Challenges of Marine Protected Areas around … of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 1...

Challenges of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 1

Challenges of Marine Protected Areas

around Lombok, Indonesia

Muhammad Erdi Lazuardi

Master of Development Practice Program

2013


Challenges of Marine Protected Areas around Lombok, Indonesia

Written by:

Muhammad Erdi Lazuardi

Supervised by:

Prof. Jeffrey Sayer

Dr. Agni Klintuni Boedhihartono

November, 2013

Master of Development Practice Program

James Cook University

PO Box 6811

Cairns QLD 4870

Australia

Cover photograph: Selong Belanak beach of the Central Lombok District. © Muhammad E. Lazuardi


Content

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6

Objective ................................................................................................................................ 7

Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Results and discussion ................................................................................................................ 9

East Lombok study ................................................................................................................. 9

Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA ......................................................................................... 10

Governance (institutional) indicators ............................................................................... 11

Biophysical conditions ..................................................................................................... 13

Socio-economic indicators ............................................................................................... 18

North Lombok study ............................................................................................................ 19

Challenges ................................................................................................................................ 23

Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 23

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. 24

References ................................................................................................................................ 25

Attachments .............................................................................................................................. 27


Tables

Table 1. Historical time line of marine regulation and conservation in national and district

levels. ......................................................................................................................... 10

Table 2. Governance (institutional) indicators checklist of the GSL MPA. ............................ 12

Table 3. Manta tow data conducted 24, 28 and 29 September 2013 in Gili Sulat and Gili

Lawang Islands (inside the GSL MPA) and PBK Islands (outside the GSL MPA). . 27

Table 4. List of part respondents .............................................................................................. 31

Table 5. Questionnaire. ............................................................................................................ 32

Figures

Figure 1. Study area of East Lombok District (Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA) and islands.

(Map: M.I. Lubis) ...................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2.a. Fishermen’s opinions both inside and outside the MPA on the question “Has GSL

MPA been effectively managed?”. b. Fishermen’s opinions both inside and outside

of MPA on the question “What is needed to be improved in GSL MPA?”. ........... 13

Figure 3. Fishermen’s opinions both inside and outside the GSL MPA on the mangrove cover

condition inside the GSL MPA................................................................................ 14

Figure 4. Substrate conditions inside and outside the GSL MPA based on manta tow surveys,

September 2013. ...................................................................................................... 15

Figure 5. Hard coral and rubble coverage both inside and outside the GSL MPA based on

manta tow survey, September 2013. ........................................................................ 16

Figure 6. The different between hard coral and rubble cover based on the manta tow survey,

September 2013 in the GSL MPA and PBK Islands. .............................................. 17

Figure 7. The average of hard coral coverage both inside and outside the GSL MPA based on

mantatow survey, September 2013. ......................................................................... 18

Figure 8. Fishermen’s opinions both inside and outside the GSL MPA on their fishing catches

and income currently compare to before the establishment of the GSL MPA. ....... 19

Figure 9. Historical timeline of LMNLU in North Lombok District. ...................................... 20


Pictures

Picture 1. Coral damage caused by bomb fishing in Gili Sulat Island. ................................... 15

Picture 2.a. Local fish traders in Sugian village are waiting for fishes catch from liftnet boats.

b. Dry anchovy in Sugian village. .......................................................................... 18

Picture 3. Traditional boats in Gangga village of North Lombok District. ............................. 20

Picture 4.a. Gili Lawang and Gili Sulat Islands of the GSL MPA, East Lombok District. b.

Beach along the North Lombok District. ................................................................ 22

Picture 5. Manta tow survey in the Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA and PBK Islands. ........... 33

Picture 6. Coral transplantation in Gili Kondo Island. ............................................................ 33

Picture 7. Lifnet boats around the Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA. ........................................ 34

Picture 8. The Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA office and guesthouse. ................................... 34


Abstract

Indonesia has established Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) that encompass more than 15

million ha. The national target is to reach 20 million ha of MPAs by 2020. This paper

questions the efficacy of these targets. It posits that many MPAs are ineffective according to

the indicators of governance, biophysical conditions, and socio-economic outcomes. We

studied two seascapes, in East Lombok and North Lombok. The results in East Lombok

indicate ineffective management of the Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA (1,206 ha). In North

Lombok (117 km coastline), marine resources are managed by local communities under the

North Lombok Fisherman Union (LMNLU). The results in North Lombok indicate effective

marine resource management. This is attributed to the strength of the LMNLU and their local

rule, known as ‘awig-awig’. There are many challenges in achieving MPA effectiveness. We

learn that fishermen-based management can provide lessons learnt regarding the beneficial

stewardship of marine resources, ones that can inform the enhancement of MPA

management. One lesson learnt is that fishermen, if treated as agents of management, rather

than objects to be managed, will be effective marine resource stewards.

Introduction

Since the establishment of the Ministry of Marine and Fisheries in 1999, Indonesia has

recently allocated many marine protected areas (MPAs) that total more than 15 million

hectares. This is part of the national agenda which aims to allocate 20 million hectares of

MPAs by 2020 (Directorate for Conservation of Area and Fish Species, 2012). In addition, it

is also part of the local autonomy in which local governments attempt to manage their natural

resources since the national reform movement in 1998. Furthermore, this achievement shows

how the bottom-up and the top-down approaches work, and the development of community

involvement.

