops to be organized on an annual basis withproject stakeholders to provide feed-back to improve project implementation; and

a preparation of extension materials on the Park and biodiversity conservation for local

communities using innovative media techniques.

- 57 - ANNEX 4Page 1 of3

INDICATIVE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

A number of candidate development activities were proposed by government officials,and by the project preparation team. These activities fall into the categories of agriculture,forestry, small enterprise/industry, social welfare, tourism, and public village infrastructure.These indicative development activities are listed and briefly described below:

AGRICULTURE

1. Cassiavera Intensification: To increase returns and sustainability of this profitable treecrop through selective breeding, better agronomic practices, and inter-cropping with other tree orfood crops.

2. Tea: To establish smallholder tea estates on unused land for poor or landless families.This concept has already been proven successful in Kabupaten Solok, West Sumatra.

3. Vegetable Integrated Pest Management: To decrease the use of environmentallydestructive pesticides in temperate vegetable growing areas around the Park through introductionof IPM techniques.

4. Vanilla: To introduce this high value crop to agro-ecologically suitable areas. Vanilla isalready being grown successfully on a small scale in Kabupaten Kerinci.

5. Improved Jungle Rubber: To increase the productivity and biodiversity value of this lowintensity agricultural system found extensively in the lowlands to the east of the Park. Initialexploratory research on this system has been conducted by French scientists.

6. Cage fish culture: To introduce these highly productive systems to villages that have anadequate source of flowing water, and a market for the fish. Cage culture is already establishedat the outlet of Lake Kerinci.

7. Fish Ponds: To introduce these relatively low input protein production systems tovillages that do not have access to fish from rivers or lakes. Fish production has the potential toreduce hunting pressure on wild animal populations inside and outside the Park.

8. Small Ruminants: To introduce goats to poor families as a source of protein and income.

9. Bee Keeping: To introduce the skill and inputs of bee keeping to target groups that havesmall plots of land. Honey is a high value, easily transported produce that requires little land forits production.

- 58 - ANNEX4Page 2 of 3

FORESTRY

10. Agroforestry: To introduce agroforestry systems based on cassiavera or other tree cropsto the project area. ICRAF has already begun preliminary agroforestry research near the Park inWest Sumatra.

11. Community Forestry: To introduce community forests as one type of village land use.WWF has already pioneered this approach in Keluru Village in Kabupaten Kerinci. It has thedual benefit of providing the community with fuel wood and timber, as well as forming a bufferzone on the Park boundary.

12. Nurseries: To assist target groups or individuals to establish village nurseries for thefollowing commercial purposes: sale of fruit or timber tree seedlings to fellow villagers; sale ofpalm tree seedlings to PHPA for marking the Park boundary; sale of seedlings to Dinas PKT foruse in regreening and reforestation.

13. Rattan Plantations: To explore the possibility of establishing village rattan plantations toreplace rattan that is currently being harvested in the Park. Initial research by Stephen F. Siebertof the University of Montana indicates that the clustering rattan, Calamus exiles could be grownsustainably in the project area because this species resprouts after harvesting. The small canesare used primarily for handicrafts.

14. Turpentine Tapping: To increase the practice of tapping pine trees for resin for sale toturpentine factories. Many pines have already been planted for reforestation, and demand forturpentine exceeds the supply of resin.

SMALL ENTERPRISES/INDUSTRY

15. Rattan Handicrafts: To introduce rattan handicrafts more widely in the project area, andexpand the range of products and markets. this builds on an existing handicraft tradition.

16. Village Industries: To explore the possibility of introducing small village industries suchas black-smithing or simple furniture making.

17. Agricultural Processing: To explore the possibility of introducing simple agricultureprocessing techniques to add value to cassiavera or other products.

- 59 - ANNEX4Page 3 of 3

SOCIAL

18. Scholarships: To provide scholarships for children in SMA villages to attend school innearby towns or cities to provide them with a better education, and to encourage them to moveaway from their village when they reach adulthood.

19. Land Titling: To assist selected villagers to obtain government ownership certificates fortheir land. This would only be done in exceptional circumstances as titling is an expensive andtime-consuming process.

TOURISM

20. Hospitality Training: To train village women in the cooking, sanitation, language andhospitality needed to attract international visitors to their homes for a remote homestayexperience. WWF has already been successful in providing this training in the village fromwhich visitors begin the ascent of the Mount Kerinci.

21. Guide Training: to provide young men with the necessary language, intercultural, andnature interpretation skills to guide foreign visitors into the Park.

PUBLIC VILLAGE INFRASTRUCTURE

22. Access Roads: to build light traffic access roads to villages close to the existing roadnetwork. Prior to approval, these roads would have to be evaluated for possible negative impactson the Park, through AMDAL process.

23. Small Scale Irrigation Systems: To construct simple irrigation systems with village laborto increase rice production in villages that border a stream or river.

24. Drinking Water Supply Systems: To provide a reliable and clear source of drinkingwater to the entire village to improve sanitation and reduce the amount of time needed to obtainwater.

THE SELECTION PROCESS

25. The villages assisted by the project will receive a tree year cycle of intervention thatincludes surveys, situation analysis, facilitation, planning, implementation, and monitoring.These steps will be repeated during each year of the cycle as a learning experience for thevillagers, and to allow mid-course corrections to be made. All sub-components would beintegrated into this process.

26. The village intervention process is guided by the Kabupaten Coordinator in consultationwith the Camat. Activity proposals would be reviewed through the standard GOI process thatincludes the LKMD at the village level and the UDKP at the Kabupaten level before beingsubmitted to the Kabupaten Coordinator. Facilitation will be done by LCOs and local NGOstaff, and the Community Participation Advisor and the WWF supervisor would provide periodicassistance. Kabupaten technical agencies would implement development activities. The TATwould assist village leaders and target groups to write activity proposals in the DUP format.

INDONESIA

Kernci Seblat Integrated Conservation and Development Project

Proposed Technical Assistance

Estimated Standard Con- Responsibility

List of TA Implementing Total Cost No. of Status of TOR (Date) Short List (Date) tract Prepared for Supervision

Contract/Activity Purpose/Objectives Agency (USSOOO) Staffmonth Prepared Expected Prepared Expected (Y/N) RSI HQ

A. Preparation/

Implementation Support(a) Park Management Assist in the preparation & PHPA 1,881 302 (foreign) 12/94

implementationofaPark 448 214(local) 12/94

Management plan.

(b) Area/Village Dcvt. Assist selected villages in Kabupaten/ Lump sum = 3,440 1/96

(i) Village intervention resource stabilization and Carnat/LKMD (NGOs/LCOs)process income generation. 1,336 186 (foreign) 12/94

1,581 334 (local) 1/96

(ii) Regional and spatial Integration of park planning BAPPEDA I & II 144 9 (foreign) 3/95planning with regional/provincial 781 152 (local) 3/95

planning.

(c) Concession Biodiversity Assist in boundary delinea- KANWIL 98 17 (foreign) 1/96

Asscssment tion and provision of inspec- Forestry 0

tion service, incl. training.

(d) Monitoring & Evaluation Impact assessment, analysis, PHPA 293 16 (foreign) 12/94& management improvement. KANWIL For. 355 83 (local) 1/96

BAPPEDAs

B. Iustitutioaal CapacityBuildingThe above consultant services are completely intertwined with institutional capacity building.

C. Policy Advice/Studies10 percent of the consultant services provided under Preparation/Implementation Support should be regarded as improvement of policies and regulations.

Kerinci Trust Fund Study PHPA Lump sum = 101 4/96 °Q Interprovincial Spatial Plan Bappeda I & 1I Lump sum = 152 4/96

Ecotourism Study PHPA Lump sum =51 4/96 o U

Kubu Development Social Dept Lump sum = 522 4/96 PhTourism Devt Planing PHPA Lump sum -0 4/96

adlouding conting acies

- 61 -

ANNEXSPage 2 of 2

Technical Assbtance and Studies by Component and Lead Agency

Central EstimatedLead Requirements Costs

Agency (Staffmonth) (USS'000)TechnicalAssistance

Central Coordinating Consultants PHPA 72 620(Working Group PSC)

Park Management Component MoFr - PHPASnr. Park Planner/Mgt. Specialist 39 736Park & Wildlife Enforcement Officer 36 681Curriculum Development Specialist 2 11Writers (two) 10 45Park Mgt. Officer 60 27Education Extension Officer 60 27Training Officer 60 27Conservation Officer 65 77Elephant Specialist 6 112Communications Specialist 24 449Ecologist 60 27Sociologist 94 110

Subtotal 516 2,329

Area/Village Development Component MoHA - BANGDARural Development Advisor/Team Leader 28 521Assistant Team Leader 52 277Agricultural Advisor 52 270Community Forestry Specialist 28 521Training Advisor 40 210Community Participation Advisor 52 270Small Enterprise Advisors (two) 78 17Work Engineers (two) 126 663Regional Planner 9 144Planning Advisors (four) 152 781Accountant 64 168Village Facilitating NGOs MoFr - PHPA - 3,440

Subtotal 681 7,282Concession Blodiversity Assesment Component MoFr - PA

Trainer in Concession Management 17 98

Monitoring & Evaluation Component MoHA - BANGDAMonitoring & Evaluation Specialist 16 293MIS Specialist 9 46Evaluation Staff 8 2M&E and GIS Consultant 66 355

Subtotal 99 696

TOTAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1,385 11,025

Park Management ComponentTourism Development Planning MoFr - PHPA - 10

Area/Village Development ComponentKerinci Trust Fund Study MoFr - PHPA - 101Interprovincial Spatial Plan MoHA - BANGDA - 152

Ecotourism Study MoFr - PHPA - 51Kubu Development MoHA- BANGDA - 522

TOTAL STUDIES - 836

KSNP Project Implementation Schedule

1995 1 1996 1 1997 1 1998 1 1999 1 2000 [ 2001 2002

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish 234r 1 21314 2 13 14 11213 14! 1[ 2 13[1444111213[ 12

1 Project lmpwmentation Schedul - KSNP 1913d 6/1/95 9/30/02

2 Start-up ActivhYes 608d 6/1195 9/30/97 _j

3 Appraisal 65d 6/1/95 8/30/95

4 Submit Maps on Concession & Mining Operations Od 4/23196 4/2396 23

5 Gazettement for KSNP Od 9/30/97 9/30/97 9/30

6 Negotiations 1w 4/23/96 4/29196

7 GEF Approval Od 1/5196 1/5/96

a Board Approval Od 4/30/96 4130/96 30

9 Grant Effectiveness Od 7131196 7/3196 .

10 Loan Effectiveness Od 7/31/96 7/31/967/3;1

11 Start-up Mission 2w 7/31196 8113/96

12 JGF Contract with WWF 150d 12/18195 7/12/96

13 Implement 10 Villages (Training & Village Plan) 30w 12118/95 7/12/96

14 Low-land Forest Ecological Assessment 30w 12V18/95 7/12/96

1 5 Staff PIMPRO Appointments 130d 6/3/96 11/29/96

16 SK Park Mgr as PIMPRO for Park Mgmt. Component 130d 6/3/96 11/29/96

17 SK for Concession Biodiversity Assessment 130d 6/3/96 11/29/96

18 SK for Appointment of PlMPROs in Bappeda TK 1 & 11 130d 6/3/96 11/29/96

19 Establish IPCC 130d 6/3/96 11/29/96

20 Establish Working Group of KS for PSC 130d 6/3/96 11/29/96

21 Establish PMC 130d 61396 11/29/96

Task Summary Rolled Up Progress

Progress Rolled Up Task

Milestone Rolled Up Milestone CD

w0.

KSNP Project Implementation Schedule

1995 I 1996 1997 1998 1 1999 1 2000 1 2001 1 2002

ID TaskName Duration Start Finish 2Z13 41 234|1 2341 234 23411|2|3|411|2|3|412|3

22 Establish Central Coordination Team for Area Devt. 130d 6/3/96 11/29/96

23 Establish PCCAIPCC 130d 6/3/96 11/29/96

24 Appoint 4 Senior Staff for KSNP 130d 6/3/96 11/29/96

25 Procurem ntofTAs 160d 7/31/96 2/25/97

26 Independent TA Coordinator 26w 7/31/96 1/28U97

27 TAs for the 3 cornponents 30w 7/31/96 2/25/97

28 Implemntaton 1718d 8131/95 3/30/02

29 Preparation and Approval of Budgets 150d 8131/95 3/27196

30 DUP Preparation for aN 3 components 22w 8/31/95 1/31/96

31 DIP Preparation for all 3 components 8w 2/1/96 3/27/96

32 Task ImpleentIon 1479d 7/31/96 3/30102

33 Park Management 1479d 7/31/96 3/30/02

34 Involuntary Resettlement Moratorium 697d 7/31/96 4/1/99 _ :

35 Road Development Moratorium 697d 7/31/96 4/1/99 . -.

36 Implment Park Management Plan 957d 7/31/98 3/30/02

37 Areallabge Development 1479d 7/31/96 3/30/02 _ -___

38 Prepare land zoning plan for project area 566d 7/31/96 9/30/98

39 Review & implement land zoning plan 174d 10/1/98 6/1/99

40 Long-Term Development for KJBU 740d 7/31/96 6/1/99

41 Area/villge planning implementation 1479d 7/31/96 3/30/02

42 Concession Blodivemity Assessment 1479d 7/31/96 3/30/02 _ i _

Task Summary _ Rolled Up Progress

Progress Rolled Up Task

Milestone Rolled Up Milestone

KSNP Project Implementation Schedule

1995 |1996 1 1997 | 1998 | 1999 2000 2001 2002

ID Task Name Duration Sbrt Finish 2131411 1213141112131411121314112| 144 !l hI2443 Review biodiversily mgt in logging concessio 174d 7/31/96 3131/97

44 Finalize biodiversity mgt in logging concessio 900d 7/31/96 1/11/00 . .

45 Carry out audits in logging concession 1218d 7/31/97 3/30/02

46 MAonitoing & Evaluation 1551d 711/96 6/21/02 1 i

47 Mid-Tern Review 6w 1/19/99 3/1/99

48 Annual Report 1306d 61/97 6/1/02 K q O O O

56 Annual Planning and Budgeting Report 1304d 1011/96 10/1/01

62 Auditing Report 13d 10/1/96 10/1/01 0 0 0 K K O

69 Supervision 1561d 7/1/96 6/21/02 - i --m

70 1st Supervision Mission 3w 7/1/96 7/19/96

71 iMor 1053d 1/15/97 1/26/01 | | | | I

77 Minoir 1045d 6116/97 6/15/01 I I I I

83 Final 3w 63/02 6/21/02

84 Cornpletion Od 3/30/02 3/30/02

85 Closing Od 9/002 9/3021

Task Summary Rolled Up Progress

Progress Rolled Up Task

Milestone Rolled Up Milestone O CD

II

- 65 - ANNEX 7Page I of 2

PROJECT SUPERVISION PLAN

The matrix below indicates the mix of specialties and frequency and duration of missionslikely to be needed to ensure adequate project supervision. The footnotes suggest some of thekey events requiring particular attention of the supervision missions. Some underlyingassumptions for the matrix are as follow:

Bank supervision input:

* Regular supervision needs for the review of progress reports, procurement actions,correspondence, etc. are estimated to require six staff weeks per year (n=t shown inthe matrix). In addition, specialized review time depending on which year will berequired to deal with key project activities (biodiversity assessment, MIS/GIS,regional and spatial planning, training, village agreements and its land use, etc.) andkey events (project start-up i.e. finalization of project indicators, review of TORs ofTA and agency coordination, MTR i.e. para 4.10 of SAR main report, ICR, etc.).

