The Management and Implementation of Ecotourism in Indonesia:

A Case Study of Karimunjawa Islands

SEBAR for USAID and Bappenas

Yvonne Chen, Goolda Siahaan and Patrick Tangkau1

September 8, 2014

1 Yvonne Chen, Emerging Market Development Adviser for AmCham Indonesia 2012-2014 yvonnechen2009@gmail.com ; Goolda Siahaan, Emerging

Market Development Adviser for APINDO, 2011-2014 goolda.siahaan@gmail.com; Patrick Tangkau, Emerging Market Development Adviser for

KADIN, 2010- 2014 patrick.tangkau@gmail.com

Executive Summary

In Indonesia, tourism is a foreign exchange earner (USD 10 billion in 2013) and tourism is

already a driver of the economy (9.1% of GDP in 2013, fourth largest contributor among goods

and services export sectors). At the same time, the Indonesian government is trying to develop

ecotourism in Karimunjawa and elsewhere as one way to protect Indonesia’s biodiversity. The

ecotourism concept is promoted in hopes that it will provide alternative ways to use

biodiversity sustainably, and to improve the living standards of Indonesian people through

alternative livelihoods. The fact that tourism is a driver of the economy is significant from a

natural resource perspective. Even small effects from tourism can have a huge impact on the

environment, including the loss of biodiversity.

This case study of Karimunjawa will offer many lessons to donors or investors who are looking

to ecotourism as a solution for protecting biodiversity, improving the economic opportunity of

local people, or as one of several economic activities that can fit within a larger, integrated

approach to preserving a high value tropical forest or marine area.

The following problems exist in Karimunjawa, as they are related to ecotourism’s basic

principles: environmental problems such as coral damage and fish depletion, and waste

management problems; weak governance around existing environmental and ecotourism

policy leading to the disresepct for and lack of enforcement of those policies; lack of sufficient

infrastructure to serve residents’ daily needs as well as the tourism growth; changes in the

occupations/way of life of the local people and a change in the social norms of the local

people; and rising economic disparity between the small and medium enterprises versus the

large-scale non-indigenous enterprises in Karimunjawa, and between prosperous Karimun

island residents and the non-Karimun island residents who are left behind by the tourism

boom.

The authors offer a basic definition of ecotourism for analyzing the problems that exist in

Karimunjawa. Adopting the The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) definition, ecotourism

is tourism that promotes environmental and nature conservation, economic growth and

community wealth, preseveration of community’s lifestyle and culture, and development of

the local tourism industry.

Stakeholders in this study are the main actors in ecotourism activities in Karimunjawa. They

can be categorized into several groups: government, entrepreneur, local community, tourist,

and non-government organization (NGO).

The major finding of this research is that ecotourism management and implementation in

Karimunjawa is not yet fully implemented. The recent growth of ecotourism in Karimunjawa,

following the tourism boom from the past decade, has been a large focus for the Indonesian

government, both in terms of conservation and as a site with huge potential for increasing

local people’s income and as an investment opportunity. The dominant type of tourism is

mass tourism, and this mass tourism has led to a strain on Karimunjawa’s resources and other

problems.

The authors find that government’s internal conflict about ectourism concepts (both in terms

of perceptions and stakeholder involvement) contributes heavily to the divergent perceptions

and corresponding involvement by the stakeholders. The tourism offices count success in

terms of fulfilling the targeted number of visitors for that year while conservation activities

that are only possible with low numbers of visitors are promoted by Badan Taman Nasional

(BTN) and other pro-conservation bodies in a simultaneous manner. These two

implementation models exists despite ecotourism policies at the central government level. The

existing zonation policy perhaps perpetuates the idea of two zones, areas for recreation and

areas for conservation, and thus reinforces mass types of tourism activities. The National park

manages Karimunjawa islands with a zoning system whose main purpose is for research,

science, education, mariculture, and tourism according to Government Regulation No.

