|Environment and development
in coastal regions and in small islands
Regional Workshop for the Asia-Pacific University Twinning Network ‘Exploring Wise Practice Agreements’
Annex 4 - Workshop Papers
Working and living conditions of workers: a
case of misplaced conflict
Ms. Sumanben Chaudhany and Capt. Y.P. Deulkar
Moken livelihood in the Surin Islands
Ms. Narumon Arunotai
Bantayisay (SeagrassWatch): A wise practice
agreement rallying community support to link science and tourism in Puerto
Galera Biosphere Reserve, the Philippines
Mr. Miguel D. Fortes
Collaborative undertakings between
international, national and local institutions towards coastal resource
Ms. Gerthie Mayo-Anda
Wise practice management and related issues
in the Sä’anapu/Sätaoa, Samoa, CSI project
Mr. Asofou So’o and Ms. Lagi Kelemete
Wise practice agreements in the Melanesian
Region: Mutual agreements over resource management, access and use
Mr. Linus digim’Rina and Mr. Haraka G. Gaudi
Identification of sources of conflicts and
evaluating the potential role of wise practice agreements for Jakarta Bay
and the Seribu Islands
Mr. Warief Djajanto Basorie, Ms. Christien Ismuranty, and Mr. Jan H. Steffen
Working and Living Conditions of Workers: a Case of Misplaced Conflict
Ms. Sumanben Chaudhary and Mr. Y.P. Deulkar
Situated near Alang village, 55 km from
Bhavnagar city, the Alang-Sosiya Ship-Breaking
yard (ASSBY) is the second largest ship-breaking yard in the world next to
Taiwan and has an important geographical location. The unique geographical
features of the area including a high tidal range, wide continental shelf, 15
degree slope, and a mud free coast, are ideal for any size ships to be beached
easily during high tide. At present, there are 185 plots employing 15,000 –
20,000 migrant labourers.
ASSBY plays an important role in the development of nearby villages. Coastal villages around Alang linked through ASSBY have developed into industrial towns, providing economic opportunities in ship breaking work to workers from other states, and social services and self-employment to local villagers.
There are four stakeholder groups in ASSBY:
villagers, workers, ship breakers and the Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB).
In the second phase of the project, we
investigated the conflict between villagers and the workers; the communities
divided into two groups, socially segregated but co-operating economically. In
this phase, we would like to study the conflicts between the GMB and the
2.1 Conflict between the
Gujarat Maritime Board and Gujarat Ship Breakers Association
The conflict between the GMB and the
Gujarat Ship Breakers Association relate to plot congestion, lack of labour laws
and safety concerns. Some of the plots are small and not sufficient to carry out
ship breaking operations smoothly, with congestion often causing accidents.
Labour laws are not implemented and labourers are often not provided with safety
facilities or working equipment such as helmets, gumboots, etc. In the cases
where these are provided, there are insufficient numbers and they are of poor
quality, except at the time of inspection or safety audit. The labourers are not
provided with the necessary equipment for machine safety, chemical safety and
water safety. GMB officials believe
that the ship breakers carry out operations in an unplanned and unorganized
manner which leads to accidents.
2.2 Conflict between the
Gujarat Maritime Board and the villagers
The conflict between these two groups
relates to the provision of physical infrastructure such as roads; water and
fuel supply; land use; khadas (shops selling various materials from the ships);
pollution of land, air, water and the marine environment, as well as noise
pollution; solid waste disposal; and land acquisition and compensation.
Conflicts between ship-breakers and workers
The conflict between the ship-breakers and
the workers relates to:
The provision of adequate hygienic living
Safety and standardised working conditions,
and proper sanitary and health care facilities
The implementation of labour laws
Economic aspects such as daily wages,
Provident Fund, bonuses, daily hours of working, and wages for overtime
2.4 Conflicts between the
Gujarat Maritime Board and the workers
The conflict between the GMB and the
workers relates to:
The provision of infrastructure facilities
for basic amenities
The conflicts between GMB and workers are
ambiguous. There is a widespread belief among workers that the GMB is
responsible for the welfare of the workers and thus, the cause of irritation
between them. This is, however, not the case.
The workers are hired and employed by the
ship breakers directly. GMB is not involved in the selection or employment of
the workers or their work distribution. As a result, the wages, working
conditions, provision of physical facilities are the responsibility of the ship
breakers. The Factory Act provides that if the contractor fails to pay the wages
of the labourer, the principal employer becomes responsible for the failure. In
this case, the ‘Mukadam’ is the labour contractor and the ship breaker is
the principal employer. The GMB is not the principal employer but only the
leasing and managing authority for the plots and the port.
The responsibility of GMB is limited to
providing extensive facilities to the ship breakers such as structural
facilities like a hospital training centre, sports and recreation, fire brigade,
roads, water supply, fair price shop, waste-management facilities, etc.
The supervision of the implementation of labour laws by the ship breakers
is the responsibility of the State Government’s Labour Department and not GMB.
The government has provided a labour officer for ASSBY. The labour officer has
the responsibility to look into matters of providing physical facilities, wages,
implementation of labour laws, and prosecution of ship breakers in case of
non-compliance. The GMB works in unison with the Department of Labour and the
factory inspectorate, which are government departments.
Whenever incidences regarding wages, accidents, pollution or AIDS arise, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the media give them publicity. In such situations, the GMB as an overall government authority unfairly becomes the lone target for blame. Direct dialogue between the ship breakers and the labourers is the only way to solve this problem. The GMB, while taking an active interest in all the activities, can only be involved as a mediator.
3.0 Conflict Resolution
Several facilities have been put in place
by the GMB and others are planned:
Water supply: 35 Syntax water tanks of 2,000 litres
capacities have been installed at the ship breaking plots where labourers
are residing. These tanks supply domestic and drinking water for the
labourers every day. One tanker of 5,000 litres supplies the tanks at the
working plots daily. Soon, Narmada River water will be diverted to ASSBY to
increase water supply.
Fire fighting: Fire fighting arrangements
in the yard are looked after by the GMB. The fire fighting force headed by a
Fire Officer is equipped with the following equipment:
2 fire tenders, 1foam tender, 2 trailer fire pumps, 6 portable water
pumps, 6 water tankers, and 2 underground sumps.
Allied services: Police station, post
office, bank, telephone exchange, hospitals, community sanitary complexes,
Customs office, and AIDS centre, etc.
Community sanitation: The GMB provides and
maintains sanitary complexes at four locations.
Infrastructure: GMB provides basic
infrastructure in the area such as roads, electricity, extension of fire
station, railing and footpath on service road, road dividers, solid waste
management, and a new safety and worker training institute.
As a regulator, GMB has put in efforts to
develop and/or provide the above requirements to match the growth of the
industry. However, prior to 1998, the focus was on physical infrastructure.
Attention towards workers safety was initiated in the beginning of 1997 by
executing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Gujarat Ship Breakers
Association to keep records of accidents, establish a permanent office of
factory inspectors and labour officer, initiate the issuance of identity cards
to the workers, execute detailed enquiries into total accidents, punish the plot
owner in the event of an accident, and develop the constitution of an ‘Expert
Committee’ to examine standard rules for the ship breaking industry.
The issue of worker safety was assigned
high priority and the GMB’s Chief Executive Officer put an innovative strategy
comprising the following elements in place:
Build a knowledge base
Create incentives for ship breakers
Create risk awareness
Monitor safety status for each plot
Create binding regulation
GMB is keen to create and maintain a safe
working environment at Alang, to provide better amenities to the workers to
enhance their efficiency and ability, and to ensure that workers get a better
standard of living. The industry will prosper as a result of the above efforts.