* Each of the four provinces should be visited at least once per year, including typicalproject actions (village development, park zonation, boundary adjustments, socialforestry etc.).

* Staff from the Resident Mission (both from PMU and ESIU) would assist in thesupervision of this project, in particular in nursing along start-up activities related toboundary rationalization and biodiversity assessments in concession areas, randomex-post review of SOE documentation, particularly village infrastructure investmentsand attending PCC/IPCC meetings.

Borrower's Contribution to Supervision:

* A one-day overall project launch workshop in Sungai Penuh is to be organized byGOI in about June 1996, followed by a two-day provincial workshop (between Julyand October, 1996 pending on critical TA mobilization) in each of the fourprovincial capitals.

* The KS Working group for Project Steering Committee and PSC to meet as neededand the meetings for IPCC, PCC and DCC will be held normally in January/Februaryof each year to discuss previous year project performance and current year program

* The monitoring and project data base will be coordinated through the park director inSungai Penuh, including the (semi)-annual progress reports. The projectcoordination consultant for the TA, would, apart from the TA procurementmonitoring also be involved in project reporting/supervision.

- 66 - ANNFPage 2 of 2

Table 7.1 Duration of Missions

Mission Time STAFF WEEKS dl . TOTALNo. MO/YR. AE A E E/B MIS LSP OS Staff Weeks

I a/ 7/96 2 2 2 3 4 92a/ 11/96 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 123 a/ 2/97 2 2 2 2 4 84 9/97 1 1 2 2 2 2 6 105 2/98 1 1 1 2 2 5 76 9/98 2 2 2 1 4 6

7 b/ 2/99 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 148 b/ 9/99 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 79 2/00 1 1 2 3 410 9/00 2 2 1 1 4 61 1 2/01 1 1 1 1 4 412 9/01 2 2 2 1 1 5 8

13 c/ 2/02 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 1414 c/ 6/02 1 1 1 1 1 5 5Total 114

a/ Launching workshops during first year of projectb/ Mid-term Reviewc/ Implementation Completion missiondI Specialities: AE = Agricultural Economist; A = Agriculturist; E = Engineer; EBEcologist/Biologist,

MIS/GIS = M. E. Specialist; LSP = Land Use/Spatial Planner; OS = Other Specialists.

- 67 - ANNEX8Page I of 4

PROJECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

The project indicators are grouped into two categories:

(a) implementation indicators (these are related to the implementation schedule inAnnex 6). When this input/output system will be set up by the variousimplementation agencies during the first project year it will rely heavily on theinitial physical and institutional parameters set out in the SAR (e.g. cost tables inAnnex 9, phasing of village investments in WP 3 of Annex 12, number of keyevents shown as dated covenants e.g. road construction moratorium). It coversindicators such as procurement technical assistance progress, disbursement, staffappointment, biodiversity areas surveyed both in the park as well as the forestconcessions, availability of funds for each of the components. The physicalprogress will be monitored as set out in WP 5 of Annex 14 and reflected in aprogress reporting system. Technical assistance for the setting up of the projectmonitoring system, including the performance indicators, is included in theproject and initial assistance will also be provided by environmenta] GIS stafffrom ENVLW. The setting up of project indicators by project staff will receivethe highest priority during the three project launching workshops and the draftindicators shown in Table I would be reviewed with each of project units,PIMPROS and technical assistance staff.

(b) impact indicators. The project is based on the application of instruments(such as boundary rationalization; restriction of fragmenting infrastructure withinthe Park area, particularly roads; income generation in potentially encroachingbuffer zone communities; conservation management in neighboring forest areas;improved technology and human resources in park management) to the basicobjective, which is to protect the Kerinci Seblat Park environment andbiodiversity, and that of its immediate environs. It will be possible to monitorthe extent to which the instruments are developed and applied: the rate at whichboundaries are agreed and demarcated; improvements in community and farmincomes; physical and human resource developments in the park managementstructure; habitat and forest stabilization in the Park; decline in poachingactivities and illegal hunting and trapping of large mammels and birds asindicator of improved park protection; developments in the forest concessions.These aspects will be included in the project's M&E system but will requireconstant reassessement during project implementation. Although the instrumentschosen are believed to be the best possible in this case, it will nevertheless be adifficult and time consuming task to directly assess their contribution tobiodiversity and habitat survival, and other major factors involved in protectionof the Park environment as a whole. It will take many years, for example, todeternine whether sustainable production with an acceptable degree ofconservation and protection, is being achieved within the forestry concessions-and other environmental trends will be similarly slow in emerging. It should not

- 68 - ANNEXSPage 2 of 4

be assumed, therefore, that all major impacts from the project will be in fullevidence prior to the end of the project period. Remote sensing and othertechnologies can be applied to the task of longer term environmental impactassessment, and decisions will need to be taken on the extent to which this canand should be done as the project is implemented.

(c) With respect to the economic performance indicators, the project will onlyattempt to measure those related to the area/village development component asboth the park management, and the concession biodiversity assessmentcomponents do not lend themselves to such application.

SK NEEDED FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

SURAT KEPUTUSAN PREPARED BY DAi

1. SPABP (Area/Villages Dev. Project) MOHA/BAPPENAS/MOF April 1996

2. DUP for BAPPEDA I and II (Area MOHA/BAPPENAS April 1996

Dev. Project. sub-component: Dinas

Tkt I dan Tkt II)3. SK Program Director BAPPENAS Sept. - Oct. 1995

4. SK Project Management Committee Ministry of Forestry Sept. - Oct. 1995

(PMC)

5. SK Pimpro for Forest Concession Ministry of Forestry DIP (April 1996)

Management Component6. SK Pimpro for National Park Ministry of Forestry DIP April 1996

Management Component, Include TA

7. SK Pimpro for Intg. Area Dev. Ministry of Home Affairs DIP April 1996

Component at the center

8. SK Coordination Team Ministry of Home Affairs Sept. - Oct. 1995

9. INMERNDAGRI on Project Ministry of Home Affairs DIP April 1996

Coordination and Supervision

10. SK Provincial Coordinating Governor After April 1, 1996

Committee (PCC)/IPCC

11. SK Pimbagpro for Area/Village Governor INMENDAGRI April 1996

Dev. Component at the province

12. SK District Coordinating Committee Bupati INMENDAGRI April 1996

(DCC)

ANS'FX 8Page 3 of 4

Table 1: MONITORING AND EVALUATION INDICATORS OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT, ICDP

LEVEL OF INFORMATION___________ _____________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~REGIONAI'PARKC DISTRICT/ECOSYSTEM VILLAGEIPOPULAnION USE OF DATA FOR J TIM[E FR.AMoEWORK

PROJECTr MAE INDICATORS/ Da'INITMON/ CL SOURCE OF SCALE SOURCE OF SCALE SOURCE OF BASE MONITORING/ MONITORING EVALUATION

COMPONENT MONITORING CHARACTERISTIC INFORMATION INFOrIMATION INFORMATION LINE EVALUATION

_d UN ZRWD r. Of -*Wc 1:25001W Rd"%T. _dif. 10OD 50db. _Iu.Y I 25.00 BPA.W Pb. ..y I y _

.hd" 0 . t". F _ mI y 10.0100

A A.E-.If1W Z_ Du - Id. bft d 1:290.01 F To ft dal 12301 C Tb .m.k od.( is I 2a F 1.21W 71. It.dl nyo.NM, w . d.

* -L1wt*ftA @0 O_ b_ c _ I:0W R04T1WLI I 101W SWl I (CA.5 B 0ow. I251W Bomb d CSAR .

Me.d ow A 1 od I wRI R_e1 0 BOSIL- 1WWr.

Diumbm of mmh 12501W RW- 110 OD Rw*.dTqpoaJ I 211W0 Amol o 1ym, 2l-Sym.

