- Email: [email protected]
The Biology and Politics of Sumatran Tigers
C H A P T E R
30
The Biology and Politics of Sumatran Tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garudaa 1
Ronald Tilson1 and Philip J. Nyhus2 Conservation Department, Minnesota Zoo, Apple Valley, Minnesota, USA Environmental Studies Program, Colby College, Waterville, Maine, USA
2
o u t l i n e Introduction
377
Local Knowledge of Tigers
386
Indonesia’s Modern Tiger History
379
The Biology of Sumatran Tigers in Lowland Forests
Local Attitudes Towards Tigers, Parks, and Conservation
387
381
Improving Indonesian Zoos
389
Fire and Tigers
384
The Dark Legacy of Kkn
390
The Tiger’s Right to Life
393
References
394
Human Dimension of Tiger Conservation
385
Introduction Indonesia is a land of islands, beaches, and sunshine; exotic fruits, spices, and batik; a land where gamelan musicians and wayang shadow puppet masters can tell the story of the Hindu Ramayana near ancient Buddhist temples in a country dominated by Islam. But a
The story of the Garuda’s birth is told in the Mahabharata, one of the two major Sanskrit epics of ancient India. According to the epic, the Garuda first appeared as an inferno equal to the conflagration that consumes the world at the end of every age. Indonesia uses the Garuda as its national symbol.
Tigers of the World, Second Edition
377
© 2010 Published by Elsevier Inc.
378
30. The Biology and Politics of Sumatran tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garuda
behind this blissful tourist image lurks a darker reality where bureaucrats and politicians, police and military officials, and wealthy industrialists manage the plunder of Indonesia’s vast natural resources. Among the most coveted prizes of all: the pristine forests of Sumatra where tigers have lived for some 10,000 years. In 1995, the Sumatran Tiger Project was established to study and protect Indonesia’s last Sumatran tigers (Panthera tigris sumatrae). The Project was initiated and directed by Ron Tilson and included a human-dimension component coordinated by Philip Nyhus. The 10-year project began with a small staff in Way Kambas National Park (NP), a 130,000 ha lowland protected rain forest of mixed primary and late stage secondary forest, grasslands, and swamp situated in southeastern Sumatra, Lampung Province. The most immediate objective was to catalogue how many tigers and other species lived in the park using a then-new approach that relied on remote infra-red cameras. It took 3 months for the team to figure out how to cameratrap wild tigers, but eventually they became very good at it. Spectacular adult males were photographed, but the tiger we remember was a sleek adult female named cin-cin emas (‘gold ring’) (Fig. 30.1). We were obtaining more photos of her than any other tiger, but then she vanished. A thorough search of her home range area revealed 76 steel-wire snares had been set by poachers. And at one of three sites that became known as the killing trees, we knew she had been caught. The steel-wire snare was anchored to a tree trunk, and in a desperate attempt to escape, she went around and around the tree, digging a trench in the earth. She tried to claw up the tree trunk, shredding the bark. After hours, maybe days, she died, painfully and in terror. An undercover investigation in villages next to the park led to the discovery of the boss who paid for these poachers to lay their snares. The police found scores of animal remains, including the hides and bones of tigers in his house. Connected to this man was an even higher trafficker, a colonel in the regional police force. But despite the hard evidence, no
Figure 30.1 Cin-cin Emas, the first pregnant tiger in Way Kambas National Park photographed by the Sumatran Tiger Project, was also the first to be killed by poachers. (Photo credit: Directorate General of Nature Protection and conservation, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia, and Sumatran Tiger Project, Way Kambas National Park)
iv. Regional reviews: status of tigers
Indonesia’s modern tiger history
379
one was brought to trial, no one was convicted, and no one paid a penalty. At one point our desperation became so intense we offered the investigating officer 10% over any bribe the traffickers would pay to keep the colonel in jail. This apparently was not enough, because he was released, reassigned, and disappeared. In hindsight, the story of cin-cin emas is much more than just a story about the loss of one tiger. Seen in the mirror of history, the loss of this tiger and its aftermath is one paragraph of a much longer narrative that helps to explain why Indonesia is losing its last tigers. Over the next five years the Sumatran Tiger Project grew to include more than 20 Indonesian staff, some 40 anti-poaching guards partly funded by the project, a handful of Indonesian university students, and a host of provincial and local forestry counterparts. We initiated an undercover investigation of poaching and trafficking and the recruitment, training, and insertion of anti-poaching teams. The Project’s field operations expanded beyond its origins in Way Kambas NP to include protected forests adjacent to Bukit Barisan Selatan NP in western Sumatra, to Bukit Tigapulah NP, a survey of Berbak NP in central Sumatra, and the Senepis Tiger Conservation Area in eastern Jambi Province. The project’s human-dimension included an integrated community education program, analysis of local knowledge and attitudes, and local and provincial stakeholder meetings and workshops. Annual costs swelled from tens of thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands per year. To keep up with expanding year-to-year costs we formed alliances with local and international organizations, helped found a Canadian foundation to raise money, and wrote grant proposals at breakneck speed. Millions of Indonesian Rupiah were spent on legitimate field operations, but significant sums were also handed over in envelopes to various officials to ‘grease the wheels’ and keep our permits valid. This is how business is conducted in Indonesia. During these years we realized significant achievements. Awareness about the plight of the Sumatran tiger grew inside and outside Indonesia, many Indonesian university students were trained and gained valuable experience with tigers and conservation, and almost certainly more tigers survived than if the project had not happened. We made considerable progress with the goal of understanding the conservation needs of wild tigers, but made little progress with the goal of achieving meaningful and sustainable tiger conservation across the entire island. In this chapter, we begin by briefly describing the modern history of tiger conservation in Sumatra. We then describe our efforts and major findings related to tiger biology and the human dimension of tiger conservation. Throughout we place these events in context with what we did and did not know about tigers 20 years ago based on the efforts of the 10-year project and efforts of other on-going tiger conservation programs. We conclude with some personal thoughts on the challenges and opportunities for tiger conservation in Indonesia.
Indonesia’s modern tiger history Indonesia is unique among tiger range states as the only place tigers have evolved on islands. The ocean has been a barrier for tiger dispersal the last 10,000 years. Indonesia is also unique in having the darkest history with tigers. No other place has lost two tiger subspecies. When the first edition of Tigers of the World was published, it was well known that the Indonesian tigers from Java (P.t. sondaicus) and Bali (P.t. balica) had been lost forever through ignorance and neglect [1]. But no one could reasonably estimate how many Sumatran tigers
IV. Regional reviews: status of tigers
380
30. The Biology and Politics of Sumatran tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garuda
remained, where they were, or whether they could be saved. Published estimates of the tiger’s abundance and distribution, based on back-of-the-envelope estimates, ranged from about 1,000 tigers in the 1970s [2] to ‘not in the thousands but in the hundreds’ in the 1980s [3]. This vagary is directly related to the fact that tigers are exceedingly difficult to observe or count in closed forest habitat; only a handful of forestry staff had ever seen tigers in the wild. Even less was known about the extent of human–tiger conflict or the magnitude of the threats that could eliminate these once abundant animals. This was the grim setting for a Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG) Population and Habitat Viability Analysis (PHVA) workshop sponsored in 1992 by the government of Indonesia [4]. The recommendations made at the workshop resulted in the creation of Indonesia’s Sumatran Tiger Conservation Strategy [5] and an international collaborative effort to fund and carry out a long-term program to balance the needs of tigers with those of the people living there. These programs had one goal—to keep the Sumatran tiger from becoming Indonesia’s next, and last, extinct tiger. Because of this information vacuum, two activities were undertaken before the meeting took place. First, a set of Geographic Information System (GIS) maps was compiled. Satellite imagery overlays of vegetation cover of Sumatra were matched up with Indonesian landuse and forest status maps. This database gave a comprehensive spatial analysis of Sumatra, allowing broad habitat types to be distinguished. Three months before the workshop, Tilson traveled overland for most of the length of Sumatra, beginning in Medan in the north and finishing in Bandar Lampung in the south, visiting government conservation offices along the 1,500 km route to inform every one of the objectives and process of the upcoming tiger workshop. At each office a set of GIS maps of their local area overlaid with 100 km2 grids and a set of questions were left, requesting information or verification of land-use categories, major vegetation zones, and presence and/or absence of tiger distribution within each grid. The idea was to gather as much information as possible before the workshop, so that meeting time could be spent on analysis and recommendations rather than presentation. For the most part this plan worked. Workshop participants estimated that there were approximately 500 tigers remaining in the forests of Sumatra, based on an estimate of one tiger per 100 km2. Smaller populations totaling about 100 tigers were estimated to be living in a number of isolated forest patches, some of which were protected, but many of which were not. Workshop participants agreed that the presence of these small, fragmented tiger populations needed verification and the feasibility of linking these to larger, adjacent populations determined. Even within some of the large protected areas, the habitat was significantly fragmented and thus, tiger populations were probably also fragmented. For 15 years, this estimate was the recognized estimate of tigers in Sumatra until now (see Seidensticker et al., Chapter 22). Human population growth, transmigration programs (out-settling of people from high-density areas of Java, Bali, and Madura), and other pressures mostly linked to agriculture and logging were initially identified as significant causes of decline in non-protected tiger habitat. A gradual deterioration of habitat quality at the edges of protected forest occurred as well. Another impact of human population growth was the removal of tigers through poaching, poisoning, and trapping. Two primary threats to tiger populations were identified. One was the small size of existing tiger populations; the second was removal of tigers from these small populations, which although the threat was nominal, had the potential to severely impact these populations.
iv. Regional reviews: status of tigers
The biology of sumatran tigers in lowland forests
381
This finding brought home how crucial it is to prevent tiger poaching and human–wildlife conflict wherever it occurs (see Tilson et al., Chapter 6 and Nyhus and Tilson, Chapter 8). Two years later, in recognition of the tiger’s critical situation, the government formalized the recommendations from the workshop as a comprehensive action plan that prioritized the steps necessary for the species’ effective conservation. The bilingual Indonesian Sumatran Tiger Conservation Strategy, originally edited by Ronald Tilson, addressed broad categories intended to ensure the long-term survival of Sumatran tigers, including securing all remaining wild tiger populations and their habitat and developing a captive program for reinforcement of wild populations. It essentially mandated that the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry, its national zoos, and international conservation organizations needed to work together for the long-term benefit of wild tigers. Several other international tiger conservation efforts started concurrently or just after we started ours. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) initiated a program in Bukit Barisan Selatan NP in southwest Sumatra. The World Wildlife Fund had a project around Bukit Tigapuluh NP in central Sumatra. Fauna and Flora International (FFI) and others were involved near and in Kerinci Seblat NP, and the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) sponsored research in Tesso Nilo and nearby in central Sumatra (see Maddox, Chapter 31). A European Union-funded park development project in Gunung Leuser NP in north Sumatra included tiger research. While we summarize key published findings from research in these areas, we primarily focus this chapter on our experiences with the Sumatran Tiger Project.
