Content uploaded by Lucy Emerton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lucy Emerton on Oct 23, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
ECONOMIC VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN BOGANI
NANI WARTABONE AND LORE LINDU NATIONAL PARKS
& TANGKOKO BATUANGUS NATURE RESERVE, SULAWESI:
making the case for enhanced investments in protected areas
Report to WCS by Lucy Emerton, Riza Aryani, Andi Cahyana & Gracecia Antou
February 2017
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
i
Executive Summary
This document reports on
the economic value of key ecosystem services in the Bogani, Lore Lindu
and Tangkoko landscapes
.
It seeks to
provide an
economic and business case for enhanced investment in
these three protected areas (PAs), as well as demonstrating a methodology that can be applied to other PAs in
Sulawesi.
The study was carried out by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) as part of the Government of Indonesia,
UNDP and GEF project “Enhancing the Protected Area System in Sulawesi for Biodiversity Conservation” (E-PASS).
Seven main categories of
ecosystem services
are identified and described which are common to all three PAs,
together comprising at least 18 distinct services:
These ecosystem services generate a diverse array of
economic benefits
, for a wide variety of
stakeholders
:
Four categories of ecosystem-economic benefits are selected for
detailed analysis
, based on the stated priorities
of PA stakeholders and experts: 1. local use of forest products; 2. watershed protection for water supply and disaster
risk reduction; 3. wild animal pollination, seed dispersal and pest control; and 4. nature-based tourism and research.
Executive Summary
ii
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
The ecosystem services provided by Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko are found to leave a significant
economic
footprint
, which stretches across buffer-zone livelihoods, downstream communities and the Sulawesi economy:
Executive Summary
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
iii
The
baseline economic value
of the selected ecosystem services is demonstrated to be substantial – some USD
36 million (
IDR 484.87 billion)
or USD 136/ha/year in Bogani, USD 32 million (
IDR 431.77 billion)
or USD 158/ha/year
in Lore Lindu and USD 10 million (
IDR 133.85 billion)
or USD 1,760/ha/year in Tangkoko. In Bogani and Lore Lindu
watershed protection services are of particular value, while tourism makes a major economic contribution in Tangkoko:
In turn, the
economic impacts of deforestation
are clear. Two possible future scenarios are compared with
the current baseline: business as usual (where past deforestation rates in the three PAs continue unchanged) and no
forest protection (where the three sites lose their PA status and
revert to the same
patterns of land use change and
rates of deforestation as recorded in
their buffer-zones
).
Ecosystem service values show a modest decline in all
three PAs under business as usual, and register a sharp fall under no forest protection:
Executive Summary
iv
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
It follows that there is considerable
value-added or costs-avoided from maintaining the
conservation status
of Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko as PAs. Over the next 25 years the continued
protection of the sites will generate economic benefits over and above what would be available if the PAs were
being deforested at the same rate as in their buffer-zones of USD 436 million (IDR 5.8 trillion) in Bogani, USD 337
million (IDR 4.5 trillion) in Lore Lindu and USD 173 million (IDR 2.3 billion) in Tangkoko.
These values provide a
strong economic and development rationale for investing in Bogani Nani
Wartabone and Lore Lindu National Parks and Tangkoko Batuangus Nature Reserve
, so as to
sustain the flow of valuable ecosystem services. The overarching message is that any loss of PA biodiversity and
ecosystem services poses a grave economic risk to many different groups, sectors and production processes.
Conversely, undertaking the investments and activities that are required to improve PA conservation status and
management effectiveness has the potential to leverage considerable economic gains.
At least two aspects need to be addressed when estimating PA conservation costs, identifying PA sustainable financing
mechanisms and achieving “enhanced PA investment”:
securing and sustaining the financial flows
that are
required to cover the direct physical costs of PA management, and
setting in place the incentives
that are
needed to enable, empower and encourage people to conserve biodiversity in the course of their economic activities.
The valuation study suggests a number of
needs, niches and opportunities for better capturing
ecosystem service values and compensating conservation costs.
These basically revolve around
redistributing or transferring payments from the groups and sectors that benefit for free or at low cost from PA crop
pollination, watershed protection and recreational services as financing flows for the PA authorities that incur direct
management expenditures and incentives for the PA-adjacent community members that bear the opportunity costs of
conservation.
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
Table of contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... i
1.
INTRODUCTION: Background to the study ................................................................................ 1
The E-PASS project .................................................................................................................................. 1
Study aims & scope ................................................................................................................................. 1
Content of the report .............................................................................................................................. 2
2.
METHODOLOGY: How ecosystem services were valued ........................................................ 3
A stepwise approach to identifying, estimating & capturing ecosystem values.......................................... 3
Categorising ecosystem services & values (steps 1 & 2) ............................................................................ 4
Valuing ecosystem services (step 3) ......................................................................................................... 5
Modelling the economic impacts of ecosystem change (steps 4 & 5) ...................................................... 10
Constraints and limitations to economic valuation ................................................................................. 12
3.
FINDINGS: Ecosystem service-economic linkages ................................................................. 13
Conservation context & socio-economic setting ..................................................................................... 13
Protected area ecosystem services ........................................................................................................ 15
Economic benefits & stakeholders ......................................................................................................... 16
The economic footprint of PA ecosystem services .................................................................................. 28
4.
ANALYSIS: The economic value of key ecosystem services ................................................. 35
The baseline value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu & Tangkoko........................................... 35
The economic impacts of ecosystem change.......................................................................................... 40
5.
CONCLUSIONS: Making the economic case for PA investments .......................................43
The economic gains from investing in Sulawesi’s protected areas .......................................................... 43
Capturing ecosystem values as conservation incentives & finance .......................................................... 45
References .................................................................................................................................................. 47
Data Annex ................................................................................................................................................. 53
Buffer-zone area, population and land use/land cover ........................................................................... 53
Watershed areas, forest and land use/land cover .................................................................................. 55
Cultivated areas & pollinator dependence ............................................................................................. 59
Deforestation scenarios ......................................................................................................................... 61
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
List of figures
Figure 1: Study steps and questions....................................................................................................................1
Figure 2: TEEB three-tiered approach to valuation ..............................................................................................3
Figure 3: The MEA ecosystem services framework ..............................................................................................4
Figure 4: Total economic value ...........................................................................................................................4
Figure 5: The ecosystem valuation ‘toolbox’ .......................................................................................................5
Figure 6: Techniques used to value priority ecosystem services ..........................................................................6
Figure 7: The economic impacts of ecosystem change ......................................................................................10
Figure 8: Modelling the economic impacts of “business as usual” vs. “no forest protection” scenarios ..............11
Figure 9: Location of Bogani Nani Wartabone & Lore Lindu NPs and Tangkoko Batuangus NR ...........................13
Figure 10: PA ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu & Tangkoko .................................................................15
Figure 11: Ecosystem services, economic linkages and beneficiaries .................................................................17
Figure 12: PA buffer-zones in Bogani, Lore Lindu & Tangkoko ...........................................................................18
Figure 13: Main buffer-zone land uses ..............................................................................................................20
Figure 14: Bogani, Lore Lindu & Tangkoko land use and land cover ...................................................................20
Figure 15: Bogani, Lore Lindu & Tangkoko sub-watersheds and forested areas..................................................22
Figure 16: Main land uses in the downstream catchments ................................................................................24
Figure 17: Bogani, Lore Lindu & Tangkoko flood-risk and landslide-risk areas ....................................................25
Figure 18: Summary of the economic footprint of forest goods and services on buffer-zone livelihoods ............28
Figure 19: Forest product harvests and sales by buffer-zone households ..........................................................29
Figure 20: Summary of the economic footprint of PA watershed protection on downstream communities ........31
Figure 21: Summary of the economic footprint of PA travel & tourism on the Sulawesi economy ......................33
Figure 22: Composition of local forest product value ........................................................................................35
Figure 23: Value of forest products for home consumption and sale .................................................................36
Figure 24: Slope class of PA watershed forests ..................................................................................................36
Figure 25: Composition of baseline ecosystem service values ...........................................................................39
Figure 26: Changes in PA forest cover under continuation of baseline, business as usual and no forest protection
scenarios, 2015-40 ...........................................................................................................................................40
Figure 27: Ecosystem service values to 2040 under business as usual and no forest protection scenarios ..........40
Figure 28: Value-added / costs-avoided to 2040 of maintaining PA conservation status ....................................42
Figure 29: PA ecosystem values for key stakeholder groups ..............................................................................43
Figure 30: Identifying needs, niches and opportunities to strengthen conservation finance and incentives ........45
List of tables
Table 1: Buffer-zone villages covered by the household survey ...........................................................................7
Table 2: Slope-based forest watershed protection value indices .........................................................................8
Table 3: Crop dependency on animal pollination, pest control and seed dispersal ...............................................8
Table 4: Buffer-zone area and population .........................................................................................................18
Table 5: Watersheds and downstream catchment areas and population ...........................................................22
Table 6: Flood-risk and landslide-risk areas and population in downstream catchments ....................................24
Table 7: Foreign and Indonesian visitor numbers ..............................................................................................28
Table 8: Cultivated areas and pollinator dependency within 1.5 km of PAs ........................................................30
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
Table 9: Tourist-related businesses and employment ....................................................................................... 30
Table 10: Water consumption and irrigated rice area in downstream catchments ............................................ 32
Table 11: Population and crops in flood and landslide risk areas of downstream catchments ........................... 32
Table 12: PA visitor profiles ............................................................................................................................. 34
Table 13: Value of local forest products ........................................................................................................... 35
Table 14: Watershed forest areas and protection values .................................................................................. 37
Table 15: Value of crop pollination, seed dispersal and pest control ................................................................. 37
Table 16: Direct, indirect and induced income and employment effects from PA tourism and research ............ 38
Table 17: Baseline ecosystem service values .................................................................................................... 39
Table 18: NPV to 2040 of ecosystem service under business as usual and no forest protection scenarios ......... 41
Table 19: Costs to 2040 of removing PA conservation status ............................................................................ 42
Table 20: Bogani buffer-zone sub-districts area and population ....................................................................... 53
Table 21: Lore Lindu buffer-zone sub-districts area and population .................................................................. 54
Table 22: Tangkoko buffer-zone sub-districts area and population ................................................................... 54
Table 23: Buffer-zone land use and land cover ................................................................................................. 54
Table 24: Sub-watershed areas and PA forest cover ......................................................................................... 55
Table 25: Downstream catchment land use and land cover .............................................................................. 56
Table 26: Downstream catchment population, domestic water consumption and irrigated rice cultivation ....... 56
Table 27: Downstream flood-risk population and cultivated area ..................................................................... 57
Table 28: Downstream landslide-risk population and cultivated area ............................................................... 58
Table 29: Crop area, production and value within 1.5 km of Bogani.................................................................. 59
Table 30: Crop area, production and value within 1.5 km of Lore Lindu ............................................................ 59
Table 31: Crop area, production and value within 1.5 km of Tangkoko ............................................................. 60
Table 32: PA forest cover under business as usual scenario, 2015-2040 (km
2
) .................................................. 61
Table 33: PA forest cover inside under no forest protection scenario, 2015-2040 (km
2
) .................................... 61
List of acronyms
BAPPENAS Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional / Ministry of National Development Planning
BKSDA Balai Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam
BNPB Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana / National Disaster Management Authority
BPS Badan Pusat Statistik / Statistics Indonesia
E-PASS Enhancing the Protected Area System in Sulawesi for Biodiversity Conservation project
GEF Global Environment Facility
IDR Indonesian Rupiah (at the time of the study, 1 USD = 13,361 IDR)
MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
NPV Net present value
PA Protected area
TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
TEV Total economic value
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
WCS Wildlife Conservation Society
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
Acknowledgements
Many people supported the valuation study, and their assistance is gratefully acknowledged. Particular thanks
are due to Iwan Hunowu and Matthew Leggett of WCS for their overall coordination and guidance. A number of
experts and key informants provided invaluable technical information and advice, including Dr. Irwan Bempah
(Universitas Negeri Gorontalo), Dr. Johny Tasirin (Universitas Sam Ratulangi), Abd. Samad Hiola (Universitas
Gorontalo), Boby (Tangkoko buffer-zone community), Max Walilea, Meldy Antou and Sisi (Bogani buffer-zone
community) and Idris (Lore Lindu buffer-zone community). The generosity of staff members from Bogani Nani
Wartabone and Lore Lindu National Parks and Tangkoko Batuangus Nature Reserve as well as BKSDA and BPDAS
in sharing their knowledge, expertise and information is much appreciated, especially Jumadi, Nuraini, S.Hut,
Taufik Hamzah and Bagus Tri Nugroho (Bogani), Kamaluddin, Eko Desi Sularso and Dody Yandri (Lore Lindu), Jenly
Gawina (Tangkoko), Dei Karundeng, Askhari DJ.M and William (BKSDA North Sulawesi), and Wiwit (BPDAS Palu).
The E-PASS Field Coordination Units at all three sites offered extremely helpful inputs and backstopping, including
Elisabeth Purastuti (Bogani), Ilfie Yanti and Agustina Lamaligi (Lore Lindu), and LIliek Yuliarso (Tangkoko). In
Jakarta, high-level support and guidance from Ibu Ning, Wahyuningsih Darajati and Pungky Widiaryanto
(BAPPENAS) enabled the study to benefit from a great deal of very useful discussion and technical contributions.
Last but not least the very efficient organisational and logistical support of Sinta Aliks as well as the teamwork and
hospitality of Toar Unsulangi, Harun Basir, Muyun Kasibu, Enrico Kumesan, Reydi Manahampi (WCS Indonesia
Programme Sulawesi) are gratefully acknowledged.
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
1
1
1.
INTRODUCTION: Background to the study
The E-PASS project
The Government of Indonesia, UNDP and GEF project “Enhancing the Protected Area System in Sulawesi for
Biodiversity Conservation” (E-PASS) seeks to strengthen the effectiveness and financial sustainability of Sulawesi’s
protected area (PA) system to respond to existing threats to globally significant biodiversity. While recognising
that, despite large-scale degradation, Sulawesi’s forests continue to provide a variety of valuable ecosystem
services, the project document notes that there remains a serious lack of recognition of the economic significance
of PAs. The first of the three outputs to be delivered under component 2 of the project (financial sustainability of
the Sulawesi PA system) is thus to “assess, and raise awareness of, the environmental economic value of
Sulawesi’s PAs”, so that “an environmental economic case is made for increased investment in the PA system”.
To these ends, WCS is carrying out an ecosystem service valuation study, focusing on the three E-PASS
demonstration sites: Bogani Nani Wartabone and Lore Lindu National Parks and Tangkoko Batuangus Nature
Reserve. This seeks to provide an economic and business case for habitat protection, as well as generating a
methodology and results that can be used to highlight the economic value of other PAs in Sulawesi.
It is also anticipated that the findings of the valuation study will serve to inform the further exploration of new PA
financing mechanisms (work that will be undertaken separately by the Government of Indonesia). The current
report is thus intended to feed into E-PASS outputs 2.2 (develop a Sulawesi-level PA system financing strategy
and pilot provincial-level plans) and 2.3 (expand and diversify revenue generation for PA management). Outputs
2.2 and 2.3 are being undertaken under the lead of the Ministry of National Development Planning (BAPPENAS).
Study aims & scope
Figure 1: Study steps and questions
Background & introduction
2
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
The overall objective of the valuation study is to describe and demonstrate the economic value of key ecosystem
services in the Tangkoko, Bogani & Lore Lindu landscapes, so as to generate information that can be used to
strengthen the economic case for enhanced investment in the PA system. To these ends, it involves five steps,
each of which seeks to answer a key question (Figure 1):
Identifying ecosystem services and stakeholders: what types of ecosystem services do Tangkoko,
Bogani and Lore Lindu generate, and for whom?
Assessing ecosystem-economic linkages: how are ecosystem services linked to production,
consumption and economic wellbeing for different stakeholder groups and sectors?
Estimating ecosystem service values: how much are selected priority PA ecosystem services currently
worth, and for which sectors and stakeholders?
Demonstrating the economic consequences of ecosystem change: what are the economic gains
from biodiversity conservation, and what are the costs arising from ecosystem degradation and loss?
Understanding how ecosystem values are distributed and captured: for which sectors and groups
do key conservation benefits remain unrewarded, costs uncompensated or opportunities captured?
It should be noted that the valuation study has been refocused as compared to what is outlined in the E-PASS
project document. The original scope of output 2.1 was to assess the value of Sulawesi’s PAs in terms of the full
range of ecosystem goods and services being provided”, “the economic rate of return on investment in the PA
system, and a comparative cost-benefit analysis with other types of land uses, including forestry and
agriculture/plantation”. The original scope was very ambitious and not realistic within the budget and timeframe
available for the study, therefore the valuation study was scaled back to a rapid assessment of the economic
values of 2-3 key ecosystem services which are applicable across Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko. The intention
is that the work should be realistic and achievable, at the same time as generating practical, policy-relevant and
credible information for decision-makers seeking to make the economic case for PA investments in Sulawesi.
Content of the report
In addition to this introduction, the report contains five chapters and a reference list:
Chapter 2 describes the valuation approach and methodology that is applied in the study;
Chapter 3 presents findings on ecosystem service-economic linkages at local, landscape and island-
wide levels and for key beneficiary groups and sectors (steps 1 and 2 above);
Chapter 4 analyses the economic value of key ecosystem services, and models the economic
impacts of forest degradation (steps 3 and 4 above); and
Chapter 5 concludes the economic case for investing in Sulawesi’s protected areas, including the
ways in which the current distribution and capture of ecosystem costs and benefits presents
needs, niches and opportunities to strengthen conservation incentives and finance (step 5 above).