Moken Livelihood in the Surin Islands National Park
coastal areas and several islands in the Andaman Sea of Southern Thailand have
been a home and foraging ground for three groups of sea nomads who call
themselves the Moken, the Moklen, and the Urak Lawoi according to their
Austronesian language. These sea
nomads are maritime hunter-gatherers who roam the sea in search of food and
shelters. Due to the expansion of urban and rural settlements, tourist
development, and expanding protected areas, the Moken have had their foraging
Surin Islands have been a foraging ground for the Moken for centuries.
The Islands consist of two large islands and three small islands located
about 60 kilometers from the Khuraburi shore of Phang-nga Province.
In 1981, the islands were declared a Marine National Park due to the
pristine conditions of coral reef and marine life, and the several types of
forests and rare species like the Nicobar Pigeon (Caloenas nicobarica) and the
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus).
Issues to be Addressed
Moken livelihood depends on hunting and gathering of marine products for sale to
tourists. This is against the
National Park Act. Therefore, it is
necessary to implement or set up appropriate measures so that Moken dependence
on the natural resources does not disturb the National Park environment.’
Surin Islands National Park Master Plan 2000-2005
to the National Park Act of 1961, activities within the Park boundary have to be
limited and controlled. In theory,
the areas to be declared National Park have to be free of any ownership or
control; but in practice, National Park areas have often been declared over
local people’s subsistence farming land.
This becomes problematic as Park staff must work in these areas, and at
the same time, the people’s livelihood is often limited or disrupted by the
there was no formal or written agreement between the Park Staff and the Moken of
the Surin Islands, it was generally understood that the Moken are indigenous
people who frequented the islands and depended on marine and terrestrial
resources long before the creation of the National Park.
The Moken’s subsistence way of life and simple foraging/building tools
did very little to harm the environment so the Moken were accepted as part of
the islands and were able to continue their traditional livelihood, moving their
villages to inhabitable beaches as they have done for centuries.
1987, when the Park had become a popular marine tourist destination, the Moken
were allowed to gather decorative seashells for sale to island visitors.
These seashells were collected from waters around the Surin Islands and
other islands in Myanmar waters. This
seashell sale continued for almost 10 years and earned cash income for the Moken
of approximately 200-3,000 baht per household per month during the tourist
season which lasts from mid-November to mid-May.
1996, the Park issued a ban on seashell sales and established a Moken Fund by
accepting donations from island visitors and other parties.
The Park uses the money from the fund to buy rice and other necessities
for the Moken. A fraction of the
income from the Park staff welfare shop is used to hire some Moken to work as
Park boatmen, gardeners, and garbage collectors.
It should be noted that the money to hire the Moken cannot come from the
government budget because they do not have a citizenship card.
establishment of the Moken Fund, the distribution of rice and necessities, and
the hiring of Moken workers represent the Park’s goodwill towards the Moken
especially when their seashell sale was terminated.
There was no formal agreement between the Park and the Moken.
to their traditional subsistence lifestyle, the Moken do not normally accumulate
their cash earnings. Moreover, the Moken generally buy their necessities in
retail shops or in small amounts, which is usually more expensive than buying
bulk goods. This has increasingly pushed the Moken to become more financially
dependent on the Park.
addiction is a problem in many Moken communities and has resulted in the
premature deaths of many Moken men. As a result, the male to female population
ratio on the Surin Islands is woefully imbalanced. Widows have to shoulder a
much greater responsibility for dependents in the household, despite the
increased difficulty in earning a living.
The Moken and the National Park Department
main responsibility of the National Park Staff is to protect the environment and
serve island visitors. There is no
support from the Department
in the form of budget or manpower to work with, or employ, indigenous people.
The Surin Islands National Park Master Plan for 2000-2005 barely
discusses the Moken or the issues faced by their community. Basic information on
the ‘Chao Lay’
was provided in Chapter 4 on ‘Tourism, Recreation, and Natural
Interpretation’ and under the sub-topic of ‘Tourist Sites in the Surin
Islands National Park’. In the
earlier chapter, ‘The History of Land Use on the Surin Islands Prior to the
National Park Establishment’, there was no mention of the Moken or their
traditional/historical use of the Surin Islands.
Department’s official policies and planning activities hardly recognize the
Moken and do little to support their physical livelihood and cultural
well-being. However, past practices by the Park staff have forged a compromise
between allowing the Moken to continue their traditional livelihood on the
islands and abiding by the National Park rules and regulations.
unofficial compromise has created some problems for the Moken as Park staff have
often acted inconsistently in punishing Moken who violate National Park
regulations. Communication between the Mokena and Park staff regarding the
enforcement of Park regulations must be clear and precise to avoid
misunderstandings and inconsistent regulatory enforcement.
2.5 The Moken and Local
government agencies face a high turn-over rate in personnel and positions
causing extreme difficulty in continuing project activities, especially those
activities that lie beyond set policy and planning objectives.
The high rotation of Provincial and Local Administrative Offices, for
example, the Governor, Vice Governer, District Chief, and Deputy District Chief
has been an obstacle for Moken’s application and acquisition of legal
citizenship status. Approximately
10 years ago, a Phang-nga Governor visited the Surin Islands and spoke about the
issuance of national identity cards for the Moken. However, the Moken are still without nationality and
citizenship cards, even those who are married to Thais.
Most government offices at the national level do not
recognize the notion of ‘indigenous people’.
As a result, there has been practically no plan to support the Moken in
their quest to obtain legal citizenship status and to enable indigenous
participation in the management of natural resources.
The Local Administration Department, Ministry of
Interior, and the National Security Council still focus their work on
transborder and national security issues, national unity issues, and the
promotion of civic loyalty towards the ‘motherland’. Therefore, the Moken along with several other non-Thai
indigenous peoples continue to be landless and stateless beings without formal
help and support. It is hoped that
the bureaucratic reform and the discussion of new ideas about ‘culture’
(Ministry of Culture) and ‘human security’ (Ministry of Labour and Human
Security) will stimulate some interest among the Local Administrative Officers
towards addressing the plight of the Moken.
3.0 The Fisheries Conservation Unit
government sub-station on the north Surin Island is the Fisheries Conservation
Unit, which serves to protect the area from illegal fishing practices.
However, this sub-station is very small, with little budget and
insufficient manpower, thus patrolling and enforcing regulations is difficult.
1995, a one-room school was set up at the Fisheries Conservation Unit to teach
Moken children the Thai language, arithmetic, physical education, and other
basic subjects to provide them with the confidence to interact with members of
society outside the Moken community.
1997, a curriculum designed especially for Moken children was drafted and
tested. It aimed at teaching
practical knowledge and encouraging the real application of this knowledge in
everyday life. The curriculum was
approved, and the school is now administrated by the Khuraburi District
Education Office under the supervision of the Principal of Pak Jok School on
Phra Thong Island. The District
Education Office provides daily milk supplements, and trawler skippers and
tourists usually donate notebooks, uniforms, and sports equipment to the school.
children who complete their lower elementary education at this school and want
to continue their studies are facing some difficulties as they have to leave
their family and community to pursue upper elementary education on the mainland.
Scholarships to support a group of students to continue their education together
may enable students to better cope with being away from home.
It is important to use education to create a connection between the
children’s knowledge and their traditional cultural identity.
Education should enhance the children’s quality of life while also
fulfilling their cultural needs as members of the indigenous community.