The biology of sumatran tigers in lowland forests From 1995 to 2000 the Project’s main focus was to define the conservation requirements of wild Sumatran tigers [2]. We chose Way Kambas, located in southeastern Sumatra, because it was the largest protected tropical lowland rain forest habitat in Sumatra (the optimum habitat before humans arrived and pushed tigers into the mountains), it was logistically close to Jakarta where all political decisions were made, and an initial reconnaissance revealed abundant deer, pig, and tiger tracks. The park was established as a wildlife reserve in 1937, logged commercially between 1954 and 1974, and declared a national park in 1989. One of our primary field tools was remote infra-red cameras and global positioning system (GPS) technology. Over time we were able to recognize individual tiger identities and population structure in this forest. We developed a good idea of tiger home range sizes, population density, daily activity patterns, and reproductive success of certain females. Field information on habitat requirements, prey selection, and behavioral responses to disturbances further refined the conservation needs of wild tigers. We were essentially beginning to understand the group dynamics of a living population of wild tigers. Much of what we learned about the biology of Sumatran tigers was summarized in the graduate dissertation of Neil Franklin [3]. Previous logging operations left hard-packed earth roads that seemed invisible in the field but were apparent when satellite maps were viewed. These trails were the main thoroughfares for all wildlife, including tigers. Along them we set up a system of 20–29 independent cameras distributed across the park’s core area, which were operational 24 hours per day for nearly 5 years continuously and another 5 years intermittently. A subset of 55 months over two periods (October 1995 to December 1998; February 1999 to July 2000) was used for this analysis. Of 14,121 photographs
IV. Regional reviews: status of tigers
382
30. The Biology and Politics of Sumatran tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garuda
a nalyzed, 6,662 (48%) were of wildlife, and from this total 3,933 (58%) were prey and 435 (7%) were tigers [3]. Cameras were checked every 10–14 days to replace film and batteries. Tigers often visited cameras just minutes after we left, some even urinated on them. It took 2–3 days of walking overland to complete the route and several overnights were always necessary. Curiously, not once did a tiger ever visit our simple camps (plastic ground cloths and rain canopy) even though we were walking through the home ranges of nearly a dozen individual tigers. We found their scats, saw plenty of tracks, smelled their urine, and sometimes heard then growling, but, with a single exception, never saw them. In Way Kambas the estimated number of tigers ranged from a high of 34–36 in 1997 to a low of 8–10 in 1999 [3] (see tigers and fire section, below). A total of 14 female and seven males were individually identified (2:1 female to male ratio), but on a year-to-year basis spanning 5 years, the sex ratio averaged 1.5 females to 1 male. Of these 21 tigers there was sufficient data to calculate home range size of seven (three males and four females) using minimum convex polygons. Male home range sizes averaged 52 km2 (range of 25–66 km2) (Fig. 30.2); females sizes were significantly smaller and averaged 27 km2 (range of 11–46 km2). There was extensive overlap of both male and female home ranges. Males tended to show greater site persistence than females; males had a mean duration of 650 days whereas females had a mean duration of 404 days. Three mothers were observed with cubs; two litters of three cubs and one mother with a single cub. Daily activity patterns of tigers in Way Kambas showed that they were not exclusively nocturnal; they were moving and taking their pictures during cool crepuscular hours (26%) and nighttime (32%); the remaining 42% during daylight (7 am to 7 pm). Prey showed similar bimodal crepuscular and daylight activity.
Figure 30.2 Competition among tigers for space and resources can be intense. A large male Sumatran tiger in Way Kambas National Park walks through a remote camera trap with a fresh wound on its head. (Photo credit: Directorate General of Nature Protection and conservation, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia, and Sumatran Tiger Project, Way Kambas National Park)
iv. Regional reviews: status of tigers
The biology of sumatran tigers in lowland forests
383
Tiger population densities estimates using CAPTURE ranged from 1.14 to 4.63 tigers/ 100 km2 over the 5-year period of the study [3]. Other field studies elsewhere in Sumatra have since estimated tiger densities of 1.7/100 km2 in Bukit Barisan Selatan NP [4], and tiger densities from 3.3/100 km2 in lowland habitat to 2.0/100 km2 in hill habitat to 1.5/100 km2 in submontane habitat in Kerinci Seblat NP [5]. Tigers in Way Kambas tended to avoid the park edges, and other studies have found similar results. Tigers avoided forest boundaries up to 2 km at Bukit Barisan Selatan NP [6], and tiger occurrence was negatively correlated with distance to public roads in Kerinci Seblat NP [5]. Human population density also has been shown to be a strong predictor of tiger abundance [4]. One of the earliest questions we asked was, ‘what do tigers eat’? Over 120 scats were collected throughout a 162 km2 study area in the center of the park over two years (September 1995 to July 1997) and analyzed to prey type (Srianto et al., unpublished manuscript). Relative population densities of medium- to large-sized herbivore prey were derived from 2,953 photographs in the Project database [3]. Analysis of 120 scats containing the remains of 135 animals suggests that tigers in Way Kambas NP prey primarily on four species (two species of macaques were combined) (Fig. 30.3). Their frequency of occurrence was wild pig (33.3%), macaques (27.5%), sambar deer (16.7%),
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Figure 30.3 Tigers in Way Kambas National Park eat primarily wild pigs (A), deer such as sambar (B) and barking deer (C), and macaques (D). Pigs, deer, and macaques each account for about one-third of the total diet of tigers in this reserve. (Photo credit: Directorate General of Nature Protection and conservation, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia, and Sumatran Tiger Project, Way Kambas National Park)
IV. Regional reviews: status of tigers
384
30. The Biology and Politics of Sumatran tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garuda
and barking deer (15.0%). Five samples were from Sun bear (2.5%) and the remaining eight (5.9%) contained hair from undetermined animals. No elephant, rhino or tapir remains were found in the scats even though these species occur throughout the Park, nor were any domestic livestock found, even though the Park is surrounded by densely populated human settlements.
Fire and tigers Historically, fire was probably not a major part of the ecology of Sumatra, and fire was not discussed as a factor in tiger ecology and management generally in the first edition of Tigers of the World. However, today, with the growing deforestation and systematic burning to clear land for agriculture, we know that fire is a major influence on tiger habitat in Sumatra and many other areas of Asia [7–9]. In 1997-1998, major forest fires swept across Indonesia, including Sumatra, resulting in great public concern about public health and economic impact. As with previous major fires in Indonesia, these fires were the consequence of an extensive El Niño drought [8]. These fires gave us an unanticipated laboratory where we could study the impact of fires on tiger populations in a lowland rainforest. The dry season in Way Kambas generally lasts from May to October, when rainfall averages 100 mm per month. In 1997, this period was exceptionally dry. Fires swept through the park between mid-August and mid-December (Fig. 30.4). Prior to the fires, the tiger population structure in the park was stable for nearly 3 years; the tiger population in the study site was characterized by the presence of several resident mature adult individuals, periodically and briefly visited by young adult individuals at an approximately constant rate. From the intermediate stages of the El Niño drought through to the end of the fires the study population was dominated by a greatly increased number of young adults (mostly females), and characterized by the disappearance of many of the previously resident mature adults. It is likely that many of these mature tigers died, while the young adults coped better. We believe that these fires were largely responsible for the fluctuation in tigers densities mentioned above, when tiger numbers peaked at 34–36 in 1997, and then declined to a low of 8–10 in 1999. This resulted in a change in social dynamics after the fires; tigers shifted from a population dominated by long-term resident mature adults to a population dominated by previously unrecorded young adults. This study indicates that fires directly or indirectly impact tigers significantly by severely modifying or destroying forest habitat, by causing a reduction in prey availability, and by exposing them to severe environmental stress. Fires may preferentially threaten resident mature adults. More mobile young adults are predisposed to disperse elsewhere in the park, and those that survive can return and rapidly re-colonize sites following a fire. Females, with less exclusive territorial behavior, may be more socially tolerable (female offspring are known to settle in areas adjacent to their mother). Although the experience at Way Kambas was but a snapshot of how fire may alter the habitat physically and the age structure of tigers socially, it seems reasonable to suggest that the loss of the mature class of resident tigers was disruptive if not nearly cataclysmic. It also seems reasonable to suggest that fire must be considered as a significant threat to tiger populations, especially in the island’s smaller reserves and forest fragments.
iv. Regional reviews: status of tigers
human dimension of tiger conservation
(A)
385
(B)
Figure 30.4 A significant threat to tiger habitat is fires. These satellite images show Way Kambas National Park before (a) and after (b) a major fire swept the park in 1997, burning approximately 60% of the park and reducing the tiger population by an estimated two-thirds. (Photo credit: Directorate General of Nature Protection and Conservation, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia, and Sumatran Tiger Project, Way Kambas National Park)
Human dimension of tiger conservation The first major human–tiger study in Sumatra was based on a year-long detailed survey of 25 villages situated adjacent to Way Kambas. The objective was to quantify and characterize land-use patterns, human–wildlife conflict, people’s knowledge about wildlife, and their attitudes about conservation. Indonesia’s transmigration program and the resulting rapid population growth had a dramatic impact on Sumatra’s landscape. This is particularly true in Lampung Province, where the first and largest number of migrants from Java settled and which today has some of Sumatra’s highest human population densities [10]. At Way Kambas, the ring of villages dominated by transmigrants that surround the park provide a unique cultural filter. These
IV. Regional reviews: status of tigers
386
30. The Biology and Politics of Sumatran tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garuda
Figure 30.5 More than 26 villages surrounded Way Kambas National Park, and many inhabitants collect wood, fish, and animals from the park. Here a Javanese migrant farmer collects fruit illegally inside the park boundary. (Photo credit: Philip Nyhus.)
communities are dominated by farmers focused on cultivation as a livelihood, a considerable number express fear of the forest, and most do not have strong historical associations with traditional resource extraction from the forest. Encroachment and the potential for over-harvesting are significant threats that will persist in Way Kambas and other similar reserves with tigers because grass and fuelwood are essential household needs, and fish and small game, including tiger prey species, are collected for personal consumption and sale. Illegal theft of forest resources continues particularly where profits are high or the activities are considered socially acceptable (Fig. 30.5). We found that while human–tiger conflict was common across Sumatra, it was rare at Way Kambas. Only one person was killed by tigers at Way Kambas over a 20-year period [11], despite the relatively dense tiger population residing in the park (Nyhus and Tilson, Chapter 8). We hypothesized that the park’s ‘hard edge’ and abundant prey encouraged tigers to stay in and people to stay out, reducing opportunities for conflict.
