Building Effective Co-Management Systems for Decentralized BNP Case Study

7/30/2019 Building Effective Co-Management Systems for Decentralized BNP Case Study

1/149


2/149

Building Effective CoManagement Systems

for Decentralized Protected Areas Management inIndonesia:

Bunaken National Park Case Study

MVErdman

PRMerrill

MMongdong

IArsyad

ZHarahap

RPangalila

R

Elverawati

PBaworo

Natural Resources Management Program

2004


3/149

TheNRM Program isacollaborative program between the government ofIndonesia and the United States

ofAmerica. The nine partners implementing the NRM Program include: (1) the NRM III, (2)Coastal

Resource Management Program II(CRMP IIMitra Pesisir); (3)GreenCom Indonesia; (4)TheUSDepartment

ofInterior, Office ofSurface Mines; (5)The Nature Conservancy; (6)Conservation International; (7)World

Wide Fund for Nature; (8)Yayasan Kemala; and (9)International Center forResearch and Agroforestry

(ICRAF).

NRM IIIProgram Secretariat

Ratu Plaza Building, 17th fl., JI. Jend. Sudirman 9, Jakarta 10270

Tel:

+62

(21)

7209596;

Fax:

+62

(21)

7204546;

e

mail:

[email protected]


4/149

iii

Table ofContents

ListofContents

Acknowledgements ix

Chapter 1:Background onBunaken National Park Management Strategy and Overview ofthis Case Study 1

1.1Introduction 1

1.2Managing Bunaken National Park 31.3USAIDSupport forBunaken National Park 6

1.4Lessons Learned Managing Bunaken National Park 10

1.5Report Objectives 14

1.6References Cited 14

Chapter 2:Building Constituency Based Partnerships forEffective National Park Management 17

2.1Participation, Partnerships, and CoManagement 17

2.2Background on Indonesias Evolving Protected Areas Management Strategy 18

2.3Building Constituency Based Partnerships 212.4The North Sulawesi Watersports Association 22

2.5The Bunaken National Park Concerned Citizens Forum 31

2.6 Lessons Learned Strengthening Bunakens Constituency Based Partnerships 41


Chapter 3:Decentralized CoManagement ofBunaken National Park via the BNPManagement Advisory Board 45

3.1Background on Bunaken National Park Management 45

3.2Laying the Foundation forCollaborative Management ofBunaken NP 46

3.3Bunakens Crown Jewel:the Multistakeholder BNPMAB 533.4The BNPMABExecutive Secretariat 54

3.5BNPMABSuccesses and Challenges, 20012003 56

3.6 Lessons Learned inthe Development ofCoManagement via the BNPMAB 64


3.8 Appendix: BNPMABAcceptance Speech 67

Chapter 4:Developing aDiversified Portfolio ofSustainable Financing Options forBunaken National Marine Park 71

4.1Introduction 71


5/149

iv

4.2Bunaken National Park Decentralized Entrance FeeSystem 74

4.2.1Background 74

4.2.2Development ofthe Entrance FeeSystem 75

4.2.3Salesand Control Systems 764.2.4Results ofBunaken Entrance FeeSystem (20012002) 83

4.2.5Problems Encountered and Ongoing Improvements tothe Entrance FeeSystem 87

4.3Additional Financing Resources 90

4.3.1Inkind Support from Private Sector 91

4.3.2International Volunteers System 92

4.3.3 Diversified Governmental Budgetary Support 93

4.3.4 National and International Grants 94

4.4Lessons Learned 94

4.5Future Plans 964.6Acknowledgements 97


Chapter 5:The Participatory Zonation Revision Process inBunaken National Park 99

5.1Introduction 99

5.2Evolution ofBunakens Zonation Plan 100

5.3Successful Elements ofBunakens Zonation System 101

5.4Elements ofthe Zonation System that Require Improvement 107

5.5Lessons Learned 108

5.6Acknowledgments 1095.7References Cited 109

Chapter 6:The Bunaken National Park Joint Patrol System: Lessons Learned from aMultistakeholder Enforcement Initiative 111

6.1Abstract 111

6.2Introduction and Background on Bunakens patrol system 111

6.3The Bunaken National Park JointPatrol System 113

6.4Results ofthe BNP JointPatrol System, 20012002 117

6.5Costs of JointPatrol System 119

6.6Problems Encountered 1196.7Lessons Learned 121

6.8Future Directions 123

6.9Acknowledgements 124


Chapter 7:Selected References onBunaken (through Dec2003) 127


6/149

v

ListofFigures

Figure 1.1. Location ofBunaken National Park at the northern tip ofSulawesi

Island, Indonesia.

Figure 1.2. Map ofBunaken National Park, detailing the northern and southern

sections ofthe park, fivemain islands, and the provincial capital city

ofManado.

Figure 2.1. Logo ofthe North Sulawesi Watersports Association.

Figure 2.2. Photos illustrating NSWAs program of 3Es: Employment,

Education and Enforcement.

Figure 2.3. The North Sulawesi Watersports Association environmental waiver.

Figure 2.4. Logo ofthe Bunaken NP Concerned Citizens Forum (FMPTNB).

Figure 2.5. FMPTNBVillage Information Billboards.

Figure 2.6. Photos illustrating village development projects overseen by the

FMPTNB.

Figure 3.1. Logos ofthe BTNBand BNPMAB.

Figure 4.1.Receipt slip forvoluntary preservation fee ofUS$5/diver instituted

bythe North Sulawesi Watersports Association inMay 2000.

Figure 4.2.Bunaken National Park yearly entrance tag designs, 2001 through

2004(chronologically from top).

Figure 4.3. Triplicate receipt forBunaken National Park entrance tags.

Figure 4.4. Bunaken National Park Entrance FeeFAQ sheet inEnglish.

Figure 4.5. International Tourism arrivals toBunaken National Park, 20012003.

Figure 4.6. Domestic Tourism arrivals toBunaken National Park, 20012003.

Figure 5.1. Zonation map ofBunaken Island.

Figure 5.2. Zonation map ofManado Tua Island.

2

4

23

26

30

35

37

39

51

73

79

80

82

84

85

104

105


7/149

vi

Figure 6.1. Members of the 2002 Bunaken National Park joint patrol team,

northern section.

Figure 6.2.Members of the 2002 Bunaken National Park joint patrol team, southern section.

Figure 6.3. Photo of3components of jointpatrol team: villagers, park rangers

and water police officers

Figure 6.4. Avillage patrol member inthe southern section releases ahawksbill

turtle that had been incaptivity.

Figure 6.5. One ofthe new polyethylene hull speedboats that the NRM program

has purchased forthe jointpatrol team.

115

115

116

118

120

ListofTables

Table 1.1 Chronology of events in the development of collaborative

management ofBunaken National Park

Table 1.2. Summary statistics on Indonesias national protected areas system

Table

2.1.

Key

initiatives

and

achievements

in

the

NSWAs

program

of

3Es

Box2.1. Building community pride inand support forBunaken NP through a

conservation awareness campaign

Table 3.1. Composition ofthe BNPMAB asstipulated byGovernors Decree

Table 3.2. Keyachievements and honors ofthe BNPMAB,20012003

Table 3.3. Village conservation and development projects funded byBNPMAB

in

2002

Table 3.4. Summary ofoutreach efforts byBNPMABand partners, 20012003

Table 4.1. A chronology of the development of the Bunaken National Park

entrance feesystem

Table 4.2. Summary ofBunaken NP tag purchases bycountry, 20012002.

Table 4.3. Entrance FeeSchedule forBunaken National Park asprescribed by

North

Sulawesi

Provincial

Law

No.

9/2002.

5

8

29

32

52

57

60

63

78

86

89


8/149

vii

Table 5.1. Zonation rules forManado Tua Island

Table 5.2 Additional general rules applying to all areas within the Bunaken National Park.

