Coastal Management, 34:267285, 2006 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0892-0753 print / 1521-0421 online

e DOI: 10.1080/08920750600686679

Decentralized Coastal Zone Management in Malaysia and Indonesia: A Comparative Perspective1

HENDRA YUSRAN SIRY
Agency for Marine and Fisheries Research (AMFR) Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF) Jakarta, Indonesia
Transferring decision-making process from central to local government and enhancing the role of local communities in managing coastal zones is an increasing commitment by governments in Southeast Asia. This article analyzes decentralized coastal zone management in two neighboring countries, Malaysia and Indonesia. The Federal system in Malaysia is argued to be able to inuence more decentralized coastal zone management and to promote community-based management approaches. Meanwhile, the large diversity of coastal resources and communities combined with a still as yet tested decentralization policy in Indonesia is argued to bring more challenges in implementing the decentralization and community-based approaches in coastal zones. The lessons learned in this study provide insight in how far decentralized coastal zone management has taken place in Malaysia and Indonesia. The signicant differences in the pattern of coastal zone management in these two countries are discussed in detail. This study recognizes that co-management and community-based approaches can be appropriate in dealing with coastal zone management. This comparative perspective is important to the development of a bigger picture of sustainable coastal zone management processes and cross-regional knowledge-sharing in Southeast Asia. Keywords coastal, co-management, community-based, decentralization, Indonesia, Malaysia

Introduction
In the Southeast Asia region, coastal zones have been used for different purposes including tourism, sheries, transportation, mining, and communication (Pomeroy, 1994; Dutton &
The author thanks the Asian Scholarship Foundation (ASF) and the Agency for Marine and Fisheries Research (AMFR) Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries for facilitating this comparative research at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) under the Asia Fellow 20022003. The author expresses the highest appreciation to the Vice-Chancellor of UKM and Director of Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI) of UKM for their permission and assistance in the conduct of this research in Malaysia. The author also thanks David Lawrence (Fellow RMAP, ANU), Gail Craswell (Senior Adviser, ALSC ANU), Prof. James J. Fox (Director RSPAS, ANU), Sri Novelma, Hezri Adnan (CRES, ANU), and Margo Davies (RMAP ANU) for their valuable inputs and criticisms. Finally, thanks are due to the Journals two anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions. Address correspondence to Hendra Yusran Siry, Agency for Marine and Fisheries Research, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Jl. M.T. Haryono Kav. 52-53 Pancoran, Jakarta 12770, Indonesia. E-mail: hendra.siry@anu.edu.au

267

268

H. Y. Siry

Hotta, 1995; Pomeroy, 1995; UNEP, 2001). These multiple uses, combined with rapid economic and industrial growth in recent decades, have attracted an increasing percentage of the population to live in coastal areas (UNEP RRCAP, 2004). This increased population has led to a signicant impact on coastal and marine resources (Adeel & Pomeroy, 2002; Burke et al., 2002; UNEP RRCAP, 2004). This tendency can be seen both in Malaysia and Indonesia. Because of this growing demand, consumption, and services, coastal zones have been increasingly exploited. Degradation of the coastal zones and their resources has been clearly suffered as a result of, but not limited to, inadequate institutional and management capacity (Hildreth & Gale, 1995; Dahuri et al., 1995; Dahuri, 1996; Dahuri & Dutton, 2000), lack of decentralization mechanisms, and ignorance of the role of the community in implementing integrated coastal management (Andiko & Seprasia, 2002; Pador & Zakir, 2002; Indrawasih et al., 2003; Siry, 2005). Such a situation demands improvement. As can be seen in other parts of the world, the management of the coastal zone in the Southeast Asia region is by the lengthy reaction to the range and complexity of [coastal resource] Issues (Kay & Alder, 1999, p. 71). Kay and Alder argue that coastal zone management remained constrained by a governance style derived from the early 1970s when coastal zone management was rst introduced into the governance system. The challenge in coastal zone management now is for governments to respond and to redene their management in the new millennium of globalization, information and technology revolution, post-colonialism, community empowerment, and the decentralization of governments (Sorensen, 1993; Tjokrowinoto, 1999; Sasono, 1999). Globalization and rapid development of information technology have increased community awareness of governance and created more opportunities for local participation and empowerment through a free ow of information and lesson-learned exchange. The economic and social changes of the last 20 years in the forms of liberalization, privatization, and reformation of markets require decentralized management of the governance system (Castells, 1996; Adger, 2003). The entire new millennium phenomenon brings new demands on central governments, prompting them to reassess their limited capability to deliver services and provide for community participation in governance (Kristiadi, 1999; Masoed, 1999). In Southeast Asia, the demand to shift the role of the central government to lower government levels and the community was initiated by several signicant factors. At least three factors that inuenced the transformation of the governance system were pointed out by Cheema and Rondinelli (1983). Those three factors include (i) lack of expectation on central planning and control of development activities; (ii) the emergence of growth-withequity strategies; and (iii) the growing realization of the increasing difculty of managing and planning development activities as society becomes more complex. More specically, coastal zone management in the Southeast Asia region requires the transfer of decisionmaking processes from central to local government and placing the local community as an important player in regional development (Pomeroy, 1995). The huge range in biodiversity, the large variation in the types of coastal zones within a country, varied human populations and diverse regional economies among regions within a country are the main reasons why coastal zone management needs to be decentralized2 and community-based approaches promoted3 (Alm & Bahl, 1999; Dahuri & Dutton, 2000). Historically and traditionally, community-based approaches have existed in indigenous societies that have relied on practices such as restricted access, or open and closed seasons to certain coastal and sheries resources (Andiko & Seprasia, 2002; Pador & Zakir, 2002; Zerner, 2000, 2003; Siry, 2005). Some of these management regimes are still in place today because of their effectiveness locally, and respect for local customs and conditions (Bailey & Zerner, 1992; Antariksa et al., 1993; Basiago, 1995; Fox, 1996) such as sasi in Maluku,

Decentralized CZM in Malaysia and Indonesia

269

Indonesia (Benda-Beckmann et al., 1995; Evans et al., 1997; Novaczek et al., 2001). The uniqueness and diversity of decentralization and community-based approaches in coastal zone management in Southeast Asia have been academically documented and compiled. This is parallel to the increasing number of projects that either promote community-based management or use this approach as a project tool (Crawford et al., 2006). Some projects document traditional community-based shery management in Asia, Pacic regions (Ruddle, 1993; FAO, 1994; Pomeroy, 1994, 1995; Ruddle, 1994; Bailey, 1986), which provide practical guidance and brief information for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers on community-based management. There are also a number of comparative perspectives (White et al., 1994; Pomeroy & Carlos, 1997; Cicin-Sain et al., 1998; Berkes et al., 2001; Adhuri & Indrawasih, 2002; Antariksa et al., 2003; Christie et al., 2005) that emphasize the revitalization of community-based management systems as a broad strategy for managing coastal resources (Pomeroy, 1995). However, most of this broad body of literature mentioned earlier was either undertaken prior to major policy change in Indonesia and Malaysia or was conducted under old political settings and before the 1997 Asian economic crisis. In addition, there are less focused bodies of literature on the continuing decentralization processes, especially in Indonesia (Dutton, 2005). The reviews on Malaysia were undertaken before the 1997 Asian economic crisis. Similarly, the reviews on Indonesia were conducted before the Reformasi era, which commenced in 1999 and led to substantial changes to the local government system since then. Therefore, more in-depth and recent comparative analyses of decentralization and community-based approaches between two neighboring countries, Malaysia and Indonesia, needs to be better understood. This study is a response to the need for more information on the extent to which decentralized coastal zone management has taken place in Malaysia and Indonesia. The Federal system in Malaysia is argued to be able to inuence more decentralized coastal zone management and to promote community-based management approaches. Meanwhile, the large diversity of coastal resources and communities combined with a still as yet tested decentralization policy in Indonesia is argued to bring more challenges in implementing the decentralization and community-based approaches in coastal zone. The challenges are exemplied with the initiation of the Coastal Zone and Small Island Management Act (RUU Pesisir) in Indonesia. Thus, a comparative analysis of how neighboring countries manage their coastal resources will provide a greater understanding of the lessons learned. The increased understandings of the diversity and uniqueness of coastal zone management practices in Malaysia and Indonesia will enrich cross-regional knowledge. The lessons learned from this study will further contribute to the development of a bigger picture of sustainable coastal zone management processes and cross-regional knowledge sharing in Southeast Asia.