Local knowledge of tigers Before we arrived there was already widespread agreement in conservation circles that effective conservation and management of protected areas required an understanding of the concerns, needs, and attitudes of local people living near these areas. But little was known in Sumatra about knowledge and attitudes toward tigers and conservation. We administered our survey to a stratified systematic sample of close to 1,000 households, eventually analyzing data from 622 households in 10 villages representing all six subdistricts bordering the park. Between 2.9% and 15.2% of households in each of the 10 villages were sampled.
iv. Regional reviews: status of tigers
local attitudes towards tigers, parks, and conservation
387
We found that migrants living near Way Kambas varied greatly in their knowledge of wildlife and the park. They were frequently unfamiliar with the most fundamental problems associated with tiger conservation, such as small population size, declining habitat, and the recent extinction of other tiger subspecies in Indonesia. Among some of our more interesting results related to tigers, we found that awareness among respondents of the endangered status of the tiger and its declining population was generally low. More than 70% perceived tigers to be more abundant in Sumatra and Way Kambas today than 20 years ago. More respondents believed the tiger still exists on Java (10.6% answered ‘many’ and 42.1% answered ‘few’) as believed there were none (47.3%), and estimates of the number of tigers in Way Kambas varied greatly. Among respondents who were willing to provide an estimate, the number of tigers thought to be in the park ranged between 51 and 482 (161 if high value removed) with a median of 50. Many more provided non-quantitative answers such as ‘many’ or ‘hundreds.’ Large, charismatic, and abundant animals were identified more frequently than smaller and more secretive animals, but the generic word used for ‘tiger’ (macan) was also used to describe other cats and even some civets. Higher knowledge scores were significantly associated with males, higher educational attainment, and past experiences with these animals. The number of years respondents had lived in the area and respondent age were also good predictors of higher wildlife knowledge scores [12]. Our results suggested that, while biodiversity research, conservation, and education programs frequently rely on ‘local’ knowledge to inform management and policy, with more and more migrants living near wildlife protected areas, care must be taken to understand how human demographic shifts may affect these relationships.
Local attitudes towards tigers, parks, and conservation Attitudes were influenced by local experiences with wildlife. When we began, we expected tigers as threats to people and livestock would be the most significant concern among villagers. However, elephants were by far the larger problem [13], and higher levels of human–wildlife conflict were significantly associated with more negative attitudes toward conservation authorities. When presented with a hypothetical situation where a tiger was killed in retaliation for killing livestock, 51.9% of respondents did not agree that the tiger should have been killed, and respondents tended to agree that punishment should be given to the person who killed the tiger (72.3%). The support for punishment was significantly greater for damage by elephants than tigers. There was a striking difference in whether elephants or tigers were considered as pests: 72.2% agreed that elephants damaged crops and only 18.5% agreed that tigers disturbed people. Respondents were aware that they lived adjacent to a protected area but were unfamiliar with its formal name or status, providing 72 different names, most commonly referring to the park as a ‘protected forest,’ ‘Way Kambas,’ or a variation of ‘forest.’ Only three people referred to the park by its full name and only two called it a National Park. Few villagers had ever met with any of the 41 staff of the forest conservation office responsible for the protection and management of the park. Only 7% of respondents said they had met with conservation
IV. Regional reviews: status of tigers
388
30. The Biology and Politics of Sumatran tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garuda
officers in the previous five years, and over half of these respondents only met two or fewer times. A small number of respondents (15) claimed to have been previously apprehended by conservation authorities for illegally entering the park to collect grass, wood, or other resources. Virtually all respondents agreed on the need for conservation authorities (81.1%). We also carried out a more sophisticated analysis of factors that influenced attitudes toward wildlife, the park, and conservation authoritiesb. Gender, education, wildlife knowledge, and age were associated with differences in attitudes, as were stated perceptions of happiness with the park, benefits from the park, and the degree that respondents felt responsible for the park. Men were significantly more likely than women to have more negative attitudes toward conservation authorities, but more positive attitudes toward the park and tigers. Respondents with more formal education and those who scored higher on the wildlife knowledge test had significantly higher support for Way Kambas. Favorable attitudes toward wildlife and Way Kambas tended to increase with age, but mean scores declined after age 60. Scores did not differ significantly (on any of the four scales) among respondents with few or many livestock, those with little or no land, or with increased household wealth. Attitudes toward conservation authorities were more negative among respondents who perceived that human–wildlife conflict had increased over the last few years and in villages that experienced high levels of conflict. Respondents who reported they were happy with Way Kambas and those that believed they received benefits from Way Kambas were significantly more likely to hold positive attitudes toward conservation authorities. Respondents who felt responsible for the management of the park also had significantly higher (more positive) scores. The results of our studies certainly have implications for many of the protected areas in Sumatra. Seventy-five percent of the island’s protected areas are smaller than 300 km2, only a handful are larger than Way Kambas (1,300 km2), and population growth is likely to continue across much of the island resulting in an increasing number of reserves being surrounded by high human population densities. There is concern about whether these small reserves can sustain viable populations of large mammals and whether corridors can link this remaining tiger habitat [14]. Specifically, based on our experiences we hypothesized that wildlife corridors, buffer zones, agroforestry systems, and other multiple-use areas in Sumatra where tigers and people overlap could become hotspots for human–tiger conflict. If true, this would suggest that care must be taken in developing linkages among core conservation areas that might become conservation sinks because of conflict instead of positive corridors for gene flow.
b
Factor analysis (principle component analysis) was used to reduce the initial set of questions to a set of broader factors. Items with low anti-image correlation coefficients (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.50) were eliminated from the analysis. Initial solutions were based on eigenvalues greater than one and resulted in an eight factor solution. The varimax algorithm was used for orthogonal rotation to a simpler structure. These items were used to create four scales. To measure internal consistency of the attitude scales, we applied Cronbach’s coefficient alpha to provide a conservative estimate of the measure’s reliability. Questions with low inter-item correlations were deleted from the analysis. The three scales used in this study had values of Cronbach’s alpha greater than 0.60. Homogeneity of variance was tested with the Levene statistic for equal variance. Normal probability and detrended normal probability plots and both Komolgorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilks tests were used to test for normality. Independent variables were tested using one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni and Tukey post-hoc pairwise multiple comparisons and range tests, and tests of linear contrast across ordered groups. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed for bivariate and partial correlations. When equal variance and normality could not be shown, non-parametric chi-square and Mann Whitney-U tests were used.
iv. Regional reviews: status of tigers
improving indonesian zoos
389
We found that in many ways, Way Kambas is the antithesis of a model protected area: it is small, surrounded by densely populated settlements, and was once logged. Yet it was a valuable conservation area because it had some of the highest densities of tigers (and elephants, and rhinos and other species) in Sumatra. Its unique river and sea border provided good ‘defensibility’ along part of its border, and this unambiguous boundary offers a clear demarcation for where cultivated areas end and wildlife habitat begins (for contrast see O’Brien et al. [4]). The park offers interesting opportunities for learning about managing large carnivores in small parks surrounded by many people—a scenario becoming more and more common across Asia. However, the small size also highlights the risks faced by a small and fragile population of tigers as well. In the political vacuum following the fall of Suharto, hundreds of squatters entered the park. Soon after, poaching pressure increased and the abundance of prey species present when we arrived declined. Combined with the stress of drought and fires this became a classic instance of overlapping ‘stochastic’ disruptions to the system—a recipe for disaster. Ultimately, this does not bode well for the long-term survival of a healthy population of tigers.
Improving indonesian zoos The sociological challenges are not limited to the wild. Indonesia decided that the best way to deal with ‘problem tigers’ was to capture them and place them in zoos in Java. In the early 1990s the Indonesian Zoological Parks Association (PKBSI) had no cooperative programs for its endangered subspecies; tigers were living in overcrowded and poorly designed facilities. Neonatal mortality rates were high, and no genetic or demographic management plans were in place. Most tigers were not registered in the International Tiger Studbook, and wild-caught tigers were not optimally utilized. For 2 years, we met with Indonesian zoo directors and worked out a mutually beneficial plan. The PKBSI needed assistance in training their staff in modern zoo medical and husbandry practices, and guidance in developing a credible master plan for the captive population of Sumatran tigers. In exchange for this support, the PKBSI was open to assisting the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) to expand the genetic diversity of the North American population by providing offspring of wild-caught founders from Sumatra. Two caveats to the agreement was that the European Endangered Species Program and Australasian program in Australia and New Zealand would be considered partners in this process, and that only offspring of wild-caught tigers that were surplus to the needs of the PKBSI Sumatran tiger program would be considered as candidates for export. The last import to the US was in 1989. We all saw this as a win–win agreement. By enabling Indonesian efforts to properly manage captive tigers, offspring from their breeding program in theory would be available to the European, North American, and Australian captive breeding programs that would serve as a genetic backup to the Indonesian program. It was a most complicated partnership, spanning four continents, dozens of organizations, 10 zoos in Indonesia, and partnerships with the Indonesian Department of Forestry, the Indonesian Institute of Sciences, and PKBSI. Beginning in 1994, an international team of six zoo tiger biologists from Australia, Europe and the United States set out on a series of ‘Magical Mystery Tours,’ beginning in Java,
IV. Regional reviews: status of tigers
390
30. The Biology and Politics of Sumatran tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garuda
Indonesia. The team visited ten zoos in Java and Sumatra and provided hands-on training for 150 Indonesian zoo staff who focused on proper animal health procedures for tiger medical treatment, immobilizations, immunizations, evaluations, and health maintenance. Tiger physical examinations of 50 of the 61 tigers in the PKBSI program (all wild-caught or descendants of wild-caught tigers in Sumatra) were comprehensive: collection of blood and tissue biopsies; tattooing of each animal with a temporary or permanent studbook number; and placement of a transponder as a backup identification system. A blood serum bank was started for disease screening of wild-caught tigers, among other uses, with banked serum from 54 tigers. A molecular DNA library was initiated for subspecies discrimination with skin biopsies and/or hair samples banked from 52 tigers, and a PKBSI Genome Resource Bank was started with semen collected from 14 male tigers. Five years and five trips to Indonesia later, the PKBSI captive management program came of age, overseen by two co-coordinators, a management committee and a trained, competent studbook keeper. An accurate studbook for population management was established and all of their captive tigers were recorded in the International Tiger Studbook, with almost every tiger being physically examined and identified with tattoos and transponders. Over 150 Indonesian zoo staff were exposed to husbandry, veterinary, and reproductive procedures; a fledgling genome resource bank was in place; a rescue center for problem tigers was constructed; needed veterinary equipment had been provided to every zoo; and even a master plan was in place for the cooperative management of Sumatran tigers in Indonesia. Equally importantly, the events generated extensive public relations and media coverage within Indonesia. Three national television channels filmed our work, which was viewed by millions of Indonesians. Seven national and local newspapers carried the story; and the project was included in an international documentary film. Collectively, over US$200,000 was donated to support the captive breeding efforts. However, despite the enormous investment of money, time, resources, and numerous written and verbal agreements, by the end of 2009 no tigers from Indonesia had been sent to support the international Sumatran tiger captive breeding programs and considerable international goodwill was squandered. Part of the collapse of these efforts can be attributed to the very different agendas of the international zoos and Taman Safari Indonesia (TSI), a privately-owned drive-through animal safari park located in the hills above Jakarta. There are over 100 tigers at this site and its sister facility located in Surabaya at the other end of Java. About half of these tigers are from a circus that the family had previously owned, the other half came from Sumatra (and their offspring) where they were captured because they were designated as ‘problem tigers.’ As we write this, recommendations in the PKBSI master plan have not been implemented, the Sumatran Tiger Studbook has not been adequately updated, and no tigers have been offered for export even though Indonesia’s conservation authorities supported the idea. It appears that the power of profit has trumped the ideal of conservation.