68/2006 about Kawasan Suaka Alam Dan Kawasan Pelestarian Alam and Ministry of Forestry

Decree No. 56/2006 about Pedoman Zonasi Taman Nasional.

There are five zones in Karimunjawa National Park: core zone, protection, tradional fiseheries,

tourism zone, and rehabilitation zone. Protection and preservation characterize the core zone

and protection zone, whereas the utilization function (tourism and fisheries) characterizes the

traditional fisheries and tourism zone.

The authors also find that the local government’s low capacity to carry out a wide variety of

basic services -- including waste management, providing regular tourism training and

appropriate infrastructure, consulting the community about policymaking and sufficiently

socializing ecotourism policies -- further impedes the well-intentioned efforts to implement

the basic ecotourism principles in Karimunjawa.

Moreover, decentralization allows local governments much power in terms of how to

implement the central government laws. But due to failures in communication and

coordination, ecotourism regulations are not socialized and understood by the local

governments, and even less so by the other stakeholders to whom the laws should be

socialized by the local government. This lack of awareness about ecotourism, including what

behaviors are allowed and which are not allowed, lead to inefficiencies in terms of

implementing ecotourism policy at the local level.

About the Case Study

A summary of the research plan for the case study is described below. This research design

was developed between the authors with feedback from USAID and Bappenas during several

meetings between December 2013 and May 2014. The research questions were: 1) How is

ecotourism managed and implemented in Karimunjawa? 2) How can ecotourism be managed

and implemented in Karimunjawa in a way that conserves the environment and integrates all

stakeholders with good coordination?

The objectives of the research were to:

1. To identify the perceptions of all stakeholders about the definition of ecotourism

2. To identify the relevant ecotourism policies (government)

3. To identify the involvement of the stakeholders regarding ecotourism

4. To formulate a model of the management and development of ecotourism in

Karimunjawa

The hypothesis for the research is that there are three major factors that affect ecotourism in

Karimunjawa: stakeholder involvement, government policies and perception of the

stakeholders. When the stakeholders improve these three factors, then the prevalence of good

ecotourism practice in Karimunjawa also improves.

The approach to the interview protocol and the analysis of the answers from the respondents

corresponds with an analytical framework that views government policies, stakeholders’

involvement and stakeholders’ perceptions as interacting with each other. The combination of

these factors affects the quality of ecotourism management and implementation, and

naturally has impacts on the economy and the environment. An explanation of the arrows in

the analytical framework is found below the chart.

Explanation of Analytical Framework:

1. Policies made by GOI affect the perceptions of stakeholders.

2. Stakeholders’ involvement affects perceptions.

3. Stakeholders’ perceptions influence stakeholder involvement.

4. Government policy will influence the stakeholders’ perceptions.

5. (Good/bad) government policy will influence stakeholder involvement. If government

makes good policy, it will affect stakeholders’ interest and motivation to support

ecotourism.

6. This dynamic will have an impact on the economy and on the environment.

The primary data collected for this research is the output from interview respondents and our

own observations in the Karimunjawa. 30 field interviews were conducted with a wide range

of stakeholders in Semarang, Jepara and Karimunjawa islands in July 2014 and in August 2014.

The researchers also consulted other key informants that were not directly involved in

Karimunjawa ecotourism activities such as NGOs that were knowledgeable about best practice

ecotourism, our Bappenas adviser and our USAID adviser. Hence, the data collection methods

for the primary research are interviews with respondents and direct observations of the

authors in Karimunjawa. The secondary data that is collected for this research is conducted

through literature review of books, journals, laws and regulations, project papers, scientific

studies, newspapers and websites that is related to the research question.

