Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Maritime Studies

Dirhamsyah --- "Analysis of Institutional Arrangements Relevant to Coral Reef Management in Indonesia" [2007] MarStudies 14; (2007) 154 Maritime Studies 1

• Analysis of Institutional Arrangements Relevant to Coral Reef Management in Indonesia
• Abstract
• Introduction
• The Role and Importance of Institutions in Coastal Resources Management
• Institutional Arrangements for Coastal Management in Indonesia
• Institutional Arrangements at the National Level
• Institutional Arrangements at the Regional Level
• Institutional Arrangements at the Local Level
• Roles and Responsibilities of Government
• National Government Roles and Responsibilities
• Provincial Government Roles and Responsibilities
• District or City Governments’ Roles and Responsibilities
• The Roles and Responsibilities of Non-Governmental Organisations
• Specific Issues of Institutional Arrangements of Coastal Management in Indonesia
• Overlapping jurisdictions of government agencies
• Lack of management capacity for implementation
• Lack of political will for implementation
• Solutions and Policy Implications
• (a) Improvement of coordinating mechanisms (revitalization of DMI)
• (b) Expand the powers and duties of an existing agency (creation of a super-agency)
• (c) Establishing a new coordinating ministry
• Conclusion
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• ENDNOTES

Analysis of Institutional Arrangements Relevant to Coral Reef Management in Indonesia

Dirhamsyah^[1]

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine the institutional arrangements or administrative structures that should be developed by Indonesia to deal with the management of coastal and marine resources, in particular coral reef management. This paper provides an alternative model of institutional arrangements for Indonesian coastal and coral reef management. The analysis of the institutional arrangements is not offered to solve the problems as a whole, but this analysis may assist in explaining the broad and complex problems of coordination, functional overlaps and unclear mandates of government agencies concerned with coastal and marine resources in Indonesia. These problems include the large number of institutions or actors that are involved in the sector, and the strong influences of internal and external factors in the development of an institutional capacity for the sector.

Introduction

The ‘coming into force’ in 1994 of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) of 10 December 1982 clarified Indonesia’s status as the world’s largest archipelagic state. The total length of the Indonesian coastline, covering 17,506^[2] islands, is estimated at 81,000 km. Indonesia’s area of national jurisdiction is about 7.73 million sq. km consisting of 1.93 million sq. km of land area, 2.8 million sq. km of archipelagic waters, 0.3 million sq. km of territorial sea, and 2.7 million sq. km of Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).^[3] Coastal and marine territories have economic as well as geographical significance to Indonesia. More than 140 million people – 60 per cent of the population – live within 50 kilometres of the coastline.^[4]

Slightly more than one-quarter (26.5%) of the Indonesian Gross National Product was derived from the utilisation of coastal and marine resources in 2002.^[5]

Indonesia’s coastal and marine resources are also important to the world. Indonesia is home to 3,567 fish species,^[6]

4.25 million hectares or close to 30 per cent of the world’s mangroves,^[7] and about 75,000 km² or 12.5 per cent of the world’s coral reefs.^[8] Today, however, most of these resources are under great stress and continue to decline at an alarming rate. For example, more than 67 per cent of Indonesia’s coral reefs have been partially or totally destroyed,^[9] and 40 per cent of its mangroves have already been destroyed.^[10] Inappropriate management of coastal and marine resources is the main cause of this situation.

It is argued that the degradation of coastal and marine resources in Indonesia is due to social, economic, legal and political problems. But the lack of appropriate institutional arrangements, legal framework and political commitment at the national level have contributed to the problems of development of an appropriate national policy, lack of coordination, and lack of law enforcement which contribute to the continuing degradation of coastal and marine resources in Indonesia.

This paper begins with a discussion of the role and importance of institutions, followed by an analysis of several international issues of governance arrangements for coastal and coral reef management. It then examines several specific issues and problems with institutional arrangements. The paper concludes with a summary and recommendations for the Government of Indonesia to assist it in addressing the problems of institutional arrangements for coastal and ocean management.

The Role and Importance of Institutions in Coastal Resources Management

There is no doubt that institutions are important for the management of coastal and marine activities. In the case of resource management, institutions are created by the government in order to allocate scarce resources and to resolve conflicts among resource users. Thus, the performance of institutions determines the success or failure of the management of coastal and marine activities.

It is important to distinguish between the terms institution and organisation when undertaking institutional analysis. Institutions are defined as the long-standing rules and rights governing social and productive behaviour.^[11]

Organisations are the players and structures, or ‘groups of individuals bound together by some common purpose to achieve objectives.’^[12] Sorensen and McCreary describe institutional arrangements as ‘the composite of laws, customs, and organisations established by society to allocate scarce resources and competing values.’^[13]

Institutions can be divided into two types: formal and informal. Formal coastal zone institutions are formed through a combination of written legislation and administrative and court decisions. Informal institutions, on the other hand, may be norms of oral tradition and traditional beliefs that exist in communities, mostly traditional communities.^[14] The informal institutions, however, may not be recognised or supported by government regulation.

Another indicator of the distinction between formal and informal institutions is how rules are enforced. Formal institutions need enforcement by a third party such as the courts while informal institutions are enforced endogenously through mutual agreements or by relations of power and authority between or among the social actors involved.^[15]

There are three reasons why formal institutions are important in coastal resource management. First, formal institutions play a significant role in the sustainable management of resources.^[16] Second, significant improvement in the management of common property resources, such as fisheries, has been seen in the Southeast Asian region through the design of appropriate formal institutions, accompanied by strong political support.^[17]

Third, the interest in cooperation and interaction between government agencies and resource users, as well as in community involvement, is increasing due to the benefits that accrue from sharing responsibilities and ownership.^[18] This requires the creation of appropriate institutions at all local levels.

A feasibility and cost-effective analysis is a prerequisite for the creation of an institution for coastal and marine resources management. Institutional arrangements can be considered effective if they facilitate and encourage various parties to agree and cooperate to achieve common goals, to make realistic and acceptable rules and to develop strategies which comply with the rules. If the parties do not interact well and the policies are not implemented, the existing legal and institutional arrangements fail to deliver the necessary processes to ensure efficiency, equity and sustainability in the use of coastal resources.^[19]

In order to develop sustainable coastal and coral reef management practices in Indonesia it is necessary to examine the Indonesian governmental system. This exercise can provide the objectivity for critical examination of the existing institutions involved in coastal and marine resources management in Indonesia.

Institutional Arrangements for Coastal Management in Indonesia

Coastal and ocean resources governance in Indonesia is the primary responsibility of the state. At the national level the authority for coastal and ocean resources management is under the responsibility of state ministries. However, this responsibility is shared among various agencies.

