National and Recreational Parks on Flores: Management, Conservation and the Local Communities.

This is The Thesis of Norwegian Students Who were Helped By Me Doing Research In Flores On Tourism Management.





By:
Marte Franck Johnsen
Helene Nilsen



Bachelor Thesis
Development Studies Programme
University of Agder
Kristiansand, Norway
May 2009-05-27


Supervisor: Stein Kristiansen







Acknowledgements

We would like to thank everyone who contributed to making our fieldwork such a great experience. First of all Gadjah Mada University and the MAP department, a special thanks to Dr. Agus Pramusinto who organized our lectures at UGM. We would also like to thank all of the lecturers for providing us with information about Indonesia and natural resource management. Further we would thank Pater Philipus and the other priests at the Seminary in Maumere. A special thanks goes to our interpreters Emil and Rofinus, and all the respondents who contributed to this study. Finally we give thanks to our supervisor Stein Kristiansen for his outstanding guidance throughout the entire fieldwork.






















Table of contents

1.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………….5

2.0 Indonesia and Flores, a contextual description…………………………………….6
2.1 Political history…………………………………………………………......6
2.2 Social, cultural and economic context……………………………………...9
2.3 Government and decentralization after 1999……………………………..11
2.4 Tourism potential on Flores ………………………………………………12
2.5 Komodo National Park……………………………………………………12
2.6 Kelimutu National Park……………………………………………………13
2.7 Ruteng Tourism Park……………………………………………………....14

3.0 Natural resource management in Indonesia, a contextual description ……………14
3.1 National and recreational park management………………………………15
3.2 Local involvement…………………………………………………………16
3.3 Collaborative management and NGOs………………………………….....16

4.0 Theoretical discussion……………………………………………………………..16
4.1 National and recreational park management ……………………………...17
4.2 Local communities, their livelihood interest and economic development...20
4.3 Collaborative management and NGOs………………………………….....26

5.0 Methodology……………………………………………………………………….29
5.1 Qualitative research………………………………………………………...30
5.2 In depth interviews…………………………………………………………30
5.3 Selection of respondents and informants…………………………………...31
5.4 Selection of study sights…………………………………………………....31
5.5 Cooperation with interpreters ……………………………………………....32
5.6 Cultural differences and challenges when doing fieldwork in Indonesia…...32
5.7 Data validity and reliability……………………………………………….....33

6.0 Empirical findings and discussion…………………………………………………...33
6.1 National and recreational park management………………………………....34
6.2 Local communities, their livelihood interests and economic development…..36
6.3 Collaborative management and NGOs……………………………………….38

7.0 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………40






























1.0 Introduction

As part of our bachelor degree at Agder University, we spent three months doing fieldwork in Indonesia. The main topic of research was national and recreational park management on Flores located in Nusa Tengara Timur, Indonesia. We studied conservation of the parks and its impact on the local communities. The main area where we did our research is Komodo National Park and to some extent Kelimutu National Park and the Ruteng Recreational Park.

We choose this topic because the main focus of the students doing their research in Indonesia should be on natural resource management. This was one of the topics recommended by our professor Stein Kristiansen, and he gave us a lot of information about the situation of natural resource management in Indonesia. The location of our research was on Flores, which has several national and recreational parks, with great biodiversity. We choose to study the management aspect of the parks because there are big challenges regarding how the parks are managed and how the local people living in and around the parks are treated and involved in decision-making.

We also found the co-operation between Komodo National Park and the private company Putri Naga Komodo regarding the management of the park very interesting. This collaboration is unique in its kind and we wanted to discover more about it.
Environmental issues and the management of natural resources are crucial for the further development of third world countries and it is also important in a global scale.
It is a topic that is on the political agenda in almost every country in the world nowadays, and it is something that has to be taken seriously.

There have previously been done a number of studies similar to our topic about natural resource management. Throughout the theoretical chapter there will be provided a discussion regarding earlier studies, both international and national, which are relevant for the studies conducted in our fieldwork.

In our fieldwork we were accompanied by two interpreters to assist us making the interviews. The methodology used in researching has mainly been in depth interviews, in addition to some observation throughout the study.

The results achieved in our research were completed by consequently basing our interviews on these questions during the process;
1. How can Komodo and Kelimutu national parks and the Ruteng Recreational Park be managed in the best possible way, to create a sustainable economic development and environmental conservation?
2. How can the local communities in and around the parks and their economies benefit from the development of the parks, and are their livelihood interests taken into consideration?
3. How does the collaborative management and NGOs effect the development and administration of the parks?

2.0 Indonesia and Flores, a contextual description

In this chapter there will be a presentation of the political history in Indonesia and on Flores, as well as a brief introduction to the economic and governmental system. In addition to this, the study areas where the fieldwork has been conducted will be presented, and we will review some aspects of the tourism potential on Flores.

2.1 Political history
Indonesia got its independence on the 17th of August, 1945. Prior to the independence the country was colonized by the Dutch. During the 16th century the first Europeans arrived in Indonesia, they were mainly Portuguese, British and Dutch. The Dutch East India Company (VOC) was established in 1602, and they became the main European power. After VOC went bankrupt in 1800, their territories where taken by the Dutch and they became the colonial power in Indonesia. With the establishment of the Dutch colony there were a lot of changes in the political and economical system. With the introduction of the western economic system and the land rent system came a change in the mindset of the rural people. They no longer only produced for their own consumption, but also to create a profit. The Dutch reorganized the administration system; they created a dual system where the Europeans were in charge of the highest positions in the regencies, while the natives were in charge of the regencies, districts, subdistrict and villages.

In the early 20th century the Dutch extended the borders of their colony, and these are still the borders of Indonesia today. During this period of time there was also a rise of the middle class and several nationalistic movements that created a national consciousness, by the 1920s; slogans such as “Indonesia”, “freedom” and “independence” were common.

During World War II, Indonesia had a short period of Japanese occupation (1942-45), and this ended the Dutch rule. Shortly after the Japanese surrendered in august 1945, the nationalist leader Soekarno declared the Indonesian independence. This marked the beginning of a new political era and new challenges for a country that had been ruled by foreign powers for many centuries. At first the Dutch were unwilling to recognize Indonesian independence, but after international pressure from the UN and the USA, the Dutch finally accepted it on the 27th of December 1949.

Soekarno created the Pancasila, which consist of five philosophical principals. This was an attempt to create unity in a country of great diversity. He was negative towards western countries, especially because of the way Asian countries had been treated by the West in the past. Through konfrontasi Soekarno tried to conquer Malaysia. When doing this, he lost his support from the western world and the US withdrew its foreign aid. As a result inflation grew, and it became clear that Soekarno wasn’t able to create an economic system strong enough to solve Indonesia’s economic problems.

On the 30th of September 1965 there was an attempted coup where six of Indonesia’s top generals were kidnapped and executed. The Indonesian army claimed that this coup was plotted by the communist party PKI, and when Soeharto launched a countercoup, hundreds of communists were killed or imprisoned. It also led to the ban of PKI. Post coup death tolls are claimed to be as high as several hundred thousand people (Kuorotomo 2009). Shortly after this Soeharto became the leader of the armed forces, and in 1966 Soekarno signed the 11th March order, which gave Soeharto more power. Soeharto dismissed several thousand public servants when he launched his campaign of intimidation to stop any opposition against him. On the 27th of March 1968 he became the new president of Indonesia.

Unlike Soekarno, Soeharto believed that foreign investment was crucial for the development of the Indonesian economy and through his “New order” he tried to attract foreign investment and re-establish a good relationship with the West. This caused a decrease in inflation, from 650% in 1966 to 13% in 1969 (Kuorotomo 2009). In the early 1970s Soeharto’s party Golkar gained power and other parties were forced to merge together. This resulted in to the Development Unity Party and the Indonesian Democratic Party in addition to Golkar. As the merger was forced it created a lot of internal problems in the new parties (Kuorotomo 2009).

The Green revolution and an oil boom in the 1970s were the main reasons for improved living conditions for poor villagers and a great increase in wealth among the already rich. With this there was also a growth in corruption at all levels of society and the ones who benefited most from this was Soeharto, his family and associates.

The fall of Soeharto was mainly due to his lack of ability to handle the Asian currency crisis in 1997 and its great impacts on the Indonesian economy (Lele 2009). On the 21st of May 1998 he stepped down after 32 years of rule. Leaving behind him many problems to be faced by the coming presidents, such as poverty, foreign debt, corruption and human rights abuses. Shortly after this the former Vice President, BJ Habibie, was sworn in as the new President of Indonesia. One of his first actions was to promise elections and release political prisoners, and in 1999 Indonesian had its first free election. But even as Habibie tried to be a man of the people his past as a close friend of Soeharto made the public question his credibility.

Before the election of today’s president, Susilo Bamdang Yudhoyono in 2004 Indonesia had two other presidents; Wahid Abdurrahman from 1999, and Megawati Soekarnoputri from 2001. All of these have made efforts towards reforming the political system and addressing the issues related to corruption. Though it has become clear that corruption, collusion and nepotism are so imprinted in the Indonesian society after Soeharto’s rule that it will take many years to change the mindset of the Indonesian people (Lele 2009). This leads bad governance and many difficulties when attempting to cooperate with government officials. Another aspect of it is corruption, which is widely accepted by the Indonesian society who are still affected by heritege of the years under strict government or colonial rule (Lele 2009).