A summary of the analysis based on the three factors for analysis (perception, government

policy and stakholders’ involvement), are summarized below:

Perceptions

Perceptions about ecotourism, and operationalizing these principles in practice, are not

proportional based on stakeholders’ perceptions, however. The majority of respondents have

prioritized economic growth and the welfare of the local community over the other three

principles. Ecotourism is erroneously viewed as an idea that brings in economic growth. As a

result, in people’s everyday involvement of ecotourism, economic growth has taken priority over

the conservation of the environment. Likewise, the basic principle of ecotourism that has not

been fully implemented by all the stakeholders is the conservation of the environment and

natural resources. In fact the environmental aspect is only considered in terms of the fact that

nature serves as the main attraction. But this is an erroneous view: equating nature tourism

with ecotourism. Stakeholders, namely government, entrepreneurs, local community, tourists,

and NGOs have not fully implemented all the elements of the basic principles of ecotourism

because theire perceptions diverge. Individuals only implement those ecotourism principles

(e.g. economic growth for entrepreneurs) that align with their interests.

The differences in perception about what it means to manage and implement ecotourism in

Karimunjawa occurs because of the stakeholders’ different interests. The government’s primary

interest in ecotourism is improving local economic growth and welfare of the local community,

while conserving the environment and natural resources remains a secondary priority.

Entrepreneurs’ main interest in ecotourism is increasing profits; thereby the major concern for

entrepreneurs in managing and utilizing the potential nature in Karimunjawa is increasing

economic growth. From the local community’s perspective and interests concerning ecotourism,

the major priority in managing and utilizing the potential tourism in Karimunjawa is increasing

their income and welfare. Tourists, while they pay attention to issues of conservation of

environmental and natural resources, for the most part come to Karimunjawa Islands with the

aim to explore and enjoy the place. The majority of tourists are not very interested in nature

conservation and preservation of local culture. However, by default, tourists, when they are

exploring and enjoying themselves in Karimunjawa, are also contributing the local economic

growth and welfare of the local community. NGOs are concerned about the conservation of

environment and natural resources. Some other government offices, such as offices of the

national park and of oceans and fisheries, also claim conservation as their main priority.

Government Policy

Both national and regional governments in Indonesia have been attempting to create

regulations to control tourism in Indonesia and direct tourism into more eco-friendly types of

tourism, or “ecotourism”.

Several policies exist which are relevant to the research and the paper will explore eight of

them in greater depth. One of the regulations that serves as the basis for ecotourism is

Government Law No. 10/2009 on tourism. The law mentions that tourism in Indonesia must

ensure the sustainability of both culture and the environment while at the same time promote

local enterprise and international cooperation.

This law is further developed by an ecotourism regulation from the Ministry of Home Affairs,

Regulation No. 33/2009, which was issued shortly after the Ministry of Tourism and UNESCO

issued the Ecotourism Operational Basic Guideline in 2009. These guidelines serve as

references for ecotourism development in Indonesia. According to Ecotourism Operational

Basic Guideline, the five principles of ecotourism according to the Government of Indonesia

(GOI) are: 1) nature and cultural conservation, 2) education for tourists about the importance

of conservation, 3) tourism activities, 4) economic improvement for the community, and 5)

local community involvement. Based on these guidelines we see that GOI already understands

and is implementing the basic principles of Ecotourism in their regulations.

To ensure that Indonesia’s vision for tourism in the future is sustainable and implements the

basic principles of ecotourism, GOI produced Government Regulation No. 50/2011: the Master

Plan of Tourism Development 2010-2025. According to this regulation, the Master Plan gives a

clear direction about tourism development in each geographic area based on their

corresponding potentials (assets) so that tourism development is sustainable and conserves

these assets. This regulation also further clarifies the role of each stakeholder, to ensure the

coordination between the central and regional government and that the role of each ministry

will be clear, and hopefully efficient.

With the increasing flow of tourists to Indonesia, GOI recognizes that ecotourism will help

conserve nature and keep tourism activities sustainable, while at the same time attract more

tourists. Law No. 10/2009 about Tourism provides national and local government guidelines

for tourism that is in line with ecotourism principles, such as environment conservation, the

welfare of local community, local life and culture, and the growth of local industry. This

regulation and its predecessor, Law No. 9/1990 on Tourism are used by Indonesia’s Ministry

and Regional Government as the basis for their own tourism guidelines at the regional level.