Institutional Arrangements at the National Level

There are three forms of ministries that are recognised in the Indonesian government system. These are: (i) ministries or line departments, (ii) coordinating agencies, which are divided into two types: coordinating ministries (Menteri Koordinator) and state ministries (Menteri Negara); and (iii) non-departmental government agencies. Line ministries have legislated responsibilities for the management of various coastal resources or sectors. Coordinating ministries have a government mandate to bring together various line agencies with other relevant parties and formulate coastal management initiatives. Non-departmental agencies have a mandate to conduct a specific government function. Indonesia has a permanent inter-ministerial council for coastal and ocean management called the Indonesian Maritime Council (Dewan Maritim Indonesia), similar to those in the Philippines and Thailand.^[20]

In theory, three main agencies are responsible for fisheries and coastal resources management and conservation. These are the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, the Ministry of Forestry and the State Ministry for Environment. Overall responsibility for the management, development and conservation of fisheries and other coastal and marine resources lies within the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, while coastal environmental protection and management is under the responsibility of the State Ministry for Environment and the Ministry of Forestry. The Ministry of Forestry is also responsible for the management and conservation of mangroves and national parks, including marine parks.

However, the Indonesian bureaucratic system is more complicated than it appears. In practice at least nine line departments, three state ministries, one coordinating ministry, four non-departmental government agencies and one inter-ministerial council are involved in coastal management at the national level. Table 1 provides a list and functions of some of the major government agencies in the Megawati cabinet that had some responsibility for the management of coastal and marine resources. Detailed discussion of the problems associated with the complexity of institutional arrangements on coastal management at the national level will be undertaken later.

Institutional Arrangements at the Regional Level

At present Indonesia has 33 provinces administered by governors who exercise considerable autonomy.^[21] There was also a significant increase in the number of districts and city governments in Indonesia following the entry into force of the former Regional Government Act No. 22 of 1999 (called Autonomy Law) in 2001.^[22] For example, data from the 1990s revealed that there were 292 municipalities or districts.^[23] This was increased significantly in 2002 to 354.^[24]

The authority of regional governments in Indonesia has changed considerably since the enactment of the Autonomy Law in 2001. A number of autonomous sectoral agencies (dinas) and technical institutions such as boards (badan) and offices (kantor) now come under the control of governors and mayors (bupatis). These cover most of the government functions, including marine and fisheries, agriculture and forestry, tourism, mining, transport and communications, health, education, etc. According to Article 120 of Act No. 32 of 2004 regarding Regional Government (Autonomy Act), regional governments have discretionary authority to create a dinas and/or a technical institution depending on their individual needs.

The Regional Planning and Development Board (Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Daerah/BAPPEDA) is one of the most important regional government agencies responsible for coastal and ocean management at provincial and district levels. The main function of BAPPEDA is the coordination and formulation of development planning for all government sectors, including coastal and ocean resources management, and social and cultural development. The implementation of the Marine Coastal Resources Management Project (MCRMP) has given some BAPPEDAs and Regional Fisheries Offices (Dinas Kelautan dan Perikanan) opportunity to formulate provincial strategic plans for integrated coastal management projects.^[25]

Table 1: Institutional Arrangements for Coastal Management in Indonesia

The institutional capacity for coastal management of most dinas and badan in regional governments is very weak in contrast to national government agencies. They are faced with a lack of educated professional staff, particularly in marine science, and unclear, overlapping jurisdictions.^[26]

Further, tight central control under earlier regimes atrophied creativity at the regional level. Centralists, unsupportive of devolution, continue to favour and foster this former culture.

Institutional Arrangements at the Local Level

Two forms of institutions, formal and informal, exist at the local level, with the latter having undocumented rules and roles. Informal institutions can be more flexible and dynamic over time, but may not be recognised or understood by outsiders. They can also be very rigid and very reluctant with internal participants. Local institutions can also range from indigenous, with their origins clearly going back many generations, to contemporary or more ‘modern’ forms.^[27]

Many scholars have noted the traditional management systems that existed in Indonesia a few decades ago, such as sasi.^[28] However, these systems have nearly all disappeared from Indonesia over the past few years. Sasi was pressured by internal factors as well as external ones. These include the change from traditional management to a centralist system by colonial and new order regime administrations,^[29] global market pressures, and the introduction of new technologies for natural resources exploitation.^[30]

The numbers of kecamatan, kelurahan and desa have also increased significantly since the enactment of the Autonomy Law in 2001. Data in the 1990s revealed that the total number of sub-districts was 3,500, and the number of rural or urban villages was 66,400.^[31] In 2002, these increased to 4,646 and 69,255 respectively.^[32] However, there is no evidence that demonstrates a parallel improvement in the performance of local administrations in managing their natural resources.

The Autonomy Law was expected to improve the involvement of bureaucrats at all levels of government and the community itself in traditional natural resources management. Although this law has not clearly stated the importance of traditional management, Article 2(9) of Act No. 32 of 2004 states that the traditional norms and cultures that existed in the villages are explicitly recognised as long as they are consistent with existing written laws and regulations of the Republic of Indonesia. However, the imposition of centralised administration over a long period has hampered the functioning of all traditional resource management systems in Indonesia. This has resulted in the lack of informal institutions at local sites in most regions in Indonesia, particularly community institutions that would address conservation and natural resources management.

Nevertheless, the growing awareness of the importance of traditional knowledge for natural resource management in some areas in Indonesia (usually donor project areas) has resulted in increasing efforts by some progressive local administrations to revive traditional management. Several programs of community empowerment for natural resources management have been introduced to improve the capacity of community institutions to manage their own resources. Minimal success has been seen in Desa Blongko, North Sulawesi, and several sites of the Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program (COREMAP).^[33] A COREMAP survey in 2002 revealed the success of community-based reef management in Senayang and Lingga Islands (Riau Province) and Takabonerate Islands (Selayar District) in increasing coral health in those areas from 31.9% and 23.8% in 2001 to 36.7% and 30.1% respectively.^[34] Success in those areas confirms that co-management of coastal and marine resource is a good model for managing natural resources in Indonesia in the future.

However, it is fair to say that this has not been an easy task. The success of those community programs has required considerable effort and support from all natural resources stakeholders, including government, NGOs and the community itself, without which community empowerment would have failed. It is also reasonable to say that the COREMAP experience is only the first step for Indonesia in managing its coastal and ocean resources. There is still considerable work for Indonesia to reduce the degradation and destruction of coral reefs due to inappropriate and poor management. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities of all levels of government in coastal and marine resources management are the key to achieving an appropriate institutional model for Indonesia’s diversified culture.

Roles and Responsibilities of Government

National Government Roles and Responsibilities

During the 1990s, there was a re-examination of coastal management roles at all levels of government in Indonesia, particularly at the central level. Significant policies were developed to respond to the increasing global and national awareness of the importance of coastal resources management. These policies included the enactment of the two key autonomy laws that have influenced the roles and responsibilities of all levels of government with respect to coastal and marine resources management.

Some government functions remained under the authority of the national government, including political and foreign affairs; security and defence; judicial; fiscal and monetary; and religion.^[35] The enactment of the autonomy laws resulted in the devolution of most other national government functions to regional governments (provincial and district governments), including coastal management. This has resulted in a change in the role of the national government from direct control and management of activities to developing guidelines and policies. Legally, the central government has retained authority to manage coastal and marine resources only in the areas outside 12 nautical miles and the boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf. In addition, the Autonomy Law also requires that the national government supervise regional governments in the implementation of decentralisation.^[36]

Provincial Government Roles and Responsibilities

The rights and responsibilities of provincial governments decreased significantly after more than thirty years^[37] of enjoying rights and authority as Daerah Tingkat I (Regional Government Level I). Provincial governments had had authority and duties to manage and assume responsibility for all government activities within their jurisdictions, including all district and city governments (Daerah Tingkat II or Regional Government Level II).

