A Socioeconomic Perspective of Environmental ...

Coastal Management, 30:167–181, 2002 Copyright ã 2002 Taylor & Francis 0892-0753 /02 $12.00 + .00

A Socioeconomic Perspective of Environmental Degradation at Kepulauan Seribu Marine National Park, Indonesia AKHMAD FAUZI Department of Fisheries Economics and Center for Coastal and Marine Resource Studies Bogor Agricultural University Bogor, Indonesia

ENY ANGGRAINI BUCHARY Fisheries Centre The University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Kepulauan Seribu was designated as a marine protected area to promote and protect a healthy marine ecosystem and its biodiversity. However, despite numerous efforts to protect the area, the park continues to be impacted by both external and internal factors. External factors include domestic sewage, vessel traffic, industrial effluent, and urban run-off from metropolitan Jakarta. Meanwhile, internal factors include the problems created by tourism development and the impacts of the economic activities of the park’s residents. The ongoing political and economic crisis in Indonesia, which has plagued the country since 1997, has amplified the pressure on the resources and on the well being of the park. This study traces and analyzes the intrinsic causes of the internal problems using a socioeconomic perspective. We suggest that alleviation of poverty and marginality of the park’s residents should be prioritized, and that park management should be based on consensus building and participation of all stakeholders. Keywords environmental degradation, Indonesia, Kepulauan Seribu, marine protected areas, socioeconomics,

Received 12 September 2000; accepted 12 October 2001. We thank all the islanders who were interviewed during the recent visits to KSMNP made by the first author and his team from IPB. We also thank Mr. A. Rusandi of PKA for his help in providing much-needed information. Our thanks also go to Dr. J. Alder for extensive comments on the manuscript drafts, Drs. R. Watson and J. Alder for their assistance in producing Figure 1, three students (N. Zulbainarni, B. Nababan, and T. Gunawan) of the first author for their assistance in data mining, and three anonymous reviewers for extensive comments on the earlier draft of this manuscript. Address correspondence to Eny Anggraini Buchary, Fisheries Centre, The University of British Columbia, 2204 Main Mall, Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z4. E-mail: [email protected]

167

168

A. Fauzi and E. A. Buchary

Introduction Proponents of marine protected areas (MPAs), especially in developing countries, have argued that along with ecological conservation and protection, economic and social benefits will be gained locally and nationally from the establishment of MPAs. To achieve and maintain successful operations of MPAs, arguments have been put forward for the inclusion of both social and economic variables in the decision to establish MPAs (Sumaila, 1998). However, few studies have been published that assess the social and economic impact of establishing MPAs in Indonesia. Indonesia contains the richest marine diversity in the world, with more than 450 species of scleractinian corals (Tomascik et al., 1997a) and more than 2,000 fish species recorded (Froese, Luna, & Capuli, 1996). These marine resources are important to the livelihood of Indonesian coastal people, who make up 60% (Burbridge et al., 1988, cited in Tomascik et al., 1997b) of the total population, which was about 207 million in 1998 (FAO, 2001a). It is estimated that almost 80% of the coastal population engage in marine resource–dependent activities such as fishing and mariculture (World Wide Fund for Nature, 1994). In terms of fish consumption, it is also recognized that fish and marine products play a major role in Indonesians’ daily food consumption. On average, fish contributes nearly two-thirds of the supply of animal protein in Indonesia (FAO, 2001a). As FAO (2001b) described, in many developing countries such as Indonesia the average per capita consumption of fish may be low, but fish may be the staple food in coastal areas and among the poor. During the last three decades of “New Order,” the political model instituted by the Suharto regime, rapid population growth and the need for foreign exchange driven by a growth-oriented macroeconomic policy exerted great pressure on Indonesia’s marine resources (Dahuri & Dutton, 2000). In addition to that, the New Order’s development paradigms had created systemic problems known as KKN (i.e., corruption, collusion, and nepotism) in both government and public systems. As a consequence, resources were heavily exploited, destructive fishing practices were widely used, and widespread degradation of the marine areas occurred. Several examples highlight this degradation. The total value of export of fisheries products increased significantly from U.S.$2.8 million in 1968 to U.S.$2.0 billion in 1999, a more than 600-fold increase (DGF, 2000). This increase in production was driven by the export-oriented policy of fish and fisheries products during the last 20 years and was principally accomplished by developing a large aquaculture sector and expansion of capture fisheries. Consequently, an estimated 700,000 ha of Indonesia’s mangroves were converted to various uses such as coastal aquaculture ponds (Gomez, 1993). Destructive fishing practices such as blast and cyanide fishing have damaged an estimated 80% of the coral reefs in eastern Indonesia (Lundin & Linden, 1993, cited in Halpenny, 1995). At its peak, the net quantifiable loss to the Indonesian economy due to cyanide fishing was U.S.$46 million over four years in 1997 value terms (Cesar et al., 1997). Pet-Soede, Cesar, and Pet (1999) have stated that the economic loss due to blast fishing after 20 years has been about U.S.$306,800 per square kilometer. This reflects a cost to society that is four times larger than the total net benefit obtained by private fishers from blast fishing. Erdmann and Pet (1999) observed that the current post-1997 economic crisis has further increased the level of destructive fishing practices, despite the impact of destructive fishing practices on the marine ecosystem and the economic losses to society. The economic crisis seems to have resulted in government and businesses “selling off” these marine resources at an even more alarming rate to generate desperately needed foreign capital (Erdmann & Pet, 1999). The use of a conventional public resource management policy, such as using a rationalization policy by means of taxation or limited entry, is hard to implement given

