Nature Based Tourism

Case study of Gunung Leuser, Indonesia

By John McCarthy June 1999

Photographs by John McCarthy

Contents Background Tourism in Gunung Leuser Planning and Policy Related to the Area Bukit Lawang: Background Impact on wildlife. Impact on the ecological basis for tourism and the tourist experience. Planning and Management. Initiatives in Planning and Management of Bukit Lawang Glossary Endnotes Bibliography

Background

Gunung Leuser

Indonesia's Gunung Leuser National Park (GLNP) is one of the great national parks in Southeast Asia. Encompassing some 890,000 ha of North Sumatra and Aceh provinces, GLNP is extremely diverse. The park incorporates a range of habitats, climates and landforms--extending from the white sandy beaches facing the Indian ocean, brackish swamps, lowland rainforest, river terraces, volcanic plateaus, mountain meadows to the highest mountain peak of Gunung Leuser (3,404 metres) (Griffiths, 1992: 7). However, GLNP itself is nested in a wider area of state claimed forest land that stretches almost uninterruptedly from the northern edge of the Lake Toba plateau northwards to the environs of the capital Banda Aceh of the Special Province of Aceh (see fig 1...still to be added to this web page) (Rijksen and Griffiths, 1995: 29) (endnote 1). This forms the "largest contiguous expanse of undisturbed rainforest of the western Indo-Malay type in the world" (Rijksen & Griffiths, 1995: 29)

Click on map to see more detail.

History

At the urging of scientists and Dutch non-government conservation organisations, during the 1930s the colonial government of the Netherland-Indies investigated the need to set up a wildlife reserve in Northern Sumatra to protect the unique biological heritage of this region. Finally, in July 1935, the Governor of Aceh signed a document establishing what later became the Gunung Leuser Reserves (Wildreservaat Goenoeng Leuser) extending over 416,500 ha. Other areas were soon added to create a complex of nature reserves.

With the Second World War and Indonesia's War of Independence conservation efforts came to a standstill. Finally, in the 1960s international scientists began a series of ecological surveys. The first surveys were carried out by IUCN/WWF in 1963 and 1969 to "investigate the status of orang-utan and Sumatran rhinoceros" (Strien, 1978: 1954). In the late 1960s, the Indonesian Nature Protection and Conservation Service (Dinas Perlindungan dan Pelestarian Alam, henceforth PPA) invited international assistance from the Netherlands Commission for International Nature Protection and the Netherlands' Appeal of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to assist in the protection of orang utans and rhinoceros in the Leuser complex (Rijksen & Griffiths, 1995 p43). In 1975, efforts to protect the area led to the preparation of a management plan for the reserve complex. This plan recommended that the Gunung Leuser reserves should become a single national park. Finally, on March 6^th, 1980, the Minister of Agriculture established the Gunung Leuser National Park (GLNP): Gunung Leuser became Indonesia's first national park (Wind, 1996).

By the 1980s, the Government of Indonesia (GOI) had set aside significant areas of state forest for conservation. However, efforts to protect areas such as GLNP faced considerable obstacles, and despite its "protected status", the Leuser Rainforests were deteriorating (Wind, 1996: 4). At this time the push for the conservation of biodiversity gathered strength worldwide, and culminated at the Rio Earth Summit of June 1992. At this time GOI signed several international conventions including the Biodiversity Treaty, and subsequently the government considered new conservation initiatives supported by foreign investments. This dynamic finally lead Indonesia to request effective support from industrialised nations in conserving tropical biodiversity. In 1993 the National Planning Board (BAPPENAS) formally requested European Union (EU) investment in rainforest conservation in Indonesia. The EU, who had been considering a project in the Leuser area since 1991, responded by granting funds to several European agencies to prepare "in close partnership with the Indonesian authorities and local communities" an Integrated Conservation and Development Program (ICDP) in Gunung Leuser (Rijksen & Griffiths, 1995: 20).

In spite of the creation of GLNP, ecological evaluation revealed that the National Park area was poorly designed and covered too small an area to preserve the ecosystem types predominant and the typical mega-fauna of Northern Sumatra. The problem was that in Northern Sumatra "high biodiversity corresponds with a general low population density and typical patchy distribution of most species". This meant that while GLNP was very extensive, it was comprised almost exclusively of "forbiddingly steep mountain ranges" which offered "insufficient habitat conditions for the mega-fauna" (endnote 2). According to Rijksen and Griffiths, "it is estimated that for the elephant and orang utan populations the extent of the current reserve complex offers formal protection to less than anything between 10% (for elephants) and at most 25% (for orang utans) of suitable habitat". Moreover, all of the significant lowland sectors of the reserve have been despoiled by logging and timber poaching, further reducing the area of suitable habitat within the reserve, as well as giving rise to the migration of wildlife to areas outside the confines of the current reserve complex (Rijksen & Griffiths, 1995: 177).

To overcome the problems associated with the capacity of the GLNP complex to conserve viable populations of the biodiversity of Northern Sumatra, a group of European ecologists selected a more extensive conservation area known as the "Leuser Ecosystem". The "Leuser Ecosystem" was a new concept created to include important areas, such as lowland rainforest and other significant wildlife habitat outside GLNP: it includes the 905,000 ha national park, the complex of upper water catchment forests within the southern part of Aceh and North Sumatra provinces, in addition to adjacent production and protection forests. This area is designed to contain the ranges of the major elements of the biological diversity of Northern Sumatra. Extending over approximately 2 million hectares, the Leuser Ecosystem is said to constitute the largest rainforest reserve in the world (Rijksen & Griffiths, 1995: 30).

In April 1995 the Minister of Forestry issued a decree granting the Leuser International Foundation (LIF) a seven year conservation concession to manage and coordinate conservation and sustainable development activities within nearly 2 million hectares of the "Leuser Ecosystem" (endnote 3). This was the first time that GOI had granted a conservation concession to a private organisation. In May 1995 the EU agreed to provide $40,625,000 over a seven year period to support a Leuser Development Programme (LDP), while GOI also committed to provide $22,500,000 in local currency equivalent. Within the LDP structure, the Leuser Management Unit (LMU) was responsible for programme management and activities.

Conservation Status.