The dark legacy of kkn As the experience with fires and captive tigers shows, the challenge of conserving tigers can reach well beyond simple biology or direct human–tiger interactions. Politics and external social and environmental forces can have much greater impacts on tiger populations
iv. Regional reviews: status of tigers
the dark legacy of kkn
391
than field surveys of ‘normal’ conditions would suggest. Particularly in the Suharto era, considerable time, effort, and money was spent simply obtaining and keeping permits and agreements with government agencies [15]. We were certainly not alone, and the entire political and economic structure of Indonesia revolved around the relationship of korupsi (corruption), kolusi (collusion), and nepotisme (nepotism), frequently summarized as ‘KKN’ [16]. The fall of the Suharto government in 1998 triggered widespread political and administrative reform and raised hopes that the long-term outlook for Sumatra’s forests would improve. Elections were held; administrative authority shifted away from the central government in Jakarta to the provinces. Unfortunately, with the collapse of central government authority came the opportunity for new and more significant KKN. Decentralization meant that even more provincial-level bureaucrats, judges, officials, and police could plunder the forests where tigers live [17]. The culture of corruption that so defined the Suharto era is even more alive today, fueled by the riches from plundering wild lands for timber (Fig. 30.6) and the newest scourge—oil palm (see Maddox, Chapter 31)—all supported by a military-business complex that is prepared to use violence to protect its interests [18]. In 20 years, the space of time that seemed like a heartbeat, despite our best efforts and the efforts of other well meaning Indonesian and international organizations struggling in other areas of Sumatra, half of Sumatra’s remaining forests and half of its tigers were lost. Protected areas were not spared. In Bukit Barisan Selatan NP, for example, between 1985 and 1999 forest
Figure 30.6 Illegal logging is a significant problem throughout Sumatra. Here, Sumatran Tiger Project staff and forestry authorities confiscate lumber products from an illegal timber operation within Bukit Tigapuluh National Park. (Photo credit: Directorate General of Nature Protection and conservation, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia, and Sumatran Tiger Project, Way Kambas National Park)
IV. Regional reviews: status of tigers
392
30. The Biology and Politics of Sumatran tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garuda
Figure 30.7 Indonesia has lost two tiger subspecies, the Javan and Bali tigers. Unless the people and government of Indonesia are serious about protecting their biological heritage, Indonesia also will lose its last wild Sumatran tigers. (Photo credit: Directorate General of Nature Protection and conservation, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia, and Sumatran Tiger Project, Way Kambas National Park)
loss averaged 2% per year, much of it prime tiger habitat with lowland forests disappearing faster than hill/montane forest, and forests on gentle slopes disappearing faster than forests on steep slopes [6]. Kinnaird et al. [6] predicted that in just a few years, 70% of the land within the park would be turned over to agriculture; and that by 2036 lowland forest habitat would be eliminated. Everyone is quick to point the finger at the loggers, the plantations, and the poachers. They are important drivers of tiger extinction, but they can be stopped if those in positions of authority really want to save tigers in Indonesia. The inescapable conclusion is that until the government and the wealthy and powerful business interests in Indonesia decide with real conviction that the conversion of Sumatra’s forests and the extinction of its tigers is unacceptable, there is little hope for tigers or the rest of the globally important biological diversity that remains in Indonesia. We are not currently actively working in Indonesia, but other dedicated Indonesian and international colleagues remain. We are concerned that unless the status quo changes, there simply is not going to be enough money and political will to secure a long-term future for tigers and other wildlife in Sumatra. Unless the current trajectory of forest loss and habitat degradation is halted and reversed, there is not going to be any space for wild tigers outside existing reserves in the very near future, and even these will struggle against the many forces arrayed against them (Fig. 30.7). Tigers and nature are resilient. Although cin-cin emas and thousands of other tigers like her have died, Indonesia’s remaining tigers can be saved if there is the commitment. A decade ago, it was beyond the imagination of more than a few that the powerful government of President Suharto could be overthrown, but as this book goes to press, former President Suharto has died and the country he once ruled with an iron fist is today much more democratic, the media more open, the opportunities for economic growth greater than ever. But the legacy of corruption,
iv. Regional reviews: status of tigers
the tiger’s right to life
393
collusion, and nepotism of the Suharto regime, and Indonesia’s first president, Sukarno, and the Dutch colonial empire long before, remains the greatest threat to the tigers of Indonesia.
The tiger’s right to life The tone of this chapter is certainly bleaker than the optimistic tone we had when we first arrived in Sumatra over a decade ago. Today the situation is dire, and gloomy, but perhaps not hopeless. If the next edition of Tigers of the World is to have a more uplifting chapter on Sumatran tigers—and avoid opening with a perspective on the extinction of the Sumatran tiger in the wild—we believe, based on our experiences, that several steps are absolutely necessary. First, the future of the tiger is tied to the global economy. Understanding how consumption of oil palm, timber, paper, coffee, oil, and many other commodities directly and indirectly affect tigers [19] is necessary but not sufficient. Indonesia and the global community must think big and take bold steps to conserve its last wild places for animals. As much remaining habitat as possible must be conserved, and existing protected areas must be retained. An extension of this point is that the tiger will not survive based on small and short-term tiger conservation projects supported by international donors. There simply are not enough dollars available in the conservation community to do this. Funding must come from Jakarta and the provinces, and corruption must be eliminated. Sumatra’s largest protected areas lack adequate funding, law enforcement capacity, and sustainable forestry and wildlife management protocols [20]. The government of Indonesia must take more seriously its role as guardian of its globally important biodiversity for future generations of Indonesians. Second, existing Indonesian laws must be enforced and perpetrators must be held accountable through the court system and brought to justice, no matter how powerful and connected. Corrupt officials who abuse their position at the expense of the tiger must be exposed. As long as corruption and collusion are rampant, tigers and tiger habitat simply will not survive. Third, Indonesia’s captive tigers must be managed by all of its zoos and not held hostage by one single corporate entity. Nothing less than the future of the Sumatran tiger’s genetic diversity is at stake. Fourth, we have commented elsewhere [21] that more attention needs to be given to conserving and restoring large mammals in lands where existing protected areas are considered to be theoretically too small, where the creation of corridors is unlikely, where buffer zones may create more problems than they solve, and where additional lands for conservation are unavailable. Possible solutions to this dilemma may include the creation of virtual corridors, defensible boundaries, and reevaluation of the value of fragmented, degraded habitats. Our experiences in Sumatra brought home to us the need to develop tiger conservation strategies based on good science that provide signposts to guide the decision-making process when the ecologically appropriate recommendation—such as connecting large habitats to form a connected network of reserves—runs headlong into significant non-biological obstacles. For example, if economic conditions encourage a rapid increase in migration, forest clearing, and conversion of land to cultivation. We may be better served in Asia by diverting from our current obsession with counting every wild tiger, measuring every forest gap, and noting every tiger part in local markets, and shift significant resources and talent to tackle the human–tiger coexistence challenge.
IV. Regional reviews: status of tigers
394
30. The Biology and Politics of Sumatran tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garuda
The tiger conservation Garuda could yet rise from the ashes in Indonesia. We certainly hope so. Indonesia has changed dramatically over the past two decades, and many of these changes are positive. Elections continue, non-governmental organizations are playing an ever-greater role, and there is widespread recognition of the importance of local stakeholders. Young Indonesians are talking about how to conserve wildlife and natural resources far more than when the first edition of Tigers of the World was published. This is important, because tiger conservation in Sumatra must ultimately be carried out by Indonesians. The international tiger conservation community needs to assist and to enable the brightest and the most motivated of Indonesia’s young conservation professionals and students. These are the future guardian’s of Sumatra’s last wild places who will be responsible for tigers long after this chapter becomes a historical footnote.
References 1. Seidensticker J. In: Tilson RL, Seal US, eds. Tigers of the World: The Biology, Biopolitics, Management, and Conservation of an Endangered Species. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Publications; 1987:1–8. 2. Franklin N, Bastoni S, et al. In: Seidensticker J, Christie S, Jackson P, eds. Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human-Dominated Landscapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999:130–147. 3. Franklin N. Conservation Biology of the Sumatran Tiger in Way Kambas National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. Dissertation. UK: University of York; 2002. 4. O’Brien TG, Kinnaird MF, Wibisono HT. Crouching tigers, hidden prey: Sumatran tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Anim Conserv. 2003;6:131–139. 5. Linkie M, Chapron G, Martyr DJ, et al. Assessing the viability of tiger subpopulations in a fragmented landscape. J Appl Ecol. 2006;43:576–586. 6. Kinnaird MF, Sanderson EW, O’Brien TG, et al. Deforestation trends in a tropical landscape and implications for endangered large mammals. Conserv Biol. 2003;17:245–257. 7. Miettinen J, Liew SC. Connection between fire and land cover change in Southeast Asia: a remote sensing case study in Riau, Sumatra. Int J Remote Sens. 2005:1–18. 8. Kinnaird M, O’Brien T. Ecological effects of wildfire on lowland rainforest in Sumatra. Conserv Biol. 1998;12:954–956. 9. Siegert F, Ruecke G, Hinrichs A, Hoffmann AA. Increased damage from fires in logged forests during droughts caused by El Niño. Nature. 2001;414:437–440. 10. Nyhus P, Sumianto TR In: Seidensticker J, Christie S, Jackson P, eds. Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human-Dominated Landscapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999:144–145. 11. Nyhus PJ, Tilson R. Characterizing tiger–human conflict in Sumatra, Indonesia: implications for conservation. Oryx. 2004;38:68–74. 12. Nyhus PJ, Sumianto TR. Wildlife knowledge among migrants in southern Sumatra, Indonesia: Implications for conservation. Environ Conserv. 2003;30:192–199. 13. Nyhus P, Sumianto TR. Crop-raiding elephants and conservation implications at Way Kambas National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. Oryx. 2000;34:262–275. 14. Nyhus PJ, Tilson R. Agroforestry, elephants, and tigers: Balancing conservation theory and practice in humandominated landscapes of Southeast Asia. Agroforest Ecosyst Environ. 2004;104:87–97. 15. Nyhus P, Tilson R, Franklin N. In: Conway WG, Hutchins M, Souza M, et al. AZA Field Conservation Resource Guide. Zoo Atlanta, Atlanta; 2001: 198-207. 16. Robinson R. Corruption, collusion and nepotism after Suharto: Indonesia’s past or future? IIAS Newsl. 2006:14–40. 17. King P. The Indonesian conundrum: entrenched corruption and failing reform. IIAS Newsl. 2006:12–40. 18. Wing J, King P. Genocide in West Papua? Sydney, Australia: West Papua Project, University of Sydney; 2005. 19. O’Brien TG, Kinnaird MF. Caffeine and conservation. Science. 2003:300:587. 20. Linkie M, Martyr DJ, Holden J, et al. Habitat destruction and poaching threaten the Sumatran tiger in Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra. Oryx. 2003;37:41–48. 21. Tilson R, Nyhus P, Franklin N. In: Maehr DS, Noss RF, Larkin JL, eds. Large Mammal Restoration: Ecological and Sociological Challenges in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2001:277–291.
iv. Regional reviews: status of tigers
30
The Biology and Politics of Sumatran Tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garudaa 1
Ronald Tilson1 and Philip J. Nyhus2 Conservation Department, Minnesota Zoo, Apple Valley, Minnesota, USA Environmental Studies Program, Colby College, Waterville, Maine, USA
2
o u t l i n e Introduction
377
Local Knowledge of Tigers
386
Indonesia’s Modern Tiger History
379
The Biology of Sumatran Tigers in Lowland Forests
Local Attitudes Towards Tigers, Parks, and Conservation
387
381
Improving Indonesian Zoos
389
Fire and Tigers
384
The Dark Legacy of Kkn
390
The Tiger’s Right to Life
393
References
394
Human Dimension of Tiger Conservation
385
Introduction Indonesia is a land of islands, beaches, and sunshine; exotic fruits, spices, and batik; a land where gamelan musicians and wayang shadow puppet masters can tell the story of the Hindu Ramayana near ancient Buddhist temples in a country dominated by Islam. But a
The story of the Garuda’s birth is told in the Mahabharata, one of the two major Sanskrit epics of ancient India. According to the epic, the Garuda first appeared as an inferno equal to the conflagration that consumes the world at the end of every age. Indonesia uses the Garuda as its national symbol.