Today, there is no direct hierarchy or reporting responsibility among district and city governments and provincial governments. According to Article 2 (2) (3) of Act No 32 of 2004, provincial governments are autonomous. The provinces are considered to be at the same level as the district or city governments. This has, unfortunately, changed the roles and responsibilities of regional/provincial governments from direct control and management to the development of guidelines and policies within their territories – fairly similar to that of the central government. The provincial governments have neither the right nor authority to control or direct district or city governments. Some rights however, are still retained by regional government authorities, such as exploration, exploitation and conservation of natural resources of marine areas from 4 to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, and cross-jurisdictional issues involving multiple districts or regencies.^[38]

It has been argued that the new role of the provinces needs to be defined explicitly,^[39] as their authority under the regional autonomy laws is ambiguous.^[40] Patlis et al. argue that provincial authority for the management of cross-boundary issues is extremely broad, in particular for the management of marine and coastal resources. They argue that almost all issues involving the management of coastal and coral reefs involve cross-sectoral agencies and multiple districts. It is hard to find a coastal management issue that does not cross the jurisdiction of more than one district. There is a strong connection between terrestrial activities and coastal water quality and resources.^[41] Using the Autonomy Law, the provinces have argued that they have the right to manage all coastal areas, although the 4-nautical-mile sea territory from the baseline is under the jurisdiction of district governments. Thus, the provision of Article 13 (1) of Act No. 32 of 2004 is a possible source of conflict between provinces and districts in managing coastal and marine areas.

Despite their authority, provincial governments may now be faced with the difficulty of finding the budget to fund their proposed wider intra-district activities for natural resource management. This has already occurred since the enactment of the Act No. 25 of 1999 concerning Financial Distribution between Central and Regional Governments,^[42] whereby the portion of the general fund (Dana Alokasi Umum) allocated to provinces has been reduced and is relatively small compared with that to district and city governments. The distribution of revenue, particularly revenue derived from the natural resource sector, is largely directed to the central government and the districts/cities.^[43] This situation will negatively influence the provinces’ capacity to address cross-jurisdictional issues. Patlis et al. argue that the provinces may have a stronger vote in shaping policies, coordinating activities and settling disputes, but little capacity to do more.^[44]

Yet having a key role in integration of coastal resource management programs is still very important for provincial governments, in particular for conflict resolution in the management of coastal and marine areas in western Indonesia where these issues are increasing significantly.^[45]

There are at least four roles that can be played by the provincial government. First, it can act as a mediator to resolve conflicts between districts under its coordination area, or with districts of other provinces. This role is in line with the functions of the provinces as administrative regions and representatives of the central government.^[46] If the provinces can be successful in this role resource use conflicts may be reduced.

Secondly, provinces can act as information providers for coastal and marine resource management, including coral reef management, for the districts. The availability of information has been a key factor in coastal and marine management.^[47] The lack of trained staff results in poor information in most districts in Indonesia. This problem is caused by the movement of professional staff to the provincial centres for social and economic reasons. It is reasonable therefore for the provincial government to assume the role of information provider for districts under its area. This role is also a valid responsibility for provincial governments under Act No. 32 of 2004.^[48]

Thirdly, the provinces can take on the role of ‘interpreters’ of broad central government policy. It is a challenge for the provinces to interpret the general guidelines or standards from the central government and create specific guidelines and standards that meet the needs of their district/city governments.

Fourthly, the provinces can act as facilitators between the districts and the central government. Their trained human resource advantage can be used by the provinces to assist districts in reviewing and integrating their plans for coastal and marine resources management, and together facilitate approval from central government for either individual district-level or integrated multi-district plans.

District or City Governments’ Roles and Responsibilities

Decentralisation under the Autonomy legislation devolved significant authority and funds to the district and city governments. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that those governments are the ‘winners’ in the decentralisation process compared with the provincial governments, although some government functions are still held by the central and provincial governments. These district and city governments have full authority for all decision-making within their jurisdiction of about one-third of the marine area under the provincial jurisdiction.

International experience shows that the success of coastal management requires the implementation of a management strategy for an area as close to the authority as possible.^[49] The district and city governments are closer to the resources and their users than other government levels, hence the devolution initiative appears to be consistent with international trends.

With the full authority for almost all government functions, including coastal management, it is logical for districts to assume the role of initiators, facilitators and implementers of integrated coastal and marine resources management in their areas of jurisdiction. They should be active in initiating sustainable coastal resource programs. The districts should invite and encourage coastal communities to join in integrated coastal and marine resources management, including those activities pertaining to the management of coral reef ecosystems. They should also act as facilitators for the sustainability of programs initiated by the community and support them through technical assistance, funds and provision of legal assistance. The districts can also act as the implementers of national or provincial programs pertaining to coastal and marine management.

Unfortunately, the lack of experienced and trained staff in coastal and coral reef management is still evident in most coastal districts in Indonesia. Case studies in Riau Archipelago, Selayar, and Biak Numfor reveal that the implementation of decentralised authority has not yet had a significant effect on sustainable and integrated coastal management programs.^[50] There is no evidence that the district governments are successful in their roles, although, in some cases, several marine programs and regulations had been developed by districts. Most of the coastal and marine programs and regulations were focused on securing economic revenue, with very few regulations issued for sustainable and integrated coastal and coral reef management. Implementation of environmentally sustainable development and community empowerment programs in these districts had not been initiated and developed by the local district governments but by the central government.

The effects of thirty-five years of a strong centralised regime with the suppression of regional/district initiatives may be the influencing factor in these cases. The habits of awaiting instruction, guidance and direction from the central government have not yet disappeared in many districts. Even though legally the authority to act and decide on their needs is already given to the districts, their lack of expertise, experience, knowledge, and confidence has hindered implementation of the programs. They do not know clearly what they want to do, are still unsure of their authority, and do not know how to proceed. It is clear that the district governments need support from the national and provincial governments to strengthen their management capacity, especially in coastal and coral reef management. Without such support the decentralised system will fail, a result that is possibly an unconscious desire of the core group of centralists in Jakarta who do not favour decentralisation and the empowerment of communities and districts.

The Roles and Responsibilities of Non-Governmental Organisations

As mentioned earlier the involvement of civil society or lobby groups in the resource decision-making process has increased in Indonesia. Therefore the roles and responsibilities of NGOs in the development and management of coastal and marine resources, in particular coral reef management in Indonesia, is also an important area for analysis.

A significant increase in the number of NGOs in Indonesia has occurred, simultaneously with the ‘blooming’ of the community empowerment program in the last decade. Since then, many national and international NGOs have been active in the natural resource sectors in Indonesia, including coastal and coral reef management.

