Challenges of Marine Protected Areas around Lombok, Indonesia Muhammad Erdi Lazuardi Master of Development Practice Program 2013
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 1
Challenges of Marine Protected Areas
around Lombok, Indonesia
Muhammad Erdi Lazuardi
Master of Development Practice Program
2013
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 2
Challenges of Marine Protected Areas around Lombok, Indonesia
Written by:
Muhammad Erdi Lazuardi
Supervised by:
Prof. Jeffrey Sayer
Dr. Agni Klintuni Boedhihartono
November, 2013
Master of Development Practice Program
James Cook University
PO Box 6811
Cairns QLD 4870
Australia
Cover photograph: Selong Belanak beach of the Central Lombok District. © Muhammad E. Lazuardi
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 3
Content
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6
Objective ................................................................................................................................ 7
Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Results and discussion ................................................................................................................ 9
East Lombok study ................................................................................................................. 9
Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA ......................................................................................... 10
Governance (institutional) indicators ............................................................................... 11
Biophysical conditions ..................................................................................................... 13
Socio-economic indicators ............................................................................................... 18
North Lombok study ............................................................................................................ 19
Challenges ................................................................................................................................ 23
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 23
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. 24
References ................................................................................................................................ 25
Attachments .............................................................................................................................. 27
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 4
Tables
Table 1. Historical time line of marine regulation and conservation in national and district
levels. ......................................................................................................................... 10
Table 2. Governance (institutional) indicators checklist of the GSL MPA. ............................ 12
Table 3. Manta tow data conducted 24, 28 and 29 September 2013 in Gili Sulat and Gili
Lawang Islands (inside the GSL MPA) and PBK Islands (outside the GSL MPA). . 27
Table 4. List of part respondents .............................................................................................. 31
Table 5. Questionnaire. ............................................................................................................ 32
Figures
Figure 1. Study area of East Lombok District (Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA) and islands.
(Map: M.I. Lubis) ...................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2.a. Fishermen’s opinions both inside and outside the MPA on the question “Has GSL
MPA been effectively managed?”. b. Fishermen’s opinions both inside and outside
of MPA on the question “What is needed to be improved in GSL MPA?”. ........... 13
Figure 3. Fishermen’s opinions both inside and outside the GSL MPA on the mangrove cover
condition inside the GSL MPA................................................................................ 14
Figure 4. Substrate conditions inside and outside the GSL MPA based on manta tow surveys,
September 2013. ...................................................................................................... 15
Figure 5. Hard coral and rubble coverage both inside and outside the GSL MPA based on
manta tow survey, September 2013. ........................................................................ 16
Figure 6. The different between hard coral and rubble cover based on the manta tow survey,
September 2013 in the GSL MPA and PBK Islands. .............................................. 17
Figure 7. The average of hard coral coverage both inside and outside the GSL MPA based on
mantatow survey, September 2013. ......................................................................... 18
Figure 8. Fishermen’s opinions both inside and outside the GSL MPA on their fishing catches
and income currently compare to before the establishment of the GSL MPA. ....... 19
Figure 9. Historical timeline of LMNLU in North Lombok District. ...................................... 20
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 5
Pictures
Picture 1. Coral damage caused by bomb fishing in Gili Sulat Island. ................................... 15
Picture 2.a. Local fish traders in Sugian village are waiting for fishes catch from liftnet boats.
b. Dry anchovy in Sugian village. .......................................................................... 18
Picture 3. Traditional boats in Gangga village of North Lombok District. ............................. 20
Picture 4.a. Gili Lawang and Gili Sulat Islands of the GSL MPA, East Lombok District. b.
Beach along the North Lombok District. ................................................................ 22
Picture 5. Manta tow survey in the Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA and PBK Islands. ........... 33
Picture 6. Coral transplantation in Gili Kondo Island. ............................................................ 33
Picture 7. Lifnet boats around the Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA. ........................................ 34
Picture 8. The Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA office and guesthouse. ................................... 34
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 6
Abstract
Indonesia has established Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) that encompass more than 15
million ha. The national target is to reach 20 million ha of MPAs by 2020. This paper
questions the efficacy of these targets. It posits that many MPAs are ineffective according to
the indicators of governance, biophysical conditions, and socio-economic outcomes. We
studied two seascapes, in East Lombok and North Lombok. The results in East Lombok
indicate ineffective management of the Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA (1,206 ha). In North
Lombok (117 km coastline), marine resources are managed by local communities under the
North Lombok Fisherman Union (LMNLU). The results in North Lombok indicate effective
marine resource management. This is attributed to the strength of the LMNLU and their local
rule, known as ‘awig-awig’. There are many challenges in achieving MPA effectiveness. We
learn that fishermen-based management can provide lessons learnt regarding the beneficial
stewardship of marine resources, ones that can inform the enhancement of MPA
management. One lesson learnt is that fishermen, if treated as agents of management, rather
than objects to be managed, will be effective marine resource stewards.
Introduction
Since the establishment of the Ministry of Marine and Fisheries in 1999, Indonesia has
recently allocated many marine protected areas (MPAs) that total more than 15 million
hectares. This is part of the national agenda which aims to allocate 20 million hectares of
MPAs by 2020 (Directorate for Conservation of Area and Fish Species, 2012). In addition, it
is also part of the local autonomy in which local governments attempt to manage their natural
resources since the national reform movement in 1998. Furthermore, this achievement shows
how the bottom-up and the top-down approaches work, and the development of community
involvement.
However, many people feel sceptical about the government’s target due to some
challenges in achieving the effective management of MPAs. There is widespread agreement
that establishing conservation areas is easier than their maintenance. This is a long process
where management components such as the management body, management plan and zoning,
activities and sustainable financing are developed to ensure natural resources are well
maintained by improving the condition of the natural resources and reducing pressure, as well
as providing socio-economic benefits to the local community. According to Agus Dermawan,
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 7
the Director of Conservation of Area and Fish Species – The Ministry of Marine and Fisheries
(Kompas, 2013) many MPAs have been assessed and determined to be ineffective. To this
point, MPAs should be conceived as still in the initiation phase. Their effectiveness can
mainly be measured by three indicators: governance (institutional), biophysical conditions,
and socio-economic indicators (Directorate for Conservation of Area and Fish Species, 2012;
Pomeroy, Parks & Watson, 2004; Carter, Soemodinoto & White, 2011). Therefore, it is
interesting to observe how an MPA works and what challenges it faces to be effectively
managed in the future.
The Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang (GSL) MPA was established in 2004, by the East
Lombok District government which is one of five marine conservation initiatives around
Lombok Island. These initiatives include Gili Matra, Gili Gede, Teluk Bumbang and Tanjung
Cina covering 54,054 hectares (Ningtias, Yulianto, Soemodinoto, Kartawijaya, Herdiana,
Warmadewa, Hasbi & Murtawan, 2013). Within 8 years of the establishment of the GSL
MPA, there were many challenges to their effective management. On the other hand, in the
North Lombok District (comprised of 117 km of coast line), there are no current MPAs
(except in Gili Matra), but marine resources are managed by a communal authority named
LMNLU (North Lombok Fisherman Union). Thus, there are different experiences and
characteristics between East Lombok and North Lombok especially Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang
MPA compared with the LMNLU.
