VcA) 2 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HIGHWAYS Ii I. NORTHERN SUMATRA REGION J X ROAD PROJECT * ENVIRONMENTAL AND * SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1 December 1996 A.. I Carl Bro International a/s in association with 3 PT. Multi Phi Beta PT. Amythas Experts PT. Delta Marga Kreasi l l t:; THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA l 0 MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HIGHWAYS I . REGIONAL- fiADS TRANSPORT PRIORITIES 'ANALYSIS StUDY (RRTPA) VOLUME 3 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT l December 1996 3 Carl Bro International a/s in association with PT. Multi Phi Beta I PT. Amythas Experts PT. Delta Marga Kreasi l SUMMARY A draft Preliminary Environmental and Social Impact Assessment' was submitted as Annex E of the Phase I report in September 1996. For completeness, much of the material submitted in the draft is repeated here, but at the same time there are substantial changes in this final version, especially in the treatment of sociological issues and legislation, in the proposals for an environmental screening methodology, and in the detailed preliminary screening of potential sub-projects that has been carried out, as well as in formulating proposals for the handling of environmental issues during the proposed Northem Sumatra Regional Road Project (NSRRP). Chapter 1 gives an outline account of the existing physical and social environment, while Chapter 2 summarizes the environmental implications of road development. The current legislation in Indonesia is summarized in Chapter 3, and the implications for environmental management are discussed in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 proposes a methodology for the preliminary screening of road projects, and provides guidelines on the costs of the ANDAL studies that may be required; it also proposes a strategy to strengthen the management of the environmental and social measures that are required. Finally the preliminary screening results of identified sub- projects are presented in Chapter 6. The Regional Roads Transport Priorities Analysis Study (RRPTA) is classified as a category A project under the World Bank's Operational Directive 4.01, requiring full environmental and social impact assessment. Not all proposed sub-projects, however, will require such full evaluation (categories B and C). The Indonesian Government's environmental legislation for analysing and managing the negative environmental and social impacts of development (AMDAL) is actually more comprehensive than the Bank's, and compliance is mandatory. However, the institutional capacity to implement the legislation is still undergoing development and there remains much room for improvement. There are weaknesses in consultant capacity to undertake the AMDAL studies, and in budgetary and institutional capacity to implement the environmental and social mitigation measures recommended from the studies. Within Bina Marga, it is envisaged that the on-gtoing ISEM project fiunded by the World Bank will strengthen the capacity of the AMII)AL. sections to supervise environmental management in the roads sector. Preliminary screening of proposed projects has been carried out (see Chapter 6). This estimates the size and scale of the ANDAL that may be required, but this will be confirrned only after the Initial Environmental Evaluation (Kajian Lingkungan) has been carried out. Systems of sectoral evaluation are applicable in other cases, with mitigation measures incorporated in the existing technical guidelines and standard operating procedures. The Indonesian environmental legislation encompasses social issues as a component of the environment, whereas the World Bank tends to treat them as separate issues. Both 'environmental' and 'social' components form the subject of this report. From the viewpoint of environmental management, proposed sub-projects can be divided into three categories: a) Capacity Expansion. This mostly concems the widening or in some cases realignment of existing routes that carry heavy traffic, often in or close to urban centres. Such projects may have major social issues especially concerning k nd acquisition, but the physical and biological impacts can generally be handled by routine procedures. A proforma for screening such projects based on analysis of 1:50,000 topographic maps is presented in Table 5.2. Preliminary screening along the main national and provincial corridors is presented in Table 6.2; an indicative classification has been applied of the size of the ANDAL study that may be required, but this will depend on the degree of widening proposed. ,1 b) New construction, mainly of inter-kabupaten links (new construction of the requisite provincial road network, mainly in Aceh and North Sumatra, is already on-going). Considered to be very important for the agricultural development of the more remote areas, I most of these projects require the upgrading of existing poor quality kabupaten roads, but with some new construction. There may be a variety of environmental impacts (physical, biological and social), but the impacts are generally not severe. The screening proforma for I new roads is presented in Table 5.1. Table 6.1 likewise gives an indicative category of the size of the ANDAL study that may be required. Some of the identified routes carry major impacts and are included with the next category. I c) Major new corridors. These provide entirely new routes, generally inter-kabupaten, which in most cases cross steep forested mountainous terrain. Roads which are planned to cross the NW-SE 'strike' of the land are particularly steep. Most would have severe impacts and clearly require full ANDAL studies, but it is uncertain whether the institutional capacity is in place, in both the short-term and in perpetuity, to handle the impacts on the physical and biological environment (such as damage to watersheds, forest clearance, illegal logging, I hunting or trade in wildlife etc.). In a few cases there may also be significant impacts on vulnerable isolated communities. In general, the watersheds over most of the Project Area are still in good condition. However, in order to protect these watersheds, upon which the welfare of the densely populated lowlands I partially depend, it is recommended that roads are not constructed in montane forests unless exceptional social or economic justification can be established. Where constructed, high priority must be given to the management, in perpetuity, of the land, forest and biological 3 resources along the route. In view of the fact that new provincial roads are being constructed in such terrain (in Aceh and West Sumatra), either apparently without any enviromnental evaluation or with ANDAL studies that sometimes fail to address adequately the main issues (see Section 4.5), and in view of the concerns about the lack of sufficient local govemrnment capacity to control negative impacts consequent upon the new access provided by such roads, great concern is expressed here about this issue. Recommendations are made in Section 5.10 to strengthen the institutional aspects of environmental management, with the establishment of an Environmental Oversight Committee in each province (whose mandate would extend later outside the transport sector), and with annual environmental workshops to address such issues. Priority should be given to the need to mnanage the watershed forests along the provincial roads already constructed, especially in Aceh Province. l ii ~~~~~~I There are varied interpretations, between regions and projects, of Keppres 55/1993 conceming land acquisition and resettlement, although this regulation provides a framework for land I acquisition that is compatible with the Bank's resettlement policies and Operational Directive 4.30. However, it is considered that standard operational guidelines are required specifically for the use of Bina Marga in road construction and widening projects, in order to ensure that * methods of compensation are fair and transparent. It is recommended that consultation and community participation are made an integral part of land acquisition procedures. The GOI must accord priority to the allocation of sufficient funds for the purpose of acquiring land where necessary on capacity expansionlrealignment projects, and indeed Bank approval to proceed will be conditional upon satisfactory resolution of such problems. 3 ' Likewise there are doubts concerning the institutional capacity for the handling of social impacts in remote areas. Act No. 10 of 1992 on population policy has potential to assist vulnerable isolated communities to develop at a pace in accordance with their socio-cultural I abilities, protected from the negative impacts of rapid development and outside pressures. However, to date, no guidelines have been issued to facilitate the implementation of this law, and such guidelines are considered urgent. Unfortunately this Act does not have provision for guaranteeing inherited land rights, and so the legal anomalies of adat rights remain. It is assumed that sub-projects proposed for implementation during the first year of NSRRP will either not require AAIDAL studies or such studies will have already been completed and accepted; it is further assumed that issues relating to land acquisition will have been resolved satisfactorily. Other sub-projects will be postponed to the second or later years in order to U permit environmental and social evaluation to be carried out and arrangements for land acquisition to be effected. 3 The AMDAL process is considered by some as a further bureaucratic constraint to development, and the size of this volume might tend to support this viewpoint, particularly when the screening tables in Chapter 6 appear to suggest that every project requires ANDAL. 3 In fact the process is designed to support development and to ensure that the negative impacts that may result frormt projects are effectively managed in order to prevent them becoming detrimental to sustainable development in the long term. The benefits of constructing an expensive road across a high, steep forested watershed will be negated if the indirect impacts result in an increase in the frequency and severity of floods and droughts in the densely populated adjacent lowlands that are dependent upon that watershed. * Indeed the main constraints tend to be in planning and handling the AMDAL process. The majority of road projects do not have significant negative impacts, and those listed in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 as having a NI or Cl ANDAL code may belong to this category (as would probably some with N2 or C2 codes). This will be determiined only after the preliminary screening and Kajian Lingkzungan. It is recommended that KL is carried out for every project, but this need be neither a time constraint nor a budget constraint when planned efficiently on a provincial basis. l Iii The problems lie in: + recognizing those relatively few projects that carny really significant impacts especially in terms of: * problems relating to land acquisition and resettlement * issues concerning the new provision of road access to isolated communities I * damage to watersheds and the hydrographic regime * loss of forest and biological resources * conversion for non-sustain able use that results in irreversible land degradation * developing the capacity of the consultants undertaking the ANDAL studies, and those responsible for reviewing and approving the studies, so that the studies focus on the really significant issues, and * developing the capacity and commitment of the responsible authorities, especially those outside the proponent agency, for ensuring that the resulting recommendations are fully carried out. The recommendations for technical assistance support for environmental management presented in Chapter 5, in parallel with the ongoing ISEM project in Bina Marga and related projects in other agencies, are designed to improve the overall capacity to deal with these i problems effectively at all levels in the development process. I I l *I l iN |~~~~~~ TABLE OF CONTENTS | Page | 1 The existing environment in the study area I 1.1 Geography (geology, topography, climate, natural hazards) 1 1.2 Population 3 1.3 Land use 5 1.4 Importance for biodiversity 6 1.5 Spatial plans 8 1.6 Existing road network 11 2 Environmental implications of road development 13 2.1 General impacts of road projects 13 I 2.2 Project-specific impacts of road development 14 2.3 Isolated communities 16 3 2.4 Cultural resources 18 3 Legislation for environmental and social issues in Indonesia 19 3.1 AMDAL legislation 19 I 3.2 Spatial plans 22 3.3 Land acquisition 25 3.4 Resettlement 30 3.5 Community consultation 32 3.6 Utilization of forest land 33 3 4 Management of environmental and social issues 35 4.1 General considerations at the different phases of a project 35 4.2 Projects having no significant environmental impacts 37 | 4.3 Projects having significant environmental impacts 39 4.4 Significant impacts not requiring full ANDAL 40 4.5 Problems in environmental management 41 3 4.6 Costs of ANDAL studies 44 5 Management of environmental and social issues in the proposed project 45 5.1 Methodology for environmental/social screening of proposed road projects 45 5.2 Size and costs ofAMDAL studies 50 5.3 Social impact issues 54 5.4 Spatial planning 55 * 5.5 Indigenous/isolated peoples 55 5.6 Cornmunity consultation 57 * V, 5.7 Land acquisition 61 5.8 Resettlement 61 I 5.9 Supporting actions to the proposed methodologies 62 5.10 Environmental oversight committee 63 5.11 Manpower requirements on NSRRP 64 6 Preliminary environmental screening of proposed sub-projects 69 6.1 Phase II level screening 69 | 6.2 Environmental screening of proposed roads; Aceh 69 6.3 Environmental screening of proposed roads: North Sumatra 73 6.4 Environmental screening of proposed roads: West Sumatra 81 3 6.5 Environmental screening of proposed roads: Riau 87 List of tables 1.1 Percentage distribution of landforms by province 1 1.2 Population by province ('000) 4 | 1.3 Population density by kabupaten, 1994 4 1.4 Distribution of land use types and forest by province (sq. kn) in 1985 5 1.5 Protection and Conservation Forests by province (sq. kin) 8 1.6 Gazetted conservation areas in the project area (terrestrial only). 9 1.7 Recommended Development Areas 10 1.8 Length of roads by province 11 1.9 Length of kabupaten roads by kabupaten 12 3,1 Illustrative land prices in North Java 28 3.2 Illustrative land prices in West Sumatra (basic price, 1994) 28 5 3.3 Compensation costs for buildings and crops in West Sumatra (1994) 29 5.1 Environmental screening for network extension 48 5.2 Environmental screening for capacity expansion 49 5.3 Size and cost of ANDAL studies for network extension projects 53 L 5.4a Criteria for detemiing size of ANDAL studies for capacity expansion projects 53 5.4b Size and cost ofANDAL studies for capacity expansion projects 54 5.5 Topographic maps required per province 62 I 6.1 Environmental and sociological screening of proposed network extension 89 projects -91 6.2 Environmental and sociological screening of proposed capacity expansion 92- I projects 103 *I viI List of Figures (following Table 6.2) I 1 1 Simplified landforms a) Aceh b) North Sumatra c) West Sumatra d) Riau 2 Population density by kabupaten (1994) 3 Simplified land use a) Aceh b) North Sumatra c) West Sumatra d) Riau 4 Location of isolated and vulnerabl, communities and indigenous groups 5 Protected areas a) Aceh b) North Sumatra c) West Sumatra d) Riau | 6 Outline spatial plan for Riau province Interkabupaten Proposed Route Maps 3 7 Natal - Pasaman (corridor P21) 8 Takengon - Peureulak (NS 102/10: / IK 107) 9 Medan - Kabanjahe (IK 304/310/3 i 1/312) I 10 Sibolga - Sarulla (NS 304 / IK 330-331) 1I Sipenggeng - Sipirok (IK 331 /NS 306) 12 Parsoburan - Damuli (IK 319/322) * 13 Tapanuli Utara/Selatan - Labuhanbatu (IK 301J321/326/32713281329) 14 PasamanfLimapuluhkota - Kampar (IK 603/605/625) 3 Glossary References I I I I I Hp' I I I t I I I I I I I I U I I I I 1 THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT IN THE STUDY AREA 1 1.1 Geography (Geology, topography, climate, natural hazards) The four provinces of northern Sumatra that constitute the Project Area have a total land area of some 268,0C; sq. km. No less than 29% of this area is mountainous, and indeed 54% of Aceh and 46% of West Sumatra are classified as mountains (see Table 1.1 and Figures la-d). The percentage is reduced in North Sumatra by extensive eastem lowlands and central plateaus, and Riau is primarily a lowland province. Indeed, peat swamps occupy 40% of Riau, but elsewhere are confined to a narrow coastal zone. 3 Table 1.1 Percentage distribution of landforms by province Lauidform Aceh N Sum W Sum Riau Total l Coastal 3 2 2 3 2 Alluviuma 10 13 5 16 12 Peat swamp 5 5 4 40 18 Lowland plains 14 35 25 28 27 Hills 14 17 18 4 12 Mountains 54 28 46 9 29 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Total sq. klb _ 56,748 72,501 41,690 98,597 268,097 Source. RePPProT 1988 in*ludes measured areas of lakes and rivers - as measured by RePPProT (these totals differ sligitty from official figures) Many of these mountains are igneous in origi, and there are active volcanoes in North and West Sumatra. Lake Toba is the crater resulting from one of the biggest eruptive episodes in the World's geological history. The highest Sumatran peak is Kerinci, on the West Sumatra - Jambi border, at 3805 m. The mountains are part of the chain known as the Barisan Mountains * that run the length of westem Sumatra and give the island its distinctive NW-SE strike. A major feature of this range is the fault-bound rift valley (the "Semangko fault zone") that runs the length of the island, and which, together with the recent volcanoes, has had significant impacts on human settlement patterns. As typical of mountainous regions in tropical climates, slopes tend to be universally steep. One I of the most widespread land systems mapped by RePPProT (1988) is Bukit Pandan, which has an average slope range greater than 60%. Indeed, according to the Ministry of Forestry's own criteria for designation of Protection Forest (which includes slopes steeper than 40%), I RePPProT recommended that over 78,000 sq. km. should have this status, an increase of 70% of the actual area classified as Protection Forest (see Table 1.5). Smoother landforms accompany the fertile lower slopes of the recent volcanoes, and the tuff plateaus of North I. Sumatra. The rivers tend to follow the regional NW-SE strike, but then cut through the adjacent steep ridges to the sea usually by means of deep gorges. 3 There is a narrow zone of coastal lowlands lying west of the Barisan Range, although locally the hills drop steeply to the sea, creating an impedance to land conmmunication routes (Lamno and Tapaktuan in Aceh, Sibolga in North Sumatra, and Padang-Painan in West Sumatra). lI There are also some narrow swamps behind the coast, often deep-water swamps that are difficult to reclaim. There is a much wider zone of lowlands on the east coast, from Lhokseumawe southwards, and most of Riau lies in these lowlands. Particularly fertile are the Toba Tuff plains of the Medan region, but elsi where the monotonous peneplain of low (but often steep) rolling hills produce J soils of somewhat inferior quality. The east coast of Riau is one of rapid accretion, and very deep peats (up to 20m in places) occur in the inter-riverine zones. The islands off the west coast, such as Simeuleuwe, Nias and Siberut, are mostly steep and hilly, but non-volcanic. Those off the east coast, such as Batam and Bintan, lie on the undulating graritic Sunda Shelf Climate The mountains and the west coast have annual rainfall exceeding 3000 mm, and wide areas exceed 4000 mm. West-facing slopes behind Padang exceed 5000 mm. Rainfall is heavy at all seasons and there are no dry months (months having less than 100 mm). By contrast, the eastem coastal lowlands and some intermontane valleys lie in a rain shadow and annual totals are less than 2000 mm. Parts of the NE coast of Aceh and some of the valleys record less than 1500 mm. A few localities have one or even two dry months, but the region as a whole is I spared the annual droughts which occur in southem Indonesia. Seasons of maximum rainfall are somewhat ill-defined, but are generally very different from those occurring for example in Java. Thus the driest months tend to be December to March, and the wetter months are April t and October-November, but floods often occur on the Aceh west coast in June-July. A characteristic feature of the climate of the eastem lowlands is the hot, dry fohn winds descending off the mountains during the SW monsoon (especially June to August). Best known is the 'Bohorok' which hits the Medan plains, but the winds which blow across Padang Lawas (the Gunungtua region of North Sumatra) are particularly dessicating. Although not recorded in the literature, there is evidence of the reverse situation, with fohn winds on the west coast during the NE monsoon. Most rain is high intensity. Over Indonesia as a whole, up to 1981 there were 212 recorded events of daily totals exceeding 400 mm (see RePPProT 1990), and falls of more than 700 mm are known. It would be unreasonable to design roads and associated small structures to withstand major events of this kind, which have a return period of 40 to 100 years, but they should be able to withstand the more typical short storms which have very high intensity. Falls of over 100 mm in one hour have a return period of 5 to 10 years. Natural hazards Natural hazards are a way of life in tropical regions of high tectonic instability and high rainfall. They can be classified into four types: volcanoes, earthquakes, floods and landslides. The volcanoes that contribute so much to the fertility of the region are also a threat, althoughl modem technology generally has the means to delineate the danger zones and provide adequate I warning of activity. Science has not yet found the means to predict earthquakes, and 2 2 events in recent years serve to confirm that the Barisan region is a major zone of instability. Tarutung in North Sumatra has had two major earthquakes in the past decade. From the viewpoint of the road engineer, floods and landslides (which are often contemporaneous) are a hazard that must be taken into account during design. Less catastrophic than earthquakes, the accun.ulative impact is much greater. Both hazards are exacerbated, to an unknown but probably significant degree, by the extensive deforestation that is taking place in the watershed regions. This is one reason why such importance is attached to the negative indirect impacts of road construction through the montane forests. Road construction may contribute greatly to the risk of landslides, although sound engineering practice should reduce this risk substantially. However, in the montane parts of the study area, slopes are so steep and lithologically unstz ble that the costs of protection may be too high for the road to be economic. This is an important consideration in the construction of roads across the strike ridges of Aceh and North Sumatra. Flooding is an annual event, and the indigenous inhabitants generally have a much better knowledge of when to expect them than do road engineers and government officials from outside the area. Two types of flooding should be considered, the high velocity flash-floods of narrow inland valleys with their very damaging coarse sediment loads, and the medium velocity over-the-bank floods of the lower valleys with their fine sedirnent loads. The former generally rise and fall within a day, the latter may last a week or more. 1.2 Population The population of the four provinces in 1994 was 22.2 million. The provincial breakdown is given in Table 1.2, which also gives the 1986 figures of rural population density and rates of growth as calculated by RePPProT (1990). Table 1.3 gives the 1994 population density by kabupaten, which is illustrated in Figure 2. Analysis of population distribution is revealing. The traditional zones of settlement are mnostly in the fertile rift valleys, young volcanic footslopes and tuff plateaus of the montane interior, as evidenced by the Minangkabau culture of West Sumatra (Agam, Tanah Datar) and the Bataks of North Sumatra (Karo, Simalungun). If a land use map was produced for these highland areas for 1896, it would not differ significantly from that of today. Indeed a description of the Toba highlands in 1824 indicates that there had already occurred extensive deforestation, and degraded grasslands were widespread even at that time (Whitten et al. 1984). Although the Medan plains now carry some of the densest population, historically this was not the case. The forests here were cleared early in the colonial era for high-value estate crops, which led to later heavy migration into the region both from Java and from the Batak highlands. The lowland province of Riau has the lowest population density, reflecting its inherent infertility. However, consequent upon this, it also has the widest availability of land and the highest growth rate, because of both sponsored and spontaneous in-migration. Traditionally, the early settlements in Riau (other than forest-dwelling tribes) were almost entirely based upon river valleys, benefiting from river transport and the more fertile alluvial soils. Subsequently, roads (both government and logging roads) provided access to the forests of the inter-riverine I 3 l~~~~~ areas, and the modem era of forest clearance was then enabled to commence. The process is reflected in the zonation that is repeated throughout lowland Sumatra, from old or mature rubber near the road, through young rubber growing in dense secondary growth, to arable crops and new clearance at the 'cutting edge', perhaps a day's walk from the road. Latterly, the transmigration programme has tended to take over the forests that remain. Not all of rural Riau is so sparsely populated. The highest density (apart from the offshore islands) is in Indragiri Hilir, where there has been extensive settlement of the coastal region by migrants, many from South Sulawesi. The soils here have only shallow peat, but they are -1 potentially extremely acid when drained. Originally the settlers grew rice, but now most of the land is under coconut plantations (and mapped as intensive land use, see below). Table 1.2 Population by province '000 Aceh N Sum W Sum Riau Population 1986 2,899 7,458 3,050 2,463 Rural density/kM2 49 94 72 22 Growth rate (%Yo) 1980-86 2,40 2.19 1.82 3.73 Population 1994 3,416 10,981 4,266 3,560 Source: RePPProT 1990, Propinsi 'dalam anga'. 3 Table 1.3 Population density by kabupaten, 1994 Kabupaten Popn Density Kabupaten Popn Density I ('000) pr km2 ('000) pr kml2 Aceh North Surnatra Aceh Besar 240.2 74 Nias 638.1 120 Pidie 420.0 123 Tapanuli Selatan 1036.5 55 Aceh Utara 846.3 178 Tapanuli Tengah 234.3 107 Aceh Tengah 199.6 36 Tapanuli Utara 709.1 67 Aceh Timur 585.9 76 Labuhan Bata 815.9 88 Aceh Tenggara 185.8 19 Asahan 920.3 198 Aceh Barat 385.6 32 Simalungun 834.6 188 3 Aceh Selatan 342.9 38 Dairi 288.7 92 Karo 271.9 128 West Sumatra Deli Serdang 1755.5 377 Pesisir Selatan 397.2 70 Langkat 850.3 135 Solok 456.8 64 Sawahlunto 296.7 47 Riau _ Tanah Datar 350.2 257 Kampar 633.3 22 Padang Pariaman 518,1 63 Indragin Hulu 417.3 26 Agam 415.4 184 Indragiri Hilir 510.3 44 Limapuluh Kota 306.9 89 Bengkalis 964.9 31 Pasaman 493.1 63 Kepulauan Riau 466.2 58 Source: Propinsi 'dalam angka' I Note. Population of kotamadva are not included in this analysis. 4 1.3 Land Use Simplified land use is presented in Figures 3a-d and summarized in Table 1.4. It must be emphasized that the source of this data is RePPProT (1988, 1990), which is based on satellite imagery dated 1985. Furthermore, the mapped forest cover in the figures is believed to give an I exaggerated picture of the actual forest cover in 1985, owing to factors of generalization to accomodate the small scale. Extensive land use systems include areas of shifting cultivation, but they also include the secondary bush and alang-alang grasslands that have resulted from earlier usage. Intensive land use includes all forms of permanent cropping (estates, wetland rice, permanent dryland arable crops, intensive smallholder tree crops). Table 1.4 Distribution of land use types and forest by province in 1985. sq. km Aceh N Sum W Sum Riau Total Forest cover 38,823 28,120 25,904 59,365 152,212 % forest 68 39 62 60 57 Extensive land use systems 9,102 20,077 8,646 19,827 57,652 Intensive land use systems 6,403 22,782 6,706 11,621 47,512 Area of forest cleared since 1985 4,056 5,116 I Source: RePPProT 1990 Despite the reservations expressed above, forest was still measured to occupy 57% of the area in 1985. It should be realized, however, that the forest mostly occurs in the mountains (29% of I area - see Table 1.1), hills (12% of area) and peatswamps (18% of area). Lowland forest, ofther than swamp forest, has been almost totally eradicated from the region. 3 Deforestation Nationwide, the estimates of annual rates of deforestation range from about 600,000 ha to over I 11.3 million ha (World Bank, 1994). In the Project Area, the most rapid deforestation is likely to have occurred in Riau province, consequent upon the inferior quality of that province's soils and hence the low rate of traditional utilization. Modem agronomic techniques, together with I oil palm estates and industrial tree crops, permit much more extensive use of such soils. An analysis was made of forest clearance in North Sumatra and Riau from the most recent available cloud-free Landsat imagery, compared with the RePPProT land use maps based on I mainly 1985 imagery. This is dated July 1994 - June 1995 for North Sumatra and March 1995 - June 1996 for Riau. For the mainland regions (only), the forest clearance over this decade is estimated to have been over 4000 sq. km in North Sumatra and over 5,100 sq. km in Riau, or 1 14.4% and 8.6% respectively of the 1985 forest cover (see Table 1.4). The implication is that over 40,000 ha in North Sumatra and over 51,000 ha in Riau have been cleared each year over the last decade. Rates are likely to be slower in the more mountainous Aceh and West Sumatra provinces. The interpretation of the imagery was visual and rapid, and the figures are illustrative only. Estate and industrial tree crop projects are responsible for the major portion of the clearance in the lowlands, but most of the clearance in the highlands appears to have been by smallholders (with some contribution from timber extraction for pulpwoods). I ) The forest cover portrayed for Riau in Figure 3d is believed to bear little resemblance to that of today (see also Figure 6). Recent LANDSAT imagery (1995) has now been obtained for much of the Project Area. There were delays in delivery, and it was not possible to analyze these during Phase I of the project. An analysis will be made during Phase II, when the imagery will be used for environmental screening of land use along priority sub-projects. Isolated communities The problem of isolated and vulnerable communities is discussed further in Section 5.5. Figure 4 shows the distribution of areas that are remote from road access. These areas are often under forest, but it is within these boundaries that some isolated communities are found, practising traditional forms of agriculture. Their traditional land rights are inherited, but the village may also have communal rights for hunting and harvesting of natural products. The presence of a remote village on the map does not necessarily signify a traditional agricultural community. There will be cases where such villages were developed for small-scale gold mining activities, or settled following the access provided by logging. Within the project region, communities identified as named indigenous tribes occur only in Riau (although the Lubu occupy the borders between Riau, West Sumatra and North Sumatra), and their distribution is shown on Figure 4. 1.4 Importance for biodiversity Sumatra lies in the Sundaic biogeographical province, with elements of fauna and flora that are shared with Java and/or Kalimantan and/or the Malay Peninsula. Perhaps the most famous member of its fauna is the Orang Utan Pongo pygmaeus, shared with Kalimantan, but in Sumatra restricted to Aceh and North Sumatra provinces. South of this, rumours persist of a so-far undiscovered 'jungle-man', currently the subject of expeditions to the remaining wild regions near the West Sumatra - Jambi borders. Other notable primates are the three species of Gibbon occurring on Sumatra ( Hylobates agilis. H. lar. H. syndactylus). Another notable mammal is the Asian Elephant Elephas maximus, increasingly becoming reported as a potential danger owing to man-elephant conflicts resulting from the loss of the latter's traditional terrain. There is considerable intemational concern at the depletion of Sumatran (and indeed Asian) mammals such as the Tiger Panthera tigris and Sumatran Rhinoceros Dicerorhinus sumatrensis. The Sumatran populations of these are now estimated at only 400-500 and 300 respectively (Species, 1996). Other mammals that might be mentioned would be the Dhole (wild dog, Cuon alpinus), the Serow (wild goat, Capricornis sumatrensis) and the very poorly known Sumatran Hare (Nesolagus netscheri). Best-known forest plants are the Rafflesia and Amorphophallus. Out of some 600 bird species, there are at least 12 that are endemic to mainland Sumatra, and nearly all of these are montane in distribution. Particularly notable are the Salvadori's Pheasant Lophura ignita in the south and west, and its close cousin Lophura hoogerwerfi in the north. The latter is so poorly known that the male is still undescribed. The lowland avifauna, other than in peatswamps, has been decimated by forest clearance, although pockets remain, such as the newly established Siberida nature reserve in the south of Riau. One endemic taxon that has not been observed for many decades is the Chestnut-necklaced Partridge Tropicoperdix 6 6 l charltonii, which may be confined to the hills of SE Aceh. Critically endangered are the White- winged Duck Cairina scutulata and Storm's Stork Ciconia stormi, both dependent upon wetland forest of the coastal plains, and Sumatra has global responsibility for these species. Probably Sumatra holds the largest population of the White-winged Duck in the world, with key locations in Aceh Selatan and Tapanuli, and in Indragiri. Finally, the east coast from Aceh Timur south to South Sumatra is now known to have extren..e importance for migratory shorebirds in the East Asia - Australasia flyway, as well as for the protection of some large waterbirds such as the Milky and Lesser Adjutant Storks Mycteria cinerea and Leptoptilos Javanicus. There is evidence of continuing illegal trade in or hunting of wildlife, in the form of. * the export of animal parts for their supposed medical propert& s (rhino hom, tiger parts); . the export of high value animal parts for omamentation or status (elephant tusks, tiger skins); * the capture of wild birds for boti the intemational and especially (in the case of Sumatra) the domestic bird markets; . hunting other than for subsistence purposes, * shooting for "sporting purposes", commonly by urban dwellers who are unaware of the significance of their targets. Without adequate controls, which are rarely available, it is inevitable that new roads provide ready access for all these activities. Thus there is abundant anecdotal evidence that many species of birds that were formerly comrnon in the mountain forests of northern Sumatra have become rare in all the accessible areas merely because of the almost unlimited demand for these birds on the domestic market. Just two examples would be the White-crested Laughing-thrush ('Boksai') Garrulax leucolophus and Straw-crowned Bulbul ('Cicakrawa') Pycnonotus zeylanicus, while an example of a bird that has been hunted to near-extinction locally (eg Brestagi) would be the Bronze-tailed Peacock-pheasant Polyplectron chalcurum. Additional wetland areas of ecological significance 3n view of the emphasis on montane forests in the reserve network (see Section 1.5), and the importance of the wetlands, the maps in Figures 5 (Protected Areas) also show areas considered to have wetlands of ecological significance that are not currently under any form of protection (source partly derived from the Wetland Inventory, Silvius et al 1987). Those in Aceh and westem North Sumatra are believed to be fine examples of the west coast swamp habitat, and as noted above important for such globally endangered bird species as White- winged Duck. A nature reserve of 85,000 ha. has been proposed for Singkil Barat in Aceh Selatan (the area south of Kluet), but on the spatial plan the area is proposed for development. The deep water peat swamps of this region would be difficult to reclaim, and more attention is urged to be given to the recommendation for a nature reserve. It should be noted that the provincial west coast road runs through the Kluct extension, but its impact is not recorded; it interrupts the coastal succession of vegetation types, and presumably provides access to illegal activities. On the east coast, several areas have been annotated as having significance. Mostly these are (or were) surviving examples of good mangrove forest, but the strip of coast in the north-west l I 7 of Riau has special significance as possibly the last remaining breeding locality (unfortunately not yet confirmed) of the Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis in SE Asia, and also important for the Lesser Adjutant Stork. The adjacent area of the Bagan Siapi-api peninsula I has been identified as important for the endangered Storm's Stork, but this probably applies to all the remaining peat swamp forests of Riau, for which there are already several reserves. Tanjung Datuk and Pulau Bakung, in the south-east of Riau, have been proposed for nature I reserve status (55,000 ha), primarily for the tidal areas which support large numbers of migratory shorebirds, including the globally threatened Asian Dowitcher Limnodromus semipalmatus. 