Socioeconomic Perspective of Environmental Degradation

169

the complexity of the multispecies nature of the resources and the lack of ecosystembased knowledge of the ecological characteristics of most areas. Added to this, the socioeconomic problems faced by the coastal communities, the complexity of policy implementation and institutional arrangements, and the lack of monetary and technical resources from the government serve to hinder the development of coordinated policy. Faced with these barriers, policy makers are now paying more attention to the concept of MPA as a management tool for areas that are ecologically important and under serious threat from human activities. Ambitious plans for MPAs have been in existence for some time, especially since 1990, when the National Act No. 5/1990 pertaining to the Conservation of Living Resources and Their Ecosystem was passed (Hopley & Suharsono, 2000). The government declared a national policy to protect 10 million ha by the end of 1994 and 30 million ha by the end of 2000 (Moosa, 1999, cited in Hopley & Suharsono, 2000). However, the rate of protection is lagging behind these targets: currently, there are only 34 MPAs established covering 4.6 million ha and only three have implemented management plans (Hopley & Suharsono, 2000). It is argued here that poverty and marginality,1 two major practical constraints to implementing marine conservation in Indonesia, must be alleviated before substantial progress can be made in managing MPAs for more philosophical values such as conservation and biodiversity. This article will focus on these two constraints, using a specific case study of the Kepulauan Seribu Marine National Park (KSMNP, or “the park”), the first MPA in Indonesia, as well as possible means for the resolution of these two constraints. A brief review of KSMNP is highlighted based on a few recent observations by the first author and a research team from the Department of Fisheries Economics of Bogor Agricultural University (Institut Pertanian Bogor, IPB) in KSMNP that used, among others, semistructure interviews. Analysis is drawn based on these observations, data from published and unpublished reports, and personal communication with the staff of the Directorate General for Nature Protection and Conservation (PKA) (formerly the Directorate General for Forest Protection and Nature Conservation, PHPA), which is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forestry and is responsible for gazetting MPAs.

An Overview of Kepulauan Seribu Kepulauan Seribu (Figure 1), literally “The Archipelago of a Thousand Islands,” gets its name from the chain of more than 120 small coral islands, none more than 2 meters in elevation (Park, 1997), scattered around the northern part of the Jakarta Bay in the southwest Java Sea. The islands extend 80 km in a northerly direction in Jakarta Bay. The KSMNP itself is in the northern three-quarters of the chain of islands. The park covers an area of 108,000 ha with 78 islands (A. Rusandi, Research Institute for KSMNP of PKA, personal communication). The park is located within the municipality district government (kotamadya) of North Jakarta and is locally administrated under the jurisdiction of a subdistrict government (kecamatan) of Kepulauan Seribu. Under this kecamatan, the park spans the jurisdiction of two of the four local village-level governments (kelurahan) Pulau Panggang and Kelurahan Pulau Kelapa. The other two villages, Kelurahan Pulau Tidung and Kelurahan Pulau Untung Jawa, are located outside the KSMNP boundary, but are still under the administration of Kecamatan Kepulauan Seribu. Though the general environmental quality in the area is now declining, Kepulauan Seribu is still relatively rich with marine resources such as coral reefs, reef-associated fish, invertebrates, seabirds, and turtles. The islands of Kepulauan Seribu are also surrounded by mangroves, sandy beaches, seaweed, and seagrass beds. Because of its close proximity to Jakarta, a metropolitan city of about 12 million people, Kepulauan Seribu serves as a holiday destination for people in Jakarta and

170


Figure 1. Kepulauan Seribu Marine National Park (5o24"S to 5 o45"S and 106o25"E to 106o40"E). Stippled areas indicate reefs surrounding the islands.


171

vicinity. The area offers a noise- and air-pollution-free environment, something not commonly found in the crowded capital city. In addition to their use for water sports and recreation, the islands are utilized for educational and military training purposes. The islands are subjected to considerable pressure from human use. In 2000, the total population in KSMNP was just over 10,000 people, while the population of the Kepulauan Seribu was more than 17,000, with most residents on Kelurahan Pulau Kelapa. Recent statistics (Table 1) indicate that the major source of livelihood for the resident islanders in KSMNP is marine-dependent activities such as small-scale fishing, marine fish farming/rearing, and seaweed culture. The population growth within KSMNP between 1989 and 2000 was approximately 19% (Table 1). Overall, this population growth was mainly in fishing-related activities. In 2000, fishing activity dominated in Kelurahan Pulau Panggang (42% fishers) but not in Kelurahan Pulau Kelapa (26% fishers). In addition to the fishers, those who work in “other occupations” (34%) in Kelurahan Pulau Kelapa in 2000 were dominated by those who work in marine-dependent activities (A. Fauzi, personal observation). This includes “self-employed” residents (sand and coral mining businesses) and “laborers” (fishingrelated activities). Consequently, the overall impact of an increase in these employment categories also affected the condition of the marine resources in the park. Within 11 years, recruitment into the “fishers” group and other marine activities–related occupations has been substantial (Table 1). In both kelurahans within the park, the number of fishers increased more than twofold in 11 years. Outside the park, in Kelurahan Pulau Tidung and Kelurahan Pulau Untung Jawa, however, the overall number of fishers only increased slightly in 11 years (Table 1).

