A Supplemental HCVF Assessment on the Sumatran Tiger ...

SUMATRAN TIGER CONSERVATION PROGRAM 

& SUMATRAN TIGER TRUST 

A <strong>Supplemental</strong> <strong>HCVF</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> on the Sumatran Tiger 

(Panthera tigris sumatrae) in the Serapung Forest Management 

Unit of Riau Province, Indonesia 

Commissioned by: 

Asia Pulp & Paper 

© STCP 2005 

Preliminary Report Submitted February 2005; Draft Report Submitted April 2005. 

Final Report Completed: June 2005.

FINAL REPORT Tiger <strong>HCVF</strong> <strong>Supplemental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> – Serapung FMU 

CONTENTS 

1 Introduction........................................................................................................... 3 

1.1 Rationale for a Tiger <strong>Supplemental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>............................................ 3 

1.2 Objectives of the <strong>Assessment</strong>......................................................................... 4 

1.3 <strong>Assessment</strong> Approach .................................................................................... 4 

1.4 <strong>Assessment</strong> Team and Expertise ................................................................... 5 

1.5 Report Format and Availability........................................................................ 6 

2 Background and Context of <strong>Assessment</strong>........................................................... 7 

2.1 Landscape Context of the FMU ...................................................................... 7 

2.2 Description of the Serapung FMU................................................................... 8 

2.3 Ecology of Peat Swamp Forests around the FMU........................................ 13 

2.4 Sumatran Tiger Status, Threats and Ecology ............................................... 15 

2.4.1 Status of the Sumatran Tiger and threats ............................................. 15 

2.4.2 Minimum viable population for Sumatran tigers .................................... 16 

2.4.3 Habitat Utilisation by the Tiger .............................................................. 17 

2.4.4 Social and community impacts in relation to tigers ............................... 17 

2.4.5 The Siak-Pelalawan forest’s context for tiger conservation .................. 18 

2.4.6 The Tiger as a High Conservation Value (HCV) ................................... 20 

3 <strong>Assessment</strong> Methodology ................................................................................. 21 

3.1 Background................................................................................................... 21 

3.2 GIS Landscape and Habitat Analysis ........................................................... 22 

3.3 Preliminary Ground Surveys and Field Orientation....................................... 22 

3.4 Remote Camera Monitoring of Tigers and Prey Species.............................. 23 

3.4.1 Theoretical and Technical Introduction ................................................. 23 

3.4.2 Remote Camera Methodology in this Study.......................................... 24 

3.5 Rapid assessment field surveys ................................................................... 24 

3.6 Secondary Tiger Reports from Local People ................................................ 27 

4 Results................................................................................................................. 28 

4.1 Remote Camera Monitoring of Tigers and Prey Species.............................. 28 

4.2 Rapid <strong>Assessment</strong> Field Surveys based on Secondary Signs ..................... 32 

4.3 Secondary Tiger Reports from Local People ................................................ 35 

4.3.1 Direct Sightings and Human-Tiger Conflict ........................................... 35 

4.3.2 Attitudes and Perceptions of Local People Regarding Tigers............... 40 

4.4 Landscape Analysis ...................................................................................... 41 

4.4.1 Minimum area required for Sumatran tigers.......................................... 41 

4.4.2 Past, Present, and Future Land-Use..................................................... 41 

5 Discussion........................................................................................................... 45 

5.1 Tiger Habitat and Prey .................................................................................. 45 

5.2 Tiger Population in and around the FMU ...................................................... 45 

5.3 Tiger Viability Issues in the FMU and Siak-Pelalawan Landscape ............... 47 

5.4 Tiger-Human Conflict .................................................................................... 49 

5.5 Conclusions Derived from this <strong>Assessment</strong>.................................................. 50 

6 Interpretation of Results with Respect to <strong>HCVF</strong> .............................................. 52 

6.1 Tiger <strong>HCVF</strong> at the Siak-Pelalawan Landscape Scale................................... 52 

6.2 Identification of Tiger <strong>HCVF</strong> at the FMU Level.............................................. 52 

6.3 Importance of Considering Future Landscape Context Scenarios................ 53 

6.4 General Conclusions Relating to Tiger <strong>HCVF</strong> Delineation............................ 55 

6.5 <strong>HCVF</strong> Recommendations for Tigers in the Serapung FMU.......................... 56 

6.5.1 Option 1: Extension of Moratorium in Indicative <strong>HCVF</strong> Area ................ 56 

6.5.2 Option 2: Phased Conversion of the Indicative <strong>HCVF</strong> Area.................. 57 

6.6 Other Management Recommendations for the Tiger HCV ........................... 59 

7 Overview.............................................................................................................. 60 

8 Bibliography........................................................................................................ 61 

9 Appendices ......................................................................................................... 67 

Sumatran Tiger Conservation Program Pg 2/68


1 Introduction 

This report presents the findings of an independent study to assess the delineation of 

High Conservation Value Forest (<strong>HCVF</strong>) relating to the possible presence of the 

Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae) in an industrial timber plantation (HTI) and 

adjacent peat-swamp forests in Riau Province, Sumatra, Indonesia. 

1.1 Rationale for a Tiger <strong>Supplemental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> 

During November 2004 the Rainforest Alliance’s SmartWood program carried out a 

comprehensive <strong>HCVF</strong> analysis in the Serapung District (19,495 ha) forest management 

unit (FMU), an industrial timber plantation related by common ownership to Asia Pulp 

and Paper (APP), and managed by PT Arara Abadi, in Riau Province (Sumatra, 

Indonesia). 

The opportunity for this study arose from SmartWood’s identification of the possible 

existence of tigers in the FMU. SmartWood received indications of presence during its 

interviews with local people, and decided that rather than declare <strong>HCVF</strong> immediately it 

would seek APP’s agreement to conduct a supplementary study on Sumatran tigers 

within and surrounding the FMU in order to improve its information base. A <strong>HCVF</strong> 

precautionary principle was invoked and delineation of an indicative <strong>HCVF</strong> (temporary 

logging moratorium area) proposed. The logging moratorium over the remaining 5,884 

ha natural forest area within the FMU was maintained during the tiger study and still 

remains in place subject to final determination of <strong>HCVF</strong> status. In its <strong>HCVF</strong> Report for 

the Serapung FMU, SmartWood recommended that the supplemental assessment be 

carried out by recognised tiger conservation experts with the five objectives: 

• Determine the estimated size of this tiger population 

• Evaluate habitat utilization and distribution of tigers within the study area. 

• Evaluate the population’s comparative utilization of different habitat types: peat 

swamp forest, coastal alluvial bench forests, secondary habitats and farmlands. 

• Taking into account current and future land use of the wider area, determine the 

long-term viability of this population, and the area (and primary habitats) 

required to support it. 

• Determine if the defined forest block within the FMU constitutes an integral part 

of the area and habitat required to support the tiger population in the long term. 

Findings of the tiger supplemental assessment will form the basis for SmartWood’s 

revision of the indicative <strong>HCVF</strong> area, in accordance with SmartWood guidelines that if 

the tiger is “confirmed not to be present within the FMU, or the FMU does not constitute 

an integral portion of the habitat and range of the tiger population, then this <strong>HCVF</strong> will 

not exist within the FMU” 1 . 

In December 2004, APP assigned the supplemental assessment (on a non-profit basis) 

to a team of 14 specialists, representing the Sumatran Tiger Conservation Program 2 

(STCP) through its UK partner organisation, the Sumatran Tiger Trust (STT). The 

resulting activities, described in this report, are an extension of the STCP’s tiger status 

assessment work across Sumatra, its current focus on Riau’s peat-swamp forests, and 

in line with its ongoing efforts to facilitate the development of additional protected areas 

for the tiger in Sumatra. 

1 SmartWood, <strong>HCVF</strong> Report for Serapung FMU, p.39 

2 A collaboration between the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation 

(Ministry of Forestry, RI) and the Sumatran Tiger Trust (UK). 



1.2 Objectives of the <strong>Assessment</strong> 

SmartWood recommendations for the scope of the tiger supplemental assessment, 

summarised above, are included for completeness in Appendix I, page 67. 

Discussions between STCP and APP led to additional study objectives, fulfilling both 

the original scope as suggested by SmartWood, and also to maintain consistency with 

STCP’s wider tiger conservation goals and its mission as an independent conservation 

organisation. Modifications were also necessary due to APP requirements that the 

assessment be completed by mid-February, allowing one month of field time. The 

assessment objectives within this adapted scope are summarised as follows: 

1. To assess presence, distribution and viability of tigers in the indicative <strong>HCVF</strong> 

area of the FMU, and its relationship and contribution to the tiger population in 

the adjacent forest landscape. 

2. To provide recommendations, if applicable, on the delineation of a tiger-specific 

<strong>HCVF</strong> based on findings in (1) and considerations relating to mitigation of tigerhuman 

conflict and minimisation of impact on the Siak-Pelalawan tiger 

population. 

3. To provide management and monitoring recommendations for maintenance and 

future evaluation of identified <strong>HCVF</strong>s, and for maximisation of the FMU’s 

general contribution to viability of the landscape’s tiger population. 

The detailed scope of this assessment, incorporating suggestions as provided by 

SmartWood (summarised above in section 1.1), is included in Appendix II of this report. 

This supplemental assessment follows the guidance provided by the following key 

documents: 

1. High Conservation Value Forest (<strong>HCVF</strong>) <strong>Assessment</strong> Report for Serapung Unit, 

PT Arara Abadi, Asia Pulp & Paper/Sinar Mas Group, Final Report, February 

2005, Rainforest Alliance’s SmartWood Program; hereinafter referred to as the 

“SmartWood report”. 

2. The High Conservation Value Forest Toolkit and Identifying High Conservation 

Value Forests – A Guide for Forest Managers (part III), version 1, December 

2003, ProForest; hereinafter referred to as the ‘ProForest <strong>HCVF</strong> Toolkit”. 

3. Identifying, Managing, and Monitoring High Conservation Value Forests in 

Indonesia: A Toolkit for Forest Managers and other Stakeholders, Version 1, 

August 2003; hereinafter referred to as the ‘Indonesian <strong>HCVF</strong> Toolkit’. 

4. A Sourcebook for Landscape Analysis of High Conservation Value Forests, 

Version 1, February 2004; hereinafter referred to as the ‘Landscape <strong>HCVF</strong> 

Sourcebook’. 

5. Where Can Tigers Live In The Future? A Framework for Identifying High Priority 

Areas and Actions for the Conservation of Tigers in the Wild, 1999; hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘TCU Framework’. 

6. Indonesian Sumatran Tiger Conservation Strategy, Ministry of Forestry, 1994. 

1.3 <strong>Assessment</strong> Approach 

The approach taken in this assessment was defined by current <strong>HCVF</strong> analysis 

framework and toolkits, by the SmartWood application of this framework during its 

comprehensive analysis of <strong>HCVF</strong> in the Serapung District, by the Indonesian national 

strategy for tiger conservation, by current global tiger conservation concepts, by current 



knowledge relating to the ecology and conservation of the Sumatran tiger, and in 

accordance with the expertise and experience of the assessment team. 

In responding to the key <strong>HCVF</strong> questions of whether tigers exist in the FMU and, if they 

do, whether these tigers contribute significantly to the viability of the wider landscape 

tiger population, the assessment team adopted an approach involving the following 

study components: 

1. Rapid assessment surveys, to establish tiger presence, prey availability, habitat 

quality and threats, in the Serapung FMU and immediately adjacent forest 

habitat. 

2. Remote camera monitoring, to confirm tiger and prey species presence and 

distribution across the FMU and adjacent forests, including identification of tiger 

individuals and estimation of abundance based on photo-capture frequencies. 

3. Respondent data, derived from direct interviews with a wide cross-section of 

local people, to identify incidents of tiger sightings and human-tiger conflict, 

allowing interpretation of past and present tiger distribution within the Serapung 

FMU and adjacent forests. This component included an examination of tigerrelated 

culture and traditional belief systems exhibited by local communities. 

4. Past, current and future land-use patterns in the Siak-Pelalawan forest block, 

including identification of current and future landscape relationships between 

the FMU and the wider Siak-Pelalawan block, and predictions relating to future 

availability of tiger habitat in this wider landscape. Data was primarily derived 

from central and provincial Government sources, from major forest and 

plantation industry stakeholders, and from GIS examination of satellite imagery. 

5. Interpretation of the data collected, within the <strong>HCVF</strong> analysis framework, to 

provide recommendations to APP/SmartWood regarding tiger-related <strong>HCVF</strong> 

delineation, and provision of other general management recommendations at 

both the FMU and landscape level in support of tigers. 

1.4 <strong>Assessment</strong> Team and Expertise 

The Sumatran Tiger Conservation Program was selected by APP and SmartWood as 

possessing the necessary experience and technical competency to achieve the 

assessment objectives. STCP, through its UK partner the Sumatran Tiger Trust, 

accepted the assignment on a non-profit, non-consulting basis, following consultation 

with the Program’s main collaborator, the Department of Forestry. 

STCP is a partnership of the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature 

Conservation – Department of Forestry (RI) and Sumatran Tiger Trust (UK) 

The Program has operated since 2001 under a comprehensive, 

national-level MoU and local partnership agreements covering Jambi, Riau and 

Lampung provinces of Sumatra. Under a previous phase (1996-2001) the program 

pioneered the use of remote camera traps and rapid survey methods for assessing 

tiger status and, in so doing, provided the first detailed ecological study on the 

Sumatran tiger in the wild. The majority of the expert personnel from this early phase 

remain with the Program until today. 

Currently, in collaboration with the Directorate General Forest Protection and Nature 

Conservation, the Program focuses on tiger and general conservation management 

support, long-term monitoring of tiger populations in key regions, assessment of tiger 

status across Sumatra, tiger conservation action plans, collaborative development and 

management of new protected areas for tigers, development of policy relating to tiger 

conservation, and is one of the countries’ leaders in the development and management 

of field anti-poaching teams, intelligence and law enforcement relating to wildlife crime 



and illegal trade of tiger body-parts. STCP is active in mapping, prediction, policy and 

active mitigation relating to human-tiger conflict, and has pioneered techniques of 

capture and translocation of “problem” tigers under such conflict situations. Finally, 

STCP works closely with local communities in several areas of Sumatra, particularly 

with respect to forest “stewardship” and collaborative protection of tigers and 

ecosystems. 

STCP’s in-house expertise and human resources are spread across several 

geographic areas. With respect to this assessment, personnel were selected from 

Lampung, Riau and Jambi teams, and from management and coordination staff based 

in Jakarta and Bogor. The assessment team members and their relevant expertise is 

summarised in Table 1 below: 

Table 1. <strong>Assessment</strong> team personnel and their expertise relevant to this study. 

Name Title Relevant Expertise 

Waldemar Hasiholan Program Manager Protected areas/strategic 

planning 

Daniel Sinaga CITES Tiger Task Force Law enforcement/Gov. liaison 

Neil Franklin Director STT Indonesia Team leader/tiger ecology 

Philip Wells Technical Advisor Species Protection/GIS 

Muhamed Yunus Field Coordinator Camera survey/rapid assessment 

Bastoni Field Coordinator Tiger conflict mitigation/cameras 

Sumianto Field Coordinator Social & community conservation 

Apriawan Field Coordinator Camera survey 

Nuralim, Buhkari, 

Erwan, Hendri Muliadi, 

M. Fadhly, Sumarto 

Field technician General tiger conservation 

1.5 Report Format and Availability 

The intensive tiger study described here represents a direct recommendation of, and 

follow-up from, the Rainforest Alliance’s SmartWood <strong>HCVF</strong> assessment carried out in 

Serapung FMU during November 2004. As such the tiger supplemental assessment 

and this report should be considered as an intrinsic component of the overall <strong>HCVF</strong> 

process as commissioned by APP. With this in mind, and in order to facilitate the 

reader in understanding concepts described here, this document frequently draws 

closely upon background data and discussions as provided by SmartWood. In order to 

avoid repetition the reader is referred to the appropriate sections of the SmartWood 

report where appropriate. 

Upon completion, this assessment report will be made available to APP and 

SmartWood for its consideration in the process of final <strong>HCVF</strong> delineation in the 

Serapung District forest management unit. 

This assessment did not evaluate standards of APP general forest practices in relation 

to management of designated conservation or moratorium areas, or any aspect of APP 

operations other than those described herein. Evaluation of the presence or status of 

HCVs with no ecological significance for tigers was outside the scope of this study. 

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



2 Background and Context of <strong>Assessment</strong> 

This chapter provides background information of relevance to the tiger supplemental 

assessment, describing the landscape, ecological, sociological and conservation 

context within which the study has been conducted. Descriptions of both the Serapung 

FMU and the general surrounding landscape are provided here. The ecology of peat 

swamp forests, with particular emphasis on factors that are likely to affect the status of 

the tiger, are also described. Background information regarding the status and ecology 

of the Sumatran tiger including general threats to the species’ survival, and specific 

conservation efforts of relevance to this study, are also introduced here. Finally the 

study area in which this assessment takes place is discussed, placing it in the context 

of the Serapung FMU and wider habitat and conservation landscape frameworks. 

For more generalised descriptions of landscape context, peat swamp ecology and 

details of FMU management, the reader is encouraged to study the appropriate 

sections in SmartWood’s <strong>HCVF</strong> assessment report for the Serapung District. 

2.1 Landscape Context of the FMU 

This assessment takes place within the Serapung District FMU (19,945 ha), located at 

the mouth of the Kampar river on the eastern apex of the Siak-Pelalawan forest block 

in Riau province, Sumatra, Indonesia (Figure 1). Bordered to the north and south by 

the Siak and Kampar rivers respectively, the Siak-Pelalawan block represents one of 

Riau’s and Sumatra’s largest contiguous regions of peat-swamp forest (PSF) (560,000 

ha in 2001; calculated by SmartWood as 425,000 ha in 2003/04). There are four 

wildlife reserves (total 37,000 Ha) centered around lakes within the Siak-Pelalawan 

block with the remaining areas being allocated as protection forest, production forest 

(Hak Pengusahan Hutan, HPH), or allocated for conversion to industrial timber (Hutan 

Tanaman Industri, HTI) and oil-palm plantations. This protection forest refers to areas 

previously identified as production forest, and can again be reassigned for exploitation 

at the Provincial level. Plantation development in the Serapung HTI concession 

represents less than a four percent reduction of the 2001 forest cover of the entire 

Siak-Pelalawan block. 

General habitat types in the Siak-Pelalawan block include primary tall PSF in central 

regions, particularly where previous logging efforts have been patchy. Tall PSF closer 

to the coast is, in general, more severely degraded. Short PSF habitat is associated 

with a central peat dome, situated some 60 km to the west of the Serapung FMU. 

These habitat types and associated ecosystems are described in more detail in section 

1.1 and in the SmartWood <strong>HCVF</strong> report for Serapung. 

Other PSF blocks of eastern Sumatra include Kerumutan (directly to the south of Siak- 

Pelalawan separated by the Kampar River), Berbak, Giam Siak Kecil-Bukit Batu, 

Senepis and the Libo landscapes - collectively covering 1,885,000 ha. Of the total PSF 

landscapes in eastern Sumatra approximately 454,000 ha is currently protected (24%), 

although this includes only one national park (Berbak) and currently one proposed 

national park (Senepis Tiger Conservation Area). 

High rates of deforestation in the lowland forests of Riau province have been ongoing 

for decades and reported extensively elsewhere (Jarvie et al. 2003, Obidzinski 2004, 

Suyanto et al. 2004). The Kampar river basin and Siak-Pelalawan block, while subject 

to the effects of both licensed and unauthorized logging over many years, are currently 

experiencing an accelerated rate of conversion as more economically attractive dryland 

forests in other areas of Sumatra become exhausted. While observations suggest 

that the FMU landscape has experienced lower levels of exploitation than major river 



basins to the north and the south, it is predictable that the pressures on the landscape 

will increase dramatically as remaining forests and their intrinsic value is eroded. 

Figure 1. Location of the FMU in relation to surrounding Siak-Pelalawan forest block 

derived from 2002 Landsat subsequently modified based on ground-truthing (Feb 2005). 

2.2 Description of the Serapung FMU 

The Serapung Forest Management Unit (19,945 Ha) is comprised of two industrial 

timber concessions, PT. Satria Perkasa Agung (SPA or Serapung I) and PT. Mitra 

Hutan Jaya (MHJ or Serapung II), managed as a single entity by PT. Arara Abadi. The 

management objective of both districts is to provide wood fibre, from mixed tropical 

hardwood forests, to supply the PT Indah Kiat Pulp & Paper (IKPP) mill in Perawang 

over the short term, while providing a land-base for Acacia plantations over the longer 

term. Relatively small volumes of sawlogs are also sent to nearby sawmills. 

The concessions were approved by the Head (Bupati) of Pelalawan District, with 

licenses that allow for land-clearing of forest, establishment of canals and drainage 

ditches, and planting of Acacia crassicarpa for pulpwood production. 

A six to seven-year growing cycle is assumed for future Acacia crassicarpa productivity 

in this area, based upon an estimated MAI of 25 m3/ha. The first harvest of Acacia in 

FMU Serapung is due in 2010. At the present time the majority of remaining un-cleared 

forest, destined for felling and conversion to plantation, is in the northern sections of 

the FMU. This study focuses on remaining natural forests situated in the northern half 

of the concession area within, and adjacent to, Serapung I district (11,404 ha). 

