resource use in komodo national park: long-term trends 1996 - 2009

Resource Use in Komodo National Park: Long-term Trends 1996 - 2009

Resource Use in Komodo National Park:

Long-Term Trends 1996 - 2009

PT. PUTRI NAGA KOM DO

Komodo National Park

2


R e s o u r c e U s e i n K o m o d o N a t i o n a l P a r k :

L o n g - t e r m T r e n d s 1 9 9 6 – 2 0 0 9

H a R v e y a & y U s a m a N d R a H

m a R c H 2 0 1 0

K o m o d o N a t i o n a l P a r k R e s o u r c e U s e m o n i t o r i n g s e r i e s : 1 9 9 6 - 2 0 0 9


4

The Nature Conservancy

The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The Conservancy launched the Global Marine Initiative in 2002 to protect and restore the most resilient examples of ocean and coastal ecosystems in ways that benefit marine life, local communities and economies. The Conservancy operates over 100 marine conservation projects in more than 21 countries and 22 US states; they work with partners across seascapes and landscapes through transformative strategies and integrated planning and action. The focus is on: (1) Setting priorities for marine conservation using ecoregional assessments and tools for ecosystem based management; (2) Ensuring coral reef survival by creating resilient networks of marine protected areas; (3) Restoring and conserving coastal habitats by utilizing innovative new methods; (4) Building support for marine conservation through strategic partnerships and working to shape global and national policies. Marine conservation in The Nature Conservancy builds upon the organization’s core strengths: achieving demonstrable results; working with a wide range of partners, including non-traditional partners; science-based, robust conservation planning methodologies; our experience with transactions; and, perhaps most importantly, our ability and commitment to back up our strategies with human, financial and political capital. For more information e-mail [email protected] or go to www.nature.org/marine.

PT Putri Naga Komodo

PT Putri Naga Komodo is a non-for-profit tourism destination management company and holds the sole tourism concession license to operate within Komodo National Park. Putri Naga Komodo’s mission is to achieve financial sustainability for park management through the development of tourism, and to support biodiversity conservation and compatible community development initiatives lead by the Komodo National Park Authority. The company is a joint partnership majority owned by The Nature Conservancy, who provide technical expertise and support to science-based management initiatives.


Published by: The Nature Conservancy and PT Putri Naga Komodo

Copyright: © 2010 The Nature Conservancy/ PT Putri Naga Komodo

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged.

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holders.

Citation: Harvey A & Yusamandra H (2010), Resource Use in Komodo National Park: Long-term trends 1996 - 2009. The Nature Conservancy & PT Putri Naga Komodo, Bali, Indonesia.

Illustrations: Donald Bason

Available from:

The Nature Conservancy, Jl. Pengembak No. 2, Sanur, Bali 80228, Indonesia.

PT Putri Naga Komodo, Gang Mesjid, Labuan Bajo, Manggarai Barat, NTT, Indonesia. www.gokomodo.org


6


Sumary for DeCiSioN maKerS

valuable ecosystem services are sustained within Komodo National Park (KNP). KNP day fisheries generate an estimated Rp 20 billion per annum, while tourism generates an estimated Rp 42 – 107 billion per annum for Labuan Bajo alone. These industries are dependent on healthy ecosystems, and their maintenance is essential for continued sustainable development of the region.

Resource Use monitoring (RUm) is a key tool for assessing management performance and informing adaptive management in KNP. RUm can assist park managers to evaluate management effectiveness, document performance, and report to decision-makers and stakeholders. This report examines long-term resource use monitoring data for KNP.

Use of destructive fishing gears has declined within KNP from 21.32 to 5.55 incidents per day. surveillance, enforcement and education strategies have contributed to this decline. around 5 boats per day still use destructive gears within KNP, particularly meting. Review and adaptation of management strategies would assist further reduction of destructive fishing gears.

community development and alternative livelihood programs have successfully curtailed growth of the fishing fleet in Komodo village, in contrast to other villages in KNP. extension of these programs to other communities would help regulate further growth of the fishing fleets.

Fishing activity in KNP has been maintained at or below 1996 levels, with approximately 70 boats and 170 fishermen active in KNP. The number of fishermen from outside KNP has decreased from almost 50% in 1996.


8

Fishing activity within designated no-take areas is high, with around 30 zoning violations per day and 2078.8 T of fish extracted from no-take areas per year. The legal status of KNP’s zonation system is unclear, particularly with regard to supporting district-level legislation. Implementation of KNP’s zonation system could be strengthened through review of management objectives, gaps and needs.

awareness of KNP’s resource regulation is low amongst stakeholders, with less than 50% of fishermen demonstrating knowledge of the zonation system in 2009. at a meeting in april 2010, community members stated they had not received any outreach since 2004. compliance with KNP resource regulations could be strengthened though development of outreach and education programs.Tourism activity is focused in seven “hot spots” within KNP. Fishing activity is also high in these locations. Permanent or semi-permanent ranger stations at these “hot-spots” could reduce user conflicts, minimize enforcement costs, and enhance the visitor experience.

seven tourism boats originating from outside West manggarai use KNP every day. The local economy only captures a small percentage of revenues from these vessels. Revenue capture could be improved via e.g. further development of tourist attractions on mainland Flores, or development of a tiered tourism licensing system.

RUm has not yet been fully integrated into adaptive management in KNP. capacity building, standardized sortie schedules, and improved data management would increase the value of RUm to park managers. RUm can assist park managers to maximize management effectiveness within KNP. Priority management and monitoring issues are examined in detail in this report.


abbreviaTioNS

BTNK Balai Taman Nasional Komodo (Komodo National Park Autority)

FRS Floating Ranger Station

GEF Global Environment Facility

GIS Geographic Information System

IFC International Finance Corporation

KNP Komodo National Park

PHKA Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam (Forest Protection and Nature Conservation)

PNK PT Putri Naga Komodo

RUM Resource Use Monitoring


10


forwarD

Komodo National Park was initially established in 1980 to protect the unique Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) and its habitat. UNescO declared the area a World Heritage site in 1991. more recently the Park has also been recognized for its highly diverse and resilient coral reefs. Komodo National Park includes one of the world’s richest marine environments, encompassing 120,000 ha of marine waters including highly diverse habitats such as coral reefs, mangroves, seamounts, and semi-enclosed bays. scientists and divers rank Komodo’s coral reefs among the most diverse and best preserved in Indonesia. The reefs have

proved to be highly resilient to climate change impacts, due to continual mixing of warm surface waters with cool deep waters, driven by strong currents and upwelling. Komodo is a center of Indonesia’s marine biodiversity, and is home to more than 380 coral species, 1000 reef fish species, 14 species of whales, and manta aggregation sites. as a result, Komodo National Park has become an increasingly popular tourism destination drawing visitors from around the world.

While many other marine parks have fallen into decline, Komodo National Park has seen a significant decrease in destructive fishing practices and maintenance of coral reef conditions as well as major fish assemblages in the past 10 years. The Nature conservancy helped mobilize technical assistance and resources to assist and support the Park with the implementation of long term conservation strategies on the ground from 1995-onwards. For more than a decade, the directorate General for Forest Protection and Nature conservation and The Nature conservancy have worked together to address threats such as illegal fishing and over-fishing in the Park. This work is continued by PT Putri Naga Komodo, a unique enterprise that supports the long-term management of the Park on the basis of three integrated strategies:

Protecting the Park’s natural resources,•

Supporting the sustainable development of local communiqies living in and around the Park, and•

Enabling Park management to reach financial self-sufficiency through nature-based tourism •

development.

Programs for the long term monitoring of natural resources and resource utilization provide essential information to support adaptive management in Komodo National Park. This report will reveal patterns of declines and improvements of fish stocks and coral reefs over the past 15 years and provide specific recommendations on how to adapt management strategies to achive biodiversity goals.

Rili DjohaniPresident-director, PT. Putri Naga Komodo

director, The Nature conservancy’s coral Triangle Program


1212

aCKNowleDgemeNTS

This long-term analysis of marine resource use in Komodo National Park is based on data collected by BTNK, PNK and TNc between 1996 and 2009.

Between 2005 and 2009 fieldwork was supported by grants from the IFc and TNc. Before 2005, TNc and their donors financed fieldwork.

The authors are grateful for the efforts of all BTNK, PNK and TNc staff that have contributed to collecting the information presented in this report.

We acknowledge the critical role of past and present directors of Komodo National Park for recognising the value of RUm data to park management, supporting RUm operations, and their commitment to continue building on KNP’s success as a biodiversity refuge, traditional use area and tourism destination.


exeCuTive Summary

Resource Use monitoring (RUm) was carried out in Komodo National Park between 1996 and 2009. RUm helps park managers to identify resource use patterns, threats and opportunities, to monitor the performance of management interventions, to inform adaptive management, and maximise management effectiveness.

RUm data shows that use of destructive fishing gears has declined within KNP, that growth of fishing fleets has been curtailed within villages subject to community development and alternative livelihood programs, and that fishing pressure within KNP did not increase between 1996 and 2009. The number of fishermen originating from outside KNP has decreased.

However KNP’s zonation system is not fully implemented, with high fishing activity and extraction within designated no-take zones. The legal status of KNP’s zonation system is unclear, and further implementation of this management objective would benefit from a review of gaps and needs, particularly related to supporting national and local legislation. Knowledge of zonation systems and resource regulations is low amongst stakeholders, and there is considerable scope for strengthening outreach and communication programs.

Tourism activity is high within seven “hot spots” in KNP. The potential for resource conflict in these areas is not yet addressed in management strategies.

RUm capacity building and adaptive management objectives of the KcmI Project have not yet been fully realised. Obstacles include intermittent technical lead to deliver capacity building programs, irregularity of RUm operations, limited data management capacity, and the need for complex data processing to correct for these issues. consequently only limited communication of RUm data to stakeholders has occurred, and findings have not been fully integrated into an adaptive management process.


14


CoNTeNTS

1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 171.1 Komodo National Park.......................................................................................... 20

1.1.1 Physical Features and Biodiversity.............................................................. 201.1.2EcosystemServicesandBenefits ................................................................ 201.1.3 Governance .................................................................................................. 211.1.4 Marine Threats and Impacts ........................................................................ 22

1.2 Resource Use Monitoring ..................................................................................... 222 Methods ........................................................................................................... 27

2.1 Fieldwork .............................................................................................................. 282.2 Data Management ................................................................................................. 292.3 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 29

3 Results ............................................................................................................. 313.1 Operations ............................................................................................................. 323.2 Tourism ................................................................................................................. 333.3 Fisheries ................................................................................................................ 34

4 Discussion ........................................................................................................ 394.1 Values of KNP’s key resources ............................................................................. 404.2 Destructive Fishing ............................................................................................... 404.3 Zonation System ................................................................................................... 414.4 Sustainable Fisheries ............................................................................................. 42

4.4.1 Demersal Fisheries ...................................................................................... 424.4.2 Pelagic Fisheries .......................................................................................... 424.4.3 Licensing and Exclusive Use Rights ........................................................... 424.4.4 By-catch ....................................................................................................... 434.4.5Developmentofthefishery.......................................................................... 43

4.5 Tourism and Sustainable Financing ..................................................................... 434.6 Capacity Building ................................................................................................. 444.7 Adaptive Management .......................................................................................... 454.8 Stakeholder Engagement ....................................................................................... 46

5 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 475.1 RUM Capacity ...................................................................................................... 485.2 Resource Use Patterns ........................................................................................... 485.3 Adaptive Management .......................................................................................... 49

6 Recommendations .............................................................................................. 516.1 Management .......................................................................................................... 52

6.1.1 Tourism ........................................................................................................ 526.1.2 Fisheries ....................................................................................................... 52

6.2 Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 537 Literature Cited ................................................................................................. 55Appendix A: Proforma ............................................................................................. 59Appendix B: Fishery Resource Patterns ..................................................................... 65Appendix C: Management Effectiveness Summary ........................................................ 71Appendix D: 2 ....................................................................................................... 17-Jun-96 30 5 ....................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................... Appendix E: 3 ........................................................................................................ 25-Jun-96 36 2 1 ..................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................... Appendix F: 4 ........................................................................................................ 3-Jul-96 35 6 4 ..................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................... 5 10-Jul-96 ......................................................................................................... 21 11 2 ....................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................6 16-Jul-96 ......................................................................................................... 31 4 4 ....................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................7 25-Jul-96 ......................................................................................................... 28 3 ....................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................8 1-Aug-96 .......................................................................................................... 20 6 ....................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................9 12-Aug-96 ........................................................................................................ 14 9 2 ....................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................10 20-Aug-96 ........................................................................................................ 14 3 1 .......................................................................................................................