PinDimm~~~~ 1W b. pmk OW@ Tako,pbml w I 0BWUm~Io

-F." Dd NOa W .i _ .d b 1CBY.000 R PA& 1oI00 5 R1W Rq., PbI W0mb 1.25.1W A.. 2!y .WM cmbWk by WD b w Mn thi, Sm. MA 1W b r 5 mI ! *E

~~~- -e - z S m byDlAaCSb bCS imb. AgclalC n \xIE!

*O.-m . hmo * 1.2501 PNbd Sdd 1._0b! D 0S.lWArdf 25.0b b LOm Go .0 I .2 I 2-3!

._ . _ __ __ .. b.B _ A-AwI

* Ad.&Ioo PI.,iI Id.Nk *- 1:250.00 BW- 1.3010w Rq1W 1 251OD CBSILoot Goo.i. 0- I 5- MILS.

iota, 1d oil k..i

-P w otb.I PWkm ioSM. by DIfa CBS?WWa.li 1W by Sbd- CBS/PoAK-o ad by 501w. Cm Id Popo.IIi-. 0 I0OIy_

P.on dIdly. P-& m E..l. C- dkMoa E--.. C-m Rqp.io

by al *mm mbd by h60m .ILmby .ao.

* Mift DdhU by mijom ow 1 by DiMi CBSIAWkIb.W b3 S.d- CBS1Agbooluot C- by V.110 0 Asn.b.ht. in W - I S Oi I

gyUm-copi. 1ou. W.& wkimim Cm db.oko 01,.

-Ow P odx by P di o w aop. by by 12mb. CBS/Arkdb.J by Ais CBEIA.Vico2m C- by VidIh5 A910050. -m 1W 0oIS I

F- S- I..lIe of 1W h (1Wkhd by 12100 CBSJAgOojoI by ub- CBS1A/A,ofI.i Cm by V.IIlo Aoco.-hI -.i 1W xoI 0 0

1d -- W&A.M by W.- com dim 0 Std,..

*L.W TmmO0otIdqo hh-la Iom f. by DimiO CBSIAV-WI0.tI by bA- CBSIApic.Joon Cm by VOl.0 . AjpwWOo1 Coo 1W I somIso.

-d C- !W 0.1W.

.- hi.Fm 1W-. -W .! 10.- by DiMo CBS by BA. C'BS b, oslIqo AV,-.I-oo C-o,. .oo s o.

Co..bo D.o.op~ C -- y bo Dimao bo .b- by Vl. 0L. s...,

-P. o.O wdIOi-, 27 haR. 1W by CBS byVOILgo CBS o

I d- --B-- - - - nI

ANNEX8Page 4 of 4

Table 1. (Continued)

LEVEL OF INFORMATION TL REGIONAL /PARK DISTRICT/ECOSYSTEM VILLAGE/POPULATION I USE OF DATA FOR TIME FRAMEWORK

PROJECT MO4&E INDICATORl/ DEFINFflON SCALE SOURCEOF SCALE SOtURCE OF SCALE SOURCE OF J BASE MONITORING/ MONITORING I EVALUATION

COMNONENT MONITORING CHARAClERISTIC INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION | LINE EVALUATION

.Pk Bc_ty LqJ | of R p I 2d 01 FiTAG 1 50 C00 INTAG I 25.050/ INrAG x 1oubis I 2-3

1O- 0.b d bl_by _ I 10 000

V _ o IKo th- 1 " of _ . _ 1:250.000 D5V/0_y 1 50 ODD S0,I 1 25 ODD Aa.111 Pbo(Why I 0h3y

.d -bk ik~~~d Pub 0501b1 lh y I.W00sIAO.l

Put TK . of I_ fodb ubbW 1:250000 BiSSOwndIi 1.50 000 S.difto 1.25 000 AFWIIoloqb I P 1-3,F~P.q.1m. 11mod by _* vqAk 1_guY I.=y/A5.io

amft w kmMdPh*u.b

Ld SyM-IM Mop Pbsopi tp.W PAO _ 1:250.000 C5RdYOTAR 1 50 000 LREPI iCSARI j 25 ODD BPN/AliUSDA.W.&(CSAEL) phuhooppy

CI_* (ia MoIy. ._ n _ w 1 250 0O P RdW.TILREPI/ 1:500 50 BMGCSAR 1 25 Oo CSAR

I_ 1o(.b d l .p BMG

Sodil EnW- RJ& 1 , by U.5E bd - 250000 TK dMI 50000 T1 iF do 1 2500D T50 r. or d .' l Y 2I3.*.koy do. k -). -byu d5

.

-Eb- G_ b_b d. ok 0 0 of 1:250.000 RW W 1500 Rpd.V 25 000 A5.l Pl-py

- H4*4w TypT of b*o b _ I 2W0500 Pu lM_ I 50 .00 Pu M- 1 25500 DD x - I X yo 21 _

sp-5be F_.W 'd 111 * d_.I_II I 2WOO BD7opm?b 1:350 R R--d.Sb43 I 25.000 Rn I .y 2-3 y O

*FWh" _ oo P . ._ i o 1-210000 R_..~0 1:5000 Ra dSdy 1 2 ODO Ra d 0x I y_ 2.3 Vl

* hmdhw ~hmpwk R.0- 7ktu of ma'o, I 25000 I500 b'MiaI000 00 l.a*2*4 o k ly 2-55y-lk_Pubb :W.O 1:30 000 R/So. o* U 250 DR Ry bx l4 lIy 2.15 .W

E_ AnIAby E *4,IIy l so by bv Pub ' M by VRhI Vi_ L.&- M13y I o y.*4 -N DWWi kb4**Pk* isd ioom

CoW. b _ C _B.o Pub _il3 6 I 2W0 DGP,11 INTAG L 500 oo DGPH, IITAG 1255o0 DOPH [ 0 I o y 2.1 y-

Fo C-C_ FP. Dh F.iD 0ub _ I 250:oo DGI. ASPF. I 50 PR DG04 ASPH2 I 2500 ASPR1. AUM 0 I Y- 2-1y)

_ Q.guQy Qoik .i 1M50500 PK4. Rd. ASPH2 I 50.9 Ptl. MIT. Sd 5 125PR I1_ 0y_ 2-3I

I_I C . ASPHU IFIL"x-9 0.0y *4of d -M-k - 1'25000 PK ASR41 150500 PK.ASPR. A~..I I12505 opoi AuoI IY- , x2-Soy

- 71 -

ANNEX9Page 1 of 12

Expenditure Accounts by Components

Totals Including Contingencies(US$ '000)

Concession MonitoringPark Areaillage Biodivermity and

Management Development Assessment Evaluation Total

1. Investment CostsA. Civil Works

Buildings & Structures 2,192.3 - - 2,192.3B. Village Grants la

Agricultural & Other Inputs (Park) 251.7 562.3 - - 813.9Agricultural & Other Inputs (Village) - 1,453.8 - - 1,453.8Village Infrastructure - 5,761.2 - - 5,761.2

Subtotal Village Grants 251.7 7,777.3 - - 8,029.0C. Equipment & Vehicles

Fumiture - 32.1 - - 32.1Vehicles - 166.3 - 26.8 193.1Office Equipment 149.9 94.8 - 193.8 438.5Field Equipment 962.7 626.7 - 651.8 2,241.2Office Rental 124.3 29.0 - - 153.3Project Management 75.4 775.8 - 32.3 883.5

Subtotal Equipment & Vehicles 1,312.2 1,724.6 - 904.8 3,941.6D. Training & Study Tours 804.9 1,454.1 288.8 251.4 2,799.1E. Extension & Planning 1,505.7 4,389.4 - - 5,895.0F. Technical Assistance

Foreign TA 2,540.0 1,553.7 98.1 293.1 4,484.9Local TA 633.1 2,361.9 46.1 402.7 3,443.9NGO Services - 3,439.5 - - 3,439.5

Subtotal Technical Assistance 3,173.1 7,355.1 144.2 695.8 11,368.2G. Studies 10.1 825.5 - - 835.7H. Survey & Research 1,496.3 191.0 2,233.2 1,513.7 5,434.2

Total Investment Costa 10,746.3 23,717.1 2,666.1 3,365.7 40,495.111. Recurrent Costs

A. Project Management Costs 651.0 2,101.0 - 401.6 3,153.6B. Staff Costs

Honoraria, per diem & travel 185.9 45.6 - - 231.5Incremental staff oosts 1,056.8 - 14.9 - 1,071.7Regular staff salaries 341.2 - - - 341.2

Subtotal Staff Coats 1,583.8 45.6 14.9 - 1,644.4C. Maintenance

Building maintenance 68.3 - - - 68.3VehicleO&M 373.0 - 171.3 15.5 559.8Equip. maint. & fum. replacement 20.1 - - 29.1 49.2

Subtotal Maintenance 461.5 - 171.3 44.6 677.3Tobtl Recurrent Costa 2,696.3 2,146.7 186.2 446.2 5,475.3Total PROJECT COSTS 13,442.6 25,863.8 2,852.3 3,811.8 45,970.4

Taxes 805.1 2,222.6 288.4 384.7 3,700.8Foreign Exchange 4,343.3 3,097.4 670.2 1,246.7 9,357.5

\a The village grants may also Include a small amount for village enterprises.

IndonesiaKerinci Seblat ICDP

Table 1.1. Park ManagementProject Management

Detailed Costs(USS)

Quantites Unit Totals Including Contingencies (C000)Unit 96/97 97/98 98l99 99/00 00/1 01/02 Totl Cost 96/97 97198 98/99 99M00 00/01 01/02 Total

L laystnnant CoatsA. Project Maagemnt

1. Mana t PlannIn & Park ZoningReglor Team Conultations meeting 1 - - - - - 1 978 1.1 - - - - 1.1WorkhopMangementPlan worksho 1 2 3 - - - 8 29,441 30.4 62.2 95.5 - - - 188.0Daft gaiing survey 1 - - - - - 1 4,907 5.1 - - - 5.1Fieldwork survey 1 3 2 - - - 6 4,907 5.1 15.5 10.8 - - - 31.2Astal wrveys hour 10 10 10 10 10 10 6o 589 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.5 6.7 6.8 38.7Reogilo onsulon district 3 6 - 9 488 1.7 3.4 - - - - 5.1Management zoning unit - - 1 - 1 9,761 - - 11.6 - - - 11.6Boundwy reviewand klc zoning unit - 1 1 - 2 4,880 - 5.7 5.8 - - - 11.5Tourisn devedopnt plnning /a study 10.1 - - 10.1Prpamtion nddistributionofplan/b unit - - 1 2 - - 3 4,680 - - 5.8 11.9 - - 17.7

Suboa Manag nt P-lg A Pelt ZonIng 59.4 93.0 135.7 18.4 6.7 6.8 320.12. Equipmnt & Veicl

a. Offic equipment:Daklpconpulers unit 5 - - - - - 5 2,487 13.5 - - - - - 13.5

Nodbook computers unit I - - 1 1.990 2.2 - - - - - 2.2Digtiezr unit 1 - - - - 1 1.492 1.8 - - - - - 1.6

SOwrl program 10 - - - - 10 497 5.4 - - - - - 5.4

Larpriner unit 2 - - - - 2 796 1.7 - - - - - 1.7

Facsimil ma*ne unit 2 - - - - - 2 1.492 3.2 - - - - - 3.2

Phoboopy unit unit I - - - - - 1 2,487 27 - - - 2.7Volsge stablrszes unit 8 - - - - - 75 0.6 - - - - - 0.UPS ystbm unKt 2 * - - - - 2 1,194 2 - - - - - 2.6SSB radio units unit 4 - - - - - 4 3.382 14.7 - - - - - 14.7

Solar panes & batteries unit 4 13 13 - - - 30 3,709 16.1 53.5 54.7 - - 124.3RYGunltswithanntena unit 8 10 10 10 10 - 48 497 4.3 5.5 5.6 5.8 5.9 - 27.2Slide proector system uni 1 - - - - - 1 796 0.9 - - - - - 0.9Stereoscopes uni 2 - - - - - 2 497 1.1 - - - - - 1.1Stereoscopes (portable) unt S - - - - - 5 25 0.1 - - - - - 0.1Maps and aerial photos lumpsum 2.7 - - - - - 2.7Library and references lumpsum 2.2 - - - - - 2.2Desks and chairs (sets) set 5 - - - - - 5 124 0.7 - - - - - 0.7Desks(large) uni 2 - - 2 149 0.3 - - - - - 0.3Swivel chairs unit 2 - - - - - 2 189 0.4 - - - - - 0.4

Shelves uni 5 - - - - - 5 249 1.3 - - - - - 1.3

Team conference table unit 1 - - - - - 1 497 0.5 - - - - - 0.5Map tables unit 2 - - - - - 2 1,492 3.2 - - - - - 3.2

Light tables unit 2 - - - - - 2 249 0.5 - - - - - 0 S>

Misc, tables unit 4 -4 75 0.3 - 0.3Misc file cabinets unit 5 - - - - - 5 149 0.8 - - - - - 0.8 tN)White boards unit 3 - - - - - 3 99 0.3 - - - - - 0.3 0

Subtotal Otfice equipment 84.0 59.0 60.4 6.8 5.9 - 215.0 X

Kind Seb ICDPTabl 1.1. ParkMAaeet

Pr*d MargerRDdWW Coet

(USS)

Quatts Unit TotW Including Contngee CMOO)Urnit 9/9w7 971 MM/3 00101 01102 Tobl Cost 9U97 97/5 8 NM N0 001 01102 Total

bh Fied equimtBinnczs unit 5 - 5 298 1.8 - 1.6Abi's unit 3 - - - - - 3 248 0.8 - - - 0.8Co ees_ wt 10 - - - 10 35 0.4 - - 0.4Phlopoiocequnist set 1 - - - - 1 1,985 2.1 - - 2.1Tent ( do) sa 2 - - 2 397 0.9 - - - . 0.9Canyingeq_umitfA set 40 40 40 - - - 120 1:191 51.8 52.8 54.1 - 158.5Spol0k wilt 2 - - - - - 2 149 0.3 - - - - - 0.3Mieneb wllt 20 - - - - - 20 50 1.1 - - - - - .1LinUqWe u2-It 20 20 50 1.1 - - - - 1.1Genle Wotds ) wlt 3 - - - - 3 498 1.8 - - - - - 1.8Glb posi g sym lt 4 - - - - - 4 1.985 8.6 - - - - - 8.6scpW t/d unt - - - 2 1 - 2 2.730 - - 3.2 3.2 - 6.4

S b pU g F% -qu p 70-1 52.8 54.1 3.2 3.2 - 183.4c. VehIcle

Fouumledvwkh owood/a unit 4 4 - - - - 8 27,792 120.4 123.3 - - - 243.6TrialmToblIf uit 18 32 24 20 20 - 112 1,985 34.4 70.4 54.1 46.2 47.3 - 252.3Pirk- bucki unit 1 4 - - - 5 29,777 32.2 132.1 - - - 164.3MiblIadul onm dWo w unit - 1 1 49,628 - 55.0 - - - - 55.0

Subobtal Vehce 187.0 380.8 54.1 46.2 47.3 - 715.3SW*MW Eqipw & Vehles 341.0 492.6 168.6 55.1 56.4 - 1,113.8

Totl 400.5 585.8 304.3 73.5 63.1 6.8 1,433.8

la To be conducd in year 3 of prd i nVo Induds draft plan evalution, rneg. aid ditbion of plan. includes approval mneeting with World Bank, BAPPENAS. PHPA, BAPPEDA.le Incdudes tens, sleping bap, rucsk aid oabw camping equipmnwt for Park guardsd Equpment requed for exenen pwpoeesbe Ufkation: 2 in park HQ; 4 in povnl coordinat offices; 2 in Curup projed fil office; 4 in Swat enforcement teams.V Location: a in Park HQ; 8 in prvincl coodnati off ices; 80: 2 each in 40 fild sations; 8 in Curup pjed office; 8 for extension teams.Ig Four whee drive with font wnch. Locabon: I in park HO; 4 in provincil coordan offies.Yi Four whetl driwe qipped

w

O

IndonesiaKerinci Seblat ICDP

Table 1.2. Park ManagementTechnical Assistance

Detailed Costs(USS)

Quantities Unit Totals Including ContUngencIes ('000)Unit 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 Total Cost 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00101 01/02 Total

1. Investment CosrtA. Technical AssIstnce

1. Technical AssistanceCentralConsuttantCoordinator staffmnonth 12 12' - ' - - 24 15,000 185.6 190.1 - - -375.7Asst Central Consuttant Coordinator stafflionth 12 12 12 12 - - 48 4,763 58.9 60.4 61.8 63.3 - - 244.4Snr. Parks Planner/Mgt Specialist staffmonth 3 12 12 12 - - 39 17,500 54.1 221.8 227.1 232.5 - - 735.5Parks& WldilfeEnforcementOfficer staffmonth - 12 12 12 - - 36 17,500 - 221.8 227.1 232.5 - - 681.4ElephantSpecialist staflmonth - 3 3 - - - 6 17,500 - 55.4 56.8 - - - 112.2Communications Specialist staffmonth - 12 12 - - - 24 17,500 - 221.8 227.1 - - - 448.8Curriculumdevelopmentspecialist staffday 12 12 12 - - - 36 300 3.7 3.8 3.9 - - - 11.4Eoologist (volunteer) /a staffmonth - 12 12 12 12 12 60 400 - 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.6 26.6Writers /b staffday 25 25 22 - - - 72 300 7.7 7.9 7.1 - - - 22.8Park Mgt Officer (volunteer) staffmonth - 12 12 12 12 12 60 400 - 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.6 28.6Wrvters /c staffday 50 50 44 - - - 144 146 7.5 7.7 7.0 - - - 22.2EducationextensionOfficer(Volunteer) staffmonth - 12 12 12 12 12 60 400 - 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.6 26.6Training Officer (volunteer) staffmonth - 12 12 12 12 12 60 400 - 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.6 26.6Sociologist(localsecondment)/d staflfionth 10 24 24 12 12 12 94 1,074 11.1 27.2 27.9 14.3 14.6 15.0 110.0 p.ConservatonOfficer(localSecondment) staffmonth 5 12 12 12 12 12 65 1,074 5.5 13.6 13.9 14.3 14.6 15.0 76.9

Subtotal Technical Assistance 334.3 1,051.7 880.4 578.1 51.0 52.2 2,947.72. Travel

Travel/e trip 400 400 400 400 400 400 2,400 49 20.1 20.6 21.1 21.6 22.1 22.7 128.3Intemational AirTravel trip 1 2 6 2 2 1 14 3,000 31 63 19.5 6.6 6.8 3.5 45.8In-CountryAirTravel trip 20 20 20 20 20 20 120 390 81 82 84 8.6 8.9 9.1 51.3

Subtotal Travel 31.3 35.2 49.0 36.9 37.8 35.2 225.4Total 3656 1,0869 9294 615.0 88.8 87.4 3,173.1

\a Volunteers to be recruited through intemational volunteer programs\b Short-term writers hired by the projectkc Local writers hired by the project to write bahasaa articJes\d Two persons seconded from WWF Kerncike Staff travel to Jakarta, towns, field, estimated at US$50/day x 10 persons x 40 days per year

CD0Q @

a 2

O- X1

Indonesia

Kennci Seblat ICDPTable 1 3. Park Management

Training & Conservabon AwarenessDetailed Costs (US$)

Quantitles Unit Totals Including Contingencies ('000)Unit 96i97 97198 98199 99/00 00/01 01/02 Total Cost 96/97 97/98 98199 99/00 00/01 01/02 Total

1. Investment CostsA. Training & Conservaton Awareness

1. TrainingFiedStaffTrainlng Pstrolling persession 1 4 4 4 4 4 21 494 0.5 2.2 2.2 23 24 2.4 120

Short Courses (Inbemational) /a course - - - 2 2 - 4 14,810 - - - 34.4 35 3 - 69.7WoringVitlntemtbonal)lb pervisd . 2 2 3 - - 7 4,542 - 10.1 103 15.8 - 36.2Trove"tSernnmrs sernNar - 1 1 - 1 3 16,784 - 18.6 19.1 - 20.0 - 57.6

Kacarmaan Vtrkshop Briefing per ssion 38 38 38 38 38 38 228 987 40.6 41 8 42.6 43.6 44.7 45.7 258.8Kabupaten hVkshop Briefing per session 3 3 3 . - . 9 2,468 8.0 8 2 8 4 - . 24 6ExtenwsnTrainlng persession - 1 1 1 1 1 5 3,357 - 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 19.5PRnpro Tra-nn course 1 - - - - - 1 29,820 321 - - - - - 32.1Master Degree Program person 4 . , 4 64,176 278.0 - - . 278.0FieldManuals/c permanual - - 350 350 350 350 1,400 10 - - 3.9 4.0 4.1 42 163

Subtotal Training 359.2 64.4 90.4 104.1 110.4 56.5 80492. Consfrvation a warenes activites

a. Conservon sti.4auWplirte9tm*baien PAMEFWr unittyear 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 20,692 23.5 24.0 24 6 25 2 25 8 26 4 149 6NatW Lovers Cub5 wiyam 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 32,600 37.0 37 9 38.8 39 7 40.7 416 235.6Molbe Exhnsion Unit unit - I - 1 7,320 - 8.5 - - - - 8 5

VigeflouidryBiMaps/d penuisp - - 100 100 100 100 400 2 - - 0.3 03 0.3 03 1.2Coinr TeomnMeeing meeting - 10 10 10 10 10 50 976 - 11.3 11.6 11.9 12.2 12 5 59 5KertnciGames gains * I 1 1 1 1 5 9,761 - 11.3 11.6 11.9 122 12.5 59.5

Subtl Conservaton awan 5 93.1 869 89.0 91.1 93.3 5138

b. Social maketg nRadiotspots, sioTm 23,360 23,360 23,360 23,380 23,360 116,800 1 25.9 26.5 27.1 27.8 284 - 1357PrhbforPublicRelabions evenUtf/i 12 12 12 12 12 - 60 2,440 33.2 34.0 34.8 35.7 36.5 - 1742

Taeionspolper nh Spot - 4 4 3 1 1 13 3.904 - 18.1 18.6 14.3 49 5.0 60.8Prossona video production Video - I - - 1 48,803 - 56.7 - - - - 58.7Flip-charts cdart - 2,000 - 2,000 - - 4000 5 - 113 - 11.9 - * 23.2Quarterly bubtin buletin 4 4 4 4 4 - 20 976 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.8 4 9 - 23 2Leaflets leafet 10,000 10,000 - - - - 20,000 2.8 2 8 - - - - 5 6Vipae Presentations vilage 10 16 16 26 26 30 124 244 2.8 4 5 4.6 7.7 7.9 9.3 36.9Local governmentpresentations meeting 10 20 20 20 20 20 110 122 1.4 2.8 2.9 30 3.0 31 163Training. serninar traitrln 4 4 3 2 1 1 15 976 4.4 4 5 3.5 2.4 1.2 1.2 17.3Invitations b special events event 1 3 2 1 1 1 9 244 0.3 0 9 0.6 0 3 0.3 0.3 2 6VIageCounselirg village 10 16 16 26 30 - 98 488 5.5 9.1 9.3 155 18.3 - 576School local cticukum development materiat 22.1 - - - - - 22.1Conservationawarenesssurvey Survey 1 - 1 - * 1 3 9.761 11 1 - 116 - - 12 5 35.1

Subtotal Social marketing 113.9 175.9 117.7 123.2 1054 31.5 6675

c. EqulpmentAudio-Visual Equipment unit - 1 I - 2 9,928 - * - 11.5 118 * 234Visitor Center Equipment set - - 1 1 2 9.949 - - - - 118 12 1 24 0lnbfornalCerenterEquip. (for3centers) set - - - 3 3 - 6 4.974 - * - 17.3 17.8 35.1

Subtot Equipnwmnt - - 28.9 41.4 12.1 824 4

Subtotal Conservation awreness acivties 174.3 268.9 204.6 241 0 238 0 136.9 1,263.8 >

Total 533.5 353.3 294 9 345.2 348.4 193.4 2,0687 7

O i

ta traeng in park management\b To Kota Kenal Belu. Malaysiaic Four field Manuals will be prepared to be used by guards and community extension workers\d Includes producdion, duplication and distnbution of maps 1:50,000 sidicating Park boundary to Boundary Villages\e four radio spots per day in sixteen klcal statins

IndonesiaKerinci Seblat ICDP

Table 1.4. Park ManagementCivil Works & Boundary Activities

Detailed Costs (USS)

Quantities Unit Totals Including Contingencies ('000)Unit 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 Total Cost 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 Total