Many national policies, in particular for coastal management, have been developed by the government due to pressures and/or assistance from NGOs.^[51]

Together with the government some national and international NGOs have achieved successes in implementing programs for community empowerment and nature conservation in Indonesia. For example, a sound scientific basis for conservation planning has been established by Conservation International (CI), together with LIPI and KLH and a small local NGO in the Togian Islands.^[52]

NGOs became major actors in the development and management of natural resources alongside the government sector and have played an important role in all community empowerment programs in Indonesia. Many successful government programs and projects of community empowerment were due to the professionalism of the NGOs as facilitators for communities in these programs. The success of the COREMAP program and Proyek Pesisir^[53]

in implementing community empowerment programs in some areas in Indonesia was also due in large part to contributions from local NGOs involved in these projects.^[54]

However, it is also fair to say that not all programs carried out by NGOs have been successful. This is due to the lack of skilled staff, funds and experience that face many local NGOs in Indonesia. Understandably when news of the availability of donor funds for NGOs became public, many local NGOs in Indonesia were established without the capacity to run community programs. Most of their personnel do not yet have appropriate educational backgrounds related to the community culture. Almost all local NGOs in Indonesia have little or no capacity to raise funds to finance their programs; they rely totally on government and/or overseas funding support.

The choice of the most appropriate NGO(s) for a project is critical for its success. A mix of credible international and local NGOs can enhance local NGO capacity. Large international NGOs, however, are often like donor agencies and develop their own agendas, and in their business plans tend to adopt ‘template’ solutions and thus lose their local perspective and ability to listen and respond to local needs. Nevertheless, whatever their weaknesses NGOs are potential assets to assist in managing coastal and marine resources. It is a challenge for Indonesia to strengthen the capacity of local NGOs.

Specific Issues of Institutional Arrangements of Coastal Management in Indonesia

Since 1999 Indonesia has been making efforts to develop an integrated ocean management policy. Many international conventions related to coastal and ocean management have been ratified by the Indonesian Government,^[55] plus the enactment of domestic laws for natural resources management. The first step in the commitment to address the problems of coastal and ocean activities can be seen clearly when in 1999 the Government of Indonesia established a new ministry, the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, that was to have special functions to manage fisheries and the sustainable exploitation of other living marine resources.

Unfortunately, aside from the initial central state level and small pockets of provincial and district level government commitment to address coastal and ocean resources management, the system is not yet working as envisaged. Resource depletion and environmental degradation are continuing and are largely the result of poor institutional arrangements.

The development of institutional structures for governing coastal and ocean activities still faces specific problems. These include overlapping jurisdictions of government agencies, lack of management capacity for implementation, and lack of political will for implementation.

Overlapping jurisdictions of government agencies

The establishment of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries was originally expected to address the problem of coordination in the implementation of coastal and ocean management in Indonesia. This ministry was mandated as the coordinator of several government agencies for coastal management. However, the problems associated with overlapping jurisdictions, unclear mandates, internal power-broking, insufficient institutional mechanisms, and lack of commitment to both devolution and implementation of marine science management has had a negative impact on its ability to deliver on its mandate. The result has been a failure in coordination among the existing government agencies both vertically and horizontally at all levels of government. Horizontal integration, commonly called ‘inter-sectoral’ integration, of several agencies at the same government level has not yet been achieved. Vertical integration of agencies at different levels of government to coordinate their programs has also been unsuccessful. Most of the government agencies remain focused on their own sectoral, temporal, and spatial mandates. This has led to weak governance and lack of consultation with stakeholders and is a negative factor in the implementation of integrated coastal management.

Success requires cooperation of all involved government agencies with stakeholders in all decision-making processes for coastal and ocean management and this has not yet been achieved. For example, a number of ministries and non-departmental agencies were involved in the formulation of the recently approved national policy for wetlands management in Indonesia.^[56] Among these were the Ministry of Forestry, the State Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Transport and Communication, the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, the Ministry of Resettlement and Regional Infrastructure, the Ministry of Agriculture, the National Coordinating Agency for Survey and Mapping, the Indonesian Institute of Sciences, and the Indonesian Navy. The national policy was a ‘compromise’ document to accommodate the desires of all parties, but unfortunately remained too broad to be an effective guide for ministries and did not focus on the key issue of ocean policy development for sustainable management.

Another example that highlights inter-agency challenges is the establishment of conservation management areas, particularly marine protected areas. Previously the management of some marine protected areas, including national marine parks, was under the Ministry of Forestry, however, this management system created conflict after the establishment of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. The Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries claimed that its duties and functions under Presidential Decree No. 102 of 2001 included marine parks, and therefore requested the Ministry of Forestry to transfer the six national marine parks^[57] to the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. Conflict between these agencies arose when the Ministry of Forestry refused the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries’ request. The Ministry of Forestry argued that, as long as the formal legislation^[58] that granted it the mandate to manage these areas had not been repealed, the management of national marine parks should remain under its authority. Several strategies have been tried to solve this conflict, such as a Memorandum of Understanding between both parties, but the problem has not yet been resolved. There is a ‘convention’^[59] in the Indonesian government system that if there is a conflict between government agencies, it should be settled through a Coordinating Ministry forum, but this has not yet occurred.

The above are only a few examples of the functional overlaps in mandates. Table 2 provides other examples of functional overlaps among Indonesia’s government agencies in coastal and marine resources management. This highlights the failure of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries to carry out its function to coordinate coastal management in Indonesia. The fragmented management system in coastal management is caused by the absence of a strong unifying institutional arrangement in Indonesia.^[60]

It is a case where more is less unless there is clear leadership support from the Executive.

This institutional analysis also gives some insight into the statement that there is little or no correlation between the Autonomy Law and vertical integration between the central and the regional government agencies. Inconsistency in the devolution of some authority to regional governments by central government ministries and agencies has led to further confusion at the regional level in conducting coastal management programs. This inconsistency can be seen clearly in Government Regulation No. 25 of 2000, where some authority is still held by central government agencies, although according to the Autonomy Law these functions, with a few exceptions, are to be transferred to regional governments.

An example in the management of conservation areas is the authority for the management of nature/marine conservation areas, which remains with the central government in the Ministry of Forestry. Legal and administrative matters in the regional forestry office (dinas) are still coordinated by the central Ministry of Forestry.

Legally it is not necessary for the head of the local forestry office to be responsible to, or report on, his/her duties to the head of the district or provincial government. In some cases, due to lack of coordination between the local forestry office (as the representative of the MoF) and the governor or the bupati, a parallel local office was established with a different name in many regional governments for forestry functions. That is, there are two offices with different names but they have the same functions and different ‘owners’.^[61]

Therefore it can be argued that the unclear jurisdiction of government agencies, exacerbated by lack of central executive direction and hence lack of commitment to implementing

Table 2: Functional Overlaps between Agencies Involved in Coastal and Marine Resources Management in Indonesia

Notes:

1 – Acronyms:

DU: District Unit; PU: Provincial Unit; MoMAF: Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries; MoF: Ministry of Forestry; KLH: State Ministry for Environment; MoEMR: Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources; MoHARA: Ministry of Home Affairs and Regional Autonomy; MoTI: Ministry of Trade and Industry; MoTC: Ministry of Transport and Communication; MoRRI: Ministry of Resettlement and Regional Infrastructure; POLRI: Indonesian National Police; SMRST: State Ministry for Research, Science and Technology; SMCT: State Ministry for Culture and Tourism; BAPPENAS: National Development Planning Agency; LIPI: Indonesian Institute of Sciences; BPPT: Board of Implementation and Assessment of Technology; BAKOSURTANAL: National Coordinating Agency for Survey and Mapping; DMI: Indonesian Maritime Council.