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
3
2
2.
METHODOLOGY: How ecosystem services were valued
A stepwise approach to identifying, estimating & capturing ecosystem values
As described in Chapter 1, the valuation study seeks to generate information that can be used to strengthen the
economic case for enhanced investment in Sulawesi’s PA system. The aim of linking ecosystem value information
with PA financing measures is integral to E-PASS, and forms the basis of component 2 of the project. Given this
bigger-picture focus, the study adopts the stepwise approach to valuation proposed by The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). This provides a simple framework for using economic valuation to identify
financial and economic instruments which can support conservation in the real world, by helping decision-makers
to better recognise, demonstrate and capture the values of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB 2008).
Another important reason for choosing TEEB as the guiding conceptual framework for the study is that a number
of initiatives in Indonesia have already expressed an interest or intention to apply TEEB methods, or have
completed studies that draw on the TEEB framework (see, for example, UNORCID 2015, von Paddenburg et al.
2012, Wich et al. 2011). An ASEAN TEEB scoping study has also recently been developed (ACB 2012). This makes
the current study consistent with approaches to ecosystem valuation that have already been taken up at national
and regional levels.
TEEB proposes a three-tiered approach to ecosystem valuation
(Figure 2; TEEB 2010). The first two steps are
applied in the current study:
First, it is necessary to identify and assess affected ecosystem services and the implications for
different groups in society. This requires considering the full range of stakeholders and economic processes
influencing and/or benefiting from
ecosystem services and biodiversity
(steps 1 and 2 of the current study);
and
Second the value of ecosystem
services should be estimated and
demonstrated, using appropriate
methods. This involves looking at the
present situation (step 3 of the
current study) and analysing the
linkages over scale and time that
affect when and where the costs and
benefits of particular uses of
biodiversity and ecosystems are realised (step 4), to help frame the distributive impacts of decisions (step 5).
The third stage of TEEB, capturing the value of ecosystem services and seeking solutions, which involves
developing economically-informed policy instruments, lies outside the scope of the current study. It however
underpins the other two outputs of E-PASS component 2: the development of an island-wide PA system financing
plan (output 2,2) and the expansion and diversification of revenues and other PA financing sources (output 2.3).
This further underlines the complementarity between the valuation study and the ongoing work on PA financing,
and underscores the need to see them as a closely integrated package of activities.
Figure 2: TEEB three-tiered approach to valuation
Approach to valuation
4
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
Categorising ecosystem services & values (steps 1 & 2)
A second guiding principle in putting together the current study is the need to consider the full range of
economically-significant ecosystem services associated with Bogani, Lore Lindu & Tangkoko for different
stakeholder groups (as applied in steps 1 and 2). This requires combining ecological and economic measures of
PA services. Adopting a framework which has now gained broad acceptance among conservation planners, the
study characterises ecosystem services as “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems”, according to the four
basic categories suggested by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Figure 3; MEA 2005): provisioning,
regulating, supporting and cultural services. As described in the MEA, together these generate not just products
and raw materials, but also provide the primary productivity and vital life support services that are critical to
human wellbeing.
Figure 3: The MEA ecosystem services framework
Figure 4: Total economic value
Approach to valuation
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
5
The ecosystem services framework is overlaid with the concept of total economic value (TEV; Figure 4). Over the
last three decades, TEV has become the most widely-applied framework for identifying and categorising
ecosystem values (see Pearce et al. 1989). The major innovation is that it extends beyond the marketed and priced
commodities to which economists have conventionally limited their analysis. Rather, it seeks to account for the
full gamut of economically important goods and services associated with the natural environment: direct, indirect,
option and existence values. Looking at the TEV of ecosystems thus involves considering their complete range of
characteristics as integrated systems resource stocks, flows of services, and the attributes of the ecosystem as
a whole.
In turn, each of the categories of TEV correspond to a different component of the MEA framework: direct values
to provisioning services, indirect values to supporting and regulating services, existence values to cultural services,
and option values potentially cross-cutting all four categories of ecosystem service. This provides the underlying
framework for assessing ecosystem-economic linkages and values in an integrated manner.
Valuing ecosystem services (step 3)
The current study involves estimating the monetary value of priority ecosystem services (step 3). The question of
how to place a monetary value on ecosystem services has long posed something of a challenge to economists.
The easiest and most straightforward way to value goods and services, and the method used conventionally, is to
look at their market price: what they cost to buy or are worth to sell. However, as many of the ecosystem services
generated by Sulawesi’s PAs have no market price (or are subject to prices which are highly distorted as regards
their real value), these techniques only have very limited application to in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko.
Figure 5: The ecosystem valuation ‘toolbox’
A suite of methods has been developed over recent years with which to value ecosystem services that cannot be
calculated accurately via the use of market prices (see, for example CBD 2007, Emerton and Bos 2004, Kettunen
and ten Brink 2013, OECD 2002, Philips 1998). These are now relatively well-known and commonly-used, and are
Approach to valuation
6
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
accepted by both economic and conservation planners. In addition to market prices, the ecosystem valuation
‘toolbox’ consists of five main categories of methods (Figure 5):
Production function approaches: attempt to relate changes in the output of a marketed good to a
measurable change in the quality of quantity of ecosystem services by establishing a biophysical or dose-
response relationship between ecosystem quality, service provision, and related production;
Surrogate market approaches: look at the ways in which the value of ecosystem goods and services are
reflected indirectly in people’s expenditures, or in the prices of other related market goods and services;
Cost-based approaches: assess at the market trade-offs or costs avoided of maintaining ecosystems for
their goods and services;
Stated preference approaches: ask consumers to state their preference directly (rather than looking at
the way in which people reveal their preferences for ecosystem goods and services through market
production and consumption, as in the approaches listed above); and
Benefit transfer approaches: involve the transferral of value estimates from studies which have been
carried out elsewhere to the service or site that is of current interest.
Four ecosystem services are valued in steps 3 and 4 of the current study: local utilisation of forest products,
watershed protection, crop pollination and pest control, and tourism/research. These were identified by PA
stakeholders as being of the greatest importance in conservation and economic terms in Bogani, Lore Lindu and
Tangkoko (see Chapters 3 and 4). As described below and summarised in Figure 6, a variety of techniques were
used to value these priority ecosystem services. The selection of methods was made based on their suitability and
applicability for valuing different ecosystem services, and was also strongly influenced by the availability of data.
Figure 6: Techniques used to value priority ecosystem services
How local utilisation of forest products was valued
Local utilisation of forest products was valued using market price techniques. A survey was carried out in Bogani,
Lore Lindu and Tangkoko buffer zones, covering male and female respondents from 360 households ranged
across 4 villages adjacent to each PA (Table 1). Data were collected about participation in forest product utilisation
activities inside the PAs including frequency of use, quantity of products collected, and use of harvest for home
consumption and sale. Data were collected separately from each PA to establish the local market price of forest
products. Average figures per household were extrapolated to the entire buffer zone population using BPS and
GIS data on the number of households living within 5 km of the forest’s edge in each PA-adjacent area, allowing
for only that proportion of buffer zone households that participate in each activity for home use or sale.
Approach to valuation
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
7
Table 1: Buffer-zone villages covered by the household survey
Name of village No. hholds Name of village No. hholds Name of village No. hholds
Bogani Lore Lindu Tangkoko
Bumbung 30 Doda 30 Batu Puti Bawah 30
Molibagu 30 Lawua 30 Danowudu 30
Pinonobatuan 30 Toro 30 Kasawari 30
Tunggulo 30 Tuva 30 Pakadoodan 30
Total 120 Total 120 Total 120
How watershed protection was valued
Watershed protection was valued using a combination of benefit transfer, production function and cost-based
techniques. Due to a lack of quantitative biophysical data on the hydrological linkages between forest cover,
erosion, downstream waterflow/quality and the incidence, impact and severity of flood and landslide events, the
study relied on watershed protection estimates generated for tropical forest areas in other parts of Indonesia, as
well as Cambodia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam. It should however be noted
that, due to the very specific ecological and hydrological relationships that pertain in different sites as regards the
provision of watershed protection services, the benefit transfer values must be treated with extreme caution.
These figures however are useful in the sense that they represent a preliminary – albeit imperfect – estimate of
the possible magnitude of watershed protection values in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko. As and when reliable
biophysical data become available, these figures can be updated.
Twenty useable estimates were found of forest watershed protection values, drawn from 12 studies (Ayumi &
Chanhda 2009, Bann 1997, Emerton & Yan Min Aung 2013, Emerton et al. 2014, Hansen & Top 2006,
Kuchelmeister 2003, MARD 2008, Nabangchang 2010, Paris & Ruzicka 1991, Rosales et al. 2005, UNORCID 2015,
Vu Tan Phuong 2012). Although a larger number of estimates were found in the literature referring to sites and
studies that would have been appropriate to use for benefit transfer, not all were considered to be reliable either
in their methodology, assumptions or calculations, and were therefore excluded. For the usable estimates.
conversion factors based on relative purchasing power parity were used to adjust for the differences in real prices
and values between Indonesia and the country in which the estimate was generated. These yielded an average
value per hectare of forest of IDR 2.48 million (USD 185)
GIS data were generated for Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko on the area occupied by different sub-watersheds,
the degree to which they overlapped with each PA, and the forest cover in each. Not all of the forest in watershed
areas of the PAs is however critical to watershed protection, or would lead to a significant reduction in services
should it be degraded or replaced by the next most-likely land use option (in most cases grassland, mixed
smallholder crops and/or estate agriculture). As the time, resources, budget and available data did not permit
detailed modelling of the relative importance of different PA watershed forest areas, slope class was used as a
proxy for the level of watershed protection services provided. Although an imperfect indicator, this provides some
indication of the likely vulnerability of different areas to runoff and erosion – and thus of the importance of forest
cover in providing watershed protection. Only “hilly”, “steep” and “very steep” forested slopes (i.e. those above
15 per cent) were considered to play a significant role in watershed protection (from WIschmeier & Smith 1978),
and maintenance of forest cover was considered essential on slopes greater than 40 per cent for preventing
serious erosion and landslides (from Forbes & Broadhead 2011). Forest cover in each of five slope classes was
Approach to valuation
8
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
calculated from GIS data for every PA watershed, and a weight factor applied to the per hectare benefit transfer
value to account for their relative importance in generating watershed protection services (Table 2).
Table 2: Slope-based forest watershed protection value indices
Slope class <8%
(undulating)
8-15%
(rolling)
15-25%
(hilly)
25-40%
(steep)
>40%
(very steep)
Weight factor 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 1.00
Watershed protection value (IDR ‘000/ha) - - 619 1,238 2,476
Watershed protection value (USD/ha) - - 46 93 185
Source: indices informed by data in
Forbes & Broadhead 2011, WIschmeier & Smith 1978.
How crop pollination and pest control were valued
The contribution of wild animals (such as insects, birds, bats and other mammals) to crop pollination, pest control
and seed dispersal were valued using a combination of production function and market price techniques. GIS data
were generated on the area under food crops, horticultural crops and estate farms within 1.5 km of the forest’s
edge in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko. This distance was chosen based on the findings of other studies in
tropical countries which suggest that, taking into account foraging areas and average range, the most significant
effect of animal pollination on crop yield occurs at 1,500 metres or less from forest fragments; beyond this, the
effect is lost (De Marco & Coelho 2004, Mushambanyi & Munyuli 2014, Ricketts et al. 2004.
District-level statistics from BPS and Ministry of Agriculture on harvested areas, production levels and farmgate
prices for each crop were used to model cropping patterns and gross margins for different farming systems in the
PA buffer-zones. Dependency ratios established by FAO and others (see, for example, Gallai & Vaissière 2009,
Losey & Vaughan 2006, McGregor 1976) were used to calculate the contribution of animal pollinators to
production for each crop grown in the PA-adjacent area (Table 3). These ratios establish the share of crop
production associated with wild animal pollination. A conservative assumption was made that forest-dependent
insects, birds and mammals contribute 50 per cent of pollination services in the area around Bogani, Lore Lindu
and Tangkoko.
Table 3: Crop dependency on animal pollination, pest control and seed dispersal
Crop Dependency ratio Crop Dependency ratio Crop Dependency ratio
Cabbage 0% Egg plant 25% Red chili 5%
Candlenut 25% Green beans 5% Red onion 0%
Carrot 0% Kangkung 0% Rice 0%
Cashew 65% Kidney beans 5% Rubber 25%
Cassava 0% Long Beans 5% Soybeans 25%
Cayenne 5% Maize 0% Spinach 0%
Clove 5% Mustard greens 0% Spring onion 0%
Cocoa 95% Nutmeg 0% Sugar palm 25%
Coconut 25% Peanuts 5% Sweet potato 0%
Coffee 25% Pepper 0% Tomato 5%
Cucumber 65% Potato 0%
Source: Gallai & Vaissière 2009, Losey & Vaughan 2006, McGregor 1976.
Approach to valuation
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
9
How tourism and research were valued
Tourism and research were valued using a combination of market price, stated preference and benefit transfer
techniques. Data on foreign and Indonesian visitor entries, research permits and revenues were obtained from
each PA. In addition, key informant interviews were carried out in each of Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko to
collect data on the overall size and composition of the visitor market; average length of stay in the PA and adjacent
area; number and utilisation of guest houses and other tourist facilities/services in the buffer-zone; prices for
accommodation, meals, transport and tours; numbers of research projects and researchers; local employment
and wages in tourist enterprises and research projects. Expenditure profiles were then built up for foreign and
Indonesian visitors to the PA and buffer zones, differentiating between independent and group travellers, day-
trippers and overnight visitors.
Income and employment multipliers were applied to track the wider effects of PA tourism on the Sulawesi
economy, based on the 2015 tourism satellite accounts for Indonesia produced by the World Travel and Tourism
Council (WTTC 2015). These show that, on average, every foreign visitor to Indonesia generates IDR 13,625,000
(USD 1,020) of spending within the country over the course of their trip. No data were available to enable income
multipliers to be calculated for Indonesian visitor spending. The application of income multipliers assumes that
the wish to visit Bogani, Lore Lindu and/or Tangkoko provides a major motivation for foreign tourists’ trips, and
that the full spending multiplier could therefore be applied.
WTTC tourism satellite accounts employment multipliers for Indonesia show that on average every direct job in
the tourism industry supports 2.95 other jobs (including wider effects from investment, the supply chain and
induced income impacts). This multiplier was applied to scale up local employment and wage earnings in tourism
enterprises and research projects across the Sulawesi economy.
It is now widely recognised that the total value of PA tourism to leisure visitors is typically far higher than the price
that they pay for their trips. Estimates of consumer surplus, non-use values and overall willingness to pay for
biodiversity conservation were generated using benefit transfer techniques, drawing on a range of travel cost,
contingent valuation and choice experiments studies that have been carried out in similar sites and for
comparable visitor populations in other parts of Indonesia, as well as Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Viet
Nam. As is the case with watershed protection, great care should always be taken when applying benefit transfer
techniques. The reference studies used to generate value estimates were therefore deliberately selected to
represent tourist characteristics, site features and trip experiences that closely mirror those found in Bogani, Lore
Lindu and Tangkoko.
Sixteen useable estimates were found for foreign visitor values and 10 estimates for Indonesian visitor values,
drawn from 20 studies (Arin & Kramer 2002, Asafu-Adjaye & Tapsuwan 2008, Aungsuviriya 2010, Chanrawong
2002, Hoa & Ly 2009, Ibrahim et al. 2012, Jianjun et al. 2007, Nabangchang 2008, Othman & Rahajeng 2004,
Piriyapada & Wang 2014, Ratprakhon 2006, Thuy 2007, van Beukering et al. 2003, Wongwattanakul 2004,
เพชรส ดา ุ ว ส ทธ วงค ิ ิ ิ ์ 2007, ภคว ฒน ั ์ ธ ญนพร ตน ก ล 2006, ม ณตรายาห ศร ส วรรณ 2008, ว ภาดา ธร ั ั ์ ุ ั ์ ี ุ ิ รมประด ษฐ 2007) ิ ์ . As
described above, purchasing power parity conversion factors were applied to come up with Indonesia-equivalent
prices. Deducting direct visitor expenditures, so as to avoid double counting, these yielded per capita values of
IDR 463,000 (USD 35) for foreign visitors and IDR 144,000 (USD 11) for Indonesian visitors.
Approach to valuation
10
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
Modelling the economic impacts of ecosystem change (steps 4 & 5)
Another defining feature of the current study is that is involves looking at the economic impacts of changes in PA
status and integrity (step 4), so as to be able to demonstrate the economic case for investing in Sulawesi’s PA
system (step 5). Many valuation studies stop short of taking a dynamic view of ecosystem services or of changes
in the conservation landscape. It should however be noted that coming up with a single, snapshot estimate of
ecosystem service values has little meaning in practical terms and only limited usefulness for generating decision-
support information.
Ecosystem service values should be seen in relative, not absolute, terms. It is the incremental values or marginal
changes that are of relevance and interest to decision-makers. This point is also underlined by TEEB, which states
as the first principle of best practice in the valuation of ecosystem services that “the focus of valuation should be
on marginal changes rather than the “total” value of an ecosystem” (TEEB 2010). For this reason, it is considered
desirable for valuation studies to trace through the gains and value-added that can be ascribed to conservation
or the costs, losses and damages incurred should ecosystems be degraded and biodiversity be lost – either relative
to a continuation of the baseline or status quo situation, or in comparison to each other (Figure 7).
