This power point file prepared by Dr. Greg Acciaioli, an anthropologist from the University of Western Australia in "Regionalism in State and non-State Perspective" seminar on Seminar Week Anthropology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indonesia, September 10th 2014. He shared his findings from ethnography research in Sulu Zone, the area termed by James Francis Warren. In this presentation, Acciaioli was showing to the audience how social exclusion happen in stateless local community in the area Borneo, Sulawesi, and the Southern Philippines. This presentation are showing to the audience about autocritic while the countries in Southeast Asia have campaign to build ASEAN Community 2015.

1. From the Sulu Zone to the Sulu Sulawesi
Marine Ecoregion: Regionalising the
Marine Interface of Borneo, Sulawesi and
the Southern Philippines
GREG ACCIAIOLI (THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA)
JULIAN CLIFTON (THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA)
HELEN BRUNT (WORLDFISH)
WOLFRAM DRESSLER, UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE
MICHAEL FABINYI, JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY
SARINDA SINGH, THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND

2. The University of Western Australia
Regionalisation of Insular Southeast Asia
 Arbitrariness of this region
• Alternative designations
• Archielagic Southeast Asia
• The Malay Archipelago
(Wallace)
• Tamadun Melayu
 Included nation-states
• Brunei Darussalam
• Indonesia
• Malaysia
• Philippines

3. The University of Western Australia
Regions within Insular Southeast
Asia: Biogeographic
 Wallace Line as faunal boundary
• Demarcating biogeographic zones
• West:
– Asiatic species
– Sunda shelf
• East:
– Australian species (with some Asiatic)
– Sahul shelf
 Transition areas:
• Wallacea: islands not connected to
dry land of either land mass
– Between Wallace’s line and Lydekker’s Line
• Weber’s Line: tipping point
between dominance by Asian
species against those of Australia
origin

4. Regions within Insular Southeast
Asia: Cultural
 Shelly Errington’s Centrist
Archipelago within Insular
Southeast Asia
• Composition:
• Java
• Bali
• Borneo
• Sulawesi
• Philippines
 Differentiated from Exchange
Archipelago
• Sumatra (except Javanese-dominated
Lampung)
• Eastern Indonesia
– Lesser Sundas
– Maluku
The University of Western Australia

5. Regions within Insular Southeast Asia:
Economic, Political, Cross-cultural
 The Sulu Zone (James F. Warren)
 In part an economic trade-oriented Zone
• Extraction of raw products from southern
The University of Western Australia
frontiers
– Land products: birds’ nests, etc.
– Marine products tripang, etc.
• Northeast Borneo
• Coastal Sulawesi
• Central and Western Mindanao
• Assembly and exchange at Sulu Sultanate’s
entrepot, Jolo
– Transhipment to China and Elsewhere
 Trade also entail political dimensions
• ‘ … not just a “spatial site” of economic,
cross-cultural and symbolic contact … a
meeting ground and arena of potential
antagonism and ... coercion, inequality and
conflict’ (Warren 2011)
• Piracy: response to colonial restrictions
• Slave raids for labour
• Continuing process of reconstructing ethnic
identity
 Links to pressures from wider economic world of
colonial capitalism and free trade

6. The University of Western Australia
Sulu Zone definition
 ‘The Sulu Zone constituted a
Southeast Asian economic
region with a multi-ethnic pre-colonial
Malayo-Muslim state,
and an ethnically
heterogeneous set of societies
of diverse political backgrounds
and alignments that could be
set within a stratified hierarchy
of kinship oriented stateless
societies’, maritime nomadic
fishers and forest dwellers.’
(Warren 2011).

7. Emergent Conservation Zones in Insular Southeast Asia Region
The University of Western Australia
 Global biodiversity hotspots
• 4 of 35 global hotspots found
in Insular Southeast
Asia/Melanesia
 Coral Triangle (Indonesia,
Philippines, as ‘the hotspot for
marine diversity’ (Biodiversity
Hotspots: Distribution and
Protection of Conservation Priority
Areas, Zachos, Frank E., Habel,
Jan Christian (Eds.). Springer,
2011)
• (Indonesia
• Philippines
• Malaysia
• Timor Leste
• Papua New Guinea
• Solomon Islands
Figure 1. Species richness and endemism in Southeast Asia. The four biodiversity hotspots
overlapping Southeast Asia are highlighted in red. Bars represent the percentage
of species endemic to the respective hotspot. Numbers in parentheses represent total and
endemic species known to science, respectively. The island of Borneo includes the
political divisions of Brunei, Malaysia and Indonesia. The Indo-Burma hotspot includes part of
Bhutan, Nepal, eastern India, southern China, as well as islands such
as Hainan and the Andamans. Details of biodiversity hotspot boundaries, and numbers of total
and endemic species within each hotspot were taken from Conservation International [74].