106

107


9/149


10/149

ix

Acknowledgements

USAIDsNatural Resources Management Program has been working inBunaken National

Park for over a decade now, and this case study represents the hard work, vision and

sacrifice of hundreds of people ranging from international scientists to traditional

fisherfolk, from governors to rangers, USAIDadministrators toManado citygovernment

officials. While the following listis byno means complete and we offer our sincere apologies

toany friends and colleagues that we inadvertently leftout, the authors would liketothank the following persons for their input and assistance in developing Bunakens co

management system: from USAID:APatterson, DHeesen, HFerrete, BBestand TMeyers;

from NRM: GUsher, TBrown, KAmes, JDjuang, HRotinsulu, YGunadi, MGerung, A

Winowatan, FWewengkan, MIndra, DReynolds, VPaendong, FRindengan, DNender, J

Pohajouw, A Kiraman, A Masso, Anggoro, Totok, E Effendi, Y Budi, Y Sulaiman, N

Sudarman; from BAPPENAS: HHaeruman and DRiyadi; from the Ministry ofForestrys

Directorate General ofForest Protection and Nature Conservation: Widodo, ASusniyanto, A

Toengkagie, Syhabuddin, RPaat, HSantoso, Dominggus, and the Bunaken rangers; from the

Bunaken Management Board: J.Manoppo, M.Wowiling, Malin, Sonny and Meidy; from

North Sulawesis provincial and local governments: F.Sualang, A.Pontoh, OPontoh, RTerok, DKasenda, A.Kenda, SPoluakan, DRengku, FKaunang, JKantaley, Sianturi, the

Mayor ofManado and the Bupati ofMinahasa; from the private tourism sector: Hand I

Batuna, ABatuna, PBatuna, DCharlton, SGerritsen, CMueller and TMassie, BMoore Jand

CYany, Rand J JongDikkers, Rand RDowney, NThomas and TMeltesen, Jaako,PBearzi,

MBoyer, and the entire NSWA, YSamuri; from the Bunaken Concerned Citizens Forum: Y

Kasehung, I Husein, A Kakomore, J Lompoliu, L Loho, L Sangoendang, M Bansuil, C

Harimisa and the entire FMPTNB;the Bunaken jointpatrol system; Kendage URuata; from

the local university UNSRAT: PPangemangan, SBerhimpon, HTioho; from Bunakens

volunteers program: LOwen, SNoack, ATrend, BBrown, and STompsett; from WWF:L

PetSoede, BLakaseru, K Putra, GLlewellyn; and from other national and international colleagues inmarine conservation: NDahl Tacconi, D.Silverstein, AMehta, KDeMeyer, M

Aw, TWu, WTan, MSeverns, JDavis, DEspinosa, LTalmage Perez, AMerkl and CCIF, J

Randall, J Pet, R Djohani, S Tighe, P Mous, M Knight, J Patlis, S Lourie, P Barber, B

Hoeksema, CWallace, ETurak, LDevantier, MMoore, R.Caldwell, MKMoosa, and SWada.


11/149


12/149

1

Chapter 1

Background on Bunaken National Park

Management Strategy and Overview ofthis

Case Study

1.1Introduction

Located in the center of the Coral Triangle comprising eastern Indonesia, southern

Philippines and the northern Great Barrier ReefinAustralia (Fig.1.1),Bunaken National

Park ishome tosome ofthe richest marine biodiversity inthe world. The89,000hectare

park provides habitat toatleast 1000species ofcoral reef fish from 175families (BNPMP,

1996),and approximately 400species ofscleractinianhard coral representing 63genera and

15 families (Turak and DeVantier, 2003). The largest biodiversity occurs on the parks

fringing

reefs,

while

deep

water

areas

between

islands

provide

habitat

for

pelagic

fish

and

mammal species including marlin, tuna, sharks, dolphins, orcas and pilot, sperm and

melon headed whales. Besides itsimportant coral reefs, the park contains approximately 20

percent ofthe regions mangrove habitat, with over 30mangrove species identified (Merrill

and Davie, 1996).Bunaken also provides habitat toanumber ofprotected marine species,

notably the dugong, green and hawksbill turtles, the Indonesian coelacanth, all seven

species ofgiant clam that occur inIndonesia, and several other mollusk species including

nautilus and triton (Weber and Saunders, 1996). Bunaken National Parks conservation

value isofinternational significance formarine biodiversity aswell asitstourism potential.

Bunaken

National

Park

provides

high

conservation

value

at

the

local

level

as

well.

Located

justashort boat ride away from the North Sulawesi capital, Manado, complete with its

international airport and booming tourism industry, Bunaken is an internationally

acclaimed divers paradise. Thecoral reefs and steep walls team with brightly colored fish

Sections ofthe material inthis chapter were previously published in:

Jamison B,Merrill P, and Erdmann MV(2003).Building Effective CoManagement Systems for

Decentralized Protected Areas Management inIndonesia: TheBunaken National Park Story.

DAIWater IQCCase Study Compendium. 12pp


13/149

Chapter 1

2

and other marine lifeand draw thousands ofserious divers from around the world each

year. Tourism contributes significantly to the economic growth of Manado and North

Sulawesi through business development and jobcreation in the service sector (hotels and

cottages, restaurants, and dive shops) aswell asgeneration oftax revenues forgovernment

led development initiatives. Bunaken National Park is also home to more than 30,000

villagers living in twenty two villages inor directly adjacent to the park. Many of these

villagers are dependent on park resources fortheir livelihoods aswell asthe major protein

source in their diet. While park stakeholders agree on Bunaken National Parks

conservation value at the local level, these stakeholders often compete forarange of the

parks resources including dive sites, fish and marine resources, mangroves and tourism

development.

Figure 1.1Locationof BunakenNationalParkatthenortherntipof SulawesiIsland,Indonesia intheheart

of thecoral

Given its high global and local conservation value, Indonesias Ministry of Forestry

declared Bunaken as a National Park in 1991.Comprising a total area of about 89,000

hectares, the park isdivided into two almost equally sized sections (Fig.1.2).Thenorthern

part ofthe park, including the major islands ofBunaken, Manado Tua, Mantahage, Nain

and Siladen, aswell ascoastline tothe north ofManado, isespecially important foritscoral

reefs and mangrove habitat. Todate, much ofthe tourism development has focused on the

northern section ofthe park, particularly around Bunaken Island. The southern part ofthe


14/149

Chapter 1

3

park runs adjacent tothe coastline south ofManado, and safeguards extensive mangrove

and seagrass habitats and their dependent dugong and green turtle populations.

1.2Managing Bunaken National Park

The Ministry of Forestry managed Bunaken National Park through the regional forest

conservation office(North Sulawesis SubBalaiKonservasiSumberDaya Alam ,or SBKSDA)

until 1997,when an independent technical management unit (UnitPelaksanaanTeknis ,or

UPT)was established (see chronology ofmanagement developments inTable 1.1).Under

both management structures, the Ministry ofForestry provided limited park management

through an under trained park staff (including poorly motivated and under paid park staff

and rangers) and insufficient equipment and operational funds. There was little presence of

staff and rangers inBunaken National Park and, more important, there was little interaction between Bunaken National Park staff and other government, non government and

community stakeholders.

Given the large number of people living within the park and the resultant competing

interests ofthe growing tourism industry and the thousands ofvillagers dependent on park

resources for their livelihoods, effective conservation management ofBunaken National

Park is dependent on the capacity to manage these stakeholders in a pro active and

collaborative manner. Provincial and local government agencies balked at the central

governments claim tomanagement authority over Bunaken National Park and resisted

early attempts toward collaborative management. Villagers within the park became increasingly disenchanted bythe mixed messages they received about living inanational

park, wavering between fear of being expelled from the park and frustration at empty

promises about how the park would enhance their development opportunities. Dive

operators became increasingly frustrated that the lack of conservation management of

Bunaken National park would threaten their investments, asthe parks reefs deteriorated at

an alarming rate and destructive fishing practices such as blast and cyanide fishing

proliferated.

Park management or lack there ofhit alow point in1997.TheAsian economic crisis

started to grip the region, and Indonesias government budgets for development, and especially conservation, were slashed. That year, Bunaken National Park was formally

established asan independent management unit, thus requiring amajor infusion offunds

for capital costs for infrastructure development and equipment procurement on top of

regular operational expenses. Yet central government Ministry of Forestry funds were

woefully insufficient tocover even basicoperational expenses tomanage an 89,000hectare

marine national park. Effective conservation management ofBunaken National Park hinged

on mending relationships with local government, non government and community

stakeholders, and developing adecentralized approach tocollaborative management that


15/149

Chapter 1

4

Figure 1.2: Mapof BunakenNationalPark,detailingthenorthernandsouthernsectionsof the park, five

mainislands,andthe provincialcapitalcityof Manado.Yellowdotsdepictvillagesinthe park.