Tigers of the World, Second Edition
377
© 2010 Published by Elsevier Inc.
378
30. The Biology and Politics of Sumatran tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garuda
behind this blissful tourist image lurks a darker reality where bureaucrats and politicians, police and military officials, and wealthy industrialists manage the plunder of Indonesia’s vast natural resources. Among the most coveted prizes of all: the pristine forests of Sumatra where tigers have lived for some 10,000 years. In 1995, the Sumatran Tiger Project was established to study and protect Indonesia’s last Sumatran tigers (Panthera tigris sumatrae). The Project was initiated and directed by Ron Tilson and included a human-dimension component coordinated by Philip Nyhus. The 10-year project began with a small staff in Way Kambas National Park (NP), a 130,000 ha lowland protected rain forest of mixed primary and late stage secondary forest, grasslands, and swamp situated in southeastern Sumatra, Lampung Province. The most immediate objective was to catalogue how many tigers and other species lived in the park using a then-new approach that relied on remote infra-red cameras. It took 3 months for the team to figure out how to cameratrap wild tigers, but eventually they became very good at it. Spectacular adult males were photographed, but the tiger we remember was a sleek adult female named cin-cin emas (‘gold ring’) (Fig. 30.1). We were obtaining more photos of her than any other tiger, but then she vanished. A thorough search of her home range area revealed 76 steel-wire snares had been set by poachers. And at one of three sites that became known as the killing trees, we knew she had been caught. The steel-wire snare was anchored to a tree trunk, and in a desperate attempt to escape, she went around and around the tree, digging a trench in the earth. She tried to claw up the tree trunk, shredding the bark. After hours, maybe days, she died, painfully and in terror. An undercover investigation in villages next to the park led to the discovery of the boss who paid for these poachers to lay their snares. The police found scores of animal remains, including the hides and bones of tigers in his house. Connected to this man was an even higher trafficker, a colonel in the regional police force. But despite the hard evidence, no
Figure 30.1 Cin-cin Emas, the first pregnant tiger in Way Kambas National Park photographed by the Sumatran Tiger Project, was also the first to be killed by poachers. (Photo credit: Directorate General of Nature Protection and conservation, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia, and Sumatran Tiger Project, Way Kambas National Park)
iv. Regional reviews: status of tigers
Indonesia’s modern tiger history
379
one was brought to trial, no one was convicted, and no one paid a penalty. At one point our desperation became so intense we offered the investigating officer 10% over any bribe the traffickers would pay to keep the colonel in jail. This apparently was not enough, because he was released, reassigned, and disappeared. In hindsight, the story of cin-cin emas is much more than just a story about the loss of one tiger. Seen in the mirror of history, the loss of this tiger and its aftermath is one paragraph of a much longer narrative that helps to explain why Indonesia is losing its last tigers. Over the next five years the Sumatran Tiger Project grew to include more than 20 Indonesian staff, some 40 anti-poaching guards partly funded by the project, a handful of Indonesian university students, and a host of provincial and local forestry counterparts. We initiated an undercover investigation of poaching and trafficking and the recruitment, training, and insertion of anti-poaching teams. The Project’s field operations expanded beyond its origins in Way Kambas NP to include protected forests adjacent to Bukit Barisan Selatan NP in western Sumatra, to Bukit Tigapulah NP, a survey of Berbak NP in central Sumatra, and the Senepis Tiger Conservation Area in eastern Jambi Province. The project’s human-dimension included an integrated community education program, analysis of local knowledge and attitudes, and local and provincial stakeholder meetings and workshops. Annual costs swelled from tens of thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands per year. To keep up with expanding year-to-year costs we formed alliances with local and international organizations, helped found a Canadian foundation to raise money, and wrote grant proposals at breakneck speed. Millions of Indonesian Rupiah were spent on legitimate field operations, but significant sums were also handed over in envelopes to various officials to ‘grease the wheels’ and keep our permits valid. This is how business is conducted in Indonesia. During these years we realized significant achievements. Awareness about the plight of the Sumatran tiger grew inside and outside Indonesia, many Indonesian university students were trained and gained valuable experience with tigers and conservation, and almost certainly more tigers survived than if the project had not happened. We made considerable progress with the goal of understanding the conservation needs of wild tigers, but made little progress with the goal of achieving meaningful and sustainable tiger conservation across the entire island. In this chapter, we begin by briefly describing the modern history of tiger conservation in Sumatra. We then describe our efforts and major findings related to tiger biology and the human dimension of tiger conservation. Throughout we place these events in context with what we did and did not know about tigers 20 years ago based on the efforts of the 10-year project and efforts of other on-going tiger conservation programs. We conclude with some personal thoughts on the challenges and opportunities for tiger conservation in Indonesia.
Indonesia’s modern tiger history Indonesia is unique among tiger range states as the only place tigers have evolved on islands. The ocean has been a barrier for tiger dispersal the last 10,000 years. Indonesia is also unique in having the darkest history with tigers. No other place has lost two tiger subspecies. When the first edition of Tigers of the World was published, it was well known that the Indonesian tigers from Java (P.t. sondaicus) and Bali (P.t. balica) had been lost forever through ignorance and neglect [1]. But no one could reasonably estimate how many Sumatran tigers
IV. Regional reviews: status of tigers
380
30. The Biology and Politics of Sumatran tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garuda
remained, where they were, or whether they could be saved. Published estimates of the tiger’s abundance and distribution, based on back-of-the-envelope estimates, ranged from about 1,000 tigers in the 1970s [2] to ‘not in the thousands but in the hundreds’ in the 1980s [3]. This vagary is directly related to the fact that tigers are exceedingly difficult to observe or count in closed forest habitat; only a handful of forestry staff had ever seen tigers in the wild. Even less was known about the extent of human–tiger conflict or the magnitude of the threats that could eliminate these once abundant animals. This was the grim setting for a Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG) Population and Habitat Viability Analysis (PHVA) workshop sponsored in 1992 by the government of Indonesia [4]. The recommendations made at the workshop resulted in the creation of Indonesia’s Sumatran Tiger Conservation Strategy [5] and an international collaborative effort to fund and carry out a long-term program to balance the needs of tigers with those of the people living there. These programs had one goal—to keep the Sumatran tiger from becoming Indonesia’s next, and last, extinct tiger. Because of this information vacuum, two activities were undertaken before the meeting took place. First, a set of Geographic Information System (GIS) maps was compiled. Satellite imagery overlays of vegetation cover of Sumatra were matched up with Indonesian landuse and forest status maps. This database gave a comprehensive spatial analysis of Sumatra, allowing broad habitat types to be distinguished. Three months before the workshop, Tilson traveled overland for most of the length of Sumatra, beginning in Medan in the north and finishing in Bandar Lampung in the south, visiting government conservation offices along the 1,500 km route to inform every one of the objectives and process of the upcoming tiger workshop. At each office a set of GIS maps of their local area overlaid with 100 km2 grids and a set of questions were left, requesting information or verification of land-use categories, major vegetation zones, and presence and/or absence of tiger distribution within each grid. The idea was to gather as much information as possible before the workshop, so that meeting time could be spent on analysis and recommendations rather than presentation. For the most part this plan worked. Workshop participants estimated that there were approximately 500 tigers remaining in the forests of Sumatra, based on an estimate of one tiger per 100 km2. Smaller populations totaling about 100 tigers were estimated to be living in a number of isolated forest patches, some of which were protected, but many of which were not. Workshop participants agreed that the presence of these small, fragmented tiger populations needed verification and the feasibility of linking these to larger, adjacent populations determined. Even within some of the large protected areas, the habitat was significantly fragmented and thus, tiger populations were probably also fragmented. For 15 years, this estimate was the recognized estimate of tigers in Sumatra until now (see Seidensticker et al., Chapter 22). Human population growth, transmigration programs (out-settling of people from high-density areas of Java, Bali, and Madura), and other pressures mostly linked to agriculture and logging were initially identified as significant causes of decline in non-protected tiger habitat. A gradual deterioration of habitat quality at the edges of protected forest occurred as well. Another impact of human population growth was the removal of tigers through poaching, poisoning, and trapping. Two primary threats to tiger populations were identified. One was the small size of existing tiger populations; the second was removal of tigers from these small populations, which although the threat was nominal, had the potential to severely impact these populations.
iv. Regional reviews: status of tigers
The biology of sumatran tigers in lowland forests
381
This finding brought home how crucial it is to prevent tiger poaching and human–wildlife conflict wherever it occurs (see Tilson et al., Chapter 6 and Nyhus and Tilson, Chapter 8). Two years later, in recognition of the tiger’s critical situation, the government formalized the recommendations from the workshop as a comprehensive action plan that prioritized the steps necessary for the species’ effective conservation. The bilingual Indonesian Sumatran Tiger Conservation Strategy, originally edited by Ronald Tilson, addressed broad categories intended to ensure the long-term survival of Sumatran tigers, including securing all remaining wild tiger populations and their habitat and developing a captive program for reinforcement of wild populations. It essentially mandated that the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry, its national zoos, and international conservation organizations needed to work together for the long-term benefit of wild tigers. Several other international tiger conservation efforts started concurrently or just after we started ours. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) initiated a program in Bukit Barisan Selatan NP in southwest Sumatra. The World Wildlife Fund had a project around Bukit Tigapuluh NP in central Sumatra. Fauna and Flora International (FFI) and others were involved near and in Kerinci Seblat NP, and the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) sponsored research in Tesso Nilo and nearby in central Sumatra (see Maddox, Chapter 31). A European Union-funded park development project in Gunung Leuser NP in north Sumatra included tiger research. While we summarize key published findings from research in these areas, we primarily focus this chapter on our experiences with the Sumatran Tiger Project.
