RESEARCH ARTICLE ABSTRACT: In 1982 the Indonesian government adopted policy for establishing a national network of

protected areas to conserve the nation’s biodiversity. The design of the reserve network was based on
scientific principles of representation and proposed a major ecosystem reserve, supplemented by
smaller reserves, in each biogeographic unit of the country. We review the protected area system for
East Kalimantan Province and show that key reserves either have not been established or are degraded.
As a result, the present network exhibits major gaps in representation of key biodiversity attributes. We
• identified the potential for establishing a new major ecosystem reserve, covering more than 440,000 ha
in the Sebuku-Sembakung region, which would fill important gaps in representation. Although this
proposal has the support of central government and the international donor community, it might not
A Review of the receive the provincial endorsement that is required for designation. We conclude that for East Kaliman-
tan, turning systematic reserve planning into practice has failed because key assumptions of reserve
Efficacy of the planning principles are invalid in the contemporary sociopolitical landscapes of Indonesia. In our view,
strategies for in situ conservation of biodiversity in the protected areas of East Kalimantan need a
complete reevaluation.
Protected Area
Revisión de la Eficiencia del Sistema de Áreas Protegidas de la Provincia de
System of East Kalimantan Este, Indonesia

Kalimantan RESUMEN: En 1982 el gobierno de Indonesia adoptó una política de establecimiento de una red
nacional de áreas protegidas para conservar la biodiversidad e la nación. El diseño de esta red de
reservas se basó en los principios científicos de representación y propuso una reserva mayor de
Province, Indonesia ecosistema, suplementada por reservas menores, en cada unidad biogeográfica del país. Revisamos el
sistema de áreas protegidas de la provincia de Kalimantan Este, mostramos que las reservas claves no
fueron establecidas o están degradadas. Como resultado, la red presente exhibe deficiencias mayores
en la representación en los atributos claves de biodiversidad. Hemos identificado el potencial de
Paul Jepson1 establecer una nueva reserva de ecosistema, de 440.000 ha, en las regiones de Sebuku y Sembakung,
que podría salvar importantes fallas en la representación. Aunque este propuesta tiene el apoyo del
School of Geography and gobierno central y la comunidad donante internacional, no recibe la garantía provincial que se requiere
the Environment para la designación. Para Kalimantan Este, concluimos que falló en ponerse en práctica el sistema de
University of Oxford planeo de reservas porque las asumpciones claves de los principios de planeamiento son inválidos en
Mansfield Road la situación sociopolítica contemporánea de Indonesia. Para nosotros, las estrategias de conservación
Oxford OX1 3TB, UK in situ de biodiversidad en las áreas protegidas de Kalimantan Este necesitan una completa reevalu-
ación.
Frank Momberg
Index terms: biodiversity conservation, East Kalimantan, gap analysis, national parks, protected area
Fauna and Flora International system
Indochina Program
Pho Hue 104b
Hanoi, Vietnam

Hans van Noord INTRODUCTION Indonesia was the first tropical country to
adopt the representation goal in national
Crocusstraat 2
A central concern of the post–World War policy. Land use planning was a key ob-
6666 AS Heteren
II conservation movement has been estab- jective of Indonesia’s third national five-
Netherlands
lishment of a worldwide network of pro- year (1979–1983) development plan
tected areas that represent within their (known as Repelita III), and the govern-
• boundaries the variety of ecosystems, hab-
itats, and species living on Earth. This
ment set a target of protecting 10% of the
national land area in national parks and
goal provides a policy solution for aesthet- nature reserves. With FAO/UNDP assis-
ic, ethical, prudential, and economic argu- tance, a national conservation plan (here-
ments for nature conservation (see Ehrlich after, NCP) was prepared (MacKinnon and
and Ehrlich 1992). It was expressed in the Artha 1982) as part of a wider national
1980 World Conservation Strategy (IUCN/ park development project from 1974 to
1 Corresponding author e-mail:
UNEP/WWF 1980), was reaffirmed in the 1982 (Blower 1978, Sumardja 1985). For
paul.jepson@geog.ox.ac.uk 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity the first time, protected area system design
(UNEP 1992), and is a key principle of principles were devised that, when applied
systematic conservation planning (see Noss at the national scale, provided a biogeo-
Natural Areas Journal 22:28–42 and Copperider 1994, Margules and Pres- graphic framework for achieving global
sey 2000, Jepson and Whittaker 2002). “representation” as devised by IUCN (see

28 Natural Areas Journal Volume 22 (1), 2002

 East Kalimantan Province, which we con-
ducted between July and August 1998,
with the purpose of developing a program
of conservation investments in the region.
Our work is a case study designed to elu-
cidate two questions critical to biodiversi-
ty conservation planning in Indonesia as
well as in the wider region: (1) Is the goal
of representing biogeographic and habitat
variability in a national protected area
network being realized in practice? (2) Is
the major ecosystem reserve approach a
viable strategy for conserving a represen-
tative range of key biodiversity attributes
in contemporary Indonesia?

Our paper presents the findings of our

analysis of the current status of the East
Kalimantan reserve network, and includes
a proposal for a new major ecosystem re-
serve located in the Sebuku-Sembakung
region on the border of East Kalimantan
with Sabah, Malaysia. This reserve pro-
posal (Momberg et al. 1998) is currently
being advocated by conservation and de-
velopment agencies, but in the current
political climate it is unlikely that the gov-
ernor of East Kalimantan will support the
proposal. Sebuku-Sembakung is therefore
Figure 1. Biogeographic regions and original habitat types of Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Borneo,
poised as a test case on whether new major
Indonesia. ecosystem reserves can still be established
in decentralized Indonesia.

Dasmann 1972). The NCP proposed the Profile of East Kalimantan

of Indonesia has undergone profound
establishment of a major ecosystem re- changes since preparation of the NCP. The East Kalimantan covers an area of 197,485
serve in each biogeographic region (Fig- area of natural forest in Indonesia declined km2 and is one of four provinces that com-
ure 1), to include continuous habitat types by 17% between 1985 and 1997. Popula- prise Indonesian Borneo (Figure 2). The
and, if possible, the richest examples of tion in frontier provinces, such as East and island of Borneo covers an area of 746,305
those habitats, augmented with smaller Central Kalimantan, has doubled from 6 km2 and is the biggest landmass in the
reserves to protect special or unique hab- people km-2 to 12 people km-2 in the same everwet forest biome of the Sunda Shelf.
itat types and regional variations. These period (figures reported in D. A. Holmes, These forests are exceedingly species-rich
principles were later applied to the Indo- unpubl. document.). Indonesia was hit (Whitmore 1984, Myers et al. 2000). The
Malayan and Afro-tropical realms particularly badly by the unprecedented Bornean flora is as rich as that of the
(MacKinnon and MacKinnon 1986a, regional economic crisis starting in mid- whole African continent (MacKinnon and
1986b; MacKinnon 1997) and are a fore- 1997 (World Bank 1998), and following Sumardja 1996), and the forests are inhab-
runner of modern “systematic principles the fall of the autocratic Suharto New Or- ited by large mammal species such as or-
of reserve design” (Pressey et al. 1993). In der regime (1967–1998), the government ang-utan (Pongo pygmaeus L.), proboscis
Indonesia a “minimum set” of 80 major legislated for a rapid and far-reaching pro- monkey (Nasalis larvatus van Wurmb),
ecosystem reserves was selected to meet gram of decentralization and greater local clouded leopard (Pardofelis nebulosa Grif-
representation goals. Designation and autonomy (see Down to Earth 2000). fith), and banteng (Bos javanicus d’Alton),
management of these reserves is the back- and bird groups such as pheasants (5 spe-
bone of the Indonesian Biodiversity Ac- In 2000, work began on a revision of the cies), hornbills (8 species), and woodpeck-
tion Plan (BAPPENAS 1993). Indonesian Biodiversity Action Plan. Our ers (18 species). Kalimantan supports the
paper is relevant to this review and results largest remaining expanse of rainforest in
The political and environmental context from a rapid biodiversity assessment of the Indo-Malayan Realm, but biodiversi-

