pesisir & lautan vol. 1, no. 2, 1998

ISSN 1410-7821, Volume 1, No. 2, 1998

Pemimpin Redaksi(Editor- in-chief)

Dietriech G. Bengen

Dewan Redaksi(Editorial Board)

Rokhmin DahuriIan Dutton

Richardus F. KaswadjiJacub Rais

Chou Loke MingDarmawan

Neviaty P. Zamani

Konsultan Redaksi(Consulting Editors)

Herman Haeruman Js.Anugerah Nontji

Aprilani SoegiartoAgus PakpahanIrwandi Idris

Sapta Putra GintingTridoyo Kusumastanto

Chairul MulukEffendy A. Sumardja

Iwan GunawanDaniel Mohammad Rosyd

Gayatrie R. LileyJanny D. KusenJ. Wenno, N.N.

Alamat Redaksi

(Editorial Address)Pusat Kajian Sumberdaya Pesisir dan Lautan

(Center for Coastal and Marine Resources Studies)Gedung Marine Center Lt. 4, Fakultas Perikanan dan Ilmu Kelautan IPB

Kampus IPB Darmaga Bogor 16680 INDONESIATel/Fax. 62-251-621086, Tel. 62-251-626380

e-mail: [email protected]

Halaman muka: Pantai Sanur, Bali (foto: Bengen, D.G., 1998)

Kata Pengantar

Edisi kedua “Jurnal Pengelolaan SumberdayaPesisir dan Lautan Indonesia” kembali hadirdengan perubahan judul, yakni “Pesisir &Lautan”, menyusul edisi pertama yang terbit bulanMaret 1998 dengan desain yang lebih menarik.

Judul baru tersebut diharapkan akan lebihatraktif dan mudah diingat pembaca. Perubahanjudul jurnal ini tidak mengubah tema dan tujuanjurnal, dimana masih membicarakan masalah-masalah yang berkaitan dengan pengelolaansumberdaya pesisir dan lautan di Indonesia.

Penerbitan edisi kedua ini diharapkan akanlebih bermanfaat dan dapat membantu semuakalangan, terutama para pemerhati serta pihak-pihak yang peduli terhadap pelestarian sertapengelolaan sumberdaya pesisir dan lautan ,sekaligus dapat berperan sebagai media informasidalam mengulas permasalahan pengelolaansumberdaya pesisir dan lautan.

Akhirnya saya ucapkan selamat membaca dankontribusi serta saran-saran anda kami tungguselalu.

Pemimpin Redak

Dr. Ir. Dietriech G. Bengen

Foreword

The second issue of “Jurnal PengelolaanSumberdaya Pesisir dan Lautan” was presentedto you in different title: “Pesisir & Lautan” withbetter style, following the first issue in March1998.

The new title was intended to make it moreattractive and easily remembered by the readers.However the changing of the title doesn’t effectthe theme and objectives of the journal, whichstill within the issues related with coastal andmarine resources management in Indonesia.

The second issue was aimed to make it moreuseful and helpful to all readers, observer andpersons concerned with conservation andmanagement of coastal and marine resources. Italso doubles as information media in discussingmanagement issue on coastal and marineresources.

Enjoy the reading of this issue and yourcomment, ideas and suggestions are mostwelcome.

Editor in Chief

Dr. Ir. Dietriech G. Bengen

Volume 1 No. 2, 1998Pesisir & Lautan

40

IDENTIFICATION OFINDIGENOUS COASTAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT(ICFM) SYSTEM IN SULAWESI, MALUKU AND IRIAN

JAYA

VICTOR P.H. NIKIJULUWCenter for Agro Socio-Economic Research

Agency for Agricultural Research and Development, Bogor, Indonesia

ABSTRACT

This paper identifies and lists studies written on indigenous coastal fisheries management (ICFM). The objectives ofthis desk research were to describe the similarities and varieties of the existing ICFM and to synthesize their possibledevelopment as an alternative management system. A number of ICFM practices were found in Maluku, South andNorth Sulawesi, and Irian Jaya. Most of the practices are tied with customary law and organized by local communities andinstitutions. In a few cases, formal village government intervened to provide legal support to the systems. Factors thataffect the establishment and existence of the systems were: belief and structure of society, types of rules and regulations,fishing intensity and technology, village government structure, and commodity price. Overall, the systems brought aboutpositive impacts to their adherents. This specific resource management system is effective and efficient provided traditionalrules and rights remain. The system also avoids resource utilization conflicts and provides more income to fishers. Thesystem may serve as a basis to co-manage coastal fisheries.

Keywords: Coastal fisheries management, indigenous fisheries management, people participation.

ABSTRAK

Upaya mengidentifikasi dan mendokumentasikan sistem pengelolaan perikanan pantai yang dianut secaratradisional oleh penduduk lokal dilakukan di Maluku, Irian Jaya dan Sulawesi. Tujuannya adalah untuk mencari kesamaandan perbedaan yang diatasnya dapat disintesakan suatu sistem pengelolaan pantai alternatif. Peneltian ini adalah kajianpustaka terhadap berbagai publikasi khususnya yang memiliki sirkulasi yang terbatas. Hasil kajian menunjukkan bahwasistem tradisional ini dipraktekan di ketiga daerah penelitian. Peranan lembaga adat, pemimpin informal, masyarakatdan lembaga lokal sangat dominan dalam pelaksanaan aturan-aturan pengelolaan perikanan pantai. Di beberapa tempat,pemerintah ikut terlibat terutama dalam memberikan dukungan hukum bagi pelaksaaan peraturan-peraturan lokal. Faktor-faktor yang menopang dan mempengaruhi keberadaan sistem tradisional ini adalah kepercayaan dan struktur masyarakat,bentuk peraturan, intensitas dan tekonologi penangkapan ikan, struktur pemerintahan desa, dan harga komoditas. Secaraumum dapat dikatakan bahwa sistem tradisional ini memiliki dampak positif kepada masyarakat. Sistem tradisional inidapat dikatakan efisien dan efektif karena sampai saat ini masih berlaku serta hampir tidak dijumpai pelanggarannya.Selain itu, sistem ini dapat menghindari perselisihan dalam pemanfaatan sumberdaya serta memberikan pendapatanyang lebih baik bagi nelayan. Sistem tradisonal ini dapat dijadikan dasar bagi pengembangan ko-manajemen perikananpesisir yang melibatkan masyarakat dan pemerintah.

Keywords: Pengelolaan perikanan pantai, pengelolaan perikanan masyarakat pantai, partisipasi masyarakat.

41

Identification of Indegenous...... (hal 40-56)

INTRODUCTIONIndigenous management describes folk

management systems based on local knowledge. Thesystems have existed in parts of Indonesia forcenturies. Nevertheless, these important traditionshave not been well documented and studied. Theirdocumentation can be used, however, to improvethe management of coastal resources.

Use of indigenous knowledge to improvecoastal fisheries management is recognized inmany developing countries. (Pomeroy, 1994). Anapproach to promote indigenous coastal fisheriesmanagement system is to integrate the system intoregional or national management mechanisms.Integration may take place if the regional ornational government legitimize the local traditionalsystem. (Pomeroy and Williams, 1994) and is oftenreferred to as cooperative management or co-management. (McGoodwin, 1992). AlthoughPomeroy and Williams (1994) argued that co-management is not a panacea for fisheriesmanagement, they listed its several advantagesagainst centralized or a top-down approach.

The indigenous management approach relies onpeople participation. The need for participation innatural resource management is clearly stated inthe Outline of the State Policy (GBHN). In theclosing GBHN chapter it is mentioned that nationaldevelopment greatly depends on the activeparticipation, attitude, commitment, spirit andenthusiasm of the society. Paragraph one of theEnvironmental Act No. 23/1997 also states thatenvironmental management is an integrated effortthat involves everyone. Paragraphs five and sevenof the Act stipulate that everyone has the right tomanage natural resources and the environment.The rights include decision making and theimplementation of management systems. It alsomentions (paragraph 10) that the government isresponsible to embody, develop and promotemanagement partnerships between governmentand society. Therefore, the GBHN andEnvironmental Act becomes solid ground for localparticipation in coastal resource management.

This study documents and synthesizes workundertaken on indigenous coastal fisheriesmanagement (ICFM) systems in Sulawesi, Malukuand Irian Jaya. The area has many island communitiesthat rely on coastal fishery resources. The area has226,000 fishing establishments, slightly more thanthe number of fishing companies in the rest ofIndonesia. About 44 percent of Indonesian fisherslive in the area. Although it has 54 percent of theIndonesian fishing fleet, the boats are smaller and lessdeveloped than boats in western Indonesia. Some68 percent of the non-motorized boats are found inthe area. Fisheries in Sulawesi, Maluku and Irian Jayaare therefore small-scale and concentrate on coastalwaters.

This study documents previous ICFM studies,describes the systems and evaluates their impacton society, and synthesizes the main ideas ofprevious studies to form policy andrecommendations.

METHODOLOGYThis desk research is based on papers on ICFM

systems in Sulawesi, Maluku and Irian Jayagathered from institutions in Jakarta, Bogor, UjungPandang and Ambon. This study was part of theFisheries Co-management Project to documenttraditional fisheries management systems in Asiaand Africa. The papers collected were summarizedin English abstracts following a standardizedformat. The abstracts include the followinginformation: title and author of article, source,publisher, year published, language, subject,objective, coverage, method of data collection andanalysis, and summary of findings. The abstractsand collection of papers are archived with theFisheries Co-management Project of theInternational Center for Living Aquatic ResourceManagement (ICLARM), Manila Philippines, andthe North Sea Center, IFM, Hirtshals, Denmark.

Descriptive and comparative analyses wereemployed to discover the type, performance andimpact of ICFM. Types of ICFM were groupedaccording to geographical area, the process of


42

ICFM operation, function and objective, localinvolvement, and commodity and method of resourceexploitation. Synthesis of the articles was carried outto find conclusions and recommendations.

Forty one (41) documents were collected andanalyzed. There were nine (22.0%) internal,unpublished reports, five (12.2%) governmentdocuments, four (9.8%) bachelor student theses,one (2.4%) master thesis, seven (17.1%) journalarticles, three (7.3%) books, and 12 (29.9%)published reports. There were 37 (91.2%)Indonesian documents and four (9.8%) Englishdocuments.

Documents were selected through librarycatalogues using the following keywords: ICFM,fisheries management, traditional fisheriesmanagement, community-based fisheriesmanagement (CBFM), territorial use rights, marine(sea) tenure, and people or communityparticipation. Priority was given to unpublishedand locally published, limited-circulationdocuments.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONTypes of ICFM by Area

North Sulawesi (Table 1), Irian Jaya (Table 2),and Maluku (Table 3) all had specific ICFM. Theareas are either managed by village (Irian Jaya,Maluku), by clan (Irian Jaya), by tribe (Irian Jaya),by family (South Sulawesi) or by community(Maluku, North Sulawesi). Management impliesthat people have the right to access the area,extract benefit, protect the area and resource fromother users, control future use through covenant,and transfer or convey ownership.

Regulated fishing or harvesting seasons is partof ICFM in Maluku and North Sulawesi(Nikijuluw, 1994a, 1994b, 1995a; Kissya, 1993;Wahyono et al. 1993). ICFM also regulates fishinggear, fishing method, fishing shedules, allowablecatch, distribution of catch and origin of fishers.ICFM also covers rewards and sactions.

Regulated harvest seasons and times are found inDemta District, Jayapura, Irian Jaya to protect coralfish. Fish can only be caught on special occasionssuch as church ceremonies and cultural festivals(Imron, et al. 1993). Tude (Selar umenothalmus)fishing in Sangihe Talaud, North Sulawesi is scheduledon every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday. Tudeoutside the ICFM boundary are driven into area closeto the beach to mease capture (Wahyono, et al.1994).

Government and fishers co-mamange fisheriesin Ambon and Jayapura. In Latuhalat, Ambon theAmbon Mayor issued Decree No. 188.45.322/KMA on 23 April 1990 to protect village-basedrules. The written rules cover fishing permits andlicenses for village waters. The village watersboundaries were outlined in Village Decree No.3/1990 (Masyuri, 1995). In Jayapura, Irian Jayalarge companies must first recieve permission fromcommunity leaders before the Provincial or DistrictFisheries Service can issue a fishing permit(Ondoafi and Dewan Adat). If it is agreed to allowthem to fish, they can then apply for a formallicense from the Fisheries Service (Imron, et al1993; Imron and Ali, 1994). Without arecommendation from the local community,Fisheries Services do not issue a fishing licensealthough, by law, they are obliged to do so.

Organization ICFM in Sulawesi, Maluku and Irian Jaya is

vested in traditional authority, whose nature variesaccording to social organization. Sasi (customarypractices that limit access to territory and/orresources) exists throughout Maluku and isorganized by traditional but non-formal leaders.To place sasi on an area means to prohibit entryand behavior for a period of time (Lokollo, 1988).

The village head is normally the sasiorganization leader. He is assisted by kewang(traditional village police) representing the villageclans to implement and enforce sasi. The kewangconsists of a leader and members (Nikijuluw,

43


1994b). Although enforcement is the responsibilityof the kewang, villagers usually report violations.

Aside from village-managed sasi, the church alsoorganizes sasi during certain times of the year(Lokollo, 1988). The church-managed sasi is ledby church leaders but is not enforced by monitoringor penalties. Nevertheless, church-managed sasiseems to be effective, with little transgression.

ICFM in Irian Jaya and North Sulawesi is ledby secular and church leaders (Table 1 and 2). TheDewan Adat (customary council) of clan heads,formal leaders and church leaders sets andimplements ICFM rights and rules in Irian Jaya(Imron et al. 1993). In North Sulawesi, the villagehead, under the auspices of the village, councildetermines ICFM rules and rights. Implementationof these rules and rights is enforced by senior andexperience fishers (Wahyono, et al. 1994).

In South Sulawesi, owners of rumpon (fish-aggregating device) control access to the watersaround the rumpon. All neighboring villagers andfishers recognize this individual right (Saad, 1994)so the community becomes responsible forimplementing the rights. All decision making isgrounded in both written and unwritten customarylaw. Villagers patrol and control the ICFM areasand have the authority to drive poachers away.Conflicts between two fishers raising fromresource utilization, the conflict may be solved withthe help of their fellow fishers. Any unsolved casesin the field are brought to the head of ICFMorganization. Although ICFM organization haveveto rights, they must refer to the customary lawsand often consult people to come up with fair andproper decisions. If the unsolved cases are criminal,they are brought to local police.

Rules And RightsThe words “rules” and “rights” are frequently used

interchangeably in referring to utilization of fisheriesresources. Basically, “rules” refer to the prescriptionsthat create authorization, while “rights” refer toparticular actions that are authorized. “Rights” havecomplementary duties. Thus to possess a right implies

that someone else has a commensurate duty toobserve this right (Schlager and Ostrom, 1993). Inregard to fisheries resources, the most relevantoperational-level property rights in utilization of coastalfisheries resources are “access” and “withdrawal”rights. They are defined as (1) “access right”, the rightto enter a defined physical property; and (2)“Withdrawal right”, the right to obtain the “products”of a resource (e.g. catch fish). The collective-choiceproperty rights include management, exclusion andalienation rights which are defined as follows: (1)“management right”, the right to regulate internal usepatterns and transform the resource by makingimprovements; (2) “exclusion right, the right todetermine who will have an access right and how thatright may be transferred; and (3) alienation right, theright to sell or lease either or both “management” and“exclusion” rights.

In Teblasufa village, Jayapura, ownership ofmarine waters are divided into the waters belongto the village and free waters that are owned byeverybody. The waters owned by the village arebroken down into waters owned by a clan. Thereare three clans in the village, of which at thebeginning Serontouw clan is the only owner ofthe village territorial waters. The ownership rightsof this clan were once shared with the other clansdue to inter-clan marriage. Hence currently eachclan has its territorial waters. Ownership of eachclan is further subdivided into sub-clan. Currently,there are 10 sub-clans that own village territorialwaters (Imron and Ali, 1994)

People of Teblasufa have the access andwithdrawal rights but they do not have collective-choice property rights. The management, exclusionand alienation rights are owned by the head of theclan (ondoafi). Ondoafi is the one who givespermission to a particular fisher if the latter is nota member of clan or sub-clan whose territorialwaters are entered. The formal head of the villagealso has the right to provide permit for non-villagers to operate their fishing gears in the villageterritorial waters. However, in such circumstance, thehead of the village should consult and have agreement


44

from three ondoafi in this village. Again, the ondoafican veto a decision of the head of the village.

Beside issuing fishing permits, ondoafi also has theright to determine certain coral reef areas which shouldbe closed from fishing at a particular period (Imronand Ali, 1994). This kind of ICFM is named pelekarang, literally meaning to put a fence over a coralreef area. The objective of this ICFM is to let fishgrow until they reach capturable size. The rule relatedto this ICFM is that villagers are prohibited to enterthis area during the closed season. The time of fishingis always connected with the needs to finance a villageprogram such as inauguration of the church, buildingpublic property, or village festival. Hence, it can besaid villagers individually do not have withdrawal rightin this coral reef area.

Similar to Teblasufa village, territorial watersof Endokisi Village, Jayapura, are also possessedby clans. “Demena” is the biggest clan in terms ofthe clan territorial waters. It is the first clan thatstayed by the sea and hence relied on the searesources for their living. The clan of Demena wasrecognized as the first owner of the villageterritorial waters. By intermarriage with otherclans, however, the ownership of the villageterritorial waters is then shared to three other clans,namely “Mattiseray”, “Nerokepoaw”, and“Kereway”. Therefore, the territorial waters ofEndokisi village are currently owned by four clans(Imron, et al. 1993).

Each clan can catch fish in their own territorialwaters. However, members of a particular clancan catch fish in other clan-owned areas providedthat they use simple fishing gears such as hookline and spear. Use of more modern fishing gearsfor commercial purposes should be preceded bya getting permit from Dewan Adat. In practice,the council should have asked agreement first frommembers of the clan whose area will be entered.Therefore, it can be said that the exclusion right isentertained by members of the clan.

In implementing access and withdrawal rights,villagers of Endokisi passed rules on penalties toviolators. The penalties currently applied includefine and warning. Use of poison in fishing is strictly

prohibited. Therefore, it can be said that villagers alsohold management right over the resources. Therefore,of the three collective-choice property rights, onlyright of management which is executed by villagers.The rights of exclusion and management are ownedby ondoafi and Dewan Adat.

In coastal villages in Maluku, communities claimthat they have access and withdrawal rights over thewaters facing their village. Villagers and their leaderstogether set rules and regulations. Basically, the rulesand regulations have existed for decades. What isexisting now are modification of the ones that weremade during the pre-colonial era. For instance, theamount fines for certain violations were adjusted topresent value. The rules include how, when, andwhere to harvest or collect the resources. In addition,the are also penalty systems for breaking the rules.

Under sasi system, most communities entertainboth operational level property rights (rights ofaccess and withdrawal) and collective-choiceproperty rights (rights of management, exclusion,and alienation). The right of management isembodied in forms of common consent on thefishing time, area opened to fishing, allowed anddisallowed fishing gears and equipment, andallowable catch. There are also rules onenvironmental protection such as banning coralhead-taking. Execution of management rights isundertaken by village police named kewang whosemembers normally are representatives of each clan.Kewang has its own rules and organization(Lokollo, 1988). This institution may not be apart of the formal village government structure.In this case, kewang is under the control of andresponsible to villagers and customary leaders. Thevillage head is usually appointed or chosen frominformal leaders.

The right of exclusion is entertained in forms ofgiving permit to non-villagers to enter village territorialwaters.. In some villages, non-villagers may fish inthe villager territorial waters or enter the sasi areawithout having a permit if they fish for homeconsumption and use the same fishing gears as ownedand used by villagers. If non-villagers catch fish using

45


commercial fishing gears, they should have a permitfrom the village. In the last ten years, non-villagerswho a have permit to enter and fish in sasi areas camefrom other provinces of Indonesia, especially fromEast Java and South Sulawesi (Nikijuluw, 1995a).

Rights of giving to or sharing a fishing permit withnon-villagers which is owned by villagers is madethrough community meetings. However, it is acommon now that sharing, selling or leasing of rightsto enter and exploit the resources is taken over bythe formal village government. The village governmentoften passes formal village rules regarding thisaspect. In other words, community consultation is leftout (Nikijuluw, 1995a).

Especially in Christian villages, there is also atendency of transferring collective-choice propertyrights from villagers and village government tochurch organizations. In this regard, the church,through the pastors, elders, and deacons is theone which stipulates the rules of harvesting orexploiting resources. In this church-organized sasi,there is no kewang patrol. Nevertheless, this sasisystem seems to be very efficient since there areno violations. Some percentages of harvests orfish landings of villagers must be given to thechurch organization. Normally, the money is usedfor church construction and renovation (Lokollo,1988; Nikijuluw, 1995a)

Bebalang village is located at Manganitu,Sangihe Talaud. Residents of this village haveaccess to certain fishing grounds near their placeto catch malalugis fish. The rule which is specifiedin catching malalugis fish is that fishers should usebamboo trap, locally named “seke”. The seke isowned collectively by villagers. In 1991, therewere two units of seke in Bebalang. The first sekeis owned by those staying in hamlets number one andtwo. The other is owned by those in hamlet numberthree. Aside from seke, other small-scale fishing gearssuch as hook and line were also employed by villagersbut not for catching malalugis fish (Adhuri, 1993;Wahyono, et al. 1991)

People of Bebalang manage waters wheremalalugis fish are found by carrying out regular

monitoring and surveillance. If they find non-villagersin this waters, they drive the outsiders away. If non-villagers are found to have caught many fish, they aredetained and judged by villagers. Villagers haveexclusion and alienation rights. By common consent,they specify rules that permit outsiders to fish. Inorder to have the rights of fishing, non villagers shouldpay a certain amount of fee and are obliged to usesimple fishing gears.

The use of seke to catch malalugis fish is also foundin Para Village, Sangihe Talaud. In this village,however, seke competes with small purse seines tocatch the same species. In 1992, there were six unitsof seke and 42 small purse seines in Para village.Seke is owned communally, while the small purseseines are owned by individual fisher. Since seke andsmall purse seines have the same target catch, thelocation and time for the operation of these two fishinggears are regulated by the head of the village. Fishinggrounds for each gear is set so as to be separatedfrom each other. The schedule for fishing is rotatedand arranged so that every fisher has a chance tooperate his gear in different fishing grounds. It hasbeen enacted by the head of the village that only fourseke can be operated per day. Therefore, each sekecan be operated four times a week or about 16 timesa month. There are 18 locations of fishing groundsthat are designated to be used by small purse seines.There are 18 purse seines that can be operated perday. Since Sunday is an off day, on the average, everysmall purse seine can be operated 10 times a month.The rules of this fishing schedule is very efficient sincethere is almost no trespassing. The village governmentenacted penalties for the violation of the rules. Eachviolator should pay 5-10 bags of cement which areused in building public infrastructures in the village.Based on this information, one may infer that althoughfishers have access and withdrawal rights, they dono have the rights of resource management(Wahyono, et al. 1993).

In Bulukumba, South Sulawesi, ICFM exists forthe exploitation of fish resources in rumpon. Rightsof fishing around waters where rumpon is placed isowned by the owner of rumpon. The area covered


46

by each rumpon is about 10,000 meter square. Thefishing gear is small a purse-seine. Other fishers areallowed to fish in rumpon as long as they use hookand line. The right to use the waters around rumponcan be bequeathed, although the rumpon itself hasbeen destroyed. In this case, fishers should know thelocation of rumpon. If other fishers want to installanother rumpon or use the existing one, they shouldask permit (without any payment) from the previousowner (Saad, 1994). Deployment of a new rumponby a new owner automatically undermines therights owned by the previous rumpon owner.Hence, deployment of rumpon creates the rightsof access and withdrawal for the owner. The ownerhimself who has the rights of exclusion andalienation.

Factors Determining Establishment,Existence and Devolution of ICFM

The following factors are identified to affectthe establishment, existence and devolution ofICFM:

(a) Belief

ICFM on malulugis fish in Bebalang village inNorth Sulawesi is still going on because villagersbelieve that the fish is the playmate of the Princeof the Sea (Prince of Adang). Hence this fish shouldbe carefully captured so that its environment willnot be destroyed. Villagers of Bebalang, therefore,use bamboo trap (seke) to catch the fish. As sekeis a passive gear, the environment apparently will notbe destroyed (Adhuri, 1993; Wahyono et al. 1991).

(b) Availability of rules

Availability of rules (written or unwritten) affectsthe existence of ICFM. Rules regarding entry of fishersdo not allow outsiders to join the fishery (Nikijuluw,1994b, 1995a; Imron, et al. 1993). Rules about fishingseason and fishing area specify fishers to fish at aparticular time and place (Wahyono et al.1993,1994, Nirahua et al. 1991). In Irian Jaya, Maluku,South and North Sulawesi, only permitted outsiderscan join the fishery. In Maluku, outsiders can pay for

a fishing license or they should pay village retributionon the basis of the fish they catch (Nirahua et al1991). A rule of allowable catch was found inTernate, North Maluku. The amount of catch wasdetermined before fishers go to sea. If the catchwas more than that allowed, fishers were penalizedfor the excess catch. The penalties, however, werenot specified. (Nirahua, 1991). Monitoring,controlling, and surveillance (MCS) guarantee properimplementation of the rules. Community MCS wasfound in Maluku, Irian Jaya, and North Sulawesi. Theavailability of penalty and local judicial systems onrule violation could be included as factors that affectthe existence of and continuity of ICFM.

(c) Fishing Gears

Generally, villagers in Maluku still use simple fishinggear to catch fish in ICFM-managed waters. Thesegears can not harm resources and their environment.If non-villagers are allowed to fish, they should alsouse the same fishing gears as employed by villagers(Nikijuluw, 1995a, 1995b; Titahelu, 1996). The samecondition also prevails in Irian Jaya. If fishers fromone clan want to fish in the waters owned by otherclan, they must use the same fishing gears (Imron, etal. 1993). Use of ring net or purse seine made ofnylon fibers in North Sulawesi affects theimplementation of ICFM in the capture of malalugisfish. The presence of ring net, which is in fact moreproductive and owned by individual fishers promptedtraditional bamboo trap fishers to move away fromfishing activity. The fish which were formerly caughtby using bamboo trap is currently also exploited byring net fishers. Fishing schedule and zonation offishing ground were finally programmed in order toavoid possible gear use conflict (Adhuri, 1993,Wahyono et al. 1993, 1994).

(d) Industrial Fisheries and IntensiveFishing Operation

The increase of industrial fisheries considerablyaffected ICFM, especially sasi system in Ambonand Saparua islands. In Batumerah, a village nearto Ambon City, the sasi activity no longer exists.

47


The placement of coconut leaves as sasi sign of closedfishing season have disappeared since last decade(Lokollo, 1988). Batumerah village is now anindustrial fishing base in Ambon.

Similarly, operation of joint venture fishingcompany using deep sea FAD in Maluku watershas affected the availability of fish in sasi-managedwaters. As a result, the productivity of local fisherssharply declined and eventually fishers encroachedon sasi-managed waters to collect and catchsedentary species. Another impact was that closingthe season for some fish in sasi-managed waterswas shortened so that villagers could havealternative income (Andamari, et al. 1991;Nikijuluw, 1994b).

In Kei Kecil, Southeast Maluku, villagers leasedtheir sea territory to outsiders to be used forpearl culture. Antariksa (1995) reported that thecosts of leasing the territory in Debut Village wasRp 10 million for 20 years. In Teblasufa, IrianJaya, intensive gear operation obscured theboundaries of waters owned by clans and sub-clans (Imron and Ali, 1994).

(e) Change of Government Structure

ICFM existed in coastal villages in NorthMaluku during the era of the Ternate Kingdom.Before going out for fishing, fishers got permissionfrom the king of Ternate. After the proclamation ofindependence of the Republic of Indonesia, theTernate Kingdom no longer existed and as a resultthe ICFM practice vanished in some villages (Lokollo,1988) .

Sasi system in Maluku was essentially nestedin a type of village governmental system.According to that system, the head of the villagewas not government official. He was a formalleader, but at the same time acted as a customaryleader. The structure of village government wasunique for each village, depending on number ofclan and population. Village police or guard(kewang) was placed as one of the functionalinstitutions in the village government system. Inother words, the structure of village governmental

system granted the existence of sasi system (Lokollo,1988). However since Law No. 5/1974 on the LocalGovernment was passed, all villages in Indonesia,including Maluku, had a standard governmentalstructure. By this law, a village head could come fromanother place and as such he is not a customaryleader. This caused sasi to disappear in some areas.

(f) Recognition and Initiative of Government

In several cases, recognition of ICFM bygovernment allowed ICFM to survive. In Latuhalatvillage in Ambon, local rules of ICFM werelegitimized by the Ambon Mayor Decision No.188.45.322/KMA dated on 23 April 1980(Masyuri, 1995). Nikijuluw (1995a) points outthat each sasi regulation made by villagegovernment in Central Maluku should belegitimized and countersigned by the regent beforeits implementation.

(g) Trade and Price

In Bantean, North Sulawesi, ICFM oncollection of milk fish fry was established becauseof coming of outsiders to fish in Bantean andvillager’s realization that collection of fry was alucrative enterprise. When milk fish fry was low,coming of outsiders to Bantean was not of concernto villagers. However, conflicts between villagersand outsiders arose once the villagers realized thatfry had a good price. Finally, outsiders were bannedto enter milk fish fry collecting ground. Villagersthen stipulated the rules on the use of fry-aggregating device in fry collection.

In Saparua island, ICFM on sea cucumber andtrochus resources were strongly influenced bytrade. Increases of sea cucumber price andavailability of traders in the village, shortened theperiod of closed season. Traders came from as faras Java to buy sea cucumber and gave a higherprice. As a consequence, resources became heavilyexploited as shown by declining size of seacucumber harvested (Nikijuluw, 1994b). Highdemand for sea cucumber in Java brought fishers


48

from East Java to seek this commodity in sasi-managed areas. In some villages, the right ofexploit this commodity was leased to East Javafishers. Within a very short period, sea cucumberresources were exploited by using betterequipment. Since the East Java fishers were notthe resource owners, they did not concernthemselves with environmental and resourcesustainability (Nikijuluw, 1995a).

Social Structure ICFM is easily established andsustained in areas where villagers come from similarbackgrounds. ICFM exists in many places in Malukuand Irian Jaya because the social structures of villageshave similar origins, religion and economic status.Impact of ICFM almost all references in the studydealt with only descriptions of ICFM systems, leavinglittle information on the impact of ICFM on society.Nevertheless, some qualitative information wasutilized.

In some villages in Maluku, ICFM providedopportunity for villagers to exploit fisheriesresources for their domestic needs. However, in someother villages, the leasing of fishing or exploiting rightsto outsiders decreased the local people chance touse the resources. The leasing fee were normallysaid to be used by village government for publicpurpose. From the individual fisher viewpoint,however, this situation brought negative impacts dueto loss of income.

In the villages where rights of utilizing theresources are still owned by villagers, theimplementation of ICFM results in better income.Letelay (1993) found in Babar islands of SoutheastMaluku that implementation of temporary closedseason could increase annual income of fishers. InHaruku village of Maluku, 92.5% of villagersadmitted their satisfaction of ICFM as it increasedtheir annual income (de Kock 1992).

Positive impact of ICFM implementation was alsoperceived by people in North Sulawesi. The landingsof seke were distributed proportionally to all villagers.This could be done because seke is collectively ownedby villagers. From a sustainability viewpoint, the

ICFM on the use of seke to catch malalugis fish didnot harm the fish resource and therefore guaranteedcontinuity of resource utilization.

Villagers in Irian Jaya use very simple fishing gearsto exploit ICFM-managed waters. The distributionimpact to villagers were very clear since each clan orsub-clan has it own territorial waters. In SouthSulawesi, impact of ICFM to the villagers was shownby increasing income and less pressure on theresources.