16/149

Chapter 1

5

YEAR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT

1970s Local divers Dr. HannyBatuna, LokyHerlambang and RickyLasut discover Bunakens fantastic reefs and begin planning fordive tourismdevelopment

1980 Bunaken Island marine tourismpark officiallydeclared a TourismObject of Manado (SK Gubernor Sulut No. 224/1980). Divetourismin its infancy

1984 Area included in marine tourismpark expanded to include southern Arakan-Wowontulap mainland (SK Gubernor Sulut No.201/1984)

1986 Bunaken and Manado Tua Islands and northern and southern mainland sections gazetted as strict nature reserve byMinistryof Forestry(SK Menhut No. 328/Kpts-II/86)

1989 Ministryof Forestrygazettes area including Bunaken, Manado Tua, Siladen, Mantehage and Nain Islands and northern andsouthern mainland sections as national park (SK Menhut No. 444/Menhut-II/89)

1991 Bunaken is officiallydeclared Indonesias first national marine park (SK Menteri Kehutanan No. 730/Kpts-II/91)

1993 USAIDs NRMP project begins, with goal of developing 25 year management plan for Bunaken National Park in a participatorymanner

1996 NRMP closes with the publication of Bunaken National Park Management Plan. Dive tourism beginning to boom, withsignificant foreign investment.

1997 Independent Technical Management Unit established to manage park. Ministryof Forestryissues official zonation systemforBunaken that is different fromthat published in 25-year management plan (SK DirJen PHPA No. 147/1997)

1998 Formation of North Sulawesi Watersports Association byseven environmentallyactive dive operators

2000 NRM/EPIQimplements newset of co-management initiatives including participatoryzonation revision and development of

multistakeholder management board and decentralized user fee system. NSWA signs MOU with Bunaken park office and NorthSulawesi water police for routine joint patrols, funded byvoluntarydiver fees. Bunaken Concerned Citizens Forumis createdby local stakeholders in October, multistakeholder BNPMAB is sworn in byMinister of Forestry (SK Gubernur Sulut No.233/2000) and entrance fee systemis proscribed in provincial lawin December (PERDA SULUT No. 14/2000). Bunaken Islandfinalizes its revised zonation plan in December

2001 Entrance fee system is implemented in March. Executive Secretariat of BNPMAB is recruited and Bunaken jointvillager/ranger/water police patrol systemis developed.

2002 Entrance fee for foreign guests is doubled with strong support of tourismcommunity(PERDA SULUT No. 9/2002). BNPMABcompletes its first annual workplan and budget, publishes evaluation of its first year of operation, and finalizes its charter.Institutional development plan completed for BNPMAB. Manado Tua and Mantehage Islands finalize their revised zonationplans. Ministry of Forestrys Dept. of Nature Conservation formally recognizes BNPs co-mgmt systemas a model for allIndonesian National Parks (Surat Dirjen PHKA 1633/N/KK.6.02)

2003 Executive Director of BNPMAB is hired and NRMIII begins a 2 year process of institutional strengthening for BNPMAB. SiladenIsland finalizes its revised zonation plan. Southern section of Bunaken National Park (9 villages) set to finalize revisedzonation plan byclose of year. Bunaken Volunteers Programis developed.

Table 1.1:Chronologyof eventsinthedevelopmentof collaborativemanagementof BunakenNationalPark

would enable stakeholders towork together to identify available technical and financial

resources toinvest inthe conservation management ofBunaken National Park.

.


17/149

Chapter 1

6

While the Asian economic crisis first crippled Bunaken National Park management by

cutting government budgets forconservation and leading toincreased pressures on park

resources byillegal fishermen (e.g.Erdmann and Pet, 1999),inthe longer term the crisis led

toimportant political reforms inIndonesia. Among these were the rapid decentralization of

government management and fiscalauthorities from the central tolocal levels, and, more

importantly, democratic reform that provides new opportunities forlocalstakeholders to be

more actively involved in protected areas management decisions. Tapping into the spirit of

reform, the Ministry ofForestry supported Bunaken National Parks experimentation with

ahighly decentralized and democratic comanagement system. Founded on broad based

participation oflocal stakeholders (via the Bunaken National Park Management Advisory

Board orBNPMAB) insetting the parks conservation management agenda aswell asa

unique, locally managed user fee system to finance conservation management,

decentralized comanagement ofBunaken National Park isworking. Livecoral cover has

increased significantly over the past few years and popular support locally, nationally and

internationally is at a new high. The central governments Department of Nature

Conservation has officially recognized the successes ofthis new decentralized collaborative

management approach, and has now begun adapting this model in Indonesias other

national parks.

1.3USAID Support forBunaken National Park

USAID

has

played

a

changing

role

in

the

participatory

management

of

Bunaken

National

Park since 1993.From 1993through 1996,USAIDsNatural Resources Management Project

(NRMP) worked with Indonesias national development planning agency (BAPPENAS)

and the Ministry ofForestry todevelop aTwenty FiveYear National Park Management

Plan for Bunaken National Park (BNPMP, 1996). A team of local and international

consultants worked out ofManados SBKSDAofficewith a broad range ofgovernment,

non government and community stakeholders todiscuss and then prepare athree volume

management plan. Atthe field level, this project helped create an important foundation for

informed participation inconservation management ofthe park.

Unfortunately,

the

institutional

conditions

were

not

conducive

to

maximizing

the

value

of

NRMP. Theprojects focus on the twenty fiveyear management plan was the necessary

step toward establishing an independent Bunaken National Park management unit.

However, no government officials involved in the development ofthe management plan

were necessarily assigned to this new management unit. The opportunities forcapacity

building through iterative planning were largely missed. Additionally, NRMP was based

out ofthe SBKSDAoffice,an officeperceived bylocalgovernment representatives to be

linked with the central level Ministry ofForestry. While extensive efforts were made by

NRMP staff toreach out and involve relevant localgovernment agencies inthe planning

process, there was agreat deal ofresistance.


18/149

Chapter 1

7

Despite itslimitations, NRMP leftan important legacy that served asastrong foundation

for the future transition towards collaborative management of Bunaken National Park.

Even today, the level ofeffective local villager participation inpark management decisions

is considerably greater in those villages where NRMP was most active. Additionally,

NRMP trained acadre ofdedicated field workers who have gone on toimportant positions

of leadership inNorth Sulawesis conservation community (including anumber who are

stillwith the NRM program). Finally, NRMP provided important scientific, sociocultural

and economic studies that support conservation management interventions tothis day. An

important example ofthis isthe influence that NRMPs economic resource valuation and

park user willingness topay studies have had on establishing todays highly successful

user feesystem.

In 1997, USAID changed approaches from a more field based NRMP to NRM/EPIQ

(Natural Resources Management/Environmental Policy & Institutional Strengthening).

Rather than providing specific support to implement the twenty five year BNP

management plan prepared by NRMP, NRM/EPIQs approach was to work with the

Ministry ofForestrys Director General forNature Conservation and Forest Protection (first,

PHPA and now PHKA) on developing and strengthening system wide approaches for

decentralized national park management (see Table 1.2 for a summary of Indonesias

protected areas system). Based out of Jakarta, NRM/EPIQ consultants worked with PHKA

staff and others from Indonesias conservation community toidentify and then strengthen

ongoing field initiatives that could form the basis forpolicy reform toward strengthening

decentralized and participatory management. Through small grants, technical assistance,

facilitation and workshops, NRM/EPIQ supported a range of diverse initiatives for

community involvement in national park management, private sector partnerships

development, and capacity building fornational park staff.

From 1997through 1999,NRM/EPIQ provided support toBunaken byspecifically focusing

on community involvement inconservation management ofthe park through buffer zone

development activities, facilitation support ofthe North Sulawesi Watersports Association

in its efforts to build relationships with local communities while also establishing an

effective patrol system, capacity building and training for park staff, and conservation

awareness campaign training and support forpark staff and local NGOs. This approach

had reasonably positive impacts at both the local and national level. At the local level,

NRM/EPIQs low level investments helped strengthen an increased understanding of the

links between conservation management ofthe park with regional economic development,

growing interest incollaborating inpark management among local government and non

government stakeholders, and building a foundation ofconstituency based partnerships

that support broader comanagement. At the national level, small scale successes in

Bunaken National Park, as well as other marine and terrestrial national parks, created

growing support fordecentralized management ofnational parks aswell asthe use ofa


19/149

Chapter 1

8

range ofpartnerships totap conservation management resources. Yet despite these positive

changes, pressure on park resources continued and Bunaken was experiencing increased

degradation.