16


Introduction

1


18


Resource Use monitoring (RUm) in Komodo National Park (KNP) is a critical tool for assessing the impact of management strategies on marine resource use, evaluating management effectiveness, and informing adaptive management. This report provides the first analysis of long-term resource use trends in KNP, and the impact of management interventions.

In 1996 the Government of Indonesia invited The Nature conservancy (TNc) to assist the Komodo National Park authority (BTNK) to strengthen marine and terrestrial management strategies in KNP. a marine RUm program was implemented at this time.

In 2005 the Komodo project was extended with investment from the Global environment Facility (GeF) through the International Finance corporation (IFc), with the aim of ensuring the long-term effective management of KNP through a collaborative management approach (IFc 2004). specific objectives included:

Conservation and sustainable use of KNP’s (i)

unique biodiversity assets;

Improved park management via an adaptive (ii)

approach able to respond to changing threats

and opportunities; and

Strengthened accountability of park manage-(iii)

ment agencies. The project was implemented

via PT Putri Naga Komodo, a not-for-profit joint

venture between TNC and a private partner.

Implementation was guided by the Project document (IFc 2004), a 7-year Implementation Plan (PNK 2006) and 25-year master Plan for management in Komodo National Park (PHKa & TNc 2000).

monitoring and evaluation was identified as a critical project component, to continuously assess:

The status of key terrestrial and marine re-(i)

sources and ecosystems in KNP;

The impacts of resource use on these resourc-(ii)

es and ecosystems; and

The performance of the KCMI project as a (iii)

whole and the quality and effectiveness of

park management in fulfilling conservation

and sustainable use objectives.

specific performance indicators were identified (Table 1), as was the need to establish systematic biodiversity assessments and monitoring of all key species and environmental variables to support an adaptive management approach.

Project plans specified the need for continuous assessment of resource use and tourism impacts in order to support conservation and tourism management activities, including:

Fishery resource use monitoring to determine •

which community groups are involved in which

fishing activities, and where and when they

fish; to identify changes in fishing behaviors

arising from management interventions; and

to assess the number of fishermen involved,

type of fishing gear, the quantity, quality and

species composition of the catch, etc.

Tourism resource use monitoring to identify •

changes in visitor numbers and profiles arising

form management interventions; and to assess

biophysical impacts.

The existing RUm program was extended through revised sOPs (Katherina et al 2007) to address these specific needs and indicators.

This report presents the first analysis of long-term (1996 to 2009) resource use trends in KNP. By reference to performance indicators and levels specified in the Project document and 25-year management Plan, it aims to:

Evaluate park management capacity building •

objectives in the context of RUM;


2020

Identify any trends and changes in resource •

use behavior and patterns within KNP;

Explore any management impact on resource •

use behavior and patterns within KNP; and

Assess the degree to which RUM has been •

integrated into adaptive management of KNP.

K o m o d o N a t i o n a l P a r k1 . 1

P h y s i c a l F e a t u r e s a n d 1 . 1 . 1 B i o d i v e r s i t y

Komodo National Park (119° 30’ e, 8° 35’ s) is located in the Lesser sunda islands of Indonesia, east Nusa Tenggara province. Lying in the sape straits between Flores and sumbawa, it comprises the three islands of Komodo, Rinca and Padar, smaller surrounding islands, the straits between the main islands and all waters within 1000 m of shore (Figure 1Error! Reference source not found.). Komodo National Park (KNP) encompasses both marine and terrestrial environments, including habitats of the vulnerable Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) and 132,000 ha of the world’s richest marine environments, including coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass meadows, seamounts and bays.

KNP’s marine ecosystems support high biodiversity, including over 1,000 species of fish, 385 species of reef building corals (Beger & Turak 2005), 70 species of sponge (PHKa & TNc 2000) and 9 species of seagrass (Pedju 2004). Large charismatic fauna, including 10 species of dolphin, 7 species of whale (Kahn 2000) and two species of sea turtle, contribute

to KNP’s appeal as a tourism destination. Threatened or endangered species (IUcN 2009) have been recorded within KNP’s waters, including dugongs (Dugong dugon), manta rays (Manta birostris), whitetip reef shark (Triaenodon obesus), blacktip reef shark (Carcharhinus melanopterus), Baramundi cod (Cromileptes altivelis), Napoleon wrasse (Cheilinus undulates), hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), green turtle (Chelonia mydas), and giant clam (Tridacna gigas) (erdman 2004).

E c o s y s t e m S e r v i c e s a n d 1 . 1 . 2 B e n e f i t s

KNP maintains ecosystem goods and services (millennium ecosystem assessment 2005) that provide benefits at the local, national and global level (Box 1). High economic values have been attributed to the types of coastal ecosystems contained within KNP due to the services they provide: mangrove systems are worth an estimated Us$ 4,290 annually per hectare, seagrasses and lagoons provide benefits of around Us$ 73,900 per year per hectare, while coral reefs are among the most economically valuable of all ecosystems at Us$ 129,000 per year per hectare (TeeB 2009).

as a protected area containing marine and coastal ecosystems, KNP plays a key role in:

Maintaining Indonesia’s healthy coasts and •

seas in order to sustain social and economic

development; and

Maintaining significant natural resources on •

behalf of the global community (IUCN et al

2008).

figure 1: location of Komodo National Park, indonesia within the lesser Sunda and Coral Triangle marine eco-region.


box 1 - mPa benefits

MPAs provide a range of global, national and local benefits (Kelle-her 1999), including:

Conservation of biodiversity, especially critical habitats of •threatened species;

Protection of attractive habitats and species on which sustain-•able tourism can be based;

Increased productivity of fisheries by: •

insurance against stock collapse; ›

buffer against recruitment failure; ›

increase in densities and average sizes of individuals; ›

increase in reproductive output; ›

provision of centres for dispersal of propagules and adults ›(spillover);

containing more natural species composition, age struc- ›ture, spawning potential and genetic variability;

Contribute to increased knowledge of marine science through:•

information on functional linkages, ›

implementation of the precautionary principle, ›

provision of control sites for research and ecological ›benchmarks against which to measure human-induced change;

potential as nodes in monitoring networks; ›

more “natural” systems where natural mortality can be ›compared with fishing mortality;

A refuge for intensely exploited species;•

Protection of genetic diversity of heavily exploited popula-•tions;

Protection of cultural diversity, e.g. sacred places, wrecks and •lighthouses.

at the local level, KNP’s marine ecosystems underpin economies, livelihoods and food security through, for example:

Increased diving tourism and resulting •

revenues (Bonaire Marine Park, Netherlands

Antilles);

Increased subsistence fish catches, expanded •

tourist activity, and greater involvement of

local people in managing resorts and boats

(Tai Island, Fiji);

Growth of tourism and resulting revenue •

through gate, guide, and camping fees, rental

of boats and equipment, and hotel expenses

(Malindi/ Watamu, Mobasa and Kisite/

Mpunguti National Parks and Reserves, Kenya);

and

Accrual of indirect benefits through the •

creation of jobs in hotels and for guides and

boatmen (Salm et al 2000).

The economic value of KNP, in terms of income from fisheries and tourism alone for the residents of Komodo district is estimated at around 60 billion rupiah (approximately Usd 6 million) per annum (statistics Indonesia 2009). The figure is possibly even larger when supporting industries such as transport are considered. With approximately 90% of working people in the park relying on fishing as their primary income (PHKa & TNc 2000), marine ecosystem goods and services are critical to the social and economic welfare of local communities (moberg & Folke 1999). Park management and governance seeks to sustain and enhance KNP’s biodiversity, ecosystem services, and the benefits they provide

G o v e r n a n c e1 . 1 . 3 KNP lies within the 45 million ha Lesser sunda marine eco-region of the coral Triangle, and is part of an interconnected network of three marine Protected areas (mPa) covering a combined area of

approximately 3.5 million ha (Komodo National Park, Nusa Penida mPa, savu sea mPa). These marine areas make a significant contribution to national targets, committed to under the convention on Biological diversity (cBd), to protect 10% of Indonesia’s marine and coastal environments by 2012, and 20% by 2020.

KNP has been established and is managed within a framework of international law and multi-national treaties (Box 2), national policy and legislation (UNeP-Wcmc 2005). designation as a national park occurred in 1984 under PHKa decree 46/kpts/vI-sek/ 1984, with a zoning system and associated resource use regulations authorised in 2001 under PHKa decree 65/kpts/dJ-v/ 2001. specific management


22

box 2: international law and treaties applicable to KNP

UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme 1986 – designates KNP as a UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve with three functions: conser-vation; sustainable economic development; and provision of sites and facilities to support research, education and training.

World Heritage Convention 1986 – designates KNP as a World Heritage Site under criteria:

(vii) contains superlative natural phenomena and areas of aes-thetic importance due to outstanding universal value;

(x) contains important habitats for conservation, including those of threatened species.

Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 – KNP contributes to commitments made by Indonesia, as a Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to:

develop a national biodiversity strategy;•

to establish systems of protected areas to conserve biodiver-•sity; and

to promote environmentally sound and sustainable develop-•ment in areas adjacent to protected areas.

Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Diversity 1995 - em-phasised the importance of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas in national biodiversity strategies.

box 4: ecosystem Services

Coral reefs and associated habitats provide a suite of ecosystem services falling within four broad categories:

Provisioning services – e.g. fisheries, mariculture;•

Regulating services – e.g. protection of beaches and coastlines •from erosion or damage by storm surges, waves and tsuna-mis;

Cultural services – e.g. tourism, recreation and traditional •practices;

Supporting services – e.g. nursery habitats, nutrient and car-•bon cycling.

(UNEP-WCMC 2006) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005)

objectives result from designation as a man and Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage site in 1986, contributing to commitments under the cBd and fulfilling recommendations of the Jakarta mandate on marine and coastal diversity.

M a r i n e T h r e a t s a n d 1 . 1 . 4 I m p a c t s

KNP’s high biodiversity and associated ecosystem services are maintained by the high variety of habitat types and conditions in KNP (Beger & Turak 2005), including coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass meadows, seamounts and bays. ecosystem services often rely on ecological pathways connecting different habitats (Box 3). Processes and disturbances upstream may affect the quantity and quality of

KNP’s ecosystem services provided downstream (Box 4), with resulting impact on local economies, livelihoods and food security.

KNP’s marine ecosystems have always been subject to natural disturbances (Box 5) that may periodically affect or devastate habitats with resulting ecosystem-wide repercussions. Healthy habitats are resilient to

these impacts and will recover with time (Hughes & connell 1999).

KNP’s human populations, which depend principally on fishing for their livelihoods, have increased by 1000% since 1930, bringing a resulting increase in anthropogenic disturbances (PHKa & TNc 2000). Global issues such as climate change and ocean acidification add to these threats. The impact of multiple stressors, both natural and anthropogenic, have a multiplicative effect on ecosystems (Bryant et al 1998), with human-damaged reefs more vulnerable to natural disturbances and taking longer to recover (Brown 1997).

Primary threats to the ecosystem goods and services derived from KNP’s marine ecosystems include destructive fishing (especially blast and cyanide fishing), overfishing, crown-of-Thorns starfish, mass bleaching events and anchor damage (mous et al 2007; PHKa & TNc 2000).

R e s o u r c e U s e 1 . 2 M o n i t o r i n g

“Resource use” is the use of renewable marine resources, including ‘take’ (e.g. fishing, coral mining) and ‘non-take’ activities (e.g. tourism, education) (mous, PJ & Halim, m 2004).