4.0 The Moken and the Future
A few popular questions raised about the Moken include,
‘How do the Moken perceive their future?’, ‘What do they expect for their
future generations?’ and ‘How do they envision their community on the Surin
Islands?’ The following is
a short essay which a Moken wrote about these issues:
Moken and the Marine National Park
Moken livelihood and the Surin Islands Conservation
Long time ago, the Moken live happily and peacefully in our traditional way. Nowadays, the old images are fading from our lives because of our foraging activities which sometimes go against conservation effort. Each annual subsistence cycle is mainly to sustain our livelihood. But the expenses have exceeded our earning. We would like relevant government agencies to provide occupational support for us so that conservation effort could be successful and we do not have to depend on marine foraging alone. We would like the National Park to support us by hiring the Moken for these duties:
trail leader/diving-snorkeling leader
During the six months of south-west monsoon season, we would like the National Park to support us in raising fish (cage culture), so that we do not have to depend on marine foraging. And we can be the care-takers of natural resources, while sustaining our present and future livelihood.
Kong Klathalay, September 2002
During the first phase of the Andaman Pilot Project,
there was a brainstorming session among the project stakeholders.
In that session, the National Park Superintendent stated that he
envisioned that in the future the Moken would be a significant aspect of the
islands and would play a major role in natural resources conservation and
protection of the surrounding environment.
The Moken possess much traditional knowledge about the ocean and the forest. This indigenous knowledge may be combined with modern knowledge about ecosystems and resource management practices to enable the Moken to work effectively with the Park staff in safeguarding the protected area for future generations.
 After the recent bureaucratic reform in October 2002, all the national parks in Thailand, both marine and terrestrial, will be under the administration of the Department of Natural Park, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, instead of the Department of Royal Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives
 ‘Chao Lay’, meaning “Sea People”, is the general term referred to the Moken, the Moklen and the Urak Lawoi in Thailand
 The marriage cannot be registered due to the lack of identity card
(SeagrassWatch): A Wise
Practice Agreement Rallying Community Support To Link Science And Tourism In
Puerto Galera Biosphere Reserve, The Philippines
Mr. Miguel D. Fortes
Galera (Spanish for ‘Port of Galleons’) is a Biosphere Reserve of
hence, it exemplifies the harmonious relation between man and nature, where
development is allowed but in a sustainable way. With about 25,000 people
enjoying a rustic life style but only 77 nautical miles southeast of the highly
urbanized Metro Manila, it has one of the most beautiful natural harbors in the
world and is a prime tourism destination. It caters to family groups and young
professionals alike, and for many years has been the object of scientific field
studies of schools and universities. The impressive collection of artifacts
inside a local museum in Puerto Galera Biosphere Reserve stands as a mute
witness to the rich culture and history of the town. It was the refuge for
Spanish ships in times of storm or for a recreational stopover for the crews
after months at sea when the town was a gateway for the galleons on the way to
and from Spain, Mexico, China, India, Sumatra, and Java.
much a part of its history are the innumerable attempts to link the protection
of the environment with the improvement of the lives of its people. Since the
late 1970s, issues and problems have pervaded the seemingly tranquil environment
of the Reserve. Emanating from conflicts between tourism development and
environmental protection, these issues are aggravated by the uninformed
obstinacy of politicians, preying on the hapless inhabitants who lack
understanding and appreciation of the natural environment. As one of the latest
initiatives which try to address these issues, the SeagrassNet, a global
seagrass monitoring project funded by the Packard Foundation, chose Puerto
Galera Biosphere Reserve as one of its monitoring sites in Asia-Pacific. With
its introduction to the municipality last January 2002, the Mayor of the town
proclaimed Executive Order 02-01, otherwise known as BantayIsay,
to mobilize community support for environmental awareness, protection and
2.0 Description of the Field Project
BantayIsay (from the Filipino word ‘bantay’, meaning,
‘to watch’, and ‘isay’, local name for ‘seagrass’) is a community
initiative promulgated by the Municipality of Puerto Galera through Executive
Order 02-01. The first legislation in the Philippines (and Southeast Asia!) to
provide for directly and explicitly protecting and managing seagrasses.
It aims to involve the community in collecting information on changes in
seagrass meadows and in so doing support them in becoming the ‘eyes’ for
coastal and fisheries managers. At certain periods, volunteers are gathered to
share information on community involvement in seagrass mapping, monitoring and
research, to evaluate progress, and consider ways of sustaining the existing
program. They likewise discuss various approaches to involving community groups
in the wider question of the role of communities in science for tourism
are recognized as habitat vital for fisheries productivity and a food source for
dugong, marine turtles and a host of economically and ecologically important
fishes and invertebrates. The health of much of the Philippines’ coastal
environment depends on productive seagrass areas. Puerto Galera is an example of
an area where there have been concerns about the degradation and loss of coastal
habitats including seagrass mainly from loss of light due to turbidity resulting
from rapid coastal tourism development.
BantayIsay builds on this theme by introducing and applying
techniques developed for communities and families to collect information on
seagrasses in a way that will provide useful data for scientists and coastal
managers. It originated from the Seagrass-Watch
program developed by the Department of Primary Industries’ Marine Plant
Ecology Group based at the Northern Fisheries Centre, Cairns, Australia.
3.0 Major Causes of Conflicts and their Resolutions
major causes of conflicts in Puerto Galera are:
The low level of environmental awareness
among community members
The poor enforcement of laws and policies
The minimal experience among communities to
mobilize around specific issues
The lack of organized community groups and
absence of an active local media and pro-active citizens’ group
The apparent lack of government support on
economic activities other than tourism
The lack of a comprehensive database on
basic natural resources and demographic information related to tourism, and
the lack of an attempt to link these two aspects
specific recommendations to solve the problems include:
Prioritize the information and education
campaign on environmental protection. BantayIsay
is assisting with the local government implementation of information and
education activities such as school lectures, barangay assemblies on
ordinances that relate to environmental protection, and a quarterly Puerto
Galera-wide seagrass monitoring activity involving the local communities and
is also looking at the possibility of incorporating environmental
education in to the school curriculum
Strictly enforce laws and policies.
In particular, the restrictions on trading of artifacts from the
marine environment e.g. shells, shark heads, coral stones, etc. should be
enforced through proper licensing and monitoring.
There are ordinances in place (i.e., M.O. No. 101-99 and M.O. No.
132). As a part of BantayIsay’s
outreach campaign program, these issues will soon be addressed with the
assistance of experts and qualified personnel from the locality
Establish a functional community organizer
to help the local government in addressing issues. Working on the spirit of
volunteerism, BantayIsay has
initiated and/or activated community organizing towards this end
In recognition of the complexities of the
stakeholders’ relationships in Puerto Galera, a possible intervention
would be the set-up of a small-scale, community-led tourism project that
utilizes the seagrasses and other coastal ecosystems and demonstrates the
environmental sustainability of such community-based tourism.
In other areas like Palawan, projects of this nature lead to the
development of a ‘sense of ownership’ of the resources among the people
so they eventually play a lead role in resource protection
Diversify the industry base. Puerto Galera
need not be dependent on a single industry such as tourism.
The core industry may still be tourism but there are potentials
offered by the seagrass beds and mangroves in diversifying the industry
base. A broad consultation with stakeholders, including the indigenous
peoples group and the communities at large, should be held.
BantayIsay is primarily focusing on seagrasses, their resources and
scientific components, its importance lies in utilizing the habitat as a symbol
and a rallying point for the community to move closer to nature and recognize
her as the fragile source of their lives as a people. In the long term, the
initiative will branch out into the bigger integrated coastal area management,
working on the gains it had in the initial years of implementation.
the final analysis, the effective coastal development considerations in Puerto
Galera need to reflect a greater understanding of the people’s livelihoods and
how these relate to their relationship to their environment.
This is the core philosophy of BantayIsay.