2 - Sources:

Presidential Decree No. 101/2001 concerning positions, functions and authorities of state ministries;

Presidential Decree No 102 of 2001 concerning positions, functions and authorities of ministries; and

Presidential Decree No. 103/2001 concerning functions and authorities of non-department agencies.

devolution, has led to conflict between government agencies and contributed to the absence of horizontal and vertical integration for coastal resources management in Indonesia. The establishment of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries has not resolved the coordination problems. The fragmented development of the supporting legal framework for the establish

ment of a clear, workable and integrated government institution for ocean and coastal resource management has resulted in unclear mandates and unclear jurisdictions for many government agencies, thus allowing strong ministers and their agencies (such as the Ministry of Forestry) to ignore devolution and the Autonomy Laws.

Lack of management capacity for implementation

The Indonesian administrative structure also faces problems of insufficient management capacity to implement programs and policies, or to enforce the laws and regulations for coastal and marine management.

The lack of professional personnel is a critical problem in the development of institutional arrangements for managing coastal and marine resources in Indonesia. This occurs at all government levels, from the national to the regional, and extends to the scientists. Rokhmin Dahuri, the former Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, revealed that the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries had, and still has, a major problem recruiting qualified personnel. There is only a handful of staff of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries who have a theoretical understanding of coastal management and fewer still who have any practical experience. For example, in the entire Directorate General for Coasts and Small Island Affairs there are only two staff who have experience or real knowledge of coastal management (the Director General himself and one other).^[62]

Despite national investment in developing institutional and professional capacity for the marine sector,^[63] there is a scarcity of professional staff in the scientific research and educational sectors. Many universities and research centres are still lacking scientists and lecturers. A lack of interdisciplinary approach in marine science, a lack of coordination among agencies delivering extension programs, and inadequate training in the basic sciences are the major problems.^[64] Technical and managerial capacity is also lacking in both the government and the private sectors.^[65] Unavoidably this problem affects the management of Indonesia’s coastal and marine resources due to the size of Indonesia and its extensive coral reefs.

The Indonesian economy has not fully recovered since the economic crisis in 1998. The economic crisis also influenced the development and management of institutional arrangements for coastal and marine resources, especially in the area of law enforcement. The financial crisis has forced the Indonesian government to put poverty alleviation and education as the first priority in national budget planning and hence place the lowest priority on law enforcement. This has resulted in fewer monitoring operations for all Indonesian waters due to the decreasing budget for capital infrastructure and operations.^[66]

Lack of political will for implementation

Another crucial problem in developing institutional arrangements for coastal management in Indonesia is the lack of political will and commitment of Indonesian politicians to conservation and environment issues. Although discussions about marine and coastal issues have taken place throughout the central line agencies over more than ten years the positive impact of these discussions is very limited. Most Indonesian politicians place emphasis on economic benefits rather than conservation.^[67]

Politically implementation of conservation measures is not a popular concept with their business constituents nor does it suit their short-term financial gain.^[68] Historically in developing countries conservation has been considered a luxury and this is also the case in Indonesia. Most local politicians in Indonesia do not consider conservation and environmental issues as important.

This is due to the assumption that in short-term programs conservation activities do not add to the national income or to the overall economic growth of the nation, they do not provide employment for local population, they do not attract aid from developed countries, and they do not increase political benefit for local populations.^[69] The lack of perceived immediate and direct economic benefits has resulted in many potential conservation budgets being directed elsewhere.

Solutions and Policy Implications

In order to address the above-mentioned institutional problems, a more efficient administrative structure for dealing with marine activities is required. New solutions should be adopted by the government to address the current administrative shortcomings and they must start with the establishment of appropriate and workable national coordinating mechanisms.^[70]

Three key options are available to Indonesia to address the problems of overlapping jurisdiction and lack of coordination amongst central government agencies. These options are also relevant to other countries with large governments.

(a) Improvement of coordinating mechanisms (revitalization of DMI)

The improvement of coordinating mechanisms can be done through the revitalisation of an existing inter-ministerial council, such as the Indonesian Maritime Council. This option assumes that the responsibilities are so widely dispersed and so well entrenched within the existing government agencies that a major restructuring of government departments would require significant funds, personnel and time, all of which are not realistic at the present time. Therefore, to minimise public expenditure on major restructuring the revitalisation of the Indonesian Maritime Council is a good choice. Coordinating mechanisms are necessary to exchange information and develop homogenised viewpoints on maritime issues.^[71]

There is, however, a growing resistance among most bureaucrats, researchers and local politicians to the improvement of coordination through the Indonesian Maritime Council. Indonesia has a long and sad history with this institution.

The first inter-ministerial council on the maritime sector was originally established in Indonesia in 1971 and was known as the Committee of Coordination for the Settlement of the National Regions and the Seabed (PANKORWILNAS).^[72] In 1996, however, the committee was disbanded by the government due to its failure to achieve results. In the same year, the government established the National Maritime Council (DKN) as a replacement.^[73] Again, however, the National Maritime Council was dissolved and reconstituted as the Indonesian Maritime Council in 1999.^[74] This Council still exists as a permanent inter-ministerial council for the maritime sector that is nominally led by the President but day-to-day coordination is given to the Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. To date, no significant policy or program has been produced by this institution.

A number of reasons explain the failure of the Indonesian Maritime Council. First, there is a wide range of line agencies involved in the Council’s consultation forum, each of which has some maritime interests, but none has ocean management as the primary focus, except for the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. This has resulted in no specific program or policy that could be implemented by the line agencies being produced by the Maritime Council. A national ocean policy exists, but is too broad as it was a compromise document. Also there is no single act or regulation that obliges line departments to implement the decisions of the Maritime Council.

Political will and commitment from all parties is needed for the revitalisation of the Indonesian Maritime Council. This commitment should be demonstrated by the government agency that has responsibility for the Council. The key problem appears to be lack of executive leadership for the Council. Chairmanship by any one minister handicaps the operation of the council and so a neutral chairman is required. Presumably, therefore, a possible neutral chairman would be the Vice-President.

(b) Expand the powers and duties of an existing agency (creation of a super-agency)

The second option to address the coordination problem among the existing government agencies concerned with coastal and marine activities is through expansion of the powers of an existing agency or department.

This option is based on the assumption that the existing Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries lacks sufficient legal authority or power to address the full range of complicated maritime activities. As noted earlier many other government agencies are involved in coastal and marine management in Indonesia. Legally the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries has the authority and responsibility only for fisheries management and marine affairs. This option suggests that the enhancement of powers and duties of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries from fisheries and habitat management and marine affairs to all related functions of ocean activities, such as marine transport, ocean mining, marine tourism, marine conservation, coastal forestry (mangroves management) and other ocean activities, may merit consideration as a potential solution.

Incorporating several ocean-related sectors into one government agency would offer some advantages which cannot be matched by the other options. First, the conflict of function overlaps could be avoided or at least reduced, because they would all be under ‘one roof’ and one minister. Secondly, the development of a single ministry for all ocean and coastal activities could ensure the implementation of national policy and programs, because all decision-making processes from planning to implementation would also be under ‘one roof’. Another advantage of the establishment of a single ministry would be the encouragement of a career development system. A single ministry could facilitate the employment of both specialists and generalists under the same umbrella with a wider scope for career planning and progression.

