COASTAL COEXISTENCE

Community Conservation in Wakatobi National Park,

Indonesia

MESPOM Thesis PresentationBy: Nara Wisesa

Contents• Introduction

• Site Description• Research

Questions• Methods• Results

• Discussions• Conclusion

“Give them a fish and you feed them for a day.

Teach them to fish and you feed them for life.”

(Old Proverb)

Introduction

• What is conservation?– Activities that aim to protect the natural environment and

reduce or limit the impacts of human activity towards it • Intrinsic value of nature• Environmental problems are caused by human exploitation• We are ethically obliged to protect the environment

– Nature conservation movements - based on the interest of the self-preservation of humankind?• Limits to Growth• Precautionary Principle

Introduction• Protected areas

– To serve the interest of nature conservation, governments set up protected areas

– These are “areas of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means” (IUCN 1994)

Introduction

• Two major approaches to conservation– Fortress Conservation– Community Conservation – In practice: not that clear cut

• Shift from expert-based ‘fortress conservation’ to a more ‘community conservation’ approach

• Community Conservation– Inclusion of local communities – Co-management of natural resources – Public participation

Site - Wakatobi National Park

• Geography – Where is it?

Site - Wakatobi National Park

• Geography (Regional)– Indonesia• Crossroads of 2 continents

and 2 oceans• 3 ecoregions: Sundaland,

New Guinean and Wallacea• Wallacea – high biodiversity

– Combination species from other two ecoregions and unique species

– The “Coral Triangle”

Site - Wakatobi National Park• Geography – Wakatobi– Small chain of islands off the coast of south-

eastern Sulawesi • Four main islands of Wangi-Wangi, Kaledupa,

Tomia and Binongko (which forms the ‘Wakatobi’ acronym)

– Surrounded by barrier reefs, fringing reefs and separate off-shore atolls teeming with marine life• Located in the “coral triangle”

– Islands have limited farming potential• Traditional fisheries and algae farming are main

livelihoods for many locals• Coastal resources important part of the local

tradition

Site - Wakatobi National Park

• Wakatobi National Park (WNP)– Established in 1996– Marine Protected Area (MPA)

• To protect the highly bio-diverse coral reefs • To halt the use of destructive resource

extraction techniques – WNP management plan

• Based on a centrally planned and controlled management system

• Heavily relies on centrally governed rules and regulations

Site - Wakatobi National Park• Past Condition (late 90’s - early

2000’s)– Local people excluded from decision

making activities– Lack of communication and

understanding between national park authorities and the local people

– Destructive fishing activities were rampant in the area• KCN and blast fishing, brought and

funded by external actors• Locals consider marine/coastal resources

as inexhaustible• WNP authorities unable to effectively

monitor the whole area– There is a need for increased community

involvement (Elliott et al. 2001)

• Original Park Design– Divided into several zones

• Different levels of accessibility and resource use allocation

• The majority of the National Park was designated as no-take zones

• Zone designation decided in Jakarta without local public consultation/incorporating local resource use patterns

• Populated islands are located within the Core Zone

No Zonation Nomenclature Take Area (%) No Take Area (%)

1 Core Zone - 49.17

2 No-Take Zone - 11.55

3 Tourism-Use Zone - 5.07

4 Traditional Use Zone 21.62 -

5 Rehabilitation Zone - 12.59

Total 21.62 78.38

Site - Wakatobi National Park• TNC-WWF Wakatobi Joint Programme– Collaboration project between TNC and

WWF-ID• Established in 2003

– Goal is to “… assist the Wakatobi National Park authority to improve their management plan, zoning, and implementation of park management” (WWF-ID 2008)

– Later followed by • A change in local governance regime

(establishment of a separate Wakatobi Regency)

• The revision of the National Park conservation management scheme

Research Questions

• Have the conservation management approach in Wakatobi shifted towards a ‘community conservation’ type?

• Have the TNC-WWF NGO programme attempted to alter local community participation and involvement towards marine conservation efforts?

• Have changes in the National Park altered local communities within Wakatobi National Park, Indonesia?

Research• Methods

– Literature review– Interviews with local

stakeholders• Additional subjects through

snowball sampling• Interviews are semi-structured,

semi-formal, open-ended• Done in Bahasa Indonesia

– Participatory observations– Additional reference materials

• Presentations• Audio/Visual documentations

• Local Stakeholders– TNC-WWF team– WNP authority– Local people (representatives)

• Analysis– Qualitative

• Interview/observation results• Literature/reference materials

• Constraints– Temporal, logistical, practical

• Only visited Wangiwangi and Kaledupa• Representatives from Tomia and Binongko

were met in Wanci

– Potential Limits of snowball sampling– No interview with local government

representatives• Scheduling clashes/time limitations

Results• Rezoning

– In 2003, WNP authority, TNC-WWF and the local government initiated the process to redesign the existing zoning scheme• Integrate protection and

conservation needs with local resource use needs

• Shift management power from central to regional

• To achieve the goal of the conservation of biodiversity while improving local people well-being

– Local people were involved from the beginning• Perception monitoring & awareness

raising (2005)• Community group discussions –

how do they think the park should look like? (2006)

• Two rounds of formal public consultations between all involved stakeholders (2006 and 2007) – resulting in the design drafts– The second design draft (agreed

upon by all stakeholders involved) became the implemented design for the park

• Public socialization process of the park and implementation of the new management scheme (2008-ongoing)

Results

Results• Zone coverage has changed significantly in the

revised zoning scheme– No-take area from about 80% down to about 3%– Now mostly local (traditional) use zone (68%)– Creation of the common use zone

No

Original Scheme Revision SchemesTake Area

(%)No Take Area (%)