RUm in KNP provides managers with a tool to:

Identify and monitor the ways in which •

societies use marine resources in KNP


box 3: Connectivity between coral reef, mangrove and sea grass habitats (CRMP 2004).

box 5: Disturbance to Coral reefs

Natural disturbances to coral reefs include:

disease, •

temperature extremes, •

pest outbreaks including Crown-of-Thorns Starfish,•

cyclones, •

seismic events including earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes•

Anthropogenic disturbances to coral reefs include:

Pollution• , including mine runoff and sewage discharge, poi-sons reef communities, pollutes reef waters and promotes algal growth (Bjork et al 1994; Brown 1997; Richmond 1994);

Overfishing• results in shifts in fish size, abundance and species composition of reef communities. The removal of key herbivore and predator species may cause cascading effects in the trophic web, bringing large scale changes to ecosystems and the servic-es they provide (Bohnsack 1993; Dulvy et al 2004; Jennings &

Polunin 1996; Pennisi; Pinnegar et al 2002; Roberts 1995).

Destructive fishing• practices, including bomb and cyanide fish-ing, muroami and trawling, are non-selective, remove large numbers of undersized target species and non-target species and cause habitat damage. Cyanide fishing to support the live food fish trade has led to widespread reductions in groupers, Na-poleon wrasse and other species (Johannes & Riepen 1995).

Climate change• will increase background disturbances (through e.g. elevated sea surface temperatures, ocean acidification and increased storm frequency and intensity) reducing resilience to other human disturbances (Bryant et al 1998).

Coastal development• , including reclamation and construction, alters coastal dynamics, removes important nursery grounds, and increases terrestrial run-off and pollution (Wilkinson 2004).

Unregulated tourism• can impact on coral reefs through tram-pling by swimmers and divers, anchor damage, and sewage dis-charge from hotels (Global Environment Facility 1996).

(Hughes et al 2005), including destructive

and unsustainable resource use;

Monitor natural resource (e.g. fishery, reef, •

dive site) condition, status and threats in

KNP;

Evaluate the impact of management strategies •

on resource use patterns;

Evaluate compliance with management •

strategies, and help identify the factors

influencing compliance (Keane et al 2008);

Engage stakeholders through participation in •

monitoring activities and communication of


24

monitoring findings, and hence build support

for management objectives (Mak & Moncur

1998; Steins & Edwards 1998; Western et al

1994);

RUm provides critical information to support the Government of Indonesia’s commitment to effective management of protected areas National Plan of action under the coral Triangle Initiative (action 9), and can assist park managers to (i) evaluate management effectiveness, (ii) document the performance of management efforts at achieving goals and objectives, (iii) report progress to decision-makers and stakeholders (Pomeroy et al 2004).

RUm findings can assist park managers to adapt strategies in response to emerging threats and opportunities. It provides the means to monitor and evaluate the extent to which management strategies achieve specified objectives, and to implement science-based adaptive management.

In addition to key performance indicators specified in the Project document (Table 1), KNP’s 25-year

management Plan defines specific resource use targets (Table 2).

due to the significant potential for RUm to contribute to the long-term effective management of KNP, strengthening the capacity of park management to incorporate RUm into adaptive management approaches is a key project objective.

This report aims to:

Evaluate park management capacity building •

objectives in the context of RUM;







Table 1: Key performance indicators specified in the Project Document related to resource use within KNP.

Objective to be Monitored Performance Indicator Expected Change

Sustainable Use Extent of destructive fishing within park boundaries.

Annual destructive fishing effort in park waters de-creasing by 15% per year.

Amount of by-catch in legal fisheries Reduction of by-catch by at least 10% per year.

Use of hookah compressors in park waters.

Use of these (now banned) compressors will decrease by 20% per year, completely stopping by end of year 5.

Sustainable development of pelagic fishing by local fishermen.

Pelagic fishing will have expanded in a sustainable manner, accompanied by a diversification of target species, fishing methods and gear types.

Quality of Park Management Involvement of stakeholder groups in park management

The new collaborative management structure to in-clude a wide range of stakeholders, including the park authorities, local communities, private sector interests, local government and NGOs.

Operation of a zoning system A zonation will have been set up by end of yr 2 and will have been used to tailor management activities to the biodiversity objectives of each zone.

Use of adaptive research to support park management

Increased use of adaptive research, for example into Komodo dragon reproduction and reef regeneration.

Use of biodiversity assessments The use of biodiversity assessments and monitoring systems will have become standard practice in the management of KNP by end of yr 5.


Table 3:resource use management targets in KNP (PHKa & TNC 2000).

Resource Use Type Target

Fisheries Pelagic resources in the Pelagic Use Zone and coastal resources in the Traditional Use Zones are used in a sustainable manner.

Coral reefs and spawning sites are preserved, both within and outside KNP.

Pelagic fishing methods are diversified, and post harvest methods are improved.

Mariculture is sustainably developed in the Traditional Use Zone and outside the KNP area.

Tourism An overall tourism management plan is developed and implemented.

Effective co-management of natural resources in the Buffer Zones is implemented in cooperation with the appropriate agencies.

Park management facilities, and infrastructure are develop on the basis of an EIA.

Research is implemented on the impacts of tourism, and the needs of tourists.

A trial system is implemented for charging of a progressive entrance fee for KNP, with all revenues col-lected used to finance Park management.

Research Agreements developed covering intellectual property rights.

A biological monitoring and inventory plan for all marine and terrestrial habitats implemented, with special attention given to fragile habitats and threatened species.

An overall research plan developed and implemented in collaboration with scientific partners and ad-dressing key management issues for the Park.

General Protection An operational zonation system in place, protecting all areas with high biological value.

Park regulations are clear, enforceable, and ensure the protection of the natural resources.


26


Methodology

2


28

F i e l d w o r k2 . 1

RUm followed published sOPs, (Katherina et al 2007) implemented in 2007. Prior to 2007 survey schedules were variable. methods described here are based on sOPs.

RUm was carried out via speedboat every two weeks. sorties followed a fixed route (Figure 2), and aimed to cover >75% of KNP’s marine area. Where possible, sorties consisted of the following minimum personnel:

Boat captain;•

Boat crew;•

Science and Monitoring Coordinator;•

RUM assistant (Community Organizer or other •

community member where possible);

BTNK rangers.•

RUm teams aimed to record all park users encountered along the sortie route. Prior to 2009, it is

possible that RUm preferentially targeted fishermen and specific regions of the park, especially north Komodo to Papagarang (pers. obs.; abubakar Pasya, pers. comm).

Interviews were conducted with boat captains. Interviews consisted of fixed questions and observations. Interview responses and observations were recorded on proforma (appendix a). Interview questions and observations included:

Date/ time and geographic coordinates;•

Type of boats (fishing, sport fishing, yacht, •

tourism boat);

Park section and management zone;•

For fishing boats:•

Active/ resting/ travelling; ›

Gear type; ›

Target species; ›

Hours worked; ›

Weight of fish caught; ›

Number of crew; ›

4

1

8

6

7

2

13

3

14

10

115

12

9

1615

figure 2: rum sortie route as defined in SoP.


Table 3: market values of KNP fishery target species (derived from average 2009 values).

Target Species Value (Rp kg-1)

Lobster 80000

Sharks 45000

Sea Cucumber 40000

Reef Fish 40000

Sea Shells 32000

Pelagic Fish 25000

Squid 15000

Seaweed 12000

Shrimp 10000

Mixed Fish 7000

For tourism boats:•

Number of tourists; ›

Duration of stay; ›

For all boats:•

Port of origin; ›

Type of boat (inboard, outboard, no ›

engine).

D a t a M a n a g e m e n t2 . 2

data were recorded onto proforma in the field. data were transferred to a microsoft excel database on return to the office. database versions were maintained by both BTNK and PNK.

D a t a A n a l y s i s2 . 3

RUm data was collected between 1996 and 2009, with occasional changes in sOPs during this period. This study was approached as a meta-analysis to accommodate methodological changes.

Initially a detailed review and cleaning of long-term databases was completed. Individual database files were consolidated. missing data related to park section and zone was identified, and GIs used to fill gaps based on recorded coordinates.

counts of resource users were standardised to allow comparison between years, and accommodate variable sortie frequency and park coverage. each sortie record in the database included an estimate of the percentage coverage of each park section, from which the area was calculated. counts of resource users were converted to densities (resource users per ha). Where appropriate, densities were extrapolated to provide an estimate of total resource user density per section, per zone, and for the entire park.

Fishery extraction rates (catch Per Unit effort, cPUe) were calculated as the average weight of fish caught per person per hour of work (kg person-1 hr-1). RUm teams recorded hours worked from 2007, following revision of sOPs.

economic values of KNP fisheries were calculated from 2009 market values for each fishery (Table 3).

economic values of tourism were calculated using 1996 tourist spending behaviour data (total expenditure in Labuan Bajo per tourist per visit Us$ 90.70 ± 15.70 (Walpole & Goodwin 2000)), adjusted for 2009 inflation (proportional purchasing power parity per capita Gross domestic Product (International monetary Fund 2009)) to Us$ 153 ±26.59 per person per visit.


30


Results

3


32

O p e r a t i o n s3 . 1

Between 1996 and 2009 the frequency of RUm sorties was highly variable (2006: 0 sorties; 1998: 41 sorties) (Figure 3). The average park coverage per sortie was highly variable (min: 23.75% in 2000; max: 77.04% in 2009). The 75% threshold specified by sOPs was achieved for the first time in 2009. The average number of boats interviewed per day was low between 1996 and 2008 (12.85 boats day-1 to 18 boats day-1 respectively), with a rapid increase in 2009 (40.97 boats day-1) (Figure 4). most boats encountered by RUm teams were close to shore (<500m) and within Wilderness Zones (Figure 5).

figure 3: frequency of rum sorties and average percentage of park covered per patrol between 1996 and 2009.

figure 4: average number and standard error of boats encountered per day during rum sorties from 1996 to 2009.

figure 5: location of rum interview conducted between 1996 and 2009.

figure 6: average number of tourist boats operating within KNP per day between 1996 and 2009.


Table 4: rank table of top 10 tourism boats operating in KNP each year, based on the number of times encountered during rum sorties.

Rank Year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

1 gren komodo sea safari 3 putri papua putra papua Reefseeker Seven seas Seven seas

2 Komodo Plus Ombak Biru 0 tarata Grand Ko-modo

Bajo Dive Club Charlie

3 Surya Indah gren komodo adelar adelar rajawali somba rajawali

4 budi agung tarata Ombak Biru pindito Parewa Ari Jaya

5 Ombak Biru solara sea safari Arijaya carlif Alba

6 Andalan safari III brandmajo Feliana reef seker dua satu

7 calypos queen ot the see

pelagian Mermaid 1 Charly Primadona

8 Parewa II evening star charditina Blue Gate II Ombak Biru Blue Dragon

9 dolphin mermid I Sypamela Papilon feef seekers Simaji

10 Karya Bersam phinisi ambasi crusader Tandem raja wali Bidadari

T o u r i s m3 . 2

The average number of tourism boats encountered per day was high during 2009 (23.35) and 2007 (11.59), and low (<5) for all other years (Figure 6). In 2002, 2007, 2008 and 2009, more than 50% of tourism boats originated from Labuan Bajo and seraya. marine tourism was dominated by a small number of operators who were consistently among the top ten most active operators (Table 4). The average number of tourists per boats was highest in 2003 (10.18), declined to 5.56 in 2007, and steadily rose to 6.95 in 2009 (Figure 7). The density of tourism boats was high within seven “hot spots” at Loh Liang/ Pink Beach, Loh Buaya, northwest Komodo (Batu moncong), northeast Komodo (Gili Lawa), Tatawa/ siaba, south Komodo (Loh Belanda) and south Rinca (Loh desami) (Figure 8).

figure 7: average number of tourists per tourist boat between 1996 and 2009.

figure 8: location of tourist boats at anchor between 1996 and 2009.


