Siry Coastal Zone Management

8/12/2019 Siry Coastal Zone Management

1/19

Coastal Management, 34:267285, 2006

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0892-0753 print / 1521-0421 online

DOI: 10.1080/08920750600686679

Decentralized Coastal Zone Managementin Malaysia and Indonesia: A Comparative

Perspective1

HENDRA YUSRAN SIRY

Agency for Marine and Fisheries Research (AMFR)

Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF)

Jakarta, Indonesia

Transferring decision-making process from central to local government and enhancingthe role of local communities in managing coastal zones is an increasing commitmentby governments in Southeast Asia. This article analyzes decentralized coastal zonemanagement in two neighboring countries, Malaysia and Indonesia. The Federalsystem in Malaysia is argued to be able to influence more decentralized coastal zonemanagement and to promote community-based management approaches. Meanwhile,the large diversity of coastal resources and communities combined with a still as

yet tested decentralization policy in Indonesia is argued to bring more challenges inimplementing the decentralization and community-based approaches in coastal zones.The lessons learned in this study provide insight in how far decentralized coastal zone

management has taken place in Malaysia and Indonesia. The significant differences inthe pattern of coastal zone management in these two countries are discussed in detail.This study recognizes that co-management and community-based approaches can beappropriate in dealing with coastal zone management. This comparative perspective is

important to the development of a bigger picture of sustainable coastal zone managementprocesses and cross-regional knowledge-sharing in Southeast Asia.

Keywords coastal, co-management, community-based, decentralization, Indonesia,Malaysia

Introduction

In the Southeast Asia region, coastal zones have been used for different purposes including

tourism, fisheries, transportation, mining, and communication (Pomeroy, 1994; Dutton &

The author thanks the Asian Scholarship Foundation (ASF) and the Agency for Marine andFisheries Research (AMFR) Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries for facilitating this comparativeresearch at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) under the Asia Fellow 20022003. The authorexpresses the highest appreciation to the Vice-Chancellor of UKM and Director of Institute forEnvironment and Development (LESTARI) of UKM for their permission and assistance in the conductof this research in Malaysia. The author also thanks David Lawrence (Fellow RMAP, ANU), GailCraswell (Senior Adviser, ALSC ANU), Prof. James J. Fox (Director RSPAS, ANU), Sri Novelma,Hezri Adnan (CRES, ANU), and Margo Davies (RMAP ANU) for their valuable inputs and criticisms.Finally, thanks are due to the Journals two anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions.

Address correspondence to Hendra Yusran Siry, Agency for Marine and Fisheries Research,Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Jl. M.T. Haryono Kav. 52-53 Pancoran, Jakarta 12770,Indonesia. E-mail: [email protected]

267


2/19

268 H. Y. Siry

Hotta, 1995; Pomeroy, 1995; UNEP, 2001). These multiple uses, combined with rapid

economic and industrial growth in recent decades, have attracted an increasing percentage

of the population to live in coastal areas (UNEP RRCAP, 2004). This increased population

has led to a significant impact on coastal and marine resources (Adeel & Pomeroy, 2002;

Burke et al., 2002; UNEP RRCAP, 2004). This tendency can be seen both in Malaysia andIndonesia. Because of this growing demand, consumption, and services, coastal zones have

been increasingly exploited. Degradation of the coastal zones and their resources has been

clearly suffered as a result of, but not limited to, inadequate institutional and management

capacity (Hildreth & Gale, 1995; Dahuri et al., 1995; Dahuri, 1996; Dahuri & Dutton,

2000), lack of decentralization mechanisms, and ignorance of the role of the community in

implementing integrated coastal management (Andiko & Seprasia, 2002; Pador & Zakir,

2002; Indrawasih et al., 2003; Siry, 2005). Such a situation demands improvement.

As can be seen in other parts of the world, the management of the coastal zone in the

Southeast Asia region is by the lengthy reaction to the range and complexity of [coastal

resource] Issues (Kay & Alder, 1999, p. 71). Kay and Alder argue that coastal zone

management remained constrained by a governance style derived from the early 1970swhen coastal zone management was first introduced into the governance system. The

challenge in coastal zone management now is for governments to respond and to redefine

their management in the new millennium of globalization, information and technology

revolution, post-colonialism, community empowerment, and the decentralization of

governments (Sorensen, 1993; Tjokrowinoto, 1999; Sasono, 1999). Globalization and

rapid development of information technology have increased community awareness of

governance and created more opportunities for local participation and empowerment

through a free flow of information and lesson-learned exchange. The economic and social

changes of the last 20 years in the forms of liberalization, privatization, and reformation

of markets require decentralized management of the governance system (Castells, 1996;

Adger, 2003). The entire new millennium phenomenon brings new demands on central

governments, prompting them to reassess their limited capability to deliver services and

provide for community participation in governance (Kristiadi, 1999; Masoed, 1999).

In Southeast Asia, the demand to shift the role of the central government to lower

government levels and the community was initiated by several significant factors. At least

three factors that influenced the transformation of the governance system were pointed out

by Cheema and Rondinelli (1983). Those three factors include (i) lack of expectation on

central planning and control of development activities; (ii) the emergence of growth-with-

equity strategies; and (iii) the growing realization of the increasing difficulty of managing

and planning development activities as society becomes more complex. More specifically,

coastal zone management in the Southeast Asia region requires the transfer of decision-making processes from central to local government and placing the local community as an

important player in regional development (Pomeroy, 1995). The huge range in biodiversity,

the large variation in the types of coastal zones within a country, varied human populations

and diverse regional economies among regions within a country are the main reasons why

coastal zone management needs to be decentralized2 and community-based approaches

promoted3 (Alm & Bahl, 1999; Dahuri & Dutton, 2000).

Historically and traditionally, community-based approaches have existed in indigenous

societies that have relied on practices such as restricted access, or open and closed seasons

to certain coastal and fisheries resources (Andiko & Seprasia, 2002; Pador & Zakir, 2002;

Zerner, 2000, 2003; Siry, 2005). Some of these management regimes are still in place today

because of their effectiveness locally, and respect for local customs and conditions (Bailey

& Zerner, 1992; Antariksa et al., 1993; Basiago, 1995; Fox, 1996) such assasiin Maluku,


3/19

Decentralized CZM in Malaysia and Indonesia 269

Indonesia (Benda-Beckmann et al., 1995; Evans et al., 1997; Novaczek et al., 2001). The

uniqueness and diversity of decentralization and community-based approaches in coastal

zone management in Southeast Asia have been academically documented and compiled.

This is parallel to the increasing number of projects that either promote community-based

management or use this approach as a project tool (Crawford et al., 2006).Some projects document traditional community-based fishery management in Asia,

Pacific regions (Ruddle, 1993; FAO, 1994; Pomeroy, 1994, 1995; Ruddle, 1994; Bailey,

1986), which provide practical guidance and brief information for researchers, practitioners,

and policymakers on community-based management. There are also a number of

comparative perspectives (White et al., 1994; Pomeroy & Carlos, 1997; Cicin-Sain et al.,

1998; Berkes et al., 2001; Adhuri & Indrawasih, 2002; Antariksa et al., 2003; Christie

et al., 2005) that emphasize the revitalization of community-based management systems as

a broad strategy for managing coastal resources (Pomeroy, 1995).

However, most of this broad body of literature mentioned earlier was either undertaken

prior to major policy change in Indonesia and Malaysia or was conducted under old political

settings and before the 1997 Asian economic crisis. In addition, there are less focusedbodies of literature on the continuing decentralization processes, especially in Indonesia

(Dutton, 2005). The reviews on Malaysia were undertaken before the 1997 Asian economic

crisis. Similarly, the reviews on Indonesia were conducted before the Reformasiera,which

commenced in 1999 and led to substantial changes to the local government system since

then. Therefore, more in-depth and recent comparative analyses of decentralization and

community-based approaches between two neighboring countries, Malaysia and Indonesia,

needs to be better understood.

