PFR2 Upper Watershed Management Plan (3-Jun-14) Ver-8.3

Citarum Upper Watershed
Management Plan
(Revised draft)
Government of Indonesia / Asian Development Bank
TA 7871-INO
Euroconsult Mott MacDonald in association with:

PT. INDEC Internusa
PT. CaturbinaGunaPersada
PT. Mott MacDonald Indonesia
Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management Investment Program PFR-2

3 June 2014
Citarum Upper Watershed Management

Plan (revised draft)
ADB TA 7871-INO Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management

Investment Programme
June 2014
Government of lndonesia / Asian Development Bank
Mott MacDonald, Amsterdamseweg 15, 6814 CM Arnhem, PO Box 441, 6800 AK, Arnhem, Netherlands
T +31 (0)26 3577 111 F +31 (0)26 3577 577 W www.mottmac.com
Green corner Save a

tree today!
Mott MacDonald is committed to integrating sustainability into our operational practices and culture. As a
world leading consultancy business we are always seeking to improve our own performance and reduce
the environmental impact of our business. Meanwhile, many of our staff are committed to living sustainably
in their personal lives as an employee-owned company Mott MacDonald shares their concerns. We feel
an ethical obligation to reduce our emissions and resource use and have committed to reducing our per
capita carbon footprint by a minimum of 5% year on year.
We print our reports and client submissions using recycled, double-sided paper. Compared to printing
single sided on A4 virgin paper, double sided printing on recycled paper saves the equivalent of two trees,
over a ton of CO2 and a cubic metre of landfill space for every 100 reams. By choosing the greener path
we have been able to achieve efficiencies benefiting both Mott MacDonald and our customers.
We would like to share some of the principles of our own Going Green initiative:
When possible we scan rather than print and consider what really needs to be on paper
We use electronic faxing when practicable
We work on e-forms
We use recycled paper when possible
Reducing paper in the office creates a better working environment for our staff and our clients
We believe that you, as one of our esteemed clients, will share our concern to conserve precious
resources for the benefit of our planet and its inhabitants.
Citarum Upper Watershed Management Plan revised draft 3 June 2014
Issue and revision record
Revision
Date
Originator
Checker
Approver
Description
1.0
17 October 2013
Wahyu Djoko
Wim Giesen
n.a.
First draft (partial)
Marjanto & Slamet
2.0
4 April 2014
Wim Giesen &
Wicher Boissevain n.a.
Completely revised draft
Wicher Boissevain Hero Heering
Added revisions following workshop
Rahmadi Dadi
3.0
9 May 2014
Wim Giesen &
at Bappeda on 3 April 2014
Rahmadi Dadi
4.0
3 June 2014
Wim Giesen &
Wicher Boissevain Hero Heering
Rahmadi Dadi
Revised Maps and title
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it

and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned
project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or
used for any other purpose.
We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this

document being relied upon by any other party, or being used
for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission
which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by
other parties
This document contains confidential information and proprietary
intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties
without consent from us and from the party which
commissioned it.
Contents
Chapter
Title
Page
List of Abbreviations
Executive Summary
vii
1.
Introduction to Citarum UW
1.1
Geographic & environmental conditions __________________________________________ 1
1.1.1
Geography & administration ___________________________________________________ 1
1.1.2
Topographic conditions _______________________________________________________ 4
1.1.3
Geological conditions _________________________________________________________ 5
1.1.4
Climatic conditions ___________________________________________________________ 6
1.1.5
Forestry status & conservation _________________________________________________ 7
1.1.6
Land Use-Land Cover ________________________________________________________ 9
1.2
Socio-economic conditions ___________________________________________________ 12
1.2.1
Social Conditions ___________________________________________________________ 12
1.2.2
Economic conditions ________________________________________________________ 12
2.
Institutional aspects of Citarum UW Management
2.1
Introduction _______________________________________________________________ 14
2.2
River basin rehabilitation: government agencies ___________________________________ 15
2.2.1
Bappenas & Bappeda _______________________________________________________ 15
2.2.2
Ministry of Home Affairs assistance through DG Bangda___________________________ 15
2.2.3
Ministry of Public Works, Ditjen SDA & BBWS Citarum _____________________________ 15
2.2.4
BPDAS Citarum-Ciliwung_____________________________________________________ 16
2.2.5
RHL Dinas Kehutanan _______________________________________________________ 17
2.2.6
Balai Besar Sumber Daya Alam (BKSDA) ________________________________________ 17
2.2.7
Dinas Pertanian / Ministry of Agriculture, through Dinas/Service ______________________ 17
2.3
River basin rehabilitation: institutes and state-owned enterprises ______________________ 18
2.3.1
Perum Perhutani ___________________________________________________________ 18
2.3.2
PT BUMN Hijau Lestari I _____________________________________________________ 18
2.3.3
Agricultural University Bogor (IPB) _____________________________________________ 19
2.4
Relations between agencies in RLK in the Citarum UW _____________________________ 19
3.
Issues in the Citarum UW
3.1
Erosion & sedimentation _____________________________________________________ 21
3.1.1
Sediment loading ___________________________________________________________ 21
3.1.2
Critical lands / lahan kritis ____________________________________________________ 22
3.1.3
Deforestation ______________________________________________________________ 24
3.2
Unreliable water resources ___________________________________________________ 24
3.2.1
Water shortages ____________________________________________________________ 24
Euroconsult Mott MacDonald
14
21
3.2.2
Floods____________________________________________________________________ 25
3.2.3
Water pollution _____________________________________________________________ 26
3.3
Changes in LULC ___________________________________________________________ 29
4.
Assessment of past RLK programs
4.1
Overview of past/ongoing RLK programs ________________________________________ 31
4.2
Focus of past/ongoing RLK programs ___________________________________________ 32
4.2.1
RHL Kehutanan (2007/2009) __________________________________________________ 32
4.2.2
IPB (2012) ________________________________________________________________ 32
4.2.3
BPDAS (2009) _____________________________________________________________ 33
4.2.4
ADBs Six Cis project (2011) __________________________________________________ 33
4.2.5
Departemen Pertanian (2009) _________________________________________________ 34
4.2.6
Sekretariat Forum DAS Citarum (2013) __________________________________________ 34
4.2.7
Perum Perhutani III _________________________________________________________ 34
4.3
Hectares rehabilitated _______________________________________________________ 35
4.4
Cost of rehabilitation ________________________________________________________ 36
4.5
Effectiveness of RLK to date __________________________________________________ 36
4.6
Lessons learned ____________________________________________________________ 37
5.
Measures required to rehabiliate critical land in UW
5.1
Way forward given lessons learned from past RLK programs_________________________ 39
5.2
Proposed types of RLK measures ______________________________________________ 40
5.3
Proposed program of RLK measures in the UW ___________________________________ 41
5.3.1
Framework of measures _____________________________________________________ 41
5.3.2
Location and area of RLK program of revegetation measures ________________________ 43
5.3.3
Civil engineering measures ___________________________________________________ 43
5.3.4
Tentative costs of RLK program of measures _____________________________________ 44
6.
Measures proposed for sub-basins of proposed bulk water options
6.1
Cirasea sub-basin __________________________________________________________ 47
6.1.1
Pogokan Dam _____________________________________________________________ 47
6.1.2
Kertasari springs ___________________________________________________________ 53
6.2
Cisangkuy Sub-basin ________________________________________________________ 56
6.2.1
Cikalong day reservoir _______________________________________________________ 56
6.2.2
Desilting of Cileunca-Cipanunjang Reservoir _____________________________________ 61
6.3
Ciwidey Sub-basin __________________________________________________________ 65
6.3.1
Gambung springs ___________________________________________________________ 65
6.4
Cikapundung Sub-basin ______________________________________________________ 71
6.4.1
Dago Tanggulan day reservoir _________________________________________________ 71
6.5
Summary of the RLK interventions in the four Sub-basins ___________________________ 77
31
39
46
ii
7.
UW Management Components
78
7.1
Agencies responsible for RLK & M&E ___________________________________________ 78
7.2
Public awareness raising & involvement on RLK programs __________________________ 79
7.3
After care of RLK ___________________________________________________________ 79
7.4
Monitoring & evaluation ______________________________________________________ 79
7.5
Benefits of UW rehabilitation __________________________________________________ 80
8.
References
82
Field checking of map on changes in critical land
85
Annexes
Annex 1.
Tables
Table 1 Administrative areas included in Citarum UW Zone ......................................................................... 2
Table 2 Area of sub-basins in Citarum UW ................................................................................................... 3
Table 3 Slope class of each sub-basin in Citarum UW ................................................................................. 5
Table 4 Rainfall in the Citarum UW ............................................................................................................... 6
Table 5 Protected areas in the Citarum UW .................................................................................................. 8
Table 6 Land use land cover composition in the Citarum UW ................................................................. 10
Table 7 Tree cover (forests & plantations) in sub-basins of Citarum UW ................................................... 10
Table 8 Population of the Citarum UW ......................................................................................................... 12
Table 9 Contribution to GDP of the various sectors and per district, 2008-2010 ......................................... 13
Table 10 Water balance of the Citarum UW sub-basins ............................................................................. 24
Table 11 Citarum UW contribution to BOD in the basin ............................................................................ 27
Table 12 Water quality in Citarum UW ........................................................................................................ 28
Table 13 Heavy metals in waters of Citarum UW ...................................................................................... 29
Table 14 Changes in LULC in the Citarum UW (2003-2012) .................................................................... 30
Table 15 Overview of RLK programs in Citarum UW ................................................................................ 31
Table 16 Proposed types of RLK measures .............................................................................................. 41
Table 17 Framework of proposed RLK revegetation measures................................................................ 42
Table 18 Proposed RLK measures per sub-basin of Citarum UW ............................................................ 43
Table 19 RLK regreening intervention measures proposed for Pogokan Dam ........................................ 49
Table 20 Characteristics of Kertasari springs ............................................................................................ 53
Table 21 RLK intervention measures for Kertasari ................................................................................... 54
Table 22 RLK regreening intervention measures for Cisangkuy sub-basin Cikalong reservoir ............. 58
Table 23 Sedimentation in Cileunca-Cipanunjang reservoirs ................................................................... 61
Table 24 RLK intervention measures for Cileunca .................................................................................... 62
Table 25 Characteristics of Gambung springs .......................................................................................... 65
Table 26 RLK regreening intervention measures for Gambung................................................................ 67
Table 27 RLK regreening measures for Cikapundung sub-basinDago-Tanggulan reservoir ................. 74
Table 28 Overview of RLK regreening & civil engineering interventions in four sub-basins ..................... 77
iii
Figures
Figure 1 Map of Citarum UW main administration units ................................................................................ 2
Figure 2 Map of Citarum UW sub-basins ...................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3 Topography of Citarum UW............................................................................................................. 4
Figure 4 Distribution of Slope Classes in Citarum UW .................................................................................. 5
Figure 5 Rainfall in Citarum basin ................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 6 Map of forestry status Citarum UW ................................................................................................. 8
Figure 7 Protected areas in Citarum UW ...................................................................................................... 9
Figure 8 LULC in the Citarum UW (2012) ................................................................................................... 11
Figure 9 Level of erosion in Citarum UW .................................................................................................... 22
Figure 10 Lahan kritis in Citarum UW.......................................................................................................... 23
Figure 11 Forested area in Citarum UW (1984-2012) ................................................................................. 24
Figure 12 Water balance in Citarum UW & its sub-basins .......................................................................... 25
Figure 13 Flooding risk in Citarum UW ....................................................................................................... 26
Figure 14 Water quality monitoring stations along Citarum River in UW .................................................... 28
Figure 15 Hectares targeted by rehabilitation programs in Citarum UW 2006-2013 .................................. 36
Figure 16 Map of changes in critical land (lahan kritis) ............................................................................... 38
Figure 17 Map of proposed RLK measures in Citarum UW ........................................................................ 45
Figure 18 Overview of 6 short-listed bulk water options in the 4 sub-basins .............................................. 46
Figure 19 Map of land status Cirasea sub-basin (Pogokan & Kertasari) .................................................... 48
Figure 20 Map of LULC in Cirasea sub-basin (Pogokan & Kertasari)......................................................... 48
Figure 21 Map of proposed RLK measures for Cirasea sub-basin (Pogokan & Kertasari) ........................ 50
Figure 22 Map of land status in Cisangkuy sub-basin (Cikalong & Cileunca reservoirs)............................ 56
Figure 23 Map of LULC in Cisangkuy sub-basin (Cikalong & Cileunca reservoirs) .................................... 57
Figure 24 Map of proposed RLK in Cisangkuy sub-basin (Cikalong & Cileunca reservoirs) ...................... 59
Figure 25 Map of land status in Ciwidey sub-basin (Gambung springs) ..................................................... 66
Figure 26 Map of LULC in Ciwidey sub-basin (Gambung springs) ............................................................. 66
Figure 27 Map of proposed RLK in Ciwidey sub-basin (Gambung springs) ............................................... 68
Figure 28 Map of land status in Cikapundung sub-basin (Dago-Tanggulan reservoir) ............................... 72
Figure 29 Map of LULC for Cikapundung sub-basin (Dago-Tanggulan reservoir) ..................................... 72
Figure 30 Map of proposed RLK measures for Cikapundung sub-basin (Dago-Tanggulan reservoir) ....... 75
iv
List of Abbreviations
ADB
AMDAL
APBD
APL
BAKOSURTANAL
Baplan
BBWS
BKSDA
BOD
BPDAS
BPLHD
BPS
COD
CSR
DAS
DDT
DO
EIA
FMU
GDP
GERHAN
GNKPA
GOI
HK
HL
HP
HPT
IPAL
IPB
JSM
KLH
KPH
LIPI
LULC
M&E
MoF
N
NGO
NH4
Asian Development Bank

Analisis dampak lingkungan (EIA)
Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah (Local or regional budget)
Areal Pengunan Lain (Non-forestry land)
Badan Koordinasi Survey dan Pemetaan Nasional
Badan Planologi (Planning unit of the Ministry of Forestry)
Balai Besar Wilayah Sungai (Greater Basin Territory Centre)
Balai Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam (Natural Resources Conservation)
Biological Oxygen Demand
Balai Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai (Agency or Centre for Watershed
Management)
Badan Pengendalian Lingkungan Hidup Daerah (Regional Environment
Management Agency)
Badan Pusat Statistik (Head Statistics Office)
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Corporate Social Responsibility
Daerah Aliran Sungai (watershed)
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (pesticide, now banned worldwide)
Dissolved Oxygen
Einvironmental Impact Assessment
Forest Management Unit
Gross Domestic Product
Gerakan Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan (National Movement for the Rehabilitation of
Forests and Land)
Gerakan Nasional Kemitraan Penyelamatan Air (National Partnership Movement on
Water Conservation)
Government of Indonesia
Hutan Konservasi (Conservation Forest)
Hutan Lindung (Protection Forest usually for protection of watershed)
Hutan Produksi (Production Forest)
Hutan Produksi Terbatas (Limited Production Forest)
Instalasi Pengolahan Air Limbah (waste water treatment plant)
Institut Pertanian Bogor (Bogor Agricultural Institute)
Java Spatial Model
Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup (Ministry of Environment)
Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan (Forest Management Unit)
Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (Indonesian Institute of Sciences)
Land Use Land Cover
Monitoring and Evaluation
Ministry of Forestry
Nitrogen (in its various forms, including nitrates and ammonium)
Non-governmental Organisation
Ammonium
NTFP
NO2
NO3
P
PDAM
PFR2
PJT-II
PLN
PLTA
PO4
ppm
PU
PUKLT
PusAir
RHL
RLPS
RTkRHL
RTRWP
SDA
UW
Non-timber Forest Products

Nitrite
Nitrate
3Phosphate (usually total PO4 )
Perusahan Daerah Air Minum (drinking water company)
Periodic Financing Request -2 (ADB loan program)
Perusaan Umum (Perum) Jasa Tirta II
Perusahan Listrik Nasional (National Electricity Company)
Pembangkit Listrik Tenaga Air (Hydroelectric power)
Phosphate
Parts per million
Pekerjaan Umum (Public Works)
Pengembangan Usahatani Konservasi Lahan Terpadu (Technical guidelines for
development of integrated farm conservation land)
Puslitbang Sumber Daya Air
Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan (Forest & Land Rehabilitation)
Rehabilitasi Lahan dan Perhutanan Sosial (Land Rehabilitation and Social Forestry)
Rencana Teknik Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan (Plan for Forest and Land
Rehabilitation Techniques)
Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Provinsi (Provincial Spatial Plan)
Sumber Daya Air (Water Resources)
Upper Watershed (DAS hulu)
vi
Executive Summary
The Citarum Upper watershed, which extends over 227,375 ha, is largely formed by the Bandung plateau
(at 800m asl) surrounded by hills and low mountain ranges up to >2,000 m asl. It is a highly fertile
volcanic area, with tea, coffee and kina (quinine) plantations and vegetable farms at higher elevations,
predominantly rice farming in rural areas at lower elevations, and with mixed farming with
cassava/rice/vegetables in the intermediate zone. The Bandung plateau is highly built up and important for
a range of industries, especially textile and food processing. Population pressures and lack of alternatives
in rural areas have led to expansion and encroachment of agricultural land into steep slopes and have
contributed to widespread deforestation, erosion, and the dual problem of increased flood risks and lack of
water in the dry season. Issues are further exacerbated by use of inappropriate farming methods, and
pressures for household fuel and building material supplies and raw material for the Javanese pulp and
paper industry.
These major issues have been identified for more than a decade, and have contributed to the establishing
of various agencies, for example to deal with water resource matters (BBWS Balai Besar Wilayah Sungai
Citarum) and matters associated with erosion and deforestation (BPDAS Balai Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran
Sungai Citarum-Ciliwung). It has also led to the formulation of long-term watershed management plans
(RTkRHL), mid-term management plans (RPRHL) and annual action plans for rehabilitation of degraded
land (critical land or lahan kritis), which extends over about 51,241 ha in Citarum UW. These plans call for
a range of regreening efforts (mainly various types of agroforestry) and civil engineering interventions such
as the construction of check and control dams.
Interventions aimed at rehabilitation of lahan kritis (RLK) have been ongoing in the Citarum UW for
decades, but over the past decade have covered 1,000-2,000 ha annually (mainly funded by APBN and/or
APBD budgets), which is only 2-4% of the total area of existing lahan kritis. The situation is even less
satisfactory, as an analysis carried out for this management plan revealed that the effectiveness of
regreening programs is very modest: each year <100 ha (5-10%) of lahan kritis is successfully
rehabilitated. At the same time, area almost double that size of new lahan kritis emerges in the Citarum
UW, so overall there is a net increase in lahan krtis of about 100 ha per year, in spite of RLK efforts. Also,
investments in RLK measures in the Citarum UW have more than halved in the period 2006-2013.
RLK efforts are largely unsuccessful for various reasons. Firstly, most agencies involved in implementation
of RLK spend only small amounts (usually USD 100/ha, rarely up to USD 1,000/ha), and this is reflected in
the approach: seedlings are provided to villagers (often without their prior consultation), along with an
awareness program, and there is rarely any follow-up in terms of aftercare and M&E. Also, in some areas
there appears to be a perverse cycle of replanting by RLK programs, followed by felling of trees once they
mature (e.g. for the pulp and paper industry). Intensive agroforestry programs using intercropping systems
(tumpangsari) have been shown (e.g studies by IPB) to be financially beneficial to farmers: while total
returns per ha/year are lower for agroforestry than for vegetable crops, investments are much lower,
leading to a net increase in derived income. However, initial investments can be high (e.g. USD 1,600/ha
for planting coffee shrubs, and USD 600 per hectare for terracing), and this prevents farmers from
following seemingly good examples.
vii
In this management plan, a program of RLK interventions has been designed based on best management
practices defined by BPDAS, IPB and others, resulting in the recognition of six main types of intercropping
system, some including terracing (in non-forestry land). In addition, the civil engineering program involving
the construction of control and check dams to halt erosion has also been included. This has been applied
to and mapped the four sub-basins (parts of the Cirasea, Cisangkuy, Ciwidey & Cikapundung sub-basins)
of the six bulk water options shortlisted by GOI. In all, 6,840 ha of critical land urgently needs to be
rehabilitated in these four sub-basins, which along with civil engineering interventions leads to a total cost
of USD 5.8-8.9 million. Also included in the package is a mechanism for M&E of RLK measures, which
should be undertaken during the first 3-5 years. Implementors of RLK programs are to be held
accountable, and have future contracts hinge upon success rates, as determined by an independent M&E.
However, for the long-term option of using the Saguling Reservoir as a supply of bulk water, the entire
Citarum UW needs to be rehabilitated, and the total costs for regreening, terracing and civil engineering
are estimated to cost USD 45-66 million. This may be a significant amount, but it pales in comparison to
the cost of dredging the accumulated sediments from the Saguling Reservoir. Estimates made by the 6 Cis
project in 2011 indicate that >4 million tons (>2.4 million m) of sediment accumulates in the reservoir each
year, and the cost of dredging, removal and disposal of the sediment is around USD 5-10 per m, leading
to a cost of approximately USD 18 million per year. While RLK will never reduce erosion to zero, even
halving this amount, which is feasible under a successful program, would result in the costs being
recovered over a period of about 7 years based on savings to Saguling alone. In addition, there is also a
wide range of other savings, such as reduced flood damages, reduced impacts of sediment on other
infrastructure (dams, irrigation works), and greater water availability.
In the short-term RLK rehabilitation efforts are cost-effective and we recommend a focus on the four subbasins during a first phase RLK program to safeguard the investments in the PFR-2 bulk water options.
However, in the medium- to long-term investments in RLK rehabilitation is recommended for the entire
Citarum UW as it makes good financial, environmental and socio-economic sense.
viii
1. Introduction to Citarum UW
The Citarum Upper Watershed (UW) Management Plan aims at outlining the key issues (esp. land
degradation) in the Citarum UW, analysis of past attempts at resolving issues (esp. via rehabilitation
measures), and presents a framework on how a rehabilitation program might proceed more
successfully. In the latter, the Plan focuses on the sub-basins of the interventions proposed under
the PFR2 Bulk Water Options.
The Citarum River Upper Watershed (UW) is of vital importance, as it is the source of water for the
irrigation of key food production areas, provides potable water for West Java and Jakarta and is the major
source of groundwater in Bandung. It is also a major source of hydropower for Java-Bali. Managing
Citarum UW properly is vital in protecting assets against sedimentation, and in managing floods in the
Bandung Basin. Geographically, Citarum UW is divided into eight sub-basins: Cihaur, CikapundungCipamokolan, Cikeruh, Ciminyak, Cirasea, Cisangkuy, Citarik and Ciwidey. Administratively, the Citarum
UW forms part of Bandung District, West Bandung District, Bandung City, Cimahi City, and a small part of
Sumedang District.
Three zones are recognized in the Citarum River basin, namely:
Citarum Upper Watershed: upstream of (and including) the upper par of the Saguling Reservoir.
Citarum Middle Watershed: middle reaches of the basin, including (most of) Saguling reservoir, and all
of the Cirata and Jatiluhur reservoirs.
Citarum Lower Watershed: the lower reaches of the basin, downstream of Jatiluhur up to the mouth of
the river on the north Java coast.
This chapter describes the basic characteristics of the Citarum River Upper Watershed (or Citarum UW),
focusing mainly on the upper basins biophysical resources.
1.1
Geographic & environmental conditions
1.1.1
Geography & administration
In terms of administrative areas, the Citarum Upper Watershed (UW) lies predominantly in 3 districts and
2 cities, namely Bandung District, Bandung City, Cimahi City, West Bandung District and (a small part)
Sumedang District and includes numerous sub-districts (see Table 1 and Figure 1). There is also very
minor overlap of the Citarum UW with Garut (0.55% of basin) Cianjur (0.01%), Subang (0.05%) and
Purwawarta (0.12%) districts, but as these altogether amount to only 0.72% of the basin, they are left out
of general analyses.
Table 1 Administrative areas included in Citarum UW Zone