However, many people feel sceptical about the government’s target due to some

challenges in achieving the effective management of MPAs. There is widespread agreement

that establishing conservation areas is easier than their maintenance. This is a long process

where management components such as the management body, management plan and zoning,

activities and sustainable financing are developed to ensure natural resources are well

maintained by improving the condition of the natural resources and reducing pressure, as well

as providing socio-economic benefits to the local community. According to Agus Dermawan,


the Director of Conservation of Area and Fish Species – The Ministry of Marine and Fisheries

(Kompas, 2013) many MPAs have been assessed and determined to be ineffective. To this

point, MPAs should be conceived as still in the initiation phase. Their effectiveness can

mainly be measured by three indicators: governance (institutional), biophysical conditions,

and socio-economic indicators (Directorate for Conservation of Area and Fish Species, 2012;

Pomeroy, Parks & Watson, 2004; Carter, Soemodinoto & White, 2011). Therefore, it is

interesting to observe how an MPA works and what challenges it faces to be effectively

managed in the future.

The Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang (GSL) MPA was established in 2004, by the East

Lombok District government which is one of five marine conservation initiatives around

Lombok Island. These initiatives include Gili Matra, Gili Gede, Teluk Bumbang and Tanjung

Cina covering 54,054 hectares (Ningtias, Yulianto, Soemodinoto, Kartawijaya, Herdiana,

Warmadewa, Hasbi & Murtawan, 2013). Within 8 years of the establishment of the GSL

MPA, there were many challenges to their effective management. On the other hand, in the

North Lombok District (comprised of 117 km of coast line), there are no current MPAs

(except in Gili Matra), but marine resources are managed by a communal authority named

LMNLU (North Lombok Fisherman Union). Thus, there are different experiences and

characteristics between East Lombok and North Lombok especially Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang

MPA compared with the LMNLU.

Objective

This study attempts to examine, first, the effectiveness of MPAs in East Lombok by observing

three indicators: governance (institutional), biophysical conditions, and socio-economic

benefits and trough a comparison of these characteristics inside and outside the GSL MPA.

The effectiveness of management can be assessed by simply determining how the MPA

benefits the local people and how the natural capital changing. Secondly, some challenges for

the management in the GSL MPA will be identified. Thirdly, the North Lombok coastal area

management under LMNLU will be observed to gain a different perspective, experience and

benefit from the lessons learnt in the management of marine protected areas. Strengths and

weaknesses will be identified and opportunities and threats from both seascapes are provided.


Methods

Observations were made mainly in the East Lombok seascape between 15 August and 6

October 2013. Fishermen’s perceptions were considered in the evaluation of the effectiveness

of the Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA, both inside and outside the MPA using quota sampling

(Miller & Brewer, 2003). Sugian village fishermen respondents represent the perceptions of

fishermen inside the GSL MPA, while Labuan Pandan village fishermen respondents

represent fishermen perceptions outside the GSL MPA. Key informants, NGOs and

government staff also provided valuable input towards the evaluation using unstructured

interviews (Miller and Brewer, 2003). Some documents from academics, NGOs and the

government were collected for triangulation of findings (Chambers, 1999; Miller & Brewer,

2003).

Biophysical conditions on the coral reef was conducted both inside (Gili Sulat and Gili

Lawang Islands) and outside the GSL MPA which included the Gili Petagan, Bidara and

Kondo Islands (PBK Islands) using the manta tow method (English, Wilkinson & Baker,

1997). The condition of the mangroves was collected from the fishermen’s perceptions.

Figure 1. Study area of East Lombok District (Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA) and islands.

(Map: M.I. Lubis)


The other seascape – the North Lombok District (comprising of 117 km of coast line)

– was assessed using unstructured interviews, and collecting some documents from

academics, NGOs and the government for triangulation of findings.

Interviewees included representatives from the following bodies:

1. Local government of the East Lombok and North Lombok District consists of Marine

and Fisheries Agency, Forestry Agency, and Planning Agency (Bappeda).

2. Management office of the Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA.

3. Fishermen in Sugian and Labuan Pandan village of the East Lombok District, and

Gangga village of the North Lombok District.

4. NGOs and institutions such as LMNLU, Santiri, Konsepsi, Koslata, WCS, Universitas

Mataram and WWF-Indonesia Nusa Tenggara Program.

Results and discussion

East Lombok study

Most of the fishermen in Sugian and Labuan Pandan village utilize traditional practices,

including hooks and lines, nets and spear guns and are equipped with small boats (1-4

persons). The East Lombok District government classifies fishermen’s livelihoods into 3

categories which are “real fishermen”; “part time fishermen”; and “occasional fishermen”.

Real fishermen are defined as having livelihoods that are built solely on fishing activities, part

time fishermen mainly derive their livelihoods from fishing but they have additional income

from other sectors such as agriculture, while occasional fishermen use fishing activities to

support their main livelihood activities. The total number of fishermen in Sugian village is

118 (8% of the labour force), while the total number of fishermen in Labuan Panda village is

135 (6% of labor force) (BPMPD, 2012; Sahnan, 2010; Sambelia Subdistrict, 2013).

According to a participatory meeting in Sugian, participants calculated the ratio of real

fishermen, part time fishermen, and occasional fishermen as 1:7:12. This shows that the

majority of fishermen in Sugian village are “occasional fishermen”.

The questionnaire was given to 24 fishermen respondents in Sugian village (12

respondents) and Labuan Pandan (12 respondents). All respondents were male and most of

them (70.8%) graduated from elementary school. More than half the respondents (63%) are


older than 41 years old. Fifty four percent of respondents were “real fishermen”, while the

rest are part time fishermen.

Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA

Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang are two small unpopulated islands located north east of Lombok

Island within a distance of 1.5 km from the mainland (Lombok Island). Gili Sulat and Gili

Lawang Islands were declared a MPA in 2004 by the East Lombok District Decree: SK

Bupati Lombok Timur No 188.45/452/KP/2004 (Bupati Lombok Timur, 2004) with the

purpose of ensuring sustainable management of fisheries and natural resources and being

responsible for community welfare (Lombok Timur Marine and Fisheries Agency, 2010). The

total conserved area is 1,206 hectares which is located S 80 16.77’ – 20.73’ and E 116

0 41.1’ –

44.58’. Formally, this area is located in Sugian, Darakunci and Dadap Village of Sambelia

Subdistrict of East Lombok District, West Nusa Tenggara Province. Sugian village can be

reached from Mataram city by 3.5 hours of driving, while Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang can be

reached from Sugian using motorboat for about 15 minutes. The circumference of Gili Sulat

Island is 12.6 km, while Gili Lawang Island is 9.4 km.

Table 1. Historical time line of marine regulation and conservation in national and district levels.

Year Events Notes

National Level

1985 Act number 9 About Fisheries

1990 Act number 5 About Conservation of biological conditions and

their ecosystem resources

2004 Act number 31 About Fisheries, a revision on Act number 9 year

1985

Decree of Marine and Fisheries Minister

number Kep.38/Men/2004

About general orientation of coral reef

management

2007 Government Regulation number 60 About Conservation on fisheries resources

2008 Regulation of Minister of Marine and

Fisheries Republic of Indonesia number:

Per.17/Men/2008

About conservation area on coastal and small

islands

2009 Act number 45 About Fisheries, a revision on Act number 31 year

2004

Regulation of Minister of Marine and


Per.02/Men/2009

About the procedure of determining waters

conservation area


2010 Regulation of Minister of Marine and


Per30/Men/2010

About Planning on management and zoning waters

conservation area

District Level

1983 Mangrove rehabilitation in Gili Sulat, Gili

Lawang, and Gili Petagan islands

Supported by JICA

1994 Decree of the Ministry of Forestry Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang as a forest reserve

2004 Decree of Head of East Lombok District

number: 188.45/452/KP/2004

About Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang of Sambelia

Subdistrict as a Local Marine Protected Area

2006 Local Regulation of East Lombok District

number 10

The management of Local Marine Protected Area

2009 The decree of the Minister of Forestry SK

Menhut No 598/Menhut – II/ 2009

Reconfirms Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang as a forest

reserve

Local Regulation of East Lombok District

number 2

Prohibition of coral mining in East Lombok

District

2010 Decree of Head of East Lombok District

number: 188.45/445/KP/2010

Formation of local surveillance and the prevention

of coral mining in East Lombok District

The GSL MPA management office

established

2011 Conflict of fishing area A conflict between local fishermen and fish traders

in Sugian with outsider fishermen and fish traders

Awig-awig in Sugian under “SATGAS Pada

Angen” (local surveillance group)

Awig-awig about local regulation of fishing

activities around Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang

islands

Governance (institutional) indicators

Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang Islands are under forestry management by the decree of the

Ministry of Forestry 1994 and 2009. According to the Head of Forest Agency of the East

Lombok District, there is no overlapping authority between the Forest Agency and the GSL

management office. The mangrove forest is under forest agency authority, while the water

area is under the Marine and Fisheries agency. He quotes the Ministry of Forestry regulation

number 22, 2012 about the utilization of environmental services and ecotourism in protected

forests. However, there is no staff, ranger and office of forestry in Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang

Islands.


Table 2. Governance (institutional) indicators checklist of the GSL MPA.

Governance

components

Check

list Note

MPA established East Lombok District Decree in 2004 (SK Bupati Lombok Timur No

188.45/452/KP/2004)

Structure of

management body

There are only 4 staff. Head of MPA, administration, field staff, and

office assistant

Activities X - GSL MPA doesn’t have documentation on natural resources

(coral reef, mangrove, fish population) and their changes

- Marine patrols only 1 – 2 times a year

- There is no natural asset resources and resource use monitoring

Zoning system Zoning system under implementation but not legalised

Budget The budget is $1,500 per year, of which the majority is used for

administrative costs

Community

involvement

X There are no activities that involve the community except for an

initial meeting on the MPA establishment process and building an

office.

The Marine and Fisheries Agency built an MPA office in 2010. However, according

to the Head of Marine and Fisheries Agency of the East Lombok District, the GSL MPA

management is not effective due to staff and budgetary limitations. Among fishermen

respondents, both inside the MPA and outside the MPA, the majority - 54.5% and 72.7%

respectively, agree that the GSL MPA is not effectively managed (Figure 2.a.). It is purported

that destructive fishing methods are used and surveillance is unable to keep up with

monitoring responsibilities. Thus many fishermen believe that the GSL MPA management

body must increase their marine patrol services in order to reduce the destructive fishing

practices (Figure 2.b.). In addition, although some research has been carried out by students,

academic institutions and NGOs, the GSL MPA management office claims that they don’t

have documented findings of this issue.


Figure 2.a. Fishermen’s opinions both inside and outside the MPA on the question “Has GSL MPA been

effectively managed?”. b. Fishermen’s opinions both inside and outside of MPA on the question

“What is needed to be improved in GSL MPA?”.

The local community attempted to develop awig-awig and local surveillance such as

“Satgas Pada Angin” in Sugian to prevent destructive fishing practices in 2011. They

identified the bombing fishermen are from Tanjung and Timbegali of Dadap village, Batusela

of Darakunci village, Pedamekan of Belanting village and Labuhan Lombok village, and coral

miners are in Menagabaris of Padak village and Kurubian of Padakguar village. However,

their efforts don’t have enough support from other villages, so they don’t have the capability

to organize a large group of fishermen to prevent destructive fishing. Moreover, the

government also attempts to develop local surveillance named KPPL. However, KPPL also

hasn’t effectively worked due to the top down approach and limited budget as well as lack of

sense of belonging in the community.