I. Investment CostsA. Civil Works & Boundary Activites

1. Civil WorksProvincial Field Headquarters /a station - 4 - - - - 4 87,456 387.9 - - - - 387 9Park Field Stations /b station - 10 10 10 10 - 40 23.584 - 261 5 267.8 274.2 280 8 - 1,084.2Park lnformaibon Cenlers /c center - - - 3 3 6 24,566 - - - 85.7 87 7 - 173.4Park Entrance Gates gate - 2 3 3 - - 8 2,457 - 5.4 8.4 8 6 - - 22.4Park Visitor Centers center - - - 1 1 - 2 58,959 - - - 685 70.2 - 138.7Park Headquarters /d unit 1 - - - - - 1 206,061 223.1 - - - - - 2231Upgrading & Rehabilitation of Field Stations /e stabon - - 4 4 - - 8 17,688 - - 80.3 82.3 - - 162 6Information Signs unit 20 20 20 20 20 - 100 357 7.7 7.9 8.1 8 3 8 5 40.6Boundary signposts unit - 100 100 100 100 100 500 10 - 1.1 12 1.2 1.2 1.2 5.9Building Site Survey and Planning /f lumpsum - 18.2 18.6 19.1 19.5 - 75.4

Subtotal Civil Works 230.9 682.1 384.4 5478 4680 1.2 2,314.32. Boundary Activities

Boundary Revisions and Adjustments unit 1 - - - - - 1 19,521 22.1 - - - - - 22.1Boundary and Encroachment Area Survey ha/year 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 24,000 5 20.2 20.7 21.2 21.7 22.3 22.8 1290Seed Procurement for Boundary Markers seedling 30.000 30,000 30.000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 12.7 13.0 13.3 13.7 14.0 143 810 1Live Boundary Marking Labor km 100 100 100 100 100 100 600 41 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5 2 29.6Seed Procurement forAgroforestry seedling 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 240,000 21.2 21.7 22.2 22 B 23.3 23.9 135.0 Boundary Monumenting /g km - - 50 50 50 50 200 224 - - 13.4 137 140 14.3 55.4Social Forestry Acbvilies Labor ha 200 200 200 200 200 200 1,200 39 89 9 1 93 95 97 10.0 56.4Village Nursery Development seedling - 35,000 30.000 - - - 65,000 - 19.0 16.7 - - - 35.6Habitat Rehabilitation (Labor) ha - - - - 50 - 50 73 - - - - 4.6 4.6Transfer of Elephants to Bengkulu elephant - 5 - - - 5 683 - 4.0 - - - 4.0Patrolling Route Developmenl km - 150 150 - - - 300 98 - 17.0 17.4 - - - 34.4Installation ofArtificial Mineral Lakes /h site - - - 10 - - 10 390 - - - 4.8 - - 4.8Trenche Fencing for Elephants km - - - 2.5 2.5 - 5 9,761 - - - 29.7 30.4 - 60.2Preliminary Species Surveys year 1 - - - - 1 16,556 17.1 - - - - - 17.1

Subtotal Boundary Activities 106.9 109.2 1184 120.8 123.4 90.5 669.13. Biodiversity Research

Biodiversity Research . year - 1 1 1 1 1 5 176,648 - 186.5 191.0 195.6 200.3 205.1 978.5Small Research Grants year - 1 1 1 1 1 5 19,628 - 20.7 21.2 21.7 22.3 22.8 108.7

Subtotal Biodiversity Research - 207.3 212.2 217.3 222.5 227.9 1,087.3Total 337.7 998.5 715.0 885.9 813.9 319.6 4,070.7

ba 300 square meters; based on GOI standard cost per sq. meter of Rp. 480.000.vb 100 square meters (equipped); based on GOI standard costs of Rp. 480,000 per sq. meter.vc 100 square meters equipped\d Rehabilitation and upgrading ri :e Includes costs of renovabon of 70 sq. meter post (US$9,000); equipping post (US$1,000); and expansion of post by 30 sq meters (US8,000).

V Addresses issues of permanent water supply; eslimated at 7% of costs of buildings.\gto be carried out by BipHut 0 hVi Large Mnanal core areas r

Indone-sKerinci Seblat ICDP

Table 1.5. Park ManagementRecurrent CostsDebiled Costs

(USS)

QuantJties UnIt Totals Including ContIngencIes ('000)UnIt 96197 971S8 9S99 99100 00/01 01102 Total Cost 96197 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 Total

II. Recurrnt CostsA. Support Staff to TA M

AdmnnlskbvnOftckr (2persons) staffmonth 10 24 24 24 24 24 130 732 7.5 18.6 190 19.5 19.9 20.4 1049Seaetary (2 persons) staffmonth 10 24 24 24 24 24 130 634 8.5 16.1 16.5 16.9 17.3 17.7 90.9Oraftsran (two) staffmonth 10 24 24 24 24 24 130 732 7.5 18.6 19.0 19.5 19.9 20.4 104 9Watcmen (two) stafftmonth 10 24 24 24 24 24 130 195 2.0 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.3 5 4 28 0Driven (3 prona) staffnionth 15 36 36 36 36 36 195 293 4.5 11.1 11.4 117 12.0 12.2 82.9Local HkeSb stbffday 500 500 500 500 500 500 3,000 8 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 45 25.7

Subtotal Support Staff to TA 32.2 73.4 75.1 76.9 78.8 80.7 417.2S. Park Staff

Park Diedcr year 2.5 2.6 2 7 2 7 2.8 2.9 16.2SeniorParkOflters(Spersons) sffyear 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 1.659 9.0 9.2 9.4 9.6 99 10.1 57.2Park VorPublic Relatons Officer year 1.8 - - - - 1.8Provtrial Cowrdas (4 peorle) year 4 4 4 4 4 4 24 1,659 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.7 7.9 8.1 45.8Pronidal Otters (B staff) year 8 8 8 8 8 8 48 1,659 14.4 14.7 15.1 15.4 15.8 16.2 916Park G ud (4 slaf) year 46 46 46 46 46 46 276 830 41.3 42.3 43.3 44.4 45.4 46.5 263.3AddinslPork Guards year 25 75 150 250 250 750 830 - 23.0 70.6 144.7 246.9 252.9 738.1Mahuts(ElephentKcpers,10stafl) year - 10 10 10 10 - 40 830 - 9.2 9.4 9.6 99 - 38.1Cartogr,her year 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 630 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 I0 10 5.7Draftslln year 1 I 1 1 1 6 830 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 t.0 5.7 1Data Mslyst year 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 830 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 I 0 1.0 5.7Secreariess(t3SU year 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 830 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 30 3.0 1712 Mechanics(2stat year 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 878 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 121Drivers (6 staf) year 6 8 6 6 6 6 36 830 5.4 5.5 5.7 5.8 5.9 6 1 34 3CoimurnityPrhters year 37 76 114 152 190 190 759 73 2.9 6.2 9.5 12.9 166 170 650

Subtotal PrkStaff 91.8 127.5 180.9 260.8 369.1 367.9 1,398.0C. Honoraria, Per Diem and Travel

Park Staff Conrltation/c year 1 1 1 I 1 1 6 24,011 26.0 26.6 27.3 27.9 28.6 29.3 165.7PHPA Prrecdt Beng session 1 1 1 1 1 I 8 Z928 3.2 3.2 3.3 3 4 3 5 3.6 20.2ReportMig year 1 1 I I 1 I 6 1,952 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 13.5Translaton year * 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 3.5 9,761 5.4 11.1 5.7 5.8 11.9 39.9Administrtion rnonth 5 12 12 12 12 12 65 488 2.6 6.5 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.1 36 7Conmmnications mnonth 5 12 12 12 12 12 65 1,464 7.9 19.5 19.9 204 20.9 21.4 110.1Miscellaneous year 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 4,880 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.7 5.8 S.9 33.7

Subtotal Honoraria, Per Diem & Travel 47.1 68.8 76.0 72.2 73.9 s1i6 419.70. Operaton and Maintenance

O&M for4Whed Drive Vehice month 40 216 216 216 216 216 1,120 122 5.3 29.2 299 30.6 31.4 321 158.6O&M Motorbikes unittmonth 80 576 864 1.104 1,344 1,344 5,312 24 21 15.6 23.9 31 3 390 400 1520ElephantsCareandMamtenance elephant - 5 5 5 5 5 25 2,147 11.9 12.2 12.5 12.8 131 624BuildingsO&M site/year 8 23 43 64 79 79 296 197 1.7 5.0 9.6 14.6 18.5 18.9 68 3Radio Licensing unit 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 420 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.6 14.5RYG Lcensing unit 8 10 10 10 10 10 58 50 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 3.3RYG Annual Licensing Renewal license - 8 18 28 38 38 130 15 - 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.7 2.3 00;

Subtotal Operaton and Maintenance 11.8 64.7 78.9 92.6 105.5 108.0 461 5 [DTotal 183.0 334.5 410.9 502.5 627.3 638.2 2,696 3 ['Z

Ia Support Staff spilt between Office hi Sungai Penih and CurupVo Guides. porlers, etc. estimated at Rp. 17,000 per dy x 10 peson x 50 dayasrvc Conaons ince BAPPENAS, PHPA, Knl Keuhn nd other lol goveriunt staff.

IndonesiaKerinci Seblat ICDP

Table 2. AreaNillage DevelopmentDetailed Costs (USS)

Quantities Unit Totals Including Contingencies ('000)Unit 96197 97198 98/99 99100 00101 011/02 Total Cost 96197 97198 98199 99/00 00/01 01102 Total

I. Investment CostsA. Project Management

1. Planning MeetingsInter-Provincial Coordinabon Meeting /a meeting 2 4 4 4 4 4 22 3,904 8.9 18.1 18.6 19.0 19.5 19.9 104.0Kabupaten Coordination Meebng /b meeting 30 60 60 107 107 107 471 244 8.3 17.0 17.4 31.8 32.6 33.3 140.4

Subtotal Planning Meetings 17.2 35.1 36.0 50.8 52.0 53.3 244.52. Equipment

Computer Systems /c system 9 - - 9 4.974 48.5 - - 48.5Subtotal Project Management 65.6 35.1 36.0 50.8 52 0 53.3 292.9B. Village Development Activities

Feasibility Studies study - 3 3 3 - - 9 19,628 - 62.2 63.7 65.2 - - 191.0Community Projects(infrastructure) village 10 18 19 28 29 30 134 39,042 401.8 739.4 797.9 1,202.3 1,273.2 1,346.7 5,761.2Community Projects (aginputs) village 10 18 19 28 29 30 134 9,784 100.9 186.0 201.0 303.4 321.7 340.8 1,453.8SpecialAreaManagement/d area - 2 3 3 2 - 10 48,922 - 108.5 166.6 170.6 116.5 - 562.3LocalGovernmentoperationalcosts/e village 10 18 19 29 28 30 134 2,440 27.7 51.0 55.1 86.2 85.2 93.5 398.7VilageLanduseMapping / village 10 18 19 29 *28 30 134 14,641 166.1 306.1 330.9 517.1 511.3 561.0 2,392.5LCOstaffinvestments/g unit 120 336 440 780 912 1,044 3,632 317 41.2 118.2 1585 2877 344.4 403.7 1,353.7Village level supply requirements unit 120 336 440 780 912 1,044 3,632 99 12.9 37.0 49.6 90.0 107.8 126.3 423.6Kecamatan level supply requirements unit 80 120 200 200 200 180 980 179 15.5 23.8 40.6 41.5 42.5 39.2 203.1

Subtotal Village Development Actvhties 766.0 1,632.1 1,863 9 2,764.0 2,802.7 2,911.3 12,739.9C. Technical assistance

1. Technical assistance 9Rural development advisor/Team Leader staffmonth 4 12 12 - - - 28 17,500 72.2 221.8 227.1 - - 521.0 °CAssistantTeam Leader staffmonth 4 12 12 12 12 - 52 4,880 20.1 61.8 63.3 64.8 66.4 - 276.5 1Agricultural advisor staffmonth 4 12 12 12 12 52 4,763 19.6 60.4 61.8 63.3 64.8 - 269.9Community Forestry Specialist slaffmonth 4 12 12 - - - 28 17,500 72 2 221.8 227.1 - - - 521.0Training Advisor staffmonth 4 12 12 12 - - 40 4,880 20.1 61.8 63.3 648 - 210.1Community participaton advisor staffmonth 4 12 12 12 12 - 52 4,763 19.6 60.4 61.8 63.3 64.8 - 269.9Small enterprise advisors (two) /h staffmonth 6 24 24 24 - 78 200 1.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 - 16 8Work Engineers (two) staffmonth 6 24 24 24 24 24 126 4,763 29.5 120.7 123.6 126.6 129.6 132 7 662.7Regional Planner staffmonth - 6 3 - - - 9 15,000 - 95.0 48.7 - - 143.7Planning Advisors (four) A1 staffmonth 8 48 48 48 - - 152 4,763 39.3 241.4 247.2 253.2 - - 781.1Accountant staffmonth 4 12 12 12 12 12 64 2,382 9.8 30.2 30.9 31.6 32.4 33.2 1681Coordinating NGO /) lumpsum 399.6 495.5 437.7 675.9 707.0 723.8 3,439.5Keuinci Trust Fund Study tumpsui I - - - - - 1 98,138 101.2 - - - - 101.2Interprovinrial Spabal Plan lumpsum 151.8 - - - 151.8Ecolounsm study lumpsum 1 - - - - - 1 49,069 50.6 - - - - 50 6Kubu Development (TA) lumpsum 60.7 155.4 159.2 - - - 375.3Kubu Development (Equipments) lumpsum 15.2 51.8 79.6 146.6

Subtotal Technical assistance 1,082.9 1,883.1 1,836 5 1,348.8 1,065.0 889.7 8,106.02. Equipment & Vehicles

Four WD vehicles unit 4 - - - - 4 24,767 107.3 - - - - - 107.3Two WD Vehicle unit 2 - - - - 2 14,860 32.2 - - - - - 32.2 WMotorcycles unit 10 - - - - - 10 1,486 16.1 - - - - 16.1 Computer system unit 8 - - 8 4,974 43.1 - - - - - 43.1 ' oFacsimile machine unit 2 - - 2 1,492 3.2 - - - 3.2 O 2Officefurniture office 2 - - - - - 2 14811 32.1 - - - - - 32.1 'z

Vehicle Rental day 100 - - - - - 100 99 10.7 - - - - - 10.7Subtotal Equipment & Vehicles 244.7 - - - - - 244.7

IndoneelsKerict Sebiat ICDP

Table 2. AreaMNlge DevelopnentDetailed Coats (US$)

QuanWtlee Unit Totals Including Contingencies ('000)Unit 96/97 97198 98199 99100 00)01 01102 Total Cost 9t6197 97/98 9U99 99100 00101 01/02 Total

3. Miscellaneous costsOffice Rental mnonth 4 12 12 12 12 - 52 488 21 6 5 6 6 6.8 7 0 - 29.0Comrnunications month 8 24 24 24 24 - 104 978 8 5 26.0 26.6 27.2 27 9 * 116.1Reportng month 8 24 24 24 24 - 104 586 5.1 15.6 16.0 16.3 16.7 69.7Travel trip 100 520 520 400 200 1,740 49 53 281 28.3 22.7 116 96.6lntmnatona travel trip 5 4 5 4 5 - 23 3.000 15.5 127 162 133 170 - 747PerDDiem statfday 250 1,480 1,480 1,000 500 - 4,710 49 132 801 82.0 567 291 261.1Operationrand Maintennce officelrnont 8 24 24 24 24 * 104 1,952 16.9 51.9 53.2 54 5 55 a 232 3

Subtotal Iscellaneous costs 665 2209 2294 197.6 1651 87954. Training

Agribusness Trainki Center course - 1 1 1 - 3 78,986 - 87.8 89.7 91.8 - - 2691Comrnunity Training viltage 10 18 19 29 28 30 134 4,487 48.6 89.6 96 8 151.3 149.6 1641 700 0Proiect Magrs Curse - 1 1 .- - 2 2,962 - 3.3 3.4 - - 66Ptuners course - 2 2 * * * 4 2,962 - 6.6 6 7 - - - 13 3Extenson workers course - 2 5 3 - * 10 1,975 - 4 4 11 2 6.9 - - 22.5ZOPPMretag ting - 1 1 1 1 - 4 4,937 - 55 5.6 5.7 5.9 22.7LCO travn lurpsum 26.6 49.0 61 9 89.1 94 1 99 4 420.0

Subtotal Training 75.2 245 8 275.3 344.8 249.6 283 5 1,454 1Subtotal Techncal asistance 1,469.2 2,3498 2,3412 1,891.2 1,4796 1,153.2 10,684.2

Total Investment Costs 2,300.8 4.0170 4,241.1 4,706.0 4,3343 4.1178 23,717.111. Recurrent CoatsA. Support staff to TA

Adrnnitrator(two) staffmonth 4 24 24 24 24 - 100 3,904 16.1 98.9 101.3 103.8 1062 - 4264Seueaieslour) staffmonth 18 48 48 48 48 - 208 976 16.1 49.5 50.7 51.9 531 - 2212Dnver(1eight) staffmonth 32 96 96 96 98 - 416 488 16.1 49.5 50.7 51.9 53.1 . 221.2Officeassistants(hur) staffmonth 18 48 48 48 48 - 208 293 4.8 14.8 15.2 15.6 159 - 664

Subtotl Support staff to TA 53.1 2127 217.8 223.1 228.4 - 9352B. Project Management

Staff Honoraria staffmonth 90 90 90 90 90 90 540 39 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 43 24.2Extension Vkers incentive Payments staffmonth 36 48 54 84 108 48 378 49 1 9 2.6 3 0 4.8 6.3 2 9 21 4Office Supplies office/nmont 108 108 108 108 108 108 648 98 11.4 11.7 120 123 12,5 129 72.7Comnunications office/nont 108 108 108 108 108 108 648 293 34.2 35.1 35 9 36.8 37.6 38 6 218 2Reporting office/miont 36 108 108 108 108 108 576 195 7.6 23.4 23 9 24.5 25A1 25 7 130 2Travel trip 200 400 400 400 400 400 2,200 49 10.6 21.6 22 2 22 7 23 2 23.8 124.1PerDiem staffday 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 11,000 49 528 1082 1108 113.5 1162 1190 620.6

Subtotal Projct Managemnt 122.4 2065 2118 2186 225.2 227.0 1.2114Total Recurrent Costa 175.5 4192 4296 441.6 4536 2270 2,146 7

Total 2,476.4 4,4362 4,6707 5,147 7 4,787.9 4,344.8 25,863 8

%a Thirty people at 675 per day travel and per diemVb Monthy meeting coordinated by Kabupaten Pimpro in five Kabupatens years 1-3 and nine kabupatens yearn 3-8vb Includes PC, pnnter and software 0td These are areas which require special management to prevent further encroachment¶e Calculated at 5% of villte investntent costsV Mapping contract to BPN at Rp 2000 per hectare. average village size 15000 haIg this covers the cost of the village LCOs, subsistence and Kabupaten kaison for 5 years and is part of the coordinabtng NGO contractt Interuae othae volunteOs\i Assigred to BAPPEDA I 'O\i Includes other local NGOs

IndonesiaKerinci Seblat ICDP

Tibie 3. Concession Blodiversity AssessmentDetailed Costs

(USS)

Quantities Unit Totals Including Contingencies ('000)Unit 96197 97198 98199 99100 00/01 01102 Total Cost 96197 97198 98199 99/00 00/01 01/02 Total

1. Investment CostaA. Field Activities and Equipment

1. Concession biodiversity mgmt & traininga. Training

Travel S allowance /a person 20 40 40 40 40 40 220 987 21.4 43.8 44.8 45.9 47.0 48.1 251.1Supplies and venue trainirg 1 2 2 2 2 2 11 2,962 3.2 6.6 6.7 6.9 7.1 7.2 37.7

Subtotal Training 24.6 50.4 51.6 52.8 54.1 554 28868b. Biodiversity surveys /b

Vehile hire day 6 6 6 6 6 6 36 491 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.4 19.3Survey equipment and materials IC set 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 39,255 40.5 41.5 42.4 43.5 44.5 45.6 257.9InternationalTravel/d trip - 4 4 4 4 4 20 2,944 - 12.4 12.7 13.0 134 137 65.2Local travel trip 6 6 6 6 6 6 36 491 3.0 3.1 3.2 3 3 3.3 3.4 19.3Field per diem day 450 450 450 450 450 450 2.700 49 22.8 23.3 23.9 24.4 25.0 25.6 145.1

Subtotal Blodivertty surveys 69.3 83.4 85.4 87.5 89.6 91.7 506B9Subtotal Concession blodivertty mgmt & tmng 93.9 133.8 137.0 140.3 143 6 147 1 795.7

8. Technical Assistancet. Technical Assistance

Ecologist staffmonth - 12 12 12 12 - 48 17,174 - 217.6 222.8 228.2 233 7 - 902.3Biodiversity Specialists (two) /e saffnmonth - 4 4 4 4 4 20 17,174 - 72.5 74.3 76.1 779 79.8 380.5Training specialist staffmonth - 1 1 1 1 1 5 17,174 - 18.1 18.6 19 0 19.5 19.9 95.1Biodiversity specialists tf staffmonth 6 6 6 6 6 6 36 4,907 30.4 31.1 31.8 32.6 33.4 34.2 193.4 OField crew (four) /g staffmonth 48 48 48 48 48 48 288 491 24.3 24.9 25.5 26.1 26.7 27.3 154.8 OTrainer in concession migt. staffmonth 2 3 3 3 3 3 17 5,250 10.8 16.6 17.0 17.4 17 9 18.3 98 1