8. The Coral Triangle Initiative
The University of Western Australia

9. The University of Western Australia
Nested Hierarchy of Conservation Zones:
Coral Triangle Initiative
Sulu Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion (NB: near overlap with Sulu Zone)
Semporna Priority Conservation Area
Tun Sakaran Marine Park

10. Hierarchy of Marine Conservation Zones and Partnerships:
Overlap and Complementarity in governance
The University of Western Australia
 Coral Triangle Initiative
• Multilateral partnership between the
Nation-State Governments of Indonesia,
Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines,
Solomon Islands and Timor Leste
• Secondary Partners: Asian Development
Bank, Conservation International, The
Nature Conservancy (TNC), and the World
Wildlife Fund (WWF), the United States
Government (USAid), Australian
Government

11. Hierarchy of Marine Conservation Zones and Partnerships:
Overlap and Complementarity in governance
The University of Western Australia
 Lead Organization
 World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
 Key Parties
 Indonesia
 Ministries of Environment
 Ministry of Forestry
 Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries
 Kehati Foundation
 Foreign Affairs Department
 Bunaken National Park
 The Nature Conservancy
 Development Planning Agencies of the
Provinces of Manado and East Kalimantan
 WWF Indonesia
 Malaysia
 Department of Fisheries-Sabah
 Sabah Parks
 Sabah Wildlife Department
 Ministry of Tourism
 Culture and Environment
 Universiti Malaysia Sabah
 Drainage and Irrigation Department-Sabah
 Sabah Forestry Department
 Department of Town and Regional Planning-Sabah
 Department of Fisheries-Malaysia
 Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment
 WWF Malaysia
 Philippines
 Department of Environment and Natural Resources
 Department of Agriculture
 Department of Interior and Local Government
 Government of the Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao
 Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research
and Development
 Other Partners
 Packard Foundation
 U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
 U.S. State Department
 Australian Department of Environment and Heritage
 United States Agency for International Development

12. Stated Aims of Nested Conservation Areas: Overt Functions
The University of Western Australia
 The five goals in the Coral Triangle Initiative Regional Plan of Action
• Priority seascapes designated and effectively managed.
• Ecosystem Approach to Management of Fisheries (EAFM) and other marine resources fully
applied.
• Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) established and effectively managed.
• Climate change adaptation measures achieved.
• Threatened species status improving.’
 Foci of Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion
• Seagrasses
• Mangroves
• Live Reef Fish Trade
 Foci of Semporna Priority Conservation Area
• Coral reef protection
• Shark protection initiative
• Tourism enhancement
 Overall management goals of Tun Sakaran Marine Park
• Protect, maintain and enhance biodiversity and the health of the environment.
• Maximise opportunities for economic development and sustainable resource use.
• Ensure local people are involved in, and benefit from, the creation of the park.
• Build community and public awareness about the importance of establishing and maintaining the
park.
– [Enviornmental Education for Inhabitants (Pride Program of RARE)]

13. Covert Functions of Marine Protected Areas: Securitisation
 Overtly ‘to safeguard the rich diversity
of marine life found in the area’
(Chagos Conservation Trust)
• Resilience to climate change and
environmental disruptions
• 49% of reefs found in Indian
The University of Western Australia
Ocean
 Covertly a securitisation move
• Forestall the movement back of
Chagossians evicted in the 1960s-
70s and insulation of US Air Force
Base on Diego Garcia
‘…the [Chagossians] would find it
difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their
claim for resettlement on the islands if
the entire Chagos Archipelago were a
marine reserve’
(2009 UK diplomatic cable published via
Wikileaks)
 Chagos Marine Reserve
• Declared 1 April 2010 as a ‘fully
no-take marine reserve’
• Largest such reserve in the world