According to the Leuser Development Program Master Plan, the Leuser Ecosystem is "one of the most valuable unspoilt natural ecosystems in the world" (Rijksen & Griffiths, 1995: 15). It is the last place on earth where elephants, rhinoceros, tigers, clouded leopards, and orang-utan are found within the one area. The Leuser Ecosystem (LE) contains a remarkable level of biodiversity. Of the 10,000 plant species recorded in the West Indo-Malayan Region, 45% are found in the Leuser Ecosystem. Impressive plants such as Rafflesia (the largest flower in the world) and Amorphophallus (the tallest flower in the world) are among the plants protected here.

In general, the Leuser Ecosystem can be characterised as a rain forest community and the typical vegetation type up to 600 m asl is tropical lowland forest dominated by trees of the Dipterocarpaceae family. Ecologists have recorded at least 95 species of reptiles and amphibians and 382 bird species within the Leuser Ecosystem. The Ecosystem provides habitat to at least 105 mammal species, including the Sumatran elephant, tiger, rhinoceros, and the Sumatran orang-utan. Illegal poaching and loss of habitat threaten all the large mammals.

The fact that simple surveys still reveal new records for the region or even new species reflects the richness and importance of the area for biodiversity conservation. During 1997 alone, for example, botanists carrying out a one-month survey of bamboo found five new species of three genera and nine new records for the Leuser Ecosystem, whilst another survey of fish in one river revealed three new species (Leuser Management Unit and Foundation, n.d. ).

In addition to conserving biodiversity, GLNP and the wider LE aim to protect the watershed forests that cover the mountain ranges. These are the water source for rivers vital to the lives of several million people living around the Park, rivers that sustain the wet rice fields of surrounding communities while also supplying the fresh fish that form an essential park of local diets.

Tourism in Gunung Leuser.

To conserve dwindling biodiversity, environmentalists have advocated setting aside large areas of land as for environmental protection. For example, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) has suggested that these areas should be managed as national parks by the national highest authority with minimal human presence. However, in many developing countries where there are growing populations and limited resources, compromises have to be made with other demands, especially the need for economic development (Hitchcock and Jay, 1998).

The Indonesian government has identified tourism as a major priority area for economic development. Indeed, a main reason for establishing National Parks in Indonesia was to facilitate tourism (Rijksen & Griffiths, 1995: 154). In this context, the GNLP and wider Leuser Ecosystem are expected to assist the economic development of surrounding areas. Ideally money generated by eco-tourism should cover the overheads of conservation activities and, by generating income for local people, stave off demands for other less environmentally benign forms of commercial exploitation (Hitchcock & Jay, 1998: 307).

In preparation for the Leuser Development Program, the preparatory Integrated Conservation and Develop Project (ICDP) prepared a "Tourism Master Plan for the Leuser Ecosystem". This report stated:

As one of the world's few remaining large wilderness areas containing contiguous pristine rainforest, the Leuser Ecosystem is in an excellent position to attract its share of visitors. It has a unique fauna, with many large and charismatic species, such as tigers, rhinos, elephants, orang-utans and hornbills. It harbours an unsurpassed flora, with a wide variety of trees, lianas and epiphytes, amongst which hundreds of exotic orchid species, as well as the world's largest flower, Rafflesia. It has spectacular scenery, wild rocky rivers in the mountains, and also mild meandering rivers bordered by tall primary forests in the lowlands, and extensive unspoilt beaches (ICDP, 1995b: 26).

The Leuser Ecosystem offers enormous potential for the development of sustainable ecotourism that will support economic development without compromising the ecological integrity and biodiversity values of the region (ICDP, 1995b: 24).

However, clearly there is a tension between recreational and developmental needs on the one hand, and ecological integrity on the other. The problem is: how can tourism be developed in a way that generated revenue while also protecting the ecological integrity of the Leuser Ecosystem? This problem generates an inherent conflict of interest for those managing the LE. As Cochrane notes:

Ecotourism should minimise negative impacts on the Leuser Ecosystem. The goal of limiting environmental effects, however, conflicts with the goal of maximising revenue from tourism… Small-scale ecotourism may sound good as a theoretical contribution to conservation but because of its low economic impacts its positive contribution is too small to be significant. A balance has to be found somehow which allows for significant levels of income to be generated while limiting tourism- related disturbance to the forest (Cochrane, 1998: 16).

Benefits and Constraints to Tourism Development:

According to Cochrane (1998), ecotourism in the Leuser Ecosystem may provide several benefits, including:

• Work opportunities for local people: increased economic benefits from intact rainforest will also increase community support for habitat conservation;
• Enhance local understanding of the importance of the tropical rainforest through education and increased attention to rainforest habitat;
• Support conservation though profits generated through ecotourism enterprises.
  

However, the development of nature based tourism in the area also faced considerable constraints, including:

• Size of the area: tourists need to make extended journeys to reach destinations within the area, and this is an obstacle to some classes of tourists.
• Difficulty of the terrain: many tourists will be unable to tackle steep and slippery trails found in a tropical rainforest environment.

• Extent of forest destruction: due to the economic needs of a growing population and the unbridled activities of those interested in logging rich tropical forests, connected with problems protecting the area, large areas of the Leuser Ecosystem and GLNP have been logged or transformed into other land uses. In many areas visitors need to trek through secondary forests or village gardens planted with nutmeg, candlenut, coffee, cloves, rubber and other crops before reaching pristine rainforest environment.
• Cultural compatibility: in Aceh at least, villagers are strong adherents of the Muslim faith. Yet many tourists may want to behave as if they were in Bali or Thailand, dressing in a manner inappropriate to local beliefs. Tourists will also be disappointed to find that they may not consume beer or swim as they are accustomed.

• Lack of capital and expertise among the local community is a serious obstacle to their ability to establish tourism businesses. As Cochrane notes, while the Leuser Management Unit (LMU) has a clear brief to help local communities gain employment through tourism, "it is unrealistic to expect peasant farmers with little education to be able to provide the quality of facilities necessary if the Leuser Ecosystem is to be able to compete with ecotourism/rainforest attractions elsewhere in the region" (Cochrane, 1998: 13). Yet, without careful management, tourism development by outside entrepreneurs from other ethnic or religious groups may cause social disaffection among the disadvantaged local community.