Acacia plantations occur in the HTI-designated production (Produksi) areas of the 

concession. Other designated forestland uses within the concession are for 

conservation (Konservasi), community livelihood (Kehidupan) and high-quality local 

tree species (Unggulan) – collectively referred to as “set-aside” forests (see Figure 2). 



In Serapung I district, a total of 1,343 ha or 12% of the FMU area is designated for 

conservation (Konservasi). This conservation area consists of a wide strip running 

parallel to the coast, from the northern most corner of the concession, to approximately 

half way along its north-south length. 

As of September 2004 a total of 5,723 ha (50% of Serapung I district) remains under 

forest cover (data from SmartWood <strong>HCVF</strong> report; see Table 2 below). All of the 

remaining forest within the three land-use categories above suffer from illegal logging 

by local communities. The species of primary focus for these unauthorized loggers 

include Suntai (Palaquium burkii), Punah (Tetramerista glabra), Meranti bunga (Shorea 

teysmanniana) and Ramin (Gonystylus bancanus). 

During the 1980s, the FMU and adjacent forests were selectively logged under the 

Indonesian Selective Logging and Planting System (TPTI). Locomotive rail lines were 

used to extract logs until around 1995. As a result most natural forest areas within the 

FMU have experienced two previous logging cycles in addition to ongoing, 

unauthorised commercial hand-logging by villagers. 

Aerial surveys via helicopter, by both SmartWood and STCP assessment teams, 

confirmed that no areas of primary forest could be identified within the FMU. 

Degradation of habitat within the concession was classified by SmartWood (see Figure 

3) from satellite imagery, described as either “severely degraded” (where little canopy 

remains) or “less severely logged” (where canopy is patchy but a nearly continuous 

under-story exists). Secondary forest and scrub vegetation, often the result of postagricultural 

regeneration, is characteristic in the FMU wherever it borders coastal 

farmland. 

An extensive network of canals covers the majority of both forested and non-forested 

production areas within the FMU. Ranging in size from primary canals of 12 metres 

width, to secondary canals of approximately 9 metres width, these function to optimise 

the water-table depth for plantation growth, for management access into the 

plantations, and for the easy passage of barges to log collection points. 

The FMU is adjacent to or overlapping the land area also claimed by each of four 

villages - Pulau Muda, Segamai, Gambut Mutiara and Serapung. However, none of 

these villages have permanent settlements on the north bank of the Kampar River near 

to the FMU. Exceptions to this are the scattering of simple dwellings, situated along a 

strip between the FMU and the coastline, which are associated with low intensity 

coconut farming. Another exception is the expanding pioneer settlement associated 

with the disused primary logging rail and canal of the previously active HPH concession 

belonging to PT. Yos Raya Timber. Situated on the northern boundary of Serapung I 

district, this settlement considers itself as an outpost of Pulau Serapung village. In 

STCP’s opinion, land ownership disputes are likely to intensify in this region as the Yos 

sub-village continues to expand. Further clarification of these issues is included in the 

SmartWood <strong>HCVF</strong> report for Serapung District. 

All four of the definitive settlements represent historically poor muara river villages, 

where inhabitants tend to have a closer livelihood relationship with forests in contrast to 

the upstream pangkalan villages with their important role as staging grounds for estate 

crop commodities (Kuniyasu 2002). In recent times the replacement of river transport 

with roads, increased employment opportunities in downstream timber and oil palm 

plantations and, above all, greatly increased opportunities to sell timber from village 

forests, have caused a rise in economic importance of muara settlements relative to 

pangkalan villages. 

Farming is the primary livelihood for villagers (SmartWood reports more than 75% of all 

families rely on agriculture). The highest proportion of farmers can be found in the Yos 

sub-village, where subsistence reliance on farming is likely to feature strongly until their 



coconut palms are harvestable. Fishing ranks second as a means of livelihood in most 

communities around the FMU. 

Through interpretation of satellite imagery SmartWood has characterised agricultural 

land use patterns in and around the FMU. A total of 35 separate smallholder areas 

were identified, ranging in size from 3 to 238 ha (on average, 54 Ha/site), amounting to 

an area of 1,877 ha of agricultural small holdings in and around the FMU. However, 

only approximately half of these sites possessed simple dwellings for temporary living. 

Small-scale agriculture by local people appears to be fraught with difficulties, an 

example of this being the devastating predations of the rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes 

rhinoceros) on coconut plantations, resulting in the abandonment of a large proportion 

of plots adjacent to the FMU. 

SmartWood reports the high importance of small-scale timber harvesting and 

sawmilling for local people around the FMU, with as much as 70% of cash income 

generated by unlicensed logging and milling activities. Livelihood strategies however 

tend to be diversified, with most households utilising both farming and logging activities 

in order to meet their economic needs. Certainly the informal logging activities of all 

four villages described above are currently focused on the remaining forests within and 

adjacent to the FMU. Sustainable forestry practices do not appear to feature in the 

livelihood strategies of these local people, where forests are valued primarily as a 

source of timber at the lowest cost (regardless of whether or not the forest survives), or 

as a means to obtain land for agriculture. 

Oil palm cultivation is becoming an increasingly attractive concept amongst farmers 

living around the FMU, primarily due to newly arising cost-effective opportunities to sell 

fresh palm bunches to nearby palm-oil processing plants. Plans for a 100 ha oil palm 

plantation in the Yos area are indicative of likely future land-use trends around the 

FMU. 

Table 2. Extent of natural and planted forests in the Serapung I forest management unit 

as of September 2004 (data from SmartWood report, November 2004). 

Concession Land Use Area (ha) % of Total Area 

Production (Produksi) - Natural 2,820 25 

- Cleared 1,510 13 

- Planted 3,172 28 

Community Livelihood (Kehidupan) 381 3 

Indigenous trees (Unggulan) 1,179 10 

Conservation (Konservasi) 1,343 12 

Infrastructure 163 1 

Informal agricultural smallholdings 836 7 

Total Natural Forest 5,723 50 

Total Other Uses 5,681 50 

Total 11,404 100 



Figure 2. Location of Serapung I district and the planned land use of the Serapung FMU. 

SmartWood proposed indicative <strong>HCVF</strong> boundaries are also included here. 

Figure 3. Forest cover within Serapung I in November 2004. The northern forest block 

within the FMU was defined by SmartWood as indicative <strong>HCVF</strong> and APP imposed a 

logging moratorium until completion of this tiger assessment. 



2.2.1 Study Area 

The study area was based on recommendations provided by SmartWood as 

quoted here: 

• The coastal strip between Tanjung Datuk at the mouth of the Kampar river 

to the next river channel entering the sea, at Pulau Tadi, extending 10 km 

inland from the coast. 

• Contained within this area is a 5,884 ha block of forest within the FMU. 

Based on STCP’s expertise, the study area was modified slightly to that 

described above. The study area included the eastern sub-unit of the Serapung 

FMU (Serapung I; PT Satria Perkasa Agung) and its adjacent forests and 

surrounding local communities, with particular focus on the indicative <strong>HCVF</strong> area 

as delineated by SmartWood. The indicative <strong>HCVF</strong> area occupies the northern 

half of Serapung I. The indicative <strong>HCVF</strong> is 5,884 ha of which 3,267 ha was 

originally planned for plantation development. The remaining natural forest has 

been classified by the FMU management under various definitions of set-aside 

land in fulfilment of Ministry of Forestry regulations (see Figure 2 in the previous 

section). 

Forest areas outside the FMU were sampled in recognition of the paucity of 

regional tiger and landscape data, in accordance with the guidelines and 

assessment scope provided by SmartWood, and in line with the intrinsic <strong>HCVF</strong> 

requirement of establishing the contribution of FMU tigers, if present, to the 

viability of the population in the wider landscape. Sampling of forest habitat 

outside the FMU was also considered necessary in order to provide a context for 

comparison of habitat within the indicative <strong>HCVF</strong> area with habitat adjacent and 

in the wider landscape-level forest block. 



2.3 Ecology of Peat Swamp Forests around the FMU 

The SmartWood <strong>HCVF</strong> report describes in detail the ecological characteristics and 

associated flora and fauna of the major habitat types found in the Siak-Pelalawan 

block. Five habitats are recognised in this landscape - tall PSF, mixed PSF, short PSF, 

secondary habitats, and mangrove/coastal habitats. Only short PSF was found to be 

absent from the FMU. 

Coastal peat-swamp forest, where peat accumulates on top of marine sediments 

(Reiley, Ahmad-Shah & Brady 1996), is predominant within the FMU – presenting as 

Tall PSF across the majority of the FMU area. The FMU PSF abuts tidal rivers and 

coastline, providing an accumulation of freshwater in the peat soil which maintains 

sufficient hydrostatic pressure to repel tidal saltwater incursions into the inland soil 

profile. 

Relatively little terrestrial wildlife research has been carried out within PSF ecotypes in 

general, with most previous PSF wildlife studies limited to investigation of arboreal and 

aquatic animal species. This lack of ecological context has presented a challenge to 

the interpretation of results obtained during this assessment. 

Despite this paucity of data regarding terrestrial animals, some inferences can be made 

from general ecological studies within the PSF ecosystem. Low nutrient levels of soils 

in mature PSF almost certainly limit primary production. In such a habitat plants are 

expected to defend their leaves and other edible parts as fiercely as possible against 

potential herbivores (Whitten et al. 2000). Consistent with low productivity ecosystems, 

a number of studies have indicated that the density of primates is lower in PSF than in 

dry lowland systems (Galdikas 1978, Marsh and Wilson 1981, Mackinnon 1983) which 

decreases further still with increasing distance from rivers (MacKinnon et al. 1996). 

Many species of mammals and birds inhabiting PSF are the same as those in other 

lowland tropical rainforest (Medway 1977, Davies and Payne 1982; MacKinnon 1983; 

Wells 1985) although, for at least terrestrial mammals, these are found to live at much 

lower densities in PSF (Merton 1962, Janzen 1974). Extrapolated to the typical prey 

species of the tiger, PSF would be expected to have a lower carrying capacity and 

hence its habitat potential for tigers would be less optimal when compared to other 

lowland forest ecotypes. 

Other research has suggested that PSF has ecological attributes that increase its 

conservation value. While PSF is generally considered to have a relatively low floristic 

diversity (MacKinnon et al. 1996), recent studies have shown that tree diversity can be 

comparable to, and sometimes even greater than, that of forests on mineral soils 

(Hanum & Leprun 1999). PSF also provides a habitat for a number of endemic and rare 

tree species (Ibrahim 1997). 

Similarly, of the 57 mammal and 237 bird species recorded in PSF of peninsular 

Malaysia, 51% and 27% respectively are listed as globally threatened species 

(Sebastian 2002). In Sumatra, PSF constitutes the largest remaining area of low-level 

forest habitat and, as such, now represents a vital refuge for not only peat swamp 

specialists, but also a wider range of lowland specialist species (Sebastian 2002). 

2.3.1 Habitat Modification of Peat Swamp Forest by Logging 

The Siak-Pelalawan forest block represents a modified PSF ecosystem due to 

logging activities. The entire forest block has, in the recent past, been managed 

and exploited under HPH logging concessions (Figure 4). Inspection of satellite 

imagery (Landsat 2001, 2002 and SPOT 2004) reveals logging rails have been 

used widely across the forest block, and that severe degradation of forest is 

associated with the more accessible areas. 



Several studies have been conducted on the effects of logging on wildlife in the 

forests of Southeast Asia, though again PSF has suffered from relatively little 

attention. Comparisons between pre- and post-logging wildlife abundance have 

shown conflicting results between studies (Bennett & Dahaban 1995, Meijaard et 

al. 2005). Some of this variation may well have exposed a critical feature of postlogging 

ecological modification, that of the effect of microhabitat creation along 

newly opened logging roads (Bennett & Dahaban 1995, Johns 1989, 1992). 

Meijnaard et al. (2005), through an extensive literary review on the effects of 

logging, has suggested that almost as many mammal species declined in the 

aftermath of logging, as those that increased. The most tolerant, or advantaged, 

species were identified as herbivores and omnivores where diet consists of 

considerable secondary growth foliage. 

With respect to abundance of tiger prey species in the Siak-Pelalawan forest 

block, it is possible that the sub-optimal nature of climax stage PSF habitat has 

been somewhat “improved” relative to its original condition, if only temporarily, by 

the effects of widespread logging, rail creation and other causes of canopy 

disturbance that opens the forest to increased light levels and hence leads to 

increased productivity at ground-level. 

Figure 4. Past and present HPH concessions in the Siak-Pelalawan forest block 



2.4 Sumatran Tiger Status, Threats and Ecology 

Both the status and ecology of the Sumatran tiger in the wild remains poorly 

understood and this presents a serious constraint to effective conservation efforts 

(Tilson & Traylor-Holzer 1994, Tilson & Nyhus 1998). Conservation of the tiger in a 

constantly changing, human-dominated landscape requires an understanding of the 

species’ limits and capabilities (Sunquist et al. 1999). The tiger is clearly an adaptable 

species, persisting in a diversity of habitat types, tolerating a range of climatic and 

rainfall regimes. They are capable of rapidly increasing their numbers given suitable 

conditions. As a predator they are capable of capturing prey of widely differing sizes, 

altering their hunting strategies to accommodate the composition of the available prey 

base (Sunquist et al. 1999). 

2.4.1 Status of the Sumatran Tiger and threats 

Sumatran tigers, once numbering in the thousands, are today listed in Appendix I 

of CITES and designated as critically endangered by the IUCN. They represent 

the last of three Indonesian subspecies of tiger, with both the Bali (P. t. balica) 

and Javan (P. t. sondaicus) subspecies going extinct during the last 50 years. 

Within the last century Sumatra has been transformed from an island of extensive 

Dipterocarp-dominated forests, containing scattered agricultural settlements and 

small towns (Whitten et al. 1987, Collins et al. 1991, Jepson et al. 2001), to a 

region characterised by intense development led by the forestry, plantation, 

agriculture, and mining sectors. Since 1960 government sponsored 

transmigration programmes have facilitated the large-scale relocation of people 

to Sumatra from densely populated islands such as Java, Bali and Madura and, 

in so doing, significantly altered the distribution and status of the remaining 

biodiversity (Whitten 1987, Gillis 1988, Collins et al. 1991). By the time the need 

for additional protected areas was recognised much of the optimum habitat for 

conservation had already been converted (Collins et al. 1991, Fearnside 1997). 

In 1992 a Sumatra-wide population and habitat viability analysis (PHVA) was 

carried out for the wild Sumatran tiger (Seal et al. 1994, Tilson et al. 1994). The 

viability of any population depends on a number of parameters, which include 

intrinsic factors such as population size, reproductive rate, demographic 

structure; and extrinsic factors including prey density, habitat quality, and human 

impacts. Genetic factors, such as inbreeding, are also considered important. The 

interplay of these parameters with random chance events (stochasticity) can be 

modelled to predict how a population may increase or decline in the future. The 

stochastic population simulation programme VORTEX (Lacey 1993, Ellis & Seal 

1995) was used to study the interaction of the multiple variables and to predict 

the effects of various management scenarios on the probability of tiger population 

viability (Seal et al. 1994, Wiese et al. 1994). Ecological parameters used in the 

model were derived from studies on the Bengal and other tiger subspecies, from 

unpublished data contributed by the workshop participants, from direct 

observations by Indonesian Forestry Department staff and from data extrapolated 

from Sumatran tiger captive-breeding studbooks. The results of the population 

simulations were combined with a landscape-level spatial model of Sumatran 

tiger distribution and potential habitat developed using GIS (Faust & Tilson 1994) 

to provide an overall population status assessment for the Sumatran tiger. 

A total of 26 protected areas were identified where tigers were present, 

representing 45,600 km 2 and accounting for 9.6% of the total land area of 

Sumatra. Based on density estimates obtained for tigers in similar ecological 

settings, and direct sightings by Forestry Department staff, the population of wild 

Sumatran tigers was estimated at 500 individuals. Of these approximately 100 



individuals were identified to be living outside the protected area system, thus 

exposed to an immediate risk of local extermination. The largest contiguous 

subpopulations were identified within the four major national parks in Sumatra, 

ranging from 110 individuals in Gunung Leuser to 20 individuals in Way Kambas. 

Using the VORTEX model even the Gunung Leuser population was estimated to 

have a probability of extinction of 20% over 100 years, while in Way Kambas the 

population of 20 tigers was estimated to have a probability of extinction over 100 

years of between 49-94% even when no artificial extraction of individuals (e.g. 

poaching) was assumed to occur. The remaining 22 areas were considered to 

contain small, isolated and fragmented tiger subpopulations, at high risk of 

extinction from the interaction of random and deterministic processes (Tanaka 

2000), such as skewed sex ratio, disease, genetic drift, inbreeding depression, 

reduction in prey-base, poaching and environmental catastrophes (Fahrig & 

Merriam 1994, Crnocrak & Roff 1999, Karanth & Stith 1999, Franklin 2002). 

In the absence of more recent Sumatra-wide assessments, this 1992 PHVA 

estimation of 500 wild tigers continues to represent Indonesia’s official population 

estimate for the Sumatran tiger. 

2.4.2 Minimum viable population for Sumatran tigers 

From the results of the 1992 PHVA for the Sumatran tiger (Tilson et al. 1994) 

using VORTEX (summarised in Table 3), a population with a carrying capacity of 

50 animals (ignoring the potential effects of inbreeding, poaching, and 

catastrophes) has a very low probability of extinction (Pe = 0.042), but for a 

carrying capacity of 25 animals there is a significant risk of extinction (Pe = 

0.404). The probability of extinction in this case is purely due to random events, 

such as the number and sex of cubs per litter, and fluctuations in survival rates of 

the different age classes. The effect of inbreeding was also modelled, recognising 

that for populations with less than 100 individuals there is a greatly increased risk 

of extinction due to these genetic factors. 

Further modelling showed that the size of the starting population does not appear 

to have a major effect on extinction risk, primarily due to the high reproductive 

rate of tigers allowing populations to rapidly expand towards carrying capacity 

potential wherever opportunities arise. However the effects of even relatively 

small levels of poaching (2 individuals a year), on a population with a carrying 

capacity of 50 or less, significantly increased the overall probability of population 

extinction (Pe). 

A summary of results from this PHVA indicate that a population with a carrying 

capacity of 100 individuals is resilient to stochastic variations in demography and 

to the detrimental effects of inbreeding, and is less sensitive to low levels of 

poaching. A population with a carrying capacity of 50 individuals results in an 

acceptable probability of population persistence providing that periodic genetic 

supplementation is ensured and that the population is carefully protected against 

poaching. An optimal habitat for the Sumatran tiger should therefore possess a 

carrying capacity of 100 tigers, while the minimum carrying capacity of an 

independent tiger habitat (albeit requiring interventive genetic management and 

protection against poaching) should be sufficient to support 50 tiger individuals. 



Table 3 Selected population modelling results from Tilson et al. (1994) showing the 

probability of extinction (Pe) of tigers using different population sizes and carrying 

capacity with or without the effects of inbreeding (Inb H). Carrying capacity and 

inbreeding are shown to have major impacts on Pe. The expected population after one 

hundred years is the mean value of surviving populations. The results of the effects 

catastrophes and poaching are not shown. 

Starting 

Population 

Carrying 

Capacity 

Deterministic 

Growth Rate 

Inb H Pe 100 yrs Expected Population 

after 100 yrs 

25 25 0.086 No 0.404 20 

25 50 0.086 No 0.042 44 

75 100 0.086 No 0.004 90 

25 25 0.086 Yes 0.944 11 

25 50 0.086 Yes 0.324 26 

75 100 0.086 Yes 0.000 82 

2.4.3 Habitat Utilisation by the Tiger 

Providing certain conditions are met the tiger is capable of surviving within a wide 

range of habitat types - from coniferous-deciduous forests of Russia, tropical 

forests of Southeast Asia, to grassland habitats of India. The Sumatran subspecies 

is similarly adaptable, and found to be present in most major natural ecotypes 

occurring on the island of Sumatra, including peat-swamp forests. In 

addition the Sumatran tiger is also known to make use of low intensity agricultural 

systems, particularly where this is associated with a low density of people. On the 

other hand there is currently no evidence that the Sumatran tiger can utilize either 

industrial timber plantations or anything other than the forested peripheries of oilpalm 

estates. In light of this STCP has assumed, for the purposes of this 

assessment, that all natural forests (both degraded and intact) represent potential 

tiger habitat, and that HTI and oil-palm estates are non-tiger habitat. 

Karanth et al. (2004) found a functional relationship between abundances of 

tigers and their prey under a wide range of ecological conditions. This supports 

Johns (1983) statement that the congregation of browsing mammals that feed on 

the ground vegetation of recently logged forest causes an associated rise in the 

densities of tigers. Franklin (2002) found that although the Sumatran tiger 

showed a significant preference for closed canopy rather than open 

forest/grassland, both Franklin (2002) and Kawanishi (2002) noted that tigers will 

utilize abandoned roads and trails wherever they are available. Smith et al. 

(1989) found Bengal tigers marked along a network of trails, roads, dry 

streambeds and ridge tops that are used for travel through their territories. 

Franklin (2002) has suggested that the use of the roads and trails by tigers is for 

their ease of movement through difficult terrain and vegetation (which optimises 

efforts to defend territories and prey resources) and high visibility for hunting. 