Objective
This study attempts to examine, first, the effectiveness of MPAs in East Lombok by observing
three indicators: governance (institutional), biophysical conditions, and socio-economic
benefits and trough a comparison of these characteristics inside and outside the GSL MPA.
The effectiveness of management can be assessed by simply determining how the MPA
benefits the local people and how the natural capital changing. Secondly, some challenges for
the management in the GSL MPA will be identified. Thirdly, the North Lombok coastal area
management under LMNLU will be observed to gain a different perspective, experience and
benefit from the lessons learnt in the management of marine protected areas. Strengths and
weaknesses will be identified and opportunities and threats from both seascapes are provided.
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 8
Methods
Observations were made mainly in the East Lombok seascape between 15 August and 6
October 2013. Fishermen’s perceptions were considered in the evaluation of the effectiveness
of the Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA, both inside and outside the MPA using quota sampling
(Miller & Brewer, 2003). Sugian village fishermen respondents represent the perceptions of
fishermen inside the GSL MPA, while Labuan Pandan village fishermen respondents
represent fishermen perceptions outside the GSL MPA. Key informants, NGOs and
government staff also provided valuable input towards the evaluation using unstructured
interviews (Miller and Brewer, 2003). Some documents from academics, NGOs and the
government were collected for triangulation of findings (Chambers, 1999; Miller & Brewer,
2003).
Biophysical conditions on the coral reef was conducted both inside (Gili Sulat and Gili
Lawang Islands) and outside the GSL MPA which included the Gili Petagan, Bidara and
Kondo Islands (PBK Islands) using the manta tow method (English, Wilkinson & Baker,
1997). The condition of the mangroves was collected from the fishermen’s perceptions.
Figure 1. Study area of East Lombok District (Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA) and islands.
(Map: M.I. Lubis)
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 9
The other seascape – the North Lombok District (comprising of 117 km of coast line)
– was assessed using unstructured interviews, and collecting some documents from
academics, NGOs and the government for triangulation of findings.
Interviewees included representatives from the following bodies:
1. Local government of the East Lombok and North Lombok District consists of Marine
and Fisheries Agency, Forestry Agency, and Planning Agency (Bappeda).
2. Management office of the Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA.
3. Fishermen in Sugian and Labuan Pandan village of the East Lombok District, and
Gangga village of the North Lombok District.
4. NGOs and institutions such as LMNLU, Santiri, Konsepsi, Koslata, WCS, Universitas
Mataram and WWF-Indonesia Nusa Tenggara Program.
Results and discussion
East Lombok study
Most of the fishermen in Sugian and Labuan Pandan village utilize traditional practices,
including hooks and lines, nets and spear guns and are equipped with small boats (1-4
persons). The East Lombok District government classifies fishermen’s livelihoods into 3
categories which are “real fishermen”; “part time fishermen”; and “occasional fishermen”.
Real fishermen are defined as having livelihoods that are built solely on fishing activities, part
time fishermen mainly derive their livelihoods from fishing but they have additional income
from other sectors such as agriculture, while occasional fishermen use fishing activities to
support their main livelihood activities. The total number of fishermen in Sugian village is
118 (8% of the labour force), while the total number of fishermen in Labuan Panda village is
135 (6% of labor force) (BPMPD, 2012; Sahnan, 2010; Sambelia Subdistrict, 2013).
According to a participatory meeting in Sugian, participants calculated the ratio of real
fishermen, part time fishermen, and occasional fishermen as 1:7:12. This shows that the
majority of fishermen in Sugian village are “occasional fishermen”.
The questionnaire was given to 24 fishermen respondents in Sugian village (12
respondents) and Labuan Pandan (12 respondents). All respondents were male and most of
them (70.8%) graduated from elementary school. More than half the respondents (63%) are
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 10
older than 41 years old. Fifty four percent of respondents were “real fishermen”, while the
rest are part time fishermen.
Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA
Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang are two small unpopulated islands located north east of Lombok
Island within a distance of 1.5 km from the mainland (Lombok Island). Gili Sulat and Gili
Lawang Islands were declared a MPA in 2004 by the East Lombok District Decree: SK
Bupati Lombok Timur No 188.45/452/KP/2004 (Bupati Lombok Timur, 2004) with the
purpose of ensuring sustainable management of fisheries and natural resources and being
responsible for community welfare (Lombok Timur Marine and Fisheries Agency, 2010). The
total conserved area is 1,206 hectares which is located S 80 16.77’ – 20.73’ and E 116
0 41.1’ –
44.58’. Formally, this area is located in Sugian, Darakunci and Dadap Village of Sambelia
Subdistrict of East Lombok District, West Nusa Tenggara Province. Sugian village can be
reached from Mataram city by 3.5 hours of driving, while Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang can be
reached from Sugian using motorboat for about 15 minutes. The circumference of Gili Sulat
Island is 12.6 km, while Gili Lawang Island is 9.4 km.
Table 1. Historical time line of marine regulation and conservation in national and district levels.
Year Events Notes
National Level
1985 Act number 9 About Fisheries
1990 Act number 5 About Conservation of biological conditions and
their ecosystem resources
2004 Act number 31 About Fisheries, a revision on Act number 9 year
1985
Decree of Marine and Fisheries Minister
number Kep.38/Men/2004
About general orientation of coral reef
management
2007 Government Regulation number 60 About Conservation on fisheries resources
2008 Regulation of Minister of Marine and
Fisheries Republic of Indonesia number:
Per.17/Men/2008
About conservation area on coastal and small
islands
2009 Act number 45 About Fisheries, a revision on Act number 31 year
2004
Regulation of Minister of Marine and
Fisheries Republic of Indonesia number:
Per.02/Men/2009
About the procedure of determining waters
conservation area
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 11
2010 Regulation of Minister of Marine and
Fisheries Republic of Indonesia number:
Per30/Men/2010
About Planning on management and zoning waters
conservation area
District Level
1983 Mangrove rehabilitation in Gili Sulat, Gili
Lawang, and Gili Petagan islands
Supported by JICA
1994 Decree of the Ministry of Forestry Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang as a forest reserve
2004 Decree of Head of East Lombok District
number: 188.45/452/KP/2004
About Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang of Sambelia
Subdistrict as a Local Marine Protected Area
2006 Local Regulation of East Lombok District
number 10
The management of Local Marine Protected Area
2009 The decree of the Minister of Forestry SK
Menhut No 598/Menhut – II/ 2009
Reconfirms Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang as a forest
reserve
Local Regulation of East Lombok District
number 2
Prohibition of coral mining in East Lombok
District
2010 Decree of Head of East Lombok District
number: 188.45/445/KP/2010
Formation of local surveillance and the prevention
of coral mining in East Lombok District
The GSL MPA management office
established
2011 Conflict of fishing area A conflict between local fishermen and fish traders
in Sugian with outsider fishermen and fish traders
Awig-awig in Sugian under “SATGAS Pada
Angen” (local surveillance group)
Awig-awig about local regulation of fishing
activities around Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang
islands
Governance (institutional) indicators
Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang Islands are under forestry management by the decree of the
Ministry of Forestry 1994 and 2009. According to the Head of Forest Agency of the East
Lombok District, there is no overlapping authority between the Forest Agency and the GSL
management office. The mangrove forest is under forest agency authority, while the water
area is under the Marine and Fisheries agency. He quotes the Ministry of Forestry regulation
number 22, 2012 about the utilization of environmental services and ecotourism in protected
forests. However, there is no staff, ranger and office of forestry in Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang
Islands.