This study is a response to the need for more information on the extent to which

decentralized coastal zone management has taken place in Malaysia and Indonesia. The

Federal system in Malaysia is argued to be able to influence more decentralized coastal

zone management and to promote community-based management approaches. Meanwhile,

the large diversity of coastal resources and communities combined with a still as yet tested

decentralization policy in Indonesia is argued to bring more challenges in implementing

the decentralization and community-based approaches in coastal zone. The challenges are

exemplified with the initiation of the Coastal Zone and Small Island Management Act (RUU

Pesisir) in Indonesia.

Thus, a comparative analysis of how neighboring countries manage their coastal

resources will provide a greater understanding of the lessons learned. The increased

understandings of the diversity and uniqueness of coastal zone management practices in

Malaysia and Indonesia will enrich cross-regional knowledge. The lessons learned from this

study will further contribute to the development of a bigger picture of sustainable coastalzone management processes and cross-regional knowledge sharing in Southeast Asia.

CZM Orientation and Overview in Malaysia

Malaysia is the only constitutional monarchy (kerajaan berperlembagaan) in Southeast

Asia with a federal system. According to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia 1957, the

government system consists of three-tiers: federal, state, and local (municipal and district)

governmental structure (Mokhtar & Aziz, 2003). The evolution of coastal zone management

initiative in Malaysia is driven by the problem-based and reactive approach to resources

degradation and international commitments (Ahmad, 1994; Cicin-Sain et al., 1998; Basiron,

2002; Mokhtar & Aziz, 2003).


4/19

270 H. Y. Siry

Prior to 1980, the management pattern of coastal resources, such as fishery resources,

was more problem-based. Until then most programs and schemes were only reactive

(Ahmad, 1994). This approach lacked a framework with an overall plan for optimum

utilization of resources. Moreover, Ahmad (1994) states that the approach was also deficient

in sensitivity to socioeconomic needs for sustainable fishing and resource management.

In 1981 the Malaysian government introduced a Fisheries Comprehensive Licensing

Policy (FCLP)4 as part of the New Economic Policy (FAO, 2001). Ahmad (1994) explains

that this policy was more comprehensive and addressed the imperative issues in fisheries

such as over-exploitation, poverty, income disparity, and regional and racial imbalances

in the fishing industry. The key feature of this policy was a zoning system for fishing

grounds to prevent conflicts among fishermen. Ahmad (1994) stresses that there are four

established zones to regulate the fishing activities. The concept of maximum sustainable

yields (MSY) was employed to determine the number of vessels that could operate in each

zone. This policy has resulted in an increase in productivity and in catch per unit effort

(CPUE) (Ahmad, 1994).

With regard to the growing need for the conservation of the fisheries resources,the government, through the Fisheries Department and Fisheries Development Authority

(LKIM), has launched artificial reefs (ARs) or tukun tiruan and fish aggregating devices

(FADs) or unjam-unjam programs (Yahaya, 1994). These two approaches are intended

to enhance the productivity of the biomass and to rehabilitate and conserve marine and

coastal habitats adversely affected by unsustainable fishing activities. These approaches

are expected to provide for the recovery of marine and coastal resources, and to then ensure

the conservation and enhancement of the fisheries resources. Yahaya (1994) explains that

while the unjam-unjam project became popular for managing fishery resources, it also

brought up several significant issues related to ownership, accessibility, use rights, and

the overall management of fisheries resources. In other words, the unjam-unjam program

had the potential to convert an open-access regime into an appropriate property rights

management regime.

The growing need for coastal zone management in Malaysia began when the federal

government responded to coastal erosion caused by a variety of natural and man-made

processes. As a subject of major national concern, the Malaysian government launched the

National Coastal Erosion Study during 19841985 (Mokhtar & Aziz, 2003). The important

results of this study were recommendations for implementing proper long-term planning

to prevent coastal erosion. In addition, two important institutions related to coastal zone

management were established in 1987 (Cicin-Sain et al., 1998): the Coastal Engineering

Technical Center (CETC) and the National Coastal Erosion Control Council (NCECC).

Clearly, the response and initiative of Malaysia to manage coastal zones was driven by theengineering and reactive action point of view. This is quite similar with trend response to

coastal zone management in that decade (Abdullah, 1992; Hale & Kumin, 1992; Olsen

et al., 1992; Coast Conservation Department, 1997).

The CETC5 is an important unit for preventing coastal erosion by providing technical

input to the national government. This unit is in charge of implementing coastal erosion

control, designing engineering works for critical erosion areas, providing technical support

to the NCECC, providing technical advisory services to other government agencies, and

collecting coastal engineering data (EPU & DANCED, 1999).

The NCECC is a multi-agency council composed of representatives from several

federal government agencies, professional institutions, and universities (Cicin-Sain et al.,

1998). For day-to-day management, the government appointed a Director-General of the

Implementation Coordination Unit (ICU) within the Prime Ministers Department as the


5/19


chairman of NCECC. The main outcome of this council was the General Administrative

Circular No. 5 in 1987. According to this guideline, every development proposal in the

coastal zone must receive approval and comment before proceeding from the CETC

(Cicin-Sain et al., 1998). Due to the lack of integration and coordination and ambiguity in

the implementation of this circular, the administrative circular has not achieved its aims

(Ahmad, 2001).

Between 1986 and 1992, Malaysia, with the assistance from the United States

Agency for International Development (USAID) conducted a comprehensive integrated

and multidisciplinary coastal resource management enquiry both at federal and state levels

using, as a pilot project, a coastal zone management study in the southern part of Johor.

The outcome of this study was a formal document and guide in matters relating to coastal

reclamation, development of coastal swamp forest, and other development activities in

coastal areas (ASEAN-USAID CRMP, 1991). Another outcome was the enhancement

of the federalstate coastal resources management planning process and collaboration

through the establishment of two committees, the National Steering Committee (NSC)

and the Johor State Consultative Committee (JSCC). The project also brought togethercollaborative research and technical assistance by resource managers and university-based

research scientists (ASEAN-USAID CRMP, 1991).

In 1992, Malaysia created a National Policy on Coastal Resources Management as

the product of an Inter-Agency Planning Group (IAPG) with EPUs Agriculture Section as

the secretariat. The IAPG began work on examining issues related to coastal resource

management focusing on the development of a coastal resources program in a more

integrated, systematic, and scientifically sound manner. The intention of the group was

the establishment of effective, coordinated, institutional mechanisms at the federal and

state levels, and enhancement of the staffing and expertise of relevant agencies for coastal

zone management (EPU & DANCED, 1999).

The most recent initiatives toward integrated coastal zone management in Malaysia

are the pilot projects being undertaken in Sabah, Sarawak, and Pulau Pinang (Penang) to

formulate integrated coastal zone management plans at the State level (EPU & DANCED,

1999). Another on-going effort is the development of a National Coastal Zone Management

Policy (Basiron, 2002), which is a mandate of the Seventh Malaysia Plan (7MP) 19962000.

The Malaysian government, with the support of the Danish government, through

the Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development/DANCED, conducted the

Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Project in Malaysia in order to build

local capability in environmental administration and organization. The main aim of the

ICZM project was to have all states in Malaysia replicate the effort of the pilot projects

and produce their respective integrated coastal zone management plans. The project hasalso been designed to prepare a complete Integrated Coastal Zone Management system,

including updated coastal zone profiles. To reach this objective, the project conducted

several institutional strengthening and capacity building initiatives to institute proactive

coastal zone management.

