final internal assessment

FINAL INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

USAID LESTARI

MAY 2020

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Tetra Tech ARD.

This publication was prepared for review by the United States Agency for International Development under Contract # AID-497-TO-15-00005. The period of this contract is from July 2015 to July 2020. Implemented by:

Tetra Tech P.O. Box 1397 Burlington, VT 05402

Tetra Tech Contacts:

Reed Merrill, Chief of Party [email protected] Rod Snider, Project Manager [email protected]

Cover Photograph (clockwise from top left): Directorate General of PHPL KLHK visit to PT. Dwima Jaya concession in Central Kalimantan; data collection for FMU V Aceh long-term management plan; forest mapping conducted by members of Beriten Forest Patrol Group in Papua

FINAL INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

USAID LESTARI

MAY 2020

DISCLAIMER This publication is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Tetra Tech ARD and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

USAID LESTARI Final Internal Assessment Page | i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 RINGKASAN EKSEKUTIF 6 1. INTRODUCTION 13

1.1 BACKGROUND 13 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF USAID LESTARI PROJECT 13 1.3 GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS 14 1.4 SITUATION ANALYSIS, THREATS AND DRIVERS 15 1.5 DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS 17 1.6 COLLABORATING, LEARNING, AND ADAPTING 19 1.7 SUSTAINABILITY & SELF-RELIANCE 19

2. FINAL ASSESSMENT PURPOSE & METHODOLOGY 21 2.1 OBJECTIVE 21 2.2 ASSESSMENT TEAM 21 2.3 KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS 23 2.4 METHODOLOGY 24 2.5 AUDIENCE 25 2.6 SAMPLING METHOD 25 2.7 CHALLENGES / LIMITATIONS 25

3. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 27 3.1 PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT 27 3.2 CO-MANAGEMENT, FMU STRENGTHENING, AND GREEN

ENTERPRISES 39 3.3 AWARENESS & ADVOCACY, OPERATIONALIZE SEA, AND

SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE 55 3.4 PRIVATE SECTOR BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 69

4. CONCLUSION 77 5. APPENDICES 81

5.1 KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS 81 5.2 LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 88 5.3 LIST OF INTERVIEWEES 89 5.4 INDICATIVE FINAL ASSESSMENT HUMAN RESOURCE ALLOCATION 98 5.5 SUMMARY OF FINAL ASSESSMENT WORK SCHEDULE 99 5.6 30 METT INDICATORS 100 5.7 LESTARI RESULTS CHAIN (TOC) DIAGRAMS 101

USAID LESTARI Final Internal Assessment Page | ii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AMDAL Environmental Impact Analysis AMEP Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan APBD Regional Government Budget BAPPENAS Ministry of National Development Planning BAPPEDA Regional Development Planning Agency BBBR Bukit Baka Bukit Raya National Park BKSDA Nature Conservation Agency BLU General Service Body / Badan Layananan Umum BMP Best Management Practice BPDASHL Watershed Conservation Agency BPHP Production Forest Management Agency BPSKL Social Forestry and Environmental Partnerships Agency BUMDes / Kam Village-Owned Enterprise CA Conservation Area CDK Forest Authority Branch Office / Cabang Dinas Kehutanan CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

Flora CLA Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting CSO Civil Society Organization DBH-DR Revenue Sharing Funds for Reforestation DG PSKL Directorate General of Social Forestry and Environmental Partnerships DG PHPL Directorate General of Sustainable Production Forest Management DLHK Environment and Forestry Agency DPA Budget Implementation Document / Dokumen Pelaksanaan Anggaran DPM PTSP One-Stop-Shop for Licensing / Dinas Penanaman Modal Dan

Pelayanan Terpadu Satu Pintu DPMG / Kam Village Empowerment Agency DPRD Regional Representative Council FCU Forest Crime Unit FGD Focus Group Discussion FIA Forest Integrity Assessment FKL Leuser Conservation Forum / Forum Konservasi Leuser FMU / KPH Forest Management Unit FPIC Free, Prior, and Informed Consent GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System GOI Government of Indonesia HCV High Conservation Value HD Hutan Desa / Village Forest HKM Hutan Kemasyarakatan / Community Forest HPH Timber concession / Hak Pengusahaan Hutan IFACS Indonesia Forestry and Climate Support Project IWT Illegal Wildlife Trade J2SR Journey to Self-Reliance KLHK Ministry of Environment and Forestry KRP Policies, Plans, or Programs (Kebijakan, Rencana, atau Program) KSDAE Directorate General of Natural Resources and Ecosystem Conservation KSM Community Self-Help Group / Kelompok Swadaya Masyarakat LBA Landscape Baseline Analysis LCP Landscape Conservation Plan LEDS Low Emission Development Strategy LOP Life of Project

USAID LESTARI Final Internal Assessment Page | iii

LPHD Village Forest Management Institution / Lembaga Pengelola Hutan Desa LTTA / STTA Long-Term Technical Assistance / Short-Term Technical Assistance LWA Lembaga Wana Aksara METT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool MMP Community Forest Patrol / Masyarakat Mitra Polhut MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSF / MSI Multi-Stakeholder Forum / Multi-Stakeholder Initiative NCBA National Cooperative Business Association NGO Non-Governmental Organization NP / TN National Park /Taman Nasional NR Nature Reserve / Cagar Alam NTFP Non-timber Forest Product PA Protected Area PEA Political Economy Analysis PES Payment for Environmental Services PerBup Head of District Decree / Peraturan Bupati PerKam Village Decree PPP Public-Private Partnership RF Results Framework Renstra Strategic Plan RIL-C Reduced Impact Logging to Reduce Carbon Emissions RKA Government Work Plan and Budget RKT Provincial Development Plan RPHJP Long-Term Forest Management Plan RPHJPd Annual Short-Term Forest Management Plan RPJMD Regional Development Plan RPJM Des/Kam Village-level Mid-Term Development Plan RPJP Long-Term Management Plan RSWR Rawa Singkil Wildlife Reserve RTRWK / RTRWP District / Provincial Spatial Plan SA Strategic Approach SCAA Sustainable Cooperative Agribusiness Alliance SEA / KLHS Strategic Environmental Assessment SIKAWAN Aceh Forest Information System SIMTARU Papua Management Information System for Spatial Planning SMART Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool SST Sustainability Screening Tool SOP Standard Operating Procedure STTA Short-Term Technical Assistance TFF Tropical Forest Foundation TNGL Leuser National Park / Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser ToC Theory of Change TFF Tropical Forest Foundation UPPB Rubber Processing Unit UPT Technical Implementation Unit USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government UTZ Certification Standard for Sustainable Agriculture WCS Wildlife Conservation Society WCU Wildlife Crime Unit WR Wildlife Reserve / Suaka Margasatwa WRU Wildlife Response Unit WWF World Wildlife Fund

USAID LESTARI Final Internal Assessment Page | 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Through its LESTARI project, USAID partnered with the Government of Indonesia (GOI) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and conserve biodiversity in carbon rich and biologically significant forest and mangrove ecosystems. This was achieved through improved land use governance, enhanced protected areas management and protection of key species, sustainable private sector and industry practices, and expanded constituencies for conservation among various stakeholders. LESTARI was implemented under the leadership of Tetra Tech and a consortium of sub-contractor and local grantee partners. At the national level, USAID partnered with the Directorate of Conservation Areas at the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK) to advance the GOI's biodiversity goals and objectives through LESTARI. Key partners at the landscape level included forestry agencies in the provinces of Aceh, Central Kalimantan and Papua. LESTARI ran from August 2015 through July 2020. The objective of this Final Assessment was to measure the performance of LESTARI in achieving its main outcomes and the ability of government and non-government partners to sustain and amplify these outcomes. The Final Assessment was an internal evaluation that facilitated LESTARI staff and partners to reflect honestly on the progress and challenges of the past five years. Final Assessment results may contribute to USAID, GOI and development partners design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of similarly complex sustainable landscape and biodiversity conservation projects in the future. Results will also be used to inform the LESTARI Final Report. METHODOLOGY The LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP) described project indicators, intended targets/milestones, and evaluation criteria, and served as the key document to guide the final assessment process. For the Final Assessment, the AMEP suggested several questions (see below); the team added an additional question on institutional capacity building and long-term sustainability given USAID’s new emphasis on assisting development partners on their Journey to Self-Reliance (J2SR).

1. To what extent have LESTARI interventions been effective in reducing threats to biodiversity and positively impact populations of key identified species?

2. To what extent has improved collaboration between government, private sector and community contributed (via co-management and / or green enterprises) to improved forest management / increased conservation stewardship?

3. To what extent have LESTARI interventions been effective in improving land-use governance?

4. To what extent has the private sector sustained best management practices and reduced its own internal threats to deforestation, degradation and biodiversity conservation?

5. To what extent are LESTARI activities and approaches likely to thrive beyond the LOP? (cross-cutting and considered as part of each main question above)

These questions were augmented by reviewing project Theories of Change (ToCs) and developing questions around critical assumptions that were made in the results chains that lead to results. The full complement of evaluation questions and their related topics is detailed in Appendix 5.1. The final reporting of achievement against all project indicators over the five-year period will be presented in the LESTARI Final Report to be completed in July 2020.


Considering the complex nature of the project, the assessment team used a mix-method approach to answer the above questions. This included ToC tracing, group discussions and interviews, desk review and analysis using qualitative and quantitative data, and case study analysis. Field trips were conducted to Aceh, Central Kalimantan, and Papua provinces to observe LESTARI work and interview key informants. Lists of key documents reviewed and interviewees are provided in Appendices 5.2 and 5.3, respectively. Apart from the commissioned interviews and case studies, most of the data for measurement against the targets came from reports from LESTARI landscape teams. This field assessment data, however, cannot be used for attribution because of difficulties in recognizing control and isolating project interventions from other factors and actors. However, it does describe trends in the target landscapes regardless of their causal relationships with project interventions. KEY ASSESSMENT FINDINGS For each of the question groupings, key points are summarized below. Question number five on sustainability was a cross-cutting question relevant to all areas of the project and hence it was incorporated into the findings for each of the four thematic questions. #1 Protected Area Management

• LESTARI support contributed to a rise in METT scores in all six PAs. All PAs reached METT scores of at least 70%, which is the minimum target set by KLHK. Together these PAs cover more than 2.4 million hectares in area.

• However, the METT tool itself has limitations and does not necessarily reflect actual PA management conditions on the ground. In addition, until now there has been no incentive and disincentive scheme for PA managers who have reached or failed to reach the target score of 70%. .

• The incidence of poaching of key species within three targeted PAs (Gunung Leuser National Park, Cyclops Nature Reserve, and Lorentz National Park) was reduced by 90%.

• PA management assisted by LESTARI now have the capacity to independently plan, collect data, and report on patrol outcomes. They are also able to conduct simple spatial analysis using zoning data. However they still need assistance to improve capacity on data processing and analysis as well as to implement the conservation partnerships scheme. Reliance on external partners should be reduced and handed over to formal institutions for training such as the KLHK Training Center.

• One important factor that contributed to successful coordination was taking part in joint annual work plan development with PA managers, clearly demonstrating how LESTARI would help to fill gaps and align with PA managers’ own objectives.

• Greater local law enforcement efforts are required for SMART patrols to be effective and act as deterrents to committing wildlife crimes. Numerous patrol and community empowerment measures will be futile if clear and consistent law enforcement measures are not taken against perpetrators.

• A lack of funding will hinder sustainability of patrols. Although some NGO partners have committed to support SMART in some locations, PA managers must be able to find funding potential from other, more sustainable sources. Partnering with local communities to train community-led patrol groups is one strategy to cover broader areas in a cost-effective manner.


• Project efforts to tackle human-wildlife conflicts in Aceh, a key livelihoods issue, enabled good relations to be developed and maintained throughout the project. This has created a community conservation constituency with a shared sense of responsibility for forest and wildlife protection. However, BKSDA Aceh faces funding shortfalls and requires support to swiftly respond to incidents of human-wildlife conflict, as conducted under LESTARI. Greater investments should also be put into replicating MDM in forest-edge communities, using the demonstration villages to show how village budgets can be used to sustainably finance this approach.

#2 Improved Forest Management Through Co-Management, FMU Strengthening, and Green Enterprises

• Green enterprises initiatives provided opportunities for farmers/community groups to acquire and apply new environmentally-friendly techniques, improve quality and productivity, gain market access, and improve incomes. This in turn contributed to improved environmental stewardship over land – reducing the risk of fire, avoiding encroachment and deforestation – in line with LESTARI’s higher level goals.

• Collaborative management contributed to a reduction of small-scale threats such as community encroachment into conservation areas or forest estate, exploitation of key species, and forest and land fire in peatland areas.

• In Papua, the Kampung Lestari approach, which covered more than 700,000 hectares in total, was effective in mobilizing and organizing local traditional community members to become members of Community Forest Protection groups. These groups earned a high level of trust from the community and are now seen as official guardians of the forest. The approach was based on bottom-up and inclusive village development planning that respects and incorporates traditional Papuan modes of management.

• Working within government schemes and guidelines increased the likelihood that the initiatives are sustained for the long-term. Therefore, LESTARI prioritized assisting FMUs and local communities to work together under available government schemes, whether social forestry, sustainable villages and Aceh forest partnership.

• Synchronization between the FMU Long-Term Forest Management Plan (RPHJP) with the Strategic Plan of Provincial Forestry Agency was an important policy-based approach that mobilized greater budget allocations from the province for FMU operationalization.

• Given the vast areas of forest under the jurisdiction of FMUs, it was strategic and necessary to partner with and train these institutions. Overall FMUs are still new and emerging institutions that are lacking in the quality and quantity of their human resources.

• Economic benefits can take years to realize. There were some cases where communities thought they would acquire quick income benefits from social forestry. However, acquiring access to land is only the first step. Running a profitable and sustainable forest-based business is the end goal, and this requires support for policy and enabling conditions by local governments.

• Engaging the ‘right’ private sector partner is key to developing a sustainable forest commodity business model. The right partner must be willing to commit resources (investment, equipment, trainings) beyond just serving as an off-taker. Direct


meetings facilitated by LESTARI resulted in new purchase deals as well as growing awareness from both buyers and producers on future possibilities.

• However overall LESTARI did not achieve breakthroughs in leveraging large private sector investment in sustainable forest-based commodities, as this proved more challenging than expected. Major obstacles included limited areas within landscapes suitable for agroforestry, low capacity of local farmers, poor infrastructure and market access, insufficient investment incentives for the private sector, among other obstacles. More broadly, potential opportunities for private sector engagement in the sustainable forest commodity space do exist in Indonesia and are growing with niche markets for high-end chocolate and coffee. This could be a suitable area for a future project with more flexibility in working areas and focal landscapes.

#3 Awareness & Advocacy, Operationalize SEA to Improve Land Use Governance, and Sustainable Landscape Governance

• SEA processes facilitated by LESTARI created valuable coalitions and a wider participation of people in planning processes. It brought together stakeholders from government and their respective communities and allowed for participatory approaches in the formulation or revision of land use policies. In general there was improved awareness on the role of civil society in districts and provinces where LESTARI supported SEAs as well as expressed commitment from key stakeholders to continue this model of participatory governance in the development of future policies and plans.

• SEA application has enriched decision making processes and improved the quality of regional spatial and development planning documents by considering and integrating sustainable forest management and low emissions development principles.

• SEA recommendations incorporated into the draft district spatial plans in Boven Digoel and Mimika Districts resulted in proposal for increasing areas under protection from 18% to 44% (511,373 ha) and 69.6% to 72.9% (42,399 ha) respectively. The SEA process in Boven Digoel produced increased awareness and debate about environmental issues that led to the revocation of location permits for three palm oil companies. This result occurred during the stages of SEA development when the SEA working group (Pokja KLHS) carried out evaluation of existing policies.

• Nevertheless, none of the SEA recommendations incorporated into the draft district spatial plans (Ranperda RTRW) have officially resulted in changes on the ground because of the time it takes to move through the approval processes of various levels of government until Ranperda are endorsed as Perda and enforced. However, the potential for delivering impact is enormous.

• LESTARI was successful in mobilizing a total USD 30.4 million from domestic sources (mostly GOI budgets at local and national levels) to tackle forestry sector challenges and priorities – strengthening forest management, reducing pressures for deforestation, and mitigating land-based greenhouse gas emissions. One innovative approach was working with local government in Central Kalimantan to unlock and allocate Reforestation Funds for these priorities.

• LESTARI provided significant contributions is successfully promoting Forest Management Units and Social Forestry initiatives to become priorities of the forestry agency at the provincial level. Previously, these programs were considered as top-down “products” from the national government that were reluctantly accepted by the local government.


• LESTARI’s local government partners were clear in emphasizing that the project provided concrete contributions and impacts in triggering improved forest management in the landscapes. However, the long-term sustainability of these land use governance achievements beyond LESTARI is not guaranteed as too many factors are dynamic and dependent on the continuity of political will. The legacy is expected to stand for at least the next several years because of LESTARI’s impacts on RPJMD and Renstra plans, which last for five-year periods.

#4 Private Sector Best Management Practices

• Nine private sector timber concessionaire companies were trained in and adopted Reduced Impact Logging practices. Two companies were trained in and implemented HCV monitoring. The total concession areas impacted by these initiatives reached more than one million hectares.

• However the level of implementation was unclear. Some companies only applied best practices on a limited scale. Aside from conducting trainings, LESTARI should have focused more on intensive follow-up facilitation on the ground as well as engagement with company management in order to ensure the thorough adoption of RIL-C and/or HCV monitoring practices.

• There was insufficient advocacy efforts with KLHK in encouraging the issuance of a regulation mandating RIL-C. This lack of supporting policy means that amplification of RIL-C implementation is uncertain.

• While the financial benefits from investing in RIL, in the form of productivity and efficiency gains, are well documented, extensive outreach and engagement is needed so that timber concessions companies are made aware of its benefits. APHI can play an important role in this needed outreach and technical assistance.

CONCLUSION Overall, the Final Assessment revealed a broad range of successful results facilitated by LESTARI. These included 7.46 million hectares of forest and natural resources under improved management, USD 33.8 million in domestic resources mobilized for forest and biodiversity conservation, 41,535 people securing livelihood benefits, and 29 national and sub-national policies introduced (note final indicator results are not formally reported here and will be presented separately in the LESTARI Final Report). Many impacts, particularly relating to governance interventions, have yet to be realized due to the long-term nature of impacts from policies and plans. Political and economic dynamics, overlapping policies, and turnover of government partners and counterparts often indirectly hindered progress. Ultimately, long-term political will and collaborative action between government agencies and with a broad range of multi-stakeholders are needed to improve sustainable forest management in Indonesia. LESTARI has demonstrated successful models and approaches for how to do this; it is now the responsibility of GOI counterparts at the national and local level to amplify and sustain these approaches in order to meet their forestry sector development objectives and commitments while at the same time fostering the sustainable development of communities in Indonesia.


RINGKASAN EKSEKUTIF LATAR BELAKANG Melalui proyek LESTARI, USAID bermitra dengan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia (RI) untuk mengurangi emisi gas rumah kaca dan melestarikan keanekaragaman hayati di ekosistem hutan dan mangrove yang kaya karbon dan penting secara biologi. Hal ini dicapai melalui peningkatan tata kelola lahan, peningkatan pengelolaan kawasan lindung dan perlindungan spesies kunci, praktik sektor swasta dan industri yang berkelanjutan, serta perluasan konstituensi untuk konservasi diantara berbagai pemangku kepentingan. LESTARI dilaksanakan dibawah kepemimpinan Tetra Tech, konsorsium mitra sub-kontraktor dan penerima hibah lokal. Di tingkat nasional, USAID bermitra dengan Direktorat Kawasan Konservasi di Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan (KLHK) untuk memajukan tujuan dan sasaran keanekaragaman hayati Pemerintah Indonesia melalui LESTARI. Mitra utama di tingkat lanskap meliputi Dinas Kehutanan di Provinsi Aceh, Kalimantan Tengah dan Papua. LESTARI beroperasi mulai Agustus 2015 hingga Juli 2020. Kegiatan Penilaian Akhir ini bertujuan untuk mengukur kinerja LESTARI dalam mencapai hasil utamanya serta mengukur kemampuan mitra pemerintah dan non-pemerintah untuk mempertahankan dan memperkuat hasil-hasil yang telah dicapai. Kegiatan Penilaian Akhir adalah evaluasi internal yang menjadi wadah bagi staf dan mitra LESTARI untuk merefleksikan kemajuan dan tantangan selama lima tahun terakhir secara obyektif dan transparan. Hasil Penilaian Akhir dapat digunakan oleh USAID, Pemerintah Indonesia dan mitra pembangunan dalam merancang, mengimplementasikan, serta memantau dan mengevaluasi proyek serupa berbasis lanskap dan proyek konservasi keanekaragaman hayati di masa depan. Hasil kegiatan ini juga akan digunakan sebagi input bagi penulisan Laporan Akhir LESTARI. METODOLOGI Rencana Kegiatan Monitoring dan Evaluasi LESTARI (AMEP/Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan) menggambarkan indikator-indikator proyek, sasaran/tonggak pencapaian, dan kriteria evaluasi, serta berfungsi sebagai dokumen utama untuk memandu proses Penilaian Akhir. Untuk kegiatan tersebut, AMEP memuat beberapa pertanyaan kunci (lihat di bawah); yang selanjutnya ditambahkan oleh tim evaluasi dengan pertanyaan seputar pengembangan kapasitas kelembagaan dan keberlanjutan sebagaimana fokus terkini USAID dalam membantu mitra pembangunan yang berprinsip pada Perjalanan menuju Kemandirian (Journey to Self-Reliance/J2SR) mereka.

1. Sejauhmana intervensi LESTARI efektif dalam mengurangi ancaman terhadap keanekaragaman hayati dan berdampak positif pada populasi spesies kunci yang diidentifikasi?

2. Sejauhmana peningkatan kolaborasi antara pemerintah, sektor swasta dan masyarakat (melalui pengelolaan kolaboratif dan/atau praktik bisnis hijau) berkontribusi pada perbaikan pengelolaan hutan/ pengelolaan konservasi?

3. Sejauhmana intervensi LESTARI efektif dalam meningkatkan tata kelola lahan? 4. Sejauhmana sektor swasta mampu mempertahankan praktik manajemen terbaik dan

mengurangi ancaman internalnya sendiri terhadap deforestasi, degradasi, dan konservasi keanekaragaman hayati?

5. Sejauhmana keberlanjutan kegiatan dan pendekatan LESTARI pasca proyek berakhir? (lintas sektoral dan merupakan bagian dari setiap pertanyaan utama di atas)

Pertanyaan-pertanyaan kunci diatas kemudian dikembangkan dengan meninjau Teori Perubahan (Theory of Change/ToC) proyek, untuk menguji berbagai asumsi yang dibangun


dalam teori atau rantai hasil (Results Chain) tersebut. Pertanyaan evaluasi lengkap dan topik terkaitnya dirinci dalam Lampiran 5.1. Pelaporan akhir atas pencapaian seluruh indikator proyek selama periode lima tahun akan disajikan dalam Laporan Akhir LESTARI yang akan diselesaikan pada bulan Juli 2020. Mempertimbangkan kompleksitas proyek, tim evaluasi menggunakan pendekatan metode campuran untuk menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan kunci di atas. Termasuk di dalamnya, pelacakan proses atau pelacakan ToC, diskusi kelompok terfokus dan wawancara informan kunci, tinjauan pustaka dan analisis menggunakan data kualitatif dan kuantitatif, serta analisis studi kasus. Kunjungan lapangan dilakukan ke Provinsi Aceh, Kalimantan Tengah, dan Papua untuk melakukan observasi atas hasil-hasil yang dicapai oleh LESTARI dan mewawancarai informan kunci. Daftar dokumen kunci yang dianalisis dan informan yang diwawancarai dapat dilihat pada Lampiran 5.2 dan 5.3. Terlepas dari wawancara dan studi kasus yang dilakukan, sebagian besar data pengukuran atas target proyek berasal dari laporan tim lanskap LESTARI. Namun, data penilaian lapangan ini tidak dapat digunakan untuk atribusi karena kesulitan mengenali kontrol dan mengisolasi intervensi proyek dari faktor dan aktor lain. Namun, hal ini menggambarkan tren dalam lanskap yang menjadi target terlepas dari hubungan kausalnya dengan intervensi proyek. TEMUAN KUNCI PENILAIAN AKHIR PROYEK Untuk setiap pengelompokkan pertanyaan, poin-poin utama dirangkum di bawah ini. Pertanyaan nomor lima tentang keberlanjutan merupakan pertanyaan lintas sektoral yang relevan dengan semua inisiatif proyek dan karenanya dimasukkan dalam temuan untuk tiap empat pertanyaan tematik. #1 Pengelolaan Kawasan Konservasi

• Dukungan LESTARI berkontribusi pada peningkatan skor METT di keenam Kawasan Konservasi (KK). Semua KK mencapai skor METT minimal 70%, yang merupakan target minimum yang ditetapkan oleh KLHK. Bersama-sama, kawasan konservasi ini meliputi lebih dari 2,4 juta hektar di keseluruhan lanskap proyek.

• Namun, alat METT itu sendiri memiliki keterbatasan dan tidak mencerminkan kondisi pengelolaan KK yang sebenarnya di lapangan. Selain itu, hingga saat ini belum ada skema insentif dan disinsentif bagi pengelola KK yang telah mencapai atau gagal mencapai skor target 70%.

• Insiden perburuan spesies kunci dalam tiga KK target (Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser, Cagar Alam Cyclops, dan Taman Nasional Lorentz) berkurang hingga 90%.

• Manajemen KK yang dibantu oleh LESTARI sekarang memiliki kapasitas untuk merencanakan, mengumpulkan data, dan melaporkan hasil patroli secara independen. Mereka juga dapat melakukan analisis spasial sederhana menggunakan data zonasi. Namun mereka masih membutuhkan bantuan untuk meningkatkan kapasitas dalam pengolahan dan analisis data, serta untuk menerapkan skema kemitraan konservasi. Ketergantungan pada mitra eksternal harus dikurangi dan diserahkan ke lembaga formal yang relevan untuk pelatihan seperti Pusat Pendidikan dan Pelatihan KLHK.

• Salah satu faktor penting yang berkontribusi pada keberhasilan koordinasi adalah mengambil bagian dalam pengembangan rencana kerja tahunan bersama dengan para pengelola KK. Hal ini dengan jelas menunjukkan bagaimana LESTARI


membantu mengisi kesenjangan dan menyelaraskan tujuan proyek dengan pengelola KK itu sendiri.

• Upaya penegakan hukum setempat yang lebih luas diperlukan agar patroli SMART menjadi efektif dalam mencegah tindakan kejahatan terhadap satwa liar. Upaya patroli dan pemberdayaan masyarakat akan sia-sia jika tindakan penegakan hukum yang jelas dan konsisten tidak dilakukan terhadap pelaku.

• Kurangnya anggaran akan menghambat keberlanjutan patroli. Meskipun beberapa mitra LSM telah berkomitmen untuk mendukung SMART di beberapa lokasi, pengelola KK harus dapat menemukan potensi pendanaan dari sumber lain yang lebih berkelanjutan. Bermitra dengan masyarakat setempat untuk melatih kelompok-kelompok patroli yang dipimpin masyarakat adalah salah satu strategi untuk mencakup area yang lebih luas dengan biaya yang efisien.

• Upaya proyek untuk mengatasi konflik manusia-satwa liar di Aceh dan isu mata pencaharian utama, memungkinkan hubungan baik berkembang dan terbina selama proyek. Hal ini telah menciptakan konstituen masyarakat konservasi dengan rasa tanggung jawab bersama untuk perlindungan hutan dan satwa liar. Namun, BKSDA Aceh menghadapi keterbatasan anggaran dan membutuhkan dukungan untuk segera merespon kejadian konflik manusia-satwa liar, seperti yang dilakukan di LESTARI. Investasi yang lebih besar juga harus dimasukkan dalam replikasi inisiatif MDM (masyarakat desa mandiri) yang diterapkan pada masyarakat tepi hutan, menggunakan desa percontohan untuk menunjukkan bagaimana dana desa dapat digunakan untuk membiayai pendekatan ini secara berkelanjutan.

#2 Peningkatan Pengelolaan Hutan Melalui Pengelolaan Kolaboratif, Penguatan KPH, dan Praktik Bisnis Hijau (Green Enterprise)

• Inisiatif praktik bisnis hijau memberikan peluang bagi petani/kelompok masyarakat untuk memperoleh dan menerapkan teknik baru yang ramah lingkungan, meningkatkan kualitas dan produktivitas, mendapatkan akses pasar, dan meningkatkan pendapatan. Akhirnya, semua berkontribusi pada perbaikan pengelolaan lahan dan hutan - mengurangi risiko kebakaran, menghindari perambahan dan deforestasi - sejalan dengan tujuan akhir LESTARI.

• Pengelolaan kolaboratif berkontribusi pada pengurangan ancaman skala kecil seperti perambahan masyarakat dalam kawasan konservasi atau kawasan hutan, eksploitasi spesies kunci, serta kebakaran hutan dan lahan di kawasan gambut.

