ECOREGIONAL PLAN

for

CONSERVATION of BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

in

EAST KALIMANTAN, INDONESIA

(Insert photo collage of Karst formations, Orangutan, Mangrove forests on river,

Hornbill, Logging Trucks, Village Scenes a la Donald’s montage)

By

The Nature Conservancy

Asia/Pacific Region: Indonesia Program
East Kalimantan Portfolio Office

Compiled by: Darrell J. Kitchener, James E. Moore, Edward H.B. Pollard,

Agus Salim, Scott A. Stanley, and Junaidi Syamsudin
 Acknowledgements
The lead TNC ecoregional planners, Karen Poiani and Stuart Shepherd visited the Kalimantan
ERP team during early April 2002 and provided valuable guidance to the process. Additionally,
Douglas Fuller from The George Washington University, visited in June 2002 and assisted in
some GIS interpretation, and provided follow up assistance and advice.

The following people also provided advice for which TNC is extremely grateful:

Dr. Robin Bourgeois, ESCAP CGPRT Center/ CIRAD Amis Ecopol.

Dr. Charles Cannon, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Dr. Unna Chokkalingam, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia
Mr. Gordon Claridge, Consultant, Resource Management Specialist.
Dr. Helmut Dotzauer, Integrated Fire Management Team Leader, GTZ Programme, East
Kalimantan.
Ms. Gabriella Fredrickson, Consultant NRM, Sungai Wain.
Dr. Christian Goenner, Bird Life International.
Dr. Anne Gouyon, Director, Ide Force/ WIN.
Dr. Sigit Hardwinarto, Soil and Water Conservation, The University of Mulawarman.
Mr. Ir Herryadi, Forest Rehabilitation consultant, GTZ programme, East Kalimantan.
Ms. Anja A. Hoffmann, Fire Information and Remote Sensing Specialist, GTZ Programme, East
Kalimantan.
Mr. Budiono, S. Hut, Yayasan Konservasi RASI.
Dr. Jim Jarvie, Ecological Consultant, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Dr. Paul J. A. Kessler, Nationaal Herbarium Nederland, Leiden University.
Ms. Danielle Kreb, Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics/ Zoological Museum,
University of Amsterdam.
Mrs. Monica Kusneti, TNC, East Kalimantan Portfolio office.
Mr. Edward Pollard, TNC consultant, Berau, East Kalimantan.
Dr. Yosep Ruslim, Forest Planning Advisor for Sustainable Forest Management in East
Kalimantan (SFMP).
Mr. Henry Sharpe, Planning and Development Consultant for ICMA Kalimantan project.
Dr. Douglas Sheil, Senior Scientist, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Dr. Kade Sidiyasa, Forest Botanist, MOF- Tropenbos Kalimantan Programme.
Dr. Ferry Slik, National Herbarium Nederland.
Dr. M. Suamaryono, Forest Planning Laboratory, The University of Mulawarman, East
Kalimantan.
Mr. Kemal Taruc, consultant, Building Institutions for Good Governance (ICMA/USAID).
Dr. Van Nijmans
Dr. Mark van Nieuwstadt, (check files)
Dr. Harry Wiriadinata, Herbarium Nasional, Bogor, Indonesia.
Mr. Stephan Wulffraat, WWF Kayan Mentarang Programme, East Kalimantan.
 Preface

There is a tendency when developing strategies for the conservation of biological diversity in
East Kalimantan to put aside areas that have been seriously burned as not worthy of
conservation effort. This has been a divisive argument used when assessing the value of
continuing to place sparse conservation resources into the management of the badly burned
Kutai National Park, for example. Two recent studies in East Kalimantan have particular import
to such discussions. They are summarized below:

Writing about the effect of fire on lowland forests in East Kalimantan, Dr Ferry Slik and his
colleagues wrote in 2002 that “fire renders them still valuable for conservation, especially
since the studied forests were all heavily burnt and tree species diversity is likely to be
higher in lightly burnt forest”.

Further Mark van Nieuwstadt (pers. com.), a forest ecologist who has worked in East
Kalimantan, wrote in 2002 that “The main conclusion of my thesis is, that these forests
appear to have a greater recovery potential than expected, mainly due to the resprouting
capacity of small stems in the forest undergrowth, which allows for the relatively rapid
recovery of populations of shade tolerant trees. On the other hand, it is clear that
repeated disturbances (such as logging in burned forest, or repeated fire) do cause
greater damage than one would expect, because the limited recovery capacity is
seriously reduced”.

The selection of the TNC portfolio of conservation sites in East Kalimantan will be based on
capturing the highest viability assemblages of target ecological systems that contribute to and
preserve the functionality of Major River systems. However, some occurrences of lower viability
or condition may be included - particularly if they are to ensure functionality of the landscape
ecosystems. These disturbed, burned or selectively logged sites will be included with the
knowledge that if they are protected from further such disturbances, they will have a good
potential to recover in the long-term. They may eventually become important conservation areas
in themselves, aside from their recommended function as valuable corridors connecting and
thereby improving the functionality of highly ranked conservation sites.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION

The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve the plants, animals, and natural
communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they
need to survive. In response to the need to plan and work at larger geographic scales to
conserve biodiversity, the Conservancy has adopted an ecoregional approach to achieving its
conservation goals. Conservation by Design: A Framework for Mission Success (The Nature
Conservancy 1996) outlines the need to plan for site-based actions within the context of
ecologically-defined areas called ecoregions.

Ecoregions are relatively large land areas delineated by biotic and environmental factors that
regulate the structure and function of ecosystems within them. Planning at the ecoregional level
will help maximize the chances of capturing all conservation targets in sufficient numbers and
distribution for their long-term survival. The ecoregion units the Conservancy adopted for
conservation planning were delineated by Bailey et al. (1994) and amended by the National
Ecoregional Working Group (The Nature Conservancy 1997; See Map 1A.1). In Indonesia, the
recommendation was made to utilize the World Wildlife Fund’s Ecoregions (WWF 2000).
However, these areas were significantly modified to meet the applied needs in Kalimantan for a
practical, recognizable system of describing the region (see Section X.X).

It is recognized that there have been previous efforts to delineate and describe the biodiversity
within the ecoregions of Indonesian Borneo or Kalimantan (Dasmann 1992, Udvardy 1989,
Bailey 1989, Momberg et al 1998, Birdlife International 1999, WWF 2000). And, it is apparent
there is considerable controversy over the methods chosen to do so (Jepson 2002, Dinerstein et
al. 2002). Each of these approaches have important value for conservation planners and merit
integration to the maximal extent possible.

This ecoregional assessment has chosen to utilize the important information gathered and
synthesized by those previous efforts and apply them to the landscapes of East Kalimantan.
This will form the starting point for designing a portfolio of sites within this planning unit that will
capture the representative biodiversity of the region and, most importantly, integrate ecosystem
functionality into the conservation area design. It is of less importance to this team whether
there is general agreement over the chosen planning boundary, but of crucial importance that
there be agreement amongst our partners over the rigor and logic of the process we employed
in our subsequent assessment.

Conservation by Design outlined the Conservancy’s new conservation goal as “the long term
survival of all viable native species and community types through the design and conservation
of portfolios of sites within ecoregions.” A portfolio is a suite of sites that, if properly protected
and managed, will collectively conserve native species and community types representative of
an ecoregion. Long-term viability will be ensured by protecting multiple viable or recoverable
occurrences of species and natural communities within ecoregions. The methodology for this
new ecoregion-based conservation approach was outlined in Designing a Geography of Hope:
Guidelines for Ecoregion-Based Conservation (The Nature Conservancy 1997). This approach
will enable the Conservancy and others to achieve a greater vision of success. Partners will be
crucial to the quality and success of ecoregion-based conservation, especially in international
ecoregions such as in Indonesian Kalimantan where the Conservancy does not own and control
any land.

This plan is one of the first efforts to assemble and synthesize biological information from a
number of disparate planning efforts in East Kalimantan for the purpose of natural resource
conservation. This analysis will serve to identify where the Conservancy and other agencies and
organizations should work “on the ground” to achieve the conservation goals along with the
strategies and actions necessary to conserve the natural diversity in the province of East
Kalimantan, Indonesia. This first iteration of conservation sites and strategies is intended ideally
to be reviewed within two years for efficacy and relevance to the conservation status of East
Kalimantan in general and, more specifically to the portfolio of sites recommended within. It is
widely recognized that the immediacy of the suite of threats to the biological integrity of the
portfolio requires ongoing monitoring with an adaptive management response.

