Technical Policy Paper

PEACE RECONSTRUCTION
IN INDONESIAN CONSERVATION AREAS
THROUGH COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT
Principles and Implementation Directives

Idam Arsyad
Local Government Specialist / NRM/EPIQ
Erwin A Perbatakusuma
PEACEWork

April 2002

1
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... 1

Preface....................................................................................................................................... 4ii

1.Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 7
1.1 Description of Conflict in Conservation Areas ............................................................................ 7
1.2.Why Mutual Cooperation in Managing Conservation Areas is Needed .......................................... 8

2.Perspective, Principle and Approach .......................................................................................... 16

2.1 Basic Idea on Collaborative Management................................................................................. 16
2.2 Value and Principle ............................................................................................................... 20
2.3 Structure of Collaborative Management .................................................................................. 22
2.4 Collaborative Management Approach ..................................................................................... 25
2.4.1 Adaptive Management .................................................................................................. 25
2.4.2 Pluralism .................................................................................................................... 25
2. 4.3 Good Governance ....................................................................................................... 26
2.4.4 Patrimony.................................................................................................................... 28
2. 4.5 Conflict Management .................................................................................................. 28
2. 4.6 Social Communication................................................................................................. 29
2.5 Potential Benefits, Costs, and Constraints................................................................................ 30
2.5.1 Potential Benefits of Collaborative Management............................................................. 30
2. 5.2 Costs and Potential Constraints in Collaborative Management .......................................... 32

3. The Scope of Collaborative Management .................................................................................. 34

3.1 Stages of Collaborative Management Process ........................................................................... 34
3.2 Key Factor to Smooth the Way for Collaborative Management Process ....................................... 38
3.2.1 Stakeholders ................................................................................................................. 38
3.2.2 Assessing the Need for Implementing Collaborative Management....................................... 39
3.2.3 Negotiation to Develop Collaborative Management Plan and Agreements............................ 43
3.2.4 Collaborative Management Organizations ........................................................................ 45
3.2.5 Collaborative Management Progress Indicators................................................................. 46
3.2.6 Excerpts From Lessons in Collaborative Management Practice ........................................... 48

4.The Potentials of Implementing Collaborative Management in Indonesia....................................... 51

4.1.The de facto Situation: Unsolved Conflicts in Protected Areas .................................................... 51
4.2 Support from the Political Society, Policy and Legal Aspects ..................................................... 53
4.2.1 Decentralization Concurs with Collaborative Management................................................. 53
4.2.2 Narrow Loopholes: Legal Aspects to Support Collaborative Management............................ 54
4. 2.2.1 Law No. 5 Year 1994 ......................................................................................... 55
4. 3. Implementation of Collaborative Management as an Alternative in Indonesia ............................. 64

References................................................................................................................................. 66

Apendices
Appendix 1: IUCN's Resolution on Collaborative Management for Conservation .............................. 68
Appendix 2: Excerpts of Experiences from Other Countries Implementing Collaborative Management 72

2
Appendix 3: Central and Regional Government Policies on the Implementation of Collaborative
Management .............................................................................................................................. 78
Appendix 4: Development of Institutions and Funding Mechanisms to Implement Collaborative
Management .............................................................................................................................. 80
Appendix 5: Utilization of Ecological Services as an Alternative Funding Mechanism Developed to
Implement Collaborative Management.......................................................................................... 86

3
 Preface

From the past two centuries and up to this day, nature conservation planners have alleged that
traditional communities and cultures are threats to conservation areas1. The methods used for
designating and managing a conservation area is not easy to change, for example the use of
militaristic way to forcefully move local communities from a new conservation area is often
implemented without prior discussions, nor accompanied with an offer of reasonable
compensation. In actual fact the majority of these people have lived and managed the area for
centuries, yet they were stereotyped as non-humanist. As an example, traditional hunters or food
gatherer, living within or adjacent to the conservation area have been alleged as illegal
hunters/poachers or encroachers. As a consequence of these actions the local communities
became distrustful of the government and would start resistance and lengthy physical conflicts
against the authority assigned in conservation areas and conservation planners. If this continues,
conservation areas in Indonesia would become a place far from peaceful environment.

In the past twenty years, organizations dealing with conservation increased their awareness on
the need and importance of continuously involving members of the local communities in their
efforts to conserve nature. The tendency to implement community-based conservation area
management presents a complex challenge in biodiversity conservation and the preservation of
its natural ecosystem. This kind of activity cannot be implemented by a single organization, but
requires the innovation and creativity to build partnership among different stakeholders who are
involved in the management of natural resources. Better conservation management evolves from
one that is mainly focused on the scientific aspects of biodiversity to become one that is based on
better comprehension and appreciation of the local community’s economic and cultural values.
In addition, conservation area management has expanded towards the use of participatory
approach, new legitimate leadership more acceptable to stakeholders and the application of a
sustainable multi-purpose scheme for conservation areas. There is also an increase of efforts to
integrate conservation with economic development. In many places, there seems to be an
increase of social groups that can provide bigger contribution towards the efforts of regaining
benefit from conservation activities (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996). Each benefit, for example the
economic aspect is obtained from the opportunity of having access to utilize natural resources
1
According to the Directorate General of Forestry Protection and Nature Conservation (PHKA) (2000), conservation areas in Indonesia are
divided into land and marine conservation areas. Based on Government Regulation: (PP) No. 68/1998, the conservation areas comprises of nature
conservation areas (national park, wilderness areas and eco-tourism parks), wildlife sanctuaries (wildlife reserve and nature reserve), and hunting
parks. According to Law No. 5/1990 on Biodiversity conservation, nature conservation area is an area with specific characterization, terrestrial
and marine, with functions to protect life support systems, to conserve biodiversity (flora and fauna), to use biological resources and its
ecosystems in a sustainable manner. Whereas wildlife sanctuary is an area with specific characteristics, terrestrial and marine that mainly
functions as a biodiversity (flora and fauna) and ecosystem conservation area. It also functions as life support system area.

4
sustainably or from the distribution of revenues obtained from various private sector or public
activities. Examples, entrance fee to conservation areas, fee to carry out eco-tourism and water
utilization activities. Cultural benefit is also obtained from the acknowledgement of sacred sites
or the provision of rights to the local community to manage their natural resources. In theory it is
quite simple: nature conservation efforts will continue, when stakeholders acknowledge that the
benefit acquired is greater than then loss economically.

In practice it is not that simple to reach an ideal balance or obtain peaceful co-existence between
natural conservation needs and the fulfillment of local community needs. As such, conservation
initiatives need to clarify the process of benefit - loss that occurs. The initiatives should also
involve more primary stakeholders capable of creating, deciding fair solutions and supporting
the choice that has been made. In addition, conservation initiatives are also needed to rebuild the
relationship between the government and local community that has not been harmonious, so that
the association may be long-lasting, honest and based on equal rights. The ideal condition
mentioned above requires improvement of the policy and legal aspects to enhance the local
stakeholders’ capability to participate in the political and decision-making processes of
conservation area management. Reform should also be applied to the methodology and
organizational structure; management and additional tools used in the planning, implementation
and monitoring of nature conservation areas.

The endeavor to reorient and reform conservation area management approach was triggered by
economic and political crisis, which hit Indonesia since 1997. The crisis has brought the
authority of conservation area management in confrontation with two situations. First, the drastic
decrease of central government budget allocated through the National Planned / Actual Budget
(APBN) to manage conservation area. Second, increased pressure on conservation areas to
pursuit short term profit such as illegal logging, illegal mining, excessive and illegal fish
harvesting, and encroachment of forest areas for farming activities. Meanwhile on the other hand,
regional autonomy and fiscal decentralization which has been put into effect since January 2001
resulted in the decrease of role and control of central government in the natural resource
management. Local Government, especially the districts (kabupaten) and the cities now has the
authority to manage natural resources in their areas (forest, mining, marine, plantation and
farming). With this given authority, Local Government is required to be more self-sufficient in
financing government operation and development to increase the community’s welfare through
the sustainable use of natural resources located in their area. This situation naturally pushes local
decision makers to take the short-cut in achieving financial resources, such as, through the
exploitation of protected forests and national parks. The reality of local needs leads to the

5
stereotyping of local stakeholders, particularly local government members as one whose
orientation is only based on short-term goals. Their objective is aimed at increasing and
strengthening local fiscal through the extraction of natural resources without considering the
preservation and conservation aspects of natural resources. Consequently, what happens is that
all local stakeholders are considered as a threat to the conservation area, specifically to national
parks, nature reserves, eco-tourism parks and wildlife reserves.

Currently, there is a global demand to use collaborative management or co-management policy

and practice to achieve the ideal condition mentioned earlier i.e. the balance between local and
conservation needs. This management model became a discourse for conservation planners and
is being experimented in many parts of the world. It is therefore considered timely for the
Indonesian Government, particularly the Department of Forestry to further study this model to be
able to initiate a new policy based on the selected management model.

The purpose of this policy draft is to inform and develop a mutual understanding among different
stakeholders on the co-management approach that will be used for nature conservation. This
document will present the general description, term of reference and guidelines on the
implementation of collaborative management system. It will also provide information on the
potential and feasibility of its implementation in the management of nature conservation areas in
Indonesia.

6
 1. Introduction

1. 1 Description of Conflict in Conservation Areas

Generally, nature conservation areas in Indonesia are placed under the common property regimes,
which is under the state’s authorization. In many cases, conflicts occur between the government
and local communities or adat (traditional) communities. Although, de jure the territory is
controlled by the government, in a number of locations, local people or local business actors who
exploit the area in a well-organized way are in fact the ones who control the area. Such incident
can be noted from the increase of illegal logging and illegal hunting in a number of conservation
areas. When government and local community control is not effectively enforced or when there
is no control at all in the field site, conservation areas become an open access. This condition is
an expression of the 'tragedy of the commons' which Hardin feared, i.e. the deterioration of
natural resources.

In addition to that, conflicts also occur because the concept of conservation area management,
particularly concerning national parks in the southern countries, including Indonesia adopted the
American concept that is based on 'exclusive management'. This policy strictly separates the
needs of the conservation areas from the needs of the local community living in the conservation
area. In this case, the state’s or the private sector’s domination in the management of the
conservation area is very strong. “Inclusive management model,” developed in Western
European countries is not known in Indonesia. In this model local community’s and local
administration interests are included in the management of conservation areas. Both models
mentioned have their own advantages. Exclusive management was successful in protecting
wildlife and beauty scenery, even without the local community’s involvement. On the other
hand, inclusive management was successful in involving the local community in the
management of conservation area (Borrini-Feyerabend, et al 2000).

Conflicts are very likely to happen anywhere, and it is quite normal provided that the resolutions
are productive and not destructive. Conflict can be seen as opportunities for stakeholders to start
getting together, perceptively identify problems, find solutions and finally evaluate the steps
selected for improvements. Good comprehension of the conflicts occurring in a conservation
area can help us in determining the resolutions for these conflicts. In general the conflicts
occurring in Indonesian conservation areas have the following characteristics:

7
1. Involve a great number of local stakeholders who has different interests, perspectives,
cultural values and goals with regard to the utilization of natural resources. The number of
stakeholders will increase, whenever these conservation areas are considered as having high
commercial values and are located in densely populated areas and where the population is
consumerist and where social conflicts are easily provoked.

2. Conflict resolution is often outside the jurisdiction of the conservation area management due
to the influence of political, economical, international and institutional issues.

3. Conflict is usually provoked as a result of difference of opinion between scientific and local
socio-cultural values as well as local knowledge.

4. Conflicts will become bigger if there are not enough financial resources to manage these
conservation areas and to execute conflict resolutions already determined.

1.2. Why Mutual Cooperation in Managing Conservation Areas is Needed

Co-management, also referred to as collaborative management, participatory management,

round-table agreement, shared-management, joint management or multi-stakeholder
management has been applied in many countries of the world in the field of fishery, national
parks, protected areas, forestry, wildlife, grazing land/ pasture and water resources locations
(Conley and Moote 2001)2. In Bahasa Indonesian, “pengelolaan bergotong-royong3 ” (gotong-
royong is a popular expression often used by Soekarno meaning working together, the first
president of Indonesia) has a comparable meaning to the terminology of co-management.

Decker and Chase (1997) stated that for managing wildlife, collaborative management is
necessary due to the following tendencies:

a. Increasing problems between man and wildlife often become more location specific.

2
The concept of 'co-management' was first introduced, legalized and put into effect by Judge Boldt in 1974, for the co-management of salmon
between the indigenous communities and government officials at the western side of Washington (Bruce Currie -Alder, 2001).

3
In the Kamus Umum Indonesia (1993), WJS Poerwodarminta, gotong-royong is defined as working together (mutually helping each other) to
perform a job.

8
b. Increasing public expectations towards the necessity of solution adjustment that has been so
far carried out
c. On-going limitations of human and financial resources

Mutual cooperation (gotong-royong) is needed when managing conservation areas in Indonesia,

because management is linked to the complexity of ecological, culture, economy and politic sub-
systems. Management is also linked to various issues and the involvement of stakeholders in
their own sub-systems. Collaborative management is essential when no resolution can be reached
through the simple and universal way. Through mutual cooperation the road to reach self-
sufficiency in managing conservation area will be opened to such an extent that gradually there
is no longer a need for painstaking efforts to “beg” or “borrow” money to finance the
management of conservation areas. Stakeholders will hand in hand donate resources they posses,
either in the form of knowledge, skills, information and finance, provided the faith-crisis
constraint is overcome and eliminated.

Conservation planners and bureaucrats of the New Order (Orde Baru) and the present Reform
Order (Orde Reformasi) very often arrogantly doubt or half-heartedly have shown faith on the
expertise of the local community in managing natural resources and therefore refuse to transfer a
part of their power and authority to the long time practitioners. The misgivings were also based
on a phenomena called 'tragedy of the common' as feared by Prof. Hardin, namely the
destruction of natural resources as a result of overexploitation when the resources were
determined as open access to be used as common property. The catastrophe is in fact not only a
logical implication, which is a general truth when managing public resources, but it is more of a
causative and unique phenomenon. It happens when the demand of resources is much bigger
than what is endowed. It can also happen when natural resource management institution and
organization has not been well prepared and organized by the local community or when the
indigenous social code of conducts has been destroyed. On the other hand, it has been proven
and must be acknowledge that the natural resources managed as 'state property' and 'private
property' in Indonesia had the same impact, the ostracism of local community and destruction of
local environment. The impact at the local level sparks serious and recurring social conflicts with
significant frequency and intensity.

The transformation of natural resource management patterns by the state, private, and later
collaboration between the government and local community seems to be a universal demand,
which applies not only in Indonesia. The pattern of natural resources management in India has
undergone four stages of evolution, particularly for forest management from the era of

9
colonialism, commercialism, conservation and at present collaboration. In Nepal, the stages of
the evolution are: privatization, nationalization, and populism. A number of American states
where 'exclusive management' of conservation areas was first introduced have now started
moving towards collaborative management. Extensive and not merely symbolic community
participation has eventually proved to be a satisfactory result: productivity is reached without
sacrificing environmental conservation and local community existence. The governments of
India and Nepal believe that local community is capable, knowledgeable, and possess reliable
wisdom to manage natural resources in a productive and sustainable way. Collaboration with
local community is a necessity and a must, because the aim for production and sustainability
could be attained more effectively and at the same time an interactive and two-way mechanism
to reconcile conflict is created. The basic idea of Acheson (1989) could possibly be used as a
recommendation to why the management of a conservation area needs a gotong-royong
management. According to Acheson the concept to manage 'public' resources, such as a
conservation area shows a combination of equal intensity in government involvement on the one
hand and community on the other hand as well as the consequential impact. Based on the
combination, four management pattern alternatives were produced.

First, if both local community and government do not intensively execute control towards natural
resource management, the resources will be overexploited as an 'open access'. A management
pattern where 'no one manages' will only result in “the tragedy of common” as written by Hardin
in his theses a tragedy that will result in resource extinction due to human over- exploitation
beyond nature carrying capacity.

Second, if the government executes absolute control towards resource management, it will only
result in 'state-based management' pattern. This is the pattern currently applied in Indonesia. In
this pattern, the community’s role is 'pushed aside', if any, community involvement will be
symbolic, and thus, the community loses their 'sense of belonging and 'share of responsibility',
whereas in fact the community possesses considerable capacity in managing resources. This
pattern will only result in the community’s apathy. People will not have interest in helping the
government when they are carrying out efforts to maintain resources and on top of that the
government also has limited management capacity. Consequently, this pattern will be immersed
in the first pattern.

Third, if the community executes absolute control towards resource management, it will result in
'community-based management' pattern. In reality, the community itself is in fact comprises of
extensively different fragments user and non-user. When the user community executes a wise

10
management, other communities outside their territory often disturb them. User community will
not be able to overcome them once these disturbances are intensified or increased. Furthermore,
there are no supporting government policies. In the end this pattern will also be immersed in the
first pattern.