• Di Papua, pendekatan Kampung Lestari, yang mencakup lebih dari 700.000 hektar lahan, efektif dalam memobilisasi dan mengorganisir anggota masyarakat tradisional setempat untuk menjadi anggota kelompok Masyarakat Pelindung Hutan. Kelompok-kelompok ini mendapatkan kepercayaan yang tinggi dari masyarakat dan sekarang dipandang sebagai penjaga hutan yang resmi. Pendekatan ini didasarkan pada perencanaan pembangunan desa dari bawah keatas dan inklusif yang menghormati dan memasukkan model pengelolaan tradisional Papua.

• Bekerja dalam skema dan pedoman pemerintah meningkatkan kemungkinan bahwa inisiatif ini berkelanjutan untuk jangka panjang. Oleh karena itu, LESTARI memprioritaskan membantu KPH dan masyarakat lokal untuk bekerja bersama dibawah skema pemerintah yang tersedia, baik perhutanan sosial, desa berkelanjutan dan pola kerja sama hutan Aceh.


• Sinkronisasi antara Rencana Pengelolaan Hutan Jangka Panjang (RPHJP) KPH dengan Rencana Strategis Dinas Kehutanan Provinsi adalah pendekatan penting berbasis kebijakan, yang memobilisasi alokasi anggaran lebih besar dari provinsi untuk operasionalisasi KPH.

• Mengingat wilayah hutan yang luas di bawah yurisdiksi KPH, bermitra dan melatih lembaga-lembaga ini adalah strategis dan perlu. Secara keseluruhan KPH masih merupakan lembaga baru yang muncul dan memiliki keterbatasan dalam hal kualitas dan kuantitas sumber daya manusianya.

• Manfaat secara ekonomi membutuhkan waktu bertahun-tahun untuk direalisasikan. Ada beberapa kasus saat masyarakat berpikir mereka akan memperoleh pendapatan ekonomi secara cepat dari implementasi perhutanan sosial. Namun, memperoleh akses atas lahan hanyalah langkah pertama. Sedangkan menjalankan bisnis berbasis hutan yang menguntungkan dan berkelanjutan adalah tujuan akhir, yang membutuhkan dukungan kebijakan serta kondisi-kondisi pemungkin (enabling conditions) dari pemerintah daerah.

• Melibatkan mitra sektor swasta yang 'tepat' adalah kunci untuk mengembangkan model bisnis komoditas hutan berkelanjutan. Mitra yang tepat harus berkomitmen atas sumber daya (misalkan investasi, peralatan, pelatihan) selain sekedar berperan sebagai penerima (off-taker). Kemitraan yang difasilitasi oleh LESTARI menghasilkan kesepakatan pembelian baru atas komoditas masyarakat dan meningkatkan kesadaran dari pembeli dan produsen tentang kemungkinan-kemungkinan bisnis di masa depan.

• Namun secara keseluruhan LESTARI tidak mencapai terobosan dalam meningkatkan investasi sektor swasta dalam komoditas berbasis hutan yang berkelanjutan, hal ini terbukti lebih menantang daripada yang diperkirakan. Hambatan utama, diantara hambatan lainnya, termasuk area terbatas yang cocok untuk agroforestri di dalam lanskap, kapasitas petani lokal yang rendah, infrastruktur dan akses pasar yang buruk, dan insentif investasi yang tidak memadai untuk sektor swasta. Secara umum, potensi keterlibatan sektor swasta dalam bisnis komoditas hutan berkelanjutan memang ada di Indonesia dan bertumbuh melalui pasar-pasar khusus (niche markets) untuk cokelat dan kopi kelas atas. Kedua komoditas ini dapat menjadi sektor potensial untuk proyek selanjutnya dengan lebih banyak fleksibilitas dalam area kerja dan pemilihan lanskap target.

#3 Penyadartahuan & Advokasi, Operasionalisasi KLHS untuk Meningkatkan Tata Kelola Lahan dan Tata Kelola Lanskap Berkelanjutan

• Proses KLHS yang difasilitasi oleh LESTARI menciptakan koalisi yang efektif dan partisipasi masyarakat yang lebih luas dalam proses perencanaan. Proses tersebut mampu menyatukan para pemangku kepentingan yang berasal dari pemerintah dan masyarakat, serta memungkinkan adanya pendekatan partisipatif dalam perumusan atau revisi kebijakan pemanfaatan lahan. Secara umum, ada peningkatan kesadaran tentang peran masyarakat sipil di kabupaten dan provinsi lokasi kerja LESTARI yang mendukung KLHS, serta pernyataan komitmen dari para pemangku kepentingan untuk melanjutkan model tata kelola partisipatif ini dalam pengembangan kebijakan dan rencana pembangunan di masa depan.

• Penerapan KLHS telah memperkaya proses pengambilan keputusan dan meningkatkan kualitas dokumen perencanaan dan pengembangan tata ruang wilayah, dengan mempertimbangkan dan mengintegrasikan pengelolaan hutan berkelanjutan serta prinsip-prinsip pembangunan rendah emisi.


• Rekomendasi KLHS yang dimasukkan dalam rancangan rencana tata ruang wilayah di Kabupaten Boven Digoel dan Mimika menghasilkan usulan untuk meningkatkan luas wilayah yang dilindungi di kabupaten masing-masing dari 18% menjadi 44% (511.373 ha) dan 69,6% menjadi 72,9% (42.399 ha). Proses KLHS di Boven Digoel meningkatkan kesadaran dan diskusi publik tentang isu kerusakan lingkungan yang mengarah pada pencabutan izin lokasi tiga perusahaan kelapa sawit. Hasil ini terjadi selama tahap penyusunan KLHS ketika kelompok kerja KLHS (Pokja KLHS) melakukan evaluasi atas kebijakan-kebijakan pembangunan yang ada di daerahnya.

• Namun demikian, rekomendasi KLHS yang dimasukkan dalam rancangan rencana tata ruang kabupaten (Ranperda RTRW) belum menghasilkan perubahan nyata di lapangan. Hal ini terutama karena lamanya waktu yang diperlukan untuk melewati proses persetujuan di berbagai level pemerintahan sampai Ranperda disahkan dan berlaku sebagai Perda. Namun, terdapat potensi sangat besar untuk memberikan dampak apabila kebijakan tersebut disahkan dan diimplementasikan kemudian.

• LESTARI berhasil memobilisasi total anggaran USD 30,4 juta dari sumber domestik (sebagian besar anggaran Pemerintah Indonesia di tingkat lokal dan nasional) untuk mengatasi tantangan dan menjawab prioritas sektor kehutanan - memperbaikipengelolaan hutan, mengurangi tekanan deforestasi, dan mengurangi emisi GRK berbasis lahan. Salah satu pendekatan inovatif adalah bekerja dengan pemerintah daerah di Kalimantan Tengah untuk mengoptimalkan pemanfaatan Dana Reboisasi untuk prioritas-prioritas tersebut.

• LESTARI memberikan kontribusi signifikan dalam mempromosikan Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan dan inisiatif Perhutanan Sosial untuk menjadi prioritas dinas kehutanan di tingkat provinsi. Sebelumnya, program-program ini dianggap sebagai "produk" top-down dari pemerintah nasional yang dengan enggan diterima oleh pemerintah daerah.

• Mitra pemerintah daerah dimana LESTARI bekerja jelas menekankan bahwa proyek ini memberikan kontribusi dan dampak nyata dalam membantu peningkatan pengelolaan hutan di tingkat lanskap. Namun, keberlanjutan jangka panjang dari berbagai capaian inisiatif tata kelola lahan pasca proyek LESTARI tidak terjamin, karena terlalu banyak faktor yang dinamis dan bergantung pada kesinambungan kemauan politik (political will) daerah. Warisan ini diharapkan bertahan setidaknya untuk beberapa tahun kedepan karena dampak LESTARI pada RPJMD dan Renstra, yang berdurasi lima tahun.

#4 PengelolaanTerbaik Sektor Swasta

• Sembilan perusahaan pemegang konsesi kayu sektor swasta dilatih dan telah mengadopsi praktik Pembalakan Berdampak Rendah (RIL/Reduced Impact Logging). Dua perusahaan dilatih dan menerapkan pemantauan kawasan ber-Nilai Konservasi Tinggi (NKT). Total area konsesi yang terkena dampak inisiatif ini mencapai lebih dari satu juta hektar.

• Namun tingkat implementasi di lapangan tidak seperti yang diharapkan. Beberapa perusahaan hanya menerapkan praktik terbaik dalam skala terbatas. Selain melakukan pelatihan, LESTARI seharusnya lebih fokus pada fasilitasi intensif untuk tindak lanjut di lapangan serta meningkatkan keterlibatan manajemen perusahaan untuk memastikan penerapan praktik RIL-C dan/atau pemantauan NKT secara menyeluruh.


• Upaya advokasi dengan KLHK dalam mendorong penerbitan peraturan yang mengamanatkan RIL-C belum memadai. Kurangnya kebijakan pendukung ini mengartikan ketidakpastian pada penguatan implementasi RIL-C.

• Walaupun manfaat finansial berinvestasi di RIL dalam bentuk peningkatan produktivitas dan efisiensi telah didokumentasikan dengan baik, diperlukan penjangkauan (outreach) dan penyadartahuan yang lebih luas sehingga perusahaan konsesi kayu memahami manfaatnya. APHI dapat memainkan peran penting dalam penjangkauan dan bantuan teknis yang dibutuhkan ini.

KESIMPULAN Secara keseluruhan, kegiatan Penilaian Akhir mengungkapkan berbagai keberhasilan yang difasilitasi oleh LESTARI. Termasuk di dalamnya, 7,46 juta hektar hutan dan lahan dengan peningkatan pengelolaan, mobilisasi sumber daya domestik sebesar USD 33,8 juta untuk konservasi hutan dan keanekaragaman hayati, 41.535 orang mendapatkan manfaat mata pencaharian, serta diperkenalkannya 29 kebijakan nasional dan sub-nasional (catatan: hasil indikator utama tidak secara formal dilaporkan disini dan akan disajikan secara terpisah dalam Laporan Akhir LESTARI). Banyak dampak, terutama yang berkaitan dengan intervensi tata kelola, belum dapat diukur karena sifat kebijakan dan perencanaan yang memiliki dampak jangka panjang. Dinamika politik dan ekonomi, kebijakan yang tumpang tindih, dan mutasi staf pemerintah secara tidak langsung sering menghambat kemajuan proyek. Pada akhirnya, kemauan politik jangka panjang dan kolaborasi antar lembaga pemerintah dan dengan berbagai pemangku kepentingan diperlukan untuk meningkatkan pengelolaan hutan berkelanjutan di Indonesia. LESTARI telah menunjukkan model dan pendekatan yang berhasil untuk melakukan hal ini; kini merupakan tanggung jawab Pemerintah Indonesia, baik lokal maupun nasional, untuk memperkuat dan mempertahankan pendekatan-pendekatan ini guna memenuhi tujuan dan komitmen pembangunan sektor kehutanan, dan pada saat yang sama mewujudkan pembangunan berkelanjutan di Indonesia.


Figure 1. LESTARI supported landscapes map


1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND Indonesia is considered a “mega diverse” country, contributing, along with six other Asian countries, up to 70 percent of the world’s biological diversity. Indonesia contains Asia’s largest continuous track of tropical rainforests and 10% of the world’s forests. Important terrestrial ecosystems include mangroves, lowland forests, montane forests, and peat/swamp forests, the protection of which is considered critical for conserving biodiversity and preventing or reducing land-based carbon emissions. Healthy intact forest ecosystems are also an important safety net for local communities living nearby, presenting economic opportunities for forest dependent livelihoods that prevent their slide into extreme poverty and improving their resilience to climate and other external shocks. While at least 30 million people depend directly on Indonesia’s forests and the ecosystem services they provide, these ecosystems face extreme threats. It was reported that 15.79 million hectares of forest cover was lost from 2000-2012 (Margono, 2014). Deforestation is especially critical in carbon rich peat and swamp forests of Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Papua. These forests are also the primary habitat for key species of global importance, particularly those listed on CITES Appendix I (especially rhinos, elephants, tigers, and orangutans) and other endemic species found only in Papua. These key species are threatened by large-scale destruction of tropical forests leading to habitat loss, unsustainable harvesting, and trafficking. Deforestation, peatland degradation, and forest fires have put Indonesia among the top three largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. The emissions resulting from forest fires and degradation are five times greater than those ensuing from non-forestry emissions. A 2010 report suggests that 85% of Indonesia’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions stem from land use activities with 37% due to deforestation and 27% due to peat fires (National Council on Climate Change, 2010). During the peak of the 2015 forest and land fire disaster in Indonesia, daily carbon emissions reached a staggering 15-20 million tons, or more than the daily 14 million tons emitted by the entire U.S. economy. However, in recent years enabling conditions for a shift to more sustainable and responsible forest and land use management have been emerging. For the last three years in a row, Indonesia has reported a promising decline in rates of deforestation nationwide. Strengthened law enforcement against forest fires and land clearing are taking place and proving effective. Stakeholders are optimistic that this will galvanize further action to build on these successes and achieve commitments for reduced deforestation and biodiversity conservation.

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF USAID LESTARI PROJECT Through its LESTARI project, USAID partnered with the Government of Indonesia (GOI) to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and conserve biodiversity in carbon rich and biologically significant forest and mangrove ecosystems. This was achieved through improved land use governance, enhanced protected areas management and protection of key species, sustainable private sector and industry practices, and expanded constituencies for conservation among various stakeholders. LESTARI was implemented under the leadership of Tetra Tech and a consortium of partners including WWF-Indonesia, Winrock International, Wildlife Conservation Society, Blue Forests, Yayasan Sahabat Cipta, Michigan State University, and FIELD Foundation. At the national level, USAID partnered with the Directorate of Conservation Areas at the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK) to advance the GOI's biodiversity goals and objectives through LESTARI. Key partners at the


landscape level included forestry agencies in the provinces of Aceh, Central Kalimantan and Papua. LESTARI ran from August 2015 through July 2020. USAID designed LESTARI to be aligned with and in support of GOI goals and commitments for land-based GHG emissions reduction, reduced deforestation, and key species protection. GOI has committed to reducing GHG emissions by 29% below the business as usual trajectory by 2030 unilaterally, and up to 41% below the baseline with bilateral or international assistance. As such, LESTARI targeted a 41% reduction in land-based GHG emissions in its landscapes by 2020. A thorough depiction of historical deforestation and degradation rates within LESTARI supported landscapes is presented in the Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (LBA). The eight key outcomes expected to be achieved by the end of the project included:

• At least 41% of total CO2-equivalent emissions reduced from land use, land use change and deforestation averaged across all landscapes within the project scope

• At least 8.42 million ha of primary or secondary forest, including orangutan habitat, under improved management

• Management of at least six conservation areas improved, resulting in the conservation of valuable orangutan and other key species habitat, and the reduction in poaching of threatened and endemic species

• At least ten public-private partnerships (PPPs) promoting LEDS established; • Funding leveraged from public and private sources, representing co-investment in

project outcomes • Increased commitment of key private sector, government, and community

stakeholders regarding the positive benefits of conservation and sustainable use of forests and the species they encompass

• Policies, laws, regulations, and procedures in support of LEDS and forest conservation and management increased, promulgated, and enforced at all levels

• Models for successful integration of district, provincial, and national low emissions development and forest conservation strategies developed and shared at all levels of government and with other key stakeholders

1.3 GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS LESTARI activities targeted six strategic landscapes on three of Indonesia’s largest islands, where primary forest cover remains most intact and carbon stocks are greatest. In northern Sumatra, the Leuser Landscape comprises significant portions of Aceh Selatan, Gayo Lues, Aceh Tenggara, and Aceh Barat Daya districts, and includes the Aceh portion of Leuser National Park and Singkil Wildlife Reserve. In Central Kalimantan, LESTARI worked in the Katingan-Kahayan Landscape, comprising Pulang Pisau, Katingan, and Gunung Mas districts; Palangkaraya municipality; and Sebangau and Bukit Baka Bukit Raya National Parks. LESTARI also worked in four landscapes in Papua. Sarmi and Cyclops Landscapes are located along the northern coast and comprise Sarmi district as well as Jayapura district and municipality. The Lorentz Lowlands Landscape, comprising Mimika and Asmat districts plus a large portion of Lorentz National Park, and the Mappi-Bouven Digoel Landscape are located along Papua’s southern coast. LESTARI was managed from its headquarters in Jakarta, with offices in each landscape as well as the provincial capitals of Aceh, Central Kalimantan, and Papua. Site selection and development of priority interventions within these landscapes was conducted through a comprehensive and collaborative process in line with project objectives. First, sites were screened using information from the Landscape Baseline Analysis, which


involved GIS land cover analysis and accompanying research. This revealed areas with significant carbon and biodiversity values as well as areas facing significant current or future threats. Second, specific sites were selected based on opportunities to reduce threats to forests and biodiversity as well as openness of key local stakeholders – particularly provincial and district level governments – towards partnership and collaboration.

Aceh

District / Conservation Areas Landscape Landscape Area (ha)

Aceh Tenggara

Leuser Landscape 1,593,657

Aceh Selatan

Gayo Lues

Gunung Leuser National Park

Rawa Singkil Wildlife Reserve

Central Kalimantan

District / Conservation Areas Landscape Landscape Area (ha)

Katingan District

Katingan-Kahayan Landscape 4,517,549

Pulang Pisau District

Sebangau National Park Bukit Baka Bukit Raya National

Park Palangkaraya Municipality

Papua

Region / Conservation Areas Landscape Landscape Area (ha)

Mimika District

Lorentz Lowlands Landscape 4,795,848 Asmat District

Lorentz National Park

Mappi District The Mappi-Bouven Digoel Landscape 3,303,933

Bouven Digoel District

Sarmi District Sarmi Landscape 1,017,078

Jayapura District Cyclops Landscape 46,683

Cyclops Nature Reserve

1.4 SITUATION ANALYSIS, THREATS AND DRIVERS LESTARI was contextually complex project where the same outcomes were not necessarily guaranteed in each province or landscape. Each landscape was different and varied significantly according to cultural contexts, political and socioeconomic backgrounds, and the biogeographic nature of the landscapes. A Situation Model was developed at the start of the project period to demonstrate these complexities. Over the last 20 years deforestation in Indonesia has been driven predominantly by agricultural expansion. A history of weak governance combined with opportunistic private


sector actors has created unsustainable economics based on natural resource exploitation. Land clearing for oil palm plantations, while important contributors to rural livelihoods and economic development, is also one of the key direct drivers of deforestation. Other commodity-driven pressures on land include unsustainable industrial scale logging and conversion for pulp, rubber, and coffee and cacao plantations. An inequitable system of land use decision-making is threatening forests, which creates enabling conditions for smallholders to encroach onto forested areas because they lack tenure and cannot compete for land use access with large private sector actors. Regarding impacts on key species, expansion of oil palm and pulpwood plantations in Sumatra was responsible for nearly two-thirds of the destruction of tiger habitat from 2009 to 2011. When rainforests are cleared, it becomes increasingly easy for poachers to track and kill tigers, which are considered prized trophies for hunters. Used in traditional medicines and as ornaments, each Sumatran tiger can sell for up to USD 5,000, offering poachers a greater income than they would earn working in paddy fields or on rubber tree plantations. Moreover, numbers of the three species of orangutan (Asia’s only great ape) have significantly declined from 230,000 nearly a century ago to 7,500 in Sumatra and 55,000 in Borneo. A significant factor in the decline of this globally-valued yet critically endangered species is the fragmentation of their habitat, which makes them vulnerable to wildlife traffickers. Deforestation and forest degradation in Indonesia are a result of a complex dynamic of political, economic and institutional drivers. Decision-making on land use involves a large array of laws and actors and the process is rarely transparent or consistent. Land use decisions are driven by economic incentives that prioritize extractive industries and agriculture over low emissions and conservation-oriented business models. However, enabling conditions for a shift to more equitable and sustainable forest and land use management are finally emerging. Civil society, particularly forest-dependent communities, are increasingly advocating for more responsible land and forest governance. A number of GOI initiatives are underway aimed at re-enfranchising communities with their forests, reducing land conflicts, reducing deforestation, and improving forest management capacity. The private sector is also demonstrating substantial leadership toward reducing large-scale deforestation. Many companies have committed to halting deforestation in their concessions and conserving High Conservation Value (HCV) and High Carbon Stock (HCS) landscapes in and around their operations. Increasingly, companies are demonstrating that good business integrates sustainable landscape and conservation management into their operations. At the national and international level, GOI has commitments for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the land use sector as part of the Paris Climate Agreement; is a signatory to the CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) and CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) treaties aimed at protecting endangered wildlife; and, as part of its Sustainable Development Goals, has mainstreamed low carbon development in the national development planning agenda. Importantly, Indonesian Law 23 of 2014 designates a significant amount of natural resource decision-making to provincial governments. Hence agencies within provincial governments hold significant responsibility in managing vast forest areas, but are often lacking in technical, management, oversight, and collaborative management capacity. This creates the opportunity for donors and NGOs to support these agencies to develop the capacity and commitment for effective, inclusive, and collaborative forms of forest management. Effective co-management of forest areas requires cooperation and partnerships amongst a broad range of stakeholders including national and local government agencies, Forest

Management Units, national parks, community-based organizations, private sector partners, and academic institutions.

An overarching Results Framework (RF) was developed to explain how LESTARI approaches (see below) address the threats to biodiversity, the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, and reduce GHG emissions from unsustainable land use. The RF demonstrates causality and the logical linkages between shorter-term, intermediate, and longer-term results. The Results Framework is founded upon the overarching Theory of Change that improved environmental governance coupled with improved forest management will lead to reduced deforestation and degradation, the conservation of biodiversity, and a reduction in GHG emissions.

Figure 2. High-level LESTARI Results Framework mapping the eight strategic approaches and intended impacts


1.5 DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS: STRATEGIC APPROACHES & THEORY OF CHANGE

To positively contribute to addressing these complex challenges and achieve the eight key project outcomes, LESTARI designed an implementation strategy based on strategic approaches. Some of these were very specific, especially when dealing with technical issues, while others were governed by principles to allow for local flexibility. They were a blend of new and existing tools and approaches. Administratively, these approaches were key tools used across LESTARI’s technical components: (1) forest and land use governance and advocacy; (2) conservation co-management; and (3) private sector engagement. The strategic approaches were then translated into a matrix showing how LESTARI integrated its technical components into eight strategic approaches that can be nuanced according to the context of each targeted landscape.

A Theory of Change (ToC) was developed for each strategic approach consisting of results chains required to affect change and impact deforestation, degradation and biodiversity


conservation. The ToC approach, required for all USAID biodiversity programming, is a systematic approach for designing project interventions and illustrates relationships and connections between project interventions, threats, assumptions, intermediate results, and higher-level goals and outcomes. The ToC is the basis of the project development hypothesis, suggesting what impacts may occur if particular interventions or combinations of interventions are undertaken and are successful. The LESTARI ToC proposed how project interventions will lead to achievement of the key project objectives: 41% reduction in GHG emissions from forest and land use sectors and 8.42 million hectares of forest, including orangutan habitat, under improved management. The ToC also demonstrated the connection between strategic approaches, as they were designed to be closely integrated and mutually reinforcing. The ToC for each strategic approach is summarized in the relevant findings sections while the full ToC diagrams are presented in Appendix 5.7.

LESTARI Technical Approach

Technical Theme Strategic Approach

Forest and Land Use Governance and Advocacy

Awareness and Advocacy (SA1)

Operationalize SEAs & LCPs to Improve Land Use Governance (SA2)

Sustainable Landscape Governance (SA3)

Conservation Co-Management

Improved Forest Management Through Co-Management and FMU Strengthening (SA4)

Protected Area Management (SA5)

Private Sector Engagement

Green Enterprises (SA6)

Private Sector Best Management Practices (SA7)

Innovative Financing for Sustainable Land and Forest Management (SA8)

All of this information, a ‘roadmap to results’, was compiled into the LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP) at the beginning of the project. The AMEP was used throughout the project period to track, evaluate, and articulate results and impacts. Importantly, the AMEP was also designed as a project management tool to ensure continuous learning and adaptation based on evidence, allowing for reflection and course correction when approaches proved unfeasible (see CLA section below). This document was developed through close collaboration with USAID.


1.6 COLLABORATING, LEARNING, AND ADAPTING LESTARI applied a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) approach to project management. This meant that project theories and approaches were continuously revisited and revised based on evidence and learning throughout the five-year period.

Starting early in Year 1, detailed ToC were developed to guide project activities under each Strategic Approach while allowing the LESTARI team to continuously assess key assumptions, learn from outcomes, and make adjustments accordingly. In Year 2, an internal Mid-Term Assessment and Political Economy Analysis were conducted in each landscape, which revealed the importance of understanding local political economy dynamics in the forest and land use sector. Importantly, this led to landscape-specific initiatives based on the unique entry points and opportunities for engagement within each project landscape and fostered greater integration among technical components. Since Year 4, an additional focus was on working with government, community, and private sector partners to ensure the sustainability of LESTARI tools and approaches beyond the life of project.

1.7 SUSTAINABILITY & SELF-RELIANCE Both USAID and the GOI under the Jokowi administration share priorities of sustainability and self-reliance. Therefore a major focus of LESTARI is on ensuring partners and beneficiaries are able to effectively sustain the tools and approaches introduced by the project in a self-reliant manner. The LESTARI approach to sustainability consisted of four key aspects:

• Enabling policies to formalize or enable the tool/approach and serve as a legal basisfor its continued implementation post-project. This includes relevant developmentstrategies and work plans.

• Sufficient budget allocation to ensure that government funds are made available tosupport ongoing implementation of the tool/approach so that it is not reliant on thetemporary funding from LESTARI.

• Local ownership through stakeholder engagement around the design, maintenance,and use of the tool/approach. This may include the development of knowledgemanagement products co-written and co-branded with government agencycounterparts.

• Capacity development for government officials and non-government stakeholderssuch as CSOs/community-based organizations so that they understand the value ofthe tool/approach and take part in its implementation. This includes raising the voicesof Community Champions and building and supporting well-informed constituenciesthat continue to advocate for policy reform and sustainable land use after the life ofthe LESTARI project.

Adaptive Management Framework


Overall this approach focuses on ensuring tools, methodologies, and policies are institutionalized and embedded within government programs, allocated adequate budget for implementation, adopted and adapted as required, and implemented by partners with appropriate capabilities and sufficient buy-in. While LESTARI has been working on these sustainability objectives since early in the project, in the final two years there was increased focus on them across all landscapes and initiatives. These sustainability goals are not explicitly captured in results frameworks and indicators, but are important considerations when evaluating effectiveness of project interventions.


2. FINAL ASSESSMENT PURPOSE & METHODOLOGY This section of the report describes the assessment objective , the assessment team composition, key evaluation questions, approaches and methods, audiences, and comments on existing evidence and the limitations. The functional definition of impact for this assessment is that defined by USAID: A result or effect that is caused by or attributable to a project or program. Impact is often used to refer to higher level effects of a program that occur in the medium or long term and can be intended or unintended and positive or negative. (USAID, 2009) In a hierarchical sense, impacts are typically the consequence of lower-order outcomes emerging, such as spatial plans, practice change by village farmers, or the private sector implementing CMMP to name but three. Measurement of the emergence of outcomes is within a shorter timeframe compared to impacts. USAID defines outcomes as a result or effect that is caused by or attributable to the project, program or policy. Outcome is often used to refer to more immediate and intended effects. This assessment adhered to these definitions when discussing the effects of the project.

2.1 OBJECTIVE The objective of this Final Assessment was to measure the performance of LESTARI in achieving its main outcomes and the ability of government and non-government partners to sustain and amplify these outcomes. The Final Assessment was conducted as an internal evaluation, giving LESTARI staff and partners the opportunity to reflect honestly on the progress and challenges of the past five years. In line with this objective, the assessment reviewed to the extent possible, the benefits derived by the various stakeholders in participating landscapes; their approach at the local level to critical issues related on forest and conservation; how it was affected by participating in the activities; and how sustainable the project interventions have proved. Interaction, coordination and facilitation modalities used by LESTARI and other implementing partners participating in the project were reviewed. This Final Assessment results may contribute to USAID, GOI and development partners design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of similarly complex sustainable landscape and biodiversity conservation projects in the future.