Kepulauan Seribu as an MPA The history of KSMNP is unfortunately one of continued degradation of both the ecosystem and environmental resources without any real sanctions applied against violators. The implementation of management regulations has also been very weak. External and internal factors have created problems in implementing effective management of the park. External factors include pollution from Jakarta in the form of urban run-off and industrial effluent, vessel traffic, and continuing jurisdictional disputes over park management. Meanwhile, internal factors deal mainly with the marginalization of the islanders in the wider social, economic, and political life of Indonesia. The development of KSMNP since it was decreed a conservation zone in 1970 is detailed in Alder, Sloan, and Uktolseya (1994b) and Yates (1994) and summarized here to provide background to the current situation. In 1970, a decree by the then-Governor of Metropolitan Jakarta prohibited sand and coral mining activities around the Kepulauan Seribu islands. However, the decree was rarely enforced and illegal coral and sand mining continued. In 1982, a Minister of Agriculture decree (No. 527/Kpts/Um/7/82) declared the area a Strict Nature Reserve (Cagar Alam Laut), the equivalent of the International Union of Nature and Conservation (IUCN) category 1 protected area. This decree was prompted by various anthropogenic pressures around the islands (Yates, 1994) and was aimed to control overfishing and island development (Alder, Sloan, & Uktolseya, 1994b). In 1986, a zoning plan was drafted and gazetted (Yates, 1994). The zoning plan divided the park into four zones, a sanctuary or core zone, a wilderness zone, an intensive use zone, and a buffer zone. The stakeholders—the resident islanders, the fishers, and park users—were not consulted during the process (Alder, Sloan, & Uktolseya, 1994b). Although there was a general agreement about the types of zones declared, stakeholders did not agree on the spatial application of these zones (Alder, Sloan, &

172 204 (17%) 1,332 (26%)

Kelurahan Pulau Untung Jawa

Total

1,308 (14%)

Total

1,128 (29%)

692 (12%)

Kelurahan Pulau Kelapa

Kelurahan Pulau Tidung

616 (18%)

Kelurahan Pulau Panggang

1989

1,350 (19%)

250 (16%)

1,100 (20%)

3,483 (32%)

1,750 (26%)

1,733 (42%)

2000

197 (4%)

45 (4%)

152 (4%)

204 (2%)

112 (2%)

92 (3%)

1989

2,838 (40%)

690 (44%)

2,148 (39%)

2,650 (24%)

2,294 (34%)

356 (9%)

2000

3,661 (70%)

970 (67%)

2,661 (67%)

7,574 (83%)

4,839 (86%)

2,735 (79%)

1989

2,949 (41%)

629 (40%)

2,320 (41%)

4,721 (43%)

2,651 (40%)

2,070 (49%)

2000

Not in the workforce

5,160

1,219

3,941

9,086

5,643

3,443

1989

Total

7,137

1,569

5,568

10,854

6,695

4,159

2000

Population

38

29

41

19

19

21

% change from 1989 to 2000

Note. Population numbers for the two discrete periods and their percent change are also given. The category of “other occupation” includes civil servants and military personnel, traders, laborers and the self-employed. Data source: Gugus Analisis (1990) and Pemerintah Kecamatan Kepulauan Seribu (2001).

Outside KSMNP

Inside KSMNP

Location

Fishers

Other occupations

Occupation

Table 1 Distribution of employment (number of people and percentage to total population) within Kepulauan Seribu in 1989 and 2000, including those inside and outside KSMNP

