Is sustainable park management possible?<\/p>\n
M. Indrawan, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Protected parks continue to be a source of controversy in
\nIndonesia as much as many other country of the South.
\nEstablishments of the parks are frequently based on biophysical
\nconsiderations, but often overlook the socio-economic interests
\nof the local communities. This often triggers resistance by those
\nlocal communities, and the reason why certain protected areas
\nhave become "paper parks".<\/p>\n
Paper parks exist only on paper despite their physical
\npresence, because the stewards of such parks do not involve local
\ncommunities as the main beneficiaries. Even the supposedly
\naltruistic conservation measures may be equated with
\n"commercialization", as was the case with the recently
\nestablished Merapi-Merbabu National Park in Central Java.<\/p>\n
Horizontal and vertical conflicts in managing national parks
\nhave emerged throughout most of Indonesia. Leuser National Park
\nin northern Sumatra (lying in both North Sumatra and Aceh
\nprovince), which used to be one of the most pristine and largest
\nnational parks in Indonesia, continues to be ruined by illegal
\nlogging, and the construction of the Ladia Galaska highway. This
\nhighway's construction, which effectively cuts the park in two,
\nwas also conducted without proper public consultation.<\/p>\n
Local communities participating in illegal logging and land
\nclearance have become a real problem for park authorities at
\nBukit Barisan Park in Lampung. The establishment of Ciremai Park
\nin West Java, was immediately responded to with protestations by
\nlocal NGOs and some local communities who felt they were never
\ninvolved during the decision-making process.<\/p>\n
At Kutai National Park in East Kalimantan, the local
\ngovernment released portions of protected lands to new settlers,
\nwhich turned out to be used for uncontrollable logging and
\ncultivation activities.<\/p>\n
Different regional governments have staked claims over the
\nrich marine resources of the Tomini Gulf (Central Sulawesi), a
\npart of which was decreed last year by the central government as
\nTogian National Park. The parks in Papua are commonly fraught
\nwith (frequently legitimate) traditional claims by indigenous
\ncommunities needing short-term income, but frequently vulnerable
\nto being coopted by illegal logging "investors" and then
\ncontribute to community poverty.<\/p>\n
To maintain a sustainable park management it needs to
\nfacilitate communities and relevant stakeholders to make an
\ninformed choice and effective policies, respectively. Structured
\nand frequent public consultation with people that live in the
\narea -- the bottom-up approach -- which effectively takes the
\nknowledge and perspectives from a variety of stakeholders may
\nhelp.<\/p>\n
First, proper resource valuation is needed. Costs incurred by
\nlocal communities through the potential loss of income, for
\ninstance, should be calculated as such. Intangible items should
\nalso be calculated. For instance, what is the net value of clean
\nwater from Mt. Merapi, if the area is managed as a protected
\narea? Accurate natural-resource accounting has actually been done
\nfor several national parks in Indonesia, including Kerinci-
\nSeblat.<\/p>\n
Second, the cost-benefit analysis should be disseminated so
\npeople can make informed decisions. Communications specialists
\nand civil society organizations (CSOs) need to work together to
\ntranslate the economic options to enable local communities to
\nfully understand the mission.<\/p>\n
Third, if all understand the public aspirations, it will be
\neasier to make informed decisions. Do local communities think
\nthat the park has more costs or more benefits? Even in a heavily
\ndegraded ecosystem in uncontrolled new settlements, the
\nindigenous local communities may still want the park, as was the
\ncase in Kutai. Even if local communities near the forest do not
\nwant a park established, at least proper dialog can lead to an
\ninformed choice.<\/p>\n
If local communities are keen on a new park being established,
\nthe fourth step would be to foster negotiations between
\ncommunities and the government.<\/p>\n
The private sector should be involved as well, including in
\ncases of mining in protected forests. Clear and transparent rules
\nand guidelines, including aims and objectives of collaborative
\nmanagement should be agreed upon.<\/p>\n
The interest of local communities should be effectively
\nrepresented to the highest level possible, by direct involvement,
\nand from the planning stages. The rules and guidelines should
\nalso include pre-set arbitration mechanisms to resolve potential
\nconflicts.<\/p>\n
Local incentives need to be developed, for instance:
\nsupporting local agricultural systems, local innovations of
\nrenewable energy, local-specific environment-friendly technology,
\nand perhaps even provision of scholarship to the local folks.
\nThird party costs should be recognized as it is. User fees should
\nbe applied and be re-distributed to properly benefit the local
\ncommunities. Local legislature, legal experts, community
\nrepresentatives and business entrepreneurs -- including small and
\nmedium enterprises need to be participated.<\/p>\n
Fifth, formalize the social and economic agreements into the
\nwritten rules and regulations such as regional regulations.
\nParticipatory zoning systems should be applied as needed.<\/p>\n
Sixth, ensure that the land use policies in adjacent regions
\nare synchronized to prevent conflicts of interest, especially
\nbetween different regional administrations. Some parks in
\nIndonesia encompassed more than one region, and cross even the
\nprovincial borders, for instance Leuser, Kerinci-Seblat and
\nDumoga-Bone. In regions with neighboring protected areas,
\nmeasures must be spent to institutionalizing coordination
\nmechanisms and synchronizing land use policies. The regional
\npolicies should necessarily comply with higher order rules and
\nregulations, at the national level.<\/p>\n
Seventh, participatory monitoring mechanisms should be
\nincorporated into the regional regulations.<\/p>\n
An effective partnership in park governance would need to
\ninclude local government agencies and legislature, community
\nrepresentations, CSOs, as well as social specialists,
\ncommunication specialists, legal specialists, local entrepreneurs
\nand especially committed negotiators.<\/p>\n
There are causes for optimism. Only last year, two community-
\nbased forums in Sulawesi (Forum Perduli Bunaken in Bunaken NP,
\nand Ngata Toro in Lore Lindu NP) were recognized with
\ninternational awards from the United Nations Development Program,
\nfor integrating poverty alleviation with nature conservation.<\/p>\n
The writer is Assistant Editor of Tropical Biodiversity -- an
\ninternational scientific journal published in Indonesia, He can
\nbe reached at tropbiod@pacific.net.id)<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/is-sustainable-park-management-possible-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}