Biophysical conditions

The natural assets in Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang Islands are mangroves, coral reef and

seagrass ecosystems. According to the Directorate for Conservation of Area and Fish Species

(2013) Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang Islands are predominantly covered by mangrove vegetation

such as Rhizopora apiculata, R. stylosa, R. mucronata, Bruguiera gemnorrhyza, Sonneratia

alba, Ceriops tagal, Luminitzera recemora and Avicenia marina. The mangrove ecosystems

in these islands are considered to be healthier than other mangrove vegetation on Lombok

Island. Since 1983, there have been some mangrove projects in Gili Sulat, Gili Lawang and

Gili Petagan Islands supported by the Forestry agency and institutions such as JICA and

Yayasan JARI Mataram. As a result, most of the respondents (81.8%) feel that mangrove

conditions in the GSL MPA have improved (Figure 3.). However, a lack of publicity creates a

0.0%

25.0%

50.0%

75.0%

100.0% Yes

No Don't know

Inside MPA Outside MPA

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0% Staff

Sea patrol

Publicise

Facilities

Finance

All

b a


misunderstanding within the community that the establishment of the GSL MPA is only for

mangrove protection purposes. Moreover, this fact is supported by the declining condition of

coral reefs.

Figure 3. Fishermen’s opinions both inside and outside the GSL MPA on the mangrove cover condition

inside the GSL MPA.

Coral reef surrounding islands in the GSL MPA and PBK islands is the fringing reef

type with a slight slope then becoming steep. The result of manta tow surveys performed in

September 2013 in 3 – 5 m depth show that many points are damaged by bomb fishing

practices (Picture 1.). The survey shows rubble coverage of up to 85% around Gili Lawang

Island. The average rubble cover per island inside and outside the GSL MPA is between 25%

and 34%. We heard bomb fishing one time in front of Gili Sulat Island during the manta tow

survey.

No mass bleaching coral occurred both inside and outside of the GSL MPA, but dead

coral coverage was found to be up to 25% in Gili Petagan and Gili Kondo Islands. The

average dead coral cover per island inside and outside the GSL MPA being between 3% and

11%.

Worse Stable Improved

Inside MPA 9.1% 9.1% 81.8%

Outside MPA 0.0% 18.2% 81.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f re

spo

nd

en

ts


Figure 4. Substrate conditions inside and outside the GSL MPA based on manta tow surveys, September

2013.

Picture 1. Coral damage caused by bomb fishing in Gili Sulat Island. Photo: author.

The percentage of hard coral inside the GSL MPA is between 5% and 70% with the

average 26%, while the percentage of hard coral outside the GSL MPA is between 10% and

65% with the average 30%. The average of hard coral live cover per island inside and outside

the GSL MPA is between 24% – 33% (Figure 4.).

26% 25% 27% 24% 33%

4% 3%

11%

5%

10%

29% 31%

25% 34%

32%

22% 31%

8% 4%

8%

18% 10%

29% 33%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Gili Sulat Gili Lawang Gili Kondo Gili Bidara Gili Petagan


Biotic

Abiotic

Rubble

Dead Coral

Hard coral


Figure 5. displays hard coral and rubble cover composition around islands inside and

outside of the GSL MPA. Results from the two-sample t-test indicate a significant different

between the hard coral means and rubble means (t = -2.0342, df = 320.121326279495, p-

value = 0.0428) (Figure 6.). Thus, it is very likely that a higher coverage of hard corals

results in a lower coverage of rubble, and vice versa. It is evident that areas of lower

perturbation have better hard coral cover, and the areas of higher perturbation have worse

hard coral cover. The better conditions of hard coral coverage are found at the southern end

of Gili Sulat, south of Gili Lawang and south of Gili Petagan Islands. The area is dominated

by branching coral branching and foliose coral varieties. Soft coral cover dominates in the

north west Gili Sulat, south of Gili Kondo, around Gili Bidara and north east Gili Petagan.

Inside the GSL MPA Outside the GSL MPA

Figure 5. Hard coral and rubble coverage both inside and outside the GSL MPA based on manta tow

survey, September 2013.


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Hard

cora

l cover

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Rubble

cover

Figure 6. The different between hard coral and rubble cover based on the manta tow survey, September

2013 in the GSL MPA and PBK Islands.

The manta tow survey allows for large area analysis and allows one to determine basic

reef condition information such as coral bleaching events, Acanthaster outbreaks, damage

from bomb fishing practices, coral disease, and sedimentation on corals. The MPA

management office could use this basic information as a reference in the management of

zoning plans and could provide basic information to design more detail in coral reef

monitoring program.

In general, based on the manta tow survey the condition of hard corals living along the

leeward side of Gili Sulat, Gili Lawang and Gili Petagan Islands displays a better condition

than along the windward side. It indicates destructive fishing practices are more frequent on

the windward area which is hidden from the mainland and community surveillance.

Interestingly, in general the condition is observed to be better outside the MPA (30%)

compared to inside the MPA (26%) (Figure 7.). Although bombing fishing practice continues,

fishermen in Labuan Pandan (outside the GSL MPA) say that tourism around the PBK islands

offers incentives to prevent destructive fishing practices.


Figure 7. The average of hard coral coverage both inside and outside the GSL MPA based on mantatow

survey, September 2013.

During the manta tow survey, no sharks were observed. Only one sea turtle was

encountered, near Gili Sulat Island. Fish abundance was not considered, however it was

evident that grouper fish (Serranidae) and schooling fish are extremely rare.

Socio-economic indicators

There are 25 liftnet boats from Sumbawa operating around Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang Islands

to catch anchovy. This situation has triggered conflict especially when Sumbawa fishermen

sell their fish catch to outsider fish traders. Nevertheless, the conflict can be solved by Sugian

awig-awig (local rule) which was introduced in 2011. On the other hand, 25 liftnet boats in a

small area like Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang Islands tend to be unsustainable.