Fourth, if the government and community control are strong, equitable and balanced in the
decision-making process, it will result in 'collaborative pattern' or 'co-management' pattern.
Empirically, this is the ideal management pattern. Collaborative management is the most logical
pattern to be used in managing conservation areas. This management pattern will create a
balanced control between the community and government towards resources in conservation
areas. Through this management pattern the degradation of resources into “open access
resources” can be prevented. In collaborative management the community’s role is the executor
who uses and at the same time maintains these resources; while the government's role is the
facilitator and enabler.

Borrini-Feyerabend, et al (2000) clearly provides arguments on the importance of collaborative

management and why different stakeholders would refuse the pattern. (Developed by the writer
based on the condition of Indonesia).

Arguments from collaborative management pattern supporter

1. Knowledge, capability, resources and comparative advantages from various stakeholders are
needed for efficiency and effective management, and only through collaborative management
can these needs be fulfilled.
2. Equity, social justice and democracy are also needed in natural resource management.
Community members are the ones who have to bear the costs of conservation and
development activities, therefore it can be expected that their “inner voice” are heard in the
decision-making process.
3. A desire to end conflicts among the stakeholders in a win-win situation without anyone
losing and to prevent destructive conducts in natural resource management.
4. Interaction between the community and the environment is part of nature, and biodiversity
depends upon the interaction between community and nature, both cannot be separated.
5. In line with the demand for being autonomous, the local government has to arrange and
manage local natural resources in the spirit of regional autonomy and decentralization.
6. Collaborative management is taken as a means to reach professional management, self-
reliance and public accountability.

11
7. Single authority has proven ineffective in managing conservation area, particularly in
reducing damages in the area and in gathering support from local stakeholders in managing
conservation areas.
8. Centralized single authority will only be entangled between the efforts carried out by local
government and local community to improve welfare, implement local autonomy and fiscal
decentralization.
9. As the beneficiary of ecological services in conservation areas, local stakeholders are equally
responsible to protect and preserve conservation areas. And only through co-management
can this joint responsibility be developed.

12
Conflict at Bunaken National Park
The history of Bunaken National Park management describes the process of lengthy arguments and debates between
the central government and local government on management rights of the national park area. Since 1980, local
government has decided the area as a marine tourism object. In the period of 1980 until 1986 the management of the
area has been under the authority of local government.

In 1980 via the Governor Decree - SK No. 224 year 1980 on the Protection, Safeguarding and Development of
Manado Marine Park Tourism Objects, Bunaken area was designated as a marine tourism area. Local government
through Local Tourism Office carries out the management. In 1984 via the Governor Decree - SK No. 201 year
1984 the area of this tourism object was extended to reach Arakan - Wawontulap. And local government through
Local Tourism Section took the management. At this period a few conflicts arose between the local government and
local community due to a relocation plan to move people of Bunaken, since there was a plan to make the area into an
ecotourism activity center. This local government plan was not realized because the people refused to move out and
the management of the area was handed over to the central government via Sub-BKSDA.

In 1986 via Ministerial Decree - SK Menhut No. 328/Kpts-II/86 the area was designated as a nature reserve covering
the area of Bunaken Island, Manado Tua, the coastal areas surrounding Tanjung Pisok and Arkan - Wawontulap.
Further in 1989 via SP Menhut No. 444/Menhut-II/89 the status of the area was again changed into national park,
which covers Bunaken Islands, Siladen, Manado Tua, Mantehage, Nain, some parts of the coastal area of
Tongkaina, Wori, Tanjung Pisok, and the coastal area of Arakan - Wawontulap. Later in 1991 via SK Menhut No.
730/Kpts-II/91 the area was designated as Bunaken National Park.

The beauty of Bunaken National Park's coral reefs has boost up multiplying effect on the development of tourism
activities in the city of Manado and in the area of Bunaken National Park. Ecotourism activities in the area tend to
be out of control and resulted in destroying the ecosystem of Bunaken National Park. In this condition the local
government took the initiative to arrange nature tourism activities, organize residential areas and facilitate
coordination between institutions and stakeholders. When carrying out these efforts the local government was
hindered by the absence of authority in the management of Bunaken National Park. Upon realizing this drawback
the Governor of North Sulawesi, requested the handling over of Bunaken National Park management to the Minister
of Forestry in October 1992.

Authority of the central government in the management of Bunaken National Park area has become stronger since
the President of the Republic of Indonesia designated the area as Bunaken National Park on December 21, 1992.
Based on this, in January 1993 the Minister of Forestry restated that the central government could not agree to the
request of the North Sulawesi Governor to hand in the authority of Bunaken National Park management, since in
accordance with the legislation the management of Bunaken National Park is "still" under the authority of central
government, therefore local government could only manage tourism activities in the utilization zone of Bunaken
National Park.

Since then the relation between local and central government with regard to the management of Bunaken National
Park became disharmonious. Productive efforts attempted by one are not supported by the other. Among others,
attempt to implement entrance fee by Sub-KSDA in 1993 was opposed by the local government and the other way
round, local government’s effort to pick up fee from tourist to Bunaken National Park was opposed by Forestry
Regional Office and Bunaken National Park Office.

This disharmonious relation resulted in the poor supervision of local government against nature tourism activities,
and the lack of attention on community development in the Bunaken National Park. Disbelief among related
stakeholders is quite strong, such as between the people and Bunaken National Park Office, or people and the nature
tourism agency, between nature tourism agency and the local government, between local government and the
people.

13
Arguments from those against collaborative management

1. Collaborative management is only a discourse and its implementation in a number of

locations needs to be evaluated for its effectiveness.
2. Collaborative management is a long process and costly, therefore it is not an economical
investment priority.
3. The objectives of nature conservation cannot be compromised. Collaborative management
will only provide minimal portion of power and authority to the stakeholders making the
main decision so far.

Conflict of Management in the Bali Barat National Park area

The area in the surrounding of Bali Barat National Park (TNBB) is a high ethnic and social complexity. Two
provincial main road traffics divide this National Park and the park is located quite close to the crowded ferry
harbor. Although officially TNBB is not a population enclave area, in reality TNBB area has for a long time been
the source of income and livelihood for the population living in the neighboring villages. Aside from indigenous
Balinese people, people from Java, Madura and Bugis are registered as permanent residents who dominate the
population in the neighborhood of TNBB. Many people from other regions also come to use the resources and
ecology services of TNBB, for example fishermen from Madura and Banyuwangi.

Primordial issues from each ethnic and religious groups are critical enough. Many organizations are based on ethnic
and religious background. Although so far there have not been any conflicts emerging at the surface, in the process
of developing co-management, social frictions in this region should be attended closely. Particularly, since each
ethnic group has a different approach when evaluating and appreciating resources and ecological services from
TNBB area.

Social conflicts in the area become more critical as the process of obtaining permits and private sector operations is
not transparent. The process of obtaining permit that is highly centralized and with the minimal information trickling
down to the region, especially for stakeholders in the area, makes the activities of IPPA operation in the region
highly questionable.

It is a pity that problems and efforts to facilitate these conflicts are outside the main focus of the National Park, as a
consequence of limited resources. TNBB is established to protect the habitat of Jalak Bali so that the human
resources available are concentrated to manage Jalak Bali and its habitation. As an example, the process of marine
area zonation is not built by way of participation, namely without considering community interest, and the interest of
marine resources protection. Marine zonation is built mainly to support the protection of jalak bali and its habitat.

The condition of this management is weakened by the minimal operation fund from the central government directed
to the marine area management. This is ironic, since the biggest revenue of this area comes from the exploitation of
marine area.

The biggest challenge of co-management development in this area lies in the social and ethnic population mapping,
developing transparency process, human resources capacity development in managing the sea for relevant
stakeholders, availability of scientific data to be used as a foundation in decision making, and the availability of
sustainable funding for marine conservation activities.

14
4. Collaborative management is loaded with politics and will abandon the real objectives of
nature conservation behind;
5. Natural resources conservation, especially at national parks is an international commitment,
which has to be implemented by the central government. Decentralization, privatization and
democratization in collaborative management are not in line with the commitment and does
not take sides with the protection of a more global community interest (or only of local
interest character);
6. Management by central government is in accordance with the application of patterns in
countries well advanced in conservation area management. Moreover, everywhere in the
world national park management is implemented by central authority;
7. There are no legislations which control co-management, especially for national park areas;
8. Not all stakeholders understand the objectives of nature conservation, to involve them in the
decision-making process will be ineffective and complicated;
9. There is no clarity which stakeholders are responsible and accountable, if there is violation or
destruction of natural resources in the area. Co-management will only make more 'obscure'
those who have the authority and responsibility;
10. It is not possible to manage conservation areas effectively if there is not a single command
and authority. Co-management will make conservation area comparable to 'a ship with two
captains'.

15
 2. Perspective, Principle and Approach

2.1. Basic Idea on Collaborative Management

Co-management is the sharing of authority in political, fiscal and administrative aspects among
stakeholders representing the government, civil society, and private sectors. Co-management
(participatory management) combines decentralization, de-concentration, democratization, and
privatization aspects for effective balance of rights and responsibility.4 (Wardojo, 2000).

Borrini-Feyerabend et al (2000) describe the concept of 'co-management' as:

A condition where two (2) or more social actors are engaged in negotiating, clarifying,
guaranteeing and distributing equally among themselves management functions, rights and
responsibility of a territory or specific natural resources which have been given mandate to
manage..

IUCN - World Conservation Union in their resolution 1.42 year 1996 stated the basic idea of
collaborative management (also known as co-management, or joint, participatory or multi-
stakeholder management) as a partnership among government institutions, local community and
resource users, non-governmental institutions and other stakeholders in negotiating and
determining an appropriate framework concerning the authority and responsibility of managing a
specific region or resources. (IUCN, 1977)

Based on the above knowledge, 'Co-management' in conservation areas is a form of partnership

among various stakeholders who have agreed upon the sharing of functions, authority and
responsibility in the management of a region or natural resources which fall under the status of
protected or conservation areas.

According to Renard (in Borrini-Feyerabend, et al 2000), co-management differs from other

participatory management or community-based resources management), because it demands
government awareness and distribution of responsibility in a formal way. In this context, public
consultation and participatory planning is directed to determine the different forms of a long

4
Wahyudi Wardojo, Gugus Tugas Kelembagaan Kehutanan dalam Rangka Desentralisasi. Dephutbun, 2000

16
lasting participation, measurable and equitable by involving all relevant and legitimate groups of
stakeholders in the management and conservation of natural resources.

In a broader sense, collaborative management can be placed in the “middle” or seen as a

“compromising road” between the extremes of a management pattern that is under full control by
the government and full control by the community. (see figure 1 and figure 2).

Management by way of co-management should be understood as a broad concept that includes

various means where the responsible organizations and other stakeholders carry out an adaptive
participatory management. Collaborative management should be looked upon pragmatically
based upon de facto and not de jure conditions (at times, de facto, local society does not have
access and control in the conservation area). Therefore, the collaborative management
development process will no longer raise the problem on the status of conservation or protected
areas. In other words, every stakeholder will acknowledge the status of one another conservation
areas. Every stakeholder fully participates in the formation of collaborative pattern and is ready
to contribute time, knowledge, capabilities, and information or other resources and to be actively
involved in the decision-making process. Table 1 shows the details of characteristic differences
between collaborative management, community-based management and government-based
management. From the science of management point of view, collaborative management is
essentially one of the alternatives to settle disputes via collaborative conflict management or
mutual cooperation. The objective is to settle conflicts by way of a win - win solution, consensus
or mutual agreement binding all conflicting stakeholders. This conflict management style is
different from the competition, evasion or accommodating style where only one stakeholder will
win, and the other stakeholder(s) would be sacrificed as a loser (win-lose solution) (Prijosaksono,
et al 2002).

17
 STATE-BASED
MANAGEMENT

COMMUNITY-BASED
MANAGEMENT

MANAGING

ORGANIZING BASED ON
LOCAL COMMUNITY
THE GOVERNMENT

CO-MANAGEMENT

MANAGING AND
CENTERED ON
MANAGEMENT

Informing
Consulting
Mutual cooperation
Communicating
Exchanging information
Counselor’s role
Mutual cooperation action
Partnership
Public control
Coordination
Inter district

FIGURE 1
Hierarchy of Co-Management
(Adopted from Pomerov and Berkes 1997 in Schusler 2001)

18
 FIGURE 2.
The Working Area of Collaborative Management / Co-management
Lies in Between the Extremes of Full Control by the Agency in Charge or Stakeholders

19
2. 2 Value and Principle

Borrini-Feyerabend, et al (2000) stated that collaborative management comprises of the

following ethical values and principles:

a. Recognizing different values, interests and concerns involved in managing a territory, area or
set of natural resources, located both outside the local communities and within them.
b. Open to various types of NRM entitlements beyond the ones legally recognized (such as
private property or government mandate).
c. Seeking transparency and equity in natural resource management
d. Allowing the civil society to assume ever more important roles and responsibilities
e. Harnessing the complementarity of the capacities and comparative advantages of different
institutional actors.
f. Linking entitlements and responsibilities in the natural resources management context.
g. Appreciating that the process is more important than the short-term products.
h. Learning-by-doing through on-going revisions and improvements in natural resources
management
Borrini-Feyerabend (1997) added that the principle and assumption of the collaborative
management strategy is noted with the following:

1. A pluralistic approach to managing natural resources (NRs), incorporating a variety of

partners in a variety of roles generally to the end goals of environmental conservation,
sustainable use of natural resources and the equitable sharing of resource-related benefits and
responsibilities.

2. A process that needs basic conditions to develop, among which are: full access to
information on relevant issues and options; freedom and capacity to organize; freedom to
express needs and concerns; a non-discriminatory social environment; the will of partners to
negotiate; confidence in the respect of agreements.

3. A political and cultural process seeking social justice and democracy in natural resource
management. In this regime, civil society - organized in the forms and ways in accordance
with conditions - taking the roles and responsibilities, which gradually become more
important. Moreover, a fair collaborative management guarantees the interests and rights of

20
 all stakeholders - especially those who are considered weakest – therefore, creating social
justice and eliminating injustice power.

4. Collaborative management is based on mutual interests, the confidence that there is still a
possibility to perform a management pattern that is able to incorporate different interests, but
also responds to - however small - all interests. Specifically, collaborative management is
based on the opinion that natural resources could be managed effectively when all parties are
treated with respect and equity.

5. A complex process that needs time to develop and sometimes have confusing end-results. It
also involves frequent and sudden changes, sometimes involves contradictory information
that needs to be revised and continuously corrected, compared to a set of standard regulations
which cannot be amended. Most important of all is the coordination of management, not the
management plan, which will be able to respond to different kinds of needs in an effective
manner.

6. The expression of a mature society which understands that there is no 'unique and objective'
solution for managing natural resources, but rather a multiplicity of different options which
are compatible with both indigenous knowledge and scientific evidence and capable of
meeting the needs of conservation and development

7. Collaborative management is based on a principle that emphasizes the link between

entitlements and responsibilities. 'Authority and responsibility is conceptually linked. If they
are not linked and given to different actors, then both authority and responsibility will be
disintegrated.

8. The challenge in collaborative management is how to establish a situation where everyone

will gain bigger benefits when there is collaboration instead of competition.

9. Specifically, within the collaborative management process for protected areas, consensus
established in the form of partnership include: function and responsibility of each stakeholder;
the extent and borders of the protected areas or natural resources, functions and sustainable
use which could be implemented; acknowledgement of the involved stakeholders; procedures
for resolving conflicts and negotiations for collective decision-making; determination of
management priorities and management planning; evaluation and review of partnership
agreement and management plans.

21
10. Emphasis on negotiation rather than litigation process for resolving conflicts where only one
side of the conflicting parties wins.

11. Combination of 'western' scientific knowledge with local knowledge.

2.3 Structure of Collaborative Management

Pomeroy et al (1997) clearly describe the mechanism of a collaborative management activity and
its influencing change factors. (see figure 3). Collaborative management comprises of the
following variables:

§ Economic and demographic factors: social competition, ethnicity, social class, gender,
population and migration pressure;

§ Biological, physical and technical factors: quantity of resources; variability of resources,

level of resource exploitation and other biological dynamics.

§ Market factors: volume and the number of resource markets; geographical extent of these
markets and marketing fluctuations;

§ External institutions and organizational factors: legal status of the collaborative

management system, setting of the supporting policies, level of funding institution’s
involvement and participation of community networking, nationally and internationally,
which influence the setting of collaborative management policies.

The above mentioned factors will influence the flexibility, equity and transactional factors. These
factors can describe the outcome of collaborative management activities, comprising of three
criteria, namely efficiency, equity and sustainability.