B. Description of the Kaltim Ecoregional Planning Unit

Ecological Processes: To a large extent the dominant processes in the maintenance of the
tropical rainforest ecosystem present in East Kalimantan are rainfall, soil type and drainage
patterns on the landscape (Whitmore 1984, RePPProt 1992, McKinnon 1994). The forest types
are dictated by the underlying soil patterns coupled with the drainage dynamics. Therefore, a
highly sandy soil type which promotes rapid infiltration of precipitation and tends to hold little
decaying plant material, requires a vegetation type that can deal with low nutrient soils and little
to no standing water around its roots – such as Heath Forest. Whereas, a self-contained
drainage basin which receives all or most of its moisture from precipitation and has high levels
of decomposing plant materials with resulting high acidity requires a vegetation form tolerant of
such conditions – such as Peat Swamp Forest. This pattern is then further affected by altitudinal
changes, which dramatically influence the forest types as altitude increases – affecting ambient
temperatures, humidity, and even the presence of pollinators and seed dispersers (Whitmore
1984).

Distribution of flowering and fruiting vegetation is intricately dependant on the presence and
activities of their pollinators (McKinnon 1996). Fruit bats; squirrels; pigs; numerous hornbill
species; and various primates including macaques, langurs, gibbons and orangutans; all
contribute to the processing and distribution of seeds of the fruiting trees and lianas such as
those in the genus Ficus. Periodicity of the flowering and fruiting cycles apparently depends
largely on rainfall patterns (McKinnon 1996, Guhardja et al. 2000). The resultant periodicity
strongly influences seasonal migration patterns for those vertebrates dependant on the fruit or
flower resources (Rijksen & Meijaard 1999).

The natural processes which defined both vegetative and faunal distribution and diversity of the
rainforest ecosystems has been seriously challenged by relatively recent impacts from the
forests human inhabitants and recent migrants (Meijaard & Rijksen 1999). It is difficult to say
over what period such dramatic alterations of landscape composition will persist and what the
future climax communities may be. Indeed, it is impossible to predict how current trends in
deforestation and conversion will continue in light of economic uncertainties, potential public
health concerns, or global climatic change. One thing remains certain however, the natural
system has been disrupted by decades of fragmentation, degradation, conversion, and outright
destruction of the tropical rainforest by human activities.

Trends in Biodiversity: It is a reasonable conclusion that, due to the increased deforestation

and degradation of remaining forest blocks from a host of human activities, the biodiversity
within the forest domain is on the decrease. There is no trend in conservation in Indonesia that
would indicate an increase in native biologic diversity nor the requisite increase in forest
protection from illegal logging, arson, unplanned settlements, overharvesting of forest products
or poaching.

Every author familiar with the status of Indonesian forest conservation efforts in Kalimantan
predicts an exponential loss of forest cover and attendant biological diversity within the next
decade (McKinnon 1996, Rijksen & Meijaard 1999, Guhardja et al. 2000). The critical need, as
eloquently laid out by Rijksen and Meijaard (1999) is the absolute preservation of key remnants
of representative forest stands in light of the imminent destruction or degradation and
conversion of all else on this island. This preservationist approach in select areas, coupled with
the sensible and sustainable utilization of the remaining forest types is the combined objective
that motivates this ecoregional planning effort. The urgency of its completion and subsequent
adoption by local resource management entities or private companies whose actions most
directly influence the condition of these ecosystems is paramount in the conservation strategies
suggested.

C. Threats
Transmigration and Settlement: This program was based upon the growing pressure to
redistribute the unbalanced human population of the Republic of Indonesia. The central island of
Java contains almost __% of the 120 million inhabitants of this country, while larger islands such
as Kalimantan and Sulawesi contain only ___% while surpassing the landmass of Java by more
than __%. This inequity of human distribution has contributed to a decrease in the quality of life
within the main cities of Java with increasing traffic, decreasing availability of goods and
services, and a strain on public utilities to keep up with the rapidly expanding population.
Therefore, since 197__ until 1992? the Indonesian Government has been moving large groups
of families (10’s of thousands) into these relatively unpopulated areas.

It was originally intended that the locations of such “transmigration” would be well planned and
based upon the suitability of the soils and landscape to accommodate the influx of new migrants
and to support agricultural activity. Unfortunately, this has not been the case in application.
Migrants have been moved into large expanses of previously intact lowland forest on
depauperate soils. Inevitably, following land clearing and planting of one or two crops, the
nutrients of the soil have been expended and can support no further production. The
transmigrants then turn to the surrounding forest for illegal woodcutting, extraction of fruits and
materials such as rattan, hunting of animals for commercial and personal-use meat products,
and poaching of orangutans for both meat and for juveniles to sell to markets in Indonesia and
surrounding Asian countries (McKinnon 1996, Rijsken & Meijaard 1999).

Commercial Woodcutting: The wood products industry is by far the leading economic
driver of the island of Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo) and the primary shaper of the
current landscape and integrity of its ecology. Virtually the entire lowland rainforest
landscape of East Kalimantan is covered and claimed by forest concessions (Rijksen &
Meijaard 1999). These concessions have varying degrees of management depending
on the proximate and ultimate plans that have been developed for sustaining an
economically sound harvest schedule. Some have no such plans at all and practice
short-term clear-cut strategies to maximize immediate returns on investment (primarily
the wood pulp mills).
It has been suggested that the concessions that are inactive, as far as officially sanctioned
logging is concerned, may be more threatened than those undergoing active management. The
prevailing social attitude is that unmanaged, unoccupied land is free land, open for exploitation
of all its resources (Rijksen & Meijaard 1999). Inactive forest concessions are cut, cleared,
burned, converted to plantations and settled by the surrounding human population taking
advantage of the apparently ownerless landscape.

Woodcutting of another sort – that for personal use firewood or for local firewood markets,
affects several of the other forest types that the commercial lumber industry does not pay much
attention to. Mangrove forests, Peat Swamp forests and Heath forests in particular are
constantly whittled away by surrounding villages for building poles, charcoal for cooking, and
other daily, small-scale utilitarian uses. While not of the magnitude of deforestation experienced
by the Lowland Rainforest by huge commercial loggers, this constant onslaught of
fragmentation and degradation of the integrity of these other forest types exerts a negative
cumulative effect on the functioning of these system types, as well as the faunal composition of
them. Disturbance-sensitive species are the first to evacuate once woodcutting activities begin.
Little by little the forest patches surrounding, or in proximity to villages and major roadways,
begin to lose more and more of the habitat characteristics that other species rely upon, whether
that be closed canopy, relative humidity, or lack of predator access. In time, what were once
pristine contiguous forests become fragmented, species-depauperate sources of firewood and
building materials.

Fire and Microclimate Change: Two major episodes in recent times (1982/83 and 1997/98)
of widespread uncontrolled wildfire in the tropical rainforests of Kalimantan gained international
attention as the resulting ash and smoke caused impacts on global air quality (number of
international press citations…). It is surmised that these two events in particular coincided with
El Nino weather patterns and thus provided the drought conditions suitable for burning
otherwise moist, humitropical rainforest. Additionally, roads from logging operations positively
correlated with the susceptibility of forests to burn under these conditions (Siegert, et al. 2001).
The devastation caused by these repeat events over the span of 2 decades with a number of
smaller wildfires in the interim has apparently established a situation of irreversible forest
conversion to alang-alang grassland and oil palm plantations (Slik et al 2002, Kiyono &
Hastaniah 2000).

The after-effects of such intense wildfires are primarily the baking of surface soil layers and
mortality of the majority of seedlings and the seed banks of many tropical forest species (Kiyono
& Hastaniah 2000). Mycorrhizal fungi, so integral to the nutritional uptake of soil nutrients in
forest trees such as most Dipterocarp species (Lodge et al. 1996, Lee 1998), are quickly
eliminated from the soil horizon after a wildfire and unavailable for any seeds or seedlings,
which may happen to survive such an event (Iskander 1990, Toma et al. 2000). It is estimated
that, of the area that was burned in the 1997/98 fires, only 17% was pristine forest, while nearly
50% of the area was recently logged forests (Seigert et al. 2001).