No.
1
District / City
Sub-districts
Bandung District
Pengalengan, Kertasari, Pacet, Ibun, Paseh, Cikancung,

Cicalengka, Blubur Limbangan, Cimanggung,
Rancaekek, Majalaya, Ciparay, Arjasari, Banjaran, Pasir
Jambu, Ciwidey, Sindangkerta, Gununghalu, Cipongkor,
Cililin, Soreang, Ketapang, Pameungpeuk, Bale Endah,
Tanjungsari, Cikeruh, Cileunyi, Bojongsoang,
Rancasari, Margacinta, Bandung Kidul, Astana Anyar,
Bojongloa Kaler, Babakan Ciparay, Bandung Kulon,
Andir, Cicendo, Bandung Wetan, Sumur Bandung,
Regol, Lengkong, Batununggal, Kiaracondong, Cicadas,
Arcamanik, Ujungberung, Cibiru, Cibeunying Kidul,
Cibeunying Kaler, Coblong, Cidadap, Sukasari
Cimahi Utara, Cimahi Tengah, Cimahi Selatan
Bandung City
Cimahi City
West Bandung District
Sumedang District
Padalarang, Margaasih, Batujajar, Cipongkor, Cipatat,

Cipeundeuy, Cikalong Wetan, Cisarua, Ngamprah,
Parompong, Lembang, Cimenyan, Cilengkrang
Tanjungsari
Source : Penataan model kawasan lindung Citarum hulu
Figure 1 Map of Citarum UW main administration units
The Citarum UW covers an area of 227,375 hectares and forms the immediate watershed for the Saguling
Reservoir. It consists of eight sub-basins (Figure 2, Table 2). The largest sub-basin is the Cirasea (which
extends over 16.5% of total area) followed by Cisangkuy and Ciminyak, while the smallest is Cikeruh subbasin, which covers only about 8.2% of the Citarum UW. Hydrological data from the Citarum River is
incomplete and unreliable (DHV et al., 2011). However, long-term data (1951-1979) from the Saguling
Reservoir in the upper part of the Citarum basin shows that annual flow in this part of the river peaks at
around 150-300 m/s). It also shows that each year flow falls to below 20 m/s and is often close to zero
during the dry season.
Table 2 Area of sub-basins in Citarum UW
Sub-basin
Bandung
Garut
West
Bandung
Bandung
City
Cimahi
City
Sumedang
Ha
Cihaur
1,691
21,488
756
4,046
27,981
12.3
Cikapundung-Cipamokolan
8,564
9,950
11,821
11
127
30,472
13.4
Cikeruh
8,870
2,497
7,662
19,029
8.4
Ciminyak
1,071
31,504
32,575
14.3
Cirasea
37,219
892
38,110
16.8
Cisangkuy
34,159
34,159
15.0
Citarik
17,295
758
4,899
22,951
10.1
22,169
9.7
100.0
20,941
1,228
Totals (ha)
129,810
1,650
64,170
15,074
4,057
12,688
227,446
Totals (%)
57.1
0.7
28.2
6.6
1.8
5.6
100.0
Ciwidey
Source: BPDAS (2009a, 2009b)
From a regional perspective, the Citarum UW is a plateau surrounded by hills and Quaternary volcanoes
forming a basin, known as the Bandung Basin. Based on the slope and height difference as well as
appearance in the field, the morphology of the Citarum UW is grouped into four geomorphological units,
i.e. plains, slopes, hills and high mountain peaks the latter including Mt. Tangkuban Perahu (2,076m), Mt.
Malabar (2,321m) and Mt. Patuha (2,434m). This mountainous area forms the headwaters of the Cimahi,
Cibeureum, Cikapundung, Citarik, Cikarial, Cisangkuy and Ciwidey rivers (Figure 2).
Figure 2 Map of Citarum UW sub-basins
Source: DAS Ministry of Forestry 1:250,000 & IWRM in the Six Cis basin (2011).

1.1.2
Topographic conditions
As mentioned in 2.1.1, the Citarum UW is basically a plateau surrounded by mountains, forming a basin
known as the Bandung Basin. The basin area consists of two sub-basins called the Bandung plains and
the Batujajar plains. The Bandung plains occupy the southern slopes of the Lembang hills (at the base of
Mt. Tangkuban Perahu) at altitudes ranging from 700 m to 1,100 m above sea level. The area around
Lembang formed as a subsidiary basin at an altitude of about 1,100 m above sea level (Figure 3).
The Citarum UW is surrounded by mountains and hills. To the north lies Mt. Tangkuban Perahu, to the
east Mt. Munggang and Mt. Mandalawangi, and to the south Mt. Malabar, Mt. Puncak Besar, Mt. Puntang,
Mt. Haruman, Mt. Tilu, Mt. Tikukur and Mt. Guha, while lower slopes of irregular mountains lie to the west.
In terms of land systems, volcanoes, mountain ridges and hill ridges dominate. In general, the hilly to
mountainous area has a slope gradient ranging from moderate to very steep and extends over about one
third of the basin.
Approximately 87,000 ha in the center of the Citarum UW consists of plains/relatively flat land with slopes
less than 8%. In the middle part of this land system, there is a lava flow area to the north, while the south is
dominated by lacustrine plains. As the latter would imply, the central Bandung Basin formerly consisted of
a large lake, which became infilled and swampy and later disappeared altogether.
Figure 3 Topography of Citarum UW
Note: Bandung City is outlined in black, while the boundaries of the sub-basins are outlined in white.
Citarum UW slopes are classified into the following classes: gentle slope (class I) with slopes <8%, slope
class II with slopes of 8-15%, class III with slopes of 15-25%, class IV with slopes of 25-40%, and the very
steep slope (class V) with slopes > 40%. See Table 3 and Figure 4.Almost half of the basin (47%) is in
Class I (gentle slopes), while just over 1% falls in the category very steep Class V.
Figure 4 Distribution of Slope Classes in Citarum UW
Source: Java Spatial Model 2010
Table 3 Slope class of each sub-basin in Citarum UW

Sub-basin
0-8%
8-15%
15-25%
25-40%
>40%
Total (ha)
Cihaur
17,942
4,708
3,479
1,689
162
27,980
Cikapundung-Cipamokolan
18,800
3,918
4,845
2,648
260
30,471
Cikeruh
10,799
3,354
2,880
1,799
197
19,029
Ciminyak
10,631
7,230
8,960
5,423
332
32,576
Cirasea
15,436
7,723
8,817
5,610
525
38,111
Cisangkuy
14,831
7,388
6,997
4,200
742
34,158
Citarik
12,418
4,035
4,288
2,090
120
22,951
Ciwidey
6,696
4,950
6,881
3,385
258
22,170
Totals (ha)
107,553
43,306
47,147
26,844
2,596
227,446
Totals (%)
47.3
19.0
20.7
11.8
1.1
100.0
1.1.3
Geological conditions
The geology of the Citarum UW is characterized by volcanic activity, and by Miocene to Holocene and
recent ocean sediments. In the Miocene period (23-5.3 million year BP), the northern part of Java up to
Pangalengan (50km south of Bandung) was covered by seas, while other parts of the island consisted of
volcanoes. At that time the clays, lapilli and lava were deposited. Most of the Bandung area was covered
by volcanic material during the Quarternary period (2.6 million years BP to present).
After sedimentation, a period of uplifting followed that led to the area north of Bandung forming hills and
mountains. Furthermore, volcanoes were formed, and deposition of tuffaceous sandstone and
conglomerate rock clay continued. At the end of the Quarternary period, tectonic processes occurred
followed by penetration of volcanic andesite and diorite in the vicinity of Leuwigajah, Batujajar,
Sindangkerta and Cililin. In the Pliocene (5.3-2.6 million years BP), repeated volcanic activity occurred,
especially in North Bandung during which the complex of Mount Sunda was formed, while to the south the
Malabar complex was formed. In this period the Lembang Fault was also formed that runs from east to
west (Klompe 1956, in Supriya 1997).
According to Silitonga (1973, in TRFIC 2001), four geological formations can be recognized in Citarum
UW, namely:
1 Old volcanic deposits composed of tuffaceous sand, lapilli, and alternated with layers of lava. These
units are scattered from north to south, but extend over close to 65% of the Citarum UW.
2 Young volcanic deposits, consisting of tuffaceous sand, lapilli, lava and agglomerates that mostly come
from Mt. Tangkuban Perahu. This unit occurs in the area of flat to undulating/hilly ground with soils of a
gray-yellowish to gray-reddish colour. These areas are dispersed and extend over nearly 10% of the
area in the eastern part of the Citarum UW.
3 Pumiceous tuff, consisting of tuffaceous sand, lapilli, scoriaceous lava, and fragments of andesitebasalt solids, mostly derived from the A-eruption of Mt. Tangkuban Perahu. These areas are dispersed
and cover almost 5% of the area, mainly along the main river valley.
4 Sandy tuff, composed of sandy tuff derived from the C-eruption of Mt. Tangkuban Perahu, along with
very porous, brownish sandy tuff, composed of coarse hornblende crystals, redweathered lahar, and
layers of lapilli and breccia. This formation is widespread and covers nearly 20% of the central part of
Citarum UW.
1.1.4
Climatic conditions
In general, the Citarum UW climate is classified as Type C according to the Fergusson Schmith
classification or type Am (wet tropical) according to the classification of Kppen. According to the Oldeman
classification, the climate based on the number of months of wet precipitation (> 200 mm) and dry months
(<100 mm), the upstream Citarum is classified into agro-climatic zones B2 with 2-3 wet months and 2-5 dry
months.
Average annual rainfall varies from about 1,500-2,700 mm in the sub-basins (Table 4 and Figure 5), and
can be well over 3,000 mm in the mountainous areas. The spatial distribution of rainfall in Citarum UW is
uneven (Figure 5). High intensity rainfall may occur in one area, while other areas may remain dry.
Variations in rainfall occur mainly due to the influence of topography. The rainy season occurs in MarchApril and again in November-December, with a dry season occurring in May-OctoberAverage monthly
evaporation from 1972-1992 ranged from 2 mm/day (January) to 5.5 mm/day (October) with the highest
recorded evaporation is 7.3 mm/day and the lowest was 2.7 mm/day. The average daily temperature is in
the range of 22-24C, and 23.7C for Bandung.
Table 4 Rainfall in the Citarum UW
Sub-basin
Annual rainfall
(mm)
Days of
rainfall
1,911
108
Citarik-Cikeruh
Cirasea
Cisangkuy
2,138
122
Ciminyak
1,562
115
2,716
123
Sub-basin
Annual rainfall
(mm)
Days of
rainfall
Cihaur
1,817
132
Cikapundung-
1,920
125
2,233
127
Cipamokolan
7
Ciwidey
Source: Penataan model kawasan lindung Citarum hulu
Figure 5 Rainfall in Citarum basin
Source: DHV et al. (2011) - Rancangan Pola Pengelolaan Source Daya Air Wilayah Sungai 6 Ci.
1.1.5
Forestry status & conservation
The forestry areas are shown in Figure 6. Approximately 60.800 ha (26.8%) is designated as forest area
(Kawasan Hutan), which includes the Forest Management Unit (FMU or KPH) South Bandung and FMU
North Bandung, both managed by Perhutani. These can be grouped into Protection Forest (hutan lindung)
with limited utilization activities, and Conservation Areas (Hutan Konservasi). The rest is located outside
the forest area and includes privately owned land and plantations with tea, quinine and rubber, managed
by the private sector, and community-owned land used for dryland farming, rice cultivation and vegetable
growing.
The Spatial Plan (RTRWP) for West Java lists118,544 ha (almost 52% of the UW) of protected areas in the
1
Citarum UW, consisting of 52,256 ha of forest area and 66,288 non-forestry area. Non-forested protected
areas include: volcanic hazard areas (Bahaya Gunung Api), protection forest bufferzones (Penyangga
Hutan Lindung), protected geology areas (Perlindungan Geologi), landslide hazard areas (Rawan Gerakan
Tanah), and groundwater recharging areas (Resapan Air) (Figure 7 & Table 5). Protected areas are
scattered in 8 sub-basins. In terms of proportion of protected areas, Ciwidey has the largest proportion,
with approximately 66.2%, followed by Ciminyak (59.0%), Cisangkuy (57.7%) and Cirasea (55.9%). Subbasins Cikapundung and Citarik both have around 45%, while Cihaur (37.04%) and Cikeruh (35.71%) have
smaller amounts.
This figure differs from the previous (60,800 versus 52,256 ha), as one is based on data from the forestry departments Planning
Section, while the other (RTRWP) is based on various sources.
Figure 6 Map of forestry status Citarum UW
Source: Data from Forestry Department, latest 1:25,000 scale maps of the Planning Section; Purple = conservation, green =
protection, light green = limited production forest, yellow = production forest, light brown = forest reserves hutan cadongan,
(Perhutani), light purple = fodder crops (hutan pangonan, Perhutani), blue = reservoirs/rivers,grey = non-forestry land (APL)
Table 5 Protected areas in the Citarum UW

Sub-basin
Area of sub-basin
Protected Areas
Forest areas
Outside forested
areas
Ha
%
Area of protected
areas
Ha
%
Ha
Ha
1. Cihaur
28,029
12.21
2,851
27.46
7,532
72.54
10,383
37.04
2. Cikapundung
30,482
13.28
5,209
35.98
9,270
64.02
14,479
47.50
3. Cikeruh
19,660
8.56
3,272
46.60
3,749
53.40
7,021
35.71
4. Ciminyak
32,624
14.21
3,577
18.58
15,678
81.42
19,255
59.02
5. Cirasea
39,943
17.40
14,614
65.47
7,707
34.53
22,321
55.88
6. Cisangkuy
34,071
14.84
10,387
52.85
9,268
47.15
19,655
57.69
7. Citarik
22,655
9.87
3,663
33.86
7,156
66.14
10,819
47.76
8. Ciwidey
22,088
9.62
8,683
59.43
5,928
40.57
14,611
66.15
229,552
100.00
52,256
44.08
66,288
55.92
118,544
51.64
Total
Source: Penataan model kawasan lindung Citarum hulu; Note that the total area of the basin (229,552 ha) differs slightly from that of
the Forestry Planning department (MoF; 227,375 ha), upon which many of the maps and calculations in this report are based.
Figure 7 Protected areas in Citarum UW
Source: RTRWP West Java 2011-2021.
1.1.6
Land Use-Land Cover
A map of Land Use Land Cover (LULC) is provided in Figure 8. The area of primary forest in the Citarum
UW ranges from 1.72% to 24.87% per sub-basin (Table 6). The largest area of primary forest is found in
Ciwidey sub-basin (24.9%) and the smallest in the Ciminyak sub-basin (1.7%). Extensive use of rice fields
are in the sub-basins Citarik, Cikeruh, Cirasea, Ciminyak and Cihaur, while the concentrated built land is in
sub-basins Cikapundung, Cihaur and Cikeruh. In 2010, the dominant type of land cover is rice fields
(paddies), which cover approximately 27.7%, followed by built-up areas (22.1%). Dryland agriculture
(shifting cultivation) extends over approximately 14.7%, gardens/plantations about 14.4% and forest area
about 12.4%. Other types of land cover extend only a small part.
Table 6 Land use land cover composition in the Citarum UW

Land Use Land Cover
2010
(Ha)
(%)
Forest
30,261
12.99
Gardens/plantations
33,485
14.38
Shifting cultivation
34,130
14.65
Rice fields (paddies)
64,400
27.65
Shrubs/secondary vegetation
15,485
6.65
3,771
1.62
18
0.01
51,359
22.05
232,908
100.0
Open water
Fish ponds/dams
Built up areas
Total (Ha)
Source: Penataan model kawasan lindung Citarum hulu. Note that the total area of
the basin (232,908 ha) differs slightly from that of the Forestry Planning department
(MoF; 227,375 ha), on which many maps and calculations in this report are based
Sub-basins with more than 30% forested land (with actual tree cover) are Ciminyak (32.7%), Cisangkuy
(43.3%) and Ciwidey (47.1%; Table 7). The sub-basins with the lowest proportion of forested land are
Cihaur (16.2%), Citarik (16.6%) and Cikapundung (18.4%).
Table 7 Tree cover (forests & plantations) in sub-basins of Citarum UW

No
Sub-basin
Area (ha)
Land with tree cover*

(ha)
(%)
Cihaur
28,029
4,541
16.2
Cikapundung
30,482
5,601
18.4
Cikeruh
19,660
4,092
20.8
Ciminyak
32,624
10,677
32.7
Cirasea
39,943
10,208
25.6
Cisangkuy
34,071
14,765
43.3
Citarik
22,655
3,765
16.6
Ciwidey
22,088
10,395
47.1
229,552
64,044
Note: *) Data on tree cover dates from 2010
10

Figure 8 LULC in the Citarum UW (2012)
11
1.2
Socio-economic conditions
1.2.1
Social Conditions
The population of the Citarum UW was 7.6 million in 2010, and this had grown by 21.1% since 2000 (Table
8). The greatest increase has been in Bandung District (28.6%), while the lowest increase was in Bandung
City (12.1%). The overall population density in the Citarum UW is 2,328 persons per km, which is double
the average for Java (1,064 in 2011), almost 5x that of the Netherlands (498 in 2011) and about 19x that of
Indonesia as a whole.
Table 8 Population of the Citarum UW
Region
Area
Year
Growth
Pop.
Density
(km)
2000
2010
Bandung
1,762
2,470,909
3,178,543
28.6
1,804
West Bandung
1,306
1,245,097
1,510,284
21.3
1,157
Bandung City
167
2,136,260
2,394,873
12.1
14,313
Cimahi City
40
442,077
541,177
22.4
13,462
3,276
6,294,343
7,624,877
21.1
2,328
(%)
(#/km)
Source: based on BPS West Java province (2011).
1.2.2
Economic conditions
Value and growth of GDP can be used as a macro-economic indicator to evaluate and compare regional
economic development. Table 9 provides a comparison in growth of contribution to GDP, per sector,
between Bandung District, West Bandung Regency and Bandung City, for 2008-2010.
Based on Table 9, it is apparent that the manufacturing sector (listed as industrial management) is mostly
concentated in Bandung District (where it contributes to 59.6% of GDP) and West Bandung District (where
it contributes 43.3%). Bandung City is more dominated by trade, hotels and restaurants (where this
contributes 39.8%).
The agricultural sector plays a relatively insignificant role in terms of contribution to GDP both in Bandung
District (where it contributes 7.5% of GDP), and West Bandung District (11.7%). Moreover, in Bandung
City it only contributes about 0.2 % of GDP and this is (unsurprisingly) declining. The agricultural sector
includes food crops sub-sector of agriculture, horticulture, plantation, animal husbandry and forestry.
The food crops sub-sector is dominated by rice production, along with horticulture of potatoes and
vegetables, whereas plantations are dominated by tea gardens, coffee and timber plantations. The
livestock sub-sector is dominated by dairy cattle, especially in Lembang and Pangalengan areas, as well
as beef cattle in the Kertasari area. The forestry sub-sector has a minor role in the economic activity
because the function of the status of forest area in this region is almost entirely for protected forests and
conservation forests. Forest production in the region extends over a small area in Cililin and Sindangkerta
areas and mainly includes pine plantations for the tapping of resin. In addition, some forest areas are used
for cultivation of (ornamental and other) plants, especially for agroforestry purposes.
12
Table 9 Contribution to GDP of the various sectors and per district, 2008-2010
Bandung District
2008
2009
Agriculture
Mining
Industrial
management
Electricty & gas
Building &
construction
Trade, hotels &
restaurants
Transport &
communications
Finance, Real Estate
& Business Services
Services
2010
West Bandung District

2009
2010
2008
2008
Bandung City
2009
2010
2,728,756
3,013,007
3,471,662
1,579,761
1,773,336
1,996,500
71,510
74,461
63,340
468,304
526,035
580,184
58,121
62,608
69,574
23,275,745 24,721,852 27,471,535
6,624,524
6,921,771
7,390,494
7,544,621
7,792,641
8,067,254
642,659
674,521
741,188
919,660
1,003,988
1,131,863
628,233
689,731
761,964
648,394
696,721
764,991
361,715
378,837
426,457
1,308,240
1,432,099
1,592,431
6,005,198
6,780,385
7,796,201
2,634,504
3,081,115
3,515,998 10,302,814 11,375,644 12,623,317
1,783,921
1,795,162
1,933,148
951,601
1,036,131
1,166,240
2,851,891
3,147,347
3,501,283
792,878
820,503
898,354
369,958
413,541
477,369
1,419,150
1,538,971
1,670,210
1,936,316
2,173,715
2,434,376
720,563
796,714
908,135
2,852,460
3,177,457
3,417,482
Source: based on BPS West Java province (2011); according to current prices, in rupiah (in millions)
13
2. Institutional aspects of Citarum UW

Management
2.1
Introduction
Many stakeholders play a role in managing the natural resources of the Citarum UW. The Six Cis Citarum
Stakeholder Analysis report (DHV et al. 2010), for example, lists 13 national agencies, 13 provincial and
municipal agencies, 5 corporate agencies, plus NGOs and colleges, including 69 civil society agencies
(NGOs). While such lists are useful for providing a general overview, one has to know who the key players
are, what their roles and responsibilities are, and how they relate to each other.
This Citarum UW Management Plan focuses largely on the health of the upper part of the basin, especially
on the state of the land, land degradation issues (Chapter 3) and how these are (to be) dealt with (Chapter
4-6). Agencies involved with the state of the basin and degradation/rehabilitation issues are assessed in
chapter 2.2 (GOI agencies) and 2.3 (companies & institutes), while their relationship is explained in 2.4.
Water issues are dealt with in other reports, and hence it suffices here to simply list the agencies involved
with water in the Citarum UW; these include the following:
Surface water management:

i.
Bappenas
ii.
Bappeda Provinsi
iii.
BBWS, Bandung
iv.
Dinas PU Pengairan, bandung
v.
Puslitbang Sumber Daya Air (PusAir), Bandung
vi.
Dinas PSDA, Balai Pendayagunaan SDA Citarum
vii.
Power companies (PLN, PT. Indopower)
viii.
PDAMs (Water Utilities)
ix.
Badan Meteorologi, Klimatologi & Geofisika (BMKG)
x.
Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana (BNPB)
xi.
Dinas Pertanian
xii.
Dinas Perikanan & Keluatan
xiii.
Dinas Kehutanan
xiv.
Dinas Industri & Perdagangan
Surface water quality management:

i.
BBWS, Bandung
ii.
Badan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup (BPLHD), Bandung
iii.
Bappeda Provinsi
iv.
Perusahan Umum Jasa Tirta II
v.
PDAMs (Water Utilities)
vi.
Puslitbang Sumber Daya Air (PusAir), Bandung
vii.
Dinas Kesehatan, Bandung
viii.
BNPD, Bandung
14