Although there are few cases of diversion ofICFM rules so that the utilization of resourcesbiased against villagers, overall one could witnessthat villagers still obey the rules. In other words,this local traditional system remains important asit effectively guides villagers to use the resources.The cases of rule breaking are minimal and mostlydone by outsiders or in-migrants. In the villageswhere ICFM implementation is a part of religiousorganization activities, the rules of ICFM areapparently strictly obeyed.

The existence of ICFM is local specific. At locallevel, however, it is successfully implemented. Hencethe existence of ICFM which is organized by localtraditional institution has been able to replace the tasksof national and provincial governments in themanagement of coastal fisheries resources. Despiteit is not estimated yet, the replacement of a centrally-and officially planned management by an IFCM maylower the costs implementation such as costs ofpersonnel and infrastructures. Combining these lowadministrative costs components with higher incomeearned by villagers, it can be concluded that theimplementation of ICFM is economically efficient.

CONCLUSIONS ANDIMPLICATIONS

Articles collected for this review were onlyconfined to the provinces North and South Sulawesi,Maluku, and Irian Jaya. The area covered in eachprovince were also limited to a few villages orlocalities. Except for Maluku, information of ICFMfor other provinces were difficult to find. There aretwo possibilities why little information on ICFM is

49


available. The first is that the ICFM practice doesnot exist. The second is that although ICFM practiceexists, there are no studies or efforts to documentthe system. Priority, therefore, should be given toconduct documentation and inventory of ICFM inthe all provinces.

The studies referred to and reviewed in this reportwere much concerned with describing of the ICFMsystem. As the first step of research, the descriptionof ICFM system in each area is indeed very important.However, since ICFM is now getting greater attentionand thought as a panacea for fisheries resourcemanagement failure, the impact of ICFM should beclearly understood. Research should be directed toevaluating the impact of ICFM to stakeholders andsociety. It is also important to understand sustainabilityof the resources managed under a ICFM system.

Comparative studies of ICFM in different areasshould be undertaken in order to find out contextualfactors which determine each system. Based on thisinformation, transferability of the ICFM could beestablished into the areas where traditionally no ICFMare found or into the areas where ICFM once existedbut has vanished.

ICFM is a local management approach. It isunique in the sense that the same system may notbe found in other areas. At national level, therefore,ICFM could be at odds with the national resourcemanagement policy. Hence, a nationwide studyshould be carried out to evaluate theappropriateness of the ICFM approach withnational policy, regulation, law enforcement, andjudicial system. Finally, the impact of ICFM tofisheries sector development should be alsoevaluated, particularly in the aspect ofmacroeconomics issues such as investment, trade,and employment.

ICFM could be regarded as the stepping stonefor the government to increase people participationin resource management. Although peopleparticipation in development of all sectors have beenenacted in GBHN, in reality people participationdoes not fully exist. Since development in Sulawesi,Maluku, and Irian Jaya are currently being promoted,ICFM in this part of the country may become a basis

for people participation in overall developmentprogram. In other words, from management ofresources, local people could broaden theirparticipation to cover areas of economic andcommunity development other than fisheries andcoastal zone management.

This study found that ICFM systems maysurvive and function better if the system could betied with government. The intervention of formalgovernment into ICFM could be in the form ofproviding legal support to ICFM. Local ruleswould be more respected if they are nested withformal rules and regulations. It could be also saidthat village-based rules need to be legitimized. Iflegal support can be provided by the government,the type of management regime will be co-management by which local people and governmentshare their responsibilities and authorities.

Most enduring and successful ICFM exist invillages whose social and cultural identity is wellestablished. When this identity becomes unclear,for instance due to in-migration, ICFM tended togradually vanish. Based on these findings,government should be able to control resettlementprograms which do not affect the identity of localpeople. Conversely, resettlement or regionaldevelopment should enrich local identity. In asimilar manner, fisheries development, throughprovision of credit scheme or revolving fund,should not radically change fisheries resource usepattern.

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was conducted when the author was in theResearch Institute for Marine Fisheries (RIMF). It wasfunded by the ICLARM, Manila and the North Sea Center,Hirtshals, Denmark. Thank to Dr. Robert Pomeroy ofICLARM and two anonymous reviewers for comments onthe draft of this paper.

REFERENCES

Abdussomad, D. Supriadi., R. Indrawasih. 1994. Aspek-aspek Sosial Budaya Masyarakat Maritim Indonesiabagian Timur. Hak Ulayat Laut Desa Haruku, Kecamatan


50

Haruku, Maluku Tengah. Seri Penelitian PMB-LIPI, No.63. 61 p.

Adhuri, D.S. 1993. Hak Ulayat dan Dinamika MasyarakatNelayan di Indonesia Bagian Timur. Studi Kasus diPulau Bebalang , Desa Samthean dan Demta.Masyarakat Indonesia, 20:143-163.

Andamari, R., Subagiyo, S.H. Talaohu. 1991. Panen Lola(Trochus niloticus) di Desa Nolloth, Saparua DenganSistem Sasi., Jurnal Penelitian Perikanan Laut, 60:

31-36.

Antariksa, I.G.P 1995. Hak Ulayat Laut MasyarakatMaritim Kecamatan Pulau-pulau Kei Kecil, KabupatenMaluku Tenggara, Maluku. Seri Penelitian PMB-LIPI,No.87, 79p.

de Kock, J. 1992. Fungsi Lembaga Sasi Bagi KesejahteraanSosial Masyarakat Di Desa Haruku, Kecamatan Haruku,Kabupaten Maluku Tengah. Thesis pada Fakultas IlmuSosial dan Ilmu Politik, Universitas Kristen IndonesiaMaluku. 75 p.

Imron, M., D.S. Laksono, S. Ali. 1993. Aspek-aspek SosialBudaya Masyarakat Maritim Indonesia Bagian Timur.Hak Ulayat laut Desa Endokisi, Kecamatan Demta,Jayapura, Irian Jaya. Seri Penelitian PMB-LIPI. No.2. 65 p.

Imron, M. and S. Ali. 1994. Aspek-aspek Sosial BudayaMasyarakat Maritim Indonesia Bagian Timur. HakUlayat Laut Desa Endokisi, Kecamatan Demta,Jayapura, Irian Jaya. Seri Penelitian PMB-LIPI, No.62. 105 p.

Kissya, E. 1993. “Sasi Aman Haru-ukui. Tradisi KelolaSumberdaya Alam Lestari di Haruku. Seri PustakaKhasanah Budaya Lokal No. 2. Yayasan Sejati, Jakarta.30 p.

Letelay, S. 1993. Peranan Sasi Dalam Usaha PelestarianSumberdaya Alam dan Dampaknya Terhadap EkonomiRumah Tangga di Desa Luang Timur, KecamatanPulau-pulau Babar, Kabupaten Maluku Tenggara,Thesis pada Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik,Universitas Kristen Indonesia Maluku, Ambon, 91 p.

Lokollo, J.E. 1988. Hukum Sasi di Maluku. Suatu PotretBinamulia Lingkungan Pedesaan Yang Dicari OlehPemerintah. Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Pattimura,Ambon 48 p.

Masyuri, I. 1995. Hak Ulayat Masyarakat Maritim. DesaLatuhalat, Kecamatan Nusaniwe, Ambon. PuslitbangKemasyarakatan dan Kebudayaan, LIPI, SeriPenelitian No. 86. 149p.

McGoodwin, J.R. 1992. The case for Co-operative, co-management. Australian Fisheries, May 1992:11-15.

Nikijuluw, V.P.H. 1994a. Indigenous Fisheries ResourceManagement in the Maluku Islands. IndigenousKnowledge and Development Monitor, 2(2):6-8.

Nikijuluw, V.P.H. 1994b. Sasi Sebagai Suatu PengelolaanSumberdaya Berdasarkan Komunitas (PSBK) di PulauSaparua, Maluku. Jurnal Penelitian Perikanan Laut,93:79-92.

Nikijuluw, V.P.H. 1995a. Community-Based FisheryManagement (Sasi) in Central Maluku. IndonesianAgricultural Research and Development Journal,17(2):33-39.

Nikijuluw, V.P.H. 1995b. Hak Ulayat dan Partisipasi PendudukDalam Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Perikanan Pantai.Laporan Survei MREP di Kabupaten Biak-Numfor, IrianJaya. Nopember 1995. 17 p.

Nirahua, S.E.M.; E. Baadila; O. Lawalata; J.E. Saiya. H.L.Soselisa; F.M.L. Manuputty. 1991. Laporan PenelitianHak Adat Kelautan di Maluku. Kerjasama YayasanHualopu dengan Fakultas Hukum, UniversitasPattimura, Ambon. 155 p.

Pomeroy, R.S. 1994. Introduction. p.1-11. In. R.S. Pomeroy(Ed). Community Management and Common Propertyof Coastal Fisheries in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts,Methods and Experiences. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 45,189 p.

Pomeroy, R.S. and M.J. Williams. 1994. Fisheries Co-management and Small-sacele Fishereies: A PolicyBrief. ICLARM, Manila. 15 p.

Rahail, J.P. 1993. “Larwul Ngabal,” Hukum Adat KeiBertahan Menghadapi Arus Perubahan. Seri PustakaKhasanah Budaya Lokal No. 1. Yayasan Sejati, Jakarta.31 p.

Saad, S. 1994. Rompong : Suatu Tradisi Pengusahaan PerairanPantai Pada Masyarakat Bugis-Makasar. Era Hukum,2:35-47.

Schlager, E. and E. Ostrom. 1993. Property-rights regimesand coastal fisheries: An empirical analysis. p.13-41. InAnderson, T.L. and R.T. Simmons (Eds). The politicalEconomy of Customs and Culture: Informal Solutionsto the Common Problems. Lanham, Md. Rowman andLittle field Publishers.

Titahelu, R.Z. 1996. Masyarakat Adat dan PembangunanMenuju Keutuhan Makna Pembangunan Manusia danMasyarakat Indonesia. Laporan Penelitian, UniversitasPattimura. 30 p.

51


Wahyono, A., D. Wardiat, T. Ju-lan. 1991. Bebalang:Memudarnya Fungsi Seke, Pusat Penelitan danPengembangan Kemasyarakatan dan KebudayaanLIPI, 63 p.

Wahyono, A., Sudiyono, F.I. Thufail. 1993. Aspek-aspekSosial Budaya Masyarakat maritim Indonesia BagianTimur. Hak Ulayat Desa Para, Kecamatan Manganitu,Sangihe Talaud. Seri PenelitianPMB-LIPI, No.4.51 p.

Pesisir & Lautan Volume 1 No. 2, 1998

52

ManagementArea

Site InstitutionResponsible

Management Role ofCommunity

Table 1. Selected ICFM Systems in North and South Sulawesi

Small Pelagicfishing ground

Local communitieswith support ofvillage government

Determining bamboo trap (seke) is theonly gear to catch small-pelagic fish,especially malalugis fish. Outsiders areallowed to fish if they pay fees and usesimple net. Villagers regularly patrol themanagement area, detain and judge thepoachers(Adhuri, 1993. Wahyono et, al. 1991).

BebalangIsland,SangiheTalaud

Coastal areas upto 2 miles fromthe shore.

Groups ofexperience fishers(tonaas) andvillagers

Determining schedule to catch tude fish(Selar umenopthalmus) every Monday,Wednesday and Saturday. Tonaasdetermine the total allowable catch andthe length of fishing hours. (Wahyono et, al. 1993, 1994).

SalurangVillage, Sangihe Talaud.

ParaVillage,SangiheTalaud

Village watersdestined for smallpelagic fishing

Villagegovernmentand localpeople

Determining bamboo trap (seke) andsmall purse seine (soma tatenda) as theallowed gears and their respective fishinggrounds. Fishing operations arescheduled four times a week for everytrap and 10 times a month for everyseine. A penalty system is applied. Sincetrap is collectively owned by thehouseholds association, the catch isfairly shared among the members. Seineis owned by individual fisher. (Wahyonoet al, 1993).

BanteanVillage,SangiheTalaud

Waters used formilk fish frycollection

Local community Marine tenure system was established in1995. As price of milk fish fry increased,many outsiders came to collect fry in thevillage. Competition between localfishers and outsiders lead to the banningof the outsiders. Regulation to place fry-aggregating device was established. Thewaters around fry-aggregating device areexclusive areas to the owner of thedevice (Wahyono et. Al. 1994).

Local communityBentenggeVillage,Bulukumba,South Sulawesi

Waters aroundfloating fish-aggregatingdevice (rumpon),approximating10,000 metersquare

Determining waters around rumpon as aterritorial fishing right of the rumpon owner.The right can be bequeathed althoughrumpon has been already destroyed. If thewaters around rumpon are no longer used,other fishers who want to deploy newrumpon in the same side should getapproval from the previous owner (Saad,1994)

Identification of Indegenous.... (hal 40 - 56)

53

Table 2. Selected ICFM Practices in Irian Jaya.

EndokisiVillage,Jayapura

Coastal watersareas up to thereef drop-off

Customary council(Dewan Adat)consisting of clanleaders (Ondoafi),church and formalleaders

Determining boundaries of theterritorial waters for each clan, type ofthe allowed fishing gears, and issuingfishing permit to outsiders. Member ofparticular clan can fish in the areasbelonged to other clans as long assimple gears such as hook-line andspear are used. Gradual sanctions(warning and fines) are applied to theviolators. (Imron, et al. 1993; Adhuri,1993).

TeblasufaVillage,Jayapura

Coastal watersfacing the village

Clan leaders (Ondoafi)and formal villageleaders.

Village territorial waters is shared tothree clans and further divided into 10sub-clans. There are also openedwaters accessible to all villagers.Outsiders, however, should havepermit from village leaders andapproval from ondoafi (Imron and Ali,1994)

Specific coral reefareas known as“pele karang”means puttingfences over certainreef areas

Prohibition to fish at coral reef areas.Fishing season is opened once a yearcoinciding with village festivals, orinauguration of church or otherimportant public facilities. (Imron andAli, 1994)

TanjungBarari Village,

Coastal waters upto the reef drop-offand mangroveforest

Villagers andEnvironmentalSection of VillageParliament (LKMD)

Territorial use rights in fisheries areowned by villagers. Outsiders can onlyenter the waters if they have permit byRp 5,000 per fishing trip. If outsidersstay in the village for one season, thepayment is Rp 50,000 per month.Blast and cyanide fishing are strictlyprohibited. Mangrove trees can be cutfor household use only. Progressivesanction is applied, starting formwarning to confiscation. (Nikijuluw,1995b).

Amini Village,Biak

Coastal waters upto the reef drop-off.

Local community Prohibition to use blast fishing andother destructive gears. Outsiders arenot allowed to collect coralcommodities (crustacean and mollusk)but permitted to catch finfish(Nikijuluw, 1995b)

WaromiVillage, Biak

Coastal waters upthe reef drop-off

Local community andvillage government

Villagers have territorial use rights infisheries. Village leader can issuelicense to outside fishers. The licensefee is voluntarily paid. (Nikijuluw,1995b)

Site ManagementArea

InstitutionResponsible



54

Table 3. Selected ICFM (Sasi) Practices in Maluku

Site Management Role of Community

Southeast Maluku

Sample Areas:Kecil Kecil,, Babarislands

Referred articles:Rahail (1993).Nirahua et.al.(1991).Antariksa, (1995).Letelay (1993)

* People in Key island, perceive that sea is inundated land. Hence landand sea are not separated against each other. People establish rules onthe utilization of marine living resources. The rules cover the aspectsfishing ground, season, gear, and the penalty to trespassers. Resourceswhose harvested are regulated are shells and sedentary species such assea cucumber.

* A violation of any rules is regarded as a sin. Therefore a penaltysystem is imposed in a way that the relationship between God, societyand violators is renewed.

* Some villages rent their territory to outsiders to be used for marineculture.

North Maluku.

Sample Areas:Ternate, Sidangole,Tidore, and GalelaDistricts.

Referred article:Nirahua et al. (1991)

* The perception of people in the North Maluku about sea and itsresources is that the things are endowments of God. Hence they shouldbe properly utilized. The “lalohi” ceremony is carried out to ask God formore fish if people experience a decline catch.

* In most villages in Ternate, fishing permit is issued by chief of clan(fanyira). The territorial waters of each village is determined by the Kingof the Ternate Sultanate. The allowed fishing gear is hook-and-line. Theamount catch should be determined before going out for fishing. A 10%of value of the landings should be paid as village tax to the villagegovernment.

* Fuso and Siboboso Game are the terms used in Ternate andSidangole, respectively, to denote the season where all fishingactivities are stopped temporally.

* Mangrove forests are protected in Tobelo and Galela districts becauseedible shells are found in the forests.

* In Tobelo and Galela, villagers individually build bamboo rafts andbridges covered with coconut leaves which function as fish-aggregating devices (FADs) . The waters around the FADS are theterritorial use rights of the owners.

Central Maluku

Sample Areas:Nolloth, Haruku, SiriSori, Paperu, Amahai

Referred articles:Abdussomad et.al.(1994),Nirahua et.al.1991)Nikijuluw (1994a, 1994b,1995a).

* The rules of sasi deal with stipulation on types of allowed anddisallowed fishing gears and methods, kinds of managed species,length of opened and closed seasons, and boundaries of managedareas.

* Each village has its own penalty system. The penalties range from fine,gear confiscation, admission of guilt before God, public shaming, anddoing social works.

* Fishing rights are owned by individual and/or communities. In somevillages, the rights can be transferred to individual fishers who maycome from outside.

* The rules and rights are written, but most unwritten.* Implementation and enforcement of sasi rules and regulations are

Identification of Indegenous.... (hal 40 - 56)

55

Site Management Role of Community

* Village territorial waters (petuanang laut) are opened to outside fisherswho use hook and spear. Outside fishers can apply to village governmentfor the use of other fishing gears. The application can be rejected if thetarget fish are limited available.

* The fees of fishing permit are formally stipulated on the village decreewhich are countersigned by the Major.

* Villagers may use all the fishing gears which are not destructive.

AmbonMunicipality

Sample Areas:Latuhalat

Referred articles:Masyuri, (1995)

Table 3. Selected ICFM (Sasi) Practices in Maluku


52

ManagementArea

Site InstitutionResponsible


Table 1. Selected ICFM Systems in North and South Sulawesi

Small Pelagicfishing ground

Local communitieswith support ofvillage government

Determining bamboo trap (seke) is theonly gear to catch small-pelagic fish,especially malalugis fish. Outsiders areallowed to fish if they pay fees and usesimple net. Villagers regularly patrol themanagement area, detain and judge thepoachers(Adhuri, 1993. Wahyono et, al. 1991).

BebalangIsland,SangiheTalaud

Coastal areas upto 2 miles fromthe shore.

Groups ofexperience fishers(tonaas) andvillagers

Determining schedule to catch tude fish(Selar umenopthalmus) every Monday,Wednesday and Saturday. Tonaasdetermine the total allowable catch andthe length of fishing hours. (Wahyono et, al. 1993, 1994).

SalurangVillage, Sangihe Talaud.

ParaVillage,SangiheTalaud

Village watersdestined for smallpelagic fishing

Villagegovernmentand localpeople

Determining bamboo trap (seke) andsmall purse seine (soma tatenda) as theallowed gears and their respective fishinggrounds. Fishing operations arescheduled four times a week for everytrap and 10 times a month for everyseine. A penalty system is applied. Sincetrap is collectively owned by thehouseholds association, the catch isfairly shared among the members. Seineis owned by individual fisher. (Wahyonoet al, 1993).

BanteanVillage,SangiheTalaud

Waters used formilk fish frycollection

Local community Marine tenure system was established in1995. As price of milk fish fry increased,many outsiders came to collect fry in thevillage. Competition between localfishers and outsiders lead to the banningof the outsiders. Regulation to place fry-aggregating device was established. Thewaters around fry-aggregating device areexclusive areas to the owner of thedevice (Wahyono et. Al. 1994).

Local communityBentenggeVillage,Bulukumba,South Sulawesi

Waters aroundfloating fish-aggregatingdevice (rumpon),approximating10,000 metersquare

Determining waters around rumpon as aterritorial fishing right of the rumpon owner.The right can be bequeathed althoughrumpon has been already destroyed. If thewaters around rumpon are no longer used,other fishers who want to deploy newrumpon in the same side should getapproval from the previous owner (Saad,1994)

57


Sasi Lola (Trochus niloticus)IN THE KEI ISLANDS, MOLUCCAS:

AN ENDANGERED COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENTTRADITION

Craig C. ThorburnDepartment of Geography

University of California, Los Angeles

ABSTRACTSasi, the spatial and temporal closure of groves, forests, coral reefs and fishing grounds, is a traditional feature of manyMoluccan societies. Despite increasing domestic and international awareness and praise of this “indigenous resourceconservation technology,” the institution is in decline in many parts of the Moluccas. On many islands it is no longerpracticed at all. This study examines the practice of managing topshell (Trochus niloticus, Indonesian: lola) harvests invillages on the eastern coast of Kei Besar in the District of Southeast Moluccas. Topshell is an important source of cashincome for Kei villagers and, until recently, for the district government. Since 1987, topshell has been classified as aprotected species in Indonesia. Numerous subsequent regulations have been issued to regulate the cultivation, harvest andtransport of this and other protected species.

The author posits that erratic and uneven enforcement of the regulations, combined with collusion and self-interest onthe part of various parties, threaten both the resource and the institutions that have successfully and sustainably managedthem in this region. Furthermore, the protected classification precludes the establishment of sensible, mutually beneficialcomanagement systems that could serve the interests and employ the inherent wisdom and capabilities of local communities,traders and government agents.

Keywords: Trochus, coral reef, Sasi

ABSTRACT

Sasi adalah suatu sistem penutupan akses (oleh siapapun juga) ke kawasan hutan, padang rumput, terumbu karang dandaerah penangkapan ikan (termasuk sungai dan muaranya) yang bersifat sementara waktu dan untuk suatu wilayah tertentusaja. Sasi merupakan ciri khas tradisional sebagian masyarakat di kepulauan Moluccas. Kesadaran akan keberadaan Sasidan penghargaan atas manfaatnya semakin meningkat, baik dalam kancah Nasional maupun ruang-lingkup Internasional.Namun demikian, kelembagaan Sasi sebagai teknologi konservasi sumberdaya alam yang asli berkembang di daerah, sayangsekali semakin lama semakin menyusut di keseluruhan Propinsi Seribu Pulau ini. Bahkan di beberapa pulau, kelembagaanSasi tidak lagi dipraktekkan. Penelitian ini membahas tentang penerapan Sasi pada pengelolaan pemanenan Lola (Topshell,Trochus niloticus) pada desa-desa di bagian pantai Timur Pulau Kei Besar, Kabupaten Moluccas Tenggara. Lola merupakansalah satu dari pendapatan utama bagi penduduk Kei hingga kini, dan bagi pendapatan daerah Kabupaten MoluccasTenggara. Namun sejak tahun 1987, T. niloticus telah ditetapkan sebagai jenis yang dilindungi di Indonesia sehinggasejumlah besar peraturan telah dikeluarkan untuk mengatur budidaya, pemanenan, dan pengiriman satwa ini dan spesies lainyang dilindungi.

Penulis beranggapan bahwa penerapan hukum dan peraturan yang tidak konsisten serta “pilih kasih”, digabungkandengan kolusi (persekongkolan) serta kepentingan pribadi dari berbagai kelompok yang terlibat di dalamnya, secara bersama-sama telah mengancam kelestarian baik kelembagaan Sasi maupun flora-fauna yang dikelola dengan berhasil

58

Sasi Lola.... (57- 71)

INTRODUCTIONAs the social and environmental costs of centrally-

planned and managed economic and regionaldevelopment models become increasingly apparent,a diverse assemblage of scholars and practitioners,including anthropologists, sociologists, economists,conservation biologists, pharmaceutical researchers,“ethnobotanists,” have noted the high coincidence ofbiodiversity-rich zones with traditional communities,and have embarked on the serious study of rural andindigenous peoples’ ecological knowledge andresource management systems (Dove 1986; Alcorn1995; Brookfield and Padoch 1994; Redford andPadoch 1992; Brush and Stabinski 1996; Cadgil,Berkes, and Folke 1993; Colchester 1994; Pawluck,Sandor, and Tabor 1989). Many scholars believe thata possible means of mitigating or averting acceleratingloss of biodiversity, while at the same time fosteringmore equitable development, lies in understanding thesocial and intellectual dimensions of natural resourceuse by native peoples. Local, indigenous or situationalknowledge is gaining voice within developmentand conservation discourses (Peet and Watts1996).

From Indonesia, and particularly the provinceof Moluccas, Sasi has become an internationally-celebrated indigenous people’s conservationtechnique (E. Salim, in Kissya 1995). Sasi isdescribed by Zerner (1994:1020) as “a variedfamily of customary practices and laws (or rules)which establish limitation to access to individuallyor collectively controlled territory and/orresources. To place Sasi on an area means to putinto effect a time-limited prohibition on entry andbehavior within the area.” Notwithstanding theinterest and praise of international scholars andconservationists, Sasi in Moluccas is generally in

decline. As long ago as the early 1960s, Cooley(1962) lamented the demise of Ambonese adattraditions and institutions. Recent research byICLARM (in press) indicates that there have beentwo distinct periods of widespread disappearanceof Sasi practice in Central Moluccas: during the1970s and again in the 1990s. Conversely, a revivalmight be astir, as a growing number ofcommunities and local and regional officials showrenewed interest in this venerable institution.

Sasi and other adat practices are still morewidely employed in Southeast Moluccas than inother parts of the province. This article examinesSasi controls on the harvest of Topshell (Trochusniloticus, Indonesian: Lola) snails in villages in KeiBesar. Sasi is still practiced in most villages in thatregion, although the lola trade, and village sasi aswell, have been complicated by a number ofministerial regulations governing the harvest, tradeand transport of this and other protected species.

The article examines an historical conflictbetween two neighboring villages, helping tounderscore the central role of this commodity inlocal history and politics, and then reviews recentdevelopments affecting the harvest, trade andcultivation of the species in Kei, suggesting thatcurrent trends spell eventual disaster for theresource as well as the communities who dependon it for a significant portion of their income.

METHODOLOGYThis survey was conducted as part of the

author’s Ph.D. dissertation research in the field ofcultural geography between November 1997 andApril 1998. Methods included collecting andanalyzing relevant regulations, policy documents andresearch papers from Indonesian government

dan secara berkesinambungan di wilayah ini. Lebih lanjut, dalam klasifikasi flora dan fauna yang dilindungi tersebut,tidak tercantum hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan keberadaan dan pengembangan sistem pengelolaan bersama yang wajar,dapat dilaksanakan serta saling menguntungkan dimana sistem ini mampu memenuhi kepentingan pihak-pihak terkaitdan menerapkan kebijakan yang berlaku dalam masyarakat setempat, instansi pemerintah sesuai dengan kemampuanmasyarakat setempat, pedagang dan industri serta instansi pemerintah.

Keywords: Trochus, Terumbu karang, Sasi

59


agencies including PHPA, LIPI, Bangda andBappeda, followed by unstructured andsemistructured interviews with villagers, villagegovernment leaders, adat functionaries, tradersand regional government officials in the villagesof Ohoirenan and Ohoiwait, and towns of Elat,Tual and Ambon. Additionally, the researchincluded participant observation during the lolaharvest in Ohoirenan in December 1997.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe Kei Islands

The Kei Islands in Southeast Moluccascomprise three main islands - Kei Kecil, KeiBesar, and Dullah, the site of the SoutheastMoluccas administrative capital, Tual. There aremore than 100 small islands scattered across theshallow seas to the north and west of the threemain islands. Tual is located 528 kilometerssoutheast of Ambon, the provincial capital, andthousands of kilometers away from Jakarta. Thetotal population of the islands is about 106,000.

Kei’s local economy is a mixture of subsistenceagriculture and fishing, with copra and lolaexports providing income. The other mainsources of villagers’ income are remittance fromthe large numbers of Kei people who migrate toother provinces, and government projects. Sincethe 1970s, fisheries has been the fastest growingsector of Kei’s economy, however, much of thisis conducted by foreign and national fleets withlittle participation from local fishers.

Sasi in the Kei IslandsThe Kei islands share many characteristics

with other parts of Moluccas, including a classsystem, hereditary nobility, Siwa-Lima moieties,and sasi. Sasi is spatial and temporal prohibitionson harvesting crops, cutting wood or gatheringother products from the forest, meti (tidal zone)or petuanan laut (village-controlled sea), alsoslander, arguing, fighting, harassing or raping women,and other untoward behavior. In addition to its ritual

significance of mediating relations between humancommunities and spirits of ancestors, the land andseas, sasi serves the very practical functions of makingsure no one takes what does not belong to them, thatfruits ripen before picking, that lola or other marinespecies are allowed to reproduce and grow, thatmigratory or spawning fish are allowed to accumulate,and that sufficient food or funds are gathered forcommunal events or activities.

Anthropologists and legal historians speculatethat Moluccan sasi began as a personal practice,as individual villagers placed matakau (totemsimbued with magical powers} to warn people awayfrom sago groves or particular forest trees theywished to control (von Benda-Beckmann, vonBenda-Beckmann, and Brouwer 1995; Antariksa1995). Thereafter, the procedure was adapted tomark boundaries of village-controlled territory towarn away enemies. Rituals, beliefs and sanctionsdeveloped over time, and sasi eventually becamethe most conspicuous and widespread means ofregulating access to and harvest of communallyand clan-controlled crops, fields, forests andmarine territories.

Larwul NgabalOne type of sasi, called hawear, or hawear

balwirin in the Kei language, is the mostconspicuous manifestation of customary Kei lawknown as Larwul Ngabal. According to locallegend, this law was proclaimed in two separateepisodes, each involving newly-arrived emissariesfrom Bali. The proclamation of law ended a long,dark period of Kei’s history, referred to as “DoloSoin Ternat Wahan” (the age when Kei was onthe periphery of the Jailolo and Ternate kingdomsfar to the north). This period is described as a timeof lawlessness, murder, pillage and intrigue (Rahail1993). The arrival of Larwul Ngabal law marksthe beginning of Kei civilization, when people wereable to form villages and live in relative peace.Some people in Kei claim to know that LarwulNgabal was promulgated in the year 1503. Most

60

Sasi Lola.... (57- 71)

people, however, say only that it arrived before peopleknew about dates and calendars.

Larwul Ngabal is perhaps the most formal adatlaw found in Moluccas. It consists of sevenmaxims, each further elaborated by numerousspecific prohibitions and sanctions. Kei people takethis law very seriously, believing the alternative isa return to mayhem. Most adults can quote theseven provisos, along with a litany of clauses andstipulations. The wording, to outsiders, is vagueand mysterious:1. Uud entauk na atvunad (Our head sits on the

nape of our neck).2. Lelad ain fo mahiling (Our neck is respected,

esteemed).3. Uil nit enwil rumud (Skin of earth covers our

bodies).4. Lar nakmot na rumud (Blood is encased within

our bodies).5. Rek fo kilmutun (Marriage relations should

occur in a pure, hallowed place).6. Morjain fo mahiling (A woman’s place is

respected, esteemed).7. Hira I ni fo I ni, it did fo it did (A person’s

possessions are his own, ours belong to us).As obscure as they may seem, these seven edicts

form the basis of social relations in the Kei islands.The first four combine criminal law (i.e.: “Thoushalt not kill’) with an elucidation of the “properorder of things,” while numbers five and six stressthe sanctity of marriage and the respect accordedwomen. Number seven forms the basis for Keiproperty law. Sanctions for those who violate theselaws are generally severe, ranging from publichumiliation or payment of gongs, brass cannonsor gold taels to exile, death by drowning or liveburial (The latter two have not been practiced forseveral decades). Monetary fines have become themost common sanction.

When the Dutch arrived, a few villages hadalready embraced Islam, but most people in Keistill practiced their animist faith. The Dutch sentmissionaries, first Catholic then Protestant, to convertthe population. The Kei population is now nearly

evenly divided between the three religions, withCatholicism predominating, followed byProtestantism. A small number still adhere to thetraditional religion, now officially classified as Hindu.