• Underdeveloped tourist facilities: there is a need for improved facilities, including trails with clear signs, hides for wildlife viewing, canopy walkways, improved information centres, and widespread provision of good accommodation and food.
• Tourism is a highly competitive business subject to uncertainty. Many businesses barely cover their costs, let alone generate funds to support conservation. Moreover, tourism is highly subject to political instability, currency fluctuations and other changes.
• Visibility of animals: Large terrestrial mammals such as tigers, elephants and rhinos are now rare. Visitors may need to be satisfied with viewing primates, squirrels and ground birds. However, even these animals can be difficult to see in the dense foliage. Many rainforest animals quickly take flight at the first sign of danger, and they may tend to avoid areas frequently visited by tourists * (Griffiths and Van Schaik, 1993). Very little light trickles down to the rainforest floor, and many flowers and fruits grow within the canopy where sunlight is available. Accordingly, many rainforest animals are almost entirely arboreal, in the absence of canopy walkways, presenting difficulties for visitors at ground level. Many animals are also nocturnal, and special equipment may be required to view them.

Planning and Policy Related to the Area.

Beginning in the 1970s, tourism to the Leuser area grew rapidly. However, the vast majority of tourists visited the Bukit Lawang Orang-utan centre (see below). Here tourism facilities grew rapidly without appropriate environmental safeguards. By the time the ICDP final report and TMP was written (June 1995), planners working to conserve the Leuser Ecosystem wished to improve the development of ecotourism in the wider Leuser Ecosystem. The TMP aimed "to create the optimum conditions for sustainable development of ecotourism around the Leuser Ecosystem, and optimise the involvement of local communities in its development" (ICDP, 1995b: 23).

Up to 1995, outside of Bukit Lawang, tourism numbers were too low for relevant agencies to pay attention to the issue. For instance, only 1600 tourists are reported to have visited the heart of the National Park in the Southeast Aceh area during 1994 (ICDP, 1995a: 596). The ICDP sees the beginning of efforts to create a planning framework for tourism development across the wider LE. Subsequently, the planning documents created by the ICDP and a consultancy for LDP carried out by Janet Cochrane begin to focus on the design of facilities, energy needs, carrying capacity, the development of appropriate infrastructure such as sewerage and waste disposal facilities etc. Nonetheless, it is important to bear in mind that tourism planning for the area is still in its initial phase. A major obstacle for this incipient planning effort (and for preparing this case study) is the lack of relevant research or hard environmental data concerning these issues.

The Tourism Master Plan (TMP) identifies an approach to developing ecotourism for the Leuser Ecosystem. This amounts to:

1. distinguishing the different varieties of tourists;
2. dividing the region into zones; and
3. identifying the optimal mode of tourism for each zone
4. encouraging the development of tourist capacity under specific conditions.

These policies are now considered in turn.

The TMP and Cochrane's consultancy report (1998) identified several varieties of tourism (see attached table). For the Leuser Ecosystem, the Tourism Master Plan for the Leuser Ecosystem advocated targeting particular categories.

1. Backpackers. Backpackers or independent travellers tend to act as pioneers, visiting simple and small facilities. As backpackers tend to generate small amounts of revenue, the TMP argued that planning for this category of tourists as "counterproductive" (ICDP, 1995b: 27 ). However, a lot of the revenue they do bring can end up in the pockets of local community businesses.
   
2. The category of special and general interest tourists includes tourists who wish to engage in jungle treks, rafting trips, bird watching, mountaineering and research tourism. These activities can be based on biodiversity or ecological values and the cultural attributes of host communities. Therefore, the TMP designers were enthusiastic about these groups, especially because they believed that such tourists may be willing to pay high prices and may not have a large negative impact on the environment (ICDP, 1995b: 27).
   
3. Mass tourism relies on attractions such as beaches, large rivers, pleasant climatic conditions and large-scale facilities such as big hotels, resorts, golf courses etc. These large facilities can have a large negative impact on the environment, and mass tourism is often associated with pollution, over-development and undesired cultural changes. The planners are less enthusiastic about this category.
   
4. While the writers of the TMP do not distinguish international from domestic tourists, Cochrane (1998) notes that large numbers of domestic tourists also visit the Leuser area, particularly Bukit Lawang (see below). While there are a spectrum of domestic tourists, the largest numbers consists of those taking short holidays in large groups -- such as students and employees. As we will see, this group is generally orientated to relaxing in fresh air and natural surroundings, but are not necessarily aware of or interested in ecological issues.

In keeping with the general ecotourism planning approach, Cockrane (1998) argues that the Leuser Ecosystem needs to provide a broad spectrum of nature tourism opportunities and thereby cater to all the categories of tourists. The TMP notes that to ensure that the carrying capacity of the region to attract and sustain tourism in "not compromised" and so that developments "achieve maximum positive impact", this zoning needs to be applied to ecotourism developments.

The Leuser Ecosystem Masterplan divides the LE into several zones including:

• Sanctuary: strictly protected area in which no human disturbance is allowed. The area is only accessible to specially licensed anti-poaching squads and scientists with special permits;
• Research wilderness: area where licensed researchers, students and personnel may enter and stay;
• Wilderness: protected natural areas accessible to visitors with special permits who may enter along designated pathways for a particular period of time, usually with attendance of guides;
• Bufferzone -- tourist wilderness: protected area where visitors and licensed tour operators may enter and stay for limited periods. Licensed tourist facilities may be developed here under control of licensed guards.
• Bufferzone sustainable utilisation forest: areas outside the strictly protected areas where utilisation of forest products and limited timber extraction is permitted under certain conditions.
  (Rijksen & Griffiths, 1995: 186)

The LDP Masterplan declares that "all tourism development shall take place within the Bufferzones, outside the sanctuary reserve areas" (Rijksen & Griffiths, 1995: 233). This will ensure that the virgin rainforest-interior of the Leuser Ecosystem is conserved.

Due to the small amounts of revenue generated by backpackers, in 1995 the TMP did not advocate paying much attention to this category -- other than ensuring the development of simple and small facilities. Cochrane (1998) agrees with this approach, merely adding that the Leuser Management Unit should prevent the further development of crowded, low-budget facilities (such as Bukit Lawang) in areas of good forest within the ecosystem (Cochrane, 1998: 10).