2.2
River basin rehabilitation: government agencies
2.2.1
Bappenas & Bappeda
The State Ministry of National Development Planning (Bappenas) is responsible for determining policy and
inter-institutional coordination at the nationwide level. Bappenas has two key directorates related to natural
resource management that are of direct importance to Citarum UW management, namely a) Water
Resources and Irrigation, and b) Forestry and Water Resource Conservation.
Especially for Citarum, Bappenas was instrumental in drafting the Citarum Roadmap associated with the
Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management Investment Program (ICWRMIP). Preparation of the
Roadmap was performed by a team formed by Bappenas, with the involvement of various other parties.
Initial activities in the Roadmap include, among others: i) Rehabilitation of the Citarum Watershed, ii)
Improved management of land and water, iii) Management of water and basic sanitation for communities,
iv) Water quality improvement action plan, v) Environmental protection and upstream biodiversity, vi)
Spatial planning, vii) Management of flooding in the Upper Watershed, viii) Design for improvement of the
Bandung water supply system, and ix) Strategies for adaptation to climate change.
At the provincial level, the provincial Bappeda office for West Java (in Bandung) oversees policies,
planning and coordination of the management of the Citarum UW. Natural resource management is
handled by Bappedas Bidang Fisik, which has two main sub-units: a) Spatial Planning and Environment,
and b) Regional Infrastructure. Part of Bappedas task has been to complete the Road Map prepared by
Bappenas by preparing the Integrated Management Plan for the Citarum River Basin 2010-2015 (Rencana
Penanganan Terpadu Wilayah Sungai Citarum Tahun 2010-2015), and key recommendations included
are: i) the establishment of the Strategic Board for the Rehabilitation of the Citarum River Basin (Badan
Strategis Rehabilitasi Wilayah Sungai Citarum) responsible for integrated basin management; ii) relocation
of residential and industrial areas; iii) moratorium on land conversion, especially in the catchment area; iv)
purchasing of land to expand conservation areas. They were also responsible for community involvement
in environmental improvement through the Citarum River Pilot Demonstration Activity ICWRMIP
(developed by Bappenas).
2.2.2
Ministry of Home Affairs assistance through DG Bangda
Through the Directorate General of Regional Development (Ditjen Pembangunan Daerah or Bangda), the
Ministry of Home Affairs (Kementerian Dalam Negeri) has an important role in institutional development of
provincial and district government agencies, particularly in the preparation of guidelines for empowerment,
drafting regulations, public awareness, advocacy and training for the Tenaga Pendamping Masyarakat
(TPM, Community Assistance Force), and to develop incentives and disincentives to prevent land
conversion, One of its programs in the Citarum UW has been Penanganan Lahan Kritis Sumber Daya Air
Berbasis Masyarakat (Community-based Handling of Critical Land Water Resources; DHV et al 2010).
2.2.3
Ministry of Public Works, Ditjen SDA & BBWS Citarum
The Balai Besar Wilayah Sungai (BBWS, River Basin Regional Centre) for Citarum and the Ditjen SDA
(Directorate General for Water Resources) are executive agencies that play a role in all aspects of water
resources management in the Citarum River Basin. It is BBWS Citarums duty to carry out water resource
management, which includes: planning, construction, operation and maintenance in order to conserve
water resources, efficient use of water resources and controlling the force of water (e.g. flooding).
15
The specific tasks of BBWS Citarum include:

i.
Drafting designs and a water resources management plan.
ii.
Planning and implementation of water resource management of protected areas in the river basin.
iii.
Water resources management, which includes conservation of water resources, development of
water resources, efficient use of water resources and controlling forces of water in the basin.
iv.
Preparing technical recommendations in granting permission for the supply, allocation, use and
utilization of water resources in the basin.
v.
Operation and maintenance of water resources in the basin.
vi.
Management of hydrological systems.
vii.
Organization of the data and information of water resources.
viii.
Facilitation of the activities of the Coordination Team for Water Resources Management (Tim
Koordinasi Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Air - TKPSDA) for the Citarum basin, of which BBWS is the
secretariat).;
ix.
Empowerment of communities in the management of water resources.
(Adapted from DHV et al. 2010).
2.2.4
BPDAS Citarum-Ciliwung
The Balai Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai (BPDAS or Agency for Watershed Management) for CitarumCiliwung is part of the Ministry of Forestry (MoF) and is located in Bogor. The agency has five main tasks:
1. Develop a watershed management plan
2. Develop and present watershed information
3. Develop a watershed management model
4. Develop institutional models and watershed management partnership
5. Carry out monitoring and evaluation of watershed management.
BPDAS prepared a Management Plan for the Citarum UW five years ago (BPDAS, 2009a, 2009b), which
has been used for the preparation of this present plan. The agency particularly focuses on the condition of
the watershed and identifying so-called critical land (lahan kritis) where erosion is an issue. These areas
are then targeted with erosion reduction measures such as check dams, terracing and reforestation. In the
approach used by BPDAS lahan kritis is determined among others by ground cover (by vegetation),
slope, erodibility and rock outcrop cover. The mapping of critical land is carried out by MoFs Planning
Department (Badan Planologi or Baplan), which is also located in Bogor.
In order to achieve the above tasks, BPDAS has three sections, namely: a) Watershed Planning Unit,
which is in charge of the inventory and identification of potential damages to watersheds, and the
preparation of plans and programs for watershed management. b) Watershed Institutional Section, which
is charged with conducting an inventory and identification of public institutions, and institutional models,
and institutional models for watershed management partnerships; and c) Watershed Evaluation Section in
charge of monitoring and evaluation of water management, land use, socio-economic issues, institutional
and management information systems and watershed management.
One of the key conservation programs developed by BPDAS has been the Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama
Masyarakat (PHBM or Collaborative Forest Management). This program has not entirely operated as
expected in the Citarum UW because of the difficulty of introducing commodities such as coffee, which are
perennial and have better conservation value, but are slower at producing results and economic benefits
than vegetable crops that local farmers are used to. BPDAS programs also focus on empowerment of
communities, especially those living in or near state forests or industrial forest estates, to provide business
opportunities and prevent encroachment and looting.
16

2.2.5
RHL Dinas Kehutanan
The Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan (RHL or Forest & Land Rehabilitation) office of the Provincial Dinas
Kehutanan (Forestry Service) is responsible for the following activities in the Citarum UW:
1. Forest stewardship.
2. Securing production and protection forest boundaries.
3. Reforestation, land rehabilitation and social forestry.
4. Formulation and implementation of environmental management of forestry;
5. Coordination of partnerships with relevant agencies.
6. Enforcement of forestry laws and managing the trade in forest products.
The RHL office of the provincial Dinas Kehutanan coordinates and supervises the plans and programs
developed by BPDAS, including past programs such as Gerakan Nasional Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan
(GN-RHL/Gerhan) and the present RHL programs. It also supervises activities by the state-owned
enterprise Perum Perhutani III (in the Citarum UW; see next section). Dinas Kehutanans position is
complicated by the fact that most forestry land is actually managed by other agencies: i) production and
protection forests are largely managed by Perum Perhutani, while ii) conservation areas (Kawasan
Konservasi) are managed either by BKSDA or Taman Nasional, depending on their conservation status. In
terms of implementation, its role is i) in small areas of production and protection forest outside the working
areas of Perum Perhutani, or ii) outside forestry land (i.e. on APL land), which includes rehabilitation of
degraded APL and running awareness programs. The latest information on critical land (lahan kritis) is
compiled by RHL Dinas Kehutanan, which has developed a Model Pengelolaan Kegiatan Citarum Hulu
for all activities to be carried out in Citarum UW. Included in this is thw 2014 Rencana Aksi Milti Pihak
Penanganan DAS Citarum Segmen I (which is the first 7 km, from Situ Cisanti up to Majalaya).
2.2.6
Balai Besar Sumber Daya Alam (BKSDA)
The Balai Besar Sumber Daya Alam (BKSDA) for West Java, located in Bandung, is responsible for the
management of all conservation forests in the Citarum UW, except the areas managed as (part of) national
parks (which are managed by Taman Nasional). The management of Taman National and BKSDA are
both under the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation of the Ministry of
Forestry. They are responsible for management in the field, but also rehabilitation and restoration activities,
where required. BKSDA assists Perhutani with some issues, such as ecotourism, business permits (izin
perusahan), and developing annual work plans. In 2013 they launched the concept of Model Desa
Konservasi as a social approach for troubleshooting around conservation areas (Prihatno et al 2013).
Basically, the program is very much process oriented, aimed at gaining local confidence, with the ultimate
goal of creating viable bufferzone areas between existing conservation areas and villages.
2.2.7
Dinas Pertanian / Ministry of Agriculture, through Dinas/Service
Through the Ditjen Pengelolaan Lahan dan Air (Directorate General of Land and Water Management) the
Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) has the task to formulate/implement policies and technical standards in the
field of land and water management. More specifically, the directorate in charge of Land Management
formulates policies and implements rehabilitation and conservation of land, reclamation, and optimization
and control of land use. To achieve this, MoA has designed two programs: the Pengembangan Usahatani
Konservasi Lahan Terpadu (PUKLT, Development of Integrated Farming Land Trusts) and the Pedoman
Teknis Konservasi DAS Hulu (KDH, Technical Guidelines for Conservation of Upper watersheds). PUKLT
activities have been conducted through the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in three districts, including
one in the Citarum UW (Bandung). KDH activities are carried out in five districts, including two in the
Citarum UW, namely Kabupaten Bandung and Kabupaten West Bandung. The KDH target area in each
district covers an area of 500ha (250ha of plantations and 250ha of horticulture) and two farmer field
school programs (DHV et al. 2010).
17
At the level of Dinas Pertanian at provincial level, aspects of land and water resources management is
handled by the Land and Water Management Section under the Natural Resources Section. According to
DHV et al. (2010), conservation activities under PUKLT have not achieved the expected results yet in the
field, as in various areas crops such as potatoes and vegetables are cultivated on steep slopes (>45
degrees), without terracing or following the contours.
2.3
River basin rehabilitation: institutes and state-owned enterprises
2.3.1
Perum Perhutani
Perum Perhutani is an Indonesian state-owned enterprise (SOE), which has the duty and authority to
enforce the planning, management, exploitation and protection of forests in its working area. As an SOE,
Perhutani seeking to provide a public benefit while at the same time seeking profits based on principles of
corporate management. Perhutani was established based on Government Regulation No. 15 of 1972,
followed by various legal amendments, and is currently governed by Government Regulation No. 72 of
2010. The agencys working area includes (nearly) all production and protection forests located in West,
Central and East Java and Banten, but exclude conservation forest areas that are managed by BKSDA or
Taman Nasional (National Parks). Balai Besar Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam (BKSDA) assists Perhutani
with ecotourism, business permits (izin perusahan), and developing annual work plans.
The total forest area managed by Perum Perhutani in 2013 covers 2,566,889 ha, consisting of production
forest (1,454,176 ha or 57 %), limited production forest (428,795 ha or 16 %) and areas of protection forest
(683,889 ha or 27%).
Perum Perhutani Unit III is responsible for West Java and Banten and has 14 Kesatuan Pengelolaan
Hutan (KPH or Forest Management Units), of which KPH Bandung Selatan coincides with the entire
Citarum UW. KPH Bandung Selatan is responsible for managing a total area of 55,446 ha, of which 80% is
Hutan Lindung (Protection Forest) and 20% is Hutan Produksi (Production Forest). [Note that some small
areas of production and protection forest are located outside Perhutanis working area and are managed
by Dinas Kehutanan.] In the past each KPH was responsible for a wide range of tasks (e.g. managing a
plantation, harvesting, processing, and so on), but since 2014 this has changed, and they now, for
instance, have a Divisi Industrian that is in charge of processing/factories.
As they have few staff (KPH Bandung Selatan employs 250 persons), Perhutani needs to cooperate with
local communities in order to manage its areas. In most cases it establishes Hutan Pakuan Desa (HPD or
village cooperation units), with which they establish MoUs via a notary. These MoUs specify a harvest
sharing agreement (bagi hasil) for all specified products, which is usually in the range of 15-50% for
Perhutani (average 25-30%). In all, 24,000 families are involved in Perhutanis HPD programs and the
focus of these programs is on intercropping trees with perennial crops such as coffee or patchouli, so as to
establish a good ground cover and reduce erosion.
2.3.2
PT BUMN Hijau Lestari I
PT BUMN Hijau Lestari is a company engaged in the field of agroforestry-based ekobisnis and
cooperatives, and has been active since 2007 in regreening activities in the Citarum UW. PT Bakti Usaha
Menanam Nusantara Hijau Lestari I (PT BUMN HL I), is a Joint Venture Company established by five
state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in accordance with the Decree of the Minister of State Owned Enterprises
No. S-513 / MBU / 2009 dated July 23, 2009 (SH Number 73 dated August 15, 2009). These five SOEs are
Perum Perhutani, PT Perkebunan Nusantara VIII (Persero), Perum Jasa Tirta II, PT Pupuk Kujang and PT
Sang Hyang Seri (Persero).
18
In 2014, under the program Rencana Aksi Milti Pihak Penanganan DAS Citarum Segmen I (which is the
first 7 km, from Situ Cisanti up to Majalaya), PT. BUMN Hijau Lestari I plans to rehabilitate a total area of
725 ha of critical land in the Citarum UW at a cost of Rp. 11.7 million/ha. Programs by PT BUMN Hijau
Lestari I are not always successful. During a field visit on 1 May 2014 to Pangalengan, near BadraCinangka villages, an area of 40 ha of critical land had been replanted in 2011 by PT. BUMN Hijau Lestari
with various useful NTFP tree species. However, none of the NTFP tree species listed on the signboard
were observed. Locals reported that the seedlings were dropped in the village without prior consultation
and villagers had been asked to plant them, although these species were deemed unsuited to the area
(Annex 1).
2.3.3
Agricultural University Bogor (IPB)
The Institut Pertanian Bogor (Agricultural University Bogor, IPB) has long been an advocate of agroforestry
and using intercropping systems (tumpangsari) as a means for reducing erosion, and as such have a
mandate for extending their expertise in this area to help manage the Citarum UW. In their model for
protected areas in the Citarum UW, IPB (2012) and Dinas Kehutanan developed a number of program
options for rehabilitation of critical land (RLK). These systems are all based on combinations with
agroforestry, such as agro-silvi-pastoral, agro-silviculture, multi-purpose tree/forest production and agrosilviculture/other commodities, and are described in chapter 4.2.2.
They have also carried out various practical programs and projects, including the successful trial
intercropping/agroforestry demonstration pilot carried out at Cileunca-Cipanunjang in 2007-2008 using
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds from the state electricity company PLN. In all, 30 farmers
were involved in this trial and the area rehabilitated extended over 2.2 hectares (see Box 3, chapter 5.1).
IPBs Forestry Department is developing a Land Mapping Unit approach in order to prioritize critical land
for rehabilitation, but this is not yet generally available and still under development.
2.4
Relations between agencies in RLK in the Citarum UW
It is the role of BPDAS to identify areas of critical land (lahan kritis), and to propose methods and draft
plans for how to address the issues of land degradation. PP76 of 2008 on Reklamasi dan Rehabilitasi
Hutan prescribes how BPDAS is responsible for the RTkRHL, which is a 15-year management plan as
outlined in the Citarum UW Management Plan of 2009 (BPDAS 2009). This document describes in detail
which physical/civil engineering (e.g. check dams) and vegetative (e.g. replanting for agroforestry) actions
need to be undertaken, in which areas (e.g. sub-districts), and what the indicative costs are. Most of the
proposed actions are identified by BPDAS, except for control dams, which are identified by BBWS. Five
year Recana Pengelolaan RHL (Land rehabilitation management plans for forestry areas) are then drafted
by Dinas Kehutanan (for Production & Protection Forests) and BKSDA (for Conservation Areas), while
annual Recana Pengelolaan are produced by the various Dinas.
The RTkRHL and RPRHL provide general plans for rehabilitation, but implementation is decided by the
Tim Recana Tindak DAS Citarum (Action Planning Team for the Citarum Watershed), established by an
SK Gubernur Jawa Barat 2009. For physical interventions such as control dams, the Unit Rencana
Pengelolaan (Management Planning) SDA of PU is in charge, while for other issues the Unit Rencana Tata
Ruang Wilayah (Regional Spatial Planning unit) of Bappeda is in charge. The latter is the formal
arrangement, but in practice Bidang RHL of Dinas Kehutanan has the supervision role. Stakeholders in the
team include Dinas Pertanian, Dinas Kehutanan, Dinas Perikanan, Dinas Perkebunan and Perum
Perhutani.
19
The members of the Tim Rencana Tindak DAS Citarum decide which RHL actions will be undertaken by
their agency, in which area, in the coming year(s) and this is included in annual action plans. An example
of the most recent one is the program Rencana Aksi Milti Pihak Penanganan DAS Citarum Segmen I
(which is the first 7 km, from Situ Cisanti up to Majalaya), which includes regreening actiities by Dinas
Pertanian, Dinas Perkebunan, Dinas Kehutanan, Perum Perhutani and PT. BUMN Hijau Lestari. The
institutional landscape is still evolving: in 2013, an SK Gubernur Jawa Barat was issued on Forum
Koordinasi Pengelolaan DAS, under which a Tim Bidang Konservasi dan Rehabilitasi Lahan was
establihed, led by RHL Dinas Kehutanan.
Perum Perhutani is the key implementing agency for activities in production and protection forest areas,
although some small areas of protection and production forest are also managed by Dinas Kehutanan.
Bidang RHL Dinas Kehutanan also implements forestry activities outside areas managed by MoF, for
example, by running awareness campaigns or planting trees in degraded APL areas. Activities in
conservation areas are implemented by BKSDA, except for the national park areas, which are managed by
Taman Nasional. Civil engineering activites may be implemented by the DG Cipta Karya of the Ministry of
Public Works.
20
3. Issues in the Citarum UW
The Citarum UW faces a range of challenges, including biophysical issues such as extreme levels of
erosion, sedimentation and silting up of water bodies, high surface runoff, flooding, water shortages, water
quality of surface waters (esp. Saguling Reservoir), encroachment into forests and loss of forest cover, and
a range of non-biophysical issues such as weakness of institutions responsible for watershed
management, spatial plans that change all the time, lack of law enforcement, lack of social-culturally
sensitive approaches, lack of awareness raising, human resources, and a lack of economic considerations
(BPDAS, 2009). In the following a summary is provided of key biophysical issues.
3.1
Erosion & sedimentation
Erosion and sedimentation levels in the Citarum UW are high, but there are significant differences in how
these are calculated by the various agencies. According to a recent report by IPB (2012), about 45% of the
Citarum UW has a severe or very severe rate of erosion (i.e. 180 tons/ha.yr), while about 53% has a low
erosion level (<60 tons/ha.yr); intermediate levels (moderate erosion) extend over less than 2% of the UW
(Figure 9). This is much higher than calculations by BPDAS (2011) for the UW, which indicates that about
17% of the UW is prone to (very) severe erosion, of which 12.2% is severe and 4.9% very severe. The
BPDAS data (which is compiled by Badan Planologi/Baplan Kehutanan) are also used by the regional
environmental management agency, BPLHD (Badan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup Daerah) and seems
to be both the most accurate and useful for targeting with rehabilitation programs.
3.1.1
Sediment loading
Erosion in the Upper Watershed is extreme, and averages at 491 ton/ha.yr (BPDAS 2009). This means
that on average about 3 cm of soil is lost throughout the UW annually. Out of the 8 sub-basins, 3 basins
are worst affected: Cirasea, Cisangkuy and the Ciwidey, and these have erosion levels in the category
extreme erosion. The use of particular form of vegetable cropping (on raised bunds or tegal) contributes
most in exacerbating erosion in these areas.
Due to the extreme erosion, 6.5 million tons of sediment settles in the Bandung Basin each year, derived
from the Cirasea, Citarik, Cikeruh, Cikapundung-Cipamonkolan, Cisangkuy and Ciwidey rivers. The
Saguling Reservoir receives >2 million tons of sediment each year from the Ciminyak and Cihaur rivers.
Sedimentation in the Saguling is assessed to be about 17 cm/year, which reduces capacity and increases
the risk of flooding.
There are two locations where eroded sediments accumulate, and that is in the Citarum UW around the
Citarum River basin and in the Saguling Reservoir. Sediments of sub-basin Ciminyak and Cihaur empty
directly into Saguling Reservoir (Box 1), while sediments from the other sub watershed first pass through
the Bandung Basin. Potential sedimentation in the Bandung Basin is approximately 10.56 million tons per
year, while those that directly pass into Saguling Reservoir is >4 million tons per year (BPDAS 2009).
21
Box 1. Saguling sedimentation

Sedimentation has had an impact on the life
expectancy of Saguling Reservois hydropower plant.
Present sedimentation in Saguling Reservoir is >4
million tons per year, and acidic compounds cause
increased corrosion (e.g. rusting of equipment). This
process can be quite rapid, and has resulted in the
depletion of the hydropower equipment at Saguling. As
a result, equipment that should be able to operate for
15 years lasts only five years due to corrosion, and this
affects the reliability and economic life of the
hydropower plant.
Figure 9 Level of erosion in Citarum UW
Source: Penataan model kawasan lindung Citarum Hulu

3.1.2
Critical lands / lahan kritis
Recognizing critical land (lahan kritis) forms a central part of the strategy for identifying degraded land and
targeting these for rehabilitation programs. This is based on criteria such as slope, erodibility, land cover
and rainfall intensity, and various agencies have calculated their own lahan kritis. IPB (2012) for example
calculate a lahan kritis / lahan sangat kritis of 62,000 ha, while BPDAS (2011) figures amount to 48,537 ha
(Figure 10). The figures of BPDAS are used by most agencies and are also used here in our calculation of
trends (see Figure 16).
22