With these key tourism and conservation policies on the books, which are based on worldwide

best ecotourism practices, Indonesia is clearly on the right path to promote ecotourism across

the region.

Nevertheless, based on our interviews with stakeholders, these policies are not efficient due to

the lack of information dissemination about the new rule or lack of “socialization” of the new

rule (sosialisasi), lack of consultation with stakeholders during policymaking, and lack of

enforcement of the rules by the local government. Local communities, tourists, and local

entrepreneurs know very little about the ecotourism policies, and tend to only know the ones

that affect them directly. The one exception is the zonation regulation which BTN socialized on

a regular basis and which affects directly the livelihoods of everyone who lives in Karimunjawa.

Most of the respondents we spoke to seem to understand the regulation and expressed

intentions to follow it. Other regulations are usually only well known by the government body

that issued the regulation and are somehow given authority by that regulation. In some cases,

in fact, local government bodies reference older regulations that have already been revised at

the central government level. The lack of sufficent socialization of these policies causes

confusion and lack of understanding from the other stakeholders, including the community,

and even among the central and local governments. Another problem resulting in inefficient

regulations is the lack of initiative from the government, whether it is the national or local

government, to involve the relevant stakeholders in the policymaking stage, that is, when the

regulation they need to socialize is conceived. The stakeholders’ lack of participation leads to a

decreased sense of belonging and buy-in, and decreases their interest in following the policies

after they are issued. The regulations are also inefficient because some regulations need to

better balance the conservation policy and the benefit for the community. The key to

successful regulation is that every stakeholders feels they can obtain the benefit, and not just

as more rules that further hamper their activities. Lastly, policies can be inefficient due to lack

of enforcement. Enforcement and monitoring are needed to ensure that each stakeholder

follows the policies. However, the government’s capacity to carry out its enforcement duties is

limited.

In summary, while government policies about ecotourism are generally very good, the

implementation of these regulations have not reached their full potential. The authors believe

that the proper socialization about the regulations, inclusion of stakeholders during the

policymaking stage, and ongoing education of ecotourism as a benefit to both nature

conservation and to community members are needed so that people will realize the

importance of ecotourism and shift their mindset from mass tourism to ecotourism.

Stakeholder Involvement

While ideally all stakeholders should coordinate with each other to support the goals of

ecotourism that are mandated by law and local planning strategies, the implementation of

ecotourism is weak because of people’s lack of understanding for what they need to do to

support ecotourism, or they do not agree ecotourism is something they need to support

because the goals of ectourism are against their personal interests. Many examples exist of

how stakeholders’ involvement are negative and contribute to the problems in Karimunjawa.

Entrepreneurs fail to train visitors to comply with simple rules dealing with garbage disposal

and not swimming in restricted areas. It is time-consuming with the volume of tourists they

receive, especially for tour guides and homestays. The tourist respondents mentioned that

they did not know what behaviors are allowed and are not allowed e.g. feeding the fish, which

they admitted to doing without knowing that it is not allowed.

Some community members respect the conservation rules that already exist while others

ignore them. Respondents also mention that some community members only choose to

respect the regulations they know about or that are most convenient. While some community

members are already highly socialized about the rules, e.g. beach cleaning and garbage

disposal, the 100m building near the beach restriction, knowing which fish are catchable and

fish that are not catchable -- others may not be aware of these conservation rules due to

insufficient socialization, particularly for outside fishermen and entrepreneurs. Moreover,

socialization is not routine or systematic, which may explain why some community members

know more than others based on their involvement in these socializations. At the same time,

community members believe that it is unfair that they are blamed, because they do not

believe caring for the environment is completely their burden. In fact, some of the elder

community members were not convinced that tourism had a positive impact because they

believed tourists were responsible for trash and moral degradation types of problems, which

they had not seen before tourism boomed in Karimunjawa.