In keeping with the syncretism common to manyIndonesian cultures, Larwul Ngabal soon meldedwith Church law. Closing of sasi, for instance, isnow always announced at the beginning of theSunday services in the villages and traditionalceremonies and oaths to place the sasi totems arefollowed by prayer and offerings at the church. Keipeople claim that this reinforces sasi, saying thatnow in addition to tradition, Sasi has the blessingand strength of the Christian God. Announcementsin church, usually made by the secretary of thecongregation at the beginning of the service, arereplete with admonitions emphasizing what a seriousmatter it is.

Individuals can also ask the church to sanctiona sasi on their own crops. Sasi gereja (Churchsasi) protects people’s crops and fields duringthose periods between the annual communal sasiumum or negeri (local and regional traditions).This performs the dual function of guarding cropsand paying tithes. When the person who hasrequested sasi gereja asks that the sasi be openedand harvests the crops, he or she makes acontribution to the church. Sasi umum is signaledby placing a totem made from plaited fronds ofyoung coconut - sometimes decorated with stripsof cloth - at special sites designated by theancestors as tanah sakti (hallowed ground), andsometimes at the edges of the area being placedunder sasi. Individuals who have requested sasigereja hang a coconut in a black plastic bag froma pole at the edge of their field. The black plasticbag has replaced black cloth as a symbol of deathand mourning. This is not a threat, rather a signthat this sasi is placed in respect of “God - thedead”.

Many villages also practice unsanctioned formsof individual or clan sasi. This is generallydiscouraged by both village and religious leadersbecause they conjure dark forces and are redolent

61


of the lawless, pre-Larwul Ngabal days. A commonform is sasi babi (pig sasi), signified by a pig’s jawhung from a crossbar between two poles. Thiscarries a clear threat: those who violate sasi babiwill see their own fields ravaged by wild pigs. Moslemvillagers sometimes signal individual sasi by erectinga small thatch roof with a bottle of coconut oil hangingfrom the crossbeam. In some villages, this iscondoned by the mosque in the manner of sasigereja, in others it is frowned upon, a vestige fromthe days “before religion”.

Sasi LolaTrochus niloticus inhabit a well-defined area of

coral reefs: the windward edge in shallow watergenerally no deeper than five to eight meters (Nash,1988). The narrow fringing reefs on the easterncoast of Kei Besar provide an ideal habitat for thesnail. Topshell occurs in other parts of the islands,but not in the concentrations found on the east coast.The shells are used to manufacture mother-of-pearlbuttons, the leftovers are ground up and added toautomobile paints to provide luster. An Asian marketfor trochus shells began to emerge in the 1870s,when the Japanese started to adopt western-styleclothing fastened with buttons instead of theirtraditional kimono (ibid.). Japanese buyers beganvisiting the Kei islands in the 1930s in search ofthe valuable shell. Before long, topshell rivaledcopra as the major income source in manyvillages. Village leaders began to apply sasi totopshell fisheries and elaborate ceremonies andrules evolved.

T. niloticus grow to marketable size (6cm.diameter) in about two years. They continue togrow throughout their lifespan, howevermortality increases significantly after four to fiveyears. Trochus larger than about 9cm in diameterare not good for button manufacture because thewalls are too thick and many shells are damaged byboring organisms (Amos 1997). In a simplemanagement regime, taking the easily-harvestedadult topshell from a reef at two or three-year

intervals results in continued good harvests. Morefrequent harvests result in declining returns for effort.

Kei islanders have been harvesting topshell for salefor six decades. Before that the snails were eatenand the shells thrown away. Nearly every village onthe eastern coast of Kei Besar applies sasi to controlthe harvest of this important commodity. Each villagehas its own petuanan laut. The term petuanan meansterritory under one’s control and can be applied toterrestrial or marine (laut) properties. Petuanan lautboundaries are straight lines running perpendicular tothe villages’ land boundaries, as far as the blue seajust beyond the reef slope. These boundaries havenames replete with legend and meaning, and thereusually is some conspicuous feature like apromontory, stream or rock. There are slightlydifferent rules in each village for sasi petuananlaut.

Some villages also have sasi meti, thatalternately closes portions of the intertidal zoneso that plants and other organism can regenerate.The rationale for this is clearly grounded in aninnate understanding of natural regeneration andcarrying capacity. It is intended to always providesome area where women and children can gleansmall fish, shellfish and other reef products for theirhousehold needs. Alternately, some villages declarea sasi meti for a few weeks before Meti Kei, theannual neap tide occurring in September andOctober. This serves to enrich the harvest duringthe festive season when entire villages convergeon the exposed tidal flats - stretching for morethan a kilometer in some areas - to collect shellfish,fish, seaweed, sea cucumber, and anything else theycan find.

But the most important commodity is topshell.Sasi lola is opened for a very brief period - usuallyonly two or three days - every two or three years.The decision to open sasi is made by communityelders, and is based more on need than onecological considerations such as carrying capacityor maximum sustainable yield. To open sasi twoyears in a row would be unseemingly greedy.Taking lola when sasi is closed is a very serious

62

Sasi Lola.... (57- 71)

crime, punishable by payment of one bronze cannonto the village plus an additional monetary fine for theTuan Sasi (sasi master) and often a reward for theperson reporting the theft.

Some villages ban the use of goggles in theirpetuanan laut except during the brief period whensasi is open. Others allow them so villagers canspear octopus, lobster and fish, but with a strictadmonition to leave topshell alone. Many also banfishing with nets inside the line that demarcatesthe beginning of blue water. More recently, manyvillages have also banned catching fish using thepoisonous root akar tuba (Derris heterophylla)because of the damage it inflicts on topshell, coraland other reef organisms.

OhoirenanThe village of Ohoirenan is located on the

southeast coast of Kei Besar, about 18 km fromElat, the port and seat of the subdistrictgovernment. It is a large village by Kei standards,with a population approaching 1,000 people.Founded in 1815, Ohoirenan appears prosperous.It has a fine white church and “pastori,” and manyhouses are constructed of masonry and haveasbestos roofs. It sits perched in a small bowl facingthe sea, with steep mountains rising on the otherthree sides. Houses cling to the hillsides, supportedby lovely stonework terraces. During the easternmonsoon (May through September) Ohoirenan,like all villages on the island’s eastern coast, ispounded by high waves. Sea transportation andfishing cease. Villagers have to climb a steepstairway and path leading to the top of the ridgeseparating Ohoirenan from neighboring Nerongwhere they can fish, memeti (glean), or catch boatsto Elat or Tual. During the past decade, theIndonesian government has completed an all-weatherroad connecting Elat with villages in the southern partof the island, but villagers in Ohoirenan still must climbthe hill to wait for infrequent minibuses or trucks.Recently, the villagers of Ohoirenan completedconstruction of a road connecting their village to themain artery, which curves down the northern precipice

at a hair-raising angle. They have also installed afour kilometer pipeline bringing in water from astream in Weduar, the neighboring village to thesouth. Ohoirenan has only one very small spring,located near the top of the ridge.

Ohoirenan’s prosperity is due to topshell.Ohoirenan has the longest coastline (sixkilometers) of any topshell-producing village inKei. Harvests average between seven and 10 tonseach time they open sasi, the highest in memorywas 16 tons in 1986. That harvest coincided withthe best price ever paid for topshell in Kei: Rp.16,000 per kilogram. The total came out to justover Rp. 250 million, or about Rp. 285,000 (US$140, 1986) for every person in the village. Forcomparison purposes, the District of SoutheastMoluccas (265,000 people) collected less thanRp 1 billion that year from local taxes, retributionand government enterprises.

Ohoirenan divides its petuanan laut into fiveequal-size zones. One of these, located just southof the village itself, is called the kongsi. Alltopshell harvested from here are used to financevillage or church projects. The others arecontrolled by each of the four major ruling clansin Ohoirenan: Ubro, Ubra, Rahakbau andRahallus. The kongsi is harvested more frequentlythan the others because there is some project thatrequires money nearly every year. As a result theyields are only about 20 percent of the othersections. The entire petuanan, including thekongsi, is harvested at two or three-year intervals,usually in December. Beginning in the north, theelder of the clan responsible for that portion ofthe petuanan opens sasi with a brief ceremonythanking God and the ancestors, pleading forcontinued good harvests, and reviewing sasi rules.Following this, he dives, retrieves one lola shell, andwith three cries of “Hura!” opens the sasi. All villagemen and male youths - not just those from theparticular clan responsible for that section of thepetuanan - then rush into the water to search fortopshell. They wear homemade goggles fashionedfrom bamboo and pieces of glass, fastened with a

63


strip of rubber inner tube. A few years ago, the ruleswere changed allowing women and children to paddlecanoes for the men to deposit topshell and catch theirbreath, but only men and teenage boys dive. A skilleddiver can retrieve 20 or 30 kilograms of shells on agood day. After two days, the next section of thepetuanan is opened with a similar ceremony, andthe process is repeated from north to south, thenagain for a second round of sweeping up. In theevenings, villagers feast on chewy, delicioustopshell meat. Each household collects its ownshells for weighing later. Sasi is then closed fortwo or three years.

Traders come to bargain for the topshell.Villages used to hold a silent auction, with theentire catch going to the highest bidder. Buyersare local merchants, usually Chinese Indonesianswith shops in Elat or Tual. In Ohoirenan, the catchis divided as follows:1. Ulu hasil: each diver’s first lola from each day

is donated to the village or church.2. Lolal kongsi: all shells collected from the kongsi

also belong to the village and church.3. Lola umum: shells collected from the other four

sections of the petuanan are apportioned asfollow:* 60 percent of the total is pooled for

redistribution to all households;* 40 percent is allocated for the individual who

collected the shells.The 60 percent of the lola umum are pooled,

and the proceeds are divided evenly betweenvillagers. Two shares go to each married couple,a single share to unmarried adults, widows andwidowers, and a half share to each youth oldenough to participate in village gotong-royong (self-help) projects. Younger children receive no share.Ohoirenan villagers who live abroad are entitled to ashare if they are present when the proceeds aredivided. Since sasi is opened during December, manyvillagers who work in nearby Irian Jaya are home forthe holidays. A few families from neighboring Nerongand Weduar, who are responsible to manage

boundary lands or whose ancestors assistedOhoirenan in long-ago wars, also receive shares.

The Ohoirenan-Ohoiwait ConflictOhoirenan’s northern neighbor is the village of

Ohoiwait. Ohoirenan and Ohoiwait are both partof the Ratschaap (kingdom) of Lo-Ohoitel. TheRaja of Lo-Ohoitel lives in the village of Nerong.Larat, further south on the west coast, is the otherconstituent village making up this unit. The nameLo-Ohoitel means “three villages”. Ohoiwait,which means “new village”, is the fourth. Ohoiwaitwas established during the 19th century whenmigrants from northern Kei Besar joined with localclans to form a new settlement. Ohoiwait controlsa large territory, stretching clear across the narrowwaist of the island. Ohoiwait has four villages:Kampung Atas and Kampung Bawah are locatedon top of and immediately below a steep bluff onthe eastern shore just north of Ohoirenan, whileMatahollat and Wetuar are on the west coast. Theisland is triangular, leaving a small stretch of coaston the eastern shore. Ohoiwait’s western coastlineis much longer, but the shallow, sandy-bottom seasyield very few topshell. As well, a stream runsthrough Kampung Bawah, suppressing coralgrowth and diminishing topshell yields. WhenOhoiwait opens sasi, they get only 400 to 700kilograms of topshell, compared to Ohoitenan’sseven to 16 tons.

Over the years, people from Ohoiwait andOhoirenan have intermarried. Bridegrooms’families pay a bride price of cannons, gongs andgold, in return they are usually granted hak makan(eating rights) to plots from the bride family’s land.The hills between Ohoirenan and Ohoiwait are moreeasily accessible from the latter village and manyOhoiwait families have opened fields there. This iscommon in Kei and not problematic. The oldboundary is acknowledged by both parties andfamilies in Ohoiwait are allowed plots of land inOhoirenan as long as proper procedures arefollowed.

64

Sasi Lola.... (57- 71)

Ohoiwait villagers also began using the meti thatfronts the area of land they now cultivate. They gleanedfor fish and shellfish, and installed bubu batu (tidalfishtraps made of stone). During the calm months ofNovember through January, these are oftensupplemented with sero daun kelapa (coconut frondstakes to guide fish into the bubu). As far as topshellwas concerned, however, the area was still firmlycontrolled by Ohoirenan.

Villagers in Ohoirenan point out several oldcoconut trees planted by the Ibra clan just a fewmeters behind the church in Ohoiwait showingwhere the true boundary lies. Both parties alsoacknowledge a stone named “Haorbob” thatdemarcates the line between the two villages. Bobmeans vagina in the Kei language, the implicationbeing that if you transgress this boundary you peerat your mother’s vagina.

So long as no one from Ohoiwait tried to takeany topshell this situation presented no problems.The trouble began during the Japanese occupationbetween 1942 and 1945. World War II was a timeof great privation in the Kei islands. Many villagersstopped farming and fled their villages for interiorforests. Japanese troops commanded villagers tocollect topshell in Ohoirenan and elsewhere on theeast coast, which they stored in a warehouse ontheir base in Ohoiwait’s Kampung Bawah. Theseshells had still not been shipped to Japan when thewar ended. A delegation from Ohoirenan came toOhoiwait to request that their topshell be returned,but Ohoiwait refused, and sold the shellsthemselves.

Relations soured somewhat between the twovillages, and Ohoirenan began accusing Ohoiwaitvillagers of stealing topshell from their petuanan. In1957, men from Ohoirenan demolished Ohoiwaitpeople’s bubu batu and sero daun kelapa in thepetuanan, and captured several men who had beenfishing there. Ohoirenan’s Kepala Desa (VillageHead), who was a young boy at the time, remembersthese hostages being jostled by crowds and pokedwith spears and parang (machettes) until they were“bathed in blood.”

That incident passed, but relations did not improve.The years of 1964 and 1965 were years of greatpolitical tumult in Indonesia, compounded in Kei bya series of long dry seasons. Ohoiwait came underattack from two sides. Ohoiel, Ohoiwait’s northernneighbor and part of the rival Ratschaap of MauUmfit, claimed that their ancestors had plantedcoconuts in land now controlled by Ohoiwait, andbegan ransacking fields. Ohoiwait, maintaining thattheir ancestors had long ago paid compensation forthe trees, went to war against its northern neighbor.Three villagers were killed, two from Ohoiel and onefrom Ohoiwait. Ohoiwait prevailed in the fighting, andagain when the police arrived and sided with Ohoiwait.Soon after, Ohoirenan tried to permenantly pushOhoiwait out of its petuanan. A brief fight ensuedbut both sides retreated when both War Captainsreceived minor injuries.

Ohoiwait’s elders decided to sue. Theydemanded that the two villages’ respective rightsand responsibilities be resolved by a higherauthority. Southeast Moluccas had no provincialcourt at the time, so the Camat (Subdistrict Head)convened an adat court of several respected Rajaand Orang Kaya (Hereditary Village Heads). Thecouncil decided that Ohoirenan controlled the land,but that families from both sides were entitled touse it, based on the well-established tradition ofhak makan. That had never been the problem. Theydecided the best solution to petuanan lautwas washak makan bersama (shared eating rights), withthe two villages taking turns managing the sasiand harvesting the topshell. Ohoirenan rejected thissolution and swore to appeal the decision. Theynever have and the petuanan section has beendisputed ever since.

Neither side has harvested topshell from the1.2 kilometer stretch of petuanan sengketa forover three decades. According to villagers inOhoirenan, this is some of the richest, mostproductive reef they own, potentially yielding asmuch as three or four tons of topshell each timethey open sasi. Paradoxically, biologists from theIndonesian Institute for Science (LIPI) speculate

65


that this unintentional breeding reserve may helpaccount for Ohoirenan’s continued good topshellharvest year after year (Dwiono 1998). Overall,topshell yields have declined in Kei, as they havein many other parts of the Indo-Pacific. As recentlyas the 1970s, traders purchased as much as 100 to110 tons of topshell each year from Kei Besar,today the figure is 60 to 70 tons (Liemen 1998).

Trochus Niloticus: An “EndangeredInvertebrate”

In 1984 IUCN added T. niloticus to its list of“commercially endangered invertebrates” andrecommended that steps be taken by South Pacificand Indian Ocean countries to conserve remainingpopulations (Groombridge 1993). Indonesiaresponded in 1987 by granting protected status toT. niloticus, along with 17 other marine speciesincluding black coral, giant clams, triton, robbercrabs, chambered nautilus. As a protected species,topshell could no longer be legally harvested ortraded.

The trade continued in the Moluccas and otherparts of the archipelago, although occasionalseizures, harassment and increasing unofficiallevies rendered it less profitable and more riskyeach year. In 1989 the Bupati (District Head) ofSoutheast Moluccas sent a letter to the ProvincialBureau of Natural Resource Conservation(BKSDA, a branch of the Forestry Department1)urging the region be granted special status to tradethe important component of the local economy.He reasoned that local sasi traditions effectivelyconserved the resource and that the SoutheastMoluccas communities should not be punished forother regions’ carelessness in managing their stocks.LIPI biologists soon designated Southeast Moluccasas having high potential for topshell cultivation butstopped short of official approval for local sasi. TheMoluccas Provincial Government sent a similar letterto the Minister of Forestry in 1994 or 1995 but didnot receive a reply. Records of this latter transactionhave been lost.

Between 1989 and 1996, the Minister of Forestryand Director General of Forest Protection andResource Preservation (PHPA) issued guidelines forthe legal capture, cultivation and transport of protectedspecies (See Appendix I). Permits can now beacquired by accredited businesses to harvest and tradetopshell and other species that are products ofcultivation. For topshell, this involves fencing off asection of reef and stocking it with 100,000 juvenilesnails. The fence slowly disintegrates and the topshellfan out across the surrounding reef area. The shellscan be harvested within three years. The localConservation Agency (KSDA, a branch of theProvincial-level BKSDA) will issue a permit forthe transport and export of topshell procured inthis manner.

LIPI has expended considerable effort andresources developing techniques to breed T.niloticus for cultivation and restocking. This is asound investment for replenishing stocks in reefsthat still provide a good habitat but where localpopulations have been decimated by over-harvesting. In Kei, it is patently unnecessary. Localtopshell populations can be sufficiently sustainedthrough natural regeneration provided sasi ismaintained and habitat is preserved.

T. niloticus harvests in Kei have declined duringthe 1980s and 1990s. There are several reasonsthat help explain this decline. One major cause hasbeen the abandonment of the sero daun kelapamentioned above. As the coconut leavesdecompose, they disburse nutrients to thesurrounding waters and reef, encouraging algaeand plankton growth. T. niloticus graze onfilamentous algae and tend to congregate around serodaun kelapa as they begin to decay. Decomposingsero also provide an ideal habitat for larval and juvenilesnails. Villagers in Kei are aware of this connection,but relatively inexpensive nylon fishing nets provide afar more efficient means of catching fish. Building asero is an arduous task and several people stand tobenefit from an individual’s efforts. With nets, afisherman catches more and retains the entire payoff

66

Sasi Lola.... (57- 71)

from his own labor. Sero daun kelapa are hardlyseen in Kei anymore.

Another important factor is the declining conditionof coral reefs in the area, caused by blast fishing,potassium cyanide and akar tuba use and houseconstruction. Live coral cover has been reduced by20 to 40 percent in some villages on Kei’s easterncoast (Thorburn 1998). Blast fishing is less pervasivealong the eastern coast than in other parts of the Keiislands nearer to local markets but is still a factor.Cyanide use for the hugely profitable live groupertrade has caused far more damage in this area.Fortunately, most of the large companies engaged inthis practice have recently left the Kei Islands andthe local entrepreneurs who have taken over the tradeconcentrate their efforts in the more easily accessiblecoasts of Kei Kecil and western Kei Besar. Use ofpotassium cyanide, while still a problem, seems to bedeclining in Kei (Thorburn 1998).

A third factor is theft. Fishermen from other partsof the archipelago who are granted permission toharvest sea cucumber often take topshell as well.Local villagers, too, are not above nabbing a topshellor two if the opportunity presents itself, despite theserious consequences. This is why Ohoirenan andsome other villages ban the use of goggles altogetherin their petuanan.

These problems are not addressed by the banon harvest and trade of T. Niloticus. Conversely,the ban probably contributed to topshell’s rapidextinction around many islands in centralMoluccas. The trade was driven underground leavinggovernment agents without data or managementinputs. The cost and risk of trading topshell went up,driving prices down for shells purchased fromvillagers. People had to harvest more, includingundersized individuals, to attain the same income.Given the uncertainty, many villagers and buyers feltthe wisest strategy was to “grab everything they canwhile they still can,” which led to gross over-harvesting. It seems the ban had precisely the oppositeeffect than intended.

To address this situation, Forestry officials inAmbon and Tual encouraged several local traders

to apply for cultivation permits. In Kei, only one traderresponded. A company named “CV MM” wasgranted the first permit in 1995. The operation,located in the village of Ler-Ohoilim, on the westcoast of Kei Besar, is a known sham. Ler-Ohoilim’sshallow, protected, sandy-bottom seas do notprovide a good habitat for topshell. Once duringthe 1980s villagers attempted to implement sasi.After closing their meti for two years, theyharvested a mere half ton of shells from the sixkilometers of sea fronting the village. They agreedit was not worth the effort and have not tried since.

CV MM installed a fenced pen in a small covein Ler-Ohoilim, and tossed in about 1,000 juvenileT. niloticus purchased from another village.BKSDA officials from Ambon came, took picturesand issued a recommendation that CV MM begranted a T. niloticus cultivation permit. CV MMhas not been back to Ler-Ohoilim since.

Armed with this impressive document signedby the Minister of Forestry, the owner of CV MMmanaged to convince most villagers and tradersin Kei that he possessed the sole legal right to buyand ship topshell, allowing him to set prices. Thelocal Forestry/KSDA office has ever issued atopshell shipping permit to CV MM. All topshellare smuggled out of Kei.

CV MM gradually acquired a monopolywithout the permit. Its owner enjoys close relationswith many officials in Tual and Ambon, and thecompany possesses a fleet of boats that greatlyfacilitate loading and unloading. Many other tradersabandoned the topshell business after the 1897 ban.“RL,” previously the largest buyer in Kei Besar withannual purchases of 60 to 70 tons, stopped tradingtopshell in 1993, preferring to concentrate on saferventures.

BKSDA officials in Ambon are aware of thesituation, but claim their intention is to provide atleast a semi-legal window for the trade to continue.The permit was arranged in Ambon, bypassing theTual KSDA office. This breach of procedurefostered some ill-will between local KSDA officialsand their superiors in Ambon, and toward CV MM.

67


BKSDA officials in Ambon claim that they had nointention of creating a monopoly and that they haveencouraged other local entrepreneurs to apply forpermits. By the end of 1997, they still had notreceived any applications.

In December 1997, Ohoirenan opened sasi andharvested 7,343.5 kilograms of topshell shells.They were the first village in Kei to open sasi inthe 1997/1998 season. CV MM offered topurchase the harvest for Rp 11,500 per kilogram,the same price as the previous year. The value ofthe Rupiah, however, plummeted 70 percentagainst major currencies during the interveningyear and inflation was already seriously affectinglocal purchasing power. Village leaders inOhoirenan refused the offer.

A store owner in Elat named “EH” purchasesall copra from Ohoirenan and supplies basic goodsand construction materials - often on credit - tovillagers. This sort of Bapak Angkat (AdoptedFather or, more aptly, Godfather) relationshipbetween individual traders and certain villages iscommon in Kei and elsewhere. EH offered topurchase Ohoirenan’s topshell for Rp 14,000 perkilogram. The difference between the two offerscame to nearly 18.4 million rupiah. Ohoirenanaccepted.

An integrated team of officials from BKSDAAmbon and Tual police and army officers soonarrived in Elat to provide “guidance”. CV MMpaid local transport and accommodation expensesfor the Ambon officials. They did not visit Ohoirenan.The Village Head there had warned: “If those peoplecome to my village, they will not go home until thismatter is resolved to our satisfaction.”

Ohoirenan sent a delegation to meet with membersof the district People’s Representative Council(DPRD Tk. II) in Tual. They were encouraged totake their petition directly to the Bupati. The Bupatiagreed to provide a Letter of Recommendation thatEH be allowed to purchase and ship the shells. Hehad his staff draft the letter and he signed it on 26January 1998. EH weighed and paid for the topshelland sold them to a buyer from Surabaya for Rp

17,000, making a gross profit of Rp 22 million.Getting them to Surabaya became the buyer’sproblem. EH was required to make donations toOhoirenan’s church, village leadership council andseveral local officials and politicians in Elat and Tual.His net profit was therefore closer to Rp 10 or 15million.

The Bupati’s letter was a serious breach ofprocedure and generated a storm of controversyamong local forestry, security and elected officials.Trade in protected species is clearly Forestry’sconcern. The letter did stipulate that EH must“fulfill, obey and adhere to all obligationsaccording to regulations in effect,” and “coordinatewith the relevant agencies regarding thedevelopment and continuation of this endeavor.”The Bupati’s recommendation expired in threemonths but it was unquestionably the DistrictGovernment’s approval for an activity that is notonly illegal but also none of its business.

Following this incident, two local entities, EHand a Village Cooperative (KUD) located in Dullahin Kei Kecil, initiated application procedures toacquire T. niloticus cultivation permits. Both haveletters granting permission to install nurseries fromthe Kepala Desa of bona fide topshell-producingvillages: EH from Ohoirenan, and the KUD fromHaar, and both are following procedures set downin the Minister’s and Director General’s guidelines.A local KSDA official, still miffed at having beenexcluded from CV MM’s licensing procedure twoyears before, is shepherding these applications throughthe Forestry bureaucracy. Once they have beenforwarded to BKSDA Ambon, a team will come toinspect the locations. Villagers will be required toconstruct nursery pens and fill them with thousandsof juvenile topshell from the surrounding reefs in orderto pass inspection. Only after this step can theapplications be forwarded to the Minister of Forestry.This entire exercise is unnecessary from a biologicalstandpoint, but under present circumstancesrepresents the only existing legal solution to theproblem.

68

Sasi Lola.... (57- 71)

Between December 1997 and March 1998,another six villages in Kei Besar - Weduar, Keluair,Wako, Haar, Ngefuit and Ohoiel - opened sasi andharvested topshell. CV MM bought it all at pricesranging between Rp 14,000 and 17,500 perkilogram. This was shipped from Tual withoutencountering any problems. Meanwhile a localKSDA official is considering attempting to enforceexisting regulations as pertain to CV MM’stopshell operations. He is somewhat hesitantbecause if the law is rigorously applied topshellcannot be legally shipped from Kei for three years,and then only from villages participating incultivation schemes. Enforcing the law willvirtually abolish the trade, something no one inKei wants to see happen.

EH is hesitating as well. He has choosen to seewhat happens with the CV MM case beforeproceeding with his cultivation permit application.EH reasons that the application process is goingto cost him upwards of Rp 10 million, and worriesthat, “Even if I get the permit, it does not guaranteethat I will be able to buy and ship topshell fromthe villages, which is the whole purpose, after all.”

CONCLUSION

The fate of topshell and sasi lola in the Kei islandsis seriously threatened by the situation. Several factorscombine to foul the topshell trade in Kei:

* the District Government is unhappy with theMinistry of Forestry for promulgating regulations thatdeny local villagers, and local government, animportant source of income;

* the local Forestry Service is upset with theDistrict Government for intruding into its affairs;

* buyers are distressed at mounting informallevies, and are concerned that stricter enforcementof the law will lower profits or render the businessunfeasible;

* local officials are increasingly divided betweensupporters of CV MM and those who would liketo see other traders take part in the business.

The combination of inappropriate governmentregulation, cronyism, collusion and corruption andincreasingly antagonistic relations between allconcerned parties ensure the eventual extinctionof topshell in local waters and the abandonmentof a traditional management regime that hasworked well for over six decades. Villagers in Keiand elsewhere simply want to be able to continueto sell their topshell at a fair price.

The obvious solution to this conundrum is forthe Indonesian government to recognize sasitopshell as a legitimate, legal resource managementsystem. Once that step is taken, the ForestryService, working together with local traders, couldintroduce modifications to local sasi practice - suchas more rigid minimum and maximum sizestandards, breeding reserve set-asides, schedulingchanges, reseeding of depleted reefs, and thereintroduction of sero daun kelapa - to secure thecontinued health of local topshell populations. Thiscould also provide a platform for organizing andsupporting other community-based coral reefconservation measures.

Asked whether such a scenario was likely, thelocal KSDA officer at the center of this unfoldingdrama replied: “Not a chance. Sasi is based ontradition and on nature. Whereas cultivation isbased on science.”

69


2. Keputusan Menteri Kehutanan Nomor 556/Kpts-II/1989 tentang Pemberian Izin Menangkap/Mengambil, Memiliki, Memilihara dan Mengangkut Baik di Dalam Negeri Maupun ke Luar NegeriSatwa Liar dan Tumbuhan Alam, dan atau Bagaimana-Bagaimana (Decision of the Minister ofForestry No. 556/Kpts-II/1989 on Granting of Permission to Trap/Take, Own, Raise and TransportDomestically or Internationally Wild Animals or Plants, etc.).

3. Keputusan Direktur Jenderal Perlidungan Hutan dan Pelestarian Alam Nomor 25/KPTS/DJ-VI/1989 tentang Persyarakat dan Tatacara untuk Mendapatkan Izin Menangkap/Mengambil, Memiliki,Memilihara dan Mengangkut Baik di Dalam Negeri Maupun ke Luar Negeri Satwa Liar danTumbuhan Alam, dan atau Bagaimana-Bagaimana yang Dilindungi dan Tidak Dilindungi Undang-undang (Decision of the Director General of Forest Protection and Resource Preservation No.25/KPTS/DJ-VI/1989 on Regulations to Acquire Permits to Trap/Take, Own, Raise and TransportDomestically or Internationally Wild Animals or Plants, etc. that are Protected and Not Protectedby Law).

4. Keputusan Menteri Kehutanan Nomor 771/Kpts-II/1996 tentang Pemanfaatan Jenis Tumbuhandan Satwa Liar dari Alam Maupun dari Pengangkaran (Decision of the Minister of Forestry No.771/Kpts-II/1996 on Utilization of Species of Plants and Wild Animals from Nature and Raised inCaptivity/Cultivated).

REFERENCESAlcorn, J. (1995) “Ethnobotanical Knowledge Systems - a Resource for Meeting Rural Development Needs,” in The

Cultural Dimension of Development: Indigenous Knowledge Systems. eds. D. M. Warren, L. J. Slikkerveer, and D.Brokensha, Pp. 1-12. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Amos, M. J. (1997) “Management Policy for Trochus Fishery in the Pacific,” Trochus: Status, Hatchery Practice and

Appendix No. 1

70

Sasi Lola.... (57- 71)

Brush, S. B. and D. Stabinski, eds (1996) Valuing LocalKnowledge: Indigenous People and IntellectualProperty Rights. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Cadgil, M., F. Berkes, and C. Folke (1993) “IndigenousKnowledge for Biodiversity Conservation,” Ambio22(2-3): 151-56.

Colchester, M. (1994) Salvaging Nature: IndigenousPeoples, Protected Areas and BiodiversityConservation. Geneva: UNRISD.

Cooley, F. L. (1962) Ambonese Adat: a GeneralDescription. Cultural Report Series. New Haven: YaleUniversity Southeast Asia Studies Center.

Dove, M. (1986) “The Practical Reason for Weeds inIndonesia: Peasant Vs. State Views of Imperata andChromolaena,” Human Ecology 14(2): 163-90.

Dwiono, S.A.P. (1998) Personal Communication.

Groombridge, B., ed. (1993) 1994 IUCN List of ThreatenedAnimals. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

ICLARM (in press) Institutional Analysis of TraditionalMarine Resource Management (Sasi) in Moluccas,Indonesia. Fisheries Co-management Project,Indonesia. Manila: ICLARM.

Kissya, E. (1995) Sasi Aman Haru-Ukui: TraditionalManagement of Sustainable Resources in Haruku.Document Treasures of Local Cultures. Jakarta: Sejati.

Liemen, R. (1998) Personal Communication.

Nash, W. J. (1988) “Hatchery Rearing of Trochus As aManagement Tool,” Australian Fisheries Novembere:36-39.