A super-ministry system is not new in institutional arrangements for coastal and ocean management. This approach has been used by the Republic of Korea. The Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries of Korea has extensive powers and duties for coastal and ocean management activities ranging from the development and coordination of marine and fisheries related policies, promotion of the shipping industry, safe navigation of vessels, port operations and port development, promotion of the fishing industry, support for the development of marine resources, and integrated coastal management for scientific research and development.^[75] The establishment of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries of Korea was to address the fragmentation of the implementation of national ocean and marine policies in that country.^[76] So far this ministry has functioned as it was designed to do. It can be argued, however, that this success is due to the strong centralised management system that has been implemented by the Government of Korea in the coastal and marine areas.^[77] Noteworthy also is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Canada which now, after the cod fishery collapse, includes fisheries science, oceanography, hydrography, management, enforcement, coastal system management, the Canadian Coast Guard (formerly in Ministry of Transport) for all sea marine and ports management, search and rescue, navigational aids and general enforcement.^[78]

However, it cannot be denied that the enlargement of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries with additional powers with respect to ocean activities would create a super-ministry or super-agency. This is a sensitive issue that may create a conflict at the national level, because the formation of a super-ministry absorbing the coastal and ocean mandates of existing agencies would require a major restructuring of government. Sloan and Sugandhy argued that this option would create too overwhelming a task and they believed that it goes against the Indonesian culture of decision-making based on deliberation and consensus.^[79] The establishment of a super-ministry would have the effect of increasing public expenditure on the required restructuring.

(c) Establishing a new coordinating ministry

The Indonesian government system recognises two types of coordinating agencies: a coordinating ministry (Menteri Koordinator) and a state ministry (Menteri Negara). In general, the role and functions of both agencies are quite similar. They both often coordinate and advise. More specifically, however, the Coordinating Ministry has responsibility for coordinating and synchronising both planning and implementation of government policy, while the State Ministry has responsibility for coordinating the development of national policy only. The position of the Coordinating Ministry in the Indonesian government system is ‘half a step’ higher than other technical and/or state ministries. The Coordinating Ministry is the more important actor in the Indonesian government system as a whole. Most national policy and political decisions of the Indonesian government have been developed in these ministries. Therefore, the performance of the Coordinating Ministry determines the success or failure of a government policy in Indonesia. Nevertheless there is no special Menko for the maritime sector in the present Indonesian Cabinet.^[80] The coordination of coastal and ocean activities is included in the functions of the Coordinating Ministry for Economics (Menteri Koordinator Ekonomi).

A further option, therefore, to address the coordination mechanism problem for national institutional arrangements is to establish a new ministry, which would have a special function of coordination of all ocean and coastal management activities.

There are some advantages in the creation of a Coordinating Ministry for ocean activities (Menteri Koordinator Kelautan). First, it would attempt to improve a flawed system through cosmetic changes. Second, the Coordinating Ministry could also act as the facilitator for conflict resolution regarding functional overlaps of the technical and state ministries, e.g. the conflict of national marine park management between the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries and the Ministry of Forestry mentioned earlier. The existing Coordinating Ministry for Economics includes the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries and the Ministry of Forestry as parties, but due to its economic focus it cannot resolve conflict with respect to managing coastal and ocean resources. The Coordinating Ministry for Ocean Activities could also act as a mediator for conflict between the national and regional government agencies.

This option may be the best and least costly one as it does not require a major restructuring of existing government agencies. As a large country with two-thirds of its territory being ocean, it is reasonable for Indonesia to create a new coordinating ministry for ocean activities.

Three elements should be addressed before deciding on the options.^[81] The first is the legal regime. The ultimate effectiveness of a super-ministry, an inter-ministerial council, or a coordinating ministry as a management vehicle would rest primarily on the legal framework from which it draws its mandate. An appropriate legal framework would avoid possible conflict and would ensure support for the implementation of policy and programs that have been produced at a higher level. This suggests that whichever option is selected, it must have authority greater than that of a current line ministry to be able to clearly resolve ministerial mandate conflicts. The second is scientific backup. The effectiveness of the implementation of ocean policy will depend on how the policy has been developed. The availability and correct use of knowledge determines the quality and credibility of the final policy. Therefore, it is reasonable, and perhaps a necessity, for a new super-ministry, new inter-ministerial council, or new Menko to develop a research and development unit within its own organisation. The third is the issue of autonomy. Whichever option is chosen, the government should consider the roles and responsibilities of local governments and communities for coastal and ocean resources management. The development of a new ministry or council cannot be allowed to reduce the rights and the authority of regional governments. All regulations produced by the central government will need to accommodate the existing Autonomy Law.

Conclusion

From the above analysis it can be concluded that the development of institutional arrangements for coastal and marine management in Indonesia is faced with several challenges. These include the lack of a clear and authoritative coordinating mechanism, unclear mandates and functional overlaps, lack of management capacity and lack of political will for implementation.

Coral reefs and other coastal resources are managed by a large number of institutions in Indonesia including government agencies and NGOs. Involved are nine line departments, three state ministries, one coordinating ministry, four non-departmental government agencies, one inter-ministerial council, and a plethora of national and international NGOs.

Three potential solutions can be considered by Indonesia to address the problems of institutional arrangements for the management of its coastal and marine resources. The first option to improve the coordinating mechanism is through the revitalisation of the Indonesian Maritime Council. The second option that can be considered by Indonesia in order to address the coordinating mechanism is through the expansion of the powers and duties of an existing agency (creation of a super-agency). The last option is through the establishment of a new coordinating ministry. The last option may be the best option for Indonesia because this does not require a major restructuring of existing government agencies.

However, the success of coastal and ocean resource management also requires an appropriate legal framework and administrative structures. Success is also determined by commitment from all involved, both direct and support sectors, including data and research management, and the establishment of appropriate and effective systems for monitoring and controlling the exploitation of coral reefs and other associated ecosystems. As both management tools and strategies have close linkages with each other the success of one is determined by the other.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to extend his grateful thanks to his colleagues Mr Peter Flewwelling and Ms Sofia Bettencourt, and his supervisors Professor Martin Tsamenyi, Dr Sam Bateman and Professor Richard Kenchington who provided invaluable assistance.

ENDNOTES

^[1] Research Centre for Oceanography, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jalan Pasir Puteh I, Ancol Timur, Jakarta Utara, Indonesia. Email dirham_dirhamsyah@yahoo.com.

^[2] Originally Indonesia had 17,508 islands, however in January 2003 the International Court of Justice decided that the management of Sipadan and Ligitan islands should be transferred to Malaysia.

^[3] R Dahuri, ‘Indonesia: National Status and Approaches to Coastal Management’, in K Hotta & IM Dutton, Coastal Management in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues and Approaches, Tokyo, JIMSTEF, 1995, pp. 277-290.

^[4] Information provided by the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries: http://www.dkp.go.id (accessed on 25 August 2004).

^[5] ibid.