2.4.4 Social and community impacts in relation to tigers 

In Sumatra, as the second most populated island in Indonesia after Java, and 

one of Indonesia’s biologically most diverse (Whitten et al. 1987), the conflict 

between people and wildlife is predictably intense. The Sumatran tiger has 

epitomised the nature of this conflict (Nyhus 1999, Tilson et al. 2001). 

Historically tiger-human conflict has been common in Sumatra. While some 

authors suggest tiger-attributed human deaths are rare (McDougal 1987) the 

earliest European explorers described tigers as numerous and dangerous, 



occasionally depopulating entire villages (Marsden 1966). Estimations of tigerattributed 

deaths of humans have ranged from a dozen per year for the entire 

island in the 1920’s (McDougal 1987), to more than 100 people killed during 1951 

in Bengkulu province alone (McNeely & Sochaczewski 1988). 

The relationship between traditional people and the Sumatran tiger is usually one 

of reverence and respect, and is often characterized by a delicate but generally 

harmonious coexistence. Occasionally this relationship breaks down, particularly 

where rural migrants dominate in place of traditional forest-dwelling communities, 

leading to localised and sporadic conflict events, resulting in human deaths and 

material losses from livestock predation. Estimations of tiger-attributed humans 

deaths have ranged from a dozen per year for the entire island of Sumatra in the 

1920’s, to more than 100 people killed during 1951 in Bengkulu province alone. 

More recently Nyhus (1999) has specifically addressed the history, manifestation 

and extent of tiger-human conflict in Sumatra. A review of media reports 

suggested that between 1978 and 1997 a total of 147 people were reported killed 

and 30 injured by wild tigers in Sumatra. The probability of conflict is highest in 

multiple-use forests where tigers and people are in close proximity. Conversely, 

conflicts are least frequent in more isolated protected areas where human 

intrusion is relatively low. However even low levels of conflict are recognised as 

capable of causing considerable hostility towards tigers (Nowell & Jackson 1996, 

Tilson & Nyhus 1998) and promoting tiger persecution. The resulting retribution 

for attacks by tigers may be a significant reason for the tiger’s decline (McDougal 

1987, Ginsberg & Woodroffe 1998, Nyhus 1999, Woodroffe & Ginsberg 2000) 

and a failure to mitigate these conflicts has limited the effectiveness of 

conservation efforts that focus on protection and landscape-level management 

initiatives. Experiences from the Bali and Javan tiger provide a preview of the 

effects of these phenomena, where hunting and retribution for attacks on 

livestock and people have pushed small populations to their ultimate extinction 

(Seidensticker & Suyono 1980, Seidensticker 1987). 

At present the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry defines problem tigers as those 

which leave their natural habitat and come in contact with local villages, killing 

and eating livestock or people (Ministry of Forestry 1994). However, to date 

Indonesia does not possess a formal policy for the treatment of problem tigers or 

reducing tiger-human conflict where it arises. A failure to mitigate these conflicts 

where they exist has limited the effectiveness of conservation efforts that focus 

on protection and landscape-level management initiatives (Gadgil 1992, Forester 

& Machlis 1996, Decker & Chase 1997, Nyhus 1999). 

2.4.5 The Siak-Pelalawan forest’s context for tiger conservation 

Conservation efforts for the Sumatran tigers in the past have been focused within 

Sumatra’s national parks - including the development of Tiger Protection Units 

(TPU) and intensive ecological studies. More recently conservation initiatives 

have included efforts to combat illegal tiger trade, human-tiger conflict mitigation 

and looking beyond national parks by managing populations on a landscape 

scale. PSF is a known tiger habitat but has until recently gone unrecognised as 

contributing significantly to the overall viability of the Sumatran tiger subspecies. 

This is reflected by a lack of a basic ecological understanding of tigers in PSF, 

and by the continued low investment in protecting this habitat type and its tigers. 

The Tiger Conservation Unit framework (Dinerstein et al. 1997, Wikramanayake 

et al. 1999) represents a relatively recent global tiger conservation initiative which 

considers habitat integrity, poaching intensity and population status of tiger 

subspecies, using a landscape-ecology approach to identify and prioritise Asia 

into Tiger Conservation Units (TCU). Eleven TCUs have been identified in the 



tropical moist forests of Sumatra (Figure 5, inset). The Siak-Pelalawan forest 

block and the FMU is situated within TCU 150 (Kerumutan-Istana Sultan Siak; 

1,181,600 ha in 1999; Figure 5) of this tiger conservation landscape, and as such 

has a particular global significance in its contribution to tiger conservation. 

Within the original TCU framework analysis, Sumatra’s forest cover was based 

on pre-1990 satellite imagery, and all forested areas were assumed to represent 

tiger habitat. TCU 150 was ranked as a level II TCU, defined as offering a 

medium probability of persistence of its tiger population over the long term, and 

offering a significant contribution to a bioregional tiger conservation strategy. The 

loss of a level II TCU would therefore be expected to have a significant impact on 

the probability of persistence of tigers in the bioregion. 

By 2001 the total forested area remaining (potential tiger habitat) within TCU 150 

had been reduced to 1,061,966 ha, primarily due to timber extraction and forest 

conversion to oil-palm and industrial forestry plantations. 

Apart from outdated forest coverage data (at the time of its publication this data 

was already 7 years old; at the time of writing this report it is 15 years old) a lack 

of accurate on-the-ground tiger distribution and status data has been identified as 

a serious limitation in application of the TCU framework for most areas of 

Sumatra (Tilson et al. 2001). Unfortunately in Sumatra there have been few 

concerted efforts to update the TCU framework since its conception. 

Figure 5. Location of the Siak-Palalawan forest block in relation to TCU 150 as per the 

TCU Framework and other TCU’s in Sumatra inset. 



2.4.6 The Tiger as a High Conservation Value (HCV) 

Central to the determination of High Conservation Value Forests within a forest 

management unit is the assessment and identification of High Conservation 

Values. The generic <strong>HCVF</strong> Global Toolkit, developed by ProForest, takes the six 

Forest Stewardship Council definitions of HCVs (FSC 2000), and describes a 

series of steps to conduct a systematic evaluation of conservation values in a 

forest area. <strong>HCVF</strong> delineation within any forest area is concerned with providing 

a rationale for its <strong>HCVF</strong> status, and developing management and monitoring 

steps for maintaining and/or enhancing identified HCVs. 

Under the Indonesian <strong>HCVF</strong> Toolkit the Sumatran tiger is assessed within the 

guidelines for HCV 1, defined as, “Forest areas containing globally, regionally or 

nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, 

endangered species, refugia)”, and under the specific component threshold of 

HCV1.2 defined as, “Critically Endangered Species - Any species listed as 

critically endangered by IUCN or on Appendix I of CITES that is actually or 

potentially present within the FMU is an HCV.” 

The ProForest and Indonesian <strong>HCVF</strong> Toolkit defines <strong>HCVF</strong> as the area of forest 

required to maintain or enhance identified HCVs. The Toolkits state that any part 

of the FMU that has been identified as a priority site for threatened or 

endangered species, endemics or for maintaining significant temporal 

concentrations of species, will normally be considered as <strong>HCVF</strong>. 

In the absence of nationally-defined <strong>HCVF</strong> “thresholds” the identification of 

priority sites (hence <strong>HCVF</strong> according to the definition above), particularly for 

endangered, wide-ranging species such as the tiger, requires a value judgement 

on the part of the assessment team. For tigers specifically, recognising the 

intense threats to survival of the Sumatran subspecies across its current range, 

this value judgement should be made within the wider context of the current 

status and distribution of the subspecies as a whole. The Toolkits provide some 

examples, relevant to tigers, where <strong>HCVF</strong> delineation may be appropriate: 

• the presence of any species of exceptional international concern where 

the existing legislation and the current protected area network does not 

provide sufficiently for their protection. 

• the population size of the rare species, where for species of high 

conservation status the presence of a potentially breeding pair might be 

sufficient to warrant <strong>HCVF</strong> designation. 

The SmartWood scope for this tiger assessment provided additional suggestions 

relating to the decision process for tiger <strong>HCVF</strong> delineation in the FMU: If the tiger 

is found to be “present, an appropriate <strong>HCVF</strong> boundary will serve both the 

conservation needs of the tiger and the avoidance of a conflict situation.” 

However, if the tiger is “confirmed not to be present within the FMU, or the FMU 

does not constitute an integral portion of the habitat and range of the tiger 

population, then this <strong>HCVF</strong> will not exist within the FMU.” 

Specifically for this assessment discussions between STCP and APP, prior to 

initiation of field work, identified the theoretical difficulties of reliably confirming 

species’ absence within the time available. Given this it was suggested that, for 

the purposes of this assessment, tigers should be assumed to exist within the 

FMU, and that decisions regarding delineation of <strong>HCVF</strong> should focus on 

assessing whether forests in the FMU “constitute an integral portion of the 

habitat and range of the tiger population” (SmartWood) and/or can be 

identified as “priority sites for threatened or endangered species” (Sumatran 

tigers in this case) as defined by the <strong>HCVF</strong> Toolkit (ProForest). 



3 <strong>Assessment</strong> Methodology 

3.1 Background 

Tigers are notoriously difficult to census and study in the wild due to their secretive 

nature and innate sensitivity to humans (Karanth 1987, Nowell & Jackson 1996, 

Franklin et al. 1999a). Direct observation and counts of tigers in tropical habitats is, for 

the most part, an impossibility (Karanth & Nichols 1998, 2000, Franklin et al. 1999a). 

In the past, study and census of wild tigers has relied on measurements of the 

abundance of tiger secondary signs in the field. Tiger census based on individual 

identification of pug-marks has been frequently used as a basis for population 

assessment and monitoring (Panwar 1979, 1987). However, subject to much criticism 

pugmark counts have been found reliable only in circumstances where field workers 

have a high level of familiarity with resident tigers over many years (Karanth 1987, 

1988, 1995), as in Chitwan National Park of Nepal (McDougal 1977, 1999). Even under 

such ideal conditions the “counts” provide consistent underestimates of true tiger 

abundance (Miquelle et al. 1996, McDougal 1999). 

In tropical rainforests these methodological constraints are even more pronounced. 

Pug-marks and other secondary signs of tiger activity have a short persistence in the 

typical climate of such forests. Torrential rain and regular flooding quickly obliterates 

many tracks, while faeces and urine sprays are rapidly lost due to high humidity and 

rapid rates of decomposition (Franklin et al. 1999a). Minimum counts of individuals 

based on tracks and secondary signs, such as those used for the Siberian tiger 

(Smirnov & Miquelle 1999), are of little value in rainforest habitats except under the 

seasonally driest of field conditions. Transect-based census methods, relying on direct 

observation of individuals, are also impractical to implement in tropical rainforests. 

Limited visibility due to density of vegetation leads to prohibitively low probabilities of 

encountering wildlife directly. Similarly, census by aerial photography is also unfeasible 

due to the dense forest canopy preventing an unobstructed view to the forest floor. 

In recent years remote camera monitoring has been developed as a tool for general 

wildlife management (Foresman & Pearson 1998, Cutler & Swann 1999). Tigers, with 

their secretive nature and near complete avoidance of humans, have benefited 

considerably from technological developments in this field. Camera units are now 

commercially available which are at once cost-effective, reliable and resistant to the 

field conditions found throughout Asia. Recent studies have included a study of the size 

and population density of tiger populations in India (Karanth 1995, Karanth & Nichols 

1998, 2000), tiger distribution census in Thailand and Malaysia (A. Lynam pers. comm., 

Kawanishi 2002), short-term (Griffiths & van Schaik 1993b, Griffiths 1994) and longterm 

monitoring studies on the Sumatran tiger (Franklin et al. 1999a). Identification of 

individual tigers has been an important component of these studies, facilitated by the 

individually unique pattern of stripes on the flank and face of tigers (Schaller 1967, 

McDougal 1977, Karanth 1995, Franklin et al. 1999b). 

Finally, a further constraint to the effective study of tigers in the wild is the marginal 

nature, remoteness and general hostility of the habitat in which the Sumatran tiger 

characteristically survives. For the field worker a serious challenge is presented by the 

combination of extreme topography, dense vegetation, lack of identifiable trails, difficult 

access, logistical limitations and sheer size of the forest habitat regions to be covered. 

The extended field periods required to generate scientifically robust data on wild tigers 

can only be achieved with the assistance of a strong supporting team and with 

adequate logistical planning. This is further exacerbated by the intrinsically low rate of 

data-acquisition associated with ecological study and status assessment of secretive, 

wide-ranging, low-density, solitary species such as the tiger. 



In combination these factors represent the main constraints for researchers hoping to 

study the Sumatran tiger, and present a significant obstacle for conservation managers 

attempting to assess population distribution and status, and for the in-situ conservation 

of the Sumatran tiger in general. 

With reference to this study in the Serapung FMU, the general constraints described 

above have been intensified by the limited time available for study completion, the 

logistically difficult nature of peat-swamp forest, and the lack of previous ecological, 

distribution or population status data regarding tigers in both peat-swamp forest in 

general, and in the Siak-Pelalawan region specifically. 

As such the satisfactory completion of the assessment in the time available 

necessitated a multi-disciplinary, coordinated and intense effort by an inevitably large 

team of personnel. Basic components of the assessment methodology employed here 

are summarised below and described in more detail in sections to follow: 

3.2 GIS Landscape and Habitat Analysis 

A non-field based but important component of this assessment was the collection of 

land-use data, future land conversion plans and general perspectives from a crosssection 

of Siak-Pelalawan forest block stakeholders. This data was incorporated into 

GIS maps of the TCU 150 region, specifically around the Serapung FMU, to 

demonstrate historic changes in available tiger habitat and forest cover, as well as 

general predictions on future status and forest coverage in the area. Providing a wider 

landscape context for Serapung FMU, this analysis focused on predicting the 

availability and extent of tiger habitat adjacent to the Serapung FMU in the near future 

given current land-conversion trends. 

On 6 th January the assessment team flew over the Serapung FMU and adjacent forests 

by helicopter. Starting at the approximate centre of the Siak-Pelalawan forest block 

(close to the major peat dome) a 30 km west-east transect was covered, with 

photographs of habitat taken every 1 minute as the helicopter approached the FMU 

boundaries. Once over the FMU the team photographically recorded forest condition, 

canal layout and the locations of the major settlements and farmland in the region 

adjacent to the study area. These photos were used to interpret satellite imagery, and 

also provided a useful basis for orientation of field teams involved in ground surveys. 

3.3 Preliminary Ground Surveys and Field Orientation 

The assessment team arrived at Serapung FMU base camp on the 6 th January. 

Between the 7 th and 11 th of January the teams concentrated on establishing basic 

knowledge of the FMU, and in particular the <strong>HCVF</strong> moratorium area, through a series 

of day-long field trips split into several teams. Goals of these field orientations were to 

identify access routes for future surveys, assess the transportation and logistical needs 

for these surveys, identify target areas for future rapid assessments and remote 

cameras, and conduct base-line interviews with local people regarding past interactions 

with tigers. The preliminary field orientations also provided an opportunity to identify 

optimal locations for remote forest base camps, develop a detailed field-work plan for 

the assessment period and purchase logistics and supplies in accordance with these 

plans. Field orientations were characterized by rapid movement of teams across and 

around the <strong>HCVF</strong> moratorium area in order to identify and establish areas where effort 

and allocation of survey team resources could most efficiently provide results in mind of 

time constraints of the assessment and in line with overall objectives. 

Following the completion of this orientation phase an assessment strategy and 1 month 

schedule was developed where camera sites, intensive survey objectives and target 

community groups were identified. 



3.4 Remote Camera Monitoring of Tigers and Prey Species 

Intensive use of remote cameras represented a key methodology utilized in this 

assessment. The cameras were deployed to obtain definitive evidence of presence, 

general distribution and estimates of relative abundance for both tigers and their prey 

species across the study area. In section 3.4.1 a theoretical and technical background 

on use of remote cameras for Sumatran tiger monitoring is provided. A description of 

the specific remote camera methodology employed in this assessment forms the basis 

of the subsequent section 3.4.2. 

3.4.1 Theoretical and Technical Introduction 

Since their development in the early 1980s automatically-activated remote 

cameras (camera traps) have been an important tool for monitoring rare, cryptic 

species in a wide range of environments. Examples of such studies include the 

detection of scavengers at deer carcasses (Cutler & Swann 1999), estimation of 

grizzly-bear population size (Mace et al. 1994), activity patterns of Indonesian 

rainforest mammals (Griffiths & van Schaik 1993) and the characterisation of tiger 

populations in India (Karanth 1995, Karanth & Nichols 1998, 2000), and 

Indonesia (Franklin et al. 1999, Franklin 2002). 

Remote camera monitoring has proved particularly useful in the dense tropical 

forests of southeast Asia, where field conditions are inhospitable to the 

researcher and limit the applicability of many other techniques. The majority of 

wildlife species in tropical forests are characteristically sensitive to the presence 

of humans, thus making direct observation difficult. This is further compounded 

by dense vegetation, which can reduce line-of-sight visibility to between 5 and 20 

metres. Remote cameras, on the other hand, are easily placed and hidden in the 

field, and most animals are oblivious, or rapidly adapt, to their presence. Remote 

cameras do not suffer from the same constraints as human observers, and the 

extended periods over which they can monitor in the field is very appropriate 

under conditions where animal encounter rates are so low. Evidence for the 

relative success of remote camera trapping of wildlife in tropical rainforests is 

provided by many anecdotal examples where species have only ever been 

recorded in this way, including the Sumatran rhinoceros (Dicerrorhinus 

sumatrensis) in Way Kambas National Park (Siswomartono et al. 1996, by the 

Sumatran Tiger Conservation Program). 

Remote camera monitoring has also been applied to tigers in order to assess 

population size and various aspects of the species’ ecology (Griffiths & van 

Schaik 1993b, Griffiths 1994, Karanth & Nichols 1998, 2000, Franklin et al. 

1999a, Franklin 2002). The unique and highly contrasting stripe pattern found on 

the tiger’s flanks, legs, tail and head facilitates the distinguishing of individuals 

(Schaller 1967, McDougal 1977, Franklin et al. 1999b). Based on this, providing 

that clear and undistorted photographs are obtained, remote cameras enable the 

identification of tiger individuals (Karanth 1995) on condition that a systematic 

and careful approach to photographic comparison is employed. 

Considerable effort has been focused on the need to develop a robust statistical 

framework for remote camera monitoring, which is based on sampling of tiger 

populations as opposed to direct census of individuals. Approaches have 

included attempts to identify relationships between the number of camera days 

required to photographically capture a tiger, with independent estimates of the 

tiger’s density (Carbone et al. 2001 Jennelle et al. 2002), and the use of the 

capture-mark-recapture models (Seber 1982) to estimate population size and 

density (Karanth & Nichols 2000, Franklin 2002). 



3.4.2 Remote Camera Methodology in this Study 

Adult tigers are known to habitually travel along specific routes, often well-worn 

animal trails, where they communicate with conspecifics by scent-marking 

(Sunquist 1981, Smith et al. 1987, Franklin 2002). Previous work has shown that 

this behavioural preference must be taken advantage of in the selection of 

remote camera sites if adequate photo-captures are to be achieved (Karanth & 

Nichols 1998, Franklin 2002). In this study the placement of remote cameras was 

based on identification of likely foci of localised tiger activity, as recorded during 

extensive preliminary field orientations, based on basic landscape analysis of 

habitat within and adjacent to the FMU, and in accordance with the need to 

distribute cameras as widely as possible across the target study area. Some 

camera sites were maintained throughout the assessment period, while others 

were moved and new sites chosen in response to changing field conditions and 

newly uncovered secondary evidence of tiger presence. 

With these constraints, commercially available TRAILMASTER® (Goodson and 

Associates, Lenexa, Kansas, USA) infrared-activated camera traps (TR-1500 

model) were placed at a height of 40-50 cm, on trees and/or temporary 

mountings. The distance across the camera trap “gate”, between the infrared 

transmitter and receiver, ranged from 4 to 6 metres. The camera trap units and 

data loggers were concealed as much as possible, and the monitors programmed 

to take successive shots at a time interval of one minute, thus minimising 

unnecessary wastage of film whenever groups of animals (e.g. macaques) were 

present. Sensitivity of the infrared monitor was programmed on a site-specific 

basis, adjusting to ambient light levels during the brightest part of the day, thus 

maximising sensitivity and minimising false activation of the camera. All cameras 

were programmed to be operational for 24 hours per day, where battery life of 

cameras and monitors would provide up to 7 and 10 days constant operation 

under normal conditions. Camera systems were regularly checked, serviced, and 

films and batteries changed in-situ. The data logging features of the TR-1500 

monitor, in combination with the “data-back” feature of the cameras, allowed 

reliable identification of the time and date of all photographs obtained by remote 

cameras during this assessment. 

It was the aim of this study to keep an average of 10 cameras operational during 

the field assessment period of 30 days. Maintenance and checking of cameras 

necessitated a minimum field period of 4 days, covering approximately 55-80 km 

on foot between camera sites. Time available between field trips was used to 

develop and catalogue photographs obtained, and to allow teams to focus on 

other data collection components described below. 

Camera positioning was optimized to photograph tigers and programmed to be 

active for 24 hours per day. On average films were collected and cameras 

serviced every 7 days. Some cameras were moved to new sites according to 

results achieved and in line with overall assessment goals. Due to theft, fire and 

ongoing security concerns related to the large number of illegal logging groups 

within the moratorium area a total of 150 active camera-trap days were achieved 

during the 4-week study period. 