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 12
Table 2. Governance (institutional) indicators checklist of the GSL MPA.
Governance
components
Check
list Note
MPA established East Lombok District Decree in 2004 (SK Bupati Lombok Timur No
188.45/452/KP/2004)
Structure of
management body
There are only 4 staff. Head of MPA, administration, field staff, and
office assistant
Activities X - GSL MPA doesn’t have documentation on natural resources
(coral reef, mangrove, fish population) and their changes
- Marine patrols only 1 – 2 times a year
- There is no natural asset resources and resource use monitoring
Zoning system Zoning system under implementation but not legalised
Budget The budget is $1,500 per year, of which the majority is used for
administrative costs
Community
involvement
X There are no activities that involve the community except for an
initial meeting on the MPA establishment process and building an
office.
The Marine and Fisheries Agency built an MPA office in 2010. However, according
to the Head of Marine and Fisheries Agency of the East Lombok District, the GSL MPA
management is not effective due to staff and budgetary limitations. Among fishermen
respondents, both inside the MPA and outside the MPA, the majority - 54.5% and 72.7%
respectively, agree that the GSL MPA is not effectively managed (Figure 2.a.). It is purported
that destructive fishing methods are used and surveillance is unable to keep up with
monitoring responsibilities. Thus many fishermen believe that the GSL MPA management
body must increase their marine patrol services in order to reduce the destructive fishing
practices (Figure 2.b.). In addition, although some research has been carried out by students,
academic institutions and NGOs, the GSL MPA management office claims that they don’t
have documented findings of this issue.
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 13
Figure 2.a. Fishermen’s opinions both inside and outside the MPA on the question “Has GSL MPA been
effectively managed?”. b. Fishermen’s opinions both inside and outside of MPA on the question
“What is needed to be improved in GSL MPA?”.
The local community attempted to develop awig-awig and local surveillance such as
“Satgas Pada Angin” in Sugian to prevent destructive fishing practices in 2011. They
identified the bombing fishermen are from Tanjung and Timbegali of Dadap village, Batusela
of Darakunci village, Pedamekan of Belanting village and Labuhan Lombok village, and coral
miners are in Menagabaris of Padak village and Kurubian of Padakguar village. However,
their efforts don’t have enough support from other villages, so they don’t have the capability
to organize a large group of fishermen to prevent destructive fishing. Moreover, the
government also attempts to develop local surveillance named KPPL. However, KPPL also
hasn’t effectively worked due to the top down approach and limited budget as well as lack of
sense of belonging in the community.
Biophysical conditions
The natural assets in Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang Islands are mangroves, coral reef and
seagrass ecosystems. According to the Directorate for Conservation of Area and Fish Species
(2013) Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang Islands are predominantly covered by mangrove vegetation
such as Rhizopora apiculata, R. stylosa, R. mucronata, Bruguiera gemnorrhyza, Sonneratia
alba, Ceriops tagal, Luminitzera recemora and Avicenia marina. The mangrove ecosystems
in these islands are considered to be healthier than other mangrove vegetation on Lombok
Island. Since 1983, there have been some mangrove projects in Gili Sulat, Gili Lawang and
Gili Petagan Islands supported by the Forestry agency and institutions such as JICA and
Yayasan JARI Mataram. As a result, most of the respondents (81.8%) feel that mangrove
conditions in the GSL MPA have improved (Figure 3.). However, a lack of publicity creates a
0.0%
25.0%
50.0%
75.0%
100.0% Yes
No Don't know
Inside MPA Outside MPA
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0% Staff
Sea patrol
Publicise
Facilities
Finance
All
b a
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 14
misunderstanding within the community that the establishment of the GSL MPA is only for
mangrove protection purposes. Moreover, this fact is supported by the declining condition of
coral reefs.
Figure 3. Fishermen’s opinions both inside and outside the GSL MPA on the mangrove cover condition
inside the GSL MPA.
Coral reef surrounding islands in the GSL MPA and PBK islands is the fringing reef
type with a slight slope then becoming steep. The result of manta tow surveys performed in
September 2013 in 3 – 5 m depth show that many points are damaged by bomb fishing
practices (Picture 1.). The survey shows rubble coverage of up to 85% around Gili Lawang
Island. The average rubble cover per island inside and outside the GSL MPA is between 25%
and 34%. We heard bomb fishing one time in front of Gili Sulat Island during the manta tow
survey.
No mass bleaching coral occurred both inside and outside of the GSL MPA, but dead
coral coverage was found to be up to 25% in Gili Petagan and Gili Kondo Islands. The
average dead coral cover per island inside and outside the GSL MPA being between 3% and
11%.
Worse Stable Improved
Inside MPA 9.1% 9.1% 81.8%
Outside MPA 0.0% 18.2% 81.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 15
Figure 4. Substrate conditions inside and outside the GSL MPA based on manta tow surveys, September
2013.
Picture 1. Coral damage caused by bomb fishing in Gili Sulat Island. Photo: author.
The percentage of hard coral inside the GSL MPA is between 5% and 70% with the
average 26%, while the percentage of hard coral outside the GSL MPA is between 10% and
65% with the average 30%. The average of hard coral live cover per island inside and outside
the GSL MPA is between 24% – 33% (Figure 4.).
26% 25% 27% 24% 33%
4% 3%
11%
5%
10%
29% 31%
25% 34%
32%
22% 31%
8% 4%
8%
18% 10%
29% 33%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Gili Sulat Gili Lawang Gili Kondo Gili Bidara Gili Petagan
Inside MPA Outside MPA
Biotic
Abiotic
Rubble
Dead Coral
Hard coral
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 16
Figure 5. displays hard coral and rubble cover composition around islands inside and
outside of the GSL MPA. Results from the two-sample t-test indicate a significant different
between the hard coral means and rubble means (t = -2.0342, df = 320.121326279495, p-
value = 0.0428) (Figure 6.). Thus, it is very likely that a higher coverage of hard corals
results in a lower coverage of rubble, and vice versa. It is evident that areas of lower
perturbation have better hard coral cover, and the areas of higher perturbation have worse
hard coral cover. The better conditions of hard coral coverage are found at the southern end
of Gili Sulat, south of Gili Lawang and south of Gili Petagan Islands. The area is dominated
by branching coral branching and foliose coral varieties. Soft coral cover dominates in the
north west Gili Sulat, south of Gili Kondo, around Gili Bidara and north east Gili Petagan.
Inside the GSL MPA Outside the GSL MPA
Figure 5. Hard coral and rubble coverage both inside and outside the GSL MPA based on manta tow
survey, September 2013.