CZM Orientation and Overview in Malaysia

Malaysia is the only constitutional monarchy (kerajaan berperlembagaan) in Southeast Asia with a federal system. According to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia 1957, the government system consists of three-tiers: federal, state, and local (municipal and district) governmental structure (Mokhtar & Aziz, 2003). The evolution of coastal zone management initiative in Malaysia is driven by the problem-based and reactive approach to resources degradation and international commitments (Ahmad, 1994; Cicin-Sain et al., 1998; Basiron, 2002; Mokhtar & Aziz, 2003).

270

H. Y. Siry

Prior to 1980, the management pattern of coastal resources, such as shery resources, was more problem-based. Until then most programs and schemes were only reactive (Ahmad, 1994). This approach lacked a framework with an overall plan for optimum utilization of resources. Moreover, Ahmad (1994) states that the approach was also decient in sensitivity to socioeconomic needs for sustainable shing and resource management. In 1981 the Malaysian government introduced a Fisheries Comprehensive Licensing Policy (FCLP)4 as part of the New Economic Policy (FAO, 2001). Ahmad (1994) explains that this policy was more comprehensive and addressed the imperative issues in sheries such as over-exploitation, poverty, income disparity, and regional and racial imbalances in the shing industry. The key feature of this policy was a zoning system for shing grounds to prevent conicts among shermen. Ahmad (1994) stresses that there are four established zones to regulate the shing activities. The concept of maximum sustainable yields (MSY) was employed to determine the number of vessels that could operate in each zone. This policy has resulted in an increase in productivity and in catch per unit effort (CPUE) (Ahmad, 1994). With regard to the growing need for the conservation of the sheries resources, the government, through the Fisheries Department and Fisheries Development Authority (LKIM), has launched articial reefs (ARs) or tukun tiruan and sh aggregating devices (FADs) or unjam-unjam programs (Yahaya, 1994). These two approaches are intended to enhance the productivity of the biomass and to rehabilitate and conserve marine and coastal habitats adversely affected by unsustainable shing activities. These approaches are expected to provide for the recovery of marine and coastal resources, and to then ensure the conservation and enhancement of the sheries resources. Yahaya (1994) explains that while the unjam-unjam project became popular for managing shery resources, it also brought up several signicant issues related to ownership, accessibility, use rights, and the overall management of sheries resources. In other words, the unjam-unjam program had the potential to convert an open-access regime into an appropriate property rights management regime. The growing need for coastal zone management in Malaysia began when the federal government responded to coastal erosion caused by a variety of natural and man-made processes. As a subject of major national concern, the Malaysian government launched the National Coastal Erosion Study during 19841985 (Mokhtar & Aziz, 2003). The important results of this study were recommendations for implementing proper long-term planning to prevent coastal erosion. In addition, two important institutions related to coastal zone management were established in 1987 (Cicin-Sain et al., 1998): the Coastal Engineering Technical Center (CETC) and the National Coastal Erosion Control Council (NCECC). Clearly, the response and initiative of Malaysia to manage coastal zones was driven by the engineering and reactive action point of view. This is quite similar with trend response to coastal zone management in that decade (Abdullah, 1992; Hale & Kumin, 1992; Olsen et al., 1992; Coast Conservation Department, 1997). The CETC5 is an important unit for preventing coastal erosion by providing technical input to the national government. This unit is in charge of implementing coastal erosion control, designing engineering works for critical erosion areas, providing technical support to the NCECC, providing technical advisory services to other government agencies, and collecting coastal engineering data (EPU & DANCED, 1999). The NCECC is a multi-agency council composed of representatives from several federal government agencies, professional institutions, and universities (Cicin-Sain et al., 1998). For day-to-day management, the government appointed a Director-General of the Implementation Coordination Unit (ICU) within the Prime Ministers Department as the

Decentralized CZM in Malaysia and Indonesia

271

chairman of NCECC. The main outcome of this council was the General Administrative Circular No. 5 in 1987. According to this guideline, every development proposal in the coastal zone must receive approval and comment before proceeding from the CETC (Cicin-Sain et al., 1998). Due to the lack of integration and coordination and ambiguity in the implementation of this circular, the administrative circular has not achieved its aims (Ahmad, 2001). Between 1986 and 1992, Malaysia, with the assistance from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) conducted a comprehensive integrated and multidisciplinary coastal resource management enquiry both at federal and state levels using, as a pilot project, a coastal zone management study in the southern part of Johor. The outcome of this study was a formal document and guide in matters relating to coastal reclamation, development of coastal swamp forest, and other development activities in coastal areas (ASEAN-USAID CRMP, 1991). Another outcome was the enhancement of the federalstate coastal resources management planning process and collaboration through the establishment of two committees, the National Steering Committee (NSC) and the Johor State Consultative Committee (JSCC). The project also brought together collaborative research and technical assistance by resource managers and university-based research scientists (ASEAN-USAID CRMP, 1991). In 1992, Malaysia created a National Policy on Coastal Resources Management as the product of an Inter-Agency Planning Group (IAPG) with EPUs Agriculture Section as the secretariat. The IAPG began work on examining issues related to coastal resource management focusing on the development of a coastal resources program in a more integrated, systematic, and scientically sound manner. The intention of the group was the establishment of effective, coordinated, institutional mechanisms at the federal and state levels, and enhancement of the stafng and expertise of relevant agencies for coastal zone management (EPU & DANCED, 1999). The most recent initiatives toward integrated coastal zone management in Malaysia are the pilot projects being undertaken in Sabah, Sarawak, and Pulau Pinang (Penang) to formulate integrated coastal zone management plans at the State level (EPU & DANCED, 1999). Another on-going effort is the development of a National Coastal Zone Management Policy (Basiron, 2002), which is a mandate of the Seventh Malaysia Plan (7MP) 19962000. The Malaysian government, with the support of the Danish government, through the Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development/DANCED, conducted the Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Project in Malaysia in order to build local capability in environmental administration and organization. The main aim of the ICZM project was to have all states in Malaysia replicate the effort of the pilot projects and produce their respective integrated coastal zone management plans. The project has also been designed to prepare a complete Integrated Coastal Zone Management system, including updated coastal zone proles. To reach this objective, the project conducted several institutional strengthening and capacity building initiatives to institute proactive coastal zone management. The project consists of a Federal Component that has a target to develop National Policies for Coastal Zone Management and three State Components that involve setting up integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) in Penang, Sarawak, and Sabah. The Federal Component includes providing instrumental experience in the development of national policies on integrated coastal zone management whereas the State Components are considered as pilot projects and related to the Federal Component. At the state levels, the projects are considered as independent, full-scale projects addressing management requirements in their respective coastal areas. For instance, in Sabah, the project was