2.2 ASSESSMENT TEAM The Final Assessment required a broad range of skills including evaluation methodology, understanding of Indonesia’s complex sustainable landscapes and biodiversity conservation challenges and opportunities (with specific experience preferred in Aceh, Central Kalimantan and Papua), decentralized environmental governance policy and budget expertise, protected area and wildlife conservation management, private sector engagement, livelihoods development, strong analytical and writing skills, and fluency in both English and Bahasa


Indonesia. Based on previous experience managing evaluations and assessments and given the challenge of fielding a technically competent team, LESTARI proposed facilitation of the assessment with an internal team. All technical leadership, design and analysis were conducted by this team. LESTARI also recruited additional professionals through STTA and Service Agreements to assist with data collection. The core members of the Final Assessment Team are listed below. 1. Assessment Team Lead – LESTARI Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator The Team Leader was responsible for overall design, implementation and reporting for the LESTARI Final Assessment; managed the Assessment Team; and ensured timely delivery of all SOW deliverables. The Team Lead ensured a strong and efficient working relationship between the Assessment Team, LESTARI staff and partners, and USAID and GOI colleagues. 2. Environmental Governance Specialist – DCOP for Aceh and Central Kalimantan The Environmental Governance Specialist assessed government and governance issues associated with improved sustainable landscape management and biodiversity conservation, looking at changes in policy, budget allocation and inclusiveness for both achievement of LESTARI outcomes as well as capacity to sustain this beyond the life of project. 3. Conservation Management Specialist – DCOP for Papua / Biodiversity Specialist The Conservation Management Specialist was responsible for quantitative assessment of hectares under improved management, reduced GHG emissions from the land use sector, reduced incidence of poaching, and improved management effectiveness of National Parks and other PAs in the LESTARI supported landscapes. The Specialist was also tasked with documenting qualitative successes in approaches to collaborative management through the involvement of government, civil society, and community and private sector partners. 4. Sustainable Livelihoods & Private Sector Engagement Specialist The Sustainable Livelihoods & Private Sector Engagement Specialist assessed performance and sustainability of LESTARI livelihoods development and private sector engagement work, balancing quantitative and qualitative methodologies to assess performance on income generation and improved business practices as well as its performance toward sustainable forest management and conservation. Emphasis was given to measuring and documenting capacity building and policy reforms required to sustain and possibly amplify this work after LESTARI. Under guidance from this core team, data collection was conducted at the field level by monitoring & evaluation staff and supported by facilitators and note takers. Specific tasks included:

• Lead semi structured interviews • Facilitate FGDs with relevant stakeholders • Writing and documenting all processes • Writing final report


2.3 KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS The LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP) describes project indicators, intended targets/milestones, and evaluation criteria, and served as the key document to guide the Final Assessment process. The AMEP defined several questions below to assess the validity of assumptions illustrated in LESTARI Results Chains (Appendix 5.7); the team added an additional question on institutional capacity building and long-term sustainability given USAID’s new emphasis on assisting development partners on their Journey to Self-Reliance (J2SR). The corresponding Strategic Approach is referenced in brackets.

1. To what extent have LESTARI interventions been effective in reducing threats to biodiversity and positively impact populations of key identified species? (SA 5)

2. To what extent has improved collaboration between government, private sector and community contributed (via co-management and / or green enterprises) to improved forest management / increased conservation stewardship? (SA 4 and 6)

3. To what extent have LESTARI interventions been effective in improving land-use governance? (SA 1, 2, 3)

4. To what extent has the private sector sustained best management practices and reduced its own internal threats to deforestation, degradation and biodiversity conservation? (SA 7)

5. To what extent are LESTARI activities and approaches likely to thrive beyond the LOP? (cross-cutting and considered as part of each main question above)

The key evaluation questions above were broken down into sub-questions and topics specific for each of the strategic approaches, based on document reviews and initial discussions with LESTARI COP and technical team. These questions were augmented by reviewing ToCs and the critical assumptions that were made in the results chains that lead to results, and strived to explain causality and address sustainability. The following is an example from Key Question 1. To what extent have LESTARI interventions been effective in reducing threats to biodiversity and positively impact populations of key identified species? Topics to be covered included the following:

• METT score and LESTARI role in improving PA’s METT score • Tangible impact of improved management and protection of the habitat of key

species • Future resourcing issues to maintain the improved management • Principles for improving PA management that might be applied in other area • The extent to which improved zonation has been effective in establishing co-

management with stakeholders • The extent to which improved zonation has been effective in addressing land-use

conflict • The extent to which LESTARI has been effective in supporting improved zonation • The extent to which LESTARI interventions have been effective in reducing illegal

logging, poaching and wildlife trafficking • The likelihood of SMART Patrol, MMP, WCU/FCU continuing beyond the life of

LESTARI • The scale of human-wildlife conflict in LESTARI supported landscapes • The role of each relevant stakeholder (BKSDA, community, local government) in

mitigating human-wildlife conflict


The full complement of evaluation questions and their related topics is detailed in Appendix 5.1. The final reporting of achievement against all project indicators over the five-year period will be presented in the LESTARI Final Report to be completed in July 2020.

2.4 METHODOLOGY Considering the complex nature of the project, the assessment team used a mix-method approach to answer the above questions. This included evaluability assessment, focus group discussions and interviews, desk review and analysis using qualitative and quantitative data, and case study analysis. These approaches are summarized below. Evaluability Assessment1: The evaluability assessment examined the extent to which a program under LESTARI could be evaluated in a reliable and credible fashion. To address this process, several steps were taken as follows:

• Reviewed technical project documents and its mid-term evaluation report • Reviewed the progress of each Strategic Approach through a series of discussions

with technical team leaders. During these discussions, ToC were dissected to understand whether the expected outputs occurred and whether the outputs led to expected outcomes. The results of these discussions were used to sharpen FGDs and/or interview questions during field data collection.

Case study This involved detailed study of a specific unit (a group, locality, government institution) involving open-ended questioning and the preparation of ‘histories’ that illustrate aspects of the impact mechanism that provide lessons and future recommendations. It is important to note that case studies were not carried out for all programs or interventions, but rather used to gain a comprehensive understanding of a specific intervention. After evaluability assessment, a decision was made by the assessment team to undertake a case study for Model Desa Mandiri (MDM) – an initiative under Wildlife Response Unit in Leuser Landscape. This initiative was selected because it was a new approach which empowered the community to mitigate human-wildlife conflict. While piloting was implemented in a small scale – only covering 6 villages – success was indicated in one or two villages that was deemed worth exploring.

Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and Semi-Structured Interviews

• FGD were carried out to gain community perspectives on LESTARI interventions. The facilitator also explored communities’ motivations, changing perceptions and behaviors related to forest protection and conservation. The information gained during discussion were further analyzed to enrich findings obtained from other assessment methods. A list of community groups engaged is provided in Appendix 5.3.

• Semi-structured interviews were used to solicit information from experts and/or key informants—including government officials, private sector actors, and community leaders. These key informants considered to have particular knowledge about certain issues, provided insights on the context (local, national), policies, and political situation behind a particular program or initiative. The team used phone and face-to-face interview to obtain information from key informants. A list of key informants is provided in Appendix 5.3.

1 A study conducted to determine a) whether the program is at a stage at which progress toward objectives is likely to be observable; b) whether and how an evaluation would be useful to program managers and/or policymakers; and c) the feasibility of conducting an evaluation (USAID Glossary of Evaluation Terms, 2009).


• Guidelines were provided for FGD facilitators and interviewers to implement the techniques in a proper manner as outlined in Appendix 5.1.

Field Visits to Aceh, Central Kalimantan, and Papua provinces were carried out to collect data and information using the methods explained above.

2.5 AUDIENCE There are two categories of audiences interested in this report: those who will use the findings and those with an interest in knowing what has happened. Those who will use the findings include USAID and other development partners, GOI, and the LESTARI team (including Tetra Tech and subcontractor and grantee partners) for the purposes of accountability and learning from project successes and shortcomings. In addition, for USAID and GOI, this assessment may inform the design and implementation of future sustainable landscapes and biodiversity conservation programs and initiatives. Those who have an interest in the findings include the stakeholders that were interviewed; they will receive a summarized version of the report for their reference.

2.6 SAMPLING METHOD Samples for this assessment were selected using a purposive sampling method (also known as judgment, selective or subjective sampling), a sampling technique by which assessors rely on his or her own judgment when choosing members of the population to participate in the study. Taking into account that this assessment was conducted internally with limited time and resources, the M&E team decided to select one to two key programs/activities under each initiative to be evaluated. It was expected that the lessons learned (contributing factors, potential replication and sustainability) from these evaluated activities could be used as further reference for the audience of this report. The assessment also examined initiatives considered less successful than anticipated to understand what went wrong during the project implementation, factors inhibiting success, challenges, and constraints faced by the project.

2.7 CHALLENGES / LIMITATIONS Apart from the semi-structured interviews, FGDs and case studies, most of the data for measurement against the targets came from LESTARI reports, including those from subcontractors (e.g., percentage reduction in poaching, increase in METT scores). This field assessment data, however, cannot be used for attribution because of difficulties in recognizing control and treatment areas – a common problem with complex projects. However, it does describe trends in the target landscapes regardless of their causal relationships with project interventions. The overall challenges and limitations of this Final Assessment are summarized below.

• Determining attribution and causality of LESTARI work towards project outcomes is difficult. LESTARI interventions occur in a wide variety of socio-cultural, political and economic contexts. They cannot easily be isolated from the impacts of other donor interventions within the same landscapes, from government policies and programs, and from shifts in the national/landscape political economy.

• Evaluating progress towards the GHG emissions reduction target was not considered as part of this Final Assessment. GHG emissions reduction numbers will be presented in the Final Report. The analysis has been conducted in-house using the Forest Reference Emission Level (FREL) methodology. As mentioned above,


changes in GHG emissions in project supported landscapes cannot be directly attributed to project interventions.

• Change is not always linear and project impacts may not be observed or quantified in

the short-term.

• Due to limited time and resources, the Final Assessment did not cover all project initiatives– a sampling was taken for each main question.

• The assessment was conducted internally by the LESTARI team in the interest of

time and cost efficiency. While the assessment team attempted to record and report on findings in an entirely neutral and objective manner, a small level of subjectivity is expected. The findings cannot be claimed as independent.


3. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 3.1 PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS Key to success in improving protected areas’ management capacity is building protected area management leadership, increasing management on the ground including protection of core areas to combat poaching and deforestation, and adopting M&E systems to assess the effectiveness of management interventions and adapt approaches as needed. LESTARI focused on the socialization and application of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) through advocating and strengthening multi-stakeholder involvement to assess management effectiveness in protected areas (PA) (or conservation areas, CA) embedded in its supported landscapes. The METT score system is based on 30 assessment parameters that integrate all six elements of the IUCN-World Commission on Protected Areas Framework. These elements are: context; planning; inputs; process; outputs; and, outcomes. The METT scores enable park managers and project implementers to identify needs, constraints, and priority actions to improve protected area performance. It provides a mechanism for monitoring progress towards more effective management over time and has been applied to the entire Indonesian protected area network of 398 sites for the years 2015 (baseline), 2017, and 2019. To boost effectiveness, KLHK set a minimum target score of 70%. Baseline METT assessments were conducted in a participatory manner to enable PA managers to take ownership of METT scores and commit to improving their management shortcomings. It was expected that improvements in METT scores will translate into improved conservation outcomes on the ground. However, METT is not just conservation outcomes – on the contrary – most points are inputs and enabling conditions needed in the early stages of effective management. Moreover, a technical training program – including tools such as SMART (Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool) – was delivered to PA managers in order to improve monitoring and enforcement against wildlife crimes and illegal poaching. Awareness and advocacy were also emphasized to increase public engagement and pressure on PA authorities to improve their management practices. This approach is also linked to co-management initiatives in areas adjacent to PAs, as many threats from encroachment arise from bordering areas. A further assumption was that PAs could improve and implement key aspects of their management plan if they are provided adequate financing. Therefore, LESTARI attempted to identify and develop innovative financing plans for PA. Furthermore, the success of LESTARI in implementing a landscape approach requires effective policy engagement at multiple levels of governance and across multiple stakeholders. LESTARI coordinated with the national and provincial level governments to ensure effective coordination and supporting policies for PA management. SUMMARY OF INITIATIVES LESTARI worked with the Directorate General of Natural Resources and Ecosystem Conservation (KSDAE) at KLHK to improve management in six PAs located within LESTARI supported landscapes. Through this cooperation, LESTARI supported a number of major initiatives to improve PA management such as supporting the implementation of METT to measure, monitor, and improve management effectiveness by involving technical unit management (UPT) staff, local government, NGOs, and local communities. In addition,


LESTARI provided support for PA long term management plans and zonation plans. A ‘boots-on-the-ground’ approach was carried out through assistance for technology-based SMART patrols including patrol planning, staff training, database management, and patrols in areas regarded as disturbance-prone. For wildlife protection and conservation, LESTARI provided support by installing camera traps, conducting inventory of key wildlife species (e.g., Sumatran tiger and endemic Papuan species), and combating wildlife crimes (Wildlife Crime Unit/WCU), forest crimes (Forest Crime Unit/FCU), as well as human-wildlife conflict mitigation (Wildlife Response Unit/WRU). All these activities were planned together with PA managers and compiled with Annual Work Plans (RKT). RKT is a formal cooperation document used to fill the gaps that technical units face in managing their areas, and are evaluated annually to improve the following year’s work plan. The main initiatives supported by LESTARI in the six PAs are listed in the following table.

Main Areas of Technical Assistance Provided by LESTARI to Six Partner PAs

Landscape / Protected

Area METT

Evaluation SMART Patrol

Management

Planning (RPJP)

Zonation Revision

Conservation

Partnerships

Biodiversity Surveys and Monitoring

Species Conservat

ion

Gunung Leuser National Park

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Rawa Singkil Wildlife Reserve

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Sebangau National Park ✔ ✔ ✔

Bukit Baka Bukit Raya National Park

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Lorentz National Park ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Cyclops Nature Reserve

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

HAVE LESTARI INTERVENTIONS CONTRIBUTED TO THE IMPROVED MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION OF THE HABITAT OF KEY SPECIES? For protected areas to fulfil their biodiversity conservation objectives, it is important to measure and evaluate site-based conservation activities to improve management effectiveness. Two complementary approaches have been applied by KLHK to achieve this. Firstly, the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) is a widely used tool to assess protected area effectiveness. In 2015, the KSDAE adopted METT for its terrestrial protected area network which set a minimum target score of 70%. Secondly, SMART (Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool) is an adaptive management system that is used to strategically guide forest ranger patrols to stop poachers, curb the illegal trade of wildlife and illegal logging, and also record key features observed by patrol teams. This section presents the results of the support that LESTARI provided to CA’s to set up and implement their respective SMART patrol systems and to conduct METT assessments. For the protected areas located in LESTARI supported landscapes, support was provided for METT trainings for park staff and technical assistance to conduct the assessments. From 2015 to 2019, there was an average METT score increase from 43% to 79%. The greatest increases were from Cyclops Nature Reserve and Rawa Singkil Wildlife Reserve.


Summary of METT Scores for PAs Supported by LESTARI

Protected Area Baseline Midterm Final Gunung Leuser NP 65 75 71

Rawa Singkil WS 55 66 81

Sebangau NP 62 73 77

Bukit Baka Bukit Raya NP 64 74 79

Lorentz NP 52 60 70

Cyclops NR 43 61 71 Over the past five years LESTARI has conducted at least 13 activities and programs that have contributed to the improvement of 16 out of 30 METT indicators (see Appendix 5.6 for details). The METT assessment, particularly the gaps identified, was an effective way to support the protected area authority’s decision-making process. For example, in the 2015 METT assessment, revising the Gunung Leuser NP zonation plan was identified as an important activity to improve park management, and this was then conducted in 2019. Similarly, for Singkil WR, the ‘blocking’ (similar to zonation) and RPJP development was finalized with support from LESTARI in 2019 and contributed to the improved METT score. However, it should be noted that the METT tool itself still needs to be improved. METT evaluations do not comprehensively reflect the actual PA management conditions on the ground. METT also can measure and diagnose, but not necessarily improve conservation effectiveness. Technical staff capacity and staff transfer / rotation are factors influencing the accuracy and objectivity of METT scores. In addition, until now there has been no incentive and disincentive scheme for PA managers who have reached or failed to reach the target score of 70%. These factors are understood by KSDAE and will be the point of evaluation for the use of METT in the future. Ranger patrols are an essential part of protected area management and have therefore been a central part of the LESTARI strategy towards assisting area managers. In support of this, LESTARI significantly invested in the training and implementation of SMART patrols for the PA managers. As a result, they are now beginning to show that they can carry out this activity effectively. For instance in TNGL, the park management now uses the SMART-RBM system to undertake reviews of staff patrol performance and identify hotspots of illegal activities in need of increased attention. In return, it has resulted in a significant increase in law enforcement actions. In addition, LESTARI facilitated other trainings to improve PA management covering financial planning, development of short-term management plans, human-wildlife conflict mitigation techniques, and METT assessment. In Indonesia, the introduction of SMART has been led by KLHK, and it is being used to enhance management effectiveness through the ‘resort-based management’ (RBM) approach, which channels resources to the resort level – the smallest administrative unit. Over five years, LESTARI supported a total of 90 SMART ranger teams in 36 out of 48 resorts across six PAs, resulting in 599 patrols being conducted over 30,000 km. This resulted in the removal of 283 snare traps and the detection of 3,660 illegal logging points that were reported to the authorities. The training and implementation of SMART, particularly in Gunung Leuser NP, has been used as a successful model that has been replicated in other protected areas, notably Way Kambas NP (Lampung Province) and Bogani Nani Wartabone NP (North Sulawesi and Gorontalo Provinces). In TNGL, along with SMART patrol activities, LESTARI also supported a widespread camera trap survey to estimate the abundance and distribution of KLHK priority wildlife species (e.g., Sumatran tiger and Sumatran rhino) as a means to identify priority habitat for increased protection and improved


spatial planning. This was the first ever science-based camera trap survey completed for western Leuser. One of the key findings was that, contrary to initial assumptions, tigers were recorded in the hill, sub-montane and montane forest habitat types, but not the lowland forest study area, which is typically prey-rich prime tiger habitat. The results clearly show the core areas that must continue to be protected by SMART patrols, especially where tigers are reproducing. This approach would then enable tiger population recovery into the lowland forests, which would normally represent high quality tiger habitat. The operation of SMART provided a compelling way to monitor ranger patrols, demonstrating the huge patrol effort and wide spatial coverage achieved across the landscapes. This was instrumental in leveraging other NGO partners to use and strengthen this system. The patrol information also provides the protected area authority with an up-to-date overview of the area’s situation, which is crucial for enhanced decision-making and, ultimately, improving management effectiveness. The SMART system was introduced in all six PAs and successfully operated over the project, especially in Gunung Leuser NP and Singkil WR. Refresher training is required for rangers, data operators, and senior managers to ensure that they continue to operate SMART as an adaptive management system. At the national level, it is recommended that KLHK connect the different SMART databases, perhaps starting with PA’s on Sumatra island, using the SMART Connect facility. This would enable comparisons within an emerging protected area network. In general, SMART patrols have received endorsement from KSDAE to be applied in all protected areas in Indonesia. However, the presence or absence of support from partner institutions will greatly affect the quality and quantity of the implementation of the patrols on the ground. With a limited government budget for PAs, SMART patrols will still be implemented, but with a smaller number of teams, less frequently, and over a shorter time period. In the case of TNGL, LESTARI has leveraged the support of an additional 28 patrol teams operating over 496,400 hectares in total and doubled the length of time that they operate. LESTARI has also engaged other NGOs to share field data and coordinate patrols using the same SMART standard. In Gunung Leuser NP, LESTARI supported 4 SMART patrol teams, but there were 24 other teams funded by other NGOs. In the case of Bukit Baka Bukit Raya NP, LESTARI worked in the Central Kalimantan side but leveraged an additional SMART patrol team in West Kalimantan with another NGO partner. This shows that partner support is still one of the main factors needed to make up for PA funding shortfalls and contribute to on-the-ground forest protection in PAs. Although many projects have continuously worked for decades in several protected areas such as USAID in Leuser and Aceh (IFACS and LESTARI, 2010-2020) and WCS in Bukit Barisan Selatan NP (since 1996), these funding sources should not be considered fully financially sustainable over long-term timescales, partly due to a risk of donor fatigue and changes in donor priorities. To amplify impact to broader areas, PA managers need greater capacity and innovation in developing partnerships with a broader range of potential partners and funding sources – Village Funds, APBD through FMUs, corporate CSR, and community forest protection groups, among others. It is equally important that PA staff and KLHK have sufficient internal capacity to conduct sound and efficient financial planning at the site level that maximizes use of budgets and self-reliance while aligning with the management plan for the protected area. At the same time, KLHK should strongly advocate for central government to continue funding its protected areas, through demonstrating their importance for climate, biodiversity, and livelihood needs, especially when justifying budgets to parliamentarians who are not experts in these issues.


HAVE LESTARI INTERVENTIONS REDUCED THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY FROM LARGE-SCALE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND SMALL-SCALE AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT? The establishment of zones in national parks and blocks in nature reserves and wildlife sanctuaries are basic requirements for effective management and legally required based on KLHK Regulation No. P.35/2011 concerning Procedures for Nature Reserve and Wildlife Sanctuary Management Plan Development. Zonation or blocking plans are spatial plans for conservation areas in accordance with regulations and law enforcement and are meant to be implemented in a clear and strict manner. Therefore zones/blocks are critical in PA management systems, not only as reference in determining conservation management and development planning in PAs, but also as a comprehensive protection system. Regular revisions in these plans are also required, including public participation and socialization, as consequence of regional development, needs of traditional communities, and strategic infrastructure development interests. During the project period, LESTARI actively facilitated zonation and blocking planning activities in three PAs – Lorentz NP and Cyclops Wildlife Reserve in Papua and Singkil Wildlife Reserve in Aceh. In Lorentz NP, the zonation revision needed to be carried out considering a number of strategic activities and in alignment with the national park’s existing management plan. These strategic activities included: (1) National Strategic Areas (Kawasan Strategis Nasional/KSN) such as infrastructure development for national roads, ports, telecommunication towers, boat terminal, hangar/airport; (2) Updating data on indigenous peoples’ areas, village/settlement data, threats data, utilization for ecotourism, species and ecosystem distribution inside the national park; (3) Previous zonation had not yet accommodated development dynamics in the spatial plan of the surrounding administrative regions (Mimika, Paniai, Puncak, Puncak Jaya, Lanny Jaya, Jayawijaya, Nduga, Asmat, Intan Jaya, and Yahukimo); and 4) taking into account natural disasters. During Lorentz NP zonation revision, LESTARI contributed to designing and development of the zonation document by engaging experts needed in spatial planning and analyzing classification of eight land use zones: core zone, wilderness zone, utilization zone, marine protection zone, specific use zone, traditional use zone, rehabilitation zone, and religious use zone. LESTARI also played a significant role in zonation document finalization, public consultation, and final approval from KSDAE. Due to the revision, the specific use zone and the utilization zones decreased in size while the core zone and traditional use zone areas were increased. Importantly, these approved zonation plans were socialized with the Papua government at provincial and district levels, and in the case of Mimika District, used in the development of the SEA that became the basis for spatial plan revisions. Similar to the process in Lorentz NP, LESTARI’s role in designing ‘management blocks’ (similar to ‘management zones’ in National Parks) for Rawa Singkil WR was also done in a comprehensive manner. This included facilitation of team formation, management block design and compilation by engaging spatial and analysis experts, public consultation, and document approval by KLHK. Through this process, Rawa Singkil WR was classified into five management block types: rehabilitation block (1,073.97 ha); religion, culture and history block (78.38 ha); and special use block (10,074.82 ha) with a total area of 81,802.22 ha. Based on these interventions, threats from large-scale infrastructure development, particularly road construction, have been minimized and do not pose a large or immediate negative impact on PA management as long the synchronization of development planning by both parties are in place. On one side, the PA manager made adjustments to their management plan through the re-zonation and RPJP revision to accommodate any development that has or will likely occur in the PA due to national priorities. Large-scale national projects must carry out various impact studies and synergize with these adjusted PA management and zonation plans. For example in Lorentz NP, information derived from an


interview with the park head showed that the Trans Papua road project that passed the park in the highland area was planned in synergy and coordination between parties in all levels, from national down to provincial. At the national level, the commitment was raised between DG KSDAE of KLHK and DG Bina Marga of PUPR through signing an MoU for Trans Papua development in Lorentz NP in June 2017. At the provincial level, this agreement was then followed up through collaboration between Lorentz NP and the Balai Besar Pelaksanaan Jalan Nasional XVIII Jayapura. With this synergy it is expected that any further construction of this national road will mitigate some environmental impacts and not significantly damage the sustainability of ecosystems and biodiversity in the park. LESTARI assistance to PAs also helped to mitigate threats from small-scale agriculture and mining. In Gunung Leuser NP, LESTARI helped to facilitate a successful Conservation Partnership agreement between communities and national park, helping to bridge two-way communication and securing commitment from the community to avoid further encroachment in exchange for limited land area for cultivation. In Bukit Baka Bukit Raya NP, the incidence of small-scale unlicensed gold mining has begun to decrease significantly, particularly in areas being monitored by SMART patrols. However, there is no doubt that several threats continue to pose a challenge for these PA managers, including the expansion of small holder oil palm plantations and forest fires, which require a comprehensive and multi-stakeholder driven response. HAVE LESTARI INTERVENTIONS REDUCED THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY FROM ILLEGAL LOGGING, POACHING AND WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING? The Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT) and illegal timber trade involve well-organized criminal networks (from both within and outside landscape areas2) that are skilled in circumventing detection by law enforcement agencies, which are often insufficiently resourced to counter these deep and complex threats. In Indonesia, illegal trade in wildlife and timber is occurring at an alarming scale, as shown by the unsustainable volumes and huge diversity of species being traded that has pushed many species to the brink of extinction. KLHK estimates that in recent years, the country has lost between 1.6 million and 2.8 million hectares of forest annually (between 3 and 5 hectares a minute) to illegal logging and land conversion3. Meanwhile, logging has degraded much of the remaining forest cover and, as easily accessible forests have been cleared, loggers are moving into pristine forests in once remote areas like Sumatra and Kalimantan. For instance, the Leuser Landscape is highly prized by traffickers because it is still home to a high number of in-demand and valuable wildlife species (e.g., Sumatran Rhino, Sumatran Tiger) and high-quality tropical hardwood trees (Cengal tree - Neobalanocarpus sp, Meranti tree - Dipterocarpaceae sp). WCU reported that the traffickers were distributed in almost 20 regencies surrounding TNGL and Rawa Singkil WR to profit from illegal trade in protected wildlife for the purposes of traditional medicine, souvenirs, or even for private pets. To tackle IWT and illegal logging, LESTARI supported two key actions: (1) forest ranger anti-poaching patrols and (2) a Wildlife Crimes Unit (WCU) and a Forest Crimes Unit (FCU) to monitor and report wildlife trafficking and illegal logging to government agencies to instigate the arrest and prosecution of the perpetrators. From the six PAs, three were measured for poaching of key species: most intensively in Gunung Leuser National Park and Cyclops Nature Reserve, and where logistically feasible Lorentz National Park. Data from PA managers showed high rates of poaching in these areas. Meanwhile in Sebangau and Bukit Baka Bukit Raya NPs and Rawa Singkil Wildlife Sanctuary, the priority was not on reducing poaching as the major threats included encroachment, illegal logging, and other disturbances such as illegal gold mining, land clearing for roads, and fishing and NTFP collection without permits.

2 https://www.usaidwildlifeasia.org/ 3 UNODC.2019. Illegal logging in Indonesia: the link between forest crime and corruption

https://www.usaidwildlifeasia.org/


Data from SMART patrols was used to establish baseline poaching rates (measured as observe incidents per distance patrolled) and calculate annual changes. Data from the past five years shows significant decline in poaching rates in all three PAs. As of the end of Year 4, a 90% decline was observed in Gunung Leuser NP, 95% in Cyclops NR, and 88% in Lorentz NP. SMART data is used to focus conservation efforts to the most at risk areas while occasionally patrolling areas that are less frequently disturbed. Therefore, the entire PA is not surveyed with equal effort throughout, and some PA resorts will be surveyed more frequently than others. Where changes in threats are detected more resources and attention are given leading to more effective reduction in illegal activities.