The TMP notes that special interest tourists combine high revenue with limited impact on both ecology and culture. Therefore special interest tourism "dependent on the unique features of the Leuser Ecosystem" is "the ideal form of low impact, high price tourism for the ecologically sensitive zones" (ICDP, 1995b: 25). As of 1998, there were no provision made for this category, and Cochrane advocated that "appropriate accommodation, trekking and wildlife-viewing opportunities for special interest tourists should be provided in areas of good forest" (Cochrane, 1998: 11 ).

Earlier the TMP noted that "facilities for high volume tourism need to be created to satisfy the increasing tourism demand of the urban population" (ICDP, 1995b: 25). However, while generating the most revenue, mass tourism tends to have "the most serious negative ecological and cultural impacts" (ICDP, 1995b: 29) . For this reason the TMP advocates relegating mass tourism to "the outer envelope of the region" -- in the area closest to the urban centre of Medan (ICDP, 1995b: 29).

While planning frameworks, such as the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) planning framework have been developed to assist planning, they have not yet been applied in the LE. In the absence of relevant data and a developed planning framework, Cochrane (1998) advocated that visitation levels for forest trails should be set low to start with and gradually increased as demand rises and as the animals in the area become habituated. Cochrane urged the collection of good baseline data on tourism sites in order to provide basic parameters for monitoring change and developing a LAC framework. Data to be collected includes:

• Environmental changes
• Changes in the composition of the visitors
• Changes in the satisfaction level of tourists
• Changes to the physical environment such as erosion to trails, clearance of vegetation around campsites and litter
• Survey of visitors satisfaction level to gauge the psychological tolerance levels of tourists visiting wilderness areas (visitors to wilderness areas complain if the wilderness is crowed) (Cochrane, 1998: 16-17).

In view of the issues discussed so-far, as an overall management strategy, planning documents have also called for:

1. all tourism developments within the Leuser Ecosystem to be subject to the control of LMU together with local government and line agencies of relevant government departments. Accordingly, subject to strict conditions, tourism operators would need to obtain valid licences for operating within the Leuser Ecosystem (Rijksen & Griffiths, 1995: 233).
2. The initial focus for the development of nature based tourism should be in high profile, easily accessible locations (Cochrane, 1998);
3. the up-grading or developing facilities a such as trails, hides, canopy walkways information centres guiding capability and accommodation (Cochrane, 1998);
4. the establishment of a limited company under the Leuser Development Program to run the most profitable ecotourism enterprises. By this proposal, Cochrane envisages overcoming several constraints mentioned earlier (eg lack of experience and capital amongst the local community to participate in tourism development) as well as the problem that the short-term financial priorities of tourist operators tend to overshadow long-term objectives of conservation management (Cochrane, 1998).

Generally observers have noted that a range of problems are associated with top-down planning that do not involve relevant stake-holders. Too often key government decision makers, environmental planners and consultants make decisions regarding the direction of development without consulting local leaders and community representatives. The British based Rainforest Foundation have criticised the Leuser Development Program for drawing up plans without consultation with local government officials and implementing programme activities "without assessing the needs and views of the target communities" (Down to Earth, May 1998). This issue is especially pertinent in the Leuser Ecosystem where the perceptions of local communities and state planners regarding property rights over local forests can differ markedly. For state planners, most of the Leuser Ecosystem is "state forest", while local communities informally maintain traditional rights of access and use over neighbouring forests.

As Cochrane implies, the lack of stakeholder participation in the planning process may affect development, Cochrane notes that, following a planning decision previously made by LMU and state agencies, in 1998 plans were already afoot to impose a licensing system on tourism operators in the Leuser Ecosystem.

There is likely to be antagonism when changes are introduced in the form of payments -- sometimes substantial -- for utilisation of the Ecosystem through concessions, licenses and taxes. To counter this, LMU should make itself more accessible to the private sector in order to create goodwill and to reinforce the impression that benefit flow are not unidirectional (Cochrane, 1998: 16).

It was unclear how satisfactory such an approach might be; earlier newspaper reports from Southeast Aceh already indicated local resentment towards LMU's assertion of control over tourism in the area.

Bukit Lawang has been the primary destination for those wishing to enjoy the Leuser rainforests. Indeed, Bukit Lawang could be considered one of the primary sites focus for nature based tourism within Indonesia. For tourist planners Bukit Lawang provides a salutary lesson: the rise and fall of Bukit Lawang illustrates the need to carefully plan tourist development. For this reason, I will now consider this site at some length.

Bukit Lawang

1. Background

Bukit Lawang is located in North Sumatra, about 90 km or three hour's drive west of the city of Medan, just beyond the township of Bohorok. Bukit Lawang's main attraction is the Orang-utan Centre. Other features include informal accommodation (small hotels and guest houses), the thick rainforest of the GLNP just beyond, and the swift running Bohorok River where tourists can go tubing and rafting, More adventurous types can also go on walks. These range from a half hour stroll to nearby bat caves to longer rainforest treks, camping out in the forest for up to five nights.

The Orang-utan centre is about a half hour walk from the Park Centre. A visit to the Orang-utan centre involves crossing the Bohorok River and then a 15 minute walk up to the feeding site. Here on most days several formerly captive but now feral orang-utan come to be given supplementary food. Feeding times are 8 am and 3 pm daily (Griffiths, 1992).

In July 1973, the facility was created for Orang-utan at Bohorok with the support of WWF. As Orang-utans were widely poached and traded at this time, one of the aims of the project was "to facilitate law-enforcement for stopping the poaching and illegal trade of orang-utans" (Rijksen & Griffiths, 1995: 2). The new centre was to provide a site for animals confiscated by the Nature Conservation Service (PPA). The confiscated animals would be brought here and gradually introduced to living in the forest again. To prevent the animals from having too much contact with human beings, the cages and the feeding place for the animals was located about 15 minutes walk into the jungle and half an hour from the closest village.

However, by mid 1974, the orang-utan rehabilitation station had already become a great attraction for tourists, mainly domestic tourists. According to the WWF Yearbook for 1974, the Swiss project leaders used the opportunity to explain and demonstrate the need for nature reserves and conservation project, and "to disseminate the idea of nature conservation" (World Wildlife Fund, 1974/75:175). To further facilitate this, a visitors centre was later built in the Bukit Lawang centre. However, following the end of WWF activities at Bukit Lawang, outreach activities ceased and the displays dated (endnote 4).