1.5 Spatial Plans Spatial plans have been prepared for each of the provinces, identifying areas for protection, for forest management, and for agricultural or industrial development. The plans are available either in book form or as large scale maps. In most cases, the protected areas do not differ I greatly from the TGHK forest categories. The spatial planning legislation is discussed in Section 3.2. Table 1.5 summnarizes the areas of Protection Forest (hutan lindung) and Conservation areas (national parks, nature reserves, game reserves etc). They are portrayed in Figures 5a-d. The more important gazetted conservation areas are tabulated in Table 6. These are based mainly I on the TGHK classification as depicted on the RePPProT maps, but in the case of West Sumatra and Riau, some revisions have been incorporated based on the RUTRW maps. There appear to be some anomalies, such as the boundaries of Kerinci-Seblat national park. These I uncertainties would only be significant where a proposed sub-project impacts a conservation area, and this would be ascertained during Phase [1 of the study. Table 1.5 Protection and Conservation Forests by province sq. kmi Aceh N Sum W Sum Riau Total Conservation areas - TGHK 8,420 2,552 5,481 4,107 20,560 Protection forest - TGHK 9,704 16,174 12,608 7,176 45,662 -Protection forest - recommendeda 28,106 23,348 19,001 7,834 78,289 Source: RePPProT 1990 - area of protection forest re-ommended by RePPProT based on landfortn criteria. 3 The Govenmient of Indonesia has set aside 19 million ha or 10% of its total land area as parks and reserves, and a further 30 million ha as protection forests (World Bank 1994). Within the Project Area, some 8% of the total area consists of parks and reserves, and 17% as protection forest. Of major significance is the 790,000 ha Gunung Leuser national park in Aceh/North Sumatra, and the 1, 485,000 ha Kerinci-Seblat national park that extends into the Project Area in West Sumatra. Pristine montane forest is extensive in both of these, although there is encroachment on most of the borders. Management projects are already in progress or scheduled for both parks (Leuser - EEC funded, Kerinci-Seblat - IBRD funded); this includes community development in the buffer zones. l 8 Table 1.6 Gazetted conservation areas (>50 ha) in the project area (terrestrial only). I Name Status Kabupaten Area (Ha) Aceh Hutan Pinus/Janthoi CA Aceh Besar 8,000 _~ ~ ~ ~~~~~__ ____________ Lingga Isag TB Aceh Tengah 80,000 Acch Raffiesia IIII Serbojadi CA Aceh Timur 300 Pulau Weh TW Aceh Utara 1,300 Gunung Leuser' TN (Aceh and N. Sumatra) 792,675 North Sumatra Sicikeh Cikeh TW Dair 575 Holiday Resort Torgamba TW Labuhan Batu 1,964 Karang Gading SM_ LangkatlDeli Serdang 15,765 Dolok Tinggi Raya CA Simnalungun 167 Dolok Sibual-bual CA Tapanuli Selatan 5,000 Dolok Sipirok CA Tapanuli Selatan 6,970 Siranggas SM Tapanuli Selatan 5,657 Barumun SM Tapanuli Tengah 110,330? Dolok Surungan SM Tapanuli Utara 23,800 Bukit Barisan THR 51,600 West Sumatra Lembah Harau CA Lima Puluh Koto 270.5 Dr. Muhammad Hatta THR Padang 500 Tai Tai Battit SM Padang Pariaman 56,500 Siberut TN Padang Pariaman 190,500 Rimbo Panti CA Pasaman 2,830 Rimbo Panti TW Pasaman 570- Lembah Anai CA Tanah Datar 221 Kerinci-Seblat TN (Four provinces) 1,484,650 Riau ______Riau_Kepu_i_aua Batam TW RiauKepulauan 4,933 Danau Bawah-Pulau Besar SM Bengkalis 25,000 Pulau Berkeh CA Bengkalis 500 Kefumutan SM Kampar, Indragiri Hulu 120,000 I Pulau Bumng CA Riau Kepulauan 200 Pulau Laut CA Riau Kepulauan 400 Pulau Rempang TB Riau Kepulauan 16,000 *Siberida CA Indragiri Hilir/Hulu 120,000? Source: BirdLife International (1994), RePPProT (1985) CA - Cagar Alam (Nature Reserve) THR - Taman Hutan Raya (Forest Park) SM - Suaka Margasatwa (Wildlife Reserve) TN - Taman Nasional (National Park) TB - Taman Buru (Hunting Reserve) TW - Taman Wisata (Tourist Park) |Biosphere reservcs 1 9 For the other reserves, it is assumed that Govemment resources do not permit adequate management or protection, and that encroachment and illegal harvesting of timber or wildlife is widespread. Although the list of reserves in Table 1.6 may be quite impressive, the majority of I these are in the mountains, and lowland forests are inadequately represented. There are several lowland reserves in Riau, but these mostly lie in peat swamps. Considerable importance is attac hed, therefore, to the newly gazetted Siberida nature reserve, on the Riau-Jambi border, a which includes significant areas of low hills, and also to the Kluet extension of the Leuser national park, which reaches the coast in Aceh Selatan. It is noted that the spatial plan for Riau (Figure 6) includes development of major areas of peat swamps, for either oil palm estates or industrial tree crops (also as a source of brickettes as an energy source, while there is an experimental plot of melons in progress). It is reported that up to 5 )0,000 ha have already been developed, and a further 500,000 ha are destined for conversion, with some adjustments being made to the existing spatial plan to accomodate these developments. It is not clear which of these blocks is covered by the activities of PT Multi Gambut International (MG1), as a contractor to central government, currently opening up 500,000 ha in Kecamatan Keteman, Kabupaten Indragiri Hilir. A regional transport study is not the place in which to comment on the wisdom of such activities, but strong arguments have I been presented elsewhere for the preservation of the natural functions that peat swamp forests provide. Indeed in some project areas in Malaysia, crop failures and secondary negative impacts of peat swamp reclamation have necessitated expensive efforts to restore the original I hydrological balance and to regreen the peatwamps. The only comment made here is to question the justification for constructing roads to serve these projects, in view of the river network that already exists and the 40 km of lOOm wide drains that will be dug in the project | area. One of the products of the RePPProT mapping was the identification of 'Recommended Development Areas' (RDAs), areas of between 10,000 and 25,000 ha that were under-utilized but which have agricultural potential. It should be remembered that the primary focus of the RePPProT study was the identification of land suitable for transrngration. Within the Study Area, a total of 54 such areas were identified, as shown in Table 1.7. Table 1.7 Recommended development areas Province _ Development models | Wetland Dryland Treecrop Mixed Totals Aceh 0 0 4 1 5 North Sumatra 1 0 9 2 12 West Sumatra 0 o 2 o 2 Riau 10 1 6 18 35 Source: RePPProT 19S8 The distribution of RDAs strongly reflects the land availability as discussed earlier, especially in Riau province. However, almost by definition, RDAs will consist of land that requires a rather high level of management, including heavy fertilizer treatment, because the better quality land has already been occupied. The concept of RDAs has never been widely accepted by the provincial planners, despite the fact that they have mostly accepted the data-base (land systems | 10 1 and mapped land use) on which the RDAs were based, and RDAs are now mainly of historical interest. Land allocations within the spatial plans have in many cases already proceeded beyond the stage of identifying RDAs. However, their distribution has been taken into account in the transport planning programme where still relevant. * 1.6 Existing road network From Table 1.8, it is seen that some 30,400 km of motorable road exist in the Study Area, including 2,686 km of National roads, 9,513 km of Provincial roads, and 18,204 km of motorable Kabupaten roads (asphalt roads, and gravel roads in good condition). Road lenghis are analyzed by ratios of total area and of population to kilometre of road. Over the Project I. Area as a whole, there is one kilometre of motorable road for every 731 head of population. The most favourable ratio is in Aceh (1:431 people), and the least in North Sumatra (1:972 people), the province with the highest density of population. In terms of area, there is one U kilometre for every 880 ha The highest density is in North and West Sumatra equally (1:640 ha), and the lowest is in Riau (1:2120 ha), reflecting the most fertile and least fertile provinces respectively. At kabupaten level (Table 1.9), there are some unexpected variations. Generally, those kabupatens with the highest density of population have the lowest ratios of roads to people, for I example Pidie and Aceh Utara in Aceh, Deli Serdang and Asahan in North Sumatra. It is surprising to see that the population of the highland Aceh Tengah kabupaten appears to be as well served by roads as that of Aceh Besar. In terms of ratio of land area to roads, obviously those kabupatens with the lowest intensity of land use, owing to reasons of mountainous or swampy terrain or low inherent fertility, have the I lowest ratio, for example Aceh Tenggara, or the four mainland kabupatens of Riau. Bengkalis (Riau) has the lowest ratio of one kilometre of road to 27,600 ha, but this reflects the fact that a large proportion of the area is peat swamp, while much of the population lives alongside I rivers or estuaries and relies on boat transport. In general, the most intensively cultivated kabupatens have the highest ratio, with more than 1,000 ha served by one kilometre (Tanah Datar in West Sumatra is the extreme with 280 ha/km). Table 1.8 Length of National and Provincial Roads by province Province Area Popn Roads Sq. Km. Popn. (sq. kcm) ('000) Nat. Prov. Kab. Total per per km km kin km km road kn road Acch 56,748 3,416 507 2,575 4,839 7,921 18.4 1,108 N. Sumatra 72,501 10,981 1.010 3,232 7,059 11,301 17.1 2.589 W. Sumatra 41,690 4,266 511 1.816 4,195 6,522 17.9 1,833 Riau 98,597 3,560 658 1.890 2,111 4,659 38.7 1,397 Total 268,097 22,223 2,686 9,513 18,204 30,403 22.0 1,822 I I 11 Table 1.9 Length of Kabupaten Roads by kabupaten Kabupaten AreaL I Popn I Motorable roads (km)2 per km road: | (sq.km) I ('O) MAsph 1Grav ITotal Sq. Kmn. I Popn. Aceh AcehBesar 3,240 240.2 583 54 637 5.1 377 Pidie 3,415 420.0 443 32 475 7.2 884 AcehUtara 4,755 846.3 624 380 1004 4.7 843 Aceh Tengah 5,575 199.6 367 142 509 11.0 392 Aceh Timur 7,760 585.9 490 330 820 9.5 715 Acch Tenggara 9,635 185.8 217 46 263 36.6 706 Acch Barat 12,100 385.6 382 186 568 21.3 679 Aceh Selatan 8,910 342.9 510 53 563 15.8 609 55,390 3,206.3 3,616 1,223 4,839 11.4 663 North Sumatra Nias 5,318 638.1 306 22 328 16.2 1,945 Tapanuli 18,897 1036.5 619 164 783 24.1 1,324 Selatan ___ Tapanuli 2,198 234.3 268 7 275 8.0 852 I Tengah_ Tapanuli Utara 10,605 709.1 1,059 61 1,120 9.5 633 Labuhan Batu 9,323 815.9 571 56 627 14.9 1,301 Asahan 4,649 920.3 273 227 500 9.3 1,841 Simalungun 4,439 834.6 996 102 1,098 4.0 760 Dairi 3,146 288.7 378 22 400 7.9 722 Karo 2,127 271.9 445 63 508 4.2 .535 Deli Serdang 4,658 1755.5 638 154 792 5.9 2,217 |Langkat | 6,320 850.3 483 145 628 10.1 1,354 ______________ l71,680 8,355.2 6,036 1,023 7,059 10.2 1,184 West Sumatra Pesisir Selatan 5,700 397.2 359 132 491 11.6 809 _. _ _ _ ,__ ,_ ,__.,_ I Solok 7,144 456.8 521 143 664 10.8 688 Sawahlunto 6,377 296.71 338 231 569 11.2 521 Tanah Datar 1,363 350.2 488 6 494 2.8 709 P. Pariaman 8,186 518.1 450 96 546 15.01 949 Agami 2,257 415.4 406 70 476 4.7 873 LimapuluhKota 3,434 306.9 337 105 442 7.8 694 Pasaman 7,835 493.1 421 92 513 15.3 961 _____________ l42,296 3234.4 3,320 875 4,195 10.1 771 Riau Kampar 28,355 633.3 289 433 722 39.3 877 Indragiri Hulu 15,854 417.3 155 327 482 32.9 866 IndragiriHilir 11,606 510.3 220 47 267 43.5 1,911 Bengkalis 30,647 964.9 56 55 111 276.1 8,693 KepulauanRiau 8,100 466.2 528 1 529 15.3 881 i____________ 194,562 2,992.0 1,248 863 2,111 44.8 1,417 Source: RRPTA ' Source from official statistics. Mfeasured areas on RePPProT maps differ significantly. 2 Roads are Classified as baik good rusak = poor sedang = fair rusak berat bad sedang rusak fairtopoor Asphalt roads that are classified as good to poor, and stone/gravel roads as good to fair, are assumed to be motorable. All earth roads U are assurned to be non-motorable. because they do njot provide all-year access (manay are little more than footpaths). I 121 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF ROAD DEVELOPMENT 2.1 General Impacts of Road Projects Routine impacts that are specific to road construction include, inter alia, the following: • issues of compensation where the road traverses intensive agricultural or settled areas; * some building relocation/resettlement; * some potential displacement of traditional cultural areas such as burial sites; * potential major imnpacts through inappropriate material removal from unplanned quarry sites; * riverbed or coastal erosion resulting from removal of building materin Ls; * disruption to communities during transport of materials as a result of noise and dust; * contamination of drinking water supply through careless storage and placement of bitumen drums, * indirect impacts associated with increased accessibility such as uncontrolled clearance or harvesting of forest products in conservation areas, protection forest, and sensitive ecological habitats, hunting and trapping of wildlife etc; * possible disruption to indigenous communities. Besides the routine aspects of environmental impact analysis of road development, specific types of impact are associated with different classes of road and construction type. The lists are indicative only, and obviously not exclusive. New construction projects New road construction involves opening an area to access, often for the first time. Commonly some form of access already exists (such as an earth road or footpath) and the induced impacts resulting from access may have already occurred. However there may be major environmental and social implications from new construction, and it is anticipated that almnost all proposed new construction on national and provincial roads, and major inter-kabupaten links, will require full environnmental assessment. Negative impacts specific to new construction include: * damage to fragile ecological habitats such as montane forest, mangrove swamps etc; . increased exploitation of natural resources along the new road; . illegal logging and firewood collection in protected forest areas adjoining the new road; * illegal hunting of endangered and protected wildlife in protected forest areas; * the negative effect of the barrier imposed by the new road, and habitat fragmentation; * disruption of traditional land use practices; * disruption to indigenous and isolated communities along the road; a competition for limited land resources as a result of spontaneous in-migration; * impacts induced by altering land use pattems as a result of increased access; * impacts caused by land speculation by outside investors; * land acquisition/resettlement in agricultural areas and in village/urban areas. I * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~13 Capacity expansion projects Capacity expansion projects for national and provincial roads are generally located in areas | where any natural environment has already been transformed into one characterized by intensive land use or settlement, and commonly also rapid economic growth. By far the most significant environmental impacts in this situation are predicted to be social, although there I may still be significant negative impacts on the physical environment New urban by-pass projects would be similar in terms of type of impacts. • disruption to and displacement of roadside activities and businesses, industrial facilities, and road frontage development; * displacement of community facilities, and disruption to communities through displacement 1 and resettlement; * disruption to agricultural activities; * potential land speculation; I * increased barrier effect; * disruption to natural watercourses and/or irrigation systems; * impediment to traffic access and existing pedestrian networks; - disruption to traffic during construction activities; * increased air pollution; * aesthetic issues during various phases of construction. Urban roads: new construction or ma?jorwienn The most significant impacts of urban road development are social and economic, and generally a relatively large number of people and businesses are affected. • displacement of significant numbers of people and the need for resettlement plans; * land acquisition and associated issues; * pedestrian severance and associated impacts on businesses and other economic activities as I a result of the barrier effect; * increased levels of air and noise pollution;- * disturbance to traffic and increased congestion during construction activities; I * damage to neighbouring roads and bridges during the transport of heavy building materials. 2.2 Project-specific Impacts of Road Development I In environmental assessment, it is customary to analyze the predicted impacts in the context of the physical, biological and socio-economic environment. While many of the impacts listed I above are routine to any road development, a number are specific to the Project Area. The impacts that have played the greatest role in the preliminary assessment of sub-projects (see - Section 6) are listed below. l iA ~~~~~~I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A). Impacts on the physical environment. Any new road through forested terrain in the hills or mountains is likely to have major negative impacts, due to: . the physical damage of road construction in very steep terrain; * increased potential for erosion and landslides; * the provision of access for illegal logging or other exploitation of natural resources; * the provision of access to spontaneous settlement and land clearance for unsustainable formns of agriculture; * the downstream impacts of any consequent forest clearance on the hydrological regime. The importance of the role of mountain forests in protecting dov nstream river regimes is paramount. It is for this reason that these forests are accorded protection status in the kawasan hutan of the spatial plan, and that permission is required from the Minister of Forestry before road construction in such areas can proceed (see Section 3.6). Planners should also consider the guidelines on maximum longitudinal gradients, which are 6-10% according to class of road (Standard Specifications for Geometric Design of Rural Highways, Peraturan Perencanaan Geometrik Jalan Raya, No. 13/1970). Costs of road construction in steeplands will be an important consideration. Whereas new construction of a 6 metre road to asphalt stage might cost Rp 500 million/km, the same road in steep terrain might cost at least Rp 2,500-3,000 millionlkm (assuming 15-20 m of cut, in material that is 30% rock and 70% overburden). Retaining walls are not included in this total. The physical impacts are also considered to be serious in swamplands, particularly peat swamps, but the incidence of planned new roads in such terrain is relatively low. B). Impacts on the biological environment. in this case, interest is mainly focussed on the indigenous fauna and flora. Thus, any new road through the remaining forests of the region, whether in the mountains or the swamps, is likely to have major negative impacts, due to: - damage to fragile ecological habitats; . illegal hunting of endangered and protected wildlife; . the negative effect of the barrier imposed by the road, and habitat fragmentation. In section 1.4 it was noted that there is still widespread hunting or capture of wildlife for a variety of purposes, and clearly any improvement of access into the remaining forests is likely to increase such activities. C). Impacts on the socio-economic environment. Two very different situations are envisaged here. In already intensively used terrain, such as fertile agricultural areas or on the outskirts of towns, there may be problems of land acquisition wherever a new road is constructed or an existing road is widened. Some of the major social impacts caused by road projects are: * 15 * compulsory acquisition of land, property and business; * economic losses for affected individuals and farm families; temporary or permanent loss of income for subsistence; I * people with fewer resources and skill become more vulnerable; * social and family disruption due to displacement and relocation;- * loss of community benefits and social disintegration . Following construction, the new road may provide opportunities for new settlement, and there is commonly appreciation in real estate values. These issues require proper management by - local government to prevent ribbon development. In more remote areas, the issues are very different: I * disruption of traditional land use practices and impacts induced by altering land use pattems; • disruption to indigenous and isolated communities, who may be disadvantaged by land speculation, in-migration, or allocation of concessions. These problems are discussed more fully below and in Section 4.6. 2.3 Isolated Communities ; Both the World Bank and the Govemrnment of Indonesia (GOI) have a special concern for communities who have been disadvantaged, or left behind, in the development process, but their views differ in the identification of these peoples. The World Bank focus of concern has been "indigenous peoples", while the GOI's has been "isolated peoples" (suku (erasing). In some cases the two are synonymous, but they are not identical. I The World Bank identifies "indigenous peoples" as ".,.social groups with a social and cultural identity distinct from the dominant society that makes them vulnerable to being disadvantaged j in the development process" (Operational Directive 4.20). The concern of the World Bank is that peoples so identified share in the development process, but in a manner which does not disrupt or damage their unique socio-cultural heritage. I "Isolated peoples" in the eyes of the GOI are not necessarily culturally or ethnically different but are physically residing in remote areas having poor communications. Hence Javanese 3 communities in mountainous regions of Java which are accessible only by footpaths are "isolated" but are not socially or culturally distinct from lowland Javanese communities (i.e. not "indigenous peoples" according to the World Bank definition), The focus of transport planning is to provide, as far as economically feasible, equitable transport access to all communities. Thus as previously discussed in an earlier review of the Kabupaten Roads Program (IBRD 1994), it is more appropriate to use the Indonesian concept of Masyarakat terasing as defined by the GOI Dept. of Social Welfare: 16 The Masyarakat ferasing are the people who have the same physical, social and cultural characteristics, live in areas that are difficult to reach, remote (terpencil), scattered (terpencar) so that they experience a social and cultural gap (kesenjangan) that has caused their welfare to be very low and disadvantaged (terbelakang). I The term terasing for this use has the meaning as a static condition (kondis, statis) and remote or isolated from outside groups of people who are more advanced so that there is little interaction with and influence from outside groups. The condition of the masyarakat terasing is still well below national socioeconomic averages, The only addition is special attention to peoples who are not only "isolated" but as a result of their isolation have developed unique cultural characteristics, such as a distinct, language, religious beliefs, or other distinct socio-cultural forms. Improvements in tratnsportation infrastructure linking these peoples to a more dominant, or the national, culture should take I care not to disturb unduly the existing socio-cultural values of the peoples. Undertaken with proper precautions, development of an integrated transportation network should be able to serve the GOI purposes of equitable development of national transportation infrastructure while maintaining cultural diversity. To achieve the latter, regional transportation development should be based upon informed participation by all affected groups and communities. Preferences of local communities, especially those with unique socio-cultural attributes, should be carefully weighed with economic, political and environmental factors in the development of a regional integrated I transport network. In the case of transport links affecting distinctive cultures, special development plans may need to be considered, but in all cases community consultation should be the norm for transportation planning (see Sections 3.5 and 5.6). No fixed procedure for dealing with unique cultural groups with respect to regional integrated transport development is proposed herein. Instead a sensitivity to the needs and unique situation of indigenous peoples should be instilled within the planning system as a whole. Identification of indigenous peoples, recognition of the unique nature and aspects of their culture, and fluid conmmunication with communities from the planning stage through post-construction are what is needed. In particular transport planners need to identify specific components of the culture of indigenous peoples which might pose issues of conflict in development of transportation links, such as land tenure practices, and then work with the communities to deternine equitable 3 options before conflicts arise. The general guidelines of World Bank Operational Directive 4.20 provides a solid starting point for dealing with indigenous peoples. Refinements of OD 4.20 specific to Indonesia should be included in the first irnplementation phase of the regional transport project. For the four provinces of the project region, it appears that only in Riau are there unique cultural groups distinct from the dominant ethnic population. Thus the first regional transport project should be able to develop and test in applied situations procedures for dealing with indigenous peoples on a limited trial basis. Hence tested and refined procedures will be in place when subsequent regional transportation projects are begun in areas such as Kalimantan and Irian Jaya which are inhabited by numerous distinct cultural groups. * 17 ;~~~~~~~~~~ 2.4 Cultural resources Cultural resources can include a range of sites, structures and practices that have unique | archaeologic, historic, religious or social value. Procedures governing the chance discovery of such artifacts during project construction are governed by Act UU 5/1992 and included in standard Bina Marga tender documents. .I 3 3 l l 18 1~~~~~~ 3 LEGISLATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES IN INDONESIA 3.1 AMDAL Legislation The general direction for environmental management in Indonesia is embodied in the Guidelines for State Policy, which is the basis for the national policy on the management of natural resources for each Repelita (Five-Year Development Plan). There are a number of general regulations relating to environmental management, the most important being the Environmental *. ~ Management Act No. 4 of 1982, called the 'Basic Provision for the Management of the Living Environment'. This act specifies responsible institutions to carry out the broad mandate of sustainable environmental management, including the Ministry of Public Works. The AMDAL *. (environmental) legislation was formerly embodied in Government Regulation (PP) No. 29 of 1986, but this has now been replaced by PP No. 51 of 1993. The Regulation aims at controlling and mitigating environmental impacts arising from any development activities. X AMDAL is now required to be an integrated project assessment process to coordinate the planning and review of development projects, including all ecological, socio-economic, and cultural components. PP 5111993 outlines the revised AMDAL processes. For example, the Preliminary Evaluation Report or PIL is no longer required, although often some form of field screening is necessary. I Procedures are now available for integrated/multisectoral evaluations (AMDAL Kegiatan TerpadulMultisektoral) under the authority of more than one technical agency (for example a transmigration project integrated with conservation of the adjacent forest resource), area I evaluations (AMDAL Kawasan) such as an industrial estate, and regional evaluations (AMD)AL Regzonal) which would include various interrelated activities under the jurisdiction of more 3 than one agency, lying in one zone of a regional development planning area. Development activities that are predicted to have significant impacts are described, together with the types of impacts that are considered to be significant. It is categorically stated that the I AMDAL process shall form part of the feasibility study for a proposed activity. It stipulates that the expenses to prepare AMDAL documents shall be included in the budget of the proposed activity and shall be borne by the proponent, and also that the environmental management and I monitoring costs shall be charged to the operational budget of the relevant activity. KEP-]]/MENLH/3/]994 Appendix I lists the development activities that require AMDAL | studies. In the highways sector, full EIA studies (ANDAL. RKL, RPL) are required for: * new construction of toll roads; | . fly-overs; interurban roads greater than 25 kmn in length; * urban roads greater than 5 km; and I- . betterment outside the right-of-way (DAA4JA) for urban and metropolitan roads greater than 5 km in length. 3 For kabupaten roads, and road projects of smaller dimension than listed above, including capacity expansion projects, a preliminary level of screening is required to determine the l * '9 possible extent of impact on fragile/sensitive areas and/or the need for resettlement and compensation. All activities bordering a protected area as listed in Appendix 11 of KEP- 11/1994 also require AMDAL. The AMDAL screening process in Bina Marga lists 20 I categories of sensitive areas as listed in the screening flow-chart as shown below. Clearly the list of sensitive areas is comprehensive, and it mnight be interpreted to includle almost any terrain. It does, however, emphasize the commitment of Bina Marga to address the environmental legislation. For project purposes, it is assumed that steep slopes refer to slopes >40% (or to RePPProT land systems that are classified as having slopes in this category). Area I of significant social impact is taken to include urban and 'peri-urban' areas (the latter term is used to describe both the outer fringes of towns and the ribbon development that has often occurred along main roads), but a distinction is made in the preliminary evaluation (section 5) I between intensively used land (productive land, especially arable land) and extensively usi d land (tree crops, shifting cultivation etc.). I For new construction projects which traverse sensitive environments, an environmental field study will be completed (Kajian Lingkungan or KL). Where this study determines that significant impacts are expected, a full EIA (ANDAL) will be required. The KL will provide I inputs for the preparation of the Terms of Reference for the ANDAL study. Environmental management and monitoring plans (RKL and RPL) shall be prepared as separate documents together with the ANDAL. The developing agency is responsible for imnplementing and providing the budget for the RKL and RPL, although it is generally required to work together with associated institutions for the | post-construction management. However the supervision and reporting on the implementation of the plans is the responsibility of a team that is set up either by the responsible Minister for national projects, or the Governor for provincial projects. Supervision costs are borne by the institutions comprising this team. Guidelines for the compilation of AMDAL studies are contained in Kep-14/MENLH13/1994. 3 Where the construction activity is considered to have negligible environmental impacts, or have significant impacts that can be handled through standard technical procedures, environmental management shall be covered by standard environmental management and monitoring procedures (UKE and UPL) as directed by Kep-12/MENLH13/1994. UKL and UPL are not subject to evaluation by the AMDAL commission, but are the responsibility of the concerned agency. The guidelines issued by Bina Marga for the preparation of UKL and UPL are general in nature, but the Central Technical Consultancy (CTC) for Kabupaten roads has prepared sectoral environmental studies (see Section 4.2) that have been adopted generally as guidelines for the management of minor environmental impacts (Hoff & Overgaard et al 1992). 3 Guidelines for the deterrnination of significant impacts are contained in BAPEDAL Decree 05613/1994. In summary, these relate to criteria of number of people affected, areal extent of - impact, duration of impact, intensity of impact, number of other components affected by 3 impact, cumulative nature of impact, and reversibility/irreversibility of impact. l l l 20) 3 mm-- -- -- ------ - - - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: SCREENING FOR ROAD PROJECTS NEWCONSTRUCrION Requires ANDAL (Environmental Impact NEWCONSTRtJCIION _~~~~~~3" YESso YES Si Statement), RKL (EnvironmentalManagement * Toll Roads dand Flyovers Plan) RPL (Environmenhl Monitoring Plan). * National and Prov incial Highways > 25 km * Urban and Mctropolitan Roads > 5 km * Urban and Metropolitan Road Betterment Outside of right of way > 5 km v Bridges > 60 m long Will the proposed project traverse: Potentially significant NO impact? I Area of Significant Social Impact 2 Strict Nature Reserve (CA) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ 3 Wildlife Reserve (SM) ? 4 Conservation Forest? New Construction of National and i YES 5 Biodiversity ProtecUon Area? YES ENVIRONMENTAL FIELD STUDY Provincial roads < 25 km I 6 Wildlife Refuge (Kajian L n gkungan) I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 Protection Forest (H-L)? - I 8 Swamp/Wetland Area? I Road betterment outside the right of 9 Upper Watershed Areas? way for urban and metropolitan t10 River Buffer Zones ? : roads < 5 km l 11 Areas surrounding Lakes and Reservoirs? No significant impact l l 12 Springs and Water Supply Areas? New local (kabupaten) road t 13 Marine and Freshwater Conservation Areas ? I construction I 14 Mangrove Areas ? l l15 National Parks? r - __ 16 Nature Parks ? I | 17 Recreation Parks t UKL (Environmental Management 18 Cultural Reserve and Scientific Research Areas ? I Plan) and tIPL (Environmental 19 Natural Hazard Zones? l Monitoring Plan.) 20 Steep Slope and Other Fragile Areas? Special cases of minor road improvement on No existing roads within right of way in sensitive areas should be dealt with on a case by case batsis.t NO Roa…d betterment within the right of wLy… YES Inentation of Standard Operaing Procedures routine and perioctic niaintenance I (Sectoral t1KL / UI>L) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.2 Spatial Plans In February 1990 a Spatial Planning Team was formed on the authority of Keppres 57/1989 to develop a set of guidelines for compiling spatial plans (Pedoman Penyusuan Rencana Tata Ruang, 1990). The result of this was the national Spatial Planning Act No. 24 of 1992 (Undang-undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 24 Tahun 1992 tentang Penataan Ruang). The Spatial Planning Act specifically incorporates the environmental management principles set forth in the Basic Law of the Living Environment No. 4 of 1982 (Preface) and the 1990 Basic Law on the Conservation of the Living Environment and Ecosystems No. 5 of 1990 (Elucidation Preamble, part 5). Within the Act the conditions of spatial use management are given as the integrated, environmentally sound and sustainable utilization of natural and man- made resources in an efficient, effective and appropriate way, to improve the quality of human resources, to embody the protection function of space, and to prevent as well as overcome negative environmental impacts (Article 3). Spatial use management is based upon the primary functions of the area encompassing the protection area (kawasan lindung) and the cultivation area (kawasan budidaya) (Article 7). In addition to land space, spatial use management includes sea and air space to the extent as provided for in applicable legislation (Article 9). Spatial use management may be ecosystem based, and as such may overlap administrative boundaries. The same is true for transport planning. Where spatial use mnanagement covers more than one kabupatenlkotamadya (Dati-Il), it is to be coordinated by the Govemor as head of the province (Dati-)). Spatial use management covering more than one province is to be coordinated by a Minister assigned to such duty by the President (Articles 8 and 29). Spatial use management is to be implemented in stages with identified strategic and prioritized areas (Articles 10 & 11). This Act has introduced spatial planning and spatial use management as central concepts within government planning. Spatial use management is to be undertaken through a process and procedure of preparing and adoptinrg a spatial plan based on provisions in applicable legislation (Article 13). According to the Act, spatial planning and spatial use management are to be undertaken at the national, provincial and kabupaten levels. The process of spatial planning is top down from macro to micro level planning. The National Spatial Plan is prepared in the perspective of the next 25 years, with elaboration in five-year space utilization programs for incorporation within the cycle of the Five-Year Development Plans (REPELITA). Subsequently, each five-year space utilization program is further elaborated into annual development activities in line with the fiscal year (Elucidation, Article 20). Broad national spatial plans are prepared using a territorial map of the country at the minimum scale of 1: 1,000,000 (Elucidation, Article 19, para. 2). Within the framnework of the National Spatial Plan, each province prepares its own Spatial Plan with a fifteen-year perspective. T'his plan is further elaborated into five-year space utilization programs to be incorporated into the PELITA of the province. Elaboration into annual development activities is subsequently prepared in line with the fiscal year (Elucidation, Article 21). Somewhat more specific than national spatial plans, provincial spatial plans are prepared using a map at the minimum scale of 1: 250,000 (Elucidation, Article 19, para. 2). 