Volume 22 (1), 2002 Natural Areas Journal 29

 degree of “intactness” of these reserves.
Table 1. Physiographic types and forest cover, Kalimantan Province, Indonesia.
We hoped to gain a rapid overview of the
extent to which the conceptual foundation
Approx. Estimated of the NCP, namely representation of the
Assumed Area w/ Area w/ Reduction
Forest Forest Forest in Forest suite of key biodiversity attributes in re-
Physiographic Gross Area Cover Cover Cover Area serves, has been achieved. The first com-
Types (ha) in 1900 in 1985 1997 Since 1985 ponent was addressed through a combina-
tion of literature review and expert
Alluvial forest 9,790,500 8,500,000 6,494,800 4,994,800 1,500,000 (23%) consultation to supplement and check our
Sandy terrace 3,229,000 3,000,000 2,611,400 1,611,400 1,000,000 (38%) own understandings gained through sever-
Lowland plain 18,796,300 17,500,000 11,111,900 4,707,800 6,404,100 (58%) al years of work in this field.
Hill & mountain 21,270,900 21,000,000 19,602,600 19,550,006 52,594 (<1%)
To assess the extent to which proposed
Source: Reproduced with permission from D.A. Holmes (unpubl. document) reserve configurations have been adopted
in land use planning policy, we overlaid
the protected area boundaries proposed in
the NCP with designated and proposed
ty-rich lowland plains, sandy terraces, and METHODS reserve boundaries appearing in two key
alluvial forests have experienced a 23%– land use plans produced subsequently.
Our approach had three components: (1)
58% reduction in area since 1985 (Table These are the 1984 Consensus Forest Land
investigation of the status of the NCP in
1) (D. A. Holmes, unpubl. document). Use Plan (Tata Guna Hutan Kesepakatan
the context of the wider forest zoning pro-
known as TGHK; see “Results and Dis-
cess; (2) assessment of the number and
The province experienced two massive for- cussion” for further explanation) and the
final size of NCP-proposed reserves actu-
est fire events in 1982–83 and 1997–98; 1998 provincial spatial plan. To check the
ally designated; and (3) assessment of the
these were associated with droughts caused
by the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
The fires were not “natural” disasters. Al-
though El Niño created conditions for the
conflagrations, the fires were ignited by plan-
tation companies and others who were clear-
ing land (Barber and Schweithelm 2000). In
1982–83, 3.5 million ha of land and forest
suffered fire damage; the loss of standing
timber and growing stock was estimated at
US$5 billion (Lennertz and Panzer 1983).
In 1997–98, fire affected 5.2 million ha or
about 25% of the entire province. Overall,
fire affected 2.3 million ha of natural forest
concession areas, 0.4 million ha of protect-
ed areas, 0.9 million ha of forest plantations,
and 0.7 million ha of industrial timber crop
plantations (Hoffmann et al. 1999).

East Kalimantan is rich in timber, oil, gas,

and coal, which contribute more than 25%
of Indonesia’s export revenues (MacKin-
non and Sumardja 1996). More recently,
the province has become a focus of oil
palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) and indus-
trial timber plantation development. The
population in 1995 was estimated as 2.3
million, and since 1980 annual growth rates
have been steady at 4.4% (government
statistics reported in D. A. Holmes, un-
publ. document).
Figure 2. Designated and proposed national priority reserves in Kalimantan, Indonesia.

30 Natural Areas Journal Volume 22 (1), 2002

actual status of land in each proposed and habitats or where fire damage, logging, or 3 o 33' N), passing over the extensive
designated reserve area, we overlaid maps other conflicts were suspected. Observa- swamps at the mouth of the Sebuku River.
of forest concessions, land allocated for tions were geo-positioned using the air- We then followed the Sesayap River val-
industrial timber plantations, estate crops craft’s GPS and an extra hand-held GPS as ley to Malinau (116o37' E 3o 34' N), where
(mainly oil palm), commercial crops (fruit back up. One observer recorded landscape/ we refuelled. A second transect took a
and vegetables), and trans-migration set- habitat type on each side of the aircraft at northward course to the Malaysian border
tlements. Maps were collected from the five-minute intervals or when there was a (116o43' E 4o15' N), passing over forest
provincial planning department (Bappe- marked landscape change. Distinct land- recently cleared for transmigration settle-
da) and forestry office (Kanwil Kehutan- scape elements, such as settlements and ments and oil-palm plantations. At the
an) and Integrated Forest Fire Manage- logging roads, were also noted. A second Agison River we turned east and followed
ment Project (hereafter, IFFM) in observer videotaped the route using a Sony a course 2–5 km to the south of the Malay-
Samarinda, and the Department of Forest Handycam. The third observer directed sian border, in order to assess the extent of
Inventory and Mapping (INTAG) in Jakar- the pilot and took still photographs. cross-border logging from Malaysia and
ta. Hard-copy maps were digitized and an area of ultra-lowland forest immediate-
overlay analysis was conducted using The first flight survey covered the Ma- ly east of the Apan River.
ArcInfo and MapInfo GIS. hakam wetland system, Kutai, and Sangku-
lirang on 2 July 1998, leaving the provin- Rapid ground assessments were made of
We devised a simple six -point scale (Ta- cial capital Samarinda (117o07' E 0o25' S ) the Mahakam Lake region, the lower Se-
ble 2) as a broad estimate of intactness of at 9.09 hrs returning 14.04 h. We flew due buku-Sembakung area, and the Sangku-
a reserve’s “natural character.” To place west to Lake Jempang (116o15' E 0o25'S) lirang peninsula. Assessments aimed to
reserves on this scale, we overlaid two at the south of the Mahakam wetland sys- sample the range of landscape types present
other data sets: (1) a map of 1998 fire tem, then transected on a north-east course and generate an overview of human use
hotspots generated by the IFFM project, crossing the wetland system and the Muara and land use change. Our approach had
and (2) an atlas of protected areas com- Kaman Reserve (116o40' E 0o05' S). We three elements. First, we traveled as wide-
missioned by the provincial nature conser- then took a northerly course to the Sanku- ly as possible within the time available on
vation office (Kantor Sumber Daya Alam) lirang Massif (117o30' E 2o00' N), passing a roughly circular route using available
in 1996, which mapped all cleared land the western section of the Kutai Reserve. transport. Second, we stopped in each land-
within reserves on the basis of interpreta- After circling the Sankulirang Massif, we scape unit (level 3 landscapes based on the
tion of satellite imagery. Mapping was flew a third transect on a southerly course hierarchy in Forman and Godron 1986)
complemented by flight surveys of the passing over the eastern section of the and completed a landscape characteriza-
Kutai, Sangkulirang, and Mahakam Lake Kutai Reserve. The second flight on 22 tion form. This summarized descriptive
regions on 2 July 1998 and the Sebuku- July covered the Sebuku-Sembakung re- data on landscape elements present (level
Sembakung region on 22 July1998. gion (see Figure 4) leaving Nunukan 4 landscape units), landscape pattern and
(117o40' E 4o05' N) at 8.15 h and returning physiognomy, temporal stability, ethnic
The protocol for flight surveys was as fol- to Tarakan (117o33' E 3o15' N ) at 11.40 h. groups and livelihood activities, biodiver-
lows. A circular route was planned to fly We flew a transect from Nunakan to the sity values, ecological flows and linkages,
over areas thought to hold intact forest Sesayap River (approximately 117o02' E threats and impacts, and landscape histo-
ry. Temporal stability was scored on a sim-
ple logarithmic scale according to our es-
timate on whether the unit would appear
Table 2. A simple six-point scale used to estimate “intactness” of reserves in the East Kalimantan the same in less than 5 years (1), 5 to 10
protected area network, Indonesia. years (2), decades, (3) generations (ap-
proximately 30 years) (4), and centuries
Status Definition
(5). Third, we stayed in villages and log-
Intact The reserve is still in a “primary” condition, and ecosystem function
ging camps to conduct informal interviews
and faunal assemblages of conservation importance are still intact.
with farmers, traders, hunters, and loggers
Mostly intact Impacts localized and/or widespread but low impact and/or reversible.
to construct a socioeconomic profile of the
Partly degraded An area of the reserve has been converted or severely degraded but
area and collate anecdotal information on
most of the reserve is still in primary condition.
wildlife and development proposals.
Degraded Moderate and widespread habitat modification and/or populations of
key fauna significantly reduced.
The rapid ground assessment of the Ma-
Severely degraded Habitats significantly modified and/or assemblages of key fauna and
hakam Lake region (7–12 July 1998) was
flora decimated.
by powered canoe. We started from the
Lost Habitat loss, species degradation and/or alteration of the ecological
town of Kota Bangun (116o30’E 0o31’S)
systems is such that area no longer has potential as a biodiversity
on the Mahakam River, crossed Lake Se-
reserve. These areas may retain hydrological or other values.
mayang, and traveled up the Kahalah Riv-