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 17
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Hard
cora
l cover
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Rubble
cover
Figure 6. The different between hard coral and rubble cover based on the manta tow survey, September
2013 in the GSL MPA and PBK Islands.
The manta tow survey allows for large area analysis and allows one to determine basic
reef condition information such as coral bleaching events, Acanthaster outbreaks, damage
from bomb fishing practices, coral disease, and sedimentation on corals. The MPA
management office could use this basic information as a reference in the management of
zoning plans and could provide basic information to design more detail in coral reef
monitoring program.
In general, based on the manta tow survey the condition of hard corals living along the
leeward side of Gili Sulat, Gili Lawang and Gili Petagan Islands displays a better condition
than along the windward side. It indicates destructive fishing practices are more frequent on
the windward area which is hidden from the mainland and community surveillance.
Interestingly, in general the condition is observed to be better outside the MPA (30%)
compared to inside the MPA (26%) (Figure 7.). Although bombing fishing practice continues,
fishermen in Labuan Pandan (outside the GSL MPA) say that tourism around the PBK islands
offers incentives to prevent destructive fishing practices.
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 18
Figure 7. The average of hard coral coverage both inside and outside the GSL MPA based on mantatow
survey, September 2013.
During the manta tow survey, no sharks were observed. Only one sea turtle was
encountered, near Gili Sulat Island. Fish abundance was not considered, however it was
evident that grouper fish (Serranidae) and schooling fish are extremely rare.
Socio-economic indicators
There are 25 liftnet boats from Sumbawa operating around Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang Islands
to catch anchovy. This situation has triggered conflict especially when Sumbawa fishermen
sell their fish catch to outsider fish traders. Nevertheless, the conflict can be solved by Sugian
awig-awig (local rule) which was introduced in 2011. On the other hand, 25 liftnet boats in a
small area like Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang Islands tend to be unsustainable.
Inside MPA Outside MPA
MPA
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Hard
cora
l cove
r
a b
Picture 2.a. Local fish traders in Sugian village are waiting for fishes catch from liftnet boats. b. Dry
anchovy in Sugian village. Photos: author.
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 19
Within 8 years of the establishment of GSL MPA, many fishermen, both inside
(54.5%) and outside (90% and 80%) the GSL MPA, claim that their fishing catch and income
have declined (Figure 8.). To increase their catch, fishermen in Sugian built a “rumpon” (an
artificial floating reef to attract pelagic fish aggregation) 7 miles away from their village. Fish
catches near the islands (Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang Islands) produced 15 kg per trip, while
rumpon catches neared 70 kg per trip. Also, many fishermen in Labuan Pandan became
boatmen for tourists who visit PBK islands. In addition, there is a pearl farm company (PT.
Auture) in Labuan Pandan employing 200 local workers.
Figure 8. Fishermen’s opinions both inside and outside the GSL MPA on their fishing catches and income
currently compare to before the establishment of the GSL MPA.
North Lombok study
North Lombok has also had to deal with destructive fishing issues. However, fishermen in
North Lombok have been able to organise themselves into a large group (1,406 fisherman in
30 fishermen’s groups in 5 subdistricts) named LMNLU with a unified goal to ban destructive
fishing practices in their area. They realise that the continual bombing in the past had been
reducing catches and was unsustainable. LMNLU was established in 2000, and from 2002 –
2006 anyone found utilizing destructive fishing practices was arrested. From 2006 to the -
present there have been no recorded bombing activities. They applied a local rule, ‘awig-
awig’, with a strong punishment system. For effective marine patrol purposes, they use
fishermen as informants to monitor resource use activities. They also work together with the
Marine and Fisheries Agency of North Lombok District (DKKP3) and the “water police”. As
Fishing catch
decrease
Fishing catch stable
Fishing catch
increase
Income decrease
Income stable
Income increase
Inside MPA 54.5% 45.5% 0.0% 54.5% 45.5% 0.0%
Outside MPA 90.0% 10.0% 0.0% 80.0% 20.0% 0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 20
a result, the national government gave an award to LMNLU for community surveillance
initiative in 2006.
Figure 9. Historical timeline of LMNLU in North Lombok District.
The differences between East Lombok and North Lombok firstly, are associated with
the initiation of the MPA. The GSL MPA was initiated by the government while the LMNLU
was initiated by the fishing community. Secondly, they have similar threats which are
destructive fishing practices. However, the fishing community in East Lombok does not have
a unified goal to ban destructive fishing practices. The initiative in Sugian with their local
surveillance and “awig-awig” does not have support from other villages. Thus, there are
difficulties with the organization the community in East Lombok. The government says that
there is an inadequate budget for running activities. On the other hand, the local community
feels if the government is able to involve the community and stakeholders, it can solve the
budget issue.
Picture 3. Traditional boats in Gangga village of North Lombok District. Photo: author.
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 21
The success story of the LMNLU brings a different perspective to fisheries
management, especially regarding how fishermen regulate the area without formal
boundaries. Although this is similar to other ecosystem-based management methods for
preserving natural assets, fishermen-based management emphasizes the fisherman’s role as an
agent of management rather than the object to be managed. The LMNLU approach is
prioritises the needs of local fishermen, such as fishing locations and fishing gear. This is
different from the government approach that often does not involve community participation,
and consequently fails. The SWOT analysis below attempts to identify the difference between
the GSL MPA (East Lombok) and LMNLU (North Lombok).
There is a GSL management
office.
Community support.
Small MPA (1,206 ha) that
should be relatively easier to
manage.
Fishermen based management
(with bottom-up approach).
Capacity of community
organisation.
Sense of belonging in securing
their natural assets.
Strong cohesion among
members (1,406 fisherman from
30 groups in 5 subdistricts).
Awig-awig rule.
Ecosystem based
management (with top-
down approach).
Lack of community
involvement.
Limited staff and budget.
Zoning system has not
been approved.
Differing perceptions of
prevention of destructive
fishing within
communities.
• No boundary definition
of management area
(MPA is not established).
• Self funding.
• Limited facilities.
• No document
describing
biophysical and
socio-economic
indicators.
Weaknesses
Strength
East Lombok North Lombok
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 22
Picture 4.a. Gili Lawang and Gili Sulat Islands of the GSL MPA, East Lombok District. b. Beach along
the North Lombok District. Photos: author.
Increasing MPA size.
Support from NGOs.
Strengthening
fishermen’s capabilities
in cooperation and
association building.
Increasing community
involvement.
• Increasing support from
government (integration
of bottom-up and top-
down approach).
• Empowering the
women’s group to support
household’s income.
• MPA network and
partnership.
• Increasing
effectiveness of
management.
• Education.
• Tourism.
• Aquaculture.
Destructive fishing
practices continue.
Distrust of MPA
management.
Flood event.
• Other illegal fishing gear
such as trawling from
outsider fishermen.
• Sustainable management
of LMNLU/
Regeneration.
• Waste from land
(industries, hotel/
restaurants and
households).
• Competition with
outsiders for space
and fishing gear
(modern/large scale).
• Coral bleaching
events.