The project consists of a Federal Component that has a target to develop National

Policies for Coastal Zone Management and three State Components that involve setting

up integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) in Penang, Sarawak, and Sabah. The

Federal Component includes providing instrumental experience in the development of

national policies on integrated coastal zone management whereas the State Components

are considered as pilot projects and related to the Federal Component. At the state levels,

the projects are considered as independent, full-scale projects addressing management

requirements in their respective coastal areas. For instance, in Sabah, the project was


6/19

272 H. Y. Siry

Table 1

Important moments of coastal zone management in Malaysia

Year Important moments

19841985 National Coastal Erosion Study19861992 South Johore coastal resource management project with United States

Agency for International Development (USAID)

1987 Government circular on coastal development

Environmental Impact Assessment Order 1987

19911996 National Coastal Resource Management Policy

1993 National Conservation Strategies prepared by WWF

1995 Study toward developing a National Integrated Ocean Policy by Maritime

Institute of Malaysia

1996 National Aquaculture Guidelines

1997 Town and Country Planning Department Guidelines on Coastal

Development

Department of Irrigation and Drainage Guideline on Coastal Zone

Management

Integrated Management Plan for sustainable use of Johore Mangrove

Forests

Environmental Profile of the Malacca Straits under the

GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programme

19972000 Pilot integrated coastal zone management projects in Sabah, Sarawak, and

Penang

1998present Drafting of the National Wetlands Policy

1999 Department of Environment Guideline for environmental impactassessment in coastal zone development projects

1999present National coastal zone policy initiative

2001present Preparation of an Integrated Shoreline Management Plan for beach

conservation and Restoration

20012004 Integrated Coastal Management pilot study in Klang, Selangor under the

GEF/UNDP/IMO/PEMSEA Regional Programme

Source:Mokhtar and Aziz (2003).

implemented with the adoption of the concept of a Task Force6 (ICZM Sabah, 2002). Insummary, the evolution of coastal zone management initiatives can be seen in Table 1.

In response to coastal resources degradation, Malaysia promoted the idea of shared

responsibility for monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS) with local communities in

managing coastal resources. Under the proposed MCS system, the community fishers

organizations and NGOs will also have increased responsibility for monitoring and

surveillance. The federal government will maintain responsibility for control and law

enforcement. At the state level, ad hoc working groups or committees have been established

to examine coastal management and development. The states have also assigned a desk

officer to be in charge of coastal area management in each economic planning unit.

By looking closely at the evolution of coastal zone management initiatives, it is

apparent that the coastal zone management strategy adopted in Malaysia is still conducted

on a project-oriented basis, problem-driven with the absence of a single institution in


7/19


charge specifically of managing the coastal zone. Coastal zone management in Malaysia

is distinguished by the involvement of a variety of agencies that each operate on coastal

management (Saharuddin, 2001). For example, the Coastal Engineering Division of the

Department of Drainage and Irrigation is solely responsible for engineering design for

coastal protection. Currently, the EPU of the Prime Ministers Department plays an

important role in coordinating development planning. This agency has the responsibility

for planning and monitoring mechanisms for the coastal zone.

In the absence of an agency with overall management responsibility, Basiron (1998,

2002) recommended the establishment of a supervisory Cabinet Committee on Maritime

Affairs (CCMA). The High Level Officials Committee (HLOC) on maritime economics

and security ideally supports this committee. Basiron (1998, 2002) also proposes the

establishment of a National Ocean Council to support the initiative toward an integrated

approach to marine and coastal zone management in Malaysia.

However, there are still strong centralist political influences in coastal and fishery

management in Malaysia. This has resulted in the lack of coastal community-based

management practices in Malaysia. The current administrative arrangements have led to thelack of organizational capacity within important institutions that should support community

based and collaborative management. There is also a lack of self-management capability

within the communities themselves.

One important structural problem in the administrative process is that fiscal

decentralization in Malaysia is characterized by a lack of fund transfers from the federal to

the state governments. Calestino (2001) confirmed that transfers consist of less than one-fifth

of the total revenues of local governments. This situation has resulted in local governments

being under-financed for their assigned functions. Meanwhile, local governments require

additional funds to carry out their mandated tasks. This is one of several issues in the

statelocal government relationship that still requires resolution.

All these conditions illustrate that federalism as a system of government does not

necessarily lead to the level of decentralization specified in the Federal Constitution,

nor does it provide for the autonomy of local governments (Calestino, 2001). To some

extent, centralization gives the impression that things are working well in Malaysia. This

is evidenced by high levels of economic development. It appears that there is little need to

decentralize the coastal zone management in Malaysia. However, problems of centralization

and lack of attention to community-based approaches are still issues that need to be seriously

addressed.

CZM Orientation and Overview in Indonesia

Indonesia is an archipelagic nation with diverse coastal resources, coastal communities,

culture, and customs (Sloan & Sugandhy, 1994; Dahuri et al., 1995; Dahuri, 1996; Idris &

Siry, 1997; Tomascik et al., 1997). Like Malaysia, Indonesia has also a three-tier government

system: central, provincial, and local (districts and cities).

The evolution of the coastal zone management initiative in Indonesia was triggered by

international and bilateral donor agencies through their programs and projects (ASEAN-

USAID CRMP and DGF, 1992; Rais, 1993; Soendoro, 1994; Dahuri, 1996; Soegiarto,

1996; Idris & Siry, 1997; Dahuri & Dutton, 2000), such as the Asian Development

Bank (ADB), United Nations Development Programs (UNDP), United States Agency for

International Development (USAID), World Bank-IBRD, Global Environmental Facilities

(GEF), AusAID, and JICA. The important moments in coastal zone management in


8/19

274 H. Y. Siry

Table 2

Important moments of coastal zone management in Indonesia

Year Important moments

1982 Indonesia has ratified the 1982 United Nation Convention on the Law ofthe Sea (UNCLOS).

Announcement of Indonesia government target to set aside 10 million ha

of marine waters (5% of the total marine territory) as marine

conservation zones by the end of the year 2003.

Integrated coastal management studies have been conducted as pilot

project areas such as Segara AnakanCentral Java; Coastal

Environmental Management and Planning (CEMP) and

Buginesia-South Sulawesi.

1987 Marine science and marine technology education have been established at

six universities (UNRI, IPB, UNDIP, UNHAS, UNSRAT, and UNPATTI)

1989 Collaborative research and education programs with various research

institutions, such as the Asian Living Coastal Resource Program,

cooperation between CSIROLIPI, and AIMSCRIFI MMAF in Bali.

19931998 The Marine Resource Evaluation and Planning (MREP) project was started

as the first initiative on decentralized coastal zone management

1997 A postgraduate program in Integrated Coastal Management Studies was set

up in IPB Bogor, followed by UNHAS and UNDIP.

1998 The commencing of multilateral Coral Reef Rehabilitation and

Management Program Phase I (COREMAP I) after three years project

design and preparation.

1999 Establishment of Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Involvement some international NGO in marine conservation projects

Strengthening bilateral aid program such as CRMP (Coastal Resource

Management Project) USAID, INTECOREEF (Integrated Coral Reef

Management Project) JICA, and Collaborative Environmental Project in

Indonesia (CEPI) CIDA.

2001 Enactment of two decrees of the Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries

Ministerial Decree on Integrated Coastal Management and Sustainable

Small Island Management.

2002 Implementation of Marine and Coastal Resource Management Project

(MCRMP) in 15 provinces and 43 districts.

Mid-2003 Implementation of Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Project

Phase II (COREMAP II) in 7 provinces and 12 districts.

Source:Modified from Pratikto (2001) and Dahuri and Dutton (2000).

Indonesia are presented in Table 2. These initiatives were directed at establishing the concept

of integrated coastal zone management and were accompanied by efforts to improve the

administrative capacities of local governments in the coastal zones (Idris & Siry, 1997).

Decentralized coastal management and the community based approaches were the main

themes promoted by donor agencies.