Volume 22 (1), 2002 Natural Areas Journal 31

er (116o28' E 0o13' S) to the interior vil- species with an international conservation of the NCP was never distributed, the sci-
lage of Teluk Binti (116o12' E 0o02' S). We profile. As surrogates for biogeographic entific principles justifying reserve distri-
retraced our route and traveled across Lakes and ecosystem diversity, we used repre- bution and configuration were never wide-
Semayang and Melintang to the village of sentation of zonal bio-unit and major hab- ly understood. Consequently, the primary
Muara Enggelam (116o19' E 0o15' S) on itat-type divisions (MacKinnon 1997), and concern of provincial forestry departments
the Enggelem River. We returned to the azonal hotspots, namely Endemic Bird was simply to meet targets on the area of
Mahakam River at the town of Muramun- Areas (Stattersfield et al. 1998) and Cen- forestland reserved.
tai (116o20' E 0o23' S) via the Bermabai tres of Plant Diversity (Davis et al.1994).
River. We used presence in an IUCN action plan Land use planning was further rational-
to denote species of international conser- ized under the fourth national five-year
The ground assessment of the Sangku- vation concern. These included birds (Col- development plan (1984-89), largely
lirang Peninsula (14–20 July 1998) was lar et al. 1994), primates (Eudey 1987), through work of the Regional Physical
by car, motorcycle, and foot. We traveled cats (Nowell and Jackson 1996), wild cat- Planning Programme for Transmigration
from Tanjungredeb on the Berau River tle (S. Hedges, unpubl. document), and Project (hereafter RePPProT) and subse-
(117o00' E 2o09' N) via the Kayani Kertas orchids (Hagsater and Dumont 1996). quently, during the mid-1990s, the Second
pulp mill (117o50' E 2o00' N) to Beranti Land Resources Evaluation Project (known
village (117o58' E 1o48' N). From there we Based on a review of the above action as LREP II). RePPProT produced a con-
treked west into the limestone hills and plans and classifications, previously de- sensus TGHK for the nation and each prov-
also visited the small delta at Talebar scribed analysis, a regional ecology text ince (several versions of TGHK maps be-
(118o06' E 1o46' N). (MacKinnon 1997), findings of the IFFM ing in existence) that became the standard
project, and opinion of relevant experts, base map used in government-donor-NGO
The ground assessment of the Sebuku- we scored the original presence of each forestry discourse. RePPProT (1990) also
Sembakung region (23–27 July 1998) was attribute in a reserve at the time it was built consensus for the concept that 80 of
by launch, truck, and foot. We started from designated or proposed, and then indicat- the major ecosystem reserves form a “min-
Nunukan and traveled along the Sebuku ed whether the attribute was still present. imum set” critical to meeting representa-
River to Tambalang (117o00' E 0o10' N). tion goals. These are identified as priority
We explored the Apan River valley by reserves in the Indonesian Biodiversity
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
canoe and foot. We returned down river to Action Plan. Fourteen of these priority
Pembellangan (117o02' E 0o05' N) and then reserves are in Kalimantan, and seven are
The NCP and Subsequent Land Use
traveled by truck to Atap (117 o03' E located in East Kalimantan Province. Else-
Planning Initiatives
0o08' S) on the Sembakung. From Atap we where in Kalimantan all these reserves
traveled by launch to Tanahmerah In 1984, the Ministry of Forestry (MoF) have been established, but in East Kali-
(117o41' E 0o15' S) on Mandul Island, and prepared a Consensus Forest Land Use mantan only two (Kayan Mentarang and
then on to Tarakan. Plan (hereafter TGHK), which represent- Kutai) have been designated. Proposed
ed an official classification of all forest- reserves located in the Ulu Kayan, Sem-
Methods for assessing representation and land (namely land with or without tree bakung, Sebuku areas, and the Sangku-
persistence of target attributes within sets cover under the jurisdiction of MoF) into lirang Peninsula have not yet been estab-
of areas (generally termed gap analysis) functional categories with legally defined lished (Figure 2).
can take a formalized approach that maps restrictions on use. The MoF representa-
quantifiable surrogates of biodiversity such tive office (Kanwil Kehutanan) prepared The 1992 Spatial Use Management Act
as distributions of species (e.g., Araujo drafts of the TGHK in each province. Al- No. 24 required provinces and districts to
1999) or a holistic approach that scores though the NCP was adopted as depart- prepare spatial plans (known as Rencana
the presence of qualitative conservation mental policy by the Directorate-General Tata Ruang Wilayah Propinsi/Kabupaten).
attributes. We chose the latter because it is of Forest Protection and Nature Conserva- To support this process, MoF was required
rapid and reflects the fundamental pur- tion, it was not adopted as formal policy of to prepare new forest zoning maps (known
pose of reserves, namely the expression of the Ministry of Forestry or the Ministry of as Peta Paduserasi) that integrated MoF
values within society concerning the rela- National Development Planning. Conse- maps with the development plans of other
tionship between humans and nature (See quently the extent to which NCP reserve line ministries and provincial and district
Jepson and Canney 2001). proposals (location and configuration) were planning agencies.
incorporated in the TGHK depended on a
We constructed a list of biodiversity at- combination of the presence of an existing Differences between present reserve
tributes occurring in East Kalimantan and reserve, support in the provincial forestry boundaries proposed in the 1982 NCP and
embodied in the NCP. These we broadly office for the NCP vision, power of forest those in the 1985 TGHK and the 1997
defined as biogeographic and ecosystem exploitation interests, area of available Peta Paduserasi are shown in Figure 3.
variation, primary landscapes (preferably forest, and advocacy by conservationists. The overall forest area now given over to
with intact environmental gradients), and Because an Indonesian-language version nature conservation is only 34% of that

32 Natural Areas Journal Volume 22 (1), 2002

 Wildlife Conservation Society, Bogor, pers.
com.).

Kutai was designated in 1936 as a wildlife

sanctuary covering 306,000 ha. In 1969,
100,000 ha were excised from Kutai for
logging and oil exploration. In 1971, the
logged-over area was reinstated but a fur-
ther 106,000 ha were excised for logging
(Meijer 1981). The current reserve area is
198,629 ha (Table 3). Kutai was declared
a national park in 1982, but it continues to
be seriously degraded by fire, agricultural
encroachment, wildlife poaching, and ille-
gal logging. In 1996 timber worth US$157
million was illegally extracted from the
park (Wells et al. 1999). In 1997–98, fire
damaged 92% of the park; the burn inten-
sity was medium to severe on 153,000 ha
(Hoffmann et al. 1999). In 2000, the Kutai
District government allocated 15,000 ha
within the coastal zone of the park for
settlement, leading to aggressive encroach-
ment by Bugis and other settlers. The dis-
trict now proposes that the zone along the
settlement road be excised and the park be
divided into two. Current opinion is that it
is too late to save Kutai National Park (see
www.tn-kutai.or.id). By our criteria (Table
2), we classify this reserve as “lost.”

Logging concessions cover three of the

other five proposed minimum set reserves,
Figure 3. Reserve boundaries proposed in the 1982 National Conservation Plan, maintained in the 1985
affecting the “primary” character of habi-
forest zoning and revised land use plan, and in the 1997 provincial spatial plan.
tats. In much of the Sebuku and Sem-
bakung region, logging has been relative-
ly light because the army-owned
proposed in 1982 (5,062,000 ha reduced posed remain “intact” (i.e., their conserva- concession has the dual role of timber
to 1,735,379 ha). NCP proposals to pro- tion values and ecosystem functions per- extraction and security along the Malay-
tect large blocks of lowland forest habitats sist) and 3 of these have been partially sian border. However, a recent analysis of
in three reserves (Long Bangun, Sungai degraded. The intact reserves are in hill Landsat TM data made by Yayasan WWF
Bermabi, and a reserve combining the and montane areas, except the proposed Indonesia and Deutsche Gesellschaft für
present Kutai National Park, Muara Kam- Sebuku Reserve, which encompasses Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)
man reserves, and intervening land) are coastal swamp forests, and the Sangku- showed massive logging from Malaysia
not marked on the Peta Paduserasi. As a lirang Reserve, which encompasses inac- across the international border (A. Hoff-
result the provincial spatial plan only shows cessible limestone massifs. Of the seven mann, Integrated Forest Fire Management
existing reserves and ignores earlier pro- minimum set reserves, only the Kayan Project, Samarinda, pers. com.). The
posals for new reserves. Areas within some Mentarang National Park is still intact. Sangkulirang and Mangkalihat areas are
proposed reserves are, however, designat- However, this reserve is under threat from included in the minimum set by virtue of
ed as watershed protection forest. road-building proposals, calls to excise the karst flora and fauna assemblages of
traditional lands from the park (D. Well- their limestone massifs. The proposed
ington, Yayasan WWF Indonesia Kayan Sankulirang and Mangkalihat reserves
Intactness of the East Kalimantan
Mentarang National Park Development were partially burned in the 1982–83 fires
Reserve Network
Project, Samarinda, pers. com.), and pro- (Lennertz and Panzer 1983) and again in
Based on our assessment (Table 3), just 9 posals to establish enclaves of oil palm 1997–98, but large parts of the northern
out of the 23 reserve areas originally pro- plantations within the park. (S. Hedges, and central parts of Sankulirang remain

Volume 22 (1), 2002 Natural Areas Journal 33

34
Table 3. Overview assessment of the intactness of the East Kalimantan reserve network proposed in the 1982 National Conservation Plan. See Table 2 for “intactness” definitions.