14. The University of Western Australia
Security concerns of Sabah
 Illegal Migration in Sabah
• Labour migration from (eastern)
Indonesia
• Stateless people from southern
Philippines
• I.e. Maritime people of the Sulu
Zone
– Refugees from sectarian conflict in the southern
Philippines
– Sama diLaut (Bajau Laut)
– Tausug (Suluk)
 ‘Invasion’ of eastern Sabah on 11
February 2013
• 235 armed militants sent by claimant
to Sulu Sultanship, Jamalul Kiram III,
to reclaim eastern Sabah for the
Sultanate
– Continuing annual payment of 5300 MYR
($1700 USD): cession payment or rent?
• Routed by Malaysian military after 1
month, 1 week, 6 days standoff
– Operasi Daulat (Operation Sovereignty)
 Attempted resuscitation of sphere of
influence of Sulu Zone

15. Creation of Eastern Security Zone (ESSZONE) – 25 March 2013
The University of Western Australia

16. Conservation zones as another form of disciplining populations
The University of Western Australia
 WWF’s covert acknowledgement:
‘Furthermore, human migration and
complex socio-economic factors
pertaining to the development of
Sabah contribute to ecosystem
degradation.’
(http://www.wwf.org.my/about_wwf/wh
at_we_do/marine/sulu_sulawesi_marin
e_ecoregion_programme/ )
 Conversion of inhabitants of various
conservation regions zones into
regions into ‘stakeholders’
 Stakeholder as a new sort of ‘subject’
(à la Foucault)
• Subject to new forms of discipline
and hence domestication
 Problems in ranking of stakeholders
 Case study of Bajau Laut (Sama
diLaut) of Sulu-Sulawesi Marine
Ecoregion / Sulu Zone as doubly
estranged stakeholders

17. Stateless stakeholders: the
Sama Dilaut (Bajau Laut)
The University of Western Australia
Economic reliance on marine resources: food,
fuel and building materials
Reef and pelagic fishers
Cultural affiliation with maritime environment:
spiritual belief systems
Connectivity between Sama Dilaut communities dispersed across Southeast Asia
‘...[for Sama Dilaut], the eastern seas of island Southeast Asia are an intimately familiar space,
full of historically, culturally, and spiritually significant places’ (Nolde 2009)

18. Stateless stakeholders: the
Sama Dilaut (Bajau)
Sama Dilaut statelessness in Malaysia (Sabah):
- classification as ‘Philippine’ according to historic origin
- movement between Malaysian, Indonesian and Philippine waters
- absence of birth certificates / ID cards
- public perceptions and official reluctance
The University of Western Australia

19. The University of Western Australia
Differentiation of Bajau in Sabah
 Bajau Laut (Sama Dilaut) as outsiders
 Bajau Tempatan as insiders
• Malaysian Citizens
• Orientation to terrestrial settlements
– Bajau Omadal
– Bajau Selakan
– Etc.
• Landholders
– Some with land certificates
– Some with customary tenure
 Ambivalent relationship to Bajau Laut
• Our ancestors were like that
• But now we are modern Malaysians
• Origins festivalised in Regatta Lepa
 Bajau Laut label them ‘Bajau Kubang’
• ‘(Bajau of the [Pig/Water Buffalo] Sty’

20. Bajau Tempatan as Legitimate Stakeholders in Tun Sakaran Marine Park
The University of Western Australia
 Three populations resident in Park
• Bajau Tempatan [Malaysian citizens]
• Suluk (Tausug) [Stateless]
• Bajau Laut (Bajau Palauh, Sama Dilaut)
[Stateless]
 Continuing recognition of Bajau Tempatan land
rights
• Rent to be paid by Sabah Parks for ranger
stations
– Or located off the land
• Continuing performance of kenduri (i.e. Mandi
Safar)
– Possession by ancestral spirits of Bajau Tetagen and Bajau
Selakan as validating continuing ownership of land
• Official granting of permission for seaweed
cultivation,
– Permit process requires a Malaysian identity card (i.e. Malaysian
citizenship)
– Payment of a fee
– Restriction of 1 ha. / individual