MPA

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Hard

cora

l cove

r

a b

Picture 2.a. Local fish traders in Sugian village are waiting for fishes catch from liftnet boats. b. Dry

anchovy in Sugian village. Photos: author.


Within 8 years of the establishment of GSL MPA, many fishermen, both inside

(54.5%) and outside (90% and 80%) the GSL MPA, claim that their fishing catch and income

have declined (Figure 8.). To increase their catch, fishermen in Sugian built a “rumpon” (an

artificial floating reef to attract pelagic fish aggregation) 7 miles away from their village. Fish

catches near the islands (Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang Islands) produced 15 kg per trip, while

rumpon catches neared 70 kg per trip. Also, many fishermen in Labuan Pandan became

boatmen for tourists who visit PBK islands. In addition, there is a pearl farm company (PT.

Auture) in Labuan Pandan employing 200 local workers.

Figure 8. Fishermen’s opinions both inside and outside the GSL MPA on their fishing catches and income

currently compare to before the establishment of the GSL MPA.

North Lombok study

North Lombok has also had to deal with destructive fishing issues. However, fishermen in

North Lombok have been able to organise themselves into a large group (1,406 fisherman in

30 fishermen’s groups in 5 subdistricts) named LMNLU with a unified goal to ban destructive

fishing practices in their area. They realise that the continual bombing in the past had been

reducing catches and was unsustainable. LMNLU was established in 2000, and from 2002 –

2006 anyone found utilizing destructive fishing practices was arrested. From 2006 to the -

present there have been no recorded bombing activities. They applied a local rule, ‘awig-

awig’, with a strong punishment system. For effective marine patrol purposes, they use

fishermen as informants to monitor resource use activities. They also work together with the

Marine and Fisheries Agency of North Lombok District (DKKP3) and the “water police”. As

Fishing catch

decrease

Fishing catch stable

Fishing catch

increase

Income decrease

Income stable

Income increase

Inside MPA 54.5% 45.5% 0.0% 54.5% 45.5% 0.0%

Outside MPA 90.0% 10.0% 0.0% 80.0% 20.0% 0.0%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f re

spo

nd

en

ts


a result, the national government gave an award to LMNLU for community surveillance

initiative in 2006.

Figure 9. Historical timeline of LMNLU in North Lombok District.

The differences between East Lombok and North Lombok firstly, are associated with

the initiation of the MPA. The GSL MPA was initiated by the government while the LMNLU

was initiated by the fishing community. Secondly, they have similar threats which are

destructive fishing practices. However, the fishing community in East Lombok does not have

a unified goal to ban destructive fishing practices. The initiative in Sugian with their local

surveillance and “awig-awig” does not have support from other villages. Thus, there are

difficulties with the organization the community in East Lombok. The government says that

there is an inadequate budget for running activities. On the other hand, the local community

feels if the government is able to involve the community and stakeholders, it can solve the

budget issue.

Picture 3. Traditional boats in Gangga village of North Lombok District. Photo: author.


The success story of the LMNLU brings a different perspective to fisheries

management, especially regarding how fishermen regulate the area without formal

boundaries. Although this is similar to other ecosystem-based management methods for

preserving natural assets, fishermen-based management emphasizes the fisherman’s role as an

agent of management rather than the object to be managed. The LMNLU approach is

prioritises the needs of local fishermen, such as fishing locations and fishing gear. This is

different from the government approach that often does not involve community participation,

and consequently fails. The SWOT analysis below attempts to identify the difference between

the GSL MPA (East Lombok) and LMNLU (North Lombok).

There is a GSL management

office.

Community support.

Small MPA (1,206 ha) that

should be relatively easier to

manage.

Fishermen based management

(with bottom-up approach).

Capacity of community

organisation.

Sense of belonging in securing

their natural assets.

Strong cohesion among

members (1,406 fisherman from

30 groups in 5 subdistricts).

Awig-awig rule.

Ecosystem based

management (with top-

down approach).

Lack of community

involvement.

Limited staff and budget.

Zoning system has not

been approved.

Differing perceptions of

prevention of destructive

fishing within

communities.

• No boundary definition

of management area

(MPA is not established).

• Self funding.

• Limited facilities.

• No document

describing

biophysical and

socio-economic

indicators.

Weaknesses

Strength

East Lombok North Lombok


Picture 4.a. Gili Lawang and Gili Sulat Islands of the GSL MPA, East Lombok District. b. Beach along

the North Lombok District. Photos: author.

Increasing MPA size.

Support from NGOs.

Strengthening

fishermen’s capabilities

in cooperation and

association building.

Increasing community

involvement.

• Increasing support from

government (integration

of bottom-up and top-

down approach).

• Empowering the

women’s group to support

household’s income.

• MPA network and

partnership.

• Increasing

effectiveness of

management.

• Education.

• Tourism.

• Aquaculture.

Destructive fishing

practices continue.

Distrust of MPA

management.

Flood event.

• Other illegal fishing gear

such as trawling from

outsider fishermen.

• Sustainable management

of LMNLU/

Regeneration.

• Waste from land

(industries, hotel/

restaurants and

households).

• Competition with

outsiders for space

and fishing gear

(modern/large scale).

• Coral bleaching

events.

Opportunities

East Lombok North Lombok

Threats

a b


Challenges

The critical challenge of both East and North Lombok is how the MPA or management area is

to be effectively managed. They need support from the government for the community to be

involved and empowered especially in East Lombok. On the other hand, the LMNLU has a

challenge to regenerate to maintain their management as well as maintaining strong cohesion

of fishermen groups within the union. The critical challenge can be addressed through

education, providing information (publicity) about the rules of the MPA, the important

aspects of marine ecosystems such as mangroves and coral reefs, as well as the disadvantage

of destructive fishing practice. It can also be achieved through support for fishermen by

introducing and granting eco friendly fishing gear. Furthermore, a program of woman

empowerment like LMNLU carry out such as developing home industry of processed fishery

products as alternative incomes for fishermen family also can be implemented.