Currently, no agreement exists on a need to place a limit on the number of visitors. Visitor

numbers have a large impact because the stresses on Karimunjawa islands’ environment are

already large, as exhibited by the shortages in electricity and water and land available for

development. We observed that some government bodies support the affordable packages

that come to define mass tourism in Karimunjawa that respondents from government agencies

with conservation missions were clearly against.

While fishermen understand the rules and even changed to coral friendly fishing methods,

they continue to fish in areas they have always fished in. Community members also continue

to inhabit and use land that, due to recent regulations, require them to pay for usage either in

the form of a permit or a fee. There may also be some missing link as to how to change the

attitudes of some of the “older generation” residents, who continue on with their traditional

life despite the new zonation rules.

The opposing views on how tourism should be implemented, with conservation at one

extreme and mass tourism at the other extreme, may explain instances where there is a lack of

respect for conserving the environment. In particular, BTN and local government bodies

support activities that outrightly oppose each other. The provision of support for tourism

development, such as funds and training, comes from both bodies, but in differently zoned

areas. The types of activities that are sometimes very different and even opposing confuse

community members as to how they should be involved in tourism, and the types of measures

they should take to conserve the environment.

Entrepreneurs, unless they a business case for nature conservation, may choose to disregard

BTN rules because they do not agree with them, and the local government’s mass tourism

activities can confirm their views. For example, small business owners, namely homestays

choose to ignore the new ticket pricing rules, because they believe tourists will think the prices

are too high and the high prices will hurt business, but high-end hotels agree with the new

ticketing rules because the policy promotes fewer visitors, and does not hurt their high-paying

and niche customer base.

Beyond users’ ability to care for the environment, the government also has a role to provide

the public services. However, low government capacity continues to stagnate the full

implementation of ecotourism’s basic principles in Karimunjawa. Below are some examples of

the government’s low capacity.

Poor waste management - While regulation requires solid waste disposal, Karimunjawa

island’s public works is below standard. The public works office does not currently own

collection trucks or personnel to provide regular garbage collection even though there is an

official office in Karimunjawa that is charged with public works matters. Waste is collected in

an impromptu unsealed landfill located at the center of the island far from the shore, is

burned, is transported back to Jepara, or ends up in the ocean.

Poor socialization of ecotourism and environmental policies - BTN and other government

offices -- including the local investment board that issues permits and the local tourism board

that provides trainings to community on tourism skills -- are only able to provide group

socializations several times a year because the staff are based in Jepara. Community members

and entrepreneurs, who are the target audience for the government, mention that they agree

with the policies about ecotourism the government is supposed to socialize, but in many cases

say the socializations are not frequent enough. For example, some community members

mentioned that they have not seen the government in a year or two years. One respondent

said, “Routine socialization for the community is necessary, and it should take place in the

field. If it’s just a forum, it will not be very effective because community members are reluctant

to come to a forum because they cannot do their work when they come to the forum.” Some

government respondents admitted that they did not have personnel presence in Karimunjawa,

which was verified by the lack of knowledge from the local government officials (i.e. Kemujan

village head, Karimun village head, camat) and also complained that it is difficult to convince

individuals to comply with policies and apply for and obtain the necessary permits. BTN

mentioned they often first have to fine violating individuals and “force” them to get the

required permit.

Poor prioritization and implemention of infrastructure priorities - Funding for Karimunjawa is

dominated by bureacrats who live in Jepara. Jepara bureacrats see Karimunjawa as an

investment opportunity and lack the empathy and understanding of the ground conditions to

be able to advocate for the infrastructure projects that the local residents demand, such as

water and electricity. Instead, they prioritize projects such as lengthening the runway, which

does not have broad public benefit. Even with the priorities that already exist, for example, the

airport runway extension, one need to go no further than the airport runway to see that the

government’s efforts are delayed and unsatisfactory. Even though the runway was extended

so that large planes can land, the large planes still cannot land because they are unable to turn

around after landing. One telling opinion is that of a local elder who mentioned that he feels

the government’s efforts are half-hearted, where promotion of Karimunjawa preedes the

government investments that are required to implement them efficiently: “It’s still in progress

to that way (ecotourism is partially implemented). In the current situation, efforts are all done

half-heartily, because all the supporting factors are not there yet. For example, the

government’s promoting tourism even though the infrastructure is not ready yet.”