34

F i s h e r i e s3 . 3

Fishery target species in KNP include reef, mixed and pelagic fish, squid, lobster, shrimp, sea cucumbers, shells, seaweed and sharks. Reef fisheries were the dominant component, yielding between 82 T (2008) and 1390 T (1997) per year (Figure 9). very high pelagic fishery yields were recorded in 1996 and 2007 (3073.52 T and 2077.38 T respectively). For all other years pelagic fishery yields constituted a minor proportion of total catch (c. 200 T year-1) and were lower than reef fishery yields. High mixed fishery yields were recorded in 2008 and 2009 (782.15 T and 306.97 T respectively), representing a significant increase over previous years (average 38.66 T 1996 to 2007), and coincided with reduced reef fishery yields. Rapid growth of seaweed culture in KNP was recorded between 2005 and 2007, with subsequent decline (2005: 2.97 T; 2007: 146.04 T; 2009: 93.12 T).

Pelagic fisheries yielded a greater weight of fish per hour (2009: 3.56 kg person-1 hr-1) than both reef and mixed fisheries (2009: 1.64 and 2.12 kg person-1 hr-1 respectively) (Figure 10a). Greatest economic yields were obtained from reef (Rp 32,045 person-1 hr-1), pelagic (Rp 28,966 person-1 hr-1) and shrimp fisheries (Rp 26,945 person-1 hr-1) (Figure 10b).

The average number of fishing boats operating within the park in 2009 was similar to 1996 levels

(68.48 and 78.45 boats per day respectively) (Figure 11), but decreased between 2000 and 2003 (72.00 to 40.20 boats per day) with subsequent rapid increase to pre-2000 levels. Prior to 2000, fishing boats from outside West manggarai district represented a significant component (>50%) of the KNP fishing fleet, but declined after 2000 (Figure 12). The average number of fishermen working in KNP per day remained stable between 1996 (180.33) and 2009 (159.80) (Figure 13). Between 2004 and 2009 the number of fishing boats increased in Rinca (106 – 191) and Papagarang villages (193 – 292), but remained stable in Komodo village (158 – 158) (Figure 14).

figure 9: estimated total yield and vale of KNP fisheries per year from 1996 to 2009.

figure 10: Catch Per unit effort (CPue) for KNP fisheries showing (a) annual variation in average yields between 2007 and 2009, and (b) average financial yields for KNP fisheries.


figure 11: average number of fishing boats operating in KNP per day between 1996 and 2009, with registered port of origin indicated.

figure 12: average number of fishing boats operating in KNP per day between 1996 and 2009, with eligibility for exclusive use rights licenses indicated (Halim et al 2005; PHKa & TNC 2000).

figure 13: average numbers of people working within KNP fisher-ies per day during the period 1996 to 2009.

figure 14: variations in the number of fishing boats registered in three villages within KNP between 2001 and 2009 (Pasya 2009).

figure 15: average number of fishing boats in KNP per day actively fishing within no take zones (wilderness, Tourism and research zones) and permitted fishing zones (Traditional use and Pelagic zones).

figure 16: Proportion of fishermen interviewed during 2009 dem-onstrating knowledge of KNP zoning systems.


36

figure 17: Proportion of fishermen interviewed during 2009 in possession of fishing permit for KNP issued by bTNK.

For all years, fishing activity was distributed throughout the park, and focussed predominantly on near shore areas (less than 500m) (Figure B3). most active fishing boats were within designated no-take areas (e.g. in 2008, 27.80 active fishing boats per day within NTZ, 2.31 active fishing boats per day within permitted fishing zones) (Figure 15), except in 2009 when an equal distribution was recorded. The greatest fishery yields (Figure B2) were from areas designated as No-Take Zones (e.g. in 2009 2078.8 T of fish was extracted from NTZs, compared to 1615.2 T of fish from permitted fishing grounds). In 2009 45.37% of fishermen demonstrated knowledge of KNP’s zoning system (Figure 16), and 47.27% possessed a valid BTNK fishing pass (Figure 17).

The number of fishing boats using destructive gears prohibited under district law (PeRda 28) decreased from 21.32 per day (1996) to 5.55 boats per day (2009) (Figure 18). The average number of boats using gears restricted under PHKa management policies (PHKa & TNc 2000) remained relative stable between 1996 (31.09 boats day-1) and 2009 (42.59 boats day-1) (Figure 19).

vessels with inboard engines dominated the fishing fleet for all years, with no advancement in vessel technology detected between 1996 and 2009 (Figure 20). Traditional fishing gears dominated the KNP fishing fleet for all years, with the proportion of advanced gears increasing between 1996 (12.97%) and 2009 (29.92%) (Figure 21).

figure 18: average number of fishing boats in KNP per day using gears prohibited or permitted under PerDa 28 (bupati manggarai barat 2005).

figure 19: average number of fishing boats in KNP per day using gears prohibited or permitted under KNP 25-year management plan (PHKa & TNC 2000).

figure 20: average number of fishing boats operating in KNP per day with vessels types indicated.


figure 21: average number of fishing boats using advanced and traditional gear types operating in KNP per day between 1996 and 2009.


38


Discussion

4


40

V a l u e s o f K N P ’ s k e y 4 . 1 r e s o u r c e s

assessments of 1996 visitor expenditure (Walpole & Goodwin 2000) adjusted to 2009 values provide a conservative estimate of the 2009 value of tourism in Labuan Bajo of Us$ 4.2 – 10.7 million (Rp 42 – 107 billion) per annum. This estimate is based on between 33,005 and 59,233 visitors to KNP (section 4.5). actual values could be as much as 3 - 4 times this estimate, due to an increase in the number of high-end hotels (>Us$ 40 ppn) and related services compared to the 1996 study.

2009 fishery market values provide a conservative estimate of the total annual value of KNP’s fisheries of around Us$ 2 million (Rp 20 billion) (Figure 9). again actual values are likely to be significantly higher, as this estimate does not consider significant night-fisheries in KNP for which only 1996 data exists.

While these conservative estimates could be improved via further economic assessments, they serve to illustrate the high value of KNP’s fishery and tourism industries. KNP’s mangrove systems could be worth as much as Us$ 4,290 per hectare per year, seagrasses and lagoons as much as Us$ 73,900 per hectare per year, and coral reefs as much as Us$ 129,000 per hectare per year (TeeB 2009).

These high value ecosystem services are intricately linked to the sustainable growth and development of West manggarai. Through effective resource management the value of these ecosystem services can be maintained to provide benefits to KNP’s stakeholders. The following sections explore resource use management objectives described in IFc 2004; PHKa & TNc 2000.

D e s t r u c t i v e F i s h i n g4 . 2

KNP’s 25-year management Plan includes the following targets:

Pelagic resources in the Pelagic Use Zone and •

coastal resources in the Traditional Use Zones

are used in a sustainable manner; and

Coral reefs and spawning sites are preserved, •

both within and outside KNP.

The KcmI Project document further specifies that:

Annual destructive fishing effort in park waters •

will decrease by 15% per year; and

Use of (now banned) compressors will decrease •

by 20% per year, completely stopping by end

of year 5 (2010).

destructive fishing gears (Table 5) are prohibited within the coastal waters of manggarai district, including KNP, by district Government law (PeRda-28). a decline from 21.32 incidents per day (1996) to 5.55 incidents per day (2009) (Figure 18) represents a 75% decrease in destructive gears over 13 years. during the KcmI project (2005 – 2009) destructive gears declined 27.49% (7.66 – 5.55 per day).

surveillance, enforcement and outreach programs, combined with robust district government legislation and effective partnership between BTNK and Police enforcement officers appears to have successfully diminished destructive fishing within KNP. These programs should continue to prevent re-emergence, and to target remaining bomb (low-risk)

Table 5: fishing gears prohibited in manggarai coastal waters under PerDa 28 and within KNP under the 25-year management plan.

PE

RD

A-2

8

KN

P

Trolling ✓ ✓Bottom fishing ✓ ✓Drifting gill net ✓ ✗Encircling gill net ✓ ✗Bagan lift net ✓ ✓Fish traps ✓ ✗Compressor, hookah ✗ ✗Reef gleaning ✗ ✗Bomb, chemical poison, natural poison ✗ ✗


and compressor (medium-risk) fishing particularly at night. While these programs have successfully reduced destructive fishing, it should be noted that 5.55 incidents per day is still high. The majority of destructive fishing recorded in 2009 (Figure 18) was meting/ reef gleaning. Park managers should consider programs that specifically address meting in order to further reduce destructive fishing within KNP.

Z o n a t i o n S y s t e m4 . 3

KNP’s 25-year management Plan includes the following targets:

An operational zonation system in place, •

protecting all areas with high biological

value;

Park regulations are clear, enforceable, and •

ensure the protection of the natural resources;

and

Fish stocks are protected by closing all known •

fish spawning aggregation sites to fisheries;


A zonation system will have been set up •

by end of year 2 (2007) and will have been

used to tailor management activities to the

biodiversity objectives of each zone.

For each year between 1996 and 2008, more active fishing boats were recorded within No-Take Zones (Wilderness, Pelagic, Tourism) then within permitted fishing zones (Figure 15). For the first time fishing activity within permitted zones exceeded fishing within no-take zones in 2009. No obvious differences in fishing activity (Figure B3) or fishing yields (Figure B2) within No-Take Zones was detected before or after 2001 endorsement of KNP’s zoning system. In 2009 fishermen’s knowledge of KNP zoning and resource regulations was low (Figure 16).

a zoning scheme for KNP was proposed in the 25-year management Plan (PHKa & TNc 2000) and endorsed by PHKa in 2001 (Keputusan dirjen PHKa 2001). However the 7-year Implementation Plan notes that “regulations (in the 25-year management Plan) need further clarification and more detail”, while the KcmI Project document states “park zoning and regulations will be complemented by local legislation issued by the district and provincial governments”. The legal status of KNP’s zoning system is currently unclear, resulting in limited implementation and enforcement of zoning and resource use regulations. While the zoning system is included as an appendix to the 2001 PHKa decree, legislation that specifically defines zone boundaries, regulations, and sanctions does not appear to be fully formed. The absence of this legislation (particularly at the local level) has inhibited any enforcement and processing of zoning violations. In addition, associated outreach and awareness campaigns have been hampered, and there is considerable scope to strengthen bottom-up implementation and support for KNP’s zonation system.

Limited implementation of KNP’s zoning system could lead to potential dispute or conflict between resource users. Fishing activity was high within No-Take Zones, including within seven “hot spots” of high tourism activity (section 4.5). There are some indications that disputes have already occurred at these location.

Park managers could strengthen implementation of KNP’s zoning systems, build compliance and minimise resource conflict through:

Review and clarification of management •

objectives and strategies with stakeholders;

Analysis management gaps and needs •

(especially information, legislation and

implementation capacity); and

Management prioritisation of seven “hot •

spots” within KNP, and review of resource user

needs.


42

S u s t a i n a b l e F i s h e r i e s4 . 4

In addition to destructive gear and zonation objectives, KNP’s 25-year management Plan includes the following management objectives related to sustainable fisheries:

Protect fish stocks by prohibiting demersal •

fishing in most areas of the Park;

Promote a shift of fishing effort from demersal •

to pelagic fishing;

Implement traditional use zones with exclusive •

fishing rights for Park inhabitants; and

Introduce a licensing system for all activities •

inside Komodo National Park.


By-catch will be reduced by at least 10% per •

year; and

Pelagic fishing will have expanded in a •

sustainable manner, accompanied by a

diversification of target species, fishing

methods and gear types.

D e m e r s a l F i s h e r i e s4 . 4 . 1 Between 1996 and 2009 demersal fishing (reef fishery) yields remained stable (Figure 9), were concentrated in coastal areas (section 4.3), and constituted the dominant component of KNP’s fisheries. No decline in reef fishery activity or yields was detected. Reduced yields in 2008 and 2009 correspond to increased mixed fishery yields, and are likely to represent inconsistent identification and recording of target species. This highlights the need for continual review of sOPs, regular refresher training programs, and technical expertise and lead to maintain data quality and value.