22 In line with the directions and policies in the spatial plans at the national and provincial levels, each kabupaten and municipal district prepares a Spatial Plan for a time period of ten years. I Further elaboration is on a five year basis of space utilization programs for incorporation into the kabupaten/kotamadya PELITA. Annual development activities are further elaborated for inclusion in the annual fiscal year plans and budget (Elucidation, Article 22). Kabupaten I spatial plans, while still somewhat general in scope, are prepared on the basis of a map at the minimum scale of 1: 100,000, with spatial plans for municipal districts being based upon a map at the minimum scale of 1: 50,000 (Elucidation, Article 19, para. 2). Although Dati I and II spatial plans only cover periods of fifteen years and ten years respectively, they are to recognize rights agreements which exceed these periods. In particular are the cases of individuals who possess 20-year Building Rights (Hak Guna Bangunan, or HGB) or 30-year Exploitation Rights (Hak Guna Usaha or HGU (Elucidation, Articles 21 and 22). This has implications with respect to land acquisition for road widening and I construction of new roads. Use rights for forestry, mining or fisheries, whether based on legislation or traditional law and common practice, are to be acknowledged within the spatial plans, but they are not immutable. Spatial plans can include spatial use management other than that currently existing. In cases " ~~~~where they can prove that they are directly harmned as a result of the implementation of development activities in accordance with spatial plans, rights holders of the land and of natural resources management are to be given fair compensation. Rights over space means rights to utilize land, sea and air space (Elucidation, Article 4, para. 2). hndividual and community participation in the spatial planning and spatial use management processes are clearly considered to be central since references to them are found throughout the Act. According to Article 4 it is the right of every person: a) to know spatial plans; b) to participate in the preparation of a spatial plan; and c) to receive fair compensation for any loss arising from the implementation of development activities complying with the spatial plan. It is further stated that spatial use management shall be undertaken by the Government with community participation (Article 12). The Government is to announce and disseminate the spatial plans to the people, along with creating and developing awareness and responsibility of 3 the people through extension works, guidance, education and training (Article 25). Public participation is further reinforced in the Elucidation of the aforementioned Articles. It is the right of every person to participate in spatial use management through expression of ideas, recommendations or objections to the government concerning spatial use management (Elucidation, Article 4). Communities have the role as partners to the government in spatial use management, and should express their ideas as a means to carry out public participation in I order to achieve the objectives of spatial use management (Elucidation, Article 12). Dissemination of information regarding spatial use management to the community is to be undertaken openly through the media. Furthermore, there should be development of community participation and improvement in the quality of space undertaken through extension programs, guidance, education and training in a continuous manner for every level of the government and community strata (Elucidation, Article 25). l * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~23 Spatial plans are general so do not require extreme details of exact management activities for specific areas to be included, but rather a set of goals and programs to achieve these goals. Further details should be forthcoming in annual workplans and budgets addressing these goals and programs. Unfortunately there is a serious lack of understandi.ng of the concept and objectives of spatial planning. The current so-called spatial planning documents are barely more than a continuation of the old sectoral planning strategy which has proven unsatisfactory for integrated transport planning. Hence there is a need for both provincial and kabupaten training to improve .1 understanding of what spatial planning and spatial use management mean, and how to organize and implement integrated spatial management plans. This training should iniclude: | 1) Clear explanations of the concepts "sf atial", "spatial planning", "spatial use management" and "natural and human-use regions" (kawasan lindung and kawasan budidava). a) Explanation that spatial planning is not based upon administrative boundaries, 3 but upon appropriate natural or human-use regions. b) Explanation that spatial planning is not sectoral planning, but looks at the role of each sector in sustainable management of identified spatial regions. I 2) Discussion of the importance of using a spatial planning approach to obtain sustainable use management of natural and human resources. 3) With respect to the transport planning component of spatial planning: 3 a) Transport planning should be integrated multi-modal, not sectoral. b) The present transport network should be superimposed upon the map showing i the identified natural and human use regions. Subsequently an assessment should be made of the degree to which the existing network serves the objectives of the identified spatial regions. c) Future transport network development should be planned keeping in mind the objectives of the spatial plan. 3 The Spatial Planning Act contains a good set of principles embodying the concepts of spatial use and management of the environment. Weakness with regard to the legislation lies primarily 3 with its practical implementation at the local levels of government. From the macro perspective spatial planning is top-down. A national spatial plan is drawn up, following which an individual provincial spatial plan is prepared within the framework of the national plan. Subsequently, each kabupaten prepares its spatial plan within the framework of the provincial plan. Unfortunately mechanisms for information to go upward do not function very smoothly. 3 24 3 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At the same time that the spatial planning process is top-down, the legislation calls for individual and community participation in both its planning and its management. This is a commendable principle, but it is doubtful that it has been carried out in practice. The text of the legislation provides no indications of how public involvement is supposed to occur. | Directives call for Dati-I and Dati-JI to undertake integrated spatial planning, which in practical terms means BAPPEDA Dati-I and Dati-Il calling together local representatives of all the sectoral agencies to assist them. Within the government structural system there is no U. tradition of public forum to provide community input into what is perceived to be government planning. Similarly the iegislation calls for public announcements of spatial plans, although it is doubtful that any non-government official has ever seen a copy of a spatial plan. The Spatial Planning Act calls for the development of community participation in spatial use management through extension programs, guidance, education and training in a continuous U manner. However, again the legislation does not provide any instructions for accomplishing this. Development of community participation in spatial use management is an important role which can be played by this project for integrated regional transportation. Further discussion I of community participation is discussed in Section 3.5. 3.3 Land Acquisition Road expansion (widening) and network extension requires acquisition of land Where the land is government owned (tanah negara) this involves obtaining a release from the appropriate 3 governnent agency responsible, usually either the National Land Board (Badan Pertanahan Nasional - BPN) or the Forestry Department (Departmen Kehutanan), but does not require any monetary compensation. Problems arise when the land to be acquired is privately owned 3 (tanah milik). The national Basic Agrarian Law of 1960 (Undang-undang Agraria No. 5, 1960) contains the principle of "eminent domain" under which private land can be expropriated by the govermnent "for the good of the public". But until Presidential Decree Number 55 of 1993 (Keppres 55) there was no formal mechanism for land acquisition. Previously land required for the "public interest", such as for physical infrastructure development, was through compulsory acquisition. Keppres 55 now requires conimunity consultation and consensus agreement on "fair" compensation for land and other immovable properties expropriated. Keppres 55 complies with | the World Bank's Operational Directive 4.30. Keppres 55/1993 revokes previous ministerial decrees, and the process is elaborated in Implementation Directive 1/1994 of the State Minister for Agrarian Affairs/Chairman of BPN. Only if the required area is less than 1.0 ha may the developing agency acquire the land directly. The basic procedure is as follows: I i. The developing agency submits a request to the governor/bupati/mayor (as appropriate) to release land. ii This official issues a decree announcing that the land is to be released for the project, and * instructs the Land Acquisition Committee (commonly known as the 'committee of nine') through the Bupati or Mayor to prepare an inventory of land, buildings and trees. I 31 25 iii. The committee is required to inventorize land, buildings, crops, investigate legal status, assess and advise amount of compensation, give information to the land right holders, and as an internediary to arrange direct consultations (musyawarah) between land holders and the developing agency, to reach agreement on form/amount of compensation, and to recommend to the Govemor rates of compensation for various classes of land. These are 3 supposed to be based on current prevail ng values. iv. The governor issues another decree stating the rates of compensation for various classes of land and other properties. The proportion of the amounts paid depends on the actual rights held. v. The property owners are offered their compensation, although they may decide not to accept the rates offered. There are procedures for grievances. vi. If the owners accept, they are given tims to vacate. Farmers may continue to cultivate the land until such time as it is required for mplementation. On a major project, this may be a lengthy procedure. An estimate was made of six to seven I months for the North Java Road Improvement Project (Indro Djarwo 1995). Keppres 55 specifies compensation rates for land held under formal govermment rights (hak) in I accordance with the Basic Agrarian Law of 1960. Compensation rates are: 1) HakMilik (Right of Ownership) l - 100% valuation - with land certificate - 90% valuation - without land certificate 2) Hak Guna Usaha (Right of Exploitation) - 80% valuation - if rights still valid and well cultivated - 60% valuation - if rights expired but land still cultivated I - 0% valuation - if rights expired and land not well tended 3) Hak Guna Bangunan (Right of Building) 3 - 80% valuation - if rights still valid - 60% valuation - if rights expired but land still used by rights holder 4) Hak Pakai (Rights of Use) - 100% valuation - if unlimited period of validity and land used - 70% valuation - if utilization rights are up to 10 years | - 50% valuation - if rights expired but land still used by the holder 5) Wakaf (Religious/Community Use Land) | - 100% valuation - with the provision that compensation shall be given im the form of land, building and equipment. Unfortunately compensation rates for land held through customary (adat) tenure are not stipulated in Keppres 55, just as adat tenure is not fully recognized under the Basic Agrarian Law of 1960. Ministry for the Environrment Act No. 10 of 1992 (Undang-Undang Nomor 10 Tahun 1992) on Population Development and Building Prosperous Families calls for a 26 guarantee of generational development of indigenous areas according to adat but does not make any clear or specific reference to guaranteeing continuation or inheritance of land rights according to adat. Adat tenure includes parcels of land held by individuals, families and descent groups (extended aimilies holding group land rights), as well as communal land (hak ulayat) owned by a community as a whole. This is of critical importance as much of land ownership or rights 3 outside Java and the major urban areas, if the not the majority, are based on adat. Many parcels of rural land in Sumatra have never been formally surveyed and issued with an ownership certificate (Sertifikat Hak Milik) or any other form of government land rights issued I. -by the BPN. Hence there needs to be a more comprehensive mechanism to cover compensation fir adat tenure lands, as well as government tenure lands, acquired for road works. This will require community consultation in adat land areas to develop an acceptable procedure and set I rates (most likely a percentage of valuation) of compensation for adat lands similar to those in Keppres 55 for government tenure lands. 3 Under Keppres 55 there is a general system for determining the value of land, buildings and other immovable property, such as productive trees. Each kabupaten forms a nine person Land Release Committee headed by the Bupati or Mayor (Walikota). The basic price of land (harga ; dasar) is determined periodically by the committee and is intended to be based on actual sales prices during the preceding three months for 42 different types of land use and locations (Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri 1/1975). Based on this, district governments prepare official | land price tables for their districts. The establishment of basic land prices has not been changed significantly by Keppres 55/1993, which stipulates that the actual or real value of land should take into account the latest Sale Value as assessed for the purpose of determining Land and 3 Building Tax (Nilai Jual Objek Pajak or NJOP). However, these prices are generally well below market value. It has been estimated on projects carried out on Java that market value is commonly at least 50% higher than taxable value. hn some cases, the market value was up to four times the taxable value. NJOP is determined according to some 50 classes of land use, ranging from high value urban and industrial properties, through intensively cultivated lands to low quality rainfed farming land. However, the system of classification varies between regions. I Actual experience from urban infrastructure development projects shows a trend towards more realistic rates of compensation, but systems vary. The amount paid is further modified according to tenure status (see above), and also according to the proportion of the land holding * that will be acquired. Those without rights occupying land in rural areas would expect to receive only a 'settlement' (santunan), and they are at risk of receiving nothing. However, strict observance of Law No. 24/1992 on Spatial Use Management should ensure that no group goes uncompensated. Compensation entitlements for loss of buildings are based on building values established by Cipta Karya, with an allowance for depreciation of 2% per year from date of construction. Assessments for partial loss are very complex, and also vary between districts and projects. l * 27 Table 3.1 provides some basic figures of land prices ascertained on the North Java Road Improvement Project, while Table 3.2 compares prices for different land use types in different kabupatens of West Sumatra. Table 3.1 Illustrative land prices in North Java | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~~~~~~~Rp/sg.m Land Price Building Price Sector: N.J.O.P. Actual N.J.O.P. Actual Bekasi - Karawang 94,280 410,192 219,167 403,077 Karawang - Cikainek 60,727 148,311 154,762 308,545 Pejabagan - Brebes 18,344 57,333 75,929 117,688 Batang - Weleri 7,356 34,972 61,519 94,135 Lamongan - Gresik 8,571 41,167 82,143 98,800 Source: Indro Djarwo (1995). 1 Table 3.2 Illustrative land prices in West Sumatra (basic price, 1994) Rp/sq.m Land use type: Agricultural Housing Commercial Unused Land Land Land Land Kabupaten: I_1 _ 1_X Kodya Padang 12,000 30,000 300,000 - Kodva Bukittinggi 25,000 50,000 150,000 17,500 Kodva Sawahlumto 9,000 12,000 - 6,000 Kab. Sawahlunto 2,000 3,000 6.000 300 Kab. Solok 6,000 10,000 - Kab. PadangPariman 5,500 13,500 17,000 1,000 Source: BAPPEDA. It is assumed that the prices in Table 3.2 correspond to the NJOP prices listed in Table 3.1. It is interesting to observe that the price of agricultural and housing land is significantly higher in Bukittinggi than it is in Padang, presumably owing to the generally higher levels of fertility in the interior plains. Even unused land in Bukittinggi seems to be almost as expensive as 3 agricultural land. As expected, by contrast the price of commercial land is higher in Padang. Another recent study in a rural area on the North Java coast gives NJOP values for buildings as Rp 98,000/m2 for permanent houses, Rp 71,000 for semi-permanent houses and Rp 50,000 for temporary or non-permanent houses. It is interesting to note that these are significantly lower than those quoted for West Sumatra in Table 3.3. Unit costs for trees ranged from Rp 15,000 for banana to Rp 35,000 for coconut and Rp 75,000 for kapok. Total land acquisition and resettlement costs on this project are Rp 2,236 million, including Rp 1,750 m for acquisition of 25 ha, Rp 270 m for purchase of 53 houses to be demolished, Rp 13 m for trees, and Rp 203 m for adrninistrative and other costs (SMEC 1995). l I 28 3 l Table 3.3. Compensation costs for buildings and crops in West Sumatra (1994) Cultivated Permanent Seni- Industrial Cormnerc. ________________ crops houses permanent buildings buildings Kabupaten Kodya Padang 16,000 248,352 211,099 340,632 255,474 Koda Bukittinggi 36,000 329,000 324,000 489,000 489,000 Kodya Sawanlunto 15,000 274,620 233,427 339,138 253,980 Kab. Sawahlunto 15,000 311,236 264,550 340,632 255,470 Kab. Solok 15,000 323,972 275,376 381,717 286,151 Kab. Pad. Pariaman 15,000 267,457 227,337 333,909 250,245 Cropland is separated into cultivated and "uncultivated", but compensation rates are mostly the same (in two cases lower). It is not exactly clear what is intended by the two categories. Likewise, the rates for buildings are listed as per m2 or per unit, and again the meaning is not clear (rate per sq. metre is assumed). Again it is observed that all rates are significantly higher I in Bukittinggi than they are in Padang, where they compare with those current in the province generally. 3 The Comniittee is responsible for making an inventory of the land, investigating the legal status of the land and supervising negotiations between the land owners and the agency wishing to acquire the land. Keppres 55 also provides general instructions for conducting negotiations with land owners, although the Committee has the right to set compensation rates if negotiations fail. Should land owners still be dissatisfied, they may file a complaint with the Governor, as head of the provincial government. At this point the provincial Land Release 3 Conmmittee, headed by the Governor, reviews the matter and makes a final binding settlement. Compensation may be made in the form of money, land for replacement, relocation, or any combination of these or other agreed forms. In practice the regulations do not specify how compensation other than in monetary form will be effected. In particular, no procedures are specified for relocation and resettlement. I In the past, monetary compensation has rarely been paid for the acquisition of land for kabupaten road widening projects, as it is argued that the improved infrastructure is sufficient compensation. While small farmers apparently often accept this, it can nevertheless be a major source of dispute. While areas of less than 1.0 ha may be handled directly by the developing agency, it is not clear how this would apply in the case of a road widening project that perhaps involves many small parcels of land of a few square metres each. There would clearly be logistical and administrative advantages in permitting the project to handle land acquisition, provided that the process is as transparent and equitable as intended by Keppres 55/1993. I . * 29 In addition to the issue of rates of compensation for land held under adat tenure, there is the issue of actual financing of compensation payments once rates are agreed upon. Other than for 3 urban road works, road project budgets have not included funds for land acquisition compensation. Typically there has not been any compensation paid for rural and village land taken for road works. Where it is determined that compensation must be paid for land acquisition or loss of irmmovable property, it is left to th 3 local government to finance it. Such a procedure poses serious problems. Local government sources of funds are limited so financing the cost of land acquisition for road works is difficult. A further complication is the identification of which agency of the local government should be responsible for obtaining and -1 dispersing compensation funds. Finally there is the question of how the local government is to determine the funds needed for an activity undertaken by a sectoral agency. Keppres 55/1995 is clearly still open to interpretation Very recently, there were protests in Tangerang (West Java) over the lack of compensation tor land in a road widening project, but the land holders were informed that the "rule of not compensating residents is based on a 1993 I presidential rule on plots affected by the public interest" (Jakarta Post 22 August 1996). They were informed that they were only entitled to corpensation for buildings and plants. The situation in Tangerang is presumably a result of inadequate funds being made available in the I original development budget, because under the Spatial Planning Law (No. 24/1992), everybody has rights to reasonable compensation if the development activity is in accordance with the spatial plan. In summation, it is recommended that Bina Marga needs to: 1) address the issue of compensation for acquisition of land held under adat tenure, 2) refine the consultation procedure for determination of land acquisition rates, and ; 3) include the costs of land acquisition, loss of immovable property and moving buildings in road works project budgets, or assist the local government in obtaining adequate | funds for this purpose. Finally it should be noted that the total emoluments to the Commriittee to cover fees and costs i amount to 4% of the total estimated compensation; this is charged to the agency requiring the land. In certain cases land acquisition for road works will require relocation, or resettlement, of people who have been displaced. The cost of resettlement may become another financial consideration. The broader issue of resettlement is discussed in the following section. | 3.4 Resettlement The World Bank has particular concern for people displaced by development activities. It has established an Operational Directive (OD 4.30) to provide guidelines for what is referred to as "involuntary resettlement". Any project that involves land acquisition should be reviewed for potential resettlement requirements, hence all road projects must review the possibility of resettlement early in their project cycle. 30 l The OD 4.30 guidelines provide a good set of principles as a starting point for managing resettlement. They include policy considerations in project design and preparation: 1) Involuntary resettlement should be avoided or minimized through exploration of all viable alternatives, including realignment of roads. 2) Where displacement is unavoidable, resettlement plans should be developed which provide displaced people with sufficient resources and opportunities to share in the benefits of the project. This should include adequate compensation for losses, assistance in relocation and assistance in re-establishing their lives in the new location. 3) Community participation is required ir planning and implementing resettlement. 4) There must be social and economic integration of resettlers into host community. 5) Land, housing, infrastructure and other compensation must be provided to resettlers. 3 Where road works projects will result in forced relocation of displaced peoples, Resettlement Actions Plans (RAP) will need to be prepared. Guidelines for preparing RAP in Indonesia are available already (ADB 1995) so the discussion herein will focus on specific issues of who are f likely to be displaced by road works projects and when there is likely to be a need for a formal resettlement plan. Road development (particularly widening) typically displaces single families or individuals, rather than whole communities. In such cases formal resettlement plans should not be required, but there should be a guarantee that compensation is adequate to allow the displaced people to 3 find suitable replacement homes and land by themselves. Adequate compensation should be defined as that which allows the displaced family to build or purchase an equivalent home or land within the same community. The displaced family should not be forced to move to another community or area simply because it is cheaper, although the displaced family should be allowed the option to use the compensation payment to relocate to another community should they so desire. To ensure that a displaced person or family is able to obtain in the same community a replacement home/land equivalent to that lost, sometimes compensation might best take the form of a property exchange, or property and cash, rather than a wholly cash compensation paymnent. In such cases there will need to be a procedure through which an appropriate piece of available property is located and an assessment made to determine if it is equivalent in quality and value to that lost. Selection of replacement property should be done in open I consultation with the displaced parties to ensure their acceptance of the identified replacement property. Subsequently there will need to be a clear procedure for purchase of the replacement property and orderly legal transfer of this property in exchange for that needed for transport purposes. l 1 31 Post-construction settlement Following construction, there should be separate consideration of people who have resettled: 1) "illegally" along the new links in restricted areas, 3 2) in an uncontrolled manner along the new links and whose settlement subsequently has become a problem, and 3) along new links that provide access to environmentally sensitive areas, leading to such deleterious activities as forest clearance, illegal logging and wildlife poaching. 3 All thr e of these are due to lack of proper spatial planning and management by local govermment authorities, rather than being caused directly by development of the road. This places resettlement responsibility in these instances with the provincial or kabupaten I BAPPEDA as the local government agency responsible for management within the determiination of the region's spatial plan. Hence any Resettlement Action Plans for these post- construction settlers should be developed and implemented by the local government rather than I Bina Mlarga. 3.5 Community Consultation | There are a number of aspects of community consultation which are of concern to this project and integrated transport planning. First among these is community participation in the spatial I plan. According to Article 4 of the Spatial Planning Act No. 24 of 1992 it is the right of every person: a) to know spatial plans; b) to participate in the preparation of a spatial plan; and c) to receive fair compensation for any loss suffered arising from the implementation of development I activities complying with the spatial plan. It is further stated that spatial use management shall be undertaken by the Govermnent with community participation (Article 12). In practice, it is questioned whether community consultation has been carried out regularly in road development projects, and there are no indications within the text of this legislation of how public involvement is supposed to occur. One mechanism for community consultation which exists within the Ministry of Home Affairs administrative planning structure is that of P5D (Pedoman Penyusunan Perencanaan dan Pengendalian Pembangunan di Daerah or Guidelines for Preparing and Managing I Development in the Regions). This is supposed to be the first step in the annual govenmment development planning cycle, but it appears to be often forgotten. Theoretically the annual cycle has six steps as follows: 1. First Step: Discussion on development projects by the people at the village level (Musyawarah Pembangunan Tingkat Desa/Kelurahan or | MUSBANG). 2. Second Step: Meeting on development at the kecamatan level (Temu Karva Pemnbangunan Tingkat Kecamatan). 32 3 3. Third Step: Meeting on development coordination at the kabupaten level (Rapat 3 Koordinasi Pembaingztnan (Rakorbang) Daerah Tingkcat If). 4. Fourth Step: Meeting on development coordination at the provincial level (Rapat Koordinasi Pembamngunan (Rakorbang) Daerah Tinglalt I). 5 Fifth Step: Consultation on regional development (Konszdltasi Regional Pembangunan) at the national level. 6. Sixth Step: Consultation on national development (Konsultasi Nasionvi Penmbangunan) at the national level. If this were implemented correctly, the P5D planning system would appear to be an ideal forum for comnnunity participation and consultation, but with respect to integrated transport I development planning there is an inherent weakness in the P5D system. The system is strictly bottom up and assumes that project ideas originate with and are planned by the Institution for Village Resilience (LK;D) and then submritted upward to kecamatan authorities. While | community consultation is desirable, it can not be expected that villagers have this capacity. Kabupatens are the lowest fully functional level of govemment, meaning the lowest administrative level which has sectoral agencies and technical staff such as road engineers and regional planners. Likewise, it is the lowest level for which spatial planning is undertaken. Integrated transport planning, which is a component of spatial planning, thus can not be coordinated below the kabupaten level. Hence transport planning and project proposals must begin at the kabupaten level and go down to the kecamatan and village level for community consultation, not the other way around. 1 3.6 Utilization of Forest land In accordance with the Decision of the Minister of Forestry Number 495/kpts-I 1/1989. release of protected forest areas (protection or consen.ation forest) for non-forest purposes requires the express permission of the Minister. For purposes of road construction, this will nornally consist of permission to use, or izin pinjam pakai. The process is from the project proponent via the Bupaif to tboe Ka-nwil Kehuitanan and finally the Governor to the Milister. Permission in principle (izin prinsip) may be released quickly but it is dependent upon a full ANDAL study | being carried out and approved, prior to permission to construct being granted. l * 33 I I I - I I. I I I I I I I I I I 4 MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES I. 4.1 General Considerations at the Different Phases of a Project Environmental and social impacts due to road development can be divided into those impacts directly caused by development of the road, which need to be managed as part of transport planning and secondly those impacts which occur only as an indirect cause of transport development. The latter must be taken into consideration during planning but will need to be managed not by transport agencies such as Bina Marga, but by the local govemment. Environmental and social issues can be divided into three planning and management phases - 1) * Pre-Project Planning, 2) Projecf Construction and 3) Post-Project Management. The first phase should be the joint responsibility of the planning section of government transport agencies and local govemment. The second phase is predominately the responsibility of the technical section of transport agencies, and the third is primarily the responsibility of local governmetit. | Pre-Project Planning Selection of capacity expansion and network extension projects should start with the spatial plan. Long and medium term development plans must first be synchronized with the general priorities of the ten year (Dati-1I) or fifteen year (Dati-D) spatial plan. Subsequently transport links selected for the annual work plan are required by law to be in agreement with the spatial I plan, meaning that they should be in keeping with the five year spatial use management program of the region. Further selection of routes and alternatives should be based upon broad social and environmental considerations. Environmental examples would be avoidance where possible of routes through steepland, swamp regions, forests or any designated conservation areas identified on the spatial plan. Permission from the Minister of Forestry is required should construction in protection or conservation forests be unavoidable. Routes through steepland should respect the 6-10% maximum gradient of Bina Marga's own regulations. Social examples would be the design of routes which best serve significant population centres, areas of present and future industrial development, and areas of present or potential important agricultural production. Evaluation of the planned link works then needs to determine all of the specific identified social and environmental impacts arising from the route selection. The negative impacts of development of a particular link must be weighed against the expected positive impacts. Where the outcome is strongly negative (i.e. there are more negative impacts than the expected positive gains), serious efforts should be given to seeking an alternative route or construction design, or deletion of the works from the list of proposed projects. Communities to be affected by proposed road projects should participate in the planning of those projects. Proper consultation in the pre-project planning stage will ensure community acceptance of the project. Commnunity members can often provide guidance to transport planners in choosing the best route and design to serve the local social-economic needs. 53z l Likewise, continued community consultation during project construction and the post-project management of the area will lessen the likelihood of unexpected social impacts arising during 3 these phases. Project Construction 3 During the construction phase environmental impacts are those resulting from direct physical construction activities, such as earthworks. In addition there are the minor short term impacts such as dust and smoke raised by construction activities. Mitigation of the former impacts should have already been covered within the project design. Careful planning and scheduling of implementation of physical construction activities should minimize the short term impacts. 