Suchergebnisse

Marine Protected Area (MPA) establishment processes in Indonesia entered a new stage along with the shift of political regime in late 90s that marked the transition from a centralised, authoritarian regime to a more democratic, decentralised one. New legislation on MPAs has become more decentralised and democratic, and includes provision for the involvement of communities in the establishment of MPA. This research examined the body of legislation that covers community involvement in MPA establishment in Indonesia, and examined the extent to which the MPA establishment process has, in practice, become more democratic and decentralised. The research probed these issues using a qualitative methodology based on text/document analysis, interviews, focus group discussions, and participant observation. Field research sites were selected to be representative of different levels of government that can propose MPAs and different legal frameworks that can underpin their establishment. They are: the Savu Sea National Park, proposed by a provincial government, Derawan Archipelago Coastal Park, proposed by a district government, and no-take areas in Pangkep District, proposed by village governments. From the text/document analysis, it was found that MPA legislation provides opportunities for communities to be informed and consulted in the MPA establishment process. However, this falls short of the active participation of communities that, according to literature, is required in order for MPAs to be successful. Analysis of the results of field research showed that the complex web of legislation emanating from different levels of government resulted in context-specific patterns of community participation. Gaps in MPA legislation and mismatches with other national legislation have meant that current legislation is only fully operational for the establishment of national-level MPAs. However, there is no provision for community involvement in the management of national-level MPAs and, therefore no incentive for communities to participate in their establishment. The degree and form of community participation in the MPA establishment process was also dependent on the level of government responsible and/or budget availability. MPA establishment teams had to prioritise their use of the limited funding available. Teams tended to prioritise work with government agencies, whose support was needed to override or sidestep mismatches among evolving policies and legislation that might otherwise threaten the existence of the MPA. Consequently, community participation was usually considered a secondary priority. Moreover, an unforeseen outcome of the decentralisation process at a national level was that the power of local leaders was greatly enhanced. MPA establishment teams have to invest time and effort into getting approvals from these local kings , thereby pushing community participation further down the list of priorities. These circumstances represent a challenge to achievement of meaningful participation that is (at least) in accordance with the legislation. Two options to enhance community participation in the MPA establishment process are proposed. The first option is to involve communities in the framework of public-private partnerships; the second is to do so by establishing village-level MPAs. Both have opportunities and drawbacks; however in both cases communities will still rely heavily on other stakeholders (i.e. government and NGOs) to improve their capacity to participate meaningfully in the process. Commitment from these stakeholders is required to build the capacity of communities to play a leading role, not only in the establishment of MPAs but also in their subsequent management.