Swidden (Slash & Burn) Agriculture: There is some debate over the appropriate
terminology for the practice of cutting down forested areas, burning the vegetation debris and
subsequently planting one or two crops on the shallow-soil, nutrient-poor, opened landscape.
Some feel that the commonly used term “slash-and-burn agriculture" carries with it some
sociological baggage implying a negative practice that is a short-sighted approach to forest
resource management with little benefit. This camp recommends the use of the term “swidden”
agriculture which is felt to be neutral in its description of this practice, and in fact arguments are
made that it is a viable option in forest resources management as long as the fallow periods are
long enough to allow for regrowth of native species and a restoration of previous forest structure
and composition (Ono & Toma 2000).

The practice has been widely employed in the tropical rainforests of the world for many
generations of human inhabitants with little apparent lasting impact to rainforest dynamics
(Whitmore 1984). There was little incentive for the indigenous human inhabitants to repeat the
cutting and burning of individual forest patches as long as their own populations were
maintained at a sustainable level given the other forest resources available to supplement
agricultural products (citations). Only in recent times has this sustainable dynamic been
disrupted.

Remaining uncut forest patches are rapidly disappearing due to the pace of industrial logging
practices, which have no place-based community incentive as indigenous tribes had, to practice
long-term fallow forest management. Short-term profit, driven by global economic forces, with
little linkage to tropical rainforest ecology, appears to be the primary motivating factor in today’s
forest products industry. This leaves local indigenous communities with a constricted array of
forest patches in which they can practice their traditional methods of agricultural production.
Therefore, they are forced to return to the same patches they burned only a few years earlier to
reburn, replant, and recultivate an ever-decreasing yield of crops on the nutrient poor soils.
When the soils are “played out” they have little chance of regenerating into anything resembling
natural rainforest composition or structure, even if they were left alone to do so. More often than
not, these exhausted patches of agricultural lands are then settled by an ever-increasing
population of human transmigrants.

Oil and Gas Exploration: (needs to be investigated for recent facts and figures)

Mining and Materials Extraction: Coal mining and limestone quarrying for the purpose of
cement production are the two major industries with the capacity to significantly alter the
physical environment and ecological integrity of the East Kalimantan landscape. Already, strip
mines for coal extraction encompass approximately ____hectares of former Lowland Rainforest
habitat (Source: XXXDept. Of Minerals, 199_)

There are a total of XX industrial cement producers working out of East Kalimantan with
production totaling ______tons per year. It is estimated that production will need to dramatically
increase to meet the demand for building materials brought on by the reviving Indonesian
economy (Jakarta Post 11 August 2002). The fact that the majority of the limestone that serves
these cement plants comes from limestone quarries underneath our Lowland Limestone (Karst)
Forest target system bodes ill for the future integrity of this unique East Kalimantan ecosystem
type.

Road Construction: Thousands of kilometers of roads have been built in the past couple of
decades into previously unfragmented forest for the primary purpose of facilitating industrial
logging efforts. Skid roads are constructed, along which metric tons of logs are dragged to
loading sites which are also cleared and heavily compacted by the operation of heavy trucks
and loading equipment. Directly, these scars on the forest landscape fragment habitat for
numerous species that require closed canopy (Bornean gibbons) or continuous vegetative
cover, thereby effectively isolating populations into potentially unviable metapopulations
(McKinnon 1996, Rijksen & Meijaard 1999).
Roads also serve to channel water from precipitation out of the forested areas into
raging torrents of mud and debris – ultimately degrading water quality and increasing
sedimentation rates of the major rivers. The roads also provide convenient entry into
previously inaccessible regions of the forest for exploitation by native hunters,
transmigrant poachers, illegal loggers and arsonists intent on creating new justification
for forest clearing for settlement or agricultural purposes (Rijksen & Meijaard 1999). The
recent devastating wildfires of 82/83 and 97/98 were strongly positively correlated with
presence of logging roads (citations)

D. Phases of Ecoregion-Based Conservation

The ecoregion-based approach to conservation in East Kalimantan consists of three integrally
connected phases: assessment, design and implementation. Each stage is an iterative process
within a larger effort that will be refined over time, as new information becomes available.
Additionally, each phase is not exclusive of the others and may occur simultaneously with
others. The three phases of ecoregion-based conservation more completely described are:

1. Assessment: This phase consists of identifying target species and natural communities,
compiling data on the targets, setting viability guidelines, and developing conservation goals
for the number and distribution of each target.
2. Design: This phase includes assembling the suite of sites to conserve all biodiversity in the
ecoregion, analyzing threats and feasibility, and developing strategies to ensure long-term
survival of the targets at those sites.
3. Implementation: This phase consists of on-the-ground conservation actions needed to
address threats to the target species and natural plant communities and to fill data gaps to
improve future iterations of the ecoregional plan.

E. Ecoregional Planning Team

The Kaltim Planning Team consisted of local TNC staff, regional experts and one Fellow from
the US program who had previously led an Ecoregional Planning process. Team members
included:

Scott Stanley – Program Director, TNC-Kaltimantan

Sopialena ______ - Government Relations, TNC-Kalimantan
Salim Agus – Primary GIS and Data Management, TNC-Kalimantan
Dr. Darrel Kitchener – Private Ecological Consultant (formerly TNC-Indonesia)
Edward H.B. Pollard – Private Ecological Consultant (formerly TNC-Indonesia)
Junaidi Syamsudin – GIS and Data Management Support, TNC-Berau
Karen Poiani – ERP Director, Asia Pacific Region, TNC-Hawaii
Stuart Sheppard – Database/GIS Consultant, TNC-Worldwide Office
James Moore – ERP Guidance, Indonesia Fellowship, TNC-Nevada

F. Data Sources and Management

Data management for the Kalimantan Timur Ecoregional Plan was carried out through the
Samarinda Office of The Nature Conservancy, with support from TNC’s Asia Pacific Office, and
the Worldwide Office. Using Microsoft Access, an ecoregional database was created for
collecting, cataloguing, analyzing and distributing data during the planning process and beyond.
Spatial data was managed using Arc View 3.2, a Geographic Information System (GIS). An
Excel spreadsheet of all patch combinations among Landform, Forest Type, and Watershed
was produced to review target numbers and ecological patterns of occurrence. It was decided to
eliminate all patch sizes less than 10 hectares following the standard recommendation of the
use of LandSat TM imagery coupled with the varying degrees of resolution from the other layers
used to generate these combinations.

Transmigration Area Development Project (TAD): Ecoregional data sets including digital
elevation models, TM imagery, road layers, and hydrography were obtained through the
Transmigration Area Development Project —a collaborative research effort directed and funded
by the Indonesian Department of Manpower and Transmigration, and Department of Agriculture,
Jakarta conducted by the German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ). The primary
objective for this project was to identify the most suitable areas for settlement and agriculture for
new transmigrants from the more populous regions of Indonesia.

Regional Program for Assessment of Transmigration Potential in Indonesia (RePPProT):

Provided important data layers on Landforms (slope, aspect, soils and geology) together with
spatial analysis via LandSat imagery of vegetative cover. This was a more updated version of
the TAD program and incorporated the new satellite and digital technologies available since the
1980’s.

Target Occurrence Information: In Indonesia, nothing approximating the U.S. system of

Natural Heritage Databases exists for the country. Information on species occurrences was
gathered from published materials as well as from expert feedback, however, most of these
occurrences were limited to specific areas that had been well investigated and not broadly
distributed province-wide inventories. Therefore, it was particularly important to gather
information on habitat associations or preferences for the focal species in order to bolster the
case for potential habitat extrapolations throughout the planning unit.

Expert Interviews: Despite the plurality of sources for geographic and development-potential
information, a significant lack in biodiversity data existed for the Kalimantan Timur Ecoregional
Planning Unit. Of particular concern, very little information was available regarding occurrence
distribution for species targets (exception is Yasuma 1994). To remedy this shortfall, staff from
the planning team traveled through the ecoregion conducting expert interviews. Maps of
potential habitat areas based upon known associations between the target species and the
specific habitat type were produced. Experts were asked to verify or dismiss these potential
areas based upon their in-the-field knowledge about whether these areas were actually
occupied by the focal species. Specific information regarding target localities, target viability,
threats, processes, and land management status was gathered when known by experts.