22
Table 1: Differences among Community-based Management, Co-Management and State-
based Management in Managing Natural Resources
CHARACTERISTICS
Spatial Application
Main Authority
Person Responsible
Level of Participation
Activity Duration
Management Flexibility
Financial Investment and
Human Resources
Continuity of Efforts
Orientation Procedures
Legal Aspect Orientation
Conflict Resolution
Orientation
Final Objective
Management Information
Resources
(Quoted from summary of: Borrini-Feyerabend, et al 2000; Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996; Borrini Feyerabend, 1997)
COMMUNITY- BASED
Specific location (small)
Local decision- making
and local community
structure
Communal, local decision-
making body
High at the local level
Fast beginning process;
slow decision-making
process
High adjustment; sensitive
and receptive toward local
environmental changes
Use local human
resources; moderate to low
financial output; flexible
budget
Short-term, if without
sustainable external
support
Focused on short term
impact; designed only for
local site-specific; moral
sanction
de facto control of
resources; communal
property rights
One of the parties loses;
accommodating,
competition; public power;
local law sanction
Revitalization or defending
status quo of local
resources ownership;
political democratization of
local natural resources
management
Local knowledge
23
CO-MANAGEMENT
Multi-location network
(moderate to extensive)
Divided : central
government with
government authority and
local non-government
Local and national level
multi-stakeholders
High at different levels
Moderate beginning
process; slow decision-
making among
stakeholders
Moderate adjustment;
highly receptive to nature
change in reasonable
sense
Develop human resources
of various levels; flexible
budget; moderate to high
costs
Continuous, if equal
coalition is developed
Long-term impact oriented;
short-term process
oriented; designed for
multi-location
de jure control of
resources; communal
property, private or public
rights
Everyone wins,
collaborative; negotiable
Create harmony, and
different stages of political
democratization in natural
resources management, of
economy change at
different levels
Local knowledge and
western science
STATE- BASED
National (extensive)
Central Government
Dominated by central
government
Low; stakeholders’
exclusivity potentials
Gradual duration of
beginning process; fast
decision-making at
beginning of process
Slow to change and often
not flexible; bureaucratic;
policy, reality & practices
have the potentials to be
not linked
Centered on human
resources and moderate
expenditure; fixed budget
is determined
Continuous, if political
structure is maintained
Long-term process
orientation; designed for
extensive location;
sanction
de jure control of
resources; public or state
property rights
Resolved by law; one of
the parties will lose;
competition,
accommodation, political
power
Defending status-quo of
natural resource control
politic; change of national
economy
Dominated by western
science
 Co-management Process
(size, history, representation, Transaction
suitability, law enforcement & Cost
organizational strength)

Demography and
Economy Politics

Biological, Physical NATURAL

& Technical RESOURCES Equity among
Attributes stakeholders
CONFLICTS

Market Attributes

Institutional flexibility
External Organization (legitimacy, attitude,
& Organizational voluntary, strength)
Management

FIGURE 3: RELATIONS AMONG INFLUENCING FACTORS ON THE OUT PUT

OF COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
(Modified from Pomeroy et.al 1997 in IFM and ICLARM, 2001

24
2.4 Collaborative Management Approach

There are a number of concepts and approaches we need to be familiar with to enrich our
knowledge when implementing collaborative management. They are adaptive management,
pluralism, good governance, patrimony, conflict management and social communication.

2.4.1 Adaptive Management

Natural resource is a complex and dynamic phenomena. Consequently, there is limitation in our
understanding of nature ecosystem and capability to predict and respond in the form of
management. At the same time changes in social values also take place, therefore, increasing the
uncertainty on how to best implement natural resource management. This is the reason why
adaptive management is used in the context of collaborative management.

According to Taylor (1998), adaptive management is a systematic and scientific process which
continuously endeavors to accommodate changes, improve policies and management practices
by way of lessons learned from the output of activities being operated. The scope covers the
synthetic of existing knowledge, exploration of alternative actions and work on the prediction of
the output with clarity. The management and monitoring activities should be carefully designed
to result in reliable feedback that can provide explanation on the output. The next step and goal
will be adjusted to the acquired feedback and knowledge will then be improved. In adaptive
management all decisions, actions and outputs can be documented and communicated to other
stakeholders to serve as lessons learned.

The stages of adaptive management implementation based on Taylor's reference (1998) are as
follows, problem statement, design (management plan), implementation, monitoring, evaluation
and adaptation.

2.4.2 Pluralism

Pluralism is a situation where groups are autonomous and self-sufficient or interdependent with
diverse opinions, interests and the rights to freely interact and collaborate when managing natural
resources. The approach to pluralism is focused on arranging, acknowledging and involving
various actors, interests, concerns and values that exist in a community. A variety of opinions

25
and voices in the negotiation process which eventually will result in an agreement on
collaborative management is the foundation of a pre-condition to achieve equity and justice.

2. 4.3 Good Governance

Governance is a complex way of individuals and institutions, public and private sector in
managing their common concerns. Good governance depends on the legitimacy of the political
system and on the respect shown by the people for its institutions. It also depends on the capacity
of such institution to respond to problems, and to achieve social consensus through agreements
and compromise. Governance is neither a system nor an activity it is a process that is not based
on domination, but compromise. Karsenty (1998) very well describes the difference of an
activity process with a good management perspective and a conventional perspective as given in
Figure 4 below.

26
Conventional scenario

Law Management Projects Community

regulations tools participation

Negotiated governance perspective

Negotiation
process

Legal (including Collectively defines

(customary) long-term objectives
principles
references

Evolution of jurisprudence Joint selection and

and adaptation of the law establishment of management
(including customary law) tools and authorities

FIGURE 4
Differences of Activities in a Conventional Perspective and Based on
Negotiable Arrangements
Adopted from Karsenty 1998 in Borrini-Feyerabend, et al 2000

27
2.4.4 Patrimony

Patrimony is an inheritance from ancestors that can be a compendium of material and immaterial
elements that help maintain and develop the identity and autonomy of its owner, through time
and space, by adaptation to its evolutionary context. It is the patrimonial representation of a
territory, an area or a set of resources which links many generations of people who managed in
the past, present and future; and focuses on the owner's obligations more than on the owner's
rights. In promoting patrimonial mediation there are various stages as follows:

§ Launching: identifying actors, debating current trends for the status of natural resources and
the acceptability of such trends; communicating one’s own point of view/opinions and
listening to the points of view of others;
§ Establishing long-term patrimonial objectives and legitimizing them by culturally appropriate
“rituals” that make them inalienable, non-negotiable and difficult to violate;
§ Elaborating medium-term natural resources management scenarios by actors, to achieve their
patrimonial objectives, defining acceptable resource uses as well as access and control;
agreeing on tools (infrastructure), methods, responsibilities and needed technical support;
§ Setting up natural resources management organizations: deciding on the executive, decision-
making and advisory bodies; and their operating rules; legitimizing, but not ritualizing the
specific NRM bodies, rules and adopted strategies.

2. 4.5 Conflict Management

Conflict management is a non-violent process that promotes dialogues, negotiations and guiding
conflicts towards constructive rather than destructive results. The main constituents of modern
conflict management approaches:
1. The social actors concerned;
2. A common area of interests and some points of conflict, such as different values, interests
and needs of the various actors involved;
3. A forum for negotiation process and some basic rules providing a framework for the actors
concerned to meet and discuss the issues;
4. Some reliable data on the sources of conflict;
5. Various options for actions generated by the actors concerned and discussed among
themselves;
6. A written agreement on one of these options;

28
7. The legitimization of the agreement
8. The implementation and evaluation of the agreement.

In brief the stages of conflict resolution are as follows:

1. Define and give details of the conflict;
2. Provide facts and express feelings toward the ongoing issue.
3. Formulate and list possibilities of solutions;
4. Evaluate every solution put forward individually;
5. Decide on the solution that is well-suited and favorable;
6. Formulate a plan to implement the solution. Decide on who, when, how and where to
implement the solution;
7. Evaluate the implementation of the solution. Is everybody satisfied with the results?
8. If the problem or conflict is still not solved. Decide by repeating the discussion.

Resolving environmentally linked conflicts is difficult due to the followingcircumstances:

§ One social actors controls another
§ One actor gains from prolonging the conflict
§ One or several actors have no confidence in the conflict management process
§ Prejudices and stereotyping prevail
§ Some authorities and chiefs are stubborn and unwilling to negotiate an agreement
§ The national or customary (adat) laws ought to apply to the conflict's matter, but they are not
enforced.

2. 4.6 Social Communication

Social communication could bridge a better understanding within a human community,

exchanging messages to create meaning and enrich common knowledge, often in order to face
changes we would like to achieve. Social communication in collaborative management creates a
condition of well-informed society before the process of decision making is implemented. The
benefits and objectives of social communication could be seen in details in Figure 5 below.

Interactive learning is crucial for collaborative management initiatives. Only by interactive

learning through social communication that is not 'top-down' and 'linear', the direct (face-to-face)
confrontations and dialogues among different stakeholders can be built and consequently can
overcome the gap or help in managing the conflict.

29
 SOCIAL COMMUNICATION

Informing Raising Training Interactive

awareness learning

Enhancing the Enhancing the Enhancing the Enhancing

knowledge of awareness of skills of the common
the receiver; the receiver; receiver; the knowledge,
awareness and
the message the message message is
skills by thinking,
is generally is generally generally discussing and
controlled by controlled by controlled by acting together;
the sender the sender the sender the message is
generated as part
of the information

FIGURE 5
SOCIAL COMMUNICATION AND GOALS TO BE ACHIEVED

2.5 Potential Benefits, Costs, and Constraints

Borrini-Feyerabend (1997) lengthily described the potential benefits, costs and constraints
encountered in the implementation of collaborative management on the basis of field-based
experiences in many parts of the world, carried out by various stakeholders as elaborated in the
following.

2.5.1 Potential Benefits of Collaborative Management

The potentials of collaborative management are described as follows:

a. Alliances between state agencies and local stakeholders to reduce resource exploitation from
non-local interests often represent the main threat to conservation.

30
b. Specific benefits of all involved stakeholders can be negotiated in the agreement, particularly
with regard to the benefit that may be crucial for the survival of some local communities
and/or compensate for losses incurred.

c. Increased effectiveness of management as a consequence of harnessing the stakeholders’

knowledge, skills and comparative advantages.

d. Enhanced capacities in resource management for both the state institution and stakeholders as
a consequence of enhanced communication and dialogue.

e. Increased trust between state agencies and stakeholders, shared “ownership” of the
conservation process and greater commitment to implement decision taken together;

f. Reduction in enforcement expenditures because of voluntary compliance;

g. Increased sense of security and stability leading to increased confidence in investments, long-
term perspective and enhanced sustainability of negotiated management;

h. Increased understanding and knowledge among all concerned of the views and positions of
others and thus prevention of problems and disputes and avoidance of waste of resources.

i. Increased public awareness of conservation issues;

j. Integration of conservation efforts into social, economic and cultural issues and agendas,
within and outside the PA;

k. Contribute towards a more democratic and participatory society, which may be reflected in
the development of relevant policies and improvement of policy and law enacted.

IFM and ICLARM (2001) added the following potential benefits of collaborative management:
a. Increased legitimacy of management systems among resource users;
b. Reduced expenditure on transaction costs;
c. Reduced law enforcement costs and increased level of consistency in regulation enforcement;
d. Increased flexibility or institutional responsiveness towards political, economical and social
unrests;

31
e. Improved behavior of resource users in the management and exploitation of resources;
f. Improved condition of nature ecosystems;
g. Increased and improved knowledge, resource data and exchange of information among the
resource users;
h. Reduced political and equal opportunity issues in the local community;
i. Improved resource management.

2. 5.2 Costs and Potential Constraints in Collaborative Management

Collaborative management is not a panacea, in fact a number of costs and potential constraints
need to be evaluated prior to embarking on specific processes. These include:

a. Early and substantial investments of time, financial resources and human resources (high
transaction costs) in both the preparatory phase and the process of developing the agreement.
The human resources need to include professionals with uncommon skills (e.g. stakeholder
analysis, support to local organizing, facilitation of participatory processes, mediation and
facilitation skills, etc.). The time requirement, in particular, may be unsustainable for
conservation initiatives promoted by donor agencies that subscribe to the short-term project
approach.
b. Potential opposition by agencies or individuals unwilling to share authority with other
stakeholders;
c. Potential opposition by local residents whose livelihood and economic development depend
upon conservation areas.
d. Potential opposition by stakeholders who bank on people-park conflicts to pursue their own
agendas, e.g. politicians and entrepreneurs;
e. Chances that the collaborative management agreement cannot be achieved without
compromising the conservation goals of the protected area in a substantial way.
f. Chances that the agreement cannot be maintained because of underestimated problems or
intervening factors (e.g. changes in the economic conditions that make management option
viable and profitable, changes of political administration, emergence of new stakeholders,
violent unrests, etc.
g. There are times when powerful stakeholders such as industry or the government dominate the
process;
h. To overcome the above constraints, it should be realized that the success of collaborative
management depends upon many factors. Among others are the determination of mutual

32
objectives, partners’ capacity, collaborative and trust relationship, appropriate process,
availability of information and knowledge, supporting policies, communication process and
conflict management as well as working structure among stakeholders, such as negotiable
agreement and effective working committee (Berkes 1997).

33
 3. The Scope of Collaborative Management

3.1 Stages of Collaborative Management Process

Agreements for collaborative management need to be tailored to specific contexts. In other

words, there is no 'right process' to develop a “right collaborative management agreement.”
There are three basic phases in the collaborative management process, namely, preparing for the
partnership, developing the agreement and lastly implementing and reviewing the agreement.
See Figure 6. On the other hand, the component interrelated in the collaborative management can
be divided into four (4) components, namely context, process, plans and agreements as well as
organizations (Borrini-Feyerabend, et al (2000).

34
PHASES OF THE PROCESS CONCEPTS, APPROACHES AND VALUES

ORGANISING • Pluralism of interests and views

FOR THE PARTNERSHIP • Social communication initiatives
• Active support for the social actors to
organize themselves

• Patrimonial vision of environment

• Integrating environmental, social and
governance aims
NEGOTIATING • Recognizing a plurality of management
options and entitlements
CO-MANAGEMENT PLANS
• Respecting local cultural values, norms and
AND AGREEMENTS practices
• Effective facilitation of meetings and
mediation of conflicts
• Overcoming communication challenges
• Transparency of negotiation procedures
• Seeking equity in sharing management
benefits and responsibilities

IMPLEMENTING AND • Keeping in mind the experimental nature of

REVISING THE PLANS AND
AGREEMENTS (“LEARNING-
BY-DOING”)
NRM (adaptive management, action
research)
• Maintaining a lively social communication
process
• Changing practices as learning proceeds

FIGURE 6.
SCHEMATIC VIEW: CONCEPT, APPROACHES AND VALUES IN A CO-MANAGEMNT PROCESS

35
In short, details of the process of collaborative management are described as follows:

A. Preparatory Phase
§ Assessing the need for co-management and the process feasibility;
§ Assessing the available human and financial resources;
§ Establishing a Start-up Team;
§ Gathering information and tools on ecological and social issues;
§ Identifying in a preliminary way the natural resources management (NRM) unit(s);
§ Identifying in a preliminary way the stakeholders in natural resources management;
§ Launching and maintaining social communication initiatives;
§ Organizing the first meeting of stakeholders;
§ Helping stakeholders organize themselves;
§ Organizing the first meeting to propose a set of rules and procedures

'Initiator Team'

The Directorate General of Nature Conservation and Protection (Ditjen PKA) of the Department of
Forestry started the initiative to apply park entrance fee system at Bunaken National Park based on
Government Regulation (PP) 59/198. Based on a study carried out by Natural Resource management
(NRM) Program, it was proposed to test the application of decentralized park entrance fee at Bunaken
National Park as a key to develop more effective management.

In March 2000 Natural Resources Management (NRM) Program started to facilitate the process of
developing participatory park entrance fees on the basis of stakeholders' aspirations. This effort was
expected to establish a compromise (a win-win solution) with the stakeholders in managing Bunaken
National Park.

The Regional Government through the Governor Decree (SK Gubernur) established a self-funded
Bunaken National Park Working Group comprising of 19 stakeholders (relevant Regional
Government offices, private sectors, local NGOs, University, NRM/EPIQ) resulting in:

1. Technical feasibility of 'co-management' and decentralized funding of Bunaken National Park;

2. Preliminary process of the discussion on formation of Bunaken National Park Management

Advisory Board.

B. Negotiation Phase
§ Agreeing on the negotiation rules and procedures;
§ Developing a common vision of the desired future;
§ Ritualizing the agreed common vision;

36
§ Reviewing the current socio-ecological situation and trends;
§ Agreeing upon a strategy towards the common vision;
§ Negotiating specific co-management plans and agreements for each component of the
strategy;
§ Agreeing upon co-management organizations;
§ Legitimizing and publicizing the co-management plans, agreements and organizations.

C. The Phase of Learning by Doing

§ Drafting a work plan to implement collaborative management plan, agreements and
implement a collaborative management organization.

Socializing Process and Lessons Learned: Bali Barat National Park

Socializing and communicating the concept is a first step to constitute co-management. The need for a
participatory management at Bali Barat National Park (TNBB) area begins from the interest of a
number of stakeholders with regard to the lack of marine area management, especially in the
surrounding of Pulau Menjangan area. WWF Indonesia Wallacea Bioregional Program then facilitates
this process since early 2000. Discourse and discussions were jointly developed to map the problems
and also to involve other key stakeholders needed.

At the end of 2000, a team was formed inside WWF to be able to facilitate this process more
intensively. At the beginning 2001 the first big stakeholder workshop was set up to get the mapping of
the problems and a more comprehensive alternative solution. This workshop resulted in stages of
strategies as a follow up to co-management process, among others: organize patrol schedules, code of
conduct for marine tourism activities, organize an institution for co-management and set up of the
board of trust fund.