Take Area (%)

No Take Area (%)

Take Area (%)

No Take Area (%)

1 Core Zone Core Zone - 49.17 - 0.1 - 0.1

2 No-Take Zone No-Take Zone - 11.55 - 2.86 - 2.6

3 Tourism-Use Zone Tourism Zone - 5.07 - 0.68 - 0.4

4 Traditional Use Zone Local-Use Zone 21.62 - 47 - 57.5 -

5 Rehabilitation Zone - - 12.59 - - - -

6 - Common-Use Zone - - 46,36 - 36 -

7 - Special Land Zone - - 3,00 - 3.3 -

Sum 21.62 78.38 96.36 3.64 96.8 3.1

Original Scheme First Draft Final DesignZonation Nomenclature

Results

• TNC-WWF programme– Two primary goals:

• Conserve the area’s resources & maintain biodiversity• Ensure the livelihood of local communities

– Role is to support/assist WNP authority and local government

– Three main approaches• Develop and assess MPA designs• Surveillance & monitoring activities• Increase local community support towards

conservation activities within the national park– The “Outreach Programme”

Results• Community Outreach Programme– Put the local community on a par with the

local government during decision-making processes

– Encourage people to stop using destructive extraction methods

– Approaches: • Workshops, trainings, etc• Partnership with local government and WNP

authority• Work mainly with coastal resource users• The “Outreach Team”

Results• The “Outreach Team”

– Local people, recruited to join the outreach programme

– To change public perception to the view that conservation is a way to ensure the continuation of their livelihood• Direct interaction with other local people• Basic approach rule: Use simple/easy to

understand terms and analogies– Slightly different approaches for different islands/communities

• Provide local people information regarding environmental issues– Allow them to come to their own conclusions

• Able to communicate conservation ideas using local languages – Relate these ideas with local resource management traditions

• Dig out local knowledge from traditional management practices

Results• Current condition of communities– How communities were altered

• Public perception appears to have shifted– Consider a healthy environment to be beneficial

to them– No longer consider conservation as a foreign

concept – Feel that a properly designed national park will

ensure the continuation of their livelihood• Local people are now actively involved in

community organising activities and discussion groups – Possess the self confidence to state their

opinions – Make sure they are heard by government

representatives

Results• Current condition of communities– Communities and conservation

• Wakatobi people traditionally regard themselves to have the obligation to maintain natural resources – Growing environmental awareness brought this

culture back to prominence – Resulted in contributions toward the national

park’s conservation efforts• Processes initiated by the outreach team

continued by members of the community • Local people starting to notice positive changes

in the natural environment around them• Local people feel current zoning scheme would

be beneficial to them

Results• Current condition of communities– Communities and conservation –

Examples• Mutual agreement between fishermen

around Tomia island to stop using blast fishing methods

• Community “fish banks” – traditionally established no take zones around Tomia

• Boat registration and fish landing book-keeping schemes in Kaledupa

• Former blast/KCN-fishers now join monitoring activities to stop persistent blast/KCN fishers– Insider tips from community members

Discussion• Shifting conservation

management approach– WNP recently experienced a

shift in management • Centralised management ->

community management • Zoning scheme redesign process

involving local people • Not a complete shift, more co-

management– Combine aspects of both fortress

and community approaches – Responsibilities still in the hands of

NP authority and government– There are still zones that severely

limit public access

Discussion• TNC-WWF outreach

strategies– TNC-WWF attempted to

increase local community support towards the conservation activities

– Two sides of outreach programme• Public

– Public discussions, workshops, community empowerment exercises, provision of access to information

• Discreet– Outreach team

– Outreach team approach• Three aspects of

‘marketing’ conservation ideas to the community– Pyramid-esque aspect– Guerilla-esque aspect– Viral-esque aspect

• Took time until results become noticeable– 3-4 years

Discussion• Public involvement and participation

– Changes in the national park have indeed, to an extent, altered local people’s • Perception towards conservation• Reception towards the national park• Public behaviour

– Voluntary public participation and involvement in protected area management has increased

– Redesign process seems to be key• First concrete form of official public involvement • Gave the local people a sense of ownership

– Direct and indirect contributions• Participation during redesign• Local environmental policies• Participation in monitoring activities• Spread conservation ideas and concept among themselves

Discussion• Potential future issues

– Ecological effects of zonal change• Potential increase in fishing activities• Increased fish landings due to spill-over may lead to decreasing prices and

increasing fishing efforts– Defining “traditional fisheries”

• Even local people may adopt new fishing techs to be used within the local use zone

– Economical and tourism development• Increased population pressure and resource demand• Societal readiness of fishing communities in the face of increased tourism

– “Tourism is tourists who dive” – outreach discussion participant

– Effectiveness of the current zone design• Will be re-evaluated in 3 years, re-design if deemed necessary• Always possible for “back-to-barriers” to happen

Conclusion• WNP has recently experienced a shift towards community

conservation – Best represented by the zoning redesign process

• TNC-WWF did attempt to alter public involvement in conservation efforts through their outreach programme – This created a conducive environment for the conservation programme to

work in• Wakatobi people appears to have changed when compared to late

90’s/early 2000’s – Acceptance levels have increased and now they hold a different

perception towards conservation ideas • Next step: to see if the new design implementation would

see the national park move towards its conservation goals– Success depends on how processes already in place would be

continued and built upon

“Give them a fish and you feed them for a day.

Teach them to fish and you feed them for a while.

Guide them to manage the fishes and you feed them for life.”

(Updated Proverb)

The people spoke // Changes were made // Fish kept swimming 

Questions?Questions?

So Long… So Long… and Thanks for All the Fish!and Thanks for All the Fish!(D. Adams 1985)