^[6] Information provided by Fishbase, http://www.fishbase.org (accessed on May 25 2004).

^[7] D Hinrichsen, Coastal Waters of the World: Trends, Threats, and Strategies, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1998, p. 164.

^[8] H Cesar, Economic Analysis of Indonesian Coral Reefs, The World Bank, Environment Department, 1996, p. 2.

^[9] A Nontji, Coral Reefs of Indonesia: Past, present and future, Proceedings 9th International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia , vol. 1, 2000, p. 23.

^[10] Hinrichsen, loc. cit.

^[11] North (1990), as cited by W Manchur, A Zurbrigg & S Reichratch, CBNRM Social Science Resources Kit: A Guide for Researchers, vol. 5, Institutional Analysis, 2003. Source provided by Environment and Natural Resource Management website: http://web.idrc.ca/en/ev-3221-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html (accessed on 29 April 2005)

^[12] ibid.

^[13] JC Sorensen & ST McCreary, Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments, 2nd edn, National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Agency for International Development, 1990, p. 87.

^[14] E Ostrom, Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990, as cited by M Torell & AM Salamanca, ‘Navigating the Institutional Landscape: Introduction and Overview’, in M Torell, & AM Salamanca (eds), Institutional Issues and Perspectives in the Management of Fisheries and Coastal Resources in South East Asia, SIDA and ICLARM, 2001, p. 2.

^[15] M Leach, R Mearns & I Scoones, ‘Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management’, World Development, vol. 27, 1999, pp. 225-247, as cited by Torell & Salamanca, loc. cit.

^[16] SM Garcia & R Grainger, ‘Fisheries management and sustainability, A new perspective of an old problem?’ in DA Hancock, DC Smith, A Grant & J Beumer (eds), Developing and sustaining world fisheries resources: the state of science and management, Proceedings of Second World Fisheries Congress, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, 1997, pp. 631-654, as cited by Torell & Salamanca, loc. cit.

^[17] Ostrom (1990), as cited by Torell & Salamanca, loc. cit.

^[18] RS Pomeroy & MJ Williams (1994), Fisheries co-management and small-scale fisheries – a policy brief, ICLARM 15, Manila, Philippines, as cited by Torell & Salamanca, loc. cit.

^[19] The Asian Development Bank, Legal, Institutional and Policy Reform Report – India (Kerala) Component, Regional Technical Assistance for Coastal and Marine Resources Management and Poverty Reduction in South Asia (ADB RETA 5974), IUCN, 2002.

^[20] Sorensen & McCreary, op. cit., pp. 104-105.

^[21] Thirty of those provinces have coastal and marine territory. Until 1998, the number of Indonesian provinces was twenty-seven, but following the independence of East Timor the number was reduced to 26. However, since the enactment of the Regional Government Act (Autonomy Act), seven new provinces have been established by the national government.

^[22] In 2004 it was replaced by the new Regional Government Act No. 32 of 2004.

^[23] R Dahuri, (1996a), ‘Coastal Zone Management and Transmigration in Indonesia’, paper presented at international workshop on Integrated Coastal Management in Tropical Developing Countries: Lessons Learned from Successes and Failures, May 24-28. Xiamen, People’s Republic of China, as cited by B Cicin-Sain & RW Knecht, Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: Concepts and Practices, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1998, p. 140.

^[24] 232 of those districts and cities have coastal and marine territory (Minister of Home Affairs, Decree No. 5/2002 dated 11 March 2002). It must be noted, however, that this data could be flawed as verification systems in Indonesia are inherently and traditionally weak.

^[25] The MCRMP is the continuation of Marine Resources, Evaluation and Planning Project (MREP). The MCRMP is an on-going project carried by the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries that is implemented in 42 districts of 15 provinces, including North, Central, South and Southeast Sulawesi, Gorontalo, West, East and Central Kalimantan, West and East Nusa Tenggara, North and West Sumatra, Riau, Bengkulu and Jambi provinces.

^[26] D Hopley & Suharsono, The Status of Coral Reefs in Eastern Indonesia, Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN), 2000. Information provided by Reef Base – A Global Information System: ‘Indonesia: Management Gaps’ http://www.reefbase.org (accessed on 20 April 2004).

^[27] Manchur, Zurbrigg & Reichratch, op. cit., p. 2.

^[28] For example, TH Purwaka & Sunoto (2001), ‘Coastal Resources Management in Indonesia: Legal and Institutional Aspects’, in Torell & Salamanca (eds), op. cit., p. 81; C Zerner (1998) ‘Tracking the Transformation of a Central Moluccan Reef Management Institution in Indonesia’, in AT White, LZ Hale, Y Renard & L Cortesi, Collaborative and Community-Based Management of Coral Reefs, Kumarian Press, 1998, pp. 19-32.

^[29] K Ruddle, ‘Changing the Focus of Coastal Fisheries Management’, in RS Pomeroy (ed.), Community Management and Common Property of Coastal Fisheries in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts, Methods and Experiences, International Centre for Living Resources, Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM), 1994, p. 63; Zerner, op. cit., p. 24.

^[30] AT White & AC Trinidad, The Values of Philippine Coastal Resources: Why Protection and Management are Critical, Cebu City: Coastal Management Project, 1998, p. 11.

^[31] Dahuri (1996), as cited by Cicin-Sain and Knecht, loc. cit.

^[32] Source: Minister of Home Affairs Decree No. 5/2002 dated 11 March 2002.

^[33] The COREMAP Project initiated the community empowerment program for marine and coastal management at fourteen villages in the Riau Archipelago and Selayar.

^[34] COREMAP, ADB COREMAP Phase I Consultant’s Final Report, 2002. Prepared by AMSAT Ltd.

^[35] Article 10(3) of Act No. 32 of 2004.

^[36] It was included in Articles 217-223 of Act No. 32 of 2004.

^[37] According to the former Regional Government Act No. 5 of 1974, the provincial government was a Daerah Tingkat I (Regional Government Level I), and the district or city governments were Daerah Tingkat II (Regional Government Level II).

^[38] As was arranged by Article 18 (4) of Act No. 32 of 2004.

^[39] The Autonomy laws of Indonesia made a similar error to the Local Government Code 1991 of the Philippines which devolved authority direct from the central government to municipal governments, by-passing regional and provincial governments with the vague authority of ‘coordination’ between municipalities. This still plagues the efficiency of local government in the Philippines today. (Personal discussion with P. Flewwelling, an independent international consultant who has experience with the ADB, the World Bank, and the FAO, and who has resided in the Philippines over ten years; discussion on 20 May 2004).

^[40] JM Patlis, R Dahuri, M Knight & J Tulengen, ‘Integrated Coastal Management in a decentralized Indonesia: How it can work’, Pesisir and Lautan, 2001, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 11.

^[41] ibid.

^[42] In 2004 it was replaced by the new Financial Distribution between Central and Regional Government Act No. 33 of 2004.

^[43] Article 14 of the new Act No 33 of 2004 concerning Financial Balancing between Central and Regional Governments provided the calculation and disbursement of the national income derived from natural resource consumption, including forestry, fisheries, and general mining sectors.

^[44] Patlis et al., op. cit., p.11.