Pawluck, R., J. Sandor, and J. Tabor (1989) “TheRole of Indigenous Soil Knowledge in AgriculturalDevelopment,” Journal of Soil and Water ConservationJuly-August: 298-303.

Peet, M. and M.J. Watts, eds. (1996) Liberation Ecologies:Envirionment, Development, Social Movements. NewYork: Routledge.

Rahail, J. (1993). Larwul Ngabal. Seri Pustaka Khasana Lokal(Document Treasures of Local Cultures). Jakarta: Sejati.

Redford, K.H. and C. Padoch, eds. (1992) Conservation ofNeotropical Forests: Working from TradtionalResource Use. New York: Columbia University Press.

Thornurn, C. (1998) Field Notes.

Von Benda-Beckmann, F., K. Von Benda-Beckman, andA. Brouwer (1995) “Changing IndogenousEnvironmental Law in the Central Malukus:Communal Regulation and Privatization of Sasi, “Ekonesia (2): 1-38.

Zerner, C. (1994) “Trough a Green Lens: the Constructionof Customary Environmental Law in Indonesia’sMaluku Island, “ Law and Society Review 28(5): 1079-122

1

KONFLIK PENGELOLAAN SUMBER DAYAKELAUTAN DI SULAWESI UTARA

DAPAT MENGANCAM KELESTARIAN PEMANFAATANNYA

SAPTA PUTRA GINTINGSeksi Proteksi Bina Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Kelautan,

Direktorat Jenderal Pembangunan Daerah, Departemen Dalam Negeri

ABSTRACT

oastal resources management often exhibit conflicts, especially where coastal areas arehighly developed. Coastal areas, where terrestrial resources meet marine waters, arerich, many stakeholder have interest to use thoses resources. Each stakeholder has

objectives and plans to exploit resources. Conflicting objectives, plans and jurisdictions in thesame coastal area trigger conflicts.

Preliminary documentary and social data collection show that the conflict exists in theManado Bay and other parts of North Sulawesi, User conflict arises between artisanal fishersand pearl farms, between tourism, fishery and potected area and among developers. Thejurisdictional conflict arises between central and local governments on the management ofBunaken National Park areas. Stakeholders work within poorly defined property regemes anddo not recognize traditional marine tenure system. The local comumnity perceived that the landand nearshore sea belong to them as a commons, but the central government claims that thecoastal resource belongs to the central government. Coastal resource is neither common norpublic property. This poorly defined property regimes leads to conflict of coastal management.Keywords: coastal resources management, property regimes, common property.

ABSTRAK

Dalam pengelolaan sumberdaya pesisir sering muncul konflik antara berbagai pihakyang berkepentingan, khususnya di wilayah pesisir yang pembangunannya pesat. Wilayahpesisir memiliki sumberdaya yang sangat kaya, sehingga banyak pihak yang mempunyaikepentingan untuk memanfaatkannya. Setiap pihak yang berkepentingan mempunyai tujuandan rencana yang dapat mendorong terjadinya konflik pengelolaan.

Berdasarkan hasil studi, konflik pengelolaan muncul di Teluk Manado dan daerahpesisir lainnya di Sulawesi Utara. Konflik pemanfaatan muncul antara nelayan tradisionaldengan pengusaha budidaya mutiara di Talise, antara pengelola pariwisata, perikanan dankawasan konservasi serta pengembang di Teluk Manado. Konflik kewenangan muncul antaraPemerintah Pusat dan Daerah di Taman Nasional Bunaken. Pihak yang berkepentingan kurangjelas dalam menjabarkan konsep pemilikan dan pengusahaan sumberdaya pesisir, dan seringmengabaikan sistem pengelolaan yang bersifat tradisional. Sementara penduduk pesisirsetempat merasa bahwa lahan dan sumberdaya laut disekitarnya adalah milik meraka, tetapisecara hukum sumberdaya pesisir dianggap milik penduduk dan juga milik pemerintah.Kerancuan pemilikan dan penguasaan sumberdaya pesisir ini mendorong timbulnya konflik.Kata-kata kunci: pengelolaan sumberdaya pesisir, batas-batas kepemilikan, kepemilikianumum.

C

2

PENDAHULUAN

Sumber daya kelautan, merupakansalah satu asset pembangunan Indonesiayang penting, karena kontribusi produkdomestik bruto pemanfaatan sumber dayakelautan tersebut telah mencapai 22% padatahun 1990 (Dahuri et al., 1996). Sementarasumber daya darat seperti hutan dan lahansemakin terbatas akibat alih fungsi,eksploitasi yang berlebihan, dan kebakaranhutan. Disamping itu, pertambahan populasipenduduk yang hidup di kawasan pesisirmeningkat pesat mendorong tekananterhadap sumber daya kelautan semakinbesar. Diperkirakan 60% dari populasiIndonesia bermukim di pesisir, dan 80% daripembangunan Industri mengambil tempat dipesisir (Hinrichson 1997). Banyakpembangunan sektoral, regional, swasta danmasyarakat mengambil tempat di kawasanpesisir, seperti budi daya perikanan, resortwisata, industri, pertambangan lepas pantai,pelabuhan laut, dan reklamasi pantai untukperluasan kota. Sehingga salah satu pilihan,untuk pembangunan jangka panjang adalahmemanfaatkan potensi sumber dayakelautan, yang terdapat di wilayah pesisirdaerah.

Dalam pengelolaan sumber dayakelautan (SDK), sering muncul konflikantara berbagai pihak yang berkepentingan,khususnya di wilayah pesisir yangpembangunannya pesat. Wilayah pesisir,dimana sumber daya darat dan laut bertemu,memiliki sumber daya yang sangat kaya,sehingga banyak pihak yang mempunyaikepentingan untuk memanfaatkannya. Secaraumum pihak yang berkepentingan ini dapatdikategorikan dalam sektor perikanan,pariwisata, pertambangan lepas pantai,perhubungan laut, industri maritim,konservasi dan pertahanan/keamanan1. Selainitu sektor pekerjaan umum dan energi jugamempunyai kepentingan yang relatif besar,terutama dalam perlindungan pantai dariabrasi, dan lokasi pembangkit listrik tenagauap.

1 Pengertian sektor merupakan lingkungan satukelompok kegiatan sesuai dengan Sorensen 1996.

Setiap pihak yang berkepentinganmempunyai maksud, tujuan, target danrencana untuk mengeksploitasi sumber dayatersebut. Perbedaan maksud, tujuan, sasarandan rencana tersebut mendorong terjadinyakonflik pemanfaatan sumber daya kelautan.Sektor perikanan mempunyai tujuan untukmeningkatkan produksi ikan tangkap. Sektorpariwisata bertujuan untuk meningkatkanjumlah wisatawan yang melakukansnorkelling dan scuba diving. Pengembangkawasan reklamasi bertujuan membangunkota pantai yang bisa langsung melihat kepulau, sunset dan pantai berpasir, sementara,Balai Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam inginmengkonservasi keanekaragaman hayatilautnya. Untuk mencapai maksud, tujuan dansasaran tersebut, masing-masing pihakmenyusun perencanaan sendiri-sendiri,dengan tugas pokok dan fungsinya yangberbeda-beda. Perencanaan dari masing-masing sektor sering tumpang tindih danberkompetisi pada ruang laut yang sama.Tumpang tindih perencanaan dan kompetisipemanfaatan sumber daya ini memicumunculnya konflik pemanfaatan di wilayahpesisir.

Konflik dapat juga muncul karenaadanya kesenjangan antara tujuan, sasaran,perencanaan, dan fungsi antara berbagaipihak terkait. Banyak pihak yang mengambilkeputusan menyadari bahwa telah terjadipenangkapan ikan secara illegal,berkembangnya perusakan ekosistemmangrove, terumbu karang dan padanglamun, namun tidak ada atau tidak banyakkegiatan pembangunan yang mengatasipersoalan tersebut.

Akar permasalahan konflik ini seringberasosiasi dengan faktor sosial-ekonomi-budaya dan bio-fisik yang mempengaruhikondisi lingkungan pesisir. Konflik tersebut,baik langsung maupun tidak langsung dapatmenyebabkan pihak-pihak yang bertikai,terutama mengurangi minat penduduk danPemerintah Daerah setempat untukmelestarikannya, dan membiarkan kerusakansumber daya kelautan berlangsung hinggamencapai tingkat yang mengkhawatirkan,

3

karena tidak ada insentif bagi mereka untukmelestarikannya.

Fenomena konflik tersebutsebenarnya sudah lama ada, tetapi makinlama makin banyak jumlahnya dan makinbesar skala konfliknya. Konflik pemanfaatanSDK dan jasa lingkungan muncul di TelukJakarta, di Banyuwangi dan di KepulauanNatuna. Konflik antara pengelola pariwisatadan pengelola kawasan konservasi laut.Konflik antara nelayan tradisional dengannelayan komersial, sehingga terjadipembakaran kapal nelayan di SumateraUtara.

Untuk melihat fenomena konflikmenjadi kenyataan, dilakukan studi diSulawesi Utara. Studi tersebut dibagi duabagian, pertama documentary study untukmelihat apakah dari dokumen kebijakan danperencanaan masing-masing instansi,menunjukkan adanya tumpang tindih ataukesenjangan antara maksud, tujuan, sasarandan rencana masing-masing instansi, swastadan masyarakat. Kedua, in-depth interviewterhadap key respondents, dilanjutkandengan field observation di lokasi yangdiperkirakan konflik terjadi dan korelasinyadengan kondisi dan kelestarian SDKdisekitarnya.

Berdasarkan hasil sementara studitersebut dapat ditemukan bahwa konflikpemanfaatan SDK dan jasa lingkungan(marine resources and environmentalamenities) muncul di Teluk Manado dandaerah pesisir lainnya di Sulawesi Utara.Konflik antara nelayan tradisional denganpengusaha budidaya mutiara di perairanTalise. Konflik antara pengelola pariwisata,pengelola TNL Bunaken, nelayan sertapengembang reklamasi pantai di TelukManado.

Salah satu masalah mendasar ialahpihak yang berkepentingan sering kurangjelas dan kurang transparan dalammenjabarkan konsep pemilikan danpenguasaan sumber daya kelautan dankurang memperhatikan sistem pengelolaanyang bersifat tradisional di daerah. Secara defacto, penduduk pesisir setempat merasabahwa lahan dan sumber daya kelautan disekitar adalah milik mereka, yang dikelola

secara tradisional turun temurun. Tetapisecara de jure, pasal 4, UURI No. 6Tahun1996 tentang Perairan Indonesia,menyatakan seluruh sumber kekayaan alamyang terdapat dalam perairan Indonesiaadalah milik Pemerintah Pusat. Dalam skalatertentu pemerintah membiarkan kelompokmasyarakat pesisir untuk mengelolanya,tetapi bila ada investor, hak pengelolaannyadiberikan kepada investor. Ironisnya,penduduk lokal sering tersingkir oleh situasiseperti ini. Sehingga timbul kerancuanbahwa di satu sisi SDK dianggap milikpenduduk, tetapi di sisi lain dianggap milikpemerintah. Kerancuan pemilikan danpenguasaan SDK ini mendorong timbulnyakonflik kewenangan dan konflikpemanfaatan.

Konflik kewenangan muncul diTeluk Manado Sulawesi Utara, terutamasejak ditetapkannya perairan pulau-pulauBunaken menjadi Taman Nasional Laut(TNL) tahun 1991. Konflik kewenanganmuncul antara pemerintah Pusat c.q. DitjenPHPA dengan Pemerintah Daerah c.q. DinasPariwisata di TNL Bunaken. Dalam kasusini Pemerintah Daerah merasa bahwa daratanpulau-pulau di perairan Bunaken sertamasyarakatnya berada di bawah kewenanganPemerintah Daerah Sulawesi Utara, sesuaidengan UURI No. 5 Tahun 1974 tentangPokok-pokok Pemerintahan di Daerah.Namun di pihak lain, setelah pulau-pulauBunaken ditetapkan sebagai TamanNasional, maka kewenangan pengelolaansumber daya hayati lautnya berada di bawahDepartemen Kehutanan. Beberapa konflikyang sedang berkembang di Sulawesi Utaradapat diuraikan dalam Tabel 1. di bawah ini.

Untuk menyamakan persepsi, makadalam paper ini, batasan wilayah pesisirmerupakan satu kawasan tempat ber-interaksinya ekosistem darat dan laut,dimana batas kearah darat dapat dianggapDAS hulu yang dipengaruhi ekosistem lautdan kearah laut sejauh 12 mil dari garispangkal (base line) atau dikenal sebagai lautterritorial, dimana tumpang tindihpengelolaan sering terjadi. Sumber dayakelautan meliputi sumberdaya perikanan,ekosistem terumbu karang, mangrove,

4

padang lamun, pantai berpasir, bahan galiantambang lepas pantai serta flora dan faunalaut lainnya (Dahuri et al. 1996).

Untuk memperjelas bentuk-bentukkonflik tersebut, maka dianggap penting

untuk memahami tipe-tipe pemilihan danpenguasaan SDK yang terdapat di Indonesia.Masalah pemilikan dan penguasaan(property regimes) sumber daya akandibahas secara terinci dibawah ini.

Tabel. 1. Daftar Konflik Pemanfaatan dan Konflik Kewenangan di Sulawesi Utara

Tipe konflik Pihak Pertama Pihak Kedua LokasiPemanfaatan Nelayan tradisional Nelayan komersial Sulawesi UtaraPemanfaatan Nelayan setempat Nelayan luar Sulawesi UtaraPemanfaatan Nelayan tradisional Pengusaha mutiara Pulau TalisePemanfaatan Nelayan tradisional Pengembang reklamasi pantai Malalayang TMPemanfaatan Pemilik tanah Pengembang reklamasi pantai Malalayang TMPemanfaatan Diving and snorkeling Jet skiing, glass bottom boats TNL BunakenKewenangan Dinas Pariwisata dan

Dinas PerikananKehutanan TNL Bunaken

Kewenangan Pelabuhan perikanan Pengembangan pariwisata BitungKewenangan Hak ulayat Milik pemerintah TM & Sulut

Sumber: pengamatan lapang, wawancara, harian Suara Pembaruan, Kompas, Manado PostCatatan: TM=Teluk Manado; Sulut=Perairan Sulawesi Utara; TNL=Taman Nasional Laut

Konsep Pemilikan dan PenguasaanSumber Daya Alam

Bromley dan Cernea (1989, p.5)menyatakan bahwa pemilikan danpenguasaan sumber daya alam merupakansuatu hak, kewenangan dan tanggung jawabpribadi pemilik dalam hubungannya denganpribadi pihak lain terhadap pemanfaatansuatu sumber daya alam. Pemilikan sumberdaya alam adalah hak untuk mendapatkanmanfaat dari sumber daya dan jasalingkungannya yang dijamin olehPemerintah, dan di hargai oleh orang lainyang mempunyai kepentingan yang sama,sesuai dengan kondisi dan karakteristiksumber dayanya.

Hak dan akses untuk memanfaatkansumber daya, diatur oleh kaidah-kaidahpengelolaan dan pemilik dapatmempertahankan sumber daya alam tersebutdari orang lain. Hak akses terhadappemanfaatan sumberdaya alam tersebut yangmenentukan apakah suatu sumber daya alamtersebut milik pemerintah, masyarakattertentu, swasta atau milik siapa saja.

Menurut Bromley dan Cernea (1989,p.11), tipe pemilikan dan penguasaan

sumberdaya alam dapat dibagi menjadi 4bagian :(i) tanpa pemilik (open access); (ii)milik masyarakat tertentu (commons); (iii)milik pemerintah (state property); dan (iv)milik swasta/pribadi.

Mckean (1992, p.251-252)mengelompokkan pemilikan sumber dayaalam tersebut dalam 6 (enam) bagian: (i)tanpa pemilik (unknown property); (ii) milikmasyarakat tertentu (commons); (iii) milikpemerintah yang tidak boleh dimasuki orangsecara sembarangan, seperti pangkalanangkatan laut (state property); (iv) milikpemerintah yang bisa dimasuki khalayakumum (public proverty); (v) milikswasta/perusahaan yang lebih satu orang;dan (vi) milik pribadi (private property).

Kedua klasifikasi tersebut diatasmempunyai persamaan dan perbedaan.Perbedaan yang khas, McKean membagimilik pemerintah menjadi dua bagian, danmemisahkan milik pribadi dengan swastayang lebih dari satu orang. Namun dariperbedaan tersebut, kedua tipe milikpemerintah masih dapat dikelompokkansebagai milik pemerintah, dan kedua tipemilik swasta masih dapat dikelompokkansebagai milik pribadi/swasta. Akses terhadap

5

pemanfaatan SDK milik pemerintah dapatkembali dari khusus ke umum atausebaliknya, tergantung dari kepentinganpemerintah, seperti pada Table 2. Otoritaspemilik sumber daya adalah pemerintah.Demikian juga untuk pemilikan swasta danpribadi, keduanya mempunyai kesamaan,dimana hanya para pemilik yang bolehmenikmati manfaat SDK. Penduduk yangtidak punya sertifikat pemilikan sumber dayatersebut tidak berhak menikmatinya.

Berdasarkan pertimbangan-pertimbangan tersebut, maka pola pemilikandan penguasaan SDK tersebut dapatdikelompokkan menjadi 4 kelompok, yaitu:i. tanpa pemilik (open access property); ii.milik masyarakat tertentu (commonproperty); iii. milik pemerintah (publicproperty); dan (vi) milik pribadi (privateproperty), dengan penjabaran sebagaiberikut:i. Tanpa Pemilik (open access property)

adalah milik semua orang dan tanpapemilik atau tidak jelas statuspemilikannya (Bromley dan Cernea1989). Tidak ada seorangpun yang berhakuntuk memanfaatkan sumber dayatersebut demi kepentingan pribadi ataukelompoknya dan mempertahankannyaagar tidak digunakan orang lain. Tidakada peraturan yang meregulasipemanfaatannya dan melarang orang lainuntuk mengeksploitasi SDK tersebut.Sumber daya kelautan ini biasanyaterdapat di perairan laut lepas (high seas),atau di luar laut teritorial (12 mil darigaris pangkal).

ii. Milik Masyarakat atau Komunal (commonproperty) merupakan milik sekelompokmasyarakat yang telah melembaga,dengan ikatan norma-norma atau hukumadat yang mengatur pemanfaatan SDKtersebut dan dapat melarang pihak lainuntuk mengeksploitasinya. Kelompokmasyarakat tersebut bervariasi dari segibentuk, jumlah anggota dan ukuran,anggotanya memiliki identitas yang khas,dan memiliki ikatan dan rasa persatuanterhadap kelompoknya (esprit de corps).Individu anggota kelompok ini tidak dapatmenjual atau mengalihkan haknya kepada

orang lain, tetapi bisa diwariskan kepadaketurunannya (McKean 1992). Biasanyakonsep pemilikan dan penguasaan SDKtersebut merupakan satu kesatuan yangtidak terpisahkan di darat dan laut(inseparable right for both terresterialand marine resources). Pemegang hakbiasanya mempunyai hak ulayat atastanah pertanian di pesisir dan hak aksesuntuk memanfaatkan SDK di pesisir(Ruddle, Hviding and Johannes et al.1992).

iii. Milik Pemerintah (public/state property)merupakan pemilikan SDK yang beradadibawah kewenangan pemerintah sesuaidengan peraturan yang berlaku. Pasal 4UURI No. 4/1996 tentang PerairanIndonesia, menyatakan bahwa seluruhsumber kekayaan alam di perairanIndonesia dibawah kedaulatan NegaraRepublik Indonesia. UURI No. 4/1996 inimendeklarasikan bahwa Pemerintahmemiliki hak, dan bertanggung jawabmengontrol pemanfaatan SDK tersebut.Individu ataupun kelompok masyarakatdapat saja memanfaatkan SDK tersebutatas izin, persetujuan, lisensi, atau hakpengelolaan yang diberikan olehPemerintah (McKean 1992). Pemerintahmembuat peraturan yang bervariasi untukpemanfaatan sumber daya kelautan, mulaidari peraturan yang ketat sampai yangbelum diatur dengan baik. Pemanfaatanpangkalan Angkatan Laut, serta ladangpertambangan minyak lepas pantai relatifketat sehingga hanya orang-orang tertentusaja yang boleh masuk ke lokasi sumberdaya tersebut. Pemanfaatan tamannasional atau kawasan konservasi lautrelatif sedang, tergantung efektivitas lawenforcement-nya. Pemanfaatan sumberdaya perikanan di laut lepas relatif belumbanyak diatur. Sering terjadi sumber dayamilik pemerintah dibiarkan di kelolamasyarakat karena belum bernilaiekonomis. Namun sejalan denganperkembangan ekonomi, sosial danbudaya, sumber daya yang dimanfaatkanmasyarakat tersebut diambil olehpemerintah lalu izin untukmemanfaatkannya di berikan kepada

6

swasta atau investor seperti di perairanPulau Talise dan pantai MalalayangManado.

iv. Milik Pribadi/Swasta (private/quasiprivate property) adalah sumber dayayang dimiliki oleh perorangan atausekelompok orang secara syah yangditunjukkan oleh bukti-bukti kepemilikan,seperti sertifikat hak milik tanah. PemilikSDK tersebut dijamin secara hukum dansosial untuk menguasai danmemanfaatkannya bagi kepentinganpemiliknya dan dapat melarang pihak lainuntuk memanfaatkan sumber dayatersebut (Bromley dan Cernea 1989).Pemilik dapat menjual, membagi,mentransfer, dan mewariskan keketurunnya, atau menyewakannya kepihak lain. Pada umumnya hak miliktersebut di lahan pesisir, sekaligusmempunyai hak dan akses untuk

memanfaatkan sumber daya kelautandisekitarnya. Dalam hal sumber dayamilik pemerintah tetapi investor diberihak dan kewenangan untukmengeksplotasinya selama kurun waktutertentu, maka pemegang hak dapatdianggap quasi swasta. Karena kriteriapemilikan dan penguasaannya hampirsama dengan milik pribadi/swasta, merekabisa menjualnya ke pihak lain.Berdasarkan UURI No. 5/1960, tentangPokok-Pokok Agraria, menyatakan bahwaada beberapa tipe pemilikan danpenguasaan lahan: hak milik; hak gunausaha; dan hak guna bangunan. Haktersebut dibuktikan oleh adanya sertifikathak milik, HGU dan HGB. Namunbanyak penduduk di wilayah pesisir yangbelum punya sertifikat, karena diwariskanatau menggarap tanah pemerintah, danstatus kepemilikannya tidak jelas.

Tabel 2. Pemilikan Penguasaan Sumber Daya Kelautan dan Karakteristiknya

Tipe Open Acces Milik Kelompok Milik Pemerintah Milik PribadiKriteria -tanpa pemilik

-tidak ada aturan-tidak adapelarangan

-hak pokmas, desaatau adat-ada aturan, normasosial, hukum adatdan sanksi-pokmas dapatmelarang pihak lainmengeksploitasiSDK

-hak pemanfaatanSDK diaturpemerintah-ada peraturanpemanfaatan ataumanajemen plan-dapat melarangpihak lain-hak pengelolaandapat disewakan

-hak pemanfaatanhanya utk pemilik-perencanaantersendiri-dapat melarangpihak lain-hak dapat dibagidiwariskan,ditransfer, dijual

Lokasi Laut lepas, ZEE Perairan tangkaptradisional

Pangkalan ALRI,taman nasional

Resort swasta,tanah milik

SEJARAH PEMILIKAN DANPENGUASAAN SUMBERDAYA DIINDONESIA

Pada jaman penjajahan Belanda,sebahagian besar sumber daya alam adalahmilik penjajah. Penjajah hanya mengakuihak milik atau hak warisan bagi masyarakatyang patuh pada penjajah atau tokoh-tokohserta kaum bangsawan yang berkolaborasidengan penjajah Belanda. Secara khusus

Belanda tidak banyak mengurus pemilikandan penguasaan SDK, karena pada masapenjajahan baik sumber daya ikan, ekosistemmangrove dan terumbu karang maupunminyak di lepas pantai masih dipandangkurang ekonomis dan kontribusinya relatifrendah dibandingkan hasil tanaman industridan rempah-rempah. Banyak penduduk desapesisir yang nelayan merangkap petani,relatif bebas memanfaatkan SDK tersebut.Pada masa penjajahan sebagian masyarakat

7

masih beranggapan bahwa jika seseorangmemiliki lahan di pesisir maka ia jugamempunyai hak akses memanfaatkan SDK-nya. Jadi pada masa penjajah: hak milikpribadi; milik kelompok tertentu; milikpemerintah; dan tanpa milik (open access)sudah ada.

Setelah Indonesia merdeka 17Agustus 1945, sampai tahun 1960, makasumber daya lahan dan kelautan secaraotomatis menjadi milik PemerintahIndonesia. Beberapa tipe pemilikan danpenguasaan milik kelompok masyarakattertentu ataupun milik pribadi ada juga yangdialihkan menjadi milik pemerintahIndonesia, terutama milik kelompok atauorang yang berkolaborasi dengan Belanda.Pemerintah memiliki hampir semua sumberdaya, seperti hutan, lahan dan ekosistempesisir. Namun banyak perkebunan kelapa dipesisir Sulawesi Utara yang dikembangkanpada zaman Belanda, sampai pada saat inimasih dimiliki secara pribadi oleh orangMinahasa, yang mendapat warisan daripengusaha perkebunan kelapa tersebut.

Pada masa ini, pemerintahmengeluarkan ordonansi Stb 1939. No. 442tentang Laut Teritorial Dan LingkunganMaritim, yang menyatakan bahwa perairanIndonesia adalah 3 mil dari titik pasangterendah dari setiap pulau. Tiga mil iniadalah laut teritorial yang dipandang sebagaibagian dari wilayah pesisir. Dengandemikian pemerintah daerah mempunyaikewenangan untuk menata dan mengelolaSDK di perairan teritorial tersebut termasukmengelola kegiatan perikanan, pelabuhandan pertambangan. Berdasarkan ordonansitersebut, nelayan tradisional dijamin secarabebas untuk menangkap ikan di perairanteritorial. Ordonansi ini tidak mengakuisecara resmi konsep milik kelompok tertentu(common property) namun penduduk lokalmemegang teguh dan melaksanakan hak-hakulayat, norma sosial dan hukum adat merekadalam mengelola SDK, seperti Sasi diMaluku, atau Ondoapi di Irian Jaya.

Setelah tahun 1960 sampai sekarangpemerintah Indonesia mengeluarkanbeberapa undang-undang yang mengaturtentang pemanfaatan sumber daya alam dan

pola pemilikan dan penguasaannya. PertamaPERPU No. 4/1960 tentang PerairanIndonesia, pasal 1 ayat 3 menyatakan bahwaperairan Indonesia adalah 12 mil dari garispangkal (base line). Seluruh sumber dayaalam mulai dari titik pasang surut terendahdari setiap pulau sampai 12 mil laut darigaris pangkal adalah milik Pemerintah Pusat.Undang-undang ini mengambil alihkewenangan pemerintah daerah yang dahuludapat mengelola SDK selebar 3 mil laut(BPHN 1995, p.32). Kedua, UURI No.5/1960 tentang Pokok-Pokok Agraria,mengatur pemilikan dan penguasaan lahandalam beberapa tipe seperti : i. hak milik, ii.hak guna usaha, iii. hak guna bangunan, iv.hak pakai, dan v. hak sewa. Dalampengaturan hak tersebut, tidak adaketerkaitannya dengan hak aksespemanfaatan SDK disekitar lahannya

Setelah masa orde baru, PemerintahIndonesia mendeklarasikan doktrin WawasanNusantara tahun 1973. Doktrin WawasanNusantara ini dimaksudkan untuk mencapaitujuan pembangunan nasional. Doktrinwawasan nusantara menyatakan seluruhkepulauan Indonesia merupakan satukesatuan politik, kesatuan sosial dan budaya,kesatuan ekonomi, dan kesatuanpertahanan/keamanan (Djalal 1996).

UURI No. 5/1974 tentang Pokok-pokok Pemerintahan di daerah, secaraimplisit mengurangi kewenangan PemerintahDaerah hanya pada wilayah darat saja.Sehingga banyak Pemerintah Daerah kurangmenaruh perhatian terhadap pembangunankelautan. Pada tahun 1992, pemerintahmengeluarkan UURI No. 24/1992, tentangTata Ruang, yang memberikan kesempatansecara implisit kepada pemerintah daerahuntuk menata ruang lautnya. Akan tetapiundang-undang tata ruang laut sampai saatini belum diterbitkan, sehingga belum adadasar hukum bagi pemerintah daerah untukmengatur pengelolaan SDK.Djalal (1996) menyatakan, bahwa pada masaorde lama pemerintah tertarik dalam menataperairan Indonesia dalam rangka memperluashak dan kewenangan untuk mengontrolperairan, mengatur kegiatan di perairantersebut, dan untuk menciptakan identitas

8

politik secara nasional. Dari segi ekonomi,SDK belum dianggap strategis untukmemberikan kontribusi bagi pembangunannasional. Selain itu 'perairan dalam' diantarapulau-pulau di Indonesia sering dilalui kapalasing sehingga memudahkan infiltrasi pihakasing dan dapat menyebabkan disintegrasi.Untuk itu di keluarkan deklarasi Djuanda1959, yang menyatakan bahwa laut perairandalam adalah bagian dari kedaulatan negaraRepublik Indonesia.

Sebagai satu kesatuan ekonomi,kekayaan sumber daya yang ada di PerairanIndonesia adalah milik pemerintah, dansumber daya tersebut digunakan untukmemenuhi kebutuhan masyarakat seluruhIndonesia. Kegiatan ekonomi yangmemanfaatkan sumber daya mineral munculdengan berkembangnya eksplorasi minyaklepas pantai. Terutama setelah harga minyakmeningkat dan memberikan kontribusi yangsangat besar bagi pembangunan Indonesiasetelah tahun 1973. Sehingga kepentinganpolitik pemerintah Orde Barumendeklarasikan bahwa seluruh sumberdaya, baik yang ada di darat maupun di lautadalah milik Pemerintah Pusat, dan tidakmendesentralisasikan urusan pengelolaanSDK ke daerah.

Ditilik dari pemilikan danpenguasaan sumber daya, maka secara dejureSDK yang berada di perairan Indonesiasampai batas 200 mil dari garis pangkaladalah milik Pemerintah. Pemerintahmenjamin kebebasan nelayan tradisionaluntuk menangkap ikan di perairan tersebutsesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku.

Berdasarkan tipe pemilikan danpenguasaan seperti yang disebutkan diatasmaka setelah Indonesia merdeka sampai saatini tipe pemilikan mengalami perubahan.Tipe open access semakin berkurang, hanyaada di laut lepas. Tipe milik kelompok(commons) juga semakin berkurang karenakewenangannya tidak diakui secara hukum.Tipe milik pemerintah semakin di regulasi,sehingga wilayah pesisir yang tadinya belumdiregulasi dan dikelola secara bertahap diserahkan ke investor. Tipe pemilikanpribadi/swasta semakin berkembang.

Untuk melihat lebih jauhkonsekwensi kerancuan tipe pemilikan dankewenangan, maka akan dikaji secaramendalam tipe pemilikan milik kelompokdibawah ini.

TIPE PEMILIKAN KELOMPOK

Beberapa pengambil keputusan danpelaku kebijakan menyatakan bahwa SDKmerupakan open access property dancommon property. Sehingga sering terjadikonflik kepentingan antara berbagai pihak,dan masing-masing berupayamengeksploitasi SDK tersebut. Kedua tipepemilikan ini dianggap sama, sehingga perludiklarifikasikan.