WWF-Indonesia Ecoregional Biodiversity Assessment: In 1998, the World Wide Fund for
Nature examined all available information for assessing the effectiveness of so-called “gazetted”
protected areas in Kalimantan to preserve representative biological diversity of the region. Their
assessment concluded that there were additional areas that should be added to existing
protected areas that would enhance the representation of the unique wetland communities and
Montane forest types in particular. They also included specific recommendations for Special
Management Areas in the Middle Mahakam Lakes region for example. This effort was similar in
approach to the TNC Ecoregional Assessment with several key differences which will be
elaborated on further in this report.
Rapid Ecological Assessment: Due to the lack of relatively recent data on forest condition for
many areas of the planning area, it was decided that rapid field visits would be necessary to
verify the current condition and status of potential portfolio sites. Aerial surveys were initially
conducted to assess forest type, extent and gross condition. Ground-truthing field trips were
scheduled for a subset of these sites to verify the aerial assessments and to fill in some species
occurrence information on such easily located or detected targets such as Sun Bear, Orangutan
and Gibbons.

Other Sources: Data on spatial distribution of forest concessions, locations of settlements and
villages (desa), fire destruction of rainforest habitat from both the 1982/83 and the 1997/98 fires,
and road distribution and density were critical layers in assessing suitability of habitat for
prospective portfolio sites. These layers were obtained through the cooperation of the German
GTZ_________ and TAD_____________ programs

G. Evaluation of Conservation Management Areas

In order to assess the degree to which landscapes already under some form of conservation or
natural resource sustainability management actually will result in the conservation of the
portfolio of recommended sites in the Kaltim Planning Unit, we conducted an evaluation of so-
called “Gazetted Protected Areas”. Gazetted protected areas are those that already exist on the
books as being protected and managed for the conservation of their biological diversity. In
Indonesia these ranged from: forest concessions where the lessee recognized areas within the
concession as having unique or important ecological attributes that would be set aside for no
logging or highly selective, limited wood extraction; to a series of forest concessions qualifying
under the new certification process as having High Conservation Value Forests that would be
very carefully managed to preserve site integrity; to Protected Areas under the Indonesian Law
#24/92; to actual designated National Parks (Law#5/90). However, the devil as they say, lay in
the details.

Since National Decentralization has been instituted (2000-present) it is widely recognized that
National Parks in Indonesia in general, and in the Kalimantan Provinces in particular, afford
virtually no protection to the species or the landscape contained within. Forests are allotted to
favored legal and illegal logging entities by the local decentralized government personnel; strip
mining operations have been approved; ad hoc settlements or desa are springing up throughout
prime locations; and hunting, both sanctioned and non-sanctioned continues even for such
charismatic megafauna as orangutan, banteng cattle and Asian elephants (Rijksen & Meijaard
1999). In such an atmosphere of “paper parks”, it was felt that no potential portfolio site could
qualify as being “already well protected and conserved” – therefore none was assigned a Land
Class of 1.

H. Conservation Targets
To achieve the goal of representing all vulnerable yet viable native species and communities in
the portfolio, the following targets were used (See Appendix I for a complete list of targets).

1. Major River Systems: One major river was chosen in each of the four sections of the Kaltim
Planning Unit. Priority given to those continuous from upper montane to coastal systems.
2. National Parks and Conservation Forests: Due to the fact that implementation is going to
depend heavily on the buy-in from government officials at many levels, and that the
prevailing local government perception is that enough land has already been set aside for
conservation purposes, it is necessary to build any portfolio on or around existing
“protected” landscapes, regardless of their current state of adherence to original
conservation intent.
3. Ecological Systems: All major forest types occurring within the Kaltim Planning Unit
determined by LandSat TM imagery of vegetation coupled with the RePPProT
Landform Maps.
4. Important Endemic Bird Areas: Birdlife International identified ten(10) areas in East
Kalimantan that are centers of endemism for bird species.
5. Centers of Plant Diversity: Identified by the WWF/IUCN, these are areas where a high
degree of plant endemicity occurs, such as limestone karst formations, cloud forest,
serpentine soils, and other geomorphic or edaphic factors which have played a role in
speciation.
6. Target Assemblages: Includes migratory bird concentrations or stopover areas, important
geologic formations which serve as refuge habitat for numerous bat species and other cave-
dwelling species, and reoccurring associations of species targets with particular vegetative
communities and/or geologic substrates.
7. Focal Species: although we did not have sufficient information on species distribution across
the ecoregional planning unit, we did utilize existing inventories and some ongoing research
distributional data for five species to enhance the attributes of sites that were selected for
the portfolio.

I. Conservation Goals
Conservation goals set both the number and geographic distribution of viable occurrences
required for the presumed long-term viability of each target species and community.

Stratification

Due to the size of the ecoregional planning unit and significant vegetative, climatic (temperature
and precipitation) and associated biotic differences across the range of the Kalimantan Timur
landscape, we sought an acceptable ecologically-based method of subdividing the ecoregion
into subsections that would assist us in capturing the variation in representative target elements.

Upon reviewing information on the watersheds of the planning unit, it was evident that there
were several major rivers, which essentially defined subregions within the Kaltim Ecoregion.
Using an algorithm to associate small subwatersheds into their larger geographic entity defined
by direction of flow and other topographic factors, we arrived at 27 large river watersheds in
Kaltim. These closely approximated both the 1979 and 1983 efforts by the German consulting
firm Deutsche Geseltschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) describing the
appropriateness of the Kalimantan Timur landscape for populating the region with a large
number of people from other overpopulated islands in Indonesia (TAD 1979, 1983). However,
this results in too many units to assist in stratifying goals and reasonably representing multiple
examples of each of our targets. The map of the watersheds was reviewed again and the large
river watersheds were subsequently aggregated into four regions of the planning unit that
allowed for a good connectivity of upland montane systems to the coastal communities. These
resulted in four “watershed regions” that defined our portfolio goals of preserving ecosystem
functionality centered around river occurrences (Map X).
Additionally, we reviewed the data from precipitation patterns that have been tracked in the
region for over 100 years. Several discrete bands of high, medium and low precipitation (relative
to the fact that this is an equatorial tropical rainforest land mass) were evident on the East
Kalimantan landscape. Therefore, to insure representation of meaningful ecological dynamics
within our portfolio, we further stratified our recommendations to capture target occurrences
falling within each of these three rainfall zones. The importance of this is chiefly geared towards
the phenology of vegetative events such as flowering and fruiting, and how the resident fauna
have adapted to the temporal and spatial shifts of these crucial resource events in the
respective forest types. Capturing representative examples of each of our ecological systems
within each of these precipitation zones maximizes the likelihood that we have also captured
important ecological processes for the viability of our focal target species.

Natural Vegetation Community Goals

For all natural communities in the ecoregion, or in our case “forest types”, goals were based
upon a percentage of the known areal extent. We felt that areal percentages of known, viable
occurrences would provide the flexibility needed, while still setting a high standard for protecting
the majority of the best occurrences known in the ecoregion. Distribution of the community types
influenced our goals, with the higher degree of endemism bolstering the percentage (Table 1X).

The distribution of patch sizes for each of our target ecological system was plotted and
automatically grouped into quartiles by the ArcInfo program since we did not have data on
historic patch size, nor any scientific literature to suggest what was a minimum viable size for
any of the Bornean vegetative communities. This distribution was then utilized to categorize the
individual patches as either Very Good (upper quartile), Good (second quartile), Poor (third
quartile), and Very Poor (last quartile).

Orangutan, recommendations for forest patch size to capture viable populations of this large
arboreal primate range from 1000 ha2 as a minimum patch to protect a metapopulation or
“deme” of some 50 individuals, to 5000 ha2 for a healthy meta-population of 100 individuals,
and 10000 ha2 for an ideal unfragmented patch to provide for the seasonal ranging needs of
1000 orangutans (Rijksen & Meijard 1999). Incorporating these general recommendations
provides comfortable polygons that will certainly “sweep up” the less area-dependant species
and guilds that co-occur with Orangutans in the Lowland Dipterocarp/Freshwater Swamp and/or
Peat Swamp forest associations.