172 A. Fauzi and E. A. Buchary


173

Uktolseya, 1994b). Conflicts over the zoning plan continued until 1992, when the zoning plan was revised to include five zones, a core zone, an intensive use zone, a buffer zone, a protected zone, and a limited protected zone (Alder, Sloan, & Uktolseya, 1994b). By the early 1990s, KSMNP officers completed a management plan but it had never been approved and implemented by Perlindungan Hutan dan Pengawetan Alam (PHPA) (Alder, Sloan, & Uktolseya, 1994a). The park status was reconfirmed in 1995 when a Minister of Forestry decree (No. 162/Kpts-II/1995) changed the status of the area to Marine National Park (Taman Nasional Laut), the equivalent of the IUCN category 2 protected area. Recently, a new management plan had been redrafted and has been finally approved by Perlindungan don Konservosi Alam (PKA) and Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah (Regional Development Planning Board) of the Special Capital District Government (Daerah Khusus Ibukota, DKI) of Jakarta (A. Rusandi, personal communication, 6 September 2000). Under this new management plan, the park zoning system has once again been changed to four zones: a sanctuary zone, a wilderness zone, an intensive use zone, and a traditional use zone to reflect the zoning system specified in Law No. 5/1990. This law also allows for a buffer area adjacent to and outside of a park, as is the case in KSMNP. The previous “buffer zone” within the park was renamed to “traditional use zone” to avoid confusion between the two areas (A. Rusandi, personal communication, 3 September 2000). Principally, under the new management plan, there is a scope for the zoning system of the KSMNP to be modified again in the future to accommodate possible changes in administrative arrangement and possible changes in ecological considerations (A. Rusandi, personal communication, 3 September 2000). Changes in administrative arrangements is highly likely with the recent partial devolution of government function to the local/community level in Indonesia. Physical disturbances within KSMNP continued, despite numerous attempts to achieve the objectives of the establishment of the park and to protect the park from any anthropogenic changes. These disturbances varied from illegal entry to the park to more serious offences such as destructive fishing. During the period 1992 to 1994, infringements involving not only one person but also a community group of an island were recorded throughout the park (Table 2). These infringements could have been reduced if the communities had been involved in the establishment and management of the park from the beginning. Alder, Sloan, and Uktolseya (1994a) outlined the process for nominating and declaring MPAs in Indonesia. In this process, there was inadequate provision for public participation and consultation which are a key to building consensus and acceptance. Sobel (1996) stated that like other public policy decisions, establishing an MPA is a political process. Essentially, in Sobel’s words, establishing an MPA is a process in which “science may inform the debate and influence the outcome, but it won’t make the decision [of establishing an MPA]. Ultimately, there must be enough public and user support for [marine] reserves to overcome the natural resistance of some special interest groups and decision-makers to changing the status quo.” A few good examples exist within the region. The Apo Island Marine Sanctuary in the Philippines is a success story in which local communities were involved in the whole process from the beginning, resulting in a situation in which the communities are committed to the goal and hold responsibility for the outcome (White, 1989). Another example is a case study of the Hong Kong fisheries conservation program, which included the establishment of MPAs around deployed artificial reefs in order to restore destroyed bottom habitat and depleted fish stocks (Wilson & Cook, 1998; Pitcher et al., 2000). Stakeholder consultations provided unexpected support from the many small-scale and traditional fishers for no-take areas around some artificial reefs, despite resistance from vocal and well-organized shrimp trawlers (Clarke et al., 1999). The Blongko Marine

174

A. Fauzi and E. A. Buchary Table 2 Recorded incident of offences around KSMNP, 1992–1994

Type of offense

Year

Total offenses

Location of incident

Number of offenders

Fishing with poison

1992 1993 1993

2 2 1

IUZ TUZ SZ

9 fishers 10 fishers 10 fishers

Entering a Sanctuary Zone without authorization

1992

2

SZ

1993 1994

1 1

SZ SZ

Oil company, 3 fishers 4 fishers 3 fishers

Sand mining

1992 1992 1993

1 1 2

TUZ IUZ IUZ

1 person Community* Community*

Coral mining

1993

2

IUZ

Fishing with dynamite

1992

1

IUZ

1 person, community* 6 fishers**

Note. IUZ = intensive use zone, TUZ = traditional use zone, and SZ = sanctuary zone. *Community is here defined as a group of people from a particular island. **Anecdotal information indicates that there were eight more incidents of dynamite fishing during this year.

Sanctuary in North Sulawesi, where villagers set aside 6 ha of reef and mangrove forest, is the first community-run marine sanctuary in Indonesia and with fishers seeing the results less than a year later (Crawford et al., 1998; Rogers 2000). These examples show that resources could not be protected or managed on a sustainable basis unless those who utilize the resources are committed to the overall goal of the resource protection and involved in the management. A top-down approach by itself will not create a sense of ownership and stewardship by the community. It is apparent that in KSMNP no sense of ownership and community responsibility has been established.

Tracing the Intrinsic Causes of Environmental Degradation in KSMNP From a socioeconomic perspective, several causes drive islanders to engage in destructive and risky activities within the park. These causes have been sorted and charted into a model of the causes of disturbances around KSMNP (Figure 2). Departing from both social and economic factors, we categorized these causes into two major types of disturbances to the park. “Type 1 disturbances” deal with the physical or habitat destruction in the park. These include coral and sand mining as well as the deforestation of mangroves. “Type 2 disturbances” were resource destruction or overexploitation and include destructive fishing practices and illegal fishing. There are several causes motivated by the economic factors that lead to both types of disturbances. The first aspect is the demand and supply of housing materials. The supply of housing materials in Kepulauan Seribu, such as sand, rock, and stone for housing foundations, is very limited and expensive since it must be transported from the


175

Figure 2. A model of the causes of disturbances around KSMNP.

mainland. On the other hand, the increase in the island population has increased this demand. Incentives to mine coral reefs are further enhanced by the substantial economic returns from mined coral lime production. A recent study by Malay (2000) indicated that the monthly return from this activity is about U.S.$175 (in 2000 values). By comparison, the monthly return from fishing using traditional gear is only U.S.$60–80, and from fishing-related laboring, only U.S.$32. Consequently, illegal sand and coral mining continues unregulated with the consequential destruction of coral reefs, sandy beaches, and mangroves.