Hardin (1968) dalam "the tragedy ofthe commons" menyatakan bahwa commonsmerupakan open access property, sehinggapihak-pihak yang berkepentingandiasumsikan sebagai pelaku yang bebasmemanfaatkan sumber daya tersebut. Diamengassumsikan bahwa pihak yangberkepentingan cenderung untukmemaksimalkan keuntungan dan menyaingipihak lain untuk memanfatakan sumber dayatersebut, sehingga sumber dayanya cepatterdegradasi. Oleh sebab itu, Hardinmenyarankan agar sumber daya tersebutdikelola swasta atau dikontrol pemerintah.Karena bila dikelola swasta atau pemerintah,maka pengelolaannya lebih baik dan lebihmemperhatikan kaidah-kaidah konservasi.Ostrom (1992) mengkritik pemikiran Hardinini dan menyatakan bahwa commons berbedadengan open access. Commons adalah milikkelompok masyarakat tertentu yang diikatoleh norma atau hukum adat untukmelegitimasi anggotanya memiliki aksesuntuk pemanfaatan sumber daya, sedang diopen access tidak ada pengaturankepemilikan dan setiap orang bebasmemanfaatkannya. Ostrom (1990)menggunakan terminologi "common poolresources" (CPR) untuk menyatakan milikkomunal. Ostrom menyatakan ada duakriteria yang memberikan batasan mengenaicommons: a. adanya biaya (social costs)yang digunakan untuk melindungi danmelarang pihak lain untuk mengeksploitasi

9

sumber daya tersebut; dan b. sumber dayatersebut terbatas sehingga bila dimanfaatkanterus dapat habis.

Bromley dan Cernea (1989)menyatakan bahwa commons adalah milikkomunal atau sekelompok masyarakat, dankelompok tersebut dapat melarang pihak lainuntuk memanfaatkannya. Clark (1996)mendefinisikan commons sebagai sumberdaya milik masyarakat atau pemerintah yangdikelola pemerintah untuk kepentinganmasyarakat. Berkes (1994) mendefinisikancommons sebagai pemilikan sumber dayaoleh sekelompok orang yang sukar untuk dipilah-pilah secara individu. Sharp (1998,p.53) menyatakan bahwa commonsmerupakan pemilikan sumber daya olehsekelompok orang yang telah melembagadan mempunyai ikatan sosial yang relatiferat, dengan kriteria pemanfaatan yangdisepakati dan ditaati serta aturan-aturanmengenai boleh atau tidak sumber dayatersebut dimanfaatkan.

Berdasarkan pemikiran tersebut,definisi milik kelompok masyarakat ataumilik komunal (commons) bervariasi namundapat diambil kesamaannya seperti yang diuraikan dalam Tabel 2, bahwa hakpemanfaatan sumber daya dimilikikelompok masyarakat atau anggota; terdapatnorma sosial, hukum adat dan sanksi yangmengatur pemanfaatannya, dan pokmasdapat melarang pihak lain mengeksploitasisumber daya tersebut.

Oleh sebab itu pemanfaatan SDKyang dianggap commons tidak selalumenyebabkan exploitasi besar-besaransehingga terjadi "the tragedy of thecommons", melainkan terdapat bukti-buktiyang cukup banyak, terutama di negara-negara Asia-Pasific, bahwa pengelolaanberbasis masyarakat untuk commons lebihbaik dari pengelolaan SDK milik pemerintahatau pribadi/swasta (White et al. 1994).Beberapa pengelolaan berbasis masyarakattelah berhasil mengelola sumber daya secaralestari (Ruddle, Hviding and Johannes 1992).Meskipun sebagian dari pengelolaan sumberdaya komunal ini gagal melestarikannya(Berkes 1994).

Ruddle, Hviding and Johannes (1992)menyatakan bahwa pemanfaatan SDK secarakomunal (commons) belum terbukti denganjelas menyebabkan degradasi sumber daya.Oknum-oknum yang memanfaatkan sumberdaya komunal tidak selalu memaksimumkankeuntungan dan hanya mementingkan dirisendiri, tetapi ada sanksi sosial yangdihadapi anggotanya bila terjadipenyimpangan dalam mengeksploitasisumber daya komunal tersebut. Sanksi sosialdan pola pemanfaatan yang berbasismasyarakat ini yang membuat penegakanhukum (law enforcement) bisa dilaksanakansecara efektif.

Menurut Ruddle, Hviding andJohannes (1992) Indonesia memiliki modelpengelolaan berbasis masyarakat yang sangatkaya untuk pemanfaatan sumber dayakelautan yang bersifat komunal denganpenerapan hak-hak ulayat dan sanksi darimasyarakat. Pengelolaan berbasismasyarakat (PBM) ini telah lebih dari seratustahun diterapkan di Indonesia Bagian Timur,seperti sasi di Maluku dan Ondoafi di IrianJaya. Kelompok pemiliknya bervariasi mulaidari desa, marga, klan sampai suku adat(Ruddle, Hviding and Johannes 1992). Hakdan akses untuk memanfaatkan sumber dayatersebut bervariasi tergantung status sosialseseorang di masyarakat dan posisinya dalammenentukan dan mengarahkan kegiatanekploitasi sumber daya tersebut (Adhuri1998).

Sasi dan PBM lainnya adalah bagianintegral dari adat satu suku tertentu. Hukumadat tersebut digunakan untuk mengaturkehidupan bermasyarakat dan sekaliguspemanfaatan sumber daya disekitarnya(Adhuri 1998). Biasanya sasi, ondoafi dansejenisnya berada dalam satu pulau kecil,atau desa atau dusun2 (White et al. 1994).Sasi di Kabupaten Maluku Tengah,diterapkan di desa-desa pulau-pulau Leaseseperti desa Noloth, Ameth dan sebagainya.Masing-masing sasi ini berbeda-beda,tergantung karakteristik klan, atau suku yangmendominasi desa tersebut. Ada sasi adat,

2 Pengertian desa dan dusun diatur dalam UU no.5/1979, tentang Pemerintahan Desa

10

ada sasi dari gereja bagi penduduk yangumumnya beragama Kristen, dan ada sasi dimasyarakat yang umumnya beragama Islam.

Salah satu sasi yang diterapkan diMaluku Tengah beberapa waktu yang lalu,telah menunjukkan keberhasilan dalammelestarikan tanaman kelapa, ikan jenistertentu, lola (trochus niloticus) dan teripangsampai tahun 1974 (White et al. 1994).Kesuksesan pengelolaan ini karenamasyarakat pesisir tersebut memiliki hakuntuk mengelola sumber daya darat dan lautsecara tidak terpisahkan. Pemimpinmasyarakat desa ini menetapkan batastersebut sampai sejauh mata memandangatau batas tubir laut. Batas ini biasanyaditandai batas-batas yang kelihatan secarafisik, pertemuan antara laut dalam denganlaut dangkal yang ditandai dengan riak-riakombak, atau antara terumbu tepi dengandrop-off. Wilayah pengelolan ini disebutsebagai petuanan laut yang lebarnya bisasampai beberapa mil dari titik pasang surutterrendah. Wilayah petuanan ini dimonitoroleh kewang (kepala adat, asistennya danpenduduk desa) jadi konsep pemilikankomunal (commons) yang diterapkan melaluisasi dapat diarahkan untuk mengoptimalkansumber daya darat dan kelautan melaluikoordinasi secara kolektif di muara sungaiataupun teluk untuk melestarikan ikantertentu, lola, ataupun teripang. Pelaksanaanini bisa sukses karena norma-norma sosialdan hukum adat secara konsisten diterapkansehingga penegakan hukumnya dapatdilaksanakan secara efektif. Eksploitasiberlebihan dari sumber daya yang di 'sasi'akan mendapat sanksi yang tegas dari adatseperti denda atau diusir dari desa.

Akan tetapi meningkatnyapermintaan pasar makanan laut (sea food)dan kebutuhan akan lola dan teripang yangberbarengan dengan munculnya keinginanmasyarakat desa untuk meningkatkan tarafhidupnya serta membeli barang-barangkeperluan rumah tangga mendorongkelompok masyarakat tersebut untukmeningkatkan laju eksploitasinya (Zerner,1994). Interval waktu pemberlakuan sasiyang satu dengan yang lain semakin pendek,sehingga mengurangi kesempatan ikan, lola,

dan teripang berkembang biak dengan baik,dan lama kelamaan populasinya mengalamipenurunan.

Laju kerusakan sumber daya kelautanini semakin meningkat setelah pihak adatmenyewakan (leasing) wilayah penangkapanikan-ikan karang dan laut dangkal kepadanelayan-nelayan komersial dari negara-negara tertentu seperti Taiwan. Kewangmenyewakan wilayah tangkapan ikan merekauntuk mendapatkan dana membangun tempatibadah, prasarana desa dan kebutuhankelompok lainnya. Sementara nelayankomersial menggunakan teknologi yanglebih canggih untuk mengeksploitasi ikan-ikan yang ada di wilayah tersebut, sehinggalaju pemanfaatannya semakin intensif.

Pengalaman pengelolaan berbasismasyarakat tersebut di atas memberikangambaran bahwa sumber daya yang bersifatkomunal (commons) dapat dikelola secaralestari. Namun tekanan ekonomi, adanyapermainan uang dan kolusi, serta masalah-masalah supra struktural sering melemahkankinerja pengelolaan tersebut dan penegakanhukum tidak lagi dapat dilaksanakan secaraefektif (Zerner 1994, Supit 1994). Oakerson(1992) menyatakan bahwa salah satu kuncidari pelestarian milik komunal ini adalahpenetapan laju pemanfaatan setiap individuuntuk memanen atau memanfaatkan SDKpada batas-batas yang lestari. Tetapi bilafaktor-faktor eksternal mempengaruhitingkat laju pamanfaatan yang disepakati inidiabaikan, maka sumber dayanya akanmengalami degradasi. Kepala adat tidak lagimempunyai otoritas yang kuat mengontrolpemanfaatan SDK, karena penyewamengeksploitasi SDK sesuai dengankepentingannya. Teknologi yang digunakanturut mempercepat laju pemanfaatan SDKitu, sehingga tidak tersedia waktu untukmelakukan regenerasi kembali.

Di Sulawesi Utara penduduk aslisetempat beranggapan bahwa merekamempunyai hak atas sumber daya darat danlaut di desa mereka (Mantjoro 1997).Ekosistem mangrove, terumbu karang,padang lamun yang terdapat di sekitar desamereka dianggap milik masyarakat danmereka menjaganya dari upaya pihak lain

11

menebang mangrove, membom ekosistemterumbu karang, serta menggunakan perairanuntuk budidaya rumput laut seperti yangterdapat di desa Bentenan dan Tumbak.Secara defacto masyarakat desa menganggapSDK di sekitar desa mereka adalah milikkomunal sehingga mereka terpanggil untukmelestarikan sumber dayanya.

PEMILIKAN SUMBERDAYA DANKONFLIK DI SULAWESI UTARA

Pemilikan dan penguasaan sumberdaya di Sulawesi Utara menunjukkan bahwatipe pemilikan sumber daya pada umumnyaadalah tipe milik pemerintah, milik komunal,milik quasi-pribadi. Perbedaan persepsi daritipe pemilikan dan penguasaan sumber dayatersebut memberikan kontribusi terhadapkerancuan pemilikan dan kewenangan, dandapat menimbulkan konflik. Konflik dapatmuncul dari beberapa sebab, namun faktoryang cukup dominan adalah kerancuan tipepemilikan sumber daya dan kerancuankewenangan. Artinya kerancuan pemilikanmenyebabkan tidak jelasnya siapa yangberhak untuk memanfaatkan satu sumberdaya dan berakibat timbulnya pertikaianantara pihak-pihak yang berbeda persepsi didalam menetapkan siapa yang berhakmemiliki SDK. Oleh sebab itu tipe dankonsep pemilikan yang berasosiasi denganpemilikan SDK dapat memberikan suaturangka kerja yang berguna untukmenganalisis kewenangan yang rancu dankonflik yang berkembang dalam pengelolaanSDK.

Ada dua tipe konflik, yaitu: konflikpemanfaatan dan konflik kewenangan(Crawford pers. comm. 1998). Konflikpemanfaatan timbul karena beberapapengguna sumber daya berkompetisi untukmenggunakan sumber daya yang sama dalamruang laut yang sama, dan menerapkankegiatan-kegiatan yang memanfaatkansumber daya tersebut yang tidak sesuai satudengan yang lain (Dahuri et al. 1996).Sebagai contoh, di Taman Nasional Bunakenkonflik pemanfaatan muncul antara turis dannelayan melawan para pencinta lingkungan;

dan antara pengguna jet ski atau perahucatamaran, melawan orang-orang yangmelakukan snorkeling atau scuba diving(Dutton pers. comm.1998). Konflikpemanfaatan berkembang didaerah reklamasidesa Malalayang - Manado antara nelayantradisional dan pengembang; dan antarapengembang dan pemilik tanah yangmenghadap ke laut (Manado Post,20.09.1997). Para nelayan tepi yang tidakpunya keterampilan lain kehilangan tempatuntuk menangkap ikan, karena tempatnyatelah direklamasi dan ikan-ikan pelagis tepiini menjauh dari dinding bangunan reklamasi(Alfred pers. comm. 1998). Sekarang paranelayan tepi harus mencari ikan lebih jauhdari desanya, sehingga mebutuhkan mesinperahu yang lebih baik. Para nelayan yangmenggunakan perahu katengteng merasasusah untuk menemukan tempat penambatanperahunya, karena pantainya sudah di beton(Katril pers. comm. 1998).

Di Talise, pengusaha budidayamutiara mengembangkan usahanya secaraekstensif di wilayah penangkapan ikantradisional, dan memaksa para nelayantradisional keluar dari perairan tersebut. Jikamereka masuk ke perairan dekat budidayamutiara sering konflik atau dipukul penjagaareal budidaya (Malik pers. comm. 1998).Para nelayan Talise harus berlayar jauh,sehingga tenaga mereka terkuras banyak danwaktu mereka habis di perjalanan. Untukmengkompensasi kehilangan waktu dantenaga tersebut, maka mereka menggunakabom atau racun sianida agar hasilnya bisabanyak dalam waktu relatif singkat (Malikpers. comm. 1998). Akibat konflik tersebut,para nelayan membiarkan ekosistemmangrove disekitar desa ditebangi pendudukatau pengelola budidaya mutiara, karenamereka sudah kehilangan rasa memiliki dantidak ada insentif bagi nelayan Talise untukmelestarikan ekosistem mangrove.

Kompetisi diantara developer yangbersaing mendapatkan izin, mempengaruhinelayan yang merasa dirugikan dan pemudaputus sekolah untuk berdemonstrasi keDPRD atau Pemda Kodya Manado memintaagar pembangunan reklamasi distop (SuaraPembaruan 10.11.97). Selain itu, beberapa

12

pemilik tanah yang menghadap ke lautlangsung mengajukan keberatan terhadapreklamasi tersebut. Sebagai pemilik tanahpesisir, mereka merasa memiliki hak untukmenikmati jasa lingkungan laut dankeindahannya dan akses langsung keperairan. Mereka berpersepsi bahwakeindahan laut dan sumber daya perairannyaadalah milik komunal. Tetapi setelahinvestor lain mendapat izin untukmereklamasinya dan membangun hotel,maka pemilik tanah tersebut merasakehilangan sebagian haknya, terlebih bilahotel yang dibangun menghalangi pandanganmereka ke arah laut langsung (Lalamentikpers. comm. 1998)

Di selat Lembeh, nelayan Taiwanyang bekerjasama dengan yayasan tertentu,menyewa perairan tempat penangkapan ikannelayan tradisional, dan memasang jala netraksasa berukuran 300 x 500 m di mulutSelat Lembe (Suara Pembaruan 29.05.97).Menurut Rossiter (1997) antara tanggal 27Maret 1996 sampai 12 Februari 1997,perusahaan penangkapann ikan Taiwandiperkirakan menangkap 1.429 ikan paribesar, 18 hiu whale, 312 hiu lain, 4 ikan pausminke, 577 paus pilot, 326 lumba-lumba,789 marlin, 84 penyu, dan 9 dugong. Merekamengambil ikan-ikan yang terperangkap kedalam net dan membantai ikan dan binatanglaut yang langka seperti tersebut diatas(Matindas pers. comm. 1998). Akibatnyanelayan tradisional sekitar Selat Lembe, dannelayan komersial dari Sulawesi Utara,menangkap ikan dengan jumlah yang terusmenerus menurun. Nelayan lokal baiktradisional maupun komersial tidak mampubersaing dengan nelayan asing berteknologitinggi dan berkolusi dengan kelompokpenguasa tertentu (Dako pers. comm. 1998).Konflik semakin mencuat setelah adanyatekanan internasional dari Cetacean SocietyInternasional, kemudian Menteri NegaraLingkungan Hidup dengan beberapa orangyang menaruh perhatian terhadap kelestarianSelat Lembe, menyetop penangkapan denganperangkap net raksasa tersebut danmengajukan perusahaan tersebut kepengadilan (Matindas pers. comm. 1998).

Dari kejadian tersebut, terdapatkerancuan pemilikan dan hak pemanfaatan,serta kerancuan kewenangan. Secara defacto,para nelayan dan masyarakat di sekitar SelatLembe merasa memiliki dan berhakmemanfaatkan sumber daya perikanantersebut secara turun temurun, masyarakatCetacean Internasional merasa binatang lautlangka perlu dilindungi, tetapi pemerintahmelalui Ditjen Perikanan merasa sebagaipemilik sumber daya ikannya dan berhakmemberikan izin kepada pihak investoruntuk mengeksploitasi ikannya. Kewenanganini menjadi rancu setelah pihak penguasa danpengusaha berkolusi, sehingga instansi yangberwewenang tidak dapat mengontrol izinyang dikeluarkan (Matindas pers. comm.1998).

KESIMPULAN

Konflik kewenangan berkembangkarena adanya kerancuan pemilikan dan hakpenguasaan SDK, serta kerancuankewenangan diantara beberapa instansi yangmempunyai hak mengeluarkan izin. Sampaisaat ini penetapan pemilikan dan penguasaanSDK belum ditata dengan baik, apakah milikmasyarakat (commons), tanpa pemilik (openaccess), milik pemerintah atau quasi-swasta.Kerancuan dalam pemilikan ini berimplikasisiapa yang berwewenang mengelolanya danmemberi izin pembangunannya. Seringpemilikan dan hak pemanfaatan ini dikaitkandengan pemilikan lahan pesisir. Masyarakatdi pesisir mempunyai persepsi yang berbedadengan pemerintah, pemilik lahanmenganggap mereka yang berhakmemanfaatkan SDK didepan lahan mereka.Selama pemanfaatan tersebut tidakmenimbulkan nilai ekonomi yang relatifbesar, instansi yang berwewenang kurangtertarik mencampuri urusan absah tidaknyapemilikan tersebut. Tetapi bila nilai ekonomipemanfaatan SDK relatif besar, makaberbagai pihak mengklaim bahwa merekayang berhak menatanya. Ironisnya, bilasumber daya tersebut mengalami degradasi,banyak masyarakat dan pemerintah daerahyang dituding sebagai pihak-pihak yangbertanggung jawab. Dari kasus-kasus konflik

13

diatas, belum ada instansi yangberwewenang secara resmi menyatakanbertanggung jawab dan ikut menyelesaikankonfliknya.

Hak dan kewenangan diantarainstansi pemerintah dalam mengelola SDKditingkat pusat masih tumpang tindih,sebaliknya hak dan kewenangan pemerintahdaerah belum jelas (Dahuri et al. 1996).Banyak kegiatan pembangunan di wilayahpesisir yang membutuhkan izin berbelit-belit.Izin prinsip pembangunan reklamasi pantaidikeluarkan Walikota, Amdalpembangunannya harus disetujui BAPEDALPusat. Di dalam kawasan reklamasi tersebutterdapat pembangunan yang membutuhkanlisensi atau izin dari instansi pusat, sepertipembangunan dermaga atau jetty, hotelberbintang dan pembangunan lainnya.Sehingga investor menghabiskan waktu yangrelatif lama untuk memproses izinpembangunan di wilayah pesisir. Untukmemotong jalur birokrasi tersebut, makatimbullah praktek kolusi dan biaya sosialyang besar yang mengundang berbagai pihakmerasa perlu mendapatkannya. Praktekkolusi dan ketidak transparananan proses izinmelemahkan penegakan hukum, sehinggaaturan-aturan pengelolaan yang telahditetapkan tidak dilaksanakan secara benar.

Kewenangan sering diinterpretasikansecara berbeda-beda tergantung kemampuanpihak yang berkepentingan menjustifikasinya(Dutton pers. comm. 1998). Justifikasitersebut didasarkan dari berbagai peraturanperundang-undangan yang mendukung tugaspokok dan fungsi instansinya. Ironisnyaundang-undang dan peraturan pendukungnyasering tumpang tindih, atau mempunyaicelah-celah yang bisa diinterpretasikansecara berbeda-beda. Penerapan interpretasiini, tanpa ada koordinasi, transparansi dansosialisasi terhadap berbagai pihak terkaitakan menimbulkan konflik kewenangan,seperti yang terjadi di TNL Bunaken.

Kerancuan dalam penetapanpemilikan dan penguasaan sumber daya akanmendorong timbulnya konflik pemanfaatandan konflik kewenangan. Kedua konflik iniakan mengurangi rasa memiliki(stewardship) pihak-pihak yang bertikai dan

mereka akan mengabaikan kelestarian SDKyang dimanfaatkan. Pihak lain akanmengeksploitasi SDK sesukanya, tidak adalagi insentif bagi mereka untukmelestarikannya. Implikasinya, SDK sepertimangrove, terumbu karang dan ikan, akanmengalami degradasi sampai pada tingkatyang mengkhawatirkan.

Oleh sebab itu dalam pengelolaanSDK di wilayah pesisir, pihak yang terkaitdan pemerintah daerah dan pusat perlumemetakan siapa yang berhak memiliki danmemanfaatan sumber daya kelautannya sertasejauhmana hak pengelolaan tersebut dapatdilimpahkan ke pihak swasta yang akanmengelolanya. Pemetaan dan penetapanpemilikan dan penguasaan SDK merupakansalah satu kunci dalam pengelolaan wilayahpesisir.

DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Adhuri, D.S. 1998. Who can challengethem? lesson learned from attemptingto curb cyanide fishing in Maluku,Indonesia. Life Reef Fish InformationBulletin No. 4 pp. 12-17.

Alfred, 1998. Personal Communication. 27Juli 1998, 06.00 – 06.20 pm in DesaMalalayang, Manado.

Berkes, F. 1994. Property rights and coastalfisheries, p. 51-62. In Pomeroy, R.S.(ed.) Community Management andCommon Property of CoastalFisheries in Asia and The Pasific:concepts, methods and exeriences.ICLARM Conf. Proc. 45, 189 p.

Bromley D.W. and Cernea M.M. 1989. TheManagement of Common PropertyNatural Resources: some conceptualand operational fallacies. The WorldBank, Washington, D.C.

BPHN. 1995. Pokok-Pokok Pikiran TentangPengaturan Pengelolaan SumberDaya Alam di Wilayah Pantai. BadanPembinaan Hukum Nasional,Departemen Kehakiman, Jakarta.

14

Clark, J.R.1996.Coastal Zone ManagementHandbook. Lewis Publishers, BocaRaton, FL.

Crawford, B. 1998. PersonalCommunication. 13 January 1998,07.00 – 08.00 am in Novotel,Manado – North Sulawesi.

Dahuri, R., Rais, J., Ginting, S.P., andSitepu. M.J. 1996. PengelolaanSumber Daya Pesisir dan LautanSecara Terpadu (Integrated Coastaland Marine Resource Management).PT. Paradnya Paramita, Jakarta.

Dako, R. 1998. Personal Communication. 27Juli 1998, 11.00 – 12.00 am in DesaMalalayang, Manado.

Djalal, D.P. 1996. The Geopolitics ofIndonesia's Maritime TerritorialPolicy. Centre For Strategic AndInternational Studies, Jakarta.

Dutton, I.M. 1998. Personal Communication.13 January 1998, 07.00 – 08.00 pm inNovotel, Manado – North Sulawesi.

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of commons.Science (Vol. 166), p. 1243-1248.USA

Hinrichsen, D. 1997. Coasts in Crisis. InM.C. Miller and J. Cogan, (eds)Coastal Zone 97 (Vol. 1), Boston,MA, proceeding of the Tenth CoastalZone Conference, Boston, July 19-25.

Katril, 1998. Personal Communication. 27Juli 1998, 05.00 – 05.30 pm in DesaMalalayang, Manado.

Lalamentik, L. 1998. PersonalCommunication. 9 January 1998,08.30 – 09.30 am, in Wisata Hotel –Jakarta.

Malik, R. 1998. Personal Communication. 13March 1998, 03.00 – 03.30 pm inNRM Secretariat Jakarta.

Manado Post, 1997. Warga di lokasireklamasi resah; pantai ditimbun,nelayan takut kehilangan tempatparkir perahu. Manado Post Daily20.09.97, Manado – North Sulawesi.

Mantjoro, E. 1997. An Ecological andHuman History of Bentenan andTumbak Villages. Coastal ResourceManagement Project - Indonesia,Manado.

Matindas, R.W. 1998. PersonalCommunication. 13 January 1998,01.00 – 03.00 pm in KungkunganBay Resort, Bitung - North Sulawesi.

McKean, M.A. 1992. Success on commons:a comparative examination ofinstitutions for common propertyresource management. Journal ofTheoretical Politics, 4(3):247-281.

Oakerson, R.J. 1992. Analyzing thecommons: a framework. In Bromley,D.W., general editor; coeditorsFeeny, D… et al. "Making TheCommons Work: Theory, Practice",and policy. Institute forContemporary Studies Press, SanFrancisco, C.A.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons :the evolution of institutions forcollective action. CambrigdeUniversity Press, New York.

Ostrom, E. 1992. The rudiment of the theoryof the origins, survival, andperformance of common propertyinstitutions. In Bromley, D.W.,general editor; coeditors Feeny, D…et al. "Making The Commons Work:Theory, Practice", and policy.Institute for Contemporary StudiesPress, San Francisco, C.A.

15

Rossiter, W.W. 1997. Fisheries conservationcrisis in Indonesia: massivedestruction of marine mammals, seaturtles and fish reported from trapnets in pelagic migratory channels.This information is taken frominternet: William Rossiter, PresidentCetacean Society International andSteve Morris.

Ruddle, K., Hviding E., and Johannes R.E.1992. Marine resource managementin the context of customary tenure.Marine Resource Economics, (7), pp.249-273.

Sharp, N. 1998. Terrestrial and Marine Spacein Imagination and Social Life.ARENA Journal, 10, 51-68.

Suara Pembaharuan. 1997. Pembantaianbiota laut langka di selat Lembehmemprihatinkan, in Suara

Pembaharuan Daily, 29 May 1997,Jakarta.

Supit, S.A. 1998. Personal Communication.16 January 1998, 06.30 – 07.30 pm inBentenan Beach Resort, NorthSulawesi.

White, A.L. Hale, L.Z. Renard, Y. andCortesi, L. 1994. Collaborative andCommunity Based Management ofCoral Reef: lessons from experience.Kumarian Press, Inc., West Hartford,Connecticut.

Zerner, C. 1994. Tracking Sasi. Thetransformation of a central moluccanreef management institution inIndonesia. In White, A.L. Hale, L.Z.Renard, Y. and Cortesi, L.Collaborative and Community BasedManagement of Coral Reef: lessonsfrom experience. Kumarian Press,Inc., West Hartford, Connecticut.

72

Condition of Coral Reef...... (hal 72-60)

INTRODUCTION

Indonesia is the world’s largest archipelago,comprising of more than 17,000 individual islandswith 80,791 km of coastlines. Approximately two

ABSTRACT

CONDITION OF CORAL REEFRESOURCES IN INDONESIA

SUHARSONO Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Oseanologi LIPI,

Jakarta, Indonesia

The Indonesian archipelago is one of the global centers of species diversity of hard corals and many groups of reefassociated flora and fauna. Assessment of the present status of coral reef in Indonesia using life form method and basedon the percentage of living coral cover showed that out of 421 stations located in 43 different areas, 6.41 % of the reefareas were in excellent condition, 24.23 % in good condition, 29.22 % in fair condition and 40.14% in poor condition. .Within Sulawesi, Maluku and Nusatenggara Island are the most extensive reef development as well as highest coralspecies diversity which occur in a vast and geologically diverse area. Generally coral reefs in Indonesia are dominated byAcropora spp., Montipora spp., and Porites spp., at shallow water whereas in the greater depth coral growths are dominatedby Echinopora spp., Mycedium spp., Oxypora spp. and Turbinaria spp.. The major causes of coral reef degradation inIndonesia are bleaching events and human activity. The human activities take the form of over exploitation, physicaldamage and death due to marine pollution. Destructive fishing techniques are often practised including blasting and useof poisonous chemicals such as cyanide. Coral reef ecosystems adjacent to rapidly growing cities such as Jakarta, UjungPandang, Ambon and Manado have collapsed or deteriorated drastically due to pollutants.

Key word : Coral reefs distribution, status, degradation.

ABSTRAK

Kepulauan Indonesia merupakan salah satu pusat keanekaragaman jenis karang dan beberapa jenis biota lain yangberasosiasi dengan terumbu karang. Di sekitar Sulawesi, Maluku dan Nusatenggara karang tumbuh dan berkembangsangat baik dan mencapai keanekaragaman yang tertinggi. Secara umum karang di daerah dangkal didominasi olehAcropora spp., Mantipora spp., dan Porites spp., sedangkan di daerah yang lebih dalam didominasi oleh Echinophoraspp., Mycedium spp., Oxyopora spp., dan Turbinaria spp.. Penyebab kerusakan karang yang utama di Indonesia adalahbleaching dan aktivitas manusia. Kegiatan manusia yang dapat menyebabkan kerusakan karang adalah tangkap lebih,pencemaran. Kerusakan akibat penggunaan bom dan cyanida yang sampai saat ini masih tetap berlangsung. Sedangkanterumbu karang yang berada dekat dengan kota besar seperti Jakarta, Ujung Pandang, Ambon dan Manado telah rusakberat akibat menurunnya kualitas perairan.

Keyword: Distribusi terumbu karang, status, degradasi

thirds of the Indonesian coastline are protectedby coral reefs and all reef types are present inIndonesia. Fringing reefs are the commonestthroughout Indonesian seas. These reefs supporthigh degree of marine biodiversity such as fish,

73


crustaceans, echinoderms, algae and sponges(UNEP/IUCN 1988).

Indonesia is considered one of the center ofcoral reef distribution in the Indo-Pacific andenjoys the highest coral species richness in theworld (Veron, 1995). Coral reefs are sources offood product and nonfood items. Non food itemsinclude building materials, raw materials forindustry, pharmaceutical products or bioactivesubstances. Being the most diverse ecosystem witha variety of colours and shapes, coral reefs providea rare beauty, unmatched for recreational,educational and research purposes. Several millionvillagers in coastal areas depend upon coral reeffish for their livelihood as well as for their mainsource of animal protein.Recently coral reefs havebecome subject to commercial exploitation viatourism.

Over the past 10-15 years progressivedegradation of the reefs in several areas has beenrecognized. Many of the reefs have less living coralcover and smaller fish than they did before as aresult of combined human and natural factors(Tomascik et al. 1993). Natural disturbances, suchas the bleaching event in 1983 caused massmortality of coral species (Brown and Suharsono1990). In that year devastating bleachingassociated with higher than normal temperatureoccurred throughout the islands of Lombok, Bali,Karimun Jawa, and Kepulauan Seribu, and SundaStrait, causing large scale mortality of coral reefs.

Several reefs are under intensive indirect usethrough a wide range of human activities. It hasbeen pointed out that a decrease of about 40-70% of world reefs may occur in the next 10-40years (Wilkinson, 1992). This report aims todescribe the condition of Indnesia’s coral reefs andto identify the major human activities that mayaffect coral reefs. The last section addressesactions that have been taken by the governmentto protect coral reefs.

METHODSThis studieson which this report is based several

means of data collection including field observation,personal interviews and document analysis. The linetransect method was used to assess the condition ofcoral reefs in 43 different areas throughout Indonesianwaters (Figure 1). A measuring tape was placedacross the reef and any coral colony underlying theline transect was recorded and the projected lengthof living coral and other organism on the tape wasmeasured to the nearest centimeter. Two depth rangeswere sampled; the upper reef slope (3 m depth) andmiddle reef slope (10 m depth). At each depth a setof 3 replicates 50 m long positioned parallel to theshoreline were surveyed. Assessment was donethrough SCUBA diving, and the data were recordedon waterproof data sheets. Sessile benthos underlyingthe line transect were classified into 27 categories atthe level of lifeform (DeVantier 1986, English et al.1994). The field data were entered into a dBaseprogram for storage, checking and analysis.