Table 1X. ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM TYPE GOALS

Ecological System
Type
Distribution Patch Size % Goal

Freshwater Swamp Endemic Large Patch 40%

Limestone Karst Limited Small Patch 75%
Upper Montane/
Limited Large Patch 100%
Cloud Forest
Montane Forest Limited Matrix 50%
 Heath Forest Widespread Small Patch 60%
Mangrove Swamp Widespread Large Patch 50%
Lowland Rainforest Widespread Matrix 20%
Peat Swamp Peripheral Large Patch 50%
Major River Widespread Linear 4*
*Goals for Major River were set at one per Stratigraphic Unit – hence, 4 total.

J. Viability Analysis
Viability used in this process refers to the ability of a species to persist for many generations, or
the ability of a community type to persist over time (The Nature Conservancy 1996). The goal of
the viability assessment is to identify ecological factors required to sustain occurrences of
targets over the long term. This helps set baseline viability limits for targets.

Because population viability analyses have not been completed, and viability guidelines have
not been developed for the majority of targets within the East Kalimantan Planning Unit, we
defaulted to the opinion of experts. Most ecoregional planning teams address the concept of
viability of occurrences through the application of Natural Heritage Program element occurrence
ranks (A to D). These ranks are assigned based on the criteria of an element occurrence’s size,
condition and landscape context. We sought these same criteria from the experts we
interviewed or from information contained in publications.

Size – is a measure of the area or abundance of the conservation target’s occurrence. For
ecological systems and communities size is simply a measure of the occurrence’s patch size or
geographic coverage. For animal and plant species, size takes into account the area of
occupancy and number of individuals. Minimum dynamic area, or the area needed to ensure
survival or re-establishment of a target after natural disturbance, is another aspect of size.

Condition – refers an integrated measure of the composition, structure, and biotic interactions
that characterize the occurrence. This includes factors such as reproduction, age structure,
biological composition (e.g. the presence of native versus exotic species; presence of
characteristic patch types for ecological systems), structure (e.g., canopy, understory, and
groundcover in a forested community; spatial distribution and juxtaposition of patch types or
seral stages in an ecological system), and biotic interactions (e.g., levels of competition,
predation, and disease).

Landscape Context – refers to an integrated measure of two factors: the dominant

environmental regimes and processes that establish and maintain a target occurrence; and
connectivity. Dominant environmental regimes and processes include herbivory, hydrologic and
water chemistry regimes, geomorphic processes, climatic regimes, fire regimes, and many kinds
of natural disturbance. Connectivity includes such factors as species targets having access to
habitats and resources needed for life-cycle completion, fragmentation of ecological
communities and systems, and the ability of any target to respond to environmental change
through dispersal, migration, or recolonization. This last variable was defined by two factors in
our analysis: Isolation – which was defined as the distance to the nearest same target; and
Condition Outside – which was determined by the forest condition ranking for a two kilometer
buffer zone around each occurrence.

Whenever possible, expert input was collected on size, condition and landscape context of
identified occurrences– each rated on a scale of Poor (equivalent to a D rank) to Very Good (an
A rank). When specific criteria ranks were impossible to gather from expert interviews (often a
result of time constraints) experts were asked to identify only those occurrences they felt were
viable in the long term.

K. Portfolio Assembly
Potential Portfolio of Sites

During the expert interview and data collection phase of this assessment, a total of 731 potential
portfolio sites were mapped and attributed by the planning team. Attributes for sites included a
catalogue of target occurrences contained at the site, the viability of those occurrences, land
ownership or management status at the site as well as some summary data on threats and
opportunities when available.

Criteria for Portfolio Selection

Conservation by Design: A Framework for Success (The Nature Conservancy 1996) laid out
general guidelines for the assembly of ecoregional portfolios. These guidelines stressed the
following attributes of a valid portfolio assembly process:

 Viability: The target occurrences for which a site is selected for the portfolio can be
maintained over the long term. Ecological processes are largely intact or restorable
 Biodiversity Value: The sites to be included in the portfolio have high quality occurrences
of conservation targets.
 Efficiency of Action: The sites have multiple viable examples of conservation targets.
 Complementarity: The sites capture targets that have not been adequately incorporated
into the portfolio.

Ecological System Type Portfolios

To facilitate the application of the above criteria, 8 separate and individual working preliminary
portfolios were assembled for each of the dominant ecological system types in East Kalimantan.
These system types were first well described by Whitmore (1984) and further elaborated by
McKinnon (1996). The system types reflect assemblages of vegetation types that are coarser
than the ecological group level and include the following 8 types: Mangrove Forest, Freshwater
Swamp Forest, Peat Swamp Forest, Heath Forest, Lowland Rainforest, Limestone Karst Forest,
Lower and Middle Montane Forest, and Upper Montane/Cloud Forest.

For each system type, a set of primary targets was selected from the larger totality of the East
Kalimantan target list. These primary targets included all natural vegetation communities (most
commonly assessed at the alliance or ecological group level) and landform types associated
with the system type. Species targets that are known to be dependent or characteristic of the
system type in question (based upon literature review and expert opinion) were also identified –
even though actual species occurrence information was often lacking.
From the initial set of 731 mapped and attributed sites, a new potential portfolio was assembled
for each ecological system type by the identification of those sites containing viable or
restorable primary target occurrences for that system. In effect, the primary targets served as
coarse filters, which allowed the planning team to better manage the large initial data set and
break it down into more discreet units for analyses.

Sites that contained exceptional, unique or outstanding occurrences of a primary target were
automatically placed in the final portfolio for each system type. Additional sites were then added
to these system type portfolios until goals for primary targets were reached, or until it was
suspected that the amalgamation with other system portfolios would result in the goals being
easily attained. Where possible, sites were chosen with the additional goal of achieving
representation across the 4 stratigraphic units and 3 precipitation zones of the Kaltim Planning
Unit for each of the primary targets.

Where choices existed in selecting sites to fulfill goals, the most favorable site was assessed
according to the criteria of viability, biodiversity value, contribution to Major River functionality or
quality, and complementarity. These criteria were applied in the context of the system type
being analyzed, and specific benchmarks for these criteria are discussed in detail for each
system type in Part II of this report.

Assembly and Comparison

After a preliminary portfolio of sites for each ecological system type was assembled, all system
portfolios were compared against one another to review the degree of overlap and to identify
opportunities for creating an efficient and parsimonious final portfolio of conservation sites. Site
boundaries were modified to incorporate elements of biodiversity that met our criteria for
selection when sites overlapped significantly, or to incorporate important corridors between
sites. Site boundaries were also modified to consolidate land ownership and management within
the Class II and III lands when those areas captured the majority of the populations of target
elements, and to favor juxtaposition with major functional river corridors.

* The “Ridges to Reef” Approach

Realizing the necessity of including most or all of the Upper Montane/Cloud Forest areas in East
Kalimantan in order to preserve the functionality of the resultant portfolio, the Team decided to
construct the portfolio based upon the primary driving factors of Major River systems, their
upland watershed connections, and their terminal delta environments. We then added the site
polygons from the “Protected Areas” data layer, including National Parks (Hutani Nasionali),
Conservation Forests (Hutan lindung), Centers of Plant Diversity and Endemic Bird Areas. This
approach was termed “Ridges to Reefs” - geared towards an easily understandable strategy for
conserving functional landscapes where human activities are recognized as an integral part of
the equation from the mountain tops to the shoreline and coral reefs.

After reviewing progress toward our ecological system goals, we continued to add areas outside
of protected areas that captured multiple occurrences of important targets. Goal progress was
again rechecked to eliminate excessive redundancy and to make up for shortfalls in certain
targets.
L. Portfolio Results
The recommended portfolio of 367 sites encompasses approximately 38% of the 32.6 million-
hectare ecoregional planning unit (See Map X and Appendix III). For a complete list of target
attributes and land ownership information at these sites, please refer to Appendix IV.