272

H. Y. Siry Table 1 Important moments of coastal zone management in Malaysia

Year 19841985 19861992

Important moments

National Coastal Erosion Study South Johore coastal resource management project with United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Government circular on coastal development 1987 Environmental Impact Assessment Order 1987 19911996 National Coastal Resource Management Policy 1993 National Conservation Strategies prepared by WWF 1995 Study toward developing a National Integrated Ocean Policy by Maritime Institute of Malaysia 1996 National Aquaculture Guidelines Town and Country Planning Department Guidelines on Coastal 1997 Development Department of Irrigation and Drainage Guideline on Coastal Zone Management Integrated Management Plan for sustainable use of Johore Mangrove Forests Environmental Prole of the Malacca Straits under the GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programme 19972000 Pilot integrated coastal zone management projects in Sabah, Sarawak, and Penang 1998present Drafting of the National Wetlands Policy 1999 Department of Environment Guideline for environmental impact assessment in coastal zone development projects 1999present National coastal zone policy initiative 2001present Preparation of an Integrated Shoreline Management Plan for beach conservation and Restoration 20012004 Integrated Coastal Management pilot study in Klang, Selangor under the GEF/UNDP/IMO/PEMSEA Regional Programme
Source: Mokhtar and Aziz (2003).

implemented with the adoption of the concept of a Task Force6 (ICZM Sabah, 2002). In summary, the evolution of coastal zone management initiatives can be seen in Table 1. In response to coastal resources degradation, Malaysia promoted the idea of shared responsibility for monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS) with local communities in managing coastal resources. Under the proposed MCS system, the community shers organizations and NGOs will also have increased responsibility for monitoring and surveillance. The federal government will maintain responsibility for control and law enforcement. At the state level, ad hoc working groups or committees have been established to examine coastal management and development. The states have also assigned a desk ofcer to be in charge of coastal area management in each economic planning unit. By looking closely at the evolution of coastal zone management initiatives, it is apparent that the coastal zone management strategy adopted in Malaysia is still conducted on a project-oriented basis, problem-driven with the absence of a single institution in

Decentralized CZM in Malaysia and Indonesia

273

charge specically of managing the coastal zone. Coastal zone management in Malaysia is distinguished by the involvement of a variety of agencies that each operate on coastal management (Saharuddin, 2001). For example, the Coastal Engineering Division of the Department of Drainage and Irrigation is solely responsible for engineering design for coastal protection. Currently, the EPU of the Prime Ministers Department plays an important role in coordinating development planning. This agency has the responsibility for planning and monitoring mechanisms for the coastal zone. In the absence of an agency with overall management responsibility, Basiron (1998, 2002) recommended the establishment of a supervisory Cabinet Committee on Maritime Affairs (CCMA). The High Level Ofcials Committee (HLOC) on maritime economics and security ideally supports this committee. Basiron (1998, 2002) also proposes the establishment of a National Ocean Council to support the initiative toward an integrated approach to marine and coastal zone management in Malaysia. However, there are still strong centralist political inuences in coastal and shery management in Malaysia. This has resulted in the lack of coastal community-based management practices in Malaysia. The current administrative arrangements have led to the lack of organizational capacity within important institutions that should support community based and collaborative management. There is also a lack of self-management capability within the communities themselves. One important structural problem in the administrative process is that scal decentralization in Malaysia is characterized by a lack of fund transfers from the federal to the state governments. Calestino (2001) conrmed that transfers consist of less than one-fth of the total revenues of local governments. This situation has resulted in local governments being under-nanced for their assigned functions. Meanwhile, local governments require additional funds to carry out their mandated tasks. This is one of several issues in the statelocal government relationship that still requires resolution. All these conditions illustrate that federalism as a system of government does not necessarily lead to the level of decentralization specied in the Federal Constitution, nor does it provide for the autonomy of local governments (Calestino, 2001). To some extent, centralization gives the impression that things are working well in Malaysia. This is evidenced by high levels of economic development. It appears that there is little need to decentralize the coastal zone management in Malaysia. However, problems of centralization and lack of attention to community-based approaches are still issues that need to be seriously addressed.

CZM Orientation and Overview in Indonesia

Indonesia is an archipelagic nation with diverse coastal resources, coastal communities, culture, and customs (Sloan & Sugandhy, 1994; Dahuri et al., 1995; Dahuri, 1996; Idris & Siry, 1997; Tomascik et al., 1997). Like Malaysia, Indonesia has also a three-tier government system: central, provincial, and local (districts and cities). The evolution of the coastal zone management initiative in Indonesia was triggered by international and bilateral donor agencies through their programs and projects (ASEANUSAID CRMP and DGF, 1992; Rais, 1993; Soendoro, 1994; Dahuri, 1996; Soegiarto, 1996; Idris & Siry, 1997; Dahuri & Dutton, 2000), such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB), United Nations Development Programs (UNDP), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), World Bank-IBRD, Global Environmental Facilities (GEF), AusAID, and JICA. The important moments in coastal zone management in

274

H. Y. Siry Table 2 Important moments of coastal zone management in Indonesia

Year 1982

Important moments Indonesia has ratied the 1982 United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Announcement of Indonesia government target to set aside 10 million ha of marine waters (5% of the total marine territory) as marine conservation zones by the end of the year 2003. Integrated coastal management studies have been conducted as pilot project areas such as Segara AnakanCentral Java; Coastal Environmental Management and Planning (CEMP) and Buginesia-South Sulawesi. Marine science and marine technology education have been established at six universities (UNRI, IPB, UNDIP, UNHAS, UNSRAT, and UNPATTI) Collaborative research and education programs with various research institutions, such as the Asian Living Coastal Resource Program, cooperation between CSIROLIPI, and AIMSCRIFI MMAF in Bali. The Marine Resource Evaluation and Planning (MREP) project was started as the rst initiative on decentralized coastal zone management A postgraduate program in Integrated Coastal Management Studies was set up in IPB Bogor, followed by UNHAS and UNDIP. The commencing of multilateral Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program Phase I (COREMAP I) after three years project design and preparation. Establishment of Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Involvement some international NGO in marine conservation projects Strengthening bilateral aid program such as CRMP (Coastal Resource Management Project) USAID, INTECOREEF (Integrated Coral Reef Management Project) JICA, and Collaborative Environmental Project in Indonesia (CEPI) CIDA. Enactment of two decrees of the Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Ministerial Decree on Integrated Coastal Management and Sustainable Small Island Management. Implementation of Marine and Coastal Resource Management Project (MCRMP) in 15 provinces and 43 districts. Implementation of Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Project Phase II (COREMAP II) in 7 provinces and 12 districts.

1987 1989

19931998 1997 1998

1999

2001

2002 Mid-2003

Source: Modied from Pratikto (2001) and Dahuri and Dutton (2000).