Opportunities
East Lombok North Lombok
Threats
a b
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 23
Challenges
The critical challenge of both East and North Lombok is how the MPA or management area is
to be effectively managed. They need support from the government for the community to be
involved and empowered especially in East Lombok. On the other hand, the LMNLU has a
challenge to regenerate to maintain their management as well as maintaining strong cohesion
of fishermen groups within the union. The critical challenge can be addressed through
education, providing information (publicity) about the rules of the MPA, the important
aspects of marine ecosystems such as mangroves and coral reefs, as well as the disadvantage
of destructive fishing practice. It can also be achieved through support for fishermen by
introducing and granting eco friendly fishing gear. Furthermore, a program of woman
empowerment like LMNLU carry out such as developing home industry of processed fishery
products as alternative incomes for fishermen family also can be implemented.
Sustainable and sufficient sources of funding are needed to run activities. For
example, LMNLU received trust to receive a CSR grant for monitoring activities. Thus, a
partnership between the government, NGOs and academics and stakeholders can be created to
achieve sustainable funding.
The lack of biophysical and socio-economic studies of East and North Lombok,
creates management challenges because informed decisions are more difficult to make. The
important thing is the MPA provides benefits to the local community as well as preserving
and managing the natural assets. However, this needs to be measured and people can then be
aware of this benefit through this documentation.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the GSL MPA management in East Lombok was not effective due to a lack of
governance (institutional), biophysical conditions and socio-economic indicators. These
inadequacies are expressed by inadequate staff, activities and budgeting, the degradation of
coral reef ecosystems as well as fishermen’s incomes and fishing catches. In addition, bomb
fishing practices still continue in some areas. On the other hand, North Lombok under
LMNLU has been assessed to be more effective due to their success in reducing natural
threats even though there is no formal boundary for the MPA. However, reports and
documentation of changing biophysical and socio-economic circumstances are needed to
measure the effectiveness of the management of East and North Lombok.
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 24
In terms of national targets, size does matter but effective management is more
important. Therefore, the government should pay more attention to and support community
initiatives rather than establishing new MPAs without an adequate management plan. The
government can account for the area such as LMNLU to be included into the national
achievement of MPA targets. Fisherman-based management emphasizes the fisherman’s role
as an agent of management rather than object to be managed. This study has shown that this
approach is more effective in North Lombok, and can serve as a role model to be applied in
other areas.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Prof. Jeffrey Sayer and Dr. Agni (Intu) Boedhihartono as program
director and deputy director, respectively, of the Master of Development Practice Program,
James Cook University, Cairns Campus. I thank Lalu Adi Gunawan for his tremendous help
during my time in Lombok. I am grateful to the numerous individuals and institutions (to all
of respondents; the government of the East Lombok and North Lombok District; Aliman of
Sugian Diving Club; Pak Ishak, Pak Idun, and Pak Fahrudin of the GSL MPA office; Pak
Zainal head of Sugian village; Pak Sahnan head of Labuan Pandan village; Pe Lalu Rizal
Ashadi of the East Lombok Planning Agency (Bappeda); LMNLU; Pak Imam Bachtiar of
Universitas Mataram; Tasrif and Jambul of WCS; Pak Abidin, Pe Heri and Pak Agus of
Konsepsi; Pak Syamsul and Pak Salman of Koslata and LMNLU; Pak Catur and Arum of
Santiri; Mas Boen of JARI; and Syafrudin of WWF-Indonesia Nusa Tenggara Program). I
thank Tyler Jay Reynolds and James Langston for their help in editing and constructing this
report, poster and presentation. I thank Muhammad Irfansyah Lubis and Thol Sem for their
support in producing maps. Finally I thank all MDP classmates for sharing their knowledge,
friendship and teamwork.
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 25
References
BPMPD. (2012). Village profile of Sugian (translated from Bahasa Indonesia). Directorate
General of Community Empowerment and Village.
Bupati Lombok Timur. (2004). The decree of Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang of Sambelia
Subdistrict as a marine protected area. East Lombok District decree.
Carter, E., Soemodinoto, A. & White, A. (2010). Guide for Improving Marine Protected Area
Management Effectiveness in Indonesia. Bali, Indonesia: The Nature Conservancy
Indonesia Marine Program, xi + 49p.
Directorate for Conservation of Area and Fish Species (2012). Technical guidelines for
evaluating the management effectiveness of aquatic, coasts, and small islands
conservation Areas (E-KKP3K). Jakarta: Directorate for Conservation of Area and
Fish Species, Directorate General of Marine, Coasts and Small Islands, Ministry of
Marine Affairs and Fisheries.
Dermawan, A., Suraji, Wiryawan B., Koswara W. and Martosudarmo B. (2007). The
guideline of arrangement of the locally marine protected area management plan
(translated from Bahasa Indonesia). Jakarta: Coral Reef Rehabilitation and
Management Program COREMAP II, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries.
English, S., Wilkinson C. and Baker V. (1997). Survey Manual for Tropical Marine
Resources. 2nd
edition. Townsville, QLD.: Australian Institute of Marine Science.
Directorate for Conservation of Area and Fish Species (2012). Database – Data of
conservation areas. Retrieved 5 July 2013 from
http://kkji.kp3k.kkp.go.id/index.php/basisdata-kawasan-konservasi/details/1/85
Kompas. (2013). Marine Conservation – Evaluating the effective management of area
(translated from Bahasa Indonesia). Newspaper.
Lombok Timur Marine and Fisheries Agency. (2010). Role of the local government to initiate
the development of locally marine protected area. [Powerpoint presentation] Presented
in the national marine protected areas coordination workshop.
Miller, R.L. and Brewer J.D. (2003). The A-Z of social research: a dictionary of key social
science research concepts. London: Sage Publication.
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 26
Ningtias, P., I. Yulianto, A. Soemodinoto, T. Kartawijaya, Y. Herdiana, I.D.G. Warmadewa,
K.M. Hasbi & H. Murtawan. (2013). Efektivitas Pengelolaan Kawasan Konservasi
Perairan, Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil (E-KKP3K) di Provinsi Nusa Tenggara
Barat. Bogor: Wildlife Conservation Society.
Pomeroy, R.S., Parks, J.E. & Watson, L.M. (2004). How is your MPA? A guidebook of
natural and social indicators for evaluating marine protected area management
effectiveness. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Xvi + 216 pp.
Sahnan. (2010). Monograph of Labuan Pandan village (translated from Bahasa Indonesia).
Labuan Pandan Village office documentation.
Sambelia Subdistrict. 2013. Subdistrict profile of Sambelia year 2013. Sambelia Subdistrict of
East Lombok District.
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 27
Attachments
Table 3. Manta tow data conducted 24, 28 and 29 September 2013 in Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang Islands (inside the
GSL MPA) and PBK Islands (outside the GSL MPA).
Tow no.