3.5 Rapid assessment field surveys 

Extensive ground-based surveys were a major component of the assessment 

methodology, requiring in excess of 150 person nights working from temporary forest 

camps set-up deep in the field. These surveys were carried out at two levels of 

intensity, serving different functions within the assessment methodology framework. 

Wide-ranging surveys, designed to maximize coverage of the study area, identifying 



and mapping evidence of tiger activity, high prey densities and specific vegetation and 

landscape features most likely to support tigers, accounted for 131 km of survey effort. 

An additional 106 km of survey transects were carried out under the more stringent and 

quantitative methodologies of a rapid assessment protocol developed by STCP to 

assess tiger distribution, prey abundance, habitat quality and levels of human 

disturbance. 

The routes of all surveys carried out during the assessment period were plotted by 

handheld GPS and later transferred to a geographical information system (GIS) map of 

the FMU and surrounding landscape. In order to assess distribution of survey effort 

across the study site an ArcGIS 8.1 (ESRI) GIS density function was utilised based on 

division of the study site into 1 km 2 survey blocks. Total survey distance covered in 

each of these 1 km 2 blocks was calculated to provide an index of survey intensity 

across the study site. This index of effort is graphically displayed below both for all 

surveys (Figure 6) and for rapid assessment surveys only (Figure 7). 

Samples of tiger faeces were collected whenever encountered by survey teams. The 

samples were later desiccated in order to facilitate the examination and 

characterisation of hairs, bone fragments and other indigestible remnants indicative of 

specific prey species. 



Figure 6. An index of relative effort of all surveys, including rapid assessments, in 

Serapung I and adjacent area. Maximum survey effort 5 is represented by dark blue 

shading. Areas for which no surveys were conducted are not shaded. 

Figure 7. An index of relative effort of rapid assessments surveys only in Serapung I and 

adjacent area. Maximum survey effort 5 is represented by dark blue shading. Areas for 

which no surveys were conducted are not shaded. 



3.6 Secondary Tiger Reports from Local People 

In support of the ecological work, other teams carried out over 20 field days of detailed 

questionnaire-based surveys of the local communities and groups living both in close 

proximity to the study area and in the wider forest block. The main aims of the 

sociological component of this assessment were to provide the following types of data: 

(1) Reports of tiger sightings relating to historic/current tiger presence and 

distribution; 

(2) Reports relating to past and recent tiger-human conflict events, including poaching 

and tiger attacks on humans and livestock; 

(3) General knowledge of local people relating to tigers, including perspectives and 

attitudes regarding tiger-human conflict. 

Conflict between tigers and humans is both clear evidence of tiger presence, and also 

a critical determinant of the likely viability of tigers in the future. Occurrences of conflict 

between humans and tigers, particularly where deaths of people or material losses 

occur (e.g. livestock) are, by their nature, events which are usually well remembered by 

local people. 

Tiger-human conflict events occurring in the FMU region during the recent past were 

identified by questioning of a wide range of local people, company employees and 

seasonal inhabitants of the local area. Reports of specific conflict events were treated 

as preliminary data until they had been confirmed by identification and follow-up 

interviews with direct eye-witnesses. 

For all data arising from local people considerable effort was expended in the process 

of confirming and cross-checking reports via multiple independent sources and the 

seeking of first-hand witnesses wherever possible. While hundreds of local people 

were interviewed during the assessment, detailed witness accounts and reliable 

respondent questionnaires were obtained from 49 individuals representative of the key 

adjacent regions (see Figure 8 below). Respondents were not randomly selected from 

the communities but were specifically targeted individuals considered most likely to 

represent their communities and/or likely to have a specific knowledge of tigers and 

their habitat. 

Figure 8. Map of Serapung FMU area showing the main settlements and concentrations 

of local people interviewed during the assessment. 



4 Results 

4.1 Remote Camera Monitoring of Tigers and Prey Species 

A total of 150 camera-trap days were achieved at eleven locations within and around 

the FMU (Figure 9). Photographic results achieved during the remote camera 

monitoring are summarised in Table 4 below. A total of 14 tiger photographs were 

obtained at three locations (sites II, III and IV). Evidence from secondary signs 

indicated that tigers also passed through two further camera traps (sites I and VIII) but 

due to malfunction and theft of the cameras respectively no photographs were 

obtained. Overall a high rate of tiger photo-capture was achieved with an average of 

0.093 photographs per camera trap day (10.7 camera trap days per tiger photograph). 

The photo-capture rates obtained in this assessment are compared with data from 

previous tiger studies in section 5.2. 

A problem associated with remote camera monitoring is the potential difficulty of 

matching independent left- and right-flank photographs from a single individual. While 

ideal, the use of double camera systems (simultaneous left- and right-side photocapture) 

was not used in this study due to the high risk of camera theft, the limited 

number of cameras available, and the time constraints relative to the risk of technical 

failure associated with these more complex camera system installations. However, the 

limited geographical extent of the assessment, and the numerically low number of tiger 

photographs obtained due to limited time available, ensured that this did not represent 

a concern. Ultimately, all tiger photographs obtained during the study could be 

accurately classified according to individual identity. 

Of the 14 tiger photographs obtained, 13 of these were of a single adult male 

(individual A; see Figure 10 and Figure 11 for right and left flank photographs 

respectively). A single left-flank photograph was obtained of a second adult male 

(individual B; see Figure 12). Identification of the sex of these individuals was 

confirmed by the visibility of external genitalia in the images obtained. 

As noted above, tigers were also observed to have passed cameras at sites (I) and 

(VIII), though no photographs were obtained due to malfunction and camera theft. 

Secondary tiger signs found at these two locations were interpreted in order to decide 

whether these tiger’s signs represented individuals A and/or B, or whether there was 

evidence that these signs represented previously unrecorded tiger individuals. In the 

case of the tiger that passed camera site (I), size of pug-marks were comparable to 

those from the similar sized adult males individuals A and B. However, at site (VIII) the 

pug-marks recorded were significantly smaller, representative of either a sub-adult or a 

young adult female. In confirmation of the latter, signs of scent-marking behaviour 

(urine sprayed high and to the rear of the animal) were observed and judged to be 

characteristic of an adult female individual. 

Six camera locations recorded tiger prey species (I, IV, V, VII, IX and X), which 

included pig-tail macaque (n=3), long-tail macaque (n=1), wild pig (n=1), and sun bear 

(n=1). The limited number of prey photographs obtained (6 photographic events; see 

Table 4) did not facilitate any further analysis of relative prey abundance between the 

FMU and non-FMU forests of the study area. Remote camera photographs of prey 

species recorded can be found in Figure 13, Figure 14 and Figure 15 below. 

Camera-trapping effort was not evenly distributed between the FMU and adjacent 

forests, with 50% more camera trap days achieved in forests outside the FMU. This 

difference was largely due to theft of cameras within the FMU, which not only led to 

loss of data but also restricted the diversity of locations where cameras could be safely 

deployed. Extensive forest fires, within and outside the FMU, also restricted locations 

where cameras could be placed and led to forced premature removal in one instance. 



Table 4. Summary of photographic results of remote camera monitoring carried out at 

11 locations (sites I to XI) in peat swamp forests of the Serapung study area. 

Camera 

Site & 

Data-set 

Date of 

Camera 

Set-up 

Total 

Camera 

Trap Days 

Tiger Pig-tail 

Macaque 

No. of Photographs Obtained 

Long-tail 

Macaque 

Sun 

Bear 

Wild 

Pig 

I 10/01/2005 18 1 

II (a) 14/01/2005 14 4 

II (b) 28/01/2005 10 1 

III (a) 10/01/2005 4 1 

III (b) 15/01/2005 13 5 

III (c) 28/01/2005 10 1 

IV (a) 09/01/2005 5 1 

IV (b) 14/01/2005 14 1 1 

V 10/01/2005 5 

VI 10/01/2005 22 1 

VII 10/01/2005 4 1 

VIII 10/01/2005 0 

IX (a) 09/01/2005 17 1 

IX (b) 26/01/2005 10 

X 02/02/2005 4 1 

XI 14/01/2005 0 

Total 150 14 3 1 1 1 

Figure 9. Location of camera traps and number of tiger photographs obtained at each 

site. Evidence from secondary signs indicated that tigers also passed cameras I and VIII 

during the monitoring period, but photographs were not obtained due to technical 

malfunction and camera theft respectively. 



Figure 10. Tiger individual A (right flank) recorded by remote camera. 

Figure 11. Tiger individual A (left flank) recorded by remote camera 

Figure 12. Tiger individual B (left flank) recorded by remote camera. 



Figure 13. Macaca spp. recorded by remote camera. 

Figure 14. Wild pig (Sus scrofa) recorded by remote camera. 

Figure 15. Sun bear (Helarctos malayanus) recorded by remote camera. 



4.2 Rapid <strong>Assessment</strong> Field Surveys based on Secondary Signs 

From a total field survey transect of 237 km, spread widely across the study area (of 

which 106 km used an intensive rapid assessment protocol) 354 tiger signs were 

recorded (Figure 16). These included pug-marks (paw prints), scrapes (a marking sign 

created by scraping back the hind legs after expelling faeces or urine), urine sprays (a 

scent-marking behaviour), faeces, and flattened resting sites. In order to estimate the 

ranges of all tiger individuals associated with the secondary signs recorded here, a 

buffer area of 3.55 km (equivalent to the radius of the mean home range size of male 

and female Sumatran tigers (Franklin 2002)) was delineated around these secondary 

sign data-points (Figure 16). 

Mobility of survey teams was facilitated when travelling along canal-side pathways, 

though this was offset by a contrasting slow rate of progress in the interstitial areas of 

PSF where no canals were present. The need to maximise coverage of the study area 

during the limited time available required that the survey teams travelled along the 

majority of primary and secondary canal-side pathways within the FMU moratorium 

area during this phase. In order to sample deep into the PSF, as distant from the canal 

system as possible, survey routes were designed to cut across the PSF blocks by 

selecting routes perpendicular to, and between, the secondary canals. 

Calculation of survey effort per unit area both for all surveys, and for rapid assessment 

surveys specifically, has been described previously in section 3.5, page 24. Figure 6 

and Figure 7 in section 3.5 graphically demonstrate that survey effort was highest in 

the north of the FMU, along the primary canal within the moratorium area, and also 

along the Yos trail on the FMU’s northern boundary. 

Rapid assessment surveys rigorously and consistently record all secondary signs and 

direct observations of tigers and prey species observed by field teams. Double 

counting of signs by different field teams was avoided by marking signs on the ground 

as they were recorded, and by geographic separation of survey teams’ respective 

efforts. Data-points representing observations resulting from these surveys were 

rectified in accordance with survey effort per 1 km 2 unit as described in section 3.5 and 

incorporated into GIS maps using an ArcGIS (ESRI) density function. The resulting GIS 

maps (Figure 18 and Figure 19 below) graphically represent an index of abundance 

for tiger and prey secondary signs per unit of survey effort (at a 1 km 2 resolution). 

The highest density of tiger sign per unit of survey effort was found along the Yos Trail 

(Figure 18) consistent with findings obtained by remote camera monitoring described in 

section 4.1. Tiger sign was also found within the moratorium area at a number of 

locations, including positive evidence of the presence of an adult female individual (see 

section 4.1 above). No tiger signs were found at Tandjung Datuk, situated at the southeastern 

corner of the FMU, either inside the small area of <strong>HCVF</strong> forest delineated there 

(see map in Figure 3, page 11; area partially designated as HCV4 by SmartWood) or in 

the adjacent forests, secondary habitat, scrub and agricultural land along the coast. 

Secondary signs and direct observations of tiger prey species indicated prey was 

distributed widely across the study area both within and outside the FMU (Figure 19). 

Lower prey levels, even absence, were observed in areas planted with acacia. Prey 

species identified from secondary signs (primarily pug-marks) but not recorded by 

remote cameras were the Sambar deer (Cervus unicolor), the Muntjak deer (Muntiacus 

muntjak) and the mouse-deer (Tragulus spp.). 

Coarse analysis of the animal hairs (and also bones, claws and other indigestible 

remnants of prey) found in the tiger faecal samples collected by field teams allowed 

identification of prey species consumed by tigers. From a total of 11 faecal samples the 

dominant prey species contained in each of the samples included wild pig (n = 6), 

Macaca spp. (n = 1), sambar deer (n = 1) and sun-bear (n = 3). 



The trapping of various tiger prey species (Muntjak, sambar, mouse-deer and wild pig) 

for bush meat appears to be common in the FMU, both by local communities and by 

company contractors as evidenced by the abundance of animal traps found within the 

FMU, and by the ready availability of deer meat in local markets and eating-houses. 

In general prey abundance levels and prey species composition were found to be 

broadly representative of other lowland forest habitats in Sumatra which are known to 

support tigers. 

Figure 16. Locations of tiger sign found during surveys in the study area. A buffer of 

3.55 km (equivalent to the radius of an average tiger home range) was plotted around 

the tiger signs to estimate a likely area over which the tigers detected are likely to range. 

Figure 17. Tiger pug-mark recorded during ground surveys in the FMU moratorium area. 



Figure 18 Relative density index of tiger secondary signs per unit effort in the study 

area, based on observations from all ground surveys (maximum density per unit effort 

bright red; minimum density in green). Areas that were surveyed and no sign found are 

grey and areas where there no surveys were conducted are shown in white. 

Figure 19 Relative density index of prey species signs per unit effort in the study area, 

based on observations from all rapid assessment surveys (maximum density per unit 

effort bright red; minimum density in green). Areas that were surveyed and no sign 

found are grey and areas where there no surveys were conducted are shown in white. 



4.3 Secondary Tiger Reports from Local People 

4.3.1 Direct Sightings and Human-Tiger Conflict 

A total of 49 respondent interviews were obtained in the process of identifying 

and verifying secondary reports relating to tiger-human interactions in and around 

the FMU (summarised in Table 5). From these interviews a total of 12 cases of 

human tiger conflict, and a further 14 direct sightings of tigers (not resulting in 

conflict, material loss or injury to humans), were identified as having occurred 

within or in the vicinity of the FMU and the geographic location and date of these 

events was noted (Figure 20). 

Each of these 26 cases of tiger-human interaction events was corroborated by at 

least one independent witness (Table 5). Detailed descriptions and information 

relating to the nature of these human-tiger events are summarised in Table 6. 

Of the 12 cases of human-tiger conflict, loss of human life occurred in three 

cases, serious injury in two cases, while the conflict events themselves were 

linked to the death of a minimum of three tigers. Temporal-spatial consideration 

of conflict events suggests that some multiple conflict events were associated 

with single tiger individuals. Of note is the detailed description and chronology of 

conflict events occurring along the Yos Trail during 2002 (case No. 6, 7, 8, & 9), 

ultimately resulting in human casualties, material loss and death of the tiger. This 

same series of conflict led to the serious mauling of an APP company employee. 

One of the most recent examples of human-tiger conflict involved the death of an 

APP contract worker (and the serious injury of another) while clearing an area of 

the Serapung FMU (October 2004). While some first-hand witnesses believe that 

this attack occurred due to inappropriate behaviour by workers (in contravention 

of cultural adat law and inline with local superstitions). Other reports suggest that 

this attack (by an adult female tiger) occurred subsequent to the death of a tiger 

cub at the hands of workers. 

Concentrations of tiger sightings were observed along the northern and southern 

boundaries of Serapung I FMU, both of which are associated with the presence 

of long-term and established human settlements. Reliable reports were also 

obtained regarding direct sightings of tigers in a number of widely separated 

locations across the Siak-Pelalawan forest block, including in the forests 

immediately adjacent to the FMU. These included two separate occasions where 

female adults with cubs were observed, one occasion where 2 cubs were 

reported, and one case where a female tiger was caught in a snare trap. 

Finally tigers have been observed by numerous witnesses as recently as late 

2004 in the vicinity of the south-eastern isthmus of the FMU (at Tandjung Datuk) 

both within and outside the indicative <strong>HCVF</strong> area as currently delineated. Despite 

the reliability and recent nature of these secondary reports, the teams found no 

direct evidence (remote camera photographs or secondary signs) confirming tiger 

presence in this area (see sections 4.1 and 4.2). 



Figure 20. The location and approximate date of human-tiger observations and events 

occurring in and around the FMU, as reliably reported by respondents. Data here 

includes cases of human-tiger conflict (represented by star symbol), and direct 

sightings of tigers where conflict did not occur (represented by circle symbol). 



Table 5. List of all people formally interviewed with a key showing which case of conflict or tiger sighting they were witness to. The * donates 

them as the primary eye-witness. 

No 

Name 

Location 

Status 

Age 

Years 

at site 

1 Siman Jl. Yos Pt. Yos staff 48 9 1 

2 Asori Jl. Yos Pt. Yos guard 60 8 1 1 

3 Hamid Jl. Yos Villager 45 3 1* 1 1 1 

4 Ibrahim Jl. Yos Tiger shaman 70 8 1 1 1 

5 Jamil Jl. Yos Head of RW 60 5 1 1 1* 1 

6 Syahrudin Jl. Yos Villager 45 3 1 1 1 

Sumatran Tiger Conservation Program Pg 37/68 

Conflict/Sighting Event Reported by Respondent (ref. Table 6 below) 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 

7 Zaenal Jl. Yos Villager 40 7 1 1 1 1* 

8 Simun Jl. Yos Villager 50 4 1 1 1* 1 

9 Jai Jl. Yos Villager 25 2 1 1 1 1* 

10 Alimudin Jl. Yos Villager 35 4 1 1 1 1* 

11 Ishak Jl. Yos Villager 30 1 1 1 1 1* 

12 Rizal Jl. Yos Villager 30 1 1 1 1* 1 

13 Roni Jl. Yos Villager 36 4 1 1 1 1* 1* 

14 Harahap Jl. Yos Villager 40 4 1 1 1 

15 Ahmad Jl. Yos Villager 40 4 1 1 1 

17 Muhammad Jl. Yos Villager 45 3 1 1 1 1* 

18 Edi Jl. Yos Villager 39 5 1* 

19 Tatan Jl. Yos Villager 41 4 1* 1* 

20 Areva Jl. Yos Village sec. 43 3 1 1* 

21 Zauzar Ds. Serapung Head of RW III 35 10 1 

22 Amid Ds. Serapung Tiger shaman 49 30 1* 1 

23 Aki Jabar Ds. Serapung Villager 60 20 1* 1 

24 Suwarman Ds. Serapung Villager 40 15 1 1 1* 

25 Muhammad Ds. Serapung Villager 70 70 1* 1 1 

26 Jais Ds. Serapung Villager 39 20 1* 1 1 

27 Endan Ds. Serapung Villager 35 15 1


No 

Name 

Location 

Status 

Age 

Years 

at site 

28 Samsuar Ds. Serapung Staff SPA 40 15 1 

29 Mulyanto SPA Contractor 27 4 1 1* 


Conflict/Sighting Event Reported by Respondent (ref. Table 6 below) 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 

30 E. Sitompul SPA Staff SPA 30 3 1 1* 

31 Acok SPA Staff SPA 30 2 

32 Sinaga SPA Tiger shaman 40 3 1* 

33 Atan Bukri SPA Villager 39 1 

34 Ijun SPA Contractor 60 4 1* 

35 Mursidin Teluk Meranti Villager 25 5 

36 Isam Teluk Meranti Villager 22 2 

37 Muis Teluk Meranti Villager 45 45 1 

38 Danten Teluk Meranti Villager 33 33 1 

39 Sitinjak Teluk Meranti Villager 35 6 1 

40 Erna Teluk Meranti Villager 32 10 1 

41 Suma Teluk Meranti Villager 74 30 1 

42 Zailani Tanjung Datuk Villager 55 10 1 1 

43 Suparlan Tanjung Datuk Villager 40 3 1* 1 1 1 1 

44 Maelaki Tanjung Datuk Villager 50 12 1* 

45 Djuki Tanjung Datuk Villager 52 8 1 1* 

46 Khairul Tanjung Datuk Villager 28 3 1* 1 

47 Ahmad Tanjung Datuk Villager 60 3 1 

48 Rusyidi Tanjung Datuk Villager 56 5 1 

49 Ahmad Tanjung Datuk Villager 38 3


Table 6 List of human-tiger conflict and tiger sightings since 1982 to the present day with approximate locations and brief descriptions of each 

event. The case of a tiger being being snared in the vicinity of Teluk Meranti was excluded from the results being not in the vicinity of the FMU. 

No. Type Year Location Person(s) reporting In SPA area? Description of Event 

1 Conflict 1982 Tanjung Datuk Jabar, Ahmad dan Amid Possibly A man by the name of Jusri was killed by a tiger whilst logging; the partial remains of one leg was later found by the local people 

2 Conflict 2000 Tanjung Datuk Suparlan (Parit 3) No 

A tiger was caught in a deer trap set by Pak Zaelani close to the edge of the mouth of the Kampar river, Tj Datuk, the tiger eventually 

died and was left there. 