P e l a g i c F i s h e r i e s4 . 4 . 2 No shift from reef to pelagic fisheries was detected between 1996 and 2009. Pelagic fisheries constituted a minor component of KNP’s day fisheries for all

years (Figure 9), except 1996 and 2007 which include estimates of night-time bagan fisheries absent from all other years (Pet, pers. com., Pasya, pers. com.). monitoring of night-fisheries is required to improve assessment of any shift from reef to pelagic fisheries.

socio-economic factors may impede a shift from reef to pelagic fisheries, including a traditional bias towards reef fisheries, and limited capacity (equipment and expertise) of individual fishermen to exploit pelagic fisheries. It is also likely that pelagic fisheries are considered more labour intensive and less economically attractive than reef fisheries, due to higher weights (Figure 10a) but lower relative economic yields per hour (Figure 10b). Limited implementation of KNP’s zonation system (section 4.3) and ambiguous fishery regulations result in the maintenance of perverse incentives driving reef fisheries and biodiversity depletion.

The use of restricted gear types (mostly high-volume, non-specific gears that generate high by-catch, or demersal gears) (PHKa & TNc 2000) remained stable between 1996 and 2009 (Figure 19). current gear restrictions and regulations are not clearly defined and communicated in KNP, resulting in differing perceptions between individual enforcement officers and park users (pers. obs.). Pak managers should consider reviewing fishing gear restrictions and developing clear communication materials. There is evidence that FRs patrols have had some localised impact on reducing restricted fishing gears along regular patrol routes (Harvey & Pasya 2010). clarification of gear restrictions, improved communication, and extension of FRs patrol routes is likely to help park managers achieve a park-wide reduction in the use of restricted gears.

L i c e n s i n g a n d E x c l u s i v e 4 . 4 . 3 U s e R i g h t s

exclusive use and licensing programs had a short impact on fishing pressure, but by 2009 fishing activity was similar to 1996 levels (Figure 11, Figure 13). a trial program to establish exclusive use rights and a fishery licensing system was implemented between 2000 and 2003, and coincided with a decline in the number of active fishing boats in KNP, particularly of boats from outside West manggarai


district. However, between 2001 and 2009 there was rapid increase (170%) in the number of fishing boats registered in villages within the park (Figure 12, Figure 14), coinciding with increased immigration to KNP, local registration of fishing boats by outside parties, and reduced financial hurdles to fishing boat ownership (siatorus, pers. com., Pasya, pers. com., Fudge, pers. com.). Immigration and local boat registration may have been a response to exclusive use policies. Improved integration with district Government, particularly the development of supporting immigration policies, is essential to the success of any exclusive use programs in KNP.

Localised reduction of the fishing fleet was recorded in Komodo village (Figure 14), where alternative livelihood and community development programs are focussed. In Rinca and Papagarang villages, where current alternative livelihood programs and benefits from tourism are low, fishing fleets increased. Opportunities exist to extend activities in Komodo village to minimise further growth of the fishing fleet through:

Development of cultural or hospitality •

businesses in Papagarang, due to ideal

location on tourism boat routes entering and

exiting the park.

Development of mariculture businesses within •

the northeast KNP Traditional Use zone,

within easy access of both Rinca Village and

Papagarang Village;

Continued development of tourism services •

within Rinca Village.

B y - c a t c h4 . 4 . 4 existing RUm data and sOPs do not support any assessment of by-catch levels and identification of any reduction due to management interventions. development of RUm sOPs is required, and could be further enhanced via complimentary catch-based or market-based fishery monitoring programs.

D e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e 4 . 4 . 5 f i s h e r y

vessels with inboard engines dominated the KNP fishing fleet in 1996, and available data indicates no increase in vessel advancement (Figure 20). current RUm protocols do not distinguish between type or sizes of inboard boats, which would assist assessment of fishing behaviours.

Use of advanced fishing gears has increased (Figure 21), bringing greater extraction rates and efficiencies and resulting in increased fishing effort despite limited growth of the fishing fleet. Regular monitoring of stock status, resource patterns, and cPUe, and application of the precautionary principle will assist park managers to detect early signs of threats and to adapt management strategies accordingly.

some diversification of the fishery into seaweed culture occurred in 2005, with rapid growth and subsequent decline (2005: 2.97 T; 2007: 146.04 T; 2009: 93.12 T). The decline coincides with successful KNP management approaches to limit promotion of this industry within KNP (TNc 2008), due to potential for negative ecological and socio-economic impacts (ceccherelli & campo 2002; smith et al 2002; stimson 1985).

T o u r i s m a n d 4 . 5 S u s t a i n a b l e F i n a n c i n g

available RUm tourism data is insufficient to assess long-term tourism trends. Records of tourist boats numbers (Figure 6) and tourists per boat (Figure 7) show little correlation with KNP ticket sales or cruise ship arrivals. RUm teams appear to have preferentially targeted fishing boats prior to 2009, in part due to indistinct separation between RUm and surveillance and enforcement activities (Pasya, pers. com.). To provide park managers with detailed information on marine tourism growth, patterns, intensity, likely impacts and revenue potentials, RUm teams should target all boats operating within KNP as specified in sOPs.

In 2009 RUm operational approaches were modified to ensure tourism boats were fully monitored. These


44

assessments suggest there may have been as many as 59,233 marine tourists to KNP in 2009 (23.35 boats day-1 x 6.95 tourists boat-1). Only 33,005 ticket sales were recorded in 2009. While there is potential for over-estimating from RUm data (periodic sampling, multi-day tickets, etc), this discrepancy highlights the limitations of current marine tourism monitoring and regulation in KNP, despite its dominance among KNP arrivals.

While existing RUm tourism data is insufficient for temporal assessments, spatial assessments can be made. combined marine tourism data from 1996 to 2009 indicates seven “hot spots” of intense tourism activity within KNP (Figure 8), including Loh Liang/ Pink Beach and Loh Buaya tourism zones, as well as northwest Komodo (Batu moncong), northeast Komodo (Gili Lawa), Tatawa/ siaba, south Komodo (Loh Belanda) and south Rinca (Loh desami). The latter five areas all contain one or more well-known dive sites. establishment of permanent or semi-permanent ranger stations at these “hot spots” would provide park managers with a low cost option for monitoring ticketing regulations, monitoring tourism intensity and impacts, and improving the visitor experience.

visitor arrivals to KNP decreased in the wake of the Bali bombings and political unrest in 2005. This is reflected by a decrease in the average number of tourists per boat (Figure 7). Unfortunately no data is available to assess impacts on the number of tourism operators in Labuan Bajo. This information could assist park managers to strike a balance between job creation and both visitor experience and environmental impacts. Regulation of tourism vessels via a licensing system would drive competition and increase operator profits. The inclusion of quality of service and safety standards in licensing criteria could incentivise operators to invest in these areas. Tourism licenses would also provide additional revenue streams to government to support park management systems.

The number of tourism boats operating within KNP per day and originating from outside West manggarai district is significant (average 6.37 boats per day in 2009). While these operators use and sell KNP’s natural resource attractions, their contribution

to local economies is minimal. Revenues are received via ticket fees and KNP government charges. However fuel and food purchases, business taxes and staff employment are usually paid in the port of origin, with vessels only making occasional visits to Labuan Bajo. Possible options to maximise the benefit to local economics from these vessels include:

Further development and promotion of tourist •

attractions within easy (1-day) access from

Labuan Bajo to maximise tourist spending

within the local economy;

Implementation of a tiered harbour fee for •

KNP or West Manggarai that seeks to retain

tourist expenditure within the region.

C a p a c i t y B u i l d i n g4 . 6

The KcmI Project document specifies the following objectives:

The use of biodiversity assessments and •

monitoring systems will have become standard

practice in the management of KNP by end of

year 5.

RUm sortie frequency was highly variable between 1996 and 2009 (2006: 0 sorties; 1998: 41 sorties) (Figure 3). average park coverage was also highly variable (min: 23.75%, 2000; max: 77.04%, 2009). This variability complicates comparison and analysis of data, and hence limits its value to park management. While sOPs for monitoring systems have been established, further work is required to address the following specific issues.

High RUM sortie frequencies in 1998, 2003 (i)

and 2004 are probably comprised of both

RUM sorties, and Surveillance and Enforce-

ment patrols during which RUM data was col-

lected. Surveillance and Enforcement patrols

and RUM sorties have conflicting route and


SOP requirements, and may result in biased

assessments of resource patterns by target-

ing high risk areas. RUM should be conducted

form dedicated sorties during which RUM is

the primary objective. RUM teams should in-

clude Enforcement Officers to enable rapid

response to any critical incidents encountered

in the field.

RUM SOPs specify a park coverage of >75% (ii)

per sortie. This target was only achieved dur-

ing 2009. Full park coverage is essential to

provide managers with an accurate under-

standing of park usage patterns. Partial cover-

age may result in data bias, and misinterpreta-

tion of resource use intensity, distribution and

trends.

Data gaps (e.g. 2006) exist in the RUM data-(iii)

base, limiting its application to adaptive man-

agement. In addition, RUM provides a long-

term record of natural resource use patterns

within coastal ecosystems that is globally rare

and provides critical information for local and

national decision-making and global assess-

ments.

Standardisation of RUM sortie frequencies (iv)

and schedules would increase the value of

RUM to park managers wishing to incorporate

RUM into science-based decision-making. A

minimum frequency of two sortie days every

two weeks is recommended.

The average number of boats interviewed per (v)

day increased during the period 1996 (12.85

boats day-1) to 2009 (40.97 boats day-1) (Figure

4). Greater interview rates increase cost effi-

ciency of RUM sorties, and facilitate improved

understanding of resource use patterns by

park managers. With an interview rate almost

ten times higher than FRS patrols (Harvey &

Pasya 2010), RUM provides an optimal plat-

form for engaging with fishermen and distrib-

uting outreach and awareness messages.

Occasional data recording errors, omissions (vi)

or inconsistencies were detected in the Rum

database, and impact on management inter-

pretation. A training workshop was hosted by

PNK during 2009, focussing on Global Posi-

tioning System and Geographical Information

Systems, and with the aim of maximising data

accuracy. Continued investment into human

resource skills and expertise will maximise

data quality and its resultant value to park

managers.

Technical expertise is required to lead RUm capacity building programs, and ensure that a robust sampling design is adopted and that findings are fully incorporated into an adaptive management framework.

A d a p t i v e M a n a g e m e n t4 . 7

The KcmI Project document specifies the following objectives:

Increased use of adaptive research to support •

park management.

complex and time consuming data consolidation, cleaning and standardisation was required before any analysis could be carried out for this report. RUm data were distributed among several database files, maintained in multiple locations. database formats had changed several times between 1996 and 2009. missing data was identified for numerous records, some of which could be determined using GIs. These steps are rarely available to park managers, due to limitations of time and resources.


46

adoption of standardised sortie schedules and routes would increase the value and usability of RUm data to park managers. access to technical expertise should be improved to facilitate this process. at present it is unclear to what extent RUm data has been implemented into park management decision-making, with no records of management plan reviews or adaptations identified during the preparation of this report.

This report identifies several obstacles associated with the implementation of KNP’s zoning system, as well as potential for resource disputes within seven “hot spots” of high tourism activity. These issues present ideal material for adaptive-management review by KNP collaborative management partners.

S t a k e h o l d e r 4 . 8 E n g a g e m e n t

The KcmI Project document species the following targets:

Involvement of stakeholder groups in park •

management.

Knowledge of zoning and resource regulations remains limited amongst community stakeholders, with only 45.37% of fishermen possessing knowledge of zoning regulations in 2009 (Figure 16), and only 47.27% possessing required fishing permits (Figure 17).

No records detailing communication of RUm findings to community or other stakeholders were identified during the preparation of this report. communication may have been inhibited by the availability of technical expertise to interpret and communicate findings. Long-term RUm findings were presented at three villages within KNP in april 2010, with many community members reporting that they had not received any similar socialisation since 2004.

stakeholder outreach and engagement could be improved via targeting of dominant demographic groups. The majority of tourism boats operating in KNP originate from Labuan Bajo (Figure 6), with

several “big players” highly active within KNP (Table 4). In 2009, Komodo village (25.24%) and Rinca village (20.81%) comprised the greatest proportion of the local fishing fleet, followed by Labuan Bajo (13.83%) and mesa (12.57%). Park managers can maximise the efficiency (biggest impact, lowest cost) of communication and outreach campaigns by targeting these demographics.