TheReformasiera,which commenced in 1999, has brought new models for managingcoastal zones in Indonesia. Coastal zone management in Indonesia is entering a new

phase as a result of two new laws (Laws 22 and 25/1999, which then revised as Law


9/19


32 and 33/20047). The laws emphasize the decentralization process and enhance the

communitys role in managing resources. These laws readjust the hierarchical relationship

between the provincial and the local governments. The local governments, both kota and

kabupaten (cities and districts), have become autonomous and are no longer obliged to

hierarchy report to the provincial government. The laws also give more authority tolocal governments to manage their resources in a sustainable way. This reflects a trend

to give management autonomy to organizations and units providing direct services to

local communities and requiring the implementation of agreed-on performance indicators

(managerial decentralization). More community and stakeholder involvement in the

management of local public services is an important concern in the decentralization

context (UNDP, 1998; Uphoff, 1998). This involvement will also have implications for

de-bureaucratization and the empowerment of civil society.

The endorsement of Law 22/1999 brought an opportunity to revitalize and institu-

tionalize traditional rights and norms into local governance systems. It also seeks to

encourage community-based and collaborative management, such as sasi (open-closed

system in Maluku), panglima laut(traditional resource manager in Aceh), malimau pasie,malimau kapa, and alek pasie(traditional fishing ritual in West Sumatera) processes. The

law recognizes local community-based resource management systems in coastal zone and

fisheries. The recognition of local authorities and the concepts of customary law and local

territorial rights, which have a long history of practice in Indonesia, allow for their adoption

and adaptation into local governance policy.

The law also completely corrects Law Number 5/1979 regarding Village Administra-

tion, which served to accelerate the erosion of traditional institutions, rights, and norms.

In many respects, the previous law damaged the diversity of traditional values and created

uniformity of village administration. This law failed to acknowledge the autonomous village

level system such asnagarisystem in West Sumatra orkrama desain West Nusa Tenggara(Haba & Mulyani, 2001).

Law 32/2004 established a decentralized coastal zone, under provincial administration

that extends up to 12 nautical miles from the coastal shoreline and over one-third

of the provincial waters, seaward from the island shoreline, under local government

administration. Under this law, the central government has authority and jurisdiction to

explore, conserve, process, and exploit the resources beyond the 12 nautical miles mark to

200 nautical miles, specifically within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The central

government also has the right to enforce the law and regulation of waterways. The law

also clearly notes that traditional fishing rights are not to be restricted by the decentralized

coastal zone delimitation. This means that the traditional fishermen8 can access fishing

grounds beyond the decentralized coastal zone.According to this law, both provincial and local government administrations have

six tasks to undertake in management of their decentralized zones (Article 18), namely

(i) exploration, exploitation, conservation, and management of coastal resources, (ii)

administrative affairs, (iii) zoning and spatial planning affairs, (iv) law enforcement of the

regulations issued by the regions or delegated by the central government, (v) participation

in the maintenance of security, and (vi) participation in the defense of state sovereignty.

The law also states that the authority of and mandatory tasks for both provincial and

district/cities administrations are similar; they just differ in matters of scale (Articles 13

and 14). There are 16 mandatory tasks9 under these regulations. However, the province

still holds authority in three primary fields: (i) cross-jurisdictional districts and cities, (ii)authority not yet, or not able to be, handled by the city and district administration; and (iii)

administrative authority delegated from the central government.


10/19

276 H. Y. Siry

In line with this law, and to determine the distribution of power, the previous principal

regulation: Government Regulation (Peraturan Pemerintah) No. 25/200010 has to be

revised. The revised regulation should address many of the administrative gaps, and clarify

scales of authority in the mandatory affairs of the central, provincial, and local governments.

It also needs to establish policies, guidelines, criteria, standards, and supervision on a host

of issues.

Nevertheless, the process of decentralization of coastal zone management in Indonesia

is still in its infancy. It requires central and local governments to ensure that decentralization

does not lead to an initial breakdown or disruption of public services. A new system and

value for policy formulation and implementation has to be created. Central and local

governments have to comprehend that although there will be new benefits, there will

also be constraints. Unless these are understood, decentralization will fail. This failure

may be rooted in the previous centralist approach to coastal and fisheries management in

Indonesia (Ruddle, 1993). Centralization clearly discouraged the traditional community-

based management system and caused endemic conflicts in the fisheries sector (Bailey,

1986).Under the centralist administrative approach, environmental policies were designed

to be applied and implemented in all regional areas of Indonesia regardless of their local

problems and the complex social, economic, and cultural diversity that existed across the

archipelago. Applying and implementing this uniform approach resulted in a heavy-handed

approach. Rasyid (2002) argued that the centralist approach limited the ability of local

governments and communities to think and act creatively, especially in times of social and

economic crisis. Indonesias experience in responding to the massive economic crisis of

1997 is a good case in point. Decentralization is in part a response to those period when

local governments that lacked administrative skills failed to help manage the impact of

the crisis in their own regions and territories (Rasyid, 2002).

The centralist approach also exerted significant pressure on the democratization

process and the establishment of good governance principles. Decentralization in Indonesia

is seen as a vital pillar in the movement toward democratization following a long

period of repressive rule. Decentralization of coastal zone management is fundamental to

giving greater opportunities for local governments and communities to manage their own

resources. However as Indonesia is still experimenting with democratic governance, the

process of decentralization is a real risk. The success of decentralization will be measured

not just in the movement of the structures of power and finance to the regions but in the

provision of effective and efficient services. Currently, the regions of eastern Indonesia

show critical lack of capacity and this is one area that must be addressed by both national

and local administrations.In the current process of decentralization of coastal zone management in Indonesia,

there are already examples of uncoordinated actions by local governments eager to claim

rights to coastal resources. They are already establishing their local acts (Peraturan

Daerah/Perda), which are more concerned with revenue raising than with ecological

and sustainable principles. Examples include the unsustainable mining of coral and

sand (Dutton, 2005). The euphoria for creation of local legislation comes in line with

a World Bank (2002) warning about the decentralization process, which comments that key

players are not convinced that greater decentralization [will] have a positive effect. The

lack of capacity of local government administrations in taking effective coastal resource

management initiatives still remains a major obstacle. Other potential barriers are the

diverse opinions and interpretations of the process, even within individual ministries and

major government agencies at the central level.


11/19


In addition, conflicts over management of coastal resources still occur. Each

development sector has set its own objectives, targets, and operational plans. These primarily

aim to increase economic benefits. However, objectives and targets of different sectors

often overlap and are incompatible. Most of these sectors do not have common goals

and objectives to sustain the coastal resources. At the same time, local governments set

ambiguous objectives because they did not have any clear authority to manage coastal

resources until the year 2000. In most cases, they have extremely limited direct revenues,

which leave them dependent on allocations from the central government. All the major

areas of decision-making power are either in the hands of the central government or, to a

far lesser extent, at the provincial government level. Without any integrated and sustainable

order, the conflicts will continue and increase while becoming more complex. Clearly,

decentralized coastal zone management must address this conflict over management and

the ambiguity of various laws applied in coastal zone.

For almost five decades, coastal zone management in Indonesia has been suffered

by a confusing ambiguity of various laws and jurisdictional disagreement (Alder et al.,

1994; Purwaka, 1995; Kusumaatmadja & Purwaka, 1996; Patlis et al., 2003; Satria &Matsuda, 2004). There are approximately 22 laws that affected the coastal zone (Patlis

et al., 2003) that need to be harmonized to prevent ineffective and incompetent management

(Fox et al., 2005). These are sectoral-based lacking in integration and unconcerned with

sustainability principles. The enforcement of those laws caused ineffective management,

conflict, redundancy, and gaps among the development sectors of the country (Putra, 2003).