The island of Flores was firstly discovered by Europeans, more spesifically the Portuguese, in the early 14th century. They named the island Cabo da Flores, which means the cape of flowers (Tule 2009). With the Portuguese influence came Christianity, and since 1556 Portuguese missionaries baptised locals and established catholic communities. Flores is still mainly populated by Catholics, and the Catholic Church has great power here. There are several catholic schools on Flores, both elementary and secondary.

The Dutch started to get more influence and control over Flores in the 17th century, and by 1850 they had gained control over all the Portuguese areas on the island. But they still had to face several conflicts with the local tribes who had lived on the islands for generations.

After the decentralization in 2001 one problem that Flores and the Nusa Tenggara province has had to face is how to create a long term development plan for the entire regency. Nowadays each district is only concerned with their own development rather than how they can co-operate to create a sustainable economic development for the entire regency (Tule 2009).

2.2 Social, cultural and economic context
The republic of Indonesia is the fourth most populated country in the world; it has 240 million inhabitants. The country is made up of 17 500 islands; big islands like Sumatra, Sulawesi, Java, Kalimantan and Papua, and also countless small islands. This has created a wide variety of cultures and languages across the archipelago. Indonesia has great religious diversity, made up mainly by 88% Muslims, 10 % Christians, but also some Hindu, Buddhist and Animist. The religion with the greatest influence is Islam, especially on Java, and most of the high positions in the government are occupied by Muslims.

Java is also the centre for economic growth and development in Indonesia. Almost all industry, part from the production of raw materials, is located on Java. The development of industry as well as the attraction of foreign investment due to cheap labour has been crucial for the further development of the country. The most important goods for export are oil, gas, machinery, textiles and wood. Even though Indonesia is a rich country when one considers its natural resources this does not contribute to benefit the entire population. This is emphasized by the fact that there in the last decade has been a strong increase in GDP at the same time as the gap between poor and rich has grown.

Tourism also contributes to the economy in Indonesia, though the industry has experienced a decrease after the Bali bombings in 2002. Tourism is mainly concentrated on the islands of Bali and Java, though also some parts of eastern Indonesia are experiencing more tourism nowadays.

Like the rest of Indonesia Flores also has a great variety of culture and languages. There are many different tribes throughout Flores like; the Leo and Sikkanese people. All of these communities have their own language and some of them do not even speak Bahasa Indonesia. Even though the main religion is Catholic, local communities are still influenced by animist beliefs. Most people, also those educated, will occasionally perform sacrifices and other animist rituals to keep their ancestors happy. The Muslim population on Flores is small and mainly located in fishing villages like Ende and Labuan Bajo.

Flores is considered one of the poorest islands on the Indonesian archipelago, even if the island is rich on natural resources. The Florenese people are mainly farmers or fishermen using simple tools and barely producing enough for their basic needs. Flores needs support from the central government to further develop the educational system, as well as agriculture and fisheries in order to create economic growth (Tule 2009). Since Flores is considered one of the most beautiful islands in Indonesia and has a great cultural heritage the development of tourism is also considered as a viable path towards further economic development.


2.3 Government and decentralization after 1999

Indonesia consists of 32 provinces; this government level has been greatly influenced during the decentralization process. The provinces were given more power, and it was hard for the government employees to adapt to the new system. The other levels in the administrational system; districts, sub-districts and villages were also greatly influenced by the decentralization.

In May, 1999, the Indonesian Parliament and the Habibie administration enacted two new laws to implement decentralization, no. 22 and 25/99. Before the decentralization, there was formally three levels of government; Central government, provinces and districts, though the central government dominated all levels. The implementation of the laws was set to June 2001. The weight of power changed from the central administration in Jakarta, and out to the provinces. The reason for this was to give Indonesians across the country a better chance for involvement and participation in decision-making. Some of Indonesia’s regions are rich in natural resources, such as oil and minerals, these regions gained a great benefit from the decentralization process. This is a contrast to the poorest regions, which don’t have as much natural resources to benefit from. Another negative outcome of decentralization is corruption. Instead of decreasing a problem which already existed throughout the country, the new power gave the local leaders better opportunities to be even more corrupt. The local government suddenly got a gigantic responsibility concerning natural resource management, delivering public services and other governmental affairs which had been passed down from Jakarta. This turned out to be an enormous challenge because most employees in the local administrations were not qualified for the responsibilities given to them. Decentralization has imposed several other changes and consequences on the system of government. Some positive changes are increased transparency, accountability and liberty. Though there are still great challenges to be face. With decentralization came an expansion of political parties which has led to several coalitions in central government, an aspect that causes a less effective rule (Lele 2009).

The form of governance is republic with elected legislators and president. The current president is Susilo Bam Dang Yudhoyono, also called SBY. The last parliamentary election was in April 2009.

2.4 Tourism potential on Flores
Flores is located in Indonesia, in the Nusa Tengara Timur province. Flores is populated by 1.8 million people. The scenery on the island is beautiful; it is dominated by volcanoes, steep hills and deep valleys. There are small islands surrounding all of Flores. The island still doesn’t receive a lot of tourism, but it has a great potential. There are two main attractions on Flores, the most known is the Komodo National Park, which already receive a great deal of attention because of the protected Komodo Dragons that lives on the small islands outside of the fishing village Labuan Bajo. The location of the park is on the west coast of Flores. The park also receive tourism due to its great marine biodiversity, it is a paradise for divers as one can see manta rays, sharks, turtles and many other marine species. The other main attraction on Flores is the three coloured lakes in Kelimutu National Park. The crater lakes are a spectacular sight with its bright colours and mysterious legends. The local people living around the mountain believes that the spirits of their ancestors live in the lakes; there is one lake for the old spirits, one for the young spirits and one for the bad spirits. One aspect that makes the crater lakes special, is the fact that they changes colours as the years passes because of geological and chemical processes in the bottom of the lakes.

Both of these sights has great future possibilities for increased tourism, the main obstacle seems to be the difficulties regarding travelling to Flores. It is expensive to go by air, because there is a monopoly by TransNusa Air. The location is also far from popular sights such as Bali and Lombok, resulting in that many people do not use their time to travel to Flores. Another important issue regarding tourism is to improve the marketing of Flores. The development of new tourism attractions to create a whole package with exciting tourism activities as well as the development of infrastructure is important (Tule 2009).

2.5 Komodo National Park
The Komodo National Park consists of the islands Komodo, Rinca and Padar, in addition to some small islands. It is located in the district of West Mangarai, and the largest town is Labuan Bajo. The park was established in 1980, made a biosphere reserve in 1986, and the park was named a UNESCO world heritage sight in 1991. The main attraction of the park is the famous Komodo dragon; the largest living lizard in the world. Other attractions in the park are diving and snorkelling. There is high marine biodiversity, and it is a very popular area among divers.

There are 4642 people living inside the park (Komodo National Park 2007), these people are mainly Muslim immigrants from Sulawesi and their main source of income is fishing. Since 1995, the park management has been cooperating with the American environmental organization, The Nature Conservancy. In 2000 they created a 25 year management plan together with the local government. This was an attempt to create a plan to avoid further resource exploitation. There has also been some attempt to involve the local communities living within and around the park in the park management and decision making, but this has not showed very good results yet. From 2005 the joint venture Putri Naga Komodo, which is a private company supported by TNC, has replaced TNC in supporting the park authority towards creating a sustainable management for the park.

2.6 Kelimutu National Park
Kelimutu National Park is located in the eastern part of Flores. It was declared a national park in 1992. The park has great biodiversity consisting of about 19 restricted-range birds, 4 endemic mammals and a wide variety of plants. The park also has a unique natural phenomenon, the three coloured lakes by the peak of Mount Kelimutu. Today the lakes have different colours, turquoise, green, brown and the colours change with time. It is still a scientific mystery why the lakes keep changing colour and the unique phenomenon attracts many tourists, both Indonesian and
foreign.

There are several villages close to the park border; the people living here are mainly farmers and traders. The increase in tourism has improved the villagers’ income to some extent, and most people living close to the park are positive to tourism. The administration of Kelimutu National Park is in the main town in the district of Ende, also called Ende. The village closest to Kelimutu is Moni, it is here most of the tourists are based when visiting Kelimutu.

2.7 Ruteng Recreational Park
Ruteng Recreational Park was established in 1993, to protect the tropical forest and biodiversity in the park. The park consists of 32.000 hectare of forest. It is located close to the Ruteng town in Manggarai district. There is not a lot of tourism in the park, mostly local tourist from other places on Flores or from Ruteng town. International tourists tend to travel past the park, because there are no special sights in comparison to Komodo national park and Kelimutu national.

Indigenous people have been living in and around the park for centuries, and they use the forest for basic needs, such as firewood, cooking and for building materials. They believe that the forest areas are passed down to them by their ancestors. The local government, who works with the protection of the park, does not take any of this into consideration when managing the park.