^[45] An example is the conflict between Sumenep’s fishers and the North Coast of Java fishers regarding fishing areas. Source: VP Nikijuluw, DG Bengen & AB Purwanto, (2002), ‘Identifikasi Pola Pergeseran dari Rezim Sentralistik kepada Desentralasi dalam Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Pesisir dan Laut’ (‘Identification of the changing pattern of the Centralistic regime to Decentralization in Marine and Coastal Management’), in DG Bengen, IW Arthana, IM Dutton, A Tahir & Burhanuddin (eds) Prosiding Konperensi Nasional III 2002: Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Pesisir dan Lautan Indonesia (Proceedings of Third National Conference 2002: Management of Indonesian Coastal and Ocean Resources), Bali, Indonesia, p. III-44.

^[46] Article 13 (1 g, h and k) of Act No. 32 of 2004 noted that the provincial government has the authority for inter-jurisdictional issues and Article 10(5) of Act No. 32 of 2004 noted that provinces are also administrative regions that have authority to assist in the implementation of the central authorities in the overall governance system.

^[47] Patlis et al., loc. cit.

^[48] Article 13 (1 a, b, and f) of Act No. 32 of 2004 states that the provincial governments have authority to manage some government functions in their jurisdiction, including regional development planning, human potential resources allocation, and regional spatial planning.

^[49] RS Pomeroy & F Berkes, ‘Two tango, the role of government in fisheries co-management’, Marine Policy, vol. 21, no. 5, 1997, pp. 465-480.

^[50] For detailed discussion of these case studies see Dirhamsyah, ‘Regional Policies and Regulations for Coral Reef Management – Case Studies in Riau Archipelago, Selayar and Biak Numfor Districts, Indonesia’, Maritime Studies, vol. 136, 2004, pp. 7-20.

^[51] For example, KEHATI has assisted the Government of Indonesia in the development of the National Strategy for Biodiversity Management of 1993 and the Action Plan for Biodiversity Conservation of 1992. Information provided by the Embassy of the United States of America, Jakarta Indonesia: http://www.usembassyjakarta.org (accessed on 30 April 2004).

^[52] P Suryadi & J Supriatna, (1999), Bridging community needs and government planning in the Togian Islands, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Information provided by Reef Base – A Global Information System: ‘Indonesia: Management Capacity’ http://www.reefbase.org (accessed on 30 April 2004).

^[53] The main goal of the Proyek Pesisir was to test a range of integrated coastal management approaches in three sites: North Sulawesi, Lampung and East Kalimantan. This project is funded by USAID. Information provided by Reef Base – A Global Information System: ‘Indonesia: Management Capacity’, http://www.reefbase.org (accessed on 30 April 2004).

^[54] Personal experience, the author is a COREMAP staff officer.

^[55] See detailed discussion of Indonesian ratification of international conventions in Dirhamsyah, Indonesian Legislative Framework for Coastal and Coral Reef Resources Management, A Critical Review and Recommendations (forthcoming).

^[56] For example, the National Strategy and Action Plan for the Management of Indonesian Wetlands (Strategi Nasional dan Rencana Aksi Pengelolaan Lahan Basah Indonesia) which was made in 1996. However due to lack of socialisation and lack of focus it is considered a failed program.

^[57] The six national marine parks are: TNL. Kepulauan Seribu; TNL. Karimun Jawa; TNL. Taka Bone Rate; TNL. Wakatobi; TNL. Bunaken and TNL. Teluk Cendrawasih.

^[58] There are some central government legislative instruments that place the management of national marine parks under the mandate of the MoF. These include: Act No. 41 of 1999, Act No. 5 of 1990, Act No. 5 of 1994, Government Regulation No 68 of 1998, Presidential Decree No. 101 of 2001, and Presidential Decree No. 102 of 2002.

^[59] ‘Convention’ here means an unwritten government process for conflict resolution.

^[60] See, for example, A Sloan & A Sugandhy, ‘An overview of Indonesian Coastal Environmental Management’, Coastal Management, no. 22, 1994, pp. 215-233. Information provided by Reef Base – A Global Information System: ‘Indonesia: Management Capacity’, http://www.reefbase.org (accessed on 1 May 2004).

^[61] For example, in South Sulawesi there are two offices that have functions in forestry activities with different ‘owners’. The first is the Forestry Agency of South Sulawesi (Dinas Kehutanan Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan). This office is under the control of the Province of South Sulawesi. The second is the Conservation and Natural Resources Office of South Sulawesi (Balai Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam Sulawesi Selatan/KSDA). The KSDA office is under the control of the Ministry of Forestry.

^[62] R Dahuri, ‘Decentralising and Delegating ICM to Regional and Local Communities: A Precarious Balance of Authority, Capacity and Consistency’, UNESCO, Oceans and Coasts. Pre-World Summit on Sustainable Development Conference, Paris, France – December 2001, p. 8.

^[63] Through funding assistance from the Asian Development Bank the Government of Indonesia implemented the Marine Science Education Project in 1988 in order to improve marine science education in Indonesia.

^[64] R Dahuri, (1999), ‘Coastal Zone Management in Indonesia: Issues and Approaches’, in J Rais, IM Dutton, L Pantimena, J Plouffe & R Dahuri (eds), Proceedings of Symposium on Integrated Coastal and Marine Resources Management, Malang, 1998, pp. 60-72.

^[65] ibid.

^[66] ‘Indonesia Butuh Ratusan Kapal Patroli Laut’, (‘Indonesia needs hundreds of patrol boats’), Kompas Daily News Online, 11 September 2003, http://www.kompas.com

^[67] Haeruman (1988), as cited by G Llewellyn & I Azhar, ‘Science for management of coral reef resources: an Indonesian perspective’, unpublished paper, 1998, 35 pp. Information provided by Reef Base – A Global Information System: “Indonesia: Management Capacity”, http://www.reefbase.org (accessed on 4 May 2004).

^[68] ibid.

^[69] ibid.

^[70] ibid.

^[71] The Asian Development Bank, Technical Assistance, Marine Resource Evaluation Management and Planning (MAREMAP) – TA No. 2958 INO: Final Report Appendices, prepared by Canora Asia Inc., 1998, p. 23.

^[72] Established by Presidential Decree No. 36 of 1971.

^[73] Established by Presidential Decree No. 77 of 1996.

^[74] Established by Presidential Decree No. 161 of 1999.

^[75] Centre for Maritime Policy of University of Wollongong, Current Developments in Integrated Oceans Management and Governance in APEC Members’ Economies: Korea-APEC Oceans Governance. Prepared for APEC (unpublished document), 2002.

^[76] Cicin-Sain & Knecht, op. cit., p. 344.

^[77] ibid.

^[78] Discussion with P. Flewwelling, former A/Director Regulations and Enforcement, DFO Canada, May 2004.

^[79] Sloan & Sugandhy, op. cit.

^[80] According to Presidential Decree No. 100/2001 concerning positions, functions and authorities of coordinating ministries, there are three Coordinating Ministries in the Indonesian cabinet: Menko POLKAM (Coordinating Ministry for Political, Social and Security Affairs; Menko KESRA (Coordinating Ministry for Social Welfare); and Menko Perekonomian (Coordinating Ministry for Economics).

^[81] The Asian Development Bank, 1999, pp. 25-27.