Figure 7: The economic impacts of ecosystem change
How conservation scenarios were modelled in the current study
The current study seeks to demonstrate that Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko have value because they serve to
secure, protect and sustain economically-important biodiversity and ecosystem services that would otherwise be
diminished or lost, should the PAs be degraded or cease to exist or should insufficient investments be made to
enable effective conservation management. It therefore models the economic value-added or costs-avoided that
are associated with maintaining the three demonstration sites as conservation landscapes.
To do this, the study first assesses the baseline situation (in step 3): it identifies the services that are currently
being generated by Tangkoko, Bogani and Lore Lindu, and estimates their economic value. It then looks at how
this value might be transformed in the future as a result of the changes in conservation status (and thus
generation of ecosystem services) that would result from a shifts in PA management and financing arrangements
(Step 4). Two scenarios are compared: a continuation of the status quo or “business as usual”, and the removal
of conservation status or “no forest protection” (Figure 8). The difference between these two scenarios
represents the loss in economic value that would have been available had conservation investments been
Approach to valuation
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
11
maintained as they are today as compared to a situation where the PAs no longer exist. The scenarios are
modelled over a 25-year period, from 2015-2040.
Figure 8: Modelling the economic impacts of “business as usual” vs. “no forest protection” scenarios
Ideally, the valuation study would model the positive conservation effects that will result from the increased PA
funding and improved management effectiveness to be achieved under E-PASS (the “enhanced investment in
PAs” scenario shown in Figure 8). This would show both the value-added from, and the economic return to, public
investment in PAs. However, as no quantitative information has yet been made available by the project on the
increased funding that will be made available to the three PAs, the changes in conservation status that are
expected to occur as a result, or their biophysical effects in terms of ecosystem service generation, this is not
possible. Once these targets, indicators and projections are developed, they can be incorporated into the
economic model.
The two scenarios are based on the land use and land cover projections made under the deforestation model that
has already been developed by WCS for the E-PASS project. “Business as usual” (which depicts a continuation of
the status quo) reflects deforestation projections based on actual past patterns of land use change within each
PA. “No forest protection” (the scenario that depicts a situation where PA status is removed) extrapolates the
actual rates of forest loss that occurred in the buffer-zones of Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko between 2000-
2015 into the PAs themselves. To account for variation in the rate of habitat degradation and conversion and to
reflect threshold effects, a curvilinear trajectory of change is assumed under the “no forest protection” scenario.
The analysis compares the economic value of ecosystem services under each scenario, and looks at the cumulative
costs or losses that would occur should the three landscapes no longer be protected. Net present values (NPVs)
are calculated by applying a 10 per cent discount rate to streams of future costs and benefits (reflecting the
prevailing opportunity cost of capital in Indonesia).
The study represents a rapid assessment. The available time, data and other resources did not permit anything
more than a very rudimentary scenario analysis to be carried out. Only changes in forest cover and the provision
of selected forest ecosystem services are modelled, and the opportunity costs associated with alternative land
uses that might replace forest are not reflected. No changes in user population or shifts in forest utilisation
patterns are built in. It is assumed that unit forest values vary in direct proportion to changes in forest cover in
each PA, plus a small additional decline in unit real values of 2.5 per cent a year which reflects the decrease in
service quality resulting from forest degradation.
Approach to valuation
12
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
It is important to emphasise that, while this type of simplified economic model and ceteris paribus assumptions
are justifiable given the study’s limited scope and resourcing, they represent a considerable oversimplification of
the actual situation. In this kind of valuation exercise, it would usually be expected either that a separate process
would already have been carried out to specify future ecosystem management scenarios, or that they would be
built up with the active participation of key experts and stakeholders as part of the valuation study itself. This
would enable the assumptions and hypotheses used to model changes in key variables to be carefully researched
and thought through, and a detailed set of quantified change estimates to be built up.
Constraints and limitations to economic valuation
It should be emphasised that this PA valuation study is an extremely ambitious one, given that it is based almost
entirely on pre-existing information, and has been carried out over a short time frame and with very limited
resources. This places a number of limitations on the study. Data, in particular, presents a major constraint. The
biophysical and socioeconomic data that are available for Tangkoko, Bogani and Lore Lindu study contain major
gaps, are of doubtful quality and accuracy, and show significant inconsistencies (and even contradictions)
between different sources.
One particularly important set of issues relates to the questions of attribution and incrementality. In most cases,
there is little or no quantitative biophysical evidence about the links between ecosystem status and the provision
of particular services in Tangkoko, Bogani and Lore Lindu. At the same time, it is not known with certainty what
the effects of improved PA management (or, conversely, biodiversity loss and habitat degradation) will be on the
generation of ecosystem services. A related issue is also that insufficient information exists about the non-
linearities and threshold effects in ecosystem functioning. This has implications for the future projections and
scenario modelling that are to be carried out under the study. It should be borne in mind that such figures will
inevitably mask some important elements of ecosystem service values, and over-simplify the complex dynamics
and relationships at play when looking at the impacts of changes in PA management and investment on ecosystem
service provision and economic values.
In summary, both the valuation of the current baseline as regards PA ecosystem services and the extrapolation
of these services and values into the future is imprecise and risky, and involves many unknowns. The study
represents a first attempt to value and model PA ecosystem services in Tangkoko, Bogani and Lore Lindu, and its
findings should be understood within these limitations – they are partial, indicative estimates, generated for
communication, awareness and policy/management support purposes. It is to be hoped that as better and more
accurate information becomes available, value estimates can be updated and improved.
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
13
3
3.
FINDINGS: Ecosystem service-economic linkages
Conservation context & socio-economic setting
It is beyond the scope of this report to provide an in-depth analysis of either the natural or human environment
in Bogani, Lore Lindu & Tangkoko PAs. These topics are dealt with in detail elsewhere. The paragraphs below
present only a brief overview of key information, intended to frame the background to the valuation study. They
are drawn primarily from the E-PASS project document (UNDP 2013).
Figure 9: Location of Bogani Nani Wartabone & Lore Lindu NPs and Tangkoko Batuangus NR
Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park
Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park covers an area of 287,115 ha in Gorontalo and Sulawesi Utara Provinces.
With an altitudinal range of 50 to 1,970 m, it includes plateaus, hills and mountainous areas. Dominated by
lowland forest, the park contains almost all of Sulawesi’s endemic mammals and birds. At least 45 of the 125 bird
species recorded in the PA are endemic, including the Cinnabar hawk owl (Ninox ios) which is found nowhere else
but Bogani. The Bone bat (Bonea bidens) is also endemic to the National Park. Twenty four species of mammal
are recorded, including anoa (Bubalus sp), babirusa (Babirussa babirussa), the marsupial cuscus (Phalanger sp.),
various macaques (Macaca heckii, nigra and tonkeana) and the spectral tarsier (Tarsius spectrum).
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
14
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
The area around Bogani is occupied mainly by the Mongondow people, and small numbers of the Polahi ethnic
minority group are also said to reside in mountainous regions of the park. Livelihoods in the forest-adjacent area
are based around farming, combining food crops and fruit trees with the cultivation of cash crops such as cacao,
coconut, cloves, coffee and vanilla. A high proportion of local households are reported to farm inside the PA.
Artisanal and industrial gold mining activities also provide a source of income, as well as posing a serious threat
to the National Park. Illegal logging and hunting are also highlighted as key drivers of biodiversity loss.
Lore Lindu National Park
Lore Lindu National Park covers an area of 217,992 ha in Sulawesi Tengah Province. Spread across a landscape of
steep mountains and valleys, it comprises one of the largest remaining mountainous rain forests in Sulawesi,
consisting mainly of montane and submontane forest as well as small areas of lowland forest, flat fertile valleys,
rivers, lakes and hot springs. Forty species of mammal have been recorded (of which 31 are endemic), including
a number of globally-significant species such as the dwarf mountain anoa (Anoa quarlesi), babirusa (Babirussa
babirussa), giant civet (Macrogalidia muschenbroecki), two species of cuscus (Phalanger celebensis and Phalanger
ursinus), Tonkean macaque (Macaca tonkeana) and two species of tarsier (Tarsius dianae and Tarsius pumilus).
Some 225 species of birds are listed (including 78 Sulawesi endemics and 46 restricted-range species), including
maleo (Macrocephalon maleo), red-knobbed hornbill (Rhyticeros cassidix), Sulawesi dwarf hornbill (Penelopides
exarhatus) and Sulawesi hawk-eagle (Spizaetus lanceolatus). Lore Lindu is listed by IUCN as a Centre of Plant
Diversity, by Birdlife International as an Endemic Bird Area and by WWF as a Global 200 eco-region, and was
declared a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in 1978.
The area around the National Park is sparsely-populated. The buffer-zone community includes indigenous people
from the Pekurehua, Behoa, Napu and Kaili dialect groups, as well as more recent influxes of migrants from South
Sulawesi, Java and Bali (ESG International 2001). Local livelihoods depend primarily on subsistence or semi-
subsistence rice farming, with only limited cultivation of cash crops such as coffee, cacao and cloves. A wide range
of non-timber forest products are collected for home use and sale, and illegal timber harvesting inside the park
has led to the depletion of several commercially-valuable species (ESG International 2001). With demands for
agricultural land intensifying, creeping encroachment into the National Park is also resulting in deforestation and
habitat fragmentation. A series of land disputes along the park boundary is said to have created barriers to
effective management (Acciaioli 2008a,b). Two inhabited enclaves are located within the geographic boundaries
of Lore Lindu, but are excluded from the Park.
Tangkoko Batuangus Nature Reserve
Tangkoko Batuangus Nature Reserve is located in Sulawesi Utara Province. It comprises a complex of different
land management zones. The conservation landscape incorporates Dua Saudara and Gunung Tangkoko Nature
Reserves, Gunung Klabat, Wiau and Pulau Lembeh Protection Forests (including areas that had previously been
turned over to coconut), Batuangus and Batu Putih Recreation Forests, and a marine strip some 12 km long and
500m wide. In total, the Nature Reserve covers an area of 8,665 ha. It is dominated by lowland tropical rainforest,
and also contains small areas of coastal forest, mangrove, coral reef and sandy beaches. The PA complex provides
habitat to a number of endangered and iconic species, including lowland anoa (Buballus spp.), giant civet
(Macrogalidia muschenbroecki), bear cuscus (Phalanger ursinus), Sulawesi dwarf cuscus (Strigocuscus celebensis)
and spectral tarsier (Tarsius spectrum), as well as almost all of the remaining population of crested black macaque
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
15
(Macaca nigra). Birds of particular conservation interest include the maleo (Macrocephalon maleo), red-knobbed
hornbill (Rhyticeros cassidix) and Sulawesi hornbill (Rhabdotorrhinus exarhatus).
The area surrounding the PA is densely-populated, but has very limited agricultural potential. Almost no rice is
cultivated; the main food crops are maize and cassava. Large areas are given over to smallholder estate crops
such as coconut, cloves, nutmeg and cacao, and there are also several larger commercial plantations. Fisheries
play a key role in local livelihoods, and there is some livestock production. Land conversion for settlement and
farming are cited as the most critical threats to biodiversity, as well as illegal timber harvesting and the removal
of other forest products.
Protected area ecosystem services
Given the exceptional biodiversity and natural habitats they contain, it is hardly surprising that Bogani, Lore Lindu
and Tangkoko generate a rich array of ecosystem services. As described in the following paragraphs, these
ecosystem services benefit a wide range of sectors and stakeholder groups, at local, national and even global
levels. Seven categories of provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services were identified which are
common to all three PAs, together comprising at least 18 distinct services (Figure 10).
Figure 10: PA ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu & Tangkoko
Wild products harvested for home consumption and commercial purposes: Although the extraction of
forest resources for commercial purposes is not strictly permitted, in practice a wide range of timber and non-
timber products are harvested by the households that live around Bogani, Tangkoko and (especially) Lore Lindu.
Commonly-collected products include bamboo, bamboo shoots, candlenut, palm fibres, palm sugar, pandan
leaves, rattan and resins, as well as a variety of wild foods and medicines. Trees in the PAs are also utilised for
firewood and charcoal, and as a source of timber for house construction, boat-building and other purposes.
Watershed protection – hydrological services: Many rivers and streams rise within, or pass through, Bogani,
Lore Lindu and (to a lesser extent) Bogani. Forests and natural vegetation play an important role in controlling
runoff and infiltration, minimising erosion, siltation and sedimentation, thereby helping to regulate downstream
waterflow and water quality.
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
16
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
Watershed protection – disaster risk reduction: PA watershed protection functions are particularly important,
given the steep slopes, hills and mountains which are a feature in all three PAs, as well as the heavy rainfall that
characterises the region. The areas downstream of Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko are prone to flooding and
landslides. PA watershed protection services make a critical contribution towards minimising and mitigating these
natural hazards.
Climate regulation: Forest biomass and soils in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko constitute an important carbon
sink. The maintenance of forest quality and cover via the PA system also serves as a source of carbon
sequestration and avoided emissions. In addition to these global climate mitigation effects, the PAs fulfil
important micro-climatic regulation functions. The large tracts of forest exert an appreciable influence on local
temperature, precipitation and wind conditions. As well as influencing ecological processes such as plant
regeneration and growth, soil respiration and nutrient cycling within the PAs, these effects are felt in the forest-
adjacent area, especially through creating favourable conditions for settlement and agriculture.
Biodiversity and wildlife habitat: As described above, all three PAs contain outstanding biodiversity. These
fauna and flora include rare, endangered and unique species which are of global conservation significance. Their
conservation also maintains an in-situ gene pool which may have future pharmaceutical, agricultural, nutritional
or industrial applications. The PAs also provide important habitat and refuge for insects, birds, bats and other
mammals which play a key role in crop pollination, seed dispersal and pest control for surrounding farms.
Spiritual, symbolic and aesthetic: As well hosting globally-significant biodiversity, Bogani, Lore Lindu and
Tangkoko form a component of the local cultural landscape. They variously represent a source of customary
territory, livelihoods, knowledge, practices, history, tradition and – in some instances – spiritual or sacred values.
The three PAs are also a core part of Sulawesi’s natural heritage, and as such hold considerable significance in
emblematic and bequest terms, largely due to the unique and iconic fauna that they contain.
Recreation and learning: The unique, interesting and attractive landscape features, biodiversity and ecological
processes described above, as well as their symbolic and aesthetic associations, mean that Bogani, Lore Lindu and
Tangkoko support a wide variety of recreational and learning activities. A large number of scientific research
protects are being carried out in the three PAs, and school trips and study tours regularly visit for educational
purposes. In addition, all three sites are important tourist destinations, for both Indonesian and foreign visitors.
Economic benefits & stakeholders
The ecosystem services described above generate a diverse array of benefits, for a wide variety of stakeholder
groups (Figure 11). These economic linkages and beneficiaries stretch across multiple sectors and levels of scale.
At a very local level, buffer-zone households gain from a supply of natural materials for direct consumption or
sale in a raw or processed form (for instance the foods, fuels, medicines, construction materials and other
commodities fabricated from forest products). Producers and businesses in the forest-adjacent area additionally
benefit from conditions which enable, support or add value to other sectors and industries (such as crop
production or nature-based tourism and research). PA ecosystem services also save costs and help to avert
damages across – and even beyond – Gorontalo, Sulawesi Tengah and Sulawesi Utara Provinces (for example to
downstream water supplies, hydropower, irrigation, aquaculture, for the residents of flood and landslide-prone
areas and members of the global community who stand to be affected by climate change).
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
17
Meanwhile, even groups that have no direct interaction with Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko benefit from their
biodiversity and ecosystem services, including those associated with knowledge and learning, scientific
discoveries and non-material values. In turn, all of these activities and processes give rise to a number of
secondary economic effects and indirect benefits, for example to the businesses that are involved in trading,
processing and retailing natural products and PA-dependent goods (such as crops), through the multiplier effects
associated with the spending, income and employment they stimulate (for example from hotels and restaurants
involved in the tourist trade), and via the generation of taxes and public revenues (for instance from hydropower,
water supplies, agriculture and tourism activities).
Figure 11: Ecosystem services, economic linkages and beneficiaries
As described in Chapter 1, the terms of reference define the scope of the study as “a rapid assessment of the
economic values of 2-3 key ecosystem services … which are applicable across Tangkoko, Lore Lindu and the Bogani
landscape”. It further suggests that that the ecosystem services selected for analysis should be those that “give
direct economic benefits to people” and are “critical to human health and survival and/or critical to livelihood”.
The quantitative assessment of stakeholders, benefits and economic footprints described in the remaining
sections of this chapter and the monetary valuation presented in Chapter 4 are therefore confined to these key
ecosystem services.
Four categories of ecosystem-economic benefits were selected for further analysis, based on a prioritisation
exercise undertaken at a stakeholder consultation workshop attended by rangers and E-PASS staff from Tangkoko,
Bogani and Lore Lindu PAs, and subsequently further elaborated and agreed at a meeting with BAPPENAS staff
and consultants working on E-PASS outputs 2.2 and 2.3. These are: local use of forest products; watershed
protection for water supply and disaster risk reduction; wild insect/animal pollination, seed dispersal and pest
control; and nature-based tourism and research. In turn, three main stakeholder groups benefit directly from
these ecosystem services, and are described in the paragraphs below: buffer-zone households, downstream
communities and recreational visitors.