3 Sighting 2001 Km 6 PT Yos Hamit Possible Whilst sitting in his hut on Km 6 he saw one tiger passing by below it. 

4 Sighting 2001 Km 7 PT. Yos Khaerul and father No Close to sunset whilst cooking deer meat, suddenly a tiger passed close by 

5 Sighting 2001 Km 7 PT. Yos Jais No Whilst resting in his hut at late afternoon, a tiger was seen sitting below hut from 17:00 and 19:00 before leaving 

6 Conflict 2002 PT. SPA 20 people Yes 

A surveyor working for APP/Serapung by the name of Edi, originally from Bandung,was attacked and mauled by a tiger and his face 

was badly damaged 

A teenager aged 16 by the name of Muzambi was attacked and killed by a tiger whilst resting at night in a hut. Contract worker for 

7 Conflict 2002 Km. 4 Yos 30 people Yes 

APP/Serapung. 

8 Conflict 2002 Km 3 Yos Simun, Rizal, Jamil, Tatan No A tiger attacked and killed a number of chickens owned by Pak Tatan in the vicinity of Km 3 Yos Trail 

A female tiger was snared close to the back of Pak Tatan's house, which was killed by pouring petrol over it and lighting it. The 

9 Conflict 2002 Km 3 Yos Tatan, 15 people No 

remains were then buryed. Secondary reports confirmed tiger was shot using homemade rifle. 

10 Conflict 2002 Km 7 Yos Roni (Yos) No Together with Pak Nur the set a deer trap close to Km 7 Yos Trail which caught a tiger. The tiger released itself. 

11 Conflict 2002 Pulau Muda Suwarman (Ds.Serapung) No One adult tiger was caught in a deer trap and died in the vicinity of Pulau Muda Village. 

12 Sighting 2002 Base camp SPA Mulyadi Yes While he and his friends were making a volleyball pitch saw a tiger the size of goat passing nearby 

13 Sighting 2002 Parit 3 Tj. Datuk Maelaki Possibly He saw an adult tiger passing by the front of his house in the twilight 

14 Sighting 2002 Km 12 PT Yos Zaenal No Whilst driving the logging train on the PT Yos rail, a tiger jumped on to the train at which point he ran off 

15 Sighting 2002 PT. SPA Edwin Sitompul Yes Whilst working on the main road in the vicinity of the Serapung I base camp he saw one tiger cross the road 

16 Conflict 2003 Km 7 Yos Edi (Yos) No Whilst still working for PT Yos, and asleep in his hut he was badly scatched on the legs by a tiger. 

17 Sighting 2003 Km 3 PT Yos Alimudin No At about 19:00 after dark, he saw an adult tiger moving from Km 4 in the direction of the sea. 

18 Conflict 2004 Km 5 Yos Ishak (Yos) No Three chickens were eaten by a tiger in their enclosure at the back of his house. 

Pak Ijun (Kepala rombong 

penanaman PT.SPA) Yes 


A female cook was killed by a tiger beside canal 40. Pak Iujun explained that "Datuk" killed the female as she carried out improper 

activities with her boyfriend. 

19 Conflict 2004 PT. SPA 

20 Sighting 2004 PT. SPA Sinaga Yes 

He and his friends saw 2 young tigers (cubs?) walking along close to the bank of the Kampar river between the harbour of Serapung I 

and canal 3 Tanjung Datuk 

21 Sighting 2004 PT. SPA Areva Yes Whilst coming home from hauling timber he came across a tiger near by. 

22 Sighting 2004 Km 4 PT Yos Jay No In the late afternoon he saw 3 tigers, one adult and two young ones together 

23 Sighting 2004 Tanjung Datuk Djuki Yes 

June 2004 at 1700hrs, direct sighting of tiger outside house in Parit III. Moved to get between the tiger and his young child who was 

washing outside. Tiger reported to walk along trails in area for hours before and after. 

Jl. Pemda Km 8 Tlk. 

One tiger was caught in a deer snare set by Pak Isam not far from Teluk Meranti and later it released itself. 

24 Conflict 2005 Meranti 5 people No 

25 Sighting 2005 Km 7 PT. Yos Muhamad Ali No He and his wife nearly every week see a tiger pass by or resting near to their house 

At the time there was a fire on the Yos Trail and in the near by forest, he saw 3 tigers travelling from Km 4 to Km 3 which eventually 

26 Sighting 2005 Km 3 PT Yos Roni No 

turned off in to the forest on the north side in the direction of the Apung river.


4.3.2 Attitudes and Perceptions of Local People Regarding Tigers 

During the respondent interviews a set of formal questions were posed in order to 

examine basic knowledge, experience, attitudes and perceptions of local people 

regarding Sumatran tigers and the root causes of human-tiger conflict. Results 

derived from these questionnaires (summarised in Table 7 and Table 8 below) 

show that only 30% of respondents had ever seen tigers directly while 37% of 

respondents had encountered their tracks. Despite this, 81% of people believe 

tigers are present in the vicinity of where they live, and 91% perceive tigers to be 

living in the wider Siak-Pelalawan forest block. 

Culturally the tiger is important to the local communities in this area, with 51% of 

people actively involved in performing traditional rituals believed to protect 

themselves from the tiger. The local belief system which links tiger attacks with 

breaches of local adat law by the victim, remains widely adopted (44% of 

respondents perceived this as the primary cause of conflict). A further 22% 

thought that conflict was caused by a mixture of forest clearance and breaches of 

adat. Forest clearance alone was perceived to be the primary cause of humantiger 

conflict by 17% of all respondents interviewed. 

Incursions by non-resident tigers (harimau pendatang), upsetting the generally 

harmonious co-existence between resident tigers (harimau penunggu) and 

villagers was perceived by 13% of the respondents as a primary cause of humantiger 

conflict. 

During the limited time available neither the field teams nor local respondent 

teams obtained any evidence of tiger poaching (driven by illegal trade in skins, 

bones or other tiger body parts) by local people in the vicinity of the FMU. 

However, the bones of one tiger opportunistically trapped along the Yos Trail in 

response to intense human-tiger conflict in 2002 were, in early 2004, sold on to a 

travelling trader from Medan via neighbouring HPH company contractors. 

However, local knowledge regarding the economic rewards to be accrued 

through poaching and illegal trade of tigers is prevalent in the region, facilitated 

by the high mobility and constantly changing composition of migrant workers, 

fishermen and sea-faring traders. Evidence for the threat presented by ongoing 

poaching and illegal trade was obtained during this assessment, where a recently 

caught tiger skin and bones were identified by the team as for sale at the nearby 

port island of Penyalai. 

Table 7. Tiger-related questions posed to respondents (n = 49) and percentage of 

affirmative responses received. 

Respondent Question % Yes 

Q1. Are there tigers present in the area in which you live? 81 

Q2. Have you ever seen a tiger? 30 

Q3. Have you ever heard the sound of a tiger? 65 

Q4. Have you ever seen tiger paw prints? 37 

Q5. Have you ever heard of someone being attacked by a tiger? 88 

Q6. Are there any tigers in Serapung I forest concession? 77 

Q7. Are there any tigers in the forests in the Siak-Pelalawan forest? 91 

Q8. Have you ever partaken in a tiger blessing ceremony? 51 

Q9. Is the number of signs of tigers increasing? 28 

Q10. Is the number of cases of conflict increasing? 38 



Table 8. Identification of primary causes of human-tiger conflict as perceived by local 

community respondents (n = 49). 

Cause of Human-Tiger Conflict % 

Due to incursions by non-resident tigers (harimau pendatang) 13 

Due to forest clearance 17 

Due to forest clearance and breaches of adat law 22 

Due to local peoples' breaches of adat law 44 

Due to the need for more effective local tiger blessing ceremonies 4 

4.4 Landscape Analysis 

4.4.1 Minimum area required for Sumatran tigers 

Results of the 1992 Population and Habitat Viability Analysis (PHVA) for the 

Sumatran tiger indicate that the size of area required to support a Sumatran tiger 

population should be sufficiently large enough to provide a minimum carrying 

capacity of 50 tigers, and optimally at least 100 tigers (see section 2.4.2). The 

population density of tigers that any forest area is able to support, and hence its 

carrying capacity, is in turn dependant upon prey density (see section 2.4.3). In 

Sumatra a best estimate for densities of tigers is between 1 and 4 tigers per 

10,000 ha (See: Franklin et al. 1999, Griffiths 1994, Carbone et al. 2001, Franklin 

2002) where 4 tigers per 10,000 ha reflects high prey densities such as those 

found in the highly productive lowland forests of Way Kambas National Park. A 

conservation area designed for Sumatran tigers should therefore possess an 

area of between 250,000 ha and 1,000,000 ha in order to fulfil optimal population 

viability criteria of the PHVA models described above, assuming that only limited 

management intervention is possible. A smaller area (equivalent to the lower 

range of 50 adult tiger individuals recommended by PHVA models) is sufficient 

where effective conservation management and strong protection can be 

implemented. Dependent upon tiger density, to achieve a carrying capacity of 50 

individuals an area of between 125,000 and 500,000 ha is required. 

4.4.2 Past, Present, and Future Land-Use 

Tiger Conservation Unit (TCU) 150 consists of the Siak-Pelalawan and 

Kerumutan forest blocks, separated by the Kampar River, but considered for the 

tiger to constitute a single population. The combined area of these two blocks in 

2001 was 1,060,000 ha. In the recent past practically the entire extent of TCU 

150 has been selectively logged. Aerial flyovers and inspection of satellite 

imagery for the remaining forest areas in the Siak-Pelalawan forest block show a 

relatively intact forest canopy in the more remote regions, but widespread 

existence of both previously active and active logging rails. Patches of high levels 

of disturbance and forest clearing were mostly associated with easily accessible 

regions along major rivers and the coast. 

In Riau province the post-productive phase of many logging concessions (HPH) 

is characterised by conversion to other land types such as industrial timber (HTI) 

or oil-palm plantations (FWI/GFW 2002). In the Siak-Pelalawan block all the 

previously active HPH concessions have now ceased logging operations. All but 

one of these HPH concession areas have now been totally, or in part, converted 


100


to HTI (Figure 21). It is anticipated that remaining HPH concession areas will 

change to HTI in the near future. Significantly, a HTI application has been 

submitted to the MoF for conversion of the remaining areas of what was once the 

PT. Alam Wana Sakti HPH area (Serapung I and II districts are also situated 

within this HPH). This will result in the adjacent forests immediately to the west 

and north of Serapung I district being clear-felled and planted with industrial 

forestry timber species. The status and progress of this concession application is 

yet to be confirmed, but for the purposes of this report the granting of this HTI 

licence is considered a forgone conclusion. If this HTI application is successful 

then the Serapung FMU could potentially loose all habitat connectivity with the 

greater Siak-Pelalawan forest block. In addition to this several other HTI 

concessions are at the application stage for ex-HPH areas situated adjacent to 

the Kampar river (to the south) and the Selat Panjang strait (to the north). 

Since 1990 the natural forest cover in TCU 150 has been greatly reduced due to 

forest conversion for oil-palm and industrial timber plantations (Figure 22). The 

total natural forest remaining in TCU 150 as of 2001 was 1,060,000 ha and by 

2007 is predicted, based on GIS analysis of current land-status and ongoing 

concession applications, to represent a maximum of 625,000 ha (see Table 9). A 

maximum of 305,000 ha of remaining forest in TCU 150’s will exist within the 

northern Siak-Pelalawan block by this time, based on current best knowledge 

regarding future conversion plans in the region. The remaining forests in the 

Siak-Pelalawan block is estimated to be primarily comprised of all of the area 

managed under the HPH logging concession belonging to PT. The Best One Uni 

Timber, and most of the forests contained within the HPH concessions owned by 

PT. Yos and PT. Triomas FDI. A predicted forest area of 305,000 ha in the Siak- 

Pelalawan block by 2007 should be considered an optimistic analysis of future 

forest conversion trends since it does not account for what are likely to be 

numerous concession applications at both the provincial and central government 

level for smaller scale HTI and other land-uses. 

There are four protected areas listed in the Siak-Pelalawan forest block. The 

largest of these - Danau Pulau Besar (29,000 ha) - has already been gazetted as 

a protected area, while the three smaller areas (total 11,000 Ha) are still only 

proposed status (Figure 21). The Riau BKSDA office has informally expressed an 

interest in creating a further protected area around Tasik Pinang, a small lake 2 

km to the west of the Serapung. Outside and to the south of the Siak-Pelalawan 

block, but within TCU 150, the Kerumutan Wildlife Reserve (100,000 ha) 

represents the only other protected area in this region. 

Table 9. Area of natural forest cover from 1990 to expected future forest cover. 

The Siak-Pelalawan and Kerumutan blocks constitute TCU 150. The forest cover 

in 1990 but the total area for TCU 150 per the TCU framework is used. 

Forest Block Forest Cover 

in 1990 (Ha) 

Forest 

Cover in 

2001 (Ha) 

Predicted 

Forest Cover 

in 2007 (Ha) 

Siak-Pelalawan 560,000 305,000 40,000 

Forest Area 

Currently 

Protected (Ha) 

Kerumutan 500,000 320,000 100,000 

TCU 150 1,181,600 1,060,000 625,000 140,000 



Figure 21. The Siak-Pelalawan-Kerumutan (TCU 150) landscape showing (a) HPH concessions in 1997 (Source: MoF) and (b) 

current HTI and HPH concessions (Source: Peta IUPHHK-HT, dan IUPHHK-HA Propinsi Riau). All HPH concessions shown here are 

now inactive even though licences may not have expired. Ex-HPH areas that currently have indeterminate status are not shown. 



Figure 22. The Siak-Pelalawan-Kerumutan (TCU 150) landscape showing natural forest cover c.1990 (represented here by false-colour Landsat 

image, c.1990), forest cover in 2001 (derived from Landsat 2001), maximum expected natural forest cover in 2007 and current protected areas. 

The maximum expected forest cover in 2007 was estimated by subtracting from 2001 forest cover areas that are currently, or proposed as, 

industrial timber or oil palm plantations. 



5 Discussion 

5.1 Tiger Habitat and Prey 

The forest remaining within the indicative <strong>HCVF</strong> moratorium area is structurally 

degraded; many of the larger “commercial” trees have already been removed and the 

water table has been lowered through an intensive system of primary and secondary 

canals leading to the FMU’s central log-collection point. However the moratorium area 

remains contiguous with the wider Siak-Pelalawan forest landscape. Despite this 

degradation and the effects of ongoing illegal logging it was found, through 

photographs, secondary signs, tiger faeces and direct sightings, to contain all of the 

common prey species of tigers (i.e. sambar deer, muntjak deer, wild boar, and 

macaque). The number of secondary signs and frequency of photographs obtained by 

camera traps, for prey species both inside and outside the FMU, approximates to that 

which is observed in other Sumatran lowland forests where tigers are known to exist. In 

some areas of the FMU (e.g. in the Tandjung Datuk peninsular) there was evidence for 

prey species’ abundance being markedly higher than that found in many other 

comparable lowland forests. This widespread, high abundance of prey and non-prey 

species is contrary to expectations based on previous studies in PSF (see: MacKinnon 

et al. 1996, Whitten et al. 2000). However, the PSF habitat within the FMU is highly 

modified and possibly temporarily “improved” with respect to herbivores, due to 

increased secondary growth as a result of logging and forest clearance (see Section 

2.3.1: Habitat Modification of PSF by Logging). 

Three of the 11 samples of tiger faeces examined were found to contain sun bear 

(Helarctos malayanus). Sun bear is not considered a preferred prey species although 

predation on sun bears has been occasionally observed in Way Kambas (Franklin 

pers. obs.) and in Malaysia (Kawanishi 2002). While it might be hypothesised that preyselection 

on sun bear is a response to paucity of the other preferred prey species, it 

may also be a reflection of the high density of sun bear in these forests as confirmed by 

local people. 

Prey abundance was found to be much reduced, or prey species were entirely absent, 

in areas of the FMU that had already been cleared and planted with Acacia. 

Considering that industrial timber plantations are likely to be a longer term feature of 

the landscape, further study should be conducted on this point, examining prey species 

abundance (as a measure of suitability as tiger habitat) in relation to age of stands, 

density of planted trees and spatial position relative to remaining natural forest areas. 

5.2 Tiger Population in and around the FMU 

Two adult male tigers were identified from remote camera photographs and the 

presence of an adult female was detected from secondary signs. A female tiger with 2 

juveniles was reliably sighted in late 2004, confirming that a breeding population of 

tigers is present in and around the FMU. 

The wide distribution of tiger sign suggests that tigers utilise the majority of the 

moratorium area in the FMU, although activity was more concentrated in areas further 

from the coast. Although the density of tiger sign within the FMU was found to be 

equivalent to that expected in other lowland forest habitats, it was considerably less 

than that found along the Yos Trail to the north-west of the FMU. The habitat around 

the Yos Trail, despite its association with human settlement, is likely to have an 

increased importance for tigers, representing a favoured micro-habitat. Tigers make 

use of trails to facilitate efficient coverage of their home range (Franklin 2002), while 

“scent-marking” with particular intensity at territorial boundaries between individuals 



(Smith et al. 1989). In PSF the localised concentration of tiger activity as suggested by 

secondary signs and “scent-marking” may be accentuated as undisturbed PSF is more 

restricting in terms of ease-of-movement in comparison to other lowland forest types. 

The paths along the canals within the FMU offer the same ease-of-movement but, 

being newly developed and subject to intense disturbance from illegal logging, may not 

yet be fully exploited by tigers. Previous studies have shown some species, including 

tigers, become more nocturnal in their activity in order to avoid encounters with 

humans (Ojasti 1991, Griffiths and van Schaik 1993, Guggisberg 1975) and Kawanishi 

(2002). 

The relative abundance of tiger sign found within and outside the FMU was also 

reflected in the number of remote camera photographs obtained, with all 14 

photographs taken along the Yos Trail. However, it should be noted that the number of 

camera trap days was 50% greater along the Yos Trail in comparison to the FMU, due 

to theft of cameras within the FMU and a limited number of locations where cameras 

could be placed due to illegal logging activities. 

The rate of photo-capture for all cameras both inside and outside the FMU was 0.093 

tiger photographs per camera day (10.7 days/photograph). Comparison with other 

studies (Figure 23) identifies this as the highest rate achieved by any published study 

on the Sumatran tiger in Indonesia, greater than capture rates from the high-density 

tiger population in Way Kambas NP (0.025 photographs/camera day, 39.9 

days/photograph) and comparable to capture rates achieved in the exceptionally high 

tiger density areas of India and Nepal’s flagship national parks (including Kaziranga, 

Nagarahole and Chitwan). 

Although photographic capture rates of tigers have been shown to be correlated with 

their density (Carbone et al. 2001), due to limitations of study time and camera 

coverage, no attempt is made here to relate results to such estimates of density. An 

accepted minimum level of sampling effort for such an extrapolation is considered to be 

1,000 camera trap days (Carbone et al. 2001) which, under the study conditions of this 

assessment, would require extension of field time by a factor of 9. However, 

photographic capture rates were qualitatively similar to rates found in other quality 

habitats of Sumatra, at least suggesting that tiger density in Serapung is not outside 

the range of density previously observed elsewhere. 

If the high frequency of tiger secondary signs and photo-captures is considered 

alongside the frequent reports of tiger sightings by local people, it is clear that tigers 

are exceptionally active around the Serapung FMU and particularly within the 

immediate vicinity of the Yos Trail. Further study is required to confirm that these high 

levels of tiger activity relate to a corresponding high tiger density, or whether this 

abundance of data is a result of the geographically restricted ranging of a smaller 

number of individuals. However, during the time available this assessment could find 

no evidence in support of the latter hypothesis, where no obvious boundaries to tiger 

movement were observed, and where no qualitative differences in habitat could be 

identified between the Yos Trail and adjacent areas. Given the overwhelming weight of 

evidence collected during this assessment, it appears that the peat swamp forests of 

Serapung and Siak-Pelalawan provide tiger habitat at least comparable to other 

optimal lowland forests sites in Sumatra. 

Further work should be conducted as a matter of urgency to accurately measure the 

carrying-capacity of PSF in relation to the Sumatran tiger. Evidence collected during 

this assessment, in contrast to previous studies, suggests that PSF should not be 

considered suboptimal habitat for tigers as a general rule. If tigers are confirmed to be 

capable of living at high densities in PSF then this will have a significant impact on 

future Sumatra-wide conservation strategies for the species. 



No evidence of tiger secondary signs were encountered in the FMU outside of the 

forested moratorium area (i.e. in cleared areas or within plots planted with Acacia). 

However, in the small forested area to the south-east of the FMU (Tandjung Datuk) 

credible eye-witness accounts indicated tiger presence up through and including late 

2004. Given this it must be assumed that tigers continue to traverse the strip of forest 

(designated Unggulan and Konservasi by APP) along the south-eastern boundary of 

the FMU. Similar reliable accounts of recent sightings were received for northern areas 

of the FMU which have only recently been clear-felled, including reliable reports of a 

company contract employee being killed, and one other injured, due to tiger attacks 

occurring as recently as October 2004. 

Serapung Indonesia 

Kerinci Seblat Indonesia 

Bukit Barisan Selatan Indonesia 

Gunung Leuser Indonesia 

Way Kambas Indonesia 

Taman Negara Malaysia 

Ulu Temaing Forest Malaysia 

Gunung Tebu Forest Malaysia 

Bintang Hijau Forest Malaysia 

Temenggor Forest Malaysia 

Khao Yai National Thailand 

Phu Khieo Wildlife Thailand 

Queen Sirikit Reserve Thailand 

Halabala Thailand 

Chitwan Nepal 

Bandhavgarh India 

Pench India 

Nagarahole India 

Kaziranga India 

Kanha India 

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 

No. of photos per camera day 

Figure 23. The number of tiger photographs per camera day in Serapung compared to 

other previous field studies (Carbone et al. 2001). The photo-capture rate in Serapung is 

greater than all other studies on the Sumatran tiger (shown in red), and is comparable to 

data collected for the Bengal tiger in locations where they are known to live at high 

densities. 