176


The second aspect is the human resources. Given the limited amount of community, infrastructure, and financial support, the situation is exacerbated by the limited number of park wardens engaged in monitoring the park. Currently the park is inadequately staffed and underequipped with 20 field personnel to effectively monitor the 108,000 ha of the park. This situation is worsened by the lack of motivation among wardens, mainly attributed to the lack of incentives and the low salary (U.S.$72/month in 2000 values) that they receive. Although the position of a warden (civil servant) virtually guarantees lifelong job security, many wardens are negligent in carrying out their duties. There is a minimum level of education of at least junior high school set by the national government to be a park warden. Positions as warden of the park are mostly filled by people from the mainland, who usually have the necessary formal education, while many islanders have not even completed primary school. Wardens are not provided with accommodation on the islands, and affordable accommodation on the islands is hard to find. Commuting to and from the mainland is also expensive. This makes the presence of wardens on the islands very transient; as a result, enforcement is weak. Without the constant presence of park wardens, illegal activities in the park are difficult to curb. Two additional aspects might be considered as triggers to overexploitation of resources. The first is the employment prospects for the islanders. Few islanders are educated past elementary level. While a very few have completed junior high and high school, the majority have never attended any school. Kepulauan Seribu as an administrative region (kecamatan) also lacks vocational educational facilities (such as technical schools). Existing formal educational facilities (e.g., the buildings of the schools, furniture, supplies, etc.) are of low quality and are poorly maintained, compared to formal educational facilities in other kecamatans within the municipality (kotamadya) of North Jakarta. This low level of formal education and the lack of employment alternatives results in islanders seeing entry to the fishery as their last resort for employment. The smallscale fishery is possible to access because the capital requirements are low and the gear is simple to use. For some fishers, no gear is needed since they glean the reef flat exclusively. When the demand for ornamental and reef fish is high, fishers are tempted to use any necessary means to catch the fish. Halpenny (1995) noted that fishers’ incomes are particularly boosted by selling ornamental fish. Fishers are not reluctant to use cyanide and dynamite to catch fish, despite the damage to the coral reefs and the health risks to themselves. The last aspect that might be considered as a trigger to overexploitation of resources is gear productivity. Fishers engage in illegal and destructive fishing because the productivity (in economic terms) of their traditional fishing gear is too low to sustain even their present marginal economic situation. From the fishers’ perspective, in desperation to curb their economic and social marginality and poor living standards, blast and cyanide fishing are the easiest and most lucrative way to get more fish with a minimum level of effort (see, e.g., Anggraini, 1990). Bailey (1988) found that in Indonesia, the various fisheries acted as a social “safety valve” for the landless and unemployed. This safety valve effect, the basic cause of the phenomenon now known as Malthusian overfishing (Pauly, 1994, 1997),2 suggests that the number of artisanal fishers will increase with time unless provisions are made to provide alternative income opportunities for would-be fishers (Pauly, 1997). The increasing number of fishers within KSMNP, either recruited internally or from outside, is obvious, as noted in Table 1. The shift of fishing patterns in KSMNP to destructive but efficient methods (by these newly recruited fishers) is another indication of Malthusian overfishing.


177

Pauly (1997) defined Malthusian overfishing as what happens when newly recruited fishers, who lack the land-based livelihood of traditional fishers (such as a small plot of land or seasonal work on nearby farms or plantations), are faced with declining catches. Often they induce wholesale resource destruction in order to meet their immediate needs. This Malthusian overfishing argument in KSMNP is supported by evidence noted by Tomascik et al. (1997b), who documented a decline in Caesio cuning and C. lunaris landings due to the destructive muro-ami 3 reef fishery in Kepulauan Seribu (Figure 3). Here, destructive muro-ami fishing practices (to fulfill immediate needs) created destruction of coral habitat, which eventually reduced the fish landing. Lacking other employment alternatives and increasing recruitment of fishers, this further propagated continuing resource destruction by the fishers themselves—a spiraling repeated pattern of Malthusian overfishing. The muro-ami reef fishery in Kepulauan Seribu started in 1943 (Anggraini, 1990), and by 1990 its demise was evident (Figure 3). The disturbances throughout the KSMNP are not merely triggered by economic factors. There are several social aspects contributing to the two types of disturbances charted in Figure 2. In general, these factors can be attributed to the lack of islander participation in the management, planning, and operation of the park. This has led to lingering ill feelings and mistrust of local government authority and mainland entrepreneurs who own resorts in the park. Eventually, this has led to a lack of appreciation and ignorance of the value of the park. A recent survey by students from the Department of Fisheries Economics of Bogor Agricultural University (Institut Pertanian Bogor, IPB) revealed that the islanders are not aware of the importance of the park. Most people who were interviewed thought that marine parks were merely playgrounds where their children could play. Effective communication problems can also be traced to the lack of information about the existence of the park. Posted signs have been stolen by the islanders or have deteriorated quickly due to the low quality of billboard materials. The destructive behavior of the islanders may also be attributed to the growing tourism industry. The islanders rarely share the benefits enjoyed by the tourism industry. Meanwhile, the lifestyle of the