3 The most important social impacts occurring during this phase are social-economic displacement. Loss of land or other property is the most significant long term social impact. Short term social impacts include inconveniences during the period of construction, as well as I possible health problems. For residents this may mean merely temporary difficulties in access, and minor health problems caused by dust or disruption of water services. For shop keepers, offices and factories this could mean a decrease in business, and subsequent loss of economic I opportunities, due to difficulty of access to their place of business. Mitigation of property loss should be achieved through equitable and adequate compensation | and resettlement where necessary. Mitigation of short term social impacts comes from careful planning and timely implementation. Mitigation of the disruption of access to homes and places of business through careful timing of construction activities, and providing temporary I alternative routes, should minimize social-economic impacts. Likewise, careful timing of construction activities should minimize the health hazards caused by physical construction. Post-Proiect Mananement After a road project has been completed there are a number of social and environmental 3 impacts which rnight arise as an indirect result of the project. These impacts arise due to poor post-project management rather than directly as a result of the project itself. Where projects provide new or improved access to environrnentally sensitive or protected regions, such as conservation forests or steeply sloping land, poor post-project management of the region can result in serious negative impacts such as | * illegal conversion of forests for agricultural uses, * human settlement of environmentally inappropriate or restricted areas, | * erosion of steep slopes, * illegal logging and uncontrolled harvesting of forest products, 1 * poaching of endangered species, etc. Such negative impacts are ongoing and may spread and increase in severity if uncontrolled. I 36 3 l Even in areas which are not environmentally sensitive, poor post-project management of the region can lead to serious negative impacts. Uncontrolled ribbon development along new or nimproved road links can lead to environmental problems. Even more important in such instances are the unintended social impacts. Unplanned and uncontrolled human settlements along new or improved road links can result in negative health impacts due to inadequate water I and sanitary infrastructure, and dangerous traffic conditio is affecting both pedestrians and vehicles, among other potential social-economic impacts. Responsibility for negative post-project impacts is generally not the fault of the agency which implemented the improvement, but rather it lies with the local governnent. Local government has responsibility for spatial use management within the region under its administration. I ~ Planning and controlling development of the lands adjacent to new roads is primarily the management responsibility of the BAPPEDA as the administr tive arm of the Bupati/ Govemor who heads the local government. Secondary responsibility for post-project management also falls within the duties of the National Land Board (BPN) and the Forestry Department. The former is responsibile for I issuance of permits for non-forest land use and as such must be held partially accountable for allowing uncontrolled development of human settlements along new or improved roads. Likewise, the Forestry Department is responsible for management of all lands within the official Forest Region (kawasan hutan) and hence is partially accountable for allowing illegal or uncontrolled activities to occur in forests near the roads. Reduction in post-project environmental and social impacts will only come about through co- operative spatial management on the part of local government, BPN and the Forestry Department, with participation by members of local communities. The role of transport agencies such as Bina Marga will be to maintain good communications and planning links with these three agencies and local communities so that all parties have full advance knowledge of upcoming projects. The Forestry Department must be made fully aware at the planning stage of any proposed road through regions under its jurisdiction, especially protection or conservation forests, and of the expected negative impacts for which it must make definitive plans for control. With advance knowledge of proposed transport project activities and community participation, BAPPEDA, BPN and the Forestry Department should be able to prevent serious post-project social and environmental impacts from arising. 4.2 Projects having No Significant Environmental Impacts A large number of road projects are small-scale and do not have significant negative environmental or social impacts. They fall outside the criteria of projects requiring full EIA * studies as determined according to KEP-] 1/MENLH1/3/994 (see section 3.1). A methodology has been prepared to handle the environmental management of these through the IBRD-funded Rural Roads and Kabupaten Roads Development Projects (ref Hoff & Overgaard 1992, 1993), and this has become accepted practice for road projects at kabupaten level. The methodology involves Sectoral Environmental Assessment ("Umbrella PILs') and Management. Six types of sub-projects are covered: l * Type Dw (direct impacts only, with widening - these cover upgrading and widening of roads that are already open to 4-wheel vehicles); 1 Type Dnw (direct impacts only, with no widening); Type Db (bridge construction projects on roads already open to 4-wheel vehicles); Type IDnr (new road construction involving both direct and some indirect impacts but not | passing through an area listed as sensitive according to the legislation); Type IDw (upgrading with widening of existing roads that were not previously open to 4- wheel vehicles, and which therefore may have some indirect impacts, but the roads do not pass through sensitive areas); Type IDb (bridge construction on existing roads that were not previously open to 4-wheel vehicles). .5 The management measures required to handle the minor negative impacts of these types of projects are mostly incorporated into the existing Technical Guidelines and Specifications for Kabupaten roads, namely: Technical Guidelines for Engineering Survey and Design for Betterment of Kabupaten | Roads; i Technical Guidelines for Design of Kabupaten Bridges; * Standard Specifications for Kabupaten Road Betterment and Maintenance Works; 5 - General Specifications for Kabupaten Bridges; * Technical Guidelines for Site Supervision and Quality Control of Kabupaten Road and Bridge Construction. | Extracts from these documents are included in Hoff & Overgaard (1992) and clearly demonstrate that environmental matters are included. Likewise, the environmental monitoring will be part of the normal supervision activities, by ensuring that the guidelines are correctly followed. The Sectoral Assessment methodology is applicable to, and under the current legislation serves as the UKL and UPL for, all road sub-projects that are screened as having only minor impacts, that do not require any further assessment (i.e. do not require Kajian Lingkungan). Although designed to be applicable to kabupaten roads, it is of course equally applicable to village roads, and there is no reason why it cannot be applied to small-scale betterment projects on national and provincial roads providing that the criteria are confornable. Indeed interim standard environmental mitigation measures for national and provincial roads have been drawn up in X draft (Seksi AMDAI Bipram 1993), based on the kabupaten roads model, and it is recommended that the ISEM project will ensure that these are finalized and issued as Standard Operating Procedures. However, while the guidelines cover all aspects of sound engineering practice, the sectoral assessments do not cover management of negative impacts on the biological and social I components. By definition, these are classified as minor on such projects, but the impacts may still require management. l l 3x In the case of the biological component, careful screening should ensure that the impacts consist of no more than the direct loss of flora and fauna caused by land clearing, while I impacts on the biological composition of water bodies will be covered by proper implementation of the technical guidelines (culverts, pollution avoidance etc.). Where more significant and indirect impacts are predicted (such as improved access into forest areas), the I sub-project is not covered by the sectoral approach, and a KL will be necessary (leading either to ANDAL or to project-specific UKL/UPL). In theory, the minor social impacts of these small projects are covered by the legislation for land acquisition (see Section 3.3). In practice, compensation has very rarely been paid for land acquired in the kabupaten road programme, because the affected people have been encouraged to accept that their minor losses are for the benefit of the community in general. This is an unsatisfactory situation, and it is recommended that under RRPTA there should be full observance of Keppres 55/1993. If widening is involved, although the individual pockets of land along the length of the road may be very small, it is unlikely that the total area required will be less than 1.0 ha (which would permit acquisition to be handled by the developing agency). It might however be argued that the land required lies within the existing Right-of- Way (Damija), and that therefore there is no necessity to compensate for the land. This is clearly a source of potential dissatisfaction. Even if no compensation is made for land, it is still required to be paid for loss of crops, buildings or business facilities. It is recommended that the Ministry of Public Works should prepare guidelines or an operational directive for the implementation of Keppres 55/1993 on projects under its 5 jurisdiction. This might, for example, become an output of the current ISEM project. It is also recommended, in view of the importance of the issues concerned, that adequate implementation of Keppres 55 might become a condition of any future loan funding. 4.3 Projects having Significant Environmental Impacts Many of the identified sub-projects listed in the tables in Section 6 are classified as having significant impacts in at least one component, in at least one segment of the proposed corridor. For these, the reconmmended procedure is for a preliminary field screening (Kajian Lingkungan or KL). This will determine whether a full ANDAL is required, in which case the data collected will assist in the preparation of the Terms of Reference (KA). If an ANDAL is not required, the negative impacts can be handled by project-specific UKIJUPL. These documents will be prepared based on the findings of the study, and thus they will differ from those covered by sectoral assessments discussed in the previous sections. Even where the criteria dictate that an ANDAL is mandatory, this preliminary KL is still recommended as a general procedure. Enviromnental assessment is required as early as possible in the project development cycle. Ideally the phasing should be as shown below. A factor to be considered in the phasing is the requirement for permission to be obtained from the Minister of Forestry before road construction can proceed in Protection or Conservation Forest (see Section 3.5). All such sub- projects are identified as requiring ANDAL. l * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~39 Project cycle EIA activities Project identification and Initial impact assessment and feasibility studies identification of study needs (Kl) Pre-appraisal stage Full ANDAL report _ Project appraisal Review of RKL Contract award Enivirornmental training Construction and supervision Implementation of RKL and RPL I Project completion report Environmental evaluation 4.4 Significant Impacts not req. iiring full ANDAL. There may be circunstances in which the preliminary assessment may confirm that although I the predicted impacts are significant, a fMll evaluation is unnecessary. Examples are given below: a) Steepland. Where the only significanct impact that has been predicted is related to steep terrain, and the terrain is already cleared of forest, it is expected that the standard guidelines for road construction in steep terrain will be sufficient to handle the affects on I erosion, watershed protection etc. This would apply to the construction or upgrading of roads in mountain areas that have already lost their forest cover for several decades, and no longer provide a watershed protection function. Project-specific UKL would be drawn I up that focus on implementation of the appropriate guidelines. Full ANDAL would however be required where the steep terrain still has a forest cover, or where there may be impacts on vulnerable isolated communities living within the mountains. b) Areas still having a protective forest status (protection or conservation forest) but which have long lost the vegetation cover for which this status was originally applied. There are I many areas classified as Hutan Lindung or even Cagar Alam but which are totally deforested, even farmed, and which no longer serve any protective function. In these cases, it would be appropriate for application to be made to the Provincial Government for I revisions to the Spatial Plan. In the meantime, however, even if no ANDAL is conducted, Minister of Forestry pennission is still required. c) There may be cases where the planned road is associated with major developments in another sector, either on-going or imminent, although under a different development agency. An example might be a road through a planned oil-palm estate or pulpwood | concession. It would be pointless to conduct an environmental study on a planned road through peat swamp forest, because of its impact on the flora and fauna, if the entire forest is scheduled for early clearance for an estate. In such a situation, a multisectoral assessment is required, but the concessionaire would be the pnrmary project proponent, not DG Highways. 40 In each of these cases, the preliminary assessment would be submitted to the Environmental Cornmission in the usual way, and the recommendation must be accepted that no ANDAL will I be executed. One objective of this will be to conserve the limited resources of manpower and funds for those detailed environmental studies where they are really required. | 4.5 Problems in Environmental Management The environmental legislation is concise and practical, but experience to date indicates that many problems remain in its implementation. It is for this reason that two separate projects are focusing on strengthening the institutions concemed with environmental management, namely ISEM for the environmental units within Bina Marga, and SPEM for the concemed provincial institutions (with pilot projects in Central Kalimantan and Irian Jaya). Repeatedly it is seen that the ANDAL reports and subsequent implementation follow "the letter but not the spirit of the law". Comments will be made on one recent ANDAL report in illustration of this. Only the I Executive Summary of this report has been studied, and of course more detailed explanation of some of the issues will have been given in the other volumes. Nevertheless, the summary is assumed to provide a valid precis of the entire contents. ANDAL report The ANDAL report in question was approved this year. The proposed road of over 66 km will have a Right-of-Way of 12 m, with a surface of 4.5 m width. It crosses 33 km of steep, forested mountain terrain, and approximately 40 km of the route lies in a national park. The I summary acknowledges that the terrain is very steep, the existing footpath being difficult to follow because it is sangat terjal, and that there is a major risk of erosion and landslides. However, there is nowhere a description of what the actual slopes are (under the section on the I existing environment, slopes in the montane area are merely described as exceeding 10%, but this presumably refers to the road gradient, not the in situ slope). Furthermore there is no statement on highest altitude along the trace, so the reader cannot judge the magnitude of ascent. The road begins near sea level, while spot heights along the watershed, including one very close to the trace, exceed 2000 m On the RePPProT land system map, average slopes are 41->60%. The required forest clearance has a width of 25 m. The planned maximum gradient of the road is 15%, with bends having a radius not smaller than 10-15 m. In addition, one of the quarries is proposed to be sited within the park. The significance of the wild fauna is acknowledged, but in generalities. Taking the avifauna as an example, it refers to 140 species of birds known from the national park, of which 26 are rare and protected. It then lists 12 species that were observed during the survey, but 8 of these are widespread species of open country; for an expert this list is meaningless. Ornithologists know that there are at least 12 single-island endemic bird species on Sumatra (Marle & Voous 1988), all of them montane, and two of these are currently well-known from the region of the ANDAL survey: Salvadori's Pheasant Lophura ignita and Schneider's Pitta Pitta schneideri. These are two out of some half-dozen species in the region listed as threatened (Collar et al. 1994). It is not necessary for the ANDAL consultant to have detailed knowledge of every sub-component, but the consultant should know where to get the information (such as the Indonesian Omithological Society, BirdLife Intemational-Indonesia, Wetlands International-idonesia, World-wide Fund for Nature Indonesia Programme) 441 Several pages are devoted to the socio-economic and socio-cultural environment, but inevitably this refers only to the settled areas at the start and end of the route. Clearly there is need for infrastructural development in these areas, but the relevance to road construction through the park is not clear. As is customary, the local population is in favour of the project. The report structure Overall, it is not very easy to ascertain what are the really serious impacts of the proposed road, because the report is constrained by the official guidelines that dictate the structure, and the procedural requirement to analyze the impact of every activity on every environmental component. In this particular situation, it barely seems necessary to spend limited resources on measuring pre-project levels of dust and decibels of noise, and similar components, only to conclude that the predicted impacts will be a temporary increase of "5% or 10%" in air and noise pollution during construction. A result of following the official guidelines and directives is that every ANDAL report will be very simnilar to any other, reporting on and analyzing impacts that are common to all road projects, while the impacts which are really significant, and the substantial measures that will be required to deal with them, tend to become lost in the body of the report. Impacts that would normally be covered by UPL/UKL are given as much space as those that are important. Even the Executive Summary is but a mere precis of the entire report, and fails to provide a real summary of what is really significant. At least one summary section should be prepared that focusses only on the major, proiect-svecific impacts and their mitigation measures. The RKL/RPL The recommended treatment to control erosion in the RKL is to construct retaining walls. While more details are presumably provided in the full report, the fact appears to be overlooked that such structures in very steep terrain would be likely to create scars in the national park considerably greater than 25 m wide, with very large volumes of cut-and-fill. Walls are likely to be needed both above and below the road. Besides other implications, there would be major negative impacts on the scenic value and integrity of the park. TIhe recommendation to reduce disturbance to the fauna and flora during construction is to control the working hours and to lirnit the space required by the road, but the significance of these recommnendations is not clear. In practice, project workers from outside the region are commonly the worst offenders in taking back 'wildlife souvenirs'. The report recognizes the potential for damage to the national park, and the recommendations for control are quite sound: 100 m buffer zone of cultivated trees on both sides of the road, strict supervision of the activities of people inside the park, guard posts at the park entrance and centrally to control illegal logging or clearance (and presumably wildlife capture also although this is not stated), and development of the economic facilities of the surrounding communities in order to reduce the need to find work opportunities in the forest. Presumably this is discussed in much greater detail in the RKL document. The buffer zone concept is a l 42 3 good one, although it is not clear why it needs to be much wider than the cleared trace (supposedly only 25 m). The cultivated trees would necessarily belong to the Ministry of I Forestry, although the local people might be given rights to harvest their products, if this is in accordance with the zonation system of the park. I The main problem is finding the key to ensuring that the recommendations are followed. Measures proposed during construction are under the direct control of the developing agency, and systems of monitoring are in place to ensure adherence. However, many of the most *I * significant measures concem the forest resources and status, which are beyond the control of DG Highways. In this instance, a management plan for the national park will soon commence operations, and the recommendations therefore have a chance of succeeding, but it is difficult to envisage successful implementation in other circumstances. The implementing agency for forestry measures would be the Dinas Kehutanan, but the budget must be provided by the project. It is easy to construct three guard posts, but extremely difficult to ensure that they are staffed full-time, with personnel having sufficient incentive and integrity to carry out their tasks. The road will surely facilitate illegal wildlife trade, which is almost impossible to control, both inside and outside reserves. Even with guard posts, there will almost certainly be I rampant illegal logging, harvesting of rattan etc, consequent upon the new access. The concept to develop the economy of the surrounding communities, to be implemented by I PEMDA, in order to reduce the pressures on the forest, is a global concept and is far too general to have any meaning. Presumably the road itself would contribute to this target, although it is not always the present residents who benefit the most. The budget for the implementation of both the RKL and the RPL must be provided by the developing agency, but the budget for the supervision and reporting is provided by the institutions responsible for these tasks. The source of such budget requires clarification. In summary, even with proper implementation of the engineering guidelines and environmental recommendations, it is doubtful whether significant physical damage to the watershed can be avoided. The doubts concerning the capacity to preserve the integrity of the forest and the national park are even more serious. The justification for improving the infrastructure for the communities outside the park is apparent, but the justification for constructing the road through the park must be balanced against the enormous environmental costs. It is for these reasons that there are strong environmental grounds to reject any recommendations to construct new roads in mountain forests, especially across the NW-SE strike of the land, even where the social or economic justification exists, until there is the institutional capacity to ensure that mitigation measures can be effectively implemented, and no further damage to this unique heritage will occur. I I 4, 4.6 Costs of ANDAL studies The cost of an ANI)AL study should be proportional to the type of project (whether new construction or widening of an existing road) and the degree of environmental impacts predicted by the preliminary screening. Assuning the use of Indonesian environmental consultants only, the cost of a full ANDAL is likely to range from between Rp 70 million up to as much as Rp 200 million. Costs should always be reduced as much as possible by focusing the Terms-of-Reference in -I order to avoid unnecessary man-months on disciplines that are peripheral to the study, that is, issues that could equally be handled through UKL/UPT. Many environmental impacts and their mitigation measures are common to all road projects and do not require project specific studies. It is to be hoped that one result of institutional strengthening (such as thi cugh the ISEM project) will be facilitation for focusing and streamlining of ANDAL studies. As always, costs can also be reduced by grouping studies in packets, based for example on all projects proposed I m one year for one province. As a general guide, the cost of an ANDAL should not exceed 5% of the total cost of the | engineering design for the project (which is about 5% of the total project cost) (Suratmo 1985). These costs refer to the study costs only. Costs proposed for environmental management and 3 monitoring, including resettlement where required, are of course additional to this. Costs are based on conditions as prevailing at the present time, and no allowance is made for inflation. Further discussion on scale and costs of ANDAL studies is presented in Section 5 under the methodology proposed for the project. 3 l l I *I 44 1 5. MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES IN THE | PROPOSED PROJECT 5. I Methodology for Environmental/Social Screening of Proposed Road Projects For all network extension and capacity expansion sub-project, to be implemented under the project, a preliminary environmental and social impact screening will be required, i.e.Kajian Lingkungan or KL. This will be done inl two stages, first through the collection of secondary data and secondly by ground truthing. A rapid first stage screening (desk study) will first be carried out for every proposed link on the most up-to-date 1:50,000 topographical maps, as well as othe- mapped sources (RePPProT, INTAG, spatial plans). Estimates will be made on the types )f terrain, land use and forest status traversed by the link, and other parameters that can be identified from secondary * sources. For links through difficult terrain, preliminary alignment studies will be made, based on the 1:50,000 maps. The proforma illustrated in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 can be used for screening, respectively for network extension (new construction) and capacity expansion (widening) projects. These are preliminary forms that require to be tested during the first year of the project, and it is likely I that modifications will be made as a result of testing. For each item on the form, the estimated distance in kilometres is entered. The first column is for use during the preliminary desk study, and the second column for use during field study. Different forms are used for network extension and capacity expansion projects because the environmental and social parameters differ. Many criteria will be the same however. For 3 capacity expansion projects, the road already exists, and it commonly lies in already settled terrain. The most irnportant criteria are the proposed degree of widening, and the density of the population and land use. Social impacts predominate, and in the North Sumatra region, few i instances of capacity expansion will have negative impacts on restricted forest categories. However, the widening of some roads may be constrained in highland areas by topography. By contrast, few network extension projects will be in densely populated or intensively used areas, I and topography, forest cover and forest status are much more significant issues (physical and biological impacts predominate). In some cases, there may be social impacts where new roads are built to or near isolated villages that previously lacked road access. The information on the profortna is intended to be indicative only, and flexibility is permitted in the analysis. The main objective is to scope projects to determine whether an ANDAL is required, and the likely scale of the study. Section xx below examines the scale and costs of ANDAL studies. The provincial transport co-ordinator would have the responsibility to ensure that the secondary data have been collected and analyzed for each proposed project. Tables 5. 1 and 5.2 represent only a very rapid desk-bound screening carried out in order to estimate the scale of ETA/SIA problems that may be encountered. A more careful screening would now be required for each proposed sub-project, and a field study (KL) then canied out to confirm and expand on the findings of the desk study. It is essential that the 1:50,000 topographic maps 45 l~~~ produced for Sumatra in the 1980s (based on 1974 air photographs) by BAKOSURTANAL and/or JANTOP are purchased and made available for the desk study. Screening for Network Extension Projects In the proforma (Table 5.1) for screening network extension projects, the primary fo,.us is the impact of new road construction, and the possible physical and biological impacts that may result. Therefore landform is considered first, and prominence is given to forest cover and status. Under landform, the very steep category is based first on slopes in excess of 40%/o, but this category is concerned mainly with mountainous terrain. In practice, commonly the summits would exceed 1000m altitude and slopes exceed 60%. The distinction between the first two categories ('mountainous' and 'hilly') is interpretative. Routes that follow valleys through such terrain are evaluated as a separate category. The undulatingfrolling category is designed mainly to encompass such terrain in the lowland plains; in practice, slopes in low rolling terrain often exceed 40% but the irnplications for erosion are much lower than in the hills and mountains. The topography classes were originally based on the RePPProT land systems, but to a certain extent these have been superseded in North Sumatra by the availability of good quality 1:50,000 scale topographic maps. Percentage slopes are provided for guidance only, and clearly the categories are open to interpretation. Forest status analysis is measured independently of actual forest cover, and makes allowance for not only the forest status of land that still carries a forest cover, but also for land without forest cover that is technically under MoF control (land that has forest status according to TGHK - 'kawasan hutan rusak'). If the analysis under land use identifies 10 km of forest, then under forest status this 10 km sector will be classified according to three categories of forest (which include conversion forest or 'HPK' and land with a non-forest classification). Where land having forest status extends into deforested terrain, this is entered under the 'damaged forest' category. The land use categories reflect both biological and social impacts. For network extension projects, the more important negative impacts are likely to be in forested terrain, and this is listed first. The intensively used categories include not only the main rice-growing areas, but also other areas of intensive cropping, such as transmigration settlements and dense stands of tree crops. It is acknowledged that the categories may be somewhat diffuse, particularly between the categories of 'intensive' and 'extensive' use, and between bushland (which may include secondary forest) and forest (which includes primary undisturbed and logged forest). Densely settled urban or suburban land is not usually encountered in network extension projects. For isolated villages, a proposed criterion would be that the village is separated from non- forested and settled terrain by at least 10 km of predominantly forested, roadless terrain. This is an arbitrary criterion and would require testing. Criteria would vary in different regions of 46 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Indonesia, and other transport modes must also be considered. A village on a navigable river would not be considered isolated, perhaps even if it is navigable only by canoe from the nearest I larger settlement. Settlements that are served only by light aircraft may or may not be considered isolated, according to the criteria that may apply in that region. In particular, the issue relates specifically to indigenous communities that might be vulnerable in the I development process, and recent settlements that have developed as a result of present or previous logging or mining activities would not be included. It is also required to ascertain the length of existing (motorable) road, and the land use/settlement density of the terrain traversed. Very simple categories are used, mainly to highlight the possible social impacts where widening is required. Where the project requires substantial widening along a significant length of existing road, it would be better to use the proforma for capacity expansion projects for that segmnent. 3 Screening of capacity exMansion projects. In the proforma in Table 5.2 for screening of capacity expansion projects, slightly different I criteria are used. Information is required for each proposed link on: * widening category, I * present land use/vegetation cover, including 'population density', * forest status, and a * topography. The widening categories (WI-WI 1) are those adopted for use in the project. For purposes of environmental/social screening, these are grouped on a scale of 1 to 5 as follows: WC 1. no widening or widening by less than l metre, WC2. widening by 1 - 2 metres, I WC3. widening by 2 - 3 metres, WC4. widening by 3 - 5 metres, WC5. widening by over 5 metres. The land use/settlement density categories here reflect a scale of likely social impacts according to numbers of buildings or crops that will be displaced or destroyed. At the top end of the scale are the purely urban locations, not only in the major cities such as Medan or Padang but also the smaller towns. Any widening scheme in urban areas will require substantial land acquisition and resettlement. The 'peri-urban' category is also very important, as it includes not only the semi-urbanized surroundings of many towns, but also the 'ribbon development' that so often occurs along existing highways. It sometimes also includes roads traversing densely populated rice-growing areas where villages occur very frequently along the road. I Under capacity expansion projects, the main criterion for topography is the extent that widening of existing roads may be constrained by the slopes, and the need for extensive cut- and-fill, with the environmental implications that this entails. Roads that follow the base of steep narrow valleys are included in the steepest category. I 47 Table 5.1 Environmental Screening for Network Extension: Route From/to: | On the proposed route, how many kilometres consist of ?: Km Km A. Existing road (type Dnw - no widening) - through densely occupied terrain (urbanlperi-urbanfindustrial) - through agricultural/settled terrain - through non-settled/barely settled terrain or forest X - restricted land status (protection forest etc) B. Existing road (type Dw - with widening) - through densely occupied terrain (urban/peri-urban/industrial) - through agricultural/settled terrain - through non-settledlbarely settled terrain or forest - restricted land status (protection forest etc) C. New construction (type ID or IDw), i.e. - new roads, or upgrading with widening of existing non- motorable roads? If category C, how many kilometres consist of new construction through: Landform - very steep mountainous terrain (peaks >lOOOm, slopes commonly >60%) - other steepland (hilly, peaks 500-lOOOm, slopes mostly 2640%) I - valleys within mountainous terrain - ulndulating or rolling terrain (lowlands <500m, slopes mostly not >40%) - flat, non-swampy terrain 3 - alluvial or swampy terrain - coastal land systems (beaches, mangroves, estuarine) - othcr (specify) l Land use/cover - forest (primary or logged) - bushland/shiftinxg cultivation - extensive land use systems (unimproved agriculture) - intensive land use systems (mainly dryland/treecrops, few sawahs) - intensive land use systems (mainly sawahs and associated villages) I - densely occupied land (urban, suburban, industrial) - other (specify) Forest status - conservation areas (nature reserve, national park etc.) - protection forest l - permanent forest (production forest, includes HTI) - non-forest land (unclassified, or conversion forest) - damaged forest/non-forest within forest status ('kawasan hutan rusak") - other (specify) Isolated villages How many villages? l_ l_ |_ What is the approxirnate population of these isolated villages? Agricultural potential | What is the potential for new agricultural settlement (low/medium/high)? What is the potenitial for agricultural intensification (low/medium/high)?' Will the road cause impacts to areas of biogenetic or ecological importance? l l Table 5.2 Environmental Screening for Capacity Expansion: Corridor_ Link:_ From/to: Length km Widening categorv: s ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Eval. k1 km WI (existing up to 12m, widen to up to 15-17m) 4 l _ | l W2 (widen to 14-15m) 4 W3 (existing 12-14m. widen to 22-24m) 5 W4 (existing >14m, widen to 22-24m) 5 W5 (existing >14m. widen to up to 15-17m) 3 W6 (existing >14m, no widening required) 1 W7 (existing min. width up to 4m, widen to 4.5-7m) 3 W8 (existing min. width 6.1 -6.9m, widen to 7m when justified) 1 W9 (existing min. width 6m., widen to 7m when justified) I WIO (existing min. width 5.0-5.9m, widen to 7m) 2 WIlI (existing min. width 4.1-4.9m, widen to 7m) 3 Realignment (= new construction) 5 Land use/settlement density: - densely populated urban residential terrain I - densely occupied commercial or industrial properties - mixed densely populated and intensively used agricultural terrain (includes penri-urban land, ribbon development) [ 1] I - predominantly intensively used agricultural terrain but with residential areas/villages (may include sawahs. mixed cropping etc) - estate tree crops (includes HTI, "'hutan milik") I3- predominantly smallholder tree crops - extensive ("unimproved") land use systems - bushland/shifting cultivation X - forest - other (specifyv) Forest status: I - forest (primary or logged) - status Conservation or Protection l l - status Production damaged forest/non-forest - status Unclassified/Conversion - damaged forest/non-forest vwithin forest status ("kawasan hutan rusak") - other (specify) Topographv: - very steep (widening constrained by slopes >40% or narrow valleys) I. ^- steepland (slopes mostly 26-40% /, widening slightly constrained) - undulating to rolling land (slopes mostly not >25%) - flat land (non-swampy) - swamps/wetlands | - other (specify) l i~~~~~~~~~~ 5.2 Size and costs of AMDAL studies Kaiian Lingkungan studies Existing kabupaten roads that are not proposed for widening are covered by sectoral KL studies. In project terms, this may be taken to mean that an existing road in widening category 1 (W6, W8 and W9) that traverses rural terrain in gentle topography, without restrictive forest status, would not require any further KL study, and standard environmental/sociological management procedures would apply. In all other cases, a field KL would be recommended, and in most cases would be essential. The product of the KL would be either standard management procedures (UKLIUPL) or the Terms of Reference for the ANDAL study. 