Of these proposed sites, 44% are designated as protected (i.e. more than 75% of the site is
already within Class II lands). An additional 48% of portfolio sites are on other lands owned and
managed by public agencies (typically classified as class III lands). The remaining 8% of
portfolio sites (29/367) are comprised mostly of forest concessions (more than three quarters of
the site is privately leased) or have been permanently converted by agriculture, human
settlements or irreversible fire damage. Specific land ownership and impacts distribution for the
portfolio is presented in Figure X.

Goals were met for 82% of ecological system targets. Focusing on a smaller set of primary
targets for portfolio selection proved an effective coarse filter process for meeting goals for all
targets. Using just the primary target coarse filter, goals were met for 83% of landform/
vegetation combination targets, and 82% of ecological system targets (Figure X).

M. Functional Aggregations

The ambitious conservation and stratification goals of the East Kalimantan ecoregional
assessment process resulted in a relatively large number of portfolio sites (367). For The
Nature Conservancy to effectively develop conservation management strategies among the
diverse partner entities, many of these sites have been aggregated into larger functional units
based upon spatial proximity, landscape connectivity, and shared ecological processes. This is
consistent with the Geography of Hope approach which calls for the conservation and protection
of not only target elements and natural communities, but also the processes that support them
over the long term.

The aggregation of sites resulted in 302 sites being grouped into 34 functional aggregations
(See Map X), leaving another 65 portfolio sites remaining outside of these larger units. It is
intended that these aggregations will be inherently large, will have a high degree of intactness,
and will have the greatest potential to conserve biodiversity at all scales. The final portfolio of
functional aggregations also represents the places where common and widespread
communities could be protected through site conservation planning and subsequent action by
in-country partners supported by the Conservancy.

N. Selecting TNC Action Sites

The KalTim Ecoregional Planning Team then evaluated each functional aggregation as well as
those 65 sites that did not fall into an aggregation, based upon five principles: Conservation
Value, Complementarity, Threat, Opportunity and Feasibility. Each of the five factors was
ranked for each of the sites according to the following guidelines:

Conservation Value refers to the number, scale, diversity, and health of targets at each of the
functional landscape sites. Preference should be given to landscapes with both terrestrial and
aquatic targets, targets at multiple scales, and based upon target richness.
Complementarity is a measure of how different the landscape is from existing conservation
areas. Priority should be given to landscapes with targets underrepresented in the existing
conservation managed areas.

Threat is a measure of the severity and immediacy of actions that may destroy or significantly
degrade targets.

Opportunity refers to the availability of conservation partners, existing planning or conservation

efforts, and the availability of resources and funding for implementation of conservation goals at
the site.

Feasibility refers to the “do-ability” of the conservation goals for that site. It integrates both cost
and the degree of complexity of implementation as well as a consideration of the political
landscape involved at the site.

All functional aggregations and remaining sites were assessed according to the combined
ranking of the five principles (See Appendix V). As expected, these guidelines prejudiced action
site scores towards the functional aggregations since their conservation value was multiplied by
the numerous sites subsumed within the larger unit. The large size of the aggregations did not
necessarily discount the feasibility of working at these sites since most aggregations were
based upon existing protected areas (See Map X) or upon conservation-minded corporate
entities managing the larger landscape; e.g. HCVF-certified forestry companies.

The results of the ranking can be seen in Appendix V. The next step in the process will be
developing a schedule for implementation of conservation at the “Action Sites” on a 5, 10, or 20
year planning horizon by the country program.

O. Conservation Opportunities
High-Conservation Value Forests Certification: (Scott – can you describe your approach to
the HCVF and forest certification process and what the expected short and long-term benefits to
conserving the portfolio will be?) The Nature Conservancy is actively working with the
Forest Products Industry to assist in the development of the criteria for determining what
are to be considered appropriate certification guidelines for wood harvesting operations.

The following description of the emerging issue of Forest Certification is excerpted verbatim
from the May 2002 article by Richard Eba’a Atyi and Markku Simula (XXXXX) entitled Forest
Certification - Pending challenges for tropical timber
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Objectives

The International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) has been involved in forest
certification since 1994. The work focused first on international-level analyses on the
potential contribution of this new instrument to sustainable management of tropical
forests through a series of studies. It was recognized - as was later affirmed by the
Intergovernmental Panel of Forests (IPF) and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests
(IFF) - that certification is a potentially useful tool for contributing to the achievement of
sustainable forest management (SFM), a key objective of the International Tropical
Timber Agreement (ITTA). However, many hurdles had to be overcome before the
Organization's producing Member Countries could be fit for forest certification. ITTO
has a particularly important role in building up local capacity to implement SFM, and
thereby certificability of tropical forests. This work has taken place through support of
various forms (establishment of permanent forest estates, forest inventories, staff training,
improved logging practices, development of silvicultural systems, etc.). However, further
efforts will be necessary as only a fraction of the world's certified forests are located in
the ITTO producing Member Countries.
1.2 Status of International Dialogue
Certification is driven by a variety of interests. For industry and trade, it is an instrument
for environmental marketing. For buyers and consumers, it provides information on the
impacts of products they purchase. For forest owners and managers, it is a tool for market
access, gaining market advantage, or perhaps capturing price premiums. It is also a way
to demonstrate their responsible forest management through independent third party
certification regardless of what the market wants. For environmental movement, it is a
means to influence how production forests are managed. For governments, it is a soft
policy instrument to promote sustainable forest management, sustainable consumption
patterns as well as a variety of environmental and social goals. For investors, it can help
in risk mitigation. Others may see additional benefits or interests in forest certification
(Rametsteiner & Simula 2001).

Forest certification remains one of the most contentious issues in the international forest
policy as it is a trade-related instrument and countries feel that it could influence their
competitiveness and market access. In particular, tropical timber producers are duly
concerned about their difficulties to achieve certification status and the expected increase
in production costs while market benefits may look uncertain and distant. Developing
countries are in a quite different situation compared to developed countries with regard to
their needs, possibilities and resources to make use of certification. In their case,
certification is often perceived as yet another market requirement imposed by importers
which is difficult to meet leading to a barrier to trade, rather than helping these countries
to promote their exports. As long as the certification system of the Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC), which started its operations in 1993, was the only operational scheme, the
international debate focused on FSC's general acceptability and its implications for forest
owners, managers, industry and trade. The emergence of other schemes has raised the
issue of comparability and eventual mutual recognition between individual schemes. The
crux of the international debate centers on credibility criteria for certification schemes,
and whether or how cooperation between individual schemes should be arranged (if any).
More deeply, it is a question about who should define forest management standards and
how this takes place (Rametsteiner & Simula 2001).

Boycotts or discrimination of tropical timber are constantly looming. Some local

governments in Europe require that timber products can only be used in their projects if
they are certified, while more blunt measures to restrict tropical timber use have also
been taken (e.g., Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the United
Kingdom). There is a pressing need to have clarity about which certificates and labels
related to forest management quality can be considered 'reliable'/'credible'/'acceptable' to
 assure consumers that certified forest products are sourced from areas which are managed
in an environmentally and socially sound way. Were each scheme using its own label in
marketing, it would be difficult for producers, buyers and consumers to establish which
ones should be considered reliable. Buyers cannot be expected to make assessment of the
credibility of each certificate as the task is complex and requires expertise and
information they do not usually have. Mutual recognition has been proposed as one of the
solutions to the problem of proliferation of national certification schemes.

Site Conservation (or Conservation Area) Planning: (Referring to the potential for integrating
our Site Conservation Planning methodology into the spatial planning process of the individual
Kabupatens – working with specific BAPPEDA offices and other administrative entities.)

P. Strategies
It is intended that this first of the Borneo/Kalimantan ecoregional assessments serve as a
template for subsequent processes in the other three Indonesian Provinces and two Malaysian
States of this, the world’s third largest island. Insuring consistent data gathering techniques,
data management, expert input and portfolio assembly rules, it should be relatively simple to
knit together the separate reports into a single, true, ecoregional representation with a
comprehensive set of conservation recommendations to accomplish the Conservancy’s mission
objectives. The time and resources required to achieve this final comprehensive picture of the
Borneo ecoregion are of concern due to the immediacy and urgency of the vast habitat-altering
threats and the precarious status of certain sensitive target species such as orangutan and
Mahakam River Dolphin discussed in this report. Priority should be given to accomplish this
task by TNC’s global organization with all the necessary resource support for the Indonesia
Program.