The government has recently expanded the forest border from the original Dutch border, and this has caused tension and some conflicts between the local people and park management.

3.0 Natural resource management in Indonesia

Natural resource management is defined as how natural resources can be managed in order to take into consideration the livelihood needs of both present and future generations. It is considered one of the most important aspects to create a sustainable and equitable development.

Indonesia has a wide variety of natural resources which among others include; oil, timber, gas and minerals. Before 2001 these were strictly controlled by the central government. Since the implementation of decentralization the power of natural resource management in Indonesia has been with local governments (Lele 2009). This shift of power has in many cases led to great exploitation of natural resources by local government. There have even been incidents where exploitation has occurred illegally within protected areas (Patlis 2008). Some Indonesia’s natural resources are degrading at an unprecedented rate (Halim et al. 2008). This has caused the central government to reclaim some of their power through the adaptation of Law 32/2004, states that the central government has the authority to establish conservation areas within regional boundaries (Patlis 2008).

3.1 National and recreational park management in Indonesia

There exist several different types of protected areas, in our bachelor thesis we have done research in two different types of protected areas; national park and nature recreational park.
A national park is a natural area of land and/or sea, designated to protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations; exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area, and provide a foundation for spiritual, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally compatible. (IUCN 1994)
A nature conservation area is mainly intended for recreation and tourism. (Patlis 2008)
In most cases national and nature recreation parks are owned and managed by the government. In Indonesia it is the Ministry of Forestry in Jakarta which has the authorial power for national, nature protected parks and other protected areas. There are local park offices in every province, and they are responsible for most decisions regarding the parks.
In some protected areas there are independent stakeholders involved in the management. It can be foreign environment organizations or private companies who want to invest or engage in the development process and conservation of protected areas. One example is the Putri Naga Komodo who cooperates with the national park authorities in Komodo National Park.



3.2 Local involvement

Local involvement in the management of protected areas is considered crucial in order to obtain a sustainable conservation (Gustave and Borchers 2008). One reason for this is that experience has shown that the top-down strategy of the past, where governments implemented rules that did not take the local peoples needs and values into consideration has not been very successful. Nowadays there are several different strategies regarding how local people can be involved in the conservation of protected areas from the bottom-up. These focus on how local people can get a better understanding of the importance of conservation and how they through their first-hand knowledge of the area can provide good solutions for a sustainable conservation. It also addresses how to create alternative livelihoods when the conservation of an area and the source of income for the local people do not comply.

3.3 Collaborative Management and NGOs

Collaborative management is cooperation among different stakeholders; it can be local communities, NGOs, private companies and government agencies, in the management of the protected area (Moeliono 2008). As there at all times are local communities living close to or within national parks, it is viewed as important to create good relations between these and the management of the park. Participation by local people in decision making processes is essential to create awareness regarding the natural resources in the park, and the protection of these. It is also common to have both national and international NGOs working within national parks, as an example the American NGO, The Nature Conservancy has been involved in the Komodo National Park for several years (Afiff and Lowe 2008). NGOs usually contribute to the economy of national parks, and this is often needed in addition to the funding given by the government.

4.0 Theoretical discussion

In this chapter we will provide a discussion of studies and literature that are relevant for the analysis of our empirical findings. To gain best possible insight to the current situation and challenges regarding our research topic, we have divided the chapter into three parts. Firstly we discuss the theoretical background for national park management strategies, with a special emphasis on sustainable economic development and environmental conservation. Secondly we make a review of local communities, their livelihood interests, and their involvement in park management. Finally we explore the effects of shared management on national parks. These issues will be followed up in the discussion of our empirical findings in chapter 6.

4.1 National and recreational park management

In a rapidly developing world, it is important to protect areas that need conservation for different reasons. This is considered to be crucial in order to maintain a sustainable environment. International Union for Conservation of Nature uses six different categories of protected areas (IUCN 1994):
- Strict nature reserve and wilderness area
- National park: protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation
- Natural monument
- Habitat/species management area
- Protected landscape/seascape
- Managed resource protected area

According to Pigram and Jenkins (2006), the diversity of national parks around the world creates an equally wide variety of management approaches. Despite this, there are some essential issues which appear in all parks; the importance of finding a balance between conservation and resource use. This is the ‘dilemma of development’ (Fitzsimmons 1976 :278). Resource use is a problem for the current generation, and it is viewed as an important issue on the global agenda. Conservation is a concern that will greatly affect future generations, but it still needs to be dealt with today. One of the main tasks for the management of national parks is to restrict resource use and recreational use, from both local communities and tourists visiting the parks. Restrictions of resource use often create conflicts between park management and local communities (Pigram and Jenkins 2006). The first national parks were established in the late 19th century. Since then, the system of management has ranged from focusing on a top-down rule with strong government influence to focusing more on the importance of local involvement and resource use in. This is in order to create a sustainable conservation for protected areas (Gustave and Borchers 2008).

Several studies are made on the effect of former management approaches and future strategies. One example is a study in Nigeria where the top-down management approach was implemented by the colonial government (Gbadegesin and Ayileka 2000). Through the development of national parks in Nigeria, the traditional system of nature conservation used by locals, who depend on the natural resources for their basic needs, was alienated (Gbadegesin and Ayileka 2000). It is firstly in recent years that the importance of local involvement in the management of protected areas has been viewed as a crucial aspect in order to create sustainable conservation. It is a fact that this aspect has not been considered in the past, and that the park management has been implemented by a top-down approach, only using conservation expertise when planning the management. This is viewed as one of the main reasons for not achieving the wanted protection and conservation of park areas (Moeliono 2008).

In the study of the proposed national park in Abuja, Nigeria, the development of a collaborative management strategy is thought to be needed. The study emphasizes the importance of including the needs and values of all the different stakeholders involved in the park. (Gbadegesin and Ayileka 2000). The study proposes the use of the Co-coordinated Resource Management approach (CRM). This approach promotes involvement of all stakeholders on a voluntary basis. Management is based on consensus, where all the stakeholders will have to agree on an issue before it can be determined. The objective is to empower local people and through this create a more sustainable management plan (Gbadegesin and Ayileka 2000). The Nigerian study also mentions how decentralization is viewed as an important aspect to achieve a sustainable development in general and regarding management of protected areas. There are several studies that discuss the impact of decentralization in Indonesia regarding their protected area management (Moeliono 2008).

Through the implementation of the decentralization in Indonesia in 2001, political power was redistributed from central government to the district governments to create a more democratic system. ‘Decentralization is an important aspect of good governance’ (Binswanger et al. 1994). This gave a lot of power and responsibility to the districts regarding protected area management. It has in several cases led to exploitation of natural resources by corrupt leaders in local governments (Patlis 2008). There is a need to develop guidelines and distinguish power relations between local communities and central and local government (Moeliono 2008). It is very important that the rights and responsibilities of the different stakeholders are recognized and protected by law. Nowadays poorly formulated laws and systemic problems regarding existing laws constitute a major challenge in managing protected areas in Indonesia (Patlis 2008). Even though more power was distributed to local governments through decentralization, “it is the Ministry of Forestry that has primary responsibility for the establishment, management and oversight of almost all protected areas in Indonesia” (Patlis 2008). This creates another challenge regarding natural resource management, as the Ministry of Forestry does not have efficient funding or resources to properly manage the protected areas (Gustave and Borchers 2008).

Through the implementation of decentralization, issues regarding local government involvement in natural resource management have been disputed. Local governments in some cases exploit natural resources unsustainably in order to increase local revenues (Moeliono 2008). There are also several instances where local leaders have taken advantage of their positions, disregarded the central laws, and given illegal logging permits to private companies (Patlis 2008). Examples of such illegal practices are in East and Central Kalimantan where taxes were collected by the local government on the transport of clearly illegally harvested timber (Patlis 2008). Another example is from the recreational park in Ruteng, Flores, where several local people have reported on corrupt forestry officials who either collected fines from the local communities or gave logging concessions to businessmen who would pay for the privilege (Erb 2001). Moeliono (2008) argues that one cannot be surprised when local governments try to get some benefits from the land, and that illegal exploitation of natural resources by local governments is understandable. It is a controversy that local governments are expected to contribute to the protection and management of conservation areas with no retribution.

The protected area management of the past has generally focused on the importance of conservation of the environment and has in many cases evicted local communities from their ancestral land. This has created many conflicts between locals and park management. In later years, conservation has also taken into account the aspect of “social justice”, regarding local people who are dependent on the natural resources that are protected. According to Gustave and Borschers (2008 :198), ‘biodiversity conservation is unlikely to be successful if it does not take into account the aspirations and socioeconomic needs of local communities and resource users’. This creates a challenge regarding the management of natural resources in Indonesia, with the negative heritage from the former management schemes based on colonial and western influence. Based on this heritage, ‘community engagement has nearly always been a case of how to convince people to appreciate the logics of conservation established elsewhere’ (Afiff and Lowe 2008:155). Such practices have created long lasting conflicts between certain communities and central government. Some cases ending in tragedy as in Komodo National Park where a local fisherman was shot and killed by park authorities because he was caught fishing in the park area (Afiff and Lowe 2008).