MPA GPS Position Island Hard coral Dead Coral Rubble Abiotic Biotic
1 Inside MPA -8 18.698 116 42.539 Sulat 35% 5% 25% 15% 20%
2 Inside MPA -8 18.623 116 42.666 Sulat 25% 5% 15% 25% 30%
3 Inside MPA -8 18.557 116 42.807 Sulat 25% 5% 30% 20% 20%
4 Inside MPA -8 18.505 116 42.973 Sulat 5% 0% 60% 10% 25%
5 Inside MPA -8 18.534 116 43.114 Sulat 10% 5% 45% 20% 20%
6 Inside MPA -8 18.620 116 43.248 Sulat 10% 0% 45% 30% 15%
7 Inside MPA -8 18.754 116 43.372 Sulat 10% 0% 50% 25% 15%
8 Inside MPA -8 18.887 116 43.504 Sulat 5% 0% 70% 15% 10%
9 Inside MPA -8 18.988 116 43.595 Sulat 30% 5% 25% 20% 20%
10 Inside MPA -8 19.083 116 43.669 Sulat 20% 0% 50% 20% 10%
11 Inside MPA -8 19.175 116 43.730 Sulat 20% 0% 40% 20% 20%
12 Inside MPA -8 19.271 116 43.810 Sulat 10% 0% 50% 20% 20%
13 Inside MPA -8 19.353 116 43.892 Sulat 25% 5% 40% 20% 10%
14 Inside MPA -8 19.438 116 43.963 Sulat 15% 0% 40% 30% 15%
15 Inside MPA -8 19.528 116 44.054 Sulat 10% 0% 45% 40% 5%
16 Inside MPA -8 19.609 116 44.135 Sulat 25% 5% 25% 25% 20%
17 Inside MPA -8 19.707 116 44.215 Sulat 20% 5% 30% 25% 20%
18 Inside MPA -8 19.805 116 44.314 Sulat 30% 5% 10% 40% 15%
19 Inside MPA -8 19.888 116 44.424 Sulat 30% 5% 10% 40% 15%
20 Inside MPA -8 19.984 116 44.532 Sulat 25% 0% 10% 50% 15%
21 Inside MPA -8 20.091 116 44.604 Sulat 10% 0% 5% 80% 5%
22 Inside MPA -8 20.182 116 44.656 Sulat 30% 0% 15% 50% 5%
23 Inside MPA -8 20.270 116 44.675 Sulat 20% 0% 30% 30% 20%
24 Inside MPA -8 20.375 116 44.695 Sulat 40% 5% 15% 10% 30%
25 Inside MPA -8 20.471 116 44.702 Sulat 60% 0% 10% 10% 20%
26 Inside MPA -8 20.580 116 44.689 Sulat 50% 0% 15% 15% 20%
27 Inside MPA -8 20.695 116 44.679 Sulat 50% 5% 15% 10% 20%
28 Inside MPA -8 20.815 116 44.673 Sulat 70% 5% 10% 5% 10%
29 Inside MPA -8 20.909 116 44.577 Sulat 50% 10% 20% 0% 20%
30 Inside MPA -8 20.900 116 44.410 Sulat 40% 15% 25% 5% 15%
31 Inside MPA -8 20.828 116 44.287 Sulat 40% 20% 30% 5% 5%
32 Inside MPA -8 20.698 116 44.213 Sulat 30% 20% 30% 10% 10%
33 Inside MPA -8 20.645 116 44.036 Sulat 30% 15% 30% 5% 20%
34 Inside MPA -8 20.527 116 43.955 Sulat 20% 10% 40% 20% 10%
35 Inside MPA -8 20.454 116 43.792 Sulat 20% 5% 50% 15% 10%
36 Inside MPA -8 20.442 116 43.648 Sulat 20% 5% 40% 20% 15%
37 Inside MPA -8 20.346 116 43.510 Sulat 20% 5% 40% 20% 15%
38 Inside MPA -8 20.270 116 43.439 Sulat 25% 10% 30% 10% 25%
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 28
39 Inside MPA -8 20.166 116 43.347 Sulat 30% 10% 20% 10% 30%
40 Inside MPA -8 20.114 116 43.236 Sulat 25% 5% 20% 10% 40%
41 Inside MPA -8 20.026 116 43.133 Sulat 25% 5% 20% 20% 30%
42 Inside MPA -8 19.935 116 43.026 Sulat 25% 5% 20% 15% 35%
43 Inside MPA -8 19.865 116 42.916 Sulat 25% 0% 25% 25% 25%
44 Inside MPA -8 19.788 116 42.811 Sulat 10% 0% 30% 30% 30%
45 Inside MPA -8 19.719 116 42.703 Sulat 20% 0% 50% 30% 0%
46 Inside MPA -8 19.665 116 42.641 Sulat 30% 0% 30% 30% 10%
47 Inside MPA -8 19.592 116 42.566 Sulat 30% 5% 30% 30% 5%
48 Inside MPA -8 19.514 116 42.515 Sulat 20% 5% 30% 40% 5%
49 Inside MPA -8 19.434 116 42.450 Sulat 20% 5% 30% 40% 5%
50 Inside MPA -8 19.338 116 42.421 Sulat 20% 5% 30% 40% 5%
51 Inside MPA -8 19.242 116 42.381 Sulat 40% 0% 10% 20% 30%
52 Inside MPA -8 19.125 116 42.347 Sulat 20% 0% 10% 10% 60%
53 Inside MPA -8 18.999 116 42.305 Sulat 15% 0% 40% 5% 40%
54 Inside MPA -8 18.870 116 42.351 Sulat 15% 0% 40% 5% 40%
55 Inside MPA -8 18.745 116 42.475 Sulat 35% 5% 25% 15% 20%
56 Inside MPA -8 18.539 116 42.422 Lawang 25% 5% 30% 20% 20%
57 Inside MPA -8 18.522 116 42.501 Lawang 15% 5% 40% 30% 10%
58 Inside MPA -8 18.472 116 42.567 Lawang 25% 0% 35% 25% 15%
59 Inside MPA -8 18.416 116 42.616 Lawang 25% 0% 35% 25% 15%
60 Inside MPA -8 18.351 116 42.675 Lawang 10% 0% 30% 50% 10%
61 Inside MPA -8 18.278 116 42.742 Lawang 10% 0% 10% 70% 10%
62 Inside MPA -8 18.160 116 42.781 Lawang 20% 0% 15% 50% 15%
63 Inside MPA -8 18.008 116 42.768 Lawang 25% 0% 15% 50% 10%
64 Inside MPA -8 17.877 116 42.693 Lawang 5% 0% 75% 15% 5%
65 Inside MPA -8 17.786 116 42.616 Lawang 5% 0% 85% 5% 5%
66 Inside MPA -8 17.700 116 42.537 Lawang 10% 5% 15% 60% 10%
67 Inside MPA -8 17.611 116 42.458 Lawang 15% 5% 50% 20% 10%
68 Inside MPA -8 17.527 116 42.378 Lawang 20% 0% 50% 20% 10%
69 Inside MPA -8 17.423 116 42.294 Lawang 15% 0% 70% 10% 5%
70 Inside MPA -8 17.327 116 42.217 Lawang 15% 0% 70% 10% 5%
71 Inside MPA -8 17.241 116 42.146 Lawang 15% 0% 70% 10% 5%
72 Inside MPA -8 17.143 116 42.061 Lawang 20% 0% 40% 30% 10%
73 Inside MPA -8 17.054 116 41.983 Lawang 25% 5% 35% 20% 15%
74 Inside MPA -8 16.979 116 41.830 Lawang 25% 5% 35% 20% 15%
75 Inside MPA -8 16.886 116 41.707 Lawang 30% 10% 30% 20% 10%
76 Inside MPA -8 16.773 116 41.591 Lawang 20% 0% 30% 40% 10%
77 Inside MPA -8 16.670 116 41.473 Lawang 10% 0% 75% 10% 5%