They lead to increase conflicts of interests among different users and threats to coastal

resources. With regard to providing a coordinated and integrated program, Ministry of

Marine Affairs and Fisheries is in the process of enacting the RUU Pesisir.11

TheRUU Pesisiraims to have a pivotal role in addressing the decentralization of coastal

zones. It encourages local governments to manage their coastal zone, and recognizes local

communities and traditional rights. This proposed act focuses on three major topics: (i)

development of a framework for coordination, integration, and consistency in management

and planning decisions; (ii) creation of a voluntary, incentive-based program for local

integrated coastal management at the city and district level; and (iii) general provisions

relating to administration and implementation, such as monitoring and evaluation, conflict

resolution, and funding (MMAF, 2002).

TheRUU Pesisiris expected to fulfill the challenge to respond to local environmental

conditions and involve stakeholders more in the development process. Hasan (2003) adds

that the RUU Pesisir indicates that the coastal zone will continue to receive more intense

environmental pressures from a wide range of users, especially development activities.

The RUU Pesisirwill obviously have a strategic role because the limited administrativeresources will not allow Indonesia to address every coastal and marine management issue

with the same degree of urgency. In addition most coastal environmental problems occur

at the local level and require solutions tailored to local conditions. Therefore, devolution

of authority and responsibility to local government for managing their coastal zone in

Indonesia is necessary.

Lessons Learned

The coastal zone management pattern in these two countries shows significant differences.

Indonesia assumes that decentralization of coastal zone management is necessary to deal

with its extensive geographical problems and its tremendous social and cultural diversity.

The enactment of Law 22/1999 and its subsequent revision, and theRUU Pesisir initiative


12/19

278 H. Y. Siry

clearly shows the political will of the Indonesian government to decentralize coastal zone

management. Meanwhile, Malaysia considers that decentralized coastal zone management

does not match its government system. The Malaysian federal system is not necessary

suited to the decentralization process, because it requires significant adjustment to the

government structure and its internal relationships, including the statesociety relationship

(Hezri & Hasan, 2006). Therefore, decentralization is not considered to be necessary without

significant political will. Indeed as Fox et al. (2005, p. 105) mentioned decentralization is

essentially a political process involving competition among competing vested interests.

Decentralized and centralized policies are not either-or conditions (World Bank,

2002). The essential ingredients are the effective and efficient functioning of government

(Silver, 2003). This means that not all functions can or should be financed and managed in

a decentralized fashion. In the case of Malaysia and Indonesia, decentralization of coastal

zone management must create and maintain enabling conditions that allow local units of

administration or nongovernment organizations to take more responsibility. The enabling

conditions must consider the interaction of various factors in coastal zone management.

Indeed, decentralization of coastal zone management requires greater concern for andunderstanding of the relationships among stakeholders. The aim is to achieve integrated

management as well as stable ecological, economic, and social cohesion. The enabling

conditions also involve well-coordinated and carefully targeted long term development

assistance for sustainable management of [coastal zone] (Dutton, 2005).

To promote the decentralization of the coastal zone, a central government (especially

line ministry) should play a crucial role. This central government must promote and provide

trainings for all level of government in a decentralized administration. Technical assistance

is often required for local governments, private enterprises, and local nongovernmental

groups in the planning, financing, and management of decentralized functions. This is one

of the factors influencing the success of decentralization (World Bank, 2002). In addition,

the success of decentralized coastal zone management also requires the involvement of the

public, environmental protection organizations, user group representatives, and the local

community.

The involvement of various stakeholders must be a shared responsibility. This is

essential in a country with such diversity as Indonesia and Malaysia. Local community

role needs to be promoted in the management of their local resources. A more community-

oriented management approach will bring many advantages to the community and will lead

to improved environmental quality (UNDP, 1998).

More community-oriented or participatory management approaches have been the

mainstream of broader conservation strategies. The approach is also called co-management,

collaborative, joint, mixed, multiparty, or round-table management (Borrini-Feyerabendet al., 2000). Specifically, co-management has been acknowledged as an alternative

solution for managing natural resources and has some successes in its application.12

Another mainstream approach is community-based management,13 which has been used

for the last three decades (Siry, 2005). These approaches advance people-oriented,

community-oriented, and resource-based principles and prioritize partnerships among local

governments, related stakeholders, and the communities that can be more positive steps for

coastal zone management.

The key element to decentralization, co-management, and community-based man-

agement approaches is that they have the potential for creating sustainability of coastal

resources. These approaches are applied in order to get better results than those of central

governmentdominated management. Community-based and co-management approaches

bring in several important principles: evolutionary, participatory, and locale-specific. The


13/19


governments, local communities, nongovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders

are required to share responsibility and work together as mutual partners in managing

coastal zones.

However, as is particularly noticeable in Malaysia and Indonesia, co-management and

community-based approaches are not simple. In fact, they are rather complex (Pomeroy

& Williams, 1994). Although these approaches consider the long-term goals of high

productivity, social equity, and environmental sustainability, there are many obstacles to

implementation. It seems that centralization is still a powerful political agent and that

decentralization is a new and as yet untried political tool.

It is important to identify the enabling and constraining conditions of co-management

and community-based approaches. Further clarification of what significant factors are

and the relationship among factors is required. Thus, further research on comparative

community-based and co-management practices in Malaysia and Indonesia, especially the

perspectives from within these two governments, would be valuable.

Notes

1. An early version of this article was presented at the Third International Convention of Asia

Scholars, Singapore 1922 August 2003 and at the Second Coastal Zone Asia-Pacific conference

(CZAP 2004) in Brisbane, 59 September 2004.

2. The decentralized approach can be referred to the transfer of authority and responsibility

from the central to local government. As confirmed by the World Bank (2002), it is an extremely

broad development strategy, which covers a wide spectrum of general development policy goals,

and highly considers various stakeholders in its implementation. In this sense, adaptation and

adoption of decentralization must be carefully analyzed in any country before determining if it

applies decentralization as the main policy for local government administration.3. Pomeroy and Carlos (1997) provide a definition of a community-based approach in coastal

resources as a process by which residents of a coastal community are provided the opportunity and

responsibility to manage their own resources; define their needs, goals and aspirations; and make

decisions and take actions affecting their well-being.

4. According to FAO (2001), the FCLP aims at ensuring a more equitable allocation

of resources, reducing conflict between traditional and commercial fishermen, preventing the

overexploitation of the inshore fisheries resources, restructuring of the ownership pattern of the

fishing units in accordance with, and promoting deep-sea and distant-water fishing.

5. The center is now known as the Coastal Engineering Control Unit (CECU) within the

Department of Drainage and Irrigation (DDI) in the Ministry of Agriculture.

6. The Task Force system is a new approach for most stakeholders in the ICZM project in

Malaysia. Numbers of Task Forces have already been mobilized under the project to carry out thedifferent tasks involved in the ICZM Plan preparation process and to address particular coastal

management issues as they emerge. The Task Force system is argued to be the most important single

element in the ICZM project. It is considered as the main engine to achieve the immediate objectives

of the project. It is a supporting strategy of the project that all key activities related to the preparation

of an ICZM Plan be carried out by the Task Forces composed of representatives selected from

government agencies, private stakeholders, and community participation.

7. The revision of these two laws is a response to the current political requirements, such

as direct election for local leaders (Bupati and City Mayor). There has been no change in the title

of these two laws. However, articles concerning the coastal issues in previous law (Law 22(1999),

articles 3 and 9, were emerged into a single article (Article 18). The enactment of Law 22(1999 was

in response to the need for decentralization in Indonesia, which Alm and Bahl (1999) have detailed.Large populations and huge coastal and marine areas in Indonesia require decentralization because

it is too difficult and too costly to govern effectively from the center. Indeed, each region requires a


14/19

280 H. Y. Siry

tailored management strategy because no two coastal areas are alike. Large variation among regions

in climate, geography, and economic base make centrally mandated uniformity in the provision of

government service inefficient. Moreover, centralization results in high bureaucratic costs in time

required to approve local decisions and problems of communication.

8. Traditional fishermen are defined as traditional people who use the traditional fishing gears,

and operate without a business license and are not taxable. In regard to their activity for subsistenceand daily consumption, they are entitled to fish in all fishing zones.