In1999,NRM/EPIQ changed itsapproach tostrengthening decentralized natural resources

management. Recognizing the unique opportunities and constraints Indonesia faced asa

result ofrecent political reforms and itsradical decentralization process, NRM/EPIQ shifted

itsemphasis from a Jakarta based policy program tomore ofafield based integrated policy

and management program. Thepreviously low level ofsupport provided from Jakarta to

field initiatives was intensified, particularly inNorth Sulawesi and East Kalimantan. For

Bunaken, this meant asignificant increase inregular technical and financial support tohelp

build effective comanagement through a broad range ofintegrated program activities.

Linked toongoing policy reform at the central level and growing from afoundation of

support built over the past sixyears, NRM/EPIQ and program partners have made rapid

progress. Highlights include significant progress on strengthening constituency based

partnerships of villagers and dive operators, participatory zonation of ecologically

important yet conflict ridden areas within the park, collaborative patrolling and

enforcement in the park, and a sound coral reef monitoring program essential for

measuring the impacts of conservation management interventions on important park

resources. Allthis has contributed tothe most substantial achievements indecentralized co

management ofBunaken National Park: the establishment ofthe Bunaken National Park

Management Board and the unique park entrance fee system for financing Bunakens

conservation and management.

STRUCTURE ANDEXTENT OF INDONESIA'S PASYSTEMSource: Statistik PHKA, 2002

Classification No. of units Area (Hectares) Area (%)

1. Terrestrial Areas

1.1 National Parks 35 11,291,754.03 61%

1.2 Strict Nature Reserves 173 2,718,565.63 15%

1.3 Nature Recreation Parks 87 283,873.39 2%

1.4 Wildlife Reserves 53 3,548,018.01 19%

1.5 Grand Forest Parks 17 334,336.30 2%

1.6 Hunting Parks 14 222,410.85 1%

Sub-Total 379 18,398,958.21 100%

2. Marine Areas


20/149

Chapter 1

9

2.1 National Parks 6 3,680,936.30 78%

2.2 Strict Nature Reserves 8 211,555.45 4%2.3 Nature Recreation Parks 18 765,762.00 16%

2.4 Wildlife Reserves 3 65,220.00 1%

Sub-Total 35 4,723,473.75 100%

Combined Totals:

3.1 National Parks 41 14,972,690.33 65%

3.2 Strict Nature Reserves 181 495,428.84 2%

3.3 Nature Recreation Parks 105 1,049,635.39 5%

3.4 Wildlife Reserves 56 3,613,238.01 16%3.5 Grand Forest Parks 17 334,336.30 1%

3.6 Hunting Parks 14 222,410.85 1%

Total 414 23,122,431.96 100%

Table 1.2:SummarystatisticsonIndonesiasnational protectedareassystem.

Through USAIDs support over the past decade, substantial progress has been made inthe

conservation management ofBunaken National Park. Coral reef monitoring indicates a

significant

increase

in

live

coral

cover

of

the

parks

coral

reefs.

The

collaborative

patrol

program has led toasignificantly reduced incidence ofillegal fishing activities. The civil

society dominated Bunaken National Park Management Board is generating significant

funds through the Bunaken entrance feesystem and investing this directly into Bunaken

National Park conservation and development initiatives. Local support for Bunaken

National Park isat an alltime high, while the central government, specifically the Ministry

ofForestry, issupporting this decentralized approach tocomanagement forBunaken as

well asallother National Parks in Indonesia. Management success at the local level for

Bunaken National Park has resulted inaprofound policy shift insupport ofdecentralized

collaborative management throughout Indonesias national protected areas system.

Yet there are still important steps to be taken in order to ensure the sustainability of

Bunaken National Park conservation management objectives. Substantial funding is

required to capitalize Bunaken National Park with the infrastructure and equipment

necessary to effectively manage an 89,000 hectare park. Current infrastructure and

equipment iswoefully inadequate. Funding and technical assistance isrequired forarange

ofhuman resource development and institutional strengthening capacity building forpark

staff and other park stakeholders inarange ofskills from traditional marine protected areas

management to business development tofacilitation and people management. Long term

financing needs to bediversified. While the entrance feesystem can generate significant


21/149

Chapter 1

10

revenue streams, itistoo dependent on afluctuating tourism market. This became evident

after aseries ofinternational and regional events that led todramatic decreases intourism:

the September 11terrorist attacks inthe United States in2001;the Bali bombing in2002;and

the SARS outbreak in 2003. The Bunaken National Park Management Board needs to

develop amore stable financial base,preferably through aBunaken National Park trust

fund. Support from private foundations, bilateral and multilateral donors forsuch atrust

fund could augment the entrance fee system and ensure long term sustainability of

Bunaken National Park.

While USAID has provided the most long term and significant technical and financial

support for Bunaken National Park, it is important tonote that many other donors and

conservation organizations have been actively involved in supporting conservation of

Bunaken. This includes but isnot limited toWWF, COREMAP, Seacology, and JICA.Itis

hoped that, in the coming years, these and other organizations take greater roles in

ensuring the success ofBunaken National Park.

1.4Lessons Learned Managing Bunaken National Park

Over the past decade, anumber of important lessons have been learned inattempts to

strengthen decentralized comanagement of Bunaken National Park. Throughout this

report, these lessons will bepresented ingreater detail. Some ofthe most important and

general ofthese lessons learned include the following:

1. Itisnecessary tobalance ecological values with socioeconomic values tostimulate essential stakeholder political support forconservation of protected

areas in regions with population pressures and/or priorities on economic growth

and development.

2. Building informed participation isalong term process, requiring extensive capacity building and facilitation. Villagers, government and non government

stakeholders with long term involvement in conservation management provide

more innovative solutions and productive support forconservation management.

3. Park managers and the rangers tasked with field management ofthe park commonly lack the community facilitation skills critical toensuring broad

stakeholder support and understanding ofpark management objectives. Training

infacilitation skills forthese park management personnel isan essential capacity

building measure before comanagement can beeffectively implemented.

4. Comanagement starts with the development ofconstituency based partnerships, and then evolves to true comanagement when the constituency based partnerships then start working with each other. Theevolution tocomanagement


22/149

Chapter 1

11

results incollaboration among often competing constituencies. Strong constituency

partnerships provide asolid foundation forcomanagement.

5. Community conservation campaigns through schools, mosques and churches canbuild effective local support forand pride inconservation initiatives. People will

support conservation oftheir environment ifthey take pride init.Ofcourse, pride

alone will not achieve conservation. Also important are economic incentives and

enforcement ofrules and regulations.

6. Decentralization of conservation management works when roles and responsibilities areclear, and when there isashared vision ofgoals and

objectives. Decentralization does not work when there is competition over

management authority or significant divergence in goals and objectives.

Decentralization also stimulates stronger grass roots democracy and principles of

good governance.

7. Comanagement requires active involvement ofallrelevant stakeholders .This is

sitespecific innature. InBunaken itincludes dive operators, communities, different

levels ofgovernment, universities and NGOs. Comanagement must be inclusive,

and must provide forreasonably equal voices forrelevant stakeholder groups.

8. The composition ofmultistakeholder comanagement boards isabsolutely critical to their success . The optimal ratio of governmental to non governmental

representatives and those advocating different functions of the protected area

(economic development, conservation, sustainable resource use) will vary from site to site, but will have profound consequences for the effectiveness of these

multistakeholder boards. There must bea balance between the competing interests

represented, and this will not always entail equal numerical representation; inmany

cases the stakeholder group(s) that are the most hesitant to advocate strong

positions may require a larger allocation ofseats on amulti stakeholder board to

achieve truly equal representation.

9. Stakeholders support rules and regulations aslong asthey areclear and equitably enforced. Clear rules are easily understood and clearly posted. Equitable

enforcement means that allthose that break the rules are treated the same way.

10. Community stakeholders support patrol and enforcement programs, asthey aredirectly linked toincreased livelihoods. Many illegal activities within protected

areas come from outsiders. Communities with astake inconservation management

or sustainable utilization ofpark resources have astrong and rational interest in

seeing rules and regulations enforced sonatural resources are sustained.