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
18
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
Buffer-zone households
The buffer-zone is defined as the area located within 5 km of the PA boundary, considered to be the main area of
direct influence in terms of forest use, participation in tourist activities, micro-climate regulation and impact of
wild pollinator species. Just over 150,000 people or 36,000 households live in the buffer-zone around Bogani,
48,000 people and 11,000 households in Lore Lindu and 115,000 people and 28,000 households in Tangkoko
(Table 4; Data annex Table 20, Table 21, Table 22). Bogani and (especially) Lore Lindu buffer-zones are relatively
sparsely populated and predominantly rural, whereas the area around Tangkoko PA is much more densely-settled
and better-connected to transport, infrastructure and commercial centres (Figure 12).
Table 4: Buffer-zone area and population
Bogani Lore Lindu Tangkoko
Villages (no.) 267 121 59
Sub-districts (no.) 37 19 9
Area (km2) 2,199 1,668 159
Persons (no.) 152,427 48,001 115,376
Households (no.) 36,259 11,330 28,228
Average household size (persons) 4.21 4.23 4.06
Population density (persons/ha) 0.69 0.29 7.26
Rural population (%) 87% 85% 18%
Source: WCS GIS data based on BPS 2015 (population) and Badan Informasi Geospasial, indonesia basemap (area).
Figure 12: PA buffer-zones in Bogani, Lore Lindu & Tangkoko
.
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
19
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
20
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
Bogani and Lore Lindu buffer-zones are dominated by forest, which comprises a half or more of total land area,
with the remainder divided between agriculture, mixed crops and shrubland (around a third of land area),
shrublands, grasslands, swamp and other land uses (Figure 13, Figure 14; also see Data annex Table 23). The area
around Tangkoko contains little or no forest. More than 80 per cent of the buffer-zone is composed of agriculture
or mixed crops/shrubland, reflecting the relatively dense settlements and intensive land use patterns that are
found in the area.
Figure 13: Main buffer-zone land uses
Source: WCS GIS data based on Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan. “Other” comprises fishponds, mining, water
body, bare land, settlement and infrastructure.
Figure 14: Bogani, Lore Lindu & Tangkoko land use and land cover
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
21
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
22
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
Downstream communities
Twenty seven sub-watersheds covering a total area of more than 8,200 km
2
overlap Bogani, containing a
population of more than 1 million people or almost 240,000 households (Table 5, Figure 15, Data annex Table 24,
Table 26). Just under 435,000 people or 90,000 households live in the 10,800 km
2
which comprises the 3
watersheds overlapping Lore Lindu, while more than 150,000 people or almost 38,000 households reside in the
12 watersheds which overlap Tangkoko and occupy a combined area of 306 km
2
.
Table 5: Watersheds and downstream catchment areas and population
Bogani Lore Lindu Tangkoko
No. sub-watersheds 27 3 12
Area within PA (km2) 2,832 2,170 85
Total area (km2) 8,212 10,771 306
Persons (no.) 1,005,610 434,664 153,561
Households (no.) 238,092 89,819 37,689
Source: WCS GIS data based on BPS 2015 (population) and Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan (area).
Figure 15: Bogani, Lore Lindu & Tangkoko sub-watersheds and forested areas
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
23
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
24
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
The catchments downstream of Bogani and Lore Lindu are dominated by forest, which covers more than 60 per
cent and three quarters respectively of total land area (Figure 16; also see Data annex Table 25, Table 23).
Agriculture (predominantly smallholder paddy, food and horticultural crops) covers just 15 per cent of land area
downstream from Bogani and 7 per cent downstream from Lore Lindu. As was the case in the buffer-zone, the
forest occupies a relatively small proportion – around a quarter – of Bogani’s downstream catchment. Farmland
accounts for more than 50 per cent of area, all accounted for by rainfed smallholder crops, and there is also an
appreciable amount of land (just over 8 per cent) given over to settlement and infrastructure.
Figure 16: Main land uses in the downstream catchments
Source: WCS GIS data based on Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan. “Other” comprises fishponds, mining, water
body, bare land, settlement and infrastructure.
Just under 15 per cent of the area downstream from Bogani and more than 450,000 people face a moderate or
high risk of floods, while almost all (more than a million people) live in moderate or high landslide risk areas (Table
6, Figure 17). More than 30 per cent of the watershed and 184,000 people downstream of Lore Lindu are located
in flood risk zones, while 66 per cent of the watershed and 330,000 people face the risk of landslides. Downstream
of Tangkoko, flood risk zones cover a negligible area, while around 17 per cent of the downstream area and 13,000
people face the risk of landslides.
Table 6: Flood-risk and landslide-risk areas and population in downstream catchments
Bogani Lore Lindu Tangkoko
Low/none Moderate HIgh Low/none Moderate HIgh Low/none Moderate High
Flood-risk
Area (km2) 7,010 659 543 7,637 2,179 954 30,511 34 21
% of w/shed 85.4% 8.0% 6.6% 70.9% 20.2% 8.9% 99.8% 0.1% 0.1%
Persons (no.) 555,295 170,336 279,979 253,040 124,315 57,308 87,399 29,613 36,849
Hholds (no.) 131,211 39,938 66,943 47,868 28,960 12,991 21,410 7,261 9,018
Landslide-risk
Area (km2) 127 6,623 1,462 3,637 6,934 199 252 50 3
% of w/shed 1.5% 80.7% 17.8% 33.8% 64.4% 1.8% 82.6% 16.4% 1.0%
Persons (no.) 5,967 655,989 343,654 105,006 323,704 5,954 140,447 13,147 268
Hholds (no.) 1,421 154,427 82,245 13,374 75,051 1,394 34,384 3,235 70
Source: WCS GIS data based on BPS 2015 (population), Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan (area).
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
25
Figure 17: Bogani, Lore Lindu & Tangkoko flood-risk and landslide-risk areas
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
26
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
27
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
28
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
Recreational visitors & researchers
On average just under a thousand Indonesian visitors and 130 foreign visitors a year visited Bogani Nani
Wartabone National Park between 2012-2016, and 40 researchers were recorded in 2016 (Table 7). Average
annual figures of 3,200 Indonesian visitors, 300 foreign visitors and 66 Indonesian researchers were registered
for Lore Lindu National Park, while Tangkoko Batuangus Nature Reserve and its surrounding area hosted an
estimated 3,600 Indonesian visitors, 8,400 foreign visitors and 45 research projects.
Table 7: Foreign and Indonesian visitor numbers
Bogani Lore Lindu Tangkoko
Indonesian visitors (pax/year, average 2012-2016) 996 3,213 3,600
Foreign visitors (pax/year, average 2012-2016) 130 294 8,400
Research permits (no.) 45 (2016) 23 (2016) 45 (2015)
Indonesian researchers (no.) 35 (2016) 66 (2016) 35 (2015)
Foreign researchers (no.) 10 (2016) - (2016) 10 (2015)
Source: PA records, expert consultation. Visitor numbers refer to total persons coming to PA-adjacent area for nature-based
tourism purposes, not all of whom are recorded entrants to the PA.
The economic footprint of PA ecosystem services
The role of forest goods and services in buffer-zone livelihoods
Figure 18: Summary of the economic footprint of forest goods and services on buffer-zone livelihoods
The household survey underlines that a significant proportion of buffer-zone households rely in some way on
forest products collected inside PAs, with local use being particularly pronounced in Lore Lindu. Some 36 per cent
of households harvest at least one forest product in Bogani, 62 per cent in Lore Lindu and 10 per cent in Tangkoko,
with fuelwood collection being by far the most common activity in all three PAs (Figure 19). A relatively wide
range of other products are also harvested, albeit by a small minority of households, in Bogani and Lore Lindu,
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
29
including bamboo and bamboo shoots, candlenut, charcoal, game meat, palm fibre, palm sugar, rattan, resin,
timber and various wild food plants. In Tangkoko, very few households participate in forest activities, and the
focus is on a small range of products: fuelwood, bamboo, hunting, palm fibre and wild food plants. While fuelwood
and wild food plants are primarily collected for home consumption, other products are harvested wholly or in
part for income-generating purposes. In Bogani, all of the households that collect candlenut, palm fibre, palm
sugar and timber from the PA sell their harvest, and in Lore Lindu, candlenut, palm sugar, resin and timber are
key sources of cash income.
Figure 19: Forest product harvests and sales by buffer-zone households
Source: WCS household survey.
These findings concur with observations made elsewhere in the literature. A study on local perceptions of
biodiversity conservation carried out around Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park for example found that
adjacent villagers ascribe a relatively high utilitarian value to forest goods and services, particularly to products
that are important for home use and income such as bamboo, rattan, hunting and wild food plants (Kartikasari
2008). Similarly, choice experiment surveys carried out around Lore Lindu National Park show that buffer-zone
households express a substantial economic preference both for direct use values such as the availability of rattan
and water, and ecosystem regulating and supporting services such as protection against soil erosion and flooding
(Barkmann et al. 2007, Glenk et al. 2006a,b).
Agriculture provides the major source of subsistence and income for household living around Bogani and Lore
Lindu National Parks, and plays a key (although lesser) role in Tangkoko. Smallholder farming systems incorporate
a fairly wide range of crops in addition to paddy, including maize, cassava, sweet potatoes, vegetables and fruits
as well as cash crops such as candlenut, cashew, cacao, coconut, coffee, cloves, kapok, nutmeg and rubber. The
dependence of many of these crops on the pollination, pest control and seed dispersal services provided by forest-
dependent insects, birds and mammals has already been described above, in Chapter 2 (see Table 3).
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
30
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
The importance of Indonesia’s forests and PAs as a source of living, breeding and foraging habitat for animal
(particularly insect) pollinators has also been noted elsewhere in the literature. In Sumatra, for example, it has
been found that Insect pollinators, seed predators, decomposers, and parasitoids are highly susceptible to the
adverse effects of forest fragmentations and habitat loss (Siregar et al. 2016). Around Lore Lindu, empirical data
demonstrate that the functional consequences of the shifts in species richness and composition associated with
forest conversion are manifested as a decrease in the diversity of forest-using insect species, and may result in
more regular outbreaks of crop pests as well as the disruption of pollination processes (Steffan-Dewentera et al.
2007). In farms located on Lore Lindu’s north-east border, the value of natural forest pollination services to coffee
production has been estimated at some EUR 46 per hectare per year (Priess et al. 2007).
As documented in Chapter 2, the primary impacts of forest-dependent species in terms of enhanced crop yields
are felt within 1.5 km of the forest’s edge. In Bogani there are more than 25,800 hectares of cropland within 1.5
km of the PA boundary, in Lore Lindu 24,300 ha and in Tangkoko 8,700 ha (Table 8; also see Data annex Table 29,
Table 30, Table 31). Close to 3 per cent of production by value in Lore Lindu depends on wild animal pollination,
pest control and seed dispersal, almost 2.5 per cent in Tangkoko, and just over 1 per cent in Bogani. The relatively
low dependence in Bogani is because such a small proportion of the crops cultivated in the area under rainfed
farming (the dominant land use) depend on insect pollinators.
Table 8: Cultivated areas and pollinator dependency within 1.5 km of PAs
Bogani Lore Lindu Tangkoko
Cultivated area (ha)
Rice 3,592 5,233 -
Plantation crops 162 13 -
Rainfed crops 8,444 7,414 4,055
Mixed shrubland-crops 13,617 11,685 342
Total 25,815 24,346 4,397
Contribution of wild animal pollination, pest control and seed dispersal (% production by value)
Rice - - -
Plantation crops 26.4% 88.6% -
Rainfed crops 1.5% 3.6% 2.4%
Total 1.3% 2.8% 2.4%
Source: WCS GIS data based on Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan (cultivated area); crop areas, yields and prices
from BPS; pollinator dependency ratios from Gallai & Vaissière 2009, Losey & Vaughan 2006, McGregor 1976.
Table 9: Tourist-related businesses and employment
Bogani Lore Lindu Tangkoko
Tourism-related local businesses and enterprises
Hotels, guest houses & restaurants 7 3 8
Approx. number of rooms 46 30 50
Other services & facilities 40 0 25
Tourist/research industry employment
Local guides 2 6 61
Guest houses and restaurants 8 9 40
Other businesses 60 - 38
Research employees 30 3 12
Total jobs 100 18 151
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
31
Source: PA records, expert consultation.
As already described above, an average of 1,100 tourists and 45 researchers a year visit Bogani, 3,500 tourists
and 66 researchers visit Lore Lindu, and 12,000 tourists and 45 researchers visit Tangkoko (Table 7). The tourism
sector supports a modest amount of economic activity in Bogani and Lore Lindu buffer-zones and a fairly
significant number of enterprises in Tangkoko (this is described in more detail in the final section of this chapter).
In total, it is estimated that up to 100 people are employed in Bogani as guides, workers in research projects or
in the 7 hotels, guesthouses and restaurants and 40 other tourism-related jobs operating in the buffer-zone, 18
people and 3 enterprises in Lore Lindu and 151 people and 33 enterprises in Tangkoko (Table 9).
The benefits of forest watershed protection for downstream settlements & industries
Figure 20: Summary of the economic footprint of PA watershed protection on downstream communities
While both Bogani and Lore Lindu serve important watershed protection functions, this role is less pronounced
for Tangkoko (Table 5, Table 10). Although Tangkoko overlaps 12 sub-watersheds it is located close to the
coastline, meaning that there is not a large populated area downstream of the PA. Just 154,000 people live in this
300 km
2
catchment. A total of 25 sub-watersheds rise inside Bogani, serving an area of more than 8,200 km
2
and
a population of 1 million (see Data annex Table 24 for details). The main water uses in the downstream area are
smallholder irrigation, micro-hydropower and domestic consumption. There are few industrial or large-scale
water users.
Lore Lindu overlaps with three large sub-catchments: Lariang Hulu, Palu and Sausu, serving a downstream
population of some 435,000 people spread across almost 10,800 km
2
. The PA forms the headwaters of the Lariang
and Gumbasa (a tributary of the Palu), two of the largest and most economically-important rivers in Sulawesi
Tengah Province (ESG International 2001). The Gumbasa River supplies Palu City (which depends largely on
groundwater reserves), as well as a variety of other towns, settlements and industries, and is heavily utilised for
irrigation. It is also seen as having great hydropower potential, although this has not yet been developed. The
Lariang River provides an important source of domestic and agricultural water to downstream rural villages.
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
32
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
Putting these data together shows that, in total, the surface and groundwater sources that are protected in some
way by the Bogani PA landscape provide domestic water supplies of some 34.8 million m
3
a year and irrigate more
than 40,600 ha of crop land (Table 10, also see Data annex Table 26 for details). This water consumption is worth
some USD 9.5 billion when valued at the average lowest-band domestic piped water tariff for Gorontalo and
Sulawesi Utara, and the gross value of crop production is USD 62.9 million according to local farm gate prices in
relevant regencies and cities. The 14.6 million m
3
of domestic water use in Lore Lindu sub-watersheds is worth
USD 4 billion and the 29,800 ha of irrigated rice USD 46.1 million, while Tangkoko helps to protect 6.3 billion m
3
of water supplies valued at USD 1.7 billion and 240 ha of irrigated rice with a gross market value of USD 310,000.
Table 10: Water consumption and irrigated rice area in downstream catchments
Sub-watershed Population
(persons)
Domestic water use Irrigated rice
(m3 mill/yr) IDR bill/yr USD bill/yr (ha) IDR mill/yr USD bill/yr
Bogani 1,005,610 34,822 127,375 9.53 40,632 840,337 62.89
Lore Lindu 434,664 14,643 53,562 4.01 29,837 616,107 46.11
Tangkoko 153,861 6,329 23,151 1.73 242 4,096 0.31
Source: Area and population from WCS GIS data based on BPS 2015 (population) and Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan
Kehutanan (area). Per capita rural and urban domestic water consumption calculated from figures presented from ADB 2016;
irrigated rice area, yields and prices from BPS.
According to the National Disaster Management Authority, the areas downstream of Bogani have suffered more
than 140 flood and landslide events since 2005, impacting on more than 120,000 people (BNPB 2017). At least
150 events have occurred downstream of Lore Lindu over the same period, affecting almost 35,000 people, and
in the catchment below Tangkoko 10 events have been recorded involving than 4,500 people. As described above,
watershed forests in the PAs also play a key role in helping to avoid or mitigate downstream floods and landslides.
Although there are few studies referring to Bogani or Tangkoko, hydrological modelling in the Gumbasa
catchment clearly demonstrates that there is a strong relationship between deforestation and discharge
variability (Leemhuis et al. 2007). Landslides and flooding, resulting in damage to houses and crops, has been
reported in areas downstream of Lore Lindu along the Sopu, Gumbasa, Palu and Halua Rivers; this is attributed to
the elevated runoff, topsoil loss and sediment transport arising from forest degradation in the upper catchment
(ESG International 2001).
Table 11: Population and crops in flood and landslide risk areas of downstream catchments
Sub-watershed Population
(persons)
Plantation
crops (ha)
Smallholder
crops (ha)
Crop value
(IDR mill/yr)
Crop value
(USD mill/yr)
Moderate & high flood-risk areas
Bogani 450,315 211 95,342 1,832,513 137.15
Lore Lindu 181,624 87,379 11,800 1,077,316 80.63
Tangkoko 66,462 - 2,987 58,525 4.38
Moderate & high flood-risk areas
Bogani 999,643 519 226,023 4,368,068 326.93
Lore Lindu 329,658 284 19,314 413,366 30.94
Tangkoko 13,415 - 3,527 71,726 5.37
Source: Area and population from WCS GIS data based on BPS 2015 (population) and Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan
Kehutanan(area). Rrural and urban domestic water consumption from ADB 2016; irrigated rice area from BPS.