Figure 10 Lahan kritis in Citarum UW
23
3.1.3
Deforestation
The greatest contribution to erosion is from deforested areas, especially when those on steep slopes are
converted to annual crops, which is often the case throughout the Citarum UW. Encroachment into forests
and illegal logging continues to cause increasingly widespread erosion (leading to lahan kritis) in the
Citarum UW. Degraded land is less able to retard rainwater and runoff, and this leads to increased erosion
and flooding. Agricultural development often occurs without regard for the (often steep) topography. In
some areas such as Kertasari District, most farmerse plant vegetable crops as major commodities, as this
is most profitable in the short-term. However, such vegetable crops are short-lived annuals with shallow
root systems that do not bind the soil or allow water to penetrate the soil adequately. Especially on slopes
of >30% this leads to major problems, resulting in landslides and soil erosion, and leading to sedimentation
and an increased risk of flooding.
In 1984, now 30 years ago, the Citarum UW still had a total area of 98,000 ha of forest (including
plantations). Since then this has reduced to just under 40,000 ha in 2012 (Figure 11). This figure actually
flatters the total amount of forest, as it not only includes plantations, but also village forest/gardens. Other
agencies (such as Bakosurtanal [now BIG]) provide figures in the range of 26,500-30,300 ha of forest by
2005-2010.
Figure 11 Forested area in Citarum UW (1984-2012)
120,000
Forest cover (ha)
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1984
1996
2002
3.2
Unreliable water resources
3.2.1
Water shortages
2012
In normal years, the Citarum UW has a water surplus during the months November-April, and a deficit from
May-October (Figure 12; data from BPDAS, 2009). On average the basin has a deficit of 85 mm per year.
Areas in the Bandung Basin with a year-round deficit are built up areas and those with raised bund
cultivation (tegal). Particular areas with year-round deficits are especially in the Cihaur, Ciminyak, Citarik
and Cikeruh sub-basins (Figure 10, Table 11). The average debit in 1998 was 1,303 m/s, while in 2008
this dropped to 784 m/s.
Table 10 Water balance of the Citarum UW sub-basins
Sub-basin
Water balance
Sub-basin
Water balance
(Mm/year)
(Mm/year)
Citarik
- 63.6
Cirasea
-34.0
Cihaur
-48.2
Ciminyak
-31.8
-47.7
Cisangkuy
+37.8
-43.8
Ciwidey
+49.8
CikapundungCipamokolan
Cikeruh
24
Figure 12 Water balance in Citarum UW & its sub-basins
Average water balance Citarum UW

30
20
dS (mm/month)
10
0
J
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
Average water balance Citarum UW sub-basins

60
CikapundungCipamokolan
Cikeruh
ds (mm/month)
40
20
Cisangkuy
0
-20
Citarik
Cisarea
-40
Ciwidey
-60
Ciminyak
-80
3.2.2
Floods
Floods in the Citarum UW are mainly in Bandung South and East, especially in sub-districts Baleendah,
Dayeukolot, Bojongsiang and Majalaya, where floods occur almost every year. Areas with a very high flood
risk extend over 3,343 ha, while high flood risk areas cover 4,871 ha and medium flood risk areas extend
cover 6,906 ha (Figure 13). Flood risk areas are located at points along the Citarik, Cikeruh, Cirasea (in
sub-district Bojongsoang) and Cikapundung-Cisangkuy (sub-district Bojongsoang and Baleendah) rivers
(BPDAS 2009).
25
Figure 13 Flooding risk in Citarum UW

Notes: red = very high risk; pink = high risk, yellow = average risk, green = low to very low risk.
3.2.3
Water pollution
The Citarum River is widely regarded as one of the most polluted in the world, and was listed in 2013 in the
top ten of the worlds most polluted rivers by Time Magazine (Box 2). Much of this is in the middle and
lower reaches of the river, but the Citarum UW is also affected by widespread pollution, mainly from
household effluents, agriculture (soil erosion, crop cultivation, use of pesticides, manure from livestock),
but also from industries in and around Bandung and Cimahi cities (mainly textiles, food production and
metallurgy; see Table 11).
Box 2. Citarum River, Indonesia

A main artery of the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, a
city of nearly 10 million, the Citarum River is
contaminated with a range of pollutants, from both
industrial and domestic sources. The Blacksmith
Institute has found lead levels in the river that are
more than 1,000 times EPA standards, and other
research has found high concentrations of toxic
metals like aluminum, manganese and iron.
Fortunately, the Indonesian government has begun
the work of cleaning up the Citarum, thanks in part
to a $500 million loan package from the Asian
Development Bank.
- Time Magazine, 4 November 2013
26
Organic pollution & nutrients

The average (2001-2009) values of various parameters for locations along the Citarum River in the upper
watershed are presented in Table 12. However, average values are misleading, for example, maximum
values found at Sapan in 2008 to be almost 74 mg/l, which is 37x the maximum permissible level for Class
I, and even 6x the maximum permissible level for Class IV. The BOD level in Saguling Reservoir was
found by Suharyanto and Matsushita (2009) to be about 10-18 mg/l and could reach up to 80 mg/l in dry
periods, which is far higher than the standard of 2.0 mg/l for drinking purpose if based on the national
regulation (PP No. 82/2001). According to BPDAS (2009a), BOD values in the Saguling reservoir were
found to be 8.4-38 mg/l (in May 2008), contributing to the prolific growth of waterhyacinth Eichhornia
crassipes (eceng gondok).
Most organic waste (BOD, COD) and nutrients (N&P) are discharged by domestic municipal activities,
mainly from Bandung and Cimahi cities, but also from Bandung West and Bandung districts. Industries
discharge relatively little nutrients, but a higher share of BOD and COD than obvious from their water
usage. The opposite is true for irrigated agriculture, which discharges less BOD and COD, but more
nutrients relative to water use (DHV et al., 2012). Waste water treatment installations in the Citarum UW
are limited to two installations in Bandung City (Giesen, 2011). The IPAL at Bojongsoang (south of
Bandung) extends over 85 ha and can treat effluents from 500,000 persons while operating at 40-50%
capacity. The IPAL at Cisirung was constructed as a prototype for treating effluents from 80 (mainly textile)
factories in the southern Bandung industrial estate. However, the site is often flooded, only 10% of
industries (max.) are linked up, and the installation operates at only about 30-40% capacity.
Animal husbandry was not assessed by DHV et al. (2012), but according to Suharyanto and Matsushita
(2009) the contribution is about 3-10% of BOD, mainly in the area upstream of Majalaya. However,
livestock husbandry was observed to be common in many of the upper parts of the Citarum UW, for
example, around the Kertasari springs (upper Cirasea sub-basin), and also around the CileuncaCipanunjang reservoirs (upper Cisangkuy sub-basin). Most livestock rearing in stall-fed, so in practice
manure can be collected and used, for example, in biogas installations or as fertilizer for crops (in the
latter, some would end up in surgface water). In practice, much of the manure is simply disposed of in
surface waters.
Table 11
Citarum UW contribution to BOD in the basin
Sector
1
Households
Industries
Agriculture
Animal husbandry
BOD in Tons/day
11.8-59.5
0-52.9
6.85-13.4
1.9-3.7
44-54
0-42
10-35
3-10
Source: Suharyanto & Matsushita (2009)
27
Table 12 Water quality in Citarum UW

Location
Wangisagara
Majalaya
Sapan
Cijeruk
Dayeuh kolot
BOD
2.9
7.7
27.8
26.0
24.2
COD
10.1
19.7
78.8
64.4
60.2
PO4-P
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.6
NH3+NO3,2
0.8
1.8
4.2
4.1
4.6
Fec.CF
II
III
IV
IV
IV
5.8x10
5.3x10
5.3x10
1.4x10
3.5x10
Burujul
24.7
59.7
0.7
5.4
1.3x10
Nanjung
27.3
70.1
0.8
5.6
1.3x10
25
0.2
1,000/100 ml
Standard Class II
Class
IV
Source: DHV et al. (2012). B1 report Water Quality in Citarum River.

Notes: all values are in mg/l. Class standard is from BMA. Monitoring stations are indicated in Figure 14.
Figure 14 Water quality monitoring stations along Citarum River in UW
Heavy metals
Heavy metals in Citarum UW waters were analysed by Six Cis (Giesen, 2011) and these results are
summarized in Table 13. Five of the seven heavy metals analyzed are of environmental concern, either
because they are toxic and above safety levels, or because the trend is upwards (i.e. levels are rising). Of
concern is also that these parameters are not included in regular monitoring programs, and are detected
on an irregular basis only (e.g. via scientific study or a project).
28
Table 13
Heavy metals in waters of Citarum UW

Mercury
(Hg)
Nickel (Ni)
Copper
(Cu)
Zinc (Zn)
Chromium
(Cr)
Cadmium
(Cd)
Lead (Pb)
Range
0.05-5.85 ppb
2-74 ppb
7-180 ppb
2-264 ppb
0.01-? ppb
0.9-62 ppb
4-265 ppb
Average
0.44 ppb
31 ppb
33 ppb
78 ppb
10 ppb
10 ppb
71 ppb
Trend
Downward
Downward
Upward
Downward
Fluctuating
Fluctuating
Upward
Environmental
concern
Yes
Yes
Yes
Moderate
No
Yes
Yes
Class 1
1 ppb
n.a.
20 ppb
50 ppb
50 ppb
10 ppb
30 ppb
Class 4
5 ppb
n.a.
200 ppb
2000 ppb
n.a.
n.a.
1000 ppb
WHO drinking
standard 1993
1 ppb
20 ppb
2000 ppb?
3000 ppb?
50 ppb
3 ppb
10 ppb
Adapted from Giesen (2011)
Pesticides
Regular water quality monitoring programs by PusAir and BPWC do not include monitoring of pesticides,
but a number of studies (Djuangsih, 1993; Parikesit et al., 2005; Sabdono et al., 2008) have been carried
out on pesticides in the Citarum basin and are summarized by Giesen, 2011). These studies recorded
Carbofuran, Dithiocarbamate, DDT, Dichlorvos, Endosulfan, Lindane, Methoxychlor, Methidathion,
Paraquat and Parathion, all of which are officially banned in Indonesia (No. 24/Permentan/ SR.140/4/2011)
except Dichlorvos, which is banned for household use (but allowed for crops), and Methidathion, which is
allowed for use by specially trained persons only. However, concentrations are low and only DDT was
above GOI health levels (as stipulated in the Pollution Index). Staarink (2011) found that pesticide use was
highest on vegetables, where 3.7-5.5 kg of active ingredient was used per hectare per month. About 80%
of the weight of these pesticides consists of dithiocarbamate fungicides. In tea plantations pesticides are
mainly used for curative purposes only (mainly copper-compounds as fungicide), and pesticide application
rates are generally low.
3.3
Changes in LULC
Table 14 summarizes the changes that have occurred in the Citarum UW over the past 10 years. From this
it is apparent that the greatest changes have been in a loss of primary dryland forest (-629 ha) and dryland
agriculture (-2,226 ha) and bare soil (-975 ha), while the greatest increases have been in planted forest
(+988 ha), expansion of settlements/built up areas (+2,111 ha), and expansion of mixed dryland
agriculture/rice paddies (+588 ha). Current (2012) LULC is depicted in Figure 8 (page 19). [Note that all
data used in these analyses/assessments has been received from Ministry of Forestrys planning
department.]
Analysis of land use changes by Lufiandi (2011) shows that residential areas had increased in size by 35%
(5,000 ha) and industrial areas had increased by more than 100% (about 1,000 ha) during 1994-2009. At
the same time rice paddies increased by more than 7,000 ha and shrubland/pasture land increased by
more than 7,000 ha. These changes were at the expense of forested land, which decreased by 40% (about
20,000 ha) during the same period. The pattern of land use change in Citarum Upper Watershed is that of
forest being converted to agriculture, pasture or scrub, and then being converted into urban areas (both
residential and industrial).
29
Table 14
Changes in LULC in the Citarum UW (2003-2012)
LULC type
Area (ha)
Changes
2003
2012
1,555
926
-629
Secondary dryland forest
13,352
13,299
-53
Planted forest
24,564
25,552
988
191
191
4,189
4,374
185
Settlement/built up areas
39,167
41,277
2,111
Dryland agriculture
Mixed dryland
agriculture/rice paddies
46,219
43,993
-2,226
30,310
30,898
588
Rice paddies
Secondary low
forest/scrub
63,544
63,520
-24
1,557
1,640
83
2,171
1,196
-975
556
509
-47
227,375
227,375
Primary dryland forest
Airport
Plantations
Bare soil/ground
Water bodies
Total
Source of spatial data: Badan Planogi Kehutanan (Baplan)
30
4. Assessment of past RLK programs
Overview of past/ongoing RLK programs
4.1
Over the past decades there have been various programs targeting rehabilitation of the Citarum UW (e.g.
Van Dijk, 2002), and an overview of recent ones is provided in Table 15. This is incomplete as there have
also been various smaller, NGO and local-led programs as well, which largely go unnoticed at provincial
level. Most of the programs are government-led, by Ministry of Forestry, Public Works, Agriculture, Home
Affairs and National Development Planning. Exceptions are those by the Bogor Agricultural University
(IPB), several run by the state owned enterprise Perum Perhutani, and those by the private sector (e.g.
Danone, PT. BUMN Hijau Lestari I).
While these projects appear reasonably well documented at the planning stage, there appears to be little
available in terms of monioring and evaluation reports, and most monitoring seems limited to that of inputs
(e.g. seedlings planted, funds disbursed). What is usually not well documented at the planning stage is the
actual location of activities. Descriptions of locations are usually limited to lists of targeted sub-districts and
villages, but maps (accurate or otherwise) are rarely provided.
Table 15
Overview of RLK programs in Citarum UW
Agency
A.
Ministry of Forestry
#
1
2
3
Name of program
BPDAS Citarum-Ciliwung menyusun Pengelolaan DAS Terpadu dan
RTkRHL (overal guiding program, not implementation program)
Gerakan Nasional Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan (Gerhan); now
completed and no longer running
Balai Besar Konservasi Source Daya Alam Jabar-Banten melakukan
restorasi dan Biodiversity di kawasan taman nasional dan hutan
konservasi
RHL Dinas Kehutanan (Provincial

Forestry Service Rehabilitation
section)
Rehabilitasi & Konservasi Hulu DAS prioritas
Gerakan Rehabilitasi Lahan Kritis (GRLK); now completed and no

longer running.
Perum Perhutani
PHBM (Pengelolaan Hutan Berbasis Masyarakat)
Agroforestry PT BUMN Hijau Lestari I using CSR funds
Agricultural University Bogor (IPB)
Agroforestry program using CSR funds from PLN
Ministry of Public Works, through

BBWS Citarum
Ministry of Agriculture, through
Dinas/Service
Gerakan Nasional Kemitraan Penyelamatan Air (GNKPA)
10
Pengembangan Usahatani Konservasi Lahan Terpadu (PUKLT)
F
G
H
I
State Ministry of National

Development Planning (Bappenas)
Ministry of Home Affairs
assistance through DG Bangda
Private sector (e.g. Danone)
11
12
13
Pelibatan masyarakat dalam perbaikan lingkungan sungai Citarum

melalui Pilot Demonstration Activity ICWRMIP Bappenas
PLKSDA-BM (Penanganan Lahan Kritis Source Daya Air Berbasis
Masyarakat)
e.g. i) Penghijauan Lahan Kritis di Dea Mekarsari, Program Social
Day Danone; ii) PT BUMN Hijau Lestari I at Desa Cinangka,
Pangalengan
31

4.2
Focus of past/ongoing RLK programs
4.2.1
RHL Kehutanan (2007/2009)
An annex to the Ministry of Forestrys legislation (P. 22/Menhut-V/2007, 20 Juni 2007, Gerakan Nasional
Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan, GN-RHL/Gerhan) states that implementation of Rehabilitation of Forest and Land (RHL)
uses the principles of:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
integrating across sectors to minimize bureaucratic failure,

RHL to be carried out as part of community needs,
activities carried out over various years,
participatory financing (cost sharing),
maximizing community initiatives, local technology and performance accountable management.
The Integrated Citarum Watershed Management Plan (by BPDAS, 2009, Rencana Pengelolaan DAS
Citarum Terpadu) lists Hutan Rakyat (Agroforestry) targets for 2009-2014 under the Gerhan program:
53,599 ha to be replanted in the UW, at a cost of Rp. 62,228,439,000. This is about Rp. 1.16 million per
hectare (just over USD 100/ha), which covers the provision of seedlings and awareness raising, but does
not cover follow up tending, and M&E. It does follow the cost sharing principle, but leaves (most of) the
follow up to local initiatives (and chance).
4.2.2
IPB (2012)
In their model for protected areas in the Citarum UW, IPB (2012) and Dinas Kehutanan developed a
number of program options for rehabilitation of critical land (RLK). These systems are all based on
combinations with agroforestry, and are briefly described below.
i.
Agrosilvipastoral. This consists of an integration of agriculture and farm animal feed commodities
under stands of pine Pinus merkusii; with coffee, bananas and elephant grass Pennisetum
purpureum under pine stands. Stakeholders for this type of program are to be BPDAS, Dinas
Kehutanan, Perum Perhutani, along with Dinas Pertanian, Dinas Peternakan, village administration
and NGOs.
ii.
Agrosilviculture. This is a combination of agricultural crop farming with staple crops, with
horticultural forestry. Suggested commodities are tomatoes, peppers and broccoli. Given that the
forest in these areas is already damaged, it is recommended that fast growing tree species are
grown. Stakeholders for this type of program include BPDAS, Dinas Kehutanan, BKSDA, with
Dinas Pertanian, village administration and NGOs.
iii.
Multi Purpose Tree Forest production. Under this management system, various types of tree
species are to be planted that are multi-purpose, and of which not only the wood is used, but also
leaves and fruits, either for human consumption or for livestock fodder. Commodities include fastgrowing timber species, intercropped with coffee and horticultural crops. Stakeholders for this type
of program include BPDAS, Dinas Kehutanan, Dinas Pertanian, village administration and NGOs.
iv.
Agrosilviculture & other commodities. Farming systems consisting of combined agricultural and
forestry commodities. These activities are typically carried out in mountainous areas (e.g. Wayang
Windu), where horticulture is carried out under pine Pinus merkusii stands. However, to reduce the
ecological impacts of commodities, potatoes should be avoided. Stakeholders for this type of
program include BPDAS, Dinas Kehutanan, Perum Perhutani, with village administration and
NGOs.
32

4.2.3
BPDAS (2009)
In their Citarum Upper Watershed Management Plan, BPDAS (2009) recognise a number of vegetative
RLK programs that could be adapted to various situations. These are outlined below:
i.
Regreening of cultivation areas in the UW (Penghijauan pada Kawasan Budidaya pada DAS
Hulu). This consists of: a) Utilising a community forest intercropping pattern (interplanting, mixed
planting). b) Mixing of woody plants: mahogany Swietenia macrophylla, kisireum Syzygium
lineatum, puspa Schima wallichii, rasamala Altingia excelsa and pine Pinus merkusii, along with
NTFP species such as jackfruit, avocado and durian. c) Investing in following contour lines. d)
Planting follows a clustering system (sistem cemplongan), rather than randomly spread planting, at
a density of 400 plants/ha.
ii.
Regreening of protected areas in the UW. (Penghijauan pada kawasan Lindung di DAS Hulu).
This consists of a) Community Forest. b) Planting of suren Toona sureni trees. c) Investing in
following contour lines. d) Planting follows a clustering system (sistem cemplongan), rather than
randomly spread planting, at a density of 400 plants/ha.
iii.
Reforestation of conservation areas UW (Reboisasi pada Hutan Konservasi di DAS Hulu). This
consists of: a) Initial reforestation planting at a density of 1,000 seedlings per hectare. b) Planting
of woody species consisting of pine Pinus merkusii and suren Toona sureni, which should be at a
density of at least 900 seedlings per hectare. c) Planting of jackfruit Artocarpus heterophylla at a
maximum density of 100 seedlings per hectare.
iv.
Reforestation of protection forest in the UW (Reboisasi pada Hutan Lindung di DAS Hulu). This
is to consist of: a) Initial reforestation planting at a density of 1,000 seedlings per hectare. b)
Planting a mixture of Eucalyptus and Pinus merkusii at a density of at least 600 seedlings per
hectare. c) Planting of jackfruit Artocarpus heterophylla at a maximum density of 400 seedlings per
hectare.
v.
Reforestation of Production Forest in the UW (Reboisasi pada Hutan Produksi di DAS Hulu).
This is to consist of: a) Initial reforestation planting at a density of 1,600 seedlings per hectare. b)
Planting a mixture of rasamala Altingia excelsa, Eucalyptus and Pinus merkusii at a density of at
least 1,440 seedlings per hectare. c) Planting of NTFP species at a maximum density of 160
seedlings per hectare.
4.2.4
ADBs Six Cis project (2011)
As part of the ADB-funded Six Cis project, proposed catchment rehabilitation programs were formulated in
the Appendix 3 report of Final Report B.2 (Six Cis Project: Final Report B.2 - Strategic Spatial Planning.
Appendix 3 Upper Citarum Erosion and Sedimentation October 2011). In summary, the following
catchment rehabilitation program is proposed:
i.
On slopes >30% Combination of as much as possible re-forestation (preferred rehabilitation) and

high management for remaining dry land agricultural areas (for an estimated total area of 25,000
ha).
ii.
High management for non-irrigated agricultural areas, involving the following:

a. Surface mulch 1.0-3.0 t/ha/year, imported if necessary. Application of mineral fertilizers,
combined with manure and/or composts. Inter-cropping, high intensity, incorporating
perennials. Legumes in rotation 1 year in 4. Maintenance ground cover 60-80%. High biomass
production per area. High crop diversity. Intensive nutrient circulation.
33
b. < 5% slope: high standard permanent contour grass strips well designed and maintained or:
fully designed graded earthworks, or banks, with designed water disposal facility; > 5% slope:
moderate standard bench terrace (i.e. not graded and without designed water disposal system,
but risers stabilized grass or rocks.
iii.
4.2.5
High management for estates and plantations, involving the following:

a. < 5% slope: high standard permanent contour grass strips well designed and maintained or:
fully designed graded earthworks, or banks, with designed water disposal facility; > 5% slope:
moderate standard bench terrace (i.e. not graded and without designed water disposal system,
but risers stabilized grass or rocks.
b. Estate crops: high density permanent ground cover. Estate crops planted along contours
where slopes exceed 10%.
Departemen Pertanian (2009)
In their technical guidelines for conservation of upper watersheds, Dinas Pertanian (2009 - Pedoman
teknis konservasi DAS hulu. Direktorat Pengelolaan Lahan, Direktorat Jenderal Pengelolaan Lahan dan
Air) identify a package for farm improvement that aims to reduce watershed erosion. Such packages hover
at an average investment of Rp. 1.4 million per hectare (USD 120/ha), and is managed by farmers groups.
These programs may include the following elements: fertilizer application, procurement of horticultural
seeds or seedlings, production of grassed terraces, procurement of livestock, development of village
nurseries (kebun bibit desa), and the production of composting systems (rumah kompos).
4.2.6
Sekretariat Forum DAS Citarum (2013)
The Sekretariat Forum DAS Citarum (2013) proposes the following RLK program, but without further
elaboration of how these are to be implemented:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
4.2.7
Regreening a total area of 62,800 hectares in the UW