11. Natural resource management issues aretypically among the top priorities ofvillagers living inornear protected areas, but they areoften politicized bypersons pursuing non related agendas. Because these resource management issues


23/149

Chapter 1

12

are soimportant tovillagers, any discussion ofthem brings strong opinions and/or

emotions and invites wide participation. While this provides an excellent

opportunity topromote participatory processes inprotected area management, it

also provides an opportunity to those pursuing non related agendas (e.g.village

chiefelections, intra village political rivalries, etc) to take advantage of the strong

feelings engendered indiscussing resource issues tofurther their agendas. This isa

serious problem, and requires astrong outreach program toprevent such political

issues from becoming entangled in open, participatory discussions of resource

management issues.

12. Localselffinancing mechanisms arekey toproviding local stakeholders with the fuel tomanage their conservation interventions. Decentralized comanagement

requires

the

capacity

to

generate

and

then

manage

finances

locally.

13. Development oriented stakeholders, particularly from government, support conservation when it can be linked to regional economic development.

Conservation ofprotected areas is better described within the context orregional

economic development than altruism.

14. Tourists arewilling topay reasonably high entrance fees aslong asthey seetheir money isresulting invisible conservation management. Willingness topay for

effective conservation management ishigh, but can only besustained when tourists

seeresults from their payments. InBunaken, the entrance feesystem started well

below

the

actual

willingness

to

pay

so

we

could

first

demonstrate

progress

in

conservation management. Now, itiseasier toraise entrance fees based on real and

visible progress.

15. Financing conservation management requires adiverse funding base. Reliance onasingle source, like user fees, isdangerous. This isdemonstrated bythe sudden

drop offinrevenues from the Bunaken entrance feesystem after September 11and

the Bali Bombing. Long term sustainability requires significant financial

diversification.

16. Monitoring and evaluation arekey toensuring ongoing success ofconservation management interventions. This is important for convincing stakeholders that

interventions are working and/or providing guidance on how toadapt interventions

ifthey are not working well. This includes the use of both ecological aswell associo

economic indicators inan integrated management effectiveness monitoring system

17. Multiple use MPA zonation plans arevaluable management tools formitigating conflict among stakeholders and balancing effective conservation with

sustainable development indeveloping country MPAs with large population

pressures. These plans are most effective if based upon a combination of

scientific/ecological considerations and input from arange ofprimary user groups

who have received facilitation inunderstanding and accepting compromise.


24/149

Chapter 1

13

18. Zonation schemes should use aminimal number ofzone types, with names that clearly indicate their purpose, explicit rules forallowed and disallowed activities, and clearly demarcated borders that utilize natural or otherwise well known

landmarks whenever possible.

19. The use offocal interest group meetings instead ofrelying only onlarge village meetings isessential forensuring broad based community participation and

equitable decision making. This ensures the involvement of many of the more

marginalized or traditionally quiet community members

20. Decentralized comanagement supports the principles ofgood governance.

Although itmust becarefully managed (and well designed atthe outset inorder to

prevent dominance byany one stakeholder group), one ofthe greatest strengths of

the comanagement approach isinutilizing the diverse interests and motivations of

various stakeholder groups toprevent corruption, collusion ornepotism.

21. Establishment ofasense ofpride and ownership oflocal marine resources isakey step ingenerating strong support forconservation measures . Even in the

absence oftraditional orlegal marine tenure systems (where communities directly

own resources), ownership ofthe managementofthose resources engenders strong

conservation support.

22. Human resource development and institutional strengthening isbest achieved through long term, learning bydoing mentoring processes rather than short term,

highly specific technical training programs .Technical training can meet specific needs, but broad based capacity building forconservation is bestachieved through

long term, medium input mentoring.

23. Innovative conservation management initiatives tested and applied inthe field cansupport national level policy reform forprotected areas management. This

benefits individual parks aswell asentire protected areas networks and systems.

Decentralized comanagement ofBunaken National Park started asaprogressive

and innovative approach to conservation management that challenged a

conservative, highly centralized policy. Visible success inBunaken National Park

provided the greatest stimulus toward policy reform inprotected areas management

because benefits were clear and tangible. Theoretical arguments and technical

analysis are important tools forstimulating policy reform, but the greatest tool is

field based success.


25/149

Chapter 1

14

1.5Report Objectives

This

report

strives

to

document

recent

progress

toward

effective

decentralized

co

management ofBunaken National Park over the past few years. This introductory chapter

provides basic background information on the history of conservation management of

Bunaken National Park, including an assessment of long term USAID support for

participatory management ofBunaken National Park aswell asasummary of the many

valuable lessons learned during this long term and mostly iterative comanagement

facilitation process. Chapter Two looks at the history of partnership development in

Bunaken National Park, paying close attention to the development of two important

constituency based partnerships, one among dive operators and second among villagers.

These successful partnerships provided the foundation forlaunching the Bunaken National

Park

Management

Advisory

Board,

a

true

multi

stakeholder

forum,

described

in

Chapter

Three. Chapter Four describes Bunaken National Parks unique user feesystem and the

continuing efforts todiversify the parks portfolio ofsustainable financing mechanisms for

conservation management. Chapters Five and Six discuss two important ongoing

management initiatives, the parks participatory zonation revision process and its

collaborative patrol system. As the chapters are written as stand alone case studies,

references cited and acknowledgements are included atthe end ofeach chapter. Finally, a

non exhaustive bibliography ofarticles and books written on Bunaken National Park or in

which Bunaken features prominently isprovided insection seven.

This

case

study

should

serve

the

interest

of

a

broad

range

of

individuals

as

well

as

government, non government and donor institutions interested in decentralized

approaches to protected areas management, and especially marine protected area

management inthe tropics. Itcan beread initsentirety, but the writers suggest that many

readers might bemore interested incertain chapters than others. While the approaches and

lessons learned from the Bunaken comanagement initiative are likely of broad applicability

inmany tropical developing countries, it isextremely important tonote the sitespecific

nature ofprotected areas management. Not only do the size and objectives ofprotected

areas vary widely, but even more importantly, the unique environmental, political, social

and legal settings ofindividual protected areas inlarge part determine the bestapproach

for

implementing

decentralized

collaborative

management.

As

such,

we

do

not

necessarily

believe that the approaches documented herein should betaken asamodel or blueprint for

direct and uniform replication in other protected areas. Rather, we hope that the ideas

shared here might stimulate new ideas and encourage innovative adaptation to other

opportunities and constraints inconservation and management ofprotected areas.

1.6References Cited BNPMP. (1996). Bunaken National Park Management Plan (3 Volumes). Bappenas,

Ministry ofForestry, NRMP/USAID.


26/149

Chapter 1

15

Erdmann MV, Pet J.(1999).Krismon &DFP:some observations on the effects ofthe Asian

financial crisis on destructive fishing practices in Indonesia. Live Reef Fish

Information Bulletin. 5:2226.

Merrill R, Davie J. (1996). The sustainable management of Bunaken National Parks

mangroves. NRMP/USAID.

Turak E,DeVantier L.(2003).Reef building corals ofBunaken National Park, North

Sulawesi, Indonesia: Rapid ecological assessment of biodiversity and status. Report

tothe International Ocean Institute Regional Center forAustralia and the Western

Pacific.65pp.

Weber J,Saunders L.(1996).Managing acoral reef ecosystem inIndonesia. NRMP/USAID.


27/149

Chapter 1

16


28/149

17

Chapter 2

Building Constituency Based Partnerships for

Effective National Park Management

2.1Participation, Partnerships and CoManagement Aprinciple theme in the evolution of successful conservation management ofBunaken

National Park isstakeholder participation through partnerships. Rather than relying only

on the limited technical capacity and financial resources of the Ministry of Forestrys

National Park management unit, progress inmanaging Bunaken National Park has been

clearly linked to the development of partnerships as institutional mechanisms for

harnessing necessary, locally available technical and financial resources. Partnerships

significantly strengthen the level of participation of stakeholders in park management.

Going beyond initial stages ofparticipation, including consultation, information sharing

and

provision

of

public

forums,

partnerships

provide

stakeholder

groups

shared

rights

and

responsibilities inpark management.