Several interviews were conducted withfishermen who are familiar with particular coralreef uses (e.g. bomb and cyanide fishing). Theseinterview assessed their impresssions of reefcondition, how these conditions have changedover time and the major impacts on reefs.Documents analyzed included government andnon-governments organization reports, especiallyabout reef resource use patterns and reefmanagement.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONWetern Indonesia Reefs

The coastal environment of West Sumateraconsists of a chain of islands and shallow waterreef, separated from the mainland of Sumatera bydeep water. It extends from Simuelue Island inthe north to the Enggano Islands in the south east.The eastern side of those islands are, in someplaces, covered by mangrove. Some coral speciessuch as Porites spp. and Goniastrea can often be

74


found adjacent to Rhizophora roots. Further seawardmore corals appear and among the most abundantare massive Porites which can form microatolls. Theyare mostly dominated by coral boulder of Porites andbig column of Goniastrea. The reef flats are verywide and they slope gently down to 5-10 m depth.The soft bottom substrate coral communities aredominated by various species of Acropora,Seriatopora sp. and Pocillopora. From the depth of5-10 m a steep reef slope goes down to more than100 m depth. Coral reef communities are dominatedby Acropora spp. and Montipora spp.

There are two chains of small islands runningparallel to the east coast of Sumatera at a distanceof about 10 and 30 km respectively. The inshorechain is situated on the continental shelf with deptharound 50-80 m while the outer chain is in 200 misobath right on the continental slope. The reefflats are relatively narrow and gently sloping downto 10 m depth. On the western side of the islandspurs and groves are well developed. The easternside of these islands are relatively protected fromstrong wave actions. On the western side, the coralcommunities are dominated by Acropora formosagroup and Montipora while in the eastern side theyare dominated by massive corals such as Poritesspp., and Diploastrea. A steep reef slope is foundin the 10-40 m depth with octocoral and gorgonianbeing the most common, some reaching as largeas 3 m. The coral reefs communities are subject toheavy sedimentation from rivers in Sumatera.Some 49 genera were found from this study areawhose condition ranges from good to poor.

Reefs are poorly developed on the northern partof the east coast of Sumatera but are widespreadaround the offshore island to the south of RiauKepulauan as far as the islands of Bangka andBelitung. Mangroves are well developed on theinshore and offshore islands due to many largerivers which flow into the sea bringing highsediment and decreasing the salinity. The reef flatsin the offshore island are relatively narrow, terminatingat their seaward edge in shallow reef slopes down toapproximately 5-7 m. Coral reef communities are well

developed at the upper reef slope down to 7 meterdepth. Coral growths are dominated by branchingcoral Acropora, Echinopora and massive coral suchas Favites and Favia in which the larger size is up to1-2 m.

The fringing reefs along the south coasts ofJava develop only in certain areas such as PanaitanIsland, Pangandaran, Pangumbahan, andParangtritis. The most extensive reefdevelopments on East Java occur along the coastof Grajagan, Watu Ulo to Blambangan Peninsula.Coral reefs in this area are subject to high-energywaves and are dominated by digitate Acroporasuch as Acropora degitifera and Acropora humilis.The north coast of Java by contrast is lacking offringing reef except in Banten Bay and Jepara Bay.Millions of tons of sediments are deposited alongthe north coast of Java every year. Coral reefs aredeveloped well on the offshore islands in the JavaSea such as the islands of Karimunjawa, Bawean,Kangean and Kepulauan Seribu. Coral reefstructures on the offshore islands north of Javaare patch reefs or fringing reefs which slope downgradually to the depth of 15-20 m. The reef flatof the subtidal patch reefs are dominated bybranching corals in the windward side while inthe leeward sides Porites nigrescens is thecommonest species. The reef slope has mainlyencrusting and foliaceous corals such asMycedium, Echinophylia, Oxypora andPachyseris. A total of 56 genera containing 193species have been recorded in the KepulauanSeribu (Moll and Suharsono 1986).

No study has been carried out around west andsouthern Kalimantan so far. In these areasmangroves are well developed. Many large riversflow into the sea. Almost all of the east coasts ofKalimantan are covered by pristine mangroveswamps, followed by seagrass beds and thenfringing reefs. Fringing reef are well developedalong offshore islands at a distance of about 20-40 km from the mainland. Porites spp. and largefoliaceous species Montipora spp. and Turbinaria spp.

75


are the most dominant scleractinian corals in theseareas.

Nusatenggara is situated on the border of IndianOcean and Banda Sea. It consists of severalthousand of islands, stretching east to west, withcoastlines dominated by rugged, rocky shoressloping relatively steeply into the sea. Reef flatsare mostly narrow, with the slope varying fromgently to steep down to 30-50 m. The southerncoasts are exposed to oceanic swell throughoutthe year and the corals here are dominated byencrusting or low branching species such asSeriatopora sp., Stylopora sp. and Acroporahumilis. In some places there are relativelysheltered bays with mangrove. There are severalplaces with very strong tidal currents, flowingthrough the straits. Coral development is greatestin the west and north coast of the islands. Reefformations in Nusatenggara reach approximately30 m depth and coral species are very diversereaching their maximum richness. The underwatertopography of Nusatenggara is very rugged andknown as refuge areas for coral species (Best etal., 1989). A total of 225 coral species belongingto 61 genera were recorded. Coral species aremostly dominated by branching Acropora spp.,Seriatopora sp.. In sheltered areas large stand ofEchinopora spp. and Montipora spp. are found.

Oceanic reefs such as Takabonerate, LuciparaIslands and Tukang Besi Island are found in theBanda Sea. These rise from great depths and areremote from major influences of continentalprocesses such as land runoff, siltation, turbidityetc. Lucipara Island has the widest reef flat andthe greatest reef development. The reef contains avariety of habitats related to different degrees ofexposure to prevailing winds, waves and currents.The sheltered areas or lagoon are dominated byAnacropora sp., Acropora spp., and Galaxeafascicularis. In the more exposed areas thedominant species are Favia speciosa, Montiporaverrucosa, and Platygyra daedalea. A total of 198coral species belonging to 68 genera were recordedin Takabonerate (Best et al. 1989).

The seas surrounding Sulawesi Island are the mainreef areas in Indonesia and well known as the globalcenter of coral species diversity. The coastline ofSulawesi is bordered by an almost continuous fringingreefs. The deep seas surrounding Sulawesi generallyremain extremely clear and favour reef development. Coral communities are typically diverse and mixed.Four major reef types can be found in Sulawesiwaters: barrier reefs, fringing reefs, patch reefs andatolls. Takabonerate is the largest atoll in Indonesiaand the third largest in the world.

3. Eastern Indonesia ReefsMaluku has numerous large and small

volcanic islands. Generally these islands aresituated within zones of high tectonic activity andearthquakes. Maluku is surrounded by deep seasand is located between Sunda shelf in the westand Sahul shelf in the east. Several volcanic islandswith fringing reefs are found in Banda andHalmahera. The coastlines are usually rugged withnarrow and steep beaches. Reef flats are narrowand gently sloping down seaward to about 2-5meter depth, followed by a drop down at an angleof 80-90o to a depth greater than 100 m orsometimes down to where the ocean floor can notbe seen. The shallow subtidal reef flats aredominated by acroporoid assemblages orMillepora, while vertical walls are densely coveredby massive and encrusting corals, soft corals andgorgonians.

The southern coast of Irian Jaya is continuouslycovered by mangrove. These rivers cause highsedimentation and salinity fluctuations. Reefs hereare poorly developed. Irian Jaya coral reefs aremost developed in Teluk Cendrawasih, PadaidoIsland, Auri Island, Mapia Island and Raja AmpatIsland. Many reefs in Irian Jaya have not beensurveyed but are thought to be in good to excellentconditions. Coral reefs in Teluk Cendrawasih arestill in good condition and have achieved theirhighest development and diversity here. Generallyoffshore islands have narrow fringing reefs with steepreef slope down to great depths (200 m).

76


There are four major types of island and reefsystem in Indonesia: 1) fringing reefs, 2) barrierreefs, 3) atoll and 4) patch reefs. Each reef hasmany derivates. Indonesia has at least 76 barrierreefs, 55 atolls, 40 patch reefs, and total reefs areais estimated at more than 85.707 km2 (Tomasciket al. 1997). Coral cover and generic richness havebeen measured and counted at several locationsthroughout Indonesia (Table 1). We use live coralcover as an indicator for coral reef health. Althoughsome people question the assertion that high coralcover (more than 50 %) is an indication of a healthycoral reef and low coral cover (less than 50%)being an indication of unhealthy reefs, one thing issurely clear, coral growth depends upon wherethe reef is located. Coral cover can definitely beused as an indicator for the coral reefs adjacent tohuman settlement. In remote areas lower coralcover is not necessarily indicative of unhealthyreefs. For example, most areas that are exposedto strong and small wave action like those in thesouth of Java and Nusatenggara Islands, and someareas which have windward facing reef margins,such as ridges spur and groove, show reducedcoral cover and high coralline algae cover or softcoral cover. In western Indonesia, coral reefsare subject to greater anthropogenic impactcompared with those in the central and easternIndonesia. For example 70 % of coral reefs in theKepulauan Seribu near Jakarta, are in poorcondition (Table 1). 1) In this case percent age ofcoral cover can be used as indicator of reef health. A total of 421 stations from 43 different locationsof reefs throughout Indonesia have been surveyed.The results showed that 40 % of the reefs were inpoor condition while 7 % are in excellentcondition. The clear water of the central andeastern part of Indonesian seas permits corals todevelop to a depth of more than 30 m. In thewestern Indonesia, in contrast, coral growth islimited to an average depth of no more than 20 m.Shallow water coral reefs in Indonesia are dominatedby Acropora spp., Montipora spp. and Porites spp..In greater depth coral growth is dominated by

Echinopora sp., Mycedium sp., Oxypora sp. andTurbinaria sp. This difference in coral domination canbe related to the degree of exposure to watermovement. Certain species function as indicators foreither sheltered or more exposed biotopes. Forexample Porites sp. survives better in sheltered andturbid water and becomes the dominant genera of aless diverse community. Alternatively Acropora sp.and Montipora sp. flourish in habitats more exposedto water movement and clear water.

The Indonesian archipelago is the center of thegreatest diversity in term of Acropora species, with78 species recorded so far. This is much higherthan the 60 species recorded from the Great BarrierReef (Wallace, 1997). In total approximately 364species of Scleractinian coral belonging to 76genera have been recorded from various localitiesof the Indonesian waters. The high diversity ofcoral fauna of Indonesia is enhanced by a high levelof endemism.

The Major Natural and AnthropogenicDisturbances to coral in Indonesia

Bleaching is a major natural disturbanceaffecting coral reefs in some areas of Indonesia.In 1983 bleaching events were recorded inKarimunjawa Islands, Seribu Islands and SundaStrait. Coral mortality reached 80-90 %, extendingfrom the reef flat down to a depth of 15 m.Oceanographic data collected during the bleachingevent indicated that sea surface temperaturereached 2-3oC above normal during March - June1983 (Brown and Suharsono, 1990). That coralbleaching event and subsequent mass mortality ofScleractinian and other zooxanthellae reeforganisms has been linked to synergistic effect ofincreased temperature, unusually cloud free andcalm weather during that time.

Human impacts, direct and indirect, have beenrecognized as a higher threat than naturaldisturbances. Many stresses on coral reefs fromhuman activity have been well documented such asdredging, siltation, organic pollution, oil pollution,sewage, blast fishing, fish poisoning, anchor damage,

77


construction of infrastructure on reefs and marinetourism (Gomez et al. 1994; Jameson et al. 1995;Hawkin and Roberts 1993; Wilkinson and Ridzwan1994). The major causes of coral reef degradationin Indonesia are blast fishing, sewage, industrialpollution and cyanide fishing. The majority of theIndonesian population are concentrated along thecoast. Rapid economic developments in particularthose closer to major population centers resulted inlarge amounts of sewage and industrial pollutionwhich have caused the decline of many reef areasespecially the reef in front of the growing cities suchas Jakarta, Ambon and Ujung Pandang. Umbgrove(1929) noted that the reef in Nyamuk Besar(Jakarta Bay) was characterized by a prominentMontipora ramosa and M. foliosa facies todaynone of those remains. Recent studies show thatliving coral cover in Jakarta Bay and Ambon Bayranged from 2.5 - 24.01 % respectively.

Muroami fishing and blast fishing are consideredmajor factor contributing to physical damage to thereefs. These fishing techniques cause corals breakand damage the bottom habitat. There are at leasttwo types of fishermen using blast fishing: (1) smallscale fishermen using self constructed bombs madefrom fertilizer in order to catch fishing by blowingup small reef areas at shallow water near by theirhouse; (2) medium scale to large scale bomber usingbig bombs and detonators. They fish in remote areas(about 7-10 day trips), destroying vast areas of reef,from reef slope to about 20 m depth. They also usetire compressors to supply air to divers who collectthe fish.

The demand for reef dwelling grouper andhumpehead wrase has risen dramatically over thepast few years and Indonesia is now the largestsingle industry to supply living reef fish into Asianmarket. It is estimated that more than 50 % of thetotal wild caught living reef fish are currently suppliedto Hong Kong and Singapore (Johannes andRiepen, 1995). Cyanide is a broad spectrum poisoncausing damage to the liver, instentine andreproductive organ of the fish and causing extensivedamage to corals. Blast fishing and cyanide fishing

have caused irreversible damage to many Indonesianreefs. These destructive fishing techniques continue tobe practised throughout Indonesian water (Figure 2).

Management Currently there is no policy coordinating

mechanism that is specifically concerned withIndonesia’s marine resources. Coordination ofdecision making process is required at variouslevels, covering broad strategic policy planning, anddetaile local management planning. Each sectoralagency (ministry) is typically responsible for theformulation of its own policy and subject to havingthe necessary legal basis, may issue its ownimplementation regulations. To some degree, policyformulation is a consensus forming exercise but thefull implications of the actions of one ministry uponall other users are not always apparent.

There are no special management measuresprotecting and conserving the Indonesian coralreefs. Management methods are included in thegeneral marine and coastal resources managementand conservation program which consist of coastalresources planning, fishery and environmentalregulation and development of marine parks andreserves. Coastal zone planning and implementation,including coral reef managemnet, involves a numberof agencies at three government levels. Thisunderscores the complexity of coastal zonemanagement in Indonesia. It is challenging to setaside coastal zone planning in areas where thereare competing development objectives sponsoredby different agencies.

The strategies of the Indonesian government inmarine conservation is to achieve sustainableutilization of Indonesian marine resources and toprotect critical habitats for the sustainability ofcommercially valuable species and for survival of thevulnerable endemics marine species. There are 4 typesof protected area in Indonesia: 1. Strict Marine NatureReserve (7 locations), 2. Marine Wildlife Reserves (7locations), 3. Marine National Park ( 7 locations) and4. Marine Recreational Park (13 locations), coveringa area of 461.9 million ha.

78


Although 34 Marine Conservation areas havebeen established throughout Indonesia, it shouldbe noted that to date many of these conservationareas occur only on paper since there has been nocommitment to staffing and operational fundingso far.

CONCLUSIONIndonesia’s coral reefs are of considerable

global significance. The majority (70%) of thesereefs are in fair to poor condition only; less than 7% are in excellent condition. They are underincreasing direct and indirect use pressure and arebeing constantly degraded by in appropriate andoften unsustanaible use. A comprehensive andmultisectoral approach for their management inneeded.

REFERENCEBest. M.B., B.W. Hoekseuma, W. Moka, H. Moll,

Suharsono and I.N. Sutarna 1989. Recent scleractiniancoral species collected during the Snellius II expeditionin Eastern Indonesia. Net. Jour. Sea Res., 23(2): 107-115.

Brown, B.E. and Suharsono 1990. Damage and recoveryof coral reefs affeted by EL Nino related sea waterwarming in the Thousand Islands. Indonesian coralreefs, 8 : 163-170.

De Vantier, L.M. 1986. Studies in the assessment of coralreef ecosystems. In : Brown, B.E. (ed). Human induceddamage to coral reefs results of a regional UNESCOworkshop with advanced training DiponegoroUniversity and National Institute of Oceanology.Jakarta, 40 : 99-111.

English, S., C.R. Wilkinson and V. Baker, 1994. SurveyManual for Tropical Marine Resources ASEAN-Australia. Marine Science Project Living CoastalResources. AIMS-Townsville.

Gomez, E.D., P.M. Alino, H.T. Yap and W.Y. Licuanan 1994.A review of the status of Philippine reefs. Mar. Poll.Bull. 29 : 62-68.

Hawkins, J.P. and C.M. Roberts 1993. Effect of recreationalSCUBA diving on coral reefs : trampling on reef flatcommunities. J. Appl. Ecol. 30(1) : 25-30.

Jameson, S.C., J.W. McManus and M.D. Spalding 1995.State of the reefs : Regional and global perspectives.International coral reef initiative (ICRI) Secretariatbackground paper. Washington : 32 pp.

Johannes, R.E. and M. Riepen 1995. Environmental,Economic and Social Implications of the live Reef FishTrade in Asia and the wester Pacific, TNC, Hawaii.

Moll, H. and Suharsono 1986. Distribution, diversity andabundance of reef corals in Jakarta Bay and KepulauanSeribu. In : Brown, B.E. (ed). Human induced damagedto coral reefs: Results of Regional UNESCO (COMAR)workshop. UNESCO reports in Marine Science 40 :112-125.

Tomascik, T., Suharsono and A.J.Mah, 1993. CaseHistories : A historical respective of the natural andanthropogenic impacts in the Indonesian Archipelagowith a focus on the Kepulauan Seribu, Java Sea. Proc.Coll. Global aspects of Coral Reefs Univ. Miami, 304-310.

Tomascik, T., A.J.Mah, A. Nontji and M.K. Moosa, 1997.The Ecology of Indonesia Seas. Pariplus Ed.Singapore, Volume 1: 136-144.

Umbgrove, J.H.F. 1929. De koraalriffen der Duizen eilanden(Java zee). The coral reefs of the Thousand Islands(Java Sea). Dienst v.d. mijnbouw in Ned.Ind. Wetensch,Meded. 12 : 1-47.

UNEP and IUCN 1988. Coral Reef of the world. Swistzerlandand cambridge UK and UNEP Nairobi 2.

Veron, J.E.N. 1995. Coral in space and time : thebiogeography and evolution of the scleractinian.UNSW Press, Sydney, Australia.

79


Wallace, C.C. 1997. The Indo-Pacific Centre of coral diversityre-examined at species level. Proc. 8th Int. Coral ReefSymp., Panama, Volume 1: 365-370.

Wilkinson, C.R. 1992. Coral Reef of the world are facingwidespread devastation: can we present this throughsustainable management practices. Proc. 7th Int. CoralReef Symp, Townsville, Volume 1 : 11-21.

Wilkinson, C.R. and A.R. Ridzwan 1994. Causes of coralreef degradation within southeast asia. In : Wilkinson,

C.R. (ed) ASEAN-Australia Symposium on Livingcoastal Resources. AIMS, Townsville, Volume : 18-24.

KEBUTUHAN RISETUNTUK MENDUKUNG IMPLEMENTASI PENGELOLAAN

SUMBERDAYA PESISIR DAN LAUTAN SECARA TERPADU

ROKHMIN DAHURIPusat Kajian Sumberdaya Pesisir dan Lautan (PKSPL)

Institut Pertanian Bogor

ABSTRACToastal zones are the most densely populated regions in the world and also areas where variousdevelopment activities take place. The concentration of human beings and various activities in thisarea is mostly due to three strong economic rationales, i.e., coastal zone is the most productive area

on earth, coastal zone provides accessibility for various activities, and coastal zone is attractive for recreationand tourism. Unfortunately, those rationalities make the area prove to degradation and unsustainableuse/development patterns. In Indonesia such demage is mostly due to the development that is oriented more toeconomic growth without sufficient attentions to coastal ecosystem characteristics, function, and dynamics,whereas in fats marine and coastal zones including all the resources in them is hoped to be the basic pillar forthe national development in the 21st century.

Because of that, basic improvements in coastal resources plans and management are imperative. Thedevelopment paradigm which is oriented only to economic growth need to be replaced with sustainabledevelopment. The approach and practice of coastal zone development management which is implementedsectorally and separately to date can be improved through an integrated management approach. This paperdiscusses then need for a research agenda to support integrated marine and coastal zone management

Key words: marine and coastal zones, marine and coastal resources, sustainable development, research

agenda.

ABSTRAKWilayah pesisir merupakan kawasan yang paling padat dihuni oleh manusia serta tempat

berlangsung berbagai macam kegiatan pembangunan. Konsentrasi kehidupan manusia dan berbagai kegiatanpembangunan di wilayah tersebut disebabkan oleh tiga alasan ekonomi yang kuat, yaitu bahwa wilayahpesisir merupakan kawasan yang paling produktif di bumi, wilayah pesisir menyediakan kemudahan bagiberbagai kegiatan, dan wilayah pesisir memiliki pesona yang menarik bagi obyek pariwisata. Hal-hal tersebutmenyebabkan kawasan pesisir di dunia termasuk Indonesia mengalami tekanan ekologis yang parah dankompleks sehingga menjadi rusak. Di Indonesia kerusakan wilayah ini terutama disebabkan oleh polapembangunan yang terlalu berorientasi pada pertumbuhan ekonomi, tanpa ada perhatian yang memadaiterhadap karakteristik, fungsi, dan dinamika ekosistem. Padahal wilayah pesisir dan lautan beserta segenapsumberdaya alam dan jasa-jasa lingkungan yang terkandung di dalamnya diharapkan akan menjadi tumpuanpembangunan nasional pada abad ke-21.

C

Oleh karana itu diperlukan perbaikan yang mendasar di dalam perencanaan dan pengelolaanpembangunan sumberdaya alam pesisir. Pola pembangunan yang hanya berorientasi pada pertumbuhanekonomi perlu diganti dengan pembangunan berkelanjutan. Pendekatan dan praktek pengelolaanpembangunan wilayah pesisir yang selama ini dilaksanakan secara sektoral dan terpilah-pilah, perludiperbaiki melalui pendekatan pengelolaan secara terpadu. Tulisan ini membahas tentang perlu adanyaagenda penelitian untuk mendukung pengelolaan wilayah pesisir dan lautan secara terpadu.

Kata-kata kunci: wilayah pesisir dan lautan, sumberdaya pesisir dan lautan, pembangunanberkelanjutan, agenda penelitian.

PENDAHULUAN

Wilayah pesisir, daerah peralihanantara ekosistem darat dan lautan,merupakan kawasan di permukaan bumiyang paling padat dihuni oleh umatmanusia serta tempat berlangsungnyaberbagai macam kegiatan pembangunan.Sekitar 60% dari total penduduk duniabermukim di daerah sekitar 60 km darigaris pantai. Dua per tiga dari kota-kotadunia dengan penduduk lebih dari 2,5 jutajiwa juga terdapat di wilayah pesisir(UNESCO, 1993). Bahkan di Australia,yang daratan pesisir (coastal land) nyahanya meliputi 17% dari luas total benuaini, sekitar 86% penduduknya bertempattinggal di wilayah pesisir (Southern CrossUniversity, 1997). Keadaan serupa jugaterjadi di Indonesia, di mana hampirsebagian besar kota-kota besar (sepertiMedan, Jakarta, Semarang, Surabaya, danUjung Pandang) serta lebih dari 60%jumlah penduduknya terdapat di wilayahpesisir.

Konsentrasi kehidupan umatmanusia dan berbagai kegiatanpembangunan di wilayah pesisir bukanlahsuatu kebetulan, melainkan disebabkan olehtiga alasan ekonomis (economic rationality)yang kuat. Pertama, wilayah pesisirmerupakan salah satu kawasan yang secara

biologis paling produktif di planet bumi ini.Berbagai ekosistem dengan produktivitashayati tertinggi, seperti hutan mangrove,padang lamun, terumbu karang, danestuaria, berada di wilayah pesisir. Lebihdari 90% total produksi perikanan dunia(sekitar 82 juta ton), baik melalui kegiatanpenangkapan maupun budidaya, berasaldari wilayah pesisir (FAO, 1992). Kedua,wilayah pesisir menyediakan berbagaikemudahan (accessibilities) yang palingpraktis dan relatif lebih murah bagikegiatan industri, pemukiman, dan kegiatanpembangunan lainnya, dari pada yang dapatdisediakan oleh daerah lahan atas (up-landareas). Kemudahan tersebut berupa mediatransportasi, tempat pembuangan limbah,bahan baku air pendingin (cooling water)dari air laut untuk berbagai jenis pabrik danpembangkit tenaga listrik, dan bahan bakuindustri lainnya. Ketiga, wilayah pesisirpada umumnya memiliki panoramakeindahan yang dapat dijadikan objekrekreasi dan pariwisata yang sangatmenarik dan menguntungkan (lucrative),seperti pasir putih atau pasir bersih untukberjemur; perairan pesisir untuk renang,selancar, dan berperahu; dan terumbukarang serta keindahan bawah laut lainnyauntuk pariwisata selam dan snorkling.

Sementara itu, banyak kawasan-kawasan pesisir di dunia termasuk

Indonesia telah mengalami tekananekologis yang semakin parah dankompleks, baik berupa pencemaran, over-eksploitasi sumberdaya alam danpengikisan keanekaragaman hayati,degradasi fisik habitat pesisir, maupunkonflik pennggunaan ruang dansumberdaya. Bahkan, di beberapa daerahpesisir tingkat kerusakan ekologis tersebuttelah mencapai atau melampaui dayadukung lingkungan dan kapasitaskeberlanjutan (sustainable capacity) dariekosistem wilayah pesisir untuk menopangkegiatan pembangunan dan kehidupanmanusia di masa-masa mendatang. Hal initerutama disebabkan oleh paradigma danpola pembangunan yang selama initerlampau berorientasi pada pertumbuhanekonomi, tanpa adanya perhatian yangmemadai terhadap karakteristik, fungsi, dandinamika ekosistem wilayah pesisir yangmenyusun daya dukung dan kapasitasekosistem ini bagi kelangsunganpembangunan.

Padahal seiring denganpertambahan jumlah penduduk Indonesia,yang diperkirakan akan mencapai 276 jutajiwa pada tahun 2010, dan kenyataanbahwa sumberdaya di daratan (lahan atas)semakin menipis, maka wilayah pesisir danlautan beserta segenap sumberdaya alamdan jasa-jasa lingkungan (environmentalservices) yang terkandung di dalamnyadiharapkan akan menjadi tumpuanpembangunan nasional pada abad-21.

Oleh karena itu, jika bangsaIndonesia hendak memanfaatkan danmendayagunakan sumberdaya wilayahpesisir bagi sebesar-besar kemakmuran

rakyat dan kemajuan bangsa secaraberkesinambungan, maka diperlukanperbaikan mendasar di dalam perencanaandan pengelolaan pembangunan sumberdayawilayah pesisir. Paradigma pembangunanyang hanya berorientasi pada pertumbuhanekonomi perlu diganti denganpembangunan berkelanjutan (sustainabledevelopment) yang sudah menjadikesepakatan hampir seluruh bangsa-bangsadi dunia sejak KTT Bumi di Rio de Jenairo1992. Pendekatan dan praktek pengelolaanpembangunan wilayah pesisir yang selamaini secara dominan dilaksanakan secarasektoral dan terpilah-pilah, perlu diperbaikimelalui pendekatan pengelolaan secaraterpadu.

Untuk dapat menerapkan prinsip-prinsip pembangunan berkelanjutan danpendekatan pengelolaan secara terpadu didalam pemanfaatan sumberdaya wilayahpesisir diperlukan informasi yang akuratdan memadai, baik dari sisi permintaan(demand side) terhadap sumberdaya alamdan jasa-jasa lingkungan wilayah pesisirmaupun dari sisi kemampuan menyediakan(supply side) ekosistem wilayah pesisir didalam memenuhi permintaan termaksud.Sistem informasi semacam ini sangatbergantung pada kegiatan penelitian(pengumpulan data dan informasi) secaraterencana dan sistematis sesuai kebutuhanpengelolaan.

BATASAN DAN KARAKTERISTIKWILAYAH PESISIR DAN LAUTAN

Untuk dapat mengelolapembangunan sumberdaya wilayah pesisirdan lautan secara berkelanjutan (on a

sustainable basis), perlu pemahaman danpenguasaan yang mendalam tentangbatasan dan karakteristik utama keduawilayah tersebut.

Pengertian Wilayah Pesisir dan LautanSebagai Satuan Pengelolaan

Dalam pengelolaan sumberdayaalam, seperti wilayah pesisir dan lautan,langkah pertama yang harus dikerjakanoleh para perencana dan pengambilkeputusan adalah menentukan batas-batas(boundaries) dari wilayah yang akandikelolanya sebagai suatu satuanpengelolaan (management unit). Denganmengetahui batas-batas dari suatu wilayahpesisir dan lautan sebagai satuanpengelolaan, maka komponen-komponenbeserta segenap interaksi fungsional(seperti aliran bahan dan energi) antarkomponen tersebut di dalam satuan(sistem) wilayah pengelolaan dan interaksiantar satuan wilayah pengelolaan dengansatuan wilayah pengelolaan lainnya dapatdiketahui dengan baik. Pengetahuantentang komponen dan interaksi fungsionalsecara internal dan eksternal inilah yangmenjadi dasar bagi perencanaan danpengelolaan pembangunan sumberdayawilayah pesisir dan lautan secaraberkelanjutan.

Sayangnya, karena sifat wilayahpesisir yang sangat dinamis dan bervariasidari satu lokasi ke lokasi lainnya (site-specific), maka tidak mungkin membuatsatu definisi (batasan) operasional tentangwilayah pesisir yang berlaku untuk semuakawasan pesisir. Jika ditinjau dari garispantai (coastline), suatu wilayah pesisirmemiliki dua macam batas yaitu: batas

yang sejajar garis pantai (longshore) danbatas yang tegak lurus terhadap garis pantai(cross-shore). Bagi keperluan pengelolaan,penetapan batas-batas wilayah pesisir yangsejajar garis pantai relatif mudah, misalnyabatas wilayah pesisir antara Sungai Brantasdan Sungai Bengawan Solo, atau bataswilayah pesisir Kabupaten Kupang adalahantara Tanjung Nasikonis dan Pulau Sabu,dan batas wilayah pesisir DKI Jakartaadalah antara Sungai Dadap di sebelahbarat dan Tanjung Karawang di sebelahtimur.

Akan tetapi, penetapan batas-batassuatu wilayah pesisir yang tegak lurusterhadap garis pantai, sejauh ini belum adakesepakatan. Dengan perkataan lain, bataswilayah pesisir berbeda dari satu negara kenegara yang lain. Hal ini dapat dimengerti ,karena setiap negara memiliki karakteristiklingkungan, sumberdaya, sistem sosial, dantujuan pengelolaan tersendiri.

Namun demikian, terdapatkesepakatan umum di dunia bahwa wilayahpesisir adalah suatu wilayah peralihanantara ekosistem daratan dan lautan, yangsaling berinteraksi dan membentuk suatukondisi lingkungan (ekologis) yang unik(Dahuri et al., 1996; Brown, 1997).

Sementara itu, menurut berbagaipustaka utama tentang pengelolaan wilayahpesisir, seperti Gartside (1988), Sorensenand Mc.Creary (1990), Pernetta and Elder(1993), Chua (1993), Clark (1996), Dahuriet al (1996), dan Brown (1997), bahwapenentuan batas-batas wilayah pesisir didunia pada umumnya berdasarkan pada tigakriteria berikut:

(1) Garis linier secara arbiter tegak lurusterhadap garis pantai (coastline ataushoreline). Republik Rakyat Cina,misalnya, mendefinisikan wilayahpesisirnya sebagai suatu wilayahperalihan antara ekosistem darat danlautan, ke arah darat mencakup lahandarat sejauh 15 km dari garis pantai,dan ke arah laut meliputi perairan lautsejauh 15 km dari garis pantai (Zhijieand Cote, 1990).