Recommendations

1. Promote and socialize ecotourism policies to all stakeholders

As already mentioned, Indonesian regulation regarding ecotourism or tourism in general

already accounts for some if not all of the principles of ecotourism, although some regulations

put more emphasis on the nature conservation aspects of ecotourism and others place more

emphasis on the improvement of the local community’s welfare and local industry growth.

The problem with most of these regulations is it that they lack the sufficient amount of

socialization that would make these regulations known and more likely to be followed. This is

the case not only between entrepreneurs and community, but also between governments. For

example, government bodies had different levels of understanding of regulations, with some

knowing about certain regulations over others. For example, we found in our interviews with

the local Karimunjawa government, the stakeholders for which the knowledge of ecotourism

regulations for Karimunjawa would matter most, that some of the local government officials

are not even aware about the central government’s tourism policy. This lack of socialization

could lessen the effectiveness of ecotourism regulations, which would hamper the growth of

ecotourism in Indonesia and people’s awareness about what constitutes proper ecotourism

and sustainable tourism.

From our findings, the key to successful and effective regulation implementation is routine

socializations, especially if the regulations will affect all the stakeholders. During our research

in Karimunjawa we found, for example, that when there is routine socialization about

zonation, most of the stakeholders know and are aware about the zonation in Karimunjawa

area, and they are willing to follow the regulations. In the socialization process, the GOI should

take an active role to introduce and socialize new regulations to each stakeholder because

they are the one with capabilities to outreach to each different stakeholder.

This socialization process could take place in a special forum that gathers all stakeholders,

because not only GOI could introduce their new regulations but also give the other

stakeholders a chance to discuss or give their input to GOI regarding the regulations. However,

we are weary of “forums” as community members are not always likely to attend them.

Community members believe they are inconvenient because of the opportunity costs related

to work, and forums are often very narrow in terms of the stakeholders they invite. For

example, in the musrenbang that is held by the provincial and regent-level, BTN is not always

invited, although many would say that BTN is the government body that has the largest role in

terms of ecotourism management and implementation. Some of the government agencies

mentioned success in door-to-door approaches where they speak individually with community

members e.g. BTTP’s socialization of homestay permitting.

With more routine socialization, GOI could introduce new regulations while at same time

gather inputs from the various stakeholders, and the stakeholder will feel appreciated because

they can give input to the GOI and will be more willing to follow the new regulations because

they are involved in the regulation making process.

2. Revisit current attempts to coordinate with the local community and consider models that

empower communities versus government-led ecotourism implementation models

Examples of community-led ecotourism could serve as models for future ecotourism

development. In Karimunjawa, the community is already involved in some of the Wildlife

Conservation Society and Rare-led efforts to organize them around issues dealing with conflict

resolution and policing of fishing regulations. These activities could go further to include useful

public services such as self-certification “Eco-cert) of small and medium sized businesses that

would reward small businesses for greening their supply chains. The community could also

take a larger role in asking for services that are not within their power, and lie with the central

government: including more regular tourism training,

Kehati, a pro-conservation NGO based in Indonesia, convenes and funds ecotourism activities

in several small islands that may draw a parallel to Karimunjawa. Their sites include Sanggih

islands in Northern Sulawesi and Berau district near Derawan in East Kalimantan. In these

areas, the focus is on socializing ecotourism before ecotourism activities start. A key emphasis

is on sustainable growth versus sustainable tourism per se, because it can be assumed that