InBunaken National Park, initial partnerships development focused on constituency based

partnerships, or groups of stakeholders with shared interest in conservation and

development of the park. Examples include bringing together villagers through the

Bunaken NP Concerned Citizens Forum (FMPTNB),aswell asthe dive operators via the

North Sulawesi Watersports Association (NSWA). As these partnerships matured, the

concept of partnership evolved to comanagement, the productive interaction among

constituency based groups forthe overall good ofthe National Park. This isreflected inthe

development

of

the

ground

breaking,

multi

stakeholder

Bunaken

NP

Management

Board

(BNPMAB),described indetail inChapter 3.This chapter focuses on the development of

initial, constituency based partnerships inBunaken NP, asthese partnerships form the solid

foundation upon which a broader comanagement system is built. Itisimportant tonote

that the time and resources invested in building constituency based partnerships iscrucial

toward developing social capital, group dynamics, conflict management and

communications skills necessary for constituency based partnerships towork effectively

and equitably when institutional relationships evolve toward more broad based co

management forums.


29/149

Chapter 2

18

2.2Background onIndonesias Evolving National Protected Areas

Management Strategy and the Increasing Role ofPartnerships The evolution ofBunaken National Parks management is bestunderstood inthe historical

context of protected areas management in Indonesia. The history of conservation

management of Indonesias protected areas system encompasses three distinct policy

approaches. From its inception through the late 1980s,protected areas management was

based on enforcement, fencing parks in and keeping people out. This was followed by

almost a decade of integrated conservation and development policy. The current, still

evolving, conservation management policy is oriented toward decentralized co

management of protected areas within the broader context of regional development.

Indonesia isinthe midst ofaprofound policy shift from closed access toregulated open

access ofprotected areas.

Initially, Bunaken National Park, likemost allother national parks in Indonesia, was a

paper park, managed by the central government via the Ministry ofForestry, with very

little day today conservation management visible at the field level. National parks and

other protected areas, while designated bydecree and drawn on maps, faced ongoing

threats to conservation value and growing disdain by local government and non

government stakeholders.

Much of this is due to the Ministry of Forestrys initial approach to protected areas

management. Following examples set inEurope and the United States, the Ministry of

Forestry sought to implement an enforcement approach toprotected areas management,

sometimes literally and always figuratively fencing inprotected areas and keeping people,

especially villagers living inordirectly adjacent to the protected area, out. This became

known as the Three D approach to conservation: Dilarang,Dilarang,Dilarang! (roughly

translated asNo, No, No!).While this approach tomanagement worked inparts of the

world where protected areas were setaside inremote, sparsely populated regions, itwas

impractical forIndonesia. Quite simply, there was too much human pressure on national

parks and protected areas tokeep people out. The Ministry lacked the financial resources

and political will to successfully implement a conservation management policy of

enforcement. Still,the Ministry ofForestry developed apoor reputation atthe local level.

Villagers living in or adjacent to protected areas feared perceived threats of forced

transmigration from protected areas. Local governments bristled at the central

governments arrogant claims to manage local resources. And, because the Ministry of

Forestry lacked the resources to implement their policy, the conservation value of

Indonesias protected areas declined throughout the 1980s.

The second trend inIndonesias protected areas management was integrated conservation

and development projects, orICDPs. This trend was supported through large scale funding


30/149

Chapter 2

19

and technical support from major multilateral and bilateral donors, aswell asinternational

conservation organizations. Here, the Ministry ofForestry recognized the importance of

working with communities inand adjacent toprotected areas inapositive manner inorder

togenerate their support forprotected area conservation. Under this policy, itwas believed

that the provision ofcommunity development projects would lead to alternative income

generating opportunities that would both offset pressure on conservation objectives and

increase goodwill of local communities for conservation. Unfortunately, there were a

number of flaws with this approach (e.g.Ferraro and Kiss,2002).More often than not,

community development interventions were unsuccessful. When successful, these

interventions often targeted the wrong groups within particular communities. The

economic argument ofalternative incomes leading toshifting livelihoods was flawed and

usually led toadditional income generation. Localcommunities were treated asaproblem

forconservation management that needed to befixed, rather than asan asset. Moreover, the

ICDP approach largely focused on communities living within and adjacent toprotected

areas, and failed towork with the many other localthreats toconservation (foradetailed

assessment ofICDPs inIndonesia, seeWells etal,1998).

In the current, stillevolving era ofprotected areas management policy inIndonesia, the

Ministry ofForestry stillretains authority forconservation management of the protected

areas system, but recognizes the political, financial and technical need fordecentralizing

significant management responsibilities to the field level and facilitating the creation of

successful partnerships that leverage necessary technical and financial resources for more

effective conservation management. Thecurrent shift inprotected areas management policy

is driven by a number of important forces. At the international level, protected areas

management policy has changed from an ICDP approach to bioregional planning. Protected

areas are no longer perceived as isolated islands of conservation requiring their own

management regime but, rather, as integral patches of aquilt ofdifferent yet mutually

supportive resource use patterns within an overall spatial plan. Protected areas and

conservation corridors are actively incorporated into regional development planning.

Atthe national level, the Ministry ofForestry has been influenced toward decentralized co

management through both political pressures forreform aswell as budgetary pressures to

pay forconservation management. Since1997,there have been strong political pressures for

reform and decentralization that have provided both challenges and opportunities to

effective protected areas management. Amajor challenge was the initial euphoria ofreform

demonstrated atthe locallevel byrampant encroachment into protected areas inpursuit of

economic opportunities from illegal logging, land speculation, mining, and/or fishing

activities. Clearly, the onset ofIndonesias political reform and decentralization process led

to rapid degradation of Indonesias protected areas system due more to greed than

economic necessity. Yet astime has passed and this euphoria mellowed, we are witnessing

more opportunities fordecentralization tostrengthen protected areas management. Local


31/149

Chapter 2

20

stakeholders, from community groups to the private sector to local government, are

realizing they have the capability todefine and manage their future in terms ofregional

economic development and spatial planning. This includes local support for the

conservation management of protected areas. The Ministry ofForestry has realized the

benefits ofallying with localstakeholders toharness enthusiasm aswell astechnical and

financial support forprotected areas management.

The Ministry ofForestry has also been influenced by significantly reduced budgets for

conservation management ofprotected areas. Even prior toIndonesias economic crisis that

started in1997,Ministry ofForestry budgets forconservation were low. In1997,the year

the Ministry ofForestry redesignated Bunaken and more than thirty other national parks

from project to technical management unit status (thus requiring a surge in budget

revenues tocover capital infrastructure and equipment costs inthese national parks), the

conservation budget was slashed in half in real terms. Conservation budgets have not

picked up substantially since then, and the Ministry of Forestry is thus left with an

enormous responsibility tomanage a vast protected areas system without the financial

resources todo itproperly. The Ministry ofForestry has made avery rational decision to

support adiversity oflocalpartnerships inorder toincrease their financial and technical

resource base forconservation management.

Asthe Ministry ofForestry was coming toterms with the need totake amore collaborative

approach to protected areas management across Indonesia, Bunaken National Park

stakeholders were becoming increasingly frustrated with the intensifying degradation of

Bunakens marine ecosystems due toineffective management. Agrowing number ofdive

operators had invested in a rapidly expanding dive tourism sector based in Bunaken

National Park, and saw their futures in jeopardy unless something was to bedone about the

lack of management. When their demands for enforcing National Park rules and

regulations fellon deaf ears, the dive operators realized they needed towork together, in

partnership, tolead conservation management within the park. This led tothe creation of

the North Sulawesi Watersports Association (NSWA) in1998.

Similarly, local villagers were witnessing increased levels ofdestruction in the park and

saw this threatening their sustainable livelihoods. Community leaders from several ofthe

parks twenty two villages realized that, rather than relying on the government tomanage

Bunaken National Park, villagers would have totake aleadership role. Over time this led to

the creation ofthe Bunaken National Park Concerned Citizens Forum (FMPTNB)in2000.

It is important tonote that, in both of these cases the Ministry ofForestry was initially

reluctant in supporting these constituency based partnerships. Over time, as these

partnerships strengthened and generated positive results in terms of conservation

management, and as trust was built between representatives of these groups and the


32/149

Chapter 2

21

National Park management staff, these two critical partnerships created the foundation for

Bunaken National Parks successful experiment with comanagement through the Bunaken

National Park Management Advisory Board.