As already described above (Table 6), almost half a million people downstream of Bogani live in moderate or high
flood-risk areas and close to a million reside in landslide-risk areas (Table 11, also see Data annex Table 27 and
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
33
Table 28). More than 180,000 people live in flood-prone areas of the sub-watersheds that overlap Lore Lindu and
330,000 are located in landslide zones. Tangkoko protects a watershed that contains 66,500 people living in flood-
risk zones and 13,500 in landslide-risk zones. BY reducing the likelihood of these natural disasters occurring, as
well as mitigating their severity and impact, the PAs help to avoid a wide range of costs and losses (for example
to farms, housing, roads and other infrastructure and assets). Just considering the value of crop production that
that is protected, potentially-avoided damages total up to USD 137 million for flood-risk areas and USD 327 million
for landslide-risk areas downstream of Bogani, USD 81 million and USD 31 million respectively for Lore Lindu, and
USD 4 million and USD 5 million for Tangkoko (Table 11).
The contribution of PA travel & tourism to the Sulawesi economy
Figure 21: Summary of the economic footprint of PA travel & tourism on the Sulawesi economy
Sulawesi’s exceptional biodiversity and landscapes make it a nature-based tourism site of international
importance; most tourism in central and northern parts of the island is centred around natural and cultural
attractions (Hakim et al. 2012). Although some specialist nature tourists (mainly birdwatchers) come to Sulawesi
specifically to visit Bogani, Lore Lindu or Tangkoko, most foreign (and some Indonesian) visitors spend time in the
three PAs as part of a larger circuit which incorporates other sites such as Manado, Tomohon, Bitung,
Kotamobagu, Bunaken National Park, Lembeh Island and the Togean Islands.
There is a small, but growing, tourism industry in Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park, mainly based around
hiking, bird-watching and wildlife viewing. Although an average of only around 1,000 visitors visit the PA each
year, of which just 11 per cent are foreign, numbers have been rising steadily over the years (Ross and Wall 1999).
Local entrepreneurship in the travel and tourism sector is said to have expanded by more than 60% since 2008,
resulting in a revenue increase of 100% over the last three years. Most foreign tourists and around half of
Indonesian visitors travel as part of a tour group. Almost all foreign tourists spend at least one night close to the
PA, and although less than a third of Indonesian visitors stay overnight, those that do are estimated to spend a
relatively longer time in the area (average trip length is 4 days as compared to 2 days for foreign tourists).
Ecosystem service-economic linkages
34
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
An average of just over 3,500 tourists visit Lore Lindu National Park each year, more than 90 per cent of whom
are Indonesian. Almost all travel as part of group tours, and many spend the night close to the PA: Lore Lindu is
relatively remote and difficult to access. The main entry points are Palu, Poso and Tentena Cities. Although there
is no accommodation inside the National Park, there are a number of guest houses and campsites in the buffer-
zone as well as in nearby towns. The main activities are bird-watching and wildlife viewing, mountain climbing
and trekking to scenic sites such as Lindu and Tambing lakes, hot springs and waterfalls. The National Park also
contains a number of carved megaliths, and organised tours (especially for foreign visitors) often include visits to
‘traditional’ villages.
The Tangkoko Batuangus Nature Reserve complex supports a relatively well-developed tourism industry, hosting
an estimated 12,000 visitors a year, 70 per cent of whom are foreign. Around half are recorded as entering the
PA. Most tourism activities are focused around Batuputih and Batuangus recreational forests. A number of trails
and sites have been developed inside the PA, taking in springs, waterfalls, caves and mountains, as well as the
black-sand beaches and coral reefs of the coastal strip. Tangkoko is a renowned bird-watching destination, and
many visitors also come to view its rare and endangered wildlife species (such as cuscus, tarsier and macaque).
Due to its proximity to Manado and other urban centres, a relatively small proportion of visitors remain overnight:
most are day-trippers or are visiting Tangkoko en route to (or from) Bunaken National Marine Park.
Accounting for the differential composition of recreational visitors (Indonesian and foreign tourists, independent
and group travellers, overnight and day visitors), this translates into almost 2,200 visitor days a year spent in and
around Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park, 4,700 visitor days in Lore Lindu National Park, and as many as
20,400 visitor days in Tangkoko Batuangus Nature Reserve (Table 12).
Table 12: PA visitor profiles
Bogani Lore Lindu Tangkoko
Indonesian Foreign Indonesian Foreign Indonesian Foreign
Number of researchers 35 10 66 - 35 10
Number of visitors 996 130 3,213 294 3,600 8,400
% independent travellers 20% 50% 1% 1% 100% 80%
Of which stay overnight 100% 100% 95% 70% 10% 50%
% tour groups 80% 50% 99% 99% 0% 20%
Of which stay overnight 100% 90% 10% 89% - 50%
Average overnight stay (days) 4.14 1.95 2.50 3.50 1.00 3.00
All visitors average stay (days) 1.88 1.90 1.16 3.22 1.00 2.00
Total visitor days 1,872 247 3,736 948 3,600 16,800
2,119 4,683 20,400
Source: PA records, expert consultation.
The direct business and employment effects of these activities have already been described above as they relate
to buffer-zone livelihoods. Tourism however also has much more far-reaching economic impacts, which stretch
across the Sulawesi – and even national - economy. These include the considerable income, investment and
employment multiplier effects leveraged by visitor spending, as well as from the wide range of secondary and
support industries that supply the tourism sector (for example food production, furniture and fittings, transport
and financial services). Applying the multipliers described above in Chapter 2 (based on those in WTTC 2015)
suggests that in total PA tourism in Bogani supports almost 290 indirect and induced jobs, Lore Lindu supports 35
jobs, and Tangkoko supports 264 jobs.
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
35
4
4.
ANALYSIS: The economic value of key ecosystem services
The baseline value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu & Tangkoko
Local use of forest products
Using market price methods (as described above, in Chapter 2), the total annual value of local forest products is
calculated at some IDR 87.23 trillion a year (USD 6.53 million) in Bogani, IDR 114.72 trillion (USD 8.59 million) in
Lore Lindu and IDR 3.13 trillion (USD 234,000) in Tangkoko (Table 13).
Table 13: Value of local forest products
Bogani Lore Lindu Tangkoko
IDR mill USD IDR mill USD IDR mill USD
Bamboo 4,148,022 310,457 1,495,512 111,931 2,935,744 219,725
Bamboo shoots 271,942 20,353 158,615 11,871 - -
Candlenut 30,820,091 2,306,720 - - - -
Charcoal - - 849,722 63,597 - -
Fuelwood 8,988,222 672,721 1,283,106 96,034 - -
Hunting 30,820,091 2,306,720 3,731,698 279,298 - -
Palm fibre - - - - 42,342 3,169
Palm sugar 11,875,706 888,834 3,558,638 266,345 - -
Rattan - - 83,316,098 6,235,768 - -
Resin - - 8,327,280 623,253 - -
Timber - - 11,329,633 847,963 - -
Wild food plants 305,935 22,898 673,598 50,415 148,199 11,092
Total 87,230,010 6,528,704 114,723,900 8,586,476 3,126,285 233,986
Source: WCS household survey, market surveys.
In line with differential patterns and rates of use, the composition of forest product values varies considerably
between the three sites (Figure 22). Just five products – candlenut, hunting, palm sugar, fuelwood and bamboo
contribute 99 per cent of value in Bogani, while in Lore Lindu candlenut and hunting comprise more than two
thirds of the total. Bamboo accounts for virtually the entire value of forest product utilisation in Tangkoko.
Figure 22: Composition of local forest product value
Source: WCS household survey.
How ecosystem benefits & cost are distributed and captured
36
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
The collection of forest products for sale is important in all three sites, contributing something around two thirds
of the total value of harvested products in Bogani and Lore Lindu and just under half in Tangkoko (Figure 23).
Figure 23: Value of forest products for home consumption and sale
Source: WCS household survey.
Watershed protection for water supply and disaster risk reduction
As explained in Chapter 2, lack of biophysical data linking forest cover to downstream hydrology meant that
benefit transfer techniques were used to value forest watershed protection services, drawing on 20 estimates
generated in other parts of Indonesia and surrounding ASEAN countries. This gave an average annual value of IDR
2.48 million (USD 185) per hectare of watershed forest. This figure was weighted according to the amount of
watershed forest in different slope classes in each PA. Almost 90 per cent of forest in Bogani and Lore Lind is
located on slopes above 15 per cent (the cut-off point below which forest cover is not considered to play a
significant role in watershed protection as compared to alternative land uses), and just over three quarters in
Tangkoko (Figure 24; also see Data annex Table 24).
Figure 24: Slope class of PA watershed forests
Source: WCS GIS data based on Topografic Map DEM SRTM, earthexplorer.usgs.gov.
Applying the weighted unit values gave a total watershed protection value of IDR 389 billion (USD 29.14 million)
for Bogani, IDR 305 billion (USD 22.79 million) for Lore Lindu and IDR 6 billion (USD 457,000) for Tangkoko (Table
14).
How ecosystem benefits & cost are distributed and captured
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
37
Table 14: Watershed forest areas and protection values
Bogani Lore Lindu Tangkoko
Not significant for watershed protection (ha) 34,575 26,398 1322.004097
15-25 slope (ha) 48,547 35,885 1,511
Value (IDR million) 30,056 22,217 935
Value (USD million) 2.25 1.66 0.07
25-40 slope (ha) 75,836 57,671 1,440
Value (IDR million) 93,902 71,410 1,783
Value (USD million) 7.03 5.34 0.13
>40 slope (ha) 107,147 85,163 1,419
Value (IDR million) 265,343 210,903 3,515
Value (USD million) 19.86 15.78 0.26
Total value (IDR million) 389,301 304,529 6,233
Total value (USD million) 29.14 22.79 0.47
Source: watershed forest areas under different slope classes from WCS GIS data based on Topografic Map DEM SRTM,
earthexplorer.usgs.gov. Unit watershed protection value based on benefit transfer from Ayumi & Chanhda 2009, Bann 1997,
Emerton & Yan Min Aung 2013, Emerton et al. 2014, Hansen & Top 2006, Kuchelmeister 2003, MARD 2008, Nabangchang
2010, Paris & Ruzicka 1991, Rosales et al. 2005, UNORCID 2015 and Vu Tan Phuong 2012; indices weighting value according
to slope class informed by data in
Forbes & Broadhead 2011, WIschmeier & Smith 1978.
Crop pollination, seed dispersal and pest control
Crop pollination, seed dispersal and pest control services were valued across a 1.5 km band around the perimeter
of each PA – the main area of influence of forest-dwelling species. Applying the dependency ratios laid out in
Chapter 2 to account for the share of crop production associated with wild animal pollination yielded annual
values of some IDR 2.14 billion (USD 0.16 million) for Bogani, IDR 6.36 billion (USD 0.48 million) for Lore Lindu and
IDR billion (USD 0.08 million) for Tangkoko (Table 15; also see Data annex Table 29, Table 30, Table 31).
Table 15: Value of
crop pollination, seed dispersal and pest control
Bogani Lore Lindu Tangkoko
IDR mill/yr USD mill/yr IDR mill/yr USD mill/yr IDR mill/yr USD mill/yr
All crop production
Paddy 71,534 5.35 103,953 7.78 - -
Plantation crops 1,377 0.10 144 0.01 - -
Rainfed crops 264,855 19.82 352,050 26.35 94,626 7.08
Total 337,766 25.28 456,146 34.14 94,626 7.08
Pollinator services
Paddy - - - - - -
Plantation crops 182 0.01 64 0.00 - -
Rainfed crops 1,953 0.15 6,297 0.47 1,116 0.08
Total 2,135 0.16 6,360 0.48 1,116 0.08
Source: Crop area from WCS GIS data based on Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan (cultivated area); crop yields
and prices from BPS; pollinator dependency ratios from Gallai & Vaissière 2009, Losey & Vaughan 2006, McGregor 1976.
How ecosystem benefits & cost are distributed and captured
38
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
Nature-based tourism and research
As explained in Chapter 2, a variety of methods were used to calculate PA tourism and research values in Bogani,
Lore Lindu and Tangkoko. Visitor expenditures on entry fees, research permits, transport, accommodation, meals,
guide fees and other direct trip costs were estimated using actual market prices. The visitor profiles outlined in
Chapter 3 (see Table 12) were used to differentiate spending patterns between foreign, Indonesian, independent,
group, overnight and day tourists. For foreign tourists a multiplier was applied to account for indirect and induced
leisure spending, based on the factors indicated in the tourism satellite accounts for Indonesia calculated by the
World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC 2015). Multipliers were also applied to provide estimates of indirect and
induced jobs and employment earnings. Visitor consumer surplus (reflecting a range of non-use values and
additional willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation) was calculated using benefit transfer techniques,
drawing on 10 estimates generated in other parts of Indonesia and surrounding ASEAN countries.
Combining these different components suggests that, in total, PA travel and tourism is worth some IDR 6.20 billion
(USD 464,000) a year in Bogani, IDR 6.16 billion (USD 461,000) in Lore Lindu and IDR 123.37 billion (USD 9.2
million) in Tangkoko (Table 16).
Table 16: Direct, indirect and induced income and employment effects from PA tourism and research
Bogani Lore Lindu Tangkoko
IDR ‘000/yr USD/yr
IDR ‘000/yr USD/yr IDR ‘000/yr USD/yr
PA revenues from entry fees and research permits*
Entry fees - foreign visitors 19,463 1,457 44,138 3,303 1,260,000 94,304
Entry fees - Indonesian visitors 4,979 373 16,064 1,202 18,000 1,347
Revenues from research permits 145,958 10,924 5,775 432 145,958 10,924
Other visitor spending – foreign visitors
Total leisure spending 1,767,844 132,314 4,009,156 300,064 114,450,000 8,565,976
Other visitor spending - Indonesian visitors
Guide fees 149,363 11,179 481,913 36,069 252,000 18,861
Transport 132,933 9,949 478,298 35,798 63,000 4,715
Accommodation 80,855 6,052 34,858 2,609 50,400 3,772
Meals 142,392 10,657 272,373 20,386 110,250 8,252
Employment effects
Direct, indirect and induced
tourism earnings 1,323,965 99,092 175,230 13,115 1,508,925 112,935
Direct, indirect and induced
research earnings 2,230,200 166,919 42,480 3,179 1,104,480 82,664
Consumer surplus / additional visitor value
Foreign tourists 60,075 4,496 136,240 10,197 3,889,261 291,091
Indonesian tourists 143,525 10,742 463,078 34,659 518,895 38,837
Total 6,201,549 464,153 6,159,602 461,014 123,371,169 9,233,678
Source: PA records, expert consultation; consumer surplus value based on benefit transfer from Arin & Kramer 2002, Asafu-
Adjaye & Tapsuwan 2008, Aungsuviriya 2010, Chanrawong 2002, Hoa & Ly 2009, Ibrahim et al. 2012, Jianjun et al. 2007,
Nabangchang 2008, Othman & Rahajeng 2004, Piriyapada & Wang 2014, Ratprakhon 2006, Thuy 2007, van Beukering et al.
2003, Wongwattanakul 2004,
เพชรส ดา ุ
ว ส ทธ วงค ิ ิ ิ ์
2007,
ภคว ฒน ั ์
ธ ญนพร ตน ก ล ั ั ์ ุ
2006,
ม ณตรายาห ั ์
ศร ส วรรณ ี ุ
2008,
ว ภาดา ิ
ธรรมประด ษฐ ิ ์
2007. *complete data were not available on PA revenues. PA revenues from entry fees were calculated by
multiplying the average number of recorded tourist entries per year between 2012-2015 by the listed entry fee (sets under
Government Regulation number 12 2014).
How ecosystem benefits & cost are distributed and captured
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
39
Combined baseline ecosystem service value
Putting together the figures described in the paragraphs above yields a baseline value for the selected ecosystem
services of IDR 484.87 billion (USD 36.3 million) for Bogani, IDR 431.77 billion (USD 32.3 million) for Lore Lindu
and IDR 133.85 billion (USD 10.0 million) for Tangkoko (Table 17).
Table 17: Baseline ecosystem service values
Bogani Lore Lindu Tangkoko
IDR mill/yr USD/yr
IDR mill/yr USD/yr IDR mill/yr USD/yr
Local forest products 87,230 6,528,704 114,724 8,586,476 3,126 233,986
Crop pollination & pest control 2,135 159,788 6,360 476,045 1,116 83,523
Watershed protection 389,301 29,137,143 304,529 22,792,415 6,233 466,529
Tourism & research 6,202 464,153 6,160 461,014 123,371 9,233,678
Total 484,868 36,289,788 431,773 32,315,949 133,847 10,017,716
Unit value per ha of forest 1.82 136 2.11 158 23.52 1,760
Converting these estimates to unit values per hectare of forest yields similar figures for Bogani and Lore Lindu
(IDR 1.82 million / USD 136 and IDR 2.11 million / USD 158 respectively). The much lower absolute value and
higher unit value (IDR 23.52 million / USD 1,760) for Tangkoko is due to its small size as compared to the other
two sites.
The relative importance of different ecosystem service values also varies between the three PAs (Figure 25). In
Bogani and Lore Lindu, watershed protection values dominate, reflecting the key role that the two sites play in
regulating waterflow and quality and mitigating floods and landslides over a large downstream area and
population. Local forest utilisation, too, makes a marked (although relatively lower) contribution towards total
value, especially in Lore Lindu, while the share of tourism values remains insignificant. As yet, PA tourism and
recreation has not been developed to any great extent in either site. In contrast, for Tangkoko, tourism comprises
the vast majority of PA value. The small downstream area and population, minor role of agriculture in the forest-
adjacent area, and low levels of forest utilisation by local communities mean that none of these ecosystem
services generate significant value.