Revegetation program in UW: 78,011 ha
a. In forestry areas (kawasan hutan): 23,483 ha;
b. Outside forestry areas (APL): 53,728 ha.
Construction of 280 control dams in UW
Construction of 2,292 check dams in UW
Sub-basins Cirasea, Cisangkuy, Ciwidey and Ciminyak have highest priority
Perum Perhutani III
Basically, almost all production and protection forests in the Citarum UW are managed by Perum Perhutani
IIIs KPH Bandung Selatan (see 2.2.3), and aforementioned RLK programs operate together with Perhutani
on Perhutani managed land. While promoting intercropping (tumpangsari), they do not permit the
cultivation of vegetables as the focus must be on perennial crops. According to Perhutani staff, many
species have been tried, but often the market is not well known or under-developed, and then production
drops again as the farmers cannot sell their products. An example of the latter is terong kori (=terong
belanda, tamarillo or Solanum betaceum), of which 40 ha were initially planted a few years ago, but now
only 2 ha remain.
34
Some successful species include the following:

Rumput gajah (elephant grass or Pennisetum purpureum) which is used for fodder. 124 ha has
been planted, and used by 500 kk (families) for stall fed livestock, mainly in the Pangalengan,
Kertasari and the Cisangkuy areas.
Coffee. In all 2280 ha have been planted. Perhutani are expecting a crop of 500 tons this (early
2014) season and the quality is reportedly excellent. They harvest 3.8 kg/tree, and plant 2500
trees/ha. Almost all is arabica coffee, which is planted above 1000m; below 700m they plant
(some) robusta coffee. The initial cost of planting is Rp 18 million per ha, and harvesting begins
after 2.5-3 years.
Other useful NTFP species planted under their programs include jeruk (citrus species, including
jeruk nipis/lemon), cabe bendor (cabe gendol, apple chilli or Capsicum guatemalense), tea,
kapulaga (false cardamon or Amomum compactum), nilam (patchouli or Pogostemon cablin) and
kayu putih (gelam or Melaleuca cajuputi).
In Protection Forests, Pinus merkusii (Sumatran pine) is a key tree species planted by Perhutani as it also
produces resin as a major NTFP. It costs Perhutani Rp. 4 million per ha to plant pine trees, which is done
at a density of 3370/ha. Tapping is done by local community members with whom they have a collective
MoU, and they receive Rp.5000/kg harvested (compares to Rp. 10-12,000/kg on the commercial market if
the factory has to purchase form non-Perhutani areas). Tapping starts in year 12 and about 3 kg of resin is
tapped per tree per year (8 g/day). KPH Bandung Selatan produces an average of 17,000 tons of resin per
year, which is processed at their factory in Nagreg (the only factory in West Java). Resin is destilled to
produces terpentine (15%) gum resin (or gondorukem, 70%), leaving 15% waste product. Gum resin is
used in many products including food and cosmetics, and much is exported to North America and Europe.
4.3
Hectares rehabilitated
Information on hectares of lahan kritis rehabilitated via Local Government Budget (APBD) funding and via
the Ministry of Forestrys Gerhan program (completed several years ago) were obtained from Bappeda
(Bandung), while additional data was obtained via RHL Dinas Kehutanan, Bandung. Given that most of the
programs listed in Table 15 are funded via the regional APBD, this provides a reasonably comprehensive
picture. What this shows is that from 2006-2012 (the years for which centralized data is available), a total
of 7760 ha was rehabilitated out of APBD funds, while an additional 2848 ha of rehabilitation was funded in
2008 by the Gerhan program (data before 2008 is lacking, and investment was zero from 2009-2012). The
Dinas Kehutanan program rehabilitated 6886 ha from 2010-2013 (data before 2010 are lacking). These
figures are plotted in Figure 15.
The average area targeted annually for rehabilitation during the period 2010-2013 (for which most data is
available) is 2380 ha/yr. While this seems like a reasonable area, it amounts to only 4.9% of existing
critical land (categories kritis & sangat kritis), and at this rate it would take >20 years for the program to
be completed, even if it had a 100% success rate.
What is also apparent from Figure 15 is that the hectares of degraded land targeted by RLK programs in
the Citarum UW is declining, both for programs funded out of APBD and directly by the Forestry
Department. This would only occur if i) funds are scarce, ii) the RLK program is running out of degraded
land in which to invest, or iii) agencies involved are having serious doubts. Given that critical lands still
abound and that Indonesias economy is doing very well, it seems likely that agencies are concerned about
the program.
35
Figure 15 Hectares targeted by rehabilitation programs in Citarum UW 2006-2013

4,000
Rehabilitation via APBD
3,500
Rehabilitation via Forestry
3,000
hectares
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Note: Rehabilitation via Forestry includes the Gerhan funding (2008) and RHL Dinas Kehutanan (2010-2013)
4.4
Cost of rehabilitation
Information about rehabilitation programs to date indicate that the amount spent per hectare is actually
quite modest. On the forestry programs, BPDAS (2009) report that for the 53,600 ha targeted for
agroforestry rehabilitation programs, an average of Rp 1.16 million is to be invested per hectare. Similarly,
the Ministry of Agriculture (Departemen Pertanian, 2009) report that Rp 1.4 million is invested per hectare
for farm improvement to reduce erosion. The amount spent is therefore only about Rp. 1.2-1.5 million per
hectare a small amount that can be kept small only because these programs mainly consist of
awareness raising and provision of seedlings.
Recently formulated programs such as that for the Rencana Aksi Milti Pihak Penanganan DAS Citarum
Segmen I (which is the first 7 km, from Situ Cisanti up to Majalaya, 2014) includes a range of figures for
the various agencies: Distanbunhut (Dinas Pertanian, Perkebunan & Kehutanan) Bandung: Rp 1.75 M/ha;
Perhutani: Rp. 1.79 M/ha; Dinas Kehutanan: Rp. 5.0 M/ha; and PT. BUMN Hijau Lestari Rp. 11.7 M/ha.
Weighted according to the areas (ha) covered by each program, the average planned investment is Rp.
6.8 million per hectare, which is significantly more than past programs.
4.5
Effectiveness of RLK to date
Given that RLK programs to date do not include M&E (and hence lack accountability), it is difficult to
assess their effectiveness. While some replanting and rehabilitation programs are undoubtedly effective,
some are obviously not. In the field one often comes across areas that have been replanted with
Eucalyptus or suren Toona sureni, but that have been partly cleared again, or where the trees have largely
had all their branches lopped off, rendering them ineffective in reducing impact of heavy rains. Also, some
replanting programs are characterized by large mortality of seedlings, and little or no follow-up in the way
of replacing dead plants. The Integrated Citarum Water Resource Management Investment Program
(ICWRMIP) conducted an evaluation of the performanbce of interventions to improve the condition of the
Citarm River and its waterdshed (Korea Rural Community Corporation et al. 2014), but this focuses more
on procedures, targets and score cards than outcomes, although it does state that M&E design should
gradually focus more on outcomes.
36
Facing a lack of evaluation studies, the Consultant approached BPDAS for spatial data on the extent of
critical land for if RLK programs are effective, areas of critical land will reduce (and the reverse would be
true if programs were ineffective). The critical land (lahan kritis) map produced by BPDAS (using Baplan
data) currently in use dates from 2011. BPDAS had produced an earlier critical land map in 2004,
fortunately using the same approach and same satellite imagery. Spatial data (shape files) from Baplan
were obtained from BPDAS for both dates (2004 and 2011) and a comparison made of the occurrence of
two key categories: critical land and very critical land (lahan kritis LK and lahan sangat kritis LSK; see
Figure 16 on next page).
In this map, areas that were either LK or LSK in 2004, but no longer the case in 2011 are considered to
have been successfully rehabilitated (green areas in map). Areas that were not LK or LSK in 2004 but
were so in 2011 are considered to be new areas of critical land (red areas in map). Land that was
successfully rehabilitated from 2004-2011 extends over just 662 hectares, or about 95 hectares per year.
Given that in this period about 1,000-2,000 hectares were targeted by RLK programs, this means that their
effectiveness is about 95/1,500 or about 6%, which is very low. At the same time, 1,252 hectares of new
critical land appeared, which is about 179 hectares per year, almost twice the area of successfully
rehabilitated ctitical land. Even if the current RLK effort was doubled, this would only just stabilize but not
diminish the area of critical land. Currently, there is a net increase in critical land of 84 hectares per year in
the Citarum UW. [n.b. these changes were field checked on 1-2 May 2014 and found to be real, i.e. not
mapping artefacts; see field visit report in Annex 1.].
4.6
Lessons learned
Rehabilitation programs used to date by the various agencies involved in RLK are basically similar in their
technical approach, and seem appropriate and useful for continuation. They also seem to be embedded in
reasonable awareness raising programs, which is also appropriate and should be continued. However,
overall the RLK programs appear inffective. Firstly, they only target a total area of about 5% of critical land
(lahan kritis) in the Citarum UW, which is unambitous, and even if 100% effective they would take >20
years to rehabilitate all critical land. However, they do not appear to be very effective, and comparison of
critical land maps from 2004 and 2011 suggests that overall effectiveness is only about 6%. At the same
time, new critical land to the order of 179 hectares per year appears in the UW, which further slows
progress in rehabilitation attempts, as rather than a net reduction, there is a net increase in critical land of
84 hectares per year under the current programs.
Why are existing RLK programs so ineffective? Firstly, investments appear to have been low on the key
programs such as under Gerhan and Dinas Pertanian, and stand at around Rp. 1.2-1.5 million per hectare.
These focus on awareness raising and provision of seedlings, but little more, and rely on farmers for labour
input, after care and further follow-up, while farmers may actually face diminishing returns (Rp./ha) due to
replanting programs that replace intensive crop farming with agroforestry intercropping systems. Secondly,
losses in livelihood are not or rarely compensated, and this acts as a negative incentive. And lastly, most
RLK agencies carry out little monitoring and evaluation of their rehabilitation programs. What is usually
monitored is inputs (seedlings, funds disbursed) rather than outcomes (e.g. hectares of land successfully
replanted after 5 years). There needs to be more accountability in place on the side of the RLK
implementing agencies.
37

Figure 16 Map of changes in critical land (lahan kritis)
38
5. Measures required to rehabiliate critical

land in UW
5.1
Way forward given lessons learned from past RLK programs
In principle, RLK measures such as those designed by BPDAS (2009) and IPB (2012) are technically
sound and appropriate it is the means of implementation that needs to be adjusted. From the viewpoint
of the farmer, it needs to make economic sense to move away from current vegetable farming practices to
some form of agroforestry, and incentives may need to be provided. Livelihoods will need to be maintained
and preferably improved. The example from Cileunca-Cipanunjang (Box 3) shows that this transition may
be economically beneficial for farmers, which raises the question why this example is not copied by other
farmers in the region. It is possible that initial investment costs (in the Cileunca case, borne by CSR funds
from PLN) are too high, and form a threshold that is difficult to pass for most farmers. In that case, access
to small loans may be sufficient to trigger replication. What the Cileunca case also indicates is that RLK
programs needs to be more comprehensive (than simply providing seedlings and awareness), and require
more intensive interaction with farmers in order to succeed. This also means that some of the basic
principles such as those of the past Gerhan program (see 5.2.1) may need to be re-examined, as this
relies heavily on cost sharing and local farmer initiatives.
When undertaking an RLK program, the implementing agency needs to assess a number of basic issues
first, including i) land ownership, ii) main source(s) of income, and iii) average income derived. If farmers
are mainly sharecroppers and land is owned by absentee landlords, this will complicate the program,
especially regarding resettlement, as both sharecropping farmers and land owners may need to be
compensated for any loss of livelihood.
Box 3. Agroforestry at Margaluyu village

In 2007-2008 Bogor Agricultural University (IPB) carried
out a trial agroforestry project at Cileunca-Cipanunjang
using CSR funds from the state electricity company PLN.
In all, 30 farmers were involved and the area
rehabilitated extended over 2.2 hectares. This was
planted with fast growing suren trees Toona sureni,
intercropped with coffee shrubs, terong belanda
(tamarillo) Solanum betaceum and rows of cabbage.
While incomes decreased from Rp. 4.35 million to Rp.
3.47 million per farmer, the investment costs were also
significantly reduced, leading to a net increase in
returns from Rp.1.75 million to Rp. 2.36 million per
farmer. [See 7.5]
39
When establishing an RLK program, this should be developed using a bottom-up and flexible approach
(not arriving with a technical program that is already set in stone), as achieving local buy in is the only way
to develop a sustainable program. The following chapters (5.2 and 5.3) outline the types of interventions
that should be considered for various types of degraded areas this should be approached in a flexible
way, and discussed extensively with local stakeholders and modified as appropriate. What should not be
compromised on is the need for reforestation of conservation areas (Hutan Konservasi) and steep slopes
>40%. Outside these areas, various forms of agroforestry are proposed, and this can be approached with
some flexibility.
Attention should also be given to identifying possibilties for additional or alternative income, to
compensfsate for any loss of income when land use changes from vegetable cropping to some form of
agroforestry. Cage culture fisheries (as promoted in Saguling and Cirata reservoirs to compensate
farmers) are not recommended, as this will lead to water quality issues, as it has in these reservoirs.
Alternative or additional sources of income may be derived from adding value to products, by: improving
quality, processing, eliminating middle men by promoting more direct market access, identifying new
sources of income (e.g. new crops) and so on.
Given the need for assessing conditions beforehand and establishing a bottom-up RLK program, it is
estimated that the first year should be devoted to developing the program only. I.e. the implementors are to
engage with the communities and not perform any on-the-ground rehabilitation program until it has been
fully developed and agreed to.
More comprehensive programs are likely to cost (much) more than RHL and Gerhan programs to date (Rp.
1.2-1.5 million/ha, and the budget for the 2014 program Rencana Aksi Milti Pihak Penanganan DAS
Citarum Segmen I (which is the first 7 km, from Situ Cisanti up to Majalaya) which averages at Rp.6.8
million per hectare seems closer to the mark, but may still be insufficient. What is also needed is after
care, which at a minimum is to include tending of seedlings during years 1-2, involving clearing of weeds
and replacing of seedlings that have died. Monitoring and evaluation of project outcomes is also required,
and this should be conducted jointly by farmers and implementing agency (Perhutani, RHL-Kehutanan,
NGOs, etc...). M&E should not be too elaborate, as this adds to overall costs, but at a minimum this should
involve annual reporting of the survival rate and average growth increment of planted seedlings. In
addition, it could include figures on impact on farmer incomes (e.g. yield/ha), and be compared with
previous years, and provide information on arising issues and how these were dealt with. M&E should also
be done for a minimum of three, preferably five years or until planted trees/shrubs (such as coffee) are
already producing and are less likely to be removed.
5.2
Proposed types of RLK measures
Proposed for RLK interventions under PFR2 are measures that at based on what has been designed to
date by BPDAS (2009), Six Cis (2011) and IPB (2012). In all, six broad types of measures are proposed,
ranging from terraced crop-based agroforestry (e.g. in degraded APL areas on not too steep slopes, i.e.
<40%), to restoration of (semi-)natural forests (see Table 16). Note that in addition to these regreening
programs, physical programs will also be required. As mentioned in 4.2, as many as 280 control dams and
2,292 check dams have been proposed for the Citarum UW, and these will need to be integrated into a
progam of RLK measures (see 5.3.3). Also, the measures listed below includes terracing as part of RLK
type 1 (terraced-based agroforestry), but there are various types of terrace that could be considered, under
different circumstances.
BPDAS recognise 6 different types of terracing:
i.
teras datar (flat terrace): bunds following contours, usually planted with grass and with a furrow on
each side, useful of slopes of up to 3%;
ii.
teras kredit (credit terrace): same as i), but with a furrow on the uphill side only, bunds planted with
shrubs/trees, useful on slopes of 3-10%;
iii.
teras gulud (bund terrace): like ii), but many smaller ones, useful on slopes of 10-15%;
40
iv.
v.
vi.
teras bangku (bench terrace): many step-like terraces, with a small bund on the downhill side,
useful on slopes of 10-30%;
teras kebun (garden terrace): like iv), but planted with trees; without bunds, but with drains on
uphill side, useful on slopes of 10-50%; and
teras individu (individual terrace): small, block-like areas along that are levelled, for example,
around trees; useful on slopes of 10-50%.
Note that on steep to very steep slopes, the teras bangku, teras kebun and teras individu types are
considered appropriate, as these are more likely to sufficiently retard the velocity of water moving downhill,
and prevent erosion on slopes of 10-30(-50%). Although being widely introduced since the 1980s to curb
erosion, benched terraces have not always been highly successful in curbing erosion, but studies show
that combining terraces with mulching, denser vegetation cover, and simple measures in the terrace drain,
could reduce erosion six-fold (van Dijk et al. 2004).
Table 16
Type
Proposed types of RLK measures
Title
Description
Terraced, crop-based
agroforestry
Terraced, crop rows (with carrots, potatoes, cabbage, red peppers, etc..) parallel
to contour, trees planted along bunds, between terraces; grass on bunds; trees to
include fast growing species such as Eucalyptus, Toona sureni, and fruit/NTFP
species such as jackfruit, avocado, durian, etc....
NTFP/crop agroforestry
Community forestry utilising an intercropping pattern (planting of some crops

[limited in area] intermixed between trees/shrubs), and mixed planting of trees
such as mahogany Swietenia macrophylla, kisireum Syzygium lineatum, Puspa
Schima wallichii, Rasamala Altingia excelsa and pine Pinus merkusii, along with
NTFP species such as jackfruit, avocado, durian and/or coffee.
NTFP forestry
Forested, with dense tree cover (virtually closed canopy) of species such as
Eucalyptus or Pinus merkusii; along with NTFP species such as jackfruit Artocarpus
heterophylla at a maximum density of 100 seedlings per hectare, along with
coffee or other NTFP species in the undergrowth.
Mixed forestry
(indigenous/fast growing
exotics)
Forested, with indigenous species such as puspa Schima wallichii, rasamala

Altingia excelsa, pine Pinus merkusii and suren Toona sureni. Alternatively,
reforested with fast growing species such as Eucalyptus or pine Pinus merkusii.
Terraced fodder-based
agroforestry
Terraced, fodder planted (e.g. elephant grass Pennisetum purpureum) in rows

parallel to contour, trees planted along bunds, between terraces; trees to include
fast growing species such as Eucalyptus, Toona sureni, etc.....
Restoration of (semi-) natural

forests
Dense, mixed, natural forest with indigenous species and no clearings or coffee
planted in undergrowth (above tree-line: this should be a dense shrub cover).
Indigenous trees to be used in restoration programs, with >10 local spp.,
preferably fruit bearing (for wildlife) such as figs (Ficus), Baccaurea, Garcinia, etc...
Based on: BPDAS (2009a, 2009b), DHV et al. (2011b) & IPB (2012)
5.3
Proposed program of RLK measures in the UW
5.3.1
Framework of measures
The application of these RLK measures depends on i) status of the area (forest land/kawasan hutan or
non-forest land/APL) and the various status sub-categories, ii) slope, iii) whether the area is forested or
not, and iv) whether the area is critical land or not (lahan kritis dan lahan sangat kritis). Agroforestry types
with crops are limited to APL areas, while agroforestry based on NTFPs is recommended for degraded
APL on steeper slopes and degraded production and protection forest areas. Biodiversity conservation
areas are recommended for (semi-) natural forest rehabilitation/restoration. These proposed RLK
measures are summarized in the framework provided below (Table 17).
41
Table 17
Framework of proposed RLK revegetation measures
Status
Forest/non-forest
Category
Kawasan Budidaya
(agricultural land)
Areal Penggunaan Lain

(non-forestry land)
Kawasan Lindung (non-hutan)

(non-forest protected areas)
Hutan Produksi
(production forest)
Kawasan Hutan
(forestry land)
Hutan Lindung
(protection forest)
Hutan Suaka Alam

(biodiversity conservation area)
Sub-category
Kawasan Budidaya
(agricultural land)
Bahaya Gunung Api
(volcano hazards)
Penyangga Hutan Lindung
(protection forest bufferzone)
Perlindungan Geologi
(protection of geology)
Rawan Gerakan Tanah
(area prone to landslides)
Resapan Air
(groundwater recharging area)
Hutan Produksi Terbatas
(limited production forest)
Hutan Produksi Biasa
(normal production forest)
Hutan Cadangan
(forest reserve)
Hutan Pangonan
(fodder reserve)
Hutan Lindung
(protection forest)
Cagar Alam, Suaka Margasatwa,
Taman Wisata, etc...(strict nature
reserve, wildlife reserve, recreation
reserve, etc..)
Taman Nasional
(national park)
Sub-category overlaps with:

very critical or critical land
or non-forested areas
lahan sangat kritis or kritis
non-forested
non-forested
non-forested
non-forested
non-forested
non-forested
Rehabilitation
programmes
Slopes
15-40%
1
>40%
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
2
3
2
3
non-forested
3,4
non-forested
3,4
non-forested
non-forested
3,4
5
non-forested
3,4
non-forested
non-forested
42
Location and area of RLK program of revegetation measures
5.3.2
Based on the framework outlined in 6.3.1, RLK measures were mapped out with the PFR2 GIS by superimposing i) land cover, with ii) land status, and iii) critical lands (see map of RLK measures for the Citarum
UW in Figure 17). Table 18 provides an overview of proposed RLK measures per sub-basin, and arrives at
a total area of proposed measures of 51,241 hectares, or about 21% of the entire basin.
The sub-basin with the greatest extent of proposed RLK measures is the Cirasea, with 19.2% of the total
area, followed by Ciminyak (18.4%), Cihaur (13.8%), Cisangkuy (13.0%) and the Citarik (12.5%). RLK
measures 3 and 4 together account for more than half (52.6) of the total area proposed for RLK measures,
while measure 2 accounts for 21.3% and measure 1 for 12.7%. Measure 6, restoration of natural forest
extends over the smallest area and accounts for only 5.3% of the total.
Table 18
No
Proposed RLK measures per sub-basin of Citarum UW

Area of sub-basin (ha)
Rehabilitation
Programmes
Cihaur
Cikapundung
Cikeruh
Ciminyak
Cirasea
Cisangkuy
Citarik
Ciwidey
Totals
Terraced, crop-based
agroforestry
652
141
484
706
1,037
1,296
2,014
164
6,493
NTFP/crop agroforestry
560
1,171
930
3,275
1,349
1,373
1,928
354
10,940
NTFP forestry
Mixed forestry
4 (indigenous/fast
growing exotics)
Terraced fodder-based
5
agroforestry
Restoration of (semi-)
6
natural forest
NTFP forestry or Mixed
3 or 4
forestry
4,496
2,073
991
1,941
400
374
751
757
11,783
298
325
176
959
1,177
805
32
951
4,721
901
11
837
2,036
312
52
4,151
740
119
1,541
59
2,697
Totals
5.3.3
238
159
357
296
1,689
3,218
2,365
66
2,305
10,455
7,065
4,317
2,876
9,406
9,957
6,644
6,383
4,592
51,241
Civil engineering measures
In addition to the regreening programs outlined above, civil engineering programs will also be required in
order to address moe acute erosion issues. As mentioned in 4.2, as many as 280 control dams and 2,292
check dams have been proposed for the Citarum UW, and these will need to be integrated into the overal
progam of RLK measures. In the four sub-basins of the six short-listed bulk water options, a total of 423
check dams and 49 control dams have been proposed (based on 2014 GIS data from BPDAS). Their
approximate location has been proposed by BPDAS (check dams) and BBWS (control dams), and are
included in the maps of proposed measures included in Chapter 6.
43