In 1976, about 4,000 tourists were already coming to the centre, a huge jump from the 198 who visited the previous year. By 1989, some 11,325 foreign tourists were visiting the Leuser Ecosystem, with 89% of them visiting Bukit Lawang exclusively (Rijksen & Griffiths, 1995: 156). By 1992, according to government figures, for the next few years this number stabilised at just over 18,000 visitors per year. However, this figure underestimates the total, and according to Bohorok Sustainable Development Program numbers were around 50,000 per year (Cochrane, 1998: 31). While there are no accurate figures for domestic tourists, the Bohorok Sustainable Development Program (BSDP) has also estimated that up to 500,000 domestic visitors were going to Bukit Lawang each year (Cochrane, 1998: 31).

Using statistics available in 1997, Rijksen estimated that some 8,000 visitors came to the Bohorok centre each weekend. By this time, to capitalise on this development, tourist operators and workers had moved in and developed tourism facilities along the Bohorok River. Together with the visitors, they occupied "less than one kilometre of riverbank, no more than 200m wide". On a typical day an average of 100 people visited the ape viewing facilities with peaks of up to 300 during weekends (Rijksen & Griffiths, 1995: 6).

Wind and Yusuf's 1989 study for WWF was the first carried out for Gunung Leuser area. This together with other studies, including the Cochrane consultancy carried out for LMU and a report into the Orang-utan centre by Rijksen, illustrate the changes occurring to the Bukit Lawang area,. Nevertheless, as noted earlier, there is a lack of hard data on the environmental impact of this development. I will now consider these impacts before discussing proposed management initiatives.

2. Impact on wildlife.

The Bukit Lawang was originally developed within the boundaries of GLNP, about one kilometre from the nearest village through virtually untouched forest. The idea was to create an adequate buffer between the rehabilitation area and the local village. However, as we have seen, the subsequent development of tourism led to large numbers of tourists visiting the area. As a 1976 WWF report from Bukit Lawang indicated, this development had significant impact on the orang-utan centre.

The operation of the centre became more difficult under these circumstances. Visiting hours had to be restricted. The noise and litter of the tourist crowds had negative influences on the rehabilitants. As by definition a rehabilitation centre should have as little as possible of restrictive structures such as fences and cages, it was often difficult to keep tourists and orang-utans apart. This increased the risk of introducing human epidemic disease (polio, TB, hepatitis) into the rehabilitant group, and hence into the wild orang-utan population near the centre (World Wildlife Fund, 1976/77).

During 1976, this tourism success led to some problems between WWF and the government conservation agency, PPA. The WWF ecologists running the Bohorok centre protested against a plan by PPA to build a new tourist guesthouse at Bohorok. However, despite the intervention of WWF International, the plan went ahead, and Bohorok took its first steps towards becoming a hub for tourists in Northern Sumatra. Although WWF recommended moving the rehabilitation centre to a more remote location, the centre became an increasingly important tourist attraction.

By the late 1970s it became increasingly apparent that the rehabilitation project had fulfilled its major function, and even that "the disposal of the rehabilitated apes had been based on wrong assumptions" (Rijksen & Griffiths, 1995: 2). The quarantine procedure was deficient, and there was the risk that rehabilitant apes could transmit serious human diseases into the wild population. Moreover, the introduction of the apes into the wild population was causing other problems including social unrest amongst the ape population and the displacement of the wild population. In addition, according to Rijksen (1997), some problems were connected with the increasingly prominent tourist presence.

First, through visitor attendance, rehabilitant apes fail to become self-supporting in the rainforest (Rijksen, 1997: 2). This occurs because attendants at the centre feed apes in way somewhat reminiscent of "circus training". Attendants offer food such as bananas and milk, often using the food to tease the apes and stimulate a reaction for the amusement of visitors. Rather than encouraging apes to become feral, the handing out of food by attendants continues their dependence on people (Rijksen, 1997: 2).

Second, visitors are exposed to dangers when coming into close contact with apes.

Third, at the same time rehabilitant apes harassing tourists were exposed to fatal danger. For the feeding regime fails to teach the apes to respect people, but on the contrary encourages "a culture of close interaction with people" (Rijksen, 1997: 15). This leads to situations that can be dangerous for tourists. Guides working at Bukit Lawang tout for tourists for rainforest treks, and several maintain their own feeding-sites in the forest. Here orang-utan "are encouraged to come down to the ground and interact with the tourists ('for the Tarzan photograph')". Confrontations then occurred when they the orang-utan learnt that people carried bags with food, and tried to forcefully appropriate these bags.

Although this 'jungle' experience is seen as a highlight by many tourist, this illegal practice has already led to the slaughter of one rehabilitant adult female orang-utan. The ape was fatally wounded with a jungle knife when the guide felt obliged to defend the tourist against the ape trying to take a backpack -- in which it expected to find food.

One particular other feral rehabilitant orang-utan female with infant was widely feared because she used to attack the so-called guides and appropriate their bags in search of food items. Also the PHPA attendants came to fear this ape. Recently the ape 'disappeared' and it I rumoured that she, and her child, were poisoned. During the past year at least five tourists and two guides have been more or less seriously bitten by the feral orang-utans during such confrontations. An unspecified number of regularly attending orang-utans have 'disappeared' under similar circumstances (Rijksen, 1997: 9-10).

Fourth, the risk of infection of rehabilitant apes with serous human diseases and subsequent transmission to the wild population remains. For the rehabilitant apes remain highly exposured to visitors. Orang-utan are known to be susceptible to potentially fatal human diseases, and at least two orang-utan are known to have died from undiagnosed illness (Rijksen, 1997).

Aware of the shortcoming of the rehabilitation centres, in 1994 the Minister of Forestry decreed that the orang-utan centre should no longer function for the rehabilitation of orang-utan. Subsequently, Rijksen recommended a range of changes to improve the effectiveness of the centre as a viewing centre (see below).

In 1995 the Tourism Management Plan for Leuser noted that uncontrolled tourism could do irreparable damage to ecological or biodiversity values. One problem was the local loss of wildlife by over-use of nature trails leading to the scaring away of wildlife by human traffic. Other issues noted included hunting near tourist areas of wildlife and local extinction of species used to sell to tourists (ICDP, 1995b: 29) (endnote 5).

