Human-wildlife coexistence is a dynamic state in which the needs and interests of both humans and wildlife living in proximity to each other are generally met, though this coexistence may not be entirely free of negative interactions and may still contain some level of impact to both people and wildlife. Source: wwf.id

Multi-Stakeholder Meeting, Late 2024

On October 28, 2024, an intense discussion took place at Omah Relung, focusing on the disturbances experienced by farmers in Yogyakarta. The discussion revealed that the disturbances were widespread, especially in the southern regions (Imogiri, Bantul, and up to Gunungkidul Regency). Although the meeting was held at RELUNG, it was initiated by activists from organizations such as WALHI, Raptor Club Indonesia (RCI), farmer advocates, and agricultural extension workers who were concerned about the plight of dryland farmers in Yogyakarta. Their concern stemmed from the significant crop damage caused by the Long-tailed Macaques (Macaca fascicularis), which resulted in severe economic losses.

The meeting was attended by a diverse group, including representatives from the Environmental and Forestry Agency, BKSDA, Merapi National Park, YEU, and wildlife observers.

The meeting began with a presentation by WALHI, highlighting the changes in land cover due to regional infrastructure development (Southern Cross Road) and tourism projects in Gunungkidul. These developments have led to the loss of hundreds of hectares of macaque habitat, forcing the animals to seek new “homes”—often in farmers’ fields rich in food supply. In this context, the farmers’ concerns must be addressed, and those responsible for deforestation held accountable.

RCI emphasized that the MEP issue had persisted for over 20 years without resolution, with some farmers abandoning up to 8 hectares of land. RELUNG was urged to take responsibility, having followed this issue for two decades. Various strategies have been attempted—from deterrence, culling, and population control to spiritual approaches. There are technical solutions, such as sterilizing male macaques, though they are costly.

Mas Irfan from PPOT Bantul presented estimated economic losses through a sample calculation plot. Between January and April, damage across 4.5 hectares reached IDR 326 million. MEPs tend to attack specific plots, especially near harvest time.

YEU (YAKKUM Emergency Unit) shared valuable insights, even though they do not work directly on macaque issues. Their disaster resilience programs in five villages in Gunungkidul found MEP disturbances to be the top vulnerability—not drought or other disasters.

The Environmental and Forestry Office confirmed WALHI’s analysis that tourism-driven development is altering macaque habitats. They noted that feeding macaques—commonly practiced—is counterproductive and changes the animals’ behavior. The office expressed hope that such discussions would generate viable solutions. Wildlife activists reminded participants that MEPs, as fellow living beings, also deserve a proper habitat. A critical question was raised: are macaques disturbing humans, or are humans the ones who have taken over their habitat?

Other agencies, such as BKSDA and Merapi National Park, confirmed that crop damage from MEPs is also occurring in Sleman Regency. This confirmed that Yogyakarta’s MEP conflict spans from south to north: Kulon Progo, Bantul, Gunungkidul, and Sleman. Only Yogyakarta City remains unaffected.

Follow-Up Meetings

Following the October 2024 meeting, the MEP issue continued to evolve across Yogyakarta. RELUNG attended various events and discussions:

Lessons from the Process

Over nine months of engagement, several notable insights emerged. A key meeting on November 24, 2024, at the Yogyakarta Environmental and Forestry Office introduced the term “Negative Interaction” to describe the human–MEP dynamic. This terminology may be useful in future discourse.

MEP from a Policy Perspective

MEPs are highly adaptable generalist species. Their populations have surged due to a lack of natural predators and human-generated food sources (Crockett & Wilson, 1980; IUCN Red List, 2023). Though not listed as protected under Ministry Regulation No. P.106 of 2018, MEPs are classified as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List due to habitat pressure and poaching in other areas. This calls for a precautionary approach in managing human–wildlife conflict.

Conflict mitigation should align with Ministry of Forestry Regulation No. P.48/Menhut-II/2008 on Wildlife Conflict Resolution Guidelines. This mandates a structural role for Yogyakarta’s government in strengthening cross-sectoral monitoring and coordination.

Strong Local Government Commitment

Yogyakarta’s regional government has shown considerable concern regarding the negative interactions between farmers and MEPs. The regional legislative body (DPRD) views this as a critical farmer issue. Their proactive involvement through various programs and meetings serves as a solid foundation for developing long-term resolution strategies.

Grassroots Initiatives Emerging

Farmers and agricultural extension agents have implemented numerous adaptive strategies to cope with negative MEP interactions, some of which effectively protect crops:

• Use of scare devices (scarecrows, noise-makers)

• Planting species not favored by MEPs, such as chili, legumes (e.g., benguk), kecipir, and medicinal plants

• Protective plants like secang and jarak used as natural fences

• Collective and individual patrol systems in Paliyan, Giricahyo, and Girimulyo

These measures emerged after earlier attempts at population reduction, which are now seen as ineffective. Farmers understandably wish to end the crop damage. Proven adaptive practices should be carefully studied and scaled up.

What’s Next?

The MEP-farmer conflict in Yogyakarta clearly requires multi-stakeholder attention. Habitat restoration efforts have had limited success and may risk budget inefficiencies. However, local farmers have developed effective, replicable practices. Moving forward, the following steps are critical:

1. Observe and validate best practices from the field for effectiveness and potential replication.

2. Disseminate proven strategies that reduce the impact of negative interactions.

3. Develop a transparent, participatory, multi-sectoral population data system to avoid conflicting interpretations or data disputes.

4. Strengthen communication and synergy in data, experiences, and planning among stakeholders.

With consistent collaboration, coordination, and shared learning, this complex issue can be addressed step by step toward a viable solution.

Contributors:

Akhmad Arief Fahmi