5.3.4
Tentative costs of RLK program of measures
The tentative cost of implementing an RLK program of measures includes the costs of a civil engineering
program, those for a regreening progam, and that for terracing. Total costs for the four sub-basins of the
six short-listed bulk water options are expected to be about Rp. 68101 billion (USD 5.88.9 million).
Terracing on 1,217 ha would bring this amount to Rp.76.3-109.3 billion (USD 6.529.62 million). Total
costs of the entire RLK program (regreening, terracing & civil engineering) would amount to Rp. 508760
billion (USD 4566 million).
Civil engineering program
In 2009, BPDAS used the following standard figures: Rp.135 million for a control dam and Rp.22 million for
a check dam. Corrected for inflation (using www.fxtop.com, which calculates 30.49% from June 2009 to
May 2014), these unit prices are Rp.176 million (USD 15,300) and Rp.29 million (USD 2,500), respectively.
Given the need for 423 check dams and 49 control dams in the four sub-basins of the six short-listed bulk
water options, this would lead to a total cost of about Rp.21 billion (about USD 1.8 million). Implementing
the entire civil engineering program of 2,290 check dams and 280 control dams would cost Rp. 116 billion
or about USD 10.1 million.
Regreening program
A rough estimate based on a cost per hectare figure of Rp. 6.8 million, which is the average for the 2014
Rencana Aksi Milti Pihak Penanganan DAS Citarum Segmen I (Situ Cisanti up to Majalaya) program, the
cost of implementing the entire RLK regreening program in the four sub-basins of the bulk water options
would be about Rp 47 billion (USD 4 milllion). Based on a high end figure for the 2014 Citarum Segmen I
program (BUMN Hijau Lestari) of Rp. 11.7 million/ha, this would lead to a total cost of Rp.80 billion (USD 7
million). Implementation of the entire Citarum UW RLK regreening program would cost about Rp. 348
million (or USD 31 million) based on the lower figure of Rp. 6.8 million/ha. Based on a high end figure for
the 2014 Citarum Segmen I program (BUMN Hijau Lestari) of Rp. 11.7 million/ha, this would lead to a total
cost of Rp. 600 billion (USD 52 million).
Terracing
Bench and related terracing types are estimated to cost Rp. 6.8 million (USD 600) per hectare. In the four
sub-basins a total of 1,217 ha (costs Rp. 8.3 billion or USD 0.73 million) need to be terraced under type 1
measures, while if expanded to the entire Citarum UW this would need to cover 6,493 ha (costs Rp. 44
billion or USD 3.8 million).
44
Figure 17 Map of proposed RLK measures in Citarum UW
45
6. Measures proposed for sub-basins of

proposed bulk water options
In the following, the RLK intervention types outlined in chapter 5 have been applied to the four (4) subbasins of the six (6) bulk water option interventions selected for PFR2:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Cirasea sub-basin, with i) Pogokan Dam and ii) Kertasari Springs;

Cisangkuy sub-basin, with iii) Cikalong Day Reserve and iv) Cileunca Reservoir; and
Ciwidey sub-basin, with iv) Gambung Springs;
Cikapundung sub-basin, with vi) Dago-Tanggulan Day Reservoir.
Note that there are two more bulk water options, namely Cikahuripan interbasin transfer and Saguling
Reservoir, but these are not assessed in this report. Firstly, the Cikahuripan interbasin transfer involves
water transfer from outside the Citarum Upper Watershed and is hence outside the scope of the UW
Management Plan. Secondly, the Sub-basin of the Saguling Reservoir is the entire Citarum UW, and all
measures in the UW contribute to its management.
An overview of the four targeted sub-basins and the six short-listed bulk water options is provided in Figure
18 below. [Note that a seventh bulk water option (Saguling Reservoir) is also added.]
Figure 18 Overview of 6 short-listed bulk water options in the 4 sub-basins
46

6.1
Cirasea sub-basin
6.1.1
Pogokan Dam
6.1.1.1
Condition of Cirasea Sub-basin upstream of the proposed Pogokan dam
Brief description of location

Pogokan is the proposed site for a dam, located in the middle-upper reaches of the Cirasea River, in the
mid-southern part of the Citarum UW. At this point the river valley is 150m deep and steep to very steepsided these slopes are partly protection forest (Hutan Lindung) and partially conservation area (Hutan
Konservasi). Most of the western slopes (HL) are deforested and large parts converted to terraced
agriculture (mainly cabbage, carrots, leeks). The eastern slopes are even steeper and are not cultivated;
some occasional large trees and secondary scrub are found in this area. The slopes are not entirely stable,
as indicated by a landslide that removed a 50-75m-wide section of formerly terraced cultivation. These
slopes are not inhabited and all farmers live in villages at the top of the valley. Small huts used for
occasional shelter dot the terraced slopes.
LULC of inundation site
As mentioned above, most of the western slopes (HL) are deforested and large parts (>70%) has been
converted to terraced agriculture (mainly cabbage, carrots, leeks). These slopes have been subjected for
RLK programs and Eucalyptus and Toona sureni trees have been planted at points along terrace bunds
and trails, although nowhere very abundantly. Groves of bamboo abound, as does secondary scrub, with
species such as wild bananas Musa sp., Albizia julibrissin, Ficus spp., Lantana camara and Mimosa pigra.
The eastern slopes are even steeper and are not cultivated. Occasional large trees (Artocarpus altilis, wild
figs Ficus hispida and Ficus tinctoria ssp. gibbosa, etc...) and secondary scrub (with the aforementioned
species) are found in this area. A seasonal wetland with wild sugarcane Saccharum spontaneum occurs
where the river valley somewhat flattens out, >500m upstream of the proposed dam; in addition there are
Scleria spp., Wedelia biflora and Chromolaena odorata. A small area (1 ha) of rice field (sawah) occurs in
the valley bottom near the site of the proposed dam.
LULC & status of location & sub-basin
These steep slopes are partly protection forest (Hutan Lindung), located to the north and west, and
partially conservation area (Hutan Konservasi), to the east and southeast. In all, the proposed dam site
overlaps with 37 ha of Conservation Area and 10 ha of Protection Forest (Figure 19). In addition, there is
overlap with 14 ha of agricultural land this is predominantly used for dryland crops such as leeks and
carrots, and to a lesser extent maize and banana, but also with a small area of rice paddy (1 ha). In all,
about 61 ha of land will be directly affected by the dam (Figure 20).
47
Figure 19 Map of land status Cirasea sub-basin (Pogokan & Kertasari)
Figure 20 Map of LULC in Cirasea sub-basin (Pogokan & Kertasari)
48
6.1.1.2
Proposed water abstraction at Pogokan Dam
Volume
The proposed Pogokan dam will be a large dam, with a height of >100m and a storage volume of about 30
million m. The proposed abstraction volume is 1.52 m/s. The proposed Pogokan dam can be considered
a large dam, by all accounts, although the overall volume is relatively modest.
Impacts of proposed reservoir
Once filled, the dam site will inundate 37 ha of Conservation Area and 10 ha of Protection Forest, and the
dam wall plus access roads and so on may further add to the impacts on areas with this status. The
Protection Forest, however, is largely already converted and very few trees remain. The Conservation
Area, however, still consists of secondary scrub, along with occasional tall trees, and although heavily
degraded it is still of some biodiversity interest. If anything, it still provide a habitat for an array of bird
species and species such as squirrels (tupai), although larger wildlife such as monkeys and deer are
unlikely to occur. The dam will affect livelihoods, as 13 ha of cultivated, terraced land and 1 ha of rice
paddy will be inundated, and a resettlement plan will be needed as part of an eventual feasibility study. In
all, the project will be a Category A project requiring a full EIA (AMDAL).
6.1.1.3
UW measures proposed for Pogokan Dam
A total of 1,747 ha of regreening rehabilitation measures are proposed for Pogokan Dam (Table 19; Figure
21), of which 31.9% is to occur in Desa Tarumajaya, 29.5% in Desa Cibeureum and 25.1% in Desa
Cikembang. Most of this (63.1%) is for either RLK types 3 or 4 (NTFP forestry and mixed forestry,
respectively), while 18.8% is for RLK intervention type 1, terraced, crop-based agroforestry, and 16.5% is
for RLK type 6, reforestation of natural forests. [Note that the next location, Kertasari Springs, is included in
Table 19 and the map of Figure 21, as it lies upstream of Pogokan, in the same sub-basin.]
Table 19
RLK regreening intervention measures proposed for Pogokan Dam
Desa
RLK Intervention Types (ha)
Totals
3/4
(ha)
31
11
21
108
343
515
56
34
97
Cikembang
197
25
103
111
439
Sukapura
23
19
21
18
19
100
Tarumajaya
77
77
107
286
556
11
19
28
328
17
53
247
284
814
1747
Kecamatan Kertasari
Cibeureum
Cihawuk
Kecamatan Pacet
Sukarame
Kec. Pangalengan
Margamukti
Note: RLK = rehabilitasi lahan kritis
In addition to the above, a total of 101 check dams and 12 control dams are proposed for this part of the
Cirasea sub-basin as part of the civil engineering program proposed by BPDAS (2009); see Figure 21.
49

Figure 21 Map of proposed RLK measures for Cirasea sub-basin (Pogokan & Kertasari)
50
6.1.1.4
Photo summary of Pogokan
Photo: Site of the proposed Pogokan Dam, with cultivated terraces, rice fields & secondary scrub
Photo: Landslide area near the site of the proposed Pogokan Dam; standing person is indicated by arrow
51
Photo: Culivated terraces on the eastern slopes of the proposed inundated area
Photo: Secondary scrub with occasional large trees on eastern slopes; note Saccharum wetland
52

6.1.2
Kertasari springs
6.1.2.1
Condition of Cirasea Sub-basin upstream of Kertasari springs

The Kertasari springs are a cluster of at least five springs located in near Lebaksari village, in Kertasari
sub-district of Bandung District. This is in the southern (SSE) corner of the Citarum UW, and forms part of
the Cirasea sub-basin. Their characteristics are listed in Table 20, below. The area consists of cultivated
land, with rice paddies (mainly in flatter areas) and dryland crops such as onions, carrots, cabbages, red
pepper (cabe) and potatoes (mainly on slopes). These slopes are usually terraced, and sparsely planted
with tree species such as Eucalyptus and Toona sureni. Most crops are planted in rows that follow the
contours, but not all farmers follow this practice. The ponds around the springs are densely cultivated with
watercress Nasturtium officinale (selada air). Steep (and higher) slopes in the vicinity that were once
forested now have only a sparse tree cover. Small-scale livestock rearing is common, and stall-fed beef
and dairy cattle, along with sheep and goats are kept in pens, mainly near the main village. Fodder is
collected along roads and trails, but reportedly also cultivated (presumably elephant grass).
Table 20
Characteristics of Kertasari springs
Name of spring
UTM coordinates
Elevation
(m)
Volume
(litre/s)
Ciburial
X:0795500 / Y:9203555
1,497
126
Kosasih
X:0796400 / Y:9203835
1,445
75
Karanganyar
X:0796670 / Y:9203781
1,426
170
Ciakar
X:0797254 / Y:9203568
1,457
200
Cihampelas
X:0796345 / Y:9203699
1,447
150
Combined volume
721
Status of the sub-basin

The watershed of the Kertasari springs is largely APL land, but also includes areas of Protection Forest
(Hutan Lindung, to the west and east) and Conservation Area (Hutan Konservasi, to the east) in the hillier
areas. [see map in Figure 20]
LULC of the area
Land use in the direct vicinity of the springs is mixed cultivation of dryland crops such as onion, cabbage,
potatoes, red pepper (cabe) and carrots (for springs 1-4), and rice paddies (for spring 5). Trees (mainly
Eucalyptus and Toone sureni) have been planted along the bunds and between fields, but at a low density.
Where the springs emerge, a series of small, cascading ponds have been constructed that are cultivated
with watercress Nasturtium officinale (selada air). [see map in Figure 20]
6.1.2.2
Proposed water abstraction from Kertasari springs
The total volume available at the Kertasari springs is about 700 litres per second, but not all of this can be
abstracted as these sources are also used for watercress cultivation and other uses further downstream.
Crops such as onion, cabbage, potatoes, red pepper and carrots are not irrigated, but the ricefields near
the Ciakar spring (with 200 l/s, the largest of the five) probably utilise this resource in the dry season. If all
water is abstracted for bulk water supply, this will impact watercress cultivation (small-scale, only 1-2
households per spring) and to a lesser degree affect rice paddies near Ciakar, as less water will be
available for irrigation.
53
6.1.2.3
UW measures proposed for Kertasari
The watershed of the Kertasari springs has been much affected by conversion for agriculture and clearing,
and this is likely to impact dry season reliability/volumes of water supplied by the springs. What are needed
are a series of programs that target agriculture/farmers, and the degraded forests of the steep higher
slopes. Almost 1,000 ha of the 1,747 ha requiring to be addressed under the RLK program for Pogokan
(see 6.1.3) are required for Kertasari alone (see Table 21), in the two subdistricts (kecamatan) Cikembang
and Tarumajaya. About half (51.3%) is for either RLK types 3 or 4 (NTFP forestry and mixed forestry,
respectively), while 27.5% is for RLK intervention type 1, terraced, crop-based agroforestry, and 21.1% is
for RLK type 6, reforestation of natural forests. [Note that Kertasari interventions are included in the map
for Pogokan (Figure 21)].
Table 21
RLK intervention measures for Kertasari
Desa

1
Totals
3/4
(ha)
Kecamatan Kertasari
Cikembang
197
25
103
111
439
Tarumajaya
77
77
107
286
556
274
11
102
210
397
995
6.1.2.4
Photo summary of Kertasari Springs
Photo: Toona sureni trees intercropped with onions and cabbage; unfortunately these crops are not planted along
contour lines but straight up-and-down.
54
Photo: Watercress Nasturtium officinalis is cultivated in a cascade of ponds downstream of Kosasih springs (one of the
Kertasari springs)
Photo: Hills in the watershed of the Kertasari springs are largely deforested.
55

6.2
Cisangkuy Sub-basin
6.2.1
Cikalong day reservoir
6.2.1.1
Condition of the upper Cisangkuy Sub-basin upstream of Cikalong day reservoir

The proposed balancing reservoir at Cikalong is located south of Bandung on the Cisangkuy River,
downstream of the PDAM intake which, in turn, is located just below the outlet of the Cikalong hydropower
station (PLTA Cikalong). As the Cileunca and Cipanunjang reservoirs upstream have limited capacity, the
hydropower turbines are operated only part-time (approximately 5 hours in the evening) in some very dry
seasons. The purpose of the balancing reservoir is to store the water released during the night in order to
provide the PDAM with a steady flow during the day. The size of the proposed inundation area is small and
covers about 3-5 ha. This will cover the river channel (full of large rocks and boulders), some steep slopes
covered with secondary scrub that includes bamboo and species such as Macaranga peltata, and about 23 ha of rice fields, with some bananas and petai Parkia speciosa trees.
LULC & status of the sub-basin

The Cisangkuy sub-basin upstream of the proposed Cikalong day reservoir includes large areas of
Protection Forest (Hutan Lindung) and Conservation Area (Hutan Konservasi). See Figures 22 and 23.
Figure 22 Map of land status in Cisangkuy sub-basin (Cikalong & Cileunca reservoirs)
56
Figure 23 Map of LULC in Cisangkuy sub-basin (Cikalong & Cileunca reservoirs)
6.2.1.2
Proposed water abstraction from Cikalong reservoir
Volume
Proposed abstraction at Cikalong is 0.7 m/s.
The site of the small reservoir does not include natural habitats, and only some secondary scrub (e.g. with
bamboo) occurs along the alignment channel, and most of the proposed reservoir area consists of river
bed and rice fields. In all, about 4 ha of rice paddies will be permanently inundated, and farmers will have
to be compensated for this via a resettlement program. There are no houses located in the proposed
reservoir area. The height of the proposed dam will be less than 15m.
6.2.1.3
UW measures proposed for Cikalong
A total of 3,019 ha of rehabilitation measures are proposed for Cikalong Day Reservoir (Table 22; Figure
24), of which 18.3% is to occur in Desa Tribaktimulya, 16.4% in Desa Margamulya, 14.3% in Desa Pulosari
and 13.8% in Desa Warnasari. Most of this (55.6%) is for either RLK types 3 or 4 (NTFP forestry and
mixed forestry, respectively), while 27.3% is for RLK intervention type 1, terraced, crop-based
agroforestry, and 14.5% is for RLK type 2, NTFP/crop agroforestry. [Note that the next location, Cileunca
reservoir, is included in Table 22 and the maps of Figures 22-24, as it lies upstream of Cikalong, in the
same Cisangkuy sub-basin.]
57
Table 22
RLK regreening intervention measures for Cisangkuy sub-basin Cikalong reservoir
Desa
Totals
3/4
(ha)
15
38
27
92
172
Kec.Cimaung
Warjabakti
Kec. Pangalengan
Banjarsari
23
32
Lamajang
32
22
41
11
46
153
Margaluyu
119
120
Margamekar
46
46
Margamukti
37
81
18
41
103
280
Margamulya
143
62
39
238
494
Pangalengan
42
43
42
114
249
Pulosari
167
11
27
47
178
432
Sukaluyu
31
13
48
Sukamanah
23
23
Tribaktimulya
84
173
11
69
12
203
552
Warnasari
117
21
49
224
418
825
438
113
343
78
1222
3019
In addition to the above, a total of 186 check dams and 21 control dams are proposed as part of the civil
engineering program proposed by BPDAS (2009) for this part of the Cisangkuy sub-basin; see Figure 24.
58

Figure 24 Map of proposed RLK in Cisangkuy sub-basin (Cikalong & Cileunca reservoirs)
59
6.2.1.4
Photo summary of Cikalong
Photo: Proposed location of the reservoir; the dam is to be located approximately at the end of the valley, and the
th th
inundated area will be up to the 4 -5 rice paddy terrace.
Photo: The upper end of proposed reservoir will be downstream of PLTA Cikalong, located to the right (not visible).
60

6.2.2
Desilting of Cileunca-Cipanunjang Reservoir
6.2.2.1
Condition of Cisangkuy upstream of Cileunca-Cipanunjang

The system consists of two cascading reservoirs that are located in the upper reaches of the Cisangkuy
River constructed in 1919-1939: the northern (downstream) one called Cileunca Reservoir (constructed
1919-1923), and the slightly larger (upstream) one called Cipanunjang Reservoir (constructed 1929-1939,
Sukardi et al. 2013; Figure 11). The reservoirs have lost a lot of the storage capacity due to erosion in the
immediate catchment which has resulted in 4.3 million m of sediment entering the system (see Table 23).
This has particularly affected Cipanunjang Reservoir, where most (65%) sediment has accumulated in the
narrow, finger-like bays and at some points has led to local infilling. The water of both reservoirs is
eutrophic, and green and smelly, largely due to agriculture, but also due to livestock (stall-fed cattle and
goats) rearing which is highly popular all around the reservoirs. Manure is largely collected, dried and used
as manure on the farmland around the reservoir. The project will consist of desilting the infilled arms,
especially of the southern reservoir, which will result in the removal of 2.8-4.3 million m of sediment that
will need to be deposited elsewhere. This sediment is probably highly fertile, and once dried out can be
levelled and put to good use for agriculture. The status of the land around the reservoir is APL, or nonforestry land.
Table 23
Sedimentation in Cileunca-Cipanunjang reservoirs

Cileunca Reservoir
Cipanunjang Reservoir
1919-1923
1929-1939
154 ha
189 ha
Volume at construction (m)
11,500,000
21,800,000
Volume 1991 (m)
10,660,551
19,758,215
Volume 2009 (m)
9,977,581
19,023,286
Sediment volume 1991 (m)
839,488
2,041,784
Sediment volume 2009 (m)
1,522,418
2,776,713
Year of construction
Area
Source: Sukardi et al. (2013)
Land status of sub-basin

Both reservoirs lie in the upstream section of the Cisangkuy River (Figure 21; map of Cikalong Day
reservoir), and their sub-basin has a non-forestry status (APL). Protection forest (Hutan Lindung) and
conservation areas (Hutan Konservasi) lie just downstream of the Cileunca Reservoir. (See Figure 24)

Land use/land cover in the area (see Figure 25) consists primary of agriculture, i.e. cultivation of a variety
of vegetables including cabbage, carrot, tomato, leeks, potato and red pepper. There are also considerable
tea plantations, especially in the area south (i.e. upstram)) of the Cipanunjang Reservoir, and some coffee
plantations. A few fish cages were seen in some of the northern arms of the reservoir, but these are few
and far between. Some recreational fishing occurs, while some subsistence fishing, mainly with small traps
(see 7.5.4), was seen along Cipanunjang. A large, covered cattle enterprise for stall-fed livestock is located
to the north-east of Cileunca Reservoir, while many farmers around the reservoirs tend to keep stall-fed
goats (10-20) or 4-8 head of staff-fed cattle.
61
Reforestation programs have been undertaken in the past, given the occurrence of Eucalyptus and suren
Toona sureni in many locations, albeit usually at low densities. The Bogor Agricultural University, IPB, has
undertaken a 2.2 ha agroforestry program funded by the State Electricity Company PLN out of its
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) program at Desa Margaluyu (Kecamatan Pangalengan). This was
initiated in 2007-2008 and evaluated in an MSc study by Praditia (2010). The program consisted of
planting Toona sureni trees at a relatively wide spacing, and in between these coffee shrubs, along with
rows of cabbage (see photographic summary, 7.5.4); the slope is not very steep, perhaps about 10%.
Praditia (2010) found that while the farmers income reduced from Rp.4.35 million to Rp. 3.47 million per
year following establishing the agroforestry plot, their net profit increased from Rp.1.75 million to Rp.2.36
million due to lower investment costs.
6.2.2.2
Proposed water abstraction at Cileunca
Volume
The Cileunca and Cipanunjang reservoirs are at present used for the abstraction of water for drinking
water purposes and for the Cikalong Hydropower plant located further downstream (see 7.3). An additional
0.35m/s can be abstracted once the proposed intervention is implemented. The volume of the reservoir
has decreased since its construction by 4.3 Mm, and the proposed intervention will consist of its removal
to restore storage capacity.
Impacts of proposed desilting
The impacts of desilting will be (1) more water available for hydropower generation and (2) more water
available for PDAM (depending on the operation scheduling of the hydropower turbines. The
environmental impacts of desilting will mainly be related to operations (i.e. deployment of excavator,
dragline excavator s or small dredger, plus trucks) and the deposition of large amounts of sediment. The
latter may need to be temporarily stored on-site (e.g. for drying out of slurry), which will require the
construction of a temporary containment embankment. After drying out it will be deposited, probably at a
range of sites, where it can dry out and ripen, and in due course be used, either for agriculture (preferred,
as it is likely to be highly fertile) or for levelling of land for settlement. It is estimated that about 100 ha will
be required for sediment deposition. Excavation and especially dredging will lead to suspension of
sediment, which will affect water quality and may cause dying off of submerged plants and/or local kills of
amphibians and fish, although the latter are more likely to move away than be affected.
6.2.2.3
UW measures proposed for Cileunca
A total of 198 ha of rehabilitation measures are proposed for Cileunca (Table 24, Figure 24), of which
about 84% is for RLK intervention type 1, terraced, crop-based agroforestry. [note that these figures are
also incorporated into Table 22 for Cikalong day reservoir.]
Table 24
RLK intervention measures for Cileunca
Desa
Totals
3/4
(ha)
Banjarsari
23
32
Margaluyu
119
120
Margamekar
46
46
166
23
198
Kec. Pangalengan
62
6.2.2.4
Photo summary of Cileunca
Photo: Cileunca Reservoir, with cultivation of food crops, and planting of (some) Eucalyptus and Toona sureni trees.
Photo: 2.2 ha trial by IPB and PLN at Desa Margaluyu, agroforestry with coffee, sureni and cabbage.
63
Photo: fish cages and platforms at Cipanunjang Reservoir
Photo: silted up arm of Cipanunjang Reservoir, with prolific growth of aquatic plants.
64