Sustainable and sufficient sources of funding are needed to run activities. For

example, LMNLU received trust to receive a CSR grant for monitoring activities. Thus, a

partnership between the government, NGOs and academics and stakeholders can be created to

achieve sustainable funding.

The lack of biophysical and socio-economic studies of East and North Lombok,

creates management challenges because informed decisions are more difficult to make. The

important thing is the MPA provides benefits to the local community as well as preserving

and managing the natural assets. However, this needs to be measured and people can then be

aware of this benefit through this documentation.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the GSL MPA management in East Lombok was not effective due to a lack of

governance (institutional), biophysical conditions and socio-economic indicators. These

inadequacies are expressed by inadequate staff, activities and budgeting, the degradation of

coral reef ecosystems as well as fishermen’s incomes and fishing catches. In addition, bomb

fishing practices still continue in some areas. On the other hand, North Lombok under

LMNLU has been assessed to be more effective due to their success in reducing natural

threats even though there is no formal boundary for the MPA. However, reports and

documentation of changing biophysical and socio-economic circumstances are needed to

measure the effectiveness of the management of East and North Lombok.


In terms of national targets, size does matter but effective management is more

important. Therefore, the government should pay more attention to and support community

initiatives rather than establishing new MPAs without an adequate management plan. The

government can account for the area such as LMNLU to be included into the national

achievement of MPA targets. Fisherman-based management emphasizes the fisherman’s role

as an agent of management rather than object to be managed. This study has shown that this

approach is more effective in North Lombok, and can serve as a role model to be applied in

other areas.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Prof. Jeffrey Sayer and Dr. Agni (Intu) Boedhihartono as program

director and deputy director, respectively, of the Master of Development Practice Program,

James Cook University, Cairns Campus. I thank Lalu Adi Gunawan for his tremendous help

during my time in Lombok. I am grateful to the numerous individuals and institutions (to all

of respondents; the government of the East Lombok and North Lombok District; Aliman of

Sugian Diving Club; Pak Ishak, Pak Idun, and Pak Fahrudin of the GSL MPA office; Pak

Zainal head of Sugian village; Pak Sahnan head of Labuan Pandan village; Pe Lalu Rizal

Ashadi of the East Lombok Planning Agency (Bappeda); LMNLU; Pak Imam Bachtiar of

Universitas Mataram; Tasrif and Jambul of WCS; Pak Abidin, Pe Heri and Pak Agus of

Konsepsi; Pak Syamsul and Pak Salman of Koslata and LMNLU; Pak Catur and Arum of

Santiri; Mas Boen of JARI; and Syafrudin of WWF-Indonesia Nusa Tenggara Program). I

thank Tyler Jay Reynolds and James Langston for their help in editing and constructing this

report, poster and presentation. I thank Muhammad Irfansyah Lubis and Thol Sem for their

support in producing maps. Finally I thank all MDP classmates for sharing their knowledge,

friendship and teamwork.


References

BPMPD. (2012). Village profile of Sugian (translated from Bahasa Indonesia). Directorate

General of Community Empowerment and Village.

Bupati Lombok Timur. (2004). The decree of Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang of Sambelia

Subdistrict as a marine protected area. East Lombok District decree.

Carter, E., Soemodinoto, A. & White, A. (2010). Guide for Improving Marine Protected Area

Management Effectiveness in Indonesia. Bali, Indonesia: The Nature Conservancy

Indonesia Marine Program, xi + 49p.

Directorate for Conservation of Area and Fish Species (2012). Technical guidelines for

evaluating the management effectiveness of aquatic, coasts, and small islands

conservation Areas (E-KKP3K). Jakarta: Directorate for Conservation of Area and

Fish Species, Directorate General of Marine, Coasts and Small Islands, Ministry of

Marine Affairs and Fisheries.

Dermawan, A., Suraji, Wiryawan B., Koswara W. and Martosudarmo B. (2007). The

guideline of arrangement of the locally marine protected area management plan

(translated from Bahasa Indonesia). Jakarta: Coral Reef Rehabilitation and

Management Program COREMAP II, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries.

English, S., Wilkinson C. and Baker V. (1997). Survey Manual for Tropical Marine

Resources. 2nd

edition. Townsville, QLD.: Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Directorate for Conservation of Area and Fish Species (2012). Database – Data of

conservation areas. Retrieved 5 July 2013 from

http://kkji.kp3k.kkp.go.id/index.php/basisdata-kawasan-konservasi/details/1/85

Kompas. (2013). Marine Conservation – Evaluating the effective management of area

(translated from Bahasa Indonesia). Newspaper.

Lombok Timur Marine and Fisheries Agency. (2010). Role of the local government to initiate

the development of locally marine protected area. [Powerpoint presentation] Presented

in the national marine protected areas coordination workshop.

Miller, R.L. and Brewer J.D. (2003). The A-Z of social research: a dictionary of key social

science research concepts. London: Sage Publication.

http://kkji.kp3k.kkp.go.id/index.php/basisdata-kawasan-konservasi/details/1/85


Ningtias, P., I. Yulianto, A. Soemodinoto, T. Kartawijaya, Y. Herdiana, I.D.G. Warmadewa,

K.M. Hasbi & H. Murtawan. (2013). Efektivitas Pengelolaan Kawasan Konservasi

Perairan, Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil (E-KKP3K) di Provinsi Nusa Tenggara

Barat. Bogor: Wildlife Conservation Society.