5.3 Tiger Viability Issues in the FMU and Siak-Pelalawan Landscape 

An evaluation of the future potential and viability of the tiger population inhabiting the 

FMU and the Siak-Pelalawan block necessitates consideration of habitat availability in 

the wider landscape. For the purposes of this analysis all natural forest in the Siak- 

Pelalawan block is considered to represent habitat currently utilised by tigers. In 

contrast HTI plantations are not assumed to provide any significant contribution to 

maintenance of tigers except in the case where large conservation areas have been 

set-aside. Oil-palm estates, at least in the first years of growth and when located 

adjacent to natural forest, do support an elevated density of ungulates and wild pigs 

when compared to natural forests. However, evidence currently suggests that tigers 

only utilise the fringes of these oil-palm plantations while hunting, relying on adjacent 

forests for all other aspects of their behaviour and ecology. For this reason, and for the 



purposes of population viability assessment, oil-palm estates are also assumed not to 

represent tiger habitat. 

Many historical and recent reports from local people indicate tigers are present in and 

around the FMU and widespread across the Siak-Pelalawan forest block which, along 

with the Kerumutan forest block to the south, represents the area identified as Tiger 

Conservation Unit (TCU) 150. GIS analysis based on currently-known concession 

holdings indicates that by 2007 TCU 150 will be separated into two isolated and much 

reduced constituent blocks. This optimistic approach, ignoring applications for 

additional concessions at the provincial and district level, estimates that a maximum of 

305,000 ha of natural forest will remain within the Siak-Pelalawan block by 2007. 

However, given recent conversion trends witnessed across Riau and throughout 

Sumatra (see: FWI/GFW 2002) a realistic prediction for future habitat availability in the 

Siak-Pelalawan block is that only the currently protected areas of forest (approximately 

40,000 ha) will remain in the medium-term. Some additional natural forest will be 

provided by mandatory set-aside areas within forest concessions, although these are 

considered to provide a very limited contribution to maintenance of the tiger population 

due to their characteristic lack of connectivity and small size. 

With respect to the landscape context of the FMU, currently available information 

relating to other concession applications suggests that adjacent forest areas to the 

north and west of the FMU will, in the near-term, be clear-felled and developed as 

plantations. This will lead to a total loss of connectivity between the FMU and the wider 

Siak-Pelalawan forest block unless (1) extensive habitat corridors are maintained by 

the neighbouring estate or (2) the area in the vicinity of Tasik Pinang Lake is gazetted 

as a protected area. This loss of connectivity would mean that, even despite vigilant 

management and effective protection by the FMU, tigers will not persist in the 

moratorium area in the medium to long-term. 

By extrapolation of tiger densities (1-4 tigers/100 km 2 ) obtained from other studies in 

Sumatra, the maximum expected forest habitat expected to remain in the Siak- 

Pelalawan block by 2007 would be sufficient to sustain a population of between 30 and 

120 adult individuals. Photo-capture frequencies recorded during this study suggest 

that the upper range of previously recorded Sumatran tiger density is more likely to be 

an appropriate estimator for forests adjacent to the Serapung FMU. However, over the 

wider Siak-Pelalawan landscape a conservative estimator of density is suggested to be 

between 2 and 3 individuals per 100 km 2 . Such densities provide a cautious estimate 

for the tiger population in the Siak-Pelalawan landscape of between 60 and 90 

individuals. 

A single contiguous population of 60-90 tigers, in comparison to the current global 

population estimate of 500 Sumatran tiger individuals, represents a significant 

contribution to the survival of the subspecies (12-18% of total numbers) and promotes 

Siak-Pelalawan as a key landscape component of the Indonesian Sumatran Tiger 

Conservation Strategy. 

If however only approximately 40,000 ha of fragmented and isolated tiger habitat were 

to remain, as is likely in the medium-term given no immediate conservation 

intervention, then the tiger is predicted to rapidly become extinct in the Siak-Pelalawan 

region. 

The TCU Framework and the PHVA process are in agreement that the greater the tiger 

carrying capacity of habitat the greater the probability of persistence of the tiger 

population. Previous PHVA analyses have shown that a contiguous habitat block with a 

carrying capacity of 100 tigers will be viable over the long-term given limited negative 

influence from external factors such as poaching. Therefore to maintain the 

independent and long-term viability (>100 individuals) of the existing tiger population in 

the Siak-Pelalawan forest block a minimum of 250,000 ha of contiguous forest habitat 



is recommended provided that densities can be maintained at 4 tigers/100 km 2 . A 

population of 50 individuals, offering a minimum acceptable level of viability given that 

effective management and intensive protection can be implemented, would require at 

least 125,000 ha of habitat to be maintained area. Not all of this area would have to be 

strictly protected forest but components of it could represent contributions from 

production forest areas managed under sustainable forestry schemes where clearfelling 

is prohibited. The controlled disturbance caused by logging in such areas will 

enhance the habitat for tigers through encouraging secondary growth and an 

associated increase in density of the primary tiger prey species (Heydon 1994, Johns 

1997). The strictly protected core areas would serve as a refuge for tigers during 

periods of active logging in the adjacent production forest buffer zones. In addition to 

this, planning and spatial organisation of regulatory “set-aside” areas within adjacent 

HTI/oil-palm estates should be carried out in a manner that enhances and protects this 

conservation area (e.g. from fires, from disruption to hydrology, etc.) acting as, or 

supplementing, habitat corridors between essential landscape components. 

The adjacent plantations and estates themselves can, through proper design, provide a 

further positive contribution by serving as a barrier against intrusion by illegal loggers 

into the conservation area. It should be noted, however, that a poorly managed estate 

will actually facilitate illegal logging if its road, rail and canal systems are inadequately 

guarded. However, given that this aspect can be managed effectively, coastal areas 

would (all other factors being equal) be of more utility as a developed and managed 

“buffer” between settlers and core areas, than they would as components of the 

protected forest. The cost-benefits of attempting to conserve these coastal zones, due 

to the proximity of settlers and ease of access for illegal loggers, will always be greater 

than for core areas further inland. 

An immediate priority for the Siak-Pelalawan block is the implementation of intensive 

ground surveys and associated landscape analysis in order to establish (1) tiger status, 

distribution and density, (2) habitat availability and condition, (3) intrinsic threats to the 

habitat and its tiger population and (4) future land-use planning and conversion trends. 

The overall objective of these surveys should be the identification of core and 

peripheral areas for inclusion within a landscape-level tiger conservation area, through 

provision of base-line data, identification of landscape constraints and socio-political 

limitations, and through assessment of general levels of stakeholder support. Ideally no 

further licences for clearance of forest in the Siak-Pelalawan block should be granted 

until a landscape conservation strategy and protected area network has been 

developed and implemented. 

5.4 Tiger-Human Conflict 

Tiger-human conflict is not only important from a human perspective, with injury and 

death of both people and their livestock - leading to significant material loss, but the 

resulting death of the “problem” tiger through retribution is a major contributor to the 

tiger’s overall decline (McDougal 1987, Nowell & Jackson 1996, Tilson & Nyhus 1998, 

Tilson et al. 2001, Nyhus & Tilson 2004). 

The specific causal factors behind recent tiger-human conflict in and around the FMU, 

resulting in 11 conflict events during the last 5 years, could not be ascertained during 

this study. Forest clearance and/or intensive disturbance by logging are the most likely 

causes when we consider the evidence from human-tiger conflict observed in other 

areas of Sumatra. However, this and previous studies have been plagued by the 

difficulties of identifying direct causal relationship, due to the acts of forest clearance 

and logging being confounded by the increased probability of encounters between 

tigers and humans due to high density of people in the forest. Nyhus & Tilson (2004) 

have described in detail similar findings in intermediate disturbance areas such as 



multiple–use forests where tigers and people co-exist. In the Sundarbans, where 100- 

150 people are killed each year by tigers, the frequency of human deaths is highest in 

areas, and at times, when large numbers of people are present in the forest 

(Helalsiddiqui 1998). Ecologically, if forest is cleared or in some other way made suboptimal 

for tigers (such as over-harvesting of prey species) tigers may be forced to prey 

on humans or their livestock. Whatever the specific underlying causes, surveys carried 

out as a component of this assessment indicate that a high proportion (39%) of local 

communities perceive land-clearing to be a primary factor leading to conflict, making it 

important that positive steps are taken by the FMU management to mitigate conflict 

wherever possible. 

With respect to this in the Serapung FMU it is recommended that a habitat corridor be 

maintained between the wider forested landscape (to the west of the FMU) and the setaside 

forests within the FMU - enabling tigers to continue to hunt in set-aside and 

coastal areas without having to pass close to human settlements (including those of 

FMU employees/contractors). Additionally the corridor should not be directly adjacent 

to human-inhabited areas, both to reduce the likelihood of human tiger encounters and 

to lessen the exploitation of the forested corridor by the local community. 

The rate and direction of forest clearance and the width of the harvesting-front, are 

factors that should also be considered by FMU managers concerned about tigerhuman 

conflict. Tigers and other wildlife can be driven away from the advancing front of 

clearance without the opportunity to assimilate into a new habitat range. If the direction 

of travel of the harvesting-front is in line with, or advancing towards, human settlements 

(such as the village along the Yos Trail) tigers will be driven into conflict situations. 

Despite prevailing Indonesian laws and regulations to the contrary, the use of snaretraps 

and hunting of ungulates is common in the study area. Such hunting reduces the 

prey biomass available for tigers which could impact on the sustainability of the habitat 

for the current population level (see: Karanth & Stith 1999) and may eventually cause a 

reduced population level, even local extinction, in line with reduced carrying capacity. 

At the very least significantly reduced prey-abundance in the local area will increase 

the probability of tigers preying upon livestock and people. 

An additional threat to the tiger population is that tigers can be killed or injured by such 

snares. On three occasions since 2000 tigers have been caught in deer snares within 

the FMU, leading to the confirmed death of two of these tigers after they were unable to 

release themselves. Without active measures to prevent such illegal activities it is 

expected that more tigers will be killed in this manner in the future. No strong evidence 

was found regarding specific poaching of tiger for trade in body-parts, although in 2003 

a conflict tiger was killed by Yos Trail villagers in defence against further attacks and its 

bones later sold to travelling traders. The low levels of tiger poaching in this region are 

possibly linked to the strong local belief system, which centres around the tiger’s 

revered position as a community and social “guardian”. 

5.5 Conclusions Derived from this <strong>Assessment</strong> 

The constraints of time and the extensive area over which this study was conducted 

limited the scope of conclusions that could be drawn. Forest fires and theft of remote 

cameras from within and around the FMU also presented unforeseeable limitations on 

the intensity of camera monitoring which could be achieved. Despite these factors, the 

data collected was sufficient to draw conclusions relating to key aspects of tiger 

population status within and around the FMU and provide further conclusions relating 

to the interaction of the FMU tiger population with that in the wider forest landscape. 

The main conclusions, summarised below, are further developed in Section 6 with 

respect to the <strong>HCVF</strong> delineation process. 



• The PSF in and around the FMU, although modified by canals, previous HPH 

logging operations and ongoing illegal logging, provides an excellent habitat for 

tigers, with abundance of prey and tiger secondary signs at least comparable to 

other lowland forest types. 

• A breeding population of tigers exists in and around the FMU, and these tigers 

utilise the majority of the indicative <strong>HCVF</strong> (logging moratorium) area and other 

areas with forest cover within the FMU. 

• Evidence suggests that tigers still utilise (particularly for hunting) the remaining 

forests of the Tandjung Datuk area in the south-east of the FMU. 

• The current utilisation of habitat by tigers is higher in the forested areas outside 

the FMU (even although immediately adjacent) rather than inside. This is likely 

to be related to the high levels of ongoing human disturbance inside the FMU. 

Further work to measure the density of tigers in PSF over a wide area is 

urgently required to provide more extensive base-line data. 

• Tigers present in the FMU are a component of an extensive and contiguous 

tiger population existing in the Siak-Pelalawan forest block which, collectively, 

represent one of the largest populations of tigers remaining in Sumatra. The 

tigers utilising FMU forests are threatened with becoming isolated from the 

wider landscape, due to ongoing conversion of forests in areas adjacent to the 

FMU, unless forests surrounding Tasik Pinang lake are protected. 

• By 2007 TCU 150 is predicted to have become separated into two isolated and 

much reduced constituent blocks, with a maximum of 305,000 ha of natural 

forest remaining in the Siak-Pelalawan block. In a forest block of this size the 

potential exists for maintaining a tiger population of up to 90 individuals 

(independently viable over the long-term providing effective protection and 

conservation management is implemented). However, given historic and current 

forest conversion trends in this particular region (where all HPH areas are 

progressively converted to HTI and/or oil-palm) it is reasonable to assume that 

only forest within areas which are currently protected ((~40,000 ha) will be 

maintained beyond 2009. None of these areas are large enough to maintain 

viable tiger populations, and extinction of all tigers in the Siak-Pelalawan forest 

block is therefore inevitable given current land-use planning. 

• In recent years tiger conflict has led to the death or serious injury of at least five 

people (11 total conflict events) in and around the FMU. It is anticipated that this 

problem will be intensified by further land clearance. As a preventative measure 

forest connectivity should be maintained between the set-aside forests in the 

FMU and the greater Siak-Pelalawan forest block. Land clearance methods 

should be modified to ensure that tigers are not driven into regions inhabited by 

humans. 

• In order to ensure the long-term viability of tigers in the Siak-Pelalawan forest 

block there is an immediate need for the creation of an extensive, landscapelevel 

conservation area. Preliminary analysis of tiger status in the region 

dictates that 250,000 ha of contiguous Peat Swamp Forest would provide the 

minimal area required to ensure independent, long-term conservation of tigers 

here. Without such intervention, tigers are doomed to local extinction in the 

medium-term across the Siak-Pelalawan area. 



6 Interpretation of Results with Respect to <strong>HCVF</strong> 

In order to facilitate the process of delineating tiger <strong>HCVF</strong> for the Serapung FMU, the 

results of this assessment are interpreted within the <strong>HCVF</strong> framework. Both landscapelevel 

and FMU-level approaches are considered, and the specific outcomes for HCV1.2 

under the two approaches are integrated in order to identify appropriate options for 

<strong>HCVF</strong> delineation in the FMU. Landscape-level considerations are emphasised where 

these are recognised as of critical importance for FMU-level <strong>HCVF</strong> delineation. Finally, 

management recommendations are identified for enhancement and maintenance of the 

tiger HCV both within the FMU and across the wider Siak-Pelalawan landscape. 

6.1 Tiger <strong>HCVF</strong> at the Siak-Pelalawan Landscape Scale 

Peat swamp forest is a recognised but poorly understood Sumatran tiger habitat, and is 

the dominant ecotype found across the Siak-Pelalawan landscape. Given this, and in 

accordance with guidelines provided by ProForest’s Sourcebook for Landscape 

Analysis of High Conservation Value Forests, the entire forested area of the Siak- 

Pelalawan block should be assumed to support the Sumatran tiger HCV in the absence 

of data to the contrary. A landscape of this scale (425,000 ha) is potentially able to 

support between 42 and 160 individuals (based on Sumatran tiger densities 

established for other habitat types), is independently viable given appropriate 

conservation management, and should be considered to contribute significantly to the 

viability of the Sumatran tiger subspecies as a whole. In this precautionary approach to 

<strong>HCVF</strong> analysis the landscape is therefore classified as <strong>HCVF</strong> based on HCV 1.2. 

This assessment represents the first published field study of the Sumatran tiger within 

the Siak-Pelalawan forest block and, more generally, in the PSF habitat type. It 

confirms that tigers are present in the landscape. Furthermore, prey abundance and 

prey species composition were found to be similar to that found in other lowland habitat 

types of Sumatra and, if extrapolated widely across the Siak-Pelalawan Block, 

suggests that the Siak-Pelalawan block is capable of supporting high densities of 

tigers. Given these assumptions, the Siak-Pelalawan block maintains one of the largest 

remaining contiguous populations of the Sumatran tiger (12-18% of total wild Sumatran 

tigers), representing a vital contribution to viability of the sub-species, further confirming 

the classification of the entire Siak-Pelalawan forest block as <strong>HCVF</strong> when considered 

at the landscape-level. 

The preliminary landscape-level <strong>HCVF</strong> analysis carried out during this assessment 

highlights the need for a more comprehensive study across the Siak-Pelalawan block. 

While <strong>HCVF</strong> landscape-level analysis may provide an appropriate framework for such 

a study, it is essential that sufficient time be invested in fieldwork in order that 

geographically widespread and robust data regarding tiger distribution, density, prey 

abundance and habitat quality can be achieved. 

6.2 Identification of Tiger <strong>HCVF</strong> at the FMU Level 

Within the FMU the moratorium area is utilised to at least some extent by a minimum of 

one tiger (HCV 1.2 is therefore present), while a minimum of two additional tiger 

individuals were identified in forests adjacent to the moratorium area, but likely to utilise 

forests within the FMU for substantial proportions of their ecological and home-ranging 

requirements. No significant concentrations of tigers were found within the moratorium 

area (HCV 1.3 not present) and there is a strong contrast in the relative abundance of 

tigers observed from forests within the FMU (low) and those forests outside and 

adjacent to the FMU (high). Incontrovertible secondary reports also confirm that tigers 

continue to inhabit the Tanjung Datuk peninsula, and that the eastern Konservasi and 



Unggulan zones of the FMU continue to be traversed by tigers as they travel from 

Tandjung Datuk to the inland forests adjacent and to the west of the FMU. 

In relation to the tiger’s habitat within the FMU the prey abundance in the moratorium 

area is sufficient for tigers, though not qualitatively different to prey abundance in the 

wider adjacent forests. Prey species extraction through snaring and hunting by local 

people in the recently opened moratorium area is ongoing and is predicted, over the 

near-term, to further reduce the prey biomass available and increase the risk of 

accidental trapping of tigers. Other types of human disturbance are also expected to 

continue to be high in this coastal and easily accessible region, further reducing its 

suitability for tigers without a much higher investment in conservation management and 

protection. The tiger HCV present is therefore also considered at risk due to human 

activities facilitated by easy access from the coastline. 

The ProForest <strong>HCVF</strong> Toolkit defines High Conservation Value Forests as the area 

required to maintain or enhance an HCV within the FMU. At the FMU-level the Toolkit 

states that any part of an assessment area that has been identified as a priority site 

for threatened or critically endangered species (HCV1.2) will normally be considered as 

<strong>HCVF</strong>. However, at the FMU-level such definitions are not well suited to considerations 

of “coarse-grained’, wide-ranging species such as the Sumatran tiger – whose 

existence and ranging patterns, even for single individuals, extend well beyond the 

geographical confines of any particular FMU or FMU sub-unit. 

As a guideline for delineation of tiger <strong>HCVF</strong> in the Serapung FMU the SmartWood 

<strong>HCVF</strong> report suggests that if “If confirmed not to be present within the FMU, or the 

FMU does not constitute an integral portion of the habitat and range of the tiger 

population, then this <strong>HCVF</strong> will not exist within the FMU”. The findings of this 

assessment confirm that the moratorium area, in terms of its size (i.e., less than 2% of 

the total Siak-Pelalawan forest block) and its location (i.e., it is not a corridor or area 

vital for connectivity), cannot be considered to currently represent an integral portion (a 

critically important or essential component) of the Siak-Pelalawan tiger habitat 

landscape – and therefore <strong>HCVF</strong> cannot be declared on this basis. 

Under such guidelines only a very large FMU, or one which provides essential habitat 

connectivity, could be considered to represent a critical component of the wider tiger 

landscape and therefore be recognised as <strong>HCVF</strong>. Under such guidelines a series of 

<strong>HCVF</strong> assessments, carried out in several different FMU sub-components of a tiger 

habitat landscape, would consistently find no strong justification for delineation of tiger 

<strong>HCVF</strong> on the FMU scale - even though at a landscape level <strong>HCVF</strong> status is clearly 

appropriate. Viable landscape-level tiger populations run the risk of being iteratively lost 

to forest conversion through successive <strong>HCVF</strong> assessments at the FMU level. 

Clearly more stringent criteria are required in order to appropriately address the <strong>HCVF</strong> 

requirements for tigers when assessed at the FMU level. Currently this is not facilitated 

by Indonesian and generic <strong>HCVF</strong> Toolkits – which recommend the identification of 

“priority sites” for endangered or threatened species as the basis for <strong>HCVF</strong> delineation, 

where measures of the FMU’s contribution to population survival in the adjacent 

landscape often becomes the threshold for <strong>HCVF</strong> decisions. 