Figure 25: Composition of baseline ecosystem service values
How ecosystem benefits & cost are distributed and captured
40
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
The economic impacts of ecosystem change
As explained in Chapter 2, the study addressed the economic impacts of ecosystem change. It seeks to
demonstrate the value-added or costs-avoided associated with maintaining the three demonstration sites as
conservation landscapes (or, conversely, to demonstrate the costs, losses and damages that would arise with the
removal of their protected status, and the land conversion and forest degradation that would ensue). Three
alternative scenarios were compared (Figure 26, also see Data annex Table 32 and Table 33):
Business as usual, under which Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko remain as PAs, and the past patterns of
land use change recorded within each PA persist;
No forest protection, under which Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko lose their PA status, and are subject
to the same rates of deforestation and land use change as has been occurring in their buffer-zones; and
Continuation of the baseline, under which there is no change at all in either forest cover or the
conservation status of Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko. This represents the reference point against
which the other two scenarios are measured and compared.
Figure 26: Changes in PA forest cover under continuation of baseline, business as usual and no forest
protection scenarios, 2015-40
Source: WCS deforestation modelling.
In line with these deforestation projections, ecosystem service values show a modest decline in all three PAs
under business as usual, and register a sharp – and progressive – fall under no forest protection (Figure 27).
Figure 27: Ecosystem service values to 2040 under business as usual and no forest protection scenarios
How ecosystem benefits & cost are distributed and captured
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
41
Looking at the net present value (NPV) of the selected forest ecosystem services over the next 25 years underlines
the substantial loss in value that would result from the removal of PA status. Whereas a continuation of business
as usual will serve to secure ecosystem services with a NPV of IDR 4.3 trillion (USD 319.5 million) in Bogani, IDR
3.9 trillion (USD 293.7 million) in Lore Lindu and IDR 1 trillion (USD 77.8 million) in Tangkoko, these figures fall
under the no forest protection scenario to IDR 3 trillion (USD 225 million), IDR 2.9 trillion (USD 215 million) and
IDR 616 billion (USD 46.1 million) respectively (Table 18).
Table 18: NPV to 2040 of ecosystem service under business as usual and no forest protection scenarios
Bogani Lore Lindu Tangkoko
IDR bill USD mill
IDR bill USD mill IDR bill
USD mill
Business as usual
Local forest products 771 57.74 1,043 78.05 24 1.82
Crop pollination & pest control 19 1.41 58 4.33 9 0.65
Watershed protection 3,443 257.69 2,768 207.17 48 3.62
Tourism & research 36 2.69 56 4.19 958 71.69
Total 4,269 319.53 3,925 293.73 1,039 77.78
No forest protection
Local forest products 541 40.48 763 57.09 14 1.08
Crop pollination & pest control 13 0.99 42 3.17 5 0.38
Watershed protection 2,414 180.65 2,025 151.54 29 2.15
Tourism & research 38 2.88 41 3.07 568 42.52
Total 3,006 225.00 2,871 214.87 616 46.13
Comparing the worst-case scenario of no forest protection with the baseline provides an indication of the
economic costs associated with losing PA status. The difference between these two scenarios represents the
damages and losses that would result if Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko reverted to the same land management
regime as their buffer-zones: it shows the loss in economic value that would have been available had conservation
investments been maintained as they are today as compared to a situation where the PAs no longer exist. This
How ecosystem benefits & cost are distributed and captured
42
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
incurs a net present cost of IDR 1.4 trillion (USD 107.45 million) in Bogani, IDR 1.1 trillion (USD 81.18 million) in
Lore Lindu and IDR 610 billion (USD 45.65 million) in Tangkoko (Table 19).
Table 19: Costs to 2040 of removing PA conservation status
Bogani Lore Lindu Tangkoko
IDR bill USD mill IDR bill USD mill
IDR bill USD mill
Continuation of the baseline (NPV) 4,442 332.45 3,955 296.04 1,226 91.77
No forest protection (NPV) 3,006 225.00 2,871 214.87 616 46.13
Cost of removing PA status (NPV) 1,436 107.45 1,085 81.18 610 45.65
These figures are also indicative of the potential costs avoided or value-added from maintaining the conservation
status of the three sites as it is today. Not only does this demonstrate a high NPV for each PA (as shown in Table
19 above), but the absolute value of the benefits generated are also substantial. The cumulative value-added to
2040 from continued protection (over and above the values that would be available if the PAs were being
deforested at the same rate as in their buffer-zones) is almost IDR 5.8 trillion (USD 436 million) for Bogani, IDR
4.5 trillion (USD 337 million) for Lore Lindu and IDR 2.3 trillion (USD 173 million) for Tangkoko (Figure 28).
Figure 28: Value-added / costs-avoided to 2040 of maintaining PA conservation status
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
43
5
5.
CONCLUSIONS: Making the economic case for PA investments
The economic gains from investing in Sulawesi’s protected areas
The figures presented in this report have implications for PA management. Traditionally, when economists
undertake the calculations which are used to inform decisions about what would be the ‘best’ or ‘most profitable’
land, resource and investment choices, they have excluded these kinds of values. The tendency has been to focus
only on commercial (mainly extractive) activities, not on the flows of goods and services that lie outside formal
markets and pricing mechanisms – even when these goods and services have a far higher economic value, and
reach, than the raw materials and physical products that economists have conventionally limited their analysis to.
As a consequence, decisions have often been made on the basis of incomplete – and, in the worst case, flawed
and misleading – information. Unsurprisingly, biodiversity conservation has rarely emerged as profitable land,
resource or investment options – especially when compared to those that yield much more obvious and
immediate cash benefits (for example timber extraction or agriculture). Not only does this lead to an inherent
bias against investments in PAs, but it also impacts negatively on the groups and sectors that depend most on
biodiversity and ecosystem services for their economic wellbeing.
Figure 29: PA ecosystem values for key stakeholder groups
The key message from the current study is that the ‘hidden’ economic value of PAs is immense. Even though it
has been possible to only quantify a small proportion of the total economic value of each landscape, the rapid
economic assessment makes it clear that the ecosystem services provided by Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko
leave a substantial economic footprint. Just looking at four key ecosystem services shows an overall value of
hundreds of billions of Rupiah (tens of millions of US Dollars) a year –
some USD 36 million (
IDR 484.87 billion)
or
USD 136/ha/year in Bogani, USD 32 million (
IDR 431.77 billion)
or USD 158/ha/year in Lore Lindu and USD 10 million
(
IDR 133.85 billion)
or USD 1,760/ha/year in Tangkoko
. These goods and services help to secure products and
Making the economic case for enhanced investments in protected areas
44
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
earnings for buffer-zone residents, reduce damages to downstream communities, and stimulate economic
activity, income and employment across and even beyond Sulawesi (Figure 29). It is also worth noting that many
are inaccessible or unaffordable elsewhere, especially to poorer and more vulnerable members of society.
Over time, all three PAs have registered a decline in forest cover – and look set to continue to do so in the future
unless action is taken to improve management effectiveness. The valuation study provides an indication of the
economic losses that might result from a failure to act. If the three sites were to lose their protected status, and
be subject to the same threats, pressures and rates of deforestation as are occurring outside their boundaries,
trillions of Rupiahs (or hundreds of millions of US dollars) of economic benefits that would otherwise be available
will be lost over the next 25 years – the costs to 2040 will total around USD 436 million (IDR 5.8 trillion) in Bogani,
USD 337 million (IDR 4.5 trillion) in Lore Lindu and USD 173 million (IDR 2.3 billion) in Tangkoko.
Such figures provide a strong economic and development rationale for investing in Bogani Nani Wartabone and
Lore Lindu National Parks and Tangkoko Batuangus Nature Reserve, so as to sustain the flow of valuable
ecosystem services. Although the values calculated in the current study cannot simply be extrapolated across
Sulawesi’s entire PA system, its findings have direct application to other sites (and the valuation approach and
methodology can in principle be replicated elsewhere). The overarching message is that any loss of PA biodiversity
and ecosystem services poses a grave economic risk to many different groups, sectors and production processes.
Conversely, undertaking the investments and activities that are required to improve PA conservation status and
management effectiveness has the potential to leverage considerable economic gains.
A final point to make concerns the future direction of ecosystem valuation in Sulawesi’s PAs. Here, two key issues
emerge. The first concerns the importance of providing quantitative evidence of the positive impacts of
biodiversity conservation on ecosystem service provision. The current study has made ‘the economic case’ for
the three E-PASS demonstration sites in terms of avoiding the damages, costs and losses that are associated with
deforestation. Generating this kind of information can provide convincing – and usually much-needed –
arguments to support biodiversity conservation and PA investments. It has not, however, been possible to value
the economic returns to investing in enhanced biodiversity conservation and management effectiveness.
One reason for this is that the incremental costs of achieving these improvements are not yet known. It is however
intended that output 2.2 of E-PASS will in due course “project the financial needs for basic and optimal PA
management and expansion across all provinces over the next 10 years”. Another binding information gap is the
lack of biophysical data on the causal links between strengthened management effectiveness, enhanced
biodiversity conservation and improvements in the quality and flow of ecosystem services. At present, this
evidence does not exist. A clear priority for the future – and for the E-PASS project – is to make efforts to generate
these (largely biophysical) data. Only then will it be possible to make a truly convincing economic case for
enhanced PA investments in terms of the positive gains that would result.
The second priority is underline the importance of going beyond merely seeking to generate numbers on the
monetary value of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ideally, valuation should be integrated into a broader
process of PA management planning. In particular, it can provide important information to guide the process of
identifying needs, niches and opportunities to use economic and financial tools to strengthen biodiversity
conservation. This provides the ‘bridge’ between the current study and other parts of E-PASS component 2 and
is addressed below, in the final section of the report.
Making the economic case for enhanced investments in protected areas
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
45
Capturing ecosystem values as conservation incentives & finance
While many actions are required to for strengthen biodiversity conservation and improve PA management
effectiveness in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, enhanced investment is one very important and necessary
condition (although, it should be emphasised, will not by itself be sufficient). In response to this need, the second
intended outcome of E-PASS is to “increase the financial sustainability of the Sulawesi PA system”, including
outputs 2.2 (develop a Sulawesi-level PA system financing strategy and pilot provincial-level plans) and 2.3
(expand and diversify revenue generation for PA management).
It is now widely recognised that that
a
chieving financial sustainability is a far more complex challenge than just
securing enough money to cover the direct costs of managing PAs, and that conservation budgets and financing
strategies must recognise (and attempt to cover) multiple types of costs and cost-bearers (see, for example,
Emerton et al. 2005). At least two elements need to be incorporated into attempts to “enhance PA investment”,
which go beyond merely looking to generate new and additional revenues and funding. These are: securing and
sustaining the financial flows that are required to cover the direct physical costs of PA management, and setting
in place the incentives that are needed to enable, empower and encourage people to conserve biodiversity in the
course of their economic activities.
The valuation study makes it clear that Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko generate substantial economic benefits
for a wide range of stakeholders. Yet, however great the economic value of biodiversity is demonstrated to be in
theory or on paper, this has little meaning unless there are real changes in the economic conditions and
opportunities faced by the people that depend and impact on PA land, resources and ecosystem services. In a
similar vein, however convinced decision-makers are that it is in the public interest to conserve PAs and to take
action against biodiversity loss, this will have only minor impacts unless there are adequate resources to finance
these actions, and people perceive there to be sufficient gains from doing so.
Figure 30: Identifying needs, niches and opportunities to strengthen conservation finance and incentives
Various economic and financial instruments offer a means of overcoming these financial and economic challenges
(and of taking advantage of these financial and economic opportunities). This forms the focus of third tier of the
TEEB approach described in Chapter 2: capturing the value of ecosystem services and seeking solutions. This
involves identifying where (and for whom) there are uncompensated conservation costs, unrewarded
conservation actions, unpenalized environmental damages and uncaptured ecosystem opportunities, and
Making the economic case for enhanced investments in protected areas
46
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
understanding how these inequities and imbalances might result in unsupportive economic and financial
conditions for effective PA management (Figure 30).
Here it is not so much the absolute value of PA biodiversity and ecosystem services that is the primary concern,
but rather how these values are distributed and how far they are actually captured as conservation finance and
incentives. In many ways the situation in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko is typical of that faced in most PAs in
Sulawesi. The groups that bear the main costs of PA conservation do not necessarily reap its rewards (or do not
gain at a level or in a form that is commensurate with the costs they bear). Most obviously, forest-adjacent
communities receive only limited economic benefits from PAs, while bearing the bulk of the opportunity costs of
biodiversity conservation and landscape protection (in terms of alternative land and resource uses foregone).
With a high incidence of poverty and limited livelihood options in most buffer-zone areas, people tend to be both
unwilling and unable to bear these costs. Similarly, while PA authorities are responsible for finding and allocating
the funds required to manage PAs, they rely on extremely limited budgets and are able to generate and retain
very few sources of revenue and income.
At the same time, many of the groups that benefit the most from PA ecosystem services make little or no
contribution towards the costs of providing them – even when they can well-afford to do so, and are generating
substantial profits (or saving considerable costs) that are directly tied to the provision of ecosystem services.
Examples include crop farmers, the tourism sector, as well as the various settlements, industries and productive
sectors that are located downstream of the PAs. The provision of these benefits to the wider economy is
effectively being subsidised by two groups that have the least financial and economic ability to do so: PA
authorities and PA-adjacent communities.
Although it is beyond the scope of the current report either to investigate the costs of effective PA management
or to identify the kind of mechanisms that could be used be used enhance PA investment, the valuation study
suggests a number of needs, niches and opportunities for better capturing ecosystem service values and
compensating conservation costs that could be incorporated into E-PASS outputs 2.2 and 2.3. These basically
revolve around redistributing or
transferring payments from the groups and sectors that benefit for free or at low
cost from PA crop pollination, watershed protection and recreational services as financing flows for the PA authorities
that incur direct management expenditures and incentives for the PA-adjacent community members that bear the
opportunity costs of conservation
.
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
47
References
ACB (2012) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Southeast Asia (ASEAN TEEB): Scoping Study. ASEAN
Centre for Biodiversity, Los Baños.
Acciaioli, G. (2008a) Environmentality reconsidered: Indigenous To Lindu conservation strategies and the
reclaiming of the commons in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. In: Galvin M., and T. Haller T. (eds) People,
protected areas and global change: Participatory conservation in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Europe. NCCR
North-South, University of Bern.
Acciaioli, G. (2008b). Strategy and subjectivity in Co-management of the Lore Lindu National Park (Central
Sulawesi, Indonesia). In N. S. Sodhi, G. Acciaioli, M. Erb, & A. K-J. Tan (Eds.), Biodiversity and Human Livelihoods
in Protected Areas, Cambridge University Press.
ADB (2016) Indonesia - Country Water Assessment. Asian Development Bank, Manila.
Arin and Kramer (2002) Divers’ willingness to pay to visit marine sanctuaries: an exploratory study. Ocean &
Coastal Management 45: 171-183.
Asafu-Adjaye, J. and S. Tapsuwan (2008) A Contingent valuation study of scuba diving benefits: case study in Mu
Ko Similan Marine National Park, Thailand. Tourism Management 29: 1122-1130.
Aungsuviriya C. (2010) An Evaluation of Recreational Value for the Coral Diving Activities at Hat Chao Mai National
Park, Trang Province. Master's Thesis, Faculty of Economics, Chiangmai University.
Ayumi, Y. and H. Chanhda (2009) Ecosystem Service Values and Land Use Change in Trans-Boundary National
Biodiversity Conservation Areas (NBCA): A Case study of Phou Dean Din NBCA, Lao PDR. Paper presented at
8th International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Ljubljana.
Bann, C. (1997) An Economic Analysis of Tropical Forest Land Use Options, Ratanakiri Province, Cambodia.
Economy and Environment Programme for South East Asia (EEPSEA), International Development Research
Centre (IDRC), Ottawa.
Barkmann, J., Glenk, K., Handi, H., Sundawati, L., Wiste, J. and R. Marggraf (2007) Assessing economic preferences
for biological diversity and ecosystem services at the Central Sulawesi rainforest margin – a choice experiment
approach. In Tscharntke, T., Leuschner ,C., Zeller, M., Guhardja, E. and A. Bidin (eds), The stability of tropical
rainforest margins, linking ecological, economic and social constraints of land use and conservation. Springer
Verlag, Berlin.
BNPB (2017) Indonesian disaster data and information. National Disaster Management Authority (BNPB),
http://dibi.bnpb.go.id/ accessed February 3 2017.
CBD (2007) An Exploration of Tools and Methodologies for Valuation of Biodiversity and Biodiversity Resources
and Functions. CBD Technical Series Number 28, Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal.
Central Sulawesi: A Choice Experiment Approach. STORMA Discussion Paper Series No. 16, Research Project on
Stability of Rain Forest Margins (STORMA), Funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under SFB 552.
Chanrawong N. (2002) Valuation of Recreational and Total Economic Value of Phi Phi Islands. Master's thesis in
faculty of Economics, Chiangmai University.
De Marco, P. and F. Coelho (2004) Services performed by the ecosystem: forest remnants influence agricultural
cultures’ pollination and production. Biodiversity and Conservation 13(7): 1245–1255.
References
48
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
Emerton, L., and E. Bos (2004) VALUE: Counting Ecosystems as Water Infrastructure. IUCN — The World
Conservation Union, Gland.
Emerton, L., Bishop, J. and L. Thomas, L. (2006) Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas: A global review of
challenges and options. World Commission on Protected Areas Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series
No. 13, IUCN, Gland.