Landings (tonnes)

1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200

1990

1984

1983

1982

1981

1980

1979

1978

1977

1976

1975

1974

1973

1972

1971

1970

1969

0

Year Figure 3. The recent history of declining coral reef fish landings from the destructive muro-ami fishery in Kepulauan Seribu (total catch per year in tonnes) (redrawn from Tomascik et al., 1997b, with permission).

178


tourists who visit the resorts may project an image of a “happy and prosperous life” that has fueled social jealousy. The direct and flow-on economic impacts of tourism to the islanders are rare since less than 5% of all tourism employees are from the local community (Halpenny, 1995). Tourism development has also led to land conflicts, as financial settlements to purchase islands for tourism development are not conducted in a satisfactory manner according to the islanders. Local officials estimated that mainland individuals and corporations have purchased usage rights to the islands from villagelevel governments (kelurahan) over the last 20 to 25 years, to the point where the islanders themselves now control only a small percentage of their original holdings (Yates, 1994). The tourism industry in KSMNP also has environmental implications since coral is used in the building of resorts and dredging for the construction of docking facilities has increased. Meanwhile, resort managers seem only peripherally aware of the park as a government institution, and they have little interaction with, or concern about, the authority of park officials (Yates, 1994).

Conclusion Development paradigms of the previous New Order government have created systemic problems that entrenched within Indonesian government and public systems (viz., corruption, collusion, and nepotism, known as KKN in Indonesia). These systemic problems, among others, have failed to acknowledge the legitimacy of public (cf. corporate) control of resources, as happened in the case of KSMNP. The good news is that the massive overhaul in social, economic, and political realms that has been happening in Indonesia in the past two years is starting to provide opportunities to discuss these problems openly and address them systematically. In line with these new hopeful changes in Indonesia, we attempt to look at the problems in KSMNP from a different perspective. In this article, an attempt has been made to trace the intrinsic causes of the social and economic problems associated with the establishment of a MPA in Kepulauan Seribu. The good intentions of a public authority alone have not been sufficient to achieve the objectives of the park. Several factors, poverty and marginality in particular, must be sufficiently addressed or the objectives of the park will not be met. Marginalization, which is the ultimate cause for Malthusian overfishing (Pauly, 1997), is happening in KSMNP. The majority of the islanders are socially, economically, and politically marginalized. Referring to the definition of “marginality” that we proposed earlier (see note 1), we noted as follows: the geographic remoteness of the KSMNP’s community from the kecamatan office (where most administrative management takes place), which is located on the mainland, makes commuting costs unaffordable for many islanders, resulting in, among other things, a socioeconomic remoteness (Figure 2). Ultimately this leads to a political remoteness from decision makers in major population centers and the exclusion of the islanders in many of the decision-making processes in the management and operations of the KSMNP, which mainly take place on the mainland. Although there is no simple, shortcut solution to the various deeply entrenched problems at KSMNP, based on the socioeconomic problems that we traced earlier, we see some possible means to start alleviating these poverty and marginality constraints, provided that there is goodwill from all parties involved. These include: 1. Adequate provision of alternative economic opportunities for the islanders that are nondestructive to the environment and nondisruptive to the social fabric of the community. This should be done in an integrated way with the growing tourism industry (e.g., tourist diving guides or setting up small-scale tour operators) and the fisheries activities (e.g., seaweed mariculture or recreational fishing for the tourists).


179

2. Provision of a working community educational/vocational facility for the islanders, especially for the would-be fishers, improvement of the existing formal educational facility, and an increase of school attendance by the fisherfolks’ children. 3. As part of current partial devolution of government functions to local communities, participation of the islanders should be introduced well in advance to create consensus building. Decision-making processes should also be brought to the kelurahan level, rather than only to the kecamatan level. This will eventually create a climate in which the islanders consider themselves as stewards and “owners” of the park and will therefore work cooperatively with the park wardens. However, it should be noted that unless the issues in item 1 are resolved, it would be difficult to meet the objective of islanders’ participation. 4. Introduction of an affirmative action plan in the employment system of the KSMNP and the tourism industry in the islands by allowing more islanders to be park wardens or to work in the tourism industry, regardless of their formal education level. This, obviously, should be followed up by special training programs; 5. Reallocation of the marine resources to small-scale fishers by limiting the activities of commercial fishing in the park that are mainly operated by nonislanders. 6. Provision of opportunities for the KSMNP islanders to learn by themselves from other communities’ success stories such as that of Blongko Marine Sanctuary (North Sulawesi). 7. Firm enforcement of conservation laws must be established by increasing the incentives, salary, and benefits for the park wardens and by increasing effective communication systems to both the local community and the tourism industry in the park.