Indonesia are presented in Table 2. These initiatives were directed at establishing the concept of integrated coastal zone management and were accompanied by efforts to improve the administrative capacities of local governments in the coastal zones (Idris & Siry, 1997). Decentralized coastal management and the community based approaches were the main themes promoted by donor agencies. The Reformasi era, which commenced in 1999, has brought new models for managing coastal zones in Indonesia. Coastal zone management in Indonesia is entering a new phase as a result of two new laws (Laws 22 and 25/1999, which then revised as Law

Decentralized CZM in Malaysia and Indonesia

275

32 and 33/20047). The laws emphasize the decentralization process and enhance the communitys role in managing resources. These laws readjust the hierarchical relationship between the provincial and the local governments. The local governments, both kota and kabupaten (cities and districts), have become autonomous and are no longer obliged to hierarchy report to the provincial government. The laws also give more authority to local governments to manage their resources in a sustainable way. This reects a trend to give management autonomy to organizations and units providing direct services to local communities and requiring the implementation of agreed-on performance indicators (managerial decentralization). More community and stakeholder involvement in the management of local public services is an important concern in the decentralization context (UNDP, 1998; Uphoff, 1998). This involvement will also have implications for de-bureaucratization and the empowerment of civil society. The endorsement of Law 22/1999 brought an opportunity to revitalize and institutionalize traditional rights and norms into local governance systems. It also seeks to encourage community-based and collaborative management, such as sasi (open-closed system in Maluku), panglima laut (traditional resource manager in Aceh), malimau pasie, malimau kapa, and alek pasie (traditional shing ritual in West Sumatera) processes. The law recognizes local community-based resource management systems in coastal zone and sheries. The recognition of local authorities and the concepts of customary law and local territorial rights, which have a long history of practice in Indonesia, allow for their adoption and adaptation into local governance policy. The law also completely corrects Law Number 5/1979 regarding Village Administration, which served to accelerate the erosion of traditional institutions, rights, and norms. In many respects, the previous law damaged the diversity of traditional values and created uniformity of village administration. This law failed to acknowledge the autonomous village level system such as nagari system in West Sumatra or krama desa in West Nusa Tenggara (Haba & Mulyani, 2001). Law 32/2004 established a decentralized coastal zone, under provincial administration that extends up to 12 nautical miles from the coastal shoreline and over one-third of the provincial waters, seaward from the island shoreline, under local government administration. Under this law, the central government has authority and jurisdiction to explore, conserve, process, and exploit the resources beyond the 12 nautical miles mark to 200 nautical miles, specically within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The central government also has the right to enforce the law and regulation of waterways. The law also clearly notes that traditional shing rights are not to be restricted by the decentralized coastal zone delimitation. This means that the traditional shermen8 can access shing grounds beyond the decentralized coastal zone. According to this law, both provincial and local government administrations have six tasks to undertake in management of their decentralized zones (Article 18), namely (i) exploration, exploitation, conservation, and management of coastal resources, (ii) administrative affairs, (iii) zoning and spatial planning affairs, (iv) law enforcement of the regulations issued by the regions or delegated by the central government, (v) participation in the maintenance of security, and (vi) participation in the defense of state sovereignty. The law also states that the authority of and mandatory tasks for both provincial and district/cities administrations are similar; they just differ in matters of scale (Articles 13 and 14). There are 16 mandatory tasks9 under these regulations. However, the province still holds authority in three primary elds: (i) cross-jurisdictional districts and cities, (ii) authority not yet, or not able to be, handled by the city and district administration; and (iii) administrative authority delegated from the central government.

276

H. Y. Siry

In line with this law, and to determine the distribution of power, the previous principal regulation: Government Regulation (Peraturan Pemerintah) No. 25/200010 has to be revised. The revised regulation should address many of the administrative gaps, and clarify scales of authority in the mandatory affairs of the central, provincial, and local governments. It also needs to establish policies, guidelines, criteria, standards, and supervision on a host of issues. Nevertheless, the process of decentralization of coastal zone management in Indonesia is still in its infancy. It requires central and local governments to ensure that decentralization does not lead to an initial breakdown or disruption of public services. A new system and value for policy formulation and implementation has to be created. Central and local governments have to comprehend that although there will be new benets, there will also be constraints. Unless these are understood, decentralization will fail. This failure may be rooted in the previous centralist approach to coastal and sheries management in Indonesia (Ruddle, 1993). Centralization clearly discouraged the traditional communitybased management system and caused endemic conicts in the sheries sector (Bailey, 1986). Under the centralist administrative approach, environmental policies were designed to be applied and implemented in all regional areas of Indonesia regardless of their local problems and the complex social, economic, and cultural diversity that existed across the archipelago. Applying and implementing this uniform approach resulted in a heavy-handed approach. Rasyid (2002) argued that the centralist approach limited the ability of local governments and communities to think and act creatively, especially in times of social and economic crisis. Indonesias experience in responding to the massive economic crisis of 1997 is a good case in point. Decentralization is in part a response to those period when local governments that lacked administrative skills failed to help manage the impact of the crisis in their own regions and territories (Rasyid, 2002). The centralist approach also exerted signicant pressure on the democratization process and the establishment of good governance principles. Decentralization in Indonesia is seen as a vital pillar in the movement toward democratization following a long period of repressive rule. Decentralization of coastal zone management is fundamental to giving greater opportunities for local governments and communities to manage their own resources. However as Indonesia is still experimenting with democratic governance, the process of decentralization is a real risk. The success of decentralization will be measured not just in the movement of the structures of power and nance to the regions but in the provision of effective and efcient services. Currently, the regions of eastern Indonesia show critical lack of capacity and this is one area that must be addressed by both national and local administrations. In the current process of decentralization of coastal zone management in Indonesia, there are already examples of uncoordinated actions by local governments eager to claim rights to coastal resources. They are already establishing their local acts (Peraturan Daerah/Perda), which are more concerned with revenue raising than with ecological and sustainable principles. Examples include the unsustainable mining of coral and sand (Dutton, 2005). The euphoria for creation of local legislation comes in line with a World Bank (2002) warning about the decentralization process, which comments that key players are not convinced that greater decentralization [will] have a positive effect. The lack of capacity of local government administrations in taking effective coastal resource management initiatives still remains a major obstacle. Other potential barriers are the diverse opinions and interpretations of the process, even within individual ministries and major government agencies at the central level.

Decentralized CZM in Malaysia and Indonesia

277

In addition, conicts over management of coastal resources still occur. Each development sector has set its own objectives, targets, and operational plans. These primarily aim to increase economic benets. However, objectives and targets of different sectors often overlap and are incompatible. Most of these sectors do not have common goals and objectives to sustain the coastal resources. At the same time, local governments set ambiguous objectives because they did not have any clear authority to manage coastal resources until the year 2000. In most cases, they have extremely limited direct revenues, which leave them dependent on allocations from the central government. All the major areas of decision-making power are either in the hands of the central government or, to a far lesser extent, at the provincial government level. Without any integrated and sustainable order, the conicts will continue and increase while becoming more complex. Clearly, decentralized coastal zone management must address this conict over management and the ambiguity of various laws applied in coastal zone. For almost ve decades, coastal zone management in Indonesia has been suffered by a confusing ambiguity of various laws and jurisdictional disagreement (Alder et al., 1994; Purwaka, 1995; Kusumaatmadja & Purwaka, 1996; Patlis et al., 2003; Satria & Matsuda, 2004). There are approximately 22 laws that affected the coastal zone (Patlis et al., 2003) that need to be harmonized to prevent ineffective and incompetent management (Fox et al., 2005). These are sectoral-based lacking in integration and unconcerned with sustainability principles. The enforcement of those laws caused ineffective management, conict, redundancy, and gaps among the development sectors of the country (Putra, 2003). They lead to increase conicts of interests among different users and threats to coastal resources. With regard to providing a coordinated and integrated program, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries is in the process of enacting the RUU Pesisir.11 The RUU Pesisir aims to have a pivotal role in addressing the decentralization of coastal zones. It encourages local governments to manage their coastal zone, and recognizes local communities and traditional rights. This proposed act focuses on three major topics: (i) development of a framework for coordination, integration, and consistency in management and planning decisions; (ii) creation of a voluntary, incentive-based program for local integrated coastal management at the city and district level; and (iii) general provisions relating to administration and implementation, such as monitoring and evaluation, conict resolution, and funding (MMAF, 2002). The RUU Pesisir is expected to fulll the challenge to respond to local environmental conditions and involve stakeholders more in the development process. Hasan (2003) adds that the RUU Pesisir indicates that the coastal zone will continue to receive more intense environmental pressures from a wide range of users, especially development activities. The RUU Pesisir will obviously have a strategic role because the limited administrative resources will not allow Indonesia to address every coastal and marine management issue with the same degree of urgency. In addition most coastal environmental problems occur at the local level and require solutions tailored to local conditions. Therefore, devolution of authority and responsibility to local government for managing their coastal zone in Indonesia is necessary.