During the 1970s, researchers at Bukit Lawang faced problems due to tigers tarrying around the original quarantine station. At that time Sei Landak was a beautiful, pristine and relatively untouched river close to Bukit Lawang that was visited frequently by elephants, tigers and rhinoceros attracted by a number of salt licks in the river valley. However, according to an ecologist familiar with the area, the situation had changed by the 1990s. Inhabitants attracted to Bukit Lawang to work in the tourist industry were poaching wildlife.

Any mammal or reptile unlucky enough to wander into town or wander anywhere near that community finds itself grabbed and either sold in Bukit Lawang or sold in the streets of Medan, usually in the big animal markets on Jl. Bintang (endnote 6).

As noted earlier, animals quickly take flight at the first sign of danger. As the study by Griffiths and Van Schaik revealed, even where there is no danger from poachers, many species avoid areas visited by researchers (Griffiths & Van Schaik, 1993) (endnote 7). Therefore, in areas subject to heavy human traffic, the wildlife will withdraw. At Bukit Lawang guides conducting rainforest treks take tourists along an approximately 18 km long trail system in the forest surrounding the feeding area. In this area and beyond, guides have established more than 50 small camp sites (Rijksen & Griffiths, 1995: 9). According to an ecologist:

There is a 'dead zone' around Bukit Lawang, because any animal with any good sense has already left the area. The trails of the local guides stretch out another ten kilometres at most from the village, meaning the animals are pushed back further still (endnote 8).

3. Impact on the ecological basis for tourism and the tourist experience.

The TMP noted that "developments can diminish the value of the region for tourism", including "subtle effects" that diminish "the quality of the tourism experience" (ICDP, 1995b: 29). According to the TMP, these included habitat destruction along roads and waterways, river pollution and bank erosion as well as inadequate sewerage and waste disposal.

With the rapid growth in tourism during the 1980s and 1990s at Bukit Lawang, development occurred spontaneously. Bukit Lawang grew into a community of traders, touts and guides while the forest alongside the river was converted into "a tightly packed row of shed-like restaurants and hostels up to and beyond the river-crossing to the centre" (Rijksen & Griffiths, 1995: 5).

Most buildings … are there to service the tourists, either for food, accommodation, entertainment activities or travel arrangements. In 1994/95 there were 32 hotels and losmens [simple guesthouses ]. in Bukit Lawang and 268 stalls, mostly selling food, clothing and souvenirs.. Many of the stall-holders operate only on Sundays and public holidays, and almost all of the enterprises are unlicensed so cannot be officially counted. According to [the Regional Tourist Office], only 5 or 6 of the hotels have a building permit and an operating licence, and according to the 1995 study none of the other enterprises have permits (Cochrane, 1998: 30).

In addition to these developments, a restaurants and a guesthouse facility have been built over the river, within the boundary of the designated national park. Many observers have noted that these developments at Bukit Lawang have diminished the value of the area for ecotourism (Cochrane, 1998; Rijksen, 1997; Rijksen & Griffiths, 1995; Wind and Yusuf, 1989).

Perhaps the clearest change had been aesthetic--the visual pollution due to unplanned development. In 1989 Wind and Yusuf observed that the unplanned development alongside the Bohorok river meant that the area was losing its "cool feeling" and visitors could no longer feel the "forest atmosphere".

This area is needed for forest picnics, swimming in the Bohorok river, sitting beneath the buttresses of trees with bird nests, the ability to see monkeys, as well as hear the far-off voices of the gibbons (Wind & Yusuf, 1989).

Wind and Yusuf also recorded that the flat area of natural forest along the Bohorok River was being cleared and turned into tourist accommodations and cheap restaurants (warung).

The area of natural forest, especially one area of forest (hutan kesepakatan) is already threatened, and already a lot of land has been worked for agriculture.

What is more concerning is that the area around the hills adjoining the river have already been opened for agriculture. This will cause erosion and loss of natural beauty.

[There is ]. a lack of awareness among the community about the aesthetic values of the area. This threatens attractions such as the large trees. There are now threatened by the sealing over and destruction of their roots by kiosks and parking areas (Wind & Yusuf, 1989: 21-2).

Subsequently, the removal of stones from the river for use in construction and the cementing in of the riverbanks damaged the appearance of the area. During 1996 the natural rocky banks of the Bohorok River were "reinforced" with concrete and artificial constructions. According to Rijksen, "this ill-conceived, and tasteless conversion of the natural riverbanks at the entrance to the facilities" was "one of the most effective ways to utterly destroy a major touristic asset of the site" (Rijksen, 1997: 5). Other complaints relate to waste and sewerage management, the litter around jungle camp sites as well as attitudes of the hotel touts and guides. According to Cochrane, this is the biggest cause of complaint, attracting 35% of comments according to a 1997 survey of foreign visitors (Cochrane, 1998: 31).

Tourists complain that the touts and tourist guides operating at Bukit Lawang lack knowledge about the rainforest and have limited ability to communicate in English. In 1997 there were more than 90 people registered as guides, but an estimated 200 guides were thought to be operating there (Cochrane, 1998; Rijksen, 1997: 9).

According to Cochrane, the guide organisation (HPI) is ineffective in controlling its members while the Regional Tourism Office does not insist on high standards of English or knowledge before issuing a guide's licence (Cochrane, 1998: 40). As noted earlier, at times guides also poorly handle wildlife encounters.

4. Planning and Management.

In 1989 Wind and Yusuf noted that, over the previous few years, tourism development had occurred around the Bohorok River without paying attention to management of the rainforest environment and without regional planning. The new tourism facilities failed to ensure that nature tourism accorded with the environmental potential of the area. In other words, there had been little provision for the social and ecological impact of tourist development: there had been no application of planning frameworks. Development was occurring spontaneously, before the planning that would have optimally proceeded it. As Wind and Yusuf noted:

There is no firm communication regarding planning between the National Park, private parties and local government. The result is undirected development and the outcome is less than optimal (Wind & Yusuf, 1989: 21).