Although people’s decisions on how to use their resources are primarily based
on the economic and financial benefits they get from them, the situation may be
far more complex. The wise and
unwise use of resources is based on a complex connection among biophysical,
social, economic, legal and cultural factors. BantayIsay
attempts to make people understand this complex relationship in a simpler and
more acceptable way.
Collaborative Undertakings Between International, National and Local Institutions Towards Coastal Resource Management
Ms. Gerthie Mayo-Anda
Coastal Resource Management and Sustainable Tourism initiative in Ulugan Bay,
Puerto Princesa City, Palawan illustrates a collaborative undertaking between
local, national and international institutions from both government and
non-government sectors. This
initiative was a two-year pilot project of UNESCO, with support from the United
Nations Development Programme, the Government of Puerto Princesa City and
implemented jointly with national scientific institutions and non-government
implemented the two-year project under the umbrella of its Environment and
Development in Coastal Regions and Small Islands Programme, which is devoted to
developing ‘wise practices’ that achieve culturally appropriate, socially
balanced and environmentally sound development in coastal regions and in small
project forms part of a strategy to save one of the most ecologically diverse,
yet threatened areas in the Philippines. Ulugan Bay accounts for 15% of the
total mangroves in the Philippines and 50% of the mangroves in the province of
Ulugan Bay project demonstrates how partnerships between various institutions
can lead to a comprehensive approach to the management of a specific coastal
area. By adopting a bottom-up approach in developing a working empirical model
for community-based coastal resource management, the project relied on the
collective effort of the local government unit, national scientific
institutions, NGOs and local communities.
partner institution was involved in various core activities in the project. The
project commenced with the conduct of four studies that examined the ecology of
the bay, the traditional resource use and culture of the indigenous communities,
the socio-economic profile of the area and the tourism potential.
These studies were followed by specific activities, such as the
implementation of sustainable fish farming, establishment of a fisheries
database, the development of a masterplan for community-based sustainable
tourism and the conduct of non-formal environmental education for youth and
the key lessons gleaned from the project are the following:
Gathering high quality data and communicating research results to
policy makers are crucial to the development of correct coastal zone
management practice. For example, studies on traditional, indigenous
knowledge and resource management systems provided project implementers with
insights on the perspective of indigenous communities towards tourism.
It also stressed the need to recognize the traditional management
systems of indigenous communities within their ancestral domains
Enhancement of local community participation in coastal environment
conservation, from the earliest stages of planning and management to actual
implementation, coupled with the use of traditional community knowledge
ensures effective implementation of project goals
Adopting an interdisciplinary and intersectoral approach at all
levels of planning and implementation results in cooperation and integrated
management and reduces the social costs associated with overlapping
jurisdictional and management issues
Local community participation in law enforcement is an essential
tool to effective coastal area management
More efforts should be invested to stimulate the exchange of
experiences from successful models of coastal resource management.
same partner institutions involved in the pilot project intend to continue the
partnership through another integrated project which will focus on zoning,
enterprise development and additional institutional strengthening activities.
While the proposal for the next phase is still being completed, UNESCO
assisted its NGO partner, the Environmental Legal Assistance Center
securing support for its planned Community-based Coastal Resource Management
Program for Ulugan Bay. UNESCO
likewise provided funds to enable capacity building of local community tour
guides in the Puerto Princesa National Park and Heritage Site, refinement of
their Community-based Sustainable Tourism plans and in the construction of the
Ugong Rock Interpretive Center and View Deck.
Community-based Coastal Resource Management Program and UNESCO’s continuing
support to Community-based Sustainable Tourism activities are important steps
towards strengthening capacity building.
non-formal environmental education and training, community organizing, resource
management planning, legal defense, provision of land tenure, and policy
advocacy, coastal communities in Ulugan Bay will be further equipped to manage,
protect, conserve and judiciously utilize their resources.
The program also seeks to give tenurial security of the resource base to
the coastal and indigenous communities.
education on environmental laws, and training on resource management planning,
enterprise development and environmental law enforcement, will enable fisherfolk
to take an active role in formulating appropriate local plans and policies
attuned to their needs. Enabling
communities to secure tenure over their land and resources will strengthen
community participation and interest in conserving resource-rich areas.
proposed program has the following objectives:
To enhance community participation in the
management of coastal resources in Ulugan Bay
communities (fisherfolk and indigenous) to undertake resource management
To assist coastal migrant and tribal communities gain tenurial
security over their resource base
To strengthen links between fisherfolk and
indigenous communities and local government on effective management of
Resource Use Conflicts in Ulugan Bay
Bay’s resources are threatened by illegal fishing, logging and
quarrying activities as well as development projects such as the proposed naval
base in the bay. Tenure issues also
abound in the area, especially among indigenous peoples, farmers and fisherfolk.
address the need for conservation, various barangays in Ulugan Bay have
identified watershed areas for protection. In Barangay Macarascas, volunteers,
NGOs and barangay council members conducted several activities for the purpose
of setting aside and declaring Conical Hill as a watershed area for the barangay
residents of Macarascas. Other activities included the following:
Preparation and submission of the map and technical description of
Conical Hill to the Sangguniang Barangay for their consideration
Validation of the results of mapping activity by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Endorsement of the plan and submission to the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources for approval
Posting of signboards by the community in and around the proposed
watershed area as part of the information dissemination efforts
controversial issue in Ulugan Bay
concerns the proposed naval base. Since
the early 1990s, the Western
Command in Palawan has been expressing its intention of establishing a naval
base in Ulugan Bay. One barangay that
has consistently registered its opposition to the proposed project is Barangay
Macarascas. In 1997 and 1999,
barangay officials of Macarascas passed resolutions vehemently opposing the
establishment of a naval base in the bay area. In
addition, the barangay residents have submitted various petitions to
local and national officials to express their opposition to the proposed
response to the request of the barangay officials and residents, the city
government has organized several community consultations and dialogues with the
Western Command. However,
the information relayed by the navy officials in most of these consultations was very general.
The navy personnel could not present a detailed written project
description on the proposed naval base. The
lack of specificity and detail on the proposed naval base has aggravated the
fears and skepticism among barangay residents.
To date, barangay residents are again preparing another petition to renew
their opposition to the project.
main issues identified in this conflict include the limitations on access
rights, oil spills, impact on biodiversity (e.g. mangroves) and land ownership
rights. Stakeholders include the fisherfolk, farmers, barangay officials, local
communities, the public, and environmental groups/NGOs.
no agreement has been reached to resolve this issue, some proposals for a wise
practice agreement in this situation include the following:
consultations with each stakeholder group
environmental risk assessment by a multisectoral group (to include
the Western Command, various government agencies, local officials, community
stakeholder representatives) to determine the social and ecological
feasibility as well as the legal compatibility of the proposed naval base
presentation of the results of the environmental risk assessment to
a general meeting of all stakeholders, with the media present.
Wise Practice Management and
Related Issues in the Sä’anapu / Sätaoa, Samoa, CSI Project
Mr. Asofou So’o and
Ms. Lagi Kelemete
1.0 The Field Project
on the south-western coast of Upolu Island in the Samoa group are the adjacent
villages of Sä’anapu and Sätaoa. On the coastal region of the two villages,
their respective mangrove swamps join, thus giving the impression of a single
mangrove area that spreads across the borders of the two villages.
This mangrove ecosystem has been declared a preserved area by both
villages and the State Department of Land, Survey and Environment.
This is the site of the Sä’anapu – Sätaoa CSI
are two components of this CSI project. Component
1 attempts to preserve the area’s biodiversity through the participation of
teachers and pupils in the separate primary schools of the two villages.
Its two main sub-components include biodiversity-awareness campaigns and
the involvement of students and teachers of the National University of Samoa (NUS).