Subtotal Technical Assistance 65.5 380.9 390.0 399.4 409S0 179.5 1,824.32. Office Staff

Secretary staffmonth 6 12 12 12 12 12 66 634 3.9 8.0 8.2 8.4 56 88 461Subtotal Technical Assistance 69.4 388 9 398.3 407.8 417.6 188.4 1,870.4

Total Investment Costs 163.3 522.7 535.3 548.1 561.3 335.4 2,666.1II. Recurrent Costs

A. StaffIncremental Field Staff Ih staffmonth 12 24 24 24 24 24 132 98 1.3 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.9 14.9

B. Other Recurrent CostsVehide Hire for Field Staff fi day 126 252 252 252 252 252 1,386 98 13.3 27.3 27.9 28.6 29.3 30.0 156.4FuelandVehicleMaintenance month 6 12 12 12 12 12 66 195 1.3 2.6 2.7 2.7 28 2.9 14.9

Subtotal Other Recurrent Costs 14.6 29.9 30.6 31.3 32.1 32.8 171.3Total Recurrent Costs 15.9 32.5 33.2 34.0 349 35.7 186.2

Total 179.2 5552 568.5 582.1 596.1 371.1 2,852.3

\a Fifteen day field-based training for concession, dinas and kanwil staff\b surveys of eleven HPHs over project lifetc Includes field eqipmnent required for flora and fauna surveysvd Travel for foreign experts >ve Herpetologists, botanist, entymologist, avifauna specialist\ Botanists, zoologists H\g local NGO or university graduates \h Staff from kanwil and Dinas office t' \i one seven day inspection tour by dinas staff per month per province

Karkd Sdlm ICDPTae 4. MaMm Id Eva_Mon

D_tmt Comb(USS)

Quails Unit Totl icluding Cinenle roe.)Unit ? 971# wn meo 501 01 -2 ro-tel cost -I7T 97/8 9 19 RIO ow1 01102 Totsl

L bwebeb CmtaA. Equ mid MMWpIng

1. Compuw E

Pueori Co.rputu urn, 3 3 a 3.482 11.3 - - 12.4 - 23.7Dolt udli 2 - 2 1.990 4.3 - - - - 4,3La Pdrnlar unt 2 2 4 995 2.2 - - - 2.4 4.5Color PrierjPbofr unit 2 - - 1 3 3.979 8.8 - - - 4.7 - 13.4UPS Sydem unit 2 - -- 2 1.194 2.6 - - 2.6So&ll (GIS andtDe) mst 3 - - - - - 3 3.979 12.9 - - - 12,9

Suw l S3ietaat 41.9 - - - 19.5 - 61.4b. Sle Offices

PwsuonlCompaAus unl 5 5 - - - 10 3,482 1t.9 19.3 - - * 38.2PunArS uwit 5 5 - . 10 796 4.3 4.4 - - * 67Color Prhr udt 5 5 10 190 10.6 11.0 - - - 21,8UPS Syam uil 5 5 - - - - 10 1.194 6.5 6.6 - - 13.1solbajunit 5 5 - - 10 3.979 21.5 22.1 - - - 43.6

Seolobl Site Ofices 6f1.9 03.4 - - - - 125A4Subtoa Com e Equpmnt 103.8 63.4 - - 19.5 - 186.6f °-2. Otrn Equpnt and Fumrure

OUo Fuminre (Seeaat) so 4 - - - - 4 995 4.3 - - - - 4.3Pholocopier unmt I - 1 2.487 2.7 2.7

Subtotal Othr Equipment and Furniture 7.0 - - - *o3. Mp

DtdabesuMp(1:250,000)la mopee 25 52 - . - 77 248 6.7 14.3 - - - 21.0DelabaseMopt1:25.000) nlpbheet 300 376 75 - - - 751 199 64.5 82.8 169 - . 164.1Exiest Ai Photo no. 2,100 , 2.100 17 38.4 - , , 38.4NowAeram PhoDo WOha -he 75 75 * 150 2,184 - - 185.9 - 195.0 380.9Saw" Inegmy scane 2 2 2 6 8,948 15.0 - 15.8 16.5 - 47A4

Subtotal Mapping 124.8 97.1 218.6 211.5 - 651.84. VMrnis

FourehW elOD rtVeh1de * -I 1 24,767 26.8 - - - - - 26f8Subtotal Equipnwt and MappIng 262.3 160.5 218 6 - 231.1 - 872.5B. Technical Assistance

1. ConsultantaMondr &nd Eva onSpecial satdtionth 6 10 - - - 16 17,500 108.3 184.8 - - - - 293.1MIS Specat (Local) dsffalthi 3 3 3 - - - 9 4.880 15.1 15.5 15.8 - - 46.4Evalon Stuff (Local) stffnM - 4 - 4 8 195 - - 0.8 - - 0.9 18 a -IM&E and GIS C;onau (Local staViiboth 6 12 12 12 12 12 66 4.880 30.2 61.8 63.3 84.8 66.4 68 0 354 6 ra

Subtotal Conultat 153.6 262.1 80.0 8f4.8 86f.4 68 9 695 8 e2. Travel

M&E SpKistaTrvel UVI 12 12 12 12 12 12 72 390 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.6 5.7 32.3 Z

Subtotal TechnIcal Aaele81Ane 158.6 267.3 85.3 70.3 72.0 746 728.1

I 90

C-T_W 4l 1_M WA EvdbnDeb" Com

WIn.ltk Txd nthit #ff WM n ne dlCost NW gy nS -a Om 01e2

C. Dat Coleco"lS _dEWmcSu vpk /Ctk I 9 - 9 - 9 27 29,Ut4- 279J8 - M934A 307.5 M.8Lid Fild Suiwys Ad kImpeum 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.e 5.7 322htdeendI _selnaudl/a rtonsessal - 2 2 2 2 3 11 49.069 - 103.6 106.1 108.7 111.3 170.9 600.6

SublD D C4lecUon 5.1 388.6 111.4 407.5 116.9 484.3 1,513.7D. Tratg

Trak*1g M ESbI dslha id 18 18 - - - - 36 1,185 23.1 23.6 - - 46.7Deblon MkmTrankg gfsla 18 18 - -a 36 740 14.4 14.8 - - 29.2PhmeraTMf(ignmGIS) stmimmidi 50 58 - - - 108 1,481 80.2 95.2 - - - 175.4

SubTtalTang 117.7 133.7 - - - 251.4Tow'l h I Cost 543.7 950.1 415.4 477W8 419.9 558.9 3,365.7V. Recwrml CostsI

A. Support Staff to TAM8ESbIa(2u11M atammidi 12 24 24 24 24 24 132 1,952 24.2 49.5 50.7 51.9 53.1 54.4 283.7 Mseaetay sddImo,ih 6 12 12 12 12 12 e8 634 3.9 8.0 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 48.1Driver stalfmonh 6 12 12 12 12 12 66 293 1.8 3.7 3.8 3 9 4.0 4.1 21.3

Subtal Support Staff to TA 29.9 61.2 62.7 64.2 65.7 67.3 351.1B. Malnten

Equpn t n MWntm'e ak ne - 5.5 5.7 5.8 6.0 6.1 29.1Vdele Oam MlWp 1.3 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 15.5

Subtotal MaIntenan 1.3 8.2 8.4 8.7 8.9 9.1 44.6C. Supple.

Suppil aind ObS Opeloso Costs lnSi 7.9 8.1 8.3 8.5 8.7 8.9 50.5Total Reurret Costs 39.1 77.6 79.5 81.4 83.3 85.3 446.2

Total 582.8 1,027.7 494.8 559.1 503.2 644.2 3,811.8

%a Under CoWdactb Undwr Couarad

lc Undr TA aUndWe TA omma

e To be aded lo hdepwnd .Wot

OQ

- zo2

- 83 -

ANNEX 10Page I of 2

DISBURSEMENT PLAN(US$ Million)

Amount Disbursement Ratecateg IM EE IRD GEF

Civil Works:- Buildings and Structures 1.2 60%- Village Infrastructure 4.2 80%

Equipment & Furniture /a- Parks 0.3 100Y; 100%; 65%- Buffer zone 0.6 100%; 100%; 65%

Training:- Parks - 1.1- Buffer zone 1.0 0.3 60% 20%.

Consultant Services:- Parks 2.6 - 90%- Bufferzone & Land Zoning 4.4 0.5 80% I0%- Community Services 2.8 - 90%

Extension & Planning:- Parks 0.8 80%- Buffer zone 3.7 0.4 80% 10%

Survey & Research:- Parks 1.2 90%- Buffer zone 0.9 1.6 30% 50%

Studies 0.7 - 900/0

Agricultural Inputs /b 1.0 - 80%

Incremental Operating Expenditure 0.7 0.7 15% 15%

Unallocated 1.9 1.5 10% 10Y.

TOTAL 19.1 15.0/a 1I00 of foreig exeditu on equipment, fumiture and mapping; 100% of local expenditures (ex-factory prices) for locally manufactred equipment and funiture and 65% for locally procured items./b Excluding fertilizer which GOI will finance.

- 84 -

Page 2 of 2

Estimated Disbursement Schedule(UsSvooo)

IBRD International Bank for Global DisbursementFiscal Year Reconstruction & Development Environmental Trust Profile/a

Semester Per Semester Cumulative % Per Semester Cumulative % (f)1996

2 1,500 1,500 8 1,000 1,000 71997

1 910 2,410 13 850 1,850 12 32 910 3,320 17 850 2,700 18 6

19981 1,850 5,170 27 1,688 4,388 29 142 1,850 7,020 37 1,688 6,076 41 22

19991 1,786 8,806 46 1,450 7,526 50 302 1,786 10,592 55 1,450 8,976 60 38

20001 1,832 12,424 65 1,470 10,446 70 462 1,832 14,256 74 1,470 11,916 79 54

20011 1,669 15,925 83 1,175 13,091 87 622 1,669 17,594 92 1,175 14,266 95 70

20021 680 18,274 95 310 14,576 97 782 680 18,954 99 310 14,886 99 86

20031 191 19,145 100 114 15,000 100 902 - - - - - - 98

20041 . - - 100

/a Standard Disbursement Profiles - 1995; Indonesia, Agriculture Sector, by Semester from BoardAppraisal; Financial Information Center, July 31, 1995.

/b Project Closing Date as September 30, 2002

-85 - ANNEX I IPage I of 7

REGIONAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION

A Brief Description of the Biodiversity of the Kerinci Seblat Area

1. The Kerinci Seblat ICDP proposal is located in the southern half of Sumatra in theprovinces of Jambi, South Sumatra, Bengkulu and West Sumatra. It extends for a distance ofnearly 350 km along the spine of the Barisan Mountain Range from Padang in the north toBengkulu in the south, and includes Indonesia's second highest mountain, Mt. Kerinci, at 3,805m. The natural ecological communities of the Kerinci Seblat area are of outstanding biodiversitysignificance: including species-rich lowland dipterocarp forests at elevations from 300 m to1,000 m; unique wetlands, and subalpine communities at almost 4,000 m. These ecologicalcommunities support a rich flora and fauna:

* at least 4,000 species of plants, including Rafflesia, the world's largest flower,Amorphophallus, the world's tallest flower, and the only natural occurrence of thegenus Pinus in the southern hemisphere;

* 144 mammalian species including several threatened or endangered species such asSumatran rhino, tiger, elephant, tapir, and gibbons;

* 180 bird species (2 percent of the world's total), including three species of hornbill,the rare Kerinci Scop's owl and the great argus pheasant;

* 19 animal species endemic to Sumatra - 14 birds and 5 mammals.

2. Kerinci Seblat was initially proposed as a national Park by the Minister of Forests in1982. This initial proposal, comprising an area of 1,484,650 ha, was a consolidation of separateblocks of conservation reserves and protection forests. A series of subsequent boundaryrevisions has reduced the Park by about to its present size of 1-1.3 million ha. The biodiversityvalue of the Kerinci Seblat area is threatened by the reduction in Park area and by a host ofdevelopment pressures, such as access proposals, encroachment for shifting cultivation andcinnamon plantations, and logging in the lowland forests.

Regional Impact Assessment: Definition and Purpose

3. As the name implies, a regional assessment (RIA) is an analysis of the consequences ofone or more development projects, where the project or projects are anticipated to havesignificant environmental, social or economic effects far beyond their immediate locality. RlAsare particularly appropriate where impacts affect a number of different sectors and require acoordinated management response, or where effective impact management requires policy orinstitutional change. RIAs fall into two broad categories:

- 86 - ANNEX 1IPage 2 of 7

(a) assessment of the cumulative impacts of a number of development projects on ageographic region, and the design of a common, coordinated impact managementprogram to guide the activities of government and the various projectcomponents; and

(b) assessment of the impacts of single large project with extensive environmental,land use and socio-economic development implication, the management of whichrequires significant policy, administrative and fiscal responses from national andlocal governments.

4. The Kerinci Seblat RIA clearly belongs in the second category, and its purpose has beento evaluate the following:

(a) the extent to which the ICDP design meets basic objectives for natural resourceand biodiversity conservation;

(b) the potential impacts of adjacent development activities on biodiversityconservation and Park integrity; and

(c) the impacts (positive and negative) of the Kerinci Seblat ICDP design onopportunities for future economic development.

5. Reflecting these objectives, the main RIA document contains the following chapters: adescription of the existing environmental and social setting for the Kerinci Seblat area; adescription of the ICDP proposal; a critical analysis of project design; and an assessment of theimpact of the project on regional development opportunities.

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES

PROJECT DESIGN

The Park Boundary

6. The majority of the boundary revisions alluded to above have excised species-richlowland and low elevation hill forests. The areas have been reclassified from nature reserve orprotection forest to production forest, and placed in adjacent logging concessions. A comparisonof the original boundary with the currently boundary reveals that there has been an overallreduction in the area of low elevation systems of 72 percent, however, some important systemshave suffered much higher loss: plains systems reduced by 81 percent, and the larger alluvialvalleys so important to many wildlife species reduced by more than 99 percent. The proportionof mountain systems, with lower biological productivity and biodiversity, has risen from 67percent to 86 percent. Overall, of 27 landscape units (based on differences of climate,topography and lithology) identified as representative of the original Park, 15 have been reduced

- 87 - ANNEX 1IPage 3 of 7

by 80 percent or more and 8 have been completely eliminated. The boundary is currently thesingle most critical issue of project design. The Park has lost a significant proportion of itsbiodiversity and may no longer contain the habitats necessary for the long-term protection andmaintenance of its "flagship" wildlife species - elephant, tiger, rhinoceros, tapir, gibbon and thewealth of lowland evergreen rainforest birds. Adjacent lands are being subjected to such seriousdisturbance from logging and such rapid deforestation by encroachers that they may loose muchof their biodiversity and buffer zone function. If the situation is to be retrieved, a number ofsteps must be taken immediately.

(a) Demarcation of the current boundary should proceed in order to expedite Parkgazettement, but there must be a clear statement from the Government ofIndonesia that the boundary is recognized as inadequate and that major boundaryrationalization to improve its biodiversity status will take place progressivelyover the next five years.

(b) A rapid environmental appraisal, involving biodiversity and wildlife habitat,must begin immediately to determine the most important areas for repatriation tothe Park, concentrating on the Jambi and Bengkulu Park boundaries. Workshould begin immediately, utilizing remaining JGF funding, on two concessionsadjacent to the Park, one in Jambi and one in Bengkulu, with the followingselection criteria: high biodiversity; large proportion of protection and limitedproduction forest; and/or lease expiring within the next two years. Candidatesfor these first appraisals are the Sarestra II and Nusa Leases in Jambi and theBina Samaktha and Maju Jaya Raya leases in Bengkulu. These two appraisalsshould be undertaken as part of the concession reviews, see below, and becompleted by December 1996 with firm recommendations for the transfer of lowelevation areas of high biodiversity back to the Park.

Enforcement

7. From even a casual field trip around the Park boundary, it is evident that encroachmentby agricultural squatters is now largely uncontrolled, and that greatly upgraded capability to dealwith the problem is needed immediately. In addition it is also evident that serious wildlifepoaching occurs in many areas of the Park. The project design calls for 100 new pack guards tobe engaged as "pegawi proyek" at 25 per year for four years starting in 1996. By the time thisforce becomes effective it may well be too late for many areas inside the Park boundary, letalone areas of value adjacent to the Park. It is therefore recommended that, prior to projectappraisal, the Government of Indonesia develop an effective bridging enforcement strategy to beimplemented in priority areas; starting in April 1995 and continuing until new project staff aretrained and in place. The strategy should contain: (1) a description of legal enforcementprocedures; (2) staffing levels and responsibilities; and (3) a summary of enforcement actions todate.

- 88 - ANNEX 11Page 4 of 7

Encroachment and Resettlement

8. Generally the tools available to deal with existing Park encroachment are to amend thePark boundary, to demarcate and enforce enclave boundaries, or to resettle/relocate. These willhave to be applied on a case-by-case basis after careful study during the first few years of projectimplementation. Decisions should take into consideration criteria such as the impact on wildlifemanagement and biodiversity conservation, sustainability of the cropping practice, whether theuse is compatible with Park or buffer zone management criteria, and the potential reversibility ofthe vegetation change. In addition the traditional attitude of Park managers that "people have noplace in parks" must change. Indigenous people who have lived in a region for decades orcenturies should be considered an integral part of the local ecology. Their customs and the waythey relate to natural systems becomes an added "biodiversity value." If relocation is the mostappropriate and desirable option, every effort should be made to encourage the persons orcommunity to relocate voluntarily. This can be accomplished by providing an acceptablerelocation site and adequate compensation for shifting, and by allowing continued use of theoriginal site for a set period through the "kebun kehidupan" concept of temporary utilizationzones.

9. It is clear that at present there is neither sufficient information to assess the impacts ofindividual encroaching communities not the staff capability to plan and manage a communityresettlement program. For these reasons the following implementation steps are recommended:

(a) Immediate measures must concentrate on the stabilization of the Park and forestconcession boundaries to ensure no new encroachment takes place, through theinterim enforcement strategy recommended above.

(b) No further resettlement of established individuals or communities should occurfor three years pending completion of the Park management plan and wildlife-biodiversity studies and encroached areas, unless the request comes unsolicitedfrom the people. The wildlife-biodiversity studies should establish objectivecriteria for assessing the impacts of communities living and farming inside thePark and establish priority areas where resettlement may be required. Terms ofreference for these studies should be sent to the World Bank for review prior toproject appraisal.

(c) Resettlement should be contemplated only where communities jeopardizebiodiversity values that are still intact, where there is a likelihood of permanenthuman/wildlife conflict or where the community occupies land with significantpotential for the rehabilitation of habitat values. Wherever possible, resettlementshould be voluntary and carried out in accord with a Resettlement Action Planprepared in consultation with the affected people. An objective economicanalysis of both the earnings of current agricultural practice and the potentialearnings of the alternatives available to encroaching communities (i.e.,transmigration and pohon kehidupan) should be prepared and submitted to theWorld Bank in year one of project implementation.

- 89 - ANNEX IIPage 5 of 7

(d) Where communities remain in the Park, they should do so under a formal Parkuse contract. Every effort should be made to accommodate these communities inPark management programs and to capitalize on the tourism potential of theirculture and way of life.

IMPACTS OF OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

Forest Management

10. As previously noted, many of the areas of the original Park proposal excised by thecurrent boundary were reallocated to timber concessions even though they were classed as, ormet the criteria for, protection forest. The majority of the concessions around the boundary ofKerinci Seblat are now wholly or largely within protection forest, and past enforcement againstencroachment has been so inadequate that intact forest on some concessions now exists only insteep hill systems. Logging in such systems is invariably extremely destructive both to the forestand to watershed values. The following recommendations are made with respect to forestconcession management within the Kerinci Seblat buffer zone:

(a) A one year moratorium should be in place on the logging of any areas classed byRePPProT as Protection Forest within the original 1982 Park boundary, pendingpriority application of the KPHP analysis to forest concessions on both the Jambiand Bengkulu boundaries of the Park; such analysis to be completed byDecember 1996. The KPHP analysis should be synchronized with the rapidenvironmental appraisals referred to under Park boundary recommendations;

(b) Upon completion of the KPHP and rapid environmental appraisals, area of highbiodiversity or conservation value outside the rationalized concession boundarieswill be repatriated to the Park.

(c) Areas of intact forest not required for the Park and not suitable for industriallogging techniques should be placed in community forests where local peoplemay harvest minor forest products or hand log commercial timber species on asustainable basis under a buffer zone use contract administered jointly by localgovernment and the Park authorities.

Roads

11. New roads or even upgrading of existing tracks have potentially significant implicationsfor both Park management and biodiversity conservation, since they provide access to newsettlers and opportunities for the expansion of existing agricultural activities through access tonew markets. There are few if any examples in Indonesia of effective prevention ofencroachment when new roads have been constructed into areas of natural forest. Current road"proposals" fall into two categories: first, "roads of convenience" that transect the Park, linking

- 90 - ANNEX I 1Page 6 of 7

communities that already have road access; and second, roads to enclave communities inside thePark which do not now have road access. There are about seven proposed roads which fall intothe first category. These, with attendant human encroachment, pose by far the more seriousthreat to Park integrity; potentially fragmenting the Park into isolated blocks, disrupting animalmigration, and preventing the flow of genetic resources. It is recommended that:

(a) No new roads will be approved or constructed in or through the Park pendingcompletion of the Park management plan and a regional (buffer zone) land useand transportation plan agreed to by all four provinces. Road construction shouldalso be predicated on the strengthening of enforcement capability to preventencroachment.

(b) Any road proposals that may be deemed acceptable in the Park and buffer zoneplans must be subject to rigorous environmental assessment and projectjustification through a full AMDAL report.

(c) The unpaved 3 km of the proposed Muara Labuh-Kambang road should bestabilized with proper drainage controls and put to bed under a temporaryvegetation cover pending a future decision on its acceptability.

Mineral Resource Development

12. Only three mining concessions are now said to exist within the Park or surroundingbuffer zones. Two of these companies, P.T. Barisan Tropical Mining (gold) and P.T. Ketahun(gold/copper), are undertaking feasibility studies and one, P.T. Lusang Mining, is still at theexploration stage. The following recommendations are made with respect to mining activity:

(a) No further mining concessions should be granted by the Ministry of Mines andEnergy within both the areas included in the original 1982 Park boundary andthe hatched area shown in Figure 10 until the final boundary of Kerinci Seblat isdecided.

(b) Feasibility studies and controlled mineral exploration on the three existingconcessions should be allowed to continue in the Park on the understanding thatif no economically viable mineral potential is determined within five years, theconcessions will be canceled without compensation.

(c) If mineable mineral deposits are found, the acceptability of mining will bedetermined on a case-by-case basis through the AMDAL process. The followinglimitations should be considered for any potential mine project: (i) no open pitextraction would be allowed inside the Park or a 5 km buffer zone; (ii) all mineinfrastructure must be located outside the 5 km buffer; and (iii) equipment,worker and ore transport within the Park and buffer must be by a method otherthan road (i.e., overhead bucket or rail tram). Where a potentially viable mine isnow allowed to proceed, compensation will be limited to exploration expensesonly.

- 91 - ANNEX IIPage 7 of 7

(d) Any ore processing in the area should be by a closed-circuit cyanide process witha built-in cyanide destruction system (e.g., Inco SO2). Consideration should begiven to the subsidized processing of ore belonging to small alluvial gold minersin order to lessen their dependence on mercury in and adjacent to the Park.

The Impact of the ICDP on Regional Development Opportunities

13. This section of the RIA was impossible to complete with accuracy and technical rigorbecause of existing project design uncertainties, such as the boundary, and real informationdeficiencies. What is evident is that, in its current form, the ICDP project has few opportunitycosts because the land area has major use limitations. Steep topography and the poverty ofdominant soils are major constraints to sustainable agriculture. Almost two thirds of the area ofexisting forest concessions meet the soil, slope and rainfall intensity criteria for protection forest,and in theory should not be available for commercial timber production. Continued logging ofthese areas will have serious implications for future forest production and watershed stability.Earlier economic analysis (DHV Report 8, 1993) probably significantly overestimated theeconomic opportunity cost of the ICDP project to agriculture and forestry because it assumedwrongly that existing land uses and levels of resource exploitation were largely sustainable.

14. The impact of the Park and ICDP on mineral resource development is expected to beminimal, though this can not be confirmed until the three existing concessions completefeasibility studies accommodating the restrictions recommended above. Because all threeprojects overlap the Park boundary or lie outside the Park, these restrictions should not presentserious problems to an economically viable precious metal deposit.

15. The recommended restrictions on access development must be placed in the context thatno community outside the Park boundary currently lacks road access. Even the enclaves insidethe Park, legal and illegal, are serviced by tracks and many have flourished with such access fordecades. The current road access proposals transecting the Park are primarily stimulated byinter-provincial competition for the marketing, processing and shipment of commodities,primarily cassiavera, from the Kerinci Valley. Such considerations are likely to result in costlyduplication of access and should not be allowed to jeopardize Park and biodiversity values.

This report was prepared for the Government of Indonesia by Sustainable Visions Natural Resources andEnvironmental Management Consultants. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, March 1995.

- 92 -

ANNEX 12Page I of 3

INCREMENTAL COSTS OF BIODIVERSITYCONSERVATION

1. Summary. The proposed GEF Grant of US$ 15.0 million equivalent (net oftaxes) would finance elements of the project that contribute wholly or largely to achieve-ment of global biodiversity objectives. It is estimated that the "baseline" project scenario(without global benefits) would cost about US$ 26.5 million, while the cost of the "GEFalternative" (including global benefits) is estimated at US$ 46.0 million. A comparisonof project costs for the Baseline Scenario and GEF Alternative results in incrementalcosts of about $19.5 million for achieving biodiversity conservation and sustainable useobjectives in KSNP and its buffer zones.

2. Baseline Scenario. Under the baseline scenario, it is assumed that GOI wouldmaintain management and enforcement activities in and around KSNP at historical levels(based on expenditure trends over the past 10 years). With respect to area/village devel-opment expenditures, the baseline scenario includes planned rural infrastructure programsfor villages in KSNP buffer zones over the next 6 years; however, as these programs donot address biodiversity conservation or sustainable use objectives, it is assumed for base-line purposes that GOI would also initiate watershed protection programs in the projectarea. Currently, supervision of timber concession management in the KSNP buffer zonesis inadequate, so it has been assumed for baseline purposes that GOI would begin to ad-dress this weakness by investing in field programs and personnel to bring the situationunder better control. In the absence of the proposed project, limited monitoring and eval-uation activities would have been undertaken in the project area. The cost of proposedbaseline activities is estimated at $ 26.5 million.

3. Activities and expenditures under the baseline scenario are compatible with sus-tainable development in the project area and national and social development objectives.Although baseline activities would result in the protection of critical watersheds andstricter enforcement of logging regulations on private concessionaires, they would beinsufficient to halt Park encroachment (human and road development) and to integratebiodiversity conservation concerns into forestry management practices in the buffer zone.This would lead to further biodiversity loss and habitat fragmentation in and around theKSNP (particularly in the bordering concessions). Continued degradation and poor man-agement in the Park and buffer-zones over the long term would result ultimately in theloss of these ecosystems' habitat and biodiversity conservation functions. It is believedthat the most effective way to prevent such biodiversity loss is through regionally-basedprograms, fully supported by local stakeholders, such as will be tested under the proposedKerinci Seblat Integrated Conservation and Development Project (ICDP).

- 93 -

ANNEX 12Page 2 of 3

4. GEF Alternative. With GEF/Bank financial assistance, GOI would be willing toundertake a much more ambitious protection/buffer zone development program in andaround the Kerinci-Seblat National Park with the explicit objective of conserving biodi-versity resources and assisting local villagers to shift to environmentally sustainableforms of economic behavior (the ICDP model). Park management and enforcementwould be strengthened, and efforts would be intensified (with NGO support) to resolvehuman conflicts and minimize encroachment into the Park. Area/village developmentactivities would be specifically oriented to assisting villagers living in and around KSNPshift to economic livelihood activities that would be compatible with habitat andbiodiversity conservation both inside and outside Park boundaries. Biodiversity assess-ments and community forestry activities in the logging concessions would lead to incor-poration of certain blocks into the Park and/or ensure their conservation under concessionmanagement. Intensive monitoring and evaluation activities would be instituted to permitdocumentation of trends related to the impact of project activities on participatingvillages and peoples and on the area's biological resources. The cost of the GEFAlternative is estimated at $ 46.0 million.

5. The GEF Alternative, in addition to producing national sustainable developmentbenefits, would secure the biodiversity of the Park and its buffer zones, which includethreatened lowland and hill forests as well as montane habitats. KSNP and its surround-ing forests provide one of the last opportunities in Southeast Asia to conserve a diverseand complex mammal predator-prey system. The strengthening of Park management andprotection, the involvement of local communities, and the integration of conservationvalues into forestry management practices are expected to effectively increase the conser-vation estate by maintaining natural habitat beyond Park boundaries. The project willdevelop a model for integrated conservation and development programs, which could beapplied to other parks in the Indonesia protected area system (and elsewhere in Asia).

6. Incremental Costs. The costs of the Baseline Scenario and the GEF Alternativeare presented below, by major project component (in US$/million):

MaIjor Components Baseline GEF Alterative

I) KSNP Park manag_ment $ 5.0 $ 13.42) Area/village development $ 19.5 $ 25.93) Biodiversity/forest concessions $ 1.5 $ 2.94) M/E in Park/buffer zone $ 0.5 $ 3.

Total $ 26.5 $ 46.0

- 94 -

ANNEX 12Page 3 of 3

The comparison of Baseline Scenario costs ($265 million) with the costs of the proposedGEF Alternative ($46.0 million) results in an incremental cost of achieving globalbenefits of about $19.5 million. The GEF grant of $15.0 million would contributesubstantially to financing these incremental costs. Given the associated (non-quantified)national benefits from improved ecosystem functioning that the GEF Alternative wouldgenerate, the GOI has indicated its willingness to finance the residual incremental costs ofroughly $4.5 million out of non-GEF (IBRD loan) resources.

- 95 - ANNEX 13Page I of 6

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PROJECT COMPONENTS

1. As indicated in the main text of this report, aspects of the benefits from the project aredifficult to quantify, in the conventional sense. The methodology used to evaluate the benefits ofdirect investment in biodiversity and conservation within the KNSP area is discussed in the maintext of the report: this annex deals with the estimation of returns to investment in the VillageDevelopment and the Integrating Biodiversity in Forest Concession Management components.

Village Development Investments

2. The Village Development Component of the project represents the largest expenditurecategory for the project - US$27 million, consisting of investments in village infrastructure, andgrants for agricultural activities, as detailed in Annex 4 of this report.