Emerton, L. and Yan Min Aung (2013) The Economic value of forest ecosystem services in Myanmar and options
for sustainable financing. International Management Group, Yangon and Ministry of Environmental
Conservation and Forests, Nay Pyi Taw.
Emerton, L., Ha Tran Thi Thu, Hoang Thach Mai, Viet Anh Hoang and E. Ebert (2014) The economic value of Cat
Tien National Park. GIZ/MARD project Conservation of Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems in Vietnam, Hanoi.
ESG International (2001) The value of water resources in Lore Lindu National Park Central Sulawesi, Indonesia.
Report prepared for Nature Conservancy Indonesia Program, Jakarta.
Forbes, K. and J. Broadhead (2011) Forests and landslides The role of trees and forests in the prevention of
landslides and rehabilitation of landslide-affected areas in Asia. RAP Publication 2011/19, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FA)) Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.
Gallai, N. and B. Vaissière (2009) Guidelines for the economic valuation of pollination services at a national scale.
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.
Glenk, K., Barkmann, J. and R. Marggraf (2006) Locally Perceived Values of Biological Diversity in Indonesia - a
Choice Experiment Approach. Paper prepared for 8th Annual BIOECON Conference on “Economic Analysis of
Ecology and Biodiversity”, Cambridge.
Glenk, K., Barkmann, J. and R. Marggraf (2006) Unveiling Regional Preferences for Biological Diversity in
Hakim, L., Soemarno, M. and D. Hong (2012) Challenges for conserving biodiversity and developing sustainable
island tourism in North Sulawesi Province, Indonesia. J. Ecol. Field Biol. 35(2): 61-71.
Hansen, K.K. and N. Top (2006) Natural Forest Benefits and Economic Analysis of Natural Forest Conversion in
Cambodia. CDRI Working Paper 33, Cambodia Development Resource Institute, Phnom Penh.
Hoa, D. and N. Ly (2009) Willingness to Pay for the Preservation of Lo Go-Xa Mat National Park in Vietnam. EEPSEA
Research Report, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia, Singapore and Ottawa.
Ibrahim, K., Osman, N., Ahmad, A., Abdullah,S. and A. Chan (2012) Pulau Redang Marine Park Management
Effectiveness and Total Economic Value. Department of Marine Parks Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
Jianjun, J., Indab, A., Nabangchang, O. and Thuy, T. (2007) Willingness to Pay for Marine Turtle Conservation in
Asia: A Cross-Country Perspective. Policy Brief No. 2007-PB3, Economy and Environment Programme for South
East Asia (EEPSEA), Singapore.
Kartikasari, Sri Nurani (2008) Your Biodiversity in My Backyard: Key Local Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Biodiversity
Conservation in Gorontalo, Indonesia. thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree
of Doctor of Philosophy, Lincoln University, Christchurch.
Kettunen, M. and P. ten Brink (2013) Social and Economic Benefits of Protected Areas: An Assessment Guide.
Earthscan Press, London.
Kuchelmeister, G. (2003) Participatory Economic Evaluation – Experience in Forest Valuation with Villagers in
Vietnam. Paper presented at Frontiers 2 Conference: European Applications in Ecological Economics, Tenerife.
References
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
49
Leemhuis, C, Erasmi, S., Twele, A., Kreilein, H., Oltchev, A. and G. Gerold (2007) Rainforest conversion in Central
Sulawesi, Indonesia: recent development and consequences for river discharge and water resources. Erdkunde
61(3): 284-294.
Losey, J. and M. Vaughan (2006) The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. BioScience 56(4):
311-323.
MARD (2008) Values of Forest on Water Conservation and Erosion Control, Da Nhim Watershed, Lam Dong
Province. Dong Nai River Basin Conservation Landscape Project, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development, Winrock International and USAID, Hanoi.
McGregor, S. (1976) Insect Pollination of Cultivated Crop Plants. Agriculture Handbook 496, US Department of
Agriculture, Washington DC.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Island Press,
Washington DC.
Mushambanyi, B. and T. Munyuli (2014) Social and Ecological Drivers of the Economic Value of Pollination Services
Delivered to Coffee in Central Uganda. Journal of Ecosystems http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/298141
Nabangchang, O. (2008) Private Contributions Towards the Provision of Public Goods: The Conservation of
Thailand’s Endangered Species. Research Report No. 208-RR7, Economy and Environment Programme for
South East Asia (EEPSEA), Singapore.
Nabangchang, O. (2010) A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Resettlement Policy: A Case Study of Ob Luang National Park,
Northern Thailand. Research Report No. 2003-RR10, Economy and Environment Programme for South East
Asia (EEPSEA), IDRC, Singapore & Ottawa.
OECD (2002) Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation: A Guide for Policy Makers. Organisation for Economic Co-
operation & Development, Paris.
Othman, J. and A. Rahajeng (2004) Economic valuation of recreational attributes: case of nature and culture-
based tourism in Malaysia and Indonesia.
Paris, R. and I. Ruzicka (1991) Barking up the wrong tree: the role of rent appropriation in sustainable tropical
forest management. Occasional Paper No. 1, Asian Development Bank Environment Office, Manila.
Pearce, D., Markandya, A. and E. Barbier (1989) Blueprint for a Green Economy. Earthscan Publications, London.
Phillips, A., ed. (1998) Economic Values of Protected Areas: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. IUCN - The
World Conservation Union, Gland and Cambridge.
Piriyapada, S. and Wang, E. (2014) Modeling willingness to pay for coastal tourism resource protection in Ko Chang
Marine National Park, Thailand. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research DOI:10.1080/10941665.2014.904806
Priess, J., Mimler, M., Klein, A., Schwarze, S., Tscharntke, T. and I. Steffan-Dewenter (2007) Linking deforestation
scenarios to pollination services and economic returns in coffee agroforestry systems. Ecological Applications,
17(2): 407–417.
Ratprakhon T. (2006) Valuation of Tourism Area: A case study of Kho Samed,Changwat Rayong, Master's Thesis
in Faculty of Economics, Kasetsart University.
Ricketts, T., Daily, G., Ehrlich, P. and C Michener (2004) Economic value of tropical forest to coffee production,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101 (34): 12579–12582.
Rosales, R., Kallesoe, M., Gerrard, P., Muangchanh, P., Phomtavong, S. and S. Khamsomphou (2005) Balancing the
Returns to Catchment Management: The Economic Value of Conserving Natural Forests in Sekong, Lao PDR.
References
50
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
IUCN Water, Nature and Economics Technical Paper No. 5, IUCN – The World Conservation Union, Ecosystems
and Livelihoods Group Asia, Colombo.
Ross, S. and G. Wall (1999) Evaluating ecotourism: The case of North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Tourism Management
20: 673-682.
Steffan-Dewentera, I., Kesslerc, M., BarkmanncJ., J. Bosa, M., Buchorig, D., Erasmih, S. Fausth, H., Geroldh, G.,
Glenke, K., Gradsteind, R., Guhardjai, E., Harteveldd, M., Herteld, D., Ho, P. Kappash, M., Kohlerh, S.,
Leuschnerd, C., Maertensj, M., Marggrafe, R., Migge-Kleiank, S., Mogeai, J., Pitopangl, R., Schaeferk, M.,
Schwarzem, S., Spornd, S., Steingrebek, A. Tjitrosoedirdjoi, S., Tjitrosoemitoi, S., Tweleh, A., Weberh, R.,
Woltmannk, L., Zeller, M., and T. Tscharntkea (2007) Tradeoffs between income, biodiversity, and ecosystem
functioning during tropical rainforest conversion and agroforestry intensification. PNAS 104(12): 4973-4978.
Suwanrattanasri P. (2002) An Economic Valuation of Coastal Ecosystems in the Andaman Sea Coastal Area of
Thailand, Master's Thesis in Faculty of Economics, Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University.
TEEB (2008) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: An interim report. European Communities.
TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis
of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.
Thuy, T. (2007) Willingness to pay for conservation of the Vietnamese Rhino. EEPSEA Research Report, Economy
and Environment Program for Southeast Asia, Singapore and Ottawa.
UNDP (2013) Project Document. PIMS No. 4392 Enhancing the Protected Area System in Sulawesi (E-PASS) for
Biodiversity Conservation. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Regional Bureau for Asia and the
Pacific, Bangkok.
UNORCID (2015) Forest Ecosystem Valuation Study: Indonesia. United Nations Office for REDD Coordination in
Indonesia, Jakarta.
van Beukering, P., Cesar, H. and M. Janssen (2003) Economic valuation of the Leuser National Park on Sumatra,
Indonesia. Ecological Economics 44: 43-62.
Van Paddenburg, A., Bassi, A., Buter, E., Cosslett, C. and A. Dean (2012) Heart of Borneo: Investing in Nature for a
Green Economy. WWF Heart of Borneo Global Initiative, Jakarta.
Vu Tan Phuong (2012) Final report on valuation of good and services of the protection forests in the South and
South Central Coast of Vietnam. Research Centre for Forest Ecology and Environment (RCFEE), Hanoi.
Wich, S., RIswan, Jenson, J., Refisch, J. and C. Nellemann (2011) Orangutans and the Economics of Sustainable
Forest Management in Sumatra. UNEP/GRASP/PanEco/YEL/ICRAF/GRID-Arendal, United Nations Environment
Programme, Nairobi.
Wischmeier, W. and D. Smith (1978) Predicting rainfall erosion losses. USDA Agricultural Research Service
Handbook, 537, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington DC.
Wongwattanakul N. (2004) An Evaluation of Recreation Benefits, Mae Ramphueng Beach, Changwat Rayong.
Master's Thesis in Resource Management, Interdisciplinary Graduate Program, Kasetsart University.
WTTC (2015) Travel & Tourism Economic Impact 2015 Indonesia. World Travel & Tourism Council, London.
Yeo, B. (2005) The Recreational Benefits of Coral Reefs: A Case Study of Pulau Payar Marine Park, Kedah, Malaysia.
In Ahmed, M. Chong, C. and Cesar, H. Economic Valuation and Policy Priorities for Sustainable Management
of Coral Reefs. WorldFish Center, Penang.
References
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
51
เพชรส ดา ุ ว ส ทธ วงค ิ ิ ิ ์ (2007) การประเม นม ลค าทางเศรษฐศาสตร ของแหล งหญ าทะเลบร เวณอ าวค งกระเบน ิ ู ่ ์ ่ ้ ิ ่ ุ้ จ. จ นทบ ร ั ุ ี,
ว ทยาน พนธ เศรษฐศาสตรมหาบ ณฑ ต ิ ิ ์ ั ิ , สถาบ นบ ณฑ ตพ ฒนบร หารศาสตร ั ั ิ ั ิ ์
ภคว ฒน ั ์ ธ ญนพร ตน ก ล ั ั ์ ุ (2006) การประเม นม ลค าทางเศรษฐก จเช งน นทนาก ิ ู ่ ิ ิ ั ารของเกาะช างในอ ทยานแห งชาต หม เกาะช าง ้ ุ ่ ิ ู่ ้
จ งหว ดตราด ั ั , ภาคน พนธ เศรษฐศาสตรมหาบ ณฑ ต ิ ์ ั ิ , สถาบ นบ ณฑ ตพ ฒนบร หารศาสตร ั ั ิ ั ิ ์.
ม ณตรายาห ั ์ ศร ส วรรณ ี ุ (2008) การประเม นม ลค าป าสงวนแห งชาต ป าเลนอ าวท งมหา ิ ู ่ ่ ่ ิ ่ ่ ุ่ , ว ทยาน พนธ เศรษฐศาสตรมหาบ ณฑ ต ิ ิ ์ ั ิ ,
สถาบ นบ ณฑ ตพ ฒนบร หารศาสตร ั ั ิ ั ิ ์
ว ิภาดา ธรรมประด ษฐ ิ ์ (2007) การก าหนดอ ตราค าบร การในการเข าชมอ ทยานแห งชาต ศ ร นาถและประเม นม ลค าเต าทะเล ํ ั ่ ิ ้ ุ ่ ิ ิ ิ ิ ู ่ ่ -
ในเขตอ ทยานแห งชาต ส ร นาถ ุ ่ ิ ิ ิ , ว ทยาน พนธ เศรษฐศาสตรมหาบ ณฑ ต ิ ิ ์ ั ิ , สถาบ นบ ณฑ ตพ ฒนบร หารศาสตร ั ั ิ ั ิ ์
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
53
Data Annex
Buffer-zone area, population and land use/land cover
Table 20: Bogani buffer-zone sub-districts area and population
Province Regency/city Sub-district Area (ha)* Persons* Hholds* % rural
Gorontalo
Bonebolango
Bone 6,143 3,728 876 72%
Bonepantai 995 1,025 241 72%
Boneraya 4,439 4,498 1,057 72%
Botupingge 4 20 5 72%
Bulango Selatan 137 2,523 593 72%
Bulango Timur 1,087 5,055 1,187 72%
Bulango Ulu 9,563 995 234 72%
Bulango Utara 2,014 2,621 616 72%
Bulawa 907 521 122 72%
Kabila 488 9,166 2,153 72%
Pinogu 5,730 224 53 72%
Suwawa 1,362 6,654 1,563 72%
Suwawa Selatan 3,039 2,738 643 72%
Suwawa Tengah 1,340 1,826 429 72%
Suwawa Timur 7,251 1,415 332 72%
Tapa 1,102 6,517 1,531 72%
Tilongkabila 2,660 12,390 2,910 72%
Gorontalo Telaga 1 3 1 100%
Gorontalo Utara Atinggola 8,918 4,010 956 95%
Kota Gorontalo Kota Utara 3 64 16 3%
Sulawesi
Utara
Bolaangmongondow
Bolaang 4,390 3,451 828 97%
Dumoga Barat 16,450 7,644 1,834 97%
Dumoga Tengah 3,448 5,711 1,370 97%
Dumoga Tenggara 3,390 1,720 413 97%
Dumoga Timur 8,995 15,639 3,752 97%
Dumoga Utara 3,808 4,555 1,093 97%
Lolak 12,025 6,082 1,459 97%
Lolayan 8,925 7,829 1,878 97%
Sangtombolang 11,466 3,756 901 97%
Bolaangmongondow
Selatan
Bolaanguki 15,578 8,884 2,098 98%
Pinolosian 7,969 2,542 600 98%
Pinolosian Tengah 5,571 1,274 301 98%
Posigadan 18,944 4,782 1,130 98%
Bolaangmongondow
Utara
Bintauna 12,618 2,391 587 98%
Bolangitang Barat 7,815 3,942 968 98%
Bolangitang Timur 9,131 3,041 747 98%
Sangkub 12,169 3,188 783 98%
Total 219,874 152,427 36,259 87%
Source: WCS GIS data based on BPS 2015 (population), Badan Informasi Geospasial, indonesia basemap (area). *area and
population within 5 km of PA boundary.
Data annex
54
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
Table 21: Lore Lindu buffer-zone sub-districts area and population
Province Regency/city Sub-district Area (ha)* Persons* Hholds* % rural
Sulawesi
Tengah
Poso
Lore Barat 11,679 1,168 279 79%
Lore Peore 8,673 572 136 79%
Lore Selatan 15,644 1,338 319 79%
Lore Tengah 15,740 1,138 271 79%
Lore Timur 1,013 518 124 79%
Lore Utara 18,008 5,421 1,293 79%
Poso Pesisir Utara 3,086 1,023 244 79%
Sigi
Dolo 17 66 15 87%
Dolo Barat 7 11 3 87%
Dolo Selatan 6,056 1,618 381 87%
Gumbasa 5,885 3,687 867 87%
Kulawi 14,710 1,987 468 87%
Kulawi Selatan 11,643 2,465 580 87%
Lindu 13,462 1,186 279 87%
Nokilalaki 2,610 2,104 495 87%
Palolo 18,471 8,443 1,987 87%
Pipikoro 10,481 880 207 87%
Sigi Biromaru 6,774 10,300 2,423 87%
Tanambulava 2,804 4,075 959 87%
Total 166,761 48,001 11,330 85%
Source: WCS GIS data based on BPS 2015 (population), Badan Informasi Geospasial, indonesia basemap (area). *area and
population within 5 km of PA boundary.
Table 22: Tangkoko buffer-zone sub-districts area and population
Province Regency/city Sub-district Area (ha)* Persons* Hholds* % rural
Sulawesi
Utara
Bitung
Aertembaga 2,294 10,275 2,512 17%
Girian 510 31,123 7,610 17%
Lembeh Selatan 197 562 137 17%
Lembeh Utara 1,422 4,679 1,144 17%
Madidir 1,293 23,298 5,696 17%
Maesa 812 31,020 7,585 17%
Matuari 143 3,227 789 17%
Ranowulu 7,921 9,999 2,445 17%
Minahasa Utara Likupang Timur 1,292 1,191 310 54%
Total
15,885 115,376 28,228 18%
Source: WCS GIS data based on BPS 2015 (population), Badan Informasi Geospasial, indonesia basemap (area). *area and
population within 5 km of PA boundary.
Table 23: Buffer-zone land use and land cover
Bogani Lore Lindu Tangkoko
Primary forest - 53,612 57,900
Secondary forest 359 28,276 64,165
Mangrove forest 3 - 121
Plantation/estate crops - 537 338
Data annex
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
55
Bogani Lore Lindu Tangkoko
Rainfed crops 7,761 18,745 16,164
Paddy cultivation - 15,475 16,029
Mixed crops/shrubland 3,483 21,965 30,390
Shrubland - 14,983 15,197
Shrubland/swamp - - -
Savanna/grassland - 4,748 -
Fishponds - - 15
Mining 142 2,971 205
Water body 11 4,332 270
Bare land 2,089 573 149
Settlement, infrastructure & other 108 545 2,801
Total (ha) 13,956 166,761 203,742
Source: WCS GIS data based on Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan. Note: total land area differs from GIS data
provided for buffer-zone sub-districts in Bogani and Tangkoko. The reason for this is unclear.