9. Sixteen mandatory tasks are (i) development planning and control, (ii) planning, utilization,

and supervision of zoning and spatial planning, (iii) providing public security, (iv) providing

public infrastructure and facilities, (v) providing health services, (vi) providing education and

resources allocation of potential human resource, (vii) handling of social issues, (viii) administering

manpower sector, (ix) facilitating the development of cooperatives, small and medium businesses,

(x) environmental management, (xi) agrarian services, (xii) citizenship and civil registration, (xiii)

administrative affairs, (xiv) administering capital investment, (xv) providing other basic services, and

(xvi) other mandatory affairs as instructed by the laws and regulations.

10. Government Regulation No. 25/2000, as Patlis et al. (2001, p. 3) point out, states the

role of the central government is primarily one of indirect action rather than direct regulation andcontrol, with specific action to follow at the regional level. It means the central government will take

administrative action against a local government that fails to implement existing laws or regulations.

11. The draft of this law is still undergoing discussion. This law is now a part of the 100-days

program of President Bambang Yudoyono.

12. Such an acknowledgment comes from Berkes (1989, 1994, 2003), Borrini-Feyerabend

et al. (2000), Butarbutar et al. (1997), Crean (1999), Crawford et al. (2004), Elliot et al. (2001), Israel

(2001), Kuperan et al. (1998), Nielsen et al. (2004), Pomeroy (1994, 1995), and Thorburn (2002).

13. The community-based approach in coastal zone management is meant to pursue a

management of development activities led by a people-oriented concept and holistic approach. Israel

(2001, p. 3) mentions that from a political point of view, a community-based approach is a negotiated

process of making decisions on the ownership, control and overall policy directions of coastal natural

resources.

References

Abdullah, S. 1992. Coastal erosion in Malaysia: Problems and challenges. In The coastal zone of

Peninsular Malaysia, eds. H. D. Tjia and S. M. S. Abdullah, 8092. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit

UKM.

Adeel, Z., and R. Pomeroy. 2002. Assessment and management of mangrove ecosystems in developing

countries.Trees16(23):235238.

Adger, N. 2003. Governing natural resources: Institutional adaptation and resilience. InNegotiating

environmental change: New perspectives from social science, eds. F. Berkhout, M. Leach, and

I. Scoones, 193208. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, UK.Adhuri, D. S., and R. Indrawasih. 2002. Pengelolaan sumber daya alam secara terpadu

(comanagement sumberdaya alam): Pelajaran dari praktek pengelolaan sumberdaya laut di

Bangka-Belitung, Jawa Tengah dan Jawa Timur serta pengelolaan Taman Nasional Lore Lindu di

Sulawesi Tengah. Jakarta: Puslit Kemasyarakatan dan Kebudayaan-Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan

Indonesia (PMB-LIPI).

Ahmad, A. R. H. 2001. Public Access To Beaches: An Issue In Coastal Management In Malaysia?

Centre for Coastal and Marine Environment Maritime Institute of Malaysia. (cited 28 November

2005). Available at http://www.mima.gov.my/mima/htmls/papers/pdf/ainul/beaches.pdf

Ahmad, H. B. 1994. Socio-economic issues in the management of coastal fisheries in Malaysia.

Paper read at Symposium on Socio-economic Issues in Coastal Fisheries Management, 2326

November 1993, Bangkok.

Alder, J., N. Sloan, and H. Uktolseya. 1994. Advances in marine protected area management in

Indonesia: 19881993.Ocean & Coastal Management25:6375.


15/19


Alm, J., and R. Bahl. 1999.Decentralization in Indonesia: Prospect and problems. PEG Report No.

12, ECG, USAID/Jakarta. Atlanta: Department of Economics, the School of Policy Studies,

Georgia State University.

Andiko, and R. Seprasia. 2002. Nagari Punggasan. In Kembali ke Nagari: Batuka Baruak jo Cigak,

ed. Z. Pador, 89126. Padang: Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Padang.

Antariksa, G. P., R. Indrawasih, and D. S. Adhuri. 1993. Aspek-aspek Sosial Budaya MasyarakatMaritim Indonesia Bagian Timur. Seri Penelitian PMB-LIPI, No. 3/1993. Jakarta: Puslit

Kemasyarakatan dan Kebudayaan-Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (PMB-LIPI).

ASEAN-USAID CRMP and DGF. 1992. The Integrated Management Plan for Segara Anakan-

Cilacap, Central Java, Indonesia.ICLARM Tech. Rep. No. 34, Manila: International Centre for

Living Aquatic Resources Management.

ASEAN-USAID CRMP. 1991. The coastal environmental profile of South Johore, Malaysia.

ICLARM Tech. Rep. No. 24, Manila: International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources

Management.

Bailey, C. 1986. Government protection of traditional resource use rightsThe case of Indonesian

fisheries. In Community management: Asian experience and perspectives, ed. D. O. Korten,

Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.Bailey, C., and C. Zerner. 1992. Local management of fisheries resources in Indonesia: Opportunities

and constraints. In Contribution to fishery development policy in Indonesia, eds. R. B. Pollnac, C.

Bailey, and A. Poernomo, 3856. Jakarta: Central Institute for Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture,

Indonesia.

Basiago, A. D. 1995. Sustainable development in Indonesia: A case study of an indigenous regime

of environmental law and policy. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World

Ecology2(3):199211.

Basiron, M. N. 1998. The implementation of chapter 17 of Agenda 21 in Malaysia: Challenges and

opportunities. Ocean & Coastal Management41:117.

Basiron, M. N. 2002. Malaysias experience in the development of a national ocean policy. In Tropical

Marine Environment: Charting Strategies for the Millenium, eds. F. M. Yusoff, M. Shariff, H. M.

Ibrahi, S. G. Tan, and S. Y. Tai, Serdang: Malacca Straits Research and Development Centre(MASDEC), Universiti Putra Malaysia.

Benda-Beckmann von, F., K. von Benda-Beckmann, and A. Brouwer. 1995. Changing Indigenous

Environmental Law in the Central Moluccas: Communal regulation and privatization of Sasi.

Ekonesia2:138.

Berkes, F. 1989. Common property resources: Ecology and community-based sustainable develop-

ment. London: New York: Belhaven Press.

Berkes, F. 1994. Property rights and coastal fisheries. In Community management and common

property of coastal fisheris in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts, methods and expriences. ICLARM

Conference Proceeding 45, ed. R. S. Pomeroy, Mania: ICLARM.

Berkes, F. 2003. Rethinking community-based conservation. Draft Paper for Conservation Biology.

Manitoba: Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba.Berkes, F., R. Mahon, P. McConney, R. Pollnac, and R. Pomeroy. 2001. Managing small-scale

fisheries: Alternative directions and menthods, Ottawa: International Development Research

Center.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., M. T. Farvar, J. C. Nguinguiri, and V. A. Ndangang. 2000. Co-management

of natural resources: Organising, negotiating and learning-by-doing. Heidelberg, Germany:

GTZ and IUCN.

Burke, L., L. Selig, and M. Spalding. 2002. Reefs at Risk in Southeast Asia. World Resources

Institute. Washington. 72 pages. [cited 28 July 2005]. Available at http://marine.wri.org/

pubs description.cfm?PubID=3144

Butarbutar, M., I. Idris, S. Putra, and H. Y. Siry. 1997. Decentralization of integrated coastal and

marine resource management. Paper read at International Symposium Integrated Coastal and

Marine Resource Management, 2527 November, Batu Malang.


16/19

282 H. Y. Siry

Calestino, A. B. 2001. Malaysia. Does it really need decentralization. In Sourcebook on

decentralization in Asia. Decentralization and power shift: An imperative for good governance,

eds. A. B. Brillantes, Jr. and N. G. Cuachon, Manila: Asian Resource Center ForDecentralization.