6.3
Ciwidey Sub-basin
6.3.1
Gambung springs
6.3.1.1
Condition of Ciwidey sub-basin upstream of Gambung springs

The Gambung spring system is a cluster of at least five springs located in near Cisondari village, in
Cimaung sub-district of Bandung District. This is in the southern (SSW) corner of the Citarum UW, and is
located on the boundary of the Cisangkuy and Ciwidey sub-basins. Their characteristics are listed in Table
25, below. Three of the springs (Cisorog-1, Cisorog-2 & Cijaha) are located near the Gamboeng Pusat
Penelitian Teh dan Kina (Research Institute for Tea and Cinchona), in the midst of tea plantations just
south of Gambung village; these drain into the Cisangkuy sub-basin. Cisorog-2 and Cijaha are located on
the southern edge of the village, while Cisorog-1 is located in primary forest on the hills south of the village.
More springs are considered likely to occur.
Table 25
Characteristics of Gambung springs
Name of spring
UTM coordinates
Elevation
(m)
Volume
(litre/s)
Cidamar
X:0767022 / Y:9204724
1,139
40
Cikembang
X:0778059 / Y:9209138
1,361
60
Cisorog-1
X:0778233 / Y:9208838
1,320
200
Cisorog-2
---
1,320
180
Cijaha
---
1,420
45
Combined volume
525
LULC & status of the sub-basin

The watershed south of the main cluster of springs at Gambung is largely forested and includes some of
the best forests in the Citarum UW in terms of condition. The lower slopes have a protection forest status,
while the upper areas are conservation area. The protection forest consists partially of pine Pinus merkusii
plantation managed by Perum Perhutani in the understorey coffee and banana are planted, while the
pine trees themselves are tapped for resin (damar). See Figures 25-27.
The conservation areas consist of three nature reserves: Bojong Larang Jayanti (750 ha), Gunung
Simpang (15,000 ha) and Gunung Tilu (8,000 ha). Gunung Simpang (15000 ha) declared as Nature
Reserve based on SK Menteri Pertanian No.41/Kpts/Um/I/1979 on 11 January 1979. Gunung Tilu (8000
ha) declared as Nature Reserve based on SK Menteri Pertanian No.68/Kpts/2/78 on 7 February 1978.
Bojonglarang Jayanti (750 ha) declared as Nature Reserve based on SK Menteri Pertanian
No.516/Kpts/Um/10/73 on 10 October 1973. These have been recognised as Important Bird Area (IBA) 82
by BirdLife (Burung Indonesia). From 2001-2008 about 1000 ha or 14% of the forest was lost mainly on
the lower slopes (Giesen, 2011). The forests are mixed montane forests, from 1,200-2,177m, although
much of the lower slopes are disturbed to heavily disturbed. During the field visit coffee plantations were
noticed in the forest undergrowth, where some trees had been cleared to allow more sunlight to penetrate.
Also, fuelwood collecting was ongoing at various points in the forest. Five Javan leaf monkey or surili
(Presbytis comata) a species listed as EN (endangered) on the IUCN Red List were seen in primary
forest on the way to Cisorog-1 springs. An endemic snail Pupisoma tiluanum is only found in this site, while
important plant species include Rafflesia, Rhizanthes zippelii and the endemic bamboo Nastus
elegantissimus (Whitten et al. 1996).
65
Figure 25 Map of land status in Ciwidey sub-basin (Gambung springs)
Figure 26 Map of LULC in Ciwidey sub-basin (Gambung springs)
66
LULC of the spring area

This is variable, depending on the spring. Cisorog-1 is located in conservation forest, while Cisorog-2 and
Cijaha are located in a tea plantation (APL). Cidamar is located on the edge of rice fields (APL) while
Cikembang is located in cultivated farmland (APL). See Figure 26.
6.3.1.2
Proposed water abstraction from Gambung springs
The total volume available at the Gembang springs is about 525 litres per second. Water from the upper
springs can probably be largely utilised, while that of the lower springs (Cidamar and Cikembang) is
probably largely already utilised by local farmers (e.g. Cidamar is likely used for irrigation of rice paddies in
the dry season). In order to reduce impacts, water can be abstracted from the small stream(s) into which
the Cisorog-Cijaha springs flow, rather than constructing pipelines in forested areas.
6.3.1.3
UW measures proposed for Gambung
The upper parts sub-basin of the Gambung springs has been little affected by conversion to agriculture,
and as a result only a relatively small area of 67.9 ha is proposed for RLK rehabilitation (Table 26 and
Figure 27). About 56% is proposed for RLK intervention types 3 & 4 (NTFP forestry and mixed forestry,
respectively), while about 19% if for RLK type 6 (reforestation of (semi-)natural forests) and about 17% for
NTFP/crop agroforestry.
Table 26
RLK regreening intervention measures for Gambung
Desa
Totals
3/4
(ha)
1.0
5.5
6.5
5.3
11.8
4.9
0.1
11.8
27.4
61.4
5.3
11.8
4.9
0.1
12.8
32.9
67.9
Kec. Pangalengan
Lamajang
Kec. Pasirjambu
Mekarsari
engineering program proposed by BPDAS (2009) for this part of the Ciwidey sub-basin; see Figure 27.
67

Figure 27 Map of proposed RLK in Ciwidey sub-basin (Gambung springs)
68
6.3.1.4
Photo summary of Gambung
Photo: Hills south of the Gambung tea plantation have some of the best quality forest in the Citarum UW
Photo: Good quality forest at Gambung in the Citarum UW
69
Photo: Forests in the conservation area have been opened up at some points, where coffee has been planted
Photo: Protection forest: pine Pinus merkusii forest being tapped for resin, and with coffee shrubs in the understorey
70

6.4
Cikapundung Sub-basin
6.4.1
Dago Tanggulan day reservoir
6.4.1.1
Condition of Cikapundung Sub-basin upstream of Dago Tanggulan

The proposed balancing reservoir at Dago Tanggulan is located north of Bandung on the Cikapundung
River near the PDAM intake and the outlet of the Dago Bengkok hydropower station (PLTA Dago
Bengkokm constructed in 1923). During some very dry years the hydropower turbines are operated only
part-time (a few hours in the evening). The purpose of the balancing reservoir is to store water released
during the night in order to provide the PDAM with a steady flow during the day. Proposed is a small dam
(height 15-20 m), which will pond water up to just downstream (and slightly into) of the Ir. H. Djuanda
Conservation Area (Kawasan Pelestarian Alam [Konservasi] Tahura Ir. H. Djuanda). The latter is a small
park established to protect the Dago waterfall and its immediate surroundings; this is also of culturalhistoric interest as it includes two small buildings constructed around stones inscribed with the initials of
two kings of Thailand to commemorate their visit (King Chulalongkorn in 1896/1901 and King Prajadhipok
in 1929). The inundation area is expected to cover about 3.0 hectares, mainly along the Cikapundung
River channel. The status of most of the area is state land (APL), and partially protected area (HSA).
The middle portion of the inundation area consists of the river channel, which is filled with rocks and large
boulders. The slopes are covered with secondary vegetation and are partly planted with useful species
such as bamboos, breadfruit Artocarpus altilis, jackfruit Artocarpus heterophyllus, bananas Musa
acuminata, taro Colocasia esculenta and sugar palm Arenga pinnata. The secondary vegetation consists
of exotic shrubs such as Albizia julibrissin, Lantana camara and Mimosa pigra, exotic trees such as the
African flame tree Spathodea campanulata and indigenous trees such as Macaranga peltata. The
herbaceous layer of the secondary vegetation includes herbs such as Chromolaena odorata, Mimosa
pudica, Stachytarpheta indica, Wedelia biflora, ferns and grasses such as alang-alang Imperata cylindrica.
The vegetation in the HSA consists largely of tree species such as Artocarpus altilis, Erythrina fusca, Ficus
hispida and Ficus tinctoria ssp. gibbosa, along with Arenga pinnata and Caryota mitis palms, Costus
speciosa wild gingers and bamboo. Pine trees Pinus merkusii have been planted around the parks
recreation area.
Land status of sub-basin
The watershed of the Cikapundung River upstream of the proposed reservoir consists of a stretch of
Conservation Area (Hutan Konservasi) along the main river channel (Kawasan Pelestarian Alam
[Konservasi] Tahura Ir. H. Djuanda), while the upper reaches are largely Protection Forest (Hutan Lindung)
(see Figure 28).
LULC of sub-basin
The watershed of the Cikapundung River upstream of the proposed reservoir consists of a small patch of
dryland forest and large areas of planted forest (Hutan Tanaman). The middle reaches consist mainly of
mixed dryland agriculture, while the lower reaches consists of dryland agriculture (Figure 29).
71
Figure 28 Map of land status in Cikapundung sub-basin (Dago-Tanggulan reservoir)
Figure 29 Map of LULC for Cikapundung sub-basin (Dago-Tanggulan reservoir)
72
6.4.1.2
Proposed water abstraction at Dago Tanggulan
Volume
The proposed abstraction from the Dago Tanggulan day reservoir is 0.49 m/s, The proposed dam will
have a height of about 15 metres.
The proposed dam will inundate the main channel plus secondary vegetation, covering a total area of
about 3.0 hectares. Environmental impacts will be limited, as the sites secondary vegetation (which
includes species planted and used by the local community, see below) has little biodiversity value and
there are already various obstructions to aquatic species such as fish, amphibians and molluscs. The latter
can be mitigated by adding a bypass (e.g. a fish ladder) to the design of the dam, but this will also lead to
additional costs. The upstream end of the inundation area is located within the Ir. H. Djuanda conservation
area, but at this point it will not be wider than the current river channel and the impacts will be small. It is
estimatd that about 0.3 ha of the Conservation Area will be affected. Basically, a flowing (lotic) river system
will be converted to a pond (lentic) system, and this will give rise to new habitats along the margins of the
reservoir (depending on the level of draw down upon use) and perhaps create opportunities for species
such as heron, egret and kingfisher.
Direct social impacts are limited, and include loss of some semi-cultivated species such as sugar palm
Arenga pinnata, jackfruit Artocarpus heterocarpa, breadfruit Artocarpus altilis, bamboo, banana and taro
Colocasia esculenta. It also includes the collecting of forage for stall-fed livestock (mainly goats). Although
limited in area and extent of use, these uses will need to be quantified and compensation arranged in a
resettlement program. Rice fields (sawah) are located (above and) outside the proposed inundation area
and will not be affected. Indirect impacts are related to risks: i) of drowning, as the inundated area borders
on a densely populated residential area; and ii) flooding/drowning, in the event of dam failure (e.g. due to
an earthquake). There are also positive impacts in addition to provision of drinking water, such as
recreation opportunities, as the created lake borders on the Ir. H. Djuanda conservation area, which
already attracts regular visitors. For this reason, park authorities (Dinas Kehutanan, Balai Pengelolaan
Taman Hutan Raya) have expressed a positive interest in the dam.
6.4.1.3
UW measures proposed for Dago Tanggulan
The Forestry Department has a number of activities planned for Tahura Ir. H, Djuanda (Dinas Kehutanan
2009), namely: i) improved management of the park; ii) development of partnerships and community
participation around the location; iii) improved infrastructure; iv) develop the attractiveness of the location;
and v) intensification of admission levies. However, these are not further elaborated in their plan for their
2008-2013 Strategic Plan.
A total of 2,003 ha of regreening rehabilitation measures are proposed upstream of the proposed DagoTanggulan Day Reservoir (Table 27; Figure 30), of which 80% is to occur in Kecamatan Lembang. Most of
this (77.7%) is for either RLK types 3 or 4 (NTFP forestry and mixed forestry, respectively), while 11.2% is
for RLK intervention type 6 (restoration of semi-natural forests) and 8.1% is for RLK type 2 (NTFP/crop
agroforestry).
73
Table 27
RLK regreening measures for Cikapundung sub-basinDago-Tanggulan reservoir
Desa
Totals
3/4
(ha)
19
44
74
Cipanjalu
12
48
11
71
Girimekar
Ciburial
28
64
97
Cimenyan
49
48
99
Mekarmanik
30
12
42
Cibodas
66
21
58
28
172
Cibogo
59
61
Cikidang
74
10
90
Cikole
102
106
Jayagiri
24
30
Kayuambon
Langensari
22
111
18
151
Lembang
Mekarwangi
39
48
165
66
318
Pagerwangi
10
74
211
294
Suntenjaya
58
61
116
241
Wangunharja
48
38
13
49
147
59
163
1012
269
225
276
2003
Kec.Cidadap
Ciumbuleuit
Kec. Cilengkrang
Kec. Cimenyan
Kec. Coblong
Dago
Kec. Lembang
engineering program proposed by BPDAS (2009) for this part of the Cikapundung sub-basin; see Figure
30.
74

Figure 30 Map of proposed RLK measures for Cikapundung sub-basin (Dago-Tanggulan reservoir)
75
Upper Watershed Management Plan revised 9 May 2014
6.4.1.4
Photo summary of Dago Tanggulan
Photo: Proposed location of Dago Tanggulan dam (in bend at end) on Cikapundung River
Photo: Cikapundung River just downstream of the Dago waterfall; the conservation area extends to just beyond
(downstream of) the ponded area in the river
76

Summary of the RLK interventions in the four Sub-basins
6.5
Table 28 summarizes the RLK regreening interventions proposed for the four sub-basins of the proposed
six Bulk Water options. In all, 6,840 hectares of RLK intervention is proposed, of which 44.2% in the
Cisangkuy sub-basin, 29.3% in the Cikapundung sub-basin, 25.6% in the Cirasea sub-basin and only 1%
in the Ciwidey sub-basin. RLK interventions 3 and 4 together (64.1%) account for almost two thirds of
interventions, followed by 1 (17.8%), 2 (9.2%) and 6 (8.8%). RLK intervention type 5 is virtually absent in
these four sub-basins and will not be required.
Table 28
Overview of RLK regreening & civil engineering interventions in four sub-basins
RLK
intervention
type
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sub-totals
Check dams
Control dams
Cirasea
Cisangkuy
Ciwidey
Cikapundung
Sub-basin (ha)
Sub-basin (ha)
Sub-basin (ha)
Sub-basin (ha)
Pogokan dam /
Cikalong reservoir /
Gambung springs
Dago-Tanggulan
Kertasari springs
Cileunca reservoir
Subtotals
(ha)
reservoir
328
825
5.3
59
1,217
17
438
11.9
163
630
53
113
4.9
1,012
1,183
247
343
0.1
269
859
814
1,222
33
276
2,345
1
1
289
78
12.7
225
605
1,748
3,020
67.9
2,004
6,840 ha
101
186
40
96
12
21
10
423
49
Based on a cost per hectare figure of Rp. 6.8 million, which is the average for the 2014 Citarum Segmen I
program, this would cost about Rp. 46.5 billion (USD 4.1 million). Based on a high end figure for the 2014
Citarum Segmen I program (PT. BUMN Hijau Lestari) of Rp. 11.7 million/ha, this would lead to a total cost
of about Rp. 80.0 billion (USD 7.1 million). For type 1 interventions which involve terracing an extra
Rp.8.3 billion (USD 0.72 million) would be needed for the four sub-basin.
In all, a total of 423 check dams and 49 control dams have been proposed for the four sub-basins of the
short-listed bulk water options (Table 28). The total cost associated with this is about Rp.21 billion (about
USD 1.8 million).
77
7. UW Management Components
Agencies responsible for RLK & M&E
7.1
RLK measures
The civil engineering, regreening and terracing measures proposed in this UW Management Plan would
need discussion, among others, by the Tim Rencana Tindak DAS Citarum to define exact roles in
implementation. This process is to be coordinated by Bappeda West Java (Unit Rencana Tata Ruang
Wilayah). However, for a few types of measures it is already clearly defined as to who should be involved
in implementation:
Control dams: 49 needed in first phase (short-term) in the four sub-basins, and 280 in the entire
Citarum UW in the second phase (medium- to long-term). This should be coordinated by BBWS,
and implemented by DG Cipta Karya.
Regreening: 6,840 ha in the first phase (short-term) in the four sub-basins and 51,241 in the entire
Citarum UW in the second phase (medium- to long-term).
o In Protection and Production Forest areas, regreening is coordinated by Dinas Kehutanan
(RHL) and implemented by Perum Perhutani III (assisted by SOEs such as PT BUMN
Hijau Lestari). In Conservation Areas, the regreening is implemented by BKSDA.
o In APL areas, regreening activities are coordinated by Bappeda, and implemented by
Dinas Pertanian, RHL Dinas Kehutanan, perhaps assisted by SOEs such as PT BUMN
Hijau Lestari.
Terracing: 1,217 ha needed in first phase (short-term) in the four sub-basins, and 6,493 ha needed
in the entire Citarum UW in the second phase (medium- to long-term).
o In Protection and Production Forest areas: terracing is coordinated by Dinas Kehutanan
(RHL) and implemented by Perum Perhutani III (assisted by SOEs such PT BUMN Hijau
Lestari). In Conservation Forest areas, terracing is implemented by BKSDA.
o In APL areas, terracing activities are coordinated by Bappeda, and implemented by Dinas
Pertanian, RHL Dinas Kehutanan, perhaps assisted by SOEs such as PT BUMN Hijau
Lestari.
Check dams: 280 needed in first phase (short-term) in the four sub-basins and 2,290 needed in
the entire Citarum UW in the second phase (medium- to long-term).
o In Protection and Production Forest areas: the construction of check dams is coordinated
by Dinas Kehutanan (RHL) and implemented by Perum Perhutani III (assisted by SOEs
such PT BUMN Hijau Lestari). In Conservation Areas, the construction of check dams is
implemented by BKSDA.
o In APL areas, the construction of check dams is coordinated by Bappeda, and
implemented by Dinas Pertanian, RHL Dinas Kehutanan, perhaps assisted by SOEs such
as PT BUMN Hijau Lestari.
Monitoring and Evaluation

M&E of RLK activities should be led by RHL Dinas Kehutanan, and assessments should further involve
BPDAS, BKSDA Jabar and Dinas Pertanian (outside areas where they are directly involved as
implementing agencies; see 7.4). The M&E should not just cover the inputs and implementation activities,
but also the success rate and impact on land cover and erosion-reduction in the long-term.
78

7.2
Public awareness raising & involvement on RLK programs
The general public is reasonably well aware of issues in the Citarum UW as there are ongoing programs
focused on communication, awareness raising, and discussion. There is a Forum Kommunikasi DAS
Citarum, and a host of both environmental and socially-focused NGOs working on issues in the Citarum
UW.
Interviews with local farmers in the UW areas disclosed that farmers in the Citarum UW were provided with
general awareness, but when it comes to implementing RLK measures, the agencies often do not
communicate well and in a timely manner with communities directly affected by these measures, and
hence these programs often fail. Exceptions aside, (e.g. IPB program at Cileunca; programs by Perhutani
with MOUs for local villagers), farmers involved in RLK programs said that the implementers did not
communicate with local communities prior to implementation, and often simply showed up with seedlings,
provided some information about the hows and whys of the program and requested that the villagers plant
the seedlings. Also, once the seedlings were provided, there was usually no follow-up, and representatives
from the implementing agencies were seldom seen again. In some cases, seedlings were provided that
proved unsuited to local conditions (of soil/rainfall) while in other cases locals were unconvinced and
unwilling to plant trees in areas they consider important for vegetable growing.
What is needed is genuine local involvement in the RLK process at an early as possible stage, so that local
community members can be convinced, involved in tree/shrub species and site selection, and can
contribute to adaptations of programs and additions to proposed programs in a meaningful way.
Regreening, terracing and other civil engineering activities should only commence once these preparatory
stages with local community members have been successfully completed.
7.3
After care of RLK
Equally important for the success rate of RKL programs is after care, which at a minimum should include
tending of seedlings during the first two years. This should involve clearing of weeds and replacing
seedlings that have died. Such after care could be implemented by agencies carrying out the RLK
program, but could also be implemented by local villagers. In the latter case, this needs to be agreed
before the program commences, and be confirmed, for example, in an MOU between agency and
community representatives.
7.4
Monitoring & evaluation
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of RLK measures should be undertaken during the first 3-5 years
following field implementation of a rehabilitation program, until the planted trees/shrubs (such as coffee)
are already producing and are less likely to be removed. M&E should not be too elaborate, as this adds to
overall costs, but at a minimum it should involve annual reporting of the survival and growth rate and
annual increments of planted seedlings. In addition, it could include figures on impact on farmer incomes
(e.g. yield/ha), and be compared with previous years, and provide information on arising issues and how
these were dealt with. Also to be covered in M&E are visible signs of erosion, and the level of community
involvement (e.g. in weeding during years 1-2) on the program.
In order to be able to conduct M&E, the implementing agencies (IAs) must provide detailed maps
(including coordinates) of exact locations planted, along with dates of planting and lists of species, so that
these can be revisited and success rates verified. Only in this way can IAs be held accountable. It also
enables establishing effective incentives, such as linking future contracts with IAs to past success rates, as
determined by an independent M&E.
79
In discussions with the MoF (BKSDA), it was suggested that M&E of RLK activities might be led by the
Bidang RHL Dinas Kehutanan, and that assessment should further involve BPDAS, BKSDA Jabar and
Dinas Pertanian. The RHL Kehutanan and BPDAS are perceived as neutral agencies as they have little
direct involvement in RLK activities. If the BKSDA and Dinas Pertanian are to be involved in M&E of RLK
areas, they should only cover areas where they are not involved as IAs.
M&E reports should be provided to Bappenas, with copies sent to Bappeda Jawa Barat, BBWS and the
Forum Konservasi DAS Citarum. The ICWRMIP report on independent M&E (IME) in the Citarum River
watershed (Korea Rural Community Corporation et al. 2014) does not provide much practical guidance to
stakeholders on M&E, but the report does advocate that future M&E should gradually focus more on
outcomes. However, we would argue that focusing on outcomes rather than inputs should be a high
priority now, and not something to aim at gradually in the future.
7.5
Benefits of UW rehabilitation
Rehabilitation of the Citarum UW provides a range of environmental and socio-economic benefits:
Socio-economic benefits include a reduction in the degree of flooding, and improved water
availability (for irrigation, potable water, industries) in the dry season. It also includes improved
lifespans for existing water infrastructure (irrigation, hydropower, and drinking water), other
infrastructure (e.g. less damage to roads) and health benefits (e.g. less flooding, better water
quality/availability, fewer landslides). Environmental benefits include improved habitats for wildlife,
increased carbon storage, more viable riverine habitats, and modulated regional weather (due to
impacts on humidity, rainfall patterns, albedo effect).
Financial benefits resulting from erosion reduction, amounting to approximately USD 9 million per
year. To illustrate this, with the present rates of erosion, the Saguling Reservoir accumulates >4
million tons (>2.4 million m) of sediment each year. Assuming that the cost of dredging, sediment
transport and disposal is around USD 5-10 per m, the annual dredging costs would amount to
some USD 18 million per year just for the Saguling Reservoir alone. If the entire Citarum UW is
rehabilitated, the regreening, terracing and civil engineering works are estimated to cost USD 4566 million. While RLK will not reduce erosion to zero, even halving the rate of sediment
accumulation in the Saguling reservoir, which is feasible under a successful RKL program, would
result in recovery of the investment in the RKL program in just 7 years.
The case of the Loess Plateau region in Central China (Box 4) illustrates that investment in regreening and
rehabilitation of the UW makes good economic sense. This program was implemented in a time span of
less than a decade, and resulted in significant environmental and socio-economic benefits.
In the context of a proposed PFR-2 investment program, we would recommend a phased approach, in the
short-term focussing RLK efforts on the sub-basins where PFR-2 investments are planned for bulk water
supply infrastructure, thus safeguarding these investments. In a next phase, investments in RLK should
spread and cover the entire Citarum UW.
80
Box 4. Loess Plateau Central China