6.3 Importance of Considering Future Landscape Context Scenarios 

A further limitation regarding the FMU-scale <strong>HCVF</strong> process for tigers arises from the 

limited amount of data relating to future tiger viability and habitat availability in the wider 

landscape. For the Sumatran tiger in the Siak-Pelalawan block an outcome of this is 

that it is impossible to assess a FMU’s future contribution to tiger viability given such 

uncertainty in the wider landscape. While the FMU may not currently present an 

integral or critical contribution to wider landscape tiger viability (see section 6.2 above), 



it is by no means obvious that in the future this will remain the case. In this section the 

importance of considering future Siak-Pelalawan tiger conservation landscape 

scenarios is introduced. The authors consider the future status and condition of the 

Siak-Pelalawan block to be a critical determinant of whether delineation of <strong>HCVF</strong> in the 

Serapung FMU is appropriate. 

Based on currently known land conversion plans in the Siak-Pelalawan forest block it is 

predicted that a maximum 305,000 ha of PSF tiger habitat will remain by 2007, 

sufficient to support a viable tiger population over the medium to long-term of between 

30 and 90 individuals. However, the current extent of protected forest in this block 

(about 40,000 ha) represents the only area certain to remain in 2007 given current 

rates of forest conversion. By itself this predicted area of remaining forest is inadequate 

to maintain a viable population of tigers. Three scenarios are proposed here as 

descriptions of likely future habitat trends affecting the FMU’s potential contribution to 

maintaining a viable tiger population in the wider landscape: 

1. The first of these scenarios is the conversion of forest habitat immediately adjacent 

to the FMU, leading to isolation of the moratorium area from the wider landscape. 

Even if the moratorium forests remain fully intact, the limited size and isolation of 

this remaining habitat would not support a viable tiger population on its own, and 

local extinction in the FMU is assured. The moratorium area cannot be considered 

as HCV 1.2 if this scenario is regarded as a likely future outcome. 

2. A second scenario assumes the gradual conversion of the Siak-Pelalawan block 

resulting in a progressively diminishing total area of habitat available for tigers, but 

where connectivity between the FMU and the wider landscape is maintained. Under 

such conditions the contribution and significance of the moratorium area for tigers 

will increase with time as the wider landscape diminishes, from its currently low 

relative contribution to a point in time where it may become critical for survival and 

viability of the wider population. Under these circumstances the moratorium area 

would certainly represent HCV 1.2 in the future, and would therefore need to be 

declared now as such. 

3. A third scenario for the Siak-Pelalawan block relates to multi-stakeholder support in 

the development of an extensive, landscape level conservation area which is 

sufficient to support a viable population of Sumatran tigers within the Siak- 

Pelalawan block. If the scale and protection of such a conservation area was 

sufficient to sustain a viable tiger population then the habitat contribution of the 

FMU, which are considered sub-optimal presently, would not have the same 

relative value as they do under scenario 2 above. Under this scenario the current 

FMU forests would not contribute significantly to maintenance of the future tiger 

HCV population in the wider landscape. With or without connectivity to the wider 

landscape, under this scenario the conservation objectives of the HCV would be 

satisfied in neighbouring protected forests. 

In summary, the current decision as to whether HCV 1.2 for tigers is present within the 

FMU is dependent upon which of the above scenarios most accurately describes the 

future landscape context. Under such circumstances, where there is uncertainty 

whether the moratorium area indeed plays an integral role within this future landscape, 

the appropriate <strong>HCVF</strong> response is to invoke a precautionary approach and declare the 

moratorium area as <strong>HCVF</strong> (where the future status of HCV 1.2 in the wider landscape 

remains uncertain). This declaration should be subject to periodic review and could be 

revoked if the area is demonstrated to no longer enhance or maintain the HCV. 

Finally, the limitations of <strong>HCVF</strong> process relating to the evaluation of critically 

endangered, wide-ranging and low-density species at the FMU scale further highlight 

the need to develop tiger-specific HCV “thresholds” and <strong>HCVF</strong> delineation protocol for 

use across Sumatra. 



6.4 General Conclusions Relating to Tiger <strong>HCVF</strong> Delineation 

For a “fine-grained” HCV species, where the habitat within the FMU is sufficient to 

maintain a viable population independent of external landscape influences, FMU level 

analysis becomes a powerful tool that facilitates the FMU to manage and enhance that 

HCV. However, for a wide-ranging, low population density, “coarse-grained” species 

such as the Sumatran tiger, where the habitat needs of a viable population (or even a 

single individual) are often likely to be greater than that provided by any particular 

FMU, consideration of the wider landscape is essential in determining whether FMUlevel 

<strong>HCVF</strong> is appropriate. 

Population viability of a “coarse-grained” species is highly dependent upon the 

condition of a large-area landscape. As such, delineation of <strong>HCVF</strong> at the FMU-level 

cannot be made with certainty in the absence of predictability regarding future land-use 

and habitat availability in this wider landscape. 

Under such circumstances where no landscape-level <strong>HCVF</strong> has been carried out 

and/or where uncertainty regarding future landscape and HCV viability exists, it may be 

tempting to invoke the precautionary principle. However the unpredictability of the 

future landscape context implicit in the use of the precautionary approach cannot 

guarantee conservation benefits in return for the financial and/or management 

investments incurred. A preferable approach for all parties is that which seeks to 

minimise uncertainty, avoids the use of the precautionary principle, and provides a 

realistic and achievable set of conservation goals for a discrete level of investment. 

By contrast, a landscape-level <strong>HCVF</strong> analysis will generally provide more appropriate 

guidelines for conservation enhancement of a “coarse-grained” species. FMU-level 

<strong>HCVF</strong> assessments can then be implemented within the overall context provided by 

these landscape-level, base-line assessments, thus ensuring that FMU-level 

management decisions defer to the landscape-level template wherever appropriate. 

However, there is currently no legal mechanism in Indonesia that requires an FMU to 

abide by the results of a landscape-level <strong>HCVF</strong>. In return, it is rarely possible for an 

environmentally responsible FMU to be able to influence conservation efforts in the 

wider landscape. Despite these obvious limitations there are still opportunities for 

FMUs and their corporate owners to be proactive in the processes that determine the 

future land-use and status of landscape level forests. 

The line of argument above has considerable relevance for the Siak-Pelalawan forest 

block described in this report. Given the extent of remaining habitat, the maintenance 

of a sustainable tiger population in the Siak-Pelalawan block is not incompatible with 

further forest conversion providing a rational approach to land conversion and habitat 

conservation is enforced. 

A first step in the process of rationalising land-use should be a short-term moratorium 

on the granting of further licences for forest exploitation across this forest block. A 

second step should be the implementation of a comprehensive study to assess the 

tiger’s (and other biodiversity target’s) status, distribution and threats in the landscape 

– leading to the delineation of a conservation area independently sufficient to maintain 

a viable population of tigers. Recommended to be at least 250,000 ha in size, the 

conservation area should consist of at least 100,000 ha of strictly protected core 

forests. The remaining habitat components of the conservation area (approximately 

150,000 ha) could either be assigned production forest status (but devoted to 

sustainable forestry activities with regulatory limitations against clear-felling), or may 

represent conservation “set-aside” areas within the FMUs of adjacent industrial forestry 

concessions. 

Given the results of the landscape- and FMU-level analyses described here it is 

recommended that the current logging moratorium within the Serapung FMU should be 



maintained until such a time that a comprehensive <strong>HCVF</strong> (or similarly detailed habitat 

and population viability) assessment has been conducted within the Siak-Pelalawan 

landscape, and a formal declaration has been made by local government and other 

stakeholders to create a PSF conservation area in this landscape which is capable of 

supporting an independently viable population of tigers. 

With reference to Serapung district, due to the FMU’s location on the coastline, easily 

accessible by people, resulting in high levels of human disturbance (facilitating tiger 

poaching and prey-species harvesting by local communities) and habitat degradation 

(due to illegal logging), the costs of maintaining the tiger in the Serapung habitat will 

always be high relative to the limited conservation benefits accrued. Furthermore, the 

position of the FMU on the periphery of the Siak-Pelalawan landscape, therefore not 

vital for habitat connectivity, makes it a low priority candidate for inclusion in any future 

conservation area network. 

6.5 <strong>HCVF</strong> Recommendations for Tigers in the Serapung FMU 

The findings presented in this report form the basis for recommendations relating to 

<strong>HCVF</strong> delineation options for tigers in the Serapung FMU. The final SmartWood/APP 

decision regarding delineation of <strong>HCVF</strong> should, for reasons outlined in previous 

sections, be dependent upon the best available data regarding future tiger habitat 

status in the wider landscape. A follow-up landscape-level <strong>HCVF</strong> assessment, as 

proposed in section 6.1 above, would assist this decision-making process. However, 

given the need for immediate management action, the two <strong>HCVF</strong> options 

recommended here are designed to be implemented sequentially, moving from Option 

1 to Option 2 in accordance with changing conditions and as a response to increasing 

future certainty regarding viability of tigers in the wider landscape. Option 1 below 

(section 6.5.1) represents an instant response to current conditions in the FMU, 

requiring extension of the current logging moratorium in the indicative <strong>HCVF</strong> area as 

previously defined by SmartWood. Some additional areas of FMU priority tiger habitat 

are incorporated into this option. Option 2 (described in section 6.5.2) is recommended 

as a replacement for <strong>HCVF</strong> Option 1, but appropriate only after a viable tiger 

population has been secured in the Siak-Pelalawan forest block, or when the FMU can 

be confirmed to have a low contribution (relative to other available habitat areas) to the 

overall viability of tigers in this wider landscape. <strong>HCVF</strong> in Option 2, where partial 

conversion of the current moratorium area is permitted, is primarily focused on 

mitigating conflict between remaining tigers and adjacent human communities. 

6.5.1 Option 1: Extension of Moratorium in Indicative <strong>HCVF</strong> Area 

This <strong>HCVF</strong> option is recommended for immediate adoption as a temporary tiger 

<strong>HCVF</strong> in advance of the completion of a landscape-level assessment and 

development of an independent tiger conservation area in the wider Siak- 

Pelalawan forest block. If a viable population of tigers in the Siak-Pelalawan block 

can not be achieved in this way, or in the event that a landscape-level 

assessment of the wider landscape concludes that the Serapung moratorium 

area provides a critical contribution to long-term, regional tiger population 

viability, then this <strong>HCVF</strong> delineation option is also considered to be the most 

appropriate for long-term implementation. 

Delineation of the <strong>HCVF</strong> follows the boundaries of the current SmartWood 

logging moratorium (indicative <strong>HCVF</strong> area) and includes “set-aside” forests on 

the eastern side of the FMU. Forests in Tandjung Datuk are also included as part 

of this <strong>HCVF</strong> for tigers (see Figure 24). Long-term adoption of this <strong>HCVF</strong> option 

will necessitate that the canals within the moratorium area are filled in order to 



preserve the forest as close as possible to its natural state and to reduce 

accessibility for exploitation by local communities. 

The success of implementation of this <strong>HCVF</strong> is sensitive to ongoing social 

conflicts between the company and inhabitants of the Yos Trail village. Any 

conservation area of natural forests developed in close proximity to these people 

will not succeed while these land disputes remain unresolved. 

Figure 24. Option 1: Proposed <strong>HCVF</strong> delineation for tigers as an extension of the 

logging moratorium area defined by SmartWood; including the designation of 

forests in the Tandjung Datuk area as <strong>HCVF</strong> for tigers. 

6.5.2 Option 2: Phased Conversion of the Indicative <strong>HCVF</strong> Area 

If clearing of the current moratorium area was to occur then habitat connectivity 

will be lost between the wider forested landscape to the west, and the FMU 

conservation areas and coastal scrub-lands of Tandjung Datuk to the east/southeast. 

Spatial consideration of remaining habitat suggests that tigers, as they 

continue to attempt to reach the prey-rich secondary forests of Tandjung Datuk, 

will either travel directly across the production areas of the FMU, or they will 

utilise the scrub-land fringes associated with the Yos village to the north. Both 

scenarios will promote increased probabilities of contact between tigers, FMU 

employees and adjacent villagers. Local perceptions of villagers, and the 

overwhelming weight of scientific evidence related to tiger-human conflict, 

suggests that this close proximity will be associated with increasing levels of 

human-tiger conflict in the near future. It is therefore critical to maintain a corridor 

within the FMU, parallel to but at some distance from the moratorium area’s 

northern boundary and Yos village, which can serve as an east-west corridor for 

tigers moving between these two regions (Figure 25). 



It is recommended that the corridor be situated such that it allows connectivity to 

the forest surrounding Lake Tasik Pinang as this forest is most likely to be 

allocated protected status in the future, therefore maximising the likelihood that 

connectivity can be maintained between the eastern forest fringe within the FMU 

and the greater Siak-Pelalawan forest block. It is further recommended that the 

corridor be 1.5 km wide; sufficient width for the tiger to utilise naturally, while 

offering some resilience to edge-effects, human disturbance and extensive 

damage due to fire. The tiger-related needs and conservation status of this <strong>HCVF</strong> 

area should be reviewed periodically (2 year intervals is recommended), reverting 

to production forest if tigers cease to exist in the eastern “set-aside” forests and 

Tanjung Datuk region to the south. 

The successful implementation of such a habitat corridor is sensitive to ongoing 

social conflicts between the company and inhabitants of the Yos Trail village. Any 

corridor, buffer zone or conservation area of natural forests developed in close 

proximity to these people will not succeed while these disputes remain 

unresolved, and while the risks of illegal logging remain high. Ideally the tiger 

corridor and tiger-human conflict buffer zone areas should be planned and 

implemented in tandem with the resolution of the Yos village land disputes. 

Figure 25. Option 2: Proposed <strong>HCVF</strong> delineation where partial clearance of the 

moratorium area is permitted. This <strong>HCVF</strong> provides a 1.5 km wide corridor which 

allows for tigers to continue utilising “set-aside” forests to the east of the FMU 

and the prey-rich forests at Tandjung Datuk, while minimising likelihood of 

human-tiger conflict. Forests around Tasik Pinang Lake are most likely to achieve 

protected status in the future, thus the likelihood of preserving habitat 

connectivity between FMU and the wider Siak-Pelalawan forest is maximised. 



6.6 Other Management Recommendations for the Tiger HCV 

• Where tiger <strong>HCVF</strong> is delineated within the FMU, a small-scale grassroots 

community awareness program should be implemented to facilitate local 

communities’ understanding and support for tiger conservation. This could form 

part of the FMU/local community human-tiger conflict resolution process. 

• Active measures should be taken to patrol the <strong>HCVF</strong> forest areas, in cooperation 

with forestry police, to ensure that the tiger, its prey, and habitat are protected. 

• Land clearance practices within the FMU, carried out in relation to future 

conversion of the non-<strong>HCVF</strong> remnants of the original moratorium area, should be 

implemented in recognition of the need to avoid conflict between tigers and 

people - by clearing in the direction away from centres of human population 

density. 

• In the event of tiger-human conflict occurring, either within the FMU or in villages 

and forests immediately adjacent to it, an expert team should be assigned to 

evaluate and implement a course of follow-up action in line with the provincially 

approved Human-Tiger Conflict Protocol. Land-clearing activities should be 

immediately suspended while the assessment is carried out. Avoidance of human 

casualties, and the minimisation of conflict between the company and local 

communities, should be the primary motivation for this approach. 



7 Overview 

• The Sumatran tiger is critically endangered and threatened with extinction due to 

restricted and increasingly fragmented habitat, and poaching across its range. 

• PSF is an important component of the remaining habitat available for the Sumatran 

tiger. The Siak-Pelalawan forest block represents one the largest areas of 

contiguous lowland forest in Sumatra. 

• The results of this study suggest that PSF in the Siak-Pelalawan forest, as tiger 

habitat, is at least equivalent to other lowland forest types. The results of this study 

support the assumption that all areas of the remaining natural forest within this 

block, including that within the FMU, form part of a very significant tiger population 

whose loss would significantly impact on the overall viability of the sub-species. 

• Large sections of the PSF within the Siak-Pelalawan forest will be converted to 

acacia and oil-palm plantations in the next few years. Given the past trends of 

converting logging concessions into industrial timber plantations it appears likely 

that only designated conservation areas will remain in the future. At present only a 

few poorly protected, spatially separated, protected areas exist within this forest 

block in isolation - insufficient to maintain a viable tiger population in the long-term. 

• <strong>HCVF</strong> analysis, which can be carried out at a landscape or FMU-level, is a 

systematic process to identify forests that have biological, physical, and/or 

sociological values This study was commissioned as a supplement to an FMU level 

<strong>HCVF</strong> assessment. However, as the Sumatran tiger is a wide-ranging, “coarsegrained” 

species, living at low densities over large areas, it was found essential to 

conduct a preliminary landscape level <strong>HCVF</strong> analysis in order to provide a context 

for <strong>HCVF</strong> decisions at the FMU level. 

• The preliminary landscape-level analysis found that there was a strong justification 

for development of a conservation area network of protected and production forests 

in order to ensure survival of the tiger in the Siak-Pelalawan forest block. However, 

a further landscape level assessment is a necessary pre-cursor in this process. 

• The FMU-level analysis could not provide a definitive answer as to whether the 

moratorium area within the FMU should be classified as <strong>HCVF</strong>, primarily due to the 

uncertainty of future land-use within the greater Siak-Pelalawan block and the 

forested areas immediately adjacent to the FMU. However, it is recommended that 

the SmartWood recommended logging moratorium remain in place until such time 

that a comprehensive landscape-level assessment has been conducted, and a 

multi-stakeholder declaration of intent made in relation to the creation of a 

conservation area network in the wider Siak-Pelalawan block. 

• The moratorium area represents only a fraction of the remaining available habitat in 

the landscape, and is not critical for overall landscape connectivity. As such the 

moratorium area is unlikely to represent a significant contribution to the viability of a 

tiger population in a future landscape-level conservation network. However, in the 

absence of certainty regarding the future condition of the Siak-Pelalawan block, all 

habitat components of the current landscape should be considered, for the timebeing, 

to provide potentially critical contributions to future tiger survival. 

• Ultimately, a tiger-related <strong>HCVF</strong> in the Serapung FMU should be delineated with 

reference to the likely habitat scenarios of the future landscape. Decisions made in 

reference to this tiger <strong>HCVF</strong> will set a precedent for environmentally responsible 

production forestry, for the application of <strong>HCVF</strong> analysis to wide-ranging, critically 

endangered species, and for the future of wild tigers in both the Siak-Pelalawan 

forest block and in other industrial forestry dominated landscapes across Sumatra. 



8 Bibliography 

Bennett, E. Dahaban, Z. (1995) Wildlife responses to disturbances in Sarawak and 

their implications for forest management. Ecology, Conservation, and Management of South 

Asian Rainforests (eds. R. Primack, T. Lovejoy) pp. 66-86. Yale University Press, New 

Haven and London. 

Brook, B. O’Grady, J. Chapman, A. Burgman, M. Akcakaya, R. & Frankham, R. (2000) 

Predictive accuracy of population viability analysis in conservation biology. Nature. 404 

385-387 

Carbone, C., Christie, S., Conforti, K., Coulson, T., Franklin, N., Ginsberg, J. R., 

Griffiths, M., Holden, J., Kawanishi, K., Kinnaird, M., Laidlaw, R., Lynam, A., 

Macdonald, D. W., Martyr, D., McDougal, C., Nath, L., O’Brien, T., Seidensticker, J., 

Smith, D. J. L., Sunquist, M., Tilson, R. & Wan Shahruddin, W. N. (2001) The use of 

photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals. Animal 

Conservation 4, 75-79. 

Collins, M., Sayer, J. A. & Whitmore, T. C. (ed.) (1991) The conservation atlas of tropical 

forests: Asia and the Pacific. New York: Simon and Schuster. 

Coulson, T. Mace, G. Hudson, E. & Possingham, H. (2001) The use and abuse of 

population viability analysis. TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution. 16 (5) 220-221 

Crnokrak, P. & Roff, D. A. 1999 Inbreeding depression in the wild. Heredity 83 260-270. 

Cutler, T. L. & Swann, D. E. (1999) Using remote photography in wildlife ecology: A 

review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27 571-581. 

Davies,G. & Payne, J. (1982) A faunal survey of Sabah. WWF Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 

Decker, K. J. & Chase, L. C. (1997) Human dimensions of living with wildlife – a 

management challenge for the 21st century. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25 788-795. 

Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E., Robinson, J., Karanth, U. K., Rabinowitz, A., Olson, 

D., Mathew, T., Hedao, P., Connor, M., Hemley, G. & Bolze, D. (1997) A framework for 

identifying high priority areas and actions for the conservation of tigers in the wild. Part 1. 

World Wildlife Fund-US and Wildlife Conservation Society, Washington DC. 

Ellis, S. & Seal, U. S. 1995 Tools of the trade to aid decision making for species’ 

survival. Biodiversity Conservation 4 553-572. 

Fahrig, L. & Merriam, G. 1994 Conservation of fragmented populations. Conservation 

Biology 8 50-59. 

Faust, T. & Tilson, R. L. (1994) Estimating how many tigers are in Sumatra: A 

beginning. In Sumatran tiger population and habitat viability analysis report (ed. R. L. 

Tilson, K. Soemarna, W. Ramono, S. Lusli, K. Traylor-Holzer, & U. S. Seal), pp. 11-38. 

Apple Valley, Minnesota: Indonesian Directorate of Forest Protection and Nature 

Conservation and IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group. 

Fearnside, P. (1997) Transmigration in Indonesia: Lessons from its environmental and 

social impacts. Environmental Management 21 553-570. 

Forester, D. J. & Machlis, G. E. (1996) Modeling human factors that affect the loss of 

biodiversity. Conservation Biology 10 1253-1263. 