The first sub-component involves classroom activities where teachers show
pupils the importance of mangroves and how to preserve mangrove ecosystems for
the long-term benefit of the local community. These activities are carried out in the normal subject
programmes of the school, such as in social studies lessons, and in
environmental awareness activities.
specified times, the two lecturers of the NUS who are involved in the project
take their students (biology and environment classes) to the project site where
NUS students carry out practical components of the courses they take as credits
for their NUS qualifications. At
other times, the NUS teachers take primary school pupils to the project site,
where they will be involved in basic scientific skills like measuring the
distance between mangroves, measuring the depth of the water at various times in
the mangrove areas, and so forth. In
this way pupils get a feel of the real environment in which mangroves grow.
Furthermore, the practical experience implants in the minds of pupils the
significance of the mangrove environment and the life resources it supports.
second component of the project involves traditional knowledge.
Three people are involved in this component.
Their main objective is to retrieve from members of the local community,
traditional knowledge associated with the use and preservation of mangrove
resources. Unfortunately, much
traditional knowledge associated with the management of resources has already
been lost most probably because of the effects of modernisation following the
adoption of Christianity among other influences.
Issues Causing Conflicts
issues causing conflicts in this project could be explained at different levels,
although they are all directly or indirectly associated with the ultimate
authorities in both villages, the council of chiefs.
Before going any further, it is necessary to explain the socio-political
structures of local communities and their associated roles and sphere of
authorities. Like all villages of
Samoa, the villages of Sä’anapu and Sätaoa are separately governed by their
respective village councils comprising all the chiefs (matai)
of the village. Chiefs are elected
for life by members of their respective families to be their representatives in
the village council, among other chiefly responsibilities.
The council of chiefs makes village laws, executes them and is also the
judge to interpret the laws. Outsiders
wanting to come into the village for things like setting up projects have to
pass through the village council. It
is this aspect of village government that could stand in the way of village
of the local community in both villages tell us that the project is working
smoothly now, but it was not the case when it first started.
The reason being that the village council of chiefs wanted to handle
everything associated with the project, in anticipation that money and other
material benefits would be gained through involvement in the project.
Traditionally, outsiders (or guests) coming into the village have to be
officially welcomed by the supreme authority in the village, the council of
chiefs. Among other things, it
involves the guests presenting gifts such as money and material goods to the
hosts. According to the village
people we spoke with, more often than not, these presents are either distributed
by the chiefs among their number, or if distributed to other village sub-organisations,
the chiefs often get the biggest share of the cake.
set of problems associated with projects of this nature that may give rise to
conflicts is related to land ownership. Land
belongs to the families comprising the village.
A family may disagree with a village resolution to be part of the
project. In which case, the project
could not go ahead. It could be a
collective family decision not to be part of the project.
However, it could also happen that there might be a family dispute over a
piece of land within the project site. In
this case, one section of the family might support the village decision relating
to the project while the other half of the family would not support the village
decision. It could happen that the
section of the family together with the rest of the village would give the
go-ahead. The other section of the
family which does not agree with the village would try to block the
implementation of the village decision. This
could be done by lodging an official complaint with the Land and Titles Court of
Samoa. Court proceedings of this
nature often take years before any decision is handed down.
Meanwhile the project has come to a complete halt.
between and among village families could also become a stumbling block to
projects of this nature. As long as
some families do not agree with some issue associated with the project, or even
an issue that has nothing to do with the project at all, village unanimity would
not be forthcoming, thereby frustrating any efforts towards establishing or
continuing the project.
also be problems associated with the on-going management and maintenance of the
project. For example, even though rules for the maintenance of the
project had been passed in the village council, on-going policing of those rules
is necessary. If the village
council is not united at the time during which the rules are enforced it is
possible that village regulations could be merely words.
Given the vital role of the village council in all matters associated with village government, it is the village council that would pose the most serious problem to the success of the project. Ultimate village authority rests with the council of chiefs. What it decides or says is the law of the land regardless of whether it is based on rational grounds. If the predominant chief – because of traditional rank and associated authority – makes the final decision for the village council against the continuity of the project, because of personal jealousy against a family which might gain more from the project than the other families, he could stop the continuity of the project there and then. Although village council authority is vitally important when it comes to accepting and continuing a project, it cannot be assumed that the decision of yesterday would be upheld today and into the future because of personal reasons. This is why State Departments are extra cautious that they get the support of village councils and that they do not do anything that might arouse the anger and distrust of village councils.
Possible Solutions to Conflicts
The Samoan solution to the problems already mentioned can be compared to those already identified at the Maputo Mozambique Workshop on ‘Wise practices for coastal conflict prevention and resolution’ (19 – 23 Nov 2001), though perhaps with a slight variation. The Maputo solution is to identify all the stakeholders and bring them together in a participatory manner so as to try and build consensus and agreement. The same strategy can be applied to the Samoan situation. All village families with land interests in the project site could be brought together right from the start of the project in order for them to understand the rationale behind the project and more importantly how the local community might benefit. Hopefully if all stakeholders understand, appreciate and accept the rationale of the project it would be followed by full cooperation and readiness to accept compromises. The only slight difference in the Samoan situation is that the ultimate authority lies with the council of chiefs. It reigns supreme. So much so that the project coordinators need to obtain the trust of village councils in order to ascertain and maintain their full and on-going support. A dilemma often arises out of the need to uphold village trust in situations where the village council may be doing something contrary to the wish of the project coordinators. The point is that though cooperation and trust of village councils are necessary for the success of projects of this kind, it will always be an uneasy relationship because the village council could change its mind along the way depending on situations and circumstances initiated by the project that it might feel threatening to its power.
Practice Agreements in the Melanesian Region: Mutual
Agreements Over Resource Management, Access and Use
Mr. Linus digim’Rina and
Mr. Haraka G. Gaudi
Papua New Guinea and Melanesia as a whole, land and sea are owned or associated
with a group of people who trace their links by ‘blood.’ The transactions
and transmissions between and within generations are guided by the same
criteria. The national constitution that was created in 1975 enshrines these
traditional property rights.
certain tracts of land were annexed by the state during the colonial times,
altering the traditional concepts of land ownership.
issue faced in Papua New Guinea is an increase in migration to urban areas and
overpopulation in smaller coral atolls. This has exacerbated the pressure on
equitable resource distribution and efficient management of natural resources.
the state laws relating to land management and monitoring are often cumbersome,
ambiguous and inefficient. Uncontrolled compensation claims, illegal settlement
on others’ lands, illicit leases and rental arrangements are becoming
state of Papua New Guinea is presently faced with the dilemma of instituting a
foreign rule and structure upon a population that is keen on continuing its
traditional rules and practices. A positive aspect of this is that individuals
and groups will only choose to use rules, laws and principles that are
favourable to their own situation. Hence, neither the state laws and procedures
nor the traditional sets would take precedence over each other. Whether one does
at the expense of the other will be very much dependent upon the context of the
issue and the proximity of the issue to the person concerned. The question of
equality might therefore be expended and relegated to the backstage.
Papua New Guineans find themselves operating within such a combination of
traditional and state procedures. As the primary resource is usually LAND and
SPACE/TERRITORY, the most commonly known stakeholders are landowners and land
users. The landowners provide the lease for use, traditionally up to a season of
cultivation, while the state presently provides leases of up to ninety years.