3. Although these investments are designed largely on the basis of reducing the impacts ofencroachment onto the KNSP area by surrounding populations, this component uses amethodology to achieve that end which involves improving incomes in communities which aremarginalized, and poor. It also uses a participatory approach which means that the details ofsome of the agricultural activities which will be sponsored under the project will not be decideduntil the project is under implementation and consultation activities regarding the village landuse plan are in progress. Moreover, these activities will vary widely from one location toanother, so ex ante valuation of returns is problematical.

4. Within these limitations, and also with some allowance for judgment on the proportion oftotal project overheads which can be assigned to this component, an indicative evaluation ofcosts and benefits for this component can be made.

5. Investments under this component will, as noted above, consist of infrastructureimprovement, which is expected to have a general upward impact on agricultural and othereconomic activities in the target areas, and specific agricultural production investments. It isimportant to note that investments in infrastructure improvements and agricultural productivityare incremental and additive. This can be shown in the graph of the production function below,where K is infrastructure capital and Y is output.

y

FI(K)'4

AY,Y, - -------- ;;Fz Fo (K)

YO ----- - K

K_ K

- 96 - ANNEX laPage 2 of 6

Investments in infrastructure capital, AKO, bring about an increase along the curve of AY0,whereas investments in knowledge expansion (through extension, demonstration, access toimproved seeds, etc.) would imply a shift of the production function (AY,). This implies thatthere is no double counting involved in the rate of return calculations of infrastructure andagriculture investments.

6. Evaluation of returns to direct investment in various farming systems which will beinvolved in the village investments have been made in the preparation process. The crop budgetsand farming system models used to estimate the benefits are shown in Technical Report 3 ofAnnex 14 of the Preparation Report. The Economic Rate of Return (ERR) to incrementalbenefits from irrigation intensification is estimated at 53% pa; to jungle rubber production it is40%; to cassiavera (cinnamon) 97%; to oil palm 35%; and for an agroforestry alternative, 34%pa. For the purposes of evaluating this component as a whole, the rate of return to directinvestment (referred to in the accompanying tables as Initial Costs) in output producing activitiesin agriculture in the target villages, and the complementary infrastructure improvement inputs, isassumed to be the lower bound of these estimates -i.e. 34% pa.

7. Because this project is concerned with a wider set of objectives than improvement ofvillage infrastructure and agricultural production, there is a high input of technical assistance andother overhead expenses under the project. A significant proportion of this input will, however,be used to ensure that the village investments are properly implemented and monitored - not onlyfor their impact on incomes on the target population, but also for their success in reducingencroachment onto the KNSP area. In this analysis, 60% of total project technical and otheroverhead expenses have been attributed to this component: this is about the proportion of totalproject costs taken up by this component. There are also recurrent costs (for maintenance ofinfrastructure and so on ) which will attach to both the Initial Costs and Additional InvestmentCosts streams, through the total investment and benefit period considered in this case (25 years.).

8. There is a large budget assigned in this project for Monitoring and Evaluation. The bulkof this is intended to keep surveillance over the integrity of the Park boundary. However, somemonitoring and evaluation of the performance of the village development investments will benecessary and in this analysis it has been assumed that 25% of total monitoring and evaluationcosts are used for this.

9. Table I below presents the base case data for an analysis of the ERR of the VillageDevelopment component. The ERR resulting from the data and assumptions used in this case is15.2 % p.a. Note that benefits are assumed to build gradually, and do not reach a maximu untilYear 7.

It should be noted that in Tables I to 4 below, values are shown only for years 1 to 8: in allcases, all costs and benefits figures beyond year 8 are identifcal to those for year 8.

- 97 - ANNEX 13Page 3 of 6

Table 1. Economic Analysis of Village Development Activities - Base Case(in US$'000 and excluding taxes)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Initial Costs 639 1,279 1,430 2,226 2,210 2,442

Recurrent Costs - - - - - - 229 229

Add'i Investment " 1,000 1,708 1,581 1,588 1,552 941

Add'I Recurrent 123 207 213 220 227 229

Total Costs 1,762 3,195 3,223 4,034 3,989 3,612 229 229

Increm. Benefits - 218 654 1,141 1,900 2,653 3,485 3,485

Net Benefits (1,762) (2,977) (2,569) (2,893) (2,090) (959) 3,256 3,256

IRR 15.2%

Add']lInvestment

Project Mgmt 55 32 34 47 49 50

TA 1,389 2,415 2,409 2,378 2,343 1,263

Sub- Total 1,444 2,447 2,443 2,425 2,392 1,313

Sub-Total less 40% 866 1,468 1,466 1,455 1,435 788

M&E(25%ofprojecttotal) 133 240 115 133 117 154

TOTAL 1,000 1,708 1,581 1,588 1.552 941

10. The major risk factors associated with investments of this type are: (a) some significantproportion of the target group will not participate in the project, so that the overheads incurredhave to be spread over a narrower group of beneficiaries; (b) benefits will be slower in emergingthan originally expected, and (c) actual benefits produced by the investments will be less thanthose projected.

11. Table 2 illustrates the impact of reducing the beneficiary populationunder this component by 20%. This reduces the ERR to 13%.

Table 2. Sensitivity Analysis of Village Development Activities20% of villages do not participate(in US$'000 and excluding taxes)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Initial Costs 511 1,024 1,144 1,781 1,768 1,954

Recurrent Costs - - - - - - 229 229

Add'i Investment 1,000 1,708 1,581 1,588 1,552 941

Add'] Recurrent 123 207 213 220 227 229

Total Costs 1,634 2,939 2,937 3,589 3,547 3,124 229 229

Increm. Benefits - 174 523 913 1,520 2,122 2,788 2,788

Net Benefits (1,634) (2,765) (2,414) (2,676) (2,028) (1,002) 2,559 2,559

IRR 13.0%

- 98 - ANNEX 13Page 4 of 6

12. Table 3 below illustrates the impact of delaying the entire benefit stream of the projectby one year, and this results in a decline in the ERR to 12.9% pa.

Table 3. Sensitivity Analysis of Village Development ActivitiesDelay Benefits by 1 Year

(in US$'000 and excluding taxes)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Initial Costs 639 1,279 1,430 2.226 2,210 2,442

Recurrent Costs - - - - - - 229 229

Add1 Investment 1,000 1,708 1,581 1,588 1,552 941

Addi Recurrent 123 207 213 220 227 229

Total Costs 1,762 3,195 3,223 4,034 3,989 3,612 229 229

Increm. Benefits - - 218 654 1,141 1,900 2,653 3,485

Net Benefits (1,762) (3,195) (3,005) (3,380) (2,848) (1,713) 2,424 3,256

IRR 12.9%

13. The final sensitivity test is to assume that overall benefits from the project are reducedby 10%. This reduces the ERR to 13.4%:

Table 4. Sensitivity Analysis of Village Development ActivitiesReducing Benefits by 10%

(in US$'0OO and excluding taxes)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Initial Costs 639 1,279 1,430 2,226 2,210 2,442

Recurrent Costs - - - - - - 229 229

Add'l Investment 1,000 1,708 1,581 1,588 1,552 941I,

Add'I Recurrent 123 207 213 220 227 229

Total Costs 1,762 3,195 3,223 4,034 3,989 3,612 229 229

Increm. Benefits - 196 588 1,027 1,710 2,387 3,137 3,137

Net Benefits (1,762) (2,999) (2,635) (3,007) (2,280) (1,225) 2,908 2,908

IRR 13.4%

Integrating Biodiversity in Forest Concession Management

14. The project will invest grant funds in ecological surveys and biodiversity assessments inthe forestry logging concessions bordering the Park. No attempt has been made to quantify thesebenefits, although it is believed a positive flow of returns will result from these inputs. Giventhe uncertainty of this outcome, however, it is unlikely that GOI would invest in such activitiesat least until the benefits have been demonstrated.

15. Under the inspection and monitoring activities in the project, considerable input will bemade into producing an effectively regenerating forest area, so that sustainable forestmanagement becomes possible. In September 1995, the Bank delivered a policy paper to the

- 99 - ANNEX 13Page 5 of 6

Government of Indonesia' in which a case was made that the economic consequences ofpersistence with current non-sustainable forest logging and use practices in Indonesia would besignificant, when compared with the outcome of using the same area of forest for sustainableproduction.

16. The results developed in that nation wide analysis can be applied on an adjusted pro rtlabasis, as follows:

(a) First, the basic parameter assumptions given in the Bank policy paper referred to infootnote 1, are required:

* FOB value of plywood $380 per cubic meter* FOB value of sawn timber $250* FOB value of other products (mouldings, furniture etc) $600* real FOB price inflation rate for plywood and sawn timber 2% pa* real FOB price inflation rate for other products 2.8%o pa* logging and transport cost $45 per cubic meter3 processing cost plywood $155

p processing cost sawn timber $100* processing costs other products $350

(b) It is assumed that under sustainable forest use, there will be a faster adaptation by theprocessing sector to raw material scarcity, so that recovery rates (i.e. produced out perunit of log input) will rise earlier in the time series. Industry recovery rates move from45% to 60 % by 2001 under the sustainable scenario, but reach only 50% by that yearunder the non-sustainable scenario.

17. Next, these estimates can be applied to the concessions bordering KSNP: Figuresgathered during the preparation of the Kerinci Seblat ICDP indicated that about 500 000 ha ofintact forest remains in the II concessions bordering the park. For indicative purposes, it can beassumed that this resource will be used at the same rate, and for the same purposes, as appliesunder current practices nationally: this will lead to depletion of the resource within a twenty yearperiod, with serious declines setting in after about ten years. This outcome can be compared tothe alternative of a lower initial rate of use which will be sustainable. In this case, it can beassumed that the costs of attaining this lower rate of use will be more effective inspection andmonitoring, such as will be provided under the project. A net benefit stream can then becalculated by subtracting annual profits from the non-sustainable current practice outcome, fromthe equivalent figures for the sustainable outcome (taking the additional costs of inspection andmonitoring under the component). From this, rates of return can be derived. Table 5 belowshows the profit streams generated under the sustainable and non-sustainable scenarios for theconcessions.

The Economics of Long Term management of Indonesia's Natural Forests Paper presented to panel discussion atMinistry of Forestry, Jakarta, September 30 1995

- 100 - ANNEX 13Page 6 of 6

Table 5: Stream of Profits in Concession Management

YEAR SUSTAINABLE CURRENT SustainablePROFITS ($ pa) PROFITS ($ pa) net profits

1995 68.70 76.40 -7.891996 67.77 76.22 -9.041997 67.40 77.72 -10.921998 67.51 79.25 -12.361999 67.93 80.68 -13.382000 68.96 81.63 -13.062001 71.99 83.24 -11.252002 74.00 82.98 -8.982003 76.42 82.59 -6.172004 79.73 78.89 0.842005 82.29 77.31 4.982006 85.83 70.74 15.092007 89.51 63.17 26.342008 93.33 59.67 33.672009 95.01 59.85 35.162010 101.44 61.06 40.382011 105.74 41.06 64.672012 110.20 24.89 85.312013 114.84 7.75 107.082014 119.65 0.00 119.65

18. This procedure yields a rate of return from attainment of sustainability in the concessionsbordering the park of 15% pa. Given that this does not include any valuation of the biodiversitybenefits from the survey and other purely conservation based work for which costs are includedin this component, it is reasonable to suggest it is a conservative estimate of the real returns toinvestment in this component, provided it is accepted that protection of the regenerating standscan be achieved.

19. The rate of return is reasonably robust, because it is calculated by comparison of twoincome streams which are affected by the same variables. Thus, reduction of product prices orraising of processing costs for outputs from the forests does not lower the ERR significantly: netpresent value, however, is reduced (from $21.82 m to $15.83 m at a 12% discount rate) whenproduct prices are reduced by 20%. If it is postulated that coverage of the monitoring process isless than complete, so that only half the forested area actually comes under sustainablemanagement as a result of the project, then again the rate of return is relatively unaffected, whilein that case the net present value of the project would be reduced considerably, to $9.9m stillsubstantially positive.

- 101 - ANNEX 14Page I of 2

DOCUMENTS IN PROJECT FILE

A. INITIAL PREPARATION BY DHV CONSULTANTS BY, JUNE 1993

Technical reports:

1. Project History and Background2. Biodiversity Conservation and Park Management3. Local Area Development and Resource Rights Rationalization4. Micro-Regional Development and Planning5. Resettlement6. Integrated Watershed Management7. Participation and Promotion8. Resource Economics9. Rapid Appraisal of Major Socio-Economic Groups in KSNP border Area10. Concepts and Strategies in Designing ICDP for protecting Indonesia's

Biodiversity Assets11. Rapid Appraisal of Some Major Landscape Profiles in the KSNP Border

Area12. Analysis of the Park Border Ecosystem in KSNP, Jambi Province13. Analysis of the Park Border Ecosystem in KSNP, South Sumatra Province14. Analysis of the Park Border Ecosystem in KSNP, Bengkulu Province15. Analysis of the Park Border Ecosystem in KSNP, West Sumatra Province16. Social and Economic Conditions in Six Villages in the KSNP Border Area17. Forest Integrity and Bird Diversity in the KSNP Border Area18. Study into the Role of NGOs in ICDP, KSNP, Southern

Sumatra, Indonesia

B. FINAL PREPARATION, AUGUST 1994 - MARCH 1995

Kerinci Seblat ICDP - Project Preparation Report, March 1995

Working Papers (WP):

WP I Park Management Component, by R.Petocz, November 1994.WP 2 Rural Development Component, by J. Schweithelm , November 1994.WP 3 Area/Village Development Component, by J. Dalton, June 1995.WP 4 Forestry Concession Biodiversity Assessment, November 1994.WP 5 Monitoring and Evaluation, November 1994.WP 6 Regional and Spatial Planning in Support of ICDP Kerinci Seblat, by

H.van Raay, November 1994.WP 7 Biodiversity Conservation Promotions Program, by Global Vision, Inc,

June 1995.

- 102 - ANNEX 14Page 2 of 2

WP 8 The Kerinci Seblat National Park and the Kubu. Preliminary Assessmentand recommendations, by 0. Sandbukt, June 1995.

WP 9 Legal Issues on Kerinci-Seblat National Park, By J. Evers, July 1995.

C. REGIONAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT.

A Report prepared for BAPPENAS and The World Bank by Sustainable Visions,Natural Resource and Environmental Management Consultants, March 1995

D. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Terms of Reference, June 1995

E. BASELINE LANDSCAPE - SoCIo-ECONOMIC SURVEY FOR SIX VILLAGES ADJACENT TOKERINCI SEBLAT NATIONAL PARK

A local Level Functional Coordination Model of ICDP in KSNP, by Worldwide Fund forNature, September 1995.

F. NGO ASSISTANCE IN STRENGTHENING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN AND AROUNDKERINCI SEBLAT

Progress and Village Level Planning, by WARSI, June 1995.

CHART 1

PROJECT ORGANIZATION

Minitry f MiistrAofMinistry of Ministry of iityoForestry Agriculture BAPNS Home Affairs Transmigration Fnne

H Project Steering Committee (PSC) Working Group( DG of PH ) (DG of PHPA I ' -WrigGoup )

for KS-ICDP

CENTER(-Min. of Forestry Min. of Home Affairs

Project Management Coordination TeamCommittee (PMC) (Tim Koordinasi Pusat)

---- GOERO- - - - - - - - - - - -R

'Kanwil Kehutanan Provincial PROVICEPIMPRO Coordinating

r--- (Project Management Committee (PCC)Concession) 1PCC*

Projectifunction Lie fordinact Coordinating

T rotates a_nually. Commite

. | _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~DISTRICT

(Poect Manager fo Poect Mnger frPar Deeopment) Area Dvelopment)