3 Hoff & Overgaard (1995) give some provisional estimates of the cost of KL and ANDAL studies. These assume the use entirely of Indonesian Consultants. For a KL on a kabupaten road, the cost was estimated to be Rp 11,000,000, derived as follows: I Senior Environmentalist @ 1 month Rp. 6,900,000 Travel costs Rp. 2,000,000 Field costs (survey, vehicle hire etc.) Rp. 1,600,000 Incidentals Rp. 500,000 Total Rp. 11,000.000 The assumption is made that the one person is competent to analyze all components, including the social issues, and to prepare either the UKL/UPL or the Terms of Reference for the | ANDA<. The single expert is likely to be an environmental engineer, but the primary discipline would vary according to the nature of the project. A sociologist may be more appropriate on a widening project. For a major project, the required professional inputs could be doubled, allowing for more than one discipline, and the cost would be ca Rp. 18,000,000. These figures are based on a single study and are considered to be unnecessarily high. It would be appropriate that a consultant environmental team be engaged to undertake all the KL studies for projects in, say, each province each year, as a single package. Where possible, consultants for KL studies should be engaged from within the province. 3 Collection of secondary data assumes availability at the proponent's office of 1:50,000 topographic maps. Following the collection of secondary data, using the profonna illustrated in Tables 5.1 and 5.2, the amount of time required for fieldwork will vary according to circumstances. On a capacity expansion project, there is already good vehicle access, and one day per 10 km may be sufficient to register the various environmental and sociological parameters; if some preliminary discussions with affected people are required, this could rise to two days. Where there is new construction required, there may be no existing access. However, at the KL stage it would not be necessary in every case to traverse the entire route, assuming the availability of good 1:50,000 maps and providing that adequate confirmation of the secondary data can be gathered from the starting and/or end points. Allowance should be made for not more than two days fieldwork per 10 km. 50 I If we assume that an annual programme in one province consists of 10 projects [comprising: 1 capacity expansion project (significant widening for 20 km on a national/provincial road), and 9 new construction projects (20 km on one national/provincial road, and 80 km on kabupaten roads with 10 km each)], then the time required is estimated as follows: 8 days for collection of secondary data at provincial level; 4 days for collection of secondary data at kabupaten level; 30 days for collection of primary data on site; I . 8 days for travel (within province); 20 days for reportiug (following standardized formats) 5 days for contingencies 75 days total, say 2.5 months. The estimated cost for the 10 KL studies might be: Senior environmentalist @ 2.5 months Rp 17,250,000 Professional @ 2.5 months Rp 12,500,000 Support staff Rp 2,000,000 Field costs (survey, vehicle hire) Rp 7,500,000 Incidentals Rp 2,750,000 Total Rp 42.000,000 Tfhus the cost per sub-project would be only Rp 4,200,000. If the consultant team is not hired 3 locally, there would be additional costs for interprovincial flights etc. Even this figure may be an over-estimate, It is assumed that the team would consist of two professionals, one each to assess social and physical/biological impacts, but in practice, five man-months of professional time may be excessive. Indeed one all-round experienced environmentalist should be competent to handle the entire study at the KL stage. The allowance for days on site and for reporting may also be generous. The figures are illustrative only. I WANDAL studies The Hoff & Overgaard (1995) estimate for an ANDAL study on a kabupaten road would be Rp 83,500,000, which allows for 5 months for a Senior Environmentalist at Rp 6,900,000 per month, and five months in total for less senior professionals at Rp 5,000,000 per month. For a 3 national or provincial road, with up to 8 months for the latter professionals, the estimnate would exceed Rp 100,000,000, derived as follows: Senior Environmentalist (team leader) @ 5 months: Rp. 34,500,000 Professionals @ 8 man-months: Rp. 40,000,000 Travel costs (mobilization etc.) Rp. 10,000,000 Field costs Rp. 3,000,000 Laboratory analysis etc. Rp- 2,500,000 Report Rp. 10,000,000 Incidentals Rp. 5,000,000 Total Rp. 105,000 000 I 51 In this case, it is assumed that national level consultants may need to be hired, and mobilization costs (interprovincial flights) are included in these figures. The budget for the report is high, but it must be remembered that 15 - 25 copies are required at both the draft and final stage, and I furthermore an allowance is included for administrative costs for the presentations, which are usually charged to the consultant. No allowance is made here for inflation during the course of the RRPTA project- ANDAL on Network Extension Proiects It is useful to analyze ANDAL study costs in greater detail. We can assume that a basic ANDAL team on a new road construction project would have four professionals, covering their respective disciplines as follows: * Physical Environment (earth sciences, including geology, geomorphology, soils, hydrology); I * Biological Environment (land use and agriculture, forestry, fauna and flora, ecology); * Sociological Environment (anthropology, sociology, rural sociology, agricultural economnics, land tenure/land acquisition, resettlement), - * Environmental Engineering (geotechnical, civil engineering). On a larger project, these would be the section heads, and there will be requirements for I additional inputs from more specialized experts. For example, the biologist would rarely be proficient in both agriculture and forest ecology. There might need to be specialist inputs from experts in, say, land acquisition or isolated communities). The emphasis would change, I according to the findings of the KL and the Terms-of-Reference prepared from this. The basic team above includes the team leader, but his/her discipline may likewise vary. 3 The number of predicted man-months required for ANDAL study is based on length of new road construction (regardless of road status) and terrain type. This assumes that access on foot is the main time constraint in surveying a new alignment, and this will be heavily influenced by I terrain type and land use/forest cover. Easy terrain means that it is neither steep nor swampy, and does not have a forest cover, whereas difficult terrain would include steepland, swamps, and/or forest. Conservation and Protection Forest qualify as "difficult terrain", as would the I presence of isolated villages, because these categories may increase the number of man-months for study. Five broad categories of size of study are proposed in Table 5.3, which also gives an estimate of man-months required, and approximate total cost for the ANDAL study, but it must | be emphasized that these are only guidelines. Category N signifies study for new construction project. I l 523 l Table 5.3. Size and cost of AJNDAL studies for network extension projects 3 (illustrative only) IAADAL Kin. in Km. in No. man- Cost of Categonr easy terrain difficult months for A.VDAL terrain ANDAL (Rp m) N I <10 10 84 N2 10-20 <10 13 0o0 N3 20-30 10-20 18 125 N4 >30 20-30 24 160 N5 >30 up to 30 up to 200 As in the case of KL studies, it is recommended that costs are reduced by issuing contract packets for groups of ANDAL studies. Thus two studies might be done for, say, 150% of the I cost of one study, or three studies for 200% of the cost of one. ANDAL on Capacity Expansion Projects In capacity expansion projects, the emphasis would in most cases be mainly sociological (land acquisition, possibly resettlement issues), with perhaps just one other discipline required, preferably an environmental engineer, to handle other impacts. Total number of man-months required for ANDAL study should generally therefore be lower than on a new road study. The number of predicted man-months would be based mainly on length of road affected and 3 settlement density, but the degree of widening also has relevance. Five broad categories of size of study are again proposed, shown in Table 5.4. Category C signifies ANDAL study for widening project. U Table 5.4a. Criteria for determining size of ANDAL studies for capacity expansion projects (illustrative only) I | Land Use Length 0-10 km 10-20 km 20-30 km 3040 km >40 km Urbani/peri-urban C2 C3 C3 C4 C4 JIntensive = C I C2 C2 C3 C3 Extensive C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 Table 5.4a is based on widening of less than 5 metres (widening categories WC2 to WC4). Where widening of 5 metres or more is proposed (WC5), then the ANDAL category is increased by one (e.g. Cl becomes C2, C4 becomes C5). Significant lengths of steepland or conservation/protection forest may also raise the ANDAL category. I I~~~~~~~~ Table 5.4b. Size and cost of ANDAL studies for capacity expansion projects (illustrative only) ANDAL No. man- Cost of category mioniths for ANDAL ANIDAL (RD m) Cl 7 70 C2 9 80 C3 12 95 3 C4 14 105 C5 up to 20 up to 140 The legislation presents some anomalies in terms of inputs. PP 51/1993 states that the decision on acceptance of the report should be issued within 45 days of receipt, or within 30 days of 3 receipt of a revised report if the first draft does not meet requirements. Normally at least the key members are required to attend the two presentations (to Tim Teknis and to Komisi Pusat), which means that the team must be held available for this purpose after completion of their 3 draft report. Again, costs can be reduced if contracts are awarded in packets, and the presentations made together. There should also be a penalty clause in the contract to cover the consultant's fees if the presentation meetings are not held within a stipulated number of days after submission of the draft report. Only the team leader would be called upon for any further presentation required after revisions. 5.3 Social Impact Issues i Several significant issues related to social impact assessment have been covered in the report. These include spatial planning, indigenous/isolated peoples, resettlement, land acquisition and community consultation. These issues have been identified and some approaches for dealing with them have been discussed, but there have not been definitive solutions to handling all the issues within the context of integrated transport planning and management. During implementation of the forthcoming NSRRP it is recommended that these issues be addressed in more detail on an applied level. An important objective of the Project should be to design and test in practical applications the formats and procedures for addressing each of the identified social irnpact issues. When satisfactory and workable solutions are derived, efforts should be made to codify them in the I legal and administrative structure as standard operating procedures. Subsequent actions should be oriented towards assuring that appropriate agencies and personnel within the Northemr Sumatra Region, and later nationally, clearly understand the objectives of the procedures and I how to implement them in a timely fashion. A brief discussion of each of the key social impact issues and a list of tasks which should be | assigned to Project personnel is provided in the following sections. Determination of which consultants are to be responsible for which tasks, and when each should be undertaken, can be made when once the final project design is known I 54 3 5.4 Spatial Planning I In 1992 spatial planning was adopted by the central govemment as the key principle for development planning at all levels of govemment. Short term spatial use management planning at all levels is in a five-year time frame to match the cycle of Five-Year Development Plans (PELITA). Integrated transport plans should be a component of the spatial plans. The spatial plans of the four provinces comprising the project area, as elsewhere, show a lack of understanding of the true principles of spatial planning. An important objective of the NSRRP should be to improve spatial planning and the transport component contained therein. A list of consultant tasks is provided below to achieve this objective. 1) Present a short seminar (1 day) for all spatial planners from BAPPEDA Dati-I and Dati-II to clearly explain the principles of spatial planning and spatial use I management. Hold a group discussion on how a spatial planning approach differs from a sectoral planning approach. Provide examples of spatial planning, including identification and plotting of spatial regions on a topographical map, a sample of a good long term spatial plan and a sample of a good five year spatial use management plan (using a fictional rather than a real place so that "ideal" examples can be shown). 3 2) Provide support in the development and implementation of the system of Regional Transport Planning Coordinators proposed in this report. Assist in preparation of clear and precise job descriptions for the RTPC at each level (national, provincial and I kabupaten). Job descriptions should include both duties and responsibilities of the RTPC, including coordinating integrated transport planning with transport planners from the four transport DG (Highways, Land Communications, Sea Communications I and Air Communications) and preparation of descriptive and integrated transport network map materials to be incorporated in the spatial plan. 3) Provide special training for the RTPC and planners from each of the four transport DG in integrated transport planning. Supervise and monitor the same group's activities during annual integrated transport planning activities. Monitor spatial planning i activities of BAPPEDA Dafi-IlDati-Il to ensure incorporation of integrated transport planning. 3 5.5 Indigenous/Isolated Peoples Social and economic equality in development is a concern of both the GOI and the World Bank. With respect to planning and development of an integrated transport network this means taking special efforts to reduce the physical isolation of communities, thereby allowing them to more equitably share in the social and economic gains of development activities availablc to other | conununities. At the same time efforts need to be made not to unduly disrupt the social values and distinct cultural traditions of indigenous peoples. l I 5 It is difficult to make a fixed procedure for dealing with indigenous or isolated peoples. What is required is a sensitivity to the unique needs and concerns of each group. Transport planners must exercise judgement in identifying which communities and groups will require special I attention. In the project area, distinct indigenous peoples have been identified only in Riau but isolated conmmunities occur in the other provinces. During the first year of the project the consultant should select examples as test cases. For the identified communities the consultant's tasks should include: 1) Corrmunity consultation on integrated transport planning should be more extensive, and will need to explore a wider range of issues to determine potential additional social impacts arising from the isolation or cultural characteristics of the community. The - consultant should begin by using the general guideline; of World Bank Operational Directive (OD) 4.20, and during the first year should develop a checklist guideline for future community consultation meetings along the principle of Rapid Rural 5 Appraisal/Participatory Appraisal (RRA/PA) techniques. Once a satisfactory technique is developed, the consultant should train transport planners in its use. During subsequent years the consultant should monitor transport planners utilization of 5 RRAIPA techniques in isolated/indigenous community consultations. 2) Once the consultant has a reasonably complete picture of the community, he should design a development plan to address its unique nature and the distinctive social impacts expected to occur. Again, OD 4.20 should be referred to as an initial guideline. The consultant should work closely with the integrated transport planners 5 from the relevant government agency on this activity so that in the future they can undertake this activity themselves. In subsequent years the consultant should increasingly play the role of supervisor, monitoring these activities as they are carried out by integrated transport planners. It may prove very difficult to provide any form of security of tenure to such communities. However, under the Spatial Planning Act, 'every person has the right to receive fair compensation for any loss suffered arising from the implementation of development activities complying with the spatial plan'. Furthermore, Act No. 1011992 on population policy provides equal rights to every citizen, and protects the land and cultural rights of traditional I communities. The descendants of such communities are guaranteed the right to develop their inherited lands in their own manner, and not to be disadvantaged by new arrivals. When their land is subject to development, they should have priority to benefit from the increased value of I the area, for example in employment opportunities. Act No. 10/1992 clearly has important implications where new roads are constnicted throLgh I lands traditionally occupied by isolated communities. However it is uncertain whether this legislation has ever been fully applied in practice, and certainly no implementation guidelines have yet been issued. In view of the increasing expansion of the road network into areas 1 fonnerly remote from centres of population and intensive land use, throughout the Outer Islands, it is recommended that urgent priority be given to the issue of the requisite guidelines in order to facilitate implementation of Act No. 10/1992. 56 5.6 Community Consultation According to the Spatial Planning Act No. 24 of 1992 all people have a right to be involved with the preparation, and have knowledge, of the spatial plan. However, mechanisms for implementation of community consultation are not set forth within the Act, nor have they been included in local operational guidelines (Peraturan Daerah or Perda) for the Act. Hence public participation or community consultation has not been a functional component of spatial planning at any level, For road transport planning, SK No. 77 of Bina Marga also calls for community consultation through the P5D procedure (see Section 3.5), but often this procedure is not followed. Furthermore, as discussed earlier there are logistical and operational problems in using the P5D procedure for integrated and regional transport planning. An important objective of the NSRRP will be to devise, test and refine a workable procedure for community consultation. There are three variants of community consultation which are needed for integrated regional transport. The first is for general community consultation on planning for an integrated regional transport strategy and network. The second will be for land acquisition and compensation for land, buildings and itrmovable property. The third type of community consultation will be for the special case of resettlement. The project should focus on these three types of community consultation in this order since this is the sequence in which these issues will be faced by integrated transport planners. Community consultation for transport planning Accepting that transport planning and project proposals originate at the kabupaten level (see section E3.5), then all communities should have an opportunity to participate annually in discussions on the proposals, but this presents many difficulties. Having many villages within a kecamatan, some difficult to reach, it would be physically demanding for kecamatan planning officials to hold MUSBANG type meetings in every one. Time is another constraint as all village level meetings have to be held by May and the results compiled into the kecamatan development plans during June/July. Subsequently the Rakorbang Dati-II (third step) has to be completed in August so that planning process can continue upward to the provincial and national levels. Thus kecamatan officials often overlook the community consultation step (MUSBANG) of the P5D process altogether. When village level consultation does occur it is likely to be a group meeting between kecamatan officials and official village leaders (kepala desalhtrah) and not with the general public. Even the official MUSBANG meetings of the P5D system are managed by the LKMD, consisting of the village headman (kepala Desa/Lurah) and infornal village leaders, and are not a public forum. This system precludes true community and representational consultation. Village heads are govermnent emnployees (pegawai) so they cannot be considered to be fully objective and unbiased and may not truly represent the wishes of the community. As government employees they may tend to agree with any development proposals put forward by govemment officials, or be subject to subtle pressures to do so. l * 57 A workable solution to the lack of community consultation for the planning of a regional integrated transport network needs to be addressed in the forthcoming Project. This should be considered a test case in the development of a suitable procedure for use throughout the cotntry Keeping in mind the difficulties in holding transport planning meetings in every village, it is recommended that alternatives to current MUSBANG (Step 1) of the P5D system be devised and tested. One )ossibility is for each village to select one or two people, other than the kepala desa, to represent them in an annual kecamatan-wide transportation planning meeting. Another possibility is for kecamatan planners to hold group meetings with clusters of four to six adjacent villages, in order to reduce the total number of annual meetings they need to hold. Once a community consultation system has been developed which kecamatan transport planners consider to be woi kable, and which is acceptable to villagers, it should be officially incorporated into the legal administrative structure of local government. This will necessitate formal legislation by the Ministry of Home Affairs, followed by issuance of appropriate Surat Keputusan (Letter of Decree or SK) by each Bupati. Camats do not have legal legislative authority so local regulations must be issued by the Bupati and Kabupaten Government. Once a new planning procedure has been officially decreed, care should be taken to ensure that all kecamatans fully understand and actually imlement the stem. Community consultation for land acquisition and compensation A separate, but similar, system of community consultation needs to be devised for land acquisition and compensation. The present system of the nine member Land Release Committee needs an improved community consultation component. There should be a transparent forum and format for community discussion and agreement on compensation valuation for land, buildings and other immovable property for specific cases of land acquisition. Particular emphasis needs to be given to recognition of land and other property held under adat tenure and development of equitable valuation and compensation rates. Within the Project area forums and procedures for conimunity consultation on land acquisition and compensation should be devised, tested and refined. Once a suitable system has been developed it should be formalized through the aforementioned procedure in the Ministry for Home Affairs and in the individual kabupatens- Again, it is important that all the parties involved clearly understand the objectives of the procedures and actually utilize them. Community consultation for resettlement A third community consultation forum which needs to be developed is that for the special cases where resettlement is required. There needs to be a clear agenda for transport planners to meet with the peoples who will be affected. I ~~~~~~~I The first requirement is constructive discussions between the community and transport planners on possible alternative routes which will eliminate or reduce population displacement. If there is still a need for resettlement, there should be a consultative forum which allows for the needs of each displaced individual or family to be addressed. Transportation development is linear, thus it displaces individuals and families, not whole communities. Subsequently regional I transport consultation procedures for resettlement need to be tailored to the unique needs of individuals and families. Some displaced people may, choose resettlement in the same community, others may choose resettlement in another community and still others may opt for a lifestyle change (i.e. a fanner who loses his house and land using a cash settlement to go into business in town). 3 As with the previous two types of community consultation, the Project should experiment with various possible forums and procedures for community and individual consultation for resettlement. Once various options have been tested and a suitable format devised, a 3 resettlement consultation (community and individual) operational procedure should be formalized under the Ministry for Home Affairs and the kabupatens. | Proposed tasks A strong emphasis on community consultation should be included in the first year of the 3 NSRRP so that subsequent years can be devoted to refining formats and procedures, legislatively formalizing the final procedures, training of integrated transport planners from appropriate government agencies in good techniques, and monitoring the implementation of 3 community consultation procedures. Consultants tasks include: 1) Devising and testing forums, formats and procedures for community consultation for integrated transport planning. This should include informing the public of the regional and multi-modal nature of integrated transport planning and network development. Likewise, the consultant should check to see that proposed transport plans are in agreement with the spatial plan and ensure that the spatial natulre of integrated transport network development is understood by the public. 2) Detennination should be made of whether instead of consultation meetings in every village, a representational or multiple community forum would be feasible and efficient. A suitable fornat for consultation meetings should be designed and tested which allows fair and equitable input from all sectors of society, and from individuals I as well as groups which will be affected by transport network development. Finally, community consultation procedures should be refined and submitted to the appropriate government authorities to be formalized through legislative action. 3) Once the above has been accomplished during the first year, during the second year the consultant should begin a program of training integrated transport planners from *, appropriate government agencies in the approved procedures. Subsequently the consultant should supervise implementation of these procedures in field situations. Monitoring of comrnunity consultation should continue through the third and fourth years of the project. 1 59 4) Simnilar to the format and procedures developed for community consultation for integrated transport planning, the same needs to be done with respect to land acquisition. To a degree this will be incorporated in the aforementioned community consultation in that at the planning stage the community should be consulted about expected land acquisition and be allowed to voice their opinions on options such as altemative and bypass routes. 5) Once the project link has been set there will need to be a review of the existing "committee of nine" system used for determination of land and property compensation rates. The current system should be discussed in consultation with communities and if it is decided that changes should be made, the consultant should work with appropriate government authorities to devise a system more responsive to the needs and concems of the public. 6) Special attention needs to be paid to the situation of land held under traditional (adat) tenure. The consultant should meet with community leaders (both formal and traditional) to devise a system for clarification of adat ownership rights and determination of equitable compensation. If possible a system of adat land rights categories and valuation percentages for compensation should be established similar to that in force for land held under government tenure. Once tested and refined in a form acceptable to the public, efforts should be made to legislatively codify this system. 7) The consultant should provide training in any new procedures which are developed and supervise implementation of these procedures during subsequent years of the project. By the fourth year of the project the consultant's role should be simply monitoring of the activities of others carrying out these activities. 8) The special case of resettlement will necessitate development of special procedures for public consultation. Where it is expected that involuntary resettlement will occur, this matter should be first discussed in the general integrated transport planning community consultation meetings. Public opinions on altemative routes which would eliminate or reduce involuntary resettlement should be discussed and weighed before the route of the project link is finalized. 9) Should resettlement still be required by a transport link project, a special set of procedures needs to be devised for consultation with those who will be displaced. Since transport development is linear, displacement will be of individuals and families, not communities. Hence there needs to be a case by case, or individualistic, consultation procedure devised and tested to handle this matter. 10) Once an appropriate resettlement consultation procedure has been devised, the consultant should train the appropriate officials who will be responsible for this activity. The consultant should also supervise and monitor the activities of the trained personnel during the latter years of the project. l I l 60 3 l1) If the resettlement procedure which is developed proves to be successful, the consultant should make efforts to legislatively codify the procedure to ensure its continuity and use elsewhere. | 5.7 Land Acquisition The most imnportant aspect of land acquisition is that of recognition of traditional (adat) tenure and the subsequent compensation for land which is held by adat tenure- This has been covered * -- under task #5 immediately above. A second important aspect of land acquisition is actual financing of compensation payments. Currently this is supposed to be done by the local government but this poses two problems. The first is whether or not the local government has the financial resources for compensation and the second is communication between the agency implementing the development project and the local government. A third issue is monitoring of land valuation and payment of compensation. Tasks of the consultant would include: 1 1) Work with local governments to determine ways to finance land acquisition necessary for transport development projects. Should it be determined that local governments do not have adequate sources of financing to cover such land acquisition, alternative I sources of financing should be sought. 2) Consultant should work with the implementing transport agencies and local | government to devise a forum and format for improving communications between them so that local govemrnents have better advance knowledge of the amount of financial resources which will be needed for upcoming projects. 3) Consultant should devise a system to monitor the "committee of nine" to ensure fair and equitable determination of land rates and percentage valuations for compensation. Furthennore, the consultant should devise a system for monitoring actual compensation payments to land owners to ensure they receive all of the allocated funds. I According to World Bank procedures, the proposed road development plan must include a detailed programme for land acquisition and resettlement, with full budget provisions, and approval to proceed would be conditional upon the land acquisition process being close to satisfactory completion. * 5.8 Resettlement Involuntary resettlement should be avoided whenever possible. Community consultation should be the first step in attempts to find altematives to involuntary resettlement. Displacement of people by road development projects is linear, thus any resettlement would concern individuals and families and not communities. Thus a case by case or individualized consultation procedure needs to be devised. The main issue of resettlement which has not already been covered by consultant tasks described above is that of monitoring: * 61 1) The consultant should devise and test a monitoring system to follow the resettlement process to ensure that resettlement is equitable. He should determine who within the | institutional structure of local government should be responsible for undertaking monitoring of resettlement. A system of adjudication should be developed should disputes arise. 3 5.9 Supporting actions to the proposed methodologies 3 Topographic maps Hitherto, planimetrically accurate contoured topographic maps were a rare luxury in Indonesia, but now 1:50,000 maps are available for all the project area from either BAKOSURTANAL and/or JANTO1, compiled by photogrammetry from the 1974 Sumatra-wide air photography. Indeed, accurate topographic maps are becoming available for all of the Republic. 1:250,000 I maps have also been compiled from the larger scales. It is now timely to maxirnize the utilization of such maps for planning purposes, and to introduce them widely in the provinces and even the kabupatens. The environmental screening carried out during Phase II was based I on the 1:50,000 maps, and their availability is basic to the system proposed in section 5. 1. The proposal is made that the project would supply a complete set of 1:50,000 and 1:250,000 ; maps to the BAPPEDA Dati-I of each province to support transport planning. To facilitate procedures, the central office of Bina Marga would arrange the purchase and distribution. The purchase price is currently not more thaTi Rp 20,000 per sheet. Including the off-shore islands, I the total number of map sheets is shown in Table 5.5, and the cost should not exceed Rp 11,000,000. It is imperative that adequate provision is made in the BAPPEDA office for the proper storage and handling of maps. Table 5.5 Topograhic maps required per province. I 1:50,00( 1:250.000 Cost l (No. shieets) (No. sheets) (Rp) Aceh 103 11 2.280.000 North Sumatra 128 11 2.780.000 West Sumatra 85 11 1,920.000 Riau 163 13 3.520.000 TOTAL 479 46 10,500(000 Air photographs I Large-scale air photographs (not smaller than 1:20,000 but preferably 1:10,000) should be made available as a matter of course to facilitate the planning of major capacity expansion projects in urban/pen-urban areas (widening category WC4 or WC5, or by-pass projects). These are required especially to assist in ascertaining the social impacts and land acquisition | I 6,2 3 requirements. Existing photographs up to five years old (flown, say, since 1990) could be used, provided that the age limitation is realized and subsequent changes are entered on the photo- I map from field survey. It is likely that such air photography already exists for the majority of these areas, and it should rarely be necessary to incur the cost of new flying. Smaller scale piotography (say 1:25,000 to 1:40,000) should also be sought for planning the alignments of new roads to be constructed through mountainous terrain. Where the decision is taken to obtain new air photography, every effort should be made to reduce costs by combining project areas into a single contract package, because mobilization of u the plane is a major component of the total costs. 