According to Halim et al. (2008) the Komodo Park Authority encourages the stakeholders to participate in activities such as surveillance of the park, but this is not formalized. The team patrolling the park consists of park rangers, police, water police and the navy. Sometimes local community members are requested to help with the patrols (Halim et al. 2008). The overall authority of the national park lies with the Komodo National Park Authority but the daily management is shared between Putri Naga Komodo; a joint venture between The Nature Conservancy and an Indonesian tourism agency, and the Komodo National Park. There also exists a Collaborative Management Council, consisting of 11 members who give advice to the management authority. This council is given input from the Community Consultative Council, which consist of fishermen, NGOs, the tourism industry and it will be enacted by the Bupati (regency or district head) (Halim et al. 2008). The management of Komodo National Park and the different stakeholders involved will be discussed more thoroughly in paragraph 3.3 regarding collaborative management.

In order to create a sustainable management of protected areas it is important to consider that ‘healthy conditions for people and parks can only come about through weighing them equally and together, and by understanding the needs of those who appear to be weaker or not relevant to, or even opposed to our goals’ (Afiff and Lowe 2008).

4.2 Local communities, their livelihood interest and economic development

Rural communities in other developing countries have many similar problems as Indonesians have. There are several examples of local involvement and community collaboration all over the world. This seems to be a challenging, and in this chapter we will explore some examples of successful collaboration, as well as some cases where the relationship between the local government and local people living close to park borders has not been flourishing.

A critical view of community collaboration is provided by MacKinnon; he states that apart from economical gain, local communities do not necessarily have any particular interest in conservation. He also criticizes the common belief that the local communities will stop exploiting the natural resources as soon as their living standards are raised. His belief is that higher living standards will require higher demand of resources (Moelino 2008).

From Africa, Abbot et al. report on the protected forest area surrounding the Bamenda highlands in Cameroon, called Kilum-ljim. There is a community based projects in this area to help support the local residents who live around these districts. Attempts have been made to give the people here socialization, and help them find alternative livelihoods. It is important while protecting natural resources not to forget the inhabitants who live there and rely upon the resources from nature, such as firewood, medical plants, food and water (Abbot et al. 2001). There are more then 200 000 people living within a days walk from the Kilum-ljim forest, and they all rely on natural resources from the forest (Abbot et al. 2001). It is critical to develop a fine balance between conservation of the forest and the needs of local livelihoods. With a large amount of people using the forest for their daily livelihood needs, there is a considerable pressure on the forest at all times.

The Kilum-ljim forest project has existed since 1987; it is managed in cooperation with BirdLife International and the Ministry of the Environment and Forests. It focuses on a community based management, where local communities can be involved in decision making and the protection of the forest. In addition to this, there is a livelihood program to ensure that the local farmers can expand their income in ways that will put less pressure on the forest. Some examples from the program are tree nursing and planting new trees which they can use for their daily needs, such as firewood, food and timber. Another activity is beekeeping to produce honey.

During the first years of the project, most people had a negative attitude towards all the new restrictions and their loss of farmland. But after some years the local villagers started to see some benefits connected to the projects, like good honey for medicines and fresh forest water, which had been polluted before the project started. Many locals also recognised higher rainfall and more permanent streams as a cause of conservation. It is impossible to tell if this is a consequence of climatic changes or actually from the conservation project, but the local communities related these positive changes to protection of the forest. The livelihood program has helped to empower women and introduced them to traditional male activities, such as bee- and goat keeping. This creates a positive development for the local economy. Though it is clear that it is the people who decide to get involved and have a positive attitude towards forest protection and livelihood programs that benefit the most.

It seems like the local communities in Bamenda Highland benefit from the conservation projects, they are in general positive towards change and developing alternative livelihoods. From the studies done in this area one can see that environmental education and socialization is important to get results from the conservation projects. This is crucial in community collaboration; otherwise local people will not cooperate or have any interest in contributing with forest protection. (Abbot et al. 2001).

On the island of Sulawesi in Indonesia there are two national parks; Bunaken and Wakatobi marine parks. Due to the amazing coral reefs outside of Sulawesi, the island is experiencing an increase in tourism. Sulawesi is one of the poorer islands in Indonesia (Coastal Zone Conference, 2005), but there is an enormous potential to develop the local economy through tourism. North Sulawesi is already considered to be the main tourist attraction in Indonesia after Bali. In the areas around Bunaken National Park, north on Sulawesi there has been developed a sustainable coastal tourism strategy. Two local NGOs and 82 villages in 4 different districts have been integrated in this project. Local, district and national authorities are also involved in the project, and Bunaken National Park became a World Heritage Marine Serial Site in 2005. Local communities are now participating in the development of a network of marine sanctuary sites. Local people are trained to work within the park and in relation with tourism. Examples here are making handicrafts, nature guiding, and traditional food production for tourists and other possible income activities connected to tourism. ‘Studies in Indonesia show that even a minor increase in the income of households derived from tourism activities can be very meaningful for poor people’ (UNEP 2008 :75). The result of this study is a Draft Integrated Provincial Coastal Tourism Strategy where the local communities can be involved in alternative livelihood activities trough ecotourism. This will ease the pressure on the marine environment in Bunaken National Park and at the same time boost the local economies in North Sulawesi.

Wakatobi National park is another national park on Sulawesi; this park is not as developed through tourism as Bunaken National Park, but it is one of the most recent areas to be recognized as a Marine National Park (1996). The main problem is the balance between conserving coral reefs and fishstock in the area, and make sure that the daily livelihood for local fishermen is not taken away. There have been incidents of destructive fishing, and use of illegal fishing tools. Community collaboration is on the agenda, and as the government requires there is a 25 year management plan. Regardless of this, there is not enough socialization or cooperation with the local Bajau people living in and around the park. Out of all the interviews conducted in this research (Clifton 2003), none of the respondents stated that they where consulted in any way during the process of the establishment of Wakatobi National Park. This shows a centralized approach to the planning and decision-making regarding the park. Even if this approach tends to be less expensive and more efficient at first , the long term costs will increase due to the lack of knowledge among locals and the need for enforcement and ranger activities within the park (Clifton 2003). Most of the villagers support themselves as fishermen. They have knowledge about different marine species and to a certain extent marine conservation. Only 30% are aware of the rules and regulations of the park, and there are different opinions regarding which tools should be used for fishing activities (Clifton 2003). The fact that locals are not more involved in management and decision making in the park, and are strictly controlled by the park rangers, give them a more hostile attitude towards the government and park management. This creates conflicts and unease between local people and the park management.

From Flores, Erb report about their study from Ruteng Recreation Park, discussing the issues between the park management and local people living around the park borders. The park was established in 1992, and the park borders were then expanded from the original Dutch border. The study was done in 2000, and at the time there were quite a lot of tension regarding the park border. The people living in the villages close to and within the borders were not satisfied with the new borders, and they felt run over by the government. The Dutch had given the villagers special permission to use the land, and when the new borders were established, local communities where not properly notified, or involved in the decision making process. The villages have been in the forest areas for generations, and locals claimed that it originally belonged to their ancestors and not to the government. After the establishment of the new borders, many villagers have been imprisoned for entering the forest and clearing land for agriculture purposes. In some of these cases the locals did not even know where they were allowed to go, due to lack of socialization and dialogue between the authorities and villages. Incidents like this have lead to a bad relationship between authorities and locals, where villagers do not trust or have any particular interest in cooperating with park authorities.

Another problem between the park management and the local people in Manggarai is that the authorities are taking advantage of the knowledge local people have about the forest and its content. The Ruteng Recreational Park officials visit the leader of the village to seek information about forest conservation for their research. Instead of doing their own research they ask the local ‘experts’ to help them. The people in the villages have been willing to help because they care about their forest, but they are not rewarded in any way for their knowledge. This causes frustration among local people.

There have been plans to develop ecotourism in Ruteng Recreational Park. The head of Ruteng Recreational Park planned to involve the locals in alternative livelihood activities connected to tourism, such as performing rituals for tourist visiting the park (Erb 2001). This was an effort to develop the local economy without having to overexploit the natural resources in the park. However, when the study was taking place, there were not any concrete plans implemented yet, besides taking a small entry fee from visitors going into the park (Erb 2001).

Several studies have also been done in Komodo National Park, among others Gustave and Borchers, 2008. According to this there are several villages both inside and close to the park; the main source of income is fishing. A population growth combined with restrictions on resource use has increased. Most people rely on marine resource on a daily basis. There have been some problems with illegal fishing and hunting inside Komodo National Park. Studies show that it is actually the people living outside the park, in villages like Sape, who are responsible for the majority of the illegal fishing and hunting activities (PKA & TNC 2000). In cooperation with The Nature Conservancy, the local government made a 25 years management plan to conserve the park’s biodiversity, coastal and marine ecosystems (PKA & TNC 2000). It was implemented in 2000 without any specific involvement from the local communities. In 2001, the district government passed the regional regulation no. 11, banning almost all kinds of fishing equipment, and implemented zoning regulations without consulting the fishing communities inside the park. The park management in cooperation with the Putri Naga Komodo works towards community involvement to get local people engaged in alternative livelihood activities such as carving, guiding and similar activities. During interviews with local people it became clear that ‘the national park was run like a state within the state’ (Gustave and Borchers 2008). In other words there was a top down rule without much involvement from local communities. The Nature Conservancy had strict patrolling activities in the park, and in 2002 there was an incident which made relationship between the park management and locals worse; two fishermen were shot dead by the park patrols. An interesting observation in Komodo National Park is the fact that a number of well known Indonesian environmental and human right groups have supported the position of the local communities, which think that there has been a lack of dialogue, communication and consultation (Afiff 2008).