All of this has to be acted upon, by both PKA and the local (kecamatan and kelurahan) governments, in collaboration with the islanders, the local (tourism and fisheries) industries, and both the formal and lay experts. Until the islanders perceive improvements to their socioeconomic conditions, there is no incentive for them to participate in MPA planning and management. The massive overhaul of government and public systems in the country will not be finished in the short term. Therefore, a long-term commitment for adaptive planning and management of coastal areas, including in the KSMNP, is needed.

Notes 1. Marginality is here defined following Pauly (1997), viz., the geographic/physical remoteness, socioeconomic remoteness, and, ultimately, political remoteness from decision makers in major population centers. Elaboration on marginality and marginalization in small-scale tropical fisheries was given in Pauly (1997). 2. The Malthusian overfishing concept was hypothesized and defined based on the contention of Rev. T. R. Malthus (1798) that “production (of food [or fish in this case]) cannot in the long run keep up with an ever increasing demand” (Pauly, 1997). Elaborations of this concept were given in Pauly (1994, 1997). 3. Muro-ami, known in Kepulauan Seribu as Jaring Jepang or Japanese net (Anggraini, 1990), is a drive-in type of gear (von Brandt, 1984), which uses numerous swimmers (in KSMNP, there are usually about 20 people in a group) to scare coral reef fish and herd them in the direction of a seine-like net with wings and a central bag. The swimmers frighten the fish by yelling, splashing, and dropping weighted lines festooned with brightly colored strips of plastic. These weighted lines often crash into the coral beds causing considerable physical damage to the coral community (Bailey & Dwiponggo, 1987; Tomascik et al., 1997b).

References Alder, J., N. A. Sloan, and H. Uktolseya. 1994a. Advances in marine protected area management in Indonesia: 1988–1993. Ocean and Coastal Management 25:63–75. Alder, J., N. A. Sloan, and H. Uktolseya. 1994b. A comparison of management planning and implementation in three Indonesian marine protected areas. Ocean and Coastal Management 24:179–198. Anggraini, E. 1990. Potensi dan sistem pengusahaan ikan-ikan karang di zona penyangga Taman Nasional Laut Kepulauan Seribu, Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta. Laporan Praktek Ketrampilan Lapang [Obser-

180


vation on the biological potential, harvesting and marketing of reef fish in the buffer zone of Kepulauan Seribu Marine National Park, DKI Jakarta. Report of Field Research Program]. Department of Living Aquatic Resource Management, Faculty of Fisheries, Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor, Indonesia. Bailey, C. 1988. The political economy of marine fisheries development in Indonesia. Indonesia 46:25–38. Bailey, C. and A. Dwiponggo. 1987. Indonesian marine fisheries: Structure and change. In Indonesian Marine Capture Fisheries, ed. C. Bailey, A. Dwiponggo, and F. Marahudin, 64–88. ICLARM Stud. Rev. 10. Cesar, H., C. G. Lundin, S. Bettencourt, and J. Dixon. 1997. Indonesian coral reefs—an economic analysis of a precious but threatened resource. Ambio 26(6):345–350. Clarke, S., A. W. Y. Leung, Y. M. Mak, R. Kennish, and N. Haggan. 1999. Consultation with local fishers on the Hong Kong artificial reefs initiative. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Artificial Reefs and Related Aquatic Habitat, ed. G. Relini, G. Ferarra, and E. Massaro, 190–197. San Remo: Italy, October 1999. Crawford, B. R., I. M. Dutton, C. Rotinsulu, and L. Z. Hale. 1998. Community-based coastal resources management in Indonesia: Examples and initial lessons from North Sulawesi. In Proceedings of the International Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management Symposium (ITMEMS), ed. I. Dight, R. Kenchington, and J. Baldwin. Townsville: Australia, November 1998, International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI). Dahuri, R. and I. Dutton. 2000. Integrated coastal and marine management enters a new era in Indonesia. Integrated Coastal Zone Management 1:11–16. Directorate General of Fisheries (DGF). 2000. Indonesian fisheries statistics. Jakarta: DGF. Erdmann, M. V., and J. S. Pet. 1999. Krismon and DFP: Some observations on the effects of the Asian financial crisis on destructive fishing practices in Indonesia. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin, 5. Available on-line from http://www.spc.org.nc/coastfish/News/LRF/5/7Krismo.htm. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2001a. FAO Fishery Department, Fishery Country Profile— Indonesia. Available on-line from http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp/indonese.asp, August 21, 2001. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2001b. FAO Focus: Fisheries and food security. Available online from http://www.fao.org/focus/e/fisheries/intro.htm, August 21, 2001. Froese, R., S. M. Luna, and E. C. Capuli. 1996. Checklist of marine fishes of Indonesia, compiled from published literature. In Baseline studies of biodiversity: The fish resources of Western Indonesia. ICLARM Stud. Rev. 23, ed. D. Pauly and P. Martosubroto, International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM). Makati City, Philippines, 217–275. Gomez, E. 1993. Coastal, inshore and marine problems. In Asia’s environmental future: The search for sustainability, ed. H. Brookfield and Y. Byron, 268–274. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Gugus Analisis. 1990. Nelayan dan konservasi sumberdaya perairan (Kasus kawasan Kepulauan Seribu dan sekitarnya) . [Fishers and the conservation of aquatic resources (a case study of Kepulauan Seribu area and its vicinity)]. WWF Report for the Marine Conservation Development Programme in Indonesia. World Wide Fund for Nature. Jakarta: Indonesia. Halpenny, E. 1995. Tourism and conservation: Pulau Seribu Marine National Park, Indonesia. Major Paper for The Degree of Master in Environmental Studies. York University, Toronto. Hopley, D., and Suharsono. 2000. Status of coral reefs in eastern Indonesia. In Report for the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN), series ed. C. Wilkinson, 114. Townsville: Australian Institute of Marine Science. Malay, F. 2000. Analisis ekonomi terumbu karang: Studi kasus di kawasan Pulau Kelapa, Taman Nasional Laut Kepulauan Seribu. [An economic analysis of coral reef: A case study of the area of Pulau Kelapa, Kepulauan Seribu Marine National Park]. B. S. Thesis. Department of Fisheries Economics, Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor, Indonesia. Malthus, T. R. 1798. An essay on the principle of population. Reprinted 1970 by Penguin Books, Harmondsworth , Middlesex, England. Park, R. K. 1997. Geological history of Pulau Seribu. In The ecology of the Indonesian seas: Part Two, The Ecology of Indonesia Series. Volume VIII, ed. T. Tomascik, A. J. Mah, A. Nontji, and M. K. Moosa, 722–724. Hong Kong: Periplus Editions (HK) Ltd. Pauly, D. 1994. On Malthusian overfishing. In On the sex of fish and the gender of scientists, ed. D. Pauly, 112–117. London: Chapman & Hall. Pauly, D. 1997. Small-scale fisheries in the tropics: marginality, marginalization and some implications for fisheries management. In Global trends: fisheries management (AFS Symposium 20), ed. E. K. Pikitch, D. D. Huppert, and M. P. Sissenwine, 40–49. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Pemerintah Kecamatan Kepulauan Seribu. 2001. Laporan penyelenggaraan pemerintah wilayah Kecamatan Kepulauan Seribu tahun 2000. [Report of the government activities of Kecamatan Kepulauan Seribu in 2000]. Jakarta: Government of Kecamatan Kepulauan Seribu.