Foresman, K. & Pearson, D. E. (1998) Comparison of proposed survey procedures for 

detection of forest carnivores. Journal of Wildlife Management 62 1217-1226. 

Franklin, N. (2002) Conservation biology of the Sumatran tiger in Way Kambas National 

Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. PhD. Thesis, University of York, UK. 



Franklin, N., Bastoni, Sriyanto, Siswomartono, D., Manansang, J. & Tilson, R. (1999a) 

Last of the Indonesian tigers: A cause for optimism. In Riding the tiger: Tiger conservation 

in human-dominated landscapes (ed. J. Seidensticker, S. Christie, & P. Jackson), pp. 130- 

147. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Franklin, N., Bastoni, Sriyanto, Siswomartono, D., Manansang, J. & Tilson, R. (1999b) 

Using tiger stripes to identify individual tigers. In Riding the tiger: Tiger conservation in 

human-dominated landscapes (ed. J. Seidensticker, S. Christie, & P. Jackson), pp. 138- 


FSC, Forest Stewardship Council (2001) FSC Principles and Criteria. Forest 

Stewardship Council. 

FWI/GFW. (2002) The State of the Forest: Indonesia. Forest Watch Indonesia, Bogor, 

Indonesia and: Global Forest Watch, Washington DC. 

Gadgil, M. V. (1992) Conserving biodiversity as if people mattered: Case study from 

India. Ambio 12 266-279. 

Galdikas, B. (1978) Orang Hutan adaptation at Tanjung Putting Reserve, Central Borneo. 

Ph.D. Thesis,University of California, Los Angeles. 

Gillis, M. (1988) Indonesia: Public policies, resource management and the tropical 

forest. In Public policies and the misuse of forest resources (ed. R. Repetton & M. Gillis). 

World Resources Institute/Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Ginsberg, J. & Woodroffe, R. (1998) Edge effects and the extinction of populations 

inside protected areas. Science 280 2126-2128. 

Guggisberg, C. (1975) Wild cats of the world. Taplinger Publishing Co., New York, USA. 

Griffiths, M. (1994) Population density of Sumatran tigers in Gunung Leuser National 

Park. In Sumatran tiger population and habitat viability analysis report (ed. R. Tilson, K. 

Soemarna, W. Ramono, S. Lusli, K. Traylor-Holzer, & U. Seal), pp. 93-102. Apple 

Valley, Minnesota: Indonesian Directorate of Forest Protection and Nature 


Griffiths, M. & van Schaik, C. P. (1993a) Camera-trapping: a new tool for the study of 

elusive rain forest animals. Tropical Biodiversity 1 131- 135. 

Griffiths, M. & van Schaik, C. P. (1993b) The impact of human traffic on the abundance 

and activity periods of Sumatran rain forest wildlife. Conservation Biology 7 623-626. 

Hanum, I. & Lepun, P. (1999) Tree species composition of Kuala Langat North peat 

swampforest, Selangor. International Symposium on Tropical Peatlands – Safeguarding a 

Global Natural Resource. Universiti Sains Malaysia,Penang. 

Helalsiddiqui, A. (1998) Present status of wildlife, human casualties by tiger, and 

wildlife conservation in the Sundarbans of Bangladesh. Tigerpaper. 25 (2) 28-32 

Heydon, M. (1994) The ecology and management of rain-forest ungulates in Sabah, Malaysia: 

implications of forest disturbance. Institute of South-east Asian Biology, University of 

Aberdeen. 

Ibrahim, S 1997. Diversity of tree species in Peat Swamp Forest in Peninsular 

Malaysia. In Biodiversity and Sustainability of Tropical Peatlands (ed. J. Rieley & S. Page), 

Samara Publishing, Cardigan. 

Jennelle, C. S., Runge, M. C. & MacKenzie, D. I. (2002) The use of photographic rates 

to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals: a comment on misleading 

conclusions. Animal Conservation 5 119-120. 

Janzen, D. (1974) Tropical blackwater rivers, animals and mast fruiting by the 

Dipterocarpaceae. Biotropica 6 69-103. 



Jepson, P., Jarvie, J. K., MacKinnon, K. & Monk, K. 2001 The end for Indonesia’s 

lowland forests? Science 292 859-861. 

Johns, A. (1983) Ecological effects of selective logging in a West Malaysian rain-forest. 

Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge. 

Johns, A. (1989) Timber, the environment and wildlife in Malaysian rain forests. Final report 

to Institute of South-east Asian Biology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. 

Johns, A. D. 1992. Species conservation in managed forests. In Tropical deforestation 

and species extinction (Ed. T. C. Whitmore, and A. J. Sayer) pp.15-53. Chapman and 

Hall, London, U.K. 

Johns, A. (1997) Timber Production and Biodiversity in Tropical Rain Forests. Cambridge 

University Press. 

Karanth, U. & Sunquist, M. (1995) Prey selection by tiger, leopard and dhole in tropical 

forests. Journal of Animal Ecology 64, 439-50. 

Karanth, K. U. (1987) Tigers in India: A critical review of field censuses. In Tigers of the 

world: The biology, biopolitics, management and conservation of an endangered species (ed. 

R. L. Tilson & U. S. Seal), pp. 118-132. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey. 

Karanth, K. U. 1988 Analysis of predator-prey balance in Bandipur Tiger Reserve with 

reference to census reports. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 85 1-8. 

Karanth, K. U. 1995 Estimating tiger Panthera tigris populations from camera-trap data 

using capture-recapture models. Biological Conservation 71 333-338. 

Karanth, K. U. & Nichols, J. D. (1998) Estimation of tiger densities in India using 

photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79, 2852-2862 

Karanth, K. U. & Stith, B. M. (1999) Prey depletion as a critical determinant of tiger 

population viability. In Riding the tiger: Tiger conservation in human dominated landscapes 

(ed. J. Seidensticker, S. Christie, & P. Jackson), pp. 100-113. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge. 

Karanth, U. Nichols, J. Kumar, S. Link, W. Hines, J (2004) Tigers and their prey: 

Predicting carnivore densities from prey abundance. PNAS 101 (14) 4854–4858 

Kawanishi, K. (2002) Population status of tigers (panthera tigris) in a primary rainforest of 

peninsular Malaysia. PhD. Thesis, University of Florida, USA. 

Lacey, R. C. 1993 VORTEX – a computer simulation model for population viability 

analysis. Wildlife Research 20 45-65. 

Lindenmayer, D. Possingham, H. Lacy, R. McCarthy, M., & Pope, M. (2003) How 

accurate are population models? Lessons from landscape-scale tests in a fragmented 

system. Ecology Letters. 6 41–47. 

Mace, R. D., Minta, S. C., Manley, T. L. & Aune, K. E. (1994) Estimating grizzly bear 

population size using camera sightings. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22 74-83. 

MacKinnon, K. (1983) Report of a WHO consultancy to Indonesia to determine population 

estimates of the cynomolgus or long-tailed macaque Macaca fascicularis (and other primates) 

and feasibility of semi-wild breeding projects of this species. WHO Primate Resources 

Programme Feasibility Study: Phase II. 

MacKinnon, J. (1983) Tanjung Putting National Park. Management plan for development. 

WWF/PPA, Bogor, Indonesia. 

MacKinnon, K. Hatta, G. Halim, H, Mangalik, A. (1996) The Ecology of Kalimantan. 

Periplus Editions. 



Marsden, W. (1966) The history of Sumatra (originally published in 1783). Kuala Lumpur, 

Malaysia: Oxford University Press. 

Marsh, C. Wilson, W. (1981) A survey of primates in Peninsular Malaysia forests. Universiti 

Kebangsaan, Malaysia and University of Cambridge, UK. 

McDougal, C. (1977) The face of the tiger. Rivington Books, London. 

McDougal, C. (1987) The man-eating tiger in geographic and historical perspective. In 

Tigers of the world: The biology, biopolitics, management and conservation of an endangered 

species (ed. R. L. Tilson & U. S. Seal), pp. 435-448. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, 

New Jersey. 

McDougal, C. (1999) You can tell some tigers by their tracks with confidence. In Riding 

the tiger: Tiger conservation in human-dominated landscapes (ed. J. Seidensticker, S. 

Christie, & P. Jackson), pp. 190-191. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

McNeely, J. A. & Miller, K. R. (ed.) (1984) National parks, conservation and development: 

The role of protected areas in sustaining society. Smithsonian Press, Washington DC. 

Medway, Lord (1977) Mammals of Borneo. Field keys and an annotated checklist. 

Monograph of the Royal Asiatic Soceity, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 

Meijaard, E. Sheil, D. Nasi, R. Augeri, D. Rosenbaum, B. Iskandar, J. Setyawati, T. 

Lammertink, M. Rachmatika, I. Wong, A. Soehartono, T. Stanley, S. O’Brien, T. (2005) 

Indonesia Life after logging: Reconciling wildlife conservation and production forestry in 

Indonesian Borneo. CIFOR, Bogor 

Merton, F. (1962) A visit to the Tasek Bera. Malay Nat. J. 16 103-110. 

Ministry of Forestry (1994) Indonesian Sumatran Tiger Conservation Strategy. Ministry of 

Forestry, Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation, Bogor, 

Indonesia. 

Miquelle, D. G., Smirnov, E. N., Quigley, H. G., Hornocker, M. G., Nikolaev, I. G. & 

Matyushkin, E. N. (1996) Food habits of Amur tigers in Sikhote-Alin Zapovednik and 

the Russian Far East, and implications for conservation. Journal of Wildlife Research 1, 

138-147 

Nowell, K & Jackson, P. (1996) Wild cats: Status survey and conservation action plan. Cat 

Specialist Group, World Conservation Union/Species Survival Commission, IUCN, 

Gland, Switzerland. 

Nyhus, P. (1999) Elephants, tigers and transmigrants: Conflict and conservation at Way 

Kambas National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Wisconsin- 

Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. 

Nyhus, P. Tilson, R. (2004) Charecterizing human-tiger conflict in Sumatra, Indonesia: 

implications for conservation, Oryx. 38 (1) 68-73 

Nyhus,P. Tilson, R. (in press) Agroforestry, elephants, and tigers: balancing 

conservation theory and practice in human-dominated landscapes of Southeast Asia. 

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 

Ojasti, J. (1991) Human exploitation of capybara. In Neotropical wildlife use and 

conservation (Ed. J. G. Robinson and K. H. Redford)pp. 236-252. University of Chicago 

Press, Chicago, USA. 

Panwar, H. S. (1979) A note on tiger census technique based on pugmark tracings. 

Indian Forester, special issue, 18-36. 

Panwar, H. S. (1987) Project Tiger: The reserves, the tigers and their future. In Tigers of 

the world: The biology, biopolitics, management and conservation of an endangered species 



(ed. R. L. Tilson & U. S. Seal), pp. 110-117. Park Ridge, New Jersey: Noyes 

Publications. 

ProForest (2004) A Sourcebook for Landscape Analysis of High Conservation Value Forests, 

Version 1. ProForest, Oxford, UK. 

Rainforest Alliance & ProForest (2003) Identifying, Managing, and Monitoring High 

Conservation Value Forests in Indonesia: A Toolkit for Forest Managers and other 

Stakeholders, Version 1. Rainforest Alliance, New York and ProForest, Oxford, UK. 

Rieley, J.O., Ahmad-Shah, A.A. & Brady,M.A. (1996) The Extent and Nature of Tropical 

Peat Swamps. In Tropical Lowland Peatlands of Southeast Asia (Ed. Maltby, E., Immirzi, 

C.P. & Safford, R.J), pp. 17-53. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 

Schaller, G. B. (1967) The deer and the tiger. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Seal, U. S., Soemarna, K. & Tilson, R. (1994) Population biology and analysis for 

Sumatran tigers. In Sumatran tiger population and habitat viability analysis report (ed. R. L. 

Tilson, K. Soemarna, W. Ramono, S. Lusli, K. Traylor-Holzer, & U. S. Seal), pp. 45-70. 



Sebastian, A. (2002) Globally Threatened Mammal and Bird Species in Malaysian Peat 

Swamp Forests. In Peatlands for People: Natural Resource Functions and Sustainable 

Management, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Tropical Peatlands (Ed. J. 

Reiley, S. Page, B. Setiadi) pp. 23-28. BPPT and Indonesian Peat Association. 

Seber, G. A. F. (1982) The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. 2nd 

edition. Macmillan, New York. 

Seidensticker, J. (1987) Bearing witness: Observations on the extinction of Panthera 

tigris balica and Panthera tigris sondaica. In Tigers of the world: The biology, biopolitics, 

management and conservation of an endangered species (ed. R. L. Tilson & U. S. Seal), pp. 

1-8. Park Ridge, New Jersey: Noyes Publications. 

Seidensticker, J. & Suyono. (1980) The Javan tiger and the Meru-Betiri reserve: A plan for 

management. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 

Siswomartono, D., Reddy, S., Ramono, W., Manansang, J., Tilson, R., Franklin, N. & 

Foose, T. (1996) The Sumatran rhino in Way Kambas National Park, Sumatra, 

Indonesia. Pachyderm 21 13-14. 

SmartWood (2005) High Conservation Value Forest (<strong>HCVF</strong>) <strong>Assessment</strong> Report for Serapung 

Unit, PT Arara Abadi, Asia Pulp & Paper/Sinar Mas Group, Final Report. Rainforest 

Alliance’s SmartWood Program, Jakarta. 

Smirnov, E. N. & Miquelle, D. G. (1999) Population dynamics of the Amur tiger in 

Sikhote-Alin Zapovednik, Russia. In Riding the tiger: Tiger conservation in humandominated 

landscapes (ed. J. Seidensticker, S. Christie, & P. Jackson), pp. 61-70. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Smith, J. (1993) The role of dispersal in structuring the Chitwan tiger population. 

Behaviour. 124 165-195 

Smith, J. Mcdougal, C. Miquelle, D. (1989) Scent marking in free-ranging tigers, 

Panthera tigris. Anim. Behav. 37 1-10. 

Sunquist, M., Karanth, K. U. & Sunquist, F. 1999 Ecology, behaviour and resilience of 

the tiger and its conservation needs. In Riding the tiger: Tiger conservation in humandominated 


Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 



Tanaka, Y. (2000) Extinction of populations by inbreeding depression and stochastic 

environments. Population Ecology 42 55-62. 

Tilson, R., Soemarna, K., Ramona, W., Lusli, S. Traylor-Holzer, K. & U. S. Seal. (ed.) 

(1994) Sumatran Tiger population and habitat viability analysis report Apple Valley, 

Minnesota: Indonesian Directorate of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation and 

IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group. 

Tilson, R. L. & Traylor-Holzer, K. (1994) Estimating poaching and removal rates of 

tigers in Sumatra. In Sumatran Tiger population and habitat viability analysis report (ed. R. 

L. Tilson, K. Soemarna, W. Ramono, S. Lusli, K. Traylor-Holzer, & U. Seal), pp. 75-76. 



Tilson, R. L. & Nyhus, P. (1998) Keeping problem tigers from becoming a problem 

species. Conservation Biology 12, 261-262. 

Tilson, R. L., Nyhus, P., Franklin, N., Bastoni, Yunus, M. & Sumianto (2001) Tiger and 

large mammal restoration in Asia: Ecological theory & sociological reality. In Large 

mammal restoration: Ecological and sociological challenges in the 21st century (ed. D. S. 

Maehr, R. F. Noss & J. L. Larkin), pp. 148-165. Ithica: Island Press. 

Whitten, A. Damanik, S. Anwar, J. Hisyam, N. (2000) The Ecology of Sumatra. Periplus 

Editions. 

Wiese, R., Wildt, D., Byers, A. & Johnston, L. 1994 Tiger population management. In 

Sumatran tiger population and habitat viability analysis report (ed. R. L. Tilson, K. 

Soemarna, W. Ramono, S. Lusli, K. Traylor-Holzer, & U. S. Seal), pp. 71-74. Apple 

Valley, Minnesota: Indonesian Directorate of Forest Protection and Nature 


Wikramanayake, E. D., Dinerstein, E., Robinson, J. G., Karanth, U., Rabinowitz, A., 

Olson, D., Mathew, T., Hedao, P., Conner, M., Hemley, G. & Bolze, D. (1999) Where 

can tigers live in the future? A framework for identifying high-priority areas for the 

conservation of tigers in the wild. In Riding the tiger: Tiger conservation in humandominated 


Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Wells, D. (1985) Forest avifauna of West Malesia and its conservation. In Conservation of 

tropical forest birds (eds. A. Diamond and T. Lovejoy), pp. 213-232. ICBP Technical 

PublicationNo.4, Cambridge. 

Woodroffe, R. & Ginsberg, J. R. (2000) Ranging behaviour and vulnerability to extinction in 

carnivores. In Behaviour and conservation (ed. M. L. Gosling & W. J. Sutherland), pp. 125- 




9 Appendices 

Appendix I - SmartWood Scope for Tiger <strong>Supplemental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> 

The following suggested scope for the tiger supplemental assessment is taken from 

page 64 of the SmartWood <strong>HCVF</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Report for the Serapung FMU. 

<strong>Supplemental</strong> study to determine the contribution of the indicative <strong>HCVF</strong> area to 

the survival and long-term viability of a tiger population in the area. 

Objective: 

5 To evaluate the contribution of the defined area of forest within the Serapung 

unit towards maintenance of a tiger population in the wider area. 

Study Area: 

5 The coastal strip between Tanjung Datuk at the mouth of the Kampar river to 

the next river channel entering the sea, at Pulau Tadi (Refer map), extending 10 

km inland from the coast. 

5 Contained within this study area is a 5,884 ha block of forest within the FMU. 

Implementation: 

5 The study will be conducted by an independent specialist team, lead by a 

recognized expert in tiger ecology and rapid survey techniques. 

Scope of Work: 

5 Determine the estimated size of this tiger population 

5 Evaluate the habitat utilization and distribution of the population within the study 

area. 

5 Evaluate the population’s comparative utilization of different habitat types: peat 

swamp forest, coastal alluvial bench forests, secondary habitats and farmlands. 

5 Taking into account current and future land use of the wider area, determine the 

long term viability of this population, and the area (and primary habitats) 

required to support it. 

5 Determine if the defined forest block within the FMU constitutes an integral part 

of the area and habitat required to support the tiger population in the long term. 

Outputs: 

5 A report detailing the findings of the study 

Timeframe: 

5 3 – 6 months 

Budget: 

5 To be developed with identified specialist team. 



Appendix II – APP/STCP Scope for Tiger <strong>Supplemental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> 

Tiger <strong>HCVF</strong>, Landscape Analysis and Conservation Management Options 

in Serapung FMU of the Kampar-Pelalawan Forest Block 

Project Details 

Period: 5 th January to 17th February 2005. 

Aim: Provide a definitive response, according to <strong>HCVF</strong> criteria, as to whether an <strong>HCVF</strong> 

is justified in the Serapung District FMU given the working assumption that tigers are 

present. In addition provide a first draft (not subject to the 15 th February project 

deadline) of a tiger-specific add-on for the Indonesian <strong>HCVF</strong> toolkit. 

Study area: Serapung FMU and adjacent forests with a preliminary GIS and landscape 

overview of the Siak-Pelalawan forest block. 

Objectives: 

1. Conduct a rapid assessment of tigers, prey, habitat and threats in the Serapung 

FMU and immediately adjacent forest habitat. 

2. Provision of a definitive response to the SmartWood study recommendation 

relating to whether there is an <strong>HCVF</strong> for tigers in the Serapung FMU. Define the 

boundaries of the <strong>HCVF</strong>, if present, for tigers. Intrinsic within this component is 

a consideration of whether the loss of this area would have a serious impact on 

the local (TCU 150) and regional long term viability of tigers. 

3. Through foot surveys, remote camera monitoring and respondent 

questionnaires, provision of data relating to historic and current tiger distribution 

and status within the Serapung FMU and adjacent habitat. 

4. Provision of preliminary management options for minimizing impact on, and 

maximizing long-term viability of, tigers inhabiting the Serapung FMU and 

adjacent habitat, including the mitigation/resolution of conflict between tigers 

and humans. 

5. Investigation of the historic, current and future land use in the TCU, specifically 

in the FMU and adjacent habitat, to provide a preliminary assessment of the 

landscape relationship between the FMU and wider Kampar-Pelalawan forest 

block. Data to be utilized includes: Concession boundaries, identification of 

contiguous habitat, past trends of habitat exploitation, provincial land-use plans 

and probably future habitat availability. Predictions about the landscape, history 

of fragmentation and isolation of habitat in past, present and future will be an 

integral component of this aspect, relying strongly on GIS and satellite imagery, 

in conjunction with ground-truthing and local liaison with appropriate 

departments and stakeholders (not subject to 17 th February deadline). 

6. Development of a decision matrix for tigers and a draft tiger-specific add-on for 

the ProForest/SmartWood <strong>HCVF</strong> toolkit, to be used in future FMU analyses 

where critically endangered, wide-ranging species are encountered (not subject 

to 17 th Feb deadline). 

7. Provision of supporting evidence to enable a definitive decision to be made with 

regards to future focus and need for further landscape analysis, additional 

<strong>HCVF</strong>-related data, and continuation of tiger-related activities in Serapung and 

the wider Kampar-Pelalawan forest block during Phase II (not subject to 17 th 

February deadline).

A Supplemental HCVF Assessment on the Sumatran Tiger ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?