In Komodo National Park the cost of living for local people is increasing with the integration to a global cash economy, at the same time the population is growing. This creates a situation with a lot of pressure on the natural resources of the park (Gustave and Borchers 2008). To assure environmental conservation Komodo National Park has introduced programs to create alternative livelihoods for local fishermen. They have also established user zones for fishing within the park and patrolling by park rangers to prevent exploitation of the natural resources. According to Gustave and Borchers, 2008, the projects regarding alternative livelihood have ‘either failed due to economic and cultural barriers, or is so far largely limited to communities living outside park boundaries’. In several national and recreational parks the development of eco-tourism is considered to be a viable path towards developing alternative livelihoods for local people, as well as making the parks “pay for them selves through user fees and concessions” (Gustave and Borchers 2008).

A general problem with community involvement seems to be scepticism by conservation expert towards the ability and knowledge within local communities. This is one of the reasons for problems regarding community collaboration. According to Moeliono (2008) shared management of national parks through involvement of local communities and local governments is needed, as the central government does not have the capacity to manage and protect these areas alone. She also states that “a structure of incentives and disincentives must be in place" as local people who understand that they will benefit from conservation programs are more likely to participate.

4.3 Collaborative management and NGOs

Issues regarding environmental conservation are on the agenda globally, because of this, many countries and NGOs have begun to cooperate regarding the management of the world’s natural resources. This is especially regarding already protected areas such as national parks. Collaborative management is defined by IUCN as ‘a situation in which some or all of the stakeholders in a protected area are involved in a substantial way in management activities’ (Borrini-Feyerabend 1996 :12). These stakeholders are usually local residents and resource users, but can also include NGOs, regional and national government. It is viewed as the responsibility of the agency with jurisdiction of the protected area, usually a government agency, to develop a partnership between the stakeholders. This should address the rights, responsibilities and functions of the different stakeholders regarding the protected area (Borrini-Feyerabend 1996). Collaborative management is viewed as especially important when locals have strong ancestral bonds to the protected area, and the interests of local stakeholders are strongly affected by how the area is managed. As well as when decisions that need to be made are complex and has to take into consideration the different values of the stakeholders (Borrini-Feyerabend 1996).

In shared management the involvement of different stakeholder is viewed as crucial to develop a sustainable management plan (Moeliono 2008). Stakeholders are identified as ‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm’s objectives’ (Mikalsen and Jentoft 2001:282). This includes; central and local government, local communities, industries and NGOs involved in the area. The possibilities for each of these to actually participate in the decision-making will vary. Though the involvement of local communities in park management has been viewed as important in recent years, other stakeholders such as conservationists and government representatives are reluctant to involve the local communities to a high degree. This is because it would reduce their power and that they do not trust the local communities to have enough knowledge regarding good management and conservation (Gustave and Borchers 2008). An effect of this is that even though shared management is meant to create involvement, local communities still might have to struggle for their economic, social and cultural rights (Gustave and Borchers 2008).

In the case of the national park of Bwindi Impenetrable Forest in Uganda, one of the country’s most valuable and famous national parks, a collaborative agreement has been made between local communities and park management. This agreement gives locals right to extract some natural resources in a sustainable way from the protected area. In exchange for this locals have agreed to comply with park rules and regulations as well as contribute in the surveillance of park areas (Borrini-Feyerabend 1996). The agreement was reached through a series of meetings between locals and park management. Even though this agreement was reached through participation from the local communities, real decision making power still lies with the park authority. This highlights one of the challenges regarding collaborative management, how local communities can play a substantial part in decision making (Moeliono 2008). According to Moneliono (2008) participation is viewed as crucial to achieve collaboration. The article also argues that it is important to identify the needs and abilities of the different stakeholders in the protected area in order to create a fair sharing of power, as it might not be suitable to involve them all equally.

NGOs are a typical third party in collaboration schemes and their participation is often viewed as a requirement when developing collaborative management regarding natural resources (Moneliono 2008). UNEP provides several examples from Conservation International projects connected to ecotourism and community collaboration in different countries of the world. One of the main goals CI works towards is to ‘empower local communities to ensure that responsible and effective use of natural resources happens around the world, for the benefit of local people’ (Conservation International 2008).

Conservation International has achieved several economic benefits for local communities when working in the buffer zone of the Cambodia’s Central Cardamom Protected Forest... In exchange for this, the local communities help protect the forest. The conservation has increased the number of several endangered species, such as Dragon fish and the Siamese crocodile. Some of the benefits for the local communities are ranger training and employment. Salaries are provided to ensure that there can be teachers in the communities, and technical assistance is given in agriculture intensification. More than 300 families in these areas have benefited from this collaboration (UNEP 2008).

Another example of a Conservation International project is in Indonesia, is in Leuser National Park, located on Sumatra. One of the main problems in the park is illegal logging. Community collaboration regarding ecotourism has helped local economies. It has also led to a decrease in illegal logging, which contributes towards protecting the area from natural hazards such as soil loss, landslides and flooding (UNEP 2008).

In the 1990s large conservation projects in Indonesia were funded by the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, these are known as Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (Moeliono 2008). Through these projects the role of NGOs as an initiator of participation regarding resource management became accepted. Some of the positive and negative effects of collaborative management and NGO involvement in Indonesia can be shown further through the examples of Bunaken National Park and Komodo National Park.

Bunaken National Park on Sulawesi, attracts a lot of international attention, it is famous for its fantastic marine and coral life, and also for its beautiful scenery. There have been different global initiatives working within the park, as well as NGOs, interested in conservation and protection of the natural resources in the park. Among others TNC has been involved in the park and done some work, as has WWF. While working on a USAID project in Bunaken National park Lowe (2008) experienced ‘many instances when failure in the collaborative process was blamed on the community itself rather than on the inappropriate methods of the project’ (Afiff and Lowe 2008 :156). Lowe describes situations where local community’s agreement with planned projects was considered participation while disagreement was considered an inability to understand, and disregarded as primitiveness.

Programs with international NGO involvement are intended to create increased awareness among different stakeholders, such as local communities and local governments. If protection programs with NGOs and local community collaboration are successful, they can create a good sustainable development in national parks, which can help the local economies at the same time as the parks are being protected. The risk is that when western international NGOs provide funds, they will also get a lot of power in decision making. This can create a top-down rule with western values. The Nature Conservancy has been believed to do this during their collaboration with Komodo National Park, and according to Afiff and Lowe (2008) the relationship between the local communities and The Nature Conservancy is not viewed as very good.

In Komodo National Park there is shared management between Komodo National Park Authority and the joint venture Putri Naga Komodo. The collaborative management scheme was implemented to create greater possibilities for involvement for the stakeholders in the park (Halim et al. 2008). The joint venture PNK is supported by the NGO the Nature Conservancy. There was also established a Community Consultative Council, that will be led by the Bupati and consist for representatives from the local communities, industries and NGOs. According too Gustave and Borchers (2008), the collaborative management plan between KNP and PNK is not successful as locals are only given information about policies not actually included in the decision making. According to Afiff and Lowe (2008) ‘Genuine collaboration cannot happen without trust and respect. Genuine collaboration also could not happen without the willingness to share power. Therefore, it cannot happen under conditions of domination or in the situation when one imposes one’s own beliefs upon others’ (Afiff and Lowe 2008:160).



5.0 Methodology and study sights

There are two main approaches when doing research within social science. One can do a qualitative or a quantitative research. Quantitative research methods are most commonly used to gain knowledge that can be generalized, and used in statistics. While the quantitative method of research aims to gain knowledge about general topics. The qualitative method is used to gain knowledge about unique and specific topics (Jacobsen 2005).

The method used during this study is qualitative, by doing in-depths interviews with local communities, companies working within the parks and government officials. Being interested in gaining insight to the reality of the everyday life for communities living in and around the national parks, the sensitivity and personal approach of the qualitative method and in-depth interviews is considered the best approach (Kvale 1999).

5.1 Qualitative research
The main ways of conducting qualitative research is through interviews, observation or analysis of written materials (Haslerud 2008). As previously mentioned this research is based on the in-depth interview, though throughout the fieldwork informal observation of study sights and respondents has also been conducted.