78 Inside MPA -8 16.614 116 41.316 Lawang 15% 0% 10% 70% 5%
79 Inside MPA -8 16.665 116 41.251 Lawang 10% 0% 10% 75% 5%
80 Inside MPA -8 16.726 116 41.209 Lawang 15% 0% 5% 75% 5%
81 Inside MPA -8 16.778 116 41.180 Lawang 10% 0% 0% 85% 5%
82 Inside MPA -8 16.851 116 41.148 Lawang 15% 0% 0% 80% 5%
83 Inside MPA -8 16.910 116 41.072 Lawang 15% 5% 20% 55% 5%
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 29
84 Inside MPA -8 17.027 116 41.022 Lawang 30% 0% 25% 25% 20%
85 Inside MPA -8 17.180 116 41.010 Lawang 35% 0% 10% 30% 25%
86 Inside MPA -8 17.349 116 41.967 Lawang 30% 0% 20% 40% 10%
87 Inside MPA -8 17.538 116 41.016 Lawang 35% 5% 10% 30% 20%
88 Inside MPA -8 17.703 116 41.100 Lawang 40% 0% 25% 25% 10%
89 Inside MPA -8 17.819 116 41.198 Lawang 60% 10% 10% 10% 10%
90 Inside MPA -8 17.871 116 41.346 Lawang 55% 10% 10% 10% 15%
91 Inside MPA -8 17.890 116 41.472 Lawang 40% 5% 10% 35% 10%
92 Inside MPA -8 17.031 116 41.487 Lawang 45% 5% 20% 20% 10%
93 Inside MPA -8 18.147 116 41.601 Lawang 40% 0% 30% 20% 10%
94 Inside MPA -8 18.264 116 41.654 Lawang 30% 0% 30% 30% 10%
95 Inside MPA -8 18.339 116 41.763 Lawang 30% 0% 30% 30% 10%
96 Inside MPA -8 18.343 116 41.859 Lawang 20% 5% 50% 20% 5%
97 Inside MPA -8 18.260 116 41.960 Lawang 20% 5% 50% 20% 5%
98 Inside MPA -8 18.313 116 42.039 Lawang 30% 10% 35% 20% 5%
99 Inside MPA -8 18.400 116 42.031 Lawang 40% 10% 20% 20% 10%
100 Inside MPA -8 18.467 116 41.941 Lawang 40% 5% 35% 10% 10%
101 Inside MPA -8 18.626 116 41.980 Lawang 60% 0% 20% 15% 5%
102 Inside MPA -8 18.679 116 42.130 Lawang 50% 5% 20% 15% 10%
103 Inside MPA -8 18.614 116 42.328 Lawang 20% 5% 30% 20% 25%
104 Outside MPA -8 26.558 116 44.015 Kondo 25% 25% 30% 5% 15%
105 Outside MPA -8 26.498 116 43.875 Kondo 40% 20% 10% 0% 30%
106 Outside MPA -8 26.687 116 43.718 Kondo 30% 15% 30% 5% 20%
107 Outside MPA -8 26.860 116 43.670 Kondo 35% 15% 20% 0% 30%
108 Outside MPA -8 26.994 116 43.682 Kondo 35% 15% 15% 0% 35%
109 Outside MPA -8 27.079 116 43.702 Kondo 30% 10% 30% 0% 30%
110 Outside MPA -8 27.161 116 43.732 Kondo 20% 10% 20% 0% 50%
111 Outside MPA -8 27.196 116 43.793 Kondo 30% 5% 30% 0% 35%
112 Outside MPA -8 27.157 116 43.899 Kondo 30% 5% 30% 0% 35%
113 Outside MPA -8 27.072 116 43.999 Kondo 30% 5% 25% 10% 30%
114 Outside MPA -8 26.938 116 44.039 Kondo 30% 5% 30% 10% 25%
115 Outside MPA -8 26.810 116 44.054 Kondo 20% 10% 20% 30% 20%
116 Outside MPA -8 26.044 116 44.044 Kondo 10% 5% 15% 45% 25%
117 Outside MPA -8 26.592 116 44.021 Kondo 15% 5% 50% 10% 20%
118 Outside MPA -8 26.578 116 44.152 Bidara 30% 10% 30% 0% 30%
119 Outside MPA -8 26.630 116 44.177 Bidara 15% 5% 40% 0% 40%
120 Outside MPA -8 26.682 116 44.230 Bidara 15% 5% 40% 0% 40%
121 Outside MPA -8 26.589 116 44.333 Bidara 20% 5% 35% 0% 40%
122 Outside MPA -8 26.495 116 44.424 Bidara 20% 5% 45% 0% 30%
123 Outside MPA -8 26.389 116 44.422 Bidara 15% 5% 45% 5% 30%
124 Outside MPA -8 26.321 116 44.318 Bidara 15% 5% 40% 10% 30%
125 Outside MPA -8 26.293 116 44.197 Bidara 25% 5% 30% 10% 30%
126 Outside MPA -8 26.300 116 44.107 Bidara 30% 5% 30% 5% 30%
127 Outside MPA -8 26.386 116 44.101 Bidara 40% 5% 20% 5% 30%
128 Outside MPA -8 26.496 116 44.134 Bidara 35% 5% 20% 5% 35%
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 30
129 Outside MPA -8 26.065 116 44.721 Petagan 50% 10% 10% 0% 30%
130 Outside MPA -8 26.137 116 44.799 Petagan 50% 20% 10% 0% 20%
131 Outside MPA -8 26.078 116 44.859 Petagan 50% 20% 15% 0% 15%
132 Outside MPA -8 26.153 116 44.919 Petagan 50% 15% 20% 0% 15%
133 Outside MPA -8 26.270 116 44.924 Petagan 30% 20% 30% 5% 15%
134 Outside MPA -8 26.359 116 45.008 Petagan 30% 20% 20% 5% 25%
135 Outside MPA -8 26.337 116 45.116 Petagan 45% 10% 30% 5% 10%
136 Outside MPA -8 26.298 116 45.224 Petagan 65% 5% 25% 0% 5%
137 Outside MPA -8 26.141 116 45.265 Petagan 20% 10% 30% 10% 30%
138 Outside MPA -8 26.041 116 45.336 Petagan 25% 20% 20% 10% 25%
139 Outside MPA -8 26.095 116 45.404 Petagan 25% 15% 25% 0% 35%
140 Outside MPA -8 25.972 116 45.484 Petagan 30% 10% 30% 10% 20%
141 Outside MPA -8 25.875 116 45.465 Petagan 30% 10% 30% 0% 30%
142 Outside MPA -8 25.746 116 45.483 Petagan 35% 10% 40% 0% 15%
143 Outside MPA -8 25.610 116 45.419 Petagan 25% 5% 25% 25% 20%
144 Outside MPA -8 25.457 116 45.411 Petagan 25% 10% 25% 10% 30%
145 Outside MPA -8 25.289 116 45.528 Petagan 30% 10% 25% 5% 30%
146 Outside MPA -8 25.159 116 45.434 Petagan 30% 10% 30% 0% 30%
147 Outside MPA -8 25.022 116 45.444 Petagan 20% 25% 30% 0% 25%
148 Outside MPA -8 24.885 116 45.405 Petagan 20% 10% 50% 5% 15%
149 Outside MPA -8 24.762 116 45.330 Petagan 15% 10% 60% 5% 10%
150 Outside MPA -8 24.788 116 45.218 Petagan 15% 10% 60% 10% 5%
151 Outside MPA -8 24.783 116 45.112 Petagan 15% 5% 55% 15% 10%