181

Pet-Soede, C., H. S. J. Cesar, and J. S. Pet. 1999. An economic analysis of blast fishing on Indonesian Coral Reefs. Environmental Conservation 26(2):83–93. Pitcher, T. J., R. Watson, N. Haggan, S. Guénette, R. Kennish, U. R. Sumaila, D. Cook, K. Wilson, and A. Leung. 2000. Marine reserves and the restoration of fisheries and marine ecosystems in the South China Sea. Bulletin of Marine Science 66(3):530–566. Rogers, L. 2000. Villagers’ plan nets a big catch. The Jakarta Post, July 25, p. 10. Sobel, J. 1996. Marine reserves: Necessary tools for biodiversity conservation. Global Biodiversity 6(1):8– 18. Sumaila, U. R. 1998. Protected marine reserves as hedges against uncertainty: An economist ’s perspective. In Reinventing fisheries managemen t, ed. T. J. Picher, P. J. B. Hart, and D. Pauly, 303–309. Dordrecht , The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Tomascik, T., A. J. Mah, A. Nontji and M. K. Moosa. 1997a. The ecology of the Indonesian seas: Part one. In The Ecology of Indonesia series. Volume VII, 1–642. Hong Kong: Periplus Editions (HK) Ltd. Tomascik, T., A. J. Mah, A. Nontji and M. K. Moosa. 1997b. The ecology of the Indonesian seas: Part two. In The Ecology of Indonesia series. Volume VIII, 643–1388. Hong Kong: Periplus Editions (HK) Ltd. von Brandt, A. 1984. Fish catching methods of the world. 3rd ed. Farnham, England: Fishing News Book Ltd., 418 p. White, A. T. 1989. Two community-based marine reserves: Lessons for coastal management. In Coastal area management in Southeast Asia: Policies, management strategies and case studies, ed. T.-E. Chua and D. Pauly, 85–96. Proceedings of the ASEAN/US Policy Workshop on Coastal Area Management , Johore Bahru, Malaysia, October 25–27, 1988. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 19. Ministry of Science, Technology, and the Environment, Kuala Lumpur, and Johore State Economic Planning Unit: Johore Bahru, Malaysia; and International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM), Manila, Philippines. Wilson, K. D. P., and D. C. Cook 1998. Artificial reef development: A marine protected area approach. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Marine Biology of the South China Sea, ed. B. Morton, 529–539. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. World Wide Fund for Nature. 1994. Indonesia Programme 1993-1994: Conservation Programme. Jakarta: WWF-Indonesia. Yates, B. F. 1994. Implementing coastal zone management policy: Kepulauan Seribu Marine Park, Indonesia. Coastal Management 22(3):235–249.