5.2 In depth interviews
The in-depth interview is characterized by open-ended questions, so that the respondent cannot simply answer a question yes or no. It should have a semi-structured format and an interview guide with some pre-planned questions. At the same time it is important not to be too dependent on the written questions in case the respondent provides interesting information during the interview that you have not thought of (Kvale, 1999). The third aspect of the in-depth interview is to seek understanding and interpretation; this means that it is important to listen because there might be a deeper meaning to the answers. During the interview the role of the interviewer is primarily to listen to the respondent as the interview it self should flow like a conversation. In order to record the responses and observations made, it is essential to take written notes during the interview. The interviewer should keep in mind to be a good listener, to be flexible and patient, open-minded and to be able to notice the physical behaviour of the respondents in addition to their verbal answers.

There are several stages when doing an in-depth interview, first of all it is important to know the purpose of the interview and what you will be using it for. Once you have decided this it becomes clear what kind of information you want to gather. The second part consists of designing an interview-guide; this is a list of questions related to the topic you are researching (Kvale 1999). The guide will help you through the interview even though you might not use all the questions. After the interview it is important to go through your notes and transcribe it into a written text. At this point you can also reflect on the observations you made during the interview. It is important to check the credibility of your respondents, this can be done by doing more than one interview with each respondent group or you can compare it with pervious research.

5.3 Selection of respondents and informants
The general selection of respondents is based on the population, and consists of all the people who are involved or affected by the topic of research (Jacobsen 2005). The selection of respondents in this study is based on the different stakeholders in the parks. These are then divided into subgroups consisting of locals living in and around the national and recreational parks. As well as park rangers, an NGO working with Kelimutu national park, a private company involved in Komodo national park and the park management in the different parks.

In addition to these respondents, informants have also been interviewed. An informant differs from a respondent as they are not a representative of the population, but they have considerable knowledge about the population and the topic of research (Jacobsen 2005). The informants was a Catholic priest, who had based his master thesis on the relationship between Ruteng recreational park and locals living close to the park boarder.

When selecting respondents we took into account data triangulation. The use of data triangulation will involve interviewing respondents who can contribute with different perspectives on the study topic. This is important in order to reduce bias and create greater reliability in the empirical findings (Gorard, Taylor 2004). We implemented this by including different subgroups of the population in our respondents, as well as asking them the same main questions.

5.4 Selection of study sights

The tourism on Flores is rising, just as tourism in the rest of Nusa Tengara. The government will have to take this in to consideration when managing the parks and the natural resources here. The location of the research was the island of Flores, because it has several national and recreational parks, with both marine and terrestrial biodiversity. The parks included in the study are; Kelimutu National Park, Ruteng Recreational Park and Komodo National Park. These parks all have the potential to develop tourism at the same time as they face challenges regarding conservation and resource use. Conservation of natural resources is viewed as crucial for the environment (UNEP 2009), and the protection of these areas is on the political agenda globally. There are great challenges regarding the development of a sustainable management plan for these parks, as well as how the local people living in and around the park areas are treated and involved in decision-making. The co-operation between Komodo National Park and the private company Putri Naga Komodo is unique in its kind and the study aspires to discover more about it.

5.5 Cooperation with interpreters

The research on Flores required the use of interpreters; most of the local respondents did not speak English fluently, if at all. This was one of the main reasons for having an interpreter with us. It was a new experience and proved to be both challenging and rewarding. It was a challenge as the English skills of our interpreters varied. After a while we came to realize that the communication and interpretation of our questions were not always accurate. Everything considered the relationship with the interpreters was good, and through some dialogue the co-operation improved. As the interpreters were two local men from Flores there were great cultural differences between us and them.

5.6 Cultural differences and challenges when doing fieldwork in Indonesia

During our time in the field we experienced a lot, both positive as well as some negative challenges. First of all we noticed that people on Flores are mostly welcoming and interested in sharing their views and experiences, especially the local people living inside or around the parks. The government officials and employees working in the parks could be a little more reserved, probably because they were afraid of what the consequences might be if they were to say something that did not comply with the views of their supervisors.

Another difficulty has been to make appointments with people in higher positions. This proved to be challenging, but we learned that patience is an important skill as well as persistence. We usually got the interviews we needed.

Some of the challenges we faced when doing interviews was transportation to rural villages, the hot and humid climate. The credibility of government employees was also a challenge, as it was hard to know whether we could trust the information given to us. When living in a different part of the world with a foreign culture, it is important to understand that things are different and work in different ways. One has to be careful, polite and try to understand the culture, as well as curious and willing to learn as much as possible. It is important to stay positive even if things do not turn out as planned and make the best of the situation. One also has to remember that it is the interviewer who is imposing on the life and culture of the respondent and that he/she has not been invited to do the research.

5.7 Data validity and reliability

Data reliability is defined as how reliable and accurate the findings of a study are (Haslerud 2008). While the validity of a study considers if the findings are relevant for the issue it is supposed to address (Haslerud 2008).
As mentioned above the use of data triangulation contributes positively to reliability of the study, but it is also important to mention aspects that might reduce the reliability. Firstly, the fact that we are students on our first fieldwork and not experienced with conducting interviews, will increase the reliability. Secondly, the limited number of respondents will also make the findings less reliable. The cooperation with interpreters might also have affected the reliability of the findings as linguistic differences created misunderstandings that were not always resolved.

In order to secure the validity of the findings a carefully constructed interview guide was of great importance to us. We got assistance from our supervisor in developing one that would ensure the validity of the research. We still collected much irrelevant data, but made sure to remove all this additional information and focus on the relevant findings.

6.0 Empirical findings and discussion

In this chapter we will provide a discussion about the findings made during our fieldwork on Flores. The fieldwork was conducted in Kelimutu National Park, Ruteng Recreation Park and Komodo National Park. During 6 weeks in the field we discovered new findings, as well as confirming findings that had already been made in earlier studies. A discussion will be provided and comparison made to previous studies done in the parks, as well as to studies done in similar protected areas internationally. These studies have already been discussed in the theoretical part. As we have only done interviews with a limited amount of respondents the research can not be generalized and our findings have to be viewed according to this.

6.1 National and Recreational Park management

As reviewed in the theory chapter, the balance between conservation and resource use is a complex and difficult challenge that park management faces. Regarding conservation of Komodo National Park and its marine resources, the park authority has implemented a zoning system. This eases the pressure on the natural resources inside the park, and imposes restrictions on the local fishermen as what fishing grounds and equipment they are allowed to use. In order to assure the sustainability of these zones there has according to the head of Komodo National Park been implemented regular patrolling inside the park. It has a positive effect on conservation as most of the locals interviewed in the study stated that they were aware of the rules and saw the park rangers on a regular basis. A local fisherman from Papagarang village states that ‘I see park ranger every day. During the day they do patrolling and at night they stay on post’.

Though most of the locals in Komodo National Park are aware of the rules and stated that they followed them, not all understand why these rules are imposed on them or why they need to be followed. According to research done by Putri Naga Komodo (PNK), the head of office states that approximately 30% of fishermen still do not understand the zoning system. This is confirmed by a local fisherman I Komodo village; ‘some fishermen do not know or accept the fishing zones. One main reason for this is the lack of human resources of the locals in the area’. Another local fisherman states that he is not well enough aware of park rules; ‘I went fishing and got caught by park rangers. The area was regulated as a diving area, but I was not aware of this’.

In Ruteng Recreational Park the government has problems implementing the rules based on lack of presence in the park and communication with the local communities. The park borders are not clear, and there seems to be a tense relationship between the park management and the local communities living within or close to the park. According to all the farmers we spoke to they feel that the government has stolen the land that rightfully belongs to them. The head of the Ruteng Recreational Park states that park rangers are to some extent afraid of the locals. The statement of the head of office is confirmed by a local farmer from Lewe; ‘We rarely see the park rangers. I think this is because they are afraid of what might happen after the conflict in 2002’. According to our informant, Simmons, this has its origin after ‘park rangers implemented a strict patrolling of the forest boarder in 2002, treated the locals disrespectfully and destroyed their crops’. These actions are confirmed by the head of office and represent the beginning of a major conflict regarding park borders in 2002, where six locals were killed by the police. The relationship between locals and Ruteng Recreational Park is not especially good. A solution to these problems could be more socialization of local communities. This was on the agenda of Ruteng Recreational Park, but it did not seem like they knew how to implement it. In general the local people interviewed during the study were interested in more information and consultation regarding decision-making in park management. As mentioned in the theoretical chapter, a lack of local participation and involvement is a result of former management strategies, based on top down management.

The occurrence of conflicts between local communities and the park management is another consequence of the top down management which was firstly imposed on Indonesians through the colonial power. The study area where this seems to have the most impact is in Ruteng Recreational Park. As mentioned above, there was a serious conflict between the locals living close to the park borders and Ruteng Recreational Park in 2002. According to both local people and park management, the conflict was about land ownership. Local people rely heavily on the natural resources within the park. They are also very sceptical of the intentions of the park management. As mentioned in the theory chapter there has in the past been several occurrences of bad management. Park officials have been accused of giving fines to locals or illegal logging permits to wealthy businessmen. According to a scholar who based his master thesis on this issue, there exists some illegal logging in the forest done by locals as well, but only on a small scale. If locals are caught the logs they have stolen will be seized by the park authority and most often sold to the personal benefit of park officials. This is one of the consequences of the increased power of local governments after decentralization.