Watershed areas, forest and land use/land cover
Table 24: Sub-watershed areas and PA forest cover
Sub-
watershed
Total
area(ha)
Area inside
PA (ha)
Forested
area of
watershed
in PA (ha)
Sub-
watershed
Total
area(ha)
Area inside
PA (ha)
Forested
area of
watershed
in PA (ha)
Bogani Lore Lindu
Atinggola 27,115 18 18 Lariang Hulu 712,986 123,972 119,999
Ayong 24,219 21,991 20,984 Palu 307,120 92,861 84,966
Bayabuta 1,485 12 12 Sausu 56,950 153 153
Bolaangitang 31,774 81 81 Total 1,077,056 216,986 205,118
Dominanga 4,489 438 438 Tangkoko
Dulangon 6,595 863 863 Airprang 1,081 508 30
Dumoga Mongondow 204,581 78,476 68,060 Batuputih 3,618 3,214 2,491
Kombot 5,590 147 147 Girian 10,896 311 232
Limboto Bone Bolango 274,690 124,885 120,070 Kayuwale 6,168 20
Lion 3,318 39 26 Pasongdolong 3,654 1,036 539
Lolak 11,441 5,987 5,977 Tangkoko A 634 632 480
Maelang 8,391 3,381 3,111 Tangkoko B 375 15 7
Mataindo 7,485 1,202 1,202 Tangkoko C 727 0
Milangodaa 13,959 4,041 4,041 Tangkoko D 952 944 627
Moilobai 1,165 2 1 Tangkoko E 803 188 172
Molibagu 4,860 911 646 Tangkoko F 355 353 275
Pilolahunga 5,437 276 276 Tangkoko G 449 447 67
Pinolosian 12,016 5,943 5,943 Tangkoko H 657 653 578
Salongo 6,763 1,788 1,788 Tangkoko I 196 195 195
Sangkub 131,654 22,700 22,700 Total 30,565 8,516 5,692
Sauk 721 9 9
Sogitia Daa 1,597 689 680
Taludaa 12,356 7,768 7,437
Data annex
56
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
Sub-
watershed
Total
area(ha)
Area inside
PA (ha)
Forested
area of
watershed
in PA (ha)
Sub-
watershed
Total
area(ha)
Area inside
PA (ha)
Forested
area of
watershed
in PA (ha)
Tambulilato 7,095 357 357
Tangagah 5,265 269 269
Tnbnw A 1,929 344 344
Tolondadu 5,193 619 619
Total 821,183 283,238 266,101
Source: WCS GIS data based on Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan.
Table 25: Downstream catchment land use and land cover
Bogani Lore Lindu Tangkoko
Primary forest 275,465 525,556 -
Secondary forest 232,772 292,436 7,656
Mangrove forest 687 586 -
Plantation/estate crops 673 12,092 -
Rainfed crops 83,650 38,821 12,482
Paddy cultivation 41,036 28,971 -
Mixed crops/shrubland 103,311 49,396 5,981
Shrubland 64,894 85,229 808
Shrubland/swamp 1,502 82 -
Savanna/grassland - 19,549 -
Fishponds 15 1,363 -
Mining 236 3,692 142
Water body 2,791 6,953 -
Bare land 600 6,493 973
Settlement, infrastructure & other 13,103 5,814 2,524
Total (ha) 820,733 1,077,034 30,565
Source: WCS GIS data based on Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan. Note: total land area differs from GIS data
provided for watershed sub-districts in Bogani. The reason for this is unclear.
Table 26: Downstream catchment population, domestic water consumption and irrigated rice cultivation
Sub-
watershed
Population
(persons)
Domestic
water use
(m3 mill/yr)
Irrigated
rice (ha)
Sub-
watershed
Population
(persons)
Domestic
water use
(m3 mill/yr)
Irrigated
rice (ha)
Bogani Lore Lindu
Atinggola 16,691 497 630 Lariang Hulu 108,464 3,389 8,883
Ayong 10,902 324 975 Palu 289,197 10,110 15,224
Bayabuta 751 22 51 Sausu 37,002 1,143 5,729
Bolaangitang 15,857 468 783 Total 434,664 14,643 29,837
Dominanga 2,525 74 2 Tangkoko
Dulangon 3,336 99 226 Airprang 4,842 200 -
Dumoga Mongondow 287,694 9,619 23,865 Batuputih 4,612 190 -
Kombot 1,783 53 1 Girian 28,490 1,160 217
Limboto Bone Bolango 585,999 21,248 9,324 Kayuwale 7,261 292 25
Lion 854 25 - Pasongdolong 65,568 2,707 -
Data annex
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
57
Sub-
watershed
Population
(persons)
Domestic
water use
(m3 mill/yr)
Irrigated
rice (ha)
Sub-
watershed
Population
(persons)
Domestic
water use
(m3 mill/yr)
Irrigated
rice (ha)
Lolak 5,787 172 393 Tangkoko A 2,839 117 -
Maelang 2,749 82 437 Tangkoko B 6,763 279 -
Mataindo 1,738 51 3 Tangkoko C 3,254 134 -
Milangodaa 3,601 106 1 Tangkoko D 4,245 175 -
Moilobai 382 11 61 Tangkoko E 20,043 828 -
Molibagu 2,604 77 51 Tangkoko F 448 18 -
Pilolahunga 1,373 40 - Tangkoko G 2,012 83 -
Pinolosian 3,999 118 20 Tangkoko H 2,608 108 -
Salongo 3,825 113 11 Tangkoko I 877 36 -
Sangkub 32,091 948 3,760 Total 153,861 6,329 242
Sauk 365 11 25
Sogitia Daa 969 32 -
Taludaa 6,472 213 0
Tambulilato 6,103 203 0
Tangagah 3,001 88 2
Tnbnw A 1,238 41 -
Tolondadu 2,922 86 9
Total 1,005,610 34,822 40,632
Source: Area and population from WCS GIS data based on BPS 2015 (population, Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan
Kehutanan (area). Per capita rural and urban domestic water consumption calculated from figures presented from ADB 2016;
irrigated rice area from BPS.
Table 27: Downstream flood-risk population and cultivated area
Sub-
watershed
Population
(persons)
Plantation
crops (ha)
Smallholder
crops (ha)
Sub-
watershed
Population
(persons)
Smallholder
crops (ha)
Plantation
crops (ha)
Bogani Lore Lindu
Atinggola 1,101 - 876 Lariang Hulu 98,240 30,836 11,263
Ayong 401 - 809 Palu 65,909 50,104 537
Bayabuta 220 - 321 Sausu 17,475 6,440 -
Bolaangitang 1,569 - 2,632 Total 181,624 87,379 11,800
Dominanga 57 - 93 Tangkoko
Dulangon 1,375 - 2,100 Airprang 820 - 110
Dumoga Mongondow 112,717 0 41,223 Batuputih 179 - 50
Kombot 242 - 21 Girian 32,948 - 1,713
Limboto Bone Bolango 326,226 209 32,905 Kayuwale 1,120 - 1,040
Lion 41 - 151 Pasongdolong 15,816 - 28
Lolak 1,379 - 1,917 Tangkoko A 115 - -
Maelang 742 - 1,898 Tangkoko B 1,893 - -
Mataindo 129 - 528 Tangkoko C 320 - 41
Milangodaa 73 - 286 Tangkoko D 658 - 1
Moilobai 20 - 61 Tangkoko E 12,297 0 5
Molibagu 758 - 1,164 Tangkoko F 116 - -
Pilolahunga 70 - 277 Tangkoko G 177 - -
Pinolosian 165 - 454 Tangkoko H 3 - -
Salongo 286 - 473 Tangkoko I - - -
Data annex
58
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
Sub-
watershed
Population
(persons)
Plantation
crops (ha)
Smallholder
crops (ha)
Sub-
watershed
Population
(persons)
Smallholder
crops (ha)
Plantation
crops (ha)
Sangkub 1,808 - 6,033 Total 66,462 0 2,987
Sauk 54 - 43
Sogitia Daa 33 - 11
Taludaa 147 - 81
Tambulilato 66 - 36
Tangagah 111 - 180
Tnbnw A 17 2 9
Tolondadu 508 - 760
Total* 450,315 211 95,342
Source: Area and population from WCS GIS data based on BPS 2015 (population, Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan
Kehutanan (area). Per capita rural and urban domestic water consumption calculated from figures presented from ADB 2016;
irrigated rice area from BPS.
Table 28: Downstream landslide-risk population and cultivated area
Sub-
watershed
Population
(persons)
Plantation
crops (ha)
Smallholder
crops (ha)
Sub-
watershed
Population
(persons)
Smallholder
crops (ha)
Plantation
crops (ha)
Bogani Lore Lindu
Atinggola 16,658 - 5,907 Lariang Hulu 196,864 284 10,371
Ayong 10,859 - 1,458 Palu 108,703 - 5,903
Bayabuta 746 - 637 Sausu 24,091 - 3,040
Bolaangitang 15,758 - 7,423 Total 329,658 284 19,314
Dominanga 2,521 - 870 Tangkoko
Dulangon 3,305 - 2,661 Airprang 0 - -
Dumoga Mongondow 285,884 - 84,129 Batuputih 644 - 111
Kombot 1,779 - 930 Girian 3,392 - 1,493
Limboto Bone Bolango 582,369 506 85,475 Kayuwale 2,276 - 1,918
Lion 824 - 1,112 Pasongdolong 5,632 - 5
Lolak 5,706 - 2,042 Tangkoko A 151 - -
Maelang 2,729 - 3,747 Tangkoko B - - -
Mataindo 1,730 - 2,500 Tangkoko C - - -
Milangodaa 3,580 - 1,383 Tangkoko D 483 - -
Moilobai 377 - 545 Tangkoko E 627 - -
Molibagu 2,589 - 2,312 Tangkoko F - - -
Pilolahunga 1,366 - 925 Tangkoko G 117 - -
Pinolosian 3,995 - 935 Tangkoko H 92 - -
Salongo 3,803 - 1,149 Tangkoko I - - -
Sangkub 32,005 - 14,306 Total 13,415 - 3,527
Sauk 361 - 314
Sogitia Daa 969 - 289
Taludaa 6,471 - 1,422
Tambulilato 6,103 - 1,057
Tangagah 2,997 - 683
Tnbnw A 1,238 12 112
Tolondadu 2,920 - 1,700
Total 999,643 519 226,023
Data annex
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
59
Source: Area and population from WCS GIS data based on BPS 2015 (population, Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan
Kehutanan (area). Per capita rural and urban domestic water consumption calculated from figures presented from ADB 2016;
irrigated rice area from BPS.
Cultivated areas & pollinator dependence
Table 29: Crop area, production and value within 1.5 km of Bogani
Sub-district Paddy
(ha)
Rainfed
crops (ha)
Plantation
crops (ha)
Mixed crops/
shrubland (ha)
Total crop
value (USD)
Pollination
value (USD)
Bone - 24 - 786 686,358 6,953
Bonepantai - - - - - -
Boneraya - - - - - -
Botupingge - - - - - -
Bulango Selatan - - - - - -
Bulango Timur - - - 35 28,781 292
Bulango Ulu - - - 1,454 1,197,310 12,129
Bulango Utara - - - - - -
Kabila - - - - - -
Pinogu 342 1,154 - 187 2,805,186 20,799
Suwawa - 228 - 252 583,265 5,909
Suwawa Selatan - 2 - 9 11,051 112
Suwawa Tengah - 557 - 123 1,018,409 10,317
Suwawa Timur 4 323 162 824 1,321,539 25,846
Tapa - - - - - -
Tilongkabila - 335 - 425 902,516 9,143
Telaga - - - - - -
Kota Utara - - - - - -
Bolaang - - - 281 161,187 903
Dumoga Barat 770 2,646 - 2,271 5,428,899 24,301
Dumoga Tengah 178 923 - - 1,311,451 5,933
Dumoga Tenggara 474 59 - 730 1,157,016 2,722
Dumoga Timur 543 1,146 - 2,605 3,577,285 15,734
Dumoga Utara 887 55 - 432 1,565,075 1,740
Lolak 4 27 - 441 290,639 1,593
Lolayan 203 843 - 996 1,825,517 8,617
Sangtombolang 187 65 - 1,389 1,137,372 4,884
Bolaanguki - - - 40 21,984 151
Pinolosian - - - - - -
Pinolosian Tengah - 56 - - 62,200 427
Posigadan - - - 337 186,944 1,284
Total 3,592 8,444 162 13,617 25,279,985 159,788
Source: Crop area from WCS GIS data based on Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan; crop yields and prices from
BPS; pollinator dependency ratios from Gallai & Vaissière 2009, Losey & Vaughan 2006, McGregor 1976.
Table 30: Crop area, production and value within 1.5 km of Lore Lindu
Data annex
60
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
Sub-district Paddy
(ha)
Rainfed
crops (ha)
Plantation
crops (ha)
Mixed crops/
shrubland (ha)
Total crop
value (USD)
Pollination
value (USD)
Lore Barat 290 559 - 274 2,243,295 25,624
Lore Peore 17 589 - 234 1,866,297 26,018
Lore Selatan 17 23 - - 84,559 830
Lore Tengah 597 21 1 2,129 3,712,055 39,962
Lore Timur - - - - - -
Lore Utara 288 1,562 - 1,337 6,239,694 82,127
Dolo - - - - - -
Dolo Barat - - - - - -
Dolo Selatan 26 14 - 3 63,268 532
Gumbasa 822 1,611 - 353 4,161,932 62,722
Kulawi 815 234 12 1,433 2,774,458 33,108
Kulawi Selatan 344 83 - 2,119 2,390,413 39,822
Lindu 270 2,105 - 469 4,245,022 81,503
Nokilalaki 132 65 - 914 1,053,915 18,191
Palolo 302 192 1 2,407 2,744,007 48,637
Pipikoro - 0 - 14 11,567 245
Sigi Biromaru 420 356 - - 1,211,383 12,421
Tanambulava 892 - - - 1,338,277 4,303
Total 5,233 7,414 13 11,685 34,140,142 476,045
Source: Crop area from WCS GIS data based on Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan; crop yields and prices from
BPS; pollinator dependency ratios from Gallai & Vaissière 2009, Losey & Vaughan 2006, McGregor 1976.
Table 31: Crop area, production and value within 1.5 km of Tangkoko
Sub-district Paddy
(ha)
Rainfed
crops (ha)
Plantation
crops (ha)
Mixed crops/
shrubland (ha)
Total crop
value (USD)
Pollination
value (USD)
Aertembaga - 1,094 - - 1,833,896 21,628
Girian - 1 - - 1,078 13
Lembeh Selatan - - - - - -
Lembeh Utara - - - - - -
Madidir - 560 - - 938,269 11,065
Maesa - 406 - - 681,010 8,031
Matuari - - - - - -
Ranowulu - 1,993 - 342 3,627,969 42,786
Likupang Timur - - - - - -
Total - 4,055 - 342 7,082,222 83,523
Source: Crop area from WCS GIS data based on Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan; crop yields and prices from
BPS; pollinator dependency ratios from Gallai & Vaissière 2009, Losey & Vaughan 2006, McGregor 1976.
Data annex
The economic value of ecosystem services in Bogani, Lore Lindu and Tangkoko, Sulawesi
61
Deforestation scenarios
Table 32: PA forest cover under business as usual scenario, 2015-2040 (km
2
)
2015
2016 2017
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Bogani Nani Wartabone NP 2,661
2,649 2,637
2,625 2,613 2,600 2,588 2,576 2,564 2,552 2,540 2,528 2,516
Lore Lindu NP 2,051
2,049 2,047
2,045 2,043 2,041 2,039 2,036 2,034 2,032 2,030 2,028 2,026
Tangkoko Batuangus NR 57
55 53
52 50 49 48 47 46 46 45 45 44
2028
2029 2030
2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
Bogani Nani Wartabone NP 2,503
2,491 2,479
2,467 2,456 2,444 2,432 2,420 2,409 2,397 2,385 2,374 2,362
Lore Lindu NP 2,024
2,022 2,020
2,018 2,015 2,013 2,011 2,009 2,007 2,005 2,003 2,001 1,999
Tangkoko Batuangus NR 43
43 42
42 41 41 40 40 39 39 38 38 37
Source: WCS GIS data based on Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan.
Table 33: PA forest cover inside under no forest protection scenario, 2015-2040 (km
2
)
2015
2016 2017
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Bogani Nani Wartabone NP 2,661
2,547 2,443
2,347 2,258 2,177 2,102 2,034 1,971 1,913 1,860 1,812 1,768
Lore Lindu NP 2,051
1,994 1,940
1,890 1,843 1,799 1,759 1,721 1,686 1,654 1,624 1,596 1,571
Tangkoko Batuangus NR 57
51 45
41 37 33 30 28 25 23 22 20 19
2028
2029 2030
2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2039
Bogani Nani Wartabone NP 1,729
1,693 1,661
1,632 1,607 1,584 1,565 1,549 1,535 1,525 1,517 1,511 1,509
Lore Lindu NP 1,548
1,527 1,508
1,491 1,475 1,462 1,450 1,440 1,432 1,426 1,421 1,418 1,416
Tangkoko Batuangus NR 18
17 16
15 15 14 14 13 13 13 13 12 12
Source: WCS GIS data based on Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan.