Decline in Poaching Rate in Three Target PAs

Protected Area Active Poaching (AP) Incidents/100km % AP

Reduction vs Baseline

2015-2016 (Baseline) 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019

Gunung Leuser NP 9.6 7.7 2.4 0.96 90 % Cyclops NR 25 7 3 1 95 % Lorentz NP - 33.79 (Baseline) 26.5 4 84 %

To monitor and report illegal wildlife trafficking, LESTARI supported Wildlife Crimes Unit efforts to map wildlife trafficking networks in the Leuser Landscape. With LESTARI support, the Wildlife Crimes Unit identified the ‘kingpins’ (i.e., those with most connections in the trade network). These suspects were then targeted and monitored by the government law enforcement agencies, which conducted sting operations and arrests. To date, the Wildlife Crimes Unit successfully developed a network of 35 informants who were engaged to monitor and report wildlife trafficking. Their information was provided to law enforcement agency partners and resulted in 26 sting operations and the arrest of 54 wildlife poachers and traffickers. Of these, 85% were prosecuted (46 suspects) and 15% are awaiting trial. The average sentence for the 46 suspects was 19 months in prison and an IDR 51 million fine. The Forest Crimes Unit and the SMART patrol teams provided information to government partners that resulted in a further 24 law enforcement operations and the arrest of 26 suspects (7 poachers, 1 encroacher, and 18 illegal loggers). One suspect was sentenced to six months in prison, five suspects received a warning letter, and the rest are awaiting trial. The Wildlife Crimes Unit and Forest Crimes Unit are designed to be inexpensive to operate so that they can be externally funded and independent. This is important for operating sources of information in the landscape communities who will readily provide information to a trusted NGO partner. Based on the Leuser Landscape achievements, the WCU model has been replicated in the Bogani Nani Wartabone NP landscape in northern Sulawesi, with the Leuser team advising on its set up. This represents the first comprehensive counter-wildlife trafficking intervention in Sulawesi. Previous efforts primarily focused on monitoring wildlife trade, whereas since 2018 an informant network has been frequently providing actionable information to government law enforcement agencies that, in response, conducted sting operations. These mainly succeeded in arresting poachers, middlemen and traders, who were then prosecuted. A key component of this new enhanced approach in North Sulawesi is the provision of counter-wildlife trafficking training to the government law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and judges. The WCU and FCU proved to be a cost-effective way to work with a wide range of government law enforcement agencies, including the Gunung Leuser NP authority and BKSDA Aceh. Budgets were shared for operational costs among partners (KLHK Law Enforcement – GAKKUM, BKSDA Aceh, NGOs), during the implementation of activities, such as investigation, reconnaissance, or law enforcement. The collaboration increased


prosecution rates, notably for illegal logging, and the engagement of prosecutors and judges to better understand forestry crimes is considered to have been influential. Across the landscape a variety of information, from local informants, community outreach, SMART patrols, and stakeholder discussions, is being collected in large volumes. To take full advantage of these sources of information to improve the counter-wildlife trafficking response, it is recommended to develop an integrated protection model that uses principles of intelligence-led enforcement to optimize wildlife and forest protection by proactively using all available information to target priority offenders and implement a preventative strategy, with support from a skilled intelligence analyst. HAVE LESTARI INTERVENTIONS REDUCED THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY ARISING FROM COMMUNITY-WILDLIFE CONFLICT? As forest habitats shrink, the likelihood of contact between wildlife and humans rises. Particularly in regions bordering PAs, human-wildlife conflict is a major issue affecting the safety, well-being, and livelihoods of local communities in Indonesia. In LESTARI supported landscapes, the most frequent human-wildlife conflicts took place surrounding Gunung Leuser NP (the jurisdiction of BKSDA Aceh) and involved key species such as Sumatran elephant, tiger, and orangutan. Incidents typically occur as a result of elephant crop-raiding, tiger attacks on livestock, or by either species causing harm to people. Conflicts are often escalated through the clearance and fragmentation of forest habitat for farmland or plantations. These incidents have a high potential to make communities antagonistic and intolerant towards wildlife and, in turn, result in the retribution killing of animals believed to pose a threat, as well as undermining and impeding conservation efforts. So, unless management measures such as conflict mitigation response teams are in place, it is difficult to implement wider conservation strategies in the affected forest-edge farming communities. To address this conservation and livelihood issue, LESTARI supported three Wildlife Response Units. These units are tasked with: (1) rapidly responding to community reports and preventing conflict situations from further escalation and (2) empowering communities to construct tiger-proof livestock enclosures and become self-sufficient in mitigating conflicts. Local communities logged 241 reports of human-wildlife conflict over February 2017 – March 2020, involving tiger (94 incidents), elephant (96 incidents) and orangutan (51 incidents). The Wildlife Response Units and Aceh Nature Conservation Agency (BKSDA) were called to assist in handling the majority of cases.

Human-Wildlife Conflict Responses by BKSDA Aceh

Period Number of Incidents Requiring Response

Feb 2017 – May 2017 11 Oct 2017 – Jul 2018 44 Aug 2018 – Aug 2019 68

Sep 2019 – Mar 2020 58 Although the number of incidents is still high and increased in two out of the last three years, the outcome for wildlife has shown some improvement. Since 2015, no tigers have been killed due to conflict in this landscape, compared to an average loss of 1.6 tigers/year in the eight years preceding LESTARI. Also through training in 221 villages, 1,251 people were empowered by BKSDA Aceh-LESTARI through participating in training and awareness raising events on human-wildlife conflict mitigation techniques and raising reports of wildlife ‘conflicts’ which can range from destruction of property and crops to the sighting of wildlife in the vicinity but with no damage occurring.


To support forest-edge communities to become self-reliant in managing human-wildlife conflicts, the project supported a wider Leuser initiative, designed by LESTARI team member WCS, called Masyarakat Desa Mandiri (self-sufficient villages). This involves the creation of well-trained village conflict mitigation teams and assisting the partnering villages in developing village budget (Dana Desa) plans that incorporate operational support for their team. LESTARI supported the establishment of six demonstration self-sufficient villages in five districts, namely Terlis, Bunbun Indah, Batu Napal, Darussalam, Panton Luas and Suka Damai Villages. WCS and BKSDA used these demonstration villages to show other communities located in conflict-prone areas (215 villages in Aceh and 37 villages in North Sumatra) how they themselves could independently manage wildlife encounters without harm or loss to themselves or wildlife. Working effectively with communities in the Leuser Landscape would have been difficult if LESTARI had not been proactively providing support to mitigate wildlife conflicts, because it is a key livelihood issue. Project efforts to tackle human-wildlife conflicts were appreciated by community partners and enabled good relations to be developed and maintained throughout the project. This has created a community conservation constituency with raised awareness of the key threats, and which provided reports on poaching and illegal logging incidents for forest ranger teams to address. Human-wildlife conflict mitigation was also an effective way to explain to district government partners the linkages between local livelihoods, environment, and the ecosystem services provided by the forests, which should be simultaneously safeguarded. Tiger, elephant, and orangutan encounters are widespread in the Leuser Landscape. A steady number of community reports of wildlife conflict have been seen over the last three years, highlighting the underlying issue of expansion of community plantations into wildlife habitats. Over the short-term, it is important that support is provided to BKSDA Aceh to swiftly respond to reports of conflict, as conducted under LESTARI. Greater investments should also be put into replicating the Masyarakat Desa Mandiri concept in forest-edge communities, using the demonstration villages to show how village budgets can be used to sustainably finance this approach.


Summary of the Main Findings

Main Outcomes • LESTARI support contributed to a rise in METT scores in all six PAs. All PAs reached METT scores of at least 70%, which is the minimum target set by KLHK. Together these PAs cover more than 2.4 million hectares in area.

• The incidence of poaching of key species within resorts of targeted PAs (Leuser NP, Cyclops NR, and Lorentz NP) was reduced by 90%.

• LESTARI has facilitated various trainings and technical assistance. As a result, area managers are now able to conduct effective management planning, data collection and analysis from SMART, biodiversity surveys, and zonation planning.

Drivers to Success

• METT has become the responsibility of all UPTs and is institutionalized in KLHK’s Strategic Plan. This is because Indonesia has ratified the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) which requires each CA to assess its management effectiveness bi-annually.

• LESTARI developed joint annual work plans (RKT) with each PA management body. This document contains the commitment of both parties in improving the management of the area through zoning activities, RPJP, patrols, and so on. This facilitated smooth coordination and implementation of field activities.

• In 2016, the DG of KSDAE issued an instruction to encourage the implementation of SMART patrols in all conservation areas in Indonesia although this is not mandatory as is the case with regulations. The data from the patrols has been used to develop UPT strategies and work plans in improving protection and management.

Barriers to Success

• METT is largely input based and needs to be modified to focus more on conservation outcomes and impact in order to drive continuous improvement in PA management.

• METT evaluations do not comprehensively reflect the actual PA management conditions on the ground. METT also can measure and diagnose, but not necessarily improve conservation effectiveness.

• The SMART instruction is not mandatory so there is no obligation for the UPT to carry out SMART patrols.

• The SMART directive has not been accompanied by any significant additional funding support for SMART patrols within PAs from KLHK.

• Currently 131 out of 550 conservation areas nationwide are implementing SMART patrols. This shows that the adoption of a fully integrated SMART patrol system by UPT is still relatively low. It is largely due to dependence on assistance from external partners for both funding and technical training on the SMART system (data management, analysis, and utilization).



Potential for Sustainability

• PA management assisted by LESTARI now have the capacity to independently plan, collect data, and report on patrol outcomes. They are also able to conduct simple spatial analysis using zoning data. However, they still need assistance to improve capacity on data processing and analysis as well as to implement the conservation partnerships scheme.

• A lack of sufficient funding will hinder sustainability. LESTARI encouraged PA managers to leverage support for SMART patrol implementation through NGO partners. In TNGL, LESTARI only supported four SMART patrol teams, but there was a total of 24 SMART patrol teams funded by NGOs. Leuser NP were able to fund all patrol cost in all 25 resorts but budgets were sufficient for seven days patrol/month. With additional support from donors/NGOs the patrol duration was extended to 14 days/month. In Bukit Baka Bukit Raya National park, LESTARI only worked in the Central Kalimantan side, but additional patrol support was provided by an NGO partner for the West Kalimantan portion of the park. However, external support from NGO partners will generally be limited, and PA managers must be able to find funding potential from other, more sustainable sources.

• Given the vast size of PAs, management needs to be localized and specialized based on small management units (i.e., resorts). For example, Lorentz NP is vast and includes terrestrial and marine areas, and lowlands and highlands. Similarly, part of Bukit Baka Bukit Raya NP lies outside of LESTARI’s work area in West Kalimantan Province.

• For SMART patrols to have legitimacy, and as part of the LESTARI sustainability strategy, it is essential that patrol teams are led by government rangers. It is critical to ensure that sufficient human resources are available.


REFLECTION: WHAT WORKED AND WHY, AND WHAT NEXT?

• PA management concerns not only the measures taken within national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, nature reserves, and grand forest parks. It also needs to include management efforts in areas outside PAs that function as buffer zones. The LESTARI approach of working both within PAs and with communities residing in adjacent areas proved effective in reducing threats to PAs. Activity coordination and synergy under a partnership umbrella with FMUs, private sector, and local governments is one of the main factors to PA management effectiveness.

• LESTARI combined work through its technical approaches (i.e., comprehensive protection and monitoring) by also integrating the social, cultural, and political economy aspects of surrounding communities to achieve objectives for collaborative forest management and strengthening village institutions in and around PAs.

• Communication and collaboration efforts that LESTARI made were effective in securing buy in from communities, as well as for cross-sectoral efforts with numerous stakeholders. Through this approach, nearly all of LESTARI’s programs were accepted by communities and were well-implemented. One important factor was taking part in joint annual work plan development with PA managers, clearly demonstrating how LESTARI would help to fill gaps and align with PA managers’ own objectives.

• Greater local law enforcement efforts are required for SMART patrols to be effective and act as deterrents to committing forest/environmental crimes. Numerous patrol and community empowerment measures will be futile if clear and consistent law enforcement measures are not taken against perpetrators.

• For the illegal wildlife trade, most of the demand is being driven by actors outside of the local landscape level, by regional markets in Asia for traditional medicine or exotic pets. This requires a broad and comprehensive response orchestrated by national governments in the region. The COVID-19 pandemic may provide the impetus for greater action.

• Continuity of capacity building for PA managers is still needed. Reliance on external partners should be reduced and handed over to formal institutions for training such as the KLHK Training Center (Pusat Pendidikan dan Pelatihan/PUSDIKLAT). This training center has already adopted a SMART patrol curriculum within its training modules and syllabus.

• The MDM initiative helped to change community perceptions towards wildlife and build a shared sense of responsibility for forest and wildlife protection. It also increased community self-reliance in dealing with human-wildlife conflict. BKSDA Aceh would like to amplify this initiative but is limited by funding availability. Other local government agencies have also expressed support for MDM but have yet to commit the financial support required for training and implementation.


3.2 IMPROVED FOREST MANAGEMENT THROUGH CO-MANAGEMENT, FMU STRENGTHENING, AND GREEN ENTERPRISES DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS Co-management Key to project success was building capacity and commitment for collaborative forest management (or co-management) among local communities, local government agencies, national parks, private sector, and other relevant actors to reduce threats to areas adjacent to protected areas (PAs) and other critical forested areas. As per IUCN, LESTARI defined Co-management as “a situation in which two or more parties negotiate, define and guarantee amongst themselves a fair sharing of the management functions, entitlements, and responsibilities for a given territory, area, or set of natural resources”. Reduced pressure on PA and forest resources would result through more transparent, negotiated roles and responsibilities for sustainable natural resource use and conservation between the parties. Through facilitating dialogue between key stakeholders and communities, capacity developed in village communities would enable better negotiation with district, provincial and national parties to secure and benefit from co-management agreements to protect local natural resources. Where co-management took the form of social forestry schemes4 or Partnership schemes5, legal access would help secure opportunities for sustainable forest-based livelihoods for communities over the long-term and reduce threats to forest and biodiversity The strategic approach, supported by awareness and advocacy, would increase the willingness of key stakeholders to develop co-management agreements with communities. It was also linked to green enterprise and innovative financing mechanisms where co-management agreements provided incentives for communities to participate in forest protection. FMU Strengthening Due to the reorganization and recentralization of responsibilities for forest management and emphasis of Forest Management Units (FMU), LESTARI also supported development and operationalization of FMUs as a spearhead of improved forest management at the grassroot level. These emerging institutions are responsible for the day-to-day management of vast areas of biodiverse forest outside of the national parks system, and hence engagement with FMUs was considered an important opportunity. The development hypothesis was that with stakeholder involvement in each stage of FMU development and communication at various levels, FMUs would implement multi-benefit and multi-stakeholder forest management concept in line with co-management principles. Co-management in FMU areas would require building FMU capacity to establish partnerships with local communities and private sector stakeholders and result in positive outcomes for forest management, biodiversity conservation as well as community welfare. Green Enterprises Environment-friendly or sustainable local enterprises including ecotourism were termed green enterprises. LESTARI’s development hypothesis was that direct and positive benefits (most importantly improved livelihoods and economic opportunities) derived from green enterprises for local communities living within and adjacent to critical forests areas would reduce pressure on those resources from forest encroachment. Green enterprises

4 Peraturan Menteri Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan No.83 tahun 2016 tentang Perhutanan Sosial 5 Peraturan Dirjen KSDAE Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan No.6 tahun 2018 tentang Petunjuk Teknis Kemitraan Konservasi pada Kawasan Suaka Alam dan Kawasan Pelestarian Alam


demanded sustainable natural resources management practices (such as those that might lead to third party certification) that enhance productivity and income or adopted locally appropriate alternative livelihoods to reduce encroachment. This would be supported by community awareness, acknowledgement and support for conservation through formal agreements where appropriate. Equally important was cultivating relationships with key private sector actors in the project’s landscapes to support local communities and conservation through public-private partnerships. The capacity of indigenous communities to manage important forested landscapes is impacted by the business sector and when businesses follow good governance practices, this would have a positive impact on indigenous communities, and vice versa. Therefore, LESTARI would facilitate both parties to seek opportunities for cooperation and mutual reinforcement through establishing public-private partnerships for green enterprises, coupled with commitments to safeguard forest resources (such as through co-management agreements) as well as improve environmental governance where appropriate, to reduce threats on forest resources and biodiversity. SUMMARY OF INITIATIVES Co-management Relevant actors included Park Authorities, BKSDA, Provincial and District government Forestry Agencies, Forest Management Units (FMU), CSOs, and forest-dependent village communities living adjacent to PA. LESTARI supported co-management initiatives via various schemes such as social forestry (village forest & community forest), Sustainable Villages (Kampung Lestari), and Conservation Partnership (Kemitraan Konservasi) among stakeholders in areas adjacent to PAs. In summary, co-management initiatives facilitated by LESTARI have enabled legal access to 778,657 hectares of land for a total of 14,591 beneficiaries from local communities. The principal focus of the co-management approach was to build capacity and commitment of relevant stakeholders to collaboratively and sustainably manage the forest. It also aimed to increase awareness about co-management including benefits, negotiated with the government through social forestry, Conservation Partnership schemes and the Sustainable Villages initiative (in Papua). The private sector was not engaged under co-management schemes as regulations currently do not exist for multi-use forestry within timber concessions where communities could legally manage certain commodities. Social Forestry is a form of co-management regulated by the government and has been a key policy priority of the Jokowi administration. LESTARI facilitated social forestry in Leuser and Katingan-Kahayan Landscapes. LESTARI also advocated for other forms of social forestry that were appropriate in Aceh through the Aceh forestry partnership scheme known as Pola Kerjasama (Qanun 7/2015) where LESTARI assisted the provincial government in developing technical implementation guidelines and facilitated dialogue between the Director General of Social Forestry and Environmental Partnerships (PSKL) in Jakarta and the Acting Governor of Aceh to resolve the constraints for social forestry implementation in Aceh Province. In addition to assisting social forestry groups obtain permits, LESTARI also facilitated development of forest management plans and small-scale forestry business plans to be used after permits were issued aimed at securing community access and building community capacity to manage their forest areas sustainably. The initiative was in line with the Indonesian government's target of 12.7 million hectares of forests to be managed by communities through social forestry schemes. Conservation Partnerships are a form of co-management between the community and PA authorities to assist community beneficiaries acquire limited but secured access for livelihoods. Examples were from Leuser NP and Sebangau NP for ecotourism and


watershed management to resolve previous conflicts between national park authorities and local communities and to curb illegal and unsustainable exploitation. Sustainable Villages is a form of co-management developed in Papua to improve forest management and conservation at the village level with three related elements: (1) planning and policy governance (RPJMK pro forest, Perkam), (2) sustainable use of natural resources action (field school, BUMKam), and (3) forest protection action (forest patrol group). There is an emphasis of integrating local and traditional knowledge and wisdom with forest management and environmental conservation.

Summary of Co-Management Initiatives Supported by LESTARI

Landscape Co-management Scheme Total Area Covered (ha)

Total Beneficiaries

Leuser 5 social forestry 3,795 1,818

Leuser 7 conservation partnership in Leuser National Park (Kemitraan Konservasi) 642 345

Leuser 7 forest partnership (Pola Kerjasama) 4,516 1,223

Katingan-Kahayan 18 social forestry 25,055 10,285

Papua 23 sustainable village 786,881 920 Total 820,888 14,591

FMU Strengthening LESTARI supported strengthening of Forest Management Units (FMUs), which is the smallest forest management unit system at grassroot level as mandated by Law No. 41 Year 1999 and is expected to be the basis for implementation of sustainable and equitable forest management. In total, LESTARI assisted 20 FMU units (two in Aceh, 16 in Central Kalimantan, and two in Papua covering a total management area of 6.4 million hectares. LESTARI assisted partner FMUs through the following five milestones of FMU operationalization: (1) formulation of the Long Term Forest Management Plan (RPHJP), (2) formulation of the Short Term Forest Management Plan (RPHJPd), (3) facilitation of collaborative forest management through schemes such as social forestry, (4) increased capacity of FMUs’ human resources, (5) implementation of protection and security of forest areas. The determination of the five milestones is based on norms and regulations that have been prepared by the GOI both at the central and regional levels such as P.6/Menhut-II/2010, Perdirjen PDASHL P.7/PDASHL/2016, and Perdirjen PHPL P.6/PHPL/2017. LESTARI supported Forest Management Units (FMUs) showed significant improvements in planning and budgeting, properly equipped staff with enhanced skills, facilitating collaborative partnerships with communities and the private sector, and operation of an integrated forest area monitoring and protection system using tools and SOPs. Green Enterprises LESTARI supported collaborative forest management integrated with sustainable livelihood development initiatives in order to reduce encroachment pressure on conservation areas and protected forests. The livelihood initiatives, known as green enterprises, fostered multi-stakeholder partnerships and cross-sectoral collaboration such as between FMUs, local communities (including social forestry groups), private sector, local and national governments. This partnership model is expected to make local communities in focal areas more secure and self-sufficient. In addition, LESTARI facilitated partnerships for green enterprises so that they bring fair and lasting benefits to communities and their partner buyers, enabling the partnership to continue after LESTARI project ends.


Green enterprises initiatives were implemented in three focal provinces – Aceh, Central Kalimantan, and Papua based on a range of factors such as condition and threats to forest, local commodity potential, and access to markets. In Aceh, priority initiatives included UTZ certification for sustainable cacao and coffee agroforestry. In Central Kalimantan, the focus was on rubber agroforestry. In the Cyclops Landscape in Papua, a vanilla agroforestry initiative was supported. WILL CO-MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES REDUCE FUTURE LARGE SCALE AND SMALL-SCALE DEFORESTATION AND DEGRADATION (E.G., INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT, MINING, SMALLHOLDER AGRICULTURE, ILLEGAL MINING AND LOGGING)? Although it takes a long time to see impact from collaborative management initiatives (i.e., social forestry and partnerships with the private sector), initial observations show positive indications of how collaborative action can fill institutional and human resource gaps as well as reduce threats to forest areas. An internal deforestation and degradation analysis was conducted to gauge impact of LESTARI collaborative management initiatives. This analysis used land cover change data that is officially released by KLHK annually as well as internally developed data for the final year. Spatial analysis showed a reduction in the deforestation and degradation rate in LESTARI supported landscapes from 2015 to 2019 as presented in the tables below:

Deforestation in LESTARI Supported Landscapes

Landscape Baseline Annual

Deforestation 1990 – 2012 (ha)

Measured Deforestation (ha) % Change

2016 2017 2018 2019

Leuser 3,763 1,385 260 1,153 971 -75%

Katingan-Kahayan 45,506 32,011 28,201 8,990 27,659 -47%

Lorentz Lowlands 6,107 552 88 8,971 360 -59%

Mappi-Bouven Digoel Landscape 18,433 2,362 3,157 5,768 3,308 -80%

Sarmi Landscape 636 None detected

None detected 860 None

detected -66%

Cyclops Landscape 64 - 206 389 80 163%

All Landscapes 74,509 36,310 31,911 26,130 32,378 -57%

Forest Degradation in LESTARI Supported Landscapes

Landscape Baseline Annual Degradation 1990

– 2012 (ha)

Measured Degradation (ha) % Change

2016 2017 2018 2019 Leuser 1,192 298 9 75 154 -89%

Katingan-Kahayan 3,176 4,452 11,668 10,401 989 117%

Lorentz Lowlands 16,752 3,250 432 18,814 2,725 -62%

Mappi-Bouven Digoel Landscape 16,688 1,050 1.660 193 400 -95%

Sarmi Landscape 9,640 24 5,259 5,366 5,086 -59%

Cyclops Landscape 18 - 109 74 79 261%

All Landscapes 47,466 9,073 19,137 34,923 9,433 -62%


There has been a significant decrease in the rate of deforestation in all landscapes (except Cyclops) with an average reduction of 57% compared to the average deforestation baseline (between 1990 and 2012). Forest degradation data also shows the same result, where there has been a decline in the rate of forest degradation in almost all landscapes at a rate of 62% compared to the baseline. It must be emphasized that while LESTARI contributed to the reduced rate of deforestation and degradation, attribution solely to co-management, FMU strengthening and green enterprises is difficult to demonstrate. In addition, there has been an overall declining trend in the rate of deforestation and degradation throughout most of Indonesia. Reductions in deforestation and degradation are strongly influenced by various factors that occur in each landscape, such as the implications of various forest and land use policies, government conservation and reforestation programs, various stakeholders including other NGO/CSO projects, and local leadership. LESTARI was a significant contributor, alongside the aforementioned actors and factors, based on corroborative evidence that shows that the LESTARI project supported improvements in forest and land use management in most of these landscapes. Even though co-management initiatives assisted by LESTARI are at an early stage they have had a positive effect in reducing small-scale threats such as encroachment into conservation areas or the forest estate, and reducing poaching and harvesting of protected species (e.g., pig-nosed turtle). Most notably in Papua, co-management initiatives established 23 community forest protection groups that patrol an area of over 745,000 hectares. Incidents of illegal logging, encroachment and poaching have already been reported to the Forestry Branch Office (CDK) and BKSDA for further processing. While the project has not been able demonstrate attribution for reduced deforestation, degradation and poaching directly to these initiatives, respondents perceived them to have a positive impact in the reductions reported. Where co-management has been developed between communities and national park authorities, relationships between the parties have improved, communities have curtailed illegal activities (as demonstrated by SMART patrols in Leuser, Cyclops, and Lorentz, see Section 3.1 on PA Management), and they have support from external parties to maintain commitment and motivation to sustain conservation partnerships. LESTARI conducted an analysis of the impact of green enterprise initiatives on the rate of deforestation and degradation in each initiative’s immediate location. The analysis shows that green enterprise initiatives did not contribute to increased deforestation, although they have not yet contributed to reducing deforestation. Initial indications from interviews and ground-checking suggest reduced rates of forest encroachment in project supported sites. In the Leuser Landscape prior to project implementation, deforestation occurred in FMU V area in Gayo Lues District driven by community-led clearing for lemongrass cultivation. Following the acquisition of social forestry licenses and green enterprise development for coffee, some of these lemongrass plantations have been converted back to more sustainable coffee agroforestry plantations (36 hectares), although some small-scale clearing still occurs in some areas. Communities need time to understand and accept that social forestry schemes coupled with sustainable agroforestry can offer a win-win solution for their livelihoods and the surrounding forest ecosystem. In Katingan-Kahayan Landscape, the rubber livelihoods initiative contributed to reducing risk of land fire where degraded land became vegetated with rubber plantations covering 1,100 hectares. In 2019, fires affected 317,749 hectares of forest and land in Central Kalimantan Province compared to 583,833 hectares in 20156. Based on LESTARI forest fire analysis in 2019, no hotspots occurred in these rubber agroforestry areas even though 317,749 hectares were affected by fires in Central Kalimantan. While the severity of the El Niño event is probably the major contributing factor to this almost 50% reduction in area burned in 2019 compared to 2015, community awareness, preparedness and improved land management in rubber green enterprises

6 http://sipongi.menlhk.go.id/hotspot/luas_kebakaran

http://sipongi.menlhk.go.id/hotspot/luas_kebakaran


areas were significant contributing factors. In Leuser Landscape, the cacao certification initiative led to more intensified use of land and, in line with UTZ requirements, has been conducted strictly outside of protected forest areas. The main green enterprise initiatives supported by LESTARI and number of beneficiaries are summarized below.

Summary of Green Enterprise Initiatives Supported by LESTARI

Landscape Type of Intervention Number of Beneficiaries

Leuser

Improved cacao pre and post-harvest practices, enhanced market access, and ensure sustainability through UTZ certification

2,117

Coffee agroforestry 1,344

Nutmeg agroforestry, improved post-harvest practices, product diversification, enhanced market access 838

Improved forest honey pre and post-harvest practices, enhanced market access 807

Establish alternative livelihood from permaculture implementation, palm sugar production, and small-scale ecotourism

478

Katingan-Kahayan

Rubber agroforestry to enhance productivity and reduce fire risk 5,849

Pilot of partnership for sustainable rattan with FMU XVII 19

Papua

Cultivation of vanilla agroforestry outside of Cyclops Nature Reserve, Jayapura 174

Sustainable sago production and diversification 605 Establish alternative livelihoods from flower cultivation in Cyclops Nature Reserve buffer zone, Jayapura 152

TOTAL 12,383 A more scientific analysis requires studying longer-term forest cover change to measure potential positive impacts from green enterprises (reduced encroachment) and establish any direct causal relationship between green enterprises development and forest cover change. At this early stage of development of green enterprises it is difficult to disentangle the confluence of factors and circumstances to definitively conclude whether a LESTARI livelihood intervention led to increased or decreased forest loss. It is more likely that development of green enterprises is one of the reasons that deforestation has been reduced as this initiative has been implemented alongside improved capacity for FMUs, and improved environmental governance and awareness campaigns for forest protection. Increased community involvement in FMU development has resulted in improved communities awareness, capacity and commitment for integrated collaborative management activities in village-level development planning (RPJMDes), and agreement not to cultivate in forest estate (through village zonation included within the village development plan). Within FMUs, LESTARI has supported training and implementation of a standard operating procedure for forest patrols using spatial data tools such as SMART and ODK Collect, supported by increases in budget allocations for forest protection and engaging community stakeholders in patrol activities. The outlier to this trend is Cyclops landscape that has experienced a drastic increase on deforestation rate compared to the baseline. It should be noted that the baseline deforestation and degradation was very low, and the net area lost over the course of four


years measured was 675 hectares in a landscape with over 35,951 hectare of forest in 2015 (a rate of 0.46% forest loss per year). This reason for increases in deforestation and degradation are complex but largely driven by pressure for agricultural land inside the reserve. The landscape is adjacent to Papua’s largest urban center and transport hub that attracts an ever-growing population. In 2019, a contributor to deforestation was the devastating floods, probably exacerbated by unsustainable harvesting of wood for charcoal and encroachment on steep slopes. LESTARI attempted to curb the increase in deforestation through green enterprises including vanilla cropping and decorative / cut flower initiative through a grant. Considering the time it takes to develop a sustainable vanilla crop that increases incomes (about three years) and the completion of the grant in the Q2 of the final year, it is too early to gauge whether these initiative will start to reduce deforestation. Still, there was firm commitment of beneficiaries to not allow encroachment to happen in the future. Conservation in Cyclops NR will continue to be challenging and require green enterprise initiatives as well as regulatory and protection monitoring to abate encroachment in the ever-more important reserve that supplies water resources for Jayapura-Abepura-Sentani urban centers.