The biology of sumatran tigers in lowland forests From 1995 to 2000 the Project’s main focus was to define the conservation requirements of wild Sumatran tigers [2]. We chose Way Kambas, located in southeastern Sumatra, because it was the largest protected tropical lowland rain forest habitat in Sumatra (the optimum habitat before humans arrived and pushed tigers into the mountains), it was logistically close to Jakarta where all political decisions were made, and an initial reconnaissance revealed abundant deer, pig, and tiger tracks. The park was established as a wildlife reserve in 1937, logged commercially between 1954 and 1974, and declared a national park in 1989. One of our primary field tools was remote infra-red cameras and global positioning system (GPS) technology. Over time we were able to recognize individual tiger identities and population structure in this forest. We developed a good idea of tiger home range sizes, population density, daily activity patterns, and reproductive success of certain females. Field information on habitat requirements, prey selection, and behavioral responses to disturbances further refined the conservation needs of wild tigers. We were essentially beginning to understand the group dynamics of a living population of wild tigers. Much of what we learned about the biology of Sumatran tigers was summarized in the graduate dissertation of Neil Franklin [3]. Previous logging operations left hard-packed earth roads that seemed invisible in the field but were apparent when satellite maps were viewed. These trails were the main thoroughfares for all wildlife, including tigers. Along them we set up a system of 20–29 independent cameras distributed across the park’s core area, which were operational 24 hours per day for nearly 5 years continuously and another 5 years intermittently. A subset of 55 months over two periods (October 1995 to December 1998; February 1999 to July 2000) was used for this analysis. Of 14,121 photographs
IV. Regional reviews: status of tigers
382
30. The Biology and Politics of Sumatran tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garuda
a nalyzed, 6,662 (48%) were of wildlife, and from this total 3,933 (58%) were prey and 435 (7%) were tigers [3]. Cameras were checked every 10–14 days to replace film and batteries. Tigers often visited cameras just minutes after we left, some even urinated on them. It took 2–3 days of walking overland to complete the route and several overnights were always necessary. Curiously, not once did a tiger ever visit our simple camps (plastic ground cloths and rain canopy) even though we were walking through the home ranges of nearly a dozen individual tigers. We found their scats, saw plenty of tracks, smelled their urine, and sometimes heard then growling, but, with a single exception, never saw them. In Way Kambas the estimated number of tigers ranged from a high of 34–36 in 1997 to a low of 8–10 in 1999 [3] (see tigers and fire section, below). A total of 14 female and seven males were individually identified (2:1 female to male ratio), but on a year-to-year basis spanning 5 years, the sex ratio averaged 1.5 females to 1 male. Of these 21 tigers there was sufficient data to calculate home range size of seven (three males and four females) using minimum convex polygons. Male home range sizes averaged 52 km2 (range of 25–66 km2) (Fig. 30.2); females sizes were significantly smaller and averaged 27 km2 (range of 11–46 km2). There was extensive overlap of both male and female home ranges. Males tended to show greater site persistence than females; males had a mean duration of 650 days whereas females had a mean duration of 404 days. Three mothers were observed with cubs; two litters of three cubs and one mother with a single cub. Daily activity patterns of tigers in Way Kambas showed that they were not exclusively nocturnal; they were moving and taking their pictures during cool crepuscular hours (26%) and nighttime (32%); the remaining 42% during daylight (7 am to 7 pm). Prey showed similar bimodal crepuscular and daylight activity.
Figure 30.2 Competition among tigers for space and resources can be intense. A large male Sumatran tiger in Way Kambas National Park walks through a remote camera trap with a fresh wound on its head. (Photo credit: Directorate General of Nature Protection and conservation, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia, and Sumatran Tiger Project, Way Kambas National Park)
iv. Regional reviews: status of tigers
The biology of sumatran tigers in lowland forests
383
Tiger population densities estimates using CAPTURE ranged from 1.14 to 4.63 tigers/ 100 km2 over the 5-year period of the study [3]. Other field studies elsewhere in Sumatra have since estimated tiger densities of 1.7/100 km2 in Bukit Barisan Selatan NP [4], and tiger densities from 3.3/100 km2 in lowland habitat to 2.0/100 km2 in hill habitat to 1.5/100 km2 in submontane habitat in Kerinci Seblat NP [5]. Tigers in Way Kambas tended to avoid the park edges, and other studies have found similar results. Tigers avoided forest boundaries up to 2 km at Bukit Barisan Selatan NP [6], and tiger occurrence was negatively correlated with distance to public roads in Kerinci Seblat NP [5]. Human population density also has been shown to be a strong predictor of tiger abundance [4]. One of the earliest questions we asked was, ‘what do tigers eat’? Over 120 scats were collected throughout a 162 km2 study area in the center of the park over two years (September 1995 to July 1997) and analyzed to prey type (Srianto et al., unpublished manuscript). Relative population densities of medium- to large-sized herbivore prey were derived from 2,953 photographs in the Project database [3]. Analysis of 120 scats containing the remains of 135 animals suggests that tigers in Way Kambas NP prey primarily on four species (two species of macaques were combined) (Fig. 30.3). Their frequency of occurrence was wild pig (33.3%), macaques (27.5%), sambar deer (16.7%),
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Figure 30.3 Tigers in Way Kambas National Park eat primarily wild pigs (A), deer such as sambar (B) and barking deer (C), and macaques (D). Pigs, deer, and macaques each account for about one-third of the total diet of tigers in this reserve. (Photo credit: Directorate General of Nature Protection and conservation, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia, and Sumatran Tiger Project, Way Kambas National Park)
IV. Regional reviews: status of tigers
384
30. The Biology and Politics of Sumatran tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garuda
and barking deer (15.0%). Five samples were from Sun bear (2.5%) and the remaining eight (5.9%) contained hair from undetermined animals. No elephant, rhino or tapir remains were found in the scats even though these species occur throughout the Park, nor were any domestic livestock found, even though the Park is surrounded by densely populated human settlements.
Fire and tigers Historically, fire was probably not a major part of the ecology of Sumatra, and fire was not discussed as a factor in tiger ecology and management generally in the first edition of Tigers of the World. However, today, with the growing deforestation and systematic burning to clear land for agriculture, we know that fire is a major influence on tiger habitat in Sumatra and many other areas of Asia [7–9]. In 1997-1998, major forest fires swept across Indonesia, including Sumatra, resulting in great public concern about public health and economic impact. As with previous major fires in Indonesia, these fires were the consequence of an extensive El Niño drought [8]. These fires gave us an unanticipated laboratory where we could study the impact of fires on tiger populations in a lowland rainforest. The dry season in Way Kambas generally lasts from May to October, when rainfall averages 100 mm per month. In 1997, this period was exceptionally dry. Fires swept through the park between mid-August and mid-December (Fig. 30.4). Prior to the fires, the tiger population structure in the park was stable for nearly 3 years; the tiger population in the study site was characterized by the presence of several resident mature adult individuals, periodically and briefly visited by young adult individuals at an approximately constant rate. From the intermediate stages of the El Niño drought through to the end of the fires the study population was dominated by a greatly increased number of young adults (mostly females), and characterized by the disappearance of many of the previously resident mature adults. It is likely that many of these mature tigers died, while the young adults coped better. We believe that these fires were largely responsible for the fluctuation in tigers densities mentioned above, when tiger numbers peaked at 34–36 in 1997, and then declined to a low of 8–10 in 1999. This resulted in a change in social dynamics after the fires; tigers shifted from a population dominated by long-term resident mature adults to a population dominated by previously unrecorded young adults. This study indicates that fires directly or indirectly impact tigers significantly by severely modifying or destroying forest habitat, by causing a reduction in prey availability, and by exposing them to severe environmental stress. Fires may preferentially threaten resident mature adults. More mobile young adults are predisposed to disperse elsewhere in the park, and those that survive can return and rapidly re-colonize sites following a fire. Females, with less exclusive territorial behavior, may be more socially tolerable (female offspring are known to settle in areas adjacent to their mother). Although the experience at Way Kambas was but a snapshot of how fire may alter the habitat physically and the age structure of tigers socially, it seems reasonable to suggest that the loss of the mature class of resident tigers was disruptive if not nearly cataclysmic. It also seems reasonable to suggest that fire must be considered as a significant threat to tiger populations, especially in the island’s smaller reserves and forest fragments.
iv. Regional reviews: status of tigers
human dimension of tiger conservation
(A)
385
(B)
Figure 30.4 A significant threat to tiger habitat is fires. These satellite images show Way Kambas National Park before (a) and after (b) a major fire swept the park in 1997, burning approximately 60% of the park and reducing the tiger population by an estimated two-thirds. (Photo credit: Directorate General of Nature Protection and Conservation, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia, and Sumatran Tiger Project, Way Kambas National Park)
Human dimension of tiger conservation The first major human–tiger study in Sumatra was based on a year-long detailed survey of 25 villages situated adjacent to Way Kambas. The objective was to quantify and characterize land-use patterns, human–wildlife conflict, people’s knowledge about wildlife, and their attitudes about conservation. Indonesia’s transmigration program and the resulting rapid population growth had a dramatic impact on Sumatra’s landscape. This is particularly true in Lampung Province, where the first and largest number of migrants from Java settled and which today has some of Sumatra’s highest human population densities [10]. At Way Kambas, the ring of villages dominated by transmigrants that surround the park provide a unique cultural filter. These
IV. Regional reviews: status of tigers
386
30. The Biology and Politics of Sumatran tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garuda
Figure 30.5 More than 26 villages surrounded Way Kambas National Park, and many inhabitants collect wood, fish, and animals from the park. Here a Javanese migrant farmer collects fruit illegally inside the park boundary. (Photo credit: Philip Nyhus.)
communities are dominated by farmers focused on cultivation as a livelihood, a considerable number express fear of the forest, and most do not have strong historical associations with traditional resource extraction from the forest. Encroachment and the potential for over-harvesting are significant threats that will persist in Way Kambas and other similar reserves with tigers because grass and fuelwood are essential household needs, and fish and small game, including tiger prey species, are collected for personal consumption and sale. Illegal theft of forest resources continues particularly where profits are high or the activities are considered socially acceptable (Fig. 30.5). We found that while human–tiger conflict was common across Sumatra, it was rare at Way Kambas. Only one person was killed by tigers at Way Kambas over a 20-year period [11], despite the relatively dense tiger population residing in the park (Nyhus and Tilson, Chapter 8). We hypothesized that the park’s ‘hard edge’ and abundant prey encouraged tigers to stay in and people to stay out, reducing opportunities for conflict.