Pomeroy, R.S., Parks, J.E. & Watson, L.M. (2004). How is your MPA? A guidebook of

natural and social indicators for evaluating marine protected area management

effectiveness. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Xvi + 216 pp.

Sahnan. (2010). Monograph of Labuan Pandan village (translated from Bahasa Indonesia).

Labuan Pandan Village office documentation.

Sambelia Subdistrict. 2013. Subdistrict profile of Sambelia year 2013. Sambelia Subdistrict of

East Lombok District.


Attachments

Table 3. Manta tow data conducted 24, 28 and 29 September 2013 in Gili Sulat and Gili Lawang Islands (inside the

GSL MPA) and PBK Islands (outside the GSL MPA).

Tow no.

MPA GPS Position Island Hard coral Dead Coral Rubble Abiotic Biotic

1 Inside MPA -8 18.698 116 42.539 Sulat 35% 5% 25% 15% 20%

2 Inside MPA -8 18.623 116 42.666 Sulat 25% 5% 15% 25% 30%

3 Inside MPA -8 18.557 116 42.807 Sulat 25% 5% 30% 20% 20%

4 Inside MPA -8 18.505 116 42.973 Sulat 5% 0% 60% 10% 25%

5 Inside MPA -8 18.534 116 43.114 Sulat 10% 5% 45% 20% 20%

6 Inside MPA -8 18.620 116 43.248 Sulat 10% 0% 45% 30% 15%

7 Inside MPA -8 18.754 116 43.372 Sulat 10% 0% 50% 25% 15%

8 Inside MPA -8 18.887 116 43.504 Sulat 5% 0% 70% 15% 10%

9 Inside MPA -8 18.988 116 43.595 Sulat 30% 5% 25% 20% 20%

10 Inside MPA -8 19.083 116 43.669 Sulat 20% 0% 50% 20% 10%

11 Inside MPA -8 19.175 116 43.730 Sulat 20% 0% 40% 20% 20%

12 Inside MPA -8 19.271 116 43.810 Sulat 10% 0% 50% 20% 20%

13 Inside MPA -8 19.353 116 43.892 Sulat 25% 5% 40% 20% 10%

14 Inside MPA -8 19.438 116 43.963 Sulat 15% 0% 40% 30% 15%

15 Inside MPA -8 19.528 116 44.054 Sulat 10% 0% 45% 40% 5%

16 Inside MPA -8 19.609 116 44.135 Sulat 25% 5% 25% 25% 20%

17 Inside MPA -8 19.707 116 44.215 Sulat 20% 5% 30% 25% 20%

18 Inside MPA -8 19.805 116 44.314 Sulat 30% 5% 10% 40% 15%

19 Inside MPA -8 19.888 116 44.424 Sulat 30% 5% 10% 40% 15%

20 Inside MPA -8 19.984 116 44.532 Sulat 25% 0% 10% 50% 15%

21 Inside MPA -8 20.091 116 44.604 Sulat 10% 0% 5% 80% 5%

22 Inside MPA -8 20.182 116 44.656 Sulat 30% 0% 15% 50% 5%

23 Inside MPA -8 20.270 116 44.675 Sulat 20% 0% 30% 30% 20%

24 Inside MPA -8 20.375 116 44.695 Sulat 40% 5% 15% 10% 30%

25 Inside MPA -8 20.471 116 44.702 Sulat 60% 0% 10% 10% 20%

26 Inside MPA -8 20.580 116 44.689 Sulat 50% 0% 15% 15% 20%

27 Inside MPA -8 20.695 116 44.679 Sulat 50% 5% 15% 10% 20%

28 Inside MPA -8 20.815 116 44.673 Sulat 70% 5% 10% 5% 10%

29 Inside MPA -8 20.909 116 44.577 Sulat 50% 10% 20% 0% 20%

30 Inside MPA -8 20.900 116 44.410 Sulat 40% 15% 25% 5% 15%

31 Inside MPA -8 20.828 116 44.287 Sulat 40% 20% 30% 5% 5%

32 Inside MPA -8 20.698 116 44.213 Sulat 30% 20% 30% 10% 10%

33 Inside MPA -8 20.645 116 44.036 Sulat 30% 15% 30% 5% 20%

34 Inside MPA -8 20.527 116 43.955 Sulat 20% 10% 40% 20% 10%

35 Inside MPA -8 20.454 116 43.792 Sulat 20% 5% 50% 15% 10%

36 Inside MPA -8 20.442 116 43.648 Sulat 20% 5% 40% 20% 15%

37 Inside MPA -8 20.346 116 43.510 Sulat 20% 5% 40% 20% 15%

38 Inside MPA -8 20.270 116 43.439 Sulat 25% 10% 30% 10% 25%


39 Inside MPA -8 20.166 116 43.347 Sulat 30% 10% 20% 10% 30%

40 Inside MPA -8 20.114 116 43.236 Sulat 25% 5% 20% 10% 40%

41 Inside MPA -8 20.026 116 43.133 Sulat 25% 5% 20% 20% 30%

42 Inside MPA -8 19.935 116 43.026 Sulat 25% 5% 20% 15% 35%

43 Inside MPA -8 19.865 116 42.916 Sulat 25% 0% 25% 25% 25%

44 Inside MPA -8 19.788 116 42.811 Sulat 10% 0% 30% 30% 30%

45 Inside MPA -8 19.719 116 42.703 Sulat 20% 0% 50% 30% 0%

46 Inside MPA -8 19.665 116 42.641 Sulat 30% 0% 30% 30% 10%

47 Inside MPA -8 19.592 116 42.566 Sulat 30% 5% 30% 30% 5%

48 Inside MPA -8 19.514 116 42.515 Sulat 20% 5% 30% 40% 5%

49 Inside MPA -8 19.434 116 42.450 Sulat 20% 5% 30% 40% 5%

50 Inside MPA -8 19.338 116 42.421 Sulat 20% 5% 30% 40% 5%

51 Inside MPA -8 19.242 116 42.381 Sulat 40% 0% 10% 20% 30%

52 Inside MPA -8 19.125 116 42.347 Sulat 20% 0% 10% 10% 60%

53 Inside MPA -8 18.999 116 42.305 Sulat 15% 0% 40% 5% 40%

54 Inside MPA -8 18.870 116 42.351 Sulat 15% 0% 40% 5% 40%

55 Inside MPA -8 18.745 116 42.475 Sulat 35% 5% 25% 15% 20%