CAN LIVELIHOOD BENEFITS (MONETARY AND NON-MONETARY) BE SUSTAINED BY LESTARI BENEFICIARIES – GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE SECTOR AND COMMUNITY? LESTARI-supported green enterprise initiatives benefited more than 11,000 people via 25 public-private partnerships between community groups, government agencies, and private sector buyers. Targeted beneficiaries gained both monetary and non-monetary benefits such as increased income from commodity sales, improved capacity in sustainable agriculture practices, enhanced quality of product, improved capacity in marketing and business management, and increased jobs based on natural resource management. For Leuser and Katingan-Kahayan Landscapes, co-management, FMU strengthening and green enterprises have delivered direct economic benefits and non-monetary benefits to beneficiaries through

A Story of Batu Bulan Community Forestry in Gunung Mas District After one year of assistance from LESTARI, the Batu Bulan farmer group obtained a community forestry permit (Batu Bulan HKM) covering an area of 2,925 hectares in a permanent production forest site in Rungan Barat District, Gunung Mas Regency, Central Kalimantan. The land was previously a production forest concession of PT East Point Indonesia, which had been idle and unmanaged for three years. Illegal llogging and conversion were issues in the area and around this production forest, oil palm plantations and logging concessions are being developed. The issuance of the permit secures the forest area from future development as it is no longer possible for local governments to allocate this land for purposes such as oil palm plantations or mining. LESTARI also helped to socialize local stakeholders (local government, communities, FMU) about the newly issued permits, including agreement on boundaries and conducting a survey of the area. For business planning, a Business Work Plan (RKU) and Annual Work Plan (RKT) have been formulated, two social forestry business groups (KUPS) have been established, and a business model has been formulated. The community was also facilitated to establish a partnership with Fairventures Worldwide, which planted sengon and jabon tree species in part of the Batu Bulan HKM land. Batu Bulan HKM members feel a sense of ease and confidence due to their community forestry permit, which guarantees them the right to manage their land for a 35-year period. They no longer fear being evicted by oil palm companies seeking expansion. The partnership with Fairventures has also provided the opportunity to work as contract workers and earn Rp125,000 per day. Ultimately this story can serve as a case study and model for how social forestry can empower local communities to secure access to their land, prevent expansion of external oil palm interests, and enable fair and sustainable livelihood benefits for communities.


an increase in the price fetched for their commodities (cacao, coffee, and rubber) and security to land and resources. This is expected to sufficiently incentivize farmers to maintain stewardship over their agroforestry areas and forests, apply best practices in sustainable agriculture, and mitigate the risk of fire. The private sector has not fully received anticipated benefits because farmers/community groups often could not consistently fulfil the quantity requirements of their purchase agreements. For farmers/communities in Papua, the majority of benefits were non-monetary in nature such as secure access to food, freshwater, and other daily needs. Two examples of green enterprises that do show promise to be sustained in the future are in the Leuser Landscape. LESTARI developed a pilot project involving UTZ sustainability certification for 350 cacao farmers through a partnership with PT ECOM in the bufferzone of a protected area in Southeast Aceh and Gayo Lues Districts to reduce encroachment from local communities for the development of agricultural plantations. During the process, the farmers established a cooperative (Koperasi Sinar Lestari Agara or Koperasi SLA) with LESTARI assistance in order to provide a common platform to do business with the private sector partner. This partnership has assisted farmers to implement good agricultural practices based on the UTZ standard. The private sector partner and buyer, PT ECOM, has shown commitment by financing the entire certification process for farmers with an estimated investment of USD 1.65 million. The UTZ certification was successfully obtained in February 2020. Although direct benefits to farmers from UTZ cannot be seen as of yet, the partner farmers have already applied best practices and techniques in sustainable farming that have increased cacao production from an average of 700 kg per hectare per year to 1-1.5 kg per hectare per year. This has helped to boost these farmers’ incomes by 40-100%. Also in this landscape, LESTARI supported a coffee agroforestry initiative in Pantan Cuaca Subdistrict, Gayo Lues District involving collaboration with coffee farmers, FMU V, local NGOs, and the private sector to enhance Gayo coffee production. LESTARI assisted a coffee farmer group to become legally established as Pacu Prima Gayo Cooperative, and together with FMU V formed a forestry partnership to manage around 1,000 hectares of degraded land for coffee agroforestry and other non-timber forest product (NTFP) commodities. As a result, there has been significant improvement in the quality of coffee beans that has increased the price fetched by 25-50%. In addition, improvements in practices and techniques demonstrate increased awareness of farmers in maintaining healthy surrounding forest ecosystems. Prior to the project, approximately 86 hectares of lemongrass plantations existed in the area. Driven by the high price of essential oils, this lemongrass cultivation was being conducted unsustainably and contributing to forest loss. Along with this coffee agroforestry initiative, a total of 36 hectares of this area were voluntarily converted by the farmers themselves into a coffee agroforestry area, thus adding to the total areas restored to productive forests. In Katingan-Kahayan Landscape, a similar livelihoods approach was implemented where the focus was to develop partnerships between FMU XXXI, local communities, rubber farmers groups (UPPB), and the private sector partner PT. Dinamika Lintas Initiatives (PT. DLI) in developing rubber agroforestry in Pulang Pisau District. The four UPPBs (consisting of 777 members and covering 1,141 hectares of land) have received Official Registration Letters (STR) from Pulang Pisau District through the Agricultural Office in accordance with Minister of Agriculture Regulation No.38/2008 concerning the establishment of UPPB. The STR allows each UPPB to be able to sell processed materials rubber (bokar) directly to the processing factory. Moreover, rubber productivity by UPPB members has also increased substantially. From 2017-2018 (before facilitation), the average rubber production was 7.4 tons per month with a selling price of only IDR 6,000 per kg. In 2019, the average rubber production reached 18 tons per month with a selling price of IDR 10,000-11,000 per kg. The gains in productivity and quality have helped to boost incomes of the UPPB members in Pulang Pisau District. The gains in productivity, incomes, and market access are also


expected to incentivize farmers to maintain stewardship over their rubber plantations. In conjunction, commitments from the private sector buyer and support from the local government are expected to help sustain this initiative beyond LESTARI. In the past, rubber plantations in this region were often abandoned due to a lack of productivity, investment, and market access, leaving the land prone to fire. This initiative has drastically reduced the likelihood of such an outcome. During the 2019 dry season, no fire-prone hotspots were observed in these rubber agroforestry areas. In the Cyclops Landscape, LESTARI implemented a vanilla agroforestry initiative in collaboration with the USAID Sustainable Cooperative Agribusiness Alliance (SCAA) and its private sector partners, Cooperative Business International (CBI), an agricultural cooperative based in the United States, and PT. Agri Spice Indonesia. The initiative aimed to improve livelihoods for local farmers and reduce encroachment pressures by providing incentives for migrant farmers to relocate their illegal farming practices to areas strictly outside of Cyclops Nature Reserve. This important conservation area regulates the freshwater supply of nearby Jayapura, Papua’s largest city, and hence there is strong support from the local government to better protect this vital resource. To date, 175 farmers have received trainings on vanilla agroforestry cultivation in buffer zone areas. Unfortunately, severe flooding and landslides in March 2019 damaged the vanilla nursery catering for the needs of vanilla farmers in the buffer zones of Cyclops Nature Reserves and disrupted the vanilla agroforestry activities. It is estimated that 80 farmers from 10 vanilla groups in three villages were affected and 8.25 hectares of the vanilla plantation area was severely damaged. LESTARI and SCAA worked with local governments and farmers to restore the area. In addition to vanilla agroforestry, LESTARI also supported livelihoods in this landscape through a grant to the Natural Resources and Ecosystem Study Center (Pusat Studi Sumber Daya Alam dan Ekosistem – PUSSDAE), Cendrawasih University. This initiative involved targeting groups that had previously encroached on the Cyclops Nature Reserve area through an ornamental flower cultivation program to improve livelihood opportunities. With regards to the sustainability of green enterprise initiatives supported by LESTARI, three main points need to be considered.

• Engaging the ‘right’ partner is a crucial key to develop a sustainable business model. The right partner must be willing to commit resources in rural areas with limited human resources, difficulty to access, and other challenges and obstacles normally found in forest bufferzone areas. The recent growth of the niche, high-end coffee and chocolate market domestically in Indonesia is a welcome trend that indicates this sustainability and responsibly-sourced market potential does exist.

• Long-term commitment needs to be continuously fostered. This is a classic

challenge that is faced by many buyers. LESTARI has been providing technical trainings, farmer study trips, and direct communication with buyers to mitigate this issue. The willingness to follow certain SOPs, regulations, and agreements needs to be continuously cultivated from the beginning. Through technical trainings, the farmers learn to develop proper SOPs for their product, while through internship in some companies they can observe direct processing at a professional level. LESTARI also facilitated direct communications with potential buyers/off-takers so that the farmers will be able to hear first-hand information regarding the specific requirement to sell the products. Aside from commitment for business aspects, sustainability includes a commitment for the environment. For all Green Enterprise initiatives, LESTARI emphasized the importance of sustainable agricultural practices and avoiding encroachment on forest


areas. Going forward, these commitments need to be continuously monitored and enforced by the responsible local government agencies.

• Bridging regulatory and oversight gaps for developing sustainable businessmodels is essential. FMUs are often tasked as the local authorities responsible formonitoring and facilitating partnerships for Green Enterprises, but are often lacking inhuman resources, technical knowhow, and budget capacity. Moreover, many localregulations regarding allowable forms of partnerships for forest-based communitylivelihoods lack detailed implementation guidance. Routine multi-stakeholderdialogue to acknowledge, discuss, and address these gaps would be beneficial to allstakeholders.

Farmers’ commitment • Encouraging each other to adhere to strict Good Agricultural Practices described in

standard operating procedures (SOP) and strengthening agricultural practicesthrough mentoring fellow farmers

• Continuing UTZ certification compliance for cacao (more rigorous plantingarrangements not to enter protected areas)

• Adhering to social forestry scheme which has clear guidelines on what is and is notallowable

Buyers’ commitment • Continuing to serve as buyers/off-takers from farmers based on fair and transparently

negotiated agreements• Providing technical assistance to farmers to ensure consistent standard of quality

and compliance with standards for sustainability• Conducting direct meetings with farmers to discuss and establish new partnerships

for sustainable forest commodities. Ensure farmers understand requirements forconsistent quality and quantity while strictly avoiding deforestation

Government commitment • Continuing programs and budgets to support implementation of co-management,

FMU strengthening, and sustainable livelihoods initiatives by provincial governmenttechnical implementation units (UPT) such as BPDASHL, BPHP, and BPSKL. Therehas been an increase in forestry sector budgets in the Strategic Plans of forestryagencies in the three provinces.

ARE LIVELIHOOD BENEFITS (MONETARY AND NON-MONETARY) SUFFICIENTLY INCENTIVIZING THOSE BENEFICIARIES TO PROTECT AND/OR MANAGE THE FOREST SUSTAINABLY? The fact that communities have received livelihood benefits does not guarantee that they will participate in forest protection activities in the long-term. One of the reasons is that co-management groups and institutions are still weak. Regular facilitation, management, and monitoring practices are needed to bring about lasting commitment from communities. This important need could be facilitated not only by local NGOs/donors but also FMUs, regional governments, and Technical Implementation Units (UPT).

In conclusion, the targeted beneficiaries of LESTARI green enterprise initiatives acquired

sales, improved capacity in sustainable agricultural practices, enhanced quality of product, both monetary and non-monetary benefits including increased income from commodity

management, and increased job opportunities. Due to the broad inclusive approach of green enterprises, it is expected that these benefits will be sustained through the specific

greater market access for their products, improved capacity in marketing and business

commitments of each key stakeholder.


Where monetary and non-monetary benefits have most clearly incentivized beneficiaries to protect and manage forest resource is through the Kampung Lestari approach in Papua. By coupling forest conservation and management of natural resources (that communities rely on for their basic livelihood needs) with traditional management, village development planning (RPJMK) and village regulations, community members have been incentivized to become members of Community Forest Protection groups (Kelompok Jaga Hutan – KJH) (or Forest Guard Community Partners (Masyarakat Mitra Polhut – MMP), where support from the district forest agency was available. As identified in the early part of the project and described in the AMEP, “non-monetary benefits may include, but are not limited to: access to services, access to markets, land titling or registration, increased access to environmental services, protection of traditional livelihoods and customary rights, or increased productivity from climate-smart agricultural practices”. In Papua, reconnecting or strengthening young people with their traditional lands and customary regulations has gained significant momentum. Most members of forest patrol groups are young people and through the Kampung Lestari approach have gained the motivation to reduce potential threats to the forest, natural resources, and environmental services that they enjoy. They are also aware that collaboration among stakeholders is needed to minimize threats. These groups have earned a high level of trust from the community are now seen as official guardians of the forests. In several cases, community members have actively reported irresponsible activities that threaten the forest and protected wildlife to the KJH or MMP for them to resolve. Examples of infractions included illegal logging or taking of protected species from areas declared as culturally protected. Where community members were felling timber for commercial gain, these activities were stopped; where Pig-nosed Turtles were caught by community members, they were released. If the groups were unable to resolve the issues after investigation (as the activities were backed by groups in a position of power), they were reported up to the forestry agency which then resolved them officially. This has greatly increased the communities’ confidence in the group members to carry out their duties, and subsequently further empowered the KHJ and MMP. For Leuser and Katingan-Kahayan Landscapes, after farmers applied newly acquired agricultural techniques, they obtained direct economic benefits through an increase in the price fetched for their commodities (cacao, coffee, and rubber). This is expected to sufficiently incentivize these farmers to maintain stewardship over their plantations, apply best practices in sustainable agriculture, and mitigate the risk of fire. For buyers, however, the anticipated economic benefits have not yet been fully seen because the farmers/community groups often could not consistently fulfil the quantity requirements of their purchase agreements. This could jeopardize the long-term viability of the agreements, impacting both buyers and farmers. TO WHAT EXTENT HAS LESTARI ASSISTANCE CONTRIBUTED TO THE LEVERAGING OF FUNDS FOR PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS TO CARRY ON INITIATIVES IN A MORE SELF-RELIANT MANNER? Following Law No. 23 Year 2014, FMUs have become the primary body for technical forestry management in each province outside of PAs7. FMUs are responsible for planning, implementing and evaluating forestry management and optimally utilizing forest resources sustainably. However, additional resources and capacity for forest management have been lacking that stems from a lack of understanding and prioritization by provincial forestry agencies about FMU roles and responsibilities. Institutionally, the current human resource capacity of FMUs is still far from sufficient to carry out their mandate.

7 In Papua, FMUs are responsible for the management of large areas of the forest estate but have not been formed to cover all areas. Due to changes of the spatial plan in 2012, there are large areas of protected forest and production forest that are not covered by FMU management. The Provincial Forestry Office has therefore created Forestry Branch Offices (Cabang Dinas Kehutanan - CDK) in many Districts to cover these gaps in management.


The challenges of FMU development and operationalization in Indonesia are significant. A structured mechanism for FMU development, which involves not only supporting regulations, but also various approaches and direct assistance to transform FMUs from designated implementing units to actual forest managers, is needed. In order to support FMUs effectively, LESTARI conducted coordination, advocacy, and assistance at the provincial government level as well as with KLHK UPT’s such as BPDASHL, BPHP, and BPSKL. This advocacy succeeded in making FMU development a priority program in the forestry sector and unlocked greater budget allocations for FMU strengthening and social forestry / co-management in the Strategic Plans of Forestry Agencies in all three provinces. These resources were mobilized both from the regional budget (APBD) and the utilization of Revenue Sharing Funds for Reforestation Fund (DBH-DR), with a total amount leveraged of more than 268 billion Rupiah (about USD 18.3 million). In parallel, FMUs were assisted to focus on program design and effective and efficient expenditure planning. As a result, FMU partners in Central Kalimantan now encourage the formation of an acting technical implementation officer (PPTK). In Aceh, a further step was taken through the establishment of an official budget user authority (KPA) at each FMU unit. Through the structured approach for FMU strengthening – including improvements in planning, budgeting, technical capacity, collaborative partnerships with community and private sector, and operationalization of integrated forest area monitoring and protection system using tools and SOPs – FMUs will have a higher chance of sustainably implementing their roles and responsibilities for effective on-the-ground forest management into the future. Approximately USD 2.7 million was leveraged for co-management and green enterprises from domestic funds (regional budgets and village funds) and the private sector. Significant leveraged funds include USD 245,533 from Mimika District government budgets to support community based ecotourism; USD 460,807 from Gayo Lues village funds and USD 518,887 from Aceh Selatan village funds to support environment and forestry activities; USD 243,869 from PT RMU funds to support social forestry; and USD 242,541 form Aceh Tenggara District budget to support the intensification of cacao farmers in the district. These significant leveraged funds increase the likelihood that the initiatives started by LESTARI will continue to run effectively and in a self-reliant manner following project closeout. LESTARI also worked on collaborative management of peatland hydrological management in Pulang Pisau District. Initial work developed with the Peatland Restoration Agency (BRG) to build canal blocks on 12 canals leveraged USD 181,816. The dams mitigated fire by blocking canals and retaining water and used an FPIC approach to consult with communities in determining locations and maintenance of dams. Evaluation of the canal blocks built in Block C demonstrated that those built without FPIC were poor quality and led to community conflicts. After the evaluation a second phase of block construction leveraged USD 258,342 from BRG and USD 111,518 Pulang Pisau government budgets (restoration funds).



Outcomes8

• Legal access was obtained for communities to manage areas within the forest estate and secure livelihood opportunities after permits for co-management were issued by KLHK.

• Co-management approaches resulted in increased capacity and commitment of key stakeholders as well as overcoming existing barriers within the area of co-management.

• Positive movement towards capacity development and operation of FMUs.

• Green enterprises initiatives provided opportunities for farmers/community to acquire and apply new techniques, improve quality and productivity, gain market access, improve incomes, and contribute to positive conservation outcomes.

• Collaborative management contributed to a reduction of small-scale threats such as community encroachment into conservation area or forest estate, exploitation of key species, and forest and land fire in peatland areas.

Drivers to Success

• One of key drivers to success was working under existing government frameworks such social forestry and conservation partnership. A ministerial regulation on social forestry was issued in 2016 and regulation on conservation partnership was issued in 2018. LESTARI was able to take advantage of these opportunities and foster implementation in the field.

• In Papua, the Kampung Lestari approach, which covered more than 700,000 hectares in total, was effective in mobilizing and organizing local traditional community members to become members of Community Forest Protection groups. These groups earned a high level of trust from the community are now seen as official guardians of the forest. The approach was based on bottom-up and inclusive village development planning that respects and incorporates traditional Papuan modes of management.

• Synchronization between the FMU Long-Term Forest Management Plan (RPHJP) with Strategic Plan of Provincial Forestry Agency was an important policy-based approach that ensured enhanced budget allocation from the province for FMU operationalization.

• Recognizing the changing forest commodity market (in favor of high quality and sustainability) is one of the major contributors to success for green enterprises. Direct meetings with buyers/off-takers facilitated by LESTARI resulted in new purchase deals as well as growing awareness from both buyers and producers on future possibilities.

• Collaborative management can also overcome gaps in FMUs capacity and human resources for managing forests, addressing potential threats from illegal activities, encroachment and fire.

8 Outcome: A results or effect that is caused by or attributable to the project, program or policy. Outcome is often used to refer to more immediate and intended effects (USAID 2009).



• Private sector commitment for good environmental and social governance practices has positive impacts on communities. Providing sustainable commodity market access for forest communities can encourage communities to protect forest areas as a source of livelihood.

• FMUs, as local forest area managers, can help to facilitate partnerships with the private sector to open access for capital and markets for local communities.

Barriers to Success

• Significant investment is needed to increase the capacity of community groups engaged in co-management initiatives. Most of these groups have insufficient management and technical capacity.

• The complexity of forest area dynamics requires adaptive management, sound planning, and competent personnel within the FMU institution. Unfortunately, the quality and quantity of FMU human resources is still low.

• There are poor monitoring and evaluation systems to oversee implementation of co-management and FMU operation. The management of FMUs is currently heavily orientated to administrative issues with less emphasis on forest outcomes or co-management. Social forestry licenses are not monitored optimally at present as the emphasis is on issuance, rather than management and monitoring.

• FMU and social forestry initiatives do not always work in harmony due to the unclear management authority at regional levels.

• A major barrier for FMUs is the dual status of the FMU institution – functionally FMUs are designed as a managing institution, but structurally the FMU is an implementing agency. This needs to be resolved by the local and national government.




• The provincial level Social Forestry Working Groups still need support in strengthening their technical capabilities, implementation of activities, and financial management systems, considering that these institutions must also be able to manage government funds properly, effectively and transparently.

• Economic benefits can take years to realize. There were some cases where communities thought they would acquire quick income benefits from social forestry. However, acquiring access to land is only the first step. Running a profitable and sustainable forest-based business is the end goal, and this requires support for policy and enabling conditions by local governments. For example, the regulation around business operation for community forest groups has yet to be established. Communities often need to build collaboration with BUMDes and other bodies working under different levels of government. This requires harmonization at all levels from village, district, province, and national.

• Engaging the ‘right’ private sector partner is key to developing a sustainable forest commodity business model. The right partner must be willing to commit resources (investment, equipment, trainings) in rural areas with limited human resources, difficult logistics/access, and other challenges and obstacles normally found in forest bufferzone areas. Recent positive trends can be seen in the growing niche domestic market in Indonesia for sustainable and responsibly-sourced coffee and chocolate.


REFLECTION: WHAT WORKED AND WHY, AND WHAT NEXT?

• Multi-stakeholder partnerships and cross-sectoral collaboration is necessary in order to implement a successful and sustainable green enterprise initiative. Strong synergy between relevant actors can help fill gaps in technical knowhow, monitoring capacity, and compliance with sustainability standards.

• Strong institutions equipped with qualified human resources are needed at the landscape level. LESTARI was actively involved in strengthening the social forestry working group in Aceh and Central Kalimantan Province, from the formation of the institutions through planning and strategy development. This working group has helped to meet GOI social forestry targets by expanding its reach to the local level. At the same time, strengthening the working group has also contributed to enhancing public participation, understanding, and support for social forestry policies.

• Following established government schemes and guidelines is crucial to ensuring that the initiatives are sustained for the long-term. Given the vast forest area under the authority of FMU, collaborative efforts with the community are essential to achieve effective and efficient management of forest areas. Therefore, LESTARI prioritized assisting FMUs to engage local communities in innovative and creative co-management arrangements available under government schemes, whether social forestry, sustainable villages and Aceh forest partnership.

• Partnership with the private sector – obtaining the legal land use permit for co-management by the community is only the first step. Next the community must determine how it will utilize the land sustainably to secure livelihood benefits. FMUs, as local forest area managers, can help to facilitate partnerships with the private sector to open access for capital and markets for local communities. In terms of public-private partnerships, LESTARI focused on small and medium-sized companies with a local presence. This was effective but required additional work in securing access to credit for these companies. Credit schemes outside the private sector do exist, such as BLU (Public Service Agency) under KLHK that provides loans to non-bankable projects or economic development activities. LESTARI pursued this opportunity but administrative requirements made it difficult to successfully secure funds during the project.

• Engaging the ‘right’ partner is a crucial key to develop a sustainable forest commodity business model. The right partner will be willing to commit resources in rural areas with limited human resources, difficulty to access, and other challenges and obstacles normally found in forest buffer zone areas. The recent growth of the niche, high-end coffee and chocolate market domestically in Indonesia is a welcome trend that indicates this sustainability and responsibly-sourced market potential does exist.

• Bridging regulatory and oversight gaps – synergy between FMUs and social forestry initiatives is not always in harmony due to unclear management authorities at the local level. Therefore, LESTARI successfully facilitated a series of dialogues with policy makers both at national and provincial levels to address and overcome this obstacle.


3.3 AWARENESS & ADVOCACY, OPERATIONALIZE SEA TO IMPROVE LAND USE GOVERNANCE, AND SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE Development Hypothesis Improved land use governance is a cornerstone of achieving improved forest management and biodiversity conservation as it provides the foundational policies and institutional frameworks to enable improved practices. Good governance is characterized by the respect for legal certainty, transparency and free flow of information, significant public participation (expression of voice and choice), equality, accountability, effective and coordinated management of public resources. Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) were seen as effective entry points to improve land use governance and forest management through incorporation of SEAs recommendations into government development planning such RPJM, RTRW and Renstra. Importantly, SEAs are required by law and therefore working within these legally mandated initiatives was seen as more effective and strategic for long-term sustainability compared to introducing new, external processes. Moreover, improved land use governance will not occur if the public does not demand for healthy ecosystems; this demand is triggered by improved local level awareness, appreciation and advocacy to promote a conservation and sustainable development vision. Thus, LESTARI – through its multi-stakeholder approach – also supported strengthening the capacity of multi-stakeholders to ensure participatory and effective land use decision making. As policies will not be effective without budgets to support implementation, LESTARI assisted multi-stakeholder to mobilize funds for government partners to carry out SEAs and land use policy recommendations in a more self-reliant manner. Summary of Initiatives The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), which is mandatory according to Indonesian Environmental Law No. 32/2009, was designed to ensure new or revised policies, plans or programs (KRP) – including development plans (RPJMD) and spatial plans (RTRW) – are based on sustainability principles and provide recommendations to reduce the negative impact of development efforts. It is increasingly recognized that SEA is a process – rather than a specific tool – which helps make policies, plans and programs more sustainable. Taking recommendation from the USAID IFACS project, which previously focused solely on the development of SEA for RTRW, LESTARI continued with supporting the incorporation of SEA recommendations into sub-national government development plans (RPJMD/Renstra). Incorporation into development plans allows relevant recommendations to be programmed and budgeted by sub-national governments and thus achieve the objective of operationalization of SEAs. This approach to SEA was supported by the findings of a Political Economy Analysis, which suggested ‘following the money’ is a more strategic approach to supporting SEA. However, LESTARI did not assist the development of SEA RPJMD in all locations since it highly depended on opportunities and interest from local decision-makers in each area.


District and Provincial-level SEA Supported by LESTARI

Province/District SEA for RPJMD SEA for RTRW

Aceh Province ✔ South Aceh ✔ South East Aceh ✔ Gayo Lues ✔ Central Kalimantan Province ✔ Palangka Raya ✔ Papua Province ✔ Mimika ✔ Mappi ✔ Boven Digoel ✔

SEA application in districts and provinces assisted by LESTARI was able to improve the planning and decision-making process in the formulation of RTRW and RPJMD, and also improve the quality of these planning documents. Nevertheless, none of the SEA-LEDS incorporated into the draft district spatial plans (Ranperda RTRW) have resulted in changes on the ground because of the time it takes to move through the approval processes of various levels of government until Ranperda are endorsed as Perda and enforced. However, the potential for delivering impact is enormous. SEA-LEDS recommendations incorporated into the draft district spatial plans in Boven Digoel and Mimika Districts have resulted in proposal for increasing areas under protection from 18% to 44% (511,373 ha) and 69.6% to 72.9% (42,399 ha) respectively. Though the draft spatial plans are still under review, the SEA process in Boven Digoel has produced increased awareness and debate about environmental issues that led to the issuance of SK Bupati Boven Digoel in 2018 to revoke location permits for three palm oil companies, PT Wahana Agri Karya, PT Duta Visi Global and PT Visi Hijau Nusantara. This result occurred during the stages of SEA development when the SEA working group (Pokja KLHS) carried out evaluation of existing policies. Changing the mindset of planners and improving the quality of planning documents will have little meaning if they are not followed up with environmental advocacy efforts to ensure that the relevant local government technical agencies indeed undertake planning, funding, and implementation of environmental and sustainable development activities in their respective sectors and areas of work. The analysis of LESTARI assistance on SEA-RPJMD shows that it has delivered positive outcomes for strengthening forest management by turning recommendations into action on the ground. These outcomes include the integration of key environmental issues into technical agency strategic plans (Renstra Dinas) which produced specific programs for improving forest management and mobilized more than USD 30 million in domestic resources to allow implementation of those programs. The main recommendation from SEA-RPJMD across three provinces was strengthening the operationalization of Forest Management Units (FMUs) to reduce deforestation and degradation. WHAT CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO LAND USE POLICY AS RESULT OF ADVOCACY INTERVENTIONS AND STRENGTHENING CITIZEN-BASED MECHANISM INPUT? In order to understand how LESTARI interventions (especially through SEA) contributed to changing policies, plans, and programs in a complex environment in which many other influences are at work, the assessment team needed to look at the logical process by which the intervention aims to deliver impact over time. As seen in Appendix 5.7, LESTARI has the logical framework along with the ToCs around three interrelated Strategic Approaches (SAs)


to improve land use policy, namely: SA1 – Awareness and Advocacy; SA2 – Operationalize SEAs to Improve Land Use Governance; SA3 – Sustainable Landscape Governance. While the ToCs for each SA show complex linkages, they can be basically simplified as below to ease the discussion of findings:

SEA OBJECTIVE

Improve capacity of local governments & other stakeholders (technical & institutional capacity)

Integrate sustainable development in RTRW, RPJMD

Annual budgeting of environmental & sustainability programs

Implementation of environmental & sustainability programs

Improved environmental condition (e.g., reduced deforestation/degradation, reduced GHG emission)

Policy cycle timing and sustainable development demand drivers (awareness & advocacy)

Local govt budget (budget advocacy)

Public monitoring & spatial plan controlling (awareness & advocacy)

National govt budget (budget advocacy)

LESTARI awareness and advocacy programs operated on various continuums. Approaches included:

• Changing policy and/or changing behavior. Some advocacy interventions were carried out to change policy or prevent change to policy; while other approaches were about changing the behavior of the general public (e.g., campaign).