Castells, M. 1996.The rise of the network society, Oxford: Blackwell.

Cheema, G. S., and D. A. Rondinelli. 1983.Decentralization and development: Policy implementation

in developing countries, Beverly Hills: Sage.Christie, P., K. Lowry, A. T. White, E. G. Oracion, L. Sievanen, R. S. Pomeroy, R. B. Pollnac, J. M.

Patlis, and R. L. V. Eisma. 2005. Key findings from a multidisciplinary examination of integrated

coastal management process sustainability.Ocean & Coastal Management48:468483.

Cicin-Sain, B., R. W. Knecht, D. Jang, and G. W. Fisk. 1998. Integrated coastal and ocean

management: Concepts and practices, Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Coast Conservation Department. 1997.Coastal Zone Management Plan, Sri Lanka 1997. Colombo:

Sri Lankan Coast Conservation Department.

Crawford, B. R., A. Siahainenia, C. Rotinsulu, and A. Sukmara. 2004. Compliance and enforcement

of community-based coastal resource management regulation in North Sulawesi, Indonesia.

Coastal Management32:3950.

Crawford, B., M. Kasmidi, F. Korompis, and R. Polnac. 2006. Factors influencing progress inestablishing community-based marine protected areas in Indonesia. Coastal Management34:39

64.

Crean, K. 1999. Centralised and community-based fisheries management: Case studies from two

fisheries dependent archipelagos.Marine Policy23(3):243257.

Dahuri, R. 1996. Coastal zone management and transmigration in Indonesia. Paper read at

International Workshop on Integrated Coastal Management in Tropical Developing Countries:

Lessons Learned from Successes and Failures, 2428 May, Xiamen, Peoples Republic of China.

Dahuri, R., and I. M. Dutton. 2000. Integrated coastal and marine management enters a new era in

Indonesia.Integrated Coastal Zone Management,1:1116.

Dahuri, R., J. M. Rais, S. P. Ginting, and M. J. dan Sitepu. 1995. Pengelolaan sumberdaya wilayah

pesisir dan lautan secara terpadu, PT Pradnya Paramita, Jakarta.

Dutton, I. M. 2005. If only fish could vote: The enduring challenges of coastal and marine resourcesmanagement in post-Reformasi Indonesia. InThe politics and economics of Indonesias Natural

Resources, ed. B. P. Resosudarmo, 162178. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Dutton, I. M., and K. Hotta. 1995. Introduction. In Coastal management in the Asia-Pacific region:

Issues and approaches, eds. K. Hotta and I. M. Dutton, Tokyo: Japan International Marine

Science and Technology Federation.

Elliott, G., B. Mitchell, B. Wiltshire, A. Manan, and S. Wismer. 2001. Community participation

in marine protected area management: Wakatobi National Park, Sulawesi, Indonesia.Coastal

Management29:295316.

EPU and DANCED. 1999.Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Status Document. Kuala Lumpur:

Economic Planning Unit Prime Ministers Department Malaysia and Danish Cooperation on

Environment and Development.Evans, S. M., M. E. Gill, A. S. W. Retraubun, J. Abrahamz, and J. Dangeubun. 1997. Traditional

management practices and conservation of the Gastropod (Trochus niloticus) and fish stocks in

the Maluku Province (Eastern Indonesia).Fisheries Research31:8391.

FAO. 1994.A Guide to the Literature on Traditional Community-Based Fishery Management in the

Asia Pacific Tropics. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 869. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization,.

FAO. 2001. Fishery Country Profile: Malaysia. FID/CP/MAL. Fisheries Department, Food and

Agriculture Organization (cited 28 November 2005). Available from http://www.fao.org/

fi/fcp/en/MYS/profile.htm

Fox, J. J. 1996. Fishing resources and marine tenure: The problems of Eastern Indonesias fishermen.

In Indonesia Assessment 1995: Development in eastern Indonesia, eds. C. Barlow and J.

Hardjono, 163174. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.

Fox, J. J., D. S. Adhuri, and I. A. P. Resosudarmo. 2005. Unfinished edifice or Pandoras Box?

Decentralisation and Resource Management in Indonesia. In The politics and economics of


17/19


Indonesias Natural Resources, ed. B. P. Resosudarmo, 92108. Singapore: Institute of Southeast

Asian Studies.

Haba, J., and L. Mulyani, Eds. 2001. Nagari dan Krama Desa: Studi mengenai pemilihan struktur

antara perilaku elit dan masyarakat lokal di Sumatera Barat dan Nusa Tenggara Barat, Jakarta:

Pusat Penelitian Kemasyarakatan dan Kebudayaan, Lembaga Ilmu pengtahuan Indonesia

(PMBLIPI).Hale, L. Z., and E. Kumin. 1992. Implementing a coastal resources management policy: The case

of prohibiting coral mining in Sri Lanka. Narragansett: Coastal Resources Center, University of

Rhode Island.

Hasan, S. 2003. Personal communication. Staff at the Directorate of Coastal Affairs, Directorate

General for Coastal and Small Island, and a Core Team member for RUU Pesisir. Jakarta, 2

December 2002.

Hezri, A. A., and M. N. Hasan. 2006. Towards sustainable development? The evolution of

environmental policy in Malaysia. Natural Resources Forum30(1):3750.

Hildreth, R. G., and M. Gale. 1995. Institutional and legal arrangements for coastal management in the

Asia Pacific Region. InCoastal management in the Asia-Pacific region: Issues and approaches ,

eds. K. Hotta and I. M. Dutton, Tokyo: Japan International Marine Science and TechnologyFederation.

ICZM Sabah. 2002. Sabah Coastal Zone Profile, 1998. Town & Regional Planning Department Sabah

2002 (cited 23 September 2002). Available at www.iczm.sabah.gov.my

Idris, I., and H. Y. Siry. 1997. Indonesian integrated coastal zone planning and management:

An institutional perspective. Jakarta: Directorate General for Regional Development (Ditjen

Bangda), Ministry of Home Affairs.

Indrawasih, R., A. Wahyono, and D. S. Adhuri. 2003. Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Laut di

Kabupaten Bangka Belitung. In Pengelolaan sumber daya alam secara terpadu (co-management

sumberdaya alam): pelajaran dari praktek pengelolaan sumberdaya laut di Bangka-Belitung,

Jawa Tengah dan Jawa Timur serta pengelolaan Taman Nasional Lore Lindu di Sulawesi

Tengah, eds. D. S. Adhuri and R. Indrawasih, 2087. Jakarta: Pusat Penelitian Kemasyarakatan

dan Kebudayaan, Lembaga Ilmu pengtahuan Indonesia (PMBLIPI).Israel, D. C. 2001. Review of Methods for Assessing Community-based Coastal Resources

Management in the Philippines. Discussion Paper Series No. 2001-26. Makati, Phillipines:

Phillipines Institute for Development Studies.

Kay, R., and J. Alder. 1999.Coastal planning and management. London: E&FN Span.

Kristiadi, J. B. 1999. Kendala dalam menciptakan birokrasi era globalisasi. In Menyoal birokrasi

publik, eds. M. Thoha and A. Dharma, 122140. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.

Kuperan, K., N. M. R. Abdullah, R. S. Pomeroy, E. Genio, and A. Salamanca. 1998. Measuring

transaction costs of fisheries co-management. Paper presented at the Seventh Common Property

Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP)

Conference in Vancouver, BC, Canada. Manila: ICLARM.

Kusumaatmadja, M., and T. H. Purwaka. 1996. Legal and institutional aspects of coastal zonemanagement in Indonesia.Marine Policy20(1):6386.

MMAF. 2002. The need for a new coastal zone and small island management act in national

sustainable development. Jakarta: Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries.

Masoed, M. 1999. Globalisasi dan tanggapan birokrasi nasional. In Menyoal birokrasi publik, eds.