There are two major types of landowners: the traditional groups (clans, usually
patrilineages or matrilineages) and the state (including church groups and
business corporations). Secondary to these main resource owners are those who
have temporal rights on the land either through marriage, long standing close
association or some historical relatedness.
all circumstances, resource use, access and management are subject to certain
accepted principles, procedures and conditions. The present state laws relating
to land management have so far been inadequate and ambiguous mainly because they
have not been properly adapted into the traditionally ensconced procedures of
resource access and use.
our view, the traditional procedures of resource access and use (i.e. tenure)
are straightforward enough to be adapted into modern lease and rental
arrangements. They are simple to understand and administer amongst the people,
including in modern social and economic relations. Those principles, rules and
procedures must be revisited and made plain for a more effective administration.
Wise practice agreements are indeed built around mutual understanding between
parties concerned. This mutual understanding embraces a variety of dimensions
including knowledge of the cultural procedures, accepting and respecting the
varied positions and statuses of each stakeholder in relation to the resource,
and becoming an active implementing participant in the whole process. It must be
noted that such relations are not always equal as historical proximity to the
resource often determines one’s status in these relations.
there is a breach of an agreement, complaints are made known through a variety
of symbolic gestures intended to impinge the perpetrator’s progress on the
resource use and access. The fact that the party who breached an agreement might
feel embarrassed or ashamed is a sign of a mutual agreement that works. A lack
of trust and respect of each stakeholders
claim to the resource is a sign of a failed mutual agreement. All mutually
arrived at ‘wise practice agreements’ cover all areas, including the
mountains, seas and rivers. All agreements are limited by the extent of the
claim of any group vis-à-vis counter claims from neighbouring groups.
held by traditional landowners in the two major cities of Papua New Guinea, Port
Moresby and Lae, has been largely annexed by the state and labelled Crown Land,
to the extent that the landowners’ faint demands for recognition of their
strong historical association with the land has been ignored. The state instead
continues to develop and manage land that was forcibly claimed some ninety years
state must begin to include the landowners in administering the so-called
alienated land of the traditional local landowners. The rules and procedures of
those societies ought to be rewritten in light of integration with the present
social and economic arrangements.
added problem is whereby urban migrants from other parts of the country are
gradually occupying pockets of land left undeveloped in the urban areas. Where
migrants initially seek permission from a traditional landowner for indefinite
occupation of certain portions of land, the migrant is made to pay rental rates
to the ‘landlord,’ to sustain a harmonious relation between the parties
concerned. This is all done without the knowledge the relevant state agencies.
All else is mutually agreed upon insofar as respect of each other’s rights and
space is concerned.
the problematic aspect of such mutual agreements is that the state does not
recognise nor is it usually aware of these agreements. Hence, if and when the
state decides to lease an area of land to a developer, it usually proceeds
unhindered by the presence of squatters on those pieces of land. In these cases,
sudden evacuations are not uncommon.
is needed to solve some of these problems is a more effective dialogue between
the state and the traditional landowners. It is during these dialogues that
mutual agreements can be arranged to cater for the needs of both migrant
settlers and landowners of alienated land.
of Sources of Conflicts and Evaluating the Potential Role of Wise Practice
Agreements for Jakarta Bay and the Seribu Islands
Mr. Warief Djajanto Basorie, Ms. Christien Ismuranty, and Mr. Jan H. Steffen
Bay lies to the north of Jakarta and receives freshwater runoff from thirteen
rivers that run through the Jakarta Metropolitan Area, a conurbation that is
home to some 20 million people. The
shallow bay with an average depth of 15 m contains an archipelago of small,
low-lying islands - Kepulauan Seribu, referred to in this presentation as the
Seribu Islands. With the expansion
of the Jakarta Metropolitan Area during the second half of the 20th century, the
environment of Jakarta Bay and the Seribu Islands have been significantly
affected by a range of human activities as well as natural forces. The impacts
of pollution, natural ecosystem transformation and non-sustainable coastal
resource exploitation are being increasingly felt.
the region became the focus of a pilot project run by UNESCO's intersectoral
platform on Environment and Development in Coastal Regions and in Small Islands
(CSI). This pilot project
‘Reducing the impact of a coastal megacity on island ecosystems, Jakarta Bay
and the Seribu Islands’ attempts to alleviate the pressures being placed on
Jakarta Bay and the islands through community-based solid waste management and
the development of alternative livelihoods for people living in the area, while
monitoring the status of the local coral reefs and other marine resources. This
paper describes the current situation, assesses the project activities, and
analyses the potential use of Wise Practice Agreements in addressing crucial
resource use issues.
The Jakarta Metropolitan Area, or Jabotabek, is
the main centre of economic activity in Indonesia. Moreover, Jabotabek has the
largest concentration of urban population in Indonesia and the seventh largest
urban agglomeration in the world. In 1999, Jabotabek had an estimated population
of nearly 20 million, which is expected to exceed 30 million by the year 2010.
Jakarta with about half of the metropolitan population, occupies 660 km2
within Jabotabek's total area of 5,500 km2. The annual population
growth rate of Jabotabek during the period 1980-1990 was 3.7%, nearly twice as
much as the 2.0% national annual population growth rate.
The massive demographic and economic growth
taking place in the Jakarta Metropolitan Area has created environment-related
coastal problems such as disturbed water cycle, deficient waste management (both
collection and disposal), unsustainable coastal resource exploitation, etc.
Despite this situation, the Jabotabek development plans, policies and
regulations have not historically recognized Jakarta Bay and Kepulauan Seribu as
ecologically and socio-economically important sub-components of the Jabotabek
area. In fact, most development programs of the Jabotabek area are still inland
oriented. The recent declaration of the Seribu Islands as a Kabupaten, or
district, indicates a significant policy change in the frame of the local
autonomy era. Since many threats regarding the ecological integrity of the
Seribu Islands do no not originate in the Kabupaten region but rather in the
coastal Jabotabek area and the related water catchment areas, close cooperation
among district governments and all stakeholders will be essential in the process
towards long term sustainable solutions.
Jakarta Bay is mostly shallow, with an average
depth of 15m, and covers an area of about 514 km2. The Seribu Islands
are a widespread archipelago within the Bay, which consists of 108 islands, and
are distributed as a chain stretching along some 80 km in a northwest to
southeast direction and 30 km from west to east. The islands are typically small
(less than 10 ha on average) and reach an elevation of less than 3 m above sea
level in general. They are ecologically fragile and vulnerable, with three of
the 108 islands of Kepulauan Seribu having disappeared in the last 15 years. The
small size, limited resources, geographic dispersion and isolation from local
markets, disadvantage the islands economically and prevent economies of scale.
The environmental degradation in the Jakarta Bay
and Kepulauan Seribu can be classified into three principle categories:
chemical, physical and biological deterioration. The main causes of degradation include a) pollution; b)
transformation of natural ecosystem; c) non-sustainable coastal resource
exploitation; d) social issues; and e) policy based issues.
Main Causes of Degradation
Chemical pollution: Jakarta Bay functions as the waste-water disposal site for
the Jakarta Metropolitan Area. The entire waste-water production of Jakarta,
transported by 13 rivers which pass through the Jakarta Metropolitan Area, ends
up in the Jakarta Bay. In addition, the rivers bring a considerable amount of
solid waste into the Bay, either floating or suspended in the river water.
Direct discharges into the Bay through the dumping of dredging spoils and
sledges also take place. The water and sediment in Jakarta Bay have high
concentrations of several heavy metals, with certain areas experiencing
deoxidization and anaerobic conditions. There are 4 principal sources for
chemical pollution: industrial activities, households, agricultural activities
and cyanide fishing practices.
Solid Waste: This type of pollution represents suspended or floating matter in
the seawater and on the beaches. Like dissolved matter, the suspended and floating
matter found in Jakarta Bay seawater comes from industrial waste, household
waste, urban construction and agricultural activities. Solid waste pollution is
often also caused by beach
littering. During UNESCO’s workshop on Human-Induced Damage to Coral Reefs
in 1985, the extent of solid waste pollution was measured. Twenty-four islands
in the Seribu Islands were examined.