Lessons Learned
The coastal zone management pattern in these two countries shows signicant differences. Indonesia assumes that decentralization of coastal zone management is necessary to deal with its extensive geographical problems and its tremendous social and cultural diversity. The enactment of Law 22/1999 and its subsequent revision, and the RUU Pesisir initiative

278

H. Y. Siry

clearly shows the political will of the Indonesian government to decentralize coastal zone management. Meanwhile, Malaysia considers that decentralized coastal zone management does not match its government system. The Malaysian federal system is not necessary suited to the decentralization process, because it requires signicant adjustment to the government structure and its internal relationships, including the statesociety relationship (Hezri & Hasan, 2006). Therefore, decentralization is not considered to be necessary without signicant political will. Indeed as Fox et al. (2005, p. 105) mentioned decentralization is essentially a political process involving competition among competing vested interests. Decentralized and centralized policies are not either-or conditions (World Bank, 2002). The essential ingredients are the effective and efcient functioning of government (Silver, 2003). This means that not all functions can or should be nanced and managed in a decentralized fashion. In the case of Malaysia and Indonesia, decentralization of coastal zone management must create and maintain enabling conditions that allow local units of administration or nongovernment organizations to take more responsibility. The enabling conditions must consider the interaction of various factors in coastal zone management. Indeed, decentralization of coastal zone management requires greater concern for and understanding of the relationships among stakeholders. The aim is to achieve integrated management as well as stable ecological, economic, and social cohesion. The enabling conditions also involve well-coordinated and carefully targeted long term development assistance for sustainable management of [coastal zone] (Dutton, 2005). To promote the decentralization of the coastal zone, a central government (especially line ministry) should play a crucial role. This central government must promote and provide trainings for all level of government in a decentralized administration. Technical assistance is often required for local governments, private enterprises, and local nongovernmental groups in the planning, nancing, and management of decentralized functions. This is one of the factors inuencing the success of decentralization (World Bank, 2002). In addition, the success of decentralized coastal zone management also requires the involvement of the public, environmental protection organizations, user group representatives, and the local community. The involvement of various stakeholders must be a shared responsibility. This is essential in a country with such diversity as Indonesia and Malaysia. Local community role needs to be promoted in the management of their local resources. A more communityoriented management approach will bring many advantages to the community and will lead to improved environmental quality (UNDP, 1998). More community-oriented or participatory management approaches have been the mainstream of broader conservation strategies. The approach is also called co-management, collaborative, joint, mixed, multiparty, or round-table management (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2000). Specically, co-management has been acknowledged as an alternative solution for managing natural resources and has some successes in its application.12 Another mainstream approach is community-based management,13 which has been used for the last three decades (Siry, 2005). These approaches advance people-oriented, community-oriented, and resource-based principles and prioritize partnerships among local governments, related stakeholders, and the communities that can be more positive steps for coastal zone management. The key element to decentralization, co-management, and community-based management approaches is that they have the potential for creating sustainability of coastal resources. These approaches are applied in order to get better results than those of central governmentdominated management. Community-based and co-management approaches bring in several important principles: evolutionary, participatory, and locale-specic. The

Decentralized CZM in Malaysia and Indonesia

279

governments, local communities, nongovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders are required to share responsibility and work together as mutual partners in managing coastal zones. However, as is particularly noticeable in Malaysia and Indonesia, co-management and community-based approaches are not simple. In fact, they are rather complex (Pomeroy & Williams, 1994). Although these approaches consider the long-term goals of high productivity, social equity, and environmental sustainability, there are many obstacles to implementation. It seems that centralization is still a powerful political agent and that decentralization is a new and as yet untried political tool. It is important to identify the enabling and constraining conditions of co-management and community-based approaches. Further clarication of what signicant factors are and the relationship among factors is required. Thus, further research on comparative community-based and co-management practices in Malaysia and Indonesia, especially the perspectives from within these two governments, would be valuable.

Notes
1. An early version of this article was presented at the Third International Convention of Asia Scholars, Singapore 1922 August 2003 and at the Second Coastal Zone Asia-Pacic conference (CZAP 2004) in Brisbane, 59 September 2004. 2. The decentralized approach can be referred to the transfer of authority and responsibility from the central to local government. As conrmed by the World Bank (2002), it is an extremely broad development strategy, which covers a wide spectrum of general development policy goals, and highly considers various stakeholders in its implementation. In this sense, adaptation and adoption of decentralization must be carefully analyzed in any country before determining if it applies decentralization as the main policy for local government administration. 3. Pomeroy and Carlos (1997) provide a denition of a community-based approach in coastal resources as a process by which residents of a coastal community are provided the opportunity and responsibility to manage their own resources; dene their needs, goals and aspirations; and make decisions and take actions affecting their well-being. 4. According to FAO (2001), the FCLP aims at ensuring a more equitable allocation of resources, reducing conict between traditional and commercial shermen, preventing the overexploitation of the inshore sheries resources, restructuring of the ownership pattern of the shing units in accordance with, and promoting deep-sea and distant-water shing. 5. The center is now known as the Coastal Engineering Control Unit (CECU) within the Department of Drainage and Irrigation (DDI) in the Ministry of Agriculture. 6. The Task Force system is a new approach for most stakeholders in the ICZM project in Malaysia. Numbers of Task Forces have already been mobilized under the project to carry out the different tasks involved in the ICZM Plan preparation process and to address particular coastal management issues as they emerge. The Task Force system is argued to be the most important single element in the ICZM project. It is considered as the main engine to achieve the immediate objectives of the project. It is a supporting strategy of the project that all key activities related to the preparation of an ICZM Plan be carried out by the Task Forces composed of representatives selected from government agencies, private stakeholders, and community participation. 7. The revision of these two laws is a response to the current political requirements, such as direct election for local leaders (Bupati and City Mayor). There has been no change in the title of these two laws. However, articles concerning the coastal issues in previous law (Law 22(1999), articles 3 and 9, were emerged into a single article (Article 18). The enactment of Law 22(1999 was in response to the need for decentralization in Indonesia, which Alm and Bahl (1999) have detailed. Large populations and huge coastal and marine areas in Indonesia require decentralization because it is too difcult and too costly to govern effectively from the center. Indeed, each region requires a