5.10 Environm, ntal Oversight Committee. The provincial govemment via BAPPEDA Tk I is responsible for environmental management as part of their regional planning and development function, while Biro Bina Lingkungan Hidup (BBLH) provides the organizational framework for execution of this. The Badan Pengelola 1 Dampak Lingkungan (BAPEDAL) has established a regional office (Kantor Wilavah) at Pekanbaru to supervise environmental management in the Northem Sumatran region, but this office is still in its infancy and its more immediate tasks are likely to be concerned with industrial pollution. It is proposed that an environmental screening committee be organized in each province, to be named the Environmental Oversight Committee (EOC), with the responsibility of reviewing and approving sub-project screening and environmental management and monitoring plans, and general oversight and evaluation of these activities in NSRRP. The consultant environmentalist(s) (see Section 5.11) would report and make recommendations directly to this committee. The EOC of each province would comprise members from the following institutions: 1 . BAPEDAL TVilayah e BAPPEDA Tk I (head of physical planning section) . ?Biro BLHPropinsi a Kanwil Bina Marga e Biro Bina Penyusunan Program. * It is also proposed that the EOC, assisted by the TA consultants, will conduct an annual workshop in each province that will bring together the project proponents and principal stakeholders, in order to discuss the environmental and social issues arising from the NSRRP. NGOs would be included as representatives of the affected communities. The workshop would seek inputs from all participants on the handling of any negative impacts, and would also seek to ensure that the local government institutions responsible for the management and monitoring of different environmental/social components are made fully aware of the duties expected from them and the budgets required to undertake these duties. l g 63 One of the most important functions of this workshop would be to emphasize the importance of the roles of the provincial offices of BPN and Forestry in long-term management of the impacts arising from road development projects. BPN has the mandate to prevent uncontrolled settlement (ribbon development) that tends to occur along new roads in regions of rapid economic development, which so often negates some of the benefits that the road is intended to 3 supply. Management of Protection and Conservation forests lies under the jurisdiction of the Kanwil Kehutanan, but routine policing of the forest areas is the responsibility of the Kepala Resort Pemankuan Hzutan (KRPH) at the Dinas Kehutanan Tk II, which has its RPH staff in the kecamatans. The NSRRP should give urgent attention to the strengthening of the management 3 activities of the provincialVkabupaten forest offizes in those regions where new roads are traversing sensitive forest zones, especially in the mountains. These issues, along roads newly constructed already in the mountain forests, might well become subjects for study at the annual workshops. In this context, it is recommended that priority be given to the management and monitoring of the mountains forests of Aceh Province that are traversed by newly constructed provincial I roads. Preliminary screening was carried out on these, before it was learnt that the roads were already constructed or under construction, and the screening indicated major ANDAL requirements. These links have been retained in the screening table (Table 6.1), because it is I feared that in some cases the requisite ANDAL studies have not been made. Negative impacts along these roads have the potential to be very severe, and the Kanwil Kehutanan of Aceh has a heavy responsibility to prevent ensuing damage. Protection of these forests is considered to be 3 of paramount importance. 5.11 Manpower requirements on NSRRP. 3 The need for several disciplines has been indicated in Section 5, and these are summarized below, according to component of p-roposed Technical Advisory Consultants teams (TAC). Precise staffing in terms of individual experts and man-months required will be related to final project proposals. Environmental Planner (Strategic Planning, BAPPEDA) Jobs include- | liaising with and making recommendations to the Environment Oversight Comunittee of each province, and advising for the annual environmental workshops; | * establishing liaisons between the Environmental Study Centre (Pusat Lingkhngan, PSL) of the iocal university, which is responsible for provincial environmental assessments, and the provincial BAPPEDA and Bina Marga; | * assisting in establishing an environmental library in the provincial BAPPEDA for manuals, reports and copies of relevant legislation, for use by all groups involved with environmental/social assessments including Bina Marga and other government agencies, contractors and consultants, NGOs and university researchers. 64 l • providing environmental input for the integrated transport plan incorporated in the provincial spatial plans; * addressing environmental and social issues at all stages of the planning process, working closely with the Transport Planning Coordinator, and assessing alternative options where negative impacts are potentially serious. Environmental Impact Specialist (Feasibilitv studies. PIU)) *. Jobs include: a with the Social Impact Specialist, carrying out the preliminary map-based screening (as outlined in Section 5 1) for each short-listed sub-project under the Feasibility Studies team mandate, . with the Social Impact Specialist, carrying out the Kajian Lingkztngan for each proposed sub-project, and preparing the Terms of Reference for ANDAL studies where required; * supervising the work of the AMDAL consultants undertaking ANDAL studies, and assisting 1 Komisie Daerah and the EOC in evaluating these studies; * training field supervisors (PIMPROs) in implementation of RKLIRPL and UKL/UPL, and ensuring tender documents and construction contracts incorporate the mitigation measures; * proposing improvements in environmental training and certification of contractors and consultants, as well as environmental contractorlconsultant selection procedures; * co-ordinating with local government institutions to ensure that they fully understand the requirements of the RKL,'RPL, and have the manpower and budgets to undertake the appointed management and monitoring tasks (especially BPN and Forestry); 3 Environmental Analyst (Bina Marga, Planning Support) Jobs include: . reviewing and updating first stage environmrental screening of all roads in the network in line with procedures under Kabupaten Roads projects and in conformity with GOI's environmental legislation and the requirements of external donors; * carrying out the preliminary map-based screening (as outlined in Section 5.1) for each short-listed sub-project in the annual road development plan; . carrying out the Kajian Lingkungan for each proposed sub-project, and preparing the Terms of Reference for ANDAL studies where required; * liaising with the field consultants for implementation (or, in the absence of consultants, directly with the contractors) to ensure proper monitoring of the mitigation measures recommended at the pre-construction/construction phases; * assisting in supervising the implementation of mitigation measures by the contractors; | ' . undertaking post-construction envirotimental audits and monitoring especially of mitigation measures being undertaken by local government institutions. l l l * 65 Transport Planner (Strategic Planning, BAPPEDA) Section 5.4 outlines a programnme for institutional strengthening in spatial planning activities in | the provinces. The Transport Planner is not an 'environmental' post, but this expert will: be responsible for conducting training in transport planning in the context .f spatial planning as outlined in Section 5.4, with participants from the RTPC (from Bidang Fisik dan Prasarana) of the provincial and kabupaten BAPPEDA and planning staff from the provincial and kabupaten Bina Marga, as well as planning staff from the three transport DG of Perhubungan; * work with the RTPC, Bina Marga Dati I, and the three transport DG of Perhubungan in preparing integrated transport plans, and reviewing the same activity in earh of the kabupatens and providing supervision where necessary; * work with the provincial BAPPEDA in incorporating the integrated transport plan in the provincial spatial plan, and reviewing and supervising where necessary the same activity in each of the kabupatens; * supervise ongoing and routine transport planning activities by RTPC and by the planning section of the provincial Bina Marga, and reviewing and supervising where necessary the I same activity in each of the kabupatens; liaise with the provincial EOC and the Environmental Planner as well as with the Environmental and Sociologist consultants in the PIU; Sociologist (Strategic Planning.z BAPPEDA) In view of the importance attached to community consultation m the planning process and environmental management, it is proposed that a Sociologist be engaged to assist in setting up the consultation programrnme outlined in Sections 5.5 - 5.7. Because capacity expansion projects I will predomninate in NSRRP, especially during the initial years, most sociological issues are likely to relate to land acquisition and resettlement, and it is felt that this should be the main concem of the sociologist. There would be a heavy programme of consultations to be set up I (although initially these are unlikely to affect remote locations), and one sociologist is proposed for each province during the first year. Subsequently, a single sociologist would be sufficient to oversee that proper consultation processes are operating in all four provinces. The sociologist I should have experience in dealing with the more isolated communities, as issues relating to these may arise during the later years. The sociologists will work with the provincial BAPPEDA and Bina Marga to: * review identified issues related to social impact assessment as discussed in Section 5.3;| * design and test procedures for addressing identified social issues; * review procedures for conmmunity consultation of various types (road planning, land acquisition, involuntary resettlement, isolated/indigenous people etc. - refer to sections 5.5 1 and 5.6); * observe implementation of community consultation procedures by BAPPFDA and Bina Marga and provide recommendations for improvements; 3 66 3 I* assist in revisig procedures or preparing new procedures and see that these are legally formulated in the form of Perda. S.irat Keputusan, or local implementation regulations- * assist in undertaking a study of loc:al pri-nciples of adat ownership and nghts to land, plants or other property (for each ethnic group or suku in each province), and prepare guidelines on land acquisition and compensation based upon local variations of adat law; * assist provincial BAPPEDA and Bina Marga in preparing land acquisition procedures based upon local adat law and see that these are legally formulated in the form of Perdca. Surat Keputusan, or local implementation regulations; * assist these authorities in prepanng procedures and implementing activities related to involuntary resettlement (see section 5.8); * work with the Transport Planner to ensure that social issues are adequately addressed in the integrated transport plan of the spatial plan; * liaise with the provincial EOC and Transport Planner and Environmentalist consultants. I Social Impact Specialist (Feasibility studies. PIJU) | Jobs include: * assisting the Environmental Impact Specialist in carrying out the preliminary map-based screening (as outlined in Section 5. 1) for each short-listed sub-project under the Feasibility Studies team mandate; • assisting the Environmental Impact Specialist in carrying out the Kajian Lingkungan for each proposed sub-project, and preparing the Terns of Reference for ANDAI. studies where required; - supervising the social component of the work of the AMDAL consultants and assisting Komisie Daerah and the EOC in evaluating these studies, * training field supervisors (PBIPROs) in implementation of land acquisition and compensation measures; . co-ordinating with local government institutions to ensure that they f9ully understand the implications of land acquisition. compenisaiion and resettlement, and have the manpower and budgets to undertake these tasks; l Il * 67 I I I I * I I I I I I U I U I .I I I I I 6. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL/SOCIAL SCREENING OF POTENTIAL ROAD PROJECTS 6.1 Phase II level screening I A rapid first stage screening (desk study) has already been carried out during Phase II of RRPTA, namely the examination of each link on the most up-to-date 1:50,000 topographical maps, as well as other mapped sources (RePPProT, INTAG, spatial plans, recent satellite I . imagery). This has been done both for network extension projects and for capacity expansion projects that require significant widening (see Section 5.1). Estimates were made on the types of terrain, land use and forest status traversed by the link. For new construction projects through difficult terrain, preliminary alignment studies and recommendations were made, based on the 1:50,000 maps. This screening is reproduced in Tables 6.1 and 6.2. Maps are presented (Figures 7 to 14) where altemative options have been studied for proposed links through I difficult terrain. A bnref summary for every screened road is given m this chapter. The primarv objective of this rapid screening is to make a general assessment of the volume of 1 ANDAL studies that may be required during the project. It is must be stressed that more thorough initial map-based screening would be required for each selected project. The ANDAL codes given in the final column in each table refer to the size of ANDAL studies estimated in I Tables 5.3 and 5.4. These are intended to be indicative only, and will be conditional upon the results of the Kajian Lzngkungan (KL) which, it is assumed, will be carried out in every case. It is likely that the KL will substantially revise the prelimninary proposals for size of ANDAL, i while in many cases those projects marked as NI or C I will require merely UKL/UIL. In some cases, projects remain listed in Table 6.1 although it was later leamt that the roads are I already constructed or undergoing construction. This is true especially for Aceh (see Section 5.10). The size of ANDAL studies indicated is a guide to the importance of post-construction management and monitoring of the mountain forests. 6.2. Envirornmental Screening of Proposed Roads: Aceh. P 10. Geumpang - Tutut. Links P025.1 and P025.2. This is ongoing project is nearing completion. The route crosses mountains with slopes that range to above 60%. From Tutut, which lies at 50m altitude, the route either has to follow extremely deep, steep, narrow valleys, or altematively very steep climbs, first to 400m, then to >800m, and eventually to about 1000m, before dropping to the Geumpang riceplains which lie at 500m altitude. The terrain is tnder forest, but except perhaps for a short section of Protection Forest, is classified as Limited Production Forest (Protection Forest status would be more appropriate). The road is likely to have impacts in all three environmental components and an ANDAL should have been completed. A major effort is now required to protect the steep forest resources along the road. 3 69 P 12. Seuliman - Jantho - Keumala. Road P029.1 and P029.2. Construction is reported completed on this strategic link with the final 30 km scheduled for asphalting during the next two years. Most of the mountains have already been deforested, and the biological impacts would be minor. Nevertheless a portion is still officially classified as Protection Forest. P 12/NS 104. Genting Gerbang - Pameu - Geumpang. The route crosses mountainous terrain with slopes commonly exceeding 60%. From Genting Gerbang, there is a relatively easy route along a valley, rising from 900m altitude at Genting Gerbang to 1300m, then descending to 500m at Pameue. The surrounding mountains reach altitudes of 2000m. From Pameue westwards, the route is very difficult, because the mountains are 1500m to the north and 2000m to the south, while the Pameue valley down to Rumahbaru becomes very narrow, deep 1 and steep. One alignment would be to try and follow this valley (which may be very difficult), from whence there is a relatively easy strike route to NW, rising to 75 Om before descending to 450m at Geumpang. Alternatively, from Pameue the route must climb due west, across very rugged terrain, reaching 1300m before descending very steeply to Geumpang. Neither route is I an obvious choice. The forests mainly have Protection Forest status. This road is likely to have major environmental impacts in all three components, possibly including the social impacts of opening up isolated villages such as Pameue and Rumahbaru. It may prove very difficult to I manage the mitigation measures that are required to control the negative impacts. It is reported that 6 kmn are under construction at the Geumpang end (Abri Masuk Desa 3 programme), and the first 50 km from Genting Gerbang are constructed and scheduled for aphalting. Thus the remaining difficult sector has yet to be built. It is recommended that an ANDAL is given priority if one has not yet been conducted, giving priority to route selection in I this difficult terrain, and to protection of watersheds and forest resources. P 13. Jeuram - Lhokseumot - Beutong Ateuh (Atas) - Takengon. Road P022 and P049. Beutong Ateuh is believed to correspond to Blangpuuk on the topographic maps. Beutong was previously an isolated village in a montane valley with no road access. From Lhokseumot to Jeuram there is an alluvial plain. Beyond this, the route ascends the Barisan scarp with I extremely steep longitudinal gradients. Within 18 km it rises from 100m to a col at 1850m (following a ridge top route), then descends to 600m within 8 km to Beutong. The lower portion of the route was visited m 1992, and longitudinal gradients on the cleared traverse were | considered to be too steep for non 4-wheel drive vehicles. The forest status is Limited Production Forest (Protection Forest would be more appropriate). From Beutong (600m) to Genting Gerbang (900m), the 25 km alignment must cross very rugged terrain, rising to 1500m. Most of the route is forested, incorrectly assigned as Production Forest west of Beutong, but as Protection Forest east of Beutong. This road is likely to have major negative impacts in all three components, but it may prove very difficult to manage the mitigation measures that are required to control these. P 14. Babah Rot - Trangon - Blangkejeren. Road P030. The sector from Babah Rot to the | Aceh Tenggara border is very steep initially, and there is no obvious alignment, but it is reported that a gravel road has already been constructed. From sea level, the route must climb to at least 1000m altitude, perhaps 1250m. The first 15 km lies through dissected hilly country, rising to 300m, but all alignments from 300m to the watershed are extremely steep. 70 l The route then falls steeply to Tongra or Malejang at 400m in the Tripa valley. From here, the direct route, rather than following the Tripa valley, would be over a 950m pass, rising gently I but dropping very steeply, to Kala Keruh and the Rampong valley at Trangon, at 75 Om. There is an existing road from Trangon to Blangkejeren. All the mountains are forested, the steep initial portion is incorrectly allocated as Production Forest, but beyond this there is Protection I Forest. It is not known whether an ANDAL study has bek n conducted, but there may be major environmental impacts along the Babah Rot-Trangon sector and it may prove very difficult to manage the mitigation measures that are required to control these. P 14. Peureulak - Lokop - Blangkejeren. Road 027. There is an existing route through comparatively gentle terrain from Peureulak to Peunaron, Pangguh and Bulutan, and there is I. assumed to have been rapid agricultural development in this zone. From Bulutan to the kecamatan town of Lokop, there is an existing road of s )me 12 km, along nrce valleys and a low col at 350m. It is reported the Peureulak to Lokop is already asphalted, and from Lokop to Blangkejeren is gravel. The 50 km sector from Lokop to Pining follows the base of deep valleys, with a 700m col, and the terrain is difficult because the valleys are narrow, increasingly so southwards. The 23 km sector from Pining to Gajah follows a very narrow 3 valley floor, then widens into the rice plains at Gajah. The 18 km from Gajah (lOOOm altitude) to Blangkejeren climbs over a very steep 1800m col; this is the steepest segment of the route. It is not known whether the villages along the route should be considered as 'isolated, vulnerable | communities'. Parts of the route lie in Protection Forest. It is not known whether an ANDAL study has been conducted, but the sector from Lokop to Blangkejeren may be causing major environmental impacts, and it may prove very difficult to manage the mitigation measures that 3 are required to control these. P 15. Kr. Raya - Laweung - Gronggrong. Road P054. This is an alternative north coast route to Pidie, and already exists (10 km asphalt, 50-60 kmn gravel). The terrain is undulating to moderately steep, and the entire route is deforested, without forest status. IK 101. Uleeglee - Samalanga. Pidie to Aceh Utara. These are existing asphalt links of 3.5 to 6.0 m width, in agricultural terrain, and no project-specific environmental impacts arc predicted in their upgrading provided that there is no widening. * NS 101. Jantho - Lamno. Aceh Besar - Aceh Barat. The mountains lying west of Jantho and Indrapura reach 1500-2000m altitude, and therefore the alignment would need to run south from Jantho, initially through gentle terrain. From there, there is a very steep climb to 1250m cols in a 1400-1950m ridge, and a very steep descent to the Kr. Lambeuso/Inong valley, which the route would follow to Lamno. The route rises and falls from 500m to 1250m and back to 500m altitude in 7 km (or 750m to 1250m to 750m in just 3.5 km). Slopes here would exceed * 60%. Most of the route is forested, and the middle portion is Protection Forest. The route cannot be recommended, as there would be major environmental impacts. However, it is reported that 20 km have been constructed already, while 25 km are scheduled for 1997-99. If an ANDAL has not been carnred out, one is required urgently, paying particular attention to minimizing damage to the watersheds and forest resources. l * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~71 NS/IK 102. Pondok Baru - Samar Kilang- Aceh Tengah - Aceh Timur. See Figure 8. This could be a strategic route linking Takengon via Peunaron to Langsa. Pondok Baru to Samar Kilang is kabupaten link 61, which has 25 km gravel (to approximately Tembolan), open year round, and 56 km earth, closed to traffic (on the map, distances are ca.18 km and 18 km respectively). The new construction crosses land systems having >60% slopes, but a map study shows that slopes are not excessive. From Tembolon (altitude 400m) the rout, climbs to I a 500m col and then descends the Air Putih valley to Samar Kilang (lOOm). Much of the terrain probably still has a forest cover, and the route possibly skirts the northem boundary of Lingga-Isaq conservation area. The environmental impacts could be significant in all *I components, but nevertheless this is considered one of the more viable cross-country proposals. Extension of this route to Peunaron, however, is difficult (see NS103). It is reported that construction is ongoing, but it is not known whether an ANDAL study has been condu cted. NS 103. Peunaron - Samar Kilang. See Figure 8. From Peunaron the first 24 km to the NW is through quite gentle terrain, which has probably now been developed. Any alignment due J west from this point would be extremely steep, crossing a ridge that climbs to 1000m (locally 2000m), and therefore the preferred option would be to continue NW for a further 12-15 kmn through fairly gentle terrain to Sarah Raja or Tanah Merah, on the Jamboaye river. (From here, I it is only 12-15 km through to Cot Girek, see 1K 107). However, the only route from here to Samar Kilang would be over some 30 km of difficult terrain along the Jamboaye. Forest status is Limited Production Forest. It is reported that the proposed route follows a former logging I road. IK 103. Pante Breuh - Paya Naden. Aceh Utara to Aceh Timor. There are existing roads | (asphalt or gravel/telford of 3.5 to 5.0 m width) lying in irrigated riceland inland of the mangroves, and no project-specific environmental impacts are predicted in their upgrading, provided that there is no widening. I IK 104. Aceh Timur - Langkat (North Sumatra). A number of altemative routes east of the national highway might be considered, linking Kuala Simpang and Tangsilama in Aceh Timur I to Langkat Tamiang in Langkat- They all cross agricultural terrain, and present conditions range from earth to asphalt roads, width 3.5 to 6.0 m. Options would be from Tangsilama or the Pertamnina complex in Aceh south to Damar Condong (Langkat), through to Limaumungkur I and Salahaji (Langkat), thence back to the national highway at either Langka Tamiang (Langkat) or Sungai Liput (Aceh). There would be no predicted environmental impacts in their upgrading provided that there is no widening. 5 NS/IK 105. Kedataran - Gelombang. Aceh Tenggara to Aceh Selatan. The route follows the Alas and Simpang Kiri valleys, along the eastern boundary of Gunung Leuser National Park. It | would therefore have very major impacts, and should be considered only in the context of the management plan for the park. There may already exist an earth track which is not motorable, and any development would be considered as new construction. Land systems are all steep, with slopes commonly exceeding 60%, but actual slopes will depend on whether or not the river valleys are incised. However, it has been reported that an ANDAL study has already been made, which recommended rejection of the route. l 72 l IK 107. Cot Girek - Peunaron. (Aceh Utara to Aceh Timur). See Figure 8. This route is discussed under NS 103. There would be some 50 km of new construction required, through fairly gentle terrain that is believed to have good potential for agricultural settlement or intensification- The forest status is Limited Production Forest. 6.3. Environmental Screening of Proposed Roads: North Sumatra P 21. Batang Toru - Batu Mondum - Tabuyung - Natal. Road P099-101. This is an on- going project that will form part of the west coast route through North Sumatra. From Batang Toru to Batu Mondum, it follows the river of the latter name ( a former course of the Batang Toru), and then for most of the rest of the route, it follows the beach zone, which is backed in most places by deep water peat swamps- Although there are small settlements along the route (and large transmigration settlements in the Batang Toru and Natal areas), this has been up to now one of the last remaining 'wild corners' of the province. It is considered to have major ecological significance as an example of the deep west coast wetlands. For example, it is likely to be an important habitat for the White-winged Duck Cairina scutulata, but no surveys have been made yet. Danau Siais in the Batu Mondum valley could be particularly important. Although the route is depicted as a required main route in the structural plan (RUTRW, 1993), the coastal strip is delineated as a protection zone (kawasan lindung), and the hinterland, between agricultural areas at Batu Mondum and Natal, is allocated as permanent forest. Thus the route is presumably planned for through traffic rather than to develop agricultural potential, and its justification is questioned. If an ANDAL has not yet been carried out, one is required, to focus on measures to conserve the wetland ecology. P 21. Natal - Batahan - Pasaman/Natal - Sp Gambir - Pasaman. See Figure 7. There is presumably an existing track along the coast between Natal and Batahan, although Batahan also has separate access from inland. New construction along this section of the coast would have minor impacts. If the west coast arterial route is to be developed, the preferred route to Pasaman in West Sumatra might be to follow the Batahan valley inland from Batahan to Sukorejo and Silaping, a distance of 38 km in total. The alignment may be able to utilize some logging roads. This route may be preferable to the present interprovincial route which lies inland from Simpang Gambir (onl the Natal - Muara Soma road) to Taming and Silapuig (this road already exists, and is not merely planned as shown on Figure 7). The proposed new route is believed to have relatively mninor environmental impacts, although full AMDAL studies would be necessary. A more direct alternative than the Batahan - Silaping route would be to follow a more southern alignment to Air Runding on the Silaping - Air Bangis road (see map), although this would require an additional 11 km of new construction: the saving in distance would be about 23 km. NSIIK 301. Gunungtua - Kotapinang. Tapanuli Selatan to Labuhan Batu. See IK329 and Figure 13. IK 302. Kota Lama - Hamparan Perak (Karang Gading). Langkat to Deli Serdang. This link consists of existing roads through an intensively cultivated area of rice and villages, and improvements may be justified. Kota Lama to Karang Gading would not be the appropnrate 73 route, however, because the kabupaten boundary at Karang Gading is an estuarine river. A better route would be from Kota Lama (or nearby) south to Kota Datar in Deli, and then south to Pacitan. This may require some 7 km of new construction along existing village tracks. A KL/ would be required if there is new construction or widening. NS 302. Siabu - Sibuhuan. Tapanuli Selatan. The route cuts across a high mountain ridge with >60% slopes, climbing from 200m to at least 1150-1250m altitude. A major section lies through montane forest, which has Protection Forest status and has been recornmended as a game reserve (SM Barumon). While the strategic importance of this route is recognized, the potential for environmenial damage would be very high, and there is no obvious altemative alignment. It cannot be recommended. NS/IK 303. Pakat - Parlilitan - Salak - Sukarame. Tapanuli Utara to Dairi. (See also IK 320). This strategic link would present fbw environmental problems if the correct aligmnent is selected. However there seems to be little agricultural potential along the route, except perhaps on the Dairi side. Pakat to Parlilitan is asphalt. From Parlilitan, K072 has 9A4 km of asphalt (3 .5m wide) and 11.6 km of telford (3 .Om wide, severely damaged), while the remaining 4.2 km is an earth track. On the Dairi side, Sukarame to Ulu Merah consists of 13A4 km of asphalt road. There are two alternatives for the K072 route of 25.2 kn. The first option is to follow NNW up an occupied (and probably degraded) valley to Sitapung, Hutagalung (820m altitude) and Sindostar, and then over Dolok Semponan, with a col at 150Om. This col has an extremely steep southern slope but the northern slope is more gentle. Dolok Semponan has forest with Protection status. The second and preferred option is to NNE around the east side of a ridge, through Sitapung, Sosorkiling, Siduanbilik, Ambala and Sigumnpar. There are no steep slopes on this route, which rises gradually to 1 400m, but the terrain is acid heath forest, probably with limited agricultural potential. IK 304. Kutalimbaru - Namno Ukur.- Bekancan - Kutarayat. See Figure 9. Deli Serdang - Langkat - Karo. The IK 304 corridor is proposed as an altemative route from Medan and Binjai to Kabanjahe, to replace the Medan-Brestagi route which is occasionally closed by landslides, and periodically busy owing to tourist traffic as well as the Kabanjahe agricultural traffic. It is already defined as a provincial road (P105). Kutalirnbaru to Namo lJkur would not necessarily be the selected route from Medan to Bekancan. There appears to be an earth road from Kutalimbaru to Berdikari, but from Berdikari to the Langkat border may require new construction. The undulating terrain supports estates and well-developed smaliholder tree crops, and a Kl. would be required on this sector in view of the compensation issues. Should the Bekancan - Kutarayat road be built as an altemative route to Kabanjahe, there may be justification for a direct new link from Kutalimbaru to Bekancan. The terrain is undulating to rolling, under intensive use, but there would be no serious environmental issues other than compensation. From -Namo Ukur south to Bekancan (kabupaten roads K041 and 039) and beyond to either Pamah Semilir (K077) or Liang Lebah (K187), there are existing 4.0 or 3.5m roads, mostly l 74 I asphalt. Widening would be required, however, and the land use is mostly rather intensive. From Bekancan southwards, there is an extremely steep climb from 850m to 1400m, within a I distance of about 3 km. From the distribution of contours, it would be recommended that a new alignment be planned due south from Bekancan that does not utilize the existing K077 or K187. The alignment is considered to be notably steeper than the Medan-Bekasi road. The * watershed forms the Langkat-Karo border, and beyond this, the route could follow the contour through an undulating area and there would be no major environmental problems. | - The RePPProT/INTAG maps indicate a forest cover over the unbuilt sector of the route, and Conservation Forest on the Langkat side. Unfortunately the 1995 Landsat image available to the project has cloud cover at the critical point, but it is reported that there has been widespread *' conversion of forest on the Karo side. It is assumed that forest still remains on the steep slope on the Langkat side, and that the Conservation Forest is actually an arm of Gunung Leuser national park. Thus there would be major environmental impacts, and full coordination with the ongoing Gunung Leuser management plan is essential. NS 304. Sibolga - Pahae Julu. Tapanuli Tengah to Tapanuli Utara. See IK 330-331 and Figure 10. NS/IK 305. Ujung Batu - Kampar. Tapanuli Selatan (North Sumatra) to Kampar (Riau). I This appears to be an altemative route between the two provinces besides the main route (P024) via Dalu-Dalu. In Tapanuli Selatan, K034 is a 23.8 km asphalt road to Pinarik. Any attempt to link Pinarik eastwards to Papaso (on K 141) is not recommended, as the Rokan Kiri I river cuts deeply through precipitous strike ridges, although these are only 400m high. There seems no justification for such a difficult route. There would be good potential, however, to upgrade K141, which is 3.5m wide, of which 14 km is gravel and 17 km earth road. The I condition of the link on the Kampar side, through to Pasir Pengarayan, is not known. NS306. Padang Sidempuan - Aek Godang. This direct route is designed to reduce the I distance between the two tow^ns by 9.3 kmp.. The route crosses a hill ridge, rising steeply from 300m to at least 650m. There is a forest cover with Protection Forest status The route is considered feasible, although difficult to justify and may cause unnecessary environmental I damage. IK 306. Sp. Deras - Bandar Khalifah. Asahan to Deli Serdang. This is an intensively settled coastal area. The existing roads are asphalt or gravel, 4.04.5m wide, except for 6.9 km of earth road (also 4.5m wide). It needs to be determined whether there is a bridge across the S. Pagurawan on the Asahan side. A KL would be required only if there is widening. IK 307 - 309. Three routes from Sondi Raya in Simaltngung to the Tebing Tinggi region in Deli Serdang (respectively to Negeridolok - Sarang Ginting, Sindar Raya - Pondok Song, and Sindar Raya - Sipispis). All lie in intensively used tmdulating terrain, and are already asphalt or in some cases gravel roads. Most are also associated with estate roads, and there seems to be little justification for strengthening these links. KL studies would be required only if tiere is widening. 1 75 IK 310 - 311. Tongkoh and Tigapanah - Gunung Meriah. See Figure 9. Karo to Deli Serdang. Existing roads on the Karo side are asphalt, 3.0 or 4.5m wide (from Tigapanan/ Tigajumpa) or asphalt/gravel! telford, 3.Om wide (from Tongkoh), as far as Serdang (altitude 1250m) near the kabupaten border. From here to Gunung Meriah (altitude 700m) in Deli Serdang there would be some 12 km of new construction over a very steep forested ridge at 1500-1750m. Slopes are likely to exceed 60% and the forest has Protec ion Forest status. On environmental grounds this link cannot be recommended. IK311 appears to be an existing kabupaten road to Serdang and is not further considered. IK 312. Sinaman (Tigapanah) - Sp. Cingkes (Paribuan). See Figure 9. Karo to Simalungun. There are existing 3.0 or 3.5m wide links through an intensively used undulating to rolling area. There are two options, through Sinaman/Talimbaru 11 or through Semangat/ Rumamis. Both options are suitable, or if a major corridor is proposed, it might bf more appropriate to construct 3 km of new road from Sinaman to Cingkes. This route has potential to become an alternative for the KabanjahelBrestagi to Medan road, via Gunung Meriah and Tigajuhar, when necessary. There are 21.3 km of kabupaten roads (K036/K090) that would require upgrading between Gunung Meriah and Tigajuhar (width 4.0m, mainly asphalt/ gravel/telford except for 2 krn of earth road). IK 313. Laukidupen - Sarintonu- Karo to Dairi. On the Karo side, there are existing roads as follows: Kutambelin - Juhar (K158, asphalt), Juhar - Sp Jandi (K048, telford), Kelabangen - Ketawaren (K047, telford), and Ketawaren - Laukidupen (K049, gravel). The terrain is not very steep. On the Dairi side, K158 (Sp Tigalingga - Sukadame) and K075 (Sarintonu - Batas Karo) are earth tracks, but K060 from Sarintonu to Kedai Berek is asphalt. The probable route would be from Laukidupen to Sambungan, Sarintonu and Kedai Berek. Laukidupen lies at 800m altitude, and the route climbs to a 11 75m ridge before dropping to Sambungan at 600m. The ridge is very steep, but it is unclear whether it carries a forest cover, heath forest, or scrubland. There seems to be very little agricultural development potential, and little justification for the new construction. IK 314 - 316. Three routes from Simalungwi to Asahan, respectively Pematang Tanah Jawa - Prapat Janji, Pematang Tanah Jawa via Pasar Baru, and Perdagangan via Pasar Baru. All three routes lie in intensively used undulating terrain. IK314 appears to be a complex of estate roads, and roads of variable quality through smallholder rubber, and there seems to be little justification for developing this link. Likewise IK315 and 316 appear to be existing roads through rubber growing terrain. IK 317 - 318. Two routes are proposed to Asahan (S. Kepayang/S. Sembilang) from Guntingsaga (Aek Naetek and Aek Kanopan) in Labuhanbatu, but they effectively fonn a single link. This is an intensively used area of swampy estuarine soils, mainly sawahs on the Labuhanbatu side and coconuts on the Asahan side. From Guntingsaga to Teluk Binjai, KO 17 has 24.4 km of asphalt and 5.2 km of earth track. K037 from Teluk Binjai to Tg Leidang is 40.2 km of earth track, while K038 is a further 6.8 km of earth track to the kabupaten border. l 76 On the Asahan side, there are some 6 km of earth tracks (K057) This route would appear to be important in order to support the agricultural production of the area, but there would be a river I crossing at Tg. Leidang. As there would be extensive new construction along existing earth roads in wet terrain, a KL1 would be required to determine any further ANDAL requirements. IK 320. Pusuk - Sukarame. This is another route vi.t Parlilitan in Tapanuli Utara to Dairi See IK 303 for comments IK 319. Parsoburan - Damuli. IK 321. Garoga - Simangambat - Kpg Pajak. IK 322. Garoga - Rianiate - Damuli. See Figure 12. I. ^These are three proposed links from Tapanuli Utara to Labuhan Batu. Both IK 319 and 322 would need to pass Gonting, and follow the same route to Damuli. Gonting lies at lOOOm altitude, while Damuli is in the coastal lowlands, and it is very difficult to find a route down. I However, in view of the deforestation and severe environmental degradation that is believed to have occurred in these steeplands through unimproved agricultural practices, road development is considered important in order to facilitate smallholder tree crop development. The corridor I also appears to have strategic importance, as a new route between the Toba plateau and the Labuhan Batu plains (including east coast ports). There is an asphalt road from Porsea to Parsoburan and Gonting. From Gonting, K030 runs east to Janji and Sipogu (= Pangarambangan?). 