M. Thoha and A. Dharma, 141146. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.

Mokhtar, M. B., and S. A. G. Aziz. 2003. Integrated coastal zone management using the

ecosystem approach: Some perspectives in Malaysia. Ocean & Coastal Management46:407

419.

Nielsen, J. R., P. Degnbol, K. K. Viswanathan, M. Ahmed, M. Hara, and N. M. R. Abdullah.

2004. Fisheries co-management-an institutional innovation? Lessons from South East Asia and

Southern Africa.Marine Policy28:151160.

Novaczek, I., I. H. T. Harkes, J. Sopacua, and M. D. D. Tatuhey. 2001. An Institutional Analysis of

Sasi Laut in Maluku, Indonesia.ICLARM Tech. Rep. 59. Penang, Malaysia: ICLARM.


18/19

284 H. Y. Siry

Olsen, S., D. Sadacharan, J. L. Samarakoon, A. T. White, H. J. M. Wickremeratne, and M. S.

Wijeratne. 1992.Coastal 2000: A Resource Strategy for Sri Lankas Coast, Volume II, Colombo:

Sri Lankan Coast Conservation Department.

Pador, Z., and F. Zakir. 2002. Pola Partisipatif: Alternatif Kembali ke Sistem Nagari. In Kembali ke

Nagari: Batuka Baruak jo Cigak, ed. Z. Pador, Padang: Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Padang.

Patlis, J. M., R. Dahuri, M. Knight, and J. Tulungen. 2001. Integrated coastal management in adecentralized Indonesia: How it can work. Jurnal Pesisir dan Lautan 4(1):2439.

Patlis, J., M. Knight, D. Silalahi, S. P. Ginting, W. Siahaan, G. Hendrarsa, and A. Wiyana. 2003. The

process of developing Coastal Resource Management Laws. In Coastal legal reform series, eds.

M. Knight and S. Tighe, Narragansett: Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island.

Pomeroy, R. S. 1995. Community-based and co-management institutions for sustainable coastal

fisheries management in Southeast Asia. Ocean and Coastal Management27(3):143162.

Pomeroy, R. S., and M. J. Williams. 1994. Fisheries co-management and smallscale fisheries: A

policy brief, Makati: International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.

Pomeroy, R. S. Ed. 1994.Community management and common property of coastal fisheries in Asia

and the Pacific: concepts, methods and experiences. ICLARM (International Center for Living

Aquatic Resources Management) Conference Proceedings 45. Manila: ICLARM.Pomeroy, R. S. 1995. Community-based and co-management institutions for sustainable coastal

fisheries management in Southeast Asia. Ocean & Coastal Management27(3):143162.

Pomeroy, R., and M. B. Carlos. 1997. Community-based coastal resources management in the

Philippines: A review and evaluation of programs and projects, 19841994. Marine Policy

21(5):445464.

Pratikto, W. A. 2001.Learning through partnerships in the context of decentralized integrated coastal

management policy in Indonesia. Jakarta: Forum Kemitraan Bahari 2001, Ministry of Marine

Affairs and Fisheries.

Putra, S. 2003.Conflicts of coastal management in North Sulawesi. Townsville: TESAG, James Cook

University.

Purwaka, T. H. 1995. Policy on marine and coastal resource development planning. Occasional Paper

Series No. 8, Bandung: Center for Archipelago, Law and Development Studies, University ofPadjajaran.

Rais, J. 1993. Marine Resource Evaluation and Planning Project for an integrated coastal zone

planning and management in Indonesia. In World Coast Conference 1993: Proceedings, vols.

1 and 2. CZM Centre Publication No. 4, The Hague: Ministry of Transport, Public Works,

and Water Management, National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management. Coastal Zone

Management Centre, Netherlands.

Rasyid, M. R. 2002. The policy of decentralization in Indonesia. Paper presented at the GSU

Conference, Can Decentralization Help Rebuild Indonesia?, 1 May 2002, Atlanta, Georgia,

USA.

Ruddle, K. 1993. External forces and changes in traditional community-based fishery management

system in the Asia Pacific Region. Maritime Anthropological Studies 6(12):137.Ruddle, K. 1994. Local knowledge in the future management of inshore tropical marine resources

and environments.Nature & Resources 30(1):2837.

Saharuddin, A. H. 2001. National ocean policynew opportunities for Malaysian ocean development.

Marine Policy25:427435.

Sasono, A. 1999. Hambatan institusional dalam menciptakan birokrasi era globalisasi. In Menyoal

birokrasi publik, eds. M. Thoha and A. Dharma, 9297. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.

Satria, A., and Y. Matsuda. 2004. Decentralisation of fisheries management in Indonesia. Marine

Policy28:437450.

Silver, C. 2003. Do the donors have it right? Decentralisation and changing local governance in

Indonesia.Annals of Regional Science37:421434.

Siry, H. Y. 2005. Challenges for Community-Based and Co-management Approaches in Coastal Zone

Management in Indonesia. Paper read at the 6th Doctoral Students Conference, Moving Toward


19/19


a Sustainable Future: Multidisciplinary Perspectives from the Pacific Rim,712 August 2005,

University of Oregon, Eugene, USA.

Sloan, N. A., and A. Sugandhy. 1994. An overview of Indonesian coastal environmental management.

Coastal Management22:215233.

Soegiarto, A. 1996.Integrated coastal zone management in Indonesia: Problems and plans of action.

Paper read at International Workshop on Integrated Coastal Management in Tropical DevelopingCountries: Lessons Learned from Successes and Failures, 2428 May, Xiamen, Peoples Republic

of China.

Soendoro, T. 1994.The Indonesian experience in planning and management of coastal zone through

MREP project. Paper read at the IOC-WESTPAC Third International Scientific Symposium,

November 2226, Bali, Indonesia.

Sorensen, J. C. 1993. The international proliferation of integrated coastal zone management efforts.

Ocean & Coastal Management21(13):4580.

Tjokrowinoto, M. 1999. Peningkatan Reorientasi birokrasi publik dalam era globalisasi. InMenyoal

birokrasi publik, eds. M. Thoha and A. Dharma, 7279. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.

Thorburn, C. 2002. Regime change-prospects for community-based resource management in post-

New Order Indonesia.Society and Natural Resources 15:617628.Tomascik, T., A. J. Mah, A. Nontji, and M. K. Moosa. 1997. The ecology of the Indonesian Seas,

Parts one and two. Singapore: EMDI and Periplus.

UNDP. 1998.Empowering peopleA guide to participation. New York: Civil Society Organizations

and Participation Program (CSOPP), UNDP.

UNEP. 2001. Asia Pacific environment outlook 2. Bangkok: United Nations Environment

ProgramRegional Resources for Asia Pacific.

UNEP RRCAP. 2004. Sustainable development priorities for Southeast Asia, Bangkok: United

Nations Environment ProgramRegional Resources for Asia Pacific.

Uphoff, N. 1998. Community-based natural resource management: Connecting micro and macro

processes, and people with their environments. Paper read at the Plenary Presentation,

International CBNRM Workshop, 1014 May, 1998 at, Washington, D.C.

White, A. T., L. Z. Hale, Y. Renard, and L. Cortesi. Eds. 1994.Collaborative and community-basedmanagement of coral reefs: Lessons from experience. Connecticut: Kumarian Press.

World Bank. 2002.Decentralization & subnational regional economics. The World Bank 2002 (cited

25 October 2002). Available at http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/decentralization

Yahaya, J. 1993. Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) and community-based fisheries management in

Malaysia. Paper read at Symposium on Socio-economic Issues in Coastal Fisheries Management,

2326 November 1993, Bangkok, Thailand.

Zerner, C. 2000. People, plants, and justice: The politics of nature conservation. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Zerner, C. Ed. 2003.Culture and the question of rights: Forests, coasts and seas in Southeast Asia .

Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Siry Coastal Zone Management

Documents

Transcript of Siry Coastal Zone Management