280

H. Y. Siry

tailored management strategy because no two coastal areas are alike. Large variation among regions in climate, geography, and economic base make centrally mandated uniformity in the provision of government service inefcient. Moreover, centralization results in high bureaucratic costs in time required to approve local decisions and problems of communication. 8. Traditional shermen are dened as traditional people who use the traditional shing gears, and operate without a business license and are not taxable. In regard to their activity for subsistence and daily consumption, they are entitled to sh in all shing zones. 9. Sixteen mandatory tasks are (i) development planning and control, (ii) planning, utilization, and supervision of zoning and spatial planning, (iii) providing public security, (iv) providing public infrastructure and facilities, (v) providing health services, (vi) providing education and resources allocation of potential human resource, (vii) handling of social issues, (viii) administering manpower sector, (ix) facilitating the development of cooperatives, small and medium businesses, (x) environmental management, (xi) agrarian services, (xii) citizenship and civil registration, (xiii) administrative affairs, (xiv) administering capital investment, (xv) providing other basic services, and (xvi) other mandatory affairs as instructed by the laws and regulations. 10. Government Regulation No. 25/2000, as Patlis et al. (2001, p. 3) point out, states the role of the central government is primarily one of indirect action rather than direct regulation and control, with specic action to follow at the regional level. It means the central government will take administrative action against a local government that fails to implement existing laws or regulations. 11. The draft of this law is still undergoing discussion. This law is now a part of the 100-days program of President Bambang Yudoyono. 12. Such an acknowledgment comes from Berkes (1989, 1994, 2003), Borrini-Feyerabend et al. (2000), Butarbutar et al. (1997), Crean (1999), Crawford et al. (2004), Elliot et al. (2001), Israel (2001), Kuperan et al. (1998), Nielsen et al. (2004), Pomeroy (1994, 1995), and Thorburn (2002). 13. The community-based approach in coastal zone management is meant to pursue a management of development activities led by a people-oriented concept and holistic approach. Israel (2001, p. 3) mentions that from a political point of view, a community-based approach is a negotiated process of making decisions on the ownership, control and overall policy directions of coastal natural resources.

References
Abdullah, S. 1992. Coastal erosion in Malaysia: Problems and challenges. In The coastal zone of Peninsular Malaysia, eds. H. D. Tjia and S. M. S. Abdullah, 8092. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit UKM. Adeel, Z., and R. Pomeroy. 2002. Assessment and management of mangrove ecosystems in developing countries. Trees 16(23):235238. Adger, N. 2003. Governing natural resources: Institutional adaptation and resilience. In Negotiating environmental change: New perspectives from social science, eds. F. Berkhout, M. Leach, and I. Scoones, 193208. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, UK. Adhuri, D. S., and R. Indrawasih. 2002. Pengelolaan sumber daya alam secara terpadu (comanagement sumberdaya alam): Pelajaran dari praktek pengelolaan sumberdaya laut di Bangka-Belitung, Jawa Tengah dan Jawa Timur serta pengelolaan Taman Nasional Lore Lindu di Sulawesi Tengah. Jakarta: Puslit Kemasyarakatan dan Kebudayaan-Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (PMB-LIPI). Ahmad, A. R. H. 2001. Public Access To Beaches: An Issue In Coastal Management In Malaysia? Centre for Coastal and Marine Environment Maritime Institute of Malaysia. (cited 28 November 2005). Available at http://www.mima.gov.my/mima/htmls/papers/pdf/ainul/beaches.pdf Ahmad, H. B. 1994. Socio-economic issues in the management of coastal sheries in Malaysia. Paper read at Symposium on Socio-economic Issues in Coastal Fisheries Management, 2326 November 1993, Bangkok. Alder, J., N. Sloan, and H. Uktolseya. 1994. Advances in marine protected area management in Indonesia: 19881993. Ocean & Coastal Management 25:6375.

Decentralized CZM in Malaysia and Indonesia

281

Alm, J., and R. Bahl. 1999. Decentralization in Indonesia: Prospect and problems. PEG Report No. 12, ECG, USAID/Jakarta. Atlanta: Department of Economics, the School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University. Andiko, and R. Seprasia. 2002. Nagari Punggasan. In Kembali ke Nagari: Batuka Baruak jo Cigak, ed. Z. Pador, 89126. Padang: Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Padang. Antariksa, G. P., R. Indrawasih, and D. S. Adhuri. 1993. Aspek-aspek Sosial Budaya Masyarakat Maritim Indonesia Bagian Timur. Seri Penelitian PMB-LIPI, No. 3/1993. Jakarta: Puslit Kemasyarakatan dan Kebudayaan-Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (PMB-LIPI). ASEAN-USAID CRMP and DGF. 1992. The Integrated Management Plan for Segara AnakanCilacap, Central Java, Indonesia. ICLARM Tech. Rep. No. 34, Manila: International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management. ASEAN-USAID CRMP. 1991. The coastal environmental prole of South Johore, Malaysia. ICLARM Tech. Rep. No. 24, Manila: International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management. Bailey, C. 1986. Government protection of traditional resource use rightsThe case of Indonesian sheries. In Community management: Asian experience and perspectives, ed. D. O. Korten, Bloomeld: Kumarian Press. Bailey, C., and C. Zerner. 1992. Local management of sheries resources in Indonesia: Opportunities and constraints. In Contribution to shery development policy in Indonesia, eds. R. B. Pollnac, C. Bailey, and A. Poernomo, 3856. Jakarta: Central Institute for Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Indonesia. Basiago, A. D. 1995. Sustainable development in Indonesia: A case study of an indigenous regime of environmental law and policy. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 2(3):199211. Basiron, M. N. 1998. The implementation of chapter 17 of Agenda 21 in Malaysia: Challenges and opportunities. Ocean & Coastal Management 41:117. Basiron, M. N. 2002. Malaysias experience in the development of a national ocean policy. In Tropical Marine Environment: Charting Strategies for the Millenium, eds. F. M. Yusoff, M. Shariff, H. M. Ibrahi, S. G. Tan, and S. Y. Tai, Serdang: Malacca Straits Research and Development Centre (MASDEC), Universiti Putra Malaysia. Benda-Beckmann von, F., K. von Benda-Beckmann, and A. Brouwer. 1995. Changing Indigenous Environmental Law in the Central Moluccas: Communal regulation and privatization of Sasi. Ekonesia 2:138. Berkes, F. 1989. Common property resources: Ecology and community-based sustainable development. London: New York: Belhaven Press. Berkes, F. 1994. Property rights and coastal sheries. In Community management and common property of coastal sheris in Asia and the Pacic: Concepts, methods and expriences. ICLARM Conference Proceeding 45, ed. R. S. Pomeroy, Mania: ICLARM. Berkes, F. 2003. Rethinking community-based conservation. Draft Paper for Conservation Biology. Manitoba: Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba. Berkes, F., R. Mahon, P. McConney, R. Pollnac, and R. Pomeroy. 2001. Managing small-scale sheries: Alternative directions and menthods, Ottawa: International Development Research Center. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., M. T. Farvar, J. C. Nguinguiri, and V. A. Ndangang. 2000. Co-management of natural resources: Organising, negotiating and learning-by-doing. Heidelberg, Germany: GTZ and IUCN. Burke, L., L. Selig, and M. Spalding. 2002. Reefs at Risk in Southeast Asia. World Resources Institute. Washington. 72 pages. [cited 28 July 2005]. Available at http://marine.wri.org/ pubs description.cfm?PubID=3144 Butarbutar, M., I. Idris, S. Putra, and H. Y. Siry. 1997. Decentralization of integrated coastal and marine resource management. Paper read at International Symposium Integrated Coastal and Marine Resource Management, 2527 November, Batu Malang.