Just as the development of co-management process in other regions, follow-up and implementation of
this workshop underwent a lengthy and difficult negotiation to be able to accommodate the various
interests of the stakeholders. The different levels of understanding and points of view of the
stakeholders in managing conservation area is the biggest challenge in the process of facilitation. To
discover an entrance, a bridge to accommodate the shared interest of the stakeholders is the key to
expedite the process.

At TNBB, among the various choices of follow-up steps, joint/ participatory patrol is one the entrances
to implement co-management. On the basis of basic interest to control the area, the stakeholders agree
to share roles and responsibilities. Aside from that, the patrol program carried out regularly becomes an
activity center and shared information for the stakeholders, and thus improves relation and
communication among the stakeholders.

Eventually in April, the Code of Conduct applied to marine tourism activities was legalized by TNBB
via SK BNTBB no. 511/IV-BTNBB/2002 where controlling becomes one of the responsibilities of
patrolling.

Recalling the considerable funds needed for patrol activities, stakeholders were moved to develop a
forum for co-management, which has the authority in managing funds for conservation of the area.

37
§ Clarification of the entitlements and responsibilities of the stakeholders who are involved
§ Data and information collection to formulate follow-up protocols
§ Identification of main factors that will have impacts on natural resources, stakeholders and
implement experimentation and innovations
§ Evaluation of the collaborative management plan, agreements and collaborative management
organizations.

3.2 Key Factor to Smooth the Way for Collaborative Management Process
3.2.1 Stakeholders

In collaborative management the process of defining, meeting, getting to know and appropriately
describing the involved stakeholders is a crucial matter. Various institutions, social groups and
individuals who possess a direct, significant and specific stake in the protected area will be
referred to as its stakeholders. As mentioned, the stakeholders may originate from institutional
mandate, geographical proximity, historical association, dependence for livelihood, economic
interest and a variety of other capacities and concerns. In general stakeholders are usually aware
of their interests in the management of protected area (although they may not be aware of all its
management issues and problems. Stakeholders usually possess specific capacities (e.g.,
knowledge, skills) and/or comparative advantage (e.g. proximity, mandate); and they are usually
willing to invest specific resources (time, money, political authority) in such management.

Borrini-Feyerabend (1997) stated that to maintain effectiveness and equity in collaborative

management, it is necessary to distinguish among actors who may be considered primary or
secondary stakeholders on the basis of some agreed criteria. According to Borrini –Feyeraband
(1997), possible criteria to distinguish among stakeholders are:

1. Existing rights to land or natural resources;

2. Continuity of relationship (e.g., residents versus visitors and tourists);
3. Unique knowledge and skills for the management of the resources at stake;
4. Historical and cultural relations with the resources at stake;
5. Losses and damage incurred in the management process;
6. Degree of economic and social reliance on such resources;
7. Degree of effort and interest in the management;
8. Equity in the access to the resources and the distribution of benefits from their use;

38
9. Compatibility the interests and activities of the stakeholders with national conservation and
development policies;
10. Present or potential impact of the activities of the stakeholder on the resource base.

3.2.2 Assessing the Need for Implementing Collaborative Management

Once a preliminary picture of the relationship between people and the specific protected territory
has been drawn, it may be appropriate to assess whether a collaborative management process is
needed. This can be approached by asking questions such as: “Are the commitment and
contributions of stakeholders necessary to the effective management of the protected
area? Are the resources in the protected areas essential for local livelihood and cultural
survival? Do stakeholders possess customary or legal rights over the resources at stake?
Ultimately, a judgment should be made as to whether the expected benefits are likely to justify
the time and resources to be invested. If they are, a more detailed feasibility analysis may follow
involving legal, political, institutional, economic and socio-cultural considerations. Borrini-
Feyerabend (1997) presented examples of collaborative management feasibility questions:

Legal Feasibility

§ Are there specific laws and regulations that allow or forbid involving various social actors in
the management of the protected area, or is there a legislative vacuum?
§ Who can issue permits for exploitation of the protected areas resources?
§ Who can decide about revenue sharing?
§ Who is legally controlling the access to the protected area? The agency in charge? A local
administrative body?
§ Is there a trusted judiciary system in place to assure that eventual contractual agreements are
respected?

Political Feasibility

§ Is there a political willingness to share the benefits and responsibilities of the management of
protected areas in the country?
§ What are the key interests at stake? Is there any interest which is politically dominant and
capable of crushing the others?

39
§ Are there major commercial, industrial, political or urban interests opposed to the protected
area who could become part of a management partnership with the ultimate aim of destroying
it?
§ Are corruption and violence affecting protected area management?

In Search of Legal Basis

Law No. 5, year 1990 on the Conservation of Biological Resources and its Ecosystems strictly
stated that the management of nature sanctuaries and nature conservation areas will be
implemented by the government. This stipulation often becomes an obstacle for stakeholders
(local community, private sectors, NGOs and regional government) in implementing co-
management in those areas.

Laws and regulations that can be used as reference for the development of co-management in
Indonesia:
1. Government Regulation No. 62, 1998 on the transfer of part of the state’s authority in
forestry to the regional government.
2. Presidential Decree No. 33, year 1998 on the management of Leuser ecosystem, hat
provides rights to a foundation to manage an area for 30 years.

Political Support

The deterioration of natural resources in conservation areas, prevailing illegal logging,

powerlessness of central authority to manage illegal activities in the area, pressure to implement
regional autonomy and decentralization in line with reform messages have become the mutual
agenda for the central and local government. This condition greatly influences the
implementation of co-management pattern which continues to respect central government’s
authority and accommodate the local government, and other stakeholders in managing an area.

Institutional Feasibility

§ Are stakeholder sufficiently organized to put forward their interests and contribute their
capacities in protected area management?
§ Are government agencies capable of interacting effectively with non-government
stakeholders?
§ Are there traditional or other authorities capable of eliciting agreements and enforcing rules?
§ Are there for a for communication and discussion of relevant initiatives?
§ Are there institutional conflicts (e.g., unclear division of responsibilities between regional
and district authorities) affecting the management of protected area?

40
 'Regional Institution'

During the New Order (Orde Baru) the control of information, scientific knowledge and
technology is 'monopoly' of the central government. Local institutions generally reflect
inability, inexperience, lack of knowledge, lack of management skills, lack of creativity
in drawing local potentials for development and only seek revenues from natural
resources, lack of understanding on law regulations etc. This condition is strongly felt in
the 'debates' over authority between central - regional where most of these assumed
regional characteristics are planted in the central authority's perception.

Economic Feasibility

§ Is there a budget source to sustain the collaborative management process (e.g., specific
studies, meetings, communication, facilitation, etc.)?
§ Are there ways by which local actors can meet their economic needs compatibly with the
conservation of protected area at stake?
§ If needed, is capital available to make the necessary investments?
§ If needed, are the local people confident enough to invest in entrepreneurial activities?

'Funding'

Where to look for funds? Co-management needs quite an amount of preparatory cost
(cost for socialization, transportation, meetings and administration) - therefore it is almost
impossible to develop co-management, if stakeholders refuse to share the expense for this
process. Consequently, long-term funding resource also becomes important. Some
innovative funding approaches have been applied, such as, at Bunaken National Park,
where a decentralized park entrance fee system has been developed in a participatory and
democratic way.

Social and Cultural Feasibility

§ Are stakeholders informed and knowledgeable about the protected area? About existing
threat to it? About ways of conserving it?
§ Do they value the protected area?
§ Do stakeholders possess traditional institutions and systems of resource management?
§ Are stakeholders in conflict regarding the protected area’s resources?

41
§ Is there adequate communication between the agency in charge of protected area and the
stakeholders? Do they trust one another?

'Local wisdom'

Abundance of knowledge, capabilities and institutions from the local stakeholders which have been
proven for decades even centuries will be able to support the sustainable management of conservation
areas. The customary (adat) villages in Bali have the capacity to be the main pillar in developing co-
management on the basis of adat regulations. Adat regulations (awik-awik, sasi) are often more deeply
rooted in the society that local stakeholders hold a higher esteem towards these adat regulation
compared to national regulations.

From the point of view of government agencies possessing legal jurisdiction over conservation
areas or resources at stake, collaborative management can be implemented when one or more of
the following conditions apply:
a. The active commitment and collaboration of several stakeholders are essential to manage the
territory, area or resources at stake;
b. The access to such territory, area or resources is essential for securing the livelihood and
cultural survival of one or more stakeholders;
c. Local actors have historically enjoyed customary/legal rights over the territory or resources;
d. Local interests are strongly affected by natural resource management decisions;
e. The decisions to be taken are complex and controversial (e.g., different values need to be
harmonized or there is a disagreement over the distribution of entitlements to land or
resources);
f. The current natural resource management system has failed to produce the desired results and
meet the needs of the local actors;
g. Stakeholders are ready to collaborate and request to do so;
h. There is ample time to negotiate.

From the point of view of local communities who have customarily enjoyed full access to the
relevant territory, area or resources, it may be appropriate to pursue a natural resources
management partnership when:
§ Powerful non-local actors are forcing their way into the territory or extracting resources with
no respect to traditional customs amd rules (in this case a partnership agreement with the
national government or some NGO or research organization may help assure some protection
and respect of customary practices);

42
§ Customary practices are falling into disarray and an open-access status has ensued with
resources being extracted in an unsustainable manner.

It may instead not be advisable to enter into collaborative management when::

a. The political environment does not secure the safety of all negotiating parties;
b. The local communities would be renouncing a customary status of unique rights with no
expectable comparable advantage in exchange,.

3.2.3 Negotiation to Develop Collaborative Management Plan and Agreements

Stakeholders’ visions need to be transformed into work plans to answer the specific issues that
have been identified. This is the moment when everything becomes concrete, a multiplicity of
strategic options and choices become apparent to everyone, different point of views abound and
conflicts surface in all their power and complexity. The process to reach consensus and
eventually the design of work plan and agreement among the stakeholders usually takes a long
time, because it has to accommodate two different interests of extreme oppositions. The
stakeholders’ strong commitment is needed to resolve conflicts and to build strong human
relationship in the long run. The groups have to come to terms with the great many avenues and
options open to them to achieve a given objective and, among them, select the one best suited to
the conditions and needs of the given context. It is also a good idea for each group to have its
own facilitator/moderator, who would take on a neutral role between the interests to reach a
consensus acceptable to all parties.

Borrini-Feyerabend (1997) stated there are methods to develop consensus among stakeholders
and the elements needed to agree on a course of action are as follows:

§ Stimulating explicit discussions of the hypothesis and basic assumptions underlying

alternative options mentioned above;
§ Listing the alternative options and facilitating their direct comparison;
§ Facilitating the achievement of satisfactory compromises through the use of flexible
instruments;
§ Facilitating the setting up of Community Investment or Conservation Investment Funds for
sustainable development in collaborative management process;
§ Calling for an expert opinion on controversial issues;

43
§ Providing an effective conflict mediation;
§ Developing a simple logical framework;
§ Asking institutional actors to devise incentives.

The work plan elements of collaborative management usually consist the following:
§ The geographical limits of the territory, area, or set of natural resources at stake;
§ The complex of functions and sustainable uses it can offer;
§ A coordinated series of objectives, priorities and activities for the management of natural
resources;
§ The functions and responsibilities assigned to each institutional actor;
§ Recognized institutional actors;
§ Entitlements and advantages granted to each institutional actor;
§ Procedures for negotiating on-going decisions and managing eventual conflicts;
§ Procedures for implementing and enforcing decisions;
§ Expected results at given time;
§ Rules for monitoring, evaluating and eventually revising the co-management plans and
agreements (follow-up protocol).

Legalization process: Bali Barat National Park (TNBB)

Legal foundation is a very important basis in the process of co-management. Changing of staff in
government institutions, national parks, and partners / stakeholders will generate new negotiations
process for many of the informal agreements. In addition, the relatively new approach to co-
management often generates questions around the legal aspects at the time of implementation
process.

The agreement on the Code of Conduct (CoC) for diving tourism activities at TNBB was initiated
in 2001 at the first stakeholders’ workshop. At that time, although CoC was executed as a mutual
agreement among stakeholders who are also tourists at the TNBB, the commitment was not strong
enough to be able to implement the CoC. No sanctions are given to violations, therefore,
weakening the tourists’ commitment. This will eventually become more complicated when there
are 30 registered diving operators operating in the area.

The issuance of SK CoC (no 511/IV-BTNBB/2002) provides legal basis and sanctions. to
violation. Therefore, this SK is a very solid strong hold in the process of implementing
stakeholders' sanction, and just as well the stages of socialization needed.

44
3.2.4 Collaborative Management Organizations

Socio-economic development and the management of natural resources require a variety of

initiatives and activities, as well as on-going experimenting and learning. In fact, the process of
negotiating and implementing plans and agreements is never “finished”, and some organizations
need to remain in charge of executing and reviewing theses plans and agreements on an on-going
basis.

The collaborative management organizations that may be set up to sustain the co-management
plans and agreements through time may be of different types (e.g. a Board, a Council, a formal
or informal Association, a Fund). Their functions may also be fairly different, including:

§ Organization type:

Ø Executive bodies, responsible for implementing plans and agreements on the basis of
decisions produced;
Ø Decision-making bodies, fully responsible for the management of a given territory, area
or set of resources, e.g., State Forests Collaborative Management Board, or the
Community Investment Fund Committee;
Ø Advisory bodies, responsible for advising decision-makers, e.g. a Kayan Mentarang
National Park Policy-making Board, or Komodo National Park Advisory Board. These
boards are directly linked with the regional authorities charged with the natural resource
management mandate;
Ø Mixed bodies, holding partial management responsibility and partially advisory
responsibility, e.g., Bunaken National Park Management Advisory Board or West Bali
National Park Coastal Community Forum.

§ Internal rules is dependent upon whether the organization is formal (legally recognized) or
informal; is it voluntary and self-organized or mandated by the State; is it an open-
membership organization or a closed body.

§ History and duration. Is it set up on an ad-hoc or permanent basis?

§ Composition of organization members. For a decision-making body, composition is a crucial

issue. It is important to know who is being presented and what the balance f power is among
the different institutional actors. The executive body is usually filled with professionals.

45
§ Economic resources of the organization are needed to sustain day-to-day operations of the
organization. It is obtained from membership fees, donors, income-generating activities of
the organization or area use in the form of taxes and retributions and the utilization of
conservation area’s ecology services such as eco-tourism, water utilization, carbon trade and
other conservation efforts.

'Management body'

The implementation of multi-stakeholders institutions is greatly varied depending mostly upon the
needs and characteristics of the area. Bunaken National Park Management Advisory Board was
established for Bunaken National Park, while at Kayan Mentarang National Park it is the Kayan
Mentarang National Park Policy-making Board. In Balikpapan there is the Wain River Protected
Forest Management Board, and Komodo National Park Advisory Board and Coastal Area
Community Forum at Bali Barat National Park.

As the executor of management activities an executive body or management unit is usually

established under the supervision of and is responsible to the Board or multi-stakeholders body.

3.2.5 Collaborative Management Progress Indicators

It is extremely difficult to develop a detailed agreement and micro planning prior to experiencing
the collaborative management process on a day-to-day basis. The progress of collaborative
management process requires progress indicators that have been achieved as basis for improving
programs and agreements. The indicators should cover ecological and social dimensions as
described in the following examples of process indicators for co-management by Borrini-
Feyerabend, et at (2000):

§ Stakeholders’ awareness of co-management issues, events, schedules, rights and

responsibilities;

§ Existence of mechanisms information sharing and for a for communicating and negotiating
agreements;

§ Availability of facilitators to assist in meetings, mediate conflicts, link with different levels
of actors in society;

§ Active involvement of stakeholders in developing a management agreement (participation in

meetings, expression and defense of positions, etc.)

46
§ Existence of management agreement among stakeholders (oral or written, formal or
informal);

§ Specific definitions of stakeholders’ functions, rights and responsibilities in the management

agreement;

§ Stakeholders compliance with the agreed rights and responsibilities;

§ Stakeholders stated satisfaction with the management agreements;

§ Existence of bodies to appeal in case of conflicts within the management partnership;

§ Engagement of stakeholders in promoting policy and legal change in support of co-

management agreements;

§ With time, extension of the agreements extended in geographic as well as complexity terms;

§ The application of "Good Governance" principle, participatory, autonomous, transparent and

accountable to the public in every co-management decisions and agreements.

Bunaken National Park Stakeholders Satisfied

An important indicator of the success of co-management is the satisfaction showed by involved

stakeholders regarding the implementation of co-management and the carrying out of mutual
agreement. The success could also be viewed from:

1. The application of park entrance fee system based on local characteristics developed on the basis
of local stakeholders’ mutual agreement;
2. The implementation of park entrance fee was successful in mobilizing financial resources for co-
management;
3. Distribution of equal benefits among local stakeholders;
4. The application of "Good Governance" principle within the BNP co-management system

Based on the study of 'joint forest management' practice in India Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, et al

(1999) stated that the failure and success indicators of collaborative management practice consist
of:

§ Ecological indicators, comprising of bio-diversity, landscape and recovery of destroyed

ecosystem level in the conservation area;

47
§ Institutional indicators, comprising of local community’s attitude, change of supporting
policy, levels of conflict;
§ Economic indicators, comprising of price change, percentage of community involvement,
change of family income, change of market quality, community trading volume;
§ Sociological indicators, comprising of critical questions, such as: Who benefits from the
success of collaborative management? Who are the participants? Who takes the lead in every
meeting? Who authorizes and decides on the activities’ output? What are the collaborative
relationships between the community and government institutions? Who has the knowledge
and understanding on community? Will natural resource management be 'worse' or 'better'
prior to and after the implementation of collaborative management initiative?