2.3Building Constituency Based Partnerships

As mentioned above, the concept behind building constituency based partnerships to

support participatory protected areas management issimple enough. Itinvolves bringing

together stakeholder groups with similar interests to work together to address park

management issues ofparticular concern tothat stakeholder group. Inpractice, however,

building successful partnerships ofthis kind generally requires some initial momentum and

interest on behalf of the stakeholder group themselves. It isunlikely that apartnership

created denovo by an outside organization will achieve long term sustainability. InBunaken, the development of two key constituency based partnerships (private marine

tourism operators and park villagers), critical to the continued success of the parks co

management initiative, was largely the result ofanatural process.

Both partnerships attribute their origins to a common set of catalysts: the increasing

degradation ofthe park through the mid late 1990s,the overthrow ofthe Soeharto regime

in 1998, and the serendipitous (and international headline making) discovery of the

Indonesian coelacanth fish on Manado Tua Island within the park (Erdmann etal,1998;

Erdmann, 2000b).Unquestionably the degradation ofBunakens reefs inthe mid 1990swas

a common concern for both of these groups. The subsequent reform movement that overthrew the Soeharto government amidst strong cries fordecentralization ofauthority

added asense ofurgency and solidarity tothe nascent movement forthese groups tounite

in action. The tremendous excitement surrounding the Indonesian coelacanth discovery

was the final catalyst needed foreach ofthese groups tocome together first todiscuss the

coelacanthdiscovery and ways toharness the significant international interest generated by

it,and then totackle the broader issues ofimproving the management and conservation of

Bunaken National Park.

While both ofthese groups came together oftheir own accord, since their formation they

have been nurtured and strengthened through support from USAIDs Natural Resources Management Program (first byNRM/EPIQ from 19982002, then byNRM IIIfrom 2002

2004).The following three sections explore the roots of these key partnerships and the

challenges, successes and lessons learned inNRMs efforts topromote their organic growth

into solid institutions capable ofgenerating their own momentum.


33/149

Chapter 2

22

2.4The North Sulawesi Watersports Association (NSWA)

Though Bunakens dive industry began inthe late 1970s(due tothe efforts offour local diving pioneers: Hanny and Ineke Batuna, Loky Herlambang, and RickyLasut; Aw, 2000),

itwas not until the mid 1990sthat the destination had become popular enough toattract

significant foreign investment in new dive centers. By 1997, the dive industry had

expanded to include over 15operators, many foreign run. The greatly increased diving

activity began to take aserious tollon the reefs. Frequent anchoring by the fleet ofdive

boats quickly destroyed significant tracts of Bunakens shallow reef tops. Moreover,

cyanide and blast fishers were increasingly making forays into the park, asthe reefs inthe

areas surrounding the park had been degraded byconstant destructive fishing practices

during the 80s and early mid 90s. Many of the newly arrived foreign operators also

nurtured a western perception of park management that local villagers should not beallowed tofish indiscriminately within the park. Several went sofarastocallforlegislation

toresettle villagers outside ofthe parks boundaries.

With these concerns, aswell asaperception that some operators were slashing prices to

undercut the competition, several operators made an effort to gather other operators

together to discuss plans for a dive association in late 1997 and again in early 1998.

Unfortunately, these initial attempts largely broke down due to infighting amongst the

potential members, who, as business competitors, were distrustful ofeach other and largely

unwilling tocome toan agreement on aminimum pricing scheme. With the announcement

ofthe discovery ofthe Indonesian coelacanth inmid 1998,many operators were eager tolearn more about this headline stealing fish and the prospects forusing the good publicity

generated for the benefit of tourism (Erdmann, 1998). Anumber ofmeetings were held

during the fallof1998todiscuss the coelacanth and other environmental issues, and, asthe

operators became more used tomeeting each other, the commitment toform an association

solidified. Bylate 1998,the North Sulawesi Watersports Association (NSWA) was formed

(Erdmann, 1999;Figure 2.1).With 7initial members, the express purpose ofthe NSWA was

toserve asthe primary forum formarine tourism operators inNorth Sulawesi to:

1) Promote North Sulawesi as a world class marine ecotourism destination while

improving the environmental and safety standards oflocaloperators; 2) Voice their concerns and actively prevent environmental degradation inBunaken

National Park and surrounding marine environments;

3) Cooperate with NGOs and government agencies insolving common environmental

problems;

4) Discuss and formulate programs to improve relations with villagers living within

Bunaken NP byactively trying toshare tourism benefits with these communities.


34/149

Chapter 2

23

Perhaps the first significant action of the NSWA as an organization was an agreement

amongst the members to ban anchoring within the park. Inorder toenforce this voluntary

ban (and keep track of more egregious park violations by operators such as night

spearfishing inthe park), acomplaints officer was elected. Members could report anchoring

and other violations tothe complaints officer, who was then obliged tofollow up with the

owner of the accused operation. If a reasonable explanation was not produced, the

complaint would then lodge asaviolation. After three violations, the member was to be

reported inthe local newspaper, the ManadoPost.While this policy resulted insome hard

feelings on behalf of those reported in the newspaper, it was remarkably effective at

curtailing anchoring inthe park. TheNSWA also decided tohost amooring buoy design

competition forpark villagers, with the idea being that if the villagers were involved in

designing and building moorings, they would bemuch lesslikely tolater sabotage them (a

common problem with earlier attempts atinstalling moorings inthe park; Erdmann, 2000c).

While the mooring program was only amarginal success due tothe technical difficulties of

installing moorings on Bunakens steep walls, itwas an important first step towards NSWA

engagement with localvillages.

Figure 2.1:Thelogoof theNorthSulawesiWatersports Association,depictingtheendemictarsierridinga

seahorse.Thelogodepictsthe fantasticbiodiversityof NorthSulawesi,bothmarineandterrestrial,andtheNSWAs commitmenttodevelopingbothmarineandterrestrialecotourism.


35/149

Chapter 2

24

During the first year of the NSWAs existence, through regular monthly meetings,

discussion ofunfair competition and pricing policies and aneed forminimum equipment

and safety standards frequently grew contentious, and threatened to split the group.

Fortunately, in large part due to the calming influence of several neutral outsiders

(including visiting scientists and staff from USAIDs NRM/EPIQ and CRMP projects),

cooler heads prevailed and the group resolved toproduce acharter that would govern its

activities and would focus upon the common goal ofpreserving North Sulawesis reefs. The

authors strongly believe that this was acritical step inthe development ofthe NSWA that

will likely apply inany situation where aconservation project or organization wishes to

develop and strengthen an association ofprivate sector interests. While the considerable

benefits ofcooperation between potential competitors isnow well known ingame theory in

economics (elegantly described byNobel Laureate mathematician JohnNash seeKuhn et

al,1994),itgoes against the natural competitive instincts ofmost businesspeople. Nearly all

ofthe original members ofthe NSWA readily admit that itwas critical forthem toreceive

input from interested but neutral outsiders tohelp them past the initial stages ofdistrust

that threatened the associations existence.

By mid 1999, the group had produced a charter that was heavily weighted towards

environmental concerns though voluntary minimum pricing and safety and equipment

standards were also included (the charter can be downloaded at the NSWA website

www.bunaken.info). The group then held elections, with the posts oftreasurer, secretary

and complaints officer going to business members, while the president post was conferred

upon a neutral outsider. The NSWA formalized a monthly meeting schedule, and

developed an email list that is sent not only tomembers, but also to non member dive

operators, local NGOs, and the NSWAs growing international network of supporters

including professional underwater photographers and dive industry leaders. Given the

initial success with the anchoring ban, the NSWA quickly focused upon anumber ofother

environmentally focused initiatives, including those aimed at providing more tourism

benefits tolocal reefdependent communities. Following the charter, allmembers made a

renewed commitment to actively recruit as many dive and hospitality staff from local

villages as possible, and a handicrafts program was started whereby villagers from

Bunaken Island were encouraged to produce reeffriendly souvenirs (including

embroidered handkerchiefs and coconut shell carvings; Figure 2.2a).Members also made a

commitment toserve only reeffriendly menus (i.e.,no lobster, grouper orother reef fish),

and sponsored several beach cleanups (Figure 2.2b),and the printing ofhundreds ofthe

coral reef conservation comic book TorangPeNyare(seeBox2.1)fordistribution tolocal

schoolchildren (Figure 2.2c).