282

H. Y. Siry

Calestino, A. B. 2001. Malaysia. Does it really need decentralization. In Sourcebook on decentralization in Asia. Decentralization and power shift: An imperative for good governance, eds. A. B. Brillantes, Jr. and N. G. Cuachon, Manila: Asian Resource Center For Decentralization. Castells, M. 1996. The rise of the network society, Oxford: Blackwell. Cheema, G. S., and D. A. Rondinelli. 1983. Decentralization and development: Policy implementation in developing countries, Beverly Hills: Sage. Christie, P., K. Lowry, A. T. White, E. G. Oracion, L. Sievanen, R. S. Pomeroy, R. B. Pollnac, J. M. Patlis, and R. L. V. Eisma. 2005. Key ndings from a multidisciplinary examination of integrated coastal management process sustainability. Ocean & Coastal Management 48:468483. Cicin-Sain, B., R. W. Knecht, D. Jang, and G. W. Fisk. 1998. Integrated coastal and ocean management: Concepts and practices, Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Coast Conservation Department. 1997. Coastal Zone Management Plan, Sri Lanka 1997 . Colombo: Sri Lankan Coast Conservation Department. Crawford, B. R., A. Siahainenia, C. Rotinsulu, and A. Sukmara. 2004. Compliance and enforcement of community-based coastal resource management regulation in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Coastal Management 32:3950. Crawford, B., M. Kasmidi, F. Korompis, and R. Polnac. 2006. Factors inuencing progress in establishing community-based marine protected areas in Indonesia. Coastal Management 34:39 64. Crean, K. 1999. Centralised and community-based sheries management: Case studies from two sheries dependent archipelagos. Marine Policy 23(3):243257. Dahuri, R. 1996. Coastal zone management and transmigration in Indonesia. Paper read at International Workshop on Integrated Coastal Management in Tropical Developing Countries: Lessons Learned from Successes and Failures, 2428 May, Xiamen, Peoples Republic of China. Dahuri, R., and I. M. Dutton. 2000. Integrated coastal and marine management enters a new era in Indonesia. Integrated Coastal Zone Management, 1:1116. Dahuri, R., J. M. Rais, S. P. Ginting, and M. J. dan Sitepu. 1995. Pengelolaan sumberdaya wilayah pesisir dan lautan secara terpadu, PT Pradnya Paramita, Jakarta. Dutton, I. M. 2005. If only sh could vote: The enduring challenges of coastal and marine resources management in post-Reformasi Indonesia. In The politics and economics of Indonesias Natural Resources, ed. B. P. Resosudarmo, 162178. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Dutton, I. M., and K. Hotta. 1995. Introduction. In Coastal management in the Asia-Pacic region: Issues and approaches, eds. K. Hotta and I. M. Dutton, Tokyo: Japan International Marine Science and Technology Federation. Elliott, G., B. Mitchell, B. Wiltshire, A. Manan, and S. Wismer. 2001. Community participation in marine protected area management: Wakatobi National Park, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Coastal Management 29:295316. EPU and DANCED. 1999. Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Status Document. Kuala Lumpur: Economic Planning Unit Prime Ministers Department Malaysia and Danish Cooperation on Environment and Development. Evans, S. M., M. E. Gill, A. S. W. Retraubun, J. Abrahamz, and J. Dangeubun. 1997. Traditional management practices and conservation of the Gastropod (Trochus niloticus) and sh stocks in the Maluku Province (Eastern Indonesia). Fisheries Research 31:8391. FAO. 1994. A Guide to the Literature on Traditional Community-Based Fishery Management in the Asia Pacic Tropics. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 869. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization,. FAO. 2001. Fishery Country Prole: Malaysia. FID/CP/MAL. Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture Organization (cited 28 November 2005). Available from http://www.fao.org/ /fcp/en/MYS/prole.htm Fox, J. J. 1996. Fishing resources and marine tenure: The problems of Eastern Indonesias shermen. In Indonesia Assessment 1995: Development in eastern Indonesia, eds. C. Barlow and J. Hardjono, 163174. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore. Fox, J. J., D. S. Adhuri, and I. A. P. Resosudarmo. 2005. Unnished edice or Pandoras Box? Decentralisation and Resource Management in Indonesia. In The politics and economics of

Decentralized CZM in Malaysia and Indonesia

283

Indonesias Natural Resources, ed. B. P. Resosudarmo, 92108. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Haba, J., and L. Mulyani, Eds. 2001. Nagari dan Krama Desa: Studi mengenai pemilihan struktur antara perilaku elit dan masyarakat lokal di Sumatera Barat dan Nusa Tenggara Barat, Jakarta: Pusat Penelitian Kemasyarakatan dan Kebudayaan, Lembaga Ilmu pengtahuan Indonesia (PMBLIPI). Hale, L. Z., and E. Kumin. 1992. Implementing a coastal resources management policy: The case of prohibiting coral mining in Sri Lanka. Narragansett: Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island. Hasan, S. 2003. Personal communication. Staff at the Directorate of Coastal Affairs, Directorate General for Coastal and Small Island, and a Core Team member for RUU Pesisir. Jakarta, 2 December 2002. Hezri, A. A., and M. N. Hasan. 2006. Towards sustainable development? The evolution of environmental policy in Malaysia. Natural Resources Forum 30(1):3750. Hildreth, R. G., and M. Gale. 1995. Institutional and legal arrangements for coastal management in the Asia Pacic Region. In Coastal management in the Asia-Pacic region: Issues and approaches, eds. K. Hotta and I. M. Dutton, Tokyo: Japan International Marine Science and Technology Federation. ICZM Sabah. 2002. Sabah Coastal Zone Prole, 1998. Town & Regional Planning Department Sabah 2002 (cited 23 September 2002). Available at www.iczm.sabah.gov.my Idris, I., and H. Y. Siry. 1997. Indonesian integrated coastal zone planning and management: An institutional perspective. Jakarta: Directorate General for Regional Development (Ditjen Bangda), Ministry of Home Affairs. Indrawasih, R., A. Wahyono, and D. S. Adhuri. 2003. Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Laut di Kabupaten Bangka Belitung. In Pengelolaan sumber daya alam secara terpadu (co-management sumberdaya alam): pelajaran dari praktek pengelolaan sumberdaya laut di Bangka-Belitung, Jawa Tengah dan Jawa Timur serta pengelolaan Taman Nasional Lore Lindu di Sulawesi Tengah, eds. D. S. Adhuri and R. Indrawasih, 2087. Jakarta: Pusat Penelitian Kemasyarakatan dan Kebudayaan, Lembaga Ilmu pengtahuan Indonesia (PMBLIPI). Israel, D. C. 2001. Review of Methods for Assessing Community-based Coastal Resources Management in the Philippines. Discussion Paper Series No. 2001-26. Makati, Phillipines: Phillipines Institute for Development Studies. Kay, R., and J. Alder. 1999. Coastal planning and management. London: E&FN Span. Kristiadi, J. B. 1999. Kendala dalam menciptakan birokrasi era globalisasi. In Menyoal birokrasi publik, eds. M. Thoha and A. Dharma, 122140. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka. Kuperan, K., N. M. R. Abdullah, R. S. Pomeroy, E. Genio, and A. Salamanca. 1998. Measuring transaction costs of sheries co-management. Paper presented at the Seventh Common Property Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP) Conference in Vancouver, BC, Canada. Manila: ICLARM. Kusumaatmadja, M., and T. H. Purwaka. 1996. Legal and institutional aspects of coastal zone management in Indonesia. Marine Policy 20(1):6386. MMAF. 2002. The need for a new coastal zone and small island management act in national sustainable development. Jakarta: Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. Masoed, M. 1999. Globalisasi dan tanggapan birokrasi nasional. In Menyoal birokrasi publik, eds. M. Thoha and A. Dharma, 141146. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka. Mokhtar, M. B., and S. A. G. Aziz. 2003. Integrated coastal zone management using the ecosystem approach: Some perspectives in Malaysia. Ocean & Coastal Management 46:407 419. Nielsen, J. R., P. Degnbol, K. K. Viswanathan, M. Ahmed, M. Hara, and N. M. R. Abdullah. 2004. Fisheries co-management-an institutional innovation? Lessons from South East Asia and Southern Africa. Marine Policy 28:151160. Novaczek, I., I. H. T. Harkes, J. Sopacua, and M. D. D. Tatuhey. 2001. An Institutional Analysis of Sasi Laut in Maluku, Indonesia. ICLARM Tech. Rep. 59. Penang, Malaysia: ICLARM.