(See status of coral communities of
(See status of coral communities of Seribu Islands)
Eighteen of the twenty-four islands surveyed in
1985 were again investigated in 1995. Two of the islands were not surveyed
because they no longer existed, as a result of the death and destruction of the
formerly surrounding reefs and the consequent erosion of the islands. The survey
results show that the total litter on shore has increased by a factor of about
two during the last ten years. In 1985, only one transect exceeded 1,000 items
of garbage per 50 m. Ten years later, 6 transects exceeded 1,000 items per
The service level for solid waste management is
not better than for liquid waste. Inadequate solid waste collection, transport
and disposal, have major negative economic impacts on the water cycle, and
constitute a health risk. In 1996/1997, the Jakarta daily garbage production was
about 25,578 m3. An estimated 40% of the solid waste generated
daily does not reach official disposal sites, and much of the waste finds its
way to drains and rivers, causing pollution, flooding and nuisance (partly
caused by the topography of the city). The remainder is dumped informally or
left on vacant land and is a source of groundwater contamination. Solid waste
burning is estimated to contribute to up to 20% of particulate and 11% of
hydrocarbons in local air pollution. As the 13 rivers flow through the Jakarta
Metropolitan Area, they pick up large amounts of disposed effluents and solid
wastes originating from domestic and industrial sources (around 1,400 m3
per day). The disposal of solid waste in water bodies not only degrades water
quality but also causes clogging of drains, which in turn causes flooding of the
low lying northern coastal areas.
Further land based issues
Water scarcity and salt water intrusion.
Marine and island based issues
Blast fishing, the technique of using explosives
to stun or kill fish, is an extremely damaging practice. In addition to
indiscriminately killing target and non-target fish and invertebrates of all but
the largest size classes, blasts commonly damage or destroy the reef framework
itself. Repeated blasting on the same reef can result in reefs that are little
more than rubble fields punctuated by an occasional massive coral head. Coral
recovery in these situations is unlikely, given the unconsolidated, shifting
nature of rubble as a recruitment substrate. Damage from the use of explosives
takes the form of both broken coral reefs and the death of fish of all species
and sizes. The time needed for a 50% coral recovery may exceed 40 years in most
cases. While blast fishing is illegal in Indonesia, it is still very common
throughout the archipelago, particularly on remote, uninhabited reefs where the
threat of enforcement is reduced. This has resulted in a rather paradoxical
situation in which the reefs most distant from human habitation are frequently
the ones most intensively destroyed.
Blast fishing was one of the most widespread and
devastating practices of destructive fishing observed in 1985, but it was
neither observed nor mentioned during the 1995 survey. Blast fishing works best
on dense aggregations of fish, now an uncommon occurrence in the Seribu Islands.
It seems likely that blast fishing is economically unviable on the reefs
surrounding the Seribu Islands today.
Cyanide fishing involves the use of sodium
cyanide solution to stun fish for live collection and is a widespread
destructive fishing practice in the Seribu Islands. Prior to 1990, the main
targets of cyanide fishing were ornamental fish and invertebrates for the
aquarium trade. In the years following 1990, cyanide fishing was used to catch
live food fish, which is usually sold to luxury restaurants where the fish are
displayed in aquariums for selection by wealthy diners. Consumers will pay
phenomenal prices, usually 5-8 times the price of comparable dead fish. A
fisherman can receive 2 to 25 times more for a live grouper than for a dead one.
Unfortunately, cyanide fishing appears to be the most destructive practice
observed in the Seribu Islands.
Sand mining: Large-scale sand mining started
during the construction of the harbors in the Jakarta Bay area. In the 1970s,
sand extraction for building activities occurred on a small scale and was
carried out manually. Since the
1980s, extraction has become more and more intensive. It is generally an
activity with great importance for the economies of various small communities
along the coastline. Despite regulations banning the exploitation of sand,
gravel and boulders issued by the local government, extensive dredging
activities have provided construction material for the international airport at
Coral extraction: The exploitation of coral
started during the early part of the last century. In the 1930s there was an
annual removal of 8,500-20,000 cubic meters of coral rock in the Seribu Islands.
Since then, it has been claimed that the scale of exploitation has escalated
with values in 1982 double those recorded in 1979. The most significant removal
of coral rock in Jakarta Bay has been around the islands of Air Kecil and Ubi
Kecil. As a result of subsequent erosion, both islands have now disappeared. Ubi
Besar island has been eroding rapidly as the area surrounding the reef has been
Policy based issues
Change in the
administrative status of the Seribu Islands from sub-district (kecamatan)
to district level (kabupaten)
Enactment of local autonomy
laws (Acts No. 22 and 25 / 1999)
Priority setting and weak
participatory mechanisms in current local administration planning exercises.
3.0 Ongoing Activities of the UNESCO Jakarta Office Towards Sustainable Jakarta Bay and Seribu Islands Development
and monitoring of the coral reefs in the Seribu Islands
of monitoring and research activities on coral reefs in the Seribu Islands since
1969 indicate that the condition of the coral reefs has worsened. To assess the
current status of the coral communities, UNESCO organized three workshops since
1985 and supported the collection of scientific data on the status of the coral
reefs in the Seribu Islands.
Workshop on human-induced damage to coral reefs,
1985: The aim of this workshop was to train participants in the assessment of
human-induced damage to coral reefs and islands, using standard methods of
mapping and surveillance of both terrestrial and underwater habitats. In
addition, specific techniques for measuring the condition of reefs at different
sites were tested and employed. The workshop was divided into three sections:
(1) a training section focusing on methodology of data collection, data
assessment and practical exercises in the laboratory and field; (2) long-term
surveillance of reefs; and (3) data analysis by computer.
Over 550 man-hours were spent collecting data on
the geomorphology of the islands and on the biological status of the surrounding
coral reefs. Measurements of coral growth were taken along a pollution gradient
from Jakarta Bay to the outermost point of the Seribu Islands, some 80 km from
the coast. During the workshop 30 islands were visited and surveyed. The results
of the exercise show that the condition of many of the reefs had deteriorated.
Coral reef evaluation workshop Pulau Seribu,
In 1995, the reefs from inner Jakarta Bay to around 70 km offshore in the Seribu
Island National Park were re-evaluated. Three groups of reefs were studied,
arbitrarily chosen based on oceanography, reef geomorphology and distance from
the mainland. Reefs in the inner-region (15km from coast) exhibited
deterioration from 1985 to 1995 and remained in very poor condition, with a
coral cover of less than 5 %. Water quality was poor, with massive blooms of
plankton in the nutrient-enriched bay waters. Water quality improved as distance
from Jakarta increased. Coral cover in mid-region reefs (15-50km offshore)
remained at about 20%. Reefs of the outer-region (>50km from coast) exhibited
a significant decline in coral cover, from 30 % in 1985 to 20 % in 1995.
The reefs of the three regions are subject to
different impacts and disturbance regimes. The inner region reefs are most
affected by poor water quality, coral reef mining, waste disposal, and runoff
from agricultural activities. However, the reefs of the mid- and outer- regions
are being destroyed by both human impacts, such as destructive fishing practices
(blasting, cyanide fishing, muro-ami fishing, bagan lift net) and natural
impacts, such as outbreaks of crown-of thorns starfish.