Local knowledge of tigers Before we arrived there was already widespread agreement in conservation circles that effective conservation and management of protected areas required an understanding of the concerns, needs, and attitudes of local people living near these areas. But little was known in Sumatra about knowledge and attitudes toward tigers and conservation. We administered our survey to a stratified systematic sample of close to 1,000 households, eventually analyzing data from 622 households in 10 villages representing all six subdistricts bordering the park. Between 2.9% and 15.2% of households in each of the 10 villages were sampled.
iv. Regional reviews: status of tigers
local attitudes towards tigers, parks, and conservation
387
We found that migrants living near Way Kambas varied greatly in their knowledge of wildlife and the park. They were frequently unfamiliar with the most fundamental problems associated with tiger conservation, such as small population size, declining habitat, and the recent extinction of other tiger subspecies in Indonesia. Among some of our more interesting results related to tigers, we found that awareness among respondents of the endangered status of the tiger and its declining population was generally low. More than 70% perceived tigers to be more abundant in Sumatra and Way Kambas today than 20 years ago. More respondents believed the tiger still exists on Java (10.6% answered ‘many’ and 42.1% answered ‘few’) as believed there were none (47.3%), and estimates of the number of tigers in Way Kambas varied greatly. Among respondents who were willing to provide an estimate, the number of tigers thought to be in the park ranged between 51 and 482 (161 if high value removed) with a median of 50. Many more provided non-quantitative answers such as ‘many’ or ‘hundreds.’ Large, charismatic, and abundant animals were identified more frequently than smaller and more secretive animals, but the generic word used for ‘tiger’ (macan) was also used to describe other cats and even some civets. Higher knowledge scores were significantly associated with males, higher educational attainment, and past experiences with these animals. The number of years respondents had lived in the area and respondent age were also good predictors of higher wildlife knowledge scores [12]. Our results suggested that, while biodiversity research, conservation, and education programs frequently rely on ‘local’ knowledge to inform management and policy, with more and more migrants living near wildlife protected areas, care must be taken to understand how human demographic shifts may affect these relationships.
Local attitudes towards tigers, parks, and conservation Attitudes were influenced by local experiences with wildlife. When we began, we expected tigers as threats to people and livestock would be the most significant concern among villagers. However, elephants were by far the larger problem [13], and higher levels of human–wildlife conflict were significantly associated with more negative attitudes toward conservation authorities. When presented with a hypothetical situation where a tiger was killed in retaliation for killing livestock, 51.9% of respondents did not agree that the tiger should have been killed, and respondents tended to agree that punishment should be given to the person who killed the tiger (72.3%). The support for punishment was significantly greater for damage by elephants than tigers. There was a striking difference in whether elephants or tigers were considered as pests: 72.2% agreed that elephants damaged crops and only 18.5% agreed that tigers disturbed people. Respondents were aware that they lived adjacent to a protected area but were unfamiliar with its formal name or status, providing 72 different names, most commonly referring to the park as a ‘protected forest,’ ‘Way Kambas,’ or a variation of ‘forest.’ Only three people referred to the park by its full name and only two called it a National Park. Few villagers had ever met with any of the 41 staff of the forest conservation office responsible for the protection and management of the park. Only 7% of respondents said they had met with conservation
IV. Regional reviews: status of tigers
388
30. The Biology and Politics of Sumatran tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garuda
officers in the previous five years, and over half of these respondents only met two or fewer times. A small number of respondents (15) claimed to have been previously apprehended by conservation authorities for illegally entering the park to collect grass, wood, or other resources. Virtually all respondents agreed on the need for conservation authorities (81.1%). We also carried out a more sophisticated analysis of factors that influenced attitudes toward wildlife, the park, and conservation authoritiesb. Gender, education, wildlife knowledge, and age were associated with differences in attitudes, as were stated perceptions of happiness with the park, benefits from the park, and the degree that respondents felt responsible for the park. Men were significantly more likely than women to have more negative attitudes toward conservation authorities, but more positive attitudes toward the park and tigers. Respondents with more formal education and those who scored higher on the wildlife knowledge test had significantly higher support for Way Kambas. Favorable attitudes toward wildlife and Way Kambas tended to increase with age, but mean scores declined after age 60. Scores did not differ significantly (on any of the four scales) among respondents with few or many livestock, those with little or no land, or with increased household wealth. Attitudes toward conservation authorities were more negative among respondents who perceived that human–wildlife conflict had increased over the last few years and in villages that experienced high levels of conflict. Respondents who reported they were happy with Way Kambas and those that believed they received benefits from Way Kambas were significantly more likely to hold positive attitudes toward conservation authorities. Respondents who felt responsible for the management of the park also had significantly higher (more positive) scores. The results of our studies certainly have implications for many of the protected areas in Sumatra. Seventy-five percent of the island’s protected areas are smaller than 300 km2, only a handful are larger than Way Kambas (1,300 km2), and population growth is likely to continue across much of the island resulting in an increasing number of reserves being surrounded by high human population densities. There is concern about whether these small reserves can sustain viable populations of large mammals and whether corridors can link this remaining tiger habitat [14]. Specifically, based on our experiences we hypothesized that wildlife corridors, buffer zones, agroforestry systems, and other multiple-use areas in Sumatra where tigers and people overlap could become hotspots for human–tiger conflict. If true, this would suggest that care must be taken in developing linkages among core conservation areas that might become conservation sinks because of conflict instead of positive corridors for gene flow.
b
Factor analysis (principle component analysis) was used to reduce the initial set of questions to a set of broader factors. Items with low anti-image correlation coefficients (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.50) were eliminated from the analysis. Initial solutions were based on eigenvalues greater than one and resulted in an eight factor solution. The varimax algorithm was used for orthogonal rotation to a simpler structure. These items were used to create four scales. To measure internal consistency of the attitude scales, we applied Cronbach’s coefficient alpha to provide a conservative estimate of the measure’s reliability. Questions with low inter-item correlations were deleted from the analysis. The three scales used in this study had values of Cronbach’s alpha greater than 0.60. Homogeneity of variance was tested with the Levene statistic for equal variance. Normal probability and detrended normal probability plots and both Komolgorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilks tests were used to test for normality. Independent variables were tested using one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni and Tukey post-hoc pairwise multiple comparisons and range tests, and tests of linear contrast across ordered groups. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed for bivariate and partial correlations. When equal variance and normality could not be shown, non-parametric chi-square and Mann Whitney-U tests were used.
iv. Regional reviews: status of tigers
improving indonesian zoos
389
We found that in many ways, Way Kambas is the antithesis of a model protected area: it is small, surrounded by densely populated settlements, and was once logged. Yet it was a valuable conservation area because it had some of the highest densities of tigers (and elephants, and rhinos and other species) in Sumatra. Its unique river and sea border provided good ‘defensibility’ along part of its border, and this unambiguous boundary offers a clear demarcation for where cultivated areas end and wildlife habitat begins (for contrast see O’Brien et al. [4]). The park offers interesting opportunities for learning about managing large carnivores in small parks surrounded by many people—a scenario becoming more and more common across Asia. However, the small size also highlights the risks faced by a small and fragile population of tigers as well. In the political vacuum following the fall of Suharto, hundreds of squatters entered the park. Soon after, poaching pressure increased and the abundance of prey species present when we arrived declined. Combined with the stress of drought and fires this became a classic instance of overlapping ‘stochastic’ disruptions to the system—a recipe for disaster. Ultimately, this does not bode well for the long-term survival of a healthy population of tigers.
Improving indonesian zoos The sociological challenges are not limited to the wild. Indonesia decided that the best way to deal with ‘problem tigers’ was to capture them and place them in zoos in Java. In the early 1990s the Indonesian Zoological Parks Association (PKBSI) had no cooperative programs for its endangered subspecies; tigers were living in overcrowded and poorly designed facilities. Neonatal mortality rates were high, and no genetic or demographic management plans were in place. Most tigers were not registered in the International Tiger Studbook, and wild-caught tigers were not optimally utilized. For 2 years, we met with Indonesian zoo directors and worked out a mutually beneficial plan. The PKBSI needed assistance in training their staff in modern zoo medical and husbandry practices, and guidance in developing a credible master plan for the captive population of Sumatran tigers. In exchange for this support, the PKBSI was open to assisting the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) to expand the genetic diversity of the North American population by providing offspring of wild-caught founders from Sumatra. Two caveats to the agreement was that the European Endangered Species Program and Australasian program in Australia and New Zealand would be considered partners in this process, and that only offspring of wild-caught tigers that were surplus to the needs of the PKBSI Sumatran tiger program would be considered as candidates for export. The last import to the US was in 1989. We all saw this as a win–win agreement. By enabling Indonesian efforts to properly manage captive tigers, offspring from their breeding program in theory would be available to the European, North American, and Australian captive breeding programs that would serve as a genetic backup to the Indonesian program. It was a most complicated partnership, spanning four continents, dozens of organizations, 10 zoos in Indonesia, and partnerships with the Indonesian Department of Forestry, the Indonesian Institute of Sciences, and PKBSI. Beginning in 1994, an international team of six zoo tiger biologists from Australia, Europe and the United States set out on a series of ‘Magical Mystery Tours,’ beginning in Java,
IV. Regional reviews: status of tigers
390
30. The Biology and Politics of Sumatran tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garuda
Indonesia. The team visited ten zoos in Java and Sumatra and provided hands-on training for 150 Indonesian zoo staff who focused on proper animal health procedures for tiger medical treatment, immobilizations, immunizations, evaluations, and health maintenance. Tiger physical examinations of 50 of the 61 tigers in the PKBSI program (all wild-caught or descendants of wild-caught tigers in Sumatra) were comprehensive: collection of blood and tissue biopsies; tattooing of each animal with a temporary or permanent studbook number; and placement of a transponder as a backup identification system. A blood serum bank was started for disease screening of wild-caught tigers, among other uses, with banked serum from 54 tigers. A molecular DNA library was initiated for subspecies discrimination with skin biopsies and/or hair samples banked from 52 tigers, and a PKBSI Genome Resource Bank was started with semen collected from 14 male tigers. Five years and five trips to Indonesia later, the PKBSI captive management program came of age, overseen by two co-coordinators, a management committee and a trained, competent studbook keeper. An accurate studbook for population management was established and all of their captive tigers were recorded in the International Tiger Studbook, with almost every tiger being physically examined and identified with tattoos and transponders. Over 150 Indonesian zoo staff were exposed to husbandry, veterinary, and reproductive procedures; a fledgling genome resource bank was in place; a rescue center for problem tigers was constructed; needed veterinary equipment had been provided to every zoo; and even a master plan was in place for the cooperative management of Sumatran tigers in Indonesia. Equally importantly, the events generated extensive public relations and media coverage within Indonesia. Three national television channels filmed our work, which was viewed by millions of Indonesians. Seven national and local newspapers carried the story; and the project was included in an international documentary film. Collectively, over US$200,000 was donated to support the captive breeding efforts. However, despite the enormous investment of money, time, resources, and numerous written and verbal agreements, by the end of 2009 no tigers from Indonesia had been sent to support the international Sumatran tiger captive breeding programs and considerable international goodwill was squandered. Part of the collapse of these efforts can be attributed to the very different agendas of the international zoos and Taman Safari Indonesia (TSI), a privately-owned drive-through animal safari park located in the hills above Jakarta. There are over 100 tigers at this site and its sister facility located in Surabaya at the other end of Java. About half of these tigers are from a circus that the family had previously owned, the other half came from Sumatra (and their offspring) where they were captured because they were designated as ‘problem tigers.’ As we write this, recommendations in the PKBSI master plan have not been implemented, the Sumatran Tiger Studbook has not been adequately updated, and no tigers have been offered for export even though Indonesia’s conservation authorities supported the idea. It appears that the power of profit has trumped the ideal of conservation.