3.2.6 Excerpts From Lessons in Collaborative Management Practice

Borrini-Feyerabend, et al (2000) stated that from the various practices of collaborative

management in the different fields of natural resource management, there are lessons to be
learned from the process of collaborative management, the excerpts are as follows:

First Lesson

§ Collaborative management needs time! Social dynamics have their own rhythm and cannot
be forced. Developing an effective and equitable collaborative management regime involves
profound cultural and political changes.

Second Lesson

§ Understand the cultural and traditional roots of the activities in collaborative management to
be implemented and rely on them, possibly by developing a syncretic approach, i.e., the
development and use of a consolidated synthesis of knowledge and practices from different
historical and cultural origin.

Third Lesson

48
§ Stress the complementarity of the capacities of different institutional actors, and the roles
they can play for the sound management of natural resources and socio-economic
development.

Fourth Lesson

§ Recognize and highlight the value of non-economic benefits accruing to individuals involved
in the participatory process of collaborative management.

Fifth Lesson

§ Disseminate information on the positive process outcomes to be derived from collaborative

management, such as, enhanced sustainability of local environment, promotion of a more
mature and responsible society, enhanced local authority and responsibility in natural
resource management.

Sixth Lesson

§ Identify and bring to the fore the benefits derived from ecological functions, which may not
be well known or appreciated by stakeholders. If recognized, such functions represent
effective incentives for sustainable resource management.

The Seventh Lesson (derived from Bunaken National Park)

The public who were greatly disappointed by the destruction of

conservation areas and performance of central authority in
managing conservation areas often demands instant 'magic'
solution from Bunaken National Park co-management, such as:

1. Direct economic benefits for the community;

2. Local Government to gain significant fiscal benefit;

3. Eradication of illegal activities in the area;

4. Recovery of destroyed areas;

5. Control groups, such as mass media, has the tendency to

exploit small failures in the process of building co-
management, on the other hand they lack interest in
reporting small successes achieved.

49
Borrini-Feyerabend, et al (2000) added, that the core of the collaborative management lessons
learned can be grouped into three (3) areas, namely methods and tools for collaborative
management, feasibility of various locations and project management of collaborative
management as described below:

§ To be effective the collaborative management process needs to always be maintained and

great attention be paid to social communication;

§ Management authority developed in the multi-stakeholder negotiation process describes the

legitimacy from the government and traditional institution. Negotiation quality will
determine the effectiveness of the new institution;

§ Mobilization of the effect from collaborative management is not only linked to the quality of
communication and activities in negotiation. The majority of stakeholders will join forces
when they realize that collaborative management will bring 'fresh resources' that are
beneficial for them;

§ Patrimonial mediation was proven appropriate for facilitating agreements on management.

However, the long-term patrimonial goal should concur with the short-term agreement;

§ The legal context of collaborative management is often vague and not clear. The existing
regulations do not generally support the establishment of multi-stakeholders body in natural
resource management. Lack of specific regulation on collaborative management present an
opportunity to develop regulations based on lessons learned in the fields and factual
experience;

§ Multi-stakeholder management body at the local level should be self-sufficient, in particular

with regards to financial resources.

In the appendix excerpts of lessons learned from different countries around the world practicing
collaborative management in the natural resource management will be provided.

50
 4. The Potentials of Implementing Collaborative
Management in Indonesia

4.1. The de facto Situation: Unsolved Conflicts in Protected Areas

Indonesia has one of the world's richest bio-diversity5 and multi-ethnic cultures with about 250
local languages and ethnic groups. Majority of the biodiversity richness is found in conservation
areas on land and in the ocean. These conservation areas include national park areas, nature
reserves, wildlife reserves, wilderness, hunting parks and nature tourism parks. Until the year
2000, marine conservation areas cover an extension of 4,636,337,45 hectares and terrestrial
conservation area covers up to 17,854,501,62 hectares. Among which, 62% is primary tropical
rain forest and 12% is secondary forest and 21% no forest (Department of Forestry and Estate
Crops, 2000).

Conservation areas in Indonesia are not well-managed. This is noted by the presence of conflicts
in conservation areas located from the tip of Nangroe Aceh Darussalam until Merauke that are
destructive in nature – these conflicts include illegal logging, wildlife poaching, pollution, road
building that cuts across conservation areas, reclamation of conservation areas by local
community and conversion of conservation areas for plantations and mining activities. All
conflicts will result in the degradation of conservation areas. As an example, in just a period of
15 years (1985 - 2000) the covering of primary forest area in Leuser Ecosystem Nature
Conservation Area was reduced to 22% or 560,894 hectares from a former extent of 2,570,652
hectares. It was predicted that when political commitment, good and clean governance and
implementation of conducive regional autonomy has not materialized in five year period, then in
the year 2010 all protected forests and conservation areas will reach critical point (Kartodihardjo,
2000). Details and description of natural resources conflicts, including conflicts in the national
parks are depicted in the following Table 1.

5
Indonesia ranks first in the world for diversity of mamals (515 species, 39% endemic), palm (477 species, 47% endemic); butterfly (121 species,
44% endemic, and Cockatoos (75 species, 51% endemic); ranks fourth for reptiles (512 species, 29% endemic); ranks fifth for birds (1531 species,
26% endemic); ranks sixth for amphibians (270 species, 37% endemic); and ranks seventh for floral plants (37,000 species, and half of it
endemic). Indonesia is designated as one of the 17 countries categorized as having 'mega-diversity', and it has 18 ecological areas: 11 on land, 4
on fresh water and 3 in the marine area. Indonesia also has 24 endemic bird area, and is also considered "Vavilov Centers" in the world which is
of great importance for domestication, cultivar cross-breeding and maintaining farming bio-diversity (Anonim, 2000).

51
 Table 1: Summary of Natural Resource Conflicts in the Year 1990 - 1996
Source of Number of Types of Conflicts Actors
Conflict Cases
National Park 1492 Illegal logging, overlapping land Local communities, national park
status, reclamation, illegal field authority and Directorate General of
farming and pillaging Nature Conservation and Forest
Protection (Ditjen PHKA)
Industrial Timber 5757 Change of area utilization status, Companies, local communities and
Estate (HTI) marked-up reforestation fund, social central / regional government
conflicts
Perhutani 3097 Timber looting, teakwood & land Perhutani, local communities and
looting, attacking officials ring of looters
Land 1492 Conflict on land and property, misuse National Land Agency (BPN), people,
of HGU regional government & private
companies
Plantation 405 Plantation crop looting and State-owned companies, private
occupation of communities’ land companies and local communities
Ethnicity 331 Inter-ethnic war, alienation of ethnic Various ethnic groups, companies
group , social conflict between new and government
settlers and indigenous people
Concessionaires 8741 Area burning, overlapping land Companies, local communities and
(HPH) status, social conflicts central / regional government
Source: LATIN, 1999 in Muhshi, MA, 1999

There are two main factors that may be the source of mismanagement and unending conflicts in
conservation areas in Indonesia, i.e., managerial failure and failure in involving local people to
support conservation management activities. Managerial factors are probably due to lack of
funds in park management and limited alternatives for long-term funding; weak institutions,
capacities and management information; weak management of threats and law enforcement;
weak management designs and approach alternatives; low appreciation and approval of the local
government and local community towards conservation areas. Failure with local community is
probably due to the unfulfilled local needs and no involvement in the process of decision making
needed for managing a conservation area.

The rising of these factors to the surface is closely linked to past issues. For some time now
issues concerning conservation area management in Indonesia have been handled through a
centralized-institutional arrangement and under a state-based management scheme. The power of
the state hegemony over nature conservation or protected areas resulted in the emergence of
issues related to conflicts on tenurial system that is substantially difficult to resolve. The
traditional (adat) and local community living within and in the surroundings of the conservation
area are eventually systematically marginalized. Structural poverty and conflict of power spread
quickly. The central government’s very slow handling of these matters - usually as a result of the
ineffective bureaucracy - will eventually be used by the free riders to take advantage of the
conflicting conditions, thereby spreading more damage to conservation areas, in particular
through illegal logging activities that are spreading throughout conservation areas in Indonesia.

52
The above description showed that there’s demand from the field site, which de facto signals that
Indonesia needs the best alternative conflict resolution, i.e., a win-win solution for all conflicting
parties. A win - lose conflict resolution has so far been proven to fail. Win-lose solution is where
only one party would win by sacrificing the other, whether it is the government or private sector
(usually it is the local community).

4.2 Support from the Political Society, Policy and Legal Aspects

4.2.1 Decentralization Concurs with Collaborative Management

Based on the lessons learned from collaborative management thus far, the legal context of
collaborative management is often vague and not clear. The political will and prevailing
regulations generally do not support multi-stakeholder institutions in managing natural resources.
However, it will provide opportunities for stakeholders to develop policies and regulations on
collaborative management based on lessons learned from the field site and from factual
experiences.

Collaborative management cannot be implemented, when the political atmosphere is not

conducive and when the national policy is not favorable. In addition, the unwillingness of
government institutions to share power and authority is the biggest constraint when adopting
collaborative management for natural resource management.

Conducive political atmosphere that allows progress in the implementation of collaborative

management can be achieved by government in many ways. First, the government should not
feel threatened about its position and should not deter the local community from discussing the
issues and solutions, development and arrangement of local institutions needed for the
management of natural resources or conservation areas. Second, local communities must be
given access to express their ideas and concerns. Third, local communities are given the rights to
develop organizations, develop network or coalition for coordination and cooperation. The role
of government here is to create legitimacy and accountability for local organization and its
regulations. Legislative instruments and policy makers could be used to create a more 'friendly'
condition with the local communities and to affirm and resolve the sharing of authority and
regulating decision making to the local institution. Decentralization is consequently the way to
ease up the implementation of collaborative management (Formeroy and Beckers, 1997)

53
Decentralization usually consists of de-concentration, delegation, devolution and privatization6.
Collaborative Management and decentralization can work hand-in-hand, since the goal is
eventually the same, namely mobilization and strengthening public participation in government
matters, public policy and equal distribution of power and natural resources to social groups or
community at the local level. However, it often happen decentralization policies have not been
able to assure real sharing of power and authority in natural resource management. The
effectiveness of collaborative management must be based on democratic process which will
allow as much room as possible for the public to be involved in the preparation of policies,
regulations and other regulations in natural resource or conservation areas management.

4.2.2 Narrow Loopholes: Legal Aspects to Support Collaborative Management

Just as in many other countries of the world, legal aspects of natural resource collaborative
management in Indonesia are judicially non-existent. Reason being that collaborative
management is rarely implemented in Indonesian conservation areas. Collaborative management
is noted to be implemented only at Bunaken National Park, Kutai National Park, Komodo
National Park, Gunung Ciremai or Meru Betiri National Park and it is currently still being tested
at Kayan Mentarang National Park. However, all the examples given could not give a
comprehensive description on the actual implementation of collaborative management, since the
Department of Forestry has never carried out a review or evaluation on the subject.

At present, the opportunity to reform regulations and legislation on natural resource collaborative
management is widely open. This is based on the enactment of House of Representatives Decree
(Ketetapan MPR) No. IX/ 2001 concerning the agrarian and natural resources management
reform. Article 4 of the Decree stated that the principles of agricultural renewal and natural
resource management will further support the rules of collaborative management in Indonesia,
namely:

§ Enhance the integration and coordination among inter-sectors and inter-regional development
when implementing agricultural renewal and natural resource management ;

6
Formeroy and Beckers (1977) describe that decentralization is a systematic and rational process for distributing power, authority and
responsibility from the central government to the lower government levels, generally the strengthening of local autonomy is an indication of
decentralization process being implemented. De-concentration is the process of transferring authority and responsibility from the central
government to regional or district level governments. This process is usually administrative de-concentration. Delegation is a process of
transferring some authority and power in decision-making to local institutions, but central government still has the right to withdraw or cancel the
delegation. Devolution is a process of transferring power and responsibility to certain matters and cannot be withdrawn by central government,
since this process is laden with politics. Privatization is the process of transferring responsibilities and special functions from the central
government to non-governmental organizations, voluntary organizations, community associations and private entrepreneur sectors.

54
§ Seek out a balance between entitlements and responsibility of the government (central,
provincial, district/ city, and village or others at same level) the public and individual;
§ Implement decentralization through the distribution of authority at national, provincial,
district/city, and village or that of the same level, concurring with the allocation and
management of agricultural / natural resources;
§ Recognize, respect and protect the community’s customary (adat) rights and the diversity of
national culture towards agricultural resources /natural resources.

Furthermore in article 5.2 of the Decree, it is stated that the policy direction for natural resource
management among others are:

§ Review of various law regulations relevant to natural resource management. This is to

synchronize inter-sector policies based on principles mentioned in Article 4 of this Decree;
§ Resolving conflicts linked to the utilization of natural resources which have come up thus far,
and at the same time anticipate potential future conflicts to assure better law enforcement
based on the principles stated in Article 4 of this Decree.

The direction and policies above could become an introduction to establish stakeholders’
consensus when developing a regulation on collaborative management in Indonesia. Of course,
this has to begin from the government or parliament, since they are the ones who were give
mandate to execute this Decree.

Various Decrees with judicial substance to support the implementation of collaborative natural
resources management will be described below:

4. 2.2.1 Law No. 5 Year 1994

In some articles of Law No. 5 / 1994 on the ratification of the United Nations Convention on
Biodiversity, we can find law substance that can become one of the judicial considerations on
collaborative management in Indonesia and the practice of this law is therefore legally binding
for both the Indonesian government and citizens, since Indonesia has ratified the convention on
August 1, 1994. In other words, the convention and laws give rights and responsibilities to all
citizens without exceptions. This includes local community at the tip of the conservation area
boundaries who must comply to implement the regulations stipulated in the convention.

55
In one of the convention preambles it is stated that the recognition of customary or adat
community / local community provide them the right to be involved in conservation activities
and the utilization of biodiversity as described in the following:

Preamble

Stakeholders,

In recognition of the local community s high dependency on biological resources which is

characterized and reflected in their traditional life style and values, and their wish to equally
share the benefits received from the use of their knowledge, innovations and traditional practices
that are linked to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of its components.

In Article 8 on in-situ conservation it is clearly stated that the management of conservation areas
should be mainstreamed with sustainable development of their surroundings. This development
model as instructed in Agenda 21 which was also ratified by Indonesia, require the achievement
of some kind of balance among ecological, economical and social cultural dimensions. Principle
22 of the Rio de Janeiro Declaration also stated that 'government should understand and
acknowledge the identity, culture, and public interest; and extend moderate support which will
allow the growth of effective participation in achieving sustainable development'. Article 10 of
this law clearly stated that there is a need for involving local communities and coordination
among government and non-government stakeholders in the sustainable use of biodiversity. The
two articles above show that local community participation and coordination among stakeholders
as the essence of collaborative management process has acquired a position in the judicial
context. The descriptions of the articles are as follows:

Article 8
In-situ CONSERVATION

As far and as is possible, each stakeholder is responsible for:

e. Proposing an environmentally friendly and sustainable development for areas located

adjacent to protected areas as a means to better protect these areas;

56
j. Depending upon prevailing national legislations, to respect, protect and preserve the
knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local community which reflect a
traditional way of life that is linked to conservation activities and sustainable use of
biodiversity. In addition propose a more extensive application with the approval and
involvement of the owner of these innovative knowledge and practices to encourage a fair
distribution of benefits received from the use of such knowledge, innovations and practices;

Article 10
Sustainable Use of Biodiversity Components

As far and as accordingly possible, every stakeholder is responsible for:

c. Protecting and encouraging natural resources utilization that corresponds with cultural,
traditional practices, and concurs with conservation requirements or sustainable use;
d. Supporting local community to develop and implement efforts to rehabilitate damaged areas
where the biodiversity has deteriorated; and
e. Encouraging collaboration between government officials and private sectors in developing
sustainable methods for natural resources utilization.

4.2.2.2 Law No. 23 Year 1997

The legal framework for community participation and other key points from collaborative
management process, such as consensus conflict resolution rather than litigation is based on Law
no. 23 / 1997 concerning Environmental Management described both in article 5 and in article 31
of this law. Environmental conflicts shall be resolved by way of negotiations through the
assistance of a third party (arbiter). This is endorsed through Government Regulation (PP) No
54 Year 2000 on Institutions Providing Services for Environmental Conflict Resolution outside
the Court House.

Rights, Responsibilities and Community Participation

Article 5
a. Every person has the same right to a good and healthy environment;
b. Every person has the same right to environmental information relevant to its role in
environmental management;

57
c. Every person has the same right in taking roles within the framework of environmental
management in accordance with the prevailing laws and regulations.