(2) Batas-batas adiministrasi dan hukum.Negara bagian Washington, AmerikaSerikat; Australia Selatan; danQueensland, misalnya, batas ke arahlaut dari wilayah pesisirnya adalahsejauh 3 mil laut dari garis dasar(coastal baseline) (Sorensen andMc.Creary, 1990).

(3) Karakteristik dan dinamika ekologis(biofisik), yakni atas dasar sebaranspasial dari karakteristik alamiah(natural features) atau kesatuanproses-proses ekologis (seperti aliranair sungai, migrasi biota, dan pasangsurut). Contoh batas satuanpengelolaan wilayah pesisir menurutkriteria ketiga ini adalah: batasanmenurut Daerah Aliran Sungai(catchment area atau watershed).

Dari kepentingan (perspektif)konservasi (pembangunan berkelanjutan)sumberdaya wilayah pesisir, batasanwilayah pesisir atas dasar kriteria ekologislebih tepat dan benar. Hanya denganbatasan ekologislah, segenap proses-proseslingkungan (environmental processes) yangberlangsung di dalam wilayah pesisir atau

dari luar yang mempengaruhinya dapatdiperhitungkan. Dan, proses-proseslingkungan inilah yang menentukankualitas serta keberlanjutan ekosistempesisir. Akan tetapi, kelemahannya adalahbahwa batasan menurut kriteria ekologistidak dapat diberlakukan secara umumuntuk semua jenis wilayah pesisir (sangatsite specific). Sehingga, kebanyakan paraperencana dan pengelola wilayah pesisir didunia cenderung memilih batasan wilayahpesisir menurut kriteria garis lurus secaraarbiter dan administratif.

Oleh karena itu, untuk kepentinganpengelolaan dengan tujuan pembangunansumberdaya wilayah pesisir secaraberkelanjutan, sebaiknya tidak menetapkanbatas-batas wilayah pesisir secara kaku.Akan lebih bermakna, jika penetapan batas-batas wilayah pesisir adalah atas dasartujuan pengelolaan itu sendiri. Misalnya,batasan wilayah pesisir untuk tujuanpengelolaan bahaya banjir akan berbedadengan batasan untuk tujuan pengelolaanpengendalian pencemaran, penambanganterumbu karang, pemanfaatan sumberdayaikan secara lestari, dan sebagainya. Akanlebih baik lagi, jika batas ke arah darat darisuatu wilayah pesisir dapat ditetapkansebanyak dua macam, yaitu batas untukwilayah perencanaan (planning zone) danbatas untuk wilayah pengaturan (regulationzone) atau pengelolaan keseharian (day-to-day management). Wilayah perencanaansebaiknya meliputi seluruh daerah daratan(hulu) apabila terdapat kegiatan manusia(pembangunan) yang dapat menimbulkandampak secara nyata (significant) terhadap

lingkungan dan sumberdaya di pesisir.Oleh karena itu, batas wilayah pesisir kearah darat untuk kepentingan perencanaan(planning zone) dapat sangat jauh ke arahhulu, misalnya Kota Bandung untukkawasan pesisir dari DAS Citarum. Jikasuatu program pengelolaan wilayah pesisirmenetapkan dua batasan wilayahpengelolaannya (wilayah perencanaan danwilayah pengaturan), maka wilayahperencanaan selalu lebih luas daripadawilayah pengaturan.

Dalam pengelolaan wilayah sehari-hari, pemerintah (pihak pengelola)memiliki kewenangan penuh untukmengeluarkan atau menolak izin kegiatan

pembangunan. Sementara itu, kewenangansemacam ini di luar batas wilayahpengaturan (regulation zone) sehinggamenjadi tanggung jawab bersama antarainstansi pengelolaan wilayah pesisir dalamregulation zone dengan instansi yangmengelola daerah hulu atau laut lepas.

Setelah kita berhasil menetapkanbatas ke arah laut dari wilayah pesisir,maka kita dapat menentukan batas wilayahlautan. Menurut Pernetta dan Milliman(1995), wilayah lautan adalah perairan lautdalam atau laut lepas (open ocean) di luarpaparan benua (continental shelf) (Gambar1).

Gambar 1. Batasan Wilayah Pesisir (Pernetta and Milliman, 1995).

CO NTINENTA LINTERIO R

O PENOCEAN

C OASTAL ZO NE� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

RIVER BASIN

APLA ND

LOW LAND

C O NTINENTAL SH ELF

INNER SH ELF OUTER SHELF

NEARSHORE

ESTUARY

BA LTM AR SHDURE S

SH ELF SEA

NEARSHORE W ATERS

ESTU ARINE W ATERS

ESTUARINE PLUM E

SHELF

EDG E ZO NE

O CEANFL OO R

CON TINEN TALSLO PE

SHE

LF B

RE

AK

SHEL

FSE

A /

OC

EAN

INTE

RFA

CE

SHO

RE

LIN

ELA

ND

/ SE

AIN

TER

FAC

E

UPLAND

Karakteristik Ekosistem WilayahPesisir dan Lautan

Untuk kepentingan pengelolaanpembangunan sumberdaya wilayahpesisir dan lautan secara berkelanjutan,terdapat lima karakteristik utama dariekosistem pesisir dan lautan yang harusdipahami oleh para perencana danpengelola, serta kemudian dijadikansebagai landasan dalam prosesperencanaan dan pengambilan keputusantentang pembangunan kedua wilayahtersebut.

Pertama, bahwa komponenhayati dan nir-hayati dari suatu wilayahpesisir membentuk suatu sistem alam(ekosistem) yang sangat kompleks.Keadaan yang kompleks ini disebabkanoleh kondisi lingkungan yang unik yangtersusun oleh berbagai ragam prosesbiofisik (ekologis) dari ekosistem daratandan lautan. Faktor-faktor lingkungan(seperti angin, gelombang, pasang-surut,suhu, dan salinitas) di perairan pesisirsangat bervariasi dan secara gradualberubah dari arah darat ke laut.

Oleh karena itu, ekosistem pesisirtelah beradaptasi dengan keadaanlingkungannya, dan ekosistem pesisirdapat sangat tahan atau sebaliknya sangatrentan terhadap gangguan (perubahan)kondisi lingkungan baik yang disebabkanoleh kegiatan manusia maupun bencanaalam. Contohnya, terumbu karang sangattahan terhadap gempuran gelombang danbadai, tetapi ekosistem pesisir ini sangatrentan terhadap sedimentasi(pelumpuran). Hewan karang seringkali

sangat sensitif terhadap perubahan kecildari salinitas atau suhu perairan, bahkanterhadap perubahan suhu perairan sekecil2-40C (UNESCO, 1993). Sebaliknya,ekosistem hutan mangrove sangat tahanterhadap perubahan suhu, salinitas, dankandungan sedimen perairan. Akantetapi, ekosistem mangrove sangat rentanterhadap perubahan aliran air tawar,sirkulasi air, dan tumpahan minyak.

Lebih dari itu, terdapatketerkaitan ekologis (hubunganfungsional) baik antar ekosistem didalam kawasan pesisir maupun antarakawasan pesisir dengan lahan atas danlaut lepas. Dengan demikian perubahanyang terjadi pada suatu ekosistem pesisir(misalnya mangrove), cepat atau lambat,akan mempengaruhi ekosistem lainnya.Begitu pula halnya, jika pengelolaankegiatan pembangunan (industri,pertanian, pemukiman, dan lain-lain) dilahan atas suatu DAS (Daerah AliranSungai) tidak dilakukan secara arif(berwawasan lingkungan), maka dampaknegatifnya akan merusak tatanan danfungsi ekologis kawasan pesisir danlautan (Gambar 2). Fenomena inilahyang kemungkinan besar merupakanfaktor penyebab utama bagi kegagalanpanen tambak udang yang akhir-akhir inimenimpa kawasan Pantai Utara Jawa.Karena, untuk kehidupan danpertumbuhan udang secara optimaldiperlukan kualitas perairan yang baik,tidak tercemar seperti Pantai Utara Jawa.Contoh lain adalah pembuatanbendungan (damming) di daerah hulusuatu sungai akan memutus (memblokir)

jalur migrasi dari jenis-jenis organismeperairan (seperti ikan salmon, sidat, danudang galah), sehingga merugikankegiatan perikanan pesisir yang letaknyamungkin mencapai ratusan kilometer darilokasi bendungan tersebut. Perubahanpola arus lautan yang diikuti dengan

perubahan suhu perairan dan penyediaanunsur hara dapat menurunkan populasi(stok) ikan di perairan pesisir, sepertiyang telah ditunjukkan oleh dampak ElNino terhadap stok ikan sardine diSamudra Pasifik (UNESCO, 1993)

D a taranTinggi

(> 18 % )

D ata ranSeda ng(8-1 8 % )

D a ta ranR end ah(0-< 8 % )

In tertidal(H H W -LL W ) P apa ran B enu a

(>L LW -100 m )Le pas pan tai(> 100-200 m ) La ut D a lam

(> 200m )

P em a nfa atan SD AU tam a /A ktiv ita sPem ba ngun an

Perm a salah anLingk unga n U tam a /da m p ak p ada Zon a

Pes isir

Eks porK e butuh anD om estik

Ind ustr i

Peterna ka n

P erk ota an

P em ukim ann ela yan

P erikana nT ra disio nal

Perikan an Ind ustr i

D istr ibusip rodu ksi

Tra nspo rtasilau t

- Pen gem ba nga n perkota an- Ind ustr i- Pem uk im an

- B e ban o rg a n ik- L im ba h pad at- Pen ce m ara n ind ustri- L im ba h do m es tik

- Pem an faatan hu tan m ang rov e - m ariku ltur, par iw is ata- Pala buh an

- Pen eba ngan hu tan m ang rov e- Penu ru nan b iod iversity- Penc em ara n

- O ve rfish ing - D eg rada si T K - Penu runa n b iod iv ersity (Penc em a ran )

- Per ikan an Tradis io nal- Per ikan an Ind ustri- M ig as

- Tra nspo rtas i Lau t- Perikana n Ind ustri- M iga s

O verfish in g(C ec era n m in ya k)

O ve rfis h in g(C eceran m inya k)

- P erik anan Ind ustri- Transp ortasi La ut)

K ayuD A M /Ene rgi

(P ertam ba nga n)

S iltas iP engu ran ga n

paso ka n air taw ar

- Pertan ian- Peterna ka n

- B e ban o rg anik- Pen ce m aran bah an kim ia pertan ian

D A M

K ayu

K eterangan

Gambar 2. Keterkaitan Ekologis dan Dampak Pembangunan Antara EkosistemDarat dan Pesisir (Dimodifikasi dari ICLARM, 1995)

Kedua, dalam suatu kawasan pesisir(Kalianda - Bandar Lampung, misalnya),biasanya terdapat lebih dari dua macamsumberdaya alam dan jasa-jasa lingkunganyang dapat dikembangkan untuk kepentinganpembangunan, seperti tambak, perikanantangkap, pariwisata, pertambangan, industridan pemukiman.

Ketiga, dalam suatu kawasan pesisir,pada umumnya terdapat lebih dari satukelompok masyarakat (orang) yang memilikiketrampilan/keahlian dan kesenangan(preference) bekerja yang berbeda, sebagaipetani, nelayan, petani tambak, petani rumputlaut, pendamping pariwisata, industri dankerajinan rumah tangga, dan sebagainya.

Padahal, sangat sukar atau hampir tidakmungkin, untuk mengubah kesenanganbekerja (profesi) sekelompok orang yangsudah secara mentradisi menekuni suatubidang pekerjaan.

Keempat, baik secara ekologismaupun ekonomis, pemanfaatan suatukawasan pesisir secara monokultur (singleuse) adalah sangat rentan terhadap perubahaninternal maupun eksternal yang menjuruspada kegagalan usaha. Contohnya, lagi-lagipembangunan tambak udang di Pantai UtaraJawa, yang sejak tahun 1982 mengkonversihampir semua pesisir termasuk mangrove(sebagai kawasan lindung) menjadi tambakudang. Sehingga, pada saat akhir 1980-an

sampai sekarang terjadi peledakan wabahvirus, sebagian besar tambak udang dikawasan ini terserang penyakit yangmerugikan ini. Kemudian, pada tahun 1988ketika Jepang memberhentikan impor udangIndonesia selama sekitar 3 bulan, karenakematian kaisarnya (rakyat Jepangberkabung, tidak makan udang), makamengakibatkan penurunan harga udang secaradrastis dari rata-rata Rp. 14.000,- per kgmenjadi Rp 7.000,- per kg, sehingga banyakpetani tambak yang merugi dan frustasi.

Kelima, kawasan pesisir padaumumnya merupakan sumberdaya milikbersama (common property resources) yangdapat dimanfaatkan oleh semua orang (openaccess). Padahal setiap penggunasumberdaya pesisir biasanya berprinsipmemaksimalkan keuntungan. Olehkarenanya, wajar jika pencemaran, over-eksploitasi sumberdaya alam dan konflikpemanfaatan ruang seringkali terjadi dikawasan ini.

Isu tentang hak kepemilikan lahan danalokasi sumberdaya merupakan sumber utamakonflik di kebanyakan daerah pesisir. Lahanpasang-surut (tanah timbul), dasar laut pesisir,dan perairan pesisir pada umumnya tidakadak pemiliknya. Demikian juga tentang hakterhadap pemanfaatan sumberdaya yangterdapat di ketiga daerah tersebut, kebanyakanbelum ada sistem pengaturannya. Olehkarena itu, sebagaimana diungkapkan di atas,daerah pesisir ini biasa disebut sebagaisumberdaya milik bersama, dimana berlakuazas pemanfaatan secara bebas oleh siapa saja(open acces). Memang, azas open acces inisesuai untuk kondisi, dimana permintaanmasyarakat terhadap sumberdaya jauh lebih

kecil dari pada kemampuan ekosistem pesisiruntuk menyediakannya. Akan tetapi, ketikatingkat permintaan terhadap sumberdaya lebihbesar ketimbang jumlah yang dapatdisediakan oleh alam, maka sistem alokasisumberdaya menjadi sangat penting untukditerapkan. Apabila sistem alokasisumberdaya semacam ini tidak diberlakukan,maka persaingan tidak sehat antar penggunasumberdaya (resource users) akan muncul,kemudian menciptakan mentalitas "free-for-all" diantara pengguna sumberdaya, dan padagilirannya akan mengakibatkan pengikisansumberdaya (resource depletion) serta konfliksosial yang menjurus pada pembangunanyang tidak berkelanjutan.

Lebih jauh, suatu pola penggunaansumberdaya pesisir dan lautan yangmenguntungkan masyarakat secarakeseluruhan acap kali bertentangan denganpola penggunaan yang dapat memberikankeuntungan maksimal bagi sektor swasta.Fenomena semacam ini terjadi, karena banyakproduk dan jasa-jasa lingkungan yangdisediakan oleh ekosistem pesisir bersifatintangible (tidak dapat dirasakan langsungatau belum mempunyai nilai pasar) bagi pihakswasta. Misalnya, hutan mangrove dapatmemberikan keuntungan ekonomis yangsangat besar bagi masyarakat secarakeseluruhan, jika dikonservasi sebagaihabitat dan daerah pemijahan bagi biotaperairan (perikanan); sebagai pelindungpantai dari gempuran ombak, tsunami danbadai; sebagai pelindung lahan darat dariperembesan air laut (salt interusion); sebagaipembersih alamiah pencemaran pantai;sebagai sumber plasma nutfah; dan lainsebagainya. Akan tetapi, dari sudut pandang

pengusaha swasta, lahan hutan mangroveakan memberikan keruntungan ekonomismaksimal, jika dikonversi secara totalmenjadi pertambakan udang, pemukiman(semacam Pantai Indah Kapuk), kawasanindustri, atau peruntukan pembangunanlainnya.

PENENTUAN AGENDA PENELITIANUNTUK MENDUKUNGPENGELOLAAN WILAYAH PESISIRDAN LAUTAN SECARA TERPADU

Sebagaimana dimaklumi, bahwakegiatan penelitian yang meliputipengumpulan, pengolahan dan analisis datauntuk mendukung implementasi pengelolaansumberdaya wilayah pesisir dan lautan secaraterpadu adalah sangat mahal dan memerlukanbanyak waktu (time-consuming). Selain itu,kegiatan penelitian yang tanpa arah (tujuan)dan strategi yang jelas pada umumnya hanyamenghasilkan data yang kurang atau bahkantidak berguna bagi kepentingan perencanaandan pengelolaan pembangunan sumberdayapesisir dan lautan. Oleh karenanya, menjadisangat penting untuk menentukan agenda(kebutuhan) penelitian berdasarkan padakerangka sistem berfikir yang tepat dan benar.

Identifikasi kebutuhan penelitianuntuk pengelolaan sumberdaya wilayahpesisir dan lautan secara terpadu hendaknyaberdasarkan pada tiga hal utama: (1)karakteristik dan dinamika ekosistem pesisirdan lautan itu sendiri, sebagaimana telahdiuraikan dalam Bab II makalah ini; (2)tujuan dari pengelolaan; dan (3) elemen danproses utama dari kegiatan pengelolaansumberdaya wilayah pesisir dan lautan secaraterpadu.

Beranjak dari pengalaman negara-negara lain dan pustaka tentang pengelolaansumberdaya wilayah pesisir dan lautan secaraterpadu, dapat disimpukan, bahwa tujuanakhir dan utama (the ultimate goal) daripengelolaan kedua wilayah ini adalah untukmencapai pemanfaatan secara berkelanjutansumberdaya alam dan jasa-jasa lingkunganyang terdapat di wilayah pesisir dan lautanbagi kesejahteraan umat manusia.Pembangunan berkelanjutan (sustainabledevelopment), sebagaimana didefinisikan olehWorld Commission on Environment andDevelopment (1987), adalah "pembangunanuntuk memenuhi kebutuhan generasi saat initanpa merusak atau menurunkan kemampuangenerasi mendatang untuk memenuhikebutuhannya".

Secara ringkas dapat diformulasikan,bahwa untuk mewujudkan pembangunanberkelanjutan dari sumberdaya wilayahpesisir dan lautan, prasyarat utama yang harusdipenuhi adalah bahwa laju (tingkat)permintaan total terhadap sumberdaya alamdan jasa-jasa lingkungan akibat kiprahkehidupan manusia beserta segenap kegiatanpembangunannya tidak melampauikemampuan fungsional ekosistem wilayahpesisir dan lautan dalam menyediakansumberdaya alam dan jasa lingkungantermaksud.

Ekosistem alamiah, seperti ekosistempesisir dan lautan, menyediakan empat fungsiutama yang sangat diperlukan bagikesinambungan pembangunan ekonomi dankelangsungan hidup umat manusia itu sendiri(Ortolano, 1986; de Groot, 1992). Pertamaadalah sebagai penyedia sumberdaya alamdapat pulih (seperti hutan, ikan, dan energi

matahari) dan sumberdaya alam tak dapatpulih (termasuk bahan tambang dan mineral)yang diperlukan untuk bahan baku pangan,papan, transportasi, industri dan kegiatanmanusia lainnya. Kedua sebagai penyediaruang (space) untuk tempat tinggal(permukiman); melakukan kegiatan budidayapertanian dalam arti luas (termasuk perikanandan peternakan) dan industri; rekreasi danpariwisata; perlindungan alam; dan lain-lain.Ketiga sebagai penampung atau penyeraplimbah (residu) sebagai hasil samping darikegiatan konsumsi, produksi (fabrikasi), dantransportasi yang dilakukan oleh manusia.Keempat sebagai penyedia jasa-jasakenyamanan (amenities) dan jasa-jasapendukung kehidupan (life-suport services),seperti udara bersih, siklus hidrologi, siklushara, keanekaragaman hayati (biodiversity),alur ruaya (migratory routes) berbagai jenisfauna, dan lain sebagainya.

Dengan demikian, secara ekologisterdapat empat persyaratan utama yang dapatmenjamin tercapainya pembangunanberkelanjutan sumberdaya wilayah pesisir danlautan: (1) keharmonisan spasial, (2)pemanfaatan sumberdaya alam secara optimaldan berkelanjutan, (3) membuang limbahsesuai dengan kapasitas asimilasi lingkungan,dan (4) mendesign dan membangun prasaranadan sarana sesuai dengan karakteristik sertadinamika ekosistem pesisir dan lautan.

Keharmonisan spasial (spatialsuitability) mensyaratkan, bahwa dalamsuatu wilayah pembangunan, seperti PantaiTimur Kalimantan, Pulau Batam, dan PantaiUtara Jawa Barat, hendaknya tidakseluruhnya diperuntukkan bagai zonapemanfaatan, tetapi harus pula dialokasikan

untuk zona preservasi dan konservasi.Contoh daerah preservasi adalah daerahpemijahan ikan (spawning ground) dan jalurhijau pantai. Dalam zona preservasi initidak diperkenankan adanya kegiatanpembangunan, kecuali penelitian.Sementara itu, beberapa kegiatanpembangunan, seperti pariwisata alam,pemanfaatan hutan bakau dan perikanansecara berkelanjutan (sustainable basis)dapat berlangsung dalam zona konservasi

Keberadaan zona preservasi dankonservasi dalam suatu wilayahpembangunan sangat penting dalammemelihara berbagai proses penunjangkehidupan, seperti siklus hidrologi dan unsurhara; membersihkan limbah secara alamiah;dan sumber keanekaragaman hayati(biodiversity). Bergantung pada kondisialamnya, luas zona preservasi dankonservasi yang optimal dalam suatukawasan pembangunan sebaiknya antara 30- 50 % dari luas totalnya.

Selanjutnya, setiap kegiatanpembangunan (industri, pertanian, budidayaperikanan, pemukiman dan lainnya) dalamzona pemanfaatan hendaknya ditempatkanpada lokasi yang secara biofisik sesuai,sehingga membentuk suatu mosaik yangharmonis. Misalnya, penempatan kegiatanbudidaya tambak udang pada lahan pesisirbertekstur pasir atau sangat masam, atauberdekatan dengan kawasan industribiasanya akan menemui kegagalan.

Sementara itu, bila kita menganggapwilayah pesisir sebagai penyediasumberdaya alam, maka kriteriapemanfaatan untuk sumberdaya yang dapatpulih (renewable resources) adalah bahwa

laju ekstraksinya tidak boleh melebihikemampuannya untuk memulihkan daripada suatu periode tertentu (CLARK, 1988).Sedangkan pemanfaatan sumberdaya pesisiryang tak dapat pulih (non-renewableresources) harus dilakukan dengan cermat,sehingga efeknya tidak merusak lingkungansekitarnya.

Ketika kita memanfaatkan wilayah(perairan) pesisir sebagai tempat untukpembuangan limbah, maka harus adajaminan bahwa jumlah total dari limbahtersebut tidak boleh melebihi kapasitas dayaasimilasinya (assimilative capacity). Dalamhal ini, yang dimaksud dengan dayaasimilasi adalah kemampuan sesuatuekosistem pesisir untuk menerima suatujumlah limbah tertentu sebelum ada indikasiterjadinya kerusakan lingkungan dan ataukesehatan yang tidak dapat ditoleransi(KROM 1986).

Berdasarkan pada uraian tersebut diatas, maka penentuan agenda (kebutuhan)

penelitian untuk mendukung implementasipengelolaan sumberdaya wilayah pesisir danlautan secara terpadu seyogyanya mengikutikerangka pendekatan sistem seperti disajikanpada Gambar 3. Dalam hal ini, tujuan akhirdari pengelolaan yaitu pembangunanberkelanjutan menentukan persyaratanpengelolaan lingkungan dan sumberdayaalam pesisir dan lautan. Selanjutnya, darikeempat persyaratan pengelolaan tersebutdapat dirunut informasi yang diperlukanuntuk mendukung implementasi daripengelolaan secara terpadu. Akhirnya, jikakebutuhan informasi tersebut dibandingkandengan informasi yang tersedia saat ini, makadapatlah ditentukan agenda penelitian yangharus dilakukan guna memenuhi kesenjanganinformasi termaksud.

Oleh karena, sampai saat ini informasiyang tersedia tentang pesisir dan lautan belumdapat diketahui, maka saran tentang agendapenelitian berikut ini hanya didasarkan padakebutuhan penelitian secara ideal.

PERSYARATAN EKOLOGISPEMBANGUNAN

KARAKTERISTIK EKOLOGIS WILAYAH

SEBARAN & POTENSILESTARI SDA

TINGKAT PEMANFAATANSAAT INI & AKAN DATANG

KAPASITAS ASSIMILASI LINGKUNGAN

BEBAN PENCEMARAN

DINAMIKA EKOSISTEM DAN PROSES EKOLOGIS

PERSYARATAN REKAYASADAN KONSTRUKSI

TATARUANG

PEMANFAATAN SDA OPTIMAL &

LESTARI

PENGENDALIAN PENCEMARAN

DESIGN WITHNATURE

KEBUTUHANINFORMASI

INFORMASI YANG

TERSEDIA

PEMB

ANGU

NAN

PESI

SIR

&LA

UTAN

BER

KELA

NJUT

ANPERKIRAAN

KEBUTUHAN PENELITIANINFORMASI YANG

DIPERLUKAN PERSYARATAN TUJUAN

Gambar 3. Kerangka Pendekatan Sistem Untuk Menentukan Kebutuhan Penelitian Dalam Mendukung Implementasi Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Pesisir dan Lautan Secara Terpadu

(1) Penelitian yang berkaitan denganpemanfaatan sumberdaya alam pesisirdan lautan secara optimal dan lestari:

• Jenis, kuantitas (potensi) cadangan,distribusi, dan tingkat pemanfaatansumberdaya tak dapat pulih (non-renewable resources).

• Jenis, potensi lestari, distribusi, dantingkat pemanfaatan menurut waktu(musiman) sumberdaya dapat pulih(renewable resources)

• Aplikasi teknologi penginderaan jauh,Sistem Informasi Geografis (SIG),akustik, dan lainnya guna merubah polateknik penangkapan ikan dari bersifat"pemburuan" (tidak ada kepastian atauuncertain) menjadi bersifat"pemanenan" (ada kepastian).

• Simulasi dan pemodelan tentangrespons stok ikan (khususnya yangbernilai ekologis dan/atau ekonomispenting) terhadap upaya penangkapan,gangguan lingkungan (environmentalperturbations), dan fluktuasi alamiah.

• Jenis, luas dan distribusi ekosistempesisir (seperti mangrove, padanglamun, terumbu karang, dan estuaria.

• Pemetaan daerah pemijahan, daerahasuhan, dan alur ruaya biota perairanyang secara ekonomis dan/atauekologis penting.

• Aplikasi bioteknologi1 untuk budidayaperikanan, baik di perairan payaumaupun laut, yang meliputi:

1 Dalam hal ini bioteknologi diartikan sebagai

(a) Perbaikan kualitas air untuk mediabudidaya dengan menggunakan"biotreatment" dan"phytoremediation" denganmenggunakan mikroba, tumbuhan(alga), dan hewan.

(b) Penanggulangan stres danpeningkatan daya kekebalan organismebudidaya melalui rekayasa genetik.

(c) Perbaikan kualitas induk organismebudidaya, sehingga bebas hama danpenyakit serta tahan terhadap seranganhama/penyakit, seperti denganteknologi "antisene/ribozyme".

(d) Manipulasi siklus reproduksiorganisme budidaya, melaluipengendalian hormon dari sistemreproduksi hewan budidaya(khususnya udang penaidae).

• Aplikasi bioteknologi untuk ekstraksiproduk alamiah (natural products ataubioactive substances) dari biota laut,khususnya macroalgae, microalgae,invertebrata, dan mikrorganisme, untukindustri pangan, farmasi (obat-obatan),dan kosmetika.

(2) Penelitian yang berkaitan dengan tataruang, rancang-bangun dan konstruksiwilayah pesisir dan lautan:

penggunaan organisme hidup atau bagian dariorganisme tersebut (seperti sel atau enzim) untuk:membuat atau memodifikasi produk, memperbaikisifat keturunan dari hewan dan tumbuhan, danmengembangkan organisme untuk penggunaantertentu, termasuk remediasi lingkungan yangrusak akibat pencemaran (Lundin and Zilinskas,1995).

• Karakteristik fisik dan kimiawi lahanpesisir.

• Penutupan vegetasi lahan pesisir.• Topografi dan batimetri.• Aspek geomorfologi dan geologi.• Aliran air tawar, aliran sedimen, dan

pola erosi dan sedimentasi (sedimentbudget).

• Aspek hidro-oseanografi: pasang-surut,arus, gelombang, paras laut, suhu,salinitas, dan karakteristik biologi-kimiawi perairan laut.

• Aspek iklim dan pengaruhnya terhadapekosistem pesisir serta organisme yanghidup di dalamnya.

• Pemetaan daerah-daerah yangmengandung karakteristik lingkunganunik dan jasa-jasa pendukungkehidupan (life-support systems),sehingga perlu dilindungi (preservationzone).

• Analisis tentang persyaratan biofisikatau ekologis (biophysical or ecologicalrequirements) dari setiap kegiatanpembangunan (tambak, industri,pertanian tanaman pangan,pertambangan, pemukiman, pariwisata,dan lain-lain); dan kegiatan rekayasaserta konstruksi (coastal and oceanengineering).

• Simulasi dan pemodelan tentangrespons ekosistem pesisir terhadapkegiatan yang merubah bentang alam(landscape) wilayah pesisir dankegiatan konstruksi, seperti reklamasi,pembuatan darmaga (jetty), danpemecah gelombang.

• Aplikasi teknologi penginderaan jauh,

SIG dan sistem informasi lainnya dalampenyusunan tata ruang wilayah pesisirdan lautan.

(3) Penelitian yang berkaitan denganpengendalian pencemaran perairanpesisir dan lautan:

• Identifikasi dan penghitungan bebanpencemaran dari setiap jenis limbahyang masuk ke dalam ekosistem pesisirdan laut.

• Kapasitas asimilasi ekosistem perairanpesisir dalam menerima limbah.

• Distribusi dan nasib (fate) limbah yangtelah masuk ke dalam ekosistem pesisirdan lautan.

• Dampak pencemaran terhadap spesies,populasi dan ekosistem pesisir danlautan.

• Aplikasi SIG dan simulasi komputeruntuk membuat perkiraan pergerakandan nasib bahan pencemar di perairanpesisir dan laut, khususnya tumpahanminyak.

• Aplikasi bioteknologi untukpembersihan pencemaran pesisir danlautan (bioremediasi).

(4) Penelitian yang berhubungan denganpenentuan daya dukung lingkunganbagi kegiatan pembangunan: tambakudang, pariwisata, pemukiman,kawasan industri, kawasan budidayapertanian, dan sebagainya.

(5) Penelitian yang berkaitan denganpenentuan komposisi dan laju (tingkat)kegiatan pembangunan yang optimal

secara ekologis dan sosial-ekonomis disuatu wilayah pesisir.

PENUTUP

Untuk dapat melaksanakan kegiatanpenelitian seperti disarankan di atas, makadiperlukan pengembangan dan perbaikanmutu sumberdaya manusia di bidangpengelolaan sumberdaya wilayah pesisirdan lautan secara terpadu. Pengembangansumberdaya manusia hendaknya diarahkanuntuk memenuhi kelemahan di tiga bidangutama: (1) pengelolaan eksplorasi danproduksi sumberdaya alam; (2) pengelolaanpencemaran; (3) pengelolaan perubahanbentang alam, rekayasa dan konstruksi; dan(4) pendekatan sistem dan interdisiplineruntuk perencanaan dan pengelolaan secaraterpadu.

DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Brown, B. E. 1997. Integrated CoastalManagement : South Asia.University of Newcastle UponTyne. United Kingdom.

Chua, T. E. 1992. Integrative Frameworkand Methods for Coastal AreaManagement. ICLARM, Manila.

Clark, J.R. 1992. Integrated Managementof Coastal Zones. FAO FisheriesTechnical Paper No 327. Rome.Italy.