The dark legacy of kkn As the experience with fires and captive tigers shows, the challenge of conserving tigers can reach well beyond simple biology or direct human–tiger interactions. Politics and external social and environmental forces can have much greater impacts on tiger populations
iv. Regional reviews: status of tigers
the dark legacy of kkn
391
than field surveys of ‘normal’ conditions would suggest. Particularly in the Suharto era, considerable time, effort, and money was spent simply obtaining and keeping permits and agreements with government agencies [15]. We were certainly not alone, and the entire political and economic structure of Indonesia revolved around the relationship of korupsi (corruption), kolusi (collusion), and nepotisme (nepotism), frequently summarized as ‘KKN’ [16]. The fall of the Suharto government in 1998 triggered widespread political and administrative reform and raised hopes that the long-term outlook for Sumatra’s forests would improve. Elections were held; administrative authority shifted away from the central government in Jakarta to the provinces. Unfortunately, with the collapse of central government authority came the opportunity for new and more significant KKN. Decentralization meant that even more provincial-level bureaucrats, judges, officials, and police could plunder the forests where tigers live [17]. The culture of corruption that so defined the Suharto era is even more alive today, fueled by the riches from plundering wild lands for timber (Fig. 30.6) and the newest scourge—oil palm (see Maddox, Chapter 31)—all supported by a military-business complex that is prepared to use violence to protect its interests [18]. In 20 years, the space of time that seemed like a heartbeat, despite our best efforts and the efforts of other well meaning Indonesian and international organizations struggling in other areas of Sumatra, half of Sumatra’s remaining forests and half of its tigers were lost. Protected areas were not spared. In Bukit Barisan Selatan NP, for example, between 1985 and 1999 forest
Figure 30.6 Illegal logging is a significant problem throughout Sumatra. Here, Sumatran Tiger Project staff and forestry authorities confiscate lumber products from an illegal timber operation within Bukit Tigapuluh National Park. (Photo credit: Directorate General of Nature Protection and conservation, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia, and Sumatran Tiger Project, Way Kambas National Park)
IV. Regional reviews: status of tigers
392
30. The Biology and Politics of Sumatran tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garuda
Figure 30.7 Indonesia has lost two tiger subspecies, the Javan and Bali tigers. Unless the people and government of Indonesia are serious about protecting their biological heritage, Indonesia also will lose its last wild Sumatran tigers. (Photo credit: Directorate General of Nature Protection and conservation, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia, and Sumatran Tiger Project, Way Kambas National Park)
loss averaged 2% per year, much of it prime tiger habitat with lowland forests disappearing faster than hill/montane forest, and forests on gentle slopes disappearing faster than forests on steep slopes [6]. Kinnaird et al. [6] predicted that in just a few years, 70% of the land within the park would be turned over to agriculture; and that by 2036 lowland forest habitat would be eliminated. Everyone is quick to point the finger at the loggers, the plantations, and the poachers. They are important drivers of tiger extinction, but they can be stopped if those in positions of authority really want to save tigers in Indonesia. The inescapable conclusion is that until the government and the wealthy and powerful business interests in Indonesia decide with real conviction that the conversion of Sumatra’s forests and the extinction of its tigers is unacceptable, there is little hope for tigers or the rest of the globally important biological diversity that remains in Indonesia. We are not currently actively working in Indonesia, but other dedicated Indonesian and international colleagues remain. We are concerned that unless the status quo changes, there simply is not going to be enough money and political will to secure a long-term future for tigers and other wildlife in Sumatra. Unless the current trajectory of forest loss and habitat degradation is halted and reversed, there is not going to be any space for wild tigers outside existing reserves in the very near future, and even these will struggle against the many forces arrayed against them (Fig. 30.7). Tigers and nature are resilient. Although cin-cin emas and thousands of other tigers like her have died, Indonesia’s remaining tigers can be saved if there is the commitment. A decade ago, it was beyond the imagination of more than a few that the powerful government of President Suharto could be overthrown, but as this book goes to press, former President Suharto has died and the country he once ruled with an iron fist is today much more democratic, the media more open, the opportunities for economic growth greater than ever. But the legacy of corruption,
iv. Regional reviews: status of tigers
the tiger’s right to life
393
collusion, and nepotism of the Suharto regime, and Indonesia’s first president, Sukarno, and the Dutch colonial empire long before, remains the greatest threat to the tigers of Indonesia.
The tiger’s right to life The tone of this chapter is certainly bleaker than the optimistic tone we had when we first arrived in Sumatra over a decade ago. Today the situation is dire, and gloomy, but perhaps not hopeless. If the next edition of Tigers of the World is to have a more uplifting chapter on Sumatran tigers—and avoid opening with a perspective on the extinction of the Sumatran tiger in the wild—we believe, based on our experiences, that several steps are absolutely necessary. First, the future of the tiger is tied to the global economy. Understanding how consumption of oil palm, timber, paper, coffee, oil, and many other commodities directly and indirectly affect tigers [19] is necessary but not sufficient. Indonesia and the global community must think big and take bold steps to conserve its last wild places for animals. As much remaining habitat as possible must be conserved, and existing protected areas must be retained. An extension of this point is that the tiger will not survive based on small and short-term tiger conservation projects supported by international donors. There simply are not enough dollars available in the conservation community to do this. Funding must come from Jakarta and the provinces, and corruption must be eliminated. Sumatra’s largest protected areas lack adequate funding, law enforcement capacity, and sustainable forestry and wildlife management protocols [20]. The government of Indonesia must take more seriously its role as guardian of its globally important biodiversity for future generations of Indonesians. Second, existing Indonesian laws must be enforced and perpetrators must be held accountable through the court system and brought to justice, no matter how powerful and connected. Corrupt officials who abuse their position at the expense of the tiger must be exposed. As long as corruption and collusion are rampant, tigers and tiger habitat simply will not survive. Third, Indonesia’s captive tigers must be managed by all of its zoos and not held hostage by one single corporate entity. Nothing less than the future of the Sumatran tiger’s genetic diversity is at stake. Fourth, we have commented elsewhere [21] that more attention needs to be given to conserving and restoring large mammals in lands where existing protected areas are considered to be theoretically too small, where the creation of corridors is unlikely, where buffer zones may create more problems than they solve, and where additional lands for conservation are unavailable. Possible solutions to this dilemma may include the creation of virtual corridors, defensible boundaries, and reevaluation of the value of fragmented, degraded habitats. Our experiences in Sumatra brought home to us the need to develop tiger conservation strategies based on good science that provide signposts to guide the decision-making process when the ecologically appropriate recommendation—such as connecting large habitats to form a connected network of reserves—runs headlong into significant non-biological obstacles. For example, if economic conditions encourage a rapid increase in migration, forest clearing, and conversion of land to cultivation. We may be better served in Asia by diverting from our current obsession with counting every wild tiger, measuring every forest gap, and noting every tiger part in local markets, and shift significant resources and talent to tackle the human–tiger coexistence challenge.
IV. Regional reviews: status of tigers
394
30. The Biology and Politics of Sumatran tigers: Crash of the Conservation Garuda
The tiger conservation Garuda could yet rise from the ashes in Indonesia. We certainly hope so. Indonesia has changed dramatically over the past two decades, and many of these changes are positive. Elections continue, non-governmental organizations are playing an ever-greater role, and there is widespread recognition of the importance of local stakeholders. Young Indonesians are talking about how to conserve wildlife and natural resources far more than when the first edition of Tigers of the World was published. This is important, because tiger conservation in Sumatra must ultimately be carried out by Indonesians. The international tiger conservation community needs to assist and to enable the brightest and the most motivated of Indonesia’s young conservation professionals and students. These are the future guardian’s of Sumatra’s last wild places who will be responsible for tigers long after this chapter becomes a historical footnote.
References 1. Seidensticker J. In: Tilson RL, Seal US, eds. Tigers of the World: The Biology, Biopolitics, Management, and Conservation of an Endangered Species. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Publications; 1987:1–8. 2. Franklin N, Bastoni S, et al. In: Seidensticker J, Christie S, Jackson P, eds. Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human-Dominated Landscapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999:130–147. 3. Franklin N. Conservation Biology of the Sumatran Tiger in Way Kambas National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. Dissertation. UK: University of York; 2002. 4. O’Brien TG, Kinnaird MF, Wibisono HT. Crouching tigers, hidden prey: Sumatran tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Anim Conserv. 2003;6:131–139. 5. Linkie M, Chapron G, Martyr DJ, et al. Assessing the viability of tiger subpopulations in a fragmented landscape. J Appl Ecol. 2006;43:576–586. 6. Kinnaird MF, Sanderson EW, O’Brien TG, et al. Deforestation trends in a tropical landscape and implications for endangered large mammals. Conserv Biol. 2003;17:245–257. 7. Miettinen J, Liew SC. Connection between fire and land cover change in Southeast Asia: a remote sensing case study in Riau, Sumatra. Int J Remote Sens. 2005:1–18. 8. Kinnaird M, O’Brien T. Ecological effects of wildfire on lowland rainforest in Sumatra. Conserv Biol. 1998;12:954–956. 9. Siegert F, Ruecke G, Hinrichs A, Hoffmann AA. Increased damage from fires in logged forests during droughts caused by El Niño. Nature. 2001;414:437–440. 10. Nyhus P, Sumianto TR In: Seidensticker J, Christie S, Jackson P, eds. Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human-Dominated Landscapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999:144–145. 11. Nyhus PJ, Tilson R. Characterizing tiger–human conflict in Sumatra, Indonesia: implications for conservation. Oryx. 2004;38:68–74. 12. Nyhus PJ, Sumianto TR. Wildlife knowledge among migrants in southern Sumatra, Indonesia: Implications for conservation. Environ Conserv. 2003;30:192–199. 13. Nyhus P, Sumianto TR. Crop-raiding elephants and conservation implications at Way Kambas National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. Oryx. 2000;34:262–275. 14. Nyhus PJ, Tilson R. Agroforestry, elephants, and tigers: Balancing conservation theory and practice in humandominated landscapes of Southeast Asia. Agroforest Ecosyst Environ. 2004;104:87–97. 15. Nyhus P, Tilson R, Franklin N. In: Conway WG, Hutchins M, Souza M, et al. AZA Field Conservation Resource Guide. Zoo Atlanta, Atlanta; 2001: 198-207. 16. Robinson R. Corruption, collusion and nepotism after Suharto: Indonesia’s past or future? IIAS Newsl. 2006:14–40. 17. King P. The Indonesian conundrum: entrenched corruption and failing reform. IIAS Newsl. 2006:12–40. 18. Wing J, King P. Genocide in West Papua? Sydney, Australia: West Papua Project, University of Sydney; 2005. 19. O’Brien TG, Kinnaird MF. Caffeine and conservation. Science. 2003:300:587. 20. Linkie M, Martyr DJ, Holden J, et al. Habitat destruction and poaching threaten the Sumatran tiger in Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra. Oryx. 2003;37:41–48. 21. Tilson R, Nyhus P, Franklin N. In: Maehr DS, Noss RF, Larkin JL, eds. Large Mammal Restoration: Ecological and Sociological Challenges in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2001:277–291.
iv. Regional reviews: status of tigers