Environmental Conflict Resolution outside the Court House

Article 31

Environmental conflict resolution outside the court house is carried out to reach consensus on the
type and the amount of compensation and /or regarding certain action to guarantee that there will
be no repetitions of incidents or negative impacts on the environment.

4.2.2.3 Law No. 6 Year 1996

Up to the year 2000, marine conservation area in Indonesia covered an area of 4,636,337.45
hectares. The judicial basis of the marine conservation area is found in Law No. 5 Year 1990 on
Bio-Conservation and the legal basis of this area is strengthened by Law No. 6 /1996 on
Indonesian territorial waters, which was based on Law No. 17 Year 1985 on the Ratification of
United Nations Convention on Maritime Law.

It is interesting to observe loopholes in the law to establish the multi-stakeholder body, which
should be developed to manage the collaborative management process, in particular relating to
the management of marine conservation areas. In Article 23 point 3 of Law No. 6/1996 it is
stated that a coordinating body to improve utilization, management, protection and conservation
of Indonesian territorial water could be established and will eventually be stipulated through a
Presidential Decree. This coordinating body could be developed with members comprising of
multi-stakeholders from the national up to local levels.

Article 23

a. The utilization, management, protection and conservation of Indonesian territorial water is

carried out based on the prevailing national laws and regulations and international laws;
b. If needed, to improve the utilization, management, protection, and conservation of
Indonesian territorial water mentioned in point (a), a coordinating body could be established
and enacted with a Presidential Decree.

58
4.2.2.4 Law No. 16 Year 1964

At the beginning, like in many other countries of the world collaborative management was
mostly carried out in fishery. The same thing could also be happening in Indonesia, since Law
No. 16 Year 1964 on Fishery Product Distribution hasn’t been revoked through Law No. 9 Year
1985 on Fishery. Substantially this law is directed towards 'collaborative management' model,
because its management is developed on the basis of mutual agreement, there is conflict
resolution mechanism, local funding institution is formed to maintain community development
fund, there is public control and agreement on product distribution. It is still not known how far
the practice of this policy was implemented in Indonesia. For clarity please see the following
chapters:

Article 2
Product Sharing
Marine and fresh water fishery which are based on product sharing agreements should be carried
out on the basis of mutual interests of the fishery owner, fishery worker, fishpond owners and
workers, so that they all receive equal amount of the product in accordance with the contribution
given.

Stipulations to Improve and Maintain Sustainable Fishery Business

Article 12

The government will enact regulations on raising and disbursing funds aimed at ensuring
sustainable fishery, either marine-based or fresh water-based fishery, and to improve the quality
of its production, wherein representatives of farmer and fisherman organizations chosen by
National Front (Front Nasional) are appointed.

Marketing of the Fishery Product

Article 17

Marketing of fishery products and breeding, either marine fishery or fresh water fishery will be
carried out according to and at a price mutually agreed upon by fishery / fishpond owners and
fishery / fishpond workers.

59
 Control and Settlement of Disputes
Article 18

Control mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article will also involve farmer’s and fisherman's
organizations, who are members of the local National Front (Front Nasional).

Article 19

With no disregard toward the stipulations stated in article 13, conflicts rising during the
implementation of stipulations of this law and regulations will be resolved through consultation
by the conflicting parties together with the Village Land Reform Committee if it concerns with
fresh water fishery. A Village Committee will be established if it concerns with marine fishery.

4.2.2.5 Resolution No. 1.42 Year 1996 IUCN - World Conservation Union

Indonesia, represented by the Directorate General of Protected Areas and Nature Conservation
has for a long time become a non-stated member of IUCN - World Conservation Union. IUCN is
the only organization in the world that has formally announced a resolution on collaborative
management that is linked to conservation and natural resource management. In resolution 1.4.2
Year 1966 on collaborative management for conservation, IUCN requested all its members to
develop an understanding of the collaborative management process through analysis of past and
present experiences and to learn lessons from those experiences. IUCN also requested all its
members to consider the collaborative management approaches, methods and its application at
all levels of natural resources management and conservation. See appendix of this draft.

Although the IUCN requests above are not legally binding, but as a long-time member, the
government, particularly the Directorate General of Protected Areas and Nature Conservation
has a moral obligation to seriously fulfill those requests. It is also the responsibility of the
government to the people of Indonesia, since membership fee and travel expenses of the
Indonesian delegation to IUCN meetings is at the cost of the Indonesian people.

4.2.2.6 Law No. 5 Year 1990

60
In general this law regulates natural resource conservation and its ecosystems in Indonesia (leg
generalis). This law emphasized that conservation of natural resources and its ecosystems is a
joint responsibility between the government and local community.

Management of nature conservation areas (national parks, eco-tourism parks and wilderness
areas) and reserves (wildlife reserves and nature reserves) is implemented by the government,
even though in Article 4 it is stated that "conservation of biodiversity and its ecosystems is the
joint responsibility of the government and the communities". However, in the next chapter it is
stated that "the management of nature conservation areas and wildlife reserves is implemented
by the government". This statement became the basis for the central government to say that co-
management which is depicted through the sharing of roles, authority and responsibility in
managing conservation areas function is against the regulations.

In Government Regulation (PP) No. 62 Year 1998 on the devolution of authority in forestry
affairs from the central to regional government, it was stated that the criteria for the devolution
of authority in forestry is as follows:
a. Forestry affairs will be under the authority of Regional / Provincial Government if:
§ The nature of activity tend to be more monitoring and evaluation
§ The activity is linked to the interest of several districts in the concerned region;
§ It is assumed that it will be more efficient and effective, if implemented by the Provincial
Government.

b. Forestry affairs will be under the authority of Local / District Government if:
§ It is directly operational in nature;
§ It provides direct services to the people;
§ It is assumed to be more effective and efficient if implemented by Local / District
Government;
§ It generates an increase of community participation.

The management (construction, maintenance, utilization and development) of community forest

parks which are also considered as nature conservation areas (in addition to national parks and
nature-tourism park) will be handed over to the Regional / Provincial Government. While the
management of protected forest areas will be handed over to the Local / District / City
Government. Decentralization opens opportunities for local stakeholders to develop co-
management and generate benefits from co-management process, either in the form of taxes,
retributions or in the utilization of ecological services.

61
The Presidential Decree (KEPRES) No. 33 Year 1998 on Conservation Area Management is a
major legal breakthrough in the history of conservation area management in Indonesia. The
Decree gives "conservation concession" rights to a non-government organization for 30 years. It
was clearly stated that the management of Leuser ecosystem area of 1,8 - 2,4 million hectares
will be implemented by the International Leuser Foundation. This Presidential Decree should
become a positive precedence towards the change of policy and institution of conservation area
management in Indonesia, however, along the way the management of Leuser ecosystem area
based on this Presidential Decree did not show the expected result. The government lost its
control over the area and the program of Leuser ecosystem management, conflicts increase
among local shareholders, destruction of the area cannot be overcome, and finally the
management failed in establishing supports and involving local shareholders in the area
management process.

4.2.2.7 Law No. 22 Year 1999

Regional Government law aims at encouraging autonomy to increase the community’s welfare.

Considering:
c. That the implementation of regional autonomy is necessary to emphasize democratic
principles, community participation, equity, justice and at the same time observing the
regional potentials and diversity;
d. That when facing development in-country or abroad and the challenge of global competition
it is necessary to implement Regional Autonomy by proportionally handing over extensive,
real and responsible authority to the region. This is realized by regulating, sharing and
utilizing natural resources and implementing fiscal balance between central and regional
government in accordance with the following principles: democracy, community
participation, equity, justice and regional diversity potentials that is implemented in the
framework of Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia.

Article 7
1. Regional autonomy comprises of authority in all of the government sectors excluding
external affairs politics... and authority in other sectors;
2. Authority in other sectors... including policy on national planning… conservation and
national standardization.

62
 Article 10

1. The regional government has the authority to manage national resources available in the area
and is responsible to maintain the sustainability of the environment in accordance with the
prevailing laws and regulations;
2. Regional autonomy in the marine territory, ... include :
§ Exploration, exploitation, conservation, and management of marine wealth in the confine
of its marine territory;
§ Regulating administrative interest;
§ Regulating Spatial Planning;
§ Law enforcement on regulation issued by the region or authority handed over by the
central government; and
§ Providing assistance in security enforcement and maintaining state sovereignty.

Government Regulation (PP) No. 25 Year 2000: Article 2, paragraph 3, point 4.e. stated that
(central) government authority covers the management of wildlife reserves, nature conservation
areas, hunting parks including the water catchment areas found within the area'.

The above description clearly explain that almost all authority in various sectors of natural
resource management, either terrestrial or water-base is the regional government’s with specific
limitation as has been stipulated. The regional authority is exempted from managing wildlife
reserves, conservation areas, hunting parks and water catchment areas. In reality, in conservation
areas, particularly in protected areas, nature reserves and hunting parks as well as water
catchment areas, there are very often various stakeholders - local people, businessmen, or
regional government offices, whose personal interests are closely linked to these conservation
areas. In particular, the regional government office, often they have the administrative authority
in managing activities of community members who work and live in the nature conservation area.

Considering the need for effective and efficient implementation, the biodiversity and ecosystems
conservation (protection, preserving and utilization) and nature conservation area management
could be handed over to regional government as stated in Government Regulation PP 62 Year
1998 above.

63
4. 3. Implementation of Collaborative Management as an Alternative in
Indonesia

Looking at the various developments on the implementation of co-management process for

managing natural resources in Indonesia, there are a few alternative policy models that can be
developed for Indonesia:

First, implement full decentralization by way of a PP that is based on Law No 5 Year 1990.
There are two reasons why this decentralization process should be followed. Firstly,
decentralization will allow or provide space for regional government to develop collaborative
management for the conservation areas. Secondly, through decentralization regional government
will be able to acquire economic benefits from the conservation areas, namely from taxes,
retributions and utilization of ecological services. Managerial function is held by the regional
government and / or the stakeholders through a body or a board of stakeholders. The constraints
that come up from time to time need to be thoroughly studied even though it may take a long
time with a high cost.

Second, devolution process, delegation or privatization through Government Regulation (PP)

based on Law no. 5 Year 1990. Limited devolution or delegation of authority from the central
government to regional government in managing conservation areas. Transfer of responsibilities
and special functions such as research activity, education, eco tourism and utilization of
ecological services from the government to non-governmental organizations, private sectors or
local community cooperatives. The management functions and constraints are relatively similar
to the first alternative above.

Third, direct cooperation among central authority, departments or government with regional
'management board' through the issuance of Presidential Decree (Keppres), Ministerial Decree
(SKM) or MoU which share the function of managing a designated area and role agreement,
responsibility and authority among the stakeholders involved. The management function is at the
regional government or body / stakeholders' board, non-governmental organizations or private
sectors. The constraint is that it needs a thorough study, tendency to be exclusive and
monopolizing.

Fourth, "strategize" existing laws and regulations. Continue to hold on to existing laws
regulations. After going through an intensive process and agreement, stakeholders in the field
site would propose the conservation area management to the government. The central

64
government or departmental sector and central authority would then make a formal specific
collaboration with multi- stakeholders at the management board. Collaboration could cover the
utilization of a certain area, protection and area financing. The management function lies at the
body or board of the stakeholders. Possible constraints that may emerge are the need to make a
thorough study, intensive process at the field level and the high cost.

65
 References
Acheson, J.M. (1989): Management of Common Property Resources. In S. Platter (ed).
Economic Anthropology. Stanford Univ. Press. Stanford, Cal.

Anonim (2000): Indonesia Environment and Natural Resource Management in Time of

Transition. World Bank Report.

Berkes, F. (1997): New and Not-so-New Directions in the Use of the Commons: Co-
management. Common Property Resource Digest 42:5-7.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (1996): Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the

Approach to the Context. Issues in Social Policy, IUCN, Gland (Switzerland), 1996.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (ed.) (1997): Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in

Conservation. IUCN Gland Switzerland.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Farvar, M. T., Nguinguiri, J. C. & Ndangang, V. A. (2000): Co-

management of Natural Resources: Organising, Negotiating and Learning-by-Doing. GTZ
and IUCN, Kasparek Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.

Bruce Currie-Alder (2001): Collaborative Management of the Mexican Coast: Public

Participation and The Oil Industry in the Terminos Lagoon Protected Area. Master Thesis.
Simon Fraser University. BC

Conley, A. and A. Moote (2001): Collaborative Conservation in Theory and Practice: A

Literature Review. Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy. University of Arizona, Tuscon,
Arizona.

Decker, D. J. and L. C. Chase (1997.) : Human Dimensions of Living with Wildlife: A

Management Challenge for the 21st Century. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(4): 788-795.

Departemen Kehutanan dan Perkebunan (2000). : Sebaran Kawasan Konservasi Di Indonesia /

Up To Year: 2000 HYPERLINK "http://www.dephut.go.id"
www.dephut.go.id (Department of Forestry and Estate Crop (2000): Spreading of Conservation
Area in Indonesia)

66
IFM and ICLARM (2001): Co-management Project Research Framework for Phase II.
Manuscript. The Philippines.

IUCN - The World Conservation Union. (1997): Resolutions and Recommendations: World
Conservation Congress. 12-23 October 1996, Montreal, Canada.

Kartodihardjo (2000): Pengaturan, Pemilikan dan Posisi Masyarakat Dalam Pengelolaan Sumber
Daya Alam. Seminar tentang Peranserta Masyarakat dalam Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Alam.
Diselenggarakan oleh Kantor Meneg Lingkungan Hidup 7 Desember 2000. (Regulations,
Ownership and the People's Position in the Management of Natural Resources. A seminar on
community participation in the Management of Natural Resources. Carried out by the Office
of Ministry of Ecology, December 7, 2000.

Muhshi, AM (1999): Hambatan dan Tantangan Pembangunan Hutan Tanaman Insdustri.

Makalah Disampaikan Pertemuan Tahunan Jaringan Kerja Lingkup LitBang Terpadu
Perusahaan HTI Lingkup PT. INHUTANI. Jogjakarta. (Obstructions and Challenges in the
Construction of Industrial Vegetation Forest. A Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
Working Network of Joint Research and Development of HTI Ventures PT INHUTANI,
Yogyakarta.

Fomeroy, R. S. and F. Berkes. (1997): Two to Tango: The Role of Government in Fisheries Co-
management. Marine Policy Vol 21 No (5) pp. 465 - 480.

Prijosaksono, A and Sembel, R (2002): Negosiasi (Negotiation). HYPERLINK

http://www.inline.or.id www.inline.or.id

Schusler, TM (2002): Exploring Social Learning in the Development of Collaborative Natural

Resource Management. Thesis Master. Cornell University.

Taylor, B. (1998): An Introductory Guide to Adaptive Management. Ministry of Forests.

Canada.

Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, S. Saigal, N. Kapoor & A. B. Cunningham (1999): Joint Management

in the Making: Reflections and Experiences. People and Plants working Paper 7. UNESCO,
Paris.