The Loess Plateau, located in Central China along the
Yellow River, was formerly a huge source of sediment,
due to poor management practices and the naturally
erodible nature of these fine-grained eolic soils. Large
dams constructed along the Yellow River basically
served as very expensive sediment traps.
Photo:http://www.cbd.int/programmes/outreach/
awareness/restoration.shtml
From about 2002/3 onwards, the area was successfully

regreened at a fraction of the cost of one single large
dam. Since then, massive erosion has become a thing of
the past, and the area has become much more
productive.
Photo: http://blogs.worldbank.org/es/archive/201206
81
8. References
BPDAS (2009a) Rencana Teknik Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan (RTk RHL DAS Citarum Ciliwung).
Balai Pengelolaan DAS Citarum Ciliwung, Bogor 232 pp.
BPDAS (2009b) - Rencana Pengelolaan DAS Citarum Terpadu. Buku I. Laporan Utama. Balai
Pengelolaan DAS Citarum Ciliwung, Bogor 274 pp.
Departemen Pertanian (2009) Pedoman Teknis Konservasi DAS Hulu (KDH). Direktorat Pengelolaan
Lahan, Direktorat Jenderal Pengelolaan Lahan dan Air, Departemen Pertanian. Jakarta, 58 pp.
DHV, MLD, Deltares & Associates (2010) Citarum Stakeholders Analysis. B1 Report. TA 7189-INO:
Institutional Strengthening in the 6 Cis River Basin territory Package B for intergrated Water
Resources Management (IWRM). Asian Development Bank & Minstry of Public Works. 53 pp.
DHV, MLD, Deltares & Associates (2011a) Rancangan Pola Pengelolaan Source Daya Air Wilayah
Sungai 6 Cis. Cidanau - Ciujung - Cidurian - Cisadane - Ciliwung - Citarum. TA 7189-INO:
Institutional Strengthening in the 6 Cis River Basin territory Package B for intergrated Water
Resources Management (IWRM). Asian Development Bank & Minstry of Public Works. 138 pp.
DHV, MLD, Deltares & Associates (2011b) Final Report B.2 - Strategic Spatial Planning. Appendix 3 Upper Citarum Erosion and Sedimentation. TA 7189-INO: Institutional Strengthening in the 6 Cis
River Basin territory Package B for intergrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). Asian
Development Bank & Minstry of Public Works. 42 pp.
DHV, MLD, Deltares & Associates (2012) Final Report B1 Water Quality in Citarum River. Planning
interventions to improve water quality in Upper Citarum River. TA 7189-INO: Institutional
Strengthening in the 6 Cis River Basin territory Package B for intergrated Water Resources
Management (IWRM). Asian Development Bank & Minstry of Public Works. 61 pp.
Dinas Kehutanan (2009) Rencana Strategis. Dinas Kehutanan Provinsi Jawa Barat, Tahun 2008-2013.
Bandung, 60 pp.
Djuangsih, N. (1993) Understanding the state of river basin management from an environmental
toxicology perspective: an example from water pollution at Citarum River basin, West Java,
Indonesia. The Science of the Total Environment, Supplement 1993. Elsevier Science Publishers
B.V., Amsterdam, p:283-292.
Giesen, W. (2011) Task B1-6: Initial State of the Basin Report for the Citarum River. TA 7189-INO.
Institutional Strengthening for IWRM in the 6 Cis River Basin Territory Package B. Ministry of
Public Works, Jakarta & Asian Development Bank. DHV, Euroconsult Mott MacDonald, Demis,
Deltares and partners. Jakarta, 60 pp.
IPB (2012) Kajian Penataan Model Kawasan Lindung di Hulu DAS Citarum Laporan Akhir. Drafted by
Tim Fakultas Kehutanan, Institut Pertanian Bogor, in cooperation with Dinas Kehutanan Propinsi
Jawa Barat, 95 pp.
Klompe, Th.H.F. (1956) Publications on the geology and geophysics of Indonesia and adjacent areas in
1955 and addenda to the publications on the geology and geophysics of Indonesia and adjacent
areas 1952-1954.Indon. J. Natural Science 112, 2, p. 1-31.
Korea Rural Community Corporation et al. (2014) Evaluation Report. Performance of Interventions to
Improve the Condition of the Citarum River and Watershed. Summary report, Draft 7 May 2014.
Integrated Citarum Water Resource Managment Investment Program (ICWRMIP), Sub-Component
82
8.2 Independent Monitoring & Evaluation. KRCC, in joint venture with PT. REKA DESINDO
Mandiri Engineering Consultants and PT. GAFA Multi Consultants. For Bappenas. 51 pp.
Lufiandi (2011) Impact of Land Use Change on Water Management in Upper Citarum River Basin.
UNESCO-IHE, Delft, The Netherlands & Sriwijaya University, Palembang. MSc thesis. WSEHELWD-11.13, Delft, February 2011.
Parikesit, S., H., E. Triharyanto, B. Gunawan, A.H. Sunardi, and R. Ohtsuka (2005) Multi-source water
pollution in the Upper Citarum watershed, Indonesia, with special reference to its spatiotemporal
variation. Environmental sciences: an international journal of environmental physiology and
toxicology. 12 (3), pp. 121-131.
Praditia, L. (2010) Studi Kelayakan Pengelolaan Lahan Pada Kegiatan PLN Peduli Bersama Masyarakat
Dalam Menangani Lahan Kritis Di Kawasan PLTA Plengan. Departemen Manajmen Hutan, Fakultas
Kehutanan, Institut Pertanian Bogor. <Feasibility Study of Land Management on the Activities PLNs
Corporate Social Responsibility in Handling Critical Land in the Area Hydropower Plengan.> Skripsi,
92pp.
Prihatno, J., R. Kurniawan and S. Yudha (2013) Grand Design Model Desa Konservasi. Sebagai
Instrumen Penanganan Gangguan Kawasan Konservasi Ditinjau dari Program Pendekatan Sosial.
Balai Besar Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam Jawa Barat. ISBN No. 978-979-18773-3-6. 54 pp.
Sabdono, A., B. Rochaddi, A.S. Chrisna, and B.T. Susanti (2008) Persistent Organochlorine Residues in
Household Wells of Java Coastal Urban Areas, Indonesia.Journal of Applied Sciences 8 (12): 23182323.
Secretariat Forum DAS Citarum (2013) Citarum Bersih 2018. Pemerintah Provinsi Jawa Barat 2013.
Silitonga, P.H. (1973) - Geologic map of the Bandung Quadrangle, Java. Quad. 9/XIII-F, scale 1:100,000.
Geol. Survey Indonesia, Bandung.
Staarink, H. (2011) Pesticides in the Citarum Basin. A quick integrated assessment of pesticide hazard
and monitoring. TA 7189-INO: Institutional Strengthening For Integrated Water Recources
Management (IWRM) in the 6 Cis River Basin Territory-Package B. Task B1, State of the Basin
reporting. DHV & Deltares|Delft Hydraulics, for Ministry of Public Works, Jakarta, & Asian
Development Bank. 48 pp.
Sukardi, S., B. Warsito, H. Kisworo & Sukiyoto (2013) River Management in Indonesia. Ministry of Public
Works, Directorate General of Water Resources, Yayasan Air Adhi Eka & JICA. ISBN: 978-979-2564-62-4. Jakarta, Indonesia, 326 pp.
Suharyanto and J. Matsushita (2009) Integrated Basin-Based Wastewater Management System for
Water Pollution Control in Enclosed Water Body of Upper Citarum River Basin, Indonesia: Case of
Saguling Reservoir. http://wldb.ilec.or.jp/data/ilec/WLC13_Papers/S8/s8-2.pdf. International Lake
Environment Committee Foundation (ILEC), Proceedings of 13th Conference Wuhan 2009
Conference Papers. Lake Ecosystem Restoration: Global Challenges and the Chinese Initiative.
Session 8 Nonpoint source pollution prevention strategies in urban and rural areas. 9 pp.
Van Dijk, A.I.J.K. (2002) Water and Sediment Dynamics in Bench-terraced Agricultural Steeplands in
West Java, Indonesia. Thesis Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. - With ref. - With summary in Dutch and
Indonesian. ISBN 90-9016046-9. 370 pp.
Van Dijk, A.I.J.M., L.A. Bruijnzeel B and E. Purwanto (2004) Soil Conservation in Upland Java,
th
Indonesia: past failures, recent findings and future prospects. ISCO 2004 - 13 International Soil
Conservation Organisation Conference Brisbane, July 2004. Conserving Soil and Water for
Society: Sharing Solutions. Paper No. 218, 6 pp.
Whitten, A.J., Soeriaatmadja, R.E. and Afiff, S.A. (1996) The Ecology of Java and Bali. Periplus edition,
Singapore.
83
84
Annex 1. Field checking of map on

changes in critical land
Changes in critical land
Changes in critical land (lahan kritis) were mapped based on spatial data received from the mapping
department of the Ministry of Forestry (Baplan) for 2004 and 2011. A spatial comparison was made of the
occurrence of two key categories: critical land and very critical land (lahan kritis LK and lahan sangat
kritis LSK; see 4.5 and Figure 16). This analysis showed that in this period 662 ha of LK and LSK seemed
to have been successfully rehabilitated, while simultaneously 1,252 ha of new LK and LSK appeared,
apparently due to unsustainable practices leading to degradation.
It was considered necessary to field check these apparent rehabilitated and degraded areas, in order to:
i)
Verify that these changes are real and not due to mapping artefacts.
ii)
Assess what processes lead or contribute to land degradation.
iii)
Assess what processes lead to successful rehabilitation.
Three locations were selected for conducting field verification, namely a) Kertasari, b) Pangalengan and c)
Sumedang. The changes in critical land map was overlain over the 1:25,000 scale topographic map
series, to facilitate field orientation. Per location, at least one rehabilitated and one degraded area was
surveyed, which involved visual verification, taking of photographs and discussions with local community
members. Locations are indicated below in Map 1, while details per location are given further below.
Surveys were conducted on 1-2 May 2014.
Summary of conclusions
i)
ii)
iii)
The eight locations surveyed show consistently that the mapping of critical land by BPDAS
seems correct, and the differences observed between the 2004-2011 maps are not a mapping
artefact.
The causes of land degradation observed are: a) pressures to clear land (for crops) and fell
trees for timber production (e.g. for pulp); b) the need to replace a commodity that now has a
reduced market demand (in this case kina/cinchona) with more valuable vegetables and
coffee; and c) housing development. The felling of trees for timber appears to be cyclic.
The causes of land rehabilitation observed are: a) programs of intercropping trees and shrubs
such as coffee, with community participation; b) replanting with Sumatran pine trees for resin
exploitation (and local participation); c) replanting areas with fast growing trees such as jabon
Neolamarckia cadamba and suren Toona sureni. The latter is actually often alternated with
felling for timber, and appears cyclic.
85
Map 1. Location of sites visited during field check of changes in critical land map
Kertasari location
Pangalengan location
Sumedang location
86
1. Kertasari location
In the Kertasari location, one degraded unit (unit 1) and one rehabilitated unit (unit 2) were surveyed near
Desa Cikembang Satu and Kampung Palered, respectively. Both locations are at an altitude of around
1600m and lie in an area used for intensive cultivation of vegetables, especially white cabbage, carrots,
potatoes, leeks, tomatoes, chilli peppers and beans.
Degraded unit 1, located just east of Cikembang Satu, was found to entirely coincide with a former quinine
(kina) plantation owned by PT Nusantara VIII. The quinine factory located in Bandung was apparently
closed about 10 years ago, and since then the quinine trees (Cinchona officinalis, which were not
intercropped with anything else) have been felled and the area converted to intensive vegetable farming. In
most cases, this is without the introduction of either contour ploughing/planting terracing. At least some
farmers working on the area are employed by a local businessman, but the relationship with PT Nusantara
is unclear. Since last year, they have been replanting part of the area with coffee shrubs, intercropped with
vegetables, and reportedly this is to be extended over much of the unit. Vegetable crops are sold by
farmers at the following farm-gate prices: white cabbage (Rp. 3,000/kg), leeks (Rp. 4,000/kg) and chilli
peppers (Rp. 3-4,000/kg).
Photo 1. Felled quinine Cinchona officinalis trees with area between being prepared for planting
Rehabilitated unit 2, located south-southeast of Palered village, is an area that has largely been
successfully replanted with trees and shrubs. These are mainly Eucalyptus trees, but also include suren
Toona sureni, Sumatran pine Pinus merkusii and jackfruit Artocarpus heterophyllus (photo 2). Under and
between the trees coffee shrubs, bananas have been planted, along with elephant grass Pennisetum
purpureum along bunds. The planting program has been carried out with local participation. The replanting
is not 100%, as vegetables (with raised beds going up-down the slope) are still cultivated in patches in
between the groves of trees, but overall trees dominate the landscape.
87
Photo 2. Rehabilitated unit 2 at Palered, with Eucalyptus, coffee and various other tree/shrub species
2. Pangalengan location
In the Pangalengan location, one rehabilitated unit (unit 3) and one degraded unit (unit 4) were surveyed,
near Lebaksaat village, and between Badra (erroneously mapped as Basra) and Cinangka villages,
respectively. Both locations are at an altitude of around 1100-1200m and lie in an area of mixed cultivation
of vegetables, along with rice fields in the valley bottoms and tree groves (esp. Sumatran pine) along steep
slopes.
Rehabilitated unit 3, is located near Lebaksaat village, between the main road linking Pangalengan with
Bandung and the Cisangkuy River. These steep to very steep slopes have been successfully replanted by
Perum Perhutani III with Sumatran pine (photo 3), and while the trees are still small (dbh is variable, from
15-30 cm) some of these are already being tapped, indicating that they are at least 11-12 years old.
88
Photo 3. Rehabilitated unit 3 near Lebaksaat, replanted with Sumatran pine by Perum Perhutani IIII
Degraded unit 4, is located on steep slopes between Badra and Cinangka villages, close to PLNs
Cikalong hydropower plant. In this area, the steep slopes were formerly covered with a range of tree
species, including jabon Neolamarckia cadamba, suren Toona sureni, Eucalyptus and a range of fruit trees
including jackfruit/nangka (still visible in background of photo 4). These cleared areas are now cultivated
with tomatoes, chilli peppers, maize, beans, eggplant and false cardamon. Some coffee has been planted,
but this is very limited in area. There was a sign that an area of 40 ha had been replanted with jabon, aren
(Arenga pinnata), durian and nangka trees (7,100 in all) in 2011 by PT BUMN Hijau Lestari I. However,
while jabon were relatively common, none of the other three species were seen. Local villagers informed
that nangka, durian and aren do not grow in their area (it is not suited for these species), but that there was
no discussion beforehand with PT BUMN Hijau Lestari I the seedlings were dropped in the village and
the villagers asked to plant them.
3. Sumedang location
In the Sumedang location, two degraded units (units 5 and 6, located near Pasirhuni and between
Cibenda-Bumisatriaraharja, repectively), and two rehabilitated units (units 7 and 8, near Sukamantri and
Sindangmangoh, respectively) were surveyed. These locations are at an altitude of around 850-1000m and
lie in an area of mixed cultivation of vegetables (esp. cassave, maize, beans, chillis, tomatoes, bananas),
along with rice fields in the valley bottoms.
89
Photo 4. Degraded unit 4 between Badra and Cinangka; note original (forested) situation in background
Degraded unit 5, located near Pasirhuni, consists of steep slopes and many small household vegetable
plots, often lined with bananas and (fruit) trees (photo 5). There was active felling of timber trees going on
mainly jabon Neolamarckia cadamba and sengon Albizia chinensis and piles of logs were seen lying in
the village. Reportedly, the village is regularly visited by representatives from a pulp and paper company
(from Tasikmalaya), who purchase the wood for their pulp production, and this provides a strong incentive
to sell timber/fell trees. The process also stimulates a cycle of planting and felling.
Degraded unit 6, is located between Cibenda and Bumisatriaraharja villages. The position on the map is
incorrect as it should be located on the eastern side of the area of rice paddies, i.e. on the
Bumisatriaraharja side of the valley. The western side of the valley consists largely of Cibenda village
(houses), along with bamboo groves and dense tree groves (nangka, mahogany, jabon, mango, suren,
sengon). This degraded unit has been cleared for a large housing estate in all 4000 (small, selling at Rp
75m each) units are to be constructed and about a quarter have been constructed to date. The company
has constructed some terraces, but these are still bare and construction has not yet started (see photo 6).
90
Photo 5. Degraded unit 5 near Pasirhuni village; trees in back-right have been planted in past 3-5 years
Photo 6. Degraded unit 6 between Cibenda and Bumisatriaraharja, is a construction site for housing
91
Rehabilitated unit 7, near Sukamantri village, was found to be an area with many small scale village
vegetable gardens (esp. cassave, chilli peppers, beans, maize, tomatoes), along with fruit tree groves,
bamboo and rice paddies in lower areas. There has been a lot of replanting with jabon Neolamarckia
cadamba in and around the village (photo 7), and this has been continuing up to 2013. As elsewhere, there
seems to be a cycle here of planting and felling these trees, which are used for timber (interior parts of
houses) and sold for pulp production. Where an area emerges as lahan kritis or not probably depends on
the timing of the satellite imagery used, and whether there has just been a round of selling off timber in the
preceding 1-3 years.
Photo 7. In rehabilitated unit 7, areas have been replanted with jabon Neolamarckia cadamba
Rehabilitated unit 8, near Sindangnangoh, bears some similarity to unit 7, except that it is located on an
isolated hill without any sign of habitation. The hill had been replanted with trees, especially suren Toona
sureni, but also species such as jabon Neolamarckia cadamba, and even mango, mahogany and
nyamplung Calophyllum inophyllum. The suren trees appear to be about 8 years old, but many have been
felled (photo 8), probably after the imagery used in the 2011 assessment by Baplan was taken. The hill is
planted with cassave, maize, beans, groundnuts, sweet potato and tobacco.
92
Photo 8. In rehabilitated unit 8, areas replanted suren Toona sureni have recently been partially cleared
93

PFR2 Upper Watershed Management Plan (3-Jun-14) Ver-8.3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PFR2 Upper Watershed Management Plan (3-Jun-14) Ver-8.3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Citarum Upper Watershed

Euroconsult Mott MacDonald in association with:

Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management Investment Program PFR-2

Citarum Upper Watershed Management

ADB TA 7871-INO Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management

Green corner Save a

Citarum Upper Watershed Management Plan revised draft 3 June 2014

Issue and revision record

First draft (partial)

Marjanto & Slamet

Wim Giesen &

Wicher Boissevain n.a.

Completely revised draft

Wicher Boissevain Hero Heering

Added revisions following workshop

Wim Giesen &

at Bappeda on 3 April 2014

Wim Giesen &

Wicher Boissevain Hero Heering

T +31 (0)26 3577 111 F +31 (0)26 3577 577 W www.mottmac.com

Revised Maps and title

Citarum Upper Watershed Management Plan revised draft 3 June 2014

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this

T +31 (0)26 3577 111 F +31 (0)26 3577 577 W www.mottmac.com

Citarum Upper Watershed Management Plan revised draft 3 June 2014

Geographic & environmental conditions __________________________________________ 1

Geography & administration ___________________________________________________ 1

Topographic conditions _______________________________________________________ 4

Geological conditions _________________________________________________________ 5

Climatic conditions ___________________________________________________________ 6

Forestry status & conservation _________________________________________________ 7

Land Use-Land Cover ________________________________________________________ 9

Socio-economic conditions ___________________________________________________ 12

Social Conditions ___________________________________________________________ 12

Economic conditions ________________________________________________________ 12

Institutional aspects of Citarum UW Management

River basin rehabilitation: government agencies ___________________________________ 15

Bappenas & Bappeda _______________________________________________________ 15

Ministry of Home Affairs assistance through DG Bangda___________________________ 15

Ministry of Public Works, Ditjen SDA & BBWS Citarum _____________________________ 15

RHL Dinas Kehutanan _______________________________________________________ 17

Balai Besar Sumber Daya Alam (BKSDA) ________________________________________ 17

Dinas Pertanian / Ministry of Agriculture, through Dinas/Service ______________________ 17

River basin rehabilitation: institutes and state-owned enterprises ______________________ 18

Perum Perhutani ___________________________________________________________ 18

PT BUMN Hijau Lestari I _____________________________________________________ 18

Agricultural University Bogor (IPB) _____________________________________________ 19

Relations between agencies in RLK in the Citarum UW _____________________________ 19

Issues in the Citarum UW

Erosion & sedimentation _____________________________________________________ 21

Sediment loading ___________________________________________________________ 21

Critical lands / lahan kritis ____________________________________________________ 22

Unreliable water resources ___________________________________________________ 24

Water shortages ____________________________________________________________ 24

Euroconsult Mott MacDonald

Citarum Upper Watershed Management Plan revised draft 3 June 2014

Water pollution _____________________________________________________________ 26

Changes in LULC ___________________________________________________________ 29

Assessment of past RLK programs

Overview of past/ongoing RLK programs ________________________________________ 31

Focus of past/ongoing RLK programs ___________________________________________ 32

RHL Kehutanan (2007/2009) __________________________________________________ 32