National parks on Flores are still under the authority of Ministry of Forestry. The MoF holds the final power. According to a field officer with Komodo National Park office ‘the daily decisions are made by them, but some main issues have to be made by the central government’. This creates certain constraints on the park management, especially regarding funding. The parks get most funding from the central government, but these funds are mainly earmarked. The forestry department is a part of the Indonesian government which to a large extent is still centralized. Of the three parks studied, Komodo National Park is the most developed, and the one which receives most funding. In addition to funding from the central government it also receives funds from NGOs and environmental organisations. As mentioned in chapter 3.1, the MoF has limited resources. This is confirmed by the head of park office in Ruteng Recreational Park, he states that they have applied for additional funding, but have not yet received any.

If the management goals are to create a management plan that is supposed to be sustainable with respect to both environmental conservation and economic development it is important to consider the management structure. It is crucial to involve all the different stakeholders, to avoid a purely top down management scheme. Otherwise the needs and values of the stakeholders will often be ignored. To ease the pressure on natural resources it is especially important to include development of local economy in the management of these areas. Locals living within or close to protected areas often rely mainly on the natural resources that need conservation, for their further economic development.

6.2 Local communities, livelihood interests and economic development

The challenges regarding conservation and management of natural resources are thought to be of increasing importance to the global environment as mentioned in the theoretical part. Issues regarding how to involve and create development for local communities close to or within these areas are also considered to be of importance. Approximately 90% of the local communities living within and close to the parks are farmers or fishermen. They rely heavily on natural resources for their basic needs and need to acquire alternative livelihoods in order to create a sustainable economic development.

As many protected areas are populated or have communities living close to their borders one need to take this aspect into consideration when managing such an area. According to MacKinnon, sited in the theoretical chapter, local communities might not have any reasons for taking part in conservation schemes. This is mainly because they usually do not benefit from it; he argues that there is a need to create incentives in order to get local people more interested in conservation. In Komodo National Park the head of office states that most local people are not concerned with the conservation of the park, he states; ‘that the main concern of locals is how they can create personal gain’. This statement is supported by the head of PNK. The aspect also highlights why some locals in Komodo NP are negative towards conservation of natural resources as it restricts their possibilities for economic gain through fishing and hunting. According to local fishermen in Papagarang another constraint on their fishing activities is that ‘we have to report to a ranger station every day to get our fishing permit. This is a hassle, as we get less time to fish and spend unnecessary fuel’. To cope with this challenge both Komodo National Park and PNK have implemented projects which focus on giving socialization to local people so they will better understand the reasons and importance of conservation.

The study highlights those areas where socialization has been given regularly the knowledge and awareness of locals regarding the importance of conservation has increased. This applies to both Ruteng Recreational Park and Komodo National Park. In these cases locals are generally more positive to the implementation of conservation projects even if these impose rules and restrictions. In Kelimutu National Park there has not been given much socialization. In comparison to Komodo National Park and Ruteng Recreational Park locals are more positive to the conservation as they understand how it affects their soil. One farmer states that when the trees are not cut down they contribute to keeping water in the soil. Another advantage they mention is how they can gain from the tourists that visit the park area, through selling traditional weavings and agricultural products. According to the head of Kelimutu National Park a project regarding local empowerment was implemented 4 years ago. Its main purpose was to increase local economies. The study found no evidence of its existence, nor that local people were aware of it.

In Komodo National Park projects to develop alternative livelihoods in relation to tourism has been developed by both PNK and Komodo National Park authority. Locals have been given training in making souvenirs, guiding tourists around the park and processing fish and fruits. People in Komodo village benefit the most from tourism. Because of this, they are also the ones most positive to conservation. In comparison people in Papagarang village, also in Komodo National Park, are much more sceptical towards the restrictions conservation imposes and the development of tourism.

In all the study areas locals viewed tourism as a path towards increased income. Conservation is needed to maintain the parks for further tourism. It is therefore much more accepted when local communities believe that the development of tourism can create economic gain. The local communities in collaboration with the park management should create alternative livelihoods in order to develop a sustainable economy. This will also contribute to environmental protection. To achieve these locals should be employed in patrolling, guiding and other activities needed in a national park.

6.3 Collaborative management and NGOs
In order to develop the best possible management of natural resources the involvement of local stakeholders and NGOs is viewed as crucial. This is described in the theoretical chapter. As previously stated the involvement of locals is especially considered important when there are strong ancestral bonds between local people and the protected area. This aspect is important when considering the relationship between locals in Kelimutu National Park, Ruteng Recreational Park and park management. The study did not reveal anything about ancestral bonds in Komodo National Park. In Kelimutu National Park the crater lakes are considered sacred. In light of this local participation in decision making is essential because of their bonds to the park. It is in their interest to be part of the conservation plan. According to a local farmer living close to the park boarder he contributes to conservation without receiving any retribution. He claims to do this because he cares about the forest. As discussed in the theoretical chapter it is important to have local involvement in park management. Locals rely heavily on natural resources to obtain their basic needs as well as to gain further economic development. This is the case in all the parks we studied. According to a local living in Komodo village; ‘I do not make enough money on just fishing, so about five years ago I started to carvings as well’. Another example is from Kelimutu, where a farmer states; ‘in order to get some additional income I sell my wife’s weavings to tourists’.

The collaboration between the joint venture Putri Naga Komodo and the Komodo National Park authority is unique in its kind. From 2005, when PNK became involved in Komodo National Park, the cooperation with the local people improved. Locals got a more positive attitude towards the park management and the need for conservation. The local people, who are affected by the involvement of PNK, have divided opinions about the shared management. Though the attitude seems to have become more positive during the last few years. Local people are also confused as many of them can not tell the difference between the employees from Komodo National Park and PNK. They are not aware of which office has what assignments and responsibilities. According to the head of Komodo National Park all the authority of the park lies with the Komodo National Park office. PNK has to get approval for their projects before they can be implemented. The collaboration between PNK and Komodo National Park is not in any way an equal partnership. Beause PNK receive much funding from international NGOs they have the power of money. The head of office in Komodo National Park would like more transparency regarding how PNK spend their funds. Besides this, he views the collaboration as good, with only minor differences. This is supported by the head of PNK. The study has not uncovered any information that contradicts these statements.

According to the theoretical discussion the involvement of NGOs is viewed as a positive effect on collaborative management and contributes to increased awareness among stakeholders. There is involvement of NGOs in both Kelimutu National Park and in Komodo National Park through the PNK. In comparison, Ruteng TWA is the park with greatest tension in the relationship between local and park management. The head of office here states that the involvement of an NGO as a mediator would be desirable. He believes that this could ease the tensions between the stakeholders and help improve the relationship.

As discussed in the theoretical chapter one way to create local involvement is through consultative councils. According to both the Komodo National Park and PNK the West Manggarai regency has established a Community Consultative Council. This council is supposed to increase local stakeholders’ opportunities to participate in management. A field officer with KNP stated that he was positive to the establishment, but claimed that it was not yet implemented. This was then confirmed by the PNK employees, who also thought of it as a good project. They both emphasized that it was the responsibility of the regency to implement the project, not theirs. According to Halim et al. 2008 the Community Consultative Council was supposed to be implemented already. Through the interviews of both locals, PNK and Komodo National Park it became clear that this was not the case. Most locals were not even aware of the existence of such a council. This is a good example of how hard it can be for projects to be implemented in Indonesia.

As previously stated the collaboration between locals and park management is crucial for the development of protected areas. Still there are many incidents where locals are disregarded by NGOs and park officials as they are not thought to have enough, or suitable knowledge. Though the influence of NGOs is generally thought to have positive effects on park management they often impose western ideals on both park management and local communities. Since many government officials are corrupted the influence of NGOs plays an important part in collaborating with park authority. It is essential for the NGOs to integrate local believes and values into their conservation strategies. Through our study we found that community collaboration is very important in order to conserve the natural resources properly. If local communities are not taken into consideration or not given proper socialization it will be much harder to achieve sustainable management, especially of natural resources. This is because locals are unaware of the consequences of environmental degradation will not care to follow the rules and regulations.

7.0 Conclusion

Natural resource management in Indonesia is an especially complex issue. There are several aspects to take into consideration when trying to create a sustainable economic and environmental development. This has been made clear through our study of the national parks of Kelimutu and Komodo, as well as Ruteng Recreational Park.

In our research we explored how parks can be managed in the best possible way to create sustainable economic development and environmental conservation. In Komodo National Park, the private company Putri Naga Komodo works with community collaboration and conservation of the park. This can be combined with the development of tourism, but it is clear that the balancing is hard, and the process is time consuming.

After the decentralization reform started in 1999, the main political and administrative power shifted from central government to the district level. The shift was supposed to benefit people at local level, but it was implemented too quickly and the new responsibilities of the local governments were too extensive. Where central government earlier had been responsible for maintaining the natural resources, several local governments now experienced instances of exploitation of natural resources by corrupt local leaders. One example of this is the provision of logging permits to large companies and wealthy businessmen in order to create increased district revenues. We can conclude with this because of our findings in Ruteng. Both the locals and the park management confirmed that there still exists illegal logging, though only in a small scale. Local respondents also claimed that illegal timber confiscated by local government officials, either were sold for own provision or used for other personal gains. As national parks most often are under government agencies, mainly the Ministry of Forestry, one can draw the conclusion that good governance is needed for the sustainable management.