If The Nature Conservancy and its partners are to succeed in protecting the full range of native
species and natural communities of the Island of Borneo, a suite of conservation strategies must
be used to address the most pressing threats to the conservation targets across the ecoregion.
These strategies should arise out of Conservation Area Planning or Site Conservation Planning
with the input of key stakeholders. Implementation of the strategies will then require working
innovatively and cooperatively with private landowners, village communities, industry, public
agencies, academia, conservation NGOs and others. This will be particularly true for the wide-
ranging threats that cut across sites and administrative boundaries such as illegal logging,
wildfire, illegal settlements, and poaching.

Q. Suggested Research Topics

As a result of the analyses and the expert interviews that produced this report, we have
identified some important topics that warrant research to assist in the applied conservation
management decisions that will have to be made shortly:

 Forest Pigs and their role in distribution of tropical rainforest trees and fruiting vines– where
do their seasonal migration corridors exist and what is the status of forest protection along
those routes?
 The critical role of fig species in animal species distribution and abundance.
 The ability of Orangutans to temporarily compress population numbers in response to new
logging procedures in their habitat (inside-out logging) – and the rates of repopulation of
 those selectively logged areas. Does this compression impact the resident population and
the displaced population differentially?
 How effective are agro-forestry strips along major rivers as functional corridors for wide-
ranging animal taxa?
 Ecology of Gibbons, and their response to selective logging methods – can they be
effectively “temporarily displaced” and will they repopulate logged areas? Over what time
frame?
 Animal species diversity and abundance relationship to tree species diversity and
abundance in Kalimantan – is tree cover a good indicator of “viable, naturally diverse
forests” and how does it relate to animal species diversity?
 River water quality and quantity indicators for assessing effectiveness of agroforestry buffers
or selective reforestation of buffer strips along river corridors.
 The role of soil type and geomorphic diversity (RePPProT Landforms) in species diversity –
plant and animal taxa.

Reference Literature Cited

(Not yet sorted or cross-checked with final text)

Rijksen, H.D. , E. Meijaard. 1999. Our Vanishing Relative: The status of wild orangutans at the
close of the twentieth century. Stichting Tropenbos. 480 pp.

Holmes, D., W. M. Rombang, D. Octaviani. 2001. Daerah Penting bagi Burung di Kalimantan.
(Important Bird Areas of Kalimantan) PKA/BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme,
Bogor. 67 pp.

Thiel, Eberhard. 1980. Regional Development Plan for Selected Regions. East Kalimantan
Transmigration Area Development Project – TAD Report No.16.

Siegert, F., G. Ruecker, A. Hinrichs, A.A. Hoffmann. 2001. Increased damage from fires in
logged forests during droughts caused by El Nino. Nature 414:437-440.

Sujatnika, P. Jepson, T.R. Soehartono, M.J. Crosby, A. Mardiastuti. 1995. Melestarikan

Keanekaragaman Hayati Indonesia: Pendekatan Daerah Burung Endemik. (Conserving
Indonesian Biodiversity: the Endemic Bird Area Approach). Jakarta: PHPA/Birdlife
International – Indonesia Programme. 221 pp.

O’Brien, Timothy G.. 1997. Bulungan Biodiversity Survey: Preliminary Results. A report from
Wildlife Conservation Society – Indonesia Program to the Center for International Forestry
Research (CIFOR). 55 pp. + Appendices.

Dinerstein, E., G. Powell, D. Olson, E. Wikramanayake, R. Abell, C. Loucks, E. Underwood, T.

Allnutt, W. Wettengel, T. Ricketts, H. Strand, S. O’Connor, N. Burgess. 2000. A Workbook
for conducting Biological Assessments and Developing Biodiversity Visions for Ecoregion-
Based Conservation. Part I: Terrestrial Ecoregions. World Wildlife Fund – Conservation
Science Program Report. November, 2000. 249 pp.

Guhardja, E., M. Fatawi, M.Sutisna, T. Mori & S. Ohta (Eds.) 2000. Rainforest Ecosystems of
East Kalimantan: El Nino, Drought, Fire and Human Impacts. Ecological Studies, Vol. 140.
Springer – Verlag, Tokyo. 330 pp.
Fatawi, M. & T.Mori. 2000. Description of forests and forestry in East Kalimantan. In: Rainforest
Ecosystems of East Kalimantan: El Nino, Drought, Fire and Human Impacts. Guhardja et.
al. (eds.) Ecological Studies, Vol. 140. Springer – Verlag, Tokyo. Pg.4-12.

Oka, T., E. Iskandar, and D.J. Ghozali. 2000. Effects of forest fragmentation on the behavior of
Bornean Gibbons. In: Rainforest Ecosystems of East Kalimantan: El Nino, Drought, Fire
and Human Impacts. Guhardja et. al. (eds.) Ecological Studies, Vol. 140. Springer –
Verlag, Tokyo. Pg.229-241.

Inoue, M. 2000. Participatory forest management. In: Rainforest Ecosystems of East

Kalimantan: El Nino, Drought, Fire and Human Impacts. Guhardja et. al. (eds.) Ecological
Studies, Vol. 140. Springer – Verlag, Tokyo. Pg.299-307.

Mori, T., S. Ohta, A. Ishida, T. Toma and T. Oka. 2000. Overview of the changing forest
ecosystems in East Kalimantan. In: Rainforest Ecosystems of East Kalimantan: El Nino,
Drought, Fire and Human Impacts. Guhardja et. al. (eds.) Ecological Studies, Vol. 140.
Springer – Verlag, Tokyo. Pg.309-317.

Okimori, Y. and P. Matius. 2000. Tropical secondary forest and its succession following
traditional slash-and-burn agriculture in Mencimai, East Kalimantan. In: Rainforest
Ecosystems of East Kalimantan: El Nino, Drought, Fire and Human Impacts. Guhardja et.
al. (eds.) Ecological Studies, Vol. 140. Springer – Verlag, Tokyo. Pg.185-198.

Toma, T., P. Matius, Hastaniah, Y. Kiyono, R.Watanabe and Y.Okimori. 2000. Dynamics of
burned lowland dipterocarp forest stands in Bukit Soeharto, East Kalimantan. In:
Rainforest Ecosystems of East Kalimantan: El Nino, Drought, Fire and Human Impacts.
Guhardja et. al. (eds.) Ecological Studies, Vol. 140. Springer – Verlag, Tokyo. Pg.107-
120.

Voss, F. 1983. A Natural Resources Inventory of East Kalimantan. Transmigration Area

Development Report (TAD) No. 9, Revised Edition. K. Fasbender and D. Kebschull (eds.).
HWWA – Institut fur Wirtschaftsforschung – Hamburg. 199 pp. + maps.

Pandie, Y. 2002. Fate of the orangutan in the hands of mankind. Krakatau 1(4):44-61.

Anon (1990). Proceedings of the Regional Seminar on Conservation for Development of

Tropical Rainforest in Kalimantan, Samarinda, 18-19 October 1989 (Eds staff Indonesian-
German Forestry Project., Mulawarman University, Samarinda). Forestry and Forest
Products GFG Report No. 15, June 1990 (Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische
Zusammenarbeit Gmbh, Samarinda). 285 pp.

Yasuma, S. 1994. An Invitation (sic) to the Mammals of East Kalimantan. Tropical Rain Forest
Research Project JTA-9(a)-137. PUSREHUT Special Publication No.3. Samarinda,
Indonesia. 384pp.

Kiyono, Y. & Hastaniah. 2000. The role of slash-and-burn agriculture in transforming

Dipterocarp forest into Imperata grasslands. In: Rainforest Ecosystems of East
Kalimantan: El Nino, Drought, Fire and Human Impacts. Guhardja et. al. (eds.) Ecological
Studies, Vol. 140. Springer – Verlag, Tokyo. Pg.199-208.
Appanah, S. & J.M. Turnbull (eds.) 1998. A Review of Dipterocarps: Taxonomy, ecology and
silviculture. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. 220 pp.

Appanah, S. 1998. Management of Natural Forests. In: A Review of Dipterocarps: Taxonomy,

ecology and silviculture. Appanah, S. & J.M. Turnbull (eds.).Center for International
Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. Pg.133-149.