~~~ Project function Line function - -- -- - -- Coordination

The Chairman rotates annually.

CHART 2

PLANNING AND FUNDS FLOW FORINTEGRATED AREA DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

FUNDS FLOW ' PLANNING FLOW

' -- -- -- :::: ,e WORLD:: ' ( . ~~BANK/RSI

BAPPENAS: : ^ ...........-----------............ OABN

NATIONAL~~~~~~~~~ONSBNNATIONAL ' ' MINISTRY OF - B I:. . FINANCE . GOI. sPAsP <- Financing SA KONREG-ICDP

A-' ~~~A

PROVINCE BI RAKORBANG IBranch Office

DISTRICT ( KPKN II <,OPERATIONAL ,(RKBAGIDISTRICT ~- - BANK RAKORBANG H

BAPPEDA II/ ,L .PIMPRO ~BANK or

SUBDISTRICT Other Financial UDKP DiscussionInstitution F

*~ .B*~ .

VILLAGE LKMD

Note:- - - -Document Flow

-' Funds Flow

Bappenas = National Development Planning AgencyBRI = Bank Rakyat Indonesia (People's Bank of Indonesia)LKMD = Village Community Resilience InstitutionSA = Special Account

IBRD 27251T [o Pdodngpajo,,g -N D O N E S I A r.jHAILAND

Solok KE I C IJ~LJ~MAAYSIA ALSIT. LbugKERINCI SEBLAT INTEGRATED N%LAYSIA

Padang CONSERVATION AND KAbr ALI M

Lubuksulasih DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ID ON E S I AX 9,\ X I SrZ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1.~ ngkjlu

Area of map Jekorte

A W A

SUMATERA Kotabaru

BARAT T ,-

denommoafons and any* ~~~~~~~~~~~~other.l,,not,on'. sho-n

an tPhs mop do not/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mply, on the port ofThe World Bank Gro.p,

'Jiv o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ay judgment on the legalstatus of any terr9;ory.

% ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~or any endlorsement

\% / \ , or acceptonce of suchJ A B I boundaries

'e GUNUNGKERINCI

\ %BSungoi Penuha\go

o s ,. MURX\

SOM fATERA .7

\ m ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ev,_ L.A-'

KERINCI SEBLAT NATIONAL PARK A

FOREST CONCESSIONS \

I~ |LOCAL AREA DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY AREA G

MAIN ROADS Lubuk

0 SELECTED TOWNS B E N G K U L U(3 PROVINCE CAPITALS Curup

PROVINCE BOUNDARIES

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES (INSET)

0 25 50 75 100

KILOMETERS(approximate scalel

SEPTEMBER 1995

IMAGING

Report No: 14989 INDType: SAR