Subsequently, Wind and Yusuf (1989), the regional government (1995), Rijksen (1997) and Cochrane(1998) have written reports recommending that the area be subject to proper planning or even redeveloped. However, to date these plans have not come to fruition. With powerful stakeholders -- including entrepreneurs, government officials, police and military and local gangsters ("preman")--collecting a variety of taxes, fees and unofficial payments from the tourism, the current arrangements prioritise short-term benefits rather than long-term objectives. Thus according to Cochrane, the main obstacle is that "with so many vested interests at stake any form of improvement will have to be tackled very carefully in order to ensure that these interests do not sabotage efforts to rejuvenate the place" (Cochrane, 1998: 35).

However, by this time Bukit Lawang had been described by tourists as "a disgrace", "a shanty-town", "over developed" and by an official of the tourism department as "a slum" (Cochrane, 1998: 30). In 1998 Cochrane observed that many backpackers were alienated by the "spoilt" aspect of Bukit Lawang and may be seeking new sites.

"Many of the Explorer types and the more adventurous Backpackers encountered during this study had decided not to go there. It will not take long for Bukit Lawang's bad reputation to spread" (Cochrane, 1998: 34).

This view was reinforced by another observer:

I like to think of Bukit Lawang nowadays as analogous to the roman empire in decline - the golden age of tourism in Bukit Lawang now done, the empire has overextended itself with too many guesthouses, etc. and now everything is slowly (or quickly) deteriorating (endnote 9).

A model for discussing the course of tourist development as an evolutionary process is the "Tourist Area Life-Cycle model" (Cochrane, 1998: 4). According to this model, tourism typically begins when a few explorers discover a place and simply share the local people's facilities. As news of the attraction of the area spreads by word of mouth, a regular flow of visitors arrive and tourist accommodation and restaurants begin to spring up. As outside entrepreneurs see the commercial possibilities, services grow more sophisticated and local people are increasingly marginalised. Over time the 'authenticity' or quality of the tourist experience declines and the area is increasingly subject to environmental or socio-cultural stress. In parallel with this process, the market consolidates and ceases to grow, until finally the area may lose its fashionable appeal and declines (Cochrane, 1998: 4).

Following the forest fires that struck Indonesia in 1997, foreign tourists began to avoid Indonesia. According to some accounts, tourism dropped by 80% over the 1998 calendar year. For many small businesses, it became increasingly difficult to cover operating costs and derive a livelihood at Bukit Lawang (endnote 10). Given Bukit Lawang's position in the "Tourism Area Life-Cycle" as an area in decline and given "the scale and complexity of the problems", Cochrane concludes, it would be "tempting to ignore Bukit Lawang" (Cochrane, 1998: 34). Indeed, discussions with LMU during 1999 indicate that LMU is concentrating its efforts to development nature based tourism in other areas of the Leuser Ecosystem.

Initiatives in Planning and Management of Bukit Lawang

As the resources and political will for improving Bukit Lawang have not yet been mustered, this case study can not evaluate the success of planning and management initiatives. However, I will discuss some of the initiatives advocated in these reports.

1. Target Marketing and Zoning

As described earlier, tourists in the Leuser Ecosystem can be divided into different types, each with their own expectations and needs. Tourism planners write of the need to provide a range of experiences so that each visitor can seek an experience somewhere on the spectrum from pristine wilderness to resort tourism.

In 1989, Wind and Yusuf observed that visitors to the centre could be divided into two broad groups -- foreign and domestic tourists. As noted earlier, tourists to Bukit Lawang have three choices: Orang-utan viewing, Trekking, and Tubing (endnote 11). However, these two groups have different tastes and each enjoys different activities under different conditions, this presents a challenge to planners.

Wind and Yusuf's survey revealed that foreign tourists visited the orang-utan (100%), walked in the forest (74%) and were attracted by the national park (69%). However, these tourists did not hope to find a disco (97%), a luxury hotel (97%) or a pub (94%). On the other hand, Indonesian tourists were predominantly day trippers from Medan, mainly tourist groups without a particular interest in environmental issues or pristine wilderness experiences. Almost all the Indonesian tourists enjoyed a picnic and a swim in the Bohorok River. Many also took pleasure in the bands playing pop music on public holidays. However, very few Indonesians viewed the orang-utan or walked to the caves (Wind & Yusuf, 1989).

To overcome this problem, Wind and Yusuf advocated the development of a zoning system so that the whole spectrum of tastes could be catered for separately. Subsequently, Cochrane also advocated the development of a zoning system: in intensive use and exclusive use zones within the Bukit Lawang area different facilities needed to be developed to attract and to satisfy the different markets.

(2) Monitoring.

While zoning may provide a range of opportunities, an effective management plan also needs to determine the level of acceptable impact on the environment. As discussed earlier, a planning framework is usually developed by planners to plan and manage present and future tourist use of an area. To better measure how much change is acceptable, these frameworks involve determining indicators that can be monitored to gauge the impact of tourism - such as damage to trees, soil erosion and crowding at campsites. However, at Bukit Lawang, despite observations regarding the ecological impact of development, there has been no such planning framework has been developed. This has meant that the ecological impact of tourism in Bukit Lawang has remained unquantified. In 1998 Cochrane finally called for the creation of a simple the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) planning framework (Cochrane, 1998).

(3) Organisational Structure

At present there are several agencies with responsibilities at Bukit Lawang. However, as Rijksen wrote, "due to poor organisation, planning and coordination .. major opportunities for sustainable development are missed while major assets are being ruined for unimaginable reasons" (Rijksen, 1997: 14 ). To overcome the lack of a clear management structure, Cochrane advocated the creation of a joint management council involving local government, the GLNP staff and the LMU. In this way, responsibilities could be broken down with each agency having responsibility for separate aspects of the resort. The new council would provide a forum for discussing developments, proposal and problems (Cochrane, 1998: 36).

(4) Orang-utan Centre.

Rikjsen recommended the effective transformation of the old rehabilitation centre into a sustainable tourist attraction. For this to occur the rehabilitant apes need to be isolated more effectively from the visitors and effective management regime set up. This would be done by several measures, including:

• Moving the tourist facilities within the GLNP so that the apes cannot have direct contact with tourists staying in facilities located over the Bohorok river;
• Feeding the feral apes mechanically rather than by hand;
• Issuing a concession contract for the professional management of the ape-viewing to a private contractor and then effectively regulating how the ape-viewing centre operates. For instance, the contractor would be subject to clear guidelines regarding attendance to and handling of apes;

(5) Other recommendations:

• Improving the licensing system for those entering GLNP and enforcing regulations regarding this;

• Integration of the visitor's centre at Bukit Lawang with the orang-utan viewing centre; updated exhibitions, displays and videos.

