What is conservation? Activities that aim to protect the natural environment and reduce or limit the impacts of human activity towards it (Brown 2002; Rajeswar 2001; Schmidt 1997) Nature has an intrinsic value; environmental problems are caused by human exploitation; humankind are ethically obliged to protect the environment (Ghilarov 2002; Humphrey 2000; Soule 1985) Nature conservation movements - based on the interest of the self-preservation of humankind? Limits to Growth – We are nearing the Earth’s carrying capacity (Cohen 1995; Meadows et al . 1972; Robinson 1993; Sagoff 1995) Precautionary Principle - Damaging the environment = damaging ourselves as part of it; environmental conservation for our own survival (Cameron and Abouchar 1991, Kriebel et al . 2001; Lauck et al . 1998; Myers 1993)
http://www.ditjenphka.go.id/images/indo.png Conservation/Protected Area Categories (IUCN 1994)
Fortress Conservation (Brown 2002; Robinson 2010) Borders up the protected area to prevent further human interaction More suited for areas lacking human presence - categories I(a,b), II, III and IV Community Conservation (Brown 2002; Horwich and Lyon 2007) Enlist participation of local people living inside the protected areas, reduce environmental damages while ensuring the survival of the locals Suited for inhabited protected areas - categories V and VI In practice: not that clear cut (Brockington et al . 2008; Colchester 2004) Fortress approach in protected areas with significant human presence Protected areas with diverse regions needing complex approaches Conservation management approaches often combine aspects from both Shift from expert-based ‘fortress conservation’ towards a more ‘community conservation’ management approach (Berkes 2004; 2007) Community Conservation Inclusion of local communities into the natural ecosystem concept (Berkes 2004; 2007) into the protected area management scheme (Ward et al . 2006) Promoting co-management of natural resources (Berkes 2004; 2007) Focus on public participation as a form of stakeholder engagement (Grieve and Short 2007)
Local people excluded from decision making activities Mainly done in Jakarta, miles away from the location Not by those directly connected to the resources Lack of communication and understanding between national park authorities and the local people Led to poor public support and high resistance towards WNP Local people considered the ‘national park’ as a foreign concept 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: Community, in this sense, describes the socially varied groups of local people living on the islands of Wakatobi
(left-right) Maps showing resource use patterns; and important areas of ecosystem service in Wakatobi; Maps showing the result of the facilitated group discussions; and the conceptual draft from the public consultation session in Wakatobi
The outreach programme considers this group of local resource users as “good predators” of marine resources and that they are an integral part of the coastal ecosystem in Wakatobi since their tradition involves maintaining the ecosystem balance to ensure their own survival The outreach programme tries to share this point of view that “good resource users are the main actors of conservation” to both the resource user group and to government authorities Avoid promoting alternative livelihoods or providing financial/physical infrastructure assistance to local communities, as the programme felt that this would cause a shift from traditional values and create an over-reliance on outside help. Focus on maintaining traditional livelihoods and developing human resources to strengthen the interdependence between local communities with a healthy coastal environment.
during the preliminary public perception monitoring done in 2003, several individuals were noted by the joint programme as having potential organising skills and vested interest in the well-being of their communities These individuals were approached to help the joint programme in their community outreach programme, later becoming members of the ‘Outreach Team’ Talking and interacting directly with everyone they come across as they travel around their assigned regions, for example, talking to fishermen and algae farmers as they prepare to set sail or fix their boats or nets or as they return from the sea Different approaches through; island/village politics; group discussions; creation of cooperatives; one-to-one dialogues; befriending local figures; collaborating with religious leaders; or through community participatory projects Simplification: telling fishermen that “the reason why the national park is there is to help make sure that the resources will be there when you need them”, and that “conservation is to protect the source of your food, so that when you need food there will always be something to eat” Local knowledge -> resource mapping
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
Communities and conservation Wakatobi people traditionally regard themselves to have the obligation to maintain natural resources To ensure their posterity and livelihoods Growing environmental awareness brought this culture back to prominence Resulted in contributions toward the national park’s conservation efforts Reduces some financial and logistical constraints limiting conservation activities Processes initiated by the outreach team continued by members of the community Some have never directly interacted with the outreach team Local people starting to notice positive changes in the natural environment around them Local people feel current zoning scheme would be beneficial to them Prioritizes local fishers and limits access by non-locals Some felt that follow-up socialisation process has not been done properly
References Adams, D. (1985). So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish . New York: Harmony Books. Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18(3): 621-630. ________(2007). Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(39): 15188-15193. Brockington, D., Duffy, R. and Igoe, J. (2008). Nature Unbound: Conservation, Capitalism and The Future of Protected Areas . London: Sterling. Brown, K. (2002). Innovations for conservation and development. The Geographical Journal 168(1): 6-17. Cameron, J. and Abouchar, J. (1991) The precautionary principle: a fundamental principle of law and policy for the protection of the global environment. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 14: 1-27. Cohen, J.E. (1995). Population growth and Earth’s human carrying capacity. Science 269: 341-346. Colcehster, M. (2004). Conservation policy and indigenous peoples. Environmental Science & Policy 7: 145-153. Elliott, G., Mitchell, B., Wiltshire, B., Manan, A. and Wismer, S. (2001) Community Participation in Marine Protected Area Management: Wakatobi National Park, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Coastal Management 29: 295‐316. Ghilarov, A.M. (2002). Ecosystems functioning and intrinsic value of biodiversity. Oikos 90(2): 408-412. Grieve, C. and Short, K. (2007). Implementation of Ecosystem-Based Management in Marine Capture Fisheries: Case Studies from WWF’s Ecoregions . Gland, Switzerland: WWF International. Horwich, R.H. and Lyon, J. (2007). Community conservation: practitioners’answer to critics. Oryx 41: 376-385. Humphrey, M. (2000) ‘Nature’ in deep ecology and social ecology: contesting the core. Journal of Political Ideologies 5(2): 247-268. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (1994). Guidelines for Protected Areas Management Categories . IUCN: Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland. Kriebel, D., Tickner, J., Epstein, P., Lemons, J., Levins, R., Loechler, E.L., Quinn, M., Rudel, R., Schettler, T. and Stoto, M. (2001). The precautionary principle in environmental sciences. Environmental Health Perspectives 109(9): 871-876. Lauck, T., Clark, C.W., Mangel, M. and Munro, G.R. (1998). Implementing the precautionary principle in fisheries management through marine reserves. Marine Fisheries 8(1): S72-S78. Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. and Behrens III, W.W. (1972). The Limits to Growth: a Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind . New York: Universe Books. Myers, N. (1993). Biodiversity and the precautionary principle. Ambio 22(2/3): 74-79. Rajeswar, J. (2001). Conservation ethics versus development: how to obviate the dichotomy?. Sustainable Development 9: 16-23. Robinson, J.G. (1993). Limits to caring: sustainable living and the loss of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 7(1): 20-28. ________(2010). Ethical pluralism, pragmatism and sustainability in conservation practice. In Press. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V5X-50156XV-2/2/68341c3cb809fdc519bb0c7db46dc799. Biological Conservation. Sagoff, M. (1995). Carrying capacity and ecological economics. BioScience 45(9): 610-620. Schmidtz, D. (1997). When preservationism doesn’t preserve. Environmental Values 6(3): 327-339. Soule, M.E. (1985). What is conservation biology? BioScience 35(11): 727-734. Ward, T., Tarte, D., Hegerl, E. and Short, K. (2006) Ecosystem‐Based Management of Marine Fisheries . Gland, Switzerland: Global Marine Program WWF International.
Community Conservation in Wakatobi National Park, Indonesia
COASTAL COEXISTENCE Community Conservation in Wakatobi National Park, IndonesiaMESPOM Thesis Presentation By: Nara Wisesa
Contents • Introduction • Site Description • Research Questions • Methods • Results • Discussions • Conclusion
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 “Give them a fish and you feed them for a day. • Precautionary Principle Teach them to fish and you feed them for life.” (Old Proverb)
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 • Original Park Design 2000’s) – Divided into several zones – Local people excluded from decision • Different levels of accessibility making activities – Lack of communication and and resource use allocation understanding between national park • The majority of the National authorities and the local people Park was designated as no-take – Destructive fishing activities were zones rampant in the area • Zone designation decided in • KCN and blast fishing, brought and Jakarta without local public funded by external actors • Locals consider marine/coastal resources consultation/incorporating as inexhaustible local resource use patterns • WNP authorities unable to effectively • Populated islands are located monitor the whole area within the Core Zone – There is a need for increased community involvement (Elliott et al. 2001) 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 • Local Stakeholders – TNC-WWF team – Literature review – WNP authority – Interviews with local – Local people (representatives) stakeholders • Analysis • Additional subjects through – Qualitative snowball sampling • Interview/observation results • Interviews are semi-structured, • Literature/reference materials semi-formal, open-ended • Constraints • Done in Bahasa Indonesia – Temporal, logistical, practical • Only visited Wangiwangi and Kaledupa – Participatory observations • Representatives from Tomia and Binongko – Additional reference materials were met in Wanci – Potential Limits of snowball sampling • Presentations – No interview with local government • Audio/Visual documentations representatives • Scheduling clashes/time limitations
Results• Rezoning – Local people were involved from the beginning – In 2003, WNP authority, TNC- • Perception monitoring & awareness WWF and the local raising (2005) government initiated the • Community group discussions – process to redesign the how do they think the park should existing zoning scheme look like? (2006) • Two rounds of formal public • Integrate protection and consultations between all involved conservation needs with local stakeholders (2006 and 2007) – resource use needs resulting in the design drafts • Shift management power from – The second design draft (agreed upon by all stakeholders involved) central to regional became the implemented design • To achieve the goal of the for the park conservation of biodiversity • Public socialization process of the while improving local people park and implementation of the well-being new management scheme (2008- ongoing)
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 Zonation Nomenclature Original Scheme First Draft Final Design Take Area No Take Take Area No Take Take Area No Take Original Scheme Revision Schemes (%) Area (%) (%) Area (%) (%) 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
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 – Outreach team approach increase local community • Three aspects of support towards the conservation activities ‘marketing’ conservation – Two sides of outreach ideas to the community programme – Pyramid-esque aspect • Public – Guerilla-esque aspect – Public discussions, – Viral-esque aspect workshops, community empowerment exercises, • Took time until results provision of access to information become noticeable • Discreet – 3-4 years – Outreach team
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
“Give them a fish and you feed them for a day. Conclusion Teach them to fish and you feed them for a while.• Guidehas recently experienced a shiftand you feed them for life.” WNP them to manage the fishes 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 (Updated Proverb) – 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 uponThe people spoke // Changes were made // Fish kept swimming
So Long…and Thanks for All the Fish!(D. Adams 1985) Questions?