67
 Appendix 1: IUCN's Resolution
on Collaborative Management for Conservation

1.42 Collaborative Management for Conservation

RECALLING Resolution 19.1 of the 19th Session of the General Assembly on the Strategy of
IUCN - The World Conservation Union, and Resolution 19.23 on the Importance of Community-
based Approaches;

NOTING that the building of partnerships is one of the great strengths of IUCN;

RECOGNIZING that the effective management of resources involves measures that

acknowledge the rights and aspirations of different cultures and the conditions of different
environments, and are specific to each of them;

UNDERSTANDING that many individuals and institutions have a stake in how natural
resources are managed and need to be involved in decisions affecting such management and that
the concerns of those who depend on using natural resources in traditional ways necessary for
meeting their basic needs should have special weight in decisions affecting them;

CONSIDERING that, in the context of current transformations of the role and responsibilities of
the State, there are strong pragmatic reasons for designing new institutional arrangements and
involving civil society in the long-term stewardship of natural resources and public domains;

CONCERNED that powerful changes, such as the globalization of trade and finance, the
weakening of local resource management institutions, the loss of valuable local and traditional
knowledge and practices, and the currently extensive dynamics of population (including
movement of environmental refugees), can lead towards the degradation of natural resources and
irreplaceable loss of biodiversity;

CONCERNED that in areas subjected to ecological degradation the consequences are most
rapidly and severely felt by the poor and vulnerable sectors of society, in particular women and
children;

68
DEFINING collaborative management (also referred to as co-management, or joint,
participatory or multi-stakeholder management) as a partnership in which government agencies,
local communities and resource users, non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders
negotiate, as appropriate to each context, the authority and responsibility for the management of
a specific area or set of resources;

CONSIDERING that such partnership involves an agreement on the functions, rights and
responsibilities of each party, building upon the complementarity of their knowledge, skills,
practices and resources;

REAFFIRMING the value of participatory democratic processes through which people are fully
informed about the legislation, policies and rules of concern to them and directly involved in the
decisions and actions that affect them;

RECOGNIZING that collaborative management can provide effective means to deal with
complex interests and relationships, and with conflicts; that it can promote the participation of
groups and communities which are frequently marginalized in conventional resource
management and development processes, and that it can contribute to the broad objectives of
participatory democracy and participatory development;

NOTING also that collaborative management can promote the use of indigenous and local
knowledge and skills, as well as further the protection and enhancement of the rights of
indigenous peoples as well as minorities and disenfranchised groups;

EMPHASIZING that management partnerships may provide effective incentives for local
resource users to contribute to conservation initiatives;

AWARE that the success of management partnerships requires a supportive social, political,
legal, administrative, economic and technical framework, and that results depend more on
evolving processes than on the application of fixed rules;

CONFIRMING that, while successful and instructive cases of collaborative management

agreements exist in different regions, this management option is still poorly understood and its
potential benefits are still largely untapped;

69
The World Conservation Congress at its 1st Session in Montreal, Canada, 14-23 October 1996:

1. URGES all members and components of IUCN to develop a greater understanding of

collaborative management processes through the analysis of present and past experiences and
lessons learned from them;
2. URGES all IUCN members and partners to give due consideration to the approaches and
methods of collaborative management, and to their application in all stages of resource
conservation and management;
3. REQUESTS the Director General, within available resources, Commissions, Councillors
and members of IUCN to endorse, actively support and participate in the development and
implementation of a Collaborative Management for Conservation Programme in the next
triennium. The Programme should:
a. review and analyse existing knowledge and experiences in collaborative management in
various regions and ecosystems; at different levels (e.g. local, regional, multi-country); in
various societies (e.g. sedentary, nomadic, indigenous); under various land-tenure
conditions (e.g. protected area, public land, communal, private); and from different points
of view (e.g. those of governments, NGOs, local communities, indigenous peoples,
gender and socio-economic groups);
b. share such knowledge and experience among IUCN members and partners concerned
with collaborative management approaches while fostering active communication among
them;
c. enhance the capacity of IUCN members to understand and effectively engage in
collaborative management approaches;
d. identify collaborative management "observation sites" in each region where "learning by
doing" processes can be undertaken and followed;
e. assist IUCN regional networks to identify and evaluate existing policies supporting or
hindering collaborative management approaches and, if needed, to develop policy
recommendations appropriate to the circumstances of each region;
f. strengthen cooperation and exchange among regions, commissions and programme
initiatives, such as on sustainable use and community forestry;
g. inform and advise ongoing international fora and conventions on global environmental
policy on the above matters;
h. be monitored and evaluated and prepare recommendations before the next World
Conservation Congress for future action by IUCN.

70
Note. The use of the term "indigenous peoples" in this Recommendation shall not be construed
as having any implications as regards the rights which may attach to that term in international
law.

71
 Appendix 2: Excerpts of Experiences from
Other Countries Implementing Collaborative Management

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park - AUSTRALIA -

In Australia, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is a marine national park managed by special body
employing hundreds of staff with a budget exceeding development budgets of several other small
states in Australia. Over a million Australian dollars is obtained by the national park area
annually. Twenty years ago, Colossus, Head of the National Park consulted local stakeholders,
including people who lived in the vicinity of the national park and whose livelihood depended on
the national park resources. He also often initiated village workshops with different groups of
stakeholders to generate agreement on decisions made for specific management, such as, zoning
management. Eventually people from a variety of stakeholders who were represented by
Aborigins living in areas surrounding the park permanently occupied the post as Management
Agency. In later developments, the Australian Appellate Court activated the re-organisation of
rights on tenure for the Aborigins, which is called the - no man's land -. The progress also
brought positive experience on collaborative management in Australia, eventually some national
parks followed the path of Great Barrier Reef National Park, such as Kakadu National Park and
Coburg National Park. This positive experience showed the change of process from informal
mechanism to formal, from councilor to sharing of authority and from focusing on management
to focusing on planning and policy.

Annapurna Conservation Area - NEPAL -

In the Annapurna Conservation Area (Nepal), a large scale attempt at integrating conservation
and local development is being promoted by the King Mahendra Nature Conservation Trust.
Local, regional and national organisations discuss on an on-going basis the specific management
decisions to be taken at various levels (including decisions over distribution of tourism revenues).
The main aim is to involve in management all the relevant parties, so that their interests,
concerns and capacities are fully taken into account. Several committees participate in
developing specific agreements and dedicated agents called lami (match- makers) facilitate the
process. This participatory management experience, which we could place somewhere in the
center-right of is also pursued in the buffer zones of other Parks in Nepal (and is building on
several years of positive results in community forestry initiatives in the country

72
Inuit and First Nations - CANADA -

In Canada, many areas proposed for conservation purposes included both Inuit and First Nations
territories. For several years, the land claims of these Aboriginal Peoples have been negotiated
inside and outside of courtrooms. Today, several collaborative management agreements spell out
the results of the negotiations and meet the specific needs of different Aboriginal Peoples and
resource conservation environments (Management Boards, on which sit both representatives of
government agencies and Aboriginal Peoples, deal with a full range of management matters,
from long-term strategic planning to daily operations. The Boards, established by legislation,
have formalized the right of aboriginal stakeholders to participate in management. Five major
agreements exist so far, all with legislative backing and under their umbrella several
communities have, in turn, prepared their own management plans. These plans may be
considered CM agreements in their own right, as they generally take into account the interests of
non-indigenous stakeholders. In the participation continuum of, the Canadian example could be
placed in the center-right, although some non-aboriginal groups have failed to be recognized as
legitimate stakeholders. As a matter of fact, some aboriginal groups have fought to exclude from
the agreements other stakeholders, such as sport hunters

North York Moors National Park - UK

In the UK, the North York Moors National Park includes land that has been settled and farmed
for millennia. The landscape includes large areas of semi-natural vegetation - such as ancient
woodlands - interspersed with grazing areas, hedgerows, farmland and some small towns and
villages. The relationship between the Park and the local people is so close that the Park
Management Plan is included as part of the general plan of Town and Country Development,
which is prepared with the extensive involvement of the public. In fact, the majority of the North
York Moors is under private ownership (a factor common to many National Parks in Europe)
and the management plan is therefore dependent on the co-operation of the landowners.
Management Agreements can be signed between the landowners and the Park Authority and they
are considered to be legally binding contracts (The agreements are entirely voluntary, although
the Park Authority can provide some financial incentives and compensations in return for agreed
works or management practices. Land use changes can be controlled in part by the Park
Authority, but farming activities generally remain outside these controls (the Authority, however,
is promoting traditional, environmentally-sound farming practices).

73
Kakadu National Park - AUSTRALIA

The legally recognized owners of much of Kakadu National Park are the local aboriginal people
- bearers of one of the longest continuous cultural traditions on earth. Management arrangements
for Kakadu attempt to recognize this cultural heritage and successfully marry a conservation
ethic with the traditions and aspirations of the region's aboriginal owners. The presence of a
residential aboriginal population in the park was one reason for its nomination as a World
Heritage Site in 1992.

Farsightedly, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, under which the Kakadu
National Park was established, specifically required that parks on aboriginal land establish
management boards which include aboriginal representation, and which establish a process for
resolving disagreements. This early recognition through legislation of the potential for
cooperation with aboriginal people in achieving conservation objectives played an important part
in the development of the national park.

The Kakadu Board of Management, established under the Act, was created in 1989. Its
membership comprises ten aboriginal nominees (selected by the traditional owners), the director
and regional representatives of national parks and wildlife, an ecologist and a person with
expertise in tourism. The aboriginal members are representative of the people in the region, and
of the major language groups.

The first task of the Kakadu board was to devise a new management plan for the park. As part of
the process of developing the plan, an aboriginal consultative committee was established, with
representatives of all the communities and groups in the park. The task of this committee was to
consult and advise on all aspects of the plan. Park staff and the board provided discussion papers
and drafts of the plan to the committee, and the board took due notice of the committee's views.
The board was both advisers to the drafters and final arbiter of the contents. Its ongoing role is to
make decisions consistent with the management plan, monitor park management and advise on
future development. The board meets four times a year to fulfill this responsibility.

While the board provides the formal and ongoing expression of co-management, the backbone of
the success of the process is embedded in the opportunities provided for directly involving
aboriginal people in day-to-day decision-making and liaison in informal ways. These include
local meetings; the employment of aboriginal cultural advisors; working contact with the

74
traditional owners; and the employment of increasing numbers of young aboriginal people in all
areas of park management.

Nyaminyami Wildlife Management Trust (NWMT) - ZIMBABWE

The Nyaminyami District Council of the Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe, created the Nyaminyami
Wildlife Management Trust (NWMT) to manage its wildlife resources under the CAMPFIRE
Programme. With representatives from government, the safari industry, the tourism industry, the
academic community and NGOs, the NWMT was intended to represent all groups with an
interest in the management of local wildlife resources.

The NWMT was set up as a sub-committee of the District Council with its own constitution. The
NWMT set up a Board of Management comprising the representatives of all the interest groups
detailed above. The board is responsible for developing and implementing the CAMPFIRE
Programme in Nyaminyami. The board holds regular meetings to make specific decisions. These
are forwarded to the District Council which, as the body officially in charge, ratifies and
implements them.

One of the positive effects brought by the board has been the development of a very transparent
conservation initiative. In addition, all the represented stakeholders developed a sense of
proprietorship over the programme. Although the programme experienced some serious
problems, the board proved to be capable of handling these problems in a very satisfactory
manner.

Richtersveld Area - SOUTH AFRICA

In the Richtersveld area of the Republic of South Africa, the government had been under
increasing pressure to establish a national park to protect the area's unique mountainous desert
region. Negotiations took place involving the various government departments concerned. Just as
a contractual agreement for the park's establishment was about to be ratified, the community of
Richtersveld applied for an injunction to prevent it. Their action was a response to inadequate
communication between park advocates and the affected parties regarding respective goals and
interests. Community members wanted more direct involvement in park planning and decision-
making; they felt that they had been misrepresented by the Northern Richtersveld Management
Board in the governmental negotiations.

75
Subsequently, another set of negotiations was conducted involving broader public and
community interests. These meetings were facilitated by two botanists who were regarded by all
parties as impartial. As a result of these negotiations, community interests were integrated into
the park protection goals in the form of a Collaborative Management Plan. In the initial
government plan, the responsibility for park management would have been designated to the
National Parks Board. In the subsequent negotiations, however, a Management Plan Committee
was formed, consisting of four park board members and four elected community representatives.
As a result of the negotiations, all parties signed a Richtersveld National Parks contract. This
created the park and established the conditions under which it should be managed.

Kilum and Ijim Mountain forests - CAMEROON -

The contiguous Kilum and Ijim Mountain forests constitute a significant portion of the last
remnants of the Cameroon mountain forest. The flora and fauna are unique. Over 200,000 people
depend on the Kilum/Ijim forests for a wide variety of products, including firewood, building
and craft materials, honey, medicinal plants, carving wood, pasture, wild vegetables and
bushmeat. The forests play a crucial role in regulating water supplies. Along with adjoining Lake
Oku, they also hold great cultural significance for the local people.

Cameroon has recently adopted new forestry legislation which provides for community
management of forest resources. The Kilum area presented a promising test case, with a
community already practicing forest use under an indigenous management system, and existing
international projects (managed by Birdlife International) that could support the full devolution
of power and responsibility to local people. In preparation for a formal designation of the forest
as a "Community Forest" under the management of various user groups, the following
procedures were undertaken:
a. analysis of the composition of relevant user groups;
b. analysis of the traditional rules and systems of management;
c. definition of the boundaries for various forest user groups;
d. development of a procedure to negotiate a management plan for the user groups and
implement it; and
e. development of monitoring systems covering the welfare of both the forest ecosystem and
the user groups.

SOURCE: Borrini-Feyerabend, et al (2000)

76
77
 Appendix 3: Central and Regional Government Policies on the
Implementation of Collaborative Management

Bunaken National Park

1. Bunaken National Park Management Plan (RPTN - Bunaken 25 Years).

2. Official Declaration of Bunaken National Park Management Advisory Board (DPTNB) by
the Minister of Forestry.
3. North Sulawesi’s Regional Regulation on Bunaken National Park Entrance Fee.
4. North Sulawesi’s Governor’s Decree (SK) on the formation of Bunaken National Park
Management Advisory Board.
5. North Sulawesi’s Governor’s Decree on the implementation of Bunaken National Park’s
Entrance Fee.
6. North Sulawesi’s Governor‘s Letter of Agreement on Utilization of 80% of Park Entrance
Fee by Bunaken National Park Management Advisory Board

Komodo National Park

1. Komodo National Park Management Plan (RPTN-Komodo 25 Years);

2. Regional Regulation on the utilization of fish nets and/or supporting equipment to harvest
marine resources within the territorial waters of Manggarai District.
3. MoU between the Nature Conservancy and The Department of Forestry;
4. Joint ventures (corporation – PT) between local stakeholders and Government (Department
of Forestry);
5. Finance Ministerial Decree on the application of park entrance fee at Komodo National Park
(Rp 20.000,-)

Bali Barat National Park

1. Bali Barat National Park Management Plan (RPTN-Bali Barat twenty -five years)

78
2. Proposed MoU among Management Forum Foundation, Bali Barat National Park, Buleleng
& Jembrana Regional Government and Bali Province Regional Government on the
management of Bali Barat National Park.
3. National Park’s Decree on the application of Code of Conduct for activities in the marine
areas.

79
Appendix 4: Development of Institutions and Funding Mechanisms
to Implement Collaborative Management

Bunaken National Park - North Sulawesi

UPT/BTNB Local Stakeholders

DPTNB/ NPMAB

Executive 1. Park entrance fee

Secretariat as 2. Eco tourism
executing body 3. Production
4. Grant

• Routine activities 1. Work plan • Routine activities

• Program from 2. Funding plan • Other
central and UPT 3. Policy in development
management programs
strategy

Organizational Structure of the Bunaken National Park Management Advisory Board (DPTNB)
based on North Sulawesi’s Governor’s Decree No. 233 Year 2000 on the Formation of Bunaken
National Park Management Advisory Board (DPTNB).

Chairman : North Sulawesi Vice Governor

Vice Chairman : Chairman of the North Sulawesi Water Sport Tourism Association
Secretary : Chairman of the Bunaken National Park Concerned Community
Forum
Members :
1. Dean of the Faculty of Fishery and Marine Science, University of Samratulangi
2. Head of North Sulawesi Provincial Environmental Impact Agency (Bapedalda)
3. Head of the North Sulawesi Province Tourism Office
4. Head of the North Sulawesi Province Fishery Office
5. Head of the Bunaken National Park Office

80
 6. Head of the Minahasa District Environmental Impact Agency
7. Department Head of the Manado City Environment
8. Community representative of the southern area of Bunaken National Park (FMPTNB
southern area)
9. Community representative of the Northern Area of Bunaken National Park (FMPTNB
northern area)
10. Community Representative of the surrounding islands area of Bunaken National Park
(FMPTNB island areas)
11. Bunaken National Park Concerned Community Forum (FMPTNB)
12. Executive Director of Walhi in North Sulawesi

Bali Barat National Park Bali

Government

Management foundation
forum, comprises of
non-governmental
stakeholders living Regional
UPT/BTNBB MoU within & directly linked MoU government of
with TNBB area Buleleng, Jembrana
& Provinces

Voluntary conservation
funds from tourists
Donor grants
Predetermined
contributions from
companies

The MOU comprises of an agreement that the foundation has to be involved in every single
decision-making process linked to the management of Bali Barat National Park area.

The Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHKA) Decree consists of an instruction to the
Bali Barat National Park (TNBB) as the implementing unit of PHKA to develop an example of
collaborative management, including the cooperation and active involvement of the foundation.

81
The co-management Institution being developed in TNBB has a different approach when
compared to other National Parks. The main focus is autonomy in delivering ideas and
management alternatives for TNBB area. Therefore, it was agreed upon that the institution
formed will only comprise of non-governmental elements. A MoU is then to be arranged
between government institutions involved such as the National Park, Local Government (Pemda
Tingkat II) of Buleleng and Jembrana, and the provincial government stakeholders. The most
important point of this agreement is the necessity to involve this institution in every decision
making process and in the development plan for TNBB area and its surroundings.

At present the co-management institution has already agreed upon a name for the institution,
namely Forum Komunikasi Masyarakat Peduli Pesisir (FKMPP) TNBB (Bali Barat National
Park Coastal Area’s Concerned Community Communication Forum), the Forum's statutes and
rules are currently in the discussion process.

The organisation of FKMPP is as follows:

Chairman : Nyoman Sandi (Chairman of Pejarakan Village Fishermen Group)
Vice Chairman I : Misnawiyanto (Group Chairman of Sumberklampok Village
Fishermen)
Vice Chairman II : Nengah Widen (Gilimanuk Customary (Adat) Village Chief)
Secretary : Made Indrawati (Chairman of Sumberklampok Cooperative Group)
(KUB)
Treasurer : Ketut Astawa (Manager of Menjangan Mimpi Resort)

The development of sustainable funding mechanism will be one of main duties of the co-
management institution. In the first year, funding for the TNBB area is expected to be focused on
two things: first, the forum-managed conservation fund, including voluntary conservation
funding from tourists, additional funding from the donating stakeholders, and predetermined
funding from tourism agencies and other benefit gathering sectors. The second, funds managed
by national park stakeholders, including the budget allocated by the central government for
national park management, funds from the Local government (Pemda), etc.