56 Inside MPA -8 18.539 116 42.422 Lawang 25% 5% 30% 20% 20%

















































104 Outside MPA -8 26.558 116 44.015 Kondo 25% 25% 30% 5% 15%














118 Outside MPA -8 26.578 116 44.152 Bidara 30% 10% 30% 0% 30%












129 Outside MPA -8 26.065 116 44.721 Petagan 50% 10% 10% 0% 30%







































Hard coral : hard coral live

Dead coral : Recently dead coral

Rubble : Dead hard coral rubble

Abiotic : Sand, rock

Biotic : Soft coral and other biotic such as sponge and algae

Note


Table 4. List of respondents

No. Name Village Age Education Additional occupation

1 Epa Sugian d c farmer

2 Huseini Sugian d a -

3 Muh. Ridwan Sugian b b -

4 Sahlim Sugian b a farmer

5 Saprudin Sugian b b farmer

6 Amak Misnun Sugian e a -

7 Amak Maknah Sugian e a -

8 Nasrin Sugian d a -

9 Mangsir Sugian b a -

10 Hamdani Sugian d a tourism

11 Muslihin Sugian c a -

12 Kasih Sugian d a -

13 M. Ridho Malik Labuan Pandan d c farmer

14 Sahtun Labuan Pandan d a -

15 Kamarudin Labuan Pandan a b farmer

16 Wa Sikin Labuan Pandan e a -

17 Pahrudin Labuan Pandan e a -

18 Hanafi Labuan Pandan d a -

19 Muh. Nur Labuan Pandan c b -

20 Sahrudin Labuan Pandan c a farmer

21 Suyanto Suladi Padak Guar e c tourism

22 Amak Rohana Padak Guar e a farmer

23 Mahruf Padak Guar c a farmer

24 Amak Suhri Padak Guar e a farmer Note:

Age:

a = < 19, b = 20 – 30, c = 31 – 40, d = 41 – 50 e = > 51 years old.

Education:

a = preliminary, b = junior high school, c = senior high school, d = tertiary education


Table 5. Questionnaire.

No. Name Question

A B C D E F G H I J K L

1 Epa Yes Yes Yes No a Yes b b b c a b

2 Huseini Yes Yes Yes No c Yes a b b c b b

3 Muh. Ridwan Yes Yes Yes No c 4 Sahlim Yes Yes Yes No d No a a d c a b

5 Saprudin No Yes Yes Yes a No b b b a a b

6 Amak Misnun Yes Yes Yes No a Yes b a a c a f

7 Amak Maknah Yes Yes Yes Yes a Yes a a a c b f

8 Nasrin Yes Yes Yes No a Yes b b b c b b

9 Mangsir Yes Yes Yes No a Yes b b c b a a

10 Hamdani Yes Yes Yes Yes d Yes a a c c b b

11 Muslihin Yes Yes Yes No d

a a c c b b, c

12 Kasih Yes Yes Yes No a Yes a a c c b b, c

13 M. Ridho Malik No Yes No Yes d Yes a a b c b b

14 Sahtun No Yes Yes Yes c No a a b c b a, b

15 Kamarudin No Yes Yes No a No b b b c a b

16 Wa Sikin No Yes Yes Yes c No a a b c b a, b

17 Pahrudin No 18 Hanafi No Yes Yes Yes d No a a b b b b

19 Muh. Nur No Yes Yes Yes d No a a c c b b

20 Sahrudin Yes Yes Yes Yes b No a a b c b b

21 Suyanto Suladi Yes Yes No Yes a Yes

c b b a, b

22 Amak Rohana Yes Yes Yes Yes c Yes a b c c b b

23 Mahruf No No No Yes d No a a d c c b

24 Amak Suhri No Yes Yes Yes b No a a c c a b Note:

Questions a b c d e

A Do you know the term of MPA? Yes No

B Do you recognise Gili Sulat - Gili Lawang as an MPA? Yes No C Do you fishing in Gili Sulat - Gili Lawang Islands Yes No

D Do you fishing in Gili Petagan - Gili Kondo Islands? Yes No

E Which one is provide a better fishing catch? GSL PBK equal don't know

F Do you recognise zoning system in Gili Sulat - Gili Lawang MPA? Yes No

G How is your fishing catch after GSL MPA established? decreased stable increased

H How is your income after GSL MPA established? decreased stable increased

I How is coral reef condition after GSL MPA established? worse stable improved

J How is mangrove cover condition after GSL MPA established? worse stable improved

K Did GSL MPA effectively managed? Yes No

L What management component that need to be improved? more staff sea patrol publicity facilities finance


Picture 5. Manta tow survey in the Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA and PBK Islands. Photo: Aliman.

Picture 6. Coral transplantation in Gili Kondo Island. Photo: author.


Picture 7. Lifnet boats around the Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA. Photo: author.

Picture 8. The Gili Sulat – Gili Lawang MPA office and guesthouse. Photo: author.

Challenges of Marine Protected Areas around … of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 1...

Documents

Transcript of Challenges of Marine Protected Areas around … of marine protected areas around Lombok, Indonesia 1...