21. The University of Western Australia
The Peripheral Position of the Bajau Laut & Suluk
 Inclusive policy of Sabah Parks
• Allowance of Bajau Laut settlements on islands
• Inclusion in some environmental education programs
– Pride program of RARE (partner of TNC)
 Tolerance of seaweed cultivation (without permit)
• Proliferation of Suluk seaweed cultivation in General
Use Zone (Zon Guna Umum DARK BLUE)
– Bajau Laut (e.g. Sibuan) as gleaners of Suluk seaweed plots
– Patron-client relations
 Bajau Laut (e.g. Maega) emerging as seaweed cultivators in
own right
• Near shore plots without formal permits
 No toleration of continuance of ‘traditional’ livelihood as reef
fishers
• Continuing exclusion from No-Take Zones (NTZs)
– Spawning Protection Zones (Zon Pemeliharaan RED)
– Conservation Zones (Zon Konservasi YELLOW)
• Continuing Fishing in
– Pelagic fishing (Zon Pelagik LIGHT BLUE)
– General Use Zone where no under seaweed cultivation

22. Exclusion: Resentment by the Bajau Tempatan
 ‘Squatting’ by Bajau Laut on island Land owned by Bajau
The University of Western Australia
Tempatan
• Periodic evictions
– Sibuan 2013
– Partnership of local Bajau Tempatan with local Chinese entrepreneur
– Projected dive resort
 Resentment of tolerance by Sabah Parks of Suluk and Bajau
Laut seaweed cultivation
• ‘Why should they [Bajau Laut and Suluk] allowed to
cultivate any amount of seaweed without a permit?’
– Malaysian citizens must pay annually for permit
– Restriction to 1 ha. / permit
 Formation of a corporation under the auspices of Lembaga
Kemajuan Ikan Malaysia (Foundation for Malaysian
Fisheries Progress)
• Founded by a Semporna-resident Bajau Tempatan
• By banding together in a cooperative/company can gain
a permit beyond 1 ha.
• Aim to displace Suluk seaweed cultivators from General
Use Zone north of Sebangkat

23. Double Estrangement of the Stateless Bajau Laut (and Suluk): Who
constitutes ‘The Community’ in Community Conservation?
 Problematisation of unity/harmony of community in community conservation
• Agrawal and Gibson (1999) ‘Enchantment and Disenchantment: The
The University of Western Australia
Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation’
 Most notably locally resident Indigenous Peoples regarded as constituting
‘the community’ with whom to form joint/co-management
• E.g. Community conservation agreements in Lore Lindu National Park,
Central Sulawesi, Indonesia
– Deal only with the Lembaga Adat of Indigenous To Lindu
– Neglect of local settlers (Bugis spontaneous migrants, local transmigrants, etc.)
 Analogous situation in Tun Sakaran Marine Park
• Primary orientation to maintaining rights of Bajau Tempatan (Indigenous
People of the Semporna region)
• (1st level) Estrangement of Stateless Bajau and Suluk from this
Conservation Community
– Tolerance of their habitation but restriction of livelihoods
– No protection against depredations of Bajau Tempatan

24. 2nd Level Estrangement: Continuing Marginalisation of Community
Members in the Marine Planning Processes of the Conservation
Zones of Insular Southeast Asia
The University of Western Australia
Continuing problems defined by:
1. How stakeholders are defined and
ranked in the nested conservation
zones/marine protected areas
2. How stakeholder participation is
implemented in these MPAs?
3. Continuing consequences of
statelessness and entailed marginality
for livelihoods, participation and
conservation enforcement for these
groups

25. 1) Defining stakeholders in the Coral Triangle
TNC/WWF (2008): ‘Individuals, groups or institutions who have a vested interest in the
natural resources of the project area and/or who potentially will be affected by project
activities and have something to gain or lose if conditions change or stay the same’
In principle recognition of need to enable marginalised communities to participate, with
specific considerations relating to Indigenous peoples
In practice, priority afforded to ensuring and managing participation of ‘key stakeholders’ in
TNC/WWF projects
- Grouping and ranking procedures utilised that ensure local communities are not regarded
as key stakeholders
The University of Western Australia
Source: TNC/WWF (2008) Capacity Action Planning for Protected Areas
Defining stakeholders in the
Coral Triangle

26. ‘It is imperative to involve the right people and agencies from the beginning to ensure the greatest level
of support possible’
‘Just because someone is a stakeholder does not mean that you will want them on your project team’
Explicit prioritisation of stakeholders favouring project
Clear potential for stereotyping
The University of Western Australia Sources: TNC (2005) http://www.conservationgateway.org/file/methodology-rank-social-and-institutional-stakeholders
TNC/WWF (2008) Capacity Action Planning for Protected Areas
Defining stakeholders in the
Coral Triangle (1)