The establishment of a multi-stakeholder forum would greatly increase stockholder engagement and participation in KNP management, and improved use and value of RUm data.


Conclusions

5


48

RUm is a key program through which park managers can assess management effectiveness, and adapt strategies in response to emerging threats and opportunities. RUm is a constituent of the KcmI Project’s monitoring & evaluation component, to assess program performance and determine whether program objectives are being met.

This report examines long-term resource use trends in KNP to

Evaluate KCMI Project park management •

capacity building objectives in the context of

RUM;







R U M C a p a c i t y5 . 1

Park management RUm capacity has been enhanced through the purchase, operation and staffing of a fleet of speedboats by TNc in 1996. RUm sOPs were implemented in 2007 within the KcmI Project, and have been supported by training programs.

However variable RUm sortie frequency and park coverage coupled to limited data management facilities and procedures have limited the value of RUm data to adaptive management, resulting in data gaps and requiring complex processing of data to identify trends and patterns. a standardised RUm schedule (2 days every 2 weeks) covering >70% of KNP would increase the value of RUm to park managers.

Regular (annual) refresher training is required to standardise approaches between surveyors, and maintain skills. GPs use and target fish identification are key requirements of training programs.

Technical expertise and support is required within the KcmI Project to lead capacity building objectives.

R e s o u r c e U s e 5 . 2 P a t t e r n s

The use of destructive fishing gears prohibited under district Law (PeRda 28) has declined within KNP. The implementation of management plans and surveillance and enforcement operations coincides with this decline. currently meeting/ reef gleaning is the primary destructive fishing technique employed within KNP, with a negative impact on reef health and associated ecosystem services.

KNP’s zonation system has yet to be fully implemented, and fishing activity remains high within designated No-Take areas. a review is urgently required to assess the legal status of KNP’s zonation system and identify gaps, particularly with regard to resource regulations, sanctions and supporting local legislation. clarification of zoning regulations would strengthen outreach and awareness programs, and address the current low level of knowledge of zoning regulations among KNP stakeholders.

Fishing activity in 2009 was similar to 1996 levels, with a reduction in the number of external fishing boats coinciding with licensing and exclusive use programs offset by growth of the fishing fleet within KNP and surrounding villages. Reef fisheries remain the dominant component of KNP’s fisheries, with perverse incentives, socio-economic obstacles and limited related management interventions limiting any shift to pelagic fisheries. However capacity building and alternative livelihood programs in Komodo village may have successfully limited growth of the Komodo village fishing fleet, and these programs should be extended to Rinca, Papagarang and other villages.

Tourism activity is high within seven “hot spots” of KNP, and there is potential for resource user conflicts in these areas. monitoring of ticketing regulations could be improved, costs of surveillance reduced, and visitor experience improved trough the establishment of permanent or semi-permanent


ranger stations at these “hot spots”.

A d a p t i v e M a n a g e m e n t5 . 3

stakeholder engagement in RUm remains low, with some community involvement in monitoring during 2009. In early 2010 monitoring findings were presented to communities for the first since 2004, and the proportion of community stakeholders knowledgeable of KNP regulations is low.

Full integration of RUm into adaptive management has been hindered by data management limitations, variable sortie frequency and park coverage, and the need for complex data processing and analysis. standardised RUm schedule and review of data management procedures would dramatically increase the value of RUm to park managers and assist identification of resource trends, threats and opportunities.


50


Recommendations

6


52

M a n a g e m e n t6 . 1

T o u r i s m6 . 1 . 1 Tourism management should focus on seven •

“hot spots” within KNP to minimize resource

user conflicts, minimize ticketing management

costs, and improve the visitor experience.

Seven “hot spots” include Loh Liang/ Pink

Beach, Loh Buaya, northwest Komodo (Batu

Moncong), northeast Komodo (Gili Lawa),

Tatawa/ Siaba, south Komodo (Loh Belanda)

and south Rinca (Loh Desami).

Implementation of a tourism licensing system •

would assist management of the growth of the

tourism fleet in KNP (including a significant

proportion originating from outside West

Manggarai district), minimize environmental

impacts, enhance service and safety standards,

increase operator profits and growth of the

sector, and generate additional revenues for

park management.

Significant tourist revenues are lost from •

West Manggarai district through tourism

boats originating from other areas. Revenues

could be retained via further development

and promotion of mainland Flores tourism

attractions, and via a tiered licensing system

which discounts local operators who contribute

to West Manggarai taxes, economy and labor

markets.

The efficiency and impact of tourism stakeholder •

engagement strategies (including outreach

and communications) could be maximised by

initially targeting Labuan Bajo operators and

the marine tourism “big players” identified in

this report.

F i s h e r i e s6 . 1 . 2 A review of objectives, gaps and needs •

associated with KNP zonation system is

urgently required. This should include

assessment of BTNK objectives in relation

to zonation system, current legal status and

gaps.

Resource user management should focus on •

seven “hot spots” within KNP to minimize

resource user conflicts and management costs.

Seven “hot spots” include Loh Liang/ Pink

Beach, Loh Buaya, northwest Komodo (Batu

Moncong), northeast Komodo (Gili Lawa),

Tatawa/ Siaba, south Komodo (Loh Belanda)

and south Rinca (Loh Desami).

Surveillance and enforcement strategies should •

be reviewed to further reduce destructive gear

use within KNP. Current destructive gear use is

primarily meeting/ reef gleaning.

A review and public communication of fishing •

gear restrictions is required to address differing

perceptions between stakeholders. Publication

of a fixed list of permitted gear types with

illustrations would avoid ambiguity.

Community support for zonation and no-take •

areas could be strengthened through innovative

approaches that maximize sustainable fishery

yields and revenues, and demonstrate short-

term results at the local level. A possible

example (United Nations 2008) includes

establishing small, community-managed no-

take areas, within existing Wilderness Zones,

to protect specific species and life cycle and

demonstrate short term increases in fishery

yields or revenues.


The efficiency and impact of outreach or •

communication strategies could be maximised

by initially targeting dominant demographics,

including Komodo Village, Rinca Village,

Labuan Bajo and Mesa.

Opportunities for closer integration between •

KNP and West Manggarai coastal zone

management and spatial planning should be

sought to maximise their effectiveness and

minimise costs and overheads.

M o n i t o r i n g6 . 2

Technical expertise is required within the KCMI •

project to deliver RUM capacity building and

associated adaptive management objectives.

The following adjustments should be made to •

RUM SOPs:

Standardized sortie schedule (2 days every ›

2 weeks);

>70% KNP coverage per sortie; ›

RUM to be primary objective of sorties, with ›

Surveillance and Enforcement a secondary

role if RUM team includes Enforcement

Officers;

Inclusion of community organizers or other ›

stakeholders in the RUM team;

Targeting of › all resource users within KNP,

and maintenance of high 2009 interview

rates (>40 interviews per day);

Addition of “cruise ship”, “live-aboard”, ›

“day dive boat” and “fishery middle man”

to boat categories;

Inclusion of photographic target fish ›

identification guides;

Implementation of night RUM; ›

Regular (annual) refresher training should •

be provided to RUM team to standardize

approaches and maintain data quality. Priority

areas include data recording, data management,

target species identification and GPS.

Data management facilities and procedures •

should be improved, including a centralized

data repository, detailed SOPs, and associated

training and capacity building.


54


Literature Cited

7


56

Beger M, Turak E (2005). A Rapid Ecological Assessment of the reef fishes and scleractinian corals of Komodo National Park, Indonesia in 2005. The Nature Conservancy,

Bjork M, Mohammad SM, Bjorkland M & Semesi A (1994). Cor-alline Algae, Important Coral Reef Builders Threatened by Pollution, Ambio 24: 502-504.

Bohnsack, J., 1993, Proceedings of the Colloqium on Global Aspects of Coral Reefs: Health, Hazards and History, University of Miami, .

Brown B (1997). Life and death of Coral Reefs. IN: Birkeland C (ed), Disturbances to Reefs in Recent Times, Chapman and Hall, New York, pp. 370-2.

Bryant D, Burke L, McManus J, Spalding M (1998). Reefs at Risk: A Map-Based Indicator of Threats to the World’s Coral Reefs. World Resources Institute (WRI), Inter-national Centre for Living Resources Management (ICLARM), World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),

Bupati Manggarai Barat, (2005). PERDA No. 28 tahun 2005: Pemakaian alat penangkap ikan dan atau alat bantu penangkap ikan. .

Ceccherelli G & Campo D (2002). Different effects of Caulerpa racemosa on two co-occurring seagrasses in the Medi-terranean, Botanica Marina 45: 71-76.

CRMP (2004). Environment and Coastal EcosystemDulvy NK, Freckleton RP & Polunin NV (2004). Coral reef cas-

cades and the indirect effects of predator removal by exploitation, Ecology Letters 7: 410-416.

Erdman AM, (2004). A Natural History Guide to Komodo Na-tional Park (Books 1 - 3), The Nature Conservancy, In-donesia Coastal and Marine Program, Bali, Indonesia.

Global Environment Facility (1996). The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon: Gulf of Aquba Environmental Action Plan. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Halim, Gede, Mous (2005). Towards implementation of a li-censing and zoning plan for extractive uses in Komodo National Park, NTT, Indonesia. The Nature Conservan-cy, Bali, Indonesia.

Harvey AH, Pasya A (2010). Surveillance and Enforcement in Komodo National Park, Indonesia: 1996 - 2010. PT Putri Naga Komodo, Bali, Indonesia.

Hughes TP & Connell JH (1999). Multiple stressors on coral reefs: a long-term perspective, Limnology and Ocean-ography 44: 932-940.

Hughes TP, Bellwood DR, Folke C, Steneck RS & Wilson J (2005). New paradigms for supporting the resilience of marine ecosystems, Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20: 380-386.

IFC (2004). Komodo National Park Collaboratve Management Initiative: Project Document. International Finance Corporation, Washington, D.C..

International Monetary Fund (2009). World Economic Outlook: 2009. International Monetary Fund,

IUCN, 2009, IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.1, IUCN, . Retrieved October 18, 2009.

IUCN, CORDIO, ICRAN (2008). Managing Marine and Coastal

Protected Areas: A Toolkit for South East Asia. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Bangkok, Thailand.

Jennings S & Polunin N (1996). Impacts of fishing on tropical Reef Ecosystems, Ambio 25: 44-46.

Johannes RE, Riepen M (1995). Environmental, Economic and Social Implications of the Live Fish Trade in Asia and teh Westren Pacific. Fisheries Development Associ-ates, Wellington, New Zealand.

Kahn B, (2000). Komodo National Park Cetacean surveys, A rapid ecological assessment of Cetacean diversity, abundance and distribution. Monitoring report-April 1999-2000.

Katherina, Sius U, Pasya A, Sihite J (2007). Pedoman Teknis Program Monitoring Pemanfaatan Sumberdaya Laut di Taman Nasional Komodo. Balai Taman Nasional Komodo, Labuan Bajo, Indonesia.

Keane A, Jones JPG, Edwards-Jones G & Milner-Gulland EJ (2008). The sleeping policeman: understanding issues of enforcement and compliance in conservation, Ani-mal Conservation 11: 75-82.

Kelleher G, (1999). Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas, Phil-lips, A. ed. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Keputusan Dirjen PHKA, (2001). No. 65/kpts/DJ-V/2001 .Mak J & Moncur JET (1998). Political economy of protecting

unique recreational resources: Hanauma Bay, Hawaii, Ambio 217-223.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, World Resources Insti-tute ed. Island Press, Washington, DC..

Moberg F & Folke C (1999). Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems, Ecological Economics 29: 215-233.