• Direct and/or indirect. Depending on momentum and political dynamics in each landscape, LESTARI worked directly with decision makers through dialogue, advice, engagement and/or negotiation to improve policy; or indirectly via other actors who might influence on decision-makers (e.g., the media).

• Formal and/or informal. Advocacy carried out by LESTARI worked through formal/official channels such as policy dialogues, but most often advocacy found alternative ways through informal routes such as relationship building. When finding the right person, the latter proved to be effective.

In general, it is too early to assess the main impact9 of LESTARI interventions under SA1, SA2 and SA3 on improved environmental condition (e.g., reduced GHG emissions) in the landscape. The reasons for this conclusion include:

• For SEA-RTRW, none have completed the full circle of multi-level government approvals and inclusion into development plans. Spatial plans are reviewed every five years, so timing was a factor in LESTARI’s intervention. The point at which LESTARI entered a district government’s spatial planning cycle was critical to results. Consequently, in the case of Mimika and Boven Digoel, only a commitment to

9 Impact is defined as a result or effect that is caused by or attributable to a project or program. Impact is often used to refer to higher level effects of a program that occur in the medium or long term, and can be intended or unintended and positive or negative (USAID, 2009).


embrace SEA-LEDS principles for the next plan was obtained. All this was beyond the control of LESTARI.

• For SEA-RPJMD, a five-year leadership cycle is yet to be completed to allow for evaluation of successful implementation (e.g., the period of SEA-RPJMD for Aceh Province is 2017-2022, but political dynamics made it only valid after issuance of Governor Regulation on April 12, 2018).

• Though LESTARI reported a reduction of 14.7 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions due a reduction in deforestation and forest degradation across all project landscapes over the 2017-2018 period (see LESTARI Annual Report from Year 4), attribution is challenging as pointed out in the two points above.

There were six outcomes noted by the assessment team as precursors to eventual impact. The most significant broad outcome was the inclusion of high conservation forests or areas, vulnerable areas, strategic areas, and high-risk areas into the draft spatial plans and therefore the potential for these issues to be included in development plans and other activities is enormous. In Boven Digoel, SEA recommendations integrated into the final draft (Ranperda) of the 2019 spatial plan produced an instruction to increase protected areas by 699,059 ha or to an area of 1,205,847 ha. This represents 44% of the total area of the regency while resulting in cultivation areas of 1,504,966 ha or 56% of the total area of the regency. The integration of the recommended alternatives produced by the SEA into the contents of KRP is the ultimate goal of the SEA process. Integration of SEA recommendations must be well documented to show evidence of the elements of KRP altered by the SEA process. This documented evidence includes accommodation of technical SEA substance, re-writing technical substance of regulations or plans, or adding new provisions in KRP to accommodate SEA recommendations. Documentation of the main points of SEA integration are signed by policy makers and the chair of the SEA working group. In Mimika, protected areas in 2011 were 1,545,857.52 ha (69.57%), and according to the SEA recommendations it should be increased to 1,597,978 ha (73.45%). The final draft (RTRW 2019) integrated 1,588,256.23 ha (72.9%) or an increase of 3% from the original area. For example, SEA recommended 44,462,321 ha of spiritual and local wisdom protected areas which initially did not exist at all in 2011. Despite the lag between developing the spatial and development plans and their eventual fulfilment, a range of other activities triggered by improved local level awareness, improved SEA process, and civil society advocacy have occurred such as revoking palm oil licenses in Boven Digoel, discontinuing railway development in Central Kalimantan, a cessation of field operations of a prominent gold mining company in Aceh followed by revocation of 98 mining business licenses for 677,323 hectares, and not to renew 13 licenses. This permit revocation in Aceh impacted 133,139 hectares of orangutan habitat. Improved public participation in SEA processes was the third outcome observed. It resulted from LESTARI-generated interaction between the governments and their respective communities, especially via the multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) and the consultation processes utilized to produce the SEAs and formulate or refine relevant land use policies. Such participatory approaches encouraged local people to speak up and express their aspirations. In general, there was improved awareness of the role of civil society in developing or revising the plans and policies, and thus increased transparency and governance. A notable example can be seen from increased community involvement in peatland restoration efforts in Pulang Pisau District, Central Kalimantan. The adoption of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) – which in principle involves local communities in all development stages – has led to a significant reduction in the number of hotspots in the intervention area and increased community ownership to sustain peatland conservation.


A series of interviews also revealed that SEA application has improved the quality of regional spatial and development planning documents. A business as usual process in developing SEA (without project intervention) typically involves no participatory processes. SEA development is done by a third party appointed by provincial government, local planners are never fully consulted and act mostly as data providers, no capacity building takes place, and there are no considerations of High Conservation Value (HCV) and GHG emissions in land use decision making that lead to mismanagement of forest areas. Mobilization of funding is the fifth outcome observed by the assessment team. SEA recommendations that are already integrated in planning documents (e.g., RPJMD) need to be funded annually. There is little use of integrating SEA recommendations in the planning documents if ultimately they are not funded. In Aceh and Central Kalimantan, LESTARI successfully built capacity and commitment of provincial partners for mainstreaming the operationalization of Forest Management Units (FMUs) and enhancement of social forestry programs into their SEA-RPJMDs. The LESTARI team considered that these two main programs (i.e., FMU and social forestry) could be strategic solutions for tackling land use problems on the ground. FMUs are the management units at the site level that are closest to the tenure conflict and should have the capacity to resolve the issues, while social forestry is a national program aimed at providing access to land to the community to resolve land use conflicts. Evidence suggests that these two programs, if managed properly by local government, will contribute to the reduction of deforestation and degradation and associated greenhouse gas emissions. The logic is clear and accurate, but again, it must be implemented in a successful manner so that SEA recommendations can provide meaningful contribution to the realization of impact. Implementation relies on the availability of budget. The evidence gathered shows that LESTARI facilitated a total of USD 30.4 million in local budget mobilization from GOI national and regional-level budgets to support the implementation of FMU operationalization and social forestry enhancement in their various forms. The last outcome observed related to land use policy is the rolling initiatives for land use and forest monitoring systems in Aceh, Central Kalimantan and Papua Provinces. This work proceeded differently in each province, adapting to local government priorities and political will. In Aceh, LESTARI supported the development of the provincial forestry database system. The system, known as SIKAWAN (Sistem Kawasan Hutan Aceh)10, represents the first effort within Provincial Forestry Agency (Dinas Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan or DLHK) to ensure transparent forestry and land use licensing for sustainable forest management. The system is aimed at helping DLHK to conduct screening and analysis to provide technical recommendation for four important permits – Forest Partnership Permit (Izin Pola Kerjasama), Forest Release Permit (Izin Pelepasan Kawasan Hutan), Timber Forest Product Utilization Permit for Industrial Plantation Forest (Izin Pemanfaatan Hasil Hutan Kayu untuk HTI), and Environmental Permit (AMDAL). SIKAWAN also allows the agency to monitor their FMU performance in reducing deforestation and degradation within Aceh Province’s forests. Project timing seemed to be the main factor hampering LESTARI to assist DLHK to fully operationalize SIKAWAN as the system was launched during the final months of LESTARI. While LESTARI has equipped DLHK with all necessary supporting guidance (i.e., roadmap, SOP, manual), technical and institutional capacity remains challenging. In Central Kalimantan, the political and bureaucratic support for improving permit systems and permit monitoring was not strong. In the absence of such opportunities, LESTARI took other approaches to strengthen governance in ways that reduce risks to forests and peatlands. These included supporting accelerated social forestry implementation to further

10 http://sikawan.inweb.id/

http://sikawan.inweb.id/


sustainable livelihood opportunities for communities (thus supporting social forestry as an alternative to more potentially threatening land use permits); integrating forest monitoring into the work of FMUs; and formalizing the use of Open Data Kit (ODK) application by FMUs – through Head of Dinas Kehutanan decree – to conduct forest monitoring and identify infractions that could threaten forests and biodiversity. At the time of this assessment, some pilots of ODK utilization by FMUs have been carried out to monitor their forest areas, though evidence is weak around follow-on actions to use the data for forest management decision making. In Papua, LESTARI supported the development of the Sustainability Screening Tool (SST) to prevent land use permits from being issued in protected areas or overlapping with other permits. The SST is a web-based GIS application which allows the user to check suitability of a proposed permit site against existing data stored in the SIMTARU spatial planning database. The proposed site is screened against the provincial spatial plan, forest function designations from KLHK, and the existing set of licenses stored in SIMTARU; a report is then issued which shows any overlaps. The user (and the One Stop Service Center for Licensing, PTSP) can use this information to prevent the issuing of new licenses which would overlap with other licenses or be in areas not allowed by the spatial plan. Officially launched by BAPPEDA in March 2019, stakeholders agreed that SST-SIMTARU has been essential in supporting transparent and accountable data required for effective spatial planning, although several challenges remain. Staff capacity continues to be an issue for efficient management of the system, as continued reliance on donors to provide this capacity is not sustainable in the long-term. BAPPEDA has supported access to data although updating data from various agencies has not been their priority. Hardware resources are available, but issues of cyber security have disrupted the system in the past. The SST is already online and functioning although regulations for mandating its use are still needed. HAVE BELIEFS, OPINIONS, AND BEHAVIOURS OF STAKEHOLDERS CHANGED AS RESULT OF ADVOCACY AND CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES? This question sought to look at causal mechanisms – to understand how impacts (will likely) and outcomes occur (or not) according to the attitude of key landscape actors. The LESTARI Results Framework is founded upon the overarching theory that if there is increased awareness and advocacy of local stakeholders (government officials, communities, CSOs and private sector) for conservation and natural resource management in ways which contribute to their long term interests; if Conservation Co-Management is actually enhanced to the benefit of key stakeholders, and if the private sector is engaged, there will be improved governance and natural resource management in biologically significant and critical areas11, leading to a 41% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020. Over the course of the project, LESTARI empowered 603 champions across all landscapes, collaborating with them through Multi Stakeholder Initiatives (MSIs). When designing MSI together with landscape partners, LESTARI did not take a single approach. Some MSIs occurred in the form of Multi-Stakeholder Fora, with a stable institutional structure and regular discussion (e.g., Forum Hapakat Lestari in Pulang Pisau, Pokja Perubahan Iklim in Mimika, MSF in Asmat District), or they were more temporary processes created around a particular issue and relevant set of stakeholders (e.g., MSI in Boven Digoel for land rationalization in concession area of PT. Tunas Sawa Erna, formulation of Singkil Wildlife Reserve management plan). Since LESTARI began supporting MSI, two key responses were recorded from partners. Discussions became more open and hierarchies were broken down. Positions became less important; it was the content and quality of the debate that mattered. Both responses demonstrated the emergence of trust. MSIs processes facilitated by LESTARI created

11 Critical areas: areas identified for conservation because of their high conservation value or their high carbon value


valuable coalitions. As a result of the MSI, people believe public participation has improved and as a consequence so has governance. The MSI process had led to improved policies related to biodiversity conservation, forest management, watershed protection, fire mitigation, land use rationalization, among others. LESTARI had also provided capacity building opportunities and some funding to support activities such as trainings and workshops for MSIs. Evidence suggests that various approaches carried out by LESTARI had enhanced awareness of the people toward environment conservation. Specific to MSI, the interviews revealed that the MSI has instigated a new informal norm that can facilitate cooperation amongst members that come from varying sectors and backgrounds. An example of changes on stakeholders’ belief, opinion, and behavior is provided below.

WILL IMPROVED LAND USE GOVERNANCE INITIATIVES SAFEGUARD FOREST FROM DEFORESTATION AND DEGRADATION? Based on LESTARI’s situation model and Theory of Change, improved land use governance that considers the importance of forest and sustainable development can ‘enable’ safeguarding forests from deforestation and degradation compared to how things would be without improved land use governance. However, improved land use governance must be accompanied by improved land use management for this to become a reality. The principle tool used by LESTARI to achieve improved land use governance was Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA). All SEA development processes facilitated by LESTARI considered alternative development scenarios in the development or revision of RPJMD and RTRW. The most sustainable alternatives were identified and included in recommendations for increasing protected areas, strengthening FMUs, and realizing social forestry objectives to reduce conflict and forest encroachment. SEA recommendations were built around the objective to primarily safeguard forests from deforestation and degradation and conserve the environmental services they provide. A more technical description of the SEA process can be found in the Lessons Learned Technical Brief on SEA for Improved Land Use Governance.

Advokasi Gampong: A Village Based Advocacy Approach To Preserving Water Resources In South Aceh

In reducing deforestation pressures, the role of the community in the buffer zone plays a pivotal role. In South Aceh, LESTARI initiated a unique approach to improve forest governance and water resource conservation through “Advocacy Gampong.” This was a consensus-based process at the village level that aims to foster public input and allow for better engagement with local governments in creating a village mid-term development plan (RPJMDes) that prioritizes conservation.

In Lawe Cimanok Village, LESTARI facilitated communities with a series of awareness raising and capacity building programs related to conservation and development planning through Field School initiative and introduced cross-sectoral approaches to advocate for landscape sustainability issues such as social forestry and key species protection to be integrated into the RPJMDes. Through consistent advocacy efforts, the above-mentioned issues were clearly incorporated in Lawe Cimanok’s mid-term development plan. This represented an important and enduring pathway to sustainable forest management of water resources conservation that can scaled up and adapted to other villages. Most importantly, both community and forest management authorities (FMU) representatives that were interviewed during the assessment stated that they never thought to integrate forest conservation into their village development plan, as the business as usual process of formulationg the village development plan focused mostly on physical development (e.g., road development and bridge development). The Head of the FMU also explained that they had never been involved in the village planning process before, thus there was a notable case where a village community developed a road inside forest area.


While the above points have presented various examples of changes in land use policy, the ultimate impact is very likely to depend on decision makers and institutions beyond the control of those commissioning the SEA. Implementing these reforms will be an arduous process with political will, government staff expertise, and budgets needed to drive implementation, meaning that it may not occur quickly. It is likely that the implementation process will play out differently in different provinces because of differences in political will and bureaucratic capacity. What is certain is that reforms to land use governance will face resistance from economic and political elites currently benefiting from weak land use licensing, and whose interests are thereby threatened by improved governance. Bureaucratic as well as technical hurdles will emerge. Nevertheless, these reforms come as a long overdue and much needed source of hope for improved land governance and are the result of dedicated and sustained advocacy by many stakeholders. TO WHAT EXTENT HAS LESTARI ASSISTANCE CONTRIBUTED TO THE LEVERAGING OF FUNDS FOR GOVERNMENT PARTNER TO CARRY ON SEA AND/OR LAND USE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS IN A MORE SELF-RELIANT MANNER? Moving from output to outcomes, let alone to impact, typically requires support from various sources most notably budget availability. As mentioned above, there is little use of integrating SEA recommendations in the planning documents if in the end they are not funded. Sufficient incentives and momentum for change is required for SEA recommendations to produce impact in policies, plans, and programs. Budget advocacy is one of LESTARI strategies to ensure that various initiatives and strategic recommendations are incorporated in the government planning and budgeting documents. LESTARI facilitated a total of USD 30.4 million in domestic resource mobilization for sustainable forest management from GOI national and regional-level budgets. Budget advocacy was done at opportune times such as during formulation of five-year strategic plans (Renstra) of provincial forestry agencies. LESTARI facilitated the RPJMD in all three provinces and ensured that the Renstra followed SEA-RPJMD recommendations for program implementation (especially in Aceh and Papua). This subsequently had significant budget implications and funds leveraged in this manner will enable government partners to prioritize and carry on initiatives raised in SEAs into the future. In Central Kalimantan, the momentum for assisting the development of Renstra of forestry just emerged at the end of project, but the team was able to grasp the opportunity for influencing the development of annual budget plan through optimization of the Reforestation Fund. Notably, the province has the greatest accumulated potential for DBH-DR nationally. Since planning and budgeting is a cycle and mandatory for local government, is this claim of success appropriate? Was the successful budget mobilization entirely the result of LESTARI’s contribution, or would the mobilization have taken place in the absence of LESTARI? Claims of success in mobilizing budget for priority activities in the forestry sectors were valid if LESTARI successfully advocated for these activities that had not yet been included within forestry sector and subsequently became a priority after advocacy for alignment with SEA recommendations / RPJMD. From the analysis of documents and interviews, it seems that all activities advocated by LESTARI have previously existed within government frameworks both at national and local level. To answer those questions, a case study from Aceh is provided below.


A Story of Aceh Forestry Budget Advocacy In Aceh Province, FMU organization is established through Governor Regulation No. 46 of 2018. According to this regulation and PP No. 6/2007, FMU has clear tasks and functions. Under the principle of money follows function, the existence of FMUs is quite clear from the aspect of its function and institution. The establishment of the unit is supposed to be followed by the mobilization of human and budget resources. From this perspective, the presence or absence of LESTARI does not affect budget mobilization. FMUs will continue to run despite all of their limitations. But under the principle of money follows program, resources mobilization (budget and human resources) will occur only if the FMU becomes a priority program in DLHK Aceh. The existence of LESTARI was the differentiator seen in the principle of money follows program, and demonstrates that LESTARI was successful in prioritizing FMU programs in the forestry sector. Analysis and comparison carried out by the assessment team on current and former Renstra DLHK found a significant difference in their narratives. Unlike the previous Renstra, the narrative on FMU occupies a large portion of the new Renstra document (2017-2022), the development of which was fully supported by LESTARI. FMU narratives emerge consistently in the overall logical framework from identification of strategic problems and issues, goals and objectives, strategies and policy directions, and programs and activities. DLHK also stipulated that FMUs are designed to be the frontline managers of forests in Aceh. Hence FMUs are a priority for the development and sustainable management of Aceh’s forest. This consistency is also evident in the Renja document. The 2020 Renja identified that low budget absorption occurred due to the absence of delegation of authority from DLHK to FMU causing difficulties in technical and administrative control. Likewise, consistency is also evident in 2020 Implementation Document (Dokumen Pelaksanaan Anggaran or DPA). Budget allocation for FMUs increased by 200% compared to the previous year, from IDR 10 billion to IDR 21 billion (about USD 700,000 to USD 1.5 million), exceeding the funding target set out in the Renstra. This 2020 budget allocation is also marked by the delegation of authority to FMUs to manage their own administration activities. The commitment of DLHK Aceh to strengthen FMUs as the frontline managers for sustainable forest management is also evident in the stage of budget implementation and evaluation where DLHK has appointed FMU as Kuasa Pengguna Anggaran (KPA). Realizing that incentives for change are vital, LESTARI advocated DLHK to develop an FMU performance appraisal instrument that aims to provide a reference for DLHK in assessing the performance of the FMU objectively, measurably, and rationally. The five FMU performance assessment indicators include: deforestation rate, area of forest and land rehabilitation, quality of budget management, management area, and contribution to regional revenue. The deforestation rate is determined as a ‘negative’ indicator where FMUs with less deforestation will receive more budget as their incentive. The adoption of this high-level outcome indicator in day-to-day forest management practices will encourage forest managers to think in a more innovative manner beyond their business as usual practices in halting deforestation. The description above confirms that the budget mobilization occurred because LESTARI succeeded in pushing the agenda of sustainable forest management by strengthening the role of the FMU. FMU strengthening has become the priority agenda, program, and activity in DLHK planning and budgeting in line with the principle of money follows program.


As part of the evaluation, interviews with those involved in budgeting process were conducted to examine the differences made by LESTARI. These processes revealed some important points:

• A more transparent and participatory Work Plan and Budget (Rencana Kerja Anggaran or RKA) development. The involvement of FMUs in this process has increased significantly.

• Improvement in the quality of RKA, in the sense that activities proposed have the potential for high effectiveness in resolving various forest management problems.

• Improvement in the capacity of budget planners and FMU in translating program and activity needs into budget nomenclature template. In the case of the Reforestation Fund, often the activities needed to resolve forest management problems were not proposed because different terms or nomenclature of activities set by Ministry of Home Affairs.

• Improvement in the effectiveness and efficiency of budget expenditure. LESTARI has

assisted the planners to design effective and efficient budget expenditure by setting out indicators to measure activity performance and detail the volume, unit and unit price for each type of expenditure. This requires not only accuracy but also adequate understanding and rationale so that the budget design is efficient and effective. In many cases, budget advocacy often does not reach this level because for more detailed budgeting matters, many local governments are not yet open and willing to be assisted.

• The FMU performance instrument developed in Aceh is seen as an innovation that

offers a huge potential to encourage better financial management and improved forest management through FMUs.



Outcomes12

• Inclusion of HCV areas, vulnerable areas, strategic areas, and high-risk areas in the draft spatial plans.

• A range of other activities triggered by districts participating in an improved SEA process have occurred such as discontinuing inappropriate palm oil licenses, relocating activities and allocation of land to local communities.

• SEA process created valuable coalitions and a wider participation of people in planning processes – SEA application brought together stakeholders that should, but generally do not, coordinate with each other.

• SEA application has enriched decision making processes and improved the quality of regional spatial and development planning documents by considering and integrating sustainable forest management and low emissions development principles.

• Mobilization of a total USD 30.4 million domestic budget to tackle forestry sector challenges and priorities – strengthening forest management, reducing pressures for deforestation, and mitigating land-based greenhouse gas emissions.

• Initiatives to monitor spatial plan implementation and deforestation are underway in Aceh and Papua.

Drivers to Success

• Good practice design improves outcomes, but must reflect local conditions – Political Economy Analysis (PEA) and Landscape Situation Models have enabled LESTARI to design the SEA and policy-influencing process based on a good understanding of the political and institutional context in each landscape.

• Sufficient incentive and momentum for change is required for SEA findings to produce changes in policies, plans and programs – in some cases, there is ‘supply-side’ pressure from national government to drive this, but often benefits have to be sold and ‘demand-side’ pressure from civil society can help to build a necessary constituency for change.

• Budget advocacy and awareness interventions have allowed outputs to turn into concrete outcomes for conservation.

• SEAs applied as ‘plan shapers’ not ‘fine tuners’ – two issues highlighted are, firstly, the ability to undertake SEAs early in the policy cycle and secondly, to engage government partners early on.

12 Outcome: A results or effect that is caused by or attributable to the project, program or policy. Outcome is often used to refer to more immediate and intended effects (USAID 2009).



Barriers to Success

• Political decisions that are not aligned with spatial, development and budget planning.

• While local SEA teams are crucial and influential towards success of SEA document development, turnover of local officials is done too often by the government, affecting performance of the local SEA team.

• Many local government officials and staff see SEA as an obstacle to the fulfillment of planning documents due to lack of knowledge and involvement in the SEA process.

• Access to official and reliable data is a formidable challenge, e.g., data series is not available, each government agency often issues contradictory data.

• Implementation of SEA recommendations incorporated into RPJMD, and Renstra depends on technical skills and institutional capacity. The assessment found that technical and institutional capacity, especially within the forestry sector, remains a challenge.


• The long-term goal of SEA application covers the creation of livable quality environment and the realization of sustainable development. In order to reach this outcome, SEA recommendations that are already integrated in planning documents need to be funded annually. Thus, the success of budget advocacy done by LESTARI is a critical point to improve sustainability.

• There will always be some uncertainties whether SEA recommendations incorporated into draft spatial plans will be fully accommodated under approved spatial plans. But a sophisticated, ongoing multi-stakeholder framework which increases accountability on land use decision making is an important mechanism to improve sustainability.

• Linking LESTARI interventions with coordinated multi-donor budget support has increased the potential for sustainability.


REFLECTION: WHAT WORKED AND WHY, AND WHAT NEXT? The successes and lessons learned based on LESTARI experiences are summarized below. These can be adapted and applied to other provinces and regions in Indonesia, both specific for the forestry and land use sector as well as other development sectors.

• Context is critical – local political economy conditions can enable or constrain SEA and budget advocacy to influence outcomes. It must be understood when designing approaches for improved land use policy. LESTARI conducted a Political Economy Analysis in 2017 in order to better understand the unique opportunities, constraints, and potential roadblocks to achieving project objectives in each province. The findings of the PEA were used to guide approaches for improved land use governance and budget mobilization with provincial and district level partners.

• Technical and institutional capacity is important at various levels. LESTARI avoided a ‘helicopter consultant’ type approach when assisting landscape partners. LESTARI technical resources were made accessible for landscape partners to discuss problems and collaboratively find solutions. In addition to forestry agencies, LESTARI also engaged other relevant technical institutions such BAPPEDA, Village Empowerment Office, Agriculture Office, and Environmental Office. Capacity was also built at the civil society level with community groups, journalists, academics, and the private sector.

• An important contribution of the multi-stakeholder approach facilitated by LESTARI is the strengthening of social trust among stakeholders. Mutual trust between stakeholders is essential for collaboration between parties. Meetings were held in an egalitarian and democratic manner, which helped to bring about a more conducive atmosphere compared to that previously experienced, which tended to be more bureaucratic due to titles, background, and social status of members. Trust among NGOs, the private sector, and government was strengthened significantly as demonstrated by participation in MSF meetings and openness to talk about local issues concerning forests and the environment. This is exemplified by the Mimika MSF where effective, respectful and open communications between government agencies and the Lorentz National Park, PT. Freeport Indonesia, civil society and the church have led to effective collaborations on the ground involving wildlife conservation, SEA implementation among other initiatives.. The local government appreciated the participatory process in formulation of policies, plans, and programs and as a result, relations between intergovernmental institutions have improved. In brief, the mutual trust and awareness of the people toward environment conservation has been enhanced.

• In the context of sustainable development in Indonesia, it is worth investing in

attempts to mobilize domestic resources for environmental conservation and sustainable land use because significant budget resources do exist; a sophisticated cycle of strategic planning and work planning lead to allocated budgets; and multi-stakeholder input into budget amounts is allowed by law (Government Regulation 45 of 2017 on Public Participation in Local Government Administration).

• There is no cookie-cutter approach to successfully leveraging programs and budgets. Approaches need to be developed in each place and time, considering openness and interest of relevant counterparts, timing in the planning and budgeting cycle, capacity of local project staff to undertaken budget advocacy, and potential resistance to reforms.


• In budget advocacy, impact is not certain and some avenues may turn out to be dead ends. This is due to various factors, such as when officials are shifted to new positions, if deadlines for completing government development plans suddenly change, and if certain reforms are blocked via processes which are not transparent. It is important to provide spaces for discussion and reflection both within the program, and between program staff and other collaborators, to pool information, discuss potential approaches, and reflect on what has been achieved so far.


3.4 PRIVATE SECTOR BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS The land-based private sector provides significant opportunities for conservation of biodiversity and reduction of deforestation and degradation within LESTARI supported landscapes. The total current area of Indonesia's production forests within the government managed forest estate is 68.8 million hectares or 57% of Indonesia's total forest area (120.6 million ha). Of that area, natural forest timber concession (HPH) licenses cover a total area of 18.5 million ha (2018 data). Therefore, LESTARI expanded on work first started under IFACS to promote Best Management Practices (BMPs) that included (1) Reduced Impact Logging to reduce GHG emissions (RIL-C) in natural forest timber concessions and (2) the promotion of HCV forest set-asides in fiber and oil palm plantations, both important aspects in third-party certification schemes. While LESTARI’s Theory of Change included co-management agreements with communities adjacent to concession areas and the private sector aimed at improving value chains critical to improved livelihoods, companies are currently unable to accommodate social forestry licenses nor use their areas for multi-purpose commodities. Regulations for multi-purpose forestry are still being discussed by the Indonesian Government. Public discourse was encouraged towards the removal of policy constraints to increase the value of natural resources to the private sector in ways that are both economically and environmentally sustainable. SUMMARY OF INITIATIVES Studies on RIL-C indicate that it can reduce the level of forest destruction, reduce timber waste, improve timber quality, increase the productivity of timber harvesting, and reduce the cost of timber production. The actual benefits from RIL-C, however, depend on physical conditions of the concession area, commitment for implementing the full range of RIL-C practices, and the capacity of HPH employees. LESTARI planned an approach for RIL-C implementing training to (1) improve re-harvest planning (including production planning and environmental impact mitigation); (2) improve harvesting operations to minimize damage during operations (including improving road and infrastructure design and development, delineating no-go areas, reducing damage to residual forest stand); and (3) monitoring and adaptive management. Ultimately, LESTARI aimed to measure the GHG reduction benefits from these improvements. LESTARI contracted two organizations, Tropical Forest Foundation (TFF) and Lembaga Wana Aksara (LWA), to work with nine natural forest timber concession companies in Central Kalimantan and Sarmi District, Papua to implement trainings in Reduced Impact Logging. Combined these concession areas cover more than 636,000 hectares of forest. In Sarmi, RIL-C was the sole initiative supported by LESTARI and hence especially important in that landscape for achieving GHG emission targets and improving management over the landscape.