_______, 1996. Coastal ZoneManagement Handbook.Lewis/CRC Press, Boca Raton,Florida.

Dahuri, R., J. Rais, S.P. Ginting, M.J.Sitepu, 1996. PengelolaanSumberdaya Pesisir dan LautanSecara Terpadu. PT. PradnyaParamita. Jakarta.

Gartside, D. F. 1988. Management of theResources of the Coastal Zone :Introductory comments. Procedingsof the 1988 Workshop on CoastalZone Management, Lismore.

De Groot, R.S. 1992. Functions ofNature. Wolters-Noordhoff.Amsterdam

Krom, M.D. 1986. An Evaluation of theConcept of Assimilative Capacityas Applied to Marine Waters.Ambio 15 (4).

Ortolano, L. 1984. EnvironmentalPlanning and Decision Making.John Wiley and Sons. Toronto.

Pernetta , J. C. dan Elder, D. L. 1993.Cross-sectoral; Integrated CoastalArea Planning (CICAP):Guidelines and Principles forCoastal Area Development. IUCN.Switzerland.

Pernetta, J. C., dan J. D. Milliman, 1995.Land-Ocean Interactions in theCoastal Zone: ImplementationPlan. The International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme. Stockholm.

Sorensen, J. C., dan Mc.Creary, 1990.Coast: Institutional Arrangementsfor Managing Coastal Resources.University of California ofBarkeley.

Southern Cross University, 1997. CoastalTourism : A Manual forSustainable Development.Department of the Environment.Camberra.

UNESCO. 1993. COASTS : ManagingComplex Systems. UNESCOEnvironment and DevelopmetnBriefs.

World Commission on Environment andDevelopment (WCED), 1987. OurCommon Future. OxfordUniversity Press., New York.p.400.

Zhijie, F., and R. P. Cote. 1990. CoastalZone of Peoples Republic of China: Management Approaches andInstitutions. Marine Policy.

Hinrichsen, D. (1998) Coastal Waters of the World: Trends, Threats andStrategies, Island Press, WashingtonD.C., 274pp + xix, ISBN 1-55963-382-4.

Coastal Waters of the Worldhere is a very challenging job to bedone, and there is no time to lose

in doing it” - are the closing words ofan extraordinary new book on the stateof the world’s coast by DonHinrichsen, a noted United Nationsconsultant on environment andpopulation issues. Coastal Waters ofthe World, is an up-to-date assessmentof trends affecting coastal resourcesand the majority of the world’spopulation who directly depend onthem. The conclusion he draws isunambiguous and has clearimplications for coastal management inIndonesia - unless we commit to aninterdisciplinary, co-ordinated effortby governing institutions at all levels,private sector interests, and communitygroups working together towards acommon set of goals then we shallcontinue to squander our rich coastalheritage and deny our futuredevelopment potential!

His conclusion is based on awell researched analysis involvingnumerous field-based interviews ofkey informants from coastal fishers tosenior policy makers and worldrenowned researchers in developed anddeveloping countries. The analysis issupported by national and internationaldatabases as well as a comprehensiveliterature review. Unlike many globalstudies, these data are presented in adelightful narrative style to inform thereader in an informal, but authoritativemanner.

The structure and style of thework clearly reflect the emphasisHinrichsen places on making

information available to all concernedwith the subject - high school students,politicians, villagers, researchers,bureaucrats and activists will all findinformation relevant to their interestsand are likely to wish to probe specificsubjects further. The book is dividedinto 18 chapters and three introductorysections; an eloquent foreword byStephen Olsen (Director of theUniversity of Rhode Island’s CoastalResources Center), a moving prologueon the Kuna islands of the Caribbean(which is a microcosm of the pressuresfacing the world’s coasts) and aprovocative introduction in whichHinrichsen notes that we are allcoastal: “… no matter where we live,we are connected to the world’s oceansthrough an intricate drainage system ofrivers and streams…”.

Fourteen chapters of regionalanalyses help place the nature andseverity of coastal issues in a globalcontext. The discussion of Indonesia’scoasts, for example, is located in achapter on Southeast Asia,appropriately entitled “A Sea ofIslands”. Quoting former EnvironmentMinister, Emil Salim and a local fisherfrom Muara Angke, Sho Boen Shen,Hinrichsen weaves a depressing tale ofoverexploitation and waste. Withoutproper planning and management,including improved regionalcoordination, he predicts a bleak futurefor coastal areas of Southeast Asia andpoints to the likelihood of increasingconflict between resource users.

In the current climate ofpolitical and economic reform, it is

T

69

Pesisir & Lautan Volume 1, No:2. 1998Book ReviewResensi Buku

The 8th ICRS held in Panama in 1996 wasunique because it brought together a largerthan usual number of social scientists and

policy makers to share ideas with the coral reefscientists; the latter being the backbone of previoussymposia. The two volume proceedings contain340 manuscripts covering a multitude of coral reeftopics. This reviewer believes the papers containedwithin the proceedings will prove useful to thegrowing numbers of coral reef scientists, managersand policy-makers from Indonesia.

Since the two volume set is 2115 pages inlength I feel it will be most useful in the spaceprovided to describe the proceedings format andthen list a few of the many topics covered in thetwo volume set that may be of particular interestto Indonesian coastal and coral reef managers. Theproceedings are divided into thirty-nine subsectionsaccording to topic. The topics are largely scientific,policy or management focused. Within eachsubsection the reader will find papers authored bya distinguished group of globally recognized coralreef scientists, policy-makers and managers.

Many of the papers research, and providefindings on non-Asian coral reef regions in theworld, including the Western Indian Ocean,Caribbean and South Pacific including Australia.Indonesian coral and coastal managers looking toanswer questions of a more local nature may findsome of the many lessons

Proceedings of the 8thInternational Coral Reef Symposium, Panama

Simposium Terumbu Karang Internasionalke-8 (8 th ICRS) yang berlangsung diPanama tahun 1996 memiliki keunikan,

karena simposium ini menghimpun lebih banyakdari jumlah biasanya, para pakar sosial dan penentukebijakan, berembug bersama untuk saling tukarpikiran dengan pakar terumbu karang, kelompokyang belakangan ini menjadi tulang punggungsimposium sebelumnya. Kedua volume (jilid)prosiding ini mengandung 340 naskah yangmencakup beraneka ragam topik terumbu karang.Penelaah buku ini berpendapat bahwa karangan-karangan yang terdapat dalam prosiding akansangat bermanfaat bagi para ahli terumbu karang,pengelola dan penentu kebijakan di Indonesia yangjumlahnya terus berkembang.

Mengigat kedua jilid itu berjumlah 2115halaman, saya merasa akan sangat bergunabilamana pada ruangan yang tersedia itu ada“bagian” yang dapat memuat atau melukiskanformat dari prosiding dan kemudian membuatdaftar yang berisi beberapa dari sebegitu banyaktopik atau materi tersebut yang mungkin akandiminati oleh pengelola wilayah pesisir danterumbu karang di Indonesia. Prosiding ini telahdibagi dalam tiga puluh sembilan sub bagian sesuaidengan topiknya. Penggolongan topik tersebutpada dasarnya adalah dipusatkan kepada lapanganilmiah, kebijakan atau mengenai pengelolaan.Dalam masing-masing sub bagian, pembaca akan

H.A. Lessios and Ian G. Macintyre (Eds) (1997),Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef

Symposium, Panama, June 24-29, 1996, Published bythe Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa,Republic of Panama, ISBN 0-935868-90-9 (Two

Volumes), pp. 2115

Cicin-Sain, B and R.W. Knecht (1998).Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management:Concepts and Practices, Island press,Washington D.C., 517pp + xxiii, ISBN 1-55963-604-1, RRP $32.50 (paperback).

Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management

t is most appropriate that in this, theInternational Year of the Ocean, a

major text on ocean and coastalmanagement has been published.Produced with Support from theInternational OceanographicCommission (IOC), “Integrated Coastaland Ocean Management” is a seminalwork and now rivals the Coastal ZoneManagement handbook of John Clark(reviewed in Pesisir dan Lautan Vol 1)as the key reference in this field.

Written by two leading academicsfrom the University of Delaware, BilianaCicin-Sain and Robert Knecht and bytwo supporting authors, Dosoo Jang andGregory Fisk, the book was conceivedduring a sabbatical break at IOC andbuilt on a major survey of coastalmanagement experience in 29 countries.The survey provides a comprehensiveupdate of coastal managementexperience in developed and developingcountries (including Indonesia).Blended skillfully with a vast referenceliterature, a comprehensive review of theevolution of coastal managementconcepts during the past 25 years, andthe extensive personal experience of theprincipal authors (Robert Knecht was anarchitect of the US coastal zone programfrom 1972-81), the resultant text isreplete with principles which reflect thegrowing maturity of coastal managementprograms.Unfortunately, as with much of theglobal coastal management literature inrecent years, Indonesian audiences may

dalah sangat tepat bahwa di TahunSamudera Internasional ini, telah

diterbitkan satu buku utama mengenaipengelolaan lautan dan pesisir.Diterbitkan dengan dukungan KomisiOseanografi Internasional (InternationalOceanographic Commission, IOC),“Integrated Coastal and OceanManagement “ merupakan hasil karyaberpengaruh dan kini mendampingi bukuJohn Clark, yang berjudul “CoastalZone Management” (telah diulas dalamPesisir & Lautan, Vol. 1, No. 1), sebagairujukan utama bidang ini.

Disusun dan dituliskan oleh duaakademisi terkemuka dari “University ofDelaware”, yakni Biliana Cicin-Sain danRobert Knecht serta dua penulispendukung yakni Dosoo Jang danGregory Fisk, buku ini dirancang saatcuti panjang di IOC dan disusunberdasarkan satu survei utama terhadappengalaman pengelolaan wilayah pesisirdi 29 negara. Survei tersebutmemberikan informasi mutakhir yangmenyeluruh mengenai pengalamanpengelolaan wilayah pesisir di negaramaju maupun negara yang sedangberkembang (termasuk Indonesia).Dirangkum secara seksama dengankepustakaan yang luas, kajian ulangyang menyeluruh mengenai evolusi darikonsep-konsep pengelolaan pesisirselama 25 tahun terakhir, sertapengalaman pribadi yang luas dari duapenulis utamanya (Robert Knecht adalahsalah satu arsitek dari program wilayahpesisir Amerika Serikat dari 1972

I A

Pacific Circle Consortiumand Oregon Sea Grant (1996)Coastal Zones of the Pacific;A Descriptive Atlas, Oregon Sea Grant, USA, ISBN: 1-881826-06-6

Coastal Zones of the Pacific Atlas

he Coastal Zones of the PacificAtlas is an outcome of the Ocean

Project, an initiative of the Pacific CircleConsortium of educational agenciesestablished by the Center forEducational Research and Innovation ofthe Organization for EconomicCooperation Development. Theinformative and illustrative book is anexcellent general reference for anyonewho does not understand the Corioliseffect or quickly needs a definition ofthe word detritus.

The 160-pages atlas begins withcommon coastal zone issues, includingconservation and sustainable yield. Thebook then covers environmentaldimensions, human dimensions, thegreenhouse effect, the ozone layer,coastal management, original peoples,protected species, and protected areasbefore concluding with a What Can WeDo section. Each topic briefly answerswhat, why, who, where, when and howand is accompanied by clear diagramsand illustrations. The book’s readabilityis enhanced by its simple layout.

The atlas defines the coastal zone anddescribes the types of coasts found in thePacific, but excludes explanations ofcoastal zones in specific countries,including Indonesia. As a referencebook, the glossary should be morecomprehensive in the quantity andvariety of terms used within the atlas.The book is recommended as a quickreference.

tlas Wilayah Pesisir pada SamudraPasifik merupakan satu hasil karya

“The Ocean Project”, sebagai suatukegiatan dari Konsorsium LingkarPasifik yang merupakan gabunganlembaga pendidikan yang dihimpun olehPusat Penelitian Pendidikan dan Inovasi(Center for Educational Research andInnovation), bagi OrganisasiPengembangan Kerjasama Ekonomi(Organization for Economic CooperationDevelopment). Buku yang sarat denganilustrasi dan informasi ini adalah rujukanumum yang sangat baik bagi merekayang tidak memahami apa yangdimaksud dengan efek Coriolis atauingin dengan cepat mengetahui definisidari kata detritus.

Atlas setebal 160 halaman ini dimulaidengan pemaparan isu-isu umum diwilayah pesisir, termasuk pelestarian danpemanfaatan yang berkelanjutan.Selanjutnya buku ini menerangkandimensi-dimensi lingkungan, dimensi-dimensi kemanusiaan, efek rumah-kaca,lapisan ozon, pengelolaan pesisir,penduduk-penduduk asli, jenis-jenisyang dilindungi, juga daerah-daerahyang dilindungi, sebelum kemudian

ditutup dengan bab “Apa yang dapatkita lakukan”. Setiap topik menjawabsecara singkat mengenai “apa, mengapa,siapa, dimana, kapan, dan bagaimana”,yang pemaparannya dibantu denganberbagai diagram dan gambar-gambaryang jelas. Kemudahan dalam membacabuku ini juga ditunjang oleh tataletaknya yang sederhana.

T A

Although Indonesian scientists willfind the atlas too general, students willfind it useful to identify issues anddevelop questions for further It can alsobe used as a good example of a researchframework. The atlas is designed tostimulate thought, originate ideas, andlead students to particular investigations.

Farah SofaCRC/URIProyek PesisirJakarta

Buku Atlas ini mendefinisikanwilayah pesisir dan menguraikan jenis-jenis pantai di sekitar Samudra Pasifik,namun tidak memberikan penjelasanmengenai wilayah pesisir di negara-negara tertentu, termasuk Indonesia.Sebagai sebuah buku rujukan, makadaftar istilah hendaknya dapat dibuatlebih komprehensif, baik dalam jumlahmaupun keragamannya sebagaimanayang tertera dalam atlas tersebut.Bagaimanapun, atlas inidirekomendasikan sebagai suatu rujukancepat.

Sekalipun ilmuwan Indonesia akanmenilai bahwa atlas ini bersifat telaluumum, namun bagi pelajar danmahasiswa akan sangat bermanfaatuntuk mengidentifikasi permasalahandan mengembangkan pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang lebih mendalam. Selainitu, buku ini dapat dipergunakan sebagaisuatu contoh yang bagus dari satukerangka kerja penelitian. Atlas inidirancang untuk merangsang pemikiran,menelurkan berbagai gagasan, danmenuntun pelajar dan mahasiswamenuju suatu penelitian tertentu.

Farah SofaCRC/URIProyek PesisirJakarta

find some of the terminology andexplanation of concepts confusing. Forexample, from the outset of the work,the term “integrated coastal and oceanmanagement” is described as ICM!Later in the work (including theglossary), ICM is then defined in severalquite different ways. While thiscomplaint may be considered overlysensitive, experience with programs suchas the Indonesian MREP project hasshown how important consistent use ofterminology is to audiences for whomcoastal management is a novel concept.

Indonesian audiences, especiallythose involved in recent years with NGOmarine programs and projects such asMREP, COREMAP and Proyek Pesisirwill see much familiar material in thiswork and are likely to find the clearlayout and carefully organized structureof the work helpful in using materialfrom the book. Although it containsmore conceptual material and lesspractical guidance than the ClarkHandbook, this book is a deserved (andvery well priced) addition to thebookshelves of all coastal managementresearchers and educators.

Ian M. DuttonCRC/URIProyek PesisirJakarta

sampai 1981), maka hasil akhir daritulisan ini sarat dengan prinsip-prinsipyang merefleksikan perkembangankematangan program-programpengelolaan wilayah pesisir.

Namun disayangkan, sejalan denganmaraknya perkembangan karya tulismengenai pengelolaan wilayah pesisirakhir-akhir ini di seluruh dunia, parapemerhati di Indonesia mungkinmenemukan pemakaian beberapaterminologi dan penjelasan mengenaikonsep-konsep membingungkan.Sebagai contoh, sejak awal istilah“integrated coastal and oceanmanagement” didiskripsikan sebagaiICM! Kemudian di bagian selanjutnyadari buku ini (termasuk dibagian daftaristilah-istilah), ICM kemudian diuraikandalam berbagai pengertian yang cukupberbeda-beda. Walaupun keluhan inidapat dianggap sebagai kepekaan yangberlebihan, namun pengalaman yangdapat diambil dari pelaksanaan program-program semacam proyek MREP diIndonesia, menunjukkan pentingnyapenerapkan suatu istilah denganpengertian yang konsisten, khususnyabagi pembaca yang baru mulaimengenali konsep pengelolaan wilayahpesisir.

Pembaca Indonesia, terutama mereka-mereka yang dalam beberapa tahunterakhir ini terlibat dalam program-program bahari dari lembaga swadayamasyarakat (LSM) dan proyek-proyekseperti MREP, COREMAP dan ProyekPesisir, akan menemukan banyak materiyang sudah tidak asing lagi dalam bukuini. Besar kemungkinan mereka akanmendapati bahwa tata letak yang jelasdan struktur buku yang disusun denganteliti sangatlah membantu dalammenggunakan berbagai materi yangterdapat buku ini. Sekalipun buku inimengandung lebih banyak hal-hal yang

bersifat konseptual dan kurangmemiliki petunjuk pelaksanaan praktisdibandingkan dengan buku panduan dariJohn Clark, namun demikian buku inilayak (serta dalam harga yang wajar)untuk ditambahkan sebagai koleksi dialmari buku dari semua peneliti danpendidik di bidang pengelolaan wilayahpesisir.

Ian M. Dutton

70

dapat menemukan antara empat hingga empat belaskarya tulis terpisah yang disusun oleh kelompokutama pengelola, [enentu kebijakan dan pakarterumbu karang yang telah terkenal di dunia.

Banyak diantara naskah tersebut merupakanhasil penelitian dan menyajikan temuan-temuanmenbgenai wilayah-wilayah terumbu karang duniadi luar Asia, termasuk bagian barat SamuderaIndonesia, Karibia, dan bagian Selatan SamuderaTeduh termasuk Australia. Para pengelola pesisirdan terumbu karang Indonesia yang mencari jawabatas pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang lebih bersifatsetempat (lokal) mungkin bisa mendapati bahwabanyak pelajaran yang diturunkan dari temuan-temuan dalam prosiding ini bermanfaat . Sebagaicontoh, dalam jilid satu pembaca akan menemukantopik-topik yang melebar misalnya EkosistemTerumbu Karang : seberapa luas keseluruhannyadibandingkan jumlah komponen-komponennya,Pengelolaan Terumbu Karang di negara sedangberkembang: Filipina sebagai kajian kasus,Perikanan laut di daerah Tropika dan masa depanterumbu karang: kajian singkat dengan penekananpada terumbu karang Asia Tenggara.

Dalam jilid dua, pembaca dapat menemukananeka ragam topik yang bermanfaat, termasukPengaruh penangkapan ikan dan struktur(susunan) terumbu terhadap terumbu karangAfrika bagian timur; Reefbase: sebuah pangkalandata tentang terumbu karang untuk penyelamanscuba, peranan ilmu pengetahuan dalam penetapandan pengelolaan wilayah-wilayah bahari yangdilindungi di Asia Tenggara.

Kemajuan-kemajuan dalam teknologipenambatan yang akrab lingkungan,mengkomunikasikan ilmu-ilmu kelautan kepadakhalayak awam (bukan ilmuwan), PengelolaanPelestarian Terumbu Karang: PenyelenggaraanPelatihan Ilmiah bagi masyarakat dan keuntungan-keuntungan ekonomi yang didapat dari Pariwisatapada daerah suaka kelautan di P. Apo, Filipina.

learned from the findings of these papers useful. Forexample, in Volume One the reader will discover suchdiverse topics as Coral Reef Ecosystems: How muchgreater is the whole than the sum of the parts?; Reefmanagement in developing countries: The Philippinesas a case study; Tropical marine fisheries and thefuture of coral reefs: A brief review with emphasis onSoutheast Asia; and The status of Southeast Asiancoral reefs.

In Volume Two the reader will find papers on avariety of topics including: Effects of fishing andreef structure on east African coral reefs; Sampleprogram design and environmental impactassessment on coral reefs; Reefbase: A globaldatabase of coral reefs and their resources;Estimating the carrying capacity of coral reefs forscuba diving; The role of science in theestablishment and management of marineprotected areas in southeast Asia; Advances inenvironmental mooring technology;Communicating marine science to non-scientists;Coral reef conservation management: Providingscientific training to the community; and Theeconomic benefits of tourism in the marine reserveof Apo Island, Philippines.

The proceedings of the International Coral ReefSymposia (ICRS) always maintain a high standardof publication and these volumes are no exception.They will be a very valuable addition to the librariesof all researchers, educators and agenciesconcerned with coral reef management inIndonesia. Given the current high level of interestin Indonesian’s diverse marine ecosystems, it willbe wonderful to see increased representation ofIndonesian papers. THe next ICRS is scheduledto be held in Bali in 2000 - that will be finallyopportunityto report progress in coral reef researchand management in the proceedings of futuresymposia.

Karla M. Boreri

71

Prosiding dari simposium internasional tentangTerumbu Karang senantiasa menjaga tingkatstandar publikasi yang tinggi, dan tidak terkecualikedua jilid ini. Buku-buku ini akan sangat berhargasebagai tambahan khazanah pustaka bagi semuapeneliti, tenaga pendidikan dan dinas-dinas yangberkepentingan dalam pengelolaan terumbu karangdi Indonesia. Mengingat tingginya tingkat minatatau keinginan tahu mengenai ekosistem KelautanIndoneisa adalah sangat menggembirakan untukmenyaksikan peningkatan artikel tentang Indonesiayang dapat merinci mengenai kekayaan alamterumbu-terumbu nusantara termuat dantercantum dalam prosiding simposia semacam ini,di masa-masa yang akan datang.

Karla M. Boreri

sometimes difficult to convince policymakers of the importance of continuingto invest in soundly based naturalresource management programs. Acursory review of Hinrichsen’s workemphasizes why such investment notonly makes good sense, but is essentialto the long term survival of coastalpopulations. If we are all, asHinrichsen contends, “coastal people”,then failure to implement programs forsustainable use of our coastal resourceswill ultimately reduce the quality ofour lives and the quality of our lifesupport systems - if you have anylingering doubts about that conclusiontake a day trip (as Hinrichsen did) toJakarta Bay !

Ian DuttonCRC/URIProyek PesisirJakarta

Guidelines to Authors

anuscripts format. Manuscripts should contain a cover page that includes the title, the name(s) of theauthor(s) and their addres(es). Each research paper, note and review article should have an abstract of notmore than 300 words. For manuscripts written in Bahasa Indonesia, it must have an abstract in both

Bahasa Indonesia and English. The abstract should state concisely the purpose of the paper, procedures followed,significant findings and major conclusions. Research papers must submitted according to the following format:Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, Discussion, References and Appendix (if required). Research notesshould combine Results and Discussion sections, whilst all other forms of manuscript should list references at theend of the text.Manuscript should be typed in Word Perfect (ver. 5.1 or later version) or Microsoft Word (ver. 5.0 or later version),used Times New Roman font type size 12, double-spaced, with margins 2.5 cm on A4 size paper. The right marginshould not be justified and words to be printed in Italics should be underlined. Metric measurements should alwaysbe given, or where in appropriates the metric equivalents given in parentheses. All pages including tables should benumbered. Footnotes should be avoided and bound manuscripts will not be accepted.

Citations and References. Within the text, citation should be cited by author(s) and date in parenthesis asfollows: (Bengen and Widinugraheni, 1995; Dartnall and Jones, 1986; Kenchington, 1978). For references citedwith three or more authors “et al.” should always be used.

Unpublished studies may be referred to as personal communications giving the name and short address e.g.(Darmawan, PKSPL- PB, and personal communication). It is the author’s responsibility to obtain permission fromthe colleague whose work is cited in this way.

References should be listed in alphabetical order. The names of all authors and the full title of the paper mustbe supplied together with the years, volume and first and last pages.

If publication is in press, the reference should be cited as completely as possible and then by including (inpress).

Examples of acceptable referencing format to the journal are provided below:

Bengen, D. G. and P. Widinugraheni, 1995. Sebaran Spasial Karang dan Asosiasinya dengan Karakteristik Habitatdi Pantai Blebu dan Pulau Sekepal, Lampung Selatan. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pengelolaan TerumbuKarang Jakarta, 10 - 12 Oktober 1995 : 81 - 95.

Dartnall, A.J. and M. Jones (eds) 1986. A Manual Survey Methods, Living Resources in Coastal Areas.Australia Institute Marine Science, Townsville.

Kenchington, R. A. 1978. Visual Survey of Large Areas of Coral Reefs. In D. R. Stoddart and R. E. Johannes(eds). Coral Reefs: Research Methods. UNESCO, Paris.

Tables. Tables are to be compiled on separate sheets. Tables are numbered consecutively. A title should beprovided for each table and they should be referred to in the text.

Illustrations. Graphs, photographs, maps, etc will be designed as figures. All illustrations should similarly benumbered consecutively and referred to in the text. Each should be identified by the fig number, author, andabriviated title on the back. Poor contrast graphics will not be accepted Photographs should be in glossy print. Thesize of the lettering being appropriate to that of the illustration size, but taking into account the possible need for re-duction in size (up to 50 %).

Proofs. Only one set of proofs will be sent to the main authors, showing the final layout of the paper, as it willappear in the journal. Proof corrections must be limited to typographical errors. Corrected proofs should be returnedto the Editor within (7) days of being received by author.

Offprints. Ten offprints of each paper will be provided free of charge. Additional copies may be purchased onan “offprint order form” which will accompany the proofs.

M

TUJUAN

* Meningkatkan kepedulian masyarakat luasterhadap manfaat dari pengelolaan sumberdaya pesisirdan lautan secara terpadu.* Merangsang dialog di antara para praktisi danpakar pengelolaan sumberdaya pesisir dan lautan.* Membagi pegalaman dan pengetahuan diantara seluruh pemerhati masalah-masalahpengelolaan sumberdaya pesisir dan lautan.

RUANG LINGKUP Teknis, hukum, politik, sosial dan kebijakan yangberkaitan dengan pengelolaan sumberdaya pesisir danlautan.

SASARAN PEMBACA

Pejabat pemerintah dari seluruh tingkatan,kalangan akademik, para peneliti dan praktisi,serta berbagai kalangan pemerhati masalah-masalah pengelolaan sumberdaya pesisir danlautan

FORMAT* Makalah penelitian dan kajian kebijakan(tidak lebih dari 3.000 kata)* Laporan singkat (menggunakan data yang lebihterbatas dan tidak lebih dari 1500 kata)* Artikel kajian (tidak lebih dari 8.000 kata)* Komentar (opini tentang naskah yang telahditerbitkan dan berbagai macam isu lain yang sesuaidengan ruang lingkup jurnal (tidak lebih dari 1.000kata).* Tinjauan Buku

OBJECTIVES

* Increase public’s awareness of the ben-efits of integrated coastal and marine resourcesmanagement.* Stimulate dialogue between practitionersand scientific community.* Share experience and learn lessonswithin the coastal and marine management com-munity.

SCOPE Technical, legal, political, social and policy thatrelated to the management of coastal and marineresources.

TARGET AUDIENCE

Government officials at all levels, academics,researchers and practitioners involvedindiscipline of coastal and marine resourcesmanagement.

FORMAT

* Research and policy review papers (upto 3,000 words.)* Research notes (usually based uponmore limited set of data and not exceeding1,500 words.)* Topic review articles (not more than8,000 words).* Comments (opinions relating to previ-ously published material and all issues relevant tothe journal’s objectives, not more than 1,000words)* Book review

Petunjuk Penulisan

ormat Naskah. Naskah harus memiliki halaman depan yang memuat judul naskah, nama dan alamat penulis.Setiap naskah harus memiliki abstrak dengan jumlah maksimal 300 kata. Untuk naskah dalam bahasaIndonesia, abstrak dibuat dalam bahasa Indonesia dan bahasa Inggris. Abstrak secara ringkas mensarikan

maksud dan tujuan penelitian, prosedur pelaksanaannya, hasil-hasil dan kesimpulan utamanya. Naskah hasilpenelitian disampaikan dalam format berikut: Pendahuluan, Bahan dan Metodologi, Hasil, Pembahasan, DaftarPustaka dan Lampiran. Untuk naskah laporan singkat, Hasil dan Pembahasan digabungkan. Untuk seluruh jenisnaskah harus mencantumkan Daftar Pustaka pada akhir tulisan.

Naskah ditulis dalam program-program pengolah kata seperti Word Perfect versi 5.1, Microsof Word versi 5.0atau versi terbaru lainnya, menggunakan huruf Times New Roman ukuran 12, menggunakan 2 spasi dengan lebarmargin 2.5 cm pada kertas ukuran A4. Margin teks tidak harus rata kanan, dan kata-kata yang dicetak miringhendaknya digaris bawahi. Hasil pengukuran disajikan dengan satuan metrik, atau diberi keterangan nilaiekuivalennya dalam kurung. Semua halaman termasuk tabel harus bernomor. Catatan kaki sebaiknya tidakdigunakan and naskah tidak boleh dijilid.

Rujukan dan Daftar Pustaka. Di dalam teks, rujukan ditulis sebagai berikut : Bengen and Widinugraheni,1995; Dartnall and Jones, 1986; Kenchington, 1978). Untuk rujukan yang ditulis oleh 3 orang atau lebih,penulisannya menggunakan et. al..

Rujukan untuk tulisan yang tidak dipublikasikan harus dianggap sebagai komunikasi pribadi denganmencantumkan nama dan alamat singkat contohnya: Darmawan, PKSPL-IPB, komunikasi pribadi. Ijin untukmencantumkan rujukan tersebut merupakan tanggung jawab penulis.

Daftar pustaka disusun menurut abjad nama penulis pertama. Daftar pustaka tersebut memuat nama semuapenulis, judul naskah, tahun, volume dan halaman yang yang dirujuk.

Jika tulisan yang dirujuk masih dalam proses akan diterbitkan, hendaknya dituliskan “(in press)”.

Untuk lebih jelasnya, berikut adalah penulisan daftar pustaka:

Bengen, D. G. and P. Widinugraheni, 1995. Sebaran Spasial Karang dan Asosiasinya dengan Karakteristik Habitatdi Pantai Blebu dan Pulau Sekepal, Lampung Selatan. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pengelolaan TerumbuKarang Jakarta, 10 - 12 Oktober 1995 : 81 - 95.

Dartnall, A.J. and M. Jones (eds) 1986. A Manual Survey Methods, Living Resources in Coastal Areas.Australia Institute Marine Science, Townsville.

Kenchington, R. A. 1978. Visual Survey of Large Areas of Coral Reefs. In D. R. Stoddart and R. E. Johannes(eds). Coral Reefs: Research Methods. UNESCO, Paris.

Tabel. Setiap tabel harus diketik pada halaman terpisah Penomoran tabel dilakukan secara berurutan Setiaptabel harus diberi judul. Penomoran harus didentifikasi dalam teks (Tabel*).

Gambar. Grafik, Foto, peta dan sebagainya dikategorikan sebagai gambar. Semua gambar dinomori dan di-sesuaikan dengan teks naskah. Penomoran gambar dila-kukan secara berurutan dan harus diidentifikasi dalam teks(Gambar*). Berilah keterangan untuk setiap gambar di halaman belakangnya dengan mencantumkan nomor gam-bar, nama penulis dan judul gambar. Grafik yang kurang jelas tidak akan diterima. .Foto dicetak pada kertas yangmengkilap. Ukuran kertas ha-rus sesuai dengan ukuran gambar tetapi sedapat mungkin sudah mempertimbangkanpengecilan ukuran hingga 50%.

Proofs. Satu eksemplar naskah yang siap cetak akan dikirimkan kepada penulis utama. Koreksi terhadapnaskah pada kesalahan ketik. Naskah yang telah dikoreksi mohon dikembalikan paling lambat 7 hari setelahditerima kembali oleh penulis.

Offprints. Penulis utama akan men-dapatkan sepuluh lembar “offprints” secara cuma-cuma. Apabila inginmendapatkan tambahan “offprints” hendaknya mengisi dalam “Daftar pemesanan offprints” yang dikirimkanbersamaan dengan naskah siap cetak.

F