Reserve Name Status Area (ha) Date Conservation Purpose Intactness Impacts

Reserves in National “Minimum Set”

Kutai NP 198,629 1936 Lowland forest ecosystem, Lost Fires, encroachment, illegal logging, hunting.
large mammal populations
Kayan Mentarang NP 1,360,500 1992 Mountain forest ecosystems, Intact Hunting & non-timber forest product collection, road development, fires
traditional Dyak cultural landscapes

Natural Areas Journal

Muara Sebuku P 110,000 — Lowland & coastal swamp Mostly intact Two logging concessions (one covering mangrove). Northern part
ecosystems excised for Nunakan road corridor
Ulu Sembakung P 500,000 — Hill forest & karst ecosystems Mostly Intact Low intensity logging
Sankurilang P 200,000 — Karst ecosystems Partly degraded Fire, conversion of lowland forests to plantations, proposed quarrying
Mangkalihat P — Karst ecosystems Severely degraded As above
Ulu Kayan P 800,000 — Lowland forest ecosystems Mostly intact Four logging concessions cover the area
Important Supplementary Reserves
Muara Kaman NR 62,500 1976 Freshwater-, peat swap gallery Lost Fires, illegal logging, encroachment
forest habitats
Pulau Semama WS(M) 220 ? Turtles, coral reefs Degraded Illegal turtle catching, reef bombing
Pulau Sangalaki WS(M) 240 ? Turtles, coral reefs Degraded Illegal turtle catching, reef bombing
Teluk Adang NR 59,057 ? Mangroves & delta ecosystem Severely degraded Mostly converted to shrimp ponds, marine resource over exploitation
Teluk Ampar NR 69,788 1993 Mangroves & delta ecosystem Severely degraded As above
Bukit Suharto RF 61,850 1988 Lowland forest ecosystems Lost Fires (burning coal seams), illegal logging & hunting, reforestation
Gng. Beratus/SesuluPF/P 130,000 — Montane & hill forest ecosystems Mostly intact Logging concession cover land not designated as Protection Forest
Pantai Samarinda PF/P 95,000 — Costal swamp & mangrove Lost Conversion to shrimp ponds, two logging concessions, illegal logging,
ecosystems industrial development and sedimentation.
Gng. Lumut/AgathisPF/P 30,000 — Moss and sub-montane forest Partly degraded 25% (the lowland areas) allocated for conversions to industrial timber
habitats plantation and logging concessions.
Muara Kayan P 80,000 — Coastal swamp & mangrove ecosystems Lost Mostly converted to shrimp ponds
Apo Kayan P 100,000 — Montane forest ecosystems Mostly intact Hunting & Non Timber Forest Product collection, three logging
concessions cover the area
Long Bangun P 350,000 — Hill & lowland forest ecosystems Mostly intact Eight logging concession cover the area. Industrial timber plantations
along the Mahakam river corridor.
Sungai Berambi P 110,000 — Lowland & heath forest habitats Degraded 50% allocated for industrial timber plantations, remainder under three
logging concessions.
Mahakam wetlands P 200,000 — Wetland system Severely degraded Fires, exotic weeds, over-utilisation.
Gunung Berau P 100,000 — Hill & lowland forest ecosystems Severely degraded Four logging concessions cover the area, 15% converted to industrial
timber plantation
Pulau Maratua P ? — Turtles, coral reefs Degraded Illegal turtle catching, reef bombing
Reserves for protection of localized species, habitats or for research & recreation
Padang Luwai NR 5000 1982 Orchids Severely degraded Orchid collection, fires
Pulau Birah-briahanP 100 — Turtles Degraded Over-exploitation

Key: Reserve status, NP=National Park, WS=Wildlife Sanctuary, NR= Nature Reserves, RF= Recreation Forest, PF=Protection Forest, (M) = marine. “P” denotes proposed reserve (highlighted by
italics). ‘Lost’ means the loss of potential to maintain or establish a biodiversity conservation reserve because of habitat loss, species degradation and alteration of the ecological systems: the are
may retained hydrological or other values. Severely degraded means we anticipated that there is little potential to create a reserve.

Volume 22 (1), 2002

intact and the karst ecosystem is yet in ly prone; (2) government and commercial- ed an important precedent, the monetary
good condition. The area’s intrinsic value ly driven land conversion programs in these amounts pledged are modest, and some of
as a landscape of outstanding natural beau- last extensive lowland forests in Indonesia the “Friends” commercial interests con-
ty, however, is compromised by conver- outside Irian Jaya; (3) activities of in-mi- tinue to negatively impact the park (Wells
sion of the natural forest around the foot of grants, who tend to take over what natural et al. 1999). For example, illegal loggers
the massifs to industrial timber plantations resources the commercial interests leave; use roads constructed by industrial timber
dominated by Acacia mangium (Willd.). and (4) illegal and semi-legal business ac- companies to transport timber cut in the
We class Sankulirang as “partly degraded” tivities of corrupt government officials, park (R. Blouch, UNESCO/UNDP
and Mangkalihat as “severely degraded.” which is pervasive at every level, even “Friends of Kutai” Support Project, Sa-
down to village heads (Jepson et al. 2001). marinda, pers. com.).
Sixteen important supplementary reserves Creation of a “paper park” (legal designa-
were proposed in the NCP, of which six tion but with no management) usually pro- The Kayan Mentarang National Park has
have been designated. In our assessment, vides protection against legal land conver- been the focus of Yayasan WWF Indone-
four of these six supplementary reserves sion, but our analysis shows that in lowland sia activities in the province during the last
are now lost. In the case of the two low- and coastal areas the other three factors 15 years. To date, activities have focused
land forest reserves, Muarah Kaman and are leading to severe degradation or loss of on building the foundations of knowledge,
Bukit Suharto, the causes are fire, major key biodiversity attributes in reserves with- trust, and understanding for participatory
encroachment, and rampant illegal log- in time-scales of ten to twenty years. park management employing the integrat-
ging (G. Fredriksson, Balikpapan Orang- ed conservation and development project
utan Survival Foundation, Balikpapan, model. These have included interdiscipli-
Management of East Kalimantan
pers.com.). In the case of the two coastal nary biological and anthropological re-
Reserves
reserves, Teluk Adang and Teluk Ampar, search, development of a GIS, community
the mangrove and nipa palm forests have On-site reserve management has been lim- resource use mapping, local stakeholder
been largely destroyed by illegal conver- ited and mostly confined to three sites: and policy workshops, and awareness and
sion of mangrove habitats to shrimp ponds Kutai, Kayan Mentarang, and Bukit Su- education activities. A park management
(Ade Rachman, Kantor Sumber Daya harto. Only Kutai National Park has its and zonation plan that reflects ancestral
Alam, pers. com.). The three offshore is- own reserve management unit (known as rights is close to completion (Wells et al.
land reserves have all been degraded as a UPT) and approved park management plan 1999; D. Wellington, Yayasan WWF Indo-
result of reef bombing and over-harvest- (Wirawan 1985). In Financial Year 1996– nesia Kayan Mentarang National Park
ing of turtles (eggs and adults) and fish. 97, the UPT employed 58 staff and had an Development Project, Samarinda, pers.
operational budget of US $303,282. These com.). An important achievement of the
Interviews with men in villages in the Se- figures compare with the national average project was successful promotion of an
buku Estuary and Sangkulirang Peninsula (based on 12 operational UPTs) of 104 alternative low-impact road route to link
revealed two types of aggressive resource staff and US $540,250 budget, which is villages within the park and the district
exploitation along Kalimantan’s east coast, considered relatively high by international town of Malinau (Momberg 1998).
namely armed fisherman from the Philip- standards (data reported in MacAndrews
pines exploiting marine resources around and Saunders 1999). All other reserves are The Bukit Suharto “Reserve” is classed as
the Derawan Islands (reef bombing and managed under the small provincial office recreation forest and therefore comes un-
harvesting of turtles), and groups of 100 of natural resource management (known der the management of the provincial for-
or more Buginese clearing mangrove with- as Balai KSDA) based in Samarinda. estry department, which lacks the capaci-
out permits. In both cases, communities ty, training, and will to carry out any
and authorities feared these groups and A technical assistance project under the enforcement or management activities. As
felt powerless to take action. In short, the auspices of UNESCO and UNDP support- a result forest degradation continues un-
proposed reserves that are still mostly in- ed management of Kutai National Park abated.
tact are those located in remote forested between 1995 and 1998 (www.un.or.id./
landscapes of the interior hill and montane undp/proginfo). This project, which had a
Assessment of Gaps in the Existing
regions, namely Apo Kayan, Long Ban- total budget of US $837,600, conducted
Reserve Network and of the Potential
gun and Mount Beratus and Sesulu. various activities, including encroachment
to Establish a Representative Reserve
monitoring, socioeconomic surveys,
Network in East Kalimantan
In summary, natural habitats and protect- boundary rationalization, staff training, and
ed areas in East Kalimantan are severely the incorporation of a “Friends of Kutai The results of our simplified gap analysis
threatened. These threats derive from at Secretariat.” The latter brought together (Table 4) show that the East Kalimantan
least four interrelated factors, each of which eight companies (gas, mining, and forest- network of designated reserves provided
alone is responsible for massive damage: ry) with operations bordering the park, good representation of key conservation
(1) ENSO-related droughts and fire events, which pledged funds and support for park attributes when it was intact. The only
to which much of this province is especial- management. Although this action provid- major gaps were centers of plant and gas-