HPH Companies that Partnered with LESTARI for RIL-C

Landscape HPH Partner Area Covered by Concession (Ha)

Katingan-Kahayan Landscape, Central Kalimantan

PT. Fitamaya Asmapara (FA) 43,880 PT. Sarana Piranti Utama (SPU) 49,700 PT. Sikatan Wana Raya (SWA) 49,400 PT. Hutan Domas Raya (HDR) 99,870 PT. Graha Sentosa Permai (GSP) 44,970 PT. Hutan Mulya (HM) 52,100 PT. Kayu Waja (KW) 38,450

Sarmi Landscape, Papua

PT. Wapoga Mutiara Timber II (WMT) 79,130 PT. Salaki Mandiri Sejahtera (SMS) 169,170

Total 626,670 LESTARI HPH partners demonstrated that RIL-C training and implementation did indeed lead to many positive environmental and economic benefits. However, this approach cannot yet be applied throughout the entire timber sector in Indonesia. A number of factors are responsible: lack of legal or regulatory requirements mandating RIL-C, lack of awareness about the benefits of modern RIL-C practices by most HPH, and a declining timber business climate contributing to uncertainty in long-term business prospects. Therefore, more systematic efforts are needed to disseminate to HPHs the long-term benefits (e.g., efficiency savings, FSC certification) of investing in RIL-C training and implementation. In addition, incentives should be provided to HPHs including carbon credits and policies for a more conducive national timber business climate based on enhancing value and sustainability. Besides RIL-C, LESTARI also encouraged the implementation of High Conservation Value (HCV) monitoring especially HCV 5 and HCV 6 for management units and company’s employees in the field. This was intended to ensure that the production and utilization of timber forests are carried out by considering environmental and conservation values. HAVE BMP (RIL-C, CMMP) SUPPORTED BY LESTARI CONTRIBUTED TO SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT? BMP-related trainings (RIL-C and HCV monitoring) conducted by LESTARI provided a positive contribution for improved forest management in production forest areas, from planning activities to timber harvesting and monitoring. The RIL-C method based on 100% tree census planning produces a map of the trees and skidding roads. This significantly reduced residual stand damage and land damage. It offered an obvious difference to the conventional practices of timber harvesting that create more environmental damage because of the absence of timber harvest planning. RIL-C is founded on timber selection based on rigorous planning. Conventional logging does not plan adequately and selects timber almost ad hoc. LESTARI also measured residual damage from areas of roads developed, skid trails made, and waste and damage to the residual forest stand. In all cases, RIL-C techniques reduced damage to the forest contributing to improved natural forest management. Productivity and operational efficiency was also increased across HPH partners. It is also considered that the quality of the timber improved because logs could reach the log yard faster. Carbon emissions were reduced, either measured in GHG emissions per cubic meter of timber produced when compared to conventional harvesting practices or comparing reduced damage from infrastructure development (roads and skid trails), waste, and abandoned felled trees.


RIL-C trainings helped to improve field staff productivity and efficiency in the field. Prior to RIL-C, operators of logging and skidding trails looked for trees to be felled individually, without any direction and clear sign of the skidding road connecting the tree’s location to timber collection point. For forest management to be truly sustainable where timber can be harvested in perpetuity, RIL-C and conservation measures must be carried out with a high degree of compliance. The HPH were evaluated for RIL-C compliance after training and implementation yet none of the companies reached the level regarded as RIL-C compliant and therefore not yet “sustainable” operations. In addition, there were different levels of adoption between companies which was dependent on priorities of their internal senior management. Where companies owned forest concessions (rather than managing them for a third party) better commitment and adoption was shown. Similarly, companies that had large forest concession areas showed better commitment to adopt RIL-C compared to companies with smaller concession areas. The primary motivation of companies to implement RIL-C generally depended on their target markets related to the demand for FSC certified timber products. Therefore for many companies RIL-C should be considered still in a pilot phase which indicates that the RIL-C use does not yet achieve overall sustainable forest management in all cases13. However, the level of adoption of RIL-C was not the same for each partner HPH and depended on priorities of their internal senior management. Similarly, companies that had large forest concession areas showed better commitment to adopt RIL-C compared to companies with smaller concession areas. The motivation of companies to implement RIL-C generally depended on their target markets related to the demand for FSC certified timber products. One of the biggest obstacles faced in implementing RIL-C was the high turnover of employees. However, companies tried to implement routine trainings for new operators and maintain consistent compliance. In addition, the quality of existing human resources and work culture were also challenging factors. Logging sites are generally located in remote areas with a limited pool of human resources that are experienced in the industry. With the financial health of companies suffering, many are unable to offer highly attractive packages to potential employees. Three companies, PT. Dwima Jaya Utama (DJU), PT. Carus Indonesia (Dwima Group), and PT. Bina Belantak Utama (BBU) partnered with LESTARI to receive trainings in HCV monitoring. In support of this, LESTARI designed a low-cost HCV monitoring method by applying an adapted Forest Integrity Assessment (FIA) tool and participatory mapping to measure the effectiveness of HCV management. PT. BBU has committed to continue using the tool to inform the company of the conservation status of HCV and any improved management required to protect HCV (needed to retain their certification). The FIA tool was deemed useful and effective by PT. DJU and PT. Carus Indonesia, but it has not yet been formally adopted by these companies as it took considerable time to convince company mangers to trial the FIA tool in the field during the final year of LESTARI. Under these conditions, the impact of the HCV monitoring trainings on sustainable production forest management practices cannot yet be seen. TO WHAT EXTENT IS BMP IMPLEMENTATION LIKELY TO THRIVE BEYOND THE LOP? Opportunities for BMP implementation after LESTARI are wide open considering the impacts from adoption have been clearly positive, both for business and the environment. The timber companies that participated in trainings can be leaders and pioneers in the implementation

13 Refer to Lessons Learned Technical Brief on Improving Production Forest Management for details


of RIL-C and HCV monitoring within their forest management activities. In addition to getting recognition from the Indonesian Forest Concessionaires Association (APHI) they also received recognition from the Directorate General of Sustainable Production Forest Management (DG PHPL) at KLHK. The DG PHPL has already issued guidelines for the application of RIL-C harvesting techniques in natural forest timber concessions (P.9/PHPL/SET/KUM.1/11/2018) that goes some way to encourage concessions to implement RIL-C, although the guidelines are not mandatory. The most important stakeholder to reach for RIL-C implementation are the concession owners that still require convincing. Regulations that mandate RIL-C or require the measurement of GHG emissions benefits (see below) as well as rigorous monitoring by KLHK are probably the only way that this can be accomplished, and therefore still a long way off before truly sustainable production forestry can become a reality. A significant benefit to the global environment from RIL-C is the potential reduction in GHG emissions from the forestry sector. Indonesia’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)14 target an emissions reduction of 29% from the baseline by 2030. From this 29%, the forestry sector was given a target of reducing emissions by 17.2%. This shows that the forestry sector is a key sector in the national emissions reduction plan, and RIL-C can play an important role as part of reducing emissions from the production forestry sector. LESTARI sub-contractor LWA is continuing this conversation with KLHK to more widely introduce GHG emissions reduction measurement in the industry. To investigate and measure the effect on GHG emissions when RIL-C practices are applied, LESTARI encouraged the two LESTARI sub-contractors, LWA and TFF, to identify suitable approaches. LESTARI did not define methodology, and although there was much debate and discussion about the most suitable methodology, the sub-contractors ultimately took different approaches. Both are considered equally valid with their pros and cons. Using data from three timber concessions, a study conducted by LWS showed that RIL-C implementation reduced the average emissions by 68% compared to conventional logging methods. Likewise, using data from six concessions, a TFF study showed that RIL-C led to a reduction in emissions by an average of 55% compared to conventional methods. Both of these studies clearly show the large potential impact from implementing RIL-C on reducing emissions from the forestry sector. Considering that as of May 2020 there were a total 257 timber companies operating in a total concession area of 18.8 million hectares across Indonesia 15, broader implementation would go a long way to contributing to Indonesia’s NDC target. From the company side, the long-term commitment for implementing BMPs requires financial and regulatory incentives. While the financial benefits from investing in RIL-C, in the form of productivity and efficiency gains have been documented in several countries including Indonesia, extensive outreach, information dissemination, and engagement is needed so that timber concessions companies are made aware of these benefits. APHI can play an important role in this needed outreach. Moreover, regulatory support from KLHK is needed to ensure broader RIL-C implementation as well as better biodiversity conservation in concession areas. Lastly, greater coordination among stakeholders (see table below) is needed to ensure the sustainability and amplification of RIL-C practices in Indonesia.

14 KLHK (2017). Strategi Implementasi NDC (Nationally Determined Contribution) 15 Infographics, http://phpl.menlhk.go.id/

http://phpl.menlhk.go.id/


Summary of Stakeholder Coordination Needed for Broader RIL-C Implementation in Indonesia

Institution Expected Role

Government

• Regulation on RIL-C • Policies covering incentives/disincentives • Effective monitoring to enforce future regulations that mandate

RIL-C aspects

Concession holders

• Commitment from company management/owner to invest in RIL-C

• Written instructions from company management • Adequate human resources, both in quantity and quality • Routine RIL trainings

Association

• RIL-C advocacy to the government to encourage supporting policy

• Appeal to members • Act as a facilitator for the company

Technical Support Organization and Academia

• A comprehensive RIL-C technique research related to all aspects of forest harvesting practices

• Improve training methods based on participant ability • Improve trainer competency

Certification Body • Improve knowledge of auditors about RIL-C practice in the field in order to strengthen credibility of certification

Assessor • Have an adequate understanding of RIL-C and techniques on how to evaluate the implementation of RIL-C

Donor/Project/NGO • Facilitate carbon incentives



Main Outcomes 16 (too early for impacts)

• Nine private sector timber concessionaire companies adopted RIL-C and two companies have HCV monitoring in place, in total covering more than one million hectares.

Drivers to Success

• Attitudes and acceptance of the partner companies, including higher-level management and field staff

• Importance of certification; FSC or PHPL

• Provision of training as mentioned above

• Capacity of staff in conducting monitoring

Barriers to Success

• No regulation mandating RIL-C implementation

• No government incentives for companies to adopt and implement RIL-C techniques

• Limited dissemination of information on the benefits of RIL-C within the private sector

• Level of implementation unclear. Some companies only applied on a limited scale. Not all companies issued official policies regarding the implementation of RIL-C in all their business units.

• Uncertainty in long-term prospects of timber sector nationally

• Not all companies have senior management / owners that are supporters of responsible environmental management

• Staff turnover still a challenge; when personnel leave the company it is not guaranteed that the replacement staff will be as supportive for RIL-C. Company management have tried to maintain consistent operations through trainings, but this is a challenge in remote field sites.

16 Outcome: A result or effect that is caused by or attributable to the project, program or policy. Outcome is often used to refer to more immediate and intended effects (USAID 2009).




• RIL-C training was limited to 9 HPHs operating within LESTARI supported landscapes. Indonesia currently has 257 HPHs of which only 10% have implemented RIL-C on the ground 17. Thus more efforts are needed to clearly disseminate the benefits (financial and environmental) of RIL-C to all HPHs.

• Given potential benefits from RIL-C, a national level workshop or other advocacy strategy should be employed with government, engaged private sector, and community stakeholders to formulate future policy on RIL-C and foster greater awareness and acceptance for RIL-C from timber companies that have yet to apply it.

• The Forest Integrity Assessment (FIA) tool, a low-cost HCV monitoring tool introduced by LESTARI, has been well-received but not fully adopted by all companies. There is a need to conduct further dissemination on this tool with wider audiences.

• For companies/owners that have witnessed benefits and improved returns as a result of RIL-C adoption, there is certainly potential to continue to invest in RIL-C (refresher trainings, monitoring and evaluation) to maintain compliance in a self-reliant manner.

REFLECTION: WHAT WORKED AND WHY, AND WHAT NEXT? The successes and lessons learned based on LESTARI experiences supporting BMP implementation by partner concession companies are summarized below. These can be adapted and applied to other provinces and regions in Indonesia.

• The RIL-C training facilitated by LESTARI has made a real contribution towards sustainable forest management in production forest areas. From planning to harvesting, the RIL-C training increased the knowledge and skills of HPH field staff and managers on environmentally friendly harvesting methods, which can reduce damage on residual stands and land while increasing harvesting productivity. Ongoing support from company senior management is an absolute must to ensure the long-term adoption and adherence to RIL-C practices.

• RIL-C implementation must provide sufficient financial incentives to HPHs in order to ensure long-term adoption. Studies have already demonstrated that RIL-C offers significant financial benefits in the form of increased productivity and efficiency resulting in reduced operational costs. Greater outreach is needed to convince the majority of HPHs of these proven and significant financial benefits to investments in RIL-C. In addition, KLHK should consider offering incentives to companies that have voluntarily implemented RIL-C. Broader RIL-C implementation, and resulting emissions reductions, would align with and contribute to KLHK’s goals for emissions reduction from the forestry sector.

• Enabling policies are needed to mainstream RIL-C. Currently, implementation of RIL-

C is already a requirement to obtain a PHPL certificate, a mandatory certification to produce and sell timber. However, government regulations that specifically mandate RIL-C for timber companies do not exist. LESTARI collaborated with APHI to advocate for the issuance of a ministerial regulation on this matter, but it did not lead to a strong, legally binding regulation.

17 Data APHI, 2020


• Companies that have implemented RIL-C and the FIA tool have been documenting the various learning outcomes and using this information to develop SOP guidelines for both techniques. It is important that all of these documents are well distributed to all employees so that both senior management and field staff are on the same page. Based on LESTARI experience, the expectations and commitments sometimes did not align between the office-based senior management and staff conducting operations at the field site.

• A forum or working group is needed to routinely coordinate on RIL-C technical and

regulatory matters in order to ensure its wider adoption and utility. This forum would consist of government, experts, assessors, APHI, certification bodies, and donor/NGO partners.


4. CONCLUSION The objective of this Final Assessment was to measure the impact of LESTARI in achieving its main outcomes and the ability of government and non-government partners to sustain and amplify these outcomes. LESTARI did not start completely anew, but rather sought to build upon the successes, relationships, and lessons learned from the USAID IFACS project (2010-2015). For example, IFACS focused on incorporating SEA recommendations into the RTRW, while LESTARI shifted priority to SEA-RPJMD. This aimed to ensure that these recommendations are adopted into programs and allocated supporting budgets, as is legally required for RPJMD. Another example is the development and implementation of Landscape Conservation Plans (LCPs) which were developed during IFACS as a tool for guiding conservation actions and influencing district spatial plans. Through LESTARI, these LCPs were then operationalized in the form of social forestry initiatives, Conservation Partnerships, and Kampung Lestari scheme in Papua. Through these processes, LESTARI acted as a catalyst in synergizing the legacy of IFACS with suitable Indonesian government policy and programs. LESTARI strived to work within the Indonesian central and regional governments’ regulatory and priority framework. This strategy helped to build buy-in from partners by filling gaps such as the lack of human resources capacity, tools availability, data analysis and funding limitation. Furthermore, this approach ensured smooth handover, ownership from partners, and continuity of activities and approaches after LESTARI closeout. Overall government and civil society partners perceived LESTARI as a well-managed and effective project facilitating significant progress in outreach and awareness, building constituencies for conservation, and enhancing forest management capacity. Significant results included 7.46 million hectares of forest and natural resources under improved management, USD 33.8 million in domestic resources mobilized for forest and biodiversity conservation, 41,535 people securing livelihood benefits, and 29 national and sub-national policies introduced. However, LESTARI did not achieve breakthroughs in leveraging large private sector investment in sustainable forest-based commodities, as this proved more challenging than expected. LESTARI attempted a type of intervention which tried to merge conservation efforts with private sector engagement within the six project-supported landscapes. In its implementation, LESTARI tried to demonstrate that these two seemingly contradictory interests can be aligned in harmony as long as proper assistance and government support are in place. As a landscape-focused project, LESTARI was limited to interventions in the six specific landscapes that are remote, have limited infrastructure and market access, insufficient investment incentives for the private sector, among other obstacles. More broadly, potential opportunities for private sector engagement in the sustainable forest commodity space do exist in Indonesia and are growing with niche markets for high-end chocolate and coffee. This could be a suitable area for a future project with more flexibility in working areas and focal landscapes. As explained in the beginning of this report, this Final Assessment aimed to answer four main questions of impacts (see below) based on the AMEP. An additional question on long-term sustainability and self-reliance was also considered within each of the four main question areas.


TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE LESTARI INTERVENTIONS BEEN EFFECTIVE IN REDUCING BIODIVERSITY THREATS AND POSITIVELY IMPACTED POPULATIONS OF KEY IDENTIFIED SPECIES? In general, LESTARI adopted existing approaches to support the improvement of PA management. LESTARI decided to works within the existing protected area management framework, such as METT, SMART Patrol, RPJP, mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts, zoning/blocking, and combating illegal wildlife trade and forest crimes. Each relevant UPT has now demonstrated greater commitment and capacity in implementing these tools and approaches. Through adaptive management, LESTARI was flexible to adapt to and align with new government programs and priorities such as Conservation Partnership. However, LESTARI also made a significant contribution to improving the quality and quantity of implementation of those activities by filling gaps through supporting capacity building, facilitating programs, assisting in data management and analysis, and providing funding support. This synergy proved to be a good strategy in order to gain support from partners, especially KSDAE and its units (PA) rather than introducing new approaches. In addition, working within GOI frameworks helped to achieve broader impacts and ensure sustainability. This assessment’s findings were inconclusive to confirm whether the measured reductions in biodiversity threats and positively impacted populations of key species can be directly attributed to LESTARI's interventions for improved PA management. Various factors and actors can influence the reduction of threats to forest areas, such as the implementation of government policies, government programs on conservation/rehabilitation, law enforcement, and other donor projects. Moreover, there was no previous official baseline on wildlife trafficking and poaching (either at landscape or national level) against which to measure the impacts of SMART patrols even where project data was collected. This does not mean that LESTARI's work was ineffective as three signs indicate concrete contributions to positive impact – the decrease in the rate of deforestation in most PAs (with the exception of Cyclops Nature Reserve) during the LESTARI project period, the increase in METT score within PA units supported by the project, and the reduced intensity of poaching of key species in assisted PAs. These facts show positive outcomes for increasing the effectiveness of PA management as targeted in the relevant strategic approach at the beginning of the project. TO WHAT EXTENT HAS IMPROVED COLLABORATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE SECTOR AND COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTED (VIA CO-MANAGEMENT AND/OR GREEN ENTERPRISES) TO IMPROVED FOREST MANAGEMENT/INCREASED CONSERVATION STEWARDSHIP? LESTARI supported building capacity and commitment for co-management among relevant stakeholders in areas adjacent to PAs. This is essential for threat reduction on PAs through more transparent, negotiated agreements where roles and responsibilities between stakeholders (local communities, local government, national park, FMU) are clearly defined. LESTARI invested significantly to support the implementation of collaborative management activities, strengthening FMUs, and green enterprises. It is not surprising that the results from this assessment indicate that LESTARI’s interventions on these initiatives achieved the most significant outcomes and impacts compared to other initiatives. From project indicators, these initiatives also contributed to the majority of achievements. This shows the strength of the LESTARI interventions in working collaboratively with community, government and private sectors. The project initiatives on supporting community livelihoods through improved production and enhanced market access of key local commodities is on the right track to yield benefits for local incomes as well as reducing deforestation and encroachment pressures. However, further research needs to be done with a counterfactual to study other enabling factors that might contribute to these impacts. Various benefits felt by the community through collaborative forest management and green enterprise initiatives have fostered their stewardship of natural forest areas. In several instances, communities demonstrated awareness and capacity in protecting their forest areas from various external threats.


TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE LESTARI INTERVENTIONS BEEN EFFECTIVE IN IMPROVING LAND USE GOVERNANCE? Improved land use governance is a cornerstone of achieving improved forest management and biodiversity conservation as it provides the foundational policies and institutional frameworks to enable improved practices. Improving land use governance with entry points through incorporating SEA recommendation into development plans (RPJMD) and spatial plans (RTRW) can ensure the new or revised policies, plans or programs are developed based on the principles of sustainability and provide alternative scenarios and recommendations to mitigate impacts. To a certain extent, SEA application in districts and provinces assisted by LESTARI was indeed able to improve the planning and decision-making process in the formulation of RTRW and RPJMD. Nevertheless, none of the SEA-LEDS incorporated into the draft district spatial plans (Ranperda RTRW) has officially resulted in changes on the ground because of the time it takes to move through the approval processes of various levels of government until Ranperda are endorsed as Perda and enforced. However, the potential for delivering impact is enormous. SEA-LEDS recommendations incorporated into the draft district spatial plans in Boven Digoel and Mimika Districts have resulted in proposal for increasing areas under protection from 18% to 44% (511,373 ha) and 70% to 73% (42,399 ha) respectively. Though the draft spatial plans are still under review, the SEA process in Boven Digoel has produced increased awareness and debate about environmental issues that led to the issuance of SK Bupati Boven Digoel in 2018 to revoke location permits for three palm oil companies, PT Wahana Agri Karya, PT Duta Visi Global and PT Visi Hijau Nusantara. This result occurred during the stages of SEA development when the SEA working group (Pokja KLHS) carried out evaluation of existing policies. LESTARI provided significant contributions in successfully promoting Forest Management Units and Social Forestry initiatives to become priorities of the forestry agency at the provincial level. Previously, these programs were considered as top-down “products” from the national government that were reluctantly accepted by the local government. LESTARI also succeeded in providing valuable lessons learned in overcoming the common issue in the forestry sector regarding insufficient budgets. Through optimizing the use of GOI’s Reforestation Funds beyond landscape rehabilitation, various forestry programs for FMU strengthening and social forestry have a higher chance to succeed. Despite limitations in the sampling of this assessment, LESTARI’s local government partners were clear in emphasizing that the project provided concrete contributions and impacts in triggering improved forest management in the landscapes. However, the long-term sustainability of these achievements beyond LESTARI may not materialize as too many factors are dynamic and dependent on political will and local governance. The legacy is expected to stand for at least the next several years given LESTARI’s impacts and influence on RPJMD and Renstra plans, which last for five-year periods. Beyond this, it is expected that Champions can continue to play a role in influencing forestry sector planning and budgeting processes. TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE PRIVATE SECTOR SUSTAINED BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND REDUCED ITS OWN INTERNAL THREATS TO DEFORESTATION, DEGRADATION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION? The objective of best management practices initiative was to engage with private sector companies operating in and/or impacting LESTARI supported landscapes to build their capacity and secure their commitment towards the long-term implementation of BMPs for reducing deforestation and improving biodiversity conservation within concession areas. This approach proved to be challenging for two main reasons. First, LESTARI spent considerable time and resources convincing timber companies to join the BMP scheme offered (RIL-C training / HCV monitoring), and re-conducting technical training on BMPs for company staff which had already been done during the IFACS project. Aside from conducting trainings, LESTARI should have focused more on intensive facilitation on the


ground in order to ensure the full adoption of RIL-C and/or HCV monitoring practices. More efforts could have gone to advocacy efforts aimed at influencing company practices rather than awareness raising and capacity building. Second, advocacy efforts with KLHK were insufficient and did not result in the issuance of a regulation mandating RIL-C as intended. This lack of policy means that the long-term sustainability of RIL-C implementation after LESTARI is uncertain. However, the BMP initiative was able to demonstrate a reduction in threats to forest areas from uncontrolled deforestation and degradation and encouraged biodiversity conservation efforts at the same time in production forests. For the moment, this impact can only be seen at a small scale in some harvesting plots of the partner concession companies. Overall, the Final Assessment revealed a broad range of successful results facilitated by LESTARI. Many impacts, particularly relating to governance interventions, have yet to be realized due to the long-term nature of impacts from policies and plans. In addition, many governance interventions are not easily attributable to the actions of one party as they are influenced by a wide array of actors and factors, many of which are beyond the control of a donor project. Political and economic dynamics, overlapping policies, and turnover of government partners and counterparts often indirectly hindered progress. Ultimately, long-term political will and collaborative action between government agencies and with a broad range of multi-stakeholders are needed to improve sustainable forest management in Indonesia. LESTARI has demonstrated successful models and approaches for how to do this; it is now the responsibility of GOI counterparts at the national and local level to amplify and sustain these approaches in order to meet their forestry sector development objectives and commitments while at the same time fostering the sustainable development of communities in Indonesia.


5. APPENDICES 5.1 KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT Key Question 1: To what extent have LESTARI interventions been effective in reducing biodiversity threats and positively impacted populations of key identified species?

Detailed Assessment Questions Evidence Source

Have LESTARI intervention contributed to the improved management and protection of the habitat of key species? Topics to be covered include the following:

• METT score and LESTARI role in improving PA’s METT score (note: LESTARI contribution through other activities such RPJP development, SMART Patrol, Conservation Partnership, etc. should also be assessed)

• Tangible impact of improved management and protection of the habitat of key species (note: check if PA has data that reflect situation)

• Future resourcing issues to maintain the improved management (note: budget allocation, skilled staff, enabling system/support from KLHK, etc.).

• Principles for improving PA management that might be applied in other area (note: this is lesson learn question, elaborate more about what we can learn to replicate the success)

Existing evidence: • METT score sheets • RPJP document • Zonation document • Co-management document • LESTARI reports • Mid-term evaluation report • Evaluation report of RKT with PAs • WCS report on tiger survey

Semi-structured interviews in the central agencies and the field (respondents include Dit KK-KLHK, UPT National Park/BKSDA, communities, NGOs working in PAs) Secondary data collection for key species population (tiger and orangutan) from PA and/or NGOs (if available) Group work with LESTARI staff in Jakarta and the field

Have LESTARI interventions reduced threats to biodiversity from large-scale infrastructure development and small-scale agriculture development? Topics to be covered include the following:

• Mapping the process of zonation of CA (note: how large-scale infrastructure development and small-scale agriculture development being mitigated in the zonation. The mapping will include the level of public participation in zonation process.)

• The extent improved zonation has been effective in establishing co-management with stakeholders. • The extent improved zonation has been effective in addressing land-use conflict (be it with other government

institution or community)



• The extent LESTARI has been effective in supporting improved zonation. • Identification of any general principles for enforcing zonation (note: this question will also provide information whether

PA managers has capacity to enforce and implement zonation).

Site selection: • Leuser National Park • Sebangau National Park • Lorentz National Park • Cyclops Nature Reserve Have LESTARI interventions reduced threats to biodiversity from illegal logging, poaching and wildlife trafficking?

The topics to be covered include the following:

• The extent LESTARI interventions have been effective in reducing illegal logging, poaching and wildlife trafficking • The extent community participation has been effective in reducing threats to PA (note: for example, in the case of

MMP) • The likelihood of SMART Patrol, MMP, WCU/FCU continuing beyond the life of LESTARI (note: elaborate 4 principles

of sustainability namely enabling environment/policy, budget, skill and knowledge management) • Principles that might be applied in other PAs

Have LESTARI interventions reduced threats to biodiversity arising from community-wildlife conflict? The topics to be covered include the following:

• The scale of human-wildlife conflict in LESTARI supported landscapes (note: take Aceh as sample for tiger and orangutan)

• Identify the role of each relevant stakeholders (BKSDA, community, local government) in mitigating human-wildlife conflict, include ways of working that worked and ways that didn’t – and why

• The extent LESTARI has been effective and efficient in strengthening the capacity of community in mitigating human-wildlife conflict through Model Desa Mandiri (MDM) approach

• The impact of empowering community through MDM on reducing human-wildlife conflict • What community groups believe are the general principles that work in MDM • The motivation of community groups to lead and act • The likelihood of MDM being adopted by government and continuing beyond the life of LESTARI


IMPROVED FOREST MANAGEMENT TROUGH CO-MANAGEMENT, FMU STRENGTHENING, AND GREEN ENTERPRISES Key Question 2: To what extent has improved collaboration between government, private sector and community contributed (via co-management and/or green enterprises) to improved forest management/increased conservation stewardship?


2.1 Will co-management initiatives reduce future large scale and small-scale deforestation and degradation (e.g., infrastructure development, agricultural and forestry development, mining, smallholder agriculture, illegal mining and logging)? Topics to be covered include the following:

• To what extend have co-management initiatives (i.e., social forestry, conservation partnership, PPP, and co-management agreement in Papua) been implemented and resources provided for such implementation?