Mous PJ, Katherina, McCorry D, Pet JS (2007). Status of coral reefs in and around Komodo National Park: Results of a bi-annual survey over the period 1996 – 2002, with an update of the status in 2006. The Nature Conser-vancy, Bali, Indonesia.

Mous, PJ, Halim, M (2004). Progress report on The Nature Con-servancy’s Komodo marine conservation project. The Nature Conservancy, Indonesia.

Pasya (2009). Program Pendataan Armada Perikanan Masyarakat dalam Wilayah Taman Nasional Komodo, Tahun 2009. PT Putri Naga Komodo, Bali, Indonesia.

Pedju M, (2004). Report on seagrass monitoring in Komodo National Park, July 2002--July 2003, Report from The Nature Conservancy Southeast Asia Center for Marine Protected Areas, Sanur, Bali, Indonesia 55: .

Pennisi E, (1997). Brighter prospects for the world’s coral reefs, Science 227: 491-493.

PHKA, TNC (2000). 25-Year Master Plan for Management, Ko-modo National Park (Book 1-3). Komodo National Park Authority, Indonesia.

Pinnegar JK, Polunin NVC, Francour P, Badalamenti F, Chemello R, Harmelin-Vivien ML, Hereu B, Milazzo M, Zabala M, D’anna G & others (2002). Trophic cascades in benthic marine ecosystems: lessons for fisheries and protect-


ed-area management, Environmental Conservation 27: 179-200.

PNK (2006). Komodo Collaborative Managememt Initiative: 7-year implementation plan. Putri Naga Komodo, Indonesia.

Pomeroy R, Parks JE & Watson LM (2004). How is your MPA doing? A Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Ef-fectiveness, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Richmond R, (1994). Coral Reef Resources: Pollution’s Impacts, Forum for Applied Reserach and Public Policy 9: 55-56.

Roberts C, (1995). Effects of Fishing on the Ecosystem Structure of Coral Reefs, Conservation Biology 9: 989-992.

Salm RV, Clark J & Siirila E (2000). Marine and Coastal Protect-ed Areas: A guide for planners and managers, IUCN, Washington DC.

Smith JE, Hunter CL & Smith CM (2002). Distribution and repro-ductive characteristics of nonindigenous and invasive marine algae in the Hawaiian Islands, Pacific Science 56: 299-316.

Statistics Indonesia (2009). Badan Pusat Statistik.Steins NA & Edwards VM (1998). Harbour resource manage-

ment in Cowes, Isle of Wight: an analytical framework for multiple-use decision-making, Journal of environ-mental management 54: 67-81.

Stimson J, (1985). The effect of shading by the table coral Acropora hyacinthus on understory corals, Ecology 40-53.

TEEB (2009). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers - Sumary: Responding to the Valu of Nature 2009.

TNC (2008). Seaweed Farming in and around Komodo National Park: Position Paper. The Nature Conservancy,

UNEP-WCMC (2005). Komodo National Park, Indonesia. United Nations Environment Program - World Conservation Monitoring Centre,

UNEP-WCMC (2006). In the front line: shoreline protection and other ecosystem services from mangroves and coral reefs. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. 33pp.

United Nations (2008). Innovation for Sustainable Develop-ment: Local Case Studies from Africa. United Nations, New York. Report No. 978-92-1-104578-9

Walpole MJ & Goodwin HG (2000). Local economic impacts of dragon tourism in indonesia, Annals of Tourism Research 27: 559-576.

Western D, Strum SC & Wright RM (1994). Natural connec-tions: perspectives in community-based conservation, Island Pr,.

Wilkinson, C. (ed.), 2004, Status of the Coral Reefs of the World: 2004, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville.


58


ProformaAppendix A:

ProformaA


60

Formulir/Form P1Tanggal:Speedboat:Sortie_ID.:

Nama Organisasi Fungsi tandatangan1 Kapten 2 ABK 3 Polhut 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Form ini harus disimpan bersama data monitoringHarap diperhatikan :

Pertanyaan atau tindakan di luar formulir isian hanya bisa dilakukan oleh petugas yang berwenang1. Tim tidak diperkenankan untuk memancing, melakukan penangkapan dan atau memperoleh ikan (juga hasil laut lainnya) 2. dengan cara lainnya selama melakukan kegiatan monitoring pemanfaatan sumber daya. Dalam kondisi khusus, pembelian ikan bisa dilakukan dengan cara pemberian tunai atau barter.


FORM P2. Sortie ID

Tgl/Bln/Thn jam:menit jam:menitTanggal Berangkat Jam Berangkat Jam TibaTanggal Tiba Jam Berangkat Jam Tiba

Tempat Bermalam:

Sections Covered during this Sortie1. Komodo N 9. Rinca, L. Kima & L. Buaya

2. Komodo NE 10. Rinca NE & Papagaran3. Komodo Loh Liang 11. Rinca SE

4. Komodo SE 12. Rinca S & Loh Dasami5. Komodo S 13. Rinca SW & Padar SE

6. Komodo SW 14. Padar NW7. Komodo NW 15. Gili Motang N

8. Rinca N & Siaba 16. Gili Motang S

Total Vessels / Groups interviewed Arrest (Yes / No)

Gambarkan rute perjalanan pada peta di bawah ini:

4

1

8

6

7

2

13

3

14

10

11

5

12

9

16

15


62

Keterangan:

Ker

ja

1. Mesin dalam

2. Mesin tempel

3. Tanpa mesin

4. Tanpa kapal

1. Komodo

2. Rinca atau Kerora

3. Papagarang

4. Warloka atau Golohmori

5. Mesa

6. Labuan Bajo atau Seraya

7. Longos, Boleng, Rangko

8. Luar daerah dalam propinsi NTT

9. Sape

10. Bali

11. Daerah lain, Nasional

12. Luar negeri

1. Pancing tonda atau rawai tuna ( hanyut )

2. Pancing dasar atau rawai dasar (tetap)

3. Jaring insang hanyut / tetap ( pukat )

4. Jaring/pukat cincin, pukat harimau, lampara

5. Bagan

6. Bubu

7. Kompresor atau tabung ( alat selam )

8. Meting ( tanpa alat selam )

9. Bom, sianida, potas, tuba atau bius, kemande

10. Alat lainnya (tombak, panah, ...)

0. Belum ada hasil

1. Ikan karang

2. Ikan pelagis

3. Ikan hiu

4. Teripang

5. Udang kecil

6. Udang besar ( lobster, 2 ekor dalam 1 kg )

7. Siput ( 2 mutiara / 10 mata tujuh dalam 1 kg )

8. Cumi

9. Campuran atau lain-lain

J (Jam)/H (Hari)

Berat basah (kg)

Berat kering (kg)

Jeni

s ka

pal

Asa

lJe

nis

alat

tang

kap

:Je

nis

hasi

lJu

mla

h ha

sil

Form

ulir

P3.

Dat

a P

eman

faat

an( s

emua

akt

ivita

s ne

laya

n &

wis

ataw

an d

i lau

t dan

di p

anta

i )S

ortie

_ID

(see

For

m P

1):

Nom

orTa

ngga

l(T

gl/B

ln/T

hn)

Wak

tu(ja

m:m

enit)

Lint

ang

S (0

8 ...

.)B

ujur

E (1

19 ..

.)N

ama

loka

si

1. Bahari

2. Pemanfaatan, Penelitian

3. P., Tradisional Bahari

4. P., Pelagis

5. P., Wisata Bahari

1. Nelayan

2. Wisata selam dan daratan

3. Wisata mancing

4. Kapal Pesiar/kapal pribadi

1. Kerja

2. Jalan

3. Istirahat

Wawancara (Ya/Tidak)

Nam

a K

apal

Nam

a K

apte

n

Jumlah Awak Kapal

Jumlah Wisatawan / Penumpang

Pos

isi

Zona

Pem

anfa

atan

Keg

iata

n


FORM P4. Pemanfaatan

sumberdaya menetap

Aturan:

Pemanfaatan sumberdaya menetap yang diamati selama periode pengamatan

1. Masukkan semua tipe pemanfaatan sumberdaya yang kemungkinan tetap ada selama periode 2-3 bulan atau lebih, tidak termasuk struktur permanent seperti pelabuhan dll

2. Masukkan Sortie_ID ketika pemanfaatan sumberdaya diamati untuk yang pertama kali selama periode tiga bulan3. Jangan mengeluarkan sebuah feature/data dari peta sketsa, walaupun sudah tidak ada dalam periode tiga bulan tersebut4. Pada saat akhir periode tiga bulan, peta dengan form P5 di-file, dan mulai dengan peta baru

Penampakan Sketsa: titik, garis atau polygon dengan feature ID, penjelasan dimasukkan dalam form P5

4

1

8

6

7

2

13

3

14

10

11

5

12

9

16

15


64

FO

RM

P5.

Pengam

ata

n d

ilakukan s

ela

ma p

eri

ode:

P.s

um

berd

aya t

eta

p

So

rtie

IDF

eatu

reID

Featu

reT

yp

eD

eskri

psi

(buat

form

tam

bahan jik

a d

iperl

ukan)

Cata

tan

Featu

re t

ype:

titik,

gari

s a

tau p

olig

on

Sort

ieID

: S

ort

ieID

dih

itung d

ala

m p

eri

ode 3

bula

n d

imana f

eatu

re (

pem

anfa

ata

n t

eta

p)

dis

urv

ei


Fishery Resource Patterns

B

Fishery Resource Patterns Appendix B:


66

Reef Fish

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

T

0

500

1000

1500

2000PelagicFish

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

T

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Mixed Fish

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

T

0

500

1000

1500

2000Squid

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

T

0

20

40

60

80

100

Lobster

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

T

0

10

20

30

40

50

Shrimp

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

T

0

50

100

150

200

250

Shells

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

T

0

10

20

30

40

50

Seaweed

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

T

0

50

100

150

200

250

Sea Cucumber

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

T

0

10

20

30

40

50Sharks

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

T

0

10

20

30

40

50

figure b 1: annual yields of KNP fisheries from 1996 to 2009.


figure b 2: annual trends in the distribution of total fishery yields across KNP’s management sections and zones between 1996 and 2009.

1996 1997 1998

1999 2000 2001

2002 2003 2004

2005 2006 2007

2008

No Data

2009

T

section

T

T

T

T


68


Figure B 2: annual trends in the distribution of fishing effort in KNP from 1996 to 2009.


70


Management Effectiveness

C

Management EffectivenessAppendix C:


72

RUm provides biophysical and socio-economic data to assist park managers to evaluate management effectiveness, adapt management strategies, document management performance, and report progress to decision-makers and stakeholders1.

Key findings of this report relevant to management effectiveness evaluations are presented below, in a scorecard format following carter2.

1 Pomeroy R, Parks Je & Watson Lm (2004). How is your mPa doing? a Guidebook of Natural and social Indicators for evaluating marine Protected area management effectiveness, IUcN, Gland, switzerland and cambridge, UK.

2 carter e (2010). Protocol for assessing marine Protected area management effectiveness in Indonesia. The Nature conservancy


74


Raw DataD

Raw DataAppendix D:


76

RUm raw data collected between 1996 and 2009 is summarised in the following table.

detailed raw data can be downloaded in the file “RUm_database.xlsx” from www.gokomodo.org/resources.html, or by contacting the General manager, PT Putri Naga Komodo at [email protected].