82
TN Komodo - East Nusa Tenggara (NTT)

Joint Ventures Government

Implementation of Collaborative Advisory Board

Eco-tourism management between ♦ Public sector
Business government & joint ♦ Local communities
ventures ♦ Tourism sector

Implementation of
25 year
management plan

Co-management is needed in Komodo National Park based on the constraints encountered when
managing the area, namely: 1) limitation of the management capacity /capability of the area at
present time, 2) the ever-increasing limitation of government budget to support management of
marine conservation areas in Indonesia, 3) increased constraints when management of a
conservation area is implemented by a single authority. Based on the above constraints, in the
year 2000 the Komodo National Park Management Plan for 25 (RPTN - Komodo) was
formulated and legalized by the Manggarai District Government (Pemda) and DPRD (Regional
Legislative Assembly) - key people in local communities and central government.

The success of Komodo National Park Management is greatly dependent upon the distribution of
incentives to relevant stakeholders. The existing natural resources potentials able to support the
effort are from fisheries and eco-tourism sectors. To support the use of fisheries and eco-tourism
resources in a sustainable way several efforts have been taken, among others: 1) limitation of
tools for catching fish which are potentially destructive for coral reefs, through the enactment of

83
a regional regulation (Perda), 2) strict law enforcement and sanctions for those performing
illegal fish catching by using dynamite and cyanide, 3) Pelagic fishery training, seaweed
cultivation, fishery cultivation outside the area, 4) Joint ventures with stakeholders to establish
eco-tourism.

84
85
 Appendix 5: Utilization of Ecological Services as an Alternative
Funding Mechanism Developed to Implement Collaborative
Management

Conservation area Entrance Fee

Potentials:
Nationally, the state revenue received from park entrance fees from thirty-six (36) national parks
only reached Rp 3.97 billions during the periods of 1995/1996 - 1999/2000, or about Rp 796
million per year. This amount is relatively small when compared to proceeds received from the
entrance fee developed at Bunaken National Park since the year 2001. The decentralization
system of entrance fee will motivate local stakeholders to develop this system based on local
characteristics.

Some national parks, among others Bali Barat National Park, Komodo National Park and
Wakatobi National Park are also preparing entrance fee system based on the study of resources
valuation (willingness to pay/WTP). The WTP at Bali Barat National Park is about Rp 33.000
for every visitor and at Komodo National Park an entrance fee of Rp 20.000 per visitor is
implemented. This entrance fee will gradually be increased to between US$ 50 - 100. At
Wakatobi National Park, Wakatobi Divers charge a voluntary fee of US$ 25 per visitor. The
amount of legal tariff presently effective in Indonesia is relatively very small when compared to
entrance fees of other national parks around the world, especially for the marine conservation
areas.

Other potentials are permit fees for the eco tourism agencies (PUPA) and contributions for the
eco tourism income (IUPA) which have not been optimally mobilized by the government. In
Bunaken National Park there are about 25 units of eco tourism agencies in the area and none
possess the permit and pay PUPA as well as IUPA. As is the case with park entrance fees, the
amount of PUPA and IUPA has also to be developed through a participatory process based on a
study carried out to observe the territorial supporting potentials of the area and the willingness to
pay (WTP).

86
Comparison of Entrance Fees at Bunaken National Park

(SK) Minister of Government (Law 21/1997) Perda, Special Decree (SK), MoU
Forestry Decree Regulation (PP)
No. 878/Kpts- No. 59/1998
II/1992
Visitors Tariff/person Tariff/person Tariff/visitor
(Rp) (Rp) (Rp)
BNP KNP BBNP WTNP
Foreign tourists 2,000 20,000 150,000 20,000 2,000 2,000
(planned to be (WTP = (+voluntary fee
gradually 33,346) US$25)
increased to
US$50 -100)
Domestic 2,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,000 2,000
tourists (WTP =
18,900)

The result of the study on WTP (Setiasih, 1999) stated that 50% of the foreign tourist
respondents refuse to pay if the fee is collected by the government. The average foreign tourists’
willingness to pay is only Rp 4.955 if the fees are collected by the government. The willingness
to pay of foreign tourists is Rp. 33,346/visit. Domestic tourists’ willingness to pay is lessened if
the fees are collected by government, namely Rp 2800 from Rp 18.900 if the fees are collected
directly to be used for the conservation of Bali Barat National Park.

Proportional Sharing of Entrance Fees Collected at Bunaken National Park

Legal Basis
Forestry Ministerial Decree
No.: 878/Kpts-II/1992
Government Regulation (PP)
No. 59, year 1998
North Sulawesi Regional
Regulation No. 14, year 2000
Province Regency/City Central
15% development fund 40% regional development 15% for KSDA and its
15% financing of KSDA costs ecosystems development
development and its through the State’s treasurer
ecosystems 15% for KSDA and its
ecosystems development
through the Ministry of
Forestry c.q. Director General
PHKA
0 0 100%
7.5% Development Fund 3.75% Regency 5%
3.75% City
80% (supporting fund for BNP management)

Constraints:

1. Several laws and regulations are linked to one another other and among these some are
overlapping, particularly concerning the utilization of ecological services in conservation
areas. These laws include Law (UU) No 5 Year 1990, Law No. 21 Year 1997, Law No.25
Year 1999, Law No. 41 Year 1999 and Law no. 34 Year 2000. Concerning park entrance fees,

87
 it will be regulated through National Budget (APBN), meaning revenues received from park
entrance fees should be deposited to the government treasury. To date, there have not been
any conservation areas (National Park and eco Tourism Forest) that implement park entrance
fees in accordance with the Law No. 21 Year 1997 and Government Regulation (PP) 59/98.
The constraints are: 1) the uniformity of types and amount of fees, 2) impractical collection
system, 3) there is no local proportion and incentive, 4) Regional Government does not have
a role in it.

2. No consensus has been reached concerning the collaborative management concept and its
development for conservation areas in Indonesia. Particularly, regarding the coordination in
the sharing of roles and benefits in conservation areas.

3. Implementation of the entrance fee collection system that is carried out through a top-down
approach without a participatory process, democracy, transparancy and accountability, is
very likely to be challenged by users, particularly, those dealing with eco-tourism industry
and visiting tourists. If this tendency is not anticipated, the implementation of the entrance
fee system will fail as a whole and will have its impact on other conservation areas, which
are trying to implement entrance fee system based on mutual agreement.

4. A breakthrough through government policies should be found for conflicts on utilization of

conservation areas for eco-tourism activities which have reached some kind of a dead lock.
This effort could be carried out through re-inventory and close examination of all the areas
that have been utilized for eco tourism activities.

Utilization of Water from Conservation Areas

Opportunities
The utilization of water from the Sungai Wain Protected Forests (HLSW) for processing crude
oil has been started from 1947. Until today, water from the Wain River Protected Forest has
been optimally used by the national oil company (Pertamina). Aside from processing oil, water
from Wain River Protected Forest is also used as clean water supply for the housing of Pertamina
employees.

88
 Use of Surface Water from Wain River and Tax paid by Pertamina to the Balikpapan
Regioal Treasury in 2000 (LPEM-UI, 1999)

Type Amount in m3 Tax (Rp.)

Oil Refinery Operation (Jan - August) 1,220,904 18,313,560,0
Housing 3,614,432 179,275,827.2
Total 4,835,336 197,589,387.2
Source: Balikpapan Regional Revenue Office (Dispenda)

Based on the Law (UU) No. 24 Year 2000, the amount of tax for water used is determined at
10% from the value of water taken, and based on several factors, such as, type of water sources,
location, quality etc. From the above table the ratio of tariff acquired differs greatly between the
use for oil refinery operations and for housing. They are Rp 15,-/m3 for oil refinery, while for
housing, it is Rp 49,6/m3.

Apart from receiving revenues from water tax, Wain River Protected Forest can also develop
business of natural spring water. Assuming the price of water is Rp 150/m3 for industrial needs
and Rp 496/m3 for household needs at a capacity of 450 - 750 m3/hour, the water management
business will be able to obtain Rp 2,5 billion - Rp 3,2 billion/year.

Potentiality of Surface Water Use from the Wain River per year

Water Capacity
Type of Use 3
459m / hour 750m3 / hour
Industry (40%) 583,200,000 972,000,000
Household (60%) 1,928,448,000 3,214,080,000
Total 2,511,648,000 4,186,080,000

Concerning revenues received from water use, only tax on water use has been considered,
although not optimally. The utilization of ecological services for business ventures using water
has not been implemented because there doesn’t seem to be any rules or regulations that can be
applied for stakeholders who are making use of ecological services. Apart from the
implementation of rules and regulations, a consensus should be reached between the user of
ecological services and the supplier of these services through a process which is transparent,
democratic, participative and accountable.

89
Constraints:

1. Developing an understanding among stakeholders where everybody has his or her own
interests concerning the mutual management or co-management model which is professional,
independent, and where multi-stakeholders are the providers of these ecological services.

2. Tax for water use falls under provincial authority where the sharing should be at least 70 %
for the producing regency / city. Relation between the province and regency / city which is
not harmonious during the regional autonomy phase cannot guarantee the existence of a
transparent tax distribution.

3. The authorized province, which has the authority to determine and collect water use tax is not
motivated and does not have incentives to initiate the realization of a higher respect toward
the value of acquired water (lake, protected forest, river etc) to users.

4. The business of water use from forest areas still needs supporting policies, which should be
determined through participation of the local Government, user industry and other relevant
stakeholders. It should comprise of mechanisms on how to carry out payment from
downstream areas and other users to the upstream /producing areas.

Conclusions

1. Utilization of ecological services through eco-tourism, challenging sports, water use, carbon
trade, debt for nature swaps, environmental/green taxes is an integrated effort to improve the
sustainability of conservation areas, community welfare, roles of local government and other
stakeholders, local fiscal autonomy to increase community welfare.
2. Utilization of ecological services will be at its peak if implemented by local government in
coordination with other relevant stakeholders, such as private sectors, NGOs, Universities,
and local communities.
3. A breakthrough from the government is needed to optimize the use of ecological services;
first, establish a team of assistants for the region to start business in ecological services,
second: revise laws and regulations that continue to be a constraint when optimizing the
utilization of local ecological services.
4. The utilization of ecological services should be carried out in a participatory, democratic,
transparent and accountable manner.

90
5. Green/environmental taxes need to be developed based on mutual agreement between
supplier/provider of ecological services and the user (downstream industries and district/
city), so there would be an incentive mechanism for regions that has conservation areas and
industrial/user regions which has to pay for the use of ecological services.

91
 Legal Aspect, Issues, Opportunities and Policy Strategies on the Utilization of Ecological Services
Legal Type of Type of Utilization Utilization Issues Opportunities Policy Strategy
Basis Area Environme authority
ntal
Services
UU 5/90 KPA (TN, Nature Government § Centralized permits § Utilization of area through • Hand-over eco tourism
PP 18/94 TWA and tourism, (with the § Most of the nature tourism business within alternative financing approach license arrangement to
PP 62/98 Tahura) national park exception of PP the conservation areas don’t have permits the region by issuing:
PP 68/98 and TWA 62/98) Government Regulation
Nature tourism
Tahura
UU 21/97 KPA/KSA. Production Government Balancing mechanism
PP 22/97 HP. HL areas (UU25/99)
PP 59/98 § PSDH, Government
PP 73/99 HPH, (UU25/99)
SK IHPHTI
Menkeu Conservation Government • Eco tourism business tax and Park Entrance Decentralization mechanism in Hand over entrance fee
656/01 areas (PP62/98) Fees to the area is arranged through tourism business optimizes collection to local
§ PUPA Government centralized mechanism taxation and Park Entrance Fees government
§ Entrance (PP62/98) • No balancing/ local incentive submitted to Office of
Fee Government • Uniformed type and amount of tariff Conservation and Nature
§ Flora and • Collection system not practical, not Protection (KPA) (National Parks,
fauna participatory, transparent, democratic and Eco Tourism Parks and
poachingl accountable in determining mechanism, type Wilderness Parks) in a
and amount of tax, collection system participatory, transparent,
democratic and accountable way.

UU 41/99 HK, HP, § Nature Govt/Prov/Rege • No policies to arrange coordination Encourage and strengthen Formulate a guideline/
PP 34/02 HL tourism ncy/City mechanism, sharing of role and benefit, if the Pemda’s capacity in finding implementation regulation
§ Challenging depending upon area is an inter-district/ city and inter-province. potentials for the utilization of for the utilization of
Sport the scope of the • Utilization of water, which is a provincial ecological services through ecological services
§ Water location within authority, generates non optimum use of regional tax/retribution (UU41/99 and PP34/02) to
utilization one Regency/ capacity. A few examples are the case of water (environmental tax) and sell be implemented by
§ Carbon City or cross use at Wain River Protected Forest in the city ecological functions (water, Pemda, stakeholders.
trade province. HK of Balikpapan by Pertamina, use of river water carbon, and forest preservation). This implementation
§ Forest and remains under and Tondano Lake by Regional Drinking Water Encourage negotiation process regulation should be very
environment the authority of Company (PDAM) and Water Power Electric that is transparent, democratic, strict in asking the user to
preservation central Company (PLTA) in Manado. participative, among relevant pay for the ecological
government • There are no implementation regulations with stakeholders. services they used.
excluding enforcing character for users of ecological
Tahura services (company/ industry/ district/ city),
which encourage and enforce regional
government capacity to accomplish prospects
in utilization of ecological services through
regional taxes and or retributions
(environmental tax) and selling ecology
functions (water, carbon, and forest saving
/protection).

92
UU 25/99 HP, HL, § PBB, BPHT, Government Balancing mechanism
PP KPA, KSA HP (IHH, (there is a
104/00 Marine PSDH, DR), balancing
oil, gas, mechanism)
mining and
fishery

UU 34/00 KPA/ § Water tax Province Determine maximal tax, there is a tendency that Extra taxation for the utilization of
PP 65/01 KSA, HP, § Hotel & Regency/City all regions decide on maximal tax. Therefore beautiful panoramic sceneries to
PP 66/01 Hl restaurant there is no opportunity for hotels and restaurants be used for environment
tax located within or in the surrounding of maintenance
conservation areas. For example: Santika Hotel
in Manado or the restaurants and cottages at
Bunaken National Park, which have enjoyed the
benefits and advantages from the beautiful
scenery at Bunaken National Park.

§ Environment Prov/Reg/City Local Government has not regarded Encourage and strengthen Formulate criteria and
tax Prov/Reg/City conservation area as economically valuable area Pemda’s capacity in finding guidelines to implement
§ Retribution (ecological services). Utilization through Planned potential environment tax and/or taxation/retribution for
from PNBP / Actual Budget (APBD) mechanism does not retributions for any business, environmental services.
guarantee tax and retribution received will be industries in the regency or cities
used for maintenance of area functions and that take advantage of an area for
empowerment of local people living within and in their activities
the surrounding areas

93
Comparison on Amounts of Park Entrance Fees in some Marine National Parks Around the World.

Amount of Tariff
Name of MPA Country
Rp. US$
Bunaken National Park Indonesia Rp 75,000/year ($7.50)
Komodo National Park NTT, Indonesia Rp 500,000/visit (plan) ($50)

Wakatobi National Park Southeast Sulawesi, Rp 250,000/ visit ($25)

Indonesia (conservation fee)
Tubbataha Marine Park Phillipines Rp 500,000/year ($50)

Bonaire Marine Park Bonaire, Caribbean Rp 200,000/year ($20)

Galapagos National Park Ecuador, South America Rp 1,000,000/visit ($100)

Cocos Island Reserve Costa Rica Rp 1,050,000/visit ($105)

Truk Lagoon Chuuk, Micronesia Rp 300,000/visit ($30)

Palau (all islands), Micronesia Rp 150,000/visit $15)

Kenya (every marine park) Kenya, Africa Rp 50,000/ visit ($5)

Great Barrier Reef Australia Rp 20,000/day ($2)

Mirarmare Marine Reserve Italy Rp 22,000/day add ($2.20 / $22 / $11)

Rp 220,000/year for diving
or Rp 110,000/year for
snorkelers
Ras Mohammed Egypt Rp 50,000/visit ($5)

Red Sea Marine Park Egypt Rp 50,000/day ($5)

Abrolhos Marine Park Brasilia, South America Rp 42,500/day ($4.25)

St. Eustatius Netherlands Antilles, Rp 120,000/year ($12)

Caribbean
Saba Netherlands Antilles, Caribbean Rp 30,000/time dive! ($3)

Soufriere Marine Park St. Lucia, Caribbean Rp 40,000/day at a maximal ($4 / $12)
of Rp 120,000/year
Mafia Island Marine Park Tanzania, Africa Rp 100,000 one time entry, ($10 / $5)
add Rp 50,000/day
Thailand (every marine Thailand Rp 44,000/day ($4.40)
park)
Seychelles Seychelles, Indian Ocean Rp 120,000/visit ($12)
Source: Lindberg and Halpenny (2201), Marine Protected Area Visitor Fees Summary,
http://www.ecotourism.org/retiesselfr.htmI

94