Ashton, M.S. 1998. Seedling ecology of mixed-dipterocarp forest . In: A Review of Dipterocarps:
Taxonomy, ecology and silviculture. Appanah, S. & J.M. Turnbull (eds.). Center for
International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. Pg.89-98.

Lee, S.S. 1998. Root symbiosis and nutrition. In: A Review of Dipterocarps: Taxonomy, ecology
and silviculture. Appanah, S. & J.M. Turnbull (eds.). Center for International Forestry
Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. Pg.99-114.

Soedjito, H., T.C. Jessup, A.P.Vayda, K. Kartawinata. 1990. Conservation and development in
the Apo Kayan region of East Kalimantan. In: Proceedings of the Regional Seminar on
Conservation for Development of Tropical Rainforest in Kalimantan, Samarinda, 18-19
October 1989 (Eds staff Indonesian- German Forestry Project., Mulawarman University,
Samarinda). Forestry and Forest Products GFG Report No. 15, June 1990 (Deutsche
Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit Gmbh, Samarinda). Pg.177-186.

Susilo, A. 1990. Perlikau Makan Orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), Kaliawat (Hylobates muelleri)
Dan Monyet (Macaca fascicularis) Pada Hutan Bekas Terbakar di Mentoko Taman
Nasional Kutai Kalimantan Timur. (Feeding behavior of orangutan, Bornean gibbon and
long-tailed macaque in Mentoko burned-over forest, Kutai National Park.) In: Proceedings
of the Regional Seminar on Conservation for Development of Tropical Rainforest in
Kalimantan, Samarinda, 18-19 October 1989 (Eds staff Indonesian- German Forestry
Project., Mulawarman University, Samarinda). Forestry and Forest Products GFG Report
No. 15, June 1990 (Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit Gmbh,
Samarinda). Pg.147-156.

Iskandar, E. 1990. Pengaruh pembakaran lahan untuk hutan tanaman industri terhadap
populasi mikroorganisma tanah. (The effects of burning of a site for timber estate
programs on the population of soil micro-organisms). In: Proceedings of the Regional
Seminar on Conservation for Development of Tropical Rainforest in Kalimantan,
Samarinda, 18-19 October 1989 (Eds staff Indonesian- German Forestry Project.,
Mulawarman University, Samarinda). Forestry and Forest Products GFG Report No. 15,
June 1990 (Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit Gmbh, Samarinda).
Pg.81-89.

Bratawinata, A. 1990. Degredasi spesies akibat perubahan ekosistem dari hutan primer ke
hutan sekunder tua dan muda di Kalimantan Timur. (The degredation of species from a
logged-over area of Dipterocarp forest in East Kalimantan - Abstract). In: Proceedings of
the Regional Seminar on Conservation for Development of Tropical Rainforest in
Kalimantan, Samarinda, 18-19 October 1989 (Eds staff Indonesian- German Forestry
Project., Mulawarman University, Samarinda). Forestry and Forest Products GFG Report
No. 15, June 1990 (Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit Gmbh,
Samarinda). Pg.35.
Anon (1990). Manfaat hutan Kalimantan Timur bagi negara dan masyarakat serta usaha-usaha
peningkatannya. (Use of the forest in East Kalimantan for the country and people and
efforts for its development). In: Proceedings of the Regional Seminar on Conservation for
Development of Tropical Rainforest in Kalimantan, Samarinda, 18-19 October 1989 (Eds
staff Indonesian- German Forestry Project., Mulawarman University, Samarinda). Forestry
and Forest Products GFG Report No. 15, June 1990 (Deutsche Gesellschaft fur
Technische Zusammenarbeit Gmbh, Samarinda). Pg.1-16.

Jepson, P. & R.J. Whittaker. 2002. Ecoregions in context: A critique with special reference to
Indonesia. Conservation Biology 16(1):42-57.

Wikramanayake, E., E. Dinerstein, C. Loucks, D. Olson, J. Morrison, J. Lamoreux, M. McKnight,

and P. Hedao. 2002. Ecoregions in ascendance: Reply to Jepson & Whitaker.
Conservation Biology 16(1):238-.

Bevis, William. 1995. Borneo Log: The Struggle for Sarawak’s Forests. University of
Washington Press, Seattle. 245 pp.

Whitmore, T.C. 1998. An Introduction to Tropical Rainforests. Second Edition. Oxford University
Press, Inc. New York. 282 pp.

Kaplan, G. & L. J. Rogers. 2000. The Orangutans: their evolution, behavior, and future. Perseus
Publishing, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 191 pp.

Russon, A. E. 1999. Orangutans: Wizards of the Rain Forest. Key Porter Books Ltd., Toronto.
222 pp.

Tomascik, T., A.J. Mah, A. Nontji, M.K. Moosa. 1997. The Ecology of Indonesian Seas: Part II.
The Ecology of Indonesia Series, Vol. VIII, Part Two. Dalhousie University, Periplus
Editions (HK) Ltd. 1388 pp.

Slik, J.W.F., R.W. Verburg, P.J.A. Kebler. 2002. Effects of fire and selective logging on the tree
species composition of lowland dipterocarp forest in East Kalimantan, Indonesia.
Biodiversity and Conservation 11:85-98

Nijman, V. 2001. Forest (and) Primates: Conservation and Ecology of the Endemic Primates of
Java and Borneo. Tropenbos International, 232 pp.

Nijman, V. & Menken, S.B.J. 2001. Density and estimates of Gibbons (Hylobates muelleri) in
Bornean rainforest: A comparison of techniques. In: Forest (and) Primates: Conservation
and Ecology of the Endemic Primates of Java and Borneo. Tropenbos International.
Chapter 2:pgs 13-31.

Cannon, C.H., D.R. Peart, M. Leighton. 1998. Tree species diversity in commercially logged
Bornean rainforest. Science 281:1366-1368.

Orians, G.H., R. Dirzo, J.H. Cushman (Eds). 1996. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Process in
Tropical Forests. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. 229 pgs.
Wright, S.J. 1996. Plant species diversity and ecosystem functioning in tropical forests. In:
Orians, G.H., R. Dirzo, J.H. Cushman (Eds). 1996. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Process in
Tropical Forests. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Pg. 12-31.

Huston, M. & L. Gilbert. 1996. Consumer diversity and secondary production. In: Orians, G.H.,
R. Dirzo, J.H. Cushman (Eds). 1996. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Process in Tropical
Forests. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Pg. 33-47.

Silver, W. L., S. Brown, A.E. Lugo. 1996. Biodiversity and biogeochemical cycles. In: Orians,
G.H., R. Dirzo, J.H. Cushman (Eds). 1996. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Process in
Tropical Forests. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Pg. 49-67.

Lodge, D.J., D.L. Hawksworth, B.J. Ritchie. 1996. Microbial diversity and tropical forest
functioning. In: Orians, G.H., R. Dirzo, J.H. Cushman (Eds). 1996. Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Process in Tropical Forests. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Pg. 69-100.

Ewel, J.J. & S.W. Bigelow. 1996. Plant life-forms and tropical ecosystem functioning. In: Orians,
G.H., R. Dirzo, J.H. Cushman (Eds). 1996. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Process in
Tropical Forests. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Pg. 101-126.

Denslow, J.S. 1996. Functional group diversity and responses to disturbance. In: Orians, G.H.,
R. Dirzo, J.H. Cushman (Eds). 1996. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Process in Tropical
Forests. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Pg. 127-151.

Rejmanek, M. 1996. Species richness and resistance to invasions. In: Orians, G.H., R. Dirzo,
J.H. Cushman (Eds). 1996. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Process in Tropical Forests.
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Pg. 153-172.

Power, A.G. & A.S. Flecker. 1996. The role of biodiversity in tropical managed ecosystems. In:
Orians, G.H., R. Dirzo, J.H. Cushman (Eds). 1996. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Process in
Tropical Forests. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Pg. 173-194.

Nijman, V. J. & E. Meijaard. 2001. Patterns of Primate Diversity on Borneo, and Selection of
Conservation Priority Areas. In: Forests (and) Primates: Conservation and Ecology of the
Endemic Primate of Java and Borneo. Tropenbos International. Pg. 151-165.