tourism will create winners and losers as not everyone has the ability to participate in tourism

activities. For example, the projects, after they are consulted with community and then

designed, tend to emphasize innovative income-generating production activities, such as

indigenous commodities for export that are based on existing land uses and sustainable

methods. In these Kehati small island cases, too, the numbers of tourists is limited and the

entry barriers (in terms of entry fees, distance and costs) are very high in order to reduce the

strain on environmental resources such as water. Moreover, all of the revenues are shared

fairly among the local government, the central government, and the community through a

clear national park policy on distribution of park fees. Moreover, in these circumstances where

the ecotourism is planned by the community, there are explicit MOUs with the local

government and implementers (universities and local foundations) that clearly dictate the role

and responsibilities of each stakeholder and clearly describes mechanisms for regular

coordination.

3. Ecotourism for the goal of conservation should be pursued with caution: capacity building

should precede the implementation of ecotourism development in sensitive ecosystems

Karimunjawa is a clear case of a place where there are two types of tourism (high-end eco-

friendly tourism and mass nature tourism), both of which use nature tourism as the main

attraction. However, the mass tourism that has come to define Karimunjawa should serve as a

cautionary tale for yet untouched or relatively untouched nature attractions in Indonesia.

From a pessimistic perspective, no matter how ideal the ecotourism model, it is likely that in

Indonesia, there will most likely be issues of low capacity of the local government to

implement good ecotourism and misunderstanding about the meaning of proper ecotourism

from all stakeholders . On the one hand, it is extremely difficult to find a balance between

conserving the environmental while identifying and implementing the full range of income-

generating activities that the local community needs to offset the real financial incentives for

pursuing the short-term gains from non-ecofriendly mass tourism. According to our research,

some stakeholders understand ecotourism wrongly as nature tourism. On the other hand, the

government’s capacity to implement its ecotourism regulations is a major constraint that

donor agencies should consider seriously when looking at untouched nature attractions. The

local government’s capacity to provide some very basic services to support ecotourism e.g.

waste management and proper socialization of ecotourism regulatsions should be a priority

because, foremost, it is what the community is unhappy with and believes the government

should do. Beyond the provision of basic services, the government’s capacity to serve as a

convener and coordinator needs to be improved. There are gaping examples of where it is

obvious there is poor horizontal (between departments/ministries) and vertical coordination

(central to regional governments) at the government levels, and there are huge

communications issues. Therefore, with these risks, donors and investors need to mitigate

these risks when pursuing ecotourism activities in Indonesia as a solution to conserving natural

habitats with high biodiversity.

4. Redefine ecotourism: environmental conservation needs to take precedence

Based on our findings about perceptions, the stakeholders hold very divergent objectives with

regard to the word “ecotourism” and overall identify economic growth and community welfare

as their priority with regards to their perceptions about managing and implementing

ecotourism. With that said, all of them agree with the basic principles of ecotourism and thus

show well-intentioned awareness and commitment to the other three principles (environmental

conservation, culture preservation and loca industry development).

The authors believe that not enough stress is placed on environmental conservation as a starting

point for ecotourism definitions. The authors suggest that the following priorities are embedded

into policies and programs that are oriented as ecotourism activities, and that the principle of

environmental conservation is emphasized when discussing ecotourism.

Table 1: Authors’ assessment about the normative priorities for managing and implementing

ecotourism in Karimunjawa, in order of importance

The Basic Principles of Ecotourism Order of Priority

Conservation of the environment and natural resources 1

Increasing economy and welfare of local community 2

Preservation of life and local culture 3

The conservation of environment and natural resources should be the first priority for all

stakeholders because it becomes the basis for the achievement of the other principles. The

availability of potential natural resources is the selling value for ecotourism activities. The

second priority should be the implementation of the principle of increasing economy and

welfare of local community. The third priority should be the preservation of life and local culture.

If these first three principles are achieved, then automatically we would expect that the local

tourism industry will develop as a result.