152 Outside MPA -8 24.848 116 45.014 Petagan 20% 5% 50% 15% 10%
153 Outside MPA -8 24.915 116 44.925 Petagan 10% 5% 70% 10% 5%
154 Outside MPA -8 24.984 116 44.843 Petagan 50% 5% 30% 10% 5%
155 Outside MPA -8 25.063 116 44.787 Petagan 40% 5% 35% 15% 5%
156 Outside MPA -8 25.140 116 44.723 Petagan 25% 5% 40% 25% 5%
157 Outside MPA -8 25.230 116 44.648 Petagan 30% 10% 30% 15% 15%
158 Outside MPA -8 25.329 116 44.578 Petagan 30% 10% 30% 20% 10%
159 Outside MPA -8 25.404 116 44.518 Petagan 55% 5% 20% 10% 10%
160 Outside MPA -8 25.505 116 44.489 Petagan 40% 5% 30% 10% 15%
161 Outside MPA -8 25.576 116 44.484 Petagan 30% 5% 40% 15% 10%
162 Outside MPA -8 25.683 116 44.492 Petagan 20% 5% 50% 15% 10%
163 Outside MPA -8 25.770 116 44.456 Petagan 30% 5% 30% 5% 30%
164 Outside MPA -8 25.858 116 44.485 Petagan 30% 5% 30% 5% 30%
165 Outside MPA -8 25.948 116 44.494 Petagan 30% 5% 30% 15% 20%
166 Outside MPA -8 26.027 116 44.561 Petagan 50% 5% 20% 10% 15%
167 Outside MPA -8 26.094 116 44.644 Petagan 50% 5% 20% 10% 15%
Hard coral : hard coral live
Dead coral : Recently dead coral
Rubble : Dead hard coral rubble
Abiotic : Sand, rock
Biotic : Soft coral and other biotic such as sponge and algae
Note
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 31
Table 4. List of respondents
No. Name Village Age Education Additional occupation
1 Epa Sugian d c farmer
2 Huseini Sugian d a -
3 Muh. Ridwan Sugian b b -
4 Sahlim Sugian b a farmer
5 Saprudin Sugian b b farmer
6 Amak Misnun Sugian e a -
7 Amak Maknah Sugian e a -
8 Nasrin Sugian d a -
9 Mangsir Sugian b a -
10 Hamdani Sugian d a tourism
11 Muslihin Sugian c a -
12 Kasih Sugian d a -
13 M. Ridho Malik Labuan Pandan d c farmer
14 Sahtun Labuan Pandan d a -
15 Kamarudin Labuan Pandan a b farmer
16 Wa Sikin Labuan Pandan e a -
17 Pahrudin Labuan Pandan e a -
18 Hanafi Labuan Pandan d a -
19 Muh. Nur Labuan Pandan c b -
20 Sahrudin Labuan Pandan c a farmer
21 Suyanto Suladi Padak Guar e c tourism
22 Amak Rohana Padak Guar e a farmer
23 Mahruf Padak Guar c a farmer
24 Amak Suhri Padak Guar e a farmer Note:
Age:
a = < 19, b = 20 – 30, c = 31 – 40, d = 41 – 50 e = > 51 years old.
Education:
a = preliminary, b = junior high school, c = senior high school, d = tertiary education
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 32
Table 5. Questionnaire.
No. Name Question
A B C D E F G H I J K L
1 Epa Yes Yes Yes No a Yes b b b c a b
2 Huseini Yes Yes Yes No c Yes a b b c b b
3 Muh. Ridwan Yes Yes Yes No c 4 Sahlim Yes Yes Yes No d No a a d c a b
5 Saprudin No Yes Yes Yes a No b b b a a b
6 Amak Misnun Yes Yes Yes No a Yes b a a c a f
7 Amak Maknah Yes Yes Yes Yes a Yes a a a c b f
8 Nasrin Yes Yes Yes No a Yes b b b c b b
9 Mangsir Yes Yes Yes No a Yes b b c b a a
10 Hamdani Yes Yes Yes Yes d Yes a a c c b b
11 Muslihin Yes Yes Yes No d
a a c c b b, c
12 Kasih Yes Yes Yes No a Yes a a c c b b, c
13 M. Ridho Malik No Yes No Yes d Yes a a b c b b
14 Sahtun No Yes Yes Yes c No a a b c b a, b
15 Kamarudin No Yes Yes No a No b b b c a b
16 Wa Sikin No Yes Yes Yes c No a a b c b a, b
17 Pahrudin No 18 Hanafi No Yes Yes Yes d No a a b b b b
19 Muh. Nur No Yes Yes Yes d No a a c c b b
20 Sahrudin Yes Yes Yes Yes b No a a b c b b
21 Suyanto Suladi Yes Yes No Yes a Yes
c b b a, b
22 Amak Rohana Yes Yes Yes Yes c Yes a b c c b b
23 Mahruf No No No Yes d No a a d c c b
24 Amak Suhri No Yes Yes Yes b No a a c c a b Note:
Questions a b c d e
A Do you know the term of MPA? Yes No
B Do you recognise Gili Sulat - Gili Lawang as an MPA? Yes No C Do you fishing in Gili Sulat - Gili Lawang Islands Yes No
D Do you fishing in Gili Petagan - Gili Kondo Islands? Yes No
E Which one is provide a better fishing catch? GSL PBK equal don't know
F Do you recognise zoning system in Gili Sulat - Gili Lawang MPA? Yes No
G How is your fishing catch after GSL MPA established? decreased stable increased
H How is your income after GSL MPA established? decreased stable increased
I How is coral reef condition after GSL MPA established? worse stable improved
J How is mangrove cover condition after GSL MPA established? worse stable improved
K Did GSL MPA effectively managed? Yes No
L What management component that need to be improved? more staff sea patrol publicity facilities finance
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 33
Picture 5. Manta tow survey in the Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA and PBK Islands. Photo: Aliman.
Picture 6. Coral transplantation in Gili Kondo Island. Photo: author.
Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 34
Picture 7. Lifnet boats around the Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA. Photo: author.
Picture 8. The Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA office and guesthouse. Photo: author.