Coral reef management workshop for Pulau Seribu,
1996: This workshop provided a follow-up to the workshop on Coral Reef
Evaluation held in 1995. The objective of the workshop was to formulate inputs
for the conservation of biodiversity to encourage sustainable development in
coastal areas while bearing in mind the social and cultural aspects of the local
inhabitants. The activities of the workshop consisted of lectures by experts,
panel discussions and field trips to observe coral reef conditions in the waters
of Kepulauan Seribu, the effects of construction in Pari Island, the locations
of submerged small islands, and the human settlements at Untung Jawa Island.
participants put three suggestions for action forward during the workshop: (1) a
greater focus on island-based community development; (2) involvement of tourist
resorts in voluntary environmental management initiatives at both island and
inter-island levels; and (3) initiation of land-based waste treatment such as
composting and recycling. The first and last of these three suggestions have
been realized since 1996.
Community-based development for sustainable coastal management
1996, the Jakarta Bay and Kepulauan Seribu region became one of UNESCO's pilot
projects to implement intersectoral activities for sustainable small islands and
coastal management and development under the Coastal Regions and Small Islands
(CSI) platform. The pilot project attempts to deal with the problems created by
a tropical coastal mega-city.
efforts to resolve environmental and development-related problems have shown
their limitations, holistic inter-sectoral approaches are making solid advances
towards achieving sustainable human development. Launched in 1996, as a
component of UNESCO’s Fourth Medium-Term Strategy (1996-2001), the CSI -
Coastal Regions and Small Islands platform puts into practice the
Organisation’s primary comparative advantage: its capacity for integrated
action involving Natural and Social Sciences, Culture, Education and
reduce pressure on Jakarta Bay and Kepulauan Seribu requires immediate action in
two directions: (1) improvement in Jakarta's waste management and recycling in
order to reduce the waste that flows from the city to the coastal sea; and (2)
initiation of socio-economic sustainable development measures in the local
communities living on the islands and along Jakarta Bay.
In the Kronjo
fishing village, training for women in producing home made ‘fish and shrimp
chips’ was carried out to support alternative income generating activities.
The modest trial training succeeded and resulted in small business groups
selling the chips. The ‘We Care Foundation’, in cooperation with UNESCO,
supported communities by providing emergency measures during times of crisis,
such as covering school fees and providing basic needs such as rice, noodles and
milk for 269 students. The foundation is also planning to renovate school
buildings, which are currently in poor condition. After initial activities
within the CSI programme, the fishing community of Kronjo is now being supported
by several organizations.
conducted in Jakarta Bay and in the City of Jakarta identified waste management
as a pressing need and the UNESCO-CSI project acts as a facilitator in trying to
unify and link the agencies involved in combating this problem, particularly
local community groups, NGOs, government organisations and the media. A ‘Clean up Jakarta Bay’ campaign was organised in parts
of Jakarta, mainland coastal areas, the urban core and the Seribu Islands. This
was followed by grass-roots programmes on waste management, recycling and
composting. There was widespread support within the communities for these
activities, which provided some income for the principal participants.
more general issue was the need to create awareness of Jakarta’s waste problem
throughout the wider community. This is being achieved by developing
public-oriented programmes on waste management, reporting on new techniques and
successes within the projects underway, and initiating complementary
environmental awareness campaigns. However, some activities have been hampered
as attitudes have proven difficult to change, even among those directly involved
in waste management activities.
the transfer of information to the public about new practices can only occur
through interaction between the various groups involved, such as government
agencies, NGOs and the media. The media are the most important partner in
achieving the goal of information transfer. Good examples of Jakarta communities
involved in recycling activities should form the basis for a larger campaign
encouraging other waste management initiatives. Such campaigns need to target
specific groups such as health system workers, municipal cleaning services,
neighbourhood groups and chronic polluters. Raising social awareness is
necessary to maintain the continuity of community-based waste management
most important step in terms of policy reform is to acknowledge and encourage
the role of the community in solid waste management. Communities involved in
waste processing, for the most part, live in poor conditions and would benefit
greatly from additional legal protection from polluters and from statutory
sanitary measures. Other objectives may include land provision for community
waste processing units; mandatory waste-separation at the domestic level; and
compulsory composting for municipal markets. Waste management should begin with
economic and environmental assessments of the communities’ contributions to
waste reduction. Subsequently, a system of financial incentives may be needed to
implement waste management guidelines at the regional level. Macro-level policy
reform would likely bring quicker and more widespread results.
A wise practice
agreement has so far been difficult to reach due to a number of different
number of different parties with a variety of vested interests
geophysical difficulties faced in assembling all stakeholders at the same
table, especially with regard to non resident stakeholders (e.g. fishermen
from outside the area or even foreign fishermen, illegal miners upstream,
private households disposing waste)
The lack of a
consistently strong facilitator/mediator, accepted by all parties and with a
long term commitment to work with all stakeholders
The lack of
long-term commitment and loyalty towards agreed commitments
The lack of
continuity and cohesion between the national and local policy frameworks
providing solutions to specific issues as listed above, we consider it important
to reflect on the big picture of the complex and interlinked problems of the
programme area. The often mentioned
‘no action, talk only’ mentality may become a valuable addition to narrowly
focused activism, if it provides the opportunity for holistic analysis of the
underlying root problems. A well-designed conceptual model might help to
identify and address these core issues with specific benchmarks in mind.
The conceptual model should address issues from the local community level
through regional levels and also to non-spatial problems such as culture,
religion, moral values, etc.
major lessons regarding wise practice identification and development were
learned during the analysis of the Jakarta Bay and the Seribu Islands project.
Although a given practice may be considered wise - being in line with the 16
wise practice characteristics developed on earlier CSI workshops - it might fail
to address an underlying key or core issue. On the other hand, a practice
accepted by all stakeholders could turn out to be not of universal value but
rather represent a “survival of the fittest practice”, by being best adapted
to present circumstances.
was found that a wise practice agreement is only likely to be sustainable if an
equal amount of effort is spent on the long term implementation as was invested
in the preparation of the agreement.
remains a major reason for the decline in environmental quality in Jakarta Bay
and the Seribu Islands. Negative feedback loops leading to a decline in the
environment’s carrying capacity may in turn increase poverty. Environmental
management and poverty alleviation are therefore important co-dependent targets
for sustainable development of the Jakarta Metropolitan Area.
on the studies and project activities, it is clear that the future initiatives
in community-based development should include the four sectors of the Jakarta
Metropolitan Area: small islands (Seribu Islands), mainland coastal areas, the
urban core and upstream water catchment areas.
development activities in the Seribu Islands will increasingly focus on
improving and preserving the environmental quality of small islands with a high
population density, such as Pari, Kelapa, Panggang, Tidung, Untung Jawa and
Harapan Islands. Policy analysis regarding the new district status and provision
of available environmental information will be essential to support the local
authorities and stakeholders.
in the mainland coastal areas depend on the stakeholders’ capacity to balance
the farming or culture of marine resources (e.g. fish, seaweed and pearls) with
urban areas, such as Jakarta, Bogor, Tangerang, Bekasi and Depok, the main
target group are the inhabitants of local kampungs, who will be assisted through
solid waste management activities, which may in turn create jobs; retraining
workers and their families in small-scale commercial enterprises, marketing and
entrepreneurship; and expanding job opportunities for women and high school
drop-outs. Environmental education remains to be more consistently included in
formal and informal educational programmes.
majority of the population living upstream from Jakarta work as farmers.
Activities in this area should focus on soil conservation and pest management in
rice growing and vegetable farming through training small-scale farmers in
environmentally sound agricultural practices; documenting the economic benefits
of an integrated farming system; and working with local NGOs in environmental
management and advocacy.
the overall approach for future action will focus particularly at the community
level through social empowerment and poverty alleviation activities,
co-operation with government, academic institutions and the private sector may
lead to the development of effective public-private partnerships.