Volume 22 (1), 2002 Natural Areas Journal 35

 Table 4. Simplified gap analysis of East Kalimantan protected area network, Indonesia.

36
Hotspots & Biounits Habitat Formations Species of International Conservation Concern

Natural Areas Journal

Neofelis nebulosa
Prionailrus planiceps

Intact altitudinal gradient

Endemic Bird Area
Centre Plant Diversity
North Borneo
Central Mountains of Borneo
East Borneo
South-east Borneo
Montane & hill forest
Lowland dipeterocarp forest
Limestone forest
Heath forest
Peat swamp forest
Fresh-water swamp forest
Brackish-water swamp forest
Mangroves
Lake ecosystems
Beach formations
Coral reefs
Asian Elephant
Elephas maximus
Sumatran Rhino
Dicerorhinus sumatrensis
Banteng Bos javanicus
Proboscis Monkey
Nasalis larvatus
Orang-utan Pongo pygmaeus
Clouded Leopard
Flat-headed cat
River Dolphin
Storm's Stork Ciconia stormi
White-shouldered Ibis
Pseudibis davisoni
Pheasants Galliformes
Straw-headed Bulbul
Pycnonotus zelanicus
Green\Hawksbill Turtle
Esturaine Crocodile
Crocodylus porosus
Orchids

Protected Area Area (ha)

Existing reserves
Kutai 198,629 ✩✩ ✩✩ ✩ ✩ ✩✩ ✩✩ ✩✩ ✩ ✩✩

✩✩ ✩✩ ✩✩ ✩ ✩ ? ✩✩ ✩ ✩✩ ✩ ✩✩ ✩✩
Kayan Mentarang 1,360,500
Muara Kaman 62,500 ✩✩ ✩✩ ✩✩ ? ✩

Pulau Semama 220 ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩

Pulau Sangalaki 280 ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩✩ ✩✩

Teluk Adang c80,000 ✩ ✩ ✩✩ ✩✩ ✩

Teluk Ampar 46,900 ✩ ✩ ✩✩ ✩

Padang Luwai 5,000 ✩ ✩✩

Bukit Suharto 61,850 ✩✩ ✩ ✩

Gaps in representation Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð
Recommended additional reserves
Sebuku\Sembakung ✩✩ ✩ ✩ ✩✩ ✩✩ ✩✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩✩ ✩✩ ✩✩ ? ✩ ✩✩ ✩ ✩ ✩✩ ? ✩ ✩✩

Sankulirang Complex ✩✩ ✩ ✩✩ ? ✩ ✩✩ ?
Recommended special management area
Mahakam lakes ✩✩ ✩ ✩✩ ✩✩ ✩✩ ✩ ✩✩ ✩✩

Key: ✩✩ significant areas of habitat or population numbers; ✩ = attribute present in reserve in small areas or populations number; gray shading signifies biodiversity value
destroyed or seriously degraded; Ð signifies important gaps in representation, which the recommended additional reserves will help to fill.

Volume 22 (1), 2002

 Table 5. Area of ecological zones within tropod biodiversity associated with karst On the positive side, our analysis shows
the boundaries of the proposed Sebuku- ecosystems, and an intact coast-to-moun- that, at least in theory, it is still possible to
Sembakung National Park calculated from tain habitat gradient. meet the representation goal of the NCP.
the GIS overlays shown in Figure 4. At a minimum, this would require the es-
Damage to these actual or proposed re- tablishment of three new reserves based
Area (ha) serves in the last 20 years has seriously on proposals in the NCP: (1) a major eco-
reduced representation. The loss of Kutai system reserve linking the earlier proposed
Sebuku Hulu National Park, a key sanctuary for the con- reserve of Muara Sebuku and Ulu Sem-
Forested hills with servation of lowland large mammals and bakung (in effect a replacement for Kutai
limestone outcrops 120,700 birds, has created a major gap in represen- and Muara Kaman); (2) a reserve protect-
Lowland forest 92,889 tation in the East Kalimantan and wider ing the Sankulirang karst ecosystems; and
Sub total 213, 589 Bornean reserve network. Destruction of (3) creation of a special management area
Muara Sebuku-Sembakung Muara Kaman, and degradation of Teluk to restore the conservation values of the
Lowland forest 26,642 Ampar, mean that swamp and mangrove Mahakam wetland system.
Riverine corridors 36,043 forest ecosystems are now seriously un-
Swamp forest 80,000 der-represented. Moreover, Tanjung Put- As a result of this assessment, Momberg et
Tidal forest 74,187 ing National Park and Gunung Palung, the al. (1998) proposed a new national park in
Shallow water (marine) 19,901 other major Bornean reserves covering the Sebuku-Sembakung region of East
Subtotal 235,000 these habitats, are suffering from serious Kalimantan (Figure 4). The proposed re-
Total area proposed 448,589 degradation (EIA/Telapak 1999). serve covers an altitudinal and habitat gra-

Figure 4. Revised boundary proposals for a Sebuku-Sembakung National Park (after Momberg et al. 1998).

