A Supplemental HCVF Assessment on the Sumatran Tiger ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

FINAL REPORT Tiger <strong>HCVF</strong> <strong>Supplemental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> – Serapung FMU 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. Sumatran Tiger Conservation Program Pg 54/68
FINAL REPORT Tiger <strong>HCVF</strong> <strong>Supplemental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> – Serapung FMU 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 Sumatran Tiger Conservation Program Pg 55/68
Page 1 and 2:
SUMATRAN TIGER CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Page 3 and 4: FINAL REPORT Tiger HCVF</st
Page 53: FINAL REPORT Tiger HCVF</st
show all

A Supplemental HCVF Assessment on the Sumatran Tiger ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?