18 km are asphalt/telford, while 6.5 km are earth track (requiring new construction). As Janji lies at 700m and Sipogu at only 300m, this route provides an easy means, possibly the only means, to drop gently from 1000m to 300m altitude. [An alternative might be K029 to Pagar Gunung, at 450m; this is 4.5 km asphalt and 14.6 km earth track, but the onward route from the latter location to Damuli is less favoured]. From Sipogu, the route would follow the Kualo valley. The best alignment is likely to be to follow the tributary A. Gonting, which lies west of the Kualo, and then finally either to cut across low hills from the Kualo to Hasang or Damuli, or follow the Kualo down to Gwutingsaga. These routes avoid further climbs to 500m in the hills east of the Kualo. The new construction would be 6.5 km to Sipogu, and then sorne 25 km from Sipogu to Hasang. Although there has been extensive deforestation in the region, the middle section of the Kualo valley still appears to have a forest cover (Landsat, July 1994), and there are major risks that a new road along the valley would encourage further deforestation. Very strong management must be enforced to prevent this, and no plans to implement such a road should be permitted until such management can be guaranteed. Owing to inappropriate allocation of forest status, only a small section of the route actually crosses Protection Forest. There is also potential to connect Garoga to the Parsoburan - Damuli corridor via Rianiate and Gonting, although the IK326 option might be preferred for a Garoga - Labuhanbatu link, from the viewpoint of forest conservation (see below and Figure 13). K093 northwards from Garoga has 15.5 km of asphalt road, and then 13.9 km of earth track to Rianiate. There is an asphalt road from Rianiate to Gonting (K176/028, 24.7 km). The asphalt road from Garoga to 77 Sibalanga and Gontingsalak climbs to 800-1000m altitude. The earth track either then climbs from Sibalanga to 1250m before dropping to Rianiate (1200m), or goes NW from Gontingsalak climbing to 1400m before dropping. The former route is preferred. However, in view of the fact that there is still a forest cover on the Sibalanga-Rianiate sector, this route is not recommmended. 3 Simangambat lies on a 1000m plateau, and would be easy to access from Rianiate-Gonting, but from Simangambat to Rambisan (and thence to Kampong Pajak in the Labuhanbatu plains) would require 18 km of new construction through very steep and difficult terrain. If routed I here, IK 321 would have very high environmental costs and little justification. However, an easier alternative is considered below under IK326 (vii) below (see Figure 13). IK 323 - 324. Sp. Sisomut - Panipahan - Sp. Tengki. Coastal route from Labuhan Batu (IK 323) to Bengkalis in Riau (IK 324). There appear to be no physical or biological constraints to developing IK 323, which lies wholly in North Sumatra. This comprises the following I kabupaten roads: 023, 087, 046, 106, 096, 095 and 097. The total distance is 93.4 km, of which 23.2 km is either asphalt or telford, and the remainder is unmotorable earth road. There could be good justification for upgrading, which assumes new construction for 70.2 kin, and no I major negative impacts are predicted. By contrast IK 324, in Riau, runs along a swampy coast that is barely settled. The link | numbers are 128-137, which include 60 km of maintained earth road, 15 km of asphalt, and 51 kIm of unmotorable earth track. Inland there is forested Protection Forest (peat swamp), but the coast is unclassified, and the forests appear to be much disturbed (recent Landsat data). I However, the mangrove swamps on the coast should preferably also have protection status. The coastal sector follows a zone of estuarine alluvium between the coastal mangroves and the peat swamp forest inland. The area is ecologically sensitive, for example Sungai Daun might I be the only suspected breeding location in all SE Asia for the Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis (unfortunately not yet confirmed). There may be justification to give this entire coastal zone protection forest status, and not to permit any development. Certainly the road I should be accorded low priority, although it is observed that the route would be in accordance with the existing spatial plan. A full ANDAL would be recommended to determine what the impacts on the physical and biological environment would be. The total length of new construction of the interkabupaten link would be approximately 120 km, all in more or less swampy terrain. IK 325. Sorkam - Silangkitang. Tapanuli Tengah to Tapanuli Utara. This route follows the Sibundung valley up from Sorkam, and then passes through a col at Hajoran on the kabupaten boundary, thus avoiding the steepest and deepest section of the valley. The route through Tapanuli Utara then returns to the main valley again, but there may be steep sections here. There is an existing road for at least part of the route, K06 from Sorkam has 16.2 km of asphalt but then 8.4 km of either earth road, or non-existent. On the Tapanuli Utara side as far as Hajoran, KI 17 is 38 km, only 2.5m wide, earth road, and probably only a track. Thus there may be some 46 km of new construction. This may be hard to justify, although the Sihaporas valley near Hajoran may have some potential for agricultural development. The forest status is Protection Forest, although little forest is believed to remain. 78 l IK 326 - 328. Tapanuli Selatan to Tapanuli Utara. NS/IK 301 and IK 329. Tapanuli Selatan to Labuhanbatu. See Figure 13. IK 326-328 are three alternative routes from the Sipagimbar/Sipiongot region of Tapanuli Selatan to the Pangaribuan/Garoga region of Tapanuli Utara, while IK 301 and 329 are links from the same region into Labuhanbatu. Much of this hilly region has been deforested, and is being subject to environmental degradation due to unimproved agricultural systems and a moderately dense population. There may be good justification for improving the access into this region, in order to support agricultural development, poverty alleviation, and watershed management. Some areas have Protection Forest status, but this has little relationship with actual existing forest cover Land systems vary, but 26-40% slopes are widespread, but there are also very steep land systems locally. However, several of the proposed routes follow valleys. A regional review follows of potential links and their constraints. The starting points for this review will be Sipagimbar and Sipiongot in Tapanuli Selatan (with available access from Sipirok and Gunungtua respectively), Pangaribuan and Garoga in Tapanuli Utara (with access from Tarutung or Siborongborong via Sipahutar), and Langgapayung and Rantau Prapat in Labubanbatu. i. Sipagimbar - Sibiobio - Sipiongot - Simundol - Hatiran (Rantau Prapat) (IK301) K126 from Sipagimbar to Sibiobio has 11.4 km of asphalt or telford, and 18.2 km of earth road (which would presumably require new construction). Sipagimbar lies at 900m, and the route follows a rolling plateau at 1150m, but there is a series of very steep steps down to Sibiobio at 400m. K140 from Sibiobio to Sipiongot is 20.2 km of mainly telford road. From Sipiongot to Simundol, K232 is 16 km of probably new construction, while Simundol to Hatiran K139 is reported to be 23.6 km (3GOm wide) of telford road. Hatiran has links to Lingga Tiga and thence to Rantau Prapat. Both Sipiongot and Simundol are at 1 00m altitude, but the link between them crosses steep rugged terrain, rising to 450m, of which 5 km may be very steep. It is assumed that the body of the road already exists. Thus Sipiongot to Hatiran requires 16 km of new construction, but Sipagimbar to Sipiongot would require a further 18.2 km. ii Sibiobio - Simundol (aK301) There would be potential for a direct link between Sibiobio and Simundol, requiring some 8 km of new construction, but the terrain is steep. It would link up with K232 (Sipiongot- Simundol) and thence to Hatiran. 3iii. Sipiongot - Hutagodang (Lang&apayung) (IK3 29) There would be a very easy link along the A. Kanan valley from Sipiongot to Hutagodang. K026 and K041 from Hutagodang to Marsonja and Binangatolu have 7.4 km of asphalt and 15.3 km of earth track. Bimangtolu lies on the kabupaten border and presumably close to the Gunungtua-Sipiongot road. Thus the link requires some 15 km of new construction in gentle terrain. The alternative, K292 from Pijarkoling (Sipiongot) to Janjimanahan is not reconmmended, as being more rugged. Janjimanahan also lies on the kabupaten border, and may benefit from a new link to Hutagodang (4 km). 1 79 iv. Pangaribuan - Parurean - Sipagimbar (IK328) There is an existing route in Tapanuli Utara (K020, 3. Om wide) from Pangaribuan to Parurean, X 39.6 km in length, of which 18.0 km is asphalt, and 21.6 km is earth road. K137 is a short asphalt/telford link in Tapanuli Selatan from Parurean to Sipagimbar. The route follows a strike valley, with numerous villages, and there would be good justification for upgrading, with no serious negative impacts predicted. v. Pangaribuan - Parinsoran - Sibiobio (IK327) I In Tapanuli Utara, K 155 from Parinsoran to Pangorian is 10 km, of which 1.5 km is asphalt, but the remainder is an earth track. From Pangorian to Sibiobio there is no named kabupaten link, but the maps indicate a path through the villages of Simatorkis, Sibargot, Tolang, Sigolang, Tapus to Sibiobio. This would require some 40 km of new construction, of which 30 km would be through rolling terrain and 10 km steep. The route as outlined above minimizes I the number of deep valley crossings. The area is a rolling plateau at 500-900 m altitude, in acid tuffs (Batuapung land system in RePPProT), and although mostly deforested, the population is rather low, suggesting that the region has low fertility. The justification for building this I proposed link would depend on determination of the agricultural potential of the region. vi. Garoga - Pearaja - Sibiobio (lK326) 3 Similar reservations apply to this proposed link, depending upon determination of agricultural potential. In Tapanuli Utara, K092 from Garoga to Pearaja is 12.8 km in length, of which 9.0 | kin consists of asphalt or telford, and the remaining 3.8 km is an earth track. From Pearaja to Sibiobio would require some 23 km of new construction across a rolling plateau, the easiest route being to link up with IK327 at Sigolang. I vii. Garoga - Pearaja - (Rantau Prapat) (IK321). An alternative route from Pearaja that requires further study would be a direct link down the Bila valley towards Rantau Prapat. This would be a preferred route for the IK321 link which was considered above and rejected. The route would be across the rolling plateau from Pearaja | to Hutatonga, Hasahatan and Sipagobu, to the Bila valley, a distance of some 18 km. The route down the Bila valley may present problems, however, the valley perhaps being too narrow and steep, the distance is approximately 12 km. From this point, in Labuhanbatu the route would 3 veer north through Pinarik or Tanjung Beringin (KIOI or 102) to Padanglaut on the Air Ketiak, from where there is an asphalt road (K04) to Rantau Prapat. The total new construction would be some 40 km, and the middle section in the Bila valley is classified as Protection Forest, although much of the forest has been cleared. IK 330. Sibolga - Sarulla. See Figure 10. Tapanuli Tengah to Tapanuli Tengah. IK 330 is ~ 1 taken to be synonymous with NS 304. There is an existing road from Sibolga to Hutanabolon, from where an asphalt road continues for 8 km (KG17). From the end of this road to Sarulla would require new construction for 28 km through montane forest, with a very steep climb to >500m, and then through rolling montane terrain eventually climbing to ca 1000m, and 80 finally a very steep drop to 600m (Sarulla lies at 450m altitude). For some reason the mountains are mostly not classified as Protection Forest. The route would be very difficult to I justify and there may be severe environmental damage. If it is really desirous to link Sibolga with the Tarutung - Sipirok road, the only practical I alternative would appear to be from Adian Koting, midway from Sibolga to Tarutung, to Onan Hasang. The distance is 14 kn, and rises from 850m to 1100m before dropping to 700m. This route would save some 50 km via Tarutung, but it will not alleviate problems on the narrow, 3 winding Sibolga - Tarutung road, which are most severe below Adian Koting. (IK 331). Sipeuggeng - Sipirok. See Figure 10 and 11. Tapanuli Tengah to Tapanuli SelatanlUtara. Similar to IK 330, IK331 would likewise require 30 km of new construction through simnilar terrain, rising from 100m to >900m elevation, and then dropping to Sarulla. It cannot be justified. Other options from the Lumut - Batang Toru road to Sip ifrok are considered here. One proposed route is Sipenggeng - Pasar Marancar - Bulumario - Sp Bulumario - Sipirok. K019 from Sipenggeng to Ps Marancar is a 14.5 km asphalt road. From Sp Bulumario to Ps Marancar, K017 has 9.9 km of asphalt or telford, and then 8.9 km of earth track. However, the 8.9 km of new construction around the NW slopes of Dolok Sibualbuali would require 3 crossings of three 150m-deep valleys, in forested highlands with Protection status, and there could be serious environmental damage. | A better altemative is to construct a direct route from Ps Marancar to Kilangpapan, between Dolok Sibualbuali and Dolok Lubukraya. From Ps Marancar, K079 runs east for 5 km (part asphalt, part telford) and then continues south towards Padang Sidempuan. From this tum, 4 akm of new construction would connect to Labuhanrasoki, from which there is an existing track, apparently not a kabupaten road, for 5 km to Kilangpapan. Although this route also crosses some forested terrain with Protection status, slopes are not very steep. Sipenggeng to Sipirok via Ps Marancar and Kilangpapan is a total distance of ca. 38.5 km. The same distance via Padang Sidempuan is 56 km. There may be some potential for agricultural intensification along the new section of road. Sp Nagasaribu - Portibi. Near Gunungtua, Tapanuli Selatan, North Sumatra. There is an existing 16 km link K29 (Sp Nagasaribu to Nagasaribu) said to be in good condition although * mostly earth road. Nagasaribu to Portibi would appear to be new construction. The route lies in open savanna cotutry (16-25% slopes) and no serious impacts are predicted. 6.4. Environmental Screening of Proposed Roads: West Sumatra * Kambang - Muara Labuh. Road P073. Pesisir - Solok. The route crosses forested mountains with slopes up to or exceeding 60%, and the northem arm of Kerinci-Seblat national park. The route requires substantial new construction in very steep forested terrain. An ANDAL has been completed (PT Akurat Supramindo Konsultant), and this is believed to have been approved in * 81 February 1996, thus satisfying one of the requirements for obtaining pennission from the Ministry of Forestry, although it is not clear whether this has actually been processed. However, it would be recommended that no construction proceeds, or continues, until the I Kerinci-Seblat park management project has commenced, and then only if the route is considered strategic in the context of the park's management plan. The ANDAL report indicates that the alignment lies, from sea level, up a ridge west of the Batan Lengapayang I river, which would bring it to a maximum elevation of 1750m or higher (then descending to Muara Labuh at 500m). It is difficult to visualize how the negative impacts can be managed successfully. NS/IK 601. Angge - Pua Datar - Mangkirai. Agam to Limapuluh Kota. Most of the 33 km route appears to exist, and requires upgrading. However the terrain is very steep (perhaps >60%), although it is possible that a major section follows a river valley. Much of the route appears to be forest, and a portion has Protection Forest status. IK 602. Sp. Andilan - Muara Pungkut. Pasaman in West Sumatra to South Tapanuli in North Sunatra. On the Tapanuli side, K062 from Muara Pungkut is 24 kmn (3.0-3.5m wide, asphalt and telford) and serves a narrow valley to Hutagodang and Sp Banyak at I 100m. On I the Pasaman side, K025 from Sp Andilan to Sp Dingin is 12.5 km (3.5m, asphalt), and serves existing villages and ricefields. Sp Dingin lies at 800m. There may be good justification to upgrade these existing roads, but to join them would require some 10 km of new construction I along montane valleys and across a watershed at 1400m altitude. The route is not excessively steep, but crosses montane forest with Protection status, and there would seem to be little justification. Certainly it would be difficult to justify on environmental grounds. I IK 603. Gelugur - Muara Sei Lolo. See Figure 14. Limapuluh Kota to Pasaman. The two locations lie in the deep Kampar valley, connected by a 30 km earth track (K168). Gelugur on i the Limapuluh Kota side is connected to Durian Tinggi by kabupaten roads KI 13 (gravel, 6.3 km), and K69 (24 km, earth road, may be new construction). On the Pasaman side, K012 runs from Tingkarang (near Rao) to Muara Sei Lolo, of which 26.5 km is said to be asphalt or i gravel, while 24.7 km is an earth track. The alignment is difficult to locate, but is believed to follow initially the Ciranting (near Rao) - Muaratais road (KO 16). The probable route would be Tarnbang - Ranahbatung - Rumahbatu - Sopan, which ascends to over 800m, with very steep slopes. There may be a northerly alternative via Pangean - Hululayang - Matundak - Batukambing. In view of the considerable distances of new construction through steep and sometimes very steep terrain, the corridor cannot be recommended. Although only part of the 3 route is likely to be still forested, nearly all the route has Protection Forest status. However, upgrading of the road from Muara Paiti to Gelugur and Sungailolo may be feasible. IK 604. Koto Tinggi - Bonjol. Limapuluhkota - Pasaman. There appears to be an existing I road through most of the route,, following a settled river valley through Koto Tinggi but latterly crossing a steep mountain range (unless the route follows valleys); it also intersects 1 Malampah Alahan Panjang nature reserve which appears to have been newly gazetted. There may also be some new construction, but there are uncertainties of precise location and forest status. 3 l 82 IK 605. Muara Paiti (Lubuk Alai) - Siberuang. See Figure 14. Limapuluh Kota to Kampar (Riau). This route would require some 10 km of new construction (Muara Paiti to Tabing), across a strike ridge which, although only 400m high, has very steep slopes. The route would also require two major river bridges, across the Batang Kapur and the Kampar Kanan. The ridge no longer carries a forest cover. The route may be difficult to justify. NS 605. Lingkar Maninjau. Agam. This apparently consists of upgrading of the existing kabupaten roads around the shores of the south side of the lake. The 28 km road, 3 .Sm wide, is reported to be asphalt but broken. A KL would be required if widening is proposed, especially in view of the impact of physical damage on the aesthetic (tourist) attraction. NS 606. Kayu Tanam - Padang Panjang. Pariaman - Tanah Datar. This would be a new alignment to relieve congestion on the Padang - Bukit Tinggi nationa' road. Realignment or widening along the existing main highway is difficult because of the constraints of steep slopes and deep valley sides, therefore a complete new route is proposed from Kayu Tanam over Bukit Rangkang to Padang Pariaman via Kandangtasiar. It is assumed that the width will be at least 12m, and the road will carry heavy traffic. A reconnaissance survey (undated) has already been carried out by the provincial Bina Marga. Kayu Tanam lies at 150m altitude, and Padang Panjang at 850m. The proposed route is over 21 km, including over 11 km of existing links (some of which will need realignment) and over 10 km of footpath which takes the road over lOOOm altitude on Bukit Rangkang. The westem slopes are very steep, and the forested hills have Protection Forest status (it might also lie within Lembah Anci nature reserve). Clearly a road with the geometric requirements of a primary artery would have major physical impacts in such steep terrain. IK 606. Bukit Limbuku (Payakumbuh) - Lipat Kain. This the first of two altemative routes linking Payakumbuh to Lipat Kain in Kampar (Riau). Some 54 kmn appears to be new construction, with some of the route in very steep terrain (>60%). This is mainly forested on the West Sumatra side but under scrub agriculture on the Riau side. The West Sumatra side lies either in Protection Forest or in a nature reserve (Lembah Harau); the status on the Riau side is partly Protection Forest, partly Production Forest, although little forest remains. In view of the major lengths of new construction through steep terrain, half of which is still under forest, the environmental damage could be very high. The status of the nature reserve needs to be confirned. IK 607. Labuh Gunung (Payakumbuh) - Lipat Kain. This, the second of two altematives between Payakumbuh and Lipatkain, has very similar conditions. In view of the very steep terrain along the provincial border, neither can be recommended. NS/IK 608. Pasar Baru - Alahan Panjang. Pesisir - Solok. There is an existing asphalt road covering the 24.2 km from Pasar Baru to Muara Air. Beyond this there is a gravel road for 5.1 km, but the rest of the route is an unmotorable earth road (or non-existent). The new construction would be across a steep mountain ridge (41-60%). This appears on the RUTRW to be a northem extension of Gunung Kerinci national park. Regardless of forest status, new construction across this forested mountain ridge would have major physical and biological impacts. This corridor should only be developed in the context of the Kerinci-Seblat management plan. l * 83 IK 609. Sp. Baso - Sp. Padang Tarap. Tanah Datar to Agam. The route crosses a narrow but steep forested ridge, and there seems to be little justification. NS[IK 610. Alahan Panjang - Pulau Punjung (Kiliranjo). Two routes (IK 610 and 620) have been proposed across the wide, forested, mountainous area between Alahan Panjang (Solok) and the Trans-Sumatra Highway (Corridor N3) in Sawahlunto. For both routes, there may be strong justification to upgrade the earth roads that serve a network of villages, especially on the Solok side, but the environmental costs of constructing links across the kabupaten boundary would be very high.The mountains are steep (41->60%) and under a forest cover, although there may be opportunities to make maximum use of valleys. Forest status in the mountains is Protection Forest on the Solok side, but Production Forest on the Sawahlunto side. The routes follow the same earth road to Batu Bajanjang, where they split - 3 (IK 610 to Garabak, and across to Silago and Pulau Punjung, and IK 620 to Lubuk Tarab and N3 at Tanah Badantung). For IK 610, there would be some 80 km of new construction (either existing unmotorable earth tracks or footpaths) on the Solok side, but there are 45 km of | mainly gravel road along the valley through Silago to Pulau Punjung. The maximum altitude on this route is believed to be about 900m, through a col, and this is believed to be the more favourable route. However, new construction across these mountains would have major I physical and biological impacts. If a corridor from Alahan Panjang to Kiliranjo has high priority, then it would be recommended that only one of the routes is developed (although, as stated above, there could be good justification for developing the kabupaten links, in order to | intensify the agriculture of the region and avoid further degradation). Ideally, air photos would be required to plan the alignment. NS/IK 61 1. Talao - TKA. Solok to Bungo Tebo (Jambi). This link would apparently serve a private estate on the West Sumatra - Jambi borders. No obvious negative impacts are predicted. The precise location is not clear. IK 612. Kumanis - Panmusian. Sawahlunto to Tanah Datar. On the Sawahlunto side, there are existing gravel roads, and some short sections of asphalt, but the final 12 km from Sumpur to Unggan have an earth road of 3.5 m width. The route through Tanah Datar from Unggan to Pamutsian is also an earth road, and may be unmotorable. Thus up to 23 km of track may be classified as new construction. Sumpur to Unggan lie in a flat-floored valley with sawahs, but the route from Kumanis to Sumpur, and from Unggan to Pamusian, lie in steep terrain (41- >60%1/o), which is mainly forested and under Protection Forest status. There may be good justification to upgrade the kabupaten links to Sumpur and Unggan, but the justification for the Unggan - Pamusian sector is questioned, in view of the steep forested terrain and forest status. IK 613. Kumanis - Tigo Jangko. Sawahlunto to Tanah Datar. This seems to be an alternative route along the Sijunjung - Payakumbuh road. The 10 km links are either asphakt or telford, I 3.5-4.5 m wide, in rolling (16-25%) agricultural terrain with rubber estates, and no significant negative impacts are predicted from upgrading. 1 *I 84 IK 614. Lubuk Basung - Sei Garingging. Agam to Padang Pariaman. This is an existing road (3.0-4.Om wide) through intensively cultivated terrain on mid-slopes (9-40%) of volcanic origin. There would be no environmental restraints to upgrading provided that no widening is required. |1 IK 615. Malalak (Again) - Padang Pariaman (Koto Mambang or Ulubandar). There are two options, both of existing kabupaten roads- The first optioni is K236 from Malalak to Ulubandar (asphalt and gravel, 14.8 km, 3.5m wide), and then K064 which leads to Pariaman. I. The second option is K106 (16.6 km, 3.0-3.5m, asphalt and gravel) to Paladangan, and then K091 (10.2 km, 4.Om wide, asphalt) to Kotomambang. The first option crosses less steep terrain and is preferred. As the region is presently rather isolated, and may be subject to major traffic increases, a KL is recommended, and would be essential if there is widening. IK 617 - 618. Solok - Batusangkar (Tanah Datar). Two routes are listed north from Solok, IK 617 emerging west of Batusangkar and IK 618 to the east. They are both mainly existing asphalt roads (3.5-4.5 m wide) through agricultural terrain that is quite steep (generally 41- 60%). There could be significant negative impacts in widening (possibly on IK 617), or new U construction (1K 618 has 7.5 km of unmotorable earth road on links 2 and 233, plus a short segment of Telford road), in view of the terrain, although it should be feasible to handle these through standard UKL/UPL. IK 619. Solok - Sumpur (Tanah Datar). This is an existing asphalt road (3.5-4.0 m wide) along the west shore of Danau Singkarak. If widening is required, there could be serious J damage to the tourist environment in view of the steep terrain and consequent need for cut-and- fill. 3 IK 620. Alahan Panjang - Tanah Badantung (Tg Gadang, Kiliranjo). (See IK 610). The same comments apply as for IK 610. On the Sawahlunto side there are some 12 km of existing ashalt road, but most of the 50 km on the Solok side are unmotorable earth tracks or paths. The i route from Batu Bajanjang to Sumiso and Tubuk Taroh rises to perhaps well over I 000m, and this is the less favoured of the two routes. 3 IK 621. Teluk Air Putih - Abaisiat. Solok - Sawvahlunto. The alignment of this route is not clear, and data sources cannot be reconciled. There is a nctwork of kabupaten/ transmnigration roads on the Sitiung plains on the Sawahlunto side. On the Solok side the route apparently lies | in forest, but this requires checking. Slopes are in the range 16-25%. Further checking of the alignment is required before AMDAL requirements can be determined. IK 622. Hilalang Panjang - Sontang. Pesisir - Kerinci (Jambi). There is an existing road for the 11.4 km to Kampung Dalam, partly asphalt and partly gravel, but the remainder of the route to Sontang and into Jambi province is non-existent (possibly up to 50 km). The route 3 4 crosses a high and very steep mountain ridge, most of which is forested, and a large section lies through the Kerinci-Seblat national park. This route would have very severe physical and biological impacts, and cannot be recommended on environmental grounds, unless required in 3 the context of the Kerinci-Seblat management plan. I 1 85 IK 623. Lubuk Minturun - Paninggahan. Kodya Padang - Solok. Paninggahan lies on the shores of Danau Singkarak. This is an existing road across the forested mountains (41-60% slopes), of which 20 km have status of nature reserve (Lembab Anai) and Protection Forest. A Kajian Lingkinan has already been carried out and approved, and apparently the impacts of upgrading the existing road are considered sufficiently minor to be handled by UKI.'UPL, despite the mountain forests and restricted forest status. IK 624. S. Tarab - Payakumbuh. Tanah Datar to Limapuluh Kota. This is an existing 11.4 km asphalt road. It crosses some steep terrain which appears to still have a forest cover. IK 625. Ujungbatu - Rokan - Muaratais - Rao. See Figure 14. (Kampar in Riau to Pasaman in West Sumatra). This newly identified alignment could become a major new corrido- from Dumai to Duri, Tandun, Ujungbatu, Rokan, Rao and Bukit Tinggi. It appears to be th- only feasible route across the strike ridges between the Ujungbatu region and West Sumatra. There are existing kabupaten roads from Ujungbatu to Rokan (KO18 - 29 km, 4.Om wide, gravel), I and Rokan to Tandikat (K048 - 27 kin, 4.Om wide, gravel). The latter sector is the most difficult of the entire route, because the Rokan valley is deep and steep, and the road must climb to a 400/500m ridge, before dropping down to the Tandikat valley. On the Pasaman side, I K016 is under construction from Ciranting to Muaratais (the section already built, along the Sumpur valley, was monitored by the CTC Environmental Team in 1995). It is proposed to construct a new link from the Rokan-Tandikat road down to Lubukingo, which lies 6 km north I of Tandikat. From there, some 25 km of new construction would be required along the Tibawan valley to Muaratais. The terrain is not notably steep, and the existing land use is likely to be smallholder rubber. This major new corridor provides not only through access, but I also supports considerable potential for agricultural intensification in the strike valleys along the West Sumatra - Riau border. A link from Rokan to Tandikat and Gelugur would also be feasible. Duku - Ketaping - Pariaman. Pariaman. This rerouting for the Padang - Paniaman road is mainly designed to serve the planned new airport at Ketaping. It will involve widening of I existing kabupaten roads through cultivated alluvial terrain (coconuts and rice), as well as new construction. It is reported that a KL has already been completed, and presumably a full ANDA L will be required. I Bukit Tinggi by-pass. Major social impacts are predicted due to the intensity of land use. It is reported that a KL has already been completed. 6.5. Environmental Screening of Proposed Roads: Riau 3 P 43. Tembilahan - Enok - Batas Jambi. Road P045. This route consists of existing kabupaten links, crossing rather intensively occupied terrain, mainly under coconuts, on estuarine soils. Environmental impacts are predicted to be not significant. *I 8C 1 l P 44. Sp Beringin - Buatan - Siak Sri Indrapura - Mengkapan. Roads P024/033/035. Mostly this route consists of existing roads, perhaps mainly earth roads (including Caltex roads). Indirect impacts may therefore have already occurred, for example hunting and trapping in the peat swamp forests of the lower Siak region, and further impacts from upgrading may not be significant. NS 901. Dumai - Lubuk Gaung. This 10 km link along the coast west from Dumai is presumed to exist already. NS 903. S. Akor - Bagan Jaya. Indragiri Hilir. This is a proposed link (P054) from the N6 Pekanbaru - Jambi highway towards the Kuala Enok developments. The route would be new construction across shallow to moderately deep peat, which was formerly under forest. The June 1996 Landsat imagery shows that a road of some form already exists for at least part of the length, and the forest has been cleared along this road, while the latter sectors of the route are under swamp agriculture. For the present time, it is assumed that this is entirely new construction, but AMDAL requirements cannot be determined without further information on the site conditions. Dalu-Dalu - Sp. Manggala. Bengkalis (Riau). The route (PO47), at least 75 km in length, mostly lies in somewhat swampy and peaty terrain, but not deep peat. There are transmigrant settlements in the initial sections; the remainder was formerly logged forest but recent satellite imagery shows that most of the area has now been cleared or is undergoing clearance. There are extensive oil palm estates in the region. Enviromnental impacts are predicted to be minor, but initial surveys are required if there is new construction. Tembilahan - Teluk Pinang - S. Gunting. Indragiri Hilir (Riau). Kabupaten roads exist as far as Teluk Pinang. From there to S. Gunting, there would be rnew construction. Depending on the route taken, there could be up to nine crossings of tidal rivers/estuaries, or else the route will be further inland in which case it would cross forested deep peat swamps. In either case, there are some 20-25 km of deep peat swamp forest before reaching S. Gunting. However it is possible, that the region has now been cleared. or is undergoing clearance, for a peat swamp development project (see Section 1.5 ofthis volurme), and Bina Marga would not be the proper authority responsible for carrying out the AAMDAL studies for roads that would be only one component of the p-ioject. l I l 3 87 - m m - - - - m Table 6.1. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Network Extension Projects _____ ~~~~~~~~~~~~EXISTING ROAD NEW CONSTRUCTION ______ ____________________ _ -7 1 5TLAND USE __(K LANDFOR (Km) LAND USE (Km) STATUS (Km) __- H- W (c CORRIDOR LINK NAME M I - 2 1 m z O u A5 TL 2 z 1 z -~~~~~~~~~~~ H- ~~~~0 See Table P12 JaDnthoeuma empn 80?0 7o 4 0l 5 1 0 0ai __ _ 0 0 7 G w md N H- z .2 e~~~~~~~~ CO -j H-~~~~~~~~ ~~e; P14____ _______ ______?90_33 _ 1 30 7505 10 30==1 0 30 25 0 1x low med N3 P14 Trangon-Babahrot = ~~~~~~57 60< 20 5 30 1 _ = = = UJ 10 40 02 0 3=b me _ N5_3 Ns0K02_ ____ __ - - - low med N3~~~~:D~ l- a U)w K1D4 : B-angkeea 50 30 t--_ .___ . ~ ___5 H H tO 0 Li w C>- w ( ZJW O O- -J - oz 0 H -~ C z ~ -J -J H -U, X 0 0 2 flc P21 5~~~S Gambir-Silaping 40< 40 400 mo ma N P21 _ Natal-Batahan-SilapIng 58 19T 1-9 39 81 15 18 5,20 19 ?h~jmed N4 P21 Batang Toru-Natal 125 451 457 8 A0- 20 80 5 30- 25 50 30 7 low med N5 NS/1K301 Sipagimbar-Hatiran 79 45 ___25 20 401 34 15 8 1 1 34 34 med med N5 NS302 Siabu-Sibuhuan 20 20 15 - - - 218 - 34 1 2 low- low- N3 IK(302 Kotalama-Pacltan __ 22 715 - 77 3 4 _ 7 7- low med Ni NS/IK303/320 _ParIiIltan-Salak __32 12 6 s 8 _ 0 5 1i T10 1 5 15 x imed med N IK304 Kutalimbaru-Namu Ukur 715 710 10 75 ___5-5 5 low med NI (I K304) Bekanoan-Kotabaru __17. 