27. Implementing participation in the
Coral Triangle
Meaningful participation restricted to high influence, high importance group
Subsistence users: two-way communication, but no commitment to act – information
gathering exercises
Other groups: one-way communication
The University of Western Australia
Influence (power)
High
Importance to
project
Low High
Low
Group: Government
Strategy: Collaborate
Group: Local elite/media
Strategy: Inform/consult
Group: Local resource users
Strategy: Consult
Group: General public
Strategy: Inform
Source: TNC (2009) Protected Area Management Planning: A Target-Based Approach

28. Implementing participation in the
Coral Triangle
Normative rationale Substantive rationale Instrumental rationale
The University of Western Australia
Who is to be included? Those who have a
Source: Adapted from Wesselink et al. (2011)
stake
Those who have
additional knowledge
Those with blocking power
and those needed for
implementation
What is included? Participants’ concerns
and views
Policy makers’
concerns and all other
knowledge
Policy makers’ concerns and
selected others’ knowledge
How is it included? In all stages and issues Only when it adds
substantive value
Only when it ensures smooth
implementation
Clear emphasis on instrumental rationale in Coral Triangle case
‘Key stakeholders’ are those judged to be in positions of power and influence
- goals and objectives reflect organisational priorities
- participation constructed to enhance chances of project success

29. Consequences for marginal
stateless groups and conservation
Stateless Sama Dilaut in maritime Malaysia
Sama Dilaut claims to marine resource tenure or
ownership rendered both
Illegal (view of government)
Illegitimate (view of Bajau Tempatan)
Unable to be recognised as ‘indigenous’ or
‘traditional’ culture
Exclusion from local stakeholder
community of Bajau Tempatan
Unlikely to be involved with legal or administrative
bureaucracy due to perceived personal risk
Peripheral minority group further marginalised
through statelessness
Dominant negative stereotype easily reinforced
Long term weakening of community identity through
continuing movements of Bajau Laut
Transitions of families to land / urban areas
The University of Western Australia
in search of livelihoods

30. The University of Western Australia
Continuing stereotypes
 Evans (1922): ‘...the Bajau is a lazy spendthrift,
a liar, a cheat, a thief, a wheedler, a blusterer
and a swaggerer. Piracy, raiding and burning
Chinese shops...is the Bajau’s highest kind of
pleasure.’
 Ali (2010): ‘[Bajau] children will end up doing
something illegal or contributing to social
problems in future as they do not receive
proper education...By exposing these children
to the importance of taking care of their health,
manners and self discipline, they will become
independent, aware of the importance to
sustain nature and many more.’

31. Consequences for marginal
stateless groups and conservation
Historically, Sama Dilaut communities maintained integrity through minimising outsider
groups’ influence and power
The University of Western Australia
Statelessness and conservation
Coral Triangle Initiative
- strengthening of State control over
borderlands and maritime space
- focused in region where borders are
diffuse, poorly enforced and actively
disputed
Marine conservation and management becomes symbol of State and alliance with powerful
international NGOs
- opposition or dissent implies rejection of State and rationale for conservation
- easy fit with historical and contemporary narratives of ‘sea nomads’
- non-participation outcomes may serve broader political objectives of controlling border
communities

32. Consequences for marginal
stateless groups and conservation
The University of Western Australia
Statelessness and conservation
Many other areas of concern regarding CTI (finance, enforcement, political co-operation,
NGO influence)
- but CTI programme will inevitably impact stateless and marginal communities’ livelihoods
Research questions
- do stateless communities have the capacity to participate more effectively in management?
- will states recognise use rights outside of ‘traditional’ or ‘indigenous’ envelope?
- can influential NGOs represent all users regardless of citizenship when planning shared
marine resources?

33. The University of Western Australia
CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
Numbers of stateless stakeholders in Coral Triangle set
to increase: food insecurity, political instability, climate
change, individual mobility and willingness to migrate
Adherence to target-driven regional marine planning
engenders instrumental rationale for participation,
excluding local resource users
Concept of ‘stakeholders’ needs refining to reflect
differing political status of resource user community
Need to undo double estrangement/exclusion of Bajau
Laut
More expansive notions of local stakeholders not
necessarily seen as cohesive communities
States and NGOs must recognise benefits of more
inclusive approach for meeting long term conservation
outcomes