284

H. Y. Siry

Olsen, S., D. Sadacharan, J. L. Samarakoon, A. T. White, H. J. M. Wickremeratne, and M. S. Wijeratne. 1992. Coastal 2000: A Resource Strategy for Sri Lankas Coast, Volume II, Colombo: Sri Lankan Coast Conservation Department. Pador, Z., and F. Zakir. 2002. Pola Partisipatif: Alternatif Kembali ke Sistem Nagari. In Kembali ke Nagari: Batuka Baruak jo Cigak, ed. Z. Pador, Padang: Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Padang. Patlis, J. M., R. Dahuri, M. Knight, and J. Tulungen. 2001. Integrated coastal management in a decentralized Indonesia: How it can work. Jurnal Pesisir dan Lautan 4(1):2439. Patlis, J., M. Knight, D. Silalahi, S. P. Ginting, W. Siahaan, G. Hendrarsa, and A. Wiyana. 2003. The process of developing Coastal Resource Management Laws. In Coastal legal reform series, eds. M. Knight and S. Tighe, Narragansett: Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island. Pomeroy, R. S. 1995. Community-based and co-management institutions for sustainable coastal sheries management in Southeast Asia. Ocean and Coastal Management 27(3):143162. Pomeroy, R. S., and M. J. Williams. 1994. Fisheries co-management and smallscale sheries: A policy brief, Makati: International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management. Pomeroy, R. S. Ed. 1994. Community management and common property of coastal sheries in Asia and the Pacic: concepts, methods and experiences. ICLARM (International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management) Conference Proceedings 45. Manila: ICLARM. Pomeroy, R. S. 1995. Community-based and co-management institutions for sustainable coastal sheries management in Southeast Asia. Ocean & Coastal Management 27(3):143162. Pomeroy, R., and M. B. Carlos. 1997. Community-based coastal resources management in the Philippines: A review and evaluation of programs and projects, 19841994. Marine Policy 21(5):445464. Pratikto, W. A. 2001. Learning through partnerships in the context of decentralized integrated coastal management policy in Indonesia. Jakarta: Forum Kemitraan Bahari 2001, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. Putra, S. 2003. Conicts of coastal management in North Sulawesi. Townsville: TESAG, James Cook University. Purwaka, T. H. 1995. Policy on marine and coastal resource development planning. Occasional Paper Series No. 8, Bandung: Center for Archipelago, Law and Development Studies, University of Padjajaran. Rais, J. 1993. Marine Resource Evaluation and Planning Project for an integrated coastal zone planning and management in Indonesia. In World Coast Conference 1993: Proceedings, vols. 1 and 2. CZM Centre Publication No. 4, The Hague: Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management, National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management. Coastal Zone Management Centre, Netherlands. Rasyid, M. R. 2002. The policy of decentralization in Indonesia. Paper presented at the GSU Conference, Can Decentralization Help Rebuild Indonesia?, 1 May 2002, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Ruddle, K. 1993. External forces and changes in traditional community-based shery management system in the Asia Pacic Region. Maritime Anthropological Studies 6(12):137. Ruddle, K. 1994. Local knowledge in the future management of inshore tropical marine resources and environments. Nature & Resources 30(1):2837. Saharuddin, A. H. 2001. National ocean policynew opportunities for Malaysian ocean development. Marine Policy 25:427435. Sasono, A. 1999. Hambatan institusional dalam menciptakan birokrasi era globalisasi. In Menyoal birokrasi publik, eds. M. Thoha and A. Dharma, 9297. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka. Satria, A., and Y. Matsuda. 2004. Decentralisation of sheries management in Indonesia. Marine Policy 28:437450. Silver, C. 2003. Do the donors have it right? Decentralisation and changing local governance in Indonesia. Annals of Regional Science 37:421434. Siry, H. Y. 2005. Challenges for Community-Based and Co-management Approaches in Coastal Zone Management in Indonesia. Paper read at the 6th Doctoral Students Conference, Moving Toward

Decentralized CZM in Malaysia and Indonesia

285

a Sustainable Future: Multidisciplinary Perspectives from the Pacic Rim,712 August 2005, University of Oregon, Eugene, USA. Sloan, N. A., and A. Sugandhy. 1994. An overview of Indonesian coastal environmental management. Coastal Management 22:215233. Soegiarto, A. 1996. Integrated coastal zone management in Indonesia: Problems and plans of action. Paper read at International Workshop on Integrated Coastal Management in Tropical Developing Countries: Lessons Learned from Successes and Failures, 2428 May, Xiamen, Peoples Republic of China. Soendoro, T. 1994. The Indonesian experience in planning and management of coastal zone through MREP project. Paper read at the IOC-WESTPAC Third International Scientic Symposium, November 2226, Bali, Indonesia. Sorensen, J. C. 1993. The international proliferation of integrated coastal zone management efforts. Ocean & Coastal Management 21(13):4580. Tjokrowinoto, M. 1999. Peningkatan Reorientasi birokrasi publik dalam era globalisasi. In Menyoal birokrasi publik, eds. M. Thoha and A. Dharma, 7279. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka. Thorburn, C. 2002. Regime change-prospects for community-based resource management in postNew Order Indonesia. Society and Natural Resources 15:617628. Tomascik, T., A. J. Mah, A. Nontji, and M. K. Moosa. 1997. The ecology of the Indonesian Seas, Parts one and two. Singapore: EMDI and Periplus. UNDP. 1998. Empowering peopleA guide to participation. New York: Civil Society Organizations and Participation Program (CSOPP), UNDP. UNEP. 2001. Asia Pacic environment outlook 2. Bangkok: United Nations Environment ProgramRegional Resources for Asia Pacic. UNEP RRCAP. 2004. Sustainable development priorities for Southeast Asia, Bangkok: United Nations Environment ProgramRegional Resources for Asia Pacic. Uphoff, N. 1998. Community-based natural resource management: Connecting micro and macro processes, and people with their environments. Paper read at the Plenary Presentation, International CBNRM Workshop, 1014 May, 1998 at, Washington, D.C. White, A. T., L. Z. Hale, Y. Renard, and L. Cortesi. Eds. 1994. Collaborative and community-based management of coral reefs: Lessons from experience. Connecticut: Kumarian Press. World Bank. 2002. Decentralization & subnational regional economics. The World Bank 2002 (cited 25 October 2002). Available at http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/decentralization Yahaya, J. 1993. Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) and community-based sheries management in Malaysia. Paper read at Symposium on Socio-economic Issues in Coastal Fisheries Management, 2326 November 1993, Bangkok, Thailand. Zerner, C. 2000. People, plants, and justice: The politics of nature conservation. New York: Columbia University Press. Zerner, C. Ed. 2003. Culture and the question of rights: Forests, coasts and seas in Southeast Asia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.