• Setting up an authoritative body to take over the management of guides. Guides should be:
  • proficient in English;
  • have training in forest ecology and the skill to ensure visitors have a satisfactory rainforest experience;
  • training in first aid and camp management;

  • be subject to complaints from tourists.

• Creation of proper waste and sewerage management.

Glossary:

ICDP -- integrated conservation and development programme

LDP -- Leuser Development Programme

LMU -- Leuser Management Unit

TMP -- tourism management plan prepared by ICDP.

Endnotes:

1. Following Fox, I use the term 'state claimed forest land' to point to the fact that there are local communities claiming tenurial rights over areas of de jure state forest land (Fox and Atok, 1997).
2. By 1934 the governor for Aceh under the colonial regime, A. Ph. Van Aken, had supported a proposal for the creation of the original wildlife reserve. In February 1934 he convened the local district heads ("Self-governing territorial heads") to gain their consent for the first part of the Gunung Leuser Reserves (Wildreservaat Goenoeng Leuser). Finally in July 1935, the Governor of Aceh signed the document establishing a reserve that enclosed both sides of the Alas valley but excluded "virtually all know lowland rainforest areas." This land was considered "inappropriate for protection in the light of possible future claims for development." (Rijksen & Griffiths, 1995: 39) The original reserve extended over 416,500 ha. In 1936 an area of lowland rainforest in the Kluit region of South Aceh was added, an area of special importance as a corridor for elephant herds. In 1938 an area of the Western Section of the Wilhemina range in North Sumatra province was also set aside as a reserve. (in Langkat and Sekundur). Further areas, such as the Kapi reserve, have been added post-independence. However, the consequence of this process meant that, up to the creation of the Leuser Ecosystem, there was a lack of lowland rainforest in the Gunung Leuser protected area.
3. In 1994, a number of prominent Acehnese, mostly current or retired government officials resident in Jakarta, formed a new foundation devoted to the conservation and sustainable development of the Leuser area Ð the Leuser International Foundation (LIF).
4. In the 1997, as Rijksen notes, "the ape-viewing centre itself offers no information other than what is provided on a multitude of signboards and placards spread over the premises; no interpretation is given to the visitors. The attendants during the feeding session exclusively function so as to provide food to the apes" (Rijksen, 1997: 7).
5. See reference in reader.
6. Ecologist, confidential communication, January 1999.
7. Observers note that variations in human behaviour are as influential in causing impacts as the actual numbers of visitors. There is no direct relationship between the number of visitors and biophysical impacts, with much of the biophysical impacts occurring at low levels of use. The Kinnaird and O'Brian (see course guide) study from North Sulawesi suggested that primates were disturbed once the number of tourists passed a certain level. Even groups of primates habituated to small groups showed low tolerance of larger groups, especially if the tourists were noisy.
8. Ecologist, personal communication, 1999.
9. Ecologist, personal communication, 1999.
10. Bohorok Sustainable Development Programme, February 1999.
11. In addition, to diversity, activities at Bukit Lawang, the Bohorok Sustainable Development Program attempted to establish a blacksmith's workshop and a workshop in recycled paper making, designed and attended by locals involved in the tourism industry.

Bibliography

Cochrane, J. 1998. Organisation of Ecotourism in the Leuser Ecosystem. Leuser Management Unit.

Down to Earth. (May 1998) 'EU-funded Leuser project slammed'. Down to Earth 37 , 14.

Fox, J. and K. Atok. (1997) 'Forest-dweller demographics in West Kalimantan, Indonesia'. Environmental Conservation 24 1, 31-7.

Griffiths, M. (1992) Leuser: The Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation & The World Wide Fund for Nature Indonesia Programme.

Griffiths, M. and C.P. Van Schaik. (1993) 'The impact of human traffic on the abundance and activity periods of Sumatran rain forest wildlife.'. Conservation Biology 7 3, 623-6.

Hitchcock, M. and S. Jay. (1998) 'Ecotourism and Environmental Change in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand'. In Environmental Challenges in South-East Asia (ed.) V.T. King: Curzon.

ICDP. 1995a. Development of Serakut Tourism for Conservation, Project 3.6.4 of the ICDP. The Integrated Conservation and Development Programme for Tropical Lowland Forsts in Aceh,.

ICDP. 1995b. Tourism Master Plan for the the Leuser Ecosystem, Draft. The Integrated Conservation and Development Programme for Tropical Lowland Forsts in Aceh,.

Leuser Management Unit and L.I. Foundation. (n.d.) Leuser Development Programme. Cooperation Between the Government of Indonesia and the European Union.

Rijksen, D.H.D. 1997. Orang Utan Viewing Centre in Sumatra. Recommendations for improvement of the Bohorok facility.

Rijksen, D.H.D. and M. Griffiths. 1995. Leuser Development Programme Masterplan. supported by the European Union prepared by teh the Integrated Conservation and Development Project for Lowland Rainforest in Aceh.

Strien, N.J.v. 1978. Draft Proposed Gunung Leuser National Park Management Plan 1978/79 - 1982/83. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

World Wildlife Fund

Project 1514 - Gunung Leuser Reserves, Sumatra, Indonesia - Management Programme.

Wind, J. (1996) 'Gunung Leuser National Park: History, Threats and Options'. In Leuser A Sumatran Sanctuary (eds) C.P.v. Shaik & J. Supratna, 4-27, Jakarta: Perdana Ciptamandiri.

Wind, J. and I.M. Yusuf. 1989. Usulan Hutan Wisata Sungai Bohorok. WWF Project 3824 with assistance of DHV consultants , National Park Bufferzone & Research Management.

World Wildlife Fund. 1974/75. World Wildlife Fund. World wildlife yearbook. World Wildlife Fund, Public Affairs Division.

World Wildlife Fund. 1976/77. World Wildlife Fund. World wildlife yearbook. World Wildlife Fund, Public Affairs Division.