It is essential to involve local communities as well as other stakeholders affected by the existence of the park in decision making regarding park management. The head of Komodo National Park stated that he would like more transparency regarding the international funding received by Putri Naga Komodo. This is an example on how important good governance is, among other things, through transparency in economics.

In order to create a sustainable environmental conservation, the needs and values of local communities need to be taken into account. Local people living close to or within park areas are the ones who have the greatest possibilities to conserve as well as exploit natural resources. If they are disregarded in this sense, conservation will often fail. As communities in park areas are experiencing challenges due to population growth and the need for economic development, alternative livelihood is clearly a good solution. One way to achieve this is through training in making handicrafts and by involving locals in the work with park conservation projects and the development of tourism. The villages around Komodo National Park, have been involved in alternative livelihood programs for some time. Even though not all of the villagers see the potential or are implemented in projects like these, most of the locals we talked to during our study, seemed positive towards the community programs in cooperation with Putri Naga Komodo and the national park office. We could not find any evidence that there were well functioning alternative livelihood programs in either Ruteng or the Kelimutu area. Flores has great potential for further development of tourism, which can supply much needed economic growth to the local economies if properly managed.

The involvement of NGOs in park management and collaborative management schemes is complex. In some cases it can contribute to creating participation and increased awareness of local people regarding conservation. In other cases they cooperate more closely with park authorities and take part in imposing strict rules and restrictions on local communities. Though NGOs attain some power through such schemes, the power division in collaborative management is often unequal and the ultimate power lies with the government park authority. In all of the parks studied the local people where not in any way equally involved in collaboration processes. In Komodo National Park, they had some well function participation, though with room for improvement. In the two other parks, there was to a certain extent an absence of community participation.

The core element that is important and relevant to all the aspects of park and natural resource management is collaboration with and participation of local communities in management. This is crucial to create sustainability and conservation of protected areas.






References

Abbot, J., Thomas, D., Gardner, A., Neba, S., Khen, M. 2001 Understaning the links between conservation and development in the Bamenda Highlands, Cameroon. World Development, 29, 7: 1115-1136.

Afiff, S., Lowe, C. 2008 Collaboration, conservation and community: a conversation between Suraya Afiff and Celia Lowe. In: Sodhi,N.S., Acciaioli, G., Erb, M., Tan, K.J. (eds.) 2008 Biodiversity and Human Livelihoods in Protected Areas, case studies from the Malay Archipelago (pp. 153-163). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., 1996 Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the Approach to the Context. The World Conservation Union.

Clifton, J. 2003 Prospects for co-management in Indonesia’s marine protected areas. Marine Policy, 27, 5: 389-395.

Erb, M. 2001 Ecotourism and Environmental Conservation in Western Flores: Who benefits? Anthropology Indonesia 66, Sept-Des: 74-86.

Erdmann, M.A. 2004 A Natural History Guide to Komodo National Park. The Nature Conservancy, Indonesia Costal and Marine Program.

Gbadegesin, A., Ayileka, O. 2000 Avoiding the mistakes of the past: towards a community oriented management strategy for the proposed National Park in Abuja-Nigeria. Land Use Policy, 17, 2: 89-100.

Gorard, S., Taylor, C. 2004 CombiningMethods in Educational and Social Research. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Gustave, R., Borchers, H. 2008 Conservation and conflict in Komodo National Park. In: Sodhi,N.S., Acciaioli, G., Erb, M., Tan, K.J. (eds.) 2008 Biodiversity and Human Livelihoods in Protected Areas, case studies from the Malay Archipelago (pp. 187-201). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Halim, A., Soekirman, T., Ramono, W. 2008 Involving resource users in the regulation of access to resources for protection of ecosystem services provided by protected areas in Indonesia. In: Sodhi,N.S., Acciaioli, G., Erb, M., Tan, K.J. (eds.) 2008 Biodiversity and Human Livelihoods in Protected Areas, case studies from the Malay Archipelago (pp. 122-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Haslerud, G. 2008 Kvantitativ - Kvalitativ. Lecture given at the University of Agder October 30, 2008.

Jacobsen, D. 2005 Hvordan gjennomføre undersøkelser. Høyskoleforlaget.

Komodo National Park, 2007. Komodo National Park – A World Heritage Site & Biosphere Reserve Indonesia. Information leaflet.

Kumorotomo, W. 2009 The heritage from the Orde Buru (1965-1998). Lecture given at Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, January 13.

Kvale, S. 1999 Det kvalitative forskningsintervju. Ad Notam Gyldendal AS.

Lele, G. 2009 Democratization and political development after 1999. Lecture given at Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, January 14.

Margono 2009 Interview guide design and techniques of in-depth interviews. Lecture given at Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, January 27.

Mikalsen, K., Jentoft, S. 2001 From user-groups to stakeholders? The public interest in fisheries management. Marine Policy, 25, 4: 281-292.

Moeliono, Moira 2008 Hands off, hands on: communities and management of national parks in Indonesia. In: Sodhi,N.S., Acciaioli, G., Erb, M., Tan, K.J. (eds.) 2008 Biodiversity and Human Livelihoods in Protected Areas, case studies from the Malay Archipelago (pp. 165-182). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Patlis, M.J. 2008 What protects the protected areas? Decentralization in Indonesia, the challenges facing its terrestrial and marine national praks and the rise of regional protected areas. In: Sodhi,N.S., Acciaioli, G., Erb, M., Tan, K.J. (eds.) 2008 Biodiversity and Human Livelihoods in Protected Areas, case studies from the Malay Archipelago (pp. 405-427). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Tule, P. 2009 History of Flores. Lecture at the Seminary in Maumere Febuary 9, 2009.

Pigram, J.J.J., Jenkins, J.M. 2006 Outdoor Recreation Management. Taylor & Francis.

Pramusinto, A. 2009 Decentralization and administrative reforms after 2001. Lecture given at Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, January 15.

Suryo, D. 2009 Colonial and early independence history. Lecture given at Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, January 12.

Tighe, S., Berhimpon, S., Steffan, J., Erdmann, M. 2005 Using global marine conservation programs and local needs to develop a sustainable costal tourism strategy in North Sulawesi, Insonesia. Proceedings of the 14th Biennial Coastal Zone Conference.

UNEP 2008 Protected Areas in Today’s World: Their Values and Benefits for the Welfare of the Planet. CBD Technical Series 36. Secritariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.






Appendix 1.

Interview guide

Local people:

Age:
Sex:
Occupation:

What is your relation to the national park?

Do you gain from the tourism the park receives?

Does the tourism impact your daily livelihood in any way? Negative or positive?

Have you ever attended meetings regarding the management of the park?

Are you aware of the 25 year management plan for the komodo national park?

Do you want to be more included in the decisions made by the local government?

Are you participating in the park decision making in any way?

What are your views on the park management employees? (positive/negative)

Do you feel there is an effort made to involve local people in the park management?

Have you heard about the community collaborative council? If yes, what?

Do you see the park rangers on a daily/weekly/monthly base?

What is your relationship to the park rangers?

What do you know about the private company Putri Naga Komodo, which are involved in the Komodo National Park?

Have you or your community been involved in community collaboration with different stakeholders connected to the park?

Are you aware of the rules and regulations regarding the park?

Are you affected by the rules and regulations of the park?
If yes, in what way?

Do you or your village receive any funding from the local government/park management?

Are you or any of your family members involved in the tourism business?

How do you feel about tourism in Kelimutu/Komodo/Ruteng?

Do you see any benefits from having increased tourism?

Do you interact with many tourists?

Government officials/NGOs:

Age:
Sex:
Position:

How long have you been working here?

Do you have any previous work experience before this, if yes, what?

What kind of education or training do you have?

Can you tell me how the park is managed?
- How many people are employed by the government to work in the national park?
- How many people are employed by the NGOs to work in the national park?
- What are the different positions in the park?

For how long have you been involved with the park?

What is your perception of the local villagers’ relation to the park?

What are your views on the development of tourism and ecotourism within the parks?

Do you think it is possible for Flores to have a sustainable economic development without degradation of the environment, if yes, how will this be done?

What are your views on shared management of the park?

Do you have close working relations with the NGOs/private companies involved in the park?

Are the local people involved in the decision making regarding the national park?

Do the people living inside the park have any benefits from the tourism?

Have you heard of the collaborative community council? If yes, what?

What are the rules and regulations of the national park?

Do the people living inside the park follow the rules and regulations of the park?

What kinds of tourism are you interested in having visiting the park, if any?

Are efforts made to inform the local people living within the park, of the impacts of their actions? Such as illegal fishing and other destructive activities?

Do you receive much funding from the central government?

Do you receive much funding from the NGOs?

Who are in charge of the distribution of the funds given to the park?

What’s the main area of use that the funds are spent on?

Do you have a transparency policy regarding the management of the park?