• The main aspects required to make co-management initiatives work in all levels, issues covered in co-management schemes and the processes in developing co-management (this includes inclusiveness of women’s voices in the co-management issues and the impact of this)

• The impacts (positive and negative) have flowed from this implementation • The extent LESTARI has been effective and efficient in supporting co-management initiatives • What needs to happen to make co-management initiatives work without external support?

Existing evidence: • Performance indicators • LESTARI reports (quarterly, annual) • LESTARI Mid-term evaluation report • Key documents reviewed: social

forestry licenses, co-management agreement, conservation partnership agreement, and PPP agreement

• LESTARI case study reports: o 7 social forestry models in Central

Kalimantan o FMU strengthening and its impact

in Central Kalimantan o Verification for co-management

agreement in Ohotya Village, Papua

o Assessment on UPPB (rubber farmer groups) in Central Kalimantan and livelihood benefits survey among rubber farmers

o The impact of sustainable coffee and cacao

Semi-structured interviews: In a sample of villages/sites where co-management initiatives exist:

2.2 Are livelihood benefits (monetary and non-monetary) sustained by LESTARI beneficiaries – government, private sector and community? Topics to be covered include the following:

• Identification of benefits obtained by each beneficiary from the establishment of co-management • The strategy of each beneficiary to sustain these benefits • The extent LESTARI has been effective and efficient in supporting beneficiaries’ capacities to sustain these livelihood

benefits



2.3 Are livelihood benefits (monetary and non-monetary) sufficiently incentivizing those beneficiaries to protect and/or manage the forest sustainably? The topics to be covered include the following:

• The motivation of each beneficiary (government, private sector and community) to lead and act • What they believe are the general principles that work in co-management to protect and/or manage the forest

sustainably? • Identification of what enabling factors exist to motivate beneficiaries to conserve forest and LESTARI’s role in

supporting this situation

• Head of village • Member of community forestry

groups • Facilitator/grantees LESTARI • Private sector management

(involve in PPP) • FMU reps (involve in social

forestry) • TN reps (involve in conservation

partnership) • CDK, DPMK, other relevant Dinas

in Papua (involve in co-management agreement)

Group work with LESTARI staff in Jakarta and the field Site selection: Social Forestry: Putri Betung, Aceh Alur Baning, Aceh Kemitraan Konservasi: Alur Baning Co-management agreement: Kokonao, Mimika Nayaro, Mimika Yepem, Asmat Ewer, Asmat PPP: Rubber, Pulang Pisau Cacao, Aceh Tenggara

2.4 To what extent has LESTARI assistance contributed to the leveraging of funds for partner organizations to carry on initiatives in a more self-reliant manner? The topics to be covered include the following:

• Identification of budget allocation from each partner (government, community, private sector) to support implementation of co-management initiatives

• The extent LESTARI has been effective and efficient in enabling partners to mobilize their own resources


AWARENESS & ADVOCACY, OPERATIONALIZE SEA TO IMPROVE LAND USE GOVERNANCE, AND SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE Key Question 3: To what extent have LESTARI interventions been effective in improving land-use governance?


3.1 What changes have been made to land use policy as result of advocacy interventions and strengthening citizen-based mechanism input? Topics to be covered include the following:

• Identification of SEA recommendations incorporated into local governments development planning (e.g., RPJMD in Aceh Province, RTRW in Papua)

• The range of impacts (positive and negative) of the development and utilization of SEA have had on: o Draft and final (if already final) spatial plans; o Land-use decision making in the landscape; o Allocation of land for local people; o Bridge building from the public consultation processes; o Capacity of local government staff in formulating land-use related policy; o Other impacts not covered by the above

Existing evidence: • Performance indicators • SEAs, RPJMD, RTRW (draft)

documents • LESTARI Mid-term evaluation report • Political Economy Analysis (PEA) report • LESTARI reports (quarterly and annual) • LESTARI lesson learned and technical

briefs: o Land use licensing o Domestic resource mobilization

for sustainable forest management

SEA RPJMD and RTRW: Semi-structured interviews (combined with FGD) in the field (Aceh and Papua) with SEA technical team:

• Bappeda and other relevant offices (e.g., Dinas Kehutanan, PUPR, Plantation, Agriculture)

• Community and non-government representatives participating in SEA process

• Facilitator/consultant of SEA SIMTARU/SST and SIKAWAN: Semi-structured interviews in the field (Aceh and Papua) with SIMTARU/SST and SIKAWAN technical team

3.2 Have beliefs, opinions, and behaviors of stakeholders changed as result of advocacy and campaign activities? Topics to be covered include the following:

• The ways in which LESTARI advocacy and campaign activities have made a difference in the landscapes • The extent to which public monitoring system (e.g., SIMTARU/SST, SIKAWAN) is adopted by local government and

the consequences of this situation • The likelihood of advocacy initiatives continuing beyond the life of LESTARI

3.3 Will improved land use governance initiatives safeguard forest from deforestation and degradation (e.g., infrastructure development, agricultural and forestry development, mining)? The topics to be covered include the following:

• Identification of where land use governance initiatives (e.g., SEA-RPJMD, SEA-RTRW, monitoring system) worked well in delivering results, in what circumstances, and why (and the where did these NOT work so well, in what circumstances and why)



• Obstacles in: o Incorporating SEA into RPJMD, RTRW o Implementing RPMJD, RTRW incorporating SEA o Operationalizing land-use monitoring system (SIMTARU/SST, SIKAWAN)

• How the use of SEA might be changed or maintained in the future • Options for improving the tools to ensure a more positive impact on land-use system

• Bappeda, Dinas Kehutanan, DPMPTSP

• NGOs/community representatives participating in the development process

• Facilitator/consultant of SIMTARU/SST and SIKAWAN

Advocacy and public monitoring: Semi-structured interviews in the field (Aceh) with Environmental Journalist Network Funding leveraged: Semi-structured interviews in the field (Aceh, Central Kalimantan, Papua) with Bappeda, Dinas Kehutanan, Budget Advocacy consultants and FMUs Group work with LESTARI staff in Jakarta and the field Site selection: Aceh: SEA-RPJMD; APBD; SIKAWAN Papua: SEA-RTRW Bouven Digoel Central Kalimantan: SEA-RPJMD; DBH-DR

3.4 To what extent has LESTARI assistance contributed to the leveraging of funds for government partner to carry on SEAs and/or land use policy recommendations in a more self-reliant manner? The topics to be covered include the following:

• The role of LESTARI in unlocking domestic resource (e.g., DBH-DR, Village Fund, APBD) • The main lessons to emerge from this budget advocacy process


PRIVATE SECTOR BMP Key Question 4: To what extent has the private sector sustained best management practices and reduced its own internal threats to deforestation, degradation and biodiversity conservation?


4.1 Have BMPs (RIL-C, CMMP) supported by LESTARI contributed to sustainable forest management? Topics to be covered include the following:

• The extent to which concessions adopt BMPs • The effectiveness of BMPs guiding management and monitoring of HCV areas in LESTARI supported concessions • The direct impacts (positive and negative) of implementing BMPs for concessions, for example, on company’s

efficiency, emission reduction, etc. • The role of LESTARI in supporting BMPs implementation and the consequences

Existing evidence: • Performance indicators • LESTARI reports (quarterly, annual) • Sub-contractors report on RIL-C (LWA,

TFF) • LESTARI Mid-term evaluation report • LESTARI Lessons Learned Technical

Brief on Improving Production Forest Management

• LESTARI internal monitoring reports on RIL-C implementation

Semi-structured interviews with concessions’ management and relevant KLHK directorate in Jakarta and concessions’ staff in the field (Kalimantan Tengah and Papua). Group work with LESTARI staff in Jakarta and the field Site Selection: Dwima Group, Central Kalimantan Wapoga Group, Papua

4.2 To what extent are BMPs implementation likely to thrive beyond the LOP? Topics to be covered include the following:

• Identification of what worked, what didn’t work, in which circumstances, and why • Factors motivated concessions to discontinue unsustainable practices • The opportunities and obstacles to sustain and maintain BMPs implementation (e.g., budgetary implications, enabling

environment, market demand, incentive disincentive, etc.)


5.2 LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

1. LESTARI AMEP. 2nd edition 2. LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis, 3rd edition 3. LESTARI Mid-Term Evaluation 4. LESTARI Mid-Term Assessment with Political Economy Analysis (PEA) 5. LESTARI Annual Work Plans, Quarterly Reports and Annual Reports (2015-2020) 6. LESTARI Lesson Learned Technical Brief Multi-layered Conservation Management 7. LESTARI Lesson Learned Technical Brief SMART Patrols 8. LESTARI Lesson Learned Technical Brief Improving Production Forest Management 9. LESTARI Lesson Learned Technical Brief Lima Langkah Menuju Kemandirian KPH 10. LESTARI Lesson Learned Technical Brief Public Private Partnership for Sustainable Green Enterprise Development 11. LESTARI Lesson Learned Technical Brief Optimization of Reforestation Fund


5.3 LIST OF INTERVIEWEES A. LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS JABODETABEK AREA

No Name Institution Position 1 Dyah Murtiningtyas Direktorat Kawasan Konservasi - KSDAE Director 2 Ratna Hendratmoko Direktorat Kawasan Konservasi - KSDAE Sub Directorate Head 3 Dian Risdianto Direktorat Kawasan Konservasi - KSDAE Section Head 4 Peggy Awanti Direktorat Kawasan Konservasi - KSDAE Section Head 5 Andhika Chandra Ariyanto Direktorat Kawasan Konservasi - KSDAE Staff 6 Suswaji Direktorat Kawasan Konservasi - KSDAE Staff 7 Yohanes Dwi Susilo Direktorat Kawasan Konservasi - KSDAE Staff 8 Eko Pratomo Dwima Group President Director 9 Rahardjo Benyamin Asosiasi Pengusaha Hutan Indonesia (APHI) 1st Deputy Chief

10 I.B Putera Parthama Ditjen PHPL - KLHK Former PHPL DG Periode 2018 11 Hartono Prabowo Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) FSC Representative Indonesia 12 Agung Nugraha Lembaga Wana Aksara (LWA) Executive Director 13 Hasbillah Tropical Forest Fund (TFF) Executive Director 14 Dra. Saraswati MS Kementerian Pedesaan Research and Development 15 Sri Handayani PT. Dharma Ina Mandiri Spatial Planning Expert 16 Blair Palmer LESTARI JAKARTA Stakeholder Engagement Advisor (Former) 17 Sih Yuniati LESTARI JAKARTA Biodiversity & Protected Area Team Leader 18 Nurka Cahyaningsih LESTARI JAKARTA Co Management and FMU specialist 19 Munawar Kholis LESTARI JAKARTA Biodiversity & Protected Area Specialist 20 Indira Nurtanti LESTARI JAKARTA Private Sector Engagement Coordinator 21 Nana Suparna LESTARI JAKARTA Forestry Private Sector Engagement Advisor 22 Ni Made Chitra Anggraini LESTARI JAKARTA Project Communication Specialist 23 Kusdijono LESTARI JAKARTA Green Enterprise Development Specialist 24 Uji Paskasari P. LESTARI JAKARTA Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist 25 Rachman Pasha LESTARI JAKARTA Monitoring & Evaluation Coordinator


No Name Institution Position 26 Chris Bennett LESTARI JAKARTA Former Team Leader

LEUSER LANDSCAPE

No Name Institution Function 1 Dra. Hasrati MM Bappeda Propinsi Aceh Head of Economy Section

2 Drs. Heldi Syukriadi Dinas LHK Prop. Aceh Head of Program Development Subdivision

3 Noor Tribuono BBTNGL Programme & Cooperation

4 Fitriana Saragih BBTNGL Head of Utilization and Services Section

5 Jefry Susyafrianto BBTNGL Head of National Park

6 Adhi Nurul Hadi BBTNGL Head of Technical Division

7 Rinaldo BBTNGL Programme & Cooperation

8 Menet BBTNGL Wilayah II Head of Lawe Malum Resort

9 Zainal BBTNGL Wilayah II Management Division of Regional II

10 Nur BBTNGL Wilayah II Data Operator of SMART Patrol

11 Jimmi WCS Coordinator SMART Patrol Aceh Tenggara

12 Tarmizi WCS Leuser Landscape Manajer Sumatera Program

13 Ahmad Ubaidi Forum Konservasi Leuser (FKL) Project leader

14 Taufik Forum Konservasi Leuser (FKL) Facilitator

15 Rahmi Ayu Selian PT. Ecom-TMCI D&S Manager

16 Iqbal CV. Sugata Quality Control

17 Hasanuddin Klpk. Aramiko Chief

18 Abdul Karim G. SH. Koperasi SLA Chief

19 Sopan Supian Klpk. Mangge Mbelin Chief

20 Syamsir Alam Klpk Marpunge Chief

21 Salman Kopbun Kakao Bireuen Chief

22 Erwin Siregar LESTARI Aceh Leuser Landscape Coordinator

23 Suhada Arief LESTARI Aceh Landscape Sustainable Landscape Specialist

24 Idham Edo LESTARI Aceh Landscape Stakeholder Engagement Coordinator


KATINGAN-KAHAYAN LANDSCAPE No Name Institution Function 1 Wanson KTH Garung Lestari Chief 2 Ardila KTH Garung Lestari Secretary 3 Taliman KTH Garung Lestari Treasurer 4 Yanto L Adam LPHD Gohong Chief 5 Anang Sugito LPHD Gohong Secretary 6 Rachmad Saduri LPHD Tangkahen Chief 7 Suterman HKM Batu Bulan Chief 8 Teras HKM Batu Bulan Treasurer 9 Hendra Saputra Serang HKM Batu Bulan Secretary

10 Andy Liani HKM Hapakat Atei Chief 11 Jeki Kemitraan Konservasi Chief 12 Hasanudin UPPB Sepakat Bersama Chief 13 Dapin Satrio UPPB Sepakat Bersama Secretary 14 Winarti UPPB Sepakat Bersama Treasurer 15 Suradi UPPB Pangkoh Bersatu Chief 16 Petrus Sukirman UPPB Pangkoh Bersatu Secretary 17 Edy Sutoyo UPPB Pangkoh Bersatu Head of Marketing Section 18 Andi Khadafi BTN Sebangau Head of National Park 19 Uun Gumilar BTN Sebangau Head of Administration 20 Lisna Yulianti BTN Sebangau Head of SPTN I 21 Andromeda BTN Sebangau Walidata 22 Novianti Nugraheni BTN Sebangau Extension Officers 23 Yussaupin BTN Sebangau Walidata 24 Stevianus Lukas Laithenu PT. Kahayan Berseri Manager 25 Lasmari Dwima Group Area Manager 26 Budi Haryo Bappeda Propinsi Kalteng Head of Economyc Section 27 Ikhtisan Dinas Kehutanan Prop. Kalteng Head of Social Forestry Division 28 Ansar Dinas Kehutanan Prop. Kalteng Head of Program Sub Division


No Name Institution Function 29 Mursid Molsono Dinas Lingkungan Hidup Prop. Kalteng Former Head of DLH 30 Yudadi DInas Pertanian Kab. Pulang Pisau Head of Plantation Division 31 Beni Pasaribu KPHP Kahayan Tengah Head of Planning Section 32 Miko Duwiter KPHP Kahayan Tengah Head of Protection Section 33 Dendy S KPHP Kahayan Tengah Extension Officers 34 Kamaludin KPHP Kahayan Tengah Head of FMU 35 Fatkhurrahman LESTARI Katingan-Kahayan Policy & Technical Support Coordinator 36 Yuniarto Nugroho LESTARI Katingan-Kahayan Landscape Spatial Planning & GIS Specialist 37 Anugerah Wicaksono LESTARI Katingan-Kahayan Landscape Communication & Advocacy Specialist 38 Rosenda Candra Kasih LESTARI Katingan-Kahayan Provincial Coordinator 40 Mathius LESTARI Katingan-Kahayan Community Facilitator 41 Dadang Riansyah LESTARI Katingan-Kahayan Sustainable Livelihoods Development Officer

PAPUA LANDSCAPES

No Name Institution Function 1 Acha A. Sokoy BTN Lorentz Head of National Park 2 J. Cosmas Auri BTN Lorentz Head of Administration 3 Cris Daud Sembay BTN Lorentz KSPTN Wilayah 3 Nabire 4 Ferdianan Misiro BTN Lorentz Staff 5 Fredy Parabang BTN Lorentz KSPTN Wiayahl 1 Timika 6 Jimmi Pamasangan BTN Lorentz Staff 7 Edward Sembiring BBKSDA Papua Head of BBKSDA Papua 8 Askhari DS M BBKSDA Papua Head of Technical Division 9 Lussian Dyah BBKSDA Papua Kare P3 10 Chandra Ikbal BBKSDA Papua Head of Tepera Resort 11 Andi YP Rumaropen BBKSDA Papua Head of Revenirara Resort 12 Victory Karubaga BBKSDA Papua Head of Port Numbay Resort 13 F. Samjan Manobi BBKSDA Papua SMART Patrol Operator 14 Mochtar Tanasy BBKSDA Papua Bhakti Rimbawan


No Name Institution Function 15 Yohanes Alan Amran BBKSDA Papua Port Numbay Resort Staff 16 Andrian Sineri BBKSDA Papua Sentani Port Numbay Resort Staff 17 Adhen Pramudinto BBKSDA Papua Forest Ecosystem Controller 18 Irwan BBKSDA Papua Staff 19 Paschalina Rahawarin LESTARI Papua Provincial Coordinator 20 Dendy Sofyandi LESTARI Papua Landscape Coordinator 21 Yohanes Dwi Handoko LESTARI Papua Landscape Green Enterprise Development Specialist 22 Wahyudin LESTARI Papua Mangrove Co-Management Coordinator 23 Sendy de Soysa LESTARI Papua Mangrove Co-Management Officer 24 Reyki Gantare LESTARI Papua Landscape Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist 25 Andreas M LESTARI Papua Field Facilitator 26 Mayang Sari Takdir LESTARI Papua Mangrove Co-Management Officer 27 Masna Waris LESTARI Papua Mangrove Co-Management Officer 28 Samuel Betaubun LESTARI Papua Field Facilitator 29 Drs. Frans B Dinas Kehutanan Prop. Papua Head of Program Development Division 30 Drs. Agus Romaropen Dinas Penanaman Modal Prop. Papua Head of Program Division 31 Ir. Fauzan Dinas Pekerjaan Umum Kab. Boven Digul Head of Program Section 32 Sarimin Dinas Pertanian Kab. Asmat Head of Field Agricultural Extension 33 Paulus Cuarap DPMPK Kab. Asmat Head of Village Assets and Finance Division 34 Ahmat Matdoan Bappeda Kab. Asmat Head of Physical Facilities and Infrastructure 35 Paul Weti Keuskupan Timika External Facilitator 36 Robert Sarimin Keuskupan Asmat External Facilitator 37 Hengky Rumfabe Wapoga Group General Manager of Jayapura 38 Ir. Fajrul Hidayat MS SEA Consultant Boven Digul Director 39 Bonifasius Jakfu Multi Stakeholder Forum Chief


B. LIST OF COMMUNITY GROUPS No Name Institution Function 1 Alebetus Kampung Saw Forest Protection Community Group 2 Efradus Kambe Kampung Saw Forest Protection Community Group 3 Kletus Kopa Kampung Saw Forest Protection Community Group 4 Simon Kampung Saw Forest Protection Community Group 5 Heriadi S Kampung Saw Forest Protection Community Group 6 Febrius Anakat Kampung Saw Forest Protection Community Group 7 Adam Binar Kampung Saw Forest Protection Community Group 8 Rafael Dopa Kampung Saw Forest Protection Community Group 9 Keletus Jokmenpit Kampung Saw Forest Protection Community Group

10 Bruno Uwus Kampung Saw Forest Protection Community Group 11 Lafianus Cimenpit Kampung Saw Nature Resource Management Community Group 12 Barnabas Awit Kampung Saw Nature Resource Management Community Group 13 Isak G. Simenji Kampung Saw Nature Resource Management Community Group 14 Susana Wap Kampung Saw Nature Resource Management Community Group 15 Herlina Dopor Kampung Saw Nature Resource Management Community Group 16 Hermin Siro Kampung Saw Nature Resource Management Community Group 17 Yery Yoasandit Kampung Yepem Forest Protection Community Group 18 Andy Barry Kampung Yepem Forest Protection Community Group 19 Marius Atsmanmak Kampung Yepem Forest Protection Community Group 20 Bultasar Bewin Kampung Yepem Forest Protection Community Group 21 Hilarius Paterpits Kampung Yepem Forest Protection Community Group 22 Leonardus Jiwen Kampung Yepem Forest Protection Community Group 23 Frans Nayo Kampung Yepem Nature Resource Management Community Group 24 Katarina Kampung Yepem Nature Resource Management Community Group 25 Sara Kampung Yepem Nature Resource Management Community Group 26 Paskalina Kampung Yepem Nature Resource Management Community Group 27 Rashekam Kampung Yepem Nature Resource Management Community Group 28 Hesron Kampung Yepem Nature Resource Management Community Group


No Name Institution Function 29 Amastasia Kampung Yepem Nature Resource Management Community Group 30 Maisela Bmen Kampung Yepem Nature Resource Management Community Group 31 Abel Cawi Kampung Yepem Nature Resource Management Community Group 32 Dominika Poco Kampung Yepem Nature Resource Management Community Group 33 Mateja Cawi Kampung Yepem Nature Resource Management Community Group 34 Boslabaspis Kampung Yepem Nature Resource Management Community Group 35 Matilda Besempit Kampung Yepem Nature Resource Management Community Group 36 Sovia Kamter Kampung Yepem Nature Resource Management Community Group 37 Margareta Doromen Kampung Yepem Nature Resource Management Community Group 38 Hermina Bos Kampung Yepem Nature Resource Management Community Group 39 Martinus Berpit Kampung Yepem Nature Resource Management Community Group 40 Dominikus Biterwar Kampung Yepem Nature Resource Management Community Group 41 Lausia Kampung Yepem Nature Resource Management Community Group 42 Agustina Kampung Nayaro Nature Resource Management Community Group 43 Maria R. Umapi Kampung Nayaro Nature Resource Management Community Group 44 Eva Merweyan Kampung Nayaro Nature Resource Management Community Group 45 Ema Amewau Kampung Nayaro Nature Resource Management Community Group 46 Rosina Kampung Nayaro Nature Resource Management Community Group 47 Barnabas Amay Kampung Nayaro Nature Resource Management Community Group 48 Agustina Oprawiri Kampung Nayaro Nature Resource Management Community Group 49 Ludwina Mapuaripi Kampung Nayaro Nature Resource Management Community Group 50 Edwardus Were Kampung Nayaro Forest Ranger Partner Community 51 Petrus Tumako Kampung Nayaro Forest Ranger Partner Community 52 Martinus Pigaro Kampung Nayaro Forest Ranger Partner Community 53 Evarapus Too Kampung Nayaro Forest Ranger Partner Community 54 Servandus Amay Kampung Nayaro Forest Ranger Partner Community 55 Mario Y. Betaubun Kampung Nayaro Forest Ranger Partner Community 56 Albertus Yimani Kampung Nayaro Forest Ranger Partner Community 57 Rufus Tumaka Kampung Nayaro Forest Ranger Partner Community


No Name Institution Function 58 Ematus Umarufu Kampung Nayaro Forest Ranger Partner Community 59 Cristo Apoka Kampung Nayaro Forest Ranger Partner Community 60 Sofia Perayafe Kampung Nayaro Nature Resource Management Community Group 61 Ageta Amay Kampung Nayaro Nature Resource Management Community Group 62 Atasia Wiamero Kampung Nayaro Nature Resource Management Community Group 63 Yunita Amay Kampung Nayaro Nature Resource Management Community Group 64 Rosina Nawan Kampung Nayaro Nature Resource Management Community Group 65 Evarista Meraweyan Kampung Nayaro Nature Resource Management Community Group 66 Maria Amewau Kampung Nayaro Nature Resource Management Community Group 67 Odalina Yamiro Kampung Nayaro Nature Resource Management Community Group 68 Rosalina Makuya Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 69 Katarina Matirani Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 70 Maria Eyau Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 71 Yufita Mawiyakeyau Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 72 Frasika Iyako Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 73 Balbina Katarina Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 74 Areta Tokamyo Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 75 Sofia Tukani Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 76 Rosina Nawina Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 77 Sipriana Putaka Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 78 Anjelina Takati Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 79 Yakomina Tukani Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 80 Etel Iri Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 81 Eta Takr Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 82 Matelda Emuramo Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 83 Yoseda Baupo Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 84 Yusinta Tamaraetaupuku Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 85 Albertina Katersauka Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 86 Maria Ekaweyau Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group


No Name Institution Function 87 Natalia Kateryauka Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 88 Eskeris Kaway Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 89 Tina Baupo Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 90 Emiliana Atariu Kampung Kokonao Nature Resource Management Community Group 91 Dominika Yeawaua Kampung Kokonao Forest Protection Community Group 92 Alosius Ekawyan Kampung Kokonao Forest Protection Community Group 93 Sofia Utamakopea Kampung Kokonao Forest Protection Community Group 94 Anjelina Takati Kampung Kokonao Forest Protection Community Group 95 Ameliana Atariyu Kampung Kokonao Forest Protection Community Group 96 Sabinus Y.Tareyaipa Kampung Kokonao Forest Protection Community Group 97 Beni Kawai Kampung Kokonao Forest Protection Community Group 98 Alfiran Samin Kampung Kokonao Forest Protection Community Group 99 Esayas Sian Kampung Kokonao Forest Protection Community Group

100 Yustinsu Takaniyu Kampung Kokonao Forest Protection Community Group 101 Leo Paweyauta Kampung Kokonao Forest Protection Community Group 102 Alvos Kampung Kokonao Forest Protection Community Group 103 Elegus Take Kampung Kokonao Forest Protection Community Group 104 Antos Kampung Kokonao Forest Protection Community Group 105 Alfons Mapupia Kampung Kokonao Forest Protection Community Group 106 Anton Kampung Kokonao Forest Protection Community Group 107 Paulus Amarairu Kampung Kokonao Forest Protection Community Group 108 Pengky Kaway Kampung Kokonao Forest Protection Community Group


5.4 INDICATIVE FINAL ASSESSMENT HUMAN RESOURCE ALLOCATION

Landscape Location Topics Facilitator Notetaker Method Total Participants

Leuser

Gayo Lues PPP - Cacao 1 person Pudjo Basuki (SA)

1 person Supratman (SA)

FGD 15 persons

Aceh Tenggara Conservation Partnership 1 person Arif Aliadi (SA) FGD 15 persons

1 person (Dit KK)

Banda Aceh Planning, Budgeting & Monitoring System

1 person STTA (Suhardi) 1 person

Nurul (SA)

1 person STTA (Saeful Muluk)

Aceh Selatan MDM 1 person 1 person Adi Darmawan (SA) 1 person

(Dit KK)

Katingan Kahayan

Pulang Pisau Social forestry 1 person

Untung (SA)

1 person

Matius (SA)

FGD 10 persons

Gunung Mas Social forestry FGD 10 persons

Katingan Social forestry/ conservation partnership 1 person Dwi Wardoyo (SA) FGD

10 persons 1 person (Dit KK)

Pulang Pisau PPP - Karet 1 person Fahmi Tibian (SA) 1 person Dwi Wardoyo (SA) FGD 10 persons

Palangka Raya Planning - KLHS 1 person STTA (Suhardi)

- -

Budgeting 1 person STTA (Saeful Muluk)

Papua

Jayapura

Conservation - BBKSDA 1 person Prihananto (SA)

1 person

Deni Butar-butar (SA)

FGD 15 persons

1 person (Dit KK)

Conservation - TNL FGD 15 persons 1 person (Dit KK)

Timika Co-management Kokonao 1 person Robet Sakimin –(SA)

1 person Afiani (SA)

FGD 15 persons

Timika Co-management Nayaro FGD 15 persons

Asmat Co-management Yepem 1 person Keuskupan Asmat –

(SA) 1 person Duma/Arini (SA)

FGD 15 persons Asmat Co-management Ewer FGD 15 persons Boven Digoel Planning - KLHS 1 person STTA (Suhardi) 1 person


5.5 SUMMARY OF FINAL ASSESSMENT WORK SCHEDULE

Schedule January February March April May

W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4

Overview Meeting

Methodology Design

Key Question 1

Key Question 2

Key Question 3

Key Question 4

Key Question 5

Summary Review

Methodology Development − Assessment Design Logic Model − Final questions and questionnaires design − Data Collection Methodology − List of Respondents − Field Work Itinerary − STTA and SA Hiring

Consultation with KK and/or USAID

Survey & Interview

Data Analysis & Drafting

Assessment Report Drafting

Review, Finalization and Submission


5.6 30 METT INDICATORS (LESTARI CONTRIBUTIONS HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE)


5.7 LESTARI RESULTS CHAIN (TOC) DIAGRAMS PER STRATEGIC APPROACH

USAID LESTARI

Wisma GKBI, 12th Floor, #1210 Jl. Jend. Sudirman No. 28, Jakarta 10210, Indonesia

Phone: +62 21 574 0565 Fax: +62 21 574 0566

Email: [email protected] Website: www.Lestari-Indonesia.org

final internal assessment

Documents