Volume 22 (1), 2002 Natural Areas Journal 37

dient from delta to interior limestone hills fauna (Kottelat 1995). Consequently, the mantan. This species is in rapid decline
with a maximum altitude of 1055 m. Six Agison and Apan rivers are expected to (Erik Meijaard, Australian National
broad ecological zones are represented. It support important freshwater fish as- University, Canberra, pers. com.). The
is expected that together these zones con- semblages. border of this ecological zone is set at 5
tain a near-complete range of biodiversity • The eastern area of the Sebuku Hulu km on either side the river, which is the
components (e.g., genetic to landscape- unit is a quality example of lowland maximum distance that proboscis troops
scale) that characterize lowland landscapes forest, including a flat lowland plain. range from riverine roosting trees (Carey
of northeastern Borneo; are of sufficient This ecological zone compensates for Yager, Yayasan WWF Indonesia, Jakar-
size (Table 5) to support viable popula- the losses of this biodiversity-rich hab- ta, pers. com.).
tions of large mammal species; and are itat type in Kutai National Park due to • Between the Sebuku and Sembakung
immune to future species loss due to the fire. We confirmed, by observation of Rivers is intact fresh and brackish water
“relaxation effect” predicated on Mac- tracks, that the area supports Kaliman- swamp forest with patches of lowland
Arthur and Wilson’s (1967) equilibrium tan’s only population of elephant (Ele- forest on low hills. Only small-scale,
theory of island biogeography, which pos- phas maximus L.) and a population of localized timber extraction occurs in the
tulates that species number will re-equili- banteng. Dayak villagers report the pres- area. Proboscis monkeys frequent the
brate to a lower number if habitat area is ence of other threatened mammals such area, and Dayak villagers report regular
reduced (see Whittaker 1998). as clouded leopard, flat-headed cat sightings of orang-utan on Bukit Sera-
(Prioailurus planicpes Vigors & Hors- pun. Rijksen and Meijaard (1999) esti-
The proposed reserve is divided into two field), sun bear (Ursus malayanus Raf- mate a population of 165 orang-utan in
units: Sebuku Hulu and Muara Sebuku-Sem- fles), and Bornean gibbon (Hylobates the North Sembakung swamps.
bakung. This division represents a compro- muelleri Martin). Rijksen and Meijaard
mise negotiated in 1998 with competing (1999) estimate that eastern Sebuku The proposed reserve area is effectively
government and private land use interests. Hulu supports a population of 150 or- uninhabited, but coastal Tidung and Bugis
Planned conversion of a north-south corri- ang-utan, and at 90,000 ha this zone is communities enter the estuaries to fish,
dor through the primary landscape could not larger than the minimum viable area and Dayak communities living in villages
be reversed because this is the proposed requirements of the species (estimated along the Tulit River (Figure 4), hunt and
route of the trans-Kalimantan highway and at 10,000 ha; C. van Shaik, Duke Uni- collect swiftlet nests (three species of Col-
because licenses for establishment of pulp- versity, Durham, N.C., pers.com.). Glo- localia) within the proposed reserve.
wood plantations had been issued. Disrup- bally threatened birds (Collar et al. 1994, Maintenance of these traditional, low-in-
tion of animal movements between the two O’Brien et al. 1998) that are ultra-low- tensity activities is compatible with con-
reserve units can be minimized because plan- land specialists such as Storm’s stork serving the biodiversity values represent-
tation companies are required to leave uncut (Ciconia stormi Blasius), Bornean pea- ed in the proposed reserve.
blocks as conservation forest and these could cock pheasant (Polyplecton schleierma-
be aligned in a corridor configuration cheri Brüggemann), Wallace’s hawk The reserve proposal received support of
(Figure 4). eagle (Spizaetus nanus Wallace), and then Minister of Forestry and Estate Crops,
wrinkled hornbill (Rhyticeros corruga- Muslimin Nasution, in August 1998 (WWF
In terms of contribution to representation, tus Temmink) are also expected to oc- 1998); of the provincial planning agency
the conservation importance of the reserve cur in eastern Sebuku Hulu. in March 1999 (Amin 1999); and of Pres-
units and ecological zones (Figure 4) can ident Abdurrahman Wahid and then Min-
• The eastern unit of the reserve encom-
be summarized as follows: ister of Forestry and Estate Crops, Dr.
passes the best remaining example of
mangrove and tidal forest in East Kali- Nurmachmundi Ismail AP, in January
• The western area of the Sebuku Hulu mantan supporting economically impor- 2000. In a joint letter to the Director of the
unit comprises forested hills with lime- tant fisheries (Silvius 1989). These hab- World Bank, Jakarta (in his capacity as
stone areas and outcrops and the Agison itats are threatened by the massive chair of the Consultative Group on Indo-
and Apan river systems. Limestone hills expansion of shrimp ponds in coastal nesia), dated 10 January 2000, heads of
in northeastern Kalimantan are centers areas since 1995. Local fishermen re- seven international conservation NGOs
of global plant diversity (Davis et al. port that estuarine crocodile (Crocodiles working in Indonesia urged completion of
1994), which are not currently repre- porosus Schneider) is still common in the Indonesian protected area network and
sented in the national protected area the area. cited establishment of Sebuku-Sembakung
network. Freshwater fish are one of the as a conservation priority.
• The nutrient-rich river corridors of Se-
most threatened components of biodi-
buku and Sembakung are distinct in
versity in Asia (Kottelat and Whitten
terms of hydrology and vegetation. Both Implications for Future Reserve
1996). Knowledge of Kalimantan’s fish
river corridors support high densities of Planning in East Kalimantan
fauna is limited but Southeast Asia foot-
wildlife and the most important probos-
hill forest streams harbor a diverse fish The NCP and Biodiversity Action Plan did
cis monkey populations in East Kali-
initially lead to the creation of a represen-

38 Natural Areas Journal Volume 22 (1), 2002

tative protected area network, but this was Our pessimism concerning Sebuku- resource management at the macro-scale.
largely because designation of the Kayan Sembakung is based on observations that: As a result, the major ecosystem reserve
Mentarang National Park in one step add- (1) park establishment would require the may no longer be a viable concept in East
ed key conservation attributes that were government to resolve the issue of illegal Kalimantan and elsewhere in Indonesia,
missing from the existing protected area logging across the Indonesian border from except in remote mountainous regions.
network (e.g., lowland and coastal habi- Malaysia, which may be politically diffi-
tats). Kayan Menterang, however, is the cult; (2) the area proposed covers low- The capacity and will of government and
only new reserve designated in the prov- lands with potential for conversion to es- civil organizations to develop and manage
ince since the NCP; 16 of the 25 reserves tate crops; and 3) the power of state and a representative reserve network appears
proposed are not designated, and the central government departments has de- limited. Apart from Kayan Menterang,
present-day network covers just 34% of clined markedly since the fall of the Suharto there has been little strategic and coordi-
that originally proposed. As a consequence, New Order regime. Whereas previously, nated effort on the part of international
every reserve in the East Kalimantan net- provincial and district administrations and national conservation agencies to de-
work has a high “irreplaceability” score would follow central government policies liver representation goals in East Kaliman-
(see Pressey et al. 1993) because there are and directives this is no longer guaranteed tan. Designation of the four proposed na-
no alternative reserves (designated or pro- (Jepson et al. 2001). tional minimum set reserves (Sebuku,
posed) if any are lost. Subsequent degra- Sembakung, Sangkulirang, Mahakam
dation of individual reserves has caused Political and administrative decentraliza- Lake) was not pursued until 1998 (this
serious gaps in representation of key biodi- tion is a major policy initiative of the Habi- study), and no effort has been made to
versity attributes within the system. Based bie (1998-1999) and Wahid (1999–present) establish important supplementary reserves
on our analysis, the simple message for governments (see Down to Earth 2000), identified in the NCP. Conservation in-
future reserve planning is that conserva- which makes major ecosystem reserves vestments have taken a site-based, as op-
tion attributes that occur in economically harder to designate. As part of the decen- posed to a network-based, approach and
marginal hill and montane landscapes are tralization process in 2000, Bulungan Dis- focused on Kutai and Kayan Mentarang.
relatively safe from degradation, whereas trict was divided into three new districts: Two factors have influenced this strategy:
conservation attributes confined to low- Nunukan, Bulungan, and Malin. In the (1) the widely held view that there is little
land and coastal landscapes are under se- case of Nunukan, 320,000 ha of Kayan merit in establishing additional “paper
rious threat and are poorly protected. Metarang National Park and 420,000 ha of parks” when management capacity and
the proposed Sebuku-Sembakung park lie resources for existing parks are limited,
The Sebuku-Sembakung National Park within the boundaries of the new district. and (2) the desire of donors to integrate
proposal and subsequent advocacy dem- This represents 60% of the district territo- biodiversity conservation with communi-
onstrate two important points: (1) given ry proposed for nature conservation, a pro- ty and local development and to test par-
the political will, a major ecosystem re- portion that district leaders are unlikely to ticipatory park management models. As a
serve could be established to restore repre- sanction. This is because district adminis- result, the representation goal has been
sentation; and (2) the representation prin- trations perceive decentralization as an down played in practice.
ciple still has high-level support within the opportunity to replicate Suharto’s crony
national government and the international capitalism (see Schwarz 1999) at a smaller Government (i.e., the Department of For-
donor community. The Kayan Mentarang scale. From a district-scale perspective, a est Protection and Nature Conservation as
National Park is evidence that under the major ecosystem reserve is perceived as of 2000) ability to manage and protect
Suharto New Order regime, such argu- too big and a major impediment to the reserves in East Kalimantan is severely
ments were sufficient to lead to designa- short-term political and economic benefits constrained by Indonesia-wide problems,
tion of a new major ecosystem reserve. that can be gained by converting natural including insufficient funding, workforce
However, we are pessimistic that the same habitats to estate crop and pulp wood plan- shortages, over-centralization (World Bank
will hold true for Sebuku-Sembakung un- tations. Such perceptions are exacerbated 1990), inappropriate project models, weak
der the current government despite a stron- by the facts that districts do not yet use sanctions and penalties, a general lack of
ger advocacy “package” for Sebuku-Sem- income-expenditure budgeting, and cen- support for conservation in society, cor-
bakung, comprising support from the tral government has not indicated whether ruption and well-connected commercial
president, the provincial planning depart- districts will receive payments from the resource exploitation interests (Wells et al.
ment, and the international donor commu- state for land in national parks and re- 1999), and the aggressive posture of mi-
nity (including a three million Deutche serves. grant groups.
Mark funding commitment), and (2) IMF-
conditions on reform of the forestry sector These changes in the political context of These factors add weight to Sayer’s (1995)
and growing calls from the international East Kalimantan invalidate key assump- argument that “Indonesia is struggling to
donor community for stabilization of for- tions of the NCP reserve planning princi- establish a protected areas system that might
est boundaries (see Barber and Schwei- ples relating to the notion that central gov- have been viable in the 19th century but will
thelm 2000). ernment can plan and enforce natural not be viable in the 21st century.” This ob-