It is important tonote that during itsfirst year ofoperation, the NSWA made asincere

attempt toinvolve local Indonesian dive operators asmuch aspossible and encourage them

to jointhe association. Not only were allofthese operators included on the NSWA email


36/149

Chapter 2

25

list,they also received anumber ofpersonal invitations to jointhe monthly meetings. One

problem was language. Many of the foreign operators who initially dominated the

membership were not fluent inIndonesian, soearly meetings were held inEnglish. Inorder

toencourage local operators toattend, the NSWA agreed tohold bilingual meetings, with

translations provided for all discussions. These attempts were successful at persuading

local operators to join, and the NSWA membership grew to 12 operators by late 1999.

Unfortunately, despite the bilingual meetings and translations, active participation inthe

monthly meetings was largely skewed towards the foreign operators, with afew notable

exceptions.

By2000,the NSWAs stature within the localgovernment had increased tothe point that it

was now being regularly invited tomeetings on environmental issues around the province.

As the group had now matured tothe point where operators largely trusted each other,

annual elections were again called and the NSWA elected Angelique Batuna the manager

ofone ofthe localdive centers and daughter ofone ofthe pioneers ofBunaken diving as

itspresident. This was another critical step inthe development ofthe association, and gave

the NSWA new legitimacy in the eyes of local stakeholders. This legitimacy came at a

crucial period, asthe early months of2000 brought NSWA itsgreatest challenge todate. For

reasons that are stillunclear (but are probably related to the depletion of target species

outside ofthe park), Bunakens reefs came under almost nightly attack bycyanide fishers in

April 2000(Erdmann, 2000c).The NSWA responded quickly tothis challenge, assembling a

nightly patrol system that relied upon members donating boats and personnel toattempt to

ward offthe cyanide fishermen. However, itwas clear that real enforcement forthe park

was now urgently necessary, and with the help ofNRM/EPIQ, the NSWA held aseries of

meetings with the head ofthe Bunaken National Park office(BTNB)and the Water Police

Chief (PolAir).These meetings resulted inan MOU between the NSWA, BTNBand PolAir ,

inwhich the NSWA agreed tofund fuel and operational costs for jointranger/police patrols

inthe park. Aided byamatching grant from NRM/EPIQ, the NSWA members pooled their

own financial resources and then decided tolevy avoluntary $5/diver preservation feeon

their guests (Erdmann, 2000c;White, 2000;seealso Chapters 4and 6ofthis volume). This

jointpatrol system was highly successful atstopping the rampant cyaniding inthe park and

resulted inanumber ofhigh profile arrests and court cases.

Another key activity inearly 2000for the NSWA was involvement in the park zonation

revision process facilitated by the BTNB and NRM/EPIQ (see Chapter 5). The dive

operators were keen tohelp develop afunctional multiple use zonation plan with explicit

rules and especially zones where no fishing activities are allowed (no take zones).

However, the participatory process facilitated by NRM/EPIQ gave equal if not greater

weight tothe aspirations ofpark villagers, which meant that either conflict orcompromise

between the two stakeholder groups was inevitable. Much toeveryones surprise, both dive

operators and park villagers were remarkably willing tocompromise inorder toachieve


37/149

Chapter 2

26

consensus and afunctional zonation plan, and the spirit ofcooperation between the groups

advanced considerably (Erdmann, 2000a; 2001c). Largely because of this, the NSWA

unveiled one of itsmost popular programs to date with park villagers a scholarship

program designed toprovide disadvantaged park youths the opportunity toattend high

school and even vocational school and University (Erdmann, 2001a;Wu, 2000;Figure 2.2d;

Table 2.1).

A B

C D

Figure 2.2A: A groupof Bunakenvillagewomenembroideringhandkerchiefswithreef organisms;thesewomenwereamongthe firstinvolvedintheNSWAs villagehandicrafts program.2.2B.Bunakenvillagers participatinginabeachandreef cleanupsponsoredbytheNorthSulawesiWatersports Association;all participantsreceiveNSWAtshirtsandareeligible for prizes.2.2C.TheNSWAPresidentdistributeslocally

produced

coral

reef

conservation

comic

books

to

elementary

school

children.

2.2D.

Dr.

Hanny

Batuna,

one

of

the founding fathersof BunakenNationalPark,congratulatestwoof theNSWAs firstthreeuniversityscholarshiprecipients youngmen fromwithinthe park.

The growing spirit of cooperation between dive operators and park villagers, and the

confidence gained ininstituting azonation plan and apatrol system, soon led tocallsfora

comanagement structure forthe park. TheNSWA also pointed tothe need foraproper,

mandatory entrance feesystem that could replace their stopgap voluntary preservation fee

and reliably raise the funds needed to run the patrol system and other conservation


38/149

Chapter 2

27

programs (seeChapter 4).Responding tothese calls,NRM/EPIQ staff inManado worked

with the North Sulawesi ViceGovernors officeand several other key government agencies

toconvene anumber ofworkshops todiscuss the possible shape ofamultistakeholder

management board and an entrance feesystem tofund it,while staff in Jakarta worked

with the Department ofNature Conservation togain permission forBunaken toexperiment

with acomanagement structure and adecentralized entrance fee.With the strong support

of key local stakeholder groups (and the Vice Governor), progress was rapid and in

December 2000,the Bunaken National Park Management Advisory Board (BNPMAB)was

formed byNorth Sulawesi Governors Decree No. 233/2000(seeChapter 3).TheMinister of

Forestry himself swore inthe 15members ofthe board, lending important credibility tothis

bold new initiative in collaborative management of an Indonesian national park. The

NSWA was chosen torepresent the single seat on the board allocated tothe private tourism

sector, with its president appointed to the position of vicechairman of the BNPMAB

(Erdmann, 2001a).

By early 2001, Bunakens groundbreaking decentralized entrance fee system became a

reality, due largely tothe cooperation and support ofthe NSWA (seeChapter 4).With a

secure source offunding now based inprovincial law, the old jointNSWA/BTNB/PolAir

patrol system was transferred tothe BNPMAB,with an important new development being

the direct involvement ofvillagers inthe jointpatrol system (seeChapter 6).Nonetheless,

the NSWA has maintained astrong commitment toaiding enforcement inBunaken NP.

With growing maturity and anew confidence inBunakens comanagement regime, the

NSWA refined itsprograms inthe context ofthe 3Es(Erdmann, 2001b;seeTable 2.1),

described below:

1) Employment perhaps the most direct way forNSWA operators torelieve pressure

on Bunakens reefs istoprovide alternative employment tovillagers that otherwise

depend on extracting reef resources.

2) Education ofdive guests, dive guides, localvillagers and government officials is

an urgent and continuing NSWA priority toimprove the management ofthe park,

curb degradation and instill asense ofownership ofthe reefs.3) Enforcement even with employment and educational efforts, enforcement isstill

considered an essential part ofprotecting the parks reefs from destructive practices

such as blast and cyanide fishing, asthere will always remain an economic incentive

forsome fishers toengage inthese illegal activities.

The 3Es continue toguide the NSWAs activities tothis day. Now fiveyears old, the

NSWA is a strong association whose members have managed to survive the severe

difficulties ofaglobal downturn intourism that began on 11September 2001and continues

today. Perhaps inpart due tothe need tocooperate tosurvive, the NSWA isnow turning to

issues that members were unwilling todeal with initsearly years. Forinstance, members


39/149

Chapter 2

28

are now pooling resources to begin aserious destination marketing campaign (seewebsite

www.DiveNorthSulawesi.com). Also this year, the NSWA revised itscharter to reflect a

stronger emphasis on raising safety and equipment standards, acontentious issue initsfirst

2years. While these changes reflect the growing maturity ofthe association, they also seem

to have precipitated a slight drop in member numbers as some local operators have

dropped out (current membership stands at 12, down from a high of 15 in 2002).

Nonetheless, the NSWAs efforts are now increasingly recognized internationally inlate

2003, Bunaken was awarded the prestigious British Airways Tourism for Tomorrow

Award. For the first time since the inception of the entrance fee system in2001,visitor

numbers have remained stable throughout the m

Building Effective Co-Management Systems for Decentralized BNP Case Study

Documents