Fishing Vessels Tourism Vessels

Sortie Date Wild

erne

ss

Trad

ition

al U

se

Tour

ism

Pela

gic

Rese

arch

Wild

erne

ss

Trad

ition

al U

se

Tour

ism

Pela

gic

Rese

arch

1 28-May-96 12 2 17-Jun-96 30 5 3 25-Jun-96 36 2 1 4 3-Jul-96 35 6 4 5 10-Jul-96 21 11 2 6 16-Jul-96 31 4 4 7 25-Jul-96 28 3 8 1-Aug-96 20 6 9 12-Aug-96 14 9 2 10 20-Aug-96 14 3 1 11 31-Aug-96 31 5 4 12 9-Sep-96 21 2 13 21-Sep-96 22 5 1 14 26-Sep-96 24 2 15 3-Oct-96 16 9 16 9-Oct-96 24 1 5 17 16-Oct-96 24 2 18 23-Oct-96 22 6 2 19 5-Nov-96 23 15 20 26-Nov-96 20 10 21 8-Jan-97 15 5 8 22 12-Feb-97 27 4 2 23 24-Feb-97 2 3 24 6-Mar-97 19 1 25 25-Mar-97 18 4 4 26 3-Apr-97 11 2 27 14-Apr-97 27 1 2 28 25-Apr-97 17 1 29 6-May-97 29 2 1 30 14-May-97 10 1 31 5-Jun-97 28 4 1 32 23-Jun-97 19 33 8-Jul-97 22 1 34 16-Aug-97 16 2 35 11-Sep-97 6 36 2-Oct-97 10 9 2 37 20-Oct-97 13 2



Sortie Date Wild

erne

ss

Trad

ition

al U

se

Tour

ism

Pela

gic

Rese

arch

Wild

erne

ss

Trad

ition

al U

se

Tour

ism

Pela

gic

Rese

arch

38 8-Dec-97 13 2 39 12-Jan-98 16 1 2 40 23-Jan-98 13 3 1 41 3-Feb-98 46 7 3 5 42 9-Feb-98 12 2 43 20-Feb-98 20 2 44 27-Feb-98 18 45 4-Mar-98 13 46 10-Mar-98 20 5 47 20-Mar-98 25 5 2 48 24-Mar-98 52 2 2 49 3-Apr-98 21 1 50 16-Apr-98 26 1 51 21-Apr-98 20 2 52 29-Apr-98 15 1 4 53 6-May-98 30 1 1 54 18-May-98 14 1 55 26-May-98 18 4 2 56 1-Jun-98 12 57 9-Jun-98 19 3 9 58 17-Jun-98 28 2 59 24-Jun-98 24 8 2 60 29-Jun-98 27 2 1 61 7-Jul-98 10 3 3 62 16-Jul-98 38 7 4 2 63 22-Jul-98 13 64 29-Jul-98 13 3 2 6 65 10-Aug-98 10 2 3 66 19-Aug-98 25 5 7 67 23-Aug-98 20 68 29-Aug-98 6 1 1 69 3-Sep-98 17 3 1 70 12-Sep-98 9 4 71 17-Sep-98 45 2 72 25-Sep-98 23 6 73 6-Oct-98 16 3 74 22-Oct-98 9 1 1 1 75 3-Nov-98 21 2 76 10-Nov-98 21 1 77 7-Dec-98 12 78 17-Dec-98 9 6 3 3 79 28-Dec-98 5 80 5-Jan-99 16 81 12-Jan-99 23 4 1 82 21-Jan-99 5


78


Sortie Date Wild

erne

ss

Trad

ition

al U

se

Tour

ism

Pela

gic

Rese

arch

Wild

erne

ss

Trad

ition

al U

se

Tour

ism

Pela

gic

Rese

arch

83 28-Jan-99 11 84 8-Feb-99 7 2 85 18-Feb-99 11 4 1 86 25-Feb-99 12 4 2 87 2-Mar-99 14 7 2 88 12-Mar-99 13 1 1 89 20-Apr-99 13 3 2 90 27-Apr-99 24 91 30-Jun-99 13 1 92 14-Aug-99 16 1 93 2-Sep-99 9 8 1 94 9-Sep-99 19 2 95 12-Oct-99 19 3 1 1 96 18-Oct-99 16 9 97 28-Oct-99 19 98 8-Nov-99 12 1 99 15-Nov-99 24 2 1 100 23-Nov-99 15 3 1 101 30-Nov-99 23 4 1 102 7-Dec-99 11 2 1 103 15-Dec-99 21 5 1 104 21-Dec-99 10 105 11-Jan-00 14 1 106 20-Jan-00 6 1 107 1-Feb-00 26 108 16-Feb-00 9 109 23-Feb-00 18 4 1 110 1-Mar-00 8 5 2 111 11-Mar-00 15 112 29-Mar-00 22 1 113 11-Apr-00 24 2 114 10-May-00 20 115 23-Jan-01 13 116 31-Jan-01 16 2 1 117 7-Feb-01 11 4 118 3-Apr-01 14 2 1 119 16-May-01 11 1 3 120 6-Jul-01 5 121 25-Jul-01 14 2 122 2-Aug-01 22 3 1 123 13-Aug-01 26 2 7 124 30-Aug-01 34 4 1 125 6-Nov-01 15 4 1 126 13-Mar-02 11 4 1 3 1 1 127 25-Mar-02 24 1 1 1 2



Sortie Date Wild

erne

ss

Trad

ition

al U

se

Tour

ism

Pela

gic

Rese

arch

Wild

erne

ss

Trad

ition

al U

se

Tour

ism

Pela

gic

Rese

arch

128 3-Apr-02 30 6 1 129 15-Apr-02 24 5 1 3 1 1 2 130 26-Apr-02 3 131 8-May-02 6 132 17-May-02 18 6 1 133 5-Jun-02 25 7 1 1 134 19-Jun-02 13 12 4 1 1 135 27-Jun-02 17 1 2 136 4-Jul-02 6 4 137 16-Jul-02 15 13 138 24-Jul-02 27 4 2 4 3 3 139 5-Aug-02 25 18 1 3 5 140 26-Aug-02 18 2 1 2 141 27-Aug-02 16 142 13-Sep-02 15 3 143 18-Sep-02 19 4 1 3 1 144 25-Sep-02 23 1 145 16-Oct-02 31 3 1 4 146 5-Nov-02 12 9 2 2 147 19-Dec-02 10 148 7-Jan-03 9 1 3 149 16-Jan-03 14 9 2 2 150 24-Jan-03 6 16 151 7-Feb-03 17 6 152 15-Feb-03 2 153 19-Feb-03 6 3 1 154 26-Feb-03 17 155 6-Mar-03 19 4 1 156 13-Mar-03 6 157 18-Mar-03 19 1 158 26-Mar-03 24 2 1 159 8-Apr-03 38 160 15-Apr-03 4 1 161 23-Apr-03 5 4 1 162 29-Apr-03 29 7 1 2 163 13-May-03 11 2 3 164 27-May-03 16 2 165 5-Jun-03 13 166 16-Jun-03 17 1 1 1 3 167 23-Jun-03 21 1 168 2-Jul-03 6 169 14-Jul-03 28 3 170 23-Jul-03 10 5 171 30-Jul-03 7 172 5-Aug-03 29 4


80


Sortie Date Wild

erne

ss

Trad

ition

al U

se

Tour

ism

Pela

gic

Rese

arch

Wild

erne

ss

Trad

ition

al U

se

Tour

ism

Pela

gic

Rese

arch

173 13-Aug-03 18 174 4-Sep-03 11 1 175 12-Sep-03 24 2 176 24-Sep-03 9 1 5 1 177 7-Oct-03 29 178 14-Oct-03 11 179 23-Oct-03 17 2 180 4-Nov-03 20 3 181 18-Nov-03 42 2 182 8-Dec-03 16 1 183 17-Dec-03 8 14 184 29-Dec-03 20 6 2 185 6-Jan-04 10 1 186 15-Jan-04 28 10 2 187 23-Jan-04 29 188 27-Jan-04 21 11 189 17-Feb-04 6 190 26-Feb-04 62 3 191 4-Mar-04 17 192 12-Mar-04 26 12 3 193 18-Mar-04 15 20 1 3 194 25-Mar-04 30 2 195 7-Apr-04 19 13 2 196 23-Apr-04 34 2 197 28-Apr-04 10 9 198 6-May-04 30 2 199 13-May-04 33 4 4 1 200 25-May-04 17 2 201 8-Jun-04 17 4 2 1 1 202 18-Jun-04 52 1 1 1 203 24-Jun-04 21 2 2 204 8-Jul-04 14 3 205 15-Jul-04 30 5 1 206 5-Aug-04 22 8 2 1 207 13-Aug-04 28 3 5 1 208 24-Aug-04 37 1 7 4 209 7-Sep-04 13 9 6 2 210 16-Sep-04 36 1 2 3 1 211 29-Sep-04 7 1 3 212 14-Oct-04 27 7 213 20-Oct-04 42 5 2 214 4-Nov-04 55 2 6 215 9-Dec-04 33 3 216 16-Dec-04 30 41 3 1 217 28-Dec-04 21 7 2 2 1



Sortie Date Wild

erne

ss

Trad

ition

al U

se

Tour

ism

Pela

gic

Rese

arch

Wild

erne

ss

Trad

ition

al U

se

Tour

ism

Pela

gic

Rese

arch

218 5-Jan-05 35 7 1 2 219 13-Jan-05 22 7 220 26-Jan-05 20 4 1 1 221 3-Feb-05 26 7 222 16-Feb-05 59 5 2 1 1 1 223 24-Feb-05 29 6 224 3-Mar-05 52 2 225 7-Mar-05 19 226 16-Mar-05 25 7 227 18-Mar-05 14 3 228 22-Mar-05 7 2 1 229 30-Mar-05 24 5 1 230 6-Apr-05 20 9 1 231 13-Apr-05 42 8 232 29-Apr-05 25 4 1 233 27-May-05 7 5 1 234 3-Jun-05 22 1 2 235 25-Jun-07 12 13 1 7 3 236 5-Jul-07 29 3 237 16-Jul-07 40 2 5 238 25-Jul-07 8 10 7 239 16-Aug-07 16 3 240 30-Aug-07 12 4 1 12 1 241 10-Sep-07 15 10 2 2 9 242 24-Sep-07 17 7 1 7 243 2-Oct-07 25 3 1 3 4 244 10-Oct-07 15 1 3 245 23-Oct-07 15 3 246 2-Nov-07 14 247 13-Nov-07 78 13 1 2 1 3 248 22-Nov-07 9 2 249 15-Feb-08 16 5 4 1 250 27-Feb-08 2 1 1 251 5-Mar-08 52 4 1 252 13-Mar-08 62 253 18-Mar-08 8 1 254 27-Mar-08 32 1 1 4 255 3-Apr-08 10 35 1 1 1 256 9-Apr-08 26 3 2 257 15-Apr-08 14 4 18 1 258 23-Apr-08 22 3 259 27-May-08 23 5 5 260 3-Jun-08 20 3 3 261 25-Apr-09 62 16 3 7 1 262 8-May-09 19 4 5 4 2 5


82


Sortie Date Wild

erne

ss

Trad

ition

al U

se

Tour

ism

Pela

gic

Rese

arch

Wild

erne

ss

Trad

ition

al U

se

Tour

ism

Pela

gic

Rese

arch

263 22-May-09 29 30 2 4 5 7 2 264 8-Jun-09 52 6 6 3 6 9 3 265 6-Jul-09 18 16 6 8 7 1 266 22-Jul-09 76 21 7 10 5 9 20 3 267 5-Aug-09 24 25 3 13 1 6 21 2 268 20-Aug-09 8 12 3 26 11 25 2 269 3-Sep-09 9 30 1 11 10 9 270 15-Sep-09 24 13 2 8 2 10 6 1 1271 1-Oct-09 24 9 1 2 6 4 2 272 19-Oct-09 27 19 2 12 1 6 8 273 18-Nov-09 37 53 10 5 5 5 1 9 2 274 1-Dec-09 12 20 1 2 6 2 5 1 275 15-Dec-09 47 36 3 2 5 1 5 1 276 1-Jan-04 33 31 4 3 6


84

PT. PUTRI NAGA KOM DOAn enterprise partnership between The Nature Conservancy, the Global Environment Facility, and the International Finance Corporation

that supports the Komodo National Park Authority under the Directorate General for Forest Protection & Nature Conservation, Ministry of Forestry

K O M O D O C O L L A B O R A T I V E M A N A G E M E N T I N I T I A T I V E

COMMITTED TO CONSERVATION, SUPPORTIVE OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND FOCUSED ON FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH NATURE-BASED TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

FOR KOMODO NATIONAL PARK, WORLD HERITAGE SITE

resource use in komodo national park: long-term trends 1996 - 2009

Documents