Volume 22 (1), 2002 Natural Areas Journal 39

servation raises the following question: What committed to the principle of establishing Fauna and Flora International, Head of
are the strategic options for delivering rep- networks of reserves that are representa- the BirdLife International–Indonesia Pro-
resentation in Indonesia in the twenty-first tive of biotic diversity, it will be necessary gramme, and chairman of the Oriental
century? Sayer (1995) proposed many small- to undertake an urgent, radical, and com- Bird Club. He specializes in protected area
er reserves, strategically placed, to optimize prehensive reassessment of protected area network design and management and con-
representation goals. Other options include policy and management in East Kaliman- servation policy analysis.
opportunistic acquisition of large blocks of tan and other regions of Indonesia.
degraded forestland by targeting nonviable Frank Momberg has worked as a conser-
logging concessions, and mounting a major vationist for 10 years in Indonesia, focus-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
international campaign to protect a small ing on integrated conservation and devel-
number of “unspoiled” lowland landscapes We thank Ketut Dedy and Mulyadi for opment projects, community participation
such as Sebuku-Sembakung. A further ques- GIS support; Anja Hoffmann of Integrated in protected area management, and biore-
tion is how are reserves to be protected? In Forest Fire Management Project for ac- gional planning. He was instrumental in
the face of current threats, can conservation cess to NOAA hot-spot data, various GIS the development of protected areas in
agencies maintain their focus on “soft” com- layers and information on industrial tim- Kalimantan (Kayan-Mentarang National
munity-based management approaches or ber plantations around Mahakam Lake; Park, proposed Sebuku-Sembakung Na-
will it be necessary to introduce militaristic the staff of the Ministry of Forestry, Direc- tional Park) and West Papua (Lorentz World
enforcement approaches? These are strate- torate Generals of Planning and Inventory, Heritage Site). He is currently Head of
gic questions requiring urgent consider- Forest Protection and Nature Conserva- Indochina Programmes for Fauna and Flo-
ation. tion in Jakarta and Bogor for access to ra International.
maps and information on reserves; forest-
ry concessions and industrial timber plan- Hans van Noord, a physical geographer,
CONCLUSION
tation development, and the staff of the is a freelance environmental consultant
Support for the representation principle Planning Agency and Land Allocation specializing in Indonesia and Brazil. His
appears stronger than ever among conser- Agency in Samarinda for access to spatial fields of research are mountain ecosys-
vation scientists and policymakers. The plans. We thank Delton Belk, Danna Lea- tems (geomorphology, mapping) and ap-
science and practice of the systematic de- man, Peter Jackson, Clive Jeremy, Peran plied landscape ecology. He has broad
sign of protected area networks to meet Ross, Graham Webb, and Roland Wirth of experience with G.I.S. and R.S.
representation goals is developing rapidly the IUCN specialist group network for
and is attracting significant investment (see responding to our request for information
LITERATURE CITED
Olson and Dinerstein 1998, Pressey 1999, on the status of species of international
Myers et al. 2000). conservation concern in East Kalimantan. Amin, A. 1999. Memorandum to Governor of
Timothy O’Brien, Carry Yeager, and East Kalimantan Province from the Head of
Twenty years ago, Indonesia used the best Agustinus Taufik provided initial review Bappeda East Kalimantan Province con-
cerning Proposal for Sebuku Sembakung
principles of conservation biology to plan of tables. Raleigh Blouch, Gabriella Conservation Area, dated 14 April 1999.
a national protected area system. Our case Friedrikson, and Dale Wellington provid-
Araujo, M.B. 1999. Distribution patterns of
study shows that in present-day East Kal- ed recent information on the situation in biodiversity and the design of a representa-
imantan, there has been a failure to turn Bukit Suharto, Kayan Mentarang, and tive reserve network in Portugal. Diversity
planning into practice, chiefly because key Kutai, and, together with Simon Hedges, and Distributions 5:151-163.
assumptions of Indonesia’s reserve plan- Derek Holmes, Anja Hoffmann, Darrell BAPPENAS. 1993. Biodiversity Action Plan
ning principles are invalid in the context Kitchener, Susanne Schmitt, and Robert for Indonesia. Jakarta, Ministry of National
of sociopolitical realities operating at the Whittaker, kindly commented on earlier Development Planning/National Develop-
local level. Although similar assessments drafts of this paper. We thank Dominick ment Planning Agency. 141 pp.
of reserve network efficacy have not been DellaSala, Tony Whitten, and an anony- Barber, C.V. and J. Schweithelm. 2000. Trial
done for other provinces and regions of mous reviewer for helpful comments on by Fire: Forest Fires and Forestry Policy in
Indonesia, this general conclusion proba- our manuscript. This study was conducted Indonesia’s Era of Crisis and Reform. World
bly holds true for Sumatra and Sulawesi. under the Yayasan WWF Indonesia Outer Resources Institute in collaboration with
WWF-Indonesia and Telapak Indonesia
Within densely populated Java, landscapes Island Program for Bioregional Planning Foundation, Washington, D.C.
are more stable, and within Irian Jaya and Integrated Park Management, with fi-
Blower, J. 1978. Planning and management of
(Western New Guinea) threats to conser- nancial support from USAID. conservation areas with particular reference
vation attributes are not as immediate be- to Indonesia. Pp. 161-175 in Wildlife man-
cause the region is at an early stage of Paul Jepson is a freelance conservationist agement in Southeast Asia. Special Publi-
development. based at the School of Geography and cation No. 8, BIOTROP, Bogor, Indoneisa.
Environment, Oxford University. He was Collar, N.J., M.J. Crosby, and A.J. Statters-
On the basis of this case study, we suggest formerly director of Asia Programmes for field. 1994. Birds to Watch 2: The World
that if the conservation community is truly