6 6 __ 11 -4447525 low low N3 NS304/IK<330 Hutanobolan-Sarulla __ 36 8 -8 -28 1f4 1 4 -4 24T- -10 1-8 l-71ow l~ow N4 Adiakotng-nenhssn 1_ 1 4 4 10 14 1 4 Ilow lIow N3 NS30d5ao_ig9Oa32en32 ~ -- 7 1 7 - 5 12 ___ low Imed N2 NS306 P. Sidem puan-Aek Godang 20 8 4 4 1 2 _ 5 7 4 8 1 2 low low N3 11(310 Sra Gnn Meriah 12 12 12 2 10 10 2 low low N2 1(312 ~~Ti apanahi-Paribuan 15 15 15 73 ___ __33__lw med Ni Ti aua-Gunung Meriah 21 21, 21 _____lw_low N2 1Z3_13 Luiue-Srnou3 20 20 10 5 5 - 07 3 - low low N3 IK317/318 Guntingsaga-Teluk qhnjai?83 36 - 6_____ 47 4 77 4 _ o ih N IK319 Gonting-Damuli ____ 54 20 2_34 5___5 __62 4 lw md 1(321 Garoga-Rau Prapa - 50 10 10 40 10 20 1 -5- 30 5 - 20 15 5 x med med N5 11K322 Garoga-Gonting 54 4 40 14 14 -- __14 -- 14 _4_ lo-w m ed N3 1K323-324 Sp. Sisomut-Bengkalis 22 9 49 5 21 -70 51 60 61 - - 70 51 7 low med N5 1(325 Sorkam-Rurajluf 62 16 16 46 20 10 16 31 15 - 20 ___x med med N4 IK-326 ~ Garoga-Sipiongwt 56 29 29 ___27 _ _ 27 -27 6 6__ lw md N 11(327 jPangaribuan-Sipiongot 72 22 22 ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~50 10 40 50 __ 2 20 1 0 low med _ N4 11K328 jPangaribuan - Sipagimbar 42 421 42 20 -- - -low medu Ni -1K329 S__ ipiongot-Hutagodang 1s 7 7 12 ___ 12, 12 2 10 med_ med N2 1K331 SpMuara-Bonanidolok -40 10 5 5 30 10 20 51 151 10 20 low low N4 ____________Sipenggeng-Sipirok 29. 20-- 2 01-9 ___ 4 5 T_ OW med Ni ___________'Sp, Nagasaribu-Portibi _261 16__ 161 10__ 101 10 lo~w- -low ~ NI Shoet 2 Table 6.1. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Network Extension Projects __________________ ~~~EXISTING ROAID NEW CONSTRUCTION _________ ____________________ ~~~~~LAND USE (Km) -- - - LANDFORM (Kmn) __ LAND USE (Kn) STATUS (Km) CORRIDCR LINK NAME _ U _______ _ _ __ __ 12 __~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c _ _ SDee al 11(602 _ Sp~~~~AndiIan-M. Pungkut 45 37 37 6~~0 a 8 N3 1K604 Koto TInggi-BonjoI 12 ~~~~~~~~~12 7 5 ? d low med 3 NS605 Lingkar ManInjau 26 _~~~ ~ ~ 28 28 low low N2 NS606 Kayu Tanam-P. Panlang 22~~~L 12 -A 8 4 10 100 7 W lwN 1K607 - LabuhGunung-(LipatKain) 50 5 - 5 45~~~~~~~~~~( 20 10 1 25 20 715 71 0- lw lw N NS/1K608____ Pasar 9aru-Alahan Panjang 45 30 3 0 1 5 5 736994 2 low low N4 2 w c 1K609 Sp. aso-Sp. Paang Tarapw -w 3 : lw lw N 11(610 __ A.Karnjang-Muara Lauh g 254 145 454 27___ 1 10 2502 40 2 0 - 11 2 lw e N5 IK602 Ku,Andils-MPa ungkan 65 36 30 8 ?2 1 - lome imed I N3 0(61 2u6kT ugS eingn 3 13__ 1 ow MO" N 11(15__ K__ Malla-S. unn i 2 21 21 ow7 med NI Migare-Kt Manin bau g2 7__ 2 low low Ni -1K615 SMuk-ara San 1a2 18 1611 low ltow NI NS6061 - SlK-ayu TangmPkPa 2 19 o T 10 10 _____ low Ilow N2 11(S609Sla-u5u 26 26 28 - lw lwN 11(620 A. Panlang-BedantLrng ~~~62 12 _ 12 ___ 50 22 8 10104 26 24 ?12- ?10 8 xlw md N 1IK6206__ St._T mbukAruti-bLsipat Kain 1- ____5_ 3 ? low lo 7 1K6227 HllabuGnuPngn LpatKain) 6 11 -1 _ __?50 5-20t 15 1 5 20 30 305 30___ ___ low low N5 NS/ K682 Pabak MiaruAlhn Panlngaang 330315 1 15 5 low low N2 1K 624- Sp. Basob-S.Padangbu _ Tarap ii 5_ 2low low Ni 1K 62 Rok an-irantigPua Puna n 122 73 53 2 17 4 s 2524 20_ -40 2 241 _ 525 x I led med N5 NS9O13_u_ _ K bu ~ ng10 I 5low low Ni1 N59-017 So Ako-Batu angkara 50 158 is I5 2 5 5 - - 35 1 low med N4I Sheet 3Ik-auagkr ~ -1 -0 0 - o lw -N Table 6.2. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects LINK DATA LAND USE (km) FOREST (kin) LANDFORM (kmn) - ANDAL o z a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 z oaANDAL LINKNAME 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0a > > 0 c~CODE a ~~~~~~~~LN NAME 83C) ZuD z See Table ~~~~ w~~~~L o z 0: -' 0 ui 0~ ui o a ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~U F -j :D a. 2- 1 a o > u0 a .i Ni 1, 1 BAN DA ACE H -KM 77 34 0,0 63,6 120 I 4 4 - - -- -4 C2 N I 1,1 BANDA ACEH -KM.77 69,3, 3,6 42,0 38,4 5,1 WIO 2 3 1 2 1 5 8 _38_ C3 N I 1,1 BANDA ACEH -KM.77 -69,3 42,0 77,01 35,0 5,1_I __ 3 5 3 20 1 817 03 Ni_ 1,2 KM.77 -SIGLf _ 33,1 77,0 _I112,0 35,0 -5,3 Wio 2 4 1 1 20 ____15 1 19 16 02 Ni 2_,0 SIG_LI - BEUREUN4UN-- 11,3~ 112,0 124,0 12,0 6,0 W9 1 2 55 ___ 11 I C2 Ni 3,1 BEUREUNUN - BTS CABOIN ACEH UTARA 45,7~ 155,0 173,0 18,0 5,0 _____ 3 19 24 ___ 46 C3 Ni 3,1 BEUREUNUN -BTS CABDIN ACEH UTARA 45,7F 124,0 155,0 31,0 6,0 Wll 3 4 __ 24, 3 31 03 Ni 3,2 BTS CABDIN PIDIE - BIREUEN 42022 -I 21-,0 o -1,0 5,0 __ 3 1 1 4 1 6 02 Ni1 3,2 BTS CABDIN PIDIE - BIREUEN 42,0 173,0 202,0 29,_0 5,0 WIO 2 _ 5 14 -10- ___ -29 03 Ni -4,_0 B~IREUEN -LHOK SUMAWE 52,3 218,0 274,0 56,0 8,3_ 6 17 21 6 -53 3 03 Ni 5,1 LHOKSUMAWE -SIMPANG (KMV328) _ _51,8 319,0 328,0 9,0 7 - - 2 7 - 9 -C2 Nl 5,1 LH-OKSUMAWE-SIMPAN.G(KM 32.8) 5_~1,8 _274,0 319,0 45,0 7,0 18 i --2 _ 43 2 02 NI _5_,2 SIM_PANG (KM 328) - PEUREULAK (KM 392) 61,4 328,0 392,0 64,0 7,0 W8 1 2 20 34 8 - 6 2 Ni 5,3 PEUREULAK (KM 392) -LANGSA - 46,01 392,0 440,0 48,0 -7,0 _W8 1 2 30 16 T _48 02 Ni 6,0 LANGSA -BTS.SUMUT 49,5 440,0 491,6 51,6 6,9 WV9 1 32 20- _ 52 02 NI 1,0 SIMPANG -BTS. ACEH 26,2 91,0 117,8 26,8 6,0 W8 I1 _ 14 1 4 ____28 02 Ni 2,0 TJ. PURA-SIMPANG 29,8 61,0 91,0 30.0 6.0 WV2 4 2 14 14 __30 03 Ni 3,0 BINJAI -TANJUNGPURA 3_1_,6 -0,0 0,0 31,6 7,0 __2 15 15 ___ 32 03 Ni 3,0 KT. POS BINJAI -WK. KT. MADYA 7,2 29,2 29_2 7_2 7_7 Wl_ 2_-- 7 02 Ni1 4,0 MEDAN - BINJAI 15,.3 -8,7 16,6 7,9 18,0 W4_ 5 ~4 4 - _ ~ 8 0 3 NI 4,0 Jf.r.Ojuanda (Medan) _______ 2,1 16,6 220 54 18,0 5____ Nl 4,0 JI.DR.Mansyur (Medan) 1,2 2,2 8,71 6,5 18,0 ____ 7 7___I Ni 4,0 Ji.Setia Budi (Medan) _______L3,4 0,0 0,0 3,4 18,0 ___ 3 ____3 1 04 NI 4,0 JIJ.end.Gatot Subroto(Medan) 2,0 0,0 0,0 2,0) 0,0 _ 22 NI AI4Ll JI.BinjaiRaya (Medan) 25, 006T a 25 - 3L ~- Sheet I Table 6.2. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects ___ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~LINK DATA LAND USE (kin) - FOREST (kin) -LANDFORM (kin) ANDAL Lii 0 C) . ANDAL LINKNAME In 0 I- Z- 2 Z CO ', -J D z See Table CD a r < - >; < w i I 5.4 z 0 z lo 02 Li 0 z m w tr w o 0 ui 0 'r w Q W _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~-J LL _I .J _. _: z, 0.L L it 0.0 > C' Om ii- , P1 2-9-,1 SEULIM UM-JANTHO-BTS.PI DI E 30,0 41,1 3, 11,9 5,8 new'? p-12 -2,1- S~EULiMUIM-JANTHO-STS.PIDIE 30,0 53,0 71,1 18,1 3,0 P12 29,2 BTS.A.8ESAR-KEUMALA 25,0 -87,7 1-12~,7 25-,0 3,0 ___14_13 P12 9,2 EMALA -GEUMPANG 60,4 178.0 210,0 32,0 5,0 ___ _ 4 1 32 C2 P1I2 9, KMALA -GEUMPANG 60,4 146,0 178,0 32,0 4,0 Wll 3 1 18 10 3 3 __ _ 32 0 P12 55,01GENTING GERBANG-PAMEU 48,0 342,2 352,0 9,8 4,0 ________ new? P12 55,0 GENTING GERBANG-PAMEU 48.0 -352.06 36-5,0 13,0 3,0 ___ 13 131 13, P12 55,0 (ENTINGGERSANG-PAMEU 48,01 365,0 379,0 14,0 3,0 __1 4 14 __ 1 4 P12 55,0 GENTINGGERBANG-PAMEU 48,0 379,0 390,2 11,2 4,0 - 1 1 ___ P1 2 1.9,1 TAKENGON -UWAK (KM 379) 52.6 319.0 379,0 60,0 -4,7 W-i7- -3 -1 9 0 1 04 2 _C2 P1 2 19,2 UWAK (KM 379)-BTS ACEH TENGGARA (K. 316390415,0 36,0 5,0 Wil 3 __ 10 21 5 5 - -- 25 17j P~12 19,3 8TS ACEH TENGAH -BLANGKEJEREN 53,5415-,0 -4-76,0 -61,0 5,1 Wil1 3 - 2 14 20 25 10 15 - 45 1 6 ____ 2 P121-4-,1 BLANGKAJEREN - LAWEUANAN 64,1 -476,3 - 516,01 39.7 3.0 W7 3 4 36 36 36 4 0C2 P12 14,1 8LANGKAJEREN -LAWEUANAN 64,1 516,0 5_43,0 27,0 4,7__ _ 27 27 27 C___ 2 P12 14,2 LAWEUNAN - KOTACANE __ 39,5 543,0 582,6 39,6 4,9 W7 -3 20 4 16 16 40 02 P12 16,0 KUTACANE-BTS.SUMUT 31,3 582,6 615,0 32.4 5.0 WII1 3_ 1 31- 2 -29' 03 P1-234-,0 K.B-ULUH-LAWE PAKAM 40,3 171,0 179,0 8,0 4,0 x x __ x x I___ P12 34,0 K.BULUH-LAWEPAKAM 40,3 166,0 171,0 5,0 4,0 x x x P1 40K.6SULU -LAWE PAKAM 40,3 151,0 166,0 15.0 4.0 ______ x x 10 P12 34,OK.-B-ULUH-LAWEPAKAM ____ 40,3 14-1,01 151, 0 1_I0-,0 3,5____x x ____ P12 340 KBULUH-LAWE PAKAM 40-,3 -136, 3 141,0 4,7 4,0 W7 3 x xx - P12 36, SIDIKLANG-K.BULUH ______ 52.4 154,5 210,0 56.5 4,0 W7 3 3 3_ 50 43_4 7_____ P12 37,0 PANJI - SIDfKALANG __64_WI 9,3 144,6 15,. 9,9 6,IWO 2 7 ___ P12~ 68,1 DOLOK SANGGUL-BTS. DAIRI -46,8 120,4 169,9 -49-,5 0WIl 3 146 22 47 3 02 ___________________________________ _____ 5~~~~~~~~~~~0 3 -~~~ -- 2 4 4 P126, PANJI-BTS. TAP. UTR. 1I 26.4 144,6 172,6 28.0,0 _ x _____ pm7oSIBORONGBORONG - D. SANGGUL 26,2 105,0 114,0 9,0 5,0 x x x xc P1 90SIBORONGBORONG - D. SANGGUL - - 26,2 -114,0 -12-0,0 -6-,0 6,0 xx P12 99,0 BATANG_TORU -_RIANIATE -BATU MUNDOM 62,0 0,0 0,0 62.0 3,0 Wil 3 x x __ ____ __x_ ____ P1~269,0O SIBORONGBORONG -D. SANGGUL 26-,2 92150 18 5 WIl 3 x x _____ ___ Sheet 2 Table 6.2. EnvIronmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects LINK DATA LAND USE (kmn) __FOREST (km) __ LAN DFORM (kin) ANDAL o Co o co I ~~~~~~~WO w LU a a' ANDAL LINK NAME cm > > u-0r z CD z 0 z 0 oD ir UJ 'C j. c Z w Z o > co a-See Table o~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LU u 0 Cl) rr 0 Ji w P 5 u o -J IL a.-j w IL I 0- 0 0 > o ix IL P1 11BIREUEN-BTS ACEHT-ENGAH 30,7 2 18,1 253,0 34-,9 -5,7 WiI1 1 33 1 0 2 19 --~C P 13 11,2 BTS ACEH UTARA -TAKENGON 669 5 ,0 31, ~ 5,0 WIl 3 1 8 113 6 28 45 21 C P13 49,0 TAKENGON-CEULALA-BfTS.A.BARAT/ACEH BES 68,01 319,0 340,0 21,0 4,2 __ 2 3 88 8 8 -2 1 2_ P13 49,0 TAKENGON-CEULALA-BTS.A.BARATIACEH- BES 68,07 340,0 38-7,0 -47,0 3~,0O 1 4 37 -5 -5 _____43 4 kC2 P~13 22,0 JE URAM-L H-OKSUGM-AT -BTS. ACEH TENGAH 60,2 300,0 315,0 15,0 5,0 WIO 26 9 -5 C2 P-13 24N,0 SP.PEUT -JEURAM 12,5' 86,8 300,0 13,2 5.0 -W710 -2 7 6 13____C2 P151 37,0 Sp.Rima- SteKodya BandaAceh ______ 2,3 0,0 0,0 -2,3 4,9 Wli 3 -x x -~ P1l 37,0 BTS. ACEH BESAR - ULEE LH-EE22 9,0 11,3s 2,3 5,0 Wil 3 x x<-- -- -I 0 P1 38,0 BTS. KODYA - BLANG BINTANG 9,31 5.2 14,8 9.8 5. i13 x ____02 P1 380 BANDA ACEH -BSA.SA/S.KDA4,7 0,35,2 4,9 5,0 WD 2_ P1 30SP.KR.RAYA-DARUSALA-BT-S.ACEH-BESAR ~37 49 7,1 2,2 1 1,0 WI 4 _ x --- I___ 15 70BANDA ACEH - KRUENG RAYA 26,3 - -2,3 5, W10 2 x xCl P5 70BANDA ACEH - KRUENG RAYA 4, 4,7 4,7 4,4 8,2 _ x XI x C2 P15 54,1 KR.RAYA-BTS,PLDIE 33,0 21,0 65,0 44,0 4,4 __ _x x _X C PI15 54,2 STS.ACEH BESAR-LAWEUNG GRONGGRONG - 410 65,0 75.0 100 40_ _x P1T554,2 BTS.ACEH BESAR-LAWEUNG GRONGGRON 410 5, 0, 50 , __ _ P15 54,2 BTS ACEH BESAR-LAWEUNG GRONGGRONG 41,0 806,0 106,0 26,0 4,0 x P11 8,1 BANDA ACEH- - BTS ACEH BARAT 3,5 0.3 4.0 3.7 127 W3 5 4- 1C P11 8,1 BANDA ACEH -BTS ACEH BARAT --55,4 -4,0 -63, 0 59q,0 -5, 0 W-i 0 2 -4-, -- 3-0 1 0 1 5 - - 15T is, 44_ ____ P11 8,2 BTS ACE-H ESAR -KM 125 59,2 63,0 125,0 52,0 5,01 W10 2 10 31 1 8 8 ___ 8 21 241 9 02 P11 8,3 KM 125 -KM 180 51,7 125,0 180.0 55.0 5,31 W 1OC 2 3 __10_ _2 402 5 T2 r2 P11- -8,4 RMM -180 -MEULABOH 60,0 180,0 244,0 84,0 5,01 W10 2 4- 13 14 33 - - 3 -58-T 3 C2 P11 12,0OMEULABOH-KUALATUHA 17,7 244,0, 262,0 18,0 7,8 WIO 2 2 2 10 4 17- _ ____ P113,0 KUALA TUHA -SP.PEUT -9,0 282,0 271.0 -9.0 5, il33 _ 6 ___ _ P11 15,1 SP.PEUT -BTS ACEH SELATAN JKM.337) 65,8 271,0 337,0 66,0 5,0 Wil 3 7 1 0 49 __ __02 P11 15,2 BTS ACFH BARAT- BLANG PIDIE 51,8 337, 0 38- 9,06 52,0 5,0 WlI 3 10 422 C3_ P1 {11 f 15,3 SLAN -G P ID)I E -T A PA KT UAN 59,8 389,0 449,0 6 0, 0 5,0 Wll 3 8 5 _ 601 03 P15u1 -17,1 TAPAK TUAN -BAKONGAN (KM 51)60,8 449,0 510,0 61,0 --4-,8- W-7 3 2 1 15 15 12 1 Pl1, 1 17,2 BAKONGAN (KM 510)- KR G LUAS (KM 5 49 I50, 6, 50,0 5,0 wi 3 14 22 1 Pll, 17,3,KRUENGLUAS(KM560)-BTSSUMUT 59,6 6, 1, 98~ 3_ 3 8 1 3838 __ 6 50 Put 38,0 SIDIKALANG-BATAS PROP. - 2 9 150,8 164 56 fL0 2 2 3 2 2 2 7 5_______ Sheet 3 mm- m-- ~-- Table 6.2. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects LINK DATA ___LAND USE (k) OREST (km) LANDFORM (k) ANDAL a. ~~~ANDAL LINK NAME w COee ai m Z U) (L z~~~~~~~0 Z SeTaI Z ~ ~~ cl oJ w U] 0 zR I.- Ow ~ Ž ,- .~~ 5.4 0 ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~-J Il. .4 Z. a-L Z 2 N2 5.0 MEDAN -L.PAKAM 15.2 11,3 28.0 1671, 5 3 3 14 - -____ N2 5,0 JL>SISINGMANGARAJA 10,2 00 3,3 3,3 15, N2 5,0 SP.HALAT-BTS.KOTA.MEDAN(2)(SM.AJ) 10 2 ,2 11,3 9.1 14,01W4 S - 7 2 9C N2 5.0 SP.HALAT-BTS.KOTA.MEDAN(2)(SM.RAJA) 10,2 2, 13 9.1 15,0 ~W4 5_- - N2 6,0 LUBUK PAKAM - PERBAUNGAN ,1 28,0 30 8,0 10, N2 7,1 PERBAUNGAN - BTS. DELI GERDA~NG 11 (1) __12.9 36, 48.4 12.4 84 N2 7,2 BTS. DELI SERDANG 1 (2) SI RAMPAH 13,2 48,4~ 61,0 12,6 9,0 W2 4 2 1 1 13_ __ N2 8.0 TUGU BTS. KODYA - PATOK KM 79 52 1, 786 17.6 9,51 WS 1 - -__ N21 8,0 SE APAH -TEBING TlNGGI 30 00 00 1, 7,0 C N2 9,1 675. KTT. TINGGI (2)-BTS.S-1MALUNGUN 190 8 0. 83 60 W2 4 - 2 _ 161 1 __C N2 6,-1 TEBI-NG TINGGI - PAMATANG_SIANTAR 5,7 78,6 84, 5,8 9,8 W2 46 I N2 9,2 BTS.DELI SERDANG Ili2-)-6BTS.KT.P.SI-AN - 1-4.9 102,7 120, 181 6,7t W-2 -4 3 15i N2 10i-,0 PS.KM.125 +300 -SP.KE PRAPAT 8,2 120,8 128,8 8,0 9,0 W2 4 - _ _ ___ N2 10, -SKM.125 300. -SfP.KE-PRWA - 8,2 125,3 133,6 8, 1,0 N2- 10,0O PS.KM.125 + 300 - SP.KE PRAPAT 8.2 128,8 1-36.2 7.4 9 - N-2 10iO,0 PEMATANG -SIANTA'R -PRPAT 43,6 136,2 175,0 36,8 6. 4 2 5 1 5 5 1_ _ _ 2 12 27 C N2 11,1 PRAPAT-BTS.TAPT.l 1. 7, 864 1. ,0W _ NR2 11,2 BTS.SIMALUNGUN (2)-SILIMBAT 34,1 186,4 221,0 34,6 -2 N2 12,0 SILIMBAT -SIBORONG BORONG 21,2 221,0 257,0 36,0 - , i 2 3 1 6__ _ _ 26___ N2 12,0 SIBORONG BORONG -TARUTUNG 25,6 257,0 I283,0 26,0 4,5i Wll 3 2 2 13 _9 i 0 N 1,0TARUTUNG- BY PASS 6,1 276,5 282 7 6,2 5,2 W9 1 N214.1 TARUTUNG_-_BTS.TAPSEL I (1) 53.7 6, 119,8 53,9 5,2 Wll 3 2 2 12 31 ___ N2 14,2 BTS.TAPUT 1 (2) -SIPIROK 186198 130 -18,2 5,01 WIl 3 2 3 3 10__10 __ -2c N2 17.0 PAL IX - SIPIROK 21214, 2,0 2, 6,0 FW9 I - __ ____ N2 18.0PSIDEMPUAN -PAL IX 14,71 88,7 104A,0 15,3 -6,0~ W9 -1 -__ N2 i19,1 P. SIDEMPUAN - BTS. TAPSEL 11 36,8 6880 127,0 39,0 8,0 2 N21 19.2 BTS.TAPSELI - JEMB3ATAN MERAH- 43.8 127,0 173.4 46.4 50Wl3 _ 3 18 25 -0 2 - -2 N2 20,0 JBT. ME RAH - RANJAU BATU - 57,2 173,4 23.4,0 60,6 5,0~ WIl 3 5 25 26 36 25 C _ N2 32.0 Ponit! -Batas Sumut 37.7 198,3 238.0 37.7 5,0. WIlI 3 2 25 8 __ __ N2 30,0 Lubuk Sikaping - Panti 30,2 168,0 198,3 30,3 50 WII3 2 25 3 3 ____25__ __2 Buk___gg_-_Lb_k_ _a_n_ 12,3- 74,0 82,0 7380 6W 4 116 7-C _ _q __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ____- - __ A_ ____ _ _C N2 29,0 LBukittungg -LbkSikapcing __ _ 15,1 94,3 47,9 142,6 6, 2 4 _ i N2 45,0 PadangLPunar-BLuar 1gi2,5 04,0 02,01 2,5 12,0 WI 4 I_ I L 2..6... N2 1,0 JI.Arau (Padag 1,8 0,0 1 8,2 18,2 12,0W 4 - C -___ J2 1,0 PADANG -LUBUK ALUNG 157 1, 33 11 7 i 4- 2 13 - - - - Sheet 4 Table 6.2. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects LINK DATA LAND USE (kmn) FOREST (kin LANDFORM (km) ANDAL -i 10 U)~~ o C ANDAL O LINKNAME z ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a m> UCODE 0 > z ui l'- z~~~~~~H~ O See Table U) (0 ~~~~~~~~~ (0 H ~~~~~~~~~w < -~~~~~~~~ ~~c w ) = > i Z x < 0 z LU a: :;~~~~~~~~~~~c 2 0 Z ~ ~ w - . c~~~~~~~) ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~-j U. -J ) D~ z u Li. 0 0 > U) x Ui. 'P23 7~3,0 SI-BOLGA-BTS. ~BARUS 1- -0, 1,9 1,9 6,0 W9 1- 2- -_-C P~23 73-,0 S-IBOLGA -BARUJS 63,0 1,9 11,0 9,1 5,0 6 5 11 Cl P2-3 73-,0 SIBOLGA - BARUS 630 11,0 35,7 24,7 3,5 _ 10 15 ~18 7 CI P02-3 73-,0 S§IBOLGA - BARUS 63,0 35,7 42-,0 -6,3 -3,3 _ 66 _ C I P231 73,0 SIBOLGA -BARUS _ ___ 63,0 42,0 63,0 21,0 3,1 21 _ 21 -Ci P237 97,0 BARU$S-MANDUAMAS -BTS ACEH 49,7 97,9 116,0 18,11 5,0 ___ __ 8 ~- -9- P23 97,0 BARUS -MANDUAMAS -BTS ACEH- _ 49,7 7-1,4 9~7,9 27754,0___2727 Cl P1 -16,1 SIBOLGA - BTS.TAPANUL-I E~EL.I 39,9 -3,7 4-6,0 42,3 5,0 WIl 3 - 2 21 19 C P021 16,1 7UGU -F. TOBING - WTS. KODYA SfBOLGA 3.5 3,7 46,0_ 42,3 5,6 WV2 4 21 98, BT-STAPU7T-SIPANGIM1BA-R 30,0 170 17,0 1,0 -3,4 P521 98-,0 BTS- TA PUT - SIPANG I MBA R ___O 3,0 169,0 177,0 8,0 4.~17___ __ 21110BATU M U NDOM - TABUYU NG 64. 00 0, 40 5,0 __ _1______nw P21 100,1 NATAL - SIKARAKARA - TABUYUNG 40,0 268,0 273,0 5,0 4,0 __ new? P2T00-,1 NATA-L- SIKARA~KARA - TABSUYUJNG 40.0 262,8 288,0 5,2 3,0 new? P021 1-00-,2 N~A-TAL - SIKARAKARA - TABUYUNG 40.O0 2-9-9,0 305,0 -6,0 -5,0 ___new? P2-1 ~100,2 NATAL - SIKARAKARA - TABSUYUNG 40,0 -273,0 29-9,0 -26,0 -5,0 --- -- ---_new---- P2-1 8~5,0 SiP.GAMBIR-MANISAK(BTS. SUMBAR) 30,3236,0 268,1 32,1 4,0 32 c ~2-1 670SILAPING-BEDANG RAPAT - BTS. SUMUT 15735,C586 66 , P21 65,0UJUNG GADING (AIR BALAM)-SILAPING 18,0 334,4 365,7 31,3 4,6 W7 3 _ 11 20 19 12 C2__ P211 34,2 UJUNG GADING (AIR BALAM) - AIR BANGIS 12,7 334,4 347,8 13,4 4,0 W7 3 4 9 3 _ P211 34,1 SP.EMPAT - UJUNG GADING (AIR BALAM) 5, 7, 9, 15 508 1 P211 47,2 PADANG SAWAH - SP. EMPAT 39-,0 134,1 1i75,0 -40,9 5,0 WIl 3 - 2 39 41____ P211 34,1 SP.EMPAT - UJUNG GADING (AIR BALAM) 5-9,0 2-:94,0 --334,4 40,4 -4,0 _ P2 71MANGGOPOH -PADANG SAWAH 32, 1022 134,1 31,9 5,0 WII 3 1 20 11 ____ 6 _ 5 27 ____ P212, Pariaman - _Manguopoh .450_5,6_7, 31,45 WO 2201 _____ P211 24,0 Pariamian - Manggopoh 45,0 87,0 102,2 15,2 6,0 10 5 c P2 1 -46,0 Kuraiti_- Pariaman 5,6 50, 55,6 5L.OW 4 - 2 4 -P211 27,0 Lubuk Alung -Kuraittali 16!333,Qj 0 -WI0 2 9 8 E 17 02 Sheet 5 Talble6l.2. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects LINK DATA LAND USE (km FOREST (kin) LANDFORM (kin ANDAL a co 0 z o a. ANDAL w 0 0 ~~0 r)a CD LINK NAME cc, >z LU 0 OD Z z D~~~~~~ C c a z See Table LU ;i L ': > U.~~j 5.4 0 a: . w >. . U) a~ Li. N5 42,0 T2EBlNGT~~~~~~GGi-KP.BfNJAI ~~~3,3 _11 4,4 3,3 6,0 WI 4 3 _ _ 3_ 2 NST42_____T__TINGGI__KP___BINJAI__ 3,8 77,3 81,11 3, 60 __ C2 N5- -43,_1 KRBINJAI - ~BTS. ASAHAN j, 84,-4 -90,4 6,0 7,0 W2 4 6 6 __ N5 43,2 BTS.DELI SERDANG 11(5)-TJ.KASAU -- 13, 90,4 94,0 3,6 7,0 W2 4 ~ 4 I 4 _ Cl N5 44,O YJKASAU -)NDRAJPURA , 94,0 104,0 10.0 6.0 W2 4 - 2 2 6 1 _ 0 02 N5- 47-,0 INDRAPURA - LIMAPULUH 1 104,0 120,0 16, 0 6,0 W10 2 - C -NS 6- 1,0 -P L. PULHS EANKR_ 176120,0 138,0 18,0 -6,0 W-9 -1 _ C NS5SB-EJANGKAR - KISARAN~ 19.8 138,0 158,0 W9- _ Cl NS 5-~4,0 KISARAN-SP. KAWAT 14,2 158,0 172,4 14,4 ,1W9 1 C NS 57,1 SP. KAWAT-BTS. LABUHAN BATU -45,1 172,4 218,0 - 45,6 6, W9 1 T - NS57,2 BT.AA-A(6-.PAA 68,4 -2-18,0 219 __0_C ~NS57,34 BTS. ASAHAN(6)-R. PRAPAT 68,4 219,0 288,0 69, 6 -Wil -3 2 _ 37 30 8 6 C3 N5 5-~8-,0 R-P-RAPAT - AEK NABARA 1-9.3 288.0307,5 -19,5 6,8 2 0 Nq5 60,0OAEK NABARA -SR.KOTA PINANG ~ -32,6 37,11 340,5 33,4 6,0 W9 -1 __cl N5 84,0 KOTAPINANG-BTS.RIAU ~~~~~~~~~34,1- 340,5 375,0 34,5 6,0 W9 1 C NS 19,3 BG BATU - BTS SUMUT 30.3 319,6, 350,4 30.8 5,0 WIO 2 cl NS 19,2 SP BALAM -5 BG ATU 27,5 291,71 319,6 27,9 5,0WO 2 - -C N-5 1-i9,1 S-PBA-TANG -SP BALAM 54,3 -236,6 291,7 -,55,1 6,0 WIO 2- C2 N5 18,0, SRP D-UM AI - S-P BAT A N G 3-6.3 199,7 -23 6,6 36.9 6,8 W1O 2 02 N5 7,0 DURI - DUMAI 64,4 130,0 13808,0 6,0 __ _ N5S -7,0 DUI- I64-,4 1-~38,0 -145,0 7,0 6,0I N5 7,0) DURI - UMAI 64,4 145,0 151,0 6,0 6,0I N15- -7.0 -D UR -17 DUMA I 6-4-,4 151,0 160,0 9,0 _6,0 I C2 N5 7,0 OURI - DUMAI ____ 64,4 160,0 199,7 37 7. NS5 -7,0 O-UR)-I DUMA) 64,4 124,2 130,0 5,8 6, 0 -WI- -2 NS' 6.2 KANDIS - OURI 58,7 64,6 124,2 59,6 5-,3 WIO 2 __- N5 6,1 BTS CABDIN BENGKALIS -KANDIS 41122,9 -64,6 41,7 7. 402 N~OPKANBAR -- BTS CABDIN BENk*A-L1S 2- 2,6 .0,0 22,9 22.9 8,0 WI 42 _ C3 Sheet 6 Table 62. Environmental and Sociological Screening ofProposed Capacity Expanlsion Profects LINK DATA -_ _LAND UJSE (kmn) F_ OREST (m) LANDFORM (kmn) ANDAL I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~0zANDAL LINK NAME D0z LI. o C C))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U EL z See Table z ii o~~~ ~ ~ ~ o z ~~ u Li5.4 o) Z)u x UZ N6 16,2 Tugu Frdmnan -Bts Kota Sibol-ga ________03 , ,3 50W 1V 3 _________- G N6 162BTS. KOTA Si BOLGA 1)-_BTS.TAPUJT I (22,2 3, 26,9 23,3 6, +WIl- 3 - 2 _I1 1 0 __ __ _616,1 BTS.TAPTENG (1) -TARUTUNG 38,0 26, 66,0 39,1 4,5 --Wll 3 2 1 3629 8 2C N4 6,1 JL. ISKANOAR MUDA __ ______ 2,2 0,0 2,2 2,2 13, 4 W3- 6 xx__ N4 2_6,1 JL. PAlriMURA __ 7.8 0.2 _16,6 15,4 9,0 WI 4 x __ _ C4 N4 28,1 MEDAN - 8TS. TANAH KARO 38,2 156 4,0 38,4 6,2 ____ __ - C N4 32-,0 KA-BAN JAH E -ME R EK 21,9 76,0 99,2 23,2 5,3 Wlo 2 x 0 - 2- N4 6,2 BTS.DELI SERDANG -KABAiJ-A-HE- 20,8 54,0 76,0 2-2,0 6, W c2- N43, EREK- ~BATAS DAIRI (2) 13,5 99,2 113,5 14,3 6,0 WIO -2- ,7- 2 C2 __ ____2_BTS. TANAH KARO (3)-PANJI 29,3 113,5 _14, , Wlo_ 2___122417 7 P24 63,0 PAL. XI -AEK GODANG 12,5 104,4 117,0) 12,6 5,0 W10 2 FCl _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 32 ,7 _~ , C 3 __ 64,2 KM. 15-0 -SIBUHUAN 34,6 150,0 169,0 19,0 4,0 ___ P24 64,2 KM. 150 -SIBUHUAN __ _ 46176,0 1765,0 7,0 4,0 ---___I P2 UJUSRPNGBATUIA-BT TSSIUMT24,1 181,9 213,0,7 4, 5,00 Wi 329 ____ 31WC _ _ ___2 _ _ PANGARA___AN _____ _2__13_______16 02 RTBEAGI TNUN_! _4__T6, 31, 40 , 321 4 Cl Sheet 7 m m m m - m - m m m - - - m - m Table 6.2. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects LINK DATA LAND USE (km) FOREST (km) LANDFORM (km) ANDAL w _L. _NK __A.. EU 0 - ANDAL a. ui > LU ~g ~CODE P1 40Padang Panjang- Kubu Kerambil_ _ _____ -, 7276,9 _4,7 6,0 __ =-=-2 __ ___ |_5___= P3tl 4,0 Padang Panjang - Kubu Kerambil __4,8 78,9 81,5 4,6 5,0CI W1 3 2 3 __ |__ __5IC P3tl 5,0 Kubu Kerarbll-8LIk 41,5 81,5 122,0 40,550 W11 3 - 2 15 24 i 1 2 6 P31 C,0 Kubu Kerambil - Solok 3,9 122,0 125,7 3,7 6,0 ________ 4 _3 C1 P311771,0 SOLOK - MUARA PANEH - ALAHAN PANJANG _ 49,5 62,4 77,0 _14,6 4,6 W7 3 8 5 2 8 7 C2 _________________________ 9_____ _7__0 - ,C3 ~73 4021 -1 __ _____ P311 71,C SOLOK- MUARA PANEH - ALAHAN PANJANG 495 77,0 114,3 3734, __ _ .__ . 1e 2017 _ C2 2 Surianr-SimpangPadangAra - 65,2 99,5 166,2 66,7 5,0 Wil - 357 10 - - 20 47 = C2 P31i 14,3 Simpang Padang Aro - Batas Jambi 4__ 34,0 166,2 190,0 23,8 4,8 W7 3 24 24 I P31_14,3 SImpng Padang Ar - Batas Jamb, 34,0 190,0 201,0 11,0 4,0 _ 1 -= _ = 6 5 2 I C2 P3 14,3 Simpang Padang Aro - Batas Jambi 34,0 190,0 201,0 11,0 4,0 ___ _____. N3 22,0 JI.BagindoAzisChan-J Agussalim 10.2 00 0,0 10.2 15.5 WS 3 5 5 i _ 5 C3 N322,0 Padang -Lubuk Seai 1, , 0, 0,2 5,0 W1lO 2 N3 22.0 SimpangHaru-BatasKotaPadang- 2,0 2,0 25,2 23,2 7,2 5 10 81…… 8 8 71 _ C3 Padang -Lubuk Selasih 22,9 30,0 35,4 5.4 5,0 5 5 cl N3 22,0 E 22'9PadangL -ubuk Selih 250 T -, ,0 _ N3 23,0 Lubuk Selasih - Solok _ 240 0,0 0,0 24,0 5,0 W10 2 I II N3 219 35,4 Lubuk S61asih - Solok 195 26,1 _5,8 W2 4 _ 2 19 5 3 10 1__ 02 N3 6,0 Slok Muara Kaban 240,0 24,0 ,W9 I -0 4 21 24 C1 N3 6,0 Solok- Muara Kalaban __ __ _2,5 64,1 64,1 _ 2,5 6,0 W2 4 3 _ 3 Cl ,0 Muara Kalaban - Tanah Badantung 25,7 88,1 14,0 25,9 TO7,0 _I = - 1 11| 26 C2 N3 - 9,0 Tanah Badantung - Kiliranjau _ 50,5 114,0 165,0 510 6,0 28 33 30 20 31 02 N3 51,0 Kiliranjau -Sei Dareh 20,8 165,0 186,0 21,0 6,0 W9 1 21 15 8 13 11 i31 52,0 Sei Dareh - Junction __ __ 31,7 186,0 218,0 32,0 6,0 W9 I -12 20 32 C02 53,0 Junction - Satas Jambi 12,6 218,0 230,8 12,8 6,0 Wg 1_ | 13 13 _ C1 Sheet 8 - - m m m - -- m m m m - m m Table 6.2. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects LINK DATA _ LAND USE (km) FOREST (km LANDFORM (km) ANDAL 0i 0 aANDAL ) LINK NAME ;a z' w P ' z z D 0) z ~~~~~~a See Table co oz 0 z o m Ž l > a_- 5 O ~~~~~ w ~~~~~ Q iLl ~~~~~~~~~~~ a~~~~ w 0ruiL ci ui U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~-J LL H J x > ELl aw Li L P32 41,0 Bukittinggi - Baso 7,9 0,0 0,0 7,9 7i0 W2 4-W- C2 B-21, ukittinggi -Baso _ 3,0 94,6 94,6 3,0 7,3 Wl 4 _3 3 Cl P32 42,0 Baso _Pavakumbuh 15,5 102,2 113,0 10,8 6,0 W9 1 1 1 = 4 7 C1 F'321 42,0 Baso - Payakumbuh 6,9 113 0 124,6 11,6 8,3 3 3 612C ___ .___________.___.____ ___ ___ _____C P « Pay-akumbuh- Batas Riau ~~5,4 -124,6 -129,8 -5,2 8,0 2 3 IC2 P32 43,0 PayakuMhuh- Batas Riau= 84,4 129,8 213,0 83,2 5,1 Wll 3 2 17 43 2 10 20 33]40 10 C3 P321 4,0 RTBEANGIN -BT SUMBAR 18,6 76,4 95,3 18,9 5,5 WIO 2 i 5 14 X 9C1 BANGKINANG - RT BERANGIN 315,4 6110 76,4 15,4 6,0 W9 I 10 5 _ _15 1532T1 2,0 PEKANBARU -BTS CABDIN KAMPAR- - -43,0 00 00 30 6,0 W 14 3 15 25 __ _ g|_43 = C2 -P32 2 ,0 PEKANBARU - BTS CABDIN KA-MPAR 1T6,9 0,8 18, 17,2 7,4 -7 -10 I112 -5 C1 ~P3 1,O -pEKN R -Sp= TIGA _ 5,6 _ 0,0 _5,5 _5,6 19,0 _ 31 3 _ _ _ - -- - ------ C2 P3 80Pdng ui uus55__5,5_ _ _ 4 C2 P3.4 _ 16,0 Bukit Putus-Painan4711 __ 62,0 7 0, 0 _ 4,0 _4_ _41 1C1 P341j16 BukitPut- Pain 7 28,3 -620 --33-7 -4,11W7 3 _- _ 4 151512 C2 P3 6Bukit Putus -Panan 21,8 _70,0 _28,3 - .5 0 2 5,5 = 2 f C2 -Kambang I5212 110,0 13150 21,0 4,8 41 7 C1 - -21 ~ - 0 P3 71Painan - _Karnbang 52 2 77,0 ,0 __33,0 4,0 W7 3 I is8 151 - - 2 1 C2- .Kambang3- lnderapura 551 1 10 154,01 23,0 4,6 W7 3 is= 5 = C2 P341 17,2 Kambang- lnderapura 55,1 154,0 188,0 34,0 4,0 1 221 2 I I 1 1 241 02 P3419,0 iInderapura-Tapan 23,4 188,0 212,2 24,2 4,8 Wl1 3 2 22 1-2 4 02 P34| 21,0 Tapan-BatasBengkulu 38,2 212,2 251,7 39,5 4.3 Wl1 3 2 37 1 || 0 C2 Sheet 9 Table 6.2. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects LINK DATA LAND USE (kin) FOREST (km)___ LANDPORM (kin) ANDAL w co Ui0 ZU ANDAL 0 > a~~LNKAM ~ L* U0 CODE 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5w= 1ZSee Table cr z z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- . w : cl -J M < z 0 ~~~~~~z 0 0 Lz a z 0 w 0 O i i N-6 _ib, BTS.CAB.KAMPAR -SIKIJANG MATI 184 0,0 0,0 18,4, 6-0 -1 _ N63, T.ABKMA-IIJNMT 1, 21,113, 74 , I 176___ 171 Cl N6 30,2 SUKIJANG MAT - SIMPANG LAGO 2 7 38,5 64,7 26, 2 -6,0O W-9 1 26 __ 26 01i N 141SP.LAGO-SOREKI 509 64,7 11, 5,E60W9 152 ____ 520 N6 14,2 SOREK I - TS.INHU 40,3 116,1 157,1 41,0 6,0 Wg 1I14 02 NK6 1-4,3 B-TS.INHU - SIMPANG .JAPURA ~25,7 -157,1 183-,42 6,3 -6,0 -W9- I 26 26______ Cl N6 35,0OSIMPANGJAPURA-PEMATANG REBA ~ 17,1 183,4 200,7, 17,3 6,0 W9 1 17__ 17 Cl P4 1, LK-KUANTAN -CERENTI__ _ 60.1 164,0 225,0 61,0 5,3 1 2 61 61 C_ 2 P42 11,2 CERENTI-AIRMOLEK ~~~~~~~48,6 225,0 274,0 49,0 5,0 WIO 2 49C___4 2 P42 11,3 AIR MOLEK-SP JAPURA 2-~0,1 2-74,0 29-4,1 20,1 -5,0 W1O 2 20 20 C P42 26,0 PEMATANG REBA -RENGAT 16,1 200,7 217,2 16,5 4,0 I 12333 14C P43 13,0 RNGAT- KA.INAKU 23,0 217,2 240,6 23,4 5,0 Wll 3 2 2 _____23 Cl P431 17,1 K CINAKU -RB JAYA ___ 375 406 768,8 -38-,2 5,0 Wll 3 -20 15 8 8 C 2 P43 17,2 RB.JkY-A- TEMPULING (S.SALAK) 10.8 278,8 289,8 11.0 3,0' _ 11 III1 Cl P43 150TEMPULING -TEMBILAHAN ____ 246 8,1 1,1 20 30W7 325 25~ Cl P34,1 TEMBILAHAN - ENOK 23,0 314,11 337,1 23,0 33 23 23 Cl P43 45,2 lOK- BATAS JAMBI ___ 47,3 337,11 384,5 47,4 ~7 47' __ 47 02 P44 24, SP.8EINGIN-SP.BUATAN ___ 46, 5,0 72,6 21, 6,0 _ 22_ 12 _ 1 P4~ 24,0 SP.BERINGIN -SP.BUATAN -46,.3 2~5,5 51,0 25,5 6,0 __ __26 _ 26 __ _ Cl P44 32,0 SP.BUATAN - BUATAN 110,4 89,6 94,0 . , 9 1440 P433,1 S-p.Bu-atan Sp. Siak Sriindr2pura 3, 3, 3, , , _ P4 31SpBuatan Sp ikridaua3, 96110 4, , 1 __h 4 _ _ __ f3 1I0 P4 3, Sp.iek Indra Puire-Mnkpn2, a 19 6 9 I - L 1 22 2 0 Sheet 10 - --- - --- m m - - Table 6.2. Environmental and Sociological Screening of Proposed Capacity Expansion Projects LINK DATA _ LAND USE (km) FOREST (km) LANDFORM (km) ANDAL a 0 i ° L Ns NAME I 0 ° L< ANDAL P45i L2N7NA1E DUMAI SEPAHAT .. _ l59P CODE. Li 2, 2 85 P > D_ _ C OD LINK NAME3 (0 H Z < < > I - . 5 z 0 z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U - ( ) P4027i DUMAI -SEPAHAT _ _ _ _ _ __ 590 2331iD1 234,0 _ i,0 ............... 80 _ ._ __ _. __ _ 1 __ Zt < e T 0: - nU H -- I0 0 _ _ _ _I P45[ 27,1 DUMAI -SEPAHAT _ 59,0 232,0 223,0 201,0 8,0 ___ 1. . _ 1 ___ . __ 5,15i ____ P45 i27,1 DUMAI -SEPAHAT _ 5 9,0 _195,0 - - 22 2 -3, 2, _=43 1 5I = J|2 <_7SP_T- SIPKN _ 128,0 46,0 5,0 (if | 1 _- l6i 10 C1 P45| 27,1 [(Al SEPAHAT-SEI PAKNING 59,0 233,0 234,0 22,0 4,0 _ _1 _ r 11 1 __ ______-___ KTTEN_AH - SP KMUH 0 _ = 0 9,82408 ---27i,Lo - 30_2 4i8 W10-2 t < 30t ~-- --- | 1 - 30t I 02 P45 27,1 DUAI-SEPANAU _ 59,0 234,0 2508, ___ - 1 6 ! 25- P45 27,1 DUMAIL-SEPAHAT _ _____1___ 9, 25,0 223,0 1,0 8,0 W10 2 2 2 4 1 P4' __A- _- 31 __, 231 __|_2 20 -- U MAI-S-EPAHAT _5___ 59,0 199,0 222,0 23,0 8,0 13 4 is2_ P41 97,2 TS iSE MAHA-T-SEIMPAKNING 40 75,0 0,0 26,0 6,0 13 1 I13 1 5i 10 GIC P451 27,2 SEPAHATi -SEI PAKNING 48,0 280,0 302,0 22,0 4,0 IT-- 11 ii -- - , _ 17 5 C2 P46 _36,1 SEI RANGAU -KOTO TENGAH -34,1 190,8 240,8 _50,0 4,8 2__ 30V - 0- 0 P46 29,0 OURI-SEI RANGAU - ~~~~~_66_6_ ~4, _ W2----4, W9 2_ 103021 __ __6 21 P4 2,0 _U__ - SE[ RANGA 31,0 124,4 155,4 31,0 6,8 _ _ 1 __ 0 2_25 P41 13,0 KiTr-an-Jau - Satas Riau 23,1 165,0 173,0 8,0 6,0 WV11 3 8 __- ~8: 01 P41 1-0,0 TL-KUANTAN -BT SUMBAR 387136228 39,2 50Wi 312 0 7 7 _2 12 1 5 02 P41 9,3 IVALtEMBU -TLK KUANTAN j 3510, 6, 3, , 9 1 5 29 301 4 2 -P4 9, BT_SINH_U- MA LEMBU 50,4 788 130,0 51,2 6,0_ V9_ -1 51 --51 1 __ 2 P41 9,1 B3T§SCBDiN_KAM1PAR -BTES cABDN INHU_ 638b 14,0 78,8 64,8 6,0 W9 I 556 6 02 P41 9,0 SP TIGA - BTS KAMPAR -8:3 5,6 14,0 8,4 7,0 W2 4 8 =- C1 Sheet 1 1 I I I I J FIGURES I I I I I I I I I If, I I I GENERALIZED LANDFORMS LEGEND) L/k v..,. - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PROVINCE U(UNCANY R IVE~R LA NCFO RM S MOUNTA NDi HIL.S J NERIUONTAN LNN L 1 DV~II. AND Pl.[N5 ALLUVIAL PLAINS ~~ ~~ PEAr SWAMPIS CO ~~~~~~~~~T DAL. SWAMPS -. ~~~~~~IGURE . C) ~~~~N z 0 175 52.5 87.5 K~I S~j~N~IPT18 - - - m - - - - - ,+-g NORTH SUMATRA GENERALIZED LANDFORMS --.--- .4? -. : | _PROVINCE BOUNDARY C~~ ~ E HE RIVERND LAKEI LA ND FOR M S 4R ~ ~MOJNTAINS HILLS I I ~~~INTERNONTANE PLAINS LOWLAND PLAINS ALLUVIAL PLAINS PEAT SWAMPS TIDAL SWAMPS FIGURE lb. 0 175 ~52.5 87.5 K. SWreRePPP,OT 1988 WESM AT E R m m m - ---- - - - - N O R TH S U M A T E R A WEST SUMATRA GENERALIZED LANDFORMS LEGEND -4---- +-+-, PROVINCE BOUNDARY LAKE LANDUFORM S R I A U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MON AN HILLS IN'ERMONTANE PLAINS LOWLAND PLAINS PADANG'q ALLUVIAL PLAINS PEAT SWAMPS A.'- hIZ 5 8 Source RePPProT 1988 mu m m- - m - - --- --- RIAU GENERALIZED LAND USE LEGEND I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _---~--~- PROVJNCE BOUNDARY Wl ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~RIVER INTENSIVE LAND USE SYSTEMS - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EXTENSIVE LAND USE SYSTEMS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~z ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~FOREST( 1985 BOUNDARY) -~~~~~~~~~~~~ / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~FIGURE 3 d. N - *~~~~~~~~~~~~-.~~~~~~G ~~~0 175 SZ.S eT5K. ~~~ ~~~ -e~~~~~*~~~~~-*4:-~~~~~~~) ~ ~ ~ ~ /\) ~~~~Sou,ce RePPProT 1988 + J A M B I - - - - - - - -- - m m m BANDA ACEH LOCATION OF ISOLATED AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES AND INDIGENOUS GROUPS Elm DAN< < | LEGEND iA ; A a Forest Areras in Which Isolated Ccommunities are Found. Indigenous Communities IT 8 \ A K r+---t-+ Province Boundory ORi s W > t4ORANG LAUT ORAN LA UTl KANSARU~~~~~~RAGLAJ FIGURE 4 PADANO TAAG NAMAK JAMBI A - ___________________ ~~~~~~~~~~S-Cr.: PT. GEOSYS Intipi-nt \tY . BENGKULU oc:PGoYInirnt - -m - - - - - - - - - - -- - BANDA ACEH ACEH PROTECTED AREAS LEGEND . + i _ -- -L+E G PROVNCE EOUNDARY RIV ER LiIi FWJ\'\N PROTECTION FOREST .~~~ CONSERVATION AREAS WETLANO AREAS WITH ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE FIGURE 5o. -. ~~ ~~~~ ~~0 17.5 52.5 87.5 Km o.c RPRo 8 . - ~~~~NFIP(INTAr. - -- -- - -- - - -- - - m - - - NORTH SUMATRA v X . PROTECTED AREAS MEOAN LEGEND AX C E H ;\_.++^svNesu)R 4------- PROVINCE BOUNDARY (J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 ~~~~~~~~RIVER r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LAKE PROTECTION FOREST CONSERVATION AREAS WETLAND AREAS WITH ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE FIGURE 5b -/. 4 Jr'* W E S T \r-ria A , 175 52.5 87 SKm Sourc- RePPProT [988 W E S T \ R - NFIP .INTAG. S U M A T E R A - ' m - mmmi m m - - N O R TH S U M A T E R A WEST SUMATRA N, As< N /,~~~/ 1 Q2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ S a M A R KILANAN G K4- TAKENGO= _ 4/ L r rA " 0 99 < 5 C g4,9 \ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LOKO ( n -' ..< - ; t L --6--to 2. K. ~~~~~, .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C~~~~~~~- FIGURE 9 MEDAN -KABANJAHE IK 304/310/311/312 r / | . _ ~~NAMOUKUR KUTALIMBARU | Q >tERO~~~~~~~~~~RIKARI / I I' s'X /\Od Zi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I 4 T A A N A >* T IG A J U H A R X I: > \ II§ r~ , / z ~~~~BERASTAGI5 \ , * ~~DtANAU f I ,. ; I<~~AWARv\ _, \ GUNUNGMERIAH I . \ j w-\ IK 310 _gABANJAH >t1: s ~~~TO . K UTACA4N E-C | ~~N TIGAPAA j ! A v ~~~~~~~~~SINAMAN; *i-a. H SARANPANDANG ' * V Y O ) Xk o~~~~~~m I CiNGKES U 1- A \ RUM MIS Q . - 10~ 4..4's.zS 0< I~A.z I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ GLOSSARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL TERMS AMDAL Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan - the process of environmental analysis, management and monitoring. ANDAL Analisis Dampak Lingkungan - the detailed environmental and social impact analysis (EIA/SIA). It provides an analysis of the potentially significant environmental effects, both positive and negative, generated by a project, and serves to identify and evaluate possible solutions. KA Kerangka Acuan - Terms of Reference for ANDAL. Project-specific guidelines and criteria which define the scope of studies and analyses that should be undertaken by proponents in their preparation of an ANDAL. | KL Kajian Lingkungan - initial environmental study. A preliminary level of environmental studies that describes the existing conditions of an area, and types and magnitude of predicted project impacts. The KL further serves as a J ecision document' that supports a determination of the project's need for a detailed ANDAL study. For projects that do not require further study (and are thus considered as exempt from the AMDAL process), the KL guides the preparation of the related UKL and UPL. RKL Rencana Pengelolaan Lingkungan - environmental management plan. A specific guide derived from an ANDAL that sets out the design and operating requirements for mitigating environmental effects caused by proposed projects. The RKZ may specify operatig procedures, compliance standards, activity responsibilities and schedules. RPL Rencana Pemantauan Lingkungan - environmental monitoring plan. A specific guide derived from an ANDAL that describes the means for monitoring project compliance with requirements and procedures provided in the RKL as well as with established environmental standards. UKL UJpaya Pengelolaan Lingkiungan - an environmental management action plan. This is derived from the KL which has determined that predicted project impacts are not significant and can be managed by standard operating procedures. The UKL is operational in scope and serves as a binding instrument for the proponent with regard to environmental management. UKL and UPL documents do not form part of the AMDAL process, as they are not subject to evaluation by the responsible AMDAL commission but rather are under the direct responsibiity of the technical agency responsible for |: ^supervising the proposed project activity. UPL Upaya Pemantauan Lingkungan - environmental monitoring action plan. This is the monitoring counterpart to the UKL. REFERENCES | Asian Development BankfDG Highways - Indonesia. 1995. Operational guidelines for resettlement management in road projects: a handbook. TA 2268-1NO for Capacity Building for Resettlement Management in Road Projects. I Asian Wetland Bureau. 1992. Environmental Impact Assessment Integrated Swamps Development Project (Riau, Jambi, West Kalimantan). Second draft. PHPA/AWB, Bogor. I , Balen, S. van. 1991. An ornithological survey of the Kampar and Rokan rivers and their adjacent forests, Riau, Sumatra. PHPA/AWB Sumatra Wetland Project Report No. 23, Bogor. DHV Consultants BV and associates. 1996. Bali Urban Infrastructure Program. Umbrella Environmental Assessment (Executive Summary). BAPPEDA TKI Bali. BirdLife Intemational - Indonesia. 1994. Kawasan Konservasi yang telah dikukuhkan di I Indonesia. Draft report. Bum, J. & N. Brickle. 1992. Spirit of Sumatra 1992, Preliminary report, including status and notes on the ecology of Cairina scutulata (White-winged Wood Duck) and Ciconia I stormi (Storm's Stork) in the Sumatran provinces of Riau and Jambi, Indonesia. Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, UK. Collar, N.J., M.J. Crosby & A.J. Stattersfield. 1994. Birds to Watch 2. The World List of 1 Threatened Birds. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 4, BirdLife Intemational, Cambridge, UK. Giesen, W. & S. van Balen. 1991. The wetlands of Giam-Siak Kecil Wildlife Reserve, Riau, Sumatra. PHPA/AWB Sumatra Wetland Project Report No. 22, Bogor. - Hoff & Overgaard a/s. 1992. Fnvironmental Assessment, IBRD Kabupaten Roads in Eastern Indonesia. Vol. 3: Environmental Management. Project Management Unit, IBRD Rural Roads Development Project. Hoff & Overgaard als. 1993. Overview of current practices for the acquisition of land for road development projects. Draft report to the Proposed Second Highway Sector Project, Indonesia. Hoff & Overgaard a/s. 1995. Environmental and social aspects of road network expansion. Draft report for The World Bank. IBRD. 1994. Indonesia Kabupaten Roads Program: KR3, KREI, KR5, Environmental and Social Aspects. IBRD Infrastructure Operations Division, Country Department III, East Asia and Pacific Regional Office. Indro Djarwo, H. 1995. TA 2209: Land Acquisition and Resettlement Program for the Proposed North Java Road Improvement Project. Main Report. Dir. Program Development, DG Highways. Louis Berger Intemational hic. and associates. 1995. Strategic Urban Road Infrastructure * Project. Summary Environmental Assessment. DG. Highways, Directorate of Urban Road Development. Marie, J.G. van & K.H.Voous. 1988. The birds of Sumatra: an annotated checklist. Brit. Om. Union Check-list No. 10, Tring, UK. I. l RePPProT. 1988. Review of Phase I Results, Sumatra. Regional Physical Planning Programme I for Transmigration. Land Resources Dept. ODNRI, London, and DG Settlement Preparation, Dept. Transmigration. RePPProT. 1990. The Land Resources ofIndonesia: a National Overview. Regional Physical Planning Programme for Transmigration. Land Resources Dept. ODNRI, London, and DG Settlement Preparation, Dept. Transmigrat.on. Seksi AMDAL Bipram. 1993. Environmental Management of National and Provincial Roads | Projects. Interim Standard Environmenlal Mitigation Measures. (Draft). DG. Highways, Sub-Directorate of General Planning, Enviromnental Section. Silvius, M.J., A.P.J.M. Steeman, E.T. Berczy, E Djuharsa & A.W. Taufik. 1987. The Indonesian Wetland Inventory. A preliminary compilation of existing information on wetlands of Indonesia. PHPA, AWB/Interwader, EDWIN, Bogor. Silvius, M.J. 1988. On the importance of Sumatra's eaw t coast for waterbirds with notes on the Asian Dowitcher Limnodromus semipaimatus. Kukila 3 (3-4): 117-137. Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Ltd. 1995. Resettlement Plan, Bodri River Flood Control Sub-project. North coast of Java Water Resources Development and Flood Control Study. DG Water Resources Development. Species - Newsletter of the Species Survival Commission, IUCN - The World Conservation Union. No. 26-27, June-December 1996. Whitten, A.J., S.J. Damanik, J. Anwar & N. Hisyam. 1984. The Ecology of Sumatra. Gadjah Mada University Press. World Bank. 1994. Roads and the Environment. A Handbook. Report TWU 13. | World Bank. 1994. Indonesia: Environment and Development. A World Bank Country Study. -I l I I I