40 Natural Areas Journal Volume 22 (1), 2002

 List of Threatened Birds. BirdLife Interna- the need for extensive fish surveys in PHPA/UNESCO/USAID/WWF-Indonesia,
tional, Cambridge, U.K. 407 pp. Indonesia. Tropical Biodiversity 2:401-426. Jakarta.
Dasmann, R.F. 1972. Towards a system for Kottelat, M. and A.Whitten. 1996. Asia-wide Momberg, F., P. Jepson, and H. van Noord.
classifying natural regions of the world and Assessment of Fresh-water Biodiversity. 1998. Justification for a new protected area
their representation by national parks and World BankWashington, Washington, D.C. in the Sebuku-Sembakung region, East
reserves. Biological Conservation 4:247- Lennertz, R. and K.F. Panzer. 1983. Prelimi- Kalimantan, Indonesia. Jakarta, PHPA/
255. nary assessment of the drought and forest UNESCO/USAID/WWF-Indonesia, Jakar-
Davis, S.D., V.H Heywood, and A.C. Hamil- fire damage in Kalimantan Timur. TADP ta.
ton (eds.). 1994. Centres of Plant Diversity: PN. 76.2010.7, DFS and GTZ, Indonesia Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermei-
A Guide and Strategy for their Conserva- and Germany. er, G.A.B da Fonseca, and J. Kentet. 2000.
tion. Vol. 2: Asia, Australasia and the Pa- MacAndrews, C. and L. Saunders. 1999. Con- Biodiversity hotspots for conservation pri-
cific. World Wildlife Fund/UK and World servation and national park financing in orities. Nature 403:853-858.
Conservation Union (IUCN), Godalming Indonesia. NRMP Occasional Paper No. 6, Nowell, K. and P. Jackson (eds.). 1996. Wild
and Gland, Switzerland. 578 pp. Natural Resources Management Project, Cats: Status, Survey and Conservation Ac-
Down to Earth. 2000. Special issue on regional BAPPENAS/Ministry of Forestry/USAID, tion Plan. IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group,
autonomy. Down to Earth Newsletter 46, Jakarta, Indonesia. Gland, Switzerland. 406 pp.
August 2000. [Available at www.gn.apc.org/ MacArthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The Noss, R.F. and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Sav-
dte] Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton ing Nature’s Legacy: Protecting and Re-
Ehrlich, P.R. and A.H. Ehrlich. 1992. The val- University Press, Princeton, N.J. storing Biodiversity. Island Press, Wash-
ue of biodiversity. Ambio 21:219-226. MacKinnon, J. 1997. Protected area systems ington, D.C. 416 pp.
Eudey, A.A. 1987. Action Plan for Asian Pri- review of the Indo-Malayan Realm. The O’Brien, T.G., N.L. Winarni, F.M. Saanin, M.F.
mate Conservation. IUCN/SSC Primate Asian Bureau for Conservation Limited, Kinnaird, and P. Jepson. 1998. Distribution
specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland. 65 Canterbury, U.K. 198 pp. and conservation status of Bornean peacock-
pp. MacKinnon, J. and M.B. Artha. 1982. National pheasant in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia.
EIA/Telapak. 1999. The Final Cut: Illegal Log- conservation plan for Indonesia, Vols. 1-8. Bird Conservation International 8:373-387.
ging in Indonesia’s Orang-utan Sanctuar- Field reports 17, 18, 34,35,36,39 44 FO/ Olson, D.M. and E. Dinerstein. 1998. The Glo-
ies. Environment Investigation Agency and INS/78/061, available from Food and Agri- bal 200: a representation approach to con-
Telepak Indonesia, London and Bogor. culture Organization of the United Nations, serving the Earth’s most biologically valu-
Forman, R.T.T. and M. Godron. 1986. Land- Rome. able ecoregions. Conservation Biology
scape Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New MacKinnon, J. and K. MacKinnon. 1986a. 12:502-515.
York. 619 pp. Review of the Protected Area Systems of Pressey, R.L. 1999. Editorial: Systematic con-
Hagsater, E. and V. Dumont (eds.). 1996. Or- the Afrotropical Realm. IUCN and UNDP, servation planning for the real world. Parks
chids: Status Survey and Conservation Ac- Gland, Switzerland. 9:1-6.
tion Plan. IUCN/SSC Orchid Specialist MacKinnon, J. and K. MacKinnon. 1986b. Pressey, R.L., C.J. Humphries, C.R. Margules,
Group,Gland, Switzerland. 153 pp. Review of the Protected Areas system in R.I. Vane-Wright, and P.H. Williams. 1993.
Hoffmann, A.A., A. Hinrichs, and F. Siegert. the Indo-Malayan Realm. IUCN, CNPPA Beyond opportunism: key principles for
1999. Fire damage in East Kalimantan in and UNEP, Cambridge, U.K., and Gland, systematic reserve selection. Trends in Evo-
1997–98 related to land use and vegetation Switzerland. lution and Ecology 8:124-128
classes: satellite radar inventory results and MacKinnon, K. and E. Sumardja. 1996. For- RePPProT. 1990. The Land Resources of In-
proposal for further actions. IFFM–SFMP ests for the future: conservation in Kali- donesia: A National Overview. Jakarta,
Report No.1a, MOFEC, GTZ and KfW, mantan. Pp. 59-72 in C. Padoch and N.L. Government of the Republic of Indonesia
Samarinda, Indonesia. Peluso, eds., Borneo in Transition: People, Ministry of Transmigration, Directorate
IUCN/UNEP/WWF. 1980. World Conserva- Forests, Conservation, and Development. General of Settlement. Preparation, Land
tion Strategy: Living Resource Conserva- Oxford University Press, Singapore. Resources Department, ODNRI and ODA,
tion for Sustainable Development. IUCN, MacKinnon, K., G. Hatta, H. Halim, and A. Jakarta. 282 pp.
UNEP, WWF in collaboration with FAO Mangalik. 1996. The Ecology of Kaliman- Rijksen, H.D. and E. Meijaard. 1999. Our
and UNESCO, Gland. tan. Periplus Editions, Singapore. 802 pp. Vanishing Relative: The Status of Wild
Jepson, P. and S. Canney. 2001. Biodiversity Margules, C.R. and R.F. Pressey. 2000. Sys- Orang-Utans at the Close of the Twentieth
hotspots: hot for what? Global Biogeogra- tematic conservation planning. Nature Century. Tropenbos Publications, Wagenin-
phy and Ecology 10:225-227. 405:243-253. gen. 420 pp.
Jepson, P., J.K. Jarvie, K. MacKinnon, and Meijer, W. 1981. Lowland forestry manage- Sayer, J.A. 1995. Science and International
K.A. Monk. 2001. The end for Indonesia’s ment. Pp. 295-306 in. G.E. Hansen, ed., Nature Conservation. Inaugural lecture for
lowland forests. Science 292:859-861. Agricultural and Rural Development in In- the Prince Bernhard Chair at the University
donesia. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo. of Utrecht. CIFOR, Bogor.
Jepson, P. and R.J. Whittaker. 2002. Ecore-
gions in context: a critique with special Momberg, F. 1998. Roads to destruction? Com- Schwarz, A. 1999. A Nation in Waiting. Indo-
reference to Indonesia. Conservation Biol- munity mapping and GIS as tools for anal- nesia’s Search for Stability. Allen and Un-
ogy 16:1-16. ysis of alternative routing to minimize envi- win, St Leaonards, Australia. 533 pp.
Kottelat, M. 1995 The fishes of the Mahakam ronmental and social impact. Pp. 70-74 in Silvius, M.J. 1989. Muara Sebuku, Indonesia.
River, East Borneo: an example of the F. Momberg, P. Jepson, and H. van Noord, Pp. 1042-1043 in D.A. Scott, ed., A Directory
limitations of biogeographic analyses and eds., Kalimantan Biodiversity Assessment. of Asian Wetlands. IUCN, Gland,

Volume 22 (1), 2002 Natural Areas Journal 41

 Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K. Wells, M., S. Guggenheim, A. Khan, W. War- Wirawan, N. 1985. Kutai National Park man-
Stattersfield, A.J., M.J. Crosby, A.J. Long, and dojo, and P. Jepson. 1999. Investing in agement plan 1985-1990. WWF/IUCN,
D.C. Wedge. 1998. Endemic Bird Areas of Biodiversity: A Review of Indonesia’s In- Bogor, Indonesia.
the World: Priorities for Biodiversity Con- tegrated Conservation and Development World Bank. 1990. Indonesia: Sustainable
servation. BirdLife International, Cam- Projects. The World Bank, East Asia Re- Development of Forests, Land and Water.
bridge, U.K. 846 pp. gion, Washington, D.C. 119 pp. Oxford University Press, New York.
Sumardja, E.A. 1985. The development of a Whitmore, T.C. 1984. Tropical Rain Forests of World Bank. 1998. Indonesia in Crisis: A
protected area system for Indonesia in terms the Far East. 2nd Ed. Clarendon Press, Macroeconomic Update. World Bank, Jakar-
of representative coverage of ecotypes. Pp. Oxford, U.K. 352 pp. ta, Indonesia.
69-77 in J. Thorsell, ed., Conserving Asia’s Whittaker, R.J. 1998. Island Biogeography: WWF 1998. Minutes of the meeting with the
Natural Heritage: Planning and Manage- Ecology, Evolution and Conservation. Ox- Minister of Forestry & Estate Crops 19th
ment of Protected Areas in the Indo-Malay- ford University Press, Oxford, U.K. August 1998, Yayasan WWF Indonesia.
an Realm. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 285 pp.
UNEP. 1992. Convention on Biological Diver-
sity. United Nations Environment and De-
velopment Programme of the United Na-